‘Sell everything you have and give it to the poor’ bandcamp single

The electronic 2-song Bram Cools bandcamp single ‘Sell everything you have and give it to the poor’sell everything has been released today. It features an unheard version of a live sing-along classic that has no definitive recorded version to date, and a semi-instrumental B-side called “Stephen, they’re gonna stone you to death!”

If you like the song you can download it, share it, or very easily learn to play it yourself (the whole song is based on different combinations of G, C and D).

The single was originally supposed to be the fore-runner of the never-finished album ‘Happy Christian Music for the Conservative Middleclass’ from the late ’00’s which is still unfinished at the moment but might resurface one day. Other songs from that album are the rather scary ‘I was hungry‘, a different version of ‘gentiles‘, and this ouverture.

Sell everything you have and give it to the poor (Bram Cools)


a rich young man came to Jesus Christ and asked
what should I do to get life, life eternal
you know the commandments Jesus replied
do not steal, do not kill do not commit adultery
yes I do know them he said I followed them all, all of my life
Jesus said well then there’s one more thing that you have to do

sell everything you have
and give it to the poor
yeah everything you have
get rid of it
sell everything you have
and give it to the poor
G   D     G
and you shall live

Jesus said do this and follow me
and you’ll have a great treasure in heaven
but the rich young man became very sad
for he did posses great wealth on earth
and he preferred it over the life
over the life eternal

G                   C
easier it is for a camel
G                         D
to go through the eye of the needle
G                C
than for a rich man to enter
G    D      G
the kingdom of heaven

sell everything…

and if Jesus Christ would be here today
and preach the same words as he did back then in Galilee
we probably would kill him and lay him i a grave again
like good old woody sung years ago
we still don’t want to near those words
and explain them away if we read then…

sell everything…

(the chord placements are lost in this lay-out, you’ll figure out easily by listening…)



PS: Find more Bram Cools music for download at bandcamp.com. (All music is currently ‘choose your price’)

Bram Cools Christmas song (or something like that…)

Good news for the few sparse Terrans who enjoy the sounds that I make under the misguiding umbrella term of ‘music’ from time to time. 2015 had seen a no really new Bram Cools music thusfar, only a release of my older Contemporary Christian Muzak, and some other old songs (like this remake of ‘last fish in the sea’, previously unheard by all except 3 or 3 humans) but no actual new songs.


The good news is that just before the new year I can proudly announce you that at least one new song from 2015 will be on my musical CV.  It even is my first attempt at something that could be seen as a Christmas song (although in the broadest sense possible of that term probably)
To make long weird explanations short: the Bram Cools song Why Should She Care (this alien feast) (also on soundcloud) is featured on the new Down The Line 2015 Christmas compilation (the bad santa edition). It might be a bit dark for a Christmas song though…

More from the Down The Line collective in the zine here.

Have a listen to all the songs, scare your grandma with them  and tell me what you thing… (yes, there’s even a krampus song in it!)

peace and happy holidays!


On the dangers of our centrated thinking

One of the most critically satisfying phrases in the modern era was the reductionist phrase “nothing but” as in “that’s nothing but a typical Freudian Electra complex at work” of “that’s nothing but a typical Marxist class struggle” [etc.] (Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christian)
“In our world,” said Eustace, “a star is a huge ball of flaming gas.” Even in your world, my son, that is not what a star is, but only what it is made of.”
(C.S. Lewis, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader)

AnkocToday’s post is one of those things I need to write down so I can link to it later, instead of having to give this explanation every time… The Brian McLaren quote above doesn’t only describe the problem I’m talking about quite well, but it also might foreshadow some later thoughts on some of the things that ‘the emerging church’ promised to go beyond without any such thng ever happening. (The problem sometimes is even more perfected in American ‘progressive Christianity’ as far as I can see…)

The term ‘centrated thinking’ in the title is borrowed from Piagets theory of psychological development by lack of a better word to describe it elsewhere, but I will use it in a much broader sense. Let’s first start with the wikipedia definition for those who are uninitiated in the theory or have forgotten it bPiagety now:

In psychology, centration is the tendency to focus on one salient aspect of a situation and neglect other, possibly relevant aspects. Introduced by the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget through his cognitive-developmental stage theory, centration is a behaviour often demonstrated in the preoperational stage.

Yes, I do know that Piaget is speaking about small children in the pre-operational phase here as he calls it, but the same thing he described but manifesting in other forms is also happening all the time in adult human thought. We always look at the world through a certain lens. We are not omni-present to look at a situation from every side, cannot calculate all angles in, and would not have the time and energy to do so even if we could.

So very often people tend to frame their thoughts through a very specific lens, finding only one aspect or dimension of reality important or even real, and ignoring or negating all the rest. Often the idea is that whatever lens they have is the most important thing that explains everything, while all the rest is just irrelevant.
This has something to do with out human hunger for a simple explanation for life, the universe and everything. (Well, duh, 42!)
The ancient Greek philosophers for example were busy looking for the archè or principle on which the whole of existence was based. For Thales of Miletus it was water on which everything was based,his pupil Anaximander thought it was the Anaximandermore vague ‘indefinite’ or apeiron, while Anaximenes would say that it’s air. (Yes, all 4 elements have been seen as archè by one Philosopher or another in those days, and they were first combined by Empedocles as the 4 elements we know now, but that’s another story) Pythagoras on the other hand posited that everything was based on math and numbers.

Not much has changed since the centrated woldviews of those ancient bearded guys on their faraway Turkish or Greek coast… Freud said that everything in human behaviour is based in sex, and both communists and ‘capitalsts’ have fallen for the dangerous idea of Marx that reality should first and foremost be framed in terms of economics. And then there are more postmodern theories that have the archè of our humanity based in language, or power dynamics, etc…

Let me repeat that nothing is wrong with looking at the world through a certain lens and thus ignoring other parameters or whole dimensions. It’s unavoidable even, and we need to do this if we want to be able to understand the world around us at all! The more parameter we leave out, the more we can focus on details and really look at what’s going on.

But we should NEVER forget that it only is a lens. Power games are only one of the many things going on in human relationships and certainly not always our main motivator. Economics are one dimension of our reality, but to say it’s more important than other things is not reality but a choice. A very dangerous one. And so on…

If we forget that any of these centrated ways of explaining reality and our human existence are just possible lenses that focus on only certain dimensions of existence, we get in trouble easily. There are always more factors that can be looked at and probably even more that we aren’t even able to see, and reducing any issue to just one angle is always doing violence to the complicated reality we inhabit!

Nuance, and looking to all viewpoints and stories is always needed. And evidently it is always dehumanising to reduce people to just one aspect of their being and then completely fold their identity into that aspect, no matter if it’s sex/gender, race, culture, status in power/privilege, whatever… People are always more than that, and cannot be reduced to any of those. Relationships and human motives always based on more things than we know.

So I have to end with a warning about a certain line of thought that’s pervasive in certain social justice circles nowadays. No matter on what side of the line they are, dehumanising someone as an ‘oppressor’ (a common way to centrate human animalfarmidentity on in certain contemporary circles) and then dismissing them as a human being that has nothing to contribute is as dehumanising as the things the whole attitude wants to erase. Things that should be erased indeed, if we are to treat others like humans, but animal farm revolutions are NOT the way

Humans are always more complicated. Reality is always more complicated. We need centrated theories because that’s how we operate as humans. But we also need to see them for what they are, and to never take any theory at all as comprehensively describing Reality, humans, or God (yes, the same problem is very present in modernist and other theology too, but I don’t have the time here to go into that). We’ll only do violence to whatever we describe if  we think that our centrated theories describe all there is…

Always stay humble, be open to learn, and be open listen to everyone in a certain issue. Open your eyes for nuance, and don’t forget that the world is often not black’n white, nor grey, but it has many colours, some of which we can’t see. (Which doesn’t mean they aren’t important.  Bees can see ultra-violet marks of flowers for example)

What do you think?



See also the following posts:

Lust is not about sex but power and control?
The unhelpfulness of words like ‘conservative’, ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’.
The virus of evil: animal farm revolutions and the cycle of violence…



Red cups, liquid social media egregores and time to take more internal distance from the internet…

So, if I understand the matter well, apparently some days ago someone thought that red coffee cups instead of cups with snowflakes and Christmas trees and snowmen were an insult to Christianity. He wrote a blogpost about it, it got shared (probably in the first place by people mocking it) and then the social media exploded… If you don’t know what I’m talking about, be glad. I’m not going to link to any of it…

I’m still a bit shocked by how those internet phenomena are operating, and also I know I need to take measures now for my own sanity.

The whole thing soundedihydrogend too unrealistically stupid to be true for me from the beginning. I would have found it a case of underresearched misrepresentation and itself an insult of Christianity if someone would write a scene like this in a fiction context. But our real world is actually dumber and more surreal in a not-so-interesting-way than most fiction nowadays, and it might even get worse by the day. Some people seem to even be afraid of dihydrogen monoxide in our food.
So for some reason people actually made a thing out of it, as if people, Christians and non-Christians, just accept the idea that snowflakes and snowmen ARE a Christian symbol. Religious illiteracy at best, and don’t even ask me what the hell at worst… So as most of you know, a lot of people reacted with the typical fabricated social network outrage that is so common these days. As if some idiot on a blog spouting nonsense does have to represent anything at all expect for his own nonsense, I even found it in the Flemish free ‘metro’ newspaper as ‘Christians objecting to new Starbucks cups for religious reasons’ or something like that. Yes, let that sink in, this nonsense even reached tabloid in Flanders, Belgium…

And no matter how stupid something is, there still is Poe’s law… In the end some supposed ‘Christians’ seem to have indeed boycotted Starbucks (and from what I4ve seen shared on facebook, insulted people at their local Starbucks) for those red cups. So I suppose that lot of people unfamiliar with Christianity -a growing group in this world- might now have the mistaken idea that snowflakes and Foto0067Christmas trees are actually religious symbols for Christians that should not be messed with if you don’t want the ‘conservative’ masses to be angered. Or maybe those conservative masses have nothing to do with Christianity at all. Which might be why the Trump guy seems to joined in and proposed to boycott Starbucks. Some things you can’t make up.

What sick excuse for a reality are we living in?

Let’s be frank here. The problem is not that some idiot wrote this, people write the most weird things all the time, most of it ignored as it should be, but that it got picked up. (So those who made fun of it were equally guilty of this fiasco when sharing it…) and the fact that anyone at all takes this nonsense seriously proves, to me at least  that it might be a good idea to ignore the internet and whatever seems to be important on it much more.
The weird outrages on both the left and right are not better in their futility and irrelevance and adventures in missing the point, and whatever energy I put in even reading articles about them is time and energy forever lost. Any reaction on the idea that removing snowflakes from a red cup would in any way an insult to Christianity is one too much. It doesn’t deserve any reaction. Some things are so stupid that even reading about them, let alone reacting to them; is a waste of time and energy. And our time and energy in this life are so finite, while we are already drowning in irrelevance and bubbles of distraction.

Plus there’s something dangerous about those internet mobs that I just want to stay as far away from as is possible. The role of ‘memes’ (in the original Dawkinsian way) or evolving ideas that float in a culture has changed drastically with the internet, and the internet has made their potential impact giganormous. Mobs and masses are always dangerous, but worldwide communities in connection and their ever evolving, forming and reforming group spirits (liquid egregores as I called them in the title with a more esoteric word) are an unseen force that we haven’t seen the full potential of yet, both when it comes to good as to evil and destruction… And I choose to use my right to opt out, especially in the case of pure futility filling all the airwaves and people treating it like something substantial.

So I need to disconnect more, even though it’s mostly an internal decision. To plug out. disconnect myself from these shady fluid egregores of the social networks that feed on bubbles of irrelevance. It’s not worth it and it will cost me the substance of my soul if I’s get sucked in. The complicating thing is that it’s not the best idea for me personally to completely disconnected. I do get input and updates on a range of important stuff (from spirituality to ecology and from music to archaeology) through social networks. But I need to find a way to learn to ignore mindless hypes. To completely cut myself loose from the mass spirits and instant egregores that come to life with every new outrage and hype, and the things they feed on.

I’m not a hermit. But in my online presence I do need a better filter or even shield. It’s not just online American Christianity, it’s part of the make-up of the internet and it seems to be getting worse..

And I do need to be rooted first and foremost, grounded in the real world (material and spiritual) and in God.

So God help me,


The healing light (Chp 1-3): the science of faith healing

This is my first actual p51oDtrUSsML._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_ost in a series of blogging through Agnes Sanfords book ‘the healing light’ (1947), subtitled ‘the art and the method of spiritual healing’ which can be read in PDF here. The introductory post can be found here and I will try to cover the whole book in parts throughout the next months, with some spin-off posts addressing certain topics that need to be looked at some more and from different angles. In this post we’ll cover the first 3 chapters.

It’s probably clear already that, while I did learn some things from it, this is not a book that I agree with completely. I can even say that it sometimes takes an approach that sounds quite alien to me, but it was very interesting to read through nonetheless. As the foreword (written by someone named Glenn Clark) says:

Agnes Sanford was born in China as the daughter of a Presbyterian missionary, she has lived for years in New Jersey as the wife of an Episcopalian rector, and she has studied and tried every form of healing that has ever been known. Never have I met one who combined the metaphysical and the sacramental approach as she does. I have never met anyone more Christ-centered nor anyone more church-centered and yet more utterly unconcerned about the creed or lack of creed of those that she administers to.

Before we start with the content of the first three chapters let’s make some more general remarks about the book;  Agnes’ writing style is easy to read. She regularly jumps from more theoretical and instructional parts to a lot of anecdotes, and stories of healing and other own experiences. Her way of writing indicated that she isn’t merely trying to teach some kind of theory that she made up, but that she has a lot of experience with Divine healing and prayer, and afterwards has distilled theory and methods out of that that she wants to share.
The implication of this for me is that I do trust her heart, and her connection to God, but not all of her conclusions and theories. There seems to be a bit of new thought influence and a quite mechanical ‘scientific’ worldview for example that I can’t completely follow.

So, for the actual content of the first 3 chapters then. She lays the basis for faith healing, a scientific explanation of how it works according to her, and a first articulation of her method. It’s probably interesting to start with her theology of healing and the role of God in that:

God is both within us and without us. He is the Source of all life; the Creator of universe behind universe; and of unimaginable depths of inter-stellar space and of light-years without end. But He is also the indwelling life of our own little selves. And just as a whole world full of electricity will not light a house unless the house itself is prepared to receive that electricity, so the infinite and eternal life of God cannot help us unless we are prepared to receive that life within ourselves. Only the amount of God that we can get in us will work for us.

She then begins with developing a ‘scientific’ method for faith healing, in full confidence that it’s possible to use this ‘law of nature’. Like I mentioned before she seems to think that the universe is fully answering to natural laws that God has put into His Creation. Miracles for her are not breaking the laws of nature but following laws of nature that we don’t know yet, and if we as humans will grow to understand them more we will be able to use them just as easily as we use the laws of gravity and electricity now in our technique.

Few of us in the north would ask God to produce a full-blown rose out of doors in January. Yet He can do this very thing, if we adapt our greenhouses to His laws of heat and light, so as to provide the necessities of the rose. And He can produce a full-blown answer to prayer if we adapt our earthly tabernacles to His laws of love and faith so as to provide the necessities of answered prayer.
Some day the world will come to understand this fact, as it now understands the miracle of sound waves, for one generation’s miracles are the commonplaces of another generation.
Some day we will understand the scientific principles that underlie the miracle-working powers of God, and we will accept His intervention as simply and naturally as we do the radio.

And this is already something where I might not really agree. Even if she is right about miracles following for us unknown laws of nature, -which is very plausible to me- then still I highly doubt that we are able to hack those laws and use them as easily as we do with the laws of gravity and electricity in our machines… This is a bit too much modernist thriumph of technique talk for me…
But that there is a ‘natural law’ behind how miracles operate and that we might be more effective in praying according to this law is not something I have a problem with.

The method that she has worked out then, and that she returns to several times in the book has 4 steps:

1. The first step is getting in contact with God. This is worded a bit strangely because she writes for Christians and non-Christians alike, but she’s not compromising here. Maybe having a bit too much optimism about how easily non-Christians can ‘tune in’ to God though.
Later in the book she recommends meditation as a help at this first step, based on the psalms verse of ‘be still and know that I am God.’. Her point is here to actually get in contact with God, something which she seems to do very naturally herself.

2. The second step is ‘turning on the energy’, which she recommends to do with a prayer like “Heavenly Father, please increase in me at this time Your lifegiving power.”

3. The third step is to believe that this power is coming into use and to accept it by faith. This is the next thing that can be easily written about, but isn’t easily as easily done and turned into a method as it might sound to her.
“No matter how much we ask for something it becomes ours only as we accept it and give thanks for it. “Thank You,” we can say, “that Your life is now coming into me and increasing life in my spirit and in my mind and in my body.””

4. The fourth step is observing the power at work. This needs an actual goal to accomplish so we can see it it has worked, so this is where the actual healing takes place.

She adds that if it it doesn’t work that it doesn’t mean that healing doesn’t work, but that we do it wrong and need to find a right way for it to work, and that we better learn to know how to pray effectively.

How strange it is that people who fear to do this do not hesitate to pray for the most difficult objectives of all, such as the peace of the world or the salvation of their souls! If they have so little confidence in prayer that they do not dare to test their powers of contacting God by praying for an easy thing, it is probable that their cosmic intercessions are of little force. If everyone who prayed for the peace of the world had enough prayer power to accomplish the healing of a head cold, this would be a different world within twenty-four hours.

She does speak about prayer power to accomplish things, but that doesn’t mean that she reduces prayer to a magical power by which Divine power gives us everything we want if we just know how to ask it. There is one small detail that isn’t small after all, and that is that we need to pray according to Gods will:

There is no great mystery concerning the will of God, in so far as it applies to our small selves. God’s will is written into His nature,and the nature of God is love. Therefore, when we pray in accordance with the law of love, we are praying in accordance with the will of God.

It might sound simple, but it isn’t that simple. Elsewhere she really implies in certain places that only living in accordance with ‘the law of love’ keeps us connected to God. Which is not exactly the fluffy new age stuff that some might think she is saying at first glance… Love is foundational to everything she writes and seems to be a reality she’s expecting to manifest in everybodies life. She seems to have had such a lifestyle in which she naturally tried to love all people and God (and even the rest of creation). But that will come back in a later chapter.

So, while it sounds easy to have a method of faith healing based on a ‘scientific’ method and an to us unknown law of nature that can be used if we just know how, it seems that she at least requires 3 things that are easier said than done:

A) connecting the Creator
B) have real and specific faith in healing
C) naturally living a lifestyle based on loving God and our fellow humans…

If you master those things, faith healing is as simple as turning on a radio apparently…

I must say that, even though I have a tiny bit of experience with prayer healing very similar to what she describes, I cannot say how good her method works. I feel not that good at step #1/A, I am more a person who prays ‘if it be your will’ than who has faith for healing to really happen when it comes to #3/B, and while I try, I don’t know if I really can say anything about really living a life of love in C… Maybe a better (wo)man than me could try it for me though.

So what do you people think? A lot of this is very controversial ground, so I’m open to input from all angles except for those who are mocking or engaging in anti-supernatural gaslighting…


Notes: Some of these quotes might sound like God being an impersonal energy, but in other places she does affirm the personality and will of God. She is not at all pantheist, but she does like the Eastern Orthodox believe in a distinction between the transcendent essence of God and the immanent energies of God, that sustain all of creation.
Her Christianity also shows in the importance she places on the person of Jesus. One of the most quoted parts of the bible in the book is the sermon on the mount, which seems very foundational to her faith -something I do agree with-. She doesn’t mention the cross yet, but later on in a later chapter she’ll develop a theory of atonement in which the cross and resurrection are very important.

The healing light(Agnes Sanford): introduction

51oDtrUSsML._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_I haven’t been very active here lately, but for those wondering: I do still plan on blogging here more or less regularly this autumn to process my own thoughts about certain subjects. I’ll probably end up writing about very different stuff like I always do, ranging from philosophy and social justice to science and thoughts about God and religion… But since I’m still in the fallout of my year of demodernisation one of the subjects that I want to address more thoroughly is the supernatural in all of its aspects…I have done some explorations of the occult from a Christian point of view already lately, and the next thing to tackle is a subject I’ve avoided for years: faith healing.

The book that I will use to work through for the series is Agnes Sanfords ‘the healing light’ (1947), subtitled ‘the art and the method of spiritual healing’. It’s a thoroughly Christian book if you take the time to really read and digest what she’s saying, even though her wording might seem what ‘new age’ sometimes at first glance. The basic idea of the book is to give a scientific method for faith healing, which to me is a completely weird way of looking at it to begin with. So there’s not only bible stuff but also a theory of Gods healing energy that works like electricity and the way in which our subconscious needs to be re-programmed. But if you read through in the end you get not only a method of faith healing that is ultimately rooted in the radical love described in the sermon on the mount and wouldn’t work without it, but also a very interesting presentation of the gospel of Christ from an unexpected angle, and a whole lot about how destructive sin is and why we need Jesus…

I also struggled with the book exactly because it says some of the same things as some of the the hypercharismaniacs that I have problems with as a Christan, with only some very important details that differ. I think her approach if developed further theoretically might also be useful to make a difference between the unwittingly done human magick that might sometimes replace the works of the Holy Spirit in certain overhyped charismaniac situations.
The most important thing for her is being ‘grounded’ (my term, not hers) in Gods love through Christ. Her ultimate vision is one I share, of a world where the only thing possible is loving God and our fellow humans (and all of creation) with all that we are.

And yet, there still are a lot of things in her writings that I find hard to accept, starting with her scientific approach and treating faith healing like using a law of nature, which actually makes it all the more interesting to work through…

For the more theoretical and philosophical side of the supernatural I’m also reading C.S. Lewis’ ‘miracles’ at the moment, a classic with a lot of wisdom that often sees right through the blind spots of a lot of our contemporary modernist discourse…. I probably will incorporate some thoughts from Lewis too, but I will warn beforehand that the main focus of these series (as all of my writings) will not at all be on proving anything.

As always I do write for everyone who wants to read it, no matter if they’re Christian, Pagan, atheist, Muslim or Zorroastrian, but I want to state clearly that it is not in my intention here on this blog to prove anything, I just want to share what I’m processing to people who are open to my thoughts and experiences. I do have enough experience with the supernatural to never doubt for myself that it is real, but no conclusive proof to convince anyone else, especially one who takes unbelief as an unquestioned starting point. So I will not even go into that kind of discussions, which are generally a big waste of time and energy anyway, and hardly ever convince anyone.

(Note also that antisupernatural gaslighting is forbidden here and will be moderated. Rejecting someones honest experiences as lies and a fraud because they don’t fit in your worldview, or even calling them crazy is strictly prohibited. This is supposed to be a safe space where people of all stripes should be able to share experiences, even if they do not at all in my Christian worldview or that of Mr. Dawkins… )

PS: the book is still in print, but an older edition can be found here.

I hope you’ll enjoy this series



‘Contemporary Christian Muzak 2004​-​2007’ is finally here!

It might be 8 years too late, but here it is: Bram Cools presents ‘Contemporary Christian Muzak’ (2004-2007) is finally available as an album. (digital download only now, but if there is demand a CD-R edition might be produced too!)

So what is ‘Contemporary Christian Muzak’? It is not at all elevator music composed for use in megachurces as the name might suggest, but rather a weird lo-fi/indie project from Bram Cools with spiritually-minded songs for all audiences. The songs here are from the time when it had its live incarnation in the ‘Contemporary Christian Muzak’ collective (2004-2007). Since the band itself has not been recorded the versions here are the original demo-versions with Bram going in extreme multitrack mode sometimes, playing a whole noise-orchestra all by himself!

Weird things are going on indeed on this album. The opener ‘St-John opens’ will probably scare some people away already with its free-form impro, but don’t worry: the rest of the album will mostly contain actual songs and not just freaky soundscapes… The second song and  Bram Cools classic ‘father I am tired’ for example shows some of what can be expected: Bram in excessive multitrack with a lot of instruments, vocals and noise, and a psalm-like cry for help in this dark world. Throughout the rest of the songs we find a musical universe that is far from mainstream and will never be commercial, with very diverse arrangements, compositions to express the spiritual struggle and the search for a life centred on Love.

So give it a listen and if you like it you can download it free or at a chosen price, and share with people who might enjoy it.



(And thank you for clicking!)

PS: Find more Bram Cools music for download at bandcamp.com. (All music is currently ‘choose your price’)


1. St-John opens 01:49
2. Father I’m tired 03:40
3. Elvis has left the building 05:10
4. Qualities 05:06
5. dead end streets 03:19
6. stones cry out 04:17
7. last words to the first Church 03:28
8. Feelings say nothing 05:22
9. the hippie song 04:40
10. Without You I’m nothing 03:46
11. not a tame lion 03:55
12. Yeshua 03:07