|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Christus Victor
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Please define what you think "dualism" is and why it is bad.
Dualism - as in life consisting of a battle between two equal forces of good and evil with the spoils going to the winner. This is not an equal battle with the outcome unknown, Christians have traditionally believed that God is sovereign.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
You need to pick one tactic: either you can say you don't understand CV and then be open to learning about it OR you can claim that you do understand it and then critique it intelligently. From your posts I think it is pretty obvious that you have never read Aulen's book, which kind of disqualifies you from the later. So please, go pick up a copy. Until then you will be fighting windmills.
We've been here before, and I'll say what I said then. I do not claim to fully understand CV and I'm trying to learn by asking questions. If I am 'fighting windmills' then it should be very easy for you to show me and correct me.
While I have not read all of Aulen's book, I have read from it and indeed studied a course in atonement theories as part of my theology degree - but I don't want to play the game of 'pulling rank' ... it achieves nothing. It is patronising to tell someone that you won't engage with them unless they do it on your terms.
I'm sure JJ finds me equally frustrating but he has the grace to engage when he wants to or let it go when he doesn't.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
Thanks JJ, this is helpful. I'd like to tease it out a bit more.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Clearly, the price was Jesus' death on the cross.
Yes, but why was that the price? Who fixed the price?
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm not sure that the question "to whom is it paid", is a relevant one. Freddy ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) has gone to great lengths to demonstrate that the OT concept of "ransom" does not necessarily involve the payment to anyone, any more than the hero pushing the child out of the way of the oncoming train at the cost of his own life could be said to be making a payment to the railway company. It is simply the inherent cost of the salvific event. I suppose, if you really wanted to be picky, you could say it is a payment to the created reality (almost like the classical ransom theory, where payment is made to the devil), but it really is a bit more metaphysical than could be called truely biblical. I think the biblical evidence is pretty much against payment to anyone, but certainly there is no hint that it is payment to God.
Ummh. I'm open to being persuaded on this one, but would want a bit more evidence. As you say Freddy puts a lot of weight on the ransom metaphor and then argues that it doesn't need to be paid to anyone. I'm strugling with the bible using an image so commonly which, according to you, seems to work so badly (if you see what I mean.) The redemption concept would be so common to the Israelites and Jews that ISTM it begs this misunderstanding.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
As you say Freddy puts a lot of weight on the ransom metaphor and then argues that it doesn't need to be paid to anyone.
The weight I put on it is just about showing that "ransom" is paired with "redemption" as being about a victory won with effort and power.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm strugling with the bible using an image so commonly which, according to you, seems to work so badly (if you see what I mean.) The redemption concept would be so common to the Israelites and Jews that ISTM it begs this misunderstanding.
The redemption concept as something achieved by force is commonly used everywhere as a military metaphor. Everyone talks about soldiers sacrificing their lives and paying the price of victory. The price is not paid to anyone in particular, everyone understands that the soldiers "gave" their lives in exchange for the victory, meaning that through their unselfish efforts the victory was achieved. But no one thinks that somehow the "war gods" are "satisfied" by their blood. It's just a universally understood metaphor.
The same metaphor holds even when no lives are lost - the soldiers willingly risked their lives because this is the price of freedom. Or the volunteers worked late into the night, sacrificing their free time for the sake of the project.
The biblical point, made clearly by Jesus, is that love is willing to give everything for what is loved. The greater the love, the more it is willing to give.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Please define what you think "dualism" is and why it is bad.
Dualism - as in life consisting of a battle between two equal forces of good and evil with the spoils going to the winner. This is not an equal battle with the outcome unknown, Christians have traditionally believed that God is sovereign.
We have explained that God is absolutely sovereign. There is no actual contest for any kind of absolute control here.
The problem of sin is just about overcoming the predilection for it that exists in human hearts.
It is only a battle at all from our puny perspective - which is why Christ had to be human.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The redemption concept as something achieved by force is commonly used everywhere as a military metaphor. Everyone talks about soldiers sacrificing their lives and paying the price of victory. The price is not paid to anyone in particular, everyone understands that the soldiers "gave" their lives in exchange for the victory, meaning that through their unselfish efforts the victory was achieved. But no one thinks that somehow the "war gods" are "satisfied" by their blood. It's just a universally understood metaphor.
The same metaphor holds even when no lives are lost - the soldiers willingly risked their lives because this is the price of freedom. Or the volunteers worked late into the night, sacrificing their free time for the sake of the project.
Yes, but in all those analogies the sacrifice actually pays something. The soldiers give their lives while fighting the enemy. To follow your analogy through if the entire army went to battle and then just stood there and were shot then the battle would be lost, their sacrifice in vain.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[QUOTE] quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
, you could say it is a payment to the created reality (almost like the classical ransom theory, where payment is made to the devil), but it really is a bit more metaphysical than could be called truely biblical. I think the biblical evidence is pretty much against payment to anyone, but certainly there is no hint that it is payment to God.
You are in a corner about this. Your position demands this meaning of ransom which by the way is not convincingly defined at all if you change its meaning so as to suggest it is not a forced payment of some sort. The question "to whom" is eminently reasonable and from your frame of reference, unanswerable. Why don't you just admit it? My view is that God's holiness demands that sin be atoned/paid for. It is part of his nature, his very "Godness" if you like.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Yes, but in all those analogies the sacrifice actually pays something. The soldiers give their lives while fighting the enemy. To follow your analogy through if the entire army went to battle and then just stood there and were shot then the battle would be lost, their sacrifice in vain.
That's correct. The battle would be lost.
This was the outcome that the hells were hoping that they had achieved in the crucifixion.
So the deaths by themselves accomplish nothing. It is the willingness to risk death, and the heroic efforts that this implies, that achieves something.
So what did Christ achieve in His death?
As I understand it, in His death He overcame the desires that place all value in the body and its life - the desires that do not realize that the spirit is the true person. All of hell is attached to those desires.
Jesus Himself could not die, but through the sacrifice of His human body He gained the victory. In a similar way, everyone who wishes to be born again needs to willingly sacrifice the self-centered and worldly desires that bodily life demands be the priority. In their place we need to give priority to spiritual values and desires. The cross and resurrection not only symbolized this rebirth, it broke the power that works to prevent it.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You are in a corner about this. Your position demands this meaning of ransom which by the way is not convincingly defined at all if you change its meaning so as to suggest it is not a forced payment of some sort.
Then how do you explain the way the Bible uses the term? Were the authors ignorant of its true meaning?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Yes, but in all those analogies the sacrifice actually pays something. The soldiers give their lives while fighting the enemy. To follow your analogy through if the entire army went to battle and then just stood there and were shot then the battle would be lost, their sacrifice in vain.
Well, of course, Christ does actually pay something, His life. Where the analogy falls down is that earthly battles do indeed depend on overwhelming the enemy with superior force. But the scriptures are quite clear that, in this particular battle (ie Christ vs evil) the superior power is that of submission and obedience. In effect, we allow our enemy to destroy himself by using his most potent weapon, only to discover that it is ultimately useless against One who willingly gives up that which the enemy would seek to deprive Him of; indeed, as it were, it blows up in his hand. As Freddy points out, this is in macrocosm what we do when we have the victory in our own lives over sin and self-interest. The principle is the same as for an earthly battle, but, as Paul points out, the weapons involved are not the same.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
[Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
, you could say it is a payment to the created reality (almost like the classical ransom theory, where payment is made to the devil), but it really is a bit more metaphysical than could be called truely biblical. I think the biblical evidence is pretty much against payment to anyone, but certainly there is no hint that it is payment to God.
You are in a corner about this. Your position demands this meaning of ransom which by the way is not convincingly defined at all if you change its meaning so as to suggest it is not a forced payment of some sort. The question "to whom" is eminently reasonable and from your frame of reference, unanswerable. Why don't you just admit it? My view is that God's holiness demands that sin be atoned/paid for. It is part of his nature, his very "Godness" if you like.
Why do you assume that this ransom is payable to God? If the definition of the word that we translate as ransom is, as you would have it, the payment to a captor for the release of a captive, would we not be forced to accept the classical model, (since Satan is our captor), and conclude that Christ's death was the price demanded by the devil. It makes no sense to pay a ransom to the One who is the Liberator, only to the one who is the captor.
--------------------
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
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Why do you assume that this ransom is payable to God? If the definition of the word that we translate as ransom is, as you would have it, the payment to a captor for the release of a captive, would we not be forced to accept the classical model, (since Satan is our captor), and conclude that Christ's death was the price demanded by the devil. It makes no sense to pay a ransom to the One who is the Liberator, only to the one who is the captor.
Thanks for this JJ and Freddy. This gives me something to think about.
Is it fair to say that you have pretty much arrived back at the classical CV position? I ask because I don't want to caricature your position, but I thought that the notion that the devil was 'tricked' into God's plan of salvation had been abandoned as unsophisticated but I may be wrong there.
This is the bit I have not been able to grasp. I could see us heading in this direction but felt sure that you guys would want to distance yourself from the 'classic' articulation of CV. It seems I was mistaken.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Why do you assume that this ransom is payable to God? If the definition of the word that we translate as ransom is, as you would have it, the payment to a captor for the release of a captive, would we not be forced to accept the classical model, (since Satan is our captor), and conclude that Christ's death was the price demanded by the devil. It makes no sense to pay a ransom to the One who is the Liberator, only to the one who is the captor.
Thanks for this JJ and Freddy. This gives me something to think about.
Is it fair to say that you have pretty much arrived back at the classical CV position? I ask because I don't want to caricature your position, but I thought that the notion that the devil was 'tricked' into God's plan of salvation had been abandoned as unsophisticated but I may be wrong there.
This is the bit I have not been able to grasp. I could see us heading in this direction but felt sure that you guys would want to distance yourself from the 'classic' articulation of CV. It seems I was mistaken.
Not at all. I'm merely pointing out the logic of a position which says that the atonement is a matter of a price being paid to someone, as Jamat asserts. I don't accept that premise, but if it were true, then there would be a good argument for "Classic" Ransom theory. Rather, I'm with Freddy, that biblical useage requires only that a price be paid, (in the sense that there is an actual cost to God in saving humankind) rather than anyone being in receipt of that cost. I wouldn't so much characterise classic Ransom theory as unsophisticated, more mistaken, but I can see the logic by which the ECF's arrived at it. It is a more logical position than Jamat's, though I believe that both are errors. There are commonalities shared by Ransom and CV, but Ransom is distinct from CV, IMV.
ETA it may be that CV grew out of Ransom theory (the commonalities suggest this is possible), and could thus be described as a more nuanced development of the Ransom theme. On the other hand, the same basic data may have given rise to two models which were readily distinguishable even quite early on.
[ 22. August 2007, 14:01: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Is it fair to say that you have pretty much arrived back at the classical CV position?
What JJ said. I'm surprised that you could even ask this.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
It is simply the inherent cost of the salvific event. I suppose, if you really wanted to be picky, you could say it is a payment to the created reality (almost like the classical ransom theory, where payment is made to the devil), but it really is a bit more metaphysical than could be called truely biblical.
Okay, so it is not really a payment to the devil but more like a payment to the created reality.
I can get that. Rather like if someone falls off the side of a cliff their death is 'paying the price of their stupidity' (courtesy of gravity).
However, since God created the cosmos in the first place and those are his 'laws' how is that fundamentally different to a nuanced view of PSA?
(e.g. if a Headmaster sets the rules of detention in the first place, going to detention is not directly appeasing his wrath, but it is 'paying the price' of the rules he set up.)
(I'm sure it must be different but I'd like you guys to tease clarify the key differences for me.)
[ 22. August 2007, 18:52: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, since God created the cosmos in the first place and those are his 'laws' how is that fundamentally different to a nuanced view of PSA?
Great question, Johnny!
If God created the law of gravity, and if we have to obey it or else we pay the price, then success demands that we pay a price in terms of making the effort to obey gravity's laws. Or we fall. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Similarly, if God created the spiritual equivalent of gravity, then we must obey that law or risk falling spiritually. We must pay the price in terms of the efforts needed to obey those spiritual laws. If we don't we fall.
Would PSA say that Christ falls for us? I think that CV would say that Christ helps us keep from falling.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, since God created the cosmos in the first place and those are his 'laws' how is that fundamentally different to a nuanced view of PSA?
Great question, Johnny!
If God created the law of gravity, and if we have to obey it or else we pay the price, then success demands that we pay a price in terms of making the effort to obey gravity's laws. Or we fall.
Similarly, if God created the spiritual equivalent of gravity, then we must obey that law or risk falling spiritually. We must pay the price in terms of the efforts needed to obey those spiritual laws. If we don't we fall.
Would PSA say that Christ falls for us? I think that CV would say that Christ helps us keep from falling.
I think we could say from the view of substitutionary atonement that God who makes gravity enters into creation and, like a father who sees his child falling from a window sill, dives out, grasps and shelters his baby in his arms, landing on the concrete below and absorbing the full weight of the blow.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Nice. Sounds good to me.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
]Why do you assume that this ransom is payable to God? If the definition of the word that we translate as ransom is, as you would have it, the payment to a captor for the release of a captive, would we not be forced to accept the classical model, (since Satan is our captor), and conclude that Christ's death was the price demanded by the devil. It makes no sense to pay a ransom to the One who is the Liberator, only to the one who is the captor.
I don't. I think that we are ransomed by the cross of Christ from the power of the enemy who had a legal hold over us, which incidentally was the reason Christ had to come.
[ 23. August 2007, 01:18: Message edited by: Jamat ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I think that we are ransomed by the cross of Christ from the power of the enemy who had a legal hold over us, which incidentally was the reason Christ had to come.
The enemy had a legal hold over us.
So did Christ then satisfy the condition for our release? Which was blood? Innocent blood? Paid to whom?
Doesn't it sound better to say that the enemy had captured us, and that Christ rescued us by His mighty power? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Nope, purification is the purpose of the sacrifice. It has nothing to do with punishment. That is what Hebrews says repeatedly.
I was looking for a particular page on Temple sacrifices, but this will do to show that 'little fluffy' wasn't an offering to an angry God who wouldn't forgive unless assuaged by blood, but on reading it was reminded that Orthodox still have it as the Jews, that sin is not thought of as in a juridical relationship with God for which punishment is due, but as "missing the mark", of being what we are created to be in image and likeness.
(Little Fluffy)
Also, someone said that the real 'us' is spirit and I'm not quite sure how it was meant, but this again isn't the Orthodox Church's view which sees us as a whole of spirit and body, theosis for instance is becoming the human we are created to be, fully human - we don't have the concept of being 'liberated at death from the body to enter heaven' if that's what was meant.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
]Why do you assume that this ransom is payable to God? If the definition of the word that we translate as ransom is, as you would have it, the payment to a captor for the release of a captive, would we not be forced to accept the classical model, (since Satan is our captor), and conclude that Christ's death was the price demanded by the devil. It makes no sense to pay a ransom to the One who is the Liberator, only to the one who is the captor.
I don't. I think that we are ransomed by the cross of Christ from the power of the enemy who had a legal hold over us, which incidentally was the reason Christ had to come.
But this isn't PSA. It's a succinct statement of "Classic" Ransom theory. (well, the apart from the "legal" bit, which is more like CS Lewis in the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, than the ECFs). We are held captive by the devil, Christ exchanges His life for ours, taking our place as a prisoner, before breaking the bondage in the resurrection. Nothing about God's honour, nothing about God's hatred of sin, not a shade of PSA.
In itself, there is nothing wrong with this theory IMHO. The earliest Christian writers seemed to have believed something very similar. John referred to it as being "unsophisticated", a view with which I have some sympathy, if by that he means there are other things at work here. I just think it's a "first-order" account, perhaps a little simplistic. I do, however, think it is closer to the truth than is PSA.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Also, someone said that the real 'us' is spirit and I'm not quite sure how it was meant, but this again isn't the Orthodox Church's view which sees us as a whole of spirit and body, theosis for instance is becoming the human we are created to be, fully human - we don't have the concept of being 'liberated at death from the body to enter heaven' if that's what was meant.
That may have been me, and I was aware at the time that there was the possibility of misunderstanding. I think that it is true that we are whole beings; the spirit, divorced from the soul and the body, is not "the real us", as it were. However, ISTM that it is true that our spirits, souls and bodies all need to be transformed. I think a good case can be made to say that these transformations take place at different times, our spirits at the point of regeneration ("born again", if I may be allowed to recover the Dominical phrase), our souls as we grow in sanctification, and our bodies at the general resurrection. It is this tension between that which has already happened, and that which is apprehended by faith which is the dynamic of the Chrtistian life.
--------------------
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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Also, someone said that the real 'us' is spirit and I'm not quite sure how it was meant, but this again isn't the Orthodox Church's view which sees us as a whole of spirit and body, theosis for instance is becoming the human we are created to be, fully human - we don't have the concept of being 'liberated at death from the body to enter heaven' if that's what was meant.
That may have been me, and I was aware at the time that there was the possibility of misunderstanding. I think that it is true that we are whole beings; the spirit, divorced from the soul and the body, is not "the real us", as it were.
I think it was me. I said above:
quote:
As I understand it, in His death He overcame the desires that place all value in the body and its life - the desires that do not realize that the spirit is the true person. All of hell is attached to those desires.
Myrrh, I've read this before, that Orthodoxy sees us as a whole of spirit and body. It makes sense. I just don't understand how Orthodoxy can talk of heaven and hell, then, since it seems obvious to me that we can't take our physical bodies to those places. My own understanding is that we do have bodies in the next life, just as we do here, with no apparent difference. It's just that the bodies are spiritual.
I guess that this is a tangent. But it has struck me a number of times on this thread that there is disagreement over whether there is such a thing as a spiritual reality or a spiritual realm that is real.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Freddy, I think that there is some misunderstanding of terms, more than anything else here. I do think that we will have real, recognisable bodies in the afterlife, and that, in the terms of reference of the afterlife, they will be "physical", but that doesn't mean they will have the same restrictions and characteristics of our mortal bodies. So I'm quite happy with the term "spiritual", as long as we don't take that to mean "etherial". After all, Jesus had a resurrection body, and He could be touched, but He could also enter locked rooms. Paul discusses this question in I Cor 15, and concludes that we will have a "spiritual" (as opposed to a "natural") body, but it will certainly have "physical" characteristics, appropriate to a definition of physical in terms of eternity.
But, as you say, a tangent.
--------------------
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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Thanks, JJ. That sounds good to me.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Would PSA say that Christ falls for us? I think that CV would say that Christ helps us keep from falling.
Well this is where the debate 'bites'. If 'punishment' is one of the moral laws of God's created world (like gravity) then yes, PSA says precisely that Jesus falls for us. The problem I have with your suggestion that 'Christ helps us from falling' is that I know from personal experience that I/We do keep falling, then what?
As CS Lewis once said when discussing this kind of 'cause and effect' view of judgment (when it was compared to electricity) - at least an angry person can be appeased, what hope do I have with an impersonal force?
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
I think we could say from the view of substitutionary atonement that God who makes gravity enters into creation and, like a father who sees his child falling from a window sill, dives out, grasps and shelters his baby in his arms, landing on the concrete below and absorbing the full weight of the blow.
If PSA has a tendency to focus too much on Good Friday then surely this is too much about the tenderness of the incarnation. I don't dispute those things, but it leaves all sorts of questions about the 'game' God is playing...
e.g. To what degree is it an illusion to talk about the author submitting himself to the rules of his play?
All in all it makes God too much of a helpless captive in the world he created, for my liking, but YMMV.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I guess that this is a tangent. But it has struck me a number of times on this thread that there is disagreement over whether there is such a thing as a spiritual reality or a spiritual realm that is real.
It is a little tangential, but it does connect with any CV model which plays heavily on the ransom being paid to the devil.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Would PSA say that Christ falls for us? I think that CV would say that Christ helps us keep from falling.
Well this is where the debate 'bites'. If 'punishment' is one of the moral laws of God's created world (like gravity) then yes, PSA says precisely that Jesus falls for us. The problem I have with your suggestion that 'Christ helps us from falling' is that I know from personal experience that I/We do keep falling, then what?
I think that this is a revealing question.
The answer, I think, is that it's not really a matter of falling or not falling. It's a question of how far we fall. It's not a question of whether or not we are sinners. It's a question of how much we sin and how we can be persuaded to sin less.
PSA, as I understand it, makes it an all-or-nothing game. If you break the least commandment then you might as well have broken them all.
The truth is, I think, that life works in increments. We're looking for spiritual progress, not perfection.
So the answer is that although we do tend to keep falling, the effort at obedience to Christ, and trusting in Him, helps us to fall a little less - and eventually not to fall much at all.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I guess that this is a tangent. But it has struck me a number of times on this thread that there is disagreement over whether there is such a thing as a spiritual reality or a spiritual realm that is real.
It is a little tangential, but it does connect with any CV model which plays heavily on the ransom being paid to the devil.
I'm curious as to what you mean by this, Johnny. Do other models not assume that there is a spiritual realm that is real? I would think that any model involving God, heaven and hell would have to assume that they are real even though they are not visible in the physical world.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I'm curious as to what you mean by this, Johnny. Do other models not assume that there is a spiritual realm that is real? I would think that any model involving God, heaven and hell would have to assume that they are real even though they are not visible in the physical world.
Absolutely.
What I meant was if we are going to talk about the devil as a being who receives the ransom that it brings with it a whole host of questions about what that spiritual reality is like. e.g. Is the devil a personal being (with a body?) or just the personification of evil?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
What I meant was if we are going to talk about the devil as a being who receives the ransom that it brings with it a whole host of questions about what that spiritual reality is like. e.g. Is the devil a personal being (with a body?) or just the personification of evil?
OK. Good. That makes sense.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
e.g. To what degree is it an illusion to talk about the author submitting himself to the rules of his play?
All in all it makes God too much of a helpless captive in the world he created, for my liking, but YMMV.
In a sense God is captive.. OS with its 'no free will to turn to God' altered the base from which Christ taught, in the OC God cannot act against our will. Salvation then is a continuation of the same relationship with God plus Christ's incarnation.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I'm curious as to what you mean by this, Johnny. Do other models not assume that there is a spiritual realm that is real? I would think that any model involving God, heaven and hell would have to assume that they are real even though they are not visible in the physical world.
Absolutely.
What I meant was if we are going to talk about the devil as a being who receives the ransom that it brings with it a whole host of questions about what that spiritual reality is like. e.g. Is the devil a personal being (with a body?) or just the personification of evil?
I'm not sure how relevant this really is, since most of us have rejected either the idea that the ransom is payable to anyone in any meaningful way, or, that, if it is payable, it isn't payable to Satan. For the record, I don't have a problem with a "personal" Satan (or rather, pace the blessed St Clive, an unpersonal satan). Whether he (it?) is also merely the personification of evil is a moot point, about which we have little or no strong biblical evidence one way or t'other. To affirm the objective existence (I do) of the being (or unbeing) referred to by Jesus as Satan says nothing about its origins. Most demonology seems to have its basis in Milton (and the tradition to which he gave voice) rather than the Bible.
--------------------
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
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
In a sense God is captive.. OS with its 'no free will to turn to God' altered the base from which Christ taught, in the OC God cannot act against our will. Salvation then is a continuation of the same relationship with God plus Christ's incarnation.
Myrrh
This sounds a lot like "open theism" which states that God who is in pursuit of a relationship willingly limits himself in order to give humanity real freedom for the purpose of relationship. It is a controversial theory among Evangelicals, and some are opposed to it because it questions the idea of God's meticulous control of the universe, bur I think that it seems to better portray the biblical drama, and address the problem of theodicy. What do you think?
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
In a sense God is captive.. OS with its 'no free will to turn to God' altered the base from which Christ taught, in the OC God cannot act against our will. Salvation then is a continuation of the same relationship with God plus Christ's incarnation.
Myrrh
This sounds a lot like "open theism" which states that God who is in pursuit of a relationship willingly limits himself in order to give humanity real freedom for the purpose of relationship. It is a controversial theory among Evangelicals, and some are opposed to it because it questions the idea of God's meticulous control of the universe, bur I think that it seems to better portray the biblical drama, and address the problem of theodicy. What do you think?
The Orthodox Church never got into the "predestination" arguments because this is a basic belief for us. There's a good, not an endorsement of all on this website... ![[Smile]](smile.gif) , analysis of OC and the Western view of predestination: (On Predestination From the Writings of Bishop Elias Minatios)
From which quote:
St. John Chrysostom continues this thought by saying, "Even if it were possible to figure out this question (of predestination), it would nonetheless be unlawful to desire to do so." For us it is sufficient to know these two clear, understandable, basic precepts: first, God desires that we be saved, for He loves mankind. Second, we can be saved, for we are free. Thus, the will of God and the desire of man make up predestination. God desires, and if man desires also, then he or she is already predestined.
It's the synergistic view, of God's nature being always forgiveness and mercy so always open to our turning back, if we've ever left, the story of the Prodigal Son the epitome of this idea.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
In a sense God is captive.. OS with its 'no free will to turn to God' altered the base from which Christ taught, in the OC God cannot act against our will. Salvation then is a continuation of the same relationship with God plus Christ's incarnation.
Myrrh
This sounds a lot like "open theism" which states that God who is in pursuit of a relationship willingly limits himself in order to give humanity real freedom for the purpose of relationship. It is a controversial theory among Evangelicals, and some are opposed to it because it questions the idea of God's meticulous control of the universe, bur I think that it seems to better portray the biblical drama, and address the problem of theodicy. What do you think?
The Orthodox Church never got into the "predestination" arguments because this is a basic belief for us. There's a good, not an endorsement of all on this website... , analysis of OC and the Western view of predestination: (On Predestination From the Writings of Bishop Elias Minatios)
From which quote:
St. John Chrysostom continues this thought by saying, "Even if it were possible to figure out this question (of predestination), it would nonetheless be unlawful to desire to do so." For us it is sufficient to know these two clear, understandable, basic precepts: first, God desires that we be saved, for He loves mankind. Second, we can be saved, for we are free. Thus, the will of God and the desire of man make up predestination. God desires, and if man desires also, then he or she is already predestined.
It's the synergistic view, of God's nature being always forgiveness and mercy so always open to our turning back, if we've ever left, the story of the Prodigal Son the epitome of this idea.
Myrrh
Even though from an evo background, I always sort of assented to the thinking expressed in the quote from old Silvertongue. Makes sense to me, anyway.
--------------------
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
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
Myrrh,
I think the central issue in the idea of God being self-limited in entering into relationship is not so much predestination (which as a non-Calvinist is a non-starter for me anyway) but rather the issue of God's sovereignty and how this effected by relational self-limitation. Any thought about that?
[ 23. August 2007, 19:29: Message edited by: sharktacos ]
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Myrrh,
I think the central issue in the idea of God being self-limited in entering into relationship is not so much predestination (which as a non-Calvinist is a non-starter for me anyway) but rather the issue of God's sovereignty and how this effected by relational self-limitation. Any thought about that?
Nope. .... I wouldn't even know where to begin thinking about it, what does the question mean?
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
This sounds a lot like "open theism" which states that God who is in pursuit of a relationship willingly limits himself in order to give humanity real freedom for the purpose of relationship.
Yep. I'll come clean - that was where I was heading. A speculation that CV (or move in that direction) follows on naturally from Open Theism. It was just a thought.
[ 23. August 2007, 19:39: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
I think the central issue in the idea of God being self-limited in entering into relationship is not so much predestination (which as a non-Calvinist is a non-starter for me anyway) but rather the issue of God's sovereignty and how this effected by relational self-limitation. Any thought about that?
I agree about predestination.
I don't look at the issue as being God's self-limitation. Rather He knows exactly what will produce the best possible outcome over the very long term, and everything that He does is about that.
This means that all the laws of creation are about facilitating that best possible long term outcome. So God does not self-limit, instead He acts from love for creation. I think that it looks like self-limitation to us because of our restricted view of what is actually happening.
[ 23. August 2007, 20:08: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
This sounds a lot like "open theism" which states that God who is in pursuit of a relationship willingly limits himself in order to give humanity real freedom for the purpose of relationship.
Yep. I'll come clean - that was where I was heading. A speculation that CV (or move in that direction) follows on naturally from Open Theism. It was just a thought.
Both CV and Open Theism address the huge issue of theodicy (suffering and injustice), and in dealing with the incarnation also have common points of intersection. But since CV predates Open Theism by decades (Aulen's book was published in 1930, Open Theism is from the mid 90's) if not centuries (the Church Fathers), one cannot really say that Open Theism leads to CV.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I don't look at the issue as being God's self-limitation. Rather He knows exactly what will produce the best possible outcome over the very long term, and everything that He does is about that.
This view is subject to the same critique that one can make of PSA: it makes God look vicious. As Dostoyevsky has said, what possible larger plan could justify the rape and torture of one little child?
I think we need to face the reality of radical evil and the demonic in our world. It is one thing to say that God can use evil for good, it is quite another to say that he is the author of it or that he sees it as a chess game. God cares for every sparrow that falls to the ground.
There is a very real war between good and evil. That is not dualism because evil is created good and fallen. It is not co-equal with good, it is a corruption of good. Thus the solution in this war is not to destroy evil (which would mean destroying us) but to redeem fallen people, institutions, and authorities so that people can be restored to relationship with God and others and institutions and laws can be restored to their proper roll as our servants leading us to God and love.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
But since CV predates Open Theism by decades (Aulen's book was published in 1930, Open Theism is from the mid 90's) if not centuries (the Church Fathers), one cannot really say that Open Theism leads to CV.
I think you misunderstood my point. This is not about chronology but about waves of popular thinking. CV has always been popular. However, my hunch about its popularity as an 'umbrella' model (certainly in evangelical circles) comes (ISTM) from the rise of Open Theism. It's not a conspiracy theory, just a thought.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
There is a very real war between good and evil. That is not dualism because evil is created good and fallen. It is not co-equal with good, it is a corruption of good. Thus the solution in this war is not to destroy evil (which would mean destroying us) but to redeem fallen people, institutions, and authorities so that people can be restored to relationship with God and others and institutions and laws can be restored to their proper roll as our servants leading us to God and love.
But that is where you have to part company with Open Theism in order for a more 'Reformed' position. That is the only way you can be sure that God can really do all the above. Otherwise, not only is a very real possibility that evil could win but also (reading a newspaper) quite a likely outcome.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Is this what you mean by (SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD)?
And is this site OK for Open Theism? (What is Openness Theology)
I've only just skimmed the beginning of the last link, are you really saying that this kind of thinking is very recent because it mentions the "watershed issue" as being the same which divides Calvinism from Arminianism.
In a nutshell please what's this difference between C and A?
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Myrrh,
I think the central issue in the idea of God being self-limited in entering into relationship is not so much predestination (which as a non-Calvinist is a non-starter for me anyway) but rather the issue of God's sovereignty and how this effected by relational self-limitation. Any thought about that?
Nope. .... I wouldn't even know where to begin thinking about it, what does the question mean?
Myrrh
I did have a thought about it earlier, but got distracted when I came on line to look for more info.
How is this sovereignty affected by God becoming part of the food chain by inextricable entry into the human condition in the Incarnation?
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Freddy:
[qb] This view is subject to the same critique that one can make of PSA: it makes God look vicious. As Dostoyevsky has said, what possible larger plan could justify the rape and torture of one little child?
Only if it is the best possible alternative. What larger plan could justify one child bullying another child? Or any of the countless vicious things that people do? Who would reasonably decide to permit some and not others?
My answer is to imagine a world where these things weren't possible. In that world what would be possible and what, exactly, would not be possible?
Christus Victor is a solution to this problem because it is a way to put an end to the rape and torture of children without literally making those actions impossible. That is, as I understand it, it provides a way for us, of our own free will, to put an end to practices like those. It is not a quick and easy solution, but it is, I think, the most permanent one and the one that is most consistent with human freedom.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I don't look at the issue as being God's self-limitation. Rather He knows exactly what will produce the best possible outcome over the very long term, and everything that He does is about that.
This view is subject to the same critique that one can make of PSA: it makes God look vicious. As Dostoyevsky has said, what possible larger plan could justify the rape and torture of one little child?
I think we need to face the reality of radical evil and the demonic in our world. It is one thing to say that God can use evil for good, it is quite another to say that he is the author of it or that he sees it as a chess game. God cares for every sparrow that falls to the ground.
There is a very real war between good and evil. That is not dualism because evil is created good and fallen. It is not co-equal with good, it is a corruption of good. Thus the solution in this war is not to destroy evil (which would mean destroying us) but to redeem fallen people, institutions, and authorities so that people can be restored to relationship with God and others and institutions and laws can be restored to their proper roll as our servants leading us to God and love.
Sorry to belabour this point, but to understand the difference, what do you call yourselves/your views?
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Freddy:
[qb] This view is subject to the same critique that one can make of PSA: it makes God look vicious. As Dostoyevsky has said, what possible larger plan could justify the rape and torture of one little child?
Only if it is the best possible alternative. What larger plan could justify one child bullying another child? Or any of the countless vicious things that people do? Who would reasonably decide to permit some and not others?
My answer is to imagine a world where these things weren't possible. In that world what would be possible and what, exactly, would not be possible?
Christus Victor is a solution to this problem because it is a way to put an end to the rape and torture of children without literally making those actions impossible. That is, as I understand it, it provides a way for us, of our own free will, to put an end to practices like those. It is not a quick and easy solution, but it is, I think, the most permanent one and the one that is most consistent with human freedom.
Freddy, I don't think the above answers Sharktaco's objection to "Only if it is the best possible alternative" - are you saying that God can and does will evil?
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Freddy, I don't think the above answers Sharktaco's objection to "Only if it is the best possible alternative" - are you saying that God can and does will evil?
No. God can not and does not will evil. It's a question of what He will prevent from happening. If He prevented all evil, which would probably make sense to us, where would that put us?
This issue is discussed so often on the ship it's a wonder that it's not a dead horse. But the connection to Christus Victor is that the point of the Incarnation is to overcome the wicked effects of evil without destroying human freedom. Christus Victor does that, I think.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Freddy, I don't think the above answers Sharktaco's objection to "Only if it is the best possible alternative" - are you saying that God can and does will evil?
No. God can not and does not will evil. It's a question of what He will prevent from happening. If He prevented all evil, which would probably make sense to us, where would that put us?
This issue is discussed so often on the ship it's a wonder that it's not a dead horse. But the connection to Christus Victor is that the point of the Incarnation is to overcome the wicked effects of evil without destroying human freedom. Christus Victor does that, I think.
The problem I have is that I've only been exploring the differences in the last few years and most discussions refer to concepts by way of their origin, which is confusing for someone who isn't at all used to the variety of authors and categories of thinking you're all so at ease with. For me, it appears that every nuance has created a separate doctrinal system over the centuries...
I'm trying to understand what you mean by CV and found this precis of Swedenborg (The Gist of Swedenborg)
So, for you CV means a rejection of the human body, ('Christ overcame the human nature he got from his mother')which appears to be Gnostic thinking as rejection of creation as inherently good.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, my hunch about its popularity as an 'umbrella' model (certainly in evangelical circles) comes (ISTM) from the rise of Open Theism.
I don't think so. I'd say instead that they are both sparking popular imagination because there is post 9/11 an increased awareness of the problem of evil and suffering in the world that people are restling with. In fact I would say that as in Luther's time the question was "how can I find God's grace?" today our question is "how can a loving God allow abuse and tragedy".
quote:
But that is where you have to part company with Open Theism in order for a more 'Reformed' position.
Are you maybe confusing open theism with process theology?
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
