Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Does Christianity have a future? BBC1 10.25pm

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Improbable
    Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Well you can be guaranteed, that there are a lot of Christians dedicating their lives for others as a direct result of the Good News of Jesus Christ that they received into their hearts. They become beacons for the light of Christ, and his love inspires more love. A by product of which is having a desire through love to ease suffering. So when you think of how you 'suffer' at the hands of Christians being public, just think of the amount of people, who motivated by Christ, dedicate their lives to ease ACTUAL suffering in the world.

    I didn't say that there aren't christians who do good things. I didn't even say that there aren't christians who do good things because of what they believe about christianity. I just said christians should stop making the rest of us suffer. You're the one that came in guns a blazing to defend christianity against a point of view that I never espoused.

    Unless of course your point is that good things are done by good christians and that the bad things done in the name of christianity aren't done by people who are real christians. In which case, all I have to say is that such an argument really is absolutely worthless. You might as well be saying "good people are good, and bad people are bad".

    So if christ sent out his message and there have been however many christians throughout history. Do you think that the "good" that these "real" christians have done outweighs the evil atrocities committed by the other "bad" christians? Because they are after all drawing their motivation from the same figure.

    JimiTime wrote: »
    A common ignorance of motive espoused by anti-Christians.

    Explain how.


  • Options
    #33
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Well you can be guaranteed, that there are a lot of Christians dedicating their lives for others as a direct result of the Good News of Jesus Christ that they received into their hearts. They become beacons for the light of Christ, and his love inspires more love. A by product of which is having a desire through love to ease suffering. So when you think of how you 'suffer' at the hands of Christians being public, just think of the amount of people, who motivated by Christ, dedicate their lives to ease ACTUAL suffering in the world.

    And yet when you scratch beneath the surface you find that these people are really just using their 'charitable' works to inflict their own world-view on others. Normally those in some form of trouble, who'd have thought that vulnerable people, be they homeless alcoholics in Dublin or the latest victims of a natural disaster would be susceptible to strings attached evangelism, aid in one hand, a new faith in the other.

    It's been said before, but one of Christianity's great "Care givers", Mother Theresa, definitely wasn't about easing suffering, she was all about growing her order, spreading her conservative catholic world-view and offering up the suffering of the poor and sick to the glory of God.


  • Options
    #34
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Improbable wrote: »
    Anything that causes people to say "Sure, I don't care if it's a mystery, We'll just say god did it." instead of searching for real answers is harmful.

    This is the philosophical problem I guess. How can we ever know about such questions. One approach is existentialism which is one that atheism is prone to. We can't know anything about such things as meaning etc. Some forms of Christian philosophy nearly went down this path which is why Kierkegaard or Schleiermacher both of which I love were referred to as Christian existentialists.

    However, despite how I feel about Kierkegaard or Schleiermacher I disagree with them. One can merely observe reality and see that it is more probable that God exists than not, and certainly more reasonable than not. The one area I have been convinced the most is in respect to the human operation of morality, and indeed another area would be the mere logic behind Creation.

    If indeed a God exists, I don't think it is unreasonable to deduce that:
    1) God would have a respect for His creation.
    2) It would be possible for God to reveal Himself to mankind.

    It is through a revelation that Christians can claim to have some form of knowledge about God.

    If God doesn't exist there is no revelation and we're utterly deluded. I'm quite happy to accept that logic. I just believe that God exists and that this is a highly reasonable belief.


  • Options
    #35
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    SirenX wrote:
    @Jakkass
    why why why are you in the Athiest & Agnostic forum? you are clearly neither. you don't see me going on the the Christianity forum spouting my beliefs to people whom would most likely be offended so why come here?
    clearly the churches are not growing. just look at the amount of people on this forum. you wouldn't find this many Athiests and Agnostics in Ireland 100 years ago.

    I know that you deleted this post but there is a point that should be addressed. Churches are growing both in Britain and Ireland, I've seen it in both first hand. Christian ministries outside of the church are also growing considerably. Again, I've seen this first hand. What you are right in saying is that many churches are in decline, you have to ask why they are in decline. It isn't because people dislike Christianity but because these churches have nothing to offer them.

    You are correct that you wouldn't see this many atheists or agnostics. You are also beginning to see many believers becoming strengthened in their faith. I've also seen people who would have never had an interest in Christianity begin to read the Bible and discover more about Jesus. All based on evidence.


  • Options
    #36
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    ...One can merely observe reality and see that it is more probable that God exists than not, and certainly more reasonable than not. The one area I have been convinced the most is in respect to the human operation of morality, and indeed another area would be the mere logic behind Creation.

    That is completely untrue. Logic behind creation wtf?

    Jakkass wrote: »
    It is through a revelation that Christians can claim to have some form of knowledge about God.

    Revelation is as useful as delusion.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    If indeed a God exists, I don't think it is unreasonable to deduce that:
    1) God would have a respect for His creation.
    2) It would be possible for God to reveal Himself to mankind.

    If God doesn't exist there is no revelation and we're utterly deluded. I'm quite happy to accept that logic. I just believe that God exists and that this is a highly reasonable belief.

    You always say this but never qualify it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,350 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I know that you deleted this post but there is a point that should be addressed. Churches are growing both in Britain and Ireland, I've seen it in both first hand. Christian ministries outside of the church are also growing considerably. Again, I've seen this first hand. What you are right in saying is that many churches are in decline, you have to ask why they are in decline. It isn't because people dislike Christianity but because these churches have nothing to offer them.

    You are correct that you wouldn't see this many atheists or agnostics. You are also beginning to see many believers becoming strengthened in their faith. I've also seen people who would have never had an interest in Christianity begin to read the Bible and discover more about Jesus. All based on evidence.

    But how does that match up to the figures Anne Widdecombe mentioned in the programme about approximately 2,500 people per week who stop going to church? While I'm sure new people find faith and join the church, and that numbers may be increasing in some areas, do you think that number would be more than 2,500 per week?

    She did say in the programme that church numbers have seemed to level-off somewhat, so I would concede that those numbers may be close. But is it sustainable? Can church numbers increase? In several of the clips shown of cathedral or church masses, the average age of people there was quite high. Obviously, this is not a true representation, and I'm merely pointing it out as an example, but if fewer young people are going to Mass (and based on the people I know, they don't regularly), how can the number of people regularly going to Mass possibly increase?

    Much of the programme was spent showing different types of Mass. The curry house mass, evangelists, the Jesus House place etc. With so many different ways and alternatives to Mass, are they in danger of spreading themselves out too much and causing too much division in their messages, and not being able to sustain so many different types of service?


  • Options
    #38
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    That is completely untrue. Logic behind creation wtf?

    Revelation is as useful as delusion.

    You always say this but never qualify it.

    Not another one of these posts :pac:

    1. It is more logical and sensible that there is a Creator behind the universe than none at all, most physicists would agree that this universe had a beginning at the Big Bang. The expansion of the universe can tell us how old it is. Things of finite age have a cause, they have a beginning.

    2. We know that you think that revelation is a delusion, for the logic I described. If God doesn't exist, it certainly is a delusion. If God does exist it is reality it is a truth that God has done so. I believe His word is living truth, you believe it is an elaborate lie. We know this already, restating the obvious isn't really all that useful.

    3. I have several times over the years I've posted on this forum.


  • Options
    #39
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Wicknight wrote: »
    .. if your religion is true.

    Not at all. The actions are there, whether you believe that their motivating factor is a fairy story or not. The message was powerful enough to motivate these people to be beacons for Christ, and leave selfishness aside.
    Otherwise they are simply doing good things because they think doing good things is good, and crediting Christianity because Christianity has told them that if they want to do good things it is because of God, the Good News, the "power of the message" etc etc

    Not at all. They are doing good things, and a lot of the time dedicating themselves to others as a direct result of their Christianity. You are trying to argue that they would do this anyway, but this is simply untrue.
    Again, atheist forum Jimi. The Christian BS don't get an automatic pass here.

    I know where I am, and you're better than that comment.


  • Options
    #40
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Barrington wrote: »
    But how does that match up to the figures Anne Widdecombe mentioned in the programme about approximately 2,500 people per week who stop going to church? While I'm sure new people find faith and join the church, and that numbers may be increasing in some areas, do you think that number would be more than 2,500 per week?

    I think nearly this much. The latest statistics we have show that church attendance is stabilising. The Baptist Union of Great Britain showed growth last year with most growth being from 13 - 18 year olds.

    Courtesy of the Guardian - Sept 2010.
    Barrington wrote: »
    She did say in the programme that church numbers have seemed to level-off somewhat, so I would concede that those numbers may be close. But is it sustainable? Can church numbers increase? In several of the clips shown of cathedral or church masses, the average age of people there was quite high. Obviously, this is not a true representation, and I'm merely pointing it out as an example, but if fewer young people are going to Mass (and based on the people I know, they don't regularly), how can the number of people regularly going to Mass possibly increase?
    Is it sustainable - Yes, in fact ministries in the UK and Ireland from what I have seen are putting in better effort than they have ever done in the past.

    Can church numbers increase - I think so. You can see this on an individual church level but perhaps churches will grow as a unit eventually.

    Cathedrals aren't the only source of churches. If we limit ourselves to the merely traditional then we will see that this is a source of growth. The biggest growth I have seen are in more evangelical / Reformed churches. The churches that grow the most are the churches that remain faithful to Christian teaching, that allow people to be a real part of the church, and churches with outreach activities.

    Fewer people in the younger demographic are going to more traditional churches, this is true. I have seen growth outside of this in the 18 - 24 group and I know a lot of people who are passionate about their faith. I've only started to notice this
    Barrington wrote: »
    Much of the programme was spent showing different types of Mass. The curry house mass, evangelists, the Jesus House place etc. With so many different ways and alternatives to Mass, are they in danger of spreading themselves out too much and causing too much division in their messages, and not being able to sustain so many different types of service?

    Well they wouldn't call them "Mass" :pac:

    I don't think what you're saying is true though. If one looks to the US or other developed societies where churches are stable at the very least, there is a variety of churches. Another example would be Australia.

    It isn't much about the message of the churches as I would see it, it is about ensuring that churches remain faithful to the Gospel, and encouraging people to read the Bible for themselves and enter into a personal relationship with Jesus rather than blindly trusting what people say on the pulpit.


  • Options
    #41
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Revelation is as useful as delusion.
    I think it would be fairer to say that "revelation" is indistinguishable from delusion. Its usefulness follows from that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Not at all. They are doing good things, and a lot of the time dedicating themselves to others as a direct result of their Christianity. You are trying to argue that they would do this anyway, but this is simply untrue.

    If I may quote from an Evangelical Alliance study carried out recently:
    The more time an evangelical Christian spends reading the Bible each week, the more active they are in other areas of their faith. They are more likely to volunteer, to give money, to pray frequently and talk about their faith.

    Full study here.


  • Options
    #43
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Not another one of these posts :pac:

    What's that supposed to mean? Are you afraid to address the flaws in your position?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    1. It is more logical and sensible that there is a Creator behind the universe than none at all,

    All things considered it really isn't, mainly because it has no explanatory power at all.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    most physicists would agree that this universe had a beginning at the Big Bang. The expansion of the universe can tell us how old it is. Things of finite age have a cause, they have a beginning.

    Wow impressive you should get the Noble prize for physics :rolleyes:
    Jakkass wrote: »
    2. We know that you think that revelation is a delusion, for the logic I described. If God doesn't exist, it certainly is a delusion. If God does exist it is reality it is a truth that God has done so. I believe His word is living truth, you believe it is an elaborate lie. We know this already, restating the obvious isn't really all that useful...

    You're begging the question as always.


  • Options
    #44
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Not another one of these posts :pac:

    1. It is more logical and sensible that there is a Creator behind the universe than none at all, most physicists would agree that this universe had a beginning at the Big Bang. The expansion of the universe can tell us how old it is. Things of finite age have a cause, they have a beginning.

    So why can't the 'beginning'/cause be some other natural process that we don't know anything about? We can only know so much about the universe, because we are constrained by the fact that it's all we know exists. But beyond that, who knows what's going on? You're just ending the conversation at 'God did it' with no justification.

    And what you're describing above is justification for wishy-washy Deism. Anything to do with the specific religions on earth, you're just pulling out of your ass [insert holy book here] ;)


  • Options
    #45
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    What's that supposed to mean? Are you afraid to address the flaws in your position?

    Not at all. I think your post is merely restating what we already know. We already know what assumptions you're bringing to the table, we need to go beyond these rather than merely restating them.
    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    All things considered it really isn't, mainly because it has no explanatory power at all.

    Again, only if your logic holds up. If God doesn't exist then certainly it doesn't have this power. If God does it has the most explanatory power possible. Tell us something new.
    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    You're begging the question as always.

    How? I'm merely going over how your understanding differs to mine because you posted the patently obvious.

    It'd be great if we could keep this on the topic of church attendance and the future of Christianity in UK / Ireland.


  • Options
    #46
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Improbable wrote: »
    I didn't say that there aren't christians who do good things. I didn't even say that there aren't christians who do good things because of what they believe about christianity. I just said christians should stop making the rest of us suffer. You're the one that came in guns a blazing to defend christianity against a point of view that I never espoused.

    Of course you espoused it. here is your quote:

    "I hope that eventually, all religion dwindles down to what it should be. Something that people believe in the privacy of their own minds without making the rest of us suffer for it."

    Yet, it is Christ that motivates so many people to relieve ACTUAL suffering. As I said, you render such words as 'suffering' completely worthless when you espouse a notion that if someone doesn't keep their faith private you 'suffer'. You don't know you're born. You undermine ACTUAL suffering, while at the same time ridicule the motive that is behind so many people actively dedicating themselves to easing ACTUAL suffering.
    Explain how.

    How its complete nonsense that Christians are motivated to do good things because of the threat of hell? Simple, most don't even think about hell in terms of themselves. Love and faith are the motives. A desire to bring light to the darkness, and emulate Christs love for mankind.


  • Options
    #47
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    ....It'd be great if we could keep this on the topic of church attendance and the future of Christianity in UK / Ireland.

    Fair enough, teach rationality and religions won't stand. That's my position.


  • Options
    #48
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    Jakkass wrote: »
    1. It is more logical and sensible that there is a Creator behind the universe than none at all, most physicists would agree that this universe had a beginning at the Big Bang. The expansion of the universe can tell us how old it is. Things of finite age have a cause, they have a beginning.

    Can we please not have another first cause debate.

    Most physicists, Jakkass, would not agree with you on much of anything. The Big Bang theory does not describe the universe having its beginning at the big bang. The theory states that the original state of the universe was an extremely hot dense state which underwent a rapid expansion which still continues today 13.75 ± 0.12 billion years later. Our current understanding of the events at the time of the big bang break down at planck time (10^-43 seconds) after the big bang (Planck time being the point at which gravity separated from the other fundamental forces of nature, or alternatively where gravity became significant). The theory does not speculate on what caused it (I should point out in the same way that evolution does not comment on abiogenesis). There are different cosmogonical theories about what may have caused this hot dense state to arise. These include, but are not limited to the collision of bubble universes, the destruction of a previous universe or a blip in the timeline of an eternal universe.

    First cause arguments are self-refuting anyway but you also have demonstrated a particular weak point of the first cause argument, namely that everything of finite age must have a cause. Everything in the material world does not need a cause as the Casimir Effect and the phenomenon of radioactive decay nicely demonstrate.

    Something only becomes reasonable if there is evidence enough to suggest it in the first place. There is early experimental evidence to support some of the cosmogonical theories such as Roger Penrose's cyclic universe theory but none so far to indicate that there is any intelligent force behind it other than wild assertions and wishful thinking.


  • Options
    #49
    smokingman
    Registered Users Posts: 3,740 ✭✭✭smokingman


    Dave! wrote: »
    You're just ending the conversation at 'God did it' with no justification.

    This is what is always boils down to and is the one thing that annoys me more than any other argument.

    Previously, it was pointed out that the Polyfilla argument is "harmful" because it hinders real thought and research and this affront to science is the base of all religions - ergo, all religions are harmful to the human race imo.

    I would like to imagine a world where there is none and look forward to the advancement of mankind, free from the shackles of oppressive thought magic.

    We can but lay logic in front of people and give them the tools to be better human beings in themselves. It is the noblest of aims and I look forward to the future as a result.


  • Options
    #50
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    pH wrote: »
    And yet when you scratch beneath the surface you find that these people are really just using their 'charitable' works to inflict their own world-view on others. Normally those in some form of trouble, who'd have thought that vulnerable people, be they homeless alcoholics in Dublin or the latest victims of a natural disaster would be susceptible to strings attached evangelism, aid in one hand, a new faith in the other.

    You're not the first cynic, nor will you be the last. The truth is, is that they are DOING, and doing it in abundance, and a lot of the time devoting their lives to others. Simply because you are not privy to the conviction that motivates such people, does not automatically mean sinister motives are at work. Your implication that giving the gospel message is a sinister act is where your reasoning tumbles. A Christian who holds onto such a glorious life giving message and keeps it to himself is to be condemned. What a selfish thing to do. Whether YOU believe it or not is completely irrelevant. If Christianity is true, and obviously to a Christian it is, then there would be nothing more sinister than keeping the Good News message to oneself.


  • Options
    #51
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Fair enough, teach rationality and religions won't stand. That's my position.

    Ring a ring a rosey? :pac:
    This seems to be very circular reasoning unless one is going to explain why. "Rationality" is meaningless unless one can explain why one is using it.

    Although I do think looking to the practical reasons why Christianity may or may not survive may be best and indeed more interesting for us all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    JimiTime wrote: »
    You're not the first cynic, nor will you be the last. The truth is, is that they are DOING, and doing it in abundance, and a lot of the time devoting their lives to others.
    Out of interest, what good works are you doing yourself that you wouldn't be doing otherwise?


  • Options
    #53
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Ring a ring a rosey? :pac:
    This seems to be very circular reasoning unless one is going to explain why. "Rationality" is meaningless unless one can explain why one is using it.

    Although I do think looking to the practical reasons why Christianity may or may not survive may be best and indeed more interesting for us all.

    Hey, that's my practical reason why religion in general would find it difficult to survive. However rationality is not the default for humans even myself, so I think your religion is safe for now.


  • Options
    #54
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    They are doing good things, and a lot of the time dedicating themselves to others as a direct result of their Christianity. You are trying to argue that they would do this anyway, but this is simply untrue.

    Baring in mind Christianity isn't true, what possible rational could you have for saying that?


  • Options
    #55
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Baring in mind Christianity isn't true, what possible rational could you have for saying that?

    Are you a gnostic atheist now? :pac:

    Why isn't Christianity true?


  • Options
    #56
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Are you a gnostic atheist now? :pac:

    Why isn't Christianity true?

    The beginnings of a compelling list of reasons why it's not true here.


  • Options
    #57
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Are you a gnostic atheist now? :pac:

    Why isn't Christianity true?

    Well because it is a made up religion which was designed to support, social and financially, its charismatic leader who manipulated those around him into following him, worshipping him and providing for him until, like so many cult leaders before and after him, he got on the wrong side of the authority and was executed for it.


  • Options
    #58
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I'd like to hear Wicknight have a go himself :)

    Edit: Good on you, now why do you think it is made up? Indeed, why do you think that Jesus manipulated others?


  • Options
    #59
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    JimiTime wrote: »
    You're not the first cynic, nor will you be the last. The truth is, is that they are DOING, and doing it in abundance, and a lot of the time devoting their lives to others. Simply because you are not privy to the conviction that motivates such people, does not automatically mean sinister motives are at work. Your implication that giving the gospel message is a sinister act is where your reasoning tumbles. A Christian who holds onto such a glorious life giving message and keeps it to himself is to be condemned. What a selfish thing to do. Whether YOU believe it or not is completely irrelevant. If Christianity is true, and obviously to a Christian it is, then there would be nothing more sinister than keeping the Good News message to oneself.

    It just seems that Christianity does not lead to charity, not at any sort of scale that you claim.

    For a lot of European history, churches of various Christian denominations held a lot of power, enough power to influence the structure and ethos of the societies they controlled. In no case did they produce, or even come close to producing anything fair or equitable.

    Even today in US (on the face of it a very Christian country), we see a strong correlation between right-wing self-centred politics and conservative forms of Christianity. If what you said was true, it should follow that Christians should be strongly attracted to socialist ideas about wealth-sharing, welfare states etc, all which can be seen as forms of charity.

    No you undoubtedly will come back with some retort that various Popes surrounding themselves with riches aren't your kind of Christian, but that would be to admit the point - Christianity doesn't lead to charity - you may have a narrower definition of your true Christianity which does, but the greater claim about Christianity in general is not true.


  • Options
    #60
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'd like to hear Wicknight have a go himself :)

    Edit: Good on you, now why do you think it is made up? Indeed, why do you think that Jesus manipulated others?

    It says in the Bible why Jesus manipulated others.

    Luke 8
    1 After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, 2 and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; 3 Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.

    So Jesus "cured" these women and they were so grateful they followed him around paying for everything out of their own means.

    Wow, never heard that one before. ;)

    jim-jones.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Where did Jesus ask them for this? I suspect they did it from their own hearts rather than being coerced.

    I think your reading is absurd to be honest with you.


Advertisement