Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Fri Dec 27, 2013 11:10 pm**

Felasco wrote:I will admit to being baffled by your ongoing attempt to label my point of view as feminine. / Feminine would be much wiser. Feminine would realize that you and I are what we are, that we are never going to change or grow to any substantial degree, and to mostly accept us as we are, and offer us another piece of Christmas coffee cake, while winking to the other gals what needs not be stated among those in the know, that we are just clueless nerd men, but it's not our fault, and we're kinda at least a little bit lovable anyway.

Yes, I understand. It is my understanding that our culture has been swept over by assortments of propaganda, PR and other sorts of 'cultural engineering' and that, taken on the whole we have been quite indoctrinated to devalue 'masculinity'. Simultaneously, there is a massive effort by various entities and enterprises to feminize men. I can imagine that this jangles in your ears, especially as a 'thoroughly indoctrinated American'. There are reasons for this and those reasons can be discussed.

The "problem" as I see it is that you will accept no analysis which threatens the analysis process itself.

I rather say this is a false-problem that you have established. You propose the possibility of threatening the analysis process itself but fail to do it in any substantial way. In any case, you could only avail yourself of analytical tools to do it. I fully admit that were I in your Sunflower/Coconut Palm presence that you would likely sit there and glow metaphysically, radiating Consciousness and Being with such force that, as if in darshan with Ramana Maharshi, I would implode into the Center of my Self and glow along with you…

But this is an Internet conversation on a forum composed of words…

Is philosophy a means, or an end itself? What say you?

I think you would have to broach a conversation with questions like Why do we live? While we live, what are we to do? What is really important and what can be put aside? I again fully agree that a given man can answer those questions, for himself, in any number of ways, and they don't have to be either analytical or intellectual. There are many ways to be.

A path that involves words and communication, be it philosopher, writer, poet, preacher (or obsessed typoholic nerd), is a unique path insofar as it deals in that realm. I conceive of various poles within that realm and don't, certainly, discount poetry. So, I would not use the term purely as 'philosophy' and 'philosopher', and frankly I am ultimately interest in speech for its sermonic potential. That means influencing people in ways which they may not be aware. The realm of communication and messengering is ultimately the domain of a quixotic 'god': Mercury. I link Mercury with 'the Spirit' and also with The Holy Spirit. And with that words turn back to mantra, to incantation, to invocation, and to intelligence which brings into manifestation.

Does that qualify as an answer?

An excellent question. Yes, what is the desired end result that all this activity is supposedly moving towards? Solution is too big a goal, but I would say, addressing the problems which arise out of the fundamental human condition. That's what makes religion interesting to me, the attempt to get to the heart of the matter, to the bottom line.

All that I can place on the table as an area of focus, is exactly what focus avails to us. It is a question of focus. It is a question of decisiveness. But being able to decide means to have been able to consider. And to consider requires a whole range of different things. In essence, these are questions that turn back to the Divine, to meaning, to reasons for being. Still, within that, the only 'goal' or aspiration that I can define is personal clarity, some level of decisive action and activity, and creativity.

What else could possibly be said?

And so I've been raising the question, is intellectualism the most efficient and effective way to get to the heart of the human problem? And I answer no, because thought itself is what the fundamental human problem arises from.

But 'the Human Problem' is your project, not mine. So get to the heart of it and then report back. I can't speak for 'intellectualism' either since I don't aspire to it. But using the mind and the intellect seems like a noble enterprise.

Do we have to explain, label or analyze food, water, sunlight, the night sky, sleep or sex for them to provide value to our life?

You will have to have become first something other than an animal in order to know and possibly enjoy those things. Certainly to conceive of them, and to refer to them as you now are: as memories.

When Ophelia wished to return Hamlet's gift to him and Hamlet denied having given them, Ophelia replied:

My honour'd lord, you know right well you did;
And, with them, words of so sweet breath composed
As made the things more rich: their perfume lost,
Take these again; for to the noble mind
Rich gifts wax poor when givers prove unkind.

We have a sense of how our 'imagined worlds' commingle with the world known as 'real' and 'tangible'. There is no way to disentangle them, at least in my understanding. I perceive that you think there is, and that you can 'know' and 'be in' a 'real world'.

GB: One thing I have come to understand is that (to speak quite generally) 'Latinos cannot reason'. What I am finding is that they perform a facsimile of 'reasoning' which is more like emotional vapors percolating up through the cerebral center and producing sparks or shimmerings.

F: Hoo boy....

GB: My GF is in law school and makes me aware of some of the 'argumentations' of her various professors on certain points of law and in other areas too.

F: If you don't mind my nosyness, are you roughly of law school age as well?

GB: It is like listening to the discourse of drunks and I am embarrassed for them. Latin Culture is by and large in a terrible mess.

Any other cultures you'd like to insult and proclaim yourself superior to while we're on the subject? Blacks? Jews? Gays? Armenians? I could create a master list and you could just check off the boxes if you wish.

My Dear Felasco. Again, as I said previously, when deconstructing and unwinding PC Notions one first encounters a level of reactivity. It is tossed up as an 'argument' but it is emotional at the core. Our conceptual world is percolating with PC Formulations. This is a simple fact. A PC Formulation is a sort of partial truth or a semi-truth. Notice that you are immediately edging a rather bland statement toward contentiousness. The object becomes to polarize a conversation so that the finer points cannot be considered.

There are a whole range of reasons why Latinos Cannot Reason. I will toss off just a few. 1) About 45% of Latin America lives in dire poverty---still. Three hundred years of colonial rule and then two hundred years of republican rule and their institutions are still a complete mess. It will likely take another hundred years to bring those institutions even remotely close in terms of 'clarity' and 'efficiency' to what we know and accept as basic. You cannot ask impoverished people with no educational traditions to reason in Aristotelean manner. 2) Latin America in the sense I mean is a 'wounded body'. You also cannot ask a 'wounded body' to turn attention away from the immediate pains of the body and somehow reabsorb into the mind. Higher reflection and a higher life of the mind is an attainment of only so many important cultures. The Greek world is one. So is the Hindu-Vedic. And the Japanese and the Chinese. You get the picture.

These are just two very basic facts that qualify the statement I made. But note that you have to take it as a declaration of racism. Typical! I don't think I am a racist. I am I guess a sort of 'cultural chauvinist' though 'chauvinist' is too strong a word. A simple Eurocentric is more accurate. But I would qualify that very carefully.

Deconstructing and disarming PC Notions is a worthwhile endeavor but one has to I think understand one's motivations. I desire to 'see the world clearly' and I am aware that to do that I have to dissolve prefabricated PC ideas. It is not an easy road. I think that 'seeing the world clearly' actually gives one an advantage in 'helping' some of the persons who struggle in the world. That is my experience anyway. Clarity is a form of personal power and helping others to gain personal power is something that earns you a lifetime of thanks.

As to being 'roughly law-school age', there are times when, yes, I am that young. Other times a wee bit older. Some days I swear I might be close to 273.

Here, I include some iPhone video of a typical evening at the Bjornstrand Ranch.

Dizzying!
_____________________________________________

Felasco, this thread has to do with Christian themes. Can you discern a way to steer your conversational thrust [back] into that particular sea?

Posted: **Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:50 am**

Notice that you are immediately edging a rather bland statement toward contentiousness. The object becomes to polarize a conversation so that the finer points cannot be considered.

Insulting an entire culture (ie. millions of people you've never met) in the blatant manner you have done is hardly a bland statement. Statements like this...

There are a whole range of reasons why Latinos Cannot Reason.

.... don't actually advertise you as being a person of reason.

We might for instance observe that South and Central America have not been engaged in many hundreds of years of bloody wars, as has been the case in Europe until our lifetimes. Latinos haven't created many thousands of weapons of mass destruction and aimed those weapons down their own throats, as we have.

Sorry dude, we've spent centuries doing the "blacks can't reason" and "women can't reason" and "gays can't reason" dance in my country, and I'm happy to report most of us have become entirely sick of that whole business.

No Sig Heil for me thanks, I'll pass.

All that said, I am no stranger to rhetorical excess myself, so these things happen. It won't be too long before I say something as stupid as you just did.

Posted: **Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:53 am**

Felasco, this thread has to do with Christian themes. Can you discern a way to steer your conversational thrust [back] into that particular sea?

1) See my last post.

2) As for my too many other points, they can be summarized in a Christian flavor by a quick listen to this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-pFAFsTFTI

Posted: **Sat Dec 28, 2013 1:06 am**

Felasco wrote: 2) As for my too many other points, they can be summarized in a Christian flavor by a quick listen to this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-pFAFsTFTI

Sorry, but these boys didn't have the slightest concept of Christian Love, their idea was more like free love/free sex and no religion, which is what you seem to have argued in the past?

Posted: **Sat Dec 28, 2013 1:37 am**

'One thing I discovered is that when one deals on ideas that run counter to the Politically Correct there is a level of reaction that is almost instantaneous if one should happen to spout the incorrect formulation. It is expressed as a semi-tolerant indignation as in [i]How could you even think such a retrograde thought![/i] They will tolerate and humor you at first but it subsequently becomes necessary to allow a little nastiness to be expressed. 'Also, in that first level of reaction, there is always misunderstanding. Sometimes genuine and sometimes deliberate. It is typical to have to then deal with an almost Public Relations-derived image of something so unutterably horrible (that rape of a child) and a person who helps that child to recover (or survive), which is thrown up as an 'argument'. This sort of thing goes on all the time in culture. Very typical of left-right polarities. Oddly (since the topic is Christianity!) it is about demonizing the opponent. 'In my present understanding, this misconstrual, this inability to entertain the idea (that runs counter to an ingrained PC idea), is very much part of the problem, and certainly when it comes to a (necessary) revision of Christianity. You have to go back over the origins and the beginnings very carefully and subject them to a little rigor. Because those are the ur-ideas (in Christian culture) that have been installed at an unconscious and subconscious level! 'It is tough-going, really it is, because you have to take stand against an emotional core into which people have substantially bought in. I will be going into this in my next few posts. Stay tuned!' which is what [u]Gustav the Talking Snake[/u] wrote:Esteemed Felasco. I know that you feel that you are defending righteousness and truth, and that is a good thing, but you have to read what I write a bit more carefully.

Posted: **Sat Dec 28, 2013 1:58 am**

Slapping the label "PC" on a challenge is not a get out of jail free card.

Posted: **Sat Dec 28, 2013 2:25 am**

Hello again TheDoc. The Beatles explored a whole range of tripped-out religions and modes, and there is not much doubt that (and very naturally) Christian ethics enters into their lyricism. George Harrison became and remained a Hare Krishna and that brand or sect of Vaishnavism has a good deal in common with some aspects of Christianity. Me own mother told me that I was likely conceived in a run-down hippy hotel in Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia while they played endlessly the just-released George Harrison tune 'My Sweet Lord'. I don't know if that helps or hinders my case here but there you have it.

I tend to think that when one loses the ground of a 'rigorous theological training', which are at the foundation of Christianity, Judaism, Vaishnavism and others, that one's energy and focus will inevitably dissolve into different forms of 'emotionalism' and 'sentimentalism'. The song All You Need Is Love, though a good song, and moving in its way, is an example of this. If you don't have the foundation to understand what 'love' is or should be, and also the strict codes that go along with it, it is inevitable that the sentiment will degenerate into unbridled sensuality.

I trust my mother on this one...

Posted: **Sat Dec 28, 2013 10:56 am**

Well, Gustav, I'm finally getting around to responding to this now more than two weeks old snippet of commentary upon myself in one of your posts in this thread:

Gustav wrote:My understanding, perhaps incorrect, of both Immanuel Can and Harry '2.2.1' Baird is that, though their descriptive lingo differs, at some level they conceive of and live in a quite similar world. The God of IC is 'absolutely good' which functionally negates every aspect of reality as it is known and knowable. One indeed has the inner relationship to that absolutely good God and all the promises that God offers. But there is no way to have a tangible and 'holy' relationship with 'the world' itself, nor our being in that world. There would be no way to construct a Holy World as the world is shot through with all that the absolutely good God is not: and hence the world is really the Dark Prince's Kingdom.

Harry is in functionally the same boat. He literally cannot see 'God' as having a relationship to the 'horrors' that operate fundamentally in this world. You have to really accentuate this to understand it. The biological world is based on predation and at the most essential level any and every biological entity, in order to live, must 'violate the rights' of some other entity in order to live and prosper. This is intolerable to Harry. It produces in him a very real and very fundamental anxiety. Indeed he is forced to turn against his own self! What a horrible sort of reality to live in! The entity must turn against itself and negate itself! This is wickedly dysfunctional it seems to me.

So, the manouevre that Harry is forced to carry out is one where 'God' is allowed to be truly and wholly 'good' and consequently nearly completely, or even completely, absent from this world! But certainly from within Harry himself. He is 'abandoned' in this devil-world by a God who has little or no potency. He is literally in the hands of demons who do with him what they will. What a horrible and painful world to live in!

The first "curious" thing about this little analysis is your imputation of some sort of anxiety in me due to natural predation. Of course, I would prefer that certain creatures did not have to predate upon others to survive, but this is not what causes me anxiety - what causes me anxiety is the existence of personalised metaphysical evil - nor is it "intolerable" to me: you really are "accentuating" this beyond the reasonable. What *is* intolerable to me is the attempted justification of the abrogation of the rights of beings on the basis of the occurrence of such "violations of rights" in the natural world.

Your statement that "at the most essential level any and every biological entity, in order to live, must 'violate the rights' of some other entity in order to live and prosper" is if not strictly false, then at least grossly exaggerated. Most vegetable matter, for example, survives on photosynthesis, and whilst it may compete for root and sun space with its neighbours, it's not reasonable to characterise this competition as a "violation of the rights" of those neighbours, much like companies producing similar goods in a capitalist society, if they are ethical, do not "violate one another's rights" to prosper, they merely compete with one another.

Many types of insects, too, do not cause any harm to any other creature - think for example of bees, butterflies and dung beetles. There are many herbivorous creatures too which, whilst they may cause damage to plants (in particular, grazing animals causing damage to grass, trees and bushes), and thus, sure, in some sense violate the rights of that vegetation, at least do not permanently destroy it. Such grazing is quite minor on the scale of rights violations. Really, your statement applies substantially only to those creatures which are carnivores.

But the real question is: to what extent are humans capable of avoiding violating the rights of other life forms, and the answer is, "To a very large extent, at least as far their dietary and consumer choices go". A vegan diet has proved itself by now to be a perfectly healthy one, and, moreover, it is possible, as I prove to myself on a daily basis, to extend this so as to avoid harm to plants, by eating only that which plants produce as fruits, legumes and beans, and nuts and seeds. My only failing in this diet that I know of is that in the commercial harvesting of some legumes, whole plants are destroyed by the harvesting machines. If I can find sources for legumes that avoid this destruction of plants, I will switch to them, but for the moment I don't know of any, and I seem to need the "substance" of legumes, and have not quite been able to last on a stricter fruitarian diet.

I really think, Gustav, that all of your talk of the unavoidability of violating other beings' rights is a rationalisation on your part of *your own* violations of the rights of other beings. You would like to imagine, even though I can show you that it is a false imagining, that such violations are inescapable, because then you avoid culpability for your moral failings. I call you out on that. Take ownership of your own rationalisations; don't project them onto me.

Now, as for the nature of God: what you find almost universally in reports of spiritual experiences involving God is an emanation of unconditional love; those who have such experiences report that He wishes the very best for us. This, it seems to me, suggests that God truly *is* a good God. Moreover, I am aware through personal experience, supported by the common doctrines of various religions, that there exists an entity with the exact opposite emanation: utterly malevolent intent.

Now, you may wish to perform the same 'manoeuvre' that uwot performs, and to dismiss all of this as "mere stories", and, in fact, I am sure that this is what you do, because certainly you don't seem to accept their facticity and implications. That's up to you - it is within your personal rights to reject reasonable evidence, to deny the facts, and to construct an abstract worldview, some sort of supposed "higher metaphysic" that ignores the actual experiences from which we might reasonably infer some significant aspects of spiritual reality. Yes, you are free to do that. But please: don't promote that view publicly as a rational one.

As far as my "fundamental anxiety" goes, as I wrote above, that is not due to predation in the natural world, but to visceral experiences with the reality of metaphysical evil, and yes, lacking (in those moments) the intervention of God - nevertheless, I do not feel that God has abandoned me. Yes, it is sometimes difficult and challenging to realise it, but I have much for which to be thankful, and, after all, in the face of that malevolence: yet I exist; yet I am free from harm; yet I am protected from that which wishes me ill.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by my "turning against my own self", it sounds like nonsense to me. I advocate that we refrain from unnecessary harm - towards plants, animals, *and* one another - that's hardly a denial of my self! In fact, it's a *celebration* of self-hood - mine and every other being's! Your talk of dysfunction in this respect is also ridiculous. To advocate respect for all life is the complete opposite of dysfunctional; to do anything else is, in fact, dysfunctional (ethically, personally and spiritually).

I do believe, as you have tried to encourage me to put into practice, that it is possible to forge a stronger, more intimate "working spiritual relationship" with God. As far as your suggestion though that IC and I believe that "there is no way to have a tangible and 'holy' relationship with 'the world' itself", I would say that in my case this is both true and false. It is true in that the world is a duality, and that in my view, our task is to honour the one pole of the duality and to reject and fight the other, not to indiscriminately interact equally with all aspects of the world. It is false in that this struggle - to honour the good and to reject the evil in the world - could be conceived of as being a "holy" relationship with the world. I'm not sure what the alternative is - how could engagement with the evil in the world be considered to be "holy"?

It is not literally true that I am "in the hands of demons who do with [me] what they will". That would be literal hell. Then again, you seem to be prone to misusing the word "literally", so perhaps, as last time, what you really mean is "figuratively". I (perhaps mistakenly) do not believe that I am in hell at the moment, although, certainly, there are hellish aspects to this world, and yes, I do believe that the creation/structure of the world owes something to evil influence just as it owes something to God's will. The world is in some ways "horrible and painful" to live in, and yet in some ways it is beautiful and inspiring. I have had my share of experiences of both.

I think it really is hard to deny duality when you consider the situation carefully, but then, there are those like you who see reality-as-it-is as an inferior "imagining" (referencing your later post in this thread re my own post in another thread on NDEs). The "peculiar" thing about that characterisation is that the evidence I raise has nothing to do with imagination - I am simply witnessing the factual reports of others. What's interesting to me is that your reaction can be viewed as a sort of power-play; as a bullying tactic. It's as though you've said to yourself, "Screw reasonability, damn the evidence, I don't care for it, and I refuse to even acknowledge it, let alone to engage with it: that just doesn't *feel* right". In this case, what feels right to you is to invalidate the experiences of others, no matter that you have no argument as to why their experiences *are* invalid: it just feels wrong to you, it doesn't match your view of the world, and so you seek to "crush" them. You probably don't see this yourself though.

Anyhow, I say all of that without ill intent, it is merely my own reciprocal analysis of yourself. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you. May you achieve your goals in 2014.

Posted: **Sat Dec 28, 2013 1:27 pm**

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Hello again TheDoc. The Beatles explored a whole range of tripped-out religions and modes, and there is not much doubt that (and very naturally) Christian ethics enters into their lyricism. George Harrison became and remained a Hare Krishna and that brand or sect of Vaishnavism has a good deal in common with some aspects of Christianity. Me own mother told me that I was likely conceived in a run-down hippy hotel in Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia while they played endlessly the just-released George Harrison tune 'My Sweet Lord'. I don't know if that helps or hinders my case here but there you have it.

I tend to think that when one loses the ground of a 'rigorous theological training', which are at the foundation of Christianity, Judaism, Vaishnavism and others, that one's energy and focus will inevitably dissolve into different forms of 'emotionalism' and 'sentimentalism'. The song All You Need Is Love, though a good song, and moving in its way, is an example of this. If you don't have the foundation to understand what 'love' is or should be, and also the strict codes that go along with it, it is inevitable that the sentiment will degenerate into unbridled sensuality.

I trust my mother on this one...

You are probably right but when I hear a song by a particular group, I tend to relate it to other songs by that same group. So in this case I go to the song 'Imagine", and in the past I have referred to it as the atheist's theme song, as it seems to strongly deny all religion and God. 'Imagine' also employs the concept of 'Love' to encourage people to live together in harmony, and the image I have of that, in relation to this group, is that of a free love, free sex commune, where everyone is high on drugs all the time.

Posted: **Sat Dec 28, 2013 1:28 pm**

But the real question is: to what extent are humans capable of avoiding violating the rights of other life forms, and the answer is, "To a very large extent, at least as far their dietary and consumer choices go". A vegan diet has proved itself by now to be a perfectly healthy one

Waving my hand from the back of the room to vote for this one. Meat production is a major source of global warming, so we are inflicting suffering on ourselves as well as the animals by the pointless meat diet.

Posted: **Sat Dec 28, 2013 2:16 pm**

I do believe, as you have tried to encourage me to put into practice, that it is possible to forge a stronger, more intimate "working spiritual relationship" with God.

There is "me".

There is "God".

A separation, a division.

Leading to a desire for relationship, reunion.

What causes the separation?

It could be that there really is a something called "me" which is something entirely different than a something else which is called "God". This is the most common theory, that the separation is real.

It could also be that the separation is only apparent, an illusion created by the equipment being used to conduct the observation.

Lest this seem too fanciful, we might recall that for many thousands of years humans were certain that the Earth was flat and at the center of the universe, because even a child could easily see this for themselves. No fancy theory or speculation was necessary, a simple peer reviewed empirical observation proved it beyond all doubt.

Except that what seemed so obvious was wrong, an optical illusion, a distortion, a by-product of a limited perspective.

Posted: **Sat Dec 28, 2013 9:44 pm**

Felasco wrote:
But the real question is: to what extent are humans capable of avoiding violating the rights of other life forms, and the answer is, "To a very large extent, at least as far their dietary and consumer choices go". A vegan diet has proved itself by now to be a perfectly healthy one
Waving my hand from the back of the room to vote for this one. Meat production is a major source of global warming, so we are inflicting suffering on ourselves as well as the animals by the pointless meat diet.

Do you have any statistics or data to support this, or is it just something that sounds good. I write this as I'm eating some Ham for a snack.

Posted: **Sat Dec 28, 2013 9:52 pm**

Harry Baird wrote: But the real question is: to what extent are humans capable of avoiding violating the rights of other life forms, and the answer is, "To a very large extent, at least as far their dietary and consumer choices go". A vegan diet has proved itself by now to be a perfectly healthy one, and, moreover, it is possible, as I prove to myself on a daily basis, to extend this so as to avoid harm to plants, by eating only that which plants produce as fruits, legumes and beans, and nuts and seeds.

Perfectly healthy for who? What level of physical activity will a Vegan Diet support based on the calorie content of the food as compared to the calorie needs of one who is physically active with hard physical work?

Posted: **Sun Dec 29, 2013 12:36 am**

Felasco wrote:Waving my hand from the back of the room to vote for this one.

Good one, Felasco. We need as many people on board as possible. The situation is horrifying at the moment, but not enough people are aware of it - or, if they are, they aren't prepared to do anything about it.

Felasco: Meat production is a major source of global warming

thedoc: Do you have any statistics or data to support this, or is it just something that sounds good.

I think the original source for it is a United Nations report - you can read a little about it in the Wikipedia article on the Environmental impact of meat production.

Harry: A vegan diet has proved itself by now to be a perfectly healthy one

thedoc: Perfectly healthy for who? What level of physical activity will a Vegan Diet support based on the calorie content of the food as compared to the calorie needs of one who is physically active with hard physical work?

Perfectly healthy for all of us, as both the USA's (Vegetarian Diets from the Academy) and Australia's (Vegan Diets | Dietitians Association of Australia) national dietetic associations aver. As for its supported level of physical activity, perhaps these guys answer your question.

Felasco: re your comments on whether separation from God is real or an illusion, perhaps in some sense it is both.

Posted: **Sun Dec 29, 2013 2:08 am**

Perfectly healthy for who? What level of physical activity will a Vegan Diet support based on the calorie content of the food as compared to the calorie needs of one who is physically active with hard physical work?

I worked in the remodeling biz when I was younger on my wife's vegie cooking, lots of hard physical activity.

Now I'm 61 and bike ten miles a day on the same diet. I hike many miles a day in the woods. Not only that, I challenge you young beef fattened punks to a wrestling match!!

We've been vegie since the earlier seventies. I never get colds. Never need a doctor (knock on wood).

The only downside I've been able to see is that a vegie diet seems to eventually turn one in to a typoholic forum blowhard, so watch out for that!

Philosophy Now Forum

Christian apology by a non-Christian

Re: Christian apology by a non-Christian

Re: Christian apology by a non-Christian

Re: Christian apology by a non-Christian

Re: Christian apology by a non-Christian

Re: Christian apology by a non-Christian

Re: Christian apology by a non-Christian

Re: Christian apology by a non-Christian

Re: Christian apology by a non-Christian

Re: Christian apology by a non-Christian

Re: Christian apology by a non-Christian

Re: Christian apology by a non-Christian

Re: Christian apology by a non-Christian

Re: Christian apology by a non-Christian

Re: Christian apology by a non-Christian

Re: Christian apology by a non-Christian