When we design computer simulations, we can create our own behaviours & rules that the simulations follows...for debugging purposes, we also put in a 'g_d mode' :3

I think it is basically on the money. Evolution being true only disproves a literal interpretation of Genesis is the basic theme. It does not say that there is not a God, only that God didn't do things the way described in Genesis and, more importantly, that the existence of God and God's involvement in evolution cannot be demonstrated scientifically.

 

I personally feel that science is not inherently atheist, but inherently agnostic. The notion that the existence of God is a matter of faith and not something that can be established empirically or rationally is classical agnosticism (as opposed the modern "I'm not sure what I believe about God" agnosticism). In the end, science cannot say with certainty "there is no God" or "there is a God", only that, God or no, here is how the universe works. If someone wants to read God into that, that's fine, but it's their faith, not a proven hypothesis or anything.

 

There are, of course, understandings of God and God's role in existence that do not require one to accept Creationism and that do, in fact, perfectly accept the notion of evolution. Process theology and panentheism, for instance. Pantheism as well, though most modern pantheists (in my experience) do not ascribe a personal character to nature, simply revere it as sacred/divine in its own right.

 

Mendalla

 

 

 

In my unitheistic, wholotheistic or pantheistic view, God is ALL: all that is known, not yet known, and unknowable: the self-creative, self-generative, and self-evolving totality of being, as a singularity. Thus, the process of evolution is part of the process of God's self-creation.

 

 

 

 

Without some form of "fall", from where does "sin" arise? Without an original cause for sin, what the hell did Jesus supposedly die for?

 

Further, if we're saying that "God" didn't do things exactly as laid out in Genesis, then why are we supposed to trust anything from Genesis? How do you separate the verses and say, "Okay, that part is not true, but the next bit is?"

 

Oh hells no, not even close. Science doesn't give a damn. Agnosticism is the belief that knowledge of a god or gods is unknowable. Science never starts off by saying something is unknowable. If it makes claims, and Christianity and many other religions make claims, then the next question is are they testable? Anywhere the bible gives assurances for the effects of prayer, for example, have been shown to be worthless, or at least no more useful than any other form of meditation or support.

 

Many spokesmen for God hate that science hasn't reinforced their beliefs. They either twist the findings of science, like creationists do, or demonize science and scientists like Dawkins for pointing out the blindingly obvious, or go more for the "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA) angle. But as soon as your holy book makes a claim, we have an overlap, we can test it, and every time we do, religion comes out looking less likely to have any basis in reality.

 

Science can't disprove a lot of ridiculous claims. Just because religion come up with things that are so amazingly "out-there" that science can't completely disprove it, is not a point in religion's favour.

 

And I think that's great. If it so moves you, worship a tree. They're the ones who managed to grow, against the odds. They're the seed that managed to avoid being eaten, dried out, or any other form of failure. There is something noble in that. There is nothing noble in assuming that you have some divine information that has been denied to other people or that other people are too proud to accept. That alone is a form of boastfulness about how you came to accept something that is not believable on the face of it, or through evidence. And believing on bad information or no information is not a trait we should be promoting as admirable.

 

 

Given the technical meaning of "singularity" in astrophysics, you might want to leave this one off. Else, it could be taken that God is a black hole.

 

Now if you mean that the universe is a singularity, as some theories around the inflationary universe suggest, then perhaps it's allowable but be prepared for some challenges.

 

Broader question: Can you, or do you even try, to justify this vision of God biblically? I think one of the issues with panentheism/pantheism/unitheism/etc. in Christian circles (and even for me when I contemplate trying to reconcile my pantheism or even panentheism with a return to a Christian church) is that it often seems that those who advocate them have come up with their vision of God first, then imposed it on the Scripture, rather than derived their vision of God from scripture, which is supposed to be the revelation of God to humanity. I think of process theology, for example, which is mostly derived from Whitehead's philosophy rather than primarily based in scripture. For me, this is ultimately a non-issue since I do not profess to hold any particular scripture as a sole source of revelation (and, indeed, that philosophy and science are as valid sources of revelation as theology) but for many Christians, even some fairly liberal ones, it is a question to be considered.

 

Mendalla

 

 

Argh. Pantheism =/= tree worship, at least not for me and not for many modern pantheists. That is, in fact, my point in stating that we do not attach a personal character to Nature. It is, for most modern pantheists, a matter of living in awe at existence and celebrating that awe.

 

We do not worship the trees (or even Nature in general) so much as celebrate our place in and relationship to Nature. For me, it is embodied in the UU 7th Principle - "We covenant to affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part." though I would go beyond just "respect" to "living in awe of and respect for" or something like that.

 

I suppose you could call it "religious atheism" or "spiritual atheism" since there is no inherent belief in a supernatural or personal deity but that doesn't capture the attitude of awe and respect for Existence that I am seeking. It is not humanism, I do not think, since I don't put humanity at the centre of my beliefs. We are part of a great whole and it is that greater whole that is focus of my spirituality.

 

 

Never said there was anything admirable or noble in doing so. Agree with you on all of this. I did not read that into the piece that dreamerman posted. I read a fairly sincere effort to reach out to creationists with the notion that they do not have to reject evolution in order to believe in God. Nothing admirable or noble about it, just a practical idea that religious people who also life in peace with science have been doing as long as the evolution-creation debate has been raging.

 

Mendalla

 

Well, Mendalla, by singularity I actually mean nonduality. I feel and think that the ALL is in an ultimate state of nonduality or synthesis.

 

As you know, Biblical scripture, or some of its passages, can be used to justify almost anything. To me, the most profound biblical definition of God is the "I AM" of Genesis.

 

The books of the Bible were written at a time when religion was in its authoritarian stage of development, which means belief in an authoritarian God was paramount. But we live in the twentyfirst century, not the first! Human thinking has advanced since, as has spiritual philosophy. To look at the Bible as the only source of spiritual inspiration is being 2,000 years behind the times, not to speak of being Bible-biased and accordingly narrow-minded. 

 

Like you, I do not hold any particular scripture or any other philosophical work as the only source of revelation or inspiration. Actually, of all religious scriptures, the ancient Vedas, the oldest religious scriptures of humanity, come closest to my present, science-based view.

 

About 30 years ago I prayed for a godly revelation, and had a six-hour vision of an unfolding universe. This vision began with utter blackness, and culminated in the world of today. Although the vision was subjective, and my interpretation of it speculative, it is as much a source of revelation to me as anything else I have experienced and read and thought about so far in my life.

 

I think we create our reality as we go through life. This, of course, is not the conventional Christian view, and I am not a conventional Christian. Your UU would be a much better fit for me that the UCCan.

 

 

 

 

Sorry, never meant that Pantheism meant tree worship. I was just suggesting that tree worship made more sense than God worship, nothing more.

 

As for reaching out to creationists, what do you appeal to? I think it was Sam Harris who pointed out that they don't value evidence, so how do you appeal to them with evidence? They don't value logic, so how do you appeal to them with logic? They only value scripture, so if you appeal to them with scripture, they have more than enough ammo in those pages to fire back.

 

 

 

Good Moring gentilmen I say that only that as of now none of the women have posted here.  We have gone into this once or twise. Always ending in I said you said he said.  Ok lets try another way.Heres Gen 1:1--2-- (Would anybody like to try an explain it.) Come on how can you say it could be wrong if you don't know what it says?-

Gen 1:1

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

 

Gen 1:2

The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.

Please remember I am not as highly educated as most of you. And I can tell you upfront I am not a scientist. I am a Born Again Spirit fill Christain though.

Hi dreamerman,

 

 

Theology answers the question "why?"  Science answers the question "how?"  The two questions are not at odds with one another though there is some disagreement on how they are related.

 

Genesis is not a science textbook.  It attempts to answer only who created.  It posits that the answer is God.  God decided to create and it happened.

 

How does God create?  The answer to this question is not a theological concern as far as the text is concerned.  The order of creation is a theological statement and was never intended to be an eyewitness affount to creation.

 

Creationism is not science nor is it theolgy proper.  It is a delusion that thinks science needs to answer the questions asked by theology and theology needs to answer the questions asked by science.  As a result it offers unsatisfactory opinions of both.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

 

This right here.

 

 

When I go to a Topic page as Dreamerman has given on Scientis an Christain beliefs . I almost have to learn a knew Language. Science don't like to use words like forsure or exact . They perfer our best educated theories .Don't this just mean GUESS or my opinion

^^ No, it doesn't mean that, airclean33.  Why would you think that it did?

It's true. Science doesn't give a damn about religion. For that matter, neither does a wrench. Science is a tool. You can use this tool to investigate religious claims, but science doesn't have a stake in the outcome - it doesn't care.

 

No, that's what some religious leaders tell you it means. They're lying to you.

 

A scientific theory is an explanation for some aspect of our world that fits the evidence we've obtained through observation and experiments.

 

Anyone who tells you it's a guess is a liar, because they've been corrected before, and wilfully choose the lie over the truth. 

 

Hi Azdgari - I really did not want to far from Dreamerman thread--But here is some on theories.--

Philosophical ConceptionEdit

This is in considerable contrast to the more philosophical context where a scientific theory is understood to be a testable model capable of predicting future occurrences or observations and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. As with most things in philosophy there is considerable debate as to whether this is really the correct concept to use in describing scientific research. For instance many definitions also add the constraint that a theory describes the natural world, though it is often unclear whether this is a definition of the natural world or a constraint on what can be a theory. Note that this concept specifically does not require that a theory be particularly well supported or have any justification whatsoever. A major concern in this philosophical context is the problem of demarcation, i.e., distinguishing those ideas that are properly studied by the sciences and those that are not. Intuitively one might suppose that it doesn't matter where a suggestion came from, when it was made, or if it was ever well supported by the evidence to whether it's the sort of thing that scientists ought to consider (e.g. test or dismiss as already tested). Unsurprisingly, therefore, this concept of a scientific theory tends to apply equally to justified and unjustified predictions ^[4]. In other words the term theory is used so that it encompasses what might be commonly called a hypothesis.

  -Hi Chansen--So I am wondering do you understand how Science can say the Bible is wrong if they do not know GOD and how He works?

Yes, it explains in detail why you were wrong.
.
So why did you think that "theory" meant "guess" in the first place? You never answered that simple and straightforward question.

It goes to prove that there are two opposites contained in an integral that sums up to zero (Zero Sum Gamos) like everything in a Black Hole, or mystified protonaic matter about the absence of knowledge about the infinite side that is unknown and thus raising questions about what opposes those that think god is mortal! There's no end to that debate ... makes the sphere spin eh buoy in the collection of heavy miss Phtttzzz, or catty individuals that you could never get along with if you gave them everything! Then they'd bitch about too much responsibility for the infinite case ... some of them would sooner recess into a hole in space ... an improbablity with lesser potential than the root of "i".

 

We could project that as a mire spot in a large expanse called God's empty mind when god incarnates as emotions instead of intellect that is curios, inquistitive, or otherwise as Gnostic as a proton ... that central hole in an electrified space of aÐ'm-ism ... or what was once refferred to as Theseus, Isis, or Sous-La ... depending on tradition of Semitic illustration of imaginary things that are larger than abstract mortals can work with ... what a damned spot that puts the limited gang in as mortal truths that won't go that far on the other side of reality ... but this might be illustrative of the underlying understanding or subtle awareness of John's Gospel 21:25 that would take all the clay of the earth and more to write all that knowledge on ... about the intellect of a well-stretched God as boarded out of his own intelligence by mortal authorities that didn't wish to know any more than a minor bit ... thus minor squeeks in a very large wheel that could turn out whines ... can you imagine the whines about having to learn all those tablets and tables?

 

This does depend on traditions of explicitely expressing it ... that are multitudinous ... and thus one trackers and one eye'd Jacks wouldn't have it ... creating Knaves and naives in a differential stretch of Tae Ruth ... or Ðar Uth as Uthered in the myth ot Utt Ur that later became Arthur, a pain in the skeleton of the storiy that is somewhat bloodied by bones that wouldn't move ... fixed uprights or ET'Ics without consideration for the surroundings or moral po'eL!

 

The solution is difficult leaving the infinite just dripping with sweat of the brow and thus extinguishing some of the primal pyre that was dampened into a lower amplitudes unless you jumped frequencies to the Theta position .. which the alpha dogma was attempting to screw down the road in the sans of time ... which is just out there to those processing still presently as adonii, or other Dough Nut! A bred with missing parts ... just for illustration of conceptions of fermenting matter and non-material substance in the incarnation that wasn't ... leading to a vast missing part that was famished  to consume anything ... thus that creepy gnawing sensation to those that are addicted to acts and actions when the whole damn spot is adrift ... in po-et'ic dissonance ... or an Eris'n alien thing ... like a synaptic gapé... bi?

 

None-the-less it scares the crap out of the bottom line population keeping bowels moving or a healthy recked OEM ... generating rasberries ... or other thorny issues giving you a roué'þ'n like de Nus! Isn't that a pithy explanation like ba-'m boo'n in the background as anti bureaucrats having incidents with those wishing to demolish the whole structure of psyche in the same times span as cadres opposition ...

 

You think it is chaotic in mortal life ... wait till you get out of it and start to remember all you forgot that you were supposed to do ... like think! A biblical abstract to say least ...

If God is infinite ... how is a mortal restricted in knowing this?

 

Can they only evolve theories and thesis about things that can't be known in a limited situation?

 

This could create some really confused mortals if they are raised on the BS that they do know infinite things. Those outside the loop are thus shunned and giggle from the wider perspective ... out 'ere which is somethinme referred to as Eire or a distraught persona in an "ire" that could become an Iris or a Dae Flowering  shadow of a blossoming ID jute ... as outstanding upside down ... or one with head in the dirt as a bulb storing power ... like an erg 'n or useless organ!

As one trained n science, I have never felt any strong conflict between science and faith / religion.  I have understood the Bible as metaphor for a long time, and the proper place of sicence as explaining what can be reliably observed and measured.  The evolution of chemistry over 2000 years is an interesting study.  Developments in biology/biochemistry stretch the capacity of my mind to comprehend.  I recognize the apparent limits of each.

God, I believe, is all-powerful. Hence, if he had wanted to create all life using evolution as his instrument, he could have. However, such was not his sovereign choice.

--Azdgari --I thought I had. A Theory to me is just that . An idea I have that could be right or could be wrong. It is my Idea as best as I can make it by what I understand. Now in time you may learn  something that was not there for me to see. By adding this to what I know could change my theory.  Or  the full truth" may be  beyond both of our theorys. Would you like to take a try at Gen1:  1-2 ?

 

My grandfather was a minister and theologian from the get go and he recognized this. His last Christmas before he died he was reading Hawking (a copy of A Brief History of Time that I now own) with great interest and no apparent concern for it contradicting his faith.

 

Mendalla

 

I guess my thinking is evolution may not be in conflict with a god that we cannot grasp but to say evolution does not discredit a literal biblical god, I find that quite a stretch. The god that created the heavens and earth in seven days and also created man out of dust seems to go against evolution imho. What I find interesting is how some will say a day can be one thousand years to god but when it says Jesus rose from the dead in three days well then it has to be three literal days.

  So are you saying you do not believe in evolution? Do you believe that the book of Genesis happened exactly as it says? If evolution could be proved to you beyond a shadow of a doubt would that change your opinion of god?

 

Here is an article for you ----all about faith filled words ---words create what you speak -----God breathed His DNA into man and man became a speaking Spirit housed in a physical body ----so man has the ability to do what God did create what he speaks ----

 

 

 

Did God use any evolutionary process in His creation?

 

Creation—how did God do it?

by Russell M. Grigg, M.Sc.(Hons)

 

The first chapters of Genesis leave us in no doubt whatsoever about how God created the universe. On the six successive days of creation, God spoke and what He said happened. That is to say, the means that God used to create the universe and all things in it was His Word.

 

The occasions of his speaking, from Genesis chapter 1, verses 3–26(NIV), are as follows:

 

Day 1. And God said, ‘Let there be light’ (verse 3).

 

Day 2. And God said, ‘Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water’ (verse 6).

 

Day 3. And God said, ‘Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear’ (verse 9). Then God said, ‘Let the land produce vegetation: seedbearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds’ (verse 11).

 

Day 4. And God said, ‘Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth’ (verses 14–15).

 

Day 5. And God said, ‘Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky’ (verse 20).

 

Day 6. And God said, ‘Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, wild animals, each according to its kind’ (verse 24). Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the creatures that move along the ground’ (verse 26).

 

Read the rest of this here ---http://creation.com/creation-how-did-god-do-it

 

 

So I guess if god said it then it must be true. How can yoiu argue with that argument. Do you have anything to say about the article I posted unsafe? You know how you like to berate people who don't read the articles you post but do you bother to read the articles other people post? If you did read it what are your thoughts on it?

-- I don't think you thought this question out dreamerman. Jesus stated himself as Jonah spent 3 days and three nights in the belly of the great fish. He would spend the same time in the ground. Do you think  Jonah spent three thousand years in that great fish?  Besides there were eye witnesses. airclean33

 

My thoughts on what science and the young creationist theory  on eveolution is that it is wrong ----The Big Bang and all the reat of the theorys out there that go aganist God's Book  ------I believeGod's word and that God created all things by speaking Faith Filled Words as it states in Genesis ----

 

Peace

Ok, thank you for your honest answer unsafe.

No airclean I actually did think it out before I posted it. It is a pity that you did not actually read what I posted and then put your own slant on it. Oh well I guess that is par for the course with you. The funny thing is I think it was you that said to god a day is like a thousand years. Wait there were eyewitnesses, were these the same people who saw bigfoot and Nessy? Maybe it was Nessy that swallowed Jonah and if we were to find Nessy and open him up then we would find Jonah's remains. Then that would account for the thousands of years.

 

dreamerman   your quote     What I find interesting is how some will say a day can be one thousand years to god but when it says Jesus rose from the dead in three days well then it has to be three literal days.

 

You see this is where people who have no understanding of what God's word is saying can get very confused ------the scripture does not say a day is a thousand years -----and the scripture that has this in it is talking about God's Promises of Salvation and how patient He ( God )with us ---it  is not talking about a day as in 24 hours -----it says a day IS LIKE -----The Bible is a Spiritual Book dreamerman for Spiritual people ----- God is willing to wait as long as it takes for us to come to Him -----

 

 

Peace

 

wonderful instances of some religion and some evolution being friends, even loving to each other...

(be prepared for some awwww moments...and is that dreamerman?)

Hi unsafe:


Psalm 90:4

"A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night."

2 Peter 3:8

"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

So, if, to the Lord, a day is like a thousand years- the point is then when the scripture says 3 days it also could mean 3000 years- more or less. It means that God's time is timeless. That's metaphor. It's instructing people to take a hint, and not to think in literal terms and to get the wisdom to look at it in different ways.

 

This is from Bible tools on time ---interesting ----for those interested -----

 

http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/RA/k/383/Time-Life.htm

Did you know in Hebrew a yod (close to a {'} a' pos trophy; futuristic as it pas esse) is just an indeterminate measure of time? This was altered or redacted in Latin ... by anarchists that worried about democratic daemons ... and still we don't know any Beta ... second way as found in (Y) ...

 

Then is the author of the singular tome (that some follow as if there are no others) a Roman God or an ess-end-tool integral God that has it all together while mortals don't? This confused people that are pious about learning anything beyond a limited or mortal Ego ... a centripedal thing that lifts light thoughts out of their sense of equitable futures ... thus they weren't and ended up as if in heaven ... thoughtless about integrals?

 

Mentally this is transcribed or reciprocated upon ... as in the camera obscura ... or the dark twinkling of an "i" ... if you can imagine an internalized form!

 

So much Moor to learn than presented flaydoubt ... they Pious will flay you though ... llok what they did to Jesous (Sous-La?) as a Icon of underlying understanding of all that is ... very subtle to say least in an edict on eD'M-ism! There is the hint that this is the dimension of the san storm ... still spatial mystery of how humans can blow a mind? If only they'd stop phoqah in up the surroundings and do some ecclesiastic sense ...

 

Alas, a rest is good as a change and the wise side of god still rests ... after all these yods of years ... The 9th YOD to a New Yorker that may in another tradition be just a j'rk of a publication ...   of soul beatings or kicking thoughts abote ...

 

Such is the feinting of opinions when new data is hammered into a shadowy place born in a haze ... the clouded Pi ... US? You just wouldn't believe what they accept as Tae Ruth ... when they know little of peculiar things and moments ... that's pas'T ... perhaps crossed over to a dimension of thought as spatial? Some do not have spatial capabilities only the nature of boltings ... and role 'd fabrications ... one must play the part ... as fractal ... the technique-ole-Eire cloach as clinched by the shy one ...

Like a monel nail in a sole if you're into building vessels ... tempered copper in its own rite ... some imagination required to extract IT!

Hi unsafe --That was a great teaching, in your post on time. It seems kind of funny that as I age . I find myself some what thinking as GOD dose about time. Oh I have not lived the days GOD has. But find myself thinking was it not just yesterday When I was young? The young man who just took my parking space . Dose't it seem just yesterday his mom and dad came home with him? When GOD says He has knowen us from the beginning He means it. He walked with Adam . and Noah, and Abraham, and so many others  and He has walked with us.There is a passage  that says something like . What is Man That God Cares So Much.The answer seems to be coming clearer every day. First we are more than we know. Secound GOD is are Father By who we are much loved.Third there is something about to happen , that has never been seen or ever happened  befor. God Bless You Sister. airclean33--Gord.

God knows mortals? Would this insinuate that god has a soul (mental processor)? How does this fit with the sense that god is pure love? Doesn't emotional state blow the mind? Would an infinite love require an infinite processor with many wee bits and bites? have you felt the nip at times of the Walh ... great white 'Une ... as in Vanilla Sky! When observed could make the limited believer blanche ... thus the Casa Blanca! The myth grows larger by the instant ... impulse ... momentous touché! Like a penned touché a han' doff 5 cards with a 6th sense?

 

Then some god said that common folk shouldn't think or be intelligent ... is this rather devious for someone to believe without question?

 

Just wondering of where creation as pure love hid the thinking part. Isn't that  a devilish thing to say to purely emotional believers? Perhaps just a subtle oppressed thing in their states as they haven't experienced the apocalyptic impulse of ah/ha, that in Greek is an/na a reflective annagram creating an image of a dark reflection of when you get right into de mire ... why creation sent his ethereal airy parts to bring back some dirt of reality on this side of that thin red line of in san'ite ... it is just not sane 'ere!

 

It is best observed from a medium ... and both polities hate the other side ... creating and integral duality ... ad duce 've a thing that isn't ... sort of an abstraction ... weird comprenhension to get a grip on ... where to find a medium? Create one midst de 'earth and the obscure pyres ...

 

Wait - silly me. I forgot those dynnosaur bones were buried by Satan to test our faith and to decieve us. 

Hi dreamerman--Your post--

No airclean I actually did think it out before I posted it. It is a pity that you did not actually read what I posted and then put your own slant on it. Oh well I guess that is par for the course with you. The funny thing is I think it was you that said to god a day is like a thousand years. Wait there were eyewitnesses, were these the same people who saw bigfoot and Nessy? Maybe it was Nessy that swallowed Jonah and if we were to find Nessy and open him up then we would find Jonah's remains. Then that would account for the thousands of years.

________________________________________

Airclean-- Now wait a min " I have a brothin law who lives in B.C and drives trucks. He tells me there really is a big foot  and he's seen him or her.But you see my brother in law likes a little mary- jane to muchNow as for Nessy , has  she not been seen in a river in Scotland? And is this not the place they make the best Wiskey in the world?I have no problem foolling around with things people say  dreamerman. Or for that matter what I say. But as far as GODS word go . I don't like to play to much with that. If you don't know why , then I take it you haven"t read The Bible.

There are many conflicts where assumptions are so fixed and immovable that real debate does not happen.  I wonder what fear prompts the need to hold on to fixed positions that defy all available evidence, like governments that hold on to ideological positions regarding issues like crime or drugs that ocntradict the available evidence.

-Hi ninjafaery--Would you like to look at Gen1:1--2---Can you explain the meaning to me? None of the men here seen to be able. By the way , I kind of like your post. At least the picture

 

that's a PRECIOUS picture :3

 

(it reminds me a Washington station played HR Puffinstuff & Land of the Lost on Christmas! Squeeeee! That picture there reminds me of DOPY!)

I think you don't play too much with god's word because you are afraid that god would be very upset with you. Then you might think that god would hand you over to satan who would put pitch fork to ass. I on the other hand take most of the bible with a grain of salt. Nothing in it scares me. I have no fear of your god or your satan.

Hi dreamerman-- Your post--

I think you don't play too much with god's word because you are afraid that god would be very upset with you. Then you might think that god would hand you over to satan who would put pitch fork to ass. I on the other hand take most of the bible with a grain of salt. Nothing in it scares me. I have no fear of your god or your satan.

____________________________________

Airclean--Yes dreamerman as I can see . Spoken  as a true son of santan. Really dreamerman your posts have showen this almost all the time.Again this is your right . What you fear dose not mean your brave though . When diving I have never teased a shark. This  dose not mean I am scared of sharks . It means I understand in the water the shark can and will kill me. But I also understand he would perfer to leav me alone  if I would just do the same for him an learn the rules.If you could learn as much about GOD as I'v showen you here about sharks . You may just have a chance.Now as far as santan being mine  . No he don't own me, as I said santan owns you by default. I belong to GOD by choice, though Grace. Belonging to GOD dosen't mean you  have undersand if and when GOD made the Earth. It has to do with His gift of His Son Jesus The Christ  and His death in your place for your sinns.Stop dreaming and wake up.  --airclean33

Airclean you want me to wake up and stop dreaming? If I do that then will I share in your nightmare or weird fantacy that you are living in? No thamks! You told us before how much of a jerk you were before you became bornagain. So if that was the case then good for you. Stick with your faith but don't think you can sell me on your brand of Christianity. You are like the used car salesman trying to sell a lemon for a million bucks. You can buy this car which is a lemon or you can walk home.

Tell me airclean if I am now a son of satan or santan as you like to refer to him as, am I still satan's bitch.  If I have a choice can I pick son because I am not too fond of bitch except for my dog she is a good mutt.