Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Does It Mean to Be an Enemy of the Cross?
Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 02-22-16 | Msgr. Charles Pope

Posted on 02/23/2016 8:17:35 AM PST by Salvation

What Does It Mean to Be an Enemy of the Cross?

* February 22, 2016 *

2.22blog

In the epistle for the Second Sunday of Lent (Phil. 3:17-4:1), St. Paul laments those whom he calls enemies of the cross of Christ: For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ (Phil 3:18).

What does it mean to be an enemy of the cross? And how do people end up in this condition of being inimical to the very thing and the very One who alone can save them? St. Paul not only laments the situation, but shows how they get into this condition. He does so in a very succinct way, in one verse, as we shall see below.

But first, let's rescue the word enemy from too narrow an understanding. In modern (American) English the word "enemy" tends to be associated with a distant foe, perhaps one with missiles aimed at us or armies ready to conquer us. It is often reserved for those who threaten our life or are opposed to us in the most extreme ways. In practice it is considered almost impolite to refer to difficult people who oppose us in some way as enemies.

Enemy comes from the Latin inimici. And while inimici is best translated "enemies," its roots are in (not) + amicus (friend). So our enemies are those who are not our friends, who oppose our values, who do not wish us well or stand ready to assist us.

This understanding helps us to grasp that enemies may be very close to home, not merely on distant shores. Enemies are not just those who plot the most serious hostilities against us. Thus, when Jesus tells us to love our enemies He has more in mind than just a distant group in some foreign land. He is also referring to those who are near--even within our own families--who are not friendly, who oppose us or the things and people we value.

So when St. Paul speaks of those who are enemies of the cross of Christ, he is not just referring to those who go around tearing crucifixes off walls or demanding that crosses be removed from public property. In his very brief description, St. Paul emphasizes an opposition that escalates from mere worldliness to the outright idolatry of comfort and pleasure. Indeed, if we take St. Paul seriously and are honest with ourselves, some of us who have crucifixes in our homes and march in processions with the crucifix before us as we sing "Lift High the Cross" might find that we are in some opposition to the cross.

So let's take a deeper look at St. Paul's description of the enemies of the cross of Christ. St. Paul describes the inimical stance of some in a fourfold way: Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things (Phil 3:19).

St. Paul, like many ancient authors, states the result first, followed by the causes. Because that is not the usual way to present a point of view, in the reflection that follows I am going to reverse St. Paul's order. By reversing his order, I will try to show how things can escalate so that one can become an enemy of the cross.

The text says, For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things (Phil 3:18-19).

St. Paul describes the escalation that can make a person more and more an enemy of the cross of Christ.

I. Foolish Preoccupations -- The text says that the enemies of the cross are characterized by having minds set on earthly things.

Of the threefold origin of temptation (the world, the flesh, and the devil), the world is understood not so much as a physical place in which we live, but as a mindset, a collection of thoughts, priorities, premises, values, and goals that are opposed to God and His Word. The fundamental values and priorities of this world include the amassing of possessions, power, prestige, and pleasure. Goals such as autonomy and instant gratification, and views rooted in materialism, secularism, anthropocentrism, secular humanism, utilitarianism, and utopianism are emphasized.

There are many in this world who not only accept these flawed premises and values, but also advance them. They do this because when one follows the world's agenda, one is frequently rewarded with wealth, access, popularity, and approval.

But we were not made for these things. The finite world cannot satisfy the infinite desires that are within us. The world may well grant us temporary comforts and benefits, but in the end it takes everything back and assigns us to a stone-cold tomb.

For this reason, having our minds set on earthly things is a foolish preoccupation. Scripture says,

Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world--the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life--is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever (1 John 2:15-17).

In a world that tells us to "scratch where it itches," there is going to be a cross of self-denial and of trusting God, who teaches us that we are made for more than mere trinkets. The world and devil promise pleasure now and then send you the bill later. The Lord speaks to sacrifice and discipline now and points to the fruits and blessings that come later.

To refuse this and insist exclusively on pleasure now is to become an enemy of the cross of Christ, who warns us to refuse to give our hearts over to the false promises and passing pleasures of this world. We are to crucify our excessive passions and desires (Gal 5:24). We are not to conform to the pattern of this world, but to be transformed by the renewing of our mind, so that we may be able to test and approve what God's will is (Rom 12:2).

Historically, this has meant the cross and suffering for Christians who live this way. The world and the consensus it desires (and often demands) does not take lightly the rejection inherent in true Christianity. The long legacy of persecution and hatred of Christians demonstrates this. It is one thing to choose to live our values in a personal way, but it is quite another to stand opposed (as we must) to the excesses and errors of the world and to seek to snatch others from its illusions and false promises. Marketers, industrialists, politicians, advocacy groups, ideologues, and the like all depend on a widespread "buy-in" in order for their products, projects, and schemes to advance. If we are not easily manipulated by the fears, anxieties, and guilt that the world uses to separate us from our love and loyalty to God, and our basic sense of truth, we are "off-message." We must, therefore, be silenced, either by pressure to conform or through shame. And if these do not work, then persecution: the cross.

But Scripture warns us that such crosses must be endured. Jesus says, If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you (John 15:19-20). And St. James adds, You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God (James 4:4).

Many Christians find resisting the world and its errant demands a cross too difficult to bear. It is easier to cave in to the world's demands, to "go along to get along." This can be done in a thousand little ways through small and growing compromises, or in larger, clearer ways in which one denies truths of the faith in order to receive the praise of men and the blessings that come with conformity to the ways of the world.

To the degree that this happens in our life, we subtly and increasingly become enemies of the cross of Christ. We refuse the self-denial that is necessary and foolishly set our mind on worldly things, which can neither save nor satisfy.

II. Festive Perversions -- The text says of the enemies of the cross that they glory in their shame.

As people deepen their alliance with the ways of the world, their initial compunction is gradually and steadily eroded by rationalization and by surrounding themselves with teachers who tickle their ears (2 Tim 4:3). St. Paul speaks of those who, on account of their sinfulness, suppress the truth. Claiming to be wise, they become fools as their senseless minds are darkened (Rom 1:18, 21).

And as the darkness deepens, not only do they move further away from repentance, but they actually glory in their shame. Of their lack of shame over sinful acts. St. Paul says, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them (Rom 1:32).

And thus today we live in times of "gay pride" parades and the celebration of "gender diversity." Further, there are movies that glorify mob violence and political corruption and glamorize all sorts of evil. Some forms of music celebrate rebellion, hatred of authority, and misogyny. "Greed is good" was the theme of a movie about Wall Street in the late 1980s.

Being an enemy of the cross of Christ deepens in this stage. Not only are the crosses of self-control, self-discipline, and living within limits set aside due to human weakness, but now there is a prideful "doubling-down" in which one declares that what God calls sin ought instead to be celebrated.

This gradually becomes an outright mockery of the cross of Christ because it would seem to say that Jesus died for nothing, that the sins He died to save us from are not only not sins but are actually things worth celebrating.

These enemies of the cross see any limits as unreasonable. And if this weren't bad enough, as their inimical stance to the cross deepens they celebrate their rejection as a virtue of which to be proud. Their glory in their shame is a twisted and deformed version of tolerance; anyone who does not join in their celebration is guilty of one of the few sins left in their worldview: intolerance. Traditional biblical morality now becomes a form of hate, of intolerant bigotry.

This leads to a de facto rejection of God, at least the true God of Scripture:

III. Fallen Passions -- The texts says of the enemies of the cross, their god is their belly.

At some point the enmity toward the cross grows deep enough that the passions and pleasures of the world reach a godlike status, and indulging them becomes in effect a form of idolatry. All human beings struggle at some level with unruly passions and desires. But as long as we struggle and engage in the battle we are still clinging to the cross. Having rejected the cross by outright glorying in their shame, enemies of the Cross now begin to imbue their sins with a kind of godlike quality.

We know how easily money can become like a god to some; they give their whole life over to its acquisition. For them it is the most worthy and valuable thing they have. It is at the center, where God properly belongs.

In the sexual arena the idolatry is more subtle, but it is still evident in the way some talk. Consider that many today attribute their sexually irregular state to God Himself. They say, "God made me this way" and speak of sins and sinful desires as a gift from God. Some equate their desire with the very voice of God; the simple fact that they have a desire must mean that God put it there, and if God put it there it must be good.

In this way a fallen and disordered desire is thought to come from the very voice and will of God, and should therefore be accorded the reverence and obedience due to God Himself.

In this third stage, those who entertain such notions have entered idolatry's clutches. In effect, they reinvent God and ignore His actual revelation in Scripture and Sacred Tradition. But a reinvented god is not the one, true God, and to worship and obey such a false god is idolatrous.

IV. Final Place -- The text says of these enemies of the Cross: their end is destruction.

Only the true Christ and His true cross can save. Those who stand opposed to the cross embrace a poor destiny indeed. An old litany says, "Sow a thought, reap a deed. Sow a deed, reap a habit. Sow a habit, reap a character. Sow a character, reap a destiny." And so we see how our stances deepen within us, either for or against God.

It is therefore a serious matter to permit enmity for the cross to grow within us in any way. It begins with simple weakness and aversion to the more difficult and narrow way of the cross. Then we begin to surround ourselves with teachers who assure us that our sins aren't all that important or even that we can outright celebrate our sins. This then leads to a growing form of idolatry in which we reinvent and reimagine God, going so far as to call our sinful desires godly. The final stage is destruction, for a fake god, an idol, cannot save us. Only the One true God, who told us to take up our cross daily, can save us.

Beware the tendency to become an enemy of the cross of Christ. Spare us, O Lord, from our foolish tendency to substitute false religion. With St. Paul and all the saints may I be determined to know nothing except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; christians; cross; enemy; msgrcharlespope
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 881-890 next last
To: Springfield Reformer; MHGinTN; Salvation; Iscool; Elsie; imardmd1; metmom; HossB86; Alamo-Girl
But the means of acquiring it is not to eat His flesh as men understand that, but to feed on His words, that is, to have faith in Him, and what he has done for us.

That is where I began to disagree. If Jesus meant in John 6 what you impute to Him in the above assertion, then the repeated statements that "my flesh I food indeed" would be not necessary, for the objection is about "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?". The objection is precisely the Protestant objection about cannibalism, yet Jesus never resolves it in the proposed Protestant fashion that the Eucharist is metaphorical.

Further, the scene of the Last Supper repeats the same direct, violating the common sense claim that "this is my body and blood". St Paul reinforces this direct meaning in his discourse in 1 Cor. 11. Seeing the passages in the Holy Scripture as a whole does not leave a room for Protestant reductionism.

No one, of course, disputes that these words of Jesus are "the words of eternal life"; we Catholic just take them as such. You don't.

341 posted on 02/27/2016 11:54:45 PM PST by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: annalex
I am here to make this particular point.

You didn't, and can't make it with John 6.
Jesus Himself made the point that he was speaking figuratively.
The followers who took Him literally left Him.

The law-abiding disciples whom he had taught that the mysteries of the Kingdom were couched in figurative language stayed.

Were the same followers who In John 6 walked away from Jesus' teaching actually present at the Seder supper when Jesus said "Take, eat, this is my body," they would have left that scene, too.

Say that this is a lie and that the literalists would have stayed. You can't can you?

Though your claim is wrong, you cannot admit it giving it up undercuts and washes away your entire thesis. The value your position has is that it shows anyone who is not blind that the literal-historical-grammatical-cultural hermeneutic opposing yours is far superior.

And that is the point I chose to make. Having made it, and without any viable argument from you, I think I'll just pick up my chips and go home.

But thanks for the opportunity to do a little shadow-boxing with your theories. Love to take out the Old Sword and give a couple of whacks at the enemy of the Cross, wooden literalism.

As Ravi Zacharias says,"Let my people think!"

342 posted on 02/28/2016 12:48:46 AM PST by imardmd1 (Fiat Lux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: annalex
No one, of course, disputes that these words of Jesus are "the words of eternal life"; we Catholic just take them as such. You don't.

You have an internal contradiction in this statement. We do not dispute these words are eternal life. That means we do "take them as such," contrary to your assertion.  You seem to be saying the same thing twice, but in the first instance we are non-disputers, and in the second instance we are disputers.  This is not logical. You have some sort of unresolved ambiguity buried in there.  I'm sure you meant the two to be different, only logically they don't come out that way.  At least not the way I am reading them.

Or perhaps this is what you meant: We both take them as words of eternal life, only you require the additional step of dismissing the metaphor and substituting in it's place the hypothetical category invented by Thomas, a category of non-physical non-metaphor non-spiritual something, sufficiently real to warrant worshiping the physical form of it's appearance, but not sufficiently physical to warrant the charge of cannibalism.  

But none of that is what Jesus said. Those things He did say we hold dear as the words of eternal life. We further claim that the invented categories of Thomas are not at all necessary to acceptance of the words of Jesus, and in fact tend to be an impediment to true faith, flying in the face of the simplicity of faith Peter expressed at the end.  His confession in response to this teaching was not that he believed something about the transformed nature of bread and wine, but that he believed something about Jesus, that He was in fact the Messiah.  

And that is where this whole thing gets off track. The focus is changed. In the Catholic version, the focus of John 6 shifts to something Jesus was not even discussing. In the pre-Catholic version, the focus is where Peter puts it, on the person of Jesus, what we believe about Him.  We all accept that He could do anything He pleases with the bread and wine, make it into anything He wants, within the scope of real things as He has made them. We just don't see evidence in the text, either here or anywhere else in the NT, that Thomas' invented category of being is the subject of discussion. It's simply not there. What is there is the question, what do you believe about Jesus.

For example, you argue that if faith in Him is the primary object of the teaching, why would Jesus emphasize that his flesh and blood are real food.  But this is circular reasoning.  The implied assumption is that "real" can only mean transubstantively real. But spiritual is real, physical is real, even the metaphor of consuming Him by having faith in Him is real. Everything that is true is real, by definition.  How is this not the most real thing Jesus is teaching?
And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
(John 6:35)
Coming to him permanently resolves hunger, as only true food could. Believing on Him permanently resolves thirst, as only true drink could. This verse is the Rosetta Stone of the passage. It shows the indisputable nexus between the food metaphor and the direct fulfillment of that metaphor by having faith in Jesus.

As for whether Jesus resolved the implied charge of cannibalism, Jesus first doubled down on the truthfulness of what He was saying, and when they continued to grumble about it, took them to task for missing the point, that once He was physically gone from them, it will be by the spirit, and not by the flesh, that they will be made alive.  That is the context that takes us to the passage we are disputing. It is the very resolution you seem to be saying is missing.  Yet there it is, exactly where it belongs in the exchange.  There is no cannibalism because it is not the physical flesh of Jesus that must be consumed.  It is the spirit that give life, not the flesh. Objection answered.

And nothing elsewhere in the NT gives evidence of anything beyond a sacred metaphor in the bread and wine, specifically designated a remembrance, a spiritual event that could not be reduced to a loveless food orgy without bringing dire consequences to the congregation, and which will serve as an object lesson portraying the death of Christ until He returns.

Peace,

SR




343 posted on 02/28/2016 1:36:59 AM PST by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
imardmd1: Regarding committing complete trust in the Redeeming Christ, Yoda say:
"Do, or do not. There is no 'try.' "

HTRN:
Yoda didn’t write my bible. Yes there is a try, and it keeps on until actual arrival in glory.

Let me clarify this a bit. Apprently I left too much up to interpretation. =:^0

"Do (place complete trust in Christ Jesus), or do not (place complete trust in Christ Jesus). There is no 'try' (to place complete trust in Christ Jesus)."

Well, that's what I meant to get across.

Salvation: Once and for all time, when God sees that you mean business with Him according to His Plan, and decide affirmative.

Justification: At the moment God confirms one's salvation, once and for all; Jesus' righteousness imputed instantly to the believer

Sanctification: Three phases:

(1) Primary sanctification, set aside for God's use at the moment of conversion to God from idols, regenerated by the sealing of/with the Spirit;

(2) Progressive sanctification, ongoing of growing in the Spirit, working out one's salvation, walking in the Spirit, until ticket to Glory is punched (some try/fail/try again going on here);

(3) perfected salvation, the books on "works" closed; resting in the Lord until the Millennium begins and new body issued.

344 posted on 02/28/2016 2:10:01 AM PST by imardmd1 (Fiat Lux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
...if it wasn't His Blood, what was it????

I think that the Book Rome assembled; so long ago; says that it was wine.


You may continue to insist that it somehow turned into something else; but the BOOK will ALWAYS be there to condemn those words.

345 posted on 02/28/2016 2:37:09 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
I'm absolutely certain that this means something to someone...but my mind cannot sink low enough to figure out what.

Yet you IMAGINE that is LOW.

Luke 6:45
A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth that which is evil. For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

346 posted on 02/28/2016 2:40:30 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
Instead of attempting to REFORM (within the church) he decided to REVOLT ...

HMMMmmm...

I wonder just WHO your current pope is channeling...?

347 posted on 02/28/2016 2:42:49 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
... no, it is Protestantism that preaches just believe and you're home free....

DAMN! them Prots!!!

How on EARTH do they come UP with this stuff???


 

John 6:28-29

Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”


348 posted on 02/28/2016 2:45:10 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: terycarl

Jesus did NOT mean the above literally; but he DID mean that "drink my blood" thing literally.


349 posted on 02/28/2016 2:46:19 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
You don't seem to comprehend that you cannot violate a law if you are the person/entity who makes the law.

What foolish things you utter.

What you have described is called by most logically minded folks is...

HYPOCRACY!


350 posted on 02/28/2016 2:48:23 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: terycarl

Oh that you’d come to see it’s condemnation of the very one who so proudly displays it.


351 posted on 02/28/2016 2:50:19 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: terycarl

INDEED!

Matthew 12:36

And I tell you this, you must give an account on judgment day for every idle word you speak.


352 posted on 02/28/2016 2:51:11 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: annalex
That’s what I am calling all these Protestants to do: to believe in Jesus.

Good!!

What I am telling folks; is that they have no need to hedge their bets by DOING all the rituals that Rome tells them are absolutely essential for salvation.

353 posted on 02/28/2016 2:54:05 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: annalex
But it does say that the Eucharist is His body.

Man; was that Paul fella ever STUPID!!


1 Corinthians 12:27
Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it.

354 posted on 02/28/2016 2:56:14 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Well, no, but the claim of being the Son of God and the Messiah at the same time is a violation of the Jewish Law.

It IS??

Where in the OT is THIS tidbit found?

355 posted on 02/28/2016 2:57:35 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: Mark17
We will all rise in judgement over this generation, and condem it.

Speaking of judgement...

...just WHEN is this Judgement Day; that Jesus spoke of; going to occur?


Matthew 12:36
And I tell you this, you must give an account on judgment day for every idle word you speak.


I've heard many on FR say that when Christians (true ones; of course) die; they go to heaven shortly thereafter - no danged ol' rapture thing will take place.



It seems SO confusing!

I wish there were some Religious Organization that would cut through this spiritual Gordian Knot and just tell me what I need to do.

356 posted on 02/28/2016 3:02:34 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: annalex
No one, of course, disputes that these words of Jesus are "the words of eternal life"; we Catholic just take them as such. You don't.


No one, of course, disputes that these words of Jesus are "the words of eternal life"; we Protestants just take them as such, without ADDING to their 'requirements'. Catholics do not.

357 posted on 02/28/2016 3:04:46 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1
Sanctification: Three phases: 

(1) Primary sanctification, set aside for God's use at the moment of conversion to God from idols, regenerated by the sealing of/with the Spirit; 

(2) Progressive sanctification, ongoing of growing in the Spirit, working out one's salvation, walking in the Spirit, until ticket to Glory is punched (some try/fail/try again going on here); 

(3) perfected salvation, the books on "works" closed; resting in the Lord until the Millennium begins and new body issued. 

Could you point out just where; in this timeline; our name gets written in the Lamb's Book of Life?

358 posted on 02/28/2016 3:06:56 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: annalex
No question Jesus violated many of the precepts of the Jewish Law; He was, after all, convicted of blasphemy.

You don't know Jesus. You don't know God's Word. You don't know God. You are willingly ignorant. You are a blasphemer.

And STILL God loves you.

By itself, isn't that amazing?

359 posted on 02/28/2016 3:17:06 AM PST by kinsman redeemer (The real enemy seeks to devour what is good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Pet a cat. It will give you more peace than this twisted effigy of Christ that Rome has been mongering.

Another ouch.

360 posted on 02/28/2016 3:43:02 AM PST by Mark17 (Thank God I have Jesus, there's more wealth in my soul than acres of diamonds and mountains of gold)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 881-890 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson