emeraldgirl

What I mean by this is that the information contained in the Bible is pertinent if you must understand certain things about Jesus and believe them to be saved. See, one thing that has attracted me to Deism is that all people throughout time and the world have access to two things: the Creation (or nature), and moral conscience. All people develop a conscience and know what is wrong and right. Doing right generally makes people feel good and doing wrong generall makes people feel bad. So, if you had no knowledge about any religious book or church or whatever, the natural thing you would be able to do is look at the wonderous creation and say, "This is good. Whomever or Whatever is behind this is what I want." Oh, and I also think people have an inate longing for God (or some Supreme Being, IYKWIM). Personally, I don't feel that way. I think they ALL are arrogant! It's just that this is not a Muslim board, or a Hindu board, or a Morman board...We're talking about Christianity here. The very point you mention is part of the folly to me - everyone thinks they have "the revelation" and maybe none of them do. I'm just surmising, but from what I've read, I think a lot of Atheists believe this, too - that all are equally arrogant in this respect. I don't know...I tried to do this when I was pregnant and it seemed very useless. On the one hand, I wanted to pray that I would have a healthy baby this time. But then I felt bound to the possibility that that is not God's will - he let one baby die, why not two? I couldn't pray for God's will to happen if the possibility included that - it wouldn't be honest! I can't honestly pray, "I hope for a healthy baby this time, but God, whatever is your will." Because it just was not true! I really did only want a healthy baby. If I got something else, then okay, but not because I told God it was really okay and that I would accept whatever, dead or alive baby, anything is fine. I know, that's probably an overanalysis, and maybe that particular part of my life wasn't really something I could pray about in a meaningful way. But then, it kind of all comes down to this. We can't just "chat" with God - well, we could, but he's not going to chat back. People say that, that prayer is conversation with God, but it's really not. It's one-way only. The only sort of prayer that makes any sense to me is a kind of meditation. It improves the meditator. I believe this, too.

Touching the hot stove is a logical consequence; this is not what I'm talking about. Whipping them after they burned their hand is retribution, and that is what I'm talking about. If they burned their hand for not heeding my warning, oh well - I am sad they were burned, but I warned them. But I would not "add" anything to it because they didn't heed my warning - the consequence came to them without any help from me. Discipline means "to teach" - same root as disciple and that is how I discipline effectively. My children are 9, 7 and 1, so I don't know what I would do in all imaginable circumstances. But so far, keeping the "teach" model uppermost in my mind has been the best in all possible ways. I agree; those things are Divine Love. What I meant by loving a child was this: When I had my first child (and a colick-ridden child, besides), it struck me how strange it was that I could love this person so totally when she had nothing at all to offer me. She woke me up, she made me tired, she made my body hurt, she cried without abatement for hours and I had to do every single thing for her. But I loved her so fiercly I would have died in her place if needed. That is what I meant. It made me think, for the first time in my life, "This must be a hint of how God loves us." Because compared to God's perfection, we would have to be like little infants; imperfect, needy and self-centered. I was thinking of doing this. I have read through long portions in it's entirety, but not the entire book from G to R. I enjoy talking to you, Wayne. You're the "real thing". You know, if it's not insensitive to ask - and maybe you can't really imagine - but what do you think you would feel if after all you've gone through, your son does die? What if you went to see him tomorrow and he's just lifeless in his bed? I don't mean to entertain cruel thoughts - I'm relating it to myself. I really did think my life could not be one shred better before my daughter died. I was all praise to God for bringing me through fertility challenges. I was all praise to God for other things that seemed to be standing in the way of having another child. But the rug was pulled out from under me in a way I could never have imagined. So, it's once bitten, twice shy. I feel like I've done the Trust God thing and boy did He blow it.

That's presumption. I never said, imagined or dreamed that my questions were unique. I have been studying the apologetics on them for decades. That's arrogant presumption. What do you know of how much I've looked, or how I like the answers? More arrogant presumption. I'm thrilled you found satisfying answers. Pride goes before a fall, as the scripture goes. I hope your fall is not too tragic. And yet you can't give them to me. It's more enjoyable to insult me and any others who ask the hard questions. If I wanted salve for my conscience, I would just shrug and "believe". I could just say, "Oh well, Christ died for my sins." And how could someone manufacture a scripture that can be looked up with my own eyes? If someone says "this scripture says this and that scripture says that", how is that "manufactured", if I can look for myself and see that it does say that? More arrogant presumption. I don't hate God, I love God. I wish every person well in their journey of faith; I wouldn't dream of trying to persuade someone to deconversion. I can only speak for myself, but *I* am here, asking these questions as one last attempt to salvage my faith! If I didn't care about the faith, there would be no reason to ask or to wonder. I could just go, "Oh well, the Christian thing didn't pan out. Might as well be something else." I ask the questions because I'm tormented by them. I have no idea why you say this. Hardly do I think I'm asking some unique question only I have ever thought of. I never claimed it! Maybe you're just tired of offering up the same warmed over answers that your church Apologetics teacher told you to say. If you despise reading the questions so much, why not just go off into Inner Court where I'm not allowed to post? Then you can shield yourself from my tired old questions. If the answers were as simple as you say, millions of people wouldn't be asking them year after year. I, unlike you, am not out to proove you or anyone else "wrong". Believe whatever you want to believe; I don't care a bit. What is it you think I should be refuting? More insufferable arrogance, Shiloh. First, I doubt you have been in my shoes, because you would not be so crass. Life would have humbled you by now. Oh, yes, I forgot I was speaking to The Oracle Who Knows All Things. If the Bible can't be understood by us simpletons, then I guess too bad for me.

Shiloh, your posts reveal the precise arrogant disgust and presumption that offends me so much in Christianity. You sound just like I did in 1999 when I flamed a Gnostic Christian into oblivion because she dared to call herself a Christian one minute and the next say she didn't believe we were born in sin and the Bible was errant. (I wish I could find this gentle, kind, intelligent woman again to offer my deepest apology.) Sylvan's views encapsulate my own thoughts well. Unconditional/conditional love is precisely the context I've considered it in. Because I am a mother and I don't require retribution for my children's mistakes; I just teach them what they need to do next time. This is humane and loving. I cannot be more loving than God, I presume. In fact, becoming a mother was to me what hinted to me of what Divine love could really be like. This is precisely my dilemma, sylvan; you're right!

Sylvan's view is totally rational. If he/she is "adding" a word by saying God was angry, he/she at least is stating what the overall picture is in this story. And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man and beast and the creeping thing and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. If that is not a picture of anger, I don't know what is. At the very least, it's not a picture of someone who knows the future, as you can't regret doing something if you knew the outcome to begin with. How can someone imagine God drowning the whole human race, and all animals, except just a tiny few and not be horrified? Remember the Tsunami of 2004? If God provoked that disaster because all the people were wicked, would you feel good about that god? Most Christians today, in the face of such horrors, say it is not God's punishment on mankind, but why not believe that it is, if we have the Bible to look at that says He DOES do that?

No, Wayne. But it's hard for me to believe that any person could read and study the Bible for years and not find at least a few things troubling. The reference to "humanity" was more because I think there are Christians who are too proud to even admit that they are troubled by any aspect of the Christian faith. Conversely, if indeed you are not at all troubled by any tenent of the faith, if you are not at all troubled by anything in the Bible, the next introspective question I have is, "Then what is the matter with me?" How can I be "okay" with something I find reprehensible? I don't know how to, or why to. Christianity should be able to withstand objective scrutiny if it is Truth. And again that creates my wonder, "Then what is the matter with me?" Some questions have agonized me for just simply ages. If you notice, I've been a member here a long time, I just have posted infrequently. Look back at some of my old questions, if you want. I have asked and wondered over the same things for SOOOOO long, no matter how much I have wanted to know the answer, no matter how often I prayed for wisdom on the matter. Wayne, I would love to have a book that is the One True Answer in a world of lies. But if the Bible even has one, tiny error in it - even if it's an insignificant error in the scope of all the concepts in the Bible - then the Holy Spirit could not have breathed in the words to be penned. He couldn't have presided while the texts were cannonized if there is even one, tiny inconsistency from book to book or from OT to NT. But I know there are both of these things, and some of them aren't even tiny. Any person with eyes can look and see that the Bible contains both of these problems. Any google search on Biblical Errancy will reveal dozens of both of these, not to mention the ones you can find yourself just by reading for yourself. I have study Bibles in different translations. I've used the study excerpts extensively to try and sort out problems as they arise. But that is what starts to add to my uneasiness. Why can't I understand it just as it is? Why do I need to exegete ancient words for hours to try and formulate what the verse is saying? Here's an example: I belong to a Christian community that does not believe in spanking children. Some of the ladies have spent many hours in exegesis, trying to find other things that "Beat the child with a rod and he shall not die" could mean. I don't believe in beating my children with rods, but frankly, if that is what the scripture says on the face of it, than that is what was meant. Most Christians haven't even read all the Bible (myself included), let alone peirced every scripture for hours trying to find out what it means in the original Greek. So there is an immediate limitation to a written Word of God. I wish it wasn't so. But even when I believed the Bible inerrant and infallible, I still wondered why it should be so hard to tell what is being said. And Wayne, I do have a candid mind. I would much rather be a Christian. Deconverting is painful to the worst degree and I haven't even told anyone IRL yet! I have to go around as a shell of a Christian, just because my life is so intertwined with being a Christian. I can't accept the disasters that will be wrought by coming out of the closet with my unbelief! I would much rather believe it all. But you can't believe what you don't believe, and there is the real rub.

Nebula, I'm not sure what you mean by this. I don't mind if someone wants to address one of my questions, or somebody else's. My aim was to keep from going off the point and just getting into pages of debate over one of the questions. But I liked your post the best so far. It answered the question honestly without focusing on how defective my faith is. gunner, I completely agree with this: But doing these things would not have anything to do with knowing Jesus is your Saviour. This is one reason why I am appreciating Deism a lot more. It answers this question better.

This would be the sort of thing that would make for interesting conversation.

Shiloh, this is what I asked for. Strangely enough, this is what I wanted to hear. I didn't say I wanted the answers to my questions. I was sharing my questions and asking to hear the questions others have. slimshady, perfectly alright to answer for what troubled you in the past. I probably should have broadened my audience in that way.

Even when I was a "real" Christian, some things did trouble me. Now that I hold them out for open scrutiny, I am not recognized as a Christian anymore. But here and there, Christians do say that there are things that trouble them, or questions, although they may be comfortable just suspending judgment on them. So, if you are a Christian, and you're bold enough to say so, what tenents of the faith, or verses/stories/concepts in the Bible do you find troubling? Or wish you could understand? Qualify your answer by telling how long you've been a Christian, please. Also, have you read the entire Bible? I'll list my own; these were things that always did bother me: * It is not possible for all people to even know about Christ, or have a Bible, or understand a Bible, so how can this be the requirement for salvation? * How can a Christian believe that they have been lucky enough (or chosen, or whatever) to receive *THE* correct information, even while many others also believe it is they who have *THE* correct information? Doesn't this strike you as instantly arrogant? * What is the purpose of petitionary prayer, if you believe that God's Divine Plan is always good, or always "works together for the good of those who are called according to his purpose"? Why not just say, "Thy will be done. Good night." * I have not believed in a literal, burning hell for a few years, but if you do, how can you accept this? Do you know how long "forever" is? Even if I think of someone totally hideous, who epitomizes evil, being tortured *FOREVER* is pretty extreme. But wait! Even those people living in Mali who have never heard of Jesus are supposedly going there, remember? And that extrodinarily philanthropic Jewish lady down the street - yup! She burns forever! If you really believe this, how do you accept this? So, what is your list? What bothers you? Can you expose your humanity? Can you risk it? How do you address troubling things?

I can't post in that forum; I guess I am banned from it. Nice job, Mark. I have read the Psalms 22 one before, but I didn't find it to be a compelling prophecy of the Messiah. For one thing, Psalms is not a book of prophecy, it's a book of songs and poems. Why would there be a messianic prophecy in here? Many Psalms are laments and the 22nd is just like the others in this respect. I've also read (but not thouroughly investigated) that the reference to "peirced" hands and feet can also be translated "gnawed on", as in the dogs are gnawing at his hands and feet. When I first read that Psalm as a messianic prophecy I was actually pretty disappointed; I was looking for and expecting a compelling prophecy, but the only thing I really think is interesting in it is casting lots for garments. The others I will have to investigate further when I have more time. Thanks.

To do this would be to presume that I definately know. I don't presume that. How do I know that I have the truth? I don't. I'm willing to tell someone what I think. I can't prove it. Quoting the Bible would not prove it any more than quoting Shakespeare, unless the person I'm talking to already believes the Bible is inerrant, in which case, there's no need to "educate" them. I'm sure I never said "everyone will be saved", but nevertheless, if I am wrong and God is ticked off about it, then I face whatever I face. Maybe you're wrong and Allah is going to condemn you.

Of course God is really the only one who knows who and how he saves for certain. Maybe he saves nobody. Maybe he saves everyone. Maybe he only saves the Amish, or Swedish Monks. But I do have the "right" to believe in whatever kind of God I want to, and so do you, which is the right you exercise by believing in the orthodox variety of the Christian faith. You have no more proof that your version of God is correct than my own, only I'm not assuming that anyone who believes differently from me has a crispy future coming. Why would it not also be something you have just made up? See, none of us really know, objectively. I was going to say something just like this. Many have died for religions other than Christianity; it doesn't mean what they died for was correct. I am more than thankful that I live in a country which (for the most part) allows you to worship anything you want (just not in public school ) I'm thankful I can choose to go to a temple, a mosque, a church, or a drum ceremony - or no religious service at all - whenever and if ever I choose. If people die for Jesus, I assume they are very worthy in God's eyes. Countless people have also been killed because they were not Christians. Does this make Christianity correct? I'm sorry Smlcald, that I've aggitated you. You are welcome to believe whatever you want to. If I am gravely wrong, than that is a judgment I will have to face for myself. But it's hard for me to imagine that God will reject me because I believe he will be more merciful than He actually is.

So what if it is? Then I only believe one lie and not the rest of the lies in the Bible? If it's just one collosal fairy tale from start to finish, so what? I'm not harmed by believing it and neither are you. OTOH, if the Jesus element is true, why does that sanction anything else men decided to "cannonize" by vote? Haven't you ever read a non-fiction book and some parts said, "Yes, my experience tells me that is totally true.", but in another part said, "No, the author is off on this." Believing that Jesus is/was God doesn't mean I must also believe that a ticked-off "God" drowned the world, but only after he asked a man older than America to build a huge boat to save the animals. Sorry if my distilled phrase "Jesus Doctrine" bothers you. Objectively, it is just a doctrine, like many others, in many other religions. No, if he died for any, he died for all. That is my whole point. Not just the lucky people who happen to have a Bible, a concordance, a Christian pastor, several books by Lucado or Strobel, and a family history of devout Christianity. Yes, I agree. Why do we need man's tools to try and show the "One True Way" to really find this God we can know and believe is there just by observation?

Sorry I haven't been tending this thread; I was away this weekend. This is how my husband accepts it. Sometimes I wish I could just leave things with simple answers like he does. He just says, "I don't know, honey, but I guess God just had a reason; maybe there was something he needed her for." Lepacca, I think you are right in your thinking. Even in and of itself, media makes tragedy so constantly available that we can just tune out that it really is a tragedy that belongs to someone; it's more than just this evening's "news". traveller, I'm sorry you lost your son. It's soothing when people who have been there reply. I know you know what it really is like.

Hi, everyone, again, sorry I was away this weekend. Now the thread has gotten away from me. But, I thought I'd answer this one question: I suppose if I had not been taught to believe that Jesus is "the Only Way" since birth, I probably would have disregarded it all by now. I couldn't throw out the Jesus doctrine any sooner than I could expatriate from America; it's so totally integrated into me that it *IS* me. Except for the Jesus doctrine, it doesn't really matter what you believe about the Bible. I believe if there is a way of salvation, it must be equally accessible to all people, in all times and in all circumstances. A written Word of God doesn't allow for that. There isn't any more reason to believe that the men who wrote the Bible and cannonized it and translated it were being overseen by God than there is to believe that an angel provided the Koran in completion, Joe Smith was given the Book of Mormon supernaturally, etc. I always did think it was strange that Christians scoff at those miraculous revelations, but not their own. If God wanted a written Word, it would unify people, not divide them. It would clarify things, not make them more confusing. Suppose God really did author the 10 Commandments - the whole Bible should be this simple. The Sabbath is the only one people really seem to debate about, and why do they debate it at all? Because Jesus said things later regarding the Sabbath that they argue over. Paul said "all days are equal" (something like that), and so people now have to debate the 4th Commandment. Even if you look at the Epistels - why should these be Holy Scripture? They're letters to planted churches. Some parts are specific to a a few people in a given congregation! Did God really mean for people to know about these few people forever? Or was it just a letter that Paul wrote to his church, with no notion whatsoever that anyone would ever cannonize it into scripture? Also, the scripture goes that the Word of God is living, active and sharper than a two-edged sword, right? People say they were reading a scripture and *BAM!* an epiphany! they suddenly gained clarity on some aspect of their lives; it was like they never even read that verse before. Hey, this has happened to me, too! But all great literature gets its moments like that, even written by mortal humans with no aim at holy scripture. I got one of those life-changing moments reading Stephen Covey's awesome The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People when I was a young adult. And many books before then and since. I will say that I haven't gone on a systematic attempt to prove that the Bible is not the Word of God. I don't need to or want to. I know there are some prophecies and things that may be compelling, if I read them in completion. But the little bit of looking I did just at Messianic prophicies once was a total let-down; very few were even a little compelling. So, if someone can give me three really compelling world-history-type prophecies, it would be nice to do some study on it, but I'm kind of past the point of chasing vague scriptures right now. Well, that got on longer than I meant.

Wayne, you are very sweet. And I am very sorry for your struggles. I do know that I'm not the only one who has suffered. I read the story "Because of Winn-Dixie" with my daughter the year I lost my baby. Out of that story, I felt the message for me (whether or not the author intended it as a theme) was that everyone has pain. People are also misunderstood and mistreated for the pain they bear, and this was very true IME. In some ways, I can see this, too, but I don't always feel that it's been worth the price, IYKWIM. I can understand this. When I was pregnant again, some people were stunned that I would "go and do that", since I was at risk to lose a baby again. I simply didn't see it that way. I felt that God was asking me to trust him with another pregnancy, statistics notwithstanding. Not that I didn't occassionally wonder what on earth I was thinking. Yes, that is why I said my ease of accepting the Jesus doctrine was surprising and incongruent. Anyway, the flood takes on a more excuse-making dynamic (at least to me) than the Jesus doctrine. The Jesus one is simple. The flood makes all these pleas to the supernatural to reconcile the things we now know are scientifically impossible or improbable, when it was all an excercise in futility anyway, since God could have made animals, people, trees, whatever over from scratch if he had wanted to, without the need for a 500-year-old geezer to build an ark for a century. (How's that for a run-on?) And the flood still brings question to God's goodness, besides. Could you drown one person? I couldn't even drown a kitten! When you watched video of the Tsunami that happened that Christmas (2004? I think?), didn't your heart ache? Did you cry, or almost at the sight of those corpses in lines for identification? Can you even begin to fathom that on a global scale? Now what of that being done on purpose because the people were evil! This seems somewhat logical if we consider it was written during more barbaric, if you will, times. Would you want this story in the modern Bible, though, I mean if you had magic and could just make it disappear, with nobody's memory? I would rather believe that God is good and the flood story is a misfortune. I think it comes out wanting in this respect, too. Not that I've studied it for a long time or in great depth. But that is precisely what I do not believe. I don't believe we are predesposed to do evil. I believe we are originally morally neutral. Many external and some internal factors act towards a person making a given choice. For example, in our household, nobody curses at another. Not even "soft" cursing; we don't say anyone is "stupid", "ugly", that we hate them, "shut up", etc. My children are also homeschooled, so even among friends and in the homes of friends, my children are rarely exposed to people who speak this way to others. Of course, they could still make an autonomous choice to say one of these terms to each other, or to another person. But, the likelihood is far less than someone who has a family that often speaks this way to each other. They are not driven by an internal "disease" of sin to speak in ways that hurt and deride others. If they were, it would not matter whether their home was like mine or like the cursing family. The kids would still curse freely, regularly and without remorse, unless they had already become a Christian. Besides that, becoming a Christian would quickly rectify these sinful tendencies IN ALL CHRISTIANS and in no other kind of person, but this is not so. Having said that, I do think that loving God drives people to do what is right more often. However, I don't think this is the exclusive domain of Christians; many non-Christians love God, you can see it in their lives. But, if the Bible was inerrant, the Bible would be the only "version" of these stories that was perfectly correct. All the rest are copies. But how are they copies, if when it was written, there wasn't communication existing between the cultures that have flood stories? It seems more likely that these were oral traditions and, like all oral traditions, details varied. Eventually someone wrote them down, but perhaps since those manuscripts were hanging out near the Jewish Law text, someone decided to put them together. Plus, there could have been a flood, a pretty catastrophic flood in that region at that time. It still doesn't lend credence to the Noah story, necessarily. And besides, why - I insist - are these early stories constantly showing a punitive, vindictive God? This has so much more in common with how ancient people viewed any god, and also how they explained things they didn't know about. Why is childbirth painful? Because God punished Eve. Why do thorns grow in the garden? Because God punished Adam. Why is life so hard? Because sin corrupted the world/because Satan works to spoil the world. Although, from the childbirth angle, if evolution were true, I for certain would have voted for "marsupial" childbearing by now!

Ovedya, What's the matter? Mark, see, I told you you were a genius! I need my dictionary just to make it through your word choices. Natural observation. Sometimes we choose "good", which often has a philanthropic nature, and other times we choose "evil", which often has a selfish nature. Just like with light - there are two possibilities - dark or light. Even an atheist can choose good, or evil. I believe this, which is why I don't presume the kind, philanthropic Jew is not saved.

Aww, Secondeve, you are so compassionate for being able to put yourself in her shoes like that! I really don't think I even was compassionate until I lost my daughter. Other people's problems were just other people's problems, YKWIM? It's very different for me now. I can't even watch a news report without thinking, "That could be me/my child/my husband."

Jackie, I'm probably not the best one to answer this question for you, but I totally understand where you're coming from. I just posted a question about prayer very similar to what you said in this OP. IMO, this is a common element in grief.

Okay, yes, that answers my question. Dave, your story rises another series of thoughts in my head. Perhaps I'm taking the post too far off the OP, though; I apologize to secondeve if I'm doing that. Okay...this is one thing that has troubled me deeply since I lost my daughter. Ultimately, your wife lived. You also were blessed with another child, not that it makes up for losing one as I well know, but it is a happy result that helps heal the pain of the loss. Somewhere, though, there is the mother who died of a ruptured tube. Or who lost also their last chance to bear a child. Or whatever situation could be more painful in your eyes. When I was pregnant after my loss, I simply could not pray. I pretty much completely ignored God. I was too afraid of attracting more Job-attention, too afraid that God might say "No" again, too resentful that he took my baby girl, etc. Thankfully, my baby boy arrived healthy and breathing (although things got a little hairy right at the end, but that's another post) and is a healthy, normal toddler now. Prayer still troubles me a lot, though. Three times now, people have told me gleefully about their near-misses and how God miraculously saved their child (or in one case, their dog!) and "all due to my prayers!". This is so hurtful to me! But how else can I take it? It's like saying they prayed "right" or whatever and so God granted their wish! But why not mine? My child was prayed for, too! So, it ends up with my wondering why even pray? And why "Thank God" when it goes the way we'd like. I could, for example, Thank God that he gave me my little boy, that he spared my child this time. But what is that to someone who has lost two babies? They would have to feel just like I feel when people say, "Woohoo! My child lived! God blessed me!"

Yes. Surprisingly, and perhaps incongruently, I pretty much believe all Biblical doctrine about Christ. I have played with the idea that he was simply an exceedingly excellant man, but it doesn't really wash for me. I accept willingly the Virgin Birth, God Incarnate, Crucifixtion and Resurrection. However, lest I sound too pious or certain, I will say these things are not things I'm passionate about. Like, I don't feel the compulsion to have everyone else believe these things. It doesn't alarm me if someone doesn't believe them, although I don't like to hear Jesus derided. Thank you, I was just saying this to myself while I was off-line. It's a worthwhile reminder. This is very hard for me, though. I am compulsively logical. And plus, I kind of feel like I gave Him the chance to show me how good he is and he "Job-ed" me. And then the Bible does not help this picture, it makes it worse! And many Christians don't help it, either; they make it worse. They come up with "reasons" for pain that they would be slow to accept if it was their pain.

Secondeve, if I may, here's what I've wondered about atheism, maybe you can give me your opinion: How do you think the universe acheived such excellance and order, such mathematical precision, if not by a creation? (Note, not THE Creation, but "Intelligent Design", as the term now goes.) My main reason for simply being Theistic is that I notice things don't tend towards order on their own, they tend towards chaos. (Being a mother of three children, I may notice this more than some! ) Left to itself, the ivy will take over the flowerbed, it won't shape itself into an oval. What is your belief in this respect?

Thank you Dave, and nebula. Dave, I'm so sorry for your loss and fright. I suppose you are trying to have me say "a liar", but what is the point?