The Barbarian said:

Hopefully, no one here. But into the 1990s, one prominent YEC was saying that it was God's doing, as some races were by nature, slaves.

Click to expand...

Never heard such. Please do provide these statements. After which perhaps we may take a close look at the connections between the theory of Evolution and support for or of racist tendencies.

The Barbarian said:

The Declaration of Independence has nothing at all to say about slavery.

Click to expand...

It does not surprise me, that you cannot see the major deterring implications against slavery implied within the first couple of paragraphs of the document.

Heavenly Father, Holy is Your Name, we pray You will heal and restore this mother, in the Name of Jesus, as only You can do. Amen and Amen.

AV1611VET said:

Now we're getting somewhere.

What put the orbit of the earth into an elliptical orbit from a perfect circular orbit?

Click to expand...

With my limited understanding of astrophysics, I don't believe it's possible for any celestial body to have a "perfect circular orbit". The Earth itself is in a helical motion as the sun pulls it through space. The same with the moon as it's pulled through space by the earth.

The Barbarian said:

Trump is angry at the Smithsonian for making slavery look bad.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/19/us/politics/trump-smithsonian-slavery.html

Click to expand...

Oh yea, the NY Times is where we can all get the unbiased truth.

The Barbarian said:

Don't see any of those. Must be like those cancer-causing windmills, um? But if I'm wrong, link to the evidence of people saying all Americans support slavery. What do you have?

Click to expand...

The 1619 Project - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Quote below from link above.

The 1619 Project is a long-form journalistichistoriographical work that takes a critical view of traditionally revered figures and events in American history, including the Patriots in the American Revolution, the Founding Fathers, along with Abraham Lincoln and the Union during the Civil War. It was developed by Nikole Hannah-Jones, writers from The New York Times, and The New York Times Magazine. It focused on subjects of slavery and the founding of the United States, taking its name from the year that the first enslaved Africans arrived to colonial Virginia.[5] The first publication from the project was in The New York Times Magazine of August 2019. The project developed an educational curriculum, supported by the Pulitzer Center, later accompanied by a broadsheet article, live events, and a podcast. "The 1619 Project: A New Origin Story" is a book-length anthology of essays and poetry that further develops the project's ideas.

The project has become a leading subject of the American history wars,[8] receiving criticism from historians, both from the political left and the right, who question its historical accuracy. In a letter published in The New York Times in December 2019, historians Gordon S. Wood, James M. McPherson, Sean Wilentz, Victoria E. Bynum, and James Oakes applauded "all efforts to address the enduring centrality of slavery and racism to our history" and deemed the project a "praiseworthy and urgent public service," but expressed "strong reservations" about some "important aspects" of the project and requested factual corrections. These scholars denied the project's claim that slavery was essential to the beginning of the American Revolution. In response, Jake Silverstein, the editor of The New York Times Magazine, defended The 1619 Project and refused to issue corrections. On May 4, 2020, the Pulitzer Prize board announced that it was awarding the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary to Hannah-Jones for her introductory essay.........................

Click to expand...

The following link provides a whole bunch more NY Times rubbish revisionist history for you and yours.



Just a couple examples of overemphasis upon slavery and revised history among others, which the left likes to push. Along with their non stop race bated divisive tactics.

The Barbarian said:

Of course the Founders were mostly Christians, with some deists, Jewish believers, and some "free-thinkers." None of them wanted a system based on Christian, much less Protestant belief.

Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution....Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its several sects. Torrents of blood have been spilt in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious discord, by proscribing all difference in Religious opinion. Time has at length revealed the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and rigorous policy, wherever it has been tried, has been found to assuage the disease. The American Theatre has exhibited proofs that equal and compleat liberty, if it does not wholly eradicate it, sufficiently destroys its malignant influence on the health and prosperity of the State.9 If with the salutary effects of this system under our own eyes, we begin to contract the bounds of Religious freedom, we know no name that will too severely reproach our folly...
James Madison, Against Religious Assessments

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.
Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography

Click to expand...

Emphasis in the following quote is mine.

The colonists, including their philosohy in their religion, as the people up to that time had always done, were neither skeptics nor sensualilsts, but Christains. The school that bows to the senses as the sole inerpreter of truth had little share in colonizing our America. The colonists from Main to Carolina, the adventurous companies of Smith, the proscribed Puritans that freighted the fleet of Winthrop, the Quaker outlaws that fled from jails with a Newgate prisoner as their sovereign-all had faith in God and in the soul. The system which had been revealed in Judea-the system which combines and perfects the symbolic wisdom of the Orient and the reflective genius of Greece- the system, conforming to reason, yet kindling enthusiasm; always hastening reform, yet always conservative; proclaiming absolute equality among men, yet not suddenly abolishing the unequal institutions of society; guaranteeing absolute freedom, yet invoking the inexorable restrictions of duty; in the highest degree theoretical, and yet in the highest degree practical; awakening the inner man to a consciousness of his destiny, and yet adapted with exact harmony to the outward world; at once divine and human-this system was professed in every part of our widely extended country, and cradled our freedom.

Our fathers were not only Christains; they were, even in Maryland by a vast majority, elsehwere almost unanimously, Protestants. Now the Protestant reformation, considered in its largest influence on politics, was the awakening of the common people to freedom of mind.

During the decline of the Roman empire, the opressed invoked the power of Christianity to resist the supremacy of brute force; and the merciful priest assumed the office of protector. The tribunes of Rome, appointed by the people, had been declared inviolable by the popular vote; the new tribunes of humanity, deriving their office from religion, and ordained by religion to a still more venerable sanctity, defended the poor man's house against lust by the sacrament of marriage; restrained arbitrary passion by a menace of the misery due to sin unrepented of and unatoned; and taught respect for the race by sprinkling every new-born child with the water of life, confirming every youth, bearing the oil of consolation to every death-bed, and sharing freely with every human being the consecrated emblem of God present with man.

But from protectors priests grew to be usurpers. Expressing all moral truth by the mysteries of symbols, and reserving to themselves the administration of seven sacraments, they claimed a monopoly of thought and exercised an absolute spiritual dominion. Human bondage was strongly riveted; for they had fastened it on the affections, the understanding, and the reason. Ordaining thier own successors, they ruled human destiny at birth, on entering active life, at marriage, when frailty breathed its confession, when faith aspired to communion with God, and at death. (History of the United States, Bancroft Vol. 1.)​

Click to expand...

Emphasis in the following quote is mine.

American Independence was Achieved Upon the Principles of Christianity
John Adams ​

Without wishing to damp the Ardor of curiosity, or influence the freedom of inquiry, I will hazard a prediction, that after the most industrious and impartial Researches, the longest liver of you all, will find no Principles, Institutions, or Systems of Education, more fit, IN GENERAL to be transmitted to your Posterity, than those you have received from you[r] Ancestors.

Who composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes? There were among them, Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and "Protestans qui ne croyent rien ["Protestants who believe nothing"]." Very few however of several of these Species. Nevertheless all Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty.

Could my Answer be understood, by any candid Reader or Hearer, to recommend, to all the others, the general Principles, Institutions or Systems of Education of the Roman Catholicks? Or those of the Quakers? Or those of the Presbyterians? Or those of the Menonists? Or those of the Methodists? or those of the Moravians? Or those of the Universalists? or those of the Philosophers? No.

The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were united: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.

Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. I could therefore safely say, consistently with all my then and present Information, that I believed they would never make Discoveries in contradiction to these general Principles. In favour of these general Principles in Phylosophy, Religion and Government, I could fill Sheets of quotations from Frederick of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Reausseau and Voltaire, as well as Neuton and Locke: not to mention thousands of Divines and Philosophers of inferiour Fame.

Source: John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28th, 1813, from Quincy. The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The
Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams, edited by Lester J. Cappon,

1988, the University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, pp. 338-340.

Click to expand...

RileyG said:

Why, yes.
do you ask other fellow Christians to pray for you?

I fail to see how that is different.

Click to expand...

And that means that the Holy Spirit is. not just sitting. around and HE has many. things to do and I am doing a study

on what. the Holy. Sprit does as we are indwell by the God Head. !!

dan p

RileyG said:

Per the book of revelation 5:8 and the writings of the Church fathers, those in heaven are very much alive in Christ and can pray for us.

Our God is a God of the living.

Click to expand...

And I do not see that Rev 5:8 in any way is speaking to the BODY. of Christ and I say no ,'

And where is verse That anyone has ACENDED. TO HEAVEN and that would call for a Resecrrection and John 3:13 Says the

that NO MAN. has ascended up. to heaven , but HE that came down from. heaven even the Son of man. which is in heaven !!

dan p

I notice with a wry smile that I have raised several issues on this topic that have been avoided and the silence is somewhat significant.

AV1611VET said:

Before I answer this, how familiar are you with basic Christian doctrine?

Generally the doctrine of Hamartology; specifically the Fall?

Click to expand...

I googled the doctrine Hamartology. Not my cup of tea. But that help in understanding you.

BibleBeliever1611 said:

Then you can also boast if you live like a derelict and you use your free will to get free money from the government. Or if you just use your free will in anything. Like I said you're being ridiculous.

Click to expand...

freewillers are boasters

Freth said:

Some say it is proof of flat earth, but I don't see it that way. Jesus has the capability of making Himself seen anywhere on earth. I take it at face value, that all people alive will see His coming, because He deems it so.

Click to expand...

Well, of course we believe God when He says something. But what did He actually mean, that everybody on earth simultaneously see a single man come down from heaven? I don't think so.

The Bible indicates we can see the coming of Divine judgment when history experiences a catastrophic judgment that impacts the whole earth. Maybe that is what is meant?

God could certainly turn the earth into a pancake, but I don't think He will flatten the earth at any time.

A question no one has raised is the issue of so called 'Apostolic succession' as if it is a requirement for authenticity - when Paul was called and established with no laying-on of hands.

We note that human agent commanded to restore him from blindness, and lead him to baptism was called to Ananias, and described as a disciple not an Apostle.

We know that God can raise up believers from the very stones (Luke 3) likewise Apostles as He did with Paul.

I'm not sure why you would conclude that, would you elaborate?

timothyu said:

Yet it came with stipulations. Repent of the ways of man and live accordingly.

Click to expand...

Repenting does the devils no good

Consider this:

What would it be like to perceive every single human being on earth as a member of your immediate family?

Dan Perez said:

And I an sure that all that cause trouble will pay and Paul even had to contend with.. one who said

that the resurrection had already passed !!

dan p

Click to expand...

The enemy was in Paul's own mind and body. Romans 7, 2 Cor. 12:7, Gal. 4:14

Yet we know he was in Truth because he exposed it openly. Slaves of sin can't do thàt because the liar and deceiver is still in control

Jung: Quid pro quo, Father. You want to peer into my collective unconscious? Tell me first—what haunts the corridors of your own intellect? That moment when you gazed upon the divine and declared all your writings as straw. What did you see that silenced the Summa?

Aquinas: Bold, psychologist. Very well. It was a vision, not of words, but of essence—God as the unmoved Mover, pure act, beyond the quibbles of essence and existence. My tomes became chaff in the wind of eternity. Now, your turn. You speak of archetypes, these primordial images bubbling from the depths. Are they not echoes of the Forms, or perhaps the angels themselves, intermediaries between God and man?

Jung: Echoes? They are the architects of the psyche, Thomas—universal patterns etched into every soul, shaping myths, dreams, religions. Your angels might be one such archetype: messengers from the unconscious, not heaven. But tell me, quid pro quo—what terrors did you face in reconciling the pagan philosopher with your Christian God? Did doubt ever creep in, like a shadow self, whispering that the Prime Mover might not be your Yahweh?

Aquinas: Doubt? The intellect seeks truth as the will seeks good. Aristotle's errors were veils, lifted by grace. No shadow self, but the light of faith illuminating reason. Yet you, Jung, posit a collective unconscious—a sea of inherited memories. Is this not akin to original sin, a shared wound in humanity's soul? Or do you deny the Fall, seeing it as mere myth?

Jung: Myth? Myths are the language of the soul, more real than your scholastic distinctions. Original sin could be the archetype of the wounded healer—the expulsion from Eden as the birth of consciousness from blissful ignorance. But quid pro quo, Saint Thomas. In your visions of heaven, did you ever encounter the anima—the feminine soul within the man? Or was your God too patriarchal, suppressing the Sophia that whispers wisdom?

Aquinas: Sophia is divine Wisdom, personified in Christ, not some inner siren. But your anima intrigues—perhaps a reflection of Mary, the mediatrix of graces. Suppress? No, integrate, as I did faith and reason. Now, reveal: your shadow, this dark side you claim we all harbor. Is it the devil incarnate, or merely untamed passion? How does one confront it without falling into heresy?

Jung: The shadow is the unlived life, Thomas—the parts we deny, projecting onto others as evil. Your devil might be humanity's collective shadow, externalized in theology. To confront it? Integration, not exorcism. Face it in dreams, in active imagination. But tell me, quid pro quo—what would you ask of your own shadow if it appeared before you? That corpulent friar wrestling with the temptations of the flesh, or the intellect's pride?

Aquinas: Pride? The sin of angels. If my shadow appeared, I would question it as I did the philosophers: What truth do you hide? For even darkness serves the greater light. Your methods sound like alchemy—transmuting base metals of the psyche into gold. Is God the philosopher's stone in your system, or merely a symbol?

Jung: God as archetype—the Self, the mandala of wholeness. Not your personal deity, but the unifying force in the psyche. Alchemy was the precursor to psychology, turning inner lead to spiritual gold. But quid pro quo ends here, Thomas. You've given me a feast for thought; take this: The soul is not just immortal—it's infinite, a microcosm of the cosmos, where your angels dance with my archetypes in eternal dialogue.

Aquinas: Then let us continue this dance, Dr. Jung. For in seeking, we find not answers, but deeper questions.

Jung: Quid pro quo: You've integrated faith and reason like a master builder. But what of the alchemists you dismissed as heretics? Their transmutations—were they not shadows of your own eucharistic mysteries, turning bread into divine substance?

Aquinas: Alchemists chased illusions, mistaking matter for spirit. The Eucharist is no metaphor, but real presence—substance changed while accidents remain. Yet your psychology alchemizes the soul itself. Tell me, does this process heal, or merely delude? Is the Self you pursue God, or a golden calf forged in the fires of ego?

Jung: Healing comes from integration, not suppression. The Self is the God-image within, not your transcendent Other. But delusion? Ah, that's the risk of any quest. Quid pro quo, Father: In your Summa, you argue for God's existence through five ways. Which one whispers doubt in the quiet hours? The unmoved Mover, perhaps, who might as well be the impersonal force of nature, devoid of your loving Trinity?

Aquinas: Doubt is the forge of faith; it tempers belief. The ways are demonstrations, not whispers—motion, causation, necessity, degrees, design—all pointing to the First Cause. Nature's force? Mere secondary causation, animated by the Prime. But you, Jung, with your synchronicity—meaningful coincidences without cause. Is this not providence in secular guise, or chaos masquerading as order?

Jung: Synchronicity bridges the psyche and the world, acausal yet meaningful, like your miracles but without divine intervention. It's the universe winking at the soul. Quid pro quo: Your celibacy, Thomas—the denial of the body for the spirit. Did the anima ever rebel, appearing in dreams as temptress or muse? Or did you sublimate her into your devotion to the Virgin?

Aquinas: The body is the soul's instrument, not its prison. Celibacy frees the intellect for higher unions. Dreams? They are sense impressions reordered by reason, not sirens from the depths. Yet your anima as inner woman—perhaps a dim reflection of Eve redeemed, or Wisdom calling in the streets. Now, confront this: Your mandala, the circle of wholeness. Is it not the wheel of samsara, trapping souls in cycles, or does it echo the eternal return to God?

Jung: The mandala is the psyche's compass, guiding through chaos to center. Not entrapment, but liberation from one-sidedness. Your heaven might be the ultimate mandala—hierarchies of angels orbiting the divine. But quid pro quo: What if your vision at Mass, that mystical ecstasy, was not God but the eruption of the unconscious? A peak experience, as I'd call it, dissolving the ego in archetypal flood.

Aquinas: Blasphemy or insight? The vision was grace, not eruption—union with the Infinite, where words fail. If your unconscious holds such power, then perhaps it is the soul's antechamber to God. But tell me of your Red Book, those visions you chronicled. Were they divine inspirations, or dialogues with demons? Did Philemon, your spirit guide, bear wings like Gabriel?

Jung: Philemon was an archetype, a wiser self emerging from the depths—not demon, but daimon, in the ancient sense. The Red Book was my confrontation with the unconscious, a voluntary madness to find sanity. Quid pro quo ends not yet, Thomas. In your era, heresy burned at the stake. What modern heresy haunts you now? Freud's id, perhaps, reducing soul to sex drive?

Aquinas: Heresy is error persisted in willfully. Freud's drives are passions unchecked, but the soul transcends them through virtue. Yet your collective unconscious might house the virtues themselves—innate potentials for good. One last exchange: If we met in the afterlife, would your archetypes bow to my angels, or merge in some grand synthesis?

Jung: Synthesis, always synthesis—that's the alchemical wedding. Angels and archetypes dancing in the great mandala of existence. Until then, Thomas, keep questioning. The soul thrives on it.

Aquinas: As does the mind. Farewell, seeker of shadows. May light find you.

[The chamber fades, echoes of their words lingering like incense, bridging centuries in an unending pursuit of truth.]

Jung (quiet, conspiratorial):
You once wrote, “To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” Faith as fortress. But tell me, Thomas—what happens when the fortress becomes a prison?

Aquinas (measured):
A prison is a place of confinement. Faith liberates; it is the opening of the soul to God.

Jung (leaning in, whisper):
Or the shutting out of the soul’s own voices. Those saints you praise—how many heard the Devil in their dreams, saw visions of lust and terror? They were not liberated. They were haunted.

Aquinas (voice steady, but firmer now):
Haunting is the trick of the Enemy. Discernment is the remedy. We test the spirits. We do not surrender to them.

Jung (smiling, dangerous):
And yet you see—they still came. Archetypes battering at the gates. The anima in her seductions. The shadow in its rage. Even your Christ, Thomas—He is an archetype: the Self, wholeness, the union of opposites.

Aquinas (sitting straighter, eyes narrowing):
Christ is not symbol. Christ is Truth incarnate. You mistake psychological pattern for divine person.

Jung (voice rising, with a predator’s relish):
No—you mistake divine person for psychological pattern denied. You place Him on an unreachable throne, and forget that He bleeds in the human psyche, torn between heaven and hell.

Jung leans back, savoring the moment. Aquinas’ lips press thin, but his gaze does not falter.

---

Aquinas (soft, deliberate):
Your analysis is clever, Doctor. But cleverness is not wisdom. You probe the shadows and call it depth. I see beyond shadow and light—to Being itself, where opposites dissolve.

Jung (snaps his fingers, almost gleeful):
Dissolve? No, Thomas. They must be borne. Held together until they transfigure the soul. That is the crucifixion within. Not erased, not dismissed—endured.

Aquinas (a flicker of heat in his voice):
Then you crucify yourself endlessly, without resurrection.

Jung (smiles, low and taunting):
Better crucified in truth than resurrected in denial.

---

They stare at each other. A long pause. The chamber feels colder.

---

Aquinas (leaning slightly forward, voice like iron):
You circle like a wolf around the sheepfold, Doctor. But wolves forget—the Shepherd is not absent. He comes with rod and staff.

Jung (chuckles, shaking his head):
And still the wolf lives in the fold, Thomas. In every heart. You would banish him with syllogisms. I would teach men to face him. To learn what he guards.

BelieveItOarKnot said:

God deals with the adversary in everyone adversely

Click to expand...

And I an sure that all that cause trouble will pay and Paul even had to contend with.. one who said

that the resurrection had already passed !!

dan p

The Chamber​

An iron door creaks shut. Clarice Starling might as well be standing outside. The stone cell is lit only by a narrow window slit. Aquinas sits in perfect composure, hands folded on the table. Jung circles slowly, as though testing the air.

---

Jung (low, deliberate):
You built your cathedrals of thought stone by stone—Summa contra Gentiles, Summa Theologiae. Order, hierarchy, clarity. But tell me, Thomas: when you closed your eyes at night, was it so orderly inside your head?


Aquinas (calmly):
The order was not mine, Doctor. It was God’s. Reason was the ladder, analogy the rung.


Jung (smirks):
Analogy? A pale diet. The unconscious doesn’t deal in “greater dissimilarity.” It vomits dragons, saints, incest, apocalypse. Archetypes, not syllogisms.


Aquinas (without flinching):
And yet even your dragons bow before Being itself. Archetypes are but echoes, shadows cast by the one divine Light.


Jung (leaning in, voice lowering):
Or perhaps your Light is itself an archetype—an image born of man’s need to unify what he cannot bear to hold apart. Light against darkness. Christ against Satan. Coincidence of opposites—terrible, necessary.


Aquinas (a faint smile, dangerous in its composure):
To make God a symbol among symbols is to mistake the mirror for the face.


Jung (taunting now):
And to make God “actus purus,” stripped of all image, is to cut out the heart and call the body whole. Tell me, Thomas… did you never hear the whisper of your own shadow while writing your Summa?


Aquinas (a pause, gaze sharpens):
Thrill me with your acumen, Doctor. But know this: temptation speaks in riddles too. My shadow, as you call it, was conquered by grace, not indulged by dream-analysis.


Jung (laughs softly, circling like a predator):
Grace? Or repression dressed in holy robes? The psyche is not conquered—it is endured, integrated. Deny the darkness and it comes for you in other guises. Saints who scourge themselves. Monks haunted by visions.


Aquinas (suddenly firm, voice resonant):
Better a scourged saint than a man swallowed whole by his own phantasms.


Jung (with a glint of triumph):
And yet your saints came to me, centuries later, as patients. Broken by the weight of the opposites you denied them.


Silence. The torch flickers. They lock eyes across the table—one with unyielding serenity, the other with a dangerous smile. Each man certain the other’s system cannot contain the truth he himself has grasped.

And the woman gives the crowd the finger for booing her....

jacks said:

I believe heaven will transcend our feelings of pain, suffering and earthly love. For lack of a better word, I believe we will be in a state of bliss. I know this is an ill-defined term, but it is one we have all experienced at least briefly. It's a state when for no apparent reason you are happy, content and connected. Things may be going poorly but you are not bothered by any worries, concerns, passions or physical pains. Your ego and self is basically put aside and you feel connected to all with infinite love and compassion. (If you've never experienced this it is something to look forward to. )

Click to expand...

I reason heaven will have a new kind of love. Here on earth it is husband and wife love, sibling love, offspring love, etc. Since there is someone close to you on earth that might go to hell, and you end up in heaven, to be perfectly happy, that former love would have to be neutered out somehow I was fortunate to grow up in a family with little strife, however, my wife, on the other hand full of strife with sexual abuse thrown in for 'good' measure. Eye has not seen nor ear heard. Unless you become as little 'innocent' children.

Is your mum saved?