ChatterBank1 min ago
questions for christians
50 Answers
You say that the bible is the innerant word of God and without contradiction so it should be a simple matter to answer a few questions for me.I ask you a question and you look up the appropriate bible answer for me (complete with chapter and verse).O.k ?
1) does the Earth abide forever?
2)has anyone ever seen God?
3)does God punish children for their fathers sins?
4)are the dead ressurected?
5)has anyone (apart from jesus) ascended into heaven?6)at what hour was jesus crucified?
7)how long was jesus in the tomb?
If the bible is innerant this should be easy for you.If its contradictory it might pose problems and cause you (as it did me) to question whether it is reliable.
1) does the Earth abide forever?
2)has anyone ever seen God?
3)does God punish children for their fathers sins?
4)are the dead ressurected?
5)has anyone (apart from jesus) ascended into heaven?6)at what hour was jesus crucified?
7)how long was jesus in the tomb?
If the bible is innerant this should be easy for you.If its contradictory it might pose problems and cause you (as it did me) to question whether it is reliable.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by wizard69. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Alleged contradictions in the Bible, or rather man's lack of understanding when reading the Bible.
Just time for a few of them
Wizard69 - you mention Job 7:9 and claim that when this was written there was no belief in the afterlife. If you read a little further, Job 19: 25-27, you will find the same author stating that he knows his Redeemer liveth and shall see God in the latter day. A definite statement in the belief of an afterlife and resurrection I would say.
Your comments that only women were stoned to death for 'extra marital' crimes, as descibed in Deuteronomy, shows a bit of ignorance. Men were to be put to death also for such things as rape, or if they lay with another man's wife, or virgin betrothed to another man.
Moses had a God given duty to uphold and enforce the law. Turning the other cheek is about how you respond to personal offences against yourself, not responding tat for tat or taking your own vengence etc. It has nothing to do about a state upholding its laws and punishing wrong doers.
Waldo - time of the Lord's crucifixion, (Mark 15, John 19). Mark mentions the third hour and John the sixth hour.
Firstly John wrote using the Roman clock, (same as ours, so sixth hour was 6 in the morning), and Mark used the Jewish one, with the third hour being 9 in the morning.
So we have John 6am and Mark 9am. But if you read the account in John, when the time is mentioned the Lord Jesus is still in Pilates judgment hall and had not yet been delivered over to be crucified. Whereas Mark's stated time is at the actual crucifixion.
See, no contradiction whatsoever.
Once again people too quick to jump on things they have not read or thought about enough.
Instead of attempting to pick holes in the Bible you should read it for what it is, God's Word, and see the message of love and forgiveness He has for each one of us.
Just time for a few of them
Wizard69 - you mention Job 7:9 and claim that when this was written there was no belief in the afterlife. If you read a little further, Job 19: 25-27, you will find the same author stating that he knows his Redeemer liveth and shall see God in the latter day. A definite statement in the belief of an afterlife and resurrection I would say.
Your comments that only women were stoned to death for 'extra marital' crimes, as descibed in Deuteronomy, shows a bit of ignorance. Men were to be put to death also for such things as rape, or if they lay with another man's wife, or virgin betrothed to another man.
Moses had a God given duty to uphold and enforce the law. Turning the other cheek is about how you respond to personal offences against yourself, not responding tat for tat or taking your own vengence etc. It has nothing to do about a state upholding its laws and punishing wrong doers.
Waldo - time of the Lord's crucifixion, (Mark 15, John 19). Mark mentions the third hour and John the sixth hour.
Firstly John wrote using the Roman clock, (same as ours, so sixth hour was 6 in the morning), and Mark used the Jewish one, with the third hour being 9 in the morning.
So we have John 6am and Mark 9am. But if you read the account in John, when the time is mentioned the Lord Jesus is still in Pilates judgment hall and had not yet been delivered over to be crucified. Whereas Mark's stated time is at the actual crucifixion.
See, no contradiction whatsoever.
Once again people too quick to jump on things they have not read or thought about enough.
Instead of attempting to pick holes in the Bible you should read it for what it is, God's Word, and see the message of love and forgiveness He has for each one of us.
lighter..firstly could you kindly point out where it says what clocks are being used in the gospel accounts.This is pure conjecture.
Please tell us where it says that a man is to be stoned to death if he isnt a virgin on his wedding night instead of side tracking to something that I HAVNT mentioned.
Can you honestly reconcile stoning people to death (in some cases your own children) with turning the other cheek? I think not. Here's the scenario:- your own child is to be executed for being stubborn (Deut 21;18-21).
"Sorry son, i really love you and I forgive you for your stubborness but Moses says that youve gotta be stoned to death". That is just sick.
Voltaire got it right when he said "if you can get someone to believe in absurdities then you can get them to commit atrocities"
Please tell us where it says that a man is to be stoned to death if he isnt a virgin on his wedding night instead of side tracking to something that I HAVNT mentioned.
Can you honestly reconcile stoning people to death (in some cases your own children) with turning the other cheek? I think not. Here's the scenario:- your own child is to be executed for being stubborn (Deut 21;18-21).
"Sorry son, i really love you and I forgive you for your stubborness but Moses says that youve gotta be stoned to death". That is just sick.
Voltaire got it right when he said "if you can get someone to believe in absurdities then you can get them to commit atrocities"
Looks like Voltaire could have been talking about evolution and abortion.
The book of Exodus says that if a man lay with an unbetrothed woman he was to marry her or if her father refused him then he must pay monies to the family. In the portion of Deuteronomy you mentioned the woman had hidden the fact she had been with another, and then led to her punishment.
Your example with the parents and their son is flawed, as the portion of Scripture you quote actually has the parents as a last resort bring their child to the elders of the city for judgment. And it was a stubborn, rebellious drunkard of a child who had rejected all his parents previous efforts to correct him. It wasn't a child who wouldn't put his Gameboy down to come for dinner, but one of known criminality.
But what of all this? Basically you think God had some harsh punishments for sins, in your opinion. Maybe they were harsh, maybe they weren't, but God made us, who are we to say what way He should deal with us?
It actually makes me marvel more at the great love and mercy of God. We see what kinds of punishments He directed the state to take on wrong doers (a lot of aethist regimes deliver far worse to their peoples these days), but He has given a way of rescue from sin through His son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Just look at the mercy He has shown you wizard. You blasphemed His Name and made light of His way of salvation last week, the week before etc, but yet He through His mercy has spared you that you may still take the opportunity to be saved.
He is a God of patience, but one day your time will be up.
The book of Exodus says that if a man lay with an unbetrothed woman he was to marry her or if her father refused him then he must pay monies to the family. In the portion of Deuteronomy you mentioned the woman had hidden the fact she had been with another, and then led to her punishment.
Your example with the parents and their son is flawed, as the portion of Scripture you quote actually has the parents as a last resort bring their child to the elders of the city for judgment. And it was a stubborn, rebellious drunkard of a child who had rejected all his parents previous efforts to correct him. It wasn't a child who wouldn't put his Gameboy down to come for dinner, but one of known criminality.
But what of all this? Basically you think God had some harsh punishments for sins, in your opinion. Maybe they were harsh, maybe they weren't, but God made us, who are we to say what way He should deal with us?
It actually makes me marvel more at the great love and mercy of God. We see what kinds of punishments He directed the state to take on wrong doers (a lot of aethist regimes deliver far worse to their peoples these days), but He has given a way of rescue from sin through His son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Just look at the mercy He has shown you wizard. You blasphemed His Name and made light of His way of salvation last week, the week before etc, but yet He through His mercy has spared you that you may still take the opportunity to be saved.
He is a God of patience, but one day your time will be up.
"Firstly John wrote using the Roman clock, (same as ours, so sixth hour was 6 in the morning), and Mark used the Jewish one, with the third hour being 9 in the morning."
Even if we were to accept that point (and Wizard's point is reasonable - it's speculation that different clocks were being employed) there's more timing trouble concerning the crucifixion. Was it the day before, or the day after the Passover?
Jn.19:14-16
"And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified."
We can agree this takes place after the Last Supper, in Pilate's Judement Hall, yes? And it unequivicably states it is the day before Passover. I feel this is an uncontrovertial reading of the test. There is no Roman Passover the day before the Jewish one, for instance? So how then do we account for Mark 14:12, in which Christ instructs his disciples on how to find a room for the Passover? They duly find this room and proceed to celebrate the er... Passover.
That's a fairly glaring discrepancy there, I'd argue. You think they'd get that right.
More pertinant still is that there are quite *so many* discrepancies - waaaaaay more than covered in Wizard69's list at the top.
Even if we were to accept that point (and Wizard's point is reasonable - it's speculation that different clocks were being employed) there's more timing trouble concerning the crucifixion. Was it the day before, or the day after the Passover?
Jn.19:14-16
"And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified."
We can agree this takes place after the Last Supper, in Pilate's Judement Hall, yes? And it unequivicably states it is the day before Passover. I feel this is an uncontrovertial reading of the test. There is no Roman Passover the day before the Jewish one, for instance? So how then do we account for Mark 14:12, in which Christ instructs his disciples on how to find a room for the Passover? They duly find this room and proceed to celebrate the er... Passover.
That's a fairly glaring discrepancy there, I'd argue. You think they'd get that right.
More pertinant still is that there are quite *so many* discrepancies - waaaaaay more than covered in Wizard69's list at the top.
Who was it who said, " There's more truth in the air-brushed centerfold of a Playboy magazine than lies between the covers of your black book"? Oh, I guess that was me! But then again, that's just my opinion.
If it's the truth you seek than look to reality; there you will find the answers to the questions that provide solutions to the problems that plague humanity.
That which cannot be defined (God) hath no meaning. For without reason, there is no reason. Religion does not offer an escape clause from reality, only an excuse not to embrace it and make it one worth living in. When I die my rotting corpse will smell no worse than yours. In the mean time, in the words of my 8th grade physical education coach, "Think! Don't stink!"
Sorry 'bout that wizard69 . . . On with the show!
If it's the truth you seek than look to reality; there you will find the answers to the questions that provide solutions to the problems that plague humanity.
That which cannot be defined (God) hath no meaning. For without reason, there is no reason. Religion does not offer an escape clause from reality, only an excuse not to embrace it and make it one worth living in. When I die my rotting corpse will smell no worse than yours. In the mean time, in the words of my 8th grade physical education coach, "Think! Don't stink!"
Sorry 'bout that wizard69 . . . On with the show!
"That which cannot be defined, (God), ....
misses the whole of creation as an "effect" without, presumably, a cause. That doesn't make sense to anybody, something from nothing.
Further down the line the arguments flow to and fro, debating evolution and transient forms etc, but a design, or rather creation, without a designer / creator, is outside of my, and presumably your experience.
misses the whole of creation as an "effect" without, presumably, a cause. That doesn't make sense to anybody, something from nothing.
Further down the line the arguments flow to and fro, debating evolution and transient forms etc, but a design, or rather creation, without a designer / creator, is outside of my, and presumably your experience.
Mibn2...no need to apologise ;-)
chakka...please DO join in
Theland..."a creation without a creator" presuposes that the universe is created in the first place.To ask where it all started is a no goer because then we have to ask where "God" started and so on.To believe that matter has always existed is no more absurd than believing that it was created by a supernatural being,in fact it is less so because we have not one jot of evidence for this being.And beside, this thread is about the reliability of the bible NOT creation/evolution
chakka...please DO join in
Theland..."a creation without a creator" presuposes that the universe is created in the first place.To ask where it all started is a no goer because then we have to ask where "God" started and so on.To believe that matter has always existed is no more absurd than believing that it was created by a supernatural being,in fact it is less so because we have not one jot of evidence for this being.And beside, this thread is about the reliability of the bible NOT creation/evolution
Would it be unreasonable to assume the silence over the issue of when the Passover occured relative to the crucifixion suggests that the Bible is indeed in conflict on this particular issue..?
Or maybe all the Bible-fans stopped reading before I posted that bit. It's a bit of a coincidence, but it could happen.
Or maybe all the Bible-fans stopped reading before I posted that bit. It's a bit of a coincidence, but it could happen.
'Would it be unreasonable to assume the silence over the issue of when the Passover occured relative to the crucifixion suggests that the Bible is indeed in conflict on this particular issue..? '
Yes. I didn't stop reading, but I did lose interest. To be honest I don't have much idea about the passover issue, hence the lack of posting. As you have no doubt seen, there are probably many sites on the net that would claim to be far more knowledgable. Perhaps in 20 more years of reading the bible.
I would like to ask one question. Let us suppose that there is a conflict in two different gospels. Now there are two possibilities. If we take them to be true, then we can only assume that the difference is a mistake somewhere along the line, but since it's true, we don't really care.
Now let us suppose it's not true, most of the gospels are fairly similar, so that leads me to believe that in this case, either one gospel read the other before before writing, or they both confered. There's no other way to explain the similarity between the two texts. If this is the case, what do we make of the differences. Why copy one gospel into another, and yet leave people these differences to argue over? I don't know enough about the bible to continue arguing point-by-point over it. But I do question the relevance of such an argument.
P.s. Wizard69, highly rating posts that agree with you is not really what it's about.
Yes. I didn't stop reading, but I did lose interest. To be honest I don't have much idea about the passover issue, hence the lack of posting. As you have no doubt seen, there are probably many sites on the net that would claim to be far more knowledgable. Perhaps in 20 more years of reading the bible.
I would like to ask one question. Let us suppose that there is a conflict in two different gospels. Now there are two possibilities. If we take them to be true, then we can only assume that the difference is a mistake somewhere along the line, but since it's true, we don't really care.
Now let us suppose it's not true, most of the gospels are fairly similar, so that leads me to believe that in this case, either one gospel read the other before before writing, or they both confered. There's no other way to explain the similarity between the two texts. If this is the case, what do we make of the differences. Why copy one gospel into another, and yet leave people these differences to argue over? I don't know enough about the bible to continue arguing point-by-point over it. But I do question the relevance of such an argument.
P.s. Wizard69, highly rating posts that agree with you is not really what it's about.
"Now there are two possibilities. If we take them to be true, then we can only assume that the difference is a mistake somewhere along the line, but since it's true, we don't really care."
Sorry, but that's illogical. You have two statements which are mutually incompatible. They (I take your use of 'they' to mean 'the gospels' - is that right?) *cannot* both be true (unless you are postulating some sort of "Schrodinger's Christ" argument. I rather suspect you're not.)
Either Christ was crucified before the passover (as suggested by John) or after (as suggested by Mark's account). It's not a difficult question that requires 20 years of reading the Bible, it merely requires being able to read.
Relating this to Wizard's question, if there are contradictions of this nature, it proves that the Bible *cannot* be the inerrant word of God. Either that or the word 'inerrant' is misdefined in my dictionary.
Now, you may choose to say that the Bible is not inerrant, that it is the work of men and that this is an inconsequential point to your faith in the overall message. That's fair enough; I don't especially care if you believe in Jesus or not.
What one cannot do is claim that something containing clear contradictions can possibly be 'innerant'.
Sorry, but that's illogical. You have two statements which are mutually incompatible. They (I take your use of 'they' to mean 'the gospels' - is that right?) *cannot* both be true (unless you are postulating some sort of "Schrodinger's Christ" argument. I rather suspect you're not.)
Either Christ was crucified before the passover (as suggested by John) or after (as suggested by Mark's account). It's not a difficult question that requires 20 years of reading the Bible, it merely requires being able to read.
Relating this to Wizard's question, if there are contradictions of this nature, it proves that the Bible *cannot* be the inerrant word of God. Either that or the word 'inerrant' is misdefined in my dictionary.
Now, you may choose to say that the Bible is not inerrant, that it is the work of men and that this is an inconsequential point to your faith in the overall message. That's fair enough; I don't especially care if you believe in Jesus or not.
What one cannot do is claim that something containing clear contradictions can possibly be 'innerant'.
Ok so let's assume one is true and the other isn't, since I can't comment on the passover issue. If this is the case, one (gospel) describes correctly that Jesus was the son of god and died for our sins. In which case I think i'm satisfied. As for the innerant properties of the bible of which you speak:
'Now, you may choose to say that the Bible is not inerrant, that it is the work of men and that this is an inconsequential point to your faith in the overall message. That's fair enough; I don't especially care if you believe in Jesus or not. '
Innerant was Wizard's wording not mine. Can I not say that some elements of the bible are the work of men, which is clearly the case. Yet some of these men/women would have known god, and hence their writings could be described as the word of god?
'Now, you may choose to say that the Bible is not inerrant, that it is the work of men and that this is an inconsequential point to your faith in the overall message. That's fair enough; I don't especially care if you believe in Jesus or not. '
Innerant was Wizard's wording not mine. Can I not say that some elements of the bible are the work of men, which is clearly the case. Yet some of these men/women would have known god, and hence their writings could be described as the word of god?
...er, but this *whole thread* is about whether the Bible can be considered inerrant...
If you don't believe that it is, then perhaps it's not of such a great consequence to you, though personally I'd find it hard to know what shape my faith was supposed to be when its authority came from a source that was contradictory.
If you don't believe that it is, then perhaps it's not of such a great consequence to you, though personally I'd find it hard to know what shape my faith was supposed to be when its authority came from a source that was contradictory.
Well Lighter came up with some good counters to Wizards contradictions. Not the passover one you mentioned, maybe because there isn't a counter, or perhaps he simply hasn't read further in this thread.
'..though personally I'd find it hard to know what shape my faith was supposed to be when its authority came from a source that was contradictory.'
That's fair enough. I think there are levels of contradiction I am willing to tolerate (poor phrasing, I mean contradictions of differing importance really). In this case, the exact date of jesus' death is fairly inconsequential compared to whether his death occured. If one of the gospels claimed the death hadn't occured, it would be a different matter.
'..though personally I'd find it hard to know what shape my faith was supposed to be when its authority came from a source that was contradictory.'
That's fair enough. I think there are levels of contradiction I am willing to tolerate (poor phrasing, I mean contradictions of differing importance really). In this case, the exact date of jesus' death is fairly inconsequential compared to whether his death occured. If one of the gospels claimed the death hadn't occured, it would be a different matter.
"the exact date of jesus' death is fairly inconsequential"...
on the contrary mikep.The christian faith tells us that the gospels are eyewitness accounts and are to be regarded as historical documents.The anology is that of different witnesses giving evidence of a road traffic accident, they would all more or less give the same story save for a few minor details (though you wouldnt really expect this if an almight god was guiding their hand).Now if one person were to say that the accident occured before christmas and the other were to say that it happened AFTER christmas there would be serious room for doubting their testomony.
Likewise Matthew 28 tells us that Mary Magdelene was filled with joy after an appearence of an angel at the tomb of Jesus and after being told that he was risen.Contrast this with John 20.Here we have a completly different scenerio.Now Mary is baffled "so she came running to Simon Peter and the other diciple,the one Jesus loved, and said'they have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we dont know where they have put him' "
These two account are not only contradictory but would be thrown out of a court of law if they were claiming to be eye witness accounts much less historical documents.And this is the crux of this thread, the bible is contradictory.In addition mikep, I said earlier that to have a decent debate, you need to tell us exactly WHICH parts of the bible you believe to be inspired and which parts you wish to ignore (or put down to culteral values of the time).You simply cannot claim that the bible is the inspired word of God and then start chopping it up for your benefit.It either IS inspired or it isn't.
btw...I rate posts because I find them imformative not because they agree with me
on the contrary mikep.The christian faith tells us that the gospels are eyewitness accounts and are to be regarded as historical documents.The anology is that of different witnesses giving evidence of a road traffic accident, they would all more or less give the same story save for a few minor details (though you wouldnt really expect this if an almight god was guiding their hand).Now if one person were to say that the accident occured before christmas and the other were to say that it happened AFTER christmas there would be serious room for doubting their testomony.
Likewise Matthew 28 tells us that Mary Magdelene was filled with joy after an appearence of an angel at the tomb of Jesus and after being told that he was risen.Contrast this with John 20.Here we have a completly different scenerio.Now Mary is baffled "so she came running to Simon Peter and the other diciple,the one Jesus loved, and said'they have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we dont know where they have put him' "
These two account are not only contradictory but would be thrown out of a court of law if they were claiming to be eye witness accounts much less historical documents.And this is the crux of this thread, the bible is contradictory.In addition mikep, I said earlier that to have a decent debate, you need to tell us exactly WHICH parts of the bible you believe to be inspired and which parts you wish to ignore (or put down to culteral values of the time).You simply cannot claim that the bible is the inspired word of God and then start chopping it up for your benefit.It either IS inspired or it isn't.
btw...I rate posts because I find them imformative not because they agree with me
Waldo - Sorry to keep you in tender hooks over your Passover question, but I was called away by the cares of the world !
Anyway, yes at first it may seem confusing regards the Last Supper and the crucifixion both being on the passover, but I'll explain.
The passover was instituted in Exodus 12. In Leviticus 23: 4- 8 we are told that the passover was on the 14th day of the first month (in the Jewish calendar) and then on the 15th day was the feast of unleaved bread, which lasted for another 7 days, each day an offering being made unto the LORD. Also the first day and 7th day were to be sabbaths, no servile work being done. (Compare again with Ex 23).
So we see the passover was not just one day, but a feast lasting over a week. (Compare Luke 22:1 "Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover")
So in the Gospels we have the Lord Jesus Christ sending His disciples to prepare a room for the passover, which they had that night, 14th day of the first month (the Jewish day starts at night - Genesis 1:5 "And the evening and the morning were the first day".)
Then the Lord is betrayed and His trial occurs during the early hours of the morning, and then He is crucified a little later, which is still their 14th day of the month.
You mentioned John 19:14, at Pilates judgment hall, "the preparation of the passover", which is right, because each day of the feast the priests were to make offerings to the Lord. So instead of finding them at the temple about their duties at this special season they were instead crying out for the death of our Saviour.
[ Continued ...............]
Anyway, yes at first it may seem confusing regards the Last Supper and the crucifixion both being on the passover, but I'll explain.
The passover was instituted in Exodus 12. In Leviticus 23: 4- 8 we are told that the passover was on the 14th day of the first month (in the Jewish calendar) and then on the 15th day was the feast of unleaved bread, which lasted for another 7 days, each day an offering being made unto the LORD. Also the first day and 7th day were to be sabbaths, no servile work being done. (Compare again with Ex 23).
So we see the passover was not just one day, but a feast lasting over a week. (Compare Luke 22:1 "Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover")
So in the Gospels we have the Lord Jesus Christ sending His disciples to prepare a room for the passover, which they had that night, 14th day of the first month (the Jewish day starts at night - Genesis 1:5 "And the evening and the morning were the first day".)
Then the Lord is betrayed and His trial occurs during the early hours of the morning, and then He is crucified a little later, which is still their 14th day of the month.
You mentioned John 19:14, at Pilates judgment hall, "the preparation of the passover", which is right, because each day of the feast the priests were to make offerings to the Lord. So instead of finding them at the temple about their duties at this special season they were instead crying out for the death of our Saviour.
[ Continued ...............]
[Continued ................]
Also the next day was to be the first sabbath of the passover, the 15th day of the month which would start at evening time, which required preparation as no servile work was done that day.
John 19:31"because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day)".
I hope this helps clear up this particular matter.
Instead of chasing imagined loose threads I hope you will look at the whole tapestry - that God is a Holy God Who must punish sin, that we are all sinners, ( you and me both), but God through His love has provided the way of salvation for us through Christ Jesus His Son.
Also the next day was to be the first sabbath of the passover, the 15th day of the month which would start at evening time, which required preparation as no servile work was done that day.
John 19:31"because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day)".
I hope this helps clear up this particular matter.
Instead of chasing imagined loose threads I hope you will look at the whole tapestry - that God is a Holy God Who must punish sin, that we are all sinners, ( you and me both), but God through His love has provided the way of salvation for us through Christ Jesus His Son.
oh myyyy god,what a load of old crock, all i know is in this world there is all these religions and i might say most wars are about religions,were right noooo were right ,oh yes it is ohhh no it isnt,right if your brain is functioning correctly , be as kind as you can be ,have empathy for others,do the right thing be the best that you can be. the bible and other religions are a load of old knacker sacks ,old wives tales and story tellings of long ago.just like harry potter,you get me...........you lot on here arguing ....mmmm
bu bu but rosie posie . . . somebody has got to keep God entertained . . . don't we? Do you really believe God went to all the trouble to create the universe just to watch us love one another? How else can you splain all the confusion He created for us? God got bored with all his galaxies and stars and stuff and decided to create a race of beings, half of them rational with the capacity to properly assess reality and the other half believing that He exists; and both believing they can change the others mind. What a blast!
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Film, Media & TV7 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
ChatterBank10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles22 mins ago
