|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: In the bread or in the eating?
|
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Back to the plot though. I often feel just as ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) about the Orthodox on these boards as they do with us - and probably with as much justification.
I'm sure that's true! I've said sometimes that the problem isn't that we get different answers, but that we ask different questions, based on different assumptions, so that it's almost as though we're not even speaking the same language. It can be frustrating to try to really *understand* each other -- and, honestly, you don't know whether you agree or not until you really, truly understand.
Thanks for you thoughtful posts, Gamaliel. At least on this, I feel that you have understood. And I appreciate that!
And Lou and hatless, thanks for responding. I understand how y'all feel -- I grew up with open communion, and never thought I'd ever feel any differently about it. But my life has been full of surprises.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Dear Hatless, Bonzo and Lou
Thank you very much for your honesty. quote:
Originally posted by Hatless:
We should not have dogmatic beliefs, we really don't need them.
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
The thing I'm doggedly determined not to do is to sign up to any dogmatic belief.
quote:
Originally posted by Lou:
My thinking has moved away from dogmatic belief as that once meant in my life.
I think that honest reflection on what you have said reveals an a priori bias. No matter what arguments are advanced supporting RC/O dogma, you have decided beforehand that ANY DOGMA is indefensible. I think it is unfair for you to suggest that RC/O are closed-minded because they refuse to adopt your prejudice, or despite their efforts, they are unable to disabuse you of it.
Experimental science subjects its dogma to experimental verification. That is no reason to dismiss all scientific dogma as only equally probable or useful as any other explanation. Such a suggestion has no experimental motivation. So science will determine its own dogma by its own criteria.
Experiment is of limited use in theology as in art. Does that give greater license to dismiss dogma? Shouldn't we ask the purveyors of theology or art what their dogmas are? What does it mean to ask Snoop Dog about the dogmas of classical music, or the Pope about dogmas of Jewish orthodoxy?
Anyone is free to criticize any dogma they want, but it should come as no surprise that criteria foreign to those holding the dogma will be of little import to them.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Following on from Ley Druid ...
Before you can play a game you need to know the rules and play by them. Let's say that there are two games ... the Dogma Game and the No-Dogma game. Both games have their own rules ... both have different possibilities inherent in playing out of those rules creatively. However, there is now an impasse. The No-Dogma game devotees claim that the Dogma Game is no game at all and should be denied a place in the Truth Olympics. According to No-Dogma theorists, the Dogma Game is a charade because all the possible moves are mapped out in advance. There is no creativity in playing. Indeed there is no pointing in having two players or more at all. There is no risk of losing. The game has stacked all its chances as certainties for its players. Imagine what happens when a third team comprising Dogma and No-Dogma theorists tries to develop a new game ... Ecuplay. The No-Dogma team first tries to convince the Dogma theorists that no synthesised game that incorporates Dogma principles will either work or interest them. Perhaps the Dogma Theorists can change their rules so that Ecuplay can work on entirely different (but as yet unspecified principles). This sounds attractive but the Dogma Theorists soon discover that every gaming insight they wish to incorporate based on Dogma principles is ruled illicit by the No-Dogma theorists. Ecuplay is not an even handed venture at all. The Dogma theorists withdraw. Can they convince the No-Dogma theorists that the Dogma game is truly creative and not deterministic? Can the No-Dogma theorists persuade the Dogma theorists that their game actually has rules ... that it's not an individualistic free for all (as the Dogma game theorists claim)? Who knows. There are no easy answers.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Yes, Ley Druid, I think I am, a priori, against any dogmas. I do not rule out any beliefs. I am open to be persuaded of any beliefs, but I am opposed to the holding of beliefs rigidly, inflexibly, and without reasonable support - just because a church teaches them.
It's not the beliefs in themselves I am opposed to, it is believing dogmatically I have a problem with.
I am inclined to think that it is in the nature of Christianity to be about growth and change. Jesus's teaching led people to a radical revision of their understanding of religion. Ever since, there has been a radical side of Christianity that is unable to accept institutional religion but rebels against it. You can see it in the Desert Fathers, in Francis and the other monastic reformers, in the radical communistic movements of the early middle ages, and of course in the Reformation and the shattering of Western Christianity.
Coming to faith and renewing faith are about moving on, about throwing away old understanding and recoining belief. I used to think it was a great sadness that the Church was divided into many churches, but perhaps that is its natural state. Christianity is fissile stuff.
I don't much mind what someone thinks and believes, what affects whether I will be able to get on with them is whether or not they are on a journey. Are they someone open to change and development? If so, we can talk and I can respect.
For me, true faith is not something that could even in theory be expressed. True faith is a dynamic thing, not a position but a journey, it is the adventure of self-searching, of discovery, of the dark night of the soul, of questioning and questing. Faith is the leap.
I fear that Orthodoxy has become a retreat to an imagined certainty and continuity, a flight from faith. My hunch is that a good look at Orthodoxy would show that it has changed as much as any other branch of Christianity, that its claims to be the one and indeed the only Church are not only bogus but the most breathtakingly arrogant bit of propoganda around.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Hatless, Bonzo, Scot, Lou -- were y'all not responding to the analogy I used because it just seemed like a rhetorical device, and not really a point that needed to be responded to? Or was it just completely opaque? Or something else? I'm really curious, because I feel like I completely failed to get across what I was trying to say, and I don't know why.
I did not respond to your analogy because it is appears that we have little common ground on which to discuss it. I recognize that this is likely a result of extreme differences in ecclesiology. However, since you asked, here goes.
Your formulation implies that Eucharist is primarily expressive of a relationship between the believer and the Church. I do not agree. I believe that Eucharist is expressive of a relationship between the believer and Christ himself. Taking communion in a church other than your own is not analogous to having sex with a man who is not your husband. Rather, it is analogous to doing it with your husband, but somewhere other than your bed. Therefore, I object to any claim that it wrong to take communion in another church (although I have no problem with declining based on simple preference).
As individual Christians, we are all members of the body of Christ. As members of my body, all of my limbs are equally entitled to have sex with my wife. For my left hand to deny the right of my right hand to marital relations is absurd. No member has exclusive rights to a thing which is proper for the whole body. Thus, I object to exclusion of any Christian from communion.
I still respect your collective right to practice as your conscience and church dictate. Just as you think I am wrong, I think you are wrong. The difference is that your church makes the disagreement a basis of exclusion and division.
scot
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear hatless
quote:
I fear that Orthodoxy has become a retreat to an imagined certainty and continuity,
And what is your evidence for that fossilisation hatless? You then go on to remark that Orthodoxy HAS changed. Presumably we were all comatose at the time and didn't notice it happening.
quote:
that its claims to be the one and indeed the only Church are not only bogus but the most breathtakingly arrogant bit of propoganda around.
We are clearly not the ONLY Church on the block. All you have ever heard here is the uniqueness of Catholicism and Orthodoxy here based on the idea of fulness. I know that strikes you as just as arrogant as "only" but as a hypothesus it is like any other ... it can only be refuted by evidence. Simply saying "it's preposterous" is as subjective as my saying: "It isn't."
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear hatless
quote:
I fear that Orthodoxy has become a retreat to an imagined certainty and continuity,
And what is your evidence for that fossilisation hatless? You then go on to remark that Orthodoxy HAS changed. Presumably we were all comatose at the time and didn't notice it happening.
I am suggesting that the appeal of Orthodoxy is that it sidesteps the heterogeneity of Christianity and claims to offer one, allegedly original, version of the faith. I am also saying that this claim is false, that Orthodoxy's unchanged continuity is untrue. I don't say it has fossilised, I think it has always changed. It is the members of the Orthodox churches who say, falsely, that it is unchanging. quote:
quote:
that its claims to be the one and indeed the only Church are not only bogus but the most breathtakingly arrogant bit of propoganda around.
We are clearly not the ONLY Church on the block. All you have ever heard here is the uniqueness of Catholicism and Orthodoxy here based on the idea of fulness.
Josephine wrote:
"For us, the Church means the Orthodox Church. The Anglican Church, or the Presbyterian Church, or the Baptist Church, isn't the Church, or part of the Church, or a denomination within the Church."
This does indeed strike me as arrogant. quote:
I know that strikes you as just as arrogant as "only" but as a hypothesus it is like any other ... it can only be refuted by evidence. Simply saying "it's preposterous" is as subjective as my saying: "It isn't."
I didn't describe it as preposterous. I said it was propoganda. Given the complex multiplicity of denominations it is the church that claims not to be one of the many denominations but the only true church that has to come up with the evidence.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
Gregory,
I think there seems to be some difference between your view of the orthodox church and those of other orthodox christians on this thread. That's good. At times it feels like we're talking to 'the orthodox' rather than individuals. I really wish that we'd hear more opinions expressed as those of individuals rather than an expousal of the doctrines of a church, although we're all guilty of that from time to time.
But back to the topic of 'the church', do I understand you correctly that you see the orthodox church as a part of the wider church of Christ rather than the 'real' church which has everything right while the rest of us are only partly right?
After all, if we'd all stuck to the original church that Christ worshipped in then we'd all be worshipping in synagogues.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I don't much mind what someone thinks and believes, what affects whether I will be able to get on with them is whether or not they are on a journey. Are they someone open to change and development? If so, we can talk and I can respect.
Hatless, if you'll forgive me, I know that you didn't call me by name here, but the context of this remark makes it sound rather as though you are talking about me, and that you think that, because I hold to some small number of dogmatic beliefs, that I am not on a faith journey.
The idea that you could say that, or even suggest it, rather takes my breath away. What kind of presumptions underlie your reasoning to get you to that conclusion?
For me, coming into Orthodoxy wasn't the end of the journey -- it wasn't "a retreat to an imagined certainty and continuity, a flight from faith." It was the end of *preparing* for the journey, and the beginning of the true journey.
It hasn't been easy -- and it hasn't been static. There are parts of Orthodoxy that don't change -- but on this journey I have found that the stability of Orthodoxy has allowed, encouraged, forced *me* to change. I don't have to revisit established dogma over and over again, to make sure I still believe it. As a result, I have the liberty for "the adventure of self-searching, of discovery, of the dark night of the soul, of questioning and questing."
Although my Church hasn't gone anywhere, *I* have traveled far since I became Orthodox. And I still have far to go -- there's no end to this journey.
--------------------
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
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
But back to the topic of 'the church', do I understand you correctly that you see the orthodox church as a part of the wider church of Christ rather than the 'real' church which has everything right while the rest of us are only partly right?
You'll have to forgive me, Father Gregory, but I was taught that exactly what Bonzo says here, that we are the one true Church, and that while there are Christians outside the visible organization of the Church, there is no Church outside the Orthodox Church (with even the Catholic Church being not a separate Church, but a schismatic patriarchate of the Church).
Of course, if folks are looking for a point where all the Orthodox on the board will likely disagree with each other, this is likely to be it: how are Christians outside the Orthodox Church related to the Church?
Some will say there aren't any Christians outside the Church -- if you're not Orthodox, you're not Christian.
Others will say that those outside the Church are related to the Church in the same manner as those who are temporarily excommunicate -- they're Christians, they're members of the Church, but are simply out of Communion.
Some would apply the second position only to Roman Catholics, and the first position to everyone else.
Others would say that those outside the Orthodox Church are related to the Church in a manner analogous to catechumens and the unbaptized children of Orthodox Christian. They already belong to the Church, although the relationship hasn't yet been fulfilled.
Some will say it's none of our business; it's between them and God.
But I've never heard any discussion of how any other Church (save the Roman Catholic) relates to the Orthodox Church, since I've never heard any other Orthodox Christian say there *is* another Church outside ours.
--------------------
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
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine
You'll have to forgive me, Father Gregory, but I was taught that exactly what Bonzo says here, that we are the one true Church, and that while there are Christians outside the visible organization of the Church, there is no Church outside the Orthodox Church (with even the Catholic Church being not a separate Church, but a schismatic patriarchate of the Church).
So you'll be trying to convert me from my heathen ways then? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Hatless and Bonzo
Josephine has fairly described (obviously) what she was taught AND the breadth of opinion amongst the Orthodox concerning other churches and our relationship to them, (this discussion can also be found in the famous tome "The Orthodox Church" by Timothy (Bp. Kallistos) Ware.
Josephine and I do differ on this .... and you are wrong Hatless in thinking that we Orthodox believe that NOTHING has changed in our Church ... but I digress.
The fact that Josephine and I DO differ on this reflects the fact that there are many issues in Orthodoxy (unsettled) that admit a wide variety of views and vigorous debate.
ALL Orthodox subscribe to the view that the Orthodox Church has the fullness of faith and life but they differ widely on Christianity outside Orthodoxy.
There is a problem with the word "church." The word is being forced to contain too many meanings .... local church, canonical church, a denomination, a collection of denominations, invisible association of the elect, visible manifestation of a heavenly reality, .... all these and more are covered by the word "church." Some people like to make a rough distinction between church / churches / and Church ... but by no means consistently or coherently.
This is my take on the matter having from the beginning examined the dioversity of opinion WITHIN Orthodoxy ....
(1) The fullness of Christianity subsists in Orthodoxy. (I say Orthodoxy rather than in the Orthodox Church because, although the latter is more correct and we certainly don't subscribe to the "invisible church" doctrine ... at times there have been situations when certain Orthodox churches, (undeniably Orthodox), became judged by others as uncanonical ... ceasing to be seen by these as belonging to the Church. This is difficult for many Orthodox to admit but in my view, for example, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is fully a part of the Orthodox Church although it is (wrongly) regarded by many as uncanonical).
(2) There are many churches, Christians and other groups that practice Orthodoxy more or less completely but which are not part of the Orthodox Church by anyone's estimation having never had any organic union with us nor ever having sought it. These churches could be thought of as having their own "circles" overlapping with our own. The overlaps refer to commonality of belief and practice notwithstanding the lack of unity at the organic level. Ecumenism means for us applying ourselves more earnestly to the search for organic unity with these who, already, share much in common and calling for more dialogue with those who share less in common.
Just my take on the matter, (but, Josephine, not an exceptional view in Orthodoxy).
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I think Fr. Gregory has hit the nail on the head that equivocation on the word "church" makes discussion of this question rather thorny.
The creed says "I believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic church."
The sticking point is the word "one." Looking out at the multitude of bodies that call themselves "churches" (as Fr. Gregory enumerated), the church would appear to be anything but one.
And yet we want to hold on to the creed.
So what is the solution? For the Orthodox it's to say, "our church is the one the creed is speaking of" -- because it always has been that way, and we're not sure how the splintering of western christendom changes our status.
For the Protestant the most common solution is the so-called "invisible church" idea-- in spite of the plurality on the surface, underneath we're all the same "church" because we all love Jesus (or some variation on same -- not meaning to be disrespectful but trying to sum up briefly).
And those two views are mighty hard to reconcile, hence the disagreements and bickering on this thread and a couple others I could mention.
Are we, then, talking at cross-purposes? I'm afraid that much of the time this is so. But we keep talking to try and understand one another, and that can't but be a good thing, assuming that we are really trying to understand one another and not just beating one another over the head with our respective ecclesiologies.
Or so it seems from my vantage point.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
I dare to poke my lurker's toe in this very informative thread just to add that my favourite 'definition' of church is the idea behind such scriptures as Ephesians 1:22-23, which describes the church as being Christ's body, 'the fulness of him who fills all in all.'
Linking it with the warnings about various bits of the body saying to each other 'I don't need you' reminds me to try, at least, to respect and understand what it is the other bits do, and why!
For example, while I understand Josephine's analogy of sex/marriage, eucharist/faith, and can see how it works well when used in the way she's using it (it's really helped me to understand the Orthodox position on receiving and distribution of communion), it's not an analogy that I, personally, recognize to be useful or active in my own understanding or experience of the Eucharist.
But nevertheless, I'm grateful to have had it explained as it furthers my understanding of why a particular 'bit' of Christ's body does what it does, and why.
The assertion, by Josephine, that 'church' is not to be found outside of the Orthodox faith, is naturally a harder statement to respond to with charity ( ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ). But, naturally there are going to be areas of huge disagreement, even between body members...... Still, I believe, probably too simplistically, that the 'fullness' of Christ is to be found in the whole (and wholeness) of the Body, which incorporates every Christian.
I know ecclesiology is much more complex than this, though, and I'm being a bit of a simpleton..... (aha! but which bit, you might ask? ![[Wink]](wink.gif) )
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
So what is the solution? For the Orthodox it's to say, "our church is the one the creed is speaking of"
That's so sad.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
It almost boils down to "church is the thing I am pointing at when I say the word 'church'"
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Ken
No ... the Lutherans say that the Church exists wherever the Word is preached and the Sacraments administered. Catholics say it is those churches in Communion with the See of Rome which itself is based on the acceptance of Catholic faith and life. Orthodox say that it is that Church stretching back to Pentecost and beyond which is in communion with those churches that uphold this unbroken and unfolding Tradition. All churches have their definitions ... all those definitions have criteria that are not circular in their application. It is not simply a matter of naming.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
But how do we know which earthly churches are in those definitions?
The Lutherans (and of course the Anglicans - what you quoted is more or less what it says in the Prayer Book, & I suspect Protestants in general) can at least look to see if the word is being preached in a church & sacraments are administered there, and if those things are done according to scripture.
The Romans have, no doubt, a long list somewhere of which churches are in and which out and only the Pope is allowed to change it.
But how can someone not already part of your tradition or willng to accept the definitions of that tradition know which are in that tradition? We have no time machine to see how things are done in every generation between now and the Lord?
It's almost like the problem of the Apostolic Succession (as interpreted in the Brain-Dead Anglo Catholic way, not the usual Roman Catholic way). If at some time in the past someone on the chain between the Apostles and your congregation got it wrong, how do you know whether you are in or out?
At least, I suppose, a church shich is outside the tradition can move into it by changing the way they do things. But they'd still have to identify the one true tradition to find out what it was.
And, of course, none of this has anything to do with the definition of the eternal Church, the Body of Christ, the fellowship of all saints, which is not co-terminous with any visible or local church.
(Not intending to suggest that all, most, or even any Anglo-Catholics are brain dead - but there have been in some times and places in the past a BDAC interpretation of apostolic succession that had it working almost mechanically, restricting the Holy Spirit to being passed about like a magic fluid being poured from jar to jar in baptism, confirmation, ordination, and consecration A Donatist heresy of course.)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Ken
quote:
At least, I suppose, a church shich is outside the tradition can move into it by changing the way they do things. But they'd still have to identify the one true tradition to find out what it was.
Identifying the Tradition is really quite simple. It consists of (in addition to the Scriptures of course but these admit of a fairly wide interpretation in the Christian world):-
(1) The 7 Ecumenical Councils, their decrees, definitions and canons. (The canons are subordinate in the sense that they vary more with culture than other elements).
(2) The Fathers, Mothers, the Saints and their teachings. These are gathered together in the Orthodox Church in a huge collection called the Philokalia
(3) The worship services of Orthodoxy ... "lex orandi, lex credendi."
If all this is in place there remains but one important piece of the jig saw ... coming into Communion with the other Orthodox churches. The list of who is canonical and who isn't is just as clear as any list maintained by the Anglican and Roman churches.
quote:
And, of course, none of this has anything to do with the definition of the eternal Church, the Body of Christ, the fellowship of all saints, which is not co-terminous with any visible or local church.
Not all members of every local Church is NECESSARILY to be found amongst the company of the redeemed on the last day but it is quite another thing to claim that the "true" Church is ontologically different from that constituted here on earth. We do not believe that the Church on earth is simply an aggreghate of her individual members. She is the bride of Christ AND his body. The metaphors are deliberately mixed because they all contribute something important to the overall picture of the Church as the beloved of God, his covenant community. This is entirely consistent with the visible manifestation of the Israel of God in the Old Testament ... which Church we also uphold in continuity with our own. Such continuity is not mechanistic or derived from simple lineages or formulae ... it is organic in a deeper mystical sense.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
Is this thread still open for new posts?
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
It's not supposed to be, sorry.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
