|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: All Things Mary
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
Following the “Mary did not die but went straight to heaven, and therefore must have been sinless because that which is sinful cannot be in God’s presence (or the other way round)” line…
Presumably both Enoch and Elijah were conceived immaculately and lived sinless lives. And, for that matter, so did Moses (he appears at the transfiguration, so must already be with God in heaven?). A sinless life, despite having killed a man?
Sinless lives are more common than I had thought – I had always understood that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”.
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
What's curious is why you think this is a scriptural deviation. Unless you actually think that we're descendants of someone other than Eve.
Lilith? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
Like someone else pointed out earlier, if a miracle is possible at Mary's conception that would have made her free from the line of passed original sin, there doesn't seem to be a logical reason why this miracle could not have simply occurred at Jesus' birth instead.
...which is what I was taught at my childhood, fundamentalist Prot. church.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
...clouded by concupiscence...
I'm sorry, but nobody pointed this out.
That's just golden. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) I don't even know what that word means, but man is it smart!
-Digory
Are you impugning my sesquipedalian verbiage? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) Fie on you, sir, fie!
(If anyone's interested, the argument would have been that the Immaculate Conception is necessary to avoid a situation in Mary where "the spirit was willing but the flesh was weak", i.e. however much Mary intended to say "Yes", it wouldn't have been enough to overcome the reluctance of her Flesh™ if she hadn't been immaculately conceived. And yes, I'll admit there's all sorts of problems with this suggestion.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Posted by Dobbo: quote:
I particulary wanted the verses in the Bible given that "this doctrine was revealed by God" but that is the sola scriptura in me
And there, Dobbo, you put your finger on one of the central problems - this notion (bizarre to me) that every doctrine must have a textual foundation, whether the text is Biblical or not.
Unfortunately doctrines don't always work like that. More often, I think, the supporting text comes later, after the lived experience of the Church has led to the formulation of ways of thinking of God, Mary, or whatever.
That seems to be why some of the apocryphal texts were written - to provide support for ideas that already existed. The Protevangelium of James, for example, seems (on my reading at least) to be exploring the implications that Jesus possessed the divine nature even in his childhood, which was something that some early heretics denied. The Gospel of Nicodemus, in the section on the harrowing of hell, is asserting that the sacrifice of the cross was effective even for those who had lived and died before Christ's life on earth.
It's arguable, of course, that some of the NT texts came about in the same way - it was what the Church already believed about the resurrection that led to the writing of the resurrection narratives. This idea that every idea is based on an earlier text is a very modern one, and neither pre-modern nor post-modern thinking works the same way.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
quote:
Originally posted by sanc:
So why can't GOD just immaculately conceive as all?
Well, sanc, the quick answer to your question is, "He can."
Quick follow-up: So why hasn't he?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Lyda - that's exactly where my own credibility gap opens up with regard to the Immaculate Conception. It's just as well I think Augustine's idea of original sin was a load of old cobblers, or I might be in trouble. Okay, it might make me semi-pelagian - so sue me.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Posted by Dobbo: quote:
I particulary wanted the verses in the Bible given that "this doctrine was revealed by God" but that is the sola scriptura in me
And there, Dobbo, you put your finger on one of the central problems - this notion (bizarre to me) that every doctrine must have a textual foundation, whether the text is Biblical or not.
I'm not sola scriptura, I'm not a cessationist but it is very important to me that doctrines don't go against scripture, which I think a lot of thinking around Mary does. I know you'll probably say that IC, ever-virgin and so on doesn't contradict the Bible though, so it is a question of interpretation (not, "it's not in the Bible so it can't be true").
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zealot en vacance
Shipmate
# 9795
|
Posted
The question I would ask is this. So if all this doctrine regarding Mary's immaculate conception is so important, why was it that this teaching was not recorded by the canonical authors, or even yet in the creeds?
And the simple answer has to be, because this teaching is unnecessary for salvation.
God did whatever was necessary for Jesus Christ to be the acceptable sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins. Consider also that on occasion Jesus was careful to distance himself from God, challenging one enquirer who addressed Him as 'good' to recognise that this character belongs to God alone. Mary is an important figure in the household of faith without doubt, and inspired by the spirit, prophesied truly. But this is no grounds for addressing prayer to her, any more than to Abraham, Sarah, Moses, Hannah, David, Elijah, John Baptist, or any other of our fellow humans whose example of true faith is acclaimed.
--------------------
He said, "Love one another".
Posts: 2014 | From: Surface of planet Earth | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Astro
Shipmate
# 84
|
Posted
I think that to say that Mary was sinless actually takes something away from her and what God was doing.
There was no plan B - plan A was for a ordinary woman to be the God-bearer - someone who could say No. It seems to me that the great example that Mary God-bearer gives is that any ordinary sinful woman can say Yes to God despite what he is asking.
Given the kind of people God choose and loved - e.g. David - who had Uriah killed, Abraham - who lied about his wife etc. if it had not been theologically necessary for the Gos-bearer to be a vigin at conception it would seem more like God to have choosen a prostitute like Rahab.
--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)
Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zealot en vacance:
The question I would ask is this. So if all this doctrine regarding Mary's immaculate conception is so important, why was it that this teaching was not recorded by the canonical authors, or even yet in the creeds?
And the simple answer has to be, because this teaching is unnecessary for salvation.
God did whatever was necessary for Jesus Christ to be the acceptable sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins. Consider also that on occasion Jesus was careful to distance himself from God, challenging one enquirer who addressed Him as 'good' to recognise that this character belongs to God alone. Mary is an important figure in the household of faith without doubt, and inspired by the spirit, prophesied truly. But this is no grounds for addressing prayer to her, any more than to Abraham, Sarah, Moses, Hannah, David, Elijah, John Baptist, or any other of our fellow humans whose example of true faith is acclaimed.
The "doctrine" of Personal Hygiene isn't necessary for salvation either. Does this mean you should STOP showering?
It may not be necessary, but that doesn't make a case for why it's wrong, untrue, or harmful.
-Digory
PS On a side note, WRT this popularly quoted passage about Jesus denying to be good--is this Jesus distancing himself from God by saying only God is good, or is it Jesus alerting the person to think about what he was saying--that if he was calling Jesus, "good," and only God was good, did he know what that meant?
[ETA the PS]
[ 07. December 2005, 13:13: Message edited by: professorkirke ]
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
quote:
Originally posted by sanc:
So why can't GOD just immaculately conceive as all?
Well, sanc, the quick answer to your question is, "He can."
Quick follow-up: So why hasn't he?
Medium answers:
1) Because we don't want him to. Our pride is so strong that we would rather be given our sin because we are quite confident that we can overcome it ourselves. This was the purpose of the Law, and continues to be a driving force behind a lot of modern practices.
2) Because then earth would be just like heaven, and for some reason unknown, there is a purpose to earth that can only be acheived through the existence of suffering and sin.
(My REAL answer? I don't have a clue.)
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dobbo
Shipmate
# 5850
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Posted by Dobbo: quote:
I particulary wanted the verses in the Bible given that "this doctrine was revealed by God" but that is the sola scriptura in me
And there, Dobbo, you put your finger on one of the central problems - this notion (bizarre to me) that every doctrine must have a textual foundation, whether the text is Biblical or not.
Unfortunately doctrines don't always work like that. More often, I think, the supporting text comes later, after the lived experience of the Church has led to the formulation of ways of thinking of God, Mary, or whatever.
That seems to be why some of the apocryphal texts were written - to provide support for ideas that already existed. The Protevangelium of James, for example, seems (on my reading at least) to be exploring the implications that Jesus possessed the divine nature even in his childhood, which was something that some early heretics denied. The Gospel of Nicodemus, in the section on the harrowing of hell, is asserting that the sacrifice of the cross was effective even for those who had lived and died before Christ's life on earth.
It's arguable, of course, that some of the NT texts came about in the same way - it was what the Church already believed about the resurrection that led to the writing of the resurrection narratives. This idea that every idea is based on an earlier text is a very modern one, and neither pre-modern nor post-modern thinking works the same way.
Sorry I was not trying to draw anything on that one I understand totally that there is a difference between those that believe sola scriptura and those who accept tradition etc as well.
I would have been obliged if you had quoted me fully and included the ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif) I believe that puts it more in the perspective in how I intended it to come across ie I was being a bit of a devil perhaps? I was not looking for a scripture verse quite frankly because there is none.
As Groucho Marx would say
quote:
quote me as being misquoted
--------------------
I'm holding out for Grace......, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity
Bono
Posts: 395 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Alex
Shipmate
# 10304
|
Posted
Perhaps now would be a good time to remind us all that Our Lady herself told S Bernadette in Lordes (1858) that she was 'The Immaculate Conception' Straight from the horse mouth, so to speak (no offence intended, Mary).
Do have a good feast tomorrow - I will remember you at Mass!
Fr A
--------------------
If this sig appears below a post about a Dead Horse or about how mean the hosts and admins are, you may be looking at my final post.
Posts: 495 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zealot en vacance
Shipmate
# 9795
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
quote:
Originally posted by Zealot en vacance:
The question I would ask is this. So if all this doctrine regarding Mary's immaculate conception is so important, why was it that this teaching was not recorded by the canonical authors, or even yet in the creeds?
And the simple answer has to be, because this teaching is unnecessary for salvation.
God did whatever was necessary for Jesus Christ to be the acceptable sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins. Consider also that on occasion Jesus was careful to distance himself from God, challenging one enquirer who addressed Him as 'good' to recognise that this character belongs to God alone. Mary is an important figure in the household of faith without doubt, and inspired by the spirit, prophesied truly. But this is no grounds for addressing prayer to her, any more than to Abraham, Sarah, Moses, Hannah, David, Elijah, John Baptist, or any other of our fellow humans whose example of true faith is acclaimed.
The "doctrine" of Personal Hygiene isn't necessary for salvation either. Does this mean you should STOP showering?
It may not be necessary, but that doesn't make a case for why it's wrong, untrue, or harmful.
-Digory
PS On a side note, WRT this popularly quoted passage about Jesus denying to be good--is this Jesus distancing himself from God by saying only God is good, or is it Jesus alerting the person to think about what he was saying--that if he was calling Jesus, "good," and only God was good, did he know what that meant?
[ETA the PS]
Clearly I may stop showering without impeding whatever chance I may have of salvation. Likewise I need feel no compulsion to adopt superfluous doctrine.
As for the dangers attendant, here is an example. I was told by an RC schoolteacher that the prayers of protestants go unheard: Jesus will only hear those who pray to His mother. Now that was a few decades ago, and the RCC does seem to have done a little re-education in the ensuing time, but nonetheless such things were said, and presumably believed.
--------------------
He said, "Love one another".
Posts: 2014 | From: Surface of planet Earth | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zealot en vacance:
As for the dangers attendant, here is an example. I was told by an RC schoolteacher that the prayers of protestants go unheard: Jesus will only hear those who pray to His mother. Now that was a few decades ago, and the RCC does seem to have done a little re-education in the ensuing time, but nonetheless such things were said, and presumably believed.
It's true. People have and will always abuse doctrine to further exclusivism.
It doesn't, however, speak to the truth of the doctrine, I suppose. (Thankfully!)
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zealot en vacance:
Clearly I may stop showering without impeding whatever chance I may have of salvation. Likewise I need feel no compulsion to adopt superfluous doctrine.
What does its supposed superfluosity matter if it's true? For some reason, God seems to think it's good for us to believe as many true things as we can (otherwise "I am Yahweh your God: have no other gods before me" seems like jealousy rather than care).
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Alex:
Perhaps now would be a good time to remind us all that Our Lady herself told S Bernadette in Lordes (1858) that she was 'The Immaculate Conception' Straight from the horse mouth, so to speak (no offence intended, Mary).
Do have a good feast tomorrow - I will remember you at Mass!
Fr A
That does, of course, invite another debate altogether...
--------------------
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 Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Alex:
Perhaps now would be a good time to remind us all that Our Lady herself told S Bernadette in Lordes (1858) that she was 'The Immaculate Conception' Straight from the horse mouth, so to speak (no offence intended, Mary).
Do have a good feast tomorrow - I will remember you at Mass!
Fr A
That does, of course, invite another debate altogether...
Yes, I was thinking 1858 was a long time for Mary to have lived...
(Oh just kidding, people--lighten up!)
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Alex:
Perhaps now would be a good time to remind us all that Our Lady herself told S Bernadette in Lordes (1858) that she was 'The Immaculate Conception' Straight from the horse mouth, so to speak (no offence intended, Mary).
Do have a good feast tomorrow - I will remember you at Mass!
Fr A
That does, of course, invite another debate altogether...
I don't consider visitations to be evidence of anything whatsoever.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zealot en vacance
Shipmate
# 9795
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
[I don't consider visitations to be evidence of anything whatsoever.
C
Surely at the very least they are evidence of delusion?
--------------------
He said, "Love one another".
Posts: 2014 | From: Surface of planet Earth | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zealot en vacance:
As for the dangers attendant, here is an example. I was told by an RC schoolteacher that the prayers of protestants go unheard: Jesus will only hear those who pray to His mother. Now that was a few decades ago, and the RCC does seem to have done a little re-education in the ensuing time, but nonetheless such things were said, and presumably believed.
There are non-RC parallels. I was taught that God doesn't hear any of your prayers until you pray to accept Jesus.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zealot en vacance:
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
[I don't consider visitations to be evidence of anything whatsoever.
C
Surely at the very least they are evidence of delusion?
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Zealot en vacance
Shipmate
# 9795
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Zealot en vacance:
As for the dangers attendant, here is an example. I was told by an RC schoolteacher that the prayers of protestants go unheard: Jesus will only hear those who pray to His mother. Now that was a few decades ago, and the RCC does seem to have done a little re-education in the ensuing time, but nonetheless such things were said, and presumably believed.
There are non-RC parallels. I was taught that God doesn't hear any of your prayers until you pray to accept Jesus.
But those of us with access to the bible can read Jesus' reported advice on the subject. Just one reason among many that I am so keen on reference to the generally accepted source text before entertaining discussion.
--------------------
He said, "Love one another".
Posts: 2014 | From: Surface of planet Earth | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zealot en vacance:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Zealot en vacance:
As for the dangers attendant, here is an example. I was told by an RC schoolteacher that the prayers of protestants go unheard: Jesus will only hear those who pray to His mother. Now that was a few decades ago, and the RCC does seem to have done a little re-education in the ensuing time, but nonetheless such things were said, and presumably believed.
There are non-RC parallels. I was taught that God doesn't hear any of your prayers until you pray to accept Jesus.
But those of us with access to the bible can read Jesus' reported advice on the subject. Just one reason among many that I am so keen on reference to the generally accepted source text before entertaining discussion.
Right, but you have to go to the text to see what it says, and then discern what it means. It's not always clear right away, for any religion, and there are always people who are misrepresenting the truth, and whole churches who are teaching bad doctrine.
Lots of tough calls. On both sides.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Sebastian
Staggering ever onward
# 312
|
Posted
Forgive me for jumping around the various points that have been discussed but I haven't been able to spend much time on the Ship this week, and the thread has gotten larger than my little mind can easily wrap around. Reading through the thread, though, these are the main thoughts that occur:
--re perpetual viriginity: I don't see the connection between that doctrine and a condemnation of sex or denigration of "average" women's bodies that some seem to.
--for what it's worth, I think that the Orthodox teaching is that Mary was sinless from the moment of Christ's conception, not her own. I wonder at what point RC and O doctrine diverged on that point (or am I wrong about the O doctrine?). She is called First of the Redeemed. At least in O teaching, one can become sinless in this life, or make some decent headway in that direction. That's what makes a great saint (though at least one, who died surrounded by the Uncreated Light, was heard to say on his deathbed, "I have not yet begun to repent.")
--The O doctrine is that Mary died and then was assumed bodily into Heaven. Does anyone know when RC doctrine changed to her never having died (okay, okay, I guess an RC would say our doctrine changed. Either way, when did it happen and why?).
--Someone said something along the lines of praying to Mary taking away time that could be used to pray directly to God. I confess that this has occurred to me as well and I struggle with it some (or maybe I'm struggling with time managment!). I generally include my prayers to Mary as part of my "private liturgy", when I"m doing my morning or evening prayers. I haven't gotten to the place yet that I spontaneously pray to her or the saints. It still feels a little like "cheating on" God. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--What do people think about the Marian Apparitions-both the major public ones and the private ones granted the saints. I now someone rejected them (Cheesy?), but why? Because such things can't happen, or because they don't jibe with your theology of Mary or some other reason? It occurs to me that you don't hear of Protestants having those experiences, and I wonder what that means.
--------------------
St. Seb
In Spite of Everything: Yes.
Posts: 962 | From: Burlington, North Carolina | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St. Sebastian:
--What do people think about the Marian Apparitions-both the major public ones and the private ones granted the saints. I now someone rejected them (Cheesy?), but why? Because such things can't happen, or because they don't jibe with your theology of Mary or some other reason? It occurs to me that you don't hear of Protestants having those experiences, and I wonder what that means.
Na, the Protestants have angel visitations and other kinds of miraculous happenings. I'm afraid it is a sign of my general cynicism - having heard this stuff from various wings of the church and the messages being wildly different, my default position is that they are all crap.
None of the Mary visitations are any more believable than anything else I have read and frankly, I have no idea why she is floating around here if she is meant to be in heaven. Crying statues, divine gold teeth, shapes on common objects and visitations all fall within my fruitcake category.
Sorry if that is offensive to anyone, but that is honestly what I think.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
divine gold teeth,
[tangent] I had forgotten all about this until you just mentioned it, what an odd chapter in the story of charismatic Christianity that was. [/tangent]
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
There was gold dust as well.
Apparently.
Just goes to show that the Catholics and Orthodox certainly don't have a monopoly on what I would consider to be the more leftfield eccentricities.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanc
Shipmate
# 6355
|
Posted
In answer to why don't GOD just imacculately conceive us all professorkirke wrote:
quote:
by professorkirke
Medium answers:
1) Because we don't want him to. Our pride is so strong that we would rather be given our sin because we are quite confident that we can overcome it ourselves. This was the purpose of the Law, and continues to be a driving force behind a lot of modern practices.
So Mary in the womb let GOD? In the womb, we have no capacity to decide whether we don't or do want HIM to. If Mary was immaculately conceived which greatly aid why she led a sinless life, why can't GOD just dispense this formula for all of us to enjoy?
The purpose of the LAW is right conduct not to be save from the penalty of wrong conduct.
quote:
by professorkirke
2) Because then earth would be just like heaven, and for some reason unknown, there is a purpose to earth that can only be acheived through the existence of suffering and sin.
Why not? heaven here would be nice. As if suffering and sin is a melting pot serving a greater purpose?
Posts: 358 | From: Philippines | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sanc:
In answer to why don't GOD just imacculately conceive us all professorkirke wrote:
quote:
by professorkirke
Medium answers:
1) Because we don't want him to. Our pride is so strong that we would rather be given our sin because we are quite confident that we can overcome it ourselves. This was the purpose of the Law, and continues to be a driving force behind a lot of modern practices.
So Mary in the womb let GOD? In the womb, we have no capacity to decide whether we don't or do want HIM to. If Mary was immaculately conceived which greatly aid why she led a sinless life, why can't GOD just dispense this formula for all of us to enjoy?
Well, God asked. It was kind of a once in eternity thing, as far as we know. (I don't really care if Mary was immaculately conceived, to be honest, no disrespect to anybody. But if someone does believe in it, I don't think the question you're asking is dehabilitating to the argument.)
Like I said, God has been respecting our desire to do it ourselves until we maybe one day realize that we can't, and that we'd really appreciate that whole grace thing...
The fact that Mary was used for something entirely different and thus was perhaps given the ability to keep from sinning. Even if she agreed to it, it was for a specific purpose, and one that God obviously does not see fit to offer everybody.
quote:
quote:
by professorkirke
2) Because then earth would be just like heaven, and for some reason unknown, there is a purpose to earth that can only be acheived through the existence of suffering and sin.
Why not? heaven here would be nice. As if suffering and sin is a melting pot serving a greater purpose?
Hold on. You believe suffering has no purpose, and is simply outside of God's will and plan? That's interesting.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
quote:
Why not? heaven here would be nice. As if suffering and sin is a melting pot serving a greater purpose?
Hold on. You believe suffering has no purpose, and is simply outside of God's will and plan? That's interesting.
-Digory
Yes, yes, and yes, Digory. (Even though I'm not the person you were addressing!)
A person who is suffering MAY be able to use suffering to some purpose. (E.g., the moms who started Mothers Against Drunk Driving when their kids were killed.)
But suffering, in and of itself, has no deep purpose--and any god who would send it would be a sadist.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
For starters, the Bible explicitly forbids communicating with the dead full stop (of course I realise that some people believe Mary never died, despite this is not in scripture; see below). This further brings into question the numerous Marian devotions mentioned here and elsewhere. Those of us who question Marian devotions are merely given the answer that the practice is ok because: 1. It is part of tradition. 2. It is not only mentioned, but it would seem also encouraged, in some of the apocrypha. From here we are forced to accept as legitimate, sources that have long been identified as fakes for the flimsy reason that since parts of them are in agreement with the Bible some other parts might also be true (the fact that those other parts do not concord with the Bible is not permitted in the discussion; we are only told to see point 1). This is how much propaganda works, it contains an element of truth and therefore many people will be prone to believing the rest of it without question. This is pretty basic stuff and I doubt it would trouble a student in a first-year logic course.
Those who are committed to Marian devotions are likely to have rejected the first sentence of the previous paragraph along the lines of ‘who says the Bible is the sole authority?’ and in this, they share much with the Mormons, among others. It is then a vicious circle; one cannot use the Bible to persuade another of some theological point, if that second person does not acknowledge the authority of the Bible – the latter simply insists on the importance of ‘tradition’. This is a similar line of argument put forth by proponents of slavery, wife beating, polygamy, parading in Belfast and so on [and fox hunting for that matter]: ‘hey, it’s a great old tradition’. Tradition itself is no rock on which to stand (see 2 Timothy: 4).
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
Komensky,
Don't you have to rely on extra-Biblical authority (or at the very least, on a chain of moral reasoning that it is quite clear that the writers of scripture never made themselves) to condemn slavery and polygamy?
I attended - by mistake - a Mass yesterday in celebration of the Immaculate Conception.
I found it moving, and the sincerity of the devotion was most clear. The emphasis was entirely on God's grace - the impression I took was that sinlessness was something God had given to Mary. Nothing about the Mass troubled my Protestant conscience about worship of the saints, and nothing about it was remotely comparable to 'contacting the dead'.
The only issue I had was that the prayers and the preaching several times emphasised that "We know that God preserved Mary from all taint of sin", that it is "certain" that she was full of grace from the very beginning of her existence. I respect and admire the worship, and in fact I found to my surprise that I was able (for the very first time, as it happens) to pray the Hail Mary sincerely with the rest of the congregation, but I simply cannot see that anyone can 'know' or be 'certain' of this doctrine, much less to insist that other Christians should believe it.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
For starters, the Bible explicitly forbids communicating with the dead full stop (of course I realise that some people believe Mary never died, despite this is not in scripture; see below). This further brings into question the numerous Marian devotions mentioned here and elsewhere. Those of us who question Marian devotions are merely given the answer that the practice is ok because: 1. It is part of tradition. 2. It is not only mentioned, but it would seem also encouraged, in some of the apocrypha. From here we are forced to accept as legitimate, sources that have long been identified as fakes for the flimsy reason that since parts of them are in agreement with the Bible some other parts might also be true (the fact that those other parts do not concord with the Bible is not permitted in the discussion; we are only told to see point 1). This is how much propaganda works, it contains an element of truth and therefore many people will be prone to believing the rest of it without question. This is pretty basic stuff and I doubt it would trouble a student in a first-year logic course.
Those who are committed to Marian devotions are likely to have rejected the first sentence of the previous paragraph along the lines of ‘who says the Bible is the sole authority?’ and in this, they share much with the Mormons, among others. It is then a vicious circle; one cannot use the Bible to persuade another of some theological point, if that second person does not acknowledge the authority of the Bible – the latter simply insists on the importance of ‘tradition’. This is a similar line of argument put forth by proponents of slavery, wife beating, polygamy, parading in Belfast and so on [and fox hunting for that matter]: ‘hey, it’s a great old tradition’. Tradition itself is no rock on which to stand (see 2 Timothy: 4).
First off and most importantly, you have inadvertantly suggested that venerating Mary and/or praying to her is on the same level as slavery, wife-beating, and polygamy. That's the kind of emotional argument that is completely unnecessary.
You also spoke about, "...the flimsy reason that since parts of them are in agreement with the Bible some other parts might also be true..."
I'm not sure if this is true, it's probably not any more flimsy than the reasons people gave for including books in the canon originally, which by the way, is tradition that is accebed by anyone who accepts the canon, even "sola scriptura."
Where is the passage that forbids communicating with the dead? And what passages in Scripture do you feel conflict with the idea that Mary should be held in high regard?
-Digory
I'm still not exactly sure why I am arguing so much for the veneration of Mary, since I don't practice the belief myself. I guess I am just trying to explore this side of the argument.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Komensky,
Don't you have to rely on extra-Biblical authority (or at the very least, on a chain of moral reasoning that it is quite clear that the writers of scripture never made themselves) to condemn slavery and polygamy?
No, I don't think so; though I do agree that there is a 'chain of moral reasoning', but it originates in scripture.
I agree with the sentiment of much of your post. Protestants (I'm generalising, natch) tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to Mary. Most Protestants define their stance on Mary in regard to their opposition to the RC church. Yet again I have to reiterate, it is not so much the study of extra-Biblical sources that worries me, it is giving them precedence over the Bible.
It is in the apocrypha where the most troubling stories originate (the ascension of the Virgin, the coronation of the Virgin, and so on). It wasn't until much later after those sources were discredited that church scholars then went through the Bible to try to find some evidence to support its devotions to Mary. Even Ludwig Ott points out that, as for the assumption of Mary, ‘direct and express scriptural proofs are not to be had’. And so it is the extra-Biblical sources that must be relied on to support the tradition – and they are unreliable.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
quote:
Why not? heaven here would be nice. As if suffering and sin is a melting pot serving a greater purpose?
Hold on. You believe suffering has no purpose, and is simply outside of God's will and plan? That's interesting.
-Digory
Yes, yes, and yes, Digory. (Even though I'm not the person you were addressing!)
A person who is suffering MAY be able to use suffering to some purpose. (E.g., the moms who started Mothers Against Drunk Driving when their kids were killed.)
But suffering, in and of itself, has no deep purpose--and any god who would send it would be a sadist.
So, in your opinion, is suffering outside of God's control? How is allowing it any different from sending it?
Allowing purposeless suffering is, IMO, far more terrible than sending suffering with a purpose. Either way, suffering is here.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
]First off and most importantly, you have inadvertantly suggested that venerating Mary and/or praying to her is on the same level as slavery, wife-beating, and polygamy. That's the kind of emotional argument that is completely unnecessary.
Sorry about that, it certainly wasn't intended.
quote:
You also spoke about, "...the flimsy reason that since parts of them are in agreement with the Bible some other parts might also be true..."
I'm not sure if this is true, it's probably not any more flimsy than the reasons people gave for including books in the canon originally, which by the way, is tradition that is accebed by anyone who accepts the canon, even "sola scriptura."
Perhaps. It depends on what you mean by 'tradition'. I think that there were pretty stringent tests set by the early Church fathers for inclusion of books into the Bible. If what you mean by 'tradition' is literary criticism, than you might be right; but that only amplifies the argument against the apocrypha.
quote:
Where is the passage that forbids communicating with the dead?
Here are a few: Deuteronomy 18 (excerpts): ‘Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in a the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord’.
Isaiah 8:19-22: ‘When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living? 20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn. 21 Distressed and hungry, they will roam through the land; when they are famished, they will become enraged and, looking upward, will curse their king and their God. 22 Then they will look toward the earth and see only distress and darkness and fearful gloom, and they will be thrust into utter darkness.’
Luke 16:25-26:’ But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'
quote:
And what passages in Scripture do you feel conflict with the idea that Mary should be held in high regard?
-Digory
Nothing. As I have said, it is quite the opposite: Mary is ‘highly favoured’ and ‘blessed’.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Where is the passage that forbids communicating with the dead? quote:
Here are a few: Deuteronomy 18 (excerpts): ‘Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in a the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord’.
An akathist to a saint is not a seance. The person leading an akathist is not a medium or a spiritist. These proof-texts do not condemn the communion of saints any more than the command against idols condemns the images of the cherubim in the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem.
In the first place, in the Resurrection, Christ destroyed death. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. We don't "contact the dead" on our own, as if they were ghosts wandering around this world waiting to be summoned. They are in Christ. We are in Christ. So we are truly with them in Christ, and because of this we have communion with them.
Lazarus and the rich man were in the place of the dead, awaiting the Resurrection. But Christ has been raised from the dead. He has trampled down death by his own death. The grave no longer has any power to hold anyone. The only people now left in the place of the dead are those who refused to go with Christ to heaven when he descended into hell and took captivity captive, granting life to those in the tombs and leading them, with him, to heaven.
You can continue to live and believe as if none of that matters. But Christ is risen, and that changes everything.
--------------------
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
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
An akathist to a saint is not a seance.
Neither has been mentioned. What is ruled out is consulting the dead. As for your akathist to a 'saint' (by which the Bible simply means 'believer') it too is discouraged: 'should not a people inquire of their God? '.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
'Consulting the dead' is not the same as praying to them. What's forbidden in those passages is using (or trying to use) answers from the ghosts of the dead as a form of divination - it condemns sorcery, the unlawful attempt to wield supernatural power without reference to the God who is the source of such power.
Do you think Jesus broke this commandment when he spoke with Moses on the mountain? (I accept that your rules allow him to speak with Elijah)
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
'Consulting the dead' is not the same as praying to them.
I would think that it is. What's the Greek used here? What do you think you do when you pray?
quote:
Do you think Jesus broke this commandment when he spoke with Moses on the mountain? (I accept that your rules allow him to speak with Elijah)
No, I don't think that Jesus broke the law here. The incident you speak of is after the Transfiguartion – a completely different situation.
K.
PS. They're not my rules mate, they're from the Bible.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sleepy head
Mitey tea-drinker
# 5466
|
Posted
But isn't the point that they're not dead dead? That they are alive? I thought that was sort of the point of Saints, that they're the ones we can be reasonably sure are alive in Christ.
Jesus died, but praying to him isn't consulting the dead.
Posts: 228 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
'Consulting the dead' is not the same as praying to them.
I would think that it is. What's the Greek used here? What do you think you do when you pray?
Wouldn't the original commandment be Hebrew, not Greek? I've no idea in either case. But the English word 'consult' doesn't suggest prayer to me, it suggests, in this context, practices like divinatory spiritism where the dead are approached principally for the sake of information which they can be persuaded to reveal, and it is mentioned in a list of such practices, not in a list of 'things not to pray to'.
Does any Christian pray to the saints in order to get factual information? If so, they might be in breach of this (though you still have to deal with Josephine's point that the saints, to us and to Christ, are not 'the dead').
I don't, myself, usually pray to the saints. I have, occasionally, and sometimes with some misgivings, asked a departed Christian to pray for me. I don't see that becoming a regular part of my practice, although sometimes it may be exactly what I need to do (yesterday, for example, I was praying for person from a different Christian tradition about a situation where I have little factual information but strong (and possibly misguided) emotions, and it seemed exactly right to ask prayer from Mary, because her life and character on earth, and (I presume, I don't know for sure) knowledge of the situation now she is in heaven makes her much more able to prayer about it rightly than I am). I may have got things wrong - maybe we aren't ever supposed to pray like that - but I can't see any grounds on which to be so certain that so many Christians are breaking God's law as you seem to be able to. Your interpretation seems to me to be as much based on your tradition as on an undisputed reading of scripture.
quote:
No, I don't think that Jesus broke the law here. The incident you speak of is after the Transfiguartion – a completely different situation.
How so? My request for prayer to Mary was also after the transfiguration, and Mary is just as dead as Moses (that is to say, both Mary and Moses have been and will be and are gloriously united to Christ in both his death and resurrection). Jesus, as we know, kept the old Law. If it wasn't a sin for him to talk to Moses, it isn't a sin for me to talk to Mary. It may not be necessary, or helpful to my relationship with God, and it may not (if she can't actually hear me) actually be of any use, all which seem to me to be stronger objections than a prohibition on necromancy. If you accept that Jesus wasn't sinning, then what is the essential difference between what he did, and what you say the old Law condemns?
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonaventura
Wise Drunkard
# 1066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ishbel:
But isn't the point that they're not dead dead? That they are alive? I thought that was sort of the point of Saints, that they're the ones we can be reasonably sure are alive in Christ.
Jesus died, but praying to him isn't consulting the dead.
You are right of course, technically they are not considered dead.
Best,
--------------------
“I think you are all mistaken in your theological beliefs. The God or Gods of Christianity are not there, whether you call them Father, Son and Holy Spirit or Aunt, Uncle and Holy Cow.” -El Greco
Posts: 473 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ishbel:
But isn't the point that they're not dead dead? That they are alive? I thought that was sort of the point of Saints, that they're the ones we can be reasonably sure are alive in Christ.
Whom to mean to indicate by 'saints'?
quote:
Jesus died, but praying to him isn't consulting the dead.
Yes, but 1) Jesus was ressurected from dead and 2) Jesus is God and he commands us only to pray to him.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sleepy head
Mitey tea-drinker
# 5466
|
Posted
I get very mixed up about this, but I thought that the nature of eternal life was exactly that, life, not staying dead. In the same way as Jesus did not remain dead. "We look for the resurrection of the dead."
I get mixed up, because somethings give the idea that dead people just sleep until the last day, and yet there's the idea that people pass directly through to eternal life. I think this is because death frees us from the same sense of time as we have now.
So I think that Jesus resurrects us, by his resurrection, I don't know when this happens, but I don't think it matters since I think everything is "now" for God. Maybe. Sorry, I'm sure someone else can correct me, or see what I'm getting at and put it better.
Posts: 228 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Jesus died, but praying to him isn't consulting the dead.
Yes, but 1) Jesus was ressurected from dead and 2) Jesus is God and he commands us only to pray to him.
I pray thee, Komensky, that thou wouldst show me where in the Holy Scriptures our Lord didst command us to pray only to Him.
In fact, "pray" doesn't mean what you think it means. It simply means "ask." It is mostly but not entirely archaic. It's still used only in the most linguistically conservative areas: religion and law. Plaintiffs in court to this day pray to the judge, as you can see from this legal document dated June of this year. Just google the phrase "pray the court" and you'll find plenty of other examples.
Jesus did not command us to pray to no one but God.
As for your first point -- yes, Jesus is risen from the dead. And that is why we can pray to Mary and to the saints whose bodies are asleep in the grave but who live in Him. That wasn't possible before the Resurrection, but now that he has destroyed death and trampled down the gates of Hell, it is possible. To deny that is to deny Christ's victory over death.
--------------------
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
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Jesus died, but praying to him isn't consulting the dead.
Yes, but 1) Jesus was ressurected from dead and 2) Jesus is God and he commands us only to pray to him.
I pray thee, Komensky, that thou wouldst show me where in the Holy Scriptures our Lord didst command us to pray only to Him.
I don't care for your patronising tone for starters. But to answer your question:
Matthew 5:6 'But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.'
1 Timothy 2:5: 'For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,'
Acts 4:24: When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. "Sovereign Lord," they said, "you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them.
I would have thought this was clear.
Furthermore, who can say what is more pleasing to God than God himself? The perfect example of how to pray is given to us from Jesus himself in the Lord's Prayer. Luke 11: 'He said to them, "When you pray, say: " 'Father, hallowed be your name,"
quote:
In fact, "pray" doesn't mean what you think it means.
How dare you.
quote:
Jesus did not command us to pray to no one but God.
See above (and above).
As for your first point -- yes, Jesus is risen from the dead. And that is why we can pray to Mary and to the saints whose bodies are asleep in the grave but who live in Him. That wasn't possible before the Resurrection, but now that he has destroyed death and trampled down the gates of Hell, it is possible. To deny that is to deny Christ's victory over death.[/QUOTE]
You are conflating several things into one here. But it is a moot point.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
