Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Malevolent Design


Reverend AtheiStar

Recommended Posts

Right on, rev.

 

I like your style.

 

Hey, can I send you some money?

 

Damn. Deja vu again. Some habits die hard.

 

nevermind.

 

Thanks.

 

lol... Nah, my finances are good right now. Tax time, don't you know? It's the time when Uncle Same pays you for a change. At least, that is, if you don't owe...

 

 

 

Heya Rev and Athiest Mom!

 

Damn good to have you folks find your way to Forums.

 

Good to have you participating!

 

kevinL

 

Yup. We're a team. She's my wife, actually. We're very different in our styles as you will soon see, if you haven't already.

 

Thank ya!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Reverend AtheiStar

    24

  • Asimov

    10

  • Nicole Simon

    5

  • Fweethawt

    3

This was me:

 

lol... Nah, my finances are good right now. Tax time, don't you know? It's the time when Uncle Same pays you for a change. At least, that is, if you don't owe...

 

as was this...

 

Yup. We're a team. She's my wife, actually. We're very different in our styles as you will soon see, if you haven't already.

 

Thank ya!

 

I didn't realize that even if you clicked on a link that was sent to your email it doesn't automatically mean that you're logged in. Oops. Call me a role player! lol...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it's not death that you demonize, it's death of people you like that you demonize.

 

Of course. The death of things such as the microbes on my teeth by the millions I shed not a tear about. If the opposite was the case I'd be in tears three times a day after the bacterial holocaust! Likewise, people that I feel deserve death I don't get upset over, either.

 

Then why, if God makes it rain upon the good and the bad, would you make a case against ID when it also seems to help you in some ways by ridding you of people and things you don't like?

 

I don't believe in any gods or goddesses and so I would never make a case for ID.

 

Would a roach who considered ID think that humans are a part of malevolent design? It appears that your objection is one of subjective feeling, rather than objective rationality.

 

Yes, they would. They would wonder why the great roach goddess saw fit to make humans to ruin their fun. Or perhaps they would feel, just like many believers, that they deserve everything they get or that it was because of lack of faith that Terminix got 100,000 of your relatives. Who knows. It'd make a good movie, though. Roach religion! It'd be great! I wonder if religious humans could see the parallels.

 

The whole point of writing my piece on MD was just to show a side of ID that they should be focusing on. They should have to explain the argument from evil in all it's forms, particularly those that arise when discussing nature.

 

I take that statement back.

 

Good.

 

You said that Ingersoll showed the cruelty of nature....to me cruelty implied malevolence, which implies cognition.

 

If that's what it means to you. It seems much too a myopic view to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, they would. They would wonder why the great roach goddess saw fit to make humans to ruin their fun. Or perhaps they would feel, just like many believers, that they deserve everything they get or that it was because of lack of faith that Terminix got 100,000 of your relatives. Who knows. It'd make a good movie, though. Roach religion! It'd be great! I wonder if religious humans could see the parallels.

 

Like I said, this is an entirely subjective idea then and has no objective standpoint.

 

The whole point of writing my piece on MD was just to show a side of ID that they should be focusing on. They should have to explain the argument from evil in all it's forms, particularly those that arise when discussing nature.

 

I know, and the POE is definitely a good argument.

 

If that's what it means to you. It seems much too a myopic view to me.

 

Possibly, depends on the definition of cruelty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Ho, Rev, all in all MD is an interesting concept, but aside from being fun word-play it is, when broken down, nothing more than that. Pascal gave it some thought, and expressed, beautifully, the ultimate futility of determing God's nature, good or evil. Here ya go... try a little old-school...

 

Quote: “If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him.” [blaise Pascal, Pensées, Section III]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Ho, Rev, all in all MD is an interesting concept, but aside from being fun word-play it is, when broken down, nothing more than that. Pascal gave it some thought, and expressed, beautifully, the ultimate futility of determing God's nature, good or evil. Here ya go... try a little old-school...

 

Quote: “If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him.” [blaise Pascal, Pensées, Section III]

I won't argue that. One thing is for sure though - if more people looked at it this way, the concept of god would quickly become the non-issue that it should have been a long time ago. :Hmm:

 

:cunn:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Ho, Rev, all in all MD is an interesting concept, but aside from being fun word-play it is, when broken down, nothing more than that. Pascal gave it some thought, and expressed, beautifully, the ultimate futility of determing God's nature, good or evil. Here ya go... try a little old-school...

 

Quote: “If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him.” [blaise Pascal, Pensées, Section III]

 

 

Is this the same Pascal who came up with that 'wager'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Death is just a part of the cycle of terrestrial life. Some

basic biology puts it in perspective. That we like the

perspective is irrelevant. If matter and energy are finite,

nothing more can come into life except something goes

out of life. Is soil aggrieved because it loses a few atoms

to the growing carrot? Is air aggrieved by the

photosynthetic process? Does the sun worry that it's

consuming itself to support life on earth?

 

The atoms and molecules of all forms are the building

blocks for other forms to come and of those past. The

science of entomological pest – predator population

dynamics is fascinating. The lower life form always paces

the higher. Which is why ecology is so important. Planet

Earth is all we have for the forms we're used to. Or so it

seems.

 

The quest for answers to the reason for life in general and

one person's life in particular has gone on and will go on

forever. At the moment of death, what has gone but life

force? The atoms and molecules are all still there. But the

vivifying force/energy has departed. Where? Why? Will

it return?

 

All the while the planet rotates about the sun and big

things eat little things and people pin their hopes and

dreams on myths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Ho, Rev, all in all MD is an interesting concept, but aside from being fun word-play it is, when broken down, nothing more than that. Pascal gave it some thought, and expressed, beautifully, the ultimate futility of determing God's nature, good or evil. Here ya go... try a little old-school...

 

Quote: “If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him.” [blaise Pascal, Pensées, Section III]

 

 

Is this the same Pascal who came up with that 'wager'?

 

I'm not sure I understand... If it's a celebrity poker wager, you can rule that out: he's a dead Euro-type... French, I think... and if I'm not mistaken, he was a mathematician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Ho, Rev, all in all MD is an interesting concept, but aside from being fun word-play it is, when broken down, nothing more than that. Pascal gave it some thought, and expressed, beautifully, the ultimate futility of determing God's nature, good or evil. Here ya go... try a little old-school...

 

Quote: “If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him.” [blaise Pascal, Pensées, Section III]

Is this the same Pascal who came up with that 'wager'?
I think it is.

 

If it is, I sure hope that dude never owned a gun. He had a bad enough time shooting himself in the foot just within his writings. :HaHa:

 

 

I'm not sure I understand... If it's a celebrity poker wager, you can rule that out: he's a dead Euro-type... French, I think... and if I'm not mistaken, he was a mathematician.
If you don't know who Asimov is talking about, do a quick search for "Pascal's Wager". You'll probably find some interesting stuff. :grin:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the subject of mosquitoes & malevolent design, I would recommend pages 274 - 278 of Sir Charles Sherrington's book "Man on his Nature". It is still available second hand.

 

Dennis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, this is an entirely subjective idea then and has no objective standpoint.

 

"Objective" is not a word I'm entirely familiar with. I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around it. Let me consult my dictionary. Let's see:

 

ob·jec·tive adj.

Of or having to do with a material object.

Having actual existence or reality.

 

Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.

Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

Medicine. Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.

Grammar.

Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.

Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.

 

n.

Something that actually exists.

Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See Synonyms at intention.

Grammar.

The objective case.

A noun or pronoun in the objective case.

The lens or lens system in a microscope or other optical instrument that first receives light rays from the object and forms the image. Also called object glass, objective lens, object lens.

 

Ah, so you're saying that since I don't believe in any gods, goddesses or creation myths that my observation lack's reality. Oh, ok. Yeah, I'm just picking on ID, actually. I find the whole ID affair humous because you can trace it's evolution from it's ancestor "creation science" and that from just plain creationism. You can even identify the environmental stimulus that caused the change! It's nothing but a legal strategy to try to get around SOCAS. It's also very interesting to see, just like with biological evolution, how it all came to be. ID's entire relavent evolution can be found here.

 

Possibly, depends on the definition of cruelty.

 

Precisely my point! There are many definition for words. People tend to get stuck on one and forget about the others. The intended meaning is much more important than the actual word. The word is just a vehicle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Ho, Rev, all in all MD is an interesting concept, but aside from being fun word-play it is, when broken down, nothing more than that. Pascal gave it some thought, and expressed, beautifully, the ultimate futility of determing God's nature, good or evil. Here ya go... try a little old-school...

 

Quote: “If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him.” [blaise Pascal, Pensées, Section III]

 

I agree. As an Atheist I don't believe in MD. I was just pointing out what seemed all too obvious to me.

 

I can go more old school than that! lol... Check this out:

 

"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. ... If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. ... If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"

 

I'd also like to add my absolute favorite from the, ironically, ultra-religious Pascal:

 

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."

 

On the subject of mosquitoes & malevolent design, I would recommend pages 274 - 278 of Sir Charles Sherrington's book "Man on his Nature". It is still available second hand.

 

Sounds interesting. Is it available online anywhere?

 

While we're suggesting books I'd like to offer up a collection of essays on the subject of IDC and evolution that's edited by Robert Pennock. It's called Intelligent Design Creationism and it's Critics: Philosophical, Theological and Scientific Perspectives. I highly recommend it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The quest for answers to the reason for life in general and

one person's life in particular has gone on and will go on

forever. At the moment of death, what has gone but life

force? The atoms and molecules are all still there. But the

vivifying force/energy has departed. Where? Why? Will

it return?

 

What chnges with the break down of a car? All the atoms and molecules are still there. As with the car, an animated mechanical object, so it is with the animated biological object. When our parts stop working the machine shuts down. To inject supernaturalism into the equation only complicates a simple equation. There's absolutely no need for a "soul" to explain anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I can go more old school than that! lol... Check this out:

 

"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. ... If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. ... If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"

 

If you kill the demons you kill the angels... that's one answer. Yeah I know, it doesn't wrap a neat bow around the problem of evil---- but tell me, whose problem is evil? Contrary to your assertion, it's not really God's, since one, He doesn't physically take up residence here, and two, we're not really sure whether or not He's moved by our predicament. So... it seems we're back where we started: Trying futilely to determine God's character, or lack, by what we see, and often narrowly, on the finite terrain of a temporal existence.

 

Or (Duck and Cover, kids), We can believe that God's already defeated evil, and that lawlessness, for a time, will continue to exist. People don't like that explanation... even those professing a love for God don't like it. They'd rather sweetly reminisce about the good old days... waxing about God thundering from mountains or smoting His enemies to a raw pulp. If that's what people want, if they really want that, it's to hasten an end to everything, good and bad, and all that goes with--- But where do you want this killing done... and when? Before falling in love? before giving birth? before seeing your childrens' children? When?

 

Please view the above scenario as hypothetical (as most readers to this site will, hopefully, feel free to. no-harm no-foul were intended). The intent was to show how we reduce the complexity of evil to something smaller, micro-manageable, like a Rubik's cube or a riddle (as to why God can or will or won't or migh---- etc.) and also why we seldom weigh the full impact of what we may wish for. ns

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Ho, Rev, all in all MD is an interesting concept, but aside from being fun word-play it is, when broken down, nothing more than that. Pascal gave it some thought, and expressed, beautifully, the ultimate futility of determing God's nature, good or evil. Here ya go... try a little old-school...

 

Quote: “If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him.” [blaise Pascal, Pensées, Section III]

 

 

Is this the same Pascal who came up with that 'wager'?

 

I'm not sure I understand... If it's a celebrity poker wager, you can rule that out: he's a dead Euro-type... French, I think... and if I'm not mistaken, he was a mathematician.

 

Yes, it is the same Pascal and he was a mathematician. :) You haven't heard of this wager and you are Christian? Hmm... perhaps you should look it up. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you kill the demons you kill the angels... that's one answer.

 

lol... That's kind of like saying if you kill the trolls you kill the fairies! Same imaginary beings, different mythology. Personally, while I do find Judeo/Christian mythology entertaining, I'd rather see a movie on ancient European beliefs. Norse mythology is pretty awesome, too. Have you read their creation myth? Wow!

 

I do know what you're trying to say, though. You mean that if you throw out the negative you throw out the positive, as well. In other words, the baby with the bath water. The Atheist asnwer to that? The baby doesn't belong to any religion. Morality transcends all religions. It was incorporated into them and then credited to the gods and goddesses of said religions.

 

Yeah I know, it doesn't wrap a neat bow around the problem of evil---- but tell me, whose problem is evil? Contrary to your assertion, it's not really God's, since one, He doesn't physically take up residence here, and two, we're not really sure whether or not He's moved by our predicament.

 

Contrary to your assertion, which would have been considered blaspemous in amny a circle not too long ago, he does. According to simple deductions from the Bible, though the word "omnipresent" is not there, one can easily posit that the god in question is indeed supposed to be everywhere at once. Can your claim that he's not physically here be caked so well? Keep in mind, though, that I'm an unbeliever and so to me this is just a discussion about mythology.

 

On your second point, that's theistic agnosticism. We cannot know the nature of our god. I find this to be a strange stance to hold, though, as you most certainly can by researching scripture and formulating a profile, much like the FBI does with murderes, rapsists and serial killers.

 

So... it seems we're back where we started: Trying futilely to determine God's character, or lack, by what we see, and often narrowly, on the finite terrain of a temporal existence.

 

No, not really. Your god character's character can be deduced. It's quite easy. He would be a genocidal maniac of, well, biblical proportions! The list I can produce, though, is quite large and so I'll produce it only if asked.

 

Or (Duck and Cover, kids), We can believe that God's already defeated evil...

 

Defeated? Huh? He's the past, present and future creator of all evil according to your own Bible. There is a wonderfully candid admission to be found in the Bible.

 

But where do you want this killing done... and when? Before falling in love? before giving birth? before seeing your childrens' children? When?

 

To quote Bad Religion, I want an "Atheist Peace." That would be wonderful. To quote John Lennon:

 

Imagine there's no heaven,

It's easy if you try,

No hell below us,

Above us only sky,

Imagine all the people

living for today...

 

Imagine there's no countries,

It isnt hard to do,

Nothing to kill or die for,

No religion too,

Imagine all the people

living life in peace...

 

Imagine no possesions,

I wonder if you can,

No need for greed or hunger,

A brotherhood of man,

Imagine all the people

Sharing all the world...

 

If all the people of the Earth would give up their silly superstitions and dicth all their millions of gods and goddesses, our world would be much better off. I don't want any end times. I want beginning times. I want a new era of "Atheist Peace."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but tell me, whose problem is evil? Contrary to your assertion, it's not really God's, since one, He doesn't physically take up residence here, and two, we're not really sure whether or not He's moved by our predicament. So... it seems we're back where we started: Trying futilely to determine God's character, or lack, by what we see, and often narrowly, on the finite terrain of a temporal existence.

 

Whatever, it's a logical problem brought up in regards to God and the existence of evil. To dodge a simple question like what (I think his name is) Epicuris stated by saying "oh, you're too dumb to know the character of God, blah blah blah" is dishonest.

 

We're not claiming to know God's character, and if you assert that the Bible is the Word of God, then it is pretty apparent what His character is; contradictory and illogical.

 

Or (Duck and Cover, kids), We can believe that God's already defeated evil, and that lawlessness, for a time, will continue to exist.

 

And then you can prance around naively beliving that evil has been done away with and call yourself Nicole Simon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then you can prance around naively beliving that evil has been done away with and call yourself Nicole Simon.

 

LOL! What a funny visual! :HaHa:

 

 

Whatever, it's a logical problem brought up in regards to God and the existence of evil. To dodge a simple question like what (I think his name is) Epicuris stated by saying "oh, you're too dumb to know the character of God, blah blah blah" is dishonest.

 

No, you're referring to what Pascal said, “If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him.”

 

Epicurus was much smarter and more eloquent. This is my favorite from him, "Grow accustomed to the belief that death is nothing to us, since every good and evil lie in sensation. However, death is the deprivation of sensation. Therefore, correct understanding that death is nothing to us makes a mortal life enjoyable, not by adding an endless span of time but by taking away the longing for immortality. For there is nothing dreadful in life for the man who has truly comprehended that there is nothing terrible in not living. Therefore, foolish is the man who says that he fears death, not because it will cause pain when it arrives but because anticipation of it is painful. What is no trouble when it arrives is an idle worry in anticipation. Death, therefore -- the most dreadful of evils -- is nothing to us, since while we exist, death is not present, and whenever death is present, we do not exist. It is nothing either to the living or the dead, since it does not exist for the living, and the dead no longer are."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you're referring to what Pascal said, “If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him.”

 

Maybe there's some miscommunication here, Rev. You brought up the problem of evil quote...wasn't that by epicuris?? And then Nicole said in a classic dodge saying "Trying futilely to determine God's character, or lack, by what we see, and often narrowly, on the finite terrain of a temporal existence." Which is what I was responding to.

 

:)

 

I agree that Epicuris was an amazing guy. Pascal was a tchotch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then you can prance around naively beliving that evil has been done away with and call yourself Nicole Simon.

 

LOL! What a funny visual! :HaHa:

 

I'm glad to be a source of amusement for you both. It's recipricol by the way: Rev, you're avatar reminds me of either the late Wally Cox or the present and very much alive, Buck Henry. And so far, you too, are just as funny: I suppose gravitating to Epicurean philosophy may seem an improvement, but don't you wonder how much olive oil and grapes were needed to sustain that merry assessment? I'm very mistrusting of ancients. What did they know of life, never having to deal with the IRS or an LA traffic jam? :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I agree that Epicuris was an amazing guy. Pascal was a tchotch.

 

 

You say Pascal is a tchotch, even though yesterday you asked...

 

"Is this the same Pascal who came up with that 'wager'?"

 

I would think you'd know that, since you've already determined he's a tchotch. Or were you baiting Nicole? And what's a tchotch? (Canadian, no doubt.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very mistrusting of ancients. What did they know of life, never having to deal with the IRS or an LA traffic jam? :shrug:

 

I'm with you there Nicole. I find ancient writings to be fraught with superstitions, legends, and allegory - with no clear lines being drawn between those things and the real world.

 

Take for instance the ancient writings attributed to such individuals as Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe there's some miscommunication here, Rev. You brought up the problem of evil quote...wasn't that by epicuris?? And then Nicole said in a classic dodge saying "Trying futilely to determine God's character, or lack, by what we see, and often narrowly, on the finite terrain of a temporal existence." Which is what I was responding to.

 

Oh, I see. Your wording was confusing. This is what had me confused:

 

To dodge a simple question like what (I think his name is) Epicuris stated by saying "oh, you're too dumb to know the character of God, blah blah blah" is dishonest.

 

I thought you were saying that Epicurus stated, by saying, "you're too dumb," but you were speaking of what she said in response to Epicurus. My mistake. I just didn't want Epicurus blamed for Pascal's mental inadequacies.

 

Pascal was a tchotch.

 

lol... Is that Jewish insult?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad to be a source of amusement for you both. It's recipricol by the way: Rev, you're avatar reminds me of either the late Wally Cox or the present and very much alive, Buck Henry. And so far, you too, are just as funny: I suppose gravitating to Epicurean philosophy may seem an improvement, but don't you wonder how much olive oil and grapes were needed to sustain that merry assessment? I'm very mistrusting of ancients. What did they know of life, never having to deal with the IRS or an LA traffic jam? :shrug:

 

It wasn't you I was laughing at. It was Asimov's illustration of you that I found funny. It's kind of like being in school and drawing a picture of the teacher. You're not laughing at the tecaher, you're laughing at the picture.

 

My avatar is meant to be funny. It's a copy and paste job of two pictures that my wife made for me. I'm glad it is so successful! It makes me laugh, too. Why would I want to be a serious Reverend? I find all religion hilarious and that's what my pic is meant to convey.

 

Gravitating? I found Epicurus 6 or 7 years ago. I liked his quotes so much that I named by son after him. How's that for love?

 

Epicurus talked about human universals that transcend time. Do we not still die? Are the theists and theodicy not still around? Sure, some of his work is dated, that's natural, but those aren't the quotes I like.

 

And what do I know about an LA traffic jam other than what I've seen on tv and the movies. I could teel you about a Virginia traffic jam and how moronic our drivers are here. Tell me, do the drivers in your state use turn signals or do they just cut in front of you? The majority of drivers here seem to be on a boycott! Not to mention when it's raing or snowing there are way too many idiots in their SUVS speeding along when it's raining of snowing like the road conditions are still perfect!

 

Epicurus could have told you about walking everywhere or using a horse if you were lucky. He could have told you about the Roman conquests and how the ruling government didn't like nobelievers so much they were considered an enemy of the state. He could have told you about living in a time when the threat of death was all around as science was still primitive. There was no abulance or hospital. There were no antibiotics. If you got sick, most likely you died. If you got a large cut you bled to death. What do you know about that? What does it really matter? In all those examples you can at least relate partially.

 

I'm very mistrusting of ancients. What did they know of life, never having to deal with the IRS or an LA traffic jam? :shrug:

 

I'm with you there Nicole. I find ancient writings to be fraught with superstitions, legends, and allegory - with no clear lines being drawn between those things and the real world.

 

Take for instance the ancient writings attributed to such individuals as Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John.

 

LOL! Good one. I was wondering if it was a set up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.