Book Tip: "Jesus of Nazareth", by Ratzinger/Benedict

[Skybird]

I have finished reading Benedict's/Ratzinger's (the author is mentioned with both names on the cover) "Jesus of Nazareth", the German version. As I understand it, the English release is imminent. It was a very impressive read, and I have read it in one slurping.

I give you some reasons and impression. For certain reasons I intentionally do not go into the content of the book, I only try to put it into a frame, somehow, and refer to some of the foreword. Because I think the book deals with a subject that cannot be summed up for you by somebody else. You need to form your own opinion on it. Or you are free not do so.

In a time when Benedict has rejected the marching movement of the creationists repeatedly at various occasions, and confronted Islam more directly again than any pope before since the last 40-50 years, and started to insist on reciprocity as the non-negotiable basis of mutual cultural exchange and relation between the West and Islam, this book I found to be of agreeable calm, clearness of thought, and being personal to a degree that it accepts to be fragile for the wilfully destructive reactions it may cause from some. But the author is in a strong position, and the image of vulnarbaility may be an illusive one: because his personality and personal qualities nevertheless are in congruence with a very sharp and reasonable thinking which produces thoughts and arguments that need at least an equal ammount of insight and precision in order to keep up with them - not to mention to challenge them.

Now, most people probably know that I describe myself as religious and atheistic, and that I oppose religious institutions in general and the church and the papacy in special. I got some flak from people for making my point that I strictly differ between the church(es), and Chrsitianity in the meaning of exclusively referring to the example of Jesus' teachings. Some may remember that I referred to Jesus at times - but with the same ease quoted Buddha, Nietzsche, and others as well, who are suspicious of being incompatioble with the church's interpretation of Jesus. I also expressed my dissatisfaction with "faith and believing. - So why the heck is Skybird reading a book written by an archenemy: the pope, and about this insititutional representative's understanding of Jesus as the son of God - and even very much enjoyed to do so?

The book is the first of planned two. It was started when Benedict still was Jospeh Ratzinger, and he explains in the foreword that he does not know how much time and energy he has left, so he decided to publish the material that was finished, and that are the chapter about the adult Jesus - the childhood of Jesus will be subject of the second volume. I understand it as that this division int wo volumes is for pragmatic reasons only, and that Ratzinger started to work on all stuff simultaneously.

So why did i enjoye to read it?

1. I simply like the man, and I respect his lasersharp mental abilities and use of logic thinking (!), I also realize that he has an ammount of background knowledge and general and special education only few can rival.

2. He does not missionize. He does not try to convert the reader, or prosyletize him. I even would call this book "culture-free" in a way, which is remarkable, because at the same time you never have the smallest doubt that nevertheless in man is talking in that book who is deeply anchored and convinced of the faith he confesses to. you could read this book if you are a chcurch-member, or a mystic Christian. You can be Buddhist, atheist, Muhammedan, Hindu - you nevertheless will never feel lectured, confronted, offended, taught or excluded - promised! this book is a very, very personal book, less written by a pope, and more by a private man. ratzinger asks and demands the reader in the forword to feel free not to agree, and to form his differing opinion. He makes it clear that he is talking abiout his own, private path to understand the meaning of Jesus. He says explciitly that he does not want his book to be understood as a work of official lecturing.

3. Ratzinger tries very hard to reconcile "belief" with "reason". Other reviewers at amazon, for example, complained about him just giving that impression, but in the end demanding reason to accept that reason only can lead so far, but not beyond, and that believing therefore must be given the privilege to be base and fundament even to reason itself. I think such people haven't understood him correctly, and are struggling to escape the borders of their own polarized thinking. I slowly realize, that this pope maybe will be remembered by history as a real revolutionary pope of extremely high importance and influence. Of course he propagates the community of the "church people", as he calls it, and the act of believing. But he also stresses the importance and need to accept the conclusions that are to be gained by using the tools of logic and reason. He wants BOTH, and if you only read careful enough, you realize that this demand may be formulated in diplomatic language, but that he is nevertheless adamant about that. And that is remarkable.

4. He complains about the tendency of the last decades to have produced many different reinterpretations of how and what Jesus really was, but by that distancing oneself more and more from the descriptions of Jesus in the gospels. He complains about that instead the Jesus of the gosepls was replaced with a image of an historical Jesus, that is not backed by the gospels at all. By that, so saysRatzinger, the historical Jesus and the Christ to be belived in more and more became two very different things. My translation: "But what meaning can the faith in Christ, the son of the living God, have, if the human being that Jesus was was so very different than what the gosepls describe him has?" Ratzinger asks if the increasing complexity and refined diversity in different "versions" of Jesus being created in this way really increased the attractiveness of the Christian religion, and the trustworthiness of the images of Jesus we gained. He indicates that all that probably added more to the general confusion, and weakening. At the same time, ignoring the historical reality of details and contexts alike can only lead to word-believing superstition. So, he also insists on seeing the Gosples - with a reasonable mind.

5. What I very much liked is - the language. As a German, I necessarily can appreciate it more than people who will read the later translations into their native languages. Ratzinger's way of talking/writing is very gentle, fluid, with great virtuosity of style and expression, and great knowledge - but always with uncompromised precision at the same time. It enables him to pack a lot of complexity into a paragraph or a sentence, and embed it in nevertheless easy a form. His style of writing is no end in itself, but expression of his educated personality, and a tool to transport his sometimes complex thoughts. I must say that the book is a difficult and an easy reading at the same time, and I plan to read it again in a couple of months. The advantage is, that the fluid style keeps you turning pages without ever being interrupted. But sometimes the "hidden" complexity will escape you and will not come to your mind until some time later - then you will go back and read it again and realize that there was so much more in his words than you initially understood.

Ratzinger is able to virtuoso juggle with words, but he does not abuse this ability to show off or to get drunk by his own talking, but to be able to choose that expression to deliver a message wich is the best choice of all available to transport the message with the smallest loss. - It all means this: read slowly and carefully, very small nuances can make a very big difference here sometimes. Ratzinger says the bible for him is a living text that constantly chnages and emerges and developes, in a way. I had the same feeling while reading Ratzingers book. Talking of a thought-inspiring reading! If you think I write amok in the forums at times, you should have had a look into my head while reading this book!

Will I become Catholic now? You're kidding. Would I bend my knee in his presence? Ha, never. Will I become a fan of papacy? Hell, no. It's just that this single man has my deepest respect - even where we disagree. Because in the end I am fully aware of his immense capacities that simply outclass my own, and of the fact that both me and him are searching for the same answers, and are heading in very much the same general direction. This is a pope who looks far beyond the immediate political power interests of the institution he represents, and beyond the expections of the masses as well. He serves both superficial demands - and sticks to the deeper substance the same time, in a seemingly effortless way of doing things. Reminds me of Aikido!

One must not agree on all and everything he says. One can actively disagree, and object to his arguments. Nevertheless, I always find it most worthwhile to listen with greatest care to what he says, no matter what. You may agree with Benedict's view of Jesus or not, but the clear path of thoughts that led him to where he now stands deserves respect, as well as his ability does to express it in language of such stunning precision, and still: beauty.

Highly++ recommended, no matter where your religious roots are. I found it very impressive, and satisfying.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Now, most people probably know that I describe myself as religious and atheistic, and that I oppose religious institutions in general and the church and the papacy in special. I got some flak from people for making my point that I strictly differ between the church(es), and Chrsitianity in the meaning of exclusively referring to the example of Jesus' teachings. Some may remember that I referred to Jesus at times - but with the same ease quoted Buddha, Nietzsche, and others as well, who are suspicious of being incompatioble with the church's interpretation of Jesus. I also expressed my dissatisfaction with "faith and believing. - So why the heck is Skybird reading a book written by an archenemy: the pope, and about this insititutional representative's understanding of Jesus as the son of God - and even very much enjoyed to do so?

That puts you squarely in the same corner as Thomas Jefferson, one of my heroes. There's an American scholar and author named Bart Ehrman, who has written several books on the Gnostic gospels. His latest is a look at early Christian documents, showing that the accepted versions of the Gospels aren't necessarily the same as the earliest existing documents. It's called Misquoting Jesus. You might like it.

[Skybird]

Thanks for the tip. The name rings a distant bell (i don't remember the context), but I never have read anything by that guy. Will check it.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

That puts you squarely in the same corner as Thomas Jefferson, one of my heroes. There's an American scholar and author named Bart Ehrman, who has written several books on the Gnostic gospels. His latest is a look at early Christian documents, showing that the accepted versions of the Gospels aren't necessarily the same as the earliest existing documents. It's called Misquoting Jesus. You might like it.

Yep, and even the very first document tell us more about the people who wrote them then about Jesus.
That might not be a problem however if you consider that "the man who tells us of the profit is the real profit".


A nice review, but I don't really see how it is wildly different from the many, many millions of interpretations and historys of Jesus that have been made in the last 2000 years. Almost every possible take on Jesus has already been done hundreds of times.

[Skybird]

You may wish to judge that by yourself, Leturm. I have completely avoided to reflect on the main focus of the book, as you may have noted, and as I have said in the "review": that was intention by me. I really only touched it's defining limits, and some thoughts laid out in the foreword, not more. The rest, which is the main content, is worth to be explored and assessed by the reader individually, and alone. Plus, the language: I found reading it fascinating. But maybe that is just me.

[Hitman]

Unfortunately I lack the free time necessary for reading that book -specially in german version, because being able to speak and read in german it would be a shame for me not to read such a book in its native language-, but with your comments I somehow confirm my impressions about Ratzinger's doctrines and views so far. IMO he believes in Jesus as a concept (Something that if didn't exist, would need to be invented) and not as a historic figure. In all the speeches from him I have heard and the documents from him I have read (Mainly short ones and newspaper articles - letters) I started long ago to believe that he in fact does not care too much if Jesus really was historically what he wants him to be.

This Pope remains me more than any other to Dostojewsky's tale (In the Karamazov brothers) about the Chief Inquisitor in Sevilla confronted to a resurected Jesus:hmm:

Sadly, I would need to read this book to make a fair judgement about that, and as already said, I can't. So take what I have said before as simple superficial impressions.

Thanks for the "Fassung" of the book Skybird

[Letum]

Well, I shall put the book as a maybe on my list, but my book list is vast at the moment and no through lack of reading.
So many ideas and so little time etc.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Hitman

Unfortunately I lack the free time necessary for reading that book -specially in german version, because being able to speak and read in german it would be a shame for me not to read such a book in its native language-, but with your comments I somehow confirm my impressions about Ratzinger's doctrines and views so far. IMO he believes in Jesus as a concept (Something that if didn't exist, would need to be invented) and not as a historic figure. In all the speeches from him I have heard and the documents from him I have read (Mainly short ones and newspaper articles - letters) I started long ago to believe that he in fact does not care too much if Jesus really was historically what he wants him to be.

Oh, exactly the opposite (by this book), he wants to reach that, as you call it, the concept of Jesus (in which you put your faith into), and the historical Jesus are united again. He indicates that the growing distance and difference between the two, and growing numbers of different interpretations, from "Rome-threatening militia-Rambo" to "whistle-blowing softie", has caused the weakening of the attractiveness of the Christian faith, since it is not believable what you have to offer that way to those that are searching for answers and something to gain trust from. Since you and some others undestand german, a quote from the very beginning:

"(...) So wurde durch den Menschen Jesus Gott und von Gott her das Bild des rechten Menschen sichtbar. Seit den 50er Jahren änderte sich die Situation. Der Riss zwischen dem historischen Jesus und dem Christus des Glaubens wurde immer tiefer, beides brach zusehends auseinander (Skybird: has WWII somethign to do with it, maybe?). Was kann aber der Glaube an Jesus den Christus, and Jesus den Sohn des lebendigen Gopttes bedeuten, wenn eben der Mensch Jesus so ganz anders war, als ihn die Evangelisten darstellen und als ihn die kirche von den Evangelien her verkündigt?
Die Fortschritte der historisch kritischen Forschung führten zu immer weiter verfeinerten Unterscheidungen zwischen Traditionsschichten, hinter denen die Gestalt Jesu, auf die sich doch der Glaube bezieht, immer undeutlicher wurde, immer mehr an Kontur verlor. zugleich wurden die Rekonstruktionen dieses Jesus (...) immer gegensätzlicher: vom antirömischen Revolutionär, der auf den Umsturz der bestehenden Mächte hinarbeitete und freilich scheiterte, bis zum sanften Moralisten, der alles billigt und dabei unbegreiflicherweise selber unter die Räder kommt. (...) Als gemeinsames Ergebnis dieser Versuche ist der Eindruck zurückgeblieben, dass wir jedenfalls wenig sicheres über Jesus wissen, und dass der Glaube an seine Gottheit erst nachträglich sein Bild geformt habe. Dieser eindruck ist inzwischen weit ins allgemeine Bewusstsein der Christenheit vorgedrungen. eine solche Situation ist dramatisch für den Glauben, weil sein eigentlicher bezugspunkt unsicher wird. Die innere Freundschaft mit Jesus, auf die doch alles ankommt, droht ins leere zu greifen." (p. 10-11)

So, one should not believe that Benedict shifts attention from "believing" to "reason" - he reiterates the importance of faith AND reason. and to my great joy I believe to have understood that faith for him like for me is not about blindly believing and wildly guessing something, but to base on a fundament of (empirically prooven) trust. And that'S why I can live with this man, different to his predecessor (now don't get me started about Paul II...)After all, Benedict still is a man of the faith, but his concept of fiath and belief is something that I could accept as a ground for communication. And beyond the intellectual level, I very much feel the way like he sometimes put something into words. At another opportunity he said in words that he takes the gospels as granted, as a historical truth, but he also indicates that the gospels need to be understood, decyphered, with reason.

This Pope remains me more than any other to Dostojewsky's tale (In the Karamazov brothers) about the Chief Inquisitor in Sevilla confronted to a resurected Jesus:hmm:

Sadly, I would need to read this book to make a fair judgement about that, and as already said, I can't. So take what I have said before as simple superficial impressions.

"Fassung"...? what you mean? Review? Summary? Frame? :hmm:

[Hitman]

Oh, exactly the opposite (by this book), he wants to reach that, as you call it, the concept of Jesus (in which you put your faith into), and the historical Jesus are united again. He indicates that the growing distance and difference between the two, and growing numbers of different interpretations, from "Rome-threatening militia-Rambo" to "whistle-blowing softie", has caused the weakening of the attractiveness of the Christian faith, since it is not believable what you have to offer that way to those that are searching for answers and something to gain trust from.

I meant that he wants badly his concept of Christ to be accepted both as historic and conceptual. Of course he wants both to match, but he doesn't care if that is historically correct or not. He doesn't like any opinions/revisions that show that the historic Christ is not what the classical catholic doctrine says he was, even if it could be wrong -when compared to the reality-. Have you read the episode of Dostojewsky I refered before? It is difficult for me to express what I mean, but if you read it, it could be more clear. More or less the idea is: "Look, this is what mankind need badly to have a lighthouse in their lives. If you start discussing this or proving that this was not so historically, you might do a lot of harm to the good things we have developed starting from that idealization of a person. I do not care if I am lying or being inexact. The message and idea is what counts"

To a certain extent, this goes paralell to a more teologically developed mind like Ratzinger's. To many teologs, religion and a superior God is what matters, and the forms or religions -cults- that are around are some kind of "child tales" that help the less intelectually developed or interested understand and accept the essential concepts. I have always thought that Ratzinger was one of those. For him, the catholic church is just a way of bringing to mankind a message in a form that is understandable even by the most simplest. If that simplistic form starts being questioned, the religious message might fail to reach everybody, as not everybody is able to get the concepts above the "historical" characters.

Errr... did I make it a bit more clear, or did I worsen it even more?

"(...) So wurde durch den Menschen Jesus Gott und von Gott her das Bild des rechten Menschen sichtbar. Seit den 50er Jahren änderte sich die Situation. Der Riss zwischen dem historischen Jesus und dem Christus des Glaubens wurde immer tiefer, beides brach zusehends auseinander (Skybird: has WWII somethign to do with it, maybe?). Was kann aber der Glaube an Jesus den Christus, and Jesus den Sohn des lebendigen Gopttes bedeuten, wenn eben der Mensch Jesus so ganz anders war, als ihn die Evangelisten darstellen und als ihn die kirche von den Evangelien her verkündigt?
Die Fortschritte der historisch kritischen Forschung führten zu immer weiter verfeinerten Unterscheidungen zwischen Traditionsschichten, hinter denen die Gestalt Jesu, auf die sich doch der Glaube bezieht, immer undeutlicher wurde, immer mehr an Kontur verlor. zugleich wurden die Rekonstruktionen dieses Jesus (...) immer gegensätzlicher: vom antirömischen Revolutionär, der auf den Umsturz der bestehenden Mächte hinarbeitete und freilich scheiterte, bis zum sanften Moralisten, der alles billigt und dabei unbegreiflicherweise selber unter die Räder kommt. (...) Als gemeinsames Ergebnis dieser Versuche ist der Eindruck zurückgeblieben, dass wir jedenfalls wenig sicheres über Jesus wissen, und dass der Glaube an seine Gottheit erst nachträglich sein Bild geformt habe. Dieser eindruck ist inzwischen weit ins allgemeine Bewusstsein der Christenheit vorgedrungen. eine solche Situation ist dramatisch für den Glauben, weil sein eigentlicher bezugspunkt unsicher wird. Die innere Freundschaft mit Jesus, auf die doch alles ankommt, droht ins leere zu greifen." (p. 10-11)

Sei Schreibstil sieht wirklich gut aus.

"Fassung"...? what you mean? Review? Summary? Frame? :hmm:

Summary-Frame. I meant you summary on the style of the book and reader advice. Not the contents of course, since you already made it clear you were not willing to comment it.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Hitman

I meant that he wants badly his concept of Christ to be accepted both as historic and conceptual. Of course he wants both to match, but he doesn't care if that is historically correct or not. He doesn't like any opinions/revisions that show that the historic Christ is not what the classical catholic doctrine says he was, even if it could be wrong -when compared to the reality-. Have you read the episode of Dostojewsky I refered before? It is difficult for me to express what I mean, but if you read it, it could be more clear. More or less the idea is: "Look, this is what mankind need badly to have a lighthouse in their lives. If you start discussing this or proving that this was not so historically, you might do a lot of harm to the good things we have developed starting from that idealization of a person. I do not care if I am lying or being inexact. The message and idea is what counts"

I'm sorry, but I still must disagree. Ratzinger is expert in old languages, he even used his own translations of the old scriptures and bible-verses, he says, so when it is about reunite the historical Jesus with the Christ of faith, he really is serious in trying to point out that orginally, and in the meaning of the intention in which the gospels had been written, both the historical man and the theological object of belief were one and the same, once. The question if the reunification of both Jesus-"versions" is historically correct, is misleading that way, and distracts from his real intention. What he seeks for is authenticity. No matter if you believe in Jesus doing wonders, or just acting wisely, point is that it must have been historical fact that there was something special happening around him that left so much an impression in people, that the gospels were written the way they actuall had been written (else they wouldn't have been written at all). So, they necessarily must describe both the to-be-believed-Jesus, and the historically correct Jesus, necessarily. When you say Ratzinger does not care if his understanding of both historical Jesus and Christ to be believed is "historically correct", then you describe it wrong.

To a certain extent, this goes paralell to a more teologically developed mind like Ratzinger's. To many teologs, religion and a superior God is what matters, and the forms or religions -cults- that are around are some kind of "child tales" that help the less intelectually developed or interested understand and accept the essential concepts.

I don't understand your distinction between religion and forms of religion here, because this or that theologian by definition is basing on a theoretical set of assumptions that in your description falls under the term "cult". Do you mean a culture-free form of spirituality, maybe? Or mysticism like in Christian mystic's understanding? A theologian always bases on the institutional form of religion (that has brought him forward). If they leave that frame that educated them, once, they get expelled in any form, or even declared heretic.

I have always thought that Ratzinger was one of those. For him, the catholic church is just a way of bringing to mankind a message in a form that is understandable even by the most simplest. If that simplistic form starts being questioned, the religious message might fail to reach everybody, as not everybody is able to get the concepts above the "historical" characters.

See above. I think you misunderstand him somehow. According to him the message of Jesus has stopped to attract the people because the one, unified, non-separated identity of Jesus (the historical figure and the christ that people believe in: both being one and the same) no longer is clear to people. Again:

"Die Fortschritte der historisch kritischen Forschung führten zu immer weiter verfeinerten Unterscheidungen zwischen Traditionsschichten, hinter denen die Gestalt Jesu, auf die sich doch der Glaube bezieht, immer undeutlicher wurde, immer mehr an Kontur verlor. zugleich wurden die Rekonstruktionen dieses Jesus (...) immer gegensätzlicher: vom antirömischen Revolutionär, der auf den Umsturz der bestehenden Mächte hinarbeitete und freilich scheiterte, bis zum sanften Moralisten, der alles billigt und dabei unbegreiflicherweise selber unter die Räder kommt. (...) Als gemeinsames Ergebnis dieser Versuche ist der Eindruck zurückgeblieben, dass wir jedenfalls wenig sicheres über Jesus wissen, und dass der Glaube an seine Gottheit erst nachträglich sein Bild geformt habe. Dieser eindruck ist inzwischen weit ins allgemeine Bewusstsein der Christenheit vorgedrungen. eine solche Situation ist dramatisch für den Glauben, weil sein eigentlicher bezugspunkt unsicher wird. Die innere Freundschaft mit Jesus, auf die doch alles ankommt, droht ins leere zu greifen."

[Hitman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitman
I meant that he wants badly his concept of Christ to be accepted both as historic and conceptual. Of course he wants both to match, but he doesn't care if that is historically correct or not. He doesn't like any opinions/revisions that show that the historic Christ is not what the classical catholic doctrine says he was, even if it could be wrong -when compared to the reality-. Have you read the episode of Dostojewsky I refered before? It is difficult for me to express what I mean, but if you read it, it could be more clear. More or less the idea is: "Look, this is what mankind need badly to have a lighthouse in their lives. If you start discussing this or proving that this was not so historically, you might do a lot of harm to the good things we have developed starting from that idealization of a person. I do not care if I am lying or being inexact. The message and idea is what counts"


I'm sorry, but I still must disagree. Ratzinger is expert in old languages, he even used his own translations of the old scriptures and bible-verses, he says, so when it is about reunite the historical Jesus with the Christ of faith, he really is serious in trying to point out that orginally, and in the meaning of the intention in which the gospels had been written, both the historical man and the theological object of belief were one and the same, once. The question if the reunification of both Jesus-"versions" is historically correct, is misleading that way, and distracts from his real intention. No matter if you believe in Jesus doing wonders, or just acting wisely, point is that it must have been historical fact that there was something special happening around him that left so much an impression in people, that the gospels were written the way they actuall had been written. So, they necessarily must describe both the to-be-believed-Jesus, and the historically correct Jesdus, necessarily.

I was trying to explain what I thought about Ratzinger's ideas before reading your comments on the book. May be I did not explain correctly that what you quoted above is just an expansion of that, to clarify, not a critic or reply to your previous message. That's why I started with "I meant that... ", indicating that I was just trying to explain better my previous position, before having read your comment on the book.

When you say Ratzinger does not care if his understanding of both historical Jesus and Christ to be believed is "historically correct", then you describe it wrong.

(Now entering the discussion and no longer explaining my previous ideas) The gospels were written by people who were taught about Jesus much later than Jesus died, so an "idealization" of the figure is more than logic. One of the catholic faith's assumptions is, however, that transmission of the facts is exact thanks to the holy spirit, and Ratzinger sticks formally to that. That's why he believes the coincidence of the historic Jesus with the gospel Jesus and also tries to proof that. I never said that according to his own texts and speeches Ratzinger does not care about the coincidence between historical Jesus and gospel Jesus, I meant instead that in my opinion Ratzinger thinks that internally, but obviously will never say it openly. That would be simply against the above mentioned faith principle of the exactitude of the gospels My bad if I did not explain well that I was referring to my conclusions about his real thoughts.

Again, I would need to read this book to be able to have a more accurate opinion and see if I change my thoughts about Ratzinger. But basically I still consider that internally he is not completely interested in the match between historical and gospel Jesus, however he externally uses arguments in favour of that match as a tool to strengthen the catholic faith.

I don't understand your distinction between religion and forms of religion here, becasue this or that theologian by definition is basing on a theoretical set up assumptions that in your description falls under the term "cult". Do you mean a culture-free form of spirituality, maybe? Or mysticism like in Christian mystic's understanding?

My bad for not being able to use precise concepts in english I meant religion in the sense of spiritual dimension of men, and "forms of religion" in the sense of different cults or forms of adoring a God.

[TteFAboB]

I think Hitman was talking about Dogma but with such a bizzare choice of words that it got a little confusing.

[Hitman]

I think Hitman was talking about Dogma but with such a bizzare choice of words that it got a little confusing.

Oh man not talking in your native tongue when trying to be very precise in certain areas is a nightmare.... I better quit the general topics forum and stick to sinking tonnage

[TteFAboB]

Did I missed it that bad?

[Hitman]

Did I missed it that bad?

No no I just meant re my previous posts in this thread that it is very difficult for me to explain myself in such concepts when not using my native tongue