I wouldn’t worship that god either

Reading this

Since God is our Heavenly Father – we can consider how an earthly father might hope that his children should regard and address him – especially if that earthly father’s wish was for his sons and daughters to grow into unique and developed personalities who would at some point undergo a transition from child dependent to adult ‘friend’.
Taking this perspective, it seems clear to me that a good father would hope for love of course, and also respect and due deference – but not ‘worship’, submission, abasement, grovelling or anything of that sort – which would more appropriate to a tyrant than to a father.
my first thought was that it is sheer Luciferian blasphemy, implying that worship, adulation, submission, and recognition of utter dependence could ever become inappropriate responses to the Ground of Being, Subsistent Existence and Goodness (and that therefore it is a tyrannical vision that “the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all“).  Then I remembered that Bruce’s idea of God is very different from this.  He is merely another finite being in the world, rather than a Creator apart from it.  He lacks the classic divine attributes, and at least some beings aren’t dependent on Him for their existence (making one wonder why this God could not be removed altogether with a justifiable blow of Occam’s razor).  “Loving father” or not, I am not inclined to worship this being either.  In fact, I have no use for him whatsoever.  I already have a human father with whom I’m satisfied, and I’ve reached the point in life anyway where I worry less about having a loving father than about being one.
I hate to pick on Bruce in particular, a man from whom I’ve learned a great deal and one who has always treated me respectfully.  Many other versions of theistic personalism are open to similar criticisms.  However, Bruce is a sort of mentor to the Orthosphere, so his writings always get more special attention from me.  The fact is that it’s very hard to come up with a conception of God that fosters what we know is the proper attitude toward Him.  It is Bruce’s primary critique of the classical conception of God that it supposedly doesn’t help us relate to Him properly.  Now he himself sees that his own conception has a tendency to undermine the elementary religious emotions of awe, worship, submission, the sense of one’s own nothingness before the Infinite.  So both conceptions have their pitfalls, and one must be wary in giving too much authority to any particular idea or picture of God.
Talking about God, one must walk a narrow line between reducing Him to just another person on whom we are not fundamentally dependent (in which case how could He give meaning to our lives or have anything to do with morality?) or reducing Him to a metaphysical abstraction like the Platonic Good or One on the other (in which case one could not relate to Him personally with gratitude, love, or repentance).  Our only positive knowledge of God comes from analogical thinking based on finite creatures.  When playing this game, we must remember not to sneak into our idea of God the limitations inherent in the beings from which we draw analogies.  A good human father wouldn’t demand worship and ritual sacrifice, presume to forgive sins of which he is not the victim, predestine some souls to heaven, or punish unrepentant sinners with eternal damnation, but the God of the Bible certainly does.

33 Responses

  1. @Bonald

    Even if I was to explain what I mean in a way that you understand, I very much doubt if it would make any difference to you – and indeed it should not, since you are quite happy just as you are as a serious Roman Catholic, and I regard the different (real, not fake) Christian denominations as valuable for different kinds of people at different places and times – indeed this is inevitable, since reunification is not going to happen.

    So I would not even want to change you.

    BUT you have NOT given an accurate or complete account of my views on this subject, so you are fighting a straw man; or perhaps more accurately you are rejecting a position which I too would reject.

    I don’t think it is worthwhile slugging away over this, and I don’t intend to comment any further – but I just wanted to clear away a possible misconception.

  2. “the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all“

    Properly speaking, the conflict here is between the vision you cite and the vision Charlton cites from William Arkle (and to a similar, perhaps even lesser extent from the Mormons), which is that of elevation or theosis to a state of ‘divine friendship’ with God, cf. this post: http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/what-was-main-problem-for-god.html

    So, the real question if you want to evaluate Bruce Charlton’s position, would probably be — is _this_ idea of ‘divine friendship’, at root, a blasphemy? The whole stoic / materialist baggage of Mormonism strikes me as just a way to get away from classical theism to a standpoint from which such a notion can be contemplated — is it _worthwhile_ to seek to contemplate it, from any theological standpoint?

    I get the feeling one must reconcile the two somehow (a friendship with one’s father, earthly or divine, would not properly erase the fact of fatherhood); but presuming that they _must_ be put in opposition like this, choosing either one of them seems to me to have intractable problems. An exclusive emphasis on friendship (a condition which presumes or creates some degree of equality) is problematic, as you point out, because it precludes worship. And similarly, I would say that an exclusive emphasis on hierarchy and worship seems to preclude any kind of friendship — not with God Himself (leaving that thorny idea aside for a moment), but with other, regular human beings.

    Let us suppose I can think in terms of who or what to submit to, and _only_ in those terms. There is the verse that to love God one must “hate one’s mother and father”, which — both literally and in its expanded meaning — I cannot find within myself any answering inclination to follow, no voice that says “yes, this is what I should have been striving towards all along, only I did not know it”. If we take this verse as our final analysis, the God who conceals Himself is paramount; whereas the people He sends to us daily and hourly, and thereby reveals Himself to us, they are, in the long run, _only_ instruments and utensils of proving one’s devotion to the Most High God and nothing else; if they are no longer useful as such instruments (if they have damned themselves by their own choices, which are none of my business), they not only can, but must be discarded in Eternity with cold indifference — to continue to insist on their betterment as persons at that point, or even to silently desire a better outcome for them, would itself constitute obstinate rebellion against Reality. In the back of my own mind, I am not able to let go of this notion whenever I am interacting with anyone; reminding myself that at some level, deep down, I must _not care_ about the person, lest they distract me from God.

    With this comment I am perhaps playacting at a more foul mood of the soul than I am, in reality, inclined towards on a daily basis; but seriously, I have been driven towards the thought lately — what exactly am I doing, thinking myself a Christian, or a believer, or in any way heading towards Christianity? or presenting myself to people as such? Simply because I’ve guessed dimly at the trailing edge of a Presence in the universe who, indeed, I am wholly dependent on for both rain and sunshine; and, seeking to find out more, continually make a fool of myself arguing with people who tell me things about that Presence which seem to me wild, barbarous, or preposterous, although (here’s the thing) their positions have a thousand-year pedigree developed by generations of learned theologians, whereas I am just some punter. If my view of things is simply that crooked — why did God bother announcing Himself to me prematurely, rather than perhaps contriving, through hardships and misfortunes, to break my spirit into converting on the Church’s full terms — why did he place me, on this Earth, into what strikes me as a position of exceeding good fortune, from which I fear that I am playing the role of Dives before Lazarus — who is the personage He sent into my mind who tries to reason me, through long conversations, into trying harder with what I have (and who rolls her eyes as I deliberately vent myself in a bout of blog drama, with a rant that my correspondent will hardly be interested in)… if, that is, it was Him who sent any word at all — perhaps I just invented my own conversion to have something to do besides wallow in my own aimlessness.

    Is this a foul temptation, or is this what I have to do now? Cease to bother myself about the eternal fate of anyone else, throwing them coldly on God’s mercy, which I am told will ultimately only have efficacy for a few (for how many it is said will be damned in an apostate age!), and refuse henceforth to tremble on behalf of anyone besides myself, no matter how dire their prospects are; and then once I have realized this, that there is nothing in the world but God, and the people I encounter are nothing but phantoms to whom I am endlessly obliged, but who may or may not have anything real and enduring behind them that I could come to behold in eternity… then I can freely have my pick of denominations of various levels of traditionalism. It does not seem reasonable either to my heart or to my mind that there could be any kind of salvation in doing so, and yet this is the primary and most likely line of reasoning I can imagine at the moment that would lead me to actually join a Church.

    Clearly my thinking is incredibly perverse at some point; I have decided to present it (for this once) in unedited form, because I am beginning to feel at this point that I am presenting a somewhat false facade when I go to discuss my crooked issues politely; at the very least, I wind up acting far more reasonably than I am feeling.

  3. However, Bruce is a sort of mentor to the Orthosphere

    Well the Orthosphere was doomed from the start it seems. My overall question is why do ecumenical efforts always seem to end up expounding some version of right-liberalism?

    I have wondered, suppose Charlton were to write these sorts of critiques of traditional Christianity not from a Mormon perspective but from say an Islamic perspective. Does anyone here doubt that Charlton would be quickly excommunicated from the Orthosphere? I would be willing to bet that the responses to him would be much stronger, more thorough and hostile. I highly doubt most Christians on the Orthosphere would still pay any attention to his “thoughts” subsequent to his conversion to something like Islam or Scientology.

    Now if one were to look objectively at the differences between Catholicism and Islam on the one hand and Catholicism and Mormonism on the other, there is no question that the gulf between Islam and Catholicism is much narrower than that between Mormonism and Catholicism. So why then are so many Orthosphereans reflexively anti-Muslim but at least are willing to entertain Charlton and the LDS? Does it have to do with the perception that most LDS are good, wholesome, white Americans? Is this just another example of hating Muslims for the wrong reasons i.e. because of their anti-liberalism while liking Mormons because they are good Americans? I thought it was this type of thinking the Orthosphere was trying to get away from?

    Also how can anyone reasonably call LDS Christians and then not include Muslims as Christians? I doubt Charlton will give us an answer.

  4. Hi Ita Scripta Est,

    Creating a pan-denominational definition of orthodoxy is tricky, no doubt. However, there does seem to be a sense that, say, Catholics and Calvinists can recognize each other as maintaining the faith in a way deists and modernists do not. I think that anything except classical theism ultimately leads to a God whom it would be inappropriate to worship. However, there do seem to be very devout theistic personalists and devout Christians without any well-developed theology. So I judge them by whether their attitude seems right, rather than whether their justification for it holds water. I’ve disagreed with Charlton’s theological writings for some time now, thinking that his view of the divinity (what I in uncharitable moments call the “loving father space alien” view) doesn’t support religious worship. Now, Bruce himself seems to be admitting this, and is acting as if Christianity should be judged according to his picture of God rather than vice versa. To me, that does put him out of the Orthosphere’s bounds–not that I have any authority to say who is in and who is out. However, he himself seems to have said that he’s not really a member of our group anymore, although hopefully he will remain someone with whom we can have amiable and fruitful discussions.

    As for the LDS, again my impressions of them come down to attitude. I’ve seen the way they tear up talking about how Jesus’ death redeamed them from their sins, and I just can’t believe these people aren’t genuine Christians.

    By the way, why did you delete your blog?

  5. Ita Scripta Est: I look at Charlton’s latest and he’s completely lost the plot. He talks big about what simple people can and cannot understand*. It’s clear that Charlton himself doesn’t accept the traditional Christian doctrines, not these so-called simple people he brings in to his arguments to try to discredit those doctrines.

    [ * Simple people just don’t go through the intellectual agonies over these things the way Charlton likes to. Really, they don’t need to (and don’t try to, and can’t) understand them the way he feels they are required to. ]

  6. I actually think Bruce Charlton has a point in suggesting that defining Christianity to include Protestants but exclude Mormons is whistling past the graveyard. Only Catholicism in union with the Pope possesses the fullness of Christian truth: all these other things are various flavors of heresy, schism, and apostasy. And while there are certainly practical reasons to distinguish – as a refugee I’d flee to Salt Lake City over Pakistan any day of the week – at the end of the day they are all wrong in important ways.

    His point about religion for ordinary people is one I made myself nine years ago. There is a reason why the fully true Christian revelation primarily prescribes the Sacraments and concretely holy living over theology, and leaves difficult matters of theology in the hands of the Magisterium. As a wise man once said, thinking for yourself is overrated.

  7. Hello Arakawa,

    The idea of friendship with God I don’t regard as blasphemous in itself. Thomas Aquinas is able to base his whole view of charity on the idea of friendship with God without thereby implying any blasphemous independence or equality with God.

    https://bonald.wordpress.com/principles-of-catholic-morality/7/#morality6

    Aquinas also follows the wider Augustinian tradition in saying that charity extends to our neighbors particularly in wishing for their salvation.

    I also have wondered how the blessed regard the damnation of their friends and relatives. C. S. Lewis in “The Great Divorce” presents some arguments that the stubbornness of the damned mustn’t be allowed to trump heaven’s happiness. I wonder though. It is the traditional teaching of the Church that Jesus Christ Himself enjoyed the beatific vision every moment of His earthly life. Nevertheless, He was certainly not happy all the time. In fact, His being able to see directly God’s goodness made it possible for Him to suffer the knowledge of sin and separation from God in a way that would be unimaginable to us. So even though the beatific vision is our end, it doesn’t mean complete oblivious bliss; it means complete clarity. Could it be that beatified souls suffer more from the damnation of the reprobate than the reprobate do themselves? Gregory of Nyssa became a universalist because he thought the body of Christ in heaven would be incomplete with even one soul missing, but perhaps heaven is thus wounded and God must offer special consolations to make bearable the agony of the blessed.

    Needless to say, this is not the standard view, and I suppose we should all hope it’s false and that the souls in heaven at least are completely happy.

  8. As for the LDS, again my impressions of them come down to attitude. I’ve seen the way they tear up talking about how Jesus’ death redeamed them from their sins, and I just can’t believe these people aren’t genuine Christians.

    Are you from the South?

  9. Are you from the South?

    I seen some Yankees do the same once, but LOLz anyway.

  10. I’m from the midwest, and I thought it was only Muslims that got worked up over their religion.

  11. Zippy wrote, “Only Catholicism in union with the Pope possesses the fullness of Christian truth:.”

    The fallacy is in trying to judge a church by its teaching, or Christians by their tenets. This leads to the vicious circle, “the true Church is the Church that teaches the true faith” and “the true faith is the faith taught by the true Church.”

    As Mgr Ronald Knox put it, “The fideles, be they many or few, be their doctrine apparently traditional or apparently innovatory, be their champions honest or unscrupulous, are simply those who are in visible communion with the see of Rome” and he adds, “there can be little doubt that, in the West, our labelling of this party as orthodox and that as heterodox in early Church history comes down to us from authors who were applying this test of orthodoxy and no other.” It is a test remarkably easy of application; just what one would expect of the criterion of a divine message, intended for all, regardless of learning, capacity or circumstances.

  12. Michael Paterson-Seymour:

    The fallacy is in trying to judge a church by its teaching …

    Or in thinking that mere subjects like ourselves are in a position to judge the Church founded by Christ at all, for that matter.

    “… are simply those who are in visible communion with the see of Rome …”

    It is a test remarkably easy of application; just what one would expect of the criterion of a divine message, intended for all, regardless of learning, capacity or circumstances.

    Yep.

  13. Hi Bruce,

    Certainly I haven’t given a complete picture of your beliefs, but I have tried not to be inaccurate. I can remember posts of yours that seemed to me to clearly state what I attribute to you, although it may well be that you and I mean different things by some of the key phrases and I’ve misinterpreted. If so, I’d probably still think you were creating a God that doesn’t inspire worship–because I think that about most contemporary philosophers of religion, who belong to the theistic personalist school–but it may not be as obvious as I make out.

    Anyway, especially since there’s now some question about whether I got it right, I recommend everybody read Bruce Charlton’s Miscellany to get his own take on his beliefs about God.

  14. Speaking as a Mormon and a goshdarn heretical theistic personalist, I found both Bonald’s opening post and Arakawa’s response to be thoughtful and good.

  15. @ Peter Blood I found Charlton’s overly emotional “response” to be so incoherent as to make it difficult to even read let alone comprehend. His “argument” is for lack of a better term a strawman. I don’t know why he thinks to be a Catholic of Protestant means one HAS to adhere to a mere philosophy. I don’t understand why rejecting Mormonism means I must reject Catholics who were not as well formed in the faith. None of this follows, it just reads like his usual eccentric for the sake of eccentric blather.

    What really got to me was his claim that we (I presume he means myself especially) attack Mormonism with “malicious lies” especially in regard to polygamy. Not even mentioning Charlton’s own frequent attacks on traditional Christianity there is no mention of the fact that one of the Orthosphere’s frequent Mormon commenters routinely slams the Catholic Church in ways typical of moderns. Practically not a single post goes by without an attack from him on that front. I don’t think I am being overly sensitive either, even the more ecumenical Kristor called this commenter out on that regard.

    For myself all I really care about is my own Church. Mormonism at root boldly contradicts the teachings of my own, thus any talk of an alliance is silly. Besides most of my attacks on Mormonism come not so much on a purely theological level, but rather on the level of political theory (perhaps one could say political theology). They are the product of Enlightenment culture (America) the same culture that dominates the world today, so if we are really serious about taking the fight to liberalism, I see no real value in engaging with the Mormons since as Ross Douthat noted they are the quintessentially “American heresy.” My experience on the Orthosphere supports my thesis. The most resolute defenders of liberalism on there are usually Mormons. I tend to think too that this might account for some of their relative “success” in a world where American-style liberalism still dominates it would make sense that the ground would be fertile for a movement sprung out of that milieu. Even still, I challenge the idea that Mormoms are “traditionalist” or somehow opposed to the sexual revolution. Surely Bonald, you don’t think that a group that permits abortion can be properly deemed to be in opposition to the sexual revolution? That alone is sufficient evidence of the Satanic nature of Mormonism.

    @ Bonald

    I stopped blogging, mainly because I was just tired of maintaining the blog. I also wasn’t satisfied with the quality of my work. I wanted to thank you for linking to me and sending me that much needed traffic.

    I see too that you are aware of the new blog “Josias” so far that blog looks excellent. I wonder if their could be collaboration between the Orthosphere and Josias?

  16. “Josias” looks really promising. Now I’m just waiting to see if they’re able to maintain the critical posting rate for success. Being quite vain, whenever I discover a great reactionary web site, one of the first things I wonder about is whether they know about the Orthosphere. There’s no indication this group does, and I suppose no reason why they really should. This prompts more general thoughts about the failure of the Right to establish a *continuous* theoretical tradition. Every couple of years, an old group withers away forgotten and an energetic new group arrives to build up ideological bases from scratch.

  17. Bonald, you should read Sterling McMurrin’s The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion. He bitterly laments the constant importation of classical theist ideas into Mormon sermons, theological writings etc. But they are indisputably popular and intuitive.

    Common believers are not actually consistent theological personalists. Instead they tend to swing wildly between personalist and classical theist conceptions of God.

  18. Charlton is right though, that reactionary politics will not come out of ecumenical efforts like the Orthosphere, but through actual churches. A Reformed guy like Peter Leithart would be a good example of someone who is a massive reactionary, but who had never heard of the Orthosphere. It’s guys like that that are the future. For their particular church.

  19. Did people really think a loose collection of opinionated fringers on the Internets could mount an organized resistance?

  20. The Man Who Was…

    That’s very interesting. Bruce Charlton tends to assume that theistic personalism is what comes naturally, and I’ve been basically willing to grant this, but it’s not clear that’s true. A fully developed theology on these lines will call into question some popular (and I would say healthy) forms of devotion.

  21. Mr. Blood,

    I’d never hoped we would mount an organized resistance. The goal of this blog has always been academic. I had hoped we could achieve a systemization of reactionary thought and successfully pass it along for development to the next generation.

  22. *Even still, I challenge the idea that Mormoms are “traditionalist” or somehow opposed to the sexual revolution. Surely Bonald, you don’t think that a group that permits abortion can be properly deemed to be in opposition to the sexual revolution? That alone is sufficient evidence of the Satanic nature of Mormonism.**

    Yet Mormons are more likely to get married before having sex, to stay married, and to oppose abortion than Catholics are. You are approaching gnostic territory where its only the creed that counts and not the institution and society of people in which it is embedded and which it has formed.

    I am not particularly knocking Catholicism in this regard, since there isn’t any group that has handled the sexual revolution thoroughly well, unless its perhaps the Amish. I include Mormons among that number. Our birth rates have dropped, our divorce rates have risen, our age of marriage has risen, and there is also a pornography-use problem. We aren’t doing worse than other Christian groups on these fronts–mostly we’re doing better–but our performance is still nothing to be excited about.

  23. Mormons are doing slightly better than Catholics in resisting the secual revolution as they were not the primary targets of the sexual revolution and they were mostly isolated in unimportant areas at the time of the most organized offensive. This was ont a matter of impersonal forces, this was a coordinated attack by certain people for certain ends. Duh.

  24. Everyone is a target of the sexual revolution. You’re being parochial. And you also have your facts wrong. It’s more than ‘slightly better.’ Much more.

  25. Everyone may or may not be the target, but everyone was not the proximate cause and I do not have my facts wrong. Like it or not, the Church has a special role in the culture wars.

  26. There’s no doubt that the Catholic Church has been marked out for demonization and subversion by the revolutionaries, and it’s been under particular attack for two and a half centuries. However, Mormonism is now definitely on the Enemy’s radar. Let us pray that they withstand the attack better than we did.

  27. I have written one piece for the Josias and I will no doubt contribute more in the future. While I do not feel comfortable speaking as its “representative voice,” I will say that the current “band” of contributors are generally oriented in the same “illiberal” direction, though there is a fair amount of diversity with respect to our intellectual moorings.

    As for the Orthosphere, I obviously know of it. Of course, being vain, too, I always wonder if the reactionaries know about Opus Publicum.

    Thank you for the kind words on the Josias.

  28. Hello modestinus,

    I only discovered Opus Publicum a couple of weeks ago through the links on the Josias site. That blog I knew about from Sancrucensis, which in turn I had only learned about because Phillip Blosser once linked to its “Illiberal Catholicism” post.

    These are just the sorts of blogs I look for, but I only find out about them more or less by accident. There’s no way of knowing what you’re missing on the internet.

  29. Yet Mormons are more likely to get married before having sex, to stay married, and to oppose abortion than Catholics are. You are approaching gnostic territory where its only the creed that counts and not the institution and society of people in which it is embedded and which it has formed.

    Depending on what poll you read the numbers are more or less the same-

    http://agellius.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/comparing-mormon-and-catholic-divorce-rates/

    The fact is that Catholics are far more numerous here in America and around the world, so you are bound to get a greater variation. No one here is celebrating the state of modern Catholicism.

    The fact is though that Mormons are not, by their own stated teachings “opposed to abortion.” Your religion teaches that it is allowed under certain circumstances, including if the child would be born deformed.. Apparently this constitutes “opposition” to the sexual revolution. Does the book of Mormon do away with the principal of non-contradiction?

    Abortion is never a moral choice for a Catholic, a Catholic who obtains an abortion commits a sin that cries to heaven for justice, and can only be forgiven by going to confession with a bishop. This is an objective fact, a teaching that will not and cannot be changed. In Mormonism on the other hand the prohibition on caffeine and alcohol is apparently more absolute than butchering children.

    Calling me Gnostic is pretty rich too. Mormonism is the quintessential Gnostic cult- with an American tinge.

    To the others reading- do you see why I find this whole discussion so ridiculous?

  30. @Bonald

    “I also have wondered how the blessed regard the damnation of their friends and relatives. C. S. Lewis in “The Great Divorce” presents some arguments that the stubbornness of the damned mustn’t be allowed to trump heaven’s happiness.”

    I think the corresponding scene in ‘Great Divorce’ illustrates the dangers of this kind of discussion. A lot of it depends on the sentiments, which are taught rather than given from above. So, out of CS Lewis’ writings the Dwarf and Tragedian scene rings the most false to my ears. It served not to clarify or endear the corresponding position on the relations of the saved and the damned to me, but rather to set me against it, by exposing hidden implications which otherwise I might not have contemplated. On the other hand, people have told me that the same scene resolved their own difficulties with this question not only intellectually but also an emotionally satisfying manner. Lewis presumably felt the same if he thought the scene was worth the work of writing it. Thus, clearly my sentiments on the matter differ diametrically from Lewis’; indulging them is likely to make me obnoxious to anyone who finds the orthodox position on these questions perfectly satisfying.

    So, the precise relation between sentiments and moral reasoning, and how to judge such a resounding conflict of sentiments, is not something I am equipped to answer.

    “Could it be that beatified souls suffer more from the damnation of the reprobate than the reprobate do themselves?”

    If we consider that suffering is not _really_ a thing that can be measured in amount, there might actually be something to this. Suppose I am quite far gone in a desire for ice cream, such that having to go without it for a week sends me into tantrums of demoniac rage. My condition would be irrational and pitiable like unto the damned. Then a spiritually healthy bystander who is not afflicted with the same condition, looking at me, would suffer in sympathy — not on account of my not having ice cream, but on account of my irrational state of madness over it. In a certain respect the bystander’s suffering would be more real than my own, because there is an actual objective basis for it (my damnation), whereas the basis for my own suffering is purely irrational. At the same time, the bystander is far more spiritually equipped to deal with their own suffering and — if something can be done about my irrational state, to calmly undertake corresponding actions; and if nothing can be done, I suppose, then to avoid being “dog-in-the-mangered” into eternal suffering oneself (as CS Lewis would put it), by not letting my situation interfere with the other aspects of the bystander’s life.

  31. *So, out of CS Lewis’ writings the Dwarf and Tragedian scene rings the most false to my ears. I*

    Likewise.

  32. […] Friend of the JG Arakawa has a more prosaic and more satisfying solution: […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: