TheologyOnline, religion, politics, forum
Go Back   Theology Online | Christian Forums & More > Politics, Religion, And The Rest > Religion
Reload this Page Is it acceptable for a Christian to be unrighteous when expressing righteous anger?
Religion Discuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.

View Poll Results: Is it acceptable for a Christian to be unrighteous when expressing righteous anger?
Yes 0 0%
No 19 95.00%
Other; explain 1 5.00%
Voters: 20. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  (#61) Old
zippy2006 zippy2006 is offline
Over 5000 post club
 zippy2006's Avatar

 



Reputation:
zippy2006 is well respected by his peers
zippy2006 is well respected by his peerszippy2006 is well respected by his peerszippy2006 is well respected by his peerszippy2006 is well respected by his peerszippy2006 is well respected by his peerszippy2006 is well respected by his peerszippy2006 is well respected by his peerszippy2006 is well respected by his peerszippy2006 is well respected by his peerszippy2006 is well respected by his peers
December 1st, 2012, 02:34 PM

"God resists the proud, even when they are right."





"If a sheerly linguistic version of the gospel could be concocted, it would merely so be no longer the gospel. In the Lutheran Reformationís understanding, which we believe in this matter to be correct, the sacraments make the inalienable externality of the gospel message and therefore are necessary to the authenticity of that message." (Christian Dogmatics [1984], II:302-303 as cited in Pontifications)

-Falsity of OSAS
   
Reply With Quote
  (#62) Old
Town Heretic Town Heretic is online now
TOL Subscriber
 Town Heretic's Avatar

 




Reputation:
Town Heretic is well respected by his peersTown Heretic is well respected by his peersTown Heretic is well respected by his peers
Town Heretic is well respected by his peersTown Heretic is well respected by his peersTown Heretic is well respected by his peersTown Heretic is well respected by his peersTown Heretic is well respected by his peersTown Heretic is well respected by his peersTown Heretic is well respected by his peersTown Heretic is well respected by his peersTown Heretic is well respected by his peersTown Heretic is well respected by his peersTown Heretic is well respected by his peersTown Heretic is well respected by his peersTown Heretic is well respected by his peersTown Heretic is well respected by his peers
December 1st, 2012, 03:15 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
...Being stupid does not necessitate that one is unintelligent, only that they are being stupid in a particular instance.
Sure, you can qualify stupid to make it particular to a statement. But "you're stupid" speaks to a state, not a moment.

As to why you continue to act like a petulant child.
Quote:
Because people like you are conceited and someone needs to point out that you're not nearly as smart as you think you are.
You think anna is conceited and not as smart as she thinks she is? Because you weren't speaking to me when you made the stupid comment, to remind you.



   
Reply With Quote
  (#63) Old
zippy2006 zippy2006 is offline
Over 5000 post club
 zippy2006's Avatar

 



Reputation:
zippy2006 is well respected by his peers
zippy2006 is well respected by his peerszippy2006 is well respected by his peerszippy2006 is well respected by his peerszippy2006 is well respected by his peerszippy2006 is well respected by his peerszippy2006 is well respected by his peerszippy2006 is well respected by his peerszippy2006 is well respected by his peerszippy2006 is well respected by his peerszippy2006 is well respected by his peers
December 1st, 2012, 06:51 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by annabenedetti View Post
So when evangelizing or correcting, if you think someone has crossed a particular line, it's okay to defame his character?
Only insofar as the accusation[s] is [are] true.
That a curious point though. Is it okay to deface someone via a true flaw they have?

Romans 14:13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brotherís way.

1 Cor 8:9 But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak.

1 Cor 8:13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

It is interesting that when push comes to shove, Paul would rather abstain from meat than make his brother stumble, even though his brother is incorrect in his dietary restrictions.





"If a sheerly linguistic version of the gospel could be concocted, it would merely so be no longer the gospel. In the Lutheran Reformationís understanding, which we believe in this matter to be correct, the sacraments make the inalienable externality of the gospel message and therefore are necessary to the authenticity of that message." (Christian Dogmatics [1984], II:302-303 as cited in Pontifications)

-Falsity of OSAS
   
Reply With Quote
  (#64) Old
Sealeaf Sealeaf is offline
Over 1500 post club

 


Reputation:
Sealeaf is well respected by his peersSealeaf is well respected by his peersSealeaf is well respected by his peersSealeaf is well respected by his peersSealeaf is well respected by his peersSealeaf is well respected by his peersSealeaf is well respected by his peersSealeaf is well respected by his peersSealeaf is well respected by his peersSealeaf is well respected by his peersSealeaf is well respected by his peersSealeaf is well respected by his peers
December 2nd, 2012, 01:08 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by annabenedetti View Post
Whether correcting the believer or evangelizing the unbeliever:

Is it acceptable for a Christian to use unrighteous behavior when expressing what he believes to be a righteous anger?

Does the end justify the means? Is it okay to insult, mock, belittle, defame or lie about others when evangelizing or correcting what the Christian believes to be their wrong attitude, behavior or belief?

It seems that a lot of Christians think it's okay; that those they consider to be in error, in sin, or in heresy deserve to be treated unrighteously until they repent.
Expressing righteous anger is itself a field fraught with peril. It is something we should avoid, not welcome. When we actually feel overwhelmed with "righteous anger" we should probably keep silence if we possibly can. Speaking when overwhelmed with emotion is not wise.
Unrighteous behavior in the supposed service of a good end is evil. The end never justifies the means. Rather the opposit, the means pollute the value of the end. Consider that as humans we do not actually know the "end". We don't have perfect knowledge, so we don't know our opinions are correct. But we can know that our actions are wrong and sinful when they hurt others.





"Not everything that is clever, is true."

- - St Ephiram of Syria - -
   
Reply With Quote
  (#65) Old
Sealeaf Sealeaf is offline
Over 1500 post club

 


Reputation:
Sealeaf is well respected by his peersSealeaf is well respected by his peersSealeaf is well respected by his peersSealeaf is well respected by his peersSealeaf is well respected by his peersSealeaf is well respected by his peersSealeaf is well respected by his peersSealeaf is well respected by his peersSealeaf is well respected by his peersSealeaf is well respected by his peersSealeaf is well respected by his peersSealeaf is well respected by his peers
December 2nd, 2012, 01:27 AM

Bottom line: "truthsmacking" = "sin"

The "truth' is in question because the writer is human, but the "smack" is both self evident and intended to hurt. Since the "truth" is questionable it cannot be used as justification for the "smack".

Therefore: If I engage in "truthsmacking ", I commit a sin. I will make no judgement of anyone else.





"Not everything that is clever, is true."

- - St Ephiram of Syria - -
   
Reply With Quote
  (#66) Old
chrysostom chrysostom is offline
TOL Subscriber
 chrysostom's Avatar

 



Reputation:
chrysostom is well respected by his peerschrysostom is well respected by his peerschrysostom is well respected by his peers
chrysostom is well respected by his peerschrysostom is well respected by his peerschrysostom is well respected by his peerschrysostom is well respected by his peerschrysostom is well respected by his peerschrysostom is well respected by his peerschrysostom is well respected by his peerschrysostom is well respected by his peerschrysostom is well respected by his peerschrysostom is well respected by his peerschrysostom is well respected by his peerschrysostom is well respected by his peerschrysostom is well respected by his peerschrysostom is well respected by his peers
December 2nd, 2012, 05:16 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
Bottom line: "truthsmacking" = "sin"

The "truth' is in question because the writer is human, but the "smack" is both self evident and intended to hurt. Since the "truth" is questionable it cannot be used as justification for the "smack".

Therefore: If I engage in "truthsmacking ", I commit a sin. I will make no judgement of anyone else.
amen





a voice crying in the wilderness :chrysost:
   
Reply With Quote
  (#67) Old
jeremysdemo jeremysdemo is offline
TOL Subscriber
 jeremysdemo's Avatar

 


Reputation:
jeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peers
December 2nd, 2012, 09:22 AM

well sometimes the truth itself does smack people....but the Bible calls that quickening, John 6:63.

don't shoot the messenger.


let's look at the example of Moses, God told Him to speak to the rock Numbers 20:8 before their eyes, but instead he struck it with his rod, and water came forth, God punishes him for not being obedient to His word, Numbers 20:12.

I think the same will happen to people here who forget the commandments of God, they will not enter the promised land, we are to give them the "word" that is commanded, not strike with a rod or taunt/belittle them, Numbers 20:10.

keep shinin

jerm



   
Reply With Quote
  (#68) Old
Lighthouse Lighthouse is offline
Star*Lord of the Spartax Empire
 Lighthouse's Avatar

 




Reputation:
Lighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peers
Lighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peers
December 2nd, 2012, 12:42 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Jack View Post
But, you didn't actually say that Anna was being stupid. You said...
At least in this instance.

Quote:
And...
"No" means "No."

Quote:
The implication of your statements is that Anna is, in fact, stupid, not that she is being stupid in this particular case. I think there is a big difference there because of how people can or might construe your statement.
Just because you read it one way doesn't mean that is how it was meant, however that may be exactly as it was meant seeing as how I never said I meant she was only being stupid in this instance, I simply said that being stupid does not necessitate one is always so.

Quote:
So, I guess the question is, do you think Anna is stupid or that she is being stupid in this particular instance?
I haven't decided. Though as I answered definitively in the negative and she claimed I was being vague, I'm leaning heavily toward the latter. She could prove me wrong, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by annabenedetti View Post
When I said your answer was vague, my hope would have been that your first thought would have been to look at it and see how you could make it more clearly understood - rather than call me stupid. That would be the Christian response, or at least that's what I would think would be the Christian response, yet I've seen you call people stupid more times than I can count. I don't care about being on the receiving end so much myself, but I do care about others, and as TH pointed out, you did this recently wrt zoo - and labeling him that is so far off the mark it's ludicrous. I wish you'd give some thought to how you, as a Christian, come across to others.
I said, "No." How is that vague?

Quote:
You may not consider it to be unrighteous, but according to the one of the dictionary definitions of unrighteous which you agreed with, which is "not virtuous..." it is.
I disagree that it is not virtuous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
Sure, you can qualify stupid to make it particular to a statement. But "you're stupid" speaks to a state, not a moment.
In that moment she was in that state.

Quote:
As to why you continue to act like a petulant child.
To annoy you.

Quote:
You think anna is conceited and not as smart as she thinks she is? Because you weren't speaking to me when you made the stupid comment, to remind you.
I think you are too.

Of course, you didn't ask why I said it to here, but a general question of why I do it, and I answered as to my general reason, and included you specifically, as you are the one who asked the question [and are very conceited].

Quote:
Originally Posted by zippy2006 View Post
That a curious point though. Is it okay to deface someone via a true flaw they have?

Romans 14:13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brotherís way.

1 Cor 8:9 But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak.

1 Cor 8:13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

It is interesting that when push comes to shove, Paul would rather abstain from meat than make his brother stumble, even though his brother is incorrect in his dietary restrictions.
It depends whether or not they can help it. It's not okay to mock someone for being autistic, for instance, but if they are doing something over which they have control then by all means take them to task if necessary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
Bottom line: "truthsmacking" = "sin"

The "truth' is in question because the writer is human, but the "smack" is both self evident and intended to hurt. Since the "truth" is questionable it cannot be used as justification for the "smack".

Therefore: If I engage in "truthsmacking ", I commit a sin. I will make no judgement of anyone else.
I'll agree that as you do not know the One Who is Truth you are in no position to use truth to "smack."

You are wrong, by the way, that the "smack" is intended to hurt. It is possible to lay the truthsmack down without intending to hurt anyone.





   
Reply With Quote
  (#69) Old
Town Heretic Town Heretic is online now
TOL Subscriber
 Town Heretic's Avatar

 




Reputation:
Town Heretic is well respected by his peersTown Heretic is well respected by his peersTown Heretic is well respected by his peers
Town Heretic is well respected by his peersTown Heretic is well respected by his peersTown Heretic is well respected by his peersTown Heretic is well respected by his peersTown Heretic is well respected by his peersTown Heretic is well respected by his peersTown Heretic is well respected by his peersTown Heretic is well respected by his peersTown Heretic is well respected by his peersTown Heretic is well respected by his peersTown Heretic is well respected by his peersTown Heretic is well respected by his peersTown Heretic is well respected by his peersTown Heretic is well respected by his peers
December 2nd, 2012, 12:55 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
...In that moment she was in that state.
I get that you aren't going to admit what is rather obvious to anyone who is a native speaker of English, but it speaks to my point about your immaturity.

Quote:
To annoy you.
You don't annoy me, LH. I don't dislike you. You disappoint me here and there, but I still engage you on other topics, have rep'd you (in a good way) on occasion. I think you have an issue with intellect and raise it frequently enough for me to feel sustained in my opinion.

Quote:
I think you are too.
Doesn't matter to me. But you aimed the comment at anna.

Quote:
Of course, you didn't ask why I said it to here, but a general question of why I do it, and I answered as to my general reason, and included you specifically, as you are the one who asked the question [and are very conceited]
I know you think that's true. And yet you can't tell me where I went to law school or what my IQ is using my quotes, can you?

In my experience people with unhealthy egos tend to list particular laurels at every possible point...by way of example, I knew a minister who, no matter what the conversation was about, would manage to work into it his stint at MIT. A good fellow, but he just couldn't stand the possibility that everyone he spoke to might not fully appreciate the strength of his intellect or the degree of his accomplishment.

We both know what you're upset about and it isn't my ego. So go do something. Make yourself feel better. Or, if you can't, then make peace with that. The most important thing a man can be has nothing to do with his intellect.



   
Reply With Quote
  (#70) Old
Wile E. Coyote Wile E. Coyote is offline
Over 5000 post club
 Wile E. Coyote's Avatar

 


Reputation:
Wile E. Coyote is well respected by his peersWile E. Coyote is well respected by his peersWile E. Coyote is well respected by his peersWile E. Coyote is well respected by his peersWile E. Coyote is well respected by his peersWile E. Coyote is well respected by his peersWile E. Coyote is well respected by his peersWile E. Coyote is well respected by his peersWile E. Coyote is well respected by his peersWile E. Coyote is well respected by his peersWile E. Coyote is well respected by his peersWile E. Coyote is well respected by his peersWile E. Coyote is well respected by his peers
December 2nd, 2012, 01:06 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
I wouldn't consider it to be unrighteous.
Jesus clearly said that we may not call our bother "fool."

The word "fool" is the Greek "moros" which means "stupid" (Strong's # 3474).

You may want to rethink your definition of what is unrighteous. I am NOT judging you for I have been guilty of it myself. But I am through with it because to Jesus it is a very serious matter.





"The Bible is very clear, Christians aren't supposed to be busybodies, nor are they supposed to strive with any man who hasn't harmed him (Or someone else, by implication.)" RandPaulfor2016, May 10, 2013

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...73#post3450273
   
Reply With Quote
  (#71) Old
jeremysdemo jeremysdemo is offline
TOL Subscriber
 jeremysdemo's Avatar

 


Reputation:
jeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peers
December 2nd, 2012, 01:27 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wile E. Coyote View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse
I wouldn't consider it to be unrighteous.
Jesus clearly said that we may not call our bother "fool."

The word "fool" is the Greek "moros" which means "stupid" (Strong's # 3474).

You may want to rethink your definition of what is unrighteous. I am NOT judging you for I have been guilty of it myself. But I am through with it because to Jesus it is a very serious matter.
it's going to come down to a spirit thing Wile E,

because if it is a question, than Y'shua said the same thing, Mark 7:18NIV but in the Spirit, he was upfront with his disciples about the gap in their understanding and for their sakes taught them what defiles a man, in Love for them, Mark 7:21-23.

Jesus shows there is a right Spirit we are to walk in and Love one another, John 13:34.

keep shinin

jerm



   
Reply With Quote
  (#72) Old
Lighthouse Lighthouse is offline
Star*Lord of the Spartax Empire
 Lighthouse's Avatar

 




Reputation:
Lighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peers
Lighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peers
December 2nd, 2012, 01:29 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
I get that you aren't going to admit what is rather obvious to anyone who is a native speaker of English, but it speaks to my point about your immaturity.
That I think Anna is stupid if she thinks "No," is vague?

After all, that is exactly what I said. I never said she was definitely stupid.

Quote:
You don't annoy me, LH. I don't dislike you.
The feeling's not mutual.

Quote:
You disappoint me here and there, but I still engage you on other topics, have rep'd you (in a good way) on occasion. I think you have an issue with intellect and raise it frequently enough for me to feel sustained in my opinion.
Not as often as you disappoint me, apparently.

I have no issue with intellect, my problem is with those too conceited to recognize their fallibility.

Quote:
Doesn't matter to me. But you aimed the comment at anna.
I aimed an "if, then" statement at Anna. My statements on your ignorance are definitive.

Quote:
I know you think that's true. And yet you can't tell me where I went to law school or what my IQ is using my quotes, can you?
Irrelevant.

Quote:
In my experience people with unhealthy egos tend to list particular laurels at every possible point...by way of example, I knew a minister who, no matter what the conversation was about, would manage to work into it his stint at MIT. A good fellow, but he just couldn't stand the possibility that everyone he spoke to might not fully appreciate the strength of his intellect or the degree of his accomplishment.
I never said you had an unhealthy ego; only that you are far too convinced of your own intelligence to recognize you might be wrong in your personal convictions at times.

Quote:
We both know what you're upset about and it isn't my ego. So go do something. Make yourself feel better. Or, if you can't, then make peace with that. The most important thing a man can be has nothing to do with his intellect.
"Upset? Is that the word? I used to get upset. When I got a flat tire, when a plane was delayed. I used to get upset when the Yankees won the series."

FYI, I quoted that to mock you. I'm not upset, at all. No level of anger to any degree whatsoever.

This is what I was talking about when I said you're too conceited to recognize your fallibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wile E. Coyote View Post
Jesus clearly said that we may not call our bother "fool."

The word "fool" is the Greek "moros" which means "stupid" (Strong's # 3474).

You may want to rethink your definition of what is unrighteous. I am NOT judging you for I have been guilty of it myself. But I am through with it because to Jesus it is a very serious matter.
Actually He only said not to do so without cause:

"But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire."
-Matthew 5:22






   
Reply With Quote
  (#73) Old
jeremysdemo jeremysdemo is offline
TOL Subscriber
 jeremysdemo's Avatar

 


Reputation:
jeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peers
December 2nd, 2012, 01:36 PM

the "cause" should be out of Love for them 1 Corinthians 16:14, there should be no other cause (eg. to defame, belittle etc)

keep shinin

jerm



   
Reply With Quote
  (#74) Old
Wile E. Coyote Wile E. Coyote is offline
Over 5000 post club
 Wile E. Coyote's Avatar

 


Reputation:
Wile E. Coyote is well respected by his peersWile E. Coyote is well respected by his peersWile E. Coyote is well respected by his peersWile E. Coyote is well respected by his peersWile E. Coyote is well respected by his peersWile E. Coyote is well respected by his peersWile E. Coyote is well respected by his peersWile E. Coyote is well respected by his peersWile E. Coyote is well respected by his peersWile E. Coyote is well respected by his peersWile E. Coyote is well respected by his peersWile E. Coyote is well respected by his peersWile E. Coyote is well respected by his peers
December 2nd, 2012, 01:50 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
Actually He only said not to do so without cause:

"But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire."
-Matthew 5:22
If Anna did not injure you, then you have no cause to be angry with her and call her stupid. So what did Anna do to offend you? Was it that she disagreed with something you said? If you consider dissent to be a "cause," then you are no different than the liberal which you loathe.

How did Anna injure you?





"The Bible is very clear, Christians aren't supposed to be busybodies, nor are they supposed to strive with any man who hasn't harmed him (Or someone else, by implication.)" RandPaulfor2016, May 10, 2013

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...73#post3450273
   
Reply With Quote
  (#75) Old
jeremysdemo jeremysdemo is offline
TOL Subscriber
 jeremysdemo's Avatar

 


Reputation:
jeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peersjeremysdemo is well respected by his peers
December 2nd, 2012, 02:01 PM

I wasn't allowed to strike or call my sisters names growing up, even if they did hurt me...

we were just supposed to take it like men, man have times changed.

keep shinin

jerm



   
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
bacon, much is required, to whom much is given


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Copyright ©1997-2014 TheologyOnLine



Logos Bible Study Software Up to 15% OFF FOR THEOLOGYONLINE MEMBERS! Study twice, post once.
Logos Bible Software ótake your Bible study to the next level.