Christianity is commonsense

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
harvey1
Prodigy
Posts: 3452
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Christianity is commonsense

Post #1

Post by harvey1 »

I'm not an expert on other religions, so I won't compare Christianity to other religions, but I will say that Christianity makes a great deal of sense. Here are some sensical notions that I think make it a 'no-brainer' to be a Christian:

1. Logos: God is infinite and undescribable, but the Logos (or Logic) of God is the means by which God creates and transforms the world. Who can argue with Logic as the means by which creation takes place? What? Are we supposed to believe that illogic is the means by which creation takes place? C'mon.

2. Trinity: God is symmetry. That is, symmetry is 'be', 'becoming', 'that which becomes'. This is the name of God in Christianity (i.e., Yahweh), which means the three states of existence - or the basis of all symmetry. Symmetry transformation is already been shown in physics to be the basis of all major theories in physics, so it is perfectly logical to believe in the religion that embrasses symmetry in the actual name of God.

3. Mustard seed principle: Christianity is based on the notion that God is transforming the world from a mustard seed to a rich kingdom of life to be harvested at the end of time. What more can be apparent than this simple fact. The universe started off as a 'seed' and it is clear that as intelligence continues to evolve it will become more and more like God - hence a kingdom of God. It makes perfect sense.

Thus, Christianity is commonsense.

concerro
Apprentice
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 11:58 am

Post #71

Post by concerro »

harvey1 wrote:
concerro wrote:1.How is one supposed to know that the God who you claim is the source of this logic even exist. Until this God shows irrefutable proof of his existence then your first that statement is not valid
Not so. I'm not saying that God exists in (1), I'm saying that it is common sense to believe that 'logic' exists. To deny it, is to deny common sense.
I agree that it is common sense that logic exist but I dont see God as the source of the logic is what I am saying
concerro wrote:2.In symmetry things are supposed to be equal. In the Trinity which is doutable The father portion is definitely in charge(bigger) than the other parts. He could have simply done away with Jesus at any point in time so there was no way they are equal.
You misunderstand the Christian doctrine on the Trinity.
You said the trinity was symmetrical unless the definition changes when applied to Christianity
concerro wrote:
3.from st88--->It also makes perfect sense to an agrarian civilization who was expecting the end times soon. This is a clever metaphor that doesn't really point to anything. Instead it is given a religious context in order to make a point about the religion, not about the mustard seed
Hmm... I guess I should be debating with ST88 then...
We had the same thought on the same subject, so why should I reword it if whatever I would have said would have been the same thought but different words
concerro wrote:You said salvation through Chist was logical and I simply pointed out what could be a flaw in that reasoning. I debated with someone else in another thread about the same subject so I see no reasons to list repeat everything here.
What I said was:
What is logical about the scriptures is that it progressively became more and more aware of God's logical nature, hence it arrived at the Logos as God's logical action in the world which brings salvation to humanity in the name of Jesus Christ.
What is the difference?
The logical part is that the scriptures arrived at a progressive view of God from being Israel's God to being a God of truth and logic. That's the logical aspect which I'm discussing.

The christian God was supposedly a god of truth and logic even when he was Israel's God. I am not saying that I beleive that but most christians that I have debated with seem to feel this way.

I think we are off topic from the original point of this thread so what is your definition of common sense
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes

Great minds discuss ideas, Average minds dicuss events, Small minds discuss people.
~Eleanor Roosenvelt~

User avatar
harvey1
Prodigy
Posts: 3452
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #72

Post by harvey1 »

concerro wrote:I agree that it is common sense that logic exist but I dont see God as the source of the logic is what I am saying
Well, logic and math are both based on a set of axioms being true. What does it mean for an axiom being 'true' if the axioms are statements of gibberish? In other words, how does an axiom (language) acquire meaning so that all possible logical statements are instantiated?
concerro wrote:
harvey1 wrote:
concerro wrote:2.In symmetry things are supposed to be equal. In the Trinity which is doutable The father portion is definitely in charge(bigger) than the other parts. He could have simply done away with Jesus at any point in time so there was no way they are equal.
You misunderstand the Christian doctrine on the Trinity.
You said the trinity was symmetrical unless the definition changes when applied to Christianity


The Trinity is symmetrical, but the doctrine of the Trinity does not give special status to one state of the Trinity over the other.
concerro wrote:
harvey1 wrote:
concerro wrote:You said salvation through Chist was logical and I simply pointed out what could be a flaw in that reasoning. I debated with someone else in another thread about the same subject so I see no reasons to list repeat everything here.
What I said was:
What is logical about the scriptures is that it progressively became more and more aware of God's logical nature, hence it arrived at the Logos as God's logical action in the world which brings salvation to humanity in the name of Jesus Christ.
What is the difference?
logical="scriptures... progressively became more and more aware of God's logical nature, hence it arrived at the Logos as God's logical action in the world"

*This is common sense logic as far as I'm concerned

My ending comment that "the Logos...brings salvation to humanity in the name of Jesus Christ" was not intended to be included as a statement of common sense, but rather it is a consequence of what God is doing as logical action in the world.
concerro wrote:
harvey1 wrote:The logical part is that the scriptures arrived at a progressive view of God from being Israel's God to being a God of truth and logic. That's the logical aspect which I'm discussing.
The christian God was supposedly a god of truth and logic even when he was Israel's God. I am not saying that I beleive that but most christians that I have debated with seem to feel this way.
There is an important distinction here. Logos actually means a logical action whereas no where in the Hebrew Bible is God identified as being logical action. The issue is one of identity. You can act logical, or you can be wise, but that doesn't mean you are logical action by definition, or that you are wisdom by definition. The Hebrews in the wisdom tradition started to identify and personify wisdom as woman of God, but it never took the step and said that God is synonymous with wisdom. Christianity took this much needed and common sense step.
concerro wrote:I think we are off topic from the original point of this thread so what is your definition of common sense
There isn't an exact definition, but generally, I liken it to 'tree level' thinking versus 'forest level' thinking. If you look at a forest, and all you see are the trees, you are apt to treat a forest on a component level and not on a systems level. You have to 'see' the whole to make appropriate judgements (sometimes), and in those cases, it is often the wisdom of the common folks who see it first. For example, you might have heard of the story of the young boy (I'm not sure if it is a true story, and I'm sure it is not a correct rendition, but here it goes anyway...) who was looking at a situation that had developed near the entrance of a mountain tunnel (where there was no other nearby passage through the mountain). A truck was trying to go through the tunnel, but the height of a truck was too high for the tunnel by a mere few inches. There were all sorts of people at the site trying to figure out the best way for the truck to pass through the tunnel. We can imagine some of the ideas involved de-vaning the truck of its contents, etc. However, the experts hit their hands on their forehead after the boy gave his common sense opinion. And, it was the common sense of the boy that prevailed: they should let a little air out of the tires...

What this crude story demonstrates about common sense is that the most complex answers are not always in constructing elaborate models that try and solve a problem at a component level. Rather, sometimes it is about systems level perception, and treating the problem with common sense. In the case of the boy, it was seeing the obvious - letting air out of a tire. The reason why this has the earmarks of common sense is the following:

1) The boy was outmatched by the details that the 'experts' in the situation brought to the table

2) There were many possible solutions by the 'experts', but all of them looked vastly complicated and would require much effort in resolving the problem - far more than anyone would find satisfactory

3) The solution of the problem was obvious once it was known

4) The solution of the problem required a 'systems level' perspective (e.g., think of the truck as a whole object and think how the whole object can reduce in height)

5) The experts had to recant the complexity of the problem once they saw how simple the solution was with air being let out of the tires

This is basically what I mean by common sense. The ability to ignore frivolous details that don't impact the overall analysis. Just admitting that logic exists and Logos is a good name for it, or that symmetry is an obvious feature of the Trinity - hence God is symmetry is perfectly straightforward common sense, or even that the universe evolves like a mustard seed and the principle is an easily spotted feature of the big bang. All of these common sense ideas give Christianity a common sense appeal.

It really is pretty straightforward reasoning. I don't see why any of what I've said is a problem for anybody.

concerro
Apprentice
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 11:58 am

Post #73

Post by concerro »

concerro wrote:
harvey1 wrote:
concerro wrote:
2.In symmetry things are supposed to be equal. In the Trinity which is doutable The father portion is definitely in charge(bigger) than the other parts. He could have simply done away with Jesus at any point in time so there was no way they are equal.
You misunderstand the Christian doctrine on the Trinity.
You said the trinity was symmetrical unless the definition changes when applied to Christianity


The Trinity is symmetrical, but the doctrine of the Trinity does not give special status to one state of the Trinity over the other.
Are you trying to tell me the father and the son(Jesus) are supposed to be equal?
harvey1 wrote: My ending comment that "the Logos...brings salvation to humanity in the name of Jesus Christ" was not intended to be included as a statement of common sense, but rather it is a consequence of what God is doing as logical action in the world.
so you are saying that bring Jesus to us as the savior is the only logical action
concerro wrote:
harvey1 wrote:The logical part is that the scriptures arrived at a progressive view of God from being Israel's God to being a God of truth and logic. That's the logical aspect which I'm discussing.
The christian God was supposedly a god of truth and logic even when he was Israel's God. I am not saying that I beleive that but most christians that I have debated with seem to feel this way.
concerro wrote:I think we are off topic from the original point of this thread so what is your definition of common sense
There isn't an exact definition, but generally, I liken it to 'tree level' thinking versus 'forest level' thinking. If you look at a forest, and all you see are the trees, you are apt to treat a forest on a component level and not on a systems level. You have to 'see' the whole to make appropriate judgements (sometimes), and in those cases, it is often the wisdom of the common folks who see it first. For example, you might have heard of the story of the young boy (I'm not sure if it is a true story, and I'm sure it is not a correct rendition, but here it goes anyway...) who was looking at a situation that had developed near the entrance of a mountain tunnel (where there was no other nearby passage through the mountain). A truck was trying to go through the tunnel, but the height of a truck was too high for the tunnel by a mere few inches. There were all sorts of people at the site trying to figure out the best way for the truck to pass through the tunnel. We can imagine some of the ideas involved de-vaning the truck of its contents, etc. However, the experts hit their hands on their forehead after the boy gave his common sense opinion. And, it was the common sense of the boy that prevailed: they should let a little air out of the tires...

What this crude story demonstrates about common sense is that the most complex answers are not always in constructing elaborate models that try and solve a problem at a component level. Rather, sometimes it is about systems level perception, and treating the problem with common sense. In the case of the boy, it was seeing the obvious - letting air out of a tire. The reason why this has the earmarks of common sense is the following:

1) The boy was outmatched by the details that the 'experts' in the situation brought to the table

2) There were many possible solutions by the 'experts', but all of them looked vastly complicated and would require much effort in resolving the problem - far more than anyone would find satisfactory

3) The solution of the problem was obvious once it was known

4) The solution of the problem required a 'systems level' perspective (e.g., think of the truck as a whole object and think how the whole object can reduce in height)

5) The experts had to recant the complexity of the problem once they saw how simple the solution was with air being let out of the tires

This is basically what I mean by common sense. The ability to ignore frivolous details that don't impact the overall analysis. Just admitting that logic exists and Logos is a good name for it, or that symmetry is an obvious feature of the Trinity - hence God is symmetry is perfectly straightforward common sense, or even that the universe evolves like a mustard seed and the principle is an easily spotted feature of the big bang. All of these common sense ideas give Christianity a common sense appeal.

It really is pretty straightforward reasoning. I don't see why any of what I've said is a problem for anybody.[/quote]

The component versus system or tree versus forest level thinking analogy I understood but God being a trinity or becoming a Christianity is not common sense level thinking.
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes

Great minds discuss ideas, Average minds dicuss events, Small minds discuss people.
~Eleanor Roosenvelt~

User avatar
harvey1
Prodigy
Posts: 3452
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #74

Post by harvey1 »

concerro wrote:Are you trying to tell me the father and the son(Jesus) are supposed to be equal?
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal, however as it says in Phi. 2:5-7:

"Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men"
concerro wrote:The component versus system or tree versus forest level thinking analogy I understood but God being a trinity or becoming a Christianity is not common sense level thinking.
The Trinity (or all tense forms of the 'be' verb) is common sense if you believe in God and you believe symmetries are directly responsible for the laws of physics.

User avatar
harvey1
Prodigy
Posts: 3452
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #75

Post by harvey1 »

ST88 wrote:
harvey1 wrote:The difference between my view and a non-Christian view is that I accept God working behind the scenes in inspiring the development of religious truths that otherwise would not have existed. The key to that development is a community of believers who undergo specific kinds of evolutionary development.
This is also how a virus replicates. It does not require that its own truth be TRUE for the host organism.
Over long periods of interaction, parasites and hosts experience co-evolution, and this is one of the major reasons that led to the complexity of life (e.g., cells, etc). As complexity increases, new structures are discovered by life which, like religious evolution, produces structures that are more apt to survive in the universe. Religious views, however, survive by competing with other approaches that explain the world, therefore evolutionary pressures increase the explanatory fitness of human explanations (i.e., a move toward more accurate truths). Religion has been surviving in this kind of environment for the last few hundred thousand years or so, so this is why it has become such a dominant conceptual scheme in the world.
ST88 wrote:
harvey1 wrote:What is logical about the scriptures is that it progressively became more and more aware of God's logical nature, hence it arrived at the Logos as God's logical action in the world which brings salvation to humanity in the name of Jesus Christ.
This is not my experience. If you are referring to the order of the books of the Bible, I would have to take issue with your conclusions. If you are referring to history, between the ancient Hebrew culture and the Christian ideas that arose from them was the Greek civilization, where logic and syllogism was the new tool of how to think about the world. It would make sense that within a Roman culture -- itself bastardizing the Greek culture -- the best way to evangelize a religion would be to take the functional language that was working and twist itm around your message. This is assuming I buy into your argument, which I don't, really. In my opinion, Jesus made the tenets of that religion more real in terms of day-to-day living, not more logical.
Hebrew wisdom tradition was a tradition based on an emphasis on logic. Gradually it became personified prior to the Greeks. Once Christianity came on the scene, the early Jewish-Christians brought their understanding of Hebrew wisdom teachings with them to the Hellenistic world, and from there the Greek Logos and the Hebrew sophia were united and understand as an aspect of God. That's a pretty logical development.
ST88 wrote:
harvey1 wrote:This equation is based on a large-scale approximation of quantum theory. If you look at particle behavior at the quantum scale, then you have to consider wavefunction probabilities. The funny thing is that a whole bunch of new investigations are showing how to construct quantum physics from areas not related directly to physics. For example, information theory is starting to be successful at generating quantum theory from basic axioms. This is called foundational physics. Hence, what you call laws that only God could overturn, start to look like 'laws' that are true for apparently non-physical reasons. That is, mathematical truth exists separately from and is the cause of the laws of the universe. Well, if truth exists, then it opens a whole can of worms for the atheist since truth requires a term that Alfred Tarski called 'satisfaction', a language-based term. But, satisfaction of truth conditions is always a function of mind since language requires mind by which to interpret.
You're completely misunderstanding the application of mathematics to physics. Mathematics does not represent some ethereal ideal out in the mists of the ether. Mathematical laws are based on observation and interpolation. I really can't make the leap into the ether that you seem to want to make here. That there are some principles of one type of science that can be applied to another type of science does not imply that the second science is somehow "incomplete." For an example, Chemistry is just Physics applied to multi-atomic substances. This does not make Chemistry any less of a field of study. God is not required for any of this. Truths from mathematics exist because that's what mathematics is.
It seems you misunderstand what I said. Being able to acquire the laws of physics through other axioms is a very significant development, and if proven true, it means that there might be a very general mathematical reason for our universe that would dictate what the universe's laws could have been. The way in which mathematical equations are currently being used would not be a relevant argument since it would be shown that those equations are no longer 'just descriptions', rather they appear to be shown to be nomological.
ST88 wrote:We use the term one-third in our language in order to describe a concept in mathematics that is actually incomputable (0.333333333...). But because we can use the language of mathematics as mathematics, we can use the term as a concept and mean the exact same thing as the incomputable number. E.g., we can add three of these incomputable numbers and come up with an integer (1). In this way, we can come to the TRUTH without actually having to do the math
.

1/3 doesn't have to be equal to 0.333... For example, 1/3 times 9 is definitely 3, not 2.99999...
ST88 wrote:Quantum theory is the latest bugaboo because it's one of those things that tests the limits of our understanding. This is usually where God can be found. String theory blows that all to Heck, however, and can explain just about everything without the use of God. In other words, that you find God in quanta says less about God than it does about you. (Not necessarily you personally, but Quantum-Christians who look for God and then are surprised when they find Him.)
String theory is a quantum theory. There is no revisions on quantum mechanics as a result of string theory. String theory would replace the standard model of physics, if shown to be true, but at present that is not the case.

However, I'm not talking about finding the 'God of gaps' in my argument. I'm talking about reconstructing the laws of QM (etc) from axioms that were not obtained by experiment or existing physical theories. These are axioms derived from pure mathematics, or from information theory, boolean logic, etc. In addition, the trouble for atheists in all of this is not that the God of gaps has been found in yet another gap, rather it is that the likelihood that our laws of physics are contigent versus necessary would be in serious question. Of course, if the laws of physics are necessary, then materialism is in quite a quandary and that's one of the key legs that atheism stands on. If this research kicks too hard on that leg, atheism is severely weakened as a result.
ST88 wrote:
harvey1 wrote:Therefore, it would appear that God exists based on our knowledge of the physics laws alone. This is not even considering the cosmological reasons for concluding there is a God, or even the causal reasons to concluding there is a God. All three reasons is sufficient for a rational belief in God. Add to that the human need for meaning and there really is no reason to be an atheist other than the comfort that it might provide to someone who might have been a victim of religious abuse (for example). Those reasons I can respect, but intellectual justification of atheism just isn't there to begin with, and for the life of me I cannot understand why so many atheists think that they are justified in their non-belief.
None of this follows from your arguments (or from any other argument). The laws of physics do not point to God. Even if they point to the unknown, what makes that God? I would argue that it is your preconception of a God that leads you in this direction. There is no difference in saying that God caused the universe to explode into existence than in saying that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure. In either case, the adherents can be convinced of their own particular versions provided with the same information.
The laws of physics would definitely point to a God if we find that the laws of physics are nomological. The reason is that nomological laws are language, and mind is needed as an interpreter of language. Whatever you want to call that is not so much an issue, the main point is that a mind of truth qualifies as a popular conception of God.

User avatar
ENIGMA
Sage
Posts: 580
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 1:51 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Post #76

Post by ENIGMA »

1/3 doesn't have to be equal to 0.333... For example, 1/3 times 9 is definitely 3, not 2.99999...
Sorry but mathematically:

.999999999..... = 1

x=.9999999....

10x=9.99999999.....

10x-x=9

9x=9

x=1

Thus,

.9999999... = 1
Gilt and Vetinari shared a look. It said: While I loathe you and all of your personal philosophy to a depth unplummable by any line, I will credit you at least with not being Crispin Horsefry [The big loud idiot in the room].

-Going Postal, Discworld

User avatar
harvey1
Prodigy
Posts: 3452
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #77

Post by harvey1 »

ENIGMA wrote:
1/3 doesn't have to be equal to 0.333... For example, 1/3 times 9 is definitely 3, not 2.99999...
Sorry but mathematically: .999999999..... = 1 x=.9999999.... 10x=9.99999999.....
10x-x=9 9x=9 x=1 Thus, .9999999... = 1
1/3 is never equal to .3333333.... (technically speaking). And, technically speaking, 0.999999.... is NOT equal to 1. It is approximately equal to 1.

Don't get confused by switching to the decimal representation of numbers. Numbers represented in the decimal system can be irrational or rational (i.e., reals), but you cannot have an irrational number represented by a fraction.

User avatar
ENIGMA
Sage
Posts: 580
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 1:51 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Post #78

Post by ENIGMA »

harvey1 wrote:
ENIGMA wrote:
1/3 doesn't have to be equal to 0.333... For example, 1/3 times 9 is definitely 3, not 2.99999...
Sorry but mathematically: .999999999..... = 1 x=.9999999.... 10x=9.99999999.....
10x-x=9 9x=9 x=1 Thus, .9999999... = 1
1/3 is never equal to .3333333.... (technically speaking). And, technically speaking, 0.999999.... is NOT equal to 1. It is approximately equal to 1.

Don't get confused by switching to the decimal representation of numbers. Numbers represented in the decimal system can be irrational or rational (i.e., reals), but you cannot have an irrational number represented by a fraction.
I honestly must inquire at this point, considering that I have given a mathematical proof that .99999... = 1,

What reasonable definition of "Technically Correct" when dealing with numbers does not include a mathematical proof?

.99999... is equal to 1 for the exact same reason that .585858... is equal to 58/99 (not approximately, exactly).
irrational number

<mathematics> A real number which is not a rational
number, i.e. it is not the ratio of two integers.

The decimal expansion of an irrational is infinite but does
not end in an infinite repeating sequence of digits.


Examples of irrational numbers are pi, {e} and the square
root of two.
Gilt and Vetinari shared a look. It said: While I loathe you and all of your personal philosophy to a depth unplummable by any line, I will credit you at least with not being Crispin Horsefry [The big loud idiot in the room].

-Going Postal, Discworld

User avatar
Nyril
Scholar
Posts: 431
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:21 pm

Post #79

Post by Nyril »

harvey1 wrote:
ENIGMA wrote:
1/3 doesn't have to be equal to 0.333... For example, 1/3 times 9 is definitely 3, not 2.99999...
Sorry but mathematically: .999999999..... = 1 x=.9999999.... 10x=9.99999999.....
10x-x=9 9x=9 x=1 Thus, .9999999... = 1
1/3 is never equal to .3333333.... (technically speaking). And, technically speaking, 0.999999.... is NOT equal to 1. It is approximately equal to 1.

Don't get confused by switching to the decimal representation of numbers. Numbers represented in the decimal system can be irrational or rational (i.e., reals), but you cannot have an irrational number represented by a fraction.
I've actually done this one on another board (to death) if you're interested, I can bring up the link, otherwise, here is a nifty summary.

First and foremost, when we write .333333333, we imply that the 3's spiral off into infinity. In fact, there is one more then an infinite amount in that pile of threes. The three's never quit. The same is true for .66666, and .99999999, except with 6's and 9's respectively.

So.

(1/3) + (1/3) + (1/3) = (1/3) * 3 = (3/3) = 1

.33333333333 = (1/3)

Thus

(.3333333) * 3 = .999999999 = 1


If this is not true, please answer the following question.

If .999999999 (infinite number of 9's now) is not equal to 1. What number could we have one number between .99999999 and 1?

Rsilver
Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 8:57 pm
Location: Florida

Christianity is commonsense

Post #80

Post by Rsilver »

Greetings,

I consider all Religions to be valid within the "format" of the society that created them.

Eveything is a "translation". A universe of "assigned" values. I was brought up Christian.

I am certain that many who will and do post here....will do so within the limits of their own circumstance, intellect, and ability to reason. We all do that.

I give credit to the management of this group for great organizational skills. I do often wonder why some people spend so much of their own time on such projects without "material compensation".

In 30 years of study, I have found that we (who call ourselves modern mankind) are still rehashing the same questions that have been around for centuries.

I would say that I still believe that Jesus existed, but never intended to create a "Religion". Further more, I would go on to say that there have been many LIKE him, who were never understood. Upon the death of the teacher, the followers created "religions".

I have no doubt (as I started with the Bible) and studied Religion and World history........that the "truth" is contained within the text, but largely accepted in the "context" that any person wishes to accept it.

I do not know if I should post here. I think after about 8 years of visiting such places, no one has a "change of heart" or mind. I also think that there is also the possibility that some that come here are "researching" and use the information of a few. Perhaps in a book.

I really would like to share what I have discovered in my studies. Not in a condescending manner, but in the spirit of giving.

Let me drop in one "what if"?

What if, when the Bible refers to "the life being in the blood", it is a reference to "plasma" which truly in the blood of the universe in which we "move and have our being"?

Post Reply