I want to talk about the curse

[mithrandir]

I agree with those who have cited Ephesians 5.  A woman is commanded by Scripture to love her husband.  And 1 Peter literally means what it says.  But a man is commanded by Scripture to love his wife, and to nurture his children.  Unfortunately, in my 23 years in the assembly, I rarely if ever saw a true and untainted example of how it all is supposed to work.  Those who claimed to be our examples to imitate were guilty of malpractice.  Do you know how frustrating it is to have to unlearn all of the garbage I was taught?

Clarence Thompson

[delila]

Hi Delila,

If you study Genesis, and employ an understanding of the Hebraic mindset, look at what the Midrash, and the rabinical traditions have to say, etc.  a person understands that Noah pronounced this curse on Ham, not as a reuslt of one little mistake, but due to a clear tendency to evil in Ham and his son, Canaan.

History bore out the fact that not only were Ham and Canaan cursed, but their descendants were cursed......AND THEY DESERVED IT!

As for daughters not being mentioned I could say several things.  First of all, we are talking about a patriarchal family  (Noah, through Eber, Through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the twelve Patriarchs)  amongst and even more patriarchal culture.   The fact that Sarah is mentioned so much, and that her speech is quoted in the New Testament, when she commanded her husband, Abraham, to "Cast out the bondwoman and her son!  

This is set the current culture on its head, in a sense, especially when God told Abraham to "listen to your wife."

Think about it.  The Bible isn't anti-feminist, or chauvenist at all.  However, dishonest, insecure men will happily twist it to meet their own agenda, which is what you and I experienced.

Sadly, much of what we see today in the radical feminist agenda is nothing but the well earned backlash from the disgusting men treated women in God's name over the the last hundred or so years.  

Reaction, while understandable, is not the answer.  Repentance and forgiveness is.  The thing that helped me more than anything else was when I apologized to my wife,  about 7 years ago.  No kidding, minutes after that, the scales fell off my eyes and I began to see light for the first time in many years.

Brent

Brent:
I find it difficult to see what it is I need to repent of or forgive, in this inquiry, either.

Further to my understanding the Hebrew and his mindset, what other books to you consult in the way of ancient texts when seeking to understand what exactly the sins of Mosses' son was.  How is it that you're so certain he deserved this curse.  A curse, after all, is a pretty heavy thing to go wailing around.  I take it that you think Noah had sobered up then, by the time he did the cursing eh?

Cheers

Delila

[editor]

Brent:
I find it difficult to see what it is I need to repent of or forgive, in this inquiry, either.

Further to my understanding the Hebrew and his mindset, what other books to you consult in the way of ancient texts when seeking to understand what exactly the sins of Mosses' son was.  How is it that you're so certain he deserved this curse.  A curse, after all, is a pretty heavy thing to go wailing around.  I take it that you think Noah had sobered up then, by the time he did the cursing eh?

Cheers

Delila

Hi Delila

First of all, I didn't tell you you need to repent, so don't take it personally.

Secondly, I was commenting on your posts where you say,  "And another thing, lots of sons gettin' born in Genisis, but no daughters important enough to mention.  Why's that?"----I qouted it in my response.

Following your somewhat flippant interpretation of Noah you clearly imply that for some reason, the Bible doesn't seem to give women the same importance as men, I decided to comment.   At least that is how I understood your words and tone.

The passage says this:

Gen 9:20  And Noah began [to] [be] a farmer, and he planted a vineyard.  21  Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and became uncovered in his tent.  22  And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside.  23  But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid [it] on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces [were] turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness.  24  So Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done to him.  25  Then he said:  "Cursed [be] Canaan;  A servant of servants  He shall be to his brethren."

What I was trying to say was that Ham and Canaan DID deserve the curse, and historically it is a proven fact that son's of Ham----generally black people from Africa----have been cursed to serve their brethren.  BTW, the scripture does say that Noah was sober when he did this.  Notice the above where it says  "he awoke from his wine and knew....."  That means he was sober.  no, I'm not a racist in any way, shape or form.  I hope no one reads what I just said to be anything other than clear commentary on what the Bible says.  I happen to be Jewish, BTW.

Again, the reason I am sure that he deserved the curse was because of what the scripture says about it, in many places, not to mention history.

Again, I did not say that you needed to repent of anything.  What I was talking about was the fact that feminism in largely a backlash to chauvenism, and that the answer to chauvenism perpetrated by Christian men is NOT a reaction to the other extreme but forgiveness---provided the men cease and change.   Feminists, those that call themselves Christians, need to repent of their reaction.  I didn't mean you, or anyone else in particular. I don't know you, and I know nothing more about you than what you have revealed here on the BB.

Seeing that we are relative strangers, I wouldn't dare tell you to repent of anything, and meant no such thing.

However, I do reserve the right to comment on what you say in a public forum, and would prefer to do so without you taking my words out of context and applying them personally, when they were not meant to be that way at all.

Shall we try this again?  

Brent

[vernecarty]

What I was trying to say was that Ham and Canaan DID deserve the curse, and historically it is a proven fact that son's of Ham----generally black people from Africa----have been cursed to serve their brethren.
Brent

You've got to be kidding me!
A laughable fable espoused only by those totally ignorant of the history of the African continent. Now I've heard everything...!
Not everthing Eidersheim says is necessarily so...
Furthermore, the  text clearly says the curse was issued to Canaan! To try and tar as it were all of Ham's descendants with such drivel is nothing more than black pathology masquerading as theology...you surprise me...
Verne
p.s. I am also assuming that everyone on this BB knows where white people came from...or do they??!!
I have a funny feeling I am going to really regret responding to this...

[sfortescue]

What I heard is that the cursed Canaanites were mostly destroyed by the children of Israel when they conquered their land under Joshua.  Only Canaan was cursed, not the rest of Ham's sons.

Genesis 10:15-19
And Canaan begat Sidon his first born, and Heth, and the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite, and the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite, and the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad.  And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest, unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha.

I heard that the hebrews were the descendants of Eber.
The lineage: Shem, Arphaxad, Salah, Eber.

Genesis 10:22-24
The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram.
And the children of Aram; Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash.
And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber.

It seems that most of the rest of the world came from Japheth.

Genesis 10:2-5
The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.
And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.
And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.
By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

[editor]

What I was trying to say was that Ham and Canaan DID deserve the curse, and historically it is a proven fact that son's of Ham----generally black people from Africa----have been cursed to serve their brethren.
Brent

You've got to be kidding me!
A laughable fable espoused only by those totally ignorant of the history of the African continent. Now I've heard everything...!
Not everthing Eidersheim says is necessarily so...
Furthermore, the  text clearly says the curse was issued to Canaan! To try and tar as it were all of Ham's descendants with such drivel is nothing more than black pathology masquerading as theology...you surprise me...
Verne
p.s. I am also assuming that everyone on this BB knows where white people came from...or do they??!!
I have a funny feeling I am going to really regret responding to this...

OH boy.....

First of all, I am not a racist.  Please leave that out of it,  as it isn't part of the conversation.

Secondly,  why did Noah curse Canaan when Ham was the one who uncovered his father's nakedness?  The answer is that he cursed Ham and Canaan.  Hams descendants are clearly who the anthropologists used to call Negroids.  That was when I was in school, I don't know the modern terminology so please correct me if I'm wrong on the name.  We used to say there were Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid.....Ham was definitely the father of the Negroid.

This has nothing to do with "black pathology," Verne.  The text is clear.  If you want to pull the race thing, I've got you beat hands down, as i am Jewish, a descendant of Abraham after the flesh.....not one of you gentiles, whether white black, brown or red.  Let's not be so thin skinned.

My Jewishness makes me no less a person than your blackness, or anothers yellowness.

Most everyone is agreed that Japeth was the forefather of the Europeans,  Shem the "semitic" peoples,  and Ham the people of Egypt, Africa and Canaan.  

Ham was the first to introduce pagan Gods. 6  The sons of Ham [were] Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan.  7  The sons of Cush [were] Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabtechah; and the sons of Raamah [were] Sheba and Dedan.  8  Cush begot  Nimrod ; he began to be a mighty one on the earth.  Nimrod was the one who got Babylon started, which is generally considered a bad thing in the Bible.  

Canaan was particularly cursed, but I defy you to find much good in the other sons of Ham listed above.  

No worry, lest a descendant of Ham think I am condemning them for their ancestry, I am not.  There is nothing good in any of Noah's descendants, including those of Shem.  Isn't that why we need a Savior?

As far as the Canaanites being destroyed....yes many of them were.  But the problem was that Israel never finished the job, and there is trouble to this very day,  between the Canaanite and the Ishmaelite,  and the Jews.

You can't have it both ways Verne.  We each belong to one of the lineages of the son's of Noah.

Seriously, I've had about enough of this.  If you are going to call someting drivel, and yell and spout off about it, how about backing it up with some facts and correction instead of just proclaiming how surprised you are?  Why am I wrong?

Brent

[Oscar]

Hi folks,

BTW when scholars identify place names from the OT the identifications are VERY tenuous.  Frequently they are nothing more than conjucture.

Even the place names from the Davidic period and afterward are frequently just educated guesses.

Some big cities are well known, and a few places, like Jericho, still exist.  But usually those maps you have in the back of your Bibles for the patriarchal period are nearly all conjecture.

The classification of NE African languages as "Hamitic" by linguists is exactly that...a classification by modern linguists.

I don't think that there is any evidence, Biblical or otherwise, that indicates that the "curse of Ham" had anything to do with the color of his hide.

I should talk...I believed that men had one more rib than women until I was in High School.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[editor]

Hi folks,

BTW when scholars identify place names from the OT the identifications are VERY tenuous.  Frequently they are nothing more than conjucture.

Even the place names from the Davidic period and afterward are frequently just educated guesses.

Some big cities are well known, and a few places, like Jericho, still exist.  But usually those maps you have in the back of your Bibles for the patriarchal period are nearly all conjecture.

The classification of NE African languages as "Hamitic" by linguists is exactly that...a classification by modern linguists.

I don't think that there is any evidence, Biblical or otherwise, that indicates that the "curse of Ham" had anything to do with the color of his hide.

I should talk...I believed that men had one more rib than women until I was in High School.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

The curse had nothing to do with skin color.  It had to do with his character, which was totally independent and apart from his skin color as it is with all of us.  The curse said nothing about his skin color...it said he was to serve his brethren.  The Mormons are the ones who say that the curse was his skin color, which idea I totally reject.  

The simple fact is that we are all equal, even if we are different in size shape and color.  

As far as I know, while exact locations are impossible, with a few exceptions,  there is no doubt about where the continents where the sons of Noah eventually ended up.

For instance, we have a pretty good idea where Egypt is, also Babylon, Ninevah, Jerusalem, Jericho, Ur,  Arimathea,  The Scythians,  Phoenicians, Greeks, Persians and Medes.

[al Hartman]

     I'm thinking of changing my career.  From now on I'll devote myself to permanently sticking out my neck on this BB.
     Let me say that Brent's posts regarding Noah's cursing of Ham are based in the fact that Brent is admittedly of Jewish birth.  As every Jew knows quite well, Ham isn't kosher!  (Sorry, folks-- I just HAD to say that before Joe Sperling thought of it.)
*****************************************************
     Everyone who knows me knows that I'm not a theologian nor a Bible scholar, and I'm only a mediocre student at best.  So I'm not going to get into who cursed whom and why and where they went to set up camp or how long they worked on their tans.  Rather, I'm going to say a word about icebergs...

     What we know about icebergs is that the huge percent of their mass is submerged.  From the surface view, we have no idea of the shape of an iceberg's bulk.  We only know that what we are able to observe afloat is but a small bit of the whole.  Beneath the surface, out of our sight, moves a cold, hard, jagged behemoth capable of inflicting incredible damage upon anything it encounters.  An iceberg sank the Titanic, the strongest ship of its day.  The wise seafarer espying floating ice, however small in appearance, will give it a wide berth lest it destroy his vessel utterly.

     When God's people are snipping and sniping at each other over matters that are of little practical consequence, it behooves us to consider that we may be seeing the tip of an iceberg.  There are powerful forces at work in this world whose sole purpose is the destruction of souls and the discrediting of our God.  Let us be keen in deciding whether the crusades we take up are necessary or merely convenient.  Do we engage ourselves for righteousness' sake or for reputation?  Do we strive because we must, or simply because we can?

     We cannot know specifically what warfare lurks beneath the surface, but we can decide what may be distracting us unnecessarily.  Do we maintain a readiness and conserve our strength for the battle that may break at any time, or do we squander our resources in childsplay?  Do our words and deeds unify the forces of the Lord or do they divide?

     Let us strive to rightly divide the word of truth as workmen who need not be ashamed, either at our Lord's appearing or at the outbreak of genuine spiritual hostilities.  We all have feelings.  Let us not wear our own on our sleeves, but be thoughtful of the feelings of our brethren.

God bless us all,
al

[Kimberley Tobin]

Again, Al, you respond just when I think I have to jump into the fray.  And you do it so much better, with some grace, to calm the crowd - I hope everyone else sees it.   ;D  Perhaps it's your age.  ;D  At least I have something to look forward to.    ;D

But I still MUST say SOMETHING.  I love Al's illustration of an ice berg.  It is so true.  Delila is new to this BB.  She doesn't know very well most of the people here or vice versa.  I believe there is much history (water under the bridge, so to speak) and deep hurt that brings Delila to this BB.  It is seen in just this kind of dialogue.  Very typical of a man's response is to answer LOGICALLY (I am not saying that woman aren't logical.  Quite the contrary.  I believe women to be very logical.)  But in this context, with the "ice berg" metaphor as a backdrop, I believe Delila was not searching for a LOGICAL answer.

It's like when a wife comes to her husband and is crying over some situation.  Often, the husband will try and RESOLVE THE CONFLICT (think LOGICAL answers).  This is not, generally, what the wife is looking for.  A wife, generally, is looking for sympathy or empathy.

I believe Brent is answering rather LOGICALLY when that is not what Delila (possibly without even recognizing it) wants.  (Please forgive me for speaking for Delila - I am taking a great leap here and could be way off!)

As most of our conversations center around the assembly's influence, this is what was so frustrating to women in the assembly.  This tactic was par for the course in the assembly.  Remember the teaching that we can't trust our feelings?  Feelings will lie to you.  HELLO!  We all have feelings.  That kind of teaching is ludicrous.  And perhaps it worked differently in each assembly.  But I remember, CLEARLY, how it was applied in my locale.  I couldn't share my feelings with anybody.  When I did, I risked a tongue lashing, a rebuke, a looking down upon, condescending attitude, knowing completely that I was a failure and wasn't ever going to measure up.

These kind of dialogues bring up those kind of old FEELINGS when receiving answers of similar nature.

Just my 50 cents.  ;D ;D

[Mark Kisla]

Again, Al, you respond just when I think I have to jump into the fray.  And you do it so much better, with some grace, to calm the crowd - I hope everyone else sees it.    Perhaps it's your age.    At least I have something to look forward to.    

But I still MUST say SOMETHING.  I love Al's illustration of an ice berg.  It is so true.  Delila is new to this BB.  She doesn't know very well most of the people here or vice versa.  I believe there is much history (water under the bridge, so to speak) and deep hurt that brings Delila to this BB.  It is seen in just this kind of dialogue.  Very typical of a man's response is to answer LOGICALLY (I am not saying that woman aren't logical.  Quite the contrary.  I believe women to be very logical.)  But in this context, with the "ice berg" metaphor as a backdrop, I believe Delila was not searching for a LOGICAL answer.

It's like when a wife comes to her husband and is crying over some situation.  Often, the husband will try and RESOLVE THE CONFLICT (think LOGICAL answers).  This is not, generally, what the wife is looking for.  A wife, generally, is looking for sympathy or empathy.

I believe Brent is answering rather LOGICALLY when that is not what Delila (possibly without even recognizing it) wants.  (Please forgive me for speaking for Delila - I am taking a great leap here and could be way off!)

As most of our conversations center around the assembly's influence, this is what was so frustrating to women in the assembly.  This tactic was par for the course in the assembly.  Remember the teaching that we can't trust our feelings?  Feelings will lie to you.  HELLO!  We all have feelings.  That kind of teaching is ludicrous.  And perhaps it worked differently in each assembly.  But I remember, CLEARLY, how it was applied in my locale.  I couldn't share my feelings with anybody.  When I did, I risked a tongue lashing, a rebuke, a looking down upon, condescending attitude, knowing completely that I was a failure and wasn't ever going to measure up.

These kind of dialogues bring up those kind of old FEELINGS when receiving answers of similar nature.

Just my 50 cents.  

We all can be better listeners, maybe that's why God gave us 2 ears and 1 mouth.
Everybody has a bad day/ week and you can make room for that. Sure, some people are non stop complainers that are a bummer to be around and you have to tell them 'enough'. I've seen peoples attitudes change when they knew someone was really listening to them.

[Oscar]

Hi folks,

BTW when scholars identify place names from the OT the identifications are VERY tenuous.  Frequently they are nothing more than conjucture.

Even the place names from the Davidic period and afterward are frequently just educated guesses.

Some big cities are well known, and a few places, like Jericho, still exist.  But usually those maps you have in the back of your Bibles for the patriarchal period are nearly all conjecture.

The classification of NE African languages as "Hamitic" by linguists is exactly that...a classification by modern linguists.

I don't think that there is any evidence, Biblical or otherwise, that indicates that the "curse of Ham" had anything to do with the color of his hide.

I should talk...I believed that men had one more rib than women until I was in High School.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

The curse had nothing to do with skin color.  It had to do with his character, which was totally independent and apart from his skin color as it is with all of us.  The curse said nothing about his skin color...it said he was to serve his brethren.  The Mormons are the ones who say that the curse was his skin color, which idea I totally reject.  

The simple fact is that we are all equal, even if we are different in size shape and color.  

As far as I know, while exact locations are impossible, with a few exceptions,  there is no doubt about where the continents where the sons of Noah eventually ended up.

For instance, we have a pretty good idea where Egypt is, also Babylon, Ninevah, Jerusalem, Jericho, Ur,  Arimathea,  The Scythians,  Phoenicians, Greeks, Persians and Medes.

Brent,

You are right about us knowing where many of the Bible lands were.  However, when speaking of countries, once you leave Palestine and Mesopotamia it is pretty much conjecture.

Even within Palestine and Mesopotamia the identification of individual cities is tenuous.

For example, the Bible says that Terah took his family, including Abraham, to Haran.  There are three places that have been tentatively identified as Haran.  Most Bibles show the "northern" Haran, but there is also a "central Haran" and a "southern Haran".

The locations are based on theories about how a person "would have traveled" in patriarchal times.  Since we haven't found any travel agency brochures in the ruins of Ur,  , we can't be sure.

We know that the Queen of Sheba visited Solomon.  We don't know where Sheba was!  Cush, (today called Sudan), and Yemen are candidates, but no one really knows.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[delila]

[quote author=Brent A. Tr0ckman
1) Further to my understanding the Hebrew and his mindset, what other books do you consult in the way of ancient texts when seeking to understand what exactly the sins of Mosses' son was?  
2)How is it that you're so certain he deserved this curse.  A curse, after all, is a pretty heavy thing to go wailing around.  

Cheers

Delila

Hi Delila

Following your somewhat flippant interpretation of Noah you clearly imply that for some reason, the Bible doesn't seem to give women the same importance as men, I decided to comment.   At least that is how I understood your words and tone.

The passage says this:

Gen 9:20  And Noah began [to] [be] a farmer, and he planted a vineyard.  21  Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and became uncovered in his tent.  22  And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside.  23  But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid [it] on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces [were] turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness.  24  So Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done to him.  25  Then he said:  "Cursed [be] Canaan;  A servant of servants  He shall be to his brethren."

1) What I was trying to say was that Ham and Canaan DID deserve the curse, and historically it is a proven fact that son's of Ham----generally black people from Africa----have been cursed to serve their brethren.  
2) BTW, the scripture does say that Noah was sober when he did this.  Notice the above where it says  "he awoke from his wine and knew....."  That means he was sober.  no, I'm not a racist in any way, shape or form.  I hope no one reads what I just said to be anything other than clear commentary on what the Bible says.  I happen to be Jewish, BTW.

Again, the reason I am sure that he deserved the curse was because of what the scripture says about it, in many places, not to mention history.


  Feminists, those that call themselves Christians, need to repent of their reaction.  I didn't mean you, or anyone else in particular.

Brent:

Can o' worms or what?

First, my two questions (numbered above for your convenience) remain unanswered.

Secondly, it is not clear to me that Moses was sober, perhaps just hung over?  Seriously, alcohol is responsible for much in our society, probably has been always.  And this section of scripture stumps me too because it reminds my of assembly control: submit because I'm the leader, regardless of whether my life is anything really spiritual.  Let's look at the facts.  The man was both drunk and naked and woke up and took out some wrath on his sons.  Immediately when I saw that happening, I thought of the abusive patterns I've seen.  So I wondered, okay, what evidence is there of a crime?  What did those boys do that was so wrong?  I still don't get it.  Yeah, I'm flippant.  But the story I told isn't all that different from the scripture you quoted - it's my perspective, that's all.

Thirdly, I'm pink, if we have to idenity our colours.  Totally pink.  Selah.  Polish and German heritage.  Don't know how I ended up pink.  Cursed, I guess.  Grama says I'm cursed in love anyway.

Fourthly, and lastly: about feminism.  I can see us blaming them (women) for their reaction to systematic cruelty about as much as I can blame African Americans (brought to North America in chains) because they chose to fight slavery and second hand treatment at the hands of those of other colours in North America.  And I can say that, with some authority too.  Because I'm pink.  A Polish/German pink person.  And my Polish side survived concentration camps in Dacau.

No Brent, I'm not offended.  But I am pink, so I should kindly ask you to remember that.  Kindness to pink people, even feminists. BTW my definition of feminism: those who are good to women.  If you like, you could be a feminist too.  We don't burn our underwear anymore.  The older I get, the more I like my underwear.

Cheers

Delilah

[M2]

...
Thirdly, I'm pink, if we have to idenity our colours.  Totally pink.  Selah.  Polish and German heritage.  Don't know how I ended up pink.  Cursed, I guess.  Grama says I'm cursed in love anyway.

Fourthly, and lastly: about feminism.  I can see us blaming them (women) for their reaction to systematic cruelty about as much as I can blame African Americans (brought to North America in chains) because they chose to fight slavery and second hand treatment at the hands of those of other colours in North America.  And I can say that, with some authority too.  Because I'm pink.  A Polish/German pink person.  And my Polish side survived concentration camps in Dacau.

No Brent, I'm not offended.  But I am pink, so I should kindly ask you to remember that.  Kindness to pink people, even feminists. BTW my definition of feminism: those who are good to women.  If you like, you could be a feminist too.  We don't burn our underwear anymore.  The older I get, the more I like my underwear.

Cheers

Delilah

Delila,

You are bad   and cursed because you are pink.  Think of all the money you could save if you didn't have to buy all that sun-tan lotion.  At least you don't have to dye your hair blonde.

Sorry Al,  but I did not see a problem with the way the discussion was going.  Maybe it's my eastern blood.  They say that 2 Jews could be having a good discussion on some topic, and to some North Americans it may appear like a big fight, but the 2 Jews are just enjoying themselves.  I know I appear to be calm cool and collected on the BB, but in reality I am very emotional and can get very animated.  Ask my husband and kids.  The BB helps me to collect my thoughts before posting.

So onward forward...
And Lord bless,
Marcia

[delila]

Epiphany:  I've offended here, too:
-flippant about  a favorite passage of Brent's.
-opening a whole can of worms that nobody especially wants to eat
-There's more than just me who has curse sorting to do

Wonder if I'll be banned from the BB for being BA-AD

I'm encouraging everyone to stay away from wine, at least for the next little while, like Noah probably did.

Cheers!