STUPID STUPID QUESTION - Explain Different Sects

[NoneandDoneinCali]

Can someone more knowledgeable about these things please take a minute to explain the different "sects" of Christianity? I know, I know - I have Wikipedia at my disposal. But I was raised Agnostic, am currently a secular Humanist, and have no particular knowledge of the Bible (never had the desire or need to read it). I don't get the difference between, say, a Methodist and a Lutheran, or a Presbyterian, or a Protestant. And our fundie families - are they mostly Baptist? Or Pentacostal? But when I think Pentacostal, I think snake handlers .. I don't know. Sorry. I realize how ignorant I am. And thank you for your time and patience.

[Wolfie]

There really is no way to list them all, and there can be variations between churches and individual members too. And many of the churches the people we talk about are members of are not affiliated with a bigger denomination.

[doggie]

Is it even possible? I mean there are the basic ones but within those there are thousands of offshoots. They change all of the time too. I think it is just getting worse too since there is a growing distance between fundies and regular Christians anymore.

[sugarloaf]

I don't think it's really possible to explain all the differences between the different denominations- there are so many of them and in many instances the differences seem so slight and inconsequential (I was raised a liberal Christian and am now an atheist). Plus there are regional and even national differences in some instances.

[emiliawasframed]

All of the groups you name (aside from Protestants themselves) are denominations within Protestantism, which sets itself apart from Catholicism when Martin Luther nails the 95 theses to the church door in Wittenberg in 1517. Broadly, the Protestant denominations differ in the degrees by which they distance themselves from the Catholic tradition liturgically and theologically. Baptists, Methodists, and Pentacostals are low-church Protestants, which means they largely do not emphasize the importance of liturgy, the church calendar, church history, etc., in favor of focusing on a personal relationship with Christ and evangelism. Presbyterians and Lutherans are more high-church Protestant, though not as high church as say, Anglicans. These denominations emphasize liturgy more and evangelism less. These are all rather broad generalizations and there are divisions within all the denominations mentioned as well, but those are some of the broad-strokes differences.

[NoneandDoneinCali]

Okay, that actually makes me feel slightly better. Thank you for the responses! I do understand Lutheran as it pertains to the works of Martin Luther, lol. And I get "Episcopalian" versus Catholic. But other than that - it seems like we discuss variations on these boards, and I've been feeling pretty clueless. Damn you, liberal agnostic parents **shaking fist**!!!

Actually, love you, liberal agnostic parents:)

[NoneandDoneinCali]

Emillia, thank you!! I guess I cross posted before I read your response. So, liturgy is ... a proper worship? Done in a church? For some reason I thought it was specific to a Mass. Urgh. Thank you again:)

[emiliawasframed]

Liturgy is kind of like a script for worship--prescribed words determined by a body of elders in a given denomination. The lower your church is, the more you don't care about such traditions. Again, very broad definitions for very complex things.

[sugarloaf]

I'd also say that Pentecostals aren't necessarily snake handlers. Some of my relatives are Pentecostal, and their denomination focusses around the speaking in tongues bit, based on the part of the Bible (I think it's in Acts?) where people start speaking different languages and are understood by each other with the Holy Spirit appearing as fire over their heads. They (ie, my relatives) do believe in faith healing, which I see as kind of a gateway drug to things like snake handling (because it's through faith that you can be healed and also that you aren't poisoned in the first place), but they're not into snake handling or that kind of church themselves. They also believe that mental illness is caused by demons, which was just awesome to find out when I was diagnosed with depression as a teenager.

edited to add: I don't know how true this is of Pentecostals as a whole, but my relatives believe that you're damned to hellfire unless you have spoken in tongues in a religious service- it's something along the lines of proof that God has accepted your asking for forgiveness and allowing him into your life kind of thing.

[SomewhatFundy]

This is actually a really good thread. Sometimes I wish there was just like a checklist of all the denominations so I could contrast and compare them without reading a buttload of information about each one and mentally comparing them all.

I think the differences between denominations in Christianity is really interesting. I went to the same independent baptist church for most of my life, so I have very little knowledge about other churches. Emiliawasframed, your explanation was wonderful. I didn't know a lot of that stuff.

[NotALoserLikeYou]

My Pastor told me it was like a piece of string. Christianity being the string. You hold each end in each hand. You can put the string together so that it intersects at diff places, so that the U it makes is either big or small. They all believe the same string, but get caught up on different parts of it.

This would be easier to explain if I had a string.

Like the Pentecostals focus on one part, Baptists focus on another. MOST of them have a basic belief in God/Heaven/Hell/Salvation but others (Church of Christ for example) believe their way is the only way to Heaven. Some denominations like Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses are not considered christian at all.

I really have no idea what Presbyterians or Methodists believe or why they are called that. Im sure I have googled it but my brain can only handle so much.

[Dysfundamental]

Presbyterians split away from the Anglican Church because they believed the pastor (presbyter) should determine the direction of a church rather than a bishop (episcopos). Methodists split away from the Anglican Church to create a denomination focused on the doctrines of salvation by faith and reawakening formulated by the movement's founder, John Wesley, in the mid-1700s. The "Methodist" name came from the Greek word for "knowledge acquired by study"---it was an insult given to the Wesley brothers by their fellow university students, which was adopted by some of their early followers in pride.

This stuff is all made even more confusing by the shared names (there are several denominations called "Church of Christ", most of which are Pentecostal and/or Evangelical, and a denomination called "United Church of Christ", which is extremely liberal and social-justice-focused, for example).

[samurai_sarah]

*Warning: Long post, filled with history and somewhat meandering*

Don't feel stupid. The only stupid questions are the ones we don't ask.

I have to preface this by saying that I grew up Catholic, and have a tendency to lump all non-Catholic Christians together as "Protestants". Where I grew up, you were either Catholic, or Protestant (meaning the national Evangelical church). And then there were Orthodox Christians, followed by "everyone else". So, those were my three categories that I started out with. I'm afraid that my grasp of Orthodox Christianity is too severely limited. Other posters here know more about that, especially probably about how the formerly one church split.

Protestantism, if you want to go to that particular point in time, probably started in its foetal form with Jan Hus. He was a Czech Catholic reformer, in the 14th century and sparked a rebellion that led to a war. About a century later, Martin Luther came along, again trying to reform the Catholic church at first, but then disposing of much of its dogma and taking a different approach to the Bible and its commandments. At roughly the same time, John Calvin started developing his own theology, as did others. It was a time of great religious upheaval in Europe, and heads of state began supporting or adopting these new doctrines to get away from the political power the Catholic Church wielded.

Henry VIII is a good example for that. These days, it seems a bit odd that he founded his own church, just to get divorced, but that's underestimating the actual power the Roman Catholic Church had. Not only in terms of allies who could wage war, but they were everywhere. Everyone of Henry's subjects was Catholic and bound to the church. And the church had the power to declare his re-marriage invalid, calling into question the legitimacy of his heirs, giving other monarchs a possible claim to his heirs' thrones and them being able to expect the allegiance of Henry's people, because the church said so. Huge amount of power-politics there.

Point being, at that time, all these different people started out with different theologies based on the Bible. They interpreted it differently, and gathered followers. If, as a sovereign, you didn't want to be ruled by Rome, it made sense to break away and adopt one of these theologies. Which led to chaos. Horrible, bloody chaos, for the better part of a century. If you look at maps of Europe that shade predominant faith, you can still roughly see the principalities of that time. I come from a very Catholic area, but if I drove north for an hour, I'd be right in the middle of Protestant country, because that used to be a different principality up until 1918.

What I'm trying to say in this history-derailed post is that it all started out with different interpretations of the Bible. The Roman Catholic Church held on to its monopoly on dogma. The different Protestant churches made no such claims, and developed off-shoots. In Europe, you get a lot of national Protestant churches (think: Church of England), which unite slightly varying approaches. In my home-country, Germany, the Protestant Church of Germany unites Lutherans and Calvinists under the same heading (as far as I'm aware). Internally, they have their differences, but they present a united front.

The US, from what I gather, was partly built on some of that historical baggage. Freedom of religion is one of the big things, and was from the start. This may be my limited understanding, but the way I see it, there was never any need for Protestants (of all theologies) to present a united front. Besides, no monopoly on doctrine, which creates more off-shoots. If you're a strictly believing Catholic, leaving the one true church over a difference of interpretation is quite difficult. Protestants - I'm sorry that I keep using that simplified word- are required to develop their own understanding of the Bible. Hence, it is my understanding that they find it easier to break away/form something new, because they are asked to engage.

My apologies, if I got Protestants completely wrong. This is an outsider's view, looking in, and I always got the feeling that Protestants are supposed to be far more individualistic and focus on a personal relationship with the Word than Catholics are. So a personal interpretation would technically matter more. Or to be clearer: If a Protestant reads something and interprets it one way, it'd be okay. If a Catholic did that, and the church said "no", then that'd be it.

So, this huge post just to say that different Christian denominations started out with different interpretations of the same book. And they keep on starting out that way.

Sorry about the boring history lesson, I can't help myself. History is the way I learn about why things are as they are. Any input is more than welcome, and please set me right.

P.S.: Sorry, I hope I have explained my use of "Protestants" (excluding Orthodox Christians) sufficiently. If not, tell me so. As I said, I'm a former Catholic, so my understanding comes from "the other side of the fence". Please, put me straight.

[chaotic life]

Basic church history ahead (just know it's not perfect and I'm tired so don't assume there's no chance of mistakes):

The Church was an underground, persecuted religion that developed in the Middle East during the Roman Empire. It started about 2000 years ago. Started as an offshoot of Judaism with a messiah from a Rabbi named Yeshua/Jesus. About 77CE, a man named Saul, who was both a Roman citizen through his father and a Jew through his mother converted to Christianity and changed his name to Paul.

Really, to non-believers, especially scholars, Christianity is considered to be the work of Paul. He expanded the Church, pressed for it to be a completely independent religion from Judaism and sent out missionaries. It is worthy to note that right around this time, possibly just before, a leader of the religion had an encounter with a servant of the ruler of Ethiopia, converted, and took the new religion to Ethiopia as well. Also, one of the original followers of Jesus traveled to India and established a church there as well.

After Paul, Christianity continued to be persecuted until Constantine. Christians will say that Constintine converted to the religion. Secular scholars say that Constantine was seeking to appease multiple gods as he entered battle. Whatever it was, he won the battle, embraced the religion and made it the official religion of the Roman Empire.

So, the original Church was a structure of the leaders of the main churches setting church policy together. Just after Constantine's conversion, the first major schism occurred. The Coptic Churche of Egypt, India and Ethiopia split from the main Church at the Council of Chaldean around 300CE (the exact date escapes me and I don't feel like looking it up right now).

Around mid-400CE, the great schism occurred. Traditionally, the Church was ruled by the leaders of the main churches, with Roman considered the higher amongst equals. When Constantine split the Empire into Eas and West, there was a split in the Church as well. Starting in the mid-400s and officially fracturing around 1000CE, the main Church split into east and west. The Church in the East continued to be ruled by the Patriarchs, except Rome and became the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Church in the West was ruled by the Patriarch in Rome and became the Catholic Church with the Patriarch leadership as the Pope.

Now, I cannot tell you exactly when the Gnostic Church split off. I can tell you it is the mysticism branch of Christianity (similiar to Kaballah for Judaism and Suffiasm for Islam). If my memory serves me correctly, I believe the Gnostic Church split just a hair before the Coptic Churches did.

The Church in the East remains the Orthodox Church to this day, still ruled by the Patriarchs of the churches except for Rome. The Coptic Churches remained schismed until the 1900s when they reconciled with the Orthodox Churches. They are now considered sister Churches but remain the Orthodox and Coptic Churches in name.

The Church in the West remained unchallenged for several hundred years. Then, in the 1500s, there were several challenges that arose within a short period of time. In Germany, Martin Luther publically disagreed with Rome and posted his complaints on a church door one day. His disagreement gave rise to the Luthern Church. Three other priests at the same time broke with Rome, also in the Germany/Austria area. Instead of posting their complaints on a church door, they rejected their Catholic salvation and they and their followers were rebaptised as adult believers. For this act, they were called Anabaptists. One of those priests was called Menno Simons and his name stood out.

The Anabaptists became the Mennonites. Later, the Hutterites, Amish and Brethren were offshoots of that original Anabpatist movement, though in the last 20 years the Brethren have re-merged with the Mennonites and a branch of Amish (split from the Mennonites in the 1700s) came back and were called the Amish-Mennonites, or conservative Mennonites in the 1850s.

The third schism with Rome came from England. It had a lot less to do with actual religion and a lot more to do with politics. King Henry VIII was married to the cousin of a high level advisor to the Pope. Kings were routinely given annulments from the Pope when they sought to divorce their queens, but this Pope refused to annul Henry's divorce to someone with power ties to the Pope. Thus, Henry established the Anglican Church (aka The Church of England) and set himself up as the religious head of the church and granted himself the divorce he sought.

Now it might have been political for Henry but it was not for many, many of his subjects. The Puritans split from Rome, originally embraced The Church of England and then left it when Henry did not follow through with making it a stricter religion. Ultimately, the Puritans ended up in the US and set up what became the Presbyterians.

Okay, the Anglican Church spread to the colonies as well as in England and became called the Episcopaian Church in the colonies. IIRC, the name change occurred after the Revolution when the church was not split but the nations were.

There was a very small sect of believers who were at odds with everyone in England. They traveled to the European continent and encountered the Anabaptists there. They admitred them so much, they embraced their name and called themselves the Baptists. The Anabaptists did not get along with them and almost all of the migrated to America. They were small and not terribly influential at all at that point.

Charles and John Wesley were Anglican priests around the same time as the Baptists were spreading their wings. They came to the colonies under the Church of England but they ran into some trouble there. There's a story that Charles Wesley got arrested and run out of Georgia for a marriage proposal gone wrong. The brothers split from the Anglican Church and established the Methodist Church.

The Baptists got their boost in the Revolutionary War when the pastors signed up as Chaplains and spread their religious beliefs far and wide. They embraced slavery and got a firm foothold in the southern colonies, where they remain the dominant Protestant religion for most areas of the region to this day.

The Methodists in the south and a majority in the north as well were wishy washy on the issue of slavery. However, a group of Methodists got fed up and split specifically over what they saw was a cowardly refusal to outright condemn slavery. The larger group of Methodists remained strong as the United Methodist Church. The smaller group became the Free Methodists.

Just post Civil War, some Baptists got into Fundamentalism. These groups got more and more and more fundamental and 150 years later they are what we now recognize as the Independent Fundamentlist Baptists. Since these churches are not a denomination and are strongly opposed to denomination, you would have to pinpoint the history of when each church made the choice to split from mainstream Baptists to figure out how they got where they are.

Around the same time around and after the Civil War (as early as the 1850s for some of them), there were several movements happening in the US Protestant churches.

I'm not sure if I can remember ALL of them, but this is where the bulk of the Pentacoastal, Apostolic, Four Square churches all got their start. Of particular note though is the Great Awakening. A massive Revival movement started in Kentucky and spread throughout the US. This movement gave rise to some VERY diverse churches. It launched the Church of Christ, the Christian Churches and the Disciple of Christ. However, it also launched from the fundamentalist groups that grew into such aspacious groups as Liberty University, Oral Roberts, and Bob Jones University eventually. Around this time is also when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints showed up on the scene. Joseph Smith was not part of the Campville group but it was similiar movements that sparked his conversion, irrc.

So.....that leads to the 1900s. Fundamentalist Christian churches had their heyday in the early 1900s. By the 1970s though, things were swinging a different direction. The Jesus Movement sparked such contemporary churches as Vineyard, Calvary Chapel and the Messianic movement.

The main branches of Christianity are The Gnostics, The Coptic Church, The Orthodox Church, The Catholic Church and the Protestants. ALL of these offshoots of churches in the US fall under Protestants with two exceptions. The Anabaptists split at the same time as the Protestants but independenty and actually do NOT call themselves Protestants. Also, many Apostolic and sometimes Pentacoastal churches will insist they are NOT Protestant. Generally, the ones who will make these claims are "Oneness" churches who don't believe in the Trinity and insist they are the only direct line from the Apostolic (started by the original 12 Apostles or followers of Jesus). They don't claim that there was a unique line of the church that directly descended to them. Their claims are similiar to Joseph Smith in that they claim the church was directly handed to them by revelation from God and that he peronally told *whomever is the founder of their branch of the movement* how to restablish the church as it first existed in the first 75 years before Paul took over.

Outside of the Gnostics, the Oneness churches, the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses, all churches adhere to the two creeds established by the early Councils of churches before all of the schisms called the Apostle and Nicene Creeds. All of the churches that leave you confused are from the Protestant branch, which started in the 1500s and unlike most branches of the church often the more independent and out of connection with other churches one of these Protestant churche is, the more hostile and uneducated the are on churhc history as a whole.

Again, don't hold me to perfection. I literally pulled all of that off the top of my head and I haven't gone and rechecked dates or specific branches of different denominations. The Church is just the universal Church. All of these modern denominations (or non-denominations as often they insist they are) simpy stem from the Protestants that started when Martin Luther hung his these on the church door and pissed a whole bunch of his peers off.

[holierthanyou]

Am I the only heartless one thinking it is annoying for someone to expect us to brief them on "Christianity and all its sects"?

I get that experiential questions or subtleties are great for discussion questions here, but seriously "What is Baptist?" or "What is Episcopalian" or "Who is this Jesus guy people keep referencing?" are things that wikipedia, google, or the like are more appropriate for.

[NoneandDoneinCali]

Good name, holierthanyou. I was asking an honest question since it gets pretty confusing ... thanks for your super input:)

Thank you so, so much Chaotic and Sara. That was really helpful. I'm not much of a history person - almost done with my master's, but it's on the research side of psychology. My folks are Norwegian, and I know my grandparents (all deceased) were Lutheran at one point, but that never translated to me (and if I ask, my dad rolls his eyes). My longest-living Gram went Baptist at one point after many years (my entire lifetime) of non-church-going, but it was more of a community and comfort thing (it was after Gramps passed). Knowing the history will help me remember! (isn't there just a thumbs-up smiley?) :clap:

[August]

Is it even possible? I mean there are the basic ones but within those there are thousands of offshoots. They change all of the time too. I think it is just getting worse too since there is a growing distance between fundies and regular Christians anymore.

Well, it's an evolutionary tree just like the family tree of life, you could represent it with a cladistic diagram, I'm sure.

the first split is Orthodox vs everyone else. Then Catholic and Protestant (based on divinity of Mary? One bible has four extra books). Within protestant there's sects which baptise babies and those which baptise adults.

Here you go, the evolution of hristianity in graphical form

http://alexandersarchive.wordpress.com/ ... /#comments

and

http://christianityinview.com/protestan ... tions.html

[Lady]

I was raised a Missouri Synod Lutheran (conservative) and now am an ELCA Lutheran (liberal). I'd be happy to answer any questions you have on Lutheranism, but I am not exactly sure what you would want to know.

I can tell you horror stories about being educated in the LCMS system.

[SomewhatFundy]

WOW! Chaotic life, that was pretty much amazing as far as post replies go. How did you learn all this? Did you go to college for a degree in religious studies, or just a history buff?

I am quite jealous that you pulled that off the top of your head. Well done. Seriously, that was really informative but not as overwhelming as pulling up a billion websites or history books.

[chaotic life]

Preacher's kid. There was a time when I wanted to be a minister, actually. My dad burst that bubble by making it very clear that women could NOT be ministers and so I never pursued it. I'm over the anti-feminist thinking now, but I'm also over the idea of going to seminary too.

[yewchapel]

I'm an Anglican - high-church, so we use incense, bells, candles, statues etc during services. I would not consider myself Protestant - I'm not a Roman Catholic but consider Anglicanism to be in the Catholic tradition with its use of Scripture, Tradition and Reason and the belief in Apostolic succession (which is the belief that ordaining clergy has been passed down by the Apostles). Emphasizing the Catholic heritage of Anglicanism is known as Anglo-Catholicism and is actually a pretty recent movement within Anglicanism, starting in the 19th Century with the Oxford Movement and Tractarians (Cardinal Newman was part of this before he converted to Catholicism). Priests were actually jailed for wearing vestments in 19th Century England due to anti-ritualist laws, but now most Anglican priests wear some kind of vestment (vestments are what clergy wear when administering a sacrament, basically the coloured robes ;) ) and Anglicanism now is much more diverse than it was before. There are also very low-church, Protestant-style Anglicans who are pretty much indistinguishable from say, Baptists (bear in mind that Baptists in the UK at least are not like Baptists in the US) but most Anglicans are somewhere in-between. Certainly my church is very 'high up the candle' and Catholic-style.

I can answer questions on Anglicanism but I mostly know about UK Anglicanism. Most Anglican churches elsewhere would have particular sub-groups I wouldn't be aware of (like I know that Sydney Anglicanism is almost fundie, but I think Melbourne Diocese is much more relaxed - but I'm not Aussie so I don't know). Warning - we're bloody confusing even to ourselves :D

[Marian the Librarian]

As we librarians like to say, there are no stupid questions. :)

There's a book for this: a reference work called "Handbook of Denominations in the United States." The latest edition is the 13th, published in 2010. It can actually make for some pretty entertaining reading; it contains great info about the most minute differences between similar religious groups. And some of those differences really do make you want to throw up your hands and say "huh?"

The book reminds me of a joke - an old chestnut, for sure:

- I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. I ran over and yelled "Stop! Don't do it!"

- "Why shouldn't I?" he said.

- I said "There's so much to live for!"

- He replied "No, there isn't. Life is pointless."

- Quickly trying to find some common ground, I asked "Are you religious or atheist?"

- He said "Religious."

- I said "So am I! Are you Christian or Buddhist or something?"

- He said "Christian."

- I said "So am I! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

- He said "Protestant."

- I said "So am I! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

- He said "Baptist."

- I said "So am I! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

- He said "Baptist Church of God."

- I said "So am I! Are you original Baptist Church of God or Reformed Baptist Church of God?"

- He said "Reformed Baptist Church of God."

- I said "So am I! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"

- He said "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915."

- I said "Die, heathen scum!" and pushed him off the bridge.

[OkToBeTakei]

Am I the only heartless one thinking it is annoying for someone to expect us to brief them on "Christianity and all its sects"?

I get that experiential questions or subtleties are great for discussion questions here, but seriously "What is Baptist?" or "What is Episcopalian" or "Who is this Jesus guy people keep referencing?" are things that wikipedia, google, or the like are more appropriate for.

No. Because yes I searched google and wiki. How many types of Baptists? I would ask that here. I would not be looking for some crappy generic explanation. I live in a culture where that is very unusual. I would be able to tell you what a Scottish Episcopalian was. But from their perspective no. Wiki? Certainly not.

STUPID STUPID QUESTION as the title of the thread is a clue. Why take offence. By the answers I am learning way more than I ever would from Wiki. Or google.

[yewchapel]

As we librarians like to say, there are no stupid questions. :)

There's a book for this: a reference work called "Handbook of Denominations in the United States." The latest edition is the 13th, published in 2010. It can actually make for some pretty entertaining reading; it contains great info about the most minute differences between similar religious groups. And some of those differences really do make you want to throw up your hands and say "huh?"

The book reminds me of a joke - an old chestnut, for sure:

- I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. I ran over and yelled "Stop! Don't do it!"

- "Why shouldn't I?" he said.

- I said "There's so much to live for!"

- He replied "No, there isn't. Life is pointless."

- Quickly trying to find some common ground, I asked "Are you religious or atheist?"

- He said "Religious."

- I said "So am I! Are you Christian or Buddhist or something?"

- He said "Christian."

- I said "So am I! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

- He said "Protestant."

- I said "So am I! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

- He said "Baptist."

- I said "So am I! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

- He said "Baptist Church of God."

- I said "So am I! Are you original Baptist Church of God or Reformed Baptist Church of God?"

- He said "Reformed Baptist Church of God."

- I said "So am I! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"

- He said "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915."

- I said "Die, heathen scum!" and pushed him off the bridge.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[OkToBeTakei]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I have no idea why that is even funny. But it is :lol: yewchapel you need to educate me.