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…5758606263…232

Comments

  • #1772
    Andrewf20
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Andrewf20


    J C wrote: »
    ... it's not a threat ... it's a logical deduction ... just like than telling somebody who is hitting their head against a wall, that they will get a headache, if they don't stop!!!:)

    It is a threat...

    threat 
    noun
    1. a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace:
    J C wrote: »
    God is both perfectly just ... as well as perfectly loving.... instead of His perfect justice ...

    Eternity in hell for a misdemeanour like not believing (despite trying!) in Jesus as the son of God does not sound like perfect justice. Im sorry, I cannot get my head around this. And ive been trying for years now. It sound like - love me or else I put you in the fire. I cannot see the justice in this. Put me in the fire for a few days, hours, weeks maybe but eternity? Ive said it before on another forum but this punishment doesnt fit the crime.

    Do I have to force myself to believe in something I cannot come to terms with. I feel like Winston in 1984 were I have to believe 2 + 2 = 5.
    Can I reverse the situation - its like me saying to you J C, you must believe in evolution, because if you dont you will burn in hell forever. Do you see where im coming from on this?


  • #1773
    Masteroid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    J C wrote: »
    The Sun does increase entropy or disorder ... and all raw energy does the same ... think of fire - and a burning house, to see what I mean.
    Entropy is only observed to decrease with the employment of intelligently designed systems to harness raw energy to produce an increase in organised complex functional specific products ... think of a jet engine powering a plane or a living organism taking basic chemicals and turning them into complex products.

    But that's my point, it doesn''t.

    The sun is subject to entropy and has no control over entropy. It is the same with fire. True, a fire can destroy a house but the same energy, the same flame, could also prevent a tropical fish-tank from freezing at the north-pole. The fire is also subject to entropy and the fact that other things catch fire too is due to entropy.

    So, it's not the flame but the energy liberated as a result of entropy that we are considering and what that does.

    Going back to the river analogy, the fact that the river flows is what gives rise to entropy, it is the movement of the water that provides the cutting edge of change.

    However, the shape of the riverbanks and the bed, even the shape of the surface have an effect on the precise motion of the molecules of water at those boundaries and the 'interferences' are fed back into the river causing eddy currents. The environment has a passive role in entropy too. It is the interaction of the water with the environment that results in change, not the other way around. It is the interaction of the water molecules with each other that first determines how the landscape is to be etched.

    It was much simpler in the early universe. The river ran at a constant rate over o smooth surface. All the molecules travelling in the same direction at the same speed. Collisions were rare and when they did occur, they were quite benign as there was only degrees of freedon in a lateral direction.

    But over time, a wave developed that swept across the river from bank to bank and energy started to be transfered to the riverbanks themselves as some of the water molecules had gained enough momentum to dislodge a particle of the bank which got carried away in the flow and as it does so, interferes with the paths of other molecules. And then chaos.

    This piece of riverbank is the first particle that is not a photon to become part of the river. It is heavier that the other molecules and acts as an impedance, every collision represents a random opportunity to seed a system that could become a huge whirlpool of 'seperated energy' that can make a more imposing impact on the landscape.

    Then it got complicated. Lots of different shaped and sized particles got dragged into the torrent and these had subtly different effects on each other which resulted in a kind of filtering system, small particles could be trapped within larger systems and forced to give up their energy.

    Then it happened. Part of the riverbank became shaped like a parabolic reflector. This caused a high percentage of those molecules that collided with that area to be deflected toward the same point which acted like a nudging force on any other molecules in that region. This 'ordered' energy in turn provided energy which caused a whirlpool to form.

    And it persisted!

    Once the whirlpool had started, it resisted stopping. A structure had evolved which actively directed energy in its own interests.

    And that's life, isn't it? A system of whirlpools that direct energy in their own interest.

    Aren't we just sophisticated whirlpools who evolved the ability to influence how the riverbank is changed in our region of the river?

    Anyway, don't get hung up on entropy. Entropy is the thing that is used in all processes. The riverbank will be changed but it is the thing that causes change that we use to prevent change by creating structures that will affect the way that the river flows in our region. You don't control entropy, you tap into it.

    I'm not really saying that God didn't do it, I'm saying that given the nature of the vaccuum energy it would be more remarkable if life as we know it hadn't evolved.


  • #1774
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    J_C wrote:
    ... it's not a threat ... it's a logical deduction ... just like than telling somebody who is hitting their head against a wall, that they will get a headache, if they don't stop!!!

    Your analogy only holds if you assume that God, like the wall in this analogy, is utterly without the capacity to prevent the suffering of the headbanger. That He has no free will, or lacks the power to act. If a being lays down a condition "Do X or I will punish you" and has the capacity to choose to carry out the punishment (or not), then that conditional statement is a threat. If a being makes a threat without having the capacity to carry out the punishment (or prevent it), then that being is a liar.

    I'm glad that the word "threat" makes you uncomfortable, because I've encountered fundamentalists who seem only too happy to wield God's threat without needing the cognitive dissonance you use to make it palatable. Those are some angry folks.


  • #1775
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Masteroid wrote: »
    My answers in blue
    I think it is fair to say that it is the rate of change of entropy of the sun that powers life. Correct

    It is as if the sun is a battery and all life systems on earth are plugged into it. Correct
    While there is power in the battery, these systems are buffered from entropy which is increasing as the battery goes flat. Correct
    If the rate of change of entropy was different in the sun then the battery would be more or less powerful and life would have to evolve differently to how it has.Not Correct ... spontaneous evolution is a contradiction of the observed universe ... where entropy is constantly increasing ... and it can only be locally decreased by intelligently designed systems using an energy source that works by increasing entropy

    When the battery goes flat the buffer disappears and the systems that were reliant on that energy find themselves abandoned to the effects of entropy.Correct

    I imagine a large river with an infinite source eroding its way across the landscape. This erosion is is like entropy. It constantly reshapes the path of the river, always changing it, widening, deepening and never the other way around.
    Correct
    Kind of like how time flows in only one direction. Even if you could make the river flow backwards, erosion will still occur, and the river would continue to deepen and widen.Correct

    But there are certain places along the riverbank that because of turbulence in another part of the river are protected from the cutting flow of the water. The water is seemingly still here. It's not of course, water is flowing in and out of the area but in a structured way that directs the energy of the flow harmlessly away from erodable surfaces. But the slightest change in the flow of the river could change all that.Unlike with man-made machines and living proceses, there is no observable decrease in entropy in such a situation ... just very little increase in entropy.

    In fact, I think that the existence of life on earth is no more remarkable than the calm pools that occur along the rapids.Life is remarkable because it exhibits the same ability as intelligently designed Human machines and processes to decrease entropy locally ...
    ... this is in contrast with a calm pool where there is no observable decrease in entropy ... just very little increase in entropy.

    And I simply cannot see how the existence of life contravenes the 2nd LoT. When the sun dies, we die. It is true that we would cease to exist without the Sun's ennergy. However it's what happens while the Sun is with us that is so unique and fascinating. The local reversal of entropy by living processes intelligently harnessing the Sun's raw entropy raising energy to decrease entropy locally
    .


  • #1776
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Andrewf20 wrote: »
    It is a threat...

    threat 
    noun
    1. a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace:
    ... it's not a threat ... it's a logical deduction ... just like than telling somebody who is hitting their head against a wall, that they will get a headache, if they don't stop!!!:)

    ... you're not threatening them with a headache ... you're just merely pointing out that a headache will be the logical consequence of their actions.

    ... ditto with Hell ... you must freely choose to not believe on Jesus Christ ... and if you do so ... the consequences are that you will receive God's Justice ... rather than His mercy.
    ... but please don't blame anybody else when you do!!!

    Andrewf20 wrote: »
    Eternity in hell for a misdemeanour like not believing (despite trying!) in Jesus as the son of God does not sound like perfect justice. Im sorry, I cannot get my head around this. And ive been trying for years now. It sound like - love me or else I put you in the fire. I cannot see the justice in this. Put me in the fire for a few days, hours, weeks maybe but eternity? Ive said it before on another forum but this punishment doesnt fit the crime.
    That's what you think ... but God's perfect justice demands perfect retribution ... which is, unfortunately, eternal and infinite.

    Andrewf20 wrote: »
    Do I have to force myself to believe in something I cannot come to terms with. I feel like Winston in 1984 were I have to believe 2 + 2 = 5.
    Can I reverse the situation - its like me saying to you J C, you must believe in evolution, because if you dont you will burn in hell forever. Do you see where im coming from on this?
    Not really ... I'm much more likely to not be Saved if I believe in Evolution ... and I end up believing that I'm my own God ... only to discover that He exists ... and (even more worrisome) that I also still exist ... when I die.:eek:


  • Advertisement
  • #1777
    Gumbi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,682 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    You honestly think I have a choice JC? Really?


  • #1778
    Andrewf20
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Andrewf20


    J C wrote: »
    ... it's not a threat ... it's a logical deduction ... just like than telling somebody who is hitting their head against a wall, that they will get a headache, if they don't stop!!!:)

    ... you're not threatening them with a headache ... you're just merely pointing out that a headache will be the logical consequence of their actions.

    We can have a play on words but in the end my logical deduction (which includes referring to the dictionary definition) says its a threat.
    J C wrote: »
    ... ditto with Hell ... you must freely choose to not believe on Jesus Christ ... and if you do so ... the consequences are that you will receive God's Justice ... rather than His mercy.
    ... but please don't blame anybody else when you do!!!

    Does Jesus freely choose to not reveal himself to me despite trying to be receptive to him?
    J C wrote: »
    That's what you think ... but God's perfect justice demands perfect retribution ... which is, unfortunately, eternal and infinite.

    Madness. This is not morality. Sure I might as well rob and kill a few homeless people as well as I already have to face the worse punishment imaginable. Retribution refers to punishment being proportional to the crime. This is how law works in society. Do you suggest that im as evil as Joseph Fritzl?
    J C wrote: »
    Not really ... I'm much more likely to not be Saved if I believe in Evolution ... and I end up believing that I'm my own God ... only to discover that He exists ... and (even more worrisome) that I also still exist ... when I die.:eek:

    The bible seems to say non believers in Jesus are not saved. Does it say non believers in evolution suffer a similar faith?


  • #1779
    Elysian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 206 ✭✭Elysian


    J C wrote: »
    ... it's not a threat ... it's a logical deduction ... just like than telling somebody who is hitting their head against a wall, that they will get a headache, if they don't stop!!!smile.png

    It is nothing like that at all, one can choose to stop hitting their head against a wall if they wish.

    A better analogy would be a gunman who puts a gun to your head while his accomplice “warns” you that if you don't do what he says he will shoot you. According to your logic this is not a threat and if you do get shot well then it is just a natural consequence of your inaction to do everything the gunman said.


  • #1780
    Masteroid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    J C wrote: »
    (The 'blued' part that didn't say correct.).

    But again, I say entropy is unaffected by the state of the sun. I would say that the state of the sun determines how it is affected by entropy.

    And it is the same for all systems connected to it. They do not affect entropy, they dampen the effects that entropy has on them.

    Consider a whirlpool in the river again. In order for a whirlpool to persist in the same region, fifty percent of the water comprising it necessarily must be travelling 'uphill' - the far side of the whirlpool will move from left to right whilst the near side would move in the opposite direction.

    Let's equate some terms. The river is energy, the river-bank and -bed are the universe, i.e., force and the space that contains it, and entropy is the tendency to spread out which to erosion in river terms and wave propogation in energy terms. And every single molecule of water is a member of the 'entropic army'. (You could say that it is the fact that energy is corrosive to the universe that gives rise to entropy in the first place.)

    So the whirlpool. We can imagine the whirlpool as occupying a specific volume of space. This is fair since it can be shown that at some scale there is a well defined, if chaotic, boundary that isolates the whirlpool from the river. But what is it that is isolated because it's not water, is it?

    The reason a whirlpool whirls is because it borrows energy from the flowing river. And there is a special balance - one down travelling molecule comes in and one molecule is ejected in the opposite direction. (Sounds a bit like conservation, doesn't it?) Any other combination, five in, two out, one in, ten out, just could not persist. But you can see how eventually, over time, every molecule that enters the system must leave it. The boundaries of the whirlpool are constantly being rebuilt.

    But why?

    Well, not a single member of the entropic army is a traitor, none joined the whirlpool willingly and they are on a mission. Every member is subject to a single, simple directive and that is 'constantly eat space'.

    And they don't like it when other members get in the way as they have to stop eating in order to change direction. So they jostle each other, increasing their distance from each other, compromising the boundary and subsequently escaping, taking a little energy from the system which tend to destabilise it.

    So now we can see that the energy requirement of the whirlpool has to be increased in order to maintain the boundary. In other words, if energy were being 'trapped' in the whirlpool then you would require a certain amount of energy to maintain a whirlpool whereas in fact, there is an extra amount needed in order to compensate for the fact that as soon as an entropic soldier is taken into custody it is starting to tunnel its way out.

    And as if the whirlpool hadn't enough problem, it has to contend with the 'sand-blasting' effect when these -space-hungry monsters' impact all over the current-facing boundary which guarantees eneven wear around its perimeter. And all the time, the shape of the riverbank is changing too.

    The whirlpool doesn't have a chance, it can only persist for so long and regardless of intellect of forward planning, the water will come rushing in and the whirlpool will dissolve into decaying eddies until they are indistinguishable from the river that will always flow.

    You see? Entropy is not affected at all, it simply takes a detour.

    But as I said, you shouldn't get hung up about entropy. Entropy is just that thing that causes constant change and that is because energy is hungry for space, it uses it as fast as it can eat it and if it can't eat, its wavelength gets longer.

    Entropy is simply the fundamental force of hunger and the thing is, there will always be space and there will always be energy. There will always be something to eat and something to eat it.

    You only need space and energy and everything will happen as it all changes to nothing.

    It may be that God sat down and manufactured particles that would become protons and electron that would go on to form hydrogen, He may have realised that stars would form and carbon would be produced but He must also have realised the He needs 'iron' to make haemoglobin and that large hydrogen depleted stars would provide that over a couple of generations. He might also have anticipated that human cultures would develop here on earth and it may well be the case that His greatest ambition was that mankind would form a club in His honour and collect gold for Him, which He made. It might even be that human beings are simply an equivalent to mercury in the cosmic 'gold-extraction industry.

    I'm not denying that somehow you may be correct in what you say, I am simply saying that the single requirement for the void to 'evolve' or 'birth' a universe like the one in which we live is for it to contain energy. Any energy at all.

    If you were to say that God, or a part of God, is all the energy contained in the universe then that would be fine. What I don't think is fine to say is that the river is concerned about the eternal future of every brief eddy that momentarily avoided the hunger of entropy.

    I don't think God gives a damn that iron is produced in stars, it seems to me to be the gold He really wants.

    And He's welcome to it.


  • #1781
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Gumbi wrote: »
    You honestly think I have a choice JC? Really?
    Yes ... you are a morally responsible being ... with free will.


  • Advertisement
  • #1782
    Gumbi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,682 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    J C wrote: »
    Yes ... you are a morally responsible being ... with free will.
    Belief isn't a choice. If you want me to be really specific about it: for me belief is not a choice, as in order to be intellectually honest with myself I must believe that which reason has lead to.


  • #1783
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Andrewf20 wrote: »
    We can have a play on words but in the end my logical deduction (which includes referring to the dictionary definition) says its a threat.
    It's an informed choice.
    You've been informed ... and you can choose Heaven or Hell ... in this life ... and the next.

    Andrewf20 wrote: »
    Does Jesus freely choose to not reveal himself to me despite trying to be receptive to him?
    Are you really trying???

    Andrewf20 wrote: »
    Madness. This is not morality. Sure I might as well rob and kill a few homeless people as well as I already have to face the worse punishment imaginable. Retribution refers to punishment being proportional to the crime. This is how law works in society. Do you suggest that im as evil as Joseph Fritzl?
    ... you obviously haven't done anything as evil as what Joe has done ... but ... if Joe Fritzl decides to repent and be Saved ... he will be ... and if you don't ... you won't be!!!:eek:
    Always remember that Jesus came to Save repentant sinners!!!
    Andrewf20 wrote: »
    The bible seems to say non believers in Jesus are not saved. Does it say non believers in evolution suffer a similar faith?
    Evolutionists and Atheists can be Saved ... and many have been ... including myself!!!:)


  • #1784
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Elysian wrote: »
    It is nothing like that at all, one can choose to stop hitting their head against a wall if they wish.

    A better analogy would be a gunman who puts a gun to your head while his accomplice “warns” you that if you don't do what he says he will shoot you. According to your logic this is not a threat and if you do get shot well then it is just a natural consequence of your inaction to do everything the gunman said.
    God doesn't force anybody to be Saved ... we are free to accept or reject Salvation.


  • #1785
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Gumbi wrote: »
    Belief isn't a choice. If you want me to be really specific about it: for me belief is not a choice, as in order to be intellectually honest with myself I must believe that which reason has lead to.
    ... and all logic leads to the conclusion that a God of inordinate abilities created the universe and all life therein.
    ... you may love Him or hate Him ... but you can't logically deny that He exists.:)


  • #1786
    Andrewf20
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Andrewf20


    J C wrote: »
    Are you really trying???

    Yes. And still nothing.
    J C wrote: »
    ... you obviously haven't done anything as evil as what Joe has done ... but ... if Joe Fritzl decides to repent and be Saved ... he will be ... and if you don't ... you won't be!!!:eek:
    Always remember that Jesus came to Save repentant sinners!!!

    But if Fritzl doesnt repent then we are both equally doomed which is not a reflection of perfect justice.


  • #1787
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Andrewf20 wrote: »
    But if Fritzl doesnt repent then we are both equally doomed which is not a reflection of perfect justice.

    This isn't actually what Christians believe. The Bible indicates that there are different degrees of punishment.


  • #1788
    Andrewf20
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Andrewf20


    PDN wrote: »
    This isn't actually what Christians believe. The Bible indicates that there are different degrees of punishment.

    This sounds like a far more reasonable position. Graded punishment for graded crimes.

    Throughout my years I have come across religious folks who paint a very black and white picture about needing to believe to be saved and expressing a view that you are doomed as much as any evil character.


  • #1789
    Gumbi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,682 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    J C wrote: »
    ... and all logic leads to the conclusion that a God of inordinate abilities created the universe and all life therein.
    ... you may love Him or hate Him ... but you can't logically deny that He exists.:)
    The mental faculties he has supposedly granted me have lead to a very different view. So I guess it's his fault I don't believe.


  • #1790
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    PDN wrote: »
    This isn't actually what Christians believe. The Bible indicates that there are different degrees of punishment.
    Hell ... is ... how do you say it ... Hell !!!

    ... there are indications of different degrees of reward ... for the Saved ... but I've never seen anything to indicate that somebody, under the tender mercies of Satan in Hell, could expect to get favourable treatment for behaving better than other people while on Earth.:eek:
    ... that would be a reward from Satan for being good ... and I think that this might be against his 'principles' ... so to speak!!!


  • #1791
    Lelantos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,612 ✭✭✭Lelantos


    Gumbi wrote: »
    The mental faculties he has supposedly granted me have lead to a very different view. So I guess it's his fault I don't believe.
    It's just as well god isn't all powerful


  • Advertisement
  • #1792
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    J C wrote: »
    Hell ... is ... how do you say it ... Hell !!!

    ... there are indications of different degrees of reward ... for the Saved ... but I've never seen anything to indicate that somebody, under the tender mercies of Satan in Hell, could expect to get favourable treatment for behaving better than other people while on Earth.:eek:
    ... I think that it would be against his 'principles' ... to do so!!!

    Maybe you should read what Jesus said about judgment being more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah than for Capernaum?


  • #1793
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Andrewf20 wrote: »
    This sounds like a far more reasonable position. Graded punishment for graded crimes.
    The problem is that all sin is a gross affront to our Holy and perfect God ... and therefore 'graded punishment' went out with 'purgatory' ... and isn't indicated in the Bible.
    Andrewf20 wrote: »
    Throughout my years I have come across religious folks who paint a very black and white picture about needing to believe to be saved and expressing a view that you are doomed as much as any evil character.
    Yes ... it's pretty stark ... but apparently true.


  • #1794
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    PDN wrote: »
    Maybe you should read what Jesus said about judgment being more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah than for Capernaum?
    Capernaum were unSaved 'goody-goodies' ... while Sodom and Gomorrah were sinful and proud of it ... so the same judgement of eternal damnation ... would be perceived as being more tolerable/reasonable for Sodom and Gomorrah than for Capernaum.


  • #1795
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Gumbi wrote: »
    The mental faculties he has supposedly granted me have lead to a very different view. So I guess it's his fault I don't believe.
    You'll have an eternity ... to mull that one over ... I'd do it in Heaven ... rather than Hell ... if I were you.
    ... but the choice is up to you.:)


  • #1796
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    J C wrote: »
    Capernaum were unSaved 'goody-goodies' ... while Sodom and Gomorrah were sinful and proud of it ... so the same judgement of eternal damnation ... would be perceived as being more tolerable/reasonable for Sodom and Gomorrah than for Capernaum.

    And there I was thinking you took Scripture literally.


  • #1797
    Gumbi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,682 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    J C wrote: »
    You'll have an eternity ... to mull that one over ... I'd do it in Heaven ... rather than Hell ... if I were you.
    ... but the choice is up to you.:)
    So basically, I put the brain God gave me to use, concluded (apparently) incorrectly that God does not exist and for that i must suffer for all eternity?

    That is neither just nor moral. It is a disgusting and warped morality.


  • #1798
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    PDN wrote: »
    And there I was thinking you took Scripture literally.
    I keep saying that I'm not a Bible literalist ... I take a plain reading of the Bible.


  • #1799
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Gumbi wrote: »
    So basically, I put the brain God gave me to use, concluded (apparently) incorrectly that God does not exist and for that i must suffer for all eternity?

    That is neither just nor moral. It is a disgusting and warped morality.
    He exists ... and everybody, deep-down knows He does.
    Some people choose to repent of their sins and to rely on Him to Save them ...
    ... and others choose not to be Saved.
    ... so they really have nobody to blame ... but themselves, if they don't get Saved.


  • #1800
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,165 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    J C wrote: »
    He exists ... and everybody, deep-down knows He does.

    Your statement might have a bit more weight if there were texts written by Incan/Aztec/Mayan/Olmec civilisations - before the arrival of Europeans in their lands - which claimed that Jesus visited Mexico and South America. :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #1801
    Lelantos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,612 ✭✭✭Lelantos


    PopePalpatine wrote: »

    Your statement might have a bit more weight if there were texts written by Incan/Aztec/Mayan/Olmec civilisations - before the arrival of Europeans in their lands - which claimed that Jesus visited Mexico and South America. :rolleyes:
    Of course he visited Mexico, hasn't he left many .great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandchildren with his name behind.


Advertisement