|
I'd like your take on a question I've posted in my own thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3682969
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 08:36 |
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Ahh, I gotcha, and totally agree. It's ironic to see folks like Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins blame religious belief for the terrible things that happen in the world, when they are already following the exact same patterns. Ask a staunch, militant Atheist why he has such strong faith that there is no God, and we could be having this same thread in reverse. This is such an old argument, that atheists are just as bad as the faithful when it comes to their "beliefs". We don't have a separate term for non-golf players, we don't have to label ourselves as "not biologists", so how is "atheism" even a coherent group, much less one with a single creed in which to have "faith". Of course, if you have a problem with the provocateurs Dawkins and Hitchens and the like, then I do tend to agree with you, although I'd like to point out that you really aren't against "atheists" so much as "assholes"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Christ could only be evil if his love/forgiveness is limited to a select few. Isn't it though? Romans 9:18, NLT posted:So you see, God chooses to show mercy to some, and he chooses to harden the hearts of others so they refuse to listen. Seems like God is purposefully excluding some, making the Bible seem contradictory and false to them so that they will turn away from the religion and be damned to hell. Why? Well: Romans 9:23, NLT posted:He does this to make the riches of his glory shine even brighter on those to whom he shows mercy, who were prepared in advance for glory. Some people are pre-selected to be saved, while others are pre-selected to have their hearts hardened so that they turn away and deny God. God does this so the people he does save feel even more special. Go ahead, read the whole chapter, tell me I'm cherry-picking to twist the message. I'm not.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:I'm afraid God's love is somewhat greater than the author of Romans. There I go again, forgetting that not all Christians are Biblical literalists. So Paul was just a guy, getting close to the truth in many cases, but we shouldn't count his epistles as direct Word of God?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Few Christians are. I'd have a conversation with the American evangelicals before making that assertion. quote:Yup, and I think Paul himself would be horrified that some people today try to attach such a label to his letters. He's putting forward arguments to his colleagues, not claiming to speak for God. In Corinthians he talks about the limitations of human understanding, "through a mirror, darkly" and all that. This applies to his own morals and views on salvation. Look, 1 Corinthians 13 is one of my favorites. It's like that old pop song from the 60s that just never got out of date. It's beautiful. But like it or not, plenty of (evangelical, protestant, American) Christians think of the Bible as (every. word.) divinely inspired by God, including and especially Paul's epistles. I guess my question then becomes, hey, if the Bible isn't a direct Word of God missive, then why trust it to reveal the finer points of salvation? But then I guess I'm just asking the oldest questions there are, still unsatisfied with the answers.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:They are the "few" I was referring to. I know they like to make a lot of noise, but unless I'm mistaken their interpretations are in the minority, even within American Christianity, let alone globally. So what made you believe?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Kit Walker posted:Well, assuming God created the world, and that our actions in this world are to be judged and will determine our eternal fate in the afterlife Here's another question I've had. So as I understand it, Jesus died so that our sins would be forgiven, and all we have to do is believe that he is God incarnate. That seems like a weird standard - like, why couldn't he die for the sin of nonbelief as well? - but that's how I understand it. It's also been explained to me that all sin is equal in God's eye. That is, whether we think one impure thought or murder 10 people, we've still sinned, and sin is unacceptable however it manifests. You cannot be in God's presence if you're soiled by sin. And lastly, it is essentially guaranteed that we will sin. We are a flawed race, and each of us will sin in our lives, it's unavoidable. So my question is, why strive not to sin? Why even try to do as many good things as you can? As long as you are a Christian, everything is going to be forgiven anyway, and it's not as though you have to avoid felony sins but can commit a few misdemeanor sins - it's all equally unacceptable. Can you be a true Christ-loving Christian and still go to hell for some reason? And if so, how is that "forgiving all your sins"?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You're not God. You don't get to wear His hat and hand down infallible truths about the universe that we're not allowed to question while pretending to be humble. To accept this line of argument renders all religiously-justified commands beyond moral or logical judgment, which is ridiculous. By this standard we can't even criticize the Westboro Baptist church. Who are we to say whether a loving God wants us to stone the gays: who are we to question the Word of the Lord as interpreted by the Phelps clan ? They say God says it, so debate over I guess, kill all fags. This kind of goes along with my earlier point, as well as the question in my other D&D thread: there are far too many disagreements arrived at by interpretation for me to take interpretation alone as sufficient. Within that, there are also a great many things that are considered sins by some and not by others for which neither camp seems to have a better or worse argument objectively. We can't even figure out what sins are, much less how to resist the temptation into doing them. And yet, Jesus died to absolve us of our sins, or at least remove the consequences of having done them. So why slog through all that mess of interpretation of what is and is not sin when all of it's getting forgiven at the end of your life? Why is so much time spent declaring what God thinks and what God wants and which things God does not like when you've got a blank check of forgiveness as long as you're a Christian? That's the disconnect here. Interpretation is faulty and our sins get forgiven anyway, yet people spend SO MUCH TIME AND ENERGY trying to find the "right" interpretations of things, going so far as to split into new denominations that adhere to those views.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:You do not have to believe in Christ to be forgiven by him. He forgave ALL sin, not SOME. So not just my nasty-rear end grandma but poor misunderstood Hitler too! Wait, I'm forgiven for everything no matter what? No one goes to hell? I don't even have to be a CHRISTIAN?? Hoo-rah!!! I've finally found a version of Christianity I like! quote:Do the right thing because it's right to do, not out of desire for reward/fear of punishment (those would be sinful motivations!), I mean what kind of goofball would knowingly choose to be a pathetic loser if they could also choose to be cool and righteous?? Well I definitely agree with that, which is why I've always really hated the view that atheists are immoral because they don't have a God - like, excuse me? You're only doing "the right thing" so you can get into heaven and/or not get smited, I want to help people because I want them to be helped. If anyone's immoral, it's YOU (hypothetical fundie). I'm not actually saying it's a good lifestyle to not care about people or being right. I'm saying it follows from some of the religious tenants as I understand them to have been explained to me.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Christ did not die for one race of people. All people are disloyal sinners in his eyes, who without his mercy would be deserving of damnation. He died that all people's sins might be forgiven Hey, another question, which may sound flippant, but is actually sincere. How does the story actually make any sense? I mean, God sacrificed Himself to Himself to give Himself a loophole through which he could cheat people into heaven? That makes it seem like God is subject to certain laws of goodness outside of his control. It reads like the plot of LOST. He's God, right? Couldn't he just say "woah, like almost no one is getting into heaven by trying to strictly follow Hebrew law. Guess that's not working. Hey, I know...I'll just change the rules! Boop! Now people can get into heaven for the low low price of faith (or even nothing, if you're right). Wow, that feels good!" And even more, why would God have to have tried so many methods that didn't work? "Oh no, Adam ate from the tree, gotta kick him out of Eden. Oh no, too many sinners, better flood the world and kill everyone but Noah. Oh no, these two cities are sinning too much, gonna level them with fire and brimstone. drat, this still isn't working. What else haven't I tried? Ooh, I know, how about Jesus?" Why not start with Jesus, if he knows that's where he's gotta end up? Like, God doesn't change, and God doesn't make mistakes. Or does He? Again, this is the doctrine as I understand it. If Christianity were a movie, there's be a BuzzFeed article in an hour: "11 Gaping Plotholes in The Bible You Could Drive A Mack Truck Through" coupled with gifs of Michael Scott looking frazzled.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:(which I respond to by thinking about all of it as religion) Yeah, so...stop doing that? Because it isn't. Your belief in God and my general trust in the accuracy of the scientific method are not both "religions". You may think they are comparable, but that is because you are mistaken. It must be that your understanding of the non-religious world is faulty; I would be happy to clear up any misconceptions you have but just because your perceptions have led to a wrong conclusion does not redefine science as a "faith".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Thing is, what I'm saying is can be simplified to: It's ok and necessary to doubt whatever we trust in! And it is ironic for atheists to not acknowledge that. ARE YOU KIDDING???!!! The very reason we become atheists/agnostics is because we doubted what we trusted in. Arrival at "the scientific method is robust and will probably produce trustworthy results" is not a matter of religious faith, it's a matter seeing this demonstrated over and over again by scientific processes reaching correct conclusions. And when something appears to be suspect, we doubt, and we replicate the experiment, or at least examine it to find possible faults. You are arguing against the strawmanniest strawman that ever strawmanned. Truth is, you don't doubt. Sure, you might say "well there's one or two verses I'm still not sure of" but at the fundamental level you're sure God exists and that the basic tenants of Christianity are true. You're not willing to really say, "okay - let me examine scenario X beginning with the assumption that my beliefs are wrong. What could then be the explanation? And does that explanation make better sense and stand up better to scrutiny than my current beliefs?" And before you even try to throw that back on me: yes, science does this all the time. It's how science works. You mistake science for a set of beliefs that parallel Christianity. Science is a process, not a belief system.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:What is your reaction when one of your creation calls you a bitch? I would uh, oh um, what's the term, uhhhh geez it was uhhh....oh yeah, turn the other cheek.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:It is technically the position of the Church that the Bible is "inerrant". We are not likely to back away from this line. We will acknowledge that the firmament does not actually exist, but we will still consider the Bible inerrant. I view the firmament as an (intentionally) poetic thing, and sometimes when I am outside I like to look at the sky and imagine the firmament holding back the cosmic waters. How could you possibly hold the view "the Bible is inerrant" and "there are things in the Bible that aren't true" at the same time? Also, I'm curious about your take on why there are two genealogies of Jesus in the Gospels
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:The genealogies of Jesus, the basic idea is that they are harmonious, i.e., do not contradict each other. Okay, but...how? There are two genealogies, they both seem to be presenting a lineage from Abraham to Joseph, and there are different names and a different number of people represented. How are they harmonious?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Im not condescending to Christians though thats the whole point dude learn to read. I mean, you're really arguing that you get to say whether Mormons are or are not actually Christians. You. You, the arbiter of all that is truly Christian. Not the millions of Mormons who would very much equate their view of Jesus as the true Messiah with being Christian. You.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Miltank posted:and they revere different holy texts. So are groups that accept/reject certain books in the Apocrypha also "not christians"? What are the "correct" books? How do you know? Mormons feel just as strongly about the book of Mormon as you do about whichever books you trust in, how do you know they are the ones making the mistake and not you? "I just know" or "God told me" are not robust enough answers
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Miltank posted:The book of Mormon is a completely different type of holy book from the Christian bible and apocrypha. The new testament is a collection of human letters and writings by leaders of the early church. The gospels are the transposition of Christian oral traditions about the life of Jesus. The books which make up the new testament were decided on by a council of early Christians before the schism. Sounds like simple reformation to me. I'm sure early protestants were thought of as "not Christian" until they became more mainstream. Also you didn't answer my question.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Miltank posted:If your question is 'why trust one text over the other?' then I don't have nearly the drive to answer that right now. Well, yeah, that's uh...kinda key. Your argument hinges on Mormons trusting the wrong book. I would like to know WHY it is the wrong book
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
The fact that there are sects to begin with is almost all the proof you need. I mean, I know people that consider Catholics not true Christians because they see the veneration of saints as tantamount to idolatry. Everyone is so sure of their own interpretations, but they also seem ignorant that everyone else is totally sure of their interpretations. And there is no good way to find out who's really right.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:This is a fundamentally irrational argument. "That people disagree means it's impossible to tell who's right!" No no, it's "people disagree and it's impossible to tell who's right"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Liar. You said that there being multiple sects was "proof." GAINING WEIGHT... posted:The fact that there are sects to begin with is almost all the proof you need. I mean, I know people that consider Catholics not true Christians because they see the veneration of saints as tantamount to idolatry. Everyone is so sure of their own interpretations, but they also seem ignorant that everyone else is totally sure of their interpretations. And there is no good way to find out who's really right.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Except for that time he wouldn't let the pharaoh of Egypt let the Jews go by hardening his heart. But you know besides that... And according to Paul, God hardens people's hearts all the time. Like, say for instance, every single non-christian. Romans 9 posted:18 So you see, God chooses to show mercy to some, and he chooses to harden the hearts of others so they refuse to listen. God makes certain people nonbelievers on purpose, the "garbage" if you will, to make salvation taste all the sweeter for those to whom he gives it. Nice guy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:
I'm sorry, but this makes almost no sense to me. First, just in the sense that I can't tell precisely what is being argued here. Second, there's the idea that sin causes spiritual blindness, and as punishment, God withdraws grace and hardens the heart to make someone stop believing. But I thought the sacrifice of Jesus allowed God to forgive sins? And don't Christians sin all the time as well? Isn't that the point - that we are imperfect, sinful creatures who would perish but for the Grace of God in Christ? Is there some sin threshold that, once we pass, we'll fall into the worst sin of all, unbelief? This seems to suggest that unbelievers earned their hardened hearts by the depth and severity of the sin they committed, which is frankly insulting, and plainly untrue. How many murderers repented in jail and found Jesus? How many members of the Catholic clergy participated in the ring of pedophilia that scarred so many young boys for life? And I'm worse than THAT? How??? Because I drank alcohol before I was 21, or really wanted to have sex with some of my classmates growing up? Got angry and yelled at my mother? Somehow God could forgive rape and murder and allow those people back into the one true faith, but not my piddling teenage sins? If Jesus's sacrifice forgives all sin, then it makes no sense to say sin will be the cause of me losing favor with God. I guess I need to know your views on hell, what it is, and how one earns damnation to it. Is Christianity enough to get into heaven? Can a true believer deserve hell? Can a nonbeliever ever get into heaven? SedanChair posted:This seems like a good time to ask: do you still believe in any of this poo poo? I'm making all of my arguments from the perspective of it being true, but I consider myself religiously unaffiliated. If I can find a good reason to believe, I'll believe. I don't find it likely, however.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Sin doesn't necessarily lie in any individual act. To sin is fundamentally to act in such a way that man's will rejects God's assistance in good living. As Augustine suggests in his arguments against the Pelagians, this obstacle that obscures God's Grace can be overcome by turning away from the trappings of man's physical frailty and desires (since sin is said to originate in lust and lead to death), and asking for God's guidance. Of course, this does have profound consequence for heretics and pagans: Aren't we all sinners though? That's my understanding of it; Jesus was the only sinless human in all history, the rest of us fall short. But it's okay! Jesus died to forgive us our sins, which means no matter the degree of our sin, we'll be absolved! Hooray! Glory be to thee O God! Is this not correct? Again, is there some sort of "sin threshold" where, at a certain point of sinning, we're cast off by a frustrated God? That's what your quote seemed to suggest - when the sin becomes too great, God hardens our hearts as punishment, meaning we no longer have faith, meaning we go to hell. So Jesus only forgives some sin? Most sin? I get the shutters metaphor, I really do, but it doesn't seem to quite fit with my impression of the doctrine of salvation. Who is saved, in your opinion? Who isn't? Can those in the unsaved pile ever earn their way to the saved? Paul goes out of his way in Romans to explain that our salvation is unearned (and undeserved!), and that it is not our actions that bring God to favor us - he merely favors us, or he doesn't. In the end, it's a bit of a Catch-22, if I'm understanding it right. I need to have faith and belief in Jesus to be absolved of my sins, but as punishment for my sins, I am robbed of the faith, and reject God.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
Miltank posted:I'm not sure I agree with this but I'll just accept it for the sake of the argument. What I want to know is your basis for 'reasonably having power'. This has always been my hangup on atheist morality- there is no commitment to acting unreasonably. Do you understand what I mean by this? It continues to surprise me that Christians think atheists can't be altruistic or want good things for others even at their own expense without the fear/love of God compelling them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
UmMatthew 2 posted:24 When Joseph woke up, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded and took Mary as his wife. 25 But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus. He didn't have sexual relations with her until her son was born. He did have those relations, though. It's in the Bible.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Kyrie, to get this thread back on some semblance of being on track: What was it, specifically, that turned you away from your belief initially? What was it, specifically, that brought you back? When you were an atheist, did you really think there was no God, or were you just denying Him (suppressing the truth) because you were angry with Christianity or something?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
Then why do you The Snark posted:Fair point, I chose poorly. I still think similar arguments could be made for a more appropriate one. Context changes everything. I also probably meant to reply to a different quote at that. quote:28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Faith From where did that faith come from in the first place? Why is faith not an acceptable answer for other religions? That is, why are Mormons wrong, from your perspective?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Miltank posted:"Rape" is probably used incorrectly in NIV as other versions do not use that word so there is ambiguity already right there. It is ambiguous in any case because the passage immediately proceeding that passage reads.. Other translations range from "has intercourse with" to "seizes and lies with"; force seems to be implied but either way, there is no mention of the woman's consent anywhere. The real difference between the passages seems to be betrothed vs not, which means as long as you rape a single virgin, you have to marry and never divorce her (oh, and buy her from her dad). e: yeah most of the translations I'm looking through use rape or seize or grab hold...some kind of force used. GAINING WEIGHT... fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
The Snark posted:I've heard this one before, in which case the question then is what precisely was meant by 'fulfill'. There is perhaps an argument to be made that Jesus' death on the cross was- in dying for our sins- him taking those various death sentences on himself. Meaning that violating those laws is a death sentence but can be forgiven through Jesus who paid that price collectively for us. Are you kidding? Yes, sure, the first line says "I have come to fulfill" which one could argue is ambiguous. Luckily, Jesus goes on to explain exactly what he means by that, saying "Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven". In other words, it doesn't mean we can stop following them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
The Snark posted:Meanwhile Christian scripture has a pedigree unmatched by any other faith. It has, in whatever form, survived centuries upon centuries. This doesn't PROVE jack poo poo, but it's one of the reasons I am compelled to believe there is something in it of divine nature. Hahahahahha. Hahahahah! I get the feeling that when Christians make claims like this...the Bible is so much DIFFERENT from other books, the Christian God is so much more LOVING than those other Gods...it just goes to further prove that they don't really know what they are talking about. They've found comfort in their faith, have believed the caricatured and distorted views of other faiths presented by others in their faith, and have not seriously explored anything else in their lives. Also, if oldest is best - as your centuries upon centuries comment implies - then I guess we need to all convert to Zoroastrianism. Or at the very least, Judaism.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
The Snark posted:On that last one, you're getting closer to it with Christianity. Disregard the New Testament and you're pretty much there. The Bible.....is a sequel!!! Like....what the hell are you talking about? You are bringing up flowery and meaningless suppositions to distract us from the fact that the Jesus is clear that no part of the Law can be dismissed just because he showed up, so using that as an explanation for why those verses about killing unbelievers or raping virgins no longer apply is nonsensical! And even if it were, THAT STUFF WAS APPROVED BY GOD AT ONE TIME, EVEN IF IT'S NO LONGER CONDONED TODAY. THAT poo poo IS STILL NOT OKAY. GAINING WEIGHT... fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Dec 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
The Snark posted:New Testament is, arguably. Uh, no? Maybe address some issues, I guess? But way to be literally holier-than-thou. And yeah, taking the Jewish book and renaming it as the first HALF of your book does not make Christianity magically the original faith. You're already a sequel, you're already not the oldest and most enduring tradition.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
The Snark posted:Meanwhile you and a lot of other people seem to be just... INCREDIBLY smug about how you're all going to just turn into a bunch of rotting meat at the end of your days. I uh....  Yeah, sure, that's exactly what I think
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:One of the genealogies from David is that of Mary; in addition, Joseph was Christ's legal father and therefore Christ was also of the house of David through Joseph. Catholics are not against adoption. Then why do both Matthew and Luke's genealogies claim to be that of Joseph's? Also, which of the two is Mary's?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Sure, God seemed great at first, with all that sweet talk to Abraham. But then he started getting weird. The Jews went to a couple of parties with another deity, then God's suddenly setting bushes on fire and laying down really strict "ground rules" for the relationship. But he was still pretty reliable, and the Jews were in a rough place at the time, so they stuck with him. Then things got worse. The Babylonians, this that and the other. Instead of being there for his people, like a good guy should, God got all angry and kept telling the Jews it was their own fault. He started making wild accusations about them seeing other deities on the side. He needed, like, constant praise, and the second the Jews even had a conversation with some other group, God would flip out and start sending invading armies, constant text messages, etc. Things just went downhill from there. At some point the Jews started bickering with him, and among themselves, constantly...and then there was the Holocaust thing and man...they need a restraining order. http://atheism.about.com/od/whatisgod/p/AbuserAbusive.htm
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It doesn't matter all the genealogies are probably made up. Mary is possibly in some way related (and probably not directly so) to the Hasmonean dynasty because she is named Mary after all. Herod the great married a Hasmonean who was later executed and that's where the name Mary comes from, Mariamne I. It's a protest/political name, think sort of like an African American naming a child after Martin Luther King or Malcolm X. Okay, so now you explain why, even though the Bible is not inerrant, you still trust its stories over other Holy books' stories
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 08:36 |
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:That's a beautiful little strawman there, but seriously, don't do that again. It doesn't seem like a strawman at all. Granted, you'd never say it that way particularly, but it's essentially what you think: your book is God's word or at least his general likes and dislikes, or at the very least it's an accurate account of that one time he came down to earth in the flesh, but those other books? Well those are just mythology. There's no reason for the Bible to have a different standard of validity than any other religious text. Is there?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 17:39
|
|