St. Augustine's roadblocks in his Confessions

[White_Tree]

As for the flip side, to see its goodness through the spirit, I see two different factors to consider here. One is the identification with a false reality, and the second is empathy. The two are related. By identification, I mean investing our sense of “self” into the fantasy of the play (or TV show or sports game or election or whatever), so that we feel, on a subconscious or emotional level, that the occurrences within the object of our identification are happening to “us” (e.g. people who feel as if they have won when “their team” wins a sports game, when really those spectators won nothing, and merely watched the game on the couch).

The relationship between that tendency and empathy is clear. Empathy is obviously a positive quality. Compassion and love are integral to religion and integral to humanity. The ability to care about others as much as we care about ourselves is critical to our existence, and Jesus placed this ability as second only to the importance of loving God (Matthew 22:37-39).

That same tendency for empathy can also be projected onto a fantasy, which is what Augustine was experiencing (and truly, all of us do this). Though even the identification with delusion has some good in it. If our minds were constantly focused only on higher truths, we would neglect the needs of both ourselves and others here in the material world.

As always with these things, I think the answer is balance. We need simultaneous cognizance of both absolute and relative truth, both the spiritual and the material. For most of us (myself included), there is a definite bias towards being identified with physical reality, though it’s also possible to go too far to the other extreme as well, and there are many cases of people who do. In a sense, our identification with physical reality is a type of “delusion.” Ultimately, this world is nothing but dust and shadows. As Solomon tells us, “all is vanity” (cf. Ecc 1:2-11). Yet, it can at times be a useful delusion if it keeps us from abandoning the responsibilities and obligations of our earthly life.

 

[Magnanimity]

His mother certainly impressed upon the preteen Augustine what is right and wrong, but formation eventually has to involve ownership once the teenager comes to a point where autonomy is what is desired. So, if autonomy means sort of rejecting all the confines of What Mom Wants, the teen is rather self-propelled into the world where authority is to be rejected, and now conscience has to be developed in an way that ownership is key

Most scholars that I know of claim that his relationship to his mother and opinion of his mother remained very high throughout his life. I think that when a child respects a parent, and at the same time feels some need to break free from a parent, this process of breaking free will be troublesome. If you interpret Augustine‘s behavior here with the pears as a part of that process, I can see why he would do something so extreme. It must be very difficult for a child who respects a parent to also rebel against that parent for whom he has deep respect. The conflict within the teenager would be intense. For a teenager who has little to no respect for the parent, it would be seemingly much easier to break free and go one’s way.

I guess what I am saying is that the drama and thrill-seeking (surprise-seeking) are tied with defiance that is part of discovering and distinguishing one’s autonomy.

Perhaps I am giving all of this a much more positive and generous spin than you are. I agree with Chesterton‘s insight that surprise is the secret of joy. So there would be nothing twisted about seeking after surprise itself. It would be an inherently good act, one that is quite necessary for humans to avoid the tedious life.

But Augustine did not identify that, and he did ruminate about what did bother him, which was specifically that he stole and found joy in that.

I’m not certain that what Augustine says in this chapter qualifies as rumination. Part of what bothers me about his own “analysis” here is that he is not attempting to identify what good impulses would have underlain his actions. I think that’s what you and I are trying to do here, almost for him, on his behalf. In his analysis, he says he liked the sin itself, the shame itself, the error itself. That just doesn’t cut it. Such an analysis would almost suggest that evil is a thing to which we can attach ourselves and our desires. But as he knew very well, evil is no thing, it is a parasite on goodness itself, in someway a disorder or a privation of the good, especially for a teen still in a process of human maturation. So what I’m after is the good impulse that moved him to act.

 

[Magnanimity]

*how we could see, through the Spirit that even his desire to see such shows was something good, coming from a good place?

I do like this section. It seems that he is doing some deeper human analysis here than he did with the pears event.

Typically, our identification with the various circumstances of our life is the main source of our delusion. However, the same subconscious tendencies that cause us to be identified with the real circumstances of our life can also cause us to be identified with what we see projected

I think that’s quite right and part of what Augustine identifies here. When a dramatic performance moves us, much of what is happening is our identification with human experiences. What good writers, directors and actors know is that there must be significant truth in both the writing and the performance if the audience is going to connect with it. So, a good play that moves me emotionally exemplifies something very true about the human condition. I connect with something sorrowful because I have lived it myself, or I have been a friend to someone who has.

There seems to be a systematic relationship between comedic success and depression.

Hmm, I don’t know about this. One of the greatest living comedians alive today, Jerry Seinfeld, flatly denies that there is any such connection. And he doesn’t just deny it within his own life, as in he in no way feels miserable (which he affirms as true), but he asserts that many comedians that he has known throughout his life are similar to him in that way-their lives are marked by a lack of tragedy and depression. Other examples would be Aziz Ansari, Will Ferrell, Jimmy Fallon, etc. True, other comedians have known depression or tragedy in their own lives. But that is true for every profession. I don’t think there’s enough evidence for us to make a necessary connection between tragedy/depression and comedy.

There is a way of seeing comedy in a much more positive light, I think. Augustine scholar James KA Smith once said in a Trinity Forum lecture that the ironist is our last hero. He is the one who sees through everything and knowingly insulates himself from caring. And thereby the ironist becomes a type of ‘saint’ for the masses to look up to.

As for the flip side, to see its goodness through the spirit, I see two different factors to consider here. One is the identification with a false reality, and the second is empathy.
Empathy is obviously a positive quality. Compassion and love are integral to religion and integral to humanity

I think this is wonderfully said and has a lot of truth in it. Augustine seems to see this well when he asks “Shall compassion then be put away? By no means. Be griefs then sometimes loved… I have not now ceased to pity”

I did find this quote interesting, “for though he that grieves for the miserable be commended for his office of charity; yet would he, who is genuinely compassionate, rather there were nothing for him to grieve for.”

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning White Tree!

Jesus said,

The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single (ἁπλοῦς, “haplous”), thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
– Matthew 6:22-23

This is a wonderful verse. To me, it has to do with the process of integrating the shadow. When we think that there is something evil inside us, the evil seems to be an infinite evil, for its limits are unknown. However, once one “shines the light” of awareness and acceptance of our innate motives and capacities, and comes to see that these come from God, the darkness subsides, and we get a sense of something finite. The shadow is finite.

The Greek haplous here is probably better translated as “simple” or “pure.” Part of the spiritual journey is learning how to cut through our personal delusions in order to come to the awareness and experience of the Truth.

Exactly. I lean toward “darkness” referring to the parts of ourselves that we hold in contempt. There is an illusion of negativity, but we can instead integrate, “befriend” our shadow.

Typically, our identification with the various circumstances of our life is the main source of our delusion. However, the same subconscious tendencies that cause us to be identified with the real circumstances of our life can also cause us to be identified with what we see projected on a screen (or on a stage, in Augustine’s case).

Perhaps, but in many respects it is easier to reflect on our own shadow when we project it somewhere else. While it would be ideal to play back on a screen so much of our own behaviors, the feeling of shame may be overwhelming. When we see characters act, it gives us an opportunity to compare, contrast, identify, etc. our shadow elements - that is, if we deliberately do so.

As the Apostle tells us, our mind, in its current state, has difficulty discerning the will of God, or what is good and pleasing and perfect. Our mind needs to be changed, or renewed, in order to develop that discernment. If we cannot see clearly the physical reality in front of us right now, how can we hope to clearly see heavenly things (cf. John 3:12)?

Well, seeing heavenly things is coming to see God in all things, correct? I suppose that if fiction actually develops the illusion that life and creation is less acceptable and beautiful than we already experience them, then that might be cause for mediation. Otherwise, other than addiction to entertainment or distraction from what one is called to do, good fiction is rather joyous. I wish I could spend more time enjoying it. But for you, has it been a problem?

 

[OneSheep]

Samael Aun Weor: …the soul of that comedian is enclosed the pain

Yes, comedy does come from pain. Did you hear about the conversation between Bishop Tutu and the Dalai Lama? One of the pillars of joy are humor. Humor is healing, part of acceptance, is it not… unless it is demeaning? When we laugh in a healing way, we heal with the comedian.

Need. More. Covid. Jokes.

There seems to be a systematic relationship between comedic success and depression

Yes, but the relationship is much broader, it has to do with all celebrity, i.e. Marilyn Monroe. People get addicted to celebrity, and their whole self-image comes to revolve around it, as the Psychology Today article describes.

I’m merely pointing out that I can see where Augustine is coming from.

Yes, if that is where he is coming from, but I’m wondering if he can see that viewing sad events may actually be used as a starting point for internal healing. Indeed, there is so much in life that we need to grieve, yet we shove it away. If his going to shows made him weep, perhaps the grieving process is triggered. We resist grieving sometimes, right?

So, can we see how his desire to see such shows can come from a good place or good places? We have the need to grieve, we love entertainment. Maybe Augustine did not realize that he needed to grieve his becoming an adult?

As for the flip side, to see its goodness through the spirit, I see two different factors to consider here.

Shoot, I wish I had read your whole post before responding. Let’s see where our minds meet!

so that we feel, on a subconscious or emotional level, that the occurrences within the object of our identification are happening to “us”

Exactly. And since A. was drawn to tragedies, then there was likely something he needed to grieve. I wonder what it is, though, that draws people to horror films? I can’t sit in one for more than a few minutes. My wife and I watched Silence of the Lambs from the next room. Haven’t watched such a thing since, and don’t feel like I’ve missed out on anything.

Though even the identification with delusion has some good in it.

Yes, for empathizing. We are seeing this the same way.

I think the answer is balance.

Yes, you bring up so many aspects that call for awareness. Why am I watching this? How am I feeling when I watch this, what does it stir in me? Is this presentation leading me to see something evil, where there is in fact something good?

 

[OneSheep]

Ultimately, this world is nothing but dust and shadows. As Solomon tells us, “all is vanity” (cf. Ecc 1:2-11).

Well, we can look at that and ask, what am I feeling when I say that? It’s a starting point for some introspective prayer and reflection.

Yet, it can at times be a useful delusion if it keeps us from abandoning the responsibilities and obligations of our earthly life.

Yes, and it can be useful if it brings us joy or leads us to healing or becomes an avenue for self-growth.

Do you think we can now conclude that Augustine being drawn to tragedies may have been coming from a need for healing or self-reflection?

But wait, I don’t want to gloss over something here! Let’s say that Augustine was watching plays to distract himself from dealing with responsibility and obligations. Can we see that such want of distraction comes from God in some way? Do we want to also address addiction to celebrity or even to substances? I don’t think we will have any other opportunities to do so when reading his Confessions.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Magnanimity!

For a teenager who has little to no respect for the parent, it would be seemingly much easier to break free and go one’s way.

Yes, I can see that as probable.

Most scholars that I know of claim that his relationship to his mother and opinion of his mother remained very high throughout his life.

It did not appear to be a very healthy relationship. He could not marry the woman he loved (probably something to do with status, but who knows), and his mother seemed to favor his banishment of the woman, while finding some satisfaction with his (temporary) commitment to marry a girl of greater status when the girl came of age. Augustine was heartbroken sending the woman away. They had been together a long time.

So there would be nothing twisted about seeking after surprise itself.

Yes, our seeking of surprise is easily seen as good.

I did not mean to imply that it was not. Do you think I was saying that there is something twisted in being defiant or wanting autonomy? Is there something “twisted” there, or do you agree that the capacity for defiance and the desire for autonomy are actually good aspects of our created nature?

Part of what bothers me about his own “analysis” here is that he is not attempting to identify what good impulses would have underlain his actions. I think that’s what you and I are trying to do here, almost for him, on his behalf

Well, he did try, but he failed when he ran into roadblocks. He would get as far as “I wanted shame”, but did not go deeper into that, instead going to a place of self-condemnation. Internally: “If I want shame, I am evil”. It was unconscionable for him (to him) to want shame, but what he was actually wanting was not shame itself, but probably comradery and autonomy.

But as he knew very well, evil is no thing, it is a parasite on goodness itself, in someway a disorder or a privation of the good, especially for a teen still in a process of human maturation. So what I’m after is the good impulse that moved him to act.

Right, the goal of the thread. His wanting of surprise is very likely. Do you see that his want of autonomy (freedom) and comradery (belonging to a tribe) were also likely, and that these also come from good impulses?

I connect with something sorrowful because I have lived it myself, or I have been a friend to someone who has.

Do you see that connecting with something sorrowful can also help us grieve?

One of the greatest living comedians alive today, Jerry Seinfeld, flatly denies that there is any such connection

Yes, I think it has more to do with addiction to celebrity, addiction to the feeling associated with status.

.

 

[OneSheep]

I did find this quote interesting, “for though he that grieves for the miserable be commended for his office of charity; yet would he, who is genuinely compassionate, rather there were nothing for him to grieve for.”

Yeah, what does it mean?

 

[White_Tree]

Well, seeing heavenly things is coming to see God in all things, correct?

I think that is an aspect of it.

My old Zen teacher used to tell me that the first realization the Buddha had after he was enlightened was, “Everything is already complete; each thing has it,” which is sort of the same sentiment as learning to see God in all things.

But I think there is a component to seeing heavenly things that extends beyond the type of acceptance and recognition of the good that we’ve been discussing in this thread. I’m thinking about, for instance, the visions of John or Ezekiel, or the quiet knowing of Jesus, or even Paul.

There is an element to our reality that is beyond our physical senses, but which was perceived by many great teachers and mystics. But our ability to perceive, or even recognize, that reality is obscured, because we struggle to correctly perceive even the gross physical reality in front of us.

In a sense, directly perceiving that God is the substrate within which our whole reality exists is the perception of that heavenly reality. As Jesus said,

Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. – John 14:19-20

God (and by extension) Christ, is not some outside entity. He permeates our entire existence. He is the environment in which we “live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). But we don’t see it.

So in a way, you’re right. Seeing heavenly things is coming to see God in all things. But it’s at a deeper level than I think most people appreciate.

But for you, has it been a problem?

It kind of is. I enjoy a good distraction as much as the next guy. But I have a hard time going “all in.” I have a constant bug in the back of my mind, continually pushing me to seek to know the true nature of God, reality, my mind, and myself. When I attempt to ignore the bug, it gnaws at me.

I would have it no other way. I’m grateful for that bug, even during the times when it can get a little annoying.

 

[White_Tree]

I wonder what it is, though, that draws people to horror films?

I’m kind of curious about that myself. I do enjoy “horror” films sometimes, but mainly the ones that are really comedies in disguise. I like laughing. I don’t like feeling stressed or scared. I suppose there is an adrenaline rush that comes with it, and some people enjoy that.

A common technique in entertainment is to elevate our level of displeasure in order to release it. I noticed this a lot in the Harry Potter films and novels, for instance. The author inspires anger at some gross injustice committed by a character, and then satisfaction when they get their comeuppance. You can produce a similar emotional effect with fear, and then the removal of that fear.

It relies on a basic principle of human psychology, stated very succinctly by Tsong Khapa in the Lam Rim:

Pleasure does not exist naturally, independently of the removal of suffering.

People often ask about the difference between pleasure and joy/happiness, and I think that is it, plus this additional factor::

Pleasure, when it increases,
Is seen to change into pain;
Pain, when it increases,
Does not likewise change into pleasure.
– Aryadeva, Four Hundred Stanzas (Quoted in the Lam Rim)

Joy is an innate property, deriving from God, which as mentioned in the preceding post, is at the foundation of our reality. Pleasure, on the other hand, is simply the cessation of pain. Joy can be unceasing and eternal. Pleasure eventually morphs into pain.

The example they give in the text is the dichotomy between walking and sitting. When you have been walking for a very long time, walking is painful and sitting is pleasurable. When you have been sitting for a very long time, sitting is painful and walking is pleasurable.

Both of those actions, taken to their limit, are painful. The pleasure comes merely from the cessation of the pain. And if we look at the things we find pleasurable, we can see that principle manifesting everywhere. Eating delicious cake is pleasurable when we are hungry. But if we are overstuffed, it brings us suffering, etc.

(Note: I am using the word “pain” here in a broad sense. I don’t mean it exclusively to mean physical pain, but rather encompassing any form of physical, emotional, or psychological discomfort.)

So I think something like that is going on with horror films. The makers are utilizing this basic principle. They create a degree of psychological suffering, and then remove the suffering, leading to a pleasurable experience on the part of the viewer. I suspect that if an avid horror movie watcher introspected after a film, they would probably find that principle somehow at work.

 

[White_Tree]

Well, we can look at that and ask, what am I feeling when I say that?

Haha. I suppose it’s probably guilt.

Far too often I get identified with the circumstances of my life, and forget to see them in the context of their broader place in reality. I forget His words to Pilate,

My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. – John 18:36

Truly, this world has a good purpose. But to use or perceive a good tool outside of its proper function is to render it harmful, similar to using a hacksaw to drive in a nail. At best useless, and you’ll probably hurt yourself.

So too is it with the material world. Investing it with more worth than that for which it was designed leads to confusion and disappointment.

Do you think we can now conclude that Augustine being drawn to tragedies may have been coming from a need for healing or self-reflection?

I think yes, except for the other possibility you raise next!

But wait, I don’t want to gloss over something here! Let’s say that Augustine was watching plays to distract himself from dealing with responsibility and obligations. Can we see that such want of distraction comes from God in some way?

Haha! You’re right! That is another big factor.

And yes, I think it can be seen as coming from God in the proper context. As has become almost a motif in this thread (or at least, my responses to it), nothing is absolutely good or evil. Only good in the correct setting and application. That applies here as well.

The dangers of completely ignoring our responsibilities are obvious. However, there is also a mental component of those responsibilities that is potentially harmful. Quoting Samael Aun Weor again:

All thinking is based upon the battle of the opposites. If we say such person is tall, we want to say that she is not short. If we say that we are entering, we want to say that we are not exiting. If we say that we are happy, with that we affirm that we are not sad, etc.

The problems of life are nothing more than mental forms with two poles: one positive and the other negative. Problems are sustained by the mind and are created by the mind. When we stop thinking about a problem, inevitably the latter ends.
– The Revolution of the Dialectic, “The Struggle of the Opposites”

Our obligations and responsibilities are one thing. They are just facts of life. But we turn them into “problems” by allowing ourselves to get trapped in mental loops focused on those obligations. The only way to truly solve the problems is to disengage from those mental loops (cf. Matt 6:31-34). Hence, the potential value of distraction.

Do we want to also address addiction to celebrity or even to substances?

Sure! Why not? I’m not sure whether I will have the chance to reply again before the forums shut down, but maybe we can pick this up on whatever new forum we land on.

 

[OneSheep]

Seeing heavenly things is coming to see God in all things. But it’s at a deeper level than I think most people appreciate.

Yes, for example it is difficult to see good where we see the unconscionable. This was Augustine’s main roadblock, and I think it is the same for all of us.

I would have it no other way. I’m grateful for that bug, even during the times when it can get a little annoying.

I’m a little confused. You have “bug” pushing you to seek the true nature of God, and you attempt to ignore it…? But the distraction of fiction plays into this?

It relies on a basic principle of human psychology, stated very succinctly by Tsong Khapa in the Lam Rim :

Pleasure does not exist naturally, independently of the removal of suffering.

Very Buddhist-sounding, but there’s nothing un-Christian about it. It make sense.

OneSheep:

But wait, I don’t want to gloss over something here! Let’s say that Augustine was watching plays to distract himself from dealing with responsibility and obligations. Can we see that such want of distraction comes from God in some way?

Haha! You’re right! That is another big factor.

And yes, I think it can be seen as coming from God in the proper context. As has become almost a motif in this thread (or at least, my responses to it), nothing is absolutely good or evil. Only good in the correct setting and application. That applies here as well.

Much of it depends on whether we are talking about actions, or we are talking about underlying motives. I like your investigation here:

Our obligations and responsibilities are one thing. They are just facts of life. But we turn them into “problems” by allowing ourselves to get trapped in mental loops focused on those obligations. The only way to truly solve the problems is to disengage from those mental loops (cf. Matt 6:31-34). Hence, the potential value of distraction.

This answers, at least partially, the question I posed above. Getting “right into the face of it”, I’d like to focus in on the word “disengage”. Is there a time when a person’s desire to disengage does not come from a good place? (Keeping in mind that “good places” can be totally misinformed!)

Frankly, I can’t think of an example.

 

[OneSheep]

OneSheep:

Do we want to also address addiction to celebrity or even to substances?

Sure! Why not? I’m not sure whether I will have the chance to reply again before the forums shut down, but maybe we can pick this up on whatever new forum we land on.

Great idea. We can carry this on to whatever forum we move onto. Just to let readers know, the three of us are thinking about moving this discussion either to the Catholic Community Forum, where the topics are searchable on Google, or St. Isodore’s Lounge, where you have to be invited into the forum to read anything. The other options seem to have more issues.

Catholic Community Forum is here: https://www.catholicforum.com/forums/

 

[Magnanimity]

He could not marry the woman he loved (probably something to do with status, but who knows)

She was a “concubine,” no?

Augustine was heartbroken sending the woman away. They had been together a long time.

I have read that it shattered Augustine. Once he sent her away, he never spoke her name again…

Is there something “twisted” there, or do you agree that the capacity for defiance and the desire for autonomy are actually good aspects of our created nature?

What I was getting at is trying to avoid criticizing the thrill-seeking itself. These actions have a telos—they are directioned toward something as their end. The thrill is inherently surprising bc you don’t really know what’s coming and are aware of how little you control in the moment. And if surprise is a secret of joy, the final end of all these acts is happiness itself.

You’re couching these actions within broader categories (autonomy, defiance). I’m tending toward the good in the acts themselves and as having a telos on their own, without feeling the need to import them into something broader (like autonomy).

It was unconscionable for him (to him) to want shame,

As well it should be—wanting shame for shame’s sake… Come on now, Augustine! Can we probe a little deeper?!

but what he was actually wanting was not shame itself, but probably comradery and autonomy.

Right. As I said, we’re doing this analysis for him… But it’s ok. I’m not critical of the great saint. Just a little surprised sometimes how he can stretch himself to such depths in places and yet seems to barely scratch the surface in other locations. But perhaps, we all do that.

comradery (belonging to a tribe) were also likely, and that these also come from good impulses?

That’s right. He did not act in isolation. He acted communally—very important to note.

 

[Magnanimity]

Yes, I think it has more to do with addiction to celebrity, addiction to the feeling associated with status.

And, perhaps a shade more positively, a desire to be loved/adored. “Laugh at my jokes!” “Tell me I’m funny.” “Love me, accept me, adore me…” Maybe at its core, it’s the desire to be valued, affirmed and appreciated.

Magnanimity:

“for though he that grieves for the miserable be commended for his office of charity; yet would he, who is genuinely compassionate, rather there were nothing for him to grieve for.”

Yeah, what does it mean?

I took him to be saying that the person whose compassion runs deep is aware that the greatest societal good is not merely showing compassion itself, but rather helping to make a world where there is nothing to grieve for in the first place. Compassion would not be needed if all wrongs were righted (or wrongs themselves just ceased).

 

[OneSheep]

You’re couching these actions within broader categories (autonomy, defiance). I’m tending toward the good in the acts themselves and as having a telos on their own, without feeling the need to import them into something broader (like autonomy)

Yes, and I thank you for broadening the scope. You’ve made some excellent points.

OneSheep:

but what he was actually wanting was not shame itself, but probably comradery and autonomy.

Right. As I said, we’re doing this analysis for him… But it’s ok. I’m not critical of the great saint. Just a little surprised sometimes how he can stretch himself to such depths in places and yet seems to barely scratch the surface in other locations. But perhaps, we all do that.

Exactly, we all do that. There are just places that my mind doesn’t want to go, and at the surface level I don’t even consider “going there”. This is one of the benefits of a good friendships; friends can challenge you to go to your blind spots. We simply don’t know what we don’t know. I can self-reflect, but it’s still me looking at me. Friends take us out of the box. This thread is only good because we are all adding valuable things to it.

 

[OneSheep]

Okay @Magnanimity and @White_Tree and @fhansen or anyone else who cares to join us, we are Movin’ Out!

Here is the new place:

St. Augustine's Roadblocks in his Confessions | Christian Forums

I know, I know, it’s not a Catholic site, but there are plenty of Catholics there, and the moderation seems quite excellent, and there are many visitors.

I started with a different type of question on that site, it is one that addresses the very process of this thread, but we can quickly move onto the few roadblocks we have left!

PLEASE JOIN US!

BTW: this thread is archived here:https://web.archive.org/web/2020121...gustines-roadblocks-in-his-confessions/562216

 

[fhansen]

And if ya like arguin’ religion, “General Theology” is a great place to hang out at Christian Forums!