From a philosophical standpoint I think it's an interesting idea, that of an extra-universal being that created all we know, but it's more of a "what-if" than something that could be conclusively proven and found to be true, at least by scientific standards.
so yeah, dont get me wrong, I am sure there is probably something bigger than us, either aliens, a god, a connection of all organisms, whatever, but sadly, since of the various contradictions and people insisting that the Bible is awesome, I must say I have no more faith in the bible than I do in the Hindu Scripts, The Koran, the Torah (half of the bible ><), etc
I tend to respect the Buddhist scripts, although I am sure they have faults too, but I liek some of the ideas :/
I tend to respect the Buddhist scripts, although I am sure they have faults too, but I liek some of the ideas :/
I believe we must all engage each other in frivolous Valhalla wars so we can die honorable deaths; then, as souls of the einherjar, we will train for the battle of Ragnarök! The Fates have preordained that such is the nature of our existence.
No one made a mockery of it back then, when they were busy driving longswords into each others' skulls.
No one made a mockery of it back then, when they were busy driving longswords into each others' skulls.
DShiznit wrote:
That's probably because the Buddhists have never started a war...
I would not be surpried, they are probably the best religion as there are no problems with them, and mostly it was stupid things that no one cares about. No crusades and crap :/
hmm, i think that the last thread on this topic was actually one of, if not the, first that i posted in. if you really want to see what i think about this topic you should just look there(although my views have most likely changed a bit since then).
Plenty of people throughout history would disagree with you, but if you start from the assumption that God doesn't exist, the data set you're willing to investigate will have been self-selected to be empty.
having read the vast majority of the attempts at a logical proof of god's existence offered by antiquity (st augustine, thomas aquinas, descartes, boethius, etc) as well as having heard a wide number of modern preachers discuss this subject, i know from experience that the arguments employed nearly always fall into one of a few categories:
i am an imperfect thing. however, i have an idea of something which is not imperfect. this idea could not have been brought about by something that is not perfect, i.e. myself (which is the point where this proof strays from reality), and must therefore have come from that perfect thing itself.
because i am moving there must necessarily be something that caused me to move, and something that caused that thing to move, and so on and so forth. because anything which creates something must necessarily be greater than that thing it creates (which is the point where this proof strays from reality), it necessitates that there must be some prime mover at the top of the chain which leads all other things to exist and which is infinitely great.
supreme good does not exist on earth. humans desire true happiness. in order to have true happiness, one must have the supreme good (i would tend to disagree here, but it is a matter of definitions and thus isn't "wrong"). because all humans desire the supreme good, it indicates that this good must exist somewhere in order to have caused this desire (which is the point where this proof strays from reality). since it does not exist on earth, it must be something that exists outside of our reality, i.e. god.
if there were not some prime mover holding the universe together then entropy would eventually cause everything to grind to a halt. additionally, if there were no prime mover then there must have been no beginning of the universe, but rather an infinite stretch of time. because of this, it would be inevitable that things would have ground to a halt, leaving nothing in existence, an infinite length of time ago, and because nothing can come from nothing (which is the point where this proof strays from reality) there would have never been anything to replace those which ceased to exist unless they were replaced by the hand of the divine. therefore, the existence of the universe itself is proof of the existence of god.
in the world there exist things which are greater and things which are lesser. because of this gradation, there must necessarily be something that is greater than all other things, which is known as god. (this proof both assumes that the position of greatest cannot be shared by things which are equally great and that something being greater than other things must inevitably mean that that thing is, for some reason, infinitely great).
...
because i have yet to find, in any of the numerous "proofs" that have been presented to me any which is logically sound, i am bound by the burden of proof to assume their falsity. lack of evidence is most certainly evidence of lack.
elfprince13 wrote:
Quote:
The evidence would be the lack thereof.
Plenty of people throughout history would disagree with you, but if you start from the assumption that God doesn't exist, the data set you're willing to investigate will have been self-selected to be empty.
having read the vast majority of the attempts at a logical proof of god's existence offered by antiquity (st augustine, thomas aquinas, descartes, boethius, etc) as well as having heard a wide number of modern preachers discuss this subject, i know from experience that the arguments employed nearly always fall into one of a few categories:
i am an imperfect thing. however, i have an idea of something which is not imperfect. this idea could not have been brought about by something that is not perfect, i.e. myself (which is the point where this proof strays from reality), and must therefore have come from that perfect thing itself.
because i am moving there must necessarily be something that caused me to move, and something that caused that thing to move, and so on and so forth. because anything which creates something must necessarily be greater than that thing it creates (which is the point where this proof strays from reality), it necessitates that there must be some prime mover at the top of the chain which leads all other things to exist and which is infinitely great.
supreme good does not exist on earth. humans desire true happiness. in order to have true happiness, one must have the supreme good (i would tend to disagree here, but it is a matter of definitions and thus isn't "wrong"). because all humans desire the supreme good, it indicates that this good must exist somewhere in order to have caused this desire (which is the point where this proof strays from reality). since it does not exist on earth, it must be something that exists outside of our reality, i.e. god.
if there were not some prime mover holding the universe together then entropy would eventually cause everything to grind to a halt. additionally, if there were no prime mover then there must have been no beginning of the universe, but rather an infinite stretch of time. because of this, it would be inevitable that things would have ground to a halt, leaving nothing in existence, an infinite length of time ago, and because nothing can come from nothing (which is the point where this proof strays from reality) there would have never been anything to replace those which ceased to exist unless they were replaced by the hand of the divine. therefore, the existence of the universe itself is proof of the existence of god.
in the world there exist things which are greater and things which are lesser. because of this gradation, there must necessarily be something that is greater than all other things, which is known as god. (this proof both assumes that the position of greatest cannot be shared by things which are equally great and that something being greater than other things must inevitably mean that that thing is, for some reason, infinitely great).
...
because i have yet to find, in any of the numerous "proofs" that have been presented to me any which is logically sound, i am bound by the burden of proof to assume their falsity. lack of evidence is most certainly evidence of lack.
My friend gave me this pretty interesting article on why god doesn't exist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox
Me, personally? I don't think someone sits up there controlling our actions or doing whatever a god is supposed to do. I do, however, like to try to fool myself when I need something to keep my mind off of things or am worried about who-knows what. Regardless, I still try to refrain from the whole "Don't use God's name in vain", simply because there are so many people I hang out with who are really into God. Kind of for the same reason I don't curse. They are just words, but others don't think the same way and think worse of someone cursing every few minutes.
Off-topic at the end, sorry :/
Me, personally? I don't think someone sits up there controlling our actions or doing whatever a god is supposed to do. I do, however, like to try to fool myself when I need something to keep my mind off of things or am worried about who-knows what. Regardless, I still try to refrain from the whole "Don't use God's name in vain", simply because there are so many people I hang out with who are really into God. Kind of for the same reason I don't curse. They are just words, but others don't think the same way and think worse of someone cursing every few minutes.
Off-topic at the end, sorry :/
_player1537 wrote:
My friend gave me this pretty interesting article on why god doesn't exist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox
Me, personally? I don't think someone sits up there controlling our actions or doing whatever a god is supposed to do. I do, however, like to try to fool myself when I need something to keep my mind off of things or am worried about who-knows what. Regardless, I still try to refrain from the whole "Don't use God's name in vain", simply because there are so many people I hang out with who are really into God. Kind of for the same reason I don't curse. They are just words, but others don't think the same way and think worse of someone cursing every few minutes.
Off-topic at the end, sorry :/
Me, personally? I don't think someone sits up there controlling our actions or doing whatever a god is supposed to do. I do, however, like to try to fool myself when I need something to keep my mind off of things or am worried about who-knows what. Regardless, I still try to refrain from the whole "Don't use God's name in vain", simply because there are so many people I hang out with who are really into God. Kind of for the same reason I don't curse. They are just words, but others don't think the same way and think worse of someone cursing every few minutes.
Off-topic at the end, sorry :/
I will be playing devils advocate here, but think of it, lets say you had a kid and you would do stuff to protect him while he was little, right? But, at the same time I am sure you would also let him ride a skateboard or a bike despite the fact that he may or may not get hurt(crashing into a tree, falling down). So, in all, as a parent you had the ability to stop your child from skateboarding/biking/etc but you did, so thus while you are omnipotent in a sense you can prevent him crashing, but you don't....
but then again, you would think god would give the world a little nudge every so often, so my argument breaks down ...
There is the typical
"Can god create a mountain that is so large even he cannot move it" paradox.
If god can create such a mountain, he is not all powerful because he cannot move it.
If god cannot create such a mountain, he is not all powerful.
Authors like C.S. Lewis say that this argument doesn't make any sense, and would be like asking god to draw a square circle. My response would be that, by that argument, god is furthermore not all powerful because he would then by bound by the laws of logic.
Then people get all meta with this argument and say that "well this whole argument is just human logic, not "God's" logic. I think that this is basically a theological abracadabra and has no basis.
"Can god create a mountain that is so large even he cannot move it" paradox.
If god can create such a mountain, he is not all powerful because he cannot move it.
If god cannot create such a mountain, he is not all powerful.
Authors like C.S. Lewis say that this argument doesn't make any sense, and would be like asking god to draw a square circle. My response would be that, by that argument, god is furthermore not all powerful because he would then by bound by the laws of logic.
Then people get all meta with this argument and say that "well this whole argument is just human logic, not "God's" logic. I think that this is basically a theological abracadabra and has no basis.
Pseudoprogrammer wrote:
There is the typical
"Can god create a mountain that is so large even he cannot move it" paradox.
If god can create such a mountain, he is not all powerful because he cannot move it.
If god cannot create such a mountain, he is not all powerful.
Authors like C.S. Lewis say that this argument doesn't make any sense, and would be like asking god to draw a square circle. My response would be that, by that argument, god is furthermore not all powerful because he would then by bound by the laws of logic.
Then people get all meta with this argument and say that "well this whole argument is just human logic, not "God's" logic. I think that this is basically a theological abracadabra and has no basis.
"Can god create a mountain that is so large even he cannot move it" paradox.
If god can create such a mountain, he is not all powerful because he cannot move it.
If god cannot create such a mountain, he is not all powerful.
Authors like C.S. Lewis say that this argument doesn't make any sense, and would be like asking god to draw a square circle. My response would be that, by that argument, god is furthermore not all powerful because he would then by bound by the laws of logic.
Then people get all meta with this argument and say that "well this whole argument is just human logic, not "God's" logic. I think that this is basically a theological abracadabra and has no basis.
I think the best solution goes to C.S. Lewis' argument, but I also like the "Married bachelor" one.
graphmastur wrote:
Pseudoprogrammer wrote:
There is the typical
"Can god create a mountain that is so large even he cannot move it" paradox.
If god can create such a mountain, he is not all powerful because he cannot move it.
If god cannot create such a mountain, he is not all powerful.
Authors like C.S. Lewis say that this argument doesn't make any sense, and would be like asking god to draw a square circle. My response would be that, by that argument, god is furthermore not all powerful because he would then by bound by the laws of logic.
Then people get all meta with this argument and say that "well this whole argument is just human logic, not "God's" logic. I think that this is basically a theological abracadabra and has no basis.
"Can god create a mountain that is so large even he cannot move it" paradox.
If god can create such a mountain, he is not all powerful because he cannot move it.
If god cannot create such a mountain, he is not all powerful.
Authors like C.S. Lewis say that this argument doesn't make any sense, and would be like asking god to draw a square circle. My response would be that, by that argument, god is furthermore not all powerful because he would then by bound by the laws of logic.
Then people get all meta with this argument and say that "well this whole argument is just human logic, not "God's" logic. I think that this is basically a theological abracadabra and has no basis.
I think the best solution goes to C.S. Lewis' argument, but I also like the "Married bachelor" one.
I think this is appropreate here , but I digress
anywho, I think that if there was a all might being, he would have to have at least SOME limit. but that is assuming there is one in the first place... Hmm, makes me think XD
Kllrnohj wrote:
So you have to edit the bible to make it consistent (well, more than it already has been, that is) - at which point you no longer have the bible. You can't claim the book is sacred/word of god and then throw half of it out to make it internally consistent.
I'm not claiming that the full text of the Bible is the words of God. You don't need to edit or throw anything away to study the historical context and circumstances of authorship for each book within the Bible and understand their role within the greater text. If there are individual books or stories you want to argue about, I'm happy to do so, but it really isn't worthwhile until we can get past your problems surrounding the idea that it is possible to have a rational worldview that incorporates the existence of the supernatural.
Quote:
Also, praytell what is your world view that you can claim is externally consistent? Because it sure as hell isn't.
The act of scientific study exposes us to natural revelation about the character of its Creator. That Creator also occasionally chooses to intervene within Creation to move it towards a future in which the relationships between the Creator, the Creation, and the Created Beings (e.g., humans) within that Creation have been restored to perfection.
Quote:
Yes, because that camp doesn't make any sense. You *CAN'T* apply serious and rational criterion to supernatural claims. The two are incompatible by definition.
Your inability to remember that "rationalism" is not a synonym for "naturalism" is at the heart of your repeated tautologies. I realize you've been brainwashed, but there is hope. I'll direct you once again to C.S. Lewis's The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism. If you can't grasp this point and step up the level of your argument, I'm just going to start stamping a link to the xkcd #703 and the text of the above essay after every failure on your part.
Quote:
Heh, no, they didn't. Hell, a hugely important requirement of the bible is faith. They took prophets at their word because they had "faith".
a) It's pretty clear you didn't bother to read the two stories I referenced. Go back, read them, and try again.
b) You keep using that word ("faith"). I do not think it means what you think it means.
Quote:
Besides, I think you are forgetting that they *DID* kill Jesus for his claims. Even the gullible idiots back then didn't believe the crap he claimed.
It's pretty clear that you haven't read the Gospels closely enough to understand the sign/authority model or the story itself. Jesus's miracles (and the miracles of any other prophet) perform essentially the same role that a king's seal (stamped with a signet ring) played in medieval communications.
Mostly they killed him because he pissed a lot of people off by challenging the legalistic religious paradigm of the ruling class and focused instead on things like social justice. The whole blasphemy/I-am-God thing was just the icing on the cake after they had already decided to get rid of him.
qazz42 wrote:
so yeah, dont get me wrong, I am sure there is probably something bigger than us, either aliens, a god, a connection of all organisms, whatever, but sadly, since of the various contradictions and people insisting that the Bible is awesome, I must say I have no more faith in the bible than I do in the Hindu Scripts, The Koran, the Torah (half of the bible ><), etc
I tend to respect the Buddhist scripts, although I am sure they have faults too, but I liek some of the ideas :/
I tend to respect the Buddhist scripts, although I am sure they have faults too, but I liek some of the ideas :/
From the perspective of textual criticism, we have more attestation for the correct transmission of the Biblical texts than any other textual work of antiquity. Out of curiosity though, have you read any of those works which you list?
Buddhism is unique among religions in that it deliberately discards ontology, which makes it a little bit hard to characterize.
shmibs wrote:
having read the vast majority of the attempts at a logical proof of god's existence offered by antiquity (st augustine, thomas aquinas, descartes, boethius, etc) as well as having heard a wide number of modern preachers discuss this subject, i know from experience that the arguments employed nearly always fall into one of a few categories:
I think you missed my first post in this topic:
elfprince13 wrote:
This debate will eventually regress to a combination of these three things:
a) Tautologies
b) Personal Experience/Empiricism (I'm using empirical loosely here)
c) Axiomatic/Dogmatic debate
Before it's even worth debating the existence of God, you have to find common ground on the existence of the supernatural.
a) Tautologies
b) Personal Experience/Empiricism (I'm using empirical loosely here)
c) Axiomatic/Dogmatic debate
Before it's even worth debating the existence of God, you have to find common ground on the existence of the supernatural.
Quote:
because i have yet to find, in any of the numerous "proofs" that have been presented to me any which is logically sound, i am bound by the burden of proof to assume their falsity. lack of evidence is most certainly evidence of lack.
Logically sound is an entirely different beast from axiomatically sound (something which Kllrnohj also seems to have difficulty grasping - or did last time we went at this). Gödel's ontological proof is logically sound, but most people would be unwilling to accept Axiom 5:
Similarly, in mathematics, you have the Banach-Tarski Theorem, which isn't really paradoxical (despite having been labeled as such on occasion) so much as intuitively bothersome because of the way it uses (or abuses) the Axiom of Choice. The theorem itself is logically sound, but its validity hinges on your acceptance or rejection of the Axiom of Choice.
_player1537 wrote:
My friend gave me this pretty interesting article on why god doesn't exist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox
Pseudoprogrammer wrote:
Authors like C.S. Lewis say that this argument doesn't make any sense, and would be like asking god to draw a square circle. My response would be that, by that argument, god is furthermore not all powerful because he would then by bound by the laws of logic.
The laws of logic are predicated on the assumption that we live in an ordered and consistent universe, which from a rational theistic worldview we accept because of our belief that God Himself has a nature which is both ordered and consistent. In that way, God is not bound by the laws of logic, the laws of logic flow out of God's nature. Your conception of God and omnipotence is closer to that of Islam which is focused on God's transcendence to the exclusion of any attempt to characterize His other traits. C.S. Lewis's (or any other logically consistent) definition of omnipotence is to a naive definition of omnipotence what ZFC is to naive set theory.
Here is the simple truth (as far as any living being on Earth knows and is able to be proven that is). No proof of a being that created everything exists, nor is there proof one doesn't exist. All that can be truly said is no one truly knows. Religion is all based on beliefs, but in that case, I can believe I am from Venus all I want, doesn't mean it is true. The only thing anyone knows is that there could be, and if you believe in one, then it may "exist" to you, but not necessarily be really true.
Now I could go on and on about the topic but I truly prefer not to because I could get pulled into this topic (again) and not manage to do anything else for a while.
Now I could go on and on about the topic but I truly prefer not to because I could get pulled into this topic (again) and not manage to do anything else for a while.
Quote:
so yeah, dont get me wrong, I am sure there is probably something bigger than us, either aliens, a god, a connection of all organisms, whatever, but sadly, since of the various contradictions and people insisting that the Bible is awesome, I must say I have no more faith in the bible than I do in the Hindu Scripts, The Koran, the Torah (half of the bible ><), etc
I tend to respect the Buddhist scripts, although I am sure they have faults too, but I liek some of the ideas :/
From the perspective of textual criticism, we have more attestation for the correct transmission of the Biblical texts than any other textual work of antiquity. Out of curiosity though, have you read any of those works which you list?
Buddhism is unique among religions in that it deliberately discards ontology, which makes it a little bit hard to characterize.
I tend to respect the Buddhist scripts, although I am sure they have faults too, but I liek some of the ideas :/
From the perspective of textual criticism, we have more attestation for the correct transmission of the Biblical texts than any other textual work of antiquity. Out of curiosity though, have you read any of those works which you list?
Buddhism is unique among religions in that it deliberately discards ontology, which makes it a little bit hard to characterize.
Ever so often if I am bored I flip through it, I never went into any one of them. I am most fond of the buddhist ways, but I never followed them or anything.
I doubt your claim that the bible is very correctly transmitted (doubly so the old testament). There are even parts of the Gospel which were added afterwards. Compare the Codex Sinaiticus to a modern bible and check out the differences.
EDIT: So you're saying that things are logical because god wants them to be, rather than he wants them to be because they are logical?
EDIT EDIT: and I think with every assertion, it should be the asserter positing evidence. Rather than me putting forth arguments that can be refuted with theological voodoo (e.g. god exists outside of logic/time/space/whatever) that have little basis in scripture, what evidence is there why I *should* believe in god?
EDIT: So you're saying that things are logical because god wants them to be, rather than he wants them to be because they are logical?
EDIT EDIT: and I think with every assertion, it should be the asserter positing evidence. Rather than me putting forth arguments that can be refuted with theological voodoo (e.g. god exists outside of logic/time/space/whatever) that have little basis in scripture, what evidence is there why I *should* believe in god?
Pseudoprogrammer wrote:
I doubt your claim that the bible is very correctly transmitted (doubly so the old testament). There are even parts of the Gospel which were added afterwards. Compare the Codex Sinaiticus to a modern bible and check out the differences.
I should have limited my claims specifically to the New Testament, but even the Old Testament has very good attestation. Quoting Bart Ehrman & myself in our evolution thread:
elfprince13 wrote:
kllrnohj wrote:
And you clearly don't know how history sources work.
debate, Dr. James White vs Bart Ehrman wrote:
White: You discussed the length of time that exists between the writing of Paul’s letter to the Galatians and the first extant copy, that being 150 years. You described this time period as “enormous”. That’s a quote. Could you tell us what term you would use to describe the time period between, say, the original writings of Suetonius, or Tacitus, or Pliny and their first extant manuscript copies?
Ehrman: Very enormous... ginormous. Ginormous doesn’t cover it. (For) the New Testament we have much earlier attestation than for any other book from antiquity.
Ehrman: Very enormous... ginormous. Ginormous doesn’t cover it. (For) the New Testament we have much earlier attestation than for any other book from antiquity.
Be aware that Bart Ehrman's reputation as a debater and critic of Christianity is based on his claims that New Testament is an unreliable source.
Similarly, he has admitted that the textual corrections he has attempted to make to Biblical texts (resulting in NYT bestsellers) have been less significant than the translation differences between the KJV and the NIV (though I don't have the source on that quote anymore).
As far as the Codex Sinaiticus goes:
1) I don't think you understand how incredibly close the texts are. If we aren't insisting on Biblical inerrancy, I fail to see the significance.
2) We have multiple attestation, including some that are much older. See also: The Dead Sea Scrolls, etc....
Quote:
EDIT: So you're saying that things are logical because god wants them to be, rather than he wants them to be because they are logical?
More accurately, because God's nature (cf. natural revelation), constrains them to be so.
I don't necessarily have a problem with the bible being transmitted correctly, but more with its content. Even the gospels were written one or two generations after Jesus' death (in 60+ AD). Word of mouth can change a lot by then. Ever played the game telephone?
Pseudoprogrammer wrote:
I don't necessarily have a problem with the bible being transmitted correctly, but more with its content. Even the gospels were written one or two generations after Jesus' death (in 60+ AD). Word of mouth can change a lot by then. Ever played the game telephone?
I think you're thinking of the non-canonical Gospels. The canonical Gospels are in the 60-90 AD range - less than one generation after Jesus' death (30 AD). And if you accept the Q hypothesis, the "later" of the synoptic gospels (Matthew and Luke) had a common (and therefore earlier) source. Paul's letters also provide support and were written in the 40s and 50s AD.
Honestly though, textual criticism isn't particularly interesting compared to theology and philosophy, so it would be nice to get this out of our systems and return to the topic title.
Life expectancy was much shorter than. It's more than one generation. Most people got married in their teens. The guys writing in the 80s could have been the grandchildren of people who knew Jesus. Paul never met Jesus. If you want to take his "vision" for truth, why not believe people like Joseph Smith also?
You can't disprove the concept of a god, but you can disprove the concept of the christian god because the christian god is evidenced by the bible, which can be easily criticized. My problem with people like C.S. Lewis is they impart their own philosophical insights upon god, but many of their insights are nowhere to be found in the bible.
You can't disprove the concept of a god, but you can disprove the concept of the christian god because the christian god is evidenced by the bible, which can be easily criticized. My problem with people like C.S. Lewis is they impart their own philosophical insights upon god, but many of their insights are nowhere to be found in the bible.
Pseudoprogrammer wrote:
Life expectancy was much shorter than. It's more than one generation. Most people got married in their teens. The guys writing in the 80s could have been the grandchildren of people who knew Jesus.
I should have left the portion of my post saying "please don't make lifespan claims". I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you'd understand how worthless the expected value of a bi-modal distribution is.
Quote:
Paul never met Jesus. If you want to take his "vision" for truth, why not believe people like Joseph Smith also?
Anyone claiming to be a prophet needs to be evaluated on the same framework as the prophets of antiquity:
- Divine authority as evidenced by the ability to perform miracles
- Accuracy
Joseph Smith screwed up (among other things) with the whole Native Americans are Jews thing.
Mohammed screwed up (among other things) with his omgconspiracies about the crucifixion, and placing Abraham as contemporaries with Nimrod. It's also notable that Islam totally ignores the importance of miracles for prophetic validation, since Mohammed didn't do any.
Pat Robertson has screwed up a lot. I have no idea why some Christians still listen to him.
Quote:
You can't disprove the concept of a god, but you can disprove the concept of the christian god because the christian god is evidenced by the bible, which can be easily criticized. My problem with people like C.S. Lewis is they impart their own philosophical insights upon god, but many of their insights are nowhere to be found in the bible.
What does the C.S. Lewis say that is inconsistent with Biblical teaching? I couldn't care less about scriptural sourcing if his insights are sound. You'll notice I've done very little Bible thumping in this thread, but I certainly wouldn't claim to be anything other than a Christian or follow any God but the Christian God.
Register to Join the Conversation
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Advertisement