How do new discoveries and new information effect your belief?

MrStuffins

(I'm really sorry if this has been asked before but...........)

As an athiest, it confuses me that some people could believe in 2 things which are condatictory without realising it. The Religion v Non-Religion argument has been done to death, but what I want to know is.............

How does new information contradictory to your beliefs effect your religion/beliefs? For example, I know there are people of all levels of different beliefs. Some believe that evolution is true but this does not mean God does not exist. That's great. Then some believe that evolution is false and that God created the heavens and the earth, like written in The Bible, and believe a lot of the bible to be the true word of God, stories like Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark etc. That's great also.

But what happens when you know of information that is completely at odds with your belief system?

For example (the easiest and oldest example, but none the less real): I have a friend who is a very staunch Catholic. She believes God created the world, created Adam and Eve and this is where we all came from. Now...... she also believes that Dinosaurs existed on planet earth and Humans and Dinosaurs did not co-exist. Now, when I ask her how does she reconcile these two things, she can't! But instead of thinking about it, she just retracts back into Catholic mode and becomes the girls who, as a child, was told that questioniong things like this was wrong.

So tell me, have you had to "tweak" your beliefs? Are you one of the many who just bury it deep down? Or do you blindly deny new information?

(Also, I know how sensitive relations between this and the A&A forum are, so i'd just like to point out that this is in no way an attack thread. I wonder because, having been brought up in Catholic Ireland and in the Catholic school system, but Atheism is a result of MY initial questioning and subsequent research.)

PDN

I'll let you know if the situation ever arises. As it is, I can't think of any discoveries or new information that has contradicted any of my beliefs about Christianity or the Bible.

MrStuffins

PDN wrote: »

I'll let you know if the situation ever arises. As it is, I can't think of any discoveries or new information that has contradicted any of my beliefs about Christianity or the Bible.

So tell me, how literally do you take The Bible? Do you believe we have been created in God's image and Adam was the first man etc?

PDN

MrStuffins wrote: »

So tell me, how literally do you take The Bible? Do you believe we have been created in God's image and Adam was the first man etc?

I believe that we have been created in the image of God in that we have a spirit.

I believe Adam was the first man (the word 'Adam' simply means 'man'). I'm open to the idea that mankind evolved from other species and that Adam was the first of homo sapiens who was imbued with a spirit. I'm also open to the idea that Adam was created in a day. Neither is an article of faith to me.

Manach

My default option when encountering discordant information is to discard it. Common to everyone according to the behaviour texts I've read. Failing that I try to study to get background information to put the information in context. That usually takes a few years, eg the question of whether Religion is a +/-. For evolution, being RC I had the example of Pierre de Chardin during my study of geology.

MrStuffins

PDN wrote: »

I believe that we have been created in the image of God in that we have a spirit.

I believe Adam was the first man (the word 'Adam' simply means 'man'). I'm open to the idea that mankind evolved from other species and that Adam was the first of homo sapiens who was imbued with a spirit. I'm also open to the idea that Adam was created in a day. Neither is an article of faith to me.

Cool. So tell me, were these beliefs you've just spoken about parts of the original doctrine you were taught? Or did you take the information given to you and tweak your belief system to incorporate it? (much as scientists do when modifying theories etc)

Obelisk

PDN wrote: »

I'll let you know if the situation ever arises. As it is, I can't think of any discoveries or new information that has contradicted any of my beliefs about Christianity or the Bible.

I can show you some tbh.

The question is, can you handle it?

(I'm not an atheist btw. I generally despise them)

Ask and thou shall recieve.

PDN

Obelisk wrote: »

I can show you some tbh.

The question is, can you handle it?

(I'm not an atheist btw. I generally despise them)

Ask and thou shall recieve.

I am a seeker after truth, so, if any discoveries or truths genuinely contradict my beliefs then I would love to hear them.

PDN

MrStuffins wrote: »

Cool. So tell me, were these beliefs you've just spoken about parts of the original doctrine you were taught? Or did you take the information given to you and tweak your belief system to incorporate it? (much as scientists do when modifying theories etc)

I think everybody (of all religious persuasions and of none) tweaks their belief systems in some shape or form extremely often. This is how humans make sense of the world. We assess new information in the light of what we already believe to be true and, if the evidence is sufficiently compelling, we rejig our worldviews accordingly.

So, for example, I used to think of the disciples at the Last Supper as sitting up at a table like in the famous painting by Leonardo. Then I learned that the Jewish custom was to recline at low tables - so I rejigged my mental images of the Last Supper. However, this is not a doctrine or a biblical belief.

The original doctrine I was taught was that God is the Creator of all things. It never specified how God created them. So whether God did it in an instant or through a process of evolution is interesting to me, but doesn't change a doctrine.

The original doctrine I was taught is that the Bible is inspired and inerrant - and that it includes various forms of literature, including historical narrative, poetry, parables, metaphors and figures of speech. Whether Genesis 1 should be interpreted as one of the historical narratives or as an extended parable is something I find fascinating - but it doesn't alter the doctrine I was taught about the Bible.

MrStuffins

PDN wrote: »

I think everybody (of all religious persuasions and of none) tweaks their belief systems in some shape or form extremely often. This is how humans make sense of the world. We assess new information in the light of what we already believe to be true and, if the evidence is sufficiently compelling, we rejig our worldviews accordingly.

So, for example, I used to think of the disciples at the Last Supper as sitting up at a table like in the famous painting by Leonardo. Then I learned that the Jewish custom was to recline at low tables - so I rejigged my mental images of the Last Supper. However, this is not a doctrine or a biblical belief.

The original doctrine I was taught was that God is the Creator of all things. It never specified how God created them. So whether God did it in an instant or through a process of evolution is interesting to me, but doesn't change a doctrine.

The original doctrine I was taught is that the Bible is inspired and inerrant - and that it includes various forms of literature, including historical narrative, poetry, parables, metaphors and figures of speech. Whether Genesis 1 should be interpreted as one of the historical narratives or as an extended parable is something I find fascinating - but it doesn't alter the doctrine I was taught about the Bible.

While I admire the content of your post, I must disagree with the comment that:

I think everybody (of all religious persuasions and of none) tweaks their belief systems in some shape or form extremely often

This certainly is not the case. There are PLENTY of people who will not tweak their beliefs. Some will downright refuse to believe any new information that comes to them.

Although I find the fact that you tweak your beliefs as new information arises very admirable.

Zombrex

Since this topic is already up and running.

Do people believe Noah was a real person

Do people believe Noah lived to 950 years old?

If yes how do people resolve that against modern understanding of human biology (ie do you believe such understanding is wrong, or that something magical was happening with Noah and his forefathers?

If no what do people resolve that against the Bible and its inerrancy. Do people believe the age passages are not literal, or the whole story is not literal? Or a bad translation, open to interpretation about time?

Genuinely interested (less interested if the answer is just don't think about it or don't care)

CerebralCortex

PDN wrote: »

I believe that we have been created in the image of God in that we have a spirit.

Does that mean God looks like us and that we have a non physical part? Where does science show this to be?

PDN wrote: »

I believe Adam was the first man (the word 'Adam' simply means 'man'). I'm open to the idea that mankind evolved from other species and that Adam was the first of homo sapiens who was imbued with a spirit. I'm also open to the idea that Adam was created in a day. Neither is an article of faith to me.

Seriously? What if the first homosapien was a woman? Did Neanderthals have spirits? Is there a brain size threshold?

Zombrex

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Seriously? What if the first homosapien was a woman? Did Neanderthals have spirits? Is there a brain size threshold?

... first with a spirit, not first homosapien. A carefully unfalsifiable proposition since 'spirit' is not scientifically defined

Humans have spirits, humans and animals are souls (life is life because of the breath of God, and soul just means life). So Neanderthals did not have spirits.

http://www.gotquestions.org/soul-spirit.html

CerebralCortex

I wonder is there a causal/biological chain back to when the exact first homo sapien arrived? Does this mean Eden is in Africa? Why did God only interact with homosapiens? Were other lineages of apes failed experiments? Why did god not give souls to Neanderthals as far as I'm aware they were quite smart. Why don't dolphins have souls? Why can the severing of the corpus callosum cause one to have two personalities in one brain?

Zombrex

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I wonder is there a causal/biological chain back to when the exact first homo sapien arrived? Does this mean Eden is in Africa?

Eden is placed by the Bible near the Middle East (Gen 2:10). The Bible is silent on the mark out of Africa. Sure depending on how you interpret the Bible that might not have even happened.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Why did God only interact with homosapiens? Were other lineages of apes failed experiments? Why did god not give souls to Neanderthals as far as I'm aware they were quite smart.

Spirits, not souls

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Why don't dolphins have souls?

Dolphins are souls.

CerebralCortex

Wicknight wrote: »

Eden is placed by the Bible near the Middle East (Gen 2:10).

So we should be able to get some data on the emergence of homo-sapiens and where they first showed up right?

Wicknight wrote: »

Spirits, not souls

What's the difference?

Wicknight wrote: »

Dolphins are souls.

Wot?

Zombrex

CerebralCortex wrote: »

What's the difference?

See the link. The difference is sort of like the difference between the English "life" and the English "conscience", in that to have a conscience you will also be alive, but not everything that is a live has a conscience.

CerebralCortex

Wicknight wrote: »

See the link. The difference is sort of like the difference between the English "life" and the English "conscience", in that to have a conscience you will also be alive, but not everything that is a live has a conscience.

Could there exist a human emulation with the same architecture as the brain and the same human capacities(which are not homogenous) that would also have a soul? Come to think of it, why are some people smarter than others?

Zombrex

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Could there exist a human emulation with the same architecture as the brain and the same human capacities(which are not homogenous) that would also have a soul?

Only if God breathed life into it (which is the meaning of the term soul).

The Jews actually expanded upon the idea of artificial life and its relationship with God with the concept of the Golem, more so than Christianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem

CerebralCortex

Wicknight wrote: »

Only if God breathed life into it (which is the meaning of the term soul).

The Jews actually expanded upon the idea of artificial life and its relationship with God with the concept of the Golem, more so than Christianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem

David Chalmer's property dualism comes to mind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_dualism

MrStuffins

Any chance of a few on topic posts?

CerebralCortex

MrStuffins wrote: »

Any chance of a few on topic posts?

In a way they're all on topic. No? They're all valid questions that can be addressed scientifically that would do harm to various theist belief positions. Certain if not all people here believe evolution is a directed process, it's clear from my limited understanding of evolution that isn't true. Funnily they never address the effects this has on causality in either case.

Soul Winner

The Bible states that In the beginning (whenever that was) God created the heavens and the earth. Then in Genesis chapter 1 verse 2 it states that And the earth was void and without form. This is a very debatable translation of this verse as the word for was in the Hebrew can just as easily be translated became. So if we read Genesis 1:2 as And the earth became void and without form one has to ask how that came to happen. Isaiah tells us that God did not create the earth a waste.

"For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else." Isaiah 45:18

So if the earth became a waste from a previous period of having been inhabited by beings, then Genesis is really starting with a re-creative period in Genesis 1:2. So there could be a vast gulf of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. So if there is a vast gulf of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 then who knows how old the earth is? My point is that the Bible WHEN READ IN ITS ORIGINAL LANGUAGE tells us things we just don't get in the English. So if you want to actually know where science and the Bible are at odds you'd have to actually know what the Bible is actually saying first.

Unfortunately there are not many scientists that are experts in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic etc, so where they see conflicts is usually either a bad translation in the English or simply a bad interpretation of the text. When we read that God created (or if we are talking about a re-creation) the earth in 6 days we are reading it from His perspective not man's. So when we read the word day in English we automatically think 24 hours. But the Hebrew word is very ambiguous and can mean a day, a week, a year or simply just a period of time, it doesn't necessarily mean day as we know it. It states elsewhere that a day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day:

"For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night." Psalm 90:4

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
2 Peter 3:8

So the universe can be found to be 100 trillion years old and it won't refute the text of the Bible. But in saying all that, I have no problem in believing that God could have crated it in 6 days or even 6 seconds for that matter. If He exists at all then why not? If He doesn't exist then arguing about how long it took to create it is pointless. The best way to approach the subject is to start with the resurrection and work back from that. If that happened then its a good starting point from which to look at the other things. If it didn't happen then its all pointless anyway because that is the even that Christianity stands or falls on. "If Christ be not risen then our faith is vain and we are false witnesses of God." 1 Cor 15:14-15

owenc

Ok I'm not super religious but I've always believed in god.. I don't have any particular beliefs really bar that but over the past few years from experience of other peoples religions I have altered my views a bit and thought about things further.. Such as baptism. Is it really needed etc... I've also decided on which side of the Christian spectrum I would go for in each law suck as transcubation etc And it's been a mix which is great. I think overall my views are Anglican even though I'm not Anglican.. It'd crap though because my parents keep trying to force their beliefs on me I wish they would just run to pie is like to form my own beliefs thank you!

Obelisk

PDN wrote: »

I am a seeker after truth, so, if any discoveries or truths genuinely contradict my beliefs then I would love to hear them.

Here you go sir...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=73971266#post73971266

MrStuffins

Soul Winner wrote: »

The Bible states that In the beginning (whenever that was) God created the heavens and the earth. Then in Genesis chapter 1 verse 2 it states that And the earth was void and without form. This is a very debatable translation of this verse as the word for was in the Hebrew can just as easily be translated became. So if we read Genesis 1:2 as And the earth became void and without form one has to ask how that came to happen. Isaiah tells us that God did not create the earth a waste.

"For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else." Isaiah 45:18

So if the earth became a waste from a previous period of having been inhabited by beings, then Genesis is really starting with a re-creative period in Genesis 1:2. So there could be a vast gulf of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. So if there is a vast gulf of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 then who knows how old the earth is? My point is that the Bible WHEN READ IN ITS ORIGINAL LANGUAGE tells us things we just don't get in the English. So if you want to actually know where science and the Bible are at odds you'd have to actually know what the Bible is actually saying first.

Unfortunately there are not many scientists that are experts in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic etc, so where they see conflicts is usually either a bad translation in the English or simply a bad interpretation of the text. When we read that God created (or if we are talking about a re-creation) the earth in 6 days we are reading it from His perspective not man's. So when we read the word day in English we automatically think 24 hours. But the Hebrew word is very ambiguous and can mean a day, a week, a year or simply just a period of time, it doesn't necessarily mean day as we know it. It states elsewhere that a day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day:

"For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night." Psalm 90:4

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
2 Peter 3:8

So the universe can be found to be 100 trillion years old and it won't refute the text of the Bible. But in saying all that, I have no problem in believing that God could have crated it in 6 days or even 6 seconds for that matter. If He exists at all then why not? If He doesn't exist then arguing about how long it took to create it is pointless. The best way to approach the subject is to start with the resurrection and work back from that. If that happened then its a good starting point from which to look at the other things. If it didn't happen then its all pointless anyway because that is the even that Christianity stands or falls on. "If Christ be not risen then our faith is vain and we are false witnesses of God." 1 Cor 15:14-15

Great. But you didnt exactly answer what I was asking.

Were you of belief that 6 days meant 6 earth days at first? And when it became obvious that the earth was billions of years old you looked into it?

Soul Winner

MrStuffins wrote: »

Great. But you didnt exactly answer what I was asking.

Were you of belief that 6 days meant 6 earth days at first? And when it became obvious that the earth was billions of years old you looked into it?

Well yeah of course, as I read it in English I believed that they were literal 24 hour periods. But having delved into the Hebrew (which was the language it was originally written in) I found that the word translated day in English does not necessarily mean 24 hours but it can mean a 24 hour period, its just not restricted to that. But like I said even if it is a literal 24 hour period you still have to take into account that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. A gap that could conceivably be a vast gulf of time. Despite what many people (usually people who can't read Hebrew) think, the Bible does not even hint at any age for the earth. The age for the earth was original contrived by a 17th century bishop (he was actually Irish) who used the biblical genealogies to come to an age which was a bit silly because he never took into account that in certain cases you don't know if the Bible is talking about sons or grandsons or nephews and so on. It is a very ambiguous language so using it to to determine the age of the earth is quite frankly ridiculous. You see not a lot of people know these things but the same people will tell those who actually study the Bible that there are contradictions between it and science. If you are going to make pronouncements like that about the Bible then I suggest you study it properly first i.e learn the languages it was written in then read the best and oldest manuscripts you can get your hands on then you will know what it is actually saying, failing that I would not recommend that you place all your bets on what the English translation says alone.

But apart from all that, as I said in my last post, what is the point of studying what the Old Testament says if you've not crossed the hurdle of the resurrection in the New Testament? The best thing to do would be to settle that one for yourself first (I can recommend lots of book if you wish) then study what the resurrectee (Jesus) said about the Old Testament, what books he quoted/put His seal of approval on and work from there back. He quotes Genesis so he at least believed it. But if he didn't rise from the dead then it doesn't matter whether Genesis is true or not. God might exist but He did not reveal Himself in Christ if Jesus wasn't raised.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Since this topic is already up and running.

Do people believe Noah was a real person

Do people believe Noah lived to 950 years old?

If yes how do people resolve that against modern understanding of human biology (ie do you believe such understanding is wrong, or that something magical was happening with Noah and his forefathers?

If no what do people resolve that against the Bible and its inerrancy. Do people believe the age passages are not literal, or the whole story is not literal? Or a bad translation, open to interpretation about time?

Genuinely interested (less interested if the answer is just don't think about it or don't care)

Yes, Noah was a real person (still is, with Christ in heaven).

Yes, he lived 950 years.

Does Biology assert that man could not have lived for 950 years? I assume it states that our present bodies cannot do it, but I doubt it claims it impossible with genetic modification at some future date. If possible in the future, it was possible in the past, if we have altered from then.

God made man for eternal life, but the Fall brought death. Just how soon death would naturally occur after the Fall would have been determined genetically by God. After the Flood, perhaps God decided to limit man's scope for evil by limiting his lifespan. Or maybe it was just the natural degradation of our genetic code that reduced our years.

One really has to torture the Scripture to make Noah's life and lifespan other than literal. I'd be interested to hear any such explanations. It is an excellent test you have chosen to cut through the haze!

*******************************************************************
Psalm 90:10 The days of our lives are seventy years;
And if by reason of strength they are eighty years,
Yet their boast is only labor and sorrow;
For it is soon cut off, and we fly away.

CerebralCortex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, Noah was a real person (still is, with Christ in heaven).

Yes, he lived 950 years.

Does Biology assert that man could not have lived for 950 years? I assume it states that our present bodies cannot do it, but I doubt it claims it impossible with genetic modification at some future date. If possible in the future, it was possible in the past, if we have altered from then.

God made man for eternal life, but the Fall brought death. Just how soon death would naturally occur after the Fall would have been determined genetically by God. After the Flood, perhaps God decided to limit man's scope for evil by limiting his lifespan. Or maybe it was just the natural degradation of our genetic code that reduced our years.

One really has to torture the Scripture to make Noah's life and lifespan other than literal. I'd be interested to hear any such explanations. It is an excellent test you have chosen to cut through the haze!

*******************************************************************
Psalm 90:10 The days of our lives are seventy years;
And if by reason of strength they are eighty years,
Yet their boast is only labor and sorrow;
For it is soon cut off, and we fly away.

It is at least plausible with with very sophisticated molecular nanotechnology, other than that nope. If a being lived to 950 using an evolved genotype as sophisticated as ours he was using MNT aswell or he didn't exist.

PDN

Obelisk wrote: »

PDN wrote: »

I am a seeker after truth, so, if any discoveries or truths genuinely contradict my beliefs then I would love to hear them.

Here you go sir...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=73971266#post73971266

I thought we were talking about new discoveries or truths - not half-baked fruitcake theories.

I'm not sure whether you're genuinely nuts, or just trying to be a tit, but either way you're just wasting our time.

Obelisk

Snip!

smokingman

Wicknight wrote: »

So Neanderthals did not have spirits.

http://www.gotquestions.org/soul-spirit.html

...but seeing as we share a lot of DNA with Neanderthals (we cross bred a lot, bit like a country disco down the midlands ), is there then a percentage of our bodies that this "soul" doesn't reside in? Also, given that it's DNA we're talking about, is the "soul" just the homo sapian parts?

If it is, then the "soul" is missing a few letters.....

Soul Winner

Obelisk wrote: »

Ha! You call your self a truth seeker? Oh, the hypocrisy. :pac:

half-baked fruitcake theories.? YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH.

I would go further and say there quite over-baked. Please tell us what you believe and why you believe it.

Obelisk

Soul Winner wrote: »

I would go further and say there quite over-baked. Please tell us what you believe and why you believe it.

Ok, but you first.

Zombrex

smokingman wrote: »

...but seeing as we share a lot of DNA with Neanderthals (we cross bred a lot, bit like a country disco down the midlands ), is there then a percentage of our bodies that this "soul" doesn't reside in? Also, given that it's DNA we're talking about, is the "soul" just the homo sapian parts?

If it is, then the "soul" is missing a few letters.....

Neanderthals are souls, I think you are talking about spirits

Soul Winner

Obelisk wrote: »

Ok, but you first.

I asked first.

Obelisk

Then you have missed a few points. In a word? Truth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3DV7GYdVdg

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056360956

wolfsbane

CerebralCortex wrote: »

It is at least plausible with with very sophisticated molecular nanotechnology, other than that nope. If a being lived to 950 using an evolved genotype as sophisticated as ours he was using MNT aswell or he didn't exist.

Or he was not evolved, but created perfect and degenerated over generations.

**********************************************************************
Psalm 90:10 The days of our lives are seventy years;
And if by reason of strength they are eighty years,
Yet their boast is only labor and sorrow;
For it is soon cut off, and we fly away.

Obelisk

PDN wrote: »

I am a seeker after truth, so, if any discoveries or truths genuinely contradict my beliefs then I would love to hear them.

Snip!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtiMw0-akAM

PDN

Obelisk, this thread deals with information or truth - not unfounded speculation. If you have some compelling evidence then post it - otherwise stop trolling the thread with nonsense that more properly belongs in Conspiracy Theories.

Obelisk

PDN wrote: »

Obelisk, this thread deals with information or truth - not unfounded speculation. If you have some compelling evidence then post it - otherwise stop trolling the thread with nonsense that more properly belongs in Conspiracy Theories.

Really. Would that be 'information or truth' that you might happen to agree with, or just the regular stuff?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj9ciSQ01R8

Snip! More backseat modding deleted.

PDN

Obelisk. This thread is about truths or information that might make Christians reconsider their views.

Your offbeat views about mushrooms hardly fit into that category. No Christian is going to change their opinions because somebody on the internet has a theory, unsupported by any evidence, about mushrooms. You are derailing what could have been an interesting thread. If you want to post something that is on topic then please do so. But no more of the off-topic trolling.

Obelisk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU8lKlWOdxQ

Evidence that Jesus was really a psychedelic mushroom.

Roger Hassenforder

PDN wrote: »

Obelisk. This thread is about truths or information that might make Christians reconsider their views.

Your offbeat views about mushrooms hardly fit into that category. No Christian is going to change their opinions because somebody on the internet has a theory, unsupported by any evidence, about mushrooms. You are derailing what could have been an interesting thread. If you want to post something that is on topic then please do so. But no more of the off-topic trolling.

oh the delicious irony of that!

Obelisk

PDN wrote: »

Obelisk. This thread is about truths or information that might make Christians reconsider their views.

Your offbeat views about mushrooms hardly fit into that category. No Christian is going to change their opinions because somebody on the internet has a theory, unsupported by any evidence, about mushrooms. You are derailing what could have been an interesting thread. If you want to post something that is on topic then please do so. But no more of the off-topic trolling.

You may be able to silence me on here but the fact still remains;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAp9k8rzQDw

YOU CAN NEVER SILENCE THE EVIDENCE

PDN

Sorry Mr Stuffins, your thread has been derailed by trolls.