|
Author
|
Topic: Charismatic Chaos
|
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4909 days) Posts: 178 Joined: 06-23-2009
|
|
Message 147 of 531 (534056)
11-04-2009 5:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 146 by iano
11-04-2009 4:14 PM
|
|
Re: Matters of faith, fact, and fancy
Hi everyone,
iano writes: Hyro writes: Do you really believe that? And if so, wouldn't this make God the greatest facilitator of our sin?
Ultimately? Absolutely! God is the one who equipped man with the abilty to choose: to sin/ not to sin. And God is the one who provides the mechanism whereby our ability to choose can be brought to life. Choice isn't a choice without an means of enactment. And so, in order that our ability to choose can find expression, we are exposed to: - Temptation: manifest through Satan, who entices us by appealing to that within us that would delight in sin. - Conscience: that of God which exercises a restraining force tending us away from sin. God sustains in us, by conscience, an abhorrence of sin. . God facilitate our sin (by letting Satan operate). He also facilitates our not sinning (by giving us a knowledge, sense, feeling for.. what is good and what is evil). Us? Well we get to choose. - Hi iano. There are many, many things wrong with your arguments, but nevertheless, I'll start from the top. First, you say that, yes God is the ultimate greatest facilitator of our sin. If we take Christianity to be true, than this is, after all the only (somewhat) rational position. However, it does raise some interesting questions though. If God equipped man with the choice of sinning or not, then that means he was absolving himself of any responsibility, right? However, this is not the case. Any way that humans existed would be God's will, as anything other than what he wanted would not be able to exist. Where, I'm going may seem a little vague, but bear with me: whether or not people choose to sin, the ability to do so is given by God, and thus, God wanted us to be able to sin. This may seem like restating your point; however, it is far from it. Sinning creates evil, and thus any being that wanted evil to be able to exist would be itself evil. Furthermore, God could have created beings which could freely choose to only do good; after all, this the situation that will exist in Heaven, no? (If people can sin in Heaven, then it isn't any better than Earth in that respect, and if they can't, then that implies that sinning as a result of free choice was never a desirable option and thus God had no possibly rational reason for creating us that way!) In addition, the addition of Satan only increases God's damnation (no pun intended). Satan, like humans was created by God, presumably with free will. However, his hubris and disobedience that caused him to rebel against God and tempt humans were God-given! (Ever heard of Pandora's curiosity?)
iano writes: At any given time God could have created us in a world without temptation, a desire without temptation towards evil, and yet he has not. Then he gets upset when humans follow the very appetite he gave us. From the above you'll hopefully see a tension between two influences. Yes, there is temptation (supplied by God indirectly). Yes, there is conscience ( supplied by God directly). The vital thing to remember is that it's NOT as if we sit on some weighing scales whereby our getting to heaven depends on how many times we've acted according to this influence or that influence. Such a mechanism of salvation would be a works-based salvation, a salvation based on our doing 'enough'. The reality is that God utilises our sinning in the effort to save us. Sinning brings consequences (guilt and shame) and those consequences are woven into the overall effort aimed at our salvation. So the last thing to do is go running out trying to 'be good'. Sin is good in so far that it's used to save us from sin. Call it "fighting fire with fire" if you like.
iano, this is really sad. Yes, you may be thinking along the lines of: it's the only/best way; however, it is not. You are failing to remember that God is all powerful and thus could simply make us feel shame and sin without any further action; in other words, giving us the memory of a prison sentence without allowing the consequent to happen. A God that punishes those who deserves it would be just, but one who allows crimes to be committed in order for punishment to be deserved would be monstrous and unjust. It is not the consequence of the action that should be judged, it is the intention and ability to begin and follow through with a crime; moreover, such a small thing is infinitely small in the eye of an all-knowing being. -T&U (it's good to be back in the fray)
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes "In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 146 by iano, posted 11-04-2009 4:14 PM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 149 by iano, posted 11-04-2009 5:47 PM | | Teapots&unicorns has replied |
|
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4909 days) Posts: 178 Joined: 06-23-2009
|
|
|
Message 159 of 531 (534092)
11-04-2009 10:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 149 by iano
11-04-2009 5:47 PM
|
|
Re: Matters of faith, fact, and fancy
iano writes: First.. If God equipped man with the choice of sinning or not, then that means he was absolving himself of any responsibility, right? For mans sinning? Yes. But not for his having created man with the potential to choose either way. God would accept his responsibility for having created man with that potential. Much like Honda would accept responsibility for creating the potential for drunk drivers. You start out right iano, and I find myself agreeing with you a little. However, the Honda analogy doesn't really quite fit: maybe a more apt idea would be Honda creating all cars with some kind of defect that would be activated if the driver pressed it... (Not really sure where I'm ultimately going with this... :-) )
iano writes: whether or not people choose to sin, the ability to do so is given by God, and thus, God wanted us to be able to sin. Yes - as a choice of ours. Just marking your progression here, no need to comment.
Same here.
iano writes: quote This may seem like restating your point; however, it is far from it. Sinning creates evil, and thus any being that wanted evil to be able to exist would be itself evil. Flaw: you shifted from "God wanting to equip us with the potential to reject him (ie: do evil)" to "God wanted us to reject him (ie: do evil)"
I think you're missing the point, iano. It's not a matter of whether he wants us to do evil; it's a matter of can he prevent that evil. Perhaps an apt analogy would be a school counselor checking up on a possibly malevolent student to talk about some issues (I'm sure many people would prefer an ultimately visible God- even as a shrink)
iano writes: Furthermore, God could have created beings which could freely choose to only do good; after all, this the situation that will exist in Heaven, no? Those people in heaven will be there because they ( effectively) gave up their ability to be able to sin. You need to create people capable of choosing to give up sin (or not) in order that some will choose to give up that ability. God didn't create the beings that will be in heaven. He re-created them from the remains of being who chose for God and against sin. Yes, but this doesn't explain why he didn't just create us that way in the first place; if this is a desirable outcome, then God could have just started creation this way without those evil infidels.
iano writes: iano, this is really sad. Yes, you may be thinking along the lines of: it's the only/best way; however, it is not. You are failing to remember that God is all powerful and thus could simply make us feel shame and sin without any further action; Sure. But if guilt and shame are a penalty what would be the sound basis for applying it if no crime were committed? We're assuming a rational, reasonable God btw - not one who waves magic wands. Yes, you may be thinking of God in rational terms (I know many theists who try), but you're not getting the point. I apologize if I was too vague. The idea is not if the crime is never committed; the idea is that any crime would be futile as God could just talk with that person mano-a-mano and tell them what they're doing wrong and why.I don't think we're asking much: simply an easily visible God that we can actually form a direct relationship with.
iano writes: ..in other words, giving us the memory of a prison sentence without allowing the consequent to happen. A God that punishes those who deserves it would be just, but one who allows crimes to be committed in order for punishment to be deserved would be monstrous and unjust. It is not the consequence of the action that should be judged, it is the intention and ability to begin and follow through with a crime; moreover, such a small thing is infinitely small in the eye of an all-knowing being. Perhaps this is why God equates lust with adultery and anger with murder. The intent isn't unimportant but it serves to have degrees of crime: from thought all the way up to action. Let's face it, all of us have thought of doing things but have pulled back before having done them. According to your system those who didn't pull back should be punished as much as those who did. God forbid! (and I can't think of one justice system that'd agree with you)
The equation of lust and anger with adultery and murder wasn't what I was getting at iano. Once again, I apologize if I was too vague. The intent and the ability are the only things that determine a crime: If a person is already going to try to murder someone/commit adultery and has the resources and/or ability, then it (hopefully) wouldn't be too beyond God to stop them before they got too far and help them keep to their morality. If an just, almighty God existed, then it is not too far-fetched too admit the existence of only the lesson and perhaps the punishment of the situation rather than the crime itself. The purpose of justice is ultimately rehabilitation, not punishment. Please don't bring up "free will" unless you honestly think that a rapist's right to freely sin (rape) is greater than the right of the raped innocent to freely want to stay alive. Interesting points. T&U Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 149 by iano, posted 11-04-2009 5:47 PM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 160 by iano, posted 11-05-2009 4:54 AM | | Teapots&unicorns has replied |
|
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4909 days) Posts: 178 Joined: 06-23-2009
|
|
|
Message 162 of 531 (534141)
11-05-2009 9:13 AM
|
Reply to: Message 160 by iano
11-05-2009 4:54 AM
|
|
Re: Evil serves a good end.
iano writes: T&U writes: You start out right iano, and I find myself agreeing with you a little. However, the Honda analogy doesn't really quite fit: maybe a more apt idea would be Honda creating all cars with some kind of defect that would be activated if the driver pressed it.
The ability to chose evil isn't a defect. It's intrinsic to what God created man to be: free willed. But you seem, on the other hand, to agree that so far, God hasn't put a toe wrong. When used in conjunction with a (presumably) all-powerful and omnibenevolent being, yes, evil is a defect.
iano writes: Flaw: you shifted from "God wanting to equip us with the potential to reject him (ie: do evil)" to "God wanted us to reject him (ie: do evil)"
I think you're missing the point, iano. It's not a matter of whether he wants us to do evil; it's a matter of can he prevent that evil. Perhaps an apt analogy would be a school counselor checking up on a possibly malevolent student to talk about some issues (I'm sure many people would prefer an ultimately visible God- even as a shrink) Above we saw that free will (or better said; the free-est of wills) necessitates provision of the ability to reject God. God cannot provide such a level of free will and take away that provision - at the same time. It's be like asking God to create an object too heavy for him to lift. People will ultimately get to see God. He prefers that too. But just not yet, not before we decide in which we want to experience seeing him. He is both love and wrath. We only get to see one or other aspect. Choice. It's all about choice. Our choice. It's not like asking God to create a rock so heavy he can't lift; it's entirely different. It's about God using a person's intention to sin and showing them the error of their ways without anyone having to get hurt.
iano writes: Yes, but this doesn't explain why he didn't just create us that way in the first place; if this is a desirable outcome, then God could have just started creation this way without those evil infidels. God can't create being who has chosen to be without sin - without that being actually choosing. But he could have created a being incapable of sin from the outset. There'd be a vast difference between the two creatures: the one chose God of own volition, the other is programmed to choose God. The former provides the opportunity for meaningful relationship, the latter provides the opporunity for a pet. Supposing God didn't want a pet? iano, you have to realize that we're not asking much. Just beings that could freely only choose to love God. (kind of like we can only choose to obey gravity  ). Once again, you seem mistaken; God can have his cake and eat it too. If he wants people with the ability to choose, then he can prevent those actions while at the same time making the sinner a better person. Think of it this way; a man is going to rape an innocent woman in a dark alley. God is the policeman walking past the alley at midnight. He sees the man about to assault the woman, presumably with no doubts with his intention to rape. If he is all-powerful, then it would be child's play to simply stop the rapist and let the innocent go unharmed. Remember my above post; justice is about rehabilitation, not punishment or guilt.
iano writes: Sure. But if guilt and shame are a penalty what would be the sound basis for applying it if no crime were committed?
The idea is not if the crime is never committed; the idea is that any crime would be futile as God could just talk with that person mano-a-mano and tell them what they're doing wrong and why.
I don't think we're asking much: simply an easily visible God that we can actually form a direct relationship with. First thing first. And the first thing is which kind of relationship do we want with God - that is the process we are engaged in. You'll have heard the fairytale about the king who sees and falls in love with a pauper maiden who lives in the woods? He knows that if he turns up at her door as he is, his glory will overpower her. Her acceeding to his suit would be the result, even if only partial, of his being king, not because of who he is. And so he dresses himself as a pauper and stops by one day to ask for water. And so the relationship develops. And so she falls in love with him. God is about truth and love and meekness and patience and kindness. This life is your opportunity to discover whether it is those things you love ultimately or whether wickedness is your hearts desire. There is no need for God to 'reveal his kingship' to you at this point - you've yet to decide which it's going to be. You've no need to worry that somehow you'll miss the boat, or that you have to figure it all outt. The mechanism of salvation has it's finger on your pulse and knows what quickens it. And works to have it quickened by God. iano, once again: We are not asking for much. Would it be too hard for God to talk to each of us individually through manifestation like Jesus? (I'm guessing that those around him weren't continuously in awe and the disciples were all able to build pretty close relationships with him. He even stopped them if they were going to sin.)
iano writes: The intent and the ability are the only things that determine a crime: If a person is already going to try to murder someone/commit adultery and has the resources and/or ability, then it (hopefully) wouldn't be too beyond God to stop them before they got too far and help them keep to their morality. You can't have it both ways T&U. If the crime is effectively committed at 'intent and ability' then the persons morality has already been lost. Plenty of able people have pulled out of an intent so it would appear that some other element is involved. A 'point of no return decision' would be it in my view. I don't agree in any case. If my hearts desire is to see someone suffer because I hate them, and I want to take their possessions after I've cleared them out of my way then intent and ability aren't going to provide my hearts desire. Are they?
You misunderstand me, iano. The crime itself is not committed with 'intent and ability;' rather intent and ability can lead to either the crime and harm done, or God helping us to see the error of our ways. Not much; just a little pat on the back and a "Dude, you're doing this wrong."  Also, I don't entirely understand your "heart's desire." If it is a conscious decision because you hate them, then it is pretty easy (I would think) for God to come down and omnisciently talk you out of doing so, thereby making you a better person. However, if you are saying that our "heart's desire" is unconscious and thus God will/can not change it, it does remove any responsibility from ourselves.
iano writes: Please don't bring up "free will" unless you honestly think that a rapist's right to freely sin (rape) is greater than the right of the raped innocent to freely want to stay alive. For the purposes of permitting evil, God permits one will to overrule another. He doesn't necessarily provide the will with the power to access everything it would desire - doing so would require that we all be God. Remember what this gig called Life is about: finding out our hearts desire. It's not about our being happy and contented. Or even having our fulls hearts desire met - this side of the grave. The full weight of our desires will be met after the grave - not before That's the point iano. If God wants to permit evil, then he is evil. Furthermore, favoring the free will of an evil person over the free will of an innocent is also in the domain of an evil being. The crime doesn't have to be committed for a sinner to be helped to be a better person. Just a random thought: If God wanted us to be able to choose sin or goodness, then why didn't he have us live out our lives individually in a simulation, then allowing us to go to heaven if we get things right? Presumably, it would not interfere with our free will and, furthermore, no one could get hurt as a result of our actions. T&U
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 160 by iano, posted 11-05-2009 4:54 AM | | iano has not replied |
|
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4909 days) Posts: 178 Joined: 06-23-2009
|
Re: Free Will?
Hyro writes: You're suggesting that God should eliminate one of the central things that might bring us to our knees before God? To do so would diminish the opportunity for our salvation - why on earth should God do that. Being the principle cause of man's suffering and then offering salvation is like maliciously kicking a man in the teeth and then treating his wounds. And what's worse, if you don't accept your tormentor's treatment, he'll execute you outright. Now what kind of a "choice" is that really? What kind of free will is that? Sure, there is a superficial appearance of free will. We literally can say yes or no to, but your only options are made up for you. Ultimately there is no free will involved, for God creates the rules of the game. It's like creating a chess playing computer that can make different decisions based on algorithyms. Sure, it can "choose" different moves. It is not consigned to making a move that would kill it. But looking at the bigger picture, that computer program can only do what it was coded to do by its Maker. The program cannot decide not to play the game. And just like the program, we cannot decide not to play God's game. He is our Programmer and we have no real choices. He gives almost no evidence that he even exists, which is tempting in and of itself to shirk it off and just go live life. Then when you die, he says you never accepted me. To hell with you. Or you can just blindly submit to your own tormentor and hope he'll spare your soul. But your whole life here will be devoted to the nothingness and hoping that somehow you're right and that your life devoted to this mystery is not all bullshit and a huge waste of what precious time you have alive on this earth. So, yeah, in some sense we do have a choice. But it's like choosing which testicle you want to be kicked in. Right or the left, pick yer poison. Not much of a choice, now is it? You know, this is what I've always wondered: Whether or not God exists is irrelevant if we don't want to play the game anyway. Instead of sitting down to play checkers, why can't we just toss the board and go watch TV instead? Yes, I know it's God's desire that we all end up with him, but, if you'll pardon the analogy, doesn't that make him out to be like an obsessive parent? Any respectable god that created sentient beings would want them to eventually get to the point where they wouldn't need him anymore; also, if they wanted to leave home early and just go their own way, they would be allowed to. What do you guys think? (Especially you iano ) T&U
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 168 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-05-2009 10:36 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 171 by Stile, posted 11-06-2009 10:23 AM | | Teapots&unicorns has not replied | | | Message 172 by iano, posted 11-06-2009 6:50 PM | | Teapots&unicorns has replied |
|
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4909 days) Posts: 178 Joined: 06-23-2009
|
|
|
Message 174 of 531 (534325)
11-06-2009 8:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 172 by iano
11-06-2009 6:50 PM
|
|
Re: Free Will?
iano writes: a) God isn't your parent. Far from it at the moment. So that attempt to draw comparisons needs serious re-working. At this moment you're position before God is variously described as; rebel, God-hating, foolish, child of Satan. Do continue along that vein if you must.. I know God isn't my parent; He doen't exist. But aside from that, does God want us to be dependent on him? If not, then he is grossly misunderstood; if so, then he is a sick being that I would not want to follow. That would be a dictatorship of the highest level, which is disgusting.
iano writes: b) The option to drop out of the game isn't available. It's eternity with God is love or eternity with God is wrath. Well, why can't we just go our separate ways? If God is inviting us to play chess with him, then it seems like we can't do anything but play. If we win, good for us; we've won a lifetime memberrship at "God's chess club." (Which would get a little boring after a while) If we lose, we end up in "Loser's hell," where we are tortured for all eternity for failing to meet his standards. We're never given the option not to play. It's either we win or we lose; there's no indifference possible. As several people have noted, this isn't fair, it's a horrific extortion.
An even more apt analogy might be a Mafia protection racket. Humanity is the shopkeeper, the helpless elderly man cowering behind the cash register, while God is the trench-coated mob enforcer making the proverbial offer we can't refuse. "This sure is a nice soul you've got here," the mobster sneers. "It would be a terrible shame if it were to meet with some unfortunate accident." Exactly like the gangster demanding protection money, the God of these religions offers us a forced option which his proselytizing followers deceptively present as a free choice. This isn't love - this is extortion. If God cares so much about us, then why does he need to coerce our devotion with the threat of torture? No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/divineblackmail.html iano writes: ) We are made in Gods image and likeness and as a result are relational, creative, loving, etc, etc. If you want to live without God then you can live without those aspects of God for a start. Indeed, the environment of Hell would appear to involve just that - your being stripped of the image of God in which you were made. The results don't look all that attractive.
Here, iano; we're not asking for evil or suffering. All we want is to go our own way. We're not asking for complete rejection of God; what we do want is to have the choice to play God's game. A good possibility would be if we all start out in Heaven, but if we want to get closer to God, we have to pass the test of life here on Earth, with full knowledge of the risks. This way, we could get closer to God by our own choice. Once again, all we want is, as you Christians are so fond of saying, a mutual relationship with God as the disciples (according to you) had with Jesus. A sense of give-and-take, a sense of trust and satisfaction- but not a sense of extortion where we can either give God what he wants or suffer for it. Once again, this isn't love: This is the most horrific, disgusting, and repugnant idea of extortion I can imagine. T&U
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 172 by iano, posted 11-06-2009 6:50 PM | | iano has not replied |
|
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4909 days) Posts: 178 Joined: 06-23-2009
|
|
|
Message 193 of 531 (535540)
11-16-2009 3:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 192 by iano
11-16-2009 10:26 AM
|
|
Re: Matters of faith, fact, and fancy
Hi iano,
iano writes: God forsakes his beloved son and neither the father nor the son suffer because of that? Ah, iano, it's almost sad hearing this come from someone like you. How is getting your son back in a day and a half "forsaking" him? I direct you to my Did Jesus Really Suffer? T&U Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes "In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 192 by iano, posted 11-16-2009 10:26 AM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 194 by iano, posted 11-16-2009 7:13 PM | | Teapots&unicorns has replied |
|
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4909 days) Posts: 178 Joined: 06-23-2009
|
|
|
Message 195 of 531 (535588)
11-16-2009 8:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 194 by iano
11-16-2009 7:13 PM
|
|
Re: Matters of faith, fact, and fancy
iano writes: A day and a half? Isn't God eternal? And if so, won't the forsaking be experienced in the units of the existance of father and son - rather than in (h)ours? The issue is forsaking and if that's the word used we need good reason to suppose that shouldn't be the word used (or the experience experienced). Shoehorning your units into Gods units is not a way to sidestep the point.
Ah, so Jesus didn't return to Heaven and is thus in Hell or possibly Purgatory (with those Catholics you never know...), and is forbidden from returning by God? Isn't that "forsaking?" From what I gather, you seem to be saying that Jesus spent an eternity being crucified/dead, is that correct? T&U Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 194 by iano, posted 11-16-2009 7:13 PM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 196 by iano, posted 11-17-2009 6:24 AM | | Teapots&unicorns has replied |
|
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4909 days) Posts: 178 Joined: 06-23-2009
|
|
|
Message 197 of 531 (536094)
11-19-2009 7:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 196 by iano
11-17-2009 6:24 AM
|
|
Re: Matters of faith, fact, and fancy
Hi iano, sorry for taking so long.
iano writes: T&U writes: From what I gather, you seem to be saying that Jesus spent an eternity being crucified/dead, is that correct?
Spent - Eternity? I understand the dilemma: folk have gotten it into their heads that eternity is time ever-elapsing - therefore it is something that can be spent ('spent' indicating progression along an elapsing timeline).
You are correct; this is how most if not all people associate the concept of eternity. The idea of starting at zero and then counting till the highest number possible. Alternatively, eternity could be starting at the lowest number possible and counting up to the highest, but in terms of religion, exempting God, the first definition is the one most commonly used.
iano writes: A more proper theological notion of eternity supposes it devoid of time. Meaning we cannot use words/concepts associated with time in a quantitive way (although we can use them in a qualititive way)
I don't understand. Where do you get this notion? As far as I know, it's not in the Bible anywhere. If you could show me where it is located I would be greatly intrigued. If something lacks quantity, then, by definition, it lacks quality, and vice-versa. Nothing can happen without some semblance of time for the event to occur in. It's like needing a test to get an A on it. Alternatively, of course, this could be interpreted that Jesus didn't spend any time whatsoever in death- just in a kind of unidentifiable cyrogenic-like state of being. This is certainly not suffering of any sort.
iano writes: We can say that: - foresaking occurred between beloved persons - foresaking between beloved persons produces suffering - God experienced this suffering in the realm of eternity We cannot say that: - Jesus is still suffering and will suffer for all time.
When referring to the eternities proposed in the Bible (Heaven and Hell), I am assuming that they're there for good. How can Jesus' death of 3 days, ascension to Heaven, and puny little single crucifixion possibly compare to the eternal torment of those in Heaven? If Jesus were taking man's place in Hell (without them having to believe in him), then I would have a lot more respect for the religion. As such, though, his 'forsaking' not only lacked a temporal and thus qualitative basis, it is also infinitely miniscule when compared to the inferred 'forsaking' of those in Hell. T&U
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 196 by iano, posted 11-17-2009 6:24 AM | | iano has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2