Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reason, Logic, and Christianity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Athanasius
    replied
    Huh, that's odd. Me and C.S. Lewis were both called by God and used a little bit of reason in the process I mean, come on... How many people reasoned out before they were saved that the answers Christian had to offer were more fulfilling than the answers of every other world system? A lot. But hey... Not saying we choose solely on reason, either.

    Leave a comment:


  • apothanein kerdos
    replied
    Side note -

    Are you flying that flag to represent Syria or the United Arab Republic?

    Leave a comment:


  • apothanein kerdos
    replied
    Originally posted by Brother Mark View Post
    I whole heartedly agree with the above statements. Though even reading the word of God one can be deceived. That is why I say God must take an active role in teaching us the word. Our reason must be guided, not only by our ability to read the word and think, but by the Holy Spirit himself who opens our eyes to understand the word.
    But that's what I've been arguing the entire time.......

    Are you and I so far apart on our definition of words that we didn't see we probably agree? Oy.


    See, I argue that our mind, soul, heart, and strength all must equally be guided and come under submission to God. In doing so, all become equally important with all balancing and checking the other.

    What do you find faulty in the Christian religion? I agree that there are some things that contradict themselves in the Bible, but what would be the main flaw in Islam that would make us want to be Christian rather than Muslim?
    I think there's some miscommunication here. I don't think there is anything faulty in true Christianity. Sure, there are differences in denominations, but the overall Christian worldview that all orthodox Christians adhere to explains all of life's problems - this is because it is God's answers to these problems.

    As for the flaw in Islam, it's in their acceptance of the Aristotelean view of God. Though it is not purely Aristotelean (I believe it was Al-Farabi that brought in Neo-Platonic themes to Islam), it does put an emphasis on a transcendent god (which is why it is an angel that has Mohammed recite and not the god of Islam manifested in flesh that talks to Mohammed).

    The problem is we know from creation that God is involved in creation. We know that God is personal because we are personal. How can this be if God is solely transcendent?

    Christianity solves this problem in the Incarnation.

    What can this reason accomplish?
    Loving God with our mind. Understanding His workings in this world. Understanding why Christianity is true. Being able to explain to people why Christianity is true (doesn't mean the people will accept it, but it does plant a seed).

    Leave a comment:


  • KATA_LOUKAN
    replied
    I'd argue that it's faulty reasoning. I tend to take Schaeffer's approach on this that you can point out, in at least one area in all philosohpies and religions, some part that is inconsistent with the world or self-refuting. Thus, faulty reason, psuedo-reason, or an outright rejection of rationality (that they believe is reasonable) will lead people in the wrong direction.

    This isn't to say there aren't some reasonable elements in every religion. In particular, I actually throughougly enjoy early Islamic philosophers (particularly Ibn Sina). However, even with them I find inconsistencies. This is because, in our fallen state, we have no choice but to be inconsistent.
    What do you find faulty in the Christian religion? I agree that there are some things that contradict themselves in the Bible, but what would be the main flaw in Islam that would make us want to be Christian rather than Muslim?

    I'm differentiating, however, between faulty reason (which isn't reason at all) and Godly reasoning, or reasoning that has been illuminated by God and/or been birthed out of a Christ centered mindset. This reason never fails us because it comes from the Word of God.
    What can this reason accomplish?

    Leave a comment:


  • Brother Mark
    replied
    Originally posted by apothanein kerdos View Post
    I'm differentiating, however, between faulty reason (which isn't reason at all) and Godly reasoning, or reasoning that has been illuminated by God and/or been birthed out of a Christ centered mindset. This reason never fails us because it comes from the Word of God.



    Well, in all honesty, no body reasons themselves into Christianity. Christ calls us into Christianity, so it's not a work on our own. However, He will use our entire being (which includes reason) in doing this act.

    I whole heartedly agree with the above statements. Though even reading the word of God one can be deceived. That is why I say God must take an active role in teaching us the word. Our reason must be guided, not only by our ability to read the word and think, but by the Holy Spirit himself who opens our eyes to understand the word.

    Leave a comment:


  • apothanein kerdos
    replied
    Our ability to reason is shaped by our tradition. For example, Eastern and Western philosophy both have very different ideas of what it means to reason.

    The Hebrews and the Greeks had different ideas about what it was to reason.
    Yes and no. I know many people from the East who, though unaffected (mostly) by the Enlightenment, still hold the same view of Christ and God. We use the same arguments when dealing with the same situations. The only major difference I've noticed is those from the far East tend to be more mystical than those of the West - this is not good or bad, but this does show how the Enlightenment has (negatively in my opinion) affected Western Christianity.

    1. Not everybody wants to know "God" or any higher power.
    Right, I would argue that no one wants to know God (so would Paul ).

    This is why, in the Van Tillian tradition, when it comes to salvation reason alone (sola ratio) just doesn't cut it. Neither, however, does experience or emotions. It takes the illumination of God and the drawing of the Holy Spirit to lead us to salvation.

    2. Reason leads people down very different paths. I have met people, for example, who have been lead to Islam by reason. Would you say this is bad reasoning, or simply people choosing their beliefs and then defending them? I don't know everything about Christianity, yet I choose to believe it. My decision, then, is uninformed.
    I'd argue that it's faulty reasoning. I tend to take Schaeffer's approach on this that you can point out, in at least one area in all philosohpies and religions, some part that is inconsistent with the world or self-refuting. Thus, faulty reason, psuedo-reason, or an outright rejection of rationality (that they believe is reasonable) will lead people in the wrong direction.

    This isn't to say there aren't some reasonable elements in every religion. In particular, I actually throughougly enjoy early Islamic philosophers (particularly Ibn Sina). However, even with them I find inconsistencies. This is because, in our fallen state, we have no choice but to be inconsistent.

    I'm differentiating, however, between faulty reason (which isn't reason at all) and Godly reasoning, or reasoning that has been illuminated by God and/or been birthed out of a Christ centered mindset. This reason never fails us because it comes from the Word of God.

    3. Most people do not reason themselves into Christianity.
    Well, in all honesty, no body reasons themselves into Christianity. Christ calls us into Christianity, so it's not a work on our own. However, He will use our entire being (which includes reason) in doing this act.

    Leave a comment:


  • KATA_LOUKAN
    replied
    Since all men are created in the image of God, and since all men have an innate desire to know God, it can therefore be concluded that God placed a way to know Him (truth) within all men. Reasoning, under Reformed epistemology, no longer becomes a tool used and invented by man, but instead becomes a tool that God uses to help man communicate with Him that man sometimes fails to use properly. Views that deny the one true God are not rational, but are ultimately irrational. The more rational a person is, in Reformed Epistemology, the closer to God he is[2]. Since man has the innate desire to know God, man has the innate ability to reason.
    Our ability to reason is shaped by our tradition. For example, Eastern and Western philosophy both have very different ideas of what it means to reason.

    The Hebrews and the Greeks had different ideas about what it was to reason.

    I have the following propositions:

    1. Not everybody wants to know "God" or any higher power.

    2. Reason leads people down very different paths. I have met people, for example, who have been lead to Islam by reason. Would you say this is bad reasoning, or simply people choosing their beliefs and then defending them? I don't know everything about Christianity, yet I choose to believe it. My decision, then, is uninformed.

    3. Most people do not reason themselves into Christianity.

    Leave a comment:


  • apothanein kerdos
    replied
    Originally posted by Mograce2U View Post
    Not said to me, but...

    But faith is the "concrete" evidence.

    (Heb 11:1-2 KJV) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. {2} For by it the elders obtained a good report.

    (Heb 11:3 KJV) Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

    etc.

    The problems with these kind of discussions is that it ends up making us say things we don't mean to make a point. I am not a proponent of Calvin's total depravity at all. I do believe that we are made in the image of God so that He might have a way to relate to us. And I am not saying that all subjective experiences are equally valid. Like pink bunnies or dreams, etc. may have another source than God. Discernment is needed - especially once one has come to faith. And our worldview needs to undergo a radical change, hence the renewing of our minds we must do as we reason over the meaning of scripture.

    But none of this do we do alone. And yet there are times when we see that God left a man alone to see what he would do - and it usually wasn't a good thing that came of it - though sometimes it was. And afterwards He was quick to bring him correction. This has happened to me when sin was my first response and not faith. God will bring whatever opportunity is needed into the experience of man to train him up in the way he should go. He did this with David to let him number the people so that He could bring judgment upon them thru David's sin.

    So while you want to elevate reason as a means, I see experience as the tool needed to grow us in faith. Faith is the thing which God is growing in us, by making Himself known to us in a real and tangible way. Reason apart from faith causes more trouble than not, but faith is the key by which more revelation is given, and nothing seems more reasonable to me!

    hehehe
    Once again, reason is a part of faith (as is rationality), so your point is moot on the Hebrews passage.

    This is the problem with modern Christianity - we've accepted that faith and reason are opposed to each other when, in fact, they're a part of each other.

    Let me just ask a quick question (I really don't have time to continue this):

    How much study have you (that goes for everyone) put into this issue?

    Leave a comment:


  • Brother Mark
    replied
    Originally posted by Mograce2U View Post
    So while you want to elevate reason as a means, I see experience as the tool needed to grow us in faith. Faith is the thing which God is growing in us, by making Himself known to us in a real and tangible way. Reason apart from faith causes more trouble than not, but faith is the key by which more revelation is given, and nothing seems more reasonable to me!

    hehehe
    That is the point of the firey trial. It is not our reason that purifies faith, but rather the trial that comes our way.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brother Mark
    replied
    Originally posted by apothanein kerdos View Post
    So we just ignore the rest of Scripture that explains we're made in the image of God? Or we just ignore the fact that God has implanted morality within humans? Just because you have one passage that vaguely responds to what I'm saying we should ignore the rest of Scripture?
    Let's see what God said before those consequences were given.

    Gen 6:5-8

    5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 And the Lord said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.
    NASB

    This within just a few generations. After it got so bad, God gave man consequences with which he could bring down on man in order to control him. The image of God in man was greatly hindered when Adam sinned. Man is not mostly good. He is bad to the core. We have an image of him but not in goodness. For the scripture teaches that none are good. After deciding not to intervene with man in the form of a flood, he said this...

    Gen 9:4-6
    4 Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 And surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man's brother I will require the life of man.

    6 "Whoever sheds man's blood,
    By man his blood shall be shed,
    For in the image of God He made man.
    NASB

    The death penalty was instituted to keep man in check. I could trace it from Cain to Laban to here and the results of no death penalty, but that's another thread. This was the first time in scripture God allowed man to police himself. Otherwise, we would end up with another situation like we had with Noah.


    All of this is called existentialism. None of it is Biblical. There isn't an ounce of Scripture that teaches our heart follows our mind or that our mind is subject to our heart. Instead, the two are co-equals influencing each other and keeping each other in check. That is actually the Biblical teaching.

    Yes there is. Mark 4 and Matthew 13 and Luke 8. A man with a bad heart is prevented from having understanding. The birds of the air come and pluck away the seed that was sown because why?

    Matt 13:18-19

    18 "Hear then the parable of the sower. 19 "When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is the one on whom seed was sown beside the road.
    NASB

    Why does he not understand? Because his heart is hard! The hardness of his heart kept him from understanding the word.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mograce2U
    replied
    Not said to me, but...

    Right, but what I was attempting to show is that if we rely on our experience and don't anchor it in something concrete, it means nothing. As I have said, it is no more potent than one's preference for beef over chicken
    But faith is the "concrete" evidence.

    (Heb 11:1-2 KJV) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. {2} For by it the elders obtained a good report.

    (Heb 11:3 KJV) Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

    etc.

    The problems with these kind of discussions is that it ends up making us say things we don't mean to make a point. I am not a proponent of Calvin's total depravity at all. I do believe that we are made in the image of God so that He might have a way to relate to us. And I am not saying that all subjective experiences are equally valid. Like pink bunnies or dreams, etc. may have another source than God. Discernment is needed - especially once one has come to faith. And our worldview needs to undergo a radical change, hence the renewing of our minds we must do as we reason over the meaning of scripture.

    But none of this do we do alone. And yet there are times when we see that God left a man alone to see what he would do - and it usually wasn't a good thing that came of it - though sometimes it was. And afterwards He was quick to bring him correction. This has happened to me when sin was my first response and not faith. God will bring whatever opportunity is needed into the experience of man to train him up in the way he should go. He did this with David to let him number the people so that He could bring judgment upon them thru David's sin.

    So while you want to elevate reason as a means, I see experience as the tool needed to grow us in faith. Faith is the thing which God is growing in us, by making Himself known to us in a real and tangible way. Reason apart from faith causes more trouble than not, but faith is the key by which more revelation is given, and nothing seems more reasonable to me!

    hehehe

    Leave a comment:


  • apothanein kerdos
    replied
    What does the scripture say about the human heart?

    Jer 17:9

    9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
    KJV

    Why did God institute government and the death penalty? It was because of how evil man became in Noah's day to the point that every thought was evil and violent. He destroyed it then gave man the death penalty to keep man in check. If we remove all consequences, i.e. government, society, peer pressure, etc. man will be extremely evil and self centered.
    So we just ignore the rest of Scripture that explains we're made in the image of God? Or we just ignore the fact that God has implanted morality within humans? Just because you have one passage that vaguely responds to what I'm saying we should ignore the rest of Scripture?

    He didn't call man's wisdom or reason useless. It has it's place. Knowing God is far more an issue of the heart than it is of the mind. He even tells us repeatedly to seek wisdom in proverbs. But there is a way that seems right to man, that is what we refer to as man's reason.

    AK, that's the biggest issue I have with the premise. It seems to bypass the heart and go straight for the mind. The mind follows the heart not the other way around. When one's heart is right, and the light of God shines in it, then he can renew his mind. But without a heart that desires renewal, the mind won't even care.
    All of this is called existentialism. None of it is Biblical. There isn't an ounce of Scripture that teaches our heart follows our mind or that our mind is subject to our heart. Instead, the two are co-equals influencing each other and keeping each other in check. That is actually the Biblical teaching.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brother Mark
    replied
    Originally posted by apothanein kerdos View Post
    Wow, that's a teaching of depravity that even I'm uncomfortable with!

    For one, Scripture does and doesn't teach this. It does teach that we are immoral people and that God holds back the evil in this world. This holding back, however, is because of the imago Dei. Thus, natural man is moral not necessarily because of the consequences, but because the image of God - though tainted - is still within him. He is moral because he feels he should be. This explains why some lost men still choose to be moral people even when there are no negative consequences for not being moral. I can think of a few people who are atheists yet morally volunteer their time helping the poor. If they didn't help there would be no problem with their lack of action. Yet, they choose to be immoral.
    What does the scripture say about the human heart?

    Jer 17:9

    9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
    KJV

    Why did God institute government and the death penalty? It was because of how evil man became in Noah's day to the point that every thought was evil and violent. He destroyed it then gave man the death penalty to keep man in check. If we remove all consequences, i.e. government, society, peer pressure, etc. man will be extremely evil and self centered.

    None of this contradicts what I said in the article.

    Secondly, let's stop saying "man's reason." That denies God's creative aspect of reason. God gave humans reason to use. To call it "man's reason" is to deny Him this creation.
    He didn't call man's wisdom or reason useless. It has it's place. Knowing God is far more an issue of the heart than it is of the mind. He even tells us repeatedly to seek wisdom in proverbs. But there is a way that seems right to man, that is what we refer to as man's reason.

    AK, that's the biggest issue I have with the premise. It seems to bypass the heart and go straight for the mind. The mind follows the heart not the other way around. When one's heart is right, and the light of God shines in it, then he can renew his mind. But without a heart that desires renewal, the mind won't even care.

    Leave a comment:


  • apothanein kerdos
    replied
    I was asking myself, "Why is this in the controversial section?" If reason is the antithesis of irrationality, I would think all Christians would be in favor of it.

    AK, I would use this opportunity to tighten up your definitions in case there are any closet Van Till readers who might read your paper. It would appear as if the term "reason" has a connotation you didn't intend. As some have already said, reason might be an essential, necessary part of belief, but it isn't adequate by itself. As any Van Tillian will tell you, a person can not come to belief unless the Holy Spirit opens his eyes.

    I don't agree with Van Till's Presuppositional Apologetics, but I think, in general, folks are right to point out, as you also have done, that the Holy Spirit must play a role in our coming to truth.


    I'm laughing because I'm currently re-reading Van Til's The Defense of the Faith. Just ironic.

    It's controversial because most of the evangelical church has - understandably - fallen into the fideistic trap of faith. You have to figure, what average layperson knows (or even cares to know) the nuanced difference between Nihilism and Existentialism? Who cares to know about the various debates among Trinitarians on the nature of the Trinity?

    In fact, the above simply aren't important to the layperson. The scientific details of intelligent design, as an example, aren't important to me simply because I'm not a scientist. I understand the broad gist of the argument, but ask me to begin to explain the deep scientific details and I can't.

    Part of the reason we are so fideistic and anti-intellectual is because, as a church of laypeople, we have buried our heads in the sand against all these intellectual attacks. Now, building our intellect is the job of all believers - this is clear in Scripture - but specializing in certain fields is not.

    It's as though we've forgotten the model of the first church. All partook in all things Christian, but some specialized. We know there were orphans and uneducated widows that made up their ranks - but there were also some amazing philosophers and apologists (such as Polycarp). We've forgotten that Christianity is multi-tiered, that it is simple and complex. We've forgotten that some people are called to specialize in certain things - so we become uncomfortable with what we're not used to and what we don't understand. Instead, we should be thankful that the Lord has given us people who specialize in different areas.

    As for what you actually said...

    I agree. The definitions are admittedly vague, but in a short paper that isn't academic it's hard to spend time defining terms (which can often take up half a page).

    As for Van Tillian epistemology, I'm a huge fan. I agree that unless God allows us to see certain things, we certainly won't. At the same time, Van Til taught that there is a natural reason. For instance, though God designed us to know mathematics, He doesn't 'open our eyes' to the fact that 2+2=4 (at least not in the way He opens our eyes to salvation - which is more than an intellectual exercise).

    Perhaps if you switched to using the term "rational", this might help. The term "rational" will encompass reason, but will also include the intuition, the subjective experience, and the influence of the Holy Spirit: each of these being rational aspects of being human.
    This would, admittedly, work better for this baord.

    Disbelief has an irrational component due to the fact that the denial of the truth amounts to a suppression of it, living AS IF the contrary were true. The idea of "self-deception" boggles the mind if one thinks about the nature of deception. What is deception, if not the withholding of information from another person? And how can we withhold information from ourselves? Well, in our rationality, we can't. But in our capacity to be irrational, we can pretend to ourselves that we don't know something and act as if we lack that knowledge.

    I believe Paul had this irrational process of the suppression of truth we already know to be true in mind when he penned the latter half of Romans the first chapter.

    And so, disbelief isn't a lack of reason, but a moral problem with those who purposely think irrationally, unrighteously suppressing the truth.
    Completely agree with this point of view.

    [qutoe]But our subjective experiences and thinking aren't any less rational than our empirical ones.[/quote]

    Right, but what I was attempting to show is that if we rely on our experience and don't anchor it in something concrete, it means nothing. As I have said, it is no more potent than one's preference for beef over chicken.


    Robin,

    Given the evidence that is. Which AK, is the word I found lacking in your article. Paul didn't have to "reason" about his experience on the road to Damascus since the evidence of the reality of it left him blind! Any more than the blind man did who was healed by Jesus - the evidence was he had his sight. Therefore unbelief in light of such evidence is the real marvel. If man is supposed to be able to know God exists because of the evidence which creation gives him, then explaining how he comes up with evolution is what is needed.
    Correct, but we see multiple times in history of men who have encounters with God, yet still deny Him. Pharoah is a good example as is Abraham (his denial was in his action with the maidservant). Both men had encounters with God, yet irrationally acted out against Him.

    Faith comes because of revelation and the faith it produces is the evidence God gives; whereas unbelief is our natural bent regardless of what truth one may know. So I tend to agree with Pascal here that sin is the main obstacle, not man merely misapplying his God given gift of reason.
    Both Calvin and Pascal argued that man misapplying his reason was a result of his sin. Romans 1 teaches this as well.

    That fact that the natural man is able to create a "moral" society from being able to apply reason - is only because God sees to it that consequences come because of sin. If it weren't for those consequences no man would choose anything that was not wholly self-serving. Death and its fear serves a real purpose to help hold sin at bay - else mankind would have wiped themselves out long ago. The fall has totally permeated the nature of man - but God still sends His rain (meaning all earthly blessing/ curses) upon him, lest mankind would become totally depraved.
    Wow, that's a teaching of depravity that even I'm uncomfortable with!

    For one, Scripture does and doesn't teach this. It does teach that we are immoral people and that God holds back the evil in this world. This holding back, however, is because of the imago Dei. Thus, natural man is moral not necessarily because of the consequences, but because the image of God - though tainted - is still within him. He is moral because he feels he should be. This explains why some lost men still choose to be moral people even when there are no negative consequences for not being moral. I can think of a few people who are atheists yet morally volunteer their time helping the poor. If they didn't help there would be no problem with their lack of action. Yet, they choose to be immoral.

    This is simply because they are made in the iamge of God. Their beliefs are irrational and their moral actions are actually more irrational than their beliefs. The reason is they have no basis for their actions - how can a naturalist justify helping the poor? How can he rationalize it or reason it consider his disposition toward naturalism? The fact is, he simply cannot - yet he continues to act rational. This is because the image of God in him is crying out. That is why society acts morally - though consequences can certainly be another cause (but this begs the question, why does moral man set up consequences [laws and a judicial system] unless something inside him calls out to do so?).
    Therefore I will hold to what I said earlier that it is all about the power of God sustaining His creation and interjecting His will upon man, which power lies not in man's reason or his will apart from Him. We are not autonomous creatures in that sense since we wouldn't even be alive had He not breathed into us. But revelation is what brings response-ability upon man when he knows the One with whom he has to do. That alone will quicken him to right reason and a right response. Until then he will go on with business as usual until the day he dies.
    Two things:

    None of this contradicts what I said in the article.

    Secondly, let's stop saying "man's reason." That denies God's creative aspect of reason. God gave humans reason to use. To call it "man's reason" is to deny Him this creation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brother Mark
    replied
    Originally posted by Mograce2U View Post
    Disbelief surely is the real clincher to explain. I suppose that is why theologians lean more toward trying to give a reasonable explanation for how faith works, because there is no sense or reason to explain unbelief!

    Given the evidence that is. Which AK, is the word I found lacking in your article. Paul didn't have to "reason" about his experience on the road to Damascus since the evidence of the reality of it left him blind! Any more than the blind man did who was healed by Jesus - the evidence was he had his sight. Therefore unbelief in light of such evidence is the real marvel. If man is supposed to be able to know God exists because of the evidence which creation gives him, then explaining how he comes up with evolution is what is needed.

    Faith comes because of revelation and the faith it produces is the evidence God gives; whereas unbelief is our natural bent regardless of what truth one may know. So I tend to agree with Pascal here that sin is the main obstacle, not man merely misapplying his God given gift of reason.

    That fact that the natural man is able to create a "moral" society from being able to apply reason - is only because God sees to it that consequences come because of sin. If it weren't for those consequences no man would choose anything that was not wholly self-serving. Death and its fear serves a real purpose to help hold sin at bay - else mankind would have wiped themselves out long ago. The fall has totally permeated the nature of man - but God still sends His rain (meaning all earthly blessing/ curses) upon him, lest mankind would become totally depraved.

    Therefore I will hold to what I said earlier that it is all about the power of God sustaining His creation and interjecting His will upon man, which power lies not in man's reason or his will apart from Him. We are not autonomous creatures in that sense since we wouldn't even be alive had He not breathed into us. But revelation is what brings response-ability upon man when he knows the One with whom he has to do. That alone will quicken him to right reason and a right response. Until then he will go on with business as usual until the day he dies.
    This is such a good post, I figure it's worth commenting on just to get it repeated. Very good Robin.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X