|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total) |
| |
Skylink | |
Total: 919,459 Year: 6,716/9,624 Month: 56/238 Week: 56/22 Day: 11/12 Hour: 0/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who Made God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I am glad you agree that as stated the number is correct. I also know that 64 bit and 32 bit has different numbers. You are beyond any help. No one should listen to anything you say about science. I hope our discussion on this topic is sufficient to illustrate that to folks who stumble across this thread. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member (Idle past 296 days) Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
ICANT writes: In other words I took it you were referring to the theory in the BBT but that you were referring to a BANG with the BB abbreviation. I can't read minds and don't think I would like to be able too. No, I was simply referring to the inflation again.There is no actual BANG anywhere when talking about the BB or the BBT. It's simply a bad name, and the lesson of your confusion because of naming things badly should be learned here and applied to your intended bad-name of "God" for anything-that-began-the-universe (which includes non-sentient, natural explanations.) So you don't think it would require a huge abount of pure energy to cause the universe to begin to exist. I think the description of the Planck epoch describes a tremendous amount of energy. A quintillion degrees would require a lot of energy. Our sun is only 9,941F. So when we talk of the Planck epoch we are talking of a lot of energy. A lot of energy once it's there - sure. But how much energy is required to create or begin the universe? I don't know.And neither do you. Might be a lot.Might be a little. Might be none. Your insistence that your chosen answer of it requiring a huge amount is baseless and meaningless. Unless you have some more information you're holding back from us?Any further implication that it must also require a God is at best confusing, and at worst just wrong. A large amount of information is needed to be inserted in the creation to make everything work which would have to be supplied by whatever caused the universe to exist. How could you possibly know such a thing? Maybe a lot of information is needed.Maybe a little. Maybe none. How many universes have you created?How many universe creations are you able to fully study and understand? And I keep giving you the answer. The universe exists today. Can't you understand that? If neither of my ways of the universe beginning to exist is right then how did it get here? You seem to be unwilling to entertain the idea that ICANT and Stile may not be able to fathom how it got here. You claim that you don't know everything... then you claim that there cannot be something you don't understand about the beginning of the universe? That's what we call a contradiction. Perhaps the universe got here in a way that Stile and ICANT cannot fathom.Perhaps it was not created and also is not eternal at all. Or perhaps it is, but not in a way that Stile or ICANT can currently fathom. I can't say it must be one of those, because I understand that I do not have all the information about the beginning of the universe and that my existing logic may not apply. What makes you think that your existing logic MUST apply to the beginning of the universe?
Could you please explain how zero or a small amount of energy could produce a temperature of one quintillion degrees? Of course not.Just as you can't explain how a huge amount of energy could create a universe with a temperature of one quintillion degrees. Remember... we're not talking about just 'producing'... we're talking about creating. And you don't know how that works anymore than I do. Maybe it takes a lot of energy to create a universe.Maybe it only takes a little. Maybe it doesn't take any at all. I don't know.And neither do you. Or, at least, you've given no reason to suspect that you do. So the universe existed eternally in the past? Is that what you are saying? If so why did it wait so long to begin to expand?Also what caused it to start to expand? I'm saying we don't know. Maybe it did.Maybe it didn't. Maybe it did something else that can't be explained by such a concept one way or the other, because ICANT and Stile simply cannot fathom such an idea. I'm also saying that you don't know. Even though you simply claim to know. You seem incapable of backing up that claim with anything that makes sense.
The universe could not have existed eternally in the past. A profound statement, I will agree. After discussing multiverses and eternal universes Mithani and Vilenkin came to say:The conclusion is inescapable. "None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal". That's not a profound statement. It's a baseless and therefore meaningless statement. Your quoted authorities also agree with me, ICANT. Mithani and Vilenkin said that none of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal. What if the beginning of the universe wasn't one of those scenarios? Mithani and Vilenkin don't say that the universe could not have existed eternally in the past.And neither can you. Because you don't know.Because Mithani and Vilenkin don't know either. That only leaves one possibility as far as science is concerned. The universe had a beginning to exist. Except your logic is based on obviously flawed ideas, as shown.Therefore, your conclusion cannot be trusted. But if my God is the one who created the heavens and earth as He claimed to. The universe could have well exited eternally in the past just not in the form it is today, as it would never run out of an energy source and could be recharged anytime God so chose to do so. This is very true.Yay for you! You said something that's not wrong! It's just also true if God doesn't exist at all. It's even more probable that the universe could have existed eternally in the past, just not in the form it is today, as it would never run out of an energy source and may not even require one... all without God anyhere. That's more probable because answers-that-do-not-include-God have been shown to be more likely than answers-that-do-include-God. But which one accurately describes the reality behind the creation of our universe? I don't know.And neither do you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
A conservative (but Reform congregation) Jewish teacher had an answer for a Mr. T.
Here is part of his answer.
quote: I was goggle searching for something and it appears that I found the Long Island daily newspaper. This Jewish teacher is part of a group that includes Catholic priests (or he used to be). Now. I might ask if the "Gnostic" view(s) of (either) false scriptures OR a "Demiurge" creation should be considered though. Consider the Nazarenes (also called Ebionites). Paul was called a "Nazarene" in Acts. These guys had the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in Jerome's time (400 AD). Look at the absence of the first few chapters of Matthew (Nazarenes Gospel of Matthew lacked chapter 1 and the Ebionites Matthew Gospel lacked chapter 1 and 2) Notice the rejection of the Torah as we now have it. Notice the rejection of even the prophets. This is a conservative evangelical dictionary.
quote: Perhaps there wasn't an omission but an original Matthew Gospel before additions to make Jesus look like he was from the House of David (through Joseph)? Were these Nazarenes and Ebionites the original Jewish Christians of Jerusalem (with James as the "Bishop")? Look at this recent Patheos article.
quote: I still have trouble with those who want to see the current European Bible as representing the first century views. The Hebrew Matthew was destroyed by the Catholics. It was a "heretic Bible". The "Bishop" issue, as we now know it, was a European corruption (especially after 100 AD). Modern Protestant scholars want to claim Apostolic succession for the Roman Catholic church Bishops. Like Michael Kruger.
quote: They forget that Hegesippus (around 180) wrote about all the early Bishops, and James was the first Bishop of Jerusalem.
quote: He said James was a vegetarian! http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/hegesippus.html He was a vegetarian. There is a first century "heretic" Bishop! James the Just. Bro of Jesus.
quote: An early comment (from before the 60s AD) according to almost all scholars AND IT MIGHT EVEN GO BACK TO JESUS. On the creation. Not in our Gospels in the European Bible. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
quote: You said the scripture describes God stretching space. (I should also ask if anybody pre Einstein interpretations interpreted that as some sort of "cosmological constant" type of space creation BECAUSE it seems like a modern 20th century reinterpretation of the Prophet Isaiah)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
quote: You said:
quote: Actually the word for animal "life" is nephesh which is the closest word to mean "soul" in Biblical Hebrew. It says the SOUL is in the blood which is used to make atonement for YOUR SOULS. The "your souls" is the same "nephesh" word but in the plural (plus the suffix for "your" attached.) Without the suffix, it is nephashoth for plural. It is about souls if anything. See Genesis 9. NIV
quote: It is taking a vegetarian command and making an excuse for meat eating. Here is an accurate translation.
quote: Jerome (who you got your Bible from) correctly said this:
quote: Here is a quote that I have found multiple times on the web but seems a little corrupted.
quote: As for the bloodletting thing, it is a completely external issue to the Biblical text. The issue of humors and bleeding had nothing to do with people (possibly) thinking that the vital soul force was in the blood. The Biblical text is about nephesh and the verb (naphash) means he breathes or he breathed ("TO BREATH" in Lexicons) You want to get scientific? Is a "soul" proven? There is no real word for soul in Biblical Hebrew. The word means breathing creature. Is breath literally from blood? It has to do with killing. The Nephesh/blood issue is all about sacrifices and this humor issue is 100% off the path. So people attempted to purify a man medically. Blood transfusions can be done correctly without killing people. The humor issue was an attempt to cure a person without killing them. A side issue and blood being lost was known to kill. Honestly. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18639 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.4 |
When engaging in scholarly debates, being adept at googling is hardly a substitute for actually studying Hebrew and/or having a concordance. Google is full of information but the challenge is to apply the information so as to make a point, rather than simply flooding the discussion with links, articles, and ancient practices.
Personally, I find that one is less likely to arrive at wisdom through studying ancient beliefs than from applying what we learn to our daily experience, discipline, motivation, and intention. I believe that GOD exists and is aware of us and our experience, intent, and attitude towards each other. One major question to be resolved is whether GOD (Through Jesus Christ according to Christian Belief) interacts with humanity in any meaningful or relational way. The ancient folks are no closer nor any farther than we are from addressing this today. Edited by Phat, : spellcheckChance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
10^(-6180) is smaller than that number.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
(the quotations are important so we can see historical interpretations of the scripture)
I'CANT sais this a while back:
quote: I did some research a while back and found that William Harvey died around 1656 I think. The fundamentalist's favorite reformation devotional commentary seems to be Matthew Henry's, who was born in 1662. He wrote a full 3 quarters to 1 full century after this blood discovery. Here is what he said. (via the Bible Hub comment option on Genesis 9:4)
quote: I still don't see where this discovery was seen as some big confirmation in the commentaries. That was a Genesis 9:4 comment page. Here is Leviticus 17:11 page. Leviticus 17:11 Commentaries: 'For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.' COSMOLOGICAL ISSUES. And what about this "stretching out the heavens" issue and some sort of creation of space similar to general relativity? Job 9:8 Commentaries: Who alone stretches out the heavens And tramples down the waves of the sea; Isaiah 42:5 Commentaries: Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to the people on it And spirit to those who walk in it, Isaiah 44:24 Commentaries: Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone, Isaiah 45:12 Commentaries: "It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands And I ordained all their host. Isaiah 51:13 Commentaries: That you have forgotten the LORD your Maker, Who stretched out the heavens And laid the foundations of the earth, That you fear continually all day long because of the fury of the oppressor, As he makes ready to destroy? But where is the fury of the oppressor? I think that I'CANT doesn't accept a "Cosmological Constant" (from a single initial point) but might be more in favor of a general relativity application toward a Halton Arp type of "multiple ongoing creation points" (as creationists like to interpret his work to have indicated) in endless spots in the universe. BUT. He thinks that the scripture states that space was (is?) being created by God, which would then be matching modern scientific observations. Where are the pre-Einstein commentaries to back his scriptural exegesis claim? Why shouldn't we look and ask? Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
quote: I think that certain folks like Jerome (whose life spanned from around 340 to 420 or something) were using their time very wisely. He actually had to flee (from Rome and the Pope) to Palestine, according to some of what I read on the internet. After he was earlier commissioned, by the Pope, to write the Bible. He searched and translated ancient texts. I have a ton of respect for what he attempted to do. And I can use his considerable access to documents no longer existing (like the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew), among other things, to see what the Christian views were (overall) back then. JESUS FAMILY ISSUE. Just like I can see what the monumentally important chronicler Hegesippus said about the Bishops from the family of Jesus that ruled till after 100 A.D. Clopas - Wikipedia Simeon of Jerusalem - Wikipedia Eusebius quoted Hegesippus:
quote: quote: The Bishop James the Just was followed by Simon Wikipedia
quote: Why can't the Eusebius quotes of Hegesippus be seen as monumentally enlightening? He lived during the time of the Jesus family Bishops. James really was Bishop of Jerusalem. He really was related to Jesus (probably his blood brother) Acts 15:13 Commentaries: After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, "Brethren, listen to me.
quote: Why can't folks like Hegesippus be considered a must read? He was almost RIGHT THERE (born just a bit later) when the Jesus family ruled the "church" or whatever. And he read from the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. But he did in the 2nd century while Jerome did from the 4th to the 5th. I respect those who were there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18639 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.4 |
Can you start a conversation with me here in my new topic? I appreciate your time.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18639 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.4 |
ringo writes: OK, going with your analogy... let's examine 3 models. The first model is who the Jews perceived around the time of Jesus birth and also around the time Saul of Tarsus was afoot. The second model was the one whom Jesus called Father. Asking, "Who made God?" is like asking, "Who made all of those cars?" Just like cars, those gods were made by a lot of different manufacturers, often with different goals in mind. The third model was the one that allegedly knocked Saul off his high horse and spurned him into becoming Paul and starting a new religion. One could argue that a real God existed amongst these contenders...and I would argue that Jesus knew the real one, only because He worked at the relationship harder than most people. If people had to endure the suffering in life, harsh conditions, and lack of promise that those early people went through, one might see more people praying longer, fasting more, and studying the scriptures more independently yet diligently. People these days place their hope in science and technology to alleviate suffering. While it can go a long way, (my eye operation was a stellar success!) we still seek a source with solutions.
ringo writes: I'm hoping one is different. I'm hoping one is actually real. I'm realizing as I get older that there are some problems in life that have no solutions. Do I expect a giant fairy to magically poof a solution? At times I do, but I know better. What I expect is a source of wisdom that will either inspire me to think of a solution or offer me one.
The problem is that there are so many logically consistent gods, each with his own definite character. You seem to concede that some of them are made up. I'm just wondering why you think one is different. ringo writes: God forbid we have a polytheistic universe. I prefer a monotheistic reality. A committee of Gods would more likely turn down my requests.
How do you distinguish between "the best of many" (which only includes the ones you've met) and "only one exists"?ringo writes: It depends on what you get out of it. There is an employee at work named Tommy. For months I mistakenly called him Troy. He never corrected me, but I heard of my error through others. In that case, I was wrong, but still reaped the benefit of knowing him by a different name for months. If I simply waited for God to reveal His name to me, I would never get an opportunity to begin to get to know Him. So what if people think I'm talking to the air? So what if I hear only my own voice echoing back to me? My point is that you have concluded that God likely isn't here. I have concluded that He likely is. Is either position any worse than the other? Which is worse? To wait your whole life without knowing or to spend your whole life being wrong?Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 665 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
You're not really talking about three different models. You're talking about three Toyota Corollas in slightly different shades of blue.
OK, going with your analogy... let's examine 3 models. The first model is who the Jews perceived around the time of Jesus birth and also around the time Saul of Tarsus was afoot. The second model was the one whom Jesus called Father.The third model was the one that allegedly knocked Saul off his high horse and spurned him into becoming Paul and starting a new religion. One could argue that a real God existed amongst these contenders... Phat writes:
And it works.
People these days place their hope in science and technology to alleviate suffering. Phat writes:
Why?
God forbid we have a polytheistic universe. I prefer a monotheistic reality. Phat writes:
And your requests ARE turned down, so the committee seems more likely - or no God at all.
A committee of Gods would more likely turn down my requests. Phat writes:
You don't know Him.
If I simply waited for God to reveal His name to me, I would never get an opportunity to begin to get to know Him. Phat writes:
Subsitute "leprechauns" for "God" and answer the question yourself. My point is that you have concluded that God likely isn't here. I have concluded that He likely is. Is either position any worse than the other?And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18639 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.4 |
You always go with Leprechauns, dont you? Lets ask Wiki.
Wiki writes: Note folklore. The tale was spun intentionally as folklore. Can you make the same case for any of the 66 books?
The earliest known reference to the leprechaun appears in the medieval tale known as the Echtra Fergus mac Léti (Adventure of Fergus son of Léti).[7] The text contains an episode in which Fergus mac Léti, King of Ulster, falls asleep on the beach and wakes to find himself being dragged into the sea by three lchorpáin. He captures his abductors, who grant him three wishes in exchange for release.[8][9] The leprechaun is said to be a solitary creature, whose principal occupation is making and mending shoes, and who enjoys practical jokes. Wiki writes: To me, the difference is that humans ...though disagreeing...take God seriously...or at least some do. Nobody takes Leprechauns seriously! We all know we are reading folklore. You guys are trying now to convince the believers that they too are reading folklore. In monotheistic thought, God is conceived of as the supreme being, creator deity, and principal object of faith.[3] The conceptions of God, as described by theologians, commonly include the attributes of omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (all-powerful), omnipresence (all-present), and as having an eternal and necessary existence. I suppose that one can look at it the way one wants. Nobody that I know who is a believer would ever want God to be folklore. Most unbelievers simply assume that He is, I suppose. All I know is that if I pray right now, I do not believe that I am praying to a figment of my imagination. It seems to me that through these arguments, I sense that I am being asked to let go of the spark of hope that philosophers describe as"springing eternal.". Do you really have an equivalent hope in human survival and science to ensure the survival of our species?? Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 665 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Well, they're less plausible than Bigfoot - but just as funny.
You always go with Leprechauns, dont you? Phat writes:
Sure. Why not? (Hint: talking snake.)
The tale was spun intentionally as folklore. Can you make the same case for any of the 66 books? Phat writes:
On the contrary, many of us take leprechauns just as seriously as we take your God.
Nobody takes Leprechauns seriously! Phat writes:
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. But YOU're the one who throws out the parts of the Bible that you don't like - i.e. you treat them like folklore.
You guys are trying now to convince the believers that they too are reading folklore. Phat writes:
Of course not. It's a false hope, like hoping you'll win the lottery. Do you really have an equivalent hope in human survival and science to ensure the survival of our species??And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6076 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4 |
To me, the difference is that humans ...though disagreeing...take God seriously...or at least some do.
Uh, sorry, but which particular gods are you talking about there? Humans have created so many different gods that I doubt we could ever possibly enumerate them. That includes the vast numbers of the Christian gods (mainly millions of believers believing in "only one God" while creating millions of versions of that idea -- re-read Catch-22 for the Santa Ana Army Air Base scene where Yossarian and Lt. Scheisskopf's wife, both atheists, get into a very emotional argument in which their ideas of the god that they don't believe in clash directly -- during the book, we keep hearing of Lt. Scheisskopf gaining rank rapidly until by the end he's a general because he had the primary quality for advancing in the military, being a shit-head (ein Scheisskopf)).
I suppose that one can look at it the way one wants. Cop-out trying to smooth the waters and appear to be reasonable.
Nobody that I know who is a believer would ever want God to be folklore. Of course not, because as believers they have a vested interest in it all being real. So then basically wishful thinking, but wishful thinking that they are heavily invested in.
Most unbelievers simply assume that He is, I suppose. Non-believers are free to observe and analyze and test, etc. May I share with you one particular "aha!" moment I had with a creationist on a Yahoo Groups forum? He did the usual uninformed creationist thing of repeating false creationist claims, so when he resorted to the "sodium levels in the oceans" claim, I educated him about "residence times" which completely destroyed his claim. My follow-up question for him was why every single creationist claim was so unconvincing, to which he replied that the only reason I found them so unconvincing was because I was not yet convinced myself. Whoa! That revealed to me that truth has absolutely nothing to do with creationism (despite their purported worship of a god who is Truth Incarnate), but rather sounding convincing is their only touchstone. Please review my nascent page at http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/cs_vs_sci.html where I work with those ideas -- it has not yet been finalized.
All I know is that if I pray right now, I do not believe that I am praying to a figment of my imagination. Of course not. That kind of prayer has no bearing on reality. Nor any validity when one considers reality.
It seems to me that through these arguments, I sense that I am being asked to let go of the spark of hope that philosophers describe as "springing eternal.". Do you really have an equivalent hope in human survival and science to ensure the survival of our species?? Those are two different things. Your "hope springing eternal" tends to derive from your Christian musings, few of which are rational. The "hope in human survival and science to ensure the survival of our species" is something altogether different and even potentially anti-Christian. Remember, what is the Christian model for the future? Armageddon! Everything falling apart and quite literally going to Hell. So then the only "hope in human survival and science to ensure the survival of our species" that could ever be offered in such a Christian environment would be completely and utterly anti-Christian.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024