Are we so small in the universe?

[BrassFusion]

:laughing

Did he? which scriptures interpritations are you reading? WHICH TRUTH DAMNIT!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You know! It's that song they taught us in Sunday School...

"No no no

Don't touch me there

Cuz Jesus is in my

Underwear

And if you disturb him

You will be

Damned for all

Eternity."

[phee]

You know! It's that song they taught us in Sunday School...

"No no no

Don't touch me there

Cuz Jesus is in my

Underwear

And if you disturb him

You will be

Damned for all

Eternity."

Nope can't say I heard that one..............

(freak)

[torn asunder]

You know! It's that song they taught us in Sunday School...

"No no no

Don't touch me there

Cuz Jesus is in my

Underwear

And if you disturb him

You will be

Damned for all

Eternity."

:blink :blink :blink

:woot: :laughing :laughing

:fear :fear :whistling

[HipsterDufus]

:laughing

Did he? which scriptures interpritations are you reading? WHICH TRUTH DAMNIT!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

:laughing

[phee]

Yes when it comes to The bible... as well as any ancient manuscript arguabley...

"Not only do we not have the originals, we don't have the first copies of the originals. We don't even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies that are made later-much later. In most instances they are copies made many centuries later. These copies differ from one another, in many thousands of places" - "Misquoting Jesus" by Bert D Ehrman

[Gauge]

Yup

[Paper Hearts]

the universe sucks

[kellygrrrrrl]

I don't know about the bible.....

sure that can be argued.

All I is from what I researched, I am convinced....personally.

The origin of the Universe is in there.

The history's of The fallen Empires is in there and has been found to be historical evidence of the past.

The origin of man....

Sounds to simple to be scientific, but it explains the unexplainable in my opinion.

But, Alas....I'm a simple girl. =)

I've read the sceince books, seen the numbers, understand the logic...but there is still the unexplained...I seek to know that.

I may never...but does it have to be so much more complicated than it already is?

When it is simply put as it says: In the beginning god created the heavans and the Earth....it makes my head hurt less. :doh which makes me feel better. =)

You can get into details like Oh it was created in one day? There is an equasion somewhere scripturally that explains one day = something like 1,000,000 years but I can't remember the equasion or the numbers....sorry....or even where it is in the scripts.

On another note...

One of my fave Verses is this one:

But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride], lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. 6 For from these arise those men who slyly work their way into households and lead as their captives weak women loaded down with sins, led by various desires, 7 always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth.

I just like this one...explains a lot...to me

[phee]

It makes my head hurt as well that there are not simple solutions, not just to this question, but everyday problems.... but I can't as a person who continues to try to understand the world, simply end it ... because of a maternal Christian God says it is so....

I couldn't just be pacified in good conscience by that explination any more than I could get out of my day to day problems by saying... I cannot pay my cell phone bill because God says so... it is more complicated than that... but it would feel good.

And I cannot worship anything that is so vague/arguable/unproven and feel like a good person... any more than I could justify my worship of a God for murdering another.

[kellygrrrrrl]

I hear ya Phee....

Please understand, I do not put blame on GOD for any of my problems, or your's or the worlds.

We have choices to make.

That's it.

Nothing more nothing less.

You reap what you sow.

I don't put blame on GOD for anything....as easy as it would be to say, God could change this....why am I devestated so.....he can change this, GOD CHANGE THIS.

Or, GOD did this....

No...that's way too cheap.

I take responsibility for my problems/fixes/mistakes.....

[phee]

I hear ya Phee....

Please understand, I do not put blame on GOD for any of my problems, or your's or the worlds.

We have choices to make.

That's it.

Nothing more nothing less.

You reap what you sow.

I don't put blame on GOD for anything....as easy as it would be to say, God could change this....why am I devestated so.....he can change this, GOD CHANGE THIS.

Or, GOD did this....

No...that's way too cheap.

I take responsibility for my problems/fixes/mistakes.....

Cool, and I also don't blame any creature for the creation of this so called universe...

There is no way I could based on the information at hand... anymore than I could rule out the possibiblity that something more is there

[torn asunder]

On another note...

One of my fave Verses is this one:

But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride], lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. 6 For from these arise those men who slyly work their way into households and lead as their captives weak women loaded down with sins, led by various desires, 7 always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth.

I just like this one...explains a lot...to me

i think this describes a certain percentage of people from every age we've ever known - i'm sure at one point, every society has had people like this.

[kellygrrrrrl]

Im OUT!!!

Have a good Freak-end!

=)

[Steven]

That's what I mean....

And yes love and respect... do we need a Big dude with a beard in the sky for that really?

Do we need Christianity (or any other religion) for that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the thing is - you guys are asking a question that does not apply to Christianity.

you've made an assumption that the goal of Christianity is to model human behaviour. And so you logically ask why do we need Xtianity to model our behaviour when we can simply do that on our own?

And thats a great question - IF - Christianity had that particular goal, which it does not.

From the first prophesy in Genesis on through the last book of the Bible - Christianity has always pointed to the claim (which you dont have to accept - I'm merely reiterating the framework fo the beleif system) that Man is a flawed creature who cannot have a relationship with God without a mediator.

It has nothign to do with behavioural modification.

Yes Biblicly there are many teachings that apply directly to everyday life - these are however - bi-products of the foundation of a needful relationship with the Creator.

so in essence your arguing a point that does not apply to the model.

I know you dont like the model ro agree with it - and thats ok - but let the model be what it is - do not attempt to re-define it in order to sustain your point.

let me remind you of Christs own words when he was asked what one must do to be saved: "you must love your God with your whole mind, heart, and will"

that was the nitty gritty of Christianity when he was asked to boil it down to its essence.

Notice that he did not say "you must play nice, you must follow the Golden Rule, you must be a really giid guy and do the best you can and dont burn anybody"

[Steven]

My problem is this.

I believe in GOD.

Selfish as this may sound,.......

Being a Christian is a choice.  A dedication.  A Symbolic dedication to GOD.

Which requires a lot of lifestyle changes and a lot of turning your mind around...

This is what I personally have the hard time with.

Not change for anyone else.  You.  And only you.

Easier said than done.

When all you've even known was what you know, it is hard to do the 360 change.

When everyone opposes you, and wants to argue you, it hurts....

People don't really understand...why would you want to dedicate so much to this when....(opposing thoughts/theories.... etc...)

The best form of symbolic dedication to GOD is to be wahsed clean to start over. (Baptism)

A public dedication to GOD.

----which is why I don't understand why Babies get baptized. 

Baptism/dedication/The symbolic washing away of sin is a choice.....Babies don't have that choice.....nor have they sinned to have to be washed clean.

Jesus was Baptized in his 30's when he was capable of making this decision and dedication to GOD.

This is something I am just not ready for.

I know myself too well.

This makes me sad, because I have no self-control, I have always had problems with dicsipline....self-discipline...etc...

Once you Dedicate, and you fuck up....it's worse than never getting baptized at all....

from what I understand.

I dissapoint myself by saying I will and then don't....all the time.

I couldn't do that to GOD.

Please be kind!

Just sharing some of my personal dealings. =)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You just described my life, my process, my experience.

These changes did not come overnight.

It was not convenienet when they came.

Yet it was more often that not - extremely liberating when certain things were let go of. Not wresteled from me, but let go of.

i will suggest to you Kelly that you have some old JW fear still stuck in you - as is completely uunderstandable.

As a JW - you are never taught the concept of Grace.

WHy?

Because with Grace - the JW's cannot control you.

Because with Grace - there are no guilt bombs to toss at you.

YOu WILL fuck up after you dedicate.

I did - in more ways then you would beleive.

if grace was not available to us, and forgiveness, then why was there the need for Christ's sacrificial blood? whats the purpose of his death covering all sin past present and future.....if you better nto fuck up again?

ANd your right - babies should not get babatized - its a waste - a baby cannot dedicate his life to God - and you find no biblical model for this Catholic ritual. There is a great deal said biblically about babtizm and its symbolism - and every single time its exemplified an adult is being babtized.

Dont worry so much about your sin nature Kelley - (if you do that is) - because all sinners are sinners, its simply that simple. You - are jsut like me - before the eyes of God.

[Steven]

  Again, I'm going to go back to saying that this God must be kind of a jerk if he wants you to feel bad for not doing enough for him.

  Guilt is not a reason for devotion, imho.

Edit: this was directed towards Kelly's last comment, FYI.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you'll find no biblical model supporting this process hipster.

the church invented guilt bombs - that has never been God's style.

The church is not Christ - the church is not Christianity.

[Steven]

10 commandments, book of psalms, Jesus example....

etc.....

according to biblical standrads.

Which really are simple....

But hard by today's standards.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

try to put this in context too though Kelly.

one of the things that got Jesus killed is his rightful accusation of the Pahrisees and the Jes for making the Ten COmmandments their god - instead of God....they very much loved their controlling legalism.

obeying the ten commandments does not, and nevr did - make one a beleiver.

there was a purpsoe to them - in the beginning - as a tool to form a nation out of slaves. It provided a framework and foundation to build from, so that from this nation the Messiah could come forth.

[Steven]

But this is VERY SPECIFIC to western religious paternal thought...

You mentioned the 10 commandments.... they are very specific about this

"I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me... .."

"Remember [zachor] the Sabbath day and keep it holy"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lets be fair here though Phee.

this biblical quote: why was this commanded? to whom did it apply, and at what stage of their existence were they in when this was commanded? What was their identiy prior to this stage and hwo did it affect their culture?

[BrassFusion]

I think maybe what Phee might've meant earlier (i could be misinterpreting) is that the IDEAL religion strives to mold its members into moral, functioning members of society, but that that isn't even necessary.

let me remind you of Christs own words when he was asked what one must do to be saved: "you must love your God with your whole mind, heart, and will"

that was the nitty gritty of Christianity when he was asked to boil it down to its essence.

Notice that he did not say "you must play nice, you must follow the Golden Rule, you must be a really giid guy and do the best you can and dont burn anybody"

See, the problem I have with this is that Big Daddy and the J-Man are handing out salvation to people who aren't necessarily deserving.

Shouldn't good people go to Heaven, and bad people go to Hell, beliefs notwithstanding? That is, if there is a hell, which I still refuse to believe. Any god that would condemn good people on the basis of their lack of spiritual commitment is not a god I'd bother worshipping.

[Steven]

The scriptures are real what exactly?... and are you talking about the scriptures cannonized by the Catholic Church? And if you are refering to the bible, which bible?

here are some of the ones just in English:

    *  Abbreviated Bible - TAB - 1971, eliminates duplications, includes the Apocrypha

    * American Standard Version - ASV - 1901, a.k.a. Standard American Edition, Revised Version, the American version of the Holy Bible, Revised Version

    * American Translation (Beck) - AAT - 1976

    * American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed) - SGAT - 1931

    * Amplified Bible - AB - 1965, includes explanation of words within text

    * Aramaic Bible (Targums) - ABT - 1987, originally translated from the Hebrew into the Aramaic

    * Aramaic New Covenant - ANCJ - 1996, a translation and transliteration of the New Covenant

    * Authentic New Testament - ANT - 1958

    * Barclay New Testament - BNT - 1969

    * Basic Bible - TBB - 1950, based upon a vocabulary of 850 words

    * Bible Designed to Be Read as Literature - BDRL - 1930, stresses literary qualities of the Bible, includes the Apocrypha

    * Bible Reader - TBR - 1969, an interfaith version, includes the Apocrypha

    * Cassirer New Testament - CNT - 1989

    * Centenary Translation of the New Testament - CTNT - 1924, one of the few versions translated solely by a woman

    * Common English New Testament - CENT - 1865

    * Complete Jewish Bible - CJB - 1989, a Messianic Jewish translation

    * Concordant Literal New Testament - CLNT - 1926

    * Confraternity of Christian Doctrine Translation - CCDT - 1953, includes the Apocrypha

    * Contemporary English Version - CEV - 1992, includes Psalms and Proverbs

    * Coptic Version of the New Testament - CVNT - 1898, based on translations from northern Egypt

    * Cotton Patch Version - CPV - 1968, based on American ideas and Southern US culture, only contains Paul's writings

    * Coverdale Bible - TCB - 1540, includes the Apocrypha

    * Darby Holy Bible - DHB - 1923

    * Dartmouth Bible - TDB - 1961, an abridgment of the King James Version, includes the Apocrypha

    * De Nyew Testament in Gullah - NTG - 2005

    * Dead Sea Scrolls Bible - DSSB - 1997, translated from Dead Sea Scrolls documents, includes the Apocrypha

    * Documents of the New Testament - DNT - 1934

    * Douay-Rheims Bible - DRB - 1899

    * Emphasized Bible - EBR - 1959, contains signs of emphasis for reading

    * Emphatic Diaglott - EDW - 1942

    * English Standard Version - ESV - 2001, a revision of the Revised Standard Version

    * English Version for the Deaf - EVD - 1989, a.k.a. Easy-to-Read Version, designed to meet the special needs of the deaf

    * English Version of the Polyglott Bible - EVPB - 1858, the English portion of an early Bible having translations into several languages

    * Geneva Bible - TGB - 1560, the popular version just prior to the translation of the King James Version, includes the Apocrypha

    * Godbey Translation of the New Testament - GTNT - 1905

    * God's Word - GW - 1995, a.k.a Today's Bible Translation

    * Holy Bible in Modern English - HBME - 1900

    * Holy Bible, Revised Version - HBRV - 1885, an official revision of the King James Version which was not accepted at the time

    * Holy Scriptures (Harkavy) - HSH - 1951

    * Holy Scriptures (Leeser) - HSL - 1905

    * Holy Scriptures (Menorah) - HSM - 1973, a.k.a. Jewish Family Bible

    * Inclusive Version - AIV - 1995, stresses equality of the sexes and physically handicapped, includes Psalms

    * Inspired Version - IV - 1867, a revision of the King James Version

    * Interlinear Bible (Green) - IB - 1976, side-by-side Hebrew/Greek and English

    * International Standard Version - ISV - 1998

    * Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) - TJB - 1966, includes the Apocrypha

    * Jerusalem Bible (Koren) - JBK - 1962, side-by-side Hebrew and English

    * Jewish Bible for Family Reading - JBFR - 1957, includes the Apocrypha

    * John Wesley New Testament - JWNT - 1755, a correction of the King James Version

    * King James Version - KJV - 1611, a.k.a. Authorized Version, originally included the Apocrypha

    * Kleist-Lilly New Testament - KLNT - 1956

    * Knox Translation - KTC - 1956, includes the Apocrypha

    * Lamsa Bible - LBP - 1957, based on Peshitta manuscripts

    * Lattimore New Testament - LNT - 1962, a literal translation

    * Letchworth Version in Modern English - LVME - 1948

    * Living Bible - LB - 1971, a paraphrase version

    * McCord's New Testament Translation of the Everlasting Gospel - MCT - 1989

    * Message - TM - 1993, a.k.a. New Testament in Contemporary English, a translation in the street language of the day, includes Psalms and Proverbs

    * Modern Reader's Bible - MRB - 1923, stresses literary qualities, includes the Apocrypha

    * Modern Speech New Testament - MSNT - 1902, an attempt to present the Bible in effective, intelligible English

    * Moffatt New Translation - MNT - 1922

    * New American Bible - NAB - 1987, includes the Apocrypha

    * New American Standard Version - NAS - 1977

    * New Berkeley Version in Modern English - NBV - 1967

    * New Century Version - NCV - 1987

    * New English Bible - NEB - 1970, includes the Apocrypha

    * New Evangelical Translation - NET - 1992, a translation aimed at missionary activity

    * New International Version - NIV - 1978

    * New Jerusalem Bible - NJB - 1985, includes the Apocrypha

    * New JPS Version - NJPS - 1988

    * New King James Version - NKJ - 1990

    * New Life Version - NLV - 1969, a translation designed to be useful wherever English is used as a second language

    * New Living Translation - NLT - 1996, a dynamic-equivalence translation

    * New Millenium Bible - NMB - 1999, a contemporary English translation

    * New Revised Standard Version - NRS - 1989, the authorized revision of the Revised Standard Version

    * New Testament in Plain English - WPE - 1963, a version using common words only

    * New Testament: An Understandable Version - NTUV - 1995, a limited edition version

    * New Translation (Jewish) - NTJ - 1917

    * New World Translation - NWT - 1984

    * Noli New Testament - NNT - 1961, the first and only book of its kind by an Eastern Orthodox translator at the time of its publication

    * Norlie's Simplified New Testament - NSNT - 1961, includes Psalms

    * Original New Testament - ONT - 1985, described by publisher as a radical translation and reinterpretation

    * Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha - OJBC - 1996, an Orthodox version containing Rabbinic Hebrew terms

    * People's New Covenant - PNC - 1925, a version translated from the meta-physical standpoint

    * Phillips Revised Student Edition - PRS - 1972

    * Recovery Version - RcV - 1991, a reference version containing extensive notes

    * Reese Chronological Bible - RCB - 1980, an arrangement of the King James Version in chronological order

    * Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible - SNB - 1976, a version whose concern is the true name and titles of the creator and his son

    * Restored New Testament - PRNT - 1914, a version giving an interpretation according to ancient philosophy and psychology

    * Revised English Bible - REB - 1989, a revision of the New English Bible

    * Revised Standard Version - RSV - 1952, a revision of the American Standard Version

    * Riverside New Testament - RNT - 1923, written in the living English language of the time of the translation

    * Sacred Scriptures, Bethel Edition - SSBE - 1981, the sacred name and the sacred titles and the name of Yahshua restored to the text of the Bible

    * Scholars Version - SV - 1993, a.k.a. Five Gospels; contains evaluations of academics of what are, might be, and are not, the words of Jesus; contains the four gospels and the Gospel of Thomas

    * Scriptures (ISR) - SISR - 1998, traditional names replaced by Hebraic ones and words with pagan sources replaced

    * Septuagint - LXX - c. 200 BCE, the earliest version of the Old Testament scriptures, includes the Apocrypha

    * Shorter Bible - SBK - 1925, eliminates duplications

    * Spencer New Testament - SCM - 1941

    * Stone Edition of the Tanach - SET - 1996, side-by-side Hebrew and English

    * Swann New Testament - SNT - 1947, no chapters, only paragraphs, with verses numbered consecutively from Matthew to Revelation

    * Today's English New Testament - TENT - 1972

    * Today's English Version - TEV - 1976, a.k.a. Good News Bible

    * Twentieth Century New Testament - TCNT - 1904

    * Unvarnished New Testament - UNT - 1991, the principal sentence elements kept in the original order of the Greek

    * Versified Rendering of the Complete Gospel Story - VRGS - 1980, the gospel books written in poetic form, contains the four gospels

    * Westminster Version of the Sacred Scriptures - WVSS - 1929

    * Wiclif Translation - TWT - 1380, a very early version translated into English

    * William Tindale Newe Testament - WTNT - 1989, an early version with spelling and punctuation modernized

    * William Tyndale Translation - WTT - 1530, early English version, includes the Pentateuch

    * Williams New Testament - WNT - 1937, a translation of the thoughts of the writers with a reproduction of their diction and style

    * Word Made Fresh - WMF - 1988, a paraphrase with humour and familiar names and places for those who have no desire to read the Bible

    * Worrell New Testament - WAS - 1904

    * Wuest Expanded Translation - WET - 1961, intended as a comparison to, or commentary on, the standard translations

    * Young's Literal Translation, Revised Edition - YLR - 1898, a strictly literal translation

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dude, seriously - you've studied hard to research and find all of these translations.

Have you spent any time studying the text of these translations?

Because your not introducing anything new.

Based on the numerous argumetns I've heard about translational error - then with all of these bibles - you should find a shitload of differetn gospels and messiahs and messages yes?

But you wont.

Its amazing to me how many people so strongly make statemetns about what is biblically stated and intended - yet they dont really study that which they have made statements about. That would be like me trying to argue laws of Physics. Sorry - I missed that class. SO far a great deal of what I've read here in regard to what scripture allegedly says is simply not true.

[Steven]

typically, no they don't - they may have similarities, but if they all said the same thing, we wouldn';t have need of all of them... they're all based on different interpretations of what the original meant. and if nobody knows what the original meaning really was, how can you devote your life to a specific set of rules that very well may be a mis-interpretation? wouldn't that suck to die & find out the guy who translated/reworded the scriptures made a mistake, and you're going to hell because of it!? (just an example...  )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

and so heres my challenge Torn:

find me the differences, the ones that lead you in another direction.

[Steven]

if you were to ask me (and yeah, i know, you didn't, whatev), it's not so much that the morals outlined in Leviticus are unattainable... but who would want to? I met this guy a few weeks ago at trixie's who's pretty much a psychotic fundamentalist... talking about the gay agenda and crap, how it erodes the american christian family...

but he doesn't have a job. he even sold his car for the cash, and he says as long as he never graduates, he can just keep taking out student loans and living off them. all this and he has a baby daughter with a woman he was never married to, and i'm sure he can't afford to support her. Guh.

so yeah. i more or less ignore what the bible has to say about morals, because if you just go by that, you stop worrying about WHY you hold specific moral positions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

your exactly right here Brass.

if you just go by the rules (which hadd a specific meanign and intention at the time of their insertion and they are addressed with great intention by the time of the New Testament) then you will simply be full of shit.

Again - you guys are all using the moralistic/legalistic argument about the Bible.

But the Bible is not a book of morals and legalism.

it is a mechanism, a process, with deeply rooted history and an future that rewrites itself in acceptance of the prophetical closing.

[Steven]

Yes when it comes to The bible... as well as any ancient manuscript arguabley...

"Not only do we not have the originals, we don't have the first copies of the originals. We don't even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies that are made later-much later. In most instances they are copies made many centuries later. These copies differ from one another, in many thousands of places" - "Misquoting Jesus" by Bert D Ehrman

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No.....

you have copies made within 200 years of the originals.

you have copies made much later.

you have the ability to compare the copies spanning vast periods of time, empires, and history.

and when you compare them - you find continuity. Explore it - do the homework - the continuity is incredible.

And as far as research of ancient manuscripts goes - 200 years is pretty damn close and accurate - this is acceptable for all ancient manuscripts be they religeous or otherwise. Only biblical manuscripts get chastized this way.

[Steven]

I think maybe what Phee might've meant earlier (i could be misinterpreting) is that the IDEAL religion strives to mold its members into moral, functioning members of society, but that that isn't even necessary.

See, the problem I have with this is that Big Daddy and the J-Man are handing out salvation to people who aren't necessarily deserving.

Shouldn't good people go to Heaven, and bad people go to Hell, beliefs notwithstanding? That is, if there is a hell, which I still refuse to believe. Any god that would condemn good people on the basis of their lack of spiritual commitment is not a god I'd bother worshipping.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but heres the thing Brass - I aint God.

I'm just some guy.

What should and should not be is not up to me to decide - I did not create the universe and my checkbook barely balances.

your asking me to answer a question I am not qualified to answer.

I accept - what I beleive a higher authority has handed down.

I accept - that there is a power greater than myself.

I accept that my "understanding" is not always tantamount to acceptance.

[BrassFusion]

See, the problem I have with this is that Big Daddy and the J-Man are handing out salvation to people who aren't necessarily deserving.

Shouldn't good people go to Heaven, and bad people go to Hell, beliefs notwithstanding? That is, if there is a hell, which I still refuse to believe. Any god that would condemn good people on the basis of their lack of spiritual commitment is not a god I'd bother worshipping.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but heres the thing Brass - I aint God.

I'm just some guy.

What should and should not be is not up to me to decide - I did not create the universe and my checkbook barely balances.

your asking me to answer a question I am not qualified to answer.

I accept - what I beleive a higher authority has handed down.

I accept - that there is a power greater than myself.

I accept that my "understanding" is not always tantamount to acceptance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>