Panentheism

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

seeds
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Panentheism

Post by seeds » Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:15 pm

seeds wrote: ...upon deeper inspection, your theology seems to be on a par with the nihilism and oblivion inherent in materialism - in that it neither promotes nor foresees any ultimate purpose for us (again, as “individuals”) in the context of eternity.

Is that true?
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Sep 05, 2017 4:57 am
As I understand it, man on earth is serving a necessary purpose and the same purpose all organic life on earth serves which is the transformation of substances through bodily processes.
The transformation of substances through bodily processes is simply the means through-which we continue to exist as physical beings on the surface of this planet – and should in no way be referred to as being our “purpose.”
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Sep 05, 2017 4:57 am
However Man has the potential through conscious evolution to serve an additional conscious purpose which receives a quality of energy from above and gives to below.
Nick, according to UNICEF, approximately 29,000 children under the age of five, die every day. That’s close to 11 million infants and toddlers per year.

Clearly, none of them will ever have enough time or the mental wherewithal to undergo some form of “conscious evolution.”

Therefore, what exactly does your theology have to offer those children other than eternal oblivion?

If your particular form of spirituality does not allow you to impart a sense of “hope” to a dying child that their life will not end, but will continue on in a higher context, then at least in that regard, it is no better than atheism.
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Sep 05, 2017 4:57 am
Man on earth has a seed of a soul. It can become the soul of the New Man as referred to in 1 Corinthians 15...
What translation are you referencing? Because in the King James Version of 1 Corinthians 15, there is no mention of a “New Man.”

Also, 1 Corinthians 15 clearly states that...
the Bible wrote: “...the first man Adam was made a living soul...”
...and says absolutely nothing about man possessing a “seed” of a potential soul.
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Sep 05, 2017 4:57 am
...This is the spiritual body of Man as a demiurge or one of those spiritual beings who govern the workings of our conscious universe.
In the context of Panentheism, the mental fabric and workings of our “conscious universe” belong solely to one being and one being only.

And in precisely the same way that no entity other than yourself can govern the inner-workings of your own mind, likewise, no entity other than God can govern the inner-workings of the universe (God’s mind/spirit body).
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Sep 05, 2017 4:57 am
I don’t see this as nihilism even though the future of man on earth, without a seed of a soul for whatever reason is just dust to dust.
Except for an extremely select few, your concept is indeed nihilistic, especially as seen from the perspective of the children I mentioned earlier.

And, again, you need to lose that “seed of a soul” business.

Now if you want to refer to the human soul (as I do) as being the “seed of God” or the “seed of the universe,” then that’s a different story.
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Sep 05, 2017 4:57 am
Matthew 16:26 What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?
IMO a person with a developing soul is in an enviable but dangerous position because they have responsibility. A good human being has a healthy seed of a soul and that will be saved in the body of Christ. But if a person with a developing soul starts to follow all sorts of hair brained paths or pervert their inner freedom for earthly gains, then they contaminate this developing soul in ways that are hard to fix. Fortunately only a few acquire something worth perverting so no lasting harm is done except for a few willing to forfeit the seed of their soul to gain the world.
Nick, because you are so immersed within the details of your own unique belief system, you may not be able to see that the arcane nature of what you stated above is completely saturated with “old paradigm” vagueness and mystery, and it will never translate into a “new spiritual paradigm” for us.

In other words, it can never coexist in harmony with science and modernity.
_______

Belinda
Posts: 1796
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Panentheism

Post by Belinda » Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:51 pm

Seeds wrote:
Yes, but one of those propositions implies that the order of the universe is founded upon blind chance, while the other implies a guiding intelligence.
Is the Universe ordered, or do we tell stories that reflect order on to the Universe? True, science apparently does reveal a tremendous amount of order.

However the Universe also contains an unconscionable amount of pain and suffering which it is odd to call "order". Scientists and rationalists try to discover the causes of suffering so that it might be alleviated; they don't trade in blind chance.

Scientists find causes for events; they don't trade in blind chance.

Unbelievers find causes for events; we don't prefer blind chance. Knowing probable causes for events gives us some power to predict and change outcomes. Supernatural beliefs such as the belief in a divine Providence are a sort of explanation for the causes of events and has become apparent that supernatural Providence is not a lot of use.

I suppose there are some cynics who believe the universe to be blind chance, however unbelievers and rationalists are seldom also cynics.
I doubt if Nick would agree that your particular supernatural belief is an example of modernity that is worthy of following.

Why is it that clerics cannot teach a reasonable faith?

Belinda
Posts: 1796
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Panentheism

Post by Belinda » Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:03 pm

Seeds wrote in reply to mine about natural selection:
Everything you stated above is predicated on the pre-existence of an unthinkably stable setting that was “fully-stocked” with every possible ingredient and process necessary to allow life to begin.

I am talking about a pre-established system of foundational order that (according to “scientific” theory) allegedly came into existence through the mindless meanderings of gravity and thermodynamics that...

(without the slightest reason or teleological impetus)
I can see how you think that. You make the mistake that there is no pre-existence of any stable setting. Evolution happened in a complex of stages. No one stage advanced to whatever was the next stage unless the conditions were favourable. That the conditions were sometimes favourable for a life form to change was and is due to a very wide complex of events, themselves dynamic. There never was any probability that events would turn out as they have done; probability is not real but is an abstract concept which is confined to thinking , predicting creatures.

seeds
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Panentheism

Post by seeds » Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:05 pm

seeds wrote: Yes, but one of those propositions implies that the order of the universe is founded upon blind chance, while the other implies a guiding intelligence.
Belinda wrote:
Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:51 pm
Is the Universe ordered, or do we tell stories that reflect order on to the Universe?
The fact that we create clocks that attempt to keep track of the millisecond-by-millisecond precision with which this gigantic orb we are standing on moves through space – a precision that can be predicted to the second, years in advance, can hardly be considered a “story of order” that we tell ourselves.

And that is just one example of the order to which I am referring.

Do we need to open the vast volumes of our encyclopedias for a near infinite number of other examples?
Belinda wrote:
Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:51 pm
True, science apparently does reveal a tremendous amount of order.

However the Universe also contains an unconscionable amount of pain and suffering which it is odd to call "order". Scientists and rationalists try to discover the causes of suffering so that it might be alleviated; they don't trade in blind chance.

Scientists find causes for events; they don't trade in blind chance.
Belinda, you are creating straw man arguments. Please stop.
Belinda wrote:
Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:51 pm
Unbelievers find causes for events; we don't prefer blind chance.
You may not prefer blind chance, but that doesn't seem to stop you from accepting it when it comes to the BIG questions.
Belinda wrote:
Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:51 pm
I suppose there are some cynics who believe the universe to be blind chance, however unbelievers and rationalists are seldom also cynics.
Are you serious?

When it comes to the idea of there being a higher intelligence being involved in the creation of the universe, then “unbelievers and rationalists” are the biggest cynics on the planet...

...(cynic synonyms are: “detractor” “doubter” “skeptic” “mocker” – just to name a few).
Belinda wrote:
Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:51 pm
Why is it that clerics cannot teach a reasonable faith?
By reasonable, I assume you mean something that is more in accord with your own personal beliefs?

Furthermore, why is it that materialists cannot be more reasonable (open-minded) when it comes to exploring any and all possibilities for how and why we are here?

And lastly, Belinda, did it ever occur to you that some of us may have experienced something within our lifetime (something that you yourself have not experienced) that causes us to be more receptive of the ideas that you reject?
_______

Belinda
Posts: 1796
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Panentheism

Post by Belinda » Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:39 pm

seeds wrote:
And lastly, Belinda, did it ever occur to you that some of us may have experienced something within our lifetime (something that you yourself have not experienced) that causes us to be more receptive of the ideas that you reject?
_______
Whatever it is that you have experienced it has a private meaning for you alone, unless you can explain what this experience is.

seeds
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Panentheism

Post by seeds » Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:43 pm

seeds wrote: Everything you stated above is predicated on the pre-existence of an unthinkably stable setting that was “fully-stocked” with every possible ingredient and process necessary to allow life to begin.

I am talking about a pre-established system of foundational order that (according to “scientific” theory) allegedly came into existence through the mindless meanderings of gravity and thermodynamics that...

(without the slightest reason or teleological impetus)
Belinda wrote:
Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:03 pm
I can see how you think that. You make the mistake that there is no pre-existence of any stable setting.
How in the world can you accuse me of making the mistake that there was no pre-existence of a stable setting when the whole focus of my argument was intended to point-out the fact that there was indeed a pre-existing setting in the form of this...

Image

...???
Belinda wrote:
Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:03 pm
Evolution happened in a complex of stages. No one stage advanced to whatever was the next stage unless the conditions were favourable. That the conditions were sometimes favourable for a life form to change was and is due to a very wide complex of events, themselves dynamic...
There you go again, Belinda, talking about evolution (of which I have no quarrel with).

However, you are simply forcing me to copy and paste exactly what I said to you in the prior post:
seeds wrote: ...for you to insert yourself within the context of an already thriving biosphere and then point to this or that as being “proof” of there being...
Belinda wrote:
Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:03 pm
...no need to posit a creator God with intentions to produce humans or any other beings.
...represents a brazen and blatant “leapfrogging” over the miraculous prerequisite conditions that had to be in place before any such biosphere could even begin to take form.
I’m not sure how I can make my point any clearer.
_______
Last edited by seeds on Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:54 am, edited 2 times in total.

seeds
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Panentheism

Post by seeds » Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:44 pm

Belinda wrote:
Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:51 pm
I doubt if Nick would agree that your particular supernatural belief is an example of modernity that is worthy of following.
Are you talking about my supernatural belief that suggests that every human that has ever awakened into life on earth has been given a (no strings attached) gift that is so amazing that it must be kept hidden from us until death?

Are you talking about my supernatural belief that suggests that all humans will share the exact same eternal destiny, regardless of the contrary assertions of the world’s religions?

Are you talking about my supernatural belief that there are no judgments placed on any of us for what we have done on earth, and that our birth into our ultimate and eternal form will be as natural as that of our birth into our present form?

I could go on, but can you find no room for any of that in modernity?


(P.S., You are no doubt right in suggesting that Nick would not agree with me. Imagine that! - people not agreeing with each other on a philosophy forum. :P)
_______
Last edited by seeds on Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3866
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Panentheism

Post by Harbal » Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:54 pm

seeds wrote:
Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:44 pm

I could go on,
_______
It's more a case of do than could.

Nick_A
Posts: 2624
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Panentheism

Post by Nick_A » Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:11 pm

Seeds
The transformation of substances through bodily processes is simply the means through-which we continue to exist as physical beings on the surface of this planet – and should in no way be referred to as being our “purpose.”
Consider organic life on earth as a whole with all it parts defined as living organism feeding on each other and reproducing. Why? The transformation of substances produces energy which we know is neither created or lost. As I understand it this energy transformation is serving a cosmic purpose which is beyond the scope of this thread
If your particular form of spirituality does not allow you to impart a sense of “hope” to a dying child that their life will not end, but will continue on in a higher context, then at least in that regard, it is no better than atheism.
Socrates said: “Give me beauty in the inward soul; may the outward and the inward man be at one.” ~ I distinguish between the inward and outward man. The inner man is what consciously evolves. it is what is real. The outward man is our personality. It is a created thing that reacts to the world so adapts rather than evolves. We create its reality and allow for its dominance. If a young child has a healthy seed of the soul, it will be saved. Healthy seeds return. How to explain this to a young child depends upon the child.

What translation are you referencing? Because in the King James Version of 1 Corinthians 15, there is no mention of a “New Man.”
1 corinthians 15

35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we[g] bear the image of the heavenly man.
The last Adam is the New man. Natural man has the god seed. Like any seed its development is not assured. Most acorns just feed the ground or are eaten by animals. Some become oaks. Conscious evolution is the transition from the natural man into spiritual man, a human soul.

Meister Eckhart wrote:
The seed of God is in us. Given an intelligent and hardworking farmer, it will thrive and grow up into God, whose seed it is; and accordingly its fruits will be God-nature. Pear seeds grow into pear trees, nut seeds into nut trees, and God seeds into God.
In the context of Panentheism, the mental fabric and workings of our “conscious universe” belong solely to one being and one being only.
Why? Plotinus provides an excellent description of Panentheism where the ONE provides emanation yet is simulataneously immanent within the universe. Plotinus' philosophy describes the demiurge. From Wiki

Emanation by the One
Superficially considered, Plotinus seems to offer an alternative to the orthodox Christian notion of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing), although Plotinus never mentions Christianity in any of his works. The metaphysics of Emanation, however, just like the metaphysics of Creation, confirms the absolute transcendence of the One or of the Divine, as the source of the Being of all things that yet remains transcendent of them in its own nature; the One is in no way affected or diminished by these emanations, just as the Christian God in no way is affected by some sort of exterior "nothingness". Plotinus, using a venerable analogy that would become crucial for the (largely Neoplatonic) metaphysics of developed Christian thought, likens the One to the Sun which emanates light indiscriminately without thereby diminishing itself, or reflection in a mirror which in no way diminishes or otherwise alters the object being reflected.[citation needed]

The first emanation is Nous (Divine Mind, Logos, Order, Thought, Reason), identified metaphorically with the Demiurge in Plato's Timaeus. It is the first Will toward Good. From Nous proceeds the World Soul, which Plotinus subdivides into upper and lower, identifying the lower aspect of Soul with nature. From the world soul proceeds individual human souls, and finally, matter, at the lowest level of being and thus the least perfected level of the cosmos. Despite this relatively pedestrian assessment of the material world, Plotinus asserted the ultimately divine nature of material creation since it ultimately derives from the One, through the mediums of nous and the world soul. It is by the Good or through beauty that we recognize the One, in material things and then in the Forms.[10]
Nick, because you are so immersed within the details of your own unique belief system, you may not be able to see that the arcane nature of what you stated above is completely saturated with “old paradigm” vagueness and mystery, and it will never translate into a “new spiritual paradigm” for us.

In other words, it can never coexist in harmony with science and modernity.
Science and the essence of religion already coexist. All truths meet at the top. We have lost awareness of the top. The ancient ways including esoteric Christianity beginning with a conscious source reflect perennial truths meaning they always were. We don’t need a new paradigm, we just must remember what has been forgotten and then the coexistence of science and religion will be obvious.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3866
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Panentheism

Post by Harbal » Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:51 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:11 pm
As I understand it this energy transformation is serving a cosmic purpose which is beyond the scope of this thread
I think it's well within the scope of this thread. This thread is already packed full of clap trap, a bit more isn't going to hurt anything.
If a young child has a healthy seed of the soul, it will be saved. Healthy seeds return. How to explain this to a young child depends upon the child.
Yes, it depends upon the child being completely devoid of intelligence.
Meister Eckhart wrote:.....
If you're going to keep quoting people couldn't you quote someone who said something sensible?

Belinda
Posts: 1796
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Panentheism

Post by Belinda » Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:30 am

Harbal wrote:
If you're going to keep quoting people couldn't you quote someone who said something sensible?
It's queer how the 'non-seculars' often read really quite difficult arcane books, and that includes The Bible, when they could have read really good books that are mostly easier. I guess that this is because the 'non-seculars' here have somehow missed out on teachers who are there to steer kids and adults towards critical reasoning, and guide them towards good literature.

Belinda
Posts: 1796
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Panentheism

Post by Belinda » Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:35 am

Nick, have you read up on Valentinus?
Valentinus (also spelled Valentinius; c. 100 – c. 160 AD) was the best known and for a time most successful early Christian gnostic theologian. He founded his school in Rome. According to Tertullian, Valentinus was a candidate for bishop of Rome but started his own group when another was chosen.[1]

Valentinus produced a variety of writings, but only fragments survive, largely those embedded in refuted quotations in the works of his opponents, not enough to reconstruct his system except in broad outline.[2] His doctrine is known to us only in the developed and modified form given to it by his disciples.[2] He taught that there were three kinds of people, the spiritual, psychical, and material; and that only those of a spiritual nature (his own followers) received the gnosis (knowledge) that allowed them to return to the divine Pleroma, while those of a psychic nature (ordinary Christians) would attain a lesser form of salvation, and that those of a material nature (pagans and Jews) were doomed to perish.[2][3]

Valentinus had a large following, the Valentinians.[2] It later divided into an Eastern and a Western, or Italian, branch.[2] The Marcosians belonged to the Western branch.[2]
(My black highlight)

Nick_A
Posts: 2624
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Panentheism

Post by Nick_A » Thu Sep 07, 2017 7:00 pm

Belinda wrote:
Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:35 am
Nick, have you read up on Valentinus?
Valentinus (also spelled Valentinius; c. 100 – c. 160 AD) was the best known and for a time most successful early Christian gnostic theologian. He founded his school in Rome. According to Tertullian, Valentinus was a candidate for bishop of Rome but started his own group when another was chosen.[1]

Valentinus produced a variety of writings, but only fragments survive, largely those embedded in refuted quotations in the works of his opponents, not enough to reconstruct his system except in broad outline.[2] His doctrine is known to us only in the developed and modified form given to it by his disciples.[2] He taught that there were three kinds of people, the spiritual, psychical, and material; and that only those of a spiritual nature (his own followers) received the gnosis (knowledge) that allowed them to return to the divine Pleroma, while those of a psychic nature (ordinary Christians) would attain a lesser form of salvation, and that those of a material nature (pagans and Jews) were doomed to perish.[2][3]

Valentinus had a large following, the Valentinians.[2] It later divided into an Eastern and a Western, or Italian, branch.[2] The Marcosians belonged to the Western branch.[2]
(My black highlight)
Clement of Alexandria, Marcion, Valentinus, and Origen, understood Jesus' true teachings and did not view him as a deity but as a mystical teacher.
Christianity became Christendom for society and served the interests of Rome. Christianity moved underground and remains there in the form of esoteric Christianity teaching what is necessary to make the goals of Christianity possible.

seeds
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Panentheism

Post by seeds » Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:28 am

seeds wrote: And lastly, Belinda, did it ever occur to you that some of us may have experienced something within our lifetime (something that you yourself have not experienced) that causes us to be more receptive of the ideas that you reject?
Belinda wrote:
Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:39 pm
Whatever it is that you have experienced it has a private meaning for you alone, unless you can explain what this experience is.
I could indeed explain it. However, I am not prepared at this time to divulge the details of the experience on a philosophy forum – especially one that is rife with hostility towards anything other than materialism.

This is not aimed at you, Belinda (for I can sense the kindness in your spirit), but one must be mindful of the casting of one’s pearls. :wink:
_______
Last edited by seeds on Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

seeds
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Panentheism

Post by seeds » Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:29 am

seeds wrote: What translation are you referencing? Because in the King James Version of 1 Corinthians 15, there is no mention of a “New Man.”
Nick_A wrote:
Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:11 pm
1 corinthians 15

35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we[g] bear the image of the heavenly man.
The last Adam is the New man. Natural man has the god seed. Like any seed its development is not assured. Most acorns just feed the ground or are eaten by animals. Some become oaks. Conscious evolution is the transition from the natural man into spiritual man, a human soul.
Nick, everything being described in 1 Corinthians 15 is in reference of two completely separate dimensions of reality – one being our earthly (corporeal) context, and the other being that of our heavenly (incorporeal) context and the status of our “spirit body” after it emerges from our physical body (the seed “pod,” as silly as that may sound) via death.

Furthermore, I noticed that you left out of the Corinthians quote the part where it states that...
1 Corinthians 15 wrote: “...flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God...”
...and how we shall...
1 Corinthians 15 wrote: “...all be changed...”
...which implies that each and every one of us (not just a few of us) will be transformed into something that can indeed “inherit” (enter into) the transcendent context of reality where God resides - as was fancifully depicted in one of my prior illustrations:

Image

Oh yeah, and let’s not leave out where it says...
1 Corinthians 15 wrote: “...O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?...”
I mean, come on now Nick, the idea that the grave will have no victory over any of us, suggests that you might want to reconsider some of the details of your theory (or at the very least, stop using the Bible to support it).
_______
Last edited by seeds on Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests