• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

New GOP efforts to make it harder to vote

I posted how in North Carolina used data on how blacks voted and churned out legislation to strangle those patterns.



They got duped. A lot of MAGA got duped. Trump has been a lifelong con. Yet, this today:

Republican disenfranchisement bid drives Black voters to polls, study finds

A new analysis of Black voters in the south indicates that Republican attempts to dilute their political power is driving them to the polls in larger numbers and shifting their counties further left.
After the supreme court effectively gutted section 2 of the Voting Rights Act protections in late April, Republican legislatures across the south rapidly pushed to disenfranchise Black voters by redrawing congressional maps. Louisiana, Florida, Tennessee and Alabama all immediately worked to pass new maps, while the Mississippi governor has said that he wants legislators to redraw maps before the upcoming midterm elections.
The analysis by VoteHub, a data-focused election organization, indicates that the efforts have only motivated Black voters in the 78 Black belt counties it tracked. All but one shifted left in partisan turnout compared with 2024. Further, majority-Black counties that voted after Louisiana v Callais, the landmark supreme court decision that triggered the Republican-led redistricting efforts, had a surge in voter participation.
They forgot the Maya Angelou adage of, " When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time."
And now you're insinuating that black people couldn't make an intelligent choice when they cast their vote. "They got duped" is how you put it. If they're duped so easily, then please don't complain about the ficticious idea that Conservatives are making it harder for them to vote. They're not. They simply understand that black people are just as intelligent as white people. They can vote for the people they want, and they can get a photo ID to enable them to do so.
Upvote 0

Iran Negotiations

Iran has made it clear to the world they have no intention of keep any treaty, and will continue to attack others at will.

Pot, kettle.

They were given every opportunity. The U.S. and Israel need a joint effort to completely isolate Iran and finish hitting all targets.
The only way to have a joint effort with Israel is to do exactly as they say.
Upvote 0

Mamdani Publishes Names, Addresses of NYC Homeowners Facing New Pied-à-Terre Tax

It's like all taxes. We love them if they don't apply to us.

Not rich? Tax the rich. Not a home owner? Tax property owners. Have an electric car? Tax gasoline. On welfare? Tax income. Don't buy expensive cars/boats? Luxury tax. Don't smoke? Tax cigarettes. Don't drink? Tax alcohol. etc. etc. . Notice Mamdani didn't say to tax people who earn over $200K per year (He earns $259K) or those who get free housing from their jobs. (He lives in Gracie Mansion rent free.)

Lesson: Tax the other guy.
  • Winner
Reactions: Aldebaran
Upvote 0

The Central Pillars of Adventism are Christ Centered.

As a Creed, or do you think it is or should be?
Would you consider it unbiblical, or do you just object to the use of creeds in Christian worship?

Also, according to the definition of "creed" to which you linked, would not the Seventh-day Adventist Fundamental Beliefs constitute a creed?

1
: a brief authoritative formula of religious belief
the Nicene Creed

2
: a set of fundamental beliefs
also : a guiding principle

They would certainly fit the above definition as a set of fundamental beliefs (especially since they are titled as such).

So do you object to creeds or creedal statements or creedal hymns in general or only to non-Adventist creeds? What about creedal Bible texts?
Upvote 0

Is goodness-narcissism destroying Western civilization?

We must try to understand the self-destruction of Western civilization in psychological and spiritual terms, not only in political and ideological ones. I believe that the phenomenon essentially concerns a "narcissism of goodness" that manifests itself as a collective psychology. Traditionally, Christianity has instilled the insight into the divided nature of human beings: that no one is capable of being completely good. "No one is good," said Jesus. But today, people believe they can be good and perfect.

According to Christian anthropology, the human being has two wills, and these wills often stand in conflict within the divided self. Paul depicts this as the contrast between the old self and the new self, anchored in Adam and Christ respectively. Paul experiences a painful inner conflict between the old self, which he cannot free himself from, and the new self that is in Christ (Rom 7:19, 24). But Paul seems overly optimistic when he says that we can put off the old self and put on the new self as a new way of being (Ephesians 4:22-24). In reality, we must continue to live with both.

Augustine teaches that the self is divided: the will contains two opposing impulses, one towards God and one towards the world (Confessions VIII). This division is not pathological but a metaphysical condition that follows from our fallen nature. Achieving wholeness of the self is not possible, as perfect integration belongs only to the eschaton. The inner person grows, but the outer person is not destroyed in this life. Our duality cannot be eliminated, even if its tyranny can be broken. This is central to the Christian understanding of the false and the true self: we must remain divided, but we must also remain aware of our divided nature.

According to Luther, the Christian is "simul iustus et peccator," at once righteous and a sinner, which is the permanent state of the Christian. The old Adam never disappears. Luther sharply criticizes the striving to achieve "saintliness," which he sees as an attempt to purify the will and achieve wholeness of the self. The more a person strives to be holy, the more he becomes a sinner. In his commentary on Galatians, Luther writes: "The saints are sinners, and they are holy not in themselves but in Christ." He therefore adds in the Table Talk: "God hates the saints that man creates."

For Luther, psychological and spiritual health depends on awareness of our dividedness, which leads to confession and forgiveness. The self is healed by being forgiven, not by becoming unified. The believer does not become less sinful, but becomes more aware of sin and more dependent on grace. In comparison, psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott reverses this structure: psychological health requires that our dividedness be removed, producing a unified self and perfect spontaneity. His theory aims at amalgamation, a fusion of inner and outer worlds into a single field of experience, the so-called transitional space. In doing so, he rejects the anthropology of Christianity.

Thus it is a distinctly modern idea that we should strive to become a unified self that is truly good and perfect, an aspiration Christian theology rejects as a sinful pursuit of self‑salvation. For Augustine, this is equivalent to pride (superbia). But Paul also speaks in 1 Timothy 6:17 about enjoying life, and this can be understood as a reference to the Adam within us who seeks earthly joy and satisfaction. Augustine arrives at a similar conclusion. We should not abandon the world but remain in it as pilgrims. In Luther's terms, avoiding saintliness means admitting that the sinner within us must sometimes make use of the world's goods. He wrote to Melanchthon: "Sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly."

Luther did not encourage moral laxity. He told Melanchthon to stop trying to achieve purity or saintliness, and instead to trust in Christ's righteousness rather than his own. He urged him to stop trying to unify the self and to stop obsessing over inner moral perfection. In modern Luther research, "sin boldly" is understood as Luther's rejection of moral perfectionism and the futility of striving for inner wholeness. Instead, we should give priority to the external righteousness given to us by Christ and reject mystical self-healing. Luther does not encourage sin, but he forbids attempts to eradicate sin, make the self unified, or purify the will.

We must still keep our dark side in check, or society will fall apart. And we can do this precisely because we recognize our divided nature and our imperfection. People who lack this awareness and see themselves as ideal or spotless often fall into destructive patterns of falseness and moralism, and then they become truly evil. We harm ourselves if we are too sinful, but we also harm ourselves if we are too righteous. Ecclesiastes 7:16 expresses this clearly: "Do not be overly righteous... Why should you destroy yourself?" Today, many institutions in the Western world, including parts of the Christian church, are marked by a kind of moral absolutism that denies the divided nature of the human being. Thus, they risk repeating the very pattern that Ecclesiastes warns against. The goodness-narcissists dominate the Western world today, and their influence is driving its self-destruction.

The traditional awareness of original sin, and the corresponding need for continual self-recognition of one's sinful nature, has largely disappeared. The consequence is that people are afflicted by goodness-narcissism, which is the worst form of sinfulness. This fuels the urge to tear down civilization, since civilization is judged evil for surviving through power: prisons, repression, borders, labour systems, resource extraction, and even war. All of this is today interpreted as evil and oppression, in accordance with postcolonial theory, critical race theory, identity politics, and all kinds of radicalism and antimilitarism.

Quite simply, if we are to be holy, civilization cannot be sustained. When identity politics was established, "Western civilization" became a symbol of power, dominance, and privilege. This creates a situation where criticism of the West is not merely historical or political, but moral and existential. Civilization becomes an obstacle to "liberation," understood as the realization of Rousseau's ideal of the perfectly good natural human being. Without a living insight into original sin and the permanently divided nature of the human being, we lose the only antidote to moral absolutism.

When humanity forgets its own dark nature, it becomes dangerous, precisely because it believes itself to be good. Ecclesiastes warns precisely against this self-destructive pursuit of over-righteousness. A civilization that denies its own inner ambivalence inevitably repeats the same pattern: it tries to become purer than any human society can bear, and collapses under the weight of its own supposed goodness.
IMO this is simply telling us that self-righteousness is the precursor or foundation for sin, the true flaw of fallen man, which it is. But isn’t that the point of our faith, that man’s “righteousness” actually equates to distance from God; his pride being what’s wrong with him, resulting in all the moral evils in this world? It's sort of epitomized in the Pharisees, or many of them apparently. And, since Christ came to reconcile man with God, isn't true righteousness, that which man was made for since he wasn’t created to be a sinner, now to begin here as that reconciliation is realized, rather than only in the eschaton?

The self is healed by being forgiven, not by becoming unified. The believer does not become less sinful, but becomes more aware of sin and more dependent on grace.
And if our healing consists only of forgiveness, and we can/should sin and sin boldly, should an adulterer, thief, murderer, etc consider themselves to be saved as long as they believe, whether or not they continue in their sins?
We must still keep our dark side in check, or society will fall apart. And we can do this precisely because we recognize our divided nature and our imperfection.
This sounds something like Pelagianism, doesn’t it? So we can’t be and shouldn’t try to be holier but we can and must be holier anyway, due primarily to a recognition of our sinfulness and our attempts at being less sinful even if only for practical reasons?
We harm ourselves if we are too sinful, but we also harm ourselves if we are too righteous.
There's just something confused in this statement. Either we're unable to overcome sin or we're not. And, if it's possible to be truly righteous at all, then how can anyone be too righteous? We may not overcome sin perfectly in this life but to me, the real enemy is our own pride/self-righteousness that we must be on gaurd against, thinking we've already "arrived", on our own, as against the true righteousness that comes only from God and our relationship or union with Him.
Upvote 0

I believe that ALL who ever lived will be in God’s Kingdom

Jesus summed up the entire OT in 2 commandments. He said God would do what is required of Him and told us what simply was required of us. Adversity was not on the agenda over previous commandments as His two covered them all.
Lets actually look at this...

Mat 22:27 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’

Which Jesus was quoting Old Testament Deut 6:5 Lev 19:18

So they are grounded in OT principles, not new ones. We do not get to the summary, by deleting what makes up the summary. Exo20:1-17 Rom13:9 its never been based on our feelings Jer 17:9 but by the Word of God.

When it comes to loving someone, is it based on what we feel on how we are to love someone or should it be based on what that person tells us is how to love them. In the case of God, He only taught loving Him with the accordance of keeping His commandments Exo20:6 John14:15 1John5:3 John15:10. So how can we love God with all our heart, soul and mind but not keep His commandments. The answer is plainly we can't. So to separate the greatest commandments to love God with our all, from the commandments where God tells us how to love Him, is sadly a very deceitful doctrine.

The first time God introduces this principle of how we are to love Him is right in the Testimony of God - written by God, spoken by God. God literally tells us how to love Him so its impossible to separate the greatest commandments from the commandments on how God tells us to love Him.

Exo 20:6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

If we look at the first time loving God with all our heart, mind and soul was stated, what was happening when this was stated, what Jesus was quoting.

The Ten Commandments right where love to God was written by God Himself was repeated- 40 years after God gave them the Ten Commandments both spoken by God and written by God.

After they were repeated this was stated...

Deut 6:1 “Now this is the commandment, and these are the statutes and judgments which the Lord your God has commanded to teach you, that you may observe them in the land which you are crossing over to possess, 2 that you may fear the Lord your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command you, you and your son and your grandson, all the days of your life, and that your days may be prolonged. 3 Therefore hear, O Israel, and [a]be careful to observe it, that it may be well with you, and that you may multiply greatly as the Lord God of your fathers has promised you—‘a land flowing with milk and honey.’

4 “Hear, O Israel: [b]The Lord our God, the Lord is one! 5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.

6 “And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. 8 You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. 9 You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

Keep God's commands in your heart
Teach them to your children
Talk about them daily
Let His Word guide your life constantly


And it includes the 4th commandment, because the greatest commandments to love God with all their heart, mind and soul was the condition of the Israelites receiving their inheritance:

Now this is the commandment, and these are the statutes and judgments which the Lord your God has commanded to teach you, that you may observe them in the land which you are crossing over to possess, 2 that you may fear the Lord your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command you, you and your son and your grandson, all the days of your life, and that your days may be prolonged. 3 Therefore hear, O Israel, and [a]be careful to observe it, that it may be well with you, and that you may multiply greatly as the Lord God of your fathers has promised you—‘a land flowing with milk and honey.’

But what happened, did they love God with all their heart, mind and soul and received their inheritance?

Sadly many did not because....

Eze 20:15 So I also raised My hand in an oath to them in the wilderness, that I would not bring them into the land which I had given them, ‘flowing with milk and honey,’ the glory of all lands, 16 because they despised My judgments and did not walk in My statutes, but profaned My Sabbaths; for their heart went after their idols.

The Sabbath is part of the greatest commandments to love God with all our heart, mind and soul. Profaning the Sabbath God relates to breaking another commandment- idol worship because we are replacing the words of God with another voice.

So its best to allow the Bible to define the Bible Pro3:5-6 and not define things especially when God Himself wrote it out for us so plainly. If God can't tell us how to love Him, what is sin, what is righteousness, than I think we have a big misunderstanding on God in general. Many people in the Bible had the same issue, their heart went after their idols because they wanted their will over God's. Jesus spoke of this many times a people who honor Him with their lips but their heart is far from Him, laying aside the commandment of God. When God can't be God to define how we love Him, what is sin, what is righteousness, how we love and honor Him which He did with thus saith the LORD's, but we know better, its sadly a very strong deception.
Upvote 0

There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

I believe we are a different breed with our cognitive skills intact.

That's not my question though.

These intact cognitive skills that we have ... did we get them suddenly or gradually?

As soon as this breed of animal came onto the earth, we started devouring the earth and everyone on it.

Animal diet aside ... suddenly or gradually?
Upvote 0

SDA: Discuss this Scholarly Article: The Quest for a Biblical Trinity: Ellen White’s “Heavenly Trio” Compared to the Traditional Doctrine

The Trinity is defined by the Bible, not creeds,

The Creeds provided the correct, Divinely Inspired interpretation of Scripture - we know this because the entire church adopted without question the revised creed of 381, and furthermore at the subsequent council of Ephesus a canon was adopted prohibiting modifying or replacing the creed.

@tall73 might be interested that that canon is one of the primary reasons we Orthodox reject absolutely the filioque, that plus it tends to result in the de-personalization of God the Holy Spirit by reducing him to an attribute shared by the Father and the Son and it confuses the rule of the Father and the Son (similar to the error made by EGW in describing that in the Father the fullness of the godhead dwelled bodily, which is remarkable since Scripture is quite clear the Father is not corporeal).

Now if EGW had said “personally” she would be correct, provided she also said that about the other two persons, but the correct Trinitarian doctrine is that the Son alone is incarnate. See John 1:1-18 (of course @tall73 I expect I am preaching to the choir regarding John 1:1-18).
Upvote 0

Kim Davis, Who Denied Marriage Licenses to Gay Couples Violated Rights, Finds Federal Judge

IF you're conscious stops you from doing your job, you should not do that job.
I know you meant "your conscience" but thinking about the literal sense of what you wrote is amusing...
Upvote 0

A rose by any other name

The Republican state lawmaker who introduced a bill to categorize (Trump Derangement Syndrome) as a mental illness?

Well you'd NEVER guess what he's being charged with.

IT was for soliciting sex from a minor


That's he was charged with. He thought he was meeting up with a minor to have sex with them.
He was going to have sex with a minor. Eichorn, the 40 year old married father of 4, who feels the compulsion to legally attack people he disagrees with politically and compromise their lives forever, was pursuing a youth so that he could have sex with them.

But of course he's innocent until proven guilty. He only did it to undercover cops who have evidence and a papertrail....but....innocent until proven guilty....

of pursuing someone under eighteen for sex.
Unusual looking Somalian...he is from Minnesota...
Upvote 0

“For All” or “For Many”? Clearing Up the Controversy

To understand the controversy, we must first understand the source. The words of consecration at Mass are taken from the words of Jesus at the Last Supper, as recorded in Scripture. Both Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24 record Jesus saying that His Blood is “poured out for many.”

Martha’s Trust: What Humiliation Teaches Us About Humility

When Jesus arrived, he found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days. (Jn. 11:17)
The first time we are introduced to the character Martha in the Gospels, Scripture paints a rather ugly portrait of a woman disgruntled by her sister Mary’s failure to help in the kitchen, seemingly envious of the attention Mary receives from their treasure dinner guest, the Lord Jesus Christ. But the next time we encounter Martha, we are shown a quite different side to her. In this next scene, her brother Lazarus has died.

Disputed doctrine.

Nonsense. A mainstream Christian that loves the Lord is not unworthy to receive communion. Open communion churches like mine also have the same scripture. Haven’t seen one keel over yet.

I can appreciate arguments both in favor of Open Communion, and arguments in favor of Closed Communion.

As a Lutheran I have been part of churches which have been on opposite sides of this issue. Though I am, presently, a member of a church which practices Closed Communion.

In defense of Closed Communion, the central position isn't to deny other Christians that they are, indeed, Christians. Every Christian is a Christian by virtue of their faith in Christ and their baptism. All who are baptized are, indeed, the property of Jesus Christ; all who believe in Him belong to Him. The matter of Closed Communion, however, is ultimately about a couple matters (Everything that follows will be from an explicitly Lutheran perspective):

1. Confession. When we come to the Table of the Lord we are giving our "Amen" to a shared belief, we are con (together) fessing (declaring) that this is, indeed, the true body and blood of Jesus Christ which was broken and shed for us. The Table is where the Church proclaims her unity of faith--if we are not, indeed, in a state of unity of faith, then there is a sense in which we are betraying what the Table signifies; and if we are not confessing that this is the true body and true blood of Jesus then we are betraying the Table itself--for it is, indeed, the true body and true blood of Jesus Christ.

1b. Counter Argument: Since the Table is the true body and true blood of Jesus Christ, then when one partakes of the Table they receive the true body and true blood of Jesus, even if one does not recognize it; it remains the precious Means of Grace by which Christ offers Himself, and the forgiveness of our sins, and God's mercy remains delivered through the Means because the Means of Grace depends not on man's ability or intellect, but on God's word and promise. Since it is the Table of Christ, not the Church's Table, then Christ is Lord over His Table and whosoever partakes in this bread and partakes in this wine partakes of the body and blood of Christ which He freely offers. In the same way that, though an infant may not comprehend intellectually what happens in the precious gift of Baptism, but receives grace freely according to the word and promise of God; so does one who partakes of the Table receive freely what is freely offered. So that even though there is failure in understanding, there cannot be failure with God and His word.

2. There is the spiritual danger of not properly discerning the body (and blood) of the Lord in the Table and therefore one who comes to the Table not discerning Christ's own body, is (as the Apostle writes to the Corinthians) actually eating and drinking to their own destruction. Therefore while the Table is Christ's, and the Church is not master over the Table and only Christ is, the Church still have a responsibility to properly administer the Table--a servant must serve faithfully, a steward must steward properly. And Christ has entrusted His Table to His Church. Therefore the Church bears the weight of responsibility to administer the Sacrament rightly--and one of the ways she administers the Sacrament rightly is by insisting on a shared confession of faith; and that when the Church assembles around the Table, she is Confessing her Lord and Master; and that this is indeed His Table, His body, His blood, and that here therein is the forgiveness of sins and the mighty grace of God. For the Sacraments are, by God's word and command, about the strengthening and edifying of faith--and should the Church administer the Sacrament in such a way that injures faith rather than strengthens faith, then the Church becomes an unfaithful steward of the Lord's Table.

2b. Counter Argument: The Church, indeed, does bear the responsibility of steward and servant, being entrusted by the Lord His own Table. However, the eating and drinking to one's own destruction is not merely the failure to have a correct theological understanding of the Table; but is treated by the Apostle to the Corinthians as treating the Lord's Table flippantly--as he writes that many came eating and drinking to the point of some getting drunk even before everyone had come together. The proper stewardship of the Table, then, consists not in denying the Table to brothers and sisters who may lack a correct understanding of it; but in not mishandling the Table in such a way that it dishonors the Lord's body and blood, such as by treating the Table as though it were merely a ritual of no particular significance. Or by, in our assembly, treating the Lord's Table as though it were a common table (or worse, to treat the Lord's Table worse than we would even our own common dinner table).

2c. Counter to the Counter: It is precisely because of this danger of mishandling the Table that the Church must rightly insist that all who come to the Table know what the Table is: Of Whom they come before, for they come to the Table of the Lord, and it must be regarded with the utmost reverence. For when comes into the house of the king and sit at the king's table, one is obligated to regard the king as the king and the king's table as the king's table. For the Church to fail in that kind of stewardship would bring dishonor to the Lord, and dishonor His own body and blood. And it would invite dishonor; to treat the Table flippantly. If the Church treats the Lord's Table as though it were a common table, then all who approach the Table would view the Lord's Table as though it were common, and not the Lord's. The Church therefore bears responsibility to insist that the Table be honored and revered, for what is received is not mere ordinary bread and wine; but indeed the precious and holy and true body and blood of Jesus Christ, and the forgiveness of sins.

Addendum: I feel like I could continue presenting arguments and counter arguments (and counter-counter arguments). But I think, at the end of the day the real issue is this: If the Eucharist is, indeed, the Lord's body and blood (and not merely a memorial of His body and blood), then that radically changes how the Table is to be administered, viewed, and approached.

To that end, while I appreciate arguments from both sides. I do think, ultimately, the case for Closed Communion is strongest. Not treating the Sacrament like some fancy Hollywood VIP party; the point is not to say, "You lot over there aren't good enough for our party". Instead, it's about recognizing the Sacrament as, indeed, Christ's precious Table. The Table is closed, not because others are less Christian. The Table is closed because we should insist that all who come to the Table know that it is the Table of the Lord.
Upvote 0

The Dangerous Weapon of Contraception

God has left us from Paradise three things: the stars, the flowers and the eyes of a child…
That is a quote from a 1908 book titled The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by Nicholas Guir. The author wrote that flowers have a place entirely their own in God’s creation:

In the splendor of their colors, in their fragrance, they are revelations of the beauty and goodness of God, emblems of His benevolence, images of His first, true designs.
So, God left us three things from Paradise. G.K. Chesterton wrote that Christ promised three things to His disciples—that they would be completely fearless, absurdly happy, and in constant trouble. Chesterton, who died in 1936, knew how to deliver the truth with humor; he was good humored and kind, even when dealing with opposition. He only held contempt for one class of people: those who pushed birth control, which he observed “does not control any birth. It only makes sure there is no birth to control.”

Kneelers for Josephine

A boy came and knelt beside me, one of my good friend’s young sons. I asked him if he knew whom the kneelers in that church were in honor of. He didn’t. So I told him.

“These are the kneelers for Josephine.”

To understand why, you have to go back to when she was still alive, and still sick, and still trying to kneel.

Filter

Forum statistics

Threads
5,889,807
Messages
65,590,115
Members
276,891
Latest member
Usingthisaccount123