| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/03/2008 12:51:20 PM · #976 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I think Gordon posted my position best when he stated that prior to "X" time, astrology and astronomy were "one" discipline which separated to become 2. Thus my claim of different definitions - one historical and one modern. The historical include astronomy whilst the modern does not. That was the true crux of my argument, not the "church/hypocrite" part. Since astrology before and after the separation of astronomy are different, then by definition I was accurate - as posted. Exactly what I said I said. |
I actually agree that astronomy/astrology were intertwined at that time, but I still think you’re missing the point. What in astronomy causes people to go looking for a king?
|
|
|
|
01/03/2008 12:51:44 PM · #977 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I think Gordon posted my position best when he stated that prior to "X" time, astrology and astronomy were "one" discipline which separated to become 2. Thus my claim of different definitions - one historical and one modern. The historical include astronomy whilst the modern does not. That was the true crux of my argument, not the "church/hypocrite" part. Since astrology before and after the separation of astronomy are different, then by definition I was accurate - as posted. Exactly what I said I said. |
Actually, you were attempting to defend this earlier statement by trying to impart some scientific credibility:Originally posted by Flash:
Is astrology (the study of the heavens), a science? |
Sorry, but it's still not true. Even if ancient astrologers used some logic and observation, they were also still attributing events on this planet to the influence of stars. Astrology is NOT a science, and never was.
Message edited by author 2008-01-03 12:52:07. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 12:58:36 PM · #978 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Well, to your original question 'Is [historical] astrology (the study of the heavens), a science?' Half of it was (which became astronomy) Half of it wasn't (which is still astrology)
I would consider the part that involves traveling across the world, to find a king under a star, part of the modern and historical astrological definition and the most common understanding of the story of the Magi. |
You have at least confirmed my original position that the historical definition of astrology included the study of planetary movement as in current astronomy. I never claimed that historical astrology did not also include "foretelling" events, and even referenced Nostradamus as a more modern source of both astronomy and astrology. My point was that scalvert said they were the same (synonomous), and they are not. He even went so far as to infer that I was too lazy to research the fact and futher claimed that they were infact the same. There is a difference between historical astrology by definition and the modern version - as you so clearly have pointed out. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 01:00:03 PM · #979 |
Originally posted by Flash:
What evidence do you have to PROVE the accuracy of the modern calendar and the current year as exactly 2008 years after the birth of christ? |
That IS the standard set by people who studied the matter, and has been accepted worldwide by many branches of Christianity for centuries. You've uncovered new evidence? I'm sure many church leaders would love to hear that and/or whatever date you may have divined for the proper celebration of Christmas. If, on the other hand, the date is completely unknown, then you have no basis for a particular celestial phenomenon matching that date. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 01:04:22 PM · #980 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Astrology is NOT a science, and never was. |
Are you saying that the astronomy portion of the historical definition of astrology was not a science? A science in the manner consistent with the day. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 01:05:09 PM · #981 |
Originally posted by Flash:
My point was that scalvert said they were the same (synonomous), and they are not. He even went so far as to infer that I was too lazy to research the fact and futher claimed that they were infact the same. |
In the context of your argument, they were. Astrology, at all times, has concerned the study of star's influence on man... even if it included some tenets of modern astronomy in the process. It's no more a science than the study of tea leaves or lines on your hand to predict your love life. The story of the Magi itself is one of astrologers looking to the stars for a sign of terrestrial events. If some future research determines that the configuration of lines on your hand is linked to genetic disorders, then that might develop into some branch of science, but palm reading itself would not be retroactively considered a scientific pursuit.
Message edited by author 2008-01-03 13:13:40. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 01:12:29 PM · #982 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
What evidence do you have to PROVE the accuracy of the modern calendar and the current year as exactly 2008 years after the birth of christ? |
That IS the standard set by people who studied the matter, and has been accepted worldwide by many branches of Christianity for centuries. You've uncovered new evidence? I'm sure many church leaders would love to hear that and/or whatever date you may have divined for the proper celebration of Christmas. If, on the other hand, the date is completely unknown, then you have no basis for a particular celestial phenomenon matching that date. |
...you may have divined for the proper celebration of Christmas. What does christmas have to do with this? Some else already posted that the timing of the modern christmas celebration coincides with the pagan ritual of the winter solstace and the "church" in its attempt to bring more worshipers into the fold, incorporated this festival as part of the christmas story. Are you claiming that December 25th, in the year zero was the brith of christ? I'm certainly not.
It truly baffles me how on the one hand you can argue against the authenticity of virtually anything christian - especially historical events, yet have such trouble with an "approximation" of +/- a couple of years for the calendar.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2008 01:28:27 PM · #983 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Therefore, either the "church" is a hypocrite or the definition of astrology in this historical context is DIFFERENT than modern astrology. Since the chruch is not a hypocrite, then the definitions are different. |
No, there's no ambiguity whatsoever regarding the practice of astrology in the bible.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2008 01:35:34 PM · #984 |
Originally posted by Flash:
It truly baffles me how on the one hand you can argue against the authenticity of virtually anything christian - especially historical events, yet have such trouble with an "approximation" of +/- a couple of years for the calendar. |
The dates are either known or they're not (I included both possibilities). You are attempting to tie a planetary conjunction (which are fairly common) to a terrestrial event that you claim could have happened any time within a window of several years. It's not a valid point. If there was a story that an eclipse heralded the end of the dinosaurs sometimes within a span of three years, it would be meaningless to pick one of the eclipses during that time frame as plausible evidence of anything. Nevermind that the Bible condemns those who predict events in the stars and then uses a star to herald an event (to practitioners of a competing religion)! :-/
Message edited by author 2008-01-03 13:37:11. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 01:40:58 PM · #985 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Therefore, either the "church" is a hypocrite or the definition of astrology in this historical context is DIFFERENT than modern astrology. Since the chruch is not a hypocrite, then the definitions are different. |
No, there's no ambiguity whatsoever regarding the practice of astrology in the bible. |
1. I found humor in your post. Pointed, but humorous.
2. Your link is an excellant example of how those on different sides of an issue can cite various verses to support their cause. A point I conceede to those who attack christians/scripture as fallible and inconsistent.
3. Your link is also a sound example of my philosophy that "truth" is found in the marriage of those apparent contradictions. Discerned via the "totality" of the work, grounded in the message of christ as Messiah. (but here I am preaching to the choir as you already know this).
Message edited by author 2008-01-03 13:45:30. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 01:58:52 PM · #986 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
It truly baffles me how on the one hand you can argue against the authenticity of virtually anything christian - especially historical events, yet have such trouble with an "approximation" of +/- a couple of years for the calendar. |
The dates are either known or they're not (I included both possibilities). You are attempting to tie a planetary conjunction (which are fairly common) to a terrestrial event that you claim could have happened any time within a window of several years. It's not a valid point. |
1. I do not know that they are in fact "known" or provable.
2. Given that they are not "known" then one must assess the "other" information that may explain why a certain belief came into being.
a) mythology
b) historical event of some consequence
c) fictional storytelling for entertainment or teaching
d) other (including the possibility of "all the above")
3. My reference to the planetarium presentation that I suspect you have likely illustrated earlier, was based upon a recollection that specifically was related to the rarity of the event - like the 26,000 year cycle documented in the Myan long calculations or the calculations by Nostradomus, or the more modern proveable astronomical events like Haley's comet. Some astronomical events occur rarely due to the time interval between occurrences. That is my recollection of this presentation. If my recollection is accurate, and the astronomical calculations were accurate, and if it coincided within a couple of years of other prevailing thoughts, then I would at least consider it as a plausibility. Obviously you do not. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 02:24:28 PM · #987 |
Flash - some quick questions, not nearly as off topic as they might appear.
Part I
1) Do you claim to know, without doubt, that there is an afterlife?
2) Do you claim to know, without doubt, that a supreme being exists?
3) Do you claim to know, without doubt, that this supreme is the God of the Christian Bible?
4) Do you claim that this Bible is literal (that is inerrant) truth?
5) If you do not believe the Bible to be inerrant, do you claim to know what parts of the Bible are in error or open to interpretation?
If you have answered Yes to any of the questions above, what makes you feel that you have some special access to the truth that others may question, doubt, or disagree with?
Part II
6) Where you born into a religious family?
7) If yes, what religion would your parent(s) have identified themselves as at the time of your childhood?
8) Do you consider yourself to be of the same religious faith as your parents?
9) If not, what prompted you to change your religious identification?
10) If you did change your religious identification, or even if you have never changed your religious identification, did you ever consider a non-Christian religious faith, such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, or other faith/philosophy that is outside of the main religious tradition of the society in which you grew up?
11) If no to #10, why not?
12) Why do you think you are so particularly blessed to have been born into a society where Christianity is dominant and it is so easy to practice your beliefs without interference?
13) Why do you think those born into religious societies that are divergent or in opposition to Christianity (a majority of the world's population) are so unfortunate as to be born into a society that makes it so difficult, counterintuitive, and in some cases criminal, to believe and practice the only religious practice that will allow them to enter heaven?
14) Do you believe that all souls never exposed to Christianity (which would be the vast majority of people to have walked the earth since the time of recorded history) are condemned to be barred from entering heaven?
15) If yes to #14, why were those souls placed into such a position as to make it almost impossible for them to learn the truth and do the things that their Creator requires of them to complete his plan and earn his rewards? |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 02:33:30 PM · #988 |
Shutterpuppy -
part I - No.
Part II - I have posted many examples of my past history with and without a religious leaning. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 02:37:18 PM · #989 |
Attached are a couple references to my earlier points. Please note that I have included both pro and con on the topic. I have pulled excerpts specifically supporting my claim of "consideration" based on plausibility.
Star
"well-researched and reasonable"
Former Chief of Planetary Astronomy, NASA, and Technical Editor, Sky & Telescope magazine
"an interesting look... at the star"
Christianity Today magazine
"models the scientific method at its best"
Distinguished Professor of Old Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary
"wide-ranging and insightful scholarship"
Former Publisher and Editor, Scientific American magazine, and President, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Star article 2
There were two astronomical events involving conjunctions of planets around the time of Jesus' birth---the triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces in 7 B.C.E. and the near-conjunction of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn in Pisces in February 6 B.C.E. A conjunction is when two or more objects appear very close together on the sky. Pisces is associated with the Jewish people in astrology, so when Jupiter and Saturn passed very close to each other three times during the span of several months in 7 B.C.E. it was a notable event. Adding to the significance was that the triple conjunction in Pisces happens about once every 900 years. The first conjunction of the 7 B.C.E triple conjunction occurred in late May when the wise men may have started their journey. The second conjunction occurred in late September when they were visiting King Herod and the third conjunction appeared in the south towards Bethlehem in early December after Herod had sent them on their way. The close grouping of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn to within 8 degrees of each other in Pisces occurs only once every 800 years. Jupiter was the ``star'' of royalty and luck and Saturn was the star of the Mesopotamian deity who protected Israel. Both of these rare conjunctions could have been predicted by the ``wise men from the East'' and could have been interpreted by them that a great king was to be born in Israel (Herod, king of the Jews at the time and very paranoid about being displaced, was therefore upset at this news). Though Jupiter and Saturn never got close enough together to be confused as a single object, the word ``star'' had a different meaning to the wise men than it does for us today and their definition could have included a planetary conjunction.
Please note the reference to 900 years, the triple conjunction of the planets and the multiple times over months for occurrence.
edit to add: this is the kind of information I have studied that resulted in my "approximation" of calendar times and the rough approximation of Jesus's age. Please note reference to other authors of the time and the thought process to arrive at the conclusions. You may not agree with this line of reasoning, but it is certainly palusible to me. Bold emphasis mine.
Though Jesus came to have a significant impact on the history and culture of western civilization, he was not considered important during his lifetime so the precise details of his birth were not recorded as they occurred. The major non-biblical source of information about Jewish happenings around the time of Jesus' lifetime comes from the writings of the Jewish historian, Joseph ben Matthias (C.E. 37/38--around 100; also known as Flavius Josephus), called The Jewish War, written just after the fall of Jerusalem in C.E. 70, and Jewish Antiquities, written around C.E. 93--94. However, Jesus receives just a brief mention in Josephus' writings and what is there is only about his adult life. The Roman historian Tacitus (around C.E. 56/57--around 118) mentions Jesus in only one sentence of his last large work, the Annals, and that sentence is about Jesus' death. The best information we have comes from the biblical books of Matthew and Luke that were written about 80--90 years after Jesus' birth. The authors of Matthew and Luke did not write with our modern understanding of historical accuracy in mind and did not attach the same significance to historical, physical truth we do today. This fact is not remembered by many Christians, agnostics, and atheists today and has led to many heated debates between them in the past few hundred years.
However, my intention is to provide the historical information that many modern inquirers are asking for. King Herod (aka ``Herod the Great''), Emperor Augustus, and Quirinius were government officials in the Roman Empire so they have historical references with dates attached to them that are used as markers in the history timeline. King Herod is also mentioned in the first chapter of Luke in reference to Jesus' cousin John the Baptizer who was approximately six months older than Jesus. Despite the differences in birth narratives given by the authors of Matthew and Luke, the fact that they do agree on Jesus being born during the reign of King Herod tells us that Jesus was very likely born sometime between 37--4 B.C.E.
Jesus was probably born just a few years before the end of Herod's reign. The ``wise men from the East'' pay homage to the ``child'' Jesus rather than to the ``newborn'' Jesus (contrast that with the Nativity scene of popular society today!). This agrees with Herod's estimate of Jesus' age in his order to kill all the children (other translations narrow that to just the male children) in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under. The author of Matthew uses the same word to describe Jesus' age when he fled to Egypt with his parents and when he returned after Herod's death---he was a little child when he left and when he returned.
Index
Another way to estimate Jesus' birth date is to determine when his public ministry occurred and work backwards. The author of Luke states that Jesus was ``about'' thirty years old (read 28-38 years old) when he started his ministry (Luke 3:23). The gospel books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and the book ``Acts of the Apostles'' in the New Testament, Josephus, and Tacitus all say that Jesus was killed during the rule of Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea. According to Josephus and other early historians we know that Pilate ruled from C.E. 26--36. Josephus says that Jesus' entire 2--3 year ministry occurred during Pilate's rule. The author of Luke provides another time reference mark.
Luke 3:1--2: In the fifteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was ruler of Galilee, and his brother Philip ruler of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias ruler of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness.
This John is Jesus' cousin, John the Baptizer, and this Herod is Herod the Great's son, Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Perea from 4 B.C.E. -- C.E. 39. Tiberius reigned as sole emperor from C.E. 14--37. Philip is Herod Philip, tetrarch of Batanea, Trachonitis, and Auranitis from 4 B.C.E. -- C.E. 33/34 (Luke is the only source claiming Philip ruled Iturea). Caiaphas was high priest C.E. 18--36. Unfortunately, the only Lysanias known to have ruled Abilene from other sources died in 36 B.C.E. Uncertainties in the exact years of Tiberius' reign prevent a firm determination of what year corresponded to the ``fifteenth year''---estimates range from C.E. 26--29. Tiberius was ``co-emperor'' with Augustus from C.E. 12 and became sole emperor upon Augustus' death in C.E. 14. Adding to the uncertainty is the fact that the author of Luke could have used the Julian, Syro-Macedonian, Egyptian, or Jewish calendars to fix his dates. All of the major Roman historians use C.E. 14 as the start of Tiberius' reign and since Luke was likely written for the cultured Greco-Roman person, the author of Luke probably started Tiberius' reign at C.E. 14 and used the Julian or Syro-Macedonian calendar. Therefore, the ``fifteenth year'' is very likely C.E. 28. Jesus began his public ministry shortly after John the Baptizer began his ministry, ie. around C.E. 27--29 (C.E. 28 the most likely start). The author of Luke's rough estimate of Jesus being in his thirties at the start of his ministry makes it likely that Jesus was born within just a few years before 4 B.C.E. One sign of the consensus among scholars of the historical Jesus to this timeline is the holding of the Jesus at 2000 symposium in 1996.
You should notice that I have not used the information in Luke 2:1--2 that tells of a census occurring when Quirinius was governor of Syria. There are a couple of problems with this: 1) a census occurring around B.C.E. 5 is not documented in any other source; and 2) Quirinius became governor of Syria in C.E. 6 and conducted a census of Judea, but not of Galilee, in C.E. 6--7.
Message edited by author 2008-01-03 14:58:37. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 02:54:12 PM · #990 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Shutterpuppy -
part I - No.
Part II - I have posted many examples of my past history with and without a religious leaning. |
Well, first off I'd have to say that your response to my questions in Part I is just B.S., given the responses that I've observed from you in this and other forums. My guess is that you simply know that to answer truthfully would open you up to criticisms you would rather not deal with. BUT - in the spirit of ecumenicalism: So you have doubts, but you're sure that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and you require them to provide some proof that they are right, or that you are wrong, but don't feel that the same standard of support should apply in reverse?
As to Part II - perhaps, but I'm still curious as to what your responses would be to the specific questions asked, and what your answer is for why you are so lucky as to have won the "truth lottery" by being born in the United States, a nation dominated by believers in what you believe to be the "correct" religious outlook, and not China, India, Cameroon, Iraq, etc. Also, if religious "truth" is so compelling, why is it that the best indicator of what a person's particular religious beliefs will be when they grow up is what the religious beliefs of their parents are? Please note that this holds true across all populations, inside and outside of the United States. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 03:01:24 PM · #991 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by Flash:
Shutterpuppy -
part I - No.
Part II - I have posted many examples of my past history with and without a religious leaning. |
Well, first off I'd have to say that your response to my questions in Part I is just B.S., given the responses that I've observed from you in this and other forums.
|
If you have truly read my posts in this and other threads, then you would know that this statement is patently false. However, as always, we are each entitled to our opinion. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 03:04:22 PM · #992 |
May I also, indelicately I know, point out that in regard to your vigorous advocacy of the "evidence" for a Star, you appear to be engaged in exactly what you and others excoriated the atheists in this crowd for doing elsewhere when it comes to the scientific interpretation of the fossil record - namely, making assumptions on what you believe to be the physical and testable evidence and drawing logical inferences to come up with a theory.
The problem with the Star stuff is, however, that you and the people who support this idea didn't start from the evidence and then build a theory, you start from your conclusions - 1) a divine birth occurred in Bethlehem, and 2) a star appeared over Bethlehem that allowed some "wise" guys from the "east" to find their way to the divine child - AND THEN you go looking for facts and evidence that will support your theory while ignoring facts and evidence that don't fit. "Hey, there was this weird alignment of planets that might work as an explanation. Oh, weird alignment of planets isn't that uncommon? Well, let's not talk about that right now. Did I mention that there is a weird alignment of planets that might work?" ... and so on.
Message edited by author 2008-01-03 15:05:11. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 03:07:09 PM · #993 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by Flash:
Shutterpuppy -
part I - No.
Part II - I have posted many examples of my past history with and without a religious leaning. |
Well, first off I'd have to say that your response to my questions in Part I is just B.S., given the responses that I've observed from you in this and other forums.
|
If you have truly read my posts in this and other threads, then you would know that this statement is patently false. However, as always, we are each entitled to our opinion. |
One - I still call B.S.
Two - I can't help but notice you ignored the second half of that paragraph. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 03:08:28 PM · #994 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
14) Do you believe that all souls never exposed to Christianity (which would be the vast majority of people to have walked the earth since the time of recorded history) are condemned to be barred from entering heaven?
15) If yes to #14, why were those souls placed into such a position as to make it almost impossible for them to learn the truth and do the things that their Creator requires of them to complete his plan and earn his rewards? |
Yes.
Ask God. It's his plan.
1st it was only the Jews who were the chosen people. No gentiles at all. Why? I don't know. When the jews rejected the Messiah - THEN the gentiles get a chance. Why? I don't know.
Like I've said before, IF there is a judgement, I will be alot more concerned with the outcome of mine, than why God allowed "any" gentiles to have a shot. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 03:16:58 PM · #995 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
May I also, indelicately I know, point out that in regard to your vigorous advocacy of the "evidence" for a Star, you appear to be engaged in exactly what you and others excoriated the atheists in this crowd for doing elsewhere when it comes to the scientific interpretation of the fossil record - namely, making assumptions on what you believe to be the physical and testable evidence and drawing logical inferences to come up with a theory.
The problem with the Star stuff is, however, that you and the people who support this idea didn't start from the evidence and then build a theory, you start from your conclusions - 1) a divine birth occurred in Bethlehem, and 2) a star appeared over Bethlehem that allowed some "wise" guys from the "east" to find their way to the divine child - AND THEN you go looking for facts and evidence that will support your theory while ignoring facts and evidence that don't fit. "Hey, there was this weird alignment of planets that might work as an explanation. Oh, weird alignment of planets isn't that uncommon? Well, let's not talk about that right now. Did I mention that there is a weird alignment of planets that might work?" ... and so on. |
You are totally off base. Please read the articles. Josephus and Tacitus had no dog in the fight. Their brief mentions of Jesus is merely "evidence" of his existence. To some though, that just means that a person named Jesus existed, no proof of THE Jesus. You are free to mock it if you choose. The use of historical references to understand a plausible date(s) of Jesus birth and ministry are not uncommon at all.
Message edited by author 2008-01-04 06:49:31. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 03:18:49 PM · #996 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Ask God. It's his plan. |
He doesn't appear to be taking any calls lately (or he turned his answering machine off). |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 03:21:29 PM · #997 |
Originally posted by Flash:
You are totally off base. |
No, he's not off base. You and others have looked for corroborating evidence to support your conclusions, as opposed to seeking conclusions based on evidence, plenty of times in other debates. Check the other thread where I called you on this several times. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 03:21:34 PM · #998 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
14) Do you believe that all souls never exposed to Christianity (which would be the vast majority of people to have walked the earth since the time of recorded history) are condemned to be barred from entering heaven?
15) If yes to #14, why were those souls placed into such a position as to make it almost impossible for them to learn the truth and do the things that their Creator requires of them to complete his plan and earn his rewards? |
Yes.
Ask God. It's his plan.
1st it was only the Jews who were the chosen people. No gentiles at all. Why? I don't know. When the jews rejected the Messiah - THEN the gentiles get a chance. Why? I don't know.
Like I've said before, IF there is a judgement, I will be alot more concerned with the outcome of mine, than why God allowed "any" gentiles to have a shot. |
Fine, but it was always stuff like this that really seems, to me anyway, to work against a view of the Christian God as a awe-inspiring and glorious divine figure. Instead, and like all deities throughout the ages, God ends up instead looking like a pretty realistic reflection of our own petty, excluding, and tribal nature. That side of us that made a lot of sense when we were small tribes of hunter gatherers scratching out an existence on the savanna, but that makes a whole lot less sense in the days of ICBMs.
"God" can sometimes be a vehicle to bring out the best in individuals, but it historically almost always works to bring out the worst in societies. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 03:25:50 PM · #999 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Ask God. It's his plan. |
He doesn't appear to be taking any calls lately (or he turned his answering machine off). |
This is the second post of yours today that brought a smile to my face.
Are you sure it is not you who turned off the communication. I really menat that in a kind way |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 03:33:21 PM · #1000 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
[Fine, but it was always stuff like this that really seems, to me anyway, to work against a view of the Christian God as a awe-inspiring and glorious divine figure. |
I'm not sure which God you are referring to, but the one I've come to know has absolutely no reservations about slapping me upside the head to get my attention.
Should I get to kneel before him, I'm pretty certain it will be awe-inspiring. The Glorious part will depend on the judgement he hands out to me. I might be damn happy or maybe just damned. At least it is nothing you need to worry about. |
|
