“It was written mostly to help mainline Catholic and Protestant Christians and progressive evangelicals”

In other words, move moderates towards science. But for atheists, you have nothing but an attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable.

I don’t think it’s a matter of whether the posters think Michael Dowd is right or wrong. Rather, I suggest that it’s good simply that Michael Dowd has the freedom to make these presentations.

You might want to use Firefox, if you’re not already. It tends to auto-save the text in fields so you can just hit the back button once or twice and pull it back up.

But frankly, if the internet age has taught me anything, it’s that you should always, always, ALWAYS save large text blocks–to your clipboard if nothing else–before hitting “submit.”

“Save early, save often” doesn’t just apply to writing books, you know.

Ah well. If you try to use some book written by primitive people to inform your science, you’re gonna end up going off the rails.

If only they’d take the time to dialog instead of trying to preach at us.

A classic drive-by…*sigh*

God is never concerned about his form. He is spirit. He can be anything living and non-living. That’s another perception. [Mine]

“God is God only in so far as He knows Himself” – Georg W. F. Hegel

God Created Heavens in six days and rested in the seventh? That must be astronomically awesome to people not even wearing G-strings. I buy the theory that God created man in a form no better than bacteria, that wriggled, swam and crawled on all four, later to walk on two feet to become what he is today, all that in a span of billions of years.

Why did God waited for man? Only finite man measures time. A week is something to him. 5 or 50000000 billion of years is nothing to an INFINITE. Again everything about that is perception of God – mine.

Anyway, anything written or conceived thousands of years ago is fine when there is nothing else. [Some of them (written during the time of ignorance) could be outmoded.]