Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
User avatar
paradox
Posts: 89
Joined: November 1st, 2021, 12:32 pm

Re: Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

Post by paradox »

JackDaydream wrote: June 4th, 2022, 6:46 pm
paradox wrote: June 4th, 2022, 6:35 pm
Angelo Cannata wrote: June 4th, 2022, 6:12 pm
paradox wrote: June 4th, 2022, 5:45 pm For example psalm 22,1 is what Jesus said on the cross.
psalm 22 ends with an explanation why Jesus died. (God's will, he did it)

esoteric knowledge is about interpretation or knowing how to interpret.
The problem with these things is, as I said, that they lack contact with academy research, historical and literary criticism.
you can always verify your esoteric understanding against interpretation of the Catholic church.
as long as it's same you're fine, there is no need for exegesis or taking historical facts into account.
I am a little confused because, while I believe in research and honesty in research, what you have just said makes it appear as if the Catholic church is the one and only authority. Surely, this is a bit of an authoritarian approach and understanding of historical facts do matter.
historical facts are not required for interpretation.

for example you don't need to know that Persian empire influenced Israel and their thought, and you don't need to know that Zoroastrianism (Persian religion) is probably the inventor of resurrection.
Such things only distract and do not help.

The reason why I lay trust into interpretation of the Catholic church rather somebody else is because Catholic church fought against heresies for 2000 years.
I don't want to make a mistake of governing my self by some heresy or misinterpretation.

Sure there are scandals inside the church and all these bad things, but none of this has anything to do with interpretation of the bible and defending the truth.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

Post by JackDaydream »

paradox wrote: June 4th, 2022, 6:59 pm
JackDaydream wrote: June 4th, 2022, 6:46 pm
paradox wrote: June 4th, 2022, 6:35 pm
Angelo Cannata wrote: June 4th, 2022, 6:12 pm

The problem with these things is, as I said, that they lack contact with academy research, historical and literary criticism.
you can always verify your esoteric understanding against interpretation of the Catholic church.
as long as it's same you're fine, there is no need for exegesis or taking historical facts into account.
I am a little confused because, while I believe in research and honesty in research, what you have just said makes it appear as if the Catholic church is the one and only authority. Surely, this is a bit of an authoritarian approach and understanding of historical facts do matter.
historical facts are not required for interpretation.

for example you don't need to know that Persian empire influenced Israel and their thought, and you don't need to know that Zoroastrianism (Persian religion) is probably the inventor of resurrection.
Such things only distract and do not help.

The reason why I lay trust into interpretation of the Catholic church rather somebody else is because Catholic church fought against heresies for 2000 years.
I don't want to make a mistake of governing my self by some heresy or misinterpretation.

Sure there are scandals inside the church and all these bad things, but none of this has anything to do with interpretation of the bible and defending the truth.
Of course you are entitled to trust the Catholic church. However, you need to remember that this is a philosophy forum which is about discussion on the basis of reasoned arguments rather than about one way of seeing, or of identifying heresies on that basis. My own thread is intended to be an honest but open discussion for sharing and exploring ideas and various viewpoints.
User avatar
Angelo Cannata
Posts: 182
Joined: April 17th, 2021, 10:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: Heidegger
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Re: Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

Post by Angelo Cannata »

paradox wrote: June 4th, 2022, 6:59 pm historical facts are not required for interpretation.

for example you don't need to know that Persian empire influenced Israel and their thought, and you don't need to know that Zoroastrianism (Persian religion) is probably the inventor of resurrection.
Such things only distract and do not help.

The reason why I lay trust into interpretation of the Catholic church rather somebody else is because Catholic church fought against heresies for 2000 years.
I don't want to make a mistake of governing my self by some heresy or misinterpretation.

Sure there are scandals inside the church and all these bad things, but none of this has anything to do with interpretation of the bible and defending the truth.
It seems that what you call “Catholic church” is something different from what Catholic church is.

Catholic church considers essential the role of scientific studies, historical criticism, literary criticism, philosophy, in order to obtain a correct interpretation of the Bible. The Catholic church considers herself the ultimate authority in giving the correct interpretation of the Bible, because she believes she is guided by the Holy Spirit in doing this, but, in doing this, the Catholic church has absolutely no intention to ignore the extremely important contribution that is needed from all kind of critical sciences to help the interpretation of the Bible.
For this reason the Catholic church spends a lot of money also to support her academic institutes for the study of the Bible, and in these institutes all scientific contributions are kept in the highest consideration. The Catholic church has absolutely no intention to build interpretations of the Bible that are too disconnected from the latest results of contemporary scientific critical research. This causes sometimes a lot of debates, but these debates are themselves evidence of the fact that the Catholic church wants to obtain and cultivate interpretations of the Bible that must be as much as possible in an open, intelligent and critical dialogue with science.

So, if you say that historical facts are not required for interpretation, and at the same time you rely so much on the Catholic church, this is contradictory in your position.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

Post by Count Lucanor »

EricPH wrote: June 4th, 2022, 4:36 pm
Count Lucanor wrote: June 4th, 2022, 3:30 pm It's been more than 20 years since Dan Barker launched his Easter Challenge for Christians. All they had to do was to give a clear and consistent chronological account of the events supposedly happening that day, using the 4 gospels and Paul's account. Of course, it can't be done because each account says something different.
If five of us here today witnessed the same events that happened over a few days, then wrote about those events some years later. We would each give our own account and perception. We would each write down how these events affected us as an individual. When we read about these events two thousand years later, we have several accounts as opposed to just one. If there are several witnesses, this adds strength to any testimony.

Jesus did not write a word or a Gospel, but he inspired others to write down the events. If we have faith, then God is in control.
First of all, none of the people that wrote the Gospels were witnesses, not they ever said they were witnesses. Paul never says he ever met Jesus personally while he was supposedly alive. This is people who wrote decades later about what they supposedly had heard. Those who wrote it were in the business of preaching, converting people. And there were dozens of Gospels going around, which were being edited regularly, without any intention of being historically accurate.

Secondly, if five people gave in a court room different accounts of what happened in one particular day of extraordinary events, their testimony would have very little credibility.

Third, we do know that Paul inspired others to write the Gospels, but we don't know that a real Jesus character ever existed, and there are very good reasons to be skeptical about it. Of course, you can have faith in whatever you decide to have faith in, may that be Jesus or Zeus.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

Post by Count Lucanor »

Angelo Cannata wrote: June 4th, 2022, 5:33 pm
Count Lucanor wrote: June 4th, 2022, 12:25 pm It is also very unlikely that Jesus ever existed and that the events described in the NT ever happened. A fun book to read, though.
Count Lucanor wrote: June 4th, 2022, 3:30 pm I'm referring specifically to the Bible's narrative: whatever it depicts as historical events, they are not. The characters themselves, besides a few Roman names and Saul of Tarsus, are most likely fictional.
These ones are careless generalizations that are easy to criticize. Unfortunately, the Bible is such a complex series of books, wirtten in different epochs, by different authors, and then transmitted by other people, that it is impossible to make such generalizations. Each line, each word, each concept needs to be considered and examined seperately and in relationship with the rest.
Sure, that's what I was often told by believers when I used to debate this topic 20 years ago. "You gotta know about Hermeneutics and exegesis", they said. And they brought in the experts. To no avail, they couldn't manage to turn myths into anything worth of historical and factual validation.

With regards to the OT, there's plenty of scholarship about authors and narrative styles. It is well known that there are several authors whose distinct narratives can be identified in the text. Some time around the kingdom of Josiah several narratives were combined into a single text, so a single chapter can contain the narratives of several authors. A Bible expert called Richard Friedman put out a version which identifies the sources by colors in the text.
Angelo Cannata wrote: June 4th, 2022, 5:33 pm About Jesus: there were undoubtedly in Palestine, at that time, many people called Jesus, several people going around Palestine with disciples and followers, claiming ability to make miracles and resurrect dead people; hundreds of people were killed by the Romans by hanging them on crosses. So, there were for sure several people with characteristics similar or identical to those told by the Gospel. Knowing this historical context, it is impossible to say that Jesus did not exist. A more grounded question would be this one: which one, among all these similar people who went around Palestine, can be identified with the one referred to by the Gospels? What did he really do, what can we know for sure about his life?
We don't know for sure that there were people called Jesus doing things and claiming to perform miracles in 1st century Palestine. We only know that there were members of a cult claiming this had happened before. There's not much evidence to support these accounts. The Bible claims there were earthquakes and people coming out of their graves the day that Jesus supposedly died, but there's no independent historical confirmation of such a thing, which would certainly be remembered by many witnesses. We also know that the Gospels contain geographical errors, consistent with the suspicion that they were written by people not familiar with Palestinian surroundings.
Angelo Cannata wrote: June 4th, 2022, 5:33 pm The same applies to saying that whatever the Bible depicts as historical events, they are not. According to this statement, we should say that Romans did not exist, Hebrews did not exist, St. Paul did not exist, Palestine did not exist, given that they are all reported by the Bible as historical events and places. It turns out even ridiculous.
Just because Kansas does exist, doesn't mean the Wizard of Oz depicts historical facts.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
EricPH
Posts: 449
Joined: October 22nd, 2021, 11:26 am

Re: Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

Post by EricPH »

Count Lucanor wrote: June 4th, 2022, 8:49 pm Of course, you can have faith in whatever you decide to have faith in, may that be Jesus or Zeus.
We are here today, and no matter how far back you try and extrapolate, you are left with two choices. Either something had no beginning, or something popped into existence and did not come from anything. Science will not be able to prove in our life time that particles A;B and C had no beginning; or they did not come from anything. At some point life had to have a beginning and come from no life.

You would have to use your logic and reasoning to say the universe came into being purely by natural causes. You weren't there at creation, there is no testable evidence; you would be using your beliefs and logic to cover up a lack of evidence.
First of all, none of the people that wrote the Gospels were witnesses, not they ever said they were witnesses.


Scholars might try and understand who wrote the Gospels, but God is in control. If God can create the universe and life, that is the biggest miracle possible. The Bible I read today, is the Bible God intends me to read.
Secondly, if five people gave in a court room different accounts of what happened in one particular day of extraordinary events, their testimony would have very little credibility.
One witness might remember some peculiar logo on the clothing, one might remember facial features, one might remember something about the voice. One might remember the make and colour of the car and weapon used. When you put all these individual accounts together they tell a bigger story. Same with the Gospels.
User avatar
Angelo Cannata
Posts: 182
Joined: April 17th, 2021, 10:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: Heidegger
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Re: Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

Post by Angelo Cannata »

It seems that you are not consistent in applying critical historical criteria:
Count Lucanor wrote: June 4th, 2022, 10:19 pm Just because Kansas does exist, doesn't mean the Wizard of Oz depicts historical facts.
Exactly: that's what I said: each single line, each single word, each single piece of information needs to be evaluated separately. I would turn your words this way: the fact that the Wizard of Oz is not a historical fact doesn’t mean that Kansas is not either.

But it seems that for other things this criterion isn’t valid anymore in your mind. Kansas and Wizard of Oz cannot be generalized, either to say that both existed or that both did not exist. Instead, when we come to Jesus, generalization is allowed:
Count Lucanor wrote: June 4th, 2022, 10:19 pm We don't know for sure that there were people called Jesus doing things and claiming to perform miracles in 1st century Palestine. We only know that there were members of a cult claiming this had happened before.
which means: since Jesus’ miracles are not historically acceptable, then the entire existence of Jesus must be considered not historically acceptable. So, in this case the generalization on miracles is allowed.

The question is:
what are the reasons to doubt that 2000 years ago somebody called Jesus went around Palestine, had disciples and followers, claimed to make miracles, was executed by Romans on the cross and then was told resurrected?
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

Post by Sculptor1 »

JackDaydream wrote: June 4th, 2022, 5:09 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: June 4th, 2022, 1:53 pm Since the literal truths of the "scriptures" is palpably untrue, it sort of invalidates any authority for any of the symbolic meaning.
It would make far more sense to continue the secularising pathway that has been followed for well over a century, and that is the rejection of faith and all moral instructions in the scriptures to be replaced with more intelligently designed moral codes that have already proven to be far more effective than anything offered by the Abrahamic religions.
Since it is obvious that where such faith in scriptures remain is oppression, hatred and genocidal feelings between religious groups both inter-religiously and intra-religiously.
Faith has no useful part to play in any moral codes.
It does seem that faith in scriptures is bound up with divisions among people which is extremely problematic. However, this may be connected to larger aspects of human nature and politics, with so much being projected onto religion.
No. I do not accept trying to give religion a pass on this issue especially since the bigotry and exclusivity is firmly written into the texts.
But I am not sure that faith can be rejected even if Christianity and all religions were eliminated because it is faith in any system of thought which keep people motivated.
Faith can and needs to be fully rejected. It is wholly damaging and harmful to common sense and reason serving only to slow progress and nullify and create suspicion of new ideas.
Consider what it actually means.
Mark Twain described it thus; Faith is believing a thing you know ain't true.
Also, it seems unlikely that religious perspectives will fàde completely at all. I also wonder what moral systems would develop on the basis of secular philosophy alone.
Look around you at the laws and customs of the modern world, where most of the religious moral codes have been replaced, thankfully.
There have been humanist and existential attempts but it is questionable if the essential aspects are that different from the basics of Judaeo- Christian or Buddhist ethics, with the emphasis being on respecting and contributing towards the wellbeing of others. It may be that secular philosophy is less otherworldly but it is also possible to go to the other extreme of lack of faith, to the perspective of nihilism.
I really think you need to pay more attention to the humanist and secularisation that has been the mainstay of morality for the last several generation.
And from the earliest times most cultures have thankfully decided to reject many religious edicts and cherry pick the most useful. This is essentially what secularisation is.
User avatar
Angelo Cannata
Posts: 182
Joined: April 17th, 2021, 10:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: Heidegger
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Re: Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

Post by Angelo Cannata »

Sculptor1 wrote: June 5th, 2022, 6:05 am Faith can and needs to be fully rejected. It is wholly damaging and harmful to common sense and reason
This seems a bit contradictory to me: you reject faith because you trust reason: what is your trust in reason based on? Isn’t trust on reason a kind of faith? I guess you trust reason because reason is... reasonable! So, it is vituous circle. What reason to you have to trust reason, other than reason itself?
User avatar
paradox
Posts: 89
Joined: November 1st, 2021, 12:32 pm

Re: Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

Post by paradox »

Angelo Cannata wrote: June 5th, 2022, 8:06 am
Sculptor1 wrote: June 5th, 2022, 6:05 am Faith can and needs to be fully rejected. It is wholly damaging and harmful to common sense and reason
This seems a bit contradictory to me: you reject faith because you trust reason: what is your trust in reason based on? Isn’t trust on reason a kind of faith? I guess you trust reason because reason is... reasonable! So, it is vituous circle. What reason to you have to trust reason, other than reason itself?
Doesn't that lead to Agrippan trillemma?
What is reason for reason, and if there is reason what is reason for that reason etc. :D

I agree that faith cannot be avoided.
Faith (religion) and reason (science) have one thing in common, which is quest for truth.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Angelo Cannata wrote: June 5th, 2022, 8:06 am
Sculptor1 wrote: June 5th, 2022, 6:05 am Faith can and needs to be fully rejected. It is wholly damaging and harmful to common sense and reason
This seems a bit contradictory to me: you reject faith because you trust reason: what is your trust in reason based on? Isn’t trust on reason a kind of faith? I guess you trust reason because reason is... reasonable! So, it is vituous circle. What reason to you have to trust reason, other than reason itself?
Thanks for question, please try it out on the local sixth form, they'll love it.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

Post by Sculptor1 »

paradox wrote: June 5th, 2022, 9:07 am
Angelo Cannata wrote: June 5th, 2022, 8:06 am
Sculptor1 wrote: June 5th, 2022, 6:05 am Faith can and needs to be fully rejected. It is wholly damaging and harmful to common sense and reason
This seems a bit contradictory to me: you reject faith because you trust reason: what is your trust in reason based on? Isn’t trust on reason a kind of faith? I guess you trust reason because reason is... reasonable! So, it is vituous circle. What reason to you have to trust reason, other than reason itself?
Doesn't that lead to Agrippan trillemma?
What is reason for reason, and if there is reason what is reason for that reason etc. :D

I agree that faith cannot be avoided.
Faith (religion) and reason (science) have one thing in common, which is quest for truth.
Faith with a capital F can be avoided, and is in all quarters that enjoy progress and success.
EricPH
Posts: 449
Joined: October 22nd, 2021, 11:26 am

Re: Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

Post by EricPH »

Sculptor1 wrote: June 5th, 2022, 6:05 am Consider what it actually means.
Mark Twain described it thus; Faith is believing a thing you know ain't true.
That really is a wacky understanding of faith. If you have faith that your wife is not cheating, why would you want that belief to be false? You have to trust your partner, you cannot know what they are up to 24/7.
Faith has no useful part to play in any moral codes.
I have faith in what I believe to be true. You have beliefs and faith that the universe was created by natural causes. Why would you have faith in this if you know it is not true. After all, you only have beliefs and faith, your evidence is lacking.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

Post by Sculptor1 »

EricPH wrote: June 5th, 2022, 2:48 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: June 5th, 2022, 6:05 am Consider what it actually means.
Mark Twain described it thus; Faith is believing a thing you know ain't true.
That really is a wacky understanding of faith. If you have faith that your wife is not cheating, why would you want that belief to be false? You have to trust your partner, you cannot know what they are up to 24/7.
Faith has no useful part to play in any moral codes.
I have faith in what I believe to be true. You have beliefs and faith that the universe was created by natural causes. Why would you have faith in this if you know it is not true. After all, you only have beliefs and faith, your evidence is lacking.
Hopeless tautology, you have nothing here to address.

I believe nothing. It suits me fine.

Where I have evidence I have knowledge.

Saper Aude!
EricPH
Posts: 449
Joined: October 22nd, 2021, 11:26 am

Re: Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

Post by EricPH »

Sculptor1 wrote: June 5th, 2022, 3:04 pm I believe nothing. It suits me fine.
mmmm
Where I have evidence I have knowledge.
Your limited evidence must tell you there is so much more you do not know.
Saper Aude!
You dare to know, so you must be right. To be fair, most of us have a similar attitude.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021