7 ms·

> And of course Jesus is that exact same myth of child sacrifice (with a twist: he dies but lives again). The twist is more complex than that: it is God sacri

> And of course Jesus is that exact same myth of child sacrifice (with a twist: he dies but lives again). The twist is more complex than that: it is God sacrificing his own Son, which is also Him, in place of all sacrifices. God becomes the scapegoat. Rene Girard talks about this idea in this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNkSBy5wWDk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNkSBy5wWDk

jmcqk6 9y ago
>God sacrificing his own Son, which is also Him, in place of all sacrifices. The twist is more complex than that. God is sacrificing his own son, which is also him, to himself, in order to satisfy rules that he himself also put in place so that he doesn't have to send people he created and loves infinitely to be tortured forever in a place he created because they broke rules they couldn't understand with consequences they couldn't comprehend.
- coldtea 9y ago
  That's not "more complex". That's the high school kind of "religion is absurd" reaction, and is a naive literal reading that even the people of the bible era were above. The key is that there are no "rules that he himself also put in place" etc. (as he doesn't exist and even if he did it wouldn't matter). The rules were formed by people (obviously) and codify societal practices and philosophies towards morality and right. The story of Christ, as such, codifies a different approach contrary to those older practices -- which is why it was the basis on a whole different mentality that shaped Europe and ended in things like the "human rights" and modern ethics. (Or course this can be difficult to fathom in places were Old Testament beliefs are still championed, along with very crude literal meanings of religion, in the name of "Christianity". But this wasn't the case in later Rome and Europe, not even in the Inquisition era).
  - jmcqk6 9y ago
    I was raised in one of those places where Old Testament beliefs are still championed and they believe in a literal bible. They absolutely believe as I described it, though they would not connect those beliefs together like I did. There are millions of Christians like this in the US alone, let alone the rest of the world. I'm not sure what you're trying to push with your interpretation of christianity, but it's certainly not common, given that it assumes their god doesn't exist.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >There are millions of Christians like this in the US alone, let alone the rest of the world. I'm not sure what you're trying to push with your interpretation of christianity, but it's certainly not common, given that it assumes their god doesn't exist. What I'm getting at is that it doesn't have to assume their god doesn't exist, as this is a negligible detail (implementation detail) on the respective worldview and its results in everyday life, culture, etc (not in the coarse grained debates in the US 15th-21th centuries, but in the course of 2 millennia of European and global history).
    - charcoal23 9y ago
      I was also raised in a fundamentalist / evangelical church. I'll back you up on this as your interpretation is completely correct. coldtea's interpretation would be completely alien in any of the churches of my youth. In the United States at least, it would be completely alien outside of academia.
      - Apocryphon 9y ago
        The history of fundamentalism, an Anglo-American creation (not to mention the history of the existence of the U.S. itself) is but a fraction of the history of Christianity.
        charcoal23 9y ago
        Indeed it is. However, it will be the dominant experience of Christianity for many of us. Hence the previous snarky statement, and how that statement is correct for those of us who endured that experience.
    - Apocryphon 9y ago
      Biblical literalism and fundamentalism are a relatively new innovation developed in the past century and half. Taking a deeply complex work like the Bible and attempting to read it "literally" just spawns more approaches and complications; it doesn't mean that fundamentalists have discovered the one approach that's true to the text.
  - T_D_K 9y ago
    >But this wasn't the case in later Rome and Europe, not even in the Inquisition era I'm skeptical that throughout the history of Christianity, everyone took the "parable" interpretation of the bible (rather than taking most or all of it seriously). Are you claiming that the... inquisitors (?) weren't killing based on a literal lack of belief in god, but rather were killing because people weren't morally up to snuff? I'd love to be educated here, theology and the history thereof are well out of my wheel house. Personally, it seems reasonable that "Jesus" was a Joseph Smith type of con man who managed to spin yarns and somehow create a following.
    - mmyyyy 9y ago
      There is no such thing as "the parable interpretation" of the bible and "the literal interpretation" of the bible. Here is a passage from a truly fascinating Christian author from the 2nd century. He starts by saying "we shall be told that these are fictions, no better than fables, like the rest of the strange stories about Jesus." (funny how arguments against Christianity haven't changed for 2000 years) Origen's reply is this: Our answer is that to reconstruct almost any historical scene, even if true, so as to give a vivid impression of what actually occurred, is exceedingly difficult, and sometimes impossible. Suppose some one to assert that there never was a Trojan war, mainly on the ground that the impossible story of a certain Achilles being the son of a sea goddess Thetis and a man Peleus is mixed up with it; or that Sarpedon was the son of Zeus, or Ascalaphus and Ialmenus sons of Ares; or that Aeneas was Aphrodite's son: how could we dispose of such an objection? Should we not be very hard pressed to explain the strange blending of a fiction with the universal |74 belief that there was war between Greeks and Trojans at Troy? Or let us suppose some one to doubt the story of Oedipus and Jocaste, and of their sons Eteocles and Polynices, because that a sort of half-woman, the Sphinx, is mixed up with the story; how should we clear up the difficulty? Well, the prudent reader of the narratives, who wishes to guard against deception, will use his own judgment as to what he will allow to be historical, and what he will regard as figurative; he will try to discover what the writers meant by inventing such stories; and to some things he will refuse his assent on the ground that they were recorded to gratify certain persons. And this we have premised, having in view the history of Jesus as a whole contained in the Gospels; for we do not invite intelligent readers to a bare unreasoning faith, but we wish to show that future readers will have to exercise prudence, and make careful inquiry, and, so to speak, penetrate the very heart of the writers, if the exact purport of every passage is to be discovered. -- Philokalia of Origen CHAP. XV. 15
  - basedfahayek 9y ago
    No, this isn’t a Jordan Peterson video. Christians really believe that there really is a God.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      No, this isn't some provincial US fundamentalist town. Christian refers to billions of people through 2 millennia, and their approach to religion and belief is far more nuanced than what stupid fundamentalists (which is a newish invention) have.
      - basedfahayek 9y ago
        When was the last time you went to church?
- doulos 9y ago
  We can complain about the problem or be grateful for the Solution. The outcomes remain and the choice is ours.
  - jmcqk6 9y ago
    Or you can say "that's absurd" and move on with your life.
    - Apocryphon 9y ago
      As for Kierkegaard, he did all three.
      - lurcio 9y ago
        Best comment in whole thread - thanks
- Mediterraneo10 9y ago
  As the other poster stated, this is a snarky dig at Christian doctrine by someone who has never actually examined Christian teaching within the philosophy of religion. I would strongly recommend reading e.g. Richard Swinburne's Responsibility and Atonement (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989) for a reasonable depiction of Christian belief in this area. There are atheist critiques of the doctrine of the Atonement, of course (and disagreements between Western and Eastern Christianity concerning it), but one has to actually confront the claims in their fullness instead of posting that disingenuous, one-paragraph copy/paste snark.
  - jmcqk6 9y ago
    >As the other poster stated, this is a snarky dig at Christian doctrine by someone who has never actually examined Christian teaching within the philosophy of religion. That's a pretty bold claim from someone who only knows me from a few comments on a website. Just because I can snark about this, doesn't mean I'm unaware of the things you mention. Though since you called be disingenuous, you must have expected that as well. But on the other hand, my time studying christianity ended a decade ago, and I have no unmet spiritual needs, so I doubt I will be taking another look at them at this time.
    - Mediterraneo10 9y ago
      If you were familiar with actual literature in philosophy of religion, then why didn’t you cite that instead of a copy/pasta? I think it is quite reasonable to doubt the knowledge of the literature of someone who can’t even cite something. > I have no unmet spiritual needs A lot of work in philosophy of religion concerning a particular religion, is done by people who find its particular claims interesting (whether they can be defended or attacked) but who are not in the game for "spiritual" reasons. It’s like saying that linguists would only study languages because they have the need to communicate with its speakers; no, most of them just enjoy studying the language as an abstract.
      - jmcqk6 9y ago
        Well it wasn't copy/pasta, nor was I trying to make some theological point. But given the latter part of your comment, you're very keen on reading many things into what I type here that I've not said. So I'll just let you continue to have both sides of the conversation.
- quantumofmalice 9y ago
  I highly recommend watching Jordan Peterson's lecture series on the bible stories. You are doing yourself a huge disservice by thinking about religion in this way.
  - glibgil 9y ago
    > You are doing yourself a huge disservice by thinking about religion fixed
  - jmcqk6 9y ago
    Thanks, but I'll pass on that. It's not a topic I find interesting any more. I was just trying to point out that you can continue throwing in more details and complexity, albeit it in a snarky manner. A single comment on hacker news encompass my thinking about religion. You are doing yourself a huge disservice by making such assumptions about other people.
    - quantumofmalice 9y ago
      That's fair, these are all very small bits of information we are exchanging of course, but I would still encourage you to watch the Peterson lectures, at least the first one, to see how an intelligent and very well read non-religious person confronts these stories. I am saying this from a genuine position of good will. I will try to be better about not making assumptions about people.
- glibgil 9y ago
  A better twist would be if god ate his kids
  - quantumofmalice 9y ago
    This is the basis of perhaps one of the most disturbing paintings of Goya, Saturn Devouring His Son: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Francisco_de_Goya%2C_Saturno_devorando_a_su_hijo_%281819-1823%29.jpg/800px-Francisco_de_Goya%2C_Saturno_devorando_a_su_hijo_%281819-1823%29.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Fr... It is also worth recalling that many Christians, myself included, believe that in the Eucharist we are devouring The Son. It is a strange world we live in.
- mmyyyy 9y ago
  As someone in the tech field and an Orthodox Christian doing a masters in theology, I find it incredibly frustrating that there is absolute sheer ignorance about Christian theology. Literally ALL basic tenets of Christianity are misunderstood and distorted. And while I acknowledge that part of the problem is the ignorance of some Christian leaders and ministers, it's definitely not the whole problem. Intellectual honesty demands of us that we properly understand a viewpoint before rejecting it. >God is sacrificing his own son, which is also him, to himself, in order to satisfy rules that he himself also put in place so that he doesn't have to send people he created and loves infinitely to be tortured forever in a place he created because they broke rules they couldn't understand with consequences they couldn't comprehend. You claim this is the Christian view of the atonement. Where do you get this? Is it scriptural? Patristic? Don't speak on behalf of Christianity if you do not understand it. And let me tell you in case this isn't clear: You do not understand it. How can someone reject Christianity when they haven't done the due diligence of looking at __primary sources__ for the Christian position?
  - anonred 9y ago
    Having read a small amount of theology[1], I speculate that the broad and sometimes conflicting Christian perspectives throughout history make it difficult for the layperson to really grasp "true" Christianity (if there is such a thing.) Even going from say, St. Augustine to Kierkegaard, there's noticeable shifts in thought. I think the burden of proof squarely lies in advocates of Christianity, not the other way around. [1] It's also been many years since I last touched the subject.
  - Ascetik 9y ago
    Traditional Catholic here, former seminarian in a traditional seminary. >How can someone reject Christianity when they haven't done the due diligence of looking at __primary sources__ for the Christian position? Intellectual laziness. They just repeat what they see on reddit or sound-bytes they've heard from others who have no idea what they're talking about. If they want to know what Christianity truly teaches have them read St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, St. Augustine, The Council of Nicaea, The Council of Jerusalem, The Council of Trent, Cornelius a Lapide commentary, Haydock Commentary, the Catena Aurea, the Latin and Greek fathers. It is amazing how incredibly prideful and intellectually dishonest people are. If they took even 20-30 hrs of historical and theological study of what the Church always believed before the Protestant revolt, they would quickly realize that they know next to nothing about Christianity or History in general.
mmyyyy 9y ago
edit: I copied my previous comment to be in reply to jmcqk6 where it makes more sense -- sorry I actually signed up for an account here just to say it so this is my first post and I wasn't sure how to "mention" someone?
- quantumofmalice 9y ago
  I am a Christian and was describing the sacrifice of Christ on The Cross in terms of the earlier conception of child sacrifice, tying in Girard's insights. I very much admire Orthodoxy. I haven't read any formal orthodox theology, but Dostoevsky is perhaps my favorite author. I wish you well with your studies and I hope some day to perhaps read your work.
  - mmyyyy 9y ago
    ah I lost the context of the thread... I edited my comment and "moved" it to where it makes more sense (it's a reply to someone who replied to your original comment) sorry to have sounded rude -- this whole thing is just incredibly frustrating for me.
    - quantumofmalice 9y ago
      No problem, I understand. Best of luck with your studies.
      - mmyyyy 9y ago
        Thank you! All the best!

jmcqk6 9y ago

>God sacrificing his own Son, which is also Him, in place of all sacrifices. The twist is more complex than that. God is sacrificing his own son, which is also him, to himself, in order to satisfy rules that he himself also put in place so that he doesn't have to send people he created and loves infinitely to be tortured forever in a place he created because they broke rules they couldn't understand with consequences they couldn't comprehend.

coldtea 9y ago
That's not "more complex". That's the high school kind of "religion is absurd" reaction, and is a naive literal reading that even the people of the bible era were above. The key is that there are no "rules that he himself also put in place" etc. (as he doesn't exist and even if he did it wouldn't matter). The rules were formed by people (obviously) and codify societal practices and philosophies towards morality and right. The story of Christ, as such, codifies a different approach contrary to those older practices -- which is why it was the basis on a whole different mentality that shaped Europe and ended in things like the "human rights" and modern ethics. (Or course this can be difficult to fathom in places were Old Testament beliefs are still championed, along with very crude literal meanings of religion, in the name of "Christianity". But this wasn't the case in later Rome and Europe, not even in the Inquisition era).
- jmcqk6 9y ago
  I was raised in one of those places where Old Testament beliefs are still championed and they believe in a literal bible. They absolutely believe as I described it, though they would not connect those beliefs together like I did. There are millions of Christians like this in the US alone, let alone the rest of the world. I'm not sure what you're trying to push with your interpretation of christianity, but it's certainly not common, given that it assumes their god doesn't exist.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >There are millions of Christians like this in the US alone, let alone the rest of the world. I'm not sure what you're trying to push with your interpretation of christianity, but it's certainly not common, given that it assumes their god doesn't exist. What I'm getting at is that it doesn't have to assume their god doesn't exist, as this is a negligible detail (implementation detail) on the respective worldview and its results in everyday life, culture, etc (not in the coarse grained debates in the US 15th-21th centuries, but in the course of 2 millennia of European and global history).
  - charcoal23 9y ago
    I was also raised in a fundamentalist / evangelical church. I'll back you up on this as your interpretation is completely correct. coldtea's interpretation would be completely alien in any of the churches of my youth. In the United States at least, it would be completely alien outside of academia.
    - Apocryphon 9y ago
      The history of fundamentalism, an Anglo-American creation (not to mention the history of the existence of the U.S. itself) is but a fraction of the history of Christianity.
      - charcoal23 9y ago
        Indeed it is. However, it will be the dominant experience of Christianity for many of us. Hence the previous snarky statement, and how that statement is correct for those of us who endured that experience.
  - Apocryphon 9y ago
    Biblical literalism and fundamentalism are a relatively new innovation developed in the past century and half. Taking a deeply complex work like the Bible and attempting to read it "literally" just spawns more approaches and complications; it doesn't mean that fundamentalists have discovered the one approach that's true to the text.
- T_D_K 9y ago
  >But this wasn't the case in later Rome and Europe, not even in the Inquisition era I'm skeptical that throughout the history of Christianity, everyone took the "parable" interpretation of the bible (rather than taking most or all of it seriously). Are you claiming that the... inquisitors (?) weren't killing based on a literal lack of belief in god, but rather were killing because people weren't morally up to snuff? I'd love to be educated here, theology and the history thereof are well out of my wheel house. Personally, it seems reasonable that "Jesus" was a Joseph Smith type of con man who managed to spin yarns and somehow create a following.
  - mmyyyy 9y ago
    There is no such thing as "the parable interpretation" of the bible and "the literal interpretation" of the bible. Here is a passage from a truly fascinating Christian author from the 2nd century. He starts by saying "we shall be told that these are fictions, no better than fables, like the rest of the strange stories about Jesus." (funny how arguments against Christianity haven't changed for 2000 years) Origen's reply is this: Our answer is that to reconstruct almost any historical scene, even if true, so as to give a vivid impression of what actually occurred, is exceedingly difficult, and sometimes impossible. Suppose some one to assert that there never was a Trojan war, mainly on the ground that the impossible story of a certain Achilles being the son of a sea goddess Thetis and a man Peleus is mixed up with it; or that Sarpedon was the son of Zeus, or Ascalaphus and Ialmenus sons of Ares; or that Aeneas was Aphrodite's son: how could we dispose of such an objection? Should we not be very hard pressed to explain the strange blending of a fiction with the universal |74 belief that there was war between Greeks and Trojans at Troy? Or let us suppose some one to doubt the story of Oedipus and Jocaste, and of their sons Eteocles and Polynices, because that a sort of half-woman, the Sphinx, is mixed up with the story; how should we clear up the difficulty? Well, the prudent reader of the narratives, who wishes to guard against deception, will use his own judgment as to what he will allow to be historical, and what he will regard as figurative; he will try to discover what the writers meant by inventing such stories; and to some things he will refuse his assent on the ground that they were recorded to gratify certain persons. And this we have premised, having in view the history of Jesus as a whole contained in the Gospels; for we do not invite intelligent readers to a bare unreasoning faith, but we wish to show that future readers will have to exercise prudence, and make careful inquiry, and, so to speak, penetrate the very heart of the writers, if the exact purport of every passage is to be discovered. -- Philokalia of Origen CHAP. XV. 15
- basedfahayek 9y ago
  No, this isn’t a Jordan Peterson video. Christians really believe that there really is a God.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    No, this isn't some provincial US fundamentalist town. Christian refers to billions of people through 2 millennia, and their approach to religion and belief is far more nuanced than what stupid fundamentalists (which is a newish invention) have.
    - basedfahayek 9y ago
      When was the last time you went to church?
doulos 9y ago
We can complain about the problem or be grateful for the Solution. The outcomes remain and the choice is ours.
- jmcqk6 9y ago
  Or you can say "that's absurd" and move on with your life.
  - Apocryphon 9y ago
    As for Kierkegaard, he did all three.
    - lurcio 9y ago
      Best comment in whole thread - thanks
Mediterraneo10 9y ago
As the other poster stated, this is a snarky dig at Christian doctrine by someone who has never actually examined Christian teaching within the philosophy of religion. I would strongly recommend reading e.g. Richard Swinburne's Responsibility and Atonement (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989) for a reasonable depiction of Christian belief in this area. There are atheist critiques of the doctrine of the Atonement, of course (and disagreements between Western and Eastern Christianity concerning it), but one has to actually confront the claims in their fullness instead of posting that disingenuous, one-paragraph copy/paste snark.
- jmcqk6 9y ago
  >As the other poster stated, this is a snarky dig at Christian doctrine by someone who has never actually examined Christian teaching within the philosophy of religion. That's a pretty bold claim from someone who only knows me from a few comments on a website. Just because I can snark about this, doesn't mean I'm unaware of the things you mention. Though since you called be disingenuous, you must have expected that as well. But on the other hand, my time studying christianity ended a decade ago, and I have no unmet spiritual needs, so I doubt I will be taking another look at them at this time.
  - Mediterraneo10 9y ago
    If you were familiar with actual literature in philosophy of religion, then why didn’t you cite that instead of a copy/pasta? I think it is quite reasonable to doubt the knowledge of the literature of someone who can’t even cite something. > I have no unmet spiritual needs A lot of work in philosophy of religion concerning a particular religion, is done by people who find its particular claims interesting (whether they can be defended or attacked) but who are not in the game for "spiritual" reasons. It’s like saying that linguists would only study languages because they have the need to communicate with its speakers; no, most of them just enjoy studying the language as an abstract.
    - jmcqk6 9y ago
      Well it wasn't copy/pasta, nor was I trying to make some theological point. But given the latter part of your comment, you're very keen on reading many things into what I type here that I've not said. So I'll just let you continue to have both sides of the conversation.
quantumofmalice 9y ago
I highly recommend watching Jordan Peterson's lecture series on the bible stories. You are doing yourself a huge disservice by thinking about religion in this way.
- glibgil 9y ago
  > You are doing yourself a huge disservice by thinking about religion fixed
- jmcqk6 9y ago
  Thanks, but I'll pass on that. It's not a topic I find interesting any more. I was just trying to point out that you can continue throwing in more details and complexity, albeit it in a snarky manner. A single comment on hacker news encompass my thinking about religion. You are doing yourself a huge disservice by making such assumptions about other people.
  - quantumofmalice 9y ago
    That's fair, these are all very small bits of information we are exchanging of course, but I would still encourage you to watch the Peterson lectures, at least the first one, to see how an intelligent and very well read non-religious person confronts these stories. I am saying this from a genuine position of good will. I will try to be better about not making assumptions about people.
glibgil 9y ago
A better twist would be if god ate his kids
- quantumofmalice 9y ago
  This is the basis of perhaps one of the most disturbing paintings of Goya, Saturn Devouring His Son: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Francisco_de_Goya%2C_Saturno_devorando_a_su_hijo_%281819-1823%29.jpg/800px-Francisco_de_Goya%2C_Saturno_devorando_a_su_hijo_%281819-1823%29.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Fr... It is also worth recalling that many Christians, myself included, believe that in the Eucharist we are devouring The Son. It is a strange world we live in.
mmyyyy 9y ago
As someone in the tech field and an Orthodox Christian doing a masters in theology, I find it incredibly frustrating that there is absolute sheer ignorance about Christian theology. Literally ALL basic tenets of Christianity are misunderstood and distorted. And while I acknowledge that part of the problem is the ignorance of some Christian leaders and ministers, it's definitely not the whole problem. Intellectual honesty demands of us that we properly understand a viewpoint before rejecting it. >God is sacrificing his own son, which is also him, to himself, in order to satisfy rules that he himself also put in place so that he doesn't have to send people he created and loves infinitely to be tortured forever in a place he created because they broke rules they couldn't understand with consequences they couldn't comprehend. You claim this is the Christian view of the atonement. Where do you get this? Is it scriptural? Patristic? Don't speak on behalf of Christianity if you do not understand it. And let me tell you in case this isn't clear: You do not understand it. How can someone reject Christianity when they haven't done the due diligence of looking at __primary sources__ for the Christian position?
- anonred 9y ago
  Having read a small amount of theology[1], I speculate that the broad and sometimes conflicting Christian perspectives throughout history make it difficult for the layperson to really grasp "true" Christianity (if there is such a thing.) Even going from say, St. Augustine to Kierkegaard, there's noticeable shifts in thought. I think the burden of proof squarely lies in advocates of Christianity, not the other way around. [1] It's also been many years since I last touched the subject.
- Ascetik 9y ago
  Traditional Catholic here, former seminarian in a traditional seminary. >How can someone reject Christianity when they haven't done the due diligence of looking at __primary sources__ for the Christian position? Intellectual laziness. They just repeat what they see on reddit or sound-bytes they've heard from others who have no idea what they're talking about. If they want to know what Christianity truly teaches have them read St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, St. Augustine, The Council of Nicaea, The Council of Jerusalem, The Council of Trent, Cornelius a Lapide commentary, Haydock Commentary, the Catena Aurea, the Latin and Greek fathers. It is amazing how incredibly prideful and intellectually dishonest people are. If they took even 20-30 hrs of historical and theological study of what the Church always believed before the Protestant revolt, they would quickly realize that they know next to nothing about Christianity or History in general.

mmyyyy 9y ago

edit: I copied my previous comment to be in reply to jmcqk6 where it makes more sense -- sorry I actually signed up for an account here just to say it so this is my first post and I wasn't sure how to "mention" someone?

quantumofmalice 9y ago
I am a Christian and was describing the sacrifice of Christ on The Cross in terms of the earlier conception of child sacrifice, tying in Girard's insights. I very much admire Orthodoxy. I haven't read any formal orthodox theology, but Dostoevsky is perhaps my favorite author. I wish you well with your studies and I hope some day to perhaps read your work.
- mmyyyy 9y ago
  ah I lost the context of the thread... I edited my comment and "moved" it to where it makes more sense (it's a reply to someone who replied to your original comment) sorry to have sounded rude -- this whole thing is just incredibly frustrating for me.
  - quantumofmalice 9y ago
    No problem, I understand. Best of luck with your studies.
    - mmyyyy 9y ago
      Thank you! All the best!