Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 06-28-2009, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

There is a discussion of possible borrowings from the Gospels by Philostratus at apollonius by Maria Dzielska.

I would be interested in discussion of possible borrowings from Vita Apollonius
by the "New Testament authors" after the year c.220 CE.

People with "Christian Glasses" - and by this I mean the "christian world" -
in general are presuming that we have a hard and sure date for the NT
which is earlier than the year Philostratus was commissioned to write
a biography of the Hellenistic sage and author Apollonius of Tyana.

If one were to remove the "Christian Glasses" one would immediately
perceive that the evidence by which an early date of NT authorship
is presumed is tenuous and Eusebian. If one were to remove the CG
one would immediately perceive the political motivations behind the
Eusebian treatise "Against Hierocles and Apollonius". If one were to
remove the CG one would see the utter destruction of religious cults
and architecture, which had been patronised by Apollonius in the 1st
century, and which had in turn sponsored his memory for the period
from the 1st century to the 4th century. This utter destruction for
the purpose of making the empire "christian" as distinct from
"Helenistic". Start with the temple to Ascelpius at Aegae, where
Apollonius served, and which served his memory - possibly even
preserved his originally authored books - until it was utterly destroyed
to its foundations c.324 CE. Hello?

If one were to remove the "Christian Glasses" one would immediately
perceive that we have far more archaeological and ancient historical
evidence for the figure of Apollonius than we do for the figure of JC.

The Life of Apollonius does not anywhere even once mention anything
to do with "Christians". The same cannot be said for the New Testament
since in some of the oldest codices, such as Bezae, the name of the
competitive teacher in Antioch is explicitly given as Apollonius.

Who made the "Christian glasses"?
Do people realise that they can be removed?
Eusebius can be questioned, you know.
Eusebius gave us the only "Early Christian Story" we know.
Nobody went back over the preceeding 300 years.
Eusebius had many continuators but no rivals.
Eusebius has never been effectively questioned.
Isn't it time to simply question this Eusebius?
To do this, the "Christian Glasses" need to be removed.
There is, alas, no alternative.

Eusebius was not writing under the spirit of the Holy Ghost.
Eusebius was writing on behalf of a fascist Constantinian regime.
He was well paid for his toil on that "Lonely and Untrodden path".
Eusebius may well have been sponsored for his literary skills.
We do not have to blindly follow J.R.R. Eusebius as a "history".
We can, you know, simply question the integrity of his sponsor.

We know that the Life of Apollonus was sponsored.
With "Christian Glasses" firmly affixed we presume that
the Life of Bilbo Jesus Baggins was not, even though the
corroborative evidence strongly suggests otherwise.

arnoldo · 06-28-2009, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

There is a discussion of possible borrowings from the Gospels by Philostratus at apollonius by Maria Dzielska.

I would be interested in discussion of possible borrowings from Vita Apollonius
by the "New Testament authors" after the year c.220 CE.

People with "Christian Glasses" - and by this I mean the "christian world" -
in general are presuming that we have a hard and sure date for the NT
which is earlier than the year Philostratus was commissioned to write
a biography of the Hellenistic sage and author Apollonius of Tyana.

If one were to remove the "Christian Glasses" one would immediately
perceive that the evidence by which an early date of NT authorship
is presumed is tenuous and Eusebian. .

Eusebius does indicate a rather early date for the Book of Mark, which he states was written in Rome based upon the teachings of Peter in the following passage;

Quote:

Chapter 15. The Gospel according to Mark.

1. And thus when the divine word had made its home among them, the power of Simon was quenched and immediately destroyed, together with the man himself. And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter's hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark.

2. And they say that Peter — when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done — was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches. Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias. And Peter makes mention of Mark in his first epistle which they say that he wrote in Rome itself, as is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a figure, Babylon, as he does in the following words: "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, salutes you; and so does Marcus my son."

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm

mountainman · 06-28-2009, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Eusebius does indicate a rather early date for the Book of Mark, which he states was written in Rome based upon the teachings of Peter in the following passage;

Quote:

Chapter 15. The Gospel according to Mark.

Eusebius says: "The Apostles wrote the Gospels"!!
Did they indeed?
WTF?

We have only Eusebius's say so.
One 4th century imperial scribe.
Eusebius tells us that Papias and Hegessipus were real people.
But was Tertullian a real person?
We have only the One Eusebian Story.
It no longer services as an historical explanation.

The referential integrity of the tradition of "Apostolic Authors"
cannot be maintained in today's world of scholarship.

Eusebius delivers to us a history of the "Early Christian Churches".
It is the only offering of any form of history we have ever received.
He is also evidently the editor of the new testament canon c.325 CE.

The fourth century was a very twisted epoch.
The Hellenic civilisation went down beneath the waves
of the new Ocean of Imperial State Christianity.

Very few scholars now follow the chronology of apostolic
authorship of the gospels, of Paul and those 14 letters,
or even "The Acts of the Boneheads".

Where does that leave Eusebius and his continuators
such as Damasius, Jerome, Augustine, Rufinus, Cyril,
etc who vouch-safed to the general Hellenic populace
that indeed the Jesus Goggles were official?

If we take off the "Christian Glasses" what does our
contemporary scholarship serve to tell us about the
integrity of the chronology of this Eusebian account?

It is not on any account supported!
Take off the CG just once.
Who is this Eusebius?
Eusebius is political propaganda, not history.
He wrote and was inspired by the new
Constantinian political fascism.

He and his continuators (named above)
enjoyed all the mod cons at the
top of the mafia-like dog heap
of fourth century "bishops".

arnoldo · 06-29-2009, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

. . . If we take off the "Christian Glasses" what does our
contemporary scholarship serve to tell us about the
integrity of the chronology of this Eusebian account?

It is not on any account supported!
Take off the CG just once.
Who is this Eusebius?
Eusebius is political propaganda, not history.
He wrote and was inspired by the new
Constantinian political fascism.

He and his continuators (named above)
enjoyed all the mod cons at the
top of the mafia-like dog heap
of fourth century "bishops".

You are not alone in your thesis that Eusebius is not a good source for history.

Quote:

The Infidels.Org idea

This is from his article at http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...Tcanon.html#6:

That it is necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a medicine for those who need such an approach. [As said in Plato's Laws 663e by the Athenian:] 'And even the lawmaker who is of little use, if even this is not as he considered it, and as just now the application of logic held it, if he dared lie to young men for a good reason, then can't he lie? For falsehood is something even more useful than the above, and sometimes even more able to bring it about that everyone willingly keeps to all justice.' [then by Clinias:] 'Truth is beautiful, stranger, and steadfast. But to persuade people of it is not easy.' You would find many things of this sort being used even in the Hebrew scriptures, such as concerning God being jealous or falling asleep or getting angry or being subject to some other human passions, for the benefit of those who need such an approach.

On the basis of this, he says:

So in a book where Eusebius is proving that the pagans got all their good ideas from the Jews, he lists as one of those good ideas Plato's argument that lying, indeed telling completely false tales, for the benefit of the state is good and even necessary. Eusebius then notes quite casually how the Hebrews did this, telling lies about their God, and he even compares such lies with medicine, a healthy and even necessary thing. Someone who can accept this as a "good idea" worth both taking credit for and following is not the sort of person to be trusted.

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eu...s_the_liar.htm

mountainman · 06-29-2009, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

You are not alone in your thesis that Eusebius is not a good source for history.

I appear to be alone in the formulation
of an alternative theory of ancient history
which uses a Eusebian fiction postulate."

That is, if Eusebius wrote fiction,
what are the consequences?

In order to actually answer this question
it is mandatory to have the ability of being
able to remove, even if it is only temporarily,
the "Christian Glasses" of Eusebian history.

This also applies to atheists, who have been
instructed by authority that "Christian History"
(known to us here as "Eusebian History") is true.

We need to critically and skeptically question
the historical story presented by Eusebius, and
if it fails certain standards of integrity, have the
objectivity to reject - the entire package, including
the new testament canon - as an historically
falsified account.

Clivedurdle · 06-30-2009, 05:25 AM

Quote:

There is a near consensus that Philostratus II was the author of the following four works:

(between 217 and 238 AD) Life of Apollonius of Tyana, which he wrote for Julia Domna, wife of Septimius Severus and mother of Caracalla (see Apollonius of Tyana); he completed it after her death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philostratus

Your arguments only move the Gospels to the 240's. Why would tales of daring do in Jerusalem take off then?

There is no need to jump to Eusebius yet.

Clivedurdle · 06-30-2009, 05:31 AM

Quote:

In the second century the satirist Lucian of Samosata was a sharp critic of Neo-Pythagoreanism. After 180 AD he wrote a pamphlet where he attacked Alexander of Abonoteichus, a student of one of Apollonius’ students, as a charlatan, and suggested that the whole school was based on fraud.[29] From this we can infer that Apollonius really had students and that his school survived at least till Lucian’s time. One of Philostratus’ foremost aims was to oppose this view; although he related various miraculous feats of Apollonius, he emphasized at the same time that his hero was not a magician, but a serious philosopher and a champion of traditional Greek values.[30]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana

Might Lucian have attacked two groups that were actually quite similar?

And where are the Christ schools or similar?

mountainman · 06-30-2009, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

There is a near consensus that Philostratus II was the author of the following four works:

(between 217 and 238 AD) Life of Apollonius of Tyana, which he wrote for Julia Domna, wife of Septimius Severus and mother of Caracalla (see Apollonius of Tyana); he completed it after her death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philostratus

Your arguments only move the Gospels to the 240's. Why would tales of daring do in Jerusalem take off then?

To take the heat off the daring do do do in Sassanid Persia.
Ardashir's son Shapur had done a few numbers on Roman emperors.
There were Roman centurions slaving in Persia building aquaducts.
In the sphere of travel and literature Mani had emulated Apollonius.
Mani trecked to India to converse with the Brahmins.
We might be inclined to conjecture he had read the Greek
not only Philostratus but of the original books of Apollonius.
Mani then wrote profusely, and a great cult grew up around him.
The king Shapur's brother minted coins with Buddha on them.
It was all happening in Sassanid Persia, and the Romans
were definitely the underdogs in the war-games of bravado
and derring do do do.

Stories about the goings on in the ROman backwater province
of Judaea may have been diversionary for the benefit of morale.

A hugely supported monotheistic state religious cult figureheaded
at that time by Mani the Prophet and the entire newly vigorous
and successful Sassanid Persian army dominated the epoch.
One Roman emperor had already lost his skin to the Persians.

My position is that we might also conjecture that the authors
of the gospels borrowed not only from Philostratus, but that
there were also borrowings from the writings of Mani. In this
manner the entire subsequent history of the christians burning
the writings of the Manichaeans is easily explained.

Quote:

There is no need to jump to Eusebius yet.

If we are not jumping just yet to Eusebius and Augustine
then we must view the sage Mani as something other than
a reported christian soldier, since it is only the assertions
of these authors who make Mani one of their "early christians".

Mani, who appears as a follower of the life of
Apollonius of Tyana, trecking to India and
writing many books at this period mid 3rd CE.

mountainman · 06-30-2009, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

In the second century the satirist Lucian of Samosata was a sharp critic of Neo-Pythagoreanism. After 180 AD he wrote a pamphlet where he attacked Alexander of Abonoteichus, a student of one of Apollonius’ students, as a charlatan, and suggested that the whole school was based on fraud.[29] From this we can infer that Apollonius really had students and that his school survived at least till Lucian’s time. One of Philostratus’ foremost aims was to oppose this view; although he related various miraculous feats of Apollonius, he emphasized at the same time that his hero was not a magician, but a serious philosopher and a champion of traditional Greek values.[30]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana

Might Lucian have attacked two groups that were actually quite similar?

Lucian was a popular author. His books were preserved into the fourth
century and were probably in many of the Roman libraries which were
commandeered by Constantine. If you examine the morass of books
which have been passed off under the name of Lucian, and which are
now known forgeries -- such as the Philopatris -- you will understand
that a certain amount of cirumspect is required with Lucian.

My position is that Lucian was used by Eusebius to satire the cult
of Asclepius and the followers of Apollonius.

Quote:

And where are the Christ schools or similar?

The school and the Academy of Plato had its doors open.
We may be assured of the lineage from Ammonias Saccas
to Plotinus to Porphyry to Iamblichus to Sopater. The same
Sopater executed by Constantine on account of his influence
in unfair weather encountered by transport of the grain
shipments from ---- the corn center Alexandria. (Books
had become devalued with the new Boss).

We have no knowledge of the administrative coordination
and authority systems in the ancient network of Hellenistic
temples which were then in full operation focussed on the
city of Alexandria. The public hospital system of antiquity
in that epoch were the network of temples to Asclepius.

The Hellenistic Roman Healing God was Asclepius.

Without "Christian Glasses" the archaeology shouts at us this fact.
The head priests of these temples were the equivalent of physicians.
Emminent practicing physical doctors - such as Galen.

Jesus Christ appears in the archaeology after the ancient
Hellenistic temple networks were destroyed c.324 CE.
It is not a nice story at all, but one that requires exploring
since we are supposed to be following the evidence alone
wheresoever it may lead us.

The closest thing to the appearance of "Christianity" to all
this is the appearance of the twin Christian healing saints
Cosmas and Damien. They are of course totally bogus.
They became patrons of christian medicine until they were
unceremoniusly booted out during the Rennaisance, only to
be replaced again by the staff of Asclepius. The staff of
Asclepius today is represented on many medical emblems.

mountainman · 07-02-2009, 09:53 PM

Extracted from an article entitled:
Hermes Trismegistus and Apollonius of Tyana in the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh
by Keven Brown

Quote:

Apollonius of Tyana

Unlike the figure of Hermes Trismegistus, who is veiled in the mists of legend, Apollonius of Tyana is a known historical figure. According to his chief biographer, Flavius Philostratus (c. 175 - 245), Apollonius lived to be over ninety years old and died near the end of the first Christian century. Recent scholarship puts Apollonius’ life between approximately 40 - 120 C.E.[37] The empress Julia Domna, who was born in Syrian Emesa in the eastern confines of the Roman empire where Apollonius had flourished, commissioned Philostratus to write the life of Apollonius, which was completed some time after Julia Domna’s death in 217. Philostratus says of his sources:

I have gathered my materials partly from the many cities that were devoted to him, partly from the shrines which he set right when their rules had fallen into neglect, partly from what others have said about him, and partly from his own letters....But my more detailed information I have gathered from a...man called Damis who...became a disciple of Apollonius and has left an account of his master's journeys, on which he claims to have accompanied him, and also an account of his sayings, speeches and predictions....I have also read the book by Maximus of Aegae, which contains all that Apollonius did there....But it is best to ignore the four books which Moeragenes composed about Apollonius, because of the great ignorance of their subject that they display.[38]

As to the reliability of Philostratus’ work and the possibility of reconstructing an accurate historical picture of Apollonius of Tyana from it, modern historians generally agree that Philostratus fabricated much of his biography to please the expectations of his patroness. Such likely fabrications include the figure of Damis, the accounts of Apollonius’ encounters with several Roman emperors, and Apollonius’ journeys to India and Rome.[39] He does not seem to have been known in Rome until the fourth century, when his legend became famous due to the controversy between Eusebius and Hierocles, which will be explained below. Philostratus himself was “a man of letters and a sophist full of passion for Greek Romance and for studies in rhetoric…hardly interested in the historical Apollonius.”[40]

The works by Maximus and Moeragenes have not survived, although there is a reference to Moeragenes’ work by Origen in his Contra Celsum, in which he mentions Moeragenes’ view that Apollonius was both a philosopher and a magician.[41] The earliest known mention of Apollonius is in Lucian’s Alexander sive Pseudomantis written in about 180 C.E., in which he ridicules Alexander as a charlatan whose teacher had been a pupil of Apollonius.[42] In sum, historical sources contemporary with Apollonius are silent about him, those remaining from the second century are sparse and fragmentary, and Philostratus’ biography written in the first half of the third century is unreliable. Furthermore, there is no body of extant works by Apollonius in Greek or in Syriac (at least ones considered to be authentic) to give us an accurate picture of his teachings. All that remains from the Greek is a collection of about one hundred of his letters, most quite short and some probably fabricated after his death. A fragment from a work of Balínús entitled Concerning Sacrifices found in Eusebius was probably translated into Greek, because Philostratus says that Apollonius wrote this book in his “own language,” Syriac.[43] Given this state of affairs, revealing the true Apollonius is a formidable if not impossible task. Nevertheless, Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius and the letters give us a picture of Apollonius that cannot be entirely out of line.

Philostratus describes many of Apollonius’ wonderful acts, but he chooses to stress his wisdom, his ascetic practices, and his mission to restore the purity of the ancient religions of the empire. That Apollonius could do things beyond the capability of ordinary men, Philostratus explains, was the result of the "knowledge which God reveals to wise men."[44] His wonders consisted primarily of instances of divining the future, seeing or hearing things in visions, and healing the sick. In a case where he restored a young girl to life upon meeting her funeral procession, Philostratus comments: "He may have seen a spark of life in her which her doctors had not noticed, since apparently it was drizzling and steam was coming from her face."[45]

As Christianity grew in size and power, some pagans felt compelled to respond to the miracles Christians attributed to Christ with their own stories about the miracles of Apollonius. The first to do so in writing, according to Eusebius of Caesarea, was Hierocles, a philosopher and the governor of Bithynia at that time (302 C.E.). He wrote a work called A Friend of the Truth in which he contrasts the wonderful works of Apollonius with the miracles of Christ as a proof to Christians that they should not claim divinity for Christ based on his miracles. Eusebius of Caesarea responded vehemently to Hierocles, not by disclaiming the virtue of Apollonius, but by discrediting Philostratus’ biography of Apollonius.[46] Lactantius, who heard Hierocles read his book publicly in Nicomedia, argued that Christ is divine, not because of the miracles he did, but because it was Jesus who had fulfilled the prophecies announced by the Jewish Prophets.[47] As a result of this debate between Christians and pagans, Apollonius’ legend as a wonder-worker began to grow and Philostratus’ biography became popular. The cult at the temple of Asclepius in Aegaeae, where Apollonius had served as a healer of both bodies and souls, began to flourish again (as did many other temples loyal to his memory), until the emperor Constantine had this temple destroyed in 331 C.E.[48]

Where did the legends of Apollonius’ talismans come from? They are not mentioned by Philostratus, so they were either unknown to him, or he did not wish to speak about them. Maria Dzielska, whose book Apollonius of Tyana in Legend and History has been very helpful in constructing this account of Apollonius, has explained this question. Eusebius is the first to refer to them in his Contra Hieroclem. He says that "certain queer implements attributed to Apollonius were used in his times."[49] After Eusebius, references to Apollonius’ talismans begin to appear frequently. Pseudo-Justin mentions the dissemination of Apollonius’ talismans in Antioch. It appears that these objects were so popular that Antioch’s Church leaders decided to accept them. Pseudo-Justin illustrates the problem in a work containing a dialogue between a theologian and a Christian:

The Christian is concerned about the popularity and spread of Apollonius’ talismans. He wonders how to explain their magical powers....He wonders why God...allows them....The theologian dispels his doubts saying that there is nothing evil about those objects because they were produced by Apollonius who was an expert in the powers governing nature and in the cosmic sympathies and antipathies...and that is why they did not contradict God's wisdom ruling the world.[50]

The talismans, which were usually made out of stone or metal, were placed in cities to protect their inhabitants against plagues, wild animals, vermin, natural disasters, and the like. Two other centers in the Greek east where memories of Apollonius had been strongest, Agaeae and Tyana, were completely converted to Christianity by this time, so there is no mention of Apollonius’ talismans there. However, surprisingly, in Constantinople itself Apollonius’ talismans became popular. The sixth century Antiochian historian Malalas wrote that, during Domitian’s rule Apollonius paid a visit Byzantium, where he left many talismans in order to help the Byzantines in their troubles.[51] In the thirteenth century, in the hippodrome in Byzantium, there was still a bronze eagle holding a snake in its claws, which citizens said had been placed there by Apollonius to protect them against a scourge of venomous snakes. This talisman was destroyed by the crusaders in 1204.[52]

What is left of Apollonius’ reputation if we divest him from his time-honored epithet "the producer of talismans, the performer of wonders"? In Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius, we are told that Apollonius was a man vigorously devoted to God and to the spiritual life, and one who accepted all creeds as diverse expressions of one universal religion. In a letter to his brother, he writes: "All men, so I believe, belong to the family of God and are of one nature; everyone experiences the same emotions, regardless of the place or condition of a person’s birth, whether he is a barbarian or a Greek, so long as he is a human being."[53] In the fragment from the work of Apollonius called Concerning Sacrifices, he advises: "It is best to make no sacrifice to God at all, no lighting a fire, no calling Him by any name that men employ for things of sense. For God is over all, the first; and only after Him do come the other gods. For He doth stand in need of naught, even from the gods, much less from us small men....The only fitting sacrifice to God is man’s best reason [i.e., man’s "showing to God his own perfection" according to Dzielska[54], and not the word that comes out of his mouth."[55]

Wherever he traveled, Apollonius is said to have discouraged the use of animals for sacrifice, and encouraged the use of incense instead. Philostratus relates that he refused to eat meat and subsisted on a diet of fruits and vegetables. As part of his daily regimen, Apollonius prayed three times a day: at daybreak, mid-day, and at sundown. Damis describes his manner as gentle and modest, yet if some injustice was being committed he would be the first to speak out against it. For example, in a letter to some Roman officials, he states: "Some of you take care of harbors, buildings, walls, and walkways. But, as for the children in the cities or the young people or the women, neither you nor the laws give them any thought. If things were otherwise, it would be good to be governed by you."[56] In a letter to Valerius, we learn something about his opinion on human immortality: "There is no death of anything except in appearance only, just as there is no birth of anything except in appearance only. For the passage of something from the realm of pure substance into that of nature appears to be birth, and likewise the passage of something from the realm of nature into that of pure substance appears to be death."[57]

I am quite aware that a number of statements in this extract
do not support the hypothesis that the authors of the new
testament may have borrowed from the author Philostratus,
however there is a great deal of information in this extract
about Apollonius of Tyana that some readers may not be aware
of.

The article also introduces the tension in the air under the
epoch of Constantine between the newly raised up state
christian church, and the falling-away (via destruction!)
of the older brigade of Hellenistic temple-cult religious
belief which was based in Alexandria. The city of Alexander.

The city of Alexander was greater than Rome.
Until the city of Constantine ....

Quote:

Lactantius, one of the early fathers of the Christian Church, believed Hermes to be the Gentile Prophet, who not only predicted the coming of Christ but recognized the Logos as God's son. He writes in his Institutes:

And even though he [Hermes] was a man, he was most ancient and well instructed in every kind of learning--to such a degree that his knowledge of the arts and of all other things gave him the cognomen or epithet Trismegistus. He wrote books--many, indeed, pertaining to the knowledge of divine things--in which he vouches for the majesty of the supreme and single God and he calls Him by the same names which we use: Lord and Father. Lest anyone should seek His name, he says that He is “without a name,” since He does not need the proper signification of a name because of His very unity.[16]

Augustine, likewise, allows that "Hermes makes many...statements agreeable to the truth concerning the one true God Who fashioned this world," but he also castigates Hermes for what appears to be his sympathy for the gods of Egypt.[17]

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.