We've
heard the claim 'religion poisons everything' ad nauseum. Turns out
that being religious has benefits even in this life. Via David Bailey at
Science Meets Religion:
A 1999 study, which involved a nine-year follow-up analysis of 21,000 American adults, found that religious attendance of at least once per week resulted in seven additional years of life expectancy. What’s more, this effect mostly remained in place even after adjusting for various social factors and health behaviors [Hummer1999]. A 1997 study of 5286 weekly church attendees in Alameda County, California found that these persons were 25% less likely to die than infrequent church attendees. These results were attributed in part to better health practices, expanded social involvement, exercising more, and remaining married longer [Strawbridge1997]. In a 1998 study of 1931 elderly adults (55 years and older), weekly church attendees experienced the lowest rates of mortality in the study group, while non-attendees experienced the highest rates. This study also showed that volunteer work in addition to church attendance contributed to even longer life expectancy [Oman1998]. A 1999 study of 4000 seniors (64 years and older) found that the death hazard was 46% lower for frequent church attendees, compared with infrequent church attendees. As noted in other studies, frequent church attendees were physically healthier, had better social support, and displayed a set of healthier lifestyle behaviors [Koenig1999].
A 2004 study comparing Utah residents who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) with those who are not LDS confirmed, not surprisingly, that the LDS members had much lower rates of tobacco, alcohol and drug usage than the non-LDS group, since these substances are strongly discouraged by the Church. The study found that life expectancy was 77.3 years for LDS males versus 70.0 years for non-LDS males, and 82.2 years for LDS females versus 76.4 for non-LDS females. Interestingly, however, the study noted that differences in rates of tobacco use explains only about 1.5 years of the 7.3 year gap for males, and only 1.2 years of the 5.8 year gap for females. The author suggests that this additional gap may be due to better overall physical health, better social support and other lifestyle practices [Merrill2004]. In an April 2013 New York Times column, Stanford scholar Tanya M. Luhrmann summarized some of these results, and then added her own observations. In evangelical churches she has studied as an anthropologist, she found that people really do look out for one another, showing up with dinner when friends are sick, or simply talking with them when they are unhappy. They are relatively more generous, often in private contributions, when others are in need. She mentioned that when one member of an evangelical group cried at needing a $1500 dental procedure, yet had no money, her friends, many of whom were students with very limited funds, covered the cost by anonymous donations [Luhrmann2013]. Source: http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/blog/2013/04/are-there-benefits-to-religious-belief-and-participation/
+++
|
Looked at by Marcus Ampe from a Christian viewpoint.
De wereld bekeken vanuit een Christelijke visie door Marcus Ampe
Saturday 31 August 2013
Being religious has benefits even in this life
Economy of Galilee in the time of Jesus
Neil Godfrey looks at the great wealth and large estates in the time of Jesus and writes that the presence of large estates in Lower Galilee is crucial for understanding the society in the early decades of the first century because their existence implies exploitation and dispossession of the small farmers and laborers. If they did not exist then we can infer “most peasants still lived on their own land and controlled their own economic destiny.”
First century Iudaea Province (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
In the discussions on the economy of Galilee in the time of Jesus, the presence or absence of large land-estates must play a significant role. Based on a reading of the parables attributed to Jesus, one could conclude that there were many estates of significantly large size and that they contributed to the economic conditions of Galilee causing loss of land and a growing rural proletariat. (From the abstract to “Did Large Estates Exist in Lower Galilee in the First Half of the First Century CE?” by David A. Fiensy, published in Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 10 (2012) 133-153)Continue reading:
The Rich-Poor Divide Not So Extreme in Jesus’ Day
Related articles
- The Rich-Poor Divide Not So Extreme in Jesus' Day
- Life of Christ - Part 14 - Final Galilee Ministry(15) - Covetousness
- We Want Jesus
- Calming The Waters
- The Sea of Galilee/Beatitudes/Primacy of St. Peter
- Life of Christ - Part 14 - Final Galilee Ministry(1) - Jesus' Last Galilee Tour Begins
- Facing the Storms of Life!
- Jewish Artifacts from 2nd Temple Discovered in Galilee
Is it “Wrong” to Believe that the Earth is a Sphere?
A response by CC Walker to a brother who believed that based on his
reading of the Bible, it was wrong to believe in a spherical Earth.
Bro,.
WE have received the following letter:—
To the Editor of The Christadelphian.
Modern Astronomers and the Dots in the Heavens
Dear
Brother Walker.—Referring to your brief eulogium on Sir Robert Ball’s
speculation as to the “dots in the heavens” (The Christadelphian, July,
page 316), I shall be glad if you will condescend to reply to the
following queries through the columns of The Christadelphian.
Terrestrial globe named "Erdapfel" produced by Martin Behaim. Considered to be one of the oldest globes ever made. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Seeing
that the veracity and verbal inspiration of the Scriptures are denied
by many on the basis of the revolving globe-earth theory, even to the
extent of rejecting the ascension of Jesus into the heaven of heavens as
a “geometrical impossibility.” the matter surely cannot be set aside as
of no importance, and beyond the province of a magazine devoted to the
defence of Biblical teaching and the overthrow of pagan and papal
dogmas.
The globe-earth theory is essentially pagan in its
origin, and no amount of ingenuity has yet succeeded in harmonizing it
with the cosmogony of the Bible.
It is supposed that the
theory was first introduced into Europe by Pythagoras, in the sixth
century b.c., and he was a rank pagan. It was afterwards adopted by
Plato, and latterly modified to its present form by Aristarchus of
Samos, “who went to the length of ranking our green world as a planet
revolving yearly round the sun.” Through Copernicus and Galileo the
theory has acquired a distinct Romish taint.
We may blame the
author of “Lead Kindly Light” for following the glimmer of Rome’s magic
lantern, instead of bringing his mental difficulties to be solved in the
light of the word of God; but what about those who allow themselves to
be led by the vapourings of scientific theorists while pondering over
the plainly worded inspired narrative of creation? . . .
There
may not be much danger of a brother being led astray by the perusal of
modern rationalistic literature, for in that case he is prepared to
antagonize the fallacies of modern thought, but morsels of error, in the
form of “scientific” tit-bits, daintily wrapped up within the covers of
a Biblical magazine, devoted to the defence and advocacy of Scripture
doctrine, may not give rise to suspicion that there is anything wrong.
The wrong is there all the same, and its effects become manifest when he
who has swallowed the morsel finds, as the logical outcome of an
adopted bastard theory, that the Bible and modern science are at
variance, and verbal inspiration a farce. . . .
The late Prof.
Woodhouse, of Cambridge University, once wrote, in reference to the
globe-earth theory—“We shall never arrive at a time when we shall be
able to pronounce it absolutely proved to be true. The nature of the
subject excludes such a possibility” (Astronomy, Vol. 1, p. 13).
The
“great astronomer,” Sir Robert Ball — wherein does his greatness lie?
Certainly not in his discovery or advocacy of scientific truth. He is an
evolutionist of the first order, and a pronounced anti-creationist. He
is just the type of unbeliever that so-called modern science is
producing; the old Scripture - revering type of astronomers, such as
Ferguson, Woodhouse, and Herschell, is fast dying out as the natural
effect of an anti-Scriptural theory.
But here I must submit my queries:—
1.—Is it not a fact that the Bible teaches that there are but two great lights and but one sun?
Medieval depiction of a spherical earth with different seasons at the same time (from the book "Liber Divinorum Operum"). (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
2.—Is it not a pure speculation, unsupported by any natural fact, the theory that the “dots in the heavens” are great suns?
3.—Is
it not a fact that the enormously extravagant distances and magnitudes
of the so-called “dots” have for their bases, the unproved assumption
that the earth is a revolving globe, speeding through space at 68,000
miles an hour, and with an orbit of 190 millions of miles?
4.—Is
it not a fact, as Prof. Robert Main, of Greenwich, candidly affirmed,
that the theories “respecting the distances of the fixed stars and other
cosmical problems” are based upon the “refined speculations of modern
astronomy?”
5.—Is it not the teaching of Scripture that the
earth, that is, the dry land, is a stationary body, founded upon the
seas, and established upon the floods, and with its foundations in the
deep?
6.—Is it not the plain testimony of Moses that sun,
moon, and stars, were made and set in the heavens on the fourth day of
Creation week?
Believing, as I do, with you, that it is
“necessary to bring everything to the test of the Word of God,” I
present these questions in all good faith for your serious
consideration.
Faithfully yours, in the pursuit and defence of all divine truth,
T. Griffiths.
Remarks in Reply
We
would not discuss this matter were it not that our brother does himself
and others an injustice in proclaiming the well settled belief of so
many of his brethren a “wrong” and “bastard theory” and so forth; and
quite unfaithful to the Word of God.
This is not the case at
all. Speaking for ourselves: before we learned “the truth” we were quite
well convinced of the spherical figure of the earth from perfectly
candid study of natural phenomena, and of navigation, which certainly
“works” on the spherical basis. And we have found nothing in the
Scriptures to unsettle this conviction in the least. Quite the contrary.
In fact, the “enormous distances and magnitudes” which appear to be a
stumbling block to our brother, are to us only the fitting suggestions
of the Infinite and Eternal. And this is the impression of many of the
brethren, as it was of the late Dr. Thomas and brother Roberts.
Though
we thus believe, we are in no way responsible for the denials of
ignorance and unbelief. To us, the mention of “geometrical
impossibility” as an objection to the ascent of Jesus into heaven, is
merely an indication of the objector’s lack of true understanding alike
of The Acts of the Apostles, and of natural phenomena.
Admitted
that “the globe-earth theory” is of “pagan” origin, it is not therefore
untrue. Much natural truth is of “pagan” discovery. We do not reject it
on that account; and as to Galileo and the “Romish taint,” we have
always understood that the whole weight of Papal authority was thrown
against “the globe-earth theory,” which it has since been compelled to
accept as true.
Orlando-Ferguson-flat-earth-map (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Newman’s “religious difficulties,” which he
solved by surrender to Rome, were not like natural phenomena which can
be put to the tests of observation and measurement. It is scarcely right
to allude to the result of scientific observation and measurement,
obtained through centuries of patient labour, as “the vapouring of
scientific theorists.” In these days of the discovery of the North and
South Poles, and of record-breaking travel round the world, we can
surely be permitted to hold to the belief in a spherical earth, without
throwing ourselves open to a charge of unfaithfulness to the Bible.
With
regard to the remarks of Professor Woodhouse, we are inclined to think a
great many of his brother professors would have differed from his
conclusion. It would largely depend upon just what he meant by
“absolutely proved;” and as he is dead we cannot ask him.
So
far as we understand, the prevailing type of “Scripture-revering
Astronomers” is that of believers in the spherical earth. Indeed, we
know of no “astronomy” apart from such a belief. But as to our brother’s
queries:—
Answer 1.—No; the Bible does not absolutely limit
the number of “great lights” to two; nor does it affirm that there is
absolutely only one sun in the universe. It tells us that this is so
with reference to the earth (which is obvious enough to the most
elementary observation), but it also tells us that God made “the stars
also,” without telling us what the stars are. Later, an apostle speaks
of “one star differing from another star in glory,” without defining the
extent of the “glory” of any. Modern astronomy reveals very great
“glory” among the stars, and though, of necessity, largely speculative,
is far from being the profanity that some well-meaning souls imagine it
to be.
Answer 2.—No; there are “natural facts” underlying the
“speculation.” Such are the ascertained velocity of light, the eclipses
of Jupiter’s moons, the fact that the best telescopes will not resolve
the stars into discs as in the case of the planets; the fact of the
existence of the planet Neptune as simultaneously discovered by Adams
and Le Verrier; the facts of parallax and spectrum analysis. “Natural
facts” are the essence of modern astronomy.
Answer 3.—Without
committing ourselves exactly to the figures named, we may say that what
our brother calls an “unproved assumption” is with us a well-settled
conviction, for reasons which may be found in any good work on
astronomy, Sir Robert Ball’s “Story of the Heavens,” for example.
Answer
4.—No doubt Professor Main meant to qualify results and figures by his
remark—not principles. These are too well established to admit of doubt
by any Greenwich professor. With very small parallaxes distances are, of
course, correspondingly indefinite. This appears to be all that Prof.
Main wished to emphasise in his remark, the context on which we do not
know.
Answer 5.—It is certainly written: “The earth is the
Lord’s and the fullness thereof; the world and they that dwell therein.
For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the
floods” (Psa. 24:1, 2). It is also written: “He stretched out the north
over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing” (Job 26:7). We
do not find the passages at all irreconcilable, or even difficult; and
we do not believe that the burden of either of them is mainly (if at
all) the figure of the earth; but rather the majesty of the Creator.
Answer
6.—Moses’ testimony is not so “plain” that it cannot be misinterpreted
or misunderstood. He speaks of “the heaven and the earth” as being in
existence “in the beginning;” and therefore it does not seem to be
inadmissible to suppose that “the host of heaven” was likewise then in
existence. Moses’ testimony was given to Israel in what might be called
the infancy of the world, when men did not know the extent of the earth,
let alone that of the sun, moon, and stars. And, as we believe, it was
given (by God through Moses), not so much to instruct Israel in
cosmogony in detail, as to impress upon them the idea that The Most High
God is the Possessor of Heaven and Earth (Gen. 14:22). And this against
the claims of the gods of the nations, as was abundantly proved in
Israel’s history. As to “the fourth day,” we do not know of any “day” in
the literal sense apart from the sun and its motion. And, therefore, if
the “days” of Genesis 1. are to be taken as literal days, we feel bound
to admit the sun as the origin of the “light,” and “evening and
morning” that were the characteristics of “the first day.” How can you
have “evening and morning” without the sun? We must settle up “the plain
testimony” of verse 5 with that of verses 14–19. As we said before (The
Chri tadelphion, 1910, p. 269), “If we understand Moses as saying that
the sun came into existence on ‘the fourth day,’ we make him contradict
himself; we make him present us with day and night, evening and morning,
without the sun upon which these things depend.”
Under these
circumstances we prefer another interpretation, holding always in
reserve the thought that presently Moses will be on the scene again, and
that we may then, perhaps, be permitted to hear the divine
interpretation of the divine utterances of so long ago.—Ed.
Walker C.C. "Is it 'Wrong' to believe that the Earth is a Sphere?“ The Christadelphian (1913) 50:346-348
Walker C.C. "Is it 'Wrong' to believe that the Earth is a Sphere?“ The Christadelphian (1913) 50:346-348
Contemporary reactions:
Dan Gaitanis
As someone who enjoys this kind of thing, I found this really interesting--but I dont really get what the debate is here--the Bible isnt a book of Astronomy, meaning we dont need to go to the Bible to figure out the composition of the universe. God created it and its awesome, but to say we have to search scripture to try our faith about the universe?
Why not just look at the night sky and be amazed? And take a telescope to see even more stars than you can see without it. A few nights ago I (finally) found Neptune in my telescope, and it amazed me as to how it was discovered in an even smaller scope than mine--it looked like a tiny, very faint, slightly blue, ball, about the size of a period.
As for the stars and sun and moon being literally created on the 4th day, I dont buy that--I think they were already there--it doesnt make sense that the Andromeda Galaxy (2 Million light years away) can be seen from earth with the naked eye, when,if the stars were created only 6000 years ago, we wouldn't see the light from Andromeda for another 1,994,000 years.
As someone who enjoys this kind of thing, I found this really interesting--but I dont really get what the debate is here--the Bible isnt a book of Astronomy, meaning we dont need to go to the Bible to figure out the composition of the universe. God created it and its awesome, but to say we have to search scripture to try our faith about the universe?
Why not just look at the night sky and be amazed? And take a telescope to see even more stars than you can see without it. A few nights ago I (finally) found Neptune in my telescope, and it amazed me as to how it was discovered in an even smaller scope than mine--it looked like a tiny, very faint, slightly blue, ball, about the size of a period.
As for the stars and sun and moon being literally created on the 4th day, I dont buy that--I think they were already there--it doesnt make sense that the Andromeda Galaxy (2 Million light years away) can be seen from earth with the naked eye, when,if the stars were created only 6000 years ago, we wouldn't see the light from Andromeda for another 1,994,000 years.
There was a time when folks'
interpretation of scripture led them to deny evidence for a round earth,
or for the earth going around the sun. Today we believe those things,
and the Bible verses that have a flat
earth at the center of the universe are not only not a problem for
us--they're completely invisible. We can't even spot those verse when we
read them.
It may be that today, our interpretation of the Bible still forces us to deny other evidence for other things. There are plenty of Bible believers (inside and outside Christadelphia) who deny the evidence for an old earth, for example. Because they sincerely believe that their interpretation of the Bible is the only one, and that interpretation tells them they must choose between God and the evidence.
It may be that today, our interpretation of the Bible still forces us to deny other evidence for other things. There are plenty of Bible believers (inside and outside Christadelphia) who deny the evidence for an old earth, for example. Because they sincerely believe that their interpretation of the Bible is the only one, and that interpretation tells them they must choose between God and the evidence.
+
the first generation of Christadelphians:
"The inconsistency spoken of between nature and scripture, arises not from antagonism, but from the misinterpretations of both. It is man’s interpretation of the one set against man’s interpretations of the other. It is not nature versus scripture, but false science against true theology, or false theology against scientific fact. Some scientific men, we believe, view the Scriptures through the distorted medium of “confessions of faith” and doubt them, and theologians view science and call it false, because it does not take to their turn-pike road"
“The Christadelphian: Volume 1” (Birmingham: Christadelphian Magazine & Publishing Association, 2001), 93–94.
When we conflate our own interpretation of the Bible with its original meaning, and denounce science because it clashes with that uninspired, fallible reading, we're making the same mistake that brother WDJ (quoted above) warned against.
In the original post, we have an example of a sincere brother who took the Bible literally in a consistent way, and felt compelled to denounce the idea that the earth was spherical. Brother Walker not only accepted as reliable the science of the day, but warned against the extremes of literalism:
"This is not the case at all. Speaking for ourselves: before we learned “the truth” we were quite well convinced of the spherical figure of the earth from perfectly candid study of natural phenomena, and of navigation, which certainly “works” on the spherical basis."
"Admitted
that “the globe-earth theory” is of “pagan” origin, it is not therefore
untrue. Much natural truth is of “pagan” discovery. We do not reject it
on that account; "
"Moses’ testimony is not so “plain” that it cannot be misinterpreted or misunderstood. He speaks of “the heaven and the earth” as being in existence “in the beginning;” and therefore it does not seem to be inadmissible to suppose that “the host of heaven” was likewise then in existence. Moses’ testimony was given to Israel in what might be called the infancy of the world, when men did not know the extent of the earth, let alone that of the sun, moon, and stars. And, as we believe, it was given (by God through Moses), not so much to instruct Israel in cosmogony in detail, as to impress upon them the idea that The Most High God is the Possessor of Heaven and Earth (Gen. 14:22). And this against the claims of the gods of the nations, as was abundantly proved in Israel’s history."
The relevance of this 100 year old correspondence to contemporary Bible-science difficulties hardly needs emphasis.
"The inconsistency spoken of between nature and scripture, arises not from antagonism, but from the misinterpretations of both. It is man’s interpretation of the one set against man’s interpretations of the other. It is not nature versus scripture, but false science against true theology, or false theology against scientific fact. Some scientific men, we believe, view the Scriptures through the distorted medium of “confessions of faith” and doubt them, and theologians view science and call it false, because it does not take to their turn-pike road"
“The Christadelphian: Volume 1” (Birmingham: Christadelphian Magazine & Publishing Association, 2001), 93–94.
When we conflate our own interpretation of the Bible with its original meaning, and denounce science because it clashes with that uninspired, fallible reading, we're making the same mistake that brother WDJ (quoted above) warned against.
In the original post, we have an example of a sincere brother who took the Bible literally in a consistent way, and felt compelled to denounce the idea that the earth was spherical. Brother Walker not only accepted as reliable the science of the day, but warned against the extremes of literalism:
"This is not the case at all. Speaking for ourselves: before we learned “the truth” we were quite well convinced of the spherical figure of the earth from perfectly candid study of natural phenomena, and of navigation, which certainly “works” on the spherical basis."
The Earth seen from Apollo 17. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
"Moses’ testimony is not so “plain” that it cannot be misinterpreted or misunderstood. He speaks of “the heaven and the earth” as being in existence “in the beginning;” and therefore it does not seem to be inadmissible to suppose that “the host of heaven” was likewise then in existence. Moses’ testimony was given to Israel in what might be called the infancy of the world, when men did not know the extent of the earth, let alone that of the sun, moon, and stars. And, as we believe, it was given (by God through Moses), not so much to instruct Israel in cosmogony in detail, as to impress upon them the idea that The Most High God is the Possessor of Heaven and Earth (Gen. 14:22). And this against the claims of the gods of the nations, as was abundantly proved in Israel’s history."
The relevance of this 100 year old correspondence to contemporary Bible-science difficulties hardly needs emphasis.
+++
Related articles
Labels:
Aristarchus of Samos,
astronomy,
Cosmogony,
cosmogony of the Bible,
earth,
Galileo,
globe,
light,
moon,
Moses,
Newman,
pagan,
planet,
Pythagoras,
Robert Ball,
Robert Main,
science,
stars,
sun,
Woodhouse
Canaanite cult ritual stone unearthed
Via the Jewish Press website:
"An archaeological discovery in the Tel Rechesh excavations at the Tabor River Reserve in northern Israel: a joint archaeological expedition, which included researchers from the University of Tenri, Japan, and the Institute of Archaeology of Galilee Kinneret Academic College, have unearthed a Canaanite cult ritual stone. The excavations in this area have been going on for six years now. The same excavations also revealed large parts of a Jewish farmhouse dating back to the Second Temple. Researchers were able to establish that this was a place of Jewish dwellers based on typical stone tools, oil lamps and coins minted in the city of Tiberias. “The diggers received a big surprise,” said Chairman of the Institute of Archaeology of Galilee Kinneret Academic College Dr. Mrdechai Avi’am. “In the ruins of the second floor of the farmhouse, they discovered a Canaanite cult statue, similar to a statue that stood in the sanctuary of a temple which is yet to be located.”
Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/canaanite-altar-discovered-in-northern-israel/2013/08/28/
|
Related articles
- Canaanite Altar Discovered in Northern Israel
- Ancient Jewish Village Found in the Galilee
- NOBTS team helps preserve biblical city of Gezer
- Top Ten Discoveries in Biblical Archaeology in 2012
- Free Tours of Select Sites in Israel
- Beer Cap Found Enbedded in Archeological Excavation
- Joseph Farah Shows No Fact Safe When Standing Between Him and a Dollar
- Jewish Artifacts from 2nd Temple Discovered in Galilee
Cosmogony
Book of Genesis, Hainanese Bible. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Cosmogony: the study of the origin and development of the universe or of a particular system
in the universe, such as the solar system + a theory of such an origin or evolution.
One
hundred years ago, CC Walker wrote, in response to a correspondent who
believed that a literal reading of the Bible obliged a believer to
reject the idea of a spherical earth:
'Moses’ testimony was given to Israel in what might be called the infancy of the world, when men did not know the extent of the earth, let alone that of the sun, moon, and stars. And, as we believe, it was given (by God through Moses), not so much to instruct Israel in cosmogony in detail, as to impress upon them the idea that The Most High God is the Possessor of Heaven and Earth (Gen. 14:22)."
CC Walker's comment that Genesis was written not to instruct Israel about cosmology in detail, but to teach them that God - and not the surrounding deities - was creator looks positively prescient when we look at what contemporary OT scholarship is saying about the creation narratives. Take the time to look at John Walton's presentation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY4nKNrEZaI
'Moses’ testimony was given to Israel in what might be called the infancy of the world, when men did not know the extent of the earth, let alone that of the sun, moon, and stars. And, as we believe, it was given (by God through Moses), not so much to instruct Israel in cosmogony in detail, as to impress upon them the idea that The Most High God is the Possessor of Heaven and Earth (Gen. 14:22)."
CC Walker's comment that Genesis was written not to instruct Israel about cosmology in detail, but to teach them that God - and not the surrounding deities - was creator looks positively prescient when we look at what contemporary OT scholarship is saying about the creation narratives. Take the time to look at John Walton's presentation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY4nKNrEZaI
Genesis 1 in Ancient Eyes - John Walton
the audio gets much better around 13 minutes in download the ppt presentation (6mb) here... http://m...
|
Related articles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)