[quote]ZEB wrote:
<<< No, what he really wants is to convince himself that there is no God (for various reasons) and he tries to do so every time he posts in a spiritually based thread.[/quote]Romans 1 Zeb. God has made Himself abundantly, unavoidably and universally manifest in every particle of creation. And not just any ol God either, but THEE God of all creation and He who is both just and the justifier of them that believe.
Romans 1:18-22 (about the 10th time, but I never get tired of it.)[quote] 18-For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19-because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20-For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21-For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22-Professing to be wise, they became fools, >>>[/quote] There is no such thing as an atheist regardless of how loud or reasoned the objections.
[/quote]
Where you baptized with water in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Ghost, depending on whom may’ve baptized you)? And, did they believe in the Catholic understanding of God, that it is three persons, one God, called the Godhead?
[quote]forlife wrote:
The trinity is another great example of how people can be 100% sincere, yet using the same bible their faith leads them to contradictory conclusions about the very nature of their god. You’d think something as basic as the identity of the being you worship would at least generate consensus, but even on this basic point there are huge differences in beliefs.
Some believe god, Jesus, and the holy spirit are separate beings, but are united in purpose. Others insist they are different manifestations of the same supernatural being. Some claim the biblical god is without body, parts, or passions, while others firmly assert that god the father and Jesus have physical bodies, but the holy spirit does not.
Obviously, faith says nothing about facts, even when people place their faith in the same holy book. [/quote]
Yeah, but all those other positions are illogical positions, and the JW don’t use the same manuscript. [/quote]
What do you mean?[/quote]
Our manuscripts (a.k.a. bible) are not the same.[/quote]
Up until the 1950’s we used the King James Version of the Bible. Then we wanted to put Jehovah’s name back in the Bible where it belonged, and move from Old English to modern english. Therefore, the New World’s Translation of the Holy Scriptures came into existence, viewed among scholars as one of the most accurate translations around.
A 2003 study by Jason BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in the United States, of nine of “the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world,” including the New American Bible, The King James Bible and The New International Version, examined several passages that are considered controversial, where “bias is most likely to interfere with translation”. For each passage, he compared the Greek text with the renderings of each English translation, and looked for biased attempts to change the meaning. BeDuhn reported that the New World Translation was “not bias free”, but emerged “as the most accurate of the translations compared”, and thus a “remarkably good translation”, adding that “most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation”. BeDuhn said the introduction of the name “Jehovah” into the New Testament 237 times was “not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy”, and that it “violate[s] accuracy in favor of denominationally preferred expressions for God”, adding that for the NWT to gain wider acceptance and prove its worth its translators might have to abandon the use of “Jehovah” in the New Testament.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia says of the NWT reference edition: “[Jehovah’s Witnesses’] translation of the Bible [has] an impressive critical apparatus. The work is excellent except when scientific knowledge comes into conflict with the accepted doctrines of the movement.” It criticizes the NWT’s rendering of Kyrios as “Jehovah” in 237 instances in the New Testament, the rendering “means” instead of “is” in Matthew 26:26, and the insertion of “other” at Colossians 1:16-17.[/quote]
Catholics don’t use the KJV, they use the Latin Vulgate, St. Jerome, DRB, NAB, or RSV, Second Catholic Edition.
However, do you have a link to Dr. BeDuhn’s, I believe I have met him once.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< Where you baptized with water in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Ghost, depending on whom may’ve baptized you)? [/quote]Yes[quote]Brother Chris wrote:And, did they believe in the Catholic understanding of God, that it is three persons, one God, called the Godhead?[/quote]I would say they believed in the Christian understanding of God which as you say is indeed one God in three persons commonly referred to as the Godhead. I was also baptized in the RCC as an infant. Lookin maybe to give me that Trent style anathema after all Chris?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< Where you baptized with water in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Ghost, depending on whom may’ve baptized you)? [/quote]Yes[quote]Brother Chris wrote:And, did they believe in the Catholic understanding of God, that it is three persons, one God, called the Godhead?[/quote]I would say they believed in the Christian understanding of God which as you say is indeed one God in three persons commonly referred to as the Godhead. I was also baptized in the RCC as an infant. Lookin maybe to give me that Trent style anathema after all Chris?
[/quote]
No, just pointing out that you’re Catholic, regardless of how loud or reasoned the objections.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Not bad, but I’ll take that with a lower case c.[/quote]
You’re a universal? I don’t think so.
You’re a Catholic, as in Roman Catholic, as in the Roman Catholic Church located in the Vatican City theologically accepts you as a Catholic, with an upper C. And, sorry excommunication most of the time is self-inflicting.
Hey, Sloth did you hear…Tirib is part of the Catholic Church. (I never caught that you said you were baptized in the RCC as an infant before).
That’s true, you never caught it, but I most assuredly did tell you. First communion and confirmation too. I even told you it was St Robert Bellermine Parish and posted a link to the website. However, like most folks around here you don’t pay any attention when I type, but that’s OK. Who is Greg that thou shouldst be mindful of him?
Obviously I cannot control what you believe, but thanks anyway I’ll keep my lowercase c. Whatever that thing is over in Rome it ain’t the bride of Christ and I want no part of it. That’s the very definition of anathema. I will submit though again. I’m not going to be the one to declare every last human being that has ever been in communion with Rome unavoidably lost, but those who would enter the kingdom will only do so in spite of the papacy and because the grace I preach is the true gospel.
What I see in most catholic people are folks who bear little if any evidence of a transformed life in the resurrection of the only begotten Son of God. They look, act and talk pretty much like the world with some conservative political views (maybe). In other words religious pharisees who follow some rules and rituals, but don’t really let Jesus interfere too much with their carnal self serving heart and life. Oh they are charitable. That’s what buys them their license to sin, just like Paul said some self deceivers would do. What else can be expected from a church that has degenerated into a neo unitarian “I’m OK, you’re OK” self esteem seminar, but tolerates debauchery as a matter of daily course? (no I’m not even talking about perverted priests at all)
God forbid my friend. My precious bridegroom, big brother, father, lord and master has made me free and freer all the time. I dare not commune with the graveyard of Rome. Gold on the outside and putrefying death on the inside. I say things like this with no hatred for catholic people. Absolutely to the contrary. It’s the church I hate and even at that I really do sometimes wish she was what she claims… minus the mountainous tumor of man made tradition, law and dogma which has turned her into the spiritual wasteland she is today. John’s body was barely cold and off we went.
[quote]forlife wrote:
The trinity is another great example of how people can be 100% sincere, yet using the same bible their faith leads them to contradictory conclusions about the very nature of their god. You’d think something as basic as the identity of the being you worship would at least generate consensus, but even on this basic point there are huge differences in beliefs.
Some believe god, Jesus, and the holy spirit are separate beings, but are united in purpose. Others insist they are different manifestations of the same supernatural being. Some claim the biblical god is without body, parts, or passions, while others firmly assert that god the father and Jesus have physical bodies, but the holy spirit does not.
Obviously, faith says nothing about facts, even when people place their faith in the same holy book. [/quote]
Yeah, but all those other positions are illogical positions, and the JW don’t use the same manuscript. [/quote]
What do you mean?[/quote]
Our manuscripts (a.k.a. bible) are not the same.[/quote]
Up until the 1950’s we used the King James Version of the Bible. Then we wanted to put Jehovah’s name back in the Bible where it belonged, and move from Old English to modern english. Therefore, the New World’s Translation of the Holy Scriptures came into existence, viewed among scholars as one of the most accurate translations around.
A 2003 study by Jason BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in the United States, of nine of “the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world,” including the New American Bible, The King James Bible and The New International Version, examined several passages that are considered controversial, where “bias is most likely to interfere with translation”. For each passage, he compared the Greek text with the renderings of each English translation, and looked for biased attempts to change the meaning. BeDuhn reported that the New World Translation was “not bias free”, but emerged “as the most accurate of the translations compared”, and thus a “remarkably good translation”, adding that “most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation”. BeDuhn said the introduction of the name “Jehovah” into the New Testament 237 times was “not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy”, and that it “violate[s] accuracy in favor of denominationally preferred expressions for God”, adding that for the NWT to gain wider acceptance and prove its worth its translators might have to abandon the use of “Jehovah” in the New Testament.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia says of the NWT reference edition: “[Jehovah’s Witnesses’] translation of the Bible [has] an impressive critical apparatus. The work is excellent except when scientific knowledge comes into conflict with the accepted doctrines of the movement.” It criticizes the NWT’s rendering of Kyrios as “Jehovah” in 237 instances in the New Testament, the rendering “means” instead of “is” in Matthew 26:26, and the insertion of “other” at Colossians 1:16-17.[/quote]
Catholics don’t use the KJV, they use the Latin Vulgate, St. Jerome, DRB, NAB, or RSV, Second Catholic Edition.
However, do you have a link to Dr. BeDuhn’s, I believe I have met him once.[/quote]
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Here we go and still no time. As has been said all three persons of the Godhead are equally God, but yes there are roles and relations as well. Gotta go.[/quote]
Can you explain these roles and where i can get more information on it?[/quote]
May I ask if you believe in the trinity already?[/quote]
Yes I do believe in the Trinity as I believe there are multiple verses showing Christ’s divinity. I was just wondering if any believer of the Trinity also believes in subordination within it, and if this subordination was temporary or eternal.[/quote]
That youtube channel I told you about also has some great videos on the trinity yet I do not know if he goes over the roles of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.[/quote]
From the videos I’ve seen, he kinda hints at it, but doesn’t say it directly. Basically, at this point until I see more evidence, I do not believe that there is subordination in the Trinity in eternity past or at this very moment, but only when Christ was in his earthly body before his resurrection.
[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Obviously, faith says nothing about facts, even when people place their faith in the same holy book. [/quote]This man is powerless over “Christian” threads and his posting has become unmanageable. He cannot help himself.
“Hi my name’s forlife and I’m a gospelholic. One thread’s too many and 1000 not enough. PLEASE LORD JESUS DELIVER ME” Oops wait =]
[/quote]
Very funny stuff Trib.
I have a theory about forlife. He insists that there is no God, but if there were no God, as he says, why does he spend so many hours trying convince the rest of us of this alleged fact? Can’t he just be happy knowing that he knows the truth and the rest of us are just blind? No, what he really wants is to convince himself that there is no God (for various reasons) and he tries to do so every time he posts in a spiritually based thread.[/quote]
More misrepresentations about me, I see. You just can’t help yourself.
I’ve never insisted there is no god. I’ve corrected you on that point, in fact, and you’ve even acknowledged it.
I’m an agnostic. I think it’s possible there is some supernatural being out there, but until I see actual evidence for it, why in the world would I believe it? My personal experience has proven to me that deep spiritual experiences aren’t proof of anything other than what I subconsciously want to be true.
But hey, if there actually is a god, and if that god is omniscient and benevolent, I don’t have anything to worry about. You Christians may disagree on that point, and ya’all are welcome to believe whatever you choose to believe regarding my eternal salvation.
[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Obviously, faith says nothing about facts, even when people place their faith in the same holy book. [/quote]This man is powerless over “Christian” threads and his posting has become unmanageable. He cannot help himself.
“Hi my name’s forlife and I’m a gospelholic. One thread’s too many and 1000 not enough. PLEASE LORD JESUS DELIVER ME” Oops wait =]
[/quote]
Hmmm…seems to me your post count is a bit higher than mine and I don’t think it’s all been in the bodybuilding forum
[quote]forbes wrote:
<<< From the videos I’ve seen, he kinda hints at it, but doesn’t say it directly. Basically, at this point until I see more evidence, I do not believe that there is subordination in the Trinity in eternity past or at this very moment, but only when Christ was in his earthly body before his resurrection. [/quote]Subordination isn’t the way I would characterize the interpersonal nature of the Godhead either. In short for now, the Father is primarily the author of the eternal plan we are are realizing in history, the Son accomplished the central work of that plan and the Spirit applies the results after the ascension and the day of Pentecost in acts 2. That’s not subordination, but it is a variance in function though as Chris says, they all share somewhat in those roles as well.
Jesus told the pharisees that He would raise Himself up on the third day in John chapter 2. Paul says in Galatians 1 that the Father raised Him and also mentions in Romans 8 the “Spirit of Him that raised Christ from the dead”. Yet other places like several times in the book of Acts it says simply that “God” raised Him for the dead.
Welcome to yet another infinite, at least somewhat unplumbable(word?) mystery of the God we love and serve. I’ve never actually assembled anything specifically on this.
[quote]forlife wrote:
More misrepresentations about me, I see. You just can’t help yourself.[/quote]
Not even one mistrepresentation. You stated here on the forum in so many words that you could no longer stay with your wife and two young children…and you could no longer be a Christian because both of those things stood in the way of your homosexuality. Again this is not verbatim
You are responsible for so many anti-God comments it slipped my mind. It doesn’t really matter from a spiritual stand-point as the end will be the same for agnostics and atheists. But I will make sure to remember from here on in that you are agnostic.
So you’re relying on your PERSONAL EXPERIENCE to tell you that there might be a God but you are not sure. But when a Christian relies on his/her personal experience you guys have a fit. I get, I get it.
You don’t have anything to worry about unless the Christian Bible is correct - But then you really don’t have anything to worry about either. If it’s too late why worry? But as long as you have life it is not too late. Keep that in mind.
I usually enjoy the part where we trade insults. But I’m compelled to simply be honest with you this time:
May God Bless you forlife and give you the wisdom to see his glory in your life. I honestly wish you the best in life and in the after life and I mean it from the bottom of my heart.
[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Obviously, faith says nothing about facts, even when people place their faith in the same holy book. [/quote]This man is powerless over “Christian” threads and his posting has become unmanageable. He cannot help himself.
“Hi my name’s forlife and I’m a gospelholic. One thread’s too many and 1000 not enough. PLEASE LORD JESUS DELIVER ME” Oops wait =]
[/quote]
Hmmm…seems to me your post count is a bit higher than mine and I don’t think it’s all been in the bodybuilding forum ;)[/quote]I’m SUPPOSED to like talking about God.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
That’s true, you never caught it, but I most assuredly did tell you. First communion and confirmation too. I even told you it was St Robert Bellermine Parish and posted a link to the website. However, like most folks around here you don’t pay any attention when I type, but that’s OK. Who is Greg that thou shouldst be mindful of him?[/quote]
A little self-pity? No, I pay attention, but sometimes I don’t see a post of yours. Sometimes I’ll be gone a week and just go to the last post.
[quote]
Obviously I cannot control what you believe, but thanks anyway I’ll keep my lowercase c. Whatever that thing is over in Rome it ain’t the bride of Christ and I want no part of it. That’s the very definition of anathema. I will submit though again. I’m not going to be the one to declare every last human being that has ever been in communion with Rome unavoidably lost, but those who would enter the kingdom will only do so in spite of the papacy and because the grace I preach is the true gospel.
What I see in most catholic people are folks who bear little if any evidence of a transformed life in the resurrection of the only begotten Son of God. They look, act and talk pretty much like the world with some conservative political views (maybe). In other words religious pharisees who follow some rules and rituals, but don’t really let Jesus interfere too much with their carnal self serving heart and life. Oh they are charitable. That’s what buys them their license to sin, just like Paul said some self deceivers would do. What else can be expected from a church that has degenerated into a neo unitarian “I’m OK, you’re OK” self esteem seminar, but tolerates debauchery as a matter of daily course? (no I’m not even talking about perverted priests at all)[/quote]
Yeah, there are some people that seem like that, in the denominations as well, but I think that has to do with a cultural thing, not a Catholic teaching. The Church needs to become stronger in its teaching. There is no you’re OK, I’m OK teaching. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, this hasn’t changed. Our criticism of Invisible Ignorance has come to brighter light. However, it is not our judgement or our place to say well the buddhist is fine, because he doesn’t know. That is God’s position. He determines if the person knew the true teachings of the Church, if he was able, and &c. That doesn’t mean that anyone outside the Church is going to get to Heaven, just means that God’s mercy and powerfulness may for certain individuals see that their heart was after God (which buddhist don’t have a God) fully. We’re still “fire and brimstone” about our teaching that if you aren’t in the Church there is no way of knowing.
[quote]
God forbid my friend. My precious bridegroom, big brother, father, lord and master has made me free and freer all the time. I dare not commune with the graveyard of Rome. Gold on the outside and putrefying death on the inside. I say things like this with no hatred for catholic people. Absolutely to the contrary. It’s the church I hate and even at that I really do sometimes wish she was what she claims… minus the mountainous tumor of man made tradition, law and dogma which has turned her into the spiritual wasteland she is today. John’s body was barely cold and off we went.[/quote]
You obvious forget that, as Catholics we are the Church. We are the Church Militant, but still the Church.
[quote]forlife wrote:
The trinity is another great example of how people can be 100% sincere, yet using the same bible their faith leads them to contradictory conclusions about the very nature of their god. You’d think something as basic as the identity of the being you worship would at least generate consensus, but even on this basic point there are huge differences in beliefs.
Some believe god, Jesus, and the holy spirit are separate beings, but are united in purpose. Others insist they are different manifestations of the same supernatural being. Some claim the biblical god is without body, parts, or passions, while others firmly assert that god the father and Jesus have physical bodies, but the holy spirit does not.
Obviously, faith says nothing about facts, even when people place their faith in the same holy book. [/quote]
Yeah, but all those other positions are illogical positions, and the JW don’t use the same manuscript. [/quote]
What do you mean?[/quote]
Our manuscripts (a.k.a. bible) are not the same.[/quote]
Up until the 1950’s we used the King James Version of the Bible. Then we wanted to put Jehovah’s name back in the Bible where it belonged, and move from Old English to modern english. Therefore, the New World’s Translation of the Holy Scriptures came into existence, viewed among scholars as one of the most accurate translations around.
A 2003 study by Jason BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in the United States, of nine of “the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world,” including the New American Bible, The King James Bible and The New International Version, examined several passages that are considered controversial, where “bias is most likely to interfere with translation”. For each passage, he compared the Greek text with the renderings of each English translation, and looked for biased attempts to change the meaning. BeDuhn reported that the New World Translation was “not bias free”, but emerged “as the most accurate of the translations compared”, and thus a “remarkably good translation”, adding that “most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation”. BeDuhn said the introduction of the name “Jehovah” into the New Testament 237 times was “not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy”, and that it “violate[s] accuracy in favor of denominationally preferred expressions for God”, adding that for the NWT to gain wider acceptance and prove its worth its translators might have to abandon the use of “Jehovah” in the New Testament.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia says of the NWT reference edition: “[Jehovah’s Witnesses’] translation of the Bible [has] an impressive critical apparatus. The work is excellent except when scientific knowledge comes into conflict with the accepted doctrines of the movement.” It criticizes the NWT’s rendering of Kyrios as “Jehovah” in 237 instances in the New Testament, the rendering “means” instead of “is” in Matthew 26:26, and the insertion of “other” at Colossians 1:16-17.[/quote]
Catholics don’t use the KJV, they use the Latin Vulgate, St. Jerome, DRB, NAB, or RSV, Second Catholic Edition.
However, do you have a link to Dr. BeDuhn’s, I believe I have met him once.[/quote]
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Here we go and still no time. As has been said all three persons of the Godhead are equally God, but yes there are roles and relations as well. Gotta go.[/quote]
Can you explain these roles and where i can get more information on it?[/quote]
May I ask if you believe in the trinity already?[/quote]
Yes I do believe in the Trinity as I believe there are multiple verses showing Christ’s divinity. I was just wondering if any believer of the Trinity also believes in subordination within it, and if this subordination was temporary or eternal.[/quote]
That youtube channel I told you about also has some great videos on the trinity yet I do not know if he goes over the roles of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.[/quote]
From the videos I’ve seen, he kinda hints at it, but doesn’t say it directly. Basically, at this point until I see more evidence, I do not believe that there is subordination in the Trinity in eternity past or at this very moment, but only when Christ was in his earthly body before his resurrection. [/quote]
There is no subordination. Jesus became man, to get on our level, and part of that was to pray to the Father. Jesus was still God, the Son, but part of being human was praying. Just like Jesus had John the Baptist’s baptism (for repentance) yet Jesus did not need to repent.
[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Obviously, faith says nothing about facts, even when people place their faith in the same holy book. [/quote]This man is powerless over “Christian” threads and his posting has become unmanageable. He cannot help himself.
“Hi my name’s forlife and I’m a gospelholic. One thread’s too many and 1000 not enough. PLEASE LORD JESUS DELIVER ME” Oops wait =]
[/quote]
Very funny stuff Trib.
I have a theory about forlife. He insists that there is no God, but if there were no God, as he says, why does he spend so many hours trying convince the rest of us of this alleged fact? Can’t he just be happy knowing that he knows the truth and the rest of us are just blind? No, what he really wants is to convince himself that there is no God (for various reasons) and he tries to do so every time he posts in a spiritually based thread.[/quote]
More misrepresentations about me, I see. You just can’t help yourself.
I’ve never insisted there is no god. I’ve corrected you on that point, in fact, and you’ve even acknowledged it.
I’m an agnostic. I think it’s possible there is some supernatural being out there, but until I see actual evidence for it, why in the world would I believe it? My personal experience has proven to me that deep spiritual experiences aren’t proof of anything other than what I subconsciously want to be true.
But hey, if there actually is a god, and if that god is omniscient and benevolent, I don’t have anything to worry about. You Christians may disagree on that point, and ya’all are welcome to believe whatever you choose to believe regarding my eternal salvation.
[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Obviously, faith says nothing about facts, even when people place their faith in the same holy book. [/quote]This man is powerless over “Christian” threads and his posting has become unmanageable. He cannot help himself.
“Hi my name’s forlife and I’m a gospelholic. One thread’s too many and 1000 not enough. PLEASE LORD JESUS DELIVER ME” Oops wait =]
[/quote]
Hmmm…seems to me your post count is a bit higher than mine and I don’t think it’s all been in the bodybuilding forum ;)[/quote]I’m SUPPOSED to like talking about God.
[/quote]
And I’m SUPPOSED to like talking about the pursuit of truth over fiction.
[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Obviously, faith says nothing about facts, even when people place their faith in the same holy book. [/quote]This man is powerless over “Christian” threads and his posting has become unmanageable. He cannot help himself.
“Hi my name’s forlife and I’m a gospelholic. One thread’s too many and 1000 not enough. PLEASE LORD JESUS DELIVER ME” Oops wait =]
[/quote]
Very funny stuff Trib.
I have a theory about forlife. He insists that there is no God, but if there were no God, as he says, why does he spend so many hours trying convince the rest of us of this alleged fact? Can’t he just be happy knowing that he knows the truth and the rest of us are just blind? No, what he really wants is to convince himself that there is no God (for various reasons) and he tries to do so every time he posts in a spiritually based thread.[/quote]
More misrepresentations about me, I see. You just can’t help yourself.
I’ve never insisted there is no god. I’ve corrected you on that point, in fact, and you’ve even acknowledged it.
I’m an agnostic. I think it’s possible there is some supernatural being out there, but until I see actual evidence for it, why in the world would I believe it? My personal experience has proven to me that deep spiritual experiences aren’t proof of anything other than what I subconsciously want to be true.
But hey, if there actually is a god, and if that god is omniscient and benevolent, I don’t have anything to worry about. You Christians may disagree on that point, and ya’all are welcome to believe whatever you choose to believe regarding my eternal salvation.
Bad Zeb, back to the circus![/quote]
Why wouldn’t we have to worry?[/quote]
If you’re living with integrity and according to the principles of love and courage, any omniscient, benevolent god will have your back. If they don’t, they don’t deserve to be worshiped in the first place.
