What I Think

Pointless Posts, Raves n Rants, Obscure Opinions

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

What I Think

Post #1

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Georgia]-
Hello;

Seeing as how this area is set up for people with an urge to express their
opinions rather than argue back and forth in endless disputes that never get
to the bottom of anything; I'm taking advantage of the relatively peaceable
environment hereabouts to post my thoughts on a variety of Bible subjects;
beginning with the one below.

Light

In the April 2014 edition of Discover magazine, astrophysicist/cosmologist
Avi Loeb stated that the Bible attributes the appearance of stars and
galaxies to the divine proclamation "Let there be light". Is Mr. Loeb's
statement correct? No; of course not. God created light on the very first day
of creation; while luminous celestial objects weren't created until the fourth.

The Bible is notoriously concise in some places; especially in it's story of the
creation of light. Well; the creation of light was a very, very intricate
process. First God had to create particulate matter, and along with those
particles their specific properties, including mass. Then He had to invent
laws to govern how matter behaves in combination with and/or in the
presence of, other kinds of matter in order to generate photons.

The same laws that make it possible for matter to generate photons also
make other conditions possible too; e.g. fire, wind, water, ice, soil, rain, life,
centrifugal force, thermodynamics, fusion, dark energy, gravity, atoms,
organic molecules, magnetism, radiation, high energy X-rays and gamma
rays, temperature, pressure, force, inertia, sound, friction, and electricity; et
al. So the creation of light was a pretty big deal; yet Genesis scarcely gives
its origin passing mention.

†. Gen 1:1-2 . .The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the
surface of the deep

That statement reveals the cosmos' condition prior to the creation of light;
and no mystery there because sans the natural laws that make light
possible, the cosmos' particulate matter would never have coalesced into
something coherent.

2Cor 4:6 verifies that light wasn't introduced into the cosmos from outside in
order to dispel the darkness and brighten things up a bit; but rather, it
radiated out of the cosmos from inside-- from itself --indicating that the
cosmos was created to be self-illuminating by means of the various
interactions of the matter that God made for it; including, but not limited to,
the Higgs Boson.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[/font]

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

Post #2

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Georgia]-
The Length Of A Creation Day

†. Gen 1:5b . . And there was evening and there was morning, a first Day.

According to Gen 1:24-31, God created humans and all land animals on the
sixth day; which has to include dinosaurs because on no other day did God
create land animals but the sixth.

Hard-core Bible thumpers insist the days of creation were 24-hour calendar
days in length; but scientific dating methods have easily proven that
dinosaurs preceded human life by several million years. So then, in my
estimation, the days of creation should be taken to represent epochs of
indeterminable length rather than 24-hour calendar days.

That's not an unreasonable estimation; for example:

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were
created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." (Gen 2:4)

The Hebrew word for "day" in that verse is yowm (yome) which is the very
same word for each of the six days of God's creation labors. Since yowm in
Gen 2:4 refers to a period of time obviously much longer than a 24-hour
calendar day; it justifies suggesting that each of the six days of creation
were longer than 24 hours apiece too. In other words: yowm is ambiguous
and not all that easy to interpret sometimes.

Another useful hint as to the length of the days of creation is located in the
sixth chapter of Genesis where Noah is instructed to coat the interior and
exterior of his ark with a substance the Bible calls "pitch". The Hebrew word
is kopher (ko'-fer) which indicates a material called bitumen: a naturally
occurring kind of asphalt formed from the remains of ancient, microscopic
algae (diatoms) and other once-living things. In order for bitumen to be
available in Noah's day, the organisms from whence it was formed had to
have existed on the earth several thousands of years before him.

So then, why can't Bible thumpers accept a six-epoch explanation? Because
they're hung up on the expression "evening and morning"

The interesting thing is: there were no physical evenings and mornings till
the fourth day when the sun was created and brought on line. So I suggest
that the expression "evening and morning" is simply a convenient way to
indicate the simultaneous wrap of one epoch and the beginning of another.

Anyway; this "day" thing has been a chronic problem for just about
everybody who takes Genesis seriously. It's typically assumed that the days
of creation consisted of twenty-four hours apiece; so we end up stumped
when trying to figure out how to cope with the estimated 4.5 billion-year age
of the earth, and factor in the various eras, e.g. Triassic, Jurassic, Mesozoic,
Cenozoic, Cretaceous, etc, plus the ice ages and the mass extinction events.

It just never seems to occur to us that it might be okay in some cases to go
ahead and think outside the box. When we do that-- when we allow
ourselves to think outside the box --that's when we begin to really
appreciate the contributions science has made towards providing modern
men a window into the Earth's amazing past.

Galileo believed that science and religion are allies rather than enemies--
two different languages telling the same story. In other words: science and
religion compliment each other-- science answers questions that religion
doesn't answer, and religion answers questions that science cannot answer;
viz: science and religion are not enemies; no, to the contrary, science and
religion assist each other in their respective quests to get to the bottom of
some of the cosmos' greatest mysteries.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[/font]

jeager106
Scholar
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 10:29 pm
Location: Ohio

Post #3

Post by jeager106 »

Interesting post.
I never bought into the literal 6 days of Creation.
It just is impossible to believe all was done in 6 days of 24 hours.
I don't understand how many fundamentalists buy into this but then
why do some of them play with live pit vipers to "prove faith"?
If I'm visiting a church and they pass around a box of rattle snakes
I'm going out the back door right quick! :shock: :shock:

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: What I Think

Post #4

Post by Divine Insight »

WebersHome wrote: The Bible is notoriously concise in some places; especially in it's story of the
creation of light. Well; the creation of light was a very, very intricate
process. First God had to create particulate matter, and along with those
particles their specific properties, including mass. Then He had to invent
laws to govern how matter behaves in combination with and/or in the
presence of, other kinds of matter in order to generate photons.
Just as a random rambling, I don't see where anything you said above is Biblical. The Bible doesn't say anything about God having to design anything or invent anything. To the contrary the Bible makes it clear that God is a totally magical being.

God said, "Let there be light, and there was light". There was no need to invent or design anything. This God just imagines what it wants to happen and it happens, no designing or inventing required.

In fact, this actually fits in far better with the Eastern Mystical view of God. In that view they see God as a "dreamer" who is simply dreaming up reality. There's no need to design or invent anything in a dream, you just dream whatever you want and it happens. The "technicalities" are actually a result of the dream, not the cause of it.

In fact, if you stop and think about it, the way you are viewing God as a Great Designer and Inventor that would imply that God has to work within the confines of some preexisting physical world. Otherwise what would be the cause of any limitations in anything he wanted to "design"? In short, unless he's being restrained by some preexisting physics then there would be no need to design anything. He could do whatever he wants.

So the idea of a God who simply says, "Let there be light and there was light", is far more compatible with the Eastern Mystical view of God as a dreamer and was no doubt the origin of the original ideas of the Hebrew Bible.

The Eastern Mystics have the most compatible view of God, both with the mystical nature of God and with the physical world we actually see around us.

Once God dreamed up the original scenarios, then the dream continues on being restrained only by what the dream itself is about.

So if a person is truly interested in understanding that true nature of any God that might exist they would do well to study the Eastern Mystical philosophies. They are most likely to be a correct picture of any mystical magical God that might actually exist.

God as a "Scientist/Engineer/Designer/Inventor" doesn't really make any sense. All that does is reduce God to having the same constraints as men. It a perfect example of creating God in the image of Man.

Just my ramblings for whatever they are wroth. ;)
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

Post #5

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Georgia]-
To Infinity And Beyond

†. Gen 1:16 . . He also made the stars.

Celestial objects require some special consideration because of their
apparent distances and the apparent time it takes for their light to reach the
Earth.

For example: last decade, an analysis of the light that Hubble telescope
detected coming from a distant galaxy named A1689-zD1 suggested it's
apparent distance at approximately 12.8 billion light years.

Chronologically; the cosmos' creator began constructing the Earth before He
began constructing the stars; which indicates that as a physical structure,
the Earth should be older than A1689-zD1. But geologists have pretty good
reason to believe the Earth to be only something like 4.5 billion years old;
while A1689-zD1 appears to be a minimum 12.8 billion years old.

So then, it seems reasonable to conclude that A1689-zD1 is Earth's senior
by at least 8.3 billion years. But there's a rub. Light's journey through space
is complicated by some curious mysteries.

1• The available data suggests that the universe is expanding in all
directions. And not only is it expanding; but the velocity of its expansion
isn't steady, nor is it slowing down as might be expected; but rather,
contrary to common sense and Newton's laws of gravity; the velocity of the
cosmos' expansion is accelerating due to a mysterious force which, for
convenience sake, has been labeled dark energy.

Plus, the expansion isn't uniform. Galaxies farthest from our own appear to
be moving away faster than those closer in; which means of course that
viewed from those farthest galaxies; our own would appear to be moving
away faster than those closer in because the expansion is moving us too.

[ I read somewhere that galaxies aren't actually flying through space. Their
apparent motions are due to the fabric of space stretching out.

To illustrate this: snip a rubber band and lay it out flat as a strap. Mark off
some random locations on the strap with a felt pen. Now stretch the strap.
Your marks will all remain in place on the strap, while each one's distance
from the other marks will increase. ]

Ergo: many of the galaxies that God created on the fourth day are quite a
bit more spread out now than when He first made them. How much more I
don't know; but if the age of the Earth is really and truly 4.5 billion years,
then it's my guess the difference is significant.

2• Photons have no detectable mass, yet are effected by gravity; so that
light's path through the cosmos is not always the shortest distance between
two points; nor the quickest.

3• Although the speed of light is constant in a vacuum, the void is a bit more
complicated due to the fact that it's state isn't steady. There are forces in
space influencing not only light's path, but also its velocity. There was a time
when scientists sincerely believed that although light could be slowed down,
it could not be sped up; now they're not so sure.

4• Light doesn't decay. In other words: there is no detectable difference in
age between the cosmos' first light, and the light emitted by a modern
television screen.

5â—� The more that scientists study the cosmos, the more things they discover
about it that cause them to question what they believed in the past. Today's
scientific truth is only valid until another truth comes along to cancel it.

All the above suggests to me that A1689-zD1's apparent distance has no
bearing upon its age; viz: the estimated age of the cosmos is only loosely
theoretical rather than actual. In other words: current dating methods are
unreliable and subject to revision. It's very possibly true that the Earth really
did precede the stars just as the Bible says.

The final say of course is the Bible's. According to Gen 1:15, stars
illuminated the earth on the day that God made them, which was prior to His
creation of humanity. In other words: it's not unreasonable to believe that
God didn't wait till starlight reached the earth on its own, but punched it
straight through in order to begin illuminating the earth immediately.

But what's the point of putting all those objects out there in space? Well, for
one thing, they're not only brain teasers; but they're actually quite pretty.
Celestial objects decorate the night sky like the ornamentation people put up
during holidays. The night sky would sure be a bore if it was totally black.
Decorated with stars; the night sky is like a beautiful tapestry, or a celestial
Sistine Chapel.

"The heavens declare the glory of God, the sky proclaims His handiwork."
(Ps 19:2)

Stars makes better sense that way than to try and find some other meaning
for them. I believe the universe is simply a magnificent work of art— just as
intriguing, if not more so, than the works of Picasso, Rembrandt,
Michelangelo, Monet, Vermeer, and da Vinci —testifying to the genius of an
engineer-artist without peer.

"For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it
evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes
of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived
in what He has made." (Rom 1:19-20)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[/font]

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: What I Think

Post #6

Post by ttruscott »

WebersHome wrote: [font=Georgia]-
Hello;

...

Light

In the April 2014 edition of Discover magazine, astrophysicist/cosmologist
Avi Loeb stated that the Bible attributes the appearance of stars and
galaxies to the divine proclamation "Let there be light". Is Mr. Loeb's
statement correct? No; of course not. God created light on the very first day
of creation; while luminous celestial objects weren't created until the fourth.


GOD is light and Jesus is the light of the world. The use of light in these contexts indicate that GOD's light is moral perfection and loving compassion and has nothing to do with photons or the material world at all.

So, unless GOD is creating HIMself or HIS divine attributes with "Let there be light!" we should consider the idea that what HE created was people in HIS image who could by their free will enjoy and share moral perfection and loving compassion by means of faith in HIM. To carry on the analogy, separating the light from the darkness (which cannot refer to physical light either) would then refer to the bringing of HIS creation to the choice to abide in HIS Light, that is, to accept HIS claims to deity and HIS promise of heaven by salvation called election OR to twist to the dark side, rejecting HIS claims to deity and scorning HIS election promise to heaven by salvation from sin.

By our own choice we separated ourselves into the light and the dark. The refinement of that separation has resulted in some of the elect becoming evil/dark/unfaithful/seduced and enslaved by evil and needing redemption which is found in their living with the reprobate tares until they are turned back to the light of purity and holiness by GOD's grace.

IF what is written cannot refer to physical light then it must refer to Spiritual Light and this explanation of what is meant by spiritual light is the best I got since I've never heard of any other meaning.
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

Post #7

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Georgia]-
Day And Night

†. Gen 1:4b-5a . . God separated the light from the darkness. God called the
light Day, and the darkness He called Night.

Day and Night simply label two distinct physical conditions-- the absence of
light, and/or the absence of darkness. Labeling those physical conditions
may seem like a superfluous detail, but when analyzing crucifixion week in
the New Testament, it's essential to keep those physical conditions separate
in regards to Christ's burial and resurrection.

†. Gen 1:14 . . God said: Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to
distinguish Day from Night

On the first day; God defined Day as a condition of light; and defined Night
as a condition of darkness. Here, it's further defined that Day, as pertains to
life on Earth, is when the sun is up; and Night is when the sun is down.

These definitions occur so early in the Bible that they easily escape the
memories of Bible students as they slip into the reflexive habit of always
thinking of Days as 24-hour events. That's okay for calendars but can lead
to gross misunderstandings when interpreting biblical schedules, predictions,
and/or chronologies.

†. Gen 1:15-18a . . God made the two great lights, the greater light to
dominate the day and the lesser light to dominate the night, and the stars.
And God set them in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth, to
dominate the day and the night, and to distinguish light from darkness.

For the third time in Genesis, "day" is defined as when the sun is up, and
"night" is defined as when the sun is down. Plus: night is further clarified as
when the stars are out; and yet people still don't think God means it.

Christ clarified Day and Night in the New Testament.

†. John 11:9 . . Jesus answered: are there not twelve hours in the day? A
man who walks by day will not stumble, for he sees by this world's light.

"this world's light" is the Sun; which Christ defined as "by day".


NOTE: Daytimes divided into twelve divisions were regulated by what's
known as temporal hours; which vary in length in accordance with the time
of year. There are times of the year at Jerusalem's latitude when daytime
consists of less than 12 normal hours of sunlight, and sometimes more; but
when Christ was here; the official number of daytime hours was always 12
regardless.

I don't know exactly why the Jews of that era divided their daytimes into
twelve divisions regardless of the seasons, but I suspect it was just a
convenient way to operate the government and conduct civil affairs;
including the Temple's activities (e.g. the daily morning and evening
sacrifices)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[/font]

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

Post #8

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Georgia]-
The Image And Likeness Of God

†. Gen 1:26-27 . . Then God said: Let us make man in our image, in our
likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air,
over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move
along the ground. So God created man in His own image, in the image of
God he created him; male and female He created them.

Genesis 9:5-6 outlaws murder: not on the basis that its morally wrong, but
because humanity was created in the image of God.

James 3:9 frowns upon cursing people: not on the basis that it's morally
wrong; but because humanity was created in the image of God.

I take it from those passages that were it not for the fact that mankind was
created in the image of God, human life would be very cheap, and have no
more value than a gerbil or a garden slug.

The image and likeness of God is what lends human life a measure of dignity
over and above the animal kingdom. Were it not for their image and likeness
of God, people could go on safari and hunt each other for sport, like human
wildlife, and mount their heads on walls and mantles.

Gen 5:3 indicates that at least one of the meanings of "image and likeness"
is reproduction. However, if God were to reproduce, He would reproduce
more of himself just as when humans reproduce, they produce more of
themselves; viz: humans beget humanity, and were God to reproduce, He
would beget divinity. But humans most certainly are not divine.

For one thing; according to Ex 3:14 God is imperishable, while according to
Matt 10:28, humanity is perishable: body and soul.

†. Ps 82:6 . . I said: You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.


NOTE: According to Deut 6:4, John 17:3, and 1Cor 8:4-6, there is only one
true god. Seeing as how that's the case, then the "gods" of Ps 82:6 are, by
default, false gods; in other words: they aren't really divine.

Now, obviously humanity's status as sons of the Most High isn't a biological
status because according to Gen 2:7 human life was constructed from the
dust of the earth; in other words: humanity wasn't born a son of the Most
High by means of the Most High multiplying. Were that the case, humans
would be spirits. (John 4:24)

So then; I think it safe to conclude that humanity's status as a son isn't a
natural-born status; but rather, an honorary status; viz: the image and
likeness of God is conferred rather than inherited. And a pretty amazing
status it is too seeing as how it's about as close to divine as a creature can
get without actually biologically descending from God.

†. Ps 8:5 . .You have made man a little lower than the angels; and You have
crowned him with glory and honor.

The "glory and honor" spoken of in that Psalm pertains to the image and
likeness of God; which puts humanity pretty high up on the food chain-- not
because they are brighter and smarter then the other creatures; but
because the image and likeness of God lends mankind an amount of value
that no other species on Earth can match.

Q: If mankind was created in the image and likeness of God, then why is
mankind so prone to evil?

A: Because mankind isn't biologically related to God, nor is mankind a chip
off the olde block, so to speak. The term "image and likeness" is merely a
status. It has no bearing whatsoever upon either the qualities, or the
character, or the personality of mankind's creator. Were mankind biologically
related to God, it would be 110% sinless in thought, word, and deed.

†. John 3:9 . .Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed
remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

Q: But doesn't Acts 17:28-29 say that mankind is God's biological kin?

A: According to Acts 22:3, Paul the apostle was accomplished in Judaism; so
he knew very well from the schooling he underwent with Gamaliel that
according to Gen 2:7 human beings were definitely not made of God, rather,
made of dust.

No; Paul simply appealed to the Greek's own poetry to point out to the
Athenians that if human beings were truly God's biological offspring, then
the father of human beings surely would be made of something other than
metal and/or stone. I think maybe the Greeks took their religious art just a
mite too seriously.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[/font]

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

Post #9

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Georgia]-
Who's Your Daddy?

The Phylogenetic Tree Of Life is an interesting scientific diagram that traces
all forms of life back to a singular genetic heritage.

The branch on that tree that interests me the most is the one that traces
human life. According to the diagram; any two people you might select-- no
matter what their age, race, or gender --if traced back far enough, can
eventually be identified with a common ancestor. From the Christian
perspective; that's no accident.

†. Gen 2:21-23 . .Yhvh God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he
slept; then He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh at that place. And
the God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man,
and brought her to the man. And the man said: This is now bone of my
bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was
taken out of Man.

The Hebrew for "rib" in that passage is tsela' (tsay-law') and Gen 2:21-23
contains the only two places in the entire Old Testament where it's
translated with an English word representing a skeletal bone. In the other
twenty-nine places, it's translated "side"

In other words: Eve wasn't constructed directly from the dust of the earth as
was Adam. She was constructed from a human tissue sample amputated
from Adam's body; ergo: Eve got her human life from Adam; consequently
any and all human life produced by Eve's body is Adam's human life.

†. Gen 3:20 . . Adam named his wife Eve, because she would be the mother
of all people everywhere.

†. Acts 17:26 . . He made from one man every variety of mankind to live on
all the face of the earth

It was apparently the creator's deliberate design that all human life be
biologically related to a sole source of human life-- the one and only human
life that God created directly from the earth's dust; viz: Adam.

So then; it is not quite accurate to say that Christ didn't have a human
father because if Christ is biologically related to his mother, and if his
mother is biologically related to Eve, then Christ is biologically related to
Adam.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[/font]

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1779
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 24 times

Post #10

Post by WebersHome »

[font=Georgia]-
Why Adam Didn't Drop Dead

†. Gen 2:15-17 . .The Lord God took the man and placed him in the garden
of Eden, to till it and tend it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying:
Of every tree of the garden you are free to eat; but as for the tree of
knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it; for in the day you eat of
it, you shall die.

That passage has always been an embarrassment for Bible thumpers
because Adam didn't drop dead the instant he tasted the forbidden fruit. In
point of fact, he continued to live outside the garden of Eden for another 800
years after the birth of his son Seth. (Gen 5:4)

So; is there a reasonable explanation for this apparent discrepancy?

Well; first off let me point out that in order for the threat to resonate in
Adam's thinking; it had to be related to death as Adam understood death in
his day, rather than death as the Bible thumpers understand it in their day.
In other words: Adam didn't expect to die spiritually. No, he expected to die
normally; viz: physically; like as in pass away.

How can I be so sure that God meant normal death instead of spiritual
death? Because according to Gen 3:19 that's how it worked out; and to
make sure Adam stayed normally dead, God blocked his access to the tree
of life. (Gen 3:22-24)

Anyway; the trick is: Adam wasn't told he would die the instant he tasted
the fruit. God's exact words were "in the day"

Well; according to Gen 2:4, the Hebrew word for "day" is a bit ambiguous. It
can easily indicate a period of time much, much longer than 24 hours' viz;
the "day" of Adam's death began the moment he ate the fruit.

That was a milestone in human history. Up till Adam tasted the fruit, the
only days on record were the six of creation, and the one when God ceased
creating. Adam inaugurated a new day by tasting the fruit-- the day of
death.

"Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this
way death came to all men" (Rom 5:12)

Well; like Jack Palance's character Curly in the movie City Slickers said: "The
day ain't over yet"

†. Ecc 7:2 . . It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house
of gaiety, for death is the destiny of every man; the living should take this
seriously.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[/font]

Post Reply