Heretics of the new religion?

Here we go – we must save the planet. Man is evil and is the cause of all of nature’s problems. What’s more, he is the answer to all of this and can fix it. Does it strike anyone, besides me, as arrogant that we actually believe that we can destroy (or save) that witch God has created? He has already told us how it will be destroyed - and it will not be destroyed by us – not by global warming, over population or by any other means - but His. God is in control, not us. I say be careful before you bow down too low and begin to worship the earth instead of God. That is far more dangerous than what man can do physically to this planet. Now I’m preaching, so I will apologize and quit for now.

What the fuck has god, ANY god , got to do with anything? 'He/she/it' didn't create anything but xenophobia. Yes, the human attitude is arrogant. This planet has survived billions of years, but has also changed periodically. That won't stop happening, and humankind won't always be present on this earth. Big deal, who cares?

What the fuck has god, ANY god , got to do with anything? 'He/she/it' didn't create anything but xenophobia. It is interesting that you first acknowledge that there must be a God – then turn around and deny him, or at least his (he/she/it as you put it) authority. He has everything to do with it and we have nothing to do with it – nothing. Of course, we will not admit that, and so we will continue to worry over our role in 'destroying' the planet. We know that you won’t worry about it, mississippi, because you just told us so. That is one good thing, at least. I don’t worry about it either.

Perhaps I didn't word it very well but I DON'T acknowledge the existence of ANY god. I was referring to the beliefs in the minds of others that create a xenophobic mindset. They are too scared to offend their 'god'. There is not, and has never been, any scientific proof of the existence of any god. ie. people who can work miracles etc. Personally, thankfully, I am not cursed with any religious beliefs. To me, all religions are just so much superstition and bullshit. You are wrong. YOUR god has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The whole idea is preposterous, and you have no proof that it exists outside your head.

If God created the Earth, then isn't the Earth a part of God? And therefore, those who worship the Earth actually worshipping God? I don't see how it makes much difference who or what you worship, as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's rights to disagree.

"God is in control, not us" - which is the worst argument I've yet heard for 'Don't worry, guys - carry on as usual.' "He has everything to do with it and we have nothing to do with it – nothing" - which is more arrogant than the belief that man can destroy/save the earth. I think it's the height or arrogance to expect us all to believe that 'God' created the earth, anyway. Which particular God did you have in mind, Paul? The Christian one? Aren't we supposed to be looking after his (sorry, His) creation in absentia? "the Western standard of living is so high that it simply cannot be sustained" - I don't know, but I guess this is what Styx meant by capitalism.

Okay guys, I guess I’m the only Christian in this discussion, (lol) for now anyway. So I’ll not argue with you on this. It would be silly anyway. To believe or not is a matter of choice. I’ve made mine and you’ve made yours. All of my beliefs are based, or under-based, on Bible scripture. So you will have to forgive me and try to understand where I am coming from when it comes to many such topics being discussed in the world today. If you don’t believe in God, then I don’t know why I would bother asking you not to worry. I concede. I believe you really do have some things to be afraid of – the man-caused destruction of the world among the least of them (in my opinion). I would not want to deprive you of that. The secular world has worked so hard to have these fears, and frankly, it is my opinion that it is really quite deserving.

Missippippi said: There is not, and has never been, any scientific proof of the existence of any god. I take that to mean that you believe that if science says it, it is truth. That’s just so much crap. I must point out also, that there is no “scientific proof” that he does not exist. After all those milliniums of trying, don’t you think they would have come up with something by now? No, I have no “scientific proof” to prove what science can’t disprove, but I do have evidence. Under the perponderence of that evidence, any court of law would have to agree that, at the very least, the possibility of a Creator is a valid one. I believe that puts us christians on an equal footing with you guys.

Science has been wrong and looked down right foolish too many times to take what scientists say as the last word, I am afraid. You will be happy about that, I would think, since it was scientists who discovered through the study of DNA that all humans can be traced back to one single woman. Oh my! Where have we heard that before?

I'm with mississippi on this one. Yes, you and everyone else here evidently. lol Courts of law? Puny. You really think that human 'courts of law' matter, or are of relevance, in the scheme of things? Well probably not in this day and age. Especially, with those who WILL not to believe, but the courts is where we find the venue of the proponderance of evidence. You ask me what is my evidence? How much time do you have? I could go on and on. Remember, I am a christian and Jesus is all that I need to prove the Bible is the truth; all I really have to do is prove that the Bible is true. You have decided to believe the person standing at the potium today in the year 2007 when he says …”There is no God. Jesus of the New Testament is not him” For most people, that is because Jesus is an offense to them. If he is truth, then that truth shines a bright light on what he called sin. That makes some people very uncomfortable - so they refuse to believe or even admit they do, if they do. The would rather lie to themselves and everyone else. I would rather believe those who where alive during his time and bore wittness of him first hand. Or those that where around just after his death and learned of him from those who saw him and learned from him personally, rather than some guy standing on the platform today, 2000 years after the fact. For example, I really doubt that Jesus’ disciples would have given their lives so readily, in such awful ways, if they knew it was all a lie. They would have known for sure. They would not have died nailed to a cross upside down (for example) if it was all a lie. Do you really believe they would have? Evidence. Every prophesy of the Bible has come true – every single one – just as it was predicted to happen. There are, of course, those that have yet to come true – those predicting the end times – but why would I not believe them when all of the others have come true. Evidence. The secular world likes to believe in Nastradomus (sp?) and the like. They are never 100% correct on any of their prophesies and usually very vague. But you will go ga-ga over them because they are, after all, not Biblical. We like that, don’t we? There is so much more. Like the evidence of DNA pointing to one single woman - Evidence? No, scientific fact. I can’t go into the above items in as much detail as is required, here in this forum; so I could hardly get into all of the evidence. You might say, all of my beliefs are taken on faith. I would say - yes, but not blind faith. It takes far more faith to believe in the fairy tales of science. They said… “It’s cold – no hot (global cooling vs. global warming), it happened quickly – no slowly (evolution), it was a big hang (but they can’t prove it, nor do they know how it happened or what or who caused it to happen), we found the missing link – no sorry we were mistaken (it was just another fake). It only took science, what was it? – around 50 years –to disprove evolution (though it is still being talked about like it is a fact instead of a disproven theory). How long does it have to take them to disprove creation before they admit that it is a possibility? Now, some of them are saying life came from outer space. Come on! Where will it all end? Can't you tell how obvious it is that they choose not to believe so sternly that they really look stupid? If they don't want to believe that's fine. Just stop trying to prove that we christians do not have a possible alternative to their ever-changing fairy tales. You asked me for proof that God is real. Why don’t you ask him? And don’t think for a moment that there are no christian scientists who believe in creation. There are many – very many. They are just not allowed the potium that the non-believers are permitted. Just like those who do not believe in global warming are not allowed the potium of those who are preaching it.

Missippippi said: There is not, and has never been, any scientific proof of the existence of any god. kinda hopeless argument, crossing theology with science. Off course there's no scientific evidence for the existence of a God, but the sense of an ultimate creator's presence is universal. 'The sense of..' !! To be presence asking a question of presence is a glimpse enough. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

"Remember, I am a christian and Jesus is all that I need to prove the Bible is the truth..." Then you're plainly arguing from a point of view where evidence and proof have no meaning except personal meaning. It doesn't logically follow in any way from an awareness of 'Jesus' that the Bible is the truth. I could say that James Blunt is 'proof' to me that the world is ending, but it doesn't have any rational currency. "Just stop trying to prove that we christians do not have a possible alternative to their ever-changing fairy tales." Your alternative is possible in the same way that it is possible that we were created by an alien race of robots for bloodsport, or that it is possible we only exist in the mind of a giant caterpillar. The faint possibility remains, but as there is no real evidence to suggest it is in any way likely, so why dwell on it? We can only use the facts we have to act according to the most likely scenario, as attested to by our powers of reason. Saying that an awareness of a person of which we have little knowledge proves to you that a vastly rejigged book is 100% true is clearly not using your powers of reason. In any case, evolutionists aren't replacing your God-fetishism with earth-fetishism. We aren't supposed to 'worship' the earth. We're supposed to keep it in a reasonable state, because life is precious. If your God doesn't care one way or another whether we kill off thousands more species, as well as ourselves, then clearly, he is an idiot God and you should turn your back on him. If you're saying that we have no control over it, then clearly, since our actions directly affect the environment, you are saying we have no control over our actions - in other words, no free will. Our actions are decided for us by God. That means your God is directly responsible for every bad thing that happens in the world - he's brought it all about. Again, that suggests he's a bad'un. Of course, you get around these sort of logical conundrums by sticking your head in the sand and pretending everything's gonna be peachy when we all die. It's a rather cowardly way of avoiding all important issues, isn't it? Personally, I'd rather be worried with my eyes open than satisfied with my eyes screwed up tightly.

("Remember, I am a christian and Jesus is all that I need to prove the Bible is the truth..." Then you're plainly arguing from a point of view where evidence and proof have no meaning except personal meaning.) I am arguing from a point of view that there is no proof on either side of the subject and that there is evidence of a God. This is being denied us as christians. (It doesn't logically follow in any way from the existence of the Bible that God and Jesus exist. I could say that James Blunt is 'proof' to me that the world is ending, but it doesn't have any rational currency.) You’re wrong. It does follow that the Bible does, in fact, hold much logical evidence of the existence of God and Jesus. The fact that Jesus existed is a historical fact as well. ("Just stop trying to prove that we christians do not have a possible alternative to their ever-changing fairy tales." Your alternative is possible in the same way that it is possible that we were created by an alien race of robots for bloodsport, or that it is possible we only exist in the mind of a giant caterpillar. The faint possibility remains, but as there is no real evidence to suggest it is in any way likely, so why dwell on it?) Ha! Good one. I can’t give you one good reason why one should dwell on the possibility of the alien race of robots crap. But I already gave you three reasons to dwell on creation and that God exists. (We can only use the facts we have to act according to the most likely scenario, as attested to by our powers of reason. Saying that a book proves to you the existence of your creator is clearly not using your powers of reason.) Well, all of us are given plenty of reason to scrutenize evolution. That is force fed us at a very early age. The Bible does “prove to me” the existence of a creator and I have arrived at that conclution by reason. All of us have to start at a point of faith. Then we have to weigh the evidence and how that evidence proves out within ourselves. When something is disproven (such as evolution) and another theory has not been disproven – then the weight of the argument cleary shifts. Don’t you think? (In any case, evolutionists aren't replacing your God-fetishism (fetishism? Why are you so angry?) with earth-fetishism.) Oh but they so clearly are – or at least they will – just watch. It is close to that already. (We aren't supposed to 'worship' the earth. We're supposed to keep it in a reasonable state, because life is precious.) Nobody is saying that we should trash the Earth. This is just another area that the secularists are taking a good thing too far – yes – to the point of earth worship. I believe that one day, you will see it spoken of openly as a religion. (If your God doesn't care one way or another whether we kill off thousands more species, as well as ourselves, then clearly, he is an idiot God and you should turn your back on him.) We do not kill off thousands of species, and it is not going to happen. That is a lie. It does not happen. Just more scare tactics. (If you're saying that we have no control over it, then clearly, since our actions directly affect the environment, you are saying we have no control over our actions - in other words, no free will.) WOW! That was some leap you just took there. lol I never said that – but I will say this. The ozone layer for example: the oceans (evaporated salt water), the rain forest (carbon dioxide expaulsions) volcanos (carban expaulsion), are close to 90% of the so called problem. Yes, your presious Earth (acording to the argument that we must “save” the planet) is killing itself. (Our actions are decided for us by God. (I never said that.) That means your God is directly responsible for every bad thing that happens in the world - he's brought it all about. Again, that suggests he's a bad'un.) WOW! You don't leap – you bounce. This is a great stretch. You know very well, I’m sure, what God has said causes “bad things” to happen in the world. Trash talk really does weaken your arguement. (Of course, you get around these sort of logical conundrums by sticking your head in the sand and pretending everything's gonna be peachy when we all die. It's a rather cowardly way of avoiding all important issues, isn't it? Personally, I'd rather be worried with my eyes open than satisfied with my eyes screwed up tightly.) You must have never spoken to a christian about christianity ever in your life. I don’t know any christian who says that everything is peachy. It’s just that you think you have (and the Earth has) all the time in the world. So you worry about something that might, possibly, could, maybe, if, if not, way out there in the future,while the truth about what God said would happen to this Earth, you, me and everyone else, is creeping up behind you ready to slap your silly notions right out of your head. We christians are saying, that there are a lot of things going wrong on the Earth, but this silly fear of the Earth being harmed will not happen for at least two reasons: 1 – God has already told us how it would happen, when it happens, and it has absolutely nothing to do with any of your so-called fears. It is something else that you don’t fear, but should. But, those things you do worry about, such as us destroying the Earth is causing one of the things that will happen and will aid in its destruction. Namely Earth worship. It is a sign that the Bible says we are to watch for because it is a sign that God is soon to act. 2 – We don’t worry about such things as global warming because, guite frankly, we believe it would take too long to do us in. Much longer than the time spand we believe we really have left. If you want to have fears there are plenty of them out there - but they are nothing compared with the fear you'de have if you looked inside and believe as we christians do. You want to be afraid? Look inside - then just concider - what if what the christians say is true. If you then don't have at least a hint of fear, there is truely no hope for you, in my opinion. You think this stuff that we "have to do" to "save the planet" is important stuff? No it's not important - not in the least. There are far more pressing problems out there to worry about. Far more important things.

"Okay guys, I guess I’m the only Christian in this discussion, (lol) for now anyway. So I’ll not argue with you on this" I'd hate to see what it's like when you *do* argue.

This is obviously a debate where most interlocutors already have their minds firmly made up, but Paul, please don't refer to 'Christians' and 'Christianity' as monoliths for whom you stand as spokesperson. The Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy is not the official position of the Anglican or Catholic churches, as far as I'm aware. You're pushing more of a Premillenial Dispensationalist ideology here and, if you knew your ecclesiastical history and the competing Biblical exegeses which have informed the debate, you would realise this is a fringe movement based on fairly recent reinterpretations of the Bible, rather than some timeless, common sense, 'straight' reading off from the facts.

Agree with Rokkitnite. I have spoken with Christians before. Quite a number. Only a minority take the kind of extreme view you do, Paul. Usually goes hand in hand with raging homophobia and racism too, though I won't prejudge you on that. I'll just say that yours is the kind of self-deluding, maddeningly unreasonable religious extremism that gives rise to the feeling that religion should be done away with completely. I'm not a militant atheist, but when I read baseless nonsense assertions like yours, it makes me wonder if militant atheists don't have the right idea. "I am arguing from a point of view that there is no proof on either side of the subject and that there is evidence of a God." You're doing what I said you're doing. You're using 'proof' and 'evidence' to mean things which indicate to you, personally, that God exists. To borrow your idea, it wouldn't stand up in a court of law. There is no rational evidence for God. There is nothing on this Earth about which we can say, "Well, that suggest God more than it does any other explanation." But then, I can see from your treatment of my arguments that you aren't really capable of following a line of reason, and clearly think 'rationality' is just a big word that people throw around, rather than a foundation for knowledge. "When something is disproven (such as evolution)" Err.... evolution is going on all around us all the time. It's as proven as anything could possibly be, in that we can observe it happening. "2 – We don’t worry about such things as global warming because, guite frankly, we believe it would take too long to do us in." Easy to say if you don't live in an area vulnerable to minor changes in climate. Tsunamis? Hurricanes? The simple facts are that, according to what we know, there is a strong possibility environmental legislation *could* save lives. It takes a pretty warped sense of morality to say that you're not bothered about that. "We do not kill off thousands of species, and it is not going to happen. That is a lie." It's also very easy to just pretend that everything that directly contradicts what you say is a lie. Honestly, Paul, if in your view there is more evidence of God than there is of how many species of animal and plantlife are currently endangered, or already extinct, then clearly rationality is not a plane on which you operate. "It’s just that you think you have (and the Earth has) all the time in the world." No, it's quite the opposite. I think it's very likely that life ends at death. I don't believe in environmental causes to save my own behind - I believe in it to save other lives. You know? People other than yourself? Ring any bells? You presumably think that death will see you rewarded for sitting around and letting people die all your life, excusing the fact that you could have intervened with this voodoo jibber-jabber. See, here's the bind: even if I did believe in God, and in God's ultimate justice, my sense of right and wrong would mean I'd *have* to believe he'd punish you, or at least make you aware that your own beliefs are horribly perverse. Any God who was on your side in this debate would be a tyrant with few good qualities, and who any person in their right mind would rebel against. Do yourself a favour and join the kind of Christians who manage, on a personal level, to unite faith in God with some kind of moral compass. You know, there are Christians who actually go out there and help people, who actually do what Jesus said they should do, and you're giving them a bad rep.

Paul, you are obviously one of those individuals who 'needs' a belief to get you through the day. I suspect that you were raised in a religious environment and were brain-washed from the cradle. Like many others of your ilk you ultimately resort to 'negative' reasoning to 'prove' your argument. You quote courts of law in support of those arguments when in fact there's no court on the planet (to my admittedly limited knowledge), that doesn't work on the 'positive proof' principle. That aspect of your argument smacks of childish schoolyard logic. The bible is just a collection of fairy stories, much the same as Hans Christian (?) Anderson's, though far less entertaining. * ...Jesus is all that I need to prove the Bible is the truth ... * Is there some logic to that statement? Does the reasonable possibility that a person exisited 2000 yrs ago prove a book to be the ultimate truth? Are seriously expecting anyone here to accept that as 'proof'? * ...the Bible does, in fact, hold much logical evidence of the existence of God and Jesus ... * Really? I suggest that you and your fellow believers actually interpret the story in which ever way supports your ingrained beliefs. There IS no 'proof', logical or otherwise. * ... reason to scrutenize evolution. That is force fed us at a very early age. The Bible does “prove to me” the existence of a creator and I have arrived at that conclution by reason. All of us have to start at a point of faith ... * The scrutiny of theories is very sensible, but you decline to mention that christianity is just one such theory. If the bible is 'proof' enough to you then I would say that you are very easily convinced. If you really like fairy stories, try LOTR, it's a far better story, with better characters also. As for the need to start from a point of faith, that is blatant rubbish. I have never adhered to any faith, nor felt the need to have any kind of faith in anything. I merely started with a doctrine-free mind and adjusted my views as I went along. What became evident to me as time passed is that all religions are just means to control the thinking and actions of large numbers of people. They also seem to claim innocence and caring for fellow beings, yet start 90% of the worlds wars, and kill in numbers only exceeded by plague and pestilence. Religion, though appearing on the surface to be a positive and decent thing, is in reality evil and destructive. If you want proof of THAT, I suggest you look around the world as it is today. 6m dead Jews, (along with 46m others) in WW2, uncounted millions in China in the 60's, (the cultural revolution was at least in part, a denouncement of extant religion), millions dead in Russia as a result of purges there too, who knows how many dead in the middle east in the last 20yrs, and all in the name of religion to a greater or lesser extent. Who the hell needs it? If it was so necessary to life, how come of all the millions of species on this planet, humans are the only ones (as far as we know), who practise religion? It's crap, and neither you nor anyone else will ever convince me otherwise. I have to say that your attitude to those outside your cosy world is nothing short of patronising. If you're on some kind of crusade to bring your beliefs to the moron hordes here you're wasting your time, there is far too much intelligence present on this forum. I would add that as you progress through your argument you appear to be getting increasingly agitated. My 'proof' of that? Your rapidly deteriorating spelling.

Having read Jon's post above, I would say that whilst some christians do good work, they don't have a monopoly on it. Many atheists do good work also. The inference (not by Jon, but by religious acolytes in general), 'good' is somehow inseparable from religion irks me no end.

Yeah. I was just coming at it from the opposite point of view - that not all Christians have a completely warped sense of morality. "The inference (not by Jon, but by religious acolytes in general), 'good' is somehow inseparable from religion irks me no end." Well, anyone who worships a God has to believe that they're good. That seems obvious. So that leaves Christians with a choice - they either accept that the Bible is, at best, a flawed interpretation of God's word, or they develop an idea of goodness that is isolated from any value system or moral reasoning, and is, to their own mind, irrefutable, because its existence proves itself. In this context, 'good' is almost without meaning - how can there be good without moral questioning? That is why it is so frustrating to argue with Christians who take this view - they appopriate words like 'good' and 'proof' but don't actually use them to mean what the rest of us understand them to mean.

Whew! Are there really no Christians here besides me? You really do pile up. Lol I must admit that you almost got me in the sense that I almost began a line by line answering session with Yokkitnite, Jack Cade and Mississippi, but for crying out loud – I would have had to write a book. I understand your points of view. You’ve said nothing that hasn’t been said before in discourse and opposition to the Christian belief. But, I would like to address only a couple of things. It is true that I am a dispensationalist. I agree with you also, that dispensationalism is a relatively new approach – beginning in the mid 1800’s. But, just because it is relatively new, does not mean that it is not correct. Some of the things that are in the Bible (concerning future events) could not have been fully understood, as they can today since some of things happened since the Bible foretold them (such as Israel’s return to the Promise Land in 1928, for just one example). Dispensationalist might be wrong, really; I can’t be so dogmatic as to say I understand everything there is to know about the Bible. That would be foolish, arrogant and a lie. But, anything I said about the subject above, is in keeping with Biblical teaching no matter what form you believe in. All Christian teaching says that Christ will come and reign on Earth for a thousand years and then after that dispensation (era), the Earth will be destroyed (by him) and a new Heaven and a new Earth will be created for us. That is in the bible and so clear that it is not in dispute among any protestant denominations that I am aware of. Catholicism teaches that as well. At least the Catholics I have spoken about it (which admittedly are few) believe that. So for the sake of our argument (“Save the Planet”), it is common (if not completely inclusive) among all believers that God himself will destroy the Earth when he is ready, by his own hand at the appointed time. Some might say: “Isn’t it possible that God may use man to do it by directing him to “not” save the planet?” No – not at all possible - because of the scenario of the one thousand-year-reign. This is not a denominational teaching – this is not a sect or a fringe teaching. This is Bible scripture that leave no room for interpretation. One other thing – one of you indicated that I just blindly believe the Bible and Biblical teaching, and that I probably was raised in the church from my youth. Yes, I was dragged to church as a boy by my parents. Because of that, I left the church as soon as I was old enough to do so. I came back on my own – kicking and screaming all the way - because I agonized over my own beliefs and how they stood in direct opposition with the church. I studied much. Many different philosophies, metaphysics, and religions – and yes, finally, the Bible – not church – the Bible. (By the way – I still do not go to church.) That is as far as I will go to “justify” myself. I apologize to you and to myself for ever feeling it was necessary to do so. So far, I have been blasted by you guys about my beliefs. That may be because I had the audacity to join in the conversation, and to speak my mind on the issue. But, you guys have to admit that secularists have forced their view on all who attend the public school system and beyond. That really gives us Christians, in my opinion, an upper hand because we know all to well what the mainstream secularists believe but unfortunately, the non believer knows so little about what we believe. You would have to 1) talk to a Christian and keep an open mind, or 2) go to church, or 3) tune into some Christian broadcast or 4) read a book, or 5) read the Bible. You would have to do these things because every time a Christian tries to enter into the discussion of a secularist, he is pretty much told to go away – this is not a religious discussion. I can’t help but think that, as is true far to much of the time, that people argue about something they know so little about. It is clear to me, that none of you has read the Bible or at least understand what you’ve read. I was having a discussion once with a non-believer when the discussion finally ended this way. I said, “Have you ever read War and Peace?” He said that he hadn’t. I then said, “Good, neither have I. Why don’t we talk about that book? Now, wouldn’t that make for an intelligent conversation? It is obvious that you haven’t read the Bible, so why don’t you read it, then come back and we can discuss it more intelligently.” It seems to me that you are the ones with preconceived ideas that don’t extend from a real knowledge of the scriptures. It seems to me that you are the ones who have been “indoctrinated” to opposition to the idea of Biblical truth. Have you ever read the Bible – do you base you disbelief on what you have found there? Or have you been “taught” otherwise by teachers, politics, news media, parents, friends, other secularists and atheists, etc, etc. Your anger is one of the things that tells me you don’t know scripture. Still, because you “think” it apposes what you do believe, you reject any dogma associated with it out of hand – without thought or clear understanding.

From Jack Cade: "Well, anyone who worships a God has to believe that they're good." This is exactly what I was talking about. This might be true with some religions, but the Bible does not teach us that we, as believers are “good”. In fact, it tells us expressly that we are not good. We don’t think we are “good” just right. I know you will go nuts on me for that last statement, but you too believe you are right, don’t you.

Also by Jack Cade – interjections by me: So that leaves Christians with a choice - they either accept that the Bible is, at best, a flawed interpretation of God's word, or they develop an idea of goodness that is isolated from any value system or moral reasoning, and is, to their own mind, irrefutable, because its existence proves itself. (what?) In this context, 'good' is almost without meaning - how can there be good without moral questioning? (I agree – I don’t know where you came to this understanding of Christianity.) That is why it is so frustrating to argue with Christians who take this view - they appopriate words like 'good' and 'proof' but don't actually use them to mean what the rest of us understand them to mean. (I don’t know how to respond to this. It leaves me, head shaken and wondering where this comes from.)

"(I don’t know how to respond to this. It leaves me, head shaken and wondering where this comes from.)" You're a living demonstration of it! You've got no real value system, no moral compass, and you don't seem to understand that 'proof' and 'evidence' are words that imply a rational chain of thought! "So far, I have been blasted by you guys about my beliefs. That may be because I had the audacity to join in the conversation, and to speak my mind on the issue." No, it's because your opinions betray an unwillingness to engage with the issue on an intelligent level. How we manage our environment is an issue that can potentially affect people in many different ways - to reduce it to a 'save the planet' crusade is crude, and to pretend that it is an irrelevant issue because you believe, with nothing to back up the belief, that God will intervene when he sees fit, is contemptible. Playing the victim ain't gonna work. You're free to express your views but we're free to ridicule them if they're ridiculous. "But, you guys have to admit that secularists have forced their view on all who attend the public school system and beyond." No, we don't. Giving people the facts as they are known them is not forcing your views on them. 'Secularism' is not a singular viewpoint in the way you want to characterise it. It has no central doctrine, and is fundamentally not a religious point of view. It is wishful thinking to see secularism and Christianity as two alternative cultures warring - the truth is that Christianity is a narrow, doctrine-led way of life and secularism covers pretty much everything outside of that small box. In fact, since secularism is freedom of religion, it fundamentally allows Christianity to exist within it. So even if it were true that 'secularists have forced their view on all' you can't exactly complain since it allows you to practice your faith freely. Your position, in fact, is that freedom is somehow tyranny, because it is not the *right* kind of tyranny. Similar theme coming up here: "It seems to me that you are the ones who have been “indoctrinated” to opposition to the idea of Biblical truth." You can't be 'indoctrinated' against something that is, from the outset, extremely unlikely, irrational and unjustifiable. It makes as much sense as me claiming that you have been 'indoctrinated' against the idea of Biggles as the greatest hero ever, just because you don't agree with me straight away. The fundamental thing here is this: 'Biblical' truth has no foundation in rationality, or a value system, or anything that grounds it outside of itself. To enforce it, you clearly have to establish a kind of tyranny. Your mistake is in thinking that the absence of such a tyranny is just another kind of tyranny. It isn't. The rest of us here are free to decide, on our own, what is right and wrong, and how we should respond to the world. We are *not* taught a specific set of absolute rules by an 'authority' that refuses to justify itself. Hence, why we're all different - why we argue against each other, and have different beliefs. Because we're free to be different to each other. If you insist on finding a comparison for Christianity, so you compare how we enforce it on others, then you should give us each our own religion. I can represent Jack Cadeism - that is, my unique system of values and beliefs. Missi can be Mississippiism, and so on and so forth. Now, tell me this: how many of *these* religions are being forced on people in schools? When was the last time you saw me reading from the gospel of Jack Cade to a class of kids? "It is clear to me, that none of you has read the Bible or at least understand what you’ve read." It's clear to me that you don't understand it for what it is either.

Hey, I’ve got an idea! Lets talk about stuff like abortion, euthanasia and gay rights. You know? Stuff like that? Of course, we are going to disagree on “stuff”. Listen, guys. We have gotten way off the topic of this forum. I only entered into the discussion because 2Lou opened it with the heading “Heretics of the New Religion”. My point was – if you go back and look – that the environmental movement is taking things so far that I believe it will eventually become a worldwide religion. I went on to say that the Bible predicts that a new religion will come in the end times, which will cause people to… “worship the created instead of the Creator”. I gave this as the reason I don’t buy into the arguments of people like Al Gore. I had no idea that I was entering a discussion with people who so animatedly appose my beliefs and that they would come at me with such clinched-fist words. I never meant to be drawn into a theological discussion.

Are there really no Christians here besides me? I am a Christian but loathe to be tarred with the same brush as somebody who says 'God is in control, not us.' in a conversation about environmental issues. I usually stay out of debates but feel obliged to point out that your comments are not really 'christian'. Being a Christian should raise the bar for your social obligations it does not exhonerate you because 'God is in control' anyway. I would find you embarrassing, if your mindset wasn't so scarily disturbing. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

sorry - duplicate below.

To poetjude: Yes - and here she is. She always comes out in these kinds of discussions. Who know her - she's the one who always says: "Well I'm a Christian and I don't believe that." Oh it might be a he, but it is always the same voice. You say your a christian but you don't believe God is in control? Sorry poetjude, that just doesn't wash. What exactly have I said that is so disturbing to you as a believer?

I didn't say ' I don't believe God is in control?' My problem is you using your belief in God's omniscience to criticise other people's moral conscience in relation to human actions. Rokkit expressed it perfectly 'please don't refer to 'Christians' and 'Christianity' as monoliths for whom you stand as spokesperson.' jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

'This is not a denominational teaching – this is not a sect or a fringe teaching. This is Bible scripture that leave no room for interpretation.' Yes, but, as I said, you are adopting the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy - that the Bible is wholly correct on matters both of morality and historical fact - which is BY NO MEANS representative of all of Christianity. You can't just start scything off great chunks of Progressive Liberal Christianity by claiming you represent the One True Path; if, as many Christians believe, the Bible is a divinely inspired document, written by humans and subject to human failings, then all your rigid, literalist interpretations of the end of the world become unnecessary. All Biblical content comes with an historical context, and all of it is open to differing interpretations. I find the 'everything that happens is God's will' argument particularly pernicious, as it justifies the most atrocious lapses in compassion by PDs and Fundies. Money is apparently better spent 'spreading the Word' than feeding people. No one in the Climate Change argument is saying human action will make the Earth uninhabitable - they're saying our refusal to be good stewards of our only home will flood continents, cause starvation, and drastically reduce the quality of life for everyone.

Sorry about the duplication - It is taking so long to post that I clicked more than once.

This is to jude: Okay - fair enough. Only I don't believe I did that. I said the "Scriptures" say these thinigs. Do you deny that? I also said that I "believe" this or that. I haven't done anything close to calling myself or make myself out to be a "spokesperson" for the faith. (I did point out (as far as I know) that most believers do believe as I do as well.) It is just that I am the only voice here - or was. If you have been reading - and you really are a Christian, I wonder why you didn't jump in in my defence, until now, when I even stated "Am I the only Christian here?" But you can't be a doctor and say you don't believe in medicine. You can't be a poet and say you don't believe in words. And you can't be a Christian and say you don't believe God is in control of this world. Not any more than you can believe in Jesus and not believe he has risen, or talk about him as if he was and not "is". Do you know what I mean?

I repeat that I didn't say ' I don't believe God is in control?' but I certainly believe we still have free will and God is not a puppeteer pulling strings. Scripture certainly says some of the things you've highlighted and I believe that scripture is 'God's revelation'. However, there are many models of revelation. Avery Dulles wrote a very good book called The Theology of Revelation which I recommend. Models of revelation include Revelation as Doctrine, as History, as Inner Experience, as Dialectical Presence, and as New Awareness. The acceptance of Biblical inerrancy often within the conservative evangelical tradition falls within 'Revelation as Doctrine'. All these are not mutually exclusive of course. You seem to be saying (and correct me if I am wrong but this is the impression I get) that in order to be a 'Christian' one has to follow your particular model. On the model you use, I quote, Dulles finds that the "propositional model stands up well in terms of its faithfulness to tradition, its internal coherence, and its practical advantages, but less well when judged by other standards." He also notes that it promotes unity through its doctrines, provides firm doctrinal standards, facilitates full commitment to biblical and ecclesiastical teaching. This model "safeguards the meaning and authority of revelation, which is seen as providing clear, firm answers to deep and persistent questions concerning God, humanity, and the universe, and thus as offering sure guidance through the confusions of life." However, Dulles concludes that this model provides too narrow an approach, that it is authoritarian and extrinsicist. He criticizes its as implausible, inadequate to experience, and as valueless for dialogue. Dulles believes that this model requires submission to propositions in the Bible held to be revelation, regardless of whether they seem to apply to the believer, thereby ignoring the believer's own life and experience. Its apparent rigidity stemming from its acknowledgment of Holy Scripture as the complete deposit of revelation rejects "members of other groups as heretics or infidels." jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Look, I'll just interject: Paul, this is a heavily UK-based populace you're arguing with, and the UK is an overwhelmingly secular society, so it is more likely than not that most of the users will disagree with you on many things. Religion is looked upon, justifiably, with a good deal of skepticism, so you should keep this in mind! Jude seems to be our resident religious person, and she argues her points with great intelligence and tremendous good nature toward her unbelieving brethren. I personally feel that die-hard, inflexible atheists are just as tedious and tiresome to listen to as die-hard inflexible Christians. People who never question their own beliefs or question what they have been taught to believe are worrying; it is from these kinds of people that the Inquisition, the Crusades, and 9/11 stem. Being religious-curious myself, I don't see why there has to be such a huge chasm between religious beliefs and science. They sometimes argue the same coin, from opposite sides. Seems silly to me.

From rokkitnite - interjections from me. Yes, but, as I said, you are adopting the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy - that the Bible is wholly correct on matters both of morality and historical fact – (Yes – yes I am. So you have to understand that in context with what I have previously said.) which is BY NO MEANS representative of all of Christianity. (You’re right. I never said it was indicitive of all of Christianity. I said “most”, “common” as a way of conveying that I am not some crack pot with some crazy notions of my own.) You can't just start scything off great chunks of Progressive Liberal Christianity by claiming you represent the One True Path; (Why can’t I? And what I am saying is not, I repeat, not, a progressive liberal christianity. If it is anything it is mainstream. Get your head out of the sand and take a look at the basic doctrines of most mainsteam protestant faiths.) if, as many Christians believe, the Bible is a divinely inspired document, written by humans and subject to human failings, (“…the Bible is a divinely inspired document, written by humans and subject to human failings… So you are saying that as many Christians believe what? That it is inspired (inerrant) but subject to human errors. No. There are surely not “as many” Christians who believe that the scriptures are in error. You can’t do that as a Christian. If you do – you have to deside which are right and which are incorrect and then deside who makes that decision. You are right though, in the sence that some christians do pick and choose what they will believe and what they will not believe. That is unfortunate.) then all your rigid, literalist interpretations of the end of the world become unnecessary. All Biblical content comes with an historical context, and all of it is open to differing interpretations. (Well, that is what I would expect you to say. Unfortunately, it is not true. There is only one interpretation to each of the scriptures. By far the greatest portion of them are not in despute among believers. But some are – true. But there still is only one interpretation. It’s just that some just get it wrong. But in the areas that I have mentioned, there really isn’t very much despute about. Except by some who call themselves Christian (and maybe they are – I can’t judge) but do not read scripture and don’t really know what the Bible says about things such as the issues of the world today. This will cause them to sometimes come down on the side of the secularists and then find themselves directly apposed to their own faith.)

As I understand it, science is a process. A hypothesis is formulated, based upon previous findings. The hypothesis is tested, and the level to which it is true is noted and publicised. Others test it, or form new a hypothesis based upon the findings of the previous hypothesis. This is happening all of the time, all over the world. When a hypothesis is proven wrong, this does not mean that science is wrong, it merely means that the reason for something occurring that have not been firmly discovered, or that the outcome predicted by the original hypothesis did not occur. It does not disprove science as if science were a hypothesis itself. The biggest victory of the Christian Right is to pull off the sleight of hand of confusing people into seeing science as an ideology rather than a process. The big project is to find areas where science has not yet produced a universally accepted paradigm, and to point out the inconsistencies between different findings and hypothesis, as if science were a statement of belief rather than a process constantly in motion. Paul_k refers to science having been disproven, rather than a particular theory or hypothesis being disproven, which is a very cunning tactic, or a very stupid ignorance depending on how charitable you're feeling. The project is to get people to debate science as if it were religion. I don't reckon it's an either/or proposition. There's nothing in science that disproves a possible higher power, but by the same token there's nothing in religion that trumps science. If you read upward and take in paul_k's posts, you'll see that this is the tactic again and again; to make someone choose between science and religion as a method of explaining the world. I don't think you need to make that choice, no matter how many right wing christians suggest you must. And, for the record, I defend your right to sit on either side of the fence, but don't defend your right to nurse an ignorance and call it truth. Cheers Mark

You know Jude, if you build a tower and the foundation is a little off, eventually the tower will come crashing down. I'm afraid your foundation is incorrect when you say it is a matter or revelation. It's okay to quote Avery Dulles, of course, but let me ask you something. Did you come into your faith by books written by Avery Dulles? There are so many books out there, so many speakers on the subject of faith. I have read many - but I would not quote them. Just because you do - does not give them the weight of authority. As a Christian, there is another book that has much greater weight. Am I one of those who believes all of the Bible is truth? Yes, yes, yes. What is it really that you believe? And by the way - you did infact say that God is not in control. You said, and I quote: "I am a Christian but loathe to be tarred with the same brush as somebody who says 'God is in control, not us.' in a conversation about environmental issues." You said loathe, mind you, loathe to be tarred (tarred!!!) with the same brush as someone who believes that God is in control. You did attempt to temper it with "...in a conversation about environmental issues." But what is the Earth if not the environment that God created for mankind. So, just say that you believe that the Bible is in error and be done with it. It's okay. I just disa gree and since we do disagree on that point - well, it only stands to reason that we will be at odds on many others. Look jude, if you are one of those intellectuals who is trying to explain away the faith by rational "human" means and you can't just learn what the Bible says and agree with it, then fine. But I wonder how far one can go, without stepping beyound the definition of a Christian? Meaning, a believer in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and a co-equal with God. How much "stuff", I wonder, can one not believe in God's word before he/she confesses away his or her faith completely? Have you ever wondered that? So, we disagree on this site about "stuff", especially religious "stuff" - so what else is new. But beleivers, jude, do believe the "same stuff" to such a degree that it should (in my opinion) cause one to go to the aid of another. I do not mind being called on the carpet by another christian about anything that I said that is scripturally in error. I make mistakes just as every body does. But to start with an assumption - like revelation is up to interpretation - is a little hard for me to take from another christian. So you believe the word of God is, well, not the word of God and I do. So there you have it, it would seem.

Paul, you have chosen to interpret the scriptures in a specific way. You can deny it all you want, but even the most literal reading is still a choice of interpretation. You have opted for a particular spin on them, just as others have. Any other belief you hold is self-deceit. "But I wonder how far one can go, without stepping beyond the definition of a Christian?" If you think that the Bible is an excuse not to worry about the effects of global warming then you've already gone far beyond any positive definition of 'Christian' and are in 'zealot' territory. You're plainly trying to place your own interpretation on the word, but it is a public word with a public definition, and by that definition Jude is just as much a Christian, if not moreso, than you are. You have a tendency, it seems, to try to change what words mean in order that they serve your argument. You may be incapable of seeing this in the same way that you are apparently incapable of recognising how you have put a spin on the scriptures that suits you. The conflict is clear - you simply do not believe in rationality and reason as a more valid method of gaining understanding and knowledge than blind faith. In this context, there is no sense in you arguing, because a successful argument has to be founded on these things. Why even *attempt* logic when you ultimately have no respect for it?

Very good Mark. I appreciate your post. Thank you. I believe that science is a wonderful thing. It is even necessary. I only said – if you will go back to what I said as you have encouraged others to do, you will find that I have pointed to specifics where science was wrong. If people believe in a “theory” of science, then fine. But when a theory has been disproved – it should not continue to be believed. It is true, within the science community that if a theory has not been proven within a certain period of time (I don’t know what that time is exactly) then it has to be consider “not provable” and therefore not worthy of further study. That is why many scientists have abandoned the idea of the theory of the origin of the species and now are looking at the possibility of other planetary intervention. Has any of you asked yourself why they always look to other answers rather than a Creator? You will probably reply, “Because the belief in God is not science.” Well, do you know that there are many scientists who would disagree with you? No, they don’t have proof. But from the ‘evidence’ they have found about the young Earth they have concluded that it is highly unlikely that it all happened by mere chance. I have heard that it takes more faith to believe that God does not exist than to believe he does - scientificly. They say this, for example: Take the atom. Science has proven that there are electrons and neutrons in the atom. This particles spin around themselves so quickly that they form solids. The speed at which these articles spin and the number of them in any given unit, determines how hard or soft an object will be. Makes sense to me. I can believe that. Now do you think that any scientist worth his weight in salt would just leave it at that? No, of course not, because there is still some unanswered questions. Where did the particles come from? What makes them spin? Magnetism – but where did this come from? They answer that with electrons and neutrons. Great, but this is the answer to perpetual movement, not to what caused it. There is a cause to all things. What is that cause? You think that science isn’t trying to find the answer to that? I believe in science. But I believe that God made all things in a certain way and that science is learning how He did it. That is a very good thing.

"Has any of you asked yourself why they always look to other answers rather than to a Creator?" Simple answer: a Creator is not an answer. It just leads on to a whole new set of questions. If there's a creator, then how, why, why this particular way, who created him, does he still exist now? If you're looking for answers, you don't choose something that further complicates matters and solves absolutely nothing. "But from the ‘evidence’ they have found about the young Earth they have concluded that it is highly unlikely that it all happened by mere chance." No one has ever said it happened by chance. What they're looking for is a reasonable explanation. A Creator is not that. Furthermore, if you can believe that a Creator just *is*, and doesn't need his own creation story, then you might as well believe that everything else just *is* and doesn't need a creator at all. Why invent something to explain something else when it leaves you with the same question? It's like believing that the entire Universe is inside a marble that is being played with by a child on an massively bigger planet, like the end of 'Men in Black'. You just end up having to explain the new Universe you've created outside of the Universe. Simply put: God is an inadequate answer to any question of origins or creation. He is also an inadequate answer to questions of morality.

From Jack Cade - interjections by me Paul, you have chosen to interpret the scriptures in a specific way. You can deny it all you want, but even the most literal reading is still a choice of interpretation. (I have no argument with this. It is true – I believe in a literal interpretation of scripture. I have said so over and over again. But really there is little left up to interpretation in scripture, if you only knew. For example: “Jesus wept.” That cannot be interpreted any other way but that He was crying. The things that I have stated as being of scripture here – are like that. Show me a place where I was emphatic about a particular scripture where I did not say “I believe” or “In my opinion”. If you can, then I will stand on the “fact” that it is one of those undisputed verses like “Jesus wept.”) You have opted for a particular spin on them, just as others have. Any other belief you hold is self-deceit. "But I wonder how far one can go, without stepping beyond the definition of a Christian?" If you think that the Bible is an excuse not to worry about the effects of global warming then you've already gone far beyond any positive definition of 'Christian' and are in 'zealot' territory. (Okay, I’m a zealot. I have no problem with that either. The disciples were zealots. Jesus was a zealot. poetjude is a zealot. And so are you for your side of the argument. But please, DO call me a zealot. I hold it close to my breast. I don’t believe that the Bible is an “excuse”. I never said that. I said simply, the Bible says it will happen in a different way. You guys want to go out there and save the planet, be my guest. I’m not saying we should just go ahead a trash the Earth, for heaven sakes. All I am saying is, the planet will not, according to the Bible, be destroyed by any of the means worried over by the “save the planet” crowd. The Bible says that God will destroy it, by his own hand, with fire and that it will come at his timing. That timing has been explained in certain ways that can very well be interpreted differently; but to say that man might destroy the Earth is wrong – (IF) you believe the Bible. There is no way to misinterpret this. You can ask, when? I would say, soon. You can ask, are you ‘sure’ it will be soon? I would say, no. You can ask, how? I would say, by fire. You can ask, by what means? I would say, I don’t know. When I gave a pointed answer – it was scripture. Where I didn’t, I could only speculate according to the given facts and therefore, my interpretation.) The conflict is clear - you simply do not believe in rationality and reason as a more valid method of gaining understanding and knowledge (No I don’t, that is, outside of the rationality of the scriptures) than blind faith.(I don’t have “blind faith”. It is an insult to say that I do – though I’m sure you did not mean to insult me. All of my beliefs, like yours I imagine, are reasoned out fully. Just because I have come to a different conclution doesn’t mean that I have taken my belief on “blind faith”.) In this context, there is no sense in you arguing, because a successful argument has to be founded on these things. Why even *attempt* logic when you ultimately have no respect for it? (Wow – I have given you the opinion that I have no respect for logic? Sorry about that. But then you probably believe in logic, after all it is quite subjective isn't it?)

Sorry - I must make a correction - I misspoke when I said God will destroy the earth soon. I don't believe that it will be soon. I was thinking of his 2nd Coming – sorry. I believe it will be longer than a thousand years from now.

"The Bible says that God will destroy it, by his own hand, with fire and that it will come at his timing. - That timing has been explained in curtain ways that can very well be interpreted differently; but to say that man might destroy the Earth is wrong – (IF) you believe the Bible. There is no way to misinterpret this." I think to take it literally may well be to misinterpret it. If I say, "I'm dying for a shower," you would be misinterpreting me to think that I was literally on death's door, and you are applying the same over-literalist reading to your scriptures. Similar, the most serviceable interpretation I've heard of biblical texts is hinted at by people like Leonard Cohen. He only really uses them as metaphors, but they work much better in this context - in many of his songs, the coming 'flood' or 'plague' or 'fires', or the world's end, is the time we are experiencing now - our certainties rocked, our comforts (in the form of secure identity and belief in our place in the Universe) being taken away. In many ways, it is the end of the world - it's the end of the old world. God's fires are revelations and self-examination. Simply put, you could choose to read prophecies about the 'end of the world' as prophecies that reflect what has already happened, and is happening now, rather than the planet exploding - which, in all likelihood, isn't going to happen until the human race are long gone. We use metaphorical ideas to illustrate points clearly all the time today - why wouldn't God do the same? "Men who burn with desire for one another" - you don't think they're actually on fire, do you? "All of my beliefs, like yours I imagine, are reasoned out fully." They aren't. That's the point. Your beliefs are based on faith, not reason. There is a notable difference between trying to use reason to justify your beliefs after you have already decided on them, and using reason to *reach* your beliefs, and you are firmly in the former category. "But then you probably believe in logic, after all it is quite subjective isn't it." Logic isn't subjective, no.

"All of my beliefs, like yours I imagine, are reasoned out fully." They aren't. That's the point. Your beliefs are based on faith, not reason. There is a notable difference between trying to use reason to justify your beliefs after you have already decided on them, and using reason to *reach* your beliefs, and you are firmly in the former category. So you believe that faith is something that cannot be reasoned?

Blimey... It's like arguing with a revolutionary communist. Even the slightest hint of contention and you're bourgeois. You simply cannot win.

"We use metaphorical ideas to illustrate points clearly all the time today - why wouldn't God do the same?" Not really sure of the relevance of this. If God existed and was the creator of the world and everything, God might conceivably do anything for any reason. There's very little scope for meaningful discussion on logic and science between people with such wildly different starting points as you and Paul K. You can't logically prove that God doesn't exist and didn't create everything, you can't logically prove that he does exist and did create everything. I don't believe any explanations of scientific phenomena involving God because I don't believe in God. The whole concept of science as a 'theory', rather than the process of working out how things work, is religious. Outside of religion, it's completely meaningless.

AAAARRRRGGGHHHHH!!!! Okay, I snapped first. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Clearly, even though the Bible isn't internally consistent, every single part of it is literally true, even the bits that conflict with earlier bits. Premillenial Dispensationalism is far from mainstream - but if you tend to move in circles of likeminded individuals, you probably have an exaggerated sense of its popularity. A lot of PD stems from a hysterical fear of death - the idea of being 'raptured' straight from Earth to Heaven, sans messy corporeal death, is very comforting to many, despite the fact it's based on a skewed literalist reading of scripture. And you *still* haven't responded to the central point - Climate Change isn't necessarily about destroying the Earth, just making it a truly horrible place to live. God may come along and destroy it later, sure - but does that mean it's okay to crap all over His gift to us now?

Just a few words from the My Lord Bill Hicks: "Your beliefs are just that. They’re how you were taught and raised. That doesn’t make ‘em real. That’s why I always recommend a psychedelic experience, ‘cos it does make you realise that everything you learned is just learned and not necessarily true."

Sorry I haven't had time to reply fully as I've been out all night at my meeting of 'Infidels Anonymous'. I admitted I am powerless over heresy. Today our Secretary asked me whether I was prepared to surrender and accept an absolutely literal translation of the Bible. I was unable to do so since I am still struggling to accept one particular semi-colon halfway through Jeremiah. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net