• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Religious tolerance...except for Scientology?

HU-210 said:
The view that condoms are forbidden by the Catholic Church goes in pair with their abstinence/no premarital sex policy. You can't get AIDS if you don't have sex before your marriage (well, through blood transfusions and the like, but condoms don't help in those cases anyway). However, as soon as you begin to say that psychiatric drugs are bad, and you are not providing an alternative to people who have schizofrenia, or per example, are depressed (which is a disease, not a feeling you have every now and than), you are not being responsible, and you deserve all the **** people poor out over you.

I don't see why somebody should be persecuted just for being against psychiatric drugs.

I know a girl who has had depression all her life and she says none of the drugs they ever put her on have worked. I've also known several people that just don't believe in taking medicine. Is that really so bad? Perhaps you're not aware of this but there have been cases in the past of drugs causing all sorts of bad side effects.

I am not against psychiatric drugs personally but I don't think a person should be ridiculed if they are.
 
Calm2Chaos said:
So let me get this right. If I make up a religion out of thin air. Call it the Church of the Dead frog, (we worship dead frogs) in case you didn't know. You think that this is a religion that should be shown tolerance and or respect of some sort?

If you were a nice guy and we were friends, I would still be your friend despite your personal beliefs. I mean just so long as they wouldn't hurt me or other people in some way.

Just to give you an example...I know a guy at work who occasionally mentions that certain things are against his religion. Some of the things he's mentioned sound rather odd but he's a nice guy and we get along well. So I've never asked him about his personal beliefs. I really don't mind what they are, just as long as they wouldn't include inflicting pain against humans or animals. Or you know, anything sick or demented.
 
Last edited:
shuamort said:
If people want to make their beliefs public, they make their beliefs open to ridicule. Don't want judgment? Keep one's beliefs to one's self.

Yeah that's true. It's just of all the modern religions, Scientology seems to be the most ridiculed.

And there are actually some fascinating aspects of scientology. Like the idea of reincarnation, for example. But nobody seems to recognize this. I'm not defending the legitimacy of scientology, I'm just pointing out that not every part of the religion is "wacko".
 
George_Washington said:
Yeah that's true. It's just of all the modern religions, Scientology seems to be the most ridiculed.

And there are actually some fascinating aspects of scientology. Like the idea of reincarnation, for example. But nobody seems to recognize this. I'm not defending the legitimacy of scientology, I'm just pointing out that not every part of the religion is "wacko".
Well, "wacko" is indeed a subjective thing. What might be transsubstantiation to a Catholic could be metaphorical cannibalism to another.

What makes Scientology the easy whipping boy is multi-fold.

1) Their minority status.
2) Their HIGHLY litigious nature towards anyone who bad mouths the organization or reveals any of their secrets which are only accessible by payment.
3)Their convuluted history where they edit things like L Ron Hubbard's biography into something more grandiose than it ever was.
4)Their manipulative recruiting means.*
5)Operation Clambake.
6)The Death of Lisa McPherson
7)Tom Cruise




*About 12 years ago, yeah, a long time, I was walking down the streets and came across the Scientology's store front. (I'm not calling it a "church".) They asked if I had time to take a personality test. Sure, I love a challenge. I took the taste and was "audited" afterwards where the answers to the questions were reviewed and I was shown where Scientology could make me a better person. Even in the places where I scored at the top of the chart could still have improvement. Hmm. Next up, they asked if I wanted to take an IQ test. I conceded but omitted the fact that I was already a member of Mensa and while my score was a bit higher than previous tests I had taken, I could still "improve it". Mmm'kay. So now we started to talk about Scientology itself. He showed me a chart of how one can improve their life and Operating Thetans and auditing and more. I asked a lot of questions where a lot of answers were "it would be too complicated to explain" or even more amusing "you wouldn't understand right now". I then explained that my IQ was just scored in the genious range, I should be able to grasp the basics. The subject quickly changed to a sales pitch to buy their "bible", Dianetics. I asked what kind of religion would sell the base of their religion instead of promoting it and getting the word out. I didn't get an answer, but instead, got an offer to watch a biography of Mr Hubbard and how he was a "barnstormer". (The movie came with a glossary which included "barnstormer". I was amused.)
 
George_Washington said:
If you were a nice guy and we were friends, I would still be your friend despite your personal beliefs. I mean just so long as they wouldn't hurt me or other people in some way.

Just to give you an example...I know a guy at work who occasionally mentions that certain things are against his religion. Some of the things he's mentioned sound rather odd but he's a nice guy and we get along well. So I've never asked him about his personal beliefs. I really don't mind what they are, just as long as they wouldn't include inflicting pain against humans or animals. Or you know, anything sick or demented.

Well tats a little different. I can still like you as a person and think your religion is moronic at the same time. Long as you don't push the aliens on me or the big wheel in the sky, all is good
 
I don't see why somebody should be persecuted just for being against psychiatric drugs.

That's not what I am saying at all. I'm saying freedom with responsibility. A person like Tom Cruise has a responsibility, and should think about what he says, especially about such an important subject.

There are people who need psychiatric medications, and to whom it is the only way of living like us. That is, without having hallucinations and other psychoses. Now, imagine you have an LSD trip outside of your control, constantly, and you have an idea of a small bit of the torment a schizophrenic person goes through. There is a difference between saying "I don't want medicin", and saying "those medications are nonsense". Those christians who deny themselves medications because it goes against their religion are not saying that medications do not work.

Mr U
 
George_Washington said:
I was just thinking to myself the other day that Scientologists must be the most untolerated religious group in this country and possibly the world and I think that's wrong.

I'm a firm believer that we should all have tolerance for a person's religion, no matter how wrong we might think it is.

It seems like scientologists are ridiculed in this country and I just don't think that's right.

I am not a scientologist but I feel somewhat sorry for the people in this country that are.

It seems like Now Tom Cruise and John Travolta are no longer judged for their acting but just for their belief in scientology.

Even more so, when Tom Cruise spoke out against psychotic drugs, he was ridiculed by his peers.

I just feel that scientology is a group in America that just doesn't get the kind of tolerance that other religions are given and I wanted to see what you guys thought about this.

I agree. You know, it's really interesting that scientology is really going through a similar phase that Christianity did when it was first founded. It was completely outside of the mainstream theology (I imagine completely human and completely man and one god sounded about as plausible to the Romans as Scientologists' talk of space aliens), and because it was secretive due to the Roman laws against Christianity, the Roman people accused Christians of atheism, anti-socialism, promiscuous worship rites, incest, and human sacrifice. This latter accusation was likely the result of garbled reports of the sacrament of the Eucharist. I imagine a scientologist would look at the South Park episode that aired a few weeks ago in the same light Christians view that passage above.

And I think that scientology is about as likely as Christian religions to be true. If you were brought up in the scientologist faith as you were the Christian faith, I doubt you'd think it was so absurd. By Christians' own admonition, it is faith, not logic, that drives their belief. While I think this is fine, it does make it so that any faith-based belief is no more valid than another. I think it's about as likely that there was an alien named Xenu as there is that the Catholics are really eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ, that Jesus and/or Mary were concieved without sex, and that Jesus really rose from the dead, which is to say, not bloody likely, but I suppose it's possible. Both from my point of view require a healthy dose of faith for someone to accept.
 
Last edited:
The Real McCoy said:
There must be SOME reason Christianity spread like wildfire, consumed Rome and now has a third of the world following it.

Actually, I did my research paper on this. I don't think it's because of divine fiat, but because they adopted successful bits of theology from other religions floating around at that time, and also used the bible to its fullest.

My research paper said:
Christianity incorporated many of these successful aspects of the mystery religions, while avoiding most of their less attractive features. The cults of Demeter and Isis arguably contributed the life-death-rebirth cycle that constitutes the cornerstone of Christian theology. Christianity adopted the common meal aspect of Mithraism without including its ruinous male-only policy or its macabre symbols.# While such symbols appealed to Roman soldiers, they found few converts elsewhere. Christianity also avoided the closed-minded hierarchical structure of Mithraism that, while appealing to the military, created little love elsewhere. Though we now associate the Catholic church with the most rigid of structure, the original church in fact established no hierarchy, and remained such until the nationalization of the religion. Finally, Christianity incorporated the mother symbols of Isis without shifting its primary focus to a feminine figure. This feature of Isis’ cult no doubt drove away many members of the misogynistic Roman culture.

My research paper said:
Finally, Christians used the overwhelming advantage that a holy book offers. A book can generate far broader appeal than an individual speaker ever could. A speaker must rely on one rhetorical technique, one type of person to attempt to convert, else he may seem hypocritical and lose the entire crowd. A book carries no such disadvantage, and can appeal to the broadest base possible. Consider the following verses from the Bible:
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 (Matt 10: 34-36)
Compared with:
44 “I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matt 5: 44)”

These verses do not necessarily illustrate that the Bible contains internal inconsistencies. Discovering whether these verses contain inconsistencies is a matter for theologians, not historians, to decide. Thepoint is that “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” will appeal to a fundamentally different person than the golden rule will appeal to. A person preaching both the fire and brimstone of the first verse and the compassion of the second would be labeled a hypocrite, but the Bible can escape this.

Besides, just because a whole lot of people believe something doesn't make it true. The majority of Europe believed in the infallibility of the pope at one time, but even among Catholics these days you'd be hard pressed to find someone who thought thep ope was perfect. It was once widely believed that the earth was created in seven days, though now only the most iwehard of creationists will tell you this. If scientology somehow got the sway of 1/2 the people in the U.S., you think that would make it more true?
 
HU-210 said:
That's not what I am saying at all. I'm saying freedom with responsibility. A person like Tom Cruise has a responsibility, and should think about what he says, especially about such an important subject.

There are people who need psychiatric medications, and to whom it is the only way of living like us. That is, without having hallucinations and other psychoses. Now, imagine you have an LSD trip outside of your control, constantly, and you have an idea of a small bit of the torment a schizophrenic person goes through. There is a difference between saying "I don't want medicin", and saying "those medications are nonsense". Those christians who deny themselves medications because it goes against their religion are not saying that medications do not work.

Mr U

I don't know of any Christian that is against psychiatric drugs based on their faith. The people I know that are against these drugs are against them because of other reasons which have nothing to do with their Christian faith. There have been so many reports and studies on mainstream psychiatric drugs that suggest horrible side effects, suicidal thoughts, etc, that many people question their legitimacy. You talk about the pain that a schizophrenic goes through and if they want to take drugs for it, than that is fine. But true schizophrenia is very rare and in some cases, it comes and goes. I am not a psychiatrist but I don't think medicine is the answer in even some cases of schizophrenia. If you're hearing voices or if you have muiltiple personalities, than you probably need medicine. But I am a firm believer in man's ability to fight things off through natural means and through the natural course of time. And the thing about these psychiatric drugs too is, that one drug that works a certain way in one person can work just the opposite in another.

And I know you're going to probably to laugh at me for saying this but I really do think that God, a higher power, or whatever you want to call it can help cure people. I'm not saying that's reason enough not to ever take medicine. I'm just saying I think it can happen.
 
Tohoya said:
I agree. You know, it's really interesting that scientology is really going through a similar phase that Christianity did when it was first founded. It was completely outside of the mainstream theology (I imagine completely human and completely man and one god sounded about as plausible to the Romans as Scientologists' talk of space aliens), and because it was secretive due to the Roman laws against Christianity, the Roman people accused Christians of atheism, anti-socialism, promiscuous worship rites, incest, and human sacrifice. This latter accusation was likely the result of garbled reports of the sacrament of the Eucharist. I imagine a scientologist would look at the South Park episode that aired a few weeks ago in the same light Christians view that passage above.

And I think that scientology is about as likely as Christian religions to be true. If you were brought up in the scientologist faith as you were the Christian faith, I doubt you'd think it was so absurd. By Christians' own admonition, it is faith, not logic, that drives their belief. While I think this is fine, it does make it so that any faith-based belief is no more valid than another. I think it's about as likely that there was an alien named Xenu as there is that the Catholics are really eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ, that Jesus and/or Mary were concieved without sex, and that Jesus really rose from the dead, which is to say, not bloody likely, but I suppose it's possible. Both from my point of view require a healthy dose of faith for someone to accept.

Well, we don't actually believe that the wine and bread is actually turned into Jesus's flesh and blood. It's just a symbolic way to celebrate the last supper. While I personally think that Christianity is at least somewhat more viable than Scientology or else I'd probably a Scientologist by now...I agree with what you're saying...thank you! Finally, somebody can see my point of view! Thanks. You made some very good points.
 
George_Washington said:
Well, we don't actually believe that the wine and bread is actually turned into Jesus's flesh and blood. It's just a symbolic way to celebrate the last supper.
Really, everything I've read about the RCC states that the official position is of transubstantiation, not consubstantiation which is followed by the Lutherans.

"By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity [cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651.]." Catechism of the Catholic Church
 
shuamort said:
Really, everything I've read about the RCC states that the official position is of transubstantiation, not consubstantiation which is followed by the Lutherans.

"By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity [cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651.]." Catechism of the Catholic Church


We believe that God blesses the bread and wine and turns them into his flesh and blood in a spritual and holy sense, not an actual physical manifestation.
 
George_Washington said:
We believe that God blesses the bread and wine and turns them into his flesh and blood in a spritual and holy sense, not an actual physical manifestation.
You'll have to show me some recent Vatican documents that state that as the Council of Trent seems to be the RCC's last word that the belief is transubstantiation and not consubstantiation which is what you're claiming.

Here's my proof from the Vatican:
1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206
 
George_Washington said:
I was just thinking to myself the other day that Scientologists must be the most untolerated religious group in this country and possibly the world and I think that's wrong.

I'm a firm believer that we should all have tolerance for a person's religion, no matter how wrong we might think it is.

It seems like scientologists are ridiculed in this country and I just don't think that's right.

I am not a scientologist but I feel somewhat sorry for the people in this country that are.

It seems like Now Tom Cruise and John Travolta are no longer judged for their acting but just for their belief in scientology.

Even more so, when Tom Cruise spoke out against psychotic drugs, he was ridiculed by his peers.

I just feel that scientology is a group in America that just doesn't get the kind of tolerance that other religions are given and I wanted to see what you guys thought about this.

In Germany, it is illegal to practise Scientology because the Germans believe that it is the same kind of thinking that went into Hitler's master race. Scientology talks a lot about the 'superior mind' and 'superior man'. These people aren't supposed to give way to emotion as it is a symptom of the 'toxic reactive mind', I think Tom Cruz blew it in this area. That's why I would ridicule him.... "Hey Tom, aren't you supposed to not 'freak out'?"
 
shuamort said:
You'll have to show me some recent Vatican documents that state that as the Council of Trent seems to be the RCC's last word that the belief is transubstantiation and not consubstantiation which is what you're claiming.

Here's my proof from the Vatican:


The transformation that takes place here is not a change in the atomic structure of the bread or the wine but rather, Christ's spirit is present in these items. Since Christ's true body and blood is no longer human, each item can't transform into physical flesh and blood. Let's look at passages 1374 and 1375 of that webpage:

"The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."201 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."202 "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present." -1374

"It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:


It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.204
And St. Ambrose says about this conversion:


Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed. . . . Could not Christ's word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature."205 -1375

I highlighted the words of St. Ambrose because they are important. Basically St. Ambrose is saying is that although the bread and wine are not changed in a physical sense as to what we understand to be here on this world, Christ's spirit dwells in each piece. Their atomic structure is not changed but rather, they are are changed in another sense. Christ's true flesh and blood, the new convanent and such, does not consist of wordly flesh and blood but of the spirit of Christ itself. So by accepting the eucharist, we are accepting Christ's blessing and to accept his blessing is not just to accept salvation but to also accept the Church and the sacrifice that Christ made for us.
 
St Ambrose said:
Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed. . . . Could not Christ's word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature."205 -1375
St Ambrose is reconfirming transubstantiation though.

Here's more info from Catholic.net:
The dogma of transubstantiation teaches that the whole substance of bread is changed into that of Christ’s body, and the whole substance of wine into that of his blood, leaving the accidents of bread and wine unaffected. Reason, of course, can’t prove that this happens. But it is not evidently against reason either; it is above reason. Our senses, being confined to phenomena, cannot detect the change; we know it only by faith in God’s word.

After the priest consecrates the bread and wine, their accidents alone remain, without inhering in any substance. They can’t inhere in the bread and wine, for these no longer exist; nor do they inhere in Christ’s body and blood, for they are not his accidents. The Catechism of the Council of Trent says: “. . . the accidents which present themselves to the eyes or other senses exist in a wonderful and ineffable manner without a subject.”5 St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that God directly sustains the quantity of bread (or wine) in being, and that the other accidents inhere in the quantity.6 For quantity is the fundamental accident: the others, such as color, exist as quantified—as having extension. There is no such thing as a non-extended color.


The Church teaches that the bread is changed into Christ’s body and the wine into his blood, and that his soul and divinity become present through concomitance. He is one indivisible being, so when the bread is changed into his body, the whole Christ necessarily becomes present. But the actual transubstantiation—the changing of one substance into another—is only of his body and blood. It is the change of a material substance into another material substance.

What of the accidents of Christ’s body? They too are there; otherwise he would not be fully present. As St. Thomas says: “. . . since the substance of Christ’s body is not really deprived of its dimensive quantity and its other accidents, hence it comes that by reason of real concomitance the whole dimensive quantity of Christ’s body and all its other accidents are really in this sacrament.9 But the mode of their existence is conditioned by the fact that Jesus becomes present through transubstantiation. Substance is converted into substance, and the accidents, consequently, are there in the manner of substance.

and here's Wikipedia's summation:
This doctrine holds that the elements are not only spiritually transformed, but are actually (substantially) transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. The elements retain the appearance or "accidents" of bread and wine, but are indeed the actual Body and Blood of Christ, the true, real, and substantial presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. For this reason, what remains of the sacrament after the Communion procession is reserved in the Tabernacle, where it can be used for later Masses, for private devotion and prayer, as well as for public Eucharistic adoration

Catholicism
The Catholic Church holds that Christ directly instructed the Apostles in belief in the real presence, that the elements of the Eucharist become the body and blood of Christ. The Synoptic Gospels present the words of Christ concerning the bread and wine at the Last Supper: "This is my body... This is my blood" (Matthew 26:26-28).

The Gospel of John records that Jesus said: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you have no life in you" (John 6:53). Many of those who heard Jesus's words appear to have taken them literally, as the majority were shocked and left him. Adherents to Jewish Law consider eating blood one of the worst transgressions of kashruth, the law of eating and drinking, and a violation of the noachide laws which apply to all people and not just Jews.

St. Paul implies an identity between the apparent bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ when he writes: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 11:27).

Catholic doctrine is that because Christ is Risen, His Body and Blood are reunited; therefore, not only is each Host both the Body & Blood, but each sip of Consecrated wine is also both the Body & Blood. The Council of Trent decreed that all of Christ, His Body, Blood, Soul, & Divinity are fully present in each species:

For we do not receive in the Sacred Host one part of Christ and in the Chalice the other, as though our reception of the totality depended upon our partaking of both forms; on the contrary, under the appearance of bread alone, as well as under the appearance of wine alone, we receive Christ whole and entire (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. iii)..

Catholics use the term Real Presence to refer to Christ's actual presence in the Eucharist. Because Catholics believe the Eucharist is really and truly Christ Himself under the appearances of bread and wine, Catholics worship and adore the Eucharist. Catholics do not believe that this worship and adoration is idolatry, as they are worshipping what they truly believe to be Christ, not a mere commemoration or representation of Him.

The Catholic Church does not view the Eucharist of the Protestant communities to be valid, as under Catholic doctrine the Protestant ministers lack the sacramental power to confect transubstantiation, even if they claim to possess it.
 
I don't care what Wikipedia says.

But anyway...maybe I didn't explain it right. The bread and wine is turned into the body and blood of Christ but not in the way you're thinking. While there is no scientific evidence to support this transformation, it's the way that the transformation takes place. The body and blood don't lose their current chemical makeup. But what happens is, the spirit of Christ becomes present in these items. The spirit of Christ is the key here. This spirit consists of his being, his suffering, and the new convenant that he had formed upon dying on the cross. This spirit does no consist of what his earthly characteristics were and does not contain any earthly flesh and blood, which is why the physical appearance of the eucharist is not noticeably changed.
 
It seems to me that you've both overlooked a very important point.

Catholics practice cannibalism. If it truly is transsubstantiation, then it is actual cannibalism, if it isn't, then it is still symbolic cannibalism.
 
shuamort said:
It's not just what Wikipedia is claiming though. It's also Catholic.net and the Vatican's website which are supporting actual transubstantiation and not consubstantiation.

Here's a link to another article which discusses that the idea that you're claiming is Catholic doctrine is consubstantiation and is heretical in its position.

But I feel that Jesus's true flesh and blood is not of his earthly flesh but of his spiritual and true being. Hence, the chemical properties of the eucharist would not change. I know other Catholics who feel this way as well, so I'm not sure if it's truly, "heretical". I am also still not convinced that the Vatican would find my view to be heretical.
 
George_Washington said:
But I feel that Jesus's true flesh and blood is not of his earthly flesh but of his spiritual and true being. Hence, the chemical properties of the eucharist would not change. I know other Catholics who feel this way as well, so I'm not sure if it's truly, "heretical". I am also still not convinced that the Vatican would find my view to be heretical.
It's not church doctrine, that's for sure. It would be held as heretical as being a lutheran though.
 
Back
Top Bottom