« The sound of one Voice... All of us! Happy Holidays | Main | The New "Religion" of Atheism II: Fewer Nuns, More Nones »

12/24/2018

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Spence Tepper

Hi Jesyssaves and Osho
Every individual chooses what to believe.

In Bible study the point is to see for yourself. You do get the teacher's view but you are always free to pick a different interpretation. Hopefully one that has biblical evidence.

So it is always the version you select. There is no way around it.

spence tepper

Hi Osho!

You asked about Slavery in the Bible. A closer look shows you two things...A culture in the midst of a world where slavery was extant in all nations; and rules to bring slavery throughout the known world to an end. But again, to get past the sound bite, you actually have to do a little reading.

Leviticus contains three types of laws: First, moral laws that stand for all time. Second, Levis, taxes (sacrifices made in payment, since there was no cash economy at the time) and civic laws (if you do this you lose this or you are stoned...there were no prisons for a nomadic people). Only the first type of law is for all time. The other two types are just for that culture and those circumstances. Read carefully and you will see the distinction. This is why Jews don't make sacrifices on the alter anymore, even Conservative Jews.

Christ also refers to this point when discussing divorce. He was asked why it was allowed in the law, and He said that was put into law because men's hearts were hard, as an accommodation to a very mean spirited and misogynistic culture. But He points out this was never God's intention. So you see both. The Bible contains both, and even the most conservative in both religions acknowledge this.

In Genesis God says "Male and Female, MAN, he made them...and gave them authority to rule over all the creatures." The word Man is really humankind. Equal authority.

In the heart of the Bible, in the OT, you see that God considers MAN as both male and female without distinction. Their roles become distinct over time, but both were given dominion over the world without distinction in the earliest passages of Genesis.

Leviticus actually outlaws the sale of slaves.

But if you can only buy slaves from foreign countries, and never sell them, that is defacto a mechanism to end slavery and to bring people off the slavery sales block. Understand what Leviticus is actually accomplishing for the time. It is taking slaves off the market, and assuring their proper care and treatment. It isn't perfect. It incentivizes Jews to buy slaves because they will have servants. But it also dis-incentivizes them, because they can never make a profit off the sale of their "property".

The incentive in Leviticus is Jews to go into foreign countries and take human beings off the "market", where they are indeed treated as slaves, and brutally.

You cannot sell your slave, even if they become sick, and must treat them as you treat yourself, according to Leviticus. Then they aren't actually your property that you can sell at any time. Yet they aren't quite free enough to be a family member It is a step away from one towards the other.

You must treat them as well as a family member however. But they are still your "property" to command. However, even that has restrictions. If you want to have sex with your slave, you better be prepared to marry her and give her all the rights and freedoms of a wife. Understand what Leviticus says: If you take a slave for sex, she becomes your wife, with all the freedoms instantly, including full citizenship, rights to your property, and all your obligations to her. She is a free citizen the moment you take her for a wife. AND if you don't choose to take her for a wife, but have sex with her, you must FREE HER instantly, or allow someone else to Redeem her by paying her fee. They don't own her either. Once they pay her redemption she does NOT become their slave. She is now a free citizen.

To ignore all this is just indulging in ignorance.

Compared to the open slavery in the countries surrounding Israel, this was remarkably progressive.

They become your obligation. You must care for them as you do yourself. Until you set them free. Even then, if you read Leviticus, you have an obligation to do it in a way that does not harm them.

One more point about slavery. We still have it today. All the American industries that have moved to China are taking advantage of Communist run slavery for economic gain. Just because we have moved the slaves to China or other nations does not wash our hands of the fact that our economy still depends upon slavery. We also have work to do. When you buy something made in one of these nations, you are part of that responsibility. So where is the protest in America against this? People accept it.

Leviticus isn't perfect. But neither are we. We have to be careful in viewing the past that we don't judge the past against standards we don't actually use ourselves.

Leviticus is very progressive for its time. A nation surrounded by slave-owning nations sets up laws to buy those slaves and bring them into Israel where they can never be brought again, and where there are several paths to citizenship. This is not promoting slavery. You can't sell slaves according to Leviticus. But the fact that you can buy them from foreigners, really means you can take slaves off the market. It's a huge step towards freedom, much like what Abraham Lincoln did..

Progress is not so great as you might think. Our own hands are also dirty. In fact, because we can indeed buy and sell slaves in America, who happen to live in another nation, today, we are not even as far along as Leviticus.

For America to live up to the ideal of Leviticus, transformed into our modern culture, would mean that we remove the economic incentive out of Chinese and South American Slave labor which now we enjoy. It would require that we accept all those foreigners who who like to live here. That would be a step forward for America.

I believe we should always move away from slavery, in the same spirit of Levitucus. Treat the foreigner living among you as you treat youself. Love them as you love yourself. That is the ideal, and it is also given in Leviticus.

So long as we still have slavery as the basis of our current economic culture, even by holding slaves in foreign cultures, working in our factories abroad, we cannot look back and say how wrong is the Bible for merely constraining slavery by removing its economic benefit. We have yet to do the same.

"33 “‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God."

Leviticus 19:33-34

We don't do this much today. We are beneath this standard.

Osho Robbins

The Bible supports slavery.

It gives specific instructions on how to beat slaves also.

regardless of which period this applies to, what the bible endorses is what most of us consider immoral.

So the god of the bible supports slavery, at the very least, in some specific period.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qtl8hIzb66A

Osho Robbins

here is the whole argument about slavery in the bible

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDL0FttPX-4

The point is - god gives instructions of how to keep and also BEAT slaves.

it's right there.

You are ignoring whole parts of the scripture to make out that the bible is trying to say
buy slaves and set them free.

this is simply not the case

of course you can twist it to make it fit, but not if you're honest

watch the video and see if Matt's arguments are inaccurate

Osho Robbins

exodus 21 states you can BEAT your slaves as long as they don't die

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

So the bible says "The slave is your property and you MAY beat the slave as long as the slave does not die"

so - do you agree with this? Is this a good moral standard?

do you care about truth?

do you care if what you believe is actually true? or will you just believe for no reason?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RSR4Q7gDlU

watch this and let me know

spence tepper

Hi Osho!
Yes, the Old Testament is not a model for our current society. But some of our more progressive beliefs can find their earlier versions in the Bible. And even in the Old Testament, you can find some very famous rules for treating each other that represent a higher standard than we have today.

However, as mentioned above, many of the laws of Leviticus were civic and financial, not "God's Laws" for all time. This is the majority view, even among conservative Jews.

And Judea was surrounded by universal slavery. So it is in that context that the Bible must be viewed if you are looking for an objective view.


1. The civic laws about slavery only apply to that time and are actually progressive for the time. In those very laws slaves actually have some rights, and can gain their freedom through a number of pathways. These laws do not apply to today, however. But as I had indicated there is slavery in other parts of the world directly tied to our own economy. You have not addressed these points.

Even Conservative Jews today do not regard the civic and compensation laws as current. So it is a straw man for someone else to do so who isn't a practicing Jew.

As I indicated above. When slavery existed in America, it did not have these progressive laws and slaves could not be freed by law.


As for limited rights for slaves:

Lose a tooth through a beating, gain your freedom:
"26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth."
Leviticus 19:26-27

Slaves get the same time off as everyone else:
"12 “Six days do your work, but on the seventh day do not work, so that your ox and your donkey may rest, and so that the slave born in your household and the foreigner living among you may be refreshed."
Exodus 23:12


You can't buy slaves in Israel:
"“‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves."
Leviticus 25:39

You can only buy slaves from outside nations where slavery is universal:
"“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves."
Leviticus 25:44

A captive woman in war has limited rights: they can be taken for a wife, with all rights, but if not, must be freed with full rights.
"11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her."
Deuteronomy 21:11

Oppressed slaves can find sanctuary from anyone, and be set free to go and live wherever they like:
"15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them."
Deuteronomy 23:15-16

No one goes hungry in Israel:
"24 If you enter your neighbor’s vineyard, you may eat all the grapes you want, but do not put any in your basket. 25 If you enter your neighbor’s grainfield, you may pick kernels with your hands, but you must not put a sickle to their standing grain."
Dueteronomy 23:24

As you can see, Osho, this last law is even more progressive than what we have today. Today, if you eat the grapes on your neighbor's tree, you can be fined.

2. The Moral laws of the ancient Bible are different and apply to today:
This law is a moral law and is for all time, but we do not respect this law today. That makes us sinners.

"33 “‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God."

Leviticus 19:33-34

Would you agree that Leviticus 19:33-34 is a good law for today?

And do you believe we actually live up to that standard?

Osho Robbins

@spence
you wrote
"But as I had indicated there is slavery in other parts of the world directly tied to our own economy. You have not addressed these points."

I will address it now.

Slavery is not the same thing as economic use of poor people. You don't beat those people legally (as long as they don't die).

Do you agree with the bible instruction to BEAT your slaves - as long as they don't die. No matter when it applied.

What kind of God gives this instruction?
How is this the word of God?

I don't need all the details. At SOME point in time - those are the bible's instructions.

Do you agree that it is okay and acceptable to beat a slave? almost to death?

Spence Tepper

Osho here is my standard

"33 “‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God."

Leviticus 19:33-34

Do you believe this is right?

Osho Robbins

"24 If you enter your neighbor’s vineyard, you may eat all the grapes you want, but do not put any in your basket.

so here's the equivalent in today's world since we have supermarkets with food

""24 If you enter the local supermarket, but are poor and have no money, you may eat all the food you like, but do not put any in your basket and take it out of the supermarket, lest you be fined"

Sounds good - unless you are the owner of the vineyard or supermarket.

And if 100's of people do that - suddenly you are out of business.

No - I don't think it's a good idea.

manjit

Happy New Year Everyone!! And congratulations on the new blog Spence, I wish you (all) good luck and good conversations on it!! :) :)

I occasionally read the blogs & comments here & elsewhere but rarely feel the motivation to comment myself, but this whole blog & comments (which I've just read now) has triggered so many thoughts & ideas that I felt compelled to write them out for my own benefit (as they no doubt will be of no interest to anyone else!)...

Hi Spence - whilst I agree with much of your general sentiment here, I can't help but find myself disagreeing with how you have framed it (starting with calling Jesus a "Master Attorney", to the picture of an anglo-Jesus, and on and on......only teasing re. the ridiculously-anglo-Jesus pic, I only just noticed it now actually :).

Before engaging in any kind of deep, meaningful hermeneutical analysis of Biblical and related texts, I think it is helpful to keep in mind there may be a clear dissonance or contraindication between the lived tradition of genuine "mysticism", "mystics", the "mystical experience" etc, and the concepts, theology, narratives, dogma etc of religious texts.....even religious texts about the "mystics" themselves!

Regarding the Old Testament, I tend to agree with Osho in his discussion with Spence here. Further, I would go as far as to suggest the "God" or Yahweh of the Old Testament is more akin to a demi-urge (or Kal in RS theology) than the "God beyond God" of mystics. My first intimation of this was when I was probably aged around 6 or so, when I couldn't have possibly understood the significance, when I first heard or read the story of Adam and Eve's "Fall" from Eden. It simply didn't make sense, it was literally an incoherent story, even to a 6 year old (not fantastical or magical, which I would easily have believed, but literally incoherent!). The serpent, "Satan", tempted Eve to eat from the "tree of knowledge"....what was so wrong with that? What is it about "Knowledge" that so offended "God"? Then God punished them and all their offspring for eternity? Yes, as is made clear throughout the Old Testament, JHVH or Yahweh is a Jealous, Vain, Vengeful, Angry, Murderous "God" (and this violence has been reflected & played out throughout the history of the 3 main Biblical religions to the present day). When I reached my teens and found out about RS, I re-interpreted this myth into a more "spiritually coherent" one where the great "sin" of eating the apple of knowledge was because knowledge signifies "duality", and it is duality that casts us from our original state of "purity" in Eden or heaven. As I got much older still, I considered the concept that the God of the Bible (and subsequent Biblical religious texts, including the New Testament) were actually more influenced by the "current" of the "demi-urge" than any "Merciful God". Older still, I recognise it's probably all of these and more, but also none of these......

Regardless of who or what the "God" of the Old Testament signifies, the various dogmas, rules, regulations, social structures and hierarchies, rules over which slave you can beat and which you can't etc, clearly played a large part in creating some sort of law and order amongst tribal societies several thousand years ago. Probably not so wise & clever in today's world though. Regardless, I suggest this has nothing to do with mysticism really, or if it does, it is as anti-thesis. And Jesus, imo, was (or at least signifies in my mind) a "mystic", not a "law maker", "attorney" or as anyone who had any interest in that kind of worldly puritanism. His whole life was an act of transgression, not of law-abiding and adjudicating.

The whole "adulteress" and Jesus's "he that is without sin" affair can, and indeed I suggest should, be read within a different hermeneutic entirely.

The book of Jesus, the New Testament, opens with Matthew describing Jesus's genealogy. Only four women are mentioned. One of these, Rahab, was a prostitute. Another, Tamar, pretended to be a prostitute to seduce a man so she could have his children without his knowing. Another, Ruth, was probably a lesbian and very sexually provocative. The other one, Bathsheba, committed adultery and was impregnated by another man, who then killed her husband so he could have her to himself. These are traditional and well-known Biblical stories, referenced obliquely in the very beginning of the New Testament in the book of Matthew, which is generally considered to be gospel most aimed at Jewish readers.....hence, those familiar with the implications of Jesus's genealogy.....a scandal in plain sight.

Further to this, we have 2 versions of Jesus, both quite sexually "free" or "liberated":

The orthodox Bible of mainstream Christianity - here we have (ironically given the absurd shenanigans of many puritan, judgemental, hateful Christians in mainstream Christianity!) a transparently homo-erotic mystic, whose beloved was a male, who encouraged his followers to become "eunuchs" (again, much cultural significance to the use of the term), and possibly/probably engaged in pederasty. If any of this sounds unpalatable to any Christians, I exhort you to again read the New Testament.....slowly, carefully, and with as close to an open mind as you're able to muster. It is obvious, the Jesus of the 4 canonised Gospels is gay, or at least has homo-erotic tendencies (to whichever degree our modern cultural labels and associations with sexuality etc even relate to how they framed their own desires, mysticism, eroticism etc back then, ie. I do not believe Jesus considered himself "gay").

But we also have the second, ironically heretical Jesus - the Jesus of the gnostic canons. Here, Jesus is shown as somebody who associates and even "loves" (nod nod wink wink) women of "ill-repute", such as Mary Magdalene. The Biblical town of Magdala was almost a euphemism for people of "ill-repute", which suggests even the name Mary Magdalene has hidden, secret connotations.....in plain sight.

You could go on and on. But the point is this, hidden amongst the worldly, literal (law makers and adjudicators) interpretations, the ethical and humanistic interpretations (Jesus was compassionate), there is also another more "secret" hermeneutic which casts a whole different light upon this story of the adulteress and casting stones.

It is the hermeneutic of the lived & living mystic.

There are no laws & no rules for the mystic. They are not attorneys.....they are too busy breaking the laws and getting into trouble!

Their law is ecstasy........an ecstasy that often overflows into sensuality. A love for the prostitute, for the adulteress (often, gasp, consumated!), for the abused, for the marginalised, for the vulnerable, for the poor, for the sexually transgressive....for it is in these liminal spaces where the ego has been deconstructed, sometimes forcefully by society, family or trauma etc, that the ecstatic in-rush of the "Divine" can occur more easily.

This is not a "compassion" or "love" or "morality" that is learned, considered, conditioned or defined by this or that theology or belief. It is a spontaneous, ecstatic outpouring of love, or forgiveness, or compassion, or care for equal rights for womens, gays, the abused, handicapped, poor people etc, or even a sensuality that may or not be expressed through physical acts of sexuality. But always a transgression of worldly, demi-urgic laws and systems of control and oppression, of judgement and punishment. Just check the lives of any real mystics, and they are all touched by these acts of cultural, social, conceptual or sexual transgression. The "laws" are made by "attorneys" way after their deaths, "attorneys" who will never know the ecstasy and sensuality of mystics like Jesus. That is why religious people like to judge & stone people to death for their transgressions, and mystics are put to death for their transgressions.

This is a reading of Jesus not readily accessible to everyone......it is a mystic's reading. Only one in ecstasy can understand another in ecstasy, the rest is commentary.

Actually, writing all this I notice there is a huge, huge debt in these ideas of mine to the wonderful Jeffrey Kripal, whose extremely brilliant and highly recommended body of work has been quite influential to me over the past 10 or so years!

Anyway, better go.

I hope you all have a most wonderful and joyous 2019! :o)

Manjit

Osho Robbins

Hi manjit

how are you these days?

Drop me an email on
[email protected]

with you phone no - I'll give you a call

catch up with whats been happening

Osho Robbins

Adam and Eve story.

Metaphor for innocence.

There is a tree - called the tree of the "knowledge of Good and Bad (evil)"

so - premise 1 - BEFORE eating from the tree Adam and Eve don't know about good / bad

This means they are innocent - you cannot be guilty unless there is a good/bad standard you have violated.

They eat from the tree.

The moment they eat - they KNOW about good / bad

until that time - they don't know.

If you have no good / bad standard - you cannot be guilty

a child of 2 years doesn't know - so cannot be guilty.

if the child hits someone on the head with a hammer and kills them
they are not evil - they just don't know

in the same way

Adam and Eve - did not know what is good / bad

knowing good / bad means to enter duality.

god says - you will surely die.

before that they were not going to die

they were in a state of oneness

that is all the story is about

oneness to duality

777

@S*

I remember
You made Hans crazy

"I could not ear nor speak..imagine how others saw me..:(
So that is one of the things I have been angry about the difference Dera and Home was too much..
Oh well this is my personal story.
There was also a lot very good.
I learned Love from my Guru..Maharaji was always talking about that..
Soo that is why..

Posted by: s* | January 05, 2019 at 01:24 AM


It's all old karma
and HE said to you ( you said ) :
"I dance like a bear"

That made a great impression on me
I needed that
Happy 2019

777

@Osho
"""777 at least agrees that there is no such thing as "all knowing" and "all powerful""""

In the same way that HE cannot win 100 Meter Butterfly
at next Olympics

It doesn't take away that light around HIM
that is tremendous but soothing
and when U see it , the SOUND swells , . . it always swells

good 2019

777

777

I placed this at brians >. will hold some hours
this is the reserve copy
___________________

However, I have long believed in the benefits of psychedelics. However, they are not to be trifled with or abused in any way. With respect, good intent and fortune you may unleash perceptions that 50 years in the lotus pose on a diet of watery, coarse gruel would be hard pressed to surpass.

Posted by: tucson | January 13, 2019 at 11:33 AM

The question of mind altering drugs -medicinal and healing purposes, yes. Recreational purposes - your choice. I would be very wary of mind enhanced experiences through the use of substances. Just little or huge mind tricks I would say with all sensations attached to the physical senses. Never having taken drugs, of course, (apart from 3 puffs of marjuana on 3 separate occasions, one made me afraid, one burnt my throat, the other, nothing - all many years ago) these are just my thoughts. Alcohol is the worst of all and causes the most destruction, yet it is legal. I say legalise all drugs, then there will be less crime. If people choose to burn their brains, then let them. Brian, as an ex satsangi, you should have realised by now, you do not need any mind altering substances to enter into sunyata. Whatever the truth behind that be!

Posted by: Fairy | January 14, 2019 at 06:36 PM

@brian

So now you can try to approach the real thing: like THIS MORNING :

My wife taking a bath thought about washing her hair

But we have a wired electricity support
and there was an enormous wind ( The Rhône Delta coming all the way from Switzerland
so. . . while washing she deeply hoped that there wouldn't be a power cut
for the dryer device to work

She stepped out and the power closed down

Then she thouht
éPlease MaharaJi, please make it 5 minutes
. . . and floooop. the power was back

After 10 minutes drying her hair dry , . . power went down again
and the Power Company gave message that it would be for 5 hours

It supports so greatly the Serendipity / Solispisn / Solopism theory

HE will recreate entirely the Big Bang if needed for HIS Lovers

Radha Soami

777

So S

Posted by: 777 | January 15, 2019 at 01:30 AM

Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

777

https://www.rssb.org/news22.html

Nice to know

777

777


@ Spence,

My idea of living on this planet is that we are all spiritual beings experiencing a human life and I think we have to do the very best we can in our actions and not judge and condemn others. After all everyone will experience justice after we die and reap the rewards or punishment accordingly. I woke up to Sant Mat and have left the path and follow my own way now but I don't have any bad feelings or regrets because I take responsibility for my own actions and beliefs. Forgiveness is important.
Posted by: Jen | February 20, 2019 at 11:43 AM

and now this is a test to see who really loves gurinder

I DO

What I always saw in Him and still see
in & out side
( each Master has a specific mode ; that is so overwhelming ) :
is extreme honesty, undescribable pure-ness

Charan is my Master
and my comments are often on the other blog

Yess Jen, Right

777


Posted by: 777 | February 20, 2019 at 01:50 PM

777

@me
said

"""" extreme honesty, undescribable pure-ness. """

Yes , although I have not seen as I have given descriptions about Charan in many
brian irritating comments
with all that Lion_like liquid Gold, Brilliants, HyperLight, Majestic, ( as hackers say "He Reigns")

The Inside & outside view of Gurinder is another one : almost chocking
not almost, . . 'always', . . He will not see Himself like that, . .
this is as Guru Nanak said : "The lowliest of the Lowly, . . . . Ooh Holy"

That special pure aspect, of Gurinder, almost striking, . . i cannot explain
One goes stantapede & automatically Inside one-self
Shabd as lightning flashes pushing One to the Top with or without meditation
It's's miraculous, One overrules the galaxies, the local ssphere
( haha I m 82, I can tell . . . OMG )

777

777

I tried to place the above in the trol-blog
but the gollem started moderating again
He wants only dark slander, . . . not a little Light

Spence Tepper

But here 777, you may state as you like.
This is your place.

777

Thank You Spence

Perhaps when new aspects appear on the other blog
you can just open the same name chater here
It would better connect

777

Can You ?

Jen

Hi 777 and Spence,

I often think that when I post here its like talking to myself, but at least there are three of us here... better than nothing... lol.

The other blog seems to be mostly about confrontation and I suppose that is what most people are interested in - differing opinions.

Peace to you both...

777

""". So do you believe that Gurinder Singh was wrong when I kept on being re-appointed as secretary of our sangat for many years, during which I gave satsang at many of the meetings? For a long time I also gave satsangs at numerous bhandaras (larger gatherings).""""


a total lie

It was his second book that was rejected by Gurinder

and that set s itself up as a judge

Next ( iand Spence can not , i understand nos
it arranges 'cleverly the missing new chapters
so that we have to skip "next" 5 times

It makes us the apokrief gospels as oppposed to the real authorized blog
nihil obstat


777

Dungeness


It makes us the apokrief gospels as oppposed to the real authorized blog
nihil obstat

apokrief/apocrief (Dutch->English: apocryphal)

nihil obstat (Latin-> English: "nothing stands in the way")

Spence Tepper

Hi Jen
There has actually been a spike here, so maybe confrontation isn't for everyone. Yes it's you, 777 and I and about a hundred other folks who check in every couple of days.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)