Some stuff from the Book

[Anonymous]

Howdy again, y'all. I wasn't too sure which forum this would best fit in, but here it goes.

I am curious as to what people think about this statement from the Bible and how people will respond to my words, immediately following:

Proverbs 1:22 "How long will you simple ones love your simple ways? How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge?"

MY THOUGHTS: Personally, this is one of my favorite Bible quotes. It works for so many people. What are simple ways? That question isn't answered in the Bible, but it is left open for personal interpretation. For me, "simple ways" means believing the easiest things to believe while disregarding the difficult things to understand, like the multitude of science. When disregarding science in discussions that are supposed to prove God through science (yet including much pseudo-science, improper interpretations of scientific findings, and the purposeful negligence of information), there seems to be a problem.

Also, the word "knowledge" is left open to interpretation. It could be the knowledge of God and of His words, or it could mean the knowledge offered by colleges, libraries, or specialists. I choose the latter interpretation, and I know there are a lot of things people choose to either ignore or skew to the benefit of belief. These include the theory of evolution (skewed to appear extremely flawed and unbelievable while also ignoring the facts that support it), Creationism (skewed to appear perfect and unchallengeable while ignoring scientific evidence of the Big Bang and a gradual change of planetary characteristics), Noah and the flood (skewed to make it seem that Noah had dinosaurs aboard his infinitely large boat), and mathematics (skewed to make it seem that humans could not have arisen without a god due to the overwhelming odds against such a thing.)

What does this passage mean to others?

[August]

This basically means don't be a fool, look for the truth from God, and don't worry about those that scorn you.

The answer is many places in the Bible, if you just want to look for it.

Why don't you tell us about all those things "skewed" for belief, and "skewed" against evolution, or did you just come here to insult Christians?

[Anonymous]

Why don't you tell us about all those things "skewed" for belief, and "skewed" against evolution, or did you just come here to insult Christians?

I apologize if I sounded insulting. I assure you, that was not my intention. There are better ways to insult than questioning, if that is what you are wondering, but I try not to be an insulting person...just curious, skeptical, and inquisitive. I have been here in the past and was accused of the same things before--perhaps that is the risk one must take in an online forum as opposed to a face-to-face discussion. My tone, if you were to hear me speaking as opposed to seeing my typed words, would be one of a child asking you why the sky is blue or how dinosaurs died...nothing insulting...simply questioning out of curiosity. Please don't take it the wrong way.

This basically means don't be a fool, look for the truth from God, and don't worry about those that scorn you.

I guess I don't know the Bible's standards for what it takes to be a fool, the Bible's standard of "truth," or the Bible's standards for "scorn." I have my own personal standards, but those standards have been downgraded to those of a chimpanzee from Christians on this forum in the past, and I guess I'm curious as to where I am going wrong as to the standards of what it takes to be a "good Christian." Without standards, the words are like a Christmas gift wrapped in pretty paper, but no one knows what is on the inside. Words are nothing if you do not know what is really packed inside of them. I was asking for an elaboration--not an attack on my methodology of trying to seek higher truth. I am not trying to sound like an attacker on Christianity, and I hope you are able to see that now.

The answer is many places in the Bible, if you just want to look for it.

Not to sound rude, but this isn't very helpful. I am one who likes specifics, and this is pretty general considering the thickness of the Bible. I do want to look for it. And I feel as though I've found it, but I'd like specifics that tell me I'm wrong. That was my intent. I opened up the pretty package with wrapping paper with "knowledge" written on it, and I explained what I believe knowledge to mean. I was asking, in my original post, what others might see that I am missing.

To dissect your last sentence a little further:

Why don't you tell us about all those things "skewed" for belief, and "skewed" against evolution

Are you asking me simply for the sake of argument, or do you truly want to know? If you truly want to know, I could unwrap the package that says "evolution is wrong" and show you the innards of the argument that are often ignored, or you can simply continue to look at the pretty package with that title. It's your choice, but in my experiences here before, you do not want to listen, but would rather attack. Therefore, I will refrain from this argument unless you would rather listen and discuss as opposed to argue. I choose not to argue philosophy with science. If you have real questions that you would like answered, feel free. I'm pretty open-minded, but the way you asked could either be meant as an insult or as a true question that I misinterpreted as a result of the "forum-as-opposed-to-face-to-face" problem. I'd like to have this cleared up before I write any more on this matter.

[August]

If you are really interested in civil debate, then I'm all for it. However, you came here with an accusation of things being skewed by the ID side, and I reacted to that. I apologize if that insulted you, let's get on with some proper information exchange, shall we?

I guess I don't know the Bible's standards for what it takes to be a fool, the Bible's standard of "truth," or the Bible's standards for "scorn." I have my own personal standards, but those standards have been downgraded to those of a chimpanzee from Christians on this forum in the past, and I guess I'm curious as to where I am going wrong as to the standards of what it takes to be a "good Christian."

Ok, to understand what is written there, you must understand the book of Proverbs, and the reason it was written, namely to impart wisdom for godly living. Wisdom is the mind of God revealed, in this context. "Simple" in the original Hebrew, is a synonym for fool, ie someone without wisdom. So the first line literally means: how long will you fools persist in your ways without wisdom, and therefore godly living. In the second line, the hebrew word translated as mocker, also means those who scorn, so those who scoff at the wisdom calling out to them from the streets, from 1:20. The last line reinforces this, fools who hate knowledge are those who reject Gods wisdom. You can also cross reference this with:
Proverbs 6:9; Exodus 10:3; Exodus 16:28; Numbers 14:27; Matthew 17:17 Proverbs 7:7; Proverbs 9:4-6; Proverbs 9:16-18; Psalm 94:8; Matthew 9:13; Matthew 11:29-30; Matthew 23:37; Luke 19:42; Rev. 22:17
Proverbs 3:34; Proverbs 14:6; Proverbs 15:12; Proverbs 19:29; Proverbs 21:11; Job 34:7; Psalm 1:1; 2 Peter 3:3 Proverbs 1:7; Proverbs 1:29; Proverbs 5:12; John 3:20

Are you asking me simply for the sake of argument, or do you truly want to know? If you truly want to know, I could unwrap the package that says "evolution is wrong" and show you the innards of the argument that are often ignored, or you can simply continue to look at the pretty package with that title. It's your choice, but in my experiences here before, you do not want to listen, but would rather attack. Therefore, I will refrain from this argument unless you would rather listen and discuss as opposed to argue.

I will gladly discuss this in a civil manner, but you seem to come here with a strong position that evolution is right and ID/creationism is wrong. You are asking me to have an open mind and discuss this, while you choose to start of from a biased point of view, rather than a neutral one, such as one would when looking for the facts. Your statement came across as argumentative and attacking. If it was not intended in that way, then let's talk about this.

[Kurieuo]

I choose the latter interpretation, and I know there are a lot of things people choose to either ignore or skew to the benefit of belief. These include the theory of evolution (skewed to appear extremely flawed and unbelievable while also ignoring the facts that support it), Creationism (skewed to appear perfect and unchallengeable while ignoring scientific evidence of the Big Bang and a gradual change of planetary characteristics), Noah and the flood (skewed to make it seem that Noah had dinosaurs aboard his infinitely large boat), and mathematics (skewed to make it seem that humans could not have arisen without a god due to the overwhelming odds against such a thing.)

Perhaps it is not so much "skew", which seems to imply intentional deceitfulness, but rather different experiences and perception of things? For example, perhaps you have skewed evolution to fit the facts while ignoring the greater problems such a theory has? Yet, it might be more that you are not aware of the problems I am talking about, since evolution is generally not allowed to be critically analysed like other scientific theories within education (hence why ID proponents are pushing for the pros and cons on evolution to be taught, rather than ID itself!).

Now I don't particularly have any complaints from your last two points about "Creationism" and Noah, considering I don't accept the former young-earth position myself, and with the latter I only believe the flood covered the whole world at that time (Mesopotamia region). Some might say I intentionally skew Scripture to fit my position, but I really do see a strong Scriptural case for these positions of mine. Perhaps I am simply more aware to the Hebrew (at least I like to think so), or perhaps I simply perceive what is being revealed in Scripture differently based on many previous experiences and beliefs of mine that I was unaware to.

To illustrate what I mean, I remember reading about a study where people were split into two groups (I'll hunt down a reference if desired). Each group were asked to evaluate slides that showed people in a canoe going down the rapids. The first group were fed subliminal words such as "brave" and "adventurous," while the second were given subliminal words such as "reckless" and "dangerous." This study revealed that people in the former group viewed the people going down the rapids in a fun and positive way. The latter group, however, were more likely to see the behaviour negatively, and as irresponsible.

What does this show? This shows our beliefs are highly influenced by many factors outside ourselves, and therefore it could be that reason actually plays less of a role than we think in developing our beliefs. When one looks at the world, it appears as though people generally try to fit data into their pre-existing beliefs rather then evaluate such data without bias. Anyone who claims to present an unbiassed case on any matter I believe is wrong, as such is impossible to do. The most we can perhaps hope for is bringing consistency with our beliefs, and trying to be open to criticism of them.

Thankfully, I believe God is always working to draw people to Him, and so if this is true, perhaps most will have that opportunity where things that matter become clear and everything else fades away. It seems to me that this often happens to people who have been through a tragic experience. It seems such a jolt to a person's system can change their entire outlook on life in an instant. But then, such a change doesn't come from within, but is assisted by external factors once again. If there is no God, then perhaps there may be no way for people to get beyond their cage of subjectivity?

Kurieuo.

[Anonymous]

This entire post is dedicated to August...I will post another after this for Kurieuro.

August--Again, I apologize for seeming argumentive. Jac will be able to let you know this is not an uncommon thing. I have a problem with this, I suppose. I've done it several times before. You are right, though...I do come into the forum with preconceived beliefs and stereotypes, and I am trying my best to overcome that. I think the longer I stay in these forums, the easier it will be for me to realize I do not have all the answers and I will be able to learn something from others. I guess I came in with the preconceived notions that I would automatically be seen as one of those "agnostic fools." You know how you feel uncomfortable going into a building where everyone is a little different than you are? It's kind of like that. I feel I'm coming into a place where everyone is different than I am, and where everyone has banded together to celebrate their similarities while bashing those who are different. I feel it in many situations and in many different places, but things never seem to change. I feel out of place no matter where I am, and I get glances coming from all directions--disgusted stares and snickers--and it doesn't matter the religion of the person...it's simply in human nature to hate those who are different If I could get rid of my third arm growing from my abdomen, things would assuredly be different.

I'm especially glad you mentioned the book of Proverbs. It is, by far, my favorite book of the Bible. My interpretation just seems to be a little different than yours, but differences are not something that should be mocked, shunned, or turned down on the simple ground that they are different.

Yet, it might be more that you are not aware of the problems I am talking about, since evolution is generally not allowed to be critically analysed like other scientific theories within education (hence why ID proponents are pushing for the pros and cons on evolution to be taught, rather than ID itself!).

Every scientific theory is allowed to be critically analyzed. The problem you are referring to is one that has been going on for centuries, and they are only turned down as a result of Supreme Court battles where it was determined that it was a religion fighting the theory rather than critical thought...that's the difference. If religion were allowed to dispute every scientific theory, then every religion would be allowed to fight them. There would then be a battle of religious views allowed to enter science, and none of it would further enhance education...science class would become a secular debate of philosophic values, and there would be no more science involved. As far as my education is concerned, I have heard the pros and cons of evolution. Of course, these are not secular in nature. There is no such thing as 'pro' and 'con' where science is concerned...there simply is what is viewed in nature, and evolution makes as much sense as putting a puzzle together where the pieces are geologic records, biological records, chemistry records, meteorological records, mathematical records, and psychological records...religion must be left out on the grounds that personal philosophy is personal, whereas science is meant to be objective as opposed to subjective.

Kurieuo had some very good points about all of this, and I look forward to writing in the near future.

Just a little note--the third arm from the abdomen thing was a joke. I merely feel that way metaphorically speaking as opposed to literally.

[August]

Skooby, I understand where you are coming from in the evolution vs ID debate, but I have also studied these subjects, and the argument is in my opinion not between evolution and a creator, rather between proof for design vs proof of small incremental steps brought about by natural mechanisms. The TOE does not include the origin of life, and similarly ID does not include the identity of a creator.

I understand your unease coming here, and if we get our way, you will be feeling a lot more uneasy in your agnostic beliefs By the way, what kind of agnostic are you, do you believe that you can't know everything for sure, or that you don't know everything for sure?

Proverbs is a great book, I agree. And there is a lot open to interpretation, but I would encourage you to investigate the context and cross-reference with other parts of the Bible.

[Anonymous]

August:

I am agnostic along the lines of both.

what kind of agnostic are you, do you believe that you can't know everything for sure, or that you don't know everything for sure?

I love having an element of mystery in life, though. I would absolutely despise having all the answers, whether they be scientific or philosophic in nature.
There is one great advantage to agnosticism versus any religion, though...I am able to open my mind to other religions as well and to see the perspective of other people without being judgmental on grounds of a personal religion. As a result, I've been learning a lot about other religions, and I am quite sure they all point in the same direction when talking about a moral code. For example, most people think "jihad" means "holy war." It is really the root word of Arabic "Jahada," which means "to strive for a better life." Only extremists use it as an excuse for war against people, but those of true faith know the Qur'an specifically prohibits kidnapping, terrorism, and harming civilians. See? I can look into things like that because I don't have a religion that tells me what is "evil" versus "good." My hands did not catch fire when I picked up the Qur'an in the bookstore. In fact, I would say the Bible and the Qur'an are pretty close in theme.
Buddhism is also extremely interesting. It pretty much boils down to seeking higher understanding of the universe--enlightenment. I like this religion because I think we are all Buddhists, in that aspect. All of us is looking for higher truth and understanding, and we can find it everywhere. To me, there is no need to set your beliefs in stone because the world changes, so why shouldn't mankind?

I understand your unease coming here, and if we get our way, you will be feeling a lot more uneasy in your agnostic beliefs

Sorry, but my unease is the unease of being in a place of personal attacks...it is not unease with my 'belief' of nonbelief. There is always something to be learned, though, so I have been called here for whatever reason and by the great mysterious "whomever" in the sky...it could be God...I don't exclude it as a possibility. That's what agnostics--dare I say--believe.

Kurieuro:

Thankfully, I believe God is always working to draw people to Him, and so if this is true, perhaps most will have that opportunity where things that matter become clear and everything else fades away

This resembles Buddhism very much, except the word "God" would be replaced with something like "nature." In the way you wrote, God could be a metaphor for higher understanding, wisdom, and enlightenment, and in that case, I believe you are correct...everyone wants those things. The path they take to achieve their personal enlightenment depends on the paths they choose, though. I must refuse to believe that there is only one path to enlightenment. That would be as though the entire planet is ignored because there is only one path to enlightenment, and it is somewhere in the Blue Ridge Mountains. You had an extremely elegant way of putting it, Kurieuro.

it appears as though people generally try to fit data into their pre-existing beliefs rather then evaluate such data without bias. Anyone who claims to present an unbiassed case on any matter I believe is wrong, as such is impossible to do. The most we can perhaps hope for is bringing consistency with our beliefs, and trying to be open to criticism of them

I agree. Have you ever seen a movie by Michael Moore? He completely ignores Evidence A, which goes against his themes, and turns entirely to Evidence B, which enhances his ideas. If he were to allow his movies to be openly criticized prior to releasing them, there would be a lot more truth to what he is trying to say. That's why I don't understand why people fear criticism--it's better to take criticism and seek the truth through your mistakes than to defy criticism and pretend you already know the truth, only to be judged later by the rest of the world.
That's exactly why I have a tendency to have preconceived notions about science. Criticisms are not only allowed, but sought. Once someone claims to have found a scientific theory that no one else knows about, if that person is a true scientist, he or she must seek out the scientific community. He must look for someone to criticize his work, to explain where he may have went wrong in his research, and to have him go through and correct the mistakes. Peer-reviewed work makes things much more believable to me. Criticism, though often painful, is only a minor stumble to enlightenment. If it is truly enlightenment one seeks, there should be no fear of criticism. If it is not enlightenment they seek, but instead a desire to convince everyone that they are already enlightened, then there is a slight problem--the problem being Jesus Christ was enlightened, but I have my doubts as to the millions of others who claim to be "just like Jesus." (I like the study you presented--that was a fine way to illustrate your point.)

Some might say I intentionally skew Scripture to fit my position, but I really do see a strong Scriptural case for these positions of mine. Perhaps I am simply more aware to the Hebrew (at least I like to think so), or perhaps I simply perceive what is being revealed in Scripture differently based on many previous experiences and beliefs of mine that I was unaware to.

I sincerely hope no one would accuse you of doing wrong. Your path to enlightenment is different than anyone else's path because it is a personal journey...your own spiritual journey. Why, then, would it be wrong of you to "skew" the Scriptures? If you are getting the themes from the stories presented, then you haven't overlooked the Scripture. Jesus spoke in parables--the literal version of his stories made no sense if you didn't understand his themes. To me, that is all the Bible is--a series of parables that can lead you toward a path of enlightenment. So perhaps it is you who are interpreting the Scriptures the correct way and many others who are not.

For example, perhaps you have skewed evolution to fit the facts while ignoring the greater problems such a theory has? Yet, it might be more that you are not aware of the problems I am talking about, since evolution is generally not allowed to be critically analysed like other scientific theories within education

I am not a scientist, if your idea of a scientist is one with a degree. However, I do like to read about scientific theories, and evolution simply made sense to me. Like the pieces to a puzzle, everything clicked together--for me. That is a part of my path to spiritual enlightenment. As I said, we all have our own individual paths, and mine just tends to reflect more on a higher understanding of the sciences rather than a higher understanding of the Bible. There are still a few pieces missing from the puzzle, and those are what the debates tend to focus on. They have already had thousands of battles against certain aspects of evolution, though for the most part, they are not fighting the theory as a whole, but disputing the how, when, where, and why aspects of it. Perhaps I would skew the facts to support evolution, but I am not a peer-reviewed scientist, so my words don't really make a huge difference to the scientific community. Just as most Christians are not peer-reviewed scientists with a lot of education in the different sciences, they have a tendency to be ignored as well. Science seems to be a closed loop of people with advanced degrees in the specific areas. That is what must be done to advance science, though. If they spent all of their time trying to fight with fundamentalism, nothing would be accomplished. The arguments they fight are arguments within the scientific loop. It's almost like they are a secret society, though they are also always willing to toss their ideas out to the public, if the public is truly curious as opposed to looking for a fight. You say they tend to ignore the greater problems of the theory, but the scientific community is unaware of any greater problem. Is it you who noticed the greater problem, or scientists? Was it the Christian community who noticed the greater problem, or a Geologist who stood up and said, "excuse me? There is a critical flaw within evolution. My records indicate..." and was then cut off by his or her peers? As far as I know, the scientific community has, on more than one occasion, allowed people to dispute them. It always turned out to be a waste of time, though. Assume you are an expert in the sky. To you, the sky is blue because of ozone in the atmosphere scattering light and making it blue. You have a wealth of knowledge in the chemistry of the atmosphere, the early atmosphere, the wind patterns, the cloud patterns, and pretty much anything else that is up there. You, being an expert in the field, are the first person anyone wishing to learn about the sky would go to. However, this disturbs a great many people who worship the ground. They claim there are no shifting wind patterns. They claim the reason the sky is blue is due to a giant blue crayon. They claim you are intentionally skewing scientific facts to suit your "belief" in how the atmosphere works. You, being a busy person, have no time to listen to the arguments because you know they are secular in nature and have no true science to back them up--only skewed facts created by laymen to skew the minds of others. You have already heard the arguments--evidence for the existence of the giant blue crayon, evidence that the wind always blows in the same direction...whatever. You know that if someone were to ask you a serious question with a serious desire to learn about your job, you would be more than willing to answer. You are an intelligent person, though, and know that the only thing you will get if you go and speak to the 'ground worshippers' are attacks against science. For that reason, you tend to ignore them.
It's the same way with Christians. It seems pretty obvious to me, after sifting through the arguments, that the science offered as evidence against evolution is only partly true...even occasionally misconstrued. I've read several books written by scientists, such as Michael Shermer and Carl Sagan, who presented the same arguments and then refuted them, stating that facts were intentionally skewed to go against scientific theories. It's been this way since Galileo's proposterous blaspheme against the church that put him on house arrest until his death. Was it fear that causes such arguments? Fear that perhaps we don't have all the answers? Fear that maybe after death, there is nothingness as opposed to some beautiful heaven? Fear that our loved ones who have passed away might not be anywhere but in the ground? Fear that we cannot talk to the people who have died and get responses? I'm not sure what it is, but something causes people to dispute science without actually looking into it. It's the same way with Michael Moore fans--they take everything he says at face value without further delving into his work. Why? Because Moore confirms for them some of their already-held beliefs. It doesn't matter that Moore isn't a real journalist and has no integrity. It's the same way with Science vs. Religion, Evolution vs. Creation, Intelligent Design vs. ? ? ?, Christianity vs. ? ? ?

[Prodigal Son]

i went on an atheist site the other day just out of curiosity. it was funny to see how none of their arguments against God (or just about anything) had any scientific backing. when presented with evidence, they just said it was invalid or needed to be further verified. i thought that when presented with enough evidence, any logical person would have to "give in". i guess not...maybe that's what being simple minded is all about?

[Prodigal Son]

i thought the big bang supported creationism? if the universe had a beginning it had to have a creator...anything with a beginning must have a cause? maybe that's why the atheist's are beginning to attack the big bang and move towards other theories on the creation of the universe.

[Mastermind]

I love the way atheists dubbed themselves "free thinkers". As far as I'm concerned, from a scientific point of view, only agnostics who admit they don't know if there is a God have the right to say something like that, as God's existance cannot be proven or disproven. The moment you think you have absolute proof of God's existance (or lack thereof), you are no longer "free thinking" as you have already made up your mind.

[Anonymous]

when presented with evidence, they just said it was invalid or needed to be further verified. i thought that when presented with enough evidence, any logical person would have to "give in". i guess not...maybe that's what being simple minded is all about?

What is this evidence you speak of? Also, not giving in seems to be a maneuver from one who is open-minded, in my opinion. To "give in" is to close your mind to other possibilities--wouldn't you agree? Would you "give in" to the theory of evolution due to the overwhelming evidence and then close your mind from the possibility of creation?

i thought the big bang supported creationism? if the universe had a beginning it had to have a creator...anything with a beginning must have a cause? maybe that's why the atheist's are beginning to attack the big bang and move towards other theories on the creation of the universe

Are you talking about atheists or scientists here? I have yet to come across the likes of a scientist who does not believe the Big Bang happened. It makes too much sense. If you see a tomato splattered on the ground, it makes sense to believe that at one time, it was a whole tomato and wasn't sprawled over a large area, but was instead a concentrated mass. That's a decent analogy, I think, because the universe is sprawled out over a large area, and that area continues to get larger. Working backwards through time, it makes sense to believe it was, at one time, a concentrated mass instead of a spreading mess. That's a mere analogy for why the Big Bang is believed, but the analogy excludes things such as red and blue shift (Doppler frequency) and all the math involved. The analogy doesn't include weak and strong nuclear forces, gravity, or electromagnetism, nor does it take into account the theory of relativity or string theory...it's just a simplistic way to see a complex idea.

only agnostics who admit they don't know if there is a God have the right to say something like that, as God's existance cannot be proven or disproven. The moment you think you have absolute proof of God's existance (or lack thereof), you are no longer "free thinking" as you have already made up your mind.

I agree, Mastermind. It's as difficult for me to deny God's existence as it would be for me to say I believe in God. I truly don't think there is anything wrong with believing or disbelieving, and if people don't believe me, so be it. If they want to learn something from me, I'm willing to teach. If they want to argue with me, I prefer the argument has no ad hominems or false statistics. That's the kind of person I am.

[Anonymous]

Ok let me break it down for you.

Christ is the Way, all other "religions" are products of Satan.
We as Christians are to spread the Good News and all godly men who hear it will recieve it. If you can't recieve it then im afraid no matter what you never will.

Evolution is also a product of Satan because he makes those under his grasp see what he wants them to see.

YES you are under the grasp of Satan and you don't even know it.
Upon accepting Christ we no longer become Slaves to the darkness but servants to the Lord in the Light!

Paul said something along these lines that we start off like little children, soaking in every false philosophies and believe them to be the truth. Yet as Christians we are to grow so that the Truth becomes a part of us and no longer fall prey to those lies.

[Anonymous]

Christ is the Way, all other "religions" are products of Satan.

Forgive me if I am being blunt, but that sounds like the epitome of closed-mindedness.

Evolution is also a product of Satan because he makes those under his grasp see what he wants them to see.

I've actually heard this said before and I really hope this isn't the "scientific" evidence against evolution. Are you joking? Seriously. I'm not trying to be rude, but are you saying all of this in a sarcastic manner?

YES you are under the grasp of Satan and you don't even know it. Upon accepting Christ we no longer become Slaves to the darkness but servants to the Lord in the Light!

This sounds frighteningly similar to the words offered by the religious fanatic in Contact shortly before he blew up the transporter thingie. Do not let vvart near any tall buildings with airplanes. THE LORD IN THE LIGHT!! THE LORD IN THE LIGHT!! My reaction--->

[August]

Skoobie, you seem to have a very relativist view to things? Sometime you are going to have to take a stand for something.

Do you believe there is such a thing as truth?