What if you found out tomorrow . . .

[shernren]

so, basically, the world need not be real as long as the Bible is?

 

[bdfoster]

If you are trying to reverse the issue of the OP, you need to say it this way: To the TE's: if there were undeniable evidence found today of a young earth and instantaneous creation, would you drop your belief in evolution. I think almost everyone of the TE's would say, sure!

Not only "sure" but "gladly, enthusiastically and with much relief!" I started out as a YEC when I was younger. As a Christian and a geologist nobody would want to be able to say that scientific evidence confirms the literal biblical account more than I would. But it just doesn't. And I wouldn't be honest if I said otherwise.

 

[Vance]

Oh, sure, I will follow the evidence wherever it leads, and hold that belief to the extent, and only to the extent, that the evidence warrants, just as I do now. I would still believe, of course, that the creation accounts were meant to be read figuratively and not as literal history. Since I don't adopt that interpretation based on the scientific evidence, there would be no reason to change it based on the scientific evidence.

 

[SBG]

That was a joke, obviously a bad one, but still...

Did you see my winking eye at the end of the sentence to tell you I was joking too?

Well, let's go back and look at what HE said:

Well first, if we want to stand from judging him for a moment - we can do that right? - we will see he says nothing about story being a bad word. He puts stress on the word story to say it isn't just a story but rather a real event.

I think you are insistent to make something about this because anytime mhess writes something I see you there to argue him. Not just 1 or 2 posts but every post I have seen where mhess is, you are there to point out how he is wrong. You have even done so by using a strawman argument, such as this one here on the word story.

he put "story" in "", as if to say that the word was the problem. I made a very natural inferrance that this word was the issue that he had. If you go back and look at what I said, I never said it was "just" a story. Had I said that, and had he put "just" in "", then I would have made a different inferrance as to his intent. As it stands, looking at what I said, and what he said, I would still make the connection from his comments that he thinks because I called it a "story" that I have a problem with it, thinking it was something less than the truth. "how said it is to hear a pastor say such a thing." was how he followed that sentence. As a pastor, I resent folks making such assumptions based on a word. If he wants to be literal, be literal with my words and don't make assumptions.

Oh my, he put the word story into his sentence. Shall we ask him to take it out so we can all feel better?

What you made was a strawman. Of course you would say the same if you did it over again. You don't like mhess and that much is extremely obvious.

As a Pastor you should never resent anyone. You can dislike what they say, but to resent the person just isn't the way a Pastor ought to be. Maybe it is different it your sect that these things are ok.

Do I care? Of course I do. Do I agree with your assessment as to what their position was? No. Do I think that even if you were right in your assessment that I can disagree with them? Yes. Had the early Fathers thought it to be a big deal, surely they would have said in one creed or another that this was literal and that to disagree would make someone anethema--they didn't.

Ah, but Augustine was quite clear about Paul's position. If you disagree, fine, it is your choice. I have no issue with that. I am curious though why theistic evolutionists today feel we must change the intended meaning of Scripture to fit with modern thinking. The early Church struggled and died for what they preached and a literal historical Genesis was one of them. This reading of Genesis wasn't the main issue, never was. But some here think it is responsible of them to misrepresent Church Fathers by pulling their statements out of context and perpetuating lies.

As a Pastor, how do you feel about deception? Do you think presenting only a piece of someone's writings, cutting off where it goes against their belief, so that they can misuse it to present their view?

And how do you feel about the interpretation of the Apostles and early Church Fathers who all agreed a global flood happened? They did so on the basis of Scripture alone? And now, you and others state they are ALL wrong on their interpretation of Scripture.

I'll leave Clement of Rome to my friend here who goes by his name. As to Paul's sermons, interpretation is called for, and I think you are either: misinterpreting Paul's message or making too much of one of his illustrations.
Yes, they have. I disagree with the point as you have raised it. If you are trying to reverse the issue of the OP, you need to say it this way: To the TE's: if there were undeniable evidence found today of a young earth and instantaneous creation, would you drop your belief in evolution. I think almost everyone of the TE's would say, sure!

Well ask your friend to come on in. I believe I have all of Clement of Rome's works so we can discuss them. And we can move on to all of Church Fathers on this issue. It seems by what is left of their writings that all of them disagree with you.

And are you aware of what the Greeks believe at the time Paul spoke against them on Acts 17? As Paul's sermons, lets talk about why Paul said all men came from one man. Can you understand it without twisting it like others have here?

As for TE's, if the world looks you believe it does now, but God DID create it in six days, less than 10,000 years ago, is God a liar?

 

[herev]

Did you see my winking eye at the end of the sentence to tell you I was joking too?

ok...

Well first, if we want to stand from judging him for a moment - we can do that right? - we will see he says nothing about story being a bad word. He puts stress on the word story to say it isn't just a story but rather a real event.

you make my point. To say something is a story does not mean it ISN'T REAL! ie, this is to suggest that to call something a story is bad.

I think you are insistent to make something about this because anytime mhess writes something I see you there to argue him. Not just 1 or 2 posts but every post I have seen where mhess is, you are there to point out how he is wrong. You have even done so by using a strawman argument, such as this one here on the word story.

If you check my posting history, I haven't posted that many posts here at all lately, so I'd check my facts before making such accusations. This is, in no way, any such thing as a strawman arguement. It was an answer to his post--HE BROUGHT IT UP, not me.

Oh my, he put the word story into his sentence. Shall we ask him to take it out so we can all feel better?

have you been hanging around my 2-year old? That sounds like something she would say...

What you made was a strawman. Of course you would say the same if you did it over again. You don't like mhess and that much is extremely obvious.

actually, he and I have conversed a number of times, I actually do like him and am impressed with his deep conviction and faith, we just disagree. Again, you should check your facts before making false accusations.

As a Pastor you should never resent anyone. You can dislike what they say, but to resent the person just isn't the way a Pastor ought to be. Maybe it is different it your sect that these things are ok.

I don't resent him in any way--I'm starting to resent you, though. How dare you decide you know what's going on in my head. Who do you think you are to make such judgements about me? I have only made comments on his posts, not some imaginary thoughts inferred from his posts, like you are doing about me and my posts.

Ah, but Augustine was quite clear about Paul's position. If you disagree, fine, it is your choice.

well, thanks for that.

I have no issue with that. I am curious though why theistic evolutionists today feel we must change the intended meaning of Scripture to fit with modern thinking.

and yet, as has been said to you repeatedly, we do not think we are changing the intended meaning of ANYTHING. Did someone say strawman? Who was that? I can't remember.

The early Church struggled and died for what they preached and a literal historical Genesis was one of them.

I know of not one single instance in Christian Historical documents where anyone was martyred because of thier belief in a literal creation account. could you cite a source, please?

This reading of Genesis wasn't the main issue, never was. But some here think it is responsible of them to misrepresent Church Fathers by pulling their statements out of context and perpetuating lies.

exactly

As a Pastor, how do you feel about deception? Do you think presenting only a piece of someone's writings, cutting off where it goes against their belief, so that they can misuse it to present their view?

as a pastor, I think your judgmental attitude is going against Christ's teaching--I stand not in judgement of you as a Christian or a pastor, so why don't you go judge someone who cares about your intentionally misleading accusations.

And how do you feel about the interpretation of the Apostles and early Church Fathers who all agreed a global flood happened? They did so on the basis of Scripture alone? And now, you and others state they are ALL wrong on their interpretation of Scripture.

actually, go back through my posting history--I HAVE NEVER SAID ANYONE WAS WRONG FOR BELIEVING IN A LITERAL CREATION--NOT ONCE--EVER--EVER--EVER, NOT EVEN YOU. I have only said that Theistic evolution is just as viable--once again, you are the one misrepresenting others. Check your facts. I am not one that thinks that those who are creationists are wrong, stupid, uneducated, backwards, or anything else. I merely want my beliefs to be accepted as well. You are barking up the wrong tree--AGAIN.

Well ask your friend to come on in. I believe I have all of Clement of Rome's works so we can discuss them.

Don't miss my point. I make no comment as to CoR's beliefs one way or the other. It doesn't matter. The early church father's thought it was impossible to fly, too...

And we can move on to all of Church Fathers on this issue. It seems by what is left of their writings that all of them disagree with you.

and yet, I still sleep at night. They made decisions based on what they had. I don't see that ALL of them thougth it was a big deal.

And are you aware of what the Greeks believe at the time Paul spoke against them on Acts 17? As Paul's sermons, lets talk about why Paul said all men came from one man. Can you understand it without twisting it like others have here?

are you just angry now--I've been absent a while, who's ticked you off? Quit taking it out on me. I'm not intersted in hearing your accusations about twisting anything.

As for TE's, if the world looks you believe it does now, but God DID create it in six days, less than 10,000 years ago, is God a liar?

of course not. ONCE AGAIN, MAKE SURE YOU ARE QUOTING THE RIGHT PERSON. I'VE NEVER SAID THAT--NEVER--NEVER--NEVER--NEVER. God is NEVER a liar. I trust God 100%. I fully admit to the possibility that I could be wrong, something you don't seem capable of admitting.

 

[Vance]

I am not sure where SBG gets this. No TE here has ever said God is a liar. I think he has taken what somebody said and turned it around. Someone probably said that Scripture CAN'T being saying the earth is young, because that would mean that God was telling us something that wasn't true, and God can't do that. This, of course, is making the point that God CAN'T lie, and holds that position so strongly that we must consider that our reading of Scripture is wrong. Somehow, I think SBG has turned this around into a statement that if Genesis turns out to have been literal, then God is a liar, which would completely misrepresent the point.

Ironically, many YEC's have said outright that if it turned out evolution was true, they would think that Scripture should be tossed out, and they might even lose their Christian faith. So, isn't it them that is saying that if their reading of Scripture is wrong, God is a liar?

 

[SBG]

ok...



you make my point. To say something is a story does not mean it ISN'T REAL! ie, this is to suggest that to call something a story is bad.
If you check my posting history, I haven't posted that many posts here at all lately, so I'd check my facts before making such accusations. This is, in no way, any such thing as a strawman arguement. It was an answer to his post--HE BROUGHT IT UP, not me.

Are we now saying that anything that anything that isn't real is bad? We can look at Scripture in two ways. One it really happened, two it has a greater meaning in a story that has not yet unfolded, hence is not real yet. THe flood for instance, can be seen what happens when a world despises God and His Authority. This can viewed in a prophetic way, something that has yet to happen, where this world today or tomorrow continues in its willful ignorance concerning God and refuses to listen to Him; hence the world is consumed by God's wrath. If we are take the flood as local flood, then people could have escaped the flood - God's wrath - on their own accord without God. Is this the greater message you wish to tell unbelievers?

Since, you assumed mhess meant that a story is bad thing, you then created a strawman. You didn't ask mhess if he believes things that are not real are bad things, did you?

have you been hanging around my 2-year old? That sounds like something she would say...

I always enjoy it when people take shots like this.

actually, he and I have conversed a number of times, I actually do like him and am impressed with his deep conviction and faith, we just disagree. Again, you should check your facts before making false accusations.
I don't resent him in any way--I'm starting to resent you, though. How dare you decide you know what's going on in my head. Who do you think you are to make such judgements about me? I have only made comments on his posts, not some imaginary thoughts inferred from his posts, like you are doing about me and my posts.

Well you did say this didn't you?

"As a pastor, I resent folks making such assumptions based on a word."

Didn't you make an assumption on what mhess meant by that word?

I have not done anything to you, herev. I have commented against your post, but I have not done anything to you.

well, thanks for that.

Your welcome.

and yet, as has been said to you repeatedly, we do not think we are changing the intended meaning of ANYTHING. Did someone say strawman? Who was that? I can't remember.

I said strawman, and te's have said Genesis cannot be taken as literal history. The early Church, Apostles, Jesus Christ all made references and taught that Genesis did really happen; creation, flood, etc. Te's are now saying this is not a correct interpretation, one that the early Church held. That is changing by the definition I know of.

I know of not one single instance in Christian Historical documents where anyone was martyred because of thier belief in a literal creation account. could you cite a source, please?

And did I say they were martyred because of their beliefs on Genesis? This is what I said:

"The early Church struggled and died for what they preached and a literal historical Genesis was one of them."
I am not sure how I can make this clearer for you. Uhm... the early Church preached God's word - one of which being a literal historical Genesis - and they died because of all that they preached.

The didn't die because of Genesis alone, but because of their stance on teaching, preaching, and believing what is written in the early letters and teachings of the Apostles. They held God in a higher Authority than the men of the day who made claims of a godless world. These claims included the earth being very, very old, local flood, and the earth spontaneously producing life.

exactly

Seeing as you did read the statement I made, with replying exactly, I don't know why you made the comment you did above. Obviously you understood but choose to argue it anyways.(martyer of Christians comment by you, herev)

as a pastor, I think your judgmental attitude is going against Christ's teaching--I stand not in judgement of you as a Christian or a pastor, so why don't you go judge someone who cares about your intentionally misleading accusations.
actually, go back through my posting history--I HAVE NEVER SAID ANYONE WAS WRONG FOR BELIEVING IN A LITERAL CREATION--NOT ONCE--EVER--EVER--EVER, NOT EVEN YOU. I have only said that Theistic evolution is just as viable--once again, you are the one misrepresenting others. Check your facts. I am not one that thinks that those who are creationists are wrong, stupid, uneducated, backwards, or anything else. I merely want my beliefs to be accepted as well. You are barking up the wrong tree--AGAIN.

Sigh. I asked your opinion, I didn't accuse you of anything, unless you feel are doing what I stated. Your comment quoted above sounds like you do agree what some have done here by misrepresenting the Church Fathers.

Honestly, this comment I made was about you, but asking how you felt about it. Very nice strawman, again.

Well thank you for your comment saying creationists are not wrong.

Don't miss my point. I make no comment as to CoR's beliefs one way or the other. It doesn't matter. The early church father's thought it was impossible to fly, too...

So you aren't going to ask him to come to the discussion then?

and yet, I still sleep at night. They made decisions based on what they had. I don't see that ALL of them thougth it was a big deal.

That is wonderful that you sleep well at night, I wouldn't wish anything less. They made decisions on what the Bible says as per what they say.

They obviously thought it was something to go out and preach against. Local flood... people can escape on their own....don't need God to escape His wrath....we can do as wish as long as we can find our own way....

are you just angry now--I've been absent a while, who's ticked you off? Quit taking it out on me. I'm not intersted in hearing your accusations about twisting anything.

Didn't you just ask me to not tell you what is going on in your head? Odd.

To be honest, I have been in a very good mood for quite sometime. This debate doesn't really bother me at. I just want to clear up the deceptions that are posted here on the Church Fathers.

Herev, I have not taken anything out on you. Please try and not make this personal. If you insist it must be, then your words against me and mhess are meant to be personal as well. I think we can have a calm discussion, without the resorting to calling this personal. I have not called you names, unlike some of the other here.

If the Church Fathers were presented here inaccurately, on purpose, this is deception, period. I know Vance has read the rest of #40 from Augustine, yet he left most of it out, why do you think that is? Read my signature to see.

of course not. ONCE AGAIN, MAKE SURE YOU ARE QUOTING THE RIGHT PERSON. I'VE NEVER SAID THAT--NEVER--NEVER--NEVER--NEVER. God is NEVER a liar. I trust God 100%. I fully admit to the possibility that I could be wrong, something you don't seem capable of admitting.

Should I take your use of CAPS to mean that you are angry?

I didn't say you thought God was a liar, you asked me to return with a question to the te's and I did. I simply asked you and others a question, I did not answer it for you.

Thank you for answering it though. And thank you for answering for me, instead of allowing me to answer.

 

[SBG]

I am not sure where SBG gets this. No TE here has ever said God is a liar. I think he has taken what somebody said and turned it around. Someone probably said that Scripture CAN'T being saying the earth is young, because that would mean that God was telling us something that wasn't true, and God can't do that. This, of course, is making the point that God CAN'T lie, and holds that position so strongly that we must consider that our reading of Scripture is wrong. Somehow, I think SBG has turned this around into a statement that if Genesis turns out to have been literal, then God is a liar, which would completely misrepresent the point.

Ironically, many YEC's have said outright that if it turned out evolution was true, they would think that Scripture should be tossed out, and they might even lose their Christian faith. So, isn't it them that is saying that if their reading of Scripture is wrong, God is a liar?

I have seen te's say that if the earth is young then this would make God a liar and God cannot be liar so Genesis is not literal.

Yes, one adds the second part of the sentence, but it still doesn't take away from the fact of one calling God a liar if the earth is young.

If God created by evolution, God would not be liar. But, if I want to stay consistent with the teaching of the Apostles, Early Church Fathers, and Jesus Christ, I will believe Genesis is literal history.

 

[Vance]

Don't forget the possibility that the Genesis accounts are telling us about REAL events, but telling us about them using figurative language, such as typology, symbology, poetry, etc. Just because it is not strictly historical does not mean it is just a story about something that hasn't happened.

A real creation process: figurative language and a framework structure
A real action taken with Mankind: a figurative telling of this using typology (Adam for Mankind, etc), and symbology.
A real Fall of mankind: told using that same typological figure and powerful and evocative imagery and symbolism.
A real, albeit more localized, flood event: powerful mythic narrative (of a real event), and a chaistic poetic structure.

So, it would be a mischaracterization to say that those who don't read it as strict literal history must read it as "merely" a story about general truths.

 

[mhess13]

Don't forget the possibility that the Genesis accounts are telling us about REAL events, but telling us about them using figurative language, such as typology, symbology, poetry, etc. Just because it is not strictly historical does not mean it is just a story about something that hasn't happened.

A real creation process: figurative language and a framework structure
A real action taken with Mankind: a figurative telling of this using typology (Adam for Mankind, etc), and symbology.
A real Fall of mankind: told using that same typological figure and powerful and evocative imagery and symbolism.
A real, albeit more localized, flood event: powerful mythic narrative (of a real event), and a chaistic poetic structure.

So, it would be a mischaracterization to say that those who don't read it as strict literal history must read it as "merely" a story about general truths.

So in other words God can't just say what He means and mean what He says. So how do I know that the resurrection isn't powerful mythic narrative?

God is my Father. I am a father. I tell my children what I want them to know and what I expect and I do it in a literal manner. I tell them straight up. Sometimes the older kids twist what I say or try and read something into it. I get mad. I don't see why you TEs don't just BELIEVE that your father in heaven can communicate in way that is straight-forward

 

[Vance]

So in other words God can't just say what He means and mean what He says. So how do I know that the resurrection isn't powerful mythic narrative?

God is my Father. I am a father. I tell my children what I want them to know and what I expect and I do it in a literal manner. I tell them straight up. Sometimes the older kids twist what I say or try and read something into it. I get mad. I don't see why you TEs don't just BELIEVE that your father in heaven can communicate in way that is straight-forward

But you are not someone living in the ancient near east telling about past events. Big difference.

To say that a figurative reading would mean "God can't just say what He means and mean what He says" makes no sense in this situation because it fails to recognize that telling something in a figurative manner can, indeed, be telling exactly what you mean. The resurrection is a very different situation for the many reasons we have stated over and over again.

 

[mhess13]

But you are not someone living in the ancient near east telling about past events. Big difference.

To say that a figurative reading would mean "God can't just say what He means and mean what He says" makes no sense in this situation because it fails to recognize that telling something in a figurative manner can, indeed, be telling exactly what you mean. The resurrection is a very different situation for the many reasons we have stated over and over again.

So God means that humans have a common ancestor with an ape, yet SAY in Genesis that He created man in HIS image? He can tell us that he created the earth in 6 days, but really mean thatit took 4 billion years?

You aren't even making sense man! That's just double talk. That's like Bill Klinton saying "that depends on you defintion of is..."
C'mon man

 

[Vance]

So God means that humans have a common ancestor with an ape, yet SAY in Genesis that He created man in HIS image? He can tell us that he created the earth in 6 days, but really mean thatit took 4 billion years?

You aren't even making sense man! That's just double talk. That's like Bill Klinton saying "that depends on you defintion of is..."
C'mon man

No, it makes perfect sense. What does the "image of God" mean? Do you really think it is some physical form? We know that the end result of God's creation of Mankind is that Mankind is in God's image in some way. Many feel that this means Man has a soul, or the knowledge of good and evil, or self-consciousness, etc. The question is what process God used to do this creation. We know that He did not just wave His hand and Man appeared. He describes a PROCESS. Taking dirt, breathing on it. It should be easy to see this as symbolic for some action taking by God, some process He used.
As for the six days, you should check out the framework nature of that account.

 

[SBG]

Are you aware that the Church Fathers also went against the frame work idea?

 

[Vance]

Are you aware that the Church Fathers also went against the frame work idea?

Yes, but why would that matter? You have to realize by now that I do not find the early church fathers in any greater position of authority than any other humans who have lived before or since. Sometimes they have very insightful things to say, just like Christian thinkers and theologians ever since.

 

[SBG]

Where did the Trinity theology come from?

 

[Vance]

Where did the Trinity theology come from?

We have already had this conversation. Human, even fallible humans, have to develop systematic ways of thinking about God and the things of God. But we always have to check those doctrinal issues back against Scripture to see whether it works, is the best way of explaining things within a Scriptural framework, etc. Do you not think that the doctrine of the trinity derives ultimately from the teachings of the Bible?

 

[SBG]

Of course the Trinity comes from the Bible, but the Trinity as a theology was developed by those Church Fathers you rather not listen to on the accounts of Genesis. It seems they were wise enough to understand the Trinity theology - which most don't understand - but are not wise enough to understand creation and the flood.

 

[mhess13]

Of course the Trinity comes from the Bible, but the Trinity as a theology was developed by those Church Fathers you rather not listen to on the accounts of Genesis. It seems they were wise enough to understand the Trinity theology - which most don't understand - but are not wise enough to understand creation and the flood.

They didn't have Vance's insight on Ancient Near east writtings or his scientific knowledge. Otherwise I'm sure they would have re-examined their beliefs...

 

[herev]

Are we now saying that anything that anything that isn't real is bad? We can look at Scripture in two ways. One it really happened, two it has a greater meaning in a story that has not yet unfolded, hence is not real yet. THe flood for instance, can be seen what happens when a world despises God and His Authority. This can viewed in a prophetic way, something that has yet to happen, where this world today or tomorrow continues in its willful ignorance concerning God and refuses to listen to Him; hence the world is consumed by God's wrath. If we are take the flood as local flood, then people could have escaped the flood - God's wrath - on their own accord without God. Is this the greater message you wish to tell unbelievers?

Since, you assumed mhess meant that a story is bad thing, you then created a strawman. You didn't ask mhess if he believes things that are not real are bad things, did you?




I always enjoy it when people take shots like this.



Well you did say this didn't you?

"As a pastor, I resent folks making such assumptions based on a word."

Didn't you make an assumption on what mhess meant by that word?

I have not done anything to you, herev. I have commented against your post, but I have not done anything to you.



Your welcome.



I said strawman, and te's have said Genesis cannot be taken as literal history. The early Church, Apostles, Jesus Christ all made references and taught that Genesis did really happen; creation, flood, etc. Te's are now saying this is not a correct interpretation, one that the early Church held. That is changing by the definition I know of.



And did I say they were martyred because of their beliefs on Genesis? This is what I said:

"The early Church struggled and died for what they preached and a literal historical Genesis was one of them."
I am not sure how I can make this clearer for you. Uhm... the early Church preached God's word - one of which being a literal historical Genesis - and they died because of all that they preached.

The didn't die because of Genesis alone, but because of their stance on teaching, preaching, and believing what is written in the early letters and teachings of the Apostles. They held God in a higher Authority than the men of the day who made claims of a godless world. These claims included the earth being very, very old, local flood, and the earth spontaneously producing life.



Seeing as you did read the statement I made, with replying exactly, I don't know why you made the comment you did above. Obviously you understood but choose to argue it anyways.(martyer of Christians comment by you, herev)




Sigh. I asked your opinion, I didn't accuse you of anything, unless you feel are doing what I stated. Your comment quoted above sounds like you do agree what some have done here by misrepresenting the Church Fathers.

Honestly, this comment I made was about you, but asking how you felt about it. Very nice strawman, again.

Well thank you for your comment saying creationists are not wrong.



So you aren't going to ask him to come to the discussion then?



That is wonderful that you sleep well at night, I wouldn't wish anything less. They made decisions on what the Bible says as per what they say.

They obviously thought it was something to go out and preach against. Local flood... people can escape on their own....don't need God to escape His wrath....we can do as wish as long as we can find our own way....





Didn't you just ask me to not tell you what is going on in your head? Odd.

To be honest, I have been in a very good mood for quite sometime. This debate doesn't really bother me at. I just want to clear up the deceptions that are posted here on the Church Fathers.

Herev, I have not taken anything out on you. Please try and not make this personal. If you insist it must be, then your words against me and mhess are meant to be personal as well. I think we can have a calm discussion, without the resorting to calling this personal. I have not called you names, unlike some of the other here.

If the Church Fathers were presented here inaccurately, on purpose, this is deception, period. I know Vance has read the rest of #40 from Augustine, yet he left most of it out, why do you think that is? Read my signature to see.



Should I take your use of CAPS to mean that you are angry?

I didn't say you thought God was a liar, you asked me to return with a question to the te's and I did. I simply asked you and others a question, I did not answer it for you.

Thank you for answering it though. And thank you for answering for me, instead of allowing me to answer.

sbg, you have taken most of what I have said and trying to twist it. I have no stomach for it. I do not need your condemnation or your mind-reading judgements. Let's just say that you are right and I'm wrong and move on. Go talk to a wall and see what the rest of us are dealing with in trying to converse with you.
you know, I remember you coming in early and telling people here they needed to calm down and treat people with respect. I respected you for that. Perhaps you've spent too much time around here. You're not the same, likable fella you were then, even when I disagreed with you, you were much more pleasant, you didn't put words in other people's mouths, and you sought peace.
God bless. Good night.