Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spamandham · 10-08-2009, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I can't agree! JtB is not at all central to the gospel story, so it's not part of the direct christian tradition. You don't need JtB for salvation and his role is actually awkward as it sits in the gospels. They accommodate his existence.

Possibly, but on the other hand, JtB allows the storyline to follow the same "second shall be first" theme repeated over and over in the Jewish scriptures. Once Esau hands over his birthright, we never hear about him again. It's all about Jacob from that point on. The same with JtB.

Celsus · 10-08-2009, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celsus

I think JtB is ruled out as being historical with the standards asked of Jesus.

I can't agree! JtB is not at all central to the gospel story, so it's not part of the direct christian tradition. You don't need JtB for salvation and his role is actually awkward as it sits in the gospels. They accommodate his existence. The information packaged with the gospels about him contradicts that given by Josephus, so we have clearly two separate sources for JtB.

Still, one could ask what's the nearest historical text in time with the life of JtB? And the answer is as far away as that with Jesus, which is seen as one of the counts against Jesus. We don't need to even go into arguments over the Testimonium Flavianum or Tacitus or whatever (despite obvious tampering in some cases).

What's the closest extant historical text, and/or independent witness to the life of Jeremiah? Of Jehoshaphat? Of Jeroboam? All of these are fairly central figures of events of their time. But because of mentions of Hezekiah and Jehu and Omri, we can infer that the Biblical list of kings is roughly accurate.

What I'm trying to emphasise is that these standards are unusually harsh for reasons that do not seem to justify their stringency, especially given that they are only advocated by MJers (for want of a better word).

Of course I also see Jesus' life as irrecoverable but I grant he existed somewhere circa 0 - 50 CE (ironically if you strike out all the gospels as witnesses, then his life could easily be moved closer to the extant gospels) and Occam's Razor doesn't permit the MJ-conception of historical methodology because it fundamentally turns a number of historical standards on their head that would apply nowhere else in historical methodology. I find the strongest MJers most predominant among those with the narrowest field of historical inquiry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Circumstantial is fine, it's the best we can hope for. The problem as I see it, is that these are not valid inferences. Aside from a few questionable passages in the authentic epistles, Paul does not describe his Jesus in human terms. It is not clear that Paul is talking about a human being named Jesus at all. Paul at times uses 'crucified' in ways that *must* be metaphorical, and at other times uses 'Christ' in ways that appear to simply mean "the wisdom of God". Do we really know that "Jesus Christ" is not simply "God's saving wisdom"?

If he is not talking about a human being, then Paul is evidence *against* rather than for a historical core.

Here is where your argument breaks down because this is a false dichotomy. Paul's insistence of speaking of a spiritual being may be a conscious diversion away from the physical figure precisely because he does not want to contest the witness of disciples who had seen Christ. It's not an either-or split. It is possible to craft your story in such a way as to avoid conflict.

Quote:

There seems to be some projection of ideas from Acts and the Gospels onto Paul's writings, which is not valid.

I agree this is possible but it's not what I'm suggesting, or at least I hope not. However, discounting Acts as an historical account wholesale would also imply you discount the existence of the historical Jeroboam? Or Jeremiah? Or Jehoiachin?

spamandham · 10-08-2009, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celsus

Here is where your argument breaks down because this is a false dichotomy. Paul's insistence of speaking of a spiritual being may be a conscious diversion away from the physical figure precisely because he does not want to contest the witness of disciples who had seen Christ.

It might be. But it might also be simply because Jesus only ever was a metaphor/spiritual being (Paul does not appear to distinguish between these). What reason is there for thinking that Paul's witness was essentially different from any other witness, except that he came to the game late?

Quote:

I agree this is possible but it's not what I'm suggesting, or at least I hope not. However, discounting Acts as an historical account wholesale would also imply you discount the existence of the historical Jeroboam? Or Jeremiah? Or Jehoiachin?

Even if we all accepted that Acts was an attempt to accurately record history as the author knew it, it would still be invalid to project that onto Paul.

PhilosopherJay · 10-08-2009, 03:24 PM

Hi GakuseiDon,

The four quotes you gave to show that Paul believed In a recently crucified Jesus are highly ambiguous. One can easily use them to prove that Paul knew nothing of a recently deceased Jesus.

1.

Quote:

1Corinthians 15:22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[e]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.

This is almost certainly a reference to Philo's idea of two Adams (see http://www.henrywansbrough.com/essay...secondadam.htm) Philo is distinguishing between the Adam made in Genesis 1 and the Adam made in Genesis 2. For Philo, the heavenly Adam made in Genesis 1 is the first Adam and the Adam of clay made in Genesis 2 is the second Adam. Paul is reversing this and saying that the Earthly Adam came first and then the Heavenly Adam which he calls Jesus came second.

It appears that Paul sees Jesus as being born at the time of Adam, within a few moments of Adam's birth, and that he is speaking of Christ as a heavenly man, not an Earthly one.

2.

Quote:

Galatians 3:16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed,"[g] meaning one person, who is Christ.

Philo says this about the seed of Abraham in "On Abraham:
(http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book22.html)
(132) For when the wise man entreats those persons who are in the guise of three travellers to come and lodge in his house, he speaks to them not as three persons, but as one, and says, "My lord, if I have found favour with thee, do not thou pass by thy Servant." For the expressions, "my lord," and "with thee," and "do not pass by," and others of the same kind, are all such as are naturally addressed to a single individual, but not to many. And when those persons, having been entertained in his house, address their entertainer in an affectionate manner, it is again one of them who promises that he by himself will be present, and will bestow on him the seed of a child of his own, speaking in the following words: "I will return again and visit thee again, according to the time of life, and Sarah thy wife shall have a Son."

The visitor who is promising to give his seed to Sarah, is according to Paul Christ. This is the same Christ that is a heavenly life giving spirit created at the time of Adam.

Note that both Paul and Philo refer to the messenger-spirit and seed being one, which can hardly be coincidental.

Quote:

Paul continues: 19What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.

The messengers are three angels, but the God is one. Christ may appear as three messengers just as Philo said, but he is one. He will give his life-giving essence to the seed (Sperm) of Abraham so that Sarah may have a Son. The law comes 430 years later, but that is given as a punishment for the things that man did between the time that Adam was created and the time that the Christ put his life-giving force into Abraham's seed (sperm) and made Sarah pregnant.

3.

Quote:

Romans 10:3. 4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

5Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them."

The life-giving spirit has already been put into all descendants of Abraham and Sarah. If you just have faith that Joshua/Yeshua/Yaweh is Lord, like Abraham did, you will be saved from death.

4.

Quote:

Roman 1: 1Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,4and who through the Spirit[a] of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God[b] by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

Paul is describing his own attributes here:
1. servant (slave) of Christ Jesus
2. called to be an apostle
3. an apostle to the gospel the prophets proclaimed regarding his son (the second Adam, life giving spirit)
4 As to (Paul's) human nature, he is a descendent of David
5. through the Spirit of Holiness (the second Adam) declared a son of God. (The Christ angel declared Paul a son of God).
6. By his (Paul's) resurrection from the dead. (Paul was dead while he was under the law, but now that he has found spiritual faith, he is resurrected)
The final statement, "Jesus Christ our Lord" is simply a declaration naming his lord - Jesus Christ.

Taken together, these passages prove that Paul never knew or heard of a human Christ, but believed Christ to be a heavenly spirit created in heaven just after Adam with a life-giving spirit (opposite to Adam's death-giving spirit). This spirit gave life to Abraham's seed, and his faith in this spirit has resurrected himself from the dead (those under the curse of the law).

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Along with a "historical" Jesus, Paul thought there was a historical Adam, a historical Eve, a historical Moses, a historical Joshua, and every other Biblical character. And just like Jesus, he is not a witness to any these characters. From my first post in this thread, I don't see how you can argue that just because someone thinks there was a living person behind the name, that this is evidence that this person existed.

If Paul is evidence for the existence of a "historical" Jesus, the Paul is evidence for a historical Adam.

It depends on when Paul thought that Jesus lived. If Paul indicates that Jesus was someone who lived fairly recently, and Mark places Jesus in the same time frame, then we have evidence much stronger than for someone they both believed lived 500 years prior.

So, when did Paul probably believe that Jesus lived? I think the strongest case is for "fairly recently". I took these notes from a post by Ben Smith. Note that the timing works for some points regardless of whether Jesus was a man or some "cosmic spirit":

1. Jesus must have lived after Adam, since Paul calls him the latter Adam (1 Corinthians 15.22, 45).

2. Jesus must have lived after Abraham, since Paul calls him the seed (descendant) of Abraham (Galatians 3.16).

3. Jesus must have lived after Moses, since Paul says that he was the end of the law of Moses (Romans 10.4-5).

4. Jesus must have lived after David, since Paul calls him the seed (descendant) of David (Romans 1.4).

Evidence that Paul regarded Jesus as having lived recently, within living memory, as an older contemporary:

1. Paul believes he is living in the end times (1 Corinthians 10.11), that he himself (1 Thessalonians 4.15; 1 Corinthians 15.51) or at least his converts (1 Thessalonians 5.23; 2 Corinthians 4.14) might well live to see the parousia. Paul also believes that the resurrection of Jesus was not just an ordinary resuscitation of the kind Elijah or Elisha supposedly wrought; it was the first instance of the general resurrection from the dead at the end of the age (1 Corinthians 15.13, 20-28). When, then, does Paul think Jesus rose from the dead? If, for Paul, he rose from the dead at some point in the indeterminate past, then we must explain either (A) why Paul thought the general resurrection had begun (with Jesus) well before the end times or (B) why Paul regarded the end times as a span of time stretching from the misty past all the way to the present. If, however, Paul regarded the resurrection of Jesus as a recent phenomenon, all is explained. The resurrection of Jesus was the beginning of the general resurrection and thus the ultimate sign that the end times were underway.

2. Paul expects that he might see the general resurrection in his own lifetime (1 Corinthians 15.51). He also calls Jesus the firstfruits of that resurrection. Since the firstfruits of the harvest precede the main harvest itself by only a short time, the very metaphor works better with a short time between the resurrection of Jesus and the resurrection of the rest of the dead, implying that the resurrection of Jesus was recent for Paul.

3. There is, for Paul, no generation gap between the death of Jesus and the resurrection of Jesus (1 Corinthians 15.4). Furthermore, there is no generation gap between the recipients of the resurrection appearances and Paul himself; he is personally acquainted with the first recipient of a resurrection appearance (1 Corinthians 15.5; Galatians 1.18). Is there a gap between the resurrection and the first appearance? The flow of 1 Corinthians 15.3-8 would certainly not suggest one; however, I believe we can go further.

Paul claims that Jesus was the end of the law for those who have faith (Romans 10.4), that he was raised from the dead in order to justify humans (Romans 4.25), and that this justification comes by faith (Romans 5.1) in Jesus (Romans 3.22). Paul also claims that no one can have faith unless he first hears the gospel from a preacher (Romans 10.14) who is sent (Romans 10.15). Finally, Paul acknowledges that it was at the present time (Romans 3.26) that God showed forth his justice apart from the law (Romans 3.21), and that the sent ones, the apostles, were to come last of all (1 Corinthians 4.9); he also implies that the resurrection appearances were the occasion of the sending out of apostles (1 Corinthians 9.1; 15.7, 9; Galatians 1.15-16). If we presume that, for Paul, Jesus was raised in the distant past but only recently revealed to the apostles, we must take pains to account for this gap; why, for Paul, did Jesus die in order to end the law and justify humans but then wait indefinitely before making this justification available to humans? If, however, we presume that, for Paul, Jesus was raised recently, shortly before appearing to all the apostles, all is explained. That was the right time (Romans 5.6).

4. Paul writes that God sent forth his son to redeem those under the law in the fullness of time (Galatians 4.4). It is easier to suppose that, for Paul, the fullness of time had some direct correspondence to the end of the ages (1 Corinthians 10.11) than to imagine that the fullness of time came, Jesus died, and then everybody had to wait another long expanse of time for the death to actually apply to humanity.

spin · 10-08-2009, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celsus

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I can't agree! JtB is not at all central to the gospel story, so it's not part of the direct christian tradition. You don't need JtB for salvation and his role is actually awkward as it sits in the gospels. They accommodate his existence. The information packaged with the gospels about him contradicts that given by Josephus, so we have clearly two separate sources for JtB.

Still, one could ask what's the nearest historical text in time with the life of JtB? And the answer is as far away as that with Jesus, which is seen as one of the counts against Jesus. We don't need to even go into arguments over the Testimonium Flavianum or Tacitus or whatever (despite obvious tampering in some cases).

What's the closest extant historical text, and/or independent witness to the life of Jeremiah? Of Jehoshaphat? Of Jeroboam? All of these are fairly central figures of events of their time. But because of mentions of Hezekiah and Jehu and Omri, we can infer that the Biblical list of kings is roughly accurate.

I was providing another criterion, distinct from closeness to the era (without going too far from the era) and that involved distinctness of testimony partly due to conflicting information, so that one can't be derived from the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celsus

What I'm trying to emphasise is that these standards are unusually harsh for reasons that do not seem to justify their stringency, especially given that they are only advocated by MJers (for want of a better word).

Of course I also see Jesus' life as irrecoverable but I grant he existed somewhere circa 0 - 50 CE (ironically if you strike out all the gospels as witnesses, then his life could easily be moved closer to the extant gospels) and Occam's Razor doesn't permit the MJ-conception of historical methodology because it fundamentally turns a number of historical standards on their head that would apply nowhere else in historical methodology. I find the strongest MJers most predominant among those with the narrowest field of historical inquiry.

Will you grant that King Arthur or Robin Hood existed? I wouldn't. I'd say that the information is insufficient, as is the case regarding Jesus. I don't see why people are so willing to commit regarding Jesus but are happy not to do so with Arthur or Robin Hood.

We are dealing with traditions and they should be treated like traditions. It's fine to say that the life may be irrecoverable, but that's already committing to a life when that is still to be decided.

Working from Paul there is no data on which to base such a decision. As I have said many times here, Paul admits not to have known Jesus, but claims to have received his knowledge of Jesus through revelation. If you reject Paul's own claims you are still left with the hypothesis that Paul receive hearsay, so that Paul is to these purveyors of hearsay, as his proselytes are to him. Paul's proselytes accepted the reality of Jesus without ever having met Jesus, but there is no historical data to be mined in any of this: Paul can't provide historical information.

spin

Celsus · 10-08-2009, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Even if we all accepted that Acts was an attempt to accurately record history as the author knew it, it would still be invalid to project that onto Paul.

Of course, but that wasn't my point - rather that Acts is close enough by most other historical standards that it would be unquestionably accepted (minus a few miracles) if it weren't for its importance to the debate; while it is thrown out wholesale by MJers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Will you grant that King Arthur or Robin Hood existed? I wouldn't. I'd say that the information is insufficient, as is the case regarding Jesus. I don't see why people are so willing to commit regarding Jesus but are happy not to do so with Arthur or Robin Hood.

Those are certainly problematic - they're even less attested than David, which as you know I don't consider anything more than a remembered historical ancestor of which no details are actually reliable. But there's a spectrum to be considered - not everyone falls in this extreme of centuries-later mythic construction, certainly not Jesus. That's why I intentionally pulled out figures like Jehoshaphat or Jereboam or Jeremiah while not bothering to look at David and Solomon (despite Jereboam I's closeness in the biblical narrative to Solomon, I'd argue a pre-Omride patriarchal figure of northern Israel is likely to have existed somehow).

Quote:

We are dealing with traditions and they should be treated like traditions. It's fine to say that the life may be irrecoverable, but that's already committing to a life when that is still to be decided.

Where do you stand on Israelite/Judahite kings not attested except in the Bible?

Quote:

Working from Paul there is no data on which to base such a decision. As I have said many times here, Paul admits not to have known Jesus, but claims to have received his knowledge of Jesus through revelation. If you reject Paul's own claims you are still left with the hypothesis that Paul receive hearsay, so that Paul is to these purveyors of hearsay, as his proselytes are to him. Paul's proselytes accepted the reality of Jesus without ever having met Jesus, but there is no historical data to be mined in any of this: Paul can't provide historical information.

I agree, as I said earlier - he's not a witness in the technical sense. The question I wanted to raise was why was Paul concerned with declaring himself a witness - even by other means that were less believable (apparitions) - if not because he was locked in contest with people who were witnesses of a physical Jesus?

Toto · 10-08-2009, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celsus

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Even if we all accepted that Acts was an attempt to accurately record history as the author knew it, it would still be invalid to project that onto Paul.

Of course, but that wasn't my point - rather that Acts is close enough by most other historical standards that it would be unquestionably accepted (minus a few miracles) if it weren't for its importance to the debate; while it is thrown out wholesale by MJers.

...

I don't think you can support this.

Acts is not accepted as historical by most non-evangelical scholars, including Richard Pervo, a Christian who believes in the historical Jesus, who has devoted his life's work to Acts. I think that only very conservative scholars claim that Acts has any historical value. It is not only late, but has an obvious theological purpose and is in conflict with Paul's letters.

Solo · 10-08-2009, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

And so? Do you agree with the fact that Paul never knew a Jesus and so was not a witness to him or not?

Jesus was quite a common name in Paul's time. So, the probability is high that Paul knew a Jesus. As for the mythologized figure of the James' Jerusalem assembly, there is no reason to suspect Paul had a personal acquiantance with him, if that is what you naively assess as 'historical witness'.

Quote:

I'm interested in history, what is history, what is not history. History is the study of what can be shown through the evidence from the past of the past.

This is meaningless babble : I asked you to evaluate a statement (in 1 Cr 5:16) made by a historical person (Paul) about the source of knowledge he had of another person or mythical being who seemed to have been the focus of theological controversy in Paul's time. You refused to concede that by Paul's own evidence he knew about "Christ" from other men before something happened in Paul's head that Paul interpreted as God talking to him to him about the meaning of Jesus' existence and death on earth.

You argued that I misread the statement based on Paul's deploying first person plural. That of course is nonsense : logically it changes nothing on the mental operation you were asked to perform. Paul, even if he did not mean the 'we' (in 2 Cr 5:16) rhetorically, was still grammatically one of the referents.

He knew about the phenomena and their human source (he referred to as "Christ") from other people prior to his own evangelizing career. That much can be safely and historically concluded from the statement in the literary context where it is found.

And that's where I leave it.

Jiri

Celsus · 10-08-2009, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celsus

Of course, but that wasn't my point - rather that Acts is close enough by most other historical standards that it would be unquestionably accepted (minus a few miracles) if it weren't for its importance to the debate; while it is thrown out wholesale by MJers.

...

I don't think you can support this.

Acts is not accepted as historical by most non-evangelical scholars, including Richard Pervo, a Christian who believes in the historical Jesus, who has devoted his life's work to Acts. I think that only very conservative scholars claim that Acts has any historical value. It is not only late, but has an obvious theological purpose and is in conflict with Paul's letters.

I mean it exactly the same way I do other texts (also I reject the term 'historical value' because you're looking for a kind of history that does not exist). Perhaps I was too understated saying 'minus a few miracles' since Acts is largely describing a miraculous time in the early Church. What I mean is that Acts is testimony to a physical founder of a movement, regardless of the obvious fabrications involved in the Pentecost, the early Church and other miraculous events (e.g. Paul's calming of the storm and its blatant cribbing from Jonah). But the figures inside almost certainly existed and were part of a mythicising arc with very normal, ordinary beginnings.

There is a very real danger, for example, in reading Hezekiah as a Yahwist reformer as he is made out to be in the Bible. Indeed, I reject pretty much the entire Hezekiah narrative as self-serving propaganda of Yahwist factions, and indeed like Liverani suggests he was probably a rather poor ruler not in tune with the political ramifications of his choices compared to Ahaz who is reviled in the Biblical text. But that doesn't preclude the central question: a physical figure behind the story. And that's similar to what I mean with Acts and its attestation of Jesus (and likewise Mark, while with Paul it's via admittedly circumstantial inference).

badger3k · 10-08-2009, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celsus

Quote:

Originally Posted by badger3k

I know this goes back a bit, but I've asked before about this. Let's take John the Baptist. What evidence besides the bible and Josephus do we have that he existed? I know there is that cave discovered recently which may be related to a Baptist cult, but any other evidence? In other forums, my request is usually met with silence.

For myself, I have no idea of those individuals existed or not. I'd definitely be skeptical of the last one, given the obvious exaggeration of the army. Doesn't mean they existed, doesn't mean they didn't. Personally I don't have enough information to conclude anything.

I think JtB is ruled out as being historical with the standards asked of Jesus. I guess by those criteria we'd also rule out Jehoshaphat, Ishbosheth, Jeremiah, Jeroboam (I & II), Jehoiachin, Jehoash, and any number of 'historical' figures of the Hebrew Bible that haven't been fortunate enough to be found in Assyrian or Babylonian texts. I certainly prescribe to a historical Jeremiah with no other source but the Bible... I do believe the historical details are irrecoverable but clearly an individual who significantly influenced a community grappling between the jaws of exile and destruction existed.

Which gets me back to asking why? What assumptions are you making and what is their probability of being correct? I just have trouble understanding why we can't be honest and say we don't know. There is no evidence either way but one text of dubious reliability, so we can tentatively agree to go with it, but be aware that we really don't know and it can all be fiction. I just think that without clear provenance, everything is suspect and tentative. For all we know, a lot of the history was made up after the Jews returned from the exile, which I've heard was a common practice with the Babylonians. I'm skeptical of that idea, but it has to remain a viable hypothesis until we have more data. I just don't think we are there. Maybe I'm just too wishy-washy on it, but I prefer facts to be facts, not hypothesis or uncomfirmed. Maybe I'm too skeptical.:huh:

Quote:

Similarly, I think while Paul is obviously not a witness in the technical sense, but the fact that he felt the need to declare Jesus revealed to him separately from those who (it is infered) had seen Jesus physically pre-or-post crucifixion is circumstancial but convincing of the existence of Jesus. Their authority as direct witnesses of Jesus was obviously of concern to Paul who did not have that advantage. Yet ironically because an apparitional appearance to Paul independent of the others is needed, it provides the basis for a ghost-like Jesus that eventually turns out to be the source of MJ-claims.

We still have no idea what the people he was supposedly persecuting believed. From what I understand, even the idea of Paul, a Jew, going around in Roman lands persecuting anybody (in a legal sense) is a bit far fetched. Now, he may have been doing it a bit on the side, as his comment on being a fanatic implies, so he could have been a terrorist, basically. Or a thug, like an iron-age mafiosio. But, even if he did have some sort of temporal authority to do whatever it is he claimed to be doing, all we know is that he learned what people believed. We have no idea what it was, whether Paul understood it correctly, or if what they believed was true.

I'm not sure if Paul thought being a witness was an advantage. You can read that in his stressing the importance of revelation, but he could also have been saying that to stress his own importance in what he was teaching, or to counter claims (unseen now, naturally) that what he was saying was contradicted by what someone else was saying. I read Paul's view on revelation as saying his views came directly from his god, so they took precedence over what others were saying, which may have come from other people and were (maybe) corrupted along the way.

Or, maybe I'm wrong. Still learning, though.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.