Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 LastLast
Results 331 to 360 of 391

Thread: My response to Laurence Vance's "Should a Christian support criminalizing prostitution"

  1. #331
    Mm. Yeah, see, I don't think that anything that anyone would say would suffice. No matter what anyone says, you're going to respond with "you lost and I won." I've been in faaaaar too many of these dabates to not know how it ends.

    I think the EO rhetoric provides a terrible disservice to God's Word. It's so arbitrary. And based on the whims of men. It's wrong to worship men. It's wrong to stimulate the notion that men are to be worshiped. These "Church Fathers." Most of them served tyrants. Heck, there are instances where they even acknowledged that child baptism wasn't referenced in context in the Bible yet still chose to do it. If you were honest in your rhetoric, then, you'd know that.

    Do what you want. I choose to worship God. Not men. I've been in too many of these debates to waste time with another one.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 08-24-2016 at 07:18 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #332
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Mm. Yeah, see, I don't think that anything that anyone would say would suffice. No matter what anyone says, you're going to respond with "you lost and I won."
    That's exactly what you seem to be doing.

    I think the EO rhetoric provides a terrible disservice to God's Word. It's so arbitrary. And based on the whims of men. It's wrong to worship men. It's wrong to stimulate the notion that men are to be worshiped. These "Church Fathers." Most of them served tyrants.]
    . No EO has stated worshipping men! What's the matter with you!? Are you trolling or how did you come to that erroneous conclusion? You've really changed dramatically in the last few months. Seriously. What's up with you?

  4. #333
    Quote Originally Posted by RJB View Post
    That's exactly what you seem to be doing.
    No, I'm not. I've red these threads for a long time, though. Ultimately, that is the case. Doesn't matter. As I said, y'all do y'all and I'll do me.

    No EO has stated worshipping men! What's the matter with you!? Are you trolling or how did you come to that erroneous conclusion? You've really changed dramatically in the last few months. Seriously. What's up with you?
    Yeah, you're right. I have changed dramatically. My entire worldview has changed. I tend to look at thiungs in scope as opposed to the immediate points at hand, too. Which is somethign else. Yet relative to this, too.

    Anyway. I don't want to really want to get into back and forth religion bashing. There's nothing to be had by it. And I regret particvipating but the ad-hominem toward baptists kind of led me to respond in kind. Again, it's just simpler if I do me and you all do you all. You know? I find that there are entirely too many chiefs and not enough indians when it comes to understanding the word of God. It's human nature.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 08-24-2016 at 07:31 PM.

  5. #334
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Mm. Yeah, see, I don't think that anything that anyone would say would suffice. No matter what anyone says, you're going to respond with "you lost and I won." I've been in faaaaar too many of these dabates to not know how it ends.

    I think the EO rhetoric provides a terrible disservice to God's Word. It's so arbitrary. And based on the whims of men. It's wrong to worship men. It's wrong to stimulate the notion that men are to be worshiped. These "Church Fathers." Most of them served tyrants. Heck, there are instances where they even acknowledged that child baptism wasn't referenced in context in the Bible yet still chose to do it. If you were honest in your rhetoric, then, you'd know that.

    Do what you want. I choose to worship God. Not men. I've been in too many of these debates to waste time with another one.
    What an unfortunate post.

    There was a greatly revered Orthodox monk of the last century (his name escapes me at this time, but I believe he was either Romanian or Greek). He was what is called a fool-for-Christ, which is when extremely virtuous and saintly monks take upon the act of a madman in order to demonstrate how crooked and illusionary the world operates, to be around and associate with great sinners in order to bring them to Christ, as well as to avoid human praise and pride. Anyway, he used to go to different places of worship, such as mosques and Jewish synagogues and Indian temples, to have peaceful and respectful discussions about eachother's faith. There he would politely listen to their points and all the while teach the listeners about Christ and the Gospel. Even though those around him would disagree with much of what he said, he was such a grace-filled and meek and humble man, they would listen to what he said, debate with him in a friendly atmosphere, and then kindly depart in peace. He said the only time he was shouted down, rushed out, and threatened physically was when he once went into a Baptist Church to discuss with them the Gospel. lol
    Last edited by TER; 08-24-2016 at 08:14 PM.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  6. #335
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Yeah, you're right. I have changed dramatically. My entire worldview has changed. I tend to look at thiungs in scope as opposed to the immediate points at hand, too. Which is somethign else. Yet relative to this, too.
    Near death experiences will do that.

    I do regret calling your post BS a month ago. That was wrong on my part. It caught me at a bad time. I meant to tell you that but I didn't get around too it.
    Anyway. I don't want to really want to get into back and forth religion bashing.
    But that last post you made says otherwise. Falsely accusing me and other Orthodox of worshipping men is asking for a back and forth. Lately you have said things that are a bit outrageous and then back up and say you tend to mouth off and duck out of the conversation. Say a prayer before hitting send. Thankfully I've deleted quite a few posts before hitting "Post Quick Reply."
    And I regret particvipating but the ad-hominem toward baptists kind of led me to respond in kind.
    Then you know how I feel and why I must respond. BTW neither HellsUnicorn nor Christian Liberty are Eastern Orthodox. I don't know why you directed your last rant at my faith. Neither TER nor I issued them against your church.
    I find that there are entirely too many chiefs and not enough indians when it comes to understanding the word of God. It's human nature.
    There is the truth. God would not leave us without giving it to His Church.
    Last edited by RJB; 08-24-2016 at 07:52 PM.

  7. #336
    Quote Originally Posted by RJB View Post
    Near death experiences will do that.

    I do regret calling your post BS a month ago. That was wrong on my part. It caught me at a bad time. I meant to tell you that but I didn't get around too it.

    But that last post you made says otherwise. Falsely accusing me and other Orthodox of worshipping men is asking for a back and forth. Lately you have said things that are a bit outrageous and then back up and say you tend to mouth off and duck out of the conversation. Say a prayer before hitting send. Thankfully I've deleted quite a few posts before hitting "Post Quick Reply."
    Then you know how I feel and why I must respond. BTW neither HellsUnicorn nor Christian Liberty are Eastern Orthodox. I don't know why you directed your last rant at my faith. Neither TER nor I issued them against your church.
    There is the truth. God would not leave us without giving it to His Church.

    Well, no. I regret nothing I say here any place on the board. If I pop my mouth off about something, I stand by it. I don't duck discussion. Ever. Lately, I'm making decisions to see some discussions for what they are at their root and move along. That's all.

    If you go back to my initial posting in this thread, I was on the defensive from the beginning simply be responding to some arrogant kid. And that was a mistake. I should have just seen it for what it was and moved long. There's nothing to be had.

    I don't care about your faith, RJB. It doesn't affect my day in any way. Respectfully. Believe what you want. My view on your faith is irrelevant.

    I've come to the conclusion that I'm taking the Bible and God's Word literally and in the context it is offered. I'll leave it at that. I've no want or need to look for the guidance of sacred men (regardless of whether they're Church Fathers or Church Scholars or whatever) who would twist the Gospel around so it's more conforming and permissive to either my own worldly indulgences or to the whims of the tyrants of the world, both past and present.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 08-24-2016 at 08:22 PM.



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #337
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post

    I don't care about your faith, RJB. It doesn't affect my day in any way. Respectfully. Believe what you want.
    Good. In the future, don't falsely accuse me of worshipping men and we'll get along fine.

  10. #338
    Quote Originally Posted by RJB View Post
    Good. In the future, don't falsely accuse me of worshipping men and we'll get along fine.
    And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

    God said that.

    Yet here we are worshiping sacred men every day. We're teaching others to worship sacred men. This is against God's word. But you wouldn't know that to hear them tell it. Nope. Never.

    That's all I'm saying, RJB. Had nothing to do with you specifically. You're free to believe what you want. I'm just pointing out the social disease that comes from rhetoric that teaches that we should worship sacred men is all. It's something that's learned and passed down from men who have arbitrarily provided for themselves such status throughout history.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 08-24-2016 at 08:37 PM.

  11. #339
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

    God said that.
    So what do you call your father? Dad? Papa? Another variant of father? What do you call your teachers? What do you call a doctor?

    Call No Man Father
    "Good day, Father!" "How are you, Father?" "Good sermon, Father!"

    Who is being addressed? A Catholic priest?

    Would you believe a Baptist minister in a Baptist church?


    Neither would I, but, believe it or not, its true. For the first 300-400 years after the Reformation, most Reformation congregations addressed their ministers as "Father". Also, the honorific "Father" was not reserved for clergy alone. Missionary pioneers were also referred to as "Father" and "Mother". Early American Methodists referred to John Wesley as "Father Wesley".

    Strangely enough, before 1840 most Catholic congregations addressed their priests as "Mister," "Monsieur," or "Don", but not "Father".

    What changed?

    The sudden immigration of Irish Catholics was the catalyst. Irish Catholics called all priests "Father".
    That was more than some Reformation "Fathers" could stand. Many ministers began forsaking the now tainted title. Scripture was searched and a polemic found. Matthew 23:9.

    "But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called [masters: for one is your Master, even Christ."
    Matthew 23:8-10


    While the Irish were the catalyst, the new 19th Century Doctor of Divinity degree was the fuel. Coveted by Protestant ministers, "Doctor" gradualy replaced "Father" as the common honorific.

    Bizzarly, like the word "Rabbi", the word "Doctor" means "teacher". "Doctor" is from the latin verb docere (to teach). Matther 23:8 seemingly forbids the now common Protestant tradition of calling ministers "Doctor". Will this also change, perhaps in response to the many college and university faculty that are atheists and agnostics? Only time will tell. Perhaps "Father" will return to vogue.


    Update

    Seldom does God allow me to gain knowledge without Him providing me an opportunity to apply said knowledge. Shortly after posting the above, I made my regular weekend visit to Michael Spencer's Internet Monk blog to follow-up on developments there. Michael had posted on ordinations and made the aside comment "(Not calling someone Father or Reverend seems like a can’t-miss teaching of Jesus.)". Knowing the Michael was Baptist and Michael's burning desire for the truth in all things, I commented on the above fact that for the first 200-240 years of his denominations existence that Baptist had called their ministers Father in seeming defiance of the Bible. The ensuing denials and discussions had the unintended consequence of hijacking Michael's intended thread on ordinations. My apologies, Michael.

    Secondly, I chased yet another theological "rabbit". Matthew 23:10 basically states to call no man "master". As the days of slaves and masters are largely long past and its now only in movies that one hears "Yes, master", most of us don't give this verse a second thought. But, are the days of using "master" truely gone? Not so. It turns out that "mister" is a cognate of "master". Per Wikipedia, cognates in linguistics are words that have a common origin. Not only is "mister" a cognate, but also "mistress" and all our modern abbreviations of Mr., Mrs., and Ms. So, for the more sola scriptura among us, was Jesus banning all use of the word "master", and its future cognates, or was Jesus expressing something else and using hyperbole to make His point?

    Source: Are ‘Mother’ and ‘Father’ Appropriate Titles for Protestant Clergy?
    Labels: Apologetics, Baptist, Catholic

    ?


    http://christian-apologetics-society...an-father.html

  12. #340
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Mm. Yeah, see, I don't think that anything that anyone would say would suffice. No matter what anyone says, you're going to respond with "you lost and I won." I've been in faaaaar too many of these dabates to not know how it ends.
    Nothing anyone would say would suffice because this is a clear cut issue, the Bible in no uncertain terms tells us that children are to come to Christ and that the Gospel promise is to believers and their children. There is no good reason to state that infants of believers can not be baptized, which is why absolutely no one was saying it prior to the Anabaptists. There has been a lot of revisionist history regarding Peter Waldo (founder of the Waldensies, referenced as the Latin Valdesius by sources of his time) being an earlier proponent of the Baptist position on baptism, but Waldo's confession of faith expresses the exact opposite. The Roman Catholic Church has been trying to claim them as in line with Papist thought, though this begs the question of why the Papacy persecuted them and manufactured lies that they were denying the Real Presence during the Lord's Supper and the baptism of infants in order to incite people against them. Similarly, one has to be perplexed as why Baptist ministers are willing to rely solely on the word of Papist agitators against the Waldensies for their view that the Waldensies were against infant baptism.

    I think the EO rhetoric provides a terrible disservice to God's Word. It's so arbitrary. And based on the whims of men. It's wrong to worship men. It's wrong to stimulate the notion that men are to be worshiped. These "Church Fathers." Most of them served tyrants. Heck, there are instances where they even acknowledged that child baptism wasn't referenced in context in the Bible yet still chose to do it. If you were honest in your rhetoric, then, you'd know that.
    I don't know who you are talking to here because I'm not Eastern Orthodox, and neither are half of the people that you are arguing with on this, the Church Fathers/Patriarchs are cited by anybody who holds to the words of Paul in Ephesians 2:20 "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;", because Christ's church has been with us through history and the wisdom of its teaching is profitable to believers. I have objections to some of the EO's doctrines, but calling them worshipers of men is irresponsible and flat out wrong. The Church Fathers were not servants of tyranny, they supported magistracy and societal cohesion, as did the Magistrate Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Knox, et cetera). By your logic the Apostle Paul was a servant of tyranny given his endorsement of government authority (albeit just authority) in Romans 13. Exclusive adult baptism is not taught in scripture, and yet you choose to argue that we should deny children access to the body of Christ, in clear contrast to what was said in the Gospel quotes I gave earlier. Given how stubbornly Baptists cleave to this false notion, one might speculate that Baptists hate their own children, there is no other way to explain this obstinate refusal to allow them access to the church.

    Do what you want. I choose to worship God. Not men. I've been in too many of these debates to waste time with another one.
    If you weren't holding to an incorrect understanding of how God commands worship, this debate wouldn't be happening. If you don't want to argue on the merits, fine, but don't insult my intelligence by pretending to be above the fray here. You injected yourself into this discussion, you are likewise bound to defend your positions as much as the rest of us are to our own.
    Last edited by hells_unicorn; 08-24-2016 at 09:07 PM.

  13. #341
    Do you know what the greatest sin of all is? I'll tell you. It's the lost consciousness of sin.

    As far as Romans 13, the spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God is the foundation for proper, moral, Government-to-Man relations. This is The Naural Law. All men are created...endowed by their Creator. This provides for Man-over-Government society (liberty) by way of proper Man-to-Man relations. Not Government-over-Man (tyranny) where Man's contribution and right to self-govern by way of his Divine Origin is removed from the picture, as many of these Church Scholars would have people think. Consent is Man's God-Given right by way of Man's Divine Origin.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 08-24-2016 at 09:09 PM.

  14. #342
    Just as a general aside, I want everyone to be clear that I am not a member of the Eastern Orthodoxy Church, and that I am not referencing any EO figure from any point in time after the Great Schism. My positions, which are often similar to their's, is based on a belief in the historical continuity of the Christian faith. Simultaneously, I believe that whenever someone from a different denomination rightly uses the wisdom of the early church to bolster doctrines held in common with my own, there is no reason for me to seek conflict with them.

    My frequent back and forth debates with Baptists and Roman Catholics on here has to do with divergent doctrines. I will admit that I can get a bit pugnacious as I am a very avid believer in Presbyterian theology, and this gets particularly dicey with both of said churches because they tend to be the most obnoxiously anti-Reformed out of the entire spectrum of Christian claimants. Baptists particularly tend to get under my skin because I'm always at odds with the American Evangelical contingent of American Christianity on just about every issue that comes up in either politics or theology, save the gay marriage and abortion issues.

    It is what it is, and I don't really see a reason to apologize for defending my position and challenging falsehoods when I see them.

  15. #343
    NC, who are you talking to? Are you alright? You keep saying that you don't want a back and forth, yet you keep re-instigating it. You've edited your posts a bunch of times and each time you get more confrontational. You do not respond to anything anyone has said to refute your claims. Instead you pretend you never were refuted and you post something completely different. What's the matter with you?

    By the way, you claim to seek truth from the Bible yet your knowledge of it is minimal. And it's telling that you cite a few verses and move on to an unrelated subject when called on it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Do you know what the greatest sin of all is? I'll tell you. It's the lost consciousness of sin.

    As far as Romans 13, the spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God is the foundation for proper, moral, Government-to-Man relations. This is The Naural Law. This provides for Man-over-Government society (liberty). Not Government-over-Man (tyranny) as many of these Church Scholars would have people think.

  16. #344
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Do you know what the greatest sin of all is? I'll tell you. It's the lost consciousness of sin.
    Who is losing consciousness of sin? I think everybody is born with it and every Christian struggles with it for their entire lifetime. My whole reason for attacking the Baptist position on baptism is tied in with this notion that sin is a universal human affliction. Infants do not automatically go to heaven because they don't possess the ability to openly profess their faith, so thinking it is okay to deny them baptism is foolishness and trivializes the concept of sin. In extreme cases I think it is possible for infants, the mentally indigent, and those who are martyred for the faith without being baptized to be saved as the Holy Spirit works in all that God has chosen, but even this itself is not grounds to start picking and choosing who is invited into the church without a specific command from scripture.

    As far as Romans 13, the spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God is the foundation for proper, moral, Government-to-Man relations. This is The Naural Law. This provides for Man-over-Government society (liberty). Not Government-over-Man (tyranny) as many of these Cuurch Scholars would have people think.
    I'm sorry, what? You just said I should be conscious of sin and now you are telling me that men who you say I shouldn't worship should be the final government authority? That's the only way I can interpret your concept of "Man-over-Government". Non-tyrannical government that is in line with Natural Law is one where The Law is King, not some socialist pipe-dream where men can collectively govern. Authority is of God, thus it stands to reason that any men occupying offices of government should be Godly, and likewise the government should have an official policy of defending the Christian faith. You are saying that I shouldn't listen to church scholars, and yet here you are either intentionally or unintentionally paraphrasing the ramblings of Thomas Munzer.

    It's a good scripture when read right.
    All scripture is good when read right, so please start reading it right.
    Last edited by hells_unicorn; 08-24-2016 at 09:11 PM.



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #345
    Quote Originally Posted by hells_unicorn View Post
    Who is losing consciousness of sin?
    This goes to another thread on marijuana that I partially agreed with. I have no idea why he brought it up here. That's why I am asking if he's alright.

  19. #346
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    I've come to the conclusion that I'm taking the Bible and God's Word literally and in the context it is offered.
    What you are saying is : I take my interpretation to be above all others.

    HU already demonstrated above that you use the word 'corn' for at passage which is NOT what the Bible literally says. You were wrong there with your interpretation.

    How many other verses and words are you reading that are not what the original manuscripts literally wrote or meant? Any person can pretty much pick whatever context (even one with no historical foundation) or translation which suits them. How easy!

    You can't even depend on the translation you are using, how is it that you can claim to know the literal meaning of the verses and words? Even more astonishing, how is it that you think you know better than those who lived in the days of the early Church, who read and spoke Greek, and lived and worshiped with the very Apostles?

    I bet you that there are dozens of instances in the New Testament where you are using poor translation of the original literal word, and from that harboring ideas and beliefs which go against the witness, understanding and interpretation of the early Christians. That's okay. We all need to grow. But the problem as I see it is that you are taking a very dense and wrong approach in this new found faith. Ignoring history and one's weakness and deficiencies, and taking a prideful approach towards the meaning of the Scriptures, is not a beneficial way. It will leave you apart from the Church. We must humbly heed the voices of the great Christian saints who came before us, as important members of the body, and hand down the teachings they also handed down from their own fathers, in obedience and faith. For this is the (Biblical and historical) way the truth has endured: through humility, faith and obedience, which is through unity, love and consensus. It was a great message of St. Paul's ministry, and indeed, for all the Apostles and Saints.

    Those holy saints who you claim are worshipped by Orthodox Christians are not worshipped by us. Rather, it is those who (knowingly or unknowingly) worship themselves who often times make that claim against Orthodox Christians.

    The truth is, NC, men like St. Ignatius, St. Clement, St. Ireneaus are considered much higher than you in the Kingdom of Heaven. Much higher than me too. That's okay. I am not jealous about it and I am certainly not upset. I am actually very happy for them! I praise God above for this! There are many rooms in His mansion, and I know I don't deserve anything more than a closet. These godly men and women, however, shall be near the King's chambers.

    I do not worship these saints, but I sure do admire them and respect them and consider them amidst the cloud of witnesses. I believe they know a hell of a lot better on the literalness of the Bible and the context surrounding its meaning then we do, and that they were much greater men of faith and Christian love then either of us. So when you speak down on them, I feel sorry for you.

    You understand that Christ is the Lord and that He is the Savior. That is excellent, and is absolutely essential! Now, instead of attacking Saints, go and further educate yourself.
    Last edited by TER; 08-24-2016 at 09:24 PM.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  20. #347
    Quote Originally Posted by hells_unicorn View Post
    Just as a general aside, I want everyone to be clear that I am not a member of the Eastern Orthodoxy Church, and that I am not referencing any EO figure from any point in time after the Great Schism. My positions, which are often similar to their's, is based on a belief in the historical continuity of the Christian faith.
    What happened to the historical continuity of the Christian Faith and the very Church at the time of the Great Schism that precludes you from referencing any EO figure since? Did the Church disappear? And if not, where did it go? The Papal Roman Church? Or did it stay with the remaining four Patriarchates which are still in communion to this day? I am interested to learn what you are being taught.
    Last edited by TER; 08-24-2016 at 09:20 PM.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  21. #348
    Quote Originally Posted by TER View Post
    Not really. I don't need to prove it. I already understand the great power of the Holy Eucharist by my own personal experience. Also, I have spoken with enough priests and read enough writings to believe that what I wrote above is true with regards to the miraculous nature of the Holy Gifts (which are in no way limited to the few examples I have provided). You are free to not believe it. and if you wish to disprove it, then you can go and conduct an evidence-based study to do so. But I have seen enough evidence in my own life to believe it and don't need to see a scientific study to do so. If that is not enough proof for you, I understand. I'm okay with that.
    Okay. But your claim that priests would be more likely to get sick than the general population if not for the miracle of the Eucharist is simply not scientifically valid. Or if it is you've not provided any evidence to support the assertion. That's not something you can brush off by appealing to faith. Your claiming that something that isn't miraculous (not getting sick from drinking wine behind someone who might be sick) is somehow miraculous.

    Gluten allergies are not deadly and do not cause anaphylaxis as peanuts can.
    Thank you for the clarification. I didn't know one way or the other.

    Well, they aren't, so your example does not apply.
    Okay. I was simply giving a hypothetical anyway.

    No, that is not my thesis at all. The Holy Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, and thus to be concerned about gluten allergies demonstrates a lack of faith. Now I can't speak for the Catholic Eucharist, but no one with gluten allergies is getting sick from the Orthodox Holy Eucharist. There are people who are sensitive to alcohol (indeed, a true allergy) (one person whom I know), and they never have any reaction to partaking of the Holy Eucharist.

    The reason I bring up that priests don't get sick more often than the general population is because some people (like yourself) require more evidence about the miraculous nature of the Holy Eucharist. If you don't accept that as proof, that is okay. Again, I don't need to prove it to you. You are free to wait for a scientific study to confirm it if that is what you need. In the meanwhile, as a physician, if a patient or friend tells me they have a gluten allergy and are concerned about taking Holy Communion, I would tell them if they have faith, they have nothing to fear.
    Actually I don't believe in the miraculous nature of the Eucharist....because it's not biblical. If the wine was changed to something other than wine the why did Paul warn against getting drunk off of it?

    Oh...and I took this off of a Catholic blog.

    http://taylormarshall.com/2013/11/gl...eucharist.html
    Thomas Aquinas would say that the accidental properties of the gluten are still active. Hence, someone with an allergy to gluten will still react to the accidental property of this grain protein even though the substance of bread has changed.

    Likewise, if one drank a gallon of the Precious Blood, he would become drunk. In fact, Saint Paul complained that Christians in the first century were getting drunk off the Precious Blood! “One, indeed, is hungry, and another is drunk” (1 Cor 11:21).*


    Your free to believe what you wish to believe of course. But I agree with those who say that if wine hasn't changed to the point that you no longer get an alcoholic reaction to it than it's possible that it hasn't changed to the point that you can't get an allergic reaction to it.


    Again, I am speaking about the Holy Eucharist of the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, whereby the priest communicates the Holy Gifts using a spoon and a chalice.




    Since that is an image of Pope Benedict giving Catholic communion, and not an Orthodox priest offering Orthodox communion, I guess my suggestion to you is not trust everything you search for on Google. In Orthodoxy, the elements of bread and wine and consecrated together into the chalice and the communicant receives both with a spoon.
    Ummmm...sorry but you've gotten confused friend. I didn't say the picture of Pope Benedict was of an Orthodox priest. This is the image I was saying was of the Orthodox priest.



    And I see the reason for the confusion. That image didn't come through. Probably hot-linking is blocked. I'll download it and upload it to TinyPic so you can see what I was talking about.



    So ^that is an image of an Orthodox priest using a spoon to give communion. And again my point is that it doesn't look like the spoon touches the mouth so no pathogen transfer. The image of the Pope giving communion was to show that in the Catholic church as well the parishioners don't touch the bread so again there is no possibility of pathogen transfer.

    The image you posted in not coming through on my device, so I can't comment. As someone who has seen numerous Divine Liturgies, most people close their mouths over this spoon, like this video:
    Yeah. My bad. Hotlinking is disabled on that site. So on the wine the mouth touches the spoon. But wine, even diluted wine, has antiseptic properties. So no suprise (to me at least) that the priests don't get sick from finishing it off.

    It has some, but it certainly does not naturally sterilize the contents, which you seem to want to claim.
    Ummmm....I'm not "wanting to claim" anything. I'm simply reporting from the evidence given, in this case a Catholic MD. You disagree with him? Fine. You're an Orthodox MD. Maybe you and he could write a research paper together on the subject.

    The zeon (or water) added to the wine during the consecration is an ancient tradition going back to the very early history of the Church.
    Okay. I wasn't claiming it was something new. Thanks for giving the name of it.

    Thank you for that article which says that "Throughout the centuries, no disease has ever been transmitted by the taking of Holy Communion.". You didn't bold that part, so I don't know if maybe you missed it.
    I didn't miss it. I'm not disputing that. The Catholic MD who wrote the article and I agree that we wouldn't expect disease to be transmitted through Holy Communion because it's scientifically unlikely.

    I am actually familiar with that article from several years back, and it was written because of concerns by some fearful members of the Orthodox Church who had concerns about getting diseases (particularly HIV) from sharing the same spoon. In order to reassure them (since their faith was not strong), this article was written.
    And thankfully most people now realize that HIV isn't that easily transmitted anyway.

    As for you posting it, I am not exactly sure why you did, seeing that you require proof and scientific data to believe, and there is not one single research experiment or citation provided. I don't think you are being fair or consistent.
    LOL. I posted an earlier article with citations disputing your claim that wine doesn't kill germs on contact and you complained because the wine wasn't diluted. I posted this article from a Catholic MD explaining that even diluted wine has strong antiseptic properties and you complain because it doesn't contain citations. So far you haven't posted any references to support any of your claims. Except you are happy to use my article to support your claim, which I'm not disputing, that nobody has gotten sick from taking Communion. It seems to me that you're the one trying to have it both ways. But that's fine. You think it's miraculous that there aren't reports of priests getting sick from communion? Cool. I think it's natural that there aren't reports of priests getting sick from communion. And at least some people who agree with you that the Eucharist is a miracle agree with me that even if it wasn't a miracle it's still unlikely that priests would be getting sick.

    Actually, that is an Orthodox Christian physician and not a Catholic one, and I don't doubt that diluted communion wine has antiseptic properties as I already wrote in a previous post.
    Okay. That makes my argument even stronger.


    The fallacy which you are making is that that is the (only) reason why nobody gets sick from taking communion from the common cup.
    Ummm.....I'm wondering if you understand what the word "fallacy" means or if you simply don't understand what the article was saying. The point of the article is that based on the scientific nature of what's going on there's really no risk of getting sick from taking communion. If a miracle was needed to not get sick from taking communion behind a sick person then the doctor writing the article should have said it and added "But you can't get sick anyway because of the miracle of the Eucharist."

    Since the article mentioned the HIV scare I'll use an HIV example. At one point people might have been scared of being baptized by immersion behind someone who might have HIV. I've never heard of someone catching HIV that way. Someone might argue that you don't have to worry about HIV because the prayer over the water made it holy so that pathogen transmission became impossible. But one shouldn't expect there be HIV transmission that way.

    Something else to consider. Let's say you're right that diluted wine isn't enough to kill all the pathogens. You've given nothing but your own opinion to support that idea but let's say you're right. And? That still would mean the pathogens were weakened. So every communion the priests would basically be vaccinating themselves by drinking a chalice full of weakened pathogens. I don't know if you were keeping up with the scare in Rio over pathogens in the beach water. Some city official pointed out that he swam in the water all of the time. The scientist who released the report regarding the beach biohazard said "Sure. He's been swimming there for years and built up an immunity."
    So here's your fallacy in reverse. You're arguing that just because their might in general be a pathogen risk from drinking diluted wine after someone who's sick that the answer is that the fact nobody got sick means there must be a miracle going on such that nobody should worry about gluten allergies communion. Now I do agree with you, after reading what you wrote about gluten allergies and then doing some research on my own, that people probably don't need to worry about gluten allergies from a single wafer. According to one report I read 1.8 people in the U.S. have gluten allergies and 1.4 people don't know it. If that's true then the symptoms must not be that severe.

    This is a conclusion that the very author you are citing does not even make. You are making you own conclusions based on your own presuppositions.
    You've got it exactly backwards. The author has the same presupposition as you that there is a Eucharist miracle. But he comes to the same conclusion as me that the properties of the wine itself, even diluted, would make it unlikely to catch a disease from the Eucharist. My presuppositions have absolutely nothing to do with it.

    If you don't wish to believe in the miraculous nature of the Holy Eucharist, than that is your own loss.
    Not really but you're free to believe that.


    But so far, you have tried to disprove what I wrote initially above several posts ago and have yet still not done so. I am not sure why it bothers you so much that the Holy Eucharist of the Orthodox Divine Litrugy may be a miracle. No one is forcing you to believe.
    You're so intent on proving the "Divine miracle" that you're missing the point that even people who believe along with you in the "Divine miracle" don't support your argument that priests not getting sick is proof of the miracle. That doesn't mean your conclusion is wrong. But your premise is. Of course you are free to continue to believe a faulty premise anyway. I'm not sure what your premise is so important to you when people who don't accept it can still come to your same conclusion.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  22. #349
    Thank you jmdrake for the post above. I can tell that you are not prepared to believe in the miraculous nature of the Holy Eucharist and that I will not convince you. In that case, I will withdraw from that debate with you. It was nice discussing it with you. God bless!
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  23. #350
    Quote Originally Posted by TER View Post
    Thank you jmdrake for the post above. I can tell that you are not prepared to believe in the miraculous nature of the Holy Eucharist and that I will not convince you. In that case, I will withdraw from that debate with you. It was nice discussing it with you. God bless!
    You're welcome. I'm not quite sure why your premises are so important to you that you're not willing to accept the arguments of people who agree with your conclusions but that's okay too. God bless you as well!
    Last edited by jmdrake; 08-24-2016 at 09:55 PM.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  24. #351
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    You're welcome. I'm not quite sure why your premises are so important to you that you're not willing to accept the arguments of people who agree with your conclusions but that's okay too. God bless you as well!
    My premise is that it would not simply be antiseptic properties of diluted wine which can explain the lack of disease transmission from the Eucharist as administered by the Orthodox Church. Now if you believe that as well, then I missed it and I apologize.

    In my preceding posts, I used 'proofs' which were not good enough for you, which I totally get. You are not alone. You need scientific studies to believe. I don't, and as a physician I also say that, that is how confident I am with this topic. I think there is more than enough proof, both anectodotally and historically (as well as theologically) to demonstrate that with faith, there is no need to worry about contracting illnesses from sharing in the Common Cup. It is also the conclusion I make through experiential knowledge of actually communing of the Holy Eucharist within the Orthodox Church. Thus, I also believe there is a great deal of personal confirmation and faith which is involved. I do not deny that.

    Since we are at this impass which I cannot resolve with words, I think it is best that we will have to agree to disagree. Unless of course, you do agree with my first statement of this post, in which case, we are simply arguing for the sake of arguing!
    Last edited by TER; 08-25-2016 at 09:22 AM.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  25. #352
    one might speculate that Baptists hate their own children, there is no other way to explain this obstinate refusal to allow them access to the church.
    I have a (slightly) less horrifying guess as to the reason. Actually its a couple things. First of all they don't have a good understanding of good and necessary consequence. So they literally look for a specific passage that shows an infant being baptized (and weirdly, when looking for evidence that they should be celebrating Christmas or doing drama skits in church or the use of grape juice in the Lord's Supper they just say "the Bible doesn't say we can't".... an inconsistency I don't understand). I've been having this conversation with my mother and she literally still falls back on "Believe and be baptized." I don't think she hates her children (I understand I have reason to be biased, but I don't think I am ) I think she just doesn't get it. But I think there's a reason that most people at Patrick Henry College either start going higher church or going more liberal at some point. PHC is a smart, evangelical crowd, and its really hard to be smart and theologically inclined and still be an evangelical. A lot more of those people go Anglican than anything else, though after going through basically the same thing I came out as a theonomic presbyterian.

    Then you take their general stupidity/stupid literalism and add their desire not to be Catholic FOR THE SAKE OF NOT BEING CATHOLIC, and its easy to see how this could happen. Ugh. Its a mess.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading



  26. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  27. #353
    Quote Originally Posted by TER View Post
    My premise is that it would not simply be antiseptic properties of diluted wine which can explain the lack of disease transmission from the Eucharist as administered by the Orthodox Church. Now if you believe that as well, then I missed it and I apologize.
    No. I don't believe that. And neither does the Orthodox MD that I cited. He doesn't accept your premise even though he accepts your conclusion that the Eucharist is indeed miraculous. Therefore your premise is not required for your conclusion. So why are you fighting so hard for it? You believe it, fine. But it's a fallacy to conclude that someone that doesn't accept your premise is doing so because they don't want to accept your conclusion when someone who has accepted your conclusion doesn't accept your premise. Understand now?
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  28. #354
    >if two unmarried people sleep together, the punishment was that they had to get married.

    The fact that the people who think the scripture says women should be forced to marry their rapist are also those calling for a powerful statist theocracy which is the totally antithesis of the anarchy God established in Judges really demonstrates how unfit these people are to either be giving biblical exegesis or ruling.

    The text of scripture clearly says that a woman shouldn't be forced to marry her rapist, when the biblical scripture is translated correctly.

    http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm

  29. #355
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    No. I don't believe that. And neither does the Orthodox MD that I cited. He doesn't accept your premise even though he accepts your conclusion that the Eucharist is indeed miraculous. Therefore your premise is not required for your conclusion. So why are you fighting so hard for it? You believe it, fine. But it's a fallacy to conclude that someone that doesn't accept your premise is doing so because they don't want to accept your conclusion when someone who has accepted your conclusion doesn't accept your premise. Understand now?
    Can you point to where in the article by the Orthodox MD where he denies my premise? You have mentioned it a few times now, but I don't see it.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  30. #356
    Quote Originally Posted by TER View Post
    Can you point to where in the article by the Orthodox MD where he denies my premise? You have mentioned it a few times now, but I don't see it.
    Sure. Here it is:

    Wine has been shown to be an effective antiseptic even when the alcohol is removed. In fact, 10% alcohol is a poor antiseptic, and alcohol only becomes optimally effective at concentrations of 7;0%. The antiseptic substances in wine are inactive in fresh grapes because these molecules are bound to complex sugars. During fermentation these antiseptic substances are split off from the sugars and in this way become active. These molecules are polyphenols, a class of substances used in hospitals to disinfect surfaces and instruments. The polyphenol of wine has been shown to be some thirty-three times more powerful than the phenol used by Lister when he pioneered antiseptic surgery.

    Same year wines can be diluted up to ten times before beginning to show a decrease in their antiseptic effect. The better wines gradually improve with age over the first ten years and can be diluted twenty times without a decrease of the antiseptic effect. This effect then remains more or less constant over the next twenty years and becomes equivalent to a new wine after another twenty-five years. (Modern antiseptics and antibiotics for disinfecting wounds have surpassed wine effectiveness because the active ingredients in wine are rapidly bound and inactivated by proteins in body tissues.)

    In preparing communion, the hot water that is added to the wine will increase greatly the antiseptic effect of the polyphenols. Disinfection occurs more rapidly and more effectively at 45 degrees centigrade than at room temperature (22-25 degrees). Another contribution to the antiseptic effect comes from the silver, copper, zinc that make up the chalice itself, ensuring that microbes are unable to survive on its surface.


    Not only does he say that diluted wine still has effective antiseptic properties but also that the antiseptic effect is GREATLY INCREASED by the type of water added. (Hot water). And he adds that the chalice itself, because it's made of sliver, copper and zinc, also has antiseptic properties.

    Seriously I don't get how you can think he's supporting your premise that the fact that the wine is diluted means that it somehow lacks sufficient antiseptic property to prevent pathogen transmission to the point where one wouldn't expect priests to get sick more than the general population simply because they consumed the rest of the Eucharist.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  31. #357
    Did he say that the antiseptic properties listed above is enough to explain the fact that there is no evidence of anyone ever getting a transmittable disease from partaking from the Common Cup, including during times of pandemics?
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  32. #358
    Just found this article jmdrake might be interested in, using actual scientific experimentation.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...01971213001872

    International Journal of Infectious Diseases
    November 2013, Vol.17(11):e945–e948, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2013.05.001

    Infections associated with religious rituals
    James Pellerin Michael B. Edmond


    Summary
    This review evaluates the medical literature for religious rituals or ceremonies that have been reported to cause infection. These include an ultra-orthodox Jewish circumcision practice known as metzitzah b’peh, the Christian common communion chalice, Islamic ritual ablution, and the Hindu ‘side-roll’. Infections associated with participation in the Islamic Hajj have been extensively reviewed and will not be discussed.



    Here are the applicable paragraphs:

    4 The common communion chalice

    Holy Communion is a Christian practice that consists of a group gathered to share bread and wine from a minister or priest.18 The wine is frequently shared from a cup or by dipping the bread into wine, a practice called intinction. After each participant drinks from the cup, the minister wipes the rim prior to the next communicant drinking from the cup. Also, in some churches, communion wafers are placed into the cup containing wine, and a spoon (known as a cochlear) is used to retrieve a communion wafer from the chalice and placed into the recipient's mouth. The common spoon is not wiped between recipients.

    The capability of the chalice to spread infection has been debated in the medical literature since the 19th century when Forbes and Anders hypothesized that contamination from the mouth may lead to bacteria in the wine.19 Since then four experimental studies, a review, and several opinion pieces including one from the CDC have been published that discuss the infection risk of the chalice.

    The risk of infection depends on several factors including the bacterial or viral load in the communicants’ saliva, the ability of the organism to withstand the antimicrobial properties of the gold/silver chalice and the alcohol content of the wine, the linen cloth used to wipe the rim, and the recipient's ability to destroy any pathogenic organism. Examples of potential pathogens are those that are transmitted via saliva, oral/labial skin lesions, fecal-orally, or droplet and airborne routes.18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24

    In 1946 Burrows demonstrated that when human volunteers shared a communion cup, with instructions to get as much saliva as possible on the rim, bacteria were recovered in small numbers.18 In 1967 Gregory showed that in a more realistic simulation of a communion service, various species of bacteria could be recovered from the cup, including staphylococci, Neisseria species, beta-hemolytic and non-hemolytic streptococci, and Micrococcus species.18 In 1967 Hobbs and colleagues performed experiments that concluded that silver and wine may have antimicrobial properties. However, the time interval between each communicant drinking from the cup, which is typically less than five seconds, is not sufficient to cause a significant decrease in bacterial counts. They also found that rotating the chalice was ineffective at decreasing colonization; however wiping the rim with the linen cloth decreased bacterial counts by 90%. [note: Orthodox priests do not wipe down the spoon prior to giving the Eucharist to the next person, as seen in the video earlier posted by me, so this is not applicable. - TER] All studies concluded that the risk of spreading disease cannot be excluded but is extremely low.19

    In 1993 Furlow and Dougherty swabbed silver and pottery chalices before and after eight services. They cultured potentially pathogenic organisms, such as Staphylococcus aureus, Haemophilus parainfluenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis. They concluded that individual cups (challicles) should be used to eliminate infection risk.20

    Finally, in 1998 the CDC reported there had never been an outbreak of infection related to the communion cup.23 They referenced a study from 1997 in which 681 participants who drank daily from a common cup were at no higher risk of infection than those who participated less frequently or who completely abstained from Christian services. They concluded that it is probably safe to participate in services where a common cup is used, with the caveat that any member of the congregation with active respiratory illness or open labial or mouth sores abstain from partaking.23

    In conclusion, there is experimental evidence suggesting that sharing a communion cup contaminates the wine and cup. However, there has never been a documented case of illness caused by sharing a chalice reported in the literature.

    (The citations and references are in the link)
    Last edited by TER; 08-25-2016 at 12:05 PM.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  33. #359
    Here is some more:


    L. Managan, L. Sehulster, L. Chiarelo, D. Simonds, W. Jarvis

    Risk of infectious disease transmission from a common communion cup
    Am J Infect Control, Volume 26, 1998, pp. 538–539

    "Bacteriological experiments have shown that the occasional transmission of micro-organisms is unaffected by the alcoholic content of the wine, the constituent material of the cup or the practice of partially rotating it, but is appreciably reduced when a cloth is used to wipe the lip of the cup between communicants." (again, the spoon in the Orthodox service is not wiped down- TER).
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  34. #360
    Experiments on the communion cup

    Betty C. Hobbsa1, Jill A. Knowldena1 and Anne Whitea1
    a1 Central Public Health Laboratory, Colindale Avenue, London, N. W. 9

    Experiments were made to find out whether the common communion cup is likely to serve as a vehicle for the transmission of infection.

    A silver chalice and sacramental wine containing 14·5% of alcohol were used. Observations with volunteers showed that the number of organisms deposited on the rim of the chalice varied from person to person, but was usually quite small—less than 100.

    Rotation of the cup was of no benefit except to those partaking during the first round, since the saliva deposited on the rim by each person in turn remained to contaminate the cup during the second round, and the combined effect of the alcohol and the silver of the chalice was not rapid enough to destroy the contaminating organisms before rotation of the cup was completed.

    On the other hand the use of a linen cloth or purificator led to a diminution of about 90% in the bacterial count of the cup.

    Organisms in saliva deposited on the interior of the dry chalice suffered some diminution in numbers within 8 min., presumably as the result of the disinfectant action of the silver, but the effect was too small to be of significance.

    When suspended in wine and deposited on the internal surface of the chalice Escherichia coli suffered a substantial reduction within 3 min., Streptococcus pyogenes was destroyed completely; but Staphylococcus aureus was affected to a much less extent.


    Various experiments designed to measure the disinfectant action of wine, and of silver and wine together, showed that the augmenting effect of silver on the disinfectant action of the alcohol was quite small. Strep. pyogenes proved to be far more sensitive to alcohol than Esch. coli, Staph. aureus and Serratia marcescens. Under the conditions of the experiment these last three organisms were not destroyed for 10–12 min., whereas Strep. pyogenes perished within 1½ min..

    The results of our work are in general agreement with those of previous workers, and show that the organisms deposited on the rim of the communion cup are not destroyed within the short time—5 sec. as an average—elapsing between the partaking of the sacrament by each successive communicant.

    It must therefore be admitted that the common communion cup may serve as a means of transmitting infection. Reasons are given, however, for believing that the risk of transmission is very small, and probably much smaller than that of contracting infection by other methods in any gathering of people.

    Such risk as there is could be greatly diminished by the use of a purificator for wiping the cup between each communicant, and could be abolished completely by substituting individual cups or by the practice of intinction. [again, there is no wiping of the spoon in the Orthodox administration of the Hoy Eucharist, so the risks of transmission should (in theory) be significantly higher than the Roman Catholic or Anglican practice. The fact is, there is no documented case of it ever happening in two thousand years since it began. - TER]
    Last edited by TER; 08-25-2016 at 12:18 PM.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ



  35. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 LastLast


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •