tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post5925287264854466158..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Clanging symbolsPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-14861530367725502742007-08-29T12:30:00.000-07:002007-08-29T12:30:00.000-07:00"Hell is not so much the absence of God, as the co..."Hell is not so much the absence of God, as the consequence of His wrath and displeasure. God is like a consuming fire, and His righteous condemnation for defying Him and clinging to the sins He loathes will be experienced in hell". JI Packer (?)<BR/><BR/>I've never read any of Lewis, so I can't comment on his opinion. I am saying, based on your comment, that eternal separation from God would be greater than the symbolized description of hell. As far as the physical torment; I am not mature enough to establish for certain whether or not The Rich Man and Lazarus is a Parable. I know that 2 Thess 1:9 tells us that punishment is everlasting destruction and that Rev. speaks alot of a lake filled with fire and brimestone. Whether we take it literally are not, the reality of hell and the everlasting punishment that accompanies, is greater (not lesser) than these symbolic descriptions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-23671936768376698572007-08-29T12:03:00.000-07:002007-08-29T12:03:00.000-07:00Interesting conversation...Just thought I'd drop i...Interesting conversation...<BR/><BR/>Just thought I'd drop in and add this thought. If the non-physical torment would be far worse, then why do so many play hell down by insisting that real flames are too cruel and eternity is too long. Why not just say "Whatever hell is, we know it's way worse than we think it is" and leave it at that. <BR/>Then you have a non-literal (meaning non-physical) hell to keep the liberals happy, and and eternal unbelievable torment to maintain faithfulness to Scripture.<BR/><BR/>But people don't do that (usually) do they. They make hell non-physical in order to ease the pain, not increase it.Darylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01296029404229769941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-38352360484433489192007-08-29T11:42:00.000-07:002007-08-29T11:42:00.000-07:00OPN, you mean that Lewis's view in the Great Divor...OPN, you mean that Lewis's view in the Great Divorce would be greater than the biblical symbolism describing hell? That's interesting. I tend to agree, though I'm not sure how many others would. I think we have a tendency to view physical pain as the worst that can happen to us, but this doesn't seem true at all. Emotional and spiritual separation from God, and so from one's true self, seems far worse to me.Luke and Rachaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00065798398185249423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-27378159955592755902007-08-29T11:28:00.000-07:002007-08-29T11:28:00.000-07:00As a believer, I would catagorize that as being gr...As a believer, I would catagorize that as being greater than the symbolism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-85493230185192752892007-08-29T11:04:00.000-07:002007-08-29T11:04:00.000-07:00Not sure. I've been on blog hiatus for about 6 mon...Not sure. I've been on blog hiatus for about 6 months. When/where were you thinking?<BR/><BR/>Or are you just asking whether I think the Bible is inerrant? :)Luke and Rachaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00065798398185249423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-39901164834231240682007-08-29T10:58:00.000-07:002007-08-29T10:58:00.000-07:00Luke, weren't you the guy who was making noise on ...Luke, weren't you the guy who was making noise on another thread about how you don't believe the Bible was inerrant?fisshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16103055803739113334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-64286332683902181102007-08-29T09:54:00.000-07:002007-08-29T09:54:00.000-07:00I'm not sure what to expect. Should the Pharaoh to...I'm not sure what to expect. Should the Pharaoh to whom Ezek. 32 is addressed have expected something worse than to have his carcass fill valleys and his blood fill rivers? Probably not, though he likely figured that, if Ezekiel was telling the truth, his downfall wouldn't be pretty, even if not quite so fantastically cataclysmically bad as Ezekiel made it sound.<BR/><BR/>The same might be true for hell. I'm not sure. The hell imagery might indicate something totally different than what we're used to envisioning, which I think for most people is physical torment. It might indicate self-inflicted separation from God--becoming so wrapped up in me that I can no longer see truth and beauty for what it is. Something like CS Lewis's view in The Great Divorce. This might involve no physical pain, but it would still be terrible.Luke and Rachaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00065798398185249423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-15355414768063352152007-08-29T09:30:00.000-07:002007-08-29T09:30:00.000-07:00If He is preparing a place for me in His Father's ...If He is preparing a place for me in His Father's house, where there are many mansions, wouldn't I (at the very least) assume that the mansion will be what I (literally) imagine it will be if not greater. Or should I expect something less.<BR/><BR/>If our reward is as described or better, I see no logical reason to assume our punishment would be any different.<BR/><BR/>It still does not seem logical to me that the symbolism used to describe hell would be greater than the reality. It would (literally) be as bad as described or worse.<BR/><BR/>Of course, I am approaching this from the standpoint that I believe the realities are going to be equal to, or greater than the symbolism in regards to heaven & hell.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-50585691202838328122007-08-29T09:09:00.000-07:002007-08-29T09:09:00.000-07:00Yes, it seems reasonable to think that there's a s...Yes, it seems reasonable to think that there's a sort of parity between heaven and hell symbolism, such that if hell language is symbolic-to-the greater, so is heaven language, and if hell language is symbolic-to-the-lesser, so is heaven language. We might have to be careful, though, about context. It at least seems possible that in one context an author could describe hell using symbolism-to-the-greater, while in another context a different author might describe hell with symbolism-to-the-lesser. Though I suspect many would try to rule this out with a particular brand of doctrine of revelation.<BR/><BR/>Suppose there's the parity you point out, and we rule out potential difficulties w/ context. Then we just have to figure out how either heaven or hell symbolism--not both--works in the NT. You say that you don't see any reason to assume that heaven symbolism points to the lesser. I agree. But I also don't see any reason to assume that it points to the greater! Do you? Why is the default position that heaven symbolism--and thus hell symbolism as well, given the parity--points to the greater? It'd be good to have textual reasons for thinking so.<BR/><BR/>And yes, it's the Luke from above. :)Luke and Rachaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00065798398185249423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-82216561143424577352007-08-29T08:41:00.000-07:002007-08-29T08:41:00.000-07:00If the symbolism used to describe hell is greater ...If the symbolism used to describe hell is greater than the reality, wouldn't I naturally assume the same for heaven? I see no reason to assume that heaven is going to be less spectacular than the symbolism used to describe it. Why would I assume that hell would be less horrifying? <BR/><BR/>It doesn't seem logical one would be less and the other greater.<BR/><BR/>By the way, I am assuming this is Luke based on the previous comments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-3622548456985904562007-08-29T08:29:00.000-07:002007-08-29T08:29:00.000-07:00Right. My point has just been that it seems false ...Right. My point has just been that it seems false that biblical symbolism *always* or *necessarily* points to the greater. Of course, this doesn't imply that it *never* point to the greater. It might do so quite often. <BR/><BR/>As for hell, I don't want to imply anything either way. I personally don't know how to go about deciding whether the hell language in the NT<BR/>is literal, symbolic-pointing-to- the-greater, or symbolic-pointing-to-the lesser. I'd love to have a discussion about how we should decide this question, though it might take us too far afield. I'd also love to hear Dan's thoughts about this thread!Luke and Rachaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00065798398185249423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-45550789734500614622007-08-29T08:18:00.000-07:002007-08-29T08:18:00.000-07:00Luke:You may want to clarify that you are simply d...Luke:<BR/><BR/>You may want to clarify that you are simply disagreeing with Dan's notion that symbolism is "always" used to point to something greater.<BR/><BR/>Otherwise, I feel new believers may walk away from this thread believing hell is not as bad as we thought.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-81474907419314242842007-08-29T07:55:00.000-07:002007-08-29T07:55:00.000-07:00David Rudd,Yeah, it's mine. I made a typo though....David Rudd,<BR/><BR/>Yeah, it's mine. I made a typo though..."elitist" should be "elitism."<BR/><BR/>That's just my uneducated thinking: what good is an education if you can't simply communicate the stuff you know? If you just say (as Centurion seemed to) "Look, we are more educated, our thought process is much more complex...don't ask stupid questions." Oh, all that after rhapsodizing about always knowing at an early age that he was smarter than everyone else. Huh? What on earth does that uninteresting bit of trivia have to do with my question?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-62738768149557235122007-08-29T06:12:00.000-07:002007-08-29T06:12:00.000-07:00Hi Mike,I guess I've been assuming that hyperbolic...Hi Mike,<BR/><BR/>I guess I've been assuming that hyperbolic language is just a species of symbolic language; if so, calling the 'prophecy' aspect of the Ezekiel passage--its use in relation to the imminent fall of Egypt--hyperbolic concedes my point, since hyperbole generally uses fantastic language and images to make a "lesser" point. <BR/><BR/>But maybe you're pointing to the deeper problem, which is this: I'm not exactly sure how Dan's using "symbolism," and how it relates to metaphor, hyperbole, apocalyptic, etc. I've been assuming that symbolic language is something like the broad genus of which metaphor, hyperbole, apocalyptic, etc. are more specific species. I could be wrong about this; haven't thought about it much. For all I know there's a better way of distinguishing them; someone call me out!<BR/><BR/>If Dan has a different, more determinate conception of "symbolism" in mind, he might be able to dismiss the Ezekiel counterexample (and others as well). One problem is that the symbolic language Dan drew attention to in his original post--Jesus' words about hell--doesn't seem different in kind than the language of the Ezekiel passage; the two seem quite similar. So if the principle applies to Jesus' words about hell, and if the Ezekiel passage is, as seems, relevantly similar, the principle should apply to the Ezekiel passage (in its immediate historical, not apocalyptic, context) too. But it seems false w/ respect to the Ezekiel passage (and many others, I think).Luke and Rachaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00065798398185249423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-85272708810980637602007-08-28T22:28:00.000-07:002007-08-28T22:28:00.000-07:00Intriguing thought... I like it a lot and think if...Intriguing thought... I like it a lot and think if we could grasp the concept of symbolism from the slant you take the entire Church just might stand on tiptoe for once.tonymyleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11396458619687708153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-36424929940358101062007-08-28T21:52:00.000-07:002007-08-28T21:52:00.000-07:00Semper,Good teaching is the ability to communicate...Semper,<BR/><BR/><I>Good teaching is the ability to communicate one's ideas without resorting to scholastic elitist...</I><BR/><BR/>is that yours or are you quoting someone? i'd like to use it.<BR/><BR/>dan,<BR/><BR/>i'd love to hear you engage Luke. I think you both make excellent points, and i'd like to see if there is a synthesis.David Ruddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12572780147564110421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-63148129720378748012007-08-28T20:20:00.000-07:002007-08-28T20:20:00.000-07:00Maybe the part of the prophecy that's what farmboy...Maybe the part of the prophecy that's what farmboy would call "prophecy and not apocalyptic" is hyperbole and the eschatalogical part is symbolism. So Pharaoh's carcass being strewn across valleys is showing how significant and absolute his fall was.<BR/><BR/>Not really sure. And it's late on the East coast. But I'm just seeing it as a way that one doesn't have to commit to Luke's exception to Dan's posited symbol rule.<BR/><BR/>Sorry if I don't make any sense. I'll catch you guys tomorrow.Mike Riccardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748453197783538367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-2999442811560356702007-08-28T19:45:00.000-07:002007-08-28T19:45:00.000-07:00Dan, This was excellent.separateunion, It was pyro...Dan, <BR/>This was excellent.<BR/><BR/>separateunion, <BR/>It was pyromaniacs group 73 of 122. Yikes.<BR/><BR/>Phil,<BR/>I still don't get facebook. But I've discovered it's a good way to spy on my teenagers, so it's good.Neilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16625691560372353977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-66346259178211753932007-08-28T18:23:00.000-07:002007-08-28T18:23:00.000-07:00"I'm just curious why a symbol that points to some..."I'm just curious why a symbol that points to something greater than itself (not something that's able to be gutted of its propositional meaning) stands apart from poetry, parable and narrative?"<BR/><BR/>Read and compare Acts with Revelation. They are both inspired, inerrant books of the Bible, but they are written in significantly different styles. Much of Acts is a matter-of-fact recounting of significant events in the history of the first century Church. In a narrative of this sort there is no need for imagery or symbolism. <BR/><BR/>Contrast this with Revelation, a book that depicts the ongoing conflict between God and evil and God's ultimate triumph. With Revelation - whatever position you stake out within the range of interpretations found within the conservative evangelical camp - imagery and symbolism is absolutely necessary to effectively depict this conflict.<BR/><BR/>In the end, imagery or symbolism are used where these techniques are necessary to effectively commuicate the desired point. Where these techniques aren't needed, they aren't used.<BR/><BR/>Joe Friday could write good narrative. He might have had trouble with apocalypse.farmboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05445789397476595536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-73328030021834823742007-08-28T18:19:00.000-07:002007-08-28T18:19:00.000-07:00I like fine distinctions. I agree that your move m...I like fine distinctions. I agree that your move might give Dan a way out on the Ezekiel passage, depending on whether he's hip to your proposal. But I doubt we could get around every other similar passage in the OT in the same way. Plus on your approach there's always the question of whether the symbols have a one-to-one reference or more, which is going to be sticky, controversial, and hard-to-decide in most cases.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00514506766689072644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-70636790318266348002007-08-28T18:08:00.000-07:002007-08-28T18:08:00.000-07:00"In fact, this may not be very popular around here..."In fact, this may not be very popular around here, but this is, for many scholars these days, just how apocalyptic imagery in general works. It employs cosmic and cataclysmic images in an attempt to interpret important earthly happenings, be they political or religious or both."<BR/><BR/>While I can't vouch for how others might receive this view, as a Reformed Baptist, this is a position I am receptive to. I see this as one of the advantages of the apocalyptic genre - it uses imagery to depict an ongoing conflict, a conflict that evidences itself at various points in time and space.<BR/><BR/>Maybe I'm making too fine a distinction, but I distinguish between prophecy and apocalypse, where a prophecy has a single fulfillment, while an apocalyptic conflict can have multiple fulfillments in the sense that the apocalypse evidences itself at various points in time and space.<BR/><BR/>Given the above, the images in apocalyptic writings do not have a one-to-one reference. My take is that the symbols that Mr. Phillips was referring to were those that had a one-to-one reference, with the symbol referring to a single object or event.farmboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05445789397476595536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-45918652111690544342007-08-28T17:39:00.000-07:002007-08-28T17:39:00.000-07:00Hi farmboy, Suppose it's true that Ezek. 32.2-8 po...Hi farmboy, <BR/><BR/>Suppose it's true that Ezek. 32.2-8 points to something beyond the imminent fall of Egypt. Fine. (I made room for this in my previous post, as the fourth option.) It's still true that the passage in its immediate historical context refers to the downfall of Egypt. Keil and Delitzsch recognize this when they say: 'This day bursts upon Egypt with the fall of Pharaoh, and on it the shining stars of heaven are darkened, so that the land of Pharaoh becomes dark. Egypt is a world-power represented by Pharaoh, which collapses with his fall.' It's interesting to note that they seems to endorse a literalist gloss for at least one element of the passage, the stars being literally darkened.<BR/><BR/>But at any rate, my point is this: I concede that, with respect to the future cosmic eschatalogical Day of the Lord, the symbolism in this passage may very well point to the greater. But this doesn't entail that, w/ respect to Egypt's imminent demise, the symbolism points to the greater. We can't lose sight of the immediate historical context of this passage, which is Egypt and the punishment God intends to bring. This prophecy was fulfilled when Egypt fell. The question is whether the events involved in Egypt's actual fall were more or less gruesome, or cataclysmic, than the symbolic language of the passage implies. My point is just that it's more plausible to think that, while the downfall of Egypt was no doubt a terrible sight to behold, it was in some sense "lesser" than the stars being darkened, Pharaoh's sinews being srewn upon mountains, his carcass filling (!) multiple vallies, the land up to the mountains being drenched w/ his running blood, etc. <BR/><BR/>The reason I picked this passage was because it's a token of what I take to be a common type in the OT: the use of apocalyptic imagery and symbolism to describe an impending event that will be terrible and significant, though not quite so cosmically cataclysmic (sky darkened, stars falling, etc) as the symbolism describes. In fact, this may not be very popular around here, but this is, for many scholars these days, just how apocalyptic imagery in general works. It employs cosmic and cataclysmic images in an attempt to interpret important earthly happenings, be they political or religious or both. In cases like this the events described, the objects of apocalyptic imagery, will in most cases be "lesser" than the symbolism, just because the symbolism's so extreme and cataclysmic. The symbolism is trying to make a point about significant earthly happenings, and to do this it calls upon the most powerful symbols and images at its disposal.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00514506766689072644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-43213623318143015322007-08-28T17:38:00.000-07:002007-08-28T17:38:00.000-07:00Hey Cent, thanks for the response.Just a few thoug...Hey Cent, thanks for the response.<BR/><BR/>Just a few thoughts:<BR/>I understand that you and Dan and Phil are probably much more formally "learned" in certain areas than I am and I won't even try to pretend otherwise. But these issues shouldn't be only for those who went to the "authorized" schools or have a certain number of degrees. So I understand you think my original question was very simple-minded and that I am missing all of the extra-contextual layers that you and Dan are able to draw from. That's great - but it was an honest question and I'm just curious why a symbol that points to something greater than itself (not something that's able to be gutted of its propositional meaning) stands apart from poetry, parable and narrative? I understand I don't have PhD, but talk slowly and spell out the big word phone-et-ic-ally and I might be able to get the jist of it.<BR/><BR/>Good teaching is the ability to communicate one's ideas without resorting to scholastic elitist, isn't it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-82119728209825179882007-08-28T17:00:00.000-07:002007-08-28T17:00:00.000-07:00Has the prophecy of Ezekiel 32:2-8 been fulfilled?...Has the prophecy of Ezekiel 32:2-8 been fulfilled? If so, then one can establish a link between the symbol and that to which the symbol refers. However, if this prophecy has not been fulfilled, then one cannot yet establish such a link. Commenting on this passage Keil and Delitzsch observe: "The thought on which the figure rests is that of the day of the Lord, the day of God’s judgment, on which the lights of heaven lose their brightness (cf. ch. 30:3 and Joel 2:10, etc.). This day bursts upon Egypt with the fall of Pharaoh, and on it the shining stars of heaven are darkened, so that the land of Pharaoh becomes dark. Egypt is a world-power represented by Pharaoh, which collapses with his fall. But the overthrow of this world-power is an omen and prelude of the overthrow of every ungodly world-power on the day of the last judgment, when the present heaven and the present earth will perish in the judgment-fire" (Volume 9, pages 268-269).<BR/><BR/>Egypt and Pharaoh are of important theological significance. The exodus liberated God’s chosen people from the tyranny and oppression of Egypt and Pharaoh. This liberation foreshadows the liberation from the tyranny and oppression of sin that Jesus Christ obtained for God’s chosen people on the cross. (As an aside, in these two cases the biblical understanding of liberation or freedom is "freedom from" as opposed to "freedom to".) Given all this, one can make the case that Ezekiel’s prophecy will not be ultimately fulfilled until Jesus Christ’s second coming and the final judgment. Following this line of interpretation, the passage in question is symbolic and the symbol refers to the greater. This is consistent with Mr. Phillips’ post.<BR/><BR/>Given the above, if I were to attempt to make the case that the biblical record uses symbols in cases where the symbol refers to the lesser, I wouldn’t offer Ezekiel 32:2-8 as the first passage in support of this position. If this is the best evidence that one can offer from the biblical record in support of the "symbol refers to the lesser" position, one can argue that this is actually evidence in support of the "symbol refers to the greater" position.farmboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05445789397476595536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-46447506955711618352007-08-28T16:42:00.000-07:002007-08-28T16:42:00.000-07:00| This is what puzzles me about the | rancor again...| This is what puzzles me about the <BR/>| rancor against the EC here. As an <BR/>| ECer, I LOVE this sentiment. If we <BR/>| can say this about metaphor, can we <BR/>| also say this about parable, poetry, <BR/>| story and narrative? If not, why not? <BR/><BR/>We can say, “Genre.” For example, poetry frequently employs hyperbole.<BR/><BR/>And this would be one of the reasons there is rancor toward ECMers here – saying it as charitably as possible, it’s got unwarranted youthful enthusiasm.<BR/><BR/>When I was a college sophomore, I knew I didn’t know everything, but I also knew I knew a lot more than I did just 2 years previous – and it was obvious to me that I knew a lot more than the average person did about a lot of things.<BR/><BR/>It was obvious to me. It was not so obvious to people who were, say, two years older than me, or three years older than me who had to work for a living.<BR/><BR/>When Dan says something brilliant like "Symbolism never is used to point to something less than the symbol, but something greater,” somehow it comes a great shock to ECMers that Dan is a literate person – conservative, middle-aged Dan is literate and has a grasp of reading which exceeds the prerequisites to read, say, “see Dick run”, and probably exceeds the prereqs to reading Dante’s <I>Inferno</I> well.<BR/><BR/>The rancor “against the ECM” here stems from this: just because Dan makes one excellent, general point, you can’t just slap it on every genre and every example of metaphor and simile under the headline of “symbol”. Trying to do so misses both his point and a plethora of contextual issues.<BR/><BR/>You guys who are allegedly the experts at cultural context.<BR/><BR/>| Look, I learned about the EC from <BR/>| "this neck of the woods" - (not sure <BR/>| what you guys call yourself besides <BR/>| The Only True Christians TM ) . . .<BR/><BR/>This would be another reason to furrow one’s brow at ECM advocates: the <I>blog</I> is called “PyroManiacs” or “TeamPyro”, and as far as our faith goes, we call ourselves “Christians” and “Baptists”. You should look a little harder if you think we’re drawing a small circle for ourselves and pony up some evidence.<BR/><BR/>| . . . and I <BR/>| read some EC stuff and I noticed <BR/>| something very strange. They engage <BR/>| the things you say and try to be fair <BR/>| with the nuances (I'm thinking of the <BR/>| Calvinist chapter in Generous <BR/>| Orthodoxy) but it seems like you look <BR/>| for the most lunatic fringe you can <BR/>| find on the EC and paint that as the <BR/>| core. <BR/><BR/>I am pretty sure that Dan Kimball and Bob would be pretty mad at you for calling them “the most lunatic fringe”, McLaren on Calvinism notwithstanding.<BR/><BR/>| But what Dan said seems very "EC." <BR/>| I'm just wondering what Dan would <BR/>| say is the main difference between <BR/>| how Emergents see it as opposed to <BR/>| "The Only Real Christians"?<BR/><BR/>Can’t speak directly for Dan, or "The Only Real Christians", but I think the main thing would be the willingness to bash one’s head against a brick wall past the place where it is painful and into the place where it is sacrificial.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.com