Where is God?

[Mike Field]

It occurs to me that we don't know whether we are still blessed with God's presence amongst us. Has anyone received any heavenly intimations (or, for that matter, visitations) recently?

I used to think of God as being a Wooden Boatie in secret. He seemed to have our welfare and interests at heart, and to make His presence known to we mortals here on the WoodenBoat Forum -- well, not frequently perhaps, but sufficiently often to reassure us that He was still on Our Side.

But is He? Is the August Presence still lurking here, unheard and unseen? Are our secret wishes and desires still known, and our feet still guided firmly on The Way? Will we still be accepted eventually into that great Wooden Boat Marina in the sky?

Or are we doomed to a Plastic Purgatory? Have we, alas, been abandoned? Has our God Himself (or Herself, or Itself, and Heaven forfend,) actually apostasised?' Does God now really favour the Fibreglass Freaks, the Plastic Ponces who contribute to other bulletin boards?? Is God now smiling down on the (gasp, shudder) CWBB, for instance? Why have we not had any indications of his continuing presence? Is He in fact presently absent? Or only merely absently present?

God, are you still there? Are you still listening to us? We implore you, give us a sign.

[paladin]

If GOD wasn't with us he (or she) would have planted fiberglas trees!!!!!

[Mike Field]

Crikey, you're on the ball, Chuck. I only posted that about ninety seconds ago.

[Bruce Taylor]

Calling Finestkind...

[Bateau Boy]

God is real. I am able to live everyday knowing that he is one that keeps us from the almighty group that wishes to take away freedom and the morals of family values that made the world grow into indiviual knowledge of the human beings going about everyday living. Unfortunately their are a few that believe it is right to worship false gods such as an elected official.

[dasboat]

I don't have a ten foot pole.
Dasboat

[ken mcclure]

I do have a 10-foot pole, but I'm leaving it right where it is.

[chris passante]

It's not God who offers the boatride across a river into your eternity.

[Don Z.]

Geez... He's in the details. I thought everyone knew that.

[Phil Young]

He works in mysterious ways. Or so I've heard. Actually I don't think there is a God, in any real sense. Only to the extent that perception is reality, but that's just a marketing thing. Christianity and the various Churches are by and large a good thing though.

[Phil Young]

Has anyone here had their boat struck by lightning?

[Mike Field]

Phil, do I understand you to mean that God is a marketing thing?

Let me tell you that I fully expect Him to post a message on this thread quite shortly. (Don't go away, now.)

[Todd Bradshaw]

My boat got struck by lightning, but I always attributed it to the fact that it had rod rigging and a taller mast than anybody else in the surrounding area. Never thought about devine intervention via high voltage....payback for denuding a rainforest to get mahogany veneer?

[Wild Dingo]

Mike
I think that we as mere humans feel more comfortable and secure reasuring ourselves that there is a "higher power" than ourselves.

Whether that "higher power" is a God as Christians see him or as Jews see him or as Buddhists see him or any other formal religion for that matter see's him/her is simply a matter of choice.

Mind you "god" could for all we know as mere mortals be some strange being unknown and mysterious to us... maybe that Albatross that flew across the bows on the last long journey... the seagull taking great delight in making joyous sounds as the shiney polished glossy finish on the deck is marked with his/her passing...

Its one of the great unknowns.

All we can do is accept that there may be someone or something that is more in control of the entirety of life here on our little blue rock than we ourselves are... it gives us some reason for being.

Theres no deniging that many people have had miraculous experiences and many is the strange thing that has happened throughout time that defy understanding which we put down to "the hand of God" as it may well be.

Just remember next time the next seagull does his doo doos on your shiney deck just smile all knowingly and bow your head and thank him as you mutter platitudes while bending over to scrub it off again... maybe that was god that just knighted your lovely boat


Okay thats enough kidding around I'm going to put all joking aside now and get serious... He is alive! Yes alive and well and prances the world as ........ nah not gonna tell ya!!

Sufficed to say he thinks hes a major domo in the sea fareing world one of the "chosen" or actually "THE chosen"... and none can say naught agin him and his chosen ones!!

Oh shoot you worked it out!!! Yeah thats the one! Donald Duck is none other than god.... sigh and here I thought it was a secret.. but did you know that Popeye is his twin brother? So not only do we not have only one god but we actually have 2... ooops dang and there I go again forgetting old Sinbad... shoot... and when one includes the indominatable BC from the forum that is 4 gods!! (no pun on Bob Cleek here )

whoooeee and theyre all sailors!... We're in luck people as the old 60s song goes "Gods on our side!!"

Take it easy
Shane

No injury, damage or death was caused with this posting, if you take offence you accept that you read it in good faith as it was written and in so doing absolve the author of all responsibility good or bad and will forever leave all seagulls to enjoy doing doo doos whereever seagulls want to do doo doos... me Im gonna cover my decks with long lengths of plastic sheeting (when I build them) then every now and again just tie em of on the mast throw em overboard as I sail along let the sea clean it off and whalla! no more doo doos till god catches up with me again! sigh....... back to the shed and the medication

[NormMessinger]

Originally posted by Phil Young:
He works in mysterious ways....

That would be me, then.

Um, Shane? If God, posing as a seagull, puts that do do on your deck dare you thwart his will? Better leave it. Ya never know. And maybe it is designed for you to step in. Bare footed.

Ah, yes. Strange and mysterious.

--N rm

[norske]

God loves wooden boat builders---He made one
and called him Noah---God loves wood--so much so He made all kinds of wood (anyone out there in "E Land" have any idea how many species there are?)--and he caused them all to multiply greatly upon the whole earth---but best of all God loves wooden boats!---He built one!--(and even documented its dimensions and wood type for us)--- and then honored Noah by naming it after him!(He didn't call it "Gods Ark")---what more do you need to know. Boatbuilders---he is on your side THAT'S WHERE GOD IS.

[This message has been edited by norske (edited 07-27-2001).]

[This message has been edited by norske (edited 07-27-2001).]

[Nora Lee]

God takes care of fools and children, I'm not quite sure what category I fit in, since I missed my first adolesence. Life begins at 40,so I am only in my teens!

Nora

[ishmael]

All truths wait in all things,
They neither hasten their own delivery nor resist it,
They do not need the obstetric forceps of the surgeon,
The insignifigant is as big to me as any,
(What is less or more than a touch?)

Logic and sermons never convince,
The damp of the night drives deeper into my soul.

(Only what proves itself to every man and woman is so,
Only what nobody denies is so.)

A minute and a drop of me settle my brain,
I believe the soggy clods shall become lovers and lamps,
man or woman,
And a summit and flower there is feeling they have
for each other,
And they are to branch boundlessly out of that lesson until
it becomes omnific,
And until one and all shall delight us, and we them.

Walt Whitman

[Mike Field]

Ah, yes -- Noah. Well, we know all about Noah, Norske. Noah was the only boatbuilder in all history to finish his boat on time -- and he only managed it even then because he knew he'd be drowned if he didn't.

[Scott Rosen]

Sure Noah built his boat on time. But it only had to last for 40 days. You can take a lot of shortcuts if you know your boat is going to the garbage heap on the 41st day.

[Adam C]

Actually, Scott...the biblical account states that Noah was in the ark for almost a year. The rains themselves lasted 40 days and 40 nights.

But point taken, though.

[ishmael]

You guys are missing a vital point. Assuming the myth of the flood, and the righteous man who knew it was coming, is not fiction. (I find it hard to believe at least the flood part is fiction as it is a world-wide story). How did Noah know to build his raft? Who is this god, who told him?

[Mike Field]

Ah, Jack, just a collection of hoary old archetypes, thassall -- Noah dreamt about them one night, logged it all in his diary, and discussed it with his analytical psychologist next day.

Either that, or his rheumatism was playing up.

[ishmael]

He he Mike. I remember a story from somewhere about the modern angst. A question is asked of a rebbi or a priest.

--Why is it teacher/father that God spoke to Noah and the prophets, yet we hear nothing?

--It is because we refuse to bow low enough.

[Scott Rosen]

Hey, Ish.

Moses heard god plenty, and he was about as unwilling a prophet as you'll ever find. He didn't bow to god, he protested. In fact, he was chosen because he didn't bow to anyone, not even Pharoh. By the way, just how low do you think one has to bow before you hear the voice?

Adam,

Thanks for the correction. I didn't realize Noah was a malingerer. Maybe it took him all that extra time to clean the animal droppings from the bilge. Can you imagine the stink in that boat? And by the way, has anyone thought about what Noah and his crew were going to eat after all life on earth was destroyed by the flood? What were the animals going to eat after the supply on the arc ran out but before new grass and grains had a chance to grow? The Bible is silent on that point. Moses got his Mannah, Jesus made his loaves and fishes and stuff, but what about Noah? He couldn't have eaten meat, because he only took two of each animal, a male and a female. If he ate one, there'd be no mate and no more animals. I guess he could've eaten eggs until the cows and lambs had lots of babies.

It's true, the devil's in the details.

[ishmael]

Scott,

There is a marked difference between recalcitrance and humility. Moses didn't want the revelation of God. What sensible person would? It burned and changed him in less than easy ways his entire later life. That by no measure means he was proud or un-bowed in the face of god. Perhaps the opposite? He stood up to Pharoh because he had accepted his mission; not by his god-less nature.

Drag me kicking and screaming, as he did with the Isrealites as they made their way to the promised land.

How low? Low enough. Actually, that isn't low enough. I believe that we need be dragged down to the level of dung. We prideful humans think we are in control, but we actually must operate, as a start, on the level of goat sh*t. There is the fert-elixer, the prima materia, the hidden potion we all ignore as a begining of power. Ancient Egyptian I think this would prove.

Metaphor, some hidden imagination, some knowing.




[This message has been edited by ishmael (edited 07-27-2001).]

[norske]

So, does anyone know how many types of wood there WAS and still IS? It must be "docued". somewhere in Washington.I'm thinking it's a whole lot more than I'm thinking--
So, if Noah hadn't made the deadline--- he would have been dead---I doubt it, though
he may have been fined $1000.00/day till he got the job done.

[This message has been edited by norske (edited 07-27-2001).]

[This message has been edited by norske (edited 07-27-2001).]

[NormMessinger]

Norske, god only knows.

But ya gotta define wood. The 1/4" dia whips on the spirea in the back yard are wood. Wouldn't make lumber. Madrone is beautiful wood for jewlery but little is more than an inch in diameter. Junk that wouldn't have been cut 50 years ago is now "good" lumber, SPF at Home Depot, for example.

--Norm

[jeff pierce]

"There is no Dog"
-Dyslexic athiest

[ken mcclure]

Goat sh*t?

As usual, Ishmael has pinned it down! How can one man say so much with so few words?

[Concordia41]

http://www.staugustine.com/stories/0...09010003.shtml

This was three blocks from the house and about a mile from Sarah. If lightening's going to strike a convent, we might as well work on our stretching exercises so we can lean over far enough to kiss our you-know-whats goodby...

[dasboat]

Wonder what was going on inside that convent......Hmmmmmmmmmmm?
Dasboat

[ThomNC]

God is not a "He" I bet. But I could be wrong.
Thom

[Ed Harrow]

In one's mind.

[Scott Dunsworth]

Only a fool says in his heart that there is no God!

[NormMessinger]

Originally posted by Scott Dunsworth:
Only a fool says in his heart that there is no God!

Seriously? Why would that be?

--N rm

[paladin]

Scott Rosen sez

[The Bible is silent on that point. Moses got his Mannah, Jesus made his loaves and fishes and stuff, but what about Noah? He couldn't have eaten meat, because he only took two of each animal, a male and a female. If he ate one, there'd be no mate and no more animals. I guess he could've eaten eggs until the cows and lambs had lots of babies]

Why do think there ain't no Unicorns....

[ken mcclure]

I suspect Noah was forced into a seafood diet.

As the the original question, "where is God?", I ask some questions in return...

Where is your mind? Where does it reside? Exactly what does it look like? How does it work? Why does it work?

If you can find the answers, you can probably find God.

Or not.

[Shang]

"...Malt does more than Milton can, to justifiy God's ways to man..." Yeah, yeah, I SAID we were bottling wine tonight...

Interested? Check our website: www.peckofsalt.com

[LaMess]

For the believers: What's the difference between a cult and a relegion? 50 years 100 years?

Scot Dunswort - I think therefore I am an atheist

[dasboat]

As a believer,cult and religion are the same or nearly so.
The term cult(in this part of the world)is used as a pagorative(sp)because it's practices are viewed as an attack on a persons dignity.A cult is never the less,a system of religious beliefs requireing homage to be paid to an icon or concept.
Religion for the most part is the same. Requireing faith in a supernatural may set it apart some,while a code of morality more deeply rooted in history than most cults may further the distinction.
Regards,Dasboat

[thechemist]

To further amplify on the foregoing without particularly contradicting, I offer the following definition of a religion, any religion:

Consider two subject areas, such that between them they encompass all material, and everything of a spirit, soul or being:

The first subject area is everything of the physical universe, including matter, energy, space and time. It includes your physical body.

The second subject area is everything of man, everything that exists or might, that is not physical in nature. You, as a being, are here. If you think you have a soul, it is here. If you think you are that thing some religions call a soul, it is here. Whatever your or anyone's idea of a Supreme Being may be, it is here.

Now consider the relationship between these two subject areas. Imagine two circles with a pair of back-and-forth arrows between them.

Any viewpoint may be taken with regard to this relationship, just as many different hands may reach out to grasp the twin shafts of those arrows.

Each different viewpoint is a religion.

Each takes a different view of the same set of possible relationships between these two areas.

Any existing religion and many religious philosophies qualify as a religion, if they have a viewpoint on the relationship between these subject areas.

This also ignores the question of majority religion, minority religion, cult, practice, etcetera. It turns out that a workable definition of a religion [the foregoing] is "one-size-fits-all"...... if one person has their personal viewpoint on the relationship between these subject areas, then their personal beliefs are, for them, a religion.

Interestingly enough, easily 98% of people will agree with this idea, for it validates the existence of each as a being, with a right to their own thoughts and ideas.

Out of the philosophical principles of each such religion, will be ethical principles, some organization of the moral code [the things each society has adopted as practices encouraged or discouraged, such that adherence contributes to the survival of that society] and various practices characteristic of that religion. Some religions are mutually exclusive by their own definition, others not. Human civilization follows.

[PatCox]

Lamess, my friend, atheism is a faith, not a logical conclusion. The beleif that your thoughts, your reasoning, your logic, can comprehend all that is in the universe, is a faith, not a logically provable proposition. That you can disprove god's existence is a matter of beleif. A few posts above we were challenged to define the mind, define your own consciousness; we cannot do it, we soon turn to statements as lame as those used to defend GWBush's honor. One suggestion to any intellectual agnostics or atheists out there is to read up on some serious, higher level theology, with the same intellectual curiousity that makes you read about science. Religion is not for the stupid. By which I mean that you should get beyond the fables and into the real theology before you judge. (A hint: noone actually beleives the fables).

As for what is superstition, Stevie Wonder explained that in a single line; superstition is "when you beleive in things that you don't understand." How I would distinguish that from religion is as follows: "religion is when you beleive in things that are incomprehensible." Please think about that; it is superstition to beleive in things which you could just a well know and undertand. Religion is the sincere attempt to beleive that which is unknowable. By unknowable, I mean that which is beyond logic or knowledge. If I beleived that thunder is the sound of the gods bowling in some huge celestial bowling alley, that is superstition.

There is an interesting corollary to Stevie Wonder's definition of superstition. There are a lot of people who have knowledge but not understanding on a particular subject; this means that their beleifs, even though they are correct, in a scientific sense, are to them superstitions. Much of what is called pseudo-science is garden variety superstition. Many people superstitiously beleive in black helicopters and a vast zionist conspiracy, among other things. I have heard some of the best of this genre of superstitious theories on the subject of the stock market.

The second corollary is that depending upon what level of understanding is involved, a person may in fact beleive in his or her religion in a manner more accurately termed a superstitious manner, than a religious manner. Like when you take the spiritual insights of a religion and apply them to the world of business; like beleiving that God made you rich or powerful because you went to church every Sunday. Just one example. There are many, it could be argued that the superstitious outnumber the religious in any faith. It happens.

If you read the few ancient roman writers to discuss christianity in its earliest years, you will see that they all regard it as a superstition; it is regarded as a dangerous cult. keep in mind that the romans generally respected the various religions they came into contact with. They revered the even more ancient egyptions, as well as the jews. Yet you can read the Roman writers at length and the only explanation any can give as to why christianity is a superstition is because it is new. It took chritianity coniderably longer than Mormonism to shake the "suerstition" label. Still, society seems to change more quickly now, so we probably are down to 50 or a hundred years.

[LaMess]

Hey it was 75% joke - smiley faces are'nt nuanced enough.

I reckon atheism is much less than a faith Since it requires so much less intellectual squirming.

As for studying theology I defer to Richard Dawkins.


Religion and science
Sir,

de Pomerai's case(1) against Peter Atkins and me is that we don't know enough 'theology' to criticise belief in God. This is not the first time I have encountered this superficially plausible yet deeply foolish argument, and it needs an answer. It presupposes that 'theology' is a subject at all. de Pomerai thinks it is. I don't. The Oxford English Dictionary defines theology as 'The study or science which treats of God, His nature and attributes, and His relations with man and the universe'. If God is non-existent, theology is the study of nothing. You cannot be ignorant of nothing.

But, de Pomerai might retort, if you don't know any the-ology, how can you dismiss the God in terms of which it is defined? By an argument of economy, which I'll come to, but first I must stress that theology, as it is actually practised in universities, often is a perfectly respectable subject which has no connection with the above definition. A Professor of Theology (who may well not be a theist) is likely to spend his time on biblical history, on the scholarly comparison of Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic texts, on translating such texts into various vernaculars, on the origins and evolution of traditions of belief in different cultures. These are all reputable, indeed very interesting, branches of scholarship and they should certainly be supported in universities. But they are not theology in the sense of the dictionary definition and they do not help us answer such strictly scientific questions as 'Is the universe designed?', 'Do we survive death?' and 'Do miracles such as the Virgin Birth occur?'

Now, to the argument from economy. Some people believe in fairies. I suppose that de Pomerai does not, and that he would treat those who do with the same contempt as he lavishes on those 'few fringe weirdos calling themselves 'Creation Scientists'' (not so very few, by the way, since polls suggest that around 50% of the population of the United States share their beliefs). Now suppose that I name an academic discipline called Fairyology, defined as 'The study or science which treats of fairies, their nature and attributes, and their relations with man and the universe.' I then condemn de Pomerai's dismissal of fairies on the grounds that he has no 'background in fairyology whatever'. To be consistent, de Pomerai should either withdraw his dismissal of fairies, or undertake to read volumes and volumes of learned tomes on fairyology. Yet I do not believe he would * or should * do either of these things.

For if he did undertake an exhaustive study of the literature on fairies (discovering, at the end of it, that there is not a scrap of evidence that the little creatures exist) his labours would not be at an end. How about goblinology, elfology, djinnology, trollogy, pixiology, unicornology? There is an infinite number of potential -ologies, defined as 'The study of X, its nature and attributes', where X is literally anything that any human imagination has ever dreamed up without a shred of evidence for its existence. The argument from economy is overwhelming. Life is too short to accept the onus of disproof of the existence of anything that any human is capable of imagining. If an -ology of this kind is to be taken seriously, the onus must be on those who wish to promote it, to demonstrate that there is at least a prima facie case that the X concerned needs to be taken more seriously than the general run of imagined Xs. This has never been done for fairies and it has never been done for gods, not even by 'modern heavyweight' theologians. Until a shred of evidence is produced, de Pomerai will be too busy to study fairyology, and I'll be too busy to study theology.
Reference

1 de Pomerai, D. (1997). Authority in science. BioEssays 19, 445.

Richard Dawkins,

Oxford University Museum of Natural History,



[This message has been edited by LAMESS (edited 07-30-2001).]

[Mike Field]

A nicely-reasoned argument, which would convince me were I in need of it.

I suppose I myself am an agnostic rather than an atheist. "I think, therefore I am inclined to be an atheist, but on the other hand because I think, I know I'm not infallible, therefore I'm an agnostic just in case." Or something.


An elderly lady was well-known for her faith and for her boldness in talking about it. She would stand on her front porch
and shout to all and sundry, "Praise the Lord!"

Next door to her lived an atheist who was angry at her proclamations and would always shout back, "There isn't any Lord! God doesn't exist!"

Hard times set in on the elderly lady, and she prayed for God to send her some assistance. She stood on her porch and
shouted "Praise the Lord! God, I need food! I am having a hard time. Please, Lord, send me some groceries!"

The next morning the lady went out on her porch and found a large bag of groceries there. Immediately she shouted, "Praise the Lord!"

The neighbor jumped from behind a bush and said, "Aha! I told you God didn't exist. I bought those groceries for you, God didn't send them."

The lady started jumping up and down and clapping her hands and shouted even more loudly, "Praise the Lord! God didn't only send me groceries, but He made the Devil pay for them! Praise the Lord!"

[PatCox]

Lamess, I'm not entirely serious either, do not fret. This Dawkins person you cite, he does one thing in his argument which is either dishonest or sloppy; he starts off speaking of "criticism of the beleief in God" but then goes off to use some fairly basic arguments which concern the proof of the existence of god. And I would think these are different things; one can argue against religion, or against the existence of God. I meant only to say that one should have some knowledge of the religion one wishes to criticize. This is hardly objectionable. Dawkins doesn't really seem to be meeting that point head on, instead, he is saying he doesn't need to know religion (theology) in order to disprove the existence of God. Considering that "god" is a religious concept, and "theology" is better defined as "the study of the meaning of the word "God," it is well to know the meaning of what you are discussing.
By the way, using a lay dictionary's definition of "theology" and pouncing on that dictionary's ridiculous statement that theology is a "science" is quite unfair. You cannot criticize fairyology if you don't know what it is; Mr. Dawkins says he doesn't need to know fairyology, but that not true, his dismissal of the hypothetical fairyology is based on the assumption that he does know what it is, and that it is silly. And that he therefore does not need to study it to dismiss it. No matter how amusingly stated, that is not a valid argument, and it further shows an extreme bias. Remember, he is dismissing out of hand an intellectual discipline which has formed the basis of the life work of some very brilliant people.

I have found that the more you study creation science, the easier it is to laugh at it, the more holes you find,the more absurdities. The same would hold true, I assume, for fairyology. But I have not found that to be true for the theology I have studied. Instead, what I have found is that all of my prior asumptions about what theology is and what it teaches have been wrong.

But anyway, if you are criticizing someone's beleif, you must know the nature of what you are criticizing, in other words, you must know their theology. On the other hand, you can engage in amusing logical tricks concerning the existence of what you choose to define a "god" to your hearts content without knowing any theology. Dawkins starts out saying he can criticize the beleif in god without knowing theology, but then goes on to give the same tired arguments against the existence of a straw god that ave been thrown around forever.

Most of the arguments agains the existence of God are directed against a particular definition of "god," usually a simplistic, literalistic definition, one easy to disprove.

Not that higher theology can prove the existence of god, by the way. Most of the higher theology I have read is indistinguishable from a sort of spiritual agnosticism.

[Wild Dingo]

The civility of presented arguements is astounding given the subject matter!

One thing I know is this... No man/woman can prove the existance of any god... no man/woman can disprove the existance of any god... Is there life after death? No one knows for no one has been dead and returned.. not you nor I so how can life after death be proven? It cannot.

Religious belief (or other) is set on the principle and premise of simple, blind FAITH... the faith to believe the unprovable... in other words believing in something that is niether provable nor disprovable.

The study of theology is a study that should be looked at in the light of antiquities for it is but the study of words, deeds and events that may or may not have occured many years ago and some even before records were kept, yet handed down by vocal history (ie: the telling of stories) passed down over generations then finally written down to be kept for prosterity.

I ask a question now can anyone remember playing the game "chinese whispers" as a kid? where a big group of kids got together the more the merrier and a sentance was told to one and then passed along in a whisper? remember that? well remember how screwed up the message got? Imagine doing that for hundreds of years or even just years, until someone wrote it down!! Imagine how inacurate that information will be when finally written?

I am not saying that any given religious belief is false or true, I am also not saying that any theological or dogmatic belief may or may not be correct, what I am saying is that religion, ANY religion is founded on the surmise that there will be believers, followers, deciples if you will, who will believe every word that comes and follow it implicitly. My question is... how can one KNOW and I mean really KNOW if what is being spouted is ACTUALLY truth and not a story that has become true over years of its telling in a certain way, methodology and indoctrination? One cannot, The "sincerity" of the teller most often in a contributor to acceptance and thus are the zealots the best of salespeople for a religion or order of whatever kind.

Am I an athiest? I dont believe so.. Am I agnostic? I dont believe so... Am I a believer of the stories from antiquity? I dont believe so... But I also do not ignore them or consign them to fiction but they are not complete for they are based on vocal history and that relies on human memory and this is a frail thing.

I dont believe any man/woman has the right to critize me and my belief and I dont believe I have the right to critize their chosen belief, so I never enter into discourse about "religion" (well theres a first time for everything! As we are all different in our concepts and beliefs and so it should be.

I am me, my god is within me and around me and thus this I believe that which is me.

Take it easy
Shane

[ishmael]

One day, late in his life, the renowned American comedian of the first half of the twentieth century, W.C. Fields, was found intently perusing a Bible. The friend who stumbled upon him was more than a bit suprised as Fields was a hard drinking, cynical sort of fellow both on and off the silver screen.

-"What on earth are YOU doing studying the Bible?", the friend asked.

-"Looking for a loophole", was Field's droll reply.

[Mrleft8]

IMO LAMESS......

[Memphis Mike]

God is there if you seek him. He never leaves. We leave him from time to time.