 |
| 
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 7/9/2002 6:11 PM (GMT -6) |   | I wondered if any of you might be interested in a thread about Open Theology as a Movement. Specifically, I read this article www.sbts.edu/resources/ssmag/2001/Winter01.pdf about the ‘struggle for the soul of evangelicalism’ from a professor at a Baptist seminary, Russell Moore. His central thesis is that the fight against Open Theology and other heresies must occur in local churches, primarily, rather than in seminaries or books that lay people will never read.
For those that aren’t inclined to read the article, I’ll summarize some major points for your response:
--Moore does the usual hatchet job on Openness. More importantly, his critique reveals that he (and his seminary and denomination) sees Openness as part of a series of serious theological errors evolved from (or leading to) liberalism. These include: denying the bible’s inerrancy and inclusivism regarding salvation. Their conservative opponents often paint subaltern or unorthodox ideologies with the same brush. Do you think Openness proponents ought to come out more strongly and repeated (yes, I know many have) for biblical authority and Solus Christos? How about an open view book against liberalism and proclaiming (to use Moore’s term) the “authentic Christian witness”? Open –view tract societies?
--Moore on openness: from a rhetorical perspective, it is useful to understand and mentally respond to his characterizations. If openists win, there will be churches “teaching that God stands helpless in the face of evil, that he can be wrong about the future.” He further imagines a “Baptist pastor before an open casket, reassuring the grieving family members that God was just as shocked as they are by the fatal accident of their loved one.” Again, it’s not that he’s using straw arguments. How would you respond in a church meeting or bible study if someone, or your pastor, brought this up?
By the way, how involved is Woodland Hills in church planting? What do you all think of opennists going to other churches as emissaries or, perhaps, missionaries? How often do people leave WHC and become deacons or board members at other churches?
--Moore trusts evangelical parachurch groups to carry the banner on some issues, against feminism and the assault on the family. Although he doesn’t mention it, some parachurches—the apologetics ministries, mainly—are already aligning themselves to fight openness. Fortunately, the leaders of these groups are theologians and philosophers, which means they will happily ‘fight the good fight’ solely through debates and book writing. To Moore’s point, these arguments miss the bulk of evangelicals. In other words, unless a serious parachurch challenger arises, the souls of evangelicals are at risk viz openness just as mainlines were to homosexual and feminist encroachment.
--He quotes Fukuyama on the idea that Christianity is less religion than a moral language and fabric that is socially useful. Of course, Moore wants to argue that the claims of Christianity are not only useful but actually true. Is Open Theology socially useful? For committed Christians, adopting an open view leads to a more fervent prayer life, more urgent evangelism, and other beneficial results, according to several of its proponents. But, if the majority of American churches adopted an Open view, wouldn’t that weaken the moral fabric of the broader society?
Now, don’t go all philosopher on me. I’m not talking about the ”real” open theology or its truth value. Wouldn’t the version of openness infecting the culture invariably be a popularized version, something like Moore’s characterizations of an open theology, where God is kind of a hapless second-guesser?
By the way, I’ll add a final personal note: the response from the leaders in my church to my inquiries about the open view have been basically as Moore would predict. They saw it as terribly wrong-headed and searched the usual suspects for facile responses so they could be assured they were right to refute it….. however, they didn’t want to make it a doctrinal or membership issue. The jury is still out on the issue of my ability to lead Sunday school or Bible studies, although the answer will probably be yes.
Moore's concern, I suspect, is that unless I am silenced and/or censured, I can begin converting a new generation at my church to an apostate view.
Terry
“Alrightokuhhuhamen” --Rich Mullins
www.kidbrothers.net/npp.html#a
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 7/9/2002 6:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Terry, is “opennist” your term or Moore’s? (I collect Open-jargon.) Electra
~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~ | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 7/10/2002 4:27 AM (GMT -6) | | I've actually chosen to refer to myself as an "Open-meister." In close second is "The Open-nator."
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 7/10/2002 4:57 AM (GMT -6) | | I’m currently a “post-Open theist.” Pretty soon I’ll be a “neo-Open theist.” I was working on an Open view spinoff called “Open sesame,” but I found out that name was already taken.
Electra
~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~ | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 7/10/2002 12:03 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm a panenopenite.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 7/10/2002 12:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Hmmm. Any serious replies to the topic? Or should I read in to the responses that I have been dismissed from serious consideration on the board?
Could be just people trying to be funny, which is ok.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 7/10/2002 1:16 PM (GMT -6) | | I think that you make a valid point, but perhaps too valid. It is universally true that the popularized view is less "ideal" (almost by definition) than the version espoused by the "experts" as it were. It is just as true that popularized Calvinism is much easier to attack for opponents--and much more dangerous--than some more sophisticated and nuanced versions (like Owens for instance). Similarly, a "rough and ready" Openness position that uses a more literalistic hermenuetic on passages that show God changing but doesn't appreciate the metaphysical nuances that insist on the infinitude of God (in terms of intellegence, location, power, etc.) is dangerous as well.
There. And yes, I was trying to be funny. 
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 7/10/2002 6:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Modes,
Sorry, I missed it. Can you explain the humor and the motivation behind it?
I take it you find something in the original post odd, facile, or wordy.
Care to enlighten me?
Terry
| | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 7/10/2002 6:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Terry: thanks for the article. I downloaded it and will try and get back to you with some thoughts in the next couple of days. What you have written sounds very intriguing. I, personally, have not encountered any opposition in my church (yet?!), though I think part of it is through ignorance to the issues and part because many have not heard of it and are willing to listen. In my Bible study group the subject was raised and I had many willing listeners who asked excellant questions (many I had no answers for). Anyway, thanks for the site. Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 7/11/2002 1:48 AM (GMT -6) | | I guess it wasn't really that funny. Just a bit playful. I have always been a bit "miffed" that someone made up the phrase "Open View Theist" when prior to that--in my experience, the term had been Open Theist or Openness theology. So, now we see this new term "openist" and it generates a bunch of plays on it. Mine was simply an additional play on the word "openist." Sorry. It's no more funny than that.
You seemed not to appreciate the humor of it and responded with a request for more substantive feedback. I offered what I viewed to be just that. Can we get back to that? I do think it a relevant and important question/problem. No fun was poked at you in particular, but rather at the occurrance of yet another "open" label. But hey, I am open to that.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 7/11/2002 4:11 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Sorry, I missed it. Can you explain the humor and the motivation behind it?
I take it you find something in the original post odd, facile, or wordy.
Care to enlighten me?
Terry
Dude, chill. Nobody's making fun of you.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 7/11/2002 4:26 AM (GMT -6) | | OK, here's a reply to the funny, then to the serious.
Electra: I doubt I coined the term, but I find it more economical to have a noun rather than writing "someone who adheres to and is an advocate of the Open View of Theology/the future". I don't mean to start a trend or ruffle feathers. I just want to type less.
Modes: I'm a bit touchier than I should be because of RL stuff. I'm flipping from job boards to this board, and since looking for work ain't fun, I may be snippy when I get here. Please accept my apology.
Modes part Deux: I suppose the unsophisticated Calvinist position is problematic too. (Note: adherent to Calvin's postion = Calvinist, not Calvin View Theologian  .)
I was thinking, though, we have Acts of God in the insurance industry. We have West Wing where the President is seen confronting God for His callousness in a moment of agony. But the upshot is always GOD IS BIG and his will is absolute so deal with it. It gives some meaning to the meaningless.
Likewise, the widespread belief of the absolute authority of scripture allows American society to impose a basically Christian morality on the populace without legislating it. 3/4 of America's churches prop up this view (of scriptural authority) on a weekly basis.
So whatever problems Calvinism (Calvin View Theology?) creates in its popularized forms, its conservative nature is socially useful.
I'm not sure widespread adoption of the Open View would be socially useful. That's not a reason to abandon it; truth is truth.
But I think conservatives are justified in worrying what society would look like if everyone thought God was struggling mightly against people and Satan, that He was frequently wrong and had to go to plan B, that Bible prophecies might not be true, etc.
Instead of someone questioning an unfeeling God when tragedy strikes (Calvinism, divine providence), people would be left with an inneffectual God who wanted to do something to [save their baby, stop the bombing, keep grandma from getting Cancer] but lacked the power.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 7/11/2002 5:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Terry, hope the right job comes through for you soon. I know that must be tough. . .
quote:
But I think conservatives are justified in worrying what society would look like if everyone thought God was struggling mightly against people and Satan, that He was frequently wrong and had to go to plan B, that Bible prophecies might not be true, etc.
Instead of someone questioning an unfeeling God when tragedy strikes (Calvinism, divine providence), people would be left with an inneffectual God who wanted to do something to [save their baby, stop the bombing, keep grandma from getting Cancer] but lacked the power.
I guess it depends on the individual. To me, it is much more disturbing to imagine an all-controlling, meticulously-planning God who orchestrates the tremendous pain and suffering in this world than it is to accept a self-limited but completely victorious God who works only out of His love.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 7/11/2002 11:32 AM (GMT -6) | | BJS, thanks for the moral support. . . in your second post at least.
I completely agree with you as to which picture is more distrubing. My question--and I think a large part of Conservative worry--relate to the social ramifications.
For people who WONT pray more, who don't care too much about God's love... I suppose looking to government for solutions, or adopting the "eat, drink for tomorrow we may die" would by realistic responses. Both have severe ramifications.
Of course, the optimist in me says that a widespread acceptance of the Open View would lead to something like a Reformation/Renaissance situation. People would feel amazingly free to act and would be amazed at God's love. They would want to pursue him and the sense of revival and possibility (and humanism) would be astounding.
Edited by - Terry_Baxter on 07/11/2002 4:49:49 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 7/12/2002 4:28 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I completely agree with you as to which picture is more distrubing. My question--and I think a large part of Conservative worry--relate to the social ramifications.
For people who WONT pray more, who don't care too much about God's love... I suppose looking to government for solutions, or adopting the "eat, drink for tomorrow we may die" would by realistic responses. Both have severe ramifications.
Of course, the optimist in me says that a widespread acceptance of the Open View would lead to something like a Reformation/Renaissance situation. People would feel amazingly free to act and would be amazed at God's love. They would want to pursue him and the sense of revival and possibility (and humanism) would be astounding.
I see what you are saying, but (1) as you mention, any "social ramifications" have nothing to do with the truth of the matter, and (2) wouldn't you agree that society's perspective on God has been horribly skewed by the ramifications of the traditional Calvinist/deterministic view? As I said above, it is much more disturbing to imagine an all-controlling, meticulously-planning God who orchestrates the tremendous pain and suffering in this world than it is to accept a self-limited but completely victorious God who works only out of His love. The "social ramifications" of the latter are completely preferable to the "social ramifications" that we have experienced from the former.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 7/19/2002 9:23 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Let me explain. No, there's too much. Let me sum up.
----Inigo Montoya, Princess Bride
Seeking other responses, I offer this food for thought.
1) The Open View is lumped together in most traditionalists’ minds with Liberal views (feminism, gay ordination, biblical inerrancy, process theology, etc). Why don't OV proponents more clearly and frequently distance themselves from these views? Once isn't enough. Referring back to your book or article where you critiqued process theology isn't enough.
2) Woodland Hills: is it involved in church planting? Do people leave the church, believing in the Open View, and move to other churches and begin spreading the good news? If not, why not?
3) Is OV a radical view that will lead to schism and reformation? If so, political action will sooner or later be involved. Or, is it a minor modification of arminianism and thus very mainstream. Much like baptism or whether you want an American flag inside the church, the Open View is a relatively minor theological point even though some people have fierce emotions about it.
4) Calvinism and Puritanism have left American with some socially useful notions. Among these are 'God is omnipotent,' 'God is mysterious and inscrutable,' 'even when life is cruel we should endure it because it's God's will,' and 'God gave us Jesus and golden rule, so we would know how to be good and please him.'
The Open View, if accepted, would modify these equations. People would be confronted with a more loving but more hapless God who needs our help and cooperation to get things done in the world. He's a cosmic Mr. Mackey, a well-intentioned buffoon. I'm not sure why people would worship Him, since they would be more inclined to see him as irrelevant. Others might try to work 'the system' to find out what they need to do to get God to 'work for them.' Word-Faith Preachers would prey on these people relentlessly.
Does any of this bother you?
Terry
"Be God's"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 7/20/2002 12:06 AM (GMT -6) | |
Terry: The Open View is lumped together in most traditionalists’ minds with Liberal views (feminism, gay ordination, biblical inerrancy, process theology, etc). Why don't OV proponents more clearly and frequently distance themselves from these views?
Doc: I have read a good deal of the anti-openness literature (used to read ALL of it, but I’m becoming fatigued) and I have yet to see ANY rational connection made between openness and any of these things. These associations, I am convinced, are rather done as part of a very popular "guilt by association" tactic used by evangelicals. If you don’t like a view, associate it with views you know the majority won’t like. Its hard to respond to such associations precisely because there’s nothing rational about them. I could just as easily (and impossibly) offer a rational defense as to why Open Theism does not lead to eating cucumbers.
Terry: Woodland Hills: is it involved in church planting? Do people leave the church, believing in the Open View, and move to other churches and begin spreading the good news? If not, why not?
Doc: Woodland Hills is not an "openness" congregation, though there are many open theists in the congregation, on staff and on the board.
3) Is OV a radical view that will lead to schism and reformation? If so, political action will sooner or later be involved. Or, is it a minor modification of arminianism and thus very mainstream. Much like baptism or whether you want an American flag inside the church, the Open View is a relatively minor theological point even though some people have fierce emotions about it.
Doc: I think this has yet to be determined. Four years ago I thought the open view was just a minor modification of Arminianism. The polemics I’ve been involved in during the last four years have helped me see that it really does have major (positive) theological implications. I’m now more inclined to present it as a third option alongside Arminianism and Calvinism. It may very well turn out to be something that leads to something of a Reformation (Peter Wager told me he thinks this is the third branch of the Reformation, following Luther and William Carey).
Terry: The Open View, if accepted, would modify these (Puritan) equations. People would be confronted with a more loving but more hapless God who needs our help and cooperation to get things done in the world. He's a cosmic Mr. Mackey, a well-intentioned buffoon. I'm not sure why people would worship Him, since they would be more inclined to see him as irrelevant. Others might try to work 'the system' to find out what they need to do to get God to 'work for them.' Word-Faith Preachers would prey on these people relentlessly. Does any of this bother you?
Doc: It certainly doesn’t bother me because none of this is implied by open theism. Traditionalists always try to push this fear button because THEY think open theism will lead to this. But it certainly doesn’t lead to it logically. And I’ve never seen that it leads to it practically. The masses of lay-people I know who are open theist find this view to be far MORE comforting, empowering and God-glorifying than the traditional view. Personally, I think that society as a whole would be benefitted by the open view. Indeed, I’ll go further. I think in a hundred years or so something like the open view will have replaced the puritan legacy, and it will be for the better. The whole world-paradigm that supports a changeless God and static view of reality is changing, quite quickly.
Good questions Terry.
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
brandi
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 118
| Posted 7/20/2002 3:10 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Terry: The Open View is lumped together in most traditionalists’ minds with Liberal views (feminism, gay ordination, biblical inerrancy, process theology, etc). Why don't OV proponents more clearly and frequently distance themselves from these views?
Doc: I have read a good deal of the anti-openness literature (used to read ALL of it, but I’m becoming fatigued) and I have yet to see ANY rational connection made between openness and any of these things.
I'm sorry if I offend by this but I have a thought that I've been processing lately and want to post it here because I believe it fits. The issue of homosexuality that Terry brought up above seem to me would fall more in with Calvinism. The reason I say this is because those who believe that homosexuality is hereditary and that the people who get involved in the homosexual lifestyle are "created that way" and "can't help it" sound to me more like Calvinist since freewill is not being addressed in those statements. With the Open View there is more of a freewill component involved so I cannot see how homosexuality would be tied in with the Open View.
I'm in process on this,
~Brandi~
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 7/20/2002 7:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc!!!!!!!!!! Thanks for the reply!
For you or others:
Doc: I have read a good deal of the anti-openness literature (used to read ALL of it, but I’m becoming fatigued)
Terry: Amen. Ironically (don't ya think?) I would think most people who have moderate sense and a curious mind would be led to the Open View by the arguments of its detractors. The nasty polemics, the uncharitable characterizations, and the generally poor reasoning would raise HUGE RED FLAGS for me about any topic.
Doc: Its hard to respond to such associations precisely because there’s nothing rational about them. I could just as easily (and impossibly) offer a rational defense as to why Open Theism does not lead to eating cucumbers.
Terry: Ah! This is what I was getting at. I'm not advocating a rational defense or response on these issues. I would advocate Open Theists going to traditional evangelical forums and offering papers *against* the boogeymen of the traditionalists. A Boyd-ian paper on inerrancy that does not in any way address Open Theism, along with a Pinnock missive against gay ordination (or what have you--please read this charitably and in context as I'm not suggesting gay-bashing AT ALL) establishes Evangelical credentials.
By the way, Creationist scientists do this all the time. They send
'straight' articles to journals to establish their bona fides and build on those when challenging the establishment.
Whether the connections between OV and the other 'heresies' are reasonable is entirely beside the point. This is why I keep saying 'don't approach this as a philosopher, approach it as a rhetorician.'
Doc: It may very well turn out to be something that leads to something of a Reformation
Terry: I think I agree with you. It probably shouldn't happen, logically. But politically, I think the momentum is there.
This is why I hope we soon see popularizers carry the banner. The foundational theology is necessary, essential. In my view, that work is quite solidly underway. But who is going to nail the theses to the door (that Dallas Theological Seminary is looking a lot like Wittenburg these days)? Who is going to produce pamplets, rather than books? Who is going to start their own Open Theism radio show? ("Welcome to the Open Hour with Modes and Mephi....")
Doc: The masses of lay-people I know who are open theist find this view to be far MORE comforting, empowering and God-glorifying than the traditional view. Personally, I think that society as a whole would be benefitted by the open view.
Terry: I find this fascinating. This just screams for a book to be written--stories and letters written by people comforted and empowered by their OV beliefs.
Also, since the two dominant world religions in thirty years will be pentecostalism (thanks to Afirca and South America) and Islam, this speaks well for the potential for Open Theism's future. Pentecostals are more likely to see God as malleable and responsive to their actions.
But... My concern is not really with "lay-people who are open theists". I wonder about lay-people who are agnostic, or lapsed catholics, or unchurched. The Myth of the Calvinist/Puritan God has helped build a hugely successful, predominately self-policing and free society (boy, were there a lot of arguable points in that sentence!).
I'm unaware of a direct social parallel to draw from to infer how society would change. I wonder if the ancient societies that tried to appease their gods through sacrifices would come close. That is, the god(s) CAN DO SOMETHING, but we must do the RIGHT THINGS here on earth to help them, and even then we may be stopped by powerful OPPOSING FORCES.
Terry
"Be God's"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 7/20/2002 7:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandi,
I think this is a good question. Since I was in a hurry, I tried to think of a quick answer, but couldn't. That's why I label it a good question. It could be that I'm too ignorant to have a good answer for it! But, I'd rather think that the question is tough. 
Calvinists, in their view, don't deny free will. The do deny libertarian free will, which is rather different. I think even a Calvinist COULD say a person 'chose' their sexuality. They would just also have to say that "ultimately" in a mysterious way this was God's will.
On the other hand, Open Theists tend to be more charitable towards people, including sinners (note the word TEND, I am not saying all Calvinists are heartless). They tend to focus on God's grace and love, based on the idea of the Most Moved Mover. I suspect many are torn on this issue. Because of OV, they believe the person can change and the future isn't set. Because of their grace focus (n.b. all the Knowledge of Good and Evil stuff in the Bonhoeffer thread), they would be disinclined to encourage the homosexual to change.
I hope this responds to your question.
Terry
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/20/2002 7:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi all-
You're not gonna believe THIS. When I first saw this thread go up I wasn't interested at all. Didn't even open it. When I saw the second page go up I asked myself, "Now, how can anybody make a battleground out of V-acaton B-ible S-chool?"
VBS? What's that?
I'll read the article too now that I found out it's about the open view!
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 7/20/2002 7:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: VBS? What's that?
Electra: Good question. It used to mean Vacation Bible School, but now it seems to mean Vacation Battle School.
When I went to VBS, they used little flannelgraphs to teach kids Bible stories. Now it sounds like kids will be learning about God’s exhaustive divine definite foreknowledge of all future free actions, and how they better get this right or they’ll be like the feminists and homosexuals who are out to get their family.
 Electra
~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~ | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/20/2002 8:15 AM (GMT -6) | |
Hey there Electra! So...does VBS in the thread's title really stand for Vacation Bible School? That's funny. Guess I'll figure it out when I read the article.
Peace,
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/20/2002 8:41 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm having no luck downloading the article. Can someone email it to me? It's .pdf right?
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde
Edited by - TGB on 07/22/2002 02:44:37 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/20/2002 11:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Darn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I just searched BOTH of these pages for anything that had a "V" in it, and was about to give up triumphantly....and go lick my newly aquired carpletunnelitis (I was a few clicks away) when Tom and Electra had to go and save me from myself! Thanks a lot guys *sarcastically.*
No, really, Electra, wait until you have kids of your own. It all REALLY begins then. You will see. | | Back to Top | | |
| 33 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:04 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|