SAMT

Summary Against Modern Thought: Christ Was Not The Holy Ghost’s Human Son

Previous post.

Combining two weeks into one, the lessons being so short.

THAT CHRIST WAS NOT THE SON OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE FLESH

1 Now, although Christ is said to be conceived of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin, one cannot for all that say that the Holy Spirit is the father of Christ in the human generation as the Virgin is His mother.

2 For the Holy Spirit did not produce the human nature of Christ out of His substance, but by His power alone operated for its production. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Holy Spirit is the father of Christ in His human generation.

3 It would, furthermore, be productive of error to say that Christ is the son of the Holy Spirit. Plainly, God’s Word has a distinct Person in that He is the Son of God the Father. If, then, He were in His human nature called the son of the Holy Spirit, one would have to understand Christ as being two sons, since the Word of God cannot be the son of the Holy Spirit. And thus, since the name of sonship belongs to a person and not to a nature, it would follow that in Christ there are two Persons. But this is foreign to the Catholic faith.

4 It would be unsuitable, also, to transfer the name and the authority of the Father to another. Yet this happens if the Holy Spirit is called the father of Christ.

THAT CHRIST MUST NOT BE CALLED A CREATURE

1 It is clear, moreover, that, although the human nature assumed by the Word is a creature, it cannot, for all that, be said without qualification that Christ is a creature.

2 For to be created is to become something. Now, since becoming is terminated in being simply, a becoming is of that which has subsistent being, and it is a thing of this kind which is a complete individual in the genus of substance, which, indeed in an intellectual nature is called a person or even an hypostasis.

But one does not speak of forms and accidents and even parts becoming, unless relatively, since they have no subsistent being in themselves, but subsist in another; hence, when one becomes white, this is not called becoming simply, but relatively.

But in Christ there is no other hypostasis or person save that of God’s Word, and this person is uncreated, as is clear from the foregoing. Therefore, one cannot say without qualification: “Christ is a creature;” although one may say it with an addition, so as to say a creature “so far as man” or “in His human nature.”

3 Granted, however, that one does not, in the case of a subject which is an individual in the genus of substance, refer to that as becoming simply which belongs to it by reason of accidents or parts, but that one calls it becoming only relatively, one does predicate simply of the subject whatever follows naturally on the accidents or parts in their own intelligibility; for one calls a man “seeing” simply: this follows the eye; or “curly” because of his hair; or “visible” because of his color.

Thus, then, the things which follow properly on human nature can be asserted of Christ simply: that He is “man”; that He is “visible”; that He “walked,” and that sort of thing. But what is the person’s very own is not asserted of Christ by reason of His human nature, unless with some addition whether expressed or implied.

Categories: SAMT

32 replies »

  1. Well done, St. Thomas!!
    Faith is gift from God. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, the absolute knowing that they are, without visible proof to our mortal eyes.
    God bless, C-Marie

  2. Briggs, you’d get more clicks if you titled this, Bat Boy Impregnates Virgin! — Births Bat-Man God! — and then run a slew of ads for bat-boy vibrators and contraception kits. See Gateway Pundit for how it’s done. Lots of money to be made. You just need to adjust your perspective in this modern time. Hope that helps.

  3. If the Holy Ghost as a distinct Person from God the Word was needed to deposit Christ into the womb then Christ is not God the Word. If Christ is God the Word then the Holy Ghost as a distinct Person was not needed to deposit Christ into the womb. From this one must pick one of 3 conclusions: (1) Christ is not God, or (2) the narrative is interpolated, or (3) the Word and Holy Ghost are the same Person and hence God is a Binity not a Trinity.

  4. Tell us, O Hagpipes of Fishbag, did you study comedy at the same institutions as, say, the likes of Sarah Silverman, etc.?

  5. Sarah Silverman?! — For godsakes, man, you mistake me for filth. Please, do clean your spectacles.
    Regards,
    Hagfish

    PS: See? — Bat Boy gets clicks.

  6. What are you smoking, St. Thomas Aqumodernus? That what you’re saying doesn’t make sense on any level.

    The Holy Ghost, God’s generous love of His own perfection, His gift of self, doesn’t have or need any physical presence to fashion a male gamete from, and in, the most holy Virgin. Christ the Man’s human body came completely from His Mother. His human soul was created directly by God just as all other human souls are. The bit that I have some trouble getting my head around is the Hypostatic Union in which God’s knowledge of Himself, His “Logos”, is intimately united in the Man.

    Anyhow, have another flick through this:
    The First Cause is a Trinity:
    https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/36086/

  7. Oldavid, didn’t mean to jump on you old fellow, but I think you mistook me for Fishbein Hagstein. Annoying when that happens.

  8. “26And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 27To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.

    28And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be.

    30And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. 31Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 33And of his kingdom there shall be no end.

    34And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? 35And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. ”
    LUKE 1: 26-35.

    And that is all we need to know. How God does what He does, is His business.

    For as He says:
    “8For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
    9For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts.

    10And as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return no more thither, but soak the earth, and water it, and make it to spring, and give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
    11So shall my word be, which shall go forth from my mouth: it shall not return to me void, but it shall do whatsoever I please, and shall prosper in the things for which I sent it.” ISAIAS 55: 8-11.

    Amen.

    God bless, C-Marie

  9. You can “jump on” me all you like, Mr Hagmann Bagstein, it might provide a bit of entertainment in these august columns.

    You got me incensed and indignant because your above comment seemed like a sly insult to the Mother of the Incarnation.

    You can have all the fun you like at my expense (I would probably be pleasantly amused too) but mind your finger-tapping that might be interpreted as blasphemous.

  10. It seems to me that Jesus looked like a creature and acted like one; and, He is also the created Son of God as well as Mary’s Son. He is a creature. God contributed male DNA at the Incarnation. Mary wasn’t the only contributor to Jesus’ humanity. After the Incarnation, Jesus is truly the Son of God even as a human creature. Prior to the Incarnation Jesus was the Word: pure uncreated Spirit.

  11. Peter, I have some difficulty trying to reconcile your assumptions with the certain doctrine that comes to us from the Apostles. There have been many strange opinions that have sought to be “as god “knowing” good and evil” that presume to “tell God” that He couldn’t mean what His Apostles went fourth teaching all nations what He (Jesus) commanded them.

    Jesus the Man clearly had a beginning in time like all the rest of us as the Apostle says “He was like us in ALL things but sin”. You say that “God contributed male DNA at the Incarnation.” as in an ordinary insemination, but He didn’t need to do any kind of insemination thing; He only needed to rearrange some proteins (genes) that seems to me to be somewhat less of a physical miracle than to reconstitute the corroded body of a leper, to resurrect a corpse, etc.

    I also have serious difficulty with your assertion that “Prior to the Incarnation Jesus was the Word: pure uncreated Spirit.” Jesus was/is the Man “like us in all things but sin” but the Second Person of the Triune God is not the Man, Jesus. I’m tempted to say that the Second Person and the Man are integral and even indistinct. But I can’t form a concept of how.

  12. I have a number of Muslim colleagues with whom I’ve had a few lively discussions over coffee in the local coffee houses of the middle east; as to the status of Jesus.

    They all view Jesus as a Prophet, but not the Son of God. The main logic being that, as Islam (and Arab culture) is a very male-centric faith, the father to son relationship is held precious, special and sacred.

    From this world view, they see God allowing his own son to suffer and die as paradoxical. They cannot accept this, and therefore cannot accept Jesus as the son of God.

    I have to admit, as a believer in Christ, I find it hard to overcome their arguments in a way that they can understand.

  13. In my opinion Islam is a creation of Pharisaical Judaism (Kabbalah) that will not accept a magnanimous God. In their view any “proper” god is capricious, arbitrary and tyrannical.

  14. Islam does not believe in God’s revelation of Himself as Father, of His Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The faith of Islam is a mixture of a bit of Christianity, of Judaism, and of “man’s” ideas. The god Islam worships is not God, but is a made up god. Islam denies Godmthe Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, that Mother Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ Who is true God and trued man …. and much more … Jesus’ Resurrection ………

    Islam’s view of Jesus as a Prophet is most interesting considering all that Jesus said, including His Resurrection from the dead and when He said “THE FATHER AND I ARE ONE.” So does Islam view that He Whom they view as a Prophet, also view Him as a liar or mentally ill, or ???

    Not one of us can convince nor convict a believing muslim, but we can pray asking for Holy Spirit conviction for those who have willing hearts to know the truth. Those whose hearts are open to the truth, will “hear” you speaking the truth and it may well take some time before this is admitted openly.

    God bless, C-Marie

  15. The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, Who is God, Who is the only Begotten Son of God the Father, took upon Himself, a human nature, while fully retaining His Divine nature and His Divine Personhood.

    He was like us, spirit, soul, body, heart, mind, and emotions, but without any personal sin and …. without the effects of Original Sin which effects cause us all to tend towards sin, and is the cause of our separation from God our Father until we receive salvation through the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, receiving Him into our hearts as our Lord, Saviour, and God.

    Jesus spent most nights in prayer to His Father. He had tremendous sufferings from people’s unbelief and their desire to be their own god. We, too, must needs to spend time in prayer daily with God our Father, with Jesus, with the Holy Spirit, so we can overcome daily difficulties in God’s power and might. And we do fail at times, but Jesus never failed as His life was complete obedience to and fullness of His Heart’s Love for God our Father.

    And when Jesus says, ” Come unto Me ….. My burden is Light” and we are yoked with Him, I think that His burden for us is to continually live with Him in His Heart’s Love for God our Father. And this can be seen as a burden, because sometimes we will know to not do …….. yet we will desire to do ……even so.

    God bless, C-Marie

  16. Oldavid: If Jesus is the biological Son of God as well as Mary’s, His male humanity points to more than Mary being the sole contributor to Jesus’ humanity.

    In the Trinity, the second person (Word) was made flesh. Jesus is now a single person with two natures. The second person of the Trinity now has a human component that was not there before the Incarnation. Can we say that the humanity of Jesus is now separate from the Trinity? I don’t see how we can if Jesus is a single person (see 1Timothy 3:16).

  17. I can’t really see what you’re getting at, Peter, unless you simply assume that “biology” is something purely material and mechanical and completely independent of any metaphysical ingredient or component. That is clearly an untenable and irrational assumption.

    Years ago I proposed a “thought experiment” that went like this: Materialism says that if you took all the chemicals that make up a rabbit and shook them, blasted them with lightening, radiation etc. for long enough they’d eventually turn into a rabbit or something similar. My long experience with all sorts of crops and animals, ordinary observation of physics and chemistry in nature, would bet that if you subjected a perfectly good rabbit to that sort of treatment it would revert to the simplest form of all the chemicals in the rabbit. The same result with any other live organism no matter how apparently “simple” it is. It is apparent that there is some metaphysical component in “life” that makes physics and chemistry do what they never, ever, ever do outside of a live organism.

    Now, as I’ve already said, it should be a very simple job for the love of God (the Holy Ghost) to rearrange a few molecules of the Virgin’s body to form a male gamete of His own design and everything proceed from there according to designed nature. That’s the easy part. I can also easily imagine that God would create an entire Universe (because He could) as the manifestation of His Power, Intellect and Will; I can also imagine that He would enter that World as an integral “part” of it to manifest infinite Justice and Mercy; I can also imagine that the eternal purpose of the whole shebang is for them that choose to be attracted by Truth and Virtue to go on forevermore in that company and in the tangible company of the manifest “humanised” perfection of the Mind of God, i.e. the “Logos” that “the darkness does not comprehend”.

    You say: “Can we say that the humanity of Jesus is now separate from the Trinity?” I say no! In some way the Man Jesus is the human expression of the Second Person of the Triune God but, as I’ve said before, I cannot form a concept of how.

    I betcha that the ever valiant C-Marie can chime in with some insights that have evaded me.

  18. Oldavid,

    Materialism says that if you took all the chemicals that make up a rabbit and shook them, blasted them with lightening, radiation etc. for long enough they’d eventually turn into a rabbit or something similar.

    A rabbit is the product of millions of years of gradual evolution, not random shaking and zapping of a pile of chemicals. What materialism says is that if you take all the chemical components which constitute a rabbit and arrange them exactly in the form of a rabbit, you’d have a rabbit. In fact, that’s exactly what happens when a rabbit grows – it forms itself from chemicals in its food, with its various chemical parts following chemical instructions in its chemical DNA.

    There isn’t any room for any ‘metaphysical’ (immaterial?) element in this process.

    My long experience with all sorts of crops and animals, ordinary observation of physics and chemistry in nature, would bet that if you subjected a perfectly good rabbit to that sort of treatment it would revert to the simplest form of all the chemicals in the rabbit.

    Non-living things like car engines also don’t function if you grind them into piles of chemicals, so your analogy doesn’t prove that living things are different. What we can say is that car engines and rabbits need their parts to be arranged in just the right way in order for them to function.

  19. I know that I am a miserable sinner; but I have to wonder if this underwater noisy impaler is sent to remind me of forgotten errors.

    Yair, fishy, you say that it takes “millions of years” to “evolve” a rabbit. I wasn’t so evasively “specific”. I said if you wait long enough… could be 14.5 billion years, eh?

    [quote=fishy] “What we can say is that car engines and rabbits need their parts to be arranged in just the right way in order for them to function.” [/quote]

    Goodoh, cleverdick, start by telling us how a relatively simple thing like a car engine arranges itself in a functional right way without the input of some power (as in the ability of the fabricators to fabricate) and intellect (as in the ability to know and organise what is required to make it work) and the desire, or will, to “do” it.

    The more our discussions depart from the sub-intellectual impressions assumed by the Materialists the more insane (detached from appreciable reality) and irrational the ideological Materialists become.

    That’ll be you, Mr underwater noise pollution.

  20. Oldavid,

    Goodoh, cleverdick, start by telling us how a relatively simple thing like a car engine arranges itself in a functional right way without the input of some power (as in the ability of the fabricators to fabricate) and intellect (as in the ability to know and organise what is required to make it work) and the desire, or will, to “do” it.

    You were arguing that living things have a metaphysical/immaterial aspect to them; now you’ve switched to an argument that they were designed, which is a completely different issue. Even if living things were designed (and the current state of my back indicates an incompetent designer at best), that doesn’t prove they have a metaphysical/immaterial aspect, as a designer could also design purely material things like rocks.

    In any case, the evidence indicates that life evolved without any input from a designer other than natural selection. I cite Onchocerca volvulus, the parasitic worm which causes River Blindness as evidence for natural selection. Why would God design such a thing?

  21. ?
    ?The following is what we do know … and remember that God has told us that His ways are not our ways:

    ?”8For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
    9For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts.” Isaiah 55: 8-9.

    PROPHECY TOLD AND FULFILLED:?

    “16 and Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary; it was of her that Jesus was born, who is called Christ.?
    17 Thus there are fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the captivity in Babylon, and fourteen from the captivity in Babylon to Christ.
    18 And this was the manner of Christ’s birth. His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, but they had not yet come together, when she was found to be with child, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
    19 Whereupon her husband Joseph (for he was a right-minded man, and would not have her put to open shame) was for sending her away in secret.
    20 But hardly had this thought come to his mind, when an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, and said, Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take thy wife Mary to thyself, for it is by the power of the Holy Ghost that she has conceived this child;
    21 and she will bear a son, whom thou shalt call Jesus, for he is to save his people from their sins.
    22 All this was so ordained to fulfil the word which the Lord spoke by his prophet:
    23 Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a son, and they shall call him Emmanuel (which means, God with us).?
    24 And Joseph awoke from sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, taking his wife to himself;
    25 and he had not known her when she bore a son, her first-born, to whom he gave the name Jesus.”? Matthew 1: 16-25.

    AND SEE THIS:

    “26 When the sixth month came, God sent the angel Gabriel to a city of Galilee called Nazareth,
    27 where a virgin dwelt, betrothed to a man of David’s lineage; his name was Joseph, and the virgin’s name was Mary.
    28 Into her presence the angel came, and said, Hail, thou who art full of grace; the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women.?
    29 She was much perplexed at hearing him speak so, and cast about in her mind, what she was to make of such a greeting.
    30 Then the angel said to her, Mary, do not be afraid; thou hast found favour in the sight of God.
    31 And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call him Jesus.
    32 He shall be great, and men will know him for the Son of the most High; the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob eternally;
    33 his kingdom shall never have an end.
    34 But Mary said to the angel, How can that be, since I have no knowledge of man?
    35 And the angel answered her, The Holy Spirit will come upon thee, and the power of the most High will overshadow thee. Thus this holy offspring of thine shall be known for the Son of God.
    36 See, moreover, how it fares with thy cousin Elizabeth; she is old, yet she too has conceived a son; she who was reproached with barrenness is now in her sixth month,
    37 to prove that nothing can be impossible with God.
    38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; let it be unto me according to thy word. And with that the angel left her.” LUKE 1: 26-38.

    AND SCHOLARS SAY THAT THE FOLLOWING LINEAGE IS ACTUALLY FOR MOTHER MARY AS WOMEN WERE NOT USUALLY INCLUDED IN GENEALOGIES. NOTE IT STATES: “… Jesus …. as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli ….”

    “23When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, 24the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Hesli, the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,31the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, 33the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Heber, the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37the son of MethuSelah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.”

    So, Faith in God is the answer as He is fully in charge. Father has given to us that which we need to know about the conception of His Son in Mother Mary’s womb so let us each and all:

    “31 But they that hope in the Lord shall renew their strength, they shall take wings as eagles, they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint.” Isaiah 40: 31. All of Chapter 40 is amazing!!!

    God bless, C-Marie

  22. Oh dear! Fishy Foghorn, your wonderful insights into the “deep and meaningful” relentless slogans and propaganda aimed at adolescent egos is just too much for me to swallow.
    I think that foghorn better describes what you do here than trombone. A trombone can produce some pretty agreeable music with skilled hands and lips driving it. A foghorn, on the other hand, is only a device that emits a low frequency moan so that ships blundering about in darkness or fog can get some idea of what’s around them by guessing about the echos of their own noise.

    You say: “In any case, the evidence indicates that life evolved without any input from a designer other than natural selection. I cite Onchocerca volvulus, the parasitic worm which causes River Blindness as evidence for natural selection. Why would God design such a thing?”

    There is no “evidence (that) indicates that life evolved without any input from a designer”. EVERYTHING that is presented to undeveloped minds as “evidence” is carefully edited and selected to agree with the base premise: There is no Absolute, no cause, no purpose. Since you, Mr Foghorn, are apparently as hostile to Apostolic Christianity as T’Googlio Monster flick through this lot who have no sympathy at all with the Apostolic Faith:
    https://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.php

    Well, it seems that God has not taken the time out of his busy schedule to fill me in on all the minute details of everything that happens or doesn’t happen. Maybe it has something to do with Original Sin. We’re not in the Garden of Eden anymore where “God saw what He had made and it was good”. The Philosopher (Aquinas) proposes that the whole of Creation (initially perfect) was damaged (or denatured) (exit the Garden of Eden) by that initial revolt.

    Anyhow, I suggest that come Judgement Day, (after you have explained to the Judge all His errors) you ask Him how and why.

    It reminds me of a story that Confucius allegedly told about himself. Confucius was wandering around town when he was accosted by some “cheeky boys” who asked “Is the Sun closer at midday when it’s brighter and hotter or in the morning and evening when it looks bigger?” Confucius say…………………….. “I don’t know”. The boys went away laughing “Who said you were wise!”

  23. Peter- The human nature of Christ is still completely distinct from His divine nature. It’s all in the Creed. In His divinity, He is “genitum non factum,” while in His humanity, “et homo factus est.” This was also played out while He was dead, and descended into hell, in His human nature, in order to bring the righteous to heaven, while His divinity remained united to His Body, keeping it from the slightest corruption. The human nature of Christ is a conjoined instrument of the Trinity, while the Sacraments are separated instruments of the Trinity.

  24. Oldavid,

    EVERYTHING that is presented to undeveloped minds as “evidence” is carefully edited and selected to agree with the base premise: There is no Absolute, no cause, no purpose.

    What would you say to Christian evolutionary biologists, such as Dr. Mary Schweitzer, the paleontologist who discovered traces of blood in a T-Rex fossil? Was this discovery, much trumpeted (and misrepresented) by Young Earth creationists, ‘carefully edited and selected’? Come on, man!

    Aquinas proposes that the whole of Creation (initially perfect) was damaged (or denatured) (exit the Garden of Eden) by that initial revolt.

    Oh dear.

    1. How could ‘creation’ be perfect if it was capable of becoming imperfect?

    2. God must have decided how things would change after the Fall, so he must have decided that Onchocerca Volvulus (what on Earth would such a thing do before the Fall?) would then cause River Blindness. This is an example of a supposedly loving God not only causing suffering, but deciding exactly how it should occur. And have it happen to poor people in Africa.

    Confucius say… “I don’t know”

    That story made me smile. I wish Christians would use those words more often.

  25. Orrite, Mr Foghorn, you might feel wise and invincible with money and medals handed out from the Synagogue of “cultural Marxism” but I’m not going to play your silly game anymore. If you’re trying and convince me that the only way to be “never wrong” is to mindlessly parrot ever changing slogans fed to sub-adolescent egos then, not sorry, bloke, it’s not going to work.

    “Confucius say… “I don’t know”
    That story made me smile. I wish Christians would use those words more often.”

    I betcha that those words do not appear in the lexicon of your ideology.

  26. Oldavid,

    [What you said]

    If you don’t want to interact with me, then don’t. There’s little point in just stringing together childish name-calling and false accusations (I’m not in any sense a marxist), but not even trying to make a rational argument.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.