Panendeism.org

For the Promotion of Reason Based Spirituality...
 
HomeGalleryFAQSearchRegisterMemberlistUsergroupsLog in

Share | 
 

 A WORD TO THE AGNOSTIC

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2
AuthorMessage
Helium



Number of posts : 540
Registration date : 2007-09-14

PostSubject: Re: A WORD TO THE AGNOSTIC   Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:34 am

Quote :
Technically, I'm a Deist - and I don't believe in an afterlife, and I don't believe in the "consciousness" of spirit either. I think that when we die we are gone for good. You only get one ride on the Merry-Go-Round.

Sounds like how I would categorize an atheist. Not that it matters. You abviously have highly articulated and thoughtful insight, whatever label is put on it.

Quote :
The funny thing is I don't necassarily disagree with the atheist point of view. I think I just define the word "nothing" differently then they do.

Well I think we've long agreed that deists are generally atheists as far as this universe goes, i.e., no dividine intervention. Deists, I suppose, by default, however, believe there is something more than the brief presence of life forms in this universe, whether that be in a panendeistic model where the collective conscious will resolve itself or in my more traditional model where the individual is preserved beyond death, whether that be intact or at least as a distinct memory in the collective conscious.

My bottom line is that this life matters.

Quote :
I have recently been thinking that it isn't our self-awareness that is important, but our awareness of our connection to the Cosmic Mind.

Self-awareness is (perhaps) the first step to enlightenment. If one stops there, one risks becoming too self-aware, and blind to the oneness of all.
Certainly we are all as important as the next person, which immediately brings guilt pangs to me that we should be doing more to help the millions in this world who desparately need our help.

Maybe we should start a deist charity?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Paul Anthony

avatar

Number of posts : 253
Age : 70
Location: : Gilbert, Arizona
Registration date : 2007-10-07

PostSubject: Re: A WORD TO THE AGNOSTIC   Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:52 am

Helium wrote:



Certainly we are all as important as the next person, which immediately brings guilt pangs to me that we should be doing more to help the millions in this world who desparately need our help.

Maybe we should start a deist charity?

Ah, here is where you - the modern liberal - and I - the classic liberal - will part ways! You and I are likely to disagree on the effectiveness of "charity".

Some people assuage their guilt by feeding the poor. I prefer to teach the poor how to feed themselves. Wink
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.voltairepress.com
Aaron
Admin
avatar

Number of posts : 1918
Age : 46
Location: : Connecticut
Registration date : 2007-01-24

PostSubject: Re: A WORD TO THE AGNOSTIC   Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:30 am

Helium wrote:
Quote :
The funny thing is I don't necassarily disagree with the atheist point of view. I think I just define the word "nothing" differently then they do.

Well I think we've long agreed that deists are generally atheists as far as this universe goes, i.e., no dividine intervention. Deists, I suppose, by default, however, believe there is something more than the brief presence of life forms in this universe, whether that be in a panendeistic model where the collective conscious will resolve itself or in my more traditional model where the individual is preserved beyond death, whether that be intact or at least as a distinct memory in the collective conscious.

My bottom line is that this life matters.

I agree.

Helium wrote:
Maybe we should start a deist charity?

Not a bad idea, but then again there are plenty of other non-affiliated charities out there as well that one can donate to. I'd recommend donating one's time to a cause if you can spare it.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich" ~ Warren Zevon
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://panendeism.web.officelive.com/default.aspx
Aaron
Admin
avatar

Number of posts : 1918
Age : 46
Location: : Connecticut
Registration date : 2007-01-24

PostSubject: Re: A WORD TO THE AGNOSTIC   Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:32 am

Paul Anthony wrote:
Helium wrote:



Certainly we are all as important as the next person, which immediately brings guilt pangs to me that we should be doing more to help the millions in this world who desparately need our help.

Maybe we should start a deist charity?

Ah, here is where you - the modern liberal - and I - the classic liberal - will part ways! You and I are likely to disagree on the effectiveness of "charity".

Some people assuage their guilt by feeding the poor. I prefer to teach the poor how to feed themselves. Wink

I think they're both forms of charity and they're both important.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich" ~ Warren Zevon
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://panendeism.web.officelive.com/default.aspx
Helium



Number of posts : 540
Age : 57
Location: : Toronto
Registration date : 2007-09-14

PostSubject: Re: A WORD TO THE AGNOSTIC   Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:14 pm

Quote :
Not a bad idea, but then again there are plenty of other non-affiliated charities out there as well that one can donate to. I'd recommend donating one's time to a cause if you can spare it.

Yeah, you're probably right. I suppose the only advantage to putting part of one's volunteer or charitable resources under a deist umbrella would be because one wanted to associate deism with charitable and volunteer efforts. But perhaps that would require a deist organization on a different level, an official church, fellowship, service club, loose charitable group or whatever.

Quote :
Some people assuage their guilt by feeding the poor. I prefer to teach the poor how to feed themselves.

I think they're both forms of charity and they're both important.
Yeah, you're both right.

Obviously there are cases in the world where if they don't get access to food, medication and shelter immediately they sure as heck ain't gonna be able to learn how to provide for themselves. Once the emergency is taken care of, then PA is obviously right that they must be helped to help themselves.
I'm reading a good book on the subject now called ...

The end of poverty

by jeffrey sachs
Back to top Go down
View user profile
kambrielle



Number of posts : 3
Registration date : 2009-02-03

PostSubject: Re: A WORD TO THE AGNOSTIC   Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:10 pm

Just because He (It?) doesn't interfere by no means implies that He has no interest in us, just the opposite.

I don't feel like I have enough knowledge about this whole subject to really comment on anything deep yet, BUT, I would just like to say that I find it great you can acknowledge that God might just be an IT. I have a hard time saying HE or SHE about God...That falls back into the common need to give God a gender, which I am kind of rejecting right now. geek
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Gnomon
Moderator


Number of posts : 660
Location: : Birmingham, Alabama
Registration date : 2007-09-30

PostSubject: Re: A WORD TO THE AGNOSTIC   Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:41 pm

kambrielle wrote:
Just because He (It?) doesn't interfere by no means implies that He has no interest in us, just the opposite.

I don't feel like I have enough knowledge about this whole subject to really comment on anything deep yet, BUT, I would just like to say that I find it great you can acknowledge that God might just be an IT. I have a hard time saying HE or SHE about God...That falls back into the common need to give God a gender, which I am kind of rejecting right now. geek
In my recent essays I have coined some new words to serve as pronouns referring to a Being who is beyond gender: "S/he", "He/r", etc. Somehow "IT" just doesn't seem to fit an Eternal Entity who is all-encompassing, including male & female & other.

Perhaps another solution would be an analogy to the Mrs., Miss, Ms. contraction : He, She, E. (standing for Eternal). "E's gonna get you for that blasphemy!".

BTW I read somewhere that in Hebrew, the world pronounced "she" means "he" in English, and the word pronounced "he" means "she". The point being, it's just a meaningless phoneme until you put it into context. For a while I just referred to G*d as "George" to avoid upsetting god-fearing Atheists. And I haven't been struck by any lightning bolts . . . yet. Twisted Evil
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.enformationism.info/
TXM

avatar

Number of posts : 13
Registration date : 2009-04-13

PostSubject: Re: A WORD TO THE AGNOSTIC   Thu Apr 16, 2009 8:50 pm

I fall into the camp that believes that we ARE God. That the God that existed before the Big Bang exists now in the ever changing form of our Universe ...of wich we are a part.

I think that God cares very much about the human condition.

If there were no living organisms on an asteroid, and some calamitous cosmic event happened to that barren rock, certainly God would not care in a way that we could recognize.

However, if the same calamitous event befell the earth, 6 billion people would be horrified. Who is horrified? God is, because we are God. Who is God horrified for? For each human life that percieves the catastrophy.

Who saves the people from the calamity? Maybe no one does.

Why not? Maybe it is because God does not exist in a perfect, omnipitent form. Maybe the price of becoming the Universe is leaving some things to chance. Maybe God is going through a period of transformation?

If, on the other hand, people figure out a creative way to save all those lives ...well maybe that is God's direct intervention. And also the point of all this existence stuff.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Aaron
Admin
avatar

Number of posts : 1918
Age : 46
Location: : Connecticut
Registration date : 2007-01-24

PostSubject: Re: A WORD TO THE AGNOSTIC   Thu Apr 16, 2009 9:10 pm

I agree with many aspects of that perspective.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich" ~ Warren Zevon
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://panendeism.web.officelive.com/default.aspx
TXM

avatar

Number of posts : 13
Registration date : 2009-04-13

PostSubject: Re: A WORD TO THE AGNOSTIC   Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:47 am

I'm going to use Gnomon's "E" pronoun for God for this post.

I was thinking about my last post, and I got into an argument with myself:

According to me (above); we are E. When you and I experience or express love it is E's love that is being expressed. Cool thought, huh? The love of the Universe is expressed through me, and my actions and feelings. I mean where else is it? Is there love on the moon? Nope. Love in a quasar? Nope. Do bacteria love? Does granite love?

1) E created the Universe

2) I am a product of the Universe

3) I love

4) Therefore the E's love is expressed through me.

But what happens when I do something bad? What does it mean when I hate? That also must be the hate of the Universe. What does that tell us about E?

I've never really been troubled by the Christian notion that God is a separate entity from the Universe, and that He is a being of pure love, or agape. I see light and shadow in everything I've ever experienced, including good and evil within my own heart.

Beyond good and evil (these aren't the only two forces in the world) there are things like apathy, curiosity, serenity... According to my point of view (above) these are also manifestations of E expressed through me.

I get's tricky real quick!

I think a lot of people get stuck with a certain stereotype of an omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving God. But if you consider some other understanding of God, like the notion of E; well then you've got a whole 'nother can of worms on your hands!

Thoughts?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Uriah

avatar

Number of posts : 536
Age : 44
Location: : Tucson, AZ
Registration date : 2007-10-11

PostSubject: Re: A WORD TO THE AGNOSTIC   Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:14 am

Emotions are a biological phenomenon, regulated by a fairly complex system of hormones and physiology. I see no reason to assume E would experience anything akin to Human emotion.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Gnomon
Moderator


Number of posts : 660
Location: : Birmingham, Alabama
Registration date : 2007-09-30

PostSubject: Re: A WORD TO THE AGNOSTIC   Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:44 pm

Uriah wrote:
Emotions are a biological phenomenon, regulated by a fairly complex system of hormones and physiology. I see no reason to assume E would experience anything akin to Human emotion.

In order for the non-biological deity to experience human emotions, there would have to be a feedback loop, analogous to our nervous system. According to my Enformationism hypothesis, everything in this world is made of matter or energy, and those elements are made of even more basic Information (mind stuff). So E, being mind-sans-matter would be connected to our emotions (consciously experienced) by a direct cause & effect chain of information communication.

If the idea of matter constructed from immaterial information sounds goofy, it only requires a light-bulb in the head to turn-on and illuminate what has been there all along. Everything you know is information. The only thing you know is information. confused
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.enformationism.info/
TXM

avatar

Number of posts : 13
Registration date : 2009-04-13

PostSubject: Re: A WORD TO THE AGNOSTIC   Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:06 pm

Try this on on for size:

1) Emotions are a biological phenomenon.

2) Biological phenomenon are a phenomenon of organic materials.

3) Organic materials are a phenomenon of atomic particles.

4) Atomic particles are a phenomenon of quantum mechanics.

5) quantum mechanics are a phenomenon (perhaps) of E.

Therefore: Emotions are phenomenon of E (perhaps).

Why would there have to be an E that exists separately from these categories? "Out there somewhere" experiencing the Universe in some incomprehensible Deity way?

Why couldn't E experience human emotion?

Is not the complexity and beauty of our own human emotions as magnificent and awe inspiring as any other construct in the Universe?

Just because we are physically small beings, doesn't the sheer complexity of our existence stand as a triumph of E's manifestation?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Uriah

avatar

Number of posts : 536
Age : 44
Location: : Tucson, AZ
Registration date : 2007-10-11

PostSubject: Re: A WORD TO THE AGNOSTIC   Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:14 pm

Those are very good hypotheses - both of them.

Logically speaking, it makes sense - and if that be the case then we'll have to allow that E is not a purely rational being either, E is liable to be irrational and sometime deluded just like we Humans.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Paul Anthony

avatar

Number of posts : 253
Age : 70
Location: : Gilbert, Arizona
Registration date : 2007-10-07

PostSubject: Re: A WORD TO THE AGNOSTIC   Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:56 pm

TXM wrote:

Why would there have to be an E that exists separately from these categories? "Out there somewhere" experiencing the Universe in some incomprehensible Deity way?

Why couldn't E experience human emotion?


This touches on the biggest problem I've had with the Judeo-Christian concept of God as "love". If we assume God (or E) to be the creator of the physical universe, we must also credit E with the establishment of a wonderful system we call evolution. Evolution ensures the continuation of life. All of the possible mutations have an equal opportunity to survive if they are viable and useful to...the perpetuation of life. Where is the love in that? Evolution does not favor one mutation over another, or one species over another. Evolution did not choose the Jews as its favorite race, any more than it chose Homo Sapien as its favorite species. We could not survive without insects, bacteria, etc. so the creator, having created a biosphere that contains all forms of life that are interdependent upon one another can't have a favorite.

I do not profess to know the Mind of God. I can only glimpse E's intentions by observing It's creations. It would seem that God is the original equal opportunity employer, utilizing everything at It's disposal toward the continuation of life in general, and to ever-increasing awareness in those life forms. As evolution continues (and why should we think it has stopped?) something may arise that makes us seem primitive. Would God still love us then? Does God still love the amoeba?

Love is a human emotion, which humans have superimposed upon their gods for eons, but where is the evidence that E loves?
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.voltairepress.com
TXM

avatar

Number of posts : 13
Registration date : 2009-04-13

PostSubject: Re: A WORD TO THE AGNOSTIC   Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:38 pm

Paul wrote:
Love is a human emotion, which humans have superimposed upon their gods for eons, but where is the evidence that E loves?
A lot of my friends embrace a "Gaia" type new age philosophy, and they are fond of telling me that love is the background feild of existance from which everything else springs. The trees love us, the rocks love us and the amoebas love us. Furthermore, because of all this love, if you make a wish and give it to the Loving Universe, it will work hard to grant your wish.

This is a hard sell to an infantry soldier who has laid on the unforgiving rocks, without shade from a tree, suffering from a gut infested with amoebas Wink

You can make the argument that the Universe is Love; but you really have to twist your mind up to do it. I prefer Paul's notion that E created evolution.

But I differ in the idea that evolution does not favor one mutation over another. I mean, on a small scale, it is obvioulsy true that evolution is just a name for the fact that creatures that are able to reproduce and live more successfully out compete others.

But on a really really large scale, I think evolution does have a pattern. I think the forces of evolution consistently lead to beings of greater and greater complexity. From amoebas, to predators, to love to... etc, etc.

But also that there are fewer examples of each highler level magnitude of complexity.

That's evidence to me that E loves. It also tells me about the nature of love. That it is scarce and precious and fragile.
That it is easy to destroy but very, very hard to build up (ingredients for love: a whole planet, stir in evolution and bake under a gentle oven for 4 billion years).

No, I don't believe my Gaia-type friends. But I also don't believe that evolution is a neutral, directionless force.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Uriah

avatar

Number of posts : 536
Age : 44
Location: : Tucson, AZ
Registration date : 2007-10-11

PostSubject: Re: A WORD TO THE AGNOSTIC   Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:55 pm

Certainly love is an abstraction. Evolution occurs, and while it may be neutral I don't think it is without direction. Rather, I think its direction emerges as part of the process itself, an inherent order appears because because the universe is ordered. There need not be an external deity directing this process, or any grand schema being followed - the teleology is self-constructing.

Hence my problems with any philosophical supposition that posits E existed prior to the universe, I feel a true Panendeistic model points to the evolving universe as an emergent manifestation of an evolving E. Whether or not this E is conscious in the ways we humans are conscious (i.e. self reflective, sentient) is rather counter-intuitive, because we humans ourselves possess an evolving consciousness, both individually and collectively. I feel it is most reasonable, then, to assume E is the same, and that we are constituent parts of the greater whole of the emerging E-Consciousness.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Paul Anthony

avatar

Number of posts : 253
Age : 70
Location: : Gilbert, Arizona
Registration date : 2007-10-07

PostSubject: Re: A WORD TO THE AGNOSTIC   Sun Apr 19, 2009 2:40 pm

TXM wrote:


But I differ in the idea that evolution does not favor one mutation over another. I mean, on a small scale, it is obvioulsy true that evolution is just a name for the fact that creatures that are able to reproduce and live more successfully out compete others.

But on a really really large scale, I think evolution does have a pattern.

From the human perspective, the opposite appears to be true. There was an anti-war song from the 70's (I can't remember the name of it at the moment - help me out here) that says "from a distance you look like my friend, even though we are at war". The last line of the song is "God is watching us, from a distance".

I used to fly small, single engine aircraft. At cruising altitude, you could still make out details like streets and buildings but the people looked like ants. On our small scale, we notice the differences, but to the Observer on a macro scale, we would all appear very much the same.

TXM wrote:
I think the forces of evolution consistently lead to beings of greater and greater complexity. From amoebas, to predators, to love to... etc, etc.

I agree with that, and that's the main reason I believe there is a Cosmic Mind directing evolution, but just as pure science seeks answers without bias I believe Mind seeks complexity without caring if it develops in humans or cock roaches. Emotion is not necessary for the completion of the task. The goal is what is important, not who or what reaches that goal.

Our sense of self-awareness also comes with an unjustifiable sense of self-importance. We are born, we live and we die. During that short span, some of us become more enlightened than others of us. Some contribute more to the advancement of human knowledge than others. But whether or not any particular individual contributes more is not important in the grand scale of things - and there will likely not be a big "thank you for all you've done" waiting for us in some ethereal "heaven".

To use a military analogy, each soldier is important to the extent that there would be no army without them. But, the individual is not as important as the mission. To accomplish that mission, some will die. That is sad for that individual and for those who knew him, but at the end of the day it is not the individual's lot in life that matters. What matters is whether our army or theirs won the battle. Evolution is a battle to be won. There will be collateral damages.

Love is an evolutionary tool. Without it, ancient people would not have helped their fellow tribesmen survive. Without love of country, soldiers would not risk their lives for the greater good. Without love, mothers would not sacrifice for their children. But love is a tool for us. Evolution is not evidence of a greater love.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.voltairepress.com
Aaron
Admin
avatar

Number of posts : 1918
Age : 46
Location: : Connecticut
Registration date : 2007-01-24

PostSubject: Re: A WORD TO THE AGNOSTIC   Sun Apr 19, 2009 2:42 pm

Uriah wrote:
Certainly love is an abstraction. Evolution occurs, and while it may be neutral I don't think it is without direction. Rather, I think its direction emerges as part of the process itself, an inherent order appears because because the universe is ordered. There need not be an external deity directing this process, or any grand schema being followed - the teleology is self-constructing.

Hence my problems with any philosophical supposition that posits E existed prior to the universe, I feel a true Panendeistic model points to the evolving universe as an emergent manifestation of an evolving E. Whether or not this E is conscious in the ways we humans are conscious (i.e. self reflective, sentient) is rather counter-intuitive, because we humans ourselves possess an evolving consciousness, both individually and collectively. I feel it is most reasonable, then, to assume E is the same, and that we are constituent parts of the greater whole of the emerging E-Consciousness.

Very well said and I agree. I believe that god is evolving along with us.

Here's some more on that.
http://www.andrewcohen.org/media/video.asp?vm=beckwithDia

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich" ~ Warren Zevon
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://panendeism.web.officelive.com/default.aspx
Gnomon
Moderator


Number of posts : 660
Location: : Birmingham, Alabama
Registration date : 2007-09-30

PostSubject: Re: A WORD TO THE AGNOSTIC   Sun Apr 19, 2009 5:52 pm

Quote :

No, I don't believe my Gaia-type friends. But I also don't believe that evolution is a neutral, directionless force.

I think the original pragmatic scientific Gaia concept, of the whole Earth as a biological organism, has been romanticized by New Agers into a psychological being. They seem to envision Gaia as a great Earth-Mother caring for her beloved offspring. Yet my own interpretation of the idea is more technical, and less sentimental. I agree that this physical planet is metaphorically a single organism in the same sense that my own body is an independently-functional organism. And within the whole of each organism is a continuum of inter-connected sub-organisms (holons). Yet, I have no reason to believe that a single cell in my body is conscious of other cells, in such a way that the cells can love each other. LIkewise, I have seen no indication that the Earth, as a whole, is conscious of my personal existence, or cares whether I live or die.

Similarly, I have seen no evidence that G*D, envisioned as the Cosmic organism of which I am a part, is emotionally involved with my personal well-being. And yet, there may be another kind of love that includes me, without singling me out. For example, although I "love" my little toe, I would readily sacrifice that cute crooked appendage to save my whole Self. Christians often distinguish between the Erotic (personalized) Love of humans, and the Agape (holistic) Love of God. So it seems much more likely that Gaia and God, if they are capable of love at all, would be limited to the Agape kind.

Speculation Warning!

And yet, according to my Enformationism hypothesis, based on 21st century science, everything in this physical world is composed of molecular matter, which is essentially vibrating energy, which is ultimately conceptual information (In-Form-Action : the ability to create forms---to conceive). Thus it would seem that every tiny part of the universe is continuously connected with the whole by a cosmic web of communication channels. Which suggests that you and I may be equivalent to the imaginary "creatures" in the role-playing SIMS game [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sims ]. In this case though, the Creator is Real, and we are merely Virtual entities. By extension of the analogy, the Creator is not connected to He/r creatures via indirect mechanical/electronic linkages, but by direct mind-to-mind hook-ups. So, if G*D chooses to "jack-in" to one of He/r alter egos, S/he could directly experience Love, and Sorrow, and all other human emotions---S/he could literally become You.

End of Conjecture.

Please don't take these musings as a description of the ultimate Reality above mundane reality. This is just a what-if, fictional story to illustrate a metaphysical concept that is actually beyond our limited, space-time imagination. If taken literally, it would be more like the Mother Earth bed-time story than the Gaia scientific hypothesis. But if taken as a philosophical metaphor it might shed some light on the perennial question of God's Love, and our relationship, if any. Bed-time stories and cultural myths are appropriate for some stages (or quadrants) of human understanding. But a deeper and broader comprehension would look for the divine concept within the physical thing.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.enformationism.info/
djwray



Number of posts : 2
Registration date : 2009-04-29

PostSubject: Re: A WORD TO THE AGNOSTIC   Mon May 04, 2009 6:46 am

I used to be an agnostic but, through some extraordinary experiences, I have developed a strong belief in God. I am a logical thinker and the transformation has been unavoidable. I recently discovered that my belief system is clearly within the realm of Deism. I have a website that includes a document with an extraordinary set of claims. I believe that they are correct and also that they cannot be denied by Science. Even though I only began writing the document last month, its contents evolved logically and systematically over a number of years and I hope that it will add significant weight to the cause of Deism. I believe that it has the potential to trigger a new wave in the debate between science and religion.

Unfortunately the document/presentation is quite long and probably requires at least 1/2 an hour to digest from start to finish. Hopefully, despite the constraints of modern society, it won't go unnoticed. It is interesting that modern society finds the time to allow people like Richard Dawkins to make tens of millions of dollars by preaching half-truths, accompanied by large, expensive volumes of work that include substantial lists of "supporting" evidence. In actual fact almost all of the content of these large, expensive volumes is a rehash of the supporting evidence. There is very little in the way of original thought. People really are being blinded by Science.

http://www.atotalawareness.com

D J Wray
Back to top Go down
View user profile
stretmediq

avatar

Number of posts : 238
Age : 58
Location: : Tulsa, Ok.
Registration date : 2007-10-04

PostSubject: Re: A WORD TO THE AGNOSTIC   Mon May 04, 2009 1:41 pm

I can't call myself an Agnostic because even though there are many things I don't know I do have a definite opinion, based in reason, that God does in fact exist.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.cafepress.com/newdeism
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: A WORD TO THE AGNOSTIC   

Back to top Go down
 
A WORD TO THE AGNOSTIC
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 2Go to page : Previous  1, 2
 Similar topics
-
» Joyce Meyers word from the Lord ministered to me- hope it ministers to you
» spoken word in dream
» need a word/more confirmation,comfort on these things
» Prophetic Word inspired by God for all Ears.
» A word for me from my pastor HELP

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Panendeism.org :: Panendeism Discussions :: General Panendeism Forum-
Jump to: