|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Choosing a faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
PaulK writes: This is another falsehood, and an obvious one. Q has nothing to do with the relationship between Mark and Matthew. Matthean priority does not negate Q (it’s widely accepted that Matthew predates Luke anyway), nor does Markan priority require Q (see Farrer Hypothesis) Both the theory proposed by Farrar and the proposal of "Q" arose a couple of hundred years ago to support those that wanted to get away from the ideas that the Gospels were written by eye witnesses or by those who had direct access to eye witnesses. Up to that time, and right back to the 1st century, Matthean hadn't really been questioned, even to the point of it being the 1st Gospel in the Canon. Your linked site points out numerous problems with both the Farrar theory and "Q". With Matthean priority the problems go away. Matthew is written early on for a primarily Jewish audience. Later Luke is written, with knowledge of Matthew for a largely Gentile audience and Mark with knowledge of Matthew but primarily using Paul's sermons writes His Gospel. This does away with all of the problems in your linked site.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Thankyou for all of that. I won't comment myself as I think I would easily prove my ignorance on the subject in my first sentence.
Here is an interesting wiki piece on the subject. Quantum MindHe has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
PaulK writes:
C'mon, gimme a break. I'm not going to say that if it isn't true. If you get a copy of "Jesus and the Eyewitness" he writes `14 pages on the subject. (Pages 369 to 383)
Or more likely he never says any such thing, because he would know that it isn’t true. PaulK writes: In most of the book he doesn't use the 3rd person but only when he particularly wants to emphasize a point and establishing that he has personal knowledge.. A bit like the use of the Royal We Which is not nearly enough to make it evidence of authorship. As I explained before. Do you really not realise that the third person is used for a great many people who are NOT the author? I shouldn’t have had to make that point once, but that you should still not see it after repeated examples suggests a serious problemHe has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Stile writes: I don't see you acknowledging that huge jump. You seem to simply assume that if God exists - then He definitely created humans, on purpose. I see three levels: 1. God exists-maybe God doesn't exist 2. God created humans-maybe God didn't create humans and humans were created by something else (naturally? a bigger/different God?) 3. God created humans on purpose (ie - "bothered" to create humans.)-maybe God didn't want to create humans, but had to. That is, perhaps in order to create all the stars He wanted in the way He wanted to, God had to accommodate for the low possibility of humans also being created. And then setup a contingency that for when human-creation happens they are contained to a very small portion of the universe. To me - going from "if God exists, then He definitely created humans and it was definitely on purpose" is just a really big jump in itself. There's no evidence for God, no evidence for God creating humans, and no evidence for God bothering to create humans on purpose. The problem is for me that I am in some ways something of an agnostic on the belief that God created the universe. Frankly, it doesn’t matter one way or another to me. I have read so many books that I can't remember where I read the hypothesis that our universe is an "emergent property of a greater reality". My thinking goes kinda along with that line of thought. I'll assume that hypothesis to be correct which means that our universe always existed in some form but only as one aspect or part os something much more, which would help explain the apparent infinite nature of our universe, as we are unable to perceive this greater reality. I also am basically in agreement with Chris Barragar and his book Freedom All the Way Up where he proposes that God’s intention was to create creatures that were capable of “agape” love. That the evolutionary process was an open system and did not need humans as we are now. He suggests that God could know with a very high probability of what evolution would lead to but it was to be a world with an open future and thus the future was/is not there to be known. I'll assume that hypothesis to be correct which means that our universe always existed in some form but only as one aspect or part os something much more, which would help explain the apparent infinite nature of our universe, as we are unable to perceive this greater reality.
Stile writes:
OK, say that it did evolve as simply a part of the evolutionary process. It still has very different properties than the physical world that we are used to. However, even if it did evolve naturally, (which I personally doubt), that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t ultimately the handiwork of a creative intelligence. It goes back to the question of why do natural processes exist, which is a much bigger question in my mind than the question of why does anything exist.
Consciousness existing is not the physical evidence that consciousness evolved naturally.The physical evidence that consciousness evolved naturally is that it appears to be exactly the same as everything else we know to have evolved naturally. And that other aspects of life we used to think "couldn't possibly evolve naturally" - we have learned more about evolution and identified that, actually, they did evolve naturally (like "the eye" and "fish -> mammals -> whales" and every other creationist issue that used to not have a natural answer and now does.) Consciousness existing, alone, isn't evidence of anything other than its own existence.There is A LOT of physical evidence for evolution and things evolving naturally. Consciousness is just another "thing" that looks like all the other "things" we know to have evolved naturally. Stile writes:
But as you know, I don’t claim absolute knowledge. It is my belief, which I don’t expect it to be proven in this life. Nor do I expect scientific evidence for, but who knows. I do suggest though that philosophy, theology and maybe Uncle John asks questions which we can subjectively come up with answers. f you move beyond what can be tested, for any reason, you don't "turn to philosophy" for answers. You understand that "answers" are currently unknowable.Philosophy may provide answers. Religion may provide answers. Uncle John may provide answers. Looking at the stars/bones/cards may provide answers. But... all those answers are just as good as any other: meaningless if you're concerned with truth as the answer is currently unknowable. I am out of time but I think that deals with all of your post.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Tangle writes:
You are right but I think that eventually it filters down. NT Wright has had IMHO, a massive change in church thinking that has now gone to the seminaries and is starting to impact what is preached in the church.
Once again the church's preachings to its congregation is different from the scholarly stuff in the seminaries and universities. Tangle writes: I agree, except in my case I never thought about who wrote them Frankly, it is just in the last few years that I ever thought about the question.
I was taught the bible as though it was written by Jesus's actual apostles. Of course Mark and Luke aren't apostles but us kids didn't notice. Without exception both children and adults would have just assumed that it was all eye witness testimony. Tangle writes: I bet they maintain the deception even now. When I mention that no one actually knows who the authors were to everyday Christians they don't believe me - let alone that they could not have been eye witnesses Having belonged to churches in Montreal, Toronto and now on Vancouver Island I can't say that the subject ever came up. Sure it would said simply assumed that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and those names would be referred to when a passage from them was read.
Tangle writes: As I say, in my experience the subject just never came up and the only reason it comes up in discussion now is because I bring it up.
I bet they maintain the deception even now. When I mention that no one actually knows who the authors were to everyday Christians they don't believe me - let alone that they could not have been eye witnesses. Tangle writes: Certainly the church is capable of that and it is what spawned the reformation. However, in my experience it isn't the norm, or even close to it. It's all part of the scam - keep them ignorant, sell the message.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
PaulK writes: Sure, except that with Matthean priority like Farrer does away with a need for Q.
This seems mainly aimed at poisoning the well, by implying bias. It certainly doesn’t address the point that the Farrer hypothesis denies Q but does not endorse Matthean priority. Because Matthean priority has almost nothing to do with Q. PaulK writes: It is the general consensus though.
And I’ll add that a claim that the Gospel According to Matthew was attributed the the disciple in the 1st Century is questionable at best, PaulK writes: I'm not sure of your point but I see no need for Q and Streeter's views require it.
More accurately it has Farrer’s criticisms of the Q hypothesis and Streeter’s arguments in support of it. Obviously if you admitted the latter the problems in your claims would be rather obvious. PaulK writes: Here is a very short summary of the Fourfold Gospel hypothesis by David Alan Black. The problems of Luke using Matthew “go away” if you assume that Matthew was written before Mark? That makes no sense. None. I note that the entire paragraph does not even mention Luke, yet Q is all about the relationship between Luke and Matthew - Mark is not really relevant at all. Well let’s look at Streeter’s points against the Farrer hypothesis. Which are all points AGAINST Luke using Matthew as a source. I think that rather that working from Streeter and Farrar it makes more sense to start with Black. Fourfold Gospel Theory PaulK writes: They were written for different audiences. Also Luke was written from Paul's perspective. Luke would have referenced Matthew but wasn't solely dependent on it.
How does Matthean priority explain these omissions? PaulK writes:
Papias writes that Matthew was first written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek. My own view is that it was Matthew himself who did the translating as the church expanded into the diaspora. Luke could have supplemented his book that was largely influence, probably directly, by Paul. The second is that Luke sometimes preserves a more primitive version of a text that is also in Matthew. Firstly I'm not a NT scholar or a scholar of any kind for that matter. The Farrer proposal also has Matthew written prior to Luke and so the responses that are given to counter the Streeter proposal will also hold true for the Matthean priority of the fourfold Gospel theory.
PaulK writes: Why do you guys have to resort to insult to try and bolster your point. We have different scholars with competing views. They don't have absolute knowledge and certainly I don't. I have formed my own conclusions about who is correct and having read Black's book twice I believe that he is on the right track. If you have any concern for the truth - other than opposing it - it is not visible in this post.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Percy writes: Ignore an argument once and most people will probably chalk it up to just the way things go. Ignore it again and most people will probably figure the fault was with them, that maybe they didn't make their point clearly enough. But ignore arguments time and again and it's going to get noticed. You're making a career of it, forcing people to repeat the same arguments over and over. Please tell me which argument I have ignored. It seems to me that I answer all the arguments but you guys don't agree with the answer. It seems as if I don't give you an answer that you like it's considered ignored.
Percy writes: We've been over this many times, and it's frustrating to have to go over this yet again. There's only one way way to know things, and that's through evidence gathered through observation using the five senses. Scientific evidence is no different from other evidence except that's its gathering has been formalized and instrumented and calibrated and so forth, and scientific conclusions can only be drawn after sufficient replication to form a consensus. If you think there are other ways of knowing things that don't involve observing the material world, ways that aren't just as friendly toward (for example) Buddhism as they are toward Christianity (in other words, ways of knowing things that lend legitimacy to your belief that Christianity has more legitimacy than other religions), then it's incumbent upon you to explain it to us in ways that aren't full of woo. Well maybe that's the problem. Most of the time on this thread I have simply been arguing for theism with a moral code but not Christianity. Sometimes I've been drawn off topic as per the discussion around Gospel authorship but that is off topic anyway. I think that what I can observe with 5 senses is that the idea of an external intelligence makes sense of the world I live in and the same thing goes for a moral code. That isn't exclusive to Christianity. However the only evidence we have for Christianity is what was written 2000 years ago. I find that, and the rise of the Christian church compelling but it is a faith born out belief and life experience.
Percy writes: True, except for the ancient writings including the Bible, which can't be confirmed. But your subjective conclusions about Christianity are just as valid as other people's about ghosts and UFOs. That's what happens when evidence is absent.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
GDR writes: The point IMHO to that we have hearts that love sacrificially which is not dependent on any particular spiritual belief. However, I contend from my own experience that spiritual belief can help to move hearts in that direction. IMHO Christianity provides me with faith that this world does give us meaning and purpose in that life matters, and good stewardship of the world matters, well beyond the idea of being in good with God when we die. If we are only looking to make things netter for ourselves in this life or the next then we have missed the point.Percy writes: It isn't meant to be. It is simply an observation on how I see things. Repeating what you just said more generally, religious beliefs of every sway have lent peace and comfort to many of all generations throughout time. How is that in any way convincing that there are legitimate reasons for accepting the reality of what you (or anyone) believes spiritually?He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
PaulK writes:
It isn't that it is evidence for the Gospel being written by John, it is simply not evidence that it wasn't.
As a simple matter of logic it can’t be true that third person references are evidence of authorship. It wouldn’t be true even if authors always used the third person to refer to themselves - which is not the case. More importantly if Bauckham does make that claim, it would be a very serious problem. PaulK writes: Yes Bauckham believes in Markan priority but not in Q. Bauckham I concur with Bauckham's take on the eyewitnesses but I have been swayed to think that Black was right concerning Matthean priority, but it is definitely a minority opinion as of now. Reading around I have found that the reality is even worse for you than you are prepared to admit. Bauckham does not endorse Matthean authorship and does endorse Q. The whole idea that Bauckham argued that the use of the third person is evidence of authorship in Matthew is clearly false. He clearly doesn’t endorse your false argument for Matthean priority - that it gets rid of Q - either.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
nwr writes: I'm suspecting that GDR is having a serious crisis of faith. He probably started this thread in an attempt to reassure himself, hoping that his doubts would go away. I can promise you that isn't the case. The thing is that there is a number of things I believe that are interesting things to think about and discuss but aren't important to me as far as maintaining my theistic faith, and then apart from that, my Christian faith. I believe that the Bible was written by humans that were inspired to write down their stories but that is not to be taken to me that is to be taken as 100% factual as if it was dictated by God. I believe that all of the Bible should be questioned and understood in terms of the time and culture in which it was written, and we should be discerning in how we understand it. I believe that God uses it to help guide us and we should try and understand what God might have to say to us through it. For example I suggest that we should look at the passages that have God commanding genocide or public stoning to demonstrate to us the evil that we are capable of in His name. There's a lesson there. What I do believe absolutely as a theist is that there is an external intelligence that is involved in our lives primarily if not exclusively through our consciousness. I also believe that this intelligence does care about us and influences us to care about others, all life and our planet. As a Christian I am convinced that God did resurrect Jesus into a renewed bodily form and that the ultimate plan is for the renewal of this world. As to when and how that occurs I have no idea. I also believe that if I want to understand the nature of God I can look to Jesus of the NT and read it holistically. So yes, many of things that I have have expressed here are simply beliefs that are related to but not essential for my general specific beliefs in Christianity. Those beliefs continue to evolve.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
nwr writes: Maybe it is part of our evolved nature but so what? That doesn't tell us whether or not there is a conscious intelligence responsible for it.
There, I see you paying too much attention to consciousness. You are making it seem like magic. But it's just part of our evolved nature. nwr writes: I have read a fair bit on the subject and IMHO the resurrection was by far the most realistic answer to explain the rise of the Christian church. The debates between Borg or Crossan and NT Wright were particularly helpful. Of course if one starts out with the belief that it is impossible and that there is no god then of course it will be rejected, although that doesn't sound like that was the case for you. Back when I became a Christian (at around age 11), I believed that. But later, at around age 17, I looked more carefully at the account of the resurrection in Matthew, and found it impossible to believe. Yes a God could work such miracles. But if those events occurred as described, then reports of that should have spread around the world. But they didn't. So I began to doubt the physical resurrection. And I guess that was my first step toward leaving Christianity. As to it not being spread around is, IMHO, completely understandable. To start with Jesus had no army and no support from the Jewish leaders. There weren't that many that experienced the resurrected Jesus. He had been executed and ridiculed on the cross. He was a failed Messiah in their eyes, and if you weren't an eyewitness the average 1st century individual would be as sceptical as you are. His own disciples were at first. A messiah was suppose to build up an army and run the Romans out of town. Jesus was not the kind of messiah they were looking for.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Hi Percy
Sorry. I haven't had a time the last couple of days to respond to all your poste. If it is ok I'll just respond to this one. GDR writes: Please tell me which argument I have ignored. It seems to me that I answer all the arguments but you guys don't agree with the answer. It seems as if I don't give you an answer that you like it's considered ignored.Percy writes: I wish I had the time to read back through all my old posts examining your replies to see which things I said that you ignored in your replies, but I don't. And my memory hasn't retained that large an amount of detail. But if there's a common theme around what you ignore it's evidence. It isn't so much that you ignore the issue of evidence as that you keep moving back and forth between claiming to have evidence on the one hand, and conceding you don't have evidence on the other. And it's frustrating to have to keep explaining the nature of evidence. Again, what you observe casually as you go about your day is no different in nature than what researchers do while doing science. Everyone makes observations all the time, and scientific procedure is just a more careful and detailed way of making and recording observations. The foundation of science is still nothing more than observation. We keep going round and round on this. I believe in an external intelligence and the vast majority here don't. As to what you believe is so vague as to be meaningless. I'll try and put it simply. We have all the evidence needed to confirm the evolutionary process. Then the question is WHY does the evolutionary process exist. If you reject the idea of an external intelligence then it obviously is there because of nothing but natural processes. If however, you accept the notion of an external intelligence then it makes sense to conclude that the evolutionary process has this intelligence as its first cause. Tangle will say that I am setting this up as equivalent possibilities but I'm not. There is no equivalence between the ideas. It all goes back to our starting point. Are we theistic or atheistic? Observational evidence doesn't give us an answer either way, and we can only come to our own subjective conclusions. We can consider that we have life, we have intelligence we can sense beauty, love, empathy, joy etc. An atheist sees a whole lot of natural processes that have led to the world we experience. A theist is likely to see the hand of an external intelligence in all of this. No equivalence but just different beliefs.
Percy writes: Sure - like politics. it seems to be part of being human. Frankly I hear what some Christian preachers have to say and see myself with having more in common with many atheists.
And this is where religion is lacking. There are no observations. Realizing how important evidence can be to belief there are plenty of claims of observations, but religion seems to take a Machiavellian "The ends justify the means" approach. Too many pastors believe that if something they say increases faith then it is okay, whether it is true or not. What they believe it is okay to claim is all over the Internet. Percy writes: Even without your arguments for the authenticity of the gospels and the existence of Jesus, you're obviously lobbying for Christianity. You might have titled the thread Choosing a faith, but you're actually exploring what parts of Christianity to accept, not which faith to select. Good grief Percy. How can you hang that on me. Go back and look at the thread. It is you guys that have taken it off track in order to attack my Christian beliefs. My point was in response to something I read in another thread that essentially mocked theism as there have been so many gods over the centuries so which one are you going to choose. My point was simply that it isn't the name or doctrine of the god that you choose but the nature of the god you choose.
Percy writes:
Exactly, you keep asking questions and then when you don't like the answer. I give and the reasons for it which is the rejected again. Then you repeat the same question with an explanation of why you believe that and I am back to answering the same question again. Then of course as other than Phat there is a dearth of theists of any variety on this forum, and so it seems everyone else wants to have a go at me or whoever else it might be. It is frustrating.
That's one of things that people find frustrating, that you keep forcing them to say the same things again and again. You claim to accept it, but not really. You just seek other words to make the same claim. But the words you use don't matter if you're just repeating the wrong thing you said earlier. No matter what words you use, it's still wrong. Percy writes: Believing that there's evidence for an "external intelligence" might make the "makes sense" light go on in your brain, but belief isn't evidence. Stop seeking a wording that allows you to claim there's evidence for what you believe. There isn't any evidence, and no amount of weasel words will change that. I see a new born baby and I see God. An atheist sees a new born baby and see natural processes. It is all belief.
Percy writes:
It does seem to me that to claim that what a variety of authors wrote about an event 2000 years ago, that was intended to be believed and then saying it isn't evidence is bizarre. We can discuss the idea that it is a mistake or historically accurate. We can even conclude that it is weak evidence or even an outright lie, but it is evidence. Sure you can look at the accounts of Zeus, or any other god that you like and read what has been said about the and that is evidence as well. We all make our own judgements of what we are going to conclude about the evidence. Ancient peoples writing down what they believed is not evidence of anything, particularly when it comes to religion where there are so many different beliefs that contain fantastical impossible content and not only aren't consistent with each other, but aren't even internally consistent. Now you're back to claiming the Bible is evidence again. When will the flip-flopping end? However, the point is that there is zero scientific evidence for any theistic belief.Edited by GDR, : typo He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
GDR writes: That doesn't tell us whether or not there is a conscious intelligence responsible for it.nwr writes: (Note that "it" refers to consciousness). There is, indeed, a conscious intelligence behind it -- our own conscious intelligence. We build it up as we grow and develop. You claim that our conscious intelligence is only there because of our conscious intelligence. Hmmmm. That has to be the ultimate example of circular reasoning.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
nwr writes: However, I do think that I am more than just my brain. May I recommend a book. Why I Left, Why I Stayed: Conversations on Christianity Between an Evangelical Father and His Humanist Son Tony Campolo is an Evangelical Christian, somewhat on the liberal side. You will probably see him as having views somewhat like yours. Bart Campolo is his son. He was a Christian, but he left Christianity. He is still very much a humanist. The book has alternating chapters by the two of them and where they disagree. Bart has been through the kind of issues that concern you. He has thought a lot about them. He still considers himself to be religious, but in the sense of natural religion. He now sees the natural world as all that there is. I don't know whether he will persuade you. But I think you will find that he challenges you. So give it a try. I still have the book on my Kindle, and can discuss it if you want to start a thread about it. I now have the book and I finally have some time to start reading. Thanks for the tip. The format reminds me of this book.
N T Wright debate with Marcus BorgHe has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
Tangle writes: Just as a point of fact. An atheist sees a new born baby and sees a newborn baby. That's it. And it's awesome enough without facticising about the supernatural. Either way it does something to the heart, and it there aren't words to describe the feeling when it's your own. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024