 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/28/2001 11:41 AM (GMT -6) |   |
Christus Victor Ministries
Add This Forum to Your Site
Get a FREE message board
View By: Thread Topic Date not logged in
Log In | New Account
Up to Msg List | Send to a Friend | Help << Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Author Message Go To Page 2 3 >>
ghost-dog-girl
02/21/01 2:07 PM
Just how *reformed* are we?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone recently commented: "Look at your vulgar language...How can any Christian...let that filthy communication flow out of his finger tips...?" (I'm leaving out the names of the person who said this and the person to whom it was addressed because I don't want this to get personal.)
I'm learning about Lutheranism (btw, I noticed in the latest issue of Christianity Today part of a quote from Luther was bleeped out! ). My professor made this comment: "Jesus has two problems with us: 1) our immorality; 2) our morality." He said that while Catholics traditionally identified concupiscence (sensual appetite or desire) as the major sin, Luther identified religion as the major sin. This strikes me as jiving pretty well with Jesus--just compare his interactions with the woman at the well (who was concupiscient) and the Pharisees (who were religious). Luther had a problem with religion because he associated it with the law (justification through works) rather than the gospel (justification through faith).
So when someone questions the integrity of someone else's faith on the basis of "vulgar language," it makes me wonder how they understand justification. Are we justified through subscription to correct doctrine? Are we justified through exemplifying proper morals? Or are we justified through Christ alone? We are Christians because of Christ, not because we uphold proper Christian decorum. As my professor said, "This is not cheap grace--it's free!"
Anyway, I'm just learning about this stuff, so I thought I'd try it out. Not sure I got it quite right, but I can count on you guys to let me know if--ok, when--I have messed up. GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
CHF
02/21/01 3:52 PM
RE: Just how *reformed* are we?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great post GDG! Luther was the most interesting personality in the Reformation, as far as I am concerned. He had vivid and lively language. If anyone wants to see some "unchristian" sarcasm, please read The Bondage of the Will...I laughed my buttocks off reading it at points!
Let me throw in another tid bit: I heard a story (perhaps someone can verify it?). When Luther sat down to "do his business" (aka- drop a load, pitch a loaf, etc.), he used to like to say "Satan! I am spewing thee out!"
So....Are we saved by our lovely Christian tritisms? Or are we saved by reliance on the GRACE of God in Jesus Christ? We are justified by free Grace which compels us to honor Christ....WWJD? No, WDJD (what did Jesus do?) Jesus didn't give us morals to live by to be saved. He DID take the wrath of God in our place for our justification. Okay, sermon's over!
Craig
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
02/22/01 8:11 AM
Saucy saying
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig, I agree that reading Luther really makes the rhetoric in this debate seem like a walk in the park. That man had personality! (Sound like another character I know... ) And it wasn't just the Reformers--the discussion got so heated at the Council of Trent that one bishop reached across the table and started pulling out his discussion partner's beard! (I definitely think there are some advantages to cyber discussion ) Even the apostle Paul was not above using raunchy rhetoric to make his point--I think it's in Galatians where Paul says that he wishes his opponents who were insisting on circumcision would go all the way and castrate themselves (ick).
I found this quote last night from an English preacher in the 1600s that I just gotta share in light of LL's condemnation of shine (R.I.P.) as a "malapert" (which means a "saucy" person): "Predestination is the root of Puritanism, and Puritanism is the root of all rebellion and disobendient intractablesness and all schism and *sauciness* in the country" (qtd. in G. R. Cragg, From Puritanism to the Age of reason).
I think we can agree that the sauce flows freely on both sides of this debate, amen? Like Doc often says, anything worth doing is worth doing passionately, and I think that there are a lot of passionate people in this discussion. In spite of the sauce, I do taste a little salt every once in while, and I trust that the Spirit is at work now just as it was during the Reformation where as Protestants we all trace our heritage.
Blessings to all, GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
02/22/01 10:25 AM
Bible trivia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not directly related, but I just have to mention one of my all-time favorite characters in the Bible here---
Guess who is the only person in the Bible to be praised for both FAITH and WORKS?
Hints:
1. Ancestor of Jesus
2. Not Jewish
3. Not male
Answer: RAHAB
Hebrews 11:31--"By FAITH Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had received the spies in peace."
James 2:25--"Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by WORKS when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road?"
Shalom, GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
02/22/01 12:59 PM
Ok. How 'bout this one?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok. OK. I know Luther identified religion as the major sin. He used vulgar language. 'K Sounds to me like this comment I have heard many times.
"There are people out there who are dying and going to hell. And some of you people don't give a damn! And some of you same people are more concerned about that last word (damn) than those people dying and going to hell."
And GDG, I understand when you say: "So when someone questions the integrity of someone else's faith on the basis of "vulgar language," it makes me wonder how they understand justification. Are we justified through subscription to correct doctrine? Are we justified through exemplifying proper morals? Or are we justified through Christ alone? We are Christians because of Christ, not because we uphold proper Christian decorum."
Here's my question. Ephesians 4:29. Luther 'taint an example. He's a bad one for the language thingy. Catholics say we are justified by both faith and works, not just works alone which is what a lot of Protestants think. So how does this fit into "grace and law." I have to go back and get the book by Richard Longenecker called, "Paul: The Apostle of Liberty." Excellent, excellent book for this discussion.
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
02/22/01 1:48 PM
backatcha
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In what sense are Paul's words in Gal. 5:12 ("I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!") talk that is "useful for building up," as Paul exhorts us to strive for in Eph. 4:29? Jesus also called self-righteous people vipers and tombs.
Anyway, my point was not that vulgar language is ok (personally, I am rather sensitive to it), but rather that vulgar language is not a litmus test for Christ's call and work in a person's life. It is not a legitimate basis for questioning someone's faith, because our justification is through Christ alone, "For Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes" (Rom. 10:4). That's what my Lutheran professor would say, anyway. GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
02/22/01 2:36 PM
RE: backatcha
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Jesus even called a man a "Fox." How dare he? Oh my! That was actually some pretty strong language. But you do say:
"Anyway, my point was not that vulgar language is ok (personally, I am rather sensitive to it), but rather that vulgar language is not a litmus test for Christ's call and work in a person's life. It is not a legitimate basis for questioning someone's faith,..."
This point is one in which Christians have a hard time with. Because then the question becomes how far one can go (not intentionally, necessarily) before you wonder if there is any "real" conversion experience there. I agree with ya, though. I think the parable of the weeds and the wheat growing up together has bearing on this. Of course, this is all off the top of my head. So I can't get into too deep of a discussion at the moment.
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
springs
(Forum Moderator)
02/22/01 11:26 PM
RE: Just how *reformed* are we?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the passages that talk about bad language
are talking about using language to hurt or abuse
people. (Don't say Raca! to your brother.)
You could do that with a cuss words, or you could
do it without them. You could any of the above words
for humor also, but using the Lord's name in vain
strikes the heart of all believers.
word
springs
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
02/23/01 1:19 PM
Is "castrate language" useful for building up?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GDG, like the title?
I know you don’t want to use cursing or swearing or foul speech as a litmus test for someone’s Christianity. At the same time many Christians wonder if there is any genuine conversion experience when someone lives in “continuous sin.” For them there really is “some kind of litmus test.” And it seems to me that to say that one is “personally offended” doesn’t seem to cut it for most Christians. When we ask “in *what sense* is Gal 5:12 (Owwww…. did you have to bring up *THAT* example ) useful for building up, this may not necessarily be a problem with the language itself but with the sense it is used. For example, there are many ways in which to use “foul language” which is not necessarily inappropriate. The word “damn” comes to mind. In one sense it is “foul.” “Damn you to hell!” may not be appropriate used out of anger. Using those exact words in theater or as I just used it, as an example, may be very appropriate. So Jesus, calling a spade a spade, isn’t that at least “ultimately” building up? Can there not be a “building up” in some sense when Paul calls on the Galatians to castrate themselves? I remember Luther did use strong language, but can’t remember “how bad it was.” Maybe you could remind me. At this point, I still stick to my guns concerning Luther not being a good example. But do you see the connection that I am drawing here. Tell me. What do you think of this article from Jesus People USA.
http://www.cornerstonemag.com/cm/features/iss115/swear.htm
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
A_Pilgrim
02/23/01 11:05 PM
RE: Just how *reformed* are we?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-D-G,
I have noticed you started a thread with the discussion centered on the use of vulgar language. I am curious why you talk about Martin Luther’s well-known crudity in a post entitled “Just how *reformed* are we?”
Certainly you know Luther was not Reformed, even though he was one of the Reformers. In fact, Luther and Lutherans had/have a dislike for Reformed views (read Lutheran confessions). You are free to speak of Luther and his speech, but why label your post this way? On this board, you seem to side with those who have expressed displeasure with Reformed thinking. So why make the connection of speech to being Reformed? Are you saying, many on this board are more Luther-like in their writing, in contrast to Reformed-like? And if so, then are you saying it is OK to be Luther-like in writing and speech (even though you are personally rather sensitive to it)?
Luther was coarse and vulgar in speech and writing, so much so that 500 years later, we are recalling it rather than the substance of his argument in the Bondage of the Will, for example. How many people in those 500 years have rejected Luther’s arguments concerning the slavery of the human will precisely because they could not get past his vulgar language or his venomous writing against Erasmus of Rotterdam? So should we use Luther as an example to model to see how vulgar we can be and yet be “Christian?” The very fact that Luther stands out as a sore thumb in history indicates he is quite alone in this matter. The overwhelming majority of Christian literature does not use vulgarity. The very fact that Christianity Today omitted certain of Luther’s words indicates the editors regarded them as offensive to their readership.
Is Luther an example to be followed? Would the Christian readership of today tolerate the writings of D. A. Carson or Billy Graham, for example, if they were full of vulgarities? No! A thousand times, No! Why? Because vulgar language is indecent, disgusting, obscene, offensive, coarse, ribald, crude, uncouth, risque, lewd, foul, filthy, loathsome, garish, profane, vile or a combination of these. It affronts natural human sensibilities and certainly redeemed human sensibilities. If Christian teaching is expounded within a context that is filled with vulgarities, readers will tend to throw the baby out with the bath water.
My reference to “filthy communication” was, to any knowledgeable Christian, a clear allusion to Ephesians 4:29: “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen” (NIV). So is Luther or Paul our example? Whose writings were inspired? Paul’s. Who had apostolic authority over the church? Paul. So when Paul wrote, he wrote the very words God desired his people to read and obey. So, G-D-G, that is the nub of the issue. We either practice Paul’s command or reject it. So are we, or are we not, expected to obey Ephesians 4:29 or is it merely a suggestion?
Pilgrim
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
A_Pilgrim
02/24/01 12:39 AM
RE: Inappropriate speech
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes,
I admonished Dr. Boyd concerning his use of language, but you responded as if I had exhorted you. In fact, you were quite defensive. You dismissed me and justified your friend. But in doing so, you dismissed the Apostle Paul as well. Since when can we excuse ourselves from obeying his command in Ephesians 4:29?
You ordered me, “7. ??? Lighten up or leave if you can't handle it.” What a demeaning way to talk to a fellow human being. How condescending! How dismissive! How unhelpful!
You said, “There are many nonchristians who visit this site, and I'd hate for them to think that we are all so self-righteous.” Why must non-Christians conclude that all who do not use vulgar language are “so self-righteous”? If that is true, it indicts some OVTs at this site! So you would tell the Apostle Paul that his exhortation means he was self-righteous and urged all of his followers to be self-righteous? Why do you jump to the conclusion that the one who follows Eph. 4:29 is not righteous but “so self-righteous”? And how does the use of vulgarities demonstrate that the author/speaker is not self-righteous? Your logic escapes me. But defending a friend in sin often makes one illogical.
Lastly you said, “Again, if you are that pro-censorship, you will probably be better off not exposing yourself to our "filthy, vulgar" language.” If I am pro-censorship, then so is the Apostle Paul. He exhorted, “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths...”, that is, each person is to guard his own speech to keep it wholesome. Why? Because our talk is heard by others. Thus Paul also positively exhorts us to speak, “...only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.” It is the Christian way to think of the other person’s ears and sensibilities more than our own freedom to shoot our mouth off with obscenities. Paul’s exhortation implies that there is a standard regarding unwholesome talk and it implies that our associates can apply that standard to us and vice versa. Paul concludes:
“Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving” (Eph. 5:1-4). Notice, the standard is God whom we must imitate; his speech is free of vulgar language.
Please consider these thoughts,
Pilgrim, slurred by you as Puritan
P.S.: I believe slurs are also covered by Eph. 4:29.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
CHF
02/24/01 10:26 PM
RE: RE: Just how *reformed* are we?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howdy Pilgrim-
I don't think GDG was chucking Luther in with the Reformed camp...I think she was trying to imply we haven't, as Protestants, reformed ourselves away from Catholic thinking. Remember, Luther was the big gun in getting the Reformation started, but it is still called the Reformation, not the Lutheranation.
You said:
"Luther was coarse and vulgar in speech and writing, so much so that 500 years later, we are recalling it rather than the substance of his argument in the Bondage of the Will"
I am not sure where you got your info on The Bondage of The Will. I know I have said Luther was sarcastic in it, but he was by no means vulgar... not even by Pietistic standards. I can think of no one recalling what he has said in the Bondage of the Will for reasons of vulgarity.
You continue:
"The overwhelming majority of Christian literature does not use vulgarity"
The vast majority of Christian literature lacks any spiritual value, and I find that vulgar
On you go:
"So is Luther or Paul our example? Whose writings were inspired? Paul’s. Who had apostolic authority over the church? Paul. So when Paul wrote, he wrote the very words God desired his people to read and obey."
I think they are both good examples. GDG has already brought up that Paul wished certain individuals castrated themselves (i.e. cut off their penises). I guess I wonder how we should define vulgarity. I think it is wonderful to use colorful language in defending the truth. Paul could have wished a nasty headcold on these people...but no, he had to say "go cut your penis off!"
Should I bring up things God has spoken? He speaks of the harlot, Israel as being like a prostitute who lifts her robe and spreads her legs for anyone who happens to come her way....hmmmm. Should God be our example?
Craig
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
A_Pilgrim
02/26/01 12:22 AM
RE: Just how *reformed* are we?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig,
Perhaps you are right that G-D-G was not including Luther with the Reformed. Only she can tell us if she intended to do so. It wasn’t stated all that clearly so that is why I asked my questions. All Protestantism is reformational, but not all Protestantism is Reformed.
Let me clarify my point about Luther’s vulgarity. I probably wasn’t clear enough previously. I used the Bondage of the Will as an example of Luther’s writings because it had been mentioned on the board and because it pertained to the discussion regarding free will. I did not intend to say that particular book (in the English translations) contains vulgarity. I intended to say that some of his writings contained vulgarities. Some translations of his works may contain vulgarities. It is well known by English speaking people that Luther wrote in this fashion. So I made the observation that it has been noted on this board that Luther’s speech and writing possessed this characteristic. I then made the observation that we are taking note of his vulgarity rather than his argumentation, for example, concerning the slavery of the human will. I then observed that this type of speech may have caused many to reject what he said. That was and is my point. Luther is not an example to emulate.
I also observed Luther made venomous attacks in the Bondage of the Will and this has probably kept many from ever getting to the meat of his argumentation. Of course, Luther is not the only one who was vitriolic in his attack on people. Sorry for the confusion my other post may have caused.
I contended that Ephesians 4:29 is our model, not Luther. I shall expand what I meant. Unwholesome talk is specified to include at least obscenity, foolish talk and coarse joking in 5:4. In contrast to this kind of speech, we are to imitate God (5:1) as our standard, whose speech must therefore be free of vulgarity. Do we need to evaluate what words constitute unwholesome talk? Of course. Ephesians 4:29 and 5:4 is our standard, but this requires interpretation because Paul did not give a list of prohibited words and phrases, but rather principles of speech. We all live by standards of speech that are set by different segments of society that apply in various situations. Certain speech in one setting is taboo in another. Even this discussion board has some standards so that certain words will be excluded by the software running this forum. I presume the moderator, adiaphora, or Coolboard has set these standards.
So back to the Scripture. I take it that Galatians 5:12 is not the type of language prohibited in Ephesians. If this is not the case, then Paul is inconsistent with himself and God’s Word is also. Paul’s use of a word in Galatians 5:12 does not justify the use of vulgarity. It seems to me that Paul was much more dignified in his use of words to convey his message to the Galatians than might first appear. He used the words “cut off,” words which are rather neutral in themselves. Relying on Arndt and Gingrich’s Greek Lexicon, it seems to me that the context must specify or imply what is cut off. Mark 9:43, 45 specifies a hand or a foot must be cut off. Galatians 5:12 implies what is to be cut off. So Paul gets the concept across without being vulgar. Relying on the context for the meaning of what is cut off, the NIV translated the verse conceptually and used a word which is descriptive but not filthy: “As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!” The Apostle did not give a clinical description or use gutter language. He used context to give meaning to his word. I think he was rather artful how he did it and should be our model for our speech and writing. In fact, as someone else has said at this board, if you have to explain it in detail, the whole point is lost!
So is Paul’s language in Galatians 5:12 obscene, foolish talk or coarse joking? No! Can a preacher, teacher or chat room participant become obscene while explaining the text? Yes. We can also turn it into foolish talk and jest about it and therefore sin.
I hope this explanation helps. We who claim to be Christians are commanded to live as children of light and that includes our speech (Eph. 5:8).
Pilgrim
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
02/26/01 8:48 AM
Answer to a Hyperchristian, Hyperspiritual, and Hyperlearned Post...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I borrowed the title for this post from one of Luther's responses to his critics. Like it?
Pilgrim, you're right: Paul was a fine example of a morally upright, doctrinally sound religious leader--but then Jesus knocked him off his high horse--literally!
Luther is the father of the Reformation, that's why I asked how *reformed* we really were when you questioned the integrity of someone's faith because of their so-called vulgar speech--as if Christ's justification was not enough and our righteousness was up to us.
Incidently, if you're interested in the moral shortcomings of other reformers, there is an excellent article on the smoking and drinking habits of Luther and Calvin in the March/April 2000 issue of Modern Reformation magazine.
You don't seem to hesitate judging men of God (i.e. you dismiss Luther as "a sore thumb" in church history) for moral failings such as supposedly vulgar speech. I'd be careful if I were you. God tends to come to the defense of his followers when they are judged by others (i.e. when Miriam criticized Moses for marrying a non-Jew--a moral no-no, God gave her leprosy; when Michael criticized David for his ecstatic, scantily clad dancing in worship, God made her barren; when a prostitute annointed Jesus' feet with perfume--an extravagant gesture of adoration, guess who objected for oh-so-pious reasons? Judas).
We are justified by Jesus Christ alone. Any claim to righteousness based on moral uprightness implies that we can achieve righteousness on our own, by following certain rules. This is "...a form of piety without substance" (2 Tim. 3:5, 7). We are no longer under the law, but under grace.
Peace, GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
springs
(Forum Moderator)
02/26/01 1:47 PM
RE: Just how *reformed* are we?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another cool quote:
From Aldous Huxley's The Devils of Loudon
"The effects which follow too constant and intense a concentration upon evil are always disastrous. Those who crusade not for God in themselves, but against the devil in others, never succed in making the world better, but leave it either as it was, or sometimes even perceptibly worse than it was, before the crusade began. By thinking primarily of evil we tend, however excellent our intentions, to create occasions for evil to manifest itself."
springs
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
02/26/01 2:03 PM
RE: RE: Just how *reformed* are we?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As long as we are using Paul as the standard, let's keep I Cor. 4:3-5 in mind as well: "But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby aquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will recieve commendation from God."
If our friend Pilgrim does not hear from me again, it is because I am not interested in petty disputes about what (s)he thinks is appropriate language. It is precisely because we are not holy that we need Christ. Our witness is based on Christ's mercy shown to us, NOT our flawless replication of Christ's holiness before the world (who then would qualify as a "Christian"?). We must take sin more seriously than that.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
02/27/01 5:12 PM
RE: RE: RE: Just how *reformed* are we?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought this would be a good reference to gander for the purposes of this discussion. Although, I have not looked at it very closely, still, it is pretty informative.
http://www.mcmaster.ca/mjtm/westerho.htm
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
02/27/01 8:21 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: Just how *reformed* are we?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In defense of my now deceased juvenile friend and fellow theologian Shine150, I personally don't think he went too far beyond Paul's expressed desire that the Judiazers at Galatia would cut off their genitles (ouch) (: or his comment that his pre-Christian life was SKUBALLA (I believe Luther translated as "sheist"). The role playing aside, I myself probably wouldn't express myself this way. But I wouldn't regard him as vulgar.
Look, there is a grey area, clearly, between humorous slightly off color language (e.g. Paul's "mutilate yourself") and true vulgarity (e.g. &^$#@!!!*) If we balk at the former, we are prudish. If we don't balk at the latter, we are indulgent. I grew up with a Dad, and I've worked with construction workers, who would be deemed "vulgar" by anyone's standard. And believe me, in this light, Shine was definitely not "vulgar." But he was slightly off color, at times.
The role playing aside, I am the first to admit that I am not very good "religious" person. I've said THAT many times from the pulpit. I don't do "religion" well. Some of the niceities of evangelical culture just don't come natural to me -- and many many others. I worry when these niceities become equated with "Christianity."
Religious or not, I AM passionately in love with Christ, and passionate about the work of his kingdom. And in the total scheme of things, THAT seems a bit more important than defining the precise line between "off color" and "vulgar." I'd welcome a passionate Shine in my chat room, church or home any time.
Shine on radical dudes!
Doc
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Go To Page 2 3 >>
Up to Msg List | Send to a Friend | Help << Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Community Moderators: adiaphora
Site-Specific Moderators: springs
Jump To: cdearmond's Forums Christus Victor Ministries
Christus Victor Ministries
This site is part of the Christus Victor Ministries Community
GET A FREE MESSAGE BOARD. CLICK HERE.
Add This Forum to Your Site | Get a Free Message Board | Browse Other CoolBoards
What is CoolBoard? | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | ©1999-2000 CoolBoard.com
Copyright © Christus Victor Ministries, 2000, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:55 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 |
|
|