Agnosticism and Me

Got a question? We may have some answers!
Forum rules

1) This is a Christian site, respect our beliefs and we will respect yours.

2) This is a family friendly site, no swearing or posting offensive links, pictures, or signatures.

3) Please be respectful of others.

4) Trolls are not welcome and will be dealt with accordingly.

5) No racial comments, jokes or images

6) If you see a dead thread over 6 months old, let it rest in peace

7) No Duplicate posts
User avatar
Drewsov
CCGR addict
Posts: 4456
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: In a place not unlike his own.
Contact:

Re: Agnosticism and Me

Postby Drewsov » Thu Nov 29, 2012 12:58 am

Arch, I'm definitely familiar with what you're going through.

I'd recommend checking out David Bazan's album Curse Your Branches.

He's the former lead singer of Pedro the Lion, a pastor's kid, who ended up admitting his own agnosticism pretty publicly, and dealt with it through that album.
http://exculpate.wordpress.com - Updated 2.10.12

You were telling him about Buddha, you were telling him about Mohammed in the same breath. You never mentioned one time the Man who came and died a criminal’s death...

User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3547
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Agnosticism and Me

Postby ArchAngel » Thu Nov 29, 2012 4:19 am

I suppose my only question is, what does this change? I understand that agnosticism is a much more reasonable stance, but how much do you still consider truth? Is there such a thing as morality (black and white)? Is the Bible just a good history book? Other questions I'm too lazy to write?
I value truth very highly, and it's my compulsion for it that led me here. There is a reality and I have found reason, logic, empirical observation, and testable hypothesis to be the best and most reliable way to find it. Anything else really comes off as stumbling in the dark.
As for morality, this is really a human concept. (then, we've all believed this to a degree. A mouse isn't evil, nor is a star going supernova, nor does the sun do "good" by providing light). It's something we need to reason out and find what's best for both society and the individual person. Sure, there's no unquestionable rulebook ruling over all, but then, the ones people claimed to be such say that a woman who was raped must marry her rapist or that one should put the infidel to the sword. Again, we've all been doing this to a degree.
As for the bible, I view it as ancient text. There is some beautiful writings and wonderful teachings in it, but there are also parts that reminiscence of old superstitions and even hatred (let me put it this way, it feels pretty good not having to try defending the killing of very man, woman, and child stories).
I probably will continue to read it, though. Christianity is still my favorite religion :P
Heck, I believe in eternal security, so I'm of the opinion that I'll be seeing Arch and Bruce regardless.

I've always respected you, Arch, and you post the most flippin awesome astronomy-related posts So... yeah. :P my opinion of you doesn't change in the least, and this doesn't really surprise me. Good luck in your personal journey, friend. When I'm not a junior higher anymore, we will have to internet-toast with our wines of choice and MIDI files of clinking glass :P
Well, I hope that I could see you on the otherside! And that we can have spaceships, too!
And I appreciate your enduring respect. :) Touches me right in the feels. Let me pour you a glass of my finest ePinot Noir and let's clinkglass.midi
I guess I'm about as close to being agnostic without being actually agnostic as you can get. I won't be surprised if I wake up one day and feel the complete crossover, though. Heck, it might have already happened. I guess that's just the way it works.

You've been a big inspiration for me since I came back to this site, man, and I can't even begin to say how much just reading your posts has helped me out. Luckily you seem to be surrouned by understanding and loving people, but it hasn't been entirely the same for me. You set a standard for keeping one's calm despite all the passion that goes into one's own convictions. I'm still trying to learn how to do that... with much difficulty.

Perhaps here is the most applicable place for one of my favorite quotes of all time, thanks to Ben Gibbard:

"I don’t want to falsely believe in something solely so I can jump to the front of the line for whatever this awesome place is we go after we die. The vastness of that idea is so beyond my comprehension that I feel like if there was a God, then that God would accept me saying I’m not able to believe because it’s so outside of my ability to understand it. I understand that’s where faith comes into play."
Those words mean much to me, bro. Really encouraging to read. That Ben Gibbard quote is really good and actually represented much of my thoughts along this path. I figured that if there was a God and he was a God of Truth, he'd understand my doubt and disbelief and would prefer me to disbelieve in an earnest search for truth than to believe out of fear of hell or an adherence to my presuppositions.
Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
The question that haunts you ArchAngel, "Why do you believe what you believe?" is a very valid one. In my opinion, it's something that all of us - everyone - needs to ask. It's all part of the personal journey that we all travel on our lives. We may get different answers to the same questions, and quite often, the answers we receive are not the ones we wanted or anticipated. Just keep asking and keep learning - or as Joseph Campbell famously said, "follow your bliss."
It really is a good question and it's something that will help people understand their worldviews, regardless of their final conclusions. Good Jefferson quote, too!
Arch, I'm definitely familiar with what you're going through.

I'd recommend checking out David Bazan's album Curse Your Branches.

He's the former lead singer of Pedro the Lion, a pastor's kid, who ended up admitting his own agnosticism pretty publicly, and dealt with it through that album.
I'll be sure to check him out, sounds interesting.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim

brandon1984
Gamer
Gamer
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 11:53 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Galveston, TX

Re: Agnosticism and Me

Postby brandon1984 » Thu Nov 29, 2012 1:17 pm

I said earlier that faith (pistis) is misunderstood since it literally means “to believe.” This does not connote believing in something supported by poor evidence. So I think that if you’ve evaluated the evidence are not persuaded, then everything is OK. With that said, let me state my positions:

I am a theist. I hope everyone here knows that I am vehemently pro-science and pro-rationality. I am an evolutionist and believe in deep time. I don’t believe in satan or demons. I don’t believe in any Reformist notion of hell. And very importantly I don’t hold the Evangelical stance that being persuaded by a propositional statement will buy you salvation (for example, that Jesus Christ is the son of God). Finally, I believe heaven is not even close to what conservative Christians have mocked it up to be. In fact, the New Heaven and New Earth are intimately linked with the old earth therefore things like taking care of our environment (environmentalism) and working to better every aspect of the world is very important. What we do here is very important. As such, let the nihilist be false (and his beard shrivel and fall off). And, I am also an existentialist. I don’t believe in preset paths and importances other than the high and lofty ones such as altruism.

My evidence for God and Christianity are for the most part one in the same. I am persuaded by the argument put forth by theologian, NT Wright. His book, The New Testament and the People of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God, delineates the argument in completeness. It states that the exact form in which early Christianity took can be best explained by Jesus having actually risen from death. Clearly, many religions have suddenly formed (Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, etc.), so the simple act of forming a group of people that hold to the supernatural cannot indicate its reality. It’s the exact form and particulars in its success and it’s the ancient documents we have (albeit not primary sources) that attest to Christianity’s truth.

Now I have found that the most common counterargument is that history cannot prove the supernatural. This is straight out of theologian Bart Erhman’s mouth. Now, this adage is partly true. That’s why it takes special circumstances for history to be convincing of the supernatural. I firmly believe that this is one of the PRIMARY purposes of Jesus death. Without Jesus’ death and resurrection Christianity would not have been successful and people would not have the level of evidence that we have in the formation of Christianity, thus it would be another myth out of thousands that can be blown off as manmade.

Finally, I see a world in which evolution could have taken and made it severely more evil than it is. I see progress and the instinctual will for goodness that slowly erodes as we grow from toddlers to slayers of people. I take this as weak evidence of God in that something seems to be directing the universe towards progress despite the setbacks. I also personally experience the push to do what is good and to progress. This feeling, this Counselor I take to be what is written in scripture as the Holy Spirit. And, I fully admit that it’s not any ethereal spirit, but a real set of activated neurons and pathways in my brain and quite likely originates in my human DNA. Yes, I’m saying that the Holy Spirit may be DNA structure.

I hope you rappelled down this WOT without much trouble. Please let me know what you think!

User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3547
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Agnosticism and Me

Postby ArchAngel » Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:12 pm

Well, I already stated on my thoughts on that, and if faith simply refers to what you believe, modern usage certainly has slipped from that. If faith includes belief based on evidence and logic, then I don't have a problem with faith based on evidence and logic. It's the notion that you believe a notion simply because you have "faith" in it.

Anyhow, yes, you totally science. I would not deny you of that.

So, if I may briefly describe your arguments as how I read them (not to strawman you):
The best (most straightforward, simplest) explanation for the rise of Christianity is by the resurrection of Christ. Now, I never read the book, so I might not be doing it justice, but that's what I'm hearing. And yes, the resurrection is imperative to the Christian faith. No resurrection, no power and no victory over death and sin.
The thing is, extraordinary claims take extraordinary evidence, and just while the explanation maybe the "simplistic," it certainly doesn't make the least assumptions. Resurrection from death is a gigantic feat and will take a little more than "it fits well" with ancient text that is written quite a bit after the event and largely uncorroborated by contemporary surfaces. While people like Tacitus and Josephus do write on this, it's largely second hand information from people who would have likely to believe it in the first place. I understand how some would see this as evidence, but I don't personally accept it anymore as sufficient evidence.
Now, some can say I'm being reluctant to accept the validity of the Bible as an ancient source, and yes I am, and much of it is because of my reluctance to give credence to other religious texts. I won't close myself off to it, but I will look at it with far more heavy sodium palate.

I guess I don't see the potentiality of greater evil as either evidence for or against God. We humans evolved as a cohesive social beings and much of our morality is pointed to facilitate this, including the ease of condemning those viewed outside your "group." And toddlers aren't really good by any definition, so they don't necessarily degrade. They are more or less innocent, but as they grow, they develop, which can in turn be into a good person or a bad one. At the start, not only are they largely selfish, but they are mentally incapable of being otherwise.

You bringing up the Holy Spirit being ingrained in our DNA brought up an interesting concept: Quantum Theory of Consciousness. It's the idea that our consciousness is not merely the result of neural firings, but rather collapses of wave functions in the very particles of our brains. It's way above my pay grade, but it's something I'd keep an eye on. I'm not sure if this is related to the idea that an observer is needed collapse a wave function and force a particle into one particular state (e.g. Schrodinger's cat).

So, it wasn't a terribly large wall, but it was a good one and a pleasure to scale.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim

User avatar
Truthseeker
Gamer
Gamer
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 6:00 pm

Re: Agnosticism and Me

Postby Truthseeker » Fri Nov 30, 2012 10:16 am

Here's a thought this thread has spurred in me: What is the line between atheism and agnosticism?

Which of these people are atheist, which are agnostic, and which are theist, and where do you fall on the spectrum, Archangel?

1. A person who is absolutely certain there is no God.
2. A person who is practically certain there is no God, and the only thing keeping him from being absolutely sure is that intellectually he believes that, in theory, nothing can be absolutely certain.
3. A person who believes that there is no evidence of God, but there is so much evidence of a naturally-forming universe that he concludes that there probably is no God.
4. A person who believes that there is inconclusive evidence of God's existence, and in the absence of sufficient evidence one should err on the presumption of there being solely natural causes of the universe.
5. A person who believes that there is inconclusive evidence of God's existence, therefore it is equally likely that there is a God and that there isn't a God.
6. A person who believes that there is inconclusive evidence of God's existence, and in the absence of sufficient evidence one should err on the presumption of God existing.
7. A person who believes there is enough evidence of God to say God probably exists.
8. A person who believes in God but still has the same intellectual caveat as the person #2.
9. A person who is absolutely sure God exists.

I'm pretty much a 2, maybe a 3 on days where I haven't gotten much sleep. And if we define God strictly as being the Christian God rather than some potential God that doesn't match any human religion, then I am always a 2, approaching but never reaching 1 like a mathematical limit.
Brokan Mok

O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek . . . to be understood, as to understand.

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Agnosticism and Me

Postby ArcticFox » Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:10 pm

Agnosticism has less to do with the level of certainty, and more to do with definition.

In other words, an agnostic believes in Deity, but not according to any particular religion or definition.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

brandon1984
Gamer
Gamer
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 11:53 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Galveston, TX

Re: Agnosticism and Me

Postby brandon1984 » Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:52 pm

Well, I already stated on my thoughts on that, and if faith simply refers to what you believe, modern usage certainly has slipped from that.
I think the notion that there’s nothing to stand on therefore one must make a “leap of faith” started with Kierkegaard who was a fideist. He would argue that even for you to know that a single atom exists you must take some leap of faith. I’m not really in line with his epistemology although I used to call myself a weak fideist for theological reasons. However, when we start reasoning close to our axioms there’s no need to call anything a leap, the ground is just shaky everywhere down there.
And yes, the resurrection is imperative to the Christian faith. No resurrection, no power and no victory over death and sin.
I see you’re referring to the atonement here which is very important in Christian theology, even early Christians. But, I dare say that despite the metaphysics (even if Christianity had a different method of atonement), the death and resurrection really is the most evidenced encounter with the supernatural. And as such even for an ancient culture it was a primary catalyst that drove conversion. In Jerusalem you could literally investigate this for yourself by seeing the empty tomb and questioning eyewitnesses. Our ability to investigate the matter is far more limited although at least some theologians have written volumes upon this.
The thing is, extraordinary claims take extraordinary evidence, and just while the explanation maybe the "simplistic," it certainly doesn't make the least assumptions. . .
The supernatural certainly is an extraordinary claim given its rarity, but I wonder what would be considered extraordinary evidence for such a claim? If the evidence had approached perfection (primary sources, many strong corroborations) then it would idiomatically “too good to be true.” The evidence must be within the context of its culture, which to our historical knowledge the scriptures are. It may be that for the healthy skeptic, reading the supernatural out of history is simply not valid (Erhman's position). And I fully respect this position although I find it to be a bit too strong thus limiting the possibilities of reality.



I’m currently in Durham, NC and I was talking to my friend in Duke theological seminary about this. He brought up an interesting point. He said that Christianity is like marriage. Maybe you don’t have all the evidence you want, but you jump into it anyways thinking you may have a happy, successful marriage. Then as it enriches your life (sometimes in challenging ways), you finally look back and see why it was indeed a good choice. By this analogy Christianity becomes more of a guidebook and source of hope than a specific set of doctrines. There may be wisdom in this.
Here's a thought this thread has spurred in me: What is the line between atheism and agnosticism?
On your scale I'm a 7 for sure. I think Dawkins talks alot about the difference. Dawkins would say that agnostics are indifferent and all others are atheists with varying levels of confidence (he uses a 10 point scale and calls himself a 9). Then, there's Hitchens who coined the term "antitheist" because he is so against what religion has brought to the world.

User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3547
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Agnosticism and Me

Postby ArchAngel » Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:29 pm

But axioms, by their requirement, need to be as basic as possible. Stuff like A = A. I can't just say anything's an axiom and expect my logic to be sound.

And I also don't think it's a fair shake that better evidence would be "too good to be true." Extraordinary evidence would, for starters, have to be a lot of corroborated accounts. Just about all accounts we have are biblical, or based on it. While that might be the best evidenced encounter with the supernatural, given my non acceptance of supernatural events, I think you know my stance on it.

And, I don't particularly like about your friend's analogy on Christianity, as I find it undermines Christianity more than it validates it. It seems to make the claim that you go ahead and accept it without being fully convinced of it, but the benefits you gain from it, it makes it worth it. Would you choose to believe a lie that makes you happy? Some people will, but I won't. So it matters to me whether it's true or not, and it's not worthwhile jumping into because it might enrich your life. A belief should be accepted based on a matter of truth, not benefit, and I think it insults many of the people who do believe it to be true.
I think the analogy breaks down because we're dealing with worldviews and belief systems, and with a marriage partner, you already pretty much know that they exist. Something closer might be you met a fine girl, but you aren't sure it's a dream or not, but you decide to stick with it because it enriches your life and makes you happy. You know, while your family is potentially weeping over your comatose body. Hold it, I think I need to make this a book.
Agnosticism has less to do with the level of certainty, and more to do with definition.

In other words, an agnostic believes in Deity, but not according to any particular religion or definition.
Well, while it has it's specific definition and not just a scale of certainty, an agnostic doesn't necessarily believe in a deity and usually does not.
Agnostism usually refers to the belief that you can't know if there is or isn't a God. In a sense, I've been an agnostic theist for quite some time (a bit like 6 on TS's scale.) I've been using agnostic specifically here because it highlights my beliefs better than just saying I'm atheist, but I'm an atheist. An agnostic atheist, if you will. Thismight help illustrate what I mean. I don't really seem there being a line, necessarily between atheism and agnosticism, but more of an overlap.

Right now, I'm a bit of 3 and 4. I do think the existence of God is possible, but it seems unlikely due to the lack of evidence and natural model works without it.
If I were to label the scale:

Atheism (Strong Atheism): 1-2
Agnostic Atheism (Weak Atheism): 3-4
Agnostism: 5
Agnostic Theism: 6
Theism: 7-8


2 does sound a little bit like Agnosticism and perhaps somewhat is, but I went ahead and grouped it with atheism because it makes a more definite claim on the non-existence of a deity based on the complete lack of evidence. In this sense, 1 seems almost presumptuous on special knowledge on the non-existence of God, while 2 makes a more rational claim that based on no evidence, there is none and the degree of probability is negligible (but prevents absolute certainty). To borrow an example, we can't be absolutely certain that there are no garden fairies, but we're sure enough that we can just go ahead and say they don't exist.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Agnosticism and Me

Postby ArcticFox » Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:48 pm

Agnostic: Someone who only uses one tool in the figuring-things-out toolbox, but at least uses it correctly.

:mrgreen:
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Deepfreeze32
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7043
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: On the run from Johnny Law; ain't no trip to Cleveland

Re: Agnosticism and Me

Postby Deepfreeze32 » Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:55 pm

I dislike picking one phrase out of this entire thread, but this struck me:
Agnosticism has less to do with the level of certainty, and more to do with definition.

In other words, an agnostic believes in Deity, but not according to any particular religion or definition.

I was watching a Penn Jillette video where he was talking about agnosticism as opposed to atheism. He said "Agnosticism and atheism are answers to different questions. Agnosticism is answering the question of 'Is there a God?' <He went on to say that saying anything other than 'I don't know' is a wrong answer>. Atheism answers the question of 'Do you believe in God?'"

I find the description quite fitting. And I don't necessarily think that your example is entirely correct. I see it as agnostics are either deistic/theistic, or atheistic. They aren't their own category in the same sense as atheism. Rather, the diagram in the link Arch posted is a beter representation of how I see things.



Also, I'm not terribly surprised or fazed by this 'revelation', Arch. I live with a pseudo-catholic and an atheist, so...I definitely don't think any differently of ya. :P

brandon1984
Gamer
Gamer
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 11:53 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Galveston, TX

Re: Agnosticism and Me

Postby brandon1984 » Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:57 pm

I guess IMO the evidence is somewhere between being insufficient and “too good to be true” which gives it a certain realness. On corroborations there may be a good explanation as to why there are less than we’d want. It’s because anyone who documented the events added them to scripture and later there input became canonized text. There weren’t news reporters from distant lands recording the event and commenting on it in their newspaper’s “world” section. Everything we get in the gospels is from the Associated Press, basically everything that was there and recording. I hope that’s clearer than murky water (as I reread it it’s pretty murky).

Yeah, I agree with you that my friend's analogy is limited especially for those who are being sincerely objective truth-seekers. But I do think, since he has an insider perspective into some of the world’s renowned theologians, it holds an interesting point. These theologians seem to be holding onto the good teachings of the religion as something that can improve the world and the truth of its doctrine as something that may be out of reach. Is it out of reach because it’s not true? Or because we just haven’t studied hard enough? Are they preaching leap of faith? IDK. . . but I don’t believe that God will hold you or anyone else accountable for not being persuaded by something you gave serious thought to and concluded that the weight of the evidence was not in favor of.

Between you and me, ArchAngel, I would say we would agree on virtually all of our axioms and methods of knowing. But as I stand on the agnosticism line I’ve got a foot on over on the side of theism. I told Truthseeker once that maybe the reason I’ve left that foot there is because of my background or my emotional investments. That may be so, but I hope to be as objective as humanly possible in this never ending search for truth.

User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3547
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Agnosticism and Me

Postby ArchAngel » Fri Nov 30, 2012 3:17 pm

And I understand that and I know you do your best to be rational and logical. I'd also be lying if I said I didn't hope that it was true.

That's also an interesting point you bring up saying that God won't hold us accountable for not being persuaded if we gave it serious thought. Interesting ethical dilemma for mainstream christianity: If two men went into a church, one gullible and confused, and the other committed to critical thinking, and the listened to the sermon and the gullible man was instantly convinced, but not the skeptic. And then a meteor hit the town and they died. Is it fair that the skeptic went to hell on account that he tries to be reasonable in his actions?
While having salvation not based on works certainly has it's benefits, salvation based on belief has some of it's own issues.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim

User avatar
ScotchRobbins
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 893
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:45 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Somewhere in the wilderness of Michigan.

Re: Agnosticism and Me

Postby ScotchRobbins » Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:08 pm

Serious question, since I tl;dr'd most of the second page.

Jesus: seriously influential historical philosopher, or savior and redeemer of the world?
[Insert witty afterthought here]

User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3547
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Agnosticism and Me

Postby ArchAngel » Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:10 pm

The former.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim

User avatar
ScotchRobbins
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 893
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:45 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Somewhere in the wilderness of Michigan.

Re: Agnosticism and Me

Postby ScotchRobbins » Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:17 pm

Another serious question, and this time, I'm going to try to appeal to the scientist in you.

Life after death: yay or nay?

Knowing your scientific rationalism, I predict you're going to go with the scientific shrug-off we call "insufficient evidence" and choose neither. How do I know this? Schrödinger's Cat. Technically, as far as you're concerned, the afterlife is fact and fiction until you perish, upon which point you will have all of the evidence you will need depending on if your collective of personality and knowledge we call your "soul" still exists or not.
[Insert witty afterthought here]


Return to “Spiritual Matters”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests