|
vulgarian
Feb 26, 2003, 5:44 PM
Post #76 of 123
(5058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 381
|
My signature is supposed to read-
"The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expediant of discouraging rational inquiry" - Richard Dawkins
|
|
|
|
|
copperhead
Feb 26, 2003, 6:54 PM
Post #77 of 123
(5058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 668
|
In reply to: It is pointless to argue about god. If you are truly intelligent, you will realize arguing against true believers is impossible.
I don’t expect to change peoples’ minds. I’m just presenting my opinions.
In reply to: I don't know what kind of question this is, but's it's bull, without god we wouldn't have what we climb on, thank him and do what he asks, after all, you've gotten everything you've wanted for over a two thousand years.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the Bible say that the Earth was created on October 26, 4004 BC, at 9 am? Please tell me how such a feat is possible in such a short amount of time, considering scientific evidence has proven the Earth to be approximately 4.6 billion years old. I don’t disagree that Jesus existed; but he was just another dude like you and me who liked to spray a lot. He might have even had a few good things to say, if you were a mere peasant. The idea that a human being died and was later brought back to life by some magical forces is about the most stupid and ridiculous idea I can think of. So if Jesus is God and showed up about 2000 years ago, does it mean that there wasn’t a God before that? How was the Earth created 4000 years before if God didn’t exist yet? Please don’t tell me that God created this Earth; that’s a lame excuse for a lack of understanding of the physical world around you.
Godsmack Belayer,
I did a search but couldn't find it but I'm probably too lazy to read it anyway; and like colledgekid said, you ain’t gonna change my mind…
In reply to: …if you would like to think that you came from a rock and your bro is a chimp that is great.
And you don’t believe this? Scientific evidence supports evolution and your evidence is out of some stupid book that was written a long time ago by a bunch of braindead peasants.
|
|
|
|
|
tanner
Feb 26, 2003, 6:57 PM
Post #78 of 123
(5058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2002
Posts: 491
|
This entire tread is about faith(beliving in somthing we can't see or prove)
Some people have faith in God
other people have faith that there is no God.
One guy even has faith that his dog is God
-Oh, look we are all the same. We all belive in somthing we can't prove.
Lets just say you belive there is no God- IF your right you die
- Wrong your going to hell
Other side
You belive in God- if your right, you climbing the Golden Gates with God
If your wrong- You Die
If I was a gambling man, what would I pick Hmmm.....
|
|
|
|
|
swohletz
Feb 26, 2003, 6:58 PM
Post #79 of 123
(5058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 29, 2002
Posts: 114
|
rockpossum In reply to: "An omnipotent being micro-managing the universe allows (promotes) suffering and ignorance on such a massive scale? This is some sadistic SOB your God. Playing out some childish little game with us to see who loves him the most? Wouldn't even want to have a beer with your God. "
I'm sorry you feel this way. The God I know is nothing like that. It makes me sad to think you've been led to believe
that God is that way. What you believe is up to you but I encourage you to seek truth, wherever that leads you. The Bible says that if you seek truth you will find it. I can't convince you. Only God can do that.
climb on
susan
edited so it doesn't look like one big quote.
|
|
|
|
|
acrophobic
Feb 26, 2003, 7:10 PM
Post #80 of 123
(5058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 8, 2002
Posts: 368
|
Tanner, how do you know you picked the right one though out of the Dozens of choices we have? Big gamble to live by rules and such. You should follow out of wanting to, not out of fear that you might be wrong.
Heh, whenever I wear my "Evolution Fish" T-Shirt I always get someone come up to me and say "So you beleive we all came from apes? That's silly!"
I just reply with "You think man was formed out of dirt by some omnipotent being don't you? And that Women was formed out of a Mans rib? Hmmm.. which is more silly?"
They would criticize all our evidence and fossil findings, but will not offer up any themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
pywiak
Feb 26, 2003, 7:12 PM
Post #81 of 123
(5058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 5, 2002
Posts: 105
|
I choose God (or is it the other way around?). This is a no-brainer question - you get to read a lot of answers from people with no brains. If God has not revealed himself to you - bummer. Pray that He does and He will. If you cannot comprehend the reality of Satan - you are senseless. There is a war going on, and you must pick a side. If you are going to fight, you will be equipped. If you are not, you will be tormented and slaughtered. Enjoy the crags as a gift from your Creator, seek His face, and praise His name as you crank.
|
|
|
|
|
acrophobic
Feb 26, 2003, 7:17 PM
Post #82 of 123
(5058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 8, 2002
Posts: 368
|
pywiak, I'm sure many Muslim, Buddhists, Zoaists, Agnostics, Shinto’s, etc. would be quite surprised that they are following an evil being that does not exist in their peaceful lives and beliefs.
how ignorant of them. :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
tanner
Feb 26, 2003, 7:19 PM
Post #83 of 123
(5058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2002
Posts: 491
|
I don't belive In God out of fear or because its a good gamble.
I just think it was an interesting way to look at things. seeing how both sides can't prove a thing to each other.
|
|
|
|
|
acrophobic
Feb 26, 2003, 7:24 PM
Post #84 of 123
(5058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 8, 2002
Posts: 368
|
Well actually Evolution has a HEAPLOAD of proof, hell even that PAST 4 POPES have acknowledged evolution. It only has no evidence to those who wish to ignore it.
|
|
|
|
|
pywiak
Feb 26, 2003, 7:24 PM
Post #85 of 123
(5058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 5, 2002
Posts: 105
|
Acrophobic wrote:
"I'm sure many Muslim, Buddhists, Zoaists, Agnostics, Shinto’s, etc. would be quite surprised that they are following an evil being that does not exist in their peaceful lives and beliefs."
Sad, but true...Hell is full of "nice" people. Why do you think Satan is called the "Father of Lies"?
|
|
|
|
|
yeti
Feb 26, 2003, 7:25 PM
Post #86 of 123
(5058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 57
|
For Pete's sake! I thought this post was intended as a joke. I can't believe everyone is taking this so seriously. I'm on John Lennon's side... How about making our planet a better place to live?
yt
|
|
|
|
|
copperhead
Feb 26, 2003, 7:26 PM
Post #87 of 123
(5058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 668
|
Some of you have been watching too many Sunday morning cartoons!
Religion = downfall of society.
|
|
|
|
|
acrophobic
Feb 26, 2003, 7:30 PM
Post #88 of 123
(5058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 8, 2002
Posts: 368
|
:shock:
really now? And how do you know it is not YOU that are in the wrong? There are religions that predate yours, there are ARK stories in pre Xian religions that the bible copies almost word for word. Do some research.
Others have just as much documentation as yours. Blind Faith is such a waste of a mind. Ignorance is bliss I guess for some.
|
|
|
|
|
tanner
Feb 26, 2003, 7:30 PM
Post #89 of 123
(5058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2002
Posts: 491
|
There would be no Ice climbing in hell.
That I know for a fact
|
|
|
|
|
yeti
Feb 26, 2003, 7:32 PM
Post #90 of 123
(5058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 57
|
Good one tanner! :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
acrophobic
Feb 26, 2003, 7:38 PM
Post #91 of 123
(5058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 8, 2002
Posts: 368
|
ahhh don't like ice.
I always say "the day I ice climb is the day hell freezes over"
so at least I'll be there if it ever does eh? :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
flying_dutchman
Feb 26, 2003, 7:42 PM
Post #92 of 123
(5058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 20, 2002
Posts: 708
|
God gave man free will and suffering emerged because of us. As for evolution, I did not evolve over billions of years from monkeys but thats just my opinion. Before evolution began, what was there? God has always been.
and for those of you who do not believe that there is a God,
"You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that - and shudder." James 2:16
make a choice, live with it and i will not judge you... but i live and climb better knowing that when i die, i will go to heaven, according to my beliefs.
Many religions say this and some may be right while others may not be but at least i believe in somthing and do not fear what follows death.
one day we will find out the truth
|
|
|
|
|
acrophobic
Feb 26, 2003, 7:51 PM
Post #93 of 123
(5058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 8, 2002
Posts: 368
|
When you can't dazzle them with dexterity.... PREPARE! I WILL END IT NOW BY POSTING SOMETHING NO ONE WILL READ!
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. What is me reasoning behind this? Proof and logical thinking.
A theory ties things together. It explains and predicts. Why are our feet and our back muscles poorly designed for walking? Why are we afflicted by lethal viruses? Why have so many females died in childbirth? The Theory I am talking about is Evolution. A biblical explanation does not explain and predict the millions of questions that have risen about our planet. The Bible offers one set, unchanging view with no good evidence other that explaining itself to be right (circular reasoning). This is the main reason how religion and science do not mesh to well. Time and time again the church has been proven wrong and has been forced to step back. Flat world beliefs, Earth as the center of the universe, there are even people today who do not believe dinosaurs existed. These are all beliefs, not theory. A theory needs backing though evidence and repeated testing to label it so. The definition of a scientific theory is: “A well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” (1) You cannot repeatedly test the Bible, or any other religious source, because it has nothing to test it against. It is it’s own evidence of itself… to question its validity would be to throw its whole standing into disarray. The bible is proof of itself, questioning it is admitting it has flaws, thus can be wrong. Fortunately we can question science endlessly, as it is ever growing and evolving. I plan to show you just what these questions can reveal to you.
Just how was the bible formed and how accurate can we make it out to be? Well the earliest complete version of the New Testament is the Codex Sinaiticus, which originates around the 4th century and was written in Greek. Fragments of gospels have been found that date to the 2nd century (all have been confirmed with carbon dating), however the language these were written in presents a problem. It was said that Jesus spoke Aramaic and most of his apostles were uneducated and illiterate. So the surviving texts that the New Testament of today is based upon are not even in Jesus’ native tongue, yet alone his original words. There is a few hundred years gap of knowledge between his life and the earliest known writings. Due to the very limited amount of people able to write in those days, it is very possible that the texts would undergo drastic evolution through centuries of handwritten duplication. The actual formation of the book you see today is even more construed. “The rest of the canon was much slower to develop. For the next two centuries, the four gospels would be coupled with a myriad of different letters, epistles, stories and apocalypses, according to what a particular congregation judged as relevant to their understanding of Jesus Christ and his message. Catholicism was only one of the dozens of "denominations" within the early church—Gnosticism was prevalent throughout Egypt, Montanism in Asia Minor, Marcionism in Syria. Eventually, the Catholic church was adopted as the state religion of the Roman Empire, and all other systems of belief were branded as heresies. Following the Epistle of Athanasius in 367 C.E., the Church finally reached agreement upon which writings were truly authentic and representative of apostolic tradition, thus forming what we know today as the canonical New Testament. Although factions of the Church continued to debate the merits of various books for centuries, and many even used other writings in their liturgy, most uncanonical writings were ordered to be destroyed. In many cases, possession of heretical literature was punishable by death.” (2). In actual fact there are about 4 complete gospels (James and Thomas) that date from the second century which are completely ignored. (2.5)
Next is the ever-controversial Old world vs. Young world arguments. There are some that truly believe that the world is no more that 6,000 years old by going through the family lines and years lived in the old testament from Adam and Eve. This is nothing but preposterous. Others give the “what is a day, what is a year?” argument. The words “day” and “year” are said to be relative. Though it can be contended that the same word for “day” and “year” are used later on in the old and new testament and are accepted at face value without question (eg: Days of the flood, Ages of various people, travel times). Why wasn’t the correct amount of time that had passed used? Is it meant to be symbolic? Is there any backing for this thought process? I can say the whole of the old testament is symbolic. According to the bible, men built cities and mastered agriculture as soon as they were cast out from the Garden. However we have not found any evidence of this. The bible however shows a clearly advanced culture, not seen beginning in history until roughly 10,000 years ago. Can we explain this away with symbolism as well? We are playing a guessing game with this symbolism, and I’m not really interested in doing it. The metaphoric argument has no solid footing.. only assumptions with little backing. The argument was made to me recently that, it [Genesis] can be taken as metaphoric in which case many of the references in Genesis need to be inspected from this viewpoint. I’m wondering where source is that says most of genesis is to be taken metaphorically. Couldn’t we also say that Adam creation from “dust” is metaphoric for evolution? All the earth started out as was rock and dust. Couldn’t we also say that the fruit represents man’s control over fire? Couldn’t we also say, Eve’s downfall was added due to a culture that viewed women as inferior? What does the metaphoric analogies stop, and how can you pick and choose what is, and isn’t to be taken metaphorically? The creation record is pretty specific, are you saying that’s metaphoric as well? Why only genesis? Why would god be so careful in passing down specific information (since he would be the only one who knew what happened), only for it to be taken metaphorically? Why would be tell satan he would be eating dirt and be under all cattle? Satan seems pretty powerful. I see no reference in the Bible that it should be taken metaphorically, and whoever wrote is, is long dead. When all is said and done, some Christians think it is literal, some say it is figurative. This differing in opinion is why Bible based religion has so many different belief systems, some of which varying widely from one to the other. Most of this can be read about on the following website. (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html)
Before I continue to fossil evidence, I would like to address carbon dating and half-life dating. Many of those from the religious standing question this methods accuracy. “The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years. Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.” (3) Carbon and radiometric dating is very accurate and has yet to be shown as inaccurate in any substantial way. Christian scientists recently carbon dated the Shroud of Turin, and regretfully conceded that it was not old enough to live up to its claims. To dismiss this form of dating to be accurate would be to dismiss the entire known human history timeline, as it has completely been built on this method. This type of dating has even been confirmed in it’s accuracy buy accurately dating Egyptian mummies with the inscriptions in their tomb (to name one of many, including using the Dead Sea Scrolls, Antarctic Ice Layers and Tree Rings). If you would disagree with this form of dating, I would like to hear your reasons and founded evidence to support your reasoning. Yes no system is perfect and even this dating method has flaws, but there has been no evidence to dissuade almost all of the scientists on this planet from using it confidently.
Now that the method of dating has been adequately defended, let us move onto Fossils. An excellent pictorial can be found at the site : http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html . Also recently a skull has been found that could be part of the human chain in the 6 million year old gap period, quite an exciting find (4). At the first website you will find both Secular and Theological explanations. You will notice that the Theological side doesn’t really explain anything. The author instead uses a lot of “what ifs” and an assumption into drawing what he thinks is right. The author starts preaching from the bible on what it tells you to think. That isn’t taking facts into account, it is catering to the circular argument. The oldest “modern” human fossil (skulls that closely resemble us) is about 100,000 years, and the tools they used were primitive… flint and stone. We as a species (Homo Sapiens), have only existed for about 100,000 years as far as our findings have shown us. That is a fraction of a fraction of a blink of an eye in Earths living history. According to Stephen Hawking (a pretty smart guy I'd say) if you look at the time since the earth's creation (about 4.5 billion years ago) to today as a year, humans start at about Dec. 31, 11:59:30 PM. recorded history (about 6,000 years ago) starts at 11:59:59 PM. Not a whole lot of time. Piecing our history together before this brief 6,000 years is a time consuming and difficult process. Creationists are ready to easily attack the holes Evolutionist have in their argument. What they don’t take into fact is that we have only bee actively looking for fossils for a meager few hundred years at most (and only seriously for half that time). Time will reveal all secrets. Major discoveries spring up every year; even archeologists in a well-established site like Egypt are still finding new discoveries. Finding fossils that date back to 1.5 million years such as the Homo Erectus, is a very daunting task… but it will be done with more and more frequency. The Bible does not address these facts at all. According to creation myths Humans were formed as Homo Sapiens and underwent no evolutionary process. The Homo Neanderthalensis existed before and overlaps in existence with Homo Sapiens. The fully developed Neanderthal has been dated from 200,000 years to 60,000 years ago. This species is the first and only in the line that can match Humans for brain capacity. They were certainly not animals and were capable of reason and controlling advanced tools and fire. Fossil records and on-site tool discoveries have proved this beyond a doubt. Where do these sub-humans (so to speak) that overlap with the modern human timeline fit into the creationism story?
I would like to wrap up with a quote from one of the greatest thinkers in history. When Einstein was asked about his religious views, he responded with the following; “"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."”
Although not a favorite of physicists, Einstein, The Life and Times, by the professional biographer Ronald W. Clark (1971), contains one of the best summaries on Einstein's God: "However, Einstein's God was not the God of most men. When he wrote of religion, as he often did in middle and later life, he tended to...clothe with different names what to many ordinary mortals--and to most Jewsa--looked like a variant of simple agnosticism...This was belief enough. It grew early and rooted deep. Only later was it dignified by the title of cosmic religion, a phrase which gave plausible respectability to the views of a man who did not believe in a life after death and who felt that if virtue paid off in the earthly one, then this was the result of cause and effect rather than celestial reward. Einstein's God thus stood for an orderly system obeying rules which could be discovered by those who had the courage, the imagination, and the persistence to go on searching for them"
If there is a god, he gave me this brain for a reason. Diversity should be embraced, not shunned. I recognize what religion gives people who need it, but there are a vast number of people who do not need it. Life is wonderful, live it for yourself… not for the fear of a presumption what could happen after you die. There is one sure thing of what happens after someone dies and one alone: decomposition. Everything else are just guesses. If those guesses fill you with joy then follow them, just come to understand that people can live just as fulfilling and joy-filled lives without it as you can with it. The proof to evolution is there, you just have to look for it. I welcome any debate on this.. always looking to expand my mind. I do not intend to insult or injure, but to provoke thinking and intelligent debate.
Bibliography
1. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2
2. http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/NT_Hist.htm
3. http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html
4. http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/07/10/ancient.skull/index.html?related
2.5. http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradentonherald/news/local/3699456.htm
|
|
|
|
|
rockpossum
Feb 26, 2003, 7:52 PM
Post #94 of 123
(5058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 11, 2002
Posts: 230
|
God...
An invisible man that lives in the sky, if you don't obey his rules you will burn with eternal torment in Hell... but he loves you. Oh and he needs money, he's really bad with money.
Hmmm... Christians how about focusing on Christ's example and leave the crazy cosmic threats out of the argument. Or do you prefer to rif on the power trip?
There's climbing in hell alright, I've seen it, go to any indoor gym during a kids birthday party.
ciao,
P.S. Apologies to the prophet George Carlin.
|
|
|
|
|
holmeslovesguinness
Feb 26, 2003, 8:03 PM
Post #95 of 123
(5058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 10, 2002
Posts: 548
|
make a choice, live with it and i will not judge you..
If everyone truly had your attitude the world would be a much, much better place. But we all know that religious intolerance is a fact of life in much of the world.
Many religions say this and some may be right while others may not be but at least i believe in somthing and do not fear what follows death.
Believing in nothing is actually believing in something :wink:
Fear of what lies beyond death seems to be a primary motivation for people to 'discover' religion or to toe the line for a particular belief system. I wonder how many people who profess to love God do so because they truly love Him or because they simply fear the consequences of being a non-believer?
Why would God send someone to hell simply because they don't believe in him, or worship him in some prescribed fashion? If someone is a 'good' person and generally lives by the basic Christian tenants, why punish them?
|
|
|
|
|
climb4life
Feb 26, 2003, 8:27 PM
Post #96 of 123
(5058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2002
Posts: 174
|
hey there....
i am going to keep this nice and simple
i don't beleive in god
i love rock climbing
i live for rock climbing
i love sex
i enjoy the feeling of sex
simple so far?
if i have to choose, i don't choose
cause i don't believe in god
no heaven nor hell
so far, i think this is simple
short life means i gotta make the most of it
give me rocks and girls
and i will die a happy man
climb on
|
|
|
|
|
copperhead
Feb 26, 2003, 8:30 PM
Post #97 of 123
(5058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 668
|
Andrew (acrophobic),
THAT WAS TOTALLY AWESOME!!! GOOD WORK!!!
Nice bit about radiometric dating. Because of this, I can say that based on Uranium/Lead dating methods on zircon crystals, the rock that makes up El Cap is ~104 million years old and the rock that makes up Half Dome is ~90 million years old.
Great Einstein quote!
The rest of you are free to think as you like, but I might think less of you because of it. Yes, intolerance.
Religion is a crutch for the weak-minded.
See you in Hell.
|
|
|
|
|
wishiwaswest
Feb 26, 2003, 8:34 PM
Post #98 of 123
(5058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 966
|
Holy Crow! acrophobic....and I actually read that....I've said before, I don't care what anyone believes...what bugs me is people trying to convince me that their beliefs are based on FACT, not FAITH....that includes those who believe and those who don't believe.
The earth is round = FACT
There is a God = FAITH
There is not a God = FAITH or lack thereof
There are no facts or proof to substantiate either side of the coin. If you want to express your beliefs, great...but don't try to use "facts" to rationalize your faith or lack of it. Are we so insecure in our beliefs that we need to try and "prove" them? Why? What do you care what so and so thinks? It's only what YOU believe that is important. This need to prove that we are RIGHT, is what causes all the conflict, not our beliefs.
I was alpine climbing one day and suddenly my gut started churning and I broke out in a sweat and everything in my being was screaming turn back. So I did. I've learned to trust my gut. Was that God? Maybe. Was it just a fundamental instinct? Maybe. What would have happened if I had gone on? I don't know, but I believed that if I did continue, I would have been in serious trouble. I still believe that. My partners went ahead and nothing happened. How do I prove that something would have happened if I had gone on? I can't, but I'll swear up and down I made the right decision and would do it again...no facts, no proof, just faith in my gut.
Have faith in God or don't, but don't use "facts" to try and prove your point of view....it indicates an insecurity in your faith and a need to convince yourself, not others.
|
|
|
|
|
acrophobic
Feb 26, 2003, 8:49 PM
Post #99 of 123
(5058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 8, 2002
Posts: 368
|
wow people read that? :o I actually wrote that a year ago after i had a debate with an online poster. Might fill it out a bit more when i get the chance.
I'm not really using facts to try and disproove the existance of god. I'm using fact to support my belief that there might not be a god. How can you tell me not to use facts if i follow science? That's like me telling you not to use the bible if you follow X-ianity. It dosn't make sense :P
science is fact based
religon is faith based
Science can use facts to support thier claim.. it might not prove that god does not exist, but it does prove that the bible's creation stories do not fit in within earths timeline as our methods have show us.
personally I still think the “original plan” of God's in the Eden story was flawed from the start, and it boggles my mind that this Being wouldn’t foresee what would happen. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to tell you that curiosity would of won. He might as well of peeled and sliced the apple into easily chewable slices himself.
|
|
|
|
|
pattray
Feb 26, 2003, 8:55 PM
Post #100 of 123
(5058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 26, 2002
Posts: 294
|
Great reading Andrew (acrophobic), I got through all of it, what a good answer.
Hey OOZE, You caught a real big fish there. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
|
