emmanuelw

Why not body {margin: auto;}?

I kind of disagree here. The medium is the message, as one said, and I know that I don't read with the same spirit an e-mail and a snail-mail I received. We are definitively not robots, so the means of communication change drastically the reception of the message itself, even if the actual text is the same. And it's even more true when I send a message: the very text will be different is I type it on my computer, my phone, or my typewriter as not only my spirit, but also my capabilities and confort of writing will be different.

Also, it feels nice to write longhand using decent paper and a decent fountain pen (or with a pencil).

My problem with that is that I'm incapable to read myself after a few days... that's why I love my typewriters.

I mean, exchanging good old letters & postcards (snail mail), journals, fictions, poems, essays, sketches and why not even photography (printed, digital or not, just without any ‘smartphonery’ involved). Stuff we would then have circulating among a group of us.

That's very close of an idea I had a few months ago: some sort of fanzine. People interested would send me (I don't mind giving my address) their typed pages, and I'd order them (using actual scissors and glue!) in a zine that I would copy and send to the people who sent me something. It's not actual correspondence, as it's not one-on-one, but there would be time invested and creativity and exchange. I'd love to do it in French, but I don't know if there would be enough persons interested (the costs of an international zine of this type would be too much for me).

Find a safe way to share one’s personal address safely and securely in this age of digital weirdos

Your fear of giving your address made me think about something I've read in Richard Polt's novel, Evertype (if you did not bought it yet, I advise you to do so quickly, the book is good). In it, a character (I won't spoil anything, but this list is important in the plot) has compiled a list of people interested in corresponding using a typewriter. However, this character only shares an anonymised version of the list, where each member receives a number along with a short description provided by the member themselves. Instead of sending the letter directly to the recipient, the sender sends it to the administrator, specifying the recipient's number, and the administrator then forwards the letter. This would maintain everyone's anonymity, but it presupposes trust in the administrator…

No, you're reformulating the verse. I'm asking for context. What was the discussion about?

Okay, I'll bait. What's the context of this text? Or in other words: what's Jesus speaking about?

What are you doing, citing verses without understanding them in their context, if not “living your truth”?

I looked to first link, and the first biblical reference was Luke 16:23. It's a parable… not a description of actual hell… I saw enough to know that it's not theologically serious.

The rest of your message is cherrypicking. You can't cite verses without providing any context or analysis, staying on the surface of things, and think you make a point. Again, not theologically serious. You should study the Bible praying, make it resonate with the life of the marginalized people that Jesus came to meet, not just choosing the verses that confirm your preconceptions, or you'll make the Bible saying the contrary of what it says by cherrypicking and staying too literal. Nobody can make this work for you.

Imagine someone who'd come to you and say: “the Bible say that God doesn't exist, look at Ps 14:1 ‘There is no God’!”. Of course this Psalm says the contrary, and it would be easy to prove, just by citing the verse wholly; but what you do is not different, just more subtle.

No, we were in highschool when we begun to date. But I was already Christian, and we knew I was going to a faculty of theology a few months later to become a pastor.

I'm a member of a united Lutheran-Reformed church. I come from a Reformed parish, but serve nowadays in a Lutheran one, and theologically I navigate between the two traditions.

I don't know. The Bible don't speak that much after the afterlife. Jesus mainly spoke about the Kingdom, which is within us and not something otherworldly (Luke 17:21), the Old Testament is almost only interested in how to follow God here and now, even the book of Revelation is, if read correctly, more a veiled criticism of the politics of Roman Empire than a prediction. The only one who spoke a lot about the afterlife is Paul, but if he's clear about who will be saved, he's not about who won't. That's why I spoke about a mystery; but I trust God to make the best decision.

As often, the loud minority gives a bad name to the others. People meet a lot of respectful Christians, but doesn't even know they're Christians, as they don't shove it in anyone's throat. They meet a few vocal Christians, and know they're Christians, and then think they're the only ones.

That I could do, if it made sense in the context.

Do you believe your wife will go to hell?

No. I don't believe in all that “you have to confess Jesus as your personal lord and saviour to avoid hell” crap. It's in fact something not very widespread outside evangelicalism. I believe the Cross is working mysteriously, far outside the frontier of the visible Church. A God who condemns people that doesn't recognize him is not a loving God, it's a pervert. I believe that “to confess Jesus as my personal lord and saviour” is a way to live a better life here and now, and I don't expect an eternal reward for that.

Is she agnostic or does she believe there is no god?

I'd say she's agnostic atheist. She doesn't know if God exist, but believes he does not, and in fact doesn't care.