Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 03-22-2013, 08:03 PM

Hi Jeffrey - the new rules are here. There is a rule that you will like:

Quote:

e) Languages: i. Arguments that use the meaning of specific language in an ancient text cannot be made based on understanding of the English used in one translation. You will need to be able to show either 1) an understanding of the original language or 2) that the meaning under discussion reflects a selection of modern translations. Such a selection will provide a better chance of representing the meaning in the original text. Arguments dependent on the meaning of specific language in a single modern translation should be avoided.
ii. Do not cite ancient languages without providing a translation: this is not a language forum.
iii. Internet sources such as Strongs are no substitute for some knowledge of the original language. Use scholarly dictionaries, not Strongs. (For Greek, try Liddell & Scott.)

tanya · 03-23-2013, 01:24 AM

The issue here, which prompted these digressions about forum rules, is very clear. Let's revisit the OP.

How, and When, did the meaning of “demon” change, from the ancient Greek notion of a supernatural deity, lacking specific negative (or positive) behavioural traits, to the contemporary view, held for 2000 years, or more, that a “demon” was a sentient, supernatural, omnipotent EVIL deity, with anthropomorphic features. Among many others, Matthew, Luke, and Justin Martyr all invoke “demon” when explaining the significance of Psalm 96:5, in harmony with the LXX Greek version of this Psalm.

Quote:

ὅτι πάντες οἱ θεοὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν δαιμόνια ὁ δὲ κύριος τοὺς οὐρανοὺς ἐποίησεν

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douay Rheims

For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils: but the Lord made the heavens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by World English Bible

96:5 For all the gods of the peoples are idols, But Yahweh made the heavens.

The LXX contains two significant differences from the Hebrew text:

(1) replacing YHWH with κύριος (English “lord”), and
(2) replacing ’ĕ·lî·lîm; (English “worthless”) with δαιμόνια (English “demon”), subject of this OP.

The Latin Vulgate of Jerome, (son of Eusebius), reflects the turmoil, surrounding the contradiction between the extant LXX and the Hebrew of that era (Lucianic recension):

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vulgate

96:5 omnes enim dii populorum sculptilia Dominus autem caelos fecit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hebrew

96:5 KY KL-'aLHY H'yMYM 'aLYLYM VYHVH ShMYM 'yShH

This Hebrew word, 'aLYLYM, Strong's 457, meaning “insufficiency”, or “worthlessness”, is translated, into English, as “idols”, in harmony with the Latin Vulgate, “sculptilia”. Sculptilis itself, means, in English, “carved”, i.e. as in “graven image” carved from stone or wood.

Why is this human creation, this “idol”, this “sculpture”, this “graven image”, “worthless”? It is without value, because the image, or “idol”, is only a figurine, an image, representing a deity, NOT A GENUINE, SENTIENT, SUPERATURAL deity, itself, i.e. certainly not a Demon, Sorcerer, or omnipotent, anthropomorphic entity. It is simply a block of wood or stone. It is an inanimate, “worthless”, image of a god, created by a human, not a “demon”.

Jeffrey has insisted that I err, because, according to him, “sculptilis” can correspond to “sorcerer”. I claim he is wrong, and I argue that his error is based on a LATER, political machination, which has led to a false revision of this Latin word. Sculptilis does not correspond to any living, sentient, supernatural entity. It refers to HUMAN created objects, like stone statues.

What is curious, about this affair, is the fact that our OLDEST extant copies of Mark 5:2, codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, reveal ABSENCE of this Greek word δαιμόνια, as though Mark had worked from a Greek (or Hebrew) text which did not contain δαιμόνια, (or its equivalent, in Hebrew). Later editions of Mark, do include δαιμόνια in the text of Mark 5:2. Someone authorized the change, and then the question arises, WHO, and WHY? The related question is also of importance: If someone could change the text of Mark, someone in power, after the fourth century, when the two codices had already been constructed, then, could someone else, in political power, in earlier days, before creating Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, have altered the original LXX to conform to the political realities of that day? The original Hebrew is not available, but the Vulgate, reflecting Lucian's discomfort with the contradiction between LXX and his understanding of the Hebrew text of that era, shows us that the original meaning of Psalm 96:5, points back to Exodus 20:4

Quote:

20:4 L'a Th'yShH-LK PhSL VKL-ThMVNH 'aShUr BShMYM MM'yL V'aShUr B'aUrTSh MThChTh V'aShUr BMYM MThChTh L'aUrTSh.

Pesel, (English “idol”) is designated Strong's 6459 Hebrew meaning “idol or image”.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Latin Vulgate

20:4 non facies tibi sculptile neque omnem similitudinem quae est in caelo desuper et quae in terra deorsum nec eorum quae sunt in aquis sub terra

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douay Rheims

Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by World English Bible

20:4 "You shall not make for yourselves an idol, nor any image of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

It is therefore evident that the Latin and English versions of both Psalm 96:5, and Exodus 20:4, use “sculptilis” and “idol” to represent two different Hebrew words, with related meanings, neither of which correspond to “demon”, or “sorcerer”, or “devil”, and both of which relate to the notion of human created, inanimate stone or wood objects.

Toto · 03-23-2013, 02:07 AM

Tanya/avi -

In our modern world, these idols are just carved pieces of wood. In the ancient world, they represented gods and were worshiped. The Hebrews considered them powerful and important enough to forbid their possession. One of the original ten commandments or utterances of god forbids graven images.

Why are we dragging this thread out? Pete is clearly wrong that Christians forced a major change in the meaning of daimon or its derivatives. The term originally referred to spirits, and spirits in the pre-scientific, ancient, "demon haunted" world were often malevolent or irrational forces that needed to be placated with sacrifices or magic.

Pete posed the question in the OP, and the evidence has come in against his position. If you want to make progress, you have to drop the ideas that don't pan out and move on.

mountainman · 03-23-2013, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Or google is your friend:

Plutarch Quaest.Rom., 51 (II

Or is the truth rather, as some Romans affirm, that, just as the philosophic school of Chrysippus114 think that evil spirits stalk about 277whom the gods use as executioners and avengers upon unholy and unjust men, even so the Lares are spirits of punishment like the Furies and supervisors of men's lives and houses? Wherefore they are clothed in the skins of dogs and have a dog as their attendant, in the belief that they are skilful in tracking down and following up evil-doers.

Thanks Toto, but again who was the translator who translated the word "daimones" as "evil spirits" rather than "spirits, both good and evil". I have made the same comment above regarding the Philostratus citation.

Quote:

Corp. Herm., XVI, 10 f.

For there are many choirs of daimons round Him, like unto hosts of very various kinds; who though they dwell with mortals, yet are not far from the immortals; but having as their lot from here unto the spaces of the Gods, 2 they watch o’er the affairs of men, and work out things appointed by the Gods—by means of storms, whirlwinds and hurricanes, by transmutations wrought by fire and shakings of the earth, 3 with famines also and with wars requiting [man’s] impiety,—for this is in man’s case the greatest ill against the Gods.

Again these "choirs of daimons" represents what appears to me to be the original usage, namely that the daimons are not explicitly evil, but within the original meaning of "both good and evil".

Finally the three citations supplied by Jeffrey and addressed to date above are three of the ten citations from the epoch CE, supposedly after Matthre wrote. Hence the importance of the citations from Hippocrates.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 03-23-2013, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Why are we dragging this thread out? Pete is clearly wrong that Christians forced a major change in the meaning of daimon or its derivatives.

I have not yet seen a citation before Matthew supposedly wrote, in which "daimon" is used explicitly as an "evil spirit". On what basis do you claim that I am clearly wrong? Provide the evidence.

Quote:

The term originally referred to spirits, and spirits in the pre-scientific, ancient, "demon haunted" world were often malevolent or irrational forces that needed to be placated with sacrifices or magic.

This is a slanted view. The original meaning included the notion of divine spirits that aided humans, and the "daimon" as a spirit was never expressly always malevolent.

Quote:

Pete posed the question in the OP, and the evidence has come in against his position.

Jeffrey supplied 12 bits of literary evidence which he CLAIMED demonstrated that the term was used BEFORE Matthew wrote, not as a divine spirit whether good or bad, but as a spirit which was bad and malevolent.

The two BCE citations provided are:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Hippocrates De Morbo Sacro, 1 (VI, p. 362, Littré): ὁκόσα δὲ δείματα νυκτὸς παρίσταται καὶ φόβοι καὶ παράνοιαι καὶ ἀναπηδήσιες ἐκ τῆς κλίνης καὶ φόβητρα καὶ φεύξιες ἔξω, Ἑκάτης φασὶν εἶναι ἐπιβολὰς ἢ ἡρώων ἐφόδους.

Xenophon, Ephesiaca, 1, 5: ἐξιλάσκεσθαί τινας λέγοντες δαίμονας, καὶ προσεποίουν ὡς εἴη τὸ δεινὸν ἐκ τῶν ὑποχθονίων θεῶν.

I have not yet found an English translation of these.

Therefore on what basis do you make the claim that I am clearly wrong?

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Robert Tulip · 03-23-2013, 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

What purpose would the Gospel authors have had for subverting the original Greek meaning of the term "daimon"?

Hi Pete, great question. There is a strongly gnostic dimension in the idea of daimon as guardian angel, with the gnostic theology of ascent appearing in the idea that the guardian angel enables knowledge of the divine. This relates to the following analysis of daimon in Heidegger and Heraclitus from my MA thesis.

Heidegger sought to recapture the original Greek meaning of daimon as “the open region for the presencing of God”. It is not hard to see why such a meaning would have been anathema to Christians, since the presence of God for them is not open but closed - restricted to the special revelation of Christ canonised in the Bible and interpreted exclusively by the priesthood. 'Daimon' allows a free gnostic spirituality, not the hierarchical control of the church. Daimon became demon as part of the suppression of free thought by the Christian church .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip MA Honours Thesis

The way ethics can be ‘grounded’ in the phenomenon of ethos, and the sense in which ethos can be phenomenal, become clearer if we consider Heidegger's analysis of Heraclitus' saying, "ethos anthropoi daimon", usually translated as "a man's character is his guardian angel", or more succinctly, "character is fate". The traditional lesson drawn from this aphorism is that a person’s character determines his or her destiny: if you are good you will succeed but if you are bad you will fail. This interpretation brings out the ambivalence in the word ‘ethos’, for if 'ethos' is understood to mean character, or even the moral climate or cultural atmosphere of the place we live in, we may speak just as easily of an ethos which is noble and fair as of one which is violent and greedy. Ethos will then come to mean whatever norms or rules prevail in a particular situation.

However "ethos anthropoi daimon" should not be interpreted as such a straightforward moral observation, but as an admonition to live according to an ethos which truly befits human existence. Heidegger takes ethos to mean more than character, as it signifies "abode, dwelling place . . . the open region in which man dwells". The translation of ethos as 'dwelling place', which Heidegger calls the 'primordial element' of existence, introduces a positive ethical content to the saying, which remains hidden when the usual definition of ethos as character is accepted. Similarly, the word 'daimon' cannot be simply defined as ‘fate’. Daimon is translated by Heidegger as ‘nearness to God’, to suggest the possibility that there may be some purpose acting as the driving force in human destiny, perhaps imparting some grace as a part of our essential nature. Daimon is more universal than individual destiny, as its meaning here signifies that humanity has a spiritual relation with Being as a whole.

One of the most famous instances of the ‘daimon’, Socrates’ guiding light in the Apology and the Phaedrus, can easily be understood in accordance with Heidegger’s interpretation. For Plato, Socrates’ ‘divine element’ is ‘the sign of the god’. It is not a force at his disposal or the blind hand of his fate, but an external call determining his mission. It therefore appears that daimon is somewhat akin to conscience, a suggestion we will return to when we come to discuss Heidegger’s treatment of that topic. For example in the Phaedrus, after Socrates has spoken slightingly of love, the daimon insists Socrates must make amends to the God of love by making a speech doing justice to the truth of this divinity.

If ethos and daimon truly impart a normative sense to the meaning of anthropoi, the usual translation of "ethos anthropoi daimon", which is merely descriptive, will not express the full meaning. Heidegger translates the saying as: "man dwells, insofar as he is man, in the nearness of God", from which he concludes that the final meaning is that "the familiar abode (ethos) is for man (anthropoi) the open region for the presencing of God (daimon)". He thus makes an essential point that reinforces the ethical dimension in his thought: if ‘ethos anthropoi’, the dwelling place of humanity, is bound up with the authentic spirit of truth (daimon), it must be seen as wrong to permit conduct which arises from an inhuman spirit simply to be observed without censure. Such conduct can only occur in situations where the true essence of humanity pointed to in Heraclitus’ saying is unknown or denied.

Such an understanding of the ethos of humanity prevents the acceptance of inauthentic values; for example Heidegger says curiosity, which together with alienation and idle chatter make up the principal inauthentic modes of existence, gives popular beliefs the quality of rootlessness, a "never-dwelling-anywhere". From this we may infer that the curious and the ambiguous arise from modes of ‘anthropoi’ which deny its ethos and so prevent Dasein from hearing the voice of its ‘daimon’. Heidegger argues that the overcoming of the aimless stumbling of homelessness, and the associated task of reversing the abandonment of Being by beings, can only become possible when we recognise the syndrome of never-dwelling-anywhere as symptomatic of the problem of alienation and its oblivion of Being. The main feature of this alienation is that man observes and handles only beings and thinks that is all there is to life, instead of seeking to dwell in the truth of Being.

mountainman · 03-23-2013, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

What purpose would the Gospel authors have had for subverting the original Greek meaning of the term "daimon"?

Hi Pete, great question. There is a strongly gnostic dimension in the idea of daimon as guardian angel, with the gnostic theology of ascent appearing in the idea that the guardian angel enables knowledge of the divine. This relates to the following analysis of daimon in Heidegger and Heraclitus from my MA thesis.

Heidegger sought to recapture the original Greek meaning of daimon as “the open region for the presencing of God”. It is not hard to see why such a meaning would have been anathema to Christians, since the presence of God for them is not open but closed - restricted to the special revelation of Christ canonised in the Bible and interpreted exclusively by the priesthood. 'Daimon' allows a free gnostic spirituality, not the hierarchical control of the church. Daimon became demon as part of the suppression of free thought by the Christian church .

Thanks very much Robert. This is indeed an intriguing subject. I can remember reading Heidegger and Satre and Nietzsche and even Blake but long ago. I did not read them to any great depth and I appreciate a glimpse into your far more detailed thesis and analysis.

My reading in this area is largely from the Stoics Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius' "Meditations" and from Plotinus' "Enneads". But I was first introduced to the concept while studying Ammianus who's quote I have used and which I find a reliable guide to the way the pagans thought about the idea of the "daemon" [Latin of the Greek "daimon"].

I trust that you and others do not think I am delivering conclusions, although I am begging the question as to whether these conclusions are viable.

I think that there is justification to investigate this matter in discussion and that it may turn out to be another pivotal issue by which the victorious Christians actively suppressed the Greek intellectual tradition.

Thanks for your comments.

I agree with them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip MA Honours Thesis

The way ethics can be ‘grounded’ in the phenomenon of ethos, and the sense in which ethos can be phenomenal, become clearer if we consider Heidegger's analysis of Heraclitus' saying, "ethos anthropoi daimon", usually translated as "a man's character is his guardian angel", or more succinctly, "character is fate". The traditional lesson drawn from this aphorism is that a person’s character determines his or her destiny: if you are good you will succeed but if you are bad you will fail. This interpretation brings out the ambivalence in the word ‘ethos’, for if 'ethos' is understood to mean character, or even the moral climate or cultural atmosphere of the place we live in, we may speak just as easily of an ethos which is noble and fair as of one which is violent and greedy. Ethos will then come to mean whatever norms or rules prevail in a particular situation.

However "ethos anthropoi daimon" should not be interpreted as such a straightforward moral observation, but as an admonition to live according to an ethos which truly befits human existence. Heidegger takes ethos to mean more than character, as it signifies "abode, dwelling place . . . the open region in which man dwells". The translation of ethos as 'dwelling place', which Heidegger calls the 'primordial element' of existence, introduces a positive ethical content to the saying, which remains hidden when the usual definition of ethos as character is accepted. Similarly, the word 'daimon' cannot be simply defined as ‘fate’. Daimon is translated by Heidegger as ‘nearness to God’, to suggest the possibility that there may be some purpose acting as the driving force in human destiny, perhaps imparting some grace as a part of our essential nature. Daimon is more universal than individual destiny, as its meaning here signifies that humanity has a spiritual relation with Being as a whole.

One of the most famous instances of the ‘daimon’, Socrates’ guiding light in the Apology and the Phaedrus, can easily be understood in accordance with Heidegger’s interpretation. For Plato, Socrates’ ‘divine element’ is ‘the sign of the god’. It is not a force at his disposal or the blind hand of his fate, but an external call determining his mission. It therefore appears that daimon is somewhat akin to conscience, a suggestion we will return to when we come to discuss Heidegger’s treatment of that topic. For example in the Phaedrus, after Socrates has spoken slightingly of love, the daimon insists Socrates must make amends to the God of love by making a speech doing justice to the truth of this divinity.

If ethos and daimon truly impart a normative sense to the meaning of anthropoi, the usual translation of "ethos anthropoi daimon", which is merely descriptive, will not express the full meaning. Heidegger translates the saying as: "man dwells, insofar as he is man, in the nearness of God", from which he concludes that the final meaning is that "the familiar abode (ethos) is for man (anthropoi) the open region for the presencing of God (daimon)". He thus makes an essential point that reinforces the ethical dimension in his thought: if ‘ethos anthropoi’, the dwelling place of humanity, is bound up with the authentic spirit of truth (daimon), it must be seen as wrong to permit conduct which arises from an inhuman spirit simply to be observed without censure. Such conduct can only occur in situations where the true essence of humanity pointed to in Heraclitus’ saying is unknown or denied.

Such an understanding of the ethos of humanity prevents the acceptance of inauthentic values; for example Heidegger says curiosity, which together with alienation and idle chatter make up the principal inauthentic modes of existence, gives popular beliefs the quality of rootlessness, a "never-dwelling-anywhere". From this we may infer that the curious and the ambiguous arise from modes of ‘anthropoi’ which deny its ethos and so prevent Dasein from hearing the voice of its ‘daimon’. Heidegger argues that the overcoming of the aimless stumbling of homelessness, and the associated task of reversing the abandonment of Being by beings, can only become possible when we recognise the syndrome of never-dwelling-anywhere as symptomatic of the problem of alienation and its oblivion of Being. The main feature of this alienation is that man observes and handles only beings and thinks that is all there is to life, instead of seeking to dwell in the truth of Being.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 03-23-2013, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Tanya/avi -

In our modern world, these idols are just carved pieces of wood. In the ancient world, they represented gods and were worshiped. The Hebrews considered them powerful and important enough to forbid their possession. One of the original ten commandments or utterances of god forbids graven images.

Are we assuming that seventy Hebrew scribes were ordered by the King of Egypt to translate the Hebrew Bible to Greek? This is a fantasy land legend based on a letter found in Josephus. It's probably completely bullshit just like the "TF".

In reality the LXX used by Christians was heavily Christianised with all sorts of nomina sacra (more than a dozen) whereas the Hebrews used only one AFAIK.

The possibility that the Christians edited their Greek version to introduce the demonization of the spiritual landscape is intriguing and should be investigated as a further issue to what they did within the NT.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Iskander · 03-23-2013, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Hi Jeffrey - the new rules are here. There is a rule that you will like:

Quote:

e) Languages: i. Arguments that use the meaning of specific language in an ancient text cannot be made based on understanding of the English used in one translation. You will need to be able to show either 1) an understanding of the original language or 2) that the meaning under discussion reflects a selection of modern translations. Such a selection will provide a better chance of representing the meaning in the original text. Arguments dependent on the meaning of specific language in a single modern translation should be avoided.
ii. Do not cite ancient languages without providing a translation: this is not a language forum.
iii. Internet sources such as Strongs are no substitute for some knowledge of the original language. Use scholarly dictionaries, not Strongs. (For Greek, try Liddell & Scott.)

Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You will need to be able to show either 1) an understanding of the original language or

Showing an understanding of the original language cannot in all fairness be accepted as sufficient without the additional support of

Quote:

2) that the meaning under discussion reflects a selection of modern translations. Such a selection will provide a better chance of representing the meaning in the original text

There is no fair and intelligent argument for forcing anyone to accept as the best and final any personal choice of translation from anyone in this forum.

Translating ancient ( modern ) languages is very difficult and the best translation is often a subject for lengthy discussion ,even when the translation has been done by competent professional translators.
In posting , number one should always go together with two .Or number two alone

Personal unsupported translations will be rejected by many and this will create personal animosity.. Number one and two together avoid conflict. Number two avoids conflict.

Clivedurdle · 03-23-2013, 05:14 AM

http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/198650

DF Owen What is Ecology defines ecology as the study of the home.

BBC had a fascinating programme about steam punk this morning,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01md9fj

In which it was noted that when the British introduced steam trains to India, it was believed there were demons inside them. Similar ideas persist in the idea that a camera catches one's soul, that we say bless you to someone who has sneezed to put their soul back, and the joke that TV's had dwarf actors in them.

So this discussion is about our understanding of the world and the slow change towards rational models. Changes in understanding of witchcraft are precisely to the subject.

The question as I understand it is what relationship did xian ideas of demons have towards these scientific and technical changes? Did these ideas push general thinking in any particular directions? It looks to me that they did at least encourage demon solutions, and a particular type of demon explanation - evil ones.

I understand guiding spirits to be products of our minds, that are actually quite valuable as a survival technique and to promote sanity.

The history of these ideas is very important.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-23-2013, 02:07 AM	#213
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Tanya/avi - In our modern world, these idols are just carved pieces of wood. In the ancient world, they represented gods and were worshiped. The Hebrews considered them powerful and important enough to forbid their possession. One of the original ten commandments or utterances of god forbids graven images. Why are we dragging this thread out? Pete is clearly wrong that Christians forced a major change in the meaning of daimon or its derivatives. The term originally referred to spirits, and spirits in the pre-scientific, ancient, "demon haunted" world were often malevolent or irrational forces that needed to be placated with sacrifices or magic. Pete posed the question in the OP, and the evidence has come in against his position. If you want to make progress, you have to drop the ideas that don't pan out and move on.

03-23-2013, 05:14 AM	#220
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/198650 DF Owen What is Ecology defines ecology as the study of the home. BBC had a fascinating programme about steam punk this morning, http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01md9fj In which it was noted that when the British introduced steam trains to India, it was believed there were demons inside them. Similar ideas persist in the idea that a camera catches one's soul, that we say bless you to someone who has sneezed to put their soul back, and the joke that TV's had dwarf actors in them. So this discussion is about our understanding of the world and the slow change towards rational models. Changes in understanding of witchcraft are precisely to the subject. The question as I understand it is what relationship did xian ideas of demons have towards these scientific and technical changes? Did these ideas push general thinking in any particular directions? It looks to me that they did at least encourage demon solutions, and a particular type of demon explanation - evil ones. I understand guiding spirits to be products of our minds, that are actually quite valuable as a survival technique and to promote sanity. The history of these ideas is very important.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.