Trialogue

(140) The Left Tackle

Author:  Bob
To: John and Steve

The observation I’ve made that seems to have my two friends in an uproar is this:

God does not actively intervene to protect or bless or punish people during their earthly lives. We can see that deep wrongs and diseases and tragedies befall wonderful people, while ill-gotten gains and evil-doing go uncorrected. As stated in Matthew 5, God makes the sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and unjust. God set things in motion, and may work within us or through us, but we can clearly observe from the real world that nothing, God included, actually ensures that “the good” are protected or that “the bad” are punished during earthly life.

          John and Steve dispute this point, arguing that God is an active intervener, who protects and punishes.

          Perhaps a football analogy might help to explain where I’m coming from on this issue, and how I perceive the position of John and Steve.

                                          * * * * *

Suppose that the three of us went to the same high school, and then, later in life, became avid fans of the same college football team. Suppose that we went to most of the team’s games together.

Suppose that we are at a game, and further, that during the game, I note that a key limitation of our team seems to be the play of our left offensive tackle.

Bob: The left tackle of our team doesn’t seem to have the size and quickness needed to consistently protect the quarterback. The defensive end playing against him is getting around him easily, leading to quarterback sack after quarterback sack.

John: What left tackle are you talking about?

Bob: Our left tackle. The one right down there on the playing field.

John: That’s not our team’s left tackle.

Bob: What do you mean? Of course it is.

John: No it’s not. I can conceive of a left tackle for our team who is as big as a tree, as strong as an ox, and never allows a sack.

Bob: Well, I can conceive of having such a left tackle too, and that would be wonderful, but that’s not the left tackle that we actually have. The left tackle we have isn’t protecting the quarterback.

John: Well, then, I say that your left tackle is too small!

Bob: What do you mean, my left tackle is too small? Are you crazy? I’m only describing the apparent limitations of the left tackle that we actually have.

John: Well, I can conceive of a much greater left tackle. It’s like when we were in high school. Do you remember the great offensive lineman our high school team had? He was big and strong and he didn’t allow sacks.

Bob: Sure, I remember.

John: Well, if a high school team can have a great big left tackle who hardly allows any sacks, then certainly our favorite college team can have a great big left tackle who doesn’t allow any sacks.

Bob: But that’s not the point. Of course it seems like we could have a left tackle who’s big and strong and blocks perfectly all the time, but we don’t have such a tackle.

Steve: Oh, Bob, you just want to believe that we don’t have a left tackle who protects our quarterback perfectly!

Bob: What are you talking about? Of course I think it would be great to have a left tackle who protects our quarterback well. It’s not a question of what I want to believe about our left tackle. It’s a matter of what anyone who’s looking can see out there on the playing field.

Steve: Well, I’m certain that if I were the quarterback, our left tackle would protect me perfectly, or if not, at least he wouldn’t let any defensive lineman into the backfield that I couldn’t handle.

Bob:  Now, what the heck makes you certain that a left tackle who has not protected several quarterbacks will protect you so well?

Steve: Well, just look at the team media guide. It says right here, in Section 3, lines 55 to 58 that our team’s left tackle is a stalwart protector of quarterbacks, and ye shall have faith in him. It says that he never has, and never will, allow a quarterback sack.

Bob: But you have seen about seven times now the sight of our quarterback lying limp on the ground, with the defensive end who lines up right across from our left tackle draped over our quarterback’s body. And that’s just in the first half. Doesn’t that reality supersede what the media guide has to say?

Steve: No, because the media guide is never wrong.

Bob: But we’ve just seen… [voice trails off, in fatigued despair]. Oh, never mind.

John: No, Bob, see, you still don’t get it. Things are just the way that they are supposed to be. Everything that happens, happens for good reason. Our quarterback wanted to be sacked six times today. He agreed to be sacked six times today before he was ever even incarnated on this earth. You see, we’re all here to learn, and what you don’t realize is that the quarterback is learning from each sack. He’s learning that he needs to release the ball sooner or get quicker feet. By the way, he’s also learning that you better not put too much damn trust in your left tackle...

Bob: Well, I’m skeptical of that interpretation of what’s going on.

John: Bob, Bob, Bob… The path to the perfect left tackle is not to be found by logically analyzing the game that is before us.

Bob: Well, I’ve not suggested that it would be. I was merely pointing out.… Oh, never mind. I’m getting a headache. Let’s talk about something else.

                                             * * * * *

Now, let’s run through a similar conversation, but this time it’ll be theological, and not about football.

Bob: For centuries or even millenia, it’s been noted that all kinds of misfortune and evil-doing impacts very good people. Meanwhile, long and comfortable lives with great riches and rewards often go to malicious, manipulative people. People have struggled to reconcile these observable facts with their belief in an all-powerful and all-good God. Some have found it impossible to do so, and have become atheists. As for me, I believe in God, and I am impressed by the writing of John Hick on the theodicy problem. Hick notes that anti-theistic writers invariably assume that the divine purpose of a loving God is to create a hedonistic paradise -- pleasant, safe, fun, and healthful -- and so things that fall short of this ideal such as accidents and disease are seen as evidence of God’s non-existence. Instead, Hick sees God’s purpose as soul-making, a moral and character-fashioning which takes place not “by natural and inevitable evolution, but through a hazardous adventure in individual freedom.” Thus, God chooses to allow a limitation in the exercise of divine power; there is a higher reason behind God’s lack of intervention to prevent evil or rectify injustices.

John and Steve in unison: Bob, there is no such thing as a theodicy problem

Bob: Huh?

John and Steve: Our God is a constant intervener in the affairs of mankind, and a perfectly successful one at that.

Bob: How can you say that? In a world that has seen the Holocaust, starving children, rampant diseases, ravaging floods and hurricanes and earthquakes?

John: Well, as for me, I find it quite easy to set logic aside and say that my God could be constantly intervening in our lives. I conceive of a great God who acts upon our lives, both individually and in mass, and, most amazing of all, my God can do this in ways we are not able to identify or trace.

           Bob: Well, I can conceive of having such a God as well. I can conceive of a God who stops Nazis before they get going, who sees that hungry children are fed, who keeps all living things out of the path of natural disasters. But that’s not the world we live in. That’s not what God actually does. We can see that this is not what God actually does.

           John: Well, my concept of God is this… If I’m going to accept God’s existence, then I also have to think that he is aware of every single thing that happens to every one of us. Further, I have to think that God could be intervening in every moment. In fact, what you are saying, Bob, makes me think that your God is way smaller than I assumed!

Bob: What do you mean, my God is way smaller than you assumed? Are you crazy? I’m only describing an apparent (and I believe self-imposed) limitation in our God’s exercise of power. You say that God could be intervening every moment to protect or punish. Well, that’s fine and dandy, but let’s not deal with what could be, let’s deal with what is. We can see, right out there in the playing field of life, that humankind is not well-protected from evil and disasters by some constantly intervening benevolent force or being.

John: Look, Bob, think about how parents protect an infant baby. Most of the actualities of the infant’s life are determined by the parents to a great degree, but the infant has no understanding of that. Parents can intervene heavily and constantly in the life of an infant to ensure the infant’s well-being and safety, yet the infant has no idea of this!

Bob: Okay, so?

John: Well, if human parents can do this for an infant, surely God could do this for us.

Bob: But that’s not the point. Of course it seems like we could have a God who consistently keeps humans as safe from harm as some parents have kept their infants. But the point is, we can see right here in the playing field of life that this is not the God we have. This is not what God does.

Steve: Oh, Bob, you just want to believe that God doesn’t protect human beings from harm!

Bob: What are you talking about? My natural inclination is to think that it would be wonderful if God provided assured safety and protection. But it is not a question of what I want to believe about God. It’s a matter of what anyone can see by looking at what happens in the real world.

Steve: Well, I am confident that God has my back, and won’t send anything my way that I can’t handle.

Bob: Now, what makes you think that God protects you, Steve, personally, in a world that’s seen the Holocaust, wars that have killed or maimed or psychologically damaged our youth, children starving, ethnic cleansing, and on and on?

Steve: The Good Book. It’s never wrong, you know.

John: Besides, Bob, have you thought about the implications of what you are saying? Aren’t you saying, then, that prayer is completely useless?

Bob: Not at all. Please understand, I am not saying that God does not intervene in our lives in any way. I am not saying that God is impersonal or inconsequential or that prayer is pointless. I have tried to be very clear. In Post #75 of this trialogue, I discussed my thoughts about prayer in some detail. In that piece, I said that I think that we can pray

… in order to act as a believer, and therefore potentially increase faith.

… to give praise or give thanks.

… to ask forgiveness.

… to seek courage and strength.

… for inspiration.

… to express a desire for unity with God and God’s purpose.

… for insight.

            I still think that. Consequently, and in an apparently futile attempt to head off straw man criticisms of my position, I wrote in Post #135 that “the question at issue between Steve and me does not include whether God plays a role in earthly affairs by impacting the inner psychology and outlook and courage of human beings to the extent that human beings ‘let God in’.” I do think that God plays such a role. That idea is not incompatible with what we can see in the real playing field of life.

John: Bob, Bob, Bob. All of this is too logical and analytical. Be free! Throw logic aside. God is constantly intervening, it’s all God’s will.

Bob: So, John, what crowd are running with these days, then? The crowd that thinks that by turning to God we can pray away a hurricane? The crowd that believes that AIDS was unleashed by God as a punishment for human promiscuity? The crowd that believes that 9/11 was allowed to happen -- that God relaxed his presumed constant protection of America – because God decided we deserved to be attacked?

John: Bob, all I’m saying is that logic is not the path to God.

            Bob: Well, I never said or thought that it is. I was trying to logically discuss a single theological issue, not recommend a path to God. Bishop Spong has said that the spiritual journey is a walk into the mystery of God. We both can probably still agree on at least that point.

(141) The Breadth of God's Intervention with Man

Author:  Steve
To:  Bob, John listening

        I recognize that analogies are by nature limited in their ability to fully characterize God. For me, Bob’s recent left tackle analogy fell far short. Bob’s weak left tackle failed to protect the quarterback and Bob’s arguments (smile).
        Bob observes: bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people. Those observable events in the world are incongruous with a God that is just (fair) and good (loving). Thus, logic suggests that either God does not exist or God does not intervene. Thankfully, Bob believes God exists. Now, maybe I can persuade you to believe that God intervenes. I’ll be more precise: God intervenes sometimes, but not always. His decision, based on his infinite wisdom.
        Let me offer three scenarios to illustrate the breadth of God’s interaction with man, all of which occur: (1) God sometimes does not intervene, (2) God sometimes does not intervene initially, but later turns bad into good, and (3) God sometimes directly intervenes. I’ll use three Biblical examples, Job, Joseph, and Jesus.

Job

I’ll start with a place of common ground with Bob. God does not intervene (scenario 1). On this point, I’m aligned with Bob and his source John Hick.

“Hick sees God’s purpose as soul-making, a moral and character fashioning which takes place not ‘by natural and inevitable evolution, but through a hazardous adventure in individual freedom.’ Thus God chooses to allow a limitation in the exercise of divine power; there is a higher reason behind God’s lack of intervention to prevent evil or rectify injustices.”

Yes, God sometimes does not intervene for character building purposes (or for reasons beyond our understanding). Job is a good example. Job was a righteous and wealthy man. Yet, a series of calamities befell him. The roof collapsed on the house where his children were having dinner. All were killed. Raiding parties from another tribe stole his herds and killed his servants. He became seriously ill, covered in sores. His wife abandoned him, suggesting he curse God for his misfortune. His friends were no consolation; they suggested God was punishing him for something wrong he must have done. God gives Job no explanation for these tragic events.
           Job concludes, “Is man to accept only good from the hands of God?” While Job steadfastly maintained he did nothing to deserve his grief, he came to realize he had room to grow. He learned to have faith in God’s wisdom and providence – even though he never understood why God did not intervene to spare him. Character-building in the face of unexplained and undeserved tragedy.

Joseph

Now, let’s take the next step in God’s interaction with man: non-intervention initially, but then intervention to turn bad into good. Here’s a synopsis of Joseph’s life. His older brothers envied Joseph’s favored status with his father. They conspired to kill him by dumping him into a well. One partially repentant brother rescues him from death in the well, but gets rid of Joseph by selling him as a slave to Egyptian traders. In the home of his master, Joseph is falsely accused of rape by his master’s wife. He is thrown into prison to rot and die.
        Did Joseph deserve his fate? No. Did God intervene to spare him injustices and suffering? No. But the story takes a turn. While in prison, Joseph demonstrates remarkable administrative competency. He also has a special God-given ability to interpret dreams. After years in prison, he is brought before Pharaoh to interpret his dreams. Joseph foretells seven years of bountiful harvest followed by seven years of severe drought and famine. Impressed with Joseph’s wisdom and administrative ability, Pharaoh establishes Joseph as the # 2 man in the land and puts him in charge of preparing for the upcoming famine.
        When the famine arrives, only Egypt (under Joseph’s leadership) is prepared. Joseph’s brothers in a neighboring land are starving. They come to Egypt for relief. They are brought face to face with Joseph, although they don’t recognize him. When Joseph reveals his identity, they quake in fear expecting retribution. Joseph forgivingly replies, “What you intended as harm to me, God has turned into rescue for you.” Previously, I mentioned Corrie ten Boom (The Hiding Place) as a more contemporary example of how God can and did bring some good out of the man-imposed horrors of the Nazi concentration camps.

Jesus

           This last scenario of God’s interaction with man is “preemptive” intervention, a step beyond God’s ability to bring a greater good from man’s wickedness or natural disaster. I’ll take a bolder approach here, instead of using individual episodes from the Old or New Testament. Regardless of whether you believe Jesus was the Son of God or simply a wise teacher, he was a remarkable figure in our world’s history. Was he simply one of billions of random births? Or, was he sent to us by God with a special purpose?
            I believe God was intervening in human history. I believe God used Jesus to correct Jewish legalism gone awry, and Gentile polytheism and hedonism gone unbridled. These gross distortions of God’s character were alienating man from God. Why did Jesus come to the scene 2,007 years ago? Was there some unusually great need at that exact moment in our history? I don’t know. But clearly, Jesus’ impact was not limited to his 30+ years on this earth. God used Jesus then, and still uses him today, to exemplify God’s loving character and the loving nature he expects to see in us.
For me, the Christmas story is not fantasy or wishful thinking. It is a historical moment in time when God decided that man’s understanding of his divine nature needed to be better illuminated. Jesus was sent by God into human history for that purpose. God intervenes.

 

(142) Hole-y Analogies & Reaping and Sowing

Author:  John
To:  Steve :-) and then Bob :-(

Steve, I know you are as excited as I am about Bob’s latest. All I can say (as Gomer used to say on the Andy Griffith Show, is “Gollleeee.” Gollleeeee, Steve, until now we didn’t know, we didn’t realize, we didn’t appreciate that our old friend Bob, our mild-mannered colleague for so many years, our co-dialoguer Bob in this very blog, is in fact a rare and incredibly wise Wise Man (of Biblical proportions) who evidently KNOWS THE MEANING OF LIFE! Yes, it is evident from his stunningly poignant and appropriate football analogy, that he is privy to a huge array of heretofore unknown secrets and truths about WHY WE ARE HERE, THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THIS GAME WE CALL LIFE, and HOW WE ARE SUPPOSED TO CONDUCT OURSELVES IN OUR VARIOUS ASSIGNED ROLES.

How else are we to interpret his game metaphor, but that Bob knows what every “player” is supposed to do, is able to judge any given player’s performance because he knows the exact role that person is supposed to play in life, and also knows what will happen if that person lives or fails to live accordingly? Yes, Steve, the fact that Bob, and only Bob, knows exactly what a left tackle is (even though we are all three witness to the metaphoric football game), knows what that position entails, knows what it’s duties and obligations are, and easily sees how well that individual is measuring up to those duties, tells me that Bob knows -- I tell you Steve he knows -- what any given individual’s purpose in this existence is and how he is or is not living up to that purpose in God’s eyes!

What other conclusion can I draw from such indicators from Bob as this: “It’s not a question of what I want to believe about our left tackle. It’s a matter of what anyone who’s looking can see out there on the playing field.” Steve, Bob can SEE THROUGH TO THE TRUTH and meaning of a person’s existence in ways that we can’t. (And what a great irony that until now he evidently didn’t even realize that you and I -- poor blind observers wallowing in ignorance that we are -- lacked his all-seeing, all knowing powers.)  Well, imagine how useful his clairvoyance is going to be now that we know Bob has this skill!  Steve, I for one am going to immediately request a private reading with Bob so that he can look ME over and clear up these questions about me that have haunted me all my life! I can’t wait to find out how well I have been doing at free safety, or maybe tailback, all these years!

__________________________________________________________________________________

Well enough of that. Bob’s game metaphor has, in my opinion, more holes in it than Swiss cheese, and though I am sorely tempted to rebut each and every one of them, I think I will just limit my remarks to this more general response: :

In my opinion, we very obviously know very little about why we are here and how we are supposed to conduct ourselves. Nor do we know with any certainty much about “how we are doing” in God’s eyes. Nor do we know with any certainty if the things that befall us are due to chance, karma, reward and punishment, or intervention of other kinds by God (not to mention, as some Christians would, the possibility of an evil force also affecting us).

I think that the mind (and I use that term for lack of anything better) of God is so unimaginably “larger” and more profound than our minds that for us to try and describe its workings is likely to be about as successful and accurate as expecting a snail from the garden to understand the workings of this computer I am writing on. And I believe those workings of His mind include everything that we each experience minute by minute in our lives.

By that I do not mean that God predestines our actions, lives, or fates. As I’ve often stated, I think we have been given that greatest gift of free will, and how we use it is very important (but again in ways we cannot fully understand).

I think the best any of us can do is to CHOOSE to believe certain things about God and his relationship to us, and live our lives accordingly. I choose to believe that God is acting upon each and every one of us in ways that we cannot positively prove or possibly even detect. I choose to believe that God is witness to every single thought that passes through my head and every emotion I experience, and the same for every single human on this planet (not to mention other life forms on other planets). And the older I get, the more I feel in my bones that there is a purpose behind every single thing that happens, from the most joyous and uplifting to the most violent and seemingly unfair.

Now on to some other specific points that came to mind in reading Bob’s latest:

When I look over the things that Bob says he believes it is proper to pray for, what is missing from that list is obvious, and that omission, it seems to me, is a central disagreement between us. One rather large example of what Bob evidently does NOT think it appropriate to pray for is the healing of one’s own sickness, or even the sickness of others. (Now, I believe I could stop and find a passage or two in Bob’s own writing that seem to conflict with this. For example, I recall him being very impressed by a person he knew or met who was a complete unbeliever until he was visited by and evidently healed by the spirit of Jesus while waiting for death in a hospital bed. But I’m going to pass on that and some other examples in favor of a different point.) I personally believe, and have said several times in this trialogue, that Jesus healed people. And in fact, it is a very central theme in the Bible. So I would like to ask Bob a simple and direct question: does he or does he not believe that Jesus healed people? Dammit, I want a simple yes or no to this question.

But beyond that, when I look at that list of what it is proper to pray for, they mostly seem to indicate that prayer is simply a way to “soothe” ourselves, put our minds into a reverent mode, etc. Really, Bob, is that all you think prayer is good for? Steve and I have been asking Bob to answer the question as to whether prayer has any effect. Evidently, Bob’s answer is mostly “yeah, it makes us feel better.” Well dang, Bob, that is EXACTLY THE SAME ANSWER THAT ATHEISTS GIVE!

Now, Bob does not rule out some ”psychological intervention” in the form of “inspiration,” “courage,” and “insight.” But, Bob, are you ruling out any kind of physical change or changes in our “fortunes”, by which I mean the opportunities presented to us along life’s way (such as, for simple examples, what jobs we might be offered, what potential marital partners we might meet, or whether two other guys might ask you to participate in a trialogue)? And how do your previously expressed ideas and interest in “serendipity” fit into that?

Moving on, there are actually a number of things Bob satirizes about me in his piece, but which don’t affect me with any power of satire because in fact they are pretty accurate. For example, here is one of Bob’s quotes attributed to me, but with certain phrases left out:

"Things are just the way that they are supposed to be. Everything that happens, happens for good reason. … You see, we’re all here to learn, and what you don’t realize is that the quarterback is learning from each sack. He’s learning that he needs to release the ball sooner or get quicker feet. By the way, he’s also learning that you better not put too much damn trust in your left tackle.”

That in fact is a pretty fair description of how I feel (at least, considering that it is coming from someone trying to satirize). Of course I have left out Bob’s assertion that I think the quarterback “wants” to be sacked. However, if Bob could change that to “needs,” I might even let that pass.

For the umpteenth time, I say to Bob that not only is his God too small, but his (and this may in fact apply to Steve as well) whole attitude toward life is far too limited for me. Bob evidently clings to the idea that we live only one life. Further, he clings to the idea that when it’s over, a sort of bodiless Bob will still be there, his personality still basically unchanged and quite recognizable as such. For the umpteenth time I say that if Bob (and Steve) could entertain seriously for one minute the concepts of rebirth and karma, a great deal of what bothers him about the vicissitudes of life would make sense “LOGICALLY.”

As Bob notes, his hero Hick “sees God’s purpose as soul-making, a moral and character-fashioning which takes place not ‘by natural and inevitable evolution, but through a hazardous adventure in individual freedom.’”  Wow, well said, and I COULDN’T AGREE MORE.  But it seems to me that this description of things agrees far more readily with my own attitudes than with Bob’s. Okay, here’s my own attempt at a little analogy: when I was in basic training every soldier spent a number of days negotiating big obstacle courses. Some of these were pretty complicated affairs, with deadly barbed wire to crawl over and under, deafening explosives that would be set off (in the protection of sandbags) if you wandered too close to them, water hazards that looked easy but in fact were full of sucking mud like quicksand, trap doors in solid looking places, things to climb over that started moving once you were on ‘em, live machine gun rounds flying over your head that could actually kill you if you were stupid enough to stand up, etc., etc.

Getting through such courses had the effect of preparing a soldier for real situations in Viet Nam that would be even worse, and also building courage and skills. Well, I think frankly that life has much in common with those obstacle courses (though obviously there are also experiences (thank GOD!) featuring lovely women, delightful children, fortunes to be made, sports cars to drive, etc., etc.). But for me to deny that God is behind all kinds of experiences in my life would be like saying the Army had nothing to do with constructing those obstacles, and in fact the whole obstacle course. Believe me, the Army was one hell of an intervention in MY life, and I was only a weekend warrior.

My analogy is limited, of course (though not as bad as Bob’s ((grin))). This obstacle / pleasure / learning / soul-making course that we find ourselves in is a fluid, constantly changing thing involving about 6 billion other people at every moment, and a lot of the pleasures and tragedies seem to come from them. But that is all part of God’s genius, letting other people (and wars and loving relationships and accidents and career successes and diseases and pets and hurricanes and symphonies and terrorists and great works of literature and elections and riots and mom’s apple pie and a million other things) do His work of soul making, through a continuous, interactive, karmic reaping and sowing.  And in fact, much or all of what befalls us is a consequence of our own activities and decisions involving our free will, but these consequences are delivered to us through one heck of a complex, God-designed "system."  And it is obvious to me that not only are we as individuals reaping what we sow, but so are our nations and humanity as a whole.  A perfect example (if indeed it turns out to be true) is global warming.  Another example:  No, Bob, I don't think God specifically intervened to punish us with a Hitler. But it may very well be that we reaped a Hitler because we sowed seeds of looking away for too long while we allowed Hitler to sow his own seeds of anti-semitism.   And God did not intervene to prevent a holocaust because we did not intervene to prevent a Hitler.

And I just don’t see how Bob can say (along with his buddy Hick or whoever) that he believes life is for “soul making” and yet think God is not providing both the positive and negative experiences that in fact “make” souls. (Can you imagine a child having nothing but enjoyable experiences in his life....what kind of child he would turn out to be?)  Those obstacle courses I mentioned were for “soldier-making” and they were full indeed of interventions by the Army. Life is for soul-making, and it is full indeed of interventions by God.

I’m going to close by adding a download function for two songs I have written recently. (As you probably know, I am having a ball in retirement making music with my digital home recording “studio” and entering songs in various music competitions.) I’m not putting these tunes here because I think they are great musical pieces deserving of your admiration -- they are just the results of a hobby I enjoy. But I am greatly struck that I should right now be finishing up these two pieces which just seem to have such relevance to this discussion. (Is it serendipity, Bob?)  The first is a country/folk sort of tune called “Walk a Mile” that is saying (as I did early in this piece) that we don’t know jack about the meaning of life, but given that, we should honor those closest to us. The second is a blues-rock tune about reaping and sowing, that might serve as a warning to the privileged and high-born.

     "Walk a Mile":          Download 192_milefinl.mp3

      "Reap what You Sow" :          Download 192_sowmstr2.mp3