my wife has been keeping me up to date on what goes on in the forum.
i finally decided to join myself.
i am not as knowledgeable in the scriptures as my wife.
Hi ROC,
Welcome.
So being ex military on a submarine, I just want to say, I never met a "real" athiest when we had a situation with flooding.
Kind of like no atheists in foxholes, eh? Good point!
Thank you for your service to our country.
Jim Whitney
this thread was going to be about the true church.
but i simply changed the title.
okay ... so my experience thread set the stage for what seems to be a need to debate catholicism ... maybe because in the minds of many, there is a comparison to the watchtower ... a comparison which i believe is false.
Doug Farkel with a Sparkel,
I don't want to turn you into anything. I want you to find happiness and continued good health, you stupid freaking moron who thinks that religion can give it to you! You freaking MORON!
I spit my coffe out when I saw this ... it is great to have Farkel with a Sparkel back, mean and nasty as ever.
Just joking, Jim. You are my friend and I only wish the best for you, even if you think some other's belief systems are somehow mystically and inately better than your own morals and ethics which the Creator gave you at birth. :)
I was already at peace with myself and God. I reconciled with the Catholic Church because it is simply a free and open place where I can be me and express my version of Christianity safely. There is also less chance I will run into assholes from the fundy side of life. I was raised RC, so it was more an act of going home, rather than adopting something new or better than what I am.
E-mail me at [email protected] and give me your latest e-mail address. I will e-amil beck my phone numbers so you can call when the Spirit moves you.
Jim
this thread was going to be about the true church.
but i simply changed the title.
okay ... so my experience thread set the stage for what seems to be a need to debate catholicism ... maybe because in the minds of many, there is a comparison to the watchtower ... a comparison which i believe is false.
LT:
I'm ok on the transubstantiation, thanks. I have a good understanding of it. While its a bone of contention to many, I'd rather say "lets just get on and break bread!"
Well ... I still want to initiate a new thread on it, because I think it might be good for some who hold myths and misconceptions about the doctrine.
My next two threads will be on prayer to the Holy Spirit and Evolution, then on to Transubstantiation ... then I will take a break and go fishing.
this thread was going to be about the true church.
but i simply changed the title.
okay ... so my experience thread set the stage for what seems to be a need to debate catholicism ... maybe because in the minds of many, there is a comparison to the watchtower ... a comparison which i believe is false.
LT and then Restrangled:
LT:
In your opinion, how do you identify the anti-christ?
I don't know for sure. Some things suggest it is a singluar agent or person ... and some suggest it is a generalized anti-Christ development throughout society at large. I just simply do not know for sure ... but my guess with the rise of secular humanism, coupled with the rise of radical Islam, there is not much room left for Christ.
Luther managed to strain out 95 points of contention that he felt needed reforming, but that is set against a backdrop of hundreds of points of agreement. The mainstream denominations have at least 95% agreement, and on the most important topics, to my mind.
Good point.
The usual arguments concern abuse of power and nitpicking details of the sacrement of the Eucharist and baptism. Of all of these the Eucharist is probably the most contentious. Would you like to tackle transubstantiation (which to most people is merely a very long string of letters)?
What part of transubstantiation is confusing to you? Perhaps I need a new thread to tackle this one - no?
Restrangled:
I will admit I have read very little here but question any organized religion.
Me too. I did not expect 105 responses. And I am going in and tackling ones that have core issues and concerns. Yours is one of them.
With The RC church there has been the torture and murder of anyone questioning it's authority, along with denying the science that have proved them wrong for centuries.
There are two issues here:
1. Torture and murder. Perhaps specifics would help. The RC church does not approve or engage in torture or murder. The Inquisition was a situation that went out of control. It was not ever approved by the Church, but it was still wrong. This does not remove the mantle of authority from the Church, nor the rightness of her teachings. It means that bad people did bad things. They were absolutely wrong. An excellent source for thing kind of dirt on the Church is the New Advent Catholic encyclopedia. The RCC is quite open about its errors. And where justified, they also give more accurate accounts that mitigate or exaplain away what have been blown into larger than life legends. The RCC still has the Office of Inquistion, by the way.
2. Denying science: Some of the accounts and claims surrounding Galeleo are myth of the kind that I inferred above. However, the Church burned itself on this topic, and has since learned to behave and accept science as it is revealed. Today, for example, Catholics can and do accept the science of evolution. I do, and I do not feel threatened by it. That is how far the RCC has come. Whereas many Protestant churches, especially the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, fight evolution tooth and nail.
There is the question of Hell Fire which now has been denied by a pope.
Hell: I have not reexplored this with the Church so I am talking somewhat blind. I grew up in the RCC believing in hell. I stopped believing in hell as a JW. Upon reconciling with the RCC, I still do not believe in hell. Those I have talked to in the Church say that nowadays, hell is simply eternal separation from God. That sounds as good as any idea to me. The Bible is not really clear, because it uses such loaded language in deep symbolism.
There is also the problem of their pedophila within the ranks.
Pedophiles: There are pedophiles in all churches, cities, counties, states, nations, provinces, territories cultures, societies on this planet. They have always existed, and will continue to exist. The problem with the RCC is that a small number of her Priests are pedophiles. The RCC Bishops were dead wrong in simply shuffling them around from parish to parish. However, a few lawsuits later, and the RCC in the USA got its act together and put a stop to it under a zero tolerance policy. The Church has never stopped or threatened or abused any Catholic for reporting the problem to the authorities. Since the zero tolerance policy was enacted, one bishop I know of still did not get it, and shuffled a pedophile priest around. That was exposed and stopped. Catholic participateed openly in condemning the pedophiles and in demanding the RCC do something. This is the correct way that a healthy church cmmunity should deal with this kind of problem.
There is the question why they supported and hid Nazi criminals.
Nazis: The RCC no Roman Catholic as a church never supported Nazi criminals. You may want to bring out specific situations and lets deal with those directly. As for the Pope, he was surrounded by both Nazis that were stations in Italy, as well as the Italian Fascist. Hitler himself wanted to terminate the Papacy, but used better tactics to try and work something out with the Pope. This resulted in the Concordat. This requires more discussion if you like. I believe that Catholics who fought in Hitlers military were wrong for doing so. However, what migigates their decision is that many, if not most, did not know about many of the war crimes. But, I believe that the Pope should have told Catholics to not fight for Hitler and then urged Catholic to leave Germany. Perhaps had that happened, we could be talking about the Jewish-Catholic Holocaust.
So as hard as we are on the WBTS, this group seems much worse. I am no Watchtower apologist, but I cannot tolerate lies and deciet from other religions either.
Watchtower: Much of the Catholic sins are deep in the past, and subsequent generations of Catholics have turned things around. The Watchtower did an excellent job of brainwashing JWs to believe that a religion has to be perfect, except when they themselves make mistakes. The people of God, whether Jewish or Christian, Protestant or Catholic, are sinners. If we judged a faith by the bad deeds of her members, then we need to start with the House of Israel. King Saul, its first king was evil. Even the prized King David was a murderer and adulterer. And the story continues. St. Peter, the first Pope of Rome, himself denied Jesus Christ who was in the process of being falsely condemned and executed, dying for our sins. Find a bad deed anywhere, and I will show you a sinner, whether Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or plain-jane atheist.
The Dichotomy: While no one can deny the wrongs committed by the RCC (only perhaps mitigate some of them or give a more accurate presentation) the RCC has also produced many saints ... people like Mother Teresa in our own lifetime. I grew up in the RCC where I was exposed more to this kind of Christian than to the bad guys. I reconciled with the RCC, not because I justify her bad, but because I find more good, more freedom, more responsibility to correct the bad. The problem with the Watchtower is not that they had done bad ... rather ... there is no proper vahicle to correct the problems.
Jim Whitney
this thread was going to be about the true church.
but i simply changed the title.
okay ... so my experience thread set the stage for what seems to be a need to debate catholicism ... maybe because in the minds of many, there is a comparison to the watchtower ... a comparison which i believe is false.
Farkel,
Gawd! I finally found a topic that would get you to post again ... in full Farkel style ... welcome back!
You simply cannot shine shit. Why bother?
Shit can have a glint and glow of a shine if it is moist enough.
Those religions are ALL flawed, very human and very stupid.
Aren't we all?
They all (to some degree) base their philosophy on a very flawed, very human and very stupid book that some uninformed people think is sacrosanct.
This is why I like Catholicism ... the Bible stays in the background.
I piss on it. It is the most disgusting guide book ever offered to mankind, ...
Piss away ... but as I see it, it is not the Bible, but what people have done with it that can be disgusting.
... except for the Koran. Now THAT book is worth pissing on by incontinent elephants!
Shhhhhhh ... be careful, you could ignite a world riot and cause JWD to get burned down by really true believers ... not to mention a few heads that may roll.
It's is truly good to see you again ... now, you have work to do to turn me back into an agnostic again. See what happens while you are away on the mountain carving out new commandments ... we take up religion ... and I am ready to be a Catholic priest.
Jim Whitney
Very serious.
Jim Whitney
this thread was going to be about the true church.
but i simply changed the title.
okay ... so my experience thread set the stage for what seems to be a need to debate catholicism ... maybe because in the minds of many, there is a comparison to the watchtower ... a comparison which i believe is false.
There are so many good posts that I don't know where to begin. But, I will make one more reply to Lil, and then pick out some others:
Btw: The Catholic Church is an "organism" not an organization.
Lovelylil,
What I meant by invisible church is that being in the church does not mean you have to be "in" a church building. The spirit is in all true believers and we are "the church".
I understood your meaning ... and I agree with you. Catholics in general would agree with you. The faith has never been about a Church building or an organization ... it is an organizism ... always has been, and always will be.
I agree that the Apostles, as well as the prophets built a foundation for the Christian church. But they built it, upon the rock mass of Jesus Christ himself and not on any one of the Apostles.
This is a point of disagreement. I have returned to accepting that when Jesus called Peter the rock, and the context of the comments he made, that he was conferring power upon St. Peter. But, I disagree with the Church that this meant the Pope would be infallible.
I have no problem with Apostolic tradition and teachings. And the majority of Christian churches will also be in agreement with this, whether they are Catholic, Protestant, or even the little house church I attend, which is also based upon the teachings of the Apostles. But we are to be loyal to Christ first, and we should not treat the Apostles as if they are above him. By the RC Church for instance claiming they are built on Peter - this would be exalting Peter above Christ. The church which is the body of believers everywhere is built upon the Rock Mass of Christ and the foundation of the prophets and Apostles.
I fail to see how Jesus making St. Peter the rock places St. Peter above himself. Of course nothing is above Jesus, he is God the Son. But, for example, when he counseled the seven Churches in Asia Minor, he did not go directly to them individually or to their Priests (Pastors), he went to the Apostle John. The Apostles were in a key role, and their appointed successors continued that role. Maybe this ended with Luther, when the Protestants came along so that they could revise how Jesus was running his Church for 1500 years.
I think the main problem I have is that the Church Systems try to say who is/is not in the body of Christ. They will say you are only in the body if you belong to their church system. And this is not the way the Christian church is supposed to operate. All believers are all "in Christ" and are Christians, we do not need to be divided into different denominations. The denominations also set up their own traditions and doctrines unique to them that were not directly handed down by the Apostles. That is why it is important to check all things to God's word to see if it is true. However, I am not telling anyone not to belong to a particular denomination only that it is not neccesary to belong to Christ's church. Where two or three are gathered in his name, he is with them and they are a Church.
The Catholic Church never tries to say who is or is not in the Body of Chrust ... at least not in my experience or studies. I generally agree with your paragraph.
The church has been growing since Pentecost and I agree with you Christ promised to always be with them thru the Holy Spirit. I reject the JW's and Bible Students claim that the entire Church went into an Apostacy for 1900 years and there were no true Christians on the earth. Like you said very well and used scriptures, the wheat and weeds (true and false Christians) grow up together, (in the body of Christ) until the Angels are sent to seperate them out during the Harvest. The problem with the cults is they claim the harvest has already been done and they are the only true Christians left. Like you said the wheat and weeds grow up in the SAME place, which is the body of Christ. Then the tares or weeds are removed from among the true wheat. This point you made is significant because the cults have it reversed. They are claiming they are the wheat and were removed from the weeds of false religion. However, it is the weeds that are removed from the wheat - the reverse, and the wheat are left standing. (great point, Jim)
Thanks ... and maybe we can build on this point ... that is ... maybe better ecumenism between all Christian denominations, better acceptance, and better cooperation. There is enough good to work with that it can be done ... and the good news, the RCC is negotiating with the Orthodox, the Orthodox are negotiating with the World Council of Churches, and many other bodies are enjoying Interfaith activities.
One more thing about Jesus words that we need to worship "in spirit and truth" and Paul saying "God does not dwell in man made temples", If you look at the context of both those verses, the point is that the "place" of worship does not matter. As a believer in Christ and having the spirit in me, I am in the living Church and I can feel free to worship in a house church, a Catholic one, a Protestant one, etc. and it does not matter. As long as I am worshiping in spirit and truth. The place is not the most important thing. Granted, most Christians do not elevate the Church building or system above Christ and recongnize that the Church is really the believers.
Correct, church buildings are not the dwelling, but it is within the believer. My thought is that when believers do gather under a denomination and in church building, Christ is still there ... the church building does not chase him away either. The RCC has some additional aspects to this, but they are not really relevant to the topic.
I think we really agree on more than we disagree on.
Agree.
Jim Whitney
this thread was going to be about the true church.
but i simply changed the title.
okay ... so my experience thread set the stage for what seems to be a need to debate catholicism ... maybe because in the minds of many, there is a comparison to the watchtower ... a comparison which i believe is false.
Hi Lovelylil,
There are so many posts to choose from that I have a hard time knowing where to start. I started with yours just because you raise what leads to the core of the issues.
The church is the "body of believers". It is comprised of those who have been saved and redeemed by the true living God based upon the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus upon the cross. Another term for body of believers is "body of Christ" . So all those "in Christ" make up the church. Inclusion into the body of Christ or the true Church is not by membership in ANY denomination. It is not recieved by any rituals or by ceremony, or by natural birth. It is recieved by faith (Romans 5:1, Ephesians 2:8). The invisible Church is the church made up of all true believers who have been born again by the spirit of God.
I like the principle of your definition ... except I am having a hard time finding the word "invisible" in the Bible. The RCC fundamentally accepts your definition, except they too, I suspect, would have a hard time with the word 'invisible.'
The word church comes from the Greek "ekklesia" which means "assembly" or "gathering". But the church is more than a meeting place. And more than a place for believers to gather who profess faith in God or a place to attend weekly services. The Church is the "living temple" of the true God. It is not the building, meeting place, an organization or a denomination. The Church IS the totality of all true believers regardless of denominational affiliation. The entire body of believers IS the church and as such, it is the dwelling place of the Holy and Infinite God. The church is a mystery to some but understood by true believers.
Excellent, you have perfectly described the Catholic Church ... and this definition can describe Protestants.
The church came into its existance at Pentecost and was purchased by God with his own blood (Acts 20:28) and Jesus is the head of the Church (Ephesians 1:22,23). The church is the dwelling place of God (Ephesians 2:22). If you are "in Christ" and have God living in you (Holy Spirit), you are IN the Church as much as you ARE the church.
Excellent! Agreed.
All the denominations that were put into place well after Pentecost by men have done nothing to unite the body of Christ and have in fact divided the body into sects, with each one following another leader.
So, when did this commence? With the schism in 1054 AD? Or in the 16th century with the followers of Luther? Prior to this there was no sect or denomination, there was just one Church affiliation, one body, containing all the things you describe in the preceding paragraph.
Just because the Apostles laid some foundation stones for those in the true faith did not mean they anticipated the creation of the monsters we see today in religious organizations complete with a detailed hierarchy and filled with rules, doctrines, traditions, and other commands of men for the church to follow.
Monsters? I see the body of Christ.
Heirarchy? The Apostle Paul laid out the heirarchy up to Bishop. That is all the Orthodox and Roman Catholic have. Such heirarchy is Biblical.
Rules, doctrines and traditions? Galations 5:23 give a sample of the rules, doctrines, and commands for the Church. The Bible speaks of Apostolic tradition.
Commands of men? What commands of men do you speak?
Anyone saying that Christ gave them authority over his body to do such a thing is just deceiving themselves.
Given what the Bible teaches, then are you saying that the Apostle Paul and the other Apostles and Bible writers were deceiving themselves. Perhaps some detail is warranted. As you have defined the Church and its structure, your above sentence does not make sense.
The church has been in existance since Pentacost and will continue on until the Lord arrives to gather it.
The Bible never speaks of the Church being gathered before the weeds. (Yes, I know you didn't say that, but I am making the point for JWs who are focused on gathering the wheat, but who failed to gather the weeds first.) It speaks of Christ and the angels harvesting the weeds into bundles to be burned and then what is left is the wheat to be gathered into one place. The RCC and Protestants and Orthodox have always understood that the wheat and weeds are growing up together in the Church. Your sentence infers to JWs and some ex-JWs a scenario that comes out of the playbook of Free Bible Students, the Watchtower, Mormons, and other groups that want to believe that they are the gathering place of the wheat class. The Bible teaches at Matthew 13:30: "Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye togetherfirst the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn." So, how do we understand this illustration? The tares or weeds are first gathered into bundles for burning. The wheat is left to be gathered into Christ's barn (the church?). To help us in context, Jesus then spoke of the same exact Kingdom of Heaven in the very next verses 31 and 32: " Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof."
Could it be that the greatest tree is the Church, and all the denominations are her branches? Catholic and Orthodox being the trunk, and Protestants being the smaller branches? But, like the field of wheat, the weeds are allowed to grow and lodge in the tree until the harvest.
And this will be done under the noses of those who claim they ARE the true church but cannot grasp the spiritual understanding of what the church really is.
What support do you have for this claim? Who is it that cannot grasp what the CHurch really is?
Thanks Jim for this thread to discuss this issue.
You're welcome ... and I hope that it proves productive.
For those used to the church systems, protestant, catholic, baptist, etc. it will be hard to grasp this concept for they have always been taught to look for an "outward" proof of the church (such as a building, denomination, etc.).
You are mistaken. No self-respecting Protestant would ever look to a church system for an outward proof of the Church or the "truth." These are foreign concepts to them. The basis for their existence is that they reject any church system as being the Chuch. After my JW years, I spent years with the Baptists, Assembly of God, Presbyterian, Christian Reform, and others. They one and all consider each other brothers and sisters in Christ. The reason for their existence is emphasis on certain Christian teachings. Roman Catholic accept that there are Christians in all places and denominations. Catholics recognize that the Church is scattered.
The real issue is whether or not there is Apostolic authority passed down through succession, or merely claimed by those who want to claim it, or that there is no such thing as Apostolic authority. Historical fact shows us that for the first 1,500-years the Church only understood that they has Apostolic authority. Such a thing you described as the "invisible" church, or the Protestant concept just did not exist.
This begs the question: Was Christ with the Church and did the Holy Spirit guide the Church as promised, or did God let the Church become totally apostate with the first disciples, and only a small remnant of true Chrustians functioned all these centuries? Of course we can see the implications. Groups like the Watchtower, Mormons, Adventists, etc. love to think of the Church in the latter way. They need it to justify their systems. Independent Christians, mostly of a Protestant style ilk also need the latter view to a degree because they reject successive Apostolic authority. Whereas Rome and Constantinople, the two great historic Churches believe that while apoastasy did infect the Church, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit protected the Church, and that Apostolic Succession is intact to this very day.
Which view is correct? That is the final question.
Or a place they must go to in order to be taught about God. In contrast to the fact that Jesus himself said "the time is coming, when we will worship in spirit and truth" and Paul who stated "God does not dwell in man-made temples". The truth is God is within all true believers because we have been indwelled with his Holy Spirt.
Your application is obviously meant toward Christian Churches, and primarily at Catholic and Orthodox. But, the context of Paul's words was aimed at Israel and its religious system. The rest of your comments are clearly as much Catholic as they are Protestant. To a Catholic, the House of God is the Church, which is the Body of Christ, which is the gathering of believers who have the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that whever two or more gather in my name, there I will also be. So, when Catholic gather, whether at home or in the Chruch, Christ is there. I likewise believe that this applies to Protestant Christians.
And it is that Spirit that teaches the church, not any man or organization.
This is where I can ask, how does the Holy Spirit teach believers? Does he teach us individually to the exclusion of others in the body? Or does he use all means, such as other members of the Body of Christ to teach us, which would include those with Apostolic authority?
If you read John 14 again, you find where Jesus taught them that the Holy Spirit would comfort and teach them and bring back to their minds all the things he taught them ... however ... the context was not specifically stated to all Christians, though one might make that inference. The context started in John 13, because teh event was the Last Supper! Jesus was speaking only to him Apostles when he made that promise, and not to the general gathering of the disciples. It is the Apostle Paul that wrote to the Hebrew Christians to get them to think beyond Judaism and how the Holy Spirit was teaching them. But how was the Holy Spirit teaching the Hebrew Christians to which Paul applied the verses from Jeremiah 31? They were being directly taught by an Apostle, namely Paul.
While the Apostles and older men have helped in setting some ground rules, we must continue learning by yielding to the Spirit of God that dwells inside of us. Again, the body of believers IS the temple of God or the Church. Peace, Lilly
The Apostles had far more to do with establishing the Church than setting some few ground rules. The Apostle Paul, for example, set the basis for how congregations would operate. When the Church had a dispute, the Apostles and Priests (Presbyters) met in Jerusalem to solve the problem. They did not leave it to each individual to wait on the Holy Spirit to lead each one independently. Rather, they wrote a collective letter saying in Acts 15, "The Holy Spirit and we ourselves ..." and thus the Apostles included themselves in what we being decided and taught to the Church.
Last but not least: The Church is a Body, thus nbot all are the eye, nor are all the feet. The whole body is joined together for a purpose. Some are Apostels, some are Prophets, some are Evangelizers, some are Teachers, some are Shepherds or Pastors, and so on. This clearly and Biblically establishes various offices and in order for there to exist offices, there must be an authority to appoint those offices. Hence, the Apostle Paul appointed Priests (Presbyters, Elders) in city after city. The Apostle Peter personally groomed and appointed St. Ignatius to be Bishop (Overseer, Epsikopoi) of Antiioch, and so on. There were women and men who were Deacons who were charged with responsibility in the Church. There were a variety of ministries as there are in Churches today. Tyhe RCC is filled with all kinds of ministries. Just look at Mother Teresa as a recent example, and the Order of Sisters she founded to serve the poor in India. There was from the very beginning both the Church as a body of believers indwelled by the Holy Spirit, and there was a Church with authority to appoint people to offices. It was all united and of one faith. This continued fairly well, albeit a level of apostasy and heresy that was fought off for centuries, but continued nonetheless.
I see both: Both the so-named "invisible" Church that is everywhere ... which is quite visible because it is made up od human beings who have the Holy Spirit ... and I see the Church functioning as a body, with all its parts joined together to carry out God's will, and I see a large tree of Christianity with many smaller branches, and the large supporting tree trunk called the Catholic Church which connects all the others to the roots grounded in the same faith.
Pax Vobiscum
Jim Whitney
i don't mean when we as parents tell our children we're proud of them for a certain accomplishment or approved behavior; but when one adult tells another adult "i'm proud of you for (doing this or that)", possibly implying that in our opinion the approved action should have been done sooner, are we elevating ourselves above them?
could it even be a left-handed compliment?
as in "im proud that you've stopped beating your wife.
No. Saying "I'm proud of you" is a good and healthy compliment.
Jim Whitney
my son-in-law has received his orders to go to iraq.
he will leave soon.
i would go in his place, as he is like a son to me, but i am too old and not in good health, and the military will not take me.
My son-in-law has received his orders to go to Iraq. He will leave soon. I would go in his place, as he is like a son to me, but I am too old and not in good health, and the military will not take me. He will be there nine months. His enlistment was up in February, but he was extended for one year. He leaves behind my daughter and four fantastic children ... my grandchildren. He served at Bethel at one time, but was forced to leave due to political pressure and lies told about him.
My oldest Son called me tonight and told me that he is becoming Roman Catholic. I had no idea he was doing this and no involvement in the process ... so this a complete surprise to me. I was eating noodles when he told me ... I coughed up and hacked and choked as he told me. I am still contemplating what this means. It is one thing when I do things, but another when my children do them.
I love my children more than life itself. I would unconditionally die for them without question. So, now that this reality hits them, and me, and my entire family, I just don't know what to make of it except that it is God's will.
Pax
Jim Whitney
