some of my dearest most beloved friends are not christian. if i believed that god was going to condemn them to hell, how could i carry on? i'd either have to spend all my time with them trying to save them, which would probably alienate them, or else live in perpetual sorrow for their fate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
because your belief is wrong, and i'm sad for anyone ho holds a belief so counter to the truth and beauty that i know. because by believing that anyone whos not a christian is damned must leave you in the position of either not caring for and about anyone whos not christian, or else dealing with the sorrow of caring for people you know to be damned.

some of my dearest most beloved friends are not christian. if i believed that god was going to condemn them to hell, how could i carry on? i'd either have to spend all my time with them trying to save them, which would probably alienate them, or else live in perpetual sorrow for their fate.

and i think thats a very sad way to live, and i'm sorry that you have put yourself in that position.

---

I knew it. I KNEW it.

quote:

---

I will make a definitive statement here: No one will get to heaven without Jesus. NO ONE.
But I don't recall ever saying that Jesus=your local church...

---

if this doesn't mean that anyone who doesn't know jesus, ie, who's not christian, is going somewhere else, what does it mean? and if going somewhere else doesn't mean damnation, what does it mean?

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
if this doesn't mean that anyone who doesn't know jesus, ie, who's not christian, is going somewhere else, what does it mean? and if going somewhere else doesn't mean damnation, what does it mean?

(i can't believe you pulled me into arguing this. give yourself points. grrr.....
)

---

We're actually not going to argue, and I knew we wouldn't once I could get out of you what you meant by that.

Secondly, Erin did not say that no one who was not a Christian would go to Heaven. What she said was that noone would get to Heaven with out Jesus. Big big difference. I agree with what Erin said, as I understand what she meant. However, I disagree absolutely with the other statement. This is not an illogical position to hold!

Indeed, the God I know certainly wouldn't just abandon someone in a forest because noone had told them about Jesus. But He does have the power to reach out to these people. And I think He does.

On the other hand, if people can reach out to others, (no, not in any potentially offensive way, but genuinely to love them), surely it can make the whole coming to know God thing easier in many cases?

Else why tell us to go and spread the good News?

And now, Erin has posted a good reply, for I have been slow typing, in an attempt to phrase things unambiguously. But I shall post this anyway.

and i appologize for making an unfounded assumption.

I also think you might owe Erin for not saying, by way of reply to your sorriness for her, that she felt sorry for you, having to feel pity for those not in need of it

The Shadow Lover

I am sorry, though not for what I said, because from past experience it was clear enough, but for hammering it as adamantly as I did. I had a feeling there was a misunderstanding somewhere, and that’s what prompted the response. I don't mind if you think I'm an idiot for what I actually believe (I think some beliefs are idiotic in the extreme), I just want to make sure that you really do know what I believe before you make that decision.

And if anyone knows what it is to have to come crawling back and apologize for tearing someone a new one because I misinterpreted their statements, it's me.

quote:

---

Also, I grew up going to Catholic school, and even though my theology is decidedly not Roman Catholic, I would say that the pope and I probably interpret the creeds about the same.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
And what I meant by that statement is that Jesus really is the only way to the Father. Why are you, and Tim, so sure that Christianity is the only way to Jesus?

---

quote:

---

Do you honestly mean some tribesman in a South American rain forest who has never heard the name of Jesus Christ is just out of luck? Did God love me more than the tribesman by letting me be born into a (relatively) Christian culture where I would come to know Jesus?

---

This was in response to my assertion that the only way to Jesus is the Father. So let's look at this logically, shall we?

I make an assertion that Jesus is the only way to the Father. You come back at me with some non sequitur post about how the tribesman in east nowhere isn't in a Christian culture, so how can he get to Jesus. Now, if you do not believe that Christianity is the only way to Jesus, then I am completely at a loss to understand what, exactly, the point of this post was.

I haven't followed this thread thoroughly, having only arrived back onboard in the last few days, but...

...some may recall that I withdrew the label 'Christian' from myself some 15 months ago, due to the very fact that a Christian label indicates that some should believe XYZ. When I came to the realisation that I didn't believe XYZ, but in fact ABC, I knew I could not authentically use the label 'Christian' of myself. While the sense of security that Christian beliefs offers is attractive, and I find myself desiring to follow Christ, and I can not jump through the theological and semantic hoops placed there by the church - hence I can not call myself a Christian. So there you have it!

This post is intended as an identification with the originator of the thread!

I'm so thankful I don't believe in it (see Purgatory).

You have asserted yourself on this very thread that the Church has been the primary witness to God. So by your own assertions, a person who had not experienced the witness of the Church does not know the message of Jesus Christ, and, thus, by your further assertions, cannot hope for salvation.

That is, unless you believe in multiple incarnations of Jesus Christ. If you believe this, on what authority of Scripture, tradition or reason do you base your belief?

Do you believe, as the Mormons do, that Jesus became incarnate to peoples in North America in ancient times? Where else did he become incarnate? If he has not made himself known through the witness of the Church, then he must have made himself known some other way, if our hypothetical tribesman is to have any hope for salvation. Else, he does not know Jesus and has no hope of salvation.

quote:

---

So by your own assertions, a person who had not experienced the witness of the Church does not know the message of Jesus Christ, and, thus, by your further assertions, cannot hope for salvation.

---

is either extremely faulty logic, or deliberate misrepresentation. Either way, it is, in fact, an outright lie, as I have asserted NOTHING of the sort. In any case, I did not say that KNOWING Jesus was the key to salvation, did I? NO. All I said is that you (or I or anyone else) cannot get into Heaven without him. How he handles it with non-Christians is a complete mystery to me, and I have never said otherwise.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tim:
You have asserted yourself on this very thread that the Church has been the primary witness to God. So by your own assertions, a person who had not experienced the witness of the Church does not know the message of Jesus Christ, and, thus, by your further assertions, cannot hope for salvation.

---

Here's the task. List those assertions of Erin's. They actually have to be said, not implied (that's what an assertion is).

Otherwise I'll have to assume that you've just made this bit up. I'd also be careful to go back and note any place, on this thread, that Erin has said exactly the opposite of what you've said are her views. It may help your next post.

quote:

---

...The sayings of the Buddha may contain some similarities to those of Jesus, but they are not the message of Jesus. And so, he, as a Buddhist cannot know Jesus, and according to you, Erin, cannot, therefore, hope for salvation.

---

Same task.

Let's make it easier. Match up a single sentence or idea in your post that equates with what Erin has posted. Anything. Anything at all.

Okay, we're going to take the church out of the world. Meaning no scripture, no witness.

Now, someone tell me how you find out about Jesus. Not some touchy-feely warm fuzzy New Age "God is love, the beauty of the stars tells me so" thing, tell me how you know about this man Jesus. How you know his nature, how you know he lived, how you know ANYTHING about him.

2. Quote by Erin:

[i]Now, unless he came down from on high and sat there and had a talk with you face-to-face you HAD to get that knowledge from the teachings of the church. Whether you sat in a fundamentalist Bible study or had a one-on-one dialogue with someone who hasn't darkened the door of a church building in ten years is absolutely irrelevant to this. The church is what has preserved and witnessed to Jesus' life, death and resurrection since his Ascension and Pentecost.

In the second quote, especially, Erin, you assert assert that without the church, there is no knowledge of Jesus. You say any knowledge of Jesus HAD to come from the church. So I am not twisting your words.

3. Quote by Erin:

I will make a definitive statement here: No one will get to heaven without Jesus. NO ONE.

So, Erin, if we posit the truth of your statements 1, and especially 2, we can encapsulate your thoughts as follows: no church, no Jesus.

If we accept the truth of your third statement, then we could summarize your thoughts as follows: no Jesus, no salvation.

I don't think that I am doing any kind of word-contortion here. Why are you so excitedly saying that I am, rather than answering the questions that I have posed to you?

quote:

---

So, Erin, if we posit the truth of your statements 1, and especially 2, we can encapsulate your thoughts as follows: no church, no Jesus.

If we accept the truth of your third statement, then we could summarize your thoughts as follows: no Jesus, no salvation.

---

Here's where you're making the mistake. "no church, no Jesus" is not what Erin said, it's an interpolation of yours. If I can summarise what she's said, "no church, no witness to Jesus. You've even quoted where she said something along those lines, but you've chosen to draw an entirely unwarranted conclusion.

Whether or not I agree with what Erin says is irrelevant, I'm not going to stand back and let anyone reinterpret someone else's arguments so that they can then knock them down. That's part of my brief. Misinterpretation is fine, but you refuse to acknowledge that you have indeed misinterpreted. How more times does Erin have to say "that's not what I said?"

Hell has its responsibilites too, you know.

[fixed a typo the totally reversed the meaning of a sentence!]

My posts quoted in your 1 and 2 were in reference to Jesus the man, which I said repeatedly. Therefore your inferences are wrong. My words, long before you entered this discussion [emphasis mine]:

quote:

---

Again, though, my question remains: how do you know about Jesus? I don't mean being aware of the existence of God, I mean how do you know about Jesus as a person?

---

and this

quote:

---

tell me how you know about this man Jesus. How you know his nature, how you know he lived, how you know ANYTHING about him.

---

One more time, and pay attention: I was talking about how Christians know about Jesus. I cannot make it any simpler than that. Also, I would be interested in where in the following statement you find the word KNOW, because I surely don't see it:

quote:

---

I will make a definitive statement here: No one will get to heaven without Jesus. NO ONE. But I don't recall ever saying that Jesus=your local church...

---

If you cannot in fact find the word know, then all of your arguments have been against strawmen of your own creation (a typical debate tactic of yours, I might add). One more time, and I will use the simplest words possible: I was initially talking about how Christians know who Jesus the man is. The latter statement you quoted was in response to Nicole's words that Jesus is not the answer, with which I totally disagree. I don't know how non-Christians get to Jesus.

That is what you said, any attempts by you to obfuscate to the contrary.

Like Nicole, I am tired of arguing the same point over and over with you. You need to learn to accept it when people challenge you on things, Erin, administrator or not. I know that you think that any and all opinions you hold equal the truth. Life has a funny way of teaching people who think that that the contrary is true.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gill:
How can you tell? And why aren't you Catholic?

---

Sorry, Gill, in dealing with the bullshit I missed this post completely.

How can I tell that the pope and I most likely interpret the creeds in the same way? I remember my Catholic theology. I remember what we were taught about the creeds. And I pretty much agree with the interpretations, aside from Rome's assertions that they are in fact the one holy catholic apostolic church.

The pope, as the Bishop of Rome, has dedicated his life to studying the teachings of the church. Now, the only way he and I would not agree about the interpretations would be if he has lied throughout his entire priesthood. While that is certainly a possibility, I don't believe it to be the case. While I disagree on some fundamental points of theology, I believe John Paul II is a righteous and honest man.

Which brings me to why I'm not Catholic. I never was Catholic, for starters, and I had some pretty unpleasant theology taught to me by the more rabid pre-Vatican II nuns (even though this was in the 80s). I don't believe the pope has the authority to speak ex cathedra. I don't believe in a lot of the Marian theology that is a requirement of the faith.

[edited for typos]

quote:

---

And isn’t pontificating (and I use
that word deliberately) about the criteria for membership of ‘Club Heaven’ responsible ultimately for mass tortures and executions in Europe and the rape of the ‘New World’? In other words, isn’t it that which has done most to bring the Faith into disrepute?

---

Europeans raped the New World out of greed. Mass torture and executions done in the name of God and the Church were abomination. THey were not however prompted by debate by theologians over who was and who was not a Christian.

As to what has most brought the faith into disrepute, I would say it is the many failures of those of us who profess to be Christians to make even a respectable effort to live up to what we profess -- not something to be pinned exclusively on theologians and their debates, nor upon those of us who consider ourselves orthodox.

And another thing:

quote:

---

intellectual speculation is healthy, desirable and (sometimes) good fun but how much of it is actually necessary to support a living and active faith?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tim:
Nor will I Erin. Making claims of misrepresentation is the classic manoeuvre of those who have been convicted with their own words. Rather like George Bush saying his promises of limits to greenhouse gasses were "a mistake."

---

Bullshit Tim. Not only was the claim of misrepresentation made, it was shown where you did this. Of course, you won't respond to that because you know you're completely wrong.

Correct me in turn if I'm wrong, Tim, but are you calling Erin a liar here?

quote:

---

You said that unless Jesus appeared to someone personally, that person's knowledge of Jesus had to come from the church. You also said, plainly, that without Jesus there was no salvation.

That is what you said, any attempts by you to obfuscate to the contrary.

---

Point taken. Err...hang on a minute. Isn't this the just the same basic error you've been repeating for the last few posts? The one that has been pointed out to you at least three times?

Are you just trying to be antagonistic or are you irremedialy obtuse? I ask merely for information.

quote:

---

Like Nicole, I am tired of arguing the same point over and over with you. You need to learn to accept it when people challenge you on things, Erin, administrator or not. I know that you think that any and all opinions you hold equal the truth. Life has a funny way of teaching people who think that that the contrary is true.

---

Arguing the same point over and over is a waste of time if you won't admit that you made a mistake in interpretation. Why can't you understand that?

quote:

---

So, like Nicole, I am bowing out of this thread. I know that we will see one another elsewhere.

---

Ahh yes, the "bow out gracefully even though I've caused a shitfight for no reason than to stroke my own ego" routine.

Anyone who reads this will know you're wrong, Tim, and simply trying to salvage something from the mess you've created with your own misreading of what others write.

A few things:

1. nicolermw talks about "knowing". This is very dangerously close to asserting a gnostic faith -- by which the members were saved through secret knowledge.

which brings me to

2. the Creeds. The early church developed the creeds to assert what the orthodox Christian church believed, as against "heretical" claims by people like the gnostics.

The creeds are a statement of what the CHURCH believes (the Nicene Creed is usually recited in the first person plural -- "WE believe"). Think of the Creeds as lik te Constitution of the United States. The Constitution constitutes what the government believe. Individual citizens do not necessarily believe it all, but that does not make them something other than Americans, does it? Of course, some people interpret the Consitution literally, and those people probably WOULD say it makes makes people un- if not non-American.

One more thing: Jesus didn't come here to start a religion. That's quite right, Jesus already HAD a religion -- Judaism. St Paul started a religion, and his was apocalyptic. People in Pauline churches thought the second coming was right around the corner -- could happen any day and they'd better prepare for it. Th Pauline church was probably more or less charismatic and very informal. However, as tim passed and the End Times didn't occur, the church had to settle in for the long haul -- it had to develop a structure and statement of faith, which brings us back to the creeds.

Pikachu, you wrote,
"But if you, the reader, do not believe the Bible in the same manner that I do, then we truly have no common ground with which to discuss such matters."

quote:

---

I believe that the Bible is true, I've read it in its entirety and I believe it all, even what I don't understand. But if you, the
reader, does not believe the Bible in the same manner that I do, then we truly have no common ground with which to discuss such matters.

---

In what way do you believe stuff you don't understand? Is this sort of the way I believe in electricity? I accept that it exists because the lights go on when I flip the switch, but I'm pretty much trusting people who do understand it when they tell me that it's all because of electricity.

quote:

---

Also, I believe that the Bible is true, I've read it in its entirety and I believe it all, even what I don't understand. But if you, the reader, does not believe the Bible in the same manner that I do, then we truly have no common ground with which to discuss such matters.

---

quote:

---

Also, I believe that the Bible is true, I've read it in its entirety and I believe it all, even what I don't understand. But if you, the reader, does not believe the Bible in the same manner that I do, then we truly have no common ground with which to discuss such matters.

---

even if our understanding about truth and the Bible or ways of reading are different we would still have a common text. That is a pretty strong common ground, minor textual difficulties included.

I think Erin’s answer is that a faith in strict accordance with the creeds is not necessary to salvation because one can know Jesus outside the church (I do hope that’s right, Erin). So Jesus can be your gateway to God without bothering with all the theological baggage?

Hmmmm – so what is the purpose of the church? To witness to Jesus? But what is the most essential aspect of Jesus and His ministry that the Church should witness to?
Love, grace, forgiveness, perhaps? And does it matter what we believe about his conception? (Incidentally what is the creed-based current understanding of the historical Jesus’ genetic make-up?)Does it matter what we believe about the mechanics of our own slavation?

Don't think for a minute that those churches don't have their own informal creeds, however. Or not so informal. The Southern Baptists and the Mennonites have their deep roots in anti-credal traditions, but they both have written out statements of belief.

Are the creeds necessary to sustaining a lively faith? No, I don't think so. But credal statements, whether they're called that or not, are inevitable. Even if all that's required to be a Christian is that one confess "Jesus is Lord" -- that's a creed.

The board has room for most theologies and I think perhaps you didn't understand my reply either. I do not know if I hold the same model of truthfulness as you do to the Bible. I do know that you can discuss with the Bible as a text even with people who dismiss it as wrong. It is pretty much the same as discussing Jane Eyre as a text - it can be judged on its message, style and ideology.

But I do believe the whole of the Nicene Creed or at least believe that each part is within God's power. A few years ago I had a lousy Christology and worked hard to get to the point where I could assent to the Creeds.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pikachu:
Erin: yes, Jesus is common ground to discuss matters. I have learned about Jesus from the Bible. Please let me know where you have learned about Jesus. I'm not being sarcastic, I'd really like to know.

---

I learn about Jesus through the Bible, through the witness of the church over the past several thousand years, through his personal revelations to others. And in none of that am I required to believe that the Bible is 100% factual on every single point.

quote:

---

Is this bulletin board diverse enough to accept someone with beliefs like mine? Or are only liberal beliefs accepted here? Why would someone like me post to this bulletin board? Because I have both the grace to accept the blows and the intestinal fortitude to stand for my beliefs instead of giving in to what is the popular mindset of the day. Ruth, I find it very interesting that you are arguing in favor of creeds, but when I made a statement of belief, i.e., a "creed", you questioned why I am here. You seemed offended by my presence on this board. Yet, no one has offended me.
It is very interesting that no one has addressed my three questions above. Ruth? Rob? Anyone? Do you need Jesus? You tell me.
Here I stand. I am not afraid. I harbor no ill will toward anyone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pikachu:

Ruth: I cannot tell you how this message gets to you but I know that it does somehow. I could tell you how a flower grows but I can't tell you the reasoning behind a flower growing at all.

---

I have no idea what you mean by this.

quote:

---

Is this bulletin board diverse enough to accept someone with beliefs like mine? Or are only liberal beliefs accepted here?

---

Of course not. But when you say that we have no common ground if we don't agree on the Bible, it seems there won't be much to discuss.

quote:

---

Ruth, I find it very interesting that you are arguing in favor of creeds, but when I made a statement of belief, i.e., a "creed", you questioned why I am here. You seemed offended by my presence on this board. Yet, no one has offended me.

---

I didn't question why you are here because you made a statement of belief -- I asked why you're here because of the particular belief you stated, i.e., that there's no common ground if we don't agree on the Bible.

I'm not offended by your presence on this board -- but see below for what I do find offensive.

quote:

---

It is very interesting that no one has addressed my three questions above. Ruth? Rob? Anyone? Do you need Jesus? You tell me.

---

And those three questions were:

quote:

---

1) Do you - I mean YOU, personally need Jesus?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

2) IF you personally need Jesus, why doesn't that person "over there" need Him? (If "that person over there" doesn't need Him, neither do you.)

---

I never said that someone didn't need Jesus.

quote:

---

3) If you have Jesus, what else do you need?

---

Depends on what you mean by "need." For salvation? Nothing. To keep body and soul together? Food, shelter, etc.

To deal with people who come to a Christian bulletin board and demand answers to the above questions, which to me smacks of self-righteousness in the extreme, I need patience.

[edit code]

quote:

---

I learn about Jesus through the Bible, through the witness of the church over the past several thousand years, through his personal revelations to others. And in none of that am I required to believe that the Bible is 100% factual on every single point.

---

Erin,
I do not want to nitpick - that is not why I posted what I have above. Its just that I don't get a chance to ask many people this question and it has come up in your statement above. You mention that you know about Jesus through the witness of the church over the past several thousand years, through his personal revelation to others. I know this sounds stupidly rhetorical but do you have your own personal revelations of Jesus that help you form more of an understanding of who He is? Also, your comment about the witness of the church intrigues me - most would say the witness of the church over the years has not represented God too well, how has it helped you learn about Jesus?

Just curious.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TC:
I know this sounds stupidly rhetorical but do you have your own personal revelations of Jesus that help you form more of an understanding of who He is?

---

I have found that, for whatever reason, Jesus has chosen not to deal with me directly. Maybe it is because he knows that I am an emotional roller-coaster, maybe it's because he knows I'm really stubborn or... I don't know why. It just doesn't ever really happen. I deal with God quite a bit (and boy does HE get an earful), and through that I get insights into Jesus, but directly... no.

quote:

---

Also, your comment about the witness of the church intrigues me - most would say the witness of the church over the years has not represented God too well, how has it helped you learn about Jesus?

---

Most would be wrong about the church representing God as poorly as its been accused of.

How has it helped me learn about Jesus. Through the actions of the martyrs, the lives of the saints, the fact that you cannot name a single other faith system in the history of the world that has as much social justice to its credit, its insistence from the beginning that we are obligated to provide for our poor, its belief that all human beings are in the image of God, its subtle and permanent subversion of the class system, and so on and so forth.

Firstly, I will answer your questions, then I have a couple for you.

quote:

---

1) Do you - I mean YOU, personally need Jesus?

---

quote:

---

2) IF you personally need Jesus, why doesn't that person "over there" need Him?
(If "that person over there" doesn't need Him, neither do you.)

---

quote:

---

3) If you have Jesus, what else do you need?

---

And now for mine:

quote:

---

Please let me know where you have learned about Jesus.

---

The question I have is: why do you have to believe that all of the Bible is true to find out about Jesus from it. For me, for example, the contents of the epistles is not necessarily true (although it may be helpful, divinely inspired, e.t.c) as I see Paul's epistles, for example, as being a lot like the sermons given by our minister every Sunday, rather than divine truth. That doesn't mean I ignore them. I also think that sermons can be just as divinely inspired, but that anything that is written by a person, whether it is divinely inspired or not, is going to have some of the authors human fallibility in it. I have found out a lot about Jesus from the Bible, although i do not think all of the Bible is true.

I don't think this potentially different view of Scripture removes our grounds for discussion? I certainly respect your position, and would like to discuss Scripturally based questions with you, although I don't find it very easy to think of Paul's writings as the actual Word of God.

quote:

---

Also, your comment about the witness of the church intrigues me - most would say the witness of the church over the years has not represented God too well, how has it helped you learn about Jesus?

---

This has turned into a mammoth post, for which my apologies. I hope I haven't been too incoherent either...I'm happy to clarify anything i have been incoherent about.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pikachu:

I apologize for my comment about "liberal beliefs"; I was angry. It seems that you took my "three questions" personally; when I originally stated them, I meant them for anybody who was reading this thread. *snip* What did you find offensive? My attitude? The questions themselves? If it was my attitude, I apologize. If it was the questions.. the questions I asked were the most basic questions a person can ask about Jesus. A child would be right in asking these questions.

---

I think it's presumptuous for you to pose these questions on a Christian bulletin board, especially the first one about whether we need Jesus. Just about everyone who reads the boards has already self-identified him or herself as a Christian just by being here; the few who are not Christians, who don't think they need Jesus, have said who they are.

It reminds me of nothing so much as of a preacher who feels there must be an altar call at every service, even when there are no new faces in the pews.

quote:

---

Is it wrong to come to a Christian bulletin board and ask the most basic questions about Jesus? I thought it would be safe to do that here. Smacks of self-righteousness? In what way have I declared my own righteousness? I have not insisted that you even agree with me.

---

Did you honestly expect that I or any other Christian here would say "No, I don't need Jesus"?! C'mon!

quote:

---

My whole point of all of this was the third question: if you have Jesus, what else do you need? Which takes us back to the very first post on this thread. Jesus is all we need for salvation. Not creeds. Not dress codes. Not regiments. Only Jesus.

---

I doubt very much that you're going to get much of an argument against this from anyone. But having taken that first step, declared need for and dependence on the Christ, we then go on to consider what that means. We will always come back to that basic confession: Jesus is Lord.

quote:

---

'frin, that is true, we can discuss the Bible as a text, as a book. It is just very difficult for me to look at it as something other than the Word of God.

---

There's a crux here. You (Pikachu) have said you believe everything written in the Bible is true. Well, in a way, so do I. But I wonder if we mean the same thing. Certainly I call it the word of God, although I prefer to reserve the capital wubble-wu for Jesus, you understand.

quote:

---

Originally posted by frin:
And once all that is agreed I gather we need birettas, chausables, small dragon puppets and super-frontals or we are missing out on something.

'frin

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Definitely small dragon puppets. Anyone worshipping without them is worshipping the anti-Christ.

---

Perhaps we could get Sooty and Sweep in to enact Jesus' ministry. Sue could play the women with permanent menstruation