How long has man been created.

[GenemZ]

what,

1) I did not insult you, so do not insult me.


2) You put big huge passages all over the place. You do not even have the courtesy to make the font smaller to get as much of the post on the screen as possible.

3) Also:


If you are made to be curious, i.e.: to explore everything, then exploring is what you do. Lions will hunt, they have no free will. The choice to explore (fulfill the creation) was not given until the apple was offered. Before that time god said no, and they followed that command.

When the apple was offered, Adam and Eve then explored the possibilities offered to them. They fulfilled their “programming”.

This is child's play.

So? You post here because you are preprogrammed to?




.




.

 

[Dream3wb723]

That I must say is good. But it is still not on the dot. According to the bible if you add all the generations and acts after the bible was written, we are looking at 8,000 years.

OK
I saw that some of you were talking about this for quite some time. I did not see all of the quites.

For the record, footprints and that of Dinos were firnd next to each other, so there is also one to indicate that man cant be that onl. Also what confuses most of the notes are you all forgot the flood. How God Planned it and what happened afterwards.

Count the years.

also see:
how old is the oldes living tree: 4000 years.
how old is the oldest river: 4000 years.

And so on.

Regards
Dream3wb723

 

[An Arch Angel]

So? You post here because you are preprogrammed to?




.




.

We both do Genz,

If you think you have a free will to do as you like, stop posting here. It would be as easy as giving up grape juice. You and I can't.

I know free will as defined does not exist.

But this is a side track.

 

[An Arch Angel]

May I recommend several secular debate forums to you?

Obviously, you came to this Christian forum by mistake.

Let's see what you're doing...

Someone wants to discuss the best type of drum head for light jazz playing. Ahhh! Why don't I go to a oil drum manufacturing forum? Then demand they stop discussing what they are there for, and demand that they only discuss drum heads. Clear, or coated?

Then, when they tell me the forum is for discussing oil drum manufacturing, not musical instruments? I act as if they are the ones being unreasonable.
​

You need a Savior, sir. Your attitude screams out for needing one. But, God will let you try to save yourself. Save yourself from ever dying.





This is a Christian Forum. Your only purpose here is to harass Christians who believe the Bible.

As you treat the Bible? Maybe all Christians here should begin treating you here. It would only be justice.




.

You do not see that it is ego that brings you to this level do you?
release what is real to you,
see what is here.

 

[mpok1519]

Im a Christian; I can come and debate the flaws within any religion, especially my own.

 

[GenemZ]

We both do Genz,

If you think you have a free will to do as you like, stop posting here. It would be as easy as giving up grape juice. You and I can't.

Speak for yourself. If I wanted to stop posting here, I will do as I have in the past and stop.

I know free will as defined does not exist.

You are free to believe that.

But this is a side track.

Why care? You are preprogrammed. You mean you have the freedom to choose not to side track the thread?


We all have been allotted a "portion" of freedom to use our will. Allotted to us by God. Even though you may be preprogrammed to like SUV's. But? Which brand you decide to buy is not. To keep proper maintenance was not. But, you were preprogrammed to prefer an SUV by endowed "taste."



.

 

[GenemZ]

Im a Christian; I can come and debate the flaws within any religion, especially my own.

John 16:13a
"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes,
he will guide you into all truth."

​

What makes you a Christian?

If it quacks, and then claims to be a dog? We have to accept it? A phenomenal portion of the content of your posts I have seen before. But, not here in a Christian forum. I Back in the old days in the Compuserve Religion forum.

In that forum it was not about Christianity, per se. It was about debating issues of religion in general. What I have seen you write here is parallel to what I used to see given from the Atheist handbook on how to approach Christians and the Bible. Some also came in the guise of claiming to be Christian, but all they said was anti-Bible.

But? If you say you are Christian? I guess its a figurative and a metaphorical stand. Like you claim the Bible is. So? In that sense, I accept that you are a Christian. But, only in that sense.



.

 

[mpok1519]

oh; I can only be a true Christian if I read and take the Bible literally and forget everything we know about science, knowledge and truth. I can only be a true Christian if I take EVERYTHING the Bible says as literal, historically documented truth.

lol

okay.

In that sense, I am not a fundamentaist Christian. No, I am not a fundamentalist (and I believe fundamentalism to be a very dangerous and threatening force to humanity) and thank God I am not. You may be a fundamentalist, which is great but, I highly recommend other avenues of expressing belief. thats a sense I accept.

No; the Bible is not a historical document, its more of a narrative historica document.

what? you think Christianity has no flaws? lol You think a religion (specificaly yours) can have no flaws?

Isnt that a bit egocentric? Isnt that a bit, I don't know, ignorant to believe theres absolutely nothing flawed about Christianity, yet, all other religions are inheranty flawed? Thats a bit unreasonable.

 

[richterforest]

Well, to see if we are Christian or not, lets ask the question.

1) If today were the last day of your life where would you spend eternity?
2) Lets suppose today were the last day of your life and you found yourself face to face with God, and he asked, why should you spend eternity with me, what would you say to him?

Since we are all Christians we should be able to answer these questions confidently without what ifs and what abouts. They have nothing to do with how you were created in fact. Even the simplest man can answer these questions if he is certain about his future, and not have a clue who Adam was.

 

[GenemZ]

oh; I can only be a true Christian if I read and take the Bible literally and forget everything we know about science, knowledge and truth. I can only be a true Christian if I take EVERYTHING the Bible says as literal, historically documented truth.

No, you can be a Christian. One who will have nothing to show for what he did after he was saved when he stands before Christ.

A Spirit filled Christian will not disband the Bible when science appears to be contradicting what he was told the Bible says. A Spirit filled Christian knows that God can not lie. What he would do would be to seek and find. Seek until he finds out what is being misrepresented by either science, or by what he was told the Bible says.

You have been shown countless times that the Young Earth Creation is not what the Bible in the Hebrew reveals.

Without Form and Void - Frontpage
​

How many times have you seen that link?

But? For some reason, you suffer from selective ADD, and keep on insisting that Science disproves Young Earth Creationism as the only viable interpretation of Genesis. Well? Science DOES DISPROVE YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM!

But, science does not disprove the Bible. Something tells me you crave the approval of secular scientists more than you desire the approval of God. Yet? You still can be a Christian. A faithful and true one? Hardly. You have thrown down your weapon and retreated not away from the enemies of God. But, instead have marched forward with both arms up in the air to surrender to the enemies of God. But, you can not accept that. So you keep blaming science for your demise of believing the Bible. But, you refuse to acknowledge what careful exegesis of the Hebrew and Greek texts state. You refuse to acknowledge that Bible scholars saw this when studying the Hebrew and Greek LONG BEFORE Darwin was an embryo.

Call yourself what you want. Jesus said that we would know them by their fruit. He was speaking in regards to those who claim to be Christian. Its their fruit that will show the true colors. If it quacks like a duck, yet demands that we call it a dog? You tell me. Would you call it a dog?




.

 

[mpok1519]

disprove the Bible?

like, someone can say, I don't know, disprove any other book. Like, Silent Spring

Disprove? The term is so subjective it cannot apply to a book.

Quaks like a dog? What? scrupulous anaologies mean little but some to me.

Faithful and true? A true Christian protects knowledge and truth. And heart. And soul. Science does not mislead me from the truth.

Please show me the evidence and data that science misleads one from the truth.

God doesnt just use one book. Sure the one "Him" that the Bible mentions is Him; but, He also needs to be reached other ways. Its simply not a perfect world if everyone is Christian.

 

[GenemZ]

Please show me the evidence and data that science misleads one from the truth.

GOOD science never misleads one from the truth. Faulty interpretation of the data, and being stubborn about it, misleads.

Did you understand what the link I provided is saying?

Without Form and Void - Frontpage


I am assuming that you did not even bother to read much, if any, of it. For if you had? You would stop using the "young earth creationism" straw man that you love to toss above your head and then make believe you are shooting it with your fingers.

Do you understand the premise of the book? Sounds like you have not bothered to find out what its revealing. It was written by a scientist who was also a gifted theologian. He disliked young earth creationists as much as I do. As you do. Yet, he also disliked scientists who acted equally stubborn and unreasonable as the creationist were.


The scientific data works just fine with what the Hebrew language of the Bible reveals when its been properly exegeted.


Without Form and Void - Frontpage


Can you understand what he was saying? Or, is it too hard for you to grasp?



.

 

[fwwid]

fwwid - Eating popcorn and enjoying the show

 

[mpok1519]

yes, that link provided a well thought out and well written hypthesis....

BUT

without any science having anything to do with it. Its just theological philosophy that tries to tie science into the Bible using a specific translation of Hebrew. It doesn't explain how they find human skeletons dating back 120,000 years.

it was a theologically philisophical idea oriented article, but had little or nothing to do with science, or the interpretation of data.

just, scripture, and reasoning on how people try to align science in perfect accordance with scripture.

 

[JediMobius]

There is a lot here and I shortened it quite a bit.

Sin:

When you are total love you judge nothing. God knows the limitations of the flesh, he knows why you did what you did. There is no sin, there is only you being …well …you. You are exactly as he created you. No more or no less. When you die you will understand the flesh as he does.

You will not condemn “sinners” in the flesh, you will only welcome them into the kingdom of heaven.

Wait wait wait. There is no sin? Then there is no repentance either, and Christ died for nothing. Try that again, if you'd like.

No Death of You:

The number one question, and is not for this thread, is
“How do you define you”? You are a piece that surpasses all understanding, that is to say, we are “more” than anyone thinks.

God created Death of the flesh. This is done for a couple of reasons.

1) We need to experience what it is like to “go without” before we enter his house. Remember that experience leads to understanding -> compassion -> love -> No judgments

2) God is not “all power”, yes he knows the location of every hair on your head, this is because there is a fixed number of them. The universe is a constant state of change (evolving) and God knows the state of every particle at any given moment. Your life is “burned” onto the very fabric of space and remains there until the universe ends. You “die” when there is nothing left.

You are forever in the mind of God.

3) Life seems to be based on simple things built together to make things “more” than the pieces that make them up. We will evolve into the next life. We will be more than the pieces that make us up, we will be more than our experiences, and we will exist in a different state.

OK, I'm having a really hard time understanding what you're getting at. Every post of yours I've read seems to have quite a bit of truth to it, but then there's a sentence in the midst of it all that throws the whole thing off. It's almost cryptic.

Free will,

Before the apple was offered, god told them not to eat of the tree. They had no choice, they did not eat from it. The devil came and offered them a choice between eating and not eating. At that moment they had a choice.

They had a choice. They simply went with the obvious choice of obedience. And like genez put forth, free will was exercised before the snake showed up when either Adam or Eve tacked on the rule that they couldn't even touch the tree or they would die. (Adam may have added it to make sure Eve (or himself even) didn't even go near the tree, or Eve might have added it in her own mind out of fear of God, *shrug* God knows.)

There is no “fall” of man. This is an illusion based on “guilt”. Adam and eve can not except that they chose not to listen to god. They judged themselves lesser than how god created them. They in affect judged God’s created different than God. They, in effect, judged there understanding to be more than gods. And we know this is impossible.

Adam and Eve lived in paradise and in innocence with God. The fall of man is that they sinned - that is, fell short of the Glory of God. When they sinned, they were cast out of the garden and were punished. Where are you getting these ideas of yours anyway?

*note - you often use except as in exception, 'leave out' when you seem to mean accept - 'allow in'*

One proof that the bible is man made are the notions that nakedness is shameful. Look around at all the other creations of god; their outer layers are god given. The fall of man was the birth of ego. To much to go into here so I will stop.

Nakedness wasn't shameful until the knowledge of good and evil was imbibed. Then it became shameful because innocence was lost, and lust stepped in. The bible is not man-made, only written with human hands. You must never have had the experience of the Holy Spirit of God coming to rest on you. It's not like God just gave Moses, John, or Isaiah a general outline with a minimum page requirement and just let them get to it. No, God was there to guide their words and word choice. He inspired their thoughts and intervened in order to maintain the truth. If this is not true, then what kind of God would allow the principle collection of spiritual instruction to be untrue? The bible may not be quintessentially perfect, because it was made through man (not by), but with the Spirit to guide the reader, the truth is easily received from its pages.

You will have much to say about this thread.

That. . . may... be true.

LowlyTortous,


I read chapter 3 in revelations.

I do not take much stock in revelations because it probably was thrown in there because they had to put something in with the apocalyptic style of writing since, in Jesus' time, it was a common style used. It was also probably coded to keep it from the roman’

As much as it was 'coded' with metaphors, history repeats itself. There is more than one portion of prophecy that can be applied to more than one event. Though the church in laodicea may have been an actual church at one time, each of the seven churches in the beginning of revelation can speak to distinct churches at any given time, or to an era of the entire body of believers on earth. Each passage, though colored by the time in which it was written, is part of a living truth that transcends time, because God transcends time, and it was His Spirit that inspired the authors of the bible.

The opposite of this “neutral” would be a zealot. If you believe that the bible is literal then this passage forces you to take the stance that there is no right or wrong. The writer told them to take a stance, good or bad, but take one.

Christ (the speaker in most of revelation) told them they are useless being lukewarm, that He would rather they be hot or cold. Hot or cold does not mean right or wrong, hot is being fully committed to God, lukewarm is being 'involved' and cold is being not at all committed or involved. If you can't understand how God would rather someone be a heathen than on the fence, ask God to reveal the truth to you.

 

[An Arch Angel]

John 16:13a​

"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes,
he will guide you into all truth."​

What makes you a Christian?

If it quacks, and then claims to be a dog? We have to accept it? A phenomenal portion of the content of your posts I have seen before. But, not here in a Christian forum. I Back in the old days in the Compuserve Religion forum.

In that forum it was not about Christianity, per se. It was about debating issues of religion in general. What I have seen you write here is parallel to what I used to see given from the Atheist handbook on how to approach Christians and the Bible. Some also came in the guise of claiming to be Christian, but all they said was anti-Bible.

But? If you say you are Christian? I guess its a figurative and a metaphorical stand. Like you claim the Bible is. So? In that sense, I accept that you are a Christian. But, only in that sense.



.

We are not “anti Bible”.
I read the bible a lot.
I am amazed every time I read how great it is.


What we are anti-close minded.
Why must I take the bible literally with topics such as “creation”?
Why can’t I say, as a christian …

“God did it through the natural processes HE created … God did it through evolution.”?

 

[An Arch Angel]

Wait wait wait. There is no sin? Then there is no repentance either, and Christ died for nothing. Try that again, if you'd like.



OK, I'm having a really hard time understanding what you're getting at. Every post of yours I've read seems to have quite a bit of truth to it, but then there's a sentence in the midst of it all that throws the whole thing off. It's almost cryptic.



They had a choice. They simply went with the obvious choice of obedience. And like genez put forth, free will was exercised before the snake showed up when either Adam or Eve tacked on the rule that they couldn't even touch the tree or they would die. (Adam may have added it to make sure Eve (or himself even) didn't even go near the tree, or Eve might have added it in her own mind out of fear of God, *shrug* God knows.)



Adam and Eve lived in paradise and in innocence with God. The fall of man is that they sinned - that is, fell short of the Glory of God. When they sinned, they were cast out of the garden and were punished. Where are you getting these ideas of yours anyway?

*note - you often use except as in exception, 'leave out' when you seem to mean accept - 'allow in'*



Nakedness wasn't shameful until the knowledge of good and evil was imbibed. Then it became shameful because innocence was lost, and lust stepped in. The bible is not man-made, only written with human hands. You must never have had the experience of the Holy Spirit of God coming to rest on you. It's not like God just gave Moses, John, or Isaiah a general outline with a minimum page requirement and just let them get to it. No, God was there to guide their words and word choice. He inspired their thoughts and intervened in order to maintain the truth. If this is not true, then what kind of God would allow the principle collection of spiritual instruction to be untrue? The bible may not be quintessentially perfect, because it was made through man (not by), but with the Spirit to guide the reader, the truth is easily received from its pages.



That. . . may... be true.



As much as it was 'coded' with metaphors, history repeats itself. There is more than one portion of prophecy that can be applied to more than one event. Though the church in laodicea may have been an actual church at one time, each of the seven churches in the beginning of revelation can speak to distinct churches at any given time, or to an era of the entire body of believers on earth. Each passage, though colored by the time in which it was written, is part of a living truth that transcends time, because God transcends time, and it was His Spirit that inspired the authors of the bible.



Christ (the speaker in most of revelation) told them they are useless being lukewarm, that He would rather they be hot or cold. Hot or cold does not mean right or wrong, hot is being fully committed to God, lukewarm is being 'involved' and cold is being not at all committed or involved. If you can't understand how God would rather someone be a heathen than on the fence, ask God to reveal the truth to you.

Cool,

I understand all of your views here. I do not agree with them all, but the way you stated them I accept them as a logical alternative to mine.

I have heard before that I didn’t have an experience because it does not line up with a religion. That is ok with me, I have stated before, religions are of mans construct.

I Took “Hot” and “Cold” in chapter-3 to mean “With me” or “Not with me”, not necessarily, right or wrong. I leaned towards this interpretation because of the last few passages where he stated that if you let him in your house he will eat with you.

I am really sorry if I seem cryptic, that is the last thing I want to be. I want you to understand everything that I say, I have nothing to hide. This bums me out really.
I am truly sorry.

PLEASE:

Ask me about any science thing I say, I can answer you directly or point you to an answer. I feel really bad now.

 

[JediMobius]

Well, to see if we are Christian or not, lets ask the question.

1) If today were the last day of your life where would you spend eternity?
2) Lets suppose today were the last day of your life and you found yourself face to face with God, and he asked, why should you spend eternity with me, what would you say to him?

Since we are all Christians we should be able to answer these questions confidently without what ifs and what abouts. They have nothing to do with how you were created in fact. Even the simplest man can answer these questions if he is certain about his future, and not have a clue who Adam was.

I could answer 1) with God and 2) Well God, I have no right to spend eternity with you, but you gave me the gift of eternal life. However, that would only mean I know the right answers, that I perhaps read the right scripture or attended the right teaching to know these things. It doesn't say much about whether I'm Christian. Only by our fruits can we be judged Christian or not, and that's difficult to do over the internet.

So the harder question, are we saints or not?

1) If you had to choose to save your closest family member's life, or to deny Christ, which would you choose?
2) If you had to choose between your own life, and denying Christ, which would you choose?

Im a Christian; I can come and debate the flaws within any religion, especially my own.

Have fun with that. I don't have a religion, I have the Holy Spirit.

disprove the Bible?

like, someone can say, I don't know, disprove any other book. Like, Silent Spring

Disprove? The term is so subjective it cannot apply to a book.

To 'disprove the bible' is to disprove that it is what it says it is, the divinely inspired word of God. Truth. Wisdom.

Faithful and true? A true Christian protects knowledge and truth. And heart. And soul. Science does not mislead me from the truth.

Please show me the evidence and data that science misleads one from the truth.

God doesnt just use one book. Sure the one "Him" that the Bible mentions is Him; but, He also needs to be reached other ways. Its simply not a perfect world if everyone is Christian.

I don't know what you mean by that last sentence. Anyway, God can only be reached through obedience to His will. If you mean 'finding' God, only God calls believers to himself, we can't really find or know God on our own. The bible is all we have to gauge spiritual truths, which are much more important than quantifiable data. How can science lead anyone to God, who is the Truth, and who is unquantifiable? Science can tell you some things that are true, but it is a system created and utilized by man, so science is inherently flawed, especially when it comes time to interpret the data.

A true Christian is more concerned with love, faith, and hope than knowledge or wisdom. Ever read Ecclesiastes?

yes, that link provided a well thought out and well written hypthesis....

BUT

without any science having anything to do with it. Its just theological philosophy that tries to tie science into the Bible using a specific translation of Hebrew. It doesn't explain how they find human skeletons dating back 120,000 years.

it was a theologically philisophical idea oriented article, but had little or nothing to do with science, or the interpretation of data.

just, scripture, and reasoning on how people try to align science in perfect accordance with scripture.

This thread has nothing to do with science. Look at the top where it says: Christian Forums > Theology (Christians Only) > Theology > Christian Apologetics > How long has man been created. What part of that says science? It wasn't asked for in the OP. Regardless, science is a creation of man. The use of that page isn't scientific, but theological. It shows theologically that observations of the age of the earth do not contradict the account in Genesis. As for these 'human' skeletons, all that can be studied are skeletons which appear human, there is no evidence of intelligence or anything else that makes us human other than skeletal structure. Also, dating methods are unreliable. This is apparent in that dating methods are 'updated' often - it seems to me that many scientists aren't satisfied with the age they find until it seems old enough to fit into their hypothesis. The other problem is the assumption of the atmospheric ratio of the isotope used for carbon dating. We have no way of knowing with any certainty that the ratio of the carbon isotope in the atmosphere during the life of a (now) fossil is anywhere near what is expected, yet the figure is crucial to the dating system.

 

[JediMobius]

Cool,

I understand all of your views here. I do not agree with them all, but the way you stated them I accept them as a logical alternative to mine.

I can deal with that, I guess.

I have heard before that I didn’t have an experience because it does not line up with a religion. That is ok with me, I have stated before, religions are of mans construct.

I Took “Hot” and “Cold” in chapter-3 to mean “With me” or “Not with me”, not necessarily, right or wrong. I leaned towards this interpretation because of the last few passages where he stated that if you let him in your house he will eat with you.

OK, that is the meaning I take from it, but you somehow interpreted that the passage would mean there is no right or wrong, which is what confused me.

I am really sorry if I seem cryptic, that is the last thing I want to be. I want you to understand everything that I say, I have nothing to hide. This bums me out really.

I am truly sorry.

PLEASE:

Ask me about any science thing I say, I can answer you directly or point you to an answer. I feel really bad now.

Don't feel bad, I've found that each of us more or less has our own dialect of the english language. It's strange that almost no one communicates the same way I do, even though I try to be clear and concise in what I say, yet detailed enough to show my meaning. Anyway, I will need to read through your post again tomorrow and start a new thread - I'll PM a link.

I never for a second thought you meant to be confusing or cryptic, it's just that a few of the things you said just seem very odd to me, especially since we're both Christian, and I simply expect Christians to have similar basic ideas about God and Spiritual matters. It's a stumbling block, an obstacle in our discussion, nothing more. Don't worry, I enjoy discussing with you, as different as our views may be, because I can tell you mean well and there's no tension in your posts. (Well, except there was that initial misunderstanding...)

 

[GenemZ]

yes, that link provided a well thought out and well written hypthesis....

BUT

without any science having anything to do with it. Its just theological philosophy that tries to tie science into the Bible using a specific translation of Hebrew. It doesn't explain how they find human skeletons dating back 120,000 years.

The Bible does explain, though.

This is going years back..

I was fortunate to hear a retired Harvard Professor exegeting from a Hebrew a passage found in Jeremiah. He showed and explained that a generic Hebrew term was used for describing man at a time that preexisted Adam.

This passage looked back at the destruction of all life on earth. Utterly destroyed. Jeremiah was using prophetic words as a warning to Israel. It was a reminder to the Jews concerning God's power and ability to judge and overwhelmingly destroy.

Much to my surprise. Jeremiah's warning opened with the same Hebrew words used in Genesis 1:2. Words that speak of the earth being in a state of utter destruction and laid waste.. having an eerie sense of emptiness hanging over it. To simply show this passage to you in a generic English translation and not tell you what the Hebrew wording reveals? Would leave you wondering the significance of such a passage. But, in the Hebrew it reveals detail and a thrust that speaks of a complete devastation of the previous creation.

Jeremiah 4:23-27
" I looked at the earth,
and it was formless and empty;
and at the heavens,
and their light was gone.
24 I looked at the mountains,
and they were quaking;
all the hills were swaying.
25 I looked, and there were no people;
every bird in the sky had flown away.
26 I looked, and the fruitful land was a desert;
all its towns lay in ruins
before the LORD, before his fierce anger.
27 This is what the LORD says:
"The whole land will be ruined,
though I will not destroy it completely.​

Jeremiah's warning intro begins the same Hebrew words of Genesis 1:2. Why would the Holy Spirit chose words to warn of utter devastation and destruction coming to Israel? If, Genesis 1:2 does not speak of a completely destroyed world?

The Jews understood the Hebrew of Genesis 1:2 spoke of judgment and complete ruin. That is why Jeremiah had to finish his warning with an addendum. That God would not completely destroy Israel. For, Genesis 1:2 speaks of a complete and total destruction of the prehistoric earth.

A prehistoric world where the Bible says a humanoid creation was living. Its not until this creation that man was first created in God's image. Hence, why a generic term was used by Jeremiah to descibe what was called 'people.' In the prior creation what was called man most likely had the highest level of intelligence of all life on earth. But, I would guess they must have been quite ugly in comparison. Neanderthals or semi ape-like in appearance. For it says it was not until Genesis 6 that angels first found the women of men attractive. But I digress...




In Christ, GeneZ



.