Are myths the basis of Protestantism?
- Thread starter Saint_George
- Start date
- Status
MikeMcK said:
I will pray for you. I hope that you find inner peace. If you are full of that much hatred then I don't know how you call yourself a christian. I also find it amazing, that even if you don't like the way I did it, I answered all your questions. Yet you have yet to answer any of mine without making some kind of bogus excuse and playing word games. If you answer any of those questions and your explanation is half way reasonable, I will not have to push this any farther. Until then, Peace.
Forgive me,
Saint_George
Upvote
0
Iollain
Jer 18:2-6
cristoiglesia said:
Yes i saw in the council of something or other that they say that anyone that says that you should not ''''venerate'''' statues is anathema. This is not Marian cultists, they are real RCC teachings that usually come from apparations of Mary, and i notice that usually the one in contact with the spirit of whatever it is is from France.
Upvote
0
cristoiglesia
Veteran
- Jul 20, 2005
- 1,039
- 69
- 73
- Faith
- Utrecht
- Marital Status
- Married
Iollain said:
Thank you.
May you be blessed for sharing that with us. May the Lord be with you.
In Christ
Upvote
0
I have yet to have a single answer.
Where in scripture is the Bible alone theory? Is the basis of the leadership of the church once again based on something non-scriptual?
How do Protestants determine which books of the Bible are the Bible?
After reading Luke 1:48, why do you not call the Mother of GOD, Blessed?
Which Church did Jesus Christ found in Matt 16:18? Remember, He said Church, not Churches in that verse.
Why isn't the Gospel of Peter, or the Gospel of Thomas in your Bible? Who had the authority for exclusion of these and other books from Holy Scripture?
Which verse tells you that the revelation of Jesus Christ ended with the death of the last Apostle?
Why do you believe the Catholic Church apostatized in the past when Jesus Christ Himself said in Matt 28:20, "I will be with you ALL DAYS until the end of time." Please explain your response to this question.
Why are you in a Church which cannot show that it is the Church which Jesus Christ founded?
Why do you not honor the Mother of GOD when Luther himself said, "When you have said She is the Mother of GOD, you have said it all?"
Why do you believe in individual interpretation of the Bible when the Bible clearly states that this must NOT be done?
Acts 8:27-39, 2Pet 1:20, 2Pet 3:16-18.
Why do you follow in the footsteps of Saul and persecute the Church which Jesus Christ founded? 1Cor 15:9.
Why do you take almost the entire Bible literally and then say that John chapter 6 is figurative, when it clearly does not say that it is?
Why do you not have the Deuterocanonical books which you call 'apochrypha' in your Bible, when they are clearly referenced in the New Testament? This is taking away from the Word of GOD, which the Bible clearly prohibits in many verses.
Saint_George
Where in scripture is the Bible alone theory? Is the basis of the leadership of the church once again based on something non-scriptual?
How do Protestants determine which books of the Bible are the Bible?
After reading Luke 1:48, why do you not call the Mother of GOD, Blessed?
Which Church did Jesus Christ found in Matt 16:18? Remember, He said Church, not Churches in that verse.
Why isn't the Gospel of Peter, or the Gospel of Thomas in your Bible? Who had the authority for exclusion of these and other books from Holy Scripture?
Which verse tells you that the revelation of Jesus Christ ended with the death of the last Apostle?
Why do you believe the Catholic Church apostatized in the past when Jesus Christ Himself said in Matt 28:20, "I will be with you ALL DAYS until the end of time." Please explain your response to this question.
Why are you in a Church which cannot show that it is the Church which Jesus Christ founded?
Why do you not honor the Mother of GOD when Luther himself said, "When you have said She is the Mother of GOD, you have said it all?"
Why do you believe in individual interpretation of the Bible when the Bible clearly states that this must NOT be done?
Acts 8:27-39, 2Pet 1:20, 2Pet 3:16-18.
Why do you follow in the footsteps of Saul and persecute the Church which Jesus Christ founded? 1Cor 15:9.
Why do you take almost the entire Bible literally and then say that John chapter 6 is figurative, when it clearly does not say that it is?
Why do you not have the Deuterocanonical books which you call 'apochrypha' in your Bible, when they are clearly referenced in the New Testament? This is taking away from the Word of GOD, which the Bible clearly prohibits in many verses.
Saint_George
Upvote
0
- Jul 2, 2003
- 145,048
- 17,407
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
MikeMcK said:
I understood where you were coming from. I am just saying that some of the things you wrote were alittle confusing, and as semantics is so important in this type of forum, I am suggesting that some folks may have misunderstood.
And yes, there were folks who were being defensive and not taking you for what you said. That happens alot here.
Upvote
0
MikeMcK
Well-Known Member
- Apr 10, 2002
- 9,600
- 654
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Republican
Saint_George said:
And I will pray that you get right with God.
I have no hatred toward you or anybody else and you know this. Clearly, this is yet another dishonest attempt on your part to demonize someone who's argument you can't refute.
What I do have is confusion at the fact that someone who behaves the way you do would call himself a Christian and not see how his behavior flies in the face of Christ's teachings.
I'm also a little confused as to why you end your posts with "forgive me", when, clearly you will not repent of those things you're supposedly asking forgiveness of, nor will you stop doing them.
The Biblical model for forgiveness is to repent and to try to make some sort of restitution for your sins. As a Catholic, I would think that you, of all people, would understand the idea of restitution.
But then, if the Catholic church hasn't been able to convince you that bearing false witness is wrong, then I doubt they would have bothered to move on to more complex teachings by now.
The problem is that you didn't answer my questions, you made up bogus questions and ascribed them to me.
No. I see no Biblical ground on which to forgive you.
Upvote
0
cristoiglesia
Veteran
- Jul 20, 2005
- 1,039
- 69
- 73
- Faith
- Utrecht
- Marital Status
- Married
Iollain said:Yes i saw in the council of something or other that they say that anyone that says that you should not ''''venerate'''' statues is anathema. This is not Marian cultists, they are real RCC teachings that usually come from apparations of Mary, and i notice that usually the one in contact with the spirit of whatever it is is from France.
Just some friendly advice but you should stay off those websites that are promoting another Gospel than the one delivered by the apostles. Being anti Christ's Church is a very profitable venture for many and you are supporting them by going there. They thrive on half truths and outright prevarifications. If you repeat them you are as guilty as they.
In Christ
Upvote
0
- Jul 2, 2003
- 145,048
- 17,407
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
cristoiglesia said:
No, we don't have to start answering ANYTHING in this thread. They have been answered many, many, many, many times in many threads - and you will beleive as you believe and we will believe as we believe.
YOU are just baiting - and I see no reason to bit your bait. Fight with someone else.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
cristoiglesia
Veteran
- Jul 20, 2005
- 1,039
- 69
- 73
- Faith
- Utrecht
- Marital Status
- Married
FreeinChrist said:
May the Lord bless you abundantly,
If you are not here to defend your faith then you must be here to denigrate someone else's. It seems that it is the Protestants that are the ones that want to fight and throw personal insults. My suggestion to you is, If you do not want to discuss these issues go somewhere else. Perhaps you are being smart in not trying to defend beliefs that are undefendable.
In Christ
Upvote
0
Iollain
Jer 18:2-6
cristoiglesia said:
I've got my Bible here and i'm not afraid to go into any website, i would be afraid for a lot of people but you don't have to worry about me, thanks. The website was an RCC site Chistoiglesia, the veneration of stuff is promoted by the RCC, the stuff i got those Mary prayers from is the RCC........i'm not understanding you Cristoiglesia.
Upvote
0
cristoiglesia
Veteran
- Jul 20, 2005
- 1,039
- 69
- 73
- Faith
- Utrecht
- Marital Status
- Married
Iollain said:
Blessings to you,
I have no problem with the veneration of Mary. I do have a problem with you trying to twist that veneration to be worship. It is supportive to my faith when Biblical prophecy is fulfilled. I do not have a problem in asking the blessed mother, you or anyone else to pray for me and to present my prayers to God. In that I follow the example of St. Paul and others who taught this.
The reason you do not understand is that you see the Bible as a collection of proof texts to prove your presuppositions where I see the Bible as the written Tradition of the Church and a living Body of Work of God illuminated in the believer by the Holy Spirit.
In Christ
In Christ
Upvote
0
H
hoser
Guest
Saint_George said:
I understand your frustrations Saint_George. There are so many holes in protestantism that it seems unbelievable that someone with a mind cannot see them.
The Bible teaches the opposite of sola scriptura but yet they hold to that belief.
The Bible in NO WAY teaches that our response to God's grace is faith, and faith alone.
Scripture is abundantly clear that Jesus gives himself, not a symbol of himself in Holy Communion.
There is verse after verse after verse in the Bible that protestants clearly ignore (ex. Luke 1:48) and when they cannot ignore them, they change the meaning of them to suit there own interpretation (ex. James 2:24)
I mean, come on! No one ever believed in the ridiculous unbiblical concept of "Once Saved Always Saved" until the past couple hundred years! This has been totally made up!
You know, I would love to see protestants respond to all your questions. But they cannot with legitimate answers. They will circle around the questions.
Keep up the good work Saint_George, No matter how much logic you use, sometimes it just won't sink in.
Upvote
0
MikeMcK said:
Once again, I apologize for everything I have said in this thread. Whether it has offended you, or any of my other brothers in the invisible church. I am by no long shot agreeing with anything you have said. Rather I'm enforcing what I have said. Once again I apologize.
Forgive me,
Saint_George
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
MikeMcK said:
You might think you are getting your point across but It is hard to understand. You said that Catholic doctrine is unbiblical, and after I gave you verses you interpreted them and gave me an answer. However I couldn't cross the bridge between the questions and the answers. If you could, could you please re-answer the questions explaining how you came to your answer and your interpretation of what the verse really means. Thank you,
Saint_George
Upvote
0
theend0218
Everything is everything.
Greetings, Saint-George. You have asked some questions that cannot be answered without appealing to early tradition. But you already know that. Other questions could be answered but you would not agree since it is a matter of interpretation - both of Scripture, and of what the Reformers actually taught. And, at least one or two questions that clearly could be answered if you did not dislike the Reformers so much.
All in all, another thread that will convince everyone on both sides that sweetness and light dwell in their camp.
However, as to the OP: some things that contributed to the Protestant Reformation were RCC abuses and errors; nationalism; textual criticism and critical thinking, some of it coming from those who were RCC and remained so, but contributed to the fires of reformation even when they did not intend to do so.
I think many in the RCC tradition would agree that the RCC church in the sixteenth century needed some reforming - the argument would be over the extent and means of reformation. As to the second, many national leaders had much to gain by breaking away from the Pope and the RCC. They undoubtedly used the Protestants when and where they could. To be fair, each used the other when they could. The air of intellectual freedom and curiosity had long been blowing. Erasmus is a wonderful example, but there were others before and after him who enabled the Reformation to make its way without the authority of the RCC.
Now as to your questions:
"Could someone answer my questions?
Where in scripture is the Bible alone theory? Is the basis of the leadership of the church once again based on something non-scriptual?
[It is not there, of course, unless you accept that we are to follow the Word of God, the Scriptures alone contain the Word of God, and the Scriptures were known and accepted immediately by the early Church. This, of course, is not the case. However, the 'Bible alone" is not a doctrine Luther, Calvin or other mainline reformers taught. The leaders of the Reformation from the beginning quoted accepted Church fathers and councils in their defense. Their point was that when the contemporary Church teaches what clearly contradicts Scripture or earlier interpretations of Scripture, Scripture must lead, or certain interpretations of Scripture by early Church fathers should be accepted vs. others. If you read Calvin, as one example, you will see him do this again and again. Now, you would disagree with this assumption and the solution it led the Reformers to accept. That is why you are not a Protestant. But, you do know, I think, that as early as the second century some church leaders laid down a doctrine of Scriptural authority and included in that definition known apostolic writings that were later canonized. While it makes for a nice argument, there is a difference between the belief in Scriptural authority and canonicity. If you do not, you need to do some research. The Reformers that I have read do accept apostolic and early church tradition. They simply disagreed that everything the Church decreed had to be believed. It is a matter of knowing where or deciding where to draw the line on Church tradition. This is an agrument that will never be settled, and never was completely settled - that is why there are RCC and Orthodox tradtions. The council of Trent, in reaction to the Reformation, made some decrees that are highly suspect in light of earlier Church tradition and teaching. This is but one example]
How do Protestants determine which books of the Bible are the Bible? [see above - the Reformers did not reject all early tradition]
After reading Luke 1:48, why do you not call the Mother of GOD, Blessed? [i have no problem calling her blessed; does anyone? I cannot imagine why. Perhaps it is a matter of interpretation as to what blessed means in your context? I ask because I do not know.]
Which Church did Jesus Christ found in Matt 16:18? Remember, He said Church, not Churches in that verse. [the Church Paul calls the body of Christ, and all united to Christ belong to it. You cannot accept this, of course. But, you must admit it is a matter of interpretation or which authority you accept as to what interpretation is correct. This is not a question a nonRCC person could asnwer for you since your very definition of Church in the verse quoted rules all other answers out. Not a fair way to argue if you really want a conversation. By the way, how would you apply this verse now as to RCC or Orthodox? Since these two traditions cannot agree, you can hardly throw rocks at Protestants on this one.]
Why isn't the Gospel of Peter, or the Gospel of Thomas in your Bible? Who had the authority for exclusion of these and other books from Holy Scripture? [You know the answer to this one.]
Which verse tells you that the revelation of Jesus Christ ended with the death of the last Apostle? [The understanding that revelation had ceased with the death of the Apostles goes back to the second century. Again, the Reformers did not make this one up. They did accept early tradition, blah, blah, and blah.]
Why do you believe the Catholic Church apostatized in the past when Jesus Christ Himself said in Matt 28:20, "I will be with you ALL DAYS until the end of time." Please explain your response to this question. [Again, your assumptions as to the meaning of "you" and "with you all days" dictate the outcome for you and no one could refute you to your satisfaction. However, even Paul warns of a coming apostacy. All major NT letters warn of falling away or something like it. No one in their right mind believes the entire RCC fell from grace or that every single RCC was completely wrong about everything in the sixteenth century. Luther and others made some harsh statements about the RCC church. But, he drank a lot of beer. I forgive him. I hope you can some day. I know that many Protestants like to beat up on the RCC - that crazy stuff about the Pope being the anti-Christ, etc. If all who belong to Christ by being united to Him are in His body, and by definition in His Church, then Jesus' statement needs no explanation. I just do not think it applies to the RCC and only to RCC. Do you?]
Why are you in a Church which cannot show that it is the Church which Jesus Christ founded? [again, we could not agree on definitions so my answer would be unacceptable to you. i would challenge you to verify historically that the RCC as it existed in the sixteenth century was "the Church of the first century." but, you know I would not agree with you for we do not understand "Church" in the same way. I believe all true Christians can lay claim to being in the true church - this is not intended to be an ontological description of the RCC or Baptist congregation down the street.]
Why do you not honor the Mother of GOD when Luther himself said, "When you have said She is the Mother of GOD, you have said it all?" [if you are interested, you can see my posts on another site about this issue. I can call her blessed. I do not know that it is a command to call her the mother of God. we will never agree on this one. This has nothing to do with my understanding of the deity and humanity of Christ. I know that there is a theology behind your statement - I might even agree with it. I just do not see it as necesary. I will assert that it is a complicated theology, and one that no one here understands completely - if you disagree feel free to respond.]
Why do you believe in individual interpretation of the Bible when the Bible clearly states that this must NOT be done?
Acts 8:27-39, 2Pet 1:20, 2Pet 3:16-18. [you misunderstand, i think, what the Reformers believed and taught on this. Perhaps a Reformed response might include verses about "studying to see if these things were so" and things like that. I do not care to debate verses and interpretations with you on this one. We will never agree. But, you do not state what the Reformers taught correctly. I do not know what an individual RCC might say nor what an individual Protestant might say on this subject. There are strange statements at times by all individual members of the various traditions. I will not hold you accountable for all RCC people. That is fair, don't you think?]
Why do you follow in the footsteps of Saul and persecute the Church which Jesus Christ founded? 1Cor 15:9. [many of your questions are the same question in that you assume a particular definition of Church is the correct one and that no other understanding of the Church can be correct. This is not fair, but what does fairness have to do with anything, right?]
Why do you take almost the entire Bible literally and then say that John chapter 6 is figurative, when it clearly does not say that it is? [I don't know where this comes from. You must talk to many people who do not know what the Reformers taught on literalism, etc. you need to broaden your understanding of Protestantism unless you enjoy slamming your version of it.]
Why do you not have the Deuterocanonical books which you call 'apochrypha' in your Bible, when they are clearly referenced in the New Testament? This is taking away from the Word of GOD, which the Bible clearly prohibits in many verses. [simply a matter of accepting different traditions.]
Saint_George"
As you can see, I think, I acknowledge that we will disagree because you are not a Protestant and I am not a RCC. I could make a list of questions you would not care to answer because we would not accept the same presuppositions. This would not make me right and you wrong. We could agree to disagree. I like living in the modern age.
All in all, another thread that will convince everyone on both sides that sweetness and light dwell in their camp.
However, as to the OP: some things that contributed to the Protestant Reformation were RCC abuses and errors; nationalism; textual criticism and critical thinking, some of it coming from those who were RCC and remained so, but contributed to the fires of reformation even when they did not intend to do so.
I think many in the RCC tradition would agree that the RCC church in the sixteenth century needed some reforming - the argument would be over the extent and means of reformation. As to the second, many national leaders had much to gain by breaking away from the Pope and the RCC. They undoubtedly used the Protestants when and where they could. To be fair, each used the other when they could. The air of intellectual freedom and curiosity had long been blowing. Erasmus is a wonderful example, but there were others before and after him who enabled the Reformation to make its way without the authority of the RCC.
Now as to your questions:
"Could someone answer my questions?
Where in scripture is the Bible alone theory? Is the basis of the leadership of the church once again based on something non-scriptual?
[It is not there, of course, unless you accept that we are to follow the Word of God, the Scriptures alone contain the Word of God, and the Scriptures were known and accepted immediately by the early Church. This, of course, is not the case. However, the 'Bible alone" is not a doctrine Luther, Calvin or other mainline reformers taught. The leaders of the Reformation from the beginning quoted accepted Church fathers and councils in their defense. Their point was that when the contemporary Church teaches what clearly contradicts Scripture or earlier interpretations of Scripture, Scripture must lead, or certain interpretations of Scripture by early Church fathers should be accepted vs. others. If you read Calvin, as one example, you will see him do this again and again. Now, you would disagree with this assumption and the solution it led the Reformers to accept. That is why you are not a Protestant. But, you do know, I think, that as early as the second century some church leaders laid down a doctrine of Scriptural authority and included in that definition known apostolic writings that were later canonized. While it makes for a nice argument, there is a difference between the belief in Scriptural authority and canonicity. If you do not, you need to do some research. The Reformers that I have read do accept apostolic and early church tradition. They simply disagreed that everything the Church decreed had to be believed. It is a matter of knowing where or deciding where to draw the line on Church tradition. This is an agrument that will never be settled, and never was completely settled - that is why there are RCC and Orthodox tradtions. The council of Trent, in reaction to the Reformation, made some decrees that are highly suspect in light of earlier Church tradition and teaching. This is but one example]
How do Protestants determine which books of the Bible are the Bible? [see above - the Reformers did not reject all early tradition]
After reading Luke 1:48, why do you not call the Mother of GOD, Blessed? [i have no problem calling her blessed; does anyone? I cannot imagine why. Perhaps it is a matter of interpretation as to what blessed means in your context? I ask because I do not know.]
Which Church did Jesus Christ found in Matt 16:18? Remember, He said Church, not Churches in that verse. [the Church Paul calls the body of Christ, and all united to Christ belong to it. You cannot accept this, of course. But, you must admit it is a matter of interpretation or which authority you accept as to what interpretation is correct. This is not a question a nonRCC person could asnwer for you since your very definition of Church in the verse quoted rules all other answers out. Not a fair way to argue if you really want a conversation. By the way, how would you apply this verse now as to RCC or Orthodox? Since these two traditions cannot agree, you can hardly throw rocks at Protestants on this one.]
Why isn't the Gospel of Peter, or the Gospel of Thomas in your Bible? Who had the authority for exclusion of these and other books from Holy Scripture? [You know the answer to this one.]
Which verse tells you that the revelation of Jesus Christ ended with the death of the last Apostle? [The understanding that revelation had ceased with the death of the Apostles goes back to the second century. Again, the Reformers did not make this one up. They did accept early tradition, blah, blah, and blah.]
Why do you believe the Catholic Church apostatized in the past when Jesus Christ Himself said in Matt 28:20, "I will be with you ALL DAYS until the end of time." Please explain your response to this question. [Again, your assumptions as to the meaning of "you" and "with you all days" dictate the outcome for you and no one could refute you to your satisfaction. However, even Paul warns of a coming apostacy. All major NT letters warn of falling away or something like it. No one in their right mind believes the entire RCC fell from grace or that every single RCC was completely wrong about everything in the sixteenth century. Luther and others made some harsh statements about the RCC church. But, he drank a lot of beer. I forgive him. I hope you can some day. I know that many Protestants like to beat up on the RCC - that crazy stuff about the Pope being the anti-Christ, etc. If all who belong to Christ by being united to Him are in His body, and by definition in His Church, then Jesus' statement needs no explanation. I just do not think it applies to the RCC and only to RCC. Do you?]
Why are you in a Church which cannot show that it is the Church which Jesus Christ founded? [again, we could not agree on definitions so my answer would be unacceptable to you. i would challenge you to verify historically that the RCC as it existed in the sixteenth century was "the Church of the first century." but, you know I would not agree with you for we do not understand "Church" in the same way. I believe all true Christians can lay claim to being in the true church - this is not intended to be an ontological description of the RCC or Baptist congregation down the street.]
Why do you not honor the Mother of GOD when Luther himself said, "When you have said She is the Mother of GOD, you have said it all?" [if you are interested, you can see my posts on another site about this issue. I can call her blessed. I do not know that it is a command to call her the mother of God. we will never agree on this one. This has nothing to do with my understanding of the deity and humanity of Christ. I know that there is a theology behind your statement - I might even agree with it. I just do not see it as necesary. I will assert that it is a complicated theology, and one that no one here understands completely - if you disagree feel free to respond.]
Why do you believe in individual interpretation of the Bible when the Bible clearly states that this must NOT be done?
Acts 8:27-39, 2Pet 1:20, 2Pet 3:16-18. [you misunderstand, i think, what the Reformers believed and taught on this. Perhaps a Reformed response might include verses about "studying to see if these things were so" and things like that. I do not care to debate verses and interpretations with you on this one. We will never agree. But, you do not state what the Reformers taught correctly. I do not know what an individual RCC might say nor what an individual Protestant might say on this subject. There are strange statements at times by all individual members of the various traditions. I will not hold you accountable for all RCC people. That is fair, don't you think?]
Why do you follow in the footsteps of Saul and persecute the Church which Jesus Christ founded? 1Cor 15:9. [many of your questions are the same question in that you assume a particular definition of Church is the correct one and that no other understanding of the Church can be correct. This is not fair, but what does fairness have to do with anything, right?]
Why do you take almost the entire Bible literally and then say that John chapter 6 is figurative, when it clearly does not say that it is? [I don't know where this comes from. You must talk to many people who do not know what the Reformers taught on literalism, etc. you need to broaden your understanding of Protestantism unless you enjoy slamming your version of it.]
Why do you not have the Deuterocanonical books which you call 'apochrypha' in your Bible, when they are clearly referenced in the New Testament? This is taking away from the Word of GOD, which the Bible clearly prohibits in many verses. [simply a matter of accepting different traditions.]
Saint_George"
As you can see, I think, I acknowledge that we will disagree because you are not a Protestant and I am not a RCC. I could make a list of questions you would not care to answer because we would not accept the same presuppositions. This would not make me right and you wrong. We could agree to disagree. I like living in the modern age.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
kimber1
mean people suck
- Feb 25, 2003
- 13,092
- 810
- 53
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
*ADMIN HAT ON
okay folks, everyone needs to take a deep breathe, push away from the computer for a minute and calm down.
i do not want to see ANYMORE personal slams at one another, understand? we are all supposed to be Christians here, can we please act like it?
*ADMIN HAT OFF
okay folks, everyone needs to take a deep breathe, push away from the computer for a minute and calm down.
i do not want to see ANYMORE personal slams at one another, understand? we are all supposed to be Christians here, can we please act like it?
*ADMIN HAT OFF
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
