Dear Everybody,
I got a lovely little card in the mail today with lovely little notes inside! Thanks to all for signing it, and thanks to Mrs. C. for sending it to me. I couldn't get the mail like I normally do, but I had the card delivered to me upon my royal couch. I am doing well, and I think the get well card helped. :)
Bryn
Monday, December 17, 2007
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Holiday
Merry Christmas Everybody
-Idah Saidan Wa Sanah Jadidah
-Boas Festas e Feliz Ano Novo
-Feliz Navidad
-Sretan Bozic
-Vrolijk Kerstfeest en een Gelukkig Nieuwjaar! or Zalig Kerstfeast
-Jutdlime pivdluarit ukiortame pivdluaritlo!
-Cristmas-e-shoma mobarak bashad
-Joyeux Noel
-Nollaig chridheil agus Bliadhna mhath ùr!
-Froehliche Weihnachten
-Kala Christouyenna!
-Mele Kalikimaka
-Mo'adim Lesimkha. Chena tova
-Pozdrevlyayu s prazdnikom Rozhdestva is Novim Godom
-God Jul and (Och) Ett Gott Nytt År
And a Happy New Year
-Idah Saidan Wa Sanah Jadidah
-Boas Festas e Feliz Ano Novo
-Feliz Navidad
-Sretan Bozic
-Vrolijk Kerstfeest en een Gelukkig Nieuwjaar! or Zalig Kerstfeast
-Jutdlime pivdluarit ukiortame pivdluaritlo!
-Cristmas-e-shoma mobarak bashad
-Joyeux Noel
-Nollaig chridheil agus Bliadhna mhath ùr!
-Froehliche Weihnachten
-Kala Christouyenna!
-Mele Kalikimaka
-Mo'adim Lesimkha. Chena tova
-Pozdrevlyayu s prazdnikom Rozhdestva is Novim Godom
-God Jul and (Och) Ett Gott Nytt År
And a Happy New Year
Monday, December 3, 2007
Succession as a Constitutional Right
Ok all, remember when we had that discussion in class about slavery and it ended up as an argument about teh civil war? (lol). Well I have this letterwriten by a man named Robert Toombs who was the Confederate goverment lawyer and also a senator. This letter was writen to the Senate in Washington:
Succession as a Constitutional Right
A Letter By Senator Robert Toombs
These thirteen colonies originally had no bond of union whatever; no more than Jamaica and Australia have to-day. They were wholly separate communities independent of each other, and dependent upon the Crown of Great Britain. All the union between them that was ever made is in writing. They made two written compacts. Senators, the Constitution is a compact. It contains all our obligations and duties of the Federal Government. . . . all the obligations, all the chains that fetter the limbs of my people, are nominated in the bond, and they wisely excluded any conclusion against them, by declaring that the powers not granted by the Constitution to the Untied States, or forbidden by it to the States, belonged to the States respectively or the people. Now I will try it by that standard; I will subject it to that test. The law of nature, the law of justice, would say—and it is so expounded by the publicists—that equal rights in the common property shall be enjoyed . . . . This right of equality being, than, according to justice and natural equity, a right belonging to all States, when did we give it up? You say Congress has a right to pass rules and regulations concerning the Territory and other property of the Untied States. Very well. Does that exclude those whose blood and money paid for it? Does “dispose of” mean to rob the rightful owners? You must show a better title than that, or a better sword than we have.
But, you say, try the right. I agree to it. But how? By your judgment? No, not until the last resort. What then; by yours? No, not until the same time . How then try it? The south has always said it, by the Supreme Court. By that is in our favor, and Lincoln says he will not stand that judgment. Then each must judge for himself of the mode and manner of redress. But you deny us that privilege, and the finally reduce us to accepting your judgment. We decline it. You say you will enforce it by executing laws; that means your judgment of what the laws ought to be. Perhaps you will have a good time executing your judgment. The Senator from Kentucky comes to your aid, and says he can find no constitutional right of secession. Perhaps not; but the Constitution is not the place to look for State rights. If that right belongs to independent States, and they did not cede it to the Federal Government, it is reserved to the States, or to the people. Ask your new commentator where he gets your right to judge for us. Is it in the bond? . . .
. . . In a compact where there is no common arbiter, where the parties finally decide for themselves, the sword alone at last becomes the real, if not the constitutional, arbiter. Your party says that you will not take the decision of the Supreme Court. You said so at Chicago; you said so in the committee; every man of you in both Houses says so. What are you going to do? You say we shall submit to your construction. We shall do it, if you can make us; but not otherwise, or in any other manner. That is settled. You may call it secession, or you may call it revolution; but there is a big fact standing before you, ready to oppose you—that fact is, freemen with arms in their hands. The cry of the Union will not disperse them; we have passed that point; they demand equal rights: you had better heed the demand. . . .
I have, then, established the proposition—it is admitted—that you seek to outlaw $4,000,000,000 of property of our people in the Territories of the Untied States. Is not that a cause of war? Is it a grievance that $4,000,000,000 of the property of the people should be outlawed in the Territories of the Untied States by the common Government? . . . Then you have declared, Lincoln declares, your platform declares, your people declare, your Legislatures declare—there is one voice running through your entire phalanx—that we shall be outlawed in the Territories of the United States. I say we will not be; and we are willing to meet the issue; and rather than submit to such an outlawry, we will defend our territorial rights as we would our household goods. . . . . .
You will not regard Confederate obligations; you will not regard constitutional obligations; you will not regard your oaths. What, then, am I to do? Am I a freeman? Is my State, a free State, to lie down and submit because political fossils raise the cry of glorious Union? Too long already have we listened to this delusive song. We are freemen. We have rights; I have stated them. We have wrongs; I have recounted them. I have demonstrated that the party now coming into power has declared us outlaws, and is determined to exclude four thousand million of our property from the common Territories; that it has declared us under the ban of the Empire, and out of the protection of the laws of the Untied States everywhere. They have refused to protect us from invasion and insurrection by the Federal Power, and the Constitution denies to us in the Union the right either to raise fleets or armies for our own defense. All these charges I have proven by the record; and I put them before a civilized world, and demand the judgment of to-day, or to-morrow, of distant ages, and of Heaven itself, upon the justice of these causes.
So what do you think?
PS. Umm...actually it was a speach...not a letter....
~CalebB
Succession as a Constitutional Right
A Letter By Senator Robert Toombs
These thirteen colonies originally had no bond of union whatever; no more than Jamaica and Australia have to-day. They were wholly separate communities independent of each other, and dependent upon the Crown of Great Britain. All the union between them that was ever made is in writing. They made two written compacts. Senators, the Constitution is a compact. It contains all our obligations and duties of the Federal Government. . . . all the obligations, all the chains that fetter the limbs of my people, are nominated in the bond, and they wisely excluded any conclusion against them, by declaring that the powers not granted by the Constitution to the Untied States, or forbidden by it to the States, belonged to the States respectively or the people. Now I will try it by that standard; I will subject it to that test. The law of nature, the law of justice, would say—and it is so expounded by the publicists—that equal rights in the common property shall be enjoyed . . . . This right of equality being, than, according to justice and natural equity, a right belonging to all States, when did we give it up? You say Congress has a right to pass rules and regulations concerning the Territory and other property of the Untied States. Very well. Does that exclude those whose blood and money paid for it? Does “dispose of” mean to rob the rightful owners? You must show a better title than that, or a better sword than we have.
But, you say, try the right. I agree to it. But how? By your judgment? No, not until the last resort. What then; by yours? No, not until the same time . How then try it? The south has always said it, by the Supreme Court. By that is in our favor, and Lincoln says he will not stand that judgment. Then each must judge for himself of the mode and manner of redress. But you deny us that privilege, and the finally reduce us to accepting your judgment. We decline it. You say you will enforce it by executing laws; that means your judgment of what the laws ought to be. Perhaps you will have a good time executing your judgment. The Senator from Kentucky comes to your aid, and says he can find no constitutional right of secession. Perhaps not; but the Constitution is not the place to look for State rights. If that right belongs to independent States, and they did not cede it to the Federal Government, it is reserved to the States, or to the people. Ask your new commentator where he gets your right to judge for us. Is it in the bond? . . .
. . . In a compact where there is no common arbiter, where the parties finally decide for themselves, the sword alone at last becomes the real, if not the constitutional, arbiter. Your party says that you will not take the decision of the Supreme Court. You said so at Chicago; you said so in the committee; every man of you in both Houses says so. What are you going to do? You say we shall submit to your construction. We shall do it, if you can make us; but not otherwise, or in any other manner. That is settled. You may call it secession, or you may call it revolution; but there is a big fact standing before you, ready to oppose you—that fact is, freemen with arms in their hands. The cry of the Union will not disperse them; we have passed that point; they demand equal rights: you had better heed the demand. . . .
I have, then, established the proposition—it is admitted—that you seek to outlaw $4,000,000,000 of property of our people in the Territories of the Untied States. Is not that a cause of war? Is it a grievance that $4,000,000,000 of the property of the people should be outlawed in the Territories of the Untied States by the common Government? . . . Then you have declared, Lincoln declares, your platform declares, your people declare, your Legislatures declare—there is one voice running through your entire phalanx—that we shall be outlawed in the Territories of the United States. I say we will not be; and we are willing to meet the issue; and rather than submit to such an outlawry, we will defend our territorial rights as we would our household goods. . . . . .
You will not regard Confederate obligations; you will not regard constitutional obligations; you will not regard your oaths. What, then, am I to do? Am I a freeman? Is my State, a free State, to lie down and submit because political fossils raise the cry of glorious Union? Too long already have we listened to this delusive song. We are freemen. We have rights; I have stated them. We have wrongs; I have recounted them. I have demonstrated that the party now coming into power has declared us outlaws, and is determined to exclude four thousand million of our property from the common Territories; that it has declared us under the ban of the Empire, and out of the protection of the laws of the Untied States everywhere. They have refused to protect us from invasion and insurrection by the Federal Power, and the Constitution denies to us in the Union the right either to raise fleets or armies for our own defense. All these charges I have proven by the record; and I put them before a civilized world, and demand the judgment of to-day, or to-morrow, of distant ages, and of Heaven itself, upon the justice of these causes.
So what do you think?
PS. Umm...actually it was a speach...not a letter....
~CalebB
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Deism
In today's sermon the pastor talked about faith, and in what we put our faith. He said "faith in faith demands things from God, whereas faith in God hopes in God." This was interesting to hear outside of Gileskirk, especially since Dr. Grant talked about it a few lectures ago. I'm not going to write much more, because I want you to think thing about it for yourself, but it's interesting to me that faith in faith wants an immediate answer, yet faith in God sometimes takes a while for God's timing to be right. So, what would you rather have: instant gratification in whatever faith we want to have faith in, or God's perfect will that exceeds our expectation in His never erring timing?
-Bryn
-Bryn
Saturday, November 3, 2007
A thought...
I was just thinking about the following quote...
~Happiness is like perfume...you can't give it away without getting a little on youself~
Now, this calls for class participation...in the comments you leave, answer this question... Do you think this is true? I think the secret to answering this question is found by the way you define happiness... Just something to think about...
Oh, one more thing...what about this acronym...
Busy... B.eing U.nder S.atan's Y.oke Lemme know your thoughts.
~Curran
~Happiness is like perfume...you can't give it away without getting a little on youself~
Now, this calls for class participation...in the comments you leave, answer this question... Do you think this is true? I think the secret to answering this question is found by the way you define happiness... Just something to think about...
Oh, one more thing...what about this acronym...
Busy... B.eing U.nder S.atan's Y.oke Lemme know your thoughts.
~Curran
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Teachers...
We have some wonderful teachers in our Gileskirk class. Even though Dr. Grant's lectures (which we watch on dvd--recorded) are excellent, the way our teachers take his material and use it for us is amazing! Reading through books, Latin class, and all the fun extra activities like watching movies and having tea (from the study of Pride and Prejudice) further our learning much more than just by reading a textbook.
The way they bring in snacks and treats for us also adds anticipation and excitement! They are so awesome! We love them all (and I'm sure all my classmates can agree). Thank very much Mrs. Carter, Mrs. Emery, and Mrs. Robbins!
~Curran
The way they bring in snacks and treats for us also adds anticipation and excitement! They are so awesome! We love them all (and I'm sure all my classmates can agree). Thank very much Mrs. Carter, Mrs. Emery, and Mrs. Robbins!
~Curran
Monday, October 29, 2007
A Quote to Ponder
I shall post something to please you, Caleb, but I shall not use my own inadequate words this evening. These words are from the great Clive Staples Lewis...
"It may be hard for an egg to turn into a bird: it would be a jolly sight harder for it to learn to fly while remaining an egg. We are like eggs at present. And you cannot go on indefinitely being just an ordinary, decent egg. We must be hatched or go bad."
-C.S. Lewis
~Bryn
"It may be hard for an egg to turn into a bird: it would be a jolly sight harder for it to learn to fly while remaining an egg. We are like eggs at present. And you cannot go on indefinitely being just an ordinary, decent egg. We must be hatched or go bad."
-C.S. Lewis
~Bryn
Monday, October 22, 2007
Transformers?
You very likely are wondering why the name 'Transformers' for a class blog. Why not the school's name? Well two reasons: 1. To have the school's name would be boring. 2. We in the Gileskirk program are really...in training, and we are training to be Social, Cultural, and World Transformers. We are being taught, instructed the truth about the world, and how to stop the crazy mayhem that has come about. What has come about? I will tell you later. For now I am just giving a reason for a strange name.
I would like to say that (even though I...uh hum...I almost fall asleep at times) that this class is the best class I have ever been in. Not only are the teachers the greatest, caring teachers were are, but also the classmates have been awesome. We hardily knew each other at all the first day (or at least most of us didn't know at least four of the other eight students) and yet I remember that we talked together like friends, and the interaction was fun and jovial. I can assure everyone that not one (unless it is me, I hope it isn't) of us are supercilious or acrimonial. Nor are we querulous or affectatious. (I just used four of our vocab words off of the top of my head. Mrs. Carter can congratulate me later.) It is fun to step into class, except on Wednesdays...you have a dreadful feeling on Wednesdays. That day is opportunity day.
~CalebB
I would like to say that (even though I...uh hum...I almost fall asleep at times) that this class is the best class I have ever been in. Not only are the teachers the greatest, caring teachers were are, but also the classmates have been awesome. We hardily knew each other at all the first day (or at least most of us didn't know at least four of the other eight students) and yet I remember that we talked together like friends, and the interaction was fun and jovial. I can assure everyone that not one (unless it is me, I hope it isn't) of us are supercilious or acrimonial. Nor are we querulous or affectatious. (I just used four of our vocab words off of the top of my head. Mrs. Carter can congratulate me later.) It is fun to step into class, except on Wednesdays...you have a dreadful feeling on Wednesdays. That day is opportunity day.
~CalebB
Just Begining
Hello all, my name is Caleb Brandt and I am part of a homeschooling group called Gileskirk. My life is pretty much boring: I get up at five-thirty or six AM and start on school. On Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays I leave the house by eight to get to Spirit of Joy Church by eight fifteen. (I am usually late...but as I am not the one driving, yet, it can hardily be my fault.) Well, today, a beautiful October day, at a crowded table (one more person and it would be way to tight a fit) Mrs. Emery, my Humanities teacher, said that one of us should start a class blog. Well, no one said anything and; especially with all the work we do already, no one was volunteering. So Mrs. Emery made the deal sweeter: every year there is a last project which is called the 'Forty-hour Project'. Mrs. Emery said that she would let this blog be a forty-hour project; and so I immediately jumped on it, for I had no idea what I was going to do and this sounded fun as long as it wasn't extra curricular. So here it is, the first post of the Gileskirk blog. The name was kinda a spontaneous idea, so if you are reading this, and happen to be one of my classmates, and you don't like it (you must meet those three requirements), then let me know and I will change it.
~CalebB
~CalebB
About Us
Gileskirk is a Christian homeschooling group. The main course is determined by the era in history it will cover: whether it is Creation, , Antiquity, Christendom, or Modernity. I am in Modernity this year, which covers from the 1600’s until now. We are learning what the world has brought itself too since it’s spiral down ever since Modernity started. We also learn what could fix this, and the difference just one person can make. We learn the thoughts of the great thinkers of Modernity: from Sir Walter Scott to Descartes. From Chalmers to Maximillien Robespierre. We learn both sides of the equation, and quotes from people on both sides. We get to choose for ourselves whether we perfer ‘ Honest answers for Honest Questions’ ‘The Gospel is True and capable of changing you and all the world.’ (Chalmers) or ‘I laugh for the sake of those who die. Blood is what sets us free. We will slaughter in a reign of blood and terror until only one man stands: and that man shall be me.’ (Maximillien Robespierre).
The knowing of every great person in the years from 1600 to 2007 and what their lives were (or are) like will enable us to better help our nation, in either changing it, pushing it towards Reformation, or helping it fall into it’s own darkness of Revolution. We are all Christians. We stand up for the believes of Sir Walter Scott, Jane Austen, Chalmers, and Blasé Pascal, so that we can teach others to turn from the ideas of Descartes, Voltaire, Maximillien, Diderot, Hobbes, Spinoza, or Hume.
I will add to this more and more. This is just the beginning of me telling everyone exactly what we are learning.
~CalebB
The knowing of every great person in the years from 1600 to 2007 and what their lives were (or are) like will enable us to better help our nation, in either changing it, pushing it towards Reformation, or helping it fall into it’s own darkness of Revolution. We are all Christians. We stand up for the believes of Sir Walter Scott, Jane Austen, Chalmers, and Blasé Pascal, so that we can teach others to turn from the ideas of Descartes, Voltaire, Maximillien, Diderot, Hobbes, Spinoza, or Hume.
I will add to this more and more. This is just the beginning of me telling everyone exactly what we are learning.
~CalebB
Heart of Darkness
This will be rather like one of our journal entries, so here goes:
In the book there is this reoccurring theme of the Wilderness. The wilderness itself seems to proclaim a certain...protection almost. Or at least to the natives. 'He was swallowed up in the womb of the wilderness', 'Taken into the wilderness's bosom'. 'Womb', and 'bosom' are words used to convey comfort. They are both Biblical words, 'taken to the bosom of Abraham', 'The womb of a nursing mother'. So it is strange when two such words are used in something that in all else betrays utter terror! 'Those who go out don't come back'. So it is a terrifying goodness...? How is that betrayed in the Bible? Is it possible for something terrifying to be good? All these questions jump at us, demanding answers.
So, is it possible to have a 'terrifying goodness'? The answer is yes surely! quote: "Are our tremors to measure the omnipotence?" (Descent into Hell). An example of something frightening being good would be a punishment. We never think a punishment as good: we fear it, don't we? Yes, think of when you were younger, when your mother or father spanked you (I assumed they did). Your cries of 'pain' often were mere let off of your fear. I grant that that was not always the case, but it was sometimes. We feared the pain of the punishment. But looking back, think of what good it did you! Think of what you would be now if you had impunity! (Another word!) The only reason it was terrifying was because we are sinful: we were selfish of ourselves, not wanting pain, and wanting to get away with whatever wrong thing we did.
Another terrifying goodness would be God himself. If you don't fear him, there is something wrong with you spiritually. Most of the time you don't think of fearing him, but when you dwell on the idea of meeting him, or of confessing to him on the last day; you shake with fear because you know how sinful you are. That brings up another thing: sinfulness is the basis of fear. Without sin there would not be fear and this is why: If there was no sin what would we have to fear? Name one thing we could fear if sin is absent and I will take it back, but we would even have no reason to fear God if we did not have sin! Adam and Eve did not fear him until the fall, and then they ran away from him! They obeyed him, surely but it wasn't the same thing as fear. It doesn't take fear to obey: only respect. And in essence, they didn't obey him, which is why there is sin.
So now we know that there is such a thing as a terrifying goodness, now how is that concept betrayed in the Bible? It is conveyed in every encounter of a man with God. Moses feared the fiery bush, and yet as God is a good God, he is a terrifying goodness. And so is a fearful goodness limited only to that which is in the spiritual realm? (For sin is spiritual, and therefore the driving out of that want to sin, through that attack upon the body, punishment: it would in essence itself be spiritual as well) I would not venture to say so. Can we fear man, or any physical creation of God, and yet he, or it, be good? First we must answer the question, 'What is fear?' Fear is that internal guide or feeling that directs us not to do that which is bold. I know that is rather a bad definition of the word, but it will do. So, the answer to can man fear another physical substance not in the spiritual realm, and yet that thing be good, the answer is yes. Think of all the fighting tools that God used among men: Gideon, Samson, David, and so many others; but those three will do. Gideon: he took three hundred men and slaughtered three hundred thousand. I am sure that during or after that massacre people feared him. Samson: killed five hundred men with the jaw of a donkey; ripped and carried off the gates of Jerusalem! Think of the gates of Gondor in the movie Return of the King. That is about the same type of gate that barred the entrance to Jerusalem! We are told that people feared him! David: 'Saul has killed his thousands, but David his tens of thousands' and he was yet a boy. He was a bloody man, and many armies turned tail and ran when they heard that he was coming. Now all three of these men were good men. 'Now the man Gideon loved God', 'David's heart was turned towards God', and 'Samson was a man of strong love for his God'. Although they all messed up some time or other, that is expected. They all had something in common: they were mere men, and men sin.
So, I have analyzed the questions, and maybe have gone over the top, but there you have it. I loved that book: it inspired new thought. I might just read it again....for the third time.
~CalebB
In the book there is this reoccurring theme of the Wilderness. The wilderness itself seems to proclaim a certain...protection almost. Or at least to the natives. 'He was swallowed up in the womb of the wilderness', 'Taken into the wilderness's bosom'. 'Womb', and 'bosom' are words used to convey comfort. They are both Biblical words, 'taken to the bosom of Abraham', 'The womb of a nursing mother'. So it is strange when two such words are used in something that in all else betrays utter terror! 'Those who go out don't come back'. So it is a terrifying goodness...? How is that betrayed in the Bible? Is it possible for something terrifying to be good? All these questions jump at us, demanding answers.
So, is it possible to have a 'terrifying goodness'? The answer is yes surely! quote: "Are our tremors to measure the omnipotence?" (Descent into Hell). An example of something frightening being good would be a punishment. We never think a punishment as good: we fear it, don't we? Yes, think of when you were younger, when your mother or father spanked you (I assumed they did). Your cries of 'pain' often were mere let off of your fear. I grant that that was not always the case, but it was sometimes. We feared the pain of the punishment. But looking back, think of what good it did you! Think of what you would be now if you had impunity! (Another word!) The only reason it was terrifying was because we are sinful: we were selfish of ourselves, not wanting pain, and wanting to get away with whatever wrong thing we did.
Another terrifying goodness would be God himself. If you don't fear him, there is something wrong with you spiritually. Most of the time you don't think of fearing him, but when you dwell on the idea of meeting him, or of confessing to him on the last day; you shake with fear because you know how sinful you are. That brings up another thing: sinfulness is the basis of fear. Without sin there would not be fear and this is why: If there was no sin what would we have to fear? Name one thing we could fear if sin is absent and I will take it back, but we would even have no reason to fear God if we did not have sin! Adam and Eve did not fear him until the fall, and then they ran away from him! They obeyed him, surely but it wasn't the same thing as fear. It doesn't take fear to obey: only respect. And in essence, they didn't obey him, which is why there is sin.
So now we know that there is such a thing as a terrifying goodness, now how is that concept betrayed in the Bible? It is conveyed in every encounter of a man with God. Moses feared the fiery bush, and yet as God is a good God, he is a terrifying goodness. And so is a fearful goodness limited only to that which is in the spiritual realm? (For sin is spiritual, and therefore the driving out of that want to sin, through that attack upon the body, punishment: it would in essence itself be spiritual as well) I would not venture to say so. Can we fear man, or any physical creation of God, and yet he, or it, be good? First we must answer the question, 'What is fear?' Fear is that internal guide or feeling that directs us not to do that which is bold. I know that is rather a bad definition of the word, but it will do. So, the answer to can man fear another physical substance not in the spiritual realm, and yet that thing be good, the answer is yes. Think of all the fighting tools that God used among men: Gideon, Samson, David, and so many others; but those three will do. Gideon: he took three hundred men and slaughtered three hundred thousand. I am sure that during or after that massacre people feared him. Samson: killed five hundred men with the jaw of a donkey; ripped and carried off the gates of Jerusalem! Think of the gates of Gondor in the movie Return of the King. That is about the same type of gate that barred the entrance to Jerusalem! We are told that people feared him! David: 'Saul has killed his thousands, but David his tens of thousands' and he was yet a boy. He was a bloody man, and many armies turned tail and ran when they heard that he was coming. Now all three of these men were good men. 'Now the man Gideon loved God', 'David's heart was turned towards God', and 'Samson was a man of strong love for his God'. Although they all messed up some time or other, that is expected. They all had something in common: they were mere men, and men sin.
So, I have analyzed the questions, and maybe have gone over the top, but there you have it. I loved that book: it inspired new thought. I might just read it again....for the third time.
~CalebB
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)