[Faith-talk] The Bible and the Law.

Mon Jun 2 18:34:56 UTC 2014

Dear all, peace be with you.

I praise and thank Allah our Lord Almighty, all matchless glory be to Him.

Whoever Allah guides, there shall be nobody to misguide him.

And whoever chooses to be misguided, there shall be nobody  to guide him.

I think the real joke is when someone trys proving that the Bible
permits drinking.

Somebody has the right to drink, and especially in a secular society
where drinking is treated is the best way of entertainment.

It is also observed as a religious practice in the Catholic and the
eastern Orthodox Church where alcohol is served in a religious liturgy
 as the blood of Christ.

I consider that a blasphemy to the divine consecration.

What shall I do to someone who considers the clear biblical
disapprobation of alcoholism as  occasions tied to certain times.

You can easily go to any healthcare therapist and ask him about the
severe health crisis that  drinking causes.

Allah glory be to Him ordained us to eat and drink from that is clean
and to avoid that is unclean and impure.

Talking about faith doubtfulness, I think that someone does not need
to raise such a subject unless he suffers from such a problem himself.

I do not think I need to proof my substantiality and my commitment to
what I believe.

 It is the Koran which tells me that there are many of the people of
the scripture who wishes to turn you  back into the state of
infidelity after the truth has plainly been revealed to them.

It tells me that they do that out of envy, and it commands me to
tolerate and forgive them until Allah prescribes His verdict on the
day of judgement.

I study Christianity because it is one of the two major largest
religions in the world.

I am still offering my challenge.

You can pray to your Lord that I shall be condemned to hell if I am
untruthful about the commandments of Allah glory be to Him.

You can pray to Him to show me the truth of the licitness to drink alcohol.

Do not forget my friends that life is too short.

It is just a brief period that we will live in this temporal world,
and shortly after, we will be presented before our Creator to judge
our righteous as well as our wicked deeds.

Again, pray that I shall be condemned by Jesus Christ peace be upon
him if I indeed have desecrated his teachings.

Woe to me if I am distorting the word of Allah glory be to Him.

Someone is afflicted with heedlessness.

Thank you for your time and for your courtesy.

Peace be with you.

On 6/2/14, Poppa Bear <heavens4real at gmail.com> wrote:
> Mustafa is this  a joke? Maybe I   shouldn't be surprised, I started to go
> through the scriptures you referenced about drinking, You have taken almost
> every scripture out of context and tried to shove it into your conclusion
> about drinking. You are worse than some preachers I've heard. You should be
> ashamed of yourself for being either extremely lazy and not bothering to
> read the context of these passages or for trying to pass such silly dribble
> off as a good argument for not drinking which the Bible does not prohibit.
> I
> think that you should really reconsider making any claims against the Bible
> and the Christian doctrine and start seeking to draw people in by promoting
> the things that you feel are true and good about your own beliefs based on
> the Koran, because when you start off on a lot of these discussions, you
> perpetuate the narrow minded prejudices that some critics of the Bible make
> by bringing forth messy arguments that lack critical analytical
> observations
> based on genuine studies in order to get a real handle on the material at
> hand and I feel that it is extremely disrespectful.
> 1) Genesis 9:20-26This is an historical account about Noah, and not a
> prohibition,
> 2) Genesis 19:30-38 This is another historical account, but about Lot and
> his daughters.
> 3) Leviticus 10:9-11
> This was a direct command regarding the conduct of those who attended to
> the
> tabernacle.
> 4) Numbers 6:3
> These were the conditions of a Nasserite vow to God.
> 5) Deuteronomy 21:20
> This was an observation of character and not a prohibition against
> drinking.
>
>  I was going to go on, but why? I feel that it is such a wild chase down a
> rabbit trail that will just branch off onto another dead end path and I
> will
> be left wondering why I kept on the path. I think that you need to really
> examine your own belief system and start to ask why Christianity is so
> threatening to you? Are you going after other religions like this? Do you
> debate Boodusts, Hindus, Pagans and other groups? Why does the Bible seem
> to
> be your biggest target?
>
> 6) Deuteronomy 29:5-6
>
> 7) Deuteronomy 32:33
>
> 8) Judges 13:4, 7, 14
>
> 9) 1 Samuel 1:14-15
>
> 10) 1 Samuel 25:32-38
>
> 11) 2 Samuel 11:13
>
>
> 12) 2 Samuel 13:28-29
>
> 13) 1 Kings 16:8-10
>
> 14) 1 Kings 20:12-21
>
> 15) Esther 1:5-12
>
> 16) Psalm 75:8
>
> 16) Psalm 75:8
>
> 18) Proverbs 20:1
>
> 18) Proverbs 20:1
>
> 19) Proverbs 23:19-20
>
> 29) Ecclesiastes 2:3
>
> 30) Ecclesiastes 10:17
>
> 31) Isaiah 5:11-12
>
> 32) Isaiah 5:22
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Faith-talk [mailto:faith-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of
> Mostafa
> Almahdy via Faith-talk
> Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2014 2:35 PM
> To: Doris and Chris
> Cc: Faith-talk, for the discussion of faith and religion
> Subject: Re: [Faith-talk] The Bible and the Law.
>
> Thank you for putting trust on me.
>
> I appreciate your eager to know.
>
> I listed some Old testament references on the question at hand.
>
> Here you go, and I inshallah can support you with more if you would like
> to.
>
>
>
> Old testament references:
>
>
> 1) Genesis 9:20-26
>
> 2) Genesis 19:30-38
>
> 3) Leviticus 10:9-11
>
> 4) Numbers 6:3
>
> 5) Deuteronomy 21:20
>
> 6) Deuteronomy 29:5-6
>
> 7) Deuteronomy 32:33
>
> 8) Judges 13:4, 7, 14
>
> 9) 1 Samuel 1:14-15
>
> 10) 1 Samuel 25:32-38
>
> 11) 2 Samuel 11:13
>
>
> 12) 2 Samuel 13:28-29
>
> 13) 1 Kings 16:8-10
>
> 14) 1 Kings 20:12-21
>
> 15) Esther 1:5-12
>
> 16) Psalm 75:8
>
> 16) Psalm 75:8
>
> 18) Proverbs 20:1
>
> 18) Proverbs 20:1
>
> 19) Proverbs 23:19-20
>
> 29) Ecclesiastes 2:3
>
> 30) Ecclesiastes 10:17
>
> 31) Isaiah 5:11-12
>
> 32) Isaiah 5:22
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 6/1/14, Doris and Chris <chipmunks at gmx.net> wrote:
>> Hey, little brother!
>>
>> Hubby Chris is asking where in the Old Testament you are quoting from
>> that it supposedly prohibits Jews from drinking coholic beverages? To
>> our knowledge, such is true for certain groups of jews such as the
>> Essenes or Nazarenes but not the Jewish people in general.
>>
>> God Bless!
>>
>> Doris and Chris in Lutherland
>>
>> al
>>
>>
>> At 08:23 PM 5/29/2014 +0200, you wrote:
>>>Debby, I knew what chapter five of Matthew said.
>>>
>>>Jesus did not give you the permission to eat pork, to drink alcohol,
>>>to eat unclean animals, animals that are not slautered for food.
>>>
>>>Peter saw a vision, and he even said; I never ate something unclean.
>>>
>>>He was amazed, it is something that he would have never done whilst
>>>Jesus Christ was there.
>>>
>>>And again, as I said before, I knew Coptics who would never approach
>>>the pork, they will never drink alcohol, let alone unclean bief.
>>>
>>>Now, let us get to the clear wrongfulness of Poppa Bear.
>>>
>>>He hardly trys to imply that people die because of what they call in
>>>Christianity the ancestral  sin.
>>>
>>>The sinful action is patrimonial for Christians.
>>>
>>>So, does it mean that people die when the sinfulness entered into the
>>>world?
>>>
>>>Two questions then;
>>>
>>>1; Why there are other creatures who die whilst they are irrelevant to
>>>the supposedly imposed retribution?
>>>
>>>2; According to what Christians believe, Jesus was crucified to atone
>>>humanity from its hereditary  wickedness.
>>>
>>>So as for Jesus died for our sins, he supposedly paid the bell.
>>>
>>>Why we are still dying?, either spiritually or physically.
>>>
>>>I believe we should think a little before we utter any random
>>>explanations.
>>>
>>>I never heard of such doctrine that death is caused by the sin of Adam.
>>>
>>>So if Adam had not sinned, would have not we been dying?
>>>
>>>Would have we been infinite?
>>>Let us now get back to the main point.
>>>
>>>I believe that Christians today should critically reconsider their
>>>apprehension of the dietary statute  and its parental essence with
>>>what Jesus peace be upon him said he has to fulfill.
>>>
>>>Jesus did not explicitly permit to you to eat from that what is
>>>prohibited for Jews.
>>>
>>>He talked about moral standards, and they are primarily pertained to
>>>what you should have of clean food for you and for your household.
>>>
>>>Let me be quite outspoken with you.
>>>
>>>I believe that Christians today have evidently violated and
>>>extraordinarily perverted the covenant.
>>>
>>>They selectively approve what satisfys their desire and they basicly
>>>abandon what does otherwise.
>>>
>>>I want someone to search the Bible from the beginning of Genesis to
>>>the end of Revelation, and let him just find for me something that
>>>Jesus explicitly uttered in which he plainly abrogates the passage of
>>>Matthew, the statement in which he says he shall fulfill the law and
>>>the prophets.
>>>
>>>I accuse Christian missionary activists of textual selectiveness and
>>>of interpretative distortions.
>>>
>>>They condemn homosexuality and they consent alcoholic beverages.
>>>
>>>Yet they are both reprobated  in the same covenant of the divine
>>> statuary.
>>>
>>>I fathom we will never agree on that regard, and we are not expected to.
>>>
>>>I am just asking you to refrain from the preconceived notions of
>>>deliberately selecting these contorted conclusions.
>>>
>>>Why Allah forbids intoxicants for Jews and Muslims, and He favorably
>>>makes it permissible for you.
>>>
>>>I am afraid but it does not make any sense to me.
>>>
>>>I cannot measure its justification with my humble intellects.
>>>
>>>If you know someone who is involved in the pastoral profession, I can
>>>felicitously converse with him on Skype.
>>>
>>>I am available to talk on either Friday and Saturday morning my time.
>>>
>>>Please pay attention that I live in Egypt, and that you are mostly
>>>seven hours behind us.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 5/28/14, Poppa Bear <heavens4real at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Hello Mustafa, your reply is good, but unfortunately you are trying
>>> > to diagnose something in the cars motor without opening the hood,
>>> > you may be able to draw on brawd inferences and attempt to use some
>>> > methods of deduction to solve the problem and feel that you are
>>> > coming to a proper conclusion, but when you write a sentence or two
>>> > about a point of theology and feel that you have solved the answer,
>>> > or mystery about it, you walk in error. I believe that we even
>>> > talked about Adam in the garden when we were on Skype and you
>>> > seemed to be in accordance with the premise I put forth.
>>> > When Adam and eve had not yet sinned, their physical and Spiritual
>>> > lives were perfect and the touch of deaths degrading affects upon
>>> > the body, the mind, cells, the entire molecular structure of their
>>> > anatomy had not been touched by the finger of death, the moment
>>> > they tasted from the tree, death came upon them. Their bodies
>>> > became like yours and mine, our bodies are touched by death from
>>> > the day we are born, every day we are moving on the path of death,
>>> > our cells, hair, heart, it is all aging and the final conclusion to
>>> > the disease called death is what we see when somebody finally is
>>> > laid into the ground. Now, if you want to discount whatever
>>> > scriptures you want in order to make your argument, then you are
>>> > defining your own rules of interpretation. You would first have to
>>> > be able to discount any of the books in the Bible that you don't
>>> > want to be used in these discussions and you would have to present
>>> > a very exhaustive argument for the exclusion of each book, not just
>>> > some blanket statements and expect others to bow down to your
>>> > observations. Now, going back to Adam and the idea of a covenant,
>>> > you still have not given any reason why covenants are bad, or are
>>> > not used in the Bible. If this is a crucial point to understanding
>>> > the Bible, and you can acknowledge that they are in the Bible, but
>>> > dismiss them, then you again, are shaping your own argument
>>> > according to your reasoning and not taking into consideration the
>>> > evidence laid out before you, you then create an irrational
>>> > argument based on your own narrow evidence, this is what a bad
>>> > prosecution looks like, excluding information/evidence in order to
>>> > paint the picture they want weather it is true or false. Also, who
>>> > says that Christians believe that Justice and grace cannot be
>>> > compatible?
>>> > Addressing
>>> > your question about the Old testament being one way and the New
>>> > testament being another, if you are really interested in
>>> > understanding the dispensation of truth and Gods plan of salvation
>>> > then there is more than enough information available to give you a
>>> > balanced understanding of all of this, but when you attack a
>>> > mountain with a little hammer, you may want to do some more
>>> > surveying of the mountain in question.
>>> >
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: Faith-talk [mailto:faith-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
>>> > Of Mostafa Almahdy via Faith-talk
>>> > Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 10:32 AM
>>> > To: Brandon Olivares
>>> > Cc: Faith-talk, for the discussion of faith and religion
>>> > Subject: Re: [Faith-talk] The Bible and the Law.
>>> >
>>> > Thank you all for writing me back.
>>> >
>>> > I believe that Brandon is getting quite close to my crucial point.
>>> >
>>> > We do not disagree on the existence or the documentation of the text.
>>> >
>>> > We are in factional discernments because of how we interpret the
>>> > text that we knew it exists.
>>> >
>>> > Let me clarify a bit further;
>>> >
>>> > We find a text which the Gospel of Matthew attributes to Christ as
>>> > he asserts that he did not come to abolish the law, but to rather
>>> > fulfill it.
>>> >
>>> > That text is reliable for Christians today, because it is kept in
>>> > their scriptures.
>>> >
>>> > So if someone later in the book of Acts proclaims in some form or
>>> > another that he will abrogate, replace, cancel, alternate, or even
>>> > upgrade the law, he exactly goes against what Jesus explicitly
>>> > asserted back then.
>>> >
>>> > If the chief of the supreme court has decreed a creed, can someone
>>> > who is lower than him in authority abrogate its legitimacy?
>>> >
>>> > Christians consider Jesus to be divine, yet he said he will not
>>> > extinguish the law.
>>> >
>>> > And then they come Peter or Paul, they basicly dismiss the
>>> > denotative commandment of Christ and they say they will do away
>>> > with the law which Jesus incisively conforms he comes to fulfill.
>>> >
>>> > I believe the one who constitutes a principled legislation is  only
>>> > the one who can later abrogate it.
>>> >
>>> > I also want to look at another aspect of Christianity.
>>> >
>>> > Christianity believes that Jesus brought the message of love and
>>> > mercy.
>>> >
>>> > So does it mean that the former message was of wrath, damnation and
>>> > misery?
>>> >
>>> > As Muslims, we believe in the one covenant of Allah glory be to Him.
>>> >
>>> > Poppa Bear unambiguously  mentioned the contract that was made with
>>> > Adam.
>>> >
>>> > Perhaps he meant the divine injunction of not to eat from the
>>> > forbidden trea.
>>> >
>>> > As I mentioned in  many times before, the story is quite similar in
>>> > the Koranic narration, unless therein, they were given the chance
>>> > to basicly repent.
>>> >
>>> > But for Adam and Eve in the Bible, they were not given the chance
>>> > to repent.
>>> >
>>> > They were cursed, expelled, and the temptation to eat from the
>>> > forbidden trea was blamed on Eve, as exactly it was blamed on the
>>> > devil, which is graphically portrayed as a cerpent in Genesis.
>>> >
>>> > Adam was told that if he eats from the forbidden trea, surely a
>>> > death he shall die.
>>> >
>>> > But did he die?
>>> >
>>> > I am afraid, he actually did not.
>>> >
>>> > I do not want to hear about the spiritual death interpretation,
>>> > because the commandments of God are plain, explicit,
>>> > straightforward, and they do not rely on metaphorical based.
>>> >
>>> > The question which I repeatedly raised on that regard;
>>> >
>>> > Was not God capable of giving them the chance to basicly repent?,
>>> > especially if it  was their ever first time to sin.
>>> >
>>> > I think I asked that question many times before.
>>> >
>>> > Christians inaccurately assume that justice and grace contradict
>>> > with each other.
>>> >
>>> > Who said they do?
>>> >
>>> > They are quite applicable with each other if the wisdom of God
>>> > intervened.
>>> >
>>> > If someone sinned, he can basicly return to Allah with weep, regret
>>> > and repentance.
>>> >
>>> > I believe we need to think about that.
>>> >
>>> > Thank you, and have a pleasant time.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 5/28/14, Brandon Olivares <programmer2188 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> Mostafa,
>>> >>
>>> >> I think you are quite right here. Jesus himself said he did not
>>> >> come to replace the law:
>>> >>
>>> >> Matthew 5:17-18
>>> >>
>>> >> 17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the
>>> >> Prophets; I
>>> > have
>>> >> not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.18 For truly I tell
>>> >> you,
>>> > until
>>> >> heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least
>>> >> stroke
>>> > of
>>> >> a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything
>>> >> is accomplished.
>>> >>
>>> >> Make of it what you will.
>>> >>
>>> >> Not to be crass, but perhaps Peter just really wanted some pork.
>>> >> :)
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Brandon
>>> >>
>>> >> www.EscapeTheDream.org: Put an End to Suffering and Return to Joy
>>> >>
>>> >> Latest blog post: The Illusion of Choice
>>> >>
>>> >> Facebook: Brandon.Olivares
>>> >> Twitter: @devbanana
>>> >>
>>> >> On May 28, 2014, at 1:32 AM, Mostafa Almahdy via Faith-talk
>>> >> <faith-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Hello.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I appreciate everyone trying to explain.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> You all sound genuine in your attempts to express your point, and
>>> >>> I quite appreciate that.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Let us not forget that the text of Matthew is uttered by Jesus,
>>> >>> whilst the text of acts is uttered by others.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> My question to Brandon was, can somebody else abrogate what Jesus
>>> >>> said he comes to fulfill?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I want now to comment on the point that sister Linda articulated,
>>> >>> because it is a quite interesting one.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thank you so much Linda for conveying your contribution, I really
>>> >>> appreciate it.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I believe I competently comprehend English.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I never heard of  replace being the synonym of fulfill.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I am not sure though, do we write  English properly here?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Fulfill is interpreted as replace?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I am afraid but I believe that such interpretation is lingually
>>> >>> incorrect.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> It does not work from even the metaphorical standpoint.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Fulfillment is to bring an action into completion and fruition.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Whilst replacement is the permutation of something by what
>>> >>> equates it in either its value or significance.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Without being offensive, but I think we need to interpret things
>>> >>> in according to the common sense.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I never claimed I am expert in the Bible.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I am just countenancing my rational standards to determine the
>>> >>> sequential relationship among concepts and their based statements.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> If the Mosaic laws were abrogated by the teachings of Jesus, does
>>> >>> that include the condemnation and the decisively prescribed
>>> >>> penalty of lapidation regarding the trespass of homosexuality?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> So to be really crystal clear;
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Is that dietary tradition which is abrogated or the whole covenant?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I believe we have instigated  a valuable scrutiny, and I am
>>> >>> certainly intrigued to carry on.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I so much enjoy and I quite benefit from constantly interacting
>>> >>> on the faith talk list.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I attentively follow the daily articles of brother Paul, and I
>>> >>> learn quite a lot from the well written essays he posts.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I like the level of English he uses there.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I have been a member of the  list since last August.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I have been tremendously exposed to the Christian devotion and
>>> >>> earnestness about their faith.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I believe we will continue to wholeheartedly disagree on the core
>>> >>> of what we believe.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I hope we continue to do so, whilst showing empathy, honor and
>>> >>> respect to each other.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I suggest that we may schedule  a regular meeting on Skype, in
>>> >>> which we can discuss faith related subjects.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> We may seek for mutually agreed upon subjects to begin with.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I am sure we can think of many.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> It is faith that brought us together.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thank you.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Peace, blessings, and much respect from me.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Mostafa.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 5/28/14, debby phillips <semisweetdebby at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>> Hi! Well, you make some interesting points.  First of all, in
>>> >>>> the Acts of the Apostles, Peter has a vision where he is told to
>>> >>>> eat of all that is shone him.  (I'm paraphrasing).  He says, I
>>> >>>> can't do that, I've never eaten anything unclean.  He has the
>>> >>>> vision a couple more times.  Then Peter is told by the Lord that
>>> >>>> there are people waiting for him, Gentiles.  At that time, Jews
>>> >>>> were not supposed to even enter the house of a Gentile.  Then,
>>> >>>> as Paul begins preaching to the Gentiles, it comes down to the
>>> >>>> first Church Council and the decision is that Gentiles do not
>>> >>>> need to follow Jewish law, dietary or otherwise.  You can head
>>> >>>> all of this in Chapter 15 of Acts, also in Galatians where Paul
>>> >>>> tells the Gentiles not to let the Judaizers, (that is, those
>>> >>>> Jewish Christians who think that they need to make all
>>> >>>> Christians follow Jewish Law) from destroying them.  That's the
>>> >>>> beginning, I would say.  I'm sure POPPA Bear or someone will
> articulate this much
>>> >>>> better.    Peace,    Debby
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> (Seeking knowledge is compulsory from cratle to grave because it
>>> >>> is a shoreless ocean.)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> Faith-talk mailing list
>>> >>> Faith-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/faith-talk_nfbnet.org
>>> >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
>>> >>> for
>>> >>> Faith-talk:
>>> >>>
>>> >
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/faith-talk_nfbnet.org/programmer218
>>> 8%40gma
>>> > il.com
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > (Seeking knowledge is compulsory from cratle to grave because it is
>>> > a shoreless ocean.)
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Faith-talk mailing list
>>> > Faith-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/faith-talk_nfbnet.org
>>> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
>>> > for
>>> > Faith-talk:
>>> >
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/faith-talk_nfbnet.org/heavens4real%
>>> 40gmail
>>> > .com
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>(Seeking knowledge is compulsory from cratle to grave because it is a
>>>shoreless ocean.)
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Faith-talk mailing list
>>>Faith-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/faith-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>Faith-talk:
>>>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/faith-talk_nfbnet.org/chipmunks%40gm
>>>x.net
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> (Seeking knowledge is compulsory from cratle to grave because it is a
> shoreless ocean.)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Faith-talk mailing list
> Faith-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/faith-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> Faith-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/faith-talk_nfbnet.org/heavens4real%40gmail
> .com
>
>

-- 
(Seeking knowledge is compulsory from cratle to grave because it is a
shoreless ocean.)