17 Oct 07
Originally posted by vistesdBut who are you responsible to? Yourself? You already said that your "ego-somebody-self" is nothingness. If your self doesn't really exist, then how can you be held responsible to it? Or how can it be held responsible? I'm confused, because you seem to be asserting two incompatible paradigms: (1) a personal will which must be held responsible for every choice - even submission - and (2) a self which is nothing more than an illusion, lacking the substance necessary to be deemed a morally responsible entity.
Unless the Holy Spirit somehow compels or forces you to believe (or forces metanoia), then you cannot escape the fact that it was under your own authority that you became a Christian. Unless God imposes on your will, so that you do not really choose, that is inescapable. It is first upon your own authority that you choose to submit to another ...[text shortened]... Can there be any self-responsibility without self-authority—to think, to decide, to act?[/i][/b]
If we assume that the soul is real, not transient, and that it can be held responsible for its actions, then we can discuss will and submission meaningfully.
Is it an act of the will to trust? I would say, yes. In this respect, I have willfully chosen to be a Christian. Guilty as charged. But if am obedient to the gospel of Christ, who am I accountable to for that decision? I would say, I am accountable to God. I doubt, though, that it is God which you are alluding to. Are you saying that I am accountable to you for my choice? Or to society? Or to my kids? Or to myself? Who exactly is going to be my judge in this matter?
You have gently harangued me in the past for making arguments for God from "terribleness," but the threat of being held accountable for an act of submission to God's will seems to me to be equally untenable.
Even though I have, as it seems to me (subjectively speaking), chosen to trust scripture for my salvation, on the other hand, I know of no effort of the will (again, subjectively speaking) exercised to perpetuate my faith. The faith which abides in my heart subsists independently of my will; it's there in the morning, and it's there when I lay my head on my pillow at night. I am conscious of no inner campaign of self-delusion. Mysterious as it may sound, I can't definitively take responsibility for the continued faith which I have in Jesus Christ and God the Father.
I still take responsibility for my actions. God doesn't shield me from that. If I get arrested for possession of a pungent bag of Northern Lights, faith in Jesus Christ is not going to automatically rescind my sentence.
And what is submission to God's will, really? What does it consist of? What are God's demands? In a nutshell: (1) believing in Jesus Christ, that He died for your sins, and rose from the dead after three days; (2) being baptized into Christ's name and getting filled with the Holy Spirit; (3) loving God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and loving your neighbor as yourself.
It is a misconception to think of submission to God's will as being a relinquishing of personal responsibility. We are not rocks, and God doesn't treat us like rocks. We are human beings, with unique abilities and creativity with which to serve the Lord. God does not demand or expect cookie cutter Christians, void of personality or uniqueness. God's will can be submitted to creatively, with the whole intellect engaged. Otherwise, why else would God judge Christians? If we have nothing to offer in submission to Him, then why would He bother rewarding us for how we did?
Anyway, I'll leave off here and let you pick up where you wish...
17 Oct 07
5 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasYou already said that your "ego-somebody-self" is nothingness. If your self doesn't really exist, then how can you be held responsible to it?
But who are you responsible to? Yourself? You already said that your "ego-somebody-self" is nothingness. If your self doesn't really exist, then how can you be held responsible to it? Or how can it be held responsible? I'm confused, because you seem to be asserting two incompatible paradigms: (1) a personal will which must be held responsible w we did?
Anyway, I'll leave off here and let you pick up where you wish...
No, I said it is a mental construct. I have tried on many labels for it—most of them not original with me: call it the “I-thought-complex.” I am not responsible to it; I am responsible for it.
I'm confused, because you seem to be asserting two incompatible paradigms: (1) a personal will which must be held responsible for every choice - even submission - and (2) a self which is nothing more than an illusion, lacking the substance necessary to be deemed a morally responsible entity.
I have not posited (2), at least in the sense that you seem to convey; see above. This question of “self” is key; what is illusion is to take the “I-thought-complex” for more than it is. From whence/whom arise all your thoughts and thinking—including the whole complex of thoughts involved in thinking “I”? Who/what lies behind that “I”?
If we assume that the soul is real, not transient, and that it can be held responsible for its actions, then we can discuss will and submission meaningfully.
(a) I don’t take transience as the opposite of real.
(b) What exactly comprises what you call the soul?
—Whether or not my “fundamental self”, prior to the “I-thought-complex” is ultimately transient or not (in terms of individually continuing beyond bodily death) is a matter of our differing metaphysical viewpoints. I think it is, because (i) nothing in my experience of that “self” indictates otherwise, and (ii) it simply makes sense to me. But that has nothing to do with the realization of what I have elsewhere called “bedrock”, trying to avoid Zen jargon. Kensho does not answer that question. (From now on, I might as well go ahead and use the Zen jargon.) That is, it really has nothing to do with Zen, and Zen Buddhists hold differing metaphysical views.
Is it an act of the will to trust? I would say, yes. In this respect, I have willfully chosen to be a Christian. Guilty as charged. But if am obedient to the gospel of Christ, who am I accountable to for that decision? I would say, I am accountable to God. I doubt, though, that it is God which you are alluding to. Are you saying that I am accountable to you for my choice? Or to society? Or to my kids? Or to myself? Who exactly is going to be my judge in this matter?
I have no doubt that you hold yourself accountable to the God you believe in. Other people will hold you accountable, of course, insofar as they are able, for your behavior toward them—but I don’t think that’s what we’re talking about here. In any kind of ultimate cosmic sense, I don’t think anyone is going to be your judge, since I don’t think such a judge exists.
You have gently harangued me in the past for making arguments for God from "terribleness," but the threat of being held accountable for an act of submission to God's will seems to me to be equally untenable.
Well, I hope I was gentle about it! My only critque is with the illogic of someone arguing that, since it would be terrible if X were so, then X must not be so. If someome simply says something like, “I choose to live this way, because the alternative seems terrible to me”, then I really have nothing to say.
Even though I have, as it seems to me (subjectively speaking), chosen to trust scripture for my salvation, on the other hand, I know of no effort of the will (again, subjectively speaking) exercised to perpetuate my faith. The faith which abides in my heart subsists independently of my will; it's there in the morning, and it's there when I lay my head on my pillow at night. I am conscious of no inner campaign of self-delusion. Mysterious as it may sound, I can't definitively take responsibility for the continued faith which I have in Jesus Christ and God the Father.
This is interesting, in that I would describe what I call my “unconditional existential faith”—that is an existential attitude of confidence, even without requiring any belief or expectation of a given outcome—in much the same way. It really is as if I “woke up with it one day.” I’m not even sure its reasonable—except that it seems a richer way to live than the opposite, which is not doubt but angst. Nevertheless, I assume responsibility (and authority) for embracing it.
It is a misconception to think of submission to God's will as being a relinquishing of personal responsibility.
And I have not been talking about responsibility for having a bag of “Northern Lights” (I confess, I don’t know what that is). The same misconception can be applied to those of us who do not believe in the existence of the God that you believe in.
I am not a Zennist/Taoist because I am trying to evade responsibility, or avoid submitting to some external divine authority. And I am quite earnestly self-vigilant about such motivations.
Your claim was this: “Most people don't like it. That is, don't like authority. At root, man's problem with God is a problem with authority. Nobody likes to submit...” I don’t know who those “most people” are; I am not one of them. I offered the counter-view, and gave myself as an example to boot. It’s hard to read such things on here (and easy to misread them), but it seems that I annoyed you in the process, likely because you do not see yourself in my group of “most people”, just as I do not see myself in yours. If I were re-writing it, I confess that I would change “most people” to “a lot of the people that I have known, maybe most of them.” I don’t know most people.
____________________________________________
Is it an act of the will to trust? I would say, yes. In this respect, I have willfully chosen to be a Christian. Guilty as charged.
I would say yes as well. And if you prefer the word “willfully” to “on your own authority,” I have no objections. Quite to my surprise, I have recently moved from being a self-described “non-aligned non-dualist” (quasi-Zen) to being more and more Zen Buddhist. It might be contrary to what I would have predicted; I certainly can’t say it’s against my will.
17 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdI have tried on many labels for it—most of them not original with me: call it the “I-thought-complex.” I am not responsible to it; I am responsible for it.
You already said that your "ego-somebody-self" is nothingness. If your self doesn't really exist, then how can you be held responsible to it?
No, I said it is a mental construct. I have tried on many labels for it—most of them not original with me: call it the “I-thought-complex.” I am not responsible to it; I am responsible for it.
I'm trary to what I would have predicted; I certainly can’t say it’s against my will.
Forgive me if I'm being anal, but what "I" is responsible for the "I-thought-complex"? When you say that you are "responsible for it," who exactly are you saying is responsible? Does this "I" which is responsible for the "I-thought-complex" operate independently of the "I-though-complex"? If so, does it operate consciously or unconsciously? That is, is it responsible in a moral sense, or in an unconscious cause-and-effect sense? If it is unconscious, then how can it be held morally responsible?
I have not posited (2), at least in the sense that you seem to convey; see above. This question of “self” is key; what is illusion is to take the “I-thought-complex” for more than it is. From whence/whom arise all your thoughts and thinking—including the whole complex of thoughts involved in thinking “I”? Who/what lies behind that “I”?
I think what is apparent is that you cannot sift a person down to his or her essential elements and definitively say "this" is what the true "I" is. Without, what I would call in my Christian lingo, the "fleshy" aspect of the self (what you would call the "I-thought-complex"😉, the deeper inner self would have no expression. Likewise, without the deeper inner self from which the "I-thought-complex" arises, you would have no exterior self. I don't believe this is a symbiotic relationship exactly, but more akin to a seamless continuum.
More later...
17 Oct 07
4 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasI don’t think you’re being anal at all.
[b]I have tried on many labels for it—most of them not original with me: call it the “I-thought-complex.” I am not responsible to it; I am responsible for it.
Forgive me if I'm being anal, but what "I" is responsible for the "I-thought-complex"? When you say that you are "responsible for it," who exactly are you saying is responsible? ionship exactly, but more akin to a seamless continuum.
More later...[/b]
Are you aware of a “you” before you think, even before you think “I”? If you allow your mind to go quiet—not blank!*—you can notice your thoughts, including the thought “I” and the whole complex of thinking that goes with that thought. You can notice your thoughts and mental representations as they arise, and you can let them go without following them into a thicker and thicker web of thoughts associating more thoughts and more. . . (Whence do all your thoughts arise, and how do they arise? Can you simply be watchful of your own thought process? In the same way that you can be watchful of, say, how the clouds move across the sky—without adding any further “thinking about”?)
Meditation, by whatever technique, is simply about being-aware and watchful of what’s going on, including any thoughts that arise, without deliberately adding anything.
Here’s a koan:
Before the makings of your mind,
underneath all made-up images, concepts, thoughts or words,
can you find an “I” that’s not just another thought?
Another making of the mind?
Notice I said, “can you find?”, not theorize about or speculate about, which is more thought-making. Can you? I leave the question open.
Any language I use about that can only be allusive and/or metaphorical. It’s taken me some time to realize that.
If I try to describe it to you in words, I am simply giving you theory, more thinking-about: and it is not about thinking or theorizing; it is about experiencing. I can describe to you my taste sensations when eating supper last night, but I cannot give you the taste; you might imagine, from your own experience, what I might have been tasting; and your imagination may be strong enough that it seems you taste something, too—but what you imagine may not represent my experience at all. You can only eat the meal yourself; and then how you taste it is—how you taste it.
_________________________________________
I think what is apparent is that you cannot sift a person down to his or her essential elements and definitively say "this" is what the true "I" is. Without, what I would call in my Christian lingo, the "fleshy" aspect of the self (what you would call the "I-thought-complex" , the deeper inner self would have no expression. Likewise, without the deeper inner self from which the "I-thought-complex" arises, you would have no exterior self. I don't believe this is a symbiotic relationship exactly, but more akin to a seamless continuum.
I agree. And leaving that kind of dualism behind is why, I think, from a Christian point-of-view, any individual eternal life has to be about resurrection of the soma, and not simply immortality of a separate soul.
Nevertheless, I think this touches a bit on the knotty problem of self-reference, in the sense of the “I-thought-complex” thinking about—itself, in a self-referential loop [is there a pun there?]. At some point, thinking about a “deeper inner self” is like trying to shine a flashlight beam on itself (take that as an addendum to the above koan). And that is why all this I-you-self talk becomes confusing.
There are Zen Christians. You might want to take a look at a very good book called The Inner Experience by Thomas Merton. While acknowledging the Zen experience, he moves the whole thing openly and honestly into the Christian paradigm.
____________________________________
That’s all I can give you on the subject, except to give it to you over and over from different angles. That’s all anyone can give you, albeit far more skillfully than I. I could offer a simple, non-sectarian, meditation method to reach that point of watchful awareness without adding anything; you may have one from your own background. I don’t care much about technique except as useful means—and except for that “without adding anything” part. For me, such meditation works in tandem with the koan. (whatever koan).
_____________________________________
* The Buddhist phrase “empty mind” (or no-mind, mushin) simply means being clearly aware without adding any thought-content; sense perception does not disappear.
19 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdI actually own Merton's book, The Inner Experience! I'm glad to see Merton is enriching your library. I've always found myself drawn to contemplation and I appreciate what Merton has done. However, Buddha is just a man. Buddha himself said so, "look not to me; look to my dharma." But Jesus said, "Come unto me." Buddha also said, "Be ye lamps unto yourselves." While Christ said, "I am the light of the world." I have no doubt that true spiritual contemplation has the potential to bring about personal revelations of God's truth (with the help of the Holy Spirit), but concerning the question of submission, Christ and Buddha are teaching two separate things. Christ is God. Buddha is a man.
I don’t think you’re being anal at all.
Are you aware of a “you” before you think, even before you think “I”? If you allow your mind to go quiet—not blank!*—you can notice your thoughts, including the thought “I” and the whole complex of thinking that goes with that thought. You can notice your thoughts and mental representations as they arise, a early aware without adding any thought-content; sense perception does not disappear.
BTW, "Northern Lights" are a rare and potent strain of marijuana. Some call it, "kind bud." Yes, as a youngin' I used to smoke the reefer. 🙂
19 Oct 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasWell, that’s as clear a statement of our differences as we can possibly reach. 🙂 Merton, of course, agrees with you—nevertheless, I’m glad we have him as a “mutual friend.” Have you ever read Edward Lax’s little picture-filled biography of Merton, The Man in the Sycamore Tree? (I think Edward’s his first name.) I had never heard of Merton till I read that book a long time ago. I think you’d enjoy it, if you haven’t read it already.
I actually own Merton's book, The Inner Experience! I'm glad to see Merton is enriching your library. I've always found myself drawn to contemplation and I appreciate what Merton has done. However, Buddha is just a man. Buddha himself said so, "look not to me; look to my dharma." But Jesus said, "Come unto me." Buddha also said, "Be y ...[text shortened]... Some call it, "kind bud." Yes, as a youngin' I used to smoke the reefer. 🙂
19 Oct 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasWhy do you object to the idea that the Buddha and Jesus draw from the same spiritual well?
I have no doubt that true spiritual contemplation has the potential to bring about personal revelations of God's truth (with the help of the Holy Spirit), but concerning the question of submission, Christ and Buddha are teaching two separate things. Christ is God. Buddha is a man.
Let's grant the natures of their ontologies as a given; Buddha was a man. So was Elijah, and
Moses, and Isaiah and so forth. Why don't you consider the Buddha as a prophet? Surely you
will concede that his teachings bear some revelation of the Divine Truth, right? Do you think
that the average reader will get closer to God by reading and contemplating the sayings of the
Buddha or reading the Book of Obadiah or Haggai?
Nemesio
19 Oct 07
LATE EDIT to last post: Well, I’m not sure that Merton agrees with you about the inner contemplative experience bringing revelations. Whether he does or not, I don’t. At that point, something has been added—an image, a concept, a thought. You contend that it’s source can be not-you (e.g., the Holy Spirit). I contend that the source is precisely you (and I have had knee-buckling experiences of that sort, that seemed to be external to my mind; but none of our sense perceptions are, in fact, external to our mind, but mental representations produced by our mind from external sensory stimuli).
You believe, based on our past discussions, that such revelations represent a pushing beyond (or being carried beyond) what I have called the bedrock state of awareness (samadhi). I believe that you have at that point moved back toward the thinking-mind; and I think that the thinking-mind habitually and compulsively tries to “translate” the experience of samadhi into mental content. If one meditates in order to have visions, or similar “experiences,” the mind will provide them. It might provide them anyway, at least for awhile.
In either case, however, discernment is called for. That is why I think it is critical, not simply to still the thought-making mind in meditation, but to watch how thoughts (and conceptual images) arise. I mean, you have to be able to exercise discernment within the parameters of your belief-system, just as I do within mine. Otherwise, I imagine that what one thought was the Holy Spirit, and even led one to interpret scripture in such a way that it seemed to confirm that it was the Holy Spirit, when in fact it was not—if you get my drift from that convoluted almost-sentence. (What I’m getting at is something like that old circularity of believing in God because of the Bible, and believing the Bible on that count because it’s the word of God...)
__________________________________
Epi, we each believe the other is so dead wrong—at the very foundations of both thought and experience. That is why I said elsewhere that we each have to conclude that the other is operating under some illusion—because one has not had the “right” experiences, or because one has misinterpreted them, or whatever.
I am not going to quit arguing my view on here as long as I am on here; I wouldn’t expect you to either. I will, however, from this point on, no longer argue about what the Bible says or does not say; since I in no way believe it is the word of God, or in the God whose word it is claimed to be, what’s the point? I can insist that the so-called “perennial philosophy” has expressions in all the major religions; but what’s the point?
I’ll simply speak Zen (colored, no doubt, by the personality of my own “somebody-self”!).
19 Oct 07
Originally posted by NemesioReincarnation is clearly antithetical to Christian doctrine, so I wouldn't say Buddha is a prophet of the same caliber as Moses or Isaiah. Moses and Isaiah were conversant with a personal God, who spoke to them in their own Hebrew tongue. The "God" of which Buddha speaks would never do such a thing; the Buddhist "God" is quite impersonal. In this respect, too, it would be difficult to compare Buddha with the biblical prophets. Also, enlightenment in Buddhism is achieved through great suffering over many lifetimes; while "enlightenment," i.e., justification, sanctification and salvation, in the Christian tradition is a free gift from God (unearned, unmerited, undeserved), appropriated in a single lifetime.
Why do you object to the idea that the Buddha and Jesus draw from the same spiritual well?
Let's grant the natures of their ontologies as a given; Buddha was a man. So was Elijah, and
Moses, and Isaiah and so forth. Why don't you consider the Buddha as a prophet? Surely you
will concede that his teachings bear some revelation of the Divine Truth, righ ...[text shortened]... ontemplating the sayings of the
Buddha or reading the Book of Obadiah or Haggai?
Nemesio
Those main differences aside, I think Merton plumbed the depths of Zen for good reason. Christian mysticism is lacking a rich tradition of spiritual language, which the religions of the East have to offer. Rather than legitimize Zen Buddhism as a Jehovah-ordained enterprise, I believe the consistencies between Christianity and Buddhism simply highlight the fact that all human beings have a spirit.
The Bible declares that, due to the Fall, the spirit of man has died. That is, the spirit is now dead to God. The spirit still functions, but it functions apart from God. But as soon as a person believes in Jesus Christ, that person's spirit is resurrected and raised to life. The resurrected spirit gains direct access to the Spirit of God. In this relationship the true functions of the human spirit come into play: intuition, communion and conscience. Through the resurrected spirit God's Spirit is allowed to inspire and flow through the entire soul and body of the believer, back to God and outwards to others.
My point is, Buddha never knew Christ. Undoubtedly he had a relationship with his own spirit, and through his spirit gained certain enlightenments regarding ultimate reality -- but it would have been impossible for him to know Christ or God the Father or the Holy Spirit, because the Buddha's spirit had never been resurrected. The great Buddha was blind to the Truth. What did result from his and others' efforts is a rich spiritual tradition full of great insights into the mysterious nature of the human spirit, and it is that language arising from that spiritual tradition which Merton tried to incorporate into his own relationship with God, via a resurrected spirit in Christ.
Only the cross of Christ brings us closer to God.
19 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdI purposely delineated those revelations as "personal," that is, neither adding to or contradicting present scripture; i.e., "merely" a more intimate knowledge of God's love, joy, peace, presence, etc. Sorry for the confusion.
LATE EDIT to last post: Well, I’m not sure that Merton agrees with you about the inner contemplative experience bringing revelations. Whether he does or not, I don’t. At that point, something has been added—an image, a concept, a thought. You contend that it’s source can be not-you (e.g., the Holy Spirit). I contend that the source is precisely you (and ...[text shortened]... t?
I’ll simply speak Zen (colored, no doubt, by the personality of my own “somebody-self”!).
The tradition of Christian contemplation makes a great deal out of separating what is of oneself and what is not. Without the help of the Holy Spirit or the word of God, Christian contemplation would not be possible. Merton and the author of The Cloud of Unknowing, not to mention Brother Lawrence, each stress the fact that the discipline of contemplation merely makes one receptive to the direct touch of God, and that spiritually immature contemplatives often mistaken the creations of their own minds for a genuine experience of God's touch. The overriding theme is a complete dependence on God, i.e., true contemplation cannot be accomplished in one's own power, regardless of the amount of effort involved.
I'd have to go back and reread those books in order to share with you in any more depth. Sorry, it's been awhile.
19 Oct 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasThe confusion may have simply been in my reading...
I purposely delineated those revelations as "personal," that is, neither adding to or contradicting present scripture; i.e., "merely" a more intimate knowledge of God's love, joy, peace, presence, etc. Sorry for the confusion.
The tradition of Christian contemplation makes a great deal out of separating what is of oneself and what is not. Without th ...[text shortened]... ead those books in order to share with you in any more depth. Sorry, it's been awhile.
I don't disagree with you about the tradition of Christian contemplation. I do disagree about the separation.
My main method of meditation is actually based on Centering Prayer. I once did an intensive 8-day CP retreat, in which I had my first real (and quite profound) experience of what I would now call samadhi, or simply “open-mind.” But I “decontextualize” the method from it’s religious context—which is why I say “based on.”
For me, the question of discernment has to do with what I may be bringing into meditation, and what effect that can have. If I were to have an experience of the Buddha, that would likely be because I had subconsciously brought that in; if I have some insight into an area of concern in my life, that is likely because I subconsciously brought that in. One can, of course, purposely bring such stuff in—in the Western tradition, that would be meditation, rather than contemplation; I generally use the word meditation in the Eastern sense, which is closer to contemplation in the Western contemplative tradition.
It is now (again) quite late, and I have a few busy days coming up...
Be well.
19 Oct 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasThe great Buddha was blind to the Truth.
Reincarnation is clearly antithetical to Christian doctrine, so I wouldn't say Buddha is a prophet of the same caliber as Moses or Isaiah. Moses and Isaiah were conversant with a personal God, who spoke to them in their own Hebrew tongue. The "God" of which Buddha speaks would never do such a thing; the Buddhist "God" is quite impersonal. In this resp ...[text shortened]... a resurrected spirit in Christ.
Only the cross of Christ brings us closer to God.
Not. 😉
I believe, by the way, there are diverse traditions concerning what the Siddhartha Gautama may, or may not have said about such things as reincarnation. I take all such things as symbolic/metaphorical, as I do all such other-worldly talk.
My knowledge of Buddhist literature is not that extensive, at least outside of Zen. But the Buddha is supposed to have said somewhere that everything he said was to be tested “like refining metal.” What I have tested are the first three noble truths (the fourth is the eightfold path, and that’s just too many folds for me to keep track of; and Zen, in a sense, collapses them—so, in that loose sense, I’ve tested it as well).
I am not, however, wedded to the language—except as it is helpful. My personal teacher—and the one man I can honestly call a sage—was not Buddhist (nor a Taoist, nor a Vedantist, nor...). I’m still learning from him, though I haven’t seen him in years: I’m a slow-learner, with a lot of delayed-response... 🙂
19 Oct 07
Originally posted by vistesdAtheist? 😉
I am not, however, wedded to the language—except as it is helpful. My personal teacher—and the one man I can honestly call a sage—was not Buddhist (nor a Taoist, nor a Vedantist, nor...). I’m still learning from him, though I haven’t seen him in years: I’m a slow-learner, with a lot of delayed-response... 🙂
19 Oct 07
Originally posted by NemesioNo.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/coulter-christians-as-perfected-jews/index.html?ex=1349755200&en=6259f2a9d58e2c41&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
So, what do Christians think? Does this viewpoint reflect how you view you, your faith, and
your Scriptures?
Nemesio