![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
convert_me challenge.I am very open to being converted. Historically, I have meandered through atheist/LaVeyan Satanist, Pagan (of a pseudo-Native American flavor), and theist-agnostic. It's only within the last five years that I've landed back into the lap of Reformed Christianity, and I don't feel like this is the end of my journey. I do think that I've been making forward progress, and that I understand more than I did before, but I'm certainly not done learning.
To me, my religious exploration is based on a need to understand my soul, my world, and my place in it, and so I have a practical-ministerial kind of approach to religious understanding. The upshot is that the virulent anti-Christian crowd who know it's all stupid before they even see the argument can just pass on: they won't find traction with me, because I simply was that kind of angry too long to give it credibility. Instead, I'd like to know what people think of this way of phrasing/presenting/understanding the spiritual world. I'd particularly like to hear from Christians outside the Reformed tradition (
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
catholic_heart, I'm looking at you), and from those who have left the Christian faith rather amicably (like naturalexponent, who asked for this post originally).Now, this is going to be pretty poor apologetics, because I'm really going to start where apologetics stop. I am going to take as a given in the argument that there is a God who is the grand architect of all things physical as well as an omniscient entity of unbounded love, and move forward from there.
Now, let's start with this concept called "sin". I've never found the legalistic concept of "sin" -- that is, the idea that "sin" is a list of things that are Naughty simply seemed silly to me. Lists that are specific and provide a whole series of very specificy Naughty Acts (e.g. Leviticus) seem to pretty quickly stumble across something or other that seems much more grey than their rule provides for. The reality of this sinks in quickly, and then you get hemming and hawing in an effort to try to make seperate the black from the white in those grey boundaries. It just doesn't work for me, and I've not been moved by the approach. So, given that the legalistic concept is out, how do you look at "sin"?
To this point, I look to the Great Commandment -- stated positively, not negatively. Now, the interesting thing to note is that there is one commandment asked for, but two given back. That is to say, there is something inseverable between the commandment to "Love your God" and "Love your neighbor" -- to present one is to present the other. And this makes sense: after all, if I am to love God and God loves everyone, then am I not reserving some of my love from God if I choose to not love those He loves? It is not possible to truly and openly love God while resenting or ignoring His love of all human beings.
But what does this talk of love have to do with sin? Well, the way I understand it, "sin" is distance from God -- distance from love. The fundamental nature of loving your neighbor is to treat your neighbor with as much value as you treat yourself, and to respect their humanity and "being-ness" just as much as you respect your own. When you see someone who hurts themself with the same pattern of behavior over and over again, it's easy to see that person as a machine, without any consciousness or value. When someone cuts you off on the freeway, it's easy to treat them as simply an obstacle whose entire existence is defined by the way in which they inconvenienced you. Yet both of these people, like all people, have a history, a context, a family, friends, thoughts, dreams, and consciousness. They have as much weight, personhood, and thought as you do. And it's very easy -- doubly-so for intellectuals like theologians and philosophers -- to artificially devalue that truth in other people. And when they do, they distort their view of the reality in which they live, they contort their conscience to appease their conveinence, and they make room for destructive patterns of behavior.
So, when there is this devaluation of the otherness, it actually hurts the person doing it. Dehumanization of others is ultimately self-destructive, in terms of not only a person's mental health, but in terms of a person's relationship to God. It's that self-destructive dehumanization that I refer to as "sin" for short.
Now God is a being of love and understanding. Yet how can God understand sin? How can God understand distance from Himself? The ultimate act of love is to understand and be with a person in their most desperate times, yet our most desperate times are precisely those times when we are most distant from God. For God to be love, God has to understand distance from Himself, and God has to be with us even when we've created distance. To do all this, God needed to experience sin.
And now the problem arises: how does God, overflowing with love, experience sin? How does God get distance from Himself? The answer is found in the triune nature of God: by becoming human (whatever that means -- I'm still trying to get it), God can understand sin. The Christ came to "complete" God's nature, and it is with this understanding that God comes to judge the living and the dead.
I'm sure the last paragraph made all kinds of hackles rise. It's an awkward paragraph, at least partially because I don't feel like I entirely understand how it all worked. Let me knock one objection out of the way right away, though: when I put quotes around "complete", I did it for a good reason. As I stated in the first link of this article, I don't believe in a God with a concept of "the present" -- God doesn't have a unidirectionality of time. As C.S. Lewis put it, "All moments are an eternity to God." Because of that, the change in God seen in the Christ act had "already happened" at the moment of Creation -- to that, hear John's opening words, which got so carefully scrutinized by this community.
And so where do we go from here? In this understanding, the charge of loving God is the same as the charge of avoiding the dehumanization of others. So, when addressing questions of morality, such as whether gays should be ordained or even allowed to marry, the fundamental question to answer is: "Is there something inherently dehumanizing about the act? Is the very act condoning the degradation of another human being's 'beingness'?" Using that as my guide has served me well, and I believe it's the most reliable yet practical way to summarize the Golden Rule.
October 21 2006, 21:10:01 UTC 5 years ago
1. Your arguments are primarily catholic ones, have you considered catholicism? What I mean is, to protestants "God" is one of righteousness, and truth, while to the catholics God is a God of mercy, love, and mystery.
2. As a reformed christian, all of this talk about the golden rule sounds great and all, but God is sending alot of poeple to hell because they don't believe in this particular doctrine, Why does he do that? and how can someone be saved?
3. What makes God necessarily good or bad?
4. C.S. Lewi's argument for the trinity is, as kai suggested, not very good. Yes, its very beautiful if you accept all of his former premises, and its a very metaphorical and beautiful way to envision it, but i doesn't do anything to show the plauisibility of christianity. Its completely absurd, in a kierkegaardian sense.
I take it you want specifics.
October 21 2006, 23:05:13 UTC 5 years ago
This depends entirely on what kind of protestants you're talking about. I was raised baptist, and the theology there was very much, "Here's the bible and some general things it's pretty clear everyone agrees on, beyond that you've got to figure things out on your own", which was what made the church hang together like it did, since the actual beliefs of members were pretty ridiculously diverse and clashes were anathema.
From what I know of catholicism, I respect the culture of intellectual debate and inquiry they have within certain parts of the hieratchy, but the problem is that it's in the hierarchy. A God of mercy, love, and mystery seems perfectly good to me, but I take issue with the notion of "catholic", that any one particular tradition can make a claim to universal truth handed down through their hierarchy. Ideally, I'd want a church with the decentralized and open aspects of my upbringing but one that wasn't afraid to engage in some actual debate now and then, on friendly terms and without the intention to set dogma.
Oh well. I'm mostly atheist at this point anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter so much anymore.
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
October 21 2006, 21:31:37 UTC 5 years ago
* Book IV. Beyond Personality: Or First Steps In The Doctrine Of The Trinity
1. Making and beggeting." One of the creeds says that Christ is the Son of God "begotten, not
created"; and it adds "begotten by his Father before all worlds." Will you
please get it quite clear that this has nothing to do with the fact that
when Christ was born on earth as a man, that man was the son of a virgin? We
are not now thinking about the Virgin Birth. We are thinking about something
that happened before Nature was created at all, before time began. "Before
all worlds" Christ is begotten, not created. What does it mean?"
"What God begets is God; just
as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man
makes is not man."
Sounds very convaluted, and ambigious. Keep in mind, all of these are presumed you agree with his past 3 books, I do not. For instance, the word "God" and "Man" are difficult enough to put into words, so you see why someone would have some trouble accepting the rest of his arguement?
" And that is precisely what Christianity is about. This world is a great
sculptor's shop. We are the statues and there is a rumour going round the
shop that some of us are some day going to come to life."
This is a Catholic understanding of salvation/life, not a reformed one.
October 21 2006, 21:32:24 UTC 5 years ago
Personality, and the trinity, Part 2
2. The Three-Personal GodXenophanes, a philosopher commented, "Homer and Hesiod have ascribed to the gods all things that are
a shame and disgrace among mortals, stealings and adulteries and
deceivings of one another ... Mortals deem that gods are begotten as
they are, and have clothes like theirs, and voice and form ... yes,
and if oxen and horses and lions had hands, and could paint with their
hands, and produce works of art as men do, horses would paint the
forms of gods like horses, and oxen like oxen, and make their bodies
in the image of their several kinds .,. The Ethiopians make their gods
black and snub-nosed; the Thracians say theirs have blue eyes and red
hair."
The idea is that we anthropomorphize God into an idea like us. C.S. Lewis assumes God's central focus is humanity, therefor God, if he existed, would be "more human" than us, more "human" in the sense that he woudl be "more personal". Once again, this is a very... christian idea of God he is presupposing. Basically, as I've been saying, unless you accept all of his statements prior to this one, his extrapolation on these concepts are not going to fall on welcoming ears. Its not so much of an "argument for the trinity" rather than an explaination to help christians understand it.
" You know that in space you can move in three ways-to left or right,
backwards or forwards, up or down. Every direction is either one of these
three or a compromise between them. They are called the three Dimensions.
Now notice this. If you are using only one dimension, you could draw only a
straight line. If you are using two, you could draw a figure: say, a square.
And a square is made up of four straight lines. Now a step further. If you
have three dimensions, you can then build what we call a solid body, say, a
cube-a thing like a dice or a lump of sugar. And a cube is made up of six
squares."
So, as he says, God is a cube, a three dimensional super-personal self.
Keep in mind, I'm having enough trouble understanding the word "God", do you see how confusing its already become?
" Now the Christian account of God involves just the same principle. The
human level is a simple and rather empty level. On the human level one
person is one being, and any two persons are two separate beings-just as, in
two dimensions (say on a flat sheet of paper) one square is one figure, and
any two squares are two separate figures. On the Divine level you still find
personalities; but up there you find them combined in new ways which we, who
do not live on that level, cannot imagine. In God's dimension, so to speak,
you find a being who is three Persons while remaining one Being, just as a
cube is six squares while remaining one cube. Of course we cannot fully
conceive a Being like that: just as, if we were so made that we perceived
only two dimensions in space we could never properly imagine a cube."
"We cannot fully conceieve a being like that". Most of us, are having difficulty conceieving the basics, so, once again, this sort of thing is maddening and overly-presumptious.
" You may ask, "If we cannot imagine a three-personal Being, what is the
good of talking about Him?" Well, there isn't any good talking about Him.
The thing that matters is being actually drawn into that three-personal
life, and that may begin any time -tonight, if you like."
Once again, a very catholic approach. Instead of focusing on the theology, encouraging somebody to approach the reality. Once again, he assumes if you approach God in this manner, this is what you will find.
October 21 2006, 21:32:47 UTC 5 years ago
Lets just be honest, the best philosophers still have trouble figuring out this concept.
4. Good Infection
This is a view of how christianity spreads, and how people "become like christ", not relevant to the trinity, not as an argument atleast.
5. The Obstinate Toy Soldiers 7. Let's Pretend 8. Is Christianity Hard Or Easy? 9. Counting The Cost 10. Nice People Or New Men 11. The New Men chapters all rely on the fact that you accept the first book of mere christianity, and I think thats where I cannot accept.
The entire book, mere christianity, rests on understanding the natural law, in his presentation. I do not, why? I struggle with the euthyphro dilemma [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro
so instead of saying "It's over 50 pages of fairly dense argumentation" and throwing a book at us, please be able to, if you can, argue it out for yourself with us. Its like if I said "alright, but you must read, guns germs and steel by jared diamond!".
saying things like
"Read
the
book"
Might help in convincing the rest of the world that christians really are not ready to talk about it. Kai was just asking for a reasonable argument, and consequently, mere christianity does not offer one.
October 22 2006, 20:30:22 UTC 5 years ago
Re: Last
The problem was that I wasn't trying to convince Kai that Christianity is the Right Way to Go -- I was responding to his blatant assertion that C.S. Lewis was not a rational man. I asked him what part of C.S. Lewis he found irrational, and he refused to give me an example, but instead asked for an example of rationality. I submitted that book, which (whether you like the fundamental assumptions or not) is certainly more rationally presented argumentation than most pop philosophical texts. Yet Kai admitted that he had never read that text and refused to do so, yet continued with his insistance that C.S. Lewis was somehow just "irrational", having never even read his most clearly rational text!If you're going to badmouth a great thinker, you should at least have some immediate experience with them. That was my problem.
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
October 21 2006, 21:33:36 UTC 5 years ago
Last
I realize my comment was long, but hey, atleast I didn't suggest we all go and read a 287 page book.As for your argument though. Sure, the golden rule sounds fine, but what on earth does this do to answer the question, why Christ?
October 21 2006, 21:44:25 UTC 5 years ago
Re: Last
Note the discussion about God/love/sin in my conversation.5 years ago
5 years ago
October 21 2006, 21:48:43 UTC 5 years ago
October 21 2006, 22:05:51 UTC 5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
October 21 2006, 22:19:55 UTC 5 years ago
clarification requested
Is this meant to justify the existance of an historical Jesus, or a general soteriological potential that doesn't require historicity?October 22 2006, 20:44:16 UTC 5 years ago
Re: clarification requested
Somewhat in the middle of those two potentials, but more towards what I think you are getting at with the latter. It's an elaboration of a theological understanding for the historical and soteriological truth of the Christ.October 22 2006, 00:19:27 UTC 5 years ago
October 23 2006, 04:53:08 UTC 5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
October 22 2006, 01:03:38 UTC 5 years ago
Welcome to
I'm Carl. I am a Demi-God for the community.
First, check out the Community intro here.
Personalized issues:
1 Thanks for taking the convert_me challenge! Choose a label and add yourself to the User Info Page on our wiki.
2 Please make sure you read and understand the community rules on the info page. If you have questions, please ask; it's the only way we can answer you. You can ask your questions of me, or of the other mods. You can also post them to our moderation community.
3 Our moderation community is
5 We are most often called on to moderate the occasional flame war. Here's the relevant rules: a) We do not issue warnings for flames unless someone complains, because some people enjoy flamewars with their mortal enemies, and sometimes friends flame each other for fun. b) Please do not call for moderation against someone who flamed you if you flamed them first in the exact same thread. It may well earn you a warning. c) If you are reporting a flame, it is most polite and adviseable to not flame in retaliation. Some of the mods look down on people who flame back in retaliation, and are much less likely to offer their votes that something is a flame.
6 The wiki: http://convert-me.wikispaces.com/ ... use it.
7 Breaking the rules leads to warnings. Three warnings lead to a ban. Bans lead to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering and the ultimate colapse of society and it will be all your fault.
8 Please refrain from deleting posts and replies. It is a warning worthy offense.
9 Your mods are:
D0M :
D1M :
D2M :
Respect the rules for we will strike down with great vengeance and furious anger those who disregard the rules of what is probably the best religious discussion community on LJ and beyond.
October 22 2006, 01:30:11 UTC 5 years ago
Part I
Of course, this pretty much is the most challenging aspect of Christian theology. How did God experience sin through Christ? What does it mean that Christ became sin? How can God become sin? And why was it that God had to enter into the human scene in order to save us?I think I can at least help provide some answers. My theological comprehension is still only at just above average level, so while I am certain of the accuracy of what I will say, from a standpoint of Christian theology, I am also certain that this will likely raise further questions which I may not be qualified to answer. I'm just putting that out there as a disclaimer :)
First, we must look at sin in terms of a relationship with God. It is through sin that our relationship with God became broken. Prior to the fall, man enjoyed that special perfect relationship with God, there was nothing interfering with man's relationship, with that perfect awareness and consciousness. But from the moment sin entered into the world, that relationship became broken. And so while that perfect consciousness and awreness enjoyed by the first man was never regained, God continued to allow man to repent and to return into that special relationship with Him.
Because that perfect awareness and consciousness was no longer present, God needed to make Himself known to man, since His presence was not naturally known in man's heart. This is why we have the chosen people of Israel, because it is through them that God hammered home, so to speak, the reality of "I AM." And so through Israel man was able to know the true God, and to enter into that special relationship with him. Yet continuously Israel turned against God, and severed the relationship more and more. And with each generation of sin, the relationship with God became more and more depraved. In time, after thousands of years, the reality existed that no longer could man alone repair that fractured relationship. No amount of sacrifice or repentence, no number of prophets and great teachers and rabbis, nothing man could do could ever restore that relationship with God, could put man into that loving relationship which God wishes us to enter with Him.
October 22 2006, 01:30:29 UTC 5 years ago
Part II
And so we come to Christ. God sent His Son into the world because the relationship had become so fractured that only God Himself could restore it. And so God became the very sacrifice which He had proscribed in the first covenant, the sacrifice of a spotless lamb. This is where we get to the part of Christ becoming sin. This is hard, and it is often hardest for the most devout Christians, because they can't fathom that God could become sin. There is a subtlety that must be explained, and it is really the entire heart and essence and importance of this sacrifice.When we sin, there are really two aspects. There is the action, which is what you refer to as the list of bad things, so to speak. But there is also the effect. When we sin, it is not simply that we have done something harmful or offensive, but the effect of that sin leaves a stain upon our soul. That stain is the manifestation of sin, and it is what blocks us from that perfect relationship with God. As the philosophers say, two contraries cannot coexist within each other, and so it is that the Book of Revelation says that, "No soul with the stain of sin may enter into heaven." While God exists within our soul, if we think of God here as light, the manifestation of sin is a dark stain which blocks that light from fully shining.
So in Christ's crucifixion, when we say that he became sin, we are saying that he became the manifestation of sin, that stain which blocks the light of God from shining at full brightness. And so the Son of God had to become sin, and then the Son of God had to die, because in dying, sin also died. And this death had to be completed in the resurrection, first so that the Son of God could become reunited with the Father and the Spirit, and also so that we too can rise again to that pefect relationship.
And so it is by submitting ourselves to Christ, the God who exists outside of time can take our sin and crucify it on that cross, and we may then participate in that resurrection. This is why Scripture says there is just one crucifixion, one death, one resurrection, because Christ does not have to keep dying every time we sin, but rather, since he is not bound by time, we can offer him our sin and he can crucify it with him on the one cross.
This indeed is the true wisdom of the Trinity. In the Trinity we have just one God, for all three persons are one in being, in Greek homoousios. The Trinity is so important because only through the Trinitiarian nature of the one God could God die and live at the same time, for the Son of God died, momentarily disrupting the Trinity, while the God who is the very life which holds all life together did not cease to be. He still always was, "I AM," because if God ceased, all creation would cease, as well.
That was long, and possibly incomplete, but that is why Christ, why God.
Deleted comment
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
October 22 2006, 01:53:35 UTC 5 years ago
It seems that you're needing us to accept a lot more than "God exists" for your initial premise (I'll leave that to others to point out the variety of your assumptions).
I can appreciate the effort you put in, here, but the number of gaps in your reasoning cannot help but point to the clear fact, by your own admission:
that you are looking for reasons for something you already believe is true.
You see, for some endeavors, such as scientific inquiry, this is unavoidable, since one must catelogue all of one's assumptions up front.
Speaking from experience, rational thought has almost always brought me somewhere that I did not intend to go.
When applied to matters of faith, though, and you assume the validity of your conclusion, you cannot help but forget the details that would invalidate your argument:
Why does God need to experience something to understand it?
Why does God need to be a human to experience "self-destructive dehumanization"?
Why can't God, even while overflowing with love, not be able to recognize such "sin"?
The problem with C.S. Lewis, Aquinas or apologetics in general is the exact same thing.
When one endeavors to make the irrational rational, they will defeat their purpose by using conclusions as premises.
October 22 2006, 20:49:22 UTC 5 years ago
As advertised, this was not intended to be an apologetic discourse. This was supposed to be an explaination of how I understand the Christ, and (as an extension) a
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
October 22 2006, 02:02:06 UTC 5 years ago
The real question
I am going to take as a given in the argument that there is a God who is the grand architect of all things physical as well as an omniscient entity of unbounded love, and move forward from there.You say this, and I say, okay. I don't agree with it myself but it doesn't offend me, nor do I disagree vehemently.
However, you label yourself a Reformed Christian. Why a Christian, is my simple question. Why not a Muslim, Jew or other monotheist?
October 22 2006, 20:50:14 UTC 5 years ago
Re: The real question
Because they don't have the concept of the Christ, which I see as a necessary consequence of my understanding of God's nature, sin, and salvation.5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
October 22 2006, 02:12:38 UTC 5 years ago
In other words: "Christ" is a solution to a problem created by "God". For those who don't believe in God or Christ, your entire speal sounds like this.
Why must there be a Blituri? There must be a Blituri because Skinopskitos demands it! I'm taking as a givin that Skinopskitos exists, and is in need of a Blituri.
October 22 2006, 20:52:11 UTC 5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
October 22 2006, 03:01:52 UTC 5 years ago
...And? What leads you to think that this implies equal value and personhood?
October 22 2006, 20:54:31 UTC 5 years ago
On this point, I'm a particularly big fan of Kierkegaard. I actually held quite a different view on things before encountering his thoughts.
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
October 22 2006, 03:34:41 UTC 5 years ago
October 22 2006, 21:06:06 UTC 5 years ago
1) self-help practices on steriods, which disregards the "why" questions in favor of the "what" questions;
2) self-help practices on steriods wrapped up in mysticism.
The first doesn't satisfy me on an intellectual level, although I've taken heed of some of those lessons in my personal growth; the second doesn't satisfy me on a theological level. I haven't really encountered a flavor of Buddhism that adequately addresses the nature of spirituality beyond a humanistic focus, and I've got a deep skepticism about reincarnation to boot.
Secular humanism has a major failing. I was hanging out on the dark side of secular humanism when I spent some time as a LaVeyan Satanist, but the ultimate problem that secular humanism has is WHY? What's the reason why secular humanism is at all a valid belief system to hold? It's certainly pragmatic, but it has no fundamental foundation. The very question that was asked above really stumps secular humanists. While Christians can appeal to the soul and a universal proper ordering, secular humanists really can't. Appeals to utilitarianism are well-undermined, and Kierkegaard (who's on my mind because of previous comments) pointed out that some of the most damning states of despair are those in which the poor person is happiest. The classic example is the realty in the statement: "Ignorance is bliss". Given that, there's some utilitarian conclusions which seem just...wrong.
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
October 22 2006, 04:13:49 UTC 5 years ago
Guess who is not surprised.
I already mentioned that you're pathetic, right? Right?
October 23 2006, 03:40:53 UTC 5 years ago
Not necessary.
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
October 22 2006, 07:19:02 UTC 5 years ago
1.Sin is anything not "of God"(as in archery when the arrow does not hit the bullseye, it is considered "sin")
2.God is a god of Mercy and Justice simultaneously.
3.The only way to bring a God of Justice to show Mercy was to die.
4.The only way for any of God's creations to experience His Love without being perfect was to die Himself.
Does that help?
October 22 2006, 14:05:36 UTC 5 years ago
Why?
"The only way for any of God's creations to experience His Love without being perfect was to die Himself"
What? For the sake of your readers, please restrict yourself to grammatical sentences!
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago