Religion... Why?
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Where ?
Genesis 1: God created animals day 5, man day 6. Genesis 2: God creates Adam (first man) Adam is bored, God makes him companions whom he names (animals) but they are not good enough. God makes Eve. So animals were before or after man? The fact that Adam had 2 sons, 1 kills the other and is cursed to wander among the tribes of people that hate him always makes me wonder "where'd they come from? Adam was the first man, this is 1 of his 2 kids, so who are they?"
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Genesis 1: God created animals day 5, man day 6. Genesis 2: God creates Adam (first man) Adam is bored, God makes him companions whom he names (animals) but they are not good enough. God makes Eve.
Well, the animal question is an interesting point, I'd not heard that. But, where does the Bible say Adam was the first man ? He was the first man that God dealt with, the start of Israel.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
The fact that Adam had 2 sons, 1 kills the other and is cursed to wander among the tribes of people that hate him always makes me wonder "where'd they come from? Adam was the first man, this is 1 of his 2 kids, so who are they?"
See, there is your issue. The Bible does NOT say Adam was the first man, and in fact, this is one of the passages I'd refer to, to prove that this tradition is wrong. There were other people around, as you rightly point out. Adam was not the first man, nor was Adam created just after Gen 1. I'd assume that as Adam was in an area cut off from other people, that God introduced animals to that area, and Adam named them.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Genesis 1: God created animals day 5, man day 6. Genesis 2: God creates Adam (first man) Adam is bored, God makes him companions whom he names (animals) but they are not good enough. God makes Eve.
Well, the animal question is an interesting point, I'd not heard that. But, where does the Bible say Adam was the first man ? He was the first man that God dealt with, the start of Israel.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
The fact that Adam had 2 sons, 1 kills the other and is cursed to wander among the tribes of people that hate him always makes me wonder "where'd they come from? Adam was the first man, this is 1 of his 2 kids, so who are they?"
See, there is your issue. The Bible does NOT say Adam was the first man, and in fact, this is one of the passages I'd refer to, to prove that this tradition is wrong. There were other people around, as you rightly point out. Adam was not the first man, nor was Adam created just after Gen 1. I'd assume that as Adam was in an area cut off from other people, that God introduced animals to that area, and Adam named them.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Look up Adam on (GASP) Wikipedia. Great bit of info. Mirrors what you say. Thing is, literalists aren't exactly the best people to argue with. And a whole lot of people thumping Bibles are literalists. Most Catholics are literalists in regards to the New Testament but traditionalists with the Old. (Figure the stories are allegories.) I was brought up Catholic. That changed after I realized they only cared about controlling me, not about listening to me at all.
-
Well, you know, whatever people believe, I don't think it's ever helpful to attack people. It's good to discuss things and present your point of view, but if you do it disrespectfully, why would anyone listen to what you have to say ? I'm not scared to tell people that Xmas is not in the Bible, but I don't think I go to hell for eating some pudding and accepting gifts. It's just a human tradition, it doesn't hurt anyone, it's just not part of my faith. If people get defensive when you try to tell them something calmly, then that's perhaps a reflection on the nature of their beliefs. People who are scared to have their believes challenged, obviously don't hold them very strongly.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
I agree, generally I only start pinning down someone's beliefs and showing them the failing of their rhetoric when they claim I should be subject to it. I more enjoy seeing what the general concept floating around the public is, finding out the reality of something, and comparing them.
-
Well, you know, whatever people believe, I don't think it's ever helpful to attack people. It's good to discuss things and present your point of view, but if you do it disrespectfully, why would anyone listen to what you have to say ? I'm not scared to tell people that Xmas is not in the Bible, but I don't think I go to hell for eating some pudding and accepting gifts. It's just a human tradition, it doesn't hurt anyone, it's just not part of my faith. If people get defensive when you try to tell them something calmly, then that's perhaps a reflection on the nature of their beliefs. People who are scared to have their believes challenged, obviously don't hold them very strongly.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
People who are scared to have their believes challenged, obviously don't hold them very strongly.
Or they cling to them desperately in the hope that they are not wrong and there is some meaning to an otherwise meaningless life. ;)
-
Look up Adam on (GASP) Wikipedia. Great bit of info. Mirrors what you say. Thing is, literalists aren't exactly the best people to argue with. And a whole lot of people thumping Bibles are literalists. Most Catholics are literalists in regards to the New Testament but traditionalists with the Old. (Figure the stories are allegories.) I was brought up Catholic. That changed after I realized they only cared about controlling me, not about listening to me at all.
See - the whole thing always comes down to the Romans....
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
People who are scared to have their believes challenged, obviously don't hold them very strongly.
Or they cling to them desperately in the hope that they are not wrong and there is some meaning to an otherwise meaningless life. ;)
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Or they cling to them desperately in the hope
Exactly. I don't 'cling' to my beliefs, nor do I feel any desperation. That's kind of my point. You have a point with the lack of clarity in the animals in Gen 1 and 2. I don't have to pretend to have a full answer, although I can suggest a thought. It doesn't change my experience, and so does not move my faith.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Or they cling to them desperately in the hope
Exactly. I don't 'cling' to my beliefs, nor do I feel any desperation. That's kind of my point. You have a point with the lack of clarity in the animals in Gen 1 and 2. I don't have to pretend to have a full answer, although I can suggest a thought. It doesn't change my experience, and so does not move my faith.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Gen 1 and 2 are allegories. Stories told to explain things when science didn't exist. The fact that Gen 1 isn't all that far off if you look at it from a cosmic perspective is kinda neat. It shouldn't change one's faith to find out a 2000-3000+ year old book is a bit off. You are a rational good person, your faith will work itself out.
-
See - the whole thing always comes down to the Romans....
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
This is going to be like black propaganda, isn't it?
-
Gen 1 and 2 are allegories. Stories told to explain things when science didn't exist. The fact that Gen 1 isn't all that far off if you look at it from a cosmic perspective is kinda neat. It shouldn't change one's faith to find out a 2000-3000+ year old book is a bit off. You are a rational good person, your faith will work itself out.
Yes, exactly.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
This is going to be like black propaganda, isn't it?
ROTFL - I bet it is.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It is a faith based belief system, led by pied pipers.
You can't be that diluted that you believe that, can you?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
They believe that humans are a virus that is infecting the earth, so humans must be eliminated.
Do 'they' have a website where they say this? Surely every major cult / religion has a website that explains their ideals, and I'm curious to see which source backs up what you claim?
Check out the CodeProject forum Guidelines[^] The original soapbox 1.0 is back![^]
EliottA wrote:
I'm curious to see which source backs up what you claim?
YouTube. Duh. :P
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Look up Adam on (GASP) Wikipedia. Great bit of info. Mirrors what you say. Thing is, literalists aren't exactly the best people to argue with. And a whole lot of people thumping Bibles are literalists. Most Catholics are literalists in regards to the New Testament but traditionalists with the Old. (Figure the stories are allegories.) I was brought up Catholic. That changed after I realized they only cared about controlling me, not about listening to me at all.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Do you think of the Bible as a historically-accurate text, or just as stories to instruct and guide?
Well, I think most people don't really argue that it's historically accurate ( that is, if you remove the bits where God does stuff ), on the basis that it was written by people who were around when the events occured. I think that parts of it are allegorical, but I don't believe that it's the intention of the authors that we make excuses and explain away the things that it says God did. I believe that Jesus healed people, that He rose from the dead, that Mary was a virgin until after Jesus was born, etc.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I'm obviously no expert on it, but I've heard plenty of people talk about passage X contradicting Y, and things of that sort.
This is an interesting truism. The Bible is fundamentally about God, and His dealings with man. The Bible does not contradict itself on this front. The Bible is not written to be scientifically accurate, it's written to be understood by uneducated people thousands of years ago. In that context, it is surprisingly scientifically accurate, however, that is not it's purpose. If one book says there were 2000 people at an event, and another says 1500, I don't see that as a contradiction, I see it as two authors estimates, or perhaps a translation error through the years. The only thing that I believe God is going to preserve in the Bible, is the message that He intended it to have. I have never seen a claim of contradiction that holds water on that front. It's just something people take for granted because they heard it, without any proof.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
it was written by people who were around when the events occured.
Surey that's not true? I thought most of it was written years afterwards - and don't the surviving texts today differ significantly from any original documents? (I seem to remember there are some books 'missing' from the bible today - and some passages changed over teh centuries to suit what the church and society currently believed in?
Christian Graus wrote:
, it's written to be understood by uneducated people thousands of years ago
but it's not. It isn't a single thing, really, is it? It's jsut a collection of lots of different ritings by differrnt peop;le, editied and re-edited over thousands of years. How can you say it was written to be understood by uneducted people (who probably couldn't read) - each differnet passage was surely written for a variety of reasons and copied, copied and re-copied over time.
Christian Graus wrote:
I believe God is going to preserve in the Bible,
Doen't that presuppose an interventionist God?
Christian Graus wrote:
The Bible does not contradict itself on this front.
They seem to disagree here[^] It seems to me that 'believing' in the bible is really just maintaining a belief that someone else had and bothered to write about. Why should the Bible be any more or less 'special' than any other old 'religious' text?
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
In the past, though not so much in recent years (The times, they are a-changin'), I've been asked why I don't believe in "god," or some other higher power. For most of the world, it seems to be the default, and us atheists are the oddballs. That seems to be changing, albeit slowly (Recent studies show more and people people identifying as "non-religious," though not necessarily "atheist"), but belief in a deity is still the generally-accepted normal state. Now normally this is a bit of a taboo subject, but this is, after all, the Back Room. Given that the general audience here is comprised of geeks of various types, not the stereotypical mindless masses, I'm going to pose the forbidden question. Why do you believe in "god" (Or other deity)? Why do you follow your particular religion? Is it because of upbringing or habit, or do you really believe it? How much of your religion's teachings do you actually believe? NOTE: I'm not trying to convert anyone to/from anything. This is pure curiosity, as I've never been able to truly understand the religious perspective. (Oh, and if CSS chimes in with his garbage, let's just ignore him - Alex Jones and Ron Paul are not welcome here)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
I do not believe in any god or deity. I honestly cannot comprehend why otherwise apparently sensible people do so. It seems absolutely incredible to me that seemingly sane people can believe in such twaddle! See also my blog here[^] where I waffle on about my theory on the origin of all things religious. The 'Why do you follow a particular religion' question is a doozy - I mean, with so many contradictopry religions, does in not occur to people that it's more likely that NONE of them are 'true' than only one of them? I haven't studied the history of religion - and it would certainly be a facinating topic - but heirin lies a problem - those with strong beliefs tend to be the ones studying texts and drawing their own biased conclusions (a bit like CSS!!) whereas those who just don't beleive (as opposed to those with a stong Atheistic fervour) tend not to delve quite so deeply. My six year old son BELEIVES in Santa. He knows, for a fact, that there is a Santa because he has proof - presents at the foot of the bed on Xmas day, and EVERYBODY without exception confirms to him that there is a Santa. He's seen Santa at the mall, with his own eyes (although he does confirm that some store santas are just helpers, and not the real deal) But he'll grow out of it - he'll realise one day that it ain't real at all. He currently doesn't believe in God - his school is not of a religious bent, although some of his contemporaries have been told about God and have explained it to him, he's very sceptical "Xavier told me at school that God made us - but he's wrong because I came out of Mummy's tummy" (I didn't go too far along the how he got into mummy's tummy, as he'd not long before been showing me his 'stiffie' and I'd kinda had enough for one day!) It seems to me that many families that are religious breedoffspring that tend to be religious too - althought they may rebel against a specific religion, the belief in a deity does seem to be more prevalent in those whose arents also believed - and the converse is also apparent. It all goes to show (IMHO) what a bunch of bollocks it all is!
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
You have to remember that Christian thinks that Catholics aren't Christians. :suss:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
Well, that depends entirely on your definition. They are 'christian', in so far as they label themselves as such. Does the Catholic Church as a whole remotely adhere to any of the things that Jesus said are important, and that define Christianity, as He defines it ? I'm afraid not. They are not alone in that, by any means. And they have every right to get it utterly wrong. Just like I have every right to point it out.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
it was written by people who were around when the events occured.
Surey that's not true? I thought most of it was written years afterwards - and don't the surviving texts today differ significantly from any original documents? (I seem to remember there are some books 'missing' from the bible today - and some passages changed over teh centuries to suit what the church and society currently believed in?
Christian Graus wrote:
, it's written to be understood by uneducated people thousands of years ago
but it's not. It isn't a single thing, really, is it? It's jsut a collection of lots of different ritings by differrnt peop;le, editied and re-edited over thousands of years. How can you say it was written to be understood by uneducted people (who probably couldn't read) - each differnet passage was surely written for a variety of reasons and copied, copied and re-copied over time.
Christian Graus wrote:
I believe God is going to preserve in the Bible,
Doen't that presuppose an interventionist God?
Christian Graus wrote:
The Bible does not contradict itself on this front.
They seem to disagree here[^] It seems to me that 'believing' in the bible is really just maintaining a belief that someone else had and bothered to write about. Why should the Bible be any more or less 'special' than any other old 'religious' text?
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
_Maxxx_ wrote:
I thought most of it was written years afterwards
If you go WAY back, then yes, it was written later, but still a lot closer to the events than we are. If you're talking the New Testament, then no.
_Maxxx_ wrote:
and don't the surviving texts today differ significantly from any original documents?
No, that's certainly not true.
_Maxxx_ wrote:
(I seem to remember there are some books 'missing' from the bible today - and some passages changed over teh centuries to suit what the church and society currently believed in?
The concept of a Bible did not exist from the start, it's more that when it was decided to put the books together, there's some books the Catholics kept, and others that everyone discarded. The books the Catholics kept are called the apocrypha. Yes, some books were discarded because they were regarded as non authentic and heretical.
_Maxxx_ wrote:
but it's not. It isn't a single thing, really, is it?
Well, there was more than one author, and it was written over a long period, yes.
_Maxxx_ wrote:
It's jsut a collection of lots of different ritings by differrnt peop;le, editied and re-edited over thousands of years
Actually, most people who copied it, did it in reverence, and it was not commonly altered. The biggest alterations are shifting of bias in translations, which started in the 1600s.
_Maxxx_ wrote:
How can you say it was written to be understood by uneducted people (who probably couldn't read) - each differnet passage was surely written for a variety of reasons and copied, copied and re-copied over time.
Because I believe it was God's intention for the Bible to exist. Yes, there were periods where literacy was an issue, that's not really relevant ( I mean, that didn't mean that the Bible didn't have an intended purpose, only that it was kept away from people ). It's plain that ANYONE who read Genesis had no idea about DNA, or molecular structure, or the Big Bang. In that sense, the brightest person to read it in 1000 BC, was plainly uneducated by our standards. However, when you go into the NEw Testament, it's clear that Jesus was seeking out people based not on education or social standing, a
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Where ?
Genesis 1: God created animals day 5, man day 6. Genesis 2: God creates Adam (first man) Adam is bored, God makes him companions whom he names (animals) but they are not good enough. God makes Eve. So animals were before or after man? The fact that Adam had 2 sons, 1 kills the other and is cursed to wander among the tribes of people that hate him always makes me wonder "where'd they come from? Adam was the first man, this is 1 of his 2 kids, so who are they?"
I'm afraid I don't see a contradiction between the accounts of Ch1 and Ch2. The writing style is not unlike that used in many of the articles here on Code Project. You have in Ch1 an overview of the big picture and then in Ch2 the focus is shifted to details that the writer desires to highlight. Since the focus shifts to the particulars of Adam's creation it stands to reason that there is a principle in that account that the reader should understand, something of significance. Someone might argue that the following verse
GE2:19
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.
simply emphasizes the creative work of God and that the animals were made of the same physical substance that Adam was made out of. What I find interesting about this particular passage is that God involves man in the process of naming or categorizing these animals. This kind of reminds me of the science field trips that we used to take as kids in order to learn about our environment and the behavior of various different birds and animals. I would hardly think that Adam was bored, what's to say that he wasn't fascinated with biology and what-not and certainly too busy to be interrupted by the fairer sex at that particular time :-) However If God wanted Adam to really appreciate his mate he very well might have arranged things this way so that Adam could learn to desire a companion for himself that was in his likeness. I can imagine Adam waking up after the operation. "Hey what just happened to me... I feel..." Adam pauses and scratches his head "No... I don't feel! What happened to all my feelings!?" So Adam becomes 2 people, he retained his reason and she got his feelings :-) Concerning the account of Cain and Able, there is nothing in the text to suggest that there were not other people around by that time. The writer focuses attention on the two because the murder was significant. Cain would have married a genetically close relative when he took a wife - something prohibitted much later in biblical history. This is a notion that offends the sensabilities of modern folks, and for good reason. We know that such unions today tend to produce genetic defects in offspring, defects that in some cases cause a great deal of suffering. I recon that the original gene
-
Well, that depends entirely on your definition. They are 'christian', in so far as they label themselves as such. Does the Catholic Church as a whole remotely adhere to any of the things that Jesus said are important, and that define Christianity, as He defines it ? I'm afraid not. They are not alone in that, by any means. And they have every right to get it utterly wrong. Just like I have every right to point it out.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I'm afraid I don't see a contradiction between the accounts of Ch1 and Ch2. The writing style is not unlike that used in many of the articles here on Code Project. You have in Ch1 an overview of the big picture and then in Ch2 the focus is shifted to details that the writer desires to highlight. Since the focus shifts to the particulars of Adam's creation it stands to reason that there is a principle in that account that the reader should understand, something of significance. Someone might argue that the following verse
GE2:19
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.
simply emphasizes the creative work of God and that the animals were made of the same physical substance that Adam was made out of. What I find interesting about this particular passage is that God involves man in the process of naming or categorizing these animals. This kind of reminds me of the science field trips that we used to take as kids in order to learn about our environment and the behavior of various different birds and animals. I would hardly think that Adam was bored, what's to say that he wasn't fascinated with biology and what-not and certainly too busy to be interrupted by the fairer sex at that particular time :-) However If God wanted Adam to really appreciate his mate he very well might have arranged things this way so that Adam could learn to desire a companion for himself that was in his likeness. I can imagine Adam waking up after the operation. "Hey what just happened to me... I feel..." Adam pauses and scratches his head "No... I don't feel! What happened to all my feelings!?" So Adam becomes 2 people, he retained his reason and she got his feelings :-) Concerning the account of Cain and Able, there is nothing in the text to suggest that there were not other people around by that time. The writer focuses attention on the two because the murder was significant. Cain would have married a genetically close relative when he took a wife - something prohibitted much later in biblical history. This is a notion that offends the sensabilities of modern folks, and for good reason. We know that such unions today tend to produce genetic defects in offspring, defects that in some cases cause a great deal of suffering. I recon that the original gene
-
_Maxxx_ wrote:
I thought most of it was written years afterwards
If you go WAY back, then yes, it was written later, but still a lot closer to the events than we are. If you're talking the New Testament, then no.
_Maxxx_ wrote:
and don't the surviving texts today differ significantly from any original documents?
No, that's certainly not true.
_Maxxx_ wrote:
(I seem to remember there are some books 'missing' from the bible today - and some passages changed over teh centuries to suit what the church and society currently believed in?
The concept of a Bible did not exist from the start, it's more that when it was decided to put the books together, there's some books the Catholics kept, and others that everyone discarded. The books the Catholics kept are called the apocrypha. Yes, some books were discarded because they were regarded as non authentic and heretical.
_Maxxx_ wrote:
but it's not. It isn't a single thing, really, is it?
Well, there was more than one author, and it was written over a long period, yes.
_Maxxx_ wrote:
It's jsut a collection of lots of different ritings by differrnt peop;le, editied and re-edited over thousands of years
Actually, most people who copied it, did it in reverence, and it was not commonly altered. The biggest alterations are shifting of bias in translations, which started in the 1600s.
_Maxxx_ wrote:
How can you say it was written to be understood by uneducted people (who probably couldn't read) - each differnet passage was surely written for a variety of reasons and copied, copied and re-copied over time.
Because I believe it was God's intention for the Bible to exist. Yes, there were periods where literacy was an issue, that's not really relevant ( I mean, that didn't mean that the Bible didn't have an intended purpose, only that it was kept away from people ). It's plain that ANYONE who read Genesis had no idea about DNA, or molecular structure, or the Big Bang. In that sense, the brightest person to read it in 1000 BC, was plainly uneducated by our standards. However, when you go into the NEw Testament, it's clear that Jesus was seeking out people based not on education or social standing, a
Christian Graus wrote:
If you go WAY back, then yes, it was written later, but still a lot closer to the events than we are. If you're talking the New Testament, then no.
Wasn't the earliest gospel written like at least 20 or 30 years after Jesus had suffled off this mortal coil? 20 years is a very long time when there's merely word of mouth and the occasional (possibly) writing to go on?
Christian Graus wrote:
The concept of a Bible did not exist from the start,
Obviously not - it was written over more than a thousand years!
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, there was more than one author, and it was written over a long period, yes.
That 'long period' is an extraordinarily long period, though. We're not talking a few years here - we're talking hundreds - so it really is an arbritary collection of writings - nobody in 3000BC (or whenever) thought 'I'll just start this book with a few bits and pieces and let someone else finish it off next millenium' :)
Christian Graus wrote:
Because I believe it was God's intention for the Bible to exist.
Hmmm. Now there's a concept I hadn't thougt about at all. I know the standard answer is not to question His will, but why would God do that? surely He's(jeez - you've got me capitalising now!) part of this free will thing? I mean, I kinow you're not suposed to question his motives, but come on - if you're going to plan to have a book written about you, surely you don't do a Dalek Dave and make it all cryptic - you make sure it's factual (I mean, you'r God, so you can manipulate it, right?) Surely if that was part of His plan, he'd be on MTV about now, rapping about peace love and understanding (or heavy-metaling, for those that are into that sort of thing!)
Christian Graus wrote:
God having intervened in my life, I confess to such a presupposition, yes
Y'see tihs is the bit that is really beyond comprehension. If He intervenes, then why not just flippin' well intervene? Why insist on all this secrecy and unwillingness ot be tested?
Christian Graus wrote:
These sort of sites are created by the saddest of people.
I didn't really look at the site, so won't comment on that = but three are a lot of data o