- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote Stu: Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
The earth did not form until the universe was about 9 billion years old. You can hardly claim that was ‘in the beginning’ (listen for sound of goal posts being uprooted).How about this stu….
In the beginning, God created matter.
Yes, the heavens, the earth, the elements, etc….matter. Now, since we're really only concerned with THE EARTH here, it's true, those things are lumped together. And it's true, the universe (including the elements that made up the earth) was created before the earth formed, but guess what stu? The subject is the earth. So, when it says “in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” this is correct.
Not highly detailed, but completely correct. The earth and the universe had a beginning. And, I'm glad science has finally got on board with this idea.
Stu, you seem to wish the Bible was saying something it isn't.
The Bible doesn't say God created the heavens and the earth “instantly” at precisely “9 billion years ago” or it doesn't say they came into being exactly as they are now at the same time.
All it says is that in the beginning (hence, correctly stating that the universe [and earth] had a beginning)….in the beginning, these things were created, and that it God that is responsible for this.
If two events happen millions and billions of years ago, and we write a book that focuses on just the last few thousand years, Stu, and if this book isn't going into scientific details, it is ok, stu, to lump those two things together, since they both happened a long long time ago.
But really, all the first verse is saying is that God created everything in the beginning (hence the universe) and since we're focusing on the earth, this would include “the earth,” which then becomes the topic of discussion.
Quote he bible does not say anything about the universe. No, it doesn't use the word universe, stu, it uses the word “heavens” which in the Bible often means the universe.
Often in scripture, where the sun, moon, and stars are said to exist is called the “heavens.”
De 4:19; Isa 13:10; 1Co 15:40, 41; Heb 11:12; Ps 8:3; 19:1-6; job 38:33Quote It can’t even tell us that the earth was not created in the beginning. Stu, if I am a sculptor, and I take some chemicals and create a new substance to sculpt with that has never existed before (I just popped it into existence), and then many years later, I finally take that substance and form a sculptor (let's say a ball), when did I create it?
I formed or molded it just now, but I brought the material into existence years ago, so could it not be said that I created it years ago.
Notice a distinction:
“the Creator of the heavens, . . . the Former of the earth and the Maker of it.” (Isa 45:18)
Do you see it?
He created the universe. He formed the earth.
Sure, it could be said he created the heavens and the earth, for he did. He created the matter for them billions of years ago. They, nor anything existed before.
How Long Is a Genesis “Day”?
Many consider the word “day” used in Genesis chapter 1 to mean 24 hours. However, in Genesis 1:5 God himself is said to divide day into a smaller period of time, calling just the light portion “day.” In Genesis 2:4 all the creative periods are called one “day”: “This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day [all six creative periods] that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.”The Hebrew word yohm, translated “day,” can mean different lengths of time. Among the meanings possible, William Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies includes the following: “A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration . . . Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens.”1 This last sentence appears to fit the creative “days,” for certainly they were periods when extraordinary events were described as happening. It also allows for periods much longer than 24 hours.
Genesis chapter 1 uses the expressions “evening” and “morning” relative to the creative periods. Does this not indicate that they were 24 hours long? Not necessarily. In some places people often refer to a man’s lifetime as his “day.” They speak of “my father’s day” or “in Shakespeare’s day.” They may divide up that lifetime “day,” saying “in the morning [or dawn] of his life” or “in the evening [or twilight] of his life.” So ‘evening and morning’ in Genesis chapter 1 does not limit the meaning to a literal 24 hours.
“Day” as used in the Bible can include summer and winter, the passing of seasons. (Zechariah 14:8) “The day of harvest” involves many days. (Compare Proverbs 25:13 and Genesis 30:14.) A thousand years are likened to a day. (Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8, 10) “Judgment Day” covers many years. (Matthew 10:15; 11:22-24) It would seem reasonable that the “days” of Genesis could likewise have embraced long periods of time—millenniums. What, then, took place during those creative eras? Is the Bible’s account of them scientific? Following is a review of these “days” as expressed in Genesis.
It should be noted that before these days of creation begin, we are told that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth….everything. Call this the big bang if you like. It is when God used his abundance of energy to create matter.
First “Day”
“‘Let light come to be.’ Then there came to be light. And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day.”—Genesis 1:3, 5.Of course the sun and moon were in outer space long before this first “day,” but their light did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly observer to see. Now, light evidently came to be visible on earth on this first “day,” and the rotating earth began to have alternating days and nights.
Apparently, the light came in a gradual process, extending over a long period of time, not instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light bulb. The Genesis rendering by translator J. W. Watts reflects this when it says: “And gradually light came into existence.” (A Distinctive Translation of Genesis) This light was from the sun, but the sun itself could not be seen through the overcast. Hence, the light that reached earth was “light diffused,” as indicated by a comment about verse 3 in Rotherham’s Emphasised Bible.—See footnote b for verse 14.
Second “Day”
“‘Let an expanse come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters.’ Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse. And it came to be so. And God began to call the expanse Heaven.”—Genesis 1:6-8.Some translations use the word “firmament” instead of “expanse.” From this the argument is made that the Genesis account borrowed from creation myths that represent this “firmament” as a metal dome. But even the King James Version Bible, which uses “firmament,” says in the margin, “expansion.” This is because the Hebrew word ra·qi′a‛, translated “expanse,” means to stretch out or spread out or expand.
The Genesis account says that God did it, but it does not say how. In whatever way the described separation occurred, it would look as though the ‘waters above’ had been pushed up from the earth. And birds could later be said to fly in “the expanse of the heavens,” as stated at Genesis 1:20.
Third “Day”
“‘Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and let the dry land appear.’ And it came to be so. And God began calling the dry land Earth, but the bringing together of the waters he called Seas.” (Genesis 1:9, 10) As usual, the account does not describe how this was done. No doubt, tremendous earth movements would have been involved in the formation of land areas. Geologists would explain such major upheavals as catastrophism. But Genesis indicates direction and control by a Creator.In the Biblical account where God is described as questioning Job about his knowledge of the earth, a variety of developments concerning earth’s history are described: its measurements, its cloud masses, its seas and how their waves were limited by dry land—many things in general about the creation, spanning long periods of time. Among these things, comparing earth to a building, the Bible says that God asked Job: “Into what have its socket pedestals been sunk down, or who laid its cornerstone?”—Job 38:6.
Interestingly, like “socket pedestals,” earth’s crust is much thicker under continents and even more so under mountain ranges, pushing deep into the underlying mantle, like tree roots into soil. “The idea that mountains and continents had roots has been tested over and over again, and shown to be valid,” says Putnam’s Geology.2 Oceanic crust is only about 5 miles thick, but continental roots go down about 20 miles and mountain roots penetrate about twice that far. And all earth’s layers press inward upon earth’s core from all directions, making it like a great “cornerstone” of support.
Whatever means were used to accomplish the raising up of dry land, the important point is: Both the Bible and science recognize it as one of the stages in the forming of the earth.
Land Plants on Third “Day”
The Bible account adds: “‘Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed, fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds, the seed of which is in it, upon the earth.’ And it came to be so.”—Genesis 1:11.Thus by the close of this third creative period, three broad categories of land plants had been created. The diffused light would have become quite strong by then, ample for the process of photosynthesis so vital to green plants. Incidentally, the account here does not mention every “kind” of plant that came on the scene. Microscopic organisms, water plants and others are not specifically named, but likely were created on this “day.”
Fourth “Day”
“‘Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.’ And it came to be so. And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars.”—Genesis 1:14-16; Psalm 136:7-9.Previously, on the first “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The Hebrew word there used for “light” is ’ohr, meanin
g light in a general sense. But on the fourth “day,” the Hebrew word changes to ma·’ohr′, which means the source of the light. Rotherham, in a footnote on “Luminaries” in the Emphasised Bible, says: “In ver. 3, ’ôr [’ohr], light diffused.” Then he goes on to show that the Hebrew word ma·’ohr′ in verse 14 means something “affording light.” On the first “day” diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth. Now, on this fourth “day,” things apparently changed.An atmosphere initially rich in carbon dioxide may have caused an earth-wide hot climate. But the lush growth of vegetation during the third and fourth creative periods would absorb some of this heat-retaining blanket of carbon dioxide. The vegetation, in turn, would release oxygen—a requirement for animal life.
Now, had there been an earthly observer, he would be able to discern the sun, moon and stars, which would “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years.” (Genesis 1:14) The moon would indicate the passing of lunar months, and the sun the passing of solar years. The seasons that now “came to be” on this fourth “day” would no doubt have been much milder than they became later on.—Genesis 1:15; 8:20-22.
Fifth “Day”
“‘Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.’ And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind.”—Genesis 1:20, 21.It is of interest to note that the nonhuman creatures with which the waters were to swarm are called “living souls.” This term would also apply to the “flying creatures [that] fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse.” And it would also embrace the forms of sea and air life, such as the sea monsters, whose fossil remains scientists have found in recent times.
Sixth “Day”
“‘Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.’ And it came to be so.”—Genesis 1:24.Thus on the sixth “day,” land animals characterized as wild and domestic appeared. But this final “day” was not over. One last remarkable “kind” was to come:
“And God went on to say: ‘Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth.’ And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.”—Genesis 1:26, 27.
Chapter 2 of Genesis apparently adds some details. However, it is not, as some have concluded, another account of creation in conflict with that of chapter 1. It just takes up at a point in the third “day,” after dry land appeared but before land plants were created, adding details that were pertinent to the arrival of humans—Adam the living soul, his garden home, Eden, and the woman Eve, his wife.—Genesis 2:5-9, 15-18, 21, 22.
The foregoing is presented to help us understand what Genesis says. And this quite realistic account indicates that the creative process continued throughout a period of, not just 144 hours (6 × 24), but over many millenniums of time.
How Did Genesis Know?
32 From what we have considered, the Genesis creation account emerges as a scientifically sound document. It reveals the larger categories of plants and animals, with their many varieties, reproducing only “according to their kinds.” The fossil record provides confirmation of this. In fact, it indicates that each “kind” appeared suddenly, with no true transitional forms linking it with any previous “kind,” as required by the evolution theory.
All the knowledge of the wise men of Egypt could not have furnished Moses, the writer of Genesis, any clue to the process of creation. The creation myths of ancient peoples bore no resemblance to what Moses wrote in Genesis. Where, then, did Moses learn all these things? Apparently from someone who was there.
The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order:
(1) a beginning;
(2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water;
(3) light;
(4) an expanse or atmosphere;
(5) large areas of dry land;
(6) land plants;
(7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures;
(9) wild and tame beasts, mammals;
(10) man.Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? One in 3,600,000.
Hi again David
Quote How about this stu….In the beginning, God created matter. Yes, the heavens, the earth, the elements, etc….matter. Now, since we're really only concerned with THE EARTH here, it's true, those things are lumped together. And it's true, the universe (including the elements that made up the earth) was created before the earth formed, but guess what stu? The subject is the earth. So, when it says “in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” this is correct.
You said the universe. And it was not the same ‘beginning’ that real scientists discuss. I can hear your bible creaking under the strain of the modern science you are wedging in there.Quote Not highly detailed, but completely correct. The earth and the universe had a beginning. And, I'm glad science has finally got on board with this idea.
How tedious. We don’t know that components of this universe did not exist before the big bang. If evidence for that arose would you then be willing to accept the bible got it wrong? That’s the problem with an infallible book, it is like the indicator light on a car…right…wrong…right…wrong…
Science refines the model in the light of new evidence. Shall we mention all the biblical models that have been shown false, that the bible will never be able to get ‘on board with’?Quote Stu, you seem to wish the Bible was saying something it isn't.
I wish it could honestly retract its false claims, but I suppose it was written by zealots and politicians, who wrote with exactly the same knowledge as their contemporaries.Quote The Bible doesn't say God created the heavens and the earth “instantly” at precisely “9 billion years ago” or it doesn't say they came into being exactly as they are now at the same time.
Thank you for correcting your previous claim.Quote All it says is that in the beginning (hence, correctly stating that the universe [and earth] had a beginning)….in the beginning, these things were created, and that it God that is responsible for this.
Which beginning is this? The beginning of the earth? The beginning of the universe? You say that the ‘beginning’ in Gen 1 does not refer to the universe but the earth, then you say that the bible tells us that the universe had a beginning!
What a web we weave…Quote If two events happen millions and billions of years ago, and we write a book that focuses on just the last few thousand years, Stu, and if this book isn't going into scientific details, it is ok, stu, to lump those two things together, since they both happened a long long time ago.
Well it is a crock in that case. What is the value of a description of the ‘beginning’ (of whatever event you’ve moved the goalposts to) if it takes thousands more words to reinterpret its meaning? Why bother with this ignorant waffle?Quote But really, all the first verse is saying is that God created everything in the beginning (hence the universe) and since we're focusing on the earth, this would include “the earth,” which then becomes the topic of discussion.
Two beginnings conflated. You want it both ways. With god any old nonsense is possible.Stu: the bible does not say anything about the universe.
Quote No, it doesn't use the word universe, stu, it uses the word “heavens” which in the Bible often means the universe. Often in scripture, where the sun, moon, and stars are said to exist is called the “heavens.” De 4:19; Isa 13:10; 1Co 15:40, 41; Heb 11:12; Ps 8:3; 19:1-6; job 38:33 .
In Genesis, the ‘heavens’ is the firmament, the solid beaten-out thing that NASA has never collided with. I guess with god, any old definition is acceptable.Quote Sure, it could be said he created the heavens and the earth, for he did. He created the matter for them billions of years ago. They, nor anything existed before.
Or it could all be ancient mythology…Stuart
More from David…
Quote Now, light evidently came to be visible on earth on this first “day,”
Based on what evidence, is this ‘evidently’ true? The circular logic of believing Genesis?Quote Apparently, the light came in a gradual process, extending over a long period of time, not instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light bulb.
To whom is this ‘apparent’? Does Genesis say this? If it doesn’t then it’s more circular logic.Quote No doubt, tremendous earth movements would have been involved in the formation of land areas. Geologists would explain such major upheavals as catastrophism. But Genesis indicates direction and control by a Creator.
Well, I suppose since it’s not mentioned in Genesis, with god anything is possible.Quote Whatever means were used to accomplish the raising up of dry land, the important point is: Both the Bible and science recognise it as one of the stages in the forming of the earth.
Water vapour condensed onto the surface of the earth as it cooled. There was never a ‘raising up of dry land’.Quote Microscopic organisms, water plants and others are not specifically named, but likely were created on this “day.”
Science says that microorganisms were present on earth for billions of years before ‘land plants’. Must have been a very long day! With god, any old version of history is allowed.Quote Day Four: “Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens”
So they were not there before. They came to be there. Not ‘they became visible through previously opaque cloud’. More apologist invention.Quote It is of interest to note that the nonhuman creatures with which the waters were to swarm are called “living souls.” This term would also apply to the “flying creatures [that] fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse.” And it would also embrace the forms of sea and air life, such as the sea monsters, whose fossil remains scientists have found in recent times.
What are ‘sea monsters’? This writing is for the gullible, who would not bother to challenge the fact that the wool is being pulled over. Do non-human animals have souls?Quote Thus on the sixth “day,” land animals characterized as wild and domestic appeared.
There was no such thing as domesticated animals until humans appeared.Quote And this quite realistic account indicates that the creative process continued throughout a period of, not just 144 hours (6 × 24), but over many millenniums of time.
Either 9 million or 13.5 million millennia, depending on what ‘in the beginning’ means.Quote 32 From what we have considered, the Genesis creation account emerges as a scientifically sound document. It reveals the larger categories of plants and animals, with their many varieties, reproducing only “according to their kinds.”
Although it does not say what a ‘kind; is, so the statement is worthless.Quote The fossil record provides confirmation of this. In fact, it indicates that each “kind” appeared suddenly, with no true transitional forms linking it with any previous “kind,” as required by the evolution theory.
With god, such lies are allowed.Quote All the knowledge of the wise men of Egypt could not have furnished Moses, the writer of Genesis, any clue to the process of creation. The creation myths of ancient peoples bore no resemblance to what Moses wrote in Genesis. Where, then, did Moses learn all these things? Apparently from someone who was there.
Nowhere in the Torah does it say it was written by Moses. There are 5 different writing styles present. We don’t know that Moses wrote Genesis, so what of the impartiality of this apology?Quote The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof …
David, do you bother reading this rubbish before you cut and paste it? I know that you would call my bluff if I tried that line on you.Quote
(1) a beginning;
Which beginning?Quote
(2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water;
Where does Genesis mention ‘heavy gases’?
Quote
(3) light;
There was light for 9 billion years before the accretion of the earth.Quote
(4) an expanse or atmosphere;
An expanse maybe. A firmament or heavens definitely. Where does it mention an atmosphere? Atmosphere is not synonymous with expanse.Quote
(5) large areas of
dry land;
Where does it say ‘large’?Quote
(6) land plants;
Ignoring billions of years of life before themQuote
(7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning;
Not discernable, they came to be there at that point. ‘Discernible’ is the writer re-writing Genesis.Quote
(8) sea monsters and flying creatures;
What are sea monsters?Quote
(9) wild and tame beasts, mammals;
And by whose yardstick were they considered ‘tame’? There are no humans yet…Quote
(10) man.
At last! It got one right.Quote Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order.
…as long as you rearrange the order…You said several times that Genesis was written from the point of view of an observer on earth. How would “Gen1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. “ make any sense to an observer unable to see light blocked out by all those clouds?
Stuart
Hey Kevin,
Thanks for your response. Let me add a few more thoughts to our conversation.
Quote But to me, you took the easier route. Some time back you questioned the bible and its words and often used the phrase “dried ink”. However, I see that you have now slipped back into accepting it all — or so it seems — and that, to me, is the path of least resistance. That's OK as well, but try to understand that not everyone sees the bible as a work of infallibility, straight from the mind of God. I personally see it as a record of conflicting Jewish viewpoints over a span of their history. To me, it is a long string of parables and very little of it is to be taken literally. I also believe that the Jesus stories are parables as well.
I have not “…slipped back into accepting it all…”. In fact, many of my family and friends are distressed that I no longer pack my bible with me and study for several hours a day. I have made it perfectly clear that because of my trek for truth I have abandoned many of my orthodox views. I suppose this is the “distressing” part to those who remain truly orthodox. No matter, we all must work out our salvation with fear and trembling. I cannot subscribe to a belief system simply because it is popular.So, in this way I am traveling the road of resistence. NOT the path of least resistence. However having said that, I also feel the need for community and for Christian fellowship. I enjoy discussing the bible and the things of God. I do not believe that God needs to be put into a box (i.e., make a list of all your beliefs and make sure God is in line). I also don't believe that we will be able to pin down the absolute truth of God and his Christ. During our lifetime we will only know in part…..the ink IS dry, but God still inspires. I also believe that many will be shocked to see who will be counted as a child of God on that Day. So many here and everywhere who believe that there are strict criteria for salvation will be amazed at God's mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgement!! Praise God!!
Quote If much is in doubt, then how do we know which parts are right?
My brother, we cannot know absolute truth. I know this is what your heart seeks – to know which religion is the “right one” – but we cannot know. Therefore I have decided to follow the Almighty as he speaks to me through his Spirit (and he does). I learn by watching nature, by talking with other believer's of different faiths, by reading the Bible and other so-called religious texts. In other words, I believe that an open mind is a terrible thing to lose. God still speaks today (beyond the dried ink).
Will I be quoted as saying that I believe the Bible is the only absolute truth? No. Will I be quoted as saying that Yah is the only name of God? No. But I do believe that whatever truth you have been given, you should cherish. Because as we both know there are many truths out there….you will get exhausted running after them all. God knows our hearts, Kevin. I do not believe he will count against us that which we cannot control, or that which we cannot determine. We are only mud.Quote We'll never know if the things recorded in the bible was the truth or just what the compilers wanted us to believe.
Again, you want absolute assurance or you will not give your allegiance? Your choice, but let me know how you will ever find absolute assurance of any religion? It's impossible because we are dealing with too many unknowns. Without faith it is impossible to please God, perhaps how we know why….Quote What if your brand of faith is incorrect and really ends up promoting actions that dishonor God?
Kevin, can I just say that our Father is probably very pleased with you. Do you know why? Because you want him so badly. You want THE TRUTH so badly. You are a true seeker.Don't let your trek for truth rob you of faith. In the end, it will be all that remains…..
Much love,
MandyQuote (WhatIsTrue @ Aug. 07 2008,08:04) To be fair, Mandy hasn't really said what she currently believes. (I could be wrong, as I only check the forum on occasion.) Frankly, I can't tell where she is coming from these days. Though she does not post outright skepticism, sentiments like, “…you don't have to give up just because there are major holes in your belief system,” don't exactly sound like the words of a fervent Christian believer.
Mandy, please clarify where you stand these days, (if you so desire).
For example, do you believe:
1. Every word of scripture.
2. That Jesus is the only way.
3. That Satan is the inspiration behind all other (non-Christian) religions, (i.e. that no other religion outside of Christianity is legitimate).Your answer will help clear up a lot of confusion.
Hi WIT,I probably frustrate a lot of orthodox believer's. My belief system is not necessarily typical. I would say that I am a bit more liberal in my conclusions and definitely more open to various theories than a “fervent Christian believer.”
I don't usually like to put my beliefs down as concrete (because they have changed so rapidly over the last 5 years). However, I am prepared to give an answer for how I believe today if asked.
In answer to your questions:
1. Do I believe every word of Scripture? No. My reasons are: loss of language/loss of the meaning of language, translations, religion scholar bias in translations and so on.2. Do I believe that Jesus is the only way? No. I believe he was given as a way to the Father. But Jesus even said that he has “other sheep” that will be coming in as well. Who are we to say who these “other sheep” may be? Perhaps they are Muslims or Jews? Jesus is The Way for me, but he may not be for someone is Iran. God's mercy will determine…
3. Do I believe that Satan is behind all other religions? Heavens, no! Usually folks who join a religion are not doing it for evil purposes in mind. Generally they are seeking the Almighty. With Wicca being an exception, I suppose, for obvious reasons.
OK, well, I hope that cleared up your confusion.
Love,
MandyWIT,
I guess I gave you 3 solid, “No's” to your questions…….in your mind am I still considered a Christian?
Hope so!
MandyQuote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 09 2008,01:24) Hey Kevin, Thanks for your response. Let me add a few more thoughts to our conversation.
Quote But to me, you took the easier route. Some time back you questioned the bible and its words and often used the phrase “dried ink”. However, I see that you have now slipped back into accepting it all — or so it seems — and that, to me, is the path of least resistance. That's OK as well, but try to understand that not everyone sees the bible as a work of infallibility, straight from the mind of God. I personally see it as a record of conflicting Jewish viewpoints over a span of their history. To me, it is a long string of parables and very little of it is to be taken literally. I also believe that the Jesus stories are parables as well.
I have not “…slipped back into accepting it all…”. In fact, many of my family and friends are distressed that I no longer pack my bible with me and study for several hours a day. I have made it perfectly clear that because of my trek for truth I have abandoned many of my orthodox views. I suppose this is the “distressing” part to those who remain truly orthodox. No matter, we all must work out our salvation with fear and trembling. I cannot subscribe to a belief system simply because it is popular.Your posts in the Believers section do not reflect this. You no longer question the bible, you just question other's interpretation of it. There is a big difference. Again, I don't have anything against this as it is not my life; I am merely stating my view on things.
Quote So, in this way I am traveling the road of resistence. NOT the path of least resistence. However having said that, I also feel the need for community and for Christian fellowship. I enjoy discussing the bible and the things of God. I do not believe that God needs to be put into a box (i.e., make a list of all your beliefs and make sure God is in line). I also don't believe that we will be able to pin down the absolute truth of God and his Christ. During our lifetime we will only know in part…..the ink IS dry, but God still inspires. I also believe that many will be shocked to see who will be counted as a child of God on that Day. So many here and everywhere who believe that there are strict criteria for salvation will be amazed at God's mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgement!! Praise God!! I agree but wonder if you can support your view using the bible alone. If not, you are indeed questioning the bible.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but what I believe is that you use this site as a virtual “support group”. When you were labeled as a non-believer and allowed limited access for a short time, you freaked out. So you went back to using your original username and went back to the “old” you (or at least the “you” I encountered when I first came here). I totally understand why, but I cannot do the same.
Quote Quote If much is in doubt, then how do we know which parts are right?
My brother, we cannot know absolute truth.I didn't ask for “absolute truth”. You truly cannot say which parts of the bible are true or false. So either you view it as all true or all in question. You can't truly have it any other way.
Quote I know this is what your heart seeks – to know which religion is the “right one” – but we cannot know. Wrong. I am not looking for the “right religion”. All religion is wrong in a sense because all of them are just guesses and speculations on a entity who cannot be truly known. If God can be known then He is not truly God.
But I can reject a religion based upon what I value as a person. I value freedom, logical and free thinking, the ability to question, science, all life, and much more. Based on my values, I reject the bible as a valid view of God. It is my own opinion because in the end, it comes down to what is acceptable to the individual.
Quote Therefore I have decided to follow the Almighty as he speaks to me through his Spirit (and he does). I learn by watching nature, by talking with other believer's of different faiths, by reading the Bible and other so-called religious texts. Do you truly? Do you frequent other boards, speaking with Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, etc.? Or do you speak with others in your physical life?
Quote In other words, I believe that an open mind is a terrible thing to lose. God still speaks today (beyond the dried ink). Will I be quoted as saying that I believe the Bible is the only absolute truth? No. Will I be quoted as saying that Yah is the only name of God? No. But I do believe that whatever truth you have been given, you should cherish. Because as we both know there are many truths out there….you will get exhausted running after them all. God knows our hearts, Kevin. I do not believe he will count against us that which we cannot control, or that which we cannot determine. We are only mud.I admit that I first did as you said, but I left that vain pursuit behind. Faith doesn't have to be based on a book, and faith is simple. I believe in God not because I have to but because I want to. There is so much more freedom in that approach than the alternative.
Quote Quote We'll never know if the things recorded in the bible was the truth or just what the compilers wanted us to believe.
Again, you want absolute assurance or you will not give your allegiance? Your choice, but let me know how you will ever find absolute assurance of any religion? It's impossible because we are dealing with too many unknowns. Without faith it is impossible to please God, perhaps how we know why….Why must people give “allegiance” to any religion? Do you think that is required?
Quote Quote What if your brand of faith is incorrect and really ends up promoting actions that dishonor God?
Kevin, can I just say that our Father is probably very pleased with you. Do you know why? Because you want him so badly. You want THE TRUTH so badly. You are a true seeker.I don't want the truth because the truth about God is not available to us. Instead, I merely accept I do not know and seek to live a life that is fulfilling and meaningful.
Quote Don't let your trek for truth rob you of faith. In the end, it will be all that remains….. Much love,
Mandy
Again, you are thinking of where I was several months ago. I no longer seek any truth because you won't find it in any dusty tome. I admit I thirst for knowledge, but that is not just about God anymore.Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 09 2008,01:45) WIT, I guess I gave you 3 solid, “No's” to your questions…….in your mind am I still considered a Christian?
Hope so!
Mandy
Not WIT but I'll answer: No, just a liberal oneQuote (Stu @ Aug. 06 2008,21:38) Don't count the PhDs!
When you get a PhD, then you speak truth.
No PhD, then not worth listening to.Got it.
Or maybe truth and knowledge can be gained outside of experimentation learning? Actually it is often said that many breakthroughs in science first started as a conviction and even a revelation. Science was then used to prove what was originally a belief.
Of course scientific theories are often wrong too. The history of science has left behind multitudes of theories in it's wake. Imagine all the people that at some point were caught up in those theories and probably even debated them as if they were truth.
Perhaps Stu, you could even admit that a singularity with less intelligence than a blowfly created things beyond all the intelligence of humanity put together (including all PhDs) is at least a bit silly?
Hi t8
Stu: Don't count the PhDs!
Quote When you get a PhD, then you speak truth.
No PhD, then not worth listening to.
Got it.
That was exactly my point, actually. Creationists shout loudly whenever they find someone with a PhD who agrees with them. Real scientists don’t. It is incidentally true that creationists almost never have degrees in biology. And it shows.Quote Or maybe truth and knowledge can be gained outside of experimentation learning? Actually it is often said that many breakthroughs in science first started as a conviction and even a revelation. Science was then used to prove what was originally a belief.
Name one example that unquestionably started as a revelation from your god.Quote Of course scientific theories are often wrong too. The history of science has left behind multitudes of theories in it's wake. Imagine all the people that at some point were caught up in those theories and probably even debated them as if they were truth.
Yes, and science self-corrects and detects hoxaes, especially religious ones. Even the Catholic church does this to some extent, amusingly arbitrary as it is. Of course the devout zealot will, in the face of overwhelming evidence that contradicts his infallible knowledge, just put his hands over his ears and shout ‘blah blah I can’t hear you’Quote Perhaps Stu, you could even admit that a singularity with less intelligence than a blowfly created things beyond all the intelligence of humanity put together (including all PhDs) is at least a bit silly?
Not created. But what does that have to do with your post above? Could it be that with god any old thing goes?Stuart
Hi Kevin,
Quote Your posts in the Believers section do not reflect this. You no longer question the bible, you just question other's interpretation of it. There is a big difference.
This is your opinion. I believe you base a bit of your opinon on the fact that I have also disappointed you. I did not remain in “non-believer” status. I did not continue in my anger when I first learned of the loopholes of the bible. I moved past my anger into grief, and then moved past my grief into bargaining, and then moved past that into acceptance. It was a healthy process. It helped me put things into perspective – that is where I am now – that is what you see reflected in my posts. I have not remained on the far right, but instead I have moved more towards tolerance. I understand this is upsetting to most who are passionate about their “truth”. But I do believe the more mature I become in the Lord, the more I am accepting of where other's are at.You and I have changed our viewpoints pretty drastically over the past couple of years, for instance. Tolerance needs to be employed here as who knows where we will be a year from now? Not tossed by the wind, but certainly beckoned by the search for truth. Paul prayed that we would constantly grow in wisdom and in knowledge.
Quote I agree but wonder if you can support your view using the bible alone. If not, you are indeed questioning the bible.
I never said that I did not question the bible. In fact I have said the opposite – that I do not believe every word as it is written – and there are holes in the Christian belief system.But there is a difference between putting down the bible all together and proclaiming the dried ink useless and a mockery…..and simply using it as a tool to know God better. Or as you have said in the past, like a diary of one left behind, it is useful to get to know the author.
Quote Forgive me if I am wrong, but what I believe is that you use this site as a virtual “support group”. When you were labeled as a non-believer and allowed limited access for a short time, you freaked out. So you went back to using your original username and went back to the “old” you (or at least the “you” I encountered when I first came here). I totally understand why, but I cannot do the same.
LOL. Well, I do forgive you for getting this wrong. I never “freaked out” and went back to my old user name. First of all, I was the one who contacted t8 to ask to be put in the “non-believers” section. I felt it only fair to be put there while I was questioning if Jesus was the Messiah. When I had established that for me he was, I asked to be put back the “Regular Members” group again.There is a huge difference between “freaking out” and searching the truth out for myself. Coming to the conclusions that I have come to are not based on the need for fellowship. How shallow would that be? You underestimate my longing for God and to know him. That is OK because how can another man know what is in the heart of another?
You may not be able to enjoy the fellowship of other's who do not believe as you do, but I fit in just fine.
Quote Do you frequent other boards, speaking with Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, etc.? Or do you speak with others in your physical life?
I do not visit other boards although I did visit yours for a time. To be honest, I do not have the time to invest. Even now I am due to leave the house but want to finish this with you. I have friends who are Buddhist and I have said before that I find a alot of meaning in their philosophy of life. I also have one girlfriend who is Mulsim. Whenever we go out to eat we are careful to honor her dietary restrictions. I also am friends with a Jewish family and several Atheists. How about you?Quote Faith doesn't have to be based on a book, and faith is simple. I believe in God not because I have to but because I want to. There is so much more freedom in that approach than the alternative.
Amen, bro! I agree wholeheartedly! Quote Why must people give “allegiance” to any religion? Do you think that is required?
Perhaps not required, but the point I was trying to make is that there are scads of religions out there – pick one! Love God with all your heart and strength. For me, I have been given Christianity as truth and I believe it.Quote I don't want the truth because the truth about God is not available to us. Instead, I merely accept I do not know and seek to live a life that is fulfilling and meaningful.
In my opinion this is a typical response of a true seeker. If we cannot have the whole truth, and nothing but the truth – we don't want any of it! Maybe this doesn't represent you totally, but you get the picture. As for me, I have decided that I can accept parts of the truth given to me. The rest…….I put in the hands of the One who cares for me, and the One who is in the heavens looking down at me right now. I am only mud, or a creation, or a process of evolution, or??? Nevertheless, I am a limited being. A “God” would know this.Quote I admit I thirst for knowledge, but that is not just about God anymore.
That's OK. You'll come back around again. Do you know why? I believe there is a place in us that only God can fill. We were hard-wired that way, imo. So even though we cannot fully understand God – we seek to. Even in the seeking you can find peace and contentment. I think that for me not to seek would mean the death of me.Good to chat with you, Kevin. Take care today and I love you, bro.
MandyQuote Which beginning is this? The beginning of the earth? The beginning of the universe? Stu, when was the beginning of the earth? The earth is part of the universe stu.
Quote You say that the ‘beginning’ in Gen 1 does not refer to the universe but the earth, then you say that the bible tells us that the universe had a beginning!
What a web we weave…
Where did I say that? What I did say was that the genesis account is focusing on the earth. I never said it doesn't refer to the universe. I said it refers to the universe including the earth, the heavens and the earth. I did say it goes on to focus on the earth.Quote Well it is a crock in that case. What is the value of a description of the ‘beginning’ (of whatever event you’ve moved the goalposts to) if it takes thousands more words to reinterpret its meaning? Why bother with this ignorant waffle?
I guess, stu, because if some of your science friends had paid attention to it, thy wouldn't have been in darkness for thousands of years. They would have known there was a beginning. And that God was responsible for it.Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 09 2008,11:06) Hi Kevin, Quote Your posts in the Believers section do not reflect this. You no longer question the bible, you just question other's interpretation of it. There is a big difference.
This is your opinion. I believe you base a bit of your opinon on the fact that I have also disappointed you.How could you disappoint me? Your life is your own. I merely mention things as I interpret them, if it is wrong, it is wrong.
Quote I did not remain in “non-believer” status. I did not continue in my anger when I first learned of the loopholes of the bible. I moved past my anger into grief, and then moved past my grief into bargaining, and then moved past that into acceptance. “Grief into bargaining”?
Quote It was a healthy process. It helped me put things into perspective – that is where I am now – that is what you see reflected in my posts. I have not remained on the far right, but instead I have moved more towards tolerance. I understand this is upsetting to most who are passionate about their “truth”. But I do believe the more mature I become in the Lord, the more I am accepting of where other's are at. You and I have changed our viewpoints pretty drastically over the past couple of years, for instance. Tolerance needs to be employed here as who knows where we will be a year from now? Not tossed by the wind, but certainly beckoned by the search for truth. Paul prayed that we would constantly grow in wisdom and in knowledge.
Quote I agree but wonder if you can support your view using the bible alone. If not, you are indeed questioning the bible.
I never said that I did not question the bible. In fact I have said the opposite – that I do not believe every word as it is written – and there are holes in the Christian belief system.So I ask again: how do you know which parts to accept?
Quote But there is a difference between putting down the bible all together and proclaiming the dried ink useless and a mockery…..and simply using it as a tool to know God better. How can it be a tool used to know God better if you don't know which part is being truthful about Him?
Quote Or as you have said in the past, like a diary of one left behind, it is useful to get to know the author. Or authors. I think it is mostly the minds of the writers you learn about, not any God.
Quote Quote Forgive me if I am wrong, but what I believe is that you use this site as a virtual “support group”. When you were labeled as a non-believer and allowed limited access for a short time, you freaked out. So you went back to using your original username and went back to the “old” you (or at least the “you” I encountered when I first came here). I totally understand why, but I cannot do the same.
LOL. Well, I do forgive you for getting this wrong. I never “freaked out” and went back to my old user name. First of all, I was the one who contacted t8 to ask to be put in the “non-believers” section. I felt it only fair to be put there while I was questioning if Jesus was the Messiah. When I had established that for me he was, I asked to be put back the “Regular Members” group again.I wouldn't know what posts to look for, but I do seem to recall that you mentioned being upset once you were in the NB group about what you could no longer access as a poster. That's what I'm referring to.
Quote There is a huge difference between “freaking out” and searching the truth out for myself. Coming to the conclusions that I have come to are not based on the need for fellowship. How shallow would that be? You underestimate my longing for God and to know him. That is OK because how can another man know what is in the heart of another? You may not be able to enjoy the fellowship of other's who do not believe as you do, but I fit in just fine.
Well, not really here because there is actually very little fellowship and much bible debate. When you no longer find the bible to be valid, its hard to debate if Jesus existed before his birth or not if you doubt his existence altogether
. Quote Quote Do you frequent other boards, speaking with Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, etc.? Or do you speak with others in your physical life?
I do not visit other boards although I did visit yours for a time. To be honest, I do not have the time to invest. Even now I am due to leave the house but want to finish this with you. I have friends who are Buddhist and I have said before that I find a alot of meaning in their philosophy of life. I also have one girlfriend who is Mulsim. Whenever we go out to eat we are careful to honor her dietary restrictions. I also am friends with a Jewish family and several Atheists. How about you?Mostly internet stuff. Where I live, you are a Christian or you keep your mouth shut
.Quote Quote Faith doesn't have to be based on a book, and faith is simple. I believe i
n God not because I have to but because I want to. There is so much more freedom in that approach than the alternative.
Amen, bro! I agree wholeheartedly! Quote Why must people give “allegiance” to any religion? Do you think that is required?
Perhaps not required, but the point I was trying to make is that there are scads of religions out there – pick one! Love God with all your heart and strength. For me, I have been given Christianity as truth and I believe it.Perhaps. I don't think you have to hang your hat on one religion because I find that often those who do so are bigoted against those who pick another.
Quote Quote I don't want the truth because the truth about God is not available to us. Instead, I merely accept I do not know and seek to live a life that is fulfilling and meaningful.
In my opinion this is a typical response of a true seeker. If we cannot have the whole truth, and nothing but the truth – we don't want any of it! Maybe this doesn't represent you totally, but you get the picture. Seriously, when it comes to God, how would you know what was really true in the first place? He/she is not forthcoming with the evidence so all we have is the various “revelations” of humans.
Quote As for me, I have decided that I can accept parts of the truth given to me. The rest…….I put in the hands of the One who cares for me, and the One who is in the heavens looking down at me right now. I am only mud, or a creation, or a process of evolution, or??? Nevertheless, I am a limited being. A “God” would know this. Quote I admit I thirst for knowledge, but that is not just about God anymore.
That's OK. You'll come back around again. Do you know why? I believe there is a place in us that only God can fill. We were hard-wired that way, imo. So even though we cannot fully understand God – we seek to. Even in the seeking you can find peace and contentment. I think that for me not to seek would mean the death of me.I don't think so. I know many atheists who were former Christians who have zero yearning to know anything about God anymore. They don't even feel the supposed emptiness you speak of.
Quote Good to chat with you, Kevin. Take care today and I love you, bro.
Mandy
You too. Love you in a fellow human kinda way
.Hi David
Stu: Which beginning is this? The beginning of the earth? The beginning of the universe?
Quote Stu, when was the beginning of the earth? The earth is part of the universe stu.
Stu: You say that the ‘beginning’ in Gen 1 does not refer to the universe but the earth, then you say that the bible tells us that the universe had a beginning!
What a web we weave…Quote Where did I say that? What I did say was that the genesis account is focusing on the earth. I never said it doesn't refer to the universe. I said it refers to the universe including the earth, the heavens and the earth. I did say it goes on to focus on the earth.
Lets’ be painfully clear, so people can see your attempt to pull the wool over their eyes:Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Heaven is defined as the ‘firmament’:
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven.
The firmament is not the universe, it is between the two sets of ‘waters’ (whatever that means) on earth:
Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Genesis only mentions the firmament and the earth. We know that the earth was formed by accretion of material from a nearby supernova some 9 billion years after the beginning of the universe (if it had a beginning and was not just recycling in some way).
This Genesis beginning is therefore NOT the beginning of the universe.
Your claim that Genesis shows the universe had a beginning does not match up to science for two reasons:
Whatever happened before a fraction of a second after the big bang is unknown, so it cannot be compared to Genesis.
The beginning of the universe is not even described in Genesis.How do you think god feels about you rewriting scripture?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 10 2008,01:08) That was exactly my point, actually. Creationists shout loudly whenever they find someone with a PhD who agrees with them. Real scientists don’t. It is incidentally true that creationists almost never have degrees in biology. And it shows.
You don't need a PhD to know that there is a God. I think you will find that people who actually cannot understand that there is a creator are in the minority. There are many scientists who believe in God just as there are many who do not.Understanding that there is a God is not an intellectual thing, although saying that God doesn't exist is said to be foolish. A child, a scientist, even some of the best scientists the world believe in God. Same kinds of people also don't believe in God. It is not an intellectual divide rather a divide regarding faith and the ability to receive light.
Scripture teaches that the only true division is righteous and wicked. Intellect, athletic ability, race, gender, or age has nothing to do with it. It is a fact that some have faith in God and some do not.
To some degree I agree with you regarding creationists. I disagree with them that the bible says the earth is 6000 years old. But I don't disagree with them in their acknowledgment in a creator.
I think if you just look at people who believe in a creator (minus the politics), then you might just be surprised. Within the group that believe in a creator there are theories and doctrines that are not necessarily correct. But that is understandable. Any group of people have opinions. Opinions are OK. Opinions on the variables that is. You find exactly the same thing with evolutionists I would say. There are many opinions within that framework I would say.
I should also point out that because you don't need to be intellectually superior to see God, this offends some intelligent and proud people. They like to think that they can comprehend things that others cannot, so the idea of God offends them. But that is their problem.
You can be the most intelligent person who ever lived and still lack insight and wisdom. You can be intellectually challenged and yet be a very wise person. Foolishness is not an attribute of those who are challenged with academia, but is an attribute of anyone who lacks wisdom or is not wise.
Hi t8
Quote You don't need a PhD to know that there is a God.
You don’t need one to ‘know’ there isn’t either. Of course you don’t know whether there really is a god any better than I do, or especially which god it is running things. Otherwise you wouldn’t need faith.Quote I think you will find that people who actually cannot understand that there is a creator are in the minority.
You say it like it is a disability. Yet you cannot tell me what I can’t understand: you can’t articulate it, you can’t show me by pointing and you can’t confirm that you know stuff that I cannot. Who really has the disability?Quote There are many scientists who believe in God just as there are many who do not.
Sure. 40% usually survey as having some god belief. 4% reject Darwin, because they are fundamentalist religionists. That rate of belief is much lower than the general population but it does not tell us anything about the existence of gods or otherwise. They believe with blind faith like any other under the Pauline or Mohammedan or whateveran delusion. I am curious about how some of them keep one part of the brain from talking to the other parts. There are many scientists who came to the atheistic realisation that they had not up to that point allowed the scientific part to interrogate the deluded part. A recent one was an astrophysicist in one of the Nordic countries who spent a lot of time convincing others that he was studying the beauty of god’s creation, until he realised that there is no difference between calling it gods creation and not calling it that, and actually it makes more sense not to invoke an unnecessary god.Quote Understanding that there is a God is not an intellectual thing, although saying that God doesn't exist is said to be foolish.
Did your spiritual lawyer suggest adopting that phrase? From what I have seen in churches, on television and in scripture, understanding that there is a god is like falling victim to a confidence trickster or a clever cold-reading psychic or hypnosis. The two are indistinguishable, except for the scale of the delusion. Peer pressure and probably genetic makeup keep christianity going, but it is a dying belief in the mainstream version. The childish need for an imaginary substitute parent figure is strong too.Quote A child, a scientist, even some of the best scientists the world believe in God. Same kinds of people also don't believe in God. It is not an intellectual divide rather a divide regarding faith and the ability to receive light.
Which is a reason why it appears to me to be genetic.Quote Scripture teaches that the only true division is righteous and wicked. Intellect, athletic ability, race, gender, or age has nothing to do with it. It is a fact that some have faith in God and some do not.
And some with faith are wicked. The US prison population comprises 0.23% atheists from a general population of 15% (more likely 25%, or maybe not as high as other western countries, with so many god genes amongst the US founders). You can bet your US convict is a christian.Quote To some degree I agree with you regarding creationists. I disagree with them that the bible says the earth is 6000 years old. But I don't disagree with them in their acknowledgment in a creator.
They tell lies about the established body of scientific knowledge. Do you not wish to distance yourself from such false witness? There are young-earth creationists, old-earth creationists and intelligent designists, amongst others. Every one of them relies on wild conjecture based on the premise of the infallibility of Genesis, the argument from design and arguments from ignorance. That includes ID. Meantime real science has left them where they belong, in the C19th. Think Peter Jackson splatter movie, they are scientific zombies! Science says nothing about gods except ‘what gods’? Creationists will never admit that what they are doing is not science but lying for god.Quote I think if you just look at people who believe in a creator (minus the politics), then you might just be surprised. Within the group that believe in a creator there are theories and doctrines that are not necessarily correct. But that is understandable. Any group of people have opinions. Opinions are OK. Opinions on the variables that is. You find exactly the same thing with evolutionists I would say. There are many opinions within that framework I would say.
And opinions really count for nothing in the end, except in politics, and even there decisions are only fair if they are evidence-based. Doctrines are not supported by evidence (otherwise we would call them science) so how can anyone say one doctrine is ‘wrong’? It may be wrong for the individual, but there is nothing absolute about it. There is nothing absolute about science, but it is repeatable and verifiable within the parameters of our observational limits. And there is no point considering anything outside them anyway.Quote I should also point out that because you don't need to be intellectually superior to see God, this offends some intelligent and proud people. They like to think that they can comprehend things that others cannot, so the idea of God offends them. But that is their problem.
Atheists are brighter on average, that is a statistical finding. I think also you have to have a particular genetic makeup to see god. That fits in with what you write above. At the moment that is no more than an hypothesis, but already there are separated twin studies that suggest a genetic cause of believing in gods, and maybe other made-up things too.Quote You can be the most intelligent person who ever lived and still lack insight and wisdom. You can be intellectually challenged and yet be a very wise person. Foolishness is not an attribute of those who are challenged with academia, but is an attribute of anyone who lacks wisdom or is not wise.
Is it wise to have god-belief? I think it is not. I
s it foolish? I think it could be argued that if it is not genetic, then it is indeed foolishness.Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
