God's Mighty Plan Of Salvation

[Gus]

Are you even open to the possibility that you might be wrong?

 

I am

 

Are you?

[Roz]

This is what Gus points out as "evidence."

 

Matthew Maury's seagoing days came to an abrupt end at the age of 33 after a stagecoach accident broke his right leg. Thereafter, he devoted his time to the study of naval meteorology, navigation, charting the winds and currents, seeking the "Paths of the Seas" mentioned in Psalms 8:8 "The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas."

 

His hard work on and love of plotting the oceans paid off when he became the first superintendent of the United States Naval Observatory in 1842, holding that position until his resignation in April 1861. The observatory's primary mission was to care for the U.S. Navy's marine chronometers, charts, and other navigational equipment. Maury was in fact one of the principal advocates for the founding of a national observatory, and appealed to science enthusiast and former U.S. President, Congressman John Quincy Adams for the creation of what would eventually become the Naval Observatory. Maury did on occasion host Congressman Adams, who enjoyed astronomy as an avocation, at the Naval Observatory. 

 

Wow... so because Maury was drawn in by the imagery of the Psalms, it's obvious that christianity made him into an oceanographer and explorer.  This is Ironhorse like evidence.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

BAA I appreciate your respect for science, but in some ways you are turning it into your new religion.

 

You say science and religion (or in this case Christianity) are incompatible.

 

But many Scientists who are Christians would disagree with you.

 

I know people are frustrated with me on this thread now because I would not give evidence to prove God etc. But I can't just do that. The reader needs to look themselves at the evidence and make their mind up. I think most have probably done that.

 

But I wonder if they have really read some of the works of prominent scientists such as Alistair McGrath and Francis Collins.

 

I mean, take at a look at this list of scientists who are Christians (you may know a few) including many ‘fathers’ of modern science.

 

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

 

Are they all delusional? Mis-guided? Irrational?

 

Science and God do not have to be seen as two incompatible things.

 

You and I are using the words, "...compatible with..." in different ways, Gus.

 

If you can show me that religion is necessary or required for science to function properly, then I'll re-consider the compatibility of the two.

 

My position is that religion is neither required nor necessary for science to function properly.

These scientist you've listed could still perform their scientific work if they were atheists.  Therefore, any religious beliefs they have are optional extras and are not required or necessary for them to be scientists.  Thus, their religion is NOT relevant to their scientific work.

.

.

.

But, if you can demonstrate how their belief in Jesus is a requirement for them to perform a Fourier Transform please do so. Or if you can show me how their belief in the God of the Bible is necessary for them to calculate eigenvectors  and eigenvalues, I'd be fascinated to read about it.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

 

I agree with you, it is not necessary.

 

But you’re missing the point.

 

It goes back your Mayan example. The very reason they could use the sun and stars to tell dates etc. is because it was designed that way, regardless if they knew God or not.

 

So the very fact you can do science, study it, acknowledge it has laws, systems etc. is because it was designed to be studied and points to a creative mind, something many scientists freely acknowledge.

You don’t have to talk about God when doing calculations in the same way you don’t have to talk about Steve jobs when building a laptop.

 

Scientists such as Matthew Maury acknowledge there where truths in the bible that could be studied scientifically. And it was it was credited to him that reading psalms and the paths of the sea made him consider looking for them, and found them.

 

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

 

 

I'm sorry, but sdelsolray is right.

 

This is an assertion on your part.

You are asserting (without providing the necessary evidence) that the universe was designed in a certain way.  If you make such an assertion, the burden of proof is upon you to provide objective evidence to support your assertion.  That many scientist think this - is not objective evidence.  Theirs is simply a consensus of opinion.  Long ago, the consensus of opinion among everyone was that the world was flat.  Consensus does not equal objective evidence.

 

Please provide such objective evidence to support your assertion that the universe was designed in a certain way.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[TrueFreedom]

 

Are you even open to the possibility that you might be wrong?

 

I am

 

Are you?

 

 

Yes. All of us Ex-Cs had to be open that possibility in order to leave Christianity.  I still follow the evidence wherever it leads.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Are you even open to the possibility that you might be wrong?

 

I am

 

Are you?

 

Now is not the time to start being silly, Gus. 

 

Of course we are all open to the possibility of our being wrong; that's precisely why we are ex-christians.  We discovered that we had been wrong and needed to be correctable.  We came to where we are by being honest, open-minded, and willing to search for truth. 

 

This is not the kind of path you want to go down.

[Gus]

 

 

 

 

Sorry, where and how have I done that? I never said that. Now your making it up.

 

Please don't accuse me of fabricating things.  I don't do that.

 

If your taking that from the whole 'magic' comment, then you don't seem to have an idea what sarcasm is. That's okay, I know Vulcans have difficulty with earth humour.

 

Please don't be sarcastic.  There's no need for it.

 

I think anyone who reads what I have posted will see I am saying that Dawkins has some pretty extreme beliefs. And they are beliefs (faith), that very thing we Christians get blasted for so much.

 

 

You did it here, on July 20.

 

Richard Dawkins confesses that he does not know what caused the origin of the universe; but he believes (his faith shining out once more) that there will be a naturalistic explanation for it. In his God delusion debate, he said he does not need to rely on magic to explain the universe.

However in the press conference after, in responding to a question from journalist and author Melanie Phillips he said the universe could just have appeared from nothing.

"Magic', she said.

She reported that after the debate that Dawkins told her that an explanation for this universe in terms of little green men made more since than postulating a creator. Anything but God it seems.

 

The two portions highlighted in red are where you reported what Dawkins said and where Phillips reported her reaction to his reply.  In the first instance, these are his words.  In the second instance, these are not his words.  The inference you drew from this was that he'd contradicted himself.  You've compared his first statement (his rejection of magic to explain the universe) to his second statement (that the universe could have appeared from nothing) by citing Phillips' usage of the word, 'Magic' and falsely concluded that the second contradicted the first.  This is not so, as I've already explained.

.

.

.

I think anyone who reads what I have posted will see I am saying that Dawkins has some pretty extreme beliefs. And they are beliefs (faith), that very thing we Christians get blasted for so much.

 

No, you are wrong again Gus.

Dawkins has not and did not express any measure of faith or belief in anything magical or supernatural.  He was expressing his confidence in the scientific method to explain the natural, physical universe.  I've just explained this to you a few minutes ago.  Please go back and re-read my message.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

 

BAA you are either just reading what you want to read or beginning purposefully antagonistic, perhaps because you are running out of argument to defend darkens here.

 

I did not say he contradicted himself. You are wrong.

 

Philips response was pure sarcasm. What part of that that do you not get?

 

And it does not matter if he does not belief in something magical or supernatural. If his belief in the scientific method is to believe in god like aliens seeding the earth, then seriously, you may want to reconsider if science has now simply become a new religion and belief system in yours and his eyes

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, where and how have I done that? I never said that. Now your making it up.

 

Please don't accuse me of fabricating things.  I don't do that.

 

If your taking that from the whole 'magic' comment, then you don't seem to have an idea what sarcasm is. That's okay, I know Vulcans have difficulty with earth humour.

 

Please don't be sarcastic.  There's no need for it.

 

I think anyone who reads what I have posted will see I am saying that Dawkins has some pretty extreme beliefs. And they are beliefs (faith), that very thing we Christians get blasted for so much.

 

 

You did it here, on July 20.

 

Richard Dawkins confesses that he does not know what caused the origin of the universe; but he believes (his faith shining out once more) that there will be a naturalistic explanation for it. In his God delusion debate, he said he does not need to rely on magic to explain the universe.

However in the press conference after, in responding to a question from journalist and author Melanie Phillips he said the universe could just have appeared from nothing.

"Magic', she said.

She reported that after the debate that Dawkins told her that an explanation for this universe in terms of little green men made more since than postulating a creator. Anything but God it seems.

 

The two portions highlighted in red are where you reported what Dawkins said and where Phillips reported her reaction to his reply.  In the first instance, these are his words.  In the second instance, these are not his words.  The inference you drew from this was that he'd contradicted himself.  You've compared his first statement (his rejection of magic to explain the universe) to his second statement (that the universe could have appeared from nothing) by citing Phillips' usage of the word, 'Magic' and falsely concluded that the second contradicted the first.  This is not so, as I've already explained.

.

.

.

I think anyone who reads what I have posted will see I am saying that Dawkins has some pretty extreme beliefs. And they are beliefs (faith), that very thing we Christians get blasted for so much.

 

No, you are wrong again Gus.

Dawkins has not and did not express any measure of faith or belief in anything magical or supernatural.  He was expressing his confidence in the scientific method to explain the natural, physical universe.  I've just explained this to you a few minutes ago.  Please go back and re-read my message.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

 

BAA you are either just reading what you want to read or beginning purposefully antagonistic, perhaps because you are running out of argument to defend darkens here.

 

I did not say he contradicted himself. You are wrong.

 

Philips response was pure sarcasm. What part of that that do you not get?

 

And it does not matter if he does not belief in something magical or supernatural. If his belief in the scientific method is to believe in god like aliens seeding the earth, then seriously, you may want to reconsider if science has now simply become a new religion and belief system in yours and his eyes

 

 

You clearly do not understand how science works and how it is totally different from religion.

 

I'll leave it to whoever reads this thread to draw their own conclusions about what you and Phillips have written about Dawkins.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[mymistake]

Come on now, are really comparing Superman to Jesus? 

 

They are the same level of character.  The primary difference between them is one was invented about a hundred years ago and the other about 1900 years before that.

 

 

 

What about the writings of Ed Sanders and Christopher Tuckeet, amongst many others. Or we can look at the writings of historians such as roman historian A.N Sherwin White who says in his book ‘Roman society and Roman law in the New Testament’

“For Acts (book of) the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming...any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd”

 

 

Acts is an anonymous work.  It disagrees with claims made in the Gospel of John.  No contemporary historian mentions Jesus.  Only historians centuries later mention the followers of Jesus.  Most of the New Testament books were written anonymously and after the fact.  The only exception are some of the books attributed to Paul and Paul could have made the whole thing up or suffered from hallucinations.

 

 

Luke was proved to be a first rate historian and therefore there is no need to doubt his records.

 

Luke makes glaring errors.  Do you think the anonymous Gospel of Luke mentioning Adam establishes that the Garden of Eden was real or the world is 6,000 years old?  Does mentioning Noah prove there was a global flood?  Luke is not a history.  Mentioning people were "full of the Holy Spirit" doesn't establish that there is a Holy Spirit.

 

 

By the way, you can read on the history of Superman in a comic book shop.

 

Exactly.  The New Testament is a comic book only without the pictures.  But early Christians were happy to create the pictures and we can see their icons to this day.  There are many frescos, murals and stained glass windows.

 

 

 

So anyway, why would you not research this yourself…?

 

I have extensively researched it on both sides.  I've already explained that.

[Roz]

Watching a christian defend his belief and losing is really something.  I see myself in Gus' shoes right now.  He cannot defend against slavery/rape/genocide, he cannot defend his positive claim that "stars were made for us to tell time," and he hasn't responded a word in FTNZ's new thread asking him to present clear evidence of the historicity of the bible.  

[Gus]

This is what Gus points out as "evidence."

 

Matthew Maury's seagoing days came to an abrupt end at the age of 33 after a stagecoach accident broke his right leg. Thereafter, he devoted his time to the study of naval meteorology, navigation, charting the winds and currents, seeking the "Paths of the Seas" mentioned in Psalms 8:8 "The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas."

 

His hard work on and love of plotting the oceans paid off when he became the first superintendent of the United States Naval Observatory in 1842, holding that position until his resignation in April 1861. The observatory's primary mission was to care for the U.S. Navy's marine chronometers, charts, and other navigational equipment. Maury was in fact one of the principal advocates for the founding of a national observatory, and appealed to science enthusiast and former U.S. President, Congressman John Quincy Adams for the creation of what would eventually become the Naval Observatory. Maury did on occasion host Congressman Adams, who enjoyed astronomy as an avocation, at the Naval Observatory. 

 

Wow... so because Maury was drawn in by the imagery of the Psalms, it's obvious that christianity made him into an oceanographer and explorer.  This is Ironhorse like evidence.

 

Well you missed out the part where it says the verse from psalms that inspired him for starts.

 

I didn’t present it as evidence. I said it made him consider them.

 

I’m using it as an example of how some scientists don’t or did not separate their faith in God and their work.

[bornagainathiest]

Gus,

 

Please provide some objective evidence to support your assertion that the universe was designed in a certain way.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

 

This is what Gus points out as "evidence."

 

Matthew Maury's seagoing days came to an abrupt end at the age of 33 after a stagecoach accident broke his right leg. Thereafter, he devoted his time to the study of naval meteorology, navigation, charting the winds and currents, seeking the "Paths of the Seas" mentioned in Psalms 8:8 "The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas."

 

His hard work on and love of plotting the oceans paid off when he became the first superintendent of the United States Naval Observatory in 1842, holding that position until his resignation in April 1861. The observatory's primary mission was to care for the U.S. Navy's marine chronometers, charts, and other navigational equipment. Maury was in fact one of the principal advocates for the founding of a national observatory, and appealed to science enthusiast and former U.S. President, Congressman John Quincy Adams for the creation of what would eventually become the Naval Observatory. Maury did on occasion host Congressman Adams, who enjoyed astronomy as an avocation, at the Naval Observatory. 

 

Wow... so because Maury was drawn in by the imagery of the Psalms, it's obvious that christianity made him into an oceanographer and explorer.  This is Ironhorse like evidence.

 

Well you missed out the part where it says the verse from psalms that inspired him for starts.

 

I didn’t present it as evidence. I said it made him consider them.

 

I’m using it as an example of how some scientists don’t or did not separate their faith in God and their work.

 

 

Do these scientists require their faith to be ( work as) scientists?  Y / N ?

[mymistake]

 

Are you even open to the possibility that you might be wrong?

 

I am

 

Are you?

 

 

I certainly am.  If Jesus visited me and I could record it on film that would completely change my mind.  According to the New Testament Jesus can do that sort of thing and did for the sake of the disciple Thomas.

 

 

But until that happens this fantastic story with all the things that never happen and all the creatures that are never seen is a bit much to ask.  Angels, demons, devils, gods, taking snakes, dragons, talking donkeys, leviathans, sea monsters, beomoths, limbs growing back, people rising from the dead, a teenage virgin giving birth to God so that he can be a human sacrifice to himself so that he can find it in his heart to forgive us of the sin that happened when God stacked the deck against Adam and Eve . . . it's a bit unbelievable.

[Gus]

Watching a christian defend his belief and losing is really something.  I see myself in Gus' shoes right now.  He cannot defend against slavery/rape/genocide, he cannot defend his positive claim that "stars were made for us to tell time," and he hasn't responded a word in FTNZ's new thread asking him to present clear evidence of the historicity of the bible.  

 

I don’t feel like I’m losing at all actually.

There is a lot more of you on here than me, so in terms of just weight of argument where you will agree together, it may look like I’m losing.

I certainly don’t feel it. 

 

But I never wanted to end up in this 'prove this, prove that, look at this, look at that' mindset.

I regret I have allowed myself to get on that road.

I only wanted to discuss themes and ideas. But I cant because I often seem to get ‘prove it!’

 

RNP is right, this thread has gone of topic.

 

And sorry if I came across condescending to anyone, that was not my intention.

This will be my final post on this thread.

[Roz]

 

 

Scientists such as Matthew Maury acknowledge there where truths in the bible that could be studied scientifically.

 

And it was it was credited to him that reading psalms and the paths of the sea made him consider looking for them, and found them.

 

 

And what 'bible truths' are there?  "The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas."

 

The "truths" that you presented did NOT in any way have any bearing on the:

1.  Migration of whales (mammals btw, not fish, good job yeshitwa!)

2.  Maury's system of recording oceanographic data

 

You are trying to tack 1 man's scientific progress with the bible.  This is very similar to Ironhorse crediting christianity for scientific advancements and citing that Copernicus was christian.

[bornagainathiest]

If you aren't losing Gus, why leave?

 

 

Watching a christian defend his belief and losing is really something.  I see myself in Gus' shoes right now.  He cannot defend against slavery/rape/genocide, he cannot defend his positive claim that "stars were made for us to tell time," and he hasn't responded a word in FTNZ's new thread asking him to present clear evidence of the historicity of the bible.  

 

I don’t feel like I’m losing at all actually.

There is a lot more of you on here than me, so in terms of just weight of argument where you will agree together, it may look like I’m losing.

I certainly don’t feel it. 

 

But I never wanted to end up in this 'prove this, prove that, look at this, look at that' mindset.

I regret I have allowed myself to get on that road.

I only wanted to discuss themes and ideas. But I cant because I often seem to get ‘prove it!’

 

RNP is right, this thread has gone of topic.

 

And sorry if I came across condescending to anyone, that was not my intention.

This will be my final post on this thread.

 

 

Dayum!

 

It looks like Gus won't be providing any objective evidence to support his assertion that the universe was designed in a certain way.  

 

Nor will we find out if he thinks the scientists he listed require their Christian faith to do their scientific work.

 

Oh shuggles!

[mymistake]

 

I don’t feel like I’m losing at all actually.

There is a lot more of you on here than me, so in terms of just weight of argument where you will agree together, it may look like I’m losing.

I certainly don’t feel it. 

 

But I never wanted to end up in this 'prove this, prove that, look at this, look at that' mindset.

I regret I have allowed myself to get on that road.

I only wanted to discuss themes and ideas. But I cant because I often seem to get ‘prove it!’

 

RNP is right, this thread has gone of topic.

 

And sorry if I came across condescending to anyone, that was not my intention.

This will be my final post on this thread.

 

 

 

You are right there is a lot more ex-Christians than Christians here.  But you are wrong about losing.  This was your opportunity to present objective evidence that supports your beliefs.  When you do not provide that you are offering up no reason to think you are right.  Meanwhile the ex-Christians are offering dozens of reasons to think Christianity is wrong.  The vast majority of these reasons are things you could not honestly refute even if you worked on if for the rest of your life.

 

Whenever an ex-Christian visits a Christian webside it always plays out the same.  The ex-Chrisitan gets banned for providing solid reasons to doubt Christianity.  That kind of thinking is not welcome in Christian circles so the only way for Christians to protect themselves from it is to silence the thinker.  Even when the thinker is out numbered 100 to 1 the only thing Christians can do is use fallacies and ban the thinker.

 

This website is for those who have tried your religion and decided they are done with it.  So if you try to sell your religion here expect to be called on it.  If you don't want those kind of conversations then talk about something else.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Gus said this:

 

 

Luke was proved to be a first rate historian and therefore there is no need to doubt his records.

 

 

The gospel according to Luke says this:

 

⁵ In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. ⁶ Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly. ⁷ But they were childless because Elizabeth was not able to conceive, and they were both very old.

 

¹¹ Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. ¹² When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear. ¹³ But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John.

 

²⁶ In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, ²⁷ to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. ²⁸ The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

 

³¹ You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus.

 

2 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. ² (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.)  And everyone went to their own town to register.

 

Gospel of St. Luke chapters 1&2 *Pulled from https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%202&version=NIV

 

 

The problem here is that Herod died in 4BCE and Quirinius accepted governorship in 6CE, which would mean that Mary was pregnant for nearly 10 years.  If Luke was such a trustworthy historian, why the glaring inconsistency?

[mymistake]

The problem here is that Herod died in 4BCE and Quirinius accepted governorship in 6CE, which would mean that Mary was pregnant for nearly 10 years.  If Luke was such a trustworthy historian, why the glaring inconsistency?

 

With God a 10 year pregnancy is possible.  This would also allow Mary to grow up so that she wouldn't be a teenage mother.   

[sdelsolray]

My little runaway…a run run run run runaway.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

The OP takes a look at what the genesis account actually says and then follows a logical progression to demonstrate that god's plan was to sell us all into sin so that he could buy us all back as slaves.  If anyone wishes to offer a logical progression that reaches a different conclusion, I'm all ears.

 

 

This will be my final post on this thread.

 

So, I take it you won't be attempting to give me a logical progression of the genesis account that reaches a different conclusion?  Give it the old college try, at least, old boy.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

 

What about the writings of Ed Sanders and Christopher Tuckeet, amongst many others. Or we can look at the writings of historians such as roman historian A.N Sherwin White who says in his book ‘Roman society and Roman law in the New Testament’

“For Acts (book of) the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming...any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd”

 

Luke was proved to be a first rate historian and therefore there is no need to doubt his records.

 

 

Gus, I have started a thread where we can discuss the historicity of the bible, over here:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/63758-historical-literaonture--authenticity-of-the-bible-and-historical-account-of-christ%E2%80%99s-life-death-and-resurrection/#.U867suOSxyQ

 

And I did a quick google search on Sherwin-White, and found this blog that mentions William Lane Craig and Lee Strobels, which tells me everything I needed to know about this.

 

http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.co.nz/2007/11/apologists-abuse-of-sherwin-white.html

 

Well thats why I mentioned several others. If you don't agree with one, look at others and then you can decide.

 

 

Yep, not impressed with Ed Sanders either:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/jacob_aliet/historical.html

 

Or with Christopher Tuckett, who is an Anglican priest.

 

But I guess since you won't be replying in this thread that my views aren't really of any interest to you.  You can always post in the biblical historicity thread, if you want to try to back up your claims about it.

[bornagainathiest]

Since you won't be contributing to this thread any more Gus, I thought I'd give the final word to Richard Dawkins.  That way you can compare and contrast the way you think he believes and what he believes in with the way he actually believes and what he believes in. 

.

.

.

"Fundamentalists know they are right because they have read the truth in a holy book and they know, in advance, that nothing will budge them from their belief.  The truth of the holy book is an axiom, not the end product of a process of reasoning.  The book is true, and if the evidence seems to contradict it, it is the evidence that must be thrown out, not the book."

 

"By contrast, what I, as a scientist, believe (for example, evolution) I believe not because of reading a holy book but because I have studied the evidence.  It really is a very different matter.  Books about evolution are believed not because they are holy.  They are believed because they present overwhelming quantities of mutually buttressed evidence.  In principle, any reader can go and check that evidence.  When a science book is wrong, somebody eventually discovers the mistake and it is corrected in subsequent books.  That conspicuously doesn't happen with holy books."

 

The God Delusion, chapter 8 (Fundamentalism and the Subversion of Science), page 282.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[midniterider]

mymistake said…

To put it another way there is just as much evidence of Jesus as there is for Ra, Zeus, the Tooth Fairy, Superman, Odin, Underdog, Baal, Merlin, Metipholese and so on.  Why don't you put your faith in any of those other characters?  You arbitrarily choose to believe in one and you reject the others.

 

That is absolute rubbish. Come on now, are really comparing Superman to Jesus? Has this place got that silly?

 

Superman, please appear to me now. Hmmm...no response.

Jesus, please appear to me now. Hmmmm... no response.

 

The living Jesus is a no show. What's with that chronic absence of his, anyway? Gus? Hello? Any comment at all? Why do Christians accept the always-absent Jesus...but hold him in high esteem over the equally always absent Superman? LoL.

 

Why does Gus have to resort to written history in order to prove Jesus? Where is the actual living Jesus? Gus? Comments welcome.

[midniterider]

 

Are you even open to the possibility that you might be wrong?

 

I am

 

Are you?

 

 

I upvoted that. I may be wrong as well.