That is your opinion, and your privilege to hold Larry. However, the way that you see fit to treat people here does not inspire me with confidence in your pov as a christian or a brother...shrug
Well, rascal, if it was just my opinion alone I would say you have a point. Did I mention that my opinion is based on the conversations I've had with uncountable people who hold the same opinion?
Rascal, I'm not trying to instill confidence you, nor do I care about your pov concerning my status of a Christian. I could easily say your behavior here doesn't speak highly of or demonstrate that you are a Christian but, that would be silly of me. Being a Christain, imo, isn't a matter of what you do -- it's a matter of what you believe. If it was the former, I dare say that many of us could not claim to be a Christian and Ghandi's remark that if it wasn't for the behavior of Christians, Christianity would be a marvelous religion would have a lot of truth in it.
Well it certainly isn`t my walk that we are talking about....but that of wierwille.
It is his conduct that is under examination here as to whether or not his ministry or doctrine is spiritually healthy, or whether it was a cleverly disguised counterfit that dragged people into bondage and destruction.
I think that galatians 5 is of the utmost importance in discerning these things.
I do not disagree with you when you say that we should acknowledge where we learned or received our "enlightnement". But let's look at that verse in its context...
2 Timothy 3:10-17
10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,
11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.
12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Notice that Paul was a full example of the gospel of Christ. He did not just speak it or expound it he lived it. He states that those that "live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution". He knows this because he lived godly. His life was a living example of the gospel of Christ that he knew. (Certainly not a perfect example, but a good one)
Well, I suppose a case can be made that VP must have lived a godly life since so many people want to persecute him.
I'm thinking of a verse where Paul (speaking to the Corinthians) says something about "leading about a sister". If I recall it had something to do with them suggesting that he might be doing something inappropriate with the "sisters".
I think that this is an important distinction. Anyone can quote scripture and call their interpretation of that scripture the truth. But it takes a real Christian to walk a life that is godly IN Christ Jesus. And this person...I would acknowledge because their walk would have "assured" to me that the gospel of Christ really works and is alive and real.
Here is where I might disagree with you. As far as I'm concerned the only qualification one needs to be considered a "Real Christian" is to believe God raised Jesus from the dead and confess that Jesus is Lord of life (eternal life -- for through him is the door to that life). Nevertheless, I agree that a Christian should walk the talk, but I don't hold it against him/her if they don't. I'll leave it up to God to sort out the chaff from the wheat. I'm not qualified.
You don`t ...big deal so we disagree.
Exactly! So I don't think we need to resort to personal attacks and questioning another about whether they are a "true" Christian.
No personal attack, but a questioning of the validity of doctrines presented by a man who was of the flesh.
If as believers of that doctrine, the fruit of our lives do not line up with that which Jesus said was what would identify believers to one another....if instead we behave as *of the flesh* then it is time to take a second look at the validity of what we were taught and think we believe.
No personal attack, but a questioning of the validity of doctrines presented by a man who was of the flesh.
Rascal, you may not see it as such but, whenever someone questions whether I'm a "true" Christian I consider that a personal attack. Questioning doctrines is fair game -- but questioning whether someone is a Christian or calling them a liar is not. I'm quite certain you don't appreciate it when someone calls you a liar so, why should you be given a pass when you call someone else one?
To reiterate....No personal attack, but a questioning of the validity of doctrines presented by a man who was of the flesh.
If as believers of that doctrine, the fruit of our lives do not line up with that which Jesus said was what would identify believers to one another....if instead we behave as *of the flesh* then it is time to take a second look at the validity of what we were taught and think we believe.
I cannot prevent you from percieving this as a personal attack, it is not intended as such, but to be thought provoking.
Larry, I explained myself clearly enough. I cannot prevent you getting your panties in a twist over what you would like to think that I am saying.
Just get over it :)
I'm quite certain I'll "get over it" (like to keep my comments on topic) but, you clearly called John a liar. If you get your "panties in a twist" whenever you perceive someone is calling you a liar then as far as I'm concerned you should know how that feels and should (as a Christian) refrain from stooping down to their level. And when you don't and call into question someone being a "true" Christian because you think they are lying then it's reasonable to question your being a Christian when you accuse someone of lying when you can't prove they are.
I edited my post to not be so mean....before I saw yours....I also edited my post calling John a liar a lot earlier.
If ones actions line up with those clearly listed as of someone of the flesh...then sorry dude, that is how you are going to be percieved....and will consequently lack of credibility as a christian. If your actions line up as those listed of someone of the spirit then you gain respect as being a christian.
Thats how it works...that is how believers were to identify one a another...that was the spiritual measuring stick or barometer we were given scripturally.
Now we have a man of the flesh trying to explain why it is ok to ignore fruit....isn`t that something that should cause concern?
This isn`t a personal attack unless you are manifesting fruit of the flesh and want to still call yourself of the spirit.
I edited my post to not be so mean....before I saw yours....I also edited my post calling John a liar a lot earlier.
If ones actions line up with those of someone of the flesh...then sorry dude, that is how you are going to be percieved....and will lack of credibility as a christian. If your actions line up as someone of the spirit then you gain respect as being a christian.
Thats how it works...that is how we identify one another.
Yeah, I failed to see where you edited your previous comments from the post. Perhaps it had something to do with me reporting that particular post. Nevertheless, to simply delete the inflammatory comments without publicly apologizing and asking for forgiveness from the wounded party isn't much of an example of the Christian walk as far as I'm concerned. But that's just my opinion.
Well, I suppose a case can be made that VP must have lived a godly life since so many people want to persecute him.
I'm thinking of a verse where Paul (speaking to the Corinthians) says something about "leading about a sister". If I recall it had something to do with them suggesting that he might be doing something inappropriate with the "sisters".
Here is where I might disagree with you. As far as I'm concerned the only qualification one needs to be considered a "Real Christian" is to believe God raised Jesus from the dead and confess that Jesus is Lord of life (eternal life -- for through him is the door to that life). Nevertheless, I agree that a Christian should walk the talk, but I don't hold it against him/her if they don't. I'll leave it up to God to sort out the chaff from the wheat. I'm not qualified.
Exactly! So I don't think we need to resort to personal attacks and questioning another about whether they are a "true" Christian.
I don't know how to make separate quotes so I'll just wing it and "hope" you can follow along. (which I'm pretty sure you can) ;)
As to the first comment about VP: Yes if taken at face value one could make a case that could appear to hold water that he did live a godly life because many here appear to persecute him. But if one is to believe even half of the allegations that have been voiced about the man, then his case would crumble. I believe the allegations and have had my own experiences that convince me of the true nature of his life. I did not fully know his manner of life. I have only seen one small aspect that I personally found to be detestable and I have been told of other aspects of his life by persons that I personally know (then and now) of whom I believe to be telling the truth as it occured to/with them. So for me a case to prove his godly walk would probably not get very far. But that's just me.
I looked up "leading about a sister" in Crosswalk and didn't find a reference in the KJV. Perhaps a different version. It sounds interesting.
Now what you disagree with...Thank you for holding me to my words. I apologize for I used a word that when looked at critically in the sentence it does not work positively to relay what I was thinking. "But it takes a real Christian to walk a life that is godly IN Christ Jesus." Not the correct word to use to convey my meaning. Sorry. A better word to use would be "faithful" or "steadfast". My point was that a Christian that tries to "continue" in the things that Paul taught them through word and deed would be most likely to "walk a life that is godly IN Christ Jesus."
I do not judge others or their walks with God either. I am guilty of my own sins oh wretched woman that I am. I have no qualifications to judge others. But I can call a spade a spade. I do not presume to judge VP's walk. I do not know why he did what he did. I only know that what he did was wrong and that much of what he did is condemned by the Bible. I merely point out to others what he did so that they can determine for themselves if they wish to continue to follow his lead.
Judge
–noun
1. a public officer authorized to hear and decide cases in a court of law; a magistrate charged with the administration of justice.
2. a person appointed to decide in any competition, contest, or matter at issue; authorized arbiter: the judges of a beauty contest.
3. a person qualified to pass a critical judgment: i.e. a good judge of horses.
4. an administrative head of Israel in the period between the death of Joshua and the accession to the throne by Saul.
5. (esp. in rural areas) a county official with supervisory duties, often employed part-time or on an honorary basis.
–verb (used with object)
6. to pass legal judgment on; pass sentence on (a person): The court judged him guilty.
7. to hear evidence or legal arguments in (a case) in order to pass judgment; adjudicate; try: The Supreme Court is judging that case.
8. to form a judgment or opinion of; decide upon critically: You can't judge a book by its cover.
9. to decide or settle authoritatively; adjudge: The censor judged the book obscene and forbade its sale.
10. to infer, think, or hold as an opinion; conclude about or assess: He judged her to be correct.
11. to make a careful guess about; estimate: We judged the distance to be about four miles.
12. (of the ancient Hebrew judges) to govern.
–verb (used without object)
13. to act as a judge; pass judgment: No one would judge between us.
14. to form an opinion or estimate: I have heard the evidence and will judge accordingly.
15. to make a mental judgment.
I dont have all the information, God has all the information. That's why He is the Judge. We are witnesses to what we know, as such we are expected to tell and sometimes warn by sharing what we know. Sometimes that sounds like persecution, but only if the witnesses testamony is not believed. If it is believed then is sounds like evidence.
John has indicated that I am of the flesh...IN the context of galatians and fruit of the flesh. When he can provide incidents of such, THEN I will withdraw my objections and apologize profusely.
He also called me dense in the post before that...I notice you didn`t whine to the moderators about that .. pretty hypocritical when you are being so diligent about reporting name calling I think :).
I dont have all the information, God has all the information. That's why He is the Judge. We are witnesses to what we know, as such we are expected to tell and sometimes warn by sharing what we know. Sometimes that sounds like persecution, but only if the witnesses testamony is not believed. If it is believed then is sounds like evidence.
I can stipulate agreement with your pov with the exception -- I know from first-hand experience (and studies) that the testimony of witnesses isn't always reliable or trustworthy. I can only call a spade a spade if I happen to see it for myself. I guess that means I have a lack of faith -- believing something to be true minus evidence. (Hebrews 11:1 I think). That is not the same as saying something is not true -- it very well could be -- but I can't reasonably say it is without seeing it for myself.
John has indicated that I am of the flesh...IN the context of galatians and fruit of the flesh. When he can provide incidents of such, THEN I will withdraw my objections and apologize profusely.
He also called me dense in the post before that...I notice you didn`t whine to the moderators about that .. pretty hypocritical when you are being so diligent about reporting name calling I think :).
Two wrongs do not make a right. Whether I report John or not is irrelevant to whether you should apologize or not. If you feel you've done nothing wrong then why did you edit your post?
I can stipulate agreement with your pov with the exception -- I know from first-hand experience (and studies) that the testimony of witnesses isn't always reliable or trustworthy. I can only call a spade a spade if I happen to see it for myself. I guess that means I have a lack of faith -- believing something to be true minus evidence. (Hebrews 11:1 I think). That is not the same as saying something is not true -- it very well could be -- but I can't reasonably say it is without seeing it for myself.
Almost an agnostic way of thinking...kinda...well it works for me. :unsure:
You are right some testimony of some witnesses isnt always reliable or trustworthy. All must be weighed and counted against a very complicated scale. I am willing to accept the testimony of people that saw it or did it (whatever) first hand if I find that person to be a reasonable person of good moral character or repute. (Can you tell what I do for a living?) What does that all mean? It is very subjective. But it boils down to "Do I think that they are telling me the truth? Does their testimony remain constant and consistant? Does their life (the whole ball of wax) instill a sense of trustworthyness?" Basically there are a lot of factors that come into play when a person accepts another person's word as true testimony. Based on what I know, how I know it, my experience, the testimonies themselves and the person(s) that testified I have come to the conclusion that I believe the testimony. I could be wrong...but of course I dont think so. :)
I will never learn to spell....but not bad for a shark!
Almost an agnostic way of thinking...kinda...well it works for me. :unsure:
Yep! Exactly.
<snip>Based on what I know, how I know it, my experience, the testimonies themselves and the person(s) that testified I have come to the conclusion that I believe the testimony. I could be wrong...but of course I dont think so. :)
You could be but, I would say your approach is reasonable and if it works for you then so be it.
I edited willingly because it is the courtious (sp?)thing to do, when asked by the moderators...shrug
Reporting me and not john certainly is not irrelevent to me...seems pretty low down, as a matter of fact
Question: Do former twi cultists always use Bible quotations, when convenient, to substantiate whatever secular point they wish to make? And could this logic be a bi-product of post partem Way Brain depression remnants that could be classified as...mentally unhealthy? I mean seriously, if any non-pfal grad human was to go through most of these postings, there would be a straight jacket with a body in the hallway waiting to be picked up! <_<
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
49
13
22
18
Popular Days
Nov 15
75
Nov 16
20
Nov 17
15
Oct 24
12
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 49 posts
johniam 13 posts
Eyesopen 22 posts
Larry N Moore 18 posts
Popular Days
Nov 15 2007
75 posts
Nov 16 2007
20 posts
Nov 17 2007
15 posts
Oct 24 2007
12 posts
Larry N Moore
Well, rascal, if it was just my opinion alone I would say you have a point. Did I mention that my opinion is based on the conversations I've had with uncountable people who hold the same opinion?
Rascal, I'm not trying to instill confidence you, nor do I care about your pov concerning my status of a Christian. I could easily say your behavior here doesn't speak highly of or demonstrate that you are a Christian but, that would be silly of me. Being a Christain, imo, isn't a matter of what you do -- it's a matter of what you believe. If it was the former, I dare say that many of us could not claim to be a Christian and Ghandi's remark that if it wasn't for the behavior of Christians, Christianity would be a marvelous religion would have a lot of truth in it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Well it certainly isn`t my walk that we are talking about....but that of wierwille.
It is his conduct that is under examination here as to whether or not his ministry or doctrine is spiritually healthy, or whether it was a cleverly disguised counterfit that dragged people into bondage and destruction.
I think that galatians 5 is of the utmost importance in discerning these things.
You don`t ...big deal so we disagree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Well, I suppose a case can be made that VP must have lived a godly life since so many people want to persecute him.
I'm thinking of a verse where Paul (speaking to the Corinthians) says something about "leading about a sister". If I recall it had something to do with them suggesting that he might be doing something inappropriate with the "sisters".
Here is where I might disagree with you. As far as I'm concerned the only qualification one needs to be considered a "Real Christian" is to believe God raised Jesus from the dead and confess that Jesus is Lord of life (eternal life -- for through him is the door to that life). Nevertheless, I agree that a Christian should walk the talk, but I don't hold it against him/her if they don't. I'll leave it up to God to sort out the chaff from the wheat. I'm not qualified.Exactly! So I don't think we need to resort to personal attacks and questioning another about whether they are a "true" Christian.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
No personal attack, but a questioning of the validity of doctrines presented by a man who was of the flesh.
If as believers of that doctrine, the fruit of our lives do not line up with that which Jesus said was what would identify believers to one another....if instead we behave as *of the flesh* then it is time to take a second look at the validity of what we were taught and think we believe.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Rascal, you may not see it as such but, whenever someone questions whether I'm a "true" Christian I consider that a personal attack. Questioning doctrines is fair game -- but questioning whether someone is a Christian or calling them a liar is not. I'm quite certain you don't appreciate it when someone calls you a liar so, why should you be given a pass when you call someone else one?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Larry, I explained myself clearly enough.
To reiterate....No personal attack, but a questioning of the validity of doctrines presented by a man who was of the flesh.
If as believers of that doctrine, the fruit of our lives do not line up with that which Jesus said was what would identify believers to one another....if instead we behave as *of the flesh* then it is time to take a second look at the validity of what we were taught and think we believe.
I cannot prevent you from percieving this as a personal attack, it is not intended as such, but to be thought provoking.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
I'm quite certain I'll "get over it" (like to keep my comments on topic) but, you clearly called John a liar. If you get your "panties in a twist" whenever you perceive someone is calling you a liar then as far as I'm concerned you should know how that feels and should (as a Christian) refrain from stooping down to their level. And when you don't and call into question someone being a "true" Christian because you think they are lying then it's reasonable to question your being a Christian when you accuse someone of lying when you can't prove they are.
Shall be both "get over" this? Should we? :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I edited my post to not be so mean....before I saw yours....I also edited my post calling John a liar a lot earlier.
If ones actions line up with those clearly listed as of someone of the flesh...then sorry dude, that is how you are going to be percieved....and will consequently lack of credibility as a christian. If your actions line up as those listed of someone of the spirit then you gain respect as being a christian.
Thats how it works...that is how believers were to identify one a another...that was the spiritual measuring stick or barometer we were given scripturally.
Now we have a man of the flesh trying to explain why it is ok to ignore fruit....isn`t that something that should cause concern?
This isn`t a personal attack unless you are manifesting fruit of the flesh and want to still call yourself of the spirit.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Yeah, I failed to see where you edited your previous comments from the post. Perhaps it had something to do with me reporting that particular post. Nevertheless, to simply delete the inflammatory comments without publicly apologizing and asking for forgiveness from the wounded party isn't much of an example of the Christian walk as far as I'm concerned. But that's just my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
I don't know how to make separate quotes so I'll just wing it and "hope" you can follow along. (which I'm pretty sure you can) ;)
As to the first comment about VP: Yes if taken at face value one could make a case that could appear to hold water that he did live a godly life because many here appear to persecute him. But if one is to believe even half of the allegations that have been voiced about the man, then his case would crumble. I believe the allegations and have had my own experiences that convince me of the true nature of his life. I did not fully know his manner of life. I have only seen one small aspect that I personally found to be detestable and I have been told of other aspects of his life by persons that I personally know (then and now) of whom I believe to be telling the truth as it occured to/with them. So for me a case to prove his godly walk would probably not get very far. But that's just me.
I looked up "leading about a sister" in Crosswalk and didn't find a reference in the KJV. Perhaps a different version. It sounds interesting.
Now what you disagree with...Thank you for holding me to my words. I apologize for I used a word that when looked at critically in the sentence it does not work positively to relay what I was thinking. "But it takes a real Christian to walk a life that is godly IN Christ Jesus." Not the correct word to use to convey my meaning. Sorry. A better word to use would be "faithful" or "steadfast". My point was that a Christian that tries to "continue" in the things that Paul taught them through word and deed would be most likely to "walk a life that is godly IN Christ Jesus."
I do not judge others or their walks with God either. I am guilty of my own sins oh wretched woman that I am. I have no qualifications to judge others. But I can call a spade a spade. I do not presume to judge VP's walk. I do not know why he did what he did. I only know that what he did was wrong and that much of what he did is condemned by the Bible. I merely point out to others what he did so that they can determine for themselves if they wish to continue to follow his lead.
Judge
–noun
1. a public officer authorized to hear and decide cases in a court of law; a magistrate charged with the administration of justice.
2. a person appointed to decide in any competition, contest, or matter at issue; authorized arbiter: the judges of a beauty contest.
3. a person qualified to pass a critical judgment: i.e. a good judge of horses.
4. an administrative head of Israel in the period between the death of Joshua and the accession to the throne by Saul.
5. (esp. in rural areas) a county official with supervisory duties, often employed part-time or on an honorary basis.
–verb (used with object)
6. to pass legal judgment on; pass sentence on (a person): The court judged him guilty.
7. to hear evidence or legal arguments in (a case) in order to pass judgment; adjudicate; try: The Supreme Court is judging that case.
8. to form a judgment or opinion of; decide upon critically: You can't judge a book by its cover.
9. to decide or settle authoritatively; adjudge: The censor judged the book obscene and forbade its sale.
10. to infer, think, or hold as an opinion; conclude about or assess: He judged her to be correct.
11. to make a careful guess about; estimate: We judged the distance to be about four miles.
12. (of the ancient Hebrew judges) to govern.
–verb (used without object)
13. to act as a judge; pass judgment: No one would judge between us.
14. to form an opinion or estimate: I have heard the evidence and will judge accordingly.
15. to make a mental judgment.
I dont have all the information, God has all the information. That's why He is the Judge. We are witnesses to what we know, as such we are expected to tell and sometimes warn by sharing what we know. Sometimes that sounds like persecution, but only if the witnesses testamony is not believed. If it is believed then is sounds like evidence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Awww Larry, I might a known :)
John has indicated that I am of the flesh...IN the context of galatians and fruit of the flesh. When he can provide incidents of such, THEN I will withdraw my objections and apologize profusely.
He also called me dense in the post before that...I notice you didn`t whine to the moderators about that .. pretty hypocritical when you are being so diligent about reporting name calling I think :).
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
Does this thread ever reach a conclusion? In real life would you really be going on like this? Just wondering.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
I can stipulate agreement with your pov with the exception -- I know from first-hand experience (and studies) that the testimony of witnesses isn't always reliable or trustworthy. I can only call a spade a spade if I happen to see it for myself. I guess that means I have a lack of faith -- believing something to be true minus evidence. (Hebrews 11:1 I think). That is not the same as saying something is not true -- it very well could be -- but I can't reasonably say it is without seeing it for myself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Naw Bumpy, I doubt it, people are generally a lot more courtious in face to face encounters :)
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Two wrongs do not make a right. Whether I report John or not is irrelevant to whether you should apologize or not. If you feel you've done nothing wrong then why did you edit your post?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Almost an agnostic way of thinking...kinda...well it works for me. :unsure:
You are right some testimony of some witnesses isnt always reliable or trustworthy. All must be weighed and counted against a very complicated scale. I am willing to accept the testimony of people that saw it or did it (whatever) first hand if I find that person to be a reasonable person of good moral character or repute. (Can you tell what I do for a living?) What does that all mean? It is very subjective. But it boils down to "Do I think that they are telling me the truth? Does their testimony remain constant and consistant? Does their life (the whole ball of wax) instill a sense of trustworthyness?" Basically there are a lot of factors that come into play when a person accepts another person's word as true testimony. Based on what I know, how I know it, my experience, the testimonies themselves and the person(s) that testified I have come to the conclusion that I believe the testimony. I could be wrong...but of course I dont think so. :)
I will never learn to spell....but not bad for a shark!
Edited by EyesopenLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Yep! Exactly.
You could be but, I would say your approach is reasonable and if it works for you then so be it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I edited willingly because it is the courtious (sp?)thing to do, when asked by the moderators...shrug
Reporting me and not john certainly is not irrelevent to me...seems pretty low down, as a matter of fact
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
It is entirely probable that had we all fully known vp's manner of life - that many of us would have left much earlier than we did.
On a different note...
The whole "flesh" subject ...
Rascal is referring to works of the flesh. Johniam is referring to flesh and blood.
I'm sure someone besides me sees this. But John called Rascal dense... He also told Ham to take a remedial English class.
Yes, he got called a liar.
I'd say there's enough blood in the water for quite a while...
Did anyone ask for gravy?
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Understood now Dooj.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Can I get bisquits with the gravy?
Edited by EyesopenLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I make a pretty mean biscuit Eyes, I`ll share.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Oooo...I like biscuits! I'll share the gravy, Woo hoo! Brunch!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
Question: Do former twi cultists always use Bible quotations, when convenient, to substantiate whatever secular point they wish to make? And could this logic be a bi-product of post partem Way Brain depression remnants that could be classified as...mentally unhealthy? I mean seriously, if any non-pfal grad human was to go through most of these postings, there would be a straight jacket with a body in the hallway waiting to be picked up! <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.