Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Importance of Original Sin
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 241 of 1198 (639581)
11-02-2011 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by jaywill
11-01-2011 6:48 PM


Doctrine of Original Sin
That humans are capable of behaving badly is not the issue. The issue is the Doctrine of Original sin.
I showed in Message 25 that the doctrine is a later development by reinterpreting the A&E story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by jaywill, posted 11-01-2011 6:48 PM jaywill has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 242 of 1198 (639583)
11-02-2011 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by jaywill
11-01-2011 6:05 PM


Creation Stories
quote:
Where else would the writer get the vital information - "For in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore Jehovah blessed the Sabbath day and sanctified it."
The rule to rest on the seventh day came from Exodus 23 written by the E writer, which was written before the Genesis 1 creation story according to Friedman's Documentary Hypothesis.
The parts of the Exodus story connecting the Sabbath with creation were written by the Priestly writer.
So their rule for resting on the Sabbath doesn't hang on the Creation story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by jaywill, posted 11-01-2011 6:05 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by jaywill, posted 11-06-2011 4:40 PM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 253 by jaywill, posted 11-06-2011 4:58 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 243 of 1198 (639958)
11-05-2011 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by jar
11-01-2011 7:52 PM


Sorry but that is simply nonsense.
Man does not die because of Adam's sin, in fact there is not even any evidence that Adam sinned in Genesis
You probably mean that you disagree with the Bible that Adam sinned. But I regard what is written there over your opinion.
The evidence of Adam having sinned is in verse 17:
"And to Adam He said, Because you listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree concerning which I commanded you, saying, You shall not eat of it; Cursed is the ground because of you ..." (Gen.3:17a)
And of course Romans 5 uses the phrase "Adam's transgression" (Rom. 5:14)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by jar, posted 11-01-2011 7:52 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by jar, posted 11-05-2011 10:23 AM jaywill has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 244 of 1198 (639961)
11-05-2011 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by jaywill
11-05-2011 9:55 AM


The Bible doesn't say that Adam sinned.
Sorry but until after eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil there was no way Adam could know that he should obey the God character in the story over the Eve character or the Serpent.
And in addition, what you quoted also supports the absurdity of Original Sin as marketed in many of today's chapters of Club Christian.
Genesis 3 is very specific about what the punishment was for disobedience and there is no mention of any immediate death, of any spiritual separation, of any spiritual death, of any condemnation other than the specific ones listed in the story.
quote:
14And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
  —Genesis 3
There is simply no good Biblical support for Original sin but it is a great marketing tool for the Christian Snake Oil salesmen.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by jaywill, posted 11-05-2011 9:55 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by jaywill, posted 11-05-2011 11:53 AM jar has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 245 of 1198 (639968)
11-05-2011 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by purpledawn
09-13-2011 12:01 PM


Re: Jesus and Paul Were Jews
Here are the statments in which you discuss the Doctrine of Original Sin:
It brought forth the need to baptize babies.
I am not using the phrase Original Sin. I am defending the truth of the New Testament in revealing that sin came into the world through Adam.
And Paul wrote that long before Catholics had a need to baptize babies. This is a red herring argument.
"Therefore just as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin, death; and thus death passed on to all men because all have sinned - " (Rom. 5:12)
It the NATURE (SIN) singular, that Paul says entered into the world.
This was a teaching the Apostle Paul had long before Catholicism developed traditions of enfant baptism. The development of the traditions neither necessarily makes them right nor Paul's teaching in Romans 5 wrong.
With the same logic I could say the message of the cross was developed by the Ku Klux Klan in order to burn crosses on the front lawns of black people and their white sympathizers.
Your first argument is just a big red herring. Let's look at your second argument then.
IMO, the implication is that we cannot control ourselves without the help of Jesus. Unfortunately that is contrary to what God told Cain and what is presented in the OT.
The Bible does not present man as being totally without self control.
It does reveal all as sinners in need of salvation from both the guilt of sin and the power of sin. And that regardless that we have some measure of self control.
God exhorting Cain to master sin does show that Cain had some self control. But it did not mean he needed no offering for sin because of that.
If sufficient self control was all that Cain needed then there probably would have been no need for an atoning sacrifice to begin with. Abel and Cain both offered some kind of expiatory sacrifice which in Abels' case, was accepted.
The existence of the worship of God in this way demonstrates what level of self control they retained did not close the gap between them and a righteous and holy God.
I would add that the self control retained in man is like a breaking system. The breaking system keeps man from going TOO FAR. Cain's anger against Abel may have been more tolerable. Cain's MURDER of Abel went too far.
In this case the self control was a breaking system not eradicating sinning but designed to prevent it from going too far.
We do forget that religions are not immune to outside influence.
The Original Sin Doctrine was influenced by Platonism according to this article: The Original View of Original Sin
Many of us know there was considerable mixture of Greek philosophical thought with Christian theology in those early centries. I consider it not really honest to exploit this as some do to "prove" that this or that doctrine had its origin in Plato.
Of course Catholicism was a huge mixture of pagan traditions with the New Testament. This was the leaven hidden in three measures of meal which leavened the whole lump, as Jesus prophesied (Matt.13:33)
"Another parable He spoke to them: The kingdom of the heavens is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal until the whole was leavened."
This parable, many Bible students understand as a prediction that corrupting elements will be added sneakily into the New Testament teaching to bloat it up as leaven bloats of flour. The intention was to make the teaching of the kingdom more palatable and acceptable to the masses.
This is exactly what the Roman Catholic Church did. They added corrupting pagan teachings and ideas to the New Testament teaching to gain the masses, ie. Easter, Christmas, Mary worship, Holloween, and even some philosophical concepts of Greek philosophy.
The fact of the matter is that Paul wrote of sin entering into the world through one man - Adam, long before this mixture started in Roman Catholicism.
But Augustine did not devise the concept of original sin. It was his use of specific New Testament scriptures to justify the doctrine that was new. The concept itself had been shaped from the late second century onward by certain church fathers, including Irenaeus, Origen and Tertullian. Irenaeus did not use the Scriptures at all for his definition; Origen reinterpreted the Genesis account of Adam and Eve in terms of a Platonic allegory and saw sin deriving solely from free will; and Tertullian’s version was borrowed from Stoic philosophy.
I would be happy to review some church history before discussing all of this. However, none of it changes Paul's use of the contrast between Adam's disobedience and Christ's obedience.
I want to spend more time reading the Bible first. Then I can have some appreciation of what teachers of the past like Origen, Tertullian and Augustine were talking about, right or wrong.
I find that a lot of people don't know the Bible that well. But they go off and base skeptical arguments upon what Origen, Ireneus, Tertullian, and Augustine wrote. It often looks impressive and scholarly.
While the teachings of these men are interesting they are my secondary interest. The epistle to Rome by Paul draws a contrast between the first man and the second man, the first Adam and the last Adam. Each was a respective head of humanity. And Adam's transgression is juxtaposed against Christ's obedience. Adam's bringing man into sin and death is compared with Christ's bringing in His believers into justification and reigning in life.
The teachings may be called "Original Sin" or may be refered to as something else. I am not attemptiong to defend the Doctrine of Original Sin as I do not know all that the phrase may imply. Generally, I know it has something to do with sin entering into the world through Adam.
And the concept of TWO men being TWO heads of humanity, one pertaining to sin and death, and the other pertaining to life and righteousness - justification and sanctification - reigning through grace, is completely the New Testament's teaching.
This is the revelation come to us through the Apostle Paul. And it is not too hard to see in the Hebrew Bible where and how he derived these teachings. He really invented nothing. He revealed what was there in the light of the ministry of Christ.
So it seems the idea came first and the use of Paul as support came considerably later.
The Bible shows us the first man. The Bible shows us how the first man fell out of intimate fellowship with God through his disobedience.
And the evidence is very strong that something happened constitutionally in man's being at that time. It was not simply a matter of one man disobeying God. It seems a matter of man's nature being poisoned by an evil foreign element of some kind.
Even God's reference to sin crouching at the door of Cain's heart and having a "desire" for Cain, exposes sin as a kind of living evil presence of some sort -
"If you do well, will not [your countenance] be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and his desire is for you, but you must rule over him." (Genesis 4:7)
Sin there is something seemingly alive, devious, crouching, seeking opportunity. It is very much like what Paul wrote in Romans 7 only written centries before.
It is the same divine revelation.
Augustine’s outlook on sex was distorted by ideas from the world outside the Bible. Because so much philosophy was based on dualism, in which the physical was categorized as evil but the spiritual as good, some philosophers idealized the celibate state. Sexual relations were physical and therefore evil.
That's interesting. But it has no effect on both Genesis and Romans revealing something constitutionally has gone wrong in man's nature since the sin of Adam.
Particularly we see God pronouncing in a negative way that man is flesh and His Spirit will not strive with him forever:
"And Jehovah said, My Spirit will not strive with man forever, for he indeed is flesh; so his days will be one hundred twenty years." (Gen 6:3)
I believe that something more is indicated in this passage than simply that man is physical. We know that God created man partly a physical being and partly a spiritual one. The passages indicates to me that the something has changed in man to cause him to ever strive in conflict with the Spirit of God in transgression, evil, iniquity.
Left with no redemption, this nature only strives more and more with God and becomes worse and worse. For the downward decline of it resulted in the earth being filled with violence and man's thought and imagination being only continually evil. The judgment of the flood had to come.
Sin indeed entered into the world through Adam.
Apparently once the idea that sexual relations even in marriage were bad (not a Jewish concept). Their philosophy created a little bit of a problem when it came to Jesus, so they had to create another story to keep Jesus "clean". Immaculate Conception
Red Herring Argument. It has no effect on Romans 5 or Genesis history of society's decline into sin and death from Adam's disobedience.
Augustine’s association with Neoplatonic philosophers led him to introduce their outlook within the church. This had its effect in the development of doctrine. For example, Jesus was considered immaculately conceivedwithout sin in that His Father was God. But because His mother, Mary, had a human father, she suffered the effect of original sin. In order to present Jesus Christ as a perfect offspring without any inherited sin from either parent, the church had to find a way to label Mary as sinless. They did this by devising the doctrine of her immaculate conception, though this inevitably leads to further questions.
Isaiah 53 presents the Messiah as the perfect offering who made Himself an offering for the sins of the people.
And Isaiah 9:6 says the child born is the Mighty God and the son given is the Eternal Father.
You cannot refer to Augustine's borrowing from Plato so many centries latter to erase what both the Old Testament and New Testament clearly taught.
While some of your observations are interesting and could be checked out they have no effect of sin entering into the world through Adam as the Scripture reveals.
Then we get to the need for baptizing babies.
And the Klan latter got the need to burn crosses in the America South. That is not the fault of the Bible.
You have some extended "guilt by association" arguments here.
Other babies were not so fortunate. Some eight centuries later the Catholic theologian Anselm extended the implications of Augustine’s concept of original sin and claimed that babies who died, did so as sinners; as sinners, they had no access to eternal life but were condemned to eternal damnation.
More Red Herrings. And you are just appealing to all that you don't like about Catholicism.
Of course the babies that are baptized don't necessarily refrain from sinning.
None of it changes the fact that humans have good inclinations and bad inclinations. We can go either way and we can change back and forth. We are still responsible for our actions.
They just made the issue more complicated. I think it's a guy thing.
If the Bible taught that we were not responsible for our actions there would be no need for a Savior from the guilt of our sins. There would be no guilt. Since there would be no guilt there would be no need for reconciliation to God.
Saying that we are all constituted sinners by a sin nature never was meant to absolve man from responsibility. My experience is that some forms of humanist self righteousness always boasts that to be more responsible is to disbelieve in the New Testament salvation through Christ.
This thread like the one on there being no spiritual death in the Old Testament, seems just another elaborate defense of a self righteous religion of self justification through works.
This time you seem to want to appeal to some documentary hypothesis and hijack Judaism to dress this Humanism in sacred religious garb.
We heard before of "no spiritual death" in the Old Testament. Now we hear of Judaism not needing any teaching of Original Sin. And you are very diligent to present "Origina Sin" as including all the ends and outs of infant baptism and dubious Catholic dogmas enfluencing ideas about sex and the destiny of all children.
I think you are creating a big strawman.
Are you doing all this just so you can brand your kind of Humanism as "Judaism" ?
As far back as Jeremiah's prophecy, the importance of the Sabbath is held by God in Jeremiah 17:20-24. If the Jews were to enquire why on earth the Sabbath was so important to God the answer would be concerning creation as spoken in Exodus 20:11.
I am not sure what mental hoops I have to jump through about the Documentary Hypothesis in order to arrive at the concept that the resting of God on the seventh day is not important to Judaism.
You just have someone theory about when passages were written and by who in Genesis. It is far from conclusive though it may be popular with higher textural critics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by purpledawn, posted 09-13-2011 12:01 PM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 246 of 1198 (639970)
11-05-2011 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by jar
11-05-2011 10:23 AM


Re: The Bible doesn't say that Adam sinned.
As I said, you are just expressing your disagreement with the Bible.
You choose to believe what you think should be right.
My priorities are with what the Bible teaches.
You are arguing "But the case should have been this ...".
I am pointing out what the Bible says the case was and is. You may believe or not believe.
And you need to come up with some new digs beside the Snake Oil and Christian Club digs. They're losing their luster there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by jar, posted 11-05-2011 10:23 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by jar, posted 11-05-2011 12:27 PM jaywill has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 247 of 1198 (639971)
11-05-2011 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by jaywill
11-05-2011 11:53 AM


Re: The Bible doesn't say that Adam sinned.
No, I'm actually posting what t6he Bible says and in context, not quote mining for profit.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by jaywill, posted 11-05-2011 11:53 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by jaywill, posted 11-05-2011 3:45 PM jar has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 248 of 1198 (639978)
11-05-2011 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by jar
11-05-2011 12:27 PM


Re: The Bible doesn't say that Adam sinned.
No, I'm actually posting what t6he Bible says and in context, not quote mining for profit.
I make no money quoting the Bible here.
That's a false accusation or some delusional innuendo.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by jar, posted 11-05-2011 12:27 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by jar, posted 11-05-2011 5:47 PM jaywill has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 249 of 1198 (639983)
11-05-2011 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by jaywill
11-05-2011 3:45 PM


Re: The Bible doesn't say that Adam sinned.
Not at all. It seems that much of Christianity today is just a profitable way to move money from the pockets of folk like you to the preachers, pastors and bishops that start all the new chapters of Club Christian, and the marketing tool of "Original Sin", "being Born Again", "getting Saved" are the products that the Snake Oil Salesmen peddle.
It's a very profitable business with marvelous tax advantages, lots of legal protection and absolutely no product liability.
That is the importance of "Original Sin" in Christianity today. It's a classic FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) product. Other than being yet another way to maintain the flow of gold coming in to the chapter Treasury and as a tool to keep the members in line, "Original Sin" is of absolutely no importance.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by jaywill, posted 11-05-2011 3:45 PM jaywill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Phat, posted 11-06-2011 2:08 AM jar has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 250 of 1198 (639989)
11-06-2011 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by jar
11-05-2011 5:47 PM


Club Christian report card
jar writes:
"Original Sin" is of absolutely no importance.
Seems to me that a case could be made that humans behave selfishly and callously through much of History. You yourself point out how the US ignored most treaties with the Native Peoples. Germany had some villains, as did every major country. People never seem to try to do their best if it hurts their own interests. Besides...accusing all of Club Christian as being profit (rather than prophet) minded is a bit extreme.
I will agree that it seems rather suspicious that the "washed in the blood" saved folks often behave no better than the rest of us...why is that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by jar, posted 11-05-2011 5:47 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by jar, posted 11-06-2011 8:53 AM Phat has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 251 of 1198 (639997)
11-06-2011 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Phat
11-06-2011 2:08 AM


Re: Club Christian report card
Yes, people can behave poorly and people can behave well, but that is not "Original Sin"; it is what they do, not some inherited sin. Enough of this OLD Sin, let's have some NEW Sin.
And have you never listened to "Christian Radio" or watched a Televangelist? It is simply one advertisement after another, selling everything and anything including worthless stuff like "Original Sin", "are you Born Again?" and "Have you been Saved?".

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Phat, posted 11-06-2011 2:08 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Phat, posted 11-06-2011 5:54 PM jar has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 252 of 1198 (640004)
11-06-2011 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by purpledawn
11-02-2011 6:54 AM


Re: Creation Stories
I thought the Documentary Hypothesis was proposed by a man named Wellhausen. Who is Friedman ?
Were there two Documentary Hypothesises ?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by purpledawn, posted 11-02-2011 6:54 AM purpledawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Bailey, posted 11-06-2011 5:55 PM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 253 of 1198 (640005)
11-06-2011 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by purpledawn
11-02-2011 6:54 AM


Re: Creation Stories
Erased.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by purpledawn, posted 11-02-2011 6:54 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 254 of 1198 (640007)
11-06-2011 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by hooah212002
09-12-2011 7:57 PM


Re: Enough of this OLD sin, bring me some NEW sin
Hooah writes:
Ok, so in this trend, the god character created us flawed? We were doomed from the start? He created us with the need for the jesus character and the need for salvation?
I don't believe that I was created flawed. I will say, however, that I find myself choosing to act rottener than I should. Revenge sometimes feels good. Entitlement bolsters self esteem...surely I'm not as wretched as the ambitious foreigners now am I? Even if I was, Americans should take care of our own first, right?
Yet the good book speaks of pride. It speaks of jealousy. It speaks of hope. For me, that hope is found through a relationship with Jesus.(Some may argue an imaginary one) No, I can't prove that God is real nor that Jesus(Gods character in human form) was risen from the dead in human form. And I certainly see jars argument against using original sin as a crutch and/or a cop out to the responsibility of living better.
Thing is, Paul covered the basic dilemma in Romans. Romans 7:20--->
but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members.
Paul saw that his human nature was rebellious. I see the same thing. I prefer fantasy over reality. Reality is a cruel thing. It favors no man...even the man who grew up favored. I would love to have lots of money...and see that those who have lots of money often never deserved it.
I know in my heart that I should love the least of these. The poor. The crippled. The young victims of life who never had what I did.
And I know that I should expect no favor. (yet this angers me deep down)
In conclusion, I would rename the concept. Its not Original Sin. Its an original struggle. The struggle to do whats right even if it hurts. The struggle to let go of what I believe I deserved.
The struggle to let reality show the educated foreigners a place in line ahead of me, even if I am an American. (this hurts too!!)
To resist the impulse to slay the competition rather than accept that they are for the moment better than I.
All of this is the struggle that the American Christian, in particular, has to face today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by hooah212002, posted 09-12-2011 7:57 PM hooah212002 has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 255 of 1198 (640009)
11-06-2011 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by jar
11-06-2011 8:53 AM


Its what we do,not what we are
I can agree that we may well behave poorly simply because it is what we do...though some Christians would argue that its a sin nature...its who we are.
Does it matter either way? Evidence shows that humans often behave poorly. Instead of trying to do our best, we often do what benefits us and/or is the most comfortable. Even now, as the US faces the debt problems, we likely will take the easier path and end up worse off later. It seems to be human nature to avoid pain, and change often involves pain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by jar, posted 11-06-2011 8:53 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by jar, posted 11-06-2011 6:12 PM Phat has replied
 Message 258 by Bailey, posted 11-06-2011 6:55 PM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024