Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Evidence for a Creator - the support will surprise you...


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 30 May 2011 21:13:07 BDT
AJ Murray says:
Wayne,

-"I have an 'Animal Fantasy' thread relating to Watership Down elsewhere and was quite surprised to find an author recommending their own erotic novel. Not a lot like Watership Down!"

Have you never encountered a furry before?

Can furries be Christian?

In reply to an earlier post on 30 May 2011 21:34:00 BDT
"Can furries be Christian?"

Maybe if they dressed up as a donkey?

Posted on 31 May 2011 13:09:35 BDT
Last edited by the author on 2 Jun 2011 20:30:09 BDT
Lector says:
"Evidence for a Creator - the support will surprise you..."? No, not at all! The human brain has proven throughout it's existence to possess an extremely imaginative facility! But if what you mean by "Creator", you are talking about the fundamental chemical elements of which everything is made, well then of course the scientific support for it doesn't surprise me!

Posted on 31 May 2011 13:22:21 BDT
Drew Jones says:
Wasn't it questions arising from the evidence, figures and methods of Anita and Gerald Schroeder that caused Anita to storm out of the Evolution and religion thread?

P.S. The prayer still hasn't worked.

In reply to an earlier post on 31 May 2011 18:48:15 BDT
You know, I think it was. And here she is back again with the same old tired rubbish. How long till we get a hissy fit and a prayer this time?

In reply to an earlier post on 31 May 2011 21:27:29 BDT
Anita Meyer says:
Pumpkin Head said: However, removing a rib from a male does not grow into a female human. Think about it: the cells in male rib tissue will contain XY chromosomes. Any cell regeneration through mitosis will only produce new cells with XY chromosomes, not XX. I see you got some of your post from Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/amazing-regenerating-rib)
yet they failed to account for this glaring basic biological discrepancy. Didn't even mention it, in fact. You should realise by now that quoting from that organisation holds no sway here. They are dishonest and extremely selective in the information they present.

I now respond: The rib bone has "stem cells", which are undifferentiated. Stem cells are magnificent in that they can form to become any cell in the body.

However, part of a man's body (Adam) could be built into a woman, because he has everything she (Eve) needs.

I think what we need to understand here is that Eve was created to be a "help meet" to man ( 1 Timothy 2:13). One can say she was more or less dust-refined. Additionally Adam said: "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh" (Genesis 2:23). He did not actually say, "This is my flesh and blood".

Eves name in the Bible is called "Ishah" which means "she-man".

As far as the XY and XX chromosomes go... It is clear that G-d intervened in some way as part of His design not only for human male and female, but for the animal and insect kingdom as well.

Pumpkin Head said: Do you have any examples from the other fields of science you mentioned?

I now respond: You also ask for more such proofs venerating science and scripture... Well, scientists have discovered something even more amazing! That earth has an upper atmospheric layer (ionosphere) which looks like "glass" and protects us from harmful rays emanating from the sun, which also reflects electromagnetic waves back to the earth. However, many centuries before this was discovered, it was written in Job 37:18 - Hast thou with him spread out the sky, strong, as a molten looking glass?

Something even more amazing arises when we begin to examine the books of Enoch again (which predate the book of Job). Remarkably found within the 2nd book of Parables chapters 37-71we are privy to some systematic factors concerning the workings between the "earth and the stars". Many of us think that the Universe has no real bearing (or connection) to the earth. But Enoch tells us that it most certainly does (seeing that he was privy to such workings). We find recorded in Chapter 43 and 44 that lightning that happens down here on earth actually arises from the stars above. Chapter 43 - And I saw other lightning's and the stars of heaven, and I saw how He called them all by their names and they hearkened unto Him. And I saw how they are weighed in a righteous balance according to their proportions of light: (I saw) the width of their spaces and the day of their appearing, and how their revolution produces lightning: and (I saw) their revolution according to the number of the angels, and (how) they keep faith with each other. And I asked the angel who went with me who showed me what was hidden: What are these? And he said to me: The Lord of Spirits hath showed thee their parabolic meaning: These are the names of the holy who dwell on the earth and believe in the name of the Lord of Spirits for ever and ever. Chapter 44 - Also another phenomenon I saw in regard to the lightning's: how some of the stars arise and become lightning's and cannot part with their new form.

It wasn't to long ago that science just learned that lightning actually stemmed from the ground upwards. However today there has been more thorough scientific investigation put into the matter. Scientists are now just first discovering that the cosmic high speed rays that come from our Milky Way are particles that are created by active stars, and that they are charged particles that are influenced by magnetic fields. Now we also know that our sun produces a magnetic field (called the magnetosphere) that extends to the end of our solar system and is enveloped (and rallied around) the earth in solar winds. And it is this field that helps reflect many of the cosmic rays away from the earth. But when the sun is going through its 11 year cycle there is a time when there are small amounts of sunspots. These sunspots are dark patches that are observed on the sun. Then there are also cool dark patches that appear in cycles on the Sun's surface. It is these sunspot patches that possess a powerful magnetic field. And it is during the time of minimal sunspots that the magnetosphere collapses inwardly allowing high energy cosmic rays to penetrate (come through) more intensely into our solar system. As a result far greater cosmic rays collide with earth and filtering down to the lower atmosphere where the ionized small particles of moister and humidity form into water droplets that become clouds - and thus we get severe weather conditions. So it is true than... that lightning does in fact come about from the stars!

Most intriguingly to the same effect... astronauts from the space shuttle also observe a phenomenon called "Red Sprites and Blue Jets". And in particular these "Red Sprites" which have been observed going fully outside of the bounds of earths atmosphere. Ironically, these "Red Sprites" have been found to be triggered by cosmic rays which cause lighting down on the earth below. This was exactly what Enoch was relating too. This contributes toward the credibility of the book of Enoch being scientifically correct.

Riddle me this though... how could Enoch have possibly known what the scientists are now first discovering if his visions were incorrect or made-up?

Author Anita Meyer
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator

In reply to an earlier post on 31 May 2011 21:37:04 BDT
Last edited by the author on 31 May 2011 21:41:18 BDT
Anita Meyer says:
Reverend A Theist said: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100617132226.htm. I'm afraid thats not true. We have.

I now respond: Wrong Reverend, they didn't actually witness this stars birth happening with telescopes, they are only assuming that it was newly created because it appears to be pulling in matter from a surrounding envelope of gas and dust. Its not even categorized as a star yet. Moreover, what we are seeing is already many MANY years old already since this light is coming from a great distances away that has just now reached the eyes of the telescopes here on earth. In effect what we are actually seeing is already "past tense" since the (assumed star birth) we are seeing in IS NOT RECENT and does not allow us to see what is currently happening! FYI, it takes approximately 8 minutes just for light to reach us from the Sun. Therefore light reaching us from across the galaxy or Universe would take years.

Here is the science article that you linked to me: ScienceDaily (June 18, 2010) - Astronomers have glimpsed what could be the youngest known star at the very moment it is being born. Not yet fully developed into a true star, the object is in the earliest stages of star formation and has just begun pulling in matter from a surrounding envelope of gas and dust, according to a new study that appears in the current issue of the Astrophysical Journal.

Reverend A Theist said: You do realise that the moon does not produce light. It merely reflects light from the sun. Hence there is only one light in the solar system.

I now respond: The Bible is not directly implying that. It is merely telling us that the Moon is there to give light at night (to rule the night). If it takes light from the Sun by a reflection, then it does indeed make light, maybe not from internally, but certainly externally.

Reverend A Theist said: Wrong again. All Miller was trying to do was show the production of amino acids from simple precursors. He suceeded. No scientist I have ever heard of claims he created life.

I now respond: The Urey Miller experiment did indeed proclaim that it had produced amino acids that are component to life, when in fact it did not.

Reverend A Theist said: We've had this argument before and I showed you that right amino acids also exist in life. You chose to ignore it. You are wrong. Your argument fails again.

I now respond: No Reverend you did not prove me wrong. You used the example of Humans (and mammals) having d-serine ("right-handed") in their brains, and telling me that it is important for neurotransmission. You also said... Not ALL the amino acids are "left-handed". You claim they are. How do you respond to this?

I responded and said: Well firstly, D-Serine in needed in the brain for neurotransmission and can even be useful against neurodegeneration as in Alzheimer's. However, the reason for why it is found in the brain is because the normal L-serine protein spontaneously converts into the D-serine version. We know that DNA produces RNA, which produces proteins... thus L-amino since RNA only carry L-amino acids... therefore proteins for living things have to be made of L-amino acids. However although proteins may come into the world made only of L-amino acids they don't always have to continue that way as is evident with the D-serine found in the brain. If a organism finds it useful to use D-serine as a defense mechanism, it will do so. In other words, your example of D-serine was originally an L-amino acid first.

Reverend A Theist said: Your argument that faith is the only thing thats left is also profoundly wrong. Our dependence on our brains to make sense of the world and universe whilst not really seeing the truth of reality also applies to God. If we cannot believe in objective reality why on earth would there be any reason to believe in subjective fantasy. There is a monumental difference between the two but you are advocating they are equals. This cannot be the case. Subverting science to concur with scripture is just plain fallacy. We are able to think of God only by using our brains. If our brains are so fallible that they decieved so easily then God becomes EVEN LESS

I now respond: What part of what I said earlier didn't you understand? Didn't I say... Though, there is still an ultimate question mark that we did not tackle yet. And this is the idea that in all actuality I'm not sure if anything we see is truly "material", because what we see with our eyes is really only rays of electrical signals (energy) that is transmitted by neurons and deciphered by a tiny part in the back of the brain. Thus the brain is also a material thing in itself, and in truthfulness the room that we are in, is really "within" us, and not the other way around. Funny how we can dream in sleep, and within our brain still have the sensations to see with our eyes and touch with our hands, yet we have neither eyes nor hands. What is left? Only a incorporeal/spiritual matter - hence faith. Now, taking this one step further when we look to the vast stars in our Universe with telescopes (tools that we made with our own limited senses) it becomes questionable if what we are actually seeing is truly what's really out there? Keep in mind, in life we may never truly know what is true reality when we observe nature, for what we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to "our" human method of questioning. Albert Einstein said: It is the theory that decides what we can observe. Additionally we also run into the glitch of light itself from great distances away that has just reached the eyes of the telescopes here on earth. In effect what we are actually seeing is already "past tense" since the light we are seeing in spectral readouts IS NOT RECENT and does not allow us to see what is currently happening! It takes approximately 8 minutes just for light to reach us from the Sun. Therefore light reaching us from across the galaxy or Universe would take years. Added to all this, time is "relative" (to the speed one is traveling) - it is not something that is absolute, it only exists pertaining to ones conscious point of view or observation. This was one of Albert Einstein's greatest insights in realizing that time is relative when it speeds up or slows down depending on how fast one thing is moving relative to something else (he termed this time dilation). But one of the biggest monumental questions posed by some of the greatest scientific thinkers: Is time really real? Time is of your own making, its clock ticks in your head. The moment you stop thought, time too stops dead - Angelus Silesius. Nothing keeps. There is one law in the universe: NOW - Alfred Sutro, The Open Door. So if time is relative, and we cant believe what we are even seeing in the scope of all things, EVERYTHING literally becomes moot, and FAITH is the only thing that's left. IT ALL EQUATES TO G-D! Whether you choose to believe this or not is your own prerogative.

Author Anita Meyer
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator

In reply to an earlier post on 31 May 2011 21:38:17 BDT
Anita Meyer says:
John Rawlinson said: The problem with Schroeder's argument is that it requires a leap of faith that the time reference was changed, so that time pre-Adam seemd like billions of years compared to days in the Adam frame of reference. If it were true, why would g?d do that? Please read http://www.talkreason.org/articles/schroeder.cfm#first

I now respond: You will always find those that contradict. Its just like Richard Dawkins verses Gerald Schroeder. You are free to your opinion, and I to mine.

John Rawlinson said: Another question for you: Why did g?d create a universe of 10^24 stars if all he wanted to do was house the human race on a little planet orbiting an insignificant star? That would be like me building a shed bigger than the galaxy to keep an ant farm in. Why would he do that Anita, why?

I now respond: G-d does not measure importance by size. Psalm 33:16 - No king is saved by the size of his army; no warrior escapes by his great strength.

There is also good evidence that indicates that the design features surrounding our Suns position in the Milky Way puts it in the ideal location for life on earth to thrive, but its position also has another advantage of keeping it at a fair distance from the galactic center. If G-d had placed the Sun closer to the Milky Way center, the dense clouds of stars, dust, and gas would have prevented us from seeing into space (the heavens). Instead, G-d put us in a most favorable and advantageous position, not at the remotest rim where the Milky Way would be dim, but far enough out to see clearly into the heights of the heavens so that we may visibly see and witness His great works (both big and wide). This may be the reason why earth is so small and the Universe is so big. So that we can see outwards the enormity of the heavens and witness the handiwork and glory of G-d. Psalm 19:1 - The heavens declare the glory of G-d, and the firmament sheweth his handy work. For that very reason alone we should consider ourselves fortunate and blessed for possessing prime real estate in all the vastness of space.

Author Anita Meyer
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator

In reply to an earlier post on 31 May 2011 21:48:27 BDT
"It is clear that G-d intervened in some way"

To you maybe, but no one else I'm afraid. This is just a leap of faith.

Stem cells (other than embryonic stem cells) do not produce whole organisms. The ones in ribs form red and white blood cells. And then they go through a sex change!

btw Why do males have nipples Anita? If Woman came from Man, why would the source have a feature that is only useful in the derivative?

That's one hell of a stretch to get all that from Enoch isn't it.

You consistently grab bits of science, bend it to fit your preconceptions, and apply liberal doses of wishful thinking. This is just plain dishonest Anita.

In reply to an earlier post on 31 May 2011 21:58:26 BDT
"You are free to your opinion, and I to mine"

True, but unfortunately for Schroeder the science is against him. If he was right, why would he be in such a minority amongst other phycisists? Also, has his work been peer reviewed?

"G-d does not measure importance by size"

Anita, how is that any kind of answer? If that's the best you can do I'll assume you don't really have one.

"There is also good evidence that indicates that the design features surrounding our Suns position in the Milky Way puts it in the ideal location for life on earth to thrive, but its position also has another advantage of keeping it at a fair distance from the galactic center"

You're making the same silly argument again. Can't you see that probablity alone indicates that a planet being in an ideal position is pretty much inevitable - and that's where life will evolve. Cart and horse, remember?
It's where it is because that's where it is!

In reply to an earlier post on 31 May 2011 22:01:54 BDT
Anita,

You said:
"Many of us think that the Universe has no real bearing (or connection) to the earth."

Who thinks this? The Earth is part of the Universe. How much more connected can you get? Who would actually believe that the Universe has no bearing on Earth?

In reply to an earlier post on 31 May 2011 22:06:29 BDT
Last edited by the author on 31 May 2011 22:08:12 BDT
How come so many Born Again Christians, well so it appears, particularily in the US, are against stem cell research?

Author Smitty Werbenjaegermanjensen

Smittycisims, Not Sarcasms

In reply to an earlier post on 31 May 2011 22:26:59 BDT
Anita Meyer says:
Hi Smitty, the reason why we are against stem cell research has to do with the sources that these stem cells come from. They come from aborted fetuses, and also the primary source of stem cells is from blastocysts. These are fertilized human eggs that were not implanted into a woman.

However, science is now investigating other means.

In reply to an earlier post on 31 May 2011 22:31:20 BDT
OK, question answered.

Thanks.

In reply to an earlier post on 31 May 2011 22:33:47 BDT
Anita Meyer says:
John Rawlinson said: btw Why do males have nipples Anita? If Woman came from Man, why would the source have a feature that is only useful in the derivative?

I now respond: Obviously, because women were designed by G-d to bear children and men were not.

In reply to an earlier post on 31 May 2011 22:41:50 BDT
Dr HotFXMan says:
"I now respond: The Bible is not directly implying that. It is merely telling us that the Moon is there to give light at night (to rule the night). If it takes light from the Sun by a reflection, then it does indeed make light, maybe not from internally, but certainly externally."

You do talk such a load of utter cr4p. If the moon was put there to "rule the night", why does it only do it for half the month? The other half it is completely useless in giving "light at night". And it certainly does not "make" light - in any sense of the word whatsoever. If it did, then you may as well say that anything that reflects light "makes" that light. And, just for your information Anita, anything that you can see is reflecting light.

There have been some stupid people on this forum but you certainly are a strong contender for being one of the dimmest.

In reply to an earlier post on 31 May 2011 22:44:22 BDT
Dr HotFXMan says:
"Obviously, because women were designed by G-d to bear children and men were not"

Drivel. Pure, unadulterated, meaningless, senseless drivel.
It isn't even an answer to John Rawlinson's point. Men have nipples because women were designed to bear children!!!!!?????

I think we need to sound the p1ss-take alert here.

In reply to an earlier post on 31 May 2011 22:57:43 BDT
Anita Meyer says:
John Rawlinson said: You're making the same silly argument again. Can't you see that probablity alone indicates that a planet being in an ideal position is pretty much inevitable - and that's where life will evolve. Cart and horse, remember? It's where it is because that's where it is!

I now respond: I don't believe this. I believe that the earth was purposely placed in the location and position it is in for life to exists... This follows in the same respect that the organs of our body have to be in place, fully formed, and working in synchronicity to function efficiently. One could not have come before the other.

I think we've already been through this already... What came first in the human body, "the nerves, or the organs" since the nerves are controlling the organs, and if we don't have the nerves around we cant digest food or process information in our brain. We can also ask the same question of the heart and lungs since the heart itself is dependant on oxygenated blood. What's more, the blood is dependant of the nervous, muscular and digestive system. How did we (or other creatures) survived during these stages and changes of development? Since blood is the main transporter of life, is it safe to say that blood contained all its mechanisms such as the white, and red corpuscles as well as the platelets and plasma. So as to see that they had to come about SIMULTANEOUSLY (at the same time in order to function efficiently) and not by way of a step-by-step process. Additionally, hydrochloric acid which is made in the human stomach for digestion. This is a gastric chemical that is highly acidic, it can dissolve many metals. But the stomach itself is protected from the strong acid by the secretion of a thick mucus layer and a neutralizing component called sodium bicarbonate which is found in the small intestines. The question is, if this is an evolutionary scenario, did we evolve those acid producing cells first, or the container to store them first? This "interdependence" strongly argues against the possibility of things evolving.

All these things needed to be in place immediately for human, animal or creature must have been fully functional in the first moments of life. Because of this "mutually dependent elements factor" it clearly indicates that evolution could not have occurred.

And there is so many other questions that we should be asking... things that we take for granted, such as where did all the 90-or so "elements" come from like: Silver, nickel, calcium, iron, etc... and what factor determined how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements? Additionally, we should also be asking where did the thousands of "compounds" we find in the world come from: Such as chlorophyll, sucrose, carbon dioxide, propane, benzene, hydrochloric acid, boric acid etc...

Additionally, what would cause millions of species such as fish, birds and insects as well as humans to all have symmetrical features where one side is a mirror image of the other like two arms, two legs, two eyes...? The question is, would random (hit and miss) processes (in the theory of evolution) create balanced proportion? Moreover, we should be questioning the odds that in all the millions of species that exists why is it that only both a male and female exists?

Genesis 1:27 - So G-d created man in his own image, in the image of G-d created he him; male and female created he them.

Even Jesus restated this fact in Matthew 19:4 - Haven't you read, He replied, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female.

There are only two sexes which is a clear indication of a planned framework. This would also reflect that each creature (male and female) had to develop at the same time (as well as location) so that the species could reproduce. Furthermore, one should be asking how did the first mating pair get to the mating point? This is impossible since a species would have to skip from a primitive form to a fully developed male and female and each with the capability and instinct to mate. The Bible clearly states that each creature was created after it own kind.

Genesis 1:11 - And G-d said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Genesis 1:12 - And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and G-d saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:21 - And G-d created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and G-d saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:24 - And G-d said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

How about such things as the law of gravity and where it come from? Its only logically to deduce that when matter was created, the law of gravity was also established at the same time to stabilize matter (a state of equilibrium). Yet, why don't the evolutionists see from this vantage point?

Moreover, it is utterly impossible to overlook the supernatural! How else can one explain the origin of matter, the origin of energy, and the origin of life? Secular (non-religious) minds need to address this issue.

Author Anita Meyer
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator

In reply to an earlier post on 31 May 2011 23:07:54 BDT
Anita,

You have absolutely no understanding of evolution. None. Get yourself an education before even considering lecturing people on the subject. Even at a popular science level you'd learn why you're currently spouting utter nonsense.

In reply to an earlier post on 31 May 2011 23:11:29 BDT
Last edited by the author on 31 May 2011 23:26:08 BDT
Pumpkin Head says:
Anita

I'll respond later in full to your post, but I have to draw your attention to something you said:

"As far as the XY and XX chromosomes go... ***It is clear that G-d intervened in some way as part of His design***..."
[my emphasis added].

I had asked you for examples within the various scientific disciplines that you had listed, hoping for suitably appropriate answers in return (see the title of you thread).
Coming up with "it is clear goddidit etc etc" is not what I had expected. Can you explain to me, a humble biologist, how it is clear? You are claiming evidence exists, so can you provide it?

Edit: you said "The rib bone has "stem cells", which are undifferentiated."
I take it you know what an undifferentiated cell is? It's a cell that has not specialised to become part of a specific tissue, but - and here's the important bit - it still contains the full chromosome complement, which would include the sex chromosomes. An XY stem cell cannot be induced to become an XX cell. If you can direct me to sources that say otherwise, I'll withdraw this.

I'm inclined to agree with what has been said above: you seem to pick out bits of science that superficially appeal to your argument but, on closer inspection, they don't actually verify what you are saying. What did you make of my statement regarding quoting from Answers In Genesis - do you think they are a credible source of information?

In reply to an earlier post on 31 May 2011 23:59:19 BDT
AJ Murray says:
Ian,

-"There have been some stupid people on this forum but you certainly are a strong contender for being one of the dimmest."

I think you are being a bit harsh there. What about the people who pay money for her book?

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Jun 2011 05:22:20 BDT
Anita,

So why do they have nipples then? Read the question!

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Jun 2011 05:26:29 BDT
Anita,

No you clearly don't believe or understand. You have revealed that you do not have even a basic understanding of the science you love to misquote. You have avoided answering any of my questions back to you directly and just quote bible babble at me. This is pointless.

Posted on 1 Jun 2011 06:04:09 BDT
Anita,

To summarise this thread so far. You start with the title "Evidence for a Creator - the support will surprise you..."

Hmm. No surprises I'm afraid - you came up with the same old pseudo scientific junk again. As for evidence; what you call evidence is out of context pieces of science and bible quotes. When questioned on them you generally revert to a 'godidit' statement (that's if you answer the question at all).

If you are going to try to use science to support your religious views, perhaps you could try:
1. Checking out the nonsense you get of the creationist websites. Do some work, check the soundness of what they're saying. Five minutes on google will generally find several refutations.
2. Ask if the stuff you cite has been peer reviewed. If it hasn't, there is a good reason.
3. At least make sure you understand what you're posting, because you are going to get called on it on here, and so far it's making you look very foolish.

What you are doing is actually very disrespectful of the other posters on this forum. You try to lecture us on matters you clearly do not have a good understanding of and that you have gathered from very poor sources without properly checking them. And you title yourself as an author!

I know you have deeply held religious views, but why do you feel the need to get science to support them? It clearly doesn't work. Why don't you just stick with the bible as an allegorical rather than literal source? I get the feeling you are trying to justify your religious beliefs, perhaps?

Posted on 1 Jun 2011 06:24:22 BDT
Lector says:
Give me that old time atheism,
Give me that old time atheism,
Give me that old time atheism,
It's good enough for me.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  170
Total posts:  8734
Initial post:  29 May 2011
Latest post:  8 days ago

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 11 customers

Search Customer Discussions