|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Personal Relationship with Christ? Huh?
|
PerkyEars
slightly distracted
# 9577
|
Posted
quote:
It'd have to be Amber or something. He doesn't play dice.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posts: 532 | From: Bristol | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evo1
Shipmate
# 10249
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's the biggest Heraclitean loop of re-discovery ever Gordon. Hopefully I've been broken out of stepping in to the same stream twice and more, which is what Heraclitus said one can't do. And he was right. I have re-discovered Jesus, as Malcolm Muggeridge did a generation and more ago, I have discovered that my appalling, truly appalling sins and their appalling ongoing consequences are Jesus' FULL responsibility.
I'll join Gordon in unpurgatorial praises too.
Freedom makes you feel so free eh Martin,
Sounds like this thread may have achieved something after all ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Warmest Regards,
Evo1
--------------------
Just think how horrid I would be if I didn't have a Personal Relationship with Jesus
Posts: 1058 | From: Hull, England | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
Geez, He bled blood for you. I'm so sorry that ain't personal enough. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
It's the relationship bit that doesn't seem personal. But we're working on different definitions again, aren't we?
Let's put it this way. One of the most noticeable features of people I have personal relationships with is that I have interactions with them that put their objective existence beyond any reasonable doubt. I do not have such interactions with God.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Let's put it this way. One of the most noticeable features of people I have personal relationships with is that I have interactions with them that put their objective existence beyond any reasonable doubt. I do not have such interactions with God.
The thing is, you seem to be saying that you are offended by people saying you need a PRWJ because of the way you define PR.
I think if you listen carefully to what Janine, for example says about what she thinks a PRWJ looks like you'd be less offended.
I think you need a PRWG to be a Christian. Unashamedly. Entrusting your eternity to someone constitutes both personal and a relationship. However, I am not for one minute saying that a PR with the divine Trinity works exactly like those with non infinite physical beings. People who do that, frankly scare me.
(I never had personal relationships with the people I played RPGs with. that really would have been a frightening thought)
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
No, I know exactly what Janine's getting at. What bugs me is her effectively insisting that I go by her definition and say I've got a PRWJ. My life, my definitions.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What bugs me is her effectively insisting that I go by her definition and say I've got a PRWJ.
And her apparent inability to see that other people have different definitions from her.
[order word]
[ 01. December 2005, 14:35: Message edited by: Mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Lep, with regard to this: quote:
I think you need a PRWG to be a Christian. Unashamedly. Entrusting your eternity to someone constitutes both personal and a relationship. However, I am not for one minute saying that a PR with the divine Trinity works exactly like those with non infinite physical beings. People who do that, frankly scare me.
I have concerns about the way we are phrasing things here. Let me put it this way, I have a PRWG which is recognisable as such, and would be recognisable as such by you, since you also have such a PRWG. We can chat to each other on such terms, and there is little room fo confusion. What we mean by that, when we are chatting to each other, is neither a relationship which is indistinguishable from the type of relationship which I could have with a finite creature, nor is it a relationship which can be encompassed by quote:
Entrusting your eternity to someone constitutes both personal and a relationship
. This phrasing seems to me to take no account of interaction, which I think we would both consider to be an important part of our PRWG. The point that Karl et al are making (not wanting to put words in their mouth) is that this type of relationship is not within their experience, to the extent that the language is not useful to them at all. Yet clearly they are Christians, probably much better ones than me. Would it not be better, then, to jettison the language, which isn't particularly biblical anyway, much as evangelicalism has, on the whole, jettisoned the much more scriptural "born-again"; because it has become so tainted in popular useage that it now confuses rather than clarifies. Because if you don't, it is highly likely that a considerable number of your brothers and sisters will follow the line of argument that goes
1) Lep says that I must have a PRWG to be a Christian.
2) I don't have anything that I could meaningfully call a PRWJ (ie my faith isn't that experiential)
3) Therefore, Lep thinks I'm not a Christian.
Now clearly they would be wrong in making that third deduction, but it would hardly be an accusation conjoured out of thin air.
That isn't to say that I haven't used such language in the past, as it's an easy shorthand to stress the difference between someone who is a Christian through committment to the person of Christ, and someone who may have been born in a "Christian" country, but who cares nothing for the things of God. However, this thread has convinced me that it's not a term I should really be using.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
Thanks, Jolly. You, as usual, voiced almost everything I wanted to say but in a much better and more gracious manner. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I think you need a PRWG to be a Christian.
<snip>
(I never had personal relationships with the people I played RPGs with. that really would have been a frightening thought)
Hey Lep, I think you need a personal relationship with a person to play an RPG with them. I think you did have personal relationships with them, in fact. Otherwise, you've never really played an RPG.
See the twist?
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
Geez, He bled blood for you. I'm so sorry that ain't personal enough.
Soldiers bleed blood for others, but that doesn't create any personal relationships. Nice try, though.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
That isn't to say that I haven't used such language in the past, as it's an easy shorthand to stress the difference between someone who is a Christian through committment to the person of Christ, and someone who may have been born in a "Christian" country, but who cares nothing for the things of God. However, this thread has convinced me that it's not a term I should really be using.
I really don't understand this.
As it happens, PRWG, is not a phrase I use much. "Know God for yourself" is one I am much more likely to use.
Furthermore, I am perfectly happy for people not to use it. I think I said that a couple of pages ago.
What I am against is those who don't wish to use it saying that it shouldn't be used at all because what they experience with God doesn't feel like their other personal relationships. Fine. Don't desribe the Christian faith in that way if you wish not to. Like I said, it is no biggy to me.
But objectively speaking, Christianity is both personal and relational. So I am perfectly happy to bear with those who like the phrase. I don't see any earthly reason why anyone should have a problem with someone saying "as I understand it, you have a personal relationship with God."
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
quote:
I don't see any earthly reason why anyone should have a problem with someone saying "as I understand it, you have a personal relationship with God."
Oh, *I* can, Lep! Because you are judging me from your point of view. And we are not communicating. You may *think* what you like about my relationship with God, but if you are going to talk about it with me, then we must be using the same meaning for the same terms. Otherwise we are in an Alice in Wonderland situation, each person having an individual meaning for their words.
Come to think about it, maybe that is what all the trouble in the Christian world is about!!
Relationship - yes. Personal, no, no, a thousand times no!
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But objectively speaking, Christianity is both personal and relational. So I am perfectly happy to bear with those who like the phrase. I don't see any earthly reason why anyone should have a problem with someone saying "as I understand it, you have a personal relationship with God."
I have a problem with it. It's like telling someone who believes her husband doesn't love her, "Of course your husband loves you. He comes home every night. He doesn't drink too much. He pays his share of the bills. He even sends you flowers on Valentine's day. That's what it means for a husband to love his wife. How could you possibly think your husband doesn't love you?"
And maybe her husband does still love her, and she just can't see it. Or maybe she's right and he doesn't. Neither one is the point. The point is that it is rude beyond words for someone else to tell her that she has a loving relationship with her husband when she doesn't feel that way about it. It is a mind-boggling level of presumption. The simple fact is, it's her relationship, not yours. She's the only one who can say whether it is a loving relationship or not.
Likewise, it is mind-bogglingly presumptuous to tell someone "you have a personal relationship with Christ" when that person doesn't see it that way. And it is hurtful and harmful to say that one must have a PRWJ to be a Christian -- there is nothing in Scripture or Tradition that would support that assertion, and much in the life of Christians that I know to show it to be false.
To say "one must have a PRWG to be a Christian" and then to assert that you are not saying that those who feel that their relationship with God is not personal are not Christians, because, of course, you know that they really do have a PRWG, even if they don't see it, honestly doesn't make things any better. How could it?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
That isn't to say that I haven't used such language in the past, as it's an easy shorthand to stress the difference between someone who is a Christian through committment to the person of Christ, and someone who may have been born in a "Christian" country, but who cares nothing for the things of God. However, this thread has convinced me that it's not a term I should really be using.
I really don't understand this.
As it happens, PRWG, is not a phrase I use much. "Know God for yourself" is one I am much more likely to use.
I'm still out. I don't know God. I know a series of propositions about Him, and have particular feelings about Him, but I do not know Him any more than I know the Archbishop of Canterbury.
I remember CU missions years ago handing out these daft "Knowing God Personally" tracts thinking "What am I doing? I don't know God personally myself!". The sense of inadequacy and sub-Christianity took years to no longer give a shit about.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But objectively speaking, Christianity is both personal and relational. So I am perfectly happy to bear with those who like the phrase. I don't see any earthly reason why anyone should have a problem with someone saying "as I understand it, you have a personal relationship with God."
I have a problem with it. It's like telling someone who believes her husband doesn't love her, "Of course your husband loves you. He comes home every night. He doesn't drink too much. He pays his share of the bills. He even sends you flowers on Valentine's day. That's what it means for a husband to love his wife. How could you possibly think your husband doesn't love you?"
And maybe her husband does still love her, and she just can't see it. Or maybe she's right and he doesn't. Neither one is the point. The point is that it is rude beyond words for someone else to tell her that she has a loving relationship with her husband when she doesn't feel that way about it. It is a mind-boggling level of presumption. The simple fact is, it's her relationship, not yours. She's the only one who can say whether it is a loving relationship or not.
Likewise, it is mind-bogglingly presumptuous to tell someone "you have a personal relationship with Christ" when that person doesn't see it that way. And it is hurtful and harmful to say that one must have a PRWJ to be a Christian -- there is nothing in Scripture or Tradition that would support that assertion, and much in the life of Christians that I know to show it to be false.
To say "one must have a PRWG to be a Christian" and then to assert that you are not saying that those who feel that their relationship with God is not personal are not Christians, because, of course, you know that they really do have a PRWG, even if they don't see it, honestly doesn't make things any better. How could it?
Sometimes you amaze me, Josephine. Glad you posted on this issue before me, so as not to give me a chance to say something like what you just said but in a much less effective way.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
Jossephine
You put things so much better than I can!!
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
I have a problem with it. It's like telling someone who believes her husband doesn't love her, "Of course your husband loves you. He comes home every night. He doesn't drink too much. He pays his share of the bills. He even sends you flowers on Valentine's day. That's what it means for a husband to love his wife. How could you possibly think your husband doesn't love you?"
Josephine, it is nothing like this. Those in the PWRG camp and those without are broadly agreed on the character of God. The issue is, surely, how we relate to that character, and whether that way of relating is "personal" or not. Bringing in similes that make it sound like I am trying to get you to imagine that God is loving and kind when he isn't at all, just muddies the issue.
quote:
The point is that it is rude beyond words for someone else to tell her that she has a loving relationship with her husband when she doesn't feel that way about it. It is a mind-boggling level of presumption. The simple fact is, it's her relationship, not yours. She's the only one who can say whether it is a loving relationship or not.
Indeed. Whether someone loves God or not is not something I would presume to tell them. You will not in my last post that what I was saying was that I can't see the problem with saying to someone " as I understand it ie, by the definition I am using, you do have a PRWG." I still can't. As I have said, I am happy for people not to use that language if they don't want to. I just don't think they should try and stop others using it.
quote:
To say "one must have a PRWG to be a Christian" and then to assert that you are not saying that those who feel that their relationship with God is not personal are not Christians, because, of course, you know that they really do have a PRWG, even if they don't see it, honestly doesn't make things any better. How could it?
How could it? Because most of the anti-PWRG people here seem to be saying that the reason they don't know they have such a thing is because they don't feel a certain way, or enjoy a certain type of worship, or get on with Christians who use the PWRG language. I haven't yet seen a single advocate of the PWRG position who is trying to say that is the essence of a personal relationship with God. If you accept Jesus as Lord of your life, the most basic confession of Christianity, it is my understanding that you are personally relating to Him. I'm sorry if that offends you but I stand by it.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
How could it? Because most of the anti-PWRG people here seem to be saying that the reason they don't know they have such a thing is because they don't feel a certain way, or enjoy a certain type of worship, or get on with Christians who use the PWRG language. I haven't yet seen a single advocate of the PWRG position who is trying to say that is the essence of a personal relationship with God. If you accept Jesus as Lord of your life, the most basic confession of Christianity, it is my understanding that you are personally relating to Him. I'm sorry if that offends you but I stand by it.
I think part of the problem is that "personal" and "relationship" are deeply loaded words -- loaded that is with connotations that are deeply important to people.
The purely mathematical mode of saying "this is the definition I'm using" collides with the deep implications of the words in a way that makes it really hard to work in terms of a specific definition only without letting the other deep meanings people associate with the words (and/or with the phrase "personal relationship") keep impinging.
Another thing that collides is a feeling of "if that's all you meant, then why attach the deeply meaningful words 'personal relationship' to it?" so that there may be a feeling that there's more behind the definition than is being said.
I think where there's such freight attached to words or phrases that it's easier to further discussion by finding a neutral alternate term to use rather than continue to hit the wall engendered by the phrase.
In your particular usage:
quote:
If you accept Jesus as Lord of your life, the most basic confession of Christianity, it is my understanding that you are personally relating to Him.
Suppose for conversation's sake we treat those as semantically interchangeable, as a purely formal definition for "personally relating" in this context. Does that help to draw any other conclusions?
It suggests to me that if I am unsure about accepting Jesus as the Lord of my life, that I should work on talking to Jesus as I would talk to any other person with whom I wanted to build a "personal relationship" (using the phrase in an everyday sense now).
It suggests to me that if I am unsure about what "accept Jesus as the Lord of my life" means, that perhaps what it means is "do I talk to Jesus in my mind the way I talk to other people in my mind, and imagine him answering and being there just the way I think of other real-life people who are close to me."
It suggests that the way to work on "accepting Jesus as the Lord of my life" is to talk to Jesus in the way described above.
It suggests to me that if I think I'm a Christian, but don't understand that in terms having to do with "personally relating to Jesus," that perhaps I have the wrong understanding of what it means to be a Christian. (I personally won't be offended if someone thinks that's correct -- just laying out the conclusions this use of words gives me because of the connotations I have around them.)
Are those the suggestions and connotations you wished me to also draw?
If so, "personally relating" is a useful phrase for me to understand what you want to convey. If not, then "personally relating" seems about as formal and empty a usage in this context as if you said I were "personally relating" right now to the computer on which I am typing this.
(These same issues don't arise for me when someone talks about their personal relationship with Jesus, only when this extends into the type of dialogue about definitions that we seem to be having in most of this thread. Well, I guess they do, because if someone said "I have a personal relationship with Jesus" I would expect that to mean more like what Lynn Magdalen College has described than what Karl:Liberal Backslider has describe. So it's useful to me that Lynn and Karl have described their experience. And I guess in general anytime someone uses the phrase I should ask what they mean, since it seems to be quite a nebulous phrase!)
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Josephine, it is nothing like this. Those in the PWRG camp and those without are broadly agreed on the character of God. The issue is, surely, how we relate to that character, and whether that way of relating is "personal" or not. Bringing in similes that make it sound like I am trying to get you to imagine that God is loving and kind when he isn't at all, just muddies the issue.
But you're trying to get other people to believe that their relationship with God is personal, when they think it is nothing of the kind. It's not an exact analogy, because no analogy is, but I think it's very much of the same kind.
Let's try another one, though, since you don't like that one. Let's say for the sake of argument that you were baptized as an infant, but had never since darkened the door of the Church, and you considered themselves an atheist. Furthermore, let's say that you've been hurt and offended in the past by people who called themselves born-again Christians. Now let's say that I tell you that you are, in fact, a born-again Christian, because you were baptized. By definition, when you are baptized you are born again, and you become a Christian. Whether you believe it or not, whether you understand it that way or not is no more relevant than whether an infant being born believes it and understands it or not. Call yourself an atheist if you like. I know that you're a born-again Christian.
If you were that hypothetical atheist, would you find that offensive?
Or suppose I told my friendly neighborhood Southern Baptist that, as I understand it, when they take Communion, they are eating God's flesh and drinking His blood, and if they are not doing that, then what they are doing isn't really Communion. Do you think they'd be mollified by my saying "as I understand it"? I don't. They would quite rightly respond by telling me that they are not bound by my understanding of Communion.
Nor are others bound by your understanding of what it means to have a personal relationship with God. In fact, while you say
quote:
If you accept Jesus as Lord of your life, the most basic confession of Christianity, it is my understanding that you are personally relating to Him. I'm sorry if that offends you but I stand by it.
I don't see it that way at all. None of the creeds, none of the councils, ever talked about accepting Jesus as Lord of your life. Nor do they talk aobut personally relating to God. It's not historic Christianity. It's not orthodox (note the small o) Christianity. It isn't the faith of the desert fathers, of the martyrs, of the confessors. It's a modern innovation, designed for people who want their own individual, private, personal God, something that makes them feel like they have an important place in the Kingdom of God.
Me? I know I'll be lucky if I get a chance to mop the dust from the streets of gold. If I do, it won't be because of my personal relationship with God. Instead, it will be because of the intercessions of the saints, the prayers of my godfather, the goodness and holiness of those who love me far more than I love God. The fathers tell us that no one is ever saved alone. I don't need my relationship with God to be personal. In fact, I'm quite sure that if I depend on my personal relationship with God for my salvation, I ain't gonna make it. I need my relationship with God to be communal. I need to relate to him in the company of the saints, guarded and guided and upheld by them and by the angels. That's the only way I'm going to be saved.
Or you either, for that matter. I'm sorry if that offends you, but I stand by it.
[ 02. December 2005, 00:54: Message edited by: josephine ]
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
quote:
Originally posted by PerkyEars:
quote:
Plays RPGs with me
He'd be an interesting GM. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
It'd have to be Amber or something. He doesn't play dice.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
wellll - Proverbs 16:33 says "The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the Lord" - so maybe He DOES play dice!!! (I can see it now, Einstein up there and the Lord elbowing him and saying, "hey, watch THIS one!")
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
It's like telling someone who believes her husband doesn't love her, "Of course your husband loves you. He comes home every night. He doesn't drink too much. He pays his share of the bills. He even sends you flowers on Valentine's day. That's what it means for a husband to love his wife. How could you possibly think your husband doesn't love you?"
oh Josephine, this makes me think of CSLewis' "Til We Have Faces" - !!! wow! The book has some interesting applications to this thraad, methinks.
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
<<Looking up>> THREAD. sigh. I can spell, too!
quote:
posted by Autenried Road:
So it's useful to me that Lynn and Karl have described their experience. And I guess in general anytime someone uses the phrase I should ask what they mean, since it seems to be quite a nebulous phrase!)
This thread has been useful for me in the same way - to point out that terminology which I've found unproblematic is, in fact, quite problematic because of its nebulous nature.
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Me? I know I'll be lucky if I get a chance to mop the dust from the streets of gold. If I do, it won't be because of my personal relationship with God. Instead, it will be because of the intercessions of the saints, the prayers of my godfather, the goodness and holiness of those who love me far more than I love God. The fathers tell us that no one is ever saved alone. I don't need my relationship with God to be personal. In fact, I'm quite sure that if I depend on my personal relationship with God for my salvation, I ain't gonna make it. I need my relationship with God to be communal. I need to relate to him in the company of the saints, guarded and guided and upheld by them and by the angels. That's the only way I'm going to be saved.
I think your unstated "first cause" is, in fact, the atonement made for us on the cross, yes? I mean, there is no "communion of the saints" without Jesus making saints in the first place. I'm just clarifying because it seems the confusion on this thread is often based on our unspoken assumptions...? Thanks - pax!
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
Just wondering some stuff...
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
... I know I'll be lucky if I get a chance to mop the dust from the streets of gold.
Yes indeed. "Better a doorkeeper in the house of my God" and all that.
quote:
If I do, it won't be because of my personal relationship with God. Instead, it will be because of the intercessions of the saints...
The live saints or the dead ones?
quote:
... the prayers of my godfather...
That's the intercession of the saints I understand.
quote:
the goodness and holiness of those who love me far more than I love God...
Those, who? The goodness of other people is credited to you?
quote:
... The fathers tell us that no one is ever saved alone...
They do? Is there a cutoff point or a timeline to use, to figure out who speaks/spoke the very oracles of God?
quote:
... I don't need my relationship with God to be personal. In fact, I'm quite sure that if I depend on my personal relationship with God for my salvation, I ain't gonna make it.
Yep, you're right, you're gonna fry in Hell if you're depending on the power and might of the way you, the magnificent Josephine, deign to relate to God. You're not thinking any of us PRWC people are saying that, are you?
quote:
I need my relationship with God to be communal. I need to relate to him in the company of the saints, guarded and guided and upheld by them and by the angels.
Those saints would be the dead ones, then?
quote:
That's the only way I'm going to be saved.
Is it an Orthodox thing, the deal where you devote yourself to God and the Church and strive to be ever more holy until you die, then perhaps you'll make the cut if you're holy enough?
quote:
Or you either, for that matter.
Very true. I contend, though, that because of the personal relationship with the Messiah -- say "individual" if "personal" is too... personal ... and try "connection" for "relationship"...
Because of that interconnectedness with the Redeemer, if you are His you are saved. Now. And it's a matter of rejecting Him to escape so great a salvation.
quote:
I'm sorry if that offends you, but I stand by it.
I doubt anyone was offended -- I hope you're not offended by my interest in using your well-put-together explanation of your POV to try to contrast my own. As I accidentally read Nicodemia's post -- "Josephine, you put things so much better than I can't!"
Oh, and Mousethief -- I know people need to define terms-in-common if they're gonna have a meaningful discussion. I know lots of folks don't operate with the same definitions.
I simply think mine are better.
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basket Case
Shipmate
# 1812
|
Posted
from josephine:
quote:
It isn't the faith of the desert fathers, of the martyrs...)
Josephine, are you quite sure about that? If so, what do you base that belief on?
It's a modern innovation, designed for people who want their own individual, private, personal God, something that makes them feel like they have an important place in the Kingdom of God.
How nice that you believe you have so much insight into those who experience their faith differently from you. I find it rather presumptuous of you.
Posts: 1157 | From: Pomo (basket) country | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basket Case
Shipmate
# 1812
|
Posted
from josephine:
quote:
It isn't the faith of the desert fathers, of the martyrs...)
Josephine, are you quite sure about that? If so, what do you base that belief on?
more from Josephine: quote:
It's a modern innovation, designed for people who want their own individual, private, personal God, something that makes them feel like they have an important place in the Kingdom of God.
How nice that you believe you have so much insight into those who experience their faith differently from you. I find it rather presumptuous.
Posts: 1157 | From: Pomo (basket) country | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
I think your unstated "first cause" is, in fact, the atonement made for us on the cross, yes? I mean, there is no "communion of the saints" without Jesus making saints in the first place. I'm just clarifying because it seems the confusion on this thread is often based on our unspoken assumptions...? Thanks - pax!
You mean the first cause of my salvation? That would be the grace of God. Everything else flows from that.
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
If I do, it won't be because of my personal relationship with God. Instead, it will be because of the intercessions of the saints...
The live saints or the dead ones?
Live saints, of course. There aren't any dead saints. Christ destroyed death; the saints are alive in Christ, even if their bodies are dead. (We don't ask for the prayers of people who are dead in Christ. You've just got to figure out which death is the important one.)
quote:
quote:
the goodness and holiness of those who love me far more than I love God...
Those, who? The goodness of other people is credited to you?
Credited? No, not credited. But haven't you read what James said? He who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins. And Jude, the brother of James, told us to have compassion on some, but to save others with fear. And Paul said that he would save his brethren by provoking them to jealousy. And he talked of husbands saving their wives, and wives their husbands.
So I trust that those who love me will cover my sins with their love, that they will turn me from error, that they will, through their prayers, their kindness, their strength, their love, do whatever it takes to help me on my path to salvation.
quote:
quote:
I need my relationship with God to be communal. I need to relate to him in the company of the saints, guarded and guided and upheld by them and by the angels.
Those saints would be the dead ones, then?
Like I said, there ain't no dead saints.
Oh, and (gracia)?
quote:
How nice that you believe you have so much insight into those who experience their faith differently from you. I find it rather presumptuous.
You're exactly right. I was rather hoping folks might notice that the shoe pinched when it was on the other foot.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
The fathers tell us that no one is ever saved alone.
<snip>
I need my relationship with God to be communal.
<snip>
I need to relate to him in the company of the saints, guarded and guided and upheld by them and by the angels. That's the only way I'm going to be saved.
Thank you, Josephine for sharing with us this understanding. While I am not (O)thordox nor hold strictly to what you posted here about salvation & God, I want to thank you very, very much for reminding us about relationship and the importance of relationship in God's word and in his kingdom.
An evangelical Korean-American shared that whenever he was introducing somone to Christianity & the bible, he didn't use the John 3:16 approach.
He said it was too individualistic and alien to his culture. His culture did not focus on the individual as the basic unit - but rather the family and the family within a village. Whenever this Korean-American shared the gospel, he said that he used the books of Acts. This may sound strange.
He used verses like:
quote:
He told us how he had seen an angel appear in his house and say, 'Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.'
Acts 11:13-14
Which emphasized the family and household and community...
and also,
quote:
They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household." Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house.
Acts 16:31-32
It is possible to see that in the early church, it wasn't just "me n' Jesus got a thing going on" etc...but it was about families and households and communities.
I think maybe in the West, we have erred so much on the side of individualism that we have missed out on the beauty of community. We forget that is not just a "me 'n Jesus" - but a gathering and company of saints - we who make up his body...
--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evo1
Shipmate
# 10249
|
Posted
Here's a question I've been thinking about, and it probably boils down to definitions but I'm going to go out on a limb anyway. In Mark 12, Jesus is questioned:
"One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
This seems to be just as valid for Christians as Jews but you may disagree but Jesus answers:
"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: `Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
Now my question is simply this, do you love God (as best you can) in this way (again, something I would regard as synonymous with Christianity (at least to try) and if you do, how can this be achieved without being personal?
Just interested to know how you guys square this circle is all I'm after, not making any judgements.
Though I fear I will be misinterpreted once more.
Evo1
--------------------
Just think how horrid I would be if I didn't have a Personal Relationship with Jesus
Posts: 1058 | From: Hull, England | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gill H
Shipmate
# 68
|
Posted
I suspect this is going to come down to how you define 'love'.
Even us fluffy bunnies would say it doesn't necessarily mean 'having warm fuzzies'.
--------------------
*sigh* We can’t all be Alan Cresswell.
- Lyda Rose
Posts: 9313 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evo1:
Now my question is simply this, do you love God (as best you can) in this way (again, something I would regard as synonymous with Christianity (at least to try) and if you do, how can this be achieved without being personal?
Just interested to know how you guys square this circle is all I'm after, not making any judgements.
Though I fear I will be misinterpreted once more.
Evo1
It's a fair question, Evo. I think it's just a matter of how some of us experience (or don't) the return contact. If my grandfather was dead, I would not stop loving him very much. My relationship with him, however, would cease being personal, because though I may call out to him, he won't answer in a way I can hear. (Unless, of course, we are in a Disney movie.)
Also, Lep: I don't want anyone to think that I am in any way proposing that people not refer to their own relationships with God as personal. The root of my argument is that you should be able to describe it in any way you want. My contention is that I don't need you to describe to me why I misunderstand my own relationship with God. It's patronizing, as if to say, "Someday you'll become enlightened, like me, and you'll understand." Mean it like that or not, it's why people are responding so strongly against this type of suggestion.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evo1
Shipmate
# 10249
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
It's a fair question, Evo. I think it's just a matter of how some of us experience (or don't) the return contact. If my grandfather was dead, I would not stop loving him very much. My relationship with him, however, would cease being personal, because though I may call out to him, he won't answer in a way I can hear. (Unless, of course, we are in a Disney movie.)
But I imagine that you are not here saying that God is dead? How about if your grandfather had gone to the moon and you couldn't communicate with him, what then? You love him very much, he loves you very much. It reminds me of the painting of Adam's finger reaching up to God's finger but they just fall short of touching (don't ask me which it is, I'm an artistic Phillistine (see Hell thread on Art for proof)??
Seeing as both sides are deeply entrenched here, I'll not go on.
--------------------
Just think how horrid I would be if I didn't have a Personal Relationship with Jesus
Posts: 1058 | From: Hull, England | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evo1:
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
It's a fair question, Evo. I think it's just a matter of how some of us experience (or don't) the return contact. If my grandfather was dead, I would not stop loving him very much. My relationship with him, however, would cease being personal, because though I may call out to him, he won't answer in a way I can hear. (Unless, of course, we are in a Disney movie.)
But I imagine that you are not here saying that God is dead? How about if your grandfather had gone to the moon and you couldn't communicate with him, what then? You love him very much, he loves you very much.
Yeah, you're moon analogy is better, as long as we assume there is no telephone/radio/satellite contact at all between us. In that case, I would still feel like I had lost the personal aspect of my relationship with my grandfather since I couldn't see him in person or hear his voice out loud. So that would be my own take on that situation.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Evo1
Shipmate
# 10249
|
Posted
Cheers Lynn
--------------------
Just think how horrid I would be if I didn't have a Personal Relationship with Jesus
Posts: 1058 | From: Hull, England | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
From Josephine:
quote:
Oh, and (gracia)?
quote:
How nice that you believe you have so much insight into those who experience their faith differently from you. I find it rather presumptuous.
You're exactly right. I was rather hoping folks might notice that the shoe pinched when it was on the other foot.
Exactly!
Josephine - I am bowled over again this morning how well you express all that I feel!
And : quote:
Me? I know I'll be lucky if I get a chance to mop the dust from the streets of gold.
I always imagined I'd be in the back kitchen making the coffee!!
Joyfulsoul: quote:
I think maybe in the West, we have erred so much on the side of individualism that we have missed out on the beauty of community. We forget that is not just a "me 'n Jesus" - but a gathering and company of saints - we who make up his body...
I think you are right there.
[ 02. December 2005, 10:44: Message edited by: Callan ]
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Superslug
Shipmate
# 7024
|
Posted
Digory,
Just to say that I still have a personal relationship with my father who died 7 years ago.
He still has a massive influence on my life, I still act in a way he would have wanted me to act, he still speaks to me through memories of conversations and actions. To me my father has not stopped being, if you get my drift.
I beleive if I ask something of him now, his answer would be given through this contact which does not seem to be bound by our human concept of time.
Yes, I understand that this could be seen as different to God, in that I did have a living physical, tangable relationship with Dad, but as a supporter of the PRWG view I see this as a good analogy.
Perhaps it is just the way we are all made, fantasticly different?
SS
--------------------
I was 'educated' in the UK in the 70s and early 80s. Therefore, please feel free to correct my grammar and punctuation. I need to know!
Posts: 464 | From: Hessle, East Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Or suppose I told my friendly neighborhood Southern Baptist that, as I understand it, when they take Communion, they are eating God's flesh and drinking His blood, and if they are not doing that, then what they are doing isn't really Communion. Do you think they'd be mollified by my saying "as I understand it"? I don't. They would quite rightly respond by telling me that they are not bound by my understanding of Communion.
Would they? I have had many a Roman catholic person tell me this. You are right I am not bound by their definition - but I'm not trying to "bind you to my definition" (whatever that means!) I am trying to explain how I use a particular set of words. To be honest I'm not sure that the average Southern Baptist would be half as bothered about your understanding of their communion service as you seem to be about these four words. I am merely trying to get to the bottom of that.
quote:
It's not historic Christianity. It's not orthodox (note the small o) Christianity.
Nonsense. "If you believe with your heart and confess with your mouth...." - what is that if it isn't personal?
quote:
It's a modern innovation, designed for people who want their own individual, private, personal God, something that makes them feel like they have an important place in the Kingdom of God.
Erm no. The Lordship of Christ doesn't make me feel that way at all actually.
quote:
Me? I know I'll be lucky if I get a chance to mop the dust from the streets of gold. If I do, it won't be because of my personal relationship with God. Instead, it will be because of the intercessions of the saints, the prayers of my godfather, the goodness and holiness of those who love me far more than I love God. The fathers tell us that no one is ever saved alone. I don't need my relationship with God to be personal. In fact, I'm quite sure that if I depend on my personal relationship with God for my salvation, I ain't gonna make it. I need my relationship with God to be communal. I need to relate to him in the company of the saints, guarded and guided and upheld by them and by the angels. That's the only way I'm going to be saved.
Or you either, for that matter. I'm sorry if that offends you, but I stand by it.
The thing is, I'm not offended at all by that. Even though I disagree with most of it. I can live with the fact that we disagree on what it means to be a Christian.
I actually agree with Joyfulsoul that evangelicalism has largely lost it's hold on the corporate aspect of relating to God. The evangelical staples of personal Bible reading and prayer have made it sound like the Bible is just a book written for me, and this I think has led to unlikely and ridiculous expectations of personal revelation from the Holy Spirit, as well as a skewed view of the Gospel.
I'm even happy to admit that I don't really like the phrase PRWG, and don't use it much, and that it's no big deal to me if people don't want to use it. My issue is that the repentance and faith that Jesus calls us to is something that we do, a response that we make, and an experience that we have (though many of us feel that experience differently).
Yes becoming a Christian is joining the church, but I actually think it is more than that too - it is an individual and corporate ecnounter, although, and here I am agreeing with you josephine, much of how we experience that as individuals is through our corporate acts together.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
I think I agree with you there Lep.
In addition I must say that this is the first time on the ship I've read a discussion about having a PWRG. The OP has asked a question and people have said what they mean by it. It's then a bit harsh to castigate people for answering truthfully what they think. In the same way (I think this thread needs a few more similies yet!) if a thread was started asking RCs what their position on Protestant communion was, it wouldn't be fair to then have a go if they said that it wasn't Communion in their eyes.*
Josephine's and Lep's point about the corporate nature of evangelicalism is an interesting one - worthy of another thread?
[* just an example of another issue where there's not likely to be much agreement between the different camps]
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Lep, let me make it totally clear why I have a problem with the language, and think that people who relate to it should be bloody careful how they use it.
It damages people. It screws up their faith.
Why? Because when Cuddly Charismatic(TM) A N Other tells me he has a PRWG, and that if I'm a Christian I have one as well, he does not go through a nine page thread (that's over 400 posts!) explaining what he means. He lets me parse it for myself.
And I find that by my understanding of the words, and I thought I knew what "personal relationship" meant, so I don't ask him to clarify, I do not have this PRWG.
Therefore, there is something badly defective with my Christianity.
Perhaps I'm not really a Christian. So I spend months constantly rededicating my life to Christ, awaiting this PRWG to materialise.
Perhaps it's a load of bollocks. So I conclude for a while that the Cuddly Charismatics are fooling themselves, inventing experiences out of their own psyche and basically wasting their time. I grow antagonistic towards them and want nothing to do with them, because every time I associate with them I go back to worrying that they're right and my Christianity is bogus.
Fortunately I've managed to keep just inside faith by concluding that PRWG as I understand the "PR" bit is impossible, meangingless and a complete distraction. But it would have been so easy to fall by the wayside, so very easy, so many times. And this whole PRWG stuff would have been the main reason.
So feel free to encourage people to use the language, and watch those for whom it doesn't work leave the church, their faith defeated.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evo1
Shipmate
# 10249
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Lep, let me make it totally clear why I have a problem with the language, and think that people who relate to it should be bloody careful how they use it.
..snip..
So feel free to encourage people to use the language, and watch those for whom it doesn't work leave the church, their faith defeated.
Or in other words, "you better see things from my point of view or else you are responsible for the damnation of others".
There are two sides to this story aren't there? What about people whose lives have been entirely changed around through this very aspect, mine included?
--------------------
Just think how horrid I would be if I didn't have a Personal Relationship with Jesus
Posts: 1058 | From: Hull, England | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
How about it being presented as "This may be something useful for you, although a lot of Christians don't relate to it, and be careful because some people assume it means things it doesn't"
Rather than "Every Christian has a personal relationship with Christ. You do, if you're a Christian"
Spot the difference?
And can I add that your last post sounded like "sod you, I'm all right Jack?"?
[ 02. December 2005, 13:03: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evo1
Shipmate
# 10249
|
Posted
but then it would, wouldn't it.
--------------------
Just think how horrid I would be if I didn't have a Personal Relationship with Jesus
Posts: 1058 | From: Hull, England | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evo1:
There are two sides to this story aren't there? What about people whose lives have been entirely changed around through this very aspect, mine included?
There are probably more than two sides to the story. Some people relate to God in a very intimate way, one that is in some way quite erotic. I don't. I can't imagine it. But I've read enough of certain mystics that I know that that is a very real. very legitimate way of relating to God.
Nevertheless, if someone said, "Christians have an erotic relationship with God," and "in my understanding, if you're a Christian, your relationship is erotic, and if you haven't noticed an orgasm during prayer yet, you're just not paying attention," and "I think you need an erotic relationship with God in order to be a Christian," we'd all agree (I think) that the person was extrapolating their relationship with God to others in a way that just doesn't make sense for the rest of us. Some of us have never experienced God that way, don't expect to, and probably don't want to. For myself, if I started experiencing God that way, I'm not sure whether I'd first consult with a mental health practitioner or a holy nun who cold help me figure out whether I needed a mental health practitioner or maybe confession and penance or something else.
So, just substitute "personal" for "erotic," and maybe you'll understand the problem. It's okay for you to have a relationship with God that you consider personal. No one is saying it isn't. The problem occurs when you tell other people, explicitly or implicitly, that their relationship is or must be personal. It's telling other people how they relate to God, and how they feel about that relationship, that's the problem.
You can say all you want that believing, confessing, loving, worshiping, are all personal activities. I'm sure they are. But for some Christians, they don't add up to a PRWG. I think it's necessary to respect that.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evo1
Shipmate
# 10249
|
Posted
And although you started from acknowledging two sides of the story, you have managed not to see things from the other side, continuing to insist that we should not be allowed to tell people anything we believe but caveat beyond all meaning.
(I promise you, some of the people that I talk to would not respond at all well to "some people find this useful, you may, you may not, I do, though sometimes I might not but then I do again, but you must understand that others mean something completely different by this etc etc etc" They prefer to listen and decide for themselves whether it makes sense.)
So you see, your telling me that I cannot just tell people what I think, straight up, no nonsense, does somewhat tie my hands, just in exactly the same way that you are accusing us on the other side of the fence of oppressing you.
This "six of one and half a dozen of another" is what I'm trying to highlight.
--------------------
Just think how horrid I would be if I didn't have a Personal Relationship with Jesus
Posts: 1058 | From: Hull, England | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evo1
Shipmate
# 10249
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Presumably because that's what it was.
No, I was commenting on your general inability to understand what I say.
--------------------
Just think how horrid I would be if I didn't have a Personal Relationship with Jesus
Posts: 1058 | From: Hull, England | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
No, we're just telling you why you talking about your PRWG the way you do could be damaging to other Christians who don't relate to it, and therefore to be careful with the language.
Why is it so awful for us to want you to do that?
Incidently, I seem to be able to understand what everyone else says; I only have this apparent problem with you, which points to the problem being at your end, not mine.
[ 02. December 2005, 13:57: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evo1
Shipmate
# 10249
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No, we're just telling you why you talking about your PRWG the way you do could be damaging to other Christians who don't relate to it, and therefore to be careful with the language.
But then I'm telling you that using the language you suggest can be damaging to other people. You don't seem to respect that.
--------------------
Just think how horrid I would be if I didn't have a Personal Relationship with Jesus
Posts: 1058 | From: Hull, England | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Come, now, Evol, you expect me to believe that mentioning that the language of a Personal Relationship with God isn't helpful to everyone is damaging to some people?
Don't take me for a bloody fool.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evo1
Shipmate
# 10249
|
Posted
Your doing it again.
This is pointless.
--------------------
Just think how horrid I would be if I didn't have a Personal Relationship with Jesus
Posts: 1058 | From: Hull, England | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
