Jump to content
soma

Ecumentalism

Recommended Posts

I went to Catholic Schools and church until I got kick out my senior year so I don't have any Unitarian or Unity experience. I was thinking of a network for Christian Progressives, but you have a good point on how to incorporate the non-religious. I think they might be attracted to social justice issues and humanitarian service. If the selfless service acts are effective than people who care about similar causes will want to participate. Their energy and ideas should be welcomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To David and soma,

So, we'll just make a church based on man's standards instead of God's. Then it will be perfect. It'll be another 'Tower of Babel'!

:blink:

-

Cynthia;

 

The problem is finding a litmus test in a set of infinite variables. Maybe a math genius could create an equation to sort people to tables - but I'd still want to be the one weighting the variables!!! :P
This is an absolutely 'on the mark' position statement, and most worthy of discussion. For until we arrive at a "litmus test", these discussions will just continue to be a waste of time. You can assign the seating.

Early on, I had attempted, (post #34, a hundred posts earlier than yours!) to move the discussion in just the way you intend. By not answering a most basic philosophical question, everyone simply remains mired in the 'variables' (I call 'em 'particulars'). ."We could go on ad infinitum discussing all these particular issues. Unless we can come to grips with fundamental, universal truths then discussing the particulars will be endless."

 

So............. where does that leave us on a practical level??? My current understanding... is that ...we're all pieces of the same whole.
Do not despair, for we are not all part of some soulless machine. We do have unity, and we are of no less value and worth than anyone else. That is good. But in addition, and of no less importance, God's relationship is personal and individual with us. We can... just be (normal)!

 

So, perhaps the answer, as always, ... To not get caught up in being right (not knowing that I am will take more than a lifetime, I think!), or better, or more.... to just be.
B)

 

To do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with my God..... eh? ...
;)

-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To David and soma,

So, we'll just make a church based on man's standards instead of God's. Then it will be perfect. It'll be another 'Tower of Babel'!

 

Don't decieve yourself, davidk. All churches are based on human standards, not God's. The closest I've seen to a church based on God's standards is the UCC church I attend. And even they are off sometimes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't decieve yourself, davidk. All churches are based on human standards, not God's. The closest I've seen to a church based on God's standards is the UCC church I attend. And even they are off sometimes...

That's near to the point I'm trying to make. Man is prone to making mistakes and being in rebellion. Churches often fail in their duty, they become autonomous.

 

While Soma and I have different theologies, he did address it fairly well: " ...the purpose should be to provide harmony, guidance, inspiration and the environment for the individual to grow in the understanding of God, and who one really is." While David seems to want inculsion of the secular into the church, you have already understood that problem, it would be man-made again! God's Grace would no longer be the message, it would become just another 'country club' of 'good deed' doers.

 

That is not to say we could not be cobelligerents with secular entities, allied with them on certain issues; but we could not be ecumenical allies. The Ecumenical movement originally defined its goal as being a "...functional Christian community based on the common tasks of 'missions' with a mutual understanding on fundamental issues in belief, a united witness to the world and its problems".

 

"The Church" is purely Christian, with Jesus Christ as the Head. Don't allow yourself to be caught up with people setting Jesus aside to build their "church". For there you find Babel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Genesis 11:1-9

The Dispersion of the Nations at Babel

 

11:1 The whole earth had a common language and a common vocabulary. 11:2 When the people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there. 11:3 Then they said to one another, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” (They had brick instead of stone and tar instead of mortar.) 11:4 Then they said, “Come, let’s build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens so that we may make a name for ourselves. Otherwise we will be scattered across the face of the entire earth.”

 

11:5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the people had started building. 11:6 And the Lord said, “If as one people all sharing a common language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be beyond them. 11:7 Come, let’s go down and confuse their language so they won’t be able to understand each other.”

 

11:8 So the Lord scattered them from there across the face of the entire earth, and they stopped building the city. 11:9 That is why its name was called Babel – because there the Lord confused the language of the entire world, and from there the Lord scattered them across the face of the entire earth

 

11:5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the people had started building. 11:6 And the Lord said, “If as one people all sharing a common language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be beyond them.

 

 

I think the Lord is taking sides with diversity and the idea of expanding consciousness and not the characteristic of a temporal worldly Christian view as opposed to the spiritual world; "worldly goods and advancement"; "temporal possessions of the church" . The church must take the highest ideal, the north star and yes, we can't touch the north star, but it can guide us to unity, stability and peace. The trees (churches) today if judged by their fruits plant seeds of arrogance, conceit, and lack piety, respect, or reverence for all God's children so have not reverence for God the Father.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weaving GOD's tapestry, The Great Spirit of life is not asking us to follow a worldly king, how did Saul become king? Was this of GOD?

 

The Tower of Babel deystroyed and why? Was this of GOD? Your GOD of destruction? Wrath?

 

Where is Love and Justice?

 

So mankind is creative and this is a threat to the real GOD how?

 

But when we allow one another to lie, then we know it is time to change the world for we have no justice when one lies about another and is not held accountable...

 

The judges hold the burden of crime in their communities...

 

Are your statistics telling the truth?

 

Is your crime rate actually different than the number of people prosecuted for crime in your community making your neighborhood dangerous?

 

The police should help to keep the peace, they should not lie and violate your safe space.

The intervention of the Church should be to promote truth and justice and love... Since the Church has failed to be a leading example the consequences of sin shall be dispensed...

 

If Gold and Oil are worthless then the Church will go broke...

 

Imagine the Vatican files for Bankruptcy... Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar and store up in heaven Treasures for GOD... (Heart, Mind and Soul)

 

The Great Spirit is Love...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DavidK, I love the church when they do good works, spread love and inspirer people, but I despise the people who speak for it and give lots of prophecies and they are all bogus.

 

1 Thessalonians 5 says, "Do not despise prophetic utterance, but rather examine everything carefully."

 

Actions speak louder than words. I hope the church recovers from the false prophets that have hijacked it. A two year course on church real estate doesn't make one holy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't decieve yourself, davidk. All churches are based on human standards, not God's. The closest I've seen to a church based on God's standards is the UCC church I attend. And even they are off sometimes...

 

I attend a UCC Church also ... The UCC is not perfect, but at least their focus is in the right place. And, some have an affiliation with TCPC and some not. Mine does.

Edited by minsocal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recognize and admit the difficulties within the "church" and its resulting ineptness. But if the churches profess their devotion to the Graceful God of creation and all that He has revealed to us, God's grace will shine through, despite our faulty human effort. Unfortunately, in the effort toward ecumenalism, Christianity is the only faith with the doctrine of forgiveness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am happily married with two sons, but I don't understand when people are in need of the church' the church rejects them. There is no negative impact on life to have gays and lesbians living out in the open. The question is will the members of Rev. Haggard's spiritual family forgive and have a similar conversion? Ecumenalism is loving, witnessing, forgiving without judging so people can come together and solve the difficult problems at hand. The church needs to open the doors and windows and stop locking people out. Let the fresh air and a cool breeze invigorate the soul. Manipulation of the emotions with fear does nothing to rouse the spirit. The thorns and whip applied to the flesh of Jesus did not stop Him from loving and forgiving on the cross. I wish the leaders of many congregations would stop thrusting the spear into the side of Jesus. The vinegar they serve does not quench the thirst. I think UCC is trying in their own way even though I don't know that much about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting discussion, everyone. It additionally 'informs' (what I think of as) my 'mission', which is to formulate and introduce (i.e. 'inseminate') the best (meaning potentially maximally :) positive, quality-of-spiritual-experience-and-expression-and-further-evolutionary-development-in-an-Earthly-content) set of woven-toother 'memes' into the 'stream' of human philosophical-n-religious mentation which I can image-'in'. :)

I am still i the process of developing my ideas and projection possible futures in this regard based on my readings and considerations of others' ideas (historially) conceived of with said best 'goal' mind in light of their historical consequences to date. Here are some of caveats deriving therefrom:

Historically, people have projected an ideal (note the similarity of the word's form to idol), based on the understand that all of 'Creation' is really One, one Being-Doing, of a human-constituted 'church' (or 'society', or 'family') characterized by benignly all-inclusive Conscious Love. This 'dream' is reflected in Jesus' having both lived and said things like: "I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father:  and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:  them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice;  and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. (in John 10) and others after him, who hoped and lived to establish a 'church' which would serve as a 'key' agent helping to actualize said 'promise' saying: "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord;  I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest." (in Hebrews 8) which 'dream' continues to be embedded in the psyches of many who have grown up in the same, now multi-millenial Judeo-Christian-Islamic, 'tradition' which he was part of and who continue said 'dream' today. (For those who may not be aware of it, the latter statement was really just the reiterates of 'the dream' as stated (in Jeremiah 31) in the Old Testament: "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel;  After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts;  and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD:  for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD."

But as a (furthering of the) discussion tactic let me offer some what ifs:

What if the 'dream' really stems from unrealistic desires for an UTOPIAN society? What if this world is base-ically (necessarily, practically speaking) a matrixial mix of in infinite range of all possibilities, from 'bad' to 'good', from 'worse' to 'better', frmo 'mediocre' to 'exceptional', from 'failing' to 'succeeding', and that it would best serve the purpose of soul-development (souls gradually 'opening' to knowing Spirit-'Life', 'God', 'Him', 'Christ', whatever you wish to call IT and consequently, a some point, 'hatching' and 'feldging' into full-flight spiritual-realm-'immorality') if it continued to, apparently 'imperfectly', be so?

Speaking of the 'problem' being analogized a their being 'different' tabled and as well as 'different' conversations at 'different' tables (is only a 'problem' if one regards it as being 'indicative' of something undesirable, like the unfulfillment of the above mentioned, regarded-as-being-desirable, dream: do you think a maturely 'loving' couple would really the fact that they had to speak to and relate with their children in a different way of different ways than they spoke and related between themselves - that they wouldn't be 'happy' to have their children sit at their own (chidren's) table, at least now and then, that they could have 'dinner(s) at their own (parental) table at least part of the time so they wouldn't always have to talk in ways or about subject that their children could 'handle'? Would they regard this is a 'failure' to establish and enjoy communal worship at a completely universally-inclusive 'church'?

I offer this (parent-child model) as a very practical way of thinking about the whole 'church' (and 'membership' - all members being integrally 'united') subject, which has been framed as very warm-fuzzy  'ideal' dream but which dream IMO is not really 'in keeping' with ultimate soul-development possibilities and considerations. I would go so far as to say that 'waking up' from that dream (in which anything 'less' is 'seen' as somehow being non-'ideal') is necessary for a soul to truly know, embrace and live 'in accord' with what the REAL dynamic of Spirit-Life actually IS.

Not that I don't think that the general level of present 'children's table' talk shouldn't or can't be upgraded in (more) progressive ways, mind you. Just aiming to clarify and introduce more psychologically/spiritually sophisticated ideas into the whole 'church' and 'churches' discussion. I am very impressed by and quite favorably disposed towards Spong-and-associates' endeavors in this regard. Nothing wrong (and a great deal that is right!) with attempting to make something as 'good' (meaning as positively 'creative') as it can possibly be.

Edited by Davidsun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize for the disjointedness of aspects of my preceding post. I get so wrapped up in the 'totality' my ideas, I often don't see 'gaps' present in my verbalizations. I hope some readers will grok the gist of my 'vision' nevertheless.:unsure:

Blessings, thoughtful ones! :)

Edited by Davidsun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key to being understood on the internet is to never have more than two sentences per paragraph, and never have more than three paragraphs.

Anything more will be skimmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burl said:

The key to being understood on the internet is to never have more than two sentences per paragraph, and never have more than three paragraphs.

Anything more will be skimmed.

Your 'key' (to your 'lock') ain't mine (either 'lock' or 'key'), Bro. Enjoy your 'corner' of Being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Davidsun said:

Your 'key' (to your 'lock') ain't mine (either 'lock' or 'key'), Bro. Enjoy your 'corner' of Being.

Davidsun,

I don't have any particular key and lock but I take Burl's meaning - if not the exact number of sentences that are optimal.

I write too (not just on this or other sites) and take great pains to write for others, for an audience (otherwise what's the point?) so they can understand what I'm trying to communicate. On this site, sometimes I just make quick comments, when I'm on the run, and, other times, even when I put in the time and effort, others might not follow (partly on me, partly on them - perhaps).

I know writing about 'this stuff' is not always easy and we all try to stretch language but you seem to be taking this to a new level - which makes it difficult for some and others might just pass by your comments. For example, you can probably trust that most people know what you meant when you say 'best' and they don't need a 19 word explanation in a parenthetical sentence.

I have been on the run this week, looked at your comment on 3 different occasions and passed it by as I believed it would take a longer commitment to read it that I had time for. 

You have something to say but the blues, the underlines, the bold print, the phrases with multiple -s,  seem to suggest everything is important rather than drawing the reader to one or two things that really are. 

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Points well taken, Thormas - as mentioned in my 'apology' I often get 'carried away' - I suppose by the intensity of my thoughts and the (thought) 'associations' which spring from them.

People are free to 'disregard', 'skim', etc. when encountering my verbiage. Its all a matter of whether or not something in them 'pulls' them into engaging (with my words) or not.

Please know that I am fine with 'being myself' (in terms of my 'way' of expressing' my ideas) , as well as with others having their 'own' preferences, in the above regard. If someone really wants to 'grok' what goes into my mentation they will - if not, they won't.

Please open to considering the possibility that there may be "a method" to "my madness" - the short version of which is that I am not here to 'appeal' to everyone.

And, to respond to your last 'suggestion', yes, I relate to everything as being 'important' - so the idea of " drawing the reader to one or two things that really are [important]" just doesn't compute in my 'way' of being-n-doing. It is up to any reader to 'isolate' what (if anything at all! :unsure:) in what I say is important to him or her as well as to 'hierachialize' :D any such importances for themselves, that is if there is more than one such 'important' (to them) thang to them in what I say.

I truly hope you can appreciate and groove with my unconventionality, Thormas, because (based on my 'reading' of what your words reveal about youyou are someone who I genuinely wish to share the way(s) in which I groove with (our Entity's!) existence with. You understand that that doesn't mean that I will alter my communication style to suit your wishes, however. Yes?

Sincerely - David

Edited by Davidsun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Davidsun said:

I truly hope you can appreciate and groove with my unconventionality, ...

Just occurred to me that a humorous way of putting this would be to inviteyou and others to (if necessary) expand their LGBT group(s) tolerance/acceptance philosophy/stance to include 'me' (along with my completely unusual writing 'style' of course!). It could be called LGBTDavidsun tolerance/acceptance - the 'Davidsun', though not actually my given name, designating 'me' as a singularly unconventional (in terms of the 'majority') being who, though unlike any other, may nevertheless really be worthy of open-minded consideration!

I hope that, though it may strike some as having an unpleasant 'edge' to it, you at least 'get' all this is truly said in joy-full repartee 'fun'. ^_^

 

Added P.S. Of course, my whole 'argument' in the above regard will carry no weight with someone who is LGBT tolerant/accepting only because he or she thinks, feels, and believe that LGBT folks are only the way they are by virtue of their having no 'choice' in being the way they are - I.e. 'forgiving' them ' in Christs' name because such folks 'unfortunately' jes can't hep being the way they are! :o

Edited by Davidsun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Davidsun said:

People are free to 'disregard', 'skim', etc. when encountering my verbiage. Its all a matter of whether or not something in them 'pulls' them into engaging (with my words) or not.

I will read more when time permits but this line struck me as I skimmed.

People are always free to disregard anything but I think you have something to offer - so all the more reason to enable others to more easily read you so you can be heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, thormas said:

I will read more when time permits but this line struck me as I skimmed.

People are always free to disregard anything but I think you have something to offer - so all the more reason to enable others to more easily read you so you can be heard.

That proposal strikes me as me as a proposal to 'enable' them to sit back and wait for things to suit their 'tastes' - people have to be in touch with their 'hunger' of they are to not look at 'food' with an attitude of "I'll eat it if I like how its tastes" or "I'll eat it if you 'cook' it in a way that 'pleases' me."

As you can tell, I am 'seeing' folks 'of this generation' (not just here, but here too) as generally being a bunch of 'spoiled' (by too much indiscriminate parental 'spoon-feeding') kids.

Jesus's portrayal of God as an indulgently 'loving' 'Father' by saying things like "Ask, and it shall be given you;  seek, and ye shall find;  knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?  Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? " was fine as a 'correction' of old jealous/demanding/punitive (for not being 'obeyed') johovic 'father' image. But the pendulum has swung so far in the 'opposite' direction that there is a need (here for example!) of a 'reverse' correction in the direction of taking persponal responsibility for one's 'creativity' and not expecting 'feed me what I like' mother/fathering.

What's coming down the road is going to be far from 'coddling'! I am just a messenger in this regard (with all of the implications of this word), Bro: The Times They Are A-Changing!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Davidsun said:

That proposal strikes me as me as a proposal to 'enable' them to sit back and wait for things to suit their 'tastes' - people have to be in touch with their 'hunger' of they are to not look at 'food' with an attitude of "I'll eat it if I like how its tastes" or "I'll eat it if you 'cook' it in a way that 'pleases' me."

As you can tell, I am 'seeing' folks 'of this generation' (not just here, but here too) as generally being a bunch of 'spoiled' (by too much indiscriminate parental 'spoon-feeding') kids.

Jesus's portrayal of God as an indulgently 'loving' 'Father' by saying things like "Ask, and it shall be given you;  seek, and ye shall find;  knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?  Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? " was fine as a 'correction' of old jealous/demanding/punitive (for not being 'obeyed') johovic 'father' image. But the pendulum has swung so far in the 'opposite' direction that there is a need (here for example!) of a 'reverse' correction in the direction of taking persponal responsibility for one's 'creativity' and not expecting 'feed me what I like' mother/fathering.

What's coming down the road is going to be far from 'coddling'! I am just a messenger in this regard (with all of the implications of this word), Bro: The Times They Are A-Changing!

 

Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. First, I have no idea what "not just here, but here too" means but no total generation is a bunch of spoiled kids. Such a generalization is the very definition of prejudging. And there is no suggestion of enabling, merely a suggestion if a serious writer is truly interested in others 'hearing' his words. Without an audience, there is no impact. 

Jesus did not indulge people: his words are a call to change, a challenge to live the two great commandments - neither is easy and neither is a correction, they are the summary of the commandments of his people, the Jews. And, there is no need to improve on the message of Jesus and have a 'reverse correction.' Unless someone misunderstands prophecy, no one know what is 'coming down the road' and I learned long ago to beware of those who proclaim themselves messengers (and some saviors). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Davidsun said:

Just occurred to me that a humorous way of putting this would be to inviteyou and others to (if necessary) expand their LGBT group(s) tolerance/acceptance philosophy/stance to include 'me' (along with my completely unusual writing 'style' of course!). It could be called LGBTDavidsun tolerance/acceptance - the 'Davidsun', though not actually my given name, designating 'me' as a singularly unconventional (in terms of the 'majority') being who, though unlike any other, may nevertheless really be worthy of open-minded consideration!

I hope that, though it may strike some as having an unpleasant 'edge' to it, you at least 'get' all this is truly said in joy-full repartee 'fun'. ^_^

Added P.S. Of course, my whole 'argument' in the above regard will carry no weight with someone who is LGBT tolerant/accepting only because he or she thinks, feels, and believe that LGBT folks are only the way they are by virtue of their having no 'choice' in being the way they are - I.e. 'forgiving' them ' in Christs' name because such folks 'unfortunately' jes can't hep being the way they are! :o

I actually have no idea what this means but I have no need to expand that group - although I would give the same writing advise regardless of sexual orientation. My user name is not my given name either, merely a play on a name given me by my daughter when she was in elementary school. I'm not sure what part has an unpleasant edge and what part is repartee fun: the writing, the name, the self-designation as unconventional and unlike any other? 

I now have no idea what you're talking about. I had no choice in being hetero - don't remember a time when I made the decision to be attracted to girls, not guys. So too, the people I know who are lesbian or gay did not choose, they are - and none of us has to be forgiven. I for one "can't help being the way I am" and neither does my gay brother, my college friend who died of AIDS, the lesbian women I taught with or the straight, gay, lesbian kids I taught. So, I really have no idea what your point is.

It is the understanding of some (too many) that orientation is chosen and that's why they consider it sinful (and in need of reverse correction and forgiveness) and support re-programming of a homosexual orientation. Then you have the Catholic 'blessing' that it isn't chosen but they just can't express it, i.e. make love to the one that is all to them. Absurd!

Also, remember you are on a progressive site and I suspect most are not conventional and do not have to expand their LGBTQ group.

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thormas, I am guessing that David is pleading for more tolerance about his writing style, and yes, It is starkly elaborate if not too obtuse for this lamentable Twitter/Facebook age..

David, I opened up your email and am half-way thru the 24-page work you sent me, thank you.  I had so much junk from my denomination this week, that I did not notice it until yesterday. I think the analogy I would make, rather than to LGBTQ tolerance,  is that you stylistically evoke the Gospel of John, as opposed to that of the synoptic gospels.  I had seminary teachers that were rather dismissive of John, being written much later than the synoptics, and it was already somewhat compromised due to that lateness, and John seems obtuse in parts, but there is beauty and mystery too.  You are a student of other faith movements, and looking for an approach to connect in those directions, and sometimes ambiguity serves a good purpose in that. Especially since God and much of what we discuss here is bound . . . in reality . . .  thankfully . . . to be much more Unfathomable than we can possibly expect by our relatively primitive tangible conceptualizations and traditions..  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On February 14, 2018 at 1:55 PM, Davidsun said:

Your 'key' (to your 'lock') ain't mine (either 'lock' or 'key'), Bro. Enjoy your 'corner' of Being.

Just observations about posting anything by anyone on any forum anywere.  The message and the medium must be complimentary.

Nothing personal intended.

Edited by Burl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, thormas said:

Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. First, I have no idea what "not just here, but here too" means but no total generation is a bunch of spoiled kids.

I said 'generally' - which indicates that the 'character'ization wasn't 'total'. I agree with you on this.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×