Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2011 18:30:31 GMT -5
It could be argued of course that the parents are responsible for teaching moral values.
But shouldn't the church be teaching moral values as well? .. in some cases moral values and sin/convictions about sin overlap one another . . ... if we believe what the Bible teaches and what Christ taught we also have to believe, for example, that it is "adultery" (considered a moral issue by many) to even look upon an "unavailable woman" with lust .. . Now: you know and I know that this type of thing happens all the time without ANY consequences: so, what was Jesus' point, in this case? ;D Do you think Jesus was saying to that we are to enforce a consequence upon every person that looks at the 'wrong' person with lust? I don't think so-for practical reasons(it would not make sense).. what I think Jesus was trying to point out was this: Stop and consider( think )about the (real) SIN that is in your mind and your heart and your soul. Don't be fooled into thinking God overlooks that type of sin or that you can just overlook and get away with that type of sin either. what He could also have been saying is: that we "cheat" in our minds and our hearts as well as with our bodies[ openly] and we "cheat" in some ways that we seem to get a pass with other humans on; but God is not fooled and it is just as important as a professing Christian to have pure minds and hearts as it might be to not have any "appearance" of sin or sin openly(meaning, it is 'known' by ourselves and/or others). IF your heart and mind is NOT pure, then we are need to be HONEST about that type of sin, just as we are encouraged to come forth with and be honest about any other type of sin!! ---another thing that Christ may have been trying to point out: there are "sins" that ARE overlooked by fellow humans and nothing is done about them; "secret sins".. ( wrong-ful)LUST being one of those secret sins, but a sin none-the-less!!; another 'secret sin' is that of garnering ill will, strife-type envy, unforgive-ness, resentment, malice, etc in our hearts toward another person/people/thing instead being honest about the sinful feelings we hold within and bringing those things to God to help us resolve. So then, is any of us without sin? NO. Is that reason to just give up? No. But the wonderful HOPE is that even though we are all by our very natures sinful- God's power can be made available to HELP US OVERCOME sin that we are willing deal with and want to be rid of. I do not believe that God wants us to strive against sin because He wants to spoil our fun; rather, He knows in His Wisdom that we will have more peace if we are cleansed of sin. But: He wants us to deal with our sin and desire to be cleansed by CHOICE: WITH the Blood of His Son, Christ Jesus. That is a thing of BEAUTY.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2011 18:46:21 GMT -5
hmm. i find it interesting that you have spelled "flavo urs" in the King James Version .. It's the Queen's English, and you will find that spelling being used by participants here from NZ, OZ, Canada and Great Britain. We have a few more funny spelling things too, but mostly to do with adding "u" in a lot of words, or more accurately, you Americans have taken it away. yes. we are rather sinful lot, we Americans .. STEALING other peoples' spellings ..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2011 18:51:25 GMT -5
I would say they are inseparable. Who ever heard of a moral sin? Or when is immorality not a sin?
Interesting to think about.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Nov 7, 2011 18:55:17 GMT -5
hmm. i find it interesting that you have spelled "flavo urs" in the King James Version .. It's the Queen's English, and you will find that spelling being used by participants here from NZ, OZ, Canada and Great Britain. We have a few more funny spelling things too, but mostly to do with adding "u" in a lot of words, or more accurately, you Americans have taken it away. ...and South Africa
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 7, 2011 19:07:33 GMT -5
Very simply, in the whole context of Scripture, just as Israel showed for centuries on end that they could not keep the law of God to any degree of perfection, Jesus was also pointing out the fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE for human beings, tainted with sin from Adam onward, to make themselves sinless. And Jesus was here to pay their deserved death penalty for all of their sins they could not avoid on their behalf. It boils very simply down to total trust (faith) in that provision of the imputation of the very righteousness of Jesus Christ, THE one and only Messiah sent by God to deliver human beings from their sins – the ONLY Savior, who according to the OT and NT is God. And as God, Jesus alone was able to take onto His own back the sins of all human beings, serve the death penalty on their behalf and still rise from the dead triumphant over all sin. We are still free to reject that gracious GIFT from God, but if we do, then we will be convicted in God’s court of law beyond any shadow of doubt of our guilt.
Please remember that God loves those human beings that are born with mental handicaps just as much as He loves the Einstein’s. And His plan of salvation is so simple that the most handicapped human being can understand that plan, believe it, and be saved from sin.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2011 19:23:20 GMT -5
I would say they are inseparable. Who ever heard of a moral sin? Or when is immorality not a sin? Interesting to think about. exactly my point. immorality IS a sin; at least that is MY conviction.... but people who do not believe in God and therefore do not view wrongful things necessarily as the same as sin so much as just morally wrong. Believers hold more so convictiosn about immorality ALSO being sin in the eyes of the Lord .. now: onto the subject of LUST: what is considered "normal" lust of the flesh and what is considered "wrong-ful" type of lust-some may say that lust is lust is lust and it is wrong, but i am not convinced of that. example: i believe it is a perfectly normal thing[ that God created] for a normal man to lust after a woman he finds sexually attractive, etc. and vice versa-it is "normal" for a normal woman to lust after a , man, etc .. sin enters in when the normal lust of the flesh that leads to sexual fulfillment and procreation causes one to hurt another or to hurt themselves: meaning: if you are married and you KNOW your spouse is looking upon another person with lust, that can hurt-- or, it can possibly cause harm to your marital relationship in more than one way: it can take away one's affection from their spouse and place it upon another and there is a sense of loss. it can also cause one spouse to feel abandoned or neglected or cheated on; even IF no actual physical act is involved. one does not actually have to sin or do adultery with their body to in a sense "cheat" on their spouse - i think that is a distinction that Christ was making. Jesus KNEW what it was like to feel HUMAN and to struggle with the flesh. therefore: He KNEW that we fool ourselves all the time into thinking that we can "get away with" certain types of sins just as long a we "deal" with the OBVIOUS ones..................................................... will we lust inappropriately at times in our lives? Most likely, YES, we will. And even though the CONSEQUENCES for plain old lust are not as SEVERE as the consequences for OTHER sins may be, we still need to deal with it just as much at the other, more obvious and "open" sins. I like to consider too, that there are those "secret sins" that lay inside us that we ourselves are not even aware of--either because we are not fully honest or just not fully aware....how easily we can be deceived by the our OWN selves; "the heart is desperately wicked...." How this ties in with this thread: The OP basically leads into the concept that some types of sins are possibly considered "okay" amongst the friends and workers while other sin that may even be more grave/worse sins are somehow overlooked. this is a wrong practice that somehow gets started and if not confronted,just keeps going because people are "afraid" to bring it up and talk about it openly and really DEAL with REAL, serious sins .. ... . (the mentality that "as long as you go to meeting" you are "okay").. . ... . In other churches this could be likened to : as long as you pay your tithes you are "okay".or: as long as you serve the community in a minimum fashion, you are doing your duty and are thus "okay". .. in Jesus day, the Pharisees had concepts that as long as they followed the traditions, rituals and routines, they were "okay". ---it is the false sense of being "okay" that is the real danger here, while at the same time neglecting to take care of areas in our lives that are really NOT okay .. . ... an example could be this: an upstanding woman in the community who serves others and holds down a job; does her "duties", etc, never shirks her community or job duties: but holds a grudge against her brethren or her family is really NOT okay... she may 'FEEL' okay because of all the other areas in her life that are "good", but she as long as there is even ONE area in her life that she has not dealt with properly and cleansed of properly, she is still not "OKAY" in the eyes of the Lord. Okay-i'll get off my soapbox now....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2011 19:55:44 GMT -5
It's the Queen's English, and you will find that spelling being used by participants here from NZ, OZ, Canada and Great Britain. We have a few more funny spelling things too, but mostly to do with adding "u" in a lot of words, or more accurately, you Americans have taken it away. ...and South Africa and we took the e out judgment too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2011 20:27:05 GMT -5
...and South Africa and we took the e out judgment too. And worst of all, you replaced the "u" in Mum. Philistines.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Nov 7, 2011 23:03:16 GMT -5
Since I am not a man, or even a lustful woman, maybe my understanding of the definition of 'lust' is skewed. I read this in an online dictionary:
NOUN:
1. Intense or unrestrained sexual craving. 2. Intense eagerness or enthusiasm: a lust for life. intr.verb lust·ed, lust·ing, lusts
To have an intense or obsessive desire, especially one that is sexual.
It seems to me that simply gazing at an attractive (or not attractive) woman would not be called 'lust'. The mind has to go a bit farther than that to qualify. Anyone agree?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Nov 7, 2011 23:08:39 GMT -5
Yep. Same as with looking at a man......
|
|
|
Post by emy on Nov 7, 2011 23:22:20 GMT -5
Yep. Same as with looking at a man...... Oops! didn't mean to accuse any men of anything a woman wouldn't do!
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Nov 7, 2011 23:39:47 GMT -5
and we took the e out judgment too. And worst of all, you replaced the "u" in Mum. Philistines. Had to. My mom kept thinking I was trying to shush her.
|
|
|
Post by burdenofproof on Nov 8, 2011 0:25:30 GMT -5
I would say they are inseparable. Who ever heard of a moral sin? Or when is immorality not a sin? Interesting to think about. exactly my point. immorality IS a sin; at least that is MY conviction.... but people who do not believe in God and therefore do not view wrongful things necessarily as the same as sin so much as just morally wrong. Believers hold more so convictiosn about immorality ALSO being sin in the eyes of the Lord .. now: onto the subject of LUST: what is considered "normal" lust of the flesh and what is considered "wrong-ful" type of lust-some may say that lust is lust is lust and it is wrong, but i am not convinced of that. example: i believe it is a perfectly normal thing[ that God created] for a normal man to lust after a woman he finds sexually attractive, etc. and vice versa-it is "normal" for a normal woman to lust after a , man, etc .. sin enters in when the normal lust of the flesh that leads to sexual fulfillment and procreation causes one to hurt another or to hurt themselves: meaning: if you are married and you KNOW your spouse is looking upon another person with lust, that can hurt-- or, it can possibly cause harm to your marital relationship in more than one way: it can take away one's affection from their spouse and place it upon another and there is a sense of loss. it can also cause one spouse to feel abandoned or neglected or cheated on; even IF no actual physical act is involved. one does not actually have to sin or do adultery with their body to in a sense "cheat" on their spouse - i think that is a distinction that Christ was making. Jesus KNEW what it was like to feel HUMAN and to struggle with the flesh. therefore: He KNEW that we fool ourselves all the time into thinking that we can "get away with" certain types of sins just as long a we "deal" with the OBVIOUS ones..................................................... will we lust inappropriately at times in our lives? Most likely, YES, we will. And even though the CONSEQUENCES for plain old lust are not as SEVERE as the consequences for OTHER sins may be, we still need to deal with it just as much at the other, more obvious and "open" sins. I like to consider too, that there are those "secret sins" that lay inside us that we ourselves are not even aware of--either because we are not fully honest or just not fully aware....how easily we can be deceived by the our OWN selves; "the heart is desperately wicked...." How this ties in with this thread: The OP basically leads into the concept that some types of sins are possibly considered "okay" amongst the friends and workers while other sin that may even be more grave/worse sins are somehow overlooked. this is a wrong practice that somehow gets started and if not confronted,just keeps going because people are "afraid" to bring it up and talk about it openly and really DEAL with REAL, serious sins .. ... . (the mentality that "as long as you go to meeting" you are "okay").. . ... . In other churches this could be likened to : as long as you pay your tithes you are "okay".or: as long as you serve the community in a minimum fashion, you are doing your duty and are thus "okay". .. in Jesus day, the Pharisees had concepts that as long as they followed the traditions, rituals and routines, they were "okay". ---it is the false sense of being "okay" that is the real danger here, while at the same time neglecting to take care of areas in our lives that are really NOT okay .. . ... an example could be this: an upstanding woman in the community who serves others and holds down a job; does her "duties", etc, never shirks her community or job duties: but holds a grudge against her brethren or her family is really NOT okay... she may 'FEEL' okay because of all the other areas in her life that are "good", but she as long as there is even ONE area in her life that she has not dealt with properly and cleansed of properly, she is still not "OKAY" in the eyes of the Lord. Okay-i'll get off my soapbox now.... The sin of lust is just one example of a type of sin that people can conceal from other humans and also underestimate the gravity of that sin;(maybe that's why Jesus pointed it out in Matthew 6vs27,28); thus also avoiding the consequences that humans impose on other humans for other types of sins that are more out in the open. A person can be lusting after someone in a wrongful way and no one could be the wiser, in other words; but God is wise to ALL our sin; even the sin we don't know about as well as the sin that we could POSSIBLY be capable of. Our capacity to sin is something that we need to come to terms with and the realization that we need help from God on this. No human being is perfectly sin free; even if we might try very hard to be. Even if we try to COMPENSATE. Even if we try to do things to 'make up for it'. Even if we try to justify it. Even if we rationalize it. No matter how we look at, think about it or twist it around, we cannot seem to get around sin in and of our own human power. Do you suppose that God set it up that way so that we would come to realize how much we need His Grace? Kind David seemed to be in touch with this quality and I site: Psalm 19vs12-14: Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults. Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression. Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. fwiw-bop
|
|
|
Post by burdenofproof on Nov 8, 2011 0:34:50 GMT -5
Since I am not a man, or even a lustful woman, maybe my understanding of the definition of 'lust' is skewed. I read this in an online dictionary: NOUN:
1. Intense or unrestrained sexual craving. 2. Intense eagerness or enthusiasm: a lust for life. intr.verb lust·ed, lust·ing, lusts
To have an intense or obsessive desire, especially one that is sexual.It seems to me that simply gazing at an attractive (or not attractive) woman would not be called 'lust'. The mind has to go a bit farther than that to qualify. Anyone agree? There is nothing wrong with gazing upon someone or something. People have eyes and they look. To stare at someone could be considered rude, I suppose. But it IS a natural tendency for people to look or even stare at other people. People watching is interesting. Being watched; looked at; can be even MORE interesting. I usually do not STARE at people in an obvious way. I try to be discreet. For one thing, it can make the person you are staring at feel objectified or uncomfortable; like they are some sort of freak or something. People do not always figure out that if they are being stared at it could be just an appreciation and take it as a compliment. Lust takes it much further than just looking at someone and I think if people were honest with themselves they would admit that they have lustful thoughts that they take for granted as not being sinful in the eyes of God. But lustful thoughts cannot really be proven human to human. We cannot just go around saying to our brethren, "You are lusting after so and so. I saw the way you were looking at her. You've just committed adultery!" Most folks would simply deny the accusation, and so it goes. But why did Jesus bring it up in Matthew 6? Perhaps because it is just one example of an "inner" sin that can be committed that we sort of pardon one another on, and yet over on the other hand we focus on OTHER types of sins that are no worse than wrongful lust or what's worse, we label something as "sin" that is not really/truly a SIN and we put that burden on our brethren. We may treat them as if they are sinning about a certain matter and come across as being CONDEMNING, when in fact they are NOT sinning indeed and it is wrong to treat them as though we are judging them in a condemning fashion. fwiw-bop
|
|
lizzy
Senior Member
Posts: 530
|
Post by lizzy on Nov 8, 2011 1:16:03 GMT -5
Quizzer wrote. Within the 2x2s, it's imperative to attend meetings. That's all. Since the meetings are shrinking, there is a growing concern to attract as many warm bodies as possible to the meetings. (Not outsider adults, but impressionable young folk.) The young folk are given a very permissive environment, if the friends and workers like them, so that they will stay in the meetings. If the parents object, well then, the parents will be labelled as having a bad spirit.I agree. Now please help me with this. What is your opinion of the following situation. A "professsing" boy meets a girl and college and they move in together. But, she goes to some gospel meetings so that is "good" Now they are living with his parents to save money. Oh, they have separate bedrooms. Why, the workers can't even stay there because there isn't room, but they are so glad to have her in the gospel meetings. We're all human and if I just moved into another bedroom form having lived with my sweetie, I would beat a path to his door. Workers are just so glad for the girl in the meetings. Question. Am I too judgemental, are they naive? What about the parents? Thanks for discussing this with me. I'd be inclined to take a good hard look at the boy's parents. What are they thinking?? Do you think it would be appropriate for the workers to ask the boy to not bring the girl to meeting until they have different living arrangements? Is it possible there are mitigating circumstances? Of course all should be invited to the gospel mtg. My thinking is that the parents shouldn't have a situation in their home like it is. No one said a thing about fornication, but at the old age of 61, I haven't forgotten what hormones are. It just seems odd to have the kids in their home, and odder still that the workers don't talk to the parents. Perhaps this an example of truly loving workers who are looking only at the hope of souls. If our workers just looked on our shortcomings, they wouldn't want to go on for long, would they?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2011 14:44:40 GMT -5
Very simply, in the whole context of Scripture, just as Israel showed for centuries on end that they could not keep the law of God to any degree of perfection, Jesus was also pointing out the fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE for human beings, tainted with sin from Adam onward, to make themselves sinless. And Jesus was here to pay their deserved death penalty for all of their sins they could not avoid on their behalf. It boils very simply down to total trust (faith) in that provision of the imputation of the very righteousness of Jesus Christ, THE one and only Messiah sent by God to deliver human beings from their sins � the ONLY Savior, who according to the OT and NT is God. And as God, Jesus alone was able to take onto His own back the sins of all human beings, serve the death penalty on their behalf and still rise from the dead triumphant over all sin. We are still free to reject that gracious GIFT from God, but if we do, then we will be convicted in God�s court of law beyond any shadow of doubt of our guilt. Please remember that God loves those human beings that are born with mental handicaps just as much as He loves the Einstein�s. And His plan of salvation is so simple that the most handicapped human being can understand that plan, believe it, and be saved from sin. .. nicely said .
|
|
|
Post by melissa71 on Nov 9, 2011 18:54:16 GMT -5
I'm going to have a teenager in 3 years. I hoping to replicate Clearday's experience with his kids!! The biggest issue with me and my group of 2x2 teenagers when we were teenagers(long, long ago)-- is that we didn't know what SIN was. So, we did all the things talked about on this thread and then some -- underage drinking (and illegal drug use), fornication, filthy language, law breaking, etc. etc. And, what we felt guilty about was going to movies, wearing jeans and trimming our hair. And missing meetings. Quite the skewed perspective. And, I can tell you exactly where we got that perspective: From the workers! i've bolded what i see as an excellent point: do professing people [kids in particular] know what SIN is? first response: OF COURSE THEY KNOW WHAT SIN IS!! (what a silly question!!) Anyone that goes to meeting or church and claims to be a professing Christian and reads their Bibles knows what SIN IS......... ----hmm. i beg to differ??. if my memory serves me correctly, my attitude and relationship with "dealing with sin" was not what I would call a healthy one, nor one that was fostered .. what do i mean by that? well, just that "sin" was considered to be something that was to be avoided and "sin" was whatever my mother(and sometimes my father) indicated sin was; which in some cases, not all, was what the workers and other friends indicated sin was.... let me clarify: nothing WRONG with avoiding what you know to be sin: what I see as unhealthy would be to AVOID DEALING WITH SIN:...and avoid facing up to REAL SIN: the sin that we carry inside us. . ... i am not saying that they totally AVOIDED talking about sin: just that i do not believe that the talk about the various sins was always accurate or healthy. what would be considered healthy talk about sin? well, just that sin is sin and it is not just what we humans might label and 'tag' as sin, but real sin is sin in the eyes of God: and He looks firstly into the the inner person. It seems to me that my mother "pushed" the appearance of appearing sin-free and having a certain outward "look" what was considered to be sin-less, and wholesome: she did not forbid us from trimming our hair, for example, but she did forbid some other things that are not really and truly sins. Rather, they were things that she had a conviction over and pushed onto her teenage kids: no make-up, for example. looking back, years later I cannot claim that her no make-up stance was particularly HARMFUL to my health, but the "harm" that it did do was it deflected the FOCUS away from other sins that in my view are more severe and consequential and caused us kids to focus on "sins" that perhaps we did not need to spend so much time focusing on .. . i grew to realize that one does not need to be professing to have a mother that pushes the "no make-up clause"... too funny and that deciding not to wear make-up is not so much a Christ-driven conviction about sin, but rather more of a personal preference .. [just my take] same goes for men's taste in women's make-up: it has little to do with actual conviction of sin and more to do with taste .. .. . I appreciate this...and your other posts on this thread. Very much the issue that I see in the 2x2's. There is too much emphasis put on avoiding the appearance of sin -- on cleaning up the outside of the cup. And, not enough emphasis/teaching about REAL sin-- what it is and how to deal with it the way God wants us to. That teaching should always be done with a focus on the REAL gospel message -- that redemption is available when we do sin, as we all will!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Nov 9, 2011 18:59:53 GMT -5
I would say they are inseparable. Who ever heard of a moral sin? Or when is immorality not a sin? Interesting to think about. I think it was in Zechariah the other day I was reading and noticed all a sudden that it spoke about peoples' transgressions and peoples' sins and the way it was set seemed to imply there is a difference?
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Nov 9, 2011 19:02:50 GMT -5
Very simply, in the whole context of Scripture, just as Israel showed for centuries on end that they could not keep the law of God to any degree of perfection, Jesus was also pointing out the fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE for human beings, tainted with sin from Adam onward, to make themselves sinless. And Jesus was here to pay their deserved death penalty for all of their sins they could not avoid on their behalf. It boils very simply down to total trust (faith) in that provision of the imputation of the very righteousness of Jesus Christ, THE one and only Messiah sent by God to deliver human beings from their sins – the ONLY Savior, who according to the OT and NT is God. And as God, Jesus alone was able to take onto His own back the sins of all human beings, serve the death penalty on their behalf and still rise from the dead triumphant over all sin. We are still free to reject that gracious GIFT from God, but if we do, then we will be convicted in God’s court of law beyond any shadow of doubt of our guilt. Please remember that God loves those human beings that are born with mental handicaps just as much as He loves the Einstein’s. And His plan of salvation is so simple that the most handicapped human being can understand that plan, believe it, and be saved from sin. Well, this worker almost got it out about Jesus being God....he got it out that our Saviour is God in the OT and NT! Imagine that...would be interesting to know who this one is!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Nov 9, 2011 19:14:31 GMT -5
Yep. Same as with looking at a man...... You know what they call that?
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Nov 9, 2011 19:15:40 GMT -5
And worst of all, you replaced the "u" in Mum. Philistines. Had to. My mom kept thinking I was trying to shush her.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Nov 10, 2011 11:48:23 GMT -5
Between you and St. Anne, sharonw, I am experiencing funny-graphic-envy!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2011 16:07:37 GMT -5
Between you and St. Anne, sharonw, I am experiencing funny-graphic-envy! as long as it's not strife-type envy you will probably be "okay" .. .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2011 20:41:17 GMT -5
I don't think they are trying to be mean and nasty when they interfere in people's business. Howevere, they need to let parents do the parenting. For 1 thing, they have no children. The parents are to do the parenting. I think they see their role as a "true" servant" to be that of a shepherd. Much of it is well intentioned. Still, parents need to be the ones in charge of their children.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Nov 21, 2011 11:53:19 GMT -5
Between you and St. Anne, sharonw, I am experiencing funny-graphic-envy! as long as it's not strife-type envy you will probably be "okay" .. . Not at all! Just a sort of "lemme know how you do that" envy. Keeps me thinking that there's all kinds of goals to still achieve.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Dec 22, 2011 12:06:36 GMT -5
Between you and St. Anne, sharonw, I am experiencing funny-graphic-envy! Oops! I'm not sure there's a cure for that....but since there doesn't seem to be a real cure, joining us might help!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Dec 22, 2011 12:11:51 GMT -5
as long as it's not strife-type envy you will probably be "okay" .. . Not at all! Just a sort of "lemme know how you do that" envy. Keeps me thinking that there's all kinds of goals to still achieve. Actually it quite simple...try this site! runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Dec 22, 2011 15:59:05 GMT -5
Like this?
|
|