Lewis’s book, Studies in Words. Here is an Excerpt which rewards the careful reader:
Adverse criticism, far from being the easiest, is one of the hardest things in the world to do well. And that for two reasons. When we try to define the badness of a work, we usually end by calling it bad on the strength of characteristics we can find also in good work. . . . The novel before you is bad—a transparent compensatory fantasy projected by a poor, plain woman, erotically starving. Yes, but so is Jane Eyre. . . . An author betrays shocking indifference to all the great political, social, and intellectuals upheavals of his age; like Jane Austen. The solution of the problem is, I suspect, still far away. . . . The other difficulty lies within. . . . Reviews filled with venom have often been condemned socially for their bad manners, or ethically for their spite. I am not prepared to defend them from either charge; but I prefer to stress their inutility. . . . Automatically, without thinking about it one’s mind discounts everything [the venomous critic] says, as it does when we are listening to a drunk or delirious man. The critic rivets our attention on himself. When we get to the end we find that the critic has told us everything about himself and nothing about the book. Thus in criticism, as in vocabulary, hatred over-reaches itself. Willingness to wound, too intense and naked, becomes impotent to do the desired mischief.
Of course, if we are to be critics, we must condemn as well as praise; we must sometimes condemn totally and severely. But we must obviously be very careful. . . . I think we must get it firmly fixed in our minds that the very occasions on which we should most like to write a slashing review are precisely those on which we had much better hold our tongues. The very desire is a danger signal. . . . The strength of our dislike is itself a probable symptom that all is not well within; that some raw place in our psychology has been touched, or else that some personal or partisan motive is secretly at work. . . . If we do speak, we shall almost certainly make fools of ourselves. Continence in this matter is no doubt painful. But, after all, you can always write your slashing review now and drop it into the wastepaper basket a day or so later. A few re-readings in cold blood will often make this quite easy.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Quotes To Remember
Charles Spurgeon:
"Remember, sinner, it is not thy hold of Christ that saves thee - it is Christ; it is not thy joy in Christ that saves thee - it is Christ; it is not even faith in Christ, though that is the instrument it is Christ's blood and merits; therefore, look not to thy hope, but to Christ, the source of thy hope; look not to thy faith, but to Christ, the author and finisher of thy faith; and if thou doest that, ten thousand devils cannot throw thee down." (The Forgotten Spugeon, Iain Murray, 42.)
"Remember, sinner, it is not thy hold of Christ that saves thee - it is Christ; it is not thy joy in Christ that saves thee - it is Christ; it is not even faith in Christ, though that is the instrument it is Christ's blood and merits; therefore, look not to thy hope, but to Christ, the source of thy hope; look not to thy faith, but to Christ, the author and finisher of thy faith; and if thou doest that, ten thousand devils cannot throw thee down." (The Forgotten Spugeon, Iain Murray, 42.)
Sunday, October 11, 2009
On Prizes and Whatever It Means Anymore
My Take on the Prize:
I like everyone else who thinks it is worth thinking about this, has wondered about the following; what does it mean to give a prize that recognizes and rewards accomplishments to someone who has yet to accomplish something?
Simply put; if Obama thinks he is not deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize and he said as much in his speech after the award was announced. Then give it back.
What a wonderful way to teach people something.
Cheers
I like everyone else who thinks it is worth thinking about this, has wondered about the following; what does it mean to give a prize that recognizes and rewards accomplishments to someone who has yet to accomplish something?
Simply put; if Obama thinks he is not deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize and he said as much in his speech after the award was announced. Then give it back.
What a wonderful way to teach people something.
Cheers
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
First Go Round -- Creation and Evolution
I don't agree with the following that will be reproduced below, but it represents heartfelt assertions of an organization very concerned about the debate --
10 dangers of theistic evolution
First published:Creation 17(4):49–51September 1995
by Werner Gitt
The atheistic formula for evolution is:
Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods.
In the theistic evolutionary view, God is added:
Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God.
In this system God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things, whose Word has to be taken seriously by all men, but He is integrated into the evolutionary philosophy. This leads to 10 dangers for Christians.1
Danger no. 1: Misrepresentation of the Nature of God
The Bible reveals God to us as our Father in Heaven, who is absolutely perfect (Matthew 5:48), holy (Isaiah 6:3), and omnipotent (Jeremiah 32:17). The Apostle John tells us that ‘God is love’, ‘light’, and ‘life’ (1 John 4:16; 1:5; 1:1-2). When this God creates something, His work is described as ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31) and ‘perfect’ (Deuteronomy 32:4).
Theistic evolution gives a false representation of the nature of God because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation. (Progressive creationism, likewise, allows for millions of years of death and horror before sin.)
Danger no. 2: God becomes a God of the Gaps
The Bible states that God is the Prime Cause of all things. ‘But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things … and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him’ (1 Corinthians 8:6).
However, in theistic evolution the only workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot ‘explain’ with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to being a ‘god of the gaps’ for those phenomena about which there are doubts. This leads to the view that ‘God is therefore not absolute, but He Himself has evolved—He is evolution’.2
Danger no. 3: Denial of Central Biblical Teachings
The entire Bible bears witness that we are dealing with a source of truth authored by God (2 Timothy 3:16), with the Old Testament as the indispensable ‘ramp’ leading to the New Testament, like an access road leads to a motor freeway (John 5:39). The biblical creation account should not be regarded as a myth, a parable, or an allegory, but as a historical report, because:
Biological, astronomical and anthropological facts are given in didactic [teaching] form.
In the Ten Commandments God bases the six working days and one day of rest on the same time-span as that described in the creation account (Exodus 20:8-11).
In the New Testament Jesus referred to facts of the creation (e.g. Matthew 19:4-5).
Nowhere in the Bible are there any indications that the creation account should be understood in any other way than as a factual report.
The doctrine of theistic evolution undermines this basic way of reading the Bible, as vouched for by Jesus, the prophets and the Apostles. Events reported in the Bible are reduced to mythical imagery, and an understanding of the message of the Bible as being true in word and meaning is lost.
Danger no. 4: Loss of the Way for Finding God
The Bible describes man as being completely ensnared by sin after Adam’s fall (Romans 7:18-19). Only those persons who realize that they are sinful and lost will seek the Saviour who ‘came to save that which was lost’ (Luke 19:10).
However, evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing one’s purpose (in relation to God). Sin is made meaningless, and that is exactly the opposite of what the Holy Spirit does—He declares sin to be sinful. If sin is seen as a harmless evolutionary factor, then one has lost the key for finding God, which is not resolved by adding ‘God’ to the evolutionary scenario.
Danger no. 5: The Doctrine of God’s Incarnation is Undermined
The incarnation of God through His Son Jesus Christ is one of the basic teachings of the Bible. The Bible states that ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us’ (John 1:14), ‘Christ Jesus … was made in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:5-7).
Danger no. 6: The Biblical Basis of Jesus’ Work of Redemption Is Mythologized
The Bible teaches that the first man’s fall into sin was a real event and that this was the direct cause of sin in the world. ‘Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned’ (Romans 5:12).
Theistic evolution does not acknowledge Adam as the first man, nor that he was created directly from ‘the dust of the ground’ by God (Genesis 2:17). Most theistic evolutionists regard the creation account as being merely a mythical tale, albeit with some spiritual significance. However, the sinner Adam and the Saviour Jesus are linked together in the Bible—Romans 5:16-18. Thus any theological view which mythologizes Adam undermines the biblical basis of Jesus’ work of redemption.
Danger no. 7: Loss of Biblical Chronology
The Bible provides us with a time-scale for history and this underlies a proper understanding of the Bible. This time-scale includes:
The time-scale cannot be extended indefinitely into the past, nor into the future. There is a well-defined beginning in Genesis 1:1, as well as a moment when physical time will end (Matthew 24:14).
The total duration of creation was six days (Exodus 20:11).
The age of the universe may be estimated in terms of the genealogies recorded in the Bible (but note that it cannot be calculated exactly). It is of the order of several thousand years, not billions.
Galatians 4:4 points out the most outstanding event in the world’s history: ‘But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son.’ This happened nearly 2,000 years ago.
The return of Christ in power and glory is the greatest expected future event.
Supporters of theistic evolution (and progressive creation) disregard the biblically given measures of time in favour of evolutionist time-scales involving billions of years both past and future (for which there are no convincing physical grounds). This can lead to two errors:
Not all statements of the Bible are to be taken seriously.
Vigilance concerning the second coming of Jesus may be lost.
Danger no. 8: Loss of Creation Concepts
Certain essential creation concepts are taught in the Bible. These include:
God created matter without using any available material.
God created the earth first, and on the fourth day He added the moon, the solar system, our local galaxy, and all other star systems. This sequence conflicts with all ideas of ‘cosmic evolution’, such as the ‘big bang’ cosmology.
Theistic evolution ignores all such biblical creation principles and replaces them with evolutionary notions, thereby contradicting and opposing God’s omnipotent acts of creation.
Danger no. 9: Misrepresentation of Reality
The Bible carries the seal of truth, and all its pronouncements are authoritative—whether they deal with questions of faith and salvation, daily living, or matters of scientific importance.
Evolutionists brush all this aside, e.g. Richard Dawkins says, ‘Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants’.4
If evolution is false, then numerous sciences have embraced false testimony. Whenever these sciences conform to evolutionary views, they misrepresent reality. How much more then a theology which departs from what the Bible says and embraces evolution!
Danger no. 10: Missing the Purpose
In no other historical book do we find so many and such valuable statements of purpose for man, as in the Bible. For example:
Man is God’s purpose in creation (Genesis 1:27-28).
Man is the purpose of God’s plan of redemption (Isaiah 53:5).
Man is the purpose of the mission of God’s Son (1 John 4:9).
We are the purpose of God’s inheritance (Titus 3:7).
Heaven is our destination (1 Peter 1:4).
However, the very thought of purposefulness is anathema to evolutionists. ‘Evolutionary adaptations never follow a purposeful program, they thus cannot be regarded as teleonomical.’5 Thus a belief system such as theistic evolution that marries purposefulness with non-purposefulness is a contradiction in terms.
Conclusion
The doctrines of creation and evolution are so strongly divergent that reconciliation is totally impossible. Theistic evolutionists attempt to integrate the two doctrines, however such syncretism reduces the message of the Bible to insignificance. The conclusion is inevitable: There is no support for theistic evolution in the Bible.
Web links
Q&A: Creation Compromises
References
This article has been adapted from chapter 8 ‘The Consequences of Theistic Evolution’, from Prof. Dr Werner Gitt’s book, Did God use Evolution?, Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung e.V., Postfach 11 01 35 . 33661, Bielefeld, Germany.
E. Jantsch, Die Selbstorganisation des Universums, München, 1979, p. 412.
Hoimar von Ditfurth, Wir sind nicht nur von dieser Welt, München, 1984, pp. 21-22.
Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, Penguin Books, London, 1986, p. 316.
H. Penzlin, Das Teleologie-Problem in der Biologie, Biologische Rundschau, 25 (1987), S.7-26, p. 19.
What Does Theistic Evolution Involve?
The following evolutionary assumptions are generally applicable to theistic evolution:
The basic principle, evolution, is taken for granted.
It is believed that evolution is a universal principle.
As far as scientific laws are concerned, there is no difference between the origin of the earth and all life and their subsequent development (the principle of uniformity).
Evolution relies on processes that allow increases in organization from the simple to the complex, from non-life to life, and from lower to higher forms of life.
The driving forces of evolution are mutation, selection, isolation, and mixing. Chance and necessity, long time epochs, ecological changes, and death are additional indispensable factors.
The time line is so prolonged that anyone can have as much time as he/she likes for the process of evolution.
The present is the key to the past.
There was a smooth transition from non-life to life.
Evolution will persist into the distant future.
In addition to these evolutionary assumptions, three additional beliefs apply to theistic evolution:
God used evolution as a means of creating.
The Bible contains no usable or relevant ideas which can be applied in present-day origins science.
Evolutionistic pronouncements have priority over biblical statements. The Bible must be reinterpreted when and wherever it contradicts the present evolutionary worldview.
* This section is adapted from Werner Gitt’s, Did God Use Evolution?, pp. 13-16, 24.
Abut the only thing I can agree with is if anyone reinterprets their Christian beliefs founded on Biblical Wisdom, according to the latest in human wisdom, then that is a danger. But that does not have to happen in the Science and Religion Debate, and the seemingly automatic assumption by the writer above that it will if you embrace the scientific findings of evolution is just MISTAKEN.
I will give further reasons why in subsequent additions in the comment section, but I post it here as an example of how I believe the debate gets polarized on the religious side.
Equally polarizing are interviews like the recent one with Richard Dawkins on CBC Tapestry --October 4th, 2009. Available as a CBC podcast.
While the interview was as entertaining and informative as Richard Dawkins usually is, the fundamental problem of right wing polarization also came through.
Virtually no room was granted to belief in Christian theism and the ability to practice science. That the two can be Friends and not Foes.
I think the topic of how Science and Religion can be Friends and not Foes is a very good one and worth exploring. But when what I encounter is Right Wing Venom from both sides, I am not that interested in exploring the topic.
So, if in responding, someone wishes to engage in the Right Wing Polarization. Please understand that I will not likely respond and possibly delete the comments if they are too ugly.
10 dangers of theistic evolution
First published:Creation 17(4):49–51September 1995
by Werner Gitt
The atheistic formula for evolution is:
Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods.
In the theistic evolutionary view, God is added:
Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God.
In this system God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things, whose Word has to be taken seriously by all men, but He is integrated into the evolutionary philosophy. This leads to 10 dangers for Christians.1
Danger no. 1: Misrepresentation of the Nature of God
The Bible reveals God to us as our Father in Heaven, who is absolutely perfect (Matthew 5:48), holy (Isaiah 6:3), and omnipotent (Jeremiah 32:17). The Apostle John tells us that ‘God is love’, ‘light’, and ‘life’ (1 John 4:16; 1:5; 1:1-2). When this God creates something, His work is described as ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31) and ‘perfect’ (Deuteronomy 32:4).
Theistic evolution gives a false representation of the nature of God because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation. (Progressive creationism, likewise, allows for millions of years of death and horror before sin.)
Danger no. 2: God becomes a God of the Gaps
The Bible states that God is the Prime Cause of all things. ‘But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things … and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him’ (1 Corinthians 8:6).
However, in theistic evolution the only workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot ‘explain’ with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to being a ‘god of the gaps’ for those phenomena about which there are doubts. This leads to the view that ‘God is therefore not absolute, but He Himself has evolved—He is evolution’.2
Danger no. 3: Denial of Central Biblical Teachings
The entire Bible bears witness that we are dealing with a source of truth authored by God (2 Timothy 3:16), with the Old Testament as the indispensable ‘ramp’ leading to the New Testament, like an access road leads to a motor freeway (John 5:39). The biblical creation account should not be regarded as a myth, a parable, or an allegory, but as a historical report, because:
Biological, astronomical and anthropological facts are given in didactic [teaching] form.
In the Ten Commandments God bases the six working days and one day of rest on the same time-span as that described in the creation account (Exodus 20:8-11).
In the New Testament Jesus referred to facts of the creation (e.g. Matthew 19:4-5).
Nowhere in the Bible are there any indications that the creation account should be understood in any other way than as a factual report.
The doctrine of theistic evolution undermines this basic way of reading the Bible, as vouched for by Jesus, the prophets and the Apostles. Events reported in the Bible are reduced to mythical imagery, and an understanding of the message of the Bible as being true in word and meaning is lost.
Danger no. 4: Loss of the Way for Finding God
The Bible describes man as being completely ensnared by sin after Adam’s fall (Romans 7:18-19). Only those persons who realize that they are sinful and lost will seek the Saviour who ‘came to save that which was lost’ (Luke 19:10).
However, evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing one’s purpose (in relation to God). Sin is made meaningless, and that is exactly the opposite of what the Holy Spirit does—He declares sin to be sinful. If sin is seen as a harmless evolutionary factor, then one has lost the key for finding God, which is not resolved by adding ‘God’ to the evolutionary scenario.
Danger no. 5: The Doctrine of God’s Incarnation is Undermined
The incarnation of God through His Son Jesus Christ is one of the basic teachings of the Bible. The Bible states that ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us’ (John 1:14), ‘Christ Jesus … was made in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:5-7).
Danger no. 6: The Biblical Basis of Jesus’ Work of Redemption Is Mythologized
The Bible teaches that the first man’s fall into sin was a real event and that this was the direct cause of sin in the world. ‘Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned’ (Romans 5:12).
Theistic evolution does not acknowledge Adam as the first man, nor that he was created directly from ‘the dust of the ground’ by God (Genesis 2:17). Most theistic evolutionists regard the creation account as being merely a mythical tale, albeit with some spiritual significance. However, the sinner Adam and the Saviour Jesus are linked together in the Bible—Romans 5:16-18. Thus any theological view which mythologizes Adam undermines the biblical basis of Jesus’ work of redemption.
Danger no. 7: Loss of Biblical Chronology
The Bible provides us with a time-scale for history and this underlies a proper understanding of the Bible. This time-scale includes:
The time-scale cannot be extended indefinitely into the past, nor into the future. There is a well-defined beginning in Genesis 1:1, as well as a moment when physical time will end (Matthew 24:14).
The total duration of creation was six days (Exodus 20:11).
The age of the universe may be estimated in terms of the genealogies recorded in the Bible (but note that it cannot be calculated exactly). It is of the order of several thousand years, not billions.
Galatians 4:4 points out the most outstanding event in the world’s history: ‘But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son.’ This happened nearly 2,000 years ago.
The return of Christ in power and glory is the greatest expected future event.
Supporters of theistic evolution (and progressive creation) disregard the biblically given measures of time in favour of evolutionist time-scales involving billions of years both past and future (for which there are no convincing physical grounds). This can lead to two errors:
Not all statements of the Bible are to be taken seriously.
Vigilance concerning the second coming of Jesus may be lost.
Danger no. 8: Loss of Creation Concepts
Certain essential creation concepts are taught in the Bible. These include:
God created matter without using any available material.
God created the earth first, and on the fourth day He added the moon, the solar system, our local galaxy, and all other star systems. This sequence conflicts with all ideas of ‘cosmic evolution’, such as the ‘big bang’ cosmology.
Theistic evolution ignores all such biblical creation principles and replaces them with evolutionary notions, thereby contradicting and opposing God’s omnipotent acts of creation.
Danger no. 9: Misrepresentation of Reality
The Bible carries the seal of truth, and all its pronouncements are authoritative—whether they deal with questions of faith and salvation, daily living, or matters of scientific importance.
Evolutionists brush all this aside, e.g. Richard Dawkins says, ‘Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants’.4
If evolution is false, then numerous sciences have embraced false testimony. Whenever these sciences conform to evolutionary views, they misrepresent reality. How much more then a theology which departs from what the Bible says and embraces evolution!
Danger no. 10: Missing the Purpose
In no other historical book do we find so many and such valuable statements of purpose for man, as in the Bible. For example:
Man is God’s purpose in creation (Genesis 1:27-28).
Man is the purpose of God’s plan of redemption (Isaiah 53:5).
Man is the purpose of the mission of God’s Son (1 John 4:9).
We are the purpose of God’s inheritance (Titus 3:7).
Heaven is our destination (1 Peter 1:4).
However, the very thought of purposefulness is anathema to evolutionists. ‘Evolutionary adaptations never follow a purposeful program, they thus cannot be regarded as teleonomical.’5 Thus a belief system such as theistic evolution that marries purposefulness with non-purposefulness is a contradiction in terms.
Conclusion
The doctrines of creation and evolution are so strongly divergent that reconciliation is totally impossible. Theistic evolutionists attempt to integrate the two doctrines, however such syncretism reduces the message of the Bible to insignificance. The conclusion is inevitable: There is no support for theistic evolution in the Bible.
Web links
Q&A: Creation Compromises
References
This article has been adapted from chapter 8 ‘The Consequences of Theistic Evolution’, from Prof. Dr Werner Gitt’s book, Did God use Evolution?, Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung e.V., Postfach 11 01 35 . 33661, Bielefeld, Germany.
E. Jantsch, Die Selbstorganisation des Universums, München, 1979, p. 412.
Hoimar von Ditfurth, Wir sind nicht nur von dieser Welt, München, 1984, pp. 21-22.
Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, Penguin Books, London, 1986, p. 316.
H. Penzlin, Das Teleologie-Problem in der Biologie, Biologische Rundschau, 25 (1987), S.7-26, p. 19.
What Does Theistic Evolution Involve?
The following evolutionary assumptions are generally applicable to theistic evolution:
The basic principle, evolution, is taken for granted.
It is believed that evolution is a universal principle.
As far as scientific laws are concerned, there is no difference between the origin of the earth and all life and their subsequent development (the principle of uniformity).
Evolution relies on processes that allow increases in organization from the simple to the complex, from non-life to life, and from lower to higher forms of life.
The driving forces of evolution are mutation, selection, isolation, and mixing. Chance and necessity, long time epochs, ecological changes, and death are additional indispensable factors.
The time line is so prolonged that anyone can have as much time as he/she likes for the process of evolution.
The present is the key to the past.
There was a smooth transition from non-life to life.
Evolution will persist into the distant future.
In addition to these evolutionary assumptions, three additional beliefs apply to theistic evolution:
God used evolution as a means of creating.
The Bible contains no usable or relevant ideas which can be applied in present-day origins science.
Evolutionistic pronouncements have priority over biblical statements. The Bible must be reinterpreted when and wherever it contradicts the present evolutionary worldview.
* This section is adapted from Werner Gitt’s, Did God Use Evolution?, pp. 13-16, 24.
Abut the only thing I can agree with is if anyone reinterprets their Christian beliefs founded on Biblical Wisdom, according to the latest in human wisdom, then that is a danger. But that does not have to happen in the Science and Religion Debate, and the seemingly automatic assumption by the writer above that it will if you embrace the scientific findings of evolution is just MISTAKEN.
I will give further reasons why in subsequent additions in the comment section, but I post it here as an example of how I believe the debate gets polarized on the religious side.
Equally polarizing are interviews like the recent one with Richard Dawkins on CBC Tapestry --October 4th, 2009. Available as a CBC podcast.
While the interview was as entertaining and informative as Richard Dawkins usually is, the fundamental problem of right wing polarization also came through.
Virtually no room was granted to belief in Christian theism and the ability to practice science. That the two can be Friends and not Foes.
I think the topic of how Science and Religion can be Friends and not Foes is a very good one and worth exploring. But when what I encounter is Right Wing Venom from both sides, I am not that interested in exploring the topic.
So, if in responding, someone wishes to engage in the Right Wing Polarization. Please understand that I will not likely respond and possibly delete the comments if they are too ugly.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
A Blog I Really Like!
I commend to anyone to visit this site -- http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/
Tired of Facebook
Hello:
I will begin the process of shutting down my Facebook presence and bringing items of interest to me over to this site and limit my comments and interaction with interested persons to this format.
Have a great day!
I will begin the process of shutting down my Facebook presence and bringing items of interest to me over to this site and limit my comments and interaction with interested persons to this format.
Have a great day!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
