Chapter 1: Tolerant or Despot (or both)?
Buz wrote:
Upsilon wrote:
Buz wrote:
[God]'s not your grandpa, thinking "just let the young people have fun and do whatever they want."
But why can't he be? Is God just an intolerant despot?
He's not "just" anything. Is he tolerant? Yes! He allows people to perform all kinds of acts of which he doesn't approve, though he doesn't allow people to "get away with" them.
I wouldn't call that tolerant. Tolerating it would be to let them "get away with it".
Quote:
To the second question, "is he despotic," I answer "yes" provisionally. Denotatively, he owns the Earth and everything in it by right of creation, and rules it. But the connotations of "despotism" were probably more of what you're getting at, wherein trivial offences against the despot are punished by execution. I don't really see it that way, and I don't think the presence of all the good things on Earth and the pleasant experiences in each of our lives attest to a bloodthirsty meglomaniac. In fact, though Jesus was the person in history with the most right to be proud, we see instead divine humility demonstrated at every opportunity! That profundity contradicts the generalization one would make by observing human despots and extrapolating to God.
Your comment about trivial offences being punished by execution sounds right on; although you probably wouldn't call lack of belief in God trivial, it makes little difference to how "good" I am, and "execution" is an apt summary of what I and billions of good people are facing for it. You mention what a nice bloke Jesus was; I would agree, if what's in the Bible is true, he was a champion fellow. And yet what he's advocating is a religion which preaches, essentially, "turn or burn".
I like to call this the Double-Deity problem. On the one hand, we have the typical representation of God: a loving father who will forgive you of your sins, welcome the prodigal son with a feast, find the missing hundredth sheep and so on. This is the side of God that most Christians talk about when trying to make converts. Conversely, we have the other God, who detests infidels and wouldn't think twice about throwing them into the eternal fire. This is the side of God that Jack Chick talks about when trying to make converts. God is a paradox; both loving and hateful, both kind and bloodthirsty. And what decides which side of the coin you receive after death? Whether or not you believed it was true. Execution for trivial offences? If I may make a pun: Heck, yeah.
Quote:
The problem is, I'm describing this all in terms of adjectives with abstract meanings. A better study of the character of God would be by understanding examples ("types") of God through stories. David, in
1 Samuel 25, had the power and good reason to kill a bad man, but because of a request for mercy, stilled his sword (the context of the passage in Israels' history is important). Jesus who drove out moneychangers in the Temple with a whip, but healed lepers and played with children. In this intellectual age, we pretend that abstract concepts are higher than narratives... but humans understand better from the inductive lead of stories and examples than from deductive reasoning originating in abstract rhetoric.
So if someone stuck up for me as god was about to send me to Hell ("Oh, come on, Lord… he's not a bad chap really… have you thought this through?"), would he reconsider? If not, where does that leave the David analogy?
Quote:
As to the "Why can't he [just let everyone do anything they want]?" which was the point of your question, I answer that he could, but doesn't. I mean, I could just as easily ask, "why don't you do make a habit of eating mud?" You certainly are able, but you don't want to, and you don't have to. The possibility does not dictate your behavior or preferences. God could be intolerant, but he isn't. God could be lackadaisical, but he isn't. God could be a jerk who eats people, but he isn't. He's let us know his expectations in his preferred method of revelation.
And so we reach the second level of the question: "Why can't he?" "He can, but he doesn't." So, why doesn't he?
Chapter 2: Charity and NeutralityBuz wrote:
Upsilon wrote:
Quote:
One thing to think about: the original rebels against Jehovah are demons, so you'll be in their presence in Hell (although they're co-victims, not rulers, of hell). God doesn't have to make hell bad, it'll get that way on it's own in very short order.
Although he could prevent that.
The context of my comment was "people in hell want away from God, want him to stop meddling with their self-will." By that Lewisian reasoning, God's interference in hell is therefore unwelcome! Your suggestion that God should intervene to make hell less bad is nonsequitur.
I can't hate what I don't believe in, and I know I don't "want away" from God. If God were to intervene with Hell in that way, I can assure you he'd be very welcome.
Quote:
Upsilon wrote:
But if we're not aware of the existence of God, we can't make that choice. It's not neutrality towards God, because you can't be neutral towards something that doesn't exist.
If you start by
assuming the non-existence of God, then you will probably conclude the nonexistence of God. If you instead start from a basis without a non-assumption of God (you don't even need an assumption of God), then you can be neutral!
Right, but I "assume" that God is not real. The original point here is that I'm not making the choice to be with or against God. I don't see him sitting up there on his cloud and think "Hmm, should I side with him and get eternal bliss or the one the horns and get eternal punishment? (Tough decision…)" There is no decision to be made if there is no entity that the decision relates to.
Quote:
Upsilon wrote:
Oh, I'll acknowledge that missionaries exist to spread God's word. But human word is a lot less reliable than a booming voice and a thundercloud.
That's why Christians are not to spread the good news with flapping jaws alone […] and give them a little trust.
I won't deny that a lot of good things have been done in God's name, but I'd put that down to incentive from the religion itself; not a moral force that God is sending into them, but the charity they feel obliged to do because Jesus said you should. Anyone who is set a good example by somebody can do this, regardless of religion. In Christians' case, the good example is often Jesus.
Quote:
Upsilon wrote:
Quote:
Do you care about a billion Hindus in Asia? If so, what have you done about it? If it's so morally necessary that God care about them but you don't care about them, do you not condemn yourself?
I don't spread the word of God because I don't think the Christian god is any more real than the gods of Hinduism. I'm not condemning them, or myself, by leaving them be, because from a secular point of view, it'll make no difference which religion they choose to follow.
I was talking more generally about feeding and clothing them […] if you don't care about them then don't try to make an issue about their eternal destiny when you should be considering direct questions about your responsibilities.
I think you should cut me some slack; bear in mind that I'm only thirteen, so I can't exactly hop on the next plane to Bali and hand over fistfuls of cash to those in poverty. In any case, I don't see that I have any responsibility
per se to help those less fortunate than myself; in my book, if I haven't done anything bad to them, I don't owe them anything. (Don't get me wrong, I think charitable services such as yours are admirable; I just don't think there's any moral obligation for me, or for anyone.)
In any case, your point that I shouldn't be criticising God for sending them to Hell is fallacious for two reasons: firstly, I am completely powerless to save these people from anything at all compared to God. God, who bears infinite omnipotence, can bring millions living in favelas mansions and enough caviar to last a lifetime by hardly lifting a finger. Secondly, and more importantly, I am not the one who subjects poor people to poverty. It is not my fault that people are starving in Africa; I didn't cause their suffering. However, it is entirely due to God's intolerance that the billions who have no faith in him are going to be eternally tortured. You're comparing the neutral action of me not helping them (assume for argument's sake that I have never given to charity) to the immoral action of God damning them to Hell.
Quote:
Conclusion (the whole reason I brought the issue up): Their eternal fate should have no consequence on your perception of the reality of God.
I don't see why not. The God who loves all of his creation to a degree that we can't even comprehend seems a lot less plausible when he's absent-mindedly sending a large portion of his creation downstairs to burn eternally.
Chapter 3: Meta-MoralityBuz wrote:
Upsilon wrote:
I was just pointing out that immorality is a highly subjective matter and I wouldn't want to take the blame for [victimless crimes].
And I was simply pointing out that immorality is not a subjective matter.[…] (I discussed this yesterday on the Polygamy thread).
You raise some interesting points. To answer the Hitler question, I do hold someone else to blame when they do something that they believe morally correct but I believe morally wrong; however, I do normally explain to them why, using logic to explain my moral standing. If they won't listen to reason, it's fair enough to continue to hold them to blame. I believe it's the same with the Hitler case; although he may well have believed that what he was doing was right, I think he arrived at his conclusion via faulty logic (I think we can all agree that he was a mentally unstable man).
So… morals
are subjective, but they're also subject to logic and reasoning. So, if you can back up what you think is wrong with a reason why it's wrong, it's probably legitimate.
Quote:
Upsilon wrote:
I didn't dream up my moral code on a whim. I came to it by logic and lateral thinking.
I'm sure you've started on that path, but from my understanding of developmental psychology, I'm going to insist that most of your moral code was simply passed on to you from the adult influences on your young life.
That's true, if only because people's morals are generally similar. "Thou shalt not steal," says the Bible, and I agree (through my own reasoning) that taking what isn't yours is ethically wrong. On the other hand, the Bible also says "do not lie with another man", but I can think of no logical reason why this should be wrong. But you're right; the majority of my moral code is the same as what my parents taught me, because under scrutiny, most of their values have held up.
Quote:
I'm not sure how lateral thinking applies. Do you mean, "taking extreme starting conditions and using unconventional lines of inference in thought experements," as a method to whittle out contradictions? Because if you mean the "Lateral Thinking" as used in those "Twenty Questions/What Caused this Result" games, the need for someone who already knows the answer is inherent to the game.
By lateral thinking, I mean approaching the problem from a neutral point of view and reaching a conclusion by applying logic and comparing it with my morals. Um, lateral thinking probably wasn't the best phrase to use.
Quote:
Upsilon wrote:
Furthermore, it doesn't explain in the Bible why it's wrong for a man to "lie with another man" and if there's no reason to assume that God exists, there's no reason to assume that it is wrong.
Close. If God doesn't exist, then there's no reason to assume it's wrong. If there's no reson to assume God exists, then the question is linearly dependent. That is, the question as to God's existence implies the answer, so it's an indeterminate. Like y=f(x) where I won't tell you f but demand you give me y's value for x="homosexuality."
True. But if there's no reason to assume that God exists, I would argue that there's reason to assume that he doesn't, therefore no reason to assume it's wrong.
Quote:
As I stated in PM […] and plus sin is harmful to us.
By "sin" in the second part, do you mean all sin, or only some sin? Looking at it from an atheist point of view, that is (obviously, once God is factored in, all sin is harmful by definition).
Chapter 4: In defiance of the lawBuz wrote:
Upsilon wrote:
Quote:
Upsilon wrote:
The key phrase here is "on logical grounds". If I believe myself to be doing the right thing (or, indeed, not doing the wrong thing), is it really right to punish me? You yourself said a while back that "innocent intention is recognized even in Old Testament law" - why don't the victimless crimes fall under innocent intention?
Because, in victimless crimes, the perpetrator purposely commits the crime. ... Very different.
"In defiance of the law" is a very misleading phrase. Note that legality does not equal morality. Example: at our school we're only allowed to eat near or in the canteen, for some stupid reason .... Anyway, my friends and I eat by the Annexe (another part of the school) every lunchtime, without littering. In defiance of the rules. But that doesn't mean it's wrong. Eating at the Annexe is a typical example of a victimless crime: done purposefully with innocent intention (because by eating there we're not doing anything wrong).
You made up your own sense of the word "wrong" so that you weren't doing it, your school's administration has already defined it and you defy it. You don't see why it's wrong, so you conclude it's not wrong.
And why not? With the axiom of my own sensible moral code, there's no reason why eating at the annexe is immoral; so I can safely conclude that it isn't immoral, unless my moral code is flawed.
Quote:
Let's play thought experement. Say the school had roach problems in the 80's, and had a $100,000 treatment throughout the annexe (sorry, I don't have the pound symbol on my keyboard). They have a warrantee from the extermination company that the company will maintain the roach-free status as long as the school conforms to certain sanitary rules, one of which is no eating in treated areas. Your eating voids the warrantee, and when the company comeas back out to treat, the district has to fork over another 100,000. Oops, you did wrong. Or, say, there's known vagrants in the neighborhood. The school posts security near the food court, but hasn't hired enough security to blanket the building through lunch. The vagrants have harassed students in the 80's for food, and see you eating your crumpets without a guard in sight.
What is the point of this speculation? If it was the case that there was a sensible justification like that for the rule, the obvious thing to do would be to eat in the designated area. However, the reason why we're not allowed to eat at the annexe is because they don't want any litter there. If we don't litter and don't get in trouble, I don't see the problem.
Quote:
The point is, if there's a law, whether you know the reason or agree with the reason, then breaking it intentionally is defiance. A 3-year-old child can not understand most of his parents rules, but things like "don't touch the hot stove element" are best obeyed. I know you think you're smarter than your school administrators, but really, you're probably not. And it's just as well that you gave me the example, because that's how we all can be toward God's law. If you make up your own definition of "right" and "wrong" based on your logic, and have a clean, innocent attitude toward breaking the rules, then you're going to burn your hand on the stove element. I've had my share of burns and it encourages me to be more humble toward them who makes the rules in my life.
The three-year-old in question doesn't know why it's unwise to break that rule because he lacks information; he doesn't know the hob is hot enough to burn him. Eating at the annexe is a different matter; we have all the information we need to come to the conclusion that eating there won't do any damage.
Quote:
Of course, if it turns out that there is no God, then any old set of rules and morality will do.
I don't think so. Even though I don't believe in any god, I still think that there are basic morals that everyone should follow, for the good of humanity.
Quote:
Upsilon wrote:
Quote:
Upsilon wrote:
It's a very different thing to assert "I didn't know it was wrong to murder" and "I didn't know it was wrong to smoke pot" (indeed, without a god who says it's wrong in the equation, the latter can't be said to be wrong at all).
Without a God in the equation, murder can't be said to be wrong either.
Yes it can, because people figure out morality for themselves. It's not for the same reason as gay marriage that murder is illegal: there's a very justified secular reason why it's wrong.
As I discussed in the Polygamy thread, the only reason murder is wrong is because the golden rule is true. The only reason the Golden rule is true is because it's a principle of God. Without God, there's no REAL need for the golden rule. And then, even though your conscience tells you murder is wrong, without the golden rule it can be reasoned to be right. Jack the Ripper presumably murdered for the cleansing of London, a moral reason to him.
Since I missed your last post in the polygamy thread, I'll confront the issue here.
Your logic is okay until "the only reason that the Golden Rule is true is because it's a principle of God". The reason that many secularists accept the Golden Rule is that harming others (to put it simply) has a detrimental effect on society and other people's feelings. Homosexuality (the example used in the other topic) does not affect society, nor does it do any damage to anything.
Chapter 5: Fair vs. JustBuz wrote:
Upsilon wrote:
Quote:
Fair and Just are two very different adjectives.
They are? I always took them as synonyms. Can you explain?
Fair has to do with equality. […] He uplifts the righteous to eternal reward and condemns the wicked to punishment.
That doesn't seem just to me, unless I've always misunderstood the meaning of the word "just". Actually, the error seems to lie in labelling the "wicked" and "righteous". What does not believing in God have to do with being wicked? It's not a system of justice, it's one of discrimination. The American judicial system wouldn't decide to send someone to jail based on the colour of their shirt. You're absolutely right on one point: it's not fair that millions of good people perish in Hell on a completely trivial matter, and if it's just, then justice clearly isn't worth much.
Quote:
That's not to say I believe that there's a works-based judgement in the works for the afterlife. I'm saying that those who let God make them righteous are the ones who'll be rewarded, much like a father rewards an obedient son with ice cream (unless the son is diabetic). Again, the emphasis is on the relationship, but those outside the relationship can still be assured they get justice.
Well, I'm glad you think it's "just" that nothing I can do will get me out of Hell if I think that God doesn't exist. I'm not so glad that God thinks that.
Chapter 6: PrayerBuz wrote:
Upsilon wrote:
Quote:
Upsilon wrote:
Take into account what happens if you don't form a personal, loving relationship with the wonderful and interesting God... I'd rather have the cold, impersonal tally of deeds than that, thanks.
You don't have to live like that, and those who say you do are mistaken.
I don't get your meaning here. What does "that" refer to – the tally of deeds or the personal relationship?
Oh, sorry! […] watching that the son does right as a youngster so that when he grows up he succeeds.
The pity is, all we're given as reason that the father exists is a book which could have been written by anyone with a good imagination. And I don't think many people who are being burnt in Hell would assert that they wouldn't rather have the accountant. While our impersonal tally may not be a perfect method, it seems to work a lot better than God's real rule of thumb.
Quote:
Upsilon wrote:
I'd write that off as their personal feelings, myself.
Actually, I wish more people in my local circle would. Some of them attribute their personal feelings to God's word, then go off and do something pretty crumby, blaming God for the idea. Discerning God's voice is a tender matter, more so than "what did my girlfriend REALLY mean when she said, '________' to me?" So I'll tell you what: if you hear from God, or think you do, feel free to run it by me and perhaps I can lend some experience. That's an open offer to any reader, but do it by PM rather than reply to the post.
If I think I hear something of the sort, I'll let you know.
Quote:
Upsilon wrote:
Before someone sits down to pray, they'll often have some sort of notion as to what God would want them to do. After praying, they still think that, and in feeling that it's right, they believe that God has spoken to them. Sometimes they'll change their mind during prayer, which is probably because "telling" God about it gave them the chance to think about it, and come to their own conclusion.
As to the first, God very rarely does what I want. As to the second, you verify the meaningfulness of a silent listener that you earlier denied!
I didn't deny all worth of a silent listener; I said that it was equal to writing your thoughts in a journal – or, indeed, praying.
Quote:
Finally, God indwells Christians in the person of the Holy Spirit. […] the Holy-Spirit indwelt and renewed mind.
That seems scarily like messing with free will to me. Not quite the same, but worryingly close.
Quote:
Upsilon wrote:
Quote:
Upsilon wrote:
Interesting that God uses such an indistinct method to give a response. Is there often a way of distinguishing between a God-given inkling and a natural inkling?
Yup. Learning his voice. ...Also, following when you
know something is from God will help you follow him better, like exercize.
What is "the voice"? I assume it's not just a distinguishable audible sound – is it still just a gut feeling?
No, it's not a gut feeling either […] or when an antique dealer discerns an authentic piece of period furnature from a reproduction.
This is getting abstract to the extreme. So… to recognise an answer that God gives to a prayer, you have to know which idea you think up would have been given by him. Is this anything to do with divine intervention any more? To me it seems more like detetctive work.
Chapter 7: MiraclesBuz wrote:
Upsilon wrote:
If God made me do everything I did in my life, and I lived a horrible immoral life as a mass murderer, would it really be fair to condemn me to Hell?
Not fair, but just. Paul addressed your question a long time ago in
Romans 9. I'm not sure you'll like his answer.
That was an accurate prediction. Again, the "just" label seems like pedantic semantics – you can't seriously say it's just for God to say: "Hmm, what shall I make this free-will-less puppet do? I'll make him a saint and reward him infinitely! I'll make this one a mass rapist, though. Whoops, better punish him! Into the fire." The punishments-to-deeds aspect may be just, but it's not just that the puppets are punished for what they have no control over.
Quote:
Upsilon wrote:
Quote:
And there are lots of reasons to believe our God exists (I don't assume it).
What I really need is an example.
Seriously, everything I'm abbreviating unsatisfactorally is written with great precision in
Miracles. […] which is what you requested.
If I can find a copy of
Miracles anywhere in the physical world, I'll buy it. By the way, in light of your PM, I would seize the opportunity, but I don't have an Amazon account, and I don't think I have the means to obtain one.
Chapter 9: What happened to Chapter 8?Quote:
Upsilon wrote:
Quote:
Upsilon wrote:
Your analogy seems to stand, but it assumes the existence of the father.
Yes it does. The analogy hinges on (and describes) a benevolent father who initiates a relationship with his son.
And yet if the benevolent father does not exist, the videogaming little tyke can be excused for choosing satisfaction in Mario over disappointment in a greater power.
Yup. But he'll never know if he doesn't try. You do indeed have a little to lose in waiting for the Father, namely opportunity cost of all the other stuff you could be doing. But I conjecture there's more to lose if the world has a God and you miss out on it. I know that you're just waiting for the personal revelation.
Yeah, if God is real after all, I must admit I'd be royally screwed. Again we've reached the point where it depends on the reasoning which justifies the father's (non-)existence. If, instead of a father, the alternative is to wait in the rain for a talking eagle (or, indeed, a purple alien) to fly you off to a theme park on the moon, the obvious answer is to stay inside and plug in that console.
Quote:
Upsilon wrote:
Quote:
Upsilon wrote:
...if I doubt that the man exists, shall I (if I may extend the metaphor to breaking point) go out and stand in the rain outside waiting for him to turn up? Or should I just continue my gaming?
What would you tell the child who did? What would you tell the child who refused?
That depends entirely on whether or not the father is real.
OK, if you doubt the man exists, and the child also doubts the man exists, what would you tell the child who did? The one who refused?
If we're assuming that it's either "stay out in the rain and get an opportunity to meet the dad" or "stay inside and never have the opportunity", I would let the waiting child stand outside if he wants to, by all means, but I don't see why I shouldn't try and reason with him (indeed, that's what I did by making the post which spawned all this!) I'd have no reason to debate with the one who stayed in, though.
Quote:
I'm not trying to turn your question back at you to do violence to your entirely valid line of reasoning. I'm trying to see your values. If you value taking dire risks for great reward, you'll encourage the waiting child and scold the mundane one. If you value eeking out safety from what little you can be sure of, you'll try to "talk sense" into the wet child and probably sit down to a game with the vegging boy.
Wow. Considering that I hadn't read this quote before making the previous comment, that second one's a scarily accurate prediction.
Quote:
Your value system, not mine, needs to be the basis for authentic action on your part. God is not safe, and he demands risk-taking all the time. The risks he puts me up to are clearly different than the risks with which he challenges you -- the risk of belief. It is a risk, and you do have something to lose if he doesn't come through. As do I: if he doesn't come through for me (and soon), then I lose everything. I have put everything on the table, witholding nothing of which I'm aware, investing in his way of doing things. If the investment (not money) goes bad, then it's curtains for Buz.
Do you think? Judging by what I've read in this topic, you've done a lot of great things in your life. Even if the god you believe in turns out to be make-believe, I still wouldn't think you've wasted your life.
Chapter 10: The thrilling conclusion!Quote:
Upsilon wrote:
Quote:
Upsilon wrote:
I'm a bit unnerved by what you said about subconscious rebellion. Am I to blame for what I have no control over?
You have control over your subconscious […] your subconscious is your responsibility.
Well, if my subconscious is omething I have control over, I'm fairly sure I'm not condoning rebellion against any god in it.
Not even rebellion in the sense of eating over by the annexe? Upsilon, even us Christians constantly have to fight our rebellious tendencies! The Holy Spirit (who knows me better than I know myself) is always showing me some way in which I've been accustomed to pride in my own ways that are contrary to the revealed material in the Bible. Far be it from me to accuse you of any specific wrongdoing, but do you mean that nothing in your natural mode of thinking has a streak of "I want my way and no one can stop me from that"?
I hardly equate the school faculty with God. Yes, I rebel in the sense that I don’t follow all the rules, but if the law of America forbade you from eating spaghetti for no good reason and there was no way you would get caught eating spaghetti, would you really abide by the rule?
Quote:
Upsilon wrote:
Back in Moses's day nobody knew about quarks. There was no evidence that quarks existed, even though they did. It wouldn't have been fair if they'd gone to hell for denying the existence of quarks.
Science! I say Science again: What if someone insisted on washing and using (for his day) sanitary technique for surgeries, even though he lived in the age before microscopes and knowledge of bacteria? What if other doctors deprecated him and his cleanliness as rediculous superstition? The consequence is that most of his surgeries were survived and most of the other doctors' surgeries were followed by fatal infections. I'm sorry I can't find the doctor's name or the years in which he was a surgeon, but there were
dire consequences for the patients of surgeons who didn't wash their hands before surgery
because they had no evidence for believing in the existence of bacteria.
Fair? No. Consequences? Yes!
Bacteria are not omnipotent or even very intelligent; it's not really their fault that the people in ye olden times died because they didn't know about them. And I'm certainly not going to create a topic called "Can (meningococcal) bacteria be?" based on the fact that they don't make themselves known. But God has control over whether or not he shows himself, and what happens to those who don't believe him, and it's not fair or just to allow the arbitrary consequences.
Quote:
Upsilon wrote:
However, if I believe (as I do) that there is evidence for God's non-existence, we can arrive safely at my conclusion.
I guess that's what this thread is about! So, do you believe there is evidence, or do you have evidence very different claims? Those are different claims. I am very impressed that you didn't (as others would) say "proof," but said "evidence." Are you sure you're a mere secondary student? "I am, as you humans say, 'all ears.'" (a quote from a Ferengi on
Star Trek, which is especially funny if you know what a Ferengi looks like)
My evidence for God's non-existence is that which underlies this entire discussion: the contradiction of there being a benevolent God who sends people to Hell.
Quote:
Rather Dashing wrote:
i, personally think that the human mind is able to tell the truth, or at least want to think something is the truth when s/he hears it.
Upsilon, you criticized this at face value, in which you thought Rather Dashing was rather rash in believing what he wanted to believe for emotional (not logical) reasons. However, don't miss the subtleties of the wording here: "the human mind is able to tell the truth." That's the foundational observation to the first half of the Lewis book
Miracles: that the human mind is not just chemicals and causal events, but can actually reason out something true! If you think that ANYTHING you think is actually true, then you believe this one thing in common with RatherDashing and I.
I'm not going to argue with that. I was just saying that it was a bit rich to say "I think the Bible is true because I want it to be true".
THE ENDHmm, that only took a month.
Hang on...
EPILOGUEDidymus wrote:
We cannot blame the fall of humanity or the corruption on the earth on Satan.
Is it any better to blame it on yourself?