Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Underlying Philosophy
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 474 of 577 (568676)
07-07-2010 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 473 by sac51495
07-07-2010 3:49 PM


Re: inherent properties of murder
What is it about "wrongful killing" that makes it inherently wrong? Why do governments have the right to punish someone who commits murder? Why would it be wrong for me to come find you and kill you? Something is not "wrong" because of consequences. Something can be "stupid" to do because of consequences, but that doesn't make it wrong. Something is defined as wrong if there is something about the crime itself that makes it morally incorrect.
It is wrong because society said it is wrong.
So suppose we were in a place where there were no consequences for murder. Does it then become right to murder you?
Yes, it would be right. Not very bright of you to even try, but it would be right.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by sac51495, posted 07-07-2010 3:49 PM sac51495 has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 480 of 577 (569036)
07-19-2010 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 479 by sac51495
07-19-2010 9:07 PM


Re: Dr Adequate's Wager
sac51495 writes:
Now somebody said that "if unreliable memories are a result of sin, then those who sin more are the ones with more unreliable memories"...read Genesis 3:17=19, which is the curse given by God on mankind. Diseases etc. are the result of the curse, and whoever is overtaken by these diseases, and whoever is not, is determined by God and God alone.
Huh?
Here is Genesis 3:17-19...
quote:
17And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Where is there anything about disease in there? Where is there anything in there that even implies "whoever is overtaken by these diseases, and whoever is not, is determined by God and God alone"?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 479 by sac51495, posted 07-19-2010 9:07 PM sac51495 has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 489 of 577 (569457)
07-21-2010 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 485 by sac51495
07-21-2010 2:39 PM


Absolutes
sac51495 writes:
A number of atheists on this forum have said that they believe there are no moral absolutes.
At least one Christian on this board has said that no one has ever been able to show that there are any moral absolutes either.
I'm still waiting for someone to show that there is some Moral Absolute.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by sac51495, posted 07-21-2010 2:39 PM sac51495 has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 519 of 577 (570206)
07-26-2010 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 515 by sac51495
07-25-2010 10:40 PM


Re: Continuing the moral discussions
sac51495 writes:
I notice something common in all of your statements about morals: they are inherently anti-God by virtue of the fact that they are incredibly self-centered, relying alone on man's reasoning and his decision-making, as though man's reasoning, which is supposedly a bi-product of evolution, is lord over the universe, and can somehow tame that which produced it.
First, what tool do we have for moral decisions other than human reasoning?
Second, have you ever read the Bible?
Do you remember the part about the great tool we got, a tool just for making moral decisions, in the Garden of Eden?
quote:
22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 515 by sac51495, posted 07-25-2010 10:40 PM sac51495 has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 523 of 577 (570233)
07-26-2010 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 522 by Stile
07-26-2010 11:55 AM


Re: Squaring Circles
Stile writes:
Let's say that God, in his infinite power and wisdom, does possess the knowledge of "the best" moral system possible.
God A: "Mortals, here are my explicit commandments, follow them because I know what's best."
God B: "Mortals, here is the reasoning behind my commandments, if you can identify any flaws or any improvements come and we will discuss any and all possible errors."
There is even a great example of the latter found in Genesis 18 beginning at Verse 16. There Abraham challenges what God says He is going to do based on Abraham's moral reasoning and convinces God to change His behavior.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by Stile, posted 07-26-2010 11:55 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 536 of 577 (571479)
07-31-2010 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 535 by sac51495
07-31-2010 9:05 PM


Re: absolutism and objectivity
sac51495 writes:
Because God created the universe based on His unchanging nature, then any ethical claims that deny His objectivity, and instead promote a view of subjectivity, are in direct opposition to God. So, if one takes a subjective view of morality, they are not in any way whatsoever taking on a view of neutrality with regards to the existence of God, but a view which sets itself in direct opposition to God.
One of the really neat things about the various Bibles that exist is that there are so many contradictions that you can take a quote out of context to support just about anything.
BUT one thing is pretty clear is that the Bible says that we were actually given the great gift of the tools to know good from evil for a reason; to make subjective decisions about morality.
We are charged to look at morality as subjective, and to even correct God when he is wrong.
Genesis 2 writes:
22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.
Genesis 18 writes:
22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD. 23 Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thingto kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
26 The LORD said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake."
27 Then Abraham spoke up again: "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?"
"If I find forty-five there," he said, "I will not destroy it."
29 Once again he spoke to him, "What if only forty are found there?"
He said, "For the sake of forty, I will not do it."
30 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?"
He answered, "I will not do it if I find thirty there."
31 Abraham said, "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?"
He said, "For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it."
32 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?"
He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it."
Not only are we called to make subjective decisions about morality, we are called to question and challenge even God.
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 535 by sac51495, posted 07-31-2010 9:05 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 542 by Phage0070, posted 08-01-2010 12:36 AM jar has replied
 Message 558 by sac51495, posted 08-06-2010 9:57 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 545 of 577 (571575)
08-01-2010 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 542 by Phage0070
08-01-2010 12:36 AM


Re: absolutism and objectivity
As I said:
jar writes:
One of the really neat things about the various Bibles that exist is that there are so many contradictions that you can take a quote out of context to support just about anything.
The various Bibles are NOT consistent, they are often contradictory and quite often present mutually exclusive tales and morality plays.
That is yet another reason we are charged to think, to use the brains God gave us. If the different authors and editors and people that served on the different committees decided which stories were to be combined into one (like the editor of the Flood Myth sections) even though they held mutually exclusive details, or the two different and contradictory creation myths, or the fable of the Conquest of Canaan in Joshuah or the Exodus fantasy, were truly inspired, then they included those contradictions, fantasies, fables and inconsistencies for a reason. That they did should tell you that you are supposed to read the whole book, not just pieces parts; and that you are supposed to use your brain to determine what is poetry or fable or cultural epic or fantasy or parable or morality play.
Think.
Stop pulling stuff out of context. This is just part of the Abraham myth. This is the same Abraham that just a few chapters before is criticizing God, correcting God, pointing out that God's actions would be immoral.
The story of Abraham is NOT about blind obedience. It is about the founding of a peoples. It is a story the people told themselves about an imagined covenant between their God and them.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 542 by Phage0070, posted 08-01-2010 12:36 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 548 by Phage0070, posted 08-01-2010 5:45 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 549 of 577 (571645)
08-01-2010 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 548 by Phage0070
08-01-2010 5:45 PM


Re: absolutism and objectivity
I said ...
quote:
The various Bibles are NOT consistent, they are often contradictory and quite often present mutually exclusive tales and morality plays.
That is yet another reason we are charged to think, to use the brains God gave us. If the different authors and editors and people that served on the different committees decided which stories were to be combined into one (like the editor of the Flood Myth sections) even though they held mutually exclusive details, or the two different and contradictory creation myths, or the fable of the Conquest of Canaan in Joshuah or the Exodus fantasy, were truly inspired, then they included those contradictions, fantasies, fables and inconsistencies for a reason. That they did should tell you that you are supposed to read the whole book, not just pieces parts; and that you are supposed to use your brain to determine what is poetry or fable or cultural epic or fantasy or parable or morality play.
Think.
Stop pulling stuff out of context. This is just part of the Abraham myth. This is the same Abraham that just a few chapters before is criticizing God, correcting God, pointing out that God's actions would be immoral.
The story of Abraham is NOT about blind obedience. It is about the founding of a peoples. It is a story the people told themselves about an imagined covenant between their God and them.
You replied...
Phage0070 writes:
So the stupider we are, the less morally obligated we will be considered by God? For instance, if we are born too stupid to understand complex ethical situations, God won't fault us for that inability and only judge based on those ethical decisions we *can* understand.
Apparently, being born a sociopath with a complete inability to understand morality is a golden ticket into heaven. Who knew?
First, being a sociopath has nothing to do with being stupid or with understanding morality.
BUT, being stupid or the inability of being able to tell right from wrong is not what makes someone a sociopath.
A Sociopath is someone that shows a pattern of and disregard for the rights of others. They may well know something is wrong, they simply don't care.
Is this just yet another example of you attempting to Palm the Pea, misrepresent what was said, mislead the audience and change the subject?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 548 by Phage0070, posted 08-01-2010 5:45 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 550 by Phage0070, posted 08-01-2010 6:14 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 551 of 577 (571650)
08-01-2010 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 550 by Phage0070
08-01-2010 6:14 PM


Re: absolutism and objectivity
Phage0070 writes:
jar writes:
Is this just yet another example of you attempting to Palm the Pea, misrepresent what was said, mislead the audience and change the subject?
Apparently, considering you attacked the definition of sociopathy and my terminology rather than actually addressing the point of the inability to understand ethics being a free pass to heaven.
Again you misrepresent what I said, so again, here is the exchange.
quote:
I said ...
quote:
The various Bibles are NOT consistent, they are often contradictory and quite often present mutually exclusive tales and morality plays.
That is yet another reason we are charged to think, to use the brains God gave us. If the different authors and editors and people that served on the different committees decided which stories were to be combined into one (like the editor of the Flood Myth sections) even though they held mutually exclusive details, or the two different and contradictory creation myths, or the fable of the Conquest of Canaan in Joshuah or the Exodus fantasy, were truly inspired, then they included those contradictions, fantasies, fables and inconsistencies for a reason. That they did should tell you that you are supposed to read the whole book, not just pieces parts; and that you are supposed to use your brain to determine what is poetry or fable or cultural epic or fantasy or parable or morality play.
Think.
Stop pulling stuff out of context. This is just part of the Abraham myth. This is the same Abraham that just a few chapters before is criticizing God, correcting God, pointing out that God's actions would be immoral.
The story of Abraham is NOT about blind obedience. It is about the founding of a peoples. It is a story the people told themselves about an imagined covenant between their God and them.
You replied...
Phage0070 writes:
So the stupider we are, the less morally obligated we will be considered by God? For instance, if we are born too stupid to understand complex ethical situations, God won't fault us for that inability and only judge based on those ethical decisions we *can* understand.
Apparently, being born a sociopath with a complete inability to understand morality is a golden ticket into heaven. Who knew?
First, being a sociopath has nothing to do with being stupid or with understanding morality.
BUT, being stupid or the inability of being able to tell right from wrong is not what makes someone a sociopath.
A Sociopath is someone that shows a pattern of and disregard for the rights of others. They may well know something is wrong, they simply don't care.
Is this just yet another example of you attempting to Palm the Pea, misrepresent what was said, mislead the audience and change the subject?
As you can see I did not attack the definition or terminology, I attacked your assertion that sociopathy and being stupid were the same thing.
You continue to misrepresent what you said. You did not say that "inability to understand ethics being a free pass to heaven" but rather "Apparently, being born a sociopath with a complete inability to understand morality is a golden ticket into heaven.".
Try honesty.
But wait, there's more...
If you want to know my position on salvation (which is NOT the subject of this topic), I already gave you a link to the thread Who can be saved? A Christian perspective.
yet hold on, there is still more.
Do you understand what amorality means?
If someone truly is amoral, unable to understand right from wrong, then how could they be held responsible?
Now that is true in most civilized human societies.We don't hold infants or little children responsible for doing wrong.
Do you think God will be less understanding than most civilized humans?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 550 by Phage0070, posted 08-01-2010 6:14 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 552 by Phage0070, posted 08-01-2010 7:02 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 559 of 577 (572652)
08-06-2010 10:22 PM


I'm not sure what most of what you posted has to do with anything I said.
I pointed to a specific example where Abraham did point out that God's proposed behavior was immoral, and God modified Her behavior based on Abraham's criticism.
As to the supposed Fall, I have never found any Biblical support for the notion. What God laid down in telling Adam not to eat the fruit was not a moral, it was a law. However, God in the story was not bright enough to realize the She had not given either Adam or Eve the tools they needed to know that they should follow what God said.
It is not until they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that they had the tools needed to obey the law.
As the story plays out, even as you quoted, God did not even tell Adam and Eve the truth. They did not die that day.
In fact, in the story, it is actually the Serpent that tells the truth.
I also know that the story of Adam and Eve is not true, it is a "Just So" story. The tales of Abraham are also not true, they are a mythology of creating a people, creating an identity.
I believe that in the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth. But that is a belief, nothing more.
Can I be sure that any verse in the Bible is true? Of course not. I can though be absolutely sure that many are false, simply myths, fables, stories. There was no Flood, the Exodus certainly never happened as described and teh Conquest of Canaan as told in Joshuah is pure epic fiction.
AbE:
You also claim that God knew that there was not a righteous man in Sodom or Gomorrah but again, that is NOT what the story says.
quote:
20 Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."
Edited by jar, : add part about what God knew.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Replies to this message:
 Message 563 by sac51495, posted 08-10-2010 9:06 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 565 of 577 (573332)
08-10-2010 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 563 by sac51495
08-10-2010 9:06 PM


sac51495 writes:
jar writes:
God modified Her behavior
This makes it very difficult to have a conversation, if you can disregard the ridiculous amount of "He's" used in the Bible in reference to God...why would you think that God is a "her", and why would you even want to think that?
I also use "It". The purpose is to get folk to think and not create god in the human image. GOD, if GOD exists, is not likely to be a Him or a Her.
sac51495 writes:
jar writes:
It is not until they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that they had the tools needed to obey the law.
Which means before they ate the fruit, they did not have the ability to not eat the fruit, since you say that they did not yet have the tools to obey Laws?
No, it means that before they ate the fruit they did not have the tools to make decisions about what is right or wrong behavior.
sac51495 writes:
jar writes:
God did not even tell Adam and Eve the truth. They did not die that day.
"Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar." (Romans 3:4)
Will you disregard this verse as well?...
And yes, Adam and Eve did die that day...spiritually, because they were separated from God: just as physical death is separation from physical life, so also spiritual death is separation from the source of spiritual life: God.
I don't ignore either verse, I look to see what they say.
The whole nonsense of "spiritual death" is of course, not in the story at all. Further, they were not separated from God, God walks with them, talks with them, makes clothes for them; it even carries on in the next chapters where God talks with Eve and her kids.
Sorry but spiritual death or separation from God are just not in the story.
sac51495 writes:
jar writes:
Can I be sure that any verse in the Bible is true? Of course not.
Then what is your basis for knowing anything? And what arbitrary reasoning might have been used to pick and choose which verses can and can't be used?..."All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Tim. 3:16-17)
First, 2 Timmy is NOT talking about the Bible but rather any inspired writings. When 2 Timmy was written there were no Bibles, the first Bibles were created by committees almost 200 years later.
Second, there is still no such thing as "The Bible". Bibles are the product of Committees of Canon which is why there are so many different collections.
I base my knowledge on first, what can be verified, second what the text actually said, third the brain God gave me.
sac51495 writes:
jar writes:
You also claim that God knew that there was not a righteous man in Sodom or Gomorrah but again, that is NOT what the story says.
And you also deny God's omniscience....
Too funny. It is not me, it is what the story said.
quote:
20 Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."
God is out checking to see if what he heard was true. He didn't know which is why he says "If not, I will know."
Note that "will"?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 563 by sac51495, posted 08-10-2010 9:06 PM sac51495 has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 575 of 577 (576508)
08-24-2010 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 558 by sac51495
08-06-2010 9:57 PM


Mortality, change and meaning.
sac51495 writes:
It appears that your Biblical hermeneutic is not centered around bringing glory to God, but to justify your wish to be as Adam and Eve wished to be: to determine good and evil.
Ah yes, the great GIFT. The single most important part of that fable.
sac51495 writes:
1. - If God's opinions of morals can change, then did Jesus' death really pay for all of your sins? Suppose that certain things you have done during your life were not wrong at the time Jesus died, but are now "okay"? Did Jesus die for these sins? Did Jesus' death on the cross account for your hypothetical subjective moral standards?
I do not believe Jesus' death paid for an of my sins. I will still get judged.
Morality is a human construct and yes it changes and evolves. It is those human constructs that we live by.
sac51495 writes:
2. - The Bible itself denies changing standards: "My son, fear the LORD and the king; Do not associate with those given to change;" (Prov. 24:21). Although this verse is not specifically pointed towards morals, it certainly has nothing good to say about "change".
Nonsense. The Bible is filled as expected with many contradictory passages. Jesus himself is said to have changed things. Genesis 18 includes an example of man challenging and changing God's morality standards.
quote:
23And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?
24Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?
25That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
26And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.
27And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the LORD, which am but dust and ashes:
28Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it.
29And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty's sake.
30And he said unto him, Oh let not the LORD be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there.
31And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the LORD: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty's sake.
32And he said, Oh let not the LORD be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.
sac51495 writes:
3. - You also make morality out to be a standard that is outside of God, that God must measure up to. But God and "morality" are one and the same thing: "So Jesus said to him, Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God." (Mark 10:18). God is good, and none of us are. Good is defined by God's very nature. Does God's nature change? "For I am the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob." (Mal. 3:6). Thus we conclude that standards of morality are unchanging.
See above. In addition there are examples all through the Bible stories of God changing. Have you ever read the Flood Myths?
quote:
5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
sac51495 writes:
The "great" gift?... Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems as though you are making the fall out to be a blessing to mankind...but, of course, there is the distinct possibility that I am misunderstanding you.
No, you do not misunderstand me. I can find no Biblical support for the concept of a Fall.
sac51495 writes:
7. - From your standpoint that there are many contradictions in the Bible, and that a quote can be taken to mean anything out of context, we must ask the question: why do you have any confidence that the anecdote of Abraham is true? Or that the anecdote of Adam and Eve is true? How can you be absolutely, positively sure than any particular verse in the Bible is true? What about the one at the beginning, that says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."? Is it true? What about the verses that give us our means of hope through Jesus Christ?...Do you ascribe to any of these views? If so, how do you know that they are true?
I don't know that any of those are true. I may hope or believe they are true, but that is all it can ever be as long as I live.
Many, such as the fables though can be learning and teaching lessons even if not true.
sac51495 writes:
I would be interested to find out who it was that called us to do this, because it wasn't God.
quote:
22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 558 by sac51495, posted 08-06-2010 9:57 PM sac51495 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024