Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

1…186187189191192…232

Comments

  • #5642
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Delirium wrote: »
    Okay, so working for the premise of critically evaluating of an issue (evolution in this instance), how do you propose we do that seeing that you don't accept current scientific understanding and the evidence for evolution?

    If we don't use science to investigate the origins of life, what tools do you suggest mankind use?
    We should continue to use forensic science to investigate the origins of life.

    The current conventional scientific understanding of the origns of life i.e the theory of abiogenesis is that 'we simply don't know' how it happened ... which is a fair enough

    In the following video at 0:30 Prof Dawkins admits that conventional science doesn't know how life began and at 1:30 he admits that a designer of higher intelligence is a possible reason for life on Earth ... and he says that evidence for / a signature of this Designer could possibly be found in the details of biochemistry / molecular biology ... just like I have demonstrated.

    I think that this is a very fair and accurate summary of the current state of knowledge of conventional science on the origins and development of life on Earth



  • #5643
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    looksee wrote: »
    I am a bit out of my depth here with biomolecules, but it seems to me that creation would not have started with a requirement for specific biomolecules, rather that biomolecules came into existence (that is another argument) and combined to create a functional system. Maybe lots of systems started but few were functional, and the one we have developed because, well, evolution.

    Your maths is, I think, irrelevant. It might well have been a 1: 10^130 chance that it happened, but only the one was needed. Someone who has never ever bought a lottery ticket could buy one today and win.
    The odds of winning the lottery is very closely matched by the number of tickets sold before somebody wins ... so the chance of producing a functional system consiting of only two biomolecues is 10^130 which is a statistical impossibility ... and we are talking of thousands of specific biomolecules arranged in highly specific ways for even a simple cell to come about.

    The issue is the tiny combinatorial space occupied by specific functional systems versus the effectively infinity of non-functional combinatorial space for every specific functional system. The effect of this reality is that non-intelligently directed processes are incapable of mathematically overcoming the impossible odds stacked against them ... but intelligent overview and the ability to intellignently select and create can produce highly specific and functional combinations of biomolecules as required and to order, so to speak.


  • #5644
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,915 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    It occurs to me that I am far less concerned about the possibility of intelligent design, and more bothered about the need, having acceded to the possibility of ID, of having to decide which finely tuned version of it I have to choose and how it will be interpreted from which old book and and what collateral damage in the way of wars to prove a point I will have to accept and cheer on.


  • #5645
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,890 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    We should continue to use forensic science to investigate the origins of life.

    The current conventional scientific understanding of the origns of life i.e the theory of abiogenesis is that 'we simply don't know' how it happened ... which is a fair enough

    In the following video at 0:30 Prof Dawkins admits that conventional science doesn't know how life began and at 1:30 he admits that a designer of higher intelligence is a possible reason for life on Earth ... and he says that evidence for / a signature of this Designer could possibly be found in the details of biochemistry / molecular biology ... just like I have demonstrated.

    I think that this is a very fair and accurate summary of the current state of knowledge of conventional science on the origins and development of life on Earth


    Dawkins (and others of the same belief) admit this yes because their minds are open to ALL possibilities but you and others like you will never admit to any other possibilities other than "god" did it.


  • #5646
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Dawkins (and others of the same belief) admit this yes because their minds are open to ALL possibilities but you and others like you will never admit to any other possibilities other than "god" did it.
    It's a very fair and accurate summary of the current state of knowledge of conventional science on the origins and development of life on Earth ... which I also happen to agree with, as a conventional scientist.:)

    I also wouldn't say that he is open to ALL possibilities ... he seems pretty wedded to the idea that the possible Intelligent Designer of life on Earth was itself 'evolved by some kind of Darwinian means' ... so he seems to be open to all kinds of explanations ... except God.


  • Advertisement
  • #5647
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,890 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    It's a very fair and accurate summary of the current state of knowledge of conventional science on the origins and development of life on Earth ... which I also happen to agree with, as a conventional scientist.:)

    So you agree that there is a possibility that life as we know it was created from nothing (big bang)?


  • #5648
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    So you agree that there is a possibility that life as we know it was created from nothing (big bang)?
    Nothing comes from nothing.
    I agree with Prof Dawkins that life 'couldn't just jump into existence spontaneously' ... and it certainly couldn't be created from nothing.

    I also agree with Prof Dawkins summary of the current state of conventional scientific knowledge on the origins and development of life ....
    1. That conventional science doesn't know how life began and
    2. That a designer of higher intelligence is a possible reason for life on Earth and
    3. That evidence for / a signature of this Designer could possibly be found in the details of biochemistry / molecular biology.

    ... just like I have demonstrated.


  • #5649
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,890 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    Nothing comes from nothing.
    I agree with Prof Dawkins that life 'couldn't just jump into existence spontaneously' ... and it certainly couldn't be created from nothing.

    I also agree with Prof Dawkins summary of the current state of conventional scientific knowledge on the origins and development of life ....
    1. That conventional science doesn't know how life began and
    2. That a designer of higher intelligence is a possible reason for life on Earth and
    3. That evidence for / a signature of this Designer could possibly be found in the details of biochemistry / molecular biology.

    ... just like I have demonstrated.

    He says it is "A possibility"

    Unlike you and your ilk his mind is open to ALL possibilies.


  • #5650
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    J C wrote: »
    The odds of winning the lottery is very closely matched by the number of tickets sold before somebody wins ... so the chance of producing a functional system consiting of only two biomolecues is 10^130 which is a statistical impossibility ... and we are talking of thousands of specific biomolecules arranged in highly specific ways for even a simple cell to come about.
    1 chance in 10^130 is literally not an impossibility though; a statistical impossibility is just a term for a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning and varies greatly depending on the field. When the scope (combinatorial space, if you will) for those combinations to occur is effectively infinite, being all the time and space in the (not just known) universe, a 1 in 10^130 chance might just as well be an absolute certainty; remember, if there are enough possible events (1.5^6 that we're aware of so far) with very low probability then it becomes likely that at least some of them will occur. Or, if an event with low probability is given a large number of opportunities (and we're thinking practically infinite here), then its chance of happening at some time may be quite large. What would actually be really unusual is if nothing unusual ever happened... Given that there are over 1.5^6 biomolecules already identified, the chance of just one of those appearing is already down to 1.14^-129; considerably more likely than the convention of 10^-50 allows for. And of course the convention of statistical impossibility shouldn't be confused with functional impossibility in statistics; the former is a way of saying exceptionally unlikely, the latter a way of saying impossible.
    J C wrote: »
    The issue is the tiny combinatorial space occupied by specific functional systems versus the effectively infinity of non-functional combinatorial space for every specific functional system. The effect of this reality is that non-intelligently directed processes are incapable of mathematically overcoming the impossible odds stacked against them ... but intelligent overview and the ability to intellignently select and create can produce highly specific and functional combinations of biomolecules as required and to order, so to speak.
    No, not at all, really. We already know we have an effectively infinite combinatorial space to work with; literally all the time and space in an expanding aging universe. And only a tiny tiny fraction of combinations need to occur for functional systems to arise. Sure, intelligence can probably do it quicker and better; we're learning how to do it ourselves. But it doesn't mean we or anyone else are needed to make it happen; it just takes longer and is messier otherwise.


  • #5651
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    We should continue to use forensic science to investigate the origins of life.

    The current conventional scientific understanding of the origns of life i.e the theory of abiogenesis is that 'we simply don't know' how it happened ... which is a fair enough

    In the following video at 0:30 Prof Dawkins admits that conventional science doesn't know how life began and at 1:30 he admits that a designer of higher intelligence is a possible reason for life on Earth ... and he says that evidence for / a signature of this Designer could possibly be found in the details of biochemistry / molecular biology ... just like I have demonstrated.

    I think that this is a very fair and accurate summary of the current state of knowledge of conventional science on the origins and development of life on Earth


    In the video he says that the origin of organic life is unknown (abiogenesis is one theory) but it developed via evolution.

    I agree that is a fair assessment. Quite happy that you agree.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #5652
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    J C wrote: »
    as a conventional scientist.:)
    Telling lies makes baby Jesus cry JC. You need to let this lie go.

    MrP


  • #5653
    troyzer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,170 ✭✭✭troyzer


    This thread is a gem. I'm a geologist and I can't stop laughing at the ignorance.


  • #5654
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    He says it is "A possibility"

    Unlike you and your ilk his mind is open to ALL possibilies.
    Then please answer me this ... is his mind open to the possibility that God did it?


  • #5655
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,890 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    Then please answer me this ... is his mind open to the possibility that God did it?

    Well going by what he said in that video it sounds like it is. Is your mind open to the possibility that there is no "god (s)" and that the big bang theory/evolution is correct?


  • #5656
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Telling lies makes baby Jesus cry JC. You need to let this lie go.

    MrP
    I am a conventionally qualified working scientist ... and as I don't tell lies or make up unfounded claims about other people ... Jesus Christ is very happy with me as His friend.:)


  • #5657
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Well going by what he said in that video it sounds like it is. Is your mind open to the possibility that there is no "god (s)" and that the big bang theory/evolution is correct?
    He ruled out God(s) as a possibility for him ... by claiming that the higher intelligence (that possibly created life on Earth) 'would itself have had to have come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process'.

    In my own case I'm open to all explanations ... I once was an Evolutionist ... and only became a Creationist after many years trying to continue to convince myself that, in spite of the growing evidence against it, that Evolution had got to be true.
    Of course my mind is open to the possibility that there could be no God ... but the evidence is so strong, that I'm certain that He exists.


  • #5658
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,915 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Far be it from me to argue with a scientist, I don't have a single ology.


  • #5659
    indioblack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,954 ✭✭✭indioblack


    hinault wrote: »
    There are lots of things which people have never seen, but which they accept are real solely on the basis of the testimony of others.

    You accept that your great great great great grandfather existed and his name was "endioblack", despite there being no birth certificate for the man and despite there being no deeds or documents or photographs attesting to his existence.
    All you or your antecedents have is a verbal account that the man lived and that his name was endioblack.

    In that context there is far more corroborative evidence to the existence of Jesus than there is to the existence of endioblack.

    Does this lack of evidence mean that endioblack never existed? The cynic would claim so. Of course the reasonable person would be more open to accepting your testimony - and the testimony of your antecedents - to the fact that "endioblack" did exist and that he is your your great great great great grandfather, solely upon your bona fides.
    I'm a bit late in catching up with this thread - and thanks for your reply.
    To repeat - the poster I referred to asked, "If there is a God, why can't we see him?"
    For most of Christianities history, most believers didn't actually see God. I know this is stating the obvious, but I think there is a useful line of thought here. It's not directly concerned with the existence of God, but rather focuses on motivation. For a believer, God cannot act without purpose or meaning - so there would have to be a reason in not being able to visually, physically see God.
    To me, that seems to mean that belief is a requirement and absolute proof is not.
    If God could be seen, and indisputably be recognized as God, [not sure how that would happen], then wouldn't belief be redundant - and this thread also?[!]
    Additionally, since belief is individual and subjective, it could be argued that errant belief or no belief is expected to occur.


  • #5660
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,100 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    But why is there a need to have faith in God as opposed to knowing he exists? Where does the stipulation that actually knowing he exists somehow diminishes his importance?

    God has made himself known directly to Moses, Noah, Mary, Joseph etc,does that remove them from having a relationship with him?

    This line that God cannot make himself known to us as to do so would remove the need for faith, I see no basis for it but it seems to be a nice excuse for why God can't be seen.


  • #5661
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    But why is there a need to have faith in God as opposed to knowing he exists? Where does the stipulation that actually knowing he exists somehow diminishes his importance?

    God has made himself known directly to Moses, Noah, Mary, Joseph etc,does that remove them from having a relationship with him?

    This line that God cannot make himself known to us as to do so would remove the need for faith, I see no basis for it but it seems to be a nice excuse for why God can't be seen.

    Well yes. When you need people to believe something that there is absolutely no evidence for, it is great when you can convince them that no evidence is required, in fact that evidence is somehow a bad thing.

    Forget the greatest trick the devil allegedly pulled off, the greatest trick religious charlatans ever pulled off was convincing their sheep that asking questions and looking for evidence was a bad thing.

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • #5662
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    But why is there a need to have faith in God as opposed to knowing he exists? Where does the stipulation that actually knowing he exists somehow diminishes his importance?

    God has made himself known directly to Moses, Noah, Mary, Joseph etc,does that remove them from having a relationship with him?
    God only made Himself known indirectly to these people ... being directly exposed to God in His infinite power could kill physical beings like us.
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    This line that God cannot make himself known to us as to do so would remove the need for faith, I see no basis for it but it seems to be a nice excuse for why God can't be seen.
    The existence of God can be proven by a forensic examination of the evidence provided by His Handiwork ... just like forensic science can link people unknown and unseen to a crime ... God can be forensically linked to the Creation of the Universe and life ... so we don't actually need faith because we can know that He exists by objective means.

    Now in relation to you question about why God doesn't make Himself directly visible ... it seems that coming up close and personal with a Being of infinite power like God, could effectively remove our free will. In addition, God is in the spiritual realm and the physical and spiritual realms have been strictly separated since the banishment from Paradise, after the Fall.
    God can, and does act indirectly, through people who love Him and who voluntarily comply with His Divine Will.


  • #5663
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,100 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    J C wrote: »
    God only made Himself known indirectly to these people ... being directly exposed to God in His infinite power could kill physical beings like us.

    You made that up right?
    J C wrote: »
    The existence of God can be proven by a forensic examination of the evidence provided by His Handiwork ... just like forensic science can link people unknown and unseen to a crime ... God can be forensically linked to the Creation of the Universe and life ... so we don't actually need faith because we can know that He exists by objective means.

    But there is a massive difference between having to get proof of the age of the universe, or evolution, or age of rocks of whatever and evidence of a relationship. In one, we rely on the evidence and the extrapolation of that evidence due to not being able to interact directly. God could easily just say hello
    J C wrote: »
    Now in relation to you question about why God doesn't make Himself directly visible ... it seems that coming up close and personal with a Being of infinite power like God, could effectively remove our free will. In addition, God is in the spiritual realm and the physical and spiritual realms have been strictly separated since the banishment from Paradise, after the Fall.

    But God has directly contacted people in the past, hence the bible. It is the direct word of God, yet God did not contact people directly. What about Mary being visited by the angels, or the disciples being in the presence of Jesus himself.

    Whilst we are separated from the spiritual realm, God is not separated from the physical realm. Why would God banish himself? And the evidence that you rely on, the bible, contracdicts that position.
    J C wrote: »
    God can, and does act indirectly, through people who love Him and who voluntarily comply with His Divine Will.

    God interacts indirectly with those who love him. So all those that haven't been contacted is because they don't love him enough? So its my fault that my creator has never visited me? And all those that die early, or in earthquakes/floods etc just didn't pray enough.


  • #5664
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    You made that up right?
    No ... because we are mortal (and sinful) beings since the Fall and our banishment from Paradise, we cannot be in the direct presence of an infinitely powerful and good God ... this must await our entry into immortality and the spiritual realm, at our physical death.
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    But there is a massive difference between having to get proof of the age of the universe, or evolution, or age of rocks of whatever and evidence of a relationship. In one, we rely on the evidence and the extrapolation of that evidence due to not being able to interact directly.
    I'm not talking about proof of a relationship with God ... which isn't amenable to science ... I'm talking about proof for the existence of God that is inherent in the things that He has made ... like the physical Universe and all physical life therein ... which is amenable to science
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    God could easily just say hello.
    He can't do so directly in this realm, for the reasons that I have itemised in this and my previous post.
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    But God has directly contacted people in the past, hence the bible. It is the direct word of God, yet God did not contact people directly. What about Mary being visited by the angels, or the disciples being in the presence of Jesus himself.
    The Bible is the inspired Word of God ... not the direct Word of God.
    Mary was visited by angels, and the power of God merely overshadowed her ... Jesus was God made man ... i.e. God attenuated His power down to the level of being a man ... for the express purpose of a once-off Saving of mankind from their sin.
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Whilst we are separated from the spiritual realm, God is not separated from the physical realm. Why would God banish himself? And the evidence that you rely on, the bible, contracdicts that position.
    God is precluded from acting directly in the physical realm ... because any such action by an omnipotent being would be a gross interference with our free will ... and could kill mortal physical life.
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    God interacts indirectly with those who love him. So all those that haven't been contacted is because they don't love him enough? So its my fault that my creator has never visited me? And all those that die early, or in earthquakes/floods etc just didn't pray enough.
    No ... everyone will get the opportunity to be Saved ... either before or at the point of death.


  • #5665
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    looksee wrote: »
    Far be it from me to argue with a scientist, I don't have a single ology.
    Please feel free to argue ... scientists are Human ... with all of the frailties of that estate.


  • #5666
    drdidlittle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 401 ✭✭drdidlittle


    J C wrote:
    God is precluded from acting directly in the physical realm ... because any such action by an omnipotent being would be a gross interference with our free will ... and could kill mortal physical life.


    But He did. If not, what is the bible all about but His interaction both direct and indirect with the physical realm.


  • #5667
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    drdidlittle wrote: »
    But He did. If not, what is the bible all about but His interaction both direct and indirect with the physical realm.
    ... its a record of His direct interactions before the Fall and God's indirect interactions after the Fall.


  • #5668
    indioblack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,954 ✭✭✭indioblack


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    But why is there a need to have faith in God as opposed to knowing he exists? Where does the stipulation that actually knowing he exists somehow diminishes his importance?

    God has made himself known directly to Moses, Noah, Mary, Joseph etc,does that remove them from having a relationship with him?

    This line that God cannot make himself known to us as to do so would remove the need for faith, I see no basis for it but it seems to be a nice excuse for why God can't be seen.
    I didn't claim that knowing God exists would diminish his importance.
    You could still have your belief - but would you actually need it?
    I think you exist [!] - if we were to meet I could still tell you that I think you exist. It would be a bit off, though, and you might respond by telling me that there was no need to think about it, you're there in front of me.
    What interaction occurs between us after we establish your reality[!] is up to us.


  • #5669
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,890 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    ... its a record of His direct interactions before the Fall and God's indirect interactions after the Fall.

    You claim he can't show himself because mere mortals would perish in his presence so why bo do what he (allegedly) did before? Send down a few angels to talk to world Leaders and tell them to sort tongs out? Imagine that JC! One quick visit from them and all the starvation and wars in the world could be stopped immediately.


  • #5670
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Telling lies makes baby Jesus cry JC. You need to let this lie go.

    MrP

    MOD NOTE

    Please keep to the topic rather that start getting personal.

    Thanks for your attention.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #5671
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,100 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    J C wrote: »
    No ... because we are mortal (and sinful) beings since the Fall and our banishment from Paradise, we cannot be in the direct presence of an infinitely powerful and good God ... this must await our entry into immortality and the spiritual realm, at our physical death.

    So to summarise, you just made it up. What is all that based on? Nothing, your own opinion. Name one example of a person dying because of direct contact with God, or even a consequence of it?

    I asked did you make it up as you hadn't provided any evidence, and your come back was....because it is!
    J C wrote: »
    I'm not talking about proof of a relationship with God ... which isn't amenable to science ... I'm talking about proof for the existence of God that is inherent in the things that He has made ... like the physical Universe and all physical life therein ... which is amenable to science

    So why does he not prove that then? Why is science increasingly able to show us that God isn't required. I mean you are done to argueing about the possibilities of probabilities. Come on, God could easily provide proof but somehow chooses not to do so.
    J C wrote: »
    He can't do so directly in this realm, for the reasons that I have itemised in this and my previous post.

    You don't think he can. You believe in an all powerful God, that is limited n what he can do?
    J C wrote: »
    The Bible is the inspired Word of God ... not the direct Word of God.

    Inspired? So like a movie only based on actual events, poetic licence and all that. So nothing in it is really the truth, merely a mortal interpretation of the vision they were given, with all the inherent bias and misunderstandings that we know are included in all evidence.
    J C wrote: »
    Mary was visited by angels, and the power of God merely overshadowed her ... Jesus was God made man ... i.e. God attenuated His power down to the level of being a man ... for the express purpose of a once-off Saving of mankind from their sin.

    So Jesus was like a mini God. He wasn't God then? Like a limited version of him? So why pray to Jesus? Again, you seem to be putting in all these conditions based on nothing. God can do anything, but he needs to limit himself as otherwise we couldn't cope, but at the same time we are supposed to wish for death do that we can spend eternity in his presence.
    J C wrote: »
    God is precluded from acting directly in the physical realm ... because any such action by an omnipotent being would be a gross interference with our free will ... and could kill mortal physical life.

    Based on what? Where does it say so? Again, you seem very quick to put limits on this apparent all powerful being God. Guy can create the universe, create life, raise his son from the dead, but can't come down to meet with us because we will all die?

    Yet he did in terms Moses and Noah. He raised Jesus from the dead. She provided loaves and fishes to feed the crowd. He raised Lazarus. He tore down the curtain in the temple. He created a new star to guide the 3 wise kings. He sent an angel down to the shepherds.
    J C wrote: »
    No ... everyone will get the opportunity to be Saved ... either before or at the point of death.

    Great, maybe those killed in the floods just didn't swim fast enough after he made his presence known!


Advertisement