Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2019 6:24 AM
22 online now:
PaulK, Porkncheese, Tangle, vimesey (4 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,658 Year: 3,695/19,786 Month: 690/1,087 Week: 59/221 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Author Topic:   WIll God save us if we don't believe in the Resurrection?
Brian
Member (Idle past 3039 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 76 of 139 (218316)
06-21-2005 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
06-15-2005 11:26 AM


Re: Necessity of the Resurrection...
.

This message has been edited by Brian, 10-14-2005 06:26 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 06-15-2005 11:26 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 06-21-2005 7:36 AM Brian has responded

    
Brian
Member (Idle past 3039 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 77 of 139 (218318)
06-21-2005 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by lfen
06-15-2005 11:28 AM


Re: Moving on
.

This message has been edited by Brian, 10-14-2005 06:27 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by lfen, posted 06-15-2005 11:28 AM lfen has not yet responded

    
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 4629 days)
Posts: 708
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 78 of 139 (218332)
06-21-2005 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Brian
06-21-2005 4:46 AM


Re: Necessity of the Resurrection...
Brian writes:

But, wouldnt Muslims, Buddhists and atheists need to believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus in order to get into heaven?

edit: If you're using a strict fundamentalist interpretation of the Scriptures, then I suppose yes. But I'm not a fundamentalist.

Brian writes:

You are stating that Christ had to die and had to be resurrected or else there would be no way into heaven.

edt: Yes. That's what I'm saying.

Brian writes:

So why would someone that worshipped another god all of their lives, expressly against the first four commandments, be saved?

edit: Do you mean the first three commandments?

I take it you're speaking from a Protestant background?

Brian writes:

Gods word is pretty clear that he is a jealous creature.

Yes, and God's word is pretty clear that he is a merciful God too. If someone has been fairly presented with the Gospel message, and there's no real reason for rejecting the Gospel meesage except for the fact that they "didn't want to accept it", then I personally don't think that God is very sympathetic toward them.

However, in those grey areas where the Gospel has not been presented, or where the Gospel has been presented in such a hostile manner that those who were witnessed to perceive Christianity as evil or malignant, then I think that God is more understanding.

I think the laws which talk about our duty to each other human being (such as not killing, not stealing, not sleeping with someone else's spouse), are written onto the hearts of all people. Laws like these are nearly universal throughout the world, even if they can't exactly agree on when these laws apply, or even the punishment required. If people partake in these things and never express regret, sorrow, and a desire to be forgiven in their lives (which would be an act of rejecting Christ in their lives whether they know Christ or not), then they are most likely damned.

However, the laws about directly worshipping the true God are specifically revealed laws -- and they apply to people who have heard them clearly. In other words, I don't think God judges in such black and white terms as many fundamentalists absolutely insist. I think that God judges in proportion to that which is revealed in each individual.

When it comes to laws which pertain to our duty toward each other, and they ARE written into the consciences of all people according to the Scriptures (and even a casual glance at humanity), then God holds us accountable.

But when it comes to our duty toward God himself, and if the message hasn't been fairly presented, then God is merciful -- that is, God judges in proportion to that which is revealed to each individual.

Brian writes:

Of course, and all the faith in the world isnt going to make Christs connection to the Father in Heaven a reality either is it?

It depends on what you mean when you say this. Could you explain this further?

edit: What I'm saying is that Christ doesn't need for us to believe in him in order to get the resurrection accomplished. He can accomplish this irregardless of our faith or lack thereof.

However, many Christians speak of their own faith in Christ as being the thing which empowers Christ to save them -- which is wrong in my opinion. Christ's resurrection was in no way powered by other people's faith in him.

In fact, contrary to this position, none of his apostle's actually beleived he was coming back from the dead -- they didn't even believe the initial reports of his reusrrection by the women, and Thomas took an extra long time to see the light.

In short, Christ had his own power to do this on his own. However, when people believe in the power of his resurrection then they are tapping the unlimited power of God himself. And that's where Christianity's strength lays.

Brian writes:

Which means that Jesus' sacrifice was utterly pointless. If Jesus can save even one person who didnt have any faith in Him whatsoever, then there was no point in Him going through the pantomime of the trial, arrest and execution!

Uh...no.

You're not really grasping my position are you?

What I've said is if Christ didn't die on the cross, then no one could be saved period -- Christian or otherwise. In other words, to rephrase your own statment above, Jesus can't save even one person without his death and resurrection because it is the power of his resurrection which empowers him to save people -- regardless of whether they believe in him or not.

This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-21-2005 08:32 AM

This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-21-2005 08:37 AM

This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-21-2005 12:23 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Brian, posted 06-21-2005 4:46 AM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Brian, posted 06-21-2005 8:36 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded
 Message 80 by Brian, posted 06-21-2005 8:39 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not yet responded
 Message 82 by lfen, posted 06-21-2005 11:08 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded

    
Brian
Member (Idle past 3039 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 79 of 139 (218348)
06-21-2005 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
06-21-2005 7:36 AM


Re: Necessity of the Resurrection...
.

This message has been edited by Brian, 10-14-2005 06:27 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 06-21-2005 7:36 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 06-21-2005 9:11 AM Brian has responded
 Message 139 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-03-2005 11:57 AM Brian has not yet responded

    
Brian
Member (Idle past 3039 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 80 of 139 (218352)
06-21-2005 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
06-21-2005 7:36 AM


Re: Necessity of the Resurrection...
.

This message has been edited by Brian, 10-14-2005 06:28 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 06-21-2005 7:36 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not yet responded

    
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 4629 days)
Posts: 708
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 81 of 139 (218357)
06-21-2005 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Brian
06-21-2005 8:36 AM


Re: Necessity of the Resurrection...
Brian, there's more than a few things that you're assuming which I don't actually agree with.

1: You're using a very strict process of interpretation, one which is very similar to a fundamentalist one. I don't agree with their interpretation -- and I find it odd that you (apparently a non-believer?) would insist on using their method as well.

2: You're assuming that God is all-powerful. I don't accept that God is all-powerful. He can't sin for one thing. I think he's also given up some of his omnipotence so that we can have a free-will.

3: You're assuming that God is all-knowing. I don't accept that either. For example, at the end of time, when some people drift obliviously into hell, I'm fairly sure that God will not know anything about them. In fact, I think he will say, "I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!"

4: Your points are contradictory in some areas too. For example, the basis of this discussion appears to be arguing over the specifics of whether God will save us if we don't believe in the resurrection or not -- which assumes that the resurrection and God himself are true for the sake of this discussion. However, you turn around and argue that social conditioning plays an important factor in the development of religious ideas -- which assumes that the resurrection and God himself are actually social constucts for the sake of this discussion.

5: You seem to be assuming that I consider George Bush a genius, or that I'm a Republican -- which I don't and am not.

6: Some of your comments seem rather flippant, such as, "If God is a jealous God, He would require that you believe in Him and His sons circus act."

Circus act?

Yeah, I think we're on different wavelengths here.

If you want to continue a civil discusion with me then I would expect you to treat some of my ideas with respect. If you insist on being imprisoned within Fundamentalistville, you're welcome to enjoy your stay.

However, it is my observation that many people who reject God simply read the Scriptures in the most literal sense they can so that they can mantain that God is non-sensical and evil. Thinking outside the box is simply too hard for them, so they resort to the same old stuff over and over again.

I'm not interested in that kind of discussion.

This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-21-2005 09:17 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Brian, posted 06-21-2005 8:36 AM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Phat, posted 06-21-2005 12:40 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded
 Message 103 by Brian, posted 06-22-2005 12:32 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded

    
lfen
Member (Idle past 2758 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 82 of 139 (218387)
06-21-2005 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
06-21-2005 7:36 AM


Re: Necessity of the Resurrection...
Yes, and God's word is pretty clear that he is a merciful God too. If someone has been fairly presented with the Gospel message, and there's no real reason for rejecting the Gospel meesage except for the fact that they "didn't want to accept it", then I personally don't think that God is very sympathetic toward them.

Ex,

You've stated a crucial point here. Obviously there are those for whom the Gospel message is very problematic. Brian talked about it being very difficult for him to give up his faith. It wasn't particularly traumatic for me but was more of a gradual process of increasing suspicion, doubt, and skepticism. Getting involved in these boards has been an interesting return to the past for me.

Having left Christianity and indeed Western Abramhamic religion behind my focus has been in philosophy, Buddhism, and Advaita Vedanta. I will just state that for me the Abramhamic religions though perhaps showing elements of spiritual insight are largely shaped by human needs for a religion and that includes the needs of the priests and ruling power for a monopoly.

I flat out think the notion that God is jealous is a transparent projection of the priests being jealous of any competition and is if not an insult to the source of the universe is at least a totally human misunderstanding. This attribution of the petty human emotion of jealousy to the absolute is something that I have never encountered in Buddhism or Advaita and is one of the themes that makes to me Christianity such a comparatively "dark" or primitive religion.

I think I have been fairly presented with the Gospel and have found it to be a human ego created wish fulfillment fantasy with some primitive and rather nasty features though I also recognize and appreciate the real good people have done from their religious motivations to love and care for their fellow humans. I think the religion is clearly a human creation motivated by experiences of or desire for something transcendent but deeply flawed by the limits and needs of the ego.

I also want to give you some feedback about the length of your posts. I like reading your posts but I think I read like maybe 25% of what you write. I am interested in your response to this but if your response goes much longer than my post I'll probably stop reading. I'm not saying either you or I are wrong in this, it's just for some reason I get lost in your posts and just move on. No blame either way just something I'd like for you to keep in mind.

lfen

ABE: I wish to clarify that it is your long posts that I get lost in. The post just prior to this post I read in it's entirety.

This message has been edited by lfen, 06-21-2005 08:16 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 06-21-2005 7:36 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 06-21-2005 12:16 PM lfen has responded

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 4629 days)
Posts: 708
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 83 of 139 (218404)
06-21-2005 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by lfen
06-21-2005 11:08 AM


Re: Necessity of the Resurrection...
Well...then I guess I write too much then. Having said that, I just don't think these kinds of deep questions can be answered with simple buzz-words and sound bites.

I don't know how else to explain it. If someone is deeply moved to search for God, and contradictory positions are levelled against faith in God, then I'm most likely going to reply in full to them as consisely and politely as I possibly can.

There are no quick and easy answers for some of these questions. In fact, I'm fairly sure that quick and easy answers actually do more damage to many people's faiths -- because they leave so much room for one to misunderstand by what is not being said.

I would like to reply to your questions Ifen, but I suspect the answers would be too long. I'm not sure what else to say. When I talk about something, I usually follow the same format (although it might not always follow this exact order):

1) explain my point in my own words as best as I can,
2) give some kind of Scriptural references to calrify what I'm explaining.
3) point out what I feel to be valid historical examples of what I'm explaining,
4) explain this relationship with other world religions where applicable,
5) and finally explain my conclusion in my own words (or with links to other's thoughts who have already expressed them to my liking).

I admit that this formula usually makes for a very long post, and many do consider them to be long. However, no one usually says that I haven't explained my self clearly -- unless, of course, they haven't read my post in the first place. I'd rather explain things clearly the first time, instead of repeating myself a dozen times in order to clarify a point that I could have explained more clearly the first time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by lfen, posted 06-21-2005 11:08 AM lfen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by lfen, posted 06-21-2005 1:17 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 12180
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 84 of 139 (218412)
06-21-2005 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
06-21-2005 9:11 AM


Re: Necessity of the Resurrection...
ex-nihilio writes:

I don't accept that God is all-powerful. He can't sin for one thing.

Sin means seperation from God. God cannot sin because God cannot be God and be someone else at the same time. This is the essence of monotheism. It is easier to believe in Gods endless possibilities than it is to believe that our own imaginations are capable of such thought.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 06-21-2005 9:11 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by lfen, posted 06-21-2005 1:31 PM Phat has responded
 Message 90 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 06-21-2005 2:05 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
rightw/god
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 139 (218414)
06-21-2005 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
06-12-2005 12:24 PM


God is extremely holy and cannot stand to be with sin. The blood of Jesus was shed to cleanse the sins of those who accept it. If you die unclean God will not let you ascend into heaven and you are therefor condemned to hell. Thats not what God wants for you. Hell wasn't even created for man. It was created for Satan and his demons but man figured out a way to get there.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 06-12-2005 12:24 PM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Brian, posted 06-21-2005 12:46 PM rightw/god has not yet responded
 Message 93 by purpledawn, posted 06-22-2005 7:47 AM rightw/god has responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3039 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 86 of 139 (218418)
06-21-2005 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by rightw/god
06-21-2005 12:41 PM


.

This message has been edited by Brian, 10-14-2005 06:28 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by rightw/god, posted 06-21-2005 12:41 PM rightw/god has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by lfen, posted 06-21-2005 1:27 PM Brian has not yet responded

    
lfen
Member (Idle past 2758 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 87 of 139 (218427)
06-21-2005 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
06-21-2005 12:16 PM


Re: Necessity of the Resurrection...
Ah, I think I understand your approach. I see it as being more of a way one publishes something whereas I think I see these posts here as more like a conversation only strung out over time and in writing. So a point is made then responded to and then maybe clarification asked for but this takes place over a series of posts rather than in one.

Your approach seems more academic as in publishing something and then publishing a refutation, critique, etc. I also think you often address multiple points in a single post with appropriate quotes but the back and forth to check the originals after a point I lose track.

I typically take a single point from a post to reply to. Sometimes more but if it's a deep post I try to do just one thing at a time. This is also my verbal style I like small bites with error correction questions or clarifications maintaining the flow on course. It does seem we have very different approaches to communication. I don't mind making a dozen attempts at explaining myself because I feel that each time I am improving or polishing my communication and that I am learning as I do so. I think over the months I've been trying to convey the non dual viewpoint I've improved my explanations and even my understanding.

I would ask you to consider that perhaps your anticipation involves unnecessary redundancy. What if you were to do your step 1 perhaps include step 2 and then see if I get your point. If I don't my response or questions give you feedback to make even more appropriate selection of your step 3 or 4. I'm not demanding you change your approach just giving you feedback that I and I suspect some others don't read all that you put into your long posts.

lfen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 06-21-2005 12:16 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not yet responded

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 2758 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 88 of 139 (218428)
06-21-2005 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Brian
06-21-2005 12:46 PM


I think the Bible is quite clear about that. Otherwise, His death and resurrection would be pointless.

I think that quite early became the doctrine. As I'm leaning more to the idea that Paul was referring to spiritual Christ that was sacrificed in a spiritual realm that makes sense.

On the other hand another possibility exists that there was a teacher who experienced Awakening in the Buddhist sense and tried to convey it in a tradition that had no concepts to support it. He somehow ran afoul of the authorities and killed before he could complete his teachings and his followers interpreted it in the terms of Judaism and the mystery religions. In this scenario his suffering, death, and his prescence after death to his followers is a teaching or revelation that the body and death are not the truth of being human.

This interpretation is not something I expect Christians to be interested in but it's a way to see meaning in the death of Jesus and so it wouldn't be pointless. This of course contradicts the New Testaments and I don't see a way to find any but a very slim basis for this in the Bible which probably accounts for at least some of my lack of interest in the Bible except as it has influenced history and society and culture and art.

lfen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Brian, posted 06-21-2005 12:46 PM Brian has not yet responded

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 2758 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 89 of 139 (218429)
06-21-2005 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Phat
06-21-2005 12:40 PM


Re: Necessity of the Resurrection...
It is easier to believe in Gods endless possibilities than it is to believe that our own imaginations are capable of such thought.

I'm not following "such thought". What it the thought that you are referring to?

lfen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Phat, posted 06-21-2005 12:40 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Phat, posted 06-22-2005 4:57 AM lfen has not yet responded

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 4629 days)
Posts: 708
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 90 of 139 (218433)
06-21-2005 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Phat
06-21-2005 12:40 PM


Re: Necessity of the Resurrection...
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:

I don't accept that God is all-powerful. He can't sin for one thing.

Phatboy writes:

Sin means seperation from God. God cannot sin because God cannot be God and be someone else at the same time. This is the essence of monotheism. It is easier to believe in Gods endless possibilities than it is to believe that our own imaginations are capable of such thought.

To some extent I agree.

However, when one looks at the incarnation of Christ, we see God in human form experiencing sin so that he can understand what it is like to be human and therefore have compassion on us.

NIV writes:

Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are - yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.

If God can understand and know sin from heaven's spiritual perspective, it seems kind of pointless for Christ the second person of the holy trinity to come in human form in order to be tempted in every way so that he could sympathize with our weaknesses.

Although I do believe that Christ's incarnation was "without sin" in the sense that he was aware of what sin was (in his mind) and yet he never succumbed to it mentally or physically, I also believe that Christ "became" sin by knowing sin (in his mind) and becoming aware of its temptations so that God could pin-point sin and obliterate it through Christ's life, death and resurrection.

NIV writes:

We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

When I look to the incarnation of Christ, I see the second member of the holy trinity emptying himself, making himself virtually nothing (for a small time) when compared to his former and future glory both before and after his humiliation he experienced as a human being.

I think that Philippians 2:5-8 captures this very well...

NIV writes:

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.

And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death - even death on a cross!


You had said above that "God cannot sin because God cannot be God and be someone else at the same time". However, when we look toward Christ on the cross we hear him speaking these words:

NIV writes:

At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" - which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

I think the answer to this question can be found in Isaiah 59:1-2...

Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

In other words, I don't think the father could see into the heart of the son at this unique period in history because God cannot look upon the face of sin.

If this is correct, I tend to think that Christ was going through utter agony not so much because of the physical abuse that was heeped on him via the crucifixion. I don't even think that the sins that he took unto himself in order to become sin were that bad by comparison of the possibility that Christ was truly separated from his father at this most unique event in human history.

NIV writes:

But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. This is why it says:

"When he ascended on high,
he led captives in his train
and gave gifts to men."

(What does "he ascended" mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)

In other words, in order for Christ to truly know what it was like to be human, he had to be spiritually separated from his father just like all other people were. Unlike anyone else in the entire scope of human history, Christ continued to believe in his father even when totally separated from him and dropped into the depths and despair of the dead.

NIV writes:

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

This is to say, Jesus' faith in the father saved him from the depths of death -- and at that unique moment in history, Christ connected himself spiritually with all other souls past, present and future that would be saved in him, even those that did not know him per se in human life.

NIV writes:

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

This is what I mean by the power of Christ's resurrection. If Christ hadn't become fully human and died on the cross, even to the point of separating himself from his father in heaven, then every Christian's faith in him would be totally useless.

NIV writes:

If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

Although others may disagree, this is my definition of Christ the savior and it works quite well for me.

This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-21-2005 04:32 PM

This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-21-2005 07:51 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Phat, posted 06-21-2005 12:40 PM Phat has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019