Well spoken, well said Well, thanks for pointing me in the direction of your first post. It was very informative. Although tony1 would be the first to disagree, I once had an "awakening" experience where I "discovered" God as well. And, this also happened to me around the age of 17 or 18. I was quite devoted for a good six solid years, studying everything in sight. I read the Bible and various others works from the religion I belonged to. Perhaps I read or thought too much, but another "awakening" occured to me. At least I can respect that you've had one of these "awakening" type experiences. Even though we may see differently on the issue of God, it's cool to know that there's a common ground between us. Sorry for shooting under the bed before checking. prag
Love and Hate Christianity is not an excuse to hate, it is a reason for all those whome are Christians to show love for their fellow brothers. And for those of you out there who are Christians, we are all brothers and sisters, christians and non-Christians alike. There is never an excuse for anyone to show hate, for any reason. Hate is not, a feeling, but a state of mind, or lack there of. hate shows nothing but ignorance. A man who looks at another and says I hate them shows no sign of intellegance. Any person who has any type of intellegence knows that people have all the same anatomy, and for those who are like me and are Christians, the same love from the same Heavenly father. Now for those of you who do not believe, and for those of you out there that do believe, I don't care, all i know is that I love you the same, and so does my Father. Let me ask you all a few questions. What does it gain to hait, you get nothing in return except anger, and ill feelings, and a bad state of well being. Why would anyone in there right mind want that, when showing love towards another human being gives you great joy, and believe it or not, a greater joy when that person doesn't deserve it. I mean lets face it, none of us deserve love and compasion, we all have our faults, leaving sins aside, you know what is right and wrong. All I can do is show you, to the best of my ability, the love has my Father has shown me, now I will not be able to come close, but I will try. Please forgive me for rambling, I got caught in the moment. God bless, and if any have something to coment on this, I will like to read your thaughts.
Is He reall? before I begin, I just want to say that I totally believe in science. But I very much believe that God created it. First of all I need to know what all of your beliefes are, so I can one by one agnolidge them. I will begin on the theory of evolution, since that is the major beliefe in the science field. First of all to believe in the THEORY of Evolution you must believe it took billions and billions of years to create, first of all the universe, 'one' 'single spoken sentence', then the Earth, in our stand point, and then creatures. Now the billions of years for the universe, the major THEORY is the 'big bang theory', this is highly unlogical. First of all the theory states, "Billions of years ago, all the matter in the universe gathered together into one very dense very hot region, possibly no bigger than the size of a single period. Then this tiny region began to spin faster and faster untill the pressure inside this tiny space was too great to bear and it exploded, and out came all the galaxies known today." First of all, where did the matter come from, and second of all how did it all of a sudden just move into one little dot? I can help you with the movement, it's called energy, energy is what causes change, but were did this energy come from? Now if you even begin to think exploding star, open your hand, now smack yourself, because if thats the case, where did the star come from? Moving on. The whole spinning thing, who came up with that? You would have been better off saying it was just sitting there and decided to blow up. You see the law known as "The Velocity of Angular Momentum" clearly states basically that a spinning object defragmatizes, or blows up, that all its fragments will spin in the same direction. How is this possible when in our solar system alone Pluto, and possibly two others spin in the opposite direction? Moving on. The Earth, how is anyone able to say that the Earth is even a million years old? Now I'm not going to state the obvious reasons why the Earth cannot be millions of years old, but I will tell you some good ones. First of all, the Mississippi river in North America's USA drains about a ton of mud each year into the Gulf of Mexico, that is why Luisiana is so swampy, now if the Earth was a Million years old, heck even ten thousand years old, the gulf would be a swamp, or a desert by now. The Sierra Desert grows about a foot a year, raise your hands if you think the Sierra Desert is a million feet wide. Didn't think so. I'm getting tired so if you want some more on the toppic of the Earth e-mail me. Moving on. Animals, this is the fun one....where to start? First I just want to say that Evolution is the greatest fairy tail I have ever read, ROCK to CELL to WORM to FROG to MONKEY to MAN, haha. I just want to say that there is no proof of this enterspecies chage. If you think there is, SHOW ME. Now I like Dinosaurs, always have, so I'll start with them, next time I come on, but for now, I'm tired. SORRY, I truly am. Please e-mail me for more information, but I will finish this later.
Hey everyone. I thought I may as well offer my views on Pragmathens first post! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! First off I would like to comment that there seems to be alot of misgivings about Christians. God hates the sins but loves the sinner. Let me ask you a question. If a person murders and does not think it is wrong, then should they go to prison? Of course. If you do not repent from your sins and reject Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, then you will be in danger of the flames. But the bible states in 2 Peter 3:8-10 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. You will have a chance to believe in Him who died for your sins until the moment you die. God does not like homosexualism (He still loves homosexuals no matter what anyone says) because it is against nature. If you read the epistle to the Romans then you will see St Pauls strong, explicit words considering this. It is against nature, and thus against God's created order. He is a God of order not disorder. Also, in regard to incest here is what God has to say. Leviticus 18:8-10 "`Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere. Now here is what happened to the two sons of the two daughters of Lot Genesis 19:37,38 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab ; he is the father of the Moabites of today. The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi ; he is the father of the Ammonites of today. It should be noted that God stated Deuteronomy 23:2-4 No Ammonite or Moabite or any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation. God destests incest. However, it should be noted that He boar His son at the cross to die for your sins if you choose to accept His free gift. Have you read about Sodom and Gemorah? These people even wanted to rape two angels. Lot had to offer his virgin daughter instead. God destroyed Sodom and Gemorah because there were a lot of petitionns against them. They are detestable. "The only choice is to follow. The alternative (back then, naturally) was death. " If is true. You must follow God. Disciple means 'follower'. So a disciple of Christ is a follower of God. The alternative is to follow the ways of this world. Which is sin and ultimately death. However, following Christ is freedom from the penalty of sin and ultimately life. Repent and be baptised! Thanks for reading. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
General comments Fred Before any scientist can reasonably speculate on the nature of what caused the Big Bang, or how it came about, we must first learn a few things. Scientists can reproduce the conditions theoretically described down to a few microseconds after the explosion; the closer they get to Zero Second, as such, the more we'll know about the Big Bang. To this notion, I will add the consideration, which I offered to GrimJester in another post, from Einstein that, while scientific progress does, indeed, contain a certain form of faith, that faith is justified by its conceptual realization. A scientist generally does not cling to faith when every theory points in another direction: one will not maintain a certain theory after the field has shot it full of holes. Perhaps that person will spend the rest of their life trying to reconcile their pet theory to the larger model, but if it doesn't prove out, it doesn't prove out. Regarding the Theory of Evolution: I wouldn't put so much emphasis on the word "theory". Of course it's a theory. Theoretical science and its ability to demonstrate its assertions in practice and function are the opposite of Biblical faith in the specific notion that a theory regards the ongoing process of learning, whereas I would like to know what the last "new" thing was that we learned about God; it seems to me that the only new thing about how people relate to God is the constant (and expected, necessary, and so-forth) redefinition from generation to generation and from individual to individual; but the "truth" of God seems to be static and fixed: e.g.--evolutionary theory. Even the Pope figured out that evolution can be reconciled to Biblical faith. Right after you demonstrate God. That's something I've been asking those of faith to pull off for a while. In the meantime, there's a huge thread in the Religious Debate Archives covering Evolution ... over 200 posts of debate. It's not particularly difficult to believe this; in fact, as I've asserted before, in a Universe this big, it's pretty much an inevitability that life and awareness should occur. Lastly, Fred ... regarding your 08.27 post on 4/6 ... you'll find no argument from me. (Welcome to Exosci, as well, sir.) Deadwood I would agree with you here, with two notes: * Do you feel that these sentiments are unjustified? * Do you feel that these sentiments are exclusive and one-sided? That could be said of some of the aforementioned misgivings; in this, I would charge that the misgivings about Christianity are not unjustified--at least within our context here at Exoscience--nor are they exclusive and one-sided. Most of those who criticize Christianity here at Exoscience (and, yes, I feel very comfortable in this assertion) would treat any Christian they encountered on the street with the same regard they treat anyone else. I'm quite sure some of the people I've drank with at this or that tavern have faith in Christ. But when they start expressing things that I find unacceptable, they're simply unacceptable, regardless of one's religion. If, as in the case of homosexuality, Christian values are held up as the reason for discrimination, then I find Christianity to be discriminatory in an exceptionally negative way. Furthermore, I enjoy the silly paradox of "against nature". In what way? To that, we might also ask, then, why God created homosexuals if he doens't like homosexuality. Furthermore, all we can tell about Paul's strong, explicit words, is that he--Paul--doesn't like buggery. Understanding that I see about a thousand rhetorical niceties that are probably irrelevant to the general state of the question (but not the issue as a whole), I'm willing to agree that incarceration is sometimes the best solution to a singular human threat to the greater of humanity. (Niceties include perception of threat and other modern issues, but as I noted, I think we accept those and can leave them out.) I will leave the declaration of faith and the threat of spiritual blackmail aside for a moment and note that there is a far cry between murder and some of the things that earn God's disapproval. According to Matthew 25, one need not directly resent a homeless beggar, and merely need ignore him, to earn punishment. In a slightly sarcastic mode--though not entirely--I offer the Bart Simpson approach: "I figure I'll go for the life of sin followed up by the deathbed repentence." To be a little more direct about it: This means that a person has the entirety of their life to explore the Universe and find God. What's the rush that people are expected to convert on a flurry of slogans? People here are critical of the "non-biblical" influences on Catholocism; I, personally, see a church whose members have spent a good deal of time trying to find God and record the search for the benefit of posterity. It seems that American protestant Christianity is such that we should not search for the answers to our innermost questions, rather submit to God and have peace in the notion that irreconcilable difficulties of logic are not important, and that you believe without understanding what you believe, why it should be that way, or how it came to be that way. This is something I find most objectionable in the religions of Christ. Ignatius Loyola called it the "sacrifice of the intellect". Put that way, I accept the term. But that the term is an aspiration troubles me some. God said, "Thou shalt not kill," and it hasn't made a whit of difference for two-thousand years. Christ said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's," and yet religious people care more about the institution of rights than they do about their faith: churches are tax-exempt in the US. (One should take a common tour-bus around New York; when I saw Harlem in 1987, it was explained to me that most of the apartment buildings I saw down a block had a chapel inside in order to exempt the landlords from property taxes. Pat Robertson's political contributions are made with one less taxation obstacle. Seems to me the people are asking Caesar to take less. I wrote in another topic about the idea giving to death; that is, working ceaselessly toward God's kingdom until it destroyed you. On the base level, it seems that all Christians are called to this, yet practicality compels people of faith to other priorities which derive from the self. However, if these people of faith were to obey their commission ("Whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren ...") then the circumstance would come about that nobody would have to "charity" themselves to death, and furthermore, with that kind of efficacy of demonstration of principle, Christian influence would experience considerably less resistance to conversion. Two cents, and probably a half-penny for the heck of it. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So you can see the humor in that type of philosophy. The sad part is that if people really wanted to go to Mt. Fuji, the guy would be right. It might be relevant if you're trying to predict the taste in a person's mouth at any given time. Sad, for at least one reason. If you're right, we end up at the same end point. If I'm right, you end up considerably worse off. Thus, I win or break even and you lose or break even. You're taking the sucker bet. And that is describing it at the very lowest possible level. Admittedly, I threw in the word "willy-nilly" rather willy-nilly. I'm sure from your perspective, you've done a lot of soul-searching. My point in talking to you is that you have rejected a huge mass of "Christian" teaching. If the "Christian" teaching you've been exposed to is anything like what I've been exposed to, I'd say that is a good thing. However, you've rejected everything, including the truth. Where did you get the idea that all "Christian" teaching would be true? Are you not aware that satan is a liar and a deceiver? Of all the places he would prefer to work, wouldn't a church be pretty much #1 on his priority list? Sure I can. God 1, satan 0. He is less than me, and you, in our strongest areas. If you are dead set on going your own way, you will go your own way and then you will be dead set. God is willing that all will come to repentance, but based on what I've seen so far, it looks like not all will come to repentance. The "changing mind" issue aside, not if you were paying attention. Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: (Acts 10:34, KJV). Maybe, but one thing I know for sure is that if you persecute me, you will be racking up the points for me. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. (Matthew 5:12, KJV). As an oversimplification, this may be true as far as it goes. I, on the other hand, have rejected such holier-than-thou, self-righteous approaches to life. There may be some who aspire to impress others by avoiding impressing others, but I'm not one of them. See, there you go missing the point because of your previous point. This is why there are rewards. The "casual" believer gets few rewards. God treats everyone the same; every believer gets his/her rewards. Thus, the difference derives not from God, but from the rewards that get piled up while here. That also handles the grace issue. If one is so super-altruistic that one can't think of any way to pile up rewards then one is saved by grace alone. OTOH, if one acts on one's faith, then one is saved by grace and works. However, I doubt that anyone will be able to go thru life performing either no actions or only self-righteous actions and end up being saved. It's not so much the sureness, as the meaning.. "High and mighty, though. That's the key, because that puts me on equal footing with God" 1) you hope to be knocked on your arse right quick 2) you hope to discover by debate 3) you complain because of my style What do you want exactly? I have detected a certain grasp of the obvious here. It wouldn't be a debate if everyone were in total agreement on every point. "legendary"? No, they're quite real. What is this? What email? Again you don't know what it is like to be me. This sharp intake of breath thing only applies if I've been swimming underwater for a while or if I'm negotiating a particularly tough stretch of white water. I think you may have me confused with yourself. You're the one bummed out about God's "true personality." Which is why you quit. OTOH, you may have quit being a Mormon, rather than a Christian, in which case, my apologies. Let no one misconstrue any of my comments as being negative toward leaving Mormonism. As for the lake of fire thing, you should consider avoiding it.
leaving las vegas and heading toward provo The question is: what did you set your life-o-meter to believe? If it wasn't the truth, then this upheaval is a favor to you. If it wasn't the truth and you think it was and you petulantly toss the baby out with the bathwater, you miss out on the favor. I think, from reading between the lines of your posts, that you have fallen into one of satan's favorite (because it works so well) traps. You go to a church because you think the truth is there, or because God told you to go there. You end up disappointed because what you hear there is quite often not true. You quit. Well, how about trying to find out what the truth is yourself? One part of the truth is, after all... For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. (2 Corinthians 11:13-15, KJV). I'll repeat, satan's #1 priority is working in the church, and the Bible calls it no great thing. Nah, I wouldn't disagree at all, let alone be the first to. I have some idea of what other people go thru in life, because I go thru them too. This second awakening may have occurred to alert you to the fact that some of the things you learned between the first and the second were wrong. De-awakening yourself hardly seems like the right approach.
Re: Love and Hate Man, I hope this a temporary mental detour. Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14, KJV). Anatomy is rarely an issue, except maybe for gays, who reject different anatomies. You need to read your Bible. The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. (Psalms 11:5, KJV). Right on.
Re: General comments They can reproduce those conditions? Funny, I've completely missed the disappearance and reappearance of the universe which must have happened during those experiments. A theory, yet not a theory, yet a theory? I feel the need to apologize. I've been operating under the assumption that you didn't know God. Now I find out that you know him so well that you wonder when the last new thing about him was learned. He's hampered by Catholicism. Sidebar: here you go trying to bring every debate into RC or not-RC. Assuming an a priori evolution, yes. OTOH, if you don't make that a priori assumption, you are left trying to prove how rock turns to life. OTOH, they are actually exceptionally positive. That might work if you assume two things... <ol><li>You end up in a deathbed where you will find the time, and </li><li> you would actually repent after a lifetime of practicing not to.</li></ol> You make a good point here. Slogans are a poor thing on which to base a decision with eternal consequences. You are probably correct about a lot of this. But when, the recorded search becomes the religion, you have a problem. IL may have been in error... Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. (Isaiah 1:18, KJV). God sees no reason to sacrifice reason, since he tells us to reason with him. Of course, this is where many blow it; they either abandon reason completely or they reason alone, without God. Another good point. Of course, Caesar's not around anymore, but your point remains. This may be one reason churches grow faster where they are not accepted by the government. An interesting point, however resistance to conversion arises from hatred toward God, rather than not enough "charitying" going on. sidebar: you make better points when you quit being a Catholic apologist.
Deadwood, Allow me to underscore your point regarding God's alleged disapproval of incest: <font color="red">Deuteronomy 27:22 Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.</font> And the punishment for failing to observe this law? <font color="red">Deuteronomy 28:15 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee... Deuteronomy 28:18 Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.</font> However, God seems to take no issue with Abraham's marriage to Sarah, his father's daughter (see Genesis 20:12). In fact, Isaac, the son of this incestuous union, appears to be ever a favorite of your god and his followers. Furthermore, the god you evidently worship is often referred to as the god of Abraham or the god of Isaac. So much for God detesting incest and punishing it down to the 10th generation, eh? You seem to have a rather bizarre sense of what is or isn't detestable. You are truly a disciple of your god. Emerald
Of course, Abraham was doing his thing before the law was issued. There is no indication that laws are retroactive in the Bible.
The wolf at bay <blockquote> <font size="1">quote:</font> <hr> <i>Originally posted by tony1:</i> Sad, for at least one reason. If you're right, we end up at the same end point. If I'm right, you end up considerably worse off. Thus, I win or break even and you lose or break even. You're taking the sucker bet. And that is describing it at the very lowest possible level. <hr> </blockquote> Sucker bet, eh? Well, you're the one that has to deal with intolerant feelings, that bases trust and acceptance on whether the other person has a <i>valid</i> faith in God. You have to go through life with the added weight of not accepting others despite what they may choose to believe in. Weight, you say? People like don't want to rid themselves of the weight [burden] they carry because it is what they are made of. Intolerance and deception and superfluous connections. Hang onto it, because, as you may well know, it does <i>not</i> hang onto you. <blockquote> <font size="1">quote:</font> <hr> However, you've rejected everything, including the truth. Where did you get the idea that all "Christian" teaching would be true? Are you not aware that satan is a liar and a deceiver? Of all the places he would prefer to work, wouldn't a church be pretty much #1 on his priority list? <hr> </blockquote> I couldn't have discarded all Christian teaching because I was not indoctrinated with all Christian teaching. I read and read and experienced and experienced, just as everyone does. Satan, a liar and a deceiver? You don't say. Is it not interesting that he would work his wonders within a church? Does Satan choose to work on the elite, because of their influence and intelligence factor? What if God's current plan was actually Satan's plan? Satan wanted to take away all free will and force everyone to do his will. People in church basically have no free will--they are told what they need to do in order to gain access to a celestial place, which is somewhat like what Satan had in mind. So, when you say that I rejected Christianity, perhaps, in effect, I am <i>really</i> rejecting the plan of Satan. For isn't it God's plan to have everyone choose for themself? Commandments and thou shalt's and thou shalt not's kind of leave personal motivation for the sake of free will clean out of the equation. <blockquote> <font size="1">quote:</font> <hr> 1) you hope to be knocked on your arse right quick 2) you hope to discover by debate 3) you complain because of my style What do you want exactly? <hr> </blockquote> Oh master of doublespeak, tell me your ways so that I may deceive and connive and deflect attention so deftly from myself. <blockquote> <font size="1">quote:</font> <hr> I think you may have me confused with yourself. You're the one bummed out about God's "true personality." Which is why you quit. OTOH, you may have quit being a Mormon, rather than a Christian, in which case, my apologies. Let no one misconstrue any of my comments as being negative toward leaving Mormonism. As for the lake of fire thing, you should consider avoiding it. <hr> </blockquote> Could it be? But, alas, it would be too good. What haven't you got <i>against</i> Mormonism, exactly? You would hold the RC's in lower esteem than the Mormons, then? Perhaps I'm bummed about God's true personality based on events that have <i>not</i> happened to me. Yes, you allude to super-altruisim, but you have not experienced it. You are the center of your God's notions, therefore what need have you to think of others and their situations? You constantly deflect any attention from yourself because you represent God--the unknowable, the unaccountable, the misread. You say that I do not know you, because you don't want to be known. How obvious is that? Moreover, you don't want to know what others could have gone through. You forever look only on the side of God as far as experiences go. You have to worship God because, in your mind, there exists none greater than yourself but He.
The venom is gone <blockquote> <font size="1">quote:</font> <hr> <i>Originally posted by tony:</i> This second awakening may have occurred to alert you to the fact that some of the things you learned between the first and the second were wrong. De-awakening yourself hardly seems like the right approach. <hr> </blockquote> Could you be correct? Yes. Could I be correct? Yes. As you have said in an earlier post: I'm taking a sucker bet by choosing to go the way I go. But that's the whole key, right there, isn't it. I'm <i>choosing</i> to go this way because it makes sense to me to accept others <i>regardless</i> of their sexual orientation, religious persuasion, or lineage. It makes sense to you to not tolerate these people, therefore you make your choice. Perhaps what I learned between the two "awakenings" was what the majority of people choose not to; i.e., that God is what you make of him. He is all-knowing and imcomprehensible to those that know little and understand less. He is all-powerful and justice-minded to those that are weak and have seen too many wrongs perpetrated against them. He is merciful and enlightening to those that sing melodious hymns and are merciful to others. Fine, so be it. But, alas, he is also a bigot and prejudiced to those that cannot accept a lifestyle because it differs from the norm, or choose to engage in a lifestyle before a certain reckoning of age, or choose to voice opinions that are defamatory towards certain groups based on the luck of their birth. He is a bully to those that have seen that bullies get their way far more often than the meek. As the [mis-]heard quote from Monty Python's <i>Life of Brian</i> stated: <b>Blessed are the meek? Well that's good. They never get anything.</b> God is no respecter of persons because he exists within each person's mind. Your god, tony1, has to be exceedingly intelligent, well-developed, well-read, and loves to surf. If he's not, you'd be disappointed because <i>you have him built up</i> in a certain way. So, you write and defend yourself most admirably from many sides and thus feel persecuted. And since you view yourself as being persecuted for righteousness' sake, you <b>must</b> be doing the will of the Lord. You will gain eternal life and a spot on the right hand side of God. But at what cost? To you? Pshaw. You think of no one but yourself, therefore there is no cost to yourself. If you took a step back and tried to see what the cost could be to others, perhaps you would view things differently. But, as you said in another of your posts: does not compute. Yes, I could be wrong. But isn't the act of choosing the key? You seem like the kind of person that would revel in an afterlife where you could take an unbeliever's nose and rub it in the carpet of hell ... assuming you are right in your beliefs. You would not like to see everyone saved or resurrected or reanimated or reincarnated to the same degree [more or less]. This life would be a waste to you if that were so. So, perhaps I am in the process of redefining my God, just as you are on a constant and, daresay, daily basis. I will say one thing. You are an excellent adversary or opponent or debater; and I think others here at this forum would readily agree to that. Thus, despite what you may think of others [d'oh! forgot you don't think of others], you've gained the respect of some here. You've also gained the ire of some, but that's to be expected. This post is to show the latter, while the previous vehemently shows the former.
Re: Well spoken, well said Do tell? It may be that you still have something to learn from these things, just as I am always learning from my experriences. Learning from others that is, they see things I don't, they see things in a different light than I do. Perhaps there is more that God has to say?? Allcare Tony H2o
Re: The wolf at bay That sure is convincing. I don't happen to be one of those people that requires everyone else's approval. Main reason for that: In any race, there is one winner and everyone else is a loser. The losers can all have a pity party together, while the winner wins. What would be the problem that you are identifying here? ? If Mormonism was what you were involved in, then I'd have to agree with you. Where else would he work? He owns everyone who doesn't believe in Jesus Christ as Lord. Probably not. He works on the elite, also known as the elect, specifically because he owns everyone else. The only thing I've seen in connection with this is a statement by Brigham Young more-or-less stating that the Mormon God was the Christian devil. This, of course, would depend on the church. I hope I'm not sounding like I'm advocating a return to the Mormon church. OTOH, you <b>can</b> exercise your free will to die. You seem to have mastered the art on your own. But, what do you want exactly? It might be the God/devil thing. Probably not. That would be the most unusual reason for which to die. Neither has anyone else. I have no need, however some of those "others" do. Some of the situations people get themselves into are terrible situations. They may wish to know that there is a way out, and his name is Jesus. You simply attempted to write as though you had some deep insight into my situation. You actually revealed more of your own. No more, no less. Cute, but there is no one greater than he. Again, I know what people go thru because I am people.
Re: The venom is gone Leaving it in the realm of gambling is a strange thing to do. After all, I say Jesus is Lord and if you say he isn't, one of us is right. I tolerate people. I also know that people need to make a choice, and that they need to know what the choice is. This would be the description of God given by someone who creates his own God, worships him for a while and then gives up because his God was too puny. I don't happen to feel persecuted. It is possible that I am being persecuted, but the feelings just aren't there. The cost to others would impact me how? If you choose to waste your life, how is that a cost to me? Since I don't see any indication of eternal torture awaiting anyone, where would this nose be? This life wouldn't be a waste at all, if everyone were to be resurrected. Option #2: How about letting God redefine you?
