What could be your suggestion?
Comments
-
Schezic said:
Exactly.! He started this thread knowing it would get out of hand. Anything to draw attention to his Pet Project.Denise said:I don't think there's a need to apologize ... always easiest to apologize for other people.
First, Tes knows full well how the world works; he's far more world-wise than most of us
Now he wants to play the poor pitiful amputee card. Sorry. I ain't buying it. I called this thread for what it is from the get-go.
Tes Is trolling. And it worked.
Hi Schezic, I appriciate your commnents! I love you may the Lord bless you abundately! If there were not such nice comments such as like yours it would have been only one way.
Blessings in Christ.
0 -
Schezic said:
Now he wants to play the poor pitiful amputee card
As a double amputee, I take issue with your comment. I wish you would accord a little more respect for others.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
We all have our burdens to bear. Most don't flaunt them as a way to gain the upper hand in a debate. I have never seen you use your disability in such a way. I don't think the comment was directed at the disability...but the attempt to gain control, via sympathy.Super.Tramp said:As a double amputee, I take issue with your comment. I wish you would accord a little more respect for others.
0 -
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
I see.[:P] I will attempt to avoid hard of seeing comments.Super.Tramp said:I'm legally blind, too.
0 -
Paul C said:
We all have our burdens to bear. Most don't flaunt them as a way to gain the upper hand in a debate.
I don't believe that's what was intended. I think Tes was replying respectfully to ST; he didn't quote but the conversation was:
Tes said:Super.Tramp said:Tes said:I highly appreciate your comments and all your thoughts sincerely
I appreciate your graciousness on such a difficult subject.
Due to discrimination of my Faith in the Lord.For nearly 20yrs, I am single .I know what the grace of the Lord means to live in such a way as an Amputee. I beg you please, I am not boasting.I only want to magnigy the Lord for His Grace.
I thought this entire thread was very well behaved until a few posts ago, considering the topic. There are no trolls here.
0 -
Paul C said:David Paul said:
Those people ARE married and it is VALID IN YHWH'S SIGHT.
Wouldn't we have to determine if those vows included YHWH in the first place? He is certainly not included in all vows.
Are you prepared to apply that condition to all marriage vows? Are you suggesting that anyone anywhere who didn't invoke His Name in their vows is guilty of adultery and fornication because they aren't married in His sight? If the vows are not conducted in His Name, then He has no concern with the marriage? Num. 30:2b seems to apply to all interpersonal discourse (which appears to be how Yeishuu`a interprets it).
Covenant, a concept descended from YHWH by revelation, is a principle that has force whether or not parties explicitly acknowledge Him and invite His presence in the scenario. As I read it, it was saving their skin, not recognition of YHWH's majesty and righteousness, that motivated the Gibeonites to enter into covenant with Joshua. Josh. 9:24 Vows are of monumental import to YHWH. It is precisely why Yeishuu`a advises that vows not be entered into without great aforethought, as Shem Tov Matthew (criminally not in Logos) points out. His "yes/no be yes/no" establishes that invoking the Name is not a requirement for obligation to be assigned.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
It is not I who is applying conditions. It seems I asked a question. Please mellow out. I'm not arguing with you. There used to be marriages performed by Justices of the peace...and ships captains. with no mention of God. Do you hold that they are a covenant with YHWH? Yes the Gibeonites entered into an agreement but they called on God's Name. It was not a ritual with an unknown god. Or in some cases...no mention af Deity , at all.David Paul said:Paul C said:David Paul said:Those people ARE married and it is VALID IN YHWH'S SIGHT.
Wouldn't we have to determine if those vows included YHWH in the first place? He is certainly not included in all vows.
Are you prepared to apply that condition to all marriage vows?
0 -
Paul C said:
It is not I who is applying conditions. It seems I asked a question. Please mellow out. I'm not arguing with you.David Paul said:Are you prepared to apply that condition to all marriage vows?
I didn't take it as arguing with me. I took it as a question asserting a possibility that has logical consequences. I am just trying to get you to see those consequences through so as to determine if the question is valid. Questions can be as invalid as assertions can be. My point is that I don't think anyone wants to "go there" with regard to trying to determine if His Name was invoked in an agreement before we accept it as valid.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:Paul C said:
It is not I who is applying conditions. It seems I asked a question. Please mellow out. I'm not arguing with you.David Paul said:Are you prepared to apply that condition to all marriage vows?
I didn't take it as arguing with me. I took it as a question asserting a possibility that has logical consequences. I am just trying to get you to see those consequences through so as to determine if the question is valid. Questions can be as invalid as assertions can be. My point is that I don't think anyone wants to "go there" with regard to trying to determine if His Name was invoked in an agreement before we accept it as valid.
Nevertheless, Genesis considers marriages to have been consummated even prior to when "men first began to call on the name of the Lord." I have noted previously that numerous names are used to designate God in the OT and that what is important is not the specific name invoked.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Well, I for one have gone there. I was married by a justice of the peace. God was nowhere to be found. It ended in utter ruin, and I know why. God was not a part of it. I'ts not about invoking a name...but inviting His presence.David Paul said:My point is that I don't think anyone wants to "go there" with regard to trying to determine if His Name was invoked in an agreement before we accept it as valid.
0 -
Paul C said:David Paul said:
Those people ARE married and it is VALID IN YHWH'S SIGHT.
There used to be marriages performed by Justices of the peace...and ships captains. with no mention of God. Do you hold that they are a covenant with YHWH? Yes the Gibeonites entered into an agreement but they called on God's Name. It was not a ritual with an unknown god.
I didn't say that such vows were covenants with YHWH, just that it was a valid, binding covenant in His sight. Mt. 5:37 is saying agreements are binding even if a specific vow of emphasis isn't attached (i.e. His Name, heaven, earth, Jerusalem, etc.).
Though marriage is not Biblically sanctioned for same sex couples, the vows of commitment are binding on those who willfully make such vows.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Paul C said:
Well, I for one have gone there. I was married by a justice of the peace. God was nowhere to be found. It ended in utter ruin, and I know why. God was not a part of it. I'ts not about invoking a name...but inviting His presence.David Paul said:My point is that I don't think anyone wants to "go there" with regard to trying to determine if His Name was invoked in an agreement before we accept it as valid.
I suspect that God was not a part of it in your day-to-day life (although that would not automatically solve all problems). It was not that it was a justice of the peace who married you and who did not pronounce some religious formula.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
>>>>>>> Matthew 22:20–22David Paul said:Though marriage is not Biblically sanctioned for same sex couples, the vows of commitment are binding on those who willfully make such vows.
0 -
Of course not. I'm trying to make the point that it was because I did not consult or include God in the process. The reference to the J.P was meant to point out government intrusion into the process.George Somsel said:It was not that it was a justice of the peace who married you and who did not pronounce some religious formula.
0 -
Paul C said:
>>>>>>> Matthew 22:20–22David Paul said:Though marriage is not Biblically sanctioned for same sex couples, the vows of commitment are binding on those who willfully make such vows.
Wherefrom you conclude what that you consider pertinent to the discussion?
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Paul C said:
Of course not. I'm trying to make the point that it was because I did not consult or include God in the process.George Somsel said:It was not that it was a justice of the peace who married you and who did not pronounce some religious formula.
I'm glad to hear that you apparently do not consider the process to be some magic wand that you wave over it so that everything is OK. Many Christians who enter into church weddings with all of the appropriate formulae also end up with problems.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
I asked this question earlier, and didn't get a reply. Possibly you can address it now.
Paul C said:Can anyone show me where Scripture defines marriage as anything but an agreement between a man, a woman, and GOD? (We do see subtle nudges from the parents)
Is there Evidence that there had to be a Man Of The Cloth presiding and Pronouncing a couple Man and Wife? ...Any reference to a marriage certificate provided by the government? Is there a limit on the number of wives...except for leaders? ... or are these all Traditions of Men?0 -
Paul C said:
I asked this question earlier, and didn't get a reply. Possibly you can address it now.
Paul C said:Can anyone show me where Scripture defines marriage as anything but an agreement between a man, a woman, and GOD? (We do see subtle nudges from the parents)
Is there Evidence that there had to be a Man Of The Cloth presiding and Pronouncing a couple Man and Wife? ...Any reference to a marriage certificate provided by the government? Is there a limit on the number of wives...except for leaders? ... or are these all Traditions of Men?In the garden we know that they imported an Episcopal priest who performed the ceremony from the Book of Common Prayer and witnessed by an entire congregation. [;)]
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
With those words of wisdom, I will take my leave...God Bless
0 -
ALL TRADITIONS OF MEN !Paul C said:Can anyone show me where Scripture defines marriage as anything but an agreement between a man, a woman, and GOD? (We do see subtle nudges from the parents)
Is there Evidence that there had to be a Man Of The Cloth presiding and Pronouncing a couple Man and Wife? ...Any reference to a marriage certificate provided by the government? Is there a limit on the number of wives...except for leaders? ... or are these all Traditions of Men?0 -
Paul C said:
I was married by a justice of the peace. God was nowhere to be found. It ended in utter ruin, and I know why. God was not a part of it.
Perhaps He was not part of it, but the obligation remains.
Paul C said:I'ts not about invoking a name...but inviting His presence.
I seriously doubt YHWH considers your distinction valid. It is the same kind of fabricated yet nevertheless nonexistent dichotomy as the so-called division of the moral vs. ceremonial stipulations of the law. Such talk isn't just foreign to His word, it is insulting as well. Ezek. 20:14, 22 His name isn't insignificant--it is holy...as holy as His presence. Nothing about YHWH is a magic talisman, but nothing about Him may be dismissed as being even slightly inconsequential, either. In fact, I seriously doubt that He can be invited unless He is identified correctly...how could He?
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Schezic said:
Exactly.! He started this thread knowing it would get out of hand. Anything to draw attention to his Pet Project.Denise said:I don't think there's a need to apologize ... always easiest to apologize for other people.
First, Tes knows full well how the world works; he's far more world-wise than most of us
Now he wants to play the poor pitiful amputee card. Sorry. I ain't buying it. I called this thread for what it is from the get-go.
Tes Is trolling. And it worked.
Tes has been a part of these forums for longer than me, so I feel like I've gotten to know him in the time that I've been here, and he does not strike me as a troll. I'm not sure this was the best question to pose to these forums (yes, it has gotten out of hand), but I would not attribute a trolling motive to Tes.
He's dealing with an issue that's a real one in some cultures--especially where he's from, and one of the interesting things about it is that our modern Western setting hasn't really dealt with it. So our Bible software is mostly silent on subject (even if the Bible itself is not). Tes has a particular understanding of the implications of a polygamist coming to Christ, and several people here have tried to point some things out to help him gain clarity on the situation. It's probably a better discussion for faithlife, but it didn't have to go off the rails here.
0 -
Just to clarify (since my name keeps showing up!), my comment concerning Tes is from living in an international marriage. Americans have a tendency to 'apologize' to non-Americans as if the non-Americans can't quite 'keep up'. My point concerning Tes, was that his faith is ancient and strong; more so than ours and he, himself, quite talented (having successfully merged several cultures; not easy).
Now, back yet again to the thread.
William, surely you didn't write what is associated with your name? 'Our modern Western setting hasn't really dealt with it.' Oh really. Did someone forget the American solution ... slaughter of the innocents (Illinois, Missouri). Even today in the part of our state where we don't know where it is, families struggle with what to do with polygamy. A nice friend we have who runs a shop north of the canyon is highly proud of his grandfather with 10 wives.
What I don't know is how much of 'cultural' polygamy (Africa) is actually closely associated with religious polygamy? Religions have a habit of trying to manage marriage.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Denise said:
William, surely you didn't write what is associated with your name? 'Our modern Western setting hasn't really dealt with it.' Oh really. Did someone forget the American solution ... slaughter of the innocents (Illinois, Missouri). Even today in the part of our state where we don't know where it is, families struggle with what to do with polygamy. A nice friend we have who runs a shop north of the canyon is highly proud of his grandfather with 10 wives.
What I don't know is how much of 'cultural' polygamy (Africa) is actually closely associated with religious polygamy? Religions have a habit of trying to manage marriage.
Denise, that's the thing--the State (nation) has "taken care of" the issue of polygamy here. It's against the law, and that lines up well with normative church teaching. Polygamy is not something that the typical theologian has to deal with here, so it's not written about. If it were suddenly made legal, the way some other civil unions are growing in legality now, then I'm sure the church in the West would create all sorts of resources for us to digest. But in the US, unless you're running a ministry for ex-orthodox-Mormons, thinking through the polygamy of a previously pagan family isn't an American church issue.
By the way, when you say "our state" and "canyon"--what are you speaking about? You're in another country too, right?
0 -
I understand your point, William, though I don't agree with it (not you).
We live in Arizona, which Californians wish indeed were 'another country'. And our legislature has taken a page out of the Putin 'how to make enemies and loose friends' by seeing if we can cut off electrical energy to California (until they vote to join our state of course). We pump water out of the Colorado just to make sure the Californians don't get it.
But your 'theologians' illustrates much of what I (and MJ I think) call Logos blindness to anything not 1950s Christianity. Whether polygamy in the American west, the mixture of Catholic and native religion south of Tucson, spirit religion east of us, re-writing the NT since it doesn't say what it needs to say about Navajo culture, and in the American south, a riotous Christianity that good Christians don't know what to do with .... theologians are not players.
Point is, 'theologians' simply try to ignore it (the ones Logos installs in the library). Or like Richard, simply trot out 'God disapproves' with hazy scriptural speculation. So when Tes shows up, all he illustrated was that the Logos forumites aren't quite sure what the 'correct' answer is ... they avoid all the other odd issues in America as well.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Long ago and far away on a planet called Sedona, Arizona, there lived a Logos user named Denise. [:D]
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Richard DeRuiter said:Tes said:
A pastor taught about ,how a Christian family should be according to the Word of God, at the end of his service he asked to the Congregation ,mentioning about a certain part of his country like this: “ Some people before coming to the Lord they had five wives and have children from them, in the new testament one man should have one wife ,what would be your suggestion? “The question is what should be done?
I appriciate your contribution.
There has been much written about this in various missiologies, but I'm not aware of anything in Logos that addresses this question specifically. (I would love to be corrected in this.) I wish Logos had more in the area of missiology and/or cross-cultural ministry.
I would say two things gleaned from my (sketchy) reading on this topic: 1) Marriage is intended by God to be between one man and one woman. 2) If a polygamous family comes to faith in Christ then divorcing all but the first wife would (in most cultures) be an incredible hardship on the remaining wives and their children, forcing upon them a life-style which they (again?) have no say in. I believe that 1Cor.7:20, in the context of household rules, can be applied to this situation. If a man who comes to faith decides that he cannot in good conscience remain married to his other wives, in my opinion he is obligated to care for them financially for the rest of their lives (unless they remarry).
But the question of children remains: do they stay with the father or the mother? Is it not best for the children to remain with both parents? The ethical impulse in the gospel to care for and defend the weakest (IMHO), trumps the concern for an optimal marriage arrangement. The weakest are the children, who by a forced divorce will be separated from either their father or their mother. The next weakest are the wives to be divorced: what happens to them financially, how will they be cared for, should they remain celibate & alone for the rest of their lives, are they given a voice at all in their own future, etc.?
In a profoundly challenging interpretive statement Paul says "Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Rom. 13:10 - see in context). However one applies the principle of the ideal Christian family in that situation (or in our context, for that matter), the principle of love should guide the interpretation and application of the 'rules.'
Another thought is that while God does not approve of polygamy, he does not reject polygamists (David: a man after God's own heart, e.g.), nor is there any Biblical example of God telling a polygamist to divorce all but his first wife.
Finally, and I say this as one who has worked and made painful mistakes in cross-cultural situations: we should resist any simple solution to such a complex, cross-cultural social reality.
NOTE: I present these thoughts to Tes for his thoughts. I don't intend to argue for or against this position with anyone. Tes, if you would like further clarity on what I've said above, I'd be glad to oblige.
Thank you Richard, for taking time to bring together the facts about this issue according the Word of God. I am really very satisfied by your comments, its really amazing explanation!
Blessings in Christ.
0 -
For what it's worth, "love" is defined by YHWH's will pretty much entirely. In order to love anyone, you must exercise YHWH's will toward them.
This subject reminds me of Jer. 19:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9...particularly verses 4 and 5. Christian leaders who go around ripping families apart (effectively sacrificing them) in order to fulfill the will of a god who is not YHWH (because as verse 5 says, it never entered His mind to demand or speak of such a travesty) are sowing a whirlwind for themselves.
How does this subject relate to Ezra's command for the Israelites to put away their "foreign" wives and children? Without knowing what the operative issue is, disaster looms like an avalanche, and "do-gooders" will be the ignoramuses who set the calamity in motion.
All of this...done in the name of Lord Jeeeezus...for his glory...and He says "I never knew you." Mt. 7:23
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
All of this...done in the name of Lord Jeeeezus...
Mr. Paul,
You have one of the most unique and esoteric perspectives on these forums. For this reason I most often choose not to engage you or your ideas, including those in the rest of our post above.
However, in this case I'm finding it difficult to let go of the above statement. The hardest part for me is your caricature of the name of Jesus, as some would say it, or use it (whether properly or improperly). When you take that Name that is above every name, the only Name by which we may be saved, and use it as the turnkey of a joke, in sarcasm, in cynicism, or even as a tool for the derision of someone (no matter how vile), it hurts me. He's done so much for me that I just can't read what you wrote without grief. Of course, it also hurts when charlatans use and misappropriate the Name. But it's a deeper grief to me when the faithful use that Name without remembering it's unique and sacred grandeur; it should never fall from our lips in such a way.
I'm not sure I expect you will understand what I'm saying, nor would I be surprised, if you turn my response back on me. Still, in this case, I will not let my response remain unwritten.
Rich D.R.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Now Richard. I'm not defending David, but I don't remember anyone busily defending David when his version of the name was under heavy attack from the 39 year old.
Who's kidding who. As much as I don't even understand his beliefs, I don't get excited over liking/disliking a specific version.
It's a spelling, but it's also a Christian belief version. If I used that phrase at home (where it's held in immense contempt), I'd be laughed at. So I don't.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Super.Tramp said:Schezic said:
Now he wants to play the poor pitiful amputee card
As a double amputee, I take issue with your comment. I wish you would accord a little more respect for others.
Dear brother, I am so sorry to be a cause of the inconvience,which has happend to you,though it was not my intention to happen like this. I started the thread hopping to learn from brothers and sisters in the Forums, but unfortunarely sometimes attack comes from no where ,from where you don't expect.
Blessings in Christ.
0 -
Richard, though I don't see it in the same light you do, I will endeavor to not use the name you reference in a way that would offend you or others.
So, how do I see it? I perceive that (as you appear to acknowledge) there are some, quite a few, who "have a god" they call by the name you use. I also perceive that same God distances Himself from being their god. Though the names are homophones, they are not indicative of the same individuals. There are people who act like clowns and vaudeville acts who think their odd behavior is honored and commanded and appreciated by the Creator. It is not--those things are instead scheduled for eternal cessation. They use the same name you use, but they reference a false god...a god who does not exist. The God who does exist explicitly renounces them and their false god.
In Exo. 32:4, 5 the Israelites who rose up to play on the following day said their "party" was to be given in honor of YHWH. He was having none of it. Their YHWH was not Him. Jesus was a common name when Yeishuu`a was born. Not every person who carries that name is toting around a magical moniker of totemic value. YHWH is never stained...He remains holy through all. When pagans such entered and polluted His temple, He was not polluted. He has a sort of circuit breaker that distances Him from the various representations of Himself that He has authorized.
I wonder, Richard...are you offended by those who actually say the name that you honor (Jesus) in the way that I typed it? For you to be offended by what I typed in the earlier post, it would seem to me you would have to be. If you are, that's fine, but you should say so to them. They are the ones who make a habit of it. I also find it offensive, but not in the same way you do or for the same reasons. If the way they say it doesn't bother you, the way I typed it shouldn't either.
Finally, what I attempted to convey in what I just said above I also attempted to convey in what I typed earlier. Notice I said that what the clowns say and do is done "for his glory" (i.e. the glory of their false god)...and to these clowns He (Yeishuu`a) says "I never knew you."
David Paul said:All of this...done in the name of Lord Jeeeezus...for his glory...and He says "I never knew you." Mt. 7:23
Though you and I no doubt differ in perspective and practice, I have the same sense of necessity to honor His name as you do. His Name is holy. But even so, when He chooses to flip the breaker, He makes a clean break, as Jer. 7:12 indicates (Shiloh had been reduced to nothing more than a plowed field)...and He says He will have cause for doing it again...and again. Jer. 7:13, 14 I don't see what I typed as being the Name of the Living Creator. In a sense, like Elvis, His presence "has left the building".
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Tes said:
Dear brother, I am so sorry to be a cause of the inconvience,which has happend to you,though it was not my intention to happen like this
No worries. I feel a kinship with you. God gives me daily grace to live with my challenges. Also people like Milford Charles Murray pray for me. [A]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Super.Tramp said:Tes said:
Dear brother, I am so sorry to be a cause of the inconvience,which has happend to you,though it was not my intention to happen like this
No worries. I feel a kinship with you. God gives me daily grace to live with my challenges. Also people like Milford Charles Murray pray for me.
Thank You brother for your kind words.
Blessings in Christ.
0
