Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Cadetak

What Is The Christian View On The Dinosaur?

627 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Arbitran

You're a strong advocate of Animal Rights and we're all animals, but animals should be killed for food! And your morals tell you what "specific circumstances" that'll be okay? So your instinctual morality taught you that killing is wrong and now it's taught you about the specific circumstances? So since you're an animal, why aren't you and yours being eaten, at least after you die? What is your moral distinction here?

It's the way the planet works; I'm an advocate of Animal Rights, but I can see at the same time that as carnivorous, heterotrophic organisms, we all have to eat something else. This is an unfortunate fact, but an undeniable one. I can see that. My instincts tell me that killing is wrong, but they do also tell me that I have to eat to live. It is complex, yes, but in any case... how did we get here from "What is the Christian View On The Dinosaur?"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbitran

Sorry I don't see anything of the sort going on in any church I've joined. Maybe it was your church.

So you haven't been injured by the church and that was really about what I expected you to say, I just wasn't sure if you were honest enough to say it. You're honest and intelligent but you're also blind to so much goodness, for all your painless problems with others who are getting what they want and need from their churches.

I am not blind to the goodness (as I have said many, many times now); but neither am I blind to the evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

It's the way the planet works; I'm an advocate of Animal Rights, but I can see at the same time that as carnivorous, heterotrophic organisms, we all have to eat something else. This is an unfortunate fact, but an undeniable one. I can see that. My instincts tell me that killing is wrong, but they do also tell me that I have to eat to live. It is complex, yes, but in any case... how did we get here from "What is the Christian View On The Dinosaur?"?

No, because Vegans stay alive so obviously that's not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbitran

No, because Vegans stay alive so obviously that's not true.

I didn't say that we absolutely need meat; but it is well-known that meat is an extremely important part of the human diet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

I didn't say that we absolutely need meat; but it is well-known that meat is an extremely important part of the human diet.

You said we have to eat meat. You said it was a fact, an undeniable fact. I promptly denied it and provided easy proof for my denial. So then, "Killing is wrong", and we don't have to kill, but you advocate killing animals anyway. This fetal morality is fascinating, surely. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbitran

You said we have to eat meat. You said it was a fact, an undeniable fact. I promptly denied it and provided easy proof for my denial. So then, "Killing is wrong", and we don't have to kill, but you advocate killing animals anyway. This fetal morality is fascinating, surely. ;)

I didn't say that we have to eat meat. I said that it is an important element of the human diet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

I didn't say that we have to eat meat. I said that it is an important element of the human diet.

Really?

"I'm an advocate of Animal Rights, but I can see at the same time that as carnivorous, heterotrophic organisms, we all have to eat something else."

Yeah, vegetables. If you didn't mean meat, then you agreed with me in the first place and shouldn't have tried so poorly to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbitran

Really?

"I'm an advocate of Animal Rights, but I can see at the same time that as carnivorous, heterotrophic organisms, we all have to eat something else."

Yeah, vegetables. If you didn't mean meat, then you agreed with me in the first place and shouldn't have tried so poorly to disagree.

I agree that we can eat vegetables, but meat provides a very important part of our diet; do I really have to repeat myself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

I agree that we can eat vegetables, but meat provides a very important part of our diet

You think that it does, but what you think also violates your morality that "killing is wrong". How you express your inadequate moral code in your own life leaves much to be desired in light of the daily bloodbath of Animalia you "require". Your diet is more important than your morality. That's not true for people who actually believe that "killing is wrong".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbitran

You think that it does, but what you think also violates your morality that "killing is wrong". How you express your inadequate moral code in your own life leaves much to be desired in light of the daily bloodbath of Animalia you "require". Your diet is more important than your morality. That's not true for people who actually believe that "killing is wrong".

I do believe that killing is wrong; but I do not accept the idea of an absolute morality. I do believe that, on an ethical level, killing animals for food is wrong, if only because it violates the Golden Rule (there are various other aspects). Unfortunately though, as heterotrophic creatures, we must eat other creatures to live. Where the line is drawn between morality and natural necessity in this case is rather difficult. In any case, I digress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
csspwns

some churches say the dinosaur is hoaxed and some churches accept it. imo i think the dinosaur is real cuz scientists have proof about it like bones and dna testing and stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

I do believe that killing is wrong; but I do not accept the idea of an absolute morality. I do believe that, on an ethical level, killing animals for food is wrong, if only because it violates the Golden Rule (there are various other aspects). Unfortunately though, as heterotrophic creatures, we must eat other creatures to live. Where the line is drawn between morality and natural necessity in this case is rather difficult. In any case, I digress.

Oh brother, so now we must eat meat, again? Which was what I said you meant in the first place and you bizarrely denied it.

Factually, I beg to differ. If you can't get your protein from beans, nuts, whey, soy, and milk, I don't know what's wrong with you (Other than your diet is more important than your morality; for starters).

Of course you don't consider the moral that "it's wrong to kill" an absolute morality, despite the fact that this was the only morality you've identified for yourself repeatedly this whole discussion. How convenient is that? You make exceptions to your own professed morality for your diet. I'm not impressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbitran

Oh brother, so now we must eat meat, again? Which was what I said you meant in the first place and you bizarrely denied it.

Factually, I beg to differ. If you can't get your protein from beans, nuts, whey, soy, and milk, I don't know what's wrong with you (Other than your diet is more important than your morality; for starters).

Of course you don't consider the moral that "it's wrong to kill" an absolute morality, despite the fact that this was the only morality you've identified for yourself repeatedly this whole discussion. How convenient is that? You make exceptions to your own professed morality for your diet. I'm not impressed.

I do not deny that we need to eat meat; I will clarify that eating meat is not utterly needed to live. Meat however, is a very efficient and useful means of sustenance, for many reasons; thus, it can be seen as an important aspect of our diet. That is all I meant. I don't absolutely believe that killing anything is wrong; I meant only that one must weigh the pros and cons of adhering to the Golden Rule or alternatively respect the needs of one's own body. It is very complex, and again, I digress. How did a discussion about the Christian view of the dinosaurs drift off into a bizarre debate about whether or not any particular ethical system is perfect or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Devilanse

I believe in an original perfect Earth which is a gap theory between Genesis 1:1, and Genesis 1:2 how long this gap was is unknown it could have been thousands of years or more.

We know that everything God creates is good and in verse two we find it void and dark. From my studying I believe that when Lucifer led his revolt against God and 1/3 of the angels threw in their lot with him; the Original Perfect Earth that was created by God was destroyed by God in his fierce anger because of Lucifers revolt and on how he let the Earth go.

The peple that lived on this Original Earth are called pre-adamic and many scholars believe that these inhabitants are demon spirits now, in Ephesians 6 you may read about the evil we are up against which is all spiritual. At this time dinosaurs lived and man that they are now finding from millions of years ago.

We know or I like to think that a true Christian that studies the word of God can read from the Great Book of Revelation of strange creatures with long hair and stinging tails, ugly disgusting creatures. The whole Book of revelation is written in the perspective of the spirit world and if we could just glance in that world we would be terrified! Indeed!

God makes nothing like that, sin and Satan's evil ways turn them that way. If you would like to learn more about this. You may order from Jimmy Swaggart Ministies: "Gods Plan for the Ages" which in this great book is much Bible Scripture also. There are 13 Study Guides on they are called the Cross of Christ series and they are eye openers.

It is not known how long before God refurbished planet Earth from what was and from Him destroying it in His feirce anger. However you don't have to believe anything I say but it all bares witness with my spirit I really believe this could be true.

When it comes to learning about such matters it is a question mark because the Bible is the story of God's only Son Jesus Christ and Him Crucified, not about the dinosaurs or any other thing; but of fallen man and his redemption by the Crucified Christ.

It may very well take eternity to learn of God because God can never be exhausted. Which is God the father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

One God in three persons all in perfect unity, the Father is the owner, the Son is the Architect and the Holy Spirit is the Builder. Three persons ONE God

The God of the Old Testament is the God of the New Testament who came to Earth to die for humanity to save man from Hell. Originally Hell was created for satan and His Angels and has 5 compartments

People will say how can a loving God send man to hell; but in reality we send ourselves there by not accepting Jesus Christ as our saviour because we cannot save ourselves and God can use nothing we offer only our genuine sincere faith in what was done on calvary Hill

For Love created Man and Love Redeemed Man. Amen

Thank You, much love to you and many prayers coming your way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbitran

I believe in an original perfect Earth which is a gap theory between Genesis 1:1, and Genesis 1:2 how long this gap was is unknown it could have been thousands of years or more.

It would have to have been billions of years, with millions of species of plant and animal arising and dying out; in other words, you'd have to have billions of years of nothing on Earth, and then have God make it all in a few days at the end of those vast eons. It's absurd.

We know that everything God creates is good and in verse two we find it void and dark. From my studying I believe that when Lucifer led his revolt against God and 1/3 of the angels threw in their lot with him; the Original Perfect Earth that was created by God was destroyed by God in his fierce anger because of Lucifers revolt and on how he let the Earth go.

We don't at all know that everything God creates is good; we don't know there's a God, for that matter. If you had actually studied, you might have noticed that the asinine story of "Lucifer" and his revolt against God was invented in the late 1700s by John Milton in his poem, Paradise Lost. The Bible doesn't say a word about it. I've found that Christians today seem to confuse the works of John Milton and C. S. Lewis with the Bible; perhaps because about 95% of Christians don't appear to have actually read more than a very small portion of the Bible.

The peple that lived on this Original Earth are called pre-adamic and many scholars believe that these inhabitants are demon spirits now, in Ephesians 6 you may read about the evil we are up against which is all spiritual. At this time dinosaurs lived and man that they are now finding from millions of years ago.

Okay, there were no men millions of years ago; not up until around 2.5 million years ago do we find pre-human and human fossils. Also, biblical scholars almost unanimously regard the book of Ephesians as a forgery, penned more than a century after Paul, who it claims to have been written by. You'd have to present one hell of a case to demonstrate that anything "spiritual" exists.

We know or I like to think that a true Christian that studies the word of God can read from the Great Book of Revelation of strange creatures with long hair and stinging tails, ugly disgusting creatures. The whole Book of revelation is written in the perspective of the spirit world and if we could just glance in that world we would be terrified! Indeed!

Um... Revelation was penned by John of Patmos... who was infected with ergot, a fungus which spawns from rye bread, and which carries a similar chemical structure to LSD. Revelation is a man's account of a lengthy bread-induced acid trip. The only glance of a world it gives is of a hallucinogenic and imaginary one.

God makes nothing like that, sin and Satan's evil ways turn them that way. If you would like to learn more about this. You may order from Jimmy Swaggart Ministies: "Gods Plan for the Ages" which in this great book is much Bible Scripture also. There are 13 Study Guides on they are called the Cross of Christ series and they are eye openers.

These "eye-openers"... are they anything more than utterly baseless speculation as to things which almost certainly are false?

It is not known how long before God refurbished planet Earth from what was and from Him destroying it in His feirce anger. However you don't have to believe anything I say but it all bares witness with my spirit I really believe this could be true.

Yes, I know you believe it. That much is clear. Just give us one cogent argument as to why it's actually true.

When it comes to learning about such matters it is a question mark because the Bible is the story of God's only Son Jesus Christ and Him Crucified, not about the dinosaurs or any other thing; but of fallen man and his redemption by the Crucified Christ.

Well... the Bible is mostly a history of Bronze Age Palestinian military conquests. And please give reasons for:

  1. Why man needs to be "redeemed".
  2. Why a 2,000 year old Jewish Arab carpenter being executed somehow has an effect on this.

It may very well take eternity to learn of God because God can never be exhausted. Which is God the father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

I'd like to know how an allegedly "real" being has the ability to be both himself, as well as his own son (and apparently his own ghost, as well?).

One God in three persons all in perfect unity, the Father is the owner, the Son is the Architect and the Holy Spirit is the Builder. Three persons ONE God

The God of the Old Testament is the God of the New Testament who came to Earth to die for humanity to save man from Hell. Originally Hell was created for satan and His Angels and has 5 compartments

Okay, now you're drawing a bit from Dante (although, Dante's hell had nine sections, not five). You sound like you're just pulling this out of thin air now.

Oh, and this Trinity nonsense isn't working either. You're basically claiming that: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1

It doesn't. I suggest you brush up on arithmetic a bit more. I believe the correct sum is 3.

People will say how can a loving God send man to hell; but in reality we send ourselves there by not accepting Jesus Christ as our saviour because we cannot save ourselves and God can use nothing we offer only our genuine sincere faith in what was done on calvary Hill

I don't send myself to hell. I don't believe there is a hell, firstly. But if there is one, and God created it, and established the criteria by which people would be sent there, then he is ultimately responsible. There's no use in trying to shift the blame here. I know that you'll just go back to the useless "free will" argument; but think about it:

If God is omnipotent and omniscient, and created the world, having a perfect plan and foreknowledge, then he would have had to create the universe in full awareness, and thus intention, for man to "fall"; after all, if God knows everything, he would have known long in advance the fate that would befall his creation, and being omnipotent, would thus have to have made it that way himself.

For Love created Man and Love Redeemed Man. Amen

Thank You, much love to you and many prayers coming your way.

Evolutionary processes and natural selection created man. And there is nothing from which man need be redeemed from, so there's really no problem (except perhaps religion).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

Yes, the sixth commandment is "Do no kill", which is nice...

Actually, the commandment is "do not murder". The Hebrew literally means "dash to pieces" with strong overtones of malice. Killing in self-defence or in war (or in cooking that steak on the barbie) is not the same as cold-blooded murder :no:

but certainly Jesus' global genocidal rampage which Christians believe will happen because of Revelation is an utterly immoral, holocaustic evil.

For an educated atheist who spent forty years as a Christian (ironically the length of time Israel allegedly wandered the desert), you have a strange habit of making universal statements about Christian doctrines that are far from universal in acceptance. Perhaps you have heard of Postmillennialism, or perhaps Premillennialism, or maybe even Amillennialism. Then among this we have the question of when the "Rapture" will happen in terms of Jesus' return - Pre-tribulation, Mid-tribulation, Post-tribulation. Not to mention those who don't even believe in a Rapture (as I'm sure you're about tell me, the Rapture was not even part of Christian doctrine until 1830 AD, when a sick woman had a fever-induced hallucination).

Making wildly absolute statements about a doctrine that is clearly not absolute in order to make Christians look bad only serves to enhance your image as an atheist preacher (the same as some Christian preachers might speak of the immoral atheist who seems to be constantly in the midst of a mid-life crisis).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbitran

Actually, the commandment is "do not murder". The Hebrew literally means "dash to pieces" with strong overtones of malice. Killing in self-defence or in war (or in cooking that steak on the barbie) is not the same as cold-blooded murder :no:

The moment I wrote "kill" I predicted this response. But... God is pretty ******* malicious in the Bible when he's drowning the entire planet or sending bears to maul children.

For an educated atheist who spent forty years as a Christian (ironically the length of time Israel allegedly wandered the desert), you have a strange habit of making universal statements about Christian doctrines that are far from universal in acceptance. Perhaps you have heard of Postmillennialism, or perhaps Premillennialism, or maybe even Amillennialism. Then among this we have the question of when the "Rapture" will happen in terms of Jesus' return - Pre-tribulation, Mid-tribulation, Post-tribulation. Not to mention those who don't even believe in a Rapture (as I'm sure you're about tell me, the Rapture was not even part of Christian doctrine until 1830 AD, when a sick woman had a fever-induced hallucination).

Making wildly absolute statements about a doctrine that is clearly not absolute in order to make Christians look bad only serves to enhance your image as an atheist preacher (the same as some Christian preachers might speak of the immoral atheist who seems to be constantly in the midst of a mid-life crisis).

I acknowledge that not all Christians believe the things I note they do (except when it comes to the Bible, in which case, apart from radical creationism, most Christians tend to believe). I am primarily focusing on the 25%-50% which I was principally exposed to; though, I am fully capable of addressing the other 50% if asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

If you had actually studied, you might have noticed that the asinine story of "Lucifer" and his revolt against God was invented in the late 1700s by John Milton in his poem, Paradise Lost. The Bible doesn't say a word about it. I've found that Christians today seem to confuse the works of John Milton and C. S. Lewis with the Bible; perhaps because about 95% of Christians don't appear to have actually read more than a very small portion of the Bible.

Not quite true, Arb. There are three references in the Bible taken as speaking of Lucifer's revolt. Two of them are Old Testament and refer to real life rulers. The third is found in Revelation. However, I agree with you that the biblical justification is minimal, and while I won't take it to the extreme and call it "asinine", I do not subscribe to this point of view and do not believe that Satan has rebelled. Nevertheless, Satan is still a real biblical figure, and even if he has not "rebelled" he is still appointed by God to be our accusing angel, in order to tempt us (whether you believe in a real Satan or not, I'm simply outlining Satan's role in scripture).

Um... Revelation was penned by John of Patmos... who was infected with ergot, a fungus which spawns from rye bread, and which carries a similar chemical structure to LSD. Revelation is a man's account of a lengthy bread-induced acid trip. The only glance of a world it gives is of a hallucinogenic and imaginary one.

And you have evidence of this?
Okay, now you're drawing a bit from Dante (although, Dante's hell had nine sections, not five). You sound like you're just pulling this out of thin air now.
To the bottom of this post I've attached an essay I wrote several years ago. I would ask that if you are honestly seeking alternative views (rather than being here for the sole purpose of arguing) that you take fifteen minutes to read it. At the very least I'm always happy to hear feedback in order to help better understand these things myself.

Oh, and this Trinity nonsense isn't working either. You're basically claiming that: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1

It doesn't. I suggest you brush up on arithmetic a bit more. I believe the correct sum is 3.

Just a curiosity note for mathematics. You are right that: 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. However:

1 x 1 x 1 = 1.

Go figure :rofl:

Opposite of Heaven UM copy.doc

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

The moment I wrote "kill" I predicted this response. But... God is pretty ******* malicious in the Bible when he's drowning the entire planet or sending bears to maul children.

If you predicted this response, then why didn't you use the word appropriately - murder! That said, the Flood was almost definitely a flooding of the "known world" (aka, local) and it probably wasn't sent as judgement, that's just how the oral tradition passed it along (not surprising for Genesis 1-11, considering that was what it was). As for the bears, Elisha sent them while he was grieving, and while it is true that God gave him the power, it was Elisha who seemingly chose to use it in an inappropriate manner. Elisha did that one, not God.

I acknowledge that not all Christians believe the things I note they do (except when it comes to the Bible, in which case, apart from radical creationism, most Christians tend to believe). I am primarily focusing on the 25%-50% which I was principally exposed to; though, I am fully capable of addressing the other 50% if asked.

50%? That's an interesting number. Perhaps you live in an area with significant numbers of fundamentalists, but the views you seem to be arguing against represent a minority out where I live. Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbitran

Not quite true, Arb. There are three references in the Bible taken as speaking of Lucifer's revolt. Two of them are Old Testament and refer to real life rulers. The third is found in Revelation. However, I agree with you that the biblical justification is minimal, and while I won't take it to the extreme and call it "asinine", I do not subscribe to this point of view and do not believe that Satan has rebelled. Nevertheless, Satan is still a real biblical figure, and even if he has not "rebelled" he is still appointed by God to be our accusing angel, in order to tempt us (whether you believe in a real Satan or not, I'm simply outlining Satan's role in scripture).

And you have evidence of this?

To the bottom of this post I've attached an essay I wrote several years ago. I would ask that if you are honestly seeking alternative views (rather than being here for the sole purpose of arguing) that you take fifteen minutes to read it. At the very least I'm always happy to hear feedback in order to help better understand these things myself.

Just a curiosity note for mathematics. You are right that: 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. However:

1 x 1 x 1 = 1.

Go figure :rofl:

Opposite of Heaven UM copy.doc

I'm glad that you acknowledge that the idea of Lucifer is virtually baseless; yes, Satan appears in the biblical text a handful of times. I'm even more impressed that you can acknowledge the actual role of Satan in the Tanakh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbitran

If you predicted this response, then why didn't you use the word appropriately - murder! That said, the Flood was almost definitely a flooding of the "known world" (aka, local) and it probably wasn't sent as judgement, that's just how the oral tradition passed it along (not surprising for Genesis 1-11, considering that was what it was). As for the bears, Elisha sent them while he was grieving, and while it is true that God gave him the power, it was Elisha who seemingly chose to use it in an inappropriate manner. Elisha did that one, not God.

50%? That's an interesting number. Perhaps you live in an area with significant numbers of fundamentalists, but the views you seem to be arguing against represent a minority out where I live.

I am very glad that fundamentalism seems to be a minority in your locale; yes, in my region... well, 50% percent is far from an exaggeration. Oy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

I'm glad that you acknowledge that the idea of Lucifer is virtually baseless; yes, Satan appears in the biblical text a handful of times. I'm even more impressed that you can acknowledge the actual role of Satan in the Tanakh!

It's not the first time I've acknowledged these things (though you've only been a member for a few months so it's not surprising that you don't know everything about me).

That said, when you've had a chance to read that essay, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. As I said, I'm always looking for constructive feedback, from both Christians and non-Christians alike.

I am very glad that fundamentalism seems to be a minority in your locale; yes, in my region... well, 50% percent is far from an exaggeration. Oy...

Truthfully I cannot imagine a society like the one you seemingly experience. I'm glad my region seems to have this as a minority. Do you live in one of those areas where lots of people packed themselves into bomb shelters with years of tinned food available (first at the turn of the millennium, and then on the 6/6/06) in anticipation for the end of the world? I heard about some of those Americans on the news. First I laughed, then I felt embarrassed for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbitran

It's not the first time I've acknowledged these things (though you've only been a member for a few months so it's not surprising that you don't know everything about me).

That said, when you've had a chance to read that essay, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. As I said, I'm always looking for constructive feedback, from both Christians and non-Christians alike.

Truthfully I cannot imagine a society like the one you seemingly experience. I'm glad my region seems to have this as a minority. Do you live in one of those areas where lots of people packed themselves into bomb shelters with years of tinned food available (first at the turn of the millennium, and then on the 6/6/06) in anticipation for the end of the world? I heard about some of those Americans on the news. First I laughed, then I felt embarrassed for them.

Alas. We all feel rather embarrassed about having to put up with them; they're the only ones who can't see it. Oy...

I'll get around to reading that paper as soon as I can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ranrod

* For a believer of the bible, time references mean whatever makes the bible sound less irrational at the time. If we find out the universe is actually 7 trillion years old, they'll start saying 1 day = 1 trillion years. If we find out the universe is 7,000 years old, they'll start saying 1 day = 1,000 years.

* For a believer of the bible, the bible is allegorical, poetic, or historical depending on what sounds less irrational at the time. When it becomes obvious through science that a species can't survive if you only have 2 individuals, they start saying that part was poetic/allegorical. If we invent a machine to see the past and find out there never was a historical Jesus, they'll start saying that was poetry as well.

* For a believer of the bible, whenever a contradictory/inconsistent piece of information appears, they think, "well the bible is correct, so how am I interpreting this wrong? How do I interpret this correctly?" They'll either re-interpret the passages or re-interpret their concept of reality - just don't change the words.

Given those facts, the OP's question is moot.

PS: yes, it was "thou shall not murder", so go ahead and kill all the people you want in the name of a godly cause. You're good to go.

Edited by ranrod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GoldenWolf

PS: yes, it was "thou shall not murder", so go ahead and kill all the people you want in the name of a godly cause. You're good to go.

I hope what you said is one sick joke. Because it is so wrong.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.