What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?
it seems to seem to my my that
dawkin's chief perspectives
provide good true and beautiful examples
of a 4th grader
who thinks heez a 3rd grader
who picks on 2nd graders
for acting like 1st graders
<_<
and well..
perhaps worse is how he doesnt seem to believe in 5th graders ...
let alone high school
or even worse
...halloween
...or good ole saint nick
seems heez believed heez been in 3rd grade for quite some time for his age now
...when 5th grade is already shining from around the bend
i honestly wonder if he'll ever believe in 5th graders
or if he'll keep mistaking them for 1st and 2nd grader graders
its like he's partially tone-deaf, lacks melody, is highly specialized,
and is in serious need of a translator after having gone deep into foreign territory
i can only hope he at least adjusts something vital during his remaining days on earth
such as where he seems to overcompensate to avoid such things as all this obvious emptiness
while also overlooking and/or ignoring certain wide fields of elephants of data and experience
aside from all that...
i think and feel and believe that vast portions of what he says and writes
I enjoyed this presentation very much. I like Dawkins, and not just because he's eloquent and quite charming, but that helps. He's far more convincing and, really, to the point than Bertram Russel was (Why I Am Not a Christian)
Russel may have made a good counterpoint for C.S. Lewis, but Dawkins is much more sophisticated.... golly be... in counterpoint to, say, NT Wright.
Nevertheless, smart guys don't have it all, and Dawkins demonstrates that quite neatly. He does such a good job, but he's being listened to not only by his fellow classmates, but to sons and friends of God. God bless the Liberty U students, but I have to admit they weren't very effective!
Thanks for the comments, guys. I hope some atheists/agnostics and other Christians chime in.
Hey, Dan, you still haven't followed up on the comments to the last discussion you started.
I was interested in the clips after reading Todd and cman's comments, but that's over an hour of stuff - can ya give a gal a synopsis of what you're most interested in discussing? Are you interested in a discussion? What do you think of what you posted? Start the discussion and give me something other than two long clips and I'll play.
Hi Belle. I see we're posting at the same time, so scroll up.
I know I left you hangin' on the Wright thread. Honestly, I'm still absorbing the article myself. I promise to get to it some day, and I will shoot you a PM when I do. Started this one because it's a no-brainer to me. On the Wright thread, I have to THINK, and PRAY.
edit: I would suggest you just listen to the first 34 min (skip the prof introducting him... 3:20). It's very interesting. I think you'd love it, maybe even more than I did. I'm sure your comments would be interesting, too. Please come out and play!
You can do better than that, can't you? I mean, first you try to dispell any crediblity in Dawkin's arguments with a simple wave of the hand and deeming them all simply "memes". Then, you stoop even lower and just start name-calling "Dawkins is a big pee-pee head!"
How about addressing his actual arguments? Feh...
ADan,
Though I'm far from being a real student of Bertrand Russell, I've heard that his intellect suffered a great deal from his attempt at distilling all knowledge into a mathematical formula ("Pincipia Mathematica"), or whatever it was he was trying to do with that. I guess the monumental effort really took a toll on him and - to a very real extent - broke him. All the same, I've enjoyed a lot of his work. It's so refreshing to think without religious blinders being imposed.
It's been a long time since I read it, but my recollection of it is that it was, well, petty. Maybe it was more substantial in the time it was written? Dunno...
I love it when we are willing to look for truth everywhere which you have with open arms to see what some might say
For a minute I had believed I was hearding VPW going after a differ group to sale a new book
I wish I was there because I would of said to him "So Mr Richard Dawkins you believe Love is a Delusion and you do not love anybody because in the name of love people have killed one another and the evil acts done because of love are endless many books everything you said about God can be said about love"
Something that is distinct from the concept of God. Ie., you don't need to be a theist in order to love. An atheist mother can love her children to where she would fiercely defend them from harm. An atheist citizen can love his country, so that he signs up and risks his life fighting for his country. An atheist member of his community can (and does) contribute to the betterment of said community.
Hope that helps show you but a small example of what you're asking about. :B)
GarthP2000 - everything Mr Richard Dawkins said about God using the bible in the first part of his video can be said about love using many books about love
GarthP2000 - his reason is weak because love is a Delusion by his reasons but I bet he has some love ones but I did enjoy listening to him as you may have my friend
I posted the lecture/reading because I think Dawkins is an important voice in the 21st century conversation, an elegant exegete of postmodern natural philosophy, certainly worthy of the lecture position at the women's college.
The Enlightenment brought a spirit of hope into the world where man felt "finally" that he could dispense with the superstitious notions of God. Newton never got there, and neither did Pascal. The founders of the USA never got there, but there were broad advances in philosophy, math and science that both unlocked mysteries, such as germ warfare, and brought even more wondrous questions to the fore. As a student, Dawkins finally "got it" when he understood truly what Darwin's theory was all about. I like how honest he is in regard to First Cause (I don't think that comes out in the clip... I must have heard that in some of the interviews with him that I've heard) and in the limits of science.
The political experiment that became the USA and continued progress in the sciences furthered man's hope that he would be able to address the problems of his world. Darwin was a huge player. At the dawn of the 20th century, the first world war broke out and suddenly and horribly "the world" realized that we still had much to learn. Many had to take a look at history once again. The popular author H.G. Wells wrote a book called An Outline of History that was wildly sucessful around that time. We needed another world war and Einstein and Freud to futher cement some hard truths in our souls, and now we have the Nobel laureate Al Gore (with his multitude of scientists as co-winners) finally addressing what Rachel Carson started, and what Joni Mitchell knew in the 70's.
Hey farmer farmer, put away the DDT, now. Give me spots on my apples, but leave me the birds and the bees.
Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone?
We can do it. Come on people! And please THINK before you breed animals!
Something that is distinct from the concept of God. Ie., you don't need to be a theist in order to love. An atheist mother can love her children to where she would fiercely defend them from harm. An atheist citizen can love his country, so that he signs up and risks his life fighting for his country. An atheist member of his community can (and does) contribute to the betterment of said community.
I doubt the doctrine that says that all men are not created in the image of God.... VPW's take was only those who were "born again" were. Likewise, the idea that only those who are "saved" can love (agapeo) is a crock, and easily disproved from the Scriptures. Garth is right. An atheist is quite capable of love, and I'd say the ratio of love coming from the atheistic community is about the same as that from the confessing church. Just the GSC sampling could show that.
But I also think that Jesus was the ultimate expression of love.
He was a life-giver, not a life-taker.
He was not only the author and finisher of faith, but also of love.
“In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. Not as Cain, [who] was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous. Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you. We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not [his] brother abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. Hereby perceive we the love [of God], because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down [our] lives for the brethren.
But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels [of compassion] from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.”
(1Jo 3:10-19 AV)
song by FFH:
How wide is Your love
That You would stretch Your arms
And go around the world
And why for me would a Savior’s cry be heard
I don’t know
Why You went where I was meant to go
I don’t know
Why You love me so
Those were my nails
That was my crown
That pierced Your hands and your brow
Those were my thorns
Those were my scorns
Those were my tears that fell down
And just as You said it would be
You did it all for me
After You counted the cost
You took my shame, my blame
On my cross
How deep is Your grace
That you could see my need
And chose to take my place
And then for me, these words I’d hear You say
Father no
Forgive them for they know not what they do
I will go
Because I love them so
A case could be made that Jesus was the penultimate in love, for he said that those who believed on him would do the works he did, and greater works than those. And Garth described only three examples of how some atheists do the works of Jesus. I contend that those who truly believe on Jesus Christ will do those works, if not greater, but that does not exclude the possibility of those who say they do not believe to do them. Personal sacrifice is built into us as a result of our being created in the image of God. The cross is the focal point of all history, and the only cause of our hope that the world will be made right.
...the lion shall lay with the lamb, and a child shall lead them
(That's William Penn, the Quaker (and courageous Christian, as George Fox was) meeting with the American Indians, on the left side of the picture.)
yes GarthP2000 is right you do not need anything to love all can love
what I was pointing out is Mr Richard Dawkins reasons in excerpts from The God Delusion intro... for saying God is a Delusion could be said about love
so from the way he reasons things out I say he must believe that Love is a Delusion too
but that saids nothing about atheist because each one may have differ reasons but Mr Richard Dawkins has put his in open
thanks for the love and holy kiss blowing back at me
its about love that people believe in if a men labels him self or her self a atheist that means nothing but that love they show in life overhides any label
I say if we believe in living love that is enough because God is love because does not look at your outward words but what in your heart and if its love you are saved
its not what we stand for or against in life but whether we live love or not
so yes I mock his reasons but that does not mean he is talking for all atheist's his book gives his reason only
but if one agress with him I just showing that the same things can be said about love and many other things
yes "Dawkins is an important voice in the 21st century conversation, an elegant exegete of postmodern natural philosophy," just like we need both sides of coins we need differ views to either show us misstakes or help us make our views clearer thanks
Something that is distinct from the concept of God. Ie., you don't need to be a theist in order to love. An atheist mother can love her children to where she would fiercely defend them from harm. An atheist citizen can love his country, so that he signs up and risks his life fighting for his country. An atheist member of his community can (and does) contribute to the betterment of said community.
Hope that helps show you but a small example of what you're asking about. :B)
I didn't think an atheist don't or can't love. Wasn't the question. An atheist can hate too.
What is it?
Do we just think we have free will/ability to love? Motherhood love is just part of genetic "programming". Love of country could just be an emphasis to part of the group (like any herding or pack animal). Animals appear to love, and kill for fun.
It's like defining good and evil. Love is just a word.
Which reminds me, the lion may lay down with the lamb,
But the lamb probably isn't going to get much sleep
It might be said that the lion won't get much to eat, too, George! But these are symbols of the promised reality.
Roy, I understood you well the first time. Thank you for adding more to the conversation, too. You are like an apostle to me. Professor Dawkins will be very surprised when he sees the love God has for him. I think we'll all be surprised. In the new life, I will be happy to extend a hand of fellowship to this presently confused professor.
Bolshevik, great point, but love is not merely a word when it takes on flesh and blood.
Bolshevik, great point, but love is not merely a word when it takes on flesh and blood.
Don't know what you mean.
Dawkins connects religious folks' "experiences" with their genetic make-up. Some have it, some don't. Those who don't tend to be persecuted and even eliminated. Thus the majority of the human population is religious, (because of their biology).
Concepts like love and loyalty can be connected to some evolutionary advantage for a species. They were advantageous for the human species for a time. That doesn't mean they always will be. If the supernatural is an illusion, why not our sense of free will, love, humanity etc. Why can't they be delusions too?
I actually have a great amount of disrespect for this man. It has to do with the things he says in "ignorance" and he tries to be real cute about stereotyping Christians. He also insults the God of the old testament in a manner that goes well beyond a simple need to digress.
I have read his book the Blind Watchmaker and have a 9 page article on it. I am working on some stat calculations so I have yet to post it.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
12
23
30
Popular Days
Oct 19
23
Oct 16
19
Oct 17
17
Oct 23
16
Top Posters In This Topic
sky4it 22 posts
cman 12 posts
Bolshevik 23 posts
anotherDan 30 posts
Popular Days
Oct 19 2007
23 posts
Oct 16 2007
19 posts
Oct 17 2007
17 posts
Oct 23 2007
16 posts
Posted Images
sirguessalot
holy kiss yalls
i wanna start by telling you how much i enjoy reading how you are coming to be with all this hypertext anotherdan
you are certainly teaching me certain things..and thanks for such a wide open opening
a few things...
to be clear...
i'm no expert on nothing...
but if i may offer a confession...
i find it darn near impossible to speak simply enough to the dominant dawkins memes
except in codes other than the ones they already accept...like most memes
whenever i try...the meme feeds back in ways such as...
- a deer in the headlights
- a poke in the eye
- or white noise
:huh:
i dunno
from The Emptiness of Theology...
it seems to seem to my my that
dawkin's chief perspectives
provide good true and beautiful examples
of a 4th grader
who thinks heez a 3rd grader
who picks on 2nd graders
for acting like 1st graders
<_<
and well..
perhaps worse is how he doesnt seem to believe in 5th graders ...
let alone high school
or even worse
...halloween
...or good ole saint nick
seems heez believed heez been in 3rd grade for quite some time for his age now
...when 5th grade is already shining from around the bend
i honestly wonder if he'll ever believe in 5th graders
or if he'll keep mistaking them for 1st and 2nd grader graders
its like he's partially tone-deaf, lacks melody, is highly specialized,
and is in serious need of a translator after having gone deep into foreign territory
i can only hope he at least adjusts something vital during his remaining days on earth
such as where he seems to overcompensate to avoid such things as all this obvious emptiness
while also overlooking and/or ignoring certain wide fields of elephants of data and experience
aside from all that...
i think and feel and believe that vast portions of what he says and writes
are quite true and right
:mellow:
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
ahhh yes, the old saying
every man is right in their own eyes
if we can see through another's
wouldn't that be somethin
of course its done a lot
but misinterpreted sometimes
but patience will have it's work
and endurance will reap many fruits
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
wonderful comments
I enjoyed this presentation very much. I like Dawkins, and not just because he's eloquent and quite charming, but that helps. He's far more convincing and, really, to the point than Bertram Russel was (Why I Am Not a Christian)
Russel may have made a good counterpoint for C.S. Lewis, but Dawkins is much more sophisticated.... golly be... in counterpoint to, say, NT Wright.
Nevertheless, smart guys don't have it all, and Dawkins demonstrates that quite neatly. He does such a good job, but he's being listened to not only by his fellow classmates, but to sons and friends of God. God bless the Liberty U students, but I have to admit they weren't very effective!
Thanks for the comments, guys. I hope some atheists/agnostics and other Christians chime in.
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Hey, Dan, you still haven't followed up on the comments to the last discussion you started.
I was interested in the clips after reading Todd and cman's comments, but that's over an hour of stuff - can ya give a gal a synopsis of what you're most interested in discussing? Are you interested in a discussion? What do you think of what you posted? Start the discussion and give me something other than two long clips and I'll play.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Hi Belle. I see we're posting at the same time, so scroll up.
I know I left you hangin' on the Wright thread. Honestly, I'm still absorbing the article myself. I promise to get to it some day, and I will shoot you a PM when I do. Started this one because it's a no-brainer to me. On the Wright thread, I have to THINK, and PRAY.
edit: I would suggest you just listen to the first 34 min (skip the prof introducting him... 3:20). It's very interesting. I think you'd love it, maybe even more than I did. I'm sure your comments would be interesting, too. Please come out and play!
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
C'mon SirG,
You can do better than that, can't you? I mean, first you try to dispell any crediblity in Dawkin's arguments with a simple wave of the hand and deeming them all simply "memes". Then, you stoop even lower and just start name-calling "Dawkins is a big pee-pee head!"
How about addressing his actual arguments? Feh...
ADan,
Though I'm far from being a real student of Bertrand Russell, I've heard that his intellect suffered a great deal from his attempt at distilling all knowledge into a mathematical formula ("Pincipia Mathematica"), or whatever it was he was trying to do with that. I guess the monumental effort really took a toll on him and - to a very real extent - broke him. All the same, I've enjoyed a lot of his work. It's so refreshing to think without religious blinders being imposed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
George, are you saying that Why I Am Not a Christian was "not his best work"? If you are, I agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Yeah, I guess that's what I'm saying.
It's been a long time since I read it, but my recollection of it is that it was, well, petty. Maybe it was more substantial in the time it was written? Dunno...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I pay my taxes b/c I fear the possibility of going to jail if I don't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved anotherDan
God loves you my dear friend
WOW what a subject you have shared with me
I love it when we are willing to look for truth everywhere which you have with open arms to see what some might say
For a minute I had believed I was hearding VPW going after a differ group to sale a new book
I wish I was there because I would of said to him "So Mr Richard Dawkins you believe Love is a Delusion and you do not love anybody because in the name of love people have killed one another and the evil acts done because of love are endless many books everything you said about God can be said about love"
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
that's interesting Roy,
how do atheists view love?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Something that is distinct from the concept of God. Ie., you don't need to be a theist in order to love. An atheist mother can love her children to where she would fiercely defend them from harm. An atheist citizen can love his country, so that he signs up and risks his life fighting for his country. An atheist member of his community can (and does) contribute to the betterment of said community.
Hope that helps show you but a small example of what you're asking about. :B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved Bolshevik and GarthP2000
God loves you my dear friends
Bolshevik - yes how do they my friend view love
GarthP2000 - everything Mr Richard Dawkins said about God using the bible in the first part of his video can be said about love using many books about love
GarthP2000 - his reason is weak because love is a Delusion by his reasons but I bet he has some love ones but I did enjoy listening to him as you may have my friend
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
I posted the lecture/reading because I think Dawkins is an important voice in the 21st century conversation, an elegant exegete of postmodern natural philosophy, certainly worthy of the lecture position at the women's college.
The Enlightenment brought a spirit of hope into the world where man felt "finally" that he could dispense with the superstitious notions of God. Newton never got there, and neither did Pascal. The founders of the USA never got there, but there were broad advances in philosophy, math and science that both unlocked mysteries, such as germ warfare, and brought even more wondrous questions to the fore. As a student, Dawkins finally "got it" when he understood truly what Darwin's theory was all about. I like how honest he is in regard to First Cause (I don't think that comes out in the clip... I must have heard that in some of the interviews with him that I've heard) and in the limits of science.
The political experiment that became the USA and continued progress in the sciences furthered man's hope that he would be able to address the problems of his world. Darwin was a huge player. At the dawn of the 20th century, the first world war broke out and suddenly and horribly "the world" realized that we still had much to learn. Many had to take a look at history once again. The popular author H.G. Wells wrote a book called An Outline of History that was wildly sucessful around that time. We needed another world war and Einstein and Freud to futher cement some hard truths in our souls, and now we have the Nobel laureate Al Gore (with his multitude of scientists as co-winners) finally addressing what Rachel Carson started, and what Joni Mitchell knew in the 70's.
Hey farmer farmer, put away the DDT, now. Give me spots on my apples, but leave me the birds and the bees.
Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone?
We can do it. Come on people! And please THINK before you breed animals!
edit:
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way, Roy
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
I doubt the doctrine that says that all men are not created in the image of God.... VPW's take was only those who were "born again" were. Likewise, the idea that only those who are "saved" can love (agapeo) is a crock, and easily disproved from the Scriptures. Garth is right. An atheist is quite capable of love, and I'd say the ratio of love coming from the atheistic community is about the same as that from the confessing church. Just the GSC sampling could show that.
But I also think that Jesus was the ultimate expression of love.
He was a life-giver, not a life-taker.
He was not only the author and finisher of faith, but also of love.
song by FFH:
A case could be made that Jesus was the penultimate in love, for he said that those who believed on him would do the works he did, and greater works than those. And Garth described only three examples of how some atheists do the works of Jesus. I contend that those who truly believe on Jesus Christ will do those works, if not greater, but that does not exclude the possibility of those who say they do not believe to do them. Personal sacrifice is built into us as a result of our being created in the image of God. The cross is the focal point of all history, and the only cause of our hope that the world will be made right.
(That's William Penn, the Quaker (and courageous Christian, as George Fox was) meeting with the American Indians, on the left side of the picture.)
Belle,
I responded to you on the Wright thread.
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
But the lamb probably isn't going to get much sleep
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved anotherDan
God loves you my dear friend
yes GarthP2000 is right you do not need anything to love all can love
what I was pointing out is Mr Richard Dawkins reasons in excerpts from The God Delusion intro... for saying God is a Delusion could be said about love
so from the way he reasons things out I say he must believe that Love is a Delusion too
but that saids nothing about atheist because each one may have differ reasons but Mr Richard Dawkins has put his in open
thanks for the love and holy kiss blowing back at me
its about love that people believe in if a men labels him self or her self a atheist that means nothing but that love they show in life overhides any label
I say if we believe in living love that is enough because God is love because does not look at your outward words but what in your heart and if its love you are saved
its not what we stand for or against in life but whether we live love or not
so yes I mock his reasons but that does not mean he is talking for all atheist's his book gives his reason only
but if one agress with him I just showing that the same things can be said about love and many other things
yes "Dawkins is an important voice in the 21st century conversation, an elegant exegete of postmodern natural philosophy," just like we need both sides of coins we need differ views to either show us misstakes or help us make our views clearer thanks
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I didn't think an atheist don't or can't love. Wasn't the question. An atheist can hate too.
What is it?
Do we just think we have free will/ability to love? Motherhood love is just part of genetic "programming". Love of country could just be an emphasis to part of the group (like any herding or pack animal). Animals appear to love, and kill for fun.
It's like defining good and evil. Love is just a word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
It might be said that the lion won't get much to eat, too, George! But these are symbols of the promised reality.
Roy, I understood you well the first time. Thank you for adding more to the conversation, too. You are like an apostle to me. Professor Dawkins will be very surprised when he sees the love God has for him. I think we'll all be surprised. In the new life, I will be happy to extend a hand of fellowship to this presently confused professor.
Bolshevik, great point, but love is not merely a word when it takes on flesh and blood.
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Don't know what you mean.
Dawkins connects religious folks' "experiences" with their genetic make-up. Some have it, some don't. Those who don't tend to be persecuted and even eliminated. Thus the majority of the human population is religious, (because of their biology).
Concepts like love and loyalty can be connected to some evolutionary advantage for a species. They were advantageous for the human species for a time. That doesn't mean they always will be. If the supernatural is an illusion, why not our sense of free will, love, humanity etc. Why can't they be delusions too?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Exactly. Very good observation.
Merrily merrily merrily merrily...
Richard Dawkins asks, "what if" and so do I
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Another Dan:
I actually have a great amount of disrespect for this man. It has to do with the things he says in "ignorance" and he tries to be real cute about stereotyping Christians. He also insults the God of the old testament in a manner that goes well beyond a simple need to digress.
I have read his book the Blind Watchmaker and have a 9 page article on it. I am working on some stat calculations so I have yet to post it.
Anyway, take it easy another dan.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
sky4, I hear you loud and clear. 10-4, my friend
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved anotherDan
God loves you my dear friend
that blesses me that I was clear the first because some times I am not
yes he will be "surprised when he sees the love God has for him"
I would too " be happy to extend a hand of fellowship to this presently confused professor"
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.