Anyone one seen The Christ,

[Pure]

Hi English L,

Pure..sometimes Christian love and forgiveness is not that nice. It's honest and in your face.

Ah, I see, that's where the "I pity you." comes from. Loving honesty.

you're completely contrary-wise but we forgive you for it anyway

On the contrary, your spokesperson (DM)insinuated I was the devil quoting scripture, was dishonestly ripping quotes out of context.

The insults do not affect me. Mudslinging dirties the hands. Or as the Gospels say,

It is not that which goeth into the mouth that defiles a man, but that which cometh out of the mouth. {Mt 15:11}

I forgive him if he apologizes.

J.

 

[NoJo]

I'm not going to see it. I'm not into snuff films.

And as far as religion goes, the only one I would be a member of is fictional.

It's Holy Book is called The Universal Book of Truths and Other Humourous Anecdotes.

This book contains such pieces of wisdom as the 17th Psalm of Indifferent Contentment which states, "Mankind is without a doubt the most conceited race in the Universe. Who else believes that God has nothing better to do but sit around and help him out of tight spots?"

And Matthewson's 23rd edict, "To be angered by evil is to partake of it, stupid."

I prefer a religion with a sense of humour.

I just Googled for the book. Duh, you were having me on. Please write the book. I'll buy a copy.

 

[Dirt Man]

Hi DirtM


You said, Now if you will kindly direct us to these Quakers, and Mennonites [who reject certain mainstream dogmas, like vicarious atonement] of yours we'd really appreciate it. Oh gees, you can't, because they don't use computers, do they. But perhaps you can give us their addresses, eh?

Pure:
Just use this address and thread here, Dirt Man. I am a Quaker.

You reply:

DM: As for your being a Quaker, I don't know why that would be germaine to this conversation unless you represent the vast majority of their faith on this subject, and were trying to stand on a theolgical issue.

In simple terms. We were talking about dogmas, and 'vicarious atonement' (Jesus' blood as cleansing mankind, permitting salvation; Jesus in death, serving as an effective substitute for mankind, who now no longer need to 'die' in the eternal sense).

I said Quakers don't buy it.

You asked for an address and name. You got it. You didn't ask before about 'vast majority', and Quakers do not have much that could be called dogma; no one officially 'represents' anyone in that area. But in fact the vast majority of Conservative and General Conference Quakers reject 'vicarious atonement'.

So have at it my man. Why didn't Moses, whom you say was taken up, require Jesus' blood? Does Jesus' blood give me a 'leg up' on salvation? An advantage I wouldn't have, if as a Jew I simply followed 'do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with the Lord.?' {Micah}

Just for the record and the lurkers, this is not a dispute for the sake of theology. Mel Gibson's movie is soaked in quarts of Jesus blood.

And presumably that's because he thinks it efficacious in saving mankind (an old [Mel-ish] Catholic, as well as new Catholic dogma**); indeed, his mom is shown taking the blood onto her lips, if not tasting or drinking it.

I hope you will enlighten all of us.



**One shared by many protestants, as Dirt M apparently is.

Well, I have to admit first off that I know little to nothing about the Quaker faith. So if they do not, as you have said here, believe that Jesus died for the sins of all mankind. Then I must accept that as their representative you would know. And I appolgize for my presumtions in thinking otherwise. Now in as much as a Quaker you do not believe this, I have no reason to reply to your other questions reguarding this matter, as it would be rude of me to infringe on your beliefs by further witnessing my own faith to you. My only reason for replying to questions put forth in this thread was to clear up certain missperceptions about christianity as they came along. I had no idea that we were in a debate about our faiths in God. I was basically in teaching mode, and thought people wanted an honest answer/s to why christians believe the way we do. If I have offended anyone elses beliefs, I appologize for that as well. It was never my intention to return their attacks against my faith with anything other the truth behind my own faith. I am afraid I haven't learned to turn the other cheek enough as far as that is concerned. But I never said I was perfect, if anything I said he was, and this was my whole point in replying at all here. If that offends your faith, then again, I appoligize it wasn't meant to offend, it was meant to enlighten. I leave this thread then with these verses as my last coment. John: 1:1-5, and Hebrews: 13:8

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

PS: I never insinuated that you were the Devil quoting scripture. I said: "Even the Devil quotes scripture" before you ever quoted any scripture. And when you did quote it you plainly did take it out of context without explaining what led up to, or what followed. If you take what I said before it happens as an insinuation, that isn't my fault, that's your own. But if you need an appology, then forgive me for insulting where there was no insult intended.

 

[Pure]

Hi Dirt Man,

Now in as much as a Quaker you do not believe this[vicarious atonement], I have no reason to reply to your other questions reguarding this matter, as it would be rude of me to infringe on your beliefs by further witnessing my own faith to you. My only reason for replying to questions put forth in this thread was to clear up certain missperceptions about christianity as they came along.

Your statements of belief do not 'infringe' on mine in the least.

I hope you will continue to clear up missperceptions of your Christian faith, esp. insofar as you might agree with Mel.

If that offends your faith, then again, I appoligize it wasn't meant to offend, it was meant to enlighten.

My faith is not offended, but your intent to apologize is accepted as adequate and sufficient.

I think you should feel free to 'witness' to others, and let me and them know of your beliefs. I'm entirely comfortable with your sermons provided they are free of animosity and put downs. And we all get a bit harsh around here, sometimes; I bear some of the responsibility.

J.

 

[English Lady]

A very wise fella (he happened to be Catholic..but thats by the by) once told me

"If you dish it,you should be able to take it."


Pure...my reply to you is yes. I do pity you. It seems you derive your entertainment from riling people up but you don't quite seem to be able to take it when someone actually stands up for themselves and fights back. You don't have to accept my pity or even like it;but thats not going to stop me feeling it.




I am happy with what has come out of my mouth even if you're not. If you feel I have attacked you personally in anyway, if you feel in anyway agrieved in my dealings with you personally I completely apologise for upsetting you,that is not what I have set out to do.

 

[Pure]

English://you [pure] don't quite seem to be able to take it //

On the contrary. I'm here and DM says he's going. His 'witness' did not stand up to the slightest question, and apparently needed your applause. I merely pointed out his nasty words.

You both are free to flame to your hearts content. In general, only if all content disappears will I not respond.

Now, back to the question; Does Jesus blood give a person any advantage respecting salvation, over Jews, Buddhists, etc.

And to admirers of the movie; does more blood indicate more salvation (more souls saved?); I.e, wouldn't a few drops of His Blood do the trick? Why did Mel want so much, do you suppose?

 

[Pure]

Safire's review from todays NYTimes.

Not Peace, but a Sword
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Published: March 1, 2004


WASHINGTON — The word "passion" is rooted in the Latin for "suffer." Mel Gibson's movie about the torture and agony of the final hours of Jesus is the bloodiest, most brutal example of sustained sadism ever presented on the screen.

Because the director's wallowing in gore finds an excuse in a religious purpose — to show how horribly Jesus suffered for humanity's sins — the bar against film violence has been radically lowered. Movie mayhem, long resisted by parents, has found its loophole; others in Hollywood will now find ways to top Gibson's blockbuster, to cater to voyeurs of violence and thereby to make bloodshed banal.

What are the dramatic purposes of this depiction of cruelty and pain? First, shock; the audience I sat in gasped at the first tearing of flesh. Next, pity at the sight of prolonged suffering. And finally, outrage: who was responsible for this cruel humiliation? What villain deserves to be punished?

Not Pontius Pilate, the Roman in charge; he and his kindly wife are sympathetic characters. Nor is King Herod shown to be at fault.

The villains at whom the audience's outrage is directed are the actors playing bloodthirsty rabbis and their rabid Jewish followers. This is the essence of the medieval "passion play," preserved in pre-Hitler Germany at Oberammergau, a source of the hatred of all Jews as "Christ killers."

Much of the hatred is based on a line in the Gospel of St. Matthew, after the Roman governor washes his hands of responsibility for ordering the death of Jesus, when the crowd cries, "His blood be on us, and on our children."

Though unreported in the Gospels of Mark, Luke or John, that line in Matthew — embraced with furious glee by anti-Semites through the ages — is right there in the New Testament. Gibson and his screenwriter didn't make it up, nor did they misrepresent the apostle's account of the Roman governor's queasiness at the injustice.
[end]

Note by pure. Gibson apparently deleted the line from the English subtitles, but left it in the Aramaic dialogue; consequently it may appear in other translations in France, Germany, etc.

 

[SlickTony]

(Note: Even many Amish, with whom you confuse us, are using computers these days.)

I wonder what arrangements they make for it. I read somewhere that when they first started getting the telephone they'd put it out in a little house in their field or back yard where they'd have to go to a certain amount of trouble to use it.

 

[Dirt Man]

Hi Dirt Man,

Now in as much as a Quaker you do not believe this[vicarious atonement], I have no reason to reply to your other questions reguarding this matter, as it would be rude of me to infringe on your beliefs by further witnessing my own faith to you. My only reason for replying to questions put forth in this thread was to clear up certain missperceptions about christianity as they came along.

Your statements of belief do not 'infringe' on mine in the least.

I hope you will continue to clear up missperceptions of your Christian faith, esp. insofar as you might agree with Mel.

If that offends your faith, then again, I appoligize it wasn't meant to offend, it was meant to enlighten.

My faith is not offended, but your intent to apologize is accepted as adequate and sufficient.

I think you should feel free to 'witness' to others, and let me and them know of your beliefs. I'm entirely comfortable with your sermons provided they are free of animosity and put downs. And we all get a bit harsh around here, sometimes; I bear some of the responsibility.

J.

 

[Dirt Man]

English://you [pure] don't quite seem to be able to take it //

On the contrary. I'm here and DM says he's going. His 'witness' did not stand up to the slightest question, and apparently needed your applause. I merely pointed out his nasty words.

You both are free to flame to your hearts content. In general, only if all content disappears will I not respond.

Now, back to the question; Does Jesus blood give a person any advantage respecting salvation, over Jews, Buddhists, etc.

And to admirers of the movie; does more blood indicate more salvation (more souls saved?); I.e, wouldn't a few drops of His Blood do the trick? Why did Mel want so much, do you suppose?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The idea that the creator of all things would demand blood sacrifices to appease him was probably my first inkling as a young Baptist that I wasn't going to make a good Christian. I just didn't buy the contradiction: a loving and understanding God who has "his eye on the sparrow" wanting us to kill one and burn it just for the symbolism. I do think there is a god, but he's above that sort of thing.

Amen to that. I refuse to believe in or respect a God that has His people born into original sin and demands even a symbolic blood sacrifice.

If God loved us so much, would it kill him to pick up the phone once in a while? What kind of father leaves you with a bunch of rules and disappears for 2000 years?

---dr.M.

 

[Guest]

Who said he disappeared?

 

[English Lady]

*LMAO*I'm a flamer...*chuckles*


DM I think has left this alone because he has done his best to enlighten and apparently this ain't good enough for certain folks. I think he's going before he really gets mad and does say something he really regrets....but thats what I think ,I don't know. (So DM sorry if i've got my assumptions wrong!)

Althougho I know he wasn't so comfortable with my praise..he told me to aim it to the Big Man Upstairs Himself.....Which I do



Myself i'll hang around and take the flack some more...i must be a little masochistic in my tenancies.

I'll be seeing the film tommorrow night i think......so i will actually make my opinion known on the film once I have seen it

Crimson maiden...love you're reply to the good Dr M


oh and these are DM's scriptures btw:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. John :1-5.


Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Hebrews 13:8

 

[KenJames]

Who said he disappeared?

The nature of God and his requirements for humans are matters of faith.

I respect other people's faiths, but I question the view that one faith is absolutely true and all other faiths are absolutely wrong.

Maybe God does fit into a box that small, but I find that difficult to believe.

 

[Pure]

Hi English,

Since our 'witness' merely reproduces postings, mind answering a simple question on behalf of the 'traditional' Chistrians?

Now, back to the question; Does Jesus' [actual] blood give a person any advantage respecting salvation, over Jews, Buddhists, etc.

I am looking forward to hearing your reaction to the bloodiness and cruelty in the film. Perhaps it will be edifying? cleansing?

Best,
J.

Oh, and thanks for the pity

It has the inimitable 'in your face' kinda honest charity.

 

[Dirt Man]

Hi English,

Since our 'witness' merely reproduces postings, mind answering a simple question on behalf of the 'traditional' Chistrians?

Now, back to the question; Does Jesus' [actual] blood give a person any advantage respecting salvation, over Jews, Buddhists, etc.

I am looking forward to hearing your reaction to the bloodiness and cruelty in the film. Perhaps it will be edifying? cleansing?

Best,
J.

Oh, and thanks for the pity

It has the inimitable 'in your face' kinda honest charity.

Since you asked so nicely, Pure... And have been so merciful since my apology. The respect, and mercy in your words was so compelling that I had to repost them just to see if they changed in tone in a bolder light. I sure hope that didn't bother you. Now, since it seems so important to you. I will answer this one question:

Does Jesus's actual blood give a person any advantage respecting salvation, over Jews, Buddists, etc. ?

Note: I added the question mark only because it was required grammatically

The answer to your question, as far as my faith as a christian is concerned, is in John: 3:31-36 I have answered this way so that I do not step on anyone's faith here. Nor do I wish to have anyone charging me with harrassing their faith. If it is not the answer you expected, or wanted to hear, I'm sorry. But it is the only answer I am going to give to this question as concerns my faith as a christian. If you do not have a Holy Bible available, you can probably check one out at the local library, or get a room at the local Holiday Inn where there is a one usually supplied to every room by Gideon. They are also sold at every major bookstore in America. Or so I've heard.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[Guest]

Who said he disappeared?

You made a small typo, Crimson:

Who said she disappeared?

 

[English Lady]

Pure the answer from my standpoint has got to be Yes. To get the whole salvation/redemption.eternal life package you must believe in Jesus. His birth,his death and his ressurection. Scripture is quite clear on that. No if's, no but's no well maybe's.

If a Jew believes in Jesus Death and ressurection he/she will get salvation and the same goes for anyone in any other faith. The believe in Jesus and his death is the Key to eternal life.



"The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. The man who has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for Godgives the Spirit without limit. The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands.Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."
John3 : 31-36



Again I am saying what I believe. It is up to anyone reading this thread to decide what they believe.


Pure...I am looking forward to watching the film,just to see my reaction to it. I will let you know exactly my feelings on it once i've seen it

 

[Couture]

Pure the answer from my standpoint has got to be Yes. To get the whole salvation/redemption.eternal life package you must believe in Jesus. His birth,his death and his ressurection. Scripture is quite clear on that. No if's, no but's no well maybe's.

If a Jew believes in Jesus Death and ressurection he/she will get salvation and the same goes for anyone in any other faith. The believe in Jesus and his death is the Key to eternal life.

"The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. The man who has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for Godgives the Spirit without limit. The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands.Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."
John3 : 31-36

But if God is the father and the son...well...wouldn't believing in one be the same as believing in the other? Well, according to this verse, that's not the case at all. Seems like God put everyting in Jesus's hands and they are not one and the same. I mean, cause God would have loved himself. So, could one just believe that Jesus was born and get enternal life? But then again, don't those souls that go to hell also get eternal life? And then you know the old testament was full of all these things that God did. Then along comes the new testament...and then after that God leaves everything to Jesus and then he sort of disappears. Is Jesus in charge now? Is there going to be a New and Improved testament where Jesus says, "Oops, sorry about that. I took a nap for a few thousand years. Now where were we?"

 

[Liar]

I've always been a little interrested in the clash between religion and common sense. For instance, there are Christian creationists that believes in the Genesis letter by letter. Then there are Christian paelontologists who excavate dinosaur skulls.

There is the christian dogma of "believe in jesus and you are saved". Then there are people who at least call themselves christians who say that believing in Jesus is a plus, but in the big picture that doesn't mean squat.

I'm guessing the same diversity is apparent in every religion. The main point here I think is that word. Believer. Everyone believes. But noone knows.

#L

 

[English Lady]

Couture....actually you're pointing out things that are fundamental to Christian believe but are very difficault ot actually explain. I will at least have a go for you...though i don't profess to be a scholar or an expert in the theory So I will put it in the simple terms that I believe in.

God and Jesus are one and the same BUT Jesus is the sacrifice that makes the difference. You can say God came to earth and took human form. God died on the cross and was ressurected. God now lives and reigns in Heaven. You need to believe in God's sacrifice to get salvation.


This is where we get into the Trinity. God,Jesus and the Holy spirit being all one and the same but dufferent. This is how it was explained to me.


Water is water wether it is in it's solid state ((Ice) or it's gaseous state (steam) or it's liquid state (water) .


God is God in his solid form (Jesus) His spirit form (The Holy Spirit) or his original form (God)


Jesus didn't just take a nap. Nope he left us his Holy Spirit and miracles and great acts of God are being done in churches and outside of churches all over the world to this very day.

This is where the belief bit steps in. I believe I have the Holy Spirit of God in me and so God in all his forms is with me at all times. Yes ALL times. He never left. He will never leave and my eternal life starts here on earth...it's just going to step up a gear when I get into Heaven



Oh and I think there is a massive difference between the Eternal life of a believer and the Eternal Damnation of a non-believer. Our spirits all live on after we die,it's where that spirit ends up that makes the difference.


Liar..wherever there are two different people there will be two different takes on religion. Faith is a very personal thing and everyone believes slightly different things. I don't believe this is of any importance as long as you believe in the death and resureection of Christ. That is my ow personal(and very liberal) view on things.

It is a shame that the other peripherial stuff seems to get in the way of Chrisitans dealing with each other in a sensible manner....but then thats human nature for you*L*

 

[rgraham666]

I just Googled for the book. Duh, you were having me on. Please write the book. I'll buy a copy.

Well I told you it was fictional. If you want more info read Allan Dean Foster's books set in the Humanx Commonwealth. The Tar-Aiym Krang and The End of The Matter are my favourites among these books.

Another favourite piece is what's written on the floor of the central church. "If God had really wanted Her creations to spend most of their time worshipping Her, She wouldn't have made the universe nearly so complicated."

On another forum I hang out at I have, unusually for me, a couple of sock puppets. I use them to express a particular point of view on a subject in a particular voice. One of these sock puppets is a demon, Tanglefinger by name.

Tanglefinger is pleased with this movie. It reinforces the belief of True Believers. It has made True Believers out of people who weren't before. Tanglefinger likes True Believers because when you truly Believe, anything you do is right. And what people often do when they are right is just the sort of thing that demons want you to do.

Tanglefinger also likes how the movie is affecting non-believers. The movie is creating fear, an emotion easily converted to Wrath, which is one of the Deadly Sins after all.

The point I was trying to make was Shakespeare's, "The Devil can quote Scripture for his own use." He can make movies for His own purposes as well.

 

[English Lady]

rgraham..I like you're point about the devil maybe having a go with this film...I'll let you know if i think that once i've watched it*chuckle*

 

[Pure]

Hi EnglishL

Thanks for your answer, and for producing the text the Dirt Man says settles the issue for him at least:

Pure asked:

Now, back to the question; Does Jesus' [actual] blood {{or its shedding}} give a person {{who follows Jesus}}any advantage respecting salvation, over Jews, Buddhists, etc.

I've added a couple phrases to help clarify. I hope you agree they don't change the meaning or focus on issues.

English Lady answered:

Pure the answer from my standpoint has got to be Yes. To get the whole salvation/redemption.eternal life package you must believe in Jesus. His birth,his death and his ressurection. Scripture is quite clear on that. No if's, no but's no well maybe's.

If a Jew believes in Jesus Death and ressurection he/she will get salvation and the same goes for anyone in any other faith. The believe in Jesus and his death is the Key to eternal life.


[English reproduces Bible text referred to by BM][start]
"The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. The man who has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for Godgives the Spirit without limit. The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands.Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."[end]
John 3 : 31-36
===

But English Lady, I did not ask about the efficacy of 'belief in Jesus'. That's, at least on its face, another issue. Particularly in light of the passage on which DM and you rely.

An issue would be, however, what does 'belief is Jesus' entail. Perhaps 1) that he is the Son of God or at least a uniquely important divine messenger from God, sent by God. Would that not do?

The passage actually suggests something a little different: 2) It says Jesus 'testifies as to what he has seen and heard'. It talks about 'accepting testimony', in the sentence just before speaking of 'believing in the Son'. So the clear implication is that followers are to believe Jesus testimony, about what he has seen and heard-- in heaven and/or from God.

In any event, whether you go with 1) or 2) (DM's) suggestion, there is no reference to Jesus blood confering any advantage on anyone. The advantage is likely from 'believing in Jesus' or 'accepting his testimony' which is arguably something like his teachings (which may include his special and/or unique relationship with God). You haven't answered my question English Lady.

If you or DM were to research the blood matter carefully, you would have come up with a passage like:

The he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Fathers Kingdom.
Matt 26:27; also in Mk 14:23+

A couple odd points: Some better translations/mss of Luke, omit the passage, see Lk 22:17 RSV and NRSV. John, in Ch 13 omits both this incident and the prior _this bread is my body_ incident in Mt and Mk. On John 6:53, another time.

In short, the best versions of Lk and all versions of John omit the incident, casting doubt on its importance, and possibly its occurence.

At to the Matthew report, it's arguably Jesus talking about *symbolism*; the wine is a symbol of blood being 'poured out for many.' {{Which does not necessarily equate to his followers.}}Clearly no actual drinking of his actual blood was intended; the cup of wine did not _become_ blood [as alleged by Catholics and a few protestants], since Jesus directly after refers to 'this fruit of the vine'.

I.e, Jesus clearly did NOT see the cup as containing his blood, nor his followers as drinking it. This is, incidentally a great taboo among Jews, which is another reason not to take the 'equation' of wine and blood literally.

You have not made any case, English Lady or Dirt Man.

J.

PS: Dirt Man said, "If you do not have a Holy Bible available, you can probably check one out at the local library, or get a room at the local Holiday Inn where there is a one usually supplied to every room by Gideon. They are also sold at every major bookstore in America. Or so I've heard."

Thanks for the pointer DM. Rather than condescending, I'd suggest you think over your postings and your selection of Bible quotations a little more carefully, so as to be relevant to the issue at hand, i.e., Jesus blood.

 

[English Lady]

Sorry Pure, I was answering the question as I saw it,which was obvously in less detail than you wanted it answered.


Now yes you have to believe in Jesus and his testimony but surely his death is part of that testimony.

The blood thing is Symbolic. Least to me it is. I don't think my communion wine turns into Jesus'blood in any way shape or form. It's a symbolic act to say "yes I believe in Jesus and the fact he died for my sins"


You use a good passage of text, just because John and Luke missed it out doesn't mean it's any less valid. John and Luke just obviously didn't see that as the main point of the last supper whereas Mark and Matthew must have seen it as being very significant to them personally and therefore worthy of passing down to others.


The actual,phyiscal blood of Jesus is not important in Salvation in that sense (to me) but the symbolic action of him shedding it and dying for us IS. Now ask a ROman Catholic the same thing and you might get a different answer completely I don't know.

Do you see what I mean now Pure? I am not a great philospopher and I'm definitely not a Theologian so sometimes I take a bit of time to really get the question being asked*L* If oyu want me to clarify anything just ask and I shall do my best to answer.