Fundamentalist Christianity

[Greybeard]

hi Mr. Nogodnomasters,


See my responses below.


-----------------------------
The accuracy of the Bible??? I am not too sure on that one. First off there are about 25% of the words are in dispute for translation. I am not too sure how accurate one can get.

In dating the Exodus there is NO time period which is 100% archaelogically correct. Every era has major flaws if we consider the whole Bible.

-----------reply-------------
Give specific examples of your issues with the Exodus account.
Are you attempting to say it never happened?

-----------------------------



The Noah's ark nonsense- Does anyone besides children and old people believe the world was covered with water during the age of man? This is wrong. period. There is no debate on the topic.


------- reply -----------

Oh, I forgot.

All the intelligent people believe the universe began from "nothing"
all by itself, that life on earth is the result of random chance and
therefore meaningless, and the human race ascended from apes.

They also believe there is no God and they can live out their
short lives as they please with no consequences.

But they are wrong. period.

--------------------------



There are 2,000 errors or contradictions in the bible. Books have been written on it. Who was created first man or the animals?

---- reply -------------
Really, only 2,000 contradictions?

Are you sure its not 2001?
Or are you confused with the book of that name? :-)

------------------------



First God divides the children of Noah according to their tongues in one chapter, and right in the next chapter everyone has one tongue and their tongues must again be confused. What's with that?

----- reply--------

Did you actually read the text in Genesis or did you get this tidbit
from one of the many anti-Bible debunking books you referred
to above?

If you got this one from a "debunking" book I suggest get your
money back.

The literary format used here is a summary followed by details of specifc events.

In Genesis 10 the "generations" of the sons of Noah are given.
These genealogies cover the years before AND after the Babel account of the dividing of the languages.

Next, in Genesis ch.11 the specific details of the Babel account are given.


Examples:

(1)
See Gen. 11:9 - The place in Shinar was renamed Babel because
the languages were "confounded" there.

Now look back to Gen. 10:9-10 - The beginning of Nimrod's kingdom
was a city called Babel in the land of Shinar.

i.e. Chronology: The details in Gen. 11:9 occurs before the genealogy given Gen. 10:10.

(2)
See Gen. 10:25 - A man called Peleg is referred to as "in his days was the earth divided".

The "dividing" here is the dividing of the languages at Babel.

So Gen. 11:9 occurs before Gen 10:25 as well.


So that is what's with that....

--------------------------------------------------



Joshua kills Jabin, King of Hazor and levels the city. Then in Judges 4:2 Jabin is again a powerful King of Hazor. Exactly how did the city get rebuilt and repopulated in such a short period of time? Archaelogy does not support this scenerio. This is what is called a literary doublet. We have the same destruction of the city told two different ways. One must be WRONG.


----reply------------

No, you are wrong.

Both accounts of the destruction of Hazor are true; just separated
in time by ~100 years.

Joshua destroys Hazor in Joshua 10.
The Bible is specific that the 2nd destruction of Hazor in
Judges 4 happened a long time after Joshua's death.
Perhaps 100 years or more separate the two battles.

There are many cities in the mid-east which were destroyed
and rebuilt many times. Do you know what a "Tell" is?

Do you think a city cannot be rebuilt in 100 years?
Every city in Japan (except Kyoto) was flattened by modern
weapons during WW2.
They were all rebuilt before 1950.


As for the King of Hazor named Jabin:

Jabin may have been the herditary name of this family.
After all it is common for Kings and leaders to come
from the same family line and have similar names.

Examples:

If I first refer to President Bush and the Iraqi war in 1991 and later I
make a reference to Pres. Bush and the Iraqi war in 2003, would you cry "doublet"?


Or how about the eight King Henry's of England?
i.e. King Henry I, Henry II, Henry III .... Henry VIII.

I suppose in this case you will cry "octet"? :-)

Archaelogy in Israel has confirmed the Biblical accounts in all cases.


---------------------------------




There are thousands of these. Just trying to figure out who is Joseph's father can give you a headache. The guy has got two genealogies in the Bible and they are different.

---------reply-------------

One possible answer is that the second geneology is Mary's line.
The intent was to show that Jesus was in the line of David through both parents.

Another possibility is the two genealogies are for both the legal lineage and for the actual lineage. There is a lot of detail there
and I do not pretend to have all the answers of these
complex genealogies.


But so what?

To get all hung up on genealogies and get a "headache" over it
seems to be protesting too much.

After all, how far back can you trace your genealogy?
If the records are not clear, can we assume you never existed?



It appears you looking for excuses not to take the Bible seriously.
After all, if you read the Bible with an open mind you might have
to make some changes in your life....and who wants to do that?

It is easier to ignore the Bible if you first accept some superficial denials of it.


-regards,

Greybeard

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Greybeard

Both accounts of the destruction of Hazor are true; just separated in time by ~100 years.
Joshua destroys Hazor in Joshua 10.
The Bible is specific that the 2nd destruction of Hazor in Judges 4 happened a long time after Joshua's death. Perhaps 100 years or more separate the two battles.
There are many cities in the mid-east which were destroyed
and rebuilt many times.

However, Hazor is not one of them. The site has been very thoroughly excavated.

Originally Posted by Greybeard

As for the King of Hazor named Jabin:
Jabin may have been the herditary name of this family.
After all it is common for Kings and leaders to come from the same family line and have similar names.

This is correct. At Hazor a monument from a king "Ibni" turned up, and diplomatic correspondence from Mari mentioned a king "Ibni-Adad" of Hazor from a different period (the "J" in "Jabin" is an artefact of English transliteration, from a Hebrew yod which was vowel-pointed as if it were a consonantal "Y", but evidently stood for initial vowel "I" instead).

Originally Posted by Greybeard

Archaelogy in Israel has confirmed the Biblical accounts in all cases.

No, it has confirmed the Biblical accounts in some cases. The book of Joshua is not confirmed: what the book represents as one whirlwind campaign is actually a conflation of events that occurs many centuries apart in some cases.

Originally Posted by Greybeard

One possible answer is that the second geneology is Mary's line. The intent was to show that Jesus was in the line of David through both parents.

If that was the intent, the author would have said so. NOBODY in the early centuries took either genealogy to be Mary's parentage (her father was traditionally named Joachim).

Originally Posted by Greybeard

Another possibility is the two genealogies are for both the legal lineage and for the actual lineage.

This is another popular excuse, but it fails. In some we do know that the legal and biological fathers were different (Obed was biologically the son of Boaz by Ruth, but legally the son of Ruth's first husband Mahlon) but in every case both genealogies agree on giving the biological.

Originally Posted by Greybeard

But so what?...It appears you looking for excuses not to take the Bible seriously.

The book is a mixture of true assertions and false, like any other book written by humans, whether the subject is God or otherwise (in fact, books written about God, and purporting to speak for God, are even more likely to contain propagandistic exaggerations and tall tales).

[mikie8]

nice thread
sorry if i mention something allready mentioned but i did skip a few posts to get to the end lol

fundamentalist christian ? if i was i would say :

the earth is hell

god only made the chosen ppl and not mankind

no holy gost as i fail to see it mentioned in the bible

mary is worshipped as an idol

and many more beliefs may come from fundamentalist christians

[Nogodnomasters]

Greybeard, William H. Stiebing's book "Out of the Desert?" details the archaelogical problems of every era. There are problems with every era. I do not know which nonsense date of the Exodus everyone claims so I can't tell you what is wrong with yours.

The 2000 contradictions is an approximation. There are numerous books, I suggest you buy one.

Hazor is still a doublet. There is no evidence of double destruction.

Please state the year when the entire earth was covered with water in the time of man. This would be easy to prove if it really happened.

The Bible makes no reference to "actual lineage" as opposed to "legal lineage." Where did you get this apologist nonsense? See if you can get your money back. My Bible says nothing about Mary. If one line was Mary's then my Bible is wrong because it claims it is Joseph. Is my Bible now wrong because it has the wrong person's lineage? In either case it is in error-choose your poison.


In Gen. 10:20 God divides the children of Ham according to their tongues. In 11:1 the world was one language. One is a "J" story and other is a "P" story. This is where most of the Biblical contradictions occur. I suggest a reading of Wellhausen's Theory.

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by Nogodnomasters

I suggest a reading of Wellhausen's Theory.

Or, alternatively, a reading of bob x's article "Torah Torah Torah", which covers the same ground:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...h_torah_torah/

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Greybeard

Oh, I forgot.

All the intelligent people believe the universe began from "nothing"
all by itself, that life on earth is the result of random chance and
therefore meaningless, and the human race ascended from apes.

They also believe there is no God and they can live out their
short lives as they please with no consequences.

But they are wrong. period.

--------------------------

Namaste Greybeard,

thanks for the post.

Nope, not all of us. some of us believe that the universe has no beginning or end.. and it's just always been here.

that is a nice straw man of evolution, however, it is just that... a straw man. evolution does not say that life came from random chance and that we ascended from apes. evolution is the method by which we describe change of biological forms, nothing more and nothing less.

by the by.. evolution does not disprove nor does it even take a stance on the issue of God. you can believe both.. that God created and the method that he chose was evolution. folks that believe this are called Theistic Evolutionists.

Originally Posted by Greybeard

Do you think a city cannot be rebuilt in 100 years?
Every city in Japan (except Kyoto) was flattened by modern
weapons during WW2.
They were all rebuilt before 1950.

i think that you should check your history texts once more as this is completely and totally untrue.

Archaelogy in Israel has confirmed the Biblical accounts in all cases.

actually... it has not. if you've got some information to cite here or links to provide, that would go a long way towards establishing this as accurate.

[mikie8]

where does it say that god created all mankind because after reading the bible i did not get the creation of man from it at all .maybe i was reading between the lines too much .

also science has never set out to disprove god its religion that trys to disprove science

[mac1]

Ok here goes.

Firsty let me apologise, if I came over as sarcastic, this was not my intention, but I there were hints of sarcasm in my post I do apologise. Fundamentalism in any form is simply something I cannot really comprehend adhereing to.

In a similar fashion

--original post------------------------------------------
Hi WHKeith, I've been away for a while (computer problems) but I'm about again now. I am simply facinated by what makes someone believe in the irrational. I have a keen interest in philosophy, and I agree with Decartes in the notion that the only thing that I can be 100% certain of, is the fact that (a) I exist and (b) I have experiences (or sense-datum as Bertrand Russell would call them). Past that I conjecture that there is a world, other people do exist, there is a planet etc. but none of it can be 100% proven. What is suggested to me in non-fiction books about the world arround me is all simply accepted and not necessarily true. I do not necessarily know that Iraq exists as all my knowledge of it is obtained through the media, second-hand if you will. If i cannot have 100% faith in the real world, I cannot at any level comprehend how anyone could have that same level of assertion about the writings in an ancient book.


-----start reply-------------------------------
First you say that you are 100% certain you exist.
Second, you are not sure the world around you "really" exists.

Really?

How can you be sure that you "really" exist?
What proof do you have?
Do you live your life (if you really have one) in line
with this view of reality?

For example, would you pour a pot of boiling water over your head?
Would you stand in the middle of a highway during rush hour traffic?

I think you would not do that.

Why?

Because you know with 100% certainty that you would be burned
in the first case and flattened by a truck in the second.
It would "really" hurt, every time you did this if you were lucky
enough to live through the first testcase.

In fact you could not survive very long in the "real" world if you
acted in line with your stated belief that it may not really be there.

So either you do not really believe what you stated, or you are living
at odds with your stated belief.

Think about it.

----end reply--------------------------

You raise a number of perfectly valid points here. My prove of my own existance is an indictive one. As Decartes put it "I Think Therefore I Am". For those not familiar with the meaning behind this statement, what (I believe) Decartes meant by this, was that because he had thoughts surely he must exist. For all arguments, there must be a counter-argument, but Decartes could come up with a reasonable hypothosis with which to question his own existance. I, having put much thought into it cannot either, this does not mean that such a scenerio does not exist, but I have not yet contemplated it.

Now, In your two scenarios you suggest that I would not cause injury to myself because I am 100% certain they will cause me pain. As I stated previously (point (b)) the only other thing I am 100% certain of, is the fact that I have experiences.

Bishop Berkeley once put foward an interesting hypothesis about how he could doubt everything past these 2 factors. What Berkeley said, was that he could doubt the existance of the outside world because there was an infinitesimal chance that all of his sense-datum was being corrupted by a manical demon. He realised that he could, hear, see and feel things (his sense-datum), but knew it would be presumtuos to assume that the things he heard, felt and saw were exactly as they appeared to him. In his hypothesis, which he obviously could never prove or disprove, he found that he could doubt everything his senses told him, but could not doubt that he had senses. He obviously did not believe the world did not exist, but to keep completely open-minded he could not dismiss it. That is simply my point. Similarly, If I go out of my door and see a truck, I will not walk out in front of it because everything I have witnessed my whole life has led me to the conclusion that doing so will kill me. However, who am I to say that the truck exists, that men are mortal, or that everything I have ever witnessed in the outside world is not simply a paranoid delusion existing only in my own head, should my head exist!

I am not saying you shouldn't hypothesise things. Quite the opposite in fact, allow ever possible explanation remain a possibility, only then can you make a open-minded decision on what to believe. And in my experience one must alway question what one believes 100%, because 100% belief in any one thing will likely lead one to form a whole belief system based around that 100% belief.



-----original post---------------------------------

The notion of Fundamentalism is completely alien to me, yet it facinates me from a, (and don't take offense from this,) purely psychological perspective. If you could answer a few questions for me I would be most greatful:-

(1) (a) When a passage in the bible does not make any sense in the modern day real world, does the mind of a Fundementalist Christian subconciously create a way in which the unthinkable is true, or does a fundamentalist have to read the bible and concoct their own solution for this? ie. The example of "Why there are there dinosaur bones?". "God put those there to test your faith."



----start reply------------------------------------------
The Bible makes no mention of dinosaurs or their bones.
This does not mean the Biblical view negates their existance.
The Bible does not say the earth was created in 4000BC, that was a bishop.

Also, just because something does not make sense to you does not mean it is wrong. You may be reading something into the text which it did not mean to say.

The notion of "God put it there to test your faith" would seem to imply that God is devious and deceitful. This is not the charactor of God as portrayed in the Bible.

Perhaps some specific example of what you were referring to would help here.
----end reply-------------------------------------------

"You may be reading something into the text which it did not mean to say." - I thought the bible according to fundamentalist christians was the word of God - PERIOD! If this is the case, you need not read anything into it, what it says should be taken at face value, surely?

Why does the bible not mention dinosaurs?

"The notion of "God put it there to test your faith" would seem to imply that God is devious and deceitful. This is not the charactor of God as portrayed in the Bible." - I realise this, which is why I don't agree with fundamentalists who make such implications. The notion of a deceitful God is quite a disturbing one, I am not saying the possiblility of a deceitful God isn't a real one, its simple not one which I like, or which the Bible implies. Such implications by those who claim to take the bible as the exact word of God, therefore presents in my eyes a contradiction, similar to the one regarding the age of the earth and the existance of dinosaurs.

------ original post------------------------

(b) Does the mind of a fundamentalist have to figure that out, or are there books explaining away any discrepancies that may exist in the real world?
(c)Is the process simply word of mouth?



-- start reply-------------------------------------------
Give some example if discrepancies?
I do not know of any.

In general the Bible is not a science book.
That is not the purpose of it.
However, I do not know of any false statements etc...
---end reply ------------------------------------------

Who am I to say what is true and what is false. But there are parts of the bible that seem unbelievable. Was it Moses' children who apparently lived to ages such as 800 and 900? The events in the story of Moses happen far before the dead sea scrolls, are we therefore to take these ages as accurate simply because a book says so. Again, I am not trying to be deliberately argumentative, but simply accepting the events and facts of a book without questioning the accuracy is both niave and unscientific. You say that the bible is not a science book, yet there are those who take it to be the 100% truth without question, this I see (in my own humble opinion) as both dangerous and irrational. It's not that I am not open-minded, I just see in some fundamentalists a level of closed-mindedness that I simply cannot fathom.

-------original post---------------------------

(2) (a) Do Fundamentalists accept the fact that the bible has been rewritten many, many times, and may be prone to error in a chinese-whispers-esque fashion, particularly through language-to-language translations.
(b) If they do not accept such errors, what is the counter-argument?
(c) How is the fact that there are many different versions of the bible explained?
(d) Do fundamentalists only adhere to one?
(e) Do different fundamentalist groups adhere to some version, and others to another?



--start reply---------------------------------------------------

Actually, the proven accuracy of the Bible tranlations is past debate.
The Bible we have today is 100% the same as the ancient versions.

For example, in Jerusalem you can go the "Shine of the Book" and
see the Dead Sea scrolls which contains most of the Jewish Bible and dates from before Christ to ~150BC or so.

So you can see with 100% clarity that the Bible is unchanged during the past 2000 years.

As for the errors which you suppose might creep in "chinese-whispers-esque" it just did not happen.

In today's cheap world of fast food, the internet and 15 minutes of fame per celebrity, we cannot appreciate the seriousness of the scribes who maintained and copied the ancient Bible. Copying the text word-for-word was a lifelong obsession for them.

For example, the scribes took the personal name of God so seriously that they would wash themselves before even writing it.

The number of copies of the ancient Bible numbers in the many thousands. They have been cross-checked to ensure consistancy.

Compared to the Bible, the number of copies other ancient books are very few and far between.


Here is a thought:

If the eternal Creator of the universe decided to give the book
of Truth to mankind don't you suppose this same Creator could
and would preserve it without corruption for a few thousand
years of our history?

--end reply---------------------------------------------------

"Here is a thought:

If the eternal Creator of the universe decided to give the book
of Truth to mankind don't you suppose this same Creator could
and would preserve it without corruption for a few thousand
years of our history?"

Perhaps, but how can you honestly proclaim that beyond all reasonable doubt, that God gave this book to mankind?

As for the facts about the rewriting of the bible, others have answered that for me so I shant ponder on it. What I will however say is that the events in Genesis, by the most conservative of fundamentalist estimations, happened at least 12'000 years ago. 10'000 years before the earliest bibles we currently have, surely then, the events (and time-spans) in Genesis must be allowed to be scrutinised to some degree.

[mac1]

[reply written in 2 halfs because it was too long for the reply box - lol - ]

... and the other half...





-------original post-----------------------

(3) (a) You yourself turned away from Fundamentalism. Is it common for Fundamentalists to eventually turn away from their faith due to a realisation that all they believe cannot really be proven to them?
(b) Or do most simply deny such doubts as a lack of faith, and try to be more faithful? In such circumstances, one would assume they would tell no-one, so I understand if you do not know the answer to this one.



---start reply---------------------------------------------------
Is a small child's safety dependent on tightly clutching his father's
hand or does the father hold the child safe in his arms?

for the Christian:

Faith is not you holding on to God.
Faith is God holding on to you.

In my experience it was not some shortcoming on God's part
which drove me from church but rather some nasty treatment
by "Christians".

It is best not to confuse the actions of people with those of God.
Don't let the silly actions of some people keep you from pursuing
the God of the Bible.

As for only believing those things which can be proven to you,
do you really believe that?

How do you know your mother loved you? Can you really prove it?
How do you know the sun will rise tomorrow?
Where were you when the universe was created?
What is the true nature of the atom?
Is death real?
What happens after you die?

Do you even understand how a TV or a computer works?
(but you use them regardless)

I know that I cannot undertand everything and I accept that.

However, the Bible does not ask you to accept it on blind faith.
The Bible presents a view of reality which you can test to see if it
fits the "reality" of what is out there.

For example, the Bible says God is personal and has a moral code of right and wrong. This moral code is is the fundamental law of the universe regardless of whether some individual accepts it or not.
It is given to us in the Bible.

How we respond to it is our business.

While it may be fun to mock some silly fundamentalist nuts,
if doing that causes you to miss the reality of the Bible
and Christianity it would be a fatal mistake.

If you read the Bible you will find God does not accept excuses.

----end reply ------------------------------

You seem to have completely missed my point. I am not saying I don't have things in which I am almost infinately sure are true, but this is not belief, not my understanding of the defintion of the word anyway. Let me put your questions back to you.

"How do you know your mother loved you? Can you really prove it?
How do you know the sun will rise tomorrow?
Where were you when the universe was created?
What is the true nature of the atom?
Is death real?
What happens after you die?"

How can you 100% prove that your mother loved you, you were never her, you never had her experiences, you never felt what she felt. How can you even be sure she existed.

How do know the sun won't be destroyed during the night? Can you be 100% certain of it. What if there is a nuclear winter obscuring the sky? Does the sun still rise if there is nobody there to witness it? Why do you believe 100% that the world is flat, when common belief during biblical times was that it was flat? The sun looks flat? How can you prove its spherical?

How could I possibly answer any of the last 4 without experience of them, and more to the point, even if I had experience of them, who am I to say I have interpreted my experiences of them correctly?

--------original post-----------------------

I will leave you with those for now, but I have a load more questions. I realise that there is a lot there, and I would really appreciate it, if you could address at least some of my curiousities. Much appreciated.


-------start reply---------------

We all have questions.
Don't ever stop questioning.

I hope this helps you with some answers.

-Greybeard

------ end post-----------

Thank you it does, likewise, please don't stop questioning things yourself, without analysis of data complacancy and niavety take over.

Thanks again

mac1

[mac1]

Originally Posted by Greybeard

Oh, I forgot.

All the intelligent people believe the universe began from "nothing"
all by itself, that life on earth is the result of random chance and
therefore meaningless, and the human race ascended from apes.

They also believe there is no God and they can live out their
short lives as they please with no consequences.

But they are wrong. period.

No most intelligent people realise that they have no idea how the universe was created, and most are humble enough to accept the fact that even if something or someone tryed to explain it to them, the limitations of there own minds would probably not be able to properly understand such an explanation anyway. Most intelligent people realise that both The Genesis Theory and The Big Bang Theory have gaping holes in them, and that man may never understand the true nature of matter or how the universe/multiverse came into being!

[mac1]

Is there anyone else here who disagrees with me. Anyone feel that there is nothing inherently niave with blindly believing in something?

[Susma Rio Sep]

The Bible is a manual for the proper operation and use of a piece of machinery, religion, for mankind or the Jews and Christians who adopted and continued it, and to some extent the Muslims.

Now this is a manual written some millennia back by backward people of a backward God for a piece of backward machinery that worked very badly for everyone, with a lot of flesh shredding and blood spilling.

We are now millennia from the time of the Biblical manual and the piece of machinery it is intended for the very crude minded peoples of those times.

Time for an upgrade to the contemporary ideals of human rights and universal education and women’s emancipation and equality, and democracy.

Calling all peoples of religiosity: write new manuals for the inexorably appearing new machines of human religions, work on the hardware and the software that should help people to direct themselves in their religiosity, in real time.

What was that about “When I was a babe I thought as a babe, spoke like a babe, acted like one...?”


Susma Rio Sep

[veritasamat]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

What was that about “When I was a babe I thought as a babe, spoke like a babe, acted like one...?”


Susma Rio Sep

That's from the Bible...1Corinthians13, a poetic description of the eternal nature of divine love.

"Love never ends. But if there are prophecies, they shall end, if there are tongues, they shall cease, if there is any knowledge, it will vanish away. For now we know in part, and we prophecy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is partial shall be finished. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But when I became a man I put away childish things. For now, we see as through a glass darkly, but then we shall see face to face. Now, I know in part, but then shall I know, even as I am also known. And now these three things endure: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

He is comparing the limited and transient nature of this life to the fulfillment of the life to come, and reminding us that only love will pass with us through the veil of death.

Sorry...I know this doesn't have anything to do with the thread, but that was a favorite verse of mine and I couldn't help it.

[mac1]

Originally Posted by veritasamat

Now, I know in part, but then shall I know, even as I am also known. And now these three things endure: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love

FROM RED DWARF

Originally Posted by Rimmer

Everyone's entitled to their beliefs, Lister. I never agreed with my parent's religion, but I wouldn't dream of knocking it.

Originally Posted by Lister

What were they?

Originally Posted by Rimmer

Seventh day advent hoppists. They believed that every Sunday should be spent hopping. They would hop to church, hop through the service, then hop back home again.

Originally Posted by Lister

What was the idea behind that, then?

Originally Posted by Rimmer

Well you see, they took the Bible literally. Adam and Eve; the snake and the apple... Took it word for word. Unfortunately, their version had a misprint. It was all based on 1 Corinthians 13, where it says, "Faith, hop and charity, and the greatest of these is hop." So that's what they did. Every seventh day. I tell you, Sunday lunchtimes were a nightmare. Hopping round the table, serving soup - we all had to wear sou'esters and asbestos underpants.

[I, Brian]

You get the DVD set for Christmas, yes?