Have you heard any rumors of Hillary stepping into the VP nomination instead of Biden?
Last week, I heard somewhere that Joe Biden might be 'offed' due to 'family reasons' (with Hillary in this mix, 'offed' might have been a bad choice of words, but I digress) and Obama might put Hillary in the slot.
Last week, I heard somewhere that Joe Biden might be 'offed' due to 'family reasons' (with Hillary in this mix, 'offed' might have been a bad choice of words, but I digress) and Obama might put Hillary in the slot.
This week, Biden said “Make no mistake about this, Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be Vice President of the United States of America."
COULD IT HAPPEN? Has it ever happened? Anybody know?
ARE THEY THAT SCARED OF SARAH PALIN??
Could Obama's ego take the criticism? Could Caroline Kennedy's, when she headed the VP Selection Committee? Could Biden's ego take stepping down? Would Hillary accept?
Anybody got any ideas? Mustang and I were 'talking' and wondered what you all think....
Z
149 comments:
Heard no rumors, but I remember somebody predicting soon after Sarah Palin was announced that it wouldn't be long before they'd be finding an excuse to replace her with someone else, so the idea of the possibility of replacement of a VP candidate was already in the air, though on the other side.
I think Hillary would take it, sure. It's power they want, they'll swallow their pride for now. Could put her in a position to get some conditions met. I also suspect that if they think there really is a serious crisis that could lose them the election the others would take it on the chin too. Just guessing.
I have to admit that I wasn't as thrilled with Sarah Palin in her interview with Gibson as I'd hoped to be. Too obviously evasive and I wasn't sure I could see why in some cases. Gibson's pursed-lipped condescending style was really obnoxious. I think she's used to depending on her ability to charm people but may not deal well with a nasty antagonist. She's not Margaret Thatcher, not in personality anyway. But she's a fast learner. We'll see.
I did a blog on it yesterday
It's possible but this late in the game it would be as much of a problem for him as it would be for McCain. There are rumors but mostly in the blogs. We'll Drudge, Hot Air, WND etc dig up. Even though all of them have a Report First -- Verify Later approach to reporting they often get a jump on these stories.
oops
that's supposed to be we'll see what Drudge, Hot Air, WND etc dig up
forgot to proof read.
When I heard the BO was headed to see Bill, I wondered what might transpire. Then when I listened to Joe make the comments that he did, it does make one wonder. Scared? You bet.
This is a pay'm-back for the Palin speculation.
But there is precedent on the DNC side.... but Biden would have to claim a history of "mental illness"... hmmm... Given his Senate voting record and unswerving opposition to conservative judicial nominee's, I believe it!
This could actually happen and it would definitely create the Presidential Race of a lifetime. I can't imagine Hillary accepting, but if she's a big supporter of the Democrat party, she just might do it. Three of our die-hard Democrat friends have recently stated they are voting for McCain/Palin because of Sarah Palin. They were Hillary supporters. Two of the three will be voting Republican for the first time in their lives. It is a small scale poll but it does represent 100% of those Democrats we have asked.
I've seen this around the web. I thought 'no way'. Is is a real possibility? There are so many scenarios that would emerge.
They would spend so much time spinning why the change occured that the wanted effect may not come to pass.
kw
With the free pass the MSM gives them, the dems could pull a switcheroo. A sudden "illness" could force Biden to drop out, and Hill could take the VP position.
Time will tell.
Next we go to the statement by the police chief that he's only looking out for the taxpayers (i.e. sexual assault victims aren't taxpayers?) by saving them about $16,000 a tear (figure is his statement).
Do the math and you come out with a figure for rape in Wasilla that is way over the national average. Much higher than New York, Boston, Dallas, LA.
So we start asking her why. Ask her what she did about it and ask her why she was concerned about 14 stinking grand instead of public safety.
How am I doing?
Deep thoughts with Sarah
How did we get from a discussion about switching Clinton for Biden, to a rant about Sarah Palin?
It must be true: a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Sam
It switched because z included, ARE THEY THAT SCARED OF PALIN in bold in the article.
Now clearly nobody is "scared" of Gidget but it's interesting to look at how the DNC (Obama's going to continue to strictly slap around McCain) might go at this.
As for the right's continued fascination with musing about Hillary I don't know why they need her so. Look, rationally beings know that Hillary wants nothing to do with the Vice Presidency. It offers her nothing and she's more likely to consolidate her power and become the next Ted Kennedy (I LOVE IT).
More to the point may be why the far right needs to continually speculate about Hillary on ridiculously silly talking points.
Sam, welcome.
Ducky....I told you I'd delete nasty rumors. If the mainstream media's not picked up the rape thing, it's not well founded. The left is saying that she banned Harry Potter; trouble is, Harry Potter hadn't been published yet.
There's plenty like that.
Why do you think they'd pick Hillary instead of Biden now, IF they do...if it weren't fear that McCain's numbers are so high despite the media, commercials which are not paid for by Obama but promote his agenda (AARP, ENVIRONMENTAL NUTS, etc.)and the networks and 90% of cable shows?
Re: Hillary and silly talking points...like what?
TRUST me, there is NOTHING the Right would love more than NOT having to discuss Hillary in ANY way.
thanks.
z, the left isn't saying anything of the kind.
The left wing blogs are trying to find out if she did ban books and why she asked the town librarian if she would ban "unchristian" books before firing her.
Like most on the far right Sarah apparently hasn't read Milton's "Areopagitica". I recommend it and you know as well as I do that there are plenty of documented instances of Potter book burnings and bannings. Not a record to be proud of on the right.
Tammy Bruce is talking about this right now! LOL!
Considering Biden's sudden vanishing act, the "family problem" is probably in the works...
I think the Dems are desperate enough to go begging to Hillary (Hell, Obama saw the Godfather yesterday.) , but I think it won't work.
Stick a fork in 'em...
The left wing blogs are trying to find out if she did ban books and why she asked the town librarian if she would ban "unchristian" books before firing her.
She had a conversation with a department head when that department head (librarian) was reviewing the challenge policy. She asked one hypothetical question. No books were banned.
Like the story of her son vandalizing busses. He wasn't even involved.
please watch THE VIEW right now.
You will never see more disrespectful rolling of eyes and insult to McCain ever.
Even I am stunned.
Not a record to be proud of on the right.
Duhkkky poll those here and see how many of us want or wanted Harry Potter banned. My son loves the books. You might be surprised.
Just like the left isn't monolithic neither are we.
OT
wholesale prices have dropped along with fuel costs.
here duhkkky FactCheck.org
non partisan
they were kinder to Ron Paul and he's part troofer
Love me some Harry Potter. Great literature!!!
thanks, Elbro...of course, you're right.
And they say they AREN'T afraid of SARAH!?(can't make this stuff up!)
Pops! WHAT??? A Christian Righwinger LOVES POTTER? "Satan! Get thee behind me!" (LOL!)
I have to give one of them a read...never have.!!
NOW could we get back to:
DO YOU THINK HILL'd ACCEPT?
WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY"LL MAKE UP FOR BIDEN TO STEP DOWN IF HE DOES?
WOULD OBAMA'S EGO TAKE IT? AND is it worth RISKING THE KENNEDY SUPPORT?
Go for it!!
I do not care which party you are, things like upping and swapping a candidate in the midst of a campaign reek of fear, desperation and lack of confidence.
Unless old Joe actually drops dead, I think he is staying right where he is.
Can he have an illness, yet show back up on the Hill as a senator?
No, don't think so.
If you think about it, even using this ploy as a trial balloon, makes Obama look weaker.
WVDOTTR
GET a LOAD of THIS, if you want a LIFT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-zzXTEYtK0
"Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews FIRED as anchors for blatant carrying of water for the Democrats and openly making snarky comments about Republicans!"
Of course, they're being replaced by DAVID GREGORY, so it isn't as though there's much of a shift in the wind. The same old stuff will just come from a DIFFERENT horse's åss.
IS that "progress?"
PHEW!
FreeThinke
BTW, I think the idea that the D'Rats would change VP candidates at this point is beyond absurd.
Hillary is DEAD MEAT and so is her CONSORT.
FT; They have not been fired.
They will not be anchoring the election news.
It's a demotion not a revokation (sadly)
Z: Watch The View?
No thanks!
However, McCain should consider the old adage about casting one's pearls before swine...
"The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term."
Yeah Elmer, that's exactly what I said.
Why did she even ask the question?
I'm with you, Frank. Probably the healthiest movement in pop culture in some time.
Also if you look at it from a values perspective, Harry has some good ones and he's a pretty good example.
If Obama replaced Biden with Hillary, he would look weak. His first major decision was ill considered, and he's stuck with it. To be concise, he blew it.
To try to retract it now would be so cynical, and show a lack of confidence. Everyone knows he and Hillary can't stand each other. He can't survive the scenario that when things get a little tough he cries "HELP"!
Ducky, It's my understanding that when Governor Palin became Governor victims had to pay for their own rape kits, and Palin directed the Police Dept. to stop charging victims for rape kits.
That being said. Are we reduced to discussing who has to pay for rape kits? Please.
cj, I think she did fine, considering she was being interviewed by someone playing 'gotcha'. I didn't find her evasive. Charm? She's an attractive feminine woman, and I think some are interpreting that as a ploy, but it's unfair I think to say she relies on her charm. I don't see that.
Would that be said if she looked plain, or average? I don't think so. Hillary tries using charm, with her inappropriate laughter, but no one thinks she's charming that's for sure.
Biden does try using charm, and has during his entire time in politics. I'll never forget, during the Clarence Thomas hearings, trying to charm and disarm the female employees who worked for Thomas.
What a snake that guy is, and judging by his recent comments doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut.
Pris
http://www.frontiersman.com/
Here's a link to Palin's home town paper. Good article on the librarian dustup
I hope you're right Pris. I love Palin, her politics, her life, her personality, her beauty and no I don't think any of that is a ploy. But she does try to establish a friendly communication with her interviewer and Gibson kept thwarting that. That's what I meant by charm. Yes, she may have done well enough in that interview anyway. I just wanted her to have a definitive triumph and instead I came away feeling Gibson did manage to put her on the defensive at least to some extent. Also, I had an image of Thatcher in my mind answering challenges by David Frost, from a You Tube video I saw recently. Thatcher takes no prisoners.
Ducky, If I said, "what if Ducky were banned from GEEEZ! because he's such a pain".
Would that mean I want you banned, or would that mean, what would GEEEZ! be like without you?
Pris
About censorship: The constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, but I don't believe it guarantees the right to be HEARD or READ.
I deplore censorship, personally, but do believe that each individual COMMUNITY ought to retain the right to decide what is and is not appropriate and desirable for its LOCAL library to have on its shelves.
For instance, if we had a bunch of twelve and thirteen year-olds reading The 120 days of Sodom, by the Marquis de Sade or Fanny Hill, or Caligula or Fanny Hill, The Story of O, or the Henry Miller "Tropic" series that created a tidal wave of sewage once the finger of censorship was forcibly removed from the moral dike by the Supreme Court, I'm certain it would have a deleterious effect on society.
Ergo, I believe EACH community should be permitted to set its OWN standards in these matters.
In other words if those who live in Sanitown would prefer to live in Smutville and vice versa, by all means let 'em do so.
It would all sort itself out over time if patience were allowed to perform her perfect work. The value of policies is determined by thee fruit they bear.
'Tis unbridled hysteria that causes most of the deepest wounds from victims are least likely ever to recover.
Sorry, forget to sign my last post (on censorship in individual communities as the best way to go).
FreeThinke
cj- I do know what you mean, and I didn't mean all of my remarks to be directed at you just that I thought she did fine.
I myself have become resigned to the fact that there was only one Reagan, and there is no doubt, only one Thatcher as well. I do believe Sarah palin has the potential to be exceptional. I hope she get's the chance.
I do think the media is unfair in part because of Sarah's looks. As if one can't be good looking and a leader too. In a way, I think that hurt Romney too.
Perhaps we're just so thrilled with Palin as VP, we all have set an impossibly high bar for her. The media has alot to do with that, in that one little slip by her and the media will be all over her like sharks, and we all know it. So, we, including me, want her to hit a homerun every time she opens her mouth.
I can only imagine the pressure on her, yet she has that calm, confident demeanor, which I admire greatly.
Pris
I too am a Bible Believing Christian and I think the the Harry Potter series is terrific.
I've been saying it for two weeks now Z. Two weeks ago I predicted the beast would be in before the middle of the month. Hill's in within a week.
Morgan
Could the Harry Potter series be both "terrific" and dangerous? I made a point of watching all the movies when they were aired as a weekend series a while back and have to say the stories are very engrossing and I'm sure I'll want to see the next one out when I can. There is no doubt about their appeal.
But, while they have some admirable ethical qualities, they also have some very questionable ones, notably an anti-adult anti-authority attitude that goes beyond the expectable generational conflict in fantasy tales into outright abusive disobedience and contempt.
And despite the poohpoohing of possible incitement to occultic experimentation, I really don't see how it can be avoided. Kids are definitely going to experiment with conjuring things and there is a real demonic world only too happy to oblige. Even if it's only a small percentage of kids, it's not a good thing and it's going to happen.
Crescent moon????
Man, they're everywhere!
I enjoy the Harry Potter stories, and really see no difference between those and the fairy tales I grew up with. Witches, goblins, trolls etc. It was always good triumphing over evil. That's the important thing.
They do nothing more than stimulate a child's imagination and make little girls want to be princesses. A bit of pretend is healthy for children. And IMO as harmless and indeed fun as Santa and the tooth fairy.
God knows the realities to which young children are exposed to today are much more damaging. These really do rob children of their innocence and childhoods.
I wouldn't worry about a few books about magic nearly as much as early child sex education, for instance.
Pris
The true magic of Harry Potter is that it got an entire generation of kids (as well as adults) to get their heads out of a video game or television and get immersed in reading. For that fact alone they are a wonderful and good thing. I must admit here as well that not only did my wife and I enjoy them very much but we purchased books 4, 5, 6, and 7 at midnight and started reading as soon as we got home and continued well into the early morning hours.
If you worry about the influences of witches wizards fairies, goblins, demons. and the occult, etc. what must you think of Andersen's Fairy Tales, the Fairy Tales Collected by The Brothers Grimm, Greek Mythology, Roman Mythology, Norse Mythology, Teutonic Mythology, Celtic Mythology and the findings of myriad anthropologists who studied the behavior of pagan cultures living and dead?
FT
Is Gone With The Wind an immoral influence, because it deal in a soft, sentimental way with Belle Watling, the towm Madam to whom Scarlett's husband Rhett Butler goes for solace when Scarlett is "not in the mood" for fear of thickening her waist?
Is Huckleberry Finn immoral because of the implied sexual relationship between Huck and Jim?
FT
Whether literature is immoral is up to each of us to decide for ourselves, or our children who depend upon us for adult supervision. With maturation, children grow to adults and can make an independent judgment. Some stories are written to be moral tales … much of the Old Testament stories are designed to help us understand the folly of sin.
Huck and Jim? Are you nuts?
That said … I can’t imagine Hillary Clinton accepting the VP position now. I can’t imagine Barack Obama giving up his presidency to the Clinton Consortium. I also cannot imagine the DNC would nominate Barack Obama in the first place. So … what do I know?
FT!! Everybody has different opinions on this...I tend to lean toward protecting small children until they can process ideas they don't need to process yet.
I'm all FOR fairy tales, wicked or not, because I believe they teach us there's good and bad and that's ALWAYS a good thing; especially when good conquers bad.
"Implied sexual relationship between Huck and JIM?" Are you kidding? That's a new one on me!!! (and most people, including Twain, I'd reckon!)
MUSTANG: I'm with you..they're our children; we should decide what's best for them and what they're ready for.
And yes, I DO HOPE you're right about HIllary..........I so hope you're right.
The difference between Harry Potter and all the old fairy tales is its active teaching of conjuring that the story is all about. Stories that include magic events and fairy creatures aren't ABOUT witchcraft, but the whole Potter series is about the world of witchcraft. It's all about a school for witchcraft after all. If you don't believe in demons or have never experienced occultic phenomena then of course this isn't going to disturb you, but that doesn't make it any less real. There has been a big growth of witchcraft in reality in just the last few decades. Harry Potter is going to bring kids into it.
Why did she even ask the question?
because Duhkkky as I pointed out they were reviewing the 'challenge' policy
clean your ears out duhkkky
because Duhkkky as I pointed out they were reviewing the 'challenge' policy
This is one of the things that people who administrate do duhkkky...they review policies etc etc etc
I really don't see how it can be avoided.
Do you know of any cases?
from fact check Duhkkky
One accusation claims then-Mayor Palin threatened to fire Wasilla’s librarian for refusing to ban books from the town library. Some versions of the rumor come complete with a list of the books that Palin allegedly attempted to ban. Actually, Palin never asked that books be banned; no books were actually banned; and many of the books on the list that Palin supposedly wanted to censor weren't even in print at the time, proving that the list is a fabrication. The librarian was fired, but was told only that Palin felt she didn’t support her. She was re-hired the next day. The librarian never claimed that Palin threatened outright to fire her for refusing to ban books.
It’s true that Palin did raise the issue with Mary Ellen Emmons, Wasilla’s librarian, on at least two occasions, three in some versions. Emmons flatly stated her opposition each time. But, as the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman (Wasilla’s local paper) reported at the time, Palin asked general questions about what Emmons would say if Palin requested that a book be banned. According to Emmons, Palin "was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can't be in the library." Emmons reported that Palin pressed the issue, asking whether Emmons' position would change if residents were picketing the library. Wasilla resident Anne Kilkenny, who was at the meeting, corroborates Emmons' story, telling the Chicago Tribune that "Sarah said to Mary Ellen, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?' "
Palin characterized the exchange differently, initially volunteering the episode as an example of discussions with city employees about following her administration's agenda. Palin described her questions to Emmons as “rhetorical,” noting that her questions "were asked in the context of professionalism regarding the library policy that is in place in our city." Actually, true rhetorical questions have implied answers (e.g., “Who do you think you are?”), so Palin probably meant to describe her questions as hypothetical or theoretical. We can't read minds, so it is impossible for us to know whether or not Palin may actually have wanted to ban books from the library or whether she simply wanted to know how her new employees would respond to an instruction from their boss. It is worth noting that, in an update, the Frontiersman points out that no book was ever banned from the library’s shelves.
Palin initially requested Emmons’ resignation, along with those of Wasilla’s other department heads, in October 1996. Palin described the requests as a loyalty test and allowed all of them (except one, whose department she was eliminating) to retain their positions. But in January 1997, Palin fired Emmons, along with the police chief. According to the Chicago Tribune, Palin did not list censorship as a reason for Emmons’ firing, but said she didn’t feel she had Emmons’ support. The decision caused “a stir” in the small town, according to a newspaper account at the time. According to a widely circulated e-mail from Kilkenny, “city residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin’s attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter.”
As we’ve noted, Palin did not attempt to ban any library books. We don’t know if Emmons’ resistance to Palin’s questions about possible censorship had anything to do with Emmons’ firing. And we have no idea if the protests had any impact on Palin at all. There simply isn’t any evidence that we can find either way. Palin did re-hire Emmons the following day, saying that she now felt she had the librarian’s backing. Emmons continued to serve as librarian until August 1999, when the Chicago Tribune reports that she resigned.
So what about that list of books targeted for banning, which according to one widely e-mailed version was taken “from the official minutes of the Wasilla Library Board”? If it was, the library board should take up fortune telling. The list includes the first four Harry Potter books, none of which had been published at the time of the Palin-Emmons conversations. The first wasn't published until 1998. In fact, the list is a simple cut-and-paste job, snatched (complete with typos and the occasional incorrect title) from the Florida Institute of Technology library Web page, which presents the list as “Books banned at one time or another in the United States.”
It's an educated guess, EB, but when I hear of a case I'll be sure to let you know. It always amazes me that there are so many Christians who supposedly believe the Bible who don't take seriously what it says about spiritual beings who possess and do harm to people and make themselves into "gods" to be worshiped, or wonder why God had witches put to death in the OT.
It's an educated guess, EB, but when I hear of a case I'll be sure to let you know. It always amazes me that there are so many Christians who supposedly believe the Bible who don't take seriously what it says about spiritual beings who possess and do harm to people and make themselves into "gods" to be worshiped, or wonder why God had witches put to death in the OT.
I understand your concern. But I find that Christians often overreact to things that aren't as serious as they think. And I don't believe spiritual beings can possess Christians
In other words some Christians and parents tend to major on the minors and minor on the majors.
As a parent I have no problem with my son reading the books and I would think most Christian parents understand that as with anything (movies, computer, video games) if they are educated spiritually and done in moderation they can enjoy such books knowing that they are not citizens of this world and this world has things that they need to be watchful of
My children and I enjoy an open relationship...we talk about the books, movies games etc that we watch, read or play
I'm sure it's not my children you're concerned about
this is why I asked if you know of any cases related to these books
I still don't grasp why you need to know of specific cases to take this seriously.
I'm not sure which kids are most likely to be vulnerable but any whose parents have had anything to do with the occult are likely to be -- and the generation of the 60s and 70s did a lot of experimenting in that arena. The culture itself has been getting less Christian in basic philosophical outlook for quite some time, while pagan religions including Wicca have been getting a foothold.
Just as a practical matter, that brings demons into our midst and affects our environment for the worse and that has to affect Christians too. Increased violence for instance. Increased murders for instance. Increased sexual predation for instance. Increased sexual perversion for instance.
We don't have to attribute such things to devils, but chances are they are involved since the culture has lost its Christian moorings. There are plenty of demon-possessed people in our midst as it is.
Am I "concerned?" Probably not as much as I should be. Even if Christians can't be possessed in the sense of giving up their minds and souls to demons, they can be influenced and affected by them in various ways, and the more so if they are not following the Lord closely. Are you familiar with Gurnall's The Christian in Complete Armor? A real enemy army we can't afford to take lightly.
REFERENCES to HUCK and JIM’S IMPLIED HOMOSEXUALITY
FYI: There is LOTS of material on the Huck/Jim theme. That does not make it either true or false. A homosexual relationship between Huck and Jim is probably a lot like demon possession of our young readers in Harry Potter–––a morbid preoccupation likely to exist only in the mind of the beholder.
Here are just a few of myriad references touching on the theme of "something more than mere friendship" between Huck and Jim:
http://books.google.com/books?id=7WPkJwJvymcC&pg=PA221&dq=Homosexual+Overtones+between+Huckleberry+Finn+and+Jim&sig=ACfU3U2I2rV-Ax3ieVkk8upsRRzyvEPMeg
Advanced Book Search
Google Book Search
Help
The "AND" operator is unnecessary -- we include all search terms by default. [details]
Books Showing:
Books 1 - 10 of 17 on Homosexual Overtones between Huckleberry Finn and Jim. (0.03 seconds)
List view Cover view
Academia Nuts: Or, the Collected Works of Clara LePage - Page 82
by Charles R. Larson - 1977 - 177 pages
"No, forget the homosexual theme completely. Twain was fairly straight, ...
"is that there was something going on between Huckleberry Finn and the Widow ...
Snippet view - About this book - Add to my library - More editions
Blacks in Eden: The African-American Novel's First Century - Page 221
by J. Lee Greene - Literary Criticism - 1996 - 306 pages
The relationship between Huck and Jim reverberates throughout this scene. ...
More important, however, Ellison's use of Huckleberry Finn as an intertext ...
Limited preview - About this book - Add to my library - More editions
Nature Studies: A Novel - Page 98
by John Ryskamp - Fiction - 1998 - 318 pages
Much of Cage's support in Germany came from a submerged homosexual ... for the
West a la Huckleberry Finn (and God only knows what Huck and Jim were up to, ...
Limited preview - About this book - Add to my library - More editions
Masterplots: 1,801 Plot Stories and Critical Evaluations of the World's ... - Page 131
by Frank Northen Magill, Dayton Kohler, Laurence W. Mazzeno - Literature - 1996
... puts him into some rather interesting literary company: Huck Finn on his raft
... adoration of Berry-Berry has homosexual overtones and that the story, ...
Snippet view - About this book - Add to my library - More editions
Blacks in the Jewish Mind: A Crisis of Liberalism - Page 120
by Seth Forman - Political Science - 2000 - 320 pages
... the most highly regarded American classics "are disturbing sexual overtones,
... Melville's Moby Dick (1851), and Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn (1892). ...
Limited preview - About this book - Add to my library - More editions
"Sunset Terrace Imagery in Lovecraft" and Other Essays - Page 18
by Peter H. Cannon - 1990 - 42 pages
1 The best of our classic novels, Moby-Dick and Huckleberry Finn, are dark, ...
Queequeg— and here the homosexual overtones are more obvious (though 'Leslie ...
Snippet view - About this book - Add to my library - More editions
Wilson library bulletin
Page 661
One of my students informed me recently that Huckleberry Finn had been banned in
one high school library because of immorality; it had homosexual overtones. ...
No preview available - About this book - Add to my library - More editions
The Dramatic Unity of "Huckleberry Finn" - Page 27
by George C. Carrington - Literary Criticism - 1976 - 201 pages
And then think of mel It would get all around, that Huck Finn helped a ...
much of his influential claim that Huck and Jim are consciously or unconsciously ...
Limited preview - About this book - Add to my library - More editions
The American Scholar - Page 518
by William Allison Shimer, Phi Beta Kappa - Little magazines - 1984
No such label appears in Huckleberry Finn. It is exactly wrong to say "his name
is not Jim but Nigger Jim." Lowercase "nigger" is freely used, of course, ...
Snippet view - About this book - Add to my library - More editions
FT
I have heard the rumor, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Biden steps down.
If he does I think it'll be too late for the Dems.
All my friends like Harry Potter. I don't like scary stuff. I'm all about the psych books, biographies, and fiction.
not to shock anybody here or appear coarse, or break my own rule, but FT, I really don't give a damn HOW much 'evidence' or 'innuendo' there supposedly is about a gay relationship between the young white kid and the black man in the segregated South......i think I just answered why that wouldn't have happened right there, come to think of it.
WHY even conjecture, is MY question!!? If Twain had wanted that theme, he'd have made it more obvious. IMagine him WANTING that in his book in a time when this was so VERY rarely spoken of? For what purpose? sell fewer books?
Some academics seem to have wwaaay too much time on their hands!
Thanks!
I still don't grasp why you need to know of specific cases to take this seriously.
You made the claim, you back it up. I don't take it that seriously.
your claim that is.
I see claims like that as nothing more than some legalistic Christians who either one have no children, nor have read said book.
Present company excluded
There's a lot of stuff going on in the world that no one cares much about, Z. There's even more that a lot of people actively dislike or don't even want to think about, but that doesn't mean none of it is true true or worthy of consideration.
Poor Marie Antoinette did not mean to sound insolent and insensitive when she asked, "Why do they not eat brioche" when told that her people were starving for lack of bread. She lived such an insulated, tightly circumscribed life she simply had no idea what was going on outside the palace gates. She suffered the Ultimate Penalty for her ignorance too.
We were talking about themes stated and implied in children's literature that may or may not have harmful consequences.
I brought up many examples just to add to the discussion. One of them didn't appeal, and so I was called names for mentioning it, as though I'd just made it up for the sole purpose of being annoying or offensive.
I had read, seen and heard this inference many times, and politely provided a small amount of evidence to prove that I was not alone in noting it.
For this I received what-sounded-like a rebuke.
If one wants to be adequately prepared for the attacks that are sure to come from outside one's "palace gates," it helps a great deal to know what and how the enemy is thinking.
Also, most of the charm and intrigue of literature is felt, because things are rarely spelled out in big red letters for all the world to see. There is always a bit of mystery in good fiction–––more questions asked than answered. It takes INSIGHT, IMAGINATION and DISCERNMENT to find all the "meat" in a good piece of fiction–––or any other work of Art for that matter. It's the process of exploration and discovery that makes it worth the time and effort–––a process that a serious reader never completes.
~ FreeThinke
I disagree, FT.
If the author didn't mean it to be there, I feel it's dishonest to mischaracterize.
There is nothing in Twain's life or writings to suggest anything of the sort.
Sorry if you feel I lack imagination and insight and discernment...it's just that i feel it dishonest to create more than is there...even though every English class professor loves to do that, especially if there's some subject agenda he is particularly fond of...and, sometimes, of course, it's merited if the author is known for themes and beliefs, etc. "Where does Twain, in this story exhibit his feeling that.... as indicated in his friendship with...?"
Good conversation; this is a particular favorite of mine, in fact.
Yeah, EB, and I see your kind of smug sour remonstrance as coming from the kind of Christian who puts his own experience above the Bible and all other Christians. Well, enjoy, I have no interest in convincing you. Take it or leave it.
CJ,
do you have children? have you read the Harry Potter books?
Smugness? Relying on experience?
As a parent and as a Christian I don't rely on any televangelist, speaking in tongues, holy laughter or any other nonsense that spews from the legalistic, I gotta do somthing to keep my salvation crowd...if that's what you mean.
God's into common sense. Try it sometime you might not only enjoy life more but your own Christian walk.
I agree with you, Z. I don't see that in Twain's writings either. Good grief!
Ducky, why don't you do everyone a favor and start your own blog? I do have to agree with Ducky on one thing though. I don't think Hillary would want the vp spot. The reason I don't think so is because HIllary is all about power. She wants to run again in 2012, and she can't do that if Obama wins. That's my take on it anyway.
Ducky, the fact that you on the left make up names for Sarah Palin, a Governer, like "Gidget" shows that you are terrified of her. If the left wasn't going bananas with absolute fear they wouldn't be making all the false accusations and they wouldn't be calling her insulting names. Don't even try to come in here and tell me calling the Governor of a state "Gidget" isn't insulting. You know it is and so does everyone else.
Ducky, you ask: "How am I doin'?" You don't really want me to answer that!
You are WAY out of line, EB.
i have been following this string. it has taken some strange turns. i must say though, that i too believe eb was out of line. The christian faith is nothing if it is not "love your neighbor as yourself" do you think that is common sense? no, it goes against every bone in our body...but it is commanded. God is not always about common sense.
kw
I love CJ, I just disagree.
do you think that is common sense?
common sense and our own sinful nature are two different things, yes left to ourselves we won't choose love but
neither is legalism
this is why you teach children the real thing, the authentic way, that way they can recognize the counterfiet in a heartbeat
So I take it you've read the book?
this reminds me of the Christians I knew as a teeneager that told me if I listened to rock and roll I'd be raping women
As a parent and as a Christian I don't rely on any televangelist, speaking in tongues, holy laughter or any other nonsense that spews from the legalistic, I gotta do somthing to keep my salvation crowd...if that's what you mean.
I mention these sort of things because some of these Christians rely more on the experience of being a Christian e.g. speaking in tongues, holy laughter to authenticate their Christianity rather than the daily walk that comes from knowing the Lord
Out of line how?
Because I resent Christians whose legalism can smack of Phariseeism and try to rob others of the joy and freedom that Christ gave His life for
Let's ban some books that oughta convert those non believers.
EB has a made-up definition of legalism to suit his made-up definition of Christian joy and freedom. Maybe he has a completely made-up definition of Christianity. He seems to be talking to himself really but I don't enjoy getting the abuse he ladles out to his imaginary antagonist.
well what do you suggest we do with the Harry Potter books?
if not ban them then what?
If not remove them from schools then what?
what do you suggest?
Has CJ read the books or does she accept what someone else had told her?
telling me what should be read or not read isn't legalism?
what is it then?
Is it a suggestion? okay then
and legalism robs people of joy does it not?
it instills fear does it not?
I JUST talked to my son he hasn't wanted to cast a spell all day today
I saw some of the movies, EB, as I ALREADY SAID. Four I believe. Is that not enough for you? Do I have to read the books too? If you insist on that, then buy them for me and mail them to me.
What to do about the books? Nothing. Tell people what we think may be the danger in them. You want me to keep my mouth shut and let the opinions I disagree with reign. Sorry. It's the only thing one CAN do. You said your piece, I said mine, that ought to be enough.
I DID NOT TELL YOU WHAT TO READ! Good grief.
LEGALISM is obedience to the LAW in the belief that it saves, EB. You have some very mixed up ideas about the term. In fact you are so confused I don't even know where to start to answer you about it.
Robs people of joy. Instills fear. Uh. Um. This is I guess supposed to be a definition of "legalism? Actually I know some pretty joyful Mormons who think they are saved by their legalism. Uh. Preaching against sin is felt by many as robbing them of joy. Sin is fun you know. Does anybody deny that? Preaching about the reality of hell is considered by many to instill fear, which is terribly politically incorrect these days, a big no-no. So, let me see, I guess you are in favor of anything that creates joy and against anything that instills fear? So, if I see you walking into the path of an enraged bull I'll remember to keep my mouth shut knowing you reject anything that instills fear as legalism.
Closest I can come to sorting out your weird thinking.
Telling you what to read, if I HAD done so, would STILL not be legalism. Good grief, where do you get such an idea? All I said was that there are dangers involved in the Harry Potter books and you made up everything else you accused me of.
If I "told" you not to read pornography would that be legalism too?
If I tell my child what to read I'm being legalistic?
Actually the idea you seem to have is one I've found among evangelicals of the seeker-sensitive not-very-well-taught churches, the easy-believism churches.
The ravings of the rage-addicted, the chronically disagreeable, the smug, the narrow-minded, the conceited, and those willfully blind to any view but their own, and those puffed up with self-righteousness because of their lack of perception and imperviousness to the collected wisdom of the ages makes for abysmally poor reading. And even poorer company.
If one hopes to see at all, one must learn to see beyond the self.
Few do, and that is why the world is what it is -- a bloody battleground littered with the corpses of the ignorant, the willful, and unjust.
He who believes himself to be saved, may be among the first to be counted as lost.
FT. you can't discredit or insult Christians for believing ALL of the book that informs them and all its admonitions.
Actually the idea you seem to have is one I've found among evangelicals of the seeker-sensitive not-very-well-taught churches, the easy-believism churches.
The purpose of the Book of John is that "you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name" (20:31, also 19:35). The verb pisteuw ‘believe’ is used about 100 times, the adjective pistoV ‘believing’ twice but the noun pistiV ‘faith’ is not used at all. Aside from second and third John, this is the only book in the New Testament not to use the noun form but by far has the greatest frequency of the verb. Acts being the next runner up has about one third the frequency of John followed by Romans at about one fifth.
I believe that becoming a Christian is simple. That we are created for good works in Christ (Eph 2:10) and that these works are a consequence of our salvation not a prerequisite. I also believe that at conversion we receive the Holy Spirit who is our guarantor of our salvation.
Jesus said "Those who follow me, neither men nor devils can pluck out of my hand. My Father who hath, by an unchangeable decree, given me all that believe, love, and obey, is greater than all in heaven or earth, and none is able to pluck them out of his hand."
This includes me or Harry Potter or a demon.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion but what I've found with those Christians who structure their lives much too finely are robbed of joy. My brother is a case in point. His children aren't permitted to watch the movies nor read the books. Their life is so structured that they don't even get to be children. It follows his theology that he can lose his salvation. His children are miserable. He's provoked them much too often with his legalism.
Legalism, in Christian theology, is a term referring to an over-emphasis on law or codes of conduct, or legal ideas, usually implying an allegation of misguided rigor, pride, superficiality, the neglect of mercy, and ignorance of the grace of God or emphasizing the letter of law over the spirit. Legalism is alleged against any view that obedience to law, not faith in God's grace, is the pre-eminent principle of redemption. Its opposite error is antinomianism, which is alleged against a view that moral laws are not binding.
I missed the part where you've seen the movies.
Robs people of joy. Instills fear. Uh. Um. This is I guess supposed to be a definition of "legalism?
Well if you must do something to keep your salvation then you would live in fear. What would you have to do to lose/keep it? This is certainly a form of legalism since it focuses on the acts rather than the heart and on works rather than God's grace.
I worked with a man who followed this theology. He was so afraid he wouldn't confess all of his sins. (omission and commission) I asked him once what he thought would happen if he forgot one, he believed he would go to hell.
I thought your commments implied a form of leagalism. If I misunderstood than please forgive me.
Look CJ, I've been a cad. I work nights and sometimes blog when I should be sleeping. I tend to read too much in people's comments.
Please forgive me. I'd like to start over with you and try to be less antagonistic.
Since you apologize, of course I must forgive you.
The LESTER Thread applies here equally:
Every single one of us is someone's "Lester" at all ages and stages of our lives.
We need to treat one another kindly and respectfully, even when we don't agree on "major issues."
The "tone" of our "voices" comes through very clearly in our writing in most instances. It is far more significant than the any of the words we use, themselves.
Being "right" is not nearly as important as being kind, patient and giving the benefit of the doubt whenever possible.
Also, drawing inferences of personal criticism from general statements of principle is never a good idea.
Also, when someone expresses a unfamiliar concept or unusual interpretation of well-known material, it isn't wise, kind or helpful to jump all over it and call the person who introduced it "crazy," a "liar" a "fool" a "troublemaker" or any of a thousand other derisive terms. The best way to respond to something like that might be, "I doubt if I will agree with you, but would you please explain what led you to make such a statement, I'd like to hear your reasoning," etc.
My point is that EVERYONE deserves the kind of consideration bestowed on Mr. Kestner at ALL times.
"In so much as Ye have done it unto the least of these, my brethren, Ye have done it unto me."
Elbro, I'm sorry you apologized to CJ. She didn't deserve it. If anything, the apologies should have been the other 'way 'round.
You let yourself be bullied into acquiescing to a point of view in which you do not really believe–––if I read your exchange correctly. (I admit I skimmed, because it became tedious.)
CJ often gives the impression she wishes we were back in a time when "The Church" had the power to stretch heretics on the rack, burn them alive, or hang them by the neck till dead without benefit of a trap door to ease or shorten their sufferings.
An anti-Science, anti-Intellectual, anti-Progress, fear-based, Luddite agenda is NOT going to "restore" us to a "pure" version of Christianity, because we never have had a "pure" version of Christianity to be corrupted in the first place.
Corruption was built into its foundation and framework once The Church began to organize, because the structure of church government is devised by MEN, and becomes more concerned with preserving, enhancing and perpetuating its material self than in spreading the Truth of Being.
I've been arguing with CJ for nigh onto ten years, and neither of us has budged an inch. I am very fond of CJ, and have great respect for her intellect, and have enjoyed many cordial conversations about matters apart from her understanding of Christian Doctrine.
About that she is adamant. I have found adamancy the very least persuasive form of argument regarding Christian Doctrine.
I am as much a Christian as anyone here, and have to say that I do, indeed, find it insulting when others insist that I have no right to call myself a Christian, because my beliefs are not in perfect accord with their own.
FT, I wasn't yet even posting at FPM on 9/11 and I'd been there some time before I met you, so I have known you maybe six, at most seven, years.
You aren't a Christian, FT. One has to recognize oneself as a sinner and repent of sin and receive Christ as Savior from sin to be a Christian. I have hoped this for you for years.
But it's an honor to be attacked for my faith.
EB was attacking me on the other hand for some objection he has to people who think Harry Potter could be dangerous.
I apologize for bringing a personal element into this discussion, which certainly went far afield from Sarah Palin, didn't it?
I think any sort of "contest" that reduces itself to variations on
A) "You're not a Christian"
B) "Oh, but I am."
is worse than useless. Instead, it is destructive and depressing at best.
Of only one thing am I absolutely sure. One can't be bullied, terrified or worn down by attrition to know and love the One True God and be at one with the Holy Spirit.
As I keep saying, what people SAY they believe, and what they tell others they MUST believe is of little or no importance. How they LIVE, how they ARE and what they have to show for having existed is of the greatest importance.
FT
Of course I walked into a discussion where many Christians had already expressed approval of the Harry Potter series as nothing more than good children's literature, and it's an opinion held by some trustworthy Christian leaders too, such as Albert Mohler, whose opinions I generally appreciate.
But most Christians haven't had the experience of the occult that I've had. I do get myself into this position from time to time. It may not affect most Christians or their children, it's really the culture that's going to be impacted overall. The huge influx of Eastern religions that came in the 70s was one major gift of demons to our society. Yes, I do think that Harry Potter is another wave of same. Just one of many. There are many. But Harry targets children.
FT, it's simply a matter of the objective definition of Christianity.
A CHARMING BIT OF DOGGEREL that just came my way. (I did not write it). Seemed comically apropos.
I was shocked, confused, bewildered
As I entered Heaven's door,
Not by the beauty of it all,
Nor the lights or its decor.
But it was the folks in Heaven
Who made me sputter and gasp--
The thieves, the liars, the sinners,
The alcoholics and the trash.
There stood the kid from seventh grade
Who swiped my lunch money twice.
Next to him was my old neighbor
Who never said anything nice.
Jack, who I always thought
Was rotting away in hell,
Was sitting pretty on cloud nine,
Looking incredibly well.
I nudged Jesus, 'What's the deal?
I would love to hear Your take.
How'd all these sinners get up here?
God must've made a mistake.
'And why's everyone so quiet,
So somber -- give me a clue.'
'Hush, child,' He said, 'they're all in shock.
No one thought they'd be seeing you.'
Submitted by FT
Only REPENTANT and SAVED sinners make it to heaven, FT. So there's no reason to be surprised to see anyone in particular there, just happiness knowing they repented and received Christ for salvation.
How can one be at peace with "the one true God" when one is not repentent of his/her sins and doesn't look at the only thing which informs us of that God as His inerrant Truth? I always find that curious.
Very curious, Z. Apparently for FT the requirement to confess and forsake sin is equivalent to being tortured on the rack.
..and all any of us must do is to say "forgive me.."
what's it take? He doesn't even require we stop! That's the rub, that's the beauty that people don't understand. He DOES understand, he wants us living upright lives per His Word, but if we don't, and we repent again, we know He loves us regardless.
If only this 'judgment' and 'how can you say I'm not a Christian?' junk would be stricken from our conversations. WE cannot judge..HE judges.
You let yourself be bullied into acquiescing to a point of view in which you do not really believe–––if I read your exchange correctly. (I admit I skimmed, because it became tedious.)
FT, I should clarify. I apologized to CJ not for the content of my argument. I read into her comments that she would prefer to ban the book. This was a bit of a strawman because she didn't say that. I also felt that I was not being as loving and humble presenting my argument.
However I don't acquiesce the argument that I find some Christians to be so legalistic that they are robbed of the joy of being a Christian.
I've asked myself this question in the past:
IF we as Christians have the same Holy Spirit how can we disagree about such issues?
Here is what I've come up with.
1. Our own sinfulness
as CJ has said sin can be fun but as a Christian I am called to be separate (holy) and that's a process (sanctification) I don't believe sanctification is completed until we reach heaven, but I do want to sin less and less as I mature as a Christian.
2. Legalistic Christians try to apply rules universally
for e.g.
Reading HP books is sinful.
to protect themselves.
But most Christians haven't had the experience of the occult that I've had. I do get myself into this position from time to time. It may not affect most Christians or their children, it's really the culture that's going to be impacted overall.
I think these Christians need those rules. I think that those who need more and more of these rules are robbed of the joy of being a Christian. They live in fear.
An example from the NT:
Whether it was right to eat meat sacrificed to idols. In our freedom to eat meat sacrificed to idols we shouldn't cause the weaker Christian (the one who protects himself with extra rules) to stumble.
I liken this to how I've parented my children. At different stages of their life they were more mature than others. Perhaps exposing my son at a younger age to HP would not have been appropriate. However at 14, (and someone who has devotions everyday) I believe he's mature enough in his walk to be able to read the HP book knowing full well that he's not going out to dabble in the occult because he's read a book.
Self-control provides the ability to resist what may cause pain to others. Thus, we exercise self-control for others, as well as for ourselves.
The Holy Spirit indwells us and deals with us as individuals.
The beautiful thing about Christianity is that it is a relationship.
Romans 14:22
The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.
If we doubt that what we are doing is what a Christian should, which includes reading a HP book, then it is not of faith. Therefore it is sin. Otherwise I think we do have the freedom to enjoy a HP book. It's reading a book.
In issues of morality that are clearly defined in the Bible this is quite different. Anyone who has the Holy Spirit would find it difficult for themselves to have a productive Christian life living outside and in contradiction to those sins that are clearly delineated in the Bible. The Holy Spirit is not called the Hound of Heaven for nothing and would not contradict God on those issues.
So a true Christian (with the Holy Spirit) would be so convicted that I think He would make them quite miserable to continue in that behavior.
Harry Potter glorifies witchcraft. Do you disagree? Is indulgence in witchcraft or glorification of witchcraft a simple matter of Christian freedom? The stories are very entertaining. We don't want to give up that pleasure of being entertained. That's the flesh choosing its pleasures it seems to me. The Holy Spirit can't endorse a pleasure that has a demonic agenda at its core. I think Christians who embrace this stuff are very naive. What that has to do with legalism is beyond me.
Thank you, Elbro, for your clarification. I believe I understand you pretty well on this thread, and concur with what you have said.
The quotation from St. Pauls' Second Letter to the Corinthians may be used too frequently, but that cannot remove or tarnish the truth of what it says
–––"though I give my body to be burned and have faith enough to move mountains, and have not Charity (Love) I am nothing." I don't pretend that is an exact quote, but only a captious, overly-exacting, legalistic termagent could possibly miss the point. ;-)
OR–––as Duke Ellington put it, "It don't mean a thing, if it ain't got that zing." Or was that "swing?"
And, believe me, I don't mean that flippantly.
There is an unbearable arrogance in those who presume to define sin in others, and demand they atone for it. Usually such individuals have difficulty facing themselves in the mirror.
If achieving Salvation were only a simple matter of slavishly following a Book of Rules without question or thought–––and without comprehending their meaning–––it would be entirely too easy, and probably not worth the effort.
Without being a Kirkegaard scholar in any sense, I am one of those who believes one must work out his own Salvation "with fear and trembling."
On another tack altogether I do believe there are myriad harmful and unwholesome influences in our world today that might qualify as having a demonic influence over young minds.
MTV and the ocean of sewage that feeds it would be a much better place to start rooting out devils than the works of J.K. Rowling, if we want to go in that direction, I should think.
I do believe that Love is stronger than evil, and cannot help win in the end, but those who embrace ugliness, grotesquerie, madness, substance abuse, cynicism and rage addiction, hostility, destruction, etc. will have a much harder time experiencing Love than those whose essential wholesomeness opens them to it quite naturally.
Also, I know this to be true from personal experience. One should never assume that Evil is more attractive, and therefore more powerful, than Good. Once, long ago I was staying at a friend's apartment in New York and was confronted with a singularly hideous work, quite "chic" in the sophisticated intellectual circles of the day. It was called "The Story of O."
To make a long story short, I was so disquieted and depressed by this sordid little epic, that I went outside, took a long walk in the autumn air. During that walk I prayed constantly for help in ridding my consciousness of the pollution I had invited in so stupidly. I was very tired when I returned, but found something I had not seen before my walk. It was a blessed copy of The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint Exupery. Reading through this small-but-profoundly beautiful book, I felt cleansed and healed.
I've never forgotten that experience. Evil is often so repugnant that it generates resistance and the strength to fight it all by its ugly self.
~ FreeThinke
Some evil is clear enough to smack us upside the head so we can't avoid it. Some evil comes slithering in seductively offering us entertainments we find hard to exist. We are warned to heed "temptation." Clearly temptation doesn't come announcing its true objectives.
It's interesting FT that you used the quote "fear and trembling" because that is a very scriptural example that not all fear is a bad thing in the Christian life. It's from the Bible, by the way, Kierkegaard didn't invent it. You need to get to know the word.
Anyway I was thinking about that very verse and intended to post it because EB seems to have some idea that fear of any kind is never appropriate in the Christian life.
1Co 2:3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
2Co 7:15 And his inward affection is more abundant toward you, whilst he remembereth the obedience of you all, how with fear and trembling ye received him.
Eph 6:5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
Php 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
that's "resist" not "exist."
Anyway I was thinking about that very verse and intended to post it because EB seems to have some idea that fear of any kind is never appropriate in the Christian life.
Now who uses a strawman.
But most Christians haven't had the experience of the occult that I've had. I do get myself into this position from time to time. It may not affect most Christians or their children, it's really the culture that's going to be impacted overall.
Hey if fear keeps you from making a mistake with the occult than you need this rule.
We are warned to heed "temptation." Clearly temptation doesn't come announcing its true objectives.
Being tempted is not a sin.
Hebrews 4:15
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
but allowing it to fester can lead to sin.
James 1:15
Then when lust has conceived, it brings forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, brings forth death.
inre: to fear CJ
I'll clarify again.
They live in fear.
They live in fear of losing their salvation.
The Holy Spirit can't endorse a pleasure that has a demonic agenda at its core. I think Christians who embrace this stuff are very naive. What that has to do with legalism is beyond me.
Legalism, in Christian theology, is a term referring to an over-emphasis on law or codes of conduct, or legal ideas, usually implying an allegation of misguided rigor, pride, superficiality, the neglect of mercy, and ignorance of the grace of God or emphasizing the letter of law over the spirit.
That's the flesh choosing its pleasures it seems to me.
Legalistic Christians try to apply rules universally
CJ -- Have you read the 7 Harry Potter books?
I've seen four of the movies, intend to see the next in the series when it's on TV and no I haven't read the books, as I've said twice already so far.
Does Harry Potter glorify witchcraft or not? Is witchcraft forbidden in scripture or not?
For heaven's sake, a statement about the influx of demons through occultic activity is not a RULE. Good grief.
NOBODY SAID being tempted is a sin. Good grief!
HARRY POTTER IS NOT ABOUT LOSING YOUR SALVATION! Gooooood grief!
I'll ask it again. Is it or is it not true that the Holy Spirit can't endorse WITCHCRAFT!
Fleshly pleasures are a universal category. There's no such thing as a pleasure that's fleshly for one but spiritual for another. And a generalizationa about a FACT is not a RULE!
Good GRIEF!
I would offer that if you have not read the books that your opinion is somewhat measured against the fact that you are arguing against something you do not even know. Witchcraft is forbidden to be practiced in the scripture and yet there are many stories of witchcraft in the Bible itself. Is the Bible advertising witchcraft and glorifying it?
CJ I think the legalism and that you can't be Christian and approve of the Harry Potter books is implied in your comments.
for e.g.
The Holy Spirit can't endorse a pleasure that has a demonic agenda at its core.
Ask others here if they think it's been implied. Again if I'm wrong I apologize.
Your attribution of a demonic core and glorification of witchcraft I think IS open to interpretation of the HP books. The movies have also tended to gloss over some of the more virtuous parts of the books. As in most movies the book often is better.
The Harry Potter books are fantasy novels - and have more to do with consequences to actions than conjuring spells or dabbling in the occult.
In HP7, JK Rowling eloquently and repeatedly defends the virtue of faith, indicates a possible priesthood in the Wizarding world, subtly quotes scripture, places two significant events at a church on Christmas Eve and another at "King's Cross," examines a possible purgatory, reiterates the effect of our choices upon our souls, and concludes with one of the most beautiful Via Dolorosas - Good Friday right through Easter Sunday - to have been written in a popular book of late. And inbetween that, she champions those old stalwart virtues of courage, friendship, hope, family, marriage, new life, responsibility, true liberty, kindness, and on and on.
J. K. Rowling, describes herself as a practicing Christian, and many have noted the overtly Christian references she includes in the final Harry Potter novel, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.
A parent knows his child best. And each parent would do well to discuss the virtue of all entertainment with their children regularly.
Fleshly pleasures are a universal category. There's no such thing as a pleasure that's fleshly for one but spiritual for another.
So you don't think the Bible passage on eating meat offered to idols applies here?
I think it does.
and you would be against drinking alcohol even in moderation?
I never said that you were claiming that temptation was a sin. I only wanted to clarify the distinction for the record.
For heaven's sake, a statement about the influx of demons through occultic activity is not a RULE.
But banning them in schools and libraries is.
Is it or is it not true that the Holy Spirit can't endorse WITCHCRAFT!
This isn't the question.
Does Harry Potter glorify witchcraft or not?
This is the question.
I'd be interested in whether one can find evidence that points to a rise in murder etc etc and in occult, witchcraft that is directly attributed to the HP books/movies
until then I think we will just have to agree to disagree
So seeing the movies doesn't tell me anything about what's in the books, PF? That's strange. I guess I just made it all up that it's about witchcraft. Funny.
And are you ACTUALLY trying to claim that a REPORT on witchcraft which does not describe how it is done, in a context of condemning it, is the same thing as a series of fictional stories about a bunch of people who practice it and teach it and obviously celebrate it?
Christians diagree about this issue and I think it's a testament to the question I posed earlier:
That is if we have the same Holy Spirit why do we disagree on these issues.
from Wikipedia
Christian writer Stephen D. Greydanus writes that the magic of the Harry Potter novels is not the ritualistic, invocative magic of Wicca or occultism but the same "fantasy" magic practised in the works of J. R. R. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis; "If anything, the magic in Rowling's world is even more emphatically imaginary, even further removed from real-world practices, than that of Tolkien or Lewis; and, like theirs, presents no appreciable risk of direct imitative behaviour."[101] Christianity Today columnist Charles Colson asserts that the magic in Harry Potter is "purely mechanical, as opposed to occultic. That is, Harry and his friends cast spells, read crystal balls, and turn themselves into animals—but they don't make contact with a supernatural world. [It's not] the kind of real-life witchcraft the Bible condemns."
The opposite view is presented there also. I use this only to illustrate that men such as Chuck Colson, who I admire thinks differently.
EB I DO NOT DOUBT THAT YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN. I have said NOTHING to imply such a thing. I think Christians CAN BE DECEIVED. That doesn't make you not Christian.
You just make everything up. This is, again, you talking to yourself. Nothing I say makes any difference. I guess I could say the sky is gray and that would be me legalistically insisting that you are bad if you see the sky as blue or something like that.
The idea of a demonic core as I put it is simply based on the fact that it is about witchcraft. Demons are what witchcraft is all about. Why is there a question about this?
VIRTUE has NOTHING to do with Christianity. Witches are very big on virtue, as are pagan religions in general. Ethics is not specifically Christian, morality, honor, all exist in pagan contexts.
Using Christian holidays certainly is no evidence of a Christian worldview. Most of the Christian holidays had a pagan origin anyway that can be reinvoked in a pagan context. I think you are very naive to accept Rowling's claim to be Christian.
Yes, guide your child as you please. I have said NOTHING to dispute your right to do that or even to question your standards.
You've lost me completely with your connection between fleshly pleasures and idol worship.
I drink wine occasionally. WHAT IS GOING ON WITH YOU? This whole thing is your own imagination run amok and being projected onto me.
You called it a RULE my mere factual proposition, statement, that demons are given access to the world by occultic activity. I did not follow your link yet because I would have to leave this page to do so but I don't see what banning anything has to do with this simple statement.
It is a factual statement that Harry Potter books glorify witchcraft. Your desire for some kind of evidence of a certain kind of effect you think would have to follow is unnecessary. The books glorify witchcraft. How could anyone possibly deny that?
Whatever.
I don't expect us all to agree. That's some expectation of your own.
Go with Wikipedia if you like. I think it's just plain obvious that HP glorifies witchcraft and the details are irrelevant. Contact with the demonic world does not have to follow some prescribed formula.
Just stop attacking me because I see this differently.
At the link the woman is holding up a brochure advertizing teaching kids witchcraft. Like I said, it's everywhere. We can't ban it, it's an impossibility. It's huge, it's everywhere. And there are many subtle forms of it that nobody notices anyway.
But your principle is very questionable. We shouldn't ban evil? We shouldn't ban influences on our children? I say we're at the point where we can't even if we wanted to. But what on earth is wrong with the principle? I personally think we should ban Islam from being practiced in the US. But it isn't going to happen.
I told you that I apologize if I misunderstood. Perhaps it was too easy for me to generalize about the way you feel based on the actions of others who have sought to have the books banned from schools and libraries. Turns out I was right in that regard.
No I don't think it's a good idea to start banning books from libraries. It wouldn't in my estimation be any different than a Muslim setting fire to a car because of the cartoons of Mohammed. One would only be whitewashing the outside and missing the point that your heart needs circumcised. You'd be banning books like Cinderella and Macbeth as well.
You can't win people to the Lord by removing every reference to the opposite. It's why issues like evolution are controversial, it's indoctrination rather than education. The objections are not covered so it's blindly believed by students. So Chrisitanity and it's objections should be examined (I realize this is a tangent somewhat), this is how I teach my children. They're taught to recognize the truth because part of teaching that truth is seeing for themselves the vacuity of the lies and objections to Christianity.
Hebrews 11:1 says that faith is the evidence of things not seen....
The idea of a demonic core as I put it is simply based on the fact that it is about witchcraft.
Do you feel the same way about the C.S. Lewis books The Chronicles of Narnia? or J.R.R. Tolkiens The Lord of the Rings?
You called it a RULE my mere factual proposition, statement, that demons are given access to the world by occultic activity.
Occultic activity yes, Whether Harry Potter is occultic activity is the question even among Christians.
Call it a general universal category then.
I'm not looking for us all to agree either.
I'm not trying to attack you. I just feel passionately about some things and yes sometimes that passion can get in the way. Especially if non-Christians are pushed away by IMHO is an overreaction to a fantasy book.
Perhaps in some ways that will have do much more harm then reading any of the HP books. But then I don't have an example of that either.
I used Wikipedia because it was the easiest place to find what Chuck Colson had said.
I personally think we should ban Islam from being practiced in the US.
My wife and I support a group that reaches out to Muslims. I'm for reaching them for Christ, not banning them.
You've lost me completely with your connection between fleshly pleasures and idol worship.
I drink wine occasionally. WHAT IS GOING ON WITH YOU? This whole thing is your own imagination run amok and being projected onto me.
I don't think so. You see the HP books as a matter for fleshly pleasures. I ask these questions to clarify your view on subjects that are related to Christian freedom. for e.g. the drinking of alcohol and the eating of meat in the NT
I see the HP books as a matter of the Christian freedom vice the fleshly pleasures as you deem them.
Reading about witchcraft isn't sinful. Remember you weren't interested in the details.
I mention raising children because I think it's a good analogy of a mature Christian (child) vs an immature/weak (child) Christian.
I never accused you of disputing the way I raise my children. Virtues/ethics are important when raising children though and I think part of the charge I have as a parent is to ensure positive influences are part of my childrens education.
I guess as I said we will just have to agree to disagree
"But your principle is very questionable. We shouldn't ban evil? We shouldn't ban influences on our children? I say we're at the point where we can't even if we wanted to. But what on earth is wrong with the principle? I personally think we should ban Islam from being practiced in the US. But it isn't going to happen."
The real question here is whether or not it is evil for YOU. Whatever you do that is not of faith is sin. Is it quite possible that there does not have to be a dogmatic line drawn here but rather that each must search their own heart and life in order to see whether it is something they could read in confidence and faith and not in doubt? Are there not things that are sin for you but not sin for me (or vice versa)? You obviously could not read the books in faith and so for you I would say it would be a sin as you would not be doing it out of faith. Elbro and I read them in faith and distinguish and enjoy the parts of God's story that is found within them. All truth is God's truth. There is no truth outside the authorship of God. Everywhere that you find a truth you get a glimpse of God. The reason that we recognize truth is that God's story has been written on our hearts. The story of creation. The story that says things are not how the ought to be but that there will be a time when things will be renewed.
The real question here is whether or not it is evil for YOU. Whatever you do that is not of faith is sin. Is it quite possible that there does not have to be a dogmatic line drawn here but rather that each must search their own heart and life in order to see whether it is something they could read in confidence and faith and not in doubt?
I agree PF. Romans 14:22
CJ is all about exerting HER will, HER views, HER understanding, HER interpretation, HER personal Dogma over the minds of others within her hearing. She can, apparently, never imagine that she, HERSELF, might be wrong.
Confusing HER mind and HER understanding with the mind of GOD may be the demon that possesses CJ, whom I have, indeed, known since before 911. I know that, because we met at FPM before I moved into my current house, which I will have owned nine years next month.
What-I-could-only-call a SAVONAROLA COMPLEX, a TORQUEMADA TEMPERAMENT an INQUISITION DISPOSITION, or a CROMWELLIAN COMPULSION–––all are essentially variations of the same extreme form of Self-Righteousness run amok–––would exemplify Demonic Possession to a far greater degree than many activities an individual so possessed would be pleased to call "sin."
LITERALISM is akin to LEGALISM. In my view the inability to understand that ancient pagan myths, parables, poems, works of art have IMPLIED meanings that go far beyond the words used or the forms depicted. The LITERALISTIC view refuses the possibility of drawing inferences, recognizing allusions, understanding the power of symbolism, metaphors, similes.
A very small for instance:
Keats' "Ode on a Grecian Urn" is NOT about a perfectly preserved piece of ancient pottery. In the simplest possible terms the famous lines that begin, "Thou, still unravished bride of quietness . . ." is about Eternity and the sanctity of True Beauty of which there is precious little in the workaday world. Needless to say the piece has nothing to do with rape or marriage in the literal sense either.
While it may be admirable to "stay on topic," in the strictest, narrowest, most literal sense, it could very well serve to cut the discussion off from secondary arteries of inference, insight and implication that might help nourish better, deeper, understanding of the topic at hand.
I have to add, belatedly at this point, that I have not read any of the Potter books. I tried to watch one of the movies when it was recently shown on television, and found it dreary, draggy, overloaded with obvious computer-generated special effects, and generally a bore, so I turned it off.
Let me add a generalization of my own. Movie versions of good books are inferior to the book, itself, in most instances.
WHY? because a movie or TV show does your imagining FOR you and a BOOK allowed you to develop your OWN unique vision of the characters and situations described.
The Bible isn't about the Bible. It is about HUMANITY and Man's search for and evolving relationship with GOD.
As a general rule it is much better to focus on our own flaws and failings and our unkind, unproductive, unprofitable, unjust and frankly foolish ways of relating to others than it is to point fingers at others and single them out for hectoring, badgering, brainwashing, ostracism, corporal punishment or other ways of spreading ignorance, creating further alienation and fostering greater ill will.
If anything be sin, surely using the Scriptures to PROJECT the dissatisfaction one feels with oneself (but cannot face) onto others in order to make a (false) claim of righteousness might properly belong in that category.
Before we start demanding humility in others, we'd do better to cultivate and attempt to perfect it within ourselves.
~ FreeThinke
Wow, what an amazing experience this has been. I never would have expected to find Christians aggressively defending a massively popular entertainment, denying obvious statements of fact, saying it's a matter of "faith" whether it's OK to read it or not, accusing other Christians who caution against it of legalism.
Unbelievable. Its very popularity ought to give a Christian pause but apparently it doesn't. No, they are going to defend their right to it and claim it's possible to read books that celebrate witchcraft "in faith" whatever that can mean. Can you practice Tarot or I Ching or psychic readings "in faith" too?
This boggles the mind. I've seen the movies but that's not enough. Kind of reminds me of the flap about "The Last Temptation of Christ" years ago. One couldn't possibly judge the movie without seeing it, they said, although the story line was known to everybody.
Well, it's going to take a while to digest this.
And now of course FT chimes in on their side, having not a clue what any of this is about, because it gives him opportunity to vent his hatred of the Bible's judgment of sin, and are they going to wonder how what they are saying promotes THAT effect?
Wow.
When the gospel came to the early practitioners of dark arts, they burned their books:
Ac 19:19 Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.
I have not suggested banning Harry Potter, but I am objecting to the claim that says there's something in principle wrong with banning books. This isn't about salvation, and I have not once made it about that. Christians can be snared in various ways without losing their salvation and I think Christians should approach with caution something that promotes witchcraft. But my overall point is that this is about the pollution of the culture. It's been heavily polluted for decades now with far worse than Harry Potter.
MacBeth does not PROMOTE witchcraft. Cinderella does not PROMOTE witchcraft.
Are we to be salt and light to the culture or what does it mean to be that? If we share in the celebration of an entertainment that promotes witchcraft are we being salt and light?
Is "freedom" to do as we please the biggest value for Christians these days? How about the scripture that says that although all things may be permissible, not all are edifying, and the other one that says you can't mix the table of demons with the table of Christ or however that goes (I can't remember the exact words in order to find it).
I also wonder how anyone can say the appeal of a worldly entertainment is not of the "flesh." Nothing could be more obvious. The urges of the flesh won't be done away with until the Lord returns, but meanwhile we ARE supposed to be mortifying it daily. You know, take up your cross, die daily and so on. What can this refer to if not to denying the flesh some of the things it naturally gravitates to? Yet you seem to denounce these very injunctions that come from Jesus Himself as "legalism." I'm amazed.
The point of these injunctions is that the more the flesh dies the more the spirit in us lives. Isn't that the objective of growth in Christ? If we cling to the things of the world and the flesh we may be saved but we aren't going to grow in grace much.
Is it OK to watch all the TV we want in your opinion? I'm not suggesting it will compromise your salvation, I'm asking if as Christians it is consistent with our calling.
Can a Christian practice Transcendental Meditation "in faith?"
Just wondering, trying to find out where you draw the line.
What if thanks to the influx of Eastern religions into America, now practiced by many in various forms, including the martial arts that come out of those religions, and the great growth in the religion of Wicca, and the surprising growth of Islam even since 9/11, what if all this DOES bring demons into our midst? Does that not concern a Christian? You don't have to worry about your salvation (though perhaps your sanctification may be stunted), so we should ignore the growing darkness around us?
Really, I'm having trouble understanding this kneejerk accusation against "legalism" that defends self-indulgence and calls it Christian.
Hey, name some of your favorite Christian authors. I wonder if that might be a clue.
In issues of morality that are clearly defined in the Bible this is quite different. Anyone who has the Holy Spirit would find it difficult for themselves to have a productive Christian life living outside and in contradiction to those sins that are clearly delineated in the Bible. The Holy Spirit is not called the Hound of Heaven for nothing and would not contradict God on those issues
Let me be clear.
As Christians in our freedom we don't have a license to sin. That's clear in Romans. As I expressed here in issues that are clearly defined in the Bible for. e.g. adultery, fornication, homosexuality...the Bible is clear about these issues. These are examples of the types of things that Christians who indulge in which the Holy Spirit will hound until they repent.
CJ, there could not possibly be a clearer example of unbridled self-indulgence than your rambling, verbose, intentionally nettlesome diatribes that purport to to champion "true Christianity," by which you mean, of course the kind of "Christianity" that happens to tickle YOUR sadly Masochistic fancy.
I've observed this at close range for long periods of time for years. You can, indeed, be a delightful, intelligent, even charming conversationalist and as good a friend and confidante as one could hope to find–––AS LONG AS you stay away from the subject of what-YOU-want-to-think-of-as "CHRISTIANITY."
As soon as your Savonarola-Cromwell-Torquemada-Star Chamber- oriented self emerges, you become as gratingly unpleasant, uncharitable, stubborn, willful and vain a personality as ever drew breath.
If YOUR definition of Christ and His Church is correct, I would as soon align myself with the Hottentots, because truly the God you strain to worship is a MONSTER.
You adore the ANTICHRIST–––the Destroyer of Life, Love, Liberty, Joy, Affection, Creativity, Mercy, Justice, Tolerance, Understanding and Accomplishment.
Your "religion" transforms you into something ugly, intransigent, conceited and utterly perverse.
How I wish you would get back in touch with your REAL self, and free yourself from the vicious DEMON that possesses your soul, chills your heart and blights everything you touch with ineffable dreariness.
I FEAR for you, CJ, and for everyone you touch.
May the peace of GOD, which passeth all understanding fill your heart and mind with Jesus Christ, Our Lord.
Every your friend,
FreeThinke
"Are we to be salt and light to the culture or what does it mean to be that? If we share in the celebration of an entertainment that promotes witchcraft are we being salt and light?"
Yes, we are to be salt and light. Now what is it to be salt and light? You would have us believe that it is being salt and light to stand against and denounce something that we have not even read so as to make an honest judgement of its merit. You would believe that being salt and light would be to blindly follow the reasoning that Harry Potter is a story that contains wizardry and so it is void of truth and goodness and only seeks to "promote witchcraft." Now let me tell you what salt and light really are. Being salt and light is seasoning those around us and showing them truth. Is it a truth that we are to not PRACTICE witchcraft? Yes, it is. Is it a truth that we are to not know our culture? NO. As you have not read the Harry Potter books I do not expect you to know what they are actually about. (Incidentally, do you get your theology from reading the actual Bible OR from a commentary or watching Jesus Christ Superstar?) If you had read the books you would know the strength in the books is in the character's friendship and the inherent strength in their virtue. The power is not in the magic. Things are achieved through working together and loving and caring for others. These are ideas that ring true in us. The reason that they ring true is that they are real truth. ALL truth is God's truth. There is no truth outside of the authorship of God. Anywhere that you find truth you find a glimpse of God and His story. This is the story of creation that He has written on each of our hearts. It's the story that says that things are not as they ought to be but that one day creation will be restored and set right. I see glimpses of the truth of God in the Harry Potter books and those I speak with concerning Harry Potter I can show these truths to. That is called being a LIGHT to them. I do not have anything against you personally but I must agree to disagree with you.
Can a Christian practice Transcendental Meditation "in faith?"
Of course not.
But it's simple CJ. I make a distinction between reading a childrens book and dabbling in the occult.
1+1 does not equal 3.
If I understand you correctly you seem to think that reading the HP books will somehow get one to jump to step 300 of becoming a witch, casting spells, making incantations etc etc etc. Even though we have no evidence to support this.
Again this is fear that I've tried to describe in my earlier comments. Feat that somehow this book will cause one to do something that it doesn't even encourage anyone to do.
I'm happy to agree to disagree. I figure we have done that. We are now agreeing to disagree. That doesn't mean there isn't more to say on the subject.
The virtue and friendship come through just fine in the movies, Mr. Frank. And as I said, witches are big on such virtues too. It says nothing that they are such a big part of the stories. It just makes them more attractive to parents.
" You would have us believe that it is being salt and light to stand against and denounce something that we have not even read so as to make an honest judgement of its merit. "
Not really. I haven't said you have to denounce anything and if you'll send me the books I'll read them. I'm questioning the enthusiasm of Christians for these books which glorify witchcraft and their joining with so many millions of nonChristians in doing that. I would think their very popularity might be a red flag. I think Christians today are very naive about the wiles of the devil. Some churches accept a lot of the Eastern religions these days too.
Actually, "all truth is God's truth" is a slogan that came out of liberal Christianity I believe. I believe it's used to support Darwinism and psychology in the churches among other "truths" the Bible opposes.
Listen, I started this with the suggestion that perhaps there's something we might want to be cautious about in the Harry Potter books. I didn't suggest anyone should avoid reading them. Banning them didn't even cross my mind. But the completely INCAUTIOUS way they are accepted and justified by Christians seems unrealistic, especially in the times we are living in.
Are you all OK with the TV shows about witchcraft too? Now, those I haven't seen so I know even less about them, but surely "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and others that have teenage kids performing magic of various sorts is known to all of us from ads. Harry is far more entertaining I'm sure, and the characters more complex, but nevertheless it's about kids learning to perform spells and other forms of witchcraft.
Let's put it this way. IF the books are safe for kids to read, it's IN SPITE OF their content, because the content is clearly something that ought to make a Christian think hard about exposing kids to it.
Here's an article that says reading Harry Potter has increased kids' interest in witchcraft:
http://www.thevoicemagazine.com/kidsonHarryPottersWheel.htm
Here's a guy on the subject whose whole site is about the dangers of witchcraft and the New Age:
http://www.cuttingedge.org/NEWS/n1383.cfm
http://www.thevoicemagazine.com/kidsonHarryPottersWheel.htm
If that first link doesn't work, you have to add Wheel after HarryPotters:
HarryPottersWheel.htm
Never mind then. Feel free to show that all truth is not God's truth. Remember to separate truth from fact. They are not one and the same. Other than that:
YES, YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT!!! THANK YOU FOR SHOWING US ALL. That seems to be all you want to hear or learn anyway so I figured I'd save us time.
SHEESH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're welcome. I hope it's done you some good.
FT: Just a brief word. All your diatribe against me is about one thing only: I've told you I believe what the Bible says about eternal punishment for those who do not own themselves to be sinners, repent and receive salvation through the sacrifice of Christ. That and that alone is what occasions all that denunciation about Savonarola and Torquemada, right? Well, I could wish there were no eternal punishment myself, I hate the thought that anyone would have to endure such a thing. But that's what the Bible only too clearly says. My denying it or your denying it isn't going to make it any less true.
CJ -- Try reading I Corinthians 13 and then learn how to be actual salt and light and not a dogmatic jackass. The fact that some things are true does not make them the only important things. Moderation in everything.
Clearly we come from different Christian backgrounds, and yours is of course a lot "nicer" than mine although you aren't too nice about how you insist on it, either you or EB.
Does 1 Cor 13 mean I can't ever quote Jesus about Hell? In seven years of conversations with an email friend?
Post a Comment