"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth".

[Rob Bowman]

BCSpace,

I am a Trinitarian (evangelical), and I don't view God as an abstraction. God is a real, specific being. Because he is triune, it can be the case that the Son is embodied while the Father is not. I don't know any Trinitarian who thinks that God is an abstraction.

I have had Mormons (including a local bishop) tell me that God is a divine office that gets passed down from one eon to the next by various beings that ascend to that station. Now that makes God an abstraction. But I wouldn't claim that this view is "the" LDS view.

Pa Pa,

You have to understand that "God" to a trinitarian, both evangelical and Catholic, is an abstraction. Therefore "God" cannot have a physical body, but Jesus can. To a trinitarian, the three Persons; the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are to "God" just as a married couple is to the meaning and power (an abstraction) of a marriage license. The meaning and power of a marriage license does not have corporeal form but the persons of the married couple do.

It runs counter to the Bible and early Christian doctrine, but that's why there has been a Universal Apostasy as the Bible predicts.

[Rob Bowman]

Pa Pa,

I took a look. Russ never suggested that what some isolated Mormon says represents all Mormons. Indeed, he asserted that he has heard a variety of answers from Mormons to his question.

Have you ever read a single thread by RussB...one is running now. Or are you going to be yet another dismissive Pundit

[Vance]

Vance,

Okey-dokey. Got it.

Now, these evangelicals -- are they pastors, theologians, scholars, or in any sense leaders in the evangelical community?

One was a lay leader in but not of a church, the others were regular members.

Do they even use their full names?

As I recall, they did.

Or are we talking about "evangelical" lone-ranger types who really are representative only of themselves?

Isn't that what all evangelicals are? You don't have any central authority to declare doctrine for all "Evangelicals" after all.

Just as you can't be held responsible for the variant opinions of LDS posters like zerinus, I refuse to be held responsible for the variant theological statements of unknown individuals who claim to be evangelicals (assuming these individuals actually made that claim).

Good for you. But that doesn't change the fact that, from my experience, there is a significant portion of "Evangelicals" that do reject the permanency of the resurrection of Christ.

Some might suggest that leaders, such as yourself, could better serve your "church" by spending your time educating your own, in your doctrine, than in anti-Mormon activities. But, I suspect, such efforts are less lucrative.

[SilverKnight]

I am sorry but this trinity stuff is a ball of self contradictory confusion--one giant bluff.

I am not Mormon so I have no dog in that fight but come on! I am not going to be bullied by the fact that some medieval theologians, desperate to save the inerrancy of the Bible, elevated this self contradiction to a sacred principle and then metaphorically stared us down daring us to call BS on them and their high-sounding nonsense.

I must admit this is about the most brilliantly witty potshot at trinitarianism I've ever heard.

I've long wondered at the herculean hypocrisy of some of our Christian critics. They can sit there for days and deconstruct LDS doctrine and cosmology, casting a glaring spotlight on the absurdity of it all. However when the spotlight is turned back around to illuminate their own reason-defying theology, they cooly pretend nothing is wrong, there's nothing to see here, its all just so reasonable and logically sound.

I wait for the day when we can both admit our personal religious beliefs are similarly unreasonable, unfounded and untenable.

[Vance]

I am sorry but this trinity stuff is a ball of self contradictory confusion--one giant bluff.

I am not Mormon so I have no dog in that fight but come on! I am not going to be bullied by the fact that some medieval theologians, desperate to save the inerrancy of the Bible, elevated this self contradiction to a sacred principle and then metaphorically stared us down daring us to call BS on them and their high-sounding nonsense.

I must admit this is about the most brilliantly witty potshot at trinitarianism I've ever heard.

I've long wondered at the herculean hypocrisy of some of our Christian critics. They can sit there for days and deconstruct LDS doctrine and cosmology, casting a glaring spotlight on the absurdity of it all. However when the spotlight is turned back around to illuminate their own reason-defying theology, they cooly pretend nothing is wrong, there's nothing to see here, its all just so reasonable and logically sound.

I wait for the day when we can both admit our personal religious beliefs are similarly unreasonable, unfounded and untenable.

Trinitarians are strict Monotheists.

[LeSellers]

.

Moved to new topic.

Lehi

[Vance]

As I have said to Rob before,

John 4:19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.

20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.

21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Yup! The topic is obviously the physical (or non-physical as the case may be) nature of God.

Especially when you consider this,

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.

13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

I like that "9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." part. Paul is talking to mortals with bodies of flesh and blood.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

You don't have any central authority to declare doctrine for all "Evangelicals" after all.

I've already addressed this criticism.

You wrote:

But that doesn't change the fact that, from my experience, there is a significant portion of "Evangelicals" that do reject the permanency of the resurrection of Christ.

Right. And there is a significant portion of "Mormons" that reject the historicity of the Book of Mormon. What does this line of argument prove?

You wrote:

Some might suggest that leaders, such as yourself, could better serve your "church" by spending your time educating your own, in your doctrine, than in anti-Mormon activities. But, I suspect, such efforts are less lucrative.

You're out of line -- again. First, I have spent most of my adult life educating Christians in the Bible and historic Christian doctrine. Second, most of my activity critiquing heretical forms of Christianity have been directed against the theology of Jehovah's Witnesses, not Mormonism. Third, if I was interested in a lucrative career, I certainly wouldn't be an apologist or theologian at all. Your insinuation is baseless and offensive.

[Rob Bowman]

Tarski,

You wrote:

How can something be true of the Son but not the Father if the Son is the same being as the Father?

Are you asking in seriousness, or is this just a throwaway objection?

You wrote:

I am sorry but this trinity stuff is a ball of self contradictory confusion--one giant bluff.

I am not Mormon so I have no dog in that fight but come on! I am not going to be bullied by the fact that some medieval theologians, desperate to save the inerrancy of the Bible, elevated this self contradiction to a sacred principle and then metaphorically stared us down daring us to call BS on them and their high-sounding nonsense.

Speaking of high-sounding nonsense, that is precisely what you have spouted here. The doctrine of the Trinity was being articulated in the second century AD, and for the theologians of the late second, third, and fourth centuries the issue was not the inerrancy of the Bible but the integrity of the Christian confession of Jesus Christ as God.

[semlogo]

semlogo,

The answer to your question is Yes. The statement of faith of the World Evangelical Alliance accurately and faithfully expresses a minimal doctrinal framework with which all evangelicals agree:

That is evangelical doctrine in summary form.

Right, but that doesn't preclude an evangelical from believing in the body shedding doctrine. Also, who is to say all Evangelicals have to accept that? It's not like you're a single organization.

[SilverKnight]

Second, most of my activity critiquing heretical forms of Christianity have been directed against the theology of Jehovah's Witnesses, not Mormonism.

Rob:

This caught my eye. As there are no Jehovah's Witnesses on this board, you're the closest thing we have to an expert on the subject.

Recently, in my gospel doctrine class, and elsewhere, I failed in answering some questions about JWs.

Perhaps you, another time, in another thread perhaps, could help educate us on where Jehovah's Witnesses got some their unique doctrines?

[LeSellers]

where Jehovah's Witnesses got some their unique doctrines?

Lessee, he gets more than half of his ideas about LDS doctrine wrong, and you expect to learn anything valid about the Watchtower Society?

Lehi

[Zakuska]

semlogo,

The answer to your question is Yes. The statement of faith of the World Evangelical Alliance accurately and faithfully expresses a minimal doctrinal framework with which all evangelicals agree:

We believe ...in the Holy Scriptures as originally given by God, divinely inspired, infallible, entirely trustworthy; * and the supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct... One God , eternally existent in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit...

Our Lord Jesus Christ , God manifest in the flesh, His virgin birth, His sinless human life, His divine miracles, His vicarious and atoning death, His bodily resurrection, His ascension, His mediatorial work, and His Personal return in power and glory...

The Salvation of lost and sinful man through the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ by faith apart from works, and regeneration by the Holy Spirit...

The Holy Spirit , by whose indwelling the believer is enabled to live a holy life, to witness and work for the Lord Jesus Christ...

The Unity of the Spirit of all true believers, the Church, the Body of Christ...

The Resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life, they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation

That is evangelical doctrine in summary form.

semlogo, on 01 September 2010 - 07:56 AM, said:

Is there such a thing as an all-encompassing evangelical doctrine agreed upon by all evangelicals? In any case, I've heard that Christ shed His body too, albeit from Evangelicals in South America.

* Here is were Evangelical doctrine (in summary form) runs off into the twilight zone.

By saying this (ie the scriptures are "the supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct") Evangelicals are teaching as the scribes...

Mark 1: 22, 27

22 And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.

Notice Christ taught Doctrine that wasn't in the OT. His doctrine was from above and beyond because HE is the supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct. People have Authority... not inanimate objects like sticks stones and books.

Whats even more intresting is how hypocritical Evangelicals are, "picking and choosing" the parts of the "faith" and the "conduct" outlined in the Bble that they will follow and disguarding the rest as out-modded irrelevancies. Is the Bible the final word or not?

[Zakuska]

This is often a paradoxical argument. Is God a Spirit or does he have a body of "Flesh and Bone"

[Nathair/|\]

On this forum, you have such divergent voices as nackhadlow and zerinus.

Dr Bowman,

Do you really think those good brothers are more "divergent" among this boards TBMs than a Chaos Mage and a Druid? I don't know about Tsuzuki, but I am disappointed if I seem that normal.

Yours under the fringe oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Vance]

Right, but that doesn't preclude an evangelical from believing in the body shedding doctrine. Also, who is to say all Evangelicals have to accept that? It's not like you're a single organization.

Good point.

Also, these statements,

The Salvation of lost and sinful man through the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ by faith apart from works, and regeneration by the Holy Spirit...

The Holy Spirit , by whose indwelling the believer is enabled to live a holy life, to witness and work for the Lord Jesus Christ...

don't preclude the "easy-believism" crowd from being "evangelical".

Rob threw them off the EV bus here.

with this statement.

"Anyone who professes to be an evangelical but rejects the historic evangelical view in favor of some "easy-believism" is not an evangelical."

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

As I have said to Rob before,

John 4:19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.

20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.

21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Yup! The topic is obviously the physical (or non-physical as the case may be) nature of God.

Especially when you consider this,

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.

13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

I like that "9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." part. Paul is talking to mortals with bodies of flesh and blood.

Excellent!

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The thing people forget to remember is in the KJV version of John 4:24 the "a" is italiized and was not in the original Greek, and thus modern Bibles fix the translation error.

John 4:24 (New International Version)

24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

John 4:24 (English Standard Version)

24God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

John 4:24 (New American Standard Bible)

24"God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship (A)in spirit and truth."

That cross reference is intresting...

(A) Philippians 3:3 (New American Standard Bible)

3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh,

Even the ressurected Christ who "has a body of flesh and bones" is called a "Spirit" by Paul and others.

Rom. 8: 11

11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

1 Cor. 15: 45

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

1 Pet. 3: 18

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

That is a direct contradiction of Luke 24:39.

Luke 24: 39

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Perhaps v39 is talking about a different type of spirit than what John 4:24 is speaking about... either way... John 4:24 says nothing about the ontology of God and God the father lacking a body.

You too; Excellent!

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

As I have said to Rob before,

If you say so. I honestly don't recall.

You continued:

John 4:19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.

20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.

21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Yup! The topic is obviously the physical (or non-physical as the case may be) nature of God.

No one claimed that it was "the topic." Speakers often support their position on a particular topic by making statements on related matters. It is illegitimate to limit what can be learned from this passage to "the topic" of worship.

You wrote:

Especially when you consider this,

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.

13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

I like that "9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." part. Paul is talking to mortals with bodies of flesh and blood.

Indeed. I don't see what this has to do with the significance of John 4:24.

[Rob Bowman]

semlogo,

Nothing precludes someone who associates himself with evangelicals from believing that Jesus came from Mars and that the Holy Spirit is a female divinity from Venus, but it isn't evangelical doctrine. Likewise, nothing precludes a member of the LDS Church from writing a bestselling book touting her near-death experience as the basis for a curious mixture of LDS and New Age belief (remember that one?), or more generally from holding all sorts of variant views on a wide array of topics (e.g., whether Adam's eating of the forbidden fruit was a sin, to cite an example from another current thread). Having a single organization doesn't prevent doctrinal diversity and even divergence from standard views being held by individuals within that organization.

Right, but that doesn't preclude an evangelical from believing in the body shedding doctrine. Also, who is to say all Evangelicals have to accept that? It's not like you're a single organization.

[Rob Bowman]

SilverKnight,

I'd be happy to help, perhaps after I return from my trip to England (I leave tomorrow).

Rob:

This caught my eye. As there are no Jehovah's Witnesses on this board, you're the closest thing we have to an expert on the subject.

Recently, in my gospel doctrine class, and elsewhere, I failed in answering some questions about JWs.

Perhaps you, another time, in another thread perhaps, could help educate us on where Jehovah's Witnesses got some their unique doctrines?

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

* Here is were Evangelical doctrine (in summary form) runs off into the twilight zone.

By saying this (ie the scriptures are "the supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct") Evangelicals are teaching as the scribes...

Mark 1: 22, 27

22 And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.

Notice Christ taught Doctrine that wasn't in the OT. His doctrine was from above and beyond because HE is the supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct.

I am familiar with Christ, and I do regard him as the supreme authority in all matters. Smith, Young, Monson -- not so much.

You wrote:

People have Authority... not inanimate objects like sticks stones and books.

This is a distinction without a significant difference. The authority of your LDS president-prophet in practical terms is expressed in his words, which you regard as scripture. To state the evangelical view more fully and precisely, God is the supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct, and he has expressed that authority in his revealed word, found in the Bible.

You wrote:

Whats even more intresting is how hypocritical Evangelicals are, "picking and choosing" the parts of the "faith" and the "conduct" outlined in the Bble that they will follow and disguarding the rest as out-modded irrelevancies. Is the Bible the final word or not?

Knock it off. This sort of generalized accusation is useless. I reject a "pick-and-choose" approach to the Bible. I do accept the fact that the Bible itself reveals a progression in God's covenantal dealings with human beings, and specifically that certain aspects of the Mosaic covenant have been superseded by the new covenant in Christ.

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

The translation "God is spirit" is just as problematic for the LDS doctrine as the older "God is a spirit." I notice that Joseph Smith felt it necessary to rewrite the statement completely ("For unto such hath God promised his Spirit," John 4:26 JST).

You seem to be a bit confused. After arguing that God is not "a spirit" in John 4:24 as if this somehow saved him from being incorporeal, you state that Jesus is called "a spirit" in 1 Corinthians 15:45!

In all of these texts it is context, not merely the use of the word pneuma (spirit), that is the issue. Thus, Jesus' point in Luke 24:39 is clearly that he is not incorporeal because in that same verse he invites his disciples to see his hands and feet and verify that he has risen bodily from the grave. In 1 Corinthians 15:45 Paul's point is that Christ is not just a resuscitated human but the immortal, life-giving, divine source of our "spiritual" (i.e., Spirit-enlivened and Spirit-transformed) bodies in the coming resurrection.

The thing people forget to remember is in the KJV version of John 4:24 the "a" is italiized and was not in the original Greek, and thus modern Bibles fix the translation error.

John 4:24 (New International Version)

24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

John 4:24 (English Standard Version)

24God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

John 4:24 (New American Standard Bible)

24"God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship (A)in spirit and truth."

That cross reference is intresting...

(A) Philippians 3:3 (New American Standard Bible)

3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh,

Even the ressurected Christ who "has a body of flesh and bones" is called a "Spirit" by Paul and others.

Rom. 8: 11

11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

1 Cor. 15: 45

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

1 Pet. 3: 18

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

That is a direct contradiction of Luke 24:39.

Luke 24: 39

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Perhaps v39 is talking about a different type of spirit than what John 4:24 is speaking about... either way... John 4:24 says nothing about the ontology of God and God the father lacking a body.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Indeed. I don't see what this has to do with the significance of John 4:24.

Rob these were not cherry picked scriptures...but were listed in complete context to support our beliefs concerning the physical nature of God. It speaks directly to the OP.

[Rob Bowman]

Nathair,

When I clicked on your links, I got an error message. But no, I wasn't suggesting they were the most divergent examples on this forum. Your reputation is intact.

Dr Bowman,

Do you really think those good brothers are more "divergent" among this boards TBMs than a Chaos Mage and a Druid? I don't know about Tsuzuki, but I am disappointed if I seem that normal.

Yours under the fringe oaks,

Nathair /|\