Sola Scriptura doesn't exist

[SilentKnight]

**Preface: Anyone that knows me fairly well knows that I am not (any longer) the type that likes to provoke Catholic-Protestant debates. I don’t mind engaging in them from time to time, but - ideally - unto some kind of an understanding or fraternal correction, not unto “conquering the enemy”, or defending my pride.

I offer this as a preface to hint at the fact that I do not want to start this thread as a lauching pad for another Protestant-Catholic “battle”. I simply would like to offer some food for thought in an age-old debate that may be better understood in some new light.

Without further adieu then…
**

Sola Scriptura: It simply doesn’t exist.

All documents that exist for the purpose of instruction - all documents period - must be interpreted. Even if the interpretation is agreed upon by all to be abundantly obvious, the document is still being interpreted. It is just being interpreted easily and unanimously, rather than with debate.

So, for every document (for every **thing **in life, I would argue, but let’s keep this focused), there is necessarily:

1. A document
2. Its interpretation, or implementation (that is, the way it is lived out)
3. An interpreter (or two or two million )

A document that has an interpreter but which is never read and interpreted is worth what? A document with an interpretation but no interpreter…what?..doesn’t happen. (If there is an interpretation, it’s only because there is an interpreter.)

It is thus that we see that there is no such thing as “allowing the Bible to be our final authority” in Christian faith and morals because the Bible is a document. It is a divinely inspired document and it can even be said to be a living document. It is God’s word. But it is a document nonetheless. A document which, consequently, gets interpreted - in a manner of speaking - by Catholics in a Catholic manner, Baptists in a Baptist manner, Pentacostalists in a Pentacostalist manner and so forth.

There is simply no such thing as “allowing the Bible to speak for itself”. The Bible does not “speak.” It has neither mouth, nor human voice and this, of course, is the reason why there are so many different interpretations thereof. If the Bible could “speak” for itself consciously and actively, we might only see one denomination of Christianity in the world. (We might not, but that’s another discussion.)

As things stand, however, what we have in both Catholic and Protestant worlds is:

1. A document (The Bible)
2. Its interpretation (Tradition)
3. And its interpreters (The unified Magisterium in Catholicism and individual Christians in Protestantism)

Protestants, of course, deny the existence of a tradition in their faith or, at best, acknowledge that “tradition” is there, but suggest that it is subordinate to the written word. But the problem is that of these three listed elements, all are critical. How can one say that the manual is critical but the proper way to live it out is inconsequential or of less value???

The canon of Scripture itself is a foundational aspect of Protestant tradition that is definitely not “scriptural” (explicitly laid out in scripture, that is) but without which Protestantism does not stand since there would then be no Bible.

Protestants often deny the fact that they are interpreters, typically alleging that there is nothing to “interpret” because the Bible speaks for itself and speaks plainly. But every word that is ever spoken or written to another human being is automatically interpreted. Interpretation cannot be avoided.

I may say to you that “Strawberries are red.” You have to interpret these words. They may seem plain enough and they may be. Then again, they may not. I may mean that those little pyramid shaped fruits are red in color. I may also be speaking some sort of code whose meaning has nothing to do with color or with fruit. As a third option, I may be mentally ill, schizophrenic, for example, and simply be speaking at random, rather than making some meaningful declaration or clarification. Plain meaning or not, our brains are always subconsciously, if not counsciously, analyzing and **interpreting **the data they receive into them. There is no getting around it.

As a concluding example, take the Constitution of the United States and the Supreme Court. What is the Supreme Court for? It exists to interpret the Constitution, right? But why? Is the Constitution written in French? Is it written in code? Is it written in language that only those with IQ’s of over 200 are able to understand it? Or, rather, is the constitution, just like all other plainly written documents, still in need of authoritative interpretation by an authoritative interpreter?

Thus, in theory, “Sola Scriptura” may sound good. But in practice, it simply doesn’t exist any more than a marriage exists without husband or wife. Each are distinct creatures, but both must be present and are equally critical for the thing to exist.

There is no such thing as “allowing the Bible to speak for itself”. There is no such thing as Sola Scriptura. Therefore, all should spend some time asking themselves, “When it comes to God’s word, who is my interpreter? From who or what have I obtained my interpretation?”

…Some new thoughts on an age-old debate.

SK

 

[Catholictrain]

Thought provoking. Very good analysis.

 

[JustaServant]

Good post.
The problem with Sola Scriptura is that nobody’s a student, everyone’s a teacher.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Sola Scripture! humnmmmmmm…

i agree 100% with you.

they claim they can enterpret SS, but if the words are not written down word for word they say it doesnt exist.

if everything was written down, then we would not need the HS to lead us into all truth. would we?

they only believe what is written.

it is time for them to stop taking the name of God in vain.

they say, the HS enterpret Scriptures for us. ask them how?
if you can see only what is written i mean word for word. let’s say: because it is not written the name of the Church is Catholic, they dont believe her.
because Jesus did not say Peter you will be the leader of my Church, they dont believe Peter could be the leader.

now, tell me if it is right for them to even mention the HS.

it is not my intention to be unchatable to anyone, just exposing falsehood in hoping someone will see the light.

peace

 

[wisdomseeker]

Good post.
The problem with Sola Scriptura is that nobody’s a student, everyone’s a teacher.

then they go out in search of Catholics so they can teach.

i got it all figured out now. tks for opening my eyes.

 

[tito]

In the short time that I have participated in the forum this topic has been widely discussed and the range of opinions is as wide as the sand of the sea. Randy Carson defined it in a thread in 07 called “sola scriptura defined”. Since I also have an opinion may I add that his definition is quite accurate but I would call it a principle and not a doctrine. It means only that the bible stands alone, period. Lots of mischaracterizations have I read.
Does it mean that church history is unimportant, that ECF comments do not matter? That tradition does not count? That qualified bible teachers are not helpful or commentaries of godly men&women are useless? That you sit alone with your bible and regardless of your level of training or maturity that the HS is going to make of you an instant scholar? No dictionary? No greek lexicon or hebrew interlinear document? No, not at all.
What it means is that, again, the bible alone is the ultimate authority and nothing else can contradict His Word. Not Calvin, not Luther or popes or councils can be equal to or over God’s Word.
Major doctrines and essential issues of the christian faith, in particular those dealing with the salvation of mankind by Jesus Christ are clear enough. In other doctrines people-denominations are going to see things differently. But anyone, coming to the bible in a spirit of faith, believing that He indeed not only left us his Word (so that we may know Him and what we are to do to please Him) but also has preserved them pure for us, and looking to know Him and His truth, will certainly not fail to be illuminated by the Spirit of God.
As many of you have read your bibles you have noticed how often the definition to a concept or a teaching are given in the same epistle,same section or other chapter of the same book. Othertimes the concordance in the back of most bibles will show you sites where parallel verses are located and when looked up, one can find the meaning or get closer to what God intended to convey. We are instructed to study to show ourselves approved. This I understand is what is meant when it is said that the bible is its best dictinary and explains itself. But to read more into this is going beyond the intent of the generalization. Look forward to other opinions on this issue and what the poster’s additional dialogue is, and I am thanful for the opportunity to speak on this matter.

 

[JTBT]

**Preface: Anyone that knows me fairly well knows that I am not (any longer) the type that likes to provoke Catholic-Protestant debates. I don’t mind engaging in them from time to time, but - ideally - unto some kind of an understanding or fraternal correction, not unto “conquering the enemy”, or defending my pride.

I offer this as a preface to hint at the fact that I do not want to start this thread as a lauching pad for another Protestant-Catholic “battle”. I simply would like to offer some food for thought in an age-old debate that may be better understood in some new light.

Without further adieu then…
**

Sola Scriptura: It simply doesn’t exist.

All documents that exist for the purpose of instruction - all documents period - must be interpreted. Even if the interpretation is agreed upon by all to be abundantly obvious, the document is still being interpreted. It is just being interpreted easily and unanimously, rather than with debate.

So, for every document (for every **thing **in life, I would argue, but let’s keep this focused), there is necessarily:

1. A document
2. Its interpretation, or implementation (that is, the way it is lived out)
3. An interpreter (or two or two million )

A document that has an interpreter but which is never read and interpreted is worth what? A document with an interpretation but no interpreter…what?..doesn’t happen. (If there is an interpretation, it’s only because there is an interpreter.)

It is thus that we see that there is no such thing as “allowing the Bible to be our final authority” in Christian faith and morals because the Bible is a document. It is a divinely inspired document and it can even be said to be a living document. It is God’s word. But it is a document nonetheless. A document which, consequently, gets interpreted - in a manner of speaking - by Catholics in a Catholic manner, Baptists in a Baptist manner, Pentacostalists in a Pentacostalist manner and so forth.

There is simply no such thing as “allowing the Bible to speak for itself”. The Bible does not “speak.” It has neither mouth, nor human voice and this, of course, is the reason why there are so many different interpretations thereof. If the Bible could “speak” for itself consciously and actively, we might only see one denomination of Christianity in the world. (We might not, but that’s another discussion.)

As things stand, however, what we have in both Catholic and Protestant worlds is:

1. A document (The Bible)
2. Its interpretation (Tradition)
3. And its interpreters (The unified Magisterium in Catholicism and individual Christians in Protestantism)

Protestants, of course, deny the existence of a tradition in their faith or, at best, acknowledge that “tradition” is there, but suggest that it is subordinate to the written word. But the problem is that of these three listed elements, all are critical. How can one say that the manual is critical but the proper way to live it out is inconsequential or of less value???

The canon of Scripture itself is a foundational aspect of Protestant tradition that is definitely not “scriptural” (explicitly laid out in scripture, that is) but without which Protestantism does not stand since there would then be no Bible.

Protestants often deny the fact that they are interpreters, typically alleging that there is nothing to “interpret” because the Bible speaks for itself and speaks plainly. But every word that is ever spoken or written to another human being is automatically interpreted. Interpretation cannot be avoided.

I may say to you that “Strawberries are red.” You have to interpret these words. They may seem plain enough and they may be. Then again, they may not. I may mean that those little pyramid shaped fruits are red in color. I may also be speaking some sort of code whose meaning has nothing to do with color or with fruit. As a third option, I may be mentally ill, schizophrenic, for example, and simply be speaking at random, rather than making some meaningful declaration or clarification. Plain meaning or not, our brains are always subconsciously, if not counsciously, analyzing and **interpreting **the data they receive into them. There is no getting around it.

As a concluding example, take the Constitution of the United States and the Supreme Court. What is the Supreme Court for? It exists to interpret the Constitution, right? But why? Is the Constitution written in French? Is it written in code? Is it written in language that only those with IQ’s of over 200 are able to understand it? Or, rather, is the constitution, just like all other plainly written documents, still in need of authoritative interpretation by an authoritative interpreter?

Thus, in theory, “Sola Scriptura” may sound good. But in practice, it simply doesn’t exist any more than a marriage exists without husband or wife. Each are distinct creatures, but both must be present and are equally critical for the thing to exist.

There is no such thing as “allowing the Bible to speak for itself”. There is no such thing as Sola Scriptura. Therefore, all should spend some time asking themselves, “When it comes to God’s word, who is my interpreter? From who or what have I obtained my interpretation?”

…Some new thoughts on an age-old debate.

SK

So how do I understand what you have written here??? by your logic who can know anything at all?

Sola Ecclesia has problems too.like who is the interpreter of the interpreter? Answer: At some point an individual has to read it for themselves and try to understand and that is really what sola scriptura is about, people taking the time to search the scriptures to see if what they are being taught is right.
Read the scriptures for yourself and try to understand, if you don’t understand appeal to tradition.

 

[n2thelight]

However you want to say it,bottom line is,if tradition goes against scripture,it is the tradition that should be rejected

 

[tealblue]

However you want to say it,bottom line is,if tradition goes against scripture,it is the tradition that should be rejected

Actually the real issue is if our Tradition goes against YOUR interpretation of scripture. What happens if one interpretation goes against another interpretation? Which one is rejected? The obvious answer is the other person’s of course because your view of scripture is always right.

 

[Catholictrain]

I recently saw a book for sale. In this book a “minister” claimed to prove, through scripture, that adultery, fornication and homosexuality were not only OK by God but actually encouraged. The book cover claimed that he had scripture references for everything.

This is an extreme example, but for those out there that think an individual has the authority to interpret scripture without the aid of 2000 years of Tradition (great saints and great minds throughout the ages), they may want to examine their motivation. It may be a reluctance to accept the authority of another. It may be pride, it may be ignorance. I don’t know, but I do know that Sola Scriptura doesn’t exist. The Catholic Church was given the job from Christ Himself to be the sole interpreter and arbitrator. “what you bind on earth is bound in heaven.”

 

[wisdomseeker]

Actually the real issue is if our Tradition goes against YOUR interpretation of scripture. What happens if one interpretation goes against another interpretation? Which one is rejected? The obvious answer is the other person’s of course because your view of scripture is always right.

and my question is: is there a correct and True enterpretation of SS?

 

[tito]

To WisdomSeeker: there is, logically. Why would God go thru the trouble of breathing out His inspired Word and preserve it Proovidentially, and not make it understandable to his children? Did He not say, “come, let us reason together…”
So it was and is meant to be understood. I think this is why this topic of Sola Scriptura is so important. Both groups think they are in the right and we are only going to know at the end, won’t we.? However, if one thinks he has understood God correctly and sees a danger (eternal damnation) in others spiritual condition, I see not anything wrong in trying to warn them. This holds true for both catholics and protestants, when the motivation is the love principle. When God sees that your heart is right, in seeking Him and His truth(whomever you are), HE will see that you will get it right.

 

[wisdomseeker]

To WisdomSeeker: there is, logically. Why would God go thru the trouble of breathing out His inspired Word and preserve it Proovidentially, and not make it understandable to his children? Did He not say, “come, let us reason together…”
So it was and is meant to be understood. I think this is why this topic of Sola Scriptura is so important. Both groups think they are in the right and we are only going to know at the end, won’t we.? However, if one thinks he has understood God correctly and sees a danger (eternal damnation) in others spiritual condition, I see not anything wrong in trying to warn them. This holds true for both catholics and protestants, when the motivation is the love principle. When God sees that your heart is right, in seeking Him and His truth(whomever you are), HE will see that you will get it right.

because we cannot know and understand God completely, one must accept that obedience is very important here.

if Jesus spoke the Truth about building a Church and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it, then we must believe that Jesus did build that Church to gather and guide the faithfull.

now, after the Bible is compiled by the Church someone comes along claims to know more than that Church and decides that the Church is all wrong pick up the Book of the Church and come up with whole new theology.

now brother come lets us reason together. where is your obedience?

do you believe that Jesus spoke the Truth or do you believe that ML knew more than Jesus? come lets us reason together.

**“Lord, our God, whose power is beyond compare, and glory is beyond understanding; whose mercy is boundless, and love for us is ineffable; look upon us and upon this holy house in Your compassion. Grant to us and to those who pray with us Your abundant mercy.”**ST John Chrysostomos

 

[trrocks03]

I have never thought of this but it popped into my head…

If protestants believe in sola scriptura, and do not believe in tradition or teachings of “other men”, then why do they have a service with a pastor and a sermon? Wouldn’t that directly contradict “not listening to the acts/words of other men”? Shouldn’t they just have big buildings with hundreds of KJV bibles and everyone come in and sing and read the bible? Why discuss amoung each other the meanings behind the scripture verses if it is a personal revelation? Why evangelize to others when each person has their own interpretation? In this scenario, should they even have a weekly service? What is the point of the weekly service (other than raising money for the pastor…i mean church…oh wait the church doesn’t matter, its the principles, so I don’t know where the money is going )? They could still keep holy the Sabbath by reading their bibles at home.

Hmmm…

 

[JTBT]

I have never thought of this but it popped into my head…

If protestants believe in sola scriptura, and do not believe in tradition or teachings of “other men”, then why do they have a service with a pastor and a sermon? Wouldn’t that directly contradict “not listening to the acts/words of other men”? Shouldn’t they just have big buildings with hundreds of KJV bibles and everyone come in and sing and read the bible? Why discuss amoung each other the meanings behind the scripture verses if it is a personal revelation? Why evangelize to others when each person has their own interpretation? In this scenario, should they even have a weekly service? What is the point of the weekly service (other than raising money for the pastor…i mean church…oh wait the church doesn’t matter, its the principles, so I don’t know where the money is going )? They could still keep holy the Sabbath by reading their bibles at home.

Hmmm…

my friend, you don’t understand what Sola Scriptura is about, it does not mean “me and my Bible”. you should do some research into the topic, before making such insulting statements.

 

[SilentKnight]

In the short time that I have participated in the forum this topic has been widely discussed and the range of opinions is as wide as the sand of the sea. Randy Carson defined it in a thread in 07 called “sola scriptura defined”. Since I also have an opinion may I add that his definition is quite accurate but I would call it a principle and not a doctrine. It means only that the bible stands alone, period. Lots of mischaracterizations have I read.
Does it mean that church history is unimportant, that ECF comments do not matter? That tradition does not count? That qualified bible teachers are not helpful or commentaries of godly men&women are useless? That you sit alone with your bible and regardless of your level of training or maturity that the HS is going to make of you an instant scholar? No dictionary? No greek lexicon or hebrew interlinear document? No, not at all.
What it means is that, again, the bible alone is the ultimate authority and nothing else can contradict His Word. Not Calvin, not Luther or popes or councils can be equal to or over God’s Word.

Hi tito,

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. Having done this for more than a decade now (had these types of discussions), I do understand that there are varying definitions of the term “sola scriptura” and I have tried (as hopefully is obvious) to stick to the “pure” one. The one you mention immediately above, that it isn’t that there is “no such thing” as tradition or that the ECFs count for absolutely zero, but rather simply that the Bible is the sole final authority on Christian faith and morals. This is the concept I am working with in my OP. (Or trying to anyway. I wrote the post in haste and I don’t know that it came out quite the way I wanted it to as a result. I have to say that in -rereading it, it comes across as a little more contentious than I intended it to.)

Major doctrines and essential issues of the christian faith, in particular those dealing with the salvation of mankind by Jesus Christ are clear enough. In other doctrines people-denominations are going to see things differently. But anyone, coming to the bible in a spirit of faith, believing that He indeed not only left us his Word (so that we may know Him and what we are to do to please Him) but also has preserved them pure for us, and looking to know Him and His truth, will certainly not fail to be illuminated by the Spirit of God.

While I would definitely concur that if one comes to God in a Spirit of faith and asks for light, God will provide that light to him, I would caution against a myopic understanding that equates this fact with “So, therefore, every Christian believes the same thing.” Every Christian obviously does not believe the same thing. And not only do our beliefs vary in peripheral things, they vary in critical ones as well. Case in point: Speaking in tongues. Some Christians believe it’s a sign of demon possession. Others believe it doesn’t happen today in the Church. Still others believe that it does, but is an optional gift. And still others believe that not only does it happen, but speaking in tongues is the sign of having received the Holy Spirit (or, in other words, of having been saved). Therefore, not speakin in tongues equals not being saved…

Baptism is another issue. Some believe that being baptized with water is an entirely unnecessary act while others read John 3:5 and believe it is crtically necessary. So, no, not even the central Christian doctrines surrounding salvation are obvious or clear - at least to Christians at large.

And this is not an issue of God “failing” to lead his people into truth. It is a multifaceted issue of us sometimes failing to follow him into all truth or any number of other factors.

We are instructed to study to show ourselves approved.

We are! Indeed! But who ever said the definition of “study” is to use the Bible and one’s own reason alone? Until the existence of the printing press in the 1500’s, very few people had Bibles to begin with!

Look forward to other opinions on this issue and what the poster’s additional dialogue is, and I am thanful for the opportunity to speak on this matter.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. Here’s to hoping that we can keep this discussion focused and civil…



SK

 

[wisdomseeker]

I have never thought of this but it popped into my head…

If protestants believe in sola scriptura, and do not believe in tradition or teachings of “other men”, then why do they have a service with a pastor and a sermon? Wouldn’t that directly contradict “not listening to the acts/words of other men”? Shouldn’t they just have big buildings with hundreds of KJV bibles and everyone come in and sing and read the bible? Why discuss amoung each other the meanings behind the scripture verses if it is a personal revelation? Why evangelize to others when each person has their own interpretation? In this scenario, should they even have a weekly service? What is the point of the weekly service (other than raising money for the pastor…i mean church…oh wait the church doesn’t matter, its the principles, so I don’t know where the money is going )? They could still keep holy the Sabbath by reading their bibles at home.

Hmmm…

Sheeeeh! you might give them the idea of selling Bibles instead of having sunday services.

 

[atmmgraves]

JTBT, surely you know that Martin Luther is the father of sola scriptura. Regarding Luther, he headed up a group of people who were upset and bitter over legitimate wrongs and practices - committed by people within the Church, not THE Church. Rather than reform the Church from within, Luther was cursed with pride and started his own new, unheard of practice and interpretation of Scripture. This is why Lutheranism is dwindling away, and will be virtually gone within the next 40/50 years - it is a man’s vision of how he wanted things to be, not how Christ wanted things to be. It was doomed from the start. Anglicanism - formed when a king was not allowed an anullment - is dying, as well. Man-made religion will not cut it. It will rot.

Answer this: who among Protestants is to say what the Bible means? On whose authority do you all rely? The Pentecostal down the street, who believes differently than you, different from the Lutheran, differently from the Episcopal, differently from the 7th Day Adventist, different from the “non-denominational”, different from the…? You get the point (hopefully). It doesn’t end, and never will. God is not the author of this confusion. Protestants often argue that Catholics allow a man to come between them and God when they confess to a priest. What malarkey. Protestants - all Protestants - have done so. Luther, Calvin. Wesley, on and on. Each with their own “Biblical teaching.” These reformers have been reformed, and those reformed, and those reformed, until we are now stuch with tens of thousands of scrambling and competing denominations - each proclaiming to have the “truth.” This is why Protestantism can be boiled down to one’s own interpretation of the text, which is why the reformers have been reformed, and reformed, and reformed, and will always be reformed. Someone starts a church based on his own - a man’s - opinion of Scripture, builds a congregation, and inevitably someone within the congregation will get upset over a teaching, doctrine, sermon, whatever, and leave to start his own church based on hos own - a man’s - interpretation of Scripture, and so it will inevitably continue. That is the fruit of sola scriptura. Confusion, pride, hubris, competition, disunity, untruths, and loss. Indeed, the truest form of Protestantism is one man, alone with a Bible, understanding it as he sees fit, and believing his OWN INTERPRETATION of what he reads (if he can read, comprehend, etc) as the True Word - all others false. This is why the question of “why does a Protestant even go to church” is relevant. Agian, they say Catholics let a man come between them and Christ. Taken as stated, why do Protestants go to church and sit and listen to a pastor tell them what Scripture means? Agian, this is confusion in it’s purest form, coupled with an egomaniacal belief that each believer of sola scriptura is of the opinion that they alone can interpret Scripture accurately.

Christ gave humanity a teacher - the Catholic Church. Eventually, most will realize this (as I hope you do) and will come home.

One more thing on “Biblical teaching”: the Catholic Church gave Protestants the Bible. Luther thanked them for it by removing books which did not jibe with his view on things (Macabees - Purgatory). He wanted to remove James (“faith without works is dead”) due to his belief that humans are “dunghills covered with snow” and are incapable of “doing” (works) good. Hence, the “faith alone” argument. Nowhere in the Bible is this statement to be found, except in James, where it is refuted. Indeed, Luther’s German translation actually inserted the word “alone” to suit his needs. Again, this is man making the rules to fit his own vision - against that of God. Subsequent reformers are just as guilty, because they branched off of Luther’s branch - to each his own.

Search for the truth - truly search - and you will come to Catholicism.

God bless.

 

[SilentKnight]

So how do I understand what you have written here??? by your logic who can know anything at all?

Hi JTBT,

You can verify your understanding of what I have written here by asking me. If I had written this in a book somewhere and then died, you’d be on your own and have to do your best. But, as things stand, I am here and can answer you.

Sola Ecclesia has problems too.like who is the interpreter of the interpreter?

The Church is its own interpreter. It can be because it, unlike Scripture, has an actual voice. I would call the Bible the “spine” of the Church while Tradition is its flesh and the magisterium its vocal chords and mouth (and brain).

Answer: At some point an individual has to read it for themselves and try to understand and that is really what sola scriptura is about, people taking the time to search the scriptures to see if what they are being taught is right.

And how are they to do that when most people could not read for many centuries? How were they to do that when most people did not have their own Bibles for many centuries? How are they to do that when most people simply have neither the time nor the mental accumen to read through al 1400 pages of Scripture and formulate their personal set of doctrines based on their own reading?

Read the scriptures for yourself and try to understand, if you don’t understand appeal to tradition.

Whose tradition?

SK

 

[SilentKnight]

Ok, here’s my official plea to keep this thread focused and charitable. This is NOT to be a mudslinging session. If you can’t resist a fight, please excuse yourself from the thread.

SK