In discussing Luke 16:19-31, I heard a viewpoint that was compelling and though I would share from WotM.Most people think the rich man is just a rich dude in hell for not feeding Lazerath. Is it a picture of the way to salvation? If so, it's totally inconsistent with every other Biblical reference to deliverance from death. The symbolism the author is making is very important.
First, why did the rich man end up in hell? What was his sin? Obviously, it was his failure to feed Lazarus. If that is the case, then he could have earned salvation. If a non-Christian wanted to earn his way into Heaven, should he then give food to the homeless? How much food would merit eternal life? No since salvation is "by grace through faith,... not of works"(Ephesians 2:8-9), the rich man's sin could could not have been a mere failure to give Lazarus free food.
On the other hand, what did Lazarus do to merit salvation? Did suffering in the life appease the wrath of God and gain him entrance? If so let us seek suffering instead of the Savior.
If this is a picture of the way of salvation, then Eternal Justice can be perverted, God can be bribed, and the sacrifice of the wicked is not an abomination to the Lord.
The story , therefore, MUST have another meaning .
So who is the rich man? Let's establish several principles of Biblical interpretation that will unlock the meaning of the story.
1. Purple is the Biblical color of royalty (Esther 8:15)
2. Fine linen represents the righteousness of the saints (Rev 19:8)
3. The Church is referred to as the "royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9)
4. The tabernacle was made of fine linen and purple (Exodus 26:1)
I believe the rich man is a type of professing Church, and the leper (Lazarus) is a type of 'the sinner'.
The rich man's thoughts are only for himself. He is filled with his own ways. We have built for ourselves big beautiful buildings with cool clear acoustics and colorful carpets, as cozy Christians we sit on padded pews, living in luxury while sinners sink into Hell. We say that we are rich, but we are poor, blind, wretched, miserable, and naked. We have lavish luxury on the lifeboat, while mass people drown around us.
bit.ly/RichMan
Bummer.
ReplyDeleteOr you could spend less time tormenting yourself with worry over who's going to hell and why, and enjoy your only life the way No One intended.
It's your choice ;)
Is this the way to "debunk atheists"?
ReplyDeleteTo intimidate people with eternal inhuman torture is, of course, thoroughly unethical. It is as unethical as to intimidate a small child with molestation if he does not finish his plate.
Now seem to be very creative with some ancient text to attribute this kind of behavior to our supposed creator.
If an eternal being could possibly be insulted (a most ludicrous idea in itself), I would gather that attributing psychopathic narcissism to Him is the way to go.
Now, if you want to 'debunk' me as an atheist, you should understand me first. It's not that God would be impossible, it's because all religions make God the laughing stock.
Moreover, your religion seems to be able to make a good and honest man like you casually threaten people with eternal and inhuman torture.
What have you become, my brother?
Geert Arys,
ReplyDeleteTo intimidate people with eternal inhuman torture is, of course, thoroughly unethical...What have you become, my brother?
I see it as an entirely different way then you then. Please let me explain. I view it as someone trying to pull someone from a burning building or these people are like a blind man walking towards a cliff and do you dare say to him come over hear I have some coffee for you and he replies to "No, I'm fine" and you say what? OK I still love you? Then you watch that man fall off that cliff to his death. Hell is real and they will burn.
For the record I would grab that man's arm and say "I can't let you go any further, you will perish on the path you are on. There is a cliff you are heading to and you will DIE if you do not turn around, RIGHT NOW!"
As C.H. Spurgeon said "If sinners be dammed, at least let them leap to Hell over our bodies. If they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees. Let no one go there unwarned and unprayed for."
I care for you too much to let you perish!
What have I become? Someone who is forgiven and who cares for you.
As C.H. Spurgeon said "If sinners be dammed, at least let them leap to Hell over our bodies. If they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees. Let no one go there unwarned and unprayed for."
ReplyDeleteI've meant to correct this for you, and this is a fantastic opportunity. Assuming the quote is reliable, there is no way he said, "If sinners be dammed." Rather, he would have said, "If sinners be damned." Unless a pile of sinners is expected to stem the flow of other sinners into the abyss (read: a dam of sinners), I'd say I'm quite correct in assuming someone with either virgin ears, virgin lips, or virgin keystrokes changed it to "dammed," or it's an innocent typo.
--
Stan
For the record I would grab that man's arm and say "I can't let you go any further, you will perish on the path you are on. There is a cliff you are heading to and you will DIE if you do not turn around, RIGHT NOW!"
ReplyDeleteSure. That's awfully kind of you. Now, however, let's say that while you're being so kind as to pull me away from the edge of the cliff you perceive, some other fellow is trying to pull me in another direction entirely -- away from the cliff he perceives (but neither you nor I perceive), and what if there are a dozen other kind souls, each attempting likewise, but each perceiving a different cliff from which I should be pulled, with none perceiving the others' cliffs?
Is everyone who perceives a cliff correct in their perception? Should we uncritically accept the assistance of every person who offers to prevent our unwitting waltz into the chasm?
What if all of the kind souls, so attempting to save me from plummeting to my doom, were merely deluded? Since you will undoubtedly admit that at least some of them are deluded, how should we ascertain the truth of the perception?
I'll tell you one way we can seek to make such a determination -- it involves a basic consideration of the entirety of the claim in question. In your case, as an apt example, you are not only claiming there to be a cliff which I cannot perceive, but you are also claiming that no matter what path I choose, I will inevitably fall -- unless I take your outstretched hand. You also claim that all of these treacherous paths were made intentionally by the most well-meaning of benefactors, who wants no one to fall into the veritable plethora of unavoidable pitfalls with which he has surrounded us.
Furthermore, you would claim that this Parks & Recreation director is not subject to removal from office, and that he is impervious to complaints of any kind, but that he is nonetheless disappointed when one of his visitors falls into one of the chasms to be found at the end of each of his paths. The only way to avoid falling, you claim, is to proclaim him the greatest P&R director ever -- and to beg him to kindly ignore your desire to walk a path of your choosing without falling.
You claim that no fee can be paid which will provide us safe passage, unless we thank this director for sending his most favored intern into the chasm on our behalf, and only through this recognition and thanks will he construct a safe path unique to each individual who makes such a request.
You claim that this director, who cannot lose his position, made the paths with his unlimited budget, set each visitor on a path, knew which turns we would take, placed a chasm in front of each possible path, has the ability to remove the chasms, and prefers that none falls into a chasm, but allows any to fall unless they thank him for sending his intern into one... and when we do fall into the chasm, he keeps us in it, falling in pain and misery, forever.
How reasonable is that, exactly?
I daresay it's a hell of a lot more likely that there isn't a cliff at all, and even if there's a P&R director with a lifetime position, he doesn't care which path we take or how much we thank him for the beauty of the scenery. If he makes chasms at all he's an asshole, regardless of the size of his budget.
Frankly, rather than relying on other blind park visitors to lead us away from the chasms, shouldn't he assist each individual directly, if he is truly a worthwhile director? Since this park seems so dangerous to its visitors, shouldn't he close it? Shouldn't he at least postpone any new visitors until repairs can be made, and personally oversee the rescue of every visitor yet to fall into a chasm?
No, you may not object that he has endeavored to personally intervene. First, the damned park is still open, and unrepaired. Second, if any visitor falls into a chasm, the director is guilty of criminal negligence. If his "attempt" at sending a rescue operation is remotely as I've depicted -- really, if he has the unlimited budget and resources that you'd claim, any attempt which fails is laughable -- then he's an utter failure as a director.
Maybe the above analogy is why Paul suggested that living a life entirely free from sex is an ideal -- so that more souls wouldn't find their way into the "chasm." The only way to stop people from finding their way into hell, it seems, is to stop making people. Funny, that. Somebody should tell god.
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDeleteI've meant to correct this for you, and this is a fantastic opportunity.
Thanks for that. I guess the devil is in the details then? But wait, we all know God is in the details. :P
Thanks for that.
ReplyDeleteNo worries -- it was one of those things I'd see, chuckle, and then forget about...
Really, it's kind of funny -- I kept picturing a dam of sinners...
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of a "dam of sinners" just look down that cliff.
Should we uncritically accept the assistance of every person who offers to prevent our unwitting waltz into the chasm?
No, you should use the reason and logic that God gave you to figure who is actually helping you. If someone was trying to push you away from the cliff and into a fire you should avoid him. Common sense.
What if all of the kind souls, so attempting to save me from plummeting to my doom, were merely deluded?
Again, read above about reason a logic that God gave you.
but you are also claiming that no matter what path I choose, I will inevitably fall
Great job using that logic and reason that God gave you.
unless I take your outstretched hand.
Correction, Jesus' hand.
After an attempt to complicate the simple analogy you ask: How reasonable is that, exactly?
The mere fact that this "Parks & Recreation director" warned you, and many others, numerous times how this is a active chasm of molten lava and whoever ventures close will "fall" and get burned. He has even closed it off and forbids everyone even getting near the edge. So does anyone take that dire warning? Nope! In fact they educate people to teach others how to get around the barricades. They even teach children that the chasms don't even exist and that they are just religious rhetoric that should be ignored. The lame Lab Coatauthoritarians teach that everyone can fly and nothing bad will happen at all to them. People that are convinced that the cliffs aren't even there and venture out too far and find out, first hand, they are wrong. So call me a nut job if you wish, sue me if you must, but I will always try to prevent you from falling, its my nature.
The only way to stop people from finding their way into hell, it seems, is to stop making people.
Well, that is the common mentality here in America. Our good friend Jill talks about these type of people here. I wish people would just have listened, and trusted, that "Parks & Recreation director" in the first place. More would have been saved.
To paraphrase some famous guy: Who made this hell? Who threatens to throw us in it?
ReplyDeleteStan,
ReplyDeleteThe only way to stop people from finding their way into hell, it seems, is to stop making people. Funny, that. Somebody should tell god.
Ha!
Dan:
ReplyDeleteMy logic and reasoning tell me that the christian claim simply does not fit. To use the park example, it is as though this director kidnaps people and puts them in his park. When you cling to a claim that "all have sinned..." you show that he has not "closed the park." Face it, if there is a god as you describe, he simply wants people to kiss his great behind.
No, if the described chasm exists at all then the maker of that chasm is wicked. It is not directly evident. For that matter, your god is not evident. We have only your (various theists) word to go on.
Dan,
ReplyDelete"What have I become? Someone who is forgiven and who cares for you."
Honestly, I'm sure you're a good person who means well.
But the cliff you're talking about, what exactly is that cliff? It is "not following Christ" or in other words "not believing". Remember: 'love God' comes first, 'love your neighbor' only second.
Actually, you can meet all altruistic criteria from the bible and be damned as you are a atheist but equally well a believing Bhouddhist, Muslim, Jew or Hindu.
In the christian belief system, it's entirely up to "Christ's" (="God's") choice to eternally and inhumanly torture people with different belief systems. It's his cliff. He made the rules.
A question: if a timeless creator would exist, would it not be very atypical for Him (or rather Her) to demand adoration coupled to extreme punishment?
In the christian belief system, it's entirely up to "Christ's" (="God's") choice to eternally and inhumanly torture people with different belief systems. It's his cliff. He made the rules.
ReplyDeleteA question: if a timeless creator would exist, would it not be very atypical for Him (or rather Her) to demand adoration coupled to extreme punishment?
I've mentioned this sort of thing before, referencing the Disney movie, Aladdin. Toward the end of the film, Aladdin is exposed as a "street rat," and therefore unqualified to marry Jasmine, due to the law which requires a prince to marry the princess (by her sixteenth birthday). After nearly the length of the story, the Sultan finally rhetorically asks, "Well am I Sultan, or am I Sultan?"
He is Sultan, and therefore the law is his to change at his whim. If god would likewise have this most basic of epiphanies, and recognize his own authority in the matter, he could eliminate the requirement of eternal damnation entirely. If he was maximally benevolent, as Christians generally claim, then he would logically want to avoid a hell-scenario, and if he is also omnipotent (and omniscient), then he would eliminate the hell-scenario.
Much more than the "mere" Problem of Evil, it is the problem of faulty logic. As Geert said above, creating a hell-scenario is atypical behavior for an omnimax deity, and thus this sort of deity, in the presence of an actual hell-scenario, cannot exist. At best, only a conditionally benevolent deity with the other omni-powers may exist.
Considering further that hell, according to most Christians (including Dan, unless I'm mistaken), is far more densely populated than heaven -- indeed, this is explicitly stated in the bible ("Broad is the way to destruction, but narrow is the path to righteousness," etc.) -- bearing this in mind, then, this conditionally benevolent deity must therefore be mostly malevolent, in which case those who would worship such a being necessarily worship an asshole.
--
Stan
The story , therefore, MUST have another meaning .
ReplyDeleteThe above statement (and the thoughts resulting from it) is a shining example of the dangers of blind faith in dogma.
"I already know how I'm going to get into Heaven, so assuming my knowledge to be absolutely true, it stands to reason that {blah blah blah}"
You cast such a blind eye to history, where Christian philosophy is replete with examples of understanding that changes over time - despite the fact that Jesus/God never did anything to influence this more contemporary understanding. How can you not look at these changing opinions on how/what "God" wants us to do, and place ANY faith in your current understanding of them?
It's plainly obvious that you folks (the fundamentalists) change your opinions all the time. How is that, in any way, representative of an understanding of "God's unchanging nature"?
---
Dogma = earthbound and fallible.
Making leaps of logic from this dogma = dumb, and more to the point, totally irrelevant to Biblical understanding.
If you want to claim the infallibility of the Bible, do so, but stop lumping your twisted reasoning in with scriptural teaching.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that this seemingly plain-written story about an actual rich man and an actual Lazarus is, in fact, a metaphor?
How peculiar.
ExPatMatt,
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that this seemingly plain-written story about an actual rich man and an actual Lazarus is, in fact, a metaphor?
How peculiar.
Brilliant observation, someone is paying attention in class, and yes. It doesn't make sense any other way other then a metaphor.
Seemingly plain-written? Agree? Why peculiar?
Wem,
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely truth is a hard pill to swallow I am sure from your viewpoint, but truth is truth.
It's plainly obvious that you folks (the fundamentalists) change your opinions all the time. How is that, in any way, representative of an understanding of "God's unchanging nature"?
Did you always know everything, or is it a work in process? We do our very best to understand the supernatural with the tools we have. We are fallible, after all, and I could easily be wrong about this point also. But what does that have anything to do with understanding God and His unchanging nature?
An old analogy, that was used a while ago, would be like a debate about: Is there a president of the United States.
My position would be YES there is a President of the United States and furthermore his name is George W. Bush.
The Atheists position would be NO there is no President of the United States and to prove it let me tell you about the failed policies George W. Bush in Iraq and giving tax breaks to the rich and not the poor.
This is not an augment about the President of the United States not existing this is merely gripes, your complaints about the President of the United States, but that does nothing to prove that the President doesn't exist, and the same is true for Christianity.
Yes, we get it wrong and yes we do our best to understand Him and yes we fail sometime but that doesn't mean that God does not exist that means man is fallible in our understanding. I even said before just because I believe in a young earth, does not affect my salvation if I am wrong about that.
No matter what anyone thinks God still exists. Remember that truth is not subjective as many of you believe...it's an absolute.
Geert Arys,
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I'm sure you're a good person who means well.
I am not a good person at all. I am a wretched sinner who deserves hell and I am thankful that God pulled me away from that cliff and fire. But, yes I would love to see the miracle of God changing your worldview, heart, and presuppositions like he did to my once atheistic heart.
But the cliff you're talking about, what exactly is that cliff? It is "not following Christ" or in other words "not believing". Remember: 'love God' comes first, 'love your neighbor' only second.
That cliff, I believe, is the punishment for sinning. It's simply the jail for the transgressors of the Law. The bulldozer of time is pushing us towards that cliff because we all have sinned and deserve that fate.
Actually, you can meet all altruistic criteria from the bible and be damned as you are a atheist but equally well a believing Bhouddhist, Muslim, Jew or Hindu.
Exactly! What are you going to do with the crimes that you committed? All those false religions cannot account for all the sins. Nothing you can do can wash away those sins. "Your honor I know I raped that girl, but I give money to feed the homeless."
(Ephesians 2:8-9)
It was a legal transaction. You broke God's Law (the Ten Commandments), and Jesus paid your fine. That means that God can legally dismiss your case. You can leave the courtroom on the Day of Judgment because another paid your fine. Does that make sense?
Stan,
ReplyDeleteConsidering further that hell, according to most Christians (including Dan, unless I'm mistaken), is far more densely populated than heaven -- indeed, this is explicitly stated in the bible ("Broad is the way to destruction, but narrow is the path to righteousness," etc.) -- bearing this in mind, then, this conditionally benevolent deity must therefore be mostly malevolent, in which case those who would worship such a being necessarily worship an asshole.
You are so cute, I can just pinch your cheeks. It might be that Hell will be more "densely populated" then Heaven. I sure hope not. I hope everyone comes to the understanding that God is everything and deserves the worship instead of pure arrogant defiance like you yourself champion with pride, Stan.
I believe, for some reason, that you Stan will be used to show God's Glory in a grand scale. I have zero evidence for this and it's my personal hunch but If God answers my prayer then you will have a larger crown in heaven the I will have and we will enjoy each others company for eternity. Oh, I just go a shiver contemplating that thought. I will be the first to wash your feet in heaven though. I can't wait for that prayer to be answered. Let's hope God is in a giving mood. I also believe it's 50/50 as to being saved. God gives us the ability to be saved, but we must humble to open that gift given to us. Ready to humble yourself Stan? No, I didn't think so, but I still believe in miracles. I once was a jerk atheist myself, but now I am just a saved jerk. Now I am working hard at the jerk part, which is difficult around hard heads like you. You are so like my Dad in many ways.
Dan wrote Did you always know everything, or is it a work in process?
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, but you're not just talking about ordinary knowledge.
If this were about mathematics, or musical expression or the ability to dress nicely, you'd be dealing with a constant stream of data from "the source" (ie. equations that work or don't work, audiences which clap or don't clap, recipes that make people happy or sick). You would have lots to learn from, as there would be a constant process of trial and error.
With your God (as you believe him to be), there is only one source of information, and that is the Bible. It is unchanging, and reflects the unchanging nature of the deity it describes. There is no process of trial and error.
The problems you're dealing with today are the same as they were 2000 years ago: omniscience vs free will, salvation through works vs salvation through acceptance of Christ, etc ad nauseum.
Nothing you "learn" from the Bible is any different than it was 2000 years ago. So why do your opinions change as to what it teaches? Allowing *some* time for Christians to get a basic understanding of what the Bible says/means, why are your answers today any different from the answers of the last 1500 years?
If all you're learning from is the Bible, there should be virtually no difference. None. God's commandments have not changed.
And yet, 2000 years later, we still have people coming up with new ideas about what this or that means. How can this possibly be valid? You've had 2000 years to understand this book, and you're telling us there are STILL new revelations to be experienced??
Cmon...
Wem,
ReplyDeleteIf all you're learning from is the Bible, there should be virtually no difference. None. God's commandments have not changed.
And yet, 2000 years later, we still have people coming up with new ideas about what this or that means.
Isn't that like saying we have our Musical scale or even the alphabet so there shouldn't be any new music or word expressions. The Bible is also living and endless evidenced by the relevancy today.
The Bible sure is rich with things that I am even still not aware of. Reading the Bible, for the first time, I never considered the shadowy prophecies, it wasn't until later I found those jewels and I cherish the Bible more then ever because of them. People can read the Bible every day, like I try to do, and never grasp it in it's entirety. It's arguably the greatest book on this planet for a reason. Jesus is a great writer, agree?
Correction: word expressions?
ReplyDeleteDan,
ReplyDeleteYou said,
"Brilliant observation, someone is paying attention in class, and yes. It doesn't make sense any other way other then a metaphor.
Seemingly plain-written? Agree? Why peculiar?"
Well, if you agree that this, seemingly plain-written, story is a metaphor - how do you know that other, seemingly plain-written stories in the Bible are not also metaphors?
How do you tell the difference?
You also said,
"An old analogy, that was used a while ago, would be like a debate about: Is there a president of the United States.
My position would be YES there is a President of the United States and furthermore his name is George W. Bush."
And you would be demonstrably wrong; have you not been watching the news recently? :)
ExPatMatt,
ReplyDelete...how do you know that other, seemingly plain-written stories in the Bible are not also metaphors?
How do you tell the difference?
One hint is if it starts out like 'there once was a dude...'
Also Matthew 13:3 helps with the difference of a parable "And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;..."
Plus as I stated before look in Hosea 1:1, see the time line, the Bible talks about specific and exacting historical events with details of surroundings and time frame. The principle point here is that God communicated through prophets and was specific about the details. God inspired the Bible and we know we should take it as truth, not fiction, because it is written as a historical narrative. The entirety of the Bible is not written literally but plainly.
I said
"An old analogy, that was used a while ago, would be like a debate about: Is there a president of the United States.
My position would be YES there is a President of the United States and furthermore his name is George W. Bush."
To which you replied And you would be demonstrably wrong; have you not been watching the news recently? :)
Ha ha I get your implication but you are wrong again.
Demonstrably wrong? Is there a president of the United States? You claim not?
I left "his name is George W. Bush." because of the analogy of the Atheists position.
"The Atheists position would be NO there is no President of the United States and to prove it let me tell you about the failed policies George W. Bush in Iraq and giving tax breaks to the rich and not the poor."
I cannot invent a complaint for President Obama yet, he is just too new to have universal complaints about him. But it won't be long for that and I can update the analogy then. Be patient young Skywalker.
I did catch the :) though.
Whateverman: And yet, 2000 years later, we still have people coming up with new ideas about what this or that means.
ReplyDeleteDan: Isn't that like saying we have our Musical scale or even the alphabet so there shouldn't be any new music or word expressions.
No, because musical scales and alphabets are tools, and their usefulness has been demonstrated (by our being able to abstract and communicate via music and language).
You are still so wrapped up in trying to figure out the utility of the Bible, you've barely even figured out what to do with it. Different Christians think it means different things, whereas ALL people (regardless of belief system) who what the heck an "H" means.
No, Jesus might have had some good ideas, but he was a horrible writer. And Christians demonstrate this by being unable to understand the book they hold to be the source of absolute truth, despite having been trying for almost 2 millennia.
Who said Jesus wrote books in bible? If He did which ones?
DeleteBrilliant observation, someone is paying attention in class, and yes. It doesn't make sense any other way other then a metaphor.
ReplyDeleteSo your rule is that if it doesn't make sense one way, you twist it until it does? What if it just plain ol' doesn't make sense?
Dan,
ReplyDeleteYou said "I am not a good person at all. [...] But, yes I would love to see the miracle of God changing your worldview, heart, and presuppositions like he did to my once atheistic heart."
I do I presuppose, Dan?
It's just, I don't fall for such a cynical view on humanity. I don't try to depict normal people as criminals and I do view them as basically righteous.
You state that "Your honor I know I raped that girl, but I give money to feed the homeless."
Now, that's not really tackling my objections, Dan. It raises even more. What IS a sin in christianity, you know that...
(1) Most people don't rape. The worst many people do are those little lies they tell each other and maybe evade some taxes.
(2) "Do not rape" is not even one of the ten commandements. What IS in the 10 commandements is to honor God, the 3 first commandements protect the ego of God. As if (s)he would have one.
(3) If you're going to have a judge who burns people to death for any little crime or even for any big crime, you would surely call him an inhuman, unethical and a sadistic bastard.
So, your statement becomes more like: "Your honor I know I did not find you in this little hide-and-seek game of yours, so please don't inhumanly torture me for ever and ever."
My statements are:
(1) it's absurd that a possible creator would be interested if we recognise him or not in a hide-and-seek game.
(2) it's absurd that a possible creator would be more cruel and inhuman than any malevolent dictator we've ever known.
You know what it IS good for, Dan? It's good for leaders to intimidate little people like you and me to do the bidding of "spiritual" leaders.
You said It was a legal transaction. You broke God's Law (the Ten Commandments), and Jesus paid your fine. That means that God can legally dismiss your case.
Your world view comes down to... a technical procedure! Some kind of Cosmic lawyerism for cosmically irrelevant "sins"? What does this have to do with true justice?
Witch hunters who burnt supposed witches at the stakes can say "oh, sorry it's wrong, but I did it under the contract of Jesus, so please dismiss my case"?
And Ghandi is thrown into hell because he made a "procedural error".
So,
(3) it's absurd that any good and allknowing entity would dirty himself on petty lawyerism and thus exclude well-meaning and good people just because they were born in a family with another belief-system.
Yours in the brotherhood of humanity,
Geert.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete