It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Single Element Proof The Bible Is BS

page: 19
20
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 04:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
Are you so blind as to not realize that there are great Christian scientists that do regard some science as true science and some as garbage.


Scientists are people like everyone else and can have whatever personal opinion or belief they like, fairies, bigfoot, santa, even christianity (a delusion usually the result of an enforced early age fear based brainwashing). When they let their so called "science" be swayed by their own particular religious psychosis however, it isn't really science any more. It's then the opposite, it's pseudo/anti science (ie. (un)intelligent design).





edit on 14-11-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it




posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Some love it's comedy... Some use it as a weapon... Some delight in its message(s)...

I use it as rolling paper.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum


Scientists are people like everyone else and can have whatever personal opinion or belief they like, fairies, bigfoot, santa, even christianity (a delusion usually the result of an enforced early age fear based brainwashing). When they let their so called "science" be swayed by their own particular religious psychosis however, it isn't really science any more. It's then the opposite, it's pseudo/anti science (ie. (un)intelligent design).

Most certainly all scientists have their own personal beliefs such as the universe created and creates it self. I don't think that is even on the table but to then say that ones who believe Christianity are delusional is a matter of you proving your statement. Are you now trying to convince others that you are a great psychiatrist among all of your other superior attributes? All it shows is your smugness and ignorance in trying to cover your pseudo science of age, global warming and other such silly beliefs with no proofs. That is your religion and it certainly is flawed.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Foundryman


As for your follow-on assertion you do have a small point. As long as science can't yet explain something, then it proves God did it? I believe Dr. Tyson had a little to say about that: "If that's how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on. So, just be ready for that to happen, if that's how you want to come at the problem. So that's just simply the God of the gaps argument."

Small point? That small point is the entire foundation of your present day science and if you don't have that small point then you have nothing except limited knowledge of what has been placed into today's spectrum. You have nothing but faith and belief that you will find your beginning the same as a religion. You are a religion unto yourselves. Simply because people can show a mixture of elements and call it science is not to say people can create those same elements that they use in their mixture. Can people create these elements, or substances?

You say " As long as science can't yet explain something, then it proves God did it?" - Are you then saying that as long as Christians can't yet explain their God then that proves that science did it? Science has never created anything and never will. All science can do is formalize existing matter and that matter can change and has changed.

Evidence is not necessarily proof and has never been the theme of Christianity.
Hebrews_11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Are those words of truth applicable to science as well as religion? It seems that you have said that very same thing as you said "We don't know for sure what happened 15 billion years ago but we will." Well we do not know for sure what happened either but we also will know one day. You have shown me that your religion is called science.



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 04:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum


Scientists are people like everyone else and can have whatever personal opinion or belief they like, fairies, bigfoot, santa, even christianity (a delusion usually the result of an enforced early age fear based brainwashing). When they let their so called "science" be swayed by their own particular religious psychosis however, it isn't really science any more. It's then the opposite, it's pseudo/anti science (ie. (un)intelligent design).

Most certainly all scientists have their own personal beliefs such as the universe created and creates it self. I don't think that is even on the table but to then say that ones who believe Christianity are delusional is a matter of you proving your statement. Are you now trying to convince others that you are a great psychiatrist among all of your other superior attributes? All it shows is your smugness and ignorance in trying to cover your pseudo science of age, global warming and other such silly beliefs with no proofs. That is your religion and it certainly is flawed.


Many of the stories in the bible are not only absurd to begin with, but are demonstrably false. This god (like many of the other thousands of versions) as outlined in this particular belief system, has no genuine possibility of existing as anything more than a concept in the psyche of believers. You are welcome to demonstrate otherwise. The story of jesus is obviously mythical (whether loosely based on a historical figure or not). The only difference with scientology is that christianity seems slightly more far fetched and is better at brainwashing young minds. There is that.

It is roughly 13.8 billion years ago (not 15 billion years). The admirable thing about science is that the understanding derived from it is never beyond question or reproach. There isn't the claim to really know, when that can't be validated and it's always provisional. The very opposite of religion.

You are free to believe, but for the most part, you are creating men of straw to argue against.



edit on 16-11-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 06:44 AM
link   
Its a bad history book written by men. Every religion does two things. They want your money and they want you to fear them its all about control. Organized religion is stupid.



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum



Many of the stories in the bible are not only absurd to begin with, but are demonstrably false. This god (like many of the other thousands of versions) as outlined in this particular belief system, has no genuine possibility of existing as anything more than a concept in the psyche of believers. You are welcome to demonstrate otherwise. The story of jesus is obviously mythical (whether loosely based on a historical figure or not). The only difference with scientology is that christianity seems slightly more far fetched and is better at brainwashing young minds. There is that.

When you say that some stories in the Bible are absurd to begin with and are false are you then saying that some are not absurd to begin with and are true? If that is what you infer, then that makes you the judge of thousands of the entire Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and other literature that is non biblical. Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that outside of some ATS readers?

I ask you once more to demonstrate your 13.8 billion years fantasy. If you have that proof, which true science would show if true, then you can share it with the foolish Christians as well as foolish scientists who believe otherwise. That in itself will dispel all of this bantering among people. The universe is eternal? Yes? The universe creates itself? Yes? If the universe creates itself and if the universe is eternal then radiometric dating is flawed and if flawed in one respect then suspect in other respects. If you choose to believe that radiometric dating is true then you will have to argue with your own science and not biblical theology. Your science religion is as fractured as that of biblical theology to say the least.

Your concern for other people's beliefs is puzzling. If there is no God of Christianity then why should you bother to play in this theological field? Why should you and others of your ilk waste your time to try to convince certain people that they are wrong and foolish. What benefit is there in your success to convert even one to your religion of science. What do you have to offer to replace the Christian afterlife? Why the insistent attacks towards Christianity as the chief victim? Certainly you must have a reason for all of this wasted effort to destroy a God who does not exist.

To waste time on foolish people who believe in a foolish religion is more foolish then the fool who believes in the foolish religion. I say that with a smile but am still puzzled as to why anyone would continue this foolish bible bashing unless that one has an agenda that is fostered by other intents other than that of themselves. Meanwhile I shall believe my own nonsense just as the Richard Dawkins crowd believes their nonsense. Death will show the truth if truth is to be shown and if not to be shown will certainly be experienced by everyone. Meanwhile your 13.8 billion years is nothing better than a fairy story.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
Is your memory so short that you have forgotten the OP presentation. Who is calling who names in regards to the Tanakh and Greek bibles? I understand that BS in this case does not refer to Before Sunday. Would you regard that as an insult to your faith if I would call you wannabes armchair half wits? Of course you would even though I would not call you an arm chair half wit.


So called "Christians" constantly post attacks on evolution and science, calling it BS. Don't dish it if you can't take it. You have referred to the science as pure fantasy numerous times, and not just in this thread either.


Are you so blind as to not realize that there are great Christian scientists that do regard some science as true science and some as garbage. It is not me that is on the offense and is trying to sell the crap that is not true science.


Scientists come from all different walks of life and religious backgrounds. They understand how to separate fact from faith. My beef isn't with Christians, it's with science deniers. Most Christians are not science deniers and understand the difference between science and faith.


You tag a name called science on about everything that has been for many years without any regard as to where you start from.


Science is only "tagged" on things that can be verified via observation and experimentation.


You have no idea where to start so you pick a theoretical time or place and start your man made formulas from that point. When that point is shifted you then pick another point and call it correction. Most of the sheep will accept the science crap along with true science and go through life as halfwits.


Scientific theories are based on verifiable facts, and when more data is discovered they are updated. It's the opposite of bronze age religion, where everything is blindly accepted as unwavering fact that never changes despite being SEVERELY outdated.


Where is your proof that the sciences of your 13.8 billion years ago is as we have them today? You can't prove it by any stretch of any imagination. You nor anyone can prove that 13.8 billion years ago was even here 13.8 billion years ago.


What does that even mean? Prove that 13.8 billion years ago, that it was 13.8 billion years ago? That doesn't even make sense. Why don't you give us evidence that points to ANY OTHER DATE and explain why. It's not logical to deny it just because it is a large number.


If evolution is a fact then the sciences of your 13.8 billion years ago certainly must have changed. Earth's magnetic force for one which affects many formulas of some sciences. From a closed environment to an open environment which is a legitimate argument among true science. Speed of light which is proven to vary in certain environments. Many non biblical scientists argue these points among themselves so it is not limited to biblical only.


Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with anything you described in this paragraph. What sciences have changed? Are you suggesting the laws of physics have changed? A claim like that is going to require evidence instead of just denial. Where does speed of light vary in a vacuum?


Before 13.8 billion years ago what existed if anything existed? Can anything exist without being created and what existed to produce existence? Where did existence come from? You nor anyone can answer that and therefore your theoretical beginning is proof that it is flawed just the same as you propose that the Hebrew theology is flawed. Both are vain imaginations without hope of proof. Pot and kettle?


Asking philosophical questions like "where did existence come from" doesn't refute any of the big bang science or age of the universe science. To do this, you need evidence of another model. The evidence is there for 13.8. It's not there for 6000 or whatever arbitrary religious based number you wish to argue for.


If you had a single piece of objective evidence that 13.8 billion years were truly the start of existence then you might have a point here, but there is zero evidence of 13.8 billion years ever existing.


I never said it was the beginning of all existence. It's the furthest back we can go at this point with our technology. Plus you are lying. If you disagree with the Hubble constant, then please explain why. There IS actually evidence, so your attempt to parody me is a complete failure because religion is based on faith and science is based on fact.


If you take the stance that all modern science holds more weight then facts then you also deserve to be ridiculed.


Modern science IS fact. They are on equal grounds which renders your statement inert.


Blindly attacking theology of God is not enough when surrounding and connecting facts verify the tradition.


First you'd need to prove that theology is actually "of God". Next you'd need to show evidence that verifies any of god's so called works in the bible.


Neither can you produce any science. All you can do is show what is and has been created. We call that source God while you have no answer as to where it came from.


All you have to do is search google for age of the universe, and you will get several sites that explain where they got the numbers. I don't care what your cult calls the source. Anybody can make up anything. Science can be verified, that's the difference. You have not provided any answer, you have taken a guess based on ancient texts.


edit on 11 17 15 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
When you say that some stories in the Bible are absurd to begin with and are false are you then saying that some are not absurd to begin with and are true? If that is what you infer, then that makes you the judge of thousands of the entire Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and other literature that is non biblical. Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that outside of some ATS readers?


Your logic is hard to follow. Why would the fact that some stories are unrealistic and demonstrably false, imply that the realistic ones are true? There is no connection. The problem with that argument is that much of the bible was written over a thousand + year period by numerous different authors whose stories were later compiled into one big book. It's not just one big continuing story that's either all right or all wrong. Clearly some events happened, but I have seen no verification whatsoever of any of the claims in regards to god and creation.


I ask you once more to demonstrate your 13.8 billion years fantasy.


Hubble's Law

w.astro.berkeley.edu...

It's not fantasy. It is based on real observations and math.


If you have that proof, which true science would show if true, then you can share it with the foolish Christians as well as foolish scientists who believe otherwise. That in itself will dispel all of this bantering among people.


LMAO. No it won't. You do realize how much proof of evolution, age of the earth and other science is posted here and gets ignored by creationists like it's their job, right? Posting the proof only leads to the religious fundamentalists blindly denying it. In reality there is no debate about any of those things in the scientific community aside from minor details. The only "debate" is creationists denying the science. But they never give a reason for the denial outside of faith, so there is no actual debate.


If the universe creates itself and if the universe is eternal then radiometric dating is flawed


How can the universe create itself AND be eternal? They are mutually exclusive, plus how does something create itself? The universe was created or it is eternal (or numerous other possibilities). It can't be both.


If you choose to believe that radiometric dating is true then you will have to argue with your own science and not biblical theology. Your science religion is as fractured as that of biblical theology to say the least.


If radiometric dating is wrong, then you would expect numerous discrepancies with the dates, but this isn't the case. The error margin used to be around 3% but it is getting closer to 1%. Plus there are other methods that cross check these dates and they are indeed quite accurate. If you are suggesting that the decay rate of isotopes has changed, you need to show evidence of this change or at least demonstrate a possible model. Simply arguing that constants MIGHT HAVE changed at one point with no evidence doesn't get us anywhere.

edit on 11 17 15 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs


Scientific theories are based on verifiable facts, and when more data is discovered they are updated. It's the opposite of bronze age religion, where everything is blindly accepted as unwavering fact that never changes despite being SEVERELY outdated.

Lets clear one thing before another. I have never said that true science was not profitable to mankind. There is true science and within that structure is garbage and you well know it. I have shown you some of the garbage and you refuse to acknowledge that it is garbage. You cannot verify 13.8 billion years and you well know that also. Along with your so called updates are corrections. Now the last time I went to school a correction is correcting a mistake or a wrong. Call it whatever you want but it is still crap.



What does that even mean? Prove that 13.8 billion years ago, that it was 13.8 billion years ago? That doesn't even make sense. Why don't you give us evidence that points to ANY OTHER DATE and explain why. It's not logical to deny it just because it is a large number. Text

Prove? You have a short memory. It is you and not me that claims 13.8 billion years. The rules of debate do not change and the burden of proof lays upon you. You said yourself that science is based upon verifiable facts and I have repeatedly challenged that verifiable fact. Show me the verifiable fact that 13.8 billion years has ever existed. As far as me proving a date has already been established, ridiculed and dismissed. My date is in the theological realm and never claimed by me as to be verifiable fact. This entire debate hinged upon the one statement of science claiming that this world is 15 billion years old. You corrected your fellow scientists in the verifiable fact that it was 13.8 billion years old.

The reason that it is illogical for me to date the world is that there are no verifiable facts in dating the world. How could it be logical to you when it is entirely theoretical. Actually it is strongly debated by theologians within their own kind. I do not subscribe to any cult, denomination of organized religion or religious club. Nothing of the sort am I connected.

It may surprise you to know that I also believe the universe and this world is very very old. How old? I have no idea. Why do I not have any idea? I do have a belief in the God of Abraham and His Begotten Son Jesus but I do not believe that time was incorporated in the manner as most others believe. Time was incorporated on the fifth day of creation and up to that day there was no time. I also believe that time or age does not exist outside of this universe. Age or time is privy to this universe and does not exist in the dimension of the eternal. (My belief of course) --

I also believe that the material of which the universe consists is ageless. No time No age. Water and earth existed before it was formed into this universe and before we were given understanding of age. It's all a game of theology. If I were to believe your 13.8 billion years then that would mean to me that the last two or three days of creation were at least 13.8 billion years ago and that one day of creation would have had to be billions of years. Therefore Adam most likely would have been billions of years ago. Theology? Of course it is theology. Disbelieved and ridiculed? Of course it is disbelieved and ridiculed. That is the hobby of ATS. Does that bother me? Not in the least.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
When you say that some stories in the Bible are absurd to begin with and are false are you then saying that some are not absurd to begin with and are true? If that is what you infer, then that makes you the judge of thousands of the entire Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and other literature that is non biblical. Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that outside of some ATS readers?


No, I am not saying that at all. Not every claim in the bible can be falsified, obviously. Some are more ridiculous than others at first glance and then can also be demonstrated to be absurd. Such as the story of a 600 yr old man and a flood/ ark. The notion that the earth is the oldest heavenly body in the universe, that flowering plants and fruit trees were abundant on earth before there was a sun and so forth.

Among the less ridiculous claims (in that they don't seem absurd at first glance) we see that many of them were wrong also. We know there was no Egyptian captivity, exodus, wandering the desert, conquest of Canaan for instance. Not that it matters much. The bible is an unreliable collection of period fiction and folklore.


originally posted by: SeedeI ask you once more to demonstrate your 13.8 billion years fantasy. If you have that proof, which true science would show if true, then you can share it with the foolish Christians as well as foolish scientists who believe otherwise. That in itself will dispel all of this bantering among people.


Science isn't about "proof" and offers none regarding cosmological theory pertaining to the age of the universe. It is more about explaining observed phenomena, based on evidence. There is plenty of that. It all points towards the likelihood that our present universe expanded from a single point, about 13.8 billion years ago.

No one really claims to know beyond this. There have been possibilities offered (such as by Kraus) based on a certain branch of physics. Though not put forward as having happened, only as a logical/hypothetical possibility, based on evidence and certainly not from the "nothing" that most people think of when they hear that word.


originally posted by: Seede The universe is eternal? Yes? The universe creates itself? Yes?


Who knows, not I. Though it is a possibility that our universe has always existed in some form. The fact that we know it exists now puts this possibility in front of the god explanation. There is no need to further complicate this possibility by introducing a magical fairy into the mix, that has no genuine evidence of existing or having ever existed. This only leads to another infinite regression paradox, one based on personal delusion.


originally posted by: Seede If the universe creates itself and if the universe is eternal then radiometric dating is flawed and if flawed in one respect then suspect in other respects. If you choose to believe that radiometric dating is true then you will have to argue with your own science and not biblical theology. Your science religion is as fractured as that of biblical theology to say the least.


This is based on a straw man. We don't know the genuine origin of our universe, beyond a certain point about 13.8 billion years ago.


originally posted by: SeedeYour concern for other people's beliefs is puzzling. If there is no God of Christianity then why should you bother to play in this theological field? Why should you and others of your ilk waste your time to try to convince certain people that they are wrong and foolish. What benefit is there in your success to convert even one to your religion of science. What do you have to offer to replace the Christian afterlife? Why the insistent attacks towards Christianity as the chief victim? Certainly you must have a reason for all of this wasted effort to destroy a God who does not exist.


Apart from being pervasive in many societies in general, it is a delusion considered by many in high office in decision making. All societies suffer where religion prospers. There is also the way it tries to infiltrate the education system and brainwash the young and impressionable.

For most people it is a reasonably mild and harmless delusion though.


originally posted by: SeedeTo waste time on foolish people who believe in a foolish religion is more foolish then the fool who believes in the foolish religion. I say that with a smile but am still puzzled as to why anyone would continue this foolish bible bashing unless that one has an agenda that is fostered by other intents other than that of themselves.


Perhaps. Yet there is usually a reason people change stance from atheist who doesn't really care, to anti theist.





edit on 17-11-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
Prove? You have a short memory. It is you and not me that claims 13.8 billion years. The rules of debate do not change and the burden of proof lays upon you. You said yourself that science is based upon verifiable facts and I have repeatedly challenged that verifiable fact. Show me the verifiable fact that 13.8 billion years has ever existed. As far as me proving a date has already been established, ridiculed and dismissed. My date is in the theological realm and never claimed by me as to be verifiable fact. This entire debate hinged upon the one statement of science claiming that this world is 15 billion years old. You corrected your fellow scientists in the verifiable fact that it was 13.8 billion years old.


Yes, clearly, it's just me with the short memory, yet you completely FORGOT that I ALREADY posted 2 links directly above your post.

It is flat out dishonest to scream about burden of proof, when I provided the evidence for you already. If you have issues with what I posted, then refute the science and math I provided about the Hubble constant.


If I were to believe your 13.8 billion years then that would mean to me that the last two or three days of creation were at least 13.8 billion years ago and that one day of creation would have had to be billions of years. Therefore Adam most likely would have been billions of years ago.


Or it would mean the bible is either wrong or not absolute literal truth. We know for a fact that there was no first 2 humans. We know for a fact that the human race began either 200k years ago (homo sapiens) or 3 million years ago (the homo genus), depending on how you define human. Humans do not predate the dinosaurs so I can safely dismiss your notion that Adam existed billions of years ago. Your faith overrides your sense of logic. It's a shame.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: NthOther




posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede

Man, that was wel said!




posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Hi folks. I'm new around here and am still trying to get to grips with the mechanics of the site. It seems to be a nice place with some interesting people.

I'm a Christian and a sceptic AND an agnostic. ..if that is at all possible. IMO science is a tool to look at creation and not something to either prove or disprove any religion. Both disciplines are used by people who are not knowledgeable enough in either to try and debunk the other in irder to further a belief or non-belief in some way or another...repeating old arguments and philosophies. Some truths on both sides and some things that might never be known.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I saw this summarized the other day and it was good.

Does the Christian God Control Satan? Or If the Christian God is all powerful why doesn't he just destroy or subjugate him?

That led me to think that man can be evil or misguided or insane or only slightly evil without any help from Satan. Why do we need him? Because clearly if you're a Christian, Satan can only be here because he is needed. Why is Satan Needed? God doesn't need the final battle to defeat Satan, he could do it at anytime he chose, if he's all powerful. The final battle, again is only for our benefit. Why is this final battle needed?



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Heh heh, linear thinking at its best, or is that worst? Just because it's in a book and written in the past tense doesn't mean it has happened. In the case of the Tower of Babel it is yet to happen. Babel in Hebrew is later translated as Babylon. In the Book of Revelation 'Babylon has fallen' is declared by the angel. It is the 'Tower of Babel'.

The original story in Genesis has affected the English language and given us the word 'babble', to speak incoherently. Douglas Adams also referred to the Babel Fish in Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy (HG?), a means to understand other languages by putting a mutant koi in your ear. Unbeknownst, even to his family, Adams was a prophet and drew inspiration from the wording and phraseology of Revelation, producing a fantastical book that on the surface is comedy chaos but underneath is an accurate depiction of the world we are moving towards.

Back to Babel: Adams chose the fish because it can be represented by a constellation, Pisces. What sounds like Pisces and to most is incoherent babble? It reaches towards God with the aim to surpass...

Anyone?

And the common language is?

God says 'If this is what man achieves...'. It is not in the positive. It is an admonishment. Basically, 'a child could do better. Knock it down and let him start again'.

It's there. About to happen.

Oh, and Doug was right with 42!
edit on 2-12-2015 by MoshiachIusDei because: hg



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Looking at this thread is like looking at children in the playground..You are all bashing each other on the limited knowledge that you have...you really have no idea about the truth that is out there..
God is in the supernatural world but you are only looking in the physical world...It is like you are commentating on a football game but you are outside of the stadium..
This is why Christians and none believers will never see eye to eye..
anyway, enjoy your debate, be it in ignorance.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: SPECULUM
Well, I'm sure there are many faceted proofs that for the most part, the Bible is BS. But this Element in the Bible takes the Cake by far

"Tower of Babel" I mean, Come on. All peoples of the Earth are living in the same location? and happen to build a Tower to the heavens and pisses God off, so he changes everyone nationality and language


Hell he doesn't even change their location...They all seem to find their way...Its Amazing

It takes 3000 plus years and google translate and we're back where we started


Wonder how God will feel if we start building that Tower again?



The bible isn't BS as you say.

You may not be reading it correctly. That is all.


I shall be making a thread when I get 20 posts under belt.


It may interest you.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   
The question is - is the Bible BS or not? This question cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of all here, because the Book must be spiritually discerned, and a whole lot of folks here on ATS have not had their spirit quickened by the Spirit. They will not even understand this post...



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join