Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Pushtrak

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

For me, not a source of fear, it would be a source of despair. My natural inclination would tend towards nihilism of some sort or another. It's possibly why Ecclesiastics is one of my favourite books of the Bible.

I wish I had some numbers on how popular nihilism is among atheists. I don't have any factual basis for saying this, so take it with a grain of salt, but in my estimation, it seems a minority. I don't think it is a very common thing for atheists. If this is the case, is it something you find unusual or bizarre?

However, I imagine that I would muddle through life as best I could. But that's just me. No doubt there are many contented atheists out there.

Lots of people who leave religion find new meaning, new purpose and to enjoy this life as (at least as we see it) this is the one life. Many people who leave religion tend to value this life so much more afterwards as time is suddenly finite.

philologos

Pushtrak wrote: »

I wish I had some numbers on how popular nihilism is among atheists. I don't have any factual basis for saying this, so take it with a grain of salt, but in my estimation, it seems a minority. I don't think it is a very common thing for atheists. If this is the case, is it something you find unusual or bizarre?

Isn't nihilism not the logical consequence of atheism in the absence of any objective source of meaning. That of some shade of existentialism. As an agnostic at least that's what it seemed like to me.

Pushtrak wrote: »

Lots of people who leave religion find new meaning, new purpose and to enjoy this life as (at least as we see it) this is the one life. Many people who leave religion tend to value this life so much more afterwards as time is suddenly finite.

How can one find meaning if there is no objective meaning to be found? Rather it seems they conjure one up, and that is entirely meaningless when one reduces it right down to its first principles.

I also think it's pure nonsense to say that atheists value life more than those who believe in God. But let's discuss this

Fanny Cradock

Pushtrak wrote: »

A lesser ability to go with an unbiased look at evidence.

Again, as I say, it doesn't disprove religion, but it means that a religious person like I'm describing is less likely to evaluate evidence on its merits.

This is the type of question that isn't likely to be critically (looked at in an unbiased way) by religionists.

What matters is what is true, and to get to what is true is to look and weigh up the evidence in an unbiased way.

Why do you think that non-religious people, or even anti-religious people are unbiased?

Pushtrak

philologos wrote: »

There are some I suspect, just as there are some atheists, some Buddhists, some Jews, some Muslims, some Hindus, and some Sikhs who fear death.

The fear of death is going to direct people in a certain direction. Generally not so much in the way that we only have one life.

I'm not a huge fan of "religious people" and "religionists".

It's descriptive, and I'd have assumed non-offensive.

I remember when I was asked in a survey from a sociology student who came to our Christian Union "How religious are you?". I put down something like a 2 out of 10 and proceeded to explain the Christian gospel is something quite different to how most people regard "religious"

I'd be interested if you could expand on precisely what you mean in this distinction.

I agree. I would argue that that is as pertinent to you as an atheist materialist as it is to me as a Bible believing Christian

The applicability doesn't start or end with theistic claims. Biases are something that have to be overcome in any types of questions really. Emotional biases especially. Seeing as I've made my point, feel free to elaborate on the types of biases an atheist might have that would be pertinent here.

Fanny Cradock

Pushtrak wrote: »

If this is the case, is it something you find unusual or bizarre?

No, I don't think it's bizarre.

tommy2bad

Originally Posted by Pushtrak;
An interesting thing I'd love to know the results of would be something like how religious people would react were they to find out their religion were true, except the bit about an afterlife. I wonder how their feelings towards their religion would change. Would they behave the same way? Is it a love of their deity, etc or is it a fear of death? Would be very interesting. This is the type of question that isn't likely to be critically (looked at in an unbiased way) by religionists.

For a lot of Jews their was no afterlife, can't remember if it was the Pharisees or the Sadducees , think it was the later but anyway it didn't make a lot of difference to their religious views.

Fanny Cradock

tommy2bad wrote: »

For a lot of Jews their was no afterlife, can't remember if it was the Pharisees or the Sadducees , think it was the later but anyway it didn't make a lot of difference to their religious views.

'Twas the latter. If you read Acts Paul starts a row amongst a would be lynch-mob by addressing the belief in the resurrection of the dead. Not sure what you mean by "it didn't make a lot of difference to their religious views". This was the religious view of the Sadducees.

Masteroid

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Can you show me where you are getting the murderous and drunk bit from?

From Acts 9:1 - Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, etc.

Paul confesses in Galatians 1:13 - For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it.

And what does Jesus mean by 'persecuting' in Acts 9:5 whe He says,

"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting."

Yup, 'murderous' is the right word.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Do you understand the significance between the names Saul and Paul? Saul persecuted the early followers of Christ, Paul spent most of his time being beaten up, stoned, chased out of town and imprisoned because he was a follower of Christ.

Well obviously you don't. Paul would have been know as Saul to the Jews and Paul to the Romans simultaneously.

He didn't change his name at all.

It is noteworthy though that almost every time he was beaten up, stoned, chased out of town and imprisoned, he was carrying the wealth of the poor with him.

And if Myra Hindley had changed her name to Kyra, would you have endorsed her being put in the position of Minister for Children?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Also, Roman Catholics don't think that Paul was the head of their Church. They believe that Peter was the first pope. You should at least do RCs the good service of representing their beliefs correctly.

Roman Catholics also believed that unbaptised children went into limbo after death.

Turns out they don't.

Millions of Americans thought that Bush was one time head of the American administration.

Turns out he wasn't, he was working for his dad.

Belief does not make truth.

Of the 27 books in the New Testament, 13 are attributed to having been written by Paul.

How many books did Peter write?

Whatever you or Catholics believe, you cannot deny the fact the Paul/Saul was almost solely responsible for the shape of Christianity.

Jesus may well have intended for Peter to be the 'rock' but it was Saul/Paul who laid down the foundations of God's kingdom on earth. And not in accordance with the teachings of Jesus.

Anyway, how could Peter have been a pope when Roman Catholicism didn't exist?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Also what has Hitler got to do with it?

Did you ever hear of 'Occam's Razor'?

I'm happy to discuss this article but there is a far more likely explanation for the appearance of these documents.

And the timing is impeccable. The Pope resigns and at the same time the Vatican tries to distance itself from Nazism.

Henry VIII was excommunicated for seeking divorce, apparently a much worse crime than genocide in the sight of God.

That's what Hitler has to do with it.

Fanny Cradock

Masteroid wrote: »

From Acts 9:1 - Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, etc.

Paul confesses in Galatians 1:13 - For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it.

And what does Jesus mean by 'persecuting' in Acts 9:5 whe He says,

"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting."

Yup, 'murderous' is the right word.

None of which says Paul was a murderer. But even if Paul was a murder of the early followers of Christ so all the more incredible his conversion on the road to Damascus. What about drunkard? Have you forgotten that one?

Masteroid wrote: »

He didn't change his name at all.

And I never said he did. I was using it as a rough divide between Paul the persecutor of the followers of Christ and PAul the persecuted follower of Christ.

Masteroid wrote: »

It is noteworthy though that almost every time he was beaten up, stoned, chased out of town and imprisoned, he was carrying the wealth of the poor with him.

Two questions - 1) why is this significant? 2) how do you know?

Masteroid wrote: »

Roman Catholics also believed that unbaptised children went into limbo after death...

Hitler, limbo, George Bush. I don't see the connection.

Masteroid wrote: »

Whatever you or Catholics believe, you cannot deny the fact the Paul/Saul was almost solely responsible for the shape of Christianity.

HE certainly was one of the main players. Someone had to be.

Masteroid wrote: »

Did you ever hear of 'Occam's Razor'?

I'm happy to discuss this article but there is a far more likely explanation for the appearance of these documents.

And the timing is impeccable. The Pope resigns and at the same time the Vatican tries to distance itself from Nazism.

Right! So dismissing evidence that you've never read fits in Occam's Razor how? Pushtrak, would this qualify as unbiased or not?

Tell you what Masteroid, why don't we both read the book? Then we can talk about it later.

Masteroid

J C wrote: »

It's actually quite logical (and to be expected) that a God who Created Mankind would give them instructions on how they might best live their lives.
It would actually be irresponsible of Him to not do so.

It is not logical to create beings endowed with free-will and then to set down laws for those beings.

It is not logical to create a system that by design operates autonomously and provide it with protocols.

It is no more logical than creating a washing machine and supplying it with instructions on how to operate itself.

Law is not an endorsement of free-will and God's law does not encourage it.

By bestowing free-will on mankind, God gave all His children a box of matches to play with and a book that tell them not to play with matches.

That is not logical and is entirely irresponsible.

lmaopml

Masteroid wrote: »

From Acts 9:1 - Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, etc.

Paul confesses in Galatians 1:13 - For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it.

And what does Jesus mean by 'persecuting' in Acts 9:5 whe He says,

"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting."

Yup, 'murderous' is the right word.



Well obviously you don't. Paul would have been know as Saul to the Jews and Paul to the Romans simultaneously.

He didn't change his name at all.

It is noteworthy though that almost every time he was beaten up, stoned, chased out of town and imprisoned, he was carrying the wealth of the poor with him.

And if Myra Hindley had changed her name to Kyra, would you have endorsed her being put in the position of Minister for Children?

Paul was possibly one of the greatest conversion stories ever in Christianity Masteriod. Paul was quite literally a poster boy for the world of that time, he had everything, knowledge, learning, respect, courage etc. - his teacher was supposedly among the very very best - and yet he didn't 'see' why the Christians were willing to die for their belief that Jesus Christ was truly who he said he was.

Paul or he was known as Saul at the time to the Jewish people persecuted Christians, hunted them down, that was his mission....

On the road to Damascus ( when he was on a mission to hunt Christians ) he had a vision of Christ. Remember that at this time, Jesus had been crucified, had died and risen - and he didn't know what was happening to him, he heard a voice asking him 'Saul, saul why do you persecute me?'

Christ didn't ask why do you persecute my followers, but 'me' because Christians are Christ's body now, his hands, his ears, his heart...

He asked the Lord, 'Who are you....' and he got the answer, 'I am Jesus who you are persecuting', and his eyes where blinded for a time because of that vision.


Not only did he turn his life around, he gave up everything...all the stature, pomp, everything about the world - He literally became, what he called himself, 'An Apostle, like one born out of time'....He was an Apostle to the gentiles, to the nations that were not Jewish....


St.Paul said of his life before knowledge of Christ that was full of education, wealth, power, prestige, and success - and after having his eyes opened, that when he seemed to have everything but didn't realise how little he had that it was like 'dung' quite literally in worth and giving any kind of satisfaction - that means he considered all of those things a pile of steaming you know what compared to knowing and seeking Christ.


If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law,[c] blameless. 7 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish[in the literal translation this is 'dung'], in order that I may gain Christ.



Jesus said he had other sheep from another fold, and he sent Paul. As for the collections and money, that's what we call 'charity' today that was to be distributed to the poorer members of the Church.

St. Paul was beaten, abused, harassed and eventually killed for his faith. He was the Apostle to the gentiles, and he was the greatest convert ever.

You have it all mixed up, sincerely you do - with 'snip bits' - Anybody would be doing themselves a great service to know St. Paul properly.

Roman Catholics also believed that unbaptised children went into limbo after death.

Turns out they don't.

Millions of Americans thought that Bush was one time head of the American administration.

Turns out he wasn't, he was working for his dad.

Belief does not make truth.

Of the 27 books in the New Testament, 13 are attributed to having been written by Paul.

How many books did Peter write?

You have a very poor knowledge, and I mean that with respect of either Catholics or Scripture.

Whatever you or Catholics believe, you cannot deny the fact the Paul/Saul was almost solely responsible for the shape of Christianity.

Jesus may well have intended for Peter to be the 'rock' but it was Saul/Paul who laid down the foundations of God's kingdom on earth. And not in accordance with the teachings of Jesus.

No 'Christ' was responsible for Christianity - and Paul and Peter were Apostles - there is something to learn from all of Scripture because they are all telling the same revelation of 'Christ'.

Anyway, how could Peter have been a pope when Roman Catholicism didn't exist?

Did you ever hear of 'Occam's Razor'?

I'm happy to discuss this article but there is a far more likely explanation for the appearance of these documents.

And the timing is impeccable. The Pope resigns and at the same time the Vatican tries to distance itself from Nazism.

Henry VIII was excommunicated for seeking divorce, apparently a much worse crime than genocide in the sight of God.

That's what Hitler has to do with it.

This just sounds like any kind of division will do, any stone will do, you don't mind because the truth doesn't matter too much.....the end justifies the means.

I hope you do investigate - it's one of the good choices we can make, is to be critical and not go around being unjust.

Dublin Red Devil

So God had great foresight right? He's fantastic at telling us what's going to happen. So why does't he get of his ass an do something about it.

If there is any spiritual entity ruling this world it's not God, It's Lucifer

FISMA

Pushtrak wrote: »

Maybe I missed where Brian posted it, but I haven't seen him post anything to suggest the veracity of memory at all...

Hi Pushtrak,
My quote with respect to Brian Shanahan was specifically questioning why he uses scientific sounding ideas, yet fails to elaborate when questioned.

For example, he claims here, in post #521, that God pretty much breaks all of the laws of Physics. The quotes are just junk science.

I have asked for clarity on this, he chose not to, fair enough, case closed.

He, and others in following threads, cannot grasp my assertion that there exists no scientific test to demonstrate that your memory works properly.

Here's a challenge, if anyone believes I am wrong.

Simply write a quick methodology of how you would scientifically demonstrate that your memory works properly. Cite your control. Post it here and I will show you where you are wrong.

Do I have any takers on that challenge?

Anyhow...

Pushtrak wrote: »

I went back to the post you link here, ... It came across that you have a respect for the scientific method

Thanks for taking the time to read my post, most of the other posters in this thread have misinterpreted my point. If you have some time, have a look at this thread.

It starts off slow and has the usual throwaway threads. However, Hhobo finally understands what I am on about in thread #18.

Here is the jist of what I am saying. Sorry to the OP/mods if I am taking this thread off topic. Any other threads are invited to go here.

Concisely, there exists no scientific test to demonstrate that our memory is working properly.

A quick read of replies to this idea demonstrates most people are not grasping what I am talking about.

I am not talking about forgetfulness, memory loss, or other frailties of which I am confident that we are all well aware. Rather, a far more fundamental question of how memory works.

After you have understood what I am on about, you will come to the conclusion that we take for granted that our memories work properly, colloquially speaking, and that there is no scientific method available to us, to demonstrate that our memory works properly.

Why ask?

If science cannot offer a test by which we may prove our memories are working properly, why then should we expect it to perform any better on matters of God?

Fair enough?

Pushtrak wrote: »

What, then, do you use as a substitute? Presumably faith, but would be interesting if it were something else.

Interesting question, I wish I could answer that one. If I could, I would be able to quit my day job.:D

Masteroid

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

None of which says Paul was a murderer.

Acts 9:1 - Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord,

Go on, tell me how the phrase 'still breathing murder' is not an adjective clause that describes a murderer.

Why won't you admit that pre-conversion Paul was on a murderous mission of genocide by consent of the holy men of his sect?

Many, many people suffered greatly and died on account of Paul and his interpretation of what God meant by free-will.

Masteroid

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And I never said he did. I was using it as a rough divide between Paul the persecutor of the followers of Christ and PAul the persecuted follower of Christ.

You asked me -

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Do you understand the significance between the names Saul and Paul? Saul persecuted the early followers of Christ, Paul spent most of his time being beaten up, stoned, chased out of town and imprisoned because he was a follower of Christ.

thus implying a name change.

You seemed unaware that the distinction between Saul and Paul is a matter of nationality and is a bit like how Jose might be known as Hose in certain parts of the world.

Not only did you imply a name-change, you also implied that I failed to understand the significance of a Paul/Saul barrier, something that does not exist to be understood.

Frankly, I interpreted that as a jibe at an intellectual level and I can't ignore such jibes.

In future, could you be more precise in your terminology and in your references to what must be understood?

Thank you.

Masteroid

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Hitler, limbo, George Bush. I don't see the connection.

The point is that the first explanation is usually wrong.

Hitler was not directed by God,

Limbo is not an eternal truth,

Iraq was not a military threat to America.

Where does that leave all the 'reliable' witnesses to these truths?

An account of a miracle is not evidence of a miracle.

There is always a more mundane explanation than 'Goddunnit'.

Masteroid

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Right! So dismissing evidence that you've never read fits in Occam's Razor how? Pushtrak, would this qualify as unbiased or not?

No, what I am saying is that basing conclusions on evidence you have yet to see, as you do, does not follow the principle of Occam's razor.

I am quite happy to consider only the evidence that is before me and forming my hypotheses on that basis.

This is not an example of bias as you have disingenuously implied it is.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Tell you what Masteroid, why don't we both read the book? Then we can talk about it later.

Sure, that will give you plenty of time to find another reason to avoid the issues facing the church today and the undesirable and catastophic effect that that is going to have on the religious people of the world.

I think that we might agree that the sudden removal of religion might indeed lead to the kind of scenario, psychologically speaking, as depicted in Revelations.

Masteroid

lmaopml wrote: »

Paul was possibly one of the greatest conversion stories ever in Christianity Masteriod. Paul was quite literally a poster boy for the world of that time, he had everything, knowledge, learning, respect, courage etc. - his teacher was supposedly among the very very best - and yet he didn't 'see' why the Christians were willing to die for their belief that Jesus Christ was truly who he said he was. ....

... St. Paul was beaten, abused, harassed and eventually killed for his faith. He was the Apostle to the gentiles, and he was the greatest convert ever...

... You have a very poor knowledge, and I mean that with respect of either Catholics or Scripture.

...No 'Christ' was responsible for Christianity - and Paul and Peter were Apostles - there is something to learn from all of Scripture because they are all telling the same revelation of 'Christ'.

... This just sounds like any kind of division will do, any stone will do, you don't mind because the truth doesn't matter too much.....the end justifies the means.

...I hope you do investigate - it's one of the good choices we can make, is to be critical and not go around being unjust.

Where did you get your information about Paul?

For instance, and I think Fanny Cradock deliberately avoided this, how do you know that Paul was executed and martyred?

Apart from what Paul himself has told you about himself and what people have told you about what Paul told them, what information do we have of Paul outside of the 48% of the New Testament allegedly written by Paul?

Brian Shanahan

philologos wrote: »

What am I afraid of? Just curious?

Uncertainty, death, having to think independantly for yourself, the unknown. I'm guessing there's more.

But if you look at the three monotheistic religions (these are the only ones I have enough knowledge of, but I'd guess most other religions are the same), there is a large dose of compulsion through fear and punishment running through them, and as Machiavelly famously said it is easier to be feared than to be loved.

Brian Shanahan

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why do you think that non-religious people, or even anti-religious people are unbiased?

Non-religious is easy: we are not being pushed into accepting a set of beliefs (remember, a belief is something we hold to be true despite a lack of evidence) in order to be part of a particular religious group. As non-religious we have no bias for or against any hypothesis.

Anti-religious: well they're just approaching religious fanaticism from the other side. And remember too, that most people who are anti-religious are really "anti-any religion that doesn't conform to mine".

Brian Shanahan

FISMA wrote: »

For example, he claims here, in post #521, that God pretty much breaks all of the laws of Physics. The quotes are just junk science.

The Christian god is omnipotent correct? (that is a rhetorical question, I know full well that christian "knowledge" says he is).

Therefore he can do anything he wants, including anything you can think of which break the laws of physics (and quite a few that none of us have thought of yet) such as changing the speed of light.

Therefore god has the power to break the laws of physics.

Therefore for god to exist, physical laws are not the rules which govern actions within the universe, but they belong solely to the whim of god.

Therefore god breaks physics, and you can only have one or the other. And since we have 0 evidence for god, and a hell of a lot for physics, I'm sticking with physics.

Quad Erat Demonstrandum

philologos

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Uncertainty, death, having to think independantly for yourself, the unknown. I'm guessing there's more.

But if you look at the three monotheistic religions (these are the only ones I have enough knowledge of, but I'd guess most other religions are the same), there is a large dose of compulsion through fear and punishment running through them, and as Machiavelly famously said it is easier to be feared than to be loved.

I'm not afraid of any of those things. Indeed it was by thinking independently that God brought me to Himself as an agnostic

dizzywizlw

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

The Christian god is omnipotent correct? (that is a rhetorical question, I know full well that christian "knowledge" says he is).

Therefore he can do anything he wants, including anything you can think of which break the laws of physics (and quite a few that none of us have thought of yet) such as changing the speed of light.

Therefore god has the power to break the laws of physics.

Therefore for god to exist, physical laws are not the rules which govern actions within the universe, but they belong solely to the whim of god.

Therefore god breaks physics, and you can only have one or the other. And since we have 0 evidence for god, and a hell of a lot for physics, I'm sticking with physics.

Quad Erat Demonstrandum

So you're going to disprove the existence of a being that you're admitting doesn't obey logic, using logic?

Brian Shanahan

dizzywizlw wrote: »

So you're going to disprove the existence of a being that you're admitting doesn't obey logic, using logic?

No what I'm saying is that we can either have the christian god or physics, but not both.

And because the preponderant weight of evidence is in favour of physics, it'll take a lot to convince me that the chrisitian god exists.

Finally we have two tools to explain the world logic and the extrapolation of theories from physical and observed evidence. Failing to use either in connection with any investigation, from "how many legs does a millipede have?" to "is god real?" is not alone stupid, but IMO a derelicition of an individuals duty to the human species.

philologos

Brian doesn't seem to want to ask the obvious questions. Where did the laws if physics come from? Why would a creator God be bound by laws that He created?

That's not even good logic.

Brian Shanahan

philologos wrote: »

Brian doesn't seem to want to ask the obvious questions. Where did the laws if physics come from? Why would a creator God be bound by laws that He created?

That's not even good logic.

Why would physics exist in a universe with an omnipotent god?

Remember William of Ockham, given his principles a universe without god which obeys physics is more likely than a universe with god and physics due to his axiom of least causes.

Oh and the omnipotence of god breaks physics because physics describe the rules under which the universe operates, but god being omnipotent breaks them, and as part of the universe this means either he is self-contradictory (he obeys and breaks the rules at the same time) or renders them invalid.

The first proposition is impossible, rules which govern everything cannot be broken by a component part, and the second is highly implausible given our current knowledge of the universe.

But, then again, philologos, you neither want to follow the evidence nor live up to the internet handle you give yourself, being perfectly happy with the easy yet utterly moronic "goddidit".

Fanny Cradock

Masteroid wrote: »

Acts 9:1 - Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord,

Go on, tell me how the phrase 'still breathing murder' is not an adjective clause that describes a murderer.

Why won't you admit that pre-conversion Paul was on a murderous mission of genocide by consent of the holy men of his sect?

Many, many people suffered greatly and died on account of Paul and his interpretation of what God meant by free-will.

You don't breath murder. You murder. I certainly think that Paul was involved in some fashion with at least one murder - that of Stephen (more here). He was part of the crowd. More than that the text doesn't say.

But lets say you are correct and Paul was not simply a rather nasty henchman. Let's say that Paul was a murder. This makes his subsequent conversion and acceptance by the early followers of Christ remarkable. This would hardly be the first person that God used despite their unsavoury acts. Moses throttled a man to death. David had a man killed so he could sleep with his wife. All of these men where redeemed despite their crimes.

Fanny Cradock

Masteroid wrote: »

In future, could you be more precise in your terminology and in your references to what must be understood?

Thank you.

I'll do my best.

philologos

Yes Paul murdered before He repented and turned to Jesus. Your point?

Christians don't believe we are self-righteous but only-because-of-the-saving-death-of-Jesus-righteous.

When you understand what that means it will change your life forever.

Worztron

• Appendix
• Nipples on males
• Recurrent laryngeal nerve