|
|
|
|
In Accordance with the Inexorable Second Law...
10-06-06
Christianity is fairly unique in the circumstances of its origin amongst the world religions. It is the one world religion that started in a position of weakness, and this has left a particular mark on its character.
Some of the other world religions' origins can be traced to a political or military victory (e.g. the Jewish exodus from Egypt, or the Muslim conquest of Mecca). Others can be characterized as a belief system which is simply soaked into the culture, without a specific starting point (Hinduism, Shintoism). In contrast, Christianity began by having its founder executed like a criminal, and then underwent a long period of persecution. Its first notable "political" victory only came hundreds of years later, at the conversion of Constantine.
Because of this, Christianity is unique in that pretty much all of its instructions are given in the context of a community in a position of weakness. What do you do when you find yourself as a slave serving a unbelieving master? What if you're a citizen in a pagan empire? What about when you're a wife who has a non-Christian husband? The New Testament covers all these situations.
This gives Christianity a unique advantage in dealing with the world at large. Christians can cope with the rest of the world, because the world at large has been non-Christian from the very inception of Christianity. When you're in an evil world and you can't do anything about the fact that it's evil, you can still be a Christian.
Other religions which were born in a position of power deal rather poorly when faced with this problem. What do you do, for instance, when someone somewhere else in the world blasphemes your god or your prophet? What do you do when some foreign nation which doesn't share your religion comes to your country and conquers it? What do you do if there's a whole culture out there, much more powerful than your own culture, that you think is inherently evil? Answering these questions in certain ways can have disastrous consequences, and if a religion is born from a position of power, they will be ill-equipped to deal with this situation.
The Christians in United States, however, are sort of in a reverse conundrum: here, Christians are fairly powerful, but the Bible gives relatively little instructions on what to do when you're in a position of power. One thing seems certain, though: it would be contrary to the writings and the history of Christianity, if we acted like the adherents of other religions would in our situation. The principles of action derived from our weak origins should still guide us even when we're powerful.
01-06-05
Thoughts on the death of Pope John Paul II.
First, there are many voices out there giving praises to the Pope, and some which give criticisms. Some people may regret that he receives any criticism at all. To these I would urge that they pay careful attention to what kind of criticism he does receive.
The apostle Paul considered it a great loss for the offense of the cross to be abolished. The gospel is offensive by its very nature. A faithful and proper preaching of the gospel will draw criticism. I do not presume to know whether the kind of criticism that Pope John Paul II is receiving is the right kind, but I do know that these will say a good deal about what he did and what he stood for, perhaps more so than the praises will.
The second thought is the lyrics of "Legacy". I think it's particularly appropriate now since people are talking about how John Paul II was such an important, historical Pope.
"Legacy" by Nicole Nordeman
I don't mind if you've got something nice to say about me
And I enjoy an accolade like the rest
You could take my picture and hang it in a gallery
Of all the who's who and so-'n-so's that used to be the best
At such 'n such...it wouldn't matter much
I won't lie, it feels alright to see your name in lights
We all need an "Atta boy" or "Atta girl"
But in the end I'd like to hang my hat on more besides
the temporary trappings of this world
I want to leave a legacy
How will they remember me?
Did I choose to love?
Did I point to you enough to make a mark on things?
I want to leave an offering
A child of mercy and grace who blessed Your name unapologetically
And leave that kind of legacy
I don't have to look too far or too long awhile
To make a lengthy list of all that I enjoy
It's an accumulating trinket and a treasure pile
Where moth and rust, thieves and such will soon enough destroy
I want to leave a legacy
How will they remember me?
Did I choose to love?
Did I point to you enough to make a mark on things?
I want to leave an offering
A child of mercy and grace who blessed Your name unapologetically
And leave that kind of legacy
Not well traveled, not well read, not well-to-do or well bred
Just want to hear instead, 'Well done, good and faithful one'
I want to leave a legacy
How will they remember me?
Did I choose to love?
Did I point to you enough to make a mark on things?
I want to leave an offering
A child of mercy and grace who blessed Your name unapologetically
And leave that kind of legacy
I don't mind if you've got something nice to say about me...
02-06-05
John 11:25-26: Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"
Some people note the difficulty in logic in the above passage, and try to get around it by saying that it's not meant to be a logical statement. Others attempt to construct couplets of phrases which apply one part of one sentence to another, and cobble together a sensible interpretation of this passage. As for me, though, I happily report the following 'epiphany of my day' which made this passage much more clear to me.
I had noted earlier that the word "death" has two meanings: One meaning, which I'll call "anti-life", indicates a state of being which is opposite to being alive. The other meaning, which I'll call "anti-birth", indicates a process which is the counterpart to the process of birth. People often confuse these two because many enter the state of "anti-life" through the process of "anti-birth", and for those who do not have the hope of the resurrection being dead in one sense is the same as being dead in the other.
But for we who believe, things are different. How are they different? Like so:
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies (i.e. even though he undergoes anti-birth); and whoever lives and believes in me will never die (i.e. will never be in the state of anti-life). Do you believe this?"
That was what I was really trying to say, when I previously wrote:
But for us, who are not without hope, the difference is clear. When we experience the opposite of "birth", we will move from "life" to "abundant life". And though we know of the opposite of "life", we will never experience it.
This way of interpreting John 11:25-26 clears up any appearance of logical problems. It neatly divides Jesus' declaration into two clear, concise statements which compliment one another without being redundant. It tells me the truths I once believed because I believe in Jesus, but now also believe because I understand it and it makes sense. Blessed are those who understand this passage and therefore believe in it. But more blessed still are those who believe it simply because they believe in Jesus.
11-12-04
Most ideas on this world are bad. Very few of them are actually good. There are several basic ways in which people respond to this fact.
The fool ignores this. He therefore gets caught up in one bad idea after another. He is perpetually going from fad to fad, con to con, cult to cult. I imagine this is not beneficial to him or to the world.
The skeptic knows that most ideas are bad, and takes the lessons of the fool to heart. He therefore resolves to never be taken in by anything. So he never learns of the few good ideas in this world.
The moderately intelligent man knows that there are good ideas out there, but that one must wade through a sea of bad ideas to get to them. He is therefore cautious and has a healthy dose of skepticism in him, but he still desires to find the good. In order to do so he relies heavily on the consensus of others and the opinions of those who know more than he. He therefore finds and upholds the ideas which are commonly accepted to be good.
The genius is a man which the best of us may be in our best times, and the one capable of genuinely discovering a new good idea. His secret is to pierce through the bad ideas to get to the good, to see the gem hidden in the mire. He sees the worthy idea hidden in the muck that the others abandoned. This is a risky venture - one misstep and you're no different than the fool - but such ventures gives us our best ideas, and they are worth occasionally being a fool for.
Strive to be the kind of man one level (not two or three) higher than you already are.
11-12-04
Recently there's been news of a discovery of a "god gene" which supposedly dictates how open a person is to religious experiences. Does this shed any new light on our spirituality? It depends on what you believed before you heard this news.
There is a class of people who believe that since rain comes from the clouds, it obviously could not come from God. If you happen to be in this class, then the above news will be interpreted to say that since spirituality comes from the genes, it can't come from God. These people often like to talk about "the god of the gaps" to describe people's beliefs in God, and tend to subscribe to a materialistic or a naturalistic world view. They often use a straw man argument which portrays a Christian thinking that God must work supernaturally at all times and places. However they may or may not smell bad and wear funny clothes.
How did the people in the Bible interpret these kinds of things? They recognized that rain comes from clouds, but that God controls all things. They knew that the Red Sea was split by a strong east wind, but also that this wind came from God. They knew that Paul planted the seed and Apollo watered it, but also that God is the one who makes things grow. They knew that there is nothing unusual about God working through the normal modes of his creation to accomplish his supernatural will. In fact God chose to create this world in such a way that its natural course would produce things that he found desirable. Hence he called it "very good" after seeing all that he had created.
With this in mind, let us put this "god gene" in perspective by considering a more familiar biological impulse: The parents' love for their children. To be sure, this love has deep roots in our biological beings. It is about as basic to our animal bodies as the need for food and drink. But this very biological love, rooted so firmly in the physical world, is the very same love which God chooses to use to illustrate his love for us. We have always understood this is the case. And I doubt that any news reports of discovering that parental love has biological roots would make headlines or shake anyone's faith, for we know this is how God often works.
As Christians, we would do well to neither be a skeptic nor the skeptic's straw man. We achieve this by simply holding on to the biblical, historic faith that we've always held on to.
11-12-04
A while back there was a news story about the death of some soldiers in Iraq. At the memorial service, they played two songs - "Amazing Grace" and John Lennon's "Imagine". For reference, I reproduce the lyrics to "Imagine" below.
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
Now, I find that this is an idiotic song to sing at a memorial service for soldiers. Let us, for the moment, put aside the fact that the philosophy espoused by this song is diametrically opposed to the philosophy of "Amazing Grace". Did someone who read the lyrics actually think that this was appropriate for soldiers who died in their duty?
The men and women of our armed forces are precisely the people who kill and die for our country. They do so because they believe in a cause greater than themselves and greater than any one human life. This song discredits most common sources of such causes: religion, heaven, and our country. It says that there is nothing to kill or die for, that such deaths are for nothing. And this is supposed to honor the fallen soldiers?
Furthermore, it is self-evident that a cause worth dying for is greater than a cause worth killing for, and a cause worth living for is greater than a cause worth dying for. In light of this, if there is nothing worth killing or dying for, is there anything worth living for? The song offers, "living for today" as its answer. Yet at the same time it denies that we should kill or die in this cause.
If indeed it's true that we live only for today, then let us eat, drink, and be merry, as well as kill as our pleasure dictates - For tomorrow we die. But as for me, I want something to live for. And anything worth living for is worth killing and dying for.
11-02-02
A word about "proofs" of God's existence.
Any god who needs to submit himself to an external system of proof to validate his existence is of little interest to me. The God I worship is the very source of all such systems of proof, whether they be logical, mathematical, scientific, archeological, or historical. How will these systems prove that my God exists, when they cannot even prove that they themselves are true? When they owe even their own existence to the existence of God?
Very well, then. The existence of God cannot be proven. Not because his existence is tenuous or uncertain, but because there is no authority beyond God with which God can be judged to exist. Does that mean that all the efforts of Christendom, from Biblical times to the 21 century, directed at finding the proofs of God are futile?
Certainly not. They show us that God, taken together with the world that he created, is self-consistent. And self-consistency is the highest level of verification which can be expected from the truth of the highest order. Furthermore, beyond demonstrating the consistency of Christianity, they are also useful for assaulting the paradigms which raise themselves up against God, when these paradigms are not self-consistent.
I write this, since there are apparently a number of people who come to my site looking for the fine-tuning argument. Like all other proofs of God, it is not completely water-tight. It is trivial to construct a paradigm which can avoid the implications of the fine-tuning argument. For example, this can be done by doing something as extreme as denying the truthfulness of logic or science. A less extreme example is to postulate an infinite number of universes with different physical laws or constants. However, a world view constructed solely by starting with pure naturalism and attaching science to it is refuted by the fine-tuning argument.
I want to put all such proofs of God in their perspective, and show where they can be useful. Perhaps I will do this in the "Writings" section of this webpage at some time in the future.
11-02-02
There are two things I remember about Chancellor Tien.
One comes from the Heuristic Squelch. Chancellor five X Chancellor two = Chancellor Tien. I was amazed, because the Heuristic Squelch managed to be funny without being crass.
The other memory comes from a meeting during CalSO. I don't remember what the meeting was about, but I remember a crazy Asian guy suddenly walking in to the room and going up to the front stage during the meeting. His appearance was unremarkable in every way; a bit on the short side, with a plain haircut, plain white shirt and black pants, somewhat past middle age, with an overall look hinting at some sloppiness. I thought he was a janitor or something, coming to tell us of a problem with the building. Either that, or he was one of those crazy Berkeley people that I'd been hearing about.
I was really confused when the CalSO guy running the meeting treated him deferentially. The CalSO guy even yielded the floor to him, and so I got to hear the guy who I thought was the janitor give us a talk about coming to Cal, and how we were now "forever a Golden Bear". My confusion only increased when people started to cheer and clap for this random janitor.
And that was pretty cool. And that's what I remember about Chancellor Tien.
10-01-02
Some half-formed ideas about theory, intepretation, data, and the Bible:
You must first have a theology in order to interpret the Bible.
The relationship between the Bible and its interpretation, or theology, is akin to the relationship between scientific data and scientific theories.
Data is inerrant. Only theories can be right or wrong.
Data cannot contradict data. Interpretations or theories can contradict each other. I'm still undecided as to whether data can contradict theories. At any rate, this makes it so that the irksome practice of finding contradictions in the Bible is largely pointless, since it is a trivial matter to find an interpretation which does not have contradictions.
I hope to expand my thoughts on this, and eventually produce something that will go in "Writings" in the (probably not near) future.
10-01-02
Any decently trained apologist knows the one-line answer to the objection, "There is no such thing as absolute truth!" However, the principle used in the answer is surprizingly under-utilized.
In particular, two oft-repeated claims for testing the truth fails in self-application. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and "Claims must be falsifiable in order to be valid" both turn out to be self-contradictory claims.
I hope to expand my thoughts on this, and eventually produce something that will go in "Writings" in the near future.
08-19-02
It is said, "It's better to have loved and lost, than to have never loved at all." This is true, not because the joy of having loved outweighs the pain of having lost, but because having never loved is such an immense tragedy. Therefore, this saying would still hold true even if it were changed to "It's better to have lost than to have never loved at all."
Similarly, the following is also true: "The opposite of love is not hate; it is apathy."
04-11-01
"How do you prove that you exist? Maybe we don't exist..." Vivi Ornitier, Final Fantasy IX
I am getting tired of Final Fantasy games passing off platitudes as some profound insight. I suppose it can't be helped, given the target age group and such, but still...
Even before we get into the philosophy, it bothers me that the quotes from FFIX characters are just a cheap method of characterization. They are never said in the game itself (except for Eiko's, I believe), only in the opening CG slides. As such, they are only a small notch above saying something like, "This is Vivi. He is a young, insecure black mage who is nevertheless boldly searching to find who he is and the meaning for his existence".
As for proving one's existence, virtually the only case where you can't prove your own existence is if you don't have a system of proof to begin with. In that case, the only reason that you can't prove your existence is because you can't prove anything, period. In fact, in such a system nobody knows what "existence" means in the first place, so...
Anyway, my point is this. If video games want to look like movies, they should hire cinematographers. If they want the characters to move like real people, they should use motion-capture actors. If they want dramatic music, hire composers and musicians. All this, Square has done well. But if Square wants to continue to make philosophical/theological (or maybe in the future, political) statements through their games, they should hire philosophers and theologians, and do things right.
04-11-01
Bell's inequality and spin-correlation experiments show that nature is fundamentally nonlocal. Somehow, information can travel faster than the speed of light, (in fact, instantaneously) although we cannot use this information to communicate. I believe that this observation supports Berkeley (the philosopher) against materialism.
Consider: Whatever it is that allows the other electron (or photon, or whatever) to "know" the state of the measured electron, it is not physical. Apparently this message of "hey, I'm in the 'down' state now" doesn't travel via anything like a photon or a gluon or a graviton, or any other material entity. But this message nevertheless gets delivered, showing that there is some non-materialistic entity at work.
One might say that this phenomenon still supports materialism, because it's described by physics. But this is essentially redefining materialism to say that whatever happens, happens. Certainly, materialism as defined by "there exists only material entities and processes" is disproved by Bell's inequality and spin-correlation experiments.
On the other hand, if we are actually living in the mind of God, in the sense that "in him we live and move and have our being", then this instantaneous transfer of information is no problem. It would be "a mere bagatelle", as they say in Sophie's World. (A recommended book, by the way. Possibly a recommended Christian book.)
04-08-01
I recently found out that C.S. Lewis had already expressed the idea of people in hell not wanting to leave. Sigh. I swear, I was born a century too late.
I should read more.
04-08-01
Section removed until further notice as a result of correspondence with Bill Jefferys.
On a related note, I would like feedback on the fine-tuning argument defense. That's something that I really want to make sure I'm right about. If any of you are scientifically inclined in the slightest, you should be able to work through it without difficulty.
While I'm talking about feedback, I would like some concerning web design, too.
03-17-01
Going along with my analysis of "rocks", (see writings) I remember reading that since "a man makes something that he can't control" makes perfect sense while "omnipotence makes something that he can't control" is nonsense, the problem clearly lies with omnipotence. I thought about this for a while, and realized that it's a bad analogy. By the same analogy, since "flowers smell good" makes good sense while "the number nine smells good" is nonsense, the problem must lie with the number nine.
I wouldn't be writing about this, had I not read it in a serious work of philosophy of religion. Whoever wrote it probably had a Ph.D., and was supposedly an expert in the field, etc. At such a level of academia, these elementary errors do not usually creep in, unless the author is actively repressing the truth. "The trouble with trying to be more stupid than you really are is that you very often succeed..." While the power of sin to make people dumber than they are has recently ceased to amaze me, I hope it will never cease to amuse.
03-11-01
Fact: People in hell are there because they choose to reject God's love and embrace their sins instead.
Corollary: People in hell do not want to leave.
This seems to make sense. Long ago, it was postulated that there is no actual fire in hell. Fire is a creation of God and therefore good, but we know that nothing good will exist in hell. Likewise, it would be good for a damned soul to desire repentance, forgiveness, and heaven. But alas, those in hell will reject this good, and instead make the wicked choice to remain.
Interestingly, ironically yet expectedly, this makes it so that hell is both more merciful and more terrible than its popular conception.
While I'm on the topic of hell, I want to clarify something: I have been accused of being an annihilationist. I am not. I only point out that, just as we are made to have more (i.e. "abundant") life by being in Christ, those who are completely without Christ would have correspondingly less life. In heaven, our existence is enriched. In hell, it would be correspondingly diminished.
03-11-01
Ps. 139:14 "I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made..."
Then you go study some biology, and you say, "Dave, you had no idea what you were talking about."
Then you wonder some more, and think, "Wait, maybe he did know..."
03-04-01
I sincerely hope that when Wormwood strikes Earth, it will affect the rotation of the Earth in such a way that we will have a 26 hour day. Then I could live out the Millenium with a internal clock that actually matches the day.
On a somewhat related thought, I always wanted to blow up Mercury (yes, the planet). Is that wrong?
03-04-01
Wow. Some sarcasm streak I went on in the previous two posts.
Anyway, I think that when we compare ourselves with the early church, or even with third-world churches, we need to be thankful. For the big things, of course, such as the a government that does not severely persecute us, but also for the little things that God chooses to bless us with. Like heated baptism water.
03-04-01
I am beginning to dislike the NRSV translation. It seems that this translation was specifically made by and for liberal scholars. It makes every effort to make Christianity appear false. It doesn't help that my NRSV happens to be a study Bible with liberal commentary. It was a text for a religious studies class at Berkeley. Go figure.
An incomplete catalogue of the NRSV's objectionable components follow, with a guess as to how these so-called Bible scholars would perhaps justify themselves.
- In the prophesy of Isaiah 7, "...the virgin will be with child" is translated as "...the young woman is with child". (This obviously can't be a prophesy about Jesus!)
- Every time "the Spirit" appears in the Old Testament, it is translated as "a spirit". (The New Testament idea of the trinity obviously can't be a part of the Old Testament!)
- In the prophesy of Daniel 9, "the anointed one", i.e. the messiah, is translated "an anointed one". (Again, this obviously can't be a prophesy about Jesus!)
- In Daniel 9, "[Until messiah comes] there will be seven and sixty-two 'weeks'" is rewritten, so that it reads, "[Until an anointed one come] there will be seven 'weeks'. For sixty-two 'weeks'..." (What? If we have "seven and sixty-two weeks", it matches Jesus' entry into Jerusalem? Oh, that must be a coincidence. How could the writer of Daniel have possibly known that? Why, that would mean that Christianity is right! How silly!)
- At the end of Matthew, Herod says, "You have a guard. Make the tomb as secure as you know how", instead of "Take a guard. Make ..." (Obviously, it had to be the Jewish temple guard and not the Roman guard that was watching the tomb, since it would have been easier to steal the body from the Jewish temple guard than the Roman guard. Why, the alternate reading would give support to the notion that Jesus actually rose from the dead!)
And I'm not even done reading through the NRSV yet. Granted, I'm most familiar with the NIV which I know tends to sacrifice accuracy for readability, and the NRSV is probably a little more accurate than the NIV at certain points. But a comparison to some of the other translations shows that the NRSV is often alone in many of the above passages. The Daniel 9 passage in particular is very telling. It's as if they intentionally chose an inferior rendering of the text, specifically to avoid the obvious implication that the prophecy is about Jesus. I might not know Greek and Hebrew, but I know a bad translations with an alternate agenda when I see it.
03-04-01
Some things I've heard:
"The Bible was translated from Hebrew, to Greek, to Latin, to German, to French, then finally to English. How could you believe anything that's been so distorted?"
Um.... Apparently he forgot to mention Aramaic, Coptic, Swahili, Klingon, and Pig Latin. Must have sliped his mind.
"We've killed 40 million babies since abortion was made legal!"
"Oh yeah? Well what about the 40 million Muslims you Christians killed during the Crusades?"
That exchange was heard on Sproul Plaza (where else?), between a street preacher and a member of the audience.
For reference, World War II had approximately 20 million military deaths. (See WWII Casualties .)
The population of the whole world during the time of the Crusades is estimated to be about 400 million, at the very most. (See 6 billion Human Beings , go to "towards a stablization".)
When asked, "You said 40 million Muslims were killed during the Crusades. What is your source?" This man replied, "Uh... History books."
"You have no free will! You believe in this God and the Bible, and you just follow what they say!"
At another time, I suggested to this person that our consciousness is completely described by our brain's Y(x). He approved of this view without hesitation, just as it is expected of a materialist.
03-04-01
Total number of possible generations since the beginning of life: estimated maximum at 1015.
Total number of base pairs in the human DNA: 109.
Making some reasonable estimates about the rate of mutation, number of life-forms, the number of possible intermediate forms, etc, we should be able to come to an order of magnitude answer regarding if evolution is possible.
02-12-01
Heretics Anonymous: A possible name for a group of people getting together for theological discussions. The name would be a good reminder for us to not take ourselves too seriously. But people might get the wrong idea. Hm....
It's too good of a name to be wasted on a group of actual heretics...
02-12-01
Strange thing about names: Among Asians, certain last names are very common ( Kim, Lee, Chang, Chen, etc.), while I have yet to meet two people with the same Asian first name.
Among Caucasians, certain first names are very common ( David, Michael, Jennifer, etc. ). Last names are fairly unique, with Smith being the most common in the US. But even Smith is rare to the point that I don't personally know anyone with that particular last name.
Given these facts, if you are Asian American, how then should you name your children?
Fortunately, I seemed to have been spared being a David Kim, or a Paul Chen, or a Mike Lee...
02-12-01
What is the antonym of death?
Initial answer: life.
Secondary answer: birth.
It seems that the word "death" has two meanings. One meaning is the opposite of "life", the other is the opposite of "birth".
I suspect that some people cannot easily make the distinction, since they believe they will experience both meanings of "death" simultaneously.
But for us, who are not without hope, the difference is clear. When we experience the opposite of "birth", we will move from "life" to "abundant life". And though we know of the opposite of "life", we will never experience it.
02-12-01
I think I'll start to swear by myself.
Advantages: Better than swearing by God all the time, which would lead to taking God's name in vain. You can still sound serious (as compared to "I swear by my bicycle" or some other such thing), when speaking of things that require some gravity. Rolls off the tongue easily.
Disadvantages: Possible blasphemy, since God is the only other person I know who swears by himself.
What do you think?
02-12-01
You know, I had a very low opinion of cosplay, until I saw this.
Maybe there is some merit in cosplay. Now that I think about it, I would go to some lengths to see Christina L. dressed up as Rinoa...
02-12-01
Why do we find the sunset beautiful?
The fact that we do seems to be inconsistent with evolution. I almost got selected out while admiring the sunset, when I should have been paying attention to where I was going on my bike.
From the point of view of evolution, we should find food and women beautiful. Beyond that, things become difficult to explain.
How many of our ancestors died while looking at the sunset, swallowed up from behind by the saber tooth tiger that they failed to notice?
|
|
|
|
