I have been wrestling with a thought that I want to throw out there. When I say wrestle, I mean I have not come to any conclusion yet… it is just an idea I want to state, but I don’t want to defend it.
I am wondering about the story of Abraham being told to sacrifice his son Isaac. I am questioning whether the goodness of God is objective or subjective. Is good such because God has declared it so, or is goodness a standard outside of God to which he aligns himself?
I have heard from the lips of many believers in Christ this year various forms of this phrase - “If God declares it… then it is right”.
The immediate danger I see in such a paradigm, is that one could begin to justify a myriad of questionable and evil acts under the phrase “God told me to do it” or “It is His will”.
Beyond that, I wonder what it says about the nature of good. If God tells you to do something that would normally be defined as evil, does that make it good? Do normally abhorrent acts become acceptable if God does them?
I think many believers (me included) would be uncomfortable stating that there is an objective standard of goodness, because that would imply that goodness is something that God must, or chooses to, submit to. Implying such a thing would seem to lessen God ... make him penultimate.
However, if I were to take the subjective notion of goodness (dependent on God calling it good) to its logical end, I would have to ask the question, “If God told you to rape someone, would it being his command sanctify the act?” If your answer is no, because God would never tell anyone to do such a thing – then you are stating that there is a standard outside of God by which he judges right and wrong. The act is inherently evil and God could not deny his goodness.
If you are determined that it is God who sets the standard of goodness, then one would have to be willing that good and evil are ambivalent terms and are set by God based on the fact that he has all the power.
This makes me wonder if Abraham gave the best response to God regarding the sacrifice of his son Isaac. Here is the quick version: God tells his servant Abraham to sacrifice his only son Isaac. Abraham proceeds to do this without question. At the final moment, the Lord stays Abraham’s hand and says, “Do not lay a hand on the boy. Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."
I tend to feel that most word choices in scripture are not accidental. So my eyes really gravitate to “Now I know that you fear God”. I know God considered Abraham’s actions righteous, but could he have been hoping for a better response than fear?
I read a book to my class every year that involves the biggest and toughest kid in school gaining some insight. He realizes at the end of the book that all of his peers praised him and did what he said because they feared him. Based on this new knowledge, he realized that he didn’t have any real friends.
Most people would not do an immoral thing if instructed to. Stick a gun to their head and they might reconsider. Put their loved one in danger, and they might do almost anything.
Fear can be a powerful motivator. At an outward glance, it might resemble obedience.
I can’t look in to Abraham’s heart, but it makes me wonder if God was satisfied with the events of that day. Abraham seemed ready to do an immoral thing – a very immoral thing – because he feared God.
Scripture says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. But it is only the beginning. Perhaps only a first step.
I wonder if God was disappointed that the relationship he had with Abraham had not moved on to something a little deeper.
Just thinking out loud……
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Sunday, February 04, 2007
NFL Clotheslines Churches
Many church Superbowl parties were shutdown by the NFL just prior to game day. Claiming copyright violations, cease and desist orders were sent out. Most churches never got an official warning, but did not want to cause trouble so they shut down.
I am wondering who sat in the meeting where it was decided to move on this. Aside from being unnecessarily rude, I would think it would not be helpful to their advertisers. Although a minority, I am sure there are many people around the country who have no compelling interest in watching the Superbowl. However, if it is a happening within a community, they will watch. Why would the NFL want to remove a community from watching the Superbowl?
I am not a sports watcher, but when my church has done Superbowl parties I have gone and had a great time. What does the NFL gain by making sure these parties do not happen?
I am wondering who sat in the meeting where it was decided to move on this. Aside from being unnecessarily rude, I would think it would not be helpful to their advertisers. Although a minority, I am sure there are many people around the country who have no compelling interest in watching the Superbowl. However, if it is a happening within a community, they will watch. Why would the NFL want to remove a community from watching the Superbowl?
I am not a sports watcher, but when my church has done Superbowl parties I have gone and had a great time. What does the NFL gain by making sure these parties do not happen?
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Evangelical Exaggeration
Every month I get a letter from Focus on the Family. I rarely open it. The alarmist statement on the outer envelope usually prompts me to aim it straight for the garbage. How I got on their list I am not sure. Each month there is some hype about Christianity being under attack by gays / liberals / public schools ... etc. Each month there is a new boogie man.
I got an email from a friend once. She had been informed about how the "Public Schools" were up to something evil, and she wanted to know if she should be concerned. I don't remember the issue, but here is my reply:
___
Heh, don't worry; everything is going to be OK. I remember when I started teaching 15 years ago, the big panic in the Christian world was the book - "Heather has two mommies" ( a book about a child living in a lesbian family). Supposedly every classroom was going to be given copies of this book, there would be classes about it, your kid's teacher would make them read it, and soon all children everywhere would be gay and the world would blow up. 15 years and 3 schools later and I have yet to even see a copy.
The reality is that these "ministries" rake in big cash every time they run a report saying "Homosexuals and Atheists are beating children while the public schools cheer them on!" A friend of mine who used to work for the 700 Club told me about their "7 Days Ablaze" fund raising drive. He said they did more gay and atheist tie-ins to the public schools that week than any other time because it generated tons of phone calls. Around the office he said they called the drive, "Seven Gays Ablaze".
School systems are primarily community driven. Rochester Schools were pretty much what they were because the community wanted them that way. The same is true out here in Salt Lake. I think the question should always be, "Am I happy with what is happening at my child's school?" If one scourers the schools of the country, it would be easy to find oddball things to report about.
I want accurate information about schools as much as anyone, but I am suspicious of groups who intake a greater income of money on bad news rather than good. Plus, I think the time has come for our Christian communities to start loving goodness more than they hate evil.
Plunk, Plunk. My two cents.
____
It has always been in the back of my mind to write a blog about the use of exaggeration and overstatement in the Evangelical community. So many ministries preying on fear. However, this author beat me to it and wrote about it much better than I ever could. Click HERE for a great read.
I got an email from a friend once. She had been informed about how the "Public Schools" were up to something evil, and she wanted to know if she should be concerned. I don't remember the issue, but here is my reply:
___
Heh, don't worry; everything is going to be OK. I remember when I started teaching 15 years ago, the big panic in the Christian world was the book - "Heather has two mommies" ( a book about a child living in a lesbian family). Supposedly every classroom was going to be given copies of this book, there would be classes about it, your kid's teacher would make them read it, and soon all children everywhere would be gay and the world would blow up. 15 years and 3 schools later and I have yet to even see a copy.
The reality is that these "ministries" rake in big cash every time they run a report saying "Homosexuals and Atheists are beating children while the public schools cheer them on!" A friend of mine who used to work for the 700 Club told me about their "7 Days Ablaze" fund raising drive. He said they did more gay and atheist tie-ins to the public schools that week than any other time because it generated tons of phone calls. Around the office he said they called the drive, "Seven Gays Ablaze".
School systems are primarily community driven. Rochester Schools were pretty much what they were because the community wanted them that way. The same is true out here in Salt Lake. I think the question should always be, "Am I happy with what is happening at my child's school?" If one scourers the schools of the country, it would be easy to find oddball things to report about.
I want accurate information about schools as much as anyone, but I am suspicious of groups who intake a greater income of money on bad news rather than good. Plus, I think the time has come for our Christian communities to start loving goodness more than they hate evil.
Plunk, Plunk. My two cents.
____
It has always been in the back of my mind to write a blog about the use of exaggeration and overstatement in the Evangelical community. So many ministries preying on fear. However, this author beat me to it and wrote about it much better than I ever could. Click HERE for a great read.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Tithe? Why?
I believe tithing is an unbiblical topic that churches try to slide into our ethos because it is convenient. I don't say beneficial, because that would imply that there is a nefarious motive and, except for televangelists, I don't think that is usually the case.
So what is a tithe and where do we get the idea? Simply put, it is the notion that 10% of one's income should be given to God in some way. Some churches teach that it is a general number to be given charitably overall, while others teach it should be given directly to the church (anything you give outside of the church should be a gift above your tithe).
In the old testament, tithing was the way given for supporting the priesthood, the holy places, and the poor. At the time, there was no king so the priesthood served many of the functions of a government. Most notably, it was their responsibility to care for the poor (Churches have mostly abdicated this responsibility to the government... yet they still want a full tithe). In addition, tithe usually didn't refer to income... it was crops (to feed the priests and the poor). A person didn't sell his crops and then tithe the money, he just gave a portion of his crops. So is a person contributing his talents still tithing?
How does tithing apply to the New Testament? I would submit that it does not.
First, if God wanted tithing to be established in our churches, the apostles would have taught it. However, for all of their instruction, Paul never brings it up, Peter never brings it up, James never brings it up, John never brings it up.
Second, tithing was to maintain the priesthood. Who is the priesthood now? Peter says that all believers are now priests before God with One mediator. The veil has been torn in two and the temple now resides within the believer. There is no longer a specific priesthood to maintain.
So what is the pattern for giving for the church? There are principals given, but I think the apostles were intentional when they gave no number.
The ideal was set in the beginning of Acts where no believer considered anything his own and gave to everyone as he had need.
Whew! Anybody ready to rev up to that one?
However, you do not find Paul repeating that ideal as he established churches. What he did indicate was that:
- There should be financial equity between the churches. If one church had plenty, they were to share with any churches in want.
- People who preached the Gospel had a right to earn a living from the Gospel. Paul at times chose not to use this right, and supplemented his living by working. However, people who received a spiritual blessing had a duty to provide a material blessing to the giver.
- Generosity had spiritual benefits. Sparing sowers would reap sparingly, generous sowers would reap generously.
- Every believer would choose their own amount of giving.
So why do churches encourage their members to tithe?
- 10 percent is easy to remember
- 10 percent is easy to calculate
- 10 percent is a great number to push folks toward... it would make for a fairly large church budget. (In fact, few churches contribute anywhere near 10 percent. Most move along at 1 to 3)
- If you don't put a big goal out there, church giving will shrink.
Second, I have always wondered why churches don't spend a Sunday as a body looking at the budget. What if the finance guy got up and said, "Here is what we spend on this, this, and this. Here is what it takes to presently run our church. If we want to add this or this, we would need to increase our budget. So, based on that, we would need everyone making roughly this much to contribute this amount to maintain and this amount to grow." Give everyone an idea of how much they would need to contribute "in keeping with his income" to maintain and/or to grow.
Paul said to contribute "in keeping with [your] income". He wanted people behaving responsibly. Should a single person living alone making 50 thousand and a family of 6 making 50 thousand be held to the same standard of monetary giving? Where does Paul state that any church is given authority to hold anyone to a financial standard?
In conclusion, I believe even a cursory study of scripture works against the modern church view of a tithe. I know tithing is mentioned in scipture, but I feel modern churches pull it out of its context. There are dozens of Old Testament vows, behaviors, and callings that would be out of place to put on a Christian. Why do we grab tithing while stepping over so many others? Our overall unquestioning acceptance points to a bigger issue in our churches... scriptural illiteracy.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Forget poor kids, sponsor a rich child!
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
I support Bart and Tony Campolo!
I think I need to separate myself, once and for all, from the term Evangelical. Not because it is so bad, but because it mis- communicates as much as it communicates. Anyone from Tony Campolo to Jerry Falwell could be called an Evangelical. It is too broad.
To be honest, it has also become too negative. Evangelicals are often associated with being obnoxious and unkind. As I look at the attitudes and rhetoric of many Evangelicals, I am struck by how much they resemble the Pharisees of the Gospels.
For example, Tony Campolo recently had kind and hopeful things to say regarding prostitutes and homosexuals. This made a lot of Evangelicals uncomfortable. Here is a response from one of the naysayers:
"What does [Campolo] mean by referring to prostitutes and homosexuals as "precious children of God"? The bible calls people who love worldliness and reject Him his enemies (John 3:18, James 4:4), they are children of wrath (Eph. 2:1-3). Also it says in Psalm 7:11 that God is angry with the wicked everyday. The bible also says that those who practice these things will not inherit the kingdom of heaven (Eph. 5:3-6). These are hard truths found in scripture. I find no pleasure in this. I guess I just do not understand what Campolo means here."
The thing is, technically, the Pharisees were not wrong; but they had a horrible attitude about people. Jesus was willing to put the rules on hold for the sake of people. The gentleman I quoted above would have been the first to pick up a stone and throw it at the prostitute. Did Jesus consider prostitutes his enemy? Did prostitutes consider Jesus an enemy?
I have been following the reactions of Evangelicals about Bart Campolo's article "The Limits of God's Grace". I loved the article, but there are MANY who hate it. They call Bart a heretic, an idolater... and then they get nasty. Personally, Bart has become my spiritual hero. (Click here for a great message by him)
The reaction of much of the Evangelical community toward Bart and his father Tony, is similar to how the Pharisees reacted to Jesus. The Campolos befriend the untouchables and sinners... just like Jesus. They put people over dogma... just like Jesus. They irritate the religious community... just like Jesus!
Heh! Keep it up boys! You Rock!
To be honest, it has also become too negative. Evangelicals are often associated with being obnoxious and unkind. As I look at the attitudes and rhetoric of many Evangelicals, I am struck by how much they resemble the Pharisees of the Gospels.
For example, Tony Campolo recently had kind and hopeful things to say regarding prostitutes and homosexuals. This made a lot of Evangelicals uncomfortable. Here is a response from one of the naysayers:
"What does [Campolo] mean by referring to prostitutes and homosexuals as "precious children of God"? The bible calls people who love worldliness and reject Him his enemies (John 3:18, James 4:4), they are children of wrath (Eph. 2:1-3). Also it says in Psalm 7:11 that God is angry with the wicked everyday. The bible also says that those who practice these things will not inherit the kingdom of heaven (Eph. 5:3-6). These are hard truths found in scripture. I find no pleasure in this. I guess I just do not understand what Campolo means here."
The thing is, technically, the Pharisees were not wrong; but they had a horrible attitude about people. Jesus was willing to put the rules on hold for the sake of people. The gentleman I quoted above would have been the first to pick up a stone and throw it at the prostitute. Did Jesus consider prostitutes his enemy? Did prostitutes consider Jesus an enemy?
I have been following the reactions of Evangelicals about Bart Campolo's article "The Limits of God's Grace". I loved the article, but there are MANY who hate it. They call Bart a heretic, an idolater... and then they get nasty. Personally, Bart has become my spiritual hero. (Click here for a great message by him)
The reaction of much of the Evangelical community toward Bart and his father Tony, is similar to how the Pharisees reacted to Jesus. The Campolos befriend the untouchables and sinners... just like Jesus. They put people over dogma... just like Jesus. They irritate the religious community... just like Jesus!
Heh! Keep it up boys! You Rock!
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
I don't like the new Blogger
I don't like the new Blogger layout. They do not list previous titles on the side like they used to(except for this month). Therefore, readers don't get a listing of previous titles that might catch their eye. So here are the titles and links to everything from 2006.
- Saturday, January 14, 2006 Ring Tones Suck
- Friday, January 20, 2006 His Value System
- Thursday, February 01, 2006 Train Them!
- Thursday, February 02, 2006 Love God, Love his Children
- Friday, February 03, 2006 Hell No!
- Friday, February 10, 2006 More than Passions
- Monday, February 13, 2006 Engaging Education
- Monday, March 13, 2006 Greater Things Than These
- Wednesday, April 12, 2006 Labels
- Friday, April 28, 2006 Inerrancy... you have obviously mistaken me for someone who cares.
- Tuesday, June 13, 2006 What must I do to be saved?
- Sunday, July 09, 2006 Goodbye Santa Claus
- Monday, July 24, 2006 isms
- Wednesday, August 02, 2006 That's my girl!
- Monday, October 30, 2006 God is not enough for me....
- Saturday, November 04, 2006 I was hoping it was a false accusation..
- Saturday, November 11, 2006 To expand on my previous blog...
- Saturday, November 20, 2006 When will Utah repent?
- Wednesday, November 22, 2006 I think I am a Universalist...
- Saturday, December 02, 2006 Thanks to the bands of my youth
- Friday, December 15, 2006 Apocalypto - move along folks, there is nothing to see here.
- Monday, December 18, 2006 I do note vote in favor of election....
Monday, December 18, 2006
I do note vote in favor of election....
There was a time in my Christianity when I was right. I was Charasmantic... Full Gospel... how much more right could you be than that?
Then life happens.
At this point you can do one of three things:
Then life happens.
At this point you can do one of three things:
- Hunker down and refuse to hear anything but the thoughts within your own group (you may listen to other arguments, but you know from the beginning you are right. So you, at most, only tolerate the deluded around you).
- Abandon your faith. Having found a chink in your armor, you throw away everything in a resentful rage.
- Eat some humble pie. Discover you are not half as smart as you think you are and learn to hold ideas with open hands.
Having grown up being right, I learned little about other people's ideas of God. So, in my latter years, I am having to play catch-up.
I have discovered that my thoughts this past decade line-up with a lot of things within something called "The Emergent Church" movement. Since I visit the blogs of a lot of these folks, I also come into contact with the blogs of many of their detractors. It seems (and here I say "seems" with heavy emphasis) that a lot of folks who cling to Calvanism take issue with the Emergent Church.
I always knew Calvanists were into predestination/election (the idea that God chose who would go to Heaven and who would go to Hell before anyone did anything), but I never really gave it much thought. However, I got into a discussion with a gentleman on his blog recently and it clarified for me how troubled I am with that idea. I commented on a post where he was stating his belief in predestination. I will post my comment and our brief conversation, then comment some more.
_____________
Andrew 7:56 PM
I could never put full stock in to election... This post confirmed that opinion. I grant that there is scripture that could lead one to that conclusion, but only if you ignore a heckalot of other scripture. I am not sure how it will pan out, but I am pretty confident God was not saying... "and you will be saved, and you too, but not you, hmmm how bout' you, you, and you, mmm not you, and not that one either..." If true, we are ruled by a psycho!
SB 9:01 PM
I'd like to see you defend that biblicaly. God elects people alright. It's all over the bible.
Andrew 10:28 PM
Is there a single scripture I could produce that you would not refute? You obviously believe wholeheartedly in election. The most you and I could do is play biblical ping-pong for the observers and each side would go away with the same view they previously held. Been in those conversations before?
Let me rather ask a question. Though my description of the thought line of a God of election above was absurd, is your view much different? Is that how you see God?
I have committed about 10 books of scripture to memory. I say this not as a boast, but to make a point. One of the unforeseen outcomes is that I started to see scripture by themes rather than statements. For example… I could remove all the scripture where God states that he loves man, yet, when I read the rest of scripture I would still come to that conclusion…. God loves us.
I don’t get that when it comes to election. Remove those verses and there would be nothing about the rest of scripture that would point in that direction. So for me, it leaves it suspect. There is scripture to defend and refute election. There is scripture to defend and refute grace vs. works. Pre, post, mid-trib? Whom shall I believe? The theologian who argues his point better? The one who produces the longest list of verses?
I honestly don’t have a big opinion about election. It is one of those scriptural oddities that seems to run contrary to other scripture ... yet there it is. To me, it is what happens when the eternal is explained in temporal language… it doesn’t quite fit. It can’t. In the same way a three dimensional being could never accurately describe himself in words to a world of two dimensions. I honestly think when people asked Jesus, “What is the Kingdom of God like?”, he had to think for a second. He must have thought, how do I put this, when they have absolutely NO frame of reference? Well, guys… ya see….. it's kind of like….. a mustard seed….
What concerns me is why people so doggedly want to defend election? Why? What is the motivation? To have a point of argument? To be more right than someone else? If one wants to lean toward election, I can’t totally dismiss them because it is a scriptural point… but why can there be no allowance for another view?
God chose the metaphor of a Father. He thought that was one of the best ways to describe himself to us. To buy into election, as people tend to interpret it, I would need to be comfortable with a God who is pro-choice – one who can toss his child in the trash can on a whim.
SB 9:47 PM
God would never toss his child....for someone to be his child he has to recieve Christ. The one's who get "tossed" aren't his kids. Other than that, I'd just say to you to use scripture as your standard, not make up your own ideas...
_____________
It bothers me when people respond, but don't really address my points. To me, it shows they don't know how to listen; they only know how to monologue. Being right requires monologue, not dialogue. To the absolutist, dialogue is tantamount to compromise.
Part of me wanted to respond back, but I am trying not to fall into the trap of needing to be right. Anyone who knows me knows I luuuv to be right, so it is something God is chipping away at. But if one needs a scriptural reference for my belief I will give one... well, two... and we could go on.
First, God is no respecter of persons. When I get to something in scripture I don't understand, I cling to the character of God. Does predestination sync with how God presents himself?
He desires all men to be saved. God would have to be a complete bi-polar or schizophrenic if he both desired a person's salvation, offered a way of salvation, but then put that person outside salvation's reach.
Again, if the concept of election/predestination mattered at all Jesus would have taught it, Paul would have taught it, Peter would have taught it..... not cryptically mention it, TAUGHT it.
I know scripture mentions it, I don't deny it. It is the conclusion of Calvinists I find unsupportable. If their view is accurate, then I will pass on Heaven. Their view makes God into as big a jerk as any I have met on this planet; as big a jerk as me....
.... and I need to worship someone greater than myself.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Apocalypto - move along folks, there is nothing to see here.
Violence doesn’t bother me, so my objection to this film doesn’t stem from that (though that is the core of many critical reviews I read). I am bothered that Gibson portrays it as being meaningful, when it bordered on pointless. Beyond that, Apocalypto was a used storyline.
I went in knowing a smattering of pre-Columbian history, so I was looking forward to a bit of insight into Mayan culture. Instead, very little is displayed of Mayan culture – except the human sacrifice part… we stayed there for a bit. In fact, we were treated to the view of a head bouncing down the stairs of the pyramid, from the head’s perspective (there’s a new ride idea for Universal Studios).
Used storyline? Yep. This movie was Rambo/Predator B.C. Our hero is pursued into his jungle by 7 Mayans, whom he proceeds to pick off one by one. It was such a used premise, it almost started to seem like a “Scary Movie” parody. At one point, the hero catches his main enemy in a pig trap… three spikes through the torso. He walks up to look at him in his eye. I found myself clutching my popcorn. “Say it! Say it,” I cried. I just so wanted him to snarl and say in a perfect Arnold accent - “Stick around!”
I wouldn’t want to spoil the ending, but I couldn’t cause you know where it will end by the first hour. Gibson obviously wanted one of those M. Night Shyamalan endings. It looked like one, but it didn’t feel like it. There was such a big build up to it; the natives looking stunned, out at the ocean. The moment kept hanging til I think half the audience was thinking “Just show the damn Europeans!” When the moment came, it was so cliché I was more in danger of barfing at that moment then when the heads were bouncing.
To me, this movie failed the way Lucas’s last three Star Wars movies failed. Lucas became absorbed in neato special effects, and forgot to infuse the movies with story. Gibson is falling into the same trap with graphic gore. The violence in Braveheart had a point, and it sat amidst a good story.
Apocalypto doesn’t offer anything that Predator and Rambo didn’t; and those two were more fun to watch.
I went in knowing a smattering of pre-Columbian history, so I was looking forward to a bit of insight into Mayan culture. Instead, very little is displayed of Mayan culture – except the human sacrifice part… we stayed there for a bit. In fact, we were treated to the view of a head bouncing down the stairs of the pyramid, from the head’s perspective (there’s a new ride idea for Universal Studios).
Used storyline? Yep. This movie was Rambo/Predator B.C. Our hero is pursued into his jungle by 7 Mayans, whom he proceeds to pick off one by one. It was such a used premise, it almost started to seem like a “Scary Movie” parody. At one point, the hero catches his main enemy in a pig trap… three spikes through the torso. He walks up to look at him in his eye. I found myself clutching my popcorn. “Say it! Say it,” I cried. I just so wanted him to snarl and say in a perfect Arnold accent - “Stick around!”
I wouldn’t want to spoil the ending, but I couldn’t cause you know where it will end by the first hour. Gibson obviously wanted one of those M. Night Shyamalan endings. It looked like one, but it didn’t feel like it. There was such a big build up to it; the natives looking stunned, out at the ocean. The moment kept hanging til I think half the audience was thinking “Just show the damn Europeans!” When the moment came, it was so cliché I was more in danger of barfing at that moment then when the heads were bouncing.
To me, this movie failed the way Lucas’s last three Star Wars movies failed. Lucas became absorbed in neato special effects, and forgot to infuse the movies with story. Gibson is falling into the same trap with graphic gore. The violence in Braveheart had a point, and it sat amidst a good story.
Apocalypto doesn’t offer anything that Predator and Rambo didn’t; and those two were more fun to watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
