How does it hang together?

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Stranger things happen in life every day...

That refers to the Amish community who made a soldier with gun in hand an honorary member of the community. My first response was like my mother used to say of non-Mennonites, "They just don't understand how we live and believe." I knew the assumption is all wrong but I didn't know how to say it so I just didn't.

However, for people who will go to prison or face a firing squad or freeze for lack of clothing before putting on a military uniform, accepting a detective with gun in hand as a member of the community does not happen. (A gun for the purpose of killing animals is okay, but not for self-defense against humans. Whether this is logical is not for me to say at this point.) A play-writer who gets the ethos of culture and religion wrong from the get-go might be ignorant enough to add a sensational bit like that to conclude a movie. I grew up with this kind of news report and other nonsense. The ethos is just plain wrong. The entire plot is unrealistic. It is, however, the kind of stuff authors of novels and movies make up because it is sensational. They know which side their bread is buttered on.

It is, of course, possible that there is an Amish community that would do this. But in this area, female social workers, nurses, and other human service providers who enter the homes, schools, or community in general of the Amish and conservative Mennonites have said they don't use make-up or jewelry and they wear long dresses. This comes out of formal research conducted by a social work professor and myself.

This is in keeping with what my mother said about the physiotherapist who came into my parents' home to help Dad after his stroke. My mother told me how decent she was and that she always wore a decent dress. My mother said she does not think this woman ever wears slacks or jeans. I knew better but decided to let her hold onto the illusion. It made her feel better about this young woman who had become a regular part of their life.

Likewise, I can see a soldier or police officer becoming a beloved member of a family and community. In fact, I know of such a case. My brother and sister-in-law invited a couple to their wedding who was good friends with her family. The man was a police officer. But a person would not become a member in any official sense of the word so long as he held his badge or license or other papers. Maybe I don't understand the term "honorary member." Maybe this is what you meant.

Like other human service providers, I would expect a police officer or soldier who enters the community on the level of family member/friend to leave his gun, uniform, and license out of the picture. He would do all within his power not to be an offense to his hosts. Guns are not a problem for Mennonites and the Amish because guns are a way of acquiring food via hunting. But making a soldier a member of the community in any formal way seems outside the range of possibilities. He might be told upon leaving, "If you ever need something to eat or a place to sleep you will find it here."

Chances are he could drive into any farm lane to say hello and expect to be treated to a dozen fresh eggs, garden produce, home baking, or whatever the family has on hand that he can't get in the city. If this is the kind of thing you mean by an honorary member, then yes, I believe it.

If anyone is interested in reliable material on the conservative Mennonites and Amish I can probably direct you to something.

I will respond to the rest of this and other posts in my next message.

[RubySera_Martin]

I couldn't post anything right after my last post because the site was down. Juantoo contacted me afterward, so I will try again.

Quahom said:

I would say no. Without personal experience of God, there is no conviction, or at best it is a conviction with no substance (the seeds scattered over shallow soil comes to mind).

Thank you for this honesty.

Juantoo, I won't copy all of your post but I read it more than once. It's very helpful to have Christians confess that there is a limit to what can be known, and that there is an element of trust based on what can be known. If all Christians in my life had been so confident in their faith, that they could be so honest about this, my life might have been quite a bit easier. For too many decades have I lived under the threat of condemnation for asking these questions. Finally, I decided to bite the bullet and do what needed to be done to find happiness or peace. Human condemnation no longer mattered. But it helps heal the hurt to hear Christians confess in all honesty that they can't know for absolute fact that God exists.

That wasn't the point. The story was about two people who are very different in everyday life, but when they come together (especially out of need), they find they have much in common in the basics of life. They can find a friendship and comraderie of sorts, or at least basic respect for each other, despite the differences. And the story clearly pointed out that we all need each other, sometimes for the very concept of survival.

Oh, I see. This is something I grew up with. I have a really hard time imagining the whole of life lived inside a homogeous culture and society. Thus I find it really difficult to imagine the need for a movie to impress this kind of thing. But with a bit of a stretch I can do it--sort of.

By way of information, now that I am completely out of my community of origin and living in a fairly large city, there is no homogeneity. There is a fairly large international university in town and we get populations of all skin colours and many different cultures. Sitting next to a Muslim woman with a big shawl on her head (I can never remember what it's called) is not uncommon. Well, they usually choose to sit with each other on the bus and I have never shared a seat with one. But they are a common sight. As are East Asians.

Sharing space with people of very different cultures and languages is everyday life here. So I think I can be excused for not cluing in to the point of your story.

Ruby said: Regarding the deeper meaning of the story about the man on the roof and your points about each having their God-ordained role in life. From the Mennonite perspective, the man on the roof took faith too literally. I think this is what you have been trying to get me to say. This raises your point that the military is part of God's ordained planned. My question is: How do the Mennonites decide at which point to accept help from the government and when to resist it?

Quahom said: The decision is made when government encroaches (or attempts to encroach), on the rights of the citizen (in my case US), that is the Constitutional rights each citizen has been garaunteed. Freedom of religion takes precedence over the desires of government representitives, as does freedom of speech, reasonable expectation of privacy...

Ye, I know that is the law or whatever--maybe it could be called the contract from the government's side. My question can probably be answered only by Mennonites. How much help they accept from the government varies with the various groups. The group I come from has fought very hard for the right to reject some forms of government aid. They were willing to suffer material loss rather than accept a form of help that seemed to them to violate basic biblical mandates. I don't know how they decide at which point to accept or reject government aid. I just went by what I was told to do on that front. After leaving the church, the first thing I did was begin the process to acquire a health card.

Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the New England Anibaptists was specific on this point, no part of the government could enforce their will over the religious beliefs of anyone.

We could argue till kingdom come on this one. The spelling is Anabaptists, rebaptizers.

But in the case of war, military efforts are supporting life, as well (though there is the cost of life to the enemy).

Well, there is a fairly high cost in human life to both sides if the news reports, stories of personal experience, and common sense are half-way reliable.

No amount of kindness will quell the rage of a rabid animal (or person). Some times the mind set of the enemy might as well be considered "rabid".

I know. This applies to present-day situations. As to who the enemy actually is depends a great deal on such things as to where one lives and what religion one believes in.

Peter explains quite well why I am allowed to eat pork. What goes in a man comes out of a man, that is not the problem. The unclean which comes from a man comes from his heart, and out of his mouth.

I think it was Jesus who said that. Anyway, how do you decide to accept the NT permission and not the OT mandate?

How do people know their understanding is the correct understanding?
I ask God, then trust that He will reveal to me what is to be revealed (for me).

Oh, okay. So what the Bible says is not all that important. But if the Bible supports what one wants to do anyway, then so much the better. I see. And since there is such a variety of experiences and walks of life and cultures and religions and philosophies described in the Bible, one can find something to support one's wishes no matter what that happens to be. There is always the posibility to interpret a dream or intuition to make it say what one wants to hear. In that case, it most likely seems like a revelation from God.

Yes, I am bitter and I won't deny it. This mindset is so oppressive to the "enemy" or the person who doesn't fit, that Christianity turns into something Christ never intended. It condemns the suffering and supports the oppressors. Always has; always will. Fortunately, I have recently been exposed to a very different type of Christianity that much more closely follows Christ's teachings and example.

[Quahom1]

Ruby,

The Author of life is a Play write...the Master Play write... who are we to change His "script"?

v/r

Q

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Ruby,

The Author of life is a Play write...the Master Play write... who are we to change His "script"?

v/r

Q

I don't really know what you are talking about. Or why you say this to me specifically. Because I don't remember ever suggesting we change the script God has written for us. I think "God's script" is absolute reality and the best way for any of us to live is to be true to the reality of who we are as individuals without oppressing who others are.

Determining exactly what this reality is is not an easy task and it seems many people never really find it. They just go by what someone said they should do. Or they pick and choose verses in the bible to support what they really want to do without regard to the bigger picture. I don't really know how others operate. I'm trying to learn. Hense my questions and challenges on here as to how people decide which Bible passages to take literally and which ones to take figuratively. For example, I still don't know how you decide which part of the Bible to listen to--the one that says not to eat pork or the one that says it doesn't matter.

I suspect you choose the latter because you like pork chops.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

I don't really know what you are talking about. Or why you say this to me specifically. Because I don't remember ever suggesting we change the script God has written for us. I think "God's script" is absolute reality and the best way for any of us to live is to be true to the reality of who we are as individuals without oppressing who others are.

Determining exactly what this reality is is not an easy task and it seems many people never really find it. They just go by what someone said they should do. Or they pick and choose verses in the bible to support what they really want to do without regard to the bigger picture. I don't really know how others operate. I'm trying to learn. Hense my questions and challenges on here as to how people decide which Bible passages to take literally and which ones to take figuratively. For example, I still don't know how you decide which part of the Bible to listen to--the one that says not to eat pork or the one that says it doesn't matter.

I suspect you choose the latter because you like pork chops.

Because Peter was specifically told by God that pork was not the issue...(read about the dream of PETER, with the bed sheets full of animals lowered down to him from heaven). That is why I can eat pork chops with a clear conscience. Because AS a Christian, I see what Christ was trying to tell us...namely if we follow God with all our hearts and strength and mind, we wouldn't need so many damn laws to try to follow, as written in the OT. We would naturally observe them because of our fastidiousness to the Way Jesus has shewn us.

I'm not the only one here that is "pig headed" it appears...

v/r

Q

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

I don't really know what you are talking about. Or why you say this to me specifically. Because I don't remember ever suggesting we change the script God has written for us. I think "God's script" is absolute reality and the best way for any of us to live is to be true to the reality of who we are as individuals without oppressing who others are.

Determining exactly what this reality is is not an easy task and it seems many people never really find it. They just go by what someone said they should do. Or they pick and choose verses in the bible to support what they really want to do without regard to the bigger picture. I don't really know how others operate. I'm trying to learn. Hense my questions and challenges on here as to how people decide which Bible passages to take literally and which ones to take figuratively. For example, I still don't know how you decide which part of the Bible to listen to--the one that says not to eat pork or the one that says it doesn't matter.

I suspect you choose the latter because you like pork chops.

first and foremost, listen to the teachings of jesus christ. he fulfilled the scriptures and prophecies and is the way, the truth, and the life. what he says is the final say in the gospel.

if you invited me to a party, and i responded in a letter saying i couldnt attend and mailed it to you, then before the letter reached you, i called you on the phone and said i would be coming after all. what do you go by? this is basically what christ did--the laws he authored and gave to his chosen people for a specific purpose , but then he came in person and said this is what it all really means, here i am, so now listen to me.

as far as knowing stories of the bible, like moses, jonah, noah, daniel, john, etc... there is quite a lot to learn from these stories as many of them show the nature of god and what he is trying to convey to us. that takes alot of studying, praying for wisdom from god, faith, to some extent life experiences, and a humble and accepting heart to see the truth, and willingness to accept the error of your ways and reasoning to see the actual truth.

when the truth is given or extracted from the stories of the bible it may be tested as true, and succesfully applied without fail. when cultures or traditions or preconceived notions or arrogance get intertwined with the gospel, many times one cannot see the truth because of all that is personally invested cause some to be unable to seperate the two, thus confusing the true meaning of the word.

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Because Peter was specifically told by God that pork was not the issue...(read about the dream of PETER, with the bed sheets full of animals lowered down to him from heaven). That is why I can eat pork chops with a clear conscience. Because AS a Christian, I see what Christ was trying to tell us...namely if we follow God with all our hearts and strength and mind, we wouldn't need so many damn laws to try to follow, as written in the OT. We would naturally observe them because of our fastidiousness to the Way Jesus has shewn us.

That answers my question. Thank you.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, RubySera!

Juantoo, I won't copy all of your post but I read it more than once. It's very helpful to have Christians confess that there is a limit to what can be known, and that there is an element of trust based on what can be known. If all Christians in my life had been so confident in their faith, that they could be so honest about this, my life might have been quite a bit easier. For too many decades have I lived under the threat of condemnation for asking these questions. Finally, I decided to bite the bullet and do what needed to be done to find happiness or peace. Human condemnation no longer mattered. But it helps heal the hurt to hear Christians confess in all honesty that they can't know for absolute fact that God exists.

I feel honored and humbled by your comments. I am truly sorry to hear of the condemnation you have experienced. I see similar often, and I feel it is not a very Christian attitude. I tried living up to others expectations for a long time in my life, and always felt I came up short. One day it hit me, to live my life for me. The only entity I need concern myself with pleasing is my Heavenly Father. I live my life the best I know how. If that is acceptable to others, great! If not, oh well, I'm not going to worry about it. I do not have to please other people to get to heaven.

I guess on one hand what you say is true, we cannot know with absolute certainty that G-d exists, any more than we can know what thoughts are made of. Yet, we do have some circumstantial evidences. There are archeological evidences of places and names and even stories found in the Bible. These are the "proven" evidences. Then there is experiential evidence, usually personal in nature, our "relative truths." Those prescient dreams that come true, those "good" things that happen in our lives seemingly effortlessly or by chance. Those prayers that are answered "in mysterious ways." These things point to what we intuit, what we sense, what we seek innately. I call this we seek "G-d," the Creator of reality, the "IS." Perhaps others view this somewhat differently, but it seems we all seek what we innately intuit, since prehistoric times. By faith, I accept G-d is real. Yes, I cannot prove this specifically. In that sense, I cannot "prove" G-d exists. But there is enough evidence in my life and in my faith-walk to believe He does exist.

Just like I cannot explain to you what my thoughts are composed of, I know I think, therefore thoughts do exist, at least for me. Because I cannot prove thoughts exist, perhaps they may not seem proven to someone else. I can accept that possibility, but I will proceed with what evidences point to and what has manifested in my life, and proceed the best I know how with my understanding. My way may not be the only way, my way may not be the best way, but it is the way I understand, and it is the way I will travel to the best of my ability unless and until spirit directs me otherwise. A great deal of this walk is by trust and faith. If there were no evidence in my life whatsoever, then my trust and faith would be blind.

I'm not a big proponent of blind faith. If G-d is real, then He won't mind a few questions. Just be ready when the answers come.

[earl]

Hey Juantoo- Descarte's "I think, therefore I am"....hmm...you know with my inclinations I look for that intersection of the Buddhist's attempts to see through the thoughts and even the "I" to the "Am" and the mystic theists' attempt to find the God of "I AM." Have a good one, earl

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by earl

Hey Juantoo- Descarte's "I think, therefore I am"....hmm...you know with my inclinations I look for that intersection of the Buddhist's attempts to see through the thoughts and even the "I" to the "Am" and the mystic theists' attempt to find the God of "I AM." Have a good one, earl

Doesn't everybody?

If not, what or who do they think they are worshipping or obedying or reading about or believing in?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Earl!

Originally Posted by earl

Hey Juantoo- Descarte's "I think, therefore I am"....hmm...you know with my inclinations I look for that intersection of the Buddhist's attempts to see through the thoughts and even the "I" to the "Am" and the mystic theists' attempt to find the God of "I AM." Have a good one, earl

Hmmm, hadn't thought about that one. Synchronicity? Considering my example was purely random, "off the top of my head?"

[inhumility]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

Thus, the real question of this thread is: How do Christians know which scriptures to go by when there are conflicting passages?

I am not a Christian yet I feel I should reflect on the above, as my response, in my opinion, is not against Christianity, otherwise just ignore my reflection.

The passage which is most in conformity with the core teachings of Jesus, quoted in Jesus' own words should be adopted and preferred over the other one.

Thanks

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by inhumility

I am not a Christian yet I feel I should reflect on the above, as my response, in my opinion, is not against Christianity, otherwise just ignore my reflection.

The passage which is most in conformity with the core teachings of Jesus, quoted in Jesus' own words should be adopted and preferred over the other one.

Thanks

Theoretically, I think this is what Christians do. But Christians tend to disagree widely on what the core teachings of Jesus are. And for the finer details there is practically no agreement across the religion. This accounts in part for the huge numbers of splinters in Christianity. It can also be extremely confusing for one coming in from the outside or for one who was born into the religion and is serious about finding the Truth. This is basically what gave rise to my question in the first place.

So many Chrisitans profess to base their beliefs directly on the Bible but one group builds on one verse and another builds on another verse. And these verses conflict. Yet it is all supposed to be God's Word. If we can ever agree on what the core teachings of Jesus are we might see a major coming-together of Christian sects. I don't expect to see this in my lifetime, though strange things and miracles do happen occassionally.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

Theoretically, I think this is what Christians do. But Christians tend to disagree widely on what the core teachings of Jesus are. And for the finer details there is practically no agreement across the religion. This accounts in part for the huge numbers of splinters in Christianity. It can also be extremely confusing for one coming in from the outside or for one who was born into the religion and is serious about finding the Truth. This is basically what gave rise to my question in the first place.

So many Chrisitans profess to base their beliefs directly on the Bible but one group builds on one verse and another builds on another verse. And these verses conflict. Yet it is all supposed to be God's Word. If we can ever agree on what the core teachings of Jesus are we might see a major coming-together of Christian sects. I don't expect to see this in my lifetime, though strange things and miracles do happen occassionally.

I think my response to this issue would be every much like what I posted in "The Path" thread.

Not all Christian groups are exclusivist, some may well be merely "special interest groups" seeking a specific experience or "flavour" of Christianity. Nevertheless, many of them are clearly divisive.

I believe all these schisms, divisions and factions are really caused by one critical factor: emphasis on teachings rather than the personality of Jesus and that of his apostles. My view is that doctrine, liturgy, tenets, rules, protocols and institutions will inevitably divide Christianity, that it's the personality of Christ that truly unites. When people disagree on teachings they lose the common ground on which they stand. They may both share the concept of Christ, but the teachings are seen as more important than Christ. They forget that the teachings themselves come from Christ, not the other way round. If we focus on Christ and his personality as the primary concept, we can remain united even if we disagree. The disagreements are merely the result of personal differences.

It's because Jesus is a person; the teachings are not. The teachings don't have a life of their own. They are derived from Jesus' personality. Jesus' personality is something we can relate to, but we can't relate that well to teachings alone. That would be particularly true if the same teachings come up in other faiths. Jesus' teachings were Jesus expressing himself. They are unique to Jesus. The teachings of Paul, Peter, James and John were different to those of Jesus because they were Paul, Peter, James and John expressing themselves. Teachings are an expression of personal truth.

Truth is personal. Truth must be compatible with the person that possesses and believes in it. Everybody will have his own personal truths.

That doesn't mean Paul, Peter, James and John started their own religions. Jesus was the pilot flame that ignited the other flames. Paul, Peter, James and John's personal truths were really Jesus' personal truths expressed differently. They inherited Jesus' personal truths. Their epistles were an extension of what Jesus taught while he was on earth.

I would think of Jesus as much like an "ancestor." Many cultures have the practice where people worship and honour their ancestors. The Old Testament, actually, has a lot of references to respecting one's ancestors. Jesus would be an "ancestor" in the sense that we inherit his personal truths. Jesus' apostles are his immediate descendents and inherit personal truths directly from him. Their followers inherited personal truths from the apostles. In other words, Paul, Peter, James and John can be seen to be our ancestors too.

The medieval practice of devotion to the saints may well have been based on this idea. It was probably a way of honouring our ancestors in the Christian faith. It was maybe a "devotion to one's ancestors" in the faith. That's because an ancestor is a role model to be emulated. These people were perhaps reminding themselves of the closest emulator to their Christ/Messiah. Their deceased "ancestors" were seen to be people led by an indwelt Messiah, living inside them and lighting their way.

There is the very obvious possibility that this could be seen as idolatry. On the other hand, "devotion to the saints" could also be a way of recognising and acknowledging someone else's personal truths. I no longer believe that "Christian Truth" is found solely in the Bible; it can be found in people as well. The Bible is really a Journal that tells us how to look for the personal truths within us, by demonstrating how others found personal truth within themselves in the past. Personal truths can also be shared with other people. We can then be mentors to each other and co-ancestors and co-descendents of each other's teachings. We're all in this together.

The central concept of Christianity, I guess, is Christ, the Messiah. This is what I believe the Christian faith is really about. The teachings, the liturgy, the doctrine, the rules, regulations, guidelines, famous messages and sayings are all secondary to Jesus' personality. Without the latter we wouldn't have the former. It's not the teachings that define Jesus' character, but the character itself that produces the teachings. I don't think it would make sense to follow the teachings themselves without appreciating the personality that produced them as that wouldn't be very personal. It may even be seen as "blind faith." It doesn't result in a better understanding of Christianity. I reckon it would actually cripple the faith. It may mean, therefore, that the personality is more important than the teachings.

This might seem like a rather bizarre way of viewing Christianity, but it may, perhaps work. It's one possible approach among the many guinea pig experiments that Christianity has tried.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

I think my response to this issue would be every much like what I posted in "The Path" thread.

Not all Christian groups are exclusivist, some may well be merely "special interest groups" seeking a specific experience or "flavour" of Christianity. Nevertheless, many of them are clearly divisive.

I believe all these schisms, divisions and factions are really caused by one critical factor: emphasis on teachings rather than the personality of Jesus and that of his apostles. My view is that doctrine, liturgy, tenets, rules, protocols and institutions will inevitably divide Christianity, that it's the personality of Christ that truly unites. When people disagree on teachings they lose the common ground on which they stand. They may both share the concept of Christ, but the teachings are seen as more important than Christ. They forget that the teachings themselves come from Christ, not the other way round. If we focus on Christ and his personality as the primary concept, we can remain united even if we disagree. The disagreements are merely the result of personal differences.

It's because Jesus is a person; the teachings are not. The teachings don't have a life of their own. They are derived from Jesus' personality. Jesus' personality is something we can relate to, but we can't relate that well to teachings alone. That would be particularly true if the same teachings come up in other faiths. Jesus' teachings were Jesus expressing himself. They are unique to Jesus. The teachings of Paul, Peter, James and John were different to those of Jesus because they were Paul, Peter, James and John expressing themselves. Teachings are an expression of personal truth.

Truth is personal. Truth must be compatible with the person that possesses and believes in it. Everybody will have his own personal truths.

That doesn't mean Paul, Peter, James and John started their own religions. Jesus was the pilot flame that ignited the other flames. Paul, Peter, James and John's personal truths were really Jesus' personal truths expressed differently. They inherited Jesus' personal truths. Their epistles were an extension of what Jesus taught while he was on earth.

I would think of Jesus as much like an "ancestor." Many cultures have the practice where people worship and honour their ancestors. The Old Testament, actually, has a lot of references to respecting one's ancestors. Jesus would be an "ancestor" in the sense that we inherit his personal truths. Jesus' apostles are his immediate descendents and inherit personal truths directly from him. Their followers inherited personal truths from the apostles. In other words, Paul, Peter, James and John can be seen to be our ancestors too.

The medieval practice of devotion to the saints may well have been based on this idea. It was probably a way of honouring our ancestors in the Christian faith. It was maybe a "devotion to one's ancestors" in the faith. That's because an ancestor is a role model to be emulated. These people were perhaps reminding themselves of the closest emulator to their Christ/Messiah. Their deceased "ancestors" were seen to be people led by an indwelt Messiah, living inside them and lighting their way.

There is the very obvious possibility that this could be seen as idolatry. On the other hand, "devotion to the saints" could also be a way of recognising and acknowledging someone else's personal truths. I no longer believe that "Christian Truth" is found solely in the Bible; it can be found in people as well. The Bible is really a Journal that tells us how to look for the personal truths within us, by demonstrating how others found personal truth within themselves in the past. Personal truths can also be shared with other people. We can then be mentors to each other and co-ancestors and co-descendents of each other's teachings. We're all in this together.

The central concept of Christianity, I guess, is Christ, the Messiah. This is what I believe the Christian faith is really about. The teachings, the liturgy, the doctrine, the rules, regulations, guidelines, famous messages and sayings are all secondary to Jesus' personality. Without the latter we wouldn't have the former. It's not the teachings that define Jesus' character, but the character itself that produces the teachings. I don't think it would make sense to follow the teachings themselves without appreciating the personality that produced them as that wouldn't be very personal. It may even be seen as "blind faith." It doesn't result in a better understanding of Christianity. I reckon it would actually cripple the faith. It may mean, therefore, that the personality is more important than the teachings.

This might seem like a rather bizarre way of viewing Christianity, but it may, perhaps work. It's one possible approach among the many guinea pig experiments that Christianity has tried.

Hence Jesus the Christ IS alive and well...? I mean, one can't follow the personality of a "dead man" now can one?

v/r

Q