Jump to content

Evangelicalism


Recommended Posts

AletheiaRivers said:

 

"I created the thread because I'm finding that many of the writers I like are falling into the evangelical camp. Perhaps they are on the fringe, I don't know.I do get the impression that many people calling themselves Evangelicals are actually Fundamentalists and the Evangelicals don't like it at all. "

 

That is what i was trying to say, you guys about Jim Wallis. I do not mean to disrespect Jim at all and I DO give him credit for trying to give an alternative voice to the bullhorn of the far right. It just when he proudly proclaims himself "Evangelical" I don;t quite know what he means and I would be curious to hear Jim give his opinion of what he thinks of the word and meaning of "Progressive Christian" and "Moderate Christian." Does he fear these terms because he thinks Progressive Christianity would reduce all his beliefs in the resurrection and all into a mre 'myth'? If this was it..I wish he could know that there are many Progresives who also belive in these things. But I also wonder if he he wishes to be embraced as "orthodox" by the far right Protestants and if so..why?

 

"If Wallis wants to take that name back, I say more power to him."

 

He surely has that freedom but it would be helpful if he explained how he views this term veses how the far right has come to define it...cause the viewer at home may not know one from the other.

 

"All I know is I've avoided reading certain Christian authors because I had a bad attitude. I'm the one who lost out for so long, not them. The resentment I carried was a poison to ME. It didn't hurt them at all."

 

I read stuff from both the left and the right all the time. I have read the Evangelical book "A Cause For faith," but what I have come to presume will be said in these books always comes true....that by their own admissions, they always point out, to one degree or another, a "us verses them" sanario.

 

"Perhaps I'm being naive, but I have hope that we can all learn from each other without name calling from either side."

 

 

Aletheia, do YOU think the terms "Evangelical" "Conservative", "Modearte", Liberal, and Progresives are insulting names? I don't. I think heathen, cult or unsaved, are though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks guys (gals), I am aware of the problems with who authored Paul's letters from Spong's book.

 

I go in to reading the Bible fairly critically and even if they really are Paul, they have to be seen in light of the culture and times. So when Paul argues against false doctrine and false teaching, I would take this as a sign of the various and sundry people who might have been pretending to be Christians and weren't. No doubt that was big back then with a new movement.

 

I'd say there are false prophets and doctrines right now. I'm not sure that everyone would universally agree as to what these are.

 

 

--des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the main reasons that Jim refers to himself as an Evangelical are

1) because he was raised as one and he feels no need to leave that family of faith;

2) because he realizes that he will better be able to sway the hearts and minds of more conservative evangelicals if he get them to percieve him as a fellow brother of theirs. He focuses upon common ground that he has with them, and then is able to help them to see the more progressive implications of their shared beliefs.

 

To learn more about Jim Wallis, visit http://www.sojo.net;

read Sojourners Magazine; and check out some of the books he's written:

e.g.

The Call to Conversion (the book that put him on the map)

The Soul of Politics: Beyond Religious Right and Secular Left

God's Politics: Why the Religious Right is Wrong and why the Left Doesn't Get it

 

Learn about them by reading the reviews at http://www.amazon.com

 

FYI, here are the Sojourner Community's equivalent to TCPC's 8 beliefs:

 

1. Hope is believing in spite of the evidence, and watching the evidence change.

&

2. the following which has been attributed to Ghandi:

 

The Seven Deadly Social Sins:

 

Politics without Principle;

Wealth without Work;

Commerce without Morality;

Pleasure without Conscience;

Education without Character;

Science Without Humanity;

Worship without Sacrifice.[/b]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BroRog

letters that were not written by Paul

 

I just learned this 2 days ago! It certainly cleared up the contradiction that women were ministers to the church in one letter and not allowed to speak in church in another.

 

Ephesians was probably written by a follower of Paul in Paul's name.

 

I use the gospels as my primary reference and then read the rest of the NT in support of the gospels. It helps me put things in perspective.

 

Aletheia, do YOU think th terms "Evangelical" "Conservative", "Modearte", Liberal, and Progresives are insulting names?

 

No, I don't think those are insulting names at all. My point was that some Christians consider being called a FUNDEMENTALIST an insult, so perhaps we should stop using that term interchangeably with Evangelical. I don't want to be insulted, but I don't want to insult either.

 

PS BroRog: Have you read Wallis' book on Faith? Is it any good? You can't always go by reviews on Amazon ya know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BroRog bumped a thread that had a link to beliefnet on an interview with Tony Campolo, an Evangelical Christian.

 

Part of the interview dealt with the role of women in the church.

 

In the book, I take issue, for instance, with the increasing tendency in the evangelical community to bar women from key leadership roles in the church. Over the last few years, the Southern Baptist Convention has taken away the right of women to be ordained to ministry. There were women that were ordained to ministry—their ordinations have been negated and women are told that this is not a place for them. They are not to be pastors.

 

They point to certain passages in the Book of Timothy to make their case, but tend to ignore that there are other passages in the Bible that would raise very serious questions about that position and which, in fact, would legitimate women being in leadership positions in the church.

 

In Galatians, it says that in Christ there's neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female, all are one in Christ Jesus.

 

In the Book of Acts, the Bible is very clear that when the Holy Spirit comes upon the Church that both men and women begin to prophesy, that preaching now belongs to both men and women.

 

Phillip had four daughters, all of whom prophesied, which we know means preaching in biblical language.

 

I’d like to point out that in the 16th chapter of Romans, the seventh verse, we have reference to Junia. Junia was a woman and she held the high office of apostle in the early Church. What is frightening to me is that in the New International Translation of the Scriptures, the word Junia was deliberately changed to Junius to make it male.   :o

 

I’m saying, let’s be faithful to the Bible. You can make your point, but there are those of us equally committed to Scripture who make a very strong case that women should be in key leaderships in the Church. We don’t want to communicate the idea that to believe the Bible is to necessarily be opposed to women in key roles of leadership in the life of early Christendom.

Edited by AletheiaRivers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aletheia,

 

In that book I spoke of, "What Paul Really Said About Women," the author points out things just like this. We know that in Greek there at least '7' 'different' meaning to word word LOVE. Well, it seems the same can be said of the word HEAD in Greek. The author brings out that there are at least '2' 'different' meanings to the word HEAD in Greek. Or to be more preicse, SPEARHEAD. These '2' 'different meanings of the word HEAD in Greek are : (1) ARCHE..which denotes authority, chief. The second meaning of the word HEAD in Greek is : (2) KEPHALE...which does NOT denote ANy athority of position...but rather means first one to willingly go into battle inbehalf of his follow troops or a selfless mentality, self-sacfriicing additude, self.

 

The author brings out that BOTH types of meaning of the word HEAD as ARCHE AND KEPHALE were orginally attributed to JESUS CHIRIST. This makes sense since he is everyone's chief and king of Kings (ARCHE)...AND.. he was/is very SELF-GIVING...WAS the first was to go out into battle on behalf of his feollow troops (all of humanity)(KEPHALE....But..the author brings out that ORGINALLY, in the ORGINAL manuscripts of the Bible..as they WERE ORGINALLY found....'ONLY" KEPHALE was attributed to MEN's relatiosnhip towards women..that is...that he should display a "selfless" giving mentality towards his wive..That is should willingly go into battle onbelf of his fellow troops ( his family) and that NEVER was ARCHE (chief, ruler aka King of Kings) EVER orginally used to discribe MAN..and his relationship to his wife.

 

But..Bibel translators ALTERED all this to fit their sexist agendas...and is it not interesting that JW's like Southern baptists have not cared to research this fact? And thus by choosing not to examine this..it has work termendously to 'their' ( the old white men of religious leadership) advantage?

 

It is very curious to me...how passionatley JW's have been willing to clarify the translation ALTERATIONS and ERRORS regarding the meaning of HELL which the orginal Greek and Hebrew words of HADES, SHEOL, and GHEHENNA...but have not cared to equally display such passion nor interest in researching the orginal Greek and Hebrew meanings of the word HEAD and how these words have beeen ALTERED. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A.R., Yes, I've read most all of Wallis' books. They are all very good but my favorite is still his classic, "The Call to Conversion." In it he reminds us what true and full conversion means; i.e. it's not just personal, its social, and its not just about belief, it's about living out our beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Egad peoples! I go away for a while and everybody decides to live the entirety of thier lives within reach of the keyboard. I thought I'd never get to the end of this. In actuality, I just skimmed most of all this. Brace yourselves, I'm about to take us all back to the past. From a long, long time ago in a thread far, far away...

 

XianAnarchist:

 

"For the record, the five fundamentals that fundamentalists believe that one must believe in order to be a Christian:

 

1. Plenary inspiration of Scripture

 

Can you explain this?

Basically, it was an assertion that because the Scriptures are "God-breathed," they were without contradiction and therefore inerrant. Of course, when the obvious inconsistencies came about, the assertion was modified accordingly. Because of the intellectual necessity to have "perfect" texts, the modified version projected out a belief that there must have been at one time a set of perfect, original manuscripts. Since then, these have conveniently been lost, which makes it is impossible to "disprove" this seemingly "authoritative" understanding. So, it is no longer the texts that we have that are "inerrant," but the hypothetical original manuscripts. What we have today is inerrant inasmuch as it is faithful to those original manuscripts, which is considered to be about 99.9999999999999%. Thus, the distinction is rendered moot.

 

Progressive theology tends to classify the Scriptures as authoritative because they are the story of our people and our relationship with God. As such, they are a central symbol of our faith, but are certainly not to be considered "inerrant" in any sense. Inspired people wrote the texts, which reflect their context and their own limited understanding.

 

2. Virgin birth

 

I don;t think that bothers most progressives

Well, actually, I don't think that there would be any progressive scholar out there who would take the virgin birth literally. Rather, it is seen as a literary invention by Matthew to indicate the political significance of Jesus in his time. (Remember that the first Roman Emperor, Caesar Agustus, also was reported to have a virgin birth.) Mythically portraying Jesus as being born of a virgin indicated him as the new "emperor." By the way, note that only Matthew records the virgin birth. Neither Mark nor John mention the earthly birth at all. And Luke only says that the vigin (who is betrothed) will conceive. We tend to read the virgin birth into Luke because we are used to Matthew.

 

So, progressive scholars and theologians (as well as most mainstream conservative ones) deny a "literal" virgin birth, and have replaced it with a "symbolic" virgin birth.

 

3. Diety of Christ

 

This gets into a grey area. Progressives already discribe Christ as "The relm to God....But this does not mean that all progressives are trinitarians. As i pointed out in another post I noticed on the Progressive Christian board of Beliefnet that at least 5 or 6 Progressives there discribed themselves and non-trinatarians. Fundamental protestants claim one can not accept Jesus as Savior if they are not trinatarian. Ovbiously i disagree.

Very nice connection of Christ's diety with God's triune nature.

 

4. Sacrificial Atonement

 

I guess this means the resurrection of Christ? Even the Progressive Christian who wrote the book, "Ten Things I Learned Wrong From A Conservative Church," believes this so it's not an Evangelical protestnat thing only.

Actually, the resurrection is the next one. This theory of atonement says that humanity, in its fallen state, could not redeem itself. Therefore, the Son came to us in Jesus. On the cross, the Son paid the blood-guilt for sin to the Father to ransom sinners.

 

Obviously, this is "out" in progressive circles. It reeks too much of divine child abuse. What's "in" right now is salvation through "revelation." Jesus is "salvic" because he reveals God to us. Currently, the big question in progressive circles is: "Is Jesus salvic for all, or only for Christians?" It's ultimately about trying to figure out how other religions are also salvic. If one asserts that Jesus is salvic for all, then other religions are salvic because of Christ working through them. If one asserts that Jesus is only salvic for Christians, then Buddhists find their "salvation" through Buddha, Wiccans find their salvation through Nature, etc.

 

5. Bodily Resurrection

 

I never understood this phrase by Assembly of God. What does "Bodily" mean, anyways? Organic matter? I believe Christ was resurrected in Spirit..Likely this would not satsify the fundamentalists but I am not too concerned about that.

Typically, this means that the physical body of Jesus has been raised into the realm of heaven. I think of it as God's version of a Star Trek transporter beaming Jesus out of the tomb and into the righ-hand throne. Again, it is a literal reading of the texts. I suspect that most progressives would say that the resurrection means that the life of Jesus could not be overcome by the power of death. Thus, life is stronger than death, love is stronger than hate, and hope is stronger than despair.

 

These 5 terms are sketchy and are open for a wide interpreatation, would you not agree?

I don't think that they are as open as you have suggested here. Fundamentalist theologians tend to have a pretty strong emphasis on the particulars of their understanding. Progressives tend to not subscribe to any of the above in any way other than truthful traditional symbolism.

 

***********

 

And continuing with a completely different thought...

 

Someone mentioned earlier something about someone identifying as an "evangelical" and who was hesitant to identify as a "progressive." (...or something like that...)

 

I want to throw out a bit of my understanding of the current theological atmosphere. I believe that typically, those who follow a "progressive" theology tend to come from a liberal-mainline tradition. Evangelicals haven't had an equivalent until recently. What people like Jim Wallis and Brian McLaren represent is what is coming to be known as "post-evanglicalism" (I think it might have briefly been known as "post-conservative-evangelicalism"). Their current organizational scheme is "Emergent," whic is more of a conversation than an organizational structure. I suspect that many in the post-evangelical camp would be quite hesitant to identify with progressives because of political and theological reasons. Politically, if they identify with progressives, they will lose the trust needed to bring about change in their own tradition. Theologically, they are in a different place.

 

Personally, I see the two movements as siblings born in this postmodern era. Both seem more than willing to dialogue with each other, which may be a good sign for the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

re: QUOTE

2. Virgin birth

I don;t think that bothers most progressives

 

Well, actually, I don't think that there would be any progressive scholar out there who would take the virgin birth literally.

---------------

 

I guess I'd agree with the statement above - both of them; i.e. IMO, most progressive Christians don't take the virgin birth literally, but they not make a big deal about it either way - they see it largely as a moot point that is not a "make or break" essential of the faith.

 

----------------------------------

Re: "post-evangelicalism"

 

To add even further nuance to all of this, there is also a growing movement called "Post-liberalism / post-liberal theology" Examples of proponents of this: Stanley Hauerwas; Will Willimon; James Gustafson; George Lindbeck, etc.

 

I used to embrace Process theology, but now, more and more, find myself drawn to the Post-liberal approach to the faith. I still operate in a process theology perspective in my understanding of "how prayer works."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More on Wallis' "evangelicalism":

----------

As evangelical as an oak tree

by Jim Wallis

 

I debated Jerry Falwell yesterday on Tavis Smiley's National Public Radio show. The subject was the current talk about "values" in the presidential election campaign. Tavis first asked Falwell to name a "short list" of the values issues that were important to him. It turned out to be a very short list indeed. All the Religious Right leader could talk about was the gay marriage amendment. That was it.

 

I pointed out that overcoming poverty was a values issue, as was protecting the environment, as was fighting unnecessary wars on false pretenses, as was the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. As he often does when he fears he might lose a debate, Falwell eventually began to interrupt what I was saying and moved into personal-attack mode, saying that I was "as much an evangelical as an oak tree." The television preacher from Lynchburg has such a way with words.

 

But then he really got vicious. He challenged me: "You voted for Al Gore, didn't you, Reverend? Admit it! Admit it!" he demanded. "You didn't vote for George Bush, or George Bush Sr., or even Ronald Reagan!" He had me. I was finally exposed on National Public Radio - a Christian who hadn't consistently voted for Republican candidates. How could I ever again claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ, who, as we all know, was pro-rich, pro-war, and pro-American?

 

It was an absolutely partisan and theocratic moment. There is only one way that Christians can possibly vote: That's exactly what Falwell was saying. And that's exactly what the Religious Right is saying. And they say the only values issues are things like gay marriage and abortion. Forget everything the Bible says about the priority of the poor, about Christian peacemaking, about respecting God's creation, or about the image of God in every human being - including our enemies.

 

I happen to think that both abortion and gay marriage are important issues, but they are not the only issues. Many Christians are getting tired of the tirades of the Jerry Falwells who repeatedly claim that all values issues have to do with sex and that every Christian must vote for their Republican friends. Family values are important to many Christians, but so are social values. And many Christians are pro-family without being anti-gay the way Falwell is. And many of us believe that a deep commitment to the sacredness of human life requires a consistent ethic of life, which also regards the destruction of war, the death penalty, and the scandal of global poverty as deeply moral concerns, not just abortion.

 

The future of American politics should be a real discussion of values; that would be a very welcome development. And we may be reaching a "tipping point" when many other Christians and the media who cover faith and politics will decide that the Religious Right should no longer dominate the discussion. Let them have their say, but let other Christian voices be heard. The control of right-wing fundamentalists over the "values" conversation may be coming to an end. And the uncritical alliance between the Religious Right and the Republican Party should be named a theocratic mistake and idolatrous allegiance (as is any religious left's uncritical alliance with the Democrats).

 

Later in the day, my friend Tony Campolo called and I told him what Falwell had said. Tony is a Baptist preacher and as evangelical as you can get, but he will not likely be voting for George W. Bush. Imagine that. We agreed the next time either of us is in a debate with Falwell, we will name him for what he really is - a fundamentalist who has stolen the word evangelical.

======

 

The Tavis Smiley Show, July 13, 2004 · NPR's Tavis Smiley discusses values and politics with Rev. Jerry Falwell, founder of the conservative Moral Majority, and Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners: Christians for Justice and Peace and author The Soul of Politics.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...storyId=3354001

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have just got done reading the book, "Ten Wrong Things I Learned From A Conservative Church." The author of this book was once all into The First Bapstist and Southern Baptists church but then switched to Presbyterian and D of C because they are more progressive. It is interesting to me that even though this author is progressive..he still belives in the resurrection of Christ as real but ironically he dismisses all the other mircles and inspiring fairy tales. Yeah, he did actually use the phrase "Fairy tales." He admits that he cannot logically explain the contridiction in why he belives in this one mircle but figures the rests to be not real. I will give a full book review on this later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Egad peoples!  I go away for a while and everybody decides to live the entirety of thier lives within reach of the keyboard.  I thought I'd never get to the end of this.  In actuality, I just skimmed most of all this.  Brace yourselves, I'm about to take us all back to the past.  From a long, long time ago in a thread far, far away...

 

Yes, it's a plot. We are trying to wreck you. :->

 

assertion was modified accordingly.  Because of the intellectual necessity to have "perfect" texts, the modified version projected out a belief that there must have been at one time a set of perfect, original manuscripts.  Since then, these have conveniently been lost, which makes it is impossible to "disprove" this seemingly "authoritative" understanding.  So, it is no longer the texts that we have that are "inerrant," but the hypothetical original manuscripts.  What we have today is inerrant inasmuch as it is faithful to those original manuscripts, which is considered to be about 99.9999999999999%. 

 

Well, I don't believe anything was "conveniently" lost. (uh, oh I think this is one of those ironic things.) Anyway in any event the "inerrancy" from the original texts wouldn't explain all the contradictions. I would agree that the Bible does describe accurately inspired people's relationship to God, as observed from their own culture and in historical context. But I also think that some things were never meant to be anythign aside from allergory, and I also think that some things can ONLY be taken as allegory today (ie Adam and Eve). Anyway, no one had ever known Adam and Eve, and they were (even as the conservatives maintain still thousands of years back).

 

This gets into a grey area. Progressives already discribe Christ as "The relm to God....But this does not mean that all progressives are trinitarians. As i pointed out in another post I noticed on the Progressive Christian board of Beliefnet that at least 5 or 6 Progressives there discribed themselves and non-trinatarians. Fundamental protestants claim one can not accept Jesus as Savior if they are not trinatarian. Ovbiously i disagree.

 

Actually the above was quoted and should be inside a quote. Not sure how to do that!

I go back and forth on the trinity. Currently, I feel there is a kind of harmony about it, but I don't take it as a sort of God in the three in one oil (as someone described it-- I think Soul on Ice?). You have Creator God; God in humanity as Christ; and God in the Mystery, something that you can only glimpse but never fully know. But one could also describe other "aspects" of God-- say "God in creation" or ...

 

But as to Jesus' divinity, I don't think you have to be trinitarian to believe that. I'm not sure that Jesus was actually God, but Jesus expressed God in humanity the most highly or most developed.

 

More writing for ya.

 

--des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any of you see the 5 Evangelists on Larry King. One of the guys was pretty liberal, I thought.

 

There were a couple wierd things though.

When LK asked about the environment though, one of them answered that the environment wasn't of concern because "it had gotten better". Gosh, I wonder why that is? It wouldn't be due to 20+ years of environmental regulation. (I had just seen a whole thing on the destruction of coral reefs in the Florida Keys.)

 

The liberal guy said that people should get to know homosexuals-- that was his response to questions about gays and gay marriage. LK was actually pretty tough in his questioning, much more so than usual.

 

I was surprised that more of the callers weren't going "Oh halleluah" and so forth.

 

 

--des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An upcoming (semi-progressive) Evangelical Event:

-------

ESA CONFERENCE: THE SCANDAL OF THE EVANGELICAL CONSCIENCE

March 6-7, 2005 in Philadelphia, PA

 

"Whether the issue is divorce, materialism, sexual promiscuity, racism or physical abuse in marriage, the polling data point to widespread, blatant disobedience. The statistics are devastating. This scandalous behavior mocks Christ, undermines evangelism, and destroys Christian credibility."

- from THE SCANDAL OF THE EVANGELICAL CONSCIENCE (Baker, 2005) by Ronald J. Sider

 

As well as the title of Ron Sider’s forthcoming book, THE SCANDAL OF THE EVANGELICAL CONSCIENCE is a conference sponsored by Evangelicals for Social Action, The Sider Center on Ministry and Public Policy, Baker Books, and The Barney II Foundation. Keynote speakers include:

“Assessing the Scandal” - Mark Noll, Professor of History, Wheaton College, Wheaton IL

“What Went Wrong” - Randall Balmer, Professor of Religion, Barnard College, Columbia University

“What Can Be Done” - David Neff, Editor, CHRISTIANITY TODAY

 

Panelists include Andy Crouch, Chris Hall, Ellen Charry, Jo Anne Lyon, Wallace Smith, Bill Borror, and Dean Trulear

 

Register with ESA online or phone toll-free 800-650-6600. The cost of the conference is $75, students $30.

 

Each registration includes a complementary copy of the SCANDAL book. Additional copies will be available for sale at the conference (or by order from ESA and retailers as of February ’05).

 

Help us spread news of the conference by downloading, printing, and passing out or displaying this promotional poster.

 

Register here: http://www.esastore.com/page6.html

 

Promotional poster: http://www.esastore.com/page6.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

from an email newsletter (the E-Pistle) by ESA:

-------

Dear ePistle,

Much of what Rick Nowlin articulated in last week’s "What Do We Do Now?" coincides with my beliefs and thinking. One point of difference is in regard to the final paragraph. He didn't have expectation that there could soon, if ever, be electoral or cultural victory.

 

The impact of Jonah, that reluctant and racist prophet, and having "the world turned upside down" (or right side up) by 1st-century Christians gives me reason to believe otherwise. If God is ready for change and Christians are unified and seriously faithful to living and promoting the words, commands and wisdom of God through the Lord Jesus, cultural and electoral positions can be significantly impacted for change toward Christ-conformed Shalom (i.e. holistic well-being) in this nation and world.

 

An 8-Point Petition has been developed, as a means of unifying Christians in a prophetic and evangelistic thrust for challenging those of us who call Jesus "Lord", to remember and apply his commands and wisdom, in order to curtail or prevent physical and verbal violence in families, communities of faith, geographic communities, as well as between and within ethnic groups intra-and-internationally. In addition the 8-Point Petition could serve as a means of generating interest in learning more about other wisdom and Good News from God's Kingdom, while influencing government policy, political parties, and politicians.

 

If there are others who believe that God is able and willing to "turn things right side up" again, and who would like to at least look at the 8-Points for the Golden Rule, Unity, and Christ-conformed Shalom, I can be contacted at elainebryant@ameritech.net.

 

- B. Elaine Bryant, pastor in a small inner-city Chicago Mennonite congregation, who recently completed a six-month, Boston University-sponsored study sabbatical on the topic of Christ-conformed Shalom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service