"You Never Know What God Might Say"

"You Never Know What God Might Say"

There are 108 comments on the www.livingchurch.org story from Sep 10, 2009, titled "You Never Know What God Might Say". In it, www.livingchurch.org reports that:

One of the largest congregations in The Episcopal Church, St. Andrew’s Church of Mt. Pleasant, S.C., may by December become one of the largest congregations to renounce its Episcopal ties.

On Oct. 11, St. Andrew’s will begin a 40 Days of Discernment program to discuss whether it should sever ties with The Episcopal Church. The congregation will vote on Dec. 9-16, after spending a week in prayer and fasting ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.livingchurch.org.

First Prev
of 6
Next Last

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#1 Sep 10, 2009
"'Since 2003 I have felt compromised by continued association with a denomination that I consider to be apostate,' Fr. Wood told The Living Church.

He said he does not know of any significant group in St. Andrew’s that wants to remain affiliated with The Episcopal Church. When he interviewed to become rector, Fr. Wood said, both the search committee and the vestry asked he was open to separation from The Episcopal Church.'"
Think Again

Benson, NC

#2 Sep 10, 2009
Joe DeCaro wrote:
"'Since 2003 I have felt compromised by continued association with a denomination that I consider to be apostate,' Fr. Wood told The Living Church.
He said he does not know of any significant group in St. Andrew’s that wants to remain affiliated with The Episcopal Church. When he interviewed to become rector, Fr. Wood said, both the search committee and the vestry asked he was open to separation from The Episcopal Church.'"
God has already spoken on the issues that trouble Fr. Wood and the others who have left.

He is exactly correct that TEC is apostate.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3 Sep 11, 2009
???? You never know what God might say???? Yes, WE DO KNOW!!!! Love your God and Love your neighbor....how many times do you have to be told?

But if you chose to think differently.....OPEROR Retineo IANUA LEDO VOS IN SECUNDUM OR DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU IN THE BEHIND!!!

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#4 Sep 11, 2009
Think Again wrote:
<quoted text>
God has already spoken on the issues that trouble Fr. Wood and the others who have left.
He is exactly correct that TEC is apostate.
Dear TA,

Apostacy (to revolt) is defined as

1 : renunciation of a religious faith.
2 : abandonment of a previous loyalty.
: DEFECTION

No. Apostate or apostacy is not a correct description of TEC. In fact, those who would remove themselves from TEC fit the description of apostacy. But, that is not correct either.

"Accepting an heretical position with regard to sex and marriage that may lead to unavoidable schism" is a much more apt description of either and both viewpoints and adherents to the opposing sides of the issue.

First, the questions to be asked and answered should focus upon the words of Christ Jesus - a search of the whole body of the text that is attributed to his preaching and saying. This must include all texts, including newly discovered sources of New Testament ideas such as the Nag Hammadi.

This search, in my opinion, is vastly more important than any interpretation of scripture that came later from his apostles and followers, though there be many, legitimate and highly respected theologians that have addressed these questions.

Secondly, we underestimate our authority and role as keepers of the right to determine what is in keeping with being Christian disciples. What we bind in Heaven is bound in earth, by virtue of our acceptance and salvation.

If we decide that it is a better thing to sanctify and legitimize same-sex relationship through a new variation of the Marriage Rite and Sacrament, we do have the right to create such a sacramental rite.

By doing so, are we stepping with faith into a new and questionable territory?

Yes. Absolutely.

But, we are doing so with good reason.

KGC
Think Again

Benson, NC

#5 Sep 13, 2009
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
First, the questions to be asked and answered should focus upon the words of Christ Jesus - a search of the whole body of the text that is attributed to his preaching and saying. This must include all texts, including newly discovered sources of New Testament ideas such as the Nag Hammadi.
This search, in my opinion, is vastly more important than any interpretation of scripture that came later from his apostles and followers, though there be many, legitimate and highly respected theologians that have addressed these questions.
Why study the Nag Hammadi texts? We have the canon of Scripture that was in use in the early church and has, for the most part, Apostolic authority in its authorship. These texts (Nag Hammadi) lack the historic reliability of the Gospels and the rest of the NT and were deemed heretical by the earliest church fathers.

I know you believe that reason should be used in determining the modern questions facing the church but don’t you think delving into the Gnostic gospels and Gnosticism is going too far?
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Secondly, we underestimate our authority and role as keepers of the right to determine what is in keeping with being Christian disciples. What we bind in Heaven is bound in earth, by virtue of our acceptance and salvation.
If we decide that it is a better thing to sanctify and legitimize same-sex relationship through a new variation of the Marriage Rite and Sacrament, we do have the right to create such a sacramental rite.
By doing so, are we stepping with faith into a new and questionable territory?
Yes. Absolutely.
But, we are doing so with good reason.
KGC
We have no right to justify what Scripture calls a sin for our own selfish and sinful gains. This is not questionable territory; it is heretical territory because Scripture and tradition is clear, very clear, on this matter.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#6 Sep 13, 2009
Think Again wrote:
<quoted text>
Why study the Nag Hammadi texts? We have the canon of Scripture that was in use in the early church and has, for the most part, Apostolic authority in its authorship. These texts (Nag Hammadi) lack the historic reliability of the Gospels and the rest of the NT and were deemed heretical by the earliest church fathers.
I know you believe that reason should be used in determining the modern questions facing the church but don’t you think delving into the Gnostic gospels and Gnosticism is going too far?
<quoted text>
We have no right to justify what Scripture calls a sin for our own selfish and sinful gains. This is not questionable territory; it is heretical territory because Scripture and tradition is clear, very clear, on this matter.
TA,
First answer to above:
Q: Why study texts such as the Nag Hammadi, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.?
A: There may be additional insight obtainable from these sources regarding the teachings and sayings of Christ Jesus.

Q2: Is delving into Gnostic Gospels going too far?
A2: If you have not read these texts, you do not have the advantage of considering the perspectives that they provide, both within these texts and as early Christian writings that can provide additional background to the study of the four Gospels and the Letters of Paul, etc. No study of additional period writings is going "too far." Just because someone else labeled something heretical does not mean that you should not read it.

Q3: You continue to suggest that some are attempting to justify sin. What sin? You say that this is not questionable territory.
A: Let me set you and others straight about this. When a man or woman or human posessing genetic traits of both sexes is born with sexual orientations that are not purely and correctly male or female, the subsequent nature of any such individual is not either a sin or a cause for sin, any more than blue eyes are sin. Period.

You continue to leave out REASON in your responses to these questions. Why?

You cannot leave out reason. The Majisterium attempted to leave out Reason when they were confronted with the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun. You would do well for yourself by revisiting the motives and the understandings of church fathers at that time who denied the obvious.

Lastly in response to your response above, Apostolic authority was never derived from scripture. It was derived from the Word of God.

KGC
Think Again

Benson, NC

#7 Sep 13, 2009
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
TA,
First answer to above:
Q: Why study texts such as the Nag Hammadi, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.?
A: There may be additional insight obtainable from these sources regarding the teachings and sayings of Christ Jesus.
If this is the case, why not include the Book of Mormon in your readings. The Nag Hammadi and the BofM have the same credibility.

These are 2nd Century writings and thus so far removed from the life span of Jesus and/or his disciples as to have legend and other influences to creep into the texts. The OT and NT are in harmony with one another. Jesus, Himself, states that the Scriptures testify to Him. There is no need to study these documents.
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Q2: Is delving into Gnostic Gospels going too far?
A2: If you have not read these texts, you do not have the advantage of considering the perspectives that they provide, both within these texts and as early Christian writings that can provide additional background to the study of the four Gospels and the Letters of Paul, etc. No study of additional period writings is going "too far." Just because someone else labeled something heretical does not mean that you should not read it.
See above.
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Q3: You continue to suggest that some are attempting to justify sin. What sin? You say that this is not questionable territory.
A: Let me set you and others straight about this. When a man or woman or human posessing genetic traits of both sexes is born with sexual orientations that are not purely and correctly male or female, the subsequent nature of any such individual is not either a sin or a cause for sin, any more than blue eyes are sin. Period.
I didn’t hear that they found a “gay gene.” Please enlighten me on this research. Your comparison of someone with blue eyes or for that matter skin color is irrelevant. Orientation is never a sin. Even if there was a “gay gene” it is the actions that matter. There is an alcoholic gene. If that person never drinks, and gets drunk he/she never sins.

God gave the sexual ethic to the Jewish people through Moses. Now if God is omniscient, He certainly would have known that some people would have this inclination. None the less, He still forbade the practice.
Think Again

Benson, NC

#8 Sep 13, 2009
Continued
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
You continue to leave out REASON in your responses to these questions. Why?
You cannot leave out reason. The Majisterium attempted to leave out Reason when they were confronted with the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun. You would do well for yourself by revisiting the motives and the understandings of church fathers at that time who denied the obvious.
We live in a fallen world. Our reason alone will never be enough. Un-aided reason should never be used to reclassify and justify what Scripture and church tradition has determined to be sinful. One cannot use reason alone to justify this issue. That is why you make the appeal to the Nag Hammadi texts because the OT and NT as you know are very clear on this matter.
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Lastly in response to your response above, Apostolic authority was never derived from scripture. It was derived from the Word of God.
KGC
I never claimed that the Apostolic authority was derived from scripture. It is derived from God and the office of Apostle has been closed since the early second century. We have the writings from the apostles with clear lineage, with maybe the exception of Paul’s letter to the Hebrews.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#9 Sep 14, 2009
TA, you really “step in it” from time to time.
And, this time you’ve really stepped in it!

No legitimate comparisons have ever been drawn between the Nag Hammadi and the Book of Mormon. Besides the BOM is not an early Christian text, as the books in the Nag Hammadi are.

Your assertion that these texts are of no significant value to an understanding of early Christianity is pure hogwash. As to these recently discovered and translated texts being removed by a century or two from the actual life of Jesus Christ, when do you think the Gospels were written? Who wrote them and when? In fact, evidence of the very first renditions of the writings of the four Gospels appeared at least 50-75 years after Christ’s Ascension. Your statement is full of goofyness. What' more, there are evidences, very early, perhaps even earlier than the four Gospels, and references to the Gospel of Thomas, a copy of which was found in the Nag Hammadi texts.
You are funny, buddy.

As to any harmony between the OT and the NT and what Christ Jesus said about the validity of the scriptural texts, none of the NT had been written when he is reported to have said that. Howeveer, perhaps he understood what texts would be written in the future and was making reference to them. If so, all the more reason to study all of the early period writings.

Furthermore, considering the history of the Church and what it often incorrectly determined to be of heresy in later centuries, whenever REASON prevailed, the study of the early texts for the purpose of developing contextual understanding becomes all that much more a reasonable quest.

As for blue eyes not being a sin, how about the act of seeing through blue eyes? You continue to run and hide whenever the subject of variations in normal genetic expression comes up. People who do not fit your male-female stereotype don’t belong in your church, do they? Well, good buddy, they belong in mine, Episcopalians, and we’ll make sure they fully understand that they are most welcome – as normal everyday human beings who are acceptable and welcome to worship in the same pew and to preach from the same pulpit.

Time for you to pick up your books and backpack and start humpin’ it into the 21st Century along with Christ Jesus and the rest of us.

KGC
Think Again

Benson, NC

#10 Sep 14, 2009
RevKen wrote:
TA, you really “step in it” from time to time.
And, this time you’ve really stepped in it!
If I am stepping in it, that is because you are spreading it. hahaha
RevKen wrote:
No legitimate comparisons have ever been drawn between the Nag Hammadi and the Book of Mormon. Besides the BOM is not an early Christian text, as the books in the Nag Hammadi are.
My point here had nothing to do with dating but everything to do with relevance of both of the texts. It was a comparison on the meaninglessness of both texts with regards to the canon of Scripture.
RevKen wrote:
Your assertion that these texts are of no significant value to an understanding of early Christianity is pure hogwash. As to these recently discovered and translated texts being removed by a century or two from the actual life of Jesus Christ, when do you think the Gospels were written? Who wrote them and when? In fact, evidence of the very first renditions of the writings of the four Gospels appeared at least 50-75 years after Christ’s Ascension. Your statement is full of goofyness. What' more, there are evidences, very early, perhaps even earlier than the four Gospels, and references to the Gospel of Thomas, a copy of which was found in the Nag Hammadi texts.
You are funny, buddy.
The early dating for the Gospels and Paul’s letters (excluding Hebrews) is well established. These dates are still within the lifespan realm of the disciples who personally knew Jesus. The gospel of Thomas draws from John’s Gospel and thus would have to be dated after the 70’s at the earliest and probably the 90’s. Sorry but no cigar!
RevKen wrote:
As to any harmony between the OT and the NT and what Christ Jesus said about the validity of the scriptural texts, none of the NT had been written when he is reported to have said that. Howeveer, perhaps he understood what texts would be written in the future and was making reference to them. If so, all the more reason to study all of the early period writings.

My point here was that Jesus stated the OT testified to Him and that there is complete harmony between the OT and NT as we have it in the canon today. I never implied that Jesus referred to the NT although He could have alluded to the composition as you so generously concede.
Think Again

Benson, NC

#11 Sep 14, 2009
RevKen wrote:
People who do not fit your male-female stereotype don’t belong in your church, do they? Well, good buddy, they belong in mine, Episcopalians, and we’ll make sure they fully understand that they are most welcome – as normal everyday human beings who are acceptable and welcome to worship in the same pew and to preach from the same pulpit.
Time for you to pick up your books and backpack and start humpin’ it into the 21st Century along with Christ Jesus and the rest of us.
KGC
You must have attended the Middle Way School of debating.

I will answer your question. Sure they belong in my church. Church is not a house for saints but a hospital for sinners. We all have issues, actions, thoughts, etc. that cause sin in our lives. Does that mean we should justify and celebrate a particular sin? Absolutely, not! Repentance is the answer and then because God is faithful and just our sins will be forgiven. You never address the omniscience of God and why He still forbade this type of relationship.

These are not “my” stereotypes; they are God’s as we best understand them from Scripture and church tradition. They are not my rules, but God’s as He spoke through the prophets, Jesus, and the disciples. All I or anyone else can do is try to live a life as close to holiness as we can get. Sometimes, that means we cannot do what we want to do and sometimes that means we must do what we don’t want to do. But that is where we are called to be. If this means that I am stuck back in time then so be it because that is where I am called to be. I think Christendom is called there as well.

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

#12 Sep 14, 2009
Think Again wrote:
<quoted text>
You must have attended the Middle Way School of debating.
Why thank you TryAgain. I couldn't be happier with those you lump with me....
Think Again

Benson, NC

#13 Sep 14, 2009
MiddleWay wrote:
<quoted text>
Why thank you TryAgain. I couldn't be happier with those you lump with me....
I would hardly "lump" you in with KCG (Rev. Ken). Even though we disagree most of the time he at least can have a discussion...you on the other hand cannot.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#14 Sep 16, 2009
Think Again wrote:
<quoted text>
If this is the case, why not include the Book of Mormon in your readings. The Nag Hammadi and the BofM have the same credibility.
These are 2nd Century writings and thus so far removed from the life span of Jesus and/or his disciples as to have legend and other influences to creep into the texts. The OT and NT are in harmony with one another. Jesus, Himself, states that the Scriptures testify to Him. There is no need to study these documents.
<quoted text>

TA,
I am very surprised by your response above, regarding the Nag Hammadi texts. It suggests that you have naver read any translations of these texts.
First of all, these texts were Coptic Christian texts, not some off-the-wall writings.
No. Your response is indicative a a very closed mind. This I had not expected from you.

Secondly, your attempt at some comparison with the Book of Mormon is baseless - unless you are making the comparison because you have not read that either. So, I surmise that you are ignorant about the Book of Mormon, too.

I am certainly not bragging about anything here. But, I read the Book of Mormon, cover to cover in detail, some 30 years ago. Enjoyed the read, actually. But, wasn't inclined to buy into the faith.

Question for you: Have you ever read the Quran? If not, why not?

<quoted text>
I didn’t hear that they found a “gay gene.” Please enlighten me on this research. Your comparison of someone with blue eyes or for that matter skin color is irrelevant. Orientation is never a sin. Even if there was a “gay gene” it is the actions that matter. There is an alcoholic gene. If that person never drinks, and gets drunk he/she never sins.<quoted text>

TA,
I've been through this conversation with you before. So, either you are "losing it" or you failed to comprehend the facts the first time. I have no desire to try to convince someone who does not want to be convinced. B. Franklin, a very practical man, made it clear that such efforts would be a waste of time. No. If you get to the point at which you consciously and sincerely choose to learn about your fellow humans, you will find the information that is sought on your own and, then, it will mean something to you.

<quoted text>God gave the sexual ethic to the Jewish people through Moses. Now if God is omniscient, He certainly would have known that some people would have this inclination. None the less, He still forbade the practice.
TA,
You seem unable to distinguish the difference between the concept of omniscience and the response to omniscience kept in the sacred writings of the Hebrews for posterity. Perhaps we should revisit the biblical and theological standing of the Scribes and Pharisees together so that we can understand that sacred writings involve a human perspective.

KGC
Think Again

Benson, NC

#15 Sep 16, 2009
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
TA,
I am very surprised by your response above, regarding the Nag Hammadi texts. It suggests that you have naver read any translations of these texts.
First of all, these texts were Coptic Christian texts, not some off-the-wall writings.
No. Your response is indicative a a very closed mind. This I had not expected from you.
Rev.
These are Gnostic texts which have been declared heretical by mainstream Christianity. We have the inspired, written word of God which is in our canon. I do not believe God would have let politics, favoritism, or chance select the books that comprise the most important text ever written.
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
TA,
I've been through this conversation with you before. So, either you are "losing it" or you failed to comprehend the facts the first time. I have no desire to try to convince someone who does not want to be convinced. B. Franklin, a very practical man, made it clear that such efforts would be a waste of time. No. If you get to the point at which you consciously and sincerely choose to learn about your fellow humans, you will find the information that is sought on your own and, then, it will mean something to you.
Rev.
We have had this conversation before and I remember it clearly. What you want to portray as truth is at best a theory and probably only a guess. It has not been proven that there are any biological or genetic causes for homosexuality. In fact, the APA issued this statement back in May.
What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#w...

Notice the words,“Many think…..” It is only an educated guess at this point. Until more research is done there is nothing conclusive.
Think Again

Benson, NC

#16 Sep 16, 2009
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
TA,
You seem unable to distinguish the difference between the concept of omniscience and the response to omniscience kept in the sacred writings of the Hebrews for posterity. Perhaps we should revisit the biblical and theological standing of the Scribes and Pharisees together so that we can understand that sacred writings involve a human perspective.
Where do you draw the line between what is human perspective and a actual fact? Do you draw your line at the cross, the resurrection, the divinity of Jesus because these are tenets of your faith and you need them to continue onward? I understand why you want to draw the line where you do but there needs to be a standard used for your selection process.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#17 Sep 23, 2009
Think Again wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do you draw the line between what is human perspective and a actual fact? Do you draw your line at the cross, the resurrection, the divinity of Jesus because these are tenets of your faith and you need them to continue onward? I understand why you want to draw the line where you do but there needs to be a standard used for your selection process.
Excuse me, TA,

But, here is what YOU are saying:

You are saying that YOU need to have a standard used for your selection process.

I do not make statements here for the purpose of trying to convince you of anything.

The old saying is, "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink." So it is with convincing someone of something that he does not want to be convinced.

There are two related issues in this conversation. One is the nature and substance of how one human regards another. The second is the limits that are created by our acceptance of guidelines that help us to hold this regard.

If, as is happening before our very eyes, we are in receipt of new information that should cause us to reconsider the way that we have been regarding our fellow humans - and - this new information suggests that our accepted guidelines do not adequately provide for the modification of our views of others...

Then, we have an internal conflict to resolve. The resolution of the conflict must be structured to involve one of two internal modifications. We believe that such modifications need to have legitimate cause based in fact and truth - the sources of reason.

We also believe that such internal modifications should require conformance with accepted social tradition.

Lastly, we seek reference in the source of our beliefs which are exhibited in sacred writings in order to define the limits of our acceptance of moral behavior, both in ourselves and our community.

Your resolution of the internal conflict is reached by staying within what you believe to be acceptable limits based upon your understanding of guidance given through sacred writings. It is a choice made. It is your personal selection process.

Furthermore, you are able to find comfort and assurance in having made a choice to use a selection process that is apparently the same choice and the same conclusion and resolution of the conflict that many others are using.

But, you are ignoring the facts and you have forgotten your conscience.

KGC
George

Newark, NJ

#18 Sep 23, 2009
TA you are wasting your time. When confronted and tempted by Satan in the wilderness, how did Our Lord reply? With Scripture. And what Scripture did he quote in reply? The same Scripture that TEC rejects as somehow time-bound and no longer relevant. RevKen says he cares little for how the apostles and Jesus' followers applied and understood scripture and His teachings. TEC has carved out a niche for itself that is outside almost all of Christendom. It has chosen to become the Gay and Transgendered General Convention Church. It chooses to call itself Christian though most Christians would never recognize it as such. I can call myself the king of Siam with as much legitimacy. If you are still in TEC, run for the exits. If you have already departed, may God go with you just as he went with the Israelites whom He called to come out from Egypt.
Think Again

Benson, NC

#19 Sep 23, 2009
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
If, as is happening before our very eyes, we are in receipt of new information that should cause us to reconsider the way that we have been regarding our fellow humans - and - this new information suggests that our accepted guidelines do not adequately provide for the modification of our views of others...
Rev, we have had this discussion before. This “new information” is not so new. Jesus addressed this issue in Matthew 19:9-12. The only Christian response for a homosexual (born eunuchs) is the same one Jesus gave to His disciples…..celibacy.
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
But, you are ignoring the facts and you have forgotten your conscience.
KGC
I provided the quote from the APA above that there is no conclusive evidence on the source of a person becoming homosexual. If scientists and psychologist admit that there is no conclusive evidence what facts am I ignoring?

Rev. everything that I can determine from studying scripture, church tradition and searching my conscience is that homosexual acts are sinful. This is by no means the gravest of sins and there is always redemption offered through Jesus.

You have made the claim that I always forget reason, but this is not true. I use aided reason, not unaided reason. As you mention above, this is not my unilateral decision but it is based on historical teachings of the church catholic, Holy Scripture and with aided reason based on the unequivocal teachings of both.

Among our other differences, the major difference we have is how we interpret Holy Scripture. I interpret my experiences in light of what scripture tells me. This grounds any part of the reasoning process in God’s written word. From your writings, I glean, that you interpret Scripture through your experience. This is a fundamental difference that we may never agree upon. But by using Scripture as the source of Truth and not my conscience or experiences, I try to take away any subjectivity out my reasoning process.
Think Again

Benson, NC

#20 Sep 23, 2009
George wrote:
TA you are wasting your time. When confronted and tempted by Satan in the wilderness, how did Our Lord reply? With Scripture. And what Scripture did he quote in reply? The same Scripture that TEC rejects as somehow time-bound and no longer relevant. RevKen says he cares little for how the apostles and Jesus' followers applied and understood scripture and His teachings. TEC has carved out a niche for itself that is outside almost all of Christendom. It has chosen to become the Gay and Transgendered General Convention Church. It chooses to call itself Christian though most Christians would never recognize it as such. I can call myself the king of Siam with as much legitimacy. If you are still in TEC, run for the exits. If you have already departed, may God go with you just as he went with the Israelites whom He called to come out from Egypt.
George,

Good to have you on board for this discussion.

Many people read these threads but never comment. I try to develop a persuasive response (argument) to much of what is written here for this purpose. Many times I may fail miserably in this attempt. Many in TEC are only getting one side of the story and if they come here to investigate, at least there is one other voice to hear.

The Rev. is a gracious commenter and brings a unique perspective on these issues. We have been at this for almost two years now. Neither one of us is budging but it is fun trying.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pawleys Island Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
two girls fall from hotel 13 hr paula 4
Joey White 17 hr Crazy girl 1
Goodwill Carolina forest Mon Grow up 1
people from ohio (Sep '16) Apr 24 Go Bucks 13
Blane Reeves Apr 23 Maggie 1
Do not buy/rent SHOREWOOD condos!!! (May '15) Apr 20 Dsnyluvr 8
orlando fl big competition for myrtle beach Apr 19 left in dust 1

Pawleys Island Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Pawleys Island Mortgages