Any bible scholars out there?

Can a christian deny the old testament?

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#81  Postby proudfootz » Apr 23, 2017 10:33 am

Alan B wrote:
proudfootz wrote: I suspect that the Jewish scriptures would still be included, because the letter writers constantly referred to them and the stories in them as doctrinal supports.

The letter writers were at a much later period after Jesus' death and had to include references to the Torah because Jesus said so...

Circular. :think:


We differ here: the letter writers rarely refer to anything that indicates they had any awareness of a Jesus who might have walked the Earth and left a legacy of teachings or sayings which were widely known.

They certainly appear to be ignorant of the gospel tales, hence their reliance on interpreting Jewish scripture to derive their nonsense.

So, not circular on my part. Not at all. :coffee:
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10968

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#82  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 23, 2017 10:57 am

Alan B wrote:If the law says 'chop off the heads of all unbelievers' and then you chop off the head of an unbeliever, you have fulfilled the law...

To 'fulfil' a law is surely to enact it.

Exactly. However since there will always be unbelievers, such a law would still be in effect and not no longer applicable.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31037
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#83  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 23, 2017 10:58 am

proudfootz wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
proudfootz wrote:On the topic of Original Sin I just Googled it and this site popped up supposedly showing all the verses from the Jewish scripture and the 'new testament' supposedly referring to it.

There is really not a single verse that seems to lay out the doctrine that I understood Original Sin to stand for - that I inherited guilt from A&E - in any of the verses.

Indeed, some of the verses seem to oppose that idea:

"The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. "

Lots of stuff about how being flesh and blood leads to sinfulness, but it was supposedly God who is responsible for that state of affairs.

Again, the OT doesn't call it a sin but a curse, but the story is the same: God cursed Adam and Eve and all their descendants and had to kill Jesus/himself, to create a loophole out of the curse.


I see. A curse is a horse of a different color. Not what they taught at the christian school I attended.

Doing a little more digging, it would appear this 'curse' idea isn't supported by the OT the way Jews understand it

Of course they don't, otherwise they'd be Christians.
The point is that Christians believe this and therefore cannot dismis the entire OT out of hand.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31037
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#84  Postby Scot Dutchy » Apr 23, 2017 11:01 am

Well proddies cant dismiss it. Calvin based his creed on the OT as did Luther.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 71
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#85  Postby Agrippina » Apr 23, 2017 11:21 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Agrippina wrote:Seeing that Christianity is based on the idea of God the creator, and that Jesus is his son, of course the Old Testament is relevant.

However, as has been pointed out, Jesus fulfilled the law, therefore the old laws no longer apply, and only his laws of the Golden Rule, are all that are applicable.

Yet Christians use the neatly-packaged set of laws contained in the "Ten Commandments" as the basis of their "morality", thus making the Old Testament definitely relevant.

It is confusing for people who aren't raised as Christians, why they choose those particular rules, and not the rest of them contained in the laws of the Jewish people..

In my study of the Bible, and having not paid much attention to the little bit of Christianity I learnt in my mother's search for a sect that suited her, I was confused about the worship of Jesus "thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Ex 20:2). Then I learnt about the Trinity of gods in one, and became even more confused. Especially about other aspects of Christianity, given that for example, Jewish people have maintained the holiness of Saturday as the Sabbath, but Christians worship on Sunday.

I learnt about Constantine and his purported conversion, and his naming of Sunday as the day of worship within his army, which then became the law at the various Councils of the early church, so that was explained.

Still to answer the question, yes, Christianity does cherry-pick what parts of the Old Testament are relevant, but the basic belief system is based more on the Epistles and what the writers dictated in those, and less on the laws of the Old Testament, while devout Christians believe the history of the Jews is contained in the "history" of the Old Testament, and fundamentalist Christians believe the creation story in Genesis 1 & 2 are the "truth" about where humans came from.

In short.

How does one fulfill a law?


How the hell do I know? I think it's a load of baloney myself. Some sort of mythical person is supposed to have made good the promise that people would no longer be required to obey a whole slew of laws based on mythology, just by being born. The whole premise of God, the laws, the history, the prophecies, the writing of a bunch of boring letters, is based on BS. :roll:
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36690
Age: 109
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#86  Postby Agrippina » Apr 23, 2017 11:25 am

Alan B wrote:
Agrippina wrote:Still to answer the question, yes, Christianity does cherry-pick what parts of the Old Testament are relevant, but the basic belief system is based more on the Epistles and what the writers dictated in those, and less on the laws of the Old Testament, while devout Christians believe the history of the Jews is contained in the "history" of the Old Testament, and fundamentalist Christians believe the creation story in Genesis 1 & 2 are the "truth" about where humans came from.


And all this because this Jesus fellow said (Matt. 5:18 REB) "Truly I tell you: so long as heaven and earth endure, not a letter, not a dot, shall disappear from the law until all that must happen has happened." in order to placate the synagogue Elders who were getting upset at the support he was getting from the local populace.

I suspect that if he had not said that or that it wasn't 'reported' in the NT, Christians would not have included the Torah as part of their holy book. The whole of the Christian world (as we know it) would perhaps now not exist...


It's why I find it so interesting. A load of nonsense stories cleverly made up to appear plausible to ignorant people, and the rules invented around the new innovations just to make more ignorant people believe in it. Christians have continued to make it up to suit whatever political climate they in which find themselves, just to keep people putting money into the coffers of their particular sect, and to keep them in submission, with the promise of something only achieved when they're dead.
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36690
Age: 109
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#87  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 23, 2017 11:36 am

:this:

<eta> Though I might argue the bible authors were NOT successful in making it "appear plausible." Still, obviously, there are millions of christians who would disagree with ME!
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#88  Postby Alan B » Apr 23, 2017 11:49 am

proudfootz wrote:
Alan B wrote:
proudfootz wrote: I suspect that the Jewish scriptures would still be included, because the letter writers constantly referred to them and the stories in them as doctrinal supports.

The letter writers were at a much later period after Jesus' death and had to include references to the Torah because Jesus said so...

Circular. :think:


We differ here: the letter writers rarely refer to anything that indicates they had any awareness of a Jesus who might have walked the Earth and left a legacy of teachings or sayings which were widely known.

They certainly appear to be ignorant of the gospel tales, hence their reliance on interpreting Jewish scripture to derive their nonsense.

So, not circular on my part. Not at all. :coffee:

Of course it isn't circular if, and only 'if', these letters are the only ones ever to have been written. I would suggest (and this is pure conjecture on my part) that these later writers, and there may have been more than what we know of, knew of the teachings of Jesus either by hearsay or of letters now lost. I do not think that is an unreasonable conjecture.
That statement of Jesus seems to be the link between the Christians and the inclusion of the Torah.

But until there is more evidence, it all remains 'up in the air'.
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 9999
Age: 84
Male

Country: UK (Birmingham)
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#89  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 23, 2017 12:25 pm

Agrippina, yours may be the best argument so far. Simple. Obvious. Claiming to be the son of God does make it difficult to deny the OT.

I started this thread because I wanted to "imagine" potential arguments that christians might make in the future. As more and more holes are exposed in their holy text, the pool of biblical arguments remaining at their disposal, being insufficient, are often being shored-up by some creative mental gymnastics to adequately explain the bible. I give up trying to keep up with all of them.

So, the OP was about identifying those elements that inextricably link the OT and NT. Obviously, there are some. I think we have 3, maybe 4 that have been offered. That's not a lot. Once those elements are identified, imagine (or predict) what arguments we might anticipate to wriggle out of those elements. I'm not saying the interpretation is accurate. Just that it has to be believable by those people who are gullible enough to believe in the bible in the first place... a very low bar. This and the preceding paragraph are intended to clear up misunderstandings that occurred before your contribution to the thread, but also to explain part of my motivation for starting the OP.

That all being said, the elements linking the OT and NT can all be (through the use of mental gymnastics christians are often prone to) (re)interpreted easily enough to satisfy those with relaxed scrutiny. The son of god suggestion gave me the most trouble of all the suggestions so far. I started imagining that god would have to be defined. Is he a different mono-deity? These of course cause problems. If Jesus hoped to gain credibility by claiming to be the fulfillment of prophecy from the OT, of course he MUST accept all the baggage that comes with the OT. Deny christ is the fulfillment of OT prophecy and suddenly, he's just a mortal. These are just musings.

Could the performance of 'miracles' have been sufficient to credit Jesus with deity status? I should think so. Maybe somehow that could be used?
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#90  Postby Agrippina » Apr 23, 2017 1:30 pm

PensivePenny wrote::this:

<eta> Though I might argue the bible authors were NOT successful in making it "appear plausible." Still, obviously, there are millions of christians who would disagree with ME!


Actually its writers were pretty clever. They calculated the ages of the patriarchs to exactly fit the date of the flood, so that Methuselah and his sons and grandsons would all die in the flood while he saved Noah and his spawn. The NT writers weren't quite that meticulous, they mixed up how many generations from David to Jesus, and the names don't agree. You'd think the redactors would've fixed that.
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36690
Age: 109
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#91  Postby Agrippina » Apr 23, 2017 1:32 pm

PensivePenny wrote:Agrippina, yours may be the best argument so far. Simple. Obvious. Claiming to be the son of God does make it difficult to deny the OT.

I started this thread because I wanted to "imagine" potential arguments that christians might make in the future. As more and more holes are exposed in their holy text, the pool of biblical arguments remaining at their disposal, being insufficient, are often being shored-up by some creative mental gymnastics to adequately explain the bible. I give up trying to keep up with all of them.

So, the OP was about identifying those elements that inextricably link the OT and NT. Obviously, there are some. I think we have 3, maybe 4 that have been offered. That's not a lot. Once those elements are identified, imagine (or predict) what arguments we might anticipate to wriggle out of those elements. I'm not saying the interpretation is accurate. Just that it has to be believable by those people who are gullible enough to believe in the bible in the first place... a very low bar. This and the preceding paragraph are intended to clear up misunderstandings that occurred before your contribution to the thread, but also to explain part of my motivation for starting the OP.

That all being said, the elements linking the OT and NT can all be (through the use of mental gymnastics christians are often prone to) (re)interpreted easily enough to satisfy those with relaxed scrutiny. The son of god suggestion gave me the most trouble of all the suggestions so far. I started imagining that god would have to be defined. Is he a different mono-deity? These of course cause problems. If Jesus hoped to gain credibility by claiming to be the fulfillment of prophecy from the OT, of course he MUST accept all the baggage that comes with the OT. Deny christ is the fulfillment of OT prophecy and suddenly, he's just a mortal. These are just musings.

Could the performance of 'miracles' have been sufficient to credit Jesus with deity status? I should think so. Maybe somehow that could be used?


A little shameless promotion: The three books derived from my 7 year study of the Bible.
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36690
Age: 109
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#92  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 23, 2017 2:20 pm

PensivePenny wrote:Agrippina, yours may be the best argument so far. Simple. Obvious. Claiming to be the son of God does make it difficult to deny the OT.

I started this thread because I wanted to "imagine" potential arguments that christians might make in the future. As more and more holes are exposed in their holy text, the pool of biblical arguments remaining at their disposal, being insufficient, are often being shored-up by some creative mental gymnastics to adequately explain the bible. I give up trying to keep up with all of them.

So, the OP was about identifying those elements that inextricably link the OT and NT. Obviously, there are some. I think we have 3, maybe 4 that have been offered. That's not a lot.

That's a bit odd. Would you expect more than one instance in a law book that it is illegal to steal stuff?
Last edited by Thomas Eshuis on Apr 23, 2017 3:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31037
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#93  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 23, 2017 2:34 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:Agrippina, yours may be the best argument so far. Simple. Obvious. Claiming to be the son of God does make it difficult to deny the OT.

I started this thread because I wanted to "imagine" potential arguments that christians might make in the future. As more and more holes are exposed in their holy text, the pool of biblical arguments remaining at their disposal, being insufficient, are often being shored-up by some creative mental gymnastics to adequately explain the bible. I give up trying to keep up with all of them.

So, the OP was about identifying those elements that inextricably link the OT and NT. Obviously, there are some. I think we have 3, maybe 4 that have been offered. That's not a lot.

That's a bit odd. Would you expect more than one instance in a law book that it is illegal to steal stuff?


Now who's making use of straw men? I think you just like to fight.

<eta: fix your quote tags>
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#94  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 23, 2017 3:02 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:Agrippina, yours may be the best argument so far. Simple. Obvious. Claiming to be the son of God does make it difficult to deny the OT.

I started this thread because I wanted to "imagine" potential arguments that christians might make in the future. As more and more holes are exposed in their holy text, the pool of biblical arguments remaining at their disposal, being insufficient, are often being shored-up by some creative mental gymnastics to adequately explain the bible. I give up trying to keep up with all of them.

So, the OP was about identifying those elements that inextricably link the OT and NT. Obviously, there are some. I think we have 3, maybe 4 that have been offered. That's not a lot.

That's a bit odd. Would you expect more than one instance in a law book that it is illegal to steal stuff?


Now who's making use of straw men? I think you just like to fight.

<eta: fix your quote tags>

Except that it isnt a straw-man.
You explicitely mention that's not a lot, implying that there either should be more or you'd expect more.
I am asking you why you would expect that.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31037
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#95  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 23, 2017 3:12 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:Agrippina, yours may be the best argument so far. Simple. Obvious. Claiming to be the son of God does make it difficult to deny the OT.

I started this thread because I wanted to "imagine" potential arguments that christians might make in the future. As more and more holes are exposed in their holy text, the pool of biblical arguments remaining at their disposal, being insufficient, are often being shored-up by some creative mental gymnastics to adequately explain the bible. I give up trying to keep up with all of them.

So, the OP was about identifying those elements that inextricably link the OT and NT. Obviously, there are some. I think we have 3, maybe 4 that have been offered. That's not a lot.

That's a bit odd. Would you expect more than one instance in a law book that it is illegal to steal stuff?


Now who's making use of straw men? I think you just like to fight.

<eta: fix your quote tags>

Except that it isnt a straw-man.
You explicitely mention that's not a lot, implying that there either should be more or you'd expect more.
I am asking you why you would expect that.


It's a straw man because you are comparing a "law book" (whatever that is) to a collection of fictional works containing a plethora of stories spattered with "laws" that range from being limited to the ten commandments to every parable and example set by Jesus himself. By implying that my statement should also be applicable to the rule of law whereby contradictory laws are stricken from the "law book" by legislative action IS most certainly a straw man when no such mechanism exists in the bible where there are contradictions upon contradiction. So, yeah 3 or 4 are not a lot. That is what we call an opinion. You don't like that, well I'm okay with that ;)
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#96  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 23, 2017 3:24 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
That's a bit odd. Would you expect more than one instance in a law book that it is illegal to steal stuff?


Now who's making use of straw men? I think you just like to fight.

<eta: fix your quote tags>

Except that it isnt a straw-man.
You explicitely mention that's not a lot, implying that there either should be more or you'd expect more.
I am asking you why you would expect that.


It's a straw man because you are comparing a "law book" (whatever that is) to a collection of fictional works containing a plethora of stories spattered with "laws" that range from being limited to the ten commandments to every parable and example set by Jesus himself.

That's a flawed analogy, not a straw-man.
A straw-man would be me claiming you said something which you didn't.

PensivePenny wrote: By implying that my statement should also be applicable to the rule of law whereby contradictory laws are stricken from the "law book" by legislative action IS most certainly a straw man when no such mechanism exists in the bible where there are contradictions upon contradiction.

Again, at best a flawed analogy, not a straw-man which is a deliberate misrepresentation.

PensivePenny wrote: So, yeah 3 or 4 are not a lot. That is what we call an opinion. You don't like that, well I'm okay with that ;)

Opinions are things like "I enjoy that".
"Not a lot" is a quantative statement which depends on a metric, ie not a subjective thing.
You still haven't answeed the question: why is it not a lot? In other words why would you expect more?
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31037
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#97  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 23, 2017 3:34 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
You still haven't answeed the question: why is it not a lot? In other words why would you expect more?


IMO, I did. If you spent more time looking for common ground than something to be contrarian about, you might have caught it. I leave it to you to (re)interpret my meaning.
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#98  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 23, 2017 3:40 pm

PensivePenny wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
You still haven't answeed the question: why is it not a lot? In other words why would you expect more?


IMO, I did. If you spent more time looking for common ground than something to be contrarian about, you might have caught it.

I am looking to understand your position, which is still not clear to me, hence why I asked again.
What would really help finding common ground is if you stopped projecting all manner of positions and motivations onto me.

PensivePenny wrote: I leave it to you to (re)interpret my meaning.

I would appreciate it if you could clearly state why you expect to find more instances.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31037
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#99  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 23, 2017 3:41 pm

PensivePenny wrote:By implying that my statement should also be applicable to the rule of law whereby contradictory laws are stricken from the "law book" by legislative action

Missed this the first time around. I implied no such thing.
I said nothing about contadicting laws.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31037
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Any bible scholars out there?

#100  Postby PensivePenny » Apr 23, 2017 3:52 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
PensivePenny wrote:By implying that my statement should also be applicable to the rule of law whereby contradictory laws are stricken from the "law book" by legislative action

Missed this the first time around. I implied no such thing.
I said nothing about contadicting laws.


So? You didn't? I didn't say you did.... What I said you implied is emphasized above. And yeah, you did imply THAT. Tell, me o teacher... does claiming I said YOU said something about contradicting laws (when I didn't) rise to the level of straw man? See? Your interpretation cherry picks what you want to hear, which in my observation of your posts, when it comes from a forum member with whom you are unfamiliar, you "interpret" in the most adversarial way possible. I didn't come here with an agenda or even any kind of strong claim. I just don't get your aggression on minor unimportant aspects of a thread.
Evolution saddens me. In an environment where irrational thinking is protected, the disparity in the population rate of creationists vs that of rational thinkers, equates to a creationist win. Let's remove warning labels from products as an equalizer.
PensivePenny
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penny
Posts: 1693
Age: 57
Female

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest