Sola Scriptura

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by Thomas

the Bible can be taken in countless ways, and countless churches have come into existence because people read the Bible for themselves.
Hmmm ... not sure. I don't think it 'can be taken in countless ways' - that undermines the whole notion of Revelation - if a god says 'Here is a truth I make known unto you, and you can make anything of it you will' - then there's no such thing as truth, just subjectivity - it's a great idea because it justifies anyone doing anything they like, but it's just not logical that God would reveal something that can be anything you like ...

... so you end up with the possibility of every Christian in the world insisting that they are the 'one true church' ...

I think Christ argued all along against the 'countless ways' of men.

What you think and what is actually done seem to be two completely different things, Thomas. People do take the Bible in countless different ways. Whether you agree that they do it legitimately is not my point. By the word "can" I mean that it is possible. The evidence says it is being done, which translates into "it is possible."

Here is the Catholic 'turning point' - we believe that the Revelation is the Word of God, and that it was entrusted to the apostles, and their successors, and is in itself infallible, which means the church is infallible, but this does not mean the individual believer, be they pope or parishoner, is infallible in themselves.

You say "Catholic" and you say "we." Does this mean you are Catholic? As I read your post I was asking myself why you are so hostile to the reformers; who is right--you or my teachers? Or perhaps I totally misunderstand what I read and hear. If you are Catholic I can better understand your hostility. In another thread you mentioned working on your PhD. So I assume you've been immersed in Catholic thought since kindergarten, am I right? Just trying to put the author and his words (you and your post in this case) into context.

You explain some pretty profound concepts that I like but I take the liberty not to buy the whole caboodle hook, line, and sinker. I was raised to hate (or at least seriously suspect) both the Catholics and the Lutherans. Both martyred my ancestors the Anabaptists. In the last several years I've learned to at least not hate Luther so much anymore. And I spent a whole semester sitting next to one of this world's most friendly people--a young Catholic.

This is why Catholicism makes such a big deal about Scripture and Tradition as coequal means of transmission, and by which each guarantees the other, Vatican II treats them as a mirror in which the other is reflected.

I understand the concept but I can't stand the word tradition. I grew up where everything was justified with "tradition" whether or not it made sense either logically or theologically. I do think there is some value in that statement; I just don't like the word tradition. We need to sift through tradition and pick out the good and discard the bad. Not just trust some church authority. Regarding an unbroken line of transmission, well, no need to comment because a Catholic and Protestant will never agree on this one.

Thanks for your welcome. Where are you studying, if I may ask?

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

OK. But how does one have any kind community without sharing some common basis, some foundational belief?

Glad you explained your position. I do not presume a faith community when I talk about idiosyncratic interpretations of the Bible. I am basically outside of organized religion and I've gotten to know quite a few people like myself in this. I think we need to first and foremost find who we are and then find a community into which we fit. At least, that is my approach of the moment. I tried a lot of different churches and fit into none despite my best efforts. I was born into a community and did my best to fit in but when shove came to push and crowd came to crunch, I was outside.

I don't really think we are in conflict here. I must admit that part of where I am coming from is due to my experience as a Baha'i. The Baha'i Faith claims to accept all of the Bible, OT and NT, including Paul's letters of the NT and Revelation, and claims to fulfill Biblical prophecy about Christ's return, yet Baha'i theology is wholly unlike Christian theology. It accomplishes this by a sola scriptura approach whereby everything that supports Baha'i doctrine is considererd literal and everything that does not support Baha'i doctrine is considered 'spiritual' or 'metaphorical.'

You capture very well what all people seem to do--the stuff that fits their religious agenda is taken literally and the rest is taken spiritually or metaphorically or figuratively, etc. That is how come the Bible can be, and is being, taken in countless different ways.

foundational doctrines

Again, what you consider foundational may be taken as peripheral by someone else. I, personally, have no idea how one can claim that one way of reading or understanding the Bible is more correct than another. I apply the same principle to choosing a religion--Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, whatever. None is correct; one may fit a specific person better than another.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

Again, what you consider foundational may be taken as peripheral by someone else. I, personally, have no idea how one can claim that one way of reading or understanding the Bible is more correct than another. I apply the same principle to choosing a religion--Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, whatever. None is correct; one may fit a specific person better than another.

Hi Ruby, I think I am beginning to understand where you are coming from as well. That's a big part of the dance, isn't it?

Anyway, I am very much a community-oriented person. I relate very much to the ideas of the universal Church and the Body of Christ, while at the same time I try to remain open to the understanding that we all unique individuals, and diversity is a good thing.

I don't think that anyone can say that their reading of the Bible is more 'correct' than another, but we can say that our understanding is more in line, or less in line, with the ealiest orthodox Christian community or not. What you describe sounds like strong relativism, an approach that frankly leaves me asea. But perhaps that's just me.

One thing I like about the Episcopal Church is that regardless of any differences we might have theologically, politically, whatever, we are harmonized by the liturgy and sacraments. So, for me that is foundational because it brings Christ continually into my life, physically and spiritually, but you are right that for some the liturgy and the sacraments are peripheral to their worship and relationship with God. For those folks I look for the other things we have in common, whatever it might be. I figure that at the very least we have the golden rule. So, while sola scriptura does not make sense to me, I do not disregard those who do take this appoach. I just see it differently.

lunamoth

[Thomas]

What you think and what is actually done seem to be two completely different things, Thomas. People do take the Bible in countless different ways. Whether you agree that they do it legitimately is not my point. By the word "can" I mean that it is possible. The evidence says it is being done, which translates into "it is possible."

I agree, anything is possible, but that does not make it useful, valuable, or meaningful. People use scripture to justify murder ... that was all I was indicating.

You say "Catholic" and you say "we." Does this mean you are Catholic?
Yes.

As I read your post I was asking myself why you are so hostile to the reformers;
Did I come across hostile? I didn't mean any hostility. I don't accept their doctrine, but I don't hold any animosity towards them.

In another thread you mentioned working on your PhD. So I assume you've been immersed in Catholic thought since kindergarten, am I right?
Not quite. I was joking with Earl, that's all ...

Born a Catholic, then 'wandered off' into esotertism, Hermeticism and occultism ... then Platonism ... then Comparative Religion ... then back to Catholicism.

I was raised to hate (or at least seriously suspect) both the Catholics and the Lutherans.
A continuing legacy of the Reformation. But take heart - we Catholics have been hated by everyone - it passes.

I understand the concept but I can't stand the word tradition.
That's a shame. Because one has been lied to, one should not hate the word 'truth', or because one has been ill-treated, one should not hate the word 'love' - but I do take your point. Too often 'tradition' is akin to the 'heavy blunt object' with which to bludgeon someone else.

I see it rather as a river.

Not just trust some church authority.
I don't, in the way you state it. I do trust in Christ's word - I trust in Him, and I see Him reflected more clearly in the Church than in any man - and so I have faith in the church, because I have faith in Him. If I am let down, that is another's fault, not His, and not the Church's.

St Catherine of Siena struck fear into the hearts of popes and set cardinal atremble when she berated them for their sojourn in Avignon. If a woman can upset a man in Medieval Europe, and a powerful man at that, a woman should have nothing to fear in the Church of today.

Her strength, however, came from her absolute faith in the love of God, and that is where she spoke from, and that is what was recognised in her words.

Please don't be offended by anything I have written - none was intended.

Currently finishing the first year of a 5-year distance learning degree in Catholic theology. As the philosopher said, if we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. This is my attempt to learn about my religion.

Thomas

[Jeannot]

BTW, people were never forbidden to read the Bible. In the MA, most, of course, could not read it because they were illiterate. Also, because Bibles had to be copied by hand (and usually illuminated), they were time-consuming to produce.

The first book that Gutenberg printed was the Bible--the Catholic one in Latin (Vulgate).

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

but we can say that our understanding is more in line, or less in line, with the ealiest orthodox Christian community or not.

You're just one of thousands of Christian faith communities that claims their own is the closest with earliest orthodox thinking. I don't mean to be difficult but I find it impossible to deny that which stares me in the face. And this argument stares me in the face like few arguments do.

What you describe sounds like strong relativism, an approach that frankly leaves me asea. But perhaps that's just me.

It might well be relativism. I don't know what relativism is. I've heard a lot about it and its evils but I have never read or heard a definition for what it actually is. But what I described is the only thing that makes sense to me. Why would you be at sea with doing your own thinking and discerning your own spiritual condition? My experience has been that the way others describe God and spiritual conditions and how we "should" be simply does not fit me.

So, for me that is foundational because it brings Christ continually into my life, physically and spiritually, but you are right that for some the liturgy and the sacraments are peripheral to their worship and relationship with God. For those folks I look for the other things we have in common, whatever it might be. I figure that at the very least we have the golden rule. So, while sola scriptura does not make sense to me, I do not disregard those who do take this appoach. I just see it differently.

I am one of those people for whom liturgy and sacrament mean absolutely nothing. All these man-made rules and material substances have absolutely NOTHING to do with the spiritual. Why would a God who is so abstract and spiritual that we can't even prove his/her/its existence scientifically--why would such a God care exactly what we eat or wear or how we make the sign of the cross, etc.? If they help focus our spiritual lives, I believe they might have some value. But for me they don't.

I learned to associate certain sounds and smells with holy worship service. But that church has crowded me out of its community and there is no community similar to it that will have me as I am created to be. The churches that will have me are so far from the sounds and smells I used to associate with the sacred that I have to learn all over again. At this point, it's not worth the effort. Esp. with the knowledge that it's all just man-made and meaningless on the spiritual level.

I should probably not even be on the Christian branch of this site but it is my area of interest and study. I don't know why. It just is.

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by Thomas

St Catherine of Siena struck fear into the hearts of popes and set cardinal atremble when she berated them for their sojourn in Avignon. If a woman can upset a man in Medieval Europe, and a powerful man at that, a woman should have nothing to fear in the Church of today.

Catherine of Sienna is one of my heroes. If that lady could tramp all over Europe in the Middle Ages telling popes and other church leaders what to do and still be seen as a child of God, then there is nothing wrong with me as a woman of the 21st century wrangling theology with men of all ranks.

I do trust in Christ's word - I trust in Him, and I see Him reflected more clearly in the Church than in any man - and so I have faith in the church, because I have faith in Him. If I am let down, that is another's fault, not His, and not the Church's.

How do you know Christ exists? Why do you trust something that was written thousands of years ago? What evidence have you that the Christian faith is more than just a batch of things people have done and believed from time immemorial? After all, there is very little in the Bible that is unique. Talk about being lied to, how do you know the RC church is not lying to you right now today?


I realize this is blasphemy and sacrilege but hey! if Christianity can't stand the bare truth then it's not what it's made out to be. If it has no real answers to these questions then it's nothing but a farce. So far, I have found no one of any denomination or level of education--man or woman--who can answer these questions. I am three-quarter-ways through an MA in theology and looking at a Catholic institution for doing the next stage. None of this makes sense but it is the way my life is going. I've learned that if I want peace with myself I will listen to that voice inside of me. So I listen and sometimes I kick and scream. I think I have a right to the best answers Christian thinkers can come up with re those questions. I think I should not be the first person asking these questions. They were the most obvious thing to ask back when as a little child I first heard that Jesus died so we can get to heaven. How can the death of a human body (i.e. Jesus' death on the cross) help spiritual souls get to heaven? The Gnostics at least had an idea that made sense. But they were all killed off by so-called orthodoxy. Thus, it remains for othodox Christianity to answer these questions. And I'm asking.

[lunamoth]

Hi Ruby,

First let me say that I'm not trying to argumentative here, just talking about things. Pretty much all of the comments I've made are in general, not directed at you or anyone in particular.

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

You're just one of thousands of Christian faith communities that claims their own is the closest with earliest orthodox thinking. I don't mean to be difficult but I find it impossible to deny that which stares me in the face. And this argument stares me in the face like few arguments do.

I was not claiming that the church I attend 'has it right' or is closet to the earliest Christian practice or whatever--I was making a general statement. One can look at the doctrine of the RCC or the Eastern Orthodox Church and compare how much you agree with or disagree with. That's all. It was not a value judgment.

It might well be relativism. I don't know what relativism is. I've heard a lot about it and its evils but I have never read or heard a definition for what it actually is.

I would define relativism as the belief that any view at all is just as good, just as effective in achieving 'whatever' as another.

But what I described is the only thing that makes sense to me. Why would you be at sea with doing your own thinking and discerning your own spiritual condition? My experience has been that the way others describe God and spiritual conditions and how we "should" be simply does not fit me.

Well, I'm not at sea with doing my own thinking and discerning--who else is going to do that for me? I guess this is related to the question of why bother with religion, why bother being a Christian, or believing in God for that matter? Part of what I expect is that religion will nurture my relationship with God in a way that transforms me from mere existence to something More. To live in the sacred, and be extraordinary. And I certainly do not respond well to anyone telling that 'this is how you should think/feel/believe/act.' But when the offerings of tradition are viewed as a gift, 'take them in remembrance of me,' an invitation, a choice, I think they can take me much further than I could get on my own.

I am one of those people for whom liturgy and sacrament mean absolutely nothing.

You are not alone, and I have no argument at all with you about this. I find them amazing, but they are not the only Way. I believe that the main aspect of the Way is Love.

All these man-made rules and material substances have absolutely NOTHING to do with the spiritual. Why would a God who is so abstract and spiritual that we can't even prove his/her/its existence scientifically--why would such a God care exactly what we eat or wear or how we make the sign of the cross, etc.? If they help focus our spiritual lives, I believe they might have some value. But for me they don't.

That's an interesting perspective, and having come myself from a legalist religion prior to returning to the Episcopal Church I see the liturgy and sacraments as very different from rules. I think of them as gifts, not things I have to do but things I want to do, in fact long to do. God gives us material gifts and sacraments not so that we can please Him, but to satisfy us. This is something I have experienced firsthand when praying with scripture, a longing to eat and drink the Word. I'm not saying you need to experience this--just sharing what I have experienced. And believe me, I am not a 'transcendent' or even highly mystical person. Anyway, so God does not require that we cross ourselves, light candles or genuflect to the cross or whatever. And if they don't mean anything to you I certainly would understand that you wouldn't do them.

I learned to associate certain sounds and smells with holy worship service. But that church has crowded me out of its community and there is no community similar to it that will have me as I am created to be. The churches that will have me are so far from the sounds and smells I used to associate with the sacred that I have to learn all over again. At this point, it's not worth the effort. Esp. with the knowledge that it's all just man-made and meaningless on the spiritual level.

I'm not familiar with the Anabaptists, and I'm not sure what you mean that there is no community that will have you as you are, but I am sorry that this has been your experience. Does not sound like love to me. And, even if you believe all doctrine to be 'man-made' (kind of redundant phrasing IMO), does that mean it can't be meaningful on a spiritual level? I guess I think of it as treading a path gradually worked out by the centuries of Christians before me. But, you can't trust what you can't trust. Hey, I know that from experience as well.

I should probably not even be on the Christian branch of this site but it is my area of interest and study. I don't know why. It just is.

I hope you do stay and continue to post here.

lunamoth

[RubySera_Martin]

I don't know what happened but I lost my post when I hit "send." I'll summarize.

I'm not familiar with the Anabaptists, and I'm not sure what you mean that there is no community that will have you as you are, but I am sorry that this has been your experience. Does not sound like love to me.

Anabaptistism comes out of the Reformation. The Lutherans, Calvinsists, Zwinglians, got state protection. That means, people were allowed to practice these beliefs in specific locations. Anabaptists were not granted this right. According to the classical story, in Jan. 1525 three men rebaptized each other. That is commonly considered to be the beginning of Anabaptism. I think it means rebaptizers.

Jesus said his followers should believe and be baptized. The Anabaptists took this very literally and argued that infants can't believe. They paid with their lives and today we have a large, heavy tome containing letters and reports of these martyrs. The short title is "Martyr's Mirror." The Amish, Mennonites, and Hutterites are perhaps the main groups of their descendents.

Another classical story has it that William Penn was given the land of Pennsylvania and invited the Mennonites and other religiously persecuted peoples in Europe to settle in the New World. As a consequence, there are huge communities of Amish and Mennonites in Pennsylvania today. We spread throughout the continent and I'm in Ontario.

The Anabaptists differed from the RCC in three main points:

1. Believer's baptism (discussed above)
2. Non-swearing of the oath (Jesus said, "But I say unto you, swear not at all; let your yea be yea and you nay be nay.)
3. Non-resistence; i.e. non-participation in military resistence. (Jesus said it was wrong to kill; war is killing)

In theory, Anabaptist churches of today keep all three of those original points.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

I don't know what happened but I lost my post when I hit "send." I'll summarize.

Oooo, I hate it when that happens. I try to select and copy my posts before I submit them just in case they get lost in cyberspace.

Anabaptistism comes out of the Reformation. The Lutherans, Calvinsists, Zwinglians, got state protection. That means, people were allowed to practice these beliefs in specific locations. Anabaptists were not granted this right. According to the classical story, in Jan. 1525 three men rebaptized each other. That is commonly considered to be the beginning of Anabaptism. I think it means rebaptizers.

Jesus said his followers should believe and be baptized. The Anabaptists took this very literally and argued that infants can't believe. They paid with their lives and today we have a large, heavy tome containing letters and reports of these martyrs. The short title is "Martyr's Mirror." The Amish, Mennonites, and Hutterites are perhaps the main groups of their descendents.

Another classical story has it that William Penn was given the land of Pennsylvania and invited the Mennonites and other religiously persecuted peoples in Europe to settle in the New World. As a consequence, there are huge communities of Amish and Mennonites in Pennsylvania today. We spread throughout the continent and I'm in Ontario.

The Anabaptists differed from the RCC in three main points:

1. Believer's baptism (discussed above)
2. Non-swearing of the oath (Jesus said, "But I say unto you, swear not at all; let your yea be yea and you nay be nay.)
3. Non-resistence; i.e. non-participation in military resistence. (Jesus said it was wrong to kill; war is killing)

In theory, Anabaptist churches of today keep all three of those original points.

Thank you for explaining. There are a lot of Mennonites in upstate NY where I grew up. What caused you to leave the Anabaptists, if it's not too personal a question.

luna

[RubySera_Martin]

I remember one more part of the lost post. It was a response to:

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I hope you do stay and continue to post here.

lunamoth

Thanks. I was afraid the new post (your's) was someone telling me to reign in my passions or leave if I couldn't.

The rest is new:

I described a bit about the Anabaptists and mentioned that the Mennonites are descendents. To explain who I am I'd like to go into a bit more depth. Over the last century and a half there have been major changes in the Mennonite church. Today some Mennonites drive horse and buggies and live without electricity and telephones. Some (by far the largest part) live and dress the same as the rest of North American society, which includes using and owning the latest styles of dress and technology. Between these two ends of the spectrum there are dozens of "degrees" of conservativism and liberalism. This extends to the theological realm as well as the material realm.

I grew up in the most liberal horse and buggy group of this area. There are at least two very conservative car groups in the area. I could have joined one of them. But they don't approve of higher education and I needed higher education. Some people make the change by degrees over a number of years. But I knew that I could not go through this hassle so I just went to the most liberal car group in the area. To my surprise, not even they fully approved of my goal of a full education. A social work degree or teaching certificate or nursing would have been fine with them. But my aspirations of graduate studies???

I'm not the first Mennonite to do so but I was in a rural town and I guess they were out to prove that they were just as good as the more educated city churches. But even a man connected with a Mennonite university discouraged me from so much education. I did not understand since he had a doctorate and he had at one time held the office of president at the local Mennonite college. I've been told since then that Mennonites are doers and just don't believe so much in intellectual pursuits. I guess they just didn't think a horse and buggy country girl should aim so high.

However, after making the sacrifice of breaking with tradition (which includes a very compliated emotional shunning from family and former friends) I was not about to settle for less than my real calling. I say emotional shunning because officially I am not shunned or excommunicated. But they are expert at the unofficial emotional stuff. I knew that would happen. That is why I tried so hard to find a middle way. But since none existed, I decided to take advantage of the situation and do what I was born to do.

Like I explained in another post, the Christology of traditional Christianity does not make sense to me; it does not hang together. Thus, I simply don't feel comfortable in any church that requires and practices belief in Christ's atonement. I used to accept the charge that humans are depraved and sinful, and assumed I'd understand when I got older. But the older I get and the more I learn about human nature, the more I am convinced that there are psychological reasons for the human attrocities that are committed. I believe that humans are good deep down. That upsets the entire heirarchy of churchdom. I've gotten to the point where I will no longer lie about my beliefs re humanity just to be part of a community.

I think there are faith communities that accommodate my beliefs but I'm still looking for the right one. Besides, I feel quite comfortable not going to church. Finding a church is no longer top priority for me.

So there you have a bit about me.

Ruby

[RubySera_Martin]

<Oooo, I hate it when that happens. I try to select and copy my posts before I submit them just in case they get lost in cyberspace.>

I think I did that. That's what I mean when I say I don't know what went wrong.

You asked why I left. I think I cover that in Post 26, which I was writing when you posted.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I think Luther's point was that the people can read the Bible for themselves ... yes but, ... they don't have to depend on the church's interpretation. no, they should depend on his - sola scriptura, faith alone, etc ... all the Reform doctrines are that - doctrines - which the reformed believer is obliged to believe... see, we're back to square one, only now someone else is in charge, and a new set of interpretations.

I see that I've actually had a misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura. I thought that it meant believing only what is in the Bible and no other 'doctrine,' but from what you say Thomas it appears that sola scriptura is a doctrine itself. I think of 'doctrine' as that part of teaching/interpretation that has been tested by the community and found to reflect the community's best understanding of the Christian experience of God. I would go further and say that I would call 'dogma' those tenet that define the basic Christian foundation, without which one no longer is identified as Christian by others. So, in the context of community/church, one accepts the dogma and at least entertains the doctrine.

This phenomenon of rejecting the old 'authority' but then ending up with a new 'authority' is exactly what I was referring to in saying that sola scriptura does not made sense. There certainly are doctrines that the reform churches and even the modern non-denoms and restorationist churches all say are foundational for being a Christian. The Fundamentals, right? How can we even think or interpret anything without the influence of other people?

I'm tired and I can tell this is kind of rambling, but it really is triggering me from my experience with the Baha'is. Baha'is main strategy in teaching Christians is to tell them to read the Bible 'for themselves, without the influence of man-made doctrine.' And from there they build the case that Christ was not the Incarnation of God, that the Trinity is a false doctrine, baptism and the Eucharist are just symboic and not needed, etc. etc. But, is one then left to understand the Bible on their very own, with no other doctrine? No, of course not. There is the Baha'i doctrine to accept. So first one must use 'independent investigation' to reject all the doctrines of Christianity, and from there one then adopts the new doctrines of the Baha'i Faith, which are not called 'doctrines' but laws since they were given by God directly. No room for interpretation, no more room for independent investigation. And what happens if you apply the same approach to the Baha'i writings, and read them in a sola scriptura approach, and come to a different conclusion than the Baha'i authority? Hmmmm, you will find yourself no longer a Baha'i.

There is not one doctrine in her 2,000 year history that is 'new' or 'different' from that which was taught originally - and I think I am justified in saying the Reformed Churches cannot claim that.

Just wondering how the development of the office of the Pope is viewed--is it considered doctrine? I know I'm handicapped by my lack of knowledge and scholarship here; do you associate doctrine with the catechism, or how is it defined?

lunamoth

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hi Ruby,

You sound a little like me except I come from an SDA background which kinda has anabaptist roots only it's different. I'm constantly torn between the urge toward utter rejection of Christianity and an absolute fascination with it. In looking for Universal Truth (whatever that is) I kinda stumbled on hermetics, and that's pulled me in two different directions. One way is toward the Catholic mysteries, and the other toward Jewish mysticism. I'm trying to reconcile these two things because I have an unshakable intuition that they are connected and lead to something really profound yet so, so elusive.

I have a hard time with Catholicism because of the way I was brought up in an atmosphere almost entirely bereft of ceremony and that kind of relicary symbolism. And I'm not a Jew, so I don't have the background on that either. I don't feel like I can just embrace either religion through the front door and act it out until it's internalized. That doesn't seem intellectually honest. But I can't let go either, and it's so very frustrating and agonizing, but at the same time ecstatic and tantalizing when I get another little tiny glimpse, another fragment of the puzzle. But there's so much B.S. and so very little good information that it's like hunting a needle in a haystack while blindfolded.

Like Luna, I would be very interested in hearing about your experience if you don't mind.

Chris

[China Cat Sunflower]

I see we're all posting at the same time. Hi Luna! (waves)

Chris