Over the past summer I have been making a new effort to understand and appreciate classical metaphysics. I just finished reading Aquinas on Being and Essence: a Translation and Interpretation by Joseph Bobick, and prior to that I read all the way through Aristotle's Physics. I learned things from each book, and cleared up a few difficulties, but I also sharpened some of the difficulties I have with the Aristotelian/Thomistic "perennial" philosophy.
From this reading of Aristotle I picked up the following:
1. Clarification: The meaning of the definition, "time is the number of motion," is that time is that aspect of motion in virtue of which it can be measured. In other words, for Aristotle time is the numerability of motion.
2. Difficulty: Why think that time is an aspect of motion, rather than motion being an aspect of time? Or to put it another way, does time presuppose motion, or does motion presuppose time? I find the latter position to be more intuitive, and I suspect many, if not most, people would agree. This would also seem to be the position of Dooyeweerd, for whom time is the "bottom layer" of created reality, underlying every kind of meaning. And Husserl as well, for whom internal time consciousness is the deepest structure of consciousness.
3. Clarification: Because Aristotle thinks of time as an aspect of motion, for him something that does not move is not in time. Thus it seems that for him, timelessness simply means immutability, and a thing can be said to be timeless even though it exists along with temporal things. So for example, his Unmoved Mover is a timeless being despite its being part of, or in immediate spatial contact with, the otherwise temporal universe. This, to me, sheds some light on Boethius's description of divine timelessness, according to which all moments of time are present to the timeless God. Althougth Boethius works with Augustine's idea of a timeless eternal present as contrasted with endless duration for his notion of eternity, perhaps he continues to think in Aristotelian terms about time itself. Contemporary philosophers have found it difficult to articulate how there might be a kind of simultaneity between all temporal events and a timeless eternal present, and perhaps this is because we do not share Aristotle's notion of time.
From the Bobick commentary I picked up the following:
1. Clarification: For Thomas, there are levels of actuality, and matter is to some extent a relative term. That is, a matter-form composite substance can be as matter to a further form. In the course I took on Aristotle's Metaphysics, I remember this being an issue that is unclear in Aristotle, with some philosophers interpreting him to ultimately imply that only living things are truly substances. But for Thomas, it is clear that matter never exists without some form, that at bottom the quantitative-spatial form of matter is the most basic substantial form, and greater actualities build on that.
2. Clarification: "Absolute" is a third kind of existence in addition to individual and universal. I had long thought that Thomas' doctrine was that God is a universal being, and that out intellectual grasp of essences is simply a grasp of universals. But Bobick says that "God is being" (as opposed to "God is a being") means that God is absolute being, and that we ordinarily consider essences as absolute (132). We consider things as universal only by means of our logical intentions.
3. Clarification: I now see that the claim that God is his existence does not contradict, but rather expresses the meaning of the claim that we cannot know his essence. To say that God's essence is his existence is not to explicate what that essence consists of, but rather it is to say that his essence is not distinguishable from his existence. It is something like Forest Gump's saying, "stupid is as stupid does." God is what he is. I better appreciate now why classical philosophers thought that this metaphysical conclusion expresses the meaning of YHWH, "I am that I am."
4. Difficulty: Bobick says that for Thomas (whether for Aristotle too I am not sure) quantified matter is three-dimensionally quantified. (This kind of matter is also designated matter and the principle of individuation.) Apparently, for Thomas, to be quantified is to be spatial, and to be spatial is to be quantified. I have great difficulty with this equation of quantification and spatiality.
To me it seems to be a conflation, for the meaning of quantity and the meaning of spatiality are readily distinguishable. Numbers are not as such spatial beings, and figures are not as such numbered--arithmetic does not require geometry, and geometry does not require arithmetic. I would say that any real thing with spatial properties must have quantitative properties, for real space does presuppose quantitative meaning, e.g. any line segment in the real world must have a determinate length. But the reverse is not the case. Numbers are not, and do not imply, spatial extensions.
For Thomas this notion seems to serve as a crucial, unargued assumption in the argument that the intelligences (angels) do not have matter. Bobick explains that since matter of itself is indivisible, if the intelligences had matter, then that matter would have to be quantified to be divisible (among different individuals), but since quantified matter is corporeal matter, then the intelligences would have to be corporeal, which everyone denies (140). For my part, I see no reason why the intelligences could not have a quantified, non-corporeal matter as part of their composition.
For me there is a further theological difficulty here as well. For Thomas, since angels are immaterial, they are also immutable, like God. But Scripture describes them engaging in all kinds of temporal activity. Indeed, I daresay there is not a hint in Scripture of this idea of immutable intelligences whose essences are their degrees of knowledge.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Friday, September 30, 2011
"The Commandments of [Government] Men"
Labels:
Christianity,
health,
politics
The message of the Bible is deeply political. This has become more apparent to me than ever in recent months. I have understood for a long time that the Bible speaks to politics, i.e. that some of its teachings concern the political sphere. What has become more apparent to me is how central politics is to the whole Biblical message.
This was brought home to me most recently by an NASB footnote to a well-known verse in Isaiah that Jesus applied to the Pharisees. The political aspect of this prophecy is obscured by our translations.
Jesus said of the Pharisees, quoting Isaiah 29:13,
According to an NASB footnote, the literal translation of the second line in the orignal passage in Isaiah is "their fear of Me is commandment[s] of rulers." What the people were condemned for, then, involved not simply the commands of men, but the commands of government men.
There are two possibilities for the basis of the condemnation. (1) The people were worshipping God only because rulers required it, i.e. in the right way externally, but lacking the right motivation. This seems to be how the NASB text takes it, rendering the literal "commandment of rulers" as "tradition learned by rote." (2) The people were worshipping God in the way the rulers required, and not in the way God required at all. I favor the second of these two readings because it is weightier--it finds deeper significance in the literal wording, an approach I think is warranted by passages such as Mt. 5:18 and Ps. 12:6, and the nature of Biblical literature in general. The second reading encompasses the first, and draws out more instruction.
Here is what I mean by drawing out more instruction. The context of Isaiah 29 is God's judgment on Jerusalem. Its people observed the festivals of God's Law (v. 2), but were not instructed by it: they could not understand the prophets (vv. 10-12), they worshipped with their lips and not their hearts (v. 13a), their wise men were a sham (v. 14), they were intent on doing evil (vv. 20-21), and they erred and did not accept instruction (v. 24). From v. 13a especially, it is clearly true to say that they lacked the right motivation for keeping the festivals, as reading (1) has it. What I draw further from the literal "commandment of rulers" of v. 13b is that their wrong motivation expressed itself not only in the sins they committed apart from observing the festivals, but in the way they observed the festivals also. They did according to the commands of government men rather than God. To put it another way, their wrong motivation took a specific form: they were moved by their allegiance to human government rather than to God.
Understood this way, the passage begins to resonate with other events and prophecies in Scripture. God was to be Israel's king, but they rejected his kingship and chose a human king (1 Sam. 8:7). Psalm 146 tells us not to trust in princes, and compares what they cannot do with what God does. The gospel is an announcement of the reign of God (Is. 52:7). Here in Isaiah 29, then, we have another expression of the political dimension of the Biblical message. Man's alienation from God expresses itself in his politics: he worships, fears, loves and obeys men with political power, rather than God.
We are often blind to this reality because we think in impersonal terms. We refer to "the government" and offices in it, and to "rights" and "freedoms," and most of the time we separate "political" matters and "spiritual" matters. The Bible speaks simply of men, their power, ambitions, and allegiences. We do not see that often, "men" in the Bible means men in their political or governmental roles. When Peter told the High Priest, "we must obey God rather than men," he expressed the political aspect of the Biblical message.
This is why Jesus' alteration of the second line of Isaiah 29:13 does not change the meaning. The Pharisees whom Jesus condemned ultimately had the same political motive as the subjects of Isaiah's condemnation, and their elevation of their tradition above God's law expressed it. Though they rejected the present Roman political authority, they wanted to replace it with their own, rather than trust and obey God. They wanted for a Messiah a human Davidic king of the same kind that Israel had in Isaiah's time; they did not want a Messiah who would restore God's reign over the earth through his people apart from a geopolitical human kingship. They may have even thought that their resistance to Roman authority put them on the right side of Isaiah 29:13. Jesus exposed the fact that it did not.
We see the same thing today. Our bitter political division between right and left is like that between the Pharisees and the Romans. We can even say that both then and now, one side is in many ways much more in line with what God considers good, while the other is more openly hostile to religion. Both are condemned by God, however, to the extent that human political ambitions and allegience move them. Or, to put it another way, to the extent that governmental matters comprise their hopes and fears, and direct their energy. For to that extent, "their fear...is the commandment[s] of [government] men."
An example of this that stuck out to me recently is he way Michelle Bauchman handled Jay Leno's questions about her husband's counseling services to homosexuals. Bauchman apparently is an evangelical Christian, and is a favorite of evangelical Christian voters. Yet she would not answer Leno's questions directly. She tried to make a joke, and used obviously scripted rhetoric, but she would not or could not explain why she opposes instituting homsexual marriage. Clearly, it has become part of her political strategy at this time to avoid that issue. And so it appears that she has sacrificed witnessing to the truth, to political ambition. The instruction she is following in terms of strategy is a human derivation from political goals.
But it is easy to point the finger. We are all prone to this error, and our society is flooded with "commandment[s] of rulers." Political correctness and redifinitions of "marriage" and "hate" are only the most explicit examples of this. In truth, the components of our food, water, air, medicine, clothing, housing and more are regulated by the government, by "the commandments[s] of rulers." How often do we blindly trust the goodness or safety of these things? Just today I learned that when a food package lists "natural flavors" as an ingredient, this very likely means some form of glutamate, the toxic component of MSG, even if the same box proclaims "no MSG"--and our government has explicitly allowed this. (Excitotoxins by Blaylock)
Since the commands of government men permeate our lives today, we need to give careful thought to how we live. The greatest truth and the most important commands are God's. It is as easy as ever to give lip service to this, while following a myriad of politically-originated instructions to guide our thinking and behavior.
This was brought home to me most recently by an NASB footnote to a well-known verse in Isaiah that Jesus applied to the Pharisees. The political aspect of this prophecy is obscured by our translations.
Jesus said of the Pharisees, quoting Isaiah 29:13,
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their
lips; but their heart is far from me.
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Mt. 15:8-9, KJV)
According to an NASB footnote, the literal translation of the second line in the orignal passage in Isaiah is "their fear of Me is commandment[s] of rulers." What the people were condemned for, then, involved not simply the commands of men, but the commands of government men.
There are two possibilities for the basis of the condemnation. (1) The people were worshipping God only because rulers required it, i.e. in the right way externally, but lacking the right motivation. This seems to be how the NASB text takes it, rendering the literal "commandment of rulers" as "tradition learned by rote." (2) The people were worshipping God in the way the rulers required, and not in the way God required at all. I favor the second of these two readings because it is weightier--it finds deeper significance in the literal wording, an approach I think is warranted by passages such as Mt. 5:18 and Ps. 12:6, and the nature of Biblical literature in general. The second reading encompasses the first, and draws out more instruction.
Here is what I mean by drawing out more instruction. The context of Isaiah 29 is God's judgment on Jerusalem. Its people observed the festivals of God's Law (v. 2), but were not instructed by it: they could not understand the prophets (vv. 10-12), they worshipped with their lips and not their hearts (v. 13a), their wise men were a sham (v. 14), they were intent on doing evil (vv. 20-21), and they erred and did not accept instruction (v. 24). From v. 13a especially, it is clearly true to say that they lacked the right motivation for keeping the festivals, as reading (1) has it. What I draw further from the literal "commandment of rulers" of v. 13b is that their wrong motivation expressed itself not only in the sins they committed apart from observing the festivals, but in the way they observed the festivals also. They did according to the commands of government men rather than God. To put it another way, their wrong motivation took a specific form: they were moved by their allegiance to human government rather than to God.
Understood this way, the passage begins to resonate with other events and prophecies in Scripture. God was to be Israel's king, but they rejected his kingship and chose a human king (1 Sam. 8:7). Psalm 146 tells us not to trust in princes, and compares what they cannot do with what God does. The gospel is an announcement of the reign of God (Is. 52:7). Here in Isaiah 29, then, we have another expression of the political dimension of the Biblical message. Man's alienation from God expresses itself in his politics: he worships, fears, loves and obeys men with political power, rather than God.
We are often blind to this reality because we think in impersonal terms. We refer to "the government" and offices in it, and to "rights" and "freedoms," and most of the time we separate "political" matters and "spiritual" matters. The Bible speaks simply of men, their power, ambitions, and allegiences. We do not see that often, "men" in the Bible means men in their political or governmental roles. When Peter told the High Priest, "we must obey God rather than men," he expressed the political aspect of the Biblical message.
This is why Jesus' alteration of the second line of Isaiah 29:13 does not change the meaning. The Pharisees whom Jesus condemned ultimately had the same political motive as the subjects of Isaiah's condemnation, and their elevation of their tradition above God's law expressed it. Though they rejected the present Roman political authority, they wanted to replace it with their own, rather than trust and obey God. They wanted for a Messiah a human Davidic king of the same kind that Israel had in Isaiah's time; they did not want a Messiah who would restore God's reign over the earth through his people apart from a geopolitical human kingship. They may have even thought that their resistance to Roman authority put them on the right side of Isaiah 29:13. Jesus exposed the fact that it did not.
We see the same thing today. Our bitter political division between right and left is like that between the Pharisees and the Romans. We can even say that both then and now, one side is in many ways much more in line with what God considers good, while the other is more openly hostile to religion. Both are condemned by God, however, to the extent that human political ambitions and allegience move them. Or, to put it another way, to the extent that governmental matters comprise their hopes and fears, and direct their energy. For to that extent, "their fear...is the commandment[s] of [government] men."
An example of this that stuck out to me recently is he way Michelle Bauchman handled Jay Leno's questions about her husband's counseling services to homosexuals. Bauchman apparently is an evangelical Christian, and is a favorite of evangelical Christian voters. Yet she would not answer Leno's questions directly. She tried to make a joke, and used obviously scripted rhetoric, but she would not or could not explain why she opposes instituting homsexual marriage. Clearly, it has become part of her political strategy at this time to avoid that issue. And so it appears that she has sacrificed witnessing to the truth, to political ambition. The instruction she is following in terms of strategy is a human derivation from political goals.
But it is easy to point the finger. We are all prone to this error, and our society is flooded with "commandment[s] of rulers." Political correctness and redifinitions of "marriage" and "hate" are only the most explicit examples of this. In truth, the components of our food, water, air, medicine, clothing, housing and more are regulated by the government, by "the commandments[s] of rulers." How often do we blindly trust the goodness or safety of these things? Just today I learned that when a food package lists "natural flavors" as an ingredient, this very likely means some form of glutamate, the toxic component of MSG, even if the same box proclaims "no MSG"--and our government has explicitly allowed this. (Excitotoxins by Blaylock)
Since the commands of government men permeate our lives today, we need to give careful thought to how we live. The greatest truth and the most important commands are God's. It is as easy as ever to give lip service to this, while following a myriad of politically-originated instructions to guide our thinking and behavior.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Our Planned Vaccine Schedule
My wife and I did a lot of reading to prepare for the birth of our first son six weeks ago. One of the issues parents must consider is vaccines. I am thankful to God that our country and state (TX) does not take away parents' responsibility to make this decision for their children.
We have made a modified schedule that we will soon be proposing to our pediatrician. To a large degree we would recommend it to other parents as well, but there are some ways in which it is unique to our situation. We look at the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended schedule as a starting point, but we've concluded that it has a number of serious flaws. You can view the AAP schedule here: http://aapredbook.aappublications.org/resources/IZSchedule0-6yrs.pdf
Here are the problems we have with the AAP schedule, in no particular order:
1. A "one size fits all" approach, with the same schedule generally recommended for every child. This is a problem because some of the diseases for which vaccinates are recommed affect only distinct populations.
2. No consideration of the toxicty of Aluminum. Aluminum is a toxic chemical linked to neurological damage and genetic mutation, and the FDA sets limits on its use in IV fluid. However, as an adjuvant in vaccines it is unregulated. The way that infant bodies process the aluminum received from vaccines has not been studied, and it is possible that it lodges in the brain and other organs. (The Vaccine Book 193-206)
It is worth considering that mercury (Thimersol) was used in vaccines without regulation for decades before public outcry led vaccine makers to remove it a decade ago. The CDC and FDA have tried to downplay the links to toxic effects and hide the discussions had by experts behind closed doors about both mercury and aluminum. (http://www.autismhelpforyou.com/Simpsonwood_And_Puerto%20%20Rico.htm)
3. No considertion of the possible link to (severe) allergies. Some vaccines contain a variety of biochemicals along with the disease components to which the body's immune system is supposed to react. It stands to reason that an immune reaction could be created to those other chemicals, setting up a life-long allergy. Of particular concern here are the egg, cow blood, and human proteins found in some vaccinces.
4. Too many vaccines scheduled at the same time. There are two potential problems with this:
(a) An infant's immune system and toxin-elimination systems are not fully developed, and might be overloaded by receiving so many disease components and other chemicals (including aluminum).
(b) Different diseases may be handled very differently by the body's immune system(s), with the result that vaccination for one may make a person more susceptible to another. (http://www.nitrf.org/gulf.html; http://www.nitrf.org/autistic.html)
5. STD vaccines recommended for children. This seems to be based on the assumption that that most teens will be sexually active without their parents' knowledge. I cannot help but suspect that this is intened by some powerful policy-makers to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
6. The flu vaccine recommended for every child. The flu is much less serious than many people think. Its mortality statistics are routinely conflated with pneumonia statistics. The flu vaccine also contains egg, and spray/mist versions still contain mercury (thimersol). Finally children who are nursed and not in group care are not likely to get the flu. (The Vaccine Book 121-123, 128, 132)
7. Disregard of the autism link to MMR. Several published studies on this are cause for alarm. (See The Vaccine Book, pp. 94-95, 257-58.) Also, if you read vaccine discussions online you will come across anecdotes from mothers about children who developed autism within days or weeks of the MMR vaccine. (See also the theoretical etiology at http://www.nitrf.org/autistic.html)
8. Human fetal cells used to culture viruses. Some of the viruses in live-virus vaccines (MMR and Varicella(chicken pox)) are grown in human cells, some of which were derived from aborted fetuses. (The Vaccine Book 87, 102).
Given all of the above problems, we have composed the following suggested schedule:
We will refuse vaccination for the following:
Rotavirus is unlikely to be contracted by a baby who is nursed and is not in group care. (The Vaccine Book 69)Hepatitis A is largely limited to certain geographic areas, and Texas is not one of them. (VB 111)
Hepatitis B is an STD and no one in our family has it.
MMR vaccine is linked to autism, and the rubella virus apprears to be cultured in human fetal cells. (The Vaccine Book 87)
Varicella (chicken pox) appears to be cultured in human fetal cells. (The Vaccine Book 102)
Flu is not as serious as many people think, and the vaccine contains egg and other chemicals, and is less likely for a child who is nursed and not in group care. (The Vaccine Book 121-123, 128, 132)
HPV is an STD, and is recommended only for girls.
Our schedule involves the following alterations from the AAP schedule:
1. No more than two shots in a single vist.
2. Delay PC and DTaP until 6 months due to the aluminum in these vaccines.
3. Only 3 doses of PC, and 3 of DTaP by 18 months, because this is all that is needed when starting these after 6 months.
4. The only reason we are doing polio is because Margie works with internationals. The disease is no longer endemic in the US.
We also want the following specific brands
1. ActHIB for HIB, because it does not contain aluminum.
2. Prevnar 13 for PC, the newest version, which covers the strain most prevelant in our area.
3. Tripedia brand of DTaP for lower aluminum. No Pentacel (combines DTaP with polio & HIB) because the polio component of this brand is grown in human cells, which could be derived from aborted fetuses. (The Vaccine Book 41)
So there it is. Our schedule is drastically pared down from the AAP schedule, be we are confident that Sammy will get what he needs, and that we are doing our best to rear him in wisdom.
We have made a modified schedule that we will soon be proposing to our pediatrician. To a large degree we would recommend it to other parents as well, but there are some ways in which it is unique to our situation. We look at the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended schedule as a starting point, but we've concluded that it has a number of serious flaws. You can view the AAP schedule here: http://aapredbook.aappublications.org/resources/IZSchedule0-6yrs.pdf
Here are the problems we have with the AAP schedule, in no particular order:
1. A "one size fits all" approach, with the same schedule generally recommended for every child. This is a problem because some of the diseases for which vaccinates are recommed affect only distinct populations.
2. No consideration of the toxicty of Aluminum. Aluminum is a toxic chemical linked to neurological damage and genetic mutation, and the FDA sets limits on its use in IV fluid. However, as an adjuvant in vaccines it is unregulated. The way that infant bodies process the aluminum received from vaccines has not been studied, and it is possible that it lodges in the brain and other organs. (The Vaccine Book 193-206)
It is worth considering that mercury (Thimersol) was used in vaccines without regulation for decades before public outcry led vaccine makers to remove it a decade ago. The CDC and FDA have tried to downplay the links to toxic effects and hide the discussions had by experts behind closed doors about both mercury and aluminum. (http://www.autismhelpforyou.com/Simpsonwood_And_Puerto%20%20Rico.htm)
3. No considertion of the possible link to (severe) allergies. Some vaccines contain a variety of biochemicals along with the disease components to which the body's immune system is supposed to react. It stands to reason that an immune reaction could be created to those other chemicals, setting up a life-long allergy. Of particular concern here are the egg, cow blood, and human proteins found in some vaccinces.
4. Too many vaccines scheduled at the same time. There are two potential problems with this:
(a) An infant's immune system and toxin-elimination systems are not fully developed, and might be overloaded by receiving so many disease components and other chemicals (including aluminum).
(b) Different diseases may be handled very differently by the body's immune system(s), with the result that vaccination for one may make a person more susceptible to another. (http://www.nitrf.org/gulf.html; http://www.nitrf.org/autistic.html)
5. STD vaccines recommended for children. This seems to be based on the assumption that that most teens will be sexually active without their parents' knowledge. I cannot help but suspect that this is intened by some powerful policy-makers to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
6. The flu vaccine recommended for every child. The flu is much less serious than many people think. Its mortality statistics are routinely conflated with pneumonia statistics. The flu vaccine also contains egg, and spray/mist versions still contain mercury (thimersol). Finally children who are nursed and not in group care are not likely to get the flu. (The Vaccine Book 121-123, 128, 132)
7. Disregard of the autism link to MMR. Several published studies on this are cause for alarm. (See The Vaccine Book, pp. 94-95, 257-58.) Also, if you read vaccine discussions online you will come across anecdotes from mothers about children who developed autism within days or weeks of the MMR vaccine. (See also the theoretical etiology at http://www.nitrf.org/autistic.html)
8. Human fetal cells used to culture viruses. Some of the viruses in live-virus vaccines (MMR and Varicella(chicken pox)) are grown in human cells, some of which were derived from aborted fetuses. (The Vaccine Book 87, 102).
Given all of the above problems, we have composed the following suggested schedule:
We will refuse vaccination for the following:
Rotavirus is unlikely to be contracted by a baby who is nursed and is not in group care. (The Vaccine Book 69)Hepatitis A is largely limited to certain geographic areas, and Texas is not one of them. (VB 111)
Hepatitis B is an STD and no one in our family has it.
MMR vaccine is linked to autism, and the rubella virus apprears to be cultured in human fetal cells. (The Vaccine Book 87)
Varicella (chicken pox) appears to be cultured in human fetal cells. (The Vaccine Book 102)
Flu is not as serious as many people think, and the vaccine contains egg and other chemicals, and is less likely for a child who is nursed and not in group care. (The Vaccine Book 121-123, 128, 132)
HPV is an STD, and is recommended only for girls.
Our schedule involves the following alterations from the AAP schedule:
1. No more than two shots in a single vist.
2. Delay PC and DTaP until 6 months due to the aluminum in these vaccines.
3. Only 3 doses of PC, and 3 of DTaP by 18 months, because this is all that is needed when starting these after 6 months.
4. The only reason we are doing polio is because Margie works with internationals. The disease is no longer endemic in the US.
We also want the following specific brands
1. ActHIB for HIB, because it does not contain aluminum.
2. Prevnar 13 for PC, the newest version, which covers the strain most prevelant in our area.
3. Tripedia brand of DTaP for lower aluminum. No Pentacel (combines DTaP with polio & HIB) because the polio component of this brand is grown in human cells, which could be derived from aborted fetuses. (The Vaccine Book 41)
So there it is. Our schedule is drastically pared down from the AAP schedule, be we are confident that Sammy will get what he needs, and that we are doing our best to rear him in wisdom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)