U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-11-2013, 12:21 PM
 
11,802 posts, read 7,669,730 times
Reputation: 2804

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bartstarr1960 View Post
To say the RCC is older than the NT denies it is Christian and is complete heresy!
The church was founded by Jesus before he had ascended to heaven. Therefore the Gospels had not yet being written. There is no heresy in here.

Furthermore, before the NT there was sacred oral Tradition spread by the fathers of the church.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-11-2013, 11:38 PM
 
284 posts, read 269,890 times
Reputation: 49
Bartstarr 1960 :


While I do not believe the organization that became the Roman Catholic Church was the same as the original Church of Jesus Christ that first existed in Rome; I do believe the concept underlying Julian658s claim is correct in a sense.

The various Christian congregations such as Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, etc, existed in a much earlier period than the Epistles. In fact, many epistles were written specifically too pre-existing and functioning congregations. For example, Epistle to the Romans, Epistle to the Galatians, Epistle to the Phillipians, etc, etc. Thus, one can also claim that many of the earliest Christian churches and movements existed BEFORE any Gospel had been written, copied and spread to any significant degree.

Good luck in your spiritual Journey Bartstarr1960

Julian658
, I am glad to find another principle that you and I can agree on. I might remind you that "the Church Fathers" are a group that are from a different era than, say, "the Apostolic Fathers". While "the apostolic Fathers" may have actually known a living apostle, the "church fathers" were from a later age of theologians when the "gospel" they spread had evolved and was not, in many cases, the same traditions as the earliest Christian traditions. Good journey Julian.


Clear
φινεφυφυω
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2013, 12:10 AM
 
11,802 posts, read 7,669,730 times
Reputation: 2804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clear lens View Post
Bartstarr 1960 :


While I do not believe the organization that became the Roman Catholic Church was the same as the original Church of Jesus Christ that first existed in Rome; I do believe the concept underlying Julian658s claim is correct in a sense.

The various Christian congregations such as Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, etc, existed in a much earlier period than the Epistles. In fact, many epistles were written specifically too pre-existing and functioning congregations. For example, Epistle to the Romans, Epistle to the Galatians, Epistle to the Phillipians, etc, etc. Thus, one can also claim that many of the earliest Christian churches and movements existed BEFORE any Gospel had been written, copied and spread to any significant degree.

Good luck in your spiritual Journey Bartstarr1960

Julian658
, I am glad to find another principle that you and I can agree on. I might remind you that "the Church Fathers" are a group that are from a different era than, say, "the Apostolic Fathers". While "the apostolic Fathers" may have actually known a living apostle, the "church fathers" were from a later age of theologians when the "gospel" they spread had evolved and was not, in many cases, the same traditions as the earliest Christian traditions. Good journey Julian.


Clear
φινεφυφυω
AS I said early Christianity was Jewish in nature. The NT was not yet written and anything that was written later only existed in handwritten manuscripts. The print press was invented in 1450, therefore, the NT was not really available as it is today. Whatever Christianity developed had to do with the word of mouth of the apostles.

The Protestants base everything on the NT, but the NT based Christianity did not really exist. And if the apostles or Jesus quoted scripture it was obviously the OT. If you read the writings of (as you said) the early church fathers they continue to quote the OT , but also write new letters regarding Jesus and Christianity. We all know that only books from the apostolic age were considered inspired or canonical.

What the early Christians did was phenomenal and unprecedented. Emperor Constantine apparent sincere conversion to Christianity in 307 was huge. According to historians 90% of the Roman Empire converted over the next 100 years.

The very first thing Constantine did was to return land to the church and to build the original Saint Peters over the so-called tomb of Peter. According to Eusebius one of the very early historians Peter died in Rome.

Regarding Satan:

From a purely metaphysical point of view Satan cannot exist because it diminishes God. However, evil exists and Satan is merely the symbol of Satan. Otherwise, the theology does not change a whole lot. All we need to do when reading the Bible is assume that the mention of Satan is allegorical. Otherwise, the message is the same. Lastly, using Satan as an excuse for doing evil acts creates the concept of Satan made me do it and that does not make sense.

To believe in Satan and demons is much more wacky than to pray to saints which is basically a tradition that hurts no one.

CIAO
God Bless
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2013, 03:29 AM
 
400 posts, read 506,617 times
Reputation: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clear lens View Post
While I do not believe the organization that became the Roman Catholic Church was the same as the original Church of Jesus Christ that first existed in Rome; I do believe the concept underlying Julian658s claim is correct in a sense. The various Christian congregations such as Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, etc, existed in a much earlier period than the Epistles. In fact, many epistles were written specifically too pre-existing and functioning congregations. For example, Epistle to the Romans, Epistle to the Galatians, Epistle to the Phillipians, etc, etc. Thus, one can also claim that many of the earliest Christian churches and movements existed BEFORE any Gospel had been written, copied and spread to any significant degree.
Clear lens I appreciate your thoughtfulness and thinking you are setting me straight. Honestly, I thought along the same tract you proposed, opposite the one I presented which was intended to ascertain Julian658's intent and clarification since much of what he posts goes against RCC teaching, to put it mildly.
To present this sequentially I need to provide more background. The quote below was Julian658's partial response to my RCC documentation regarding Satan. Plus, there was more before this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658 View Post
I am willing to say that the RCC is also a very old institution (older than the NT) with primitive views of evil. Or perhaps they need to tow the line.
The RCC says their church was founded in 33 CE and justify that with Matthew 16:16-19 or thereabouts. The RCC says the Gospel of Mark was written in Rome and transcribed directly from Peter's own words and teachings before his martyrdom in 64 AD. The period of time from 33 CE to 64 AD hardly constitutes a very old institution, as Julian658 asserts. Additionally, the RCC says the Gospel of Mark was being copied and disseminated in Rome before 64 AD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658 View Post
Furthermore, before the NT there was sacred oral Tradition spread by the fathers of the church.
I find this to be a common thread in many of your posts, but you never expound on who these fathers are. I find what, for lack of a better word, tension within the RCC itself regarding who the fathers of the church are. I am certain you will choose the former over the latter as it suits your interests in this thread. In some documents the RCC says all the original Apostles are RCC founding fathers. In other documents they say Clement of Rome is the first father of the church. This ties into the very old institution you frequently mention. Even if all the original apostles are the founding fathers of the RCC it does make the time period for RCC sacred oral tradition to the Gospel of Mark that long a time period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658 View Post
Regarding Satan:From a purely metaphysical point of view Satan cannot exist because it diminishes God. However, evil exists and Satan is merely the symbol
of Satan. Otherwise, the theology does not change a whole lot. All we need to do when reading the Bible is assume that the mention of Satan is allegorical. Otherwise, the message is the same. Lastly, using Satan as an excuse for doing evil acts creates the concept of Satan made me do it and that does not make sense. To believe in Satan and demons is much more wacky than to pray to saints which is basically a tradition that hurts no one.
Julian, you've done a complete 360 on the topic of Satan and frankly I don't want to hear your interpretations which directly contradict your church teachings as I've pointed out to you. You can continue to make it up as you go calling Father Gino Concetti a wacko, saying Satan is alleghorical, etc., ad nauseam.

When I got on here tonight I was actually going to extend an olive branch and ask if you watched the Boston College-Clemson football game or the Red Sox game, but after reading your posts I've decided to give you a wide berth and steer clear of your vitriolic posts.

Last edited by bartstarr1960; 10-13-2013 at 03:42 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2013, 09:28 AM
 
11,802 posts, read 7,669,730 times
Reputation: 2804
Quote:
Originally Posted by bartstarr1960 View Post
Clear lens I appreciate your thoughtfulness and thinking you are setting me straight. Honestly, I thought along the same tract you proposed, opposite the one I presented which was intended to ascertain Julian658's intent and clarification since much of what he posts goes against RCC teaching, to put it mildly.
One needs to understand the RCC of the past which was ran by men of the era. Satan was needed to preach Christianity, there was no other way to spread Christianity. IN other words, Satan was nothing but a preaching tool to gain converts to set up the classical "evil versus good" situation which has always worked throughout the ages. Why do you think Star Wars was written with the concept of the good and dark side of the force? You may think I am kidding, but it makes a lot of sense to present the topic of Christianity "with evil and good" to folks of that era.

Christianity was different from the competing Pagan religions in that it preached a peaceful message, humility, honesty, compassion, and of course salvation. The message was so powerful that Constantine converted to Christianity even though it made no sense for the Roman Empire to be Christian. Ands as I said before, within less than a 100 years most of the empire converted.

As I have mentioned before many times: If you discussed these issues with a priest "off the record" you will get a better sense of reality. but officially they must tow the line of the church. In fact, this is the dilemma of Pope Francis who is a Jesuit.


Quote:
The RCC says their church was founded in 33 CE and justify that with Matthew 16:16-19 or thereabouts. The RCC says the Gospel of Mark was written in Rome and transcribed directly from Peter's own words and teachings before his martyrdom in 64 AD. The period of time from 33 CE to 64 AD hardly constitutes a very old institution, as Julian658 asserts. Additionally, the RCC says the Gospel of Mark was being copied and disseminated in Rome before 64 AD.
All early tradition connects the Second Gospel with two names, those of St. Mark and St. Peter, Mark being held to have written what Peter had preached. I cannot overstate anymore that the writing of the NT was to summarize the words spoken by the Apostles. We will never know for sure specific authors and dates of completion, but that is moot as long as there is a solid message of Christianity. As I said before, we celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25. It is not really important if this date is incorrect.


Quote:
I find this to be a common thread in many of your posts, but you never expound on who these fathers are. I find what, for lack of a better word, tension within the RCC itself regarding who the fathers of the church are. I am certain you will choose the former over the latter as it suits your interests in this thread. In some documents the RCC says all the original Apostles are RCC founding fathers. In other documents they say Clement of Rome is the first father of the church. This ties into the very old institution you frequently mention. Even if all the original apostles are the founding fathers of the RCC it does make the time period for RCC sacred oral tradition to the Gospel of Mark that long a time period.
The church is founded by Jesus, but obviously not yet Roman when Jesus entrusted Peter as the leader. It was the RCC the one that decided that books from the Apostolic era were inspired and canonical. The writings of second generation fathers were not classified as inspired. However, if you read them many contain a very powerful message. I am still puzzled as to why the Didache was not included.

Historian say that Mark are the words preached by peter and that is Oral Tradition.

Secondly, in Catholicism, the church is as valid as the NT because the church is guided by Jesus. This is why Protestants have to be Sola Scriptura; they were not there to receive the keys from Jesus.

Quote:
Julian, you've done a complete 360 on the topic of Satan and frankly I don't want to hear your interpretations which directly contradict your church teachings as I've pointed out to you. You can continue to make it up as you go calling Father Gino Concetti a wacko, saying Satan is alleghorical, etc., ad nauseam.
I apologize if i seem to be inconsistent. But, I will say it again: Satan has to be allegorical and the symbol of evil within us. There is really no other way unless we switch our brains to medieval or biblical mode. Many passages in the Bible are based on mythology. That in itself is not a crime. And as I said above a very effective tool for communication.


Quote:
When I got on here tonight I was actually going to extend an olive branch and ask if you watched the Boston College-Clemson football game or the Red Sox game, but after reading your posts I've decided to give you a wide berth and steer clear of your vitriolic posts.
I am a Red Sox fan. The game last night was frustrating, but at the same time it was quite a ball game. I might have pinch hit Gomes for Bogart at the end because Gomes has a established history for dramatic heroics pinch hitting.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2013, 01:02 PM
 
400 posts, read 506,617 times
Reputation: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658 View Post
One needs to understand the RCC of the past which was ran by men of the era. Satan was needed to preach Christianity, there was no other way to spread Christianity. IN other words, Satan was nothing but a preaching tool to gain converts to set up the classical "evil versus good" situation which has always worked throughout the ages. Why do you think Star Wars was written with the concept of the good and dark side of the force? You may think I am kidding, but it makes a lot of sense to present the topic of Christianity "with evil and good" to folks of that era.

Christianity was different from the competing Pagan religions in that it preached a peaceful message, humility, honesty, compassion, and of course salvation. The message was so powerful that Constantine converted to Christianity even though it made no sense for the Roman Empire to be Christian. Ands as I said before, within less than a 100 years most of the empire converted.

As I have mentioned before many times: If you discussed these issues with a priest "off the record" you will get a better sense of reality. but officially they must tow the line of the church. In fact, this is the dilemma of Pope Francis who is a Jesuit.




All early tradition connects the Second Gospel with two names, those of St. Mark and St. Peter, Mark being held to have written what Peter had preached. I cannot overstate anymore that the writing of the NT was to summarize the words spoken by the Apostles. We will never know for sure specific authors and dates of completion, but that is moot as long as there is a solid message of Christianity. As I said before, we celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25. It is not really important if this date is incorrect.




The church is founded by Jesus, but obviously not yet Roman when Jesus entrusted Peter as the leader. It was the RCC the one that decided that books from the Apostolic era were inspired and canonical. The writings of second generation fathers were not classified as inspired. However, if you read them many contain a very powerful message. I am still puzzled as to why the Didache was not included.

Historian say that Mark are the words preached by peter and that is Oral Tradition.

Secondly, in Catholicism, the church is as valid as the NT because the church is guided by Jesus. This is why Protestants have to be Sola Scriptura; they were not there to receive the keys from Jesus.



I apologize if i seem to be inconsistent. But, I will say it again: Satan has to be allegorical and the symbol of evil within us. There is really no other way unless we switch our brains to medieval or biblical mode. Many passages in the Bible are based on mythology. That in itself is not a crime. And as I said above a very effective tool for communication.




I am a Red Sox fan. The game last night was frustrating, but at the same time it was quite a ball game. I might have pinch hit Gomes for Bogart at the end because Gomes has a established history for dramatic heroics pinch hitting.
You are not only inconsistent, but in complete contradiction to both the OT and NT. Regarding Constantine's conversion, you need to bone up on your history. Unfortunately, many priests today are not towing the line. Finally, Sola Scriptura is both a progression, an advancement if you will, and at the same time a return or reinstatement to true Christianity.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2013, 09:37 PM
 
11,802 posts, read 7,669,730 times
Reputation: 2804
Quote:
Originally Posted by bartstarr1960 View Post
You are not only inconsistent, but in complete contradiction to both the OT and NT. Regarding Constantine's conversion, you need to bone up on your history. Unfortunately, many priests today are not towing the line. Finally, Sola Scriptura is both a progression, an advancement if you will, and at the same time a return or reinstatement to true Christianity.
There was no clear political advantage to the conversion of Constantine. He may have converted because his mother taught him about Jesus.

Christianity was quite different than the pagan religions which exalted power, riches, and valor in battle. Christianity emphasized the opposite including humility and non violence. Nevertheless, Christianity had such a powerful message that it spread to most of the Roman Empire. And it is likely that Christianity contributed to the fall of the Western Roman Empire around 476. So there was no political advantage for Constantine to convert to Christianity.

More importantly Constantine immediately provided funds to the Catholic Church to build Saint Peter's Basilica over the tomb of Peter. This is clear indication that there was a Catholic Church before Constantine. Otherwise why build a basilica with all the Catholic trappings over the tomb of Peter?

You are more than welcome to provide the historical facts regarding the conversion of Constantine and the construction of Saint Peter's Basilica.

Your comment regarding a reinstatement of the true Christianity with Sola Scriptura is incredibly inaccurate and you must admonish your minister for providing you false information about the history of Catholicism. There was no Sola Scriptura during those days. In fact, NT copies were scarce and the official canon had not been approved.

It was Constantine that started the ball rolling regarding the Bible. Ever heard of the The Fifty Bibles commissioned in 331 by Constantine. These were handwritten in Greek and a huge task. Remember, there was no printing press. This likely led to the Codex Vaticanus one of the remaining Bibles of that era written in Greek. This probably encouraged the church to finalize the NT for ALL Christians in the world, including you.

There were no Protestants or Sola Scriptura advocates in that era. So there was no way to reinstate Sola Scriptura.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2013, 12:18 PM
 
284 posts, read 269,890 times
Reputation: 49
Bartstarr1960 :

Hi Bartstarr1960 - Thanks for the added information and clarification, I am glad that we agree that churches (congregations) in the early Jesus movement existed before any NT canon existed (though "canonical" texts obviously quote from and refer to earlier, non-canonical texts and extrabiblical histories).


1) Regarding the point that the organization that evolved into the Roman Catholic Church in later centuries was no longer the same organization as the original Roman congregation :

I do not know when the evolving political / economic / military / religious organization that became known as "The Roman Catholic Church" can be said to have “started” since the history of the evolution from the original Christianity marked by apostolic administration and prophetic revelation that became a different Christianity marked by administrations by magistrates mimicking the earlier priesthood and theology created by theologians (rather than revelation) involved an “evolution” over time rather than a sudden "ex-nihilo" “origin”.

I do agree that that the Roman “Catholic Church” movement in it's earliest recognizable organized formation, differed from the original Christian movement in it's earliest recognizable form in many important ways.



2) Regarding the point that Julian658 is not teaching official Catholic Doctrine.

I am not catholic and have little interest in nor knowledge of Christian schizms beyond the first few centuries c.e. but I agree that Julian658 is not teaching official Catholic Doctrine as far as I can tell since popes have confirmed the doctrine of Satans' existence and have specifically warned NOT to teach the theory of the mere allegory concerning the devil, which Julian658 describes believing in. I believe that Julian658's theory that “…Satan cannot exist because it diminishes God…” and that “…All we need to do when reading the Bible is assume that the mention of Satan is allegorical…” neither represents official Catholic doctrine nor does it represent authentic early judeo-Christian tradition and thus his theory on Satan can be categorized as his personal theory. I also agree that his history is quite faulty.


3) The loss of concrete and detailed historical knowledge and tradition concerning Satan's origin, his motives, his fall, etc. in most modern christian movements

Having been critical of Julian658's lack of context, my own historical interest is in peri-c.e. era judao-christian era history and texts and I believe that neither catholics nor protestants, in the main, have retained the early traditions regarding the Satan’s origin and the controversy in heaven (“the war in heaven”) that resulted in Lucifers “fall” and expulsion from heaven. Most non-historian Christians, whether Catholic or Protestant have little concept of pre-Adamic origins for Lucifer; circumstances surrounding his Fall from high position among the angels; nor concerning Lucifers motives for rebellion either in heaven or for his actions in the Garden against adam and his continuing ire against God and those who attempt to seek to find God and to follow his plan.

The loss of this historical context is important since Lucifer’s ongoing enmity and motives for being an enemy to God; his motives for engineering the “fall of Adam” and his continuing recalcitrance toward God are given concrete models of understanding in these early Judeo-Christian traditions which modern christian traditions lack almost entirely. They have vague ideas that Lucifer was once in heaven. For some reason, he "fell". They often assume the reason was for wanting to "be God" or a similar reason. Other than a couple of other discrete points of believe, that about sums up the entire extent of modern Christianities "knowledge" of Lucifer whereas the original judeo-christian textual traditions included a great amount of detail and structure to their beliefs about Lucifer, his fall, his motives, and his aims.

The Catholic claim to having “early traditions” did not prevent their loss of many of these important early base traditions, nor can the protestant claim to “sola scriptura” help protestants regain such early knowledge in any detailed and contextually correct form. Thus neither current Catholic "traditions" nor protestant "sola scriptura" have mechanisms that can repair the contextual losses of such early beliefs without undergoing large structural changes to their belief systems.


In any case I wish you the very best of luck on your spiritual journey BartStarr1960.

Clear
φυτζνεφιω
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2013, 02:35 PM
 
284 posts, read 269,890 times
Reputation: 49
Bartstarr1960 :


As an example of loss of clarity and detail in actual knowledge and tradition concerning Lucifer and as an example of modern theorizing and how much insight such theorizing can give us, perhaps you may want to check out this thread.

The Manner in which Satan Conducts his Affairs in Human History



In any case Bartstarr1960, I wish you good luck in coming to your own set of convictions and beliefs in this life.

Clear
fueisieiω
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2013, 07:11 PM
 
11,802 posts, read 7,669,730 times
Reputation: 2804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clear lens View Post
I do agree that that the Roman “Catholic Church” movement in it's earliest recognizable organized formation, differed from the original Christian movement in it's earliest recognizable form in many important ways.
Sure, there was an evolution and the development of structure to preserve the teachings of Jesus. I think this was inevitable, but ultimately it becomes part of Christianity. No different than Protestantism being part of Christianity.

Quote:
2) Regarding the point that Julian658 is not teaching official Catholic Doctrine.

I am not catholic and have little interest in nor knowledge of Christian schizms beyond the first few centuries c.e. but I agree that Julian658 is not teaching official Catholic Doctrine as far as I can tell since popes have confirmed the doctrine of Satans' existence and have specifically warned NOT to teach the theory of the mere allegory concerning the devil, which Julian658 describes believing in. I believe that Julian658's theory that “…Satan cannot exist because it diminishes God…” and that “…All we need to do when reading the Bible is assume that the mention of Satan is allegorical…” neither represents official Catholic doctrine nor does it represent authentic early judeo-Christian tradition and thus his theory on Satan can be categorized as his personal theory. I also agree that his history is quite faulty.

You seem to be a student of Christianity and thankfully your knowledge goes beyond citing the Bible to prove the Bible (AKA circular logic). At the onset in the Adam and Eve allegory we are presented with the concept of evil and the struggle begins.

As long as MAN has known God there was a need to explain EVIL. If God created everything then God also created evil and obviously that presented a problem. How could God create evil?

How come God does nothing to prevent evil?

Therefore, the scripture writers came up with the concept of the fallen angel and that took care of evil. They develop an adversary; a force that represents evil. In this instance God is not in charge of evil. In essence they created a semi-God with less powers than God Satan would be in charge of evil and that made God ALL good.

However, we are still left with the concept that bothers me to the marrow: If God is EVERYTHING. if GOd is 100% GOOD, if God is omnipotent how can he coexist with Satan? The mere presence of Satan in the domain of God makes God less than perfect. This is very obvious from a metaphysical point of view.

Is there a solution to this dilemma?

I suggest you immersed yourself and read St. Augustine of Hippo, one of the most famous intellectuals and philosophers in Christianity. As far back as the 4th century Augustine had issues with good and evil. And I agree with his conclusions! And I proudly say to you I reached these conclusions without studying St Augustine. My discovery of his writings merely corroborated by thought process.

Evil is easily explained by the creation. We have to assume that God created everything including MAN. It turns out that the creation of MAN is perfect. MAN is perfect because MAN has free will. Any creation where MAN does not have free will is imperfect. If MAN did not have free will then MAN would be a computer program or MAN would be sinless like Jesus.

So where does evil come from? Evil is the creation of MAN. And MAN is evil because MAN has free will and if free will is truly free will then MAN will have the freedom to create evil.

So as you already learned: Lets go back to the Bible and assume that every time Satan is mentioned it is an allegory. great, the system works, the message is the same and we have the added bonus of having an explanation of evil that is in agreement with the 21st century and most importantly preserves God as ALL good and ALL powerful.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top