Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
blind pew

Why?

255 posts in this topic

Why would anybody worship a god that allows children to be molested and killed? If you want my worship you need to give something in return.

No higher being/God/Goddess would ever condone an act that would harm another being in anyway. Why would you say that ?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would add my two cents worth here, that the Genesis story has none of the items Mr. Walker mentioned in his post. There certainly was death, there certainly was no immortality for mankind. All the rules of the natural universe were functioning as they should be. There were were fires, earthquakes, decay, predator-prey relationships. The view given by Mr. Walker is held by a number of Christians, but it is not based on biblical texts but are merely assumptions taken on readings of verses that are taken out of their contextual understanding.

This is a fair opinion. I am not a biblical literalist but i take the biblical story as a whole.

Revelations gives clear descriptions of the new/ recreated earth. The conditions I applied to eden do exist in that scenario. It is thus logical to assume they were existent in the original creation.

There are also hints in gods words to women that, henceforth they will give birth in pain and suffering, and that there will be enmity between the serpent and humanity. Those words imply changes from a different pre-existent edenic state. It is true that some creationists have created a whole ecology of a edenic earth based on entirely differnt physics from what exist now, with no rain and a constant temperature world wide, but that is again based on extrapolations from biblical descriptions which may or may not be reasonable. Some tie it into the description of the flood and suggestions that the flood also changed the climatology/hydrology of the earth.

Ps if there was death in eden, then in a way god is made out to be a liar. The serpent says that adam and eve will not die if they eat the fruit. God says they will .Adam and eve live for another thousand years or so. The only logical, structural, story telling explanation of this dichotomy, if god tells the truth, is that originally adam and eve were created immortal. In eating th e fruit of knowledge they lost that immortality.

God also explains quite clearly that he now must expel them from the garden and place armed guards on its gate, so they no longer have access to the tree of life, lest, to paraphrase, "given knowledge and immortality they become as god" Thus the tree of life, whatever that was physically or spiritually, invested immortality on mankind. We traded that for knowledge in the biblical creation story.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Natural evil (surd evil) is explained adequately enough in this wiki article;

"Moral evil results from a perpetrator, or one who acts intentionally and in so doing has flouted some duty or engaged in some vice. Natural evil has only victims, and is generally taken to be the result of natural processes. The "evil" thus identified is evil only from the perspective of those affected and who perceive it as an affliction. Examples include cancer, birth defects, tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, acts of god, and other phenomena which inflict suffering with apparently no accompanying mitigating good."

No mitigating good (or greater good). That's key I think, the pain, suffering and death (aka evil) is gratuitous. Anyways, you can't deny the evidential problem of pain, suffering and death by denying it's evil. It's not moral evil like you said, but's still evil, as in something to be avoided.

This argument is called nomic regularity. a fancy way of saying "that's just the way things are"., and that's not really an answer is it? From the cited article above; "If such regularity has (natural) evil as a byproduct (perhaps including animal pain), those byproducts are morally permissible as long as the good of nomic regularity is outweighing." Again, it's the greater good emphasis, except no one has ever explained to me what this "greater good" might be.

Yes, that's the pre-lapsarian world argument where pain, suffering and death (aka evil) did not exist. You are right to disagree with this argument as the evidence against it (pre-hominid fossils) is overwhelming.

Thanks Walker, I've think we've been through this before.

It depends on your definition of evil.

In my lexicon and philosophical landscape, evil is a word constructed by humans which includes an element of intent.

Thus a tsunami is not evil, and hence the consequences of a tsunami cannot be evil. They can be harmful or destructive. The word good has two meanings, one which implies intent and one which simply describes a state of being eg "that was a good act" is differnt to "have a good day"

Evil is something which must be chosen. Good can be chosen or can just be state of being. (used similarly to the word nice, as in "have a nice day." This doesnt necessarily make my pov correct, but its how i operate given my understanding of language.

If evil and good are interchangeable with constructive and destructive then they simply describe effects eg a cancer is destructive therefore it is evil. But imo that is not a correct usage of the word. neither a cancer nor its effects are evil, no matter how destructive they may be. Death is not evil.

Otherwise good and evil are no longer subjective words but physically descriptive ones and that doesn't work because what is good to one person may be evil to another. For some the effects of a devastating bushfire can be destructive but not evil They can actually be good. There is always a balance in natural processes and always a mitigating good. Evil exists where there is an intent to destroy, or restrict potentialities Thus an act designed with evil intent can have a destructive outcome, but ironically it can also have a creative outcome, and an act meant for good can have either creative or destructive outcomes.

Indeed nomic regularity explains the nature of the world as it is, without intent. And of course it is a "good enough" answer. it is the result of evolution and it is how an ecosystem operates. Neither 'good' nor "evil " apply in such a world. The term nomic regualrity is often applied to a religious even creationist view of the world, but really is just an extension of the principle of induction. It can be applied to an evolved world perhaps even more rationally and logically. Animal pain and suffering is an evolutionary consequence, not a consequence of gods creation. But pain per se is not EVIL, it just exists as an outcome of natural existence. Suffering is a state of mind which probably only applies to a self aware being.

Evil, now, is an entirely different thing. It does not exist without self aware intent..

Good and evil do not exist, except in our minds. How we chose to apply them is up to us. When an ape kills its rival and all the young of that rival, then has forced intercourse with the female, there is no good or evil in those acts. But when a human male does the same there is, because we know and understand what we are doing; the hurt and harm it causes, and why we are doing so. The other ape is just driven by evolved biological imperatives and there is no good or evil in him or in his actions.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a fair opinion. I am not a biblical literalist but i take the biblical story as a whole.

Revelations gives clear descriptions of the new/ recreated earth. The conditions I applied to eden do exist in that scenario. It is thus logical to assume they were existent in the original creation.

There are also hints in gods words to women that, henceforth they will give birth in pain and suffering, and that there will be enmity between the serpent and humanity. Those words imply changes from a different pre-existent edenic state. It is true that some creationists have created a whole ecology of a edenic earth based on entirely differnt physics from what exist now, with no rain and a constant temperature world wide, but that is again based on extrapolations from biblical descriptions which may or may not be reasonable. Some tie it into the description of the flood and suggestions that the flood also changed the climatology/hydrology of the earth.

Ps if there was death in eden, then in a way god is made out to be a liar. The serpent says that adam and eve will not die if they eat the fruit. God says they will .Adam and eve live for another thousand years or so. The only logical, structural, story telling explanation of this dichotomy, if god tells the truth, is that originally adam and eve were created immortal. In eating th e fruit of knowledge they lost that immortality.

God also explains quite clearly that he now must expel them from the garden and place armed guards on its gate, so they no longer have access to the tree of life, lest, to paraphrase, "given knowledge and immortality they become as god" Thus the tree of life, whatever that was physically or spiritually, invested immortality on mankind. We traded that for knowledge in the biblical creation story.

Mr. Walker,

Did you know that the immortality of man before the fall is a christian concept invented and extrapolated by Augustines fairly subjective interpretation of Romans 5:12? Before then nobody in their right mind had thought of such a thing, the Jews did not hold that belief at all, neither did the early christians before the 3rd century C.E.

Yet is was an essential part of the Doctrine of Original Sin, which again is not a biblical concept. This doctrine of Original Sin was masterminded by Augustine and has been a right royal pain in everyones life. It is also totally wrong.

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

Sin entered the world through the act of mankind, and death came to mankind because of sin, that is the essence of the verse above. Death comes to all men because we all become sinners. We are not born sinners, we become sinners.

But upon carful study of the verse, we also find that this event is ONLY speaking of mankind, not the rest of the natural world. The rules for mankind were different from the very beginning. They were charged with being the worlds stewards, to this end they lived in Eden, which was part of Gods Palace, so to speak. The bible speaks of Gods Holy Mountain, and Eden was located on it or near it. Within Eden there were two Trees, one the Tree of Life and two, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The text only disallows mankind from eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, never once is that interdiction referenced in relation to the Tree of Life.

When Adam and Eve are expelled from Eden it is to keep them from partaking of the Tree of Life, but that does not mean that they had not done so before their sin. They had what we can call "Conditional Immortality", they were not inherently immortal in their own right.

Basically what this tells us is that they were an exception to the rule, they were being kept alive and well, by artificial or outside means, under normal circumstances they would be sharing the fate of all natural creatures in the universe, death and decay.

People fail to realize that the death that entered the world, was the death to mankind, not death being introduced into the universe. Death is part of the natural order of the physical universe, without it, we could not even have stars and planets, much less life on earth.

The truth of the words of God are absolutely clear, it is our English translations that cause the misunderstanding...

מוֹת תָּמוּת

tamut mot

you shall die dying

Biblical Hebrew

For the information of the mere English reader, we remark that byom is formed from the particle b, which is here a proposition as well as a prefix; and yom which signifies day, definite, or otherwise, according to the context.

Bayt or b has many countersigns in our language, among which are in, against, to, after, etc. We have selected from these the last. B or Bayt is used in this sense in Numb. 28:26, where it is prefixed to the word sebothikam, which is rendered 'after your weeks;' ie, your weeks having expired, or from the expiration of your weeks, 'ye shall have a holy convocation;' so in the case before us, 'after the day of the eating,' or the day of the eating having passed; or, 'from the day of thy eating dying thou shalt die.'

Not, "on the day", but rather "after the day".

As to the phrase 'dying you shall die,' no criticism is needed; for it is admitted as the correct rendering on every side.

As such the correct interpretation is not a literal 24 hour period where death would occur after disobedience. It is quite clearly an expression that death would come to them over time, but they would most certainly die. Dying, you shall die. We all are dying at this very moment, little by little, cell by cell.

Mankind was never created immortal, what kept Adam and Eve from dying was access to the tree of life, when that access was denied, they proceeded to age and die.

A philosophical question, how could a command not to eat under a penalty of death have been motivation if they did not even know what death was? For me, they knew exactly what it was, they saw death often in the natural course of things, they were just exempt from it by the partaking of the Tree of Life. (which being a figure of Jesus Christ, who is the eternal giver of life, makes alot more sense than doing away with all the natural laws of the universe.)

Edited by Jor-el
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just going by what the bible says, I quote "And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you" Luke 11:9 I didnt see any small print that said only when it feels like it or you need to wait several decades etc..etc..

That is to me a very misused and misunderstood quote in the bible. Have you ever heard it said - Do you know what you are really asking for?

Comprehension of our motives needs to come first, before we ask the question. Another way of putting it is to ask of oneself - Who is asking this question and Why are we asking it?

Our motivations are governed so often by the Ego and the ego will utilise desire, fear, hate, lust, envy, pride et al as it's source of motivation. So we pray to a supreme being through the motivations of our ego and receive the appropriate answer but most certainly not the answer our desire would wish we had received - go figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Walker,

Did you know that the immortality of man before the fall is a christian concept invented and extrapolated by Augustines fairly subjective interpretation of Romans 5:12? Before then nobody in their right mind had thought of such a thing, the Jews did not hold that belief at all, neither did the early christians before the 3rd century C.E.

Yet is was an essential part of the Doctrine of Original Sin, which again is not a biblical concept. This doctrine of Original Sin was masterminded by Augustine and has been a right royal pain in everyones life. It is also totally wrong.

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

Sin entered the world through the act of mankind, and death came to mankind because of sin, that is the essence of the verse above. Death comes to all men because we all become sinners. We are not born sinners, we become sinners.

But upon carful study of the verse, we also find that this event is ONLY speaking of mankind, not the rest of the natural world. The rules for mankind were different from the very beginning. They were charged with being the worlds stewards, to this end they lived in Eden, which was part of Gods Palace, so to speak. The bible speaks of Gods Holy Mountain, and Eden was located on it or near it. Within Eden there were two Trees, one the Tree of Life and two, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The text only disallows mankind from eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, never once is that interdiction referenced in relation to the Tree of Life.

When Adam and Eve are expelled from Eden it is to keep them from partaking of the Tree of Life, but that does not mean that they had not done so before their sin. They had what we can call "Conditional Immortality", they were not inherently immortal in their own right.

Basically what this tells us is that they were an exception to the rule, they were being kept alive and well, by artificial or outside means, under normal circumstances they would be sharing the fate of all natural creatures in the universe, death and decay.

People fail to realize that the death that entered the world, was the death to mankind, not death being introduced into the universe. Death is part of the natural order of the physical universe, without it, we could not even have stars and planets, much less life on earth.

The truth of the words of God are absolutely clear, it is our English translations that cause the misunderstanding...

מוֹת תָּמוּת

tamut mot

you shall die dying

Biblical Hebrew

For the information of the mere English reader, we remark that byom is formed from the particle b, which is here a proposition as well as a prefix; and yom which signifies day, definite, or otherwise, according to the context.

Bayt or b has many countersigns in our language, among which are in, against, to, after, etc. We have selected from these the last. B or Bayt is used in this sense in Numb. 28:26, where it is prefixed to the word sebothikam, which is rendered 'after your weeks;' ie, your weeks having expired, or from the expiration of your weeks, 'ye shall have a holy convocation;' so in the case before us, 'after the day of the eating,' or the day of the eating having passed; or, 'from the day of thy eating dying thou shalt die.'

Not, "on the day", but rather "after the day".

As to the phrase 'dying you shall die,' no criticism is needed; for it is admitted as the correct rendering on every side.

As such the correct interpretation is not a literal 24 hour period where death would occur after disobedience. It is quite clearly an expression that death would come to them over time, but they would most certainly die. Dying, you shall die. We all are dying at this very moment, little by little, cell by cell.

Mankind was never created immortal, what kept Adam and Eve from dying was access to the tree of life, when that access was denied, they proceeded to age and die.

A philosophical question, how could a command not to eat under a penalty of death have been motivation if they did not even know what death was? For me, they knew exactly what it was, they saw death often in the natural course of things, they were just exempt from it by the partaking of the Tree of Life. (which being a figure of Jesus Christ, who is the eternal giver of life, makes alot more sense than doing away with all the natural laws of the universe.)

I actually agree with you about the tree of life and how removal from it caused a slow death. That meets god's precise promise, as you point out, but that only highlights the condition in which man was created; immortal. The immortality was removed when he was removed from access to the tree of life, or perhaps, actually, to his connection with god . With the god of the bible story, even mortality and immortality is his to command and to alter. Conditional if you like. It is always conditional on god's grace, but existent in his creation of humanity.

As to the rest of nature at that time, it is guess work. Revelation describes a world where death and decay do not occur, Adam and eve ate fruit and nuts. In our physics, for fruit and nuts to occur, there must be growth, and hence death and decay, but if the new earth can exist without such things, then so could eden, in a state where modern physics did not apply, and fruit and nuts perpetually existed without growth or decay.

To believe in the creation story of genesis at all, requires belief big enough to accept the creative powers of a being quite able to order physical laws at his will, and to make a world as he wanted it to be. Ohterwise we get bogged down in arguments like "How did the human body process the food it ate without bacterial processes involving death and decay?" The easy answer is of course thatthe writers had no knowledge of such things. The harder one is that things were very differnt then. And in any creationists world view, indeed the wolrd WAS very different then, and will be again

As a non biblical literalist, i can only interpret and make sense of the bible from the words within it, as a story told and received several millenia ago The idea of the immortality of man at creation is an idea inherent in the bible story itself. I only read the bible after I was an adult, educated in a number of disciplines at university including; literature, politics, geography, history, psychology and some sociology, and that concept was perfectly clear to me , without any outside knowledge or understanding, but simply from the text of the bible itself

The story does not make sense without immortality as a condition of both creation, and ultimately recreation. Man ends up where he began, in the new eden, restored to a relationship with god, and to his original immortal condition. Jesus is a template/archetype of this condition; immortality, mortality/death, resurrection and immortality.

Now a jew might not quite see the whole thing the same way, but a christian, or a person simply reading the whole bible, must interpret holistically the bible, from alpha to omega, in order to make their best interpretation of what it is saying. I am possibly wrong, but thats my best interpretation, and i do not "need validation" from historical interpretations to deconstruct a piece of literature. .

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just going by what the bible says, I quote "And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you" Luke 11:9 I didnt see any small print that said only when it feels like it or you need to wait several decades etc..etc..

Then it appears you didn't read the quote thoroughly:
Luke 11:9-13

9“So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

11 “Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? 12 Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13 If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

Note in particular from verse 11 and 12 that the comparisons are to food, necessities of life. Fish, eggs... and the parallel account of this verse in Matthew 7 includes bread. Once you have done that note verse 13 - God giving the Holy Spirit to those who ask. In context you can see that "Ask and it shall be given to you" is referring to asking for the Holy Spirit, arguably a necessity for spiritual life (like the eggs and fish and bread are necessities for physical life).

Call it the "small print" if you will (it's not small at all, but let's pretend), but Luke 11 is referring to God giving the gift of the Holy Spirit to all who ask for it.

~ Regards, PA

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then it appears you didn't read the quote thoroughly:

Note in particular from verse 11 and 12 that the comparisons are to food, necessities of life. Fish, eggs... and the parallel account of this verse in Matthew 7 includes bread. Once you have done that note verse 13 - God giving the Holy Spirit to those who ask. In context you can see that "Ask and it shall be given to you" is referring to asking for the Holy Spirit, arguably a necessity for spiritual life (like the eggs and fish and bread are necessities for physical life).

Call it the "small print" if you will (it's not small at all, but let's pretend), but Luke 11 is referring to God giving the gift of the Holy Spirit to all who ask for it.

~ Regards, PA

meh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

meh

Thanks for the insight into who you are, I'll keep it in mind in the future :tu:

~ Regards,

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually agree with you about the tree of life and how removal from it caused a slow death. That meets god's precise promise, as you point out, but that only highlights the condition in which man was created; immortal. The immortality was removed when he was removed from access to the tree of life, or perhaps, actually, to his connection with god . With the god of the bible story, even mortality and immortality is his to command and to alter. Conditional if you like. It is always conditional on god's grace, but existent in his creation of humanity.

As to the rest of nature at that time, it is guess work. Revelation describes a world where death and decay do not occur, Adam and eve ate fruit and nuts. In our physics, for fruit and nuts to occur, there must be growth, and hence death and decay, but if the new earth can exist without such things, then so could eden, in a state where modern physics did not apply, and fruit and nuts perpetually existed without growth or decay.

To believe in the creation story of genesis at all, requires belief big enough to accept the creative powers of a being quite able to order physical laws at his will, and to make a world as he wanted it to be. Ohterwise we get bogged down in arguments like "How did the human body process the food it ate without bacterial processes involving death and decay?" The easy answer is of course thatthe writers had no knowledge of such things. The harder one is that things were very differnt then. And in any creationists world view, indeed the wolrd WAS very different then, and will be again

As a non biblical literalist, i can only interpret and make sense of the bible from the words within it, as a story told and received several millenia ago The idea of the immortality of man at creation is an idea inherent in the bible story itself. I only read the bible after I was an adult, educated in a number of disciplines at university including; literature, politics, geography, history, psychology and some sociology, and that concept was perfectly clear to me , without any outside knowledge or understanding, but simply from the text of the bible itself

The story does not make sense without immortality as a condition of both creation, and ultimately recreation. Man ends up where he began, in the new eden, restored to a relationship with god, and to his original immortal condition. Jesus is a template/archetype of this condition; immortality, mortality/death, resurrection and immortality.

Now a jew might not quite see the whole thing the same way, but a christian, or a person simply reading the whole bible, must interpret holistically the bible, from alpha to omega, in order to make their best interpretation of what it is saying. I am possibly wrong, but thats my best interpretation, and i do not "need validation" from historical interpretations to deconstruct a piece of literature. .

There are new Heavens and a new Earth at the end in Revelation 21..

Revelation 21

A New Heaven and a New Earth

21 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,”[a] for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.

To me at least, this means a new creation, a new creation means a new universe, with its own set of laws. What is there is not even remotely connected to our present universe. In effect it is not a return to Eden, it is only similar in some respects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would anybody worship a god that allows children to be molested and killed? If you want my worship you need to give something in return.

This coming from somebody whose avatar resembles the Luciferian 'Square and Compass.'

A symbol directly related to Luciferian/Freemason worship. Both of which are related to the Illuminati, who have experimented on more people, slaughtered more innocents, and molested more children than anybody else in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This coming from somebody whose avatar resembles the Luciferian 'Square and Compass.'

A symbol directly related to Luciferian/Freemason worship. Both of which are related to the Illuminati, who have experimented on more people, slaughtered more innocents, and molested more children than anybody else in the world.

proof?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
proof?

Difficult to find considering the Illuminati run the system we live in, but I've found a great site.

http://macpc.org.au/site/

It's all linked. CIA, pedophilia, New World Order, child abuse, so on and so forth.

These are the sorts of people that hide from the truth, for they have to exercise these dark practises in total secrecy, in order to avoid facing a prison sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would anybody worship a god that allows children to be molested and killed? If you want my worship you need to give something in return.

Worship me and I'll give ya a cookie! A divine cookie! :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This coming from somebody whose avatar resembles the Luciferian 'Square and Compass.'

A symbol directly related to Luciferian/Freemason worship. Both of which are related to the Illuminati, who have experimented on more people, slaughtered more innocents, and molested more children than anybody else in the world.

I'll make sure I keep my tinfoil hat ready just incase they are reptilian aliens aswell.

Edited by Seeker79
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Difficult to find considering the Illuminati run the system we live in, but I've found a great site.

http://macpc.org.au/site/

It's all linked. CIA, pedophilia, New World Order, child abuse, so on and so forth.

These are the sorts of people that hide from the truth, for they have to exercise these dark practises in total secrecy, in order to avoid facing a prison sentence.

They also turn into reptilians and eat people.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They also turn into reptilians and eat people.

Oh crap I just edited to ad that bit.

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Difficult to find considering the Illuminati run the system we live in, but I've found a great site.

http://macpc.org.au/site/

It's all linked. CIA, pedophilia, New World Order, child abuse, so on and so forth.

These are the sorts of people that hide from the truth, for they have to exercise these dark practises in total secrecy, in order to avoid facing a prison sentence.

omg get a grip

this is a conspiracy site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

omg get a grip

this is a conspiracy site.

Aren't they all? ;)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't they all? ;)

i can't believe the number of people who fall for this crap.

government suck a lot of times, but to accuse them of these atrocities is baseless and ridiculous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i can't believe the number of people who fall for this crap.

government suck a lot of times, but to accuse them of these atrocities is baseless and ridiculous

There are conspiracies and there are CONSPIRACIES... 99% of them are BS, but keep and eye out for that elusive 1%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are conspiracies and there are CONSPIRACIES... 99% of them are BS, but keep and eye out for that elusive 1%.

there are enough nut cases out there worrying about it for me.

i'll just use my time doing real stuff thanks

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the insight into who you are, I'll keep it in mind in the future :tu:

~ Regards,

Then I shall quote another person "It has served us well, this myth of Christ." Pope Leo X.

Take that.

Edited by blind pew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then I shall quote another person "It has served us well, this myth of Christ." Pope Leo X.

Take that.

Oh that might stir up a bit. The pope that admited the church was a fraud and religion or christianity was a scam. That pope....

Sorry wrong pope

seems LEo was gay

Edited by The Silver Thong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh that might stir up a bit. The pope that admited the church was a fraud and religion or christianity was a scam. That pope....

Sorry wrong pope

seems LEo was gay

Runs in the...er...family...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.