|
Even if I were a believer, I would question the results of any prayer 'healing' study. If the people are taking part in a study to prove the efficacy of prayer, then it seems to me that their motives would be less than totally altruistic. Much like people posited that an omniscient being would reject a lifetime of belief based of of something like pascal's wager (due to the ultimate goal not being faith but self preservation), I believe it would be safe to assume that a deity would reject the prayers of study participants for the same reason.
I don't think Pascal's wager is particularly helpful, mainly because he used it jokingly (and possibly exasperatedly) to a bunch of non-believers colleagues who refused to even listen to his (sometimes rather clever) insights about God.
But I keep saying this over and over again. I don't know the answers to many of the questions people throw out there. I give opinion which is solely based on what God has revealed to me in my life. But as he does not reveal things to everyone as a matter of course it is difficult (albeit I should say, impossible), by even logical reasoning to prove or disprove Him.
So with that in mind we should continue to discourse civilly (as most people here are doing) about religion, knowing that that we are unlikely to change each other's minds.
I live my life by faith alone (which means I still doubt sometimes), and God's revelations in my life have reinforced my faith over many years. It started by my believing Christ at his word, but faith is a continuing journey for all who walk it. It is certainly no easier than not living by faith and oftentimes it's harder.
Finally, yes. I question every faith-based study. There are a lot of "religious" charlatans out there; wolves in sheep's clothing. They are a menace to credulous souls and a disgrace to God.
|
I'm gone for a little bit and you guys post some 90+ posts. It may take me a little bit. I'll comment about of the few quick thoughts I have as I catch up.
Never. Cult is the word we use to describe the religion down the street.
My question, now that I think of this, is when does a group stop being a cult and start being a religion?I disagree, cult has very specific connotations.
One specific definition of cult is a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
Defining a "cult" is difficult. There are negative connotations that no one really wants associated with themselves. But here are my thoughts on it.
A lot of it has to do with "free will". When someone loses the ability to choose for themselves it comes rather close to "cult". Money is a big example. Does the organization force you to give or is it suggested? Are you forced to dress a certain way? Or is it a choice?
A lot of the attempted definitions of a cult that I've seen, if looked at a certain way, can be applied to just about any religion that I know of. And a number of non-religious ones. In the end I think it's about the degree of the difference.
Is Christianity a cult? I think that there are some churches that approach it far too close.
|
|
Now that said, Christians pretty routinely get up in arms over depictions of Jesus of which they do not approve.
I saw this and thought -- I still want a "buddy Jesus". I think it's hilarious and feel that God/Jesus probably finds it funny as well. At the same time we had a Jesus action figure that was included in some book set that was given to us. I thought it was stupid. But what's worse is -- what do you do with it? Do you throw Jesus away? Do you keep it and let it sink to the bottom of the toy box? It just seemed like a rather poor marketing idea in the end.
|
Now that said, Christians pretty routinely get up in arms over depictions of Jesus of which they do not approve.I saw this and thought -- I still want a "buddy Jesus". I think it's hilarious and feel that God/Jesus probably finds it funny as well. At the same time we had a Jesus action figure that was included in some book set that was given to us. I thought it was stupid. But what's worse is -- what do you do with it? Do you throw Jesus away? Do you keep it and let it sink to the bottom of the toy box? It just seemed like a rather poor marketing idea in the end.
I don't care what they say...Buddy Jesus Rocked!!!
Some of the other um hem "toys" that have come out with biblical or religious themes, well, some people need to get a life.
Veggie Tales!
|
|
Or come to an understanding of the 'Spirit' of the law in stead of trying to be a rules lawyer and cherry pick what you wantI find the text fairly straight-forward, only a few minor occasions where it's confusing and context generally clears that up quickly. So I'm curious what you're meaning by "spirit of the law".... It says what it says, which is what confuses me more than anything that people have arguments over what it means.
I know that this is from quite a while ago, but I've been thinking about it quite a bit.
I'm at odds here. A lot of the Old Testament Law was created to help keep order, but also a lot of it was for health reasons or efficiency or similar ideas. Once a month women would have to stand outside the city calling "UNCLEAN!" to anyone who came close. Why aren't there more women doing that now -- anywhere? Crop rotations, eating shellfish, food preparation, etc. Sure it "says what it says" but why? Because shellfish are evil? There are also cultural references that applied then that don't apply now -- braided hair meant something then that doesn't apply now. Wearing a veil (or lack thereof) meant something that has changed now. Times change. How many laws are on our books in America that don't make any sense any more?
There are some things that I don't fully understand the "why" of the Law. But I really do feel that there is something to be said for understanding the "spirit of the law" and not being incredibly rigid with the letter of the law. I believe that the Law was right for its time -- and understanding why, I believe, helps us best understand how that can be applied now.
Veggie Tales!
Sudder.
All that mealy-mouthed moralizing makes me think of the zombie celery stalks from "Bunnicula" and its sequels.|
|
Or come to an understanding of the 'Spirit' of the law in stead of trying to be a rules lawyer and cherry pick what you wantI find the text fairly straight-forward, only a few minor occasions where it's confusing and context generally clears that up quickly. So I'm curious what you're meaning by "spirit of the law".... It says what it says, which is what confuses me more than anything that people have arguments over what it means.I know that this is from quite a while ago, but I've been thinking about it quite a bit.
I'm at odds here. A lot of the Old Testament Law was created to help keep order, but also a lot of it was for health reasons or efficiency or similar ideas. Once a month women would have to stand outside the city calling "UNCLEAN!" to anyone who came close. Why aren't there more women doing that now -- anywhere? Crop rotations, eating shellfish, food preparation, etc. Sure it "says what it says" but why? Because shellfish are evil? There are also cultural references that applied then that don't apply now -- braided hair meant something then that doesn't apply now. Wearing a veil (or lack thereof) meant something that has changed now. Times change. How many laws are on our books in America that don't make any sense any more?
There are some things that I don't fully understand the "why" of the Law. But I really do feel that there is something to be said for understanding the "spirit of the law" and not being incredibly rigid with the letter of the law. I believe that the Law was right for its time -- and understanding why, I believe, helps us best understand how that can be applied now.
Were not some of the parables in the new testament showing just this?
|
|
I apologize for digging up a three day old post, but I have been mulling this over.
You and me -- we keep "mulling things over" for days...
You've got a number of different points here, but for the most part they are fairly related. I'll repost your post and then try and reply...
Why would god allow such a 'barrier' to entry? It is a rhetorical question. I do not expect you to have an answer and I bet, to you, it is irrelevant. For me, it is like the things you find unbelievable in other faiths.
Also, your point about context…if Jesus is speaking to very specific groups, then does it really apply to me? I am not Jewish nor do I feel compelled to obey Jewish law except where it aligns with my own moral compass.
If I need someone to translate meaning, that makes me very suspicious.
Correct me if I am wrong, your point seems to be that I should 'dig deeper'. I realize you are not trying to convert me. Only that, if I wish to understand, I should do my own research. However, I can not help but feel I already understand it perfectly well. The Bible was not divinely inspired, but written by men and therefore demonstrates the author's flaws. The more I dig, the more I am convinced of this. Why would I want to dig any deeper, except out of curiosity.
Again, I know you are not trying to convince me, Moff. I fully realize it makes little different to you whether I believe or not or even if I accept that you believe. I guess what I am saying is that 'dig deeper' is not much of an argument. It is like asking me to accept a theory which fails for every test I perform over a theory which passes every test I perform.
Again, I thank you for your patience in engaging me. I know I am trying.
The more I know, the more I know that I don't know.
At its core, Christianity and the Bible is rather simple. It really is. You know the "simple" aspects as well as anyone does.
When you "dig deeper" it's easy to come across things that may not make a lot of sense without some prior knowledge.
I'm a math major. The more math I took, the more I realized how little math I knew -- even though I kept learning more.
Issues with translations are "natures of the beast". It wasn't written in English at the time. English wasn't a language at the time and it wouldn't have made any sense to them had it been given to them in English. Since I don't know Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew, (and feel too old to try and learn now) I'm at the mercy of others to do their best to translate it for me. Actually, I'm kind of blessed to be in an era where I can have a copy myself and read it myself instead of relying on someone else to read it for me.
Context is important. It helps understand the "why" of the situation which helps us figure out how it might apply to our lives 2000+ years later.
I'm not asking you to "dig deeper" so that you will believe. I'm asking you "dig deeper" to help you understand "why" a little more.
And your questions/points are not "irrelevant". I feel like you want to understand it a little better and that is never irrelevant.
|
I don't think Pascal's wager is particularly helpful, mainly because he used it jokingly (and possibly exasperatedly) to a bunch of non-believers colleagues who refused to even listen to his (sometimes rather clever) insights about God.
I was not aware of this, I always assumed it was simply a scientist's overbearing logic lol.
But I keep saying this over and over again. I don't know the answers to many of the questions people throw out there. I give opinion which is solely based on what God has revealed to me in my life. But as he does not reveal things to everyone as a matter of course it is difficult (albeit I should say, impossible), by even logical reasoning to prove or disprove Him.
That difficulty is what is so frustrating. Religion was made in such a way that proving or disproving it is impossible. So many of the worlds problems would be solved were it possible to prove which brand of religion is right. That's all I want (even if it means I am wrong) because so many lives are needlessly lost over peoples' beliefs in their religions conflicting with others' beliefs.
So with that in mind we should continue to discourse civilly (as most people here are doing) about religion, knowing that that we are unlikely to change each other's minds.
I hope I am one of the ones who is remaining civil :D
I live my life by faith alone (which means I still doubt sometimes), and God's revelations in my life have reinforced my faith over many years. It started by my believing Christ at his word, but faith is a continuing journey for all who walk it. It is certainly no easier than not living by faith and oftentimes it's harder.
I am of a mind that living without faith in a deity is more difficult. When you have faith, then you have reassurances of what will happen after your death. You believe that there is something out there after this life is over. As an atheist, I don't have that "safety net" if you will. As much as I would like to believe that this life isn't the whole shebang, I cannot bring myself to believe otherwise. At times I envy those who have these beliefs as they are not burdened by thoughts of finite mortality, but this envy alone is not enough to change my mind.
Finally, yes. I question every faith-based study. There are a lot of "religious" charlatans out there; wolves in sheep's clothing. They are a menace to credulous souls and a disgrace to God.
Now that principle we can agree on.
|
I'm currently looking at depression and schizophrenia which seem to have strong familial bonds, as in it travels through parent and siblings. I'm hoping to find genetic evidence of these 2 particular disorders. Also very little research is done in what I plan to do, almost none. So I'm reasonably excited, because if it's a success it could spark a lot of future projects in the exact same area.Ok recently I had someone take offense to my research proposal for my PHD. I will be studying genetic predisposition to psychological disorder...Not to derail, but a singular disorder or disorders in general?Hmmm, I think what some people may object to is there certainly seems to be a link (only anecdotal as far as I know) between certain types of intelligence/creativity and a propensity for depression (or other mental disorders). "Vaccinating" against depression may also reduce or remove predispositions in those embryos for those types of intelligence/creativity.
Also, if parents can vaccinate an embryo to reduce or remove any predispositions for certain traits, what prevents them for vaccinating to prevent other conditions... homosexuality, transsexuality/transgenderism, disobedience, left-handedness, brown eyes, kinky hair, etc (once those predispositions are linked to certain bits of the human genome)?
These are all valid questions. Eugenics certainly has the potential to be a "Pandora's Box", as we can readily speculate at the types of genetic traits parents would remove from their children if they could. Current research indicates that something like sexual orientation is far more complicated than a gene that can simply be replaced, but that's not likely to stop people from trying.
(And the observation about depression and creative thought is equally insightful.)
All of that said, slowing or stopping continued scientific advancement tends to be an exercise in futility. Historically speaking, the best solution tends to be to address questions about how the knowledge should be used directly, as opposed to trying to stop people from gaining that knowledge to begin with.
I was not aware of this, I always assumed it was simply a scientist's overbearing logic lol.
Mathematician, not scientist.
A scientist's logic would run something like "let me assume there's no God -- and if I don't end up in Hell after I die, then I've falsified Christianity and Islam both, and proven their predictions don't stand up to experimentation."
|
|
I was not aware of this, I always assumed it was simply a scientist's overbearing logic lol.Mathematician, not scientist.
A scientist's logic would run something like "let me assume there's no God -- and if I don't end up in Hell after I die, then I've falsified Christianity and Islam both, and proven their predictions don't stand up to experimentation."
I stand corrected lol
You know the "simple" aspects as well as anyone does.
What are the 'simple' aspects? The Golden Rule?
That. Also the concept of "salvation" as well as a few other things.
Which are pretty much the simple aspects of any religion. So, in order to reach everyone, god speaks through all religions?
knowing that that we are unlikely to change each other's minds.
The first thing one should always keep in mind in a discussion like this is "no one is ever convinced of anything because of something said on the Internet".
Once you get that down, it's a lot easier to keep your temper in check. :)
|
|
That. Also the concept of "salvation" as well as a few other things.Which are pretty much the simple aspects of any religion. So, in order to reach everyone, god speaks through all religions?
If they all said the same thing -- sure.
I'm not sure that I agree with what you are implying with respect to "god speaks". I feel that I gain insight into who/what God is with the Bible -- but I'm not sure that I feel that God "speaks" to me with the Bible.
I'm trying to formulate in my mind what I'm talking about -- and failing.
At its most basic, the Bible is a collection of words. Nothing more, nothing less. If I read a passage in the Bible -- at what point does it stop being a collection of words and become something more? Do I feel like I have a better understanding into who God is through verse X because of "the Spirit moving through me" or do I feel this way because of what I ate last night?
I think I'm trying to say that if it was just the Bible and what it said, it wouldn't mean anything to me. God "speaks" to me through some other "magical" way -- which really doesn't help you understand what I'm trying to say...
Which are pretty much the simple aspects of any religion. So, in order to reach everyone, god speaks through all religions?
I disagree. IIRC, the Qu'ran says that Mohammed started the great work of uniting the whole world into a single Islamic Caliphate, and that it's the duty of all Muslims to continue working towards that end. That's about as simple a commandment as you can get -- the meaning seemingly isn't open to a whole lot of interpretation. But it doesn't match what the Christians or the Buddhists or the Hindus are saying.
I think I'm trying to say that if it was just the Bible and what it said, it wouldn't mean anything to me. God "speaks" to me through some other "magical" way -- which really doesn't help you understand what I'm trying to say...
So you have your own moral compass through which god speaks and the Bible helps understand who/what/why god is?
I disagree. IIRC, the Qu'ran says that Mohammed started the great work of uniting the whole world into a single Islamic Caliphate, and that it's the duty of all Muslims to continue working towards that end.
Did not Jesus command his apostles to spread his word?
From my perspective, all religions have a vested interest in expanding themselves.
From my perspective, all religions have a vested interest in expanding themselves.
Some more than others. Islam is at the top, with a commandment to world ubiquity. Christianity is pretty close, with a commandment to "spread the light" or "the Word" or "the Gospel." At the far opposite end, you get people like the Jains and the Sikhs, who never seem bother anyone else. Some religions claim that "This is AN answer." Others claim that "this is THE answer."
Spiritual one-up-manship? We went from flawed Greek gods (I am unfamiliar with the gods that came before Zeus and cast) to an omnipotent god. How do you come up with an even more powerful god? You don't, so you say that all powerful god is really yours too, but that only you truly understand him.
(I am unfamiliar with the gods that came before Zeus and cast)
Depends which chunk of the world you were from... the Norse had Odin and friends, the Aztecs had Quetzalcouatl, the Middle Easterners had Marduk and Ba'al and Dagon and a handful of others. The Egyptians had Horus and Ra and that bunch.
I'm not exactly sure on the dates of origin on all those, except for the Egyptians... they had their bunch back around Moses's time, which predates the Greeks by a few thousand years.
I'm not exactly sure on the dates of origin on all those, except for the Egyptians... they had their bunch back around Moses's time, which predates the Greeks by a few thousand years.
The foundations of what would eventually become Hinduism have been around since about 5500 BC, if we're looking at antiquity... although it's hard to tell exactly, since writing has only been around since about 3500 BC.
I'm not exactly sure on the dates of origin on all those, except for the Egyptians... they had their bunch back around Moses's time, which predates the Greeks by a few thousand years.The foundations of what would eventually become Hinduism have been around since about 5500 BC, if we're looking at antiquity... although it's hard to tell exactly, since writing has only been around since about 3500 BC.
Yeah, as much as I love my mythologies I'm not to familiar with the Eastern set (Hindu, Buddhist, Japanese, etc. etc. etc.) other than a few stray names.
Yeah, as much as I love my mythologies I'm not to familiar with the Eastern set (Hindu, Buddhist, Japanese, etc. etc. etc.) other than a few stray names.I'm not exactly sure on the dates of origin on all those, except for the Egyptians... they had their bunch back around Moses's time, which predates the Greeks by a few thousand years.The foundations of what would eventually become Hinduism have been around since about 5500 BC, if we're looking at antiquity... although it's hard to tell exactly, since writing has only been around since about 3500 BC.
Not the oldest of the bunch, but I've always been a fan of the Celestial Bureaucracy.
I saw this and thought -- I still want a "buddy Jesus". I think it's hilarious and feel that God/Jesus probably finds it funny as well.
People even protested the Life of Brian, in which Jesus is barely a character and is depicted rather generously. Some look at thin skins and can only think of how to wear them thinner. These sorts are only encouraged by excess deference.
At the same time we had a Jesus action figure that was included in some book set that was given to us. I thought it was stupid. But what's worse is -- what do you do with it? Do you throw Jesus away? Do you keep it and let it sink to the bottom of the toy box? It just seemed like a rather poor marketing idea in the end.
It's not really Jesus. Does it matter? I mean I understand if you're impressed by the craftsmanship or something, but kitsch is kitsch and one shouldn't feel bad about disposing of it. I'm pretty sure that Jesus would have known the difference between himself and molded plastic and paint. :)
I saw this and thought -- I still want a "buddy Jesus". I think it's hilarious and feel that God/Jesus probably finds it funny as well.People even protested the Life of Brian, in which Jesus is barely a character and is depicted rather generously. Some look at thin skins and can only think of how to wear them thinner. These sorts are only encouraged by excess deference.
It as either Life of Brian or Dogma where Buddy Jesus is from that there was some kind of arrangement for protests where the creator went along with the protesting for kicks and giggles. I forget which one it was. Now that's a sense of humor.
|
|
It's not really Jesus. Does it matter? I mean I understand if you're impressed by the craftsmanship or something, but kitsch is kitsch and one shouldn't feel bad about disposing of it. I'm pretty sure that Jesus would have known the difference between himself and molded plastic and paint. :)
At the same time we had a Jesus action figure that was included in some book set that was given to us. I thought it was stupid. But what's worse is -- what do you do with it? Do you throw Jesus away? Do you keep it and let it sink to the bottom of the toy box? It just seemed like a rather poor marketing idea in the end.
I threw it away. It still felt weird.
|
|
It as either Life of Brian or Dogma where Buddy Jesus is from that there was some kind of arrangement for protests where the creator went along with the protesting for kicks and giggles. I forget which one it was. Now that's a sense of humor.I saw this and thought -- I still want a "buddy Jesus". I think it's hilarious and feel that God/Jesus probably finds it funny as well.People even protested the Life of Brian, in which Jesus is barely a character and is depicted rather generously. Some look at thin skins and can only think of how to wear them thinner. These sorts are only encouraged by excess deference.
Dogma was over the top sacreligious. At the same time, it was very well done and they really did their homework into background and history and so on. (And that was the one with the Buddy Jesus.) In the end, I never really got the feeling that they were trying to "bash" or like they had an "agenda". But I really don't need to hear certain words that often.
The Invention of Lying on the other hand...
It as either Life of Brian or Dogma where Buddy Jesus is from that there was some kind of arrangement for protests where the creator went along with the protesting for kicks and giggles. I forget which one it was. Now that's a sense of humor.
That would be Dogma. Everyone's favorite divorced Catholic obsessed with Jewish media conspiracies, the perpetually irate Bill Donahue, was irate.
Kevin Smith, the practicing Catholic director and writer, went among the protesters with his own sign and even got interviewed.
Dogma was over the top sacreligious.
Saved! is great too. :)
Both have a sort of soft sell at the end, though.
|
|
It as either Life of Brian or Dogma where Buddy Jesus is from that there was some kind of arrangement for protests where the creator went along with the protesting for kicks and giggles. I forget which one it was. Now that's a sense of humor.I saw this and thought -- I still want a "buddy Jesus". I think it's hilarious and feel that God/Jesus probably finds it funny as well.People even protested the Life of Brian, in which Jesus is barely a character and is depicted rather generously. Some look at thin skins and can only think of how to wear them thinner. These sorts are only encouraged by excess deference.
Dogma...Kevin Smith made a sign with sparkles.
But I really don't need to hear certain words that often.
That was my biggest critique as well, but it's fairly par for the course with Jay and Silent Bob movies. Other than the rampant swearing I did enjoy it, much much more than most of their other movies.
|
|
It as either Life of Brian or Dogma where Buddy Jesus is from that there was some kind of arrangement for protests where the creator went along with the protesting for kicks and giggles. I forget which one it was. Now that's a sense of humor.That would be Dogma. Everyone's favorite divorced Catholic obsessed with Jewish media conspiracies, the perpetually irate Bill Donahue, was irate.
Kevin Smith, the practicing Catholic director and writer, went among the protesters with his own sign and even got interviewed.
I have to say...we don't want Bill Donahue... any takers?
...Everyone's favorite divorced Catholic obsessed with Jewish media conspiracies, the perpetually irate Bill Donahue, was irate...I have to say...we don't want Bill Donahue... any takers?
Well, you could load him in a mass driver and use him to take out the Westboro Baptist Church. :)
|
|
Well, you could load him in a mass driver and use him to take out the Westboro Baptist Church. :)...Everyone's favorite divorced Catholic obsessed with Jewish media conspiracies, the perpetually irate Bill Donahue, was irate...I have to say...we don't want Bill Donahue... any takers?
What a GREAT IDEA!
What a GREAT IDEA!Well, you could load him in a mass driver and use him to take out the Westboro Baptist Church. :)...Everyone's favorite divorced Catholic obsessed with Jewish media conspiracies, the perpetually irate Bill Donahue, was irate...I have to say...we don't want Bill Donahue... any takers?
I dunno, mass drivers are still experimental. What if you make a miscalculation and take out half the state of Kansas?
I dunno, mass drivers are still experimental. What if you make a miscalculation and take out half the state of Kansas?What a GREAT IDEA!Well, you could load him in a mass driver and use him to take out the Westboro Baptist Church. :)...Everyone's favorite divorced Catholic obsessed with Jewish media conspiracies, the perpetually irate Bill Donahue, was irate...I have to say...we don't want Bill Donahue... any takers?
Nah, we'll get Stephen Hawking to design it; we'll just tell him it's for taking out hostile space aliens. :)
|
|
I dunno, mass drivers are still experimental. What if you make a miscalculation and take out half the state of Kansas?What a GREAT IDEA!Well, you could load him in a mass driver and use him to take out the Westboro Baptist Church. :)...Everyone's favorite divorced Catholic obsessed with Jewish media conspiracies, the perpetually irate Bill Donahue, was irate...I have to say...we don't want Bill Donahue... any takers?
They are in Topeka...no great loss.
I dunno, mass drivers are still experimental. What if you make a miscalculation and take out half the state of Kansas?
Half of Kansas surviving seems like a bad risk. Why don't we just flush him like someone should have done years ago at that grungy taco hut porta-john downstream from Chernobyl where he first congealed?
I appreciate the desire for economy in taking care of two things at once, but I think they're both important enough to devote our full attention. Orbital bombardment is serious business too.
|
|
I dunno, mass drivers are still experimental. What if you make a miscalculation and take out half the state of Kansas?Half of Kansas surviving seems like a bad risk. Why don't we just flush him like someone should have done years ago at that grungy taco hut porta-john downstream from Chernobyl where he first congealed?
I appreciate the desire for economy in taking care of two things at once, but I think they're both important enough to devote our full attention. Orbital bombardment is serious business too.
Well if they are going to go that way I have a few other choice individuals we can send with them.
Well if they are going to go that way I have a few other choice individuals we can send with them.
We shall require a bigger sewer.
|
Prop 8 the documentary I have people I view as friends in the Mormon church but I would love to see this.
They are in Topeka...no great loss.I dunno, mass drivers are still experimental. What if you make a miscalculation and take out half the state of Kansas?What a GREAT IDEA!Well, you could load him in a mass driver and use him to take out the Westboro Baptist Church. :)...Everyone's favorite divorced Catholic obsessed with Jewish media conspiracies, the perpetually irate Bill Donahue, was irate...I have to say...we don't want Bill Donahue... any takers?
True. I just didn't want to be the one to say it.
Actually, I thought the message I got from Dogma was very pro-Christian, if not mainstream.
God works in mysterious ways, but all that does not matter, because she loves you. And that is truly what matters.