AR-talk Digest: 8 Jun 2004, Issue 1258

> Types of Logic
> "The Jesus Mysteries"
> The Book of Enoch


Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 20:05:36 -0600
From: Robert Velarde <>
Subject: Re: [AR-talk] Types of Logic

On 6/6/04 7:52 PM, "Steve McLeroy" <> wrote:

> Are there any essays of consice treatments in books of the different
> types of logic, eastern, western or such. Ravi mentions on one of his
> presentations that there are more than 2 types. Anyone have qa
> glossary of list and explanation of the different types?

There are no different "types" of logic per se in the sense of say Westerners using logic in one way and Easterners in another. The laws of logic are self-evident. However, there are different approaches and methods, which is perhaps what Ravi (Zacharias?) means to say. If this is the case, then he is likely referring to approaches such as deductive, inductive, symbolic, modal, etc.

As for resources, the classic text is _Introduction to Logic_ by Irving Copi, et. al. currently in its 11th edition. _The Art of Reasoning_ by David Kelley is another helpful textbook. Also try _Come, Let Us Reason_ by Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks. Moreland and Craig include a short introductory chapter in _Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview_. For a good intro to logical fallacies see _With Good Reason_ by S. Morris Engel. _Exegetical Fallacies_ by D.A. Carson is good, too, with the emphasis on biblical interpretation.

-Robert Velarde


From: "Philip Johnson" <>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 12:07:36 +1000
Subject: Re: Types of Logic

The following texts are not strictly devoted to expositing the logical systems of eastern philosophy, but these books do in the course of discussion examine aspects of logic and epistemology:-

Stuart C. Hackett, Oriental Philosophy: A Westerner's Guide to Eastern Thought (Madison, Wisconsin/London: University of Wisconsin Press, 1979).

Hackett is the evangelical apologist/philosopher who wrote The Resurrection of Theism and The Reconstruction of the Christian Revelation Claim. In Oriental Philosophy Hackett engages in a dialogue with Confucian, Daoist, Buddhist, Hindu and Jain philosophies from the standpoint of one committed to western forms of theistic rationalism.

David J. Kalupahana, A History of Buddhist Philosophy: Continuities and Discontinuities (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1992).

Kalupahana teaches philosophy at the University of Hawaii. He examines Buddhist concepts about knowledge and understanding, experience and theory, language, freedom, human personality and suffering, the moral life etc. Included in this is some discussion of the Buddha's system of logic and formal truth.


Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 20:22:05 -0600
From: Robert Velarde <>
Subject: Re: [AR-talk] Types of Logic

On 6/6/04 7:52 PM, "Steve McLeroy" <> wrote:

> Are there any essays of consice treatments in books of the different
> types of logic, eastern, western or such. Ravi mentions on one of his
> presentations that there are more than 2 types. Anyone have qa
> glossary of list and explanation of the different types?

As a follow-up, Philip's post indicates that perhaps I misunderstood the question. If you are indeed referring to non-Aristotelian approaches to logic, then it is true that you may study philosophy (including epistemology) from differing cultural perspectives. However, Aristotle is not the *inventor* of logic or the underlying basis for it. Two plus two still equals four whether one is filling out their tax form in the United States, India or China.

-Robert Velarde


From: "Philip Johnson" <>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 12:35:14 +1000
Subject: Re: [AR-talk] Types of Logic

A clarification is in order. My memo regarding the two books was composed and sent before I even saw Robert's memo, and nowhere in my post was any reference made to Aristotle.

> As a follow-up, Philip's post indicates that perhaps I misunderstood the
> question. If you are indeed referring to non-Aristotelian approaches to


Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 08:14:05 EDT
Subject: Re: [AR-talk] Types of Logic

In a message dated 6/6/2004 6:53:11 PM, writes:

Are there any essays of consice treatments in books of the different types of logic, eastern, western or such. Ravi mentions on one of his presentations that there are more than 2 types. Anyone have qa glossary of list and explanation of the different types?

For works dealing with Eastern (and Western) conceptions of logic, there are a number of helpful works. The text by Hackett,Äîalready mentioned--is excellent (and yes, it does a glossary of some key terms).

For rather brief, but nonetheless very helpful, comments on these concerns see

Harold Netland, _Encountering Religious Pluralism_ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), pp. 293-297.

For a slightly lengthier treatment by Netland, see his work:

_Dissonant Voices: Religious Pluralism and the Question of Truth_, (Vancouver, B.C.: Regent College Publishing, 1991, 1997), pp. 141-150 and 172-185.

For an in-depth treatment of Eastern and Western views of logic see

Shlomo Biderman and Ben-Ami Scharfstein, eds., _Rationality in Question: On Eastern and Western Views of Rationality_ (Leiden, Holland: E. J. Brill, 1989).

In the ,ÄúWestern,Äù world, Aristotle,Äôs schema of logic held sway until the seminal work of Gottlob Frege (1848-1925) in the late 1800s and early1900s (e.g., his development of predicate logic). Since Frege, Aristotle,Äôs work has been built upon and superceded. That is, it has not been refuted, but greatly augmented.

I certainly am not denying the basic laws/principles of logic (e.g., non-contradiction, identity, excluded middle, transitivity); however, we need to be careful in how we refer to this field of study--logic. For different types,Äîor applications--of logic (even in the Western world context) see the following (e.g., articles on many-valued logic, paraconsistent logics):


Paraconsistent Logic

Many-Valued Logic

A Bibliography of Non-Standard Logics

One caveat: the four sources listed immediately above assume that the reader has some background in logic. However, even if one does not have such a background, the articles are still helpful to see the many ,Äútypes,Äù of logic, or ,Äúlogics.,Äù For many, the last entry will probably be the most helpful in dealing with various types of logic in a Western context.

Hope this helps,

Craig Hawkins


From: "Chuck Warman" <>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 08:33:40 -0500
Subject: RE: [AR-talk] Types of Logic

Ravi's response to the professor's challenge was, if I recall correctly, was something like, "So are you saying that *either* I accept "both/and" logic as valid, *or* I am in error?"


> I have heard Ravi's presentation that I think Steve is
> referring to. Ravi talks about the western approach to truth


From: "Pat Van Hoose" <>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 09:35:08 -0400
Subject: Re: [AR-talk] Types of Logic

> Ravi's response to the professor's challenge was, if I recall correctly, was
> something like, "So are you saying that *either* I accept "both/and" logic
> as valid, *or* I am in error?"
> Chuck

Yes, and the professor said something to the effect, "The either/or does seem to emerge, doesn't it?" Which is when Ravi made the remark about looking both ways before crossing a street in India.



Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 11:43:47 +0000
From: "Steve McLeroy" <>
Subject: My Logic Question


Thanks for the responses. I suppose that Ravi is speaking of the cultural perspective and how people try to make all we deal with relativistic in nature. Instead of the truth being either/or (alleged western) it is both/and (alleged eastern) but in the final analysis, as he says, "Even in India we look both ways before crossing the street. It is either the bus or me, not both." So I think that I am looking for a resourse that covers different cultural approaches. I have seen in the past the attempt to apply the "you can't prove you exist" to a test of reality and so therefore how can you prove anything true. The attempt to make truth relative is always coming up. One night at work I just answered "even if it were applicable, we are here in the West, not the East." Usually when pressed the person that argues this way, jumps into his mode of not being able to prove the reality of anything, I get up and levae and he said, "Where are you going?" I answered, "How do you know I was ever here

steve mcleroy
P.S. Heading over to Christian Book Distributers to order some of the suggested books.




From: "Philip Johnson" <>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:57:45 +1000
Subject: Re: My Logic Question


Out of your query there appears to me to be a few different issues to explore, each with its own trajectory. Some of these ideas move beyond the strict topic of logic, or the logical systems employed in say the Nyaya school of Hindu thought or in classic Buddhist thought where one may move beyond the principle of non-contradiction to speak of paradoxes etc.

One seems to relate to the meeting and inter-penetration of disparate cultures. When two cultures meet the customs, traditions and cosmologies of the respective cultures are thrown into sharp contrast with each other. This is a phenomenon that can be found throughout history on regional levels (e.g. Marco Polo's land journey to Mongolia/China brought Chinese and Euorpean cultures into contact).

In our contemporary setting the technology that facilitates global transportation and communications shifts the meeting of cultures from a local or regional level up to a global level.The meeting of cultures tosses up questions of how "relative" to culture are some customs, beliefs etc, and what do we make of the way/s in which people different to ourselves make sense of life etc.

There are various cultural responses to this phenomena some of the more obvious ones being:

a. A social-political policy of encouraging the celebration of cultural diversity in "multi-cultural" social experiments (e.g. the social experimental policies espoused in successive Australian governments relative to migrant groups since the 1980s).

b. A social-political policy of homogenisation -- The US as a melting pot (E Pluribus Unum). Or a social-political policy that is explicitly about integration (earlier Australian approaches to the Anglicising of migrants).

Each social policy tries to navigate a path forward for a given society to absorb cultural differences -- celebrate total diversity, apply cultural conformity, negotiate a compromise and so forth. In that cultural mix people may ask themselves about culture and belief and conclude it is all too difficult to decide, or mix-and-match, or assert a dogmatic position of exclusivity.

c. Religious fundamentalisms - older traditional values, ways of being are challenged by modern ideas, technology and this enchroachment is perceived as undermining religious values. The response of fundamentalisms in any cultural setting tends to entail a reassertion of traditional beliefs/customs but now in a reactionary agenda. The reactionary agenda is not a simple return to the past, but a reaction shaped by the modern social setting where fundamentalists try to navigate their way through "modernity" making some concessions, but also demanding no compromises on other points. Some form of ultimate truth is advocated over against competing options.

d. Blood and soil resistance - sometimes allied to religious fundamentalisms, but not necessarily. Here the reassertion of a local tribal territorial identity over against the overwhelming influx of "alien" ideas. The blood and soil response is very primal in people with a local identity that seems under threat (e.g. the Bosnia-Kosovo clash; Chechenya; Solomon Islands; Palestine, Basque separatists).

e. Ideological relativity -- a possible outcome of some postmodernist ideas about power and marginalisation occuring through cultures where one social group dominates and uses stories or beliefs to exclude. Or perhaps the commitment to a form of solipsism as a mental gambit.

f. Perennialist thought -- yes there are localised expressions of "religious truth", but lying behind the variegated traditions is an essential core of truths that can be accessed if one moves beyond the cultural accretions. This perennialism crops up in the esoteric-scientific religiosity of Blavatsky's Theosophy. So if someone comes from the influence of perennialism, they might say "oh that's your truth, I've got mine", it is not about no absolute or trans-cultural truth being available, but rather premised on the notion that if you are Islamic or Hindu or Christian, well you have a truth that is characterised by culture and history and regions, whereas the perennial truth is universal. If you assert your faith has the sole pipeline to truth, the respondent who holds to perennism is politely saying you have limited yourself to just one historically-conditioned expression of possible truths, and you need to "evolve" into a more expansive view that excavates beyond the cultural accretions to the ultimate truths. The perennist then is not a solipsist or total nihilist, even though an initial thought might be "oh you deny universal truth because you said 'I have my own truth.' "

On the perennialist material, you can find this expressed in one fashion via Huxley's Doors of Perception. On an academic level the impulses of perennism via theosophy, new age, neo-paganism etc are described in Adam Possamai, "Not The New Age: Perennism and Spiritual Knowledges" Australian Religion Studies Review, 14/1 Autumn 2001, pp. 82-96.

g. Sociology of Knowledge - the insights offered in some sociological theories concerning the social construction of reality. To what extent do social groups or networks construct their own reality (perceptions and prejudices), and to what extent culture influences the way in which people draft up their own views of reality. This arises out of theories from Karl Mannheim, Peter Berger and others.

Recent work on folkloric studies indicates the extent to which groups are capable of generating stories (not grounded in truth) that take on a life of their own, and stimulate political responses to a perceived threat or circumstance in society (e.g. some UFO abduction stories have folkloric elements see Bill Ellis, Aliens, Ghosts and Cults: Legends We Live, University Press of Mississippi, 2001). So alleged knowledge possessed by the tale-teller can take on a life of its own, be projected out into society with varying degrees of reactions (social panics - recall Orson Well's War of the Worlds panic).

There is also the problem of "reification" where an interpretation of an object or phemonema is projected out on to the outside world, and is given credence by a particular group or network, that then solidifies into their "reality".

In each of these critical self-reflection is a function that needs to occur.

Ross Clifford suggests that a traditional historico-legal apologetic can be reframed in a manner that neatly meets some of today's aspirants in new spiritualities. He indicates that many aspirants are not complete relativists at all, but maybe quite open to exploring a universal story that is empowering. What maybe seen as an initial stumbling-block is if one presents their faith in speech that triggers off images or experiences/memories for that person of being "disempowered" or "marginalised" in a given faith community. Clifford briefly charts this in "Reframing a Traditional Apologetic to Reach New Spirituality Seekers" in Hexham, Rost & Morehead (eds) Encountering New Religious Movements (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004) pp. 193-208.

Harold Netland suggests that Christians should learn to distinguish between transcultural truth and culture-specific or contextualised expressions of truth. He does this in "Toward Contextualized Apologetics" Missiology, 16/3 July 1988, pp. 289-303. It is revised and expanded as a chapter in his recent book Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith & Mission (IVP 2001).

One of the questions then is how do believers "translate" the gospel message and with it the teaching and praxis norms inside a given culture? The cultural-settings for the various gospels, the expansion of the Church into different cultural settings in Acts (Jerusalem, then Hellenic Jews, then Samaritans, then Gentiles), and the Epistles directing advice and answers on cultural questions (e.g. to eat or not to eat meat offered to idols) form part of the recipe for reflection in our own cultural contexts today.

Another theological issue is to consider the role of God's Spirit throughout the creation, as attested throughout the Old Testament, and aligning that teaching up with our post-Pentecost understanding of what the Spirit does with believers, can have some bearing on how we approach questions of culture, transcultural truth, the contextual processes of translating Christian faith into a given setting, and dealing with the pluiralism of our time. In other words, we can approach these questions not only on the basis of our commitment to the uniqueness and particularity of Christ (Christology) and salvation at Calvary (soteriology), but we can also find fruitful springboards into these topics by revisiting our theology of the creation and our theology of the Spirit of God.

On the OT background with the Spirit of God I have found it fruitful reflecting on the arguments found in:

B. B. Warfield, "The Spirit of God in the Old Testament" in his Biblical and Theological Studies (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 1968) pp. 127-156. Also Wilf Hildebrandt, An Old Testament Theology of the Spirit of God (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995), and in the context of thinking about other religious communities and their claims, Amos Yong, Beyond the Impasse: Toward a Pneumatological Theology of Religions (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003).

Just a few thoughts goaded on by your post.


From: "Gary" <>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 09:46:54 -0500
Subject: "The Jesus Mysteries"

Anyone know of a good review of "The Jesus Mysteries", by Peter Freke and Jeff Gandy?


From: "Philip Johnson" <>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:00:44 +1000
Subject: Re: "The Jesus Mysteries"


Freke & Gandy's book is briefly examined in chapter 11 of Ross Clifford & Philip Johnson, Jesus and the gods of the new age (Colorado Springs: Victor, 2003) pp. 233ff.

Although composed before The Jesus Mysteries, you will also find useful critical discussion of the issues raised about relations between the early church and the mystery religions and paganism in:

Ronald Nash, Christianity and the Hellenistic World (Zondervan, 1984; re-released as The Gospel and the Greeks).

Another useful book (again not directly dealing with Freke & Gandy) that explores issues that crop up in Jesus Mysteries is Philip Jenkins, Hidden Gospels: How The Search for Jesus Lost Its Way (Oxford Uni Press, 2001).


From: "Marcia Montenegro" <>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:22:42 -0400
Subject: REQ: Book of Enoch

Does anyone know why Enoch was not accepted into the canon of scripture? I am not finding much on that at all. I found a link to the book itself at

One source I found online said that Enoch is contrary to scripture in certain areas but someone told me that source was from a "quack."

I know Enoch has a lot about angels, and supposedly the interpretation of the Gen 6 passage about the "sons of God" being angels is from Enoch, and Jude and 2 Peter quoted from Enoch about angels being punished.

I've read through some of it and frankly, I find it rather creepy. Who are the "Watchers?" I know that Enoch is used widely in the occult -- that does not mean it's a bad book -- but personally I'm glad it's not in the Bible from what I've read so far.

Someone is debating me on this, saying that Enoch should be considered scripture so I need to know why it isn't. Does Enoch show any Gnostic influence?



From: "Philip Johnson" <>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 08:45:26 +1000
Subject: Re: REQ: Book of Enoch


The Book of Enoch is not just one book known by that title, there are 3 books with this title, they are:-

Ethiopic Enoch (1st Enoch)
Slavonic Enoch (2nd Enoch)
Hebrew Enoch (3rd Enoch)

Briefly, the first point to note is that the Book/s of Enoch are technically known as "Pseudepigraphal" writings. A pseudepigraphal work is something that is attributed to the authorship of certain prominent figure, but the book itself does not originate with that person. Two Greek words here "graphe" = writing; pseude = pseudonym (assumed name).

The First Book of Enoch, which is probably the one you are being debated on, is often further classified within the pseudepigraphal writings under the genre of "apocalyptic".

This is because the book contains the hallmarks of a style of writing that involves eschatological events mediated through dreams or visions or heavenly journeys that are interpreted by a heavenly agent (usually an angel) to a significant earthly figure. In the Old Testament the Book of Daniel is an example of apocalyptic -- there are dreams and visions which Daniel receives but an angel has to explain them to him, and the visions or dreams concern the eruption of God's acts/judgments on the earth, on earthly powers etc as God's own power is demonstrated as supreme.

First Enoch has the figure of Enoch caught up into heaven, and in that experience he is shown secrets about heaven, about God's coming kingdom, and about secrets of life. The work consists of five discernible parts. The first part focuses on evil and fallen angels and the place known as Sheol. The second part, often called the Similtudes, concentrates on the kingdom of God and the figure of the Son of Man. This Sonof Man is a heavenly character who will reign, judge and resurrect the dead. The third part is concerned with the celestial bodies, and what can be called a form of "Jewish astrology". The fourth part concerns visions Enoch has about the establishment of God's kingdom in history using beat/animal symbols to refer to earthly kingdoms, and the Gentiles will be defeated from harming Israel (think here of the Greco-Roman empires that occupied Palestine from 300 BC onwards). The fifth part of the book is concerned with human history spliced up into a period of 10 weeks, with each week signifying the steps in history that culminates in God's heavenly kingdom.

First Enoch is reckoned to have been written during the 2nd century BC, possibly with portions composed during the Maccabean era. Several Aramaic versions of First Enoch were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is thought that for the Qumran sect First Enoch may have become a new Pentateuch -- the book has 5 books to it, and is attributed to a sage older and earlier than Moses (hence an appeal to greater authority).

As to its canonical status, it needs to be remembered that in Jewish religious history the final canonical list for the Hebrew Bible (our OT) was sorted at in 90 AD by the Council Jamnia. This was convened by the Pharisees as they were basically the last major surviving group after the War of 66-70 AD. The response of the Pharisees to "close" the canon was goaded by the destruction of Jerusalem, the elimination of groups like the Saduccees and Essenes, and the need to differentiate Jews from Christians. Also as the Septuagint version of Scripture (Greek translation of OT) enjoyed circulation among the Christians, the Pharisees needed to demarcate themselves very clearly. The Pharisees' choice of books for the canon encompasses the present books of the OT. The Apocryphal books (like Maccabees, Judith etc) were deemed uncanonical, and likewise the pseudepigraphal books produced between the 2nd century BC and the first century AD were excluded.

Enoch was evidently a canonical book for the Qumran sect, and they may very well have been responsible for its composition. Recall that the Qumran sect was a separatist group that saw the Jerusalem religious scene as corrupt because they accepted Roman rule.

There have been scholarly debates over Qumran and Gnosticism. This is briefly discussed under the heading "apocalypticism" in Edwin Yamauchi's Pre-Christian Gnosticism: A Survey of the Proposed Evidences (Tyndale Press 1973; Baker 1983).

Enoch's contents tells us a lot about Jewish reactions to Gentile rule in Palestine, their interactions with Hellenic culture and ideas (e.g. astrology), and the upsurge of speculation about God's coming kingdom in their thought. The book was clearly known in the early church as the Epistle of Jude alludes to Enoch where Jude refers to the dispute between Michael and Satan over Moses' dead body. Jude's allusion to this does not equate to Jude seeing Enoch as canonical; by analogy Paul quotes Cleanthes' Hymn to Zeus when talking in Athens, but the fact he cited the hymn does not mean Paul thought of it as revelatory or canonical.

Now for some sources about it:-

A translation of Enoch (plus introduction to the book) is included in James Charlesworth (ed) The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature & Testaments, Vol 1. (New York: Doubleday 1983).

J. C. Greenfield & M. Stone, "The Enochic Pentateuch and the date of the Similitudes" Harvard Theological Review, 70 (1977) pp. 51-65.

J. T. Milik & M.Black, The Books of Enoch (Oxford Uni Press 1976).

On the genre and concept of apocalyptic see:

Leon Morris, Apocalyptic (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1972).

D. S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964).

On Jude start with a basic commentary like Michael Green, The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude (Tyndale Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968).

The astrological material of Enoch is discussed in passing in these sources:-

James H. Charlesworth, ìJewish Astrology in the Talmud, Pseudepigrapha, The Dead Sea Scrolls, and Early Palestinian Synagoguesî Harvard Theological Review, Volume 70, Noís 3/4 (July-October 1977), pp. 183-200.

James Charlesworth, ìJewish Astrology during the Hellenistic and Roman Periodî in Aufsteig und Niedergang der Romaischen Welt, edited by W. Haase & H. Temporini, Vol. 20, no. 2 (1987), pp. 926-950.

Kocku von Stuckrad, ìJewish and Christian Astrology in Late Antiquity ñ A New Approachî Numen, Volume 47, no. 1 (2000), pp. 1-40.

Lester Ness, ìAstrologyî Archaeology in the Biblical World, Volume 2, no. 1 (Fall 1992), pp. 44-53.


From: "Robert Bowman" <>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:01:55 -0700
Subject: RE: [AR-talk] REQ: Book of Enoch


The Book of Enoch is accepted in the Ethiopic tradition, but not in the other Christian churches. Enoch was deemed by most Christians not to be part of the Old Testament because (1) it was indisputably pseudepigraphal (i.e., Enoch didn't write it) and (2) it was not accepted as Scripture by the Jews or even included in the Septuagint. The main argument for including it in the Old Testament would be the reference in Jude. However, while Jude draws from the Book of Enoch, he does not treat it as Scripture.

In Christ's service,
Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
Center for Biblical Apologetics


From: "Robert Bowman" <>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:05:33 -0700
Subject: Re: REQ: Book of Enoch


Good post. If I had seen yours before sending mine, I wouldn't have bothered!

--Rob Bowman


Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 21:18:56 EDT
Subject: Re: [AR-talk] REQ: Book of Enoch

Augustine also alludes to the Book of Enoch in his "City of God," in his discussion on the interpretation of the first few verses of Genesis 6.

Augustine appears to doubt its authenticity as well.

Interestingly enough, fragments of a condensed Latin translation of the Book of Enoch have been found in England, and they appear to have been transcribed in an Anglo-Saxon monastery sometime between the 700 and 900s AD. Arguments have also been made that the Book of Enoch influenced the author of Beowulf in his descriptions of Grendel and his assigning of Grendel to the lineage of Cain and the antediluvian giants.

I don't know the citations off the top of my head, but they're all in my M.A. thesis :-)

David Grubbs
Watchman Fellowship Alabama


You have been reading the AR-talk digest <>


back to top

return to AR-talk sample selection page