1 of 4
1
The WORD is god.
Posted: 11 June 2005 05:42 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2005-01-22

This post is directed at TheChampion, mostly. I have two questions for you that I hope you can answer honestly (not biblically, that is).  When I refer to you as "a fellow primate" TChamp, how does that make you feel?

Do you reject the scientific classificalion of homo sapien sapiens as members of the Primate order in the class Mammalia in the phylum Chordata in the kingdom Anamalia?? If 'yes' do you then reject all of the other classificalions?  Are dogs and wolves related or are they separate creations with no genetic relation?

Part two is a suggestion.  Next time you read the Bible, put "The Word" in the place of the noun "God" whenever it appears in the scriptures - both Old and New Testamant.  By "the Word" I mean specifically the human capacity to use a language or just "the language itself" in a general sense.  It explains why animals don't believe in god - because they don't have one (a literal language, that is).  Just a suggestion so that you might experience the biblical text in the same way I do when I read it. At lest give it a try.

Bob

 Signature 

It’s definitely a moon! . . . and now it’s become a sunflower!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 June 2005 08:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  253
Joined  2005-05-29

[quote author=“CanZen”]This post is directed at TheChampion, mostly. I have two questions for you that I hope you can answer honestly (not biblically, that is).  When I refer to you as “a fellow primate” TChamp, how does that make you feel?

Do you reject the scientific classificalion of homo sapien sapiens as members of the Primate order in the class Mammalia in the phylum Chordata in the kingdom Anamalia?? If ‘yes’ do you then reject all of the other classificalions?  Are dogs and wolves related or are they separate creations with no genetic relation?

May I add a note?  Feel free to ignore it, since you were asking TC for a reply, not me.

The last time I heard this sort of idea, it preceded the assertion that men are just animals; and therefore there is no God (which was a non sequitur, of course, but the poster didn’t realise it).  Is this where you’re going with this? 

If so, I would merely query whether it is really an attack on Christianity to prove that there are no such things as real human beings.  It sounds to me much more like a crushing blow rather to secular humanism.  If there are no men, how can there be humanism?

But perhaps I misunderstand. I don’t want to hijack your thread.

Part two is a suggestion.  Next time you read the Bible, put “The Word” in the place of the noun “God” whenever it appears in the scriptures - both Old and New Testamant.  By “the Word” I mean specifically the human capacity to use a language or just “the language itself” in a general sense.  It explains why animals don’t believe in god - because they don’t have one (a literal language, that is).  Just a suggestion so that you might experience the biblical text in the same way I do when I read it. At lest give it a try.

Hmm.  Now this has the sound of an original thought—is it?  If so, my compliments indeed.  It is rare indeed to hear one, particularly in a religion forum.  If not (and I won’t think less of you for saying so), may I ask where it comes from, and to what end?

Just thinking about it a little, I wonder if the same process would work on a tax return—replace the word ‘income’ with ‘God’?  And, if so, what it would show?

I await the followups to this with interest.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 June 2005 04:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2819
Joined  2005-04-29

Roger Pearse:

The last time I heard this sort of idea, it preceded the assertion that men are just animals; and therefore there is no God (which was a non sequitur, of course, but the poster didn’t realise it). Is this where you’re going with this?

If so, I would merely query whether it is really an attack on Christianity to prove that there are no such things as real human beings. It sounds to me much more like a crushing blow rather to secular humanism. If there are no men, how can there be humanism?

Roger, I took Bob’s statement as an open admission that humanity, as sophisticated and civilized as we might or might not be, are no more deserving of a soul than animals are. Considering Bob’s great respect of animals, this is not at all a put-down of humanity. It just means that people have no more right to claim eternal salvation from a Deity than ants or squirels do, and ants and squirels aren’t stupid enough to hold such views.

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 June 2005 06:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2005-01-22

Thanks for your response to my questions Roger and, as per usual homunculus, a fitting reply on my behalf.

I’m not sure if you were merely jesting when you seemed impressed by the originality of the idea - since your ‘income > god” idea didn’t work at all in my schema.  It is my own idea (although who knows how many others have thought the same thing at some other time/place?).  How I came upon it goes back to a solution to the “riddle” brought about by Descartes’ notion “cogito ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am) and the ultimate problem of how “the thinking thing” relates to “the material thing” - or how does the subject (mind) relate to the object (body) ((And no, it’s not a tiny homunculus is the brain of every person)). The recent history of philosophy can be summed up as our attempts to reconcile that relationship between the subjective and the objective since that 1640 Cartesian experiment.

To make a long story short, I read several different authors (Heidegger was one and Paul Ricouer another) who claimed that Descartes ignored the fact that it was “the language” that enabled him to doubt the existence of all physical reality (it might all be a dream) and also to conclude that the “I think” is the one certain and indubitable fact of reality.  However, I went even further than the authors (yes, Wittgenstein was another who made the same point) did in suggesting that “the language itself” made everything we humans do possible, especially “the thinking thing” as Descartes described it.  If Descartes had recognized the crucial significance of language, he would not have had to appeal to god as the ultimate guarantor of reality. It was then a short jump to posit that everything we might like to attribute to god can be fairly consistently made “the product” of language - and most fittingly god himself.  If god is just the product of our linguistic ability - then the bible could be read as a particular history of a particular language (Hebrew and Aramaic) and nothing more. 

If I read “The Word created the world in six days and rested on the seventh” - to me that means, in the context of a truly living thing (Heidegger and Wittgenstein both argued that “the language” is a living entity), such was the account as it was passed down through the written word and countless generations of speakers/readers - that is the recorded history of how the world came to be according to The Word (of the wisest people of their time).  The Word rested on the seventh because it did nothing on that day - no mythologizing, no summarizing, no commanding.

I believe that if you want a real human-historical perspective on all the surviving creeds that populate our global villages - the only way to read them all so that they make sense is to replace the divine realm with the linguistic realm.  If you replace “the god” with “the word” you can get an understanding of the human condition that is more profound than from any single religious doctrine.

(In the beginning was The Word - wasn’t it?)

Now, on to the opening scene of my original post . . . How dare you compare my claim with that pompous jackass who said that , “men are JUST animals” and who went from there to a godless conclusion.  The godless result is fine with me, but to intimate that we might be really better than animals is just too christian for my taste.

The point I was trying to make with TChamp was to discover at what junction he accepts the scientific facts that certain creatures are closely related (through evolutionary lines) and yet that man is not cast from the same die as the others.  If the science of zoological classifications is accepted by TChamp to a point, how does he suddenly reject the means that arrived at these classifying results when it comes to chimanzees and humans?  What rationale does he use to, say, even agree that chimps and orangutans are genetically related, but then he rejects the very same science when it comes to the descent of man? Why is his “expert advice” on this subject even valid?

Where, Roger, did you get the idea (and even run with it) that I want to prove that there are no such things as human beings.  That whole premise is completely absurd (unless you believe that only believers are true human beings??).  I am a human being and I hope that you are as well - so fulfill my hope by getting with it - by getting real, man.

Bob

 Signature 

It’s definitely a moon! . . . and now it’s become a sunflower!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 June 2005 02:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  102
Joined  2005-03-14

Roger likely made the inference he did (the “people are JUST animals” bit) because he’s heard it before. So have I, for that matter, and while Roger and I don’t see exactly eye to eye on a great number of things (Me being largely a secular humanist - the most foul and derided of creatures *gasp*!), this is something we probably agree on. People are just animals in that we are as much a part of nature as any other living thing, as much as we may try to deny it by destroying great chunks of the natural world (“Destroying the planet - one species at a time!”, to parody the old Apple slogan). That said, we are not JUST animals. There is that which makes us more than our instinct, more than fight or flight responses: our ability to process and create “signs”, language in all of its various forms. More than a simple animal, but not *separate* from other animals.

I think that links neatly with what Bob is talking about, so I’ll leave it there for now.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 June 2005 11:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  253
Joined  2005-05-29

[quote author=“CanZen”]
I believe that if you want a real human-historical perspective on all the surviving creeds that populate our global villages - the only way to read them all so that they make sense is to replace the divine realm with the linguistic realm…

Pardon me, but I’ve chopped the philosophizing since I really don’t believe that strongly that anyone uses this as the way they really determine whether to pay the bills or not, whether to rob the bank or not, and whether to screw the teenage daughter of the family next door or not.  I question whether it is real.

Now, on to the opening scene of my original post . . . How dare you compare my claim with that pompous jackass who said that , “men are JUST animals” and who went from there to a godless conclusion.  The godless result is fine with me, but to intimate that *we might be really better than animals* is just too christian for my taste.

Unless some words have fallen out, you appear to be saying men are not better than animals, and attacking me for suggesting you say this? 

The point I was trying to make with TChamp was to discover at what junction he accepts the scientific facts that certain creatures are closely related (through evolutionary lines) and yet that man is not cast from the same die as the others.  If the science of zoological classifications is accepted by TChamp to a point, how does he suddenly reject the means that arrived at these classifying results when it comes to chimanzees and humans?  What rationale does he use to, say, even agree that chimps and orangutans are genetically related, but then he rejects the very same science when it comes to the descent of man?

I don’t see, though, how this is not simply an attempt to deny the humanity of man.

Where, Roger, did you get the idea (and even run with it) that I want to prove that there are no such things as human beings.  That whole premise is completely absurd.

I think so: but do you not think what man is can be accounted for purely by evolution?  Why else emphasise the (surely irrelevant) biology of the body, when there is nothing different in this to the primates? 

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 June 2005 11:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  253
Joined  2005-05-29

[quote author=“Alan Slipp”]Roger likely made the inference he did (the “people are JUST animals” bit) because he’s heard it before. So have I, for that matter, and while Roger and I don’t see exactly eye to eye on a great number of things (Me being largely a secular humanist - the most foul and derided of creatures *gasp*!), this is something we probably agree on. People are just animals in that we are as much a part of nature as any other living thing, as much as we may try to deny it by destroying great chunks of the natural world (“Destroying the planet - one species at a time!”, to parody the old Apple slogan). That said, we are not JUST animals. There is that which makes us more than our instinct, more than fight or flight responses: our ability to process and create “signs”, language in all of its various forms. More than a simple animal, but not *separate* from other animals.

I think that links neatly with what Bob is talking about, so I’ll leave it there for now.

You’ve grasped my point and my experience entirely.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2005 04:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  102
Joined  2005-03-14

[quote author=“roger_pearse”]Pardon me, but I’ve chopped the philosophizing since I really don’t believe that strongly that anyone uses this as the way they really determine whether to pay the bills or not, whether to rob the bank or not, and whether to screw the teenage daughter of the family next door or not.  I question whether it is real.

I’m sure that if all one wants out of life is to work, eat, sleep, have sex and obey orders, then philosophy is probably of limited utility. For the rest of us though, it’s like Socrates said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Socrates was made to kill himself. Go figure.

Unless some words have fallen out, you appear to be saying men are not better than animals, and attacking me for suggesting you say this?

What Bob is saying, and pardon my presumption on this, is that people are no more “better” than animals than white people are “better” than black people. Bob isn’t questioning humaness at all, he just has the temerity to suggest that our humaness does not make human beings somehow more *important* than the other creatures on this planet, let alone the universe.

[quote author=“roger_pearse”][quote author=“CanZen”]
The point I was trying to make with TChamp was to discover at what junction he accepts the scientific facts that certain creatures are closely related (through evolutionary lines) and yet that man is not cast from the same die as the others.  If the science of zoological classifications is accepted by TChamp to a point, how does he suddenly reject the means that arrived at these classifying results when it comes to chimanzees and humans?  What rationale does he use to, say, even agree that chimps and orangutans are genetically related, but then he rejects the very same science when it comes to the descent of man?

I don’t see, though, how this is not simply an attempt to deny the humanity of man.

Like I said above, he isn’t. He’s accusing Champ of a double standard - to me, this is pretty clear.

I think so: but do you not think what man is can be accounted for purely by evolution?  Why else emphasise the (surely irrelevant) biology of the body, when there is nothing different in this to the primates?

I think the point is that our interpretation of human existance has absolutely nothing to do with the physical reality of our origins. In essence, believing something to be true does not make it true. 2+2 will never equal 5 no matter how ardently I petition schoolboards to change textbooks, and any textbook that made the suggestion that 2+2 might equal 5 would be lying - in fact, a textbook like that would make a complete joke out of mathematics. I think that’s all that I need to say on that.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2005 07:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  413
Joined  2005-06-05

Brilliant, CanZen!

Language literally shapes our brains as we learn it and use it.

My ‘spell / poem / prayer’ is my oath of intention.  It focuses my actions toward my goals.  My ‘divine image’ is my highest ideal of myself and my meditation opens me to Her will.  Why then would I allow anyone else to tell me how or for what I should ‘pray’, or what must be my ‘divine image’?  And why would I dare to do that to anyone else? 

Control a person’s language and you control that person’s mind.  The lust for that power motivates evil people.

 Signature 

The road of excess leads to the palace of Wisedom
-William Blake, “Proverbs of Hell”

Life, what is it but a dream?
- Lewis Carroll, “A boat Beneath a Sunny Sky

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2005 07:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

[quote author=“roger_pearse”]  The last time I heard this sort of idea, it preceded the assertion that men are just animals; and therefore there is no God (which was a non sequitur, of course, but the poster didn’t realise it).  Is this where you’re going with this? 

If so, I would merely query whether it is really an attack on Christianity to prove that there are no such things as real human beings.  It sounds to me much more like a crushing blow rather to secular humanism.  If there are no men, how can there be humanism?

That depends on one’s definition of “human beings” does it not?  Exactly what is it to be human?  To me, from a rational point of view it means to be a member of the species homo sapien.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.  Therefore secular humanism is not crushed at all. 

Christianity, however, claims there is something more to being human.  A soul infused being, created in the image of god.  OK, though science has made fantastic gains in the various biological fields of study the last 200 years and has yet to find even one, single, solitary, minute shred of evidence that in any way, shape or form even points to the possible existance of a soul, granted, I cannot of course completely disprove the existance of such. 

Then again, I also cannot disprove that ants have or do not have souls.  Scary how much genetic information we sapiens and the various ant species share.  The same with all higher forms of life on earth to a greater and lesser degree.  Couldn’t they also in some way be “created in the image of god” as in being a living entity?  Am I arrogant enough to dismiss completely out of hand even the possiblity that they might have souls?  Just because I cannot measure or observe their souls, I cannot completely rule out their possible existance. 

God disapproves of sapiens killing other sapiens explicilty (except in the cases of certain “ites” he wasn’t terribly fond of, but that’s another argument), I assume because we sapiens are soul infused beings, created in the image of god.  I can find no other biblical difference between us and say sheep other than our place in the sequence of biblical creation, which should be irrelavent.  Its apparently the “soul” that matters.  Nothing else.

Therefore if I take a can of Raid to a nest of ants in my house, I’m quite possibly murdering hundreds if not thousands of soul infused, images of god. 

Yes, I know, I’m way way out on a very tenuous limb here, but it is to prove a point.  Isn’t accepting the belief that humans are somehow different or in the existance of a human soul or a god in general just as tenuous without solid, physical evidence?  I have solid physical evidence that Darwin was correct in his basic assertions.  Therefore I can safely believe that physically we sapiens and most of the great apes decended from common ancestors.  I have absolutely zero physical evidence that I or you have eternal souls.  I cannot disprove it, granted, but in not being able to disprove it, nothing can keep me from going on wild, possibly destructive tangents of fantasy as is the case in many religions throughout recorded history and the case in my little “soul” tangent above.  I cannot disprove the existance of Santa, but I doubt I’ll take up arms against my neighbor simply because he believes in the Easter Bunny.

To me its not a matter of “therefore believing there is no god” because we have biological ancestors in common with apes.  I find strict athiesm as logically untenable as Christianity or Islam.  One is about as likely to prove or disprove the existance of god as one is to find where the left and right tales of a normal curve touch the X axis.  I have just as much chance of finding a number that’s square root is -1 as you have proving god exists.

[quote author=“Alan Slipp”]That said, we are not JUST animals. There is that which makes us more than our instinct, more than fight or flight responses: our ability to process and create “signs”, language in all of its various forms. More than a simple animal, but not *separate* from other animals.

Yes, its called very large brains.  Billions more neural connections than toads or opossums.  And what exactly do we do with our big brains?  Well I bet you’ve never seen dark colored squirrels go to war against lighter colored squirrels, primarily on the basis of fur color or the fact that one subspecies prefers oak acorns to hickory nuts.  Our penchant for armed conflict is just as absurd, particularly if said conflict is based upon one religious fantasy or another.  In the end, our big brains may be our undoing.  An eventual evolutionary dead end that results in our extinction.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2005 07:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  413
Joined  2005-06-05

Well said, guest.

I’m not quite as pessimistic about our chances for survival, but it’s foolish not to acknowledge the possibility of our abrupt and total extinction.  That big brain is clearly a two-edged sword.  I look at it this way, neanderthal is ‘extinct’, but we carry their genes.  In effect, to evolve is to extinguish the preceeding genome.  So I hope for the gradual extinction of ‘homo sapiens’.  LOL

 Signature 

The road of excess leads to the palace of Wisedom
-William Blake, “Proverbs of Hell”

Life, what is it but a dream?
- Lewis Carroll, “A boat Beneath a Sunny Sky

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2005 10:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  253
Joined  2005-05-29

[quote author=“Anonymous”][quote author=“roger_pearse”]  The last time I heard this sort of idea, it preceded the assertion that men are just animals; and therefore there is no God (which was a non sequitur, of course, but the poster didn’t realise it).  Is this where you’re going with this? 

If so, I would merely query whether it is really an attack on Christianity to prove that there are no such things as real human beings.  It sounds to me much more like a crushing blow rather to secular humanism.  If there are no men, how can there be humanism?

That depends on one’s definition of “human beings” does it not?  Exactly what is it to be human?  To me, from a rational point of view it means to be a member of the species homo sapien.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.  Therefore secular humanism is not crushed at all. 

Christianity, however, claims there is something more to being human.  ...

Yes, I know, I’m way way out on a very tenuous limb here, but it is to prove a point.  Isn’t accepting the belief that humans are somehow different or in the existance of a human soul or a god in general just as tenuous without solid, physical evidence?  ...

I agree, if you accept the presuppositions of secular humanism.  That is to say, men are no different than animals; and, as you say, we kill those for our convenience.  But this was my point.  You can no longer say that mankind is special, or worthwhile, or anything else.  All the aspirations that one categories as humanist are meaningless; are they not merely the noises made by an animal?

It’s not a coincidence that those holding these sorts of views of man, as both Hitler and Stalin did, took precisely these approaches to men.  We do not consider them high forms of life; instead we value those who really do think man worthwhile.  Thus secular humanism is destroyed by the logic of its own conclusions.  It starts by placing man at the centre of the picture, rather than God; and ends by reducing man to nothing more than an animal like any other.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2005 10:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  253
Joined  2005-05-29

[quote author=“CanZen”]This post is directed at TheChampion, mostly… I have two questions for you that I hope you can answer honestly (not biblically, that is).  When I refer to you as “a fellow primate” TChamp, how does that make you feel?

Do you reject the scientific classificalion of homo sapien sapiens as members of the Primate order in the class Mammalia in the phylum Chordata in the kingdom Anamalia?? If ‘yes’ do you then reject all of the other classificalions?  Are dogs and wolves related or are they separate creations with no genetic relation?

If I were the Champion, I wouldn’t reply.  The purpose of this ‘question’ does not seem to me to be to obtain information.  Rather it is to set up a series of conundra, in order to tangle him in, with a view to making his own views seem confused.  Isn’t this one of the tricks of the deprogrammer?

Let every view express itself openly and honestly, rather than in this sort of manner. 

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2005 11:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  18
Joined  2005-06-09

Am I incorrect in the view that the classification system for the animal kingdom is based on how something looks - its characteristics - and is then related to other organisms by how many similarities they possess? I’m not completely sure about this assumption.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2005 12:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2005-01-22

Most of the posters have gotten the point I was trying to make, 1) that humans are no “better” than other animals - we’re just one type; and 2) of course we humans are different in that we can use language and also brain-power in ways that other animals cannot, but this doesn’t make us better, just different.  So I don’t see how this diminishes our species in any way (except to get rid of false ideas about divinity and souls, which to my way of thinking is very good indeed - a betterment of our status in the animal kingdom). Of course as “guest” pointed out, we humans kill each other over mostly irrelevant beliefs/ideas, while most animals do not and that seems to bring our worth in the spectrum of animalia down to very low levels.

I wonder why some people see equating humans to other animals as intrinsically degrading - why?

I really enjoyed what rabbit said about language, “Control a person’s language and you control that person’s mind. The lust for that power motivates evil people”  To me that is a perfect description of the hypnotic trance that many people live in without ever knowing it.  As a child each of us is taught a lot of crap both hateful and perhaps beneficient, and we then tend to live without questioning those beliefs. Some of us manage to break out of that hypnotic mode (self-deprogramming) and by appeal to a form of Socratic skepticism we can emerge into a new realm of understanding.  Most of us on this site have already emerged on the other side and that is obvious in the way we can speak for one another on many diverse topics, not because we follow the same hypnotising text, but because understanding, in the larger context, has many points of convergence when all the evidence is liberally measured and analyzed.  It might be that ‘common sense’ is a universal, for the non-hypnotized, that is.

Those who want to control the language are truly agents of evil - they want a world of hynptozed followers who do not question but merely act in response to what the ‘leader’ says.  They are under his spell (of words).  They are succeptible to his suggestion.  It’s really the language of hypnosis.

Bob

 Signature 

It’s definitely a moon! . . . and now it’s become a sunflower!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2005 01:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3166
Joined  2005-04-25

CanZen, classify humans in any manner that makes you feel better. Doesn’t make it right or so. God created all forms of life (animals, etc.) for his glory and man’s benefit. You might find this out if you ask him for wisdom while reading the bible (if any man lacks wisdom, he should ask for it….).

How about a suggestion for you. Read the first chapter of John several times and report back to me. (it is the most eloquent text ever written on earth).

 Signature 

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 4
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed