Skip to content

Category: science

Published on Leave a comment on Dawkins versus dualism

On this recent Australian panel show Richard Dawkins was served up a number of Christian politicians on a plate.  And he quite rightly ate them for breakfast.  Of course, given their distinct lack of back-bone, they wouldn't have been hard to chew.  But you do have to wonder why the key match-ups weren't scientist versus scientist, or atheist versus Christian - but atheist scientist versus... MP.  Huh?

Anyway both Pete and I found this particular quotation from Dawkins interesting.

I think that the existence of a supreme being - a supernatural supreme being - is a scientific issue. Either there is a God or there isn't. Either there are gods or there are no gods. That is a... supremely important scientific question. If the universe was created by an intelligence, then we are looking at an entirely different kind of scientific theory from if the universe came into existence by natural means. If God or gods had something to do with the creation of life, then we're looking at a totally different kind of biology...

So I think you can't just say religion and science have nothing to do with each other. Science can get on and you let people have their own religious - of course you let people believe whatever they like. But you cannot say that science and religion are completely separate because religion makes scientific claims. It certainly makes scientific claims about miracles, as I mentioned before, and you cannot reconcile an authentic approach to science with a belief in miracles or, I suspect, with a belief in supernatural creation. At least the very least you should say is that this is a scientific question.

Here was an oasis of clarity in a desert of dualism.  While other panelists were falling over themselves trying to affirm both evolution and "the one who provided the amino acids in the first place”, Richard refused to compartmentalise either religion or science.  Good.

But if Dawkins is right here - and I think he is - then there are two major mistakes you must avoid.

1) You must avoid tacking on some kind of super-intending god to the science of naturalism. Whatever god of the gaps is left by a scientific method designed to exclude the supernatural is not the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.  Christian assumptions mean a very different way of doing science .  There may be great overlap at points but the foundations are very different.  Don't pretend that Christian assumptions matter in the theology class but not the science class.  They matter as profoundly in theology as they do in science (and everything else!).

2) You must avoid judging creationists by the very same scientific method used for naturalistic enquiry.  If indeed science 'with God' would be conducted differently than science on atheistic assumptions then to test the effectiveness of YEC science you'd want to avoid just assuming they were wrong, wouldn't you?  I mean that wouldn't be very fair - not very scientific.  Well then, you're going to have to walk a mile in their shoes rather than simply test them by a scientific method that excludes divine words from the outset.  Instead, if you want to do science ‘with God’ – you’d better allow Him to BE God. ie You’d better allow Him to speak, for that to be your authority and then to move out into the world on the basis of His word. That would be good science wouldn’t it?  If God is God – that would be the only kind of science you could do.

So I think Dawkin's words need to be heeded here - first by Christians who want to conduct and affirm science on common foundations to naturalists.  But second by Dawkins himself.  If he really believed that science ‘with God’ was entirely different then he wouldn’t be judging YEC science by naturalistic science. But he does this all the time!

.

.

33

Published on 33 Comments on Commenting on an atheist site

I lost some of the best years of my life last month to an atheist blog.

With that in mind, I was amused at the recent furore over comment moderation at richarddawkins.net.  People are surprised at the vitriol spewed forth under pseudonymous cover in the under-belly of RichardDawkins.net?  A forum devoted to one of the most vituperative fundamentalisms going?  Does this shock anyone?

A couple of weeks ago I commented on a well respected and well-read atheist blog and was sworn at and wished dead in the most imaginatively vicious ways.  Compared to the abuses I and other Christians suffered there, the "rat's rectum" comparisons that flew between fellow-atheists at Dawkins' site sound like Pollyanna.

Anyway, I thought I'd try to redeem my experience by reflecting on some things I learnt, and some things I should have:

One reflection on my experience was written during the interchanges: Evangelists and Apologists Note: The six things that have already happened.

Here are some other reflections:

  1. Reason flows from the heart.  These guys raised a banner loud and proud for reason, logic, the scientific method, etc,.   But there was nothing particularly reasoned or scientific about their manner of argument.  They were well read intelligent people (PhD students etc) but much of their commenting consisted in caps locked swear words.  "Logic" was their slogan not their method.
  2. They constantly appealed to a logical high-ground without any thought as to whether they were allowed one - being materialists and all!
  3. Pointing out this inconsistency didn't seem to get me anywhere (though you never know how non-commenting readers are responding).
  4. Everyone deals in circularities:
    1. I believe the bible is the word of God because in it God speaks
    2. You believe the scientific method is the arbiter of what's true because it's proved itself effective when judged by science.
  5. Everyone has ultimate authorities which, by the nature of the case, cannot be authenticated by outside sources - ie the scientific method cannot be tested by the scientific method.  One guy admitted that this self-validation hasn't happened yet but that one day science would definitely be able to prove the scientific method by the scientific method.  There's faith for you.  Which leads to...
  6. Everyone is faith based.  We all proceed from assumptions which we take to be true and then move forwards on the basis of them.
  7. I kept getting asked for 'evidence'.  My responses were in three broad categories, first I'd point to Christ risen from the dead, second I'd simply quote Scriptures.  But probably the most effective thing was to say "everything!  Everything reveals the LORD Jesus to you."
  8. Therefore evangelism is the invitation to the unbeliever to step inside the world in which Jesus is LORD and look again.  Basically it's saying: "Let me tell you a story about a triune God, the world He made and the Son who redeems it.  Now look again at the world through the Lens of Jesus.  Now do you see why self-giving love is the greatest thing?  Now do you see why trust and beauty, evil and forgiveness, truth and goodness are real beyond any scientific analysis?  In other words, now you can take seriously the most basic aspects of your human existence and not run against the grain of reality all the time."
  9. In this sense theology is a science.  It begins with self-authenticating premises and moves out in faith to investigate .  This investigation is shaped by the Object of knowedge.  Since the Object of knowledge is the Speaking God, the method is to hear His Word.  The premises of our enquiry after knowledge (e.g. Jesus is LORD, the bible is true etc) are not falsifiable in the way the materialists demand they be.  But then the scientific premises (e.g. that true knowledge is verified by the scientific method etc) aren't falsifiable either.  Premises are the light by which we see.  It's their success in seeing that recommends them.
  10. The failure of "science alone" to see the world was very evident to me.  It didn't seem particularly evident to them.  That Beethoven's 9th was a series of compression waves was certain for them.  That it was "beautiful" was a verdict they couldn't make with anything like the same certainty.
  11. The atheists who commented were very clearly captured by the vision of "the onward march of science", demolishing ignorance and dispelling superstition.  There was clearly a love for scientific progress that had won their hearts.  Nothing less than a greater love could ever displace this.  All their calls for "evidence, evidence" were simply calls for reality to fit into their paradigm - to serve their greatest love.  They need a new paradigm, or better - a new love.
  12. The call for "evidence, evidence" in the sense that they mean is a desire to be confirmed in their self-imposed naturalistic prison.  What counts as 'evidence' for them is only that which can be assessed according to their naturalistic paradigm.  This is simply a refusal from the outset to hear a Voice from above.  Again it is a matter of hard-heartedness, however seriously they wish to be taken intellectually.
  13. My lowest point came in the heat of battle when I fired off a comment justifying my intellectual credibility.  I'm ashamed of what I took pride in at that moment.  I should have borne shame and taken pride in the foolishness of the gospel, allowing Christ to vindicate me.  The cause of the gospel was hindered rather than helped by the assertion of my academic credentials (which weren't that great anyway!).  This is especially so given what I've been arguing above.
  14. Having said all this, I think it was a worth-while exercise.  Many of the commenters were American 'de-converted' evangelicals and knew a lot of bible.  The hurt from previous scars was palpable and I hope that a charitable Christian voice might at least temper some of the "all Christians are bigots" tirades that otherwise spiral on in these forums.
  15. On the other hand, some of the commenters were angry Brits and others who seemed to know very little of Christian things.  All they've heard has been from other atheists.
  16. And of course there were many more who I'm sure just 'listened'.  My time at Speaker's Corner taught me that even as you engage the Muslim apologist in front of you, you're aiming at the wide-eyed apprentices hanging off his coat-tails.  Who knows how the Lord will use these words?
  17. Turning the other cheek hurts but it's powerful.  I trust that (#13 and other lapses notwithstanding) perhaps the most useful aspect of the interchange was the attempt to model Christ in the way I commented.
  18. The absolute hatred for Christians is frighteningly palpable.  The hatred that's there in the comments sections will rise more and more into the public realm, that seems pretty certain to me.  But if we're surprised and outraged let's get a grip - no soldier should act all offended and hurt when the enemy actually shoots bullets at them!
  19. Just as Stephen Fry speaks of descending into the "stinking, sliding, scuttling" floor of the internet, engaging in this kind of way can be the faintest taste of what the LORD Jesus did in descending to a world that hates Him.  (It can be a total waste of time too, but I think there is a time and a place for it).  I spent a few hours in an internet forum.  His whole life He lived and loved and spoke and served among a hatred that literally tore Him apart.  He's the One we proclaim.  His attitude is the attitude we take.  And as we join Him (in big ways and small) in cross-bearing love, we get to know His enduring grace that much more.
  20. There is a time for shaking dust off your feet.  Some need to spend a little longer in the battle.  But probably people like me (who have to be right!) should quit sooner.  :)

.

.

Published on Leave a comment on The strange new world of the bible

What do you see when you look up?

This?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0lxbzgwW7I

or this:

ht Mark Meynell

A theological revolution occured early last century when Karl Barth turned from his liberal protestant heritage to jump with both feet into "the strange new world of the bible" (the title of an early book of his).

Have you jumped in, or only dipped your toe?  It's a very hard thing to do.

It's so hard, you might just need Mike Reeves, Michael Ward and CS Lewis as guides.  So if you haven't listened to this brilliant podcast - do so forthwith.

.

Published on Leave a comment on Who sounds sillier – Stephen Baldwin or Richard Dawkins?

Stephen Baldwin has been ridiculed for his comments on Celebrity Big Brother regarding evolution.  He said:

If we're descended from apes, how come there are still apes?

Ok, a misunderstanding of the theory.  But is the theory more or less silly than the misunderstanding?

Here's Richard Dawkins answering the very objection Baldwin makes.  See if you can watch it with a straight face:

[youtube="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh0F4FBLJRE"]

What we have here is a Professor of Zoology faced with a line up of four apes and an accountant from Swindon.  And he refuses to identify the odd one out.  The whole story he invests his life in says that none are superior to any other - all are equally well adapted to their environment.  It's just 4 monkeys and Pam sitting in a tree -  M-U  T-A-T  I-N-G.

To say that Dawkins has put Baldwin right is like saying:

Ohhh.  Sorry for thinking your theory was nuts.  I thought you believed in alchemy.  Now I realize you have a magical goose to lay your golden egg.

.

.

Published on Leave a comment on Pollutants or Prayer? What changes the climate?

Ok, I'll get off the subject soon enough.  Just a little test for us all, inspired by Heather's comment.

“When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command the locust to devour the land, or send pestilence among My people, if My people who are called by My Name humble themselves, and pray and seek My Face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land. ” 2 Chronicles 7:13-14

"Elijah was a man just like us. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years. Again he prayed, and the heavens gave rain, and the earth produced its crops."  James 5:17-18

So what causes climate change, pollutants or prayer?

Cue howls of disbelief.  Choruses of "medieval superstition!"  Derisive laughter...

Yeah, yeah.  Get it out of your system.  But seriously...  Which is it?  Pollutants or prayer?

And of course you say, 'It's not an either-or.'

Well... even when it is a both-and, it's by no means a symmetrical 'both-and' is it?  Prayer can change the climate quite apart from the levels of Co2 in the atmosphere.

And really - who's running this show?  Christ or carbon?

Cue more mocking and incredulity.  I hear your protests: 'Don't be ridiculous Glen, typical overstatement!  The sovereign Lord still works via means and agents.  He might well say to the waters 'This far and no further' but He uses gravity to do the job.  Same with climate.  He's Lord of climate change, but He oversees it according to cycles and seasons and constants and laws.'

Mmmm fine.  That's what I thought you were going to say.  I just wanted to see how quickly you said it.  As a matter of interest, how immediate was your 'Yeah, but...'?

I'll probably agree with your 'Yeah, but...'  I just want to know how quickly it snapped into place.  I want to know how strongly it rose to the surface.  Because in my heart and mind it springs like a steel trap.

And the place it springs from is not my training in historic reformed Christianity.  Oh I can happily use Calvinism to justify it (secondary causes and all that).  But I'm pretty sure it springs from enlightenment sources, not reformational ones.

You see I read 2 Chronicles 7, lodge its truths in some cerebral filing cabinet under 'theology', and then return to the real world where principles and programmes and professors and pollutants rule the roost.  In the real world iron laws grind out our predicatable fate.  And the only difference between us and the 'enlightened' secularist is that we know the name of the One pulling the levers.  Right?

Sheesh... Of course by the time you've made peace with this view - the name of the One pulling the levers is so immaterial to the discussion you can afford to drop it entirely.  And nothing really changes.  Because, let's face it, we we basically reckon the levers pull themselves.  Right?

And so here's my little test.  Can you say this sentence out loud and for ten minutes refuse every urge in you to clamp down with your 'Yeah, but...':

Ultimately, prayer changes the climate, not pollutants.

Can you linger on this for a full ten minutes?  Can you mull over all its radical implications?

Christ not carbon is the determining factor

Here's the deal - if you can remove yourself from the deistic clockwork universe for ten minutes and feel the immediacy and Personality of the biblical universe, I'll let you go to Copenhagen.

Fair?

Ok, off you go.  But I warn you, it's a lot harder than it sounds.

.

Published on Leave a comment on How can I be sure of climate heaven?

Imagine you're in a conversation with someone of another religion.  At some point you might ask them: "Are you sure of heaven/Valhalla/getting beamed to the mother ship?"  (delete as appropriate).

This is a good question because no other god actually saves.  They might talk a big game but they can't be counted on to do the business.  And so the follower of this other religion will be forced back on themselves.  They'll either openly confess 'No' or they'll be full of bravado and demonstrable good works but the most they can say is, "I hope so." And when they confess their lack of assurance it's enough to bring you to tears.  What wicked demon has ensnared you that you may even kill yourself in its service yet have no hope of its favour!?

Well don't we see the same thing with the carbon-cutting gospel?  I receive emails from an old university friend (I'll bet many of you get the same ones - his global advocacy group has become massive).  But for all the candlelit vigils, the millions strong petitions, the vast sums raised and ambitious goals - the lack of assurance is palpable.  Every email ends "with hope."  But you just wonder don't you.

It seems to me that even the most committed activist working to tax carbon into oblivion doesn't really think their gospel will deliver.  The most optimistic talk of the climate campaigner sounds so much like the devout Mormon who 'hopes' they'll make it.  Maybe I'm reading things in here, but I get the distinct impression that deep down their whole fear-driven carbon-cutting works both hide the fact and spring from the fact that they don't think it's going to happen.  Not deep down.

Oh they hope so!  And they hope it enough to wear themselves out in anxious labour.  But there's no assurance.

So how do we preach to the climate campaigner?  Let me suggest not by agreeing with their apocalyptic, pseudo-messianic gospel and then adding in a few Jesus extras to get the job done.  (You're correct in your assessment of the planet's destiny and true rulers, but let me add in Jesus who helps us to be the saviours!)

No, that's not the way.  But not because we have no compassion.  We do.  It is desperate to see them so harassed and helpless like sheep without a Shepherd.  And so the way forwards is to teach them (Mark 6:34).  And perhaps especially we might paint for them a cosmic picture of the new heavens and the new earth, the home of righteousness.  Not just a reduction in the number of hurricanes, but a crystal sea like glass!  Not just preventing the displacement of people groups but their planting in the land!  Not just the protection of the trees but their joyful worship!  Not the maintenance of adequate food supplies but the richest of meats and wine dripping from the hills!  Not alleviation of drought but the Lamb shepherding us to streams of Living Water!  Not simply the preservation of lions and lambs but their reconciliation!   And a little Child will lead them.  We introduce them to this Child and He will calm all fears.  Because He is able to deliver on this future.  He guarantees it.

Maybe we need to be saying to our climate believer friends "After all this effort, are you sure the planet's going to be ok?  Cos I am."

.

By the way, Paul Huxley speaks much sense on the reasons for scepticism here.

.

Published on Leave a comment on The world uniting to save itself

the coming carbon race must be driven by a collaborative effort to achieve collective salvation.

From the Guardian editorial, today published on its front page and shared among 56 other international publications.

.

Published on Leave a comment on We've got the whole world in our hands

Walking through a London train station yesterday I had to weave my way through hundreds of protestors.  Their favourite placard seemed to be this one:

photo from here

The message reads: Our climate is in our hands.  And at least 20 000 gathered in the capital to remind us of this: we've got the whole world in our hands.

Maybe it's coincidence but it's pretty close to a Guardian headline this week that said, regarding Copenhagen,  "Our destiny is still in our hands."

Wouldn't we love that to be true!?  How we long to be this world's solution!  And therefore, however costly it might be, we are eager to cast ourselves as the problem.  (See this former post entitled 'Anthropogenic')

The cost we seem willing to pay to keep ourselves at the centre beggars belief.  The Spectator reports the cost of making good on pledges agreed at the G8 summit:

A high global CO2 tax starting at $68 could reduce the world economic output by a staggering 13% in 2100 - the equivalent of $40 trillion a year.  That is to say, it would cost 50 times the expected damage of global warming. (Bjorn Lomborg, The Spectator, 5/12/09)

But hey - that's the price you pay when you take your destiny into your hands.  And you pay it willingly and with self-righteous zeal.  Because you are coming of age.  To this you were born.  We are the ones we've been waiting for, and all that.

But Christmas tells a different story.  He is the One we were waiting for.  And the government is upon His shoulders. (Isaiah 9:2-7).

Yet whenever we turn from Him we become slaves to the devil's lie: 'Be like God'.  And the result is a captivity to fear and an incessant struggle to make the world work.  We end up as slaves and we willingly pay for the honour.  Eventually in blood.  But no cost is too dear in order to secure our own messianic delusion.

I don't know about the science involved here.  But if you ever wonder whether a skeptic's approach to the debate could  account for the so-called scientific consensus on warming or why people would be willing to pay so much if it's unnecessary - I think the gospel has ready answers for this.

.

Published on Leave a comment on We’ve got the whole world in our hands

Walking through a London train station yesterday I had to weave my way through hundreds of protestors.  Their favourite placard seemed to be this one:

photo from here

The message reads: Our climate is in our hands.  And at least 20 000 gathered in the capital to remind us of this: we've got the whole world in our hands.

Maybe it's coincidence but it's pretty close to a Guardian headline this week that said, regarding Copenhagen,  "Our destiny is still in our hands."

Wouldn't we love that to be true!?  How we long to be this world's solution!  And therefore, however costly it might be, we are eager to cast ourselves as the problem.  (See this former post entitled 'Anthropogenic')

The cost we seem willing to pay to keep ourselves at the centre beggars belief.  The Spectator reports the cost of making good on pledges agreed at the G8 summit:

A high global CO2 tax starting at $68 could reduce the world economic output by a staggering 13% in 2100 - the equivalent of $40 trillion a year.  That is to say, it would cost 50 times the expected damage of global warming. (Bjorn Lomborg, The Spectator, 5/12/09)

But hey - that's the price you pay when you take your destiny into your hands.  And you pay it willingly and with self-righteous zeal.  Because you are coming of age.  To this you were born.  We are the ones we've been waiting for, and all that.

But Christmas tells a different story.  He is the One we were waiting for.  And the government is upon His shoulders. (Isaiah 9:2-7).

Yet whenever we turn from Him we become slaves to the devil's lie: 'Be like God'.  And the result is a captivity to fear and an incessant struggle to make the world work.  We end up as slaves and we willingly pay for the honour.  Eventually in blood.  But no cost is too dear in order to secure our own messianic delusion.

I don't know about the science involved here.  But if you ever wonder whether a skeptic's approach to the debate could  account for the so-called scientific consensus on warming or why people would be willing to pay so much if it's unnecessary - I think the gospel has ready answers for this.

.

Published on Leave a comment on Six Thoughts on the Sermon of Creation

Here's a thawed out Thursday repost with the addition of a sixth point.  If you've read it before, scroll on down to number 6.

1) The sermon of creation is not a minimal thing - it's maximal.  Romans 1:19 'what may be known about God... God has made plain.'  Colossians 1:23 'the gospel... has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven.'  Psalm 19:2 'Day after day they pour forth speech.'

2) Our blindness/deafness to this sermon is not minimal either - it is maximal. Note that in Psalm 19 David trusts that the creation daily pours forth speech in intentional evangelism.  In Ecclesiastes 1 his son sees the exact same heavens.  Yet even with all his wisdom, the 'teacher' of Ecclesiastes finds it utterly meaningless.  The circuit of the sun which was such a vivid portrait of the Bridegroom Champion in Psalm 19 becomes, in the eyes of the 'teacher', a futile and meaningless cycle.

Humanity is blind to the things of God (2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:21). We cannot judge what the sermon of creation is saying by what we see. We naturally only see what we want to see.

3) The sermon of creation is not a static thing, it's dynamic, it's about movement and action and inter-relation. Literally Ps 19:2 says "Day unto day is a pouring forth of speech; night unto night is a displaying of knowledge." The sequence of day and night and day and night is itself a display of knowledge.  This proclamation involes 'sun, moon and stars in their courses above.'  The sermon of creation is expressed in dynamic action, it does not simply speak to us in static snap-shots of beauty.

So often people simply characterise the sermon of creation as something like "Look at a snow-capped mountain range, doesn't it fill you with awe. Well, now you should direct that awe to the God who is big enough and clever enough to have made it." That is certainly an element to what creation is saying, but it's not what David is drawing our attention to.

Psalm 19 highlights the progression of day and night, the movement of the sun across the sky, the heavens in their courses.   The dynamic sermon of creation tells far better of the Glory of God who is not a static, unmoved deity simply waiting for people to give Him glory. The Living God acts and moves and relates.  And His Glory, according to the Bible, is His Son acting, moving and relating. The theist will think of the sermon of creation in static terms because her god is static. The Christian knows the sermon is dynamic - just like our God.

4) The sermon of creation is 'the word of Christ.'  It is not about abstract qualities of power or wisdom but about the Son.  Of course this is so since Jesus is eternally the image of God (Col 1:15).  There is no revelation that is not in Him.

In Romans 10 Paul asks if any have not heard the word of Christ (v17)?  He answers, of course not and quotes Psalm 19!  The sermon of creation is the word of Christ.  When we examine Psalm 19 we see this to be so.  His example of the sun is a dead giveaway.  This sun is like a Bridegroom Champion who moves from east to west (like the journey the high priest makes from altar to ark) as the light of the world. (Ps 19:4-6; cf Ps 45). Here is a sermon regarding Christ.

Think also of John 12. When Jesus picks up a seed He doesn't say "How pretty and how intelligently designed" - He says "This seed proclaims my death and resurrection and, though this, the life of the world."  The sermon of creation is a gospel word concerning Christ.

5) The sermon of creation is seen only through the spectacles of the Scriptures (Calvin's famous image).  Ps 19 continues 'The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving/converting the soul.' (v7)  That which left even Ecclesiastes' 'teacher' looking into the meaningless cycle of life and death is that which, through the spectacles of Scripture, becomes the dynamic proclamation of Christ and His gospel.

6) Now with Scripture's spectacles on, we can learn much from creation.  We can 'go to the ant... consider its ways' (Prov 6:6); we can 'consider the ravens' (Luke 12:24); we can 'reflect on' farming, athletics and soldiering (2 Tim 2:4-7) and be given insight.   This revelation is in a sense beyond Scripture.  But it is never apart from it.  We learn more from Christ's creation by doing this than if we stay in church and read our bibles.  But if this 'more' is to be considered a revelation - if it is ultimately about Christ (which it really is) - then such learning must begin in the Scriptures and be co-ordinated by them.

But now, bible in hand, the Christian becomes an eager biologist, geologist, cosmologist, anthropologist, etc, etc.   As we happily march off to our labs and digs and libraries the naturalists will frown at us and accuse us of treating the bible like a science text-book.  Of course, this accusation is backwards.  The real problem is that they treat naturalism like a revelation. But, never mind.  This just shows how much they need the Scriptures.

The truth is that the Bible is not a container into which the Christian tries to shrink all scientific knowledge.  It is a lens through which we hope to see the heights and depths.  We do not think that the Scriptures exhaustively reveal the world to us. Instead, we believe that they uniquely reveal the way to know this world - by the Spirit and in Christ alone..


Twitter widget by Rimon Habib - BuddyPress Expert Developer