Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Why Don't We See Quotes Of Jesus Predicting The Nt?


SOIL

Recommended Posts

Oops, Sorry Pandora,

 

I forgot to reply to the first couple of things I left in the quote box above.

 

Actually, I am not of the opinion quotes of Jesus were "manipulated" (or at least not either on purpose, or accidentally enough so as to significantly change his original meaning) -- SURPRISE!

 

As far as OT stuff goes, I am not sure what you are referring to.

 

-Dennis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • SOIL

    15

  • NotBlinded

    10

  • Ouroboros

    8

  • Mythra

    7

I don't know, Dennis. Sounds to me like Jesus thought he was coming back soon, too.

 

And, the shifting of the text in Mark, ...

Mythra,

I certainly understand what you are saying (except for the "shifting of the text" part - I have thought it was always located in the same relative location in Mat, Mark, and Luke).

 

But as far as those passages are concerned, to me anyway, the one that requires the biggest amount of scrutiny is Matthew 10:1-28. Notice the "translation" I linked to is The Message (Actually, I sometimes am tempted to call it a Commentary rather than a very lose dynamic equivalent type of Paraphrase).

 

I do point at that however, because the fellow who produced it - Eugene Peterson - seems (to me anyway) to usually do a very good job in bringing out (what it seems to me) to be the main essence of what was being said.

 

Certainly his credentials (for translating) are much better than mine (for interpreting).

 

-Dennis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome Dennis - don't know you yet, but happy that you are back.

 

If a person were to build a religion based solely on the book of Matthew, it would bear no resemblance to a religion based on John.

Well said Mythra - that was exactly the turning point for me - and the rest as they say is history ...

:clap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Mythra has a good point in the aspect that the authors of the Gospels wrote them before any canon were established. They didn't see it necessary to put words in their saviors mouth to predict such an event, since it hadn't happened yet, even for them. The only thing they could have said would have been something like "And Jesus said, Mark you're going to write this down 40 years from now..." or something. But the problem was that it wasn't Mark the disciple that wrote the Gospel of Mark, and the same for the other authors. They weren't eyewitnesses, and they didn't put "Mathew, Mark, Luke, John" as names to them either. Those names were attached later, as I understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skankboy, Antlerman, and Mythra,

 

Yes I understand (and even agree with you in one sense) about the concept that the principal writers of the New Testament probably did not originally consider what they were writing to be "scripture" - (or at least not at first - though at one point I think Peter referred to some of Paul's writings and seemed to indicate they were of a very important nature).

 

When I started this, I was remembering some other threads from a long time ago where I got the impression that several of the frequent posters here (back at that time anyway) were of the opinion that the New Testament was mainly just something fabricated by people who sought a position in the Catholic church (with a doctrine manipulated by a customized Holy Book) would provide them with power and wealth.

 

However, I find the character of Jesus to be of such a nature as to be very unlikely (if not impossible) for power hungry folks to have "dreamed up".

 

-Dennis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the Gospel writers wrote the stories in the early church to summarize the oral stories that were floating around, and not necessarely win any points or political standing in church. It wouldn't surprise me if they were conducted by some church leaders to unify the "belief" for their congregations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember while reading the New Testament getting the impression that Paul, Peter, and John etc... seemed to think Jesus was coming back sooner then Jesus' words indicated (at least to my way of thinking anyway). For instance, I remember reading where Jesus said something to the effect that even he didn't know (specifically) when the Father would send him back (physically) here to get things wrapped up (so to speak).

Hi Dennis, Jesus had the same expectation as the dicsiples as far as I can read him. In Matt 24 it is written:

this generation will not pass away until all these things take place - emphasis THIS GENERATION

 

He gave them hope that he would be back soon, but that's another story...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... They weren't eyewitnesses, and they didn't put "Mathew, Mark, Luke, John" as names to them either. Those names were attached later, as I understand it.

HanSolo,

 

I am certainly no expert on the subject - but I have been trying to learn at least a smidgen about it. From what I have learned recently I think there is some feeling that there may have been a single source (called "Q") from whence quite a bit of the material in the several gospels may have originated. I think there are still some good scholars that do feel like Luke may have actually written (or had a scribe write) much of the gospel which now bears his name - and also John - but maybe there are some folks here would could help me out on some of this. Of course we don't have any of the "original manuscripts" and I suspect maybe some of the very originals could have been written in Aramaic (since that was actually the language which was most usually spoken as I understand it).

 

oops sorry I need to go now - time to play some table games with the family - maybe I can continue tomorrow - thanks for all of the comments!

 

-Dennis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man" by Robert Price:

 

A better clue to the date of Mark as a whole is found in Mark 9:1. 'There are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.' While all interpreters admit this prediction must have the Parousia in mind (the apocalyptic coming of the Son of man at the end of the age). Mark makes it issue immediately in the Transfiguration, as if this were the intended fulfillment. The unnatural juxtaposition means that Mark writes, like the author of John 21:20-23, after the death of the last of the original disciiples. The promise had been that all would see the coming of the kingdom (Matt 13:30), but time went on and many died (1 Thess. 4:13-18). The scope of the promise was adjusted to fit new circumstances: now it would be only some who would survive to see the end (Mark 9:1). Eventually only one remained, then he died (John 21:20-23), and the promise became a cause of embarrassment (2 Pet. 3:4). Mark's solution, a desperate one, was to reinterpret the inconvenient prophecy as referring to something the disciples could have seen in the lifetime of Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I find the character of Jesus to be of such a nature as to be very unlikely (if not impossible) for power hungry folks to have "dreamed up".
Really? :Hmm:

 

I'm not exactly what you might call the brightest bulb in the bunch, but the way I see it, and understand it (now), if I were "power hungry folks", the character of Jesus (apart from two things in the story) would be exactly what I would want most people (those under me) to model themselves after.

 

But, if I were to give my reasons for this, more than likely I would be ignored and brushed aside as this thread moves along. So there's no reason for me to elaborate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I remember while reading the New Testament getting the impression that Paul, Peter, and John etc... seemed to think Jesus was coming back sooner then Jesus' words indicated (at least to my way of thinking anyway). For instance, I remember reading where Jesus said something to the effect that even he didn't know (specifically) when the Father would send him back (physically) here to get things wrapped up (so to speak).

 

Matthew 24:23-50

 

-Dennis

 

Hi, Dennis. Good to see you back.

 

About your Jesus not predicting the NT question, I agree with Pandora, MWC, Mythra, Antlerman, and others above. The documents from the first century of Christianity indicate pretty clearly that the earliest christians did not see Jesus as bringing a new BOOK. I think they saw him as fulfilling the scriptures that then existed, i.e. our OT plus maybe apocryphal writings never exactly enumerated, and that they saw God as working through him. They had oral traditions already, various strands of preaching, methods of interpreting the OT to see Jesus allegorically prefigured in it, as in Galatians.

 

I also agree that the first generation or two of Christians believed that Jesus' second coming was imminent. So there was not the question of a NT as a book. By the time several more generations passed, though, the non-return of Jesus had become a problem. You see this in the epistles attributed to John and in II Peter. That latter epistle refers to the writings of Paul as though they are "scriptures." By then, it's clear that Christians had to face the problem of classifying and interpreting their OWN writings. Hence the many disputes about what new books could be taken into the canon.

 

The whole question of the canon, incidentally, has long been one of the trump cards of Catholic controversialists. The whole Protestant principle of "scripture alone" falls apart when you look at the ways the NT itself speaks and does not speak about scripture. In fact, the "scripture alone" principle does not meet its own requirements. But that's another thread.

 

Dennis, you speak above about the words of Jesus himself. We have no reliable accounts of the words of Jesus himself. The words attributed to Jesus in the gospels themselves form part of texts written later, when the above controversies were already in the air. Some of the words of Jesus in the gospels might have been spoken by him decades before, but none of them is independent of the influence of the gospel writers, who wrote later. A hypothesis consistent with the data is the assumption that the gospel writers, living later than Paul, wrote Jesus' end-time prophecies in a way that accomodated the obvious fact that several generations had gone by and he hadn't returned yet. So statements like "as to the day and the hour, no one knows but the Father, not even the Son" are explained just as easily on the hypothesis that they are interpolations by later writers, who had to justify Jesus' non-return, if not more so, than on the hypothesis that they are the words of the historical Jesus. After all, why wouldn't Jesus have some idea of how long the christian church would exist on earth before his return? Why confuse everyone? The whole "God confounds the wisdom of the wise and calls for simple faith" kind of answer is exactly what has driven many of us on this site out of that religion. An obscure, riddling, capricious god is more likely to be the creation of humans than to be the creator of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To tell you the truth one of the reasons I left was because I didn't like the way it appeared as if some folks seemed to be dreaming up ideas about how I was doing (back then).

 

QUOTE(Kay @ Jul 25 2005, 05:50 PM)

...Perhaps the next time you start running out of tear-jerking articles to bolster your untenable position, you'll divert the topic and clue us in on your child custody battle instead. ...

 

Actually, though I mentioned at some point that I was sleeping at my office/house for a few days due to the friction between my family (caused I think in part by my reconsiderations of some of the Christian fundamentals - prompted by discussions on this site), I had never said anything about any consideration of the 'D' word (and to tell you the truth, I never did consider that).

 

You provide the link to the thread and at the same time attempt to distort the context? Still the disgrace you were back then, Dennis.

 

When I used the word "perhaps", I intended it to mean exactly what it means - to propose a hypothetical.

 

And as for the stuff I was "dreaming" up back then, say whatever you want, because you were cowardly enough to erase your own fucking post back then. You thought if you could erase Post #81 of that thread, no one would remember you whining about your separation in order to detract from the argument and questions you were trying to avoid? The quotes in Post #83 are all that remains of your Post #81, wherein you expressly said:

 

I am separated from my wife and family.

 

So no, I certainly wasn't dreaming, and when I alluded to child custody dispute in a hypothetical, the context was my prediction of you raising irrelevant, emotive claptrap in your life just so you can evade pointed questions. You taking that literally and out of context just illustrates your willingness to misrepresent other people's words in order to play victim. Your dishonesty makes me sick.

 

I find Rameus' spoofing to be less insidious than your reluctance to admit that your appalling behaviour in the Genocide thread was more insulting than Cerise or my caustic words could ever have been.

 

To all other posters: sorry for the OT.

 

Kay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I started this, I was remembering some other threads from a long time ago where I got the impression that several of the frequent posters here (back at that time anyway) were of the opinion that the New Testament was mainly just something fabricated by people who sought a position in the Catholic church (with a doctrine manipulated by a customized Holy Book) would provide them with power and wealth.

 

However, I find the character of Jesus to be of such a nature as to be very unlikely (if not impossible) for power hungry folks to have "dreamed up".

-Dennis

Agreed. What I stated in my post retains the value of the "Christian" message, yet removes the literalizing of the transcendent, which IMO diminishes the value of it. You'll see me repeating this elsewhere in other posts, and will in future posts, that when you take mythology and insist upon it having really happened here on earth, you diminish its power by making it falsifiable. The power of myth is that it is beyond reach of the temporal and serves as a vehicle from the temporal to the transcendent. We aspire to ideas which are greater than the world we already know.

 

If I say "when Buddha walked as a little child, lotus blossoms sprung up in his footsteps" that is full of elevated concepts that inspire those who see the Buddha as a religious figure. However, if I try to prove it "really" happened, using archeology, botanical studies, etc. I am bringing the story down here and it reduces its inspiration. It also makes it suspect and less meaningful as an elevated symbol. The same thing is true of the stories of an earthly Jesus figure, and when the fundamentalist insist up it having really happened, they are doing a disservice to the symbolism it provides. IMO, fundamentalism is religions greatest enemy, for this reason above all others.

 

P.S. You don't need an actual historical figure "Jesus" to have actually existed in order for the Christian teachings to have come into being. There are many such spritual teachings in many religious communities, some with a real founder figure, some with created founder figures, some with no founder figure, but in all cases they have teachings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antlerman, as usual, I admire and pretty much agree with what you say - and ditto your above reply. I am much less friendly than you seem to be toward the Christian myth, though. I think there are so many violent and hostile threads incorporated into that myth that the result inevitably appeals to people who use group solidarity and moralizing as mechanisms for oppression. I can't prove that the world would be happier if "paganism" had warded off the christian challenge during the late Roman period. I am convinced that the christian myth is too flawed for me to feel more respect for it than as a residue of good feeling that remains from memories of happy Christmases and adoration of the blessed sacrament and all that.

 

Maybe you wouldn't disagree with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antlerman, as usual, I admire and pretty much agree with what you say - and ditto your above reply. I am much less friendly than you seem to be toward the Christian myth, though. I think there are so many violent and hostile threads incorporated into that myth that the result inevitably appeals to people who use group solidarity and moralizing as mechanisms for oppression. I can't prove that the world would be happier if "paganism" had warded off the christian challenge during the late Roman period. I am convinced that the christian myth is too flawed for me to feel more respect for it than as a residue of good feeling that remains from memories of happy Christmases and adoration of the blessed sacrament and all that.

 

Maybe you wouldn't disagree with this.

Well... I'm not in total disagreement with you. I do recall the spiritual nuggets, and I also recall the ways of looking at it that promoted a closed mind and an arrogant attitude. I guess I may be being a little bit of an idealist in thinking the good that's in there could actually prove to be beneficial on the whole for individuals who adopt it as their system, and for society also, if they approached it for positive reasons, rather than using it to justify all sorts of poor choices.

 

I think yours and my exposures were the latter, and have had it up to here with the arrogance of the far right. But I also see people like OM and others who approach it with eyes wide open, without any sorts of denials or rationalizing or dishonesties whatsoever about what the book really is, yet pull from it good that has a positive result in their lives and those around them. I guess I'm hoping that Christians just settled the hell down about being "right", stood back with an attitude of humility and full intellectual integrity, and used it for good, then what complaint would there be to that?

 

Also, I guess I rather feel peace toward it than anger at its dark underbelly called Evangelicalism. I'm tired of being angry the whole system because of the leadership. Maybe I'm a dreamer, but maybe that makes a difference. I'm trying to roll reason and hope rolled into one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would there be any mention of the NT? Jesus left and was coming right back. There was no time for a book to be written and distributed. In fact, jesus clearly indicates that he would be back before the disciples managed to tell everyone in Israel about him. ...

Hi mwc,

 

Are you referring to the places in Matthew, Mark, and Luke similar to below?

 

Yep. Here's just a few references to help out:

Matthew 10:23 - Jesus will return before the disciples preach to all Israel

Matthew 16:28 - Some standing there will not die before Jesus returns

Matthew 23:35 - This generation will not pass before Jesus returns

Matthew 26:64 - The high priest will see Jesus return

Mark 9:1 - Some standing there will not die before Jesus returns

Mark 13:30 - This generation will not pass before Jesus returns

Mark 14:62 - The high priest will see Jesus return

Luke 9:27 - Some standing there will not die before Jesus returns

Luke 21:32 - This generation will not pass before Jesus returns

John 5:25 - All the events Jesus mentioned are happening at that time

John 21:22-23 - Jesus will return in the man's lifetime

 

These are obviously only from the gospels and what jesus was reported to have said (there's more if you go into all the letters of course).

 

I remember while reading the New Testament getting the impression that Paul, Peter, and John etc... seemed to think Jesus was coming back sooner then Jesus' words indicated (at least to my way of thinking anyway). For instance, I remember reading where Jesus said something to the effect that even he didn't know (specifically) when the Father would send him back (physically) here to get things wrapped up (so to speak).

 

Matthew 24:23-50

Correct, but you can see that this little bit raises other problems (that aren't really related to the main topic). This problem is that, by all accepted definitions, god is all knowing. Jesus admits that he is not all knowing therefore he is not, by definition, god. He also states that he gets his power and marching orders from the father and therefore cannot be defined as god either since he apparently cannot resist (he is not omnipotent). So by his own admission jesus is, at the very least, not omniscient, he is possibly not omnipotent and being a single person stuck in a body he is not omnipresent. Jesus is not god.

 

Back on track though. According to what you said in the above quote you use the phrase "(at least to my way of thinking anyway)." Your way of thinking has about 2000 years of evolution and spin attached to it. If you can try putting that aside for a moment. Then imagine yourself standing in a crowd (the size of the crowd does not matter) at the feet of jesus. There he is speaking while you are drinking it all in. Now jesus says the words from those passages I mention above (such as) "But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." or "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." Stirring words indeed. In your head are you thinking that this will be nice "some day in the future...hundreds or thousands of years from now." No. It is going to happen *now*. Possibly within your lifetime or very soon after. You can look around the crowd for relative ages and get an idea of what will happen for at least some of you standing there. Xians use these passages today and use the same reasoning. It will happen in my lifetime or very close to it. If jesus meant something else he would have, should have, said something else. He is perfect, right? The he would use the perfect words to describe the event so that it could be understood perfectly. The ambiguity of the reference further exempts him from being god since the message was not sent or recieved perfectly (knowing that we are imperfect and could mess the message up a god would adjust the message to the recipient and not expect the recipient to adjust themself to the message).

 

So to quickly sum up my points. Jesus said he would return within a given timeframe (the lives of some standing there and/or that generation he was speaking to) but he did not. Jesus is does not have the attributes of god and therefore cannot be a god. Jesus is not perfect since his message was not perfectly given/received (a perfect being would compensate for our flaws). Since you think that jesus was a real person it is easy to see that he was not god nor was he perfect. If jesus was just a character in a story then he serves his purpose, for that time period, nicely and the "problems" can be safely ignored (just like other fables).

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome back Dennis. I was just thinking about you the other day, wondering how you were doing. It's good to see you here again.

 

TF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

...Your dishonesty makes me sick....

Hi Kay,

 

Well I guess I had sort of forgotten about the real reason I left earlier (not wanting to make other people sick). Thanks for reminding me.

 

I was thinking that sharing what was going on in my life (even something that is not usually said to be "OK" with Christians) was more along the line of "honesty". (If so, then I get the feeling that to be honest is not something that is such a good idea - because I have felt a lot of emotional pain - apparently caused by my transparency in communicating what was actually going on in my emotions/mind).

 

Yes, I am a whiner.

 

But how can I expect people like you to communicate honestly with me - if I am not willing to be painfully honest with you?

 

It hurts me to try to reread some of those pages, because now I remember (after I had just hit the 'Add Reply' on the now deleted post) that I really did not desire for you to feel pain - if you were to read that complete original post - and if my memory is correct, I believe that is the real reason I deleted it.

 

Of course I understand it is possible that you may be correct however - perhaps I may in fact be so bad a person that I don't even face up (or even understand) the extent of just how bad I really am.

 

I guess God only knows (er... that is ... from my vantage point anyway).

 

-Dennis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I find the character of Jesus to be of such a nature as to be very unlikely (if not impossible) for power hungry folks to have "dreamed up".

 

Oh, but perhaps the original writers of the gospels weren't power hungry at all. Perhaps they wrote their stories of Jesus as allegories. Symbolic stories to nurture and instruct humankind and steer them in their direction of thinking and belief.

 

The power hungry ones took that ball and ran with it. Took every advantage to work the story in ways that would benefit them personally. Much like they still do today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I find the character of Jesus to be of such a nature as to be very unlikely (if not impossible) for power hungry folks to have "dreamed up".
Really? :Hmm:

 

I'm not exactly what you might call the brightest bulb in the bunch, but the way I see it, and understand it (now), if I were "power hungry folks", the character of Jesus (apart from two things in the story) would be exactly what I would want most people (those under me) to model themselves after.

 

But, if I were to give my reasons for this, more than likely I would be ignored and brushed aside as this thread moves along. So there's no reason for me to elaborate.

However, I find the character of Jesus to be of such a nature as to be very unlikely (if not impossible) for power hungry folks to have "dreamed up".
Oh, but perhaps the original writers of the gospels weren't power hungry at all. Perhaps they wrote their stories of Jesus as allegories. Symbolic stories to nurture and instruct humankind and steer them in their direction of thinking and belief.

 

The power hungry ones took that ball and ran with it. Took every advantage to work the story in ways that would benefit them personally. Much like they still do today.

Okay, that makes two of us that caught onto that. I'm glad Mythra caught this anyway. He can probably explain it much better than I can. It'll probably be the same reasons too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

The power hungry ones took that ball and ran with it. Took every advantage to work the story in ways that would benefit them personally. Much like they still do today.

Mythra,

 

I can resonate with what you say there.

 

Parenthetically:

 

I mentioned earlier that I have been thinking about men and women - and about how different cultures see the relative intrinsic value of each sex as being different.

 

I have wondered if maybe some of the machismo ideas (all too common in South and Central America for instance- but everywhere really) may have resulted from many men taking a Biblical ball and running with it. For instance, by using such concepts as the teaching of man as being created first, and the commonly circulated idea that woman was made to be a "helper" for man (actually, I think the Hebrew may mean something a bit different though - like to provide a missing ingredient needed to complete the "mankind" created creature). Also of course, some of what the Apostle Paul wrote has certainly provided easy fodder for those seeking yet more to 'take advantage of'.

 

-Dennis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

... Correct, but you can see that this little bit raises other problems (that aren't really related to the main topic). This problem is that, by all accepted definitions, god is all knowing. Jesus admits that he is not all knowing therefore he is not, by definition, god. He also states that he gets his power and marching orders from the father and therefore cannot be defined as god either since he apparently cannot resist (he is not omnipotent). So by his own admission jesus is, at the very least, not omniscient, he is possibly not omnipotent and being a single person stuck in a body he is not omnipresent. Jesus is not god....

...

mwc,

 

I think it is kind of interesting that just this morning I was reading through this :

 

Is God a Closed TRINITY or an Open FAMILY? - A Scriptural Refutation of the Trinity Theory

 

I don't remember reading where Jesus claimed (at least not while he was on earth) to have possessed all of the attributes of the ONE true God (who he referred to as Abba "Father") - if you read through the above article (that I provided the link to), you will find several scripture passages why I am thinking along this line.

 

-Dennis

 

 

Welcome back Dennis. I was just thinking about you the other day, wondering how you were doing. It's good to see you here again.

 

TF

Hi Tex!

 

Thanks.

 

I have good memories of some of what you have written.

 

I always have felt like you really care about people - and I really respect that. Also in you - I have sensed some heaping portions (of what I consider to be) true honesty.

 

I have also wondered how you (and those you love) are doing.

 

-Dennis

 

BTW,

 

Maybe I should have mentioned, it was our old friend ChefRanden who pointed me at that article about the trinity.

 

-Dennis

 

oops - I don't know what is going on here - maybe I don't know how to use this software anymore - I was thinking the earlier post was actually three separate ones - but now I see they seemed to be all together in one. (Weird - maybe this trinity study is getting to me!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have wondered if maybe some of the machismo ideas (all too common in South and Central America for instance- but everywhere really) may have resulted from many men taking a Biblical ball and running with it.

 

 

Exactly, Dennis. The bible is such a dynamic instrument that people can and do wield it in all manners of manipulation and coercion of the faithful. Male dominated societies where females are inferior and they find that their only purpose in life is to provide comfort and serve men and be second-class citizens. High powered ministries big and small who use specific bible verses like weapons, who utter "words from the Lord", "God has laid something on my heart", and other blatant manipulations where submission is required in the form of greater tithes, increased attendance, etc. All by exploiting believer's sincerity, and keeping them convinced that the person in power has some extra-ordinary connection to the ALMIGHTY.

 

It's not much different than what Eusebius and Constantine did in the fourth century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

... Male dominated societies where females are inferior and they find that their only purpose in life is to provide comfort and serve men and be second-class citizens. ...

Yes - Sadly I have seen this type of mindset in several religions and cultures (fortunately not completely effecting every single member though).

 

For instance in a couple of posts (entered a long time ago now) I mentioned about a little girl who our family supported via World Vision's program where you can send so much money per month to help provide the needs of a poor child. This particular girl died after her father hung her (in public) after she had eloped with a neighbor boy who he didn't like. She lived in rural India. Not too long after that happened I took a trip to neighboring Nepal. I learned there, that sort of thing can (and does) happen either in rural villages where the religion practiced is (not necessarily of mainstream varieties) either Hindu or Islamic.

 

Very sad indeed.

 

-Dennis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.