02-11-2007, 01:40 AM | #721 | ||||||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Torture might also be worse. But the question is kind of relative, for it partly depends on how horrible the slavery conditions are. Quote:
Hold it, before I go into the problem, I have one other little comment. There are translations of the New Testament that date from the third and fourth centuries AD. There is a massive number of books of the Bible that date from very close to the time it was written. Those books have only miniscule variations between them. Modern Bible translations can be checked back against these ancient Greek texts. Also, the New Testament is one of the most solidly backed ancient historical records. So there is a lot of evidence that the Bible is handed down to us currently in about its original form. There are going to be a few small translation differences, but no big ones at all. Now about my problem with religious liberalism: Your response to Gwaimir's point indicates that you have your own personal standards of morality which for you supersede the Bible's standard of morality. In other words, you trust yourself more than you trust the Bible, and if you and the Bible conflict on something, your views trump the scripture. Yet human views of morality are very relative. They change from culture to culture and person to person. How are we to know that we personally are correct? It could just as well be some atheist who says morality is a purely human construct, humans are without intrinsic value, everything is meaningless and there is no good or bad, right or wrong, righteousness or wickedness. So if the values we are to rely on come from humans, anyone might be right-Stalin might have been right in starving millions of his people to death for the sake of getting his economy industrialized-who's to say? If morality is from humanity, it is purely relative. Amorality is the natural result of this, for if morality is relative, all value systems are equal, and as Rana puts it, equally invalid. A verrry scary and dark world is all that's left as the natural consequence of relativism and liberalism, and in it, the only rational conclusion is despair. So think twice before putting faith in your own judgment higher than faith in the Bible . In doing so, you sever the only lifeline that is left to us. For right and wrong are not human ideas, and all is not relative. If it comes from humans, or if it comes from God but the Word of God is partly doubtable and hence our views still come down to having their final basis in our own judgment, all moral ideas are equally (in)valid and thus life on Planet Earth is a twisted horror story. We have to rely on God's Word before we believe ourselves, or all is meaningless. And when he can, God makes clear to us what is right when we won't accept it initially because our own beliefs and biases differ. He makes the true interpretation of his Word clear to his followers through the Counselor he gave us, the Holy Spirit, who gives us true interpretation of God's Word. And listening to the Spirit give us interpretation is not about belief, but about a definite and sometimes astoundingly powerful experience that one knows is real. Just as real as things in the physical.
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." Last edited by Lief Erikson : 02-11-2007 at 01:48 AM. |
||||||
02-11-2007, 09:00 AM | #722 | |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
Quote:
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. |
|
02-11-2007, 09:45 AM | #723 | |||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,535
|
Oh, good LORD.
I do not know how it is, Leif, that you so unerringly find my breaking point. It's something I will ponder.
I'm setting aside, for a minute, the smug racism of this business about Darfur, except to say that no one believes it is all right to kill their friends and loved ones. By that standard, yes, there is universal agreement that murder is wrong.There is, as Nurvingiel points out, difference in how people define "murder" as opposed to "self defence." An ability to objectify 'the other' is essential even to creating a soldier's ability to rationalize his activity as something other than murder. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
There's also this. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelmary.html# If you're going to defend the accuracy of the bible based on its antiquity, aren't you going to have to include currently uncanonical writings of equal antiquity? The great proof of the New Testament in contemporary historical records is also non-existant. You can assert it's proven all you like. This is the essence of the problem. You claim to believe in Jesus Christ, but you don't believe in actual miracles or revelation. God could speak to Gomer, but he can't speak to Nurvingiel, or anyone else you'd like to tar with the universal epithet of "liberal". The set of books you consider the "Word of God" is the Word, and supercedes any information from direct communication with God, as prayer, the works of God-given talents, such as scholarship, or any other pathway. People who identify as Christians use all SORTS of material as their Bible, but all of them are wrong except you. And your narrowmindedness is the only thing that stands between us and "a verrry scary and dark world (where) the only rational conclusion is despair." I hope no one here, at least, is such a ninny as to believe that God's Salvation rests on such a narrow plank. |
|||
02-11-2007, 12:38 PM | #724 | ||||||||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'll address the rest of your post later, it's time to go to karate class.
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||
02-11-2007, 01:52 PM | #725 | ||||||||||||||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Your claim also ignores all crimes of passion, of which there are many. And your comment ignores many traitors, people who have betrayed friends out of personal gain. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You're just making blind assertions again. Quote:
For instance, in the Gospel of Thomas, Peter asks Jesus, "how can Mary, a woman, be allowed admitance into the kingdom of heaven?" And Jesus replies, "she must first be transformed into a man, and then she may attain the kingdom of heaven." This is a grossly mysognistic passage which does not at all tally with the more historically reliable evidence that was available, about Jesus. Also, I could be wrong on this one, but I believe that it was in the Gospel of Thomas that Jesus made pantheistic statements, saying that he was in the rock, tree and water. This statement would definitely have earned the book a rejection, for Jesus clung closely to the Jewish tradition, being himself a Rabbi, and he believed the Genesis account that God created all that is, rather than that all that is is a part of God. There are a few issues in the Gospel of Thomas, one of the most strongly heralded texts that was rejected by those deciding on the canon, which ensured it was rejected. Interestingly, their rejection resulting from the passage where Jesus says Mary must be turned into a man shows a far higher respect for women in the Early Church than would have existed in the other cultures that surrounded them, including the Jewish tradition. Quote:
Quote:
In addition, here's a quote from Paul Maier about that detail of the New Testament: "This phenomenon, evidently, was visible in Rome, Athens, and other Mediterranean cities. According to Tertullian . . . it was a "cosmic" or "world event." Phlegon, a Greek author from Caria writing a chronology soon after 137 AD, reported that in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (i.e., 33 AD) there was "the greatest eclipse of the sun" and that "it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea." Here is a quote from Professor Yamauchi about what we would know about Jesus from corroborating history texts, sources purely outside of the Bible: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This doesn't mean that all other books are lies, and neither does it mean that only the Bible has divine inspiration. But none is considered to be infallible, like the Bible. The Bible, we believe, has no larger problems in its accuracy than a handful of tiny translation issues, a few words here and there, but nothing that impacts a major doctrine. This innerancy makes the Bible unique from other texts. Jesus himself claimed that the Old Testament was entirely true, and Peter said that Paul's writings were scripture, which to them meant the infallible Word of God. The Gospels are the best historical texts that exist about the life of Jesus, and archaelogical and documentary evidence have repeatedly validated their accounts. The canonical texts were selected with great care and based upon certain criteria, with a policy regarding them of "if in doubt, throw it out" (quote from Josh McDowell). Those selecting the canon weren't willing to take any chances of error with what they claimed was the Word of God. Think about it this way. Jesus said, "A student is not above his master, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher" (Luke 6:40). What you propose, that personal prayer experiences and miracles be the judge, is the proposal of a student wanting to be above his teacher. Jesus is the teacher, and if we distrust the Bible, which is the most reliable textual source available about him, and which, in the words of Christ's closest disciple, is an infallible source (and Jesus claimed that the OT was infallible), then we are setting our judgment higher than Jesus' judgment. Higher than our God's judgment, for if we are Christian, we must accept that he is God. Hence, by putting ourselves higher than the scriptures Jesus, his disciples and the Early Church fathers claimed was the Word of God, rather than accepting training by this very Word of God, we place ourselves higher than God's Word and thus higher than God. In short, abandoning the teachings of Jesus, the disciples and the Early Church means abandoning Christianity and making up one's own religion, or maybe receiving one's religion from a non-Christian spirit. Either way, it's not Christianity.
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." |
||||||||||||||
02-11-2007, 02:03 PM | #726 | ||||||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." Last edited by Lief Erikson : 02-11-2007 at 02:08 PM. |
||||||
02-11-2007, 05:04 PM | #727 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,535
|
Speaking slowly.
Different Christians have different Bibles.
http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-orthodox...ible-books.htm http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canon2.stm Of course there are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints on the Bible http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Bible.shtml and also 7th Day Adventists, who rely on the Bible. http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch...0Authority.htm Good thing that the absolute Word of God is so easy to come by. |
02-11-2007, 10:06 PM | #728 | ||||||||||
Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA
Posts: 10,820
|
Quote:
That all makes sense. It's true, we don't have centralised leadership. I like that. This gives the Anglican church to have a quite significant group of liberal Anglicans. Of course, there is a very significant group of conservative Anglicans too. We also don't have the parameters you make reference too, I know what you mean, and I don't think the same thing exists within the Anglican church. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I agree. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle |
||||||||||
02-11-2007, 11:28 PM | #729 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
First of all, sisterandcousinandaunt, I'd mention that you still have not responded to much of my post at all. I recognize, though, that it's definitely long, so you can definitely take your time. I'm very busy too, anyway. Or should be . But I'm interested in hearing your response to my points.
Quote:
Mormons are not considered to be Christians by any of the major Christian denominations, so your pointing out their claim at having another divinely inspired book in addition to the Bible is irrelevant. Most of the other links you have provided refer to only a tiny handful of off-shoot Christian groups. They are far from mainstream Christianity. The differences between Catholics and other Christians over the Apocrypha are the only serious difference of views you've mentioned, because Catholics are a major Christian denomination. This is not a difference over translation though, of course- serious differences between translations is still something you haven't provided evidence for. Also, I'm not sure I'm understanding your point. Are you saying that because there are differences between Catholics and other Christians over the Apocrypha, the Bible is not reliable as the Word of God? How exactly does that follow? It's like saying that because two people disagree over a math formula, the math formula is wrong. That's absurd. I'd say discernment, prayer, thought and research, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, will provide new insight and understanding as to which way is right. That's one of the beauties of following God- he reveals truth to us. He says himself, "I am the truth." Also, when you sarcastically say, "good thing the absolute Word of God is so easy to come by," you imply that if it isn't easy to come by something, that thing is not worth having. That's just lazy. Though I think you're also making a big deal over something that isn't actually a huge issue. In point of fact, among the Christian denominations, there is very widespread agreement as to which books of the Bible are in fact scripture. You can point at a disagreement between Catholics and Protestants over the Apocrypha, and can point to major disagreements between Christians and non-Christians (like Mormons) or small Christian offshoot groups that are far from mainstream in their beliefs, but that comes down to mere quibbling and your evidence consists of groups that are either not Christian or are far from mainstream Christian groups/denominations, with the single exception of the Apocrypha debate.
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." |
|
02-12-2007, 12:52 AM | #730 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
The fact that there are so many denominations of christianity is proof that 99% agreement is not enough. Each and every sect requires 100%, but what they ask for is not the same. If you look at history, it's always been all about the points of disagreement, no matter how small.
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
02-12-2007, 01:36 AM | #731 | ||||||||||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
Amazingly, I agree with Lief and what he just said about the Bible.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That means the Good News Bible is still Good News.
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||
02-12-2007, 01:51 AM | #732 | |||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
I agree with you that the fact that this is the literal word of God we're talking about makes the issue very important. My argument still stands, however. Just because a few small denominations disagree about parts of the Bible, and the Catholics and Protestants disagree about the Apocrypha, that doesn't mean the Bible itself is unreliable. Someone's always going to disagree about something. The issue of the Apocrypha is the sole example I know of where major denominations conflict about the actual texts in the scripture, rather than about interpretation. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." |
|||
02-12-2007, 11:06 AM | #733 |
Death of Mooters and [Entmoot] Internal Affairs
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 2,870
|
It's interesting to note, though, that along the way there have been major revisions of the testaments. Of the 5700 'versions' of the greek New Testament written/copied from earlier times (until the printing press in the 16th century, iirc), only 10 contain the entire NT, and only 4 of these are from before the 10th century (all of these are missing pages or have other defects). Between all the different manuscripts, including the latin and other translations, there are said to have been between as many as 200 000 and 400 000 'variants' of the Bible (including copying errors, additions, omissions, various compositions of the different texts, etc). Also, some verses (like the story in John 7:53-8:11 and the last verses in Mark) are not found in the earliest versions or are believed to have been added later (often placed differently than in the Bible of today, in some manuscripts the story of the adulteress can even be found in Luke).
Most of the available material in greek consists of only short texts, fragments, only one of the gospels, or small collections of the gospels or the Pauline letters. On an unrelated note, I found a movie called Jesus Camp (which was, until recently, available on the net - there are still a few trailers around on google-video). Thought-provoking, and on some levels, a bit frightening.
__________________
Fëanor - Innocence incarnated Still, Aikanáro 'till the Last battle. |
02-12-2007, 11:20 AM | #734 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,535
|
Lief, I responded to anything
That made enough sense to debate. That leaves my task relatively small.
If you want to prove the historicity of the Bible by saying, "There's an eclipse mentioned in the Bible, other people mention the eclipse, therefore the Bible is true." there isn't much I can do but laugh. 200 years from now I hope my enterprising descendants are selling goods based on "This happened during a big snowstorm in Upstate New York, you can see contemporary news footage of snow in Upstate New York, therefore this happened as we say." But here's your quote from 721. But isn't there something rather flawed in the logic that, "everyone thinks so, so it is so." And how does everyone thinking it is true (assuming for a moment that they do, though I disagree) make it objective? Doesn't that still leave it in the realm of subjectivity? And here's your quote from your last post. Quote: You are mistaken about the Seventh Day Adventists. They believe in the same Bible the vast majority of Christians do. Mormons are not considered to be Christians by any of the major Christian denominations, so your pointing out their claim at having another divinely inspired book in addition to the Bible is irrelevant. Most of the other links you have provided refer to only a tiny handful of off-shoot Christian groups. They are far from mainstream Christianity.The differences between Catholics and other Christians over the Apocrypha are the only serious difference of views you've mentioned, because Catholics are a major Christian denomination. This is not a difference over translation though, of course- serious differences between translations is still something you haven't provided evidence for. Also, I'm not sure I'm understanding your point. Are you saying that because there are differences between Catholics and other Christians over the Apocrypha, the Bible is not reliable as the Word of God? :confused: end quote I think it's nice, btw, that you're willing to view Catholics as "Christian." The folks in my first link don't, you notice. That's why they're able to "prove" that the Apocrypha is not really part of the Bible. The link from those wild women at the United Methodist Women is even more *gasp*"liberal." See, I had the impression that they actually considered Samaritan and Ethioptic Christians "Christian", despite the differences in text. Shocking. Drop their men a line, I'm sure they'll straighten those girls out. The Mormon link includes translation differences, btw. I'm looking forward to your explaining to a roomful of Mormons, perhaps including Mitt Romney, why they aren't "Christian." I'm sure you have all the authority they'll need to change their letterhead. But, back to your "reasoning." How exactly does that follow? It's like saying that because two people disagree over a math formula, the math formula is wrong. No, actually it's like saying, "If half the instructions are in yards and half the instructions are in meters, you can't tell me that using these infaillible instructions is a substitute for checking your math." Nasa tried that, you probably don't recall. Also, when you sarcastically say, "good thing the absolute Word of God is so easy to come by," you imply that if it isn't easy to come by something, that thing is not worth having. No. Actually, I'd say that God is very accessible, and I'm not therefore reliant on YOUR ability to select a set of instructions for Him. But in science, or logic, or mathematics, you can't randomly exclude data from your sample because it doesn't fit with your theory. That's considered cheating, and it's bad form. Therefore, if you wish The Word of God to be represented by The Bible (WoG=Bible) you have to define your terms so that (Bible) includes the set of all Bibles Christians use, OR you have to give a better reason for excluding material than this "majority rules" business, which you so cleverly abandoned in 721. To be clear, I've helpfully edited this conclusion for more accuracy. You're welcome. In point of fact, among the Christian denominations whom I chose to consider for the purposes of this argument, there is very widespread agreement except between mainstream Protestant denominations and the Roman Catholic Church as to which books of the Bible are in fact scripture. You can point at a disagreement between Catholics and Protestants over the Apocrypha, and can point to major disagreements between Christians and non-Christians (like Mormons, who are just too weird and different from my premise for me to include) or small Christian offshoot groups, in which I am including Greek Orthodox and other people with unusual outfits that are far from mainstream in their beliefs, but that comes down to mere quibbling and your evidence consists of groups that are either not Christian or are far from mainstream Christian groups/denominations, as I understand them, and because my personal experience of Christian belief is the determining factor in any discussion of canonical orthodoxy , with the single exception of the Apocrypha debate.[/QUOTE] See? It's so much better to just say what you mean. |
02-12-2007, 01:41 PM | #735 |
Master of Orchestration President Emeritus of Entmoot 2004-2008
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lost in the Opera House
Posts: 9,328
|
Greek Orthodox, nor any Orthodox in general...are "offshoot". Together with Catholics, they were "THE Church". Read history, BEFORE Martin Luther.
Talking about Mormons, and Mitt Romney had to figure into it
__________________
ACALEWIA- President of Entmoot hectorberlioz- Vice President of Entmoot Acaly und Hektor fur Presidants fur EntMut fur life! Join the discussion at Entmoot Election 2010. "Stupidissimo!"~Toscanini The Da CINDY Code The Epic Poem Of The Balrog of Entmoot: Here ~NEW! ~ Thinking of summer vacation? AboutNewJersey.com - NJ Travel & Tourism Guide |
02-12-2007, 04:06 PM | #736 | |
Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA
Posts: 10,820
|
Quote:
Also, sister, the Samaritans are not Christians, but Jewish, and when I say that, I mean they wouldn't call themselves Christian. That is the reason they only have Old Testament books in their canon.
__________________
Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle |
|
02-12-2007, 04:22 PM | #737 |
Master of Orchestration President Emeritus of Entmoot 2004-2008
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lost in the Opera House
Posts: 9,328
|
Also SisAunt, it might be better for you to put Lief's quotes in the usual brackets, because I was confused the whole way through...
__________________
ACALEWIA- President of Entmoot hectorberlioz- Vice President of Entmoot Acaly und Hektor fur Presidants fur EntMut fur life! Join the discussion at Entmoot Election 2010. "Stupidissimo!"~Toscanini The Da CINDY Code The Epic Poem Of The Balrog of Entmoot: Here ~NEW! ~ Thinking of summer vacation? AboutNewJersey.com - NJ Travel & Tourism Guide |
02-12-2007, 05:05 PM | #738 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,535
|
Thank you, Gwai,
correction noted.
And sorry, Hector. I struggled mightily with the formatting of my reply, because I was trying to use format change to highlight the targeting of my response, since Leif didn't see the relevence of my earlier responses. I got some pretty multi-color posts in preview! LOL But I couldn't manage those orange boxes and stay consistant, and, also, it annoys me how they drop out in later posts. I'll keep working on it. I'm confusing enough without typeface help. Brooke |
02-12-2007, 05:11 PM | #739 |
Master of Orchestration President Emeritus of Entmoot 2004-2008
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lost in the Opera House
Posts: 9,328
|
11 posts to go before you hit the famous 100, btw...
__________________
ACALEWIA- President of Entmoot hectorberlioz- Vice President of Entmoot Acaly und Hektor fur Presidants fur EntMut fur life! Join the discussion at Entmoot Election 2010. "Stupidissimo!"~Toscanini The Da CINDY Code The Epic Poem Of The Balrog of Entmoot: Here ~NEW! ~ Thinking of summer vacation? AboutNewJersey.com - NJ Travel & Tourism Guide |
02-12-2007, 06:23 PM | #740 | |||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
Quote:
Oops!
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
LOTR Discussion: Appendix A, Part 1 | Valandil | LOTR Discussion Project | 26 | 12-28-2007 06:36 AM |
Rotk - Trivia - Part 3 | Spock | Lord of the Rings Books | 277 | 12-05-2006 11:01 AM |
LotR Films in Retrospect and Changed Opinions | bropous | Lord of the Rings Movies | 41 | 07-14-2006 10:14 AM |
Were the Nazgul free from Sauron for the most part of the Third Age? | Gordis | Middle Earth | 141 | 07-09-2006 07:16 PM |
Theological Opinions | Nurvingiel | General Messages | 992 | 02-10-2006 04:15 PM |