# I'm Working on a Series Arguing that Racist Belief and Confession is Heresy



## Brad Mason (Feb 12, 2018)

Hello all. I am currently working on a series on racism and heresy. The first post is already up and I am working on the next. As there are a lot of sharp folks around here, I would love to hear your feedback. 

http://www.heartandmouth.org/2018/02/07/racism-material-heresy-formal-heresy-outline-1/


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 12, 2018)

A commendable effort. A couple of first impressions...

The human nature taken up by Our Lord was not a fallen human nature. I did not see that explicit in your article.

Also, *racism is prejudice in action*. That _action_ bit directly applies to our fallen human natures. Our prejudices may be sinful or not sinful depending upon circumstances.

You might also want to explain your idea of _heresy_, too.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Brad Mason (Feb 12, 2018)

I was mainly arguing that if races can differ by superiority/inferiority, then that necessitates a distinction of substance, given that race is minimally defined in terms of common progeneration, "substance does not admit of greater or less," and the "like begets like" principle (as built into the Creeds). Yet Christ bore complete human nature by bearing a specific race. So either races cannot differ by relation of superiority/inferiority, or Christ did not bear the nature of all men.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 12, 2018)

Good luck finding an objective, agreed upon definition of racism:
*Marxists define it not only as white males, but also Western social structures rooted in imperialism.
*The Gospel Coalition defines it as voting for Trump
*Eastern Orthodox define it as limiting church membership to national jurisdiction (though the Phanariot obfuscated the situation.
*The media defines it as anyone who didn't vote for Hillary.
*And connected with Russia.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Brad Mason (Feb 12, 2018)

Agreed. I attempted to address that in the blurb at the beginning of the post.


----------



## Edward (Feb 12, 2018)

Brad Mason said:


> I would love to hear your feedback.





> _For example, this outline deals only with claims of superiority or inferiority between races ... If one’s specific brand of racist ideology does not include nor imply a claim of superiority or inferiority, then clearly this post does not capture that specific ideology._



Have you ever read The Bell Curve? Are you going to call me a heretic because I like to deal with facts, not wishes?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 13, 2018)

Racism as heresy is a stretch. Different races and cultures are superior or inferior in a number of ways, even though their value before God as souls is the same.

How do you define race, racism, inferior/superior, and heresy?

Why, there was even a movie a few years ago proclaiming that "White men can't jump" - are those folks gonna get excommunicated?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 13, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> are those folks gonna get excommunicated?



No. That was an edgy movie laden with missional potential.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Von (Feb 13, 2018)

"Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons. This testimony is true." (Titus 1:12)

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## JimmyH (Feb 13, 2018)

Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond _nor_ free: but Christ _is_ all, and in all.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 13, 2018)

JimmyH said:


> Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond _nor_ free: but Christ _is_ all, and in all.



But we can't take that in a physical sense, otherwise there would be no physical difference between male and female.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Username4000 (Feb 13, 2018)

Von said:


> "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons. This testimony is true."(Titus 1:12)



I would say that this is more likely to be talking about generational sin. If it was a racist thing, Paul would see the Cretans as only a waste of effort. But the following verses disprove that: Paul commands that they be sharply rebuked, because he thinks that it will actually work, making them "sound in the faith".

Put in Proverbs terms, they are the simple, not fools (or worse, scoffers). "Whoever is simple, let him turn in here!" Wisdom cries out, and sometimes they will listen.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 13, 2018)

The problem is Paul made a very hurtful and regressive statement about a group of people tied to a specific nation.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 4


----------



## Edward (Feb 13, 2018)

Brad Mason said:


> I would love to hear your feedback.



You know, after taking some time to think it over and cool off, I have decided I don't like the way you think. Now, I don't know your race, but if it is anything other than White, you'll probably use that to call me racist (oh, wait, that doesn't have enough sting any more - correction, call me a heretic.) But if you are White, you are flat out of cards to play. 

Are you bucking for a job at a seminary in St. Louis?

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 2


----------



## lynnie (Feb 13, 2018)

I am wondering if you are a young earth creationist or a theistic evolutionist with millions of years of men evolving. I hope you are the former.

The reason I ask is that I know one (unsaved) white supremist who without any hostility whatever will explain how over millions of years the white line had evolutionary advancement to a far superior degree than the black race, which barely made it past primate stage. And in the same way you can breed a line of dogs to be easily vicious; the Jews were bred to be exceptionally cunning and easily wicked. Hitler did not go far enough and the world needs another Hitler. 

(This person is very nice to blacks and Jews, the way you would be nice to a pet or a horse or smile at the tigers in the zoo. You don't hate them and they have their place in the world, but they are essentially subhuman even if they can mate with whites).

When millions and millions of years of Darwinian evolution enters the equation, I don't think Christians have a leg to stand on to protest racism. Seriously, over millions of years, who is to deny the blacks barely got past the primates while the whites had many advantageous and superior mutations? Who can be Darwinian while also protesting white superiority as racism?

Since I know we all came from Noah 4,000 years ago, and I know white skin is a gift to make more Vitamin D in northern latitudes, and dark skin is a gift to prevent melanoma in more tropical latitudes, I have no problem regarding all races as equal in essence. But frankly I wish the Biologos people would remove themselves from the discussion. If we came from primates, then there can certainly be extremely varied degrees of development the last few million years. I can't figure out certain people who think Adam lived millions of years ago, and then decry racism. Where would the heresy be if Biologos is correct about human evolution?


----------



## JimmyH (Feb 13, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> But we can't take that in a physical sense, otherwise there would be no physical difference between male and female.


Well ..... that is true of Galatians 3:28
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is *neither male nor female*: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
But not of the previously quoted Colossians 3:11, where gender isn't mentioned.
"Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond _nor_ free: but Christ _is_ all, and in all."
On the other hand, from my mid twentieth century mindset your point, applied to Galatians 3:28, is well taken, but from the 21st century mindset of some people, a minority I hope, there truly is 'neither male nor female.'


----------



## SavedSinner (Feb 13, 2018)

Brad Mason said:


> Hello all. I am currently working on a series on racism and heresy. The first post is already up and I am working on the next. As there are a lot of sharp folks around here, I would love to hear your feedback.
> 
> http://www.heartandmouth.org/2018/02/07/racism-material-heresy-formal-heresy-outline-1/


In this case you should identify your race. And not as Obama, saying he is black, instead of saying he is half-white and half-black but identifies as a black, or as a perverted man saying he is a woman (but really a man).


----------



## SavedSinner (Feb 13, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The problem is Paul made a very hurtful and regressive statement about a group of people tied to a specific nation.


Both Jesus and Paul would certainly be classified as racists.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SavedSinner (Feb 13, 2018)

Brad Mason said:


> Hello all. I am currently working on a series on racism and heresy. The first post is already up and I am working on the next. As there are a lot of sharp folks around here, I would love to hear your feedback.
> 
> http://www.heartandmouth.org/2018/02/07/racism-material-heresy-formal-heresy-outline-1/


Correct me if I am wrong. I have not heard this in a sermon. In my interactions with individuals and generalizations of groups of people I try to remember to treat each individual neighbor as someone who is better than I am; to be polite and kind—to love my neighbor. And, of course, we all know the lazy Cretans. Intelligent people analyze and do make generalizations. In this world there are inferiors and superiors, individuals and groups. But if some Cretan should sit next to me I should love him (my neighbor) and treat him as someone who is better than I am---and I add---he may in fact be a more faithful, good and kind person. A few generations ago this was the Golden Rule, but today this thinking is labeled White-Out racism. I think the new White-Out policy in reformed churches is similar to the strict group think of the communists regarding “social justice” and always labeling every citizen as either a farmer or a worker. The person who gets to define the terms and control the language decides who gets to live or die. And that is how this paper starts off, refusing to define the terms.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 13, 2018)

*Moderator Note:*

Now that some steam has been blown off, let's all take a step back.

While the article in question pays some attention to recent debates and political goings on, I took its key intent to formulate some position based upon Christology. If I am mistaken and the intent is to draw in all the goings on in the PCA or elsewhere, the author can set me straight and I will move the thread...at a minimum.

Accordingly, I would like the thread, if it is to remain open and/or not just moved to church polity related forum, to focus upon the logic being proposed therein leveraging the Incarnation and not be seasoned with infelicitous commentary outside that realm.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 14, 2018)

The article states.
*"To say that races can differ by superiority or inferiority necessarily implies that they differ in nature (substance)."*

Yet the author never defines inferiority or superiority. A race can statistically suffer a higher incidence of certain diseases and yet have their substance unchanged. Races also differ in average intelligence. Thus, I reject the author's first proposition. Viewed ontologically and as images of God all of mankind are equal in the eyes of God. But in a variety of different areas such as disease incidence, hormonal levels, even blood values, the different blocs of mankind differ a bit. This can make them superior or inferior in many ways even though they are equal ontologically.

Example A: Jews are genetic carriers and suffer a higher incidence of many genetic diseases. This is medical fact. Jesus being born a Jew means he is born into a people who are medically inferior with respect to these select diseases. Yet, it does not make a Jewish person ontologically inferior because he is more likely to have Tay-Sachs.

Example B: Kenyans are built to run marathons better than eskimos. This does not make ekimos ontologically inferior but only inferior at marathons. It certainly would be strange if I were ever excommunicated as a heretic because I refused to pick an eskimo first on my cross-country track team.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Tom Hart (Feb 14, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> Example A: Jews are genetic carriers and suffer a higher incidence of many genetic diseases. This is medical fact. Jesus being born a Jew means he is born into a people who are medically inferior with respect to these select diseases. Yet, it does not make a Jewish person ontologically inferior because he is more likely to have Tay-Sachs.



I have a suspicion that the genetic makeup of modern Jews is rather different from that of 1st-century inhabitants of Judaea.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 14, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> I have a suspicion that the genetic makeup of modern Jews is rather different from that of 1st-century inhabitants of Judaea.


The point still holds.


----------



## Von (Feb 14, 2018)

It is in the fallen nature of men to despise those that are different from themselves. We all put ourselves on pedestals and say "This is the standard - be like me." Even in Job we see: "In the thought of one who is at ease there is contempt for misfortune" (Job 12:5). The problem of serving the tables in the early church (Acts 6) just highlights this perennial problem and the sensitivity surrounding it. It's sin. Plain and simple. Racism is just another manifestation of it. 
Heresy? I don't think so. 
If someone is _*proclaiming*_ a sinful view of the Gospel as truth, it should be labelled heresy, but if you are proclaiming the gospel from a wrong motive, it does not make the Gospel less true. Paul says in Philippians 1 that the Gospel is proclaimed by people with wrong motives and he _rejoices_ in it. He does not say that those that proclaim it are heretics, for then it would make their gospel heretical.


----------



## Von (Feb 14, 2018)

Oh, and this is old news for us in South Africa. 
Go and read up on the Belhar confession and the controversy surrounding it. In 1978 the Dutch Reformed Mission Church of South Africa declared that "apartheid and the moral and theological justification of it, is a ridicule of the gospel and a theological heresy." So someone beat you to it!
Since then the local churches have been fighting and debating about this controversial document and whether this was just a knee-jerk response to Apartheid (and the politics surrounding it) or a real theological issue, etc, etc.


----------



## Tom Hart (Feb 14, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> The point still holds.



I'm just not sure why Jesus had to be mentioned in that particular point.


----------



## Tom Hart (Feb 14, 2018)

Von said:


> It is in the fallen nature of men to despise those that are different from themselves.



I think this is true. Concerning in particular the issue of racism, I would say that the human brain categorizes things because it is necessary to. You could say that most babies are "racist" because most babies are raised in a family of the same skin colour, and when they encounter a person of a different skin colour, they often appear wary. (I have observed this in my own son.)

I am fairly sure such things have well been documented by psychologists. A friend of mine is a psychologist who has studied emotional responses to other-race faces. Typically, people find an other-race happy face to be less happy than the same sort of expression on their own face. Also, we are likely to see an angry expression on an other-race face to be angrier than an angry expression on a same-race face.

I think that, basically, we are wired to respond differently to what is unfamiliar. That in itself is not bad. But human nature is sinful, and, as has been said, racism is a manifestation of a trait of fallen man.

I do not justify any racist attitudes, but I think that they are to be expected from sinful man.


----------



## Brad Mason (Feb 16, 2018)

After being lambasted over the last post, "Why Racism is Material Heresy...", mostly by what appeared to be misreadings of the piece, I've attempted to answer the most persistent question in a follow up post:

https://www.heartandmouth.org/2018/...sy-responding-questions-objections-outline-1/


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 16, 2018)

So what is actually being claimed? I saw this



> If races _as such_ can differ by superiority and inferiority, then they, by the very meaning of race, must differ in nature (substance).



No one is saying that the fact that Kenyans are better distance runners, or all Cretans are liars, or Italians look better than most as they get older, implies ontological distinctions; therefore, the Christological parallel doesn't obtain.


----------



## Brad Mason (Feb 16, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> So what is actually being claimed? I saw this
> 
> 
> 
> No one is saying that the fact that Kenyans are better distance runners, or all Cretans are liars, or Italians look better than most as they get older, implies ontological distinctions; therefore, the Christological parallel doesn't obtain.



What is being claimed is that _if_ one wants to claim that races can be superior or inferior, _then_ one is stuck with the logical implication that races differ by nature (substance). And if one believes something that logically implies the division of natures, then one corrupts the fundamental doctrine of the Incarnation. It is an RAA. Assume the premise that races can be superior or inferior as such, then work out the logical implications, then show how it deals a blow to the Ecumenical Creeds.

This clarification article was written because so many read the original argument (somehow) to imply that statements like "Kenyans are superior marathoners" would thereby be considered heretical on the terms of the article. What I want to show here is the difference between making statistical comparisons between individuals and claiming superiority/inferiority among races as such. The former does not lead to the same error as the latter.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 16, 2018)

We didn't "misread" your piece.

Your piece just stunk.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## arapahoepark (Feb 16, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> We didn't "misread" your piece.
> 
> Your piece just stunk.


I find it contradictory that a missionary would be against such a view. Human reasoning is strange after all.

I sincerely doubt he is trying to implicate those of us who are decidedly against identity politics. If I read him correctly he is against the notion of things like white supremacy, black supremacy, and the like that was prevalent a generation or two ago and still is around the world. So much insecurity on here, sheesh!
I think you are all talking past each other.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 16, 2018)

arapahoepark said:


> I find it contradictory that a missionary would be against such a view. Human reasoning is strange after all.
> 
> I sincerely doubt he is trying to implicate those of us who are decidedly against identity politics. If I read him correctly he is against the notion of things like white supremacy, black supremacy, and the like that was prevalent a generation or two ago and still is around the world. So much insecurity on here, sheesh!
> I think you are all talking past each other.



His piece was poorly written.

First, lots of folks are said to be racist who truly are not. Racism usually just means that you disagree with a liberal or a social justice warrior.

Second, even those who truly are racists cannot automatically be condemned as heretics. A great many men throughout church history thought of the sons of Ham, Shem, and Japheth as having different abilities and different traits. This blogger sounds like he is trying to condemn all of those as unsaved. In our generation racism has become the unpardonable sin.

Third, he never defines his terms.

Fourth, he gives in to the concept of race and speaks of the different "races" (instead of the one human race) which is precisely the presupposition needed to exercise racism in the first place.

Fifth, he never deals with Scripture, but only philosophy. He never even touches the Apostle Paul's charge about the Cretans.

Sixth, I know of nobody that says that the different races are of any substance other than human, nor is there any ontological difference between them, except maybe the conspiracy theorists who say that some of the human race are really reptilians from Niburu in skin suits.

And yes, instead of clacking away on a keyboard, I am living among a Melanesian tribe. So folks can call me racist if they will. I treat all people the same and I am a minority where I live.

A much better treatment of this subject is written by the blogger himself, on the same blog, the article, "Remember Calvinists, God Became Man for all Men." This is an excellent piece and really makes the same point and shows the unity of all mankind into the one human race, which seems to contradict the same author's use of the plural term "raceS".

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## Brad Mason (Feb 16, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> We didn't "misread" your piece.
> 
> Your piece just stunk.



Well, given the low level of comprehension displayed in the responses, I thought "misread" was being charitable. It was either that, or lack of understanding of traditional metaphysics as employed in the Creeds, or defensive reaction to taking this errant belief and confession as seriously as other errant beliefs. I had hoped to offer another piece that might clear up misunderstanding of what I actually said, rather than what was assumed that I said. But I suppose now that there was no point in posting it here. Maybe discussions like this are better off outside the Reformed world. 

I guess, keep on keepin' on. The Reformed church will beat those evil Social Justice Warriors after all.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 16, 2018)

Brad Mason said:


> Well, given the low level of comprehension displayed in the responses, I thought "misread" was being charitable. It was either that, or lack of understanding of traditional metaphysics as employed in the Creeds, or defensive reaction to taking this errant belief and confession as seriously as other errant beliefs. I had hoped to offer another piece that might clear up misunderstanding of what I actually said, rather than what was assumed that I said. But I suppose now that there was no point in posting it here. Maybe discussions like this are better off outside the Reformed world.
> 
> I guess, keep on keepin' on. The Reformed church will beat those evil Social Justice Warriors after all.


So...is it race...or races of mankind? You seem to write of both and assert one human race even as you speak of the races? A consistency in terms and a definition of how you define those terms would be a good starting point for profitable discussion.

Heresy is a very heavy charge. Before you condemn folks to hell, you'd better have very good reason.

And yes, I suppose we are all too dim to understand your erudite philosophy. Not only are many folks now heretics, but they are also stupid now, too.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 16, 2018)

“In short, it is impossible to simultaneously affirm that Christ bore the perfect and complete human nature (substance) of all men (“for us men and for our salvation”) and yet affirm that races can be superior or inferior; for there can be no inferiority or superiority without distinction of nature (substance).”

Yet as I see and as others have pointed out, Christ took on human male flesh. You are arguing against racism, but in so doing, you seem to be arguing in a way that offers no proof that females are not inferior. 

What of gender? Are all misogynists also damned, too?


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 16, 2018)

To quote several good comments:
"It seems by your definition (and please correct me if I am wrong) that one group can claim total and objective superiority (being faster, smarter, stronger, better looking, and better at governing) than another group while still coherently claiming to be of the same substance. Since these are only accidental qualities there can be nothing dehumanizing about saying a populace or race, as a whole, is stupid, weak, ugly, and incapable of governing themselves. This allows for even more strident racism than my definition allowed.

Thus racism, even if objectively wrong, isn’t heresy."


And also, 

"One major problem with your argument is that no physical thing can perfectly instantiate its nature. It is part of human nature to be bipedal, yet there are people with one or fewer (or even more than two) legs. They are still human and human nature is still bipedal. They are just imperfectly instantiating humanity. We all (hopefully) consider them to be in an inferior state. That is why people invent medical devices to help them be able to act as though they had the proper number of legs. The idea of prosthetic legs would be insane if it was perfectly natural for a human to be legless.

Likewise there are certain heritable genetic traits that make one more qualified for certain jobs: steady hands for surgeons or musical ability for musicians. These traits tend to run in families. This in no way denies the imagio dei of people without these traits.

As such, one can assert that people with certain phenotypes fail to instantiate humanity in different way than people with other phenotypes and that these differences can qualify or disqualify one from certain positions in society, without being heretical.

This is exactly what non-malicious racism does. So, while it might be wrong from a scientific perspective, it isn’t heresy."


So, in summary, I think we can prove from Scripture that some "acted-upon racism" (unequal treatment of persons based merely on status or race, such as James speaks of when we give a rich person a better seat than the poor) is sinful, we cannot prove that it is heresy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Feb 16, 2018)

Three points of the argument fall flat to me on a cursory read.

1) If "Human nature (substance) is _alone_ universally propagated within the class", then what defines the class? The very definition of class is that it has a unifying characteristic that other classes do not share. If your argument is that races really don't exist as the only thing all members share is human nature--something that all other races share as well--then fine. But that doesn't seem to be the argument.

2) I don't see how a difference in quality requires a difference in nature. If I say that my wife or pastor is qualitatively better than I, does that imply that there is a distinction in nature and thus application of Christ's benefits? I realize you are making an argument about classes (thus Bell curves and all that), but it would seem that your ultimate argument, as summarized by Pergy above, would militate against any qualitative distinctions whatsoever. Can we make qualitative distinctions regarding any classes (apart from races)? About any persons?

3) Ultimately you are not arguing that racism is heresy. You are arguing that it is heresy by implication, and an implication that most racists would not agree with. That's dangerous territory. Before the judgment seat of Christ, all are held accountable for what they believe including inconsistencies. But we should be careful about charging someone with what we believe is an implication of their belief when they deny that implication. Should we really charge a Dabney, for instance, with Christological heresy, due to his racism?


----------



## Edward (Feb 16, 2018)

I think I'll take a different approach on this thread, and suggest to those who have been here a while:

"Don't feed the troll"


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 16, 2018)

Brad Mason said:


> What is being claimed is that _if_ one wants to claim that races can be superior or inferior, _then_ one is stuck with the logical implication that races differ by nature (substance).



And no one is really claiming that. The only people who get triggered (or get the vapors) when realists claim "distinctions" would be liberals, NPR, and the Gospel Coalition. They believe, like good Hellenists, that distinction = division, but that is a fatal Christological error.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 16, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> First, lots of folks are said to be racist who truly are not. Racism usually just means that you disagree with a liberal or a social justice warrior.


Well Pergy, I note that Americans write 'color' rather than 'colour', 'honor' rather than 'honour', 'check' rather than 'cheque' etc. Are you part of that inferior American race that does not use the Queens English? 

Seriously, I read two excellent biographies of Jonathan Edwards recently - by George Marsden and Iain Murray. Jonathan Edwards greatly loved the American Indians and ministered Christ to them. He saw the Indians as inferior in some respects but superior in their perception of reality etc. He sought to view the Indians through Biblical lens. Some races have certain genetic weaknesses and strengths - longevity, obesity etc. There are cultural factors as well. I found it refreshing reading this about Edwards as it was a welcome break from the political correctness of today, yet showed Edwards conviction that all races of men decend from the one man - Adam Acts 17:26.

I have found Peter Wood's book very insightful "Diversity: The Invention of a Concept".


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 17, 2018)

Brad Mason said:


> After being lambasted over the last post, "Why Racism is Material Heresy...", mostly by what appeared to be misreadings of the piece, I've attempted to answer the most persistent question in a follow up post:
> 
> https://www.heartandmouth.org/2018/...sy-responding-questions-objections-outline-1/


*Moderator Note:*

Brad,

Please update your signature per our requirements so that we may properly address you. See the link in my sig below.

I am disappointed to see you taking your response to issues raised to a blog rather that providing your responses in the thread you originally started. Your new thread has now been merged with the original thread...the one you are reading right now. 

Your opening post and following responses from that other thread now begins here (Post #28):
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...-and-confession-is-heresy.94958/#post-1159284

Lastly, please dial down the rhetoric:
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...onfession-is-heresy.94958/page-2#post-1159299


----------

