Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-21-2019 6:12 AM
37 online now:
Percy (Admin), Tangle (2 members, 35 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,522 Year: 3,559/19,786 Month: 554/1,087 Week: 144/212 Day: 11/49 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
32NextFF
Author Topic:   Straightforward, hard-to-answer-questions about the Bible/Christianity
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 773 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 166 of 477 (549620)
03-09-2010 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Pauline
03-08-2010 9:53 PM


Re: Mental Gymnastics or Faith?
Hi, Dr. Sing.

Dr. Sing writes:

...I'm going to say the same thing again: history/time does not impede inspiration and the entire Word (including songs and poems) was inspired...

And, I don't care if that's what you want to say. All I want you to do is recognize that you have to apply this to everything in the Bible. If you want the right to take a scripture from the Old Testament as meaningful outside of its context, then you must accept that I can take other scriptures as from the Old Testament as meaningful outside of their context.

-----

Dr. Sing writes:

So why don't we take the reverse appraoch? How about you support your claim and I shut up and listen (which I really prefer to do at this point)

Because I haven't made a claim yet.

I'm arguing from what you and ICANT wrote about "perfection" on this thread, not from my personal beliefs or anything else. You both agree that Adam was "perfect," but you disagree as to what "perfect" means.

Your support for your argument is a few scriptures that were written at a timeframe that is, at best, ambiguously correlated with the nature of things before the Fall. I’m not sure what ICANT’s support for his argument is, but I think it goes like this:

Before the Fall, Adam and Eve could not die, nor experience pain, misery or illness. Likewise, animals and plants did not die or experience pain.

Also, because Adam had no knowledge of good or evil, he didn’t have a sinful nature, as modern man does.

In the Garden, things stayed exactly as God made them, and did not change.

So, Adam was immortal, without physical frailties, without spiritual frailties and unchanging. This is the definition of the word “perfect.” This is the “substance” of God.

Now, God is more than just immortal, without physical and spiritual frailties and unchanging: God is also omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. But, these have nothing to do with being “perfect”; they are entirely different things. So, "perfect" is just one of God's many qualities.

When God created, He created things out of the same “substance” as Himself (i.e. He created them perfect). But, He did not create them with the same “powers” or “capabilities” as Himself. Thus, one need not be exactly like God in order to be “perfect” like God.

These are not my beliefs, but I believe it is an accurate description of ICANT’s beliefs. And, I think they make a whole lot more sense than your idea that Adam and God were both "perfect," but "perfect" actually means two different things.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Pauline, posted 03-08-2010 9:53 PM Pauline has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Pauline, posted 03-09-2010 3:02 PM Blue Jay has responded

Pauline
Member (Idle past 1811 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


(2)
Message 167 of 477 (549659)
03-09-2010 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Blue Jay
03-09-2010 10:22 AM


Re: Mental Gymnastics or Faith?
If you want the right to take a scripture from the Old Testament as meaningful outside of its context, then you must accept that I can take other scriptures as from the Old Testament as meaningful outside of their context

I never denied this in the first place, to the best of my knowledge. And I gave you a valid reason (actually you gave me) for my not applying mosaic law to my context. All OT is as true and meaningful as much as NT outside its context. Only, some parts are not applicable anymore.

Your support for your argument is a few scriptures that were written at a timeframe that is, at best, ambiguously correlated with the nature of things before the Fall.

I think that's highly understating it. The theme of God's holiness (which in our conversation, I use the word perfection) runs throughout the Bible. There's no dearth of verses that describe it.

So, Adam was immortal, without physical frailties, without spiritual frailties and unchanging. This is the definition of the word “perfect.” This is the “substance” of God. Now, God is more than just immortal, without physical and spiritual frailties and unchanging: God is also omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. But, these have nothing to do with being “perfect”; they are entirely different things. So, "perfect" is just one of God's many qualities.

Understood. So where ICANT and I differ is our definition of perfection and substance. While ICANT perhaps understands perfection (as in sanctity/holiness) to be a single attribute of God (which was passed on to Adam), I understand it to be the the sum of who God is. Hence my use of I Sam 2:2, The word there is holy. The word for holy in Hebrew is quadash, which is derived from the root word qud which means to cut/separate. So when I that say God is holy, that means He is holy/separate/unique in every single attribute of His. IOW, His holiness permeates His attributes making them unique to Him and only Him. And so if God's purity/sanctity/sacredness is holy, (and there is none like Him Hannah says), then clearly Adam was given righteousness/sanctifying grace and not God's holiness itself. Therefore, Adam was not holy/perfect (perfection in sanctity) in the same sense as God is. Do you see the point? It eliminates ambiguity when answering questions as to why why God is impeccable and Adam is peccable.

Thus, one need not be exactly like God in order to be “perfect” like God.

Yep. Again, clash of definitions.

But I'm okay with that. I think its more of a interpretation difference than anything else.

And, I think they make a whole lot more sense than your idea that Adam and God were both "perfect," but "perfect" actually means two different things.

Well, different people interpret the same thing different ways. I don't think that's wrong so long as the Bible agrees with our conclusions. I've read a good number of ICANT's posts and I agree with him on many things so...

Edited by Dr. Sing, : spelling

Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Blue Jay, posted 03-09-2010 10:22 AM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Blue Jay, posted 03-11-2010 11:30 AM Pauline has responded

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 486 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 168 of 477 (549674)
03-09-2010 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Pauline
03-08-2010 5:22 PM


Re: And 'round and 'round we go...
Thanks for the reply, Dr. Sing.

Nice analogy. Except robots don't have freewill. Which implies you can predict their actions. Not so with human.

People surely can and often do change God's plans through their behavior, be it to a positive or a negative end.

I think we have different understandings of freewill. I was taught that freewill was simply "freedom to accept or reject anything", but that god has always known what choices you would make. In fact, Wiki says this:

quote:
In Christian theology, God is described as omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent; a notion which some people, Christians and non-Christians alike, believe implies that not only has God always known what choices individuals will make tomorrow, but has actually determined those choices. That is, they believe, by virtue of his foreknowledge he knows what will influence individual choices, and by virtue of his omnipotence he controls those factors. This becomes especially important for the doctrines relating to salvation and predestination.

Note the some people portion of the quote. As a believer, I would fit into this category. FYI.

This idea of yours, in which god has no knowledge of what a human will do when freewill is involved, is foreign to me, and would have been even more so when I was a believer. I still think freewill proponents erroneously use it to justify picking and choosing when and where they believe god's perfection and omniscience lie, when freewill is nothing more than "acceptance or rejection." I still think the idea that god doesn't know what will be prayed for this sunday by every single person in the lutheran church on the corner makes him into the weakest sort of deity. But, in the end, it's just my opinion, right? Remember, beliefs don't imply knowledge (or truth).

What if I prayed then? And what if God sent money through some anonymous person? My problem is solved. But that isn't my point. My point is, that God used that indicent to strengthen ny faith.

You say: it was god answering my prayers, and that's OK with me. You're entitled, and I'm glad that it strengthens your faith. I can see how important it is to you. However, I say: it was coincidence, or better yet, someone you know is familiar with your plight, and they told 3 friends, who told 3 friends, etc, etc... And I still say if god was as powerful as you (sometimes, depending on the context) assert, then he would know what you'll need and pray for even before you do it. Strong god vs. weak god...

While God is omniscient, He doesn't predestine human feelings and actions. Freewill was given for a purpose, no?

Here again I'll refer you to the Wiki quote above. So you're saying because god doesn't predestine certain things, he doesn't know that they'll happen?

And, of course, in order to concede the point of "proof", we'd both need to assume total biblical "god breathed" inspiration, and unfortunately, one of us does not.

Ahh, yes. Why did I forget that? Excuse my use of the word "proof". However, I believe that there is nothing wrong in proving the Bible from the Bible.

And that is your discretion, but forgive me if I don't ascribe to proving a source using ... that selfsame source.


"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964
This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Pauline, posted 03-08-2010 5:22 PM Pauline has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Pauline, posted 03-10-2010 12:53 AM Apothecus has not yet responded

  
Pauline
Member (Idle past 1811 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 169 of 477 (549710)
03-10-2010 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Apothecus
03-09-2010 6:09 PM


Re: And 'round and 'round we go...
Apothecus writes:

Thanks for the reply, Dr. Sing.

You're welcome, Dr. Apothecus

Note the some people portion of the quote. As a believer, I would fit into this category. FYI.

So do you still believe some things you did in the past as a believer?

I still think the idea that god doesn't know what will be prayed for this sunday by every single person in the lutheran church on the corner makes him into the weakest sort of deity. But, in the end, it's just my opinion, right? Remember, beliefs don't imply knowledge (or truth).

My dear Apothecus, I believe He does know exactly what the believers are going to pray for, when, and what outfit they're gonna wear, what kind of cereal they ate for breakfast. A-->Z All I was trying to convey to you was the idea that their prayer is the key to unlocking His will, which otherwise might or might not occur. But, you're right, this is a difficult concept to both explain and grasp. As much as I would like to (and am trying to) make it simple, it just won't become more simpler. I have to admit, I'm not great at explaining things either. So, as long as you're good, I'm good.

You say: it was god answering my prayers, and that's OK with me. You're entitled, and I'm glad that it strengthens your faith. I can see how important it is to you. However, I say: it was coincidence, or better yet, someone you know is familiar with your plight, and they told 3 friends, who told 3 friends, etc, etc... And I still say if god was as powerful as you (sometimes, depending on the context) assert, then he would know what you'll need and pray for even before you do it. Strong god vs. weak god...

And I still maintain that He does know. Only, He doesn't invariably do whatever He wants. My prayer influences what He does. Its happened to my family many times and in my own life too. Once, I had $0 to pay for the final installment of tuition....received $ 2000+ in the mail just before finals.....was able to take finals and finish the semester. No matter how hard I try to know the identity of the giver, I can't. Atleast I haven't so far.

But you know, I do understand you point. Faith is not an easy thing. And questions aren't bad things. Only, doubt is a dangerous thing.

And if love is a lie, then there is no truth....

G'night.

Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Apothecus, posted 03-09-2010 6:09 PM Apothecus has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 773 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 170 of 477 (549899)
03-11-2010 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Pauline
03-09-2010 3:02 PM


Re: Mental Gymnastics or Faith?
Hi, Dr. Sing.

Dr. Sing writes:

And I gave you a valid reason (actually you gave me) for my not applying mosaic law to my context... Only, some parts [of the OT] are not applicable anymore.

Right, so you don't really think "when ink was spilled on paper" is unimportant, then.

-----

Dr. Sing writes:

The theme of God's holiness (which in our conversation, I use the word perfection) runs throughout the Bible. There's no dearth of verses that describe it.

But, there is a dearth of verses that describe God's holiness and/or perfection before the Fall. That's the critical point here. The Fall is a point in history where things changed dramatically: for this reason, you cannot assume that doctrines from after the Fall are meaningful representations of the situation before the Fall.

-----

Dr. Sing writes:

So when I that say God is holy, that means He is holy/separate/unique in every single attribute of His. IOW, His holiness permeates His attributes making them unique to Him and only Him.

But, He's not unique in every attribute. We were made in His image, so we have to have at least some attributes in common with Him, right?


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Pauline, posted 03-09-2010 3:02 PM Pauline has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Pauline, posted 03-11-2010 12:49 PM Blue Jay has responded

Pauline
Member (Idle past 1811 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 171 of 477 (549918)
03-11-2010 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Blue Jay
03-11-2010 11:30 AM


Re: Mental Gymnastics or Faith?
Bluejay writes:

Right, so you don't really think "when ink was spilled on paper" is unimportant, then.

After me explaining so much, you still want to come back to square one? How many times need I tell you that things that are fulfilled need to be treated differently than the rest?

But, He's not unique in every attribute. We were made in His image, so we have to have at least some attributes in common with Him, right?

God's communicable attributes aren't His defining attributes. And perfection is certainly a defining attribute of God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Blue Jay, posted 03-11-2010 11:30 AM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Blue Jay, posted 03-11-2010 4:54 PM Pauline has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 773 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 172 of 477 (549946)
03-11-2010 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Pauline
03-11-2010 12:49 PM


Re: Mental Gymnastics or Faith?
Hi, Dr. Sing.

Dr. Sin writes:

After me explaining so much, you still want to come back to square one?

We never left square one! You haven't explained anything: you've simply restated your position numerous times.

I'm drawing a parallel between the change in the status of the Mosaic Law at some point in time, and the change in the status of Adam's perfection at some point in time.

The only difference here is that you are unwilling to recognize the parallel. The Fall was every bit a world-changing event as was the Atonement. So, if things change across the "Atonement line," then it seems logical that they also changed across the "Fall line."

You can't support a point with scriptures that occur across the line from the event that is being discussed.

The new teachings of Jesus are on the opposite side of the "Atonement line" from the Old Covenant. Therefore, when Jesus said, "Whosoever looketh upon a women to lust after her hath commited adultery with her already in his heart" (from memory), this statement does not apply to the people of the Old Testament, because it is part of the New Covenant, not the Old Covenant.

Hannah's psalm is on the opposite side of the "Fall line" from Adam's perfection. Therefore, it does not apply to the people before the Fall unless the same sentiment is repeated on the opposite side of the "Fall line."

-----

Dr. Sing writes:

God's communicable attributes aren't His defining attributes. And perfection is certainly a defining attribute of God.

No true Scotsmen! I've actually witnessed it!

You said, "All of God's attributes," not "God's defining attributes." Once I pointed out an attribute of God that is not unique to Him, you redefined your stance such that the attribute I listed "doesn't count." This is the "No true Scotsmen" fallacy.

There's no reason to be this dogmatic about words, Dr. Sing! Loosen up a little bit! It's okay to think that words are just words.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Pauline, posted 03-11-2010 12:49 PM Pauline has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Pauline, posted 03-11-2010 6:03 PM Blue Jay has responded

Pauline
Member (Idle past 1811 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 173 of 477 (549961)
03-11-2010 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Blue Jay
03-11-2010 4:54 PM


Re: Mental Gymnastics or Faith?
You said, "All of God's attributes," not "God's defining attributes." Once I pointed out an attribute of God that is not unique to Him, you redefined your stance such that the attribute I listed "doesn't count." This is the "No true Scotsmen" fallacy.

There's no reason to be this dogmatic about words, Dr. Sing! Loosen up a little bit! It's okay to think that words are just words.

Good grief.

Fine. God's defining attributes are unique to Him. I just assumed you would think about the nature of His attributes..communicable-incommunicable, moral-nonmoral, independant/incontigent etc and understand what was implied.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Blue Jay, posted 03-11-2010 4:54 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Blue Jay, posted 03-12-2010 11:29 AM Pauline has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 773 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 174 of 477 (550057)
03-12-2010 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Pauline
03-11-2010 6:03 PM


Re: Mental Gymnastics or Faith?
Hi, Dr. Sing.

Dr. Sing writes:

I just assumed you would think about the nature of His attributes..communicable-incommunicable, moral-nonmoral, independant/incontigent etc and understand what was implied.

I can certainly sympathesize with this: communication is very difficult, especially since you're responding to a good half-dozen posters in different threads (and doing a good job keeping up with it all, by the way).

But, what am I supposed to do with your argument that "all of God's attributes are unique to Him"? You really didn't leave me any room to assume anything, and assuming is never an appropriate means of communication.

At any rate, I'm going to cut off this conversation now. We're not even talking about anything related to the topic anymore, and we've both got more important discussions going on elsewhere.

Thanks, Dr. Sing.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Pauline, posted 03-11-2010 6:03 PM Pauline has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Pauline, posted 03-12-2010 5:38 PM Blue Jay has responded

Pauline
Member (Idle past 1811 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 175 of 477 (550096)
03-12-2010 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Blue Jay
03-12-2010 11:29 AM


Re: Mental Gymnastics or Faith?
But, what am I supposed to do with your argument that "all of God's attributes are unique to Him"? You really didn't leave me any room to assume anything, and assuming is never an appropriate means of communication.

Sorry, next time I'll make sure to hand-walk and spoon-feed you.

At any rate, I'm going to cut off this conversation now. We're not even talking about anything related to the topic anymore, and we've both got more important discussions going on elsewhere.

Thanks, Dr. Sing.

You're doing me a great favor by saving my time. Thank you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Blue Jay, posted 03-12-2010 11:29 AM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Blue Jay, posted 03-12-2010 8:44 PM Pauline has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 773 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 176 of 477 (550131)
03-12-2010 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Pauline
03-12-2010 5:38 PM


Last Wordism
Original, immature content deleted.

Edited by Bluejay, : Really, Bluejay? What's wrong with you this week? I've come to expect better than this from you.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Pauline, posted 03-12-2010 5:38 PM Pauline has not yet responded

Phage0070
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 177 of 477 (550146)
03-12-2010 10:33 PM


Posting on the original topic (if that is still relevant)...

Here is a question that requires no research, as we will simply be assuming the core elements of the Christian faith. The elements listed are not supposed to be all-inclusive, but each should be critical to the faith; in other words, if you don't accept one of them then you are probably not a mainstream Christian of any denomination.

1) God is omnipotent.
2) God is omniscient. (This ties in with omnipotence, but it bears separate mention.)
3) God is good.
4) God saved us from the consequences of sin, by sending his only son to Earth to be tortured and killed.
5) We should be grateful and worship God and Jesus for this great sacrifice.

Examination:
From the start, if we assume God is omnipotent then God is capable of averting the consequences of "sin" in any way he feels like. This means that simple belief in God could be a perfectly acceptable criteria for God to snap his fingers and forgive our sin. Sending Jesus down to be tortured and killed, suffering the consequences of sin for no reason, does not seem to be a particularly "good" thing to do.

Even if we ignore the questions about element 3 by assuming whatever God does is good no matter how messed up it seems to us, we are still left with the problem of element 5. Why should we be grateful for God being cruel to his own son for no reason? We might be grateful for being forgiven, but pointlessly torturing Jesus? Why?

1) Lets assume God is not omnipotent. This actually makes things more reasonable; God can see that someone has to take a fall for sin, and Jesus is willing to take the hit and able to bounce back from it (3 days compared to eternal torment, much better deal). Since God really cannot make a better solution it make sense for him to be good, and for us to be grateful for his actions.

2) What if God just isn't omniscient? This is a bit shakier, since being omnipotent would mean that he *could* know everything, but just didn't bother. The reason I bring this up is because one of the explanations used to justify why an omnipotent God would torture and kill Jesus when he could get around it is Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death..."

The idea is that because of this rule, someone had to die as punishment for sin. Even God wouldn't break his own rule, otherwise he would no longer be "good" by his own standards. The problem is that an omniscient God would have *known* that making such a rule would back him into a corner in the future, and yet made it that way anyway. It would have been trivial to only apply it to humans, or make a loophole that allows God to do whatever he wants.

So if we go with this explanation then killing his son might be necessary, he still might qualify as "good-ish" and we would be grateful, but it is colored by God being negligent. An all-poweful and good God would presumably be responsible for making sure every decision he made was the best possible, so it makes the whole debacle look like an avoidable mistake.

3) How about if God just isn't good? That throws pretty much everything into place (even lots of things not relevant to this discussion), but element 5 is still a problem. If God is just torturing and killing his own son "for the lulz," then why should we praise him for those actions? It seems more reasonable to praise him for forgiving our sins, and then stay as far away from such an unpredictable and dangerous being as possible.

4) You guessed it; what if Jesus simply wasn't sacrificed for our sins? Element 5 does not quite fit in this instance, but an omnipotent, omniscient, good God that forgave us of our sins seems perfectly worthy of worship and praise. Unfortunately those worshipers wouldn't really be called Christians at that point.

5) What if we just didn't worship a god that makes no sense?

So, what does everyone think? Can any of the 5 elements above be dropped and still remain the Christian faith?

Edited by Phage0070, : since -> sense (spelling correction)


Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-12-2010 10:54 PM Phage0070 has not yet responded
 Message 179 by Peg, posted 03-13-2010 8:02 PM Phage0070 has responded

Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 178 of 477 (550148)
03-12-2010 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Phage0070
03-12-2010 10:33 PM


So, what does everyone think?

What I think is this getting my recommendation for POTM, that's what I think.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Phage0070, posted 03-12-2010 10:33 PM Phage0070 has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3005 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 179 of 477 (550252)
03-13-2010 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Phage0070
03-12-2010 10:33 PM


Phage0070 writes:

So, what does everyone think? Can any of the 5 elements above be dropped and still remain the Christian faith?

YEs they can.

God is indeed omnipotent, and he is omniscient in the sense that nothing can be hidden from him. But is he really omnipresent? Is God everywhere, or is he a person with a specific dwelling place?

The bible says that he has his own dwelling place. Its not even in the physical universe...it is outside of the physical universe... so he is most certainly not omnipresent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Phage0070, posted 03-12-2010 10:33 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Phage0070, posted 03-13-2010 8:24 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 181 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-15-2010 2:03 AM Peg has responded
 Message 183 by Huntard, posted 03-15-2010 5:15 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 180 of 477 (550256)
03-13-2010 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Peg
03-13-2010 8:02 PM


Peg writes:

...so he is most certainly not omnipresent.

I don't follow. Perhaps you could clarify which of the 5 elements listed you are talking about?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Peg, posted 03-13-2010 8:02 PM Peg has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
32NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019