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.

 

What is Religion but lies?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Here is my views on Religion, in response to another thread, but it was way off topic so I am starting my own here..

If say Hinduism was the one true religion, and we have not been worshiping their gods, then well.. I guess we where all wrong and only Hindus had it right, therefore all other religions are wrong.
All the religions differ in many ways, except in one.

Thats right only one thing incomon.

They all represent the culture which they originated from.

With so many religions how can we decide which one was right? Jews say god said so, but they fled Egypt and where captive there for many years around the time Osiris was worshiped. The sun god. The one true god and the very first monotheistic god. So from the Jews comes the Chritians when the Christians decide a man of the nazareen sect (Nazareth was not a city in the time of Christ, it did not exist.) declared himself to be the son of god. Whether or not Marry told him this or he came up with the idea himself no one can say, because he was from a radical sect of Judaism he was outlawed, Still people followed him.

So what is the difference between Christians and Jews? One thinks god sired a son and he walked on earth till nailed to a cross. The other is still waiting for god to sire a son, yet over the centuries how many millions have died to each other?

Then Muslims, I gave you my description of Islam, the quron looks like a bad plagerism job of the bible. It is filled with quotes that god made, only looking at the quron you would almost assume God was Arabic, likewise you assume in the Bible surly god is an anglo-saxon. The original would have you think he was Greek or Latin, the mistranslations and misinterpritations alone have far reaching affects to this day.

Before all of that, the fathers of Western Civilization worshiped many gods, father of the gods being Zeus who we get our modern image of god from. Are all ancient Greeks and Romans - who plagarized Greek Mythology - in hell now because God forgot to tell them "Hey guys, I am the only god there is no such thing as hermes... duh.. I mean HELLOOO" nah, he said nothing, wasn't important I sopose.

Then the many many religions of the ancient Celts, Franks, Germanics, North Africans including Egypt, the Middle East before converted to Islam... all those religions once where praised as the sole source of the gods, the only way to the various salvations that awaited those who followed and sacrifised to them.

Then Budism, Hinduism, all much older then Christianity, makes the western Christian god a child compared to their age and number of worshipers. They all must have been misinformed, or maybe god came to them as a fat man under a tree who knows right? Maybe he wanted the mass confusion as to which religion to follow right?

Then we can skip the pond and head on over to the North American continent, and we have spiritualistic Indians and the various gods of the Mayans, Aztec, Incan, all worshiping many gods and spilling blood in their name. God must have forget he made the new world when we went around telling folks he was there.

OK to sum this up here is my concluding points.

1) If god made the universe and all that was in it, and we had the garden of Edan, tell me why there is a gap from that time some 6,000 years ago (recorded history) 4k bc. and Monotheism, around 1000 bc? Zoroastrianism is speculated to be the first monotheistic worship, along with Egyptians worshiping Osiris.. so god made man went on vacation, forgot he existed and found new gods to worship.. but wher did they come from? Well, since we never saw a god we can safley say it was a made up belief no? Simply apart of their culture.

2) If there was one god, then from the begining of time there would have been monotheistic views of atleast some major simularities of some kind spread throughout the world. Instead they are consintrated in one region. How so eh? Well they evolved from eachother, one copies the other and uses a mix of traditions to create a new faith.

3) Had there really been a god, you could only assume he himself would go and talk to some Budist, or maybe the Romans and Greeks when they where around, maybe some taoist and say "hey guys, yall got it wrong!" well instead he spends his time making fathers sacrifise their sons and flood the world. Well .. untill the new testiment where he went through a identity transformation from a vengful god, a wrathful and all powerful god to a loving, kind, forgiving god. Until the quron where he becomes a kill the infidel and put iron hooks in their melting flesh god. See the indications of the society that produced the gods?

4) in the modern world has there been a new god created? No.. because that would be irational.. people claim to be prophets and holy men, healers and seers.. but we chalenge that enough, if one where to come and say Ahgabahkernad (the new god) has come to say we all got it wrong! We are actually supposed to be a free loving have sex in the streets kind of people! and wham new religion new god and a new source to direct energy.

5) religion has been used to further political and economic reasons, almost all horribly ignorant and wrong. The crusades, under the name of a crusade anyways was an attempt to control trade routs. It has been used as an excuse to murder women as witches, it has been used as a means to justify slavery (well duh god made whites better)
then it was justify to move indians off their land (heathens!) and of course used as a means to justify slaughtering thousands on 9/11 in the name of Allah (Arabic translation of God)

Religion was mans way of saying there is more out there, I am weak, because men need to be weak. Even Kings need someone to kneel to, someone to sacrifise to, someone to name a war of honor to, someone to just be better then him. Why.. why do we need this? Men (all humans) share a common fear of fear. Not knowing, and what we do not know history shows we make dumb excuses for the things we don't understand. Lightning in the sky was Zeus's thunder bolt, it was the spirits to the indians, it ment god was angry to christians, when Europeans came to America Mid West thunderstorms scared them to death. They had no clue, must have been god.

Sick? Well that must mean god wills it. He some times likes to pick on little 1 year old children dont you know. of course now we know.. we know there is no work of god in curing an ilness, you fight it off or you don't. If you don't take an asprine, an antibiotic, blood transfusion, heart transplant, kemo. No act of god, just a doctors skill, just us humans furthering our understanding of our universe.

Still the things we don't understand is atributed to god, all the bad things that hapend to people, god is merly testing you, good things happen to you? Well don't have to much pride, because god willed it and with out the will you where no where.

I hope someone sees my point, eventually we will out grow our gods, and a new one will replace them.

Just remember this: at one point Faries where real, leprachauns where real, the witches of Salem where real, the Hindus god of the kitchen (forget the name) still is real. What makes you think your right? What makes you think your one god, one out of THOUSANDS of gods in our history is the maker of us all? Lousy god if you ask me. F for failure.

The first religions practiced where human spirituality, animalism, naturalism, worship of the earth. We would be best to return to our inner spiritual selves and accept we are all gods in our selves and treat eachother like so.




posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   
The problem is that what makes religion live and thrive is nto such much as the believes of a God and a God chosen to bring its words.

Is all about faith and what in that faith people are willing to accept as true or false, is in that faith that people believe and thrive and is in that faith that atrocities are committed in the name of God.

Religions are harmless on itself, holy books, holy texts they are all harmless in their content, but is humans and their faith that are dangerous.

So we can not really blame religion to the evils of the world but we should blame religious believes that uses religion to cause harm.

Yes is true that we often claim religion to be the problem in this world but actually we should say that is humans the ones to hide behind religion to cause harm in this world.

Religions purpose is to guide souls into a better sense of ones with a higher power and to thrive in that connection.

It was mean to feed the lonely soul in ancient times, but it was use to make one group better than other and one God over the others, but that was human making.

In the end all religion are mean to have one goal to bring humans closes to their creator and to find a purpose and a meaning to this life.

And you are right the all represent the culture which they originated from.



[edit on 20-9-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Your right, it is not religions fault, that would be like saying it is the gun and the bullets fault for killing someone, when man made the gun, man made the intention of the gun, man directed the gun, and man pulled the trigger.

Religion is not in its self an evil source of atrocities, but because it was men who made it , it will be used to further an agenda of some kind more or less resulting in someone getting hurt.

Religion, because people made them and now have to follow their strict doctrin of what a god has said, will alter society even for those who dont follow and have no faith.

Say stemcell research. A man in a robe, a sell out in a suit, both use the bible to say it is evil, science is the devil.

So not just by the "sword" but in the books of law religion is a huge factor, the largest factor that is when it comes to decision making. And it is all over a bunch of fairy tales..



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Rockpuck

You seem to have spent some time learning about the various religions. I admire that. I do have to question your assertion that Nazareth did not exist in Jesus' time. Nothing in my studies have indicated that that was the case.


And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.

--Mark 1:9


I have studied many, if not most of the world's religions and read many of the source materials from those religions. Of those The Urantia Book stands out, but all believers feel that way about one book or the other.

Since you have an interest in religions, their origins and their influence on humanity, I was wondering if you could spend some time perusing these links and perhaps, pass judgement on the assessment of religion posited there.

I haven't had much luck finding others who are interested in sharing their views of this book, but I feel you might be just the one to do so.

RELIGION IN HUMAN EXPERIENCE
THE REAL NATURE OF RELIGION
THE FOUNDATIONS OF RELIGIOUS FAITH
THE REALITY OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE


[edit on 2006/9/20 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   
I think that religions serve many purposes for those who practice them. In order to serve a society's needs, the religion will of course reflect the culture of those who practice it. I think that a problem develops when we take a religion too literally, especially when that religion says that it is the one, true, right, supreme religion and those who disagree are scum.

For all of their faults though, religions are still a necessary part of the human experience. They provide hope, they help people to cope with suffering and inequality, they sometimes provide a moral basis for a population, and they provide the social integration that is otherwise missing in some people's lives. Unfortunately, we can also use religion to subjegate others, to justify wrong doing, and to keep people from doing what is right.

It's a very difficult situation and there seem to be no easy answers. Some people need their religion and they need it to conform to their culture so that it fills their needs. I don't think we will be able to change that anytime soon.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Maybe he wanted the mass confusion as to which religion to follow right?

Gives this thought even more ground:

Proverbs 25:2 --It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.


Evey time we date the "older religion", we go by the oldest text/artwork depicting that which was written for the begining. We have no full perspective of the time, as we only see it from this side of the timeline.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Rockpuck

You seem to have spent some time learning about the various religions. I admire that. I do have to question your assertion that Nazareth did not exist in Jesus' time. Nothing in my studies have indicated that that was the case.


And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.

--Mark 1:9


I have studied many, if not most of the world's religions and read many of the source materials from those religions. Of those The Urantia Book stands out, but all believers feel that way about one book or the other.

Since you have an interest in religions, their origins and their influence on humanity, I was wondering if you could spend some time perusing these links and perhaps, pass judgement on the assessment of religion posited there.

I haven't had much luck finding others who are interested in sharing their views of this book, but I feel you might be just the one to do so.

RELIGION IN HUMAN EXPERIENCE
THE REAL NATURE OF RELIGION
THE FOUNDATIONS OF RELIGIOUS FAITH
THE REALITY OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE


[edit on 2006/9/20 by GradyPhilpott]


Grady the Urantia book is a very very large collection of very inteligent writing! Though I will admit I am greatly enjoying reading them, I am half way through the second link there, it apears to be right up my ally as to not prefering a single religion, but more on what religion is, what it means, its significance and how it should be and is used.

What I ment by Jesus was a Nazarene, a Jewish sect:

When the Bible was translated from Greek, the language of the educated in ancient Israel, to latin, and then further more into Enlgish much was lost, and the actual ancient text and the actual meanings are sadly lost to time until retranslated.

Here is what I ment by what I said, take it for what you want.

The Bible, much written in Greek, the word Nazarene comes from the word Nazoraios - in the Bible it is used by Mathew (and many others) as Nazarenos or literally coming from Nazareth, poor documentation of the city of Nazareth has led research astray, how ever the way the apostiles in the Bible use the word, it would appear they are refering to a sect of Judaism. There are little remaining records from the era, and none can pinpoint where exactly Nazareth was in Christ time on earth.

According to some sources such as this source:

The word neitzer meaning "branch" or "off-shoot" (as in Isaiah 11:1 נֵצֶר)and the following 3 verses tell of the seven qualities of Messiah which makes up the Branch. These seven qualities are sybolized in the seven branched menorah which represents the Malchut Elohim (Kingdom of God) or the Tree of Life. This also in turn refer to the claim that Jesus was a "descendant of David", or to the view that Jesus (or rather the teachings he or his followers advocated) were an offshoot from Judaism. Until the 20th century "neitzer" was the undisputed etymology behind Nazareth.


The root words behind Nazareth could be that it was his claim to be of Davids blood line, this would of course cause men to follow him and make him an open suspicion within the Jews circles of the time.


The word nazur, meaning separate in Aramaic. The word is related to Nazir. There are a number of references to Nazirites in the Old Testament and New Testament. A Nazirite (נְזִיר) was a Jew who had taken special vows of dedication to the Lord whereby he abstained for a specified period of time from using alcohol and grape products, cutting his hair, and approaching corpses. At the end of the period he was required to immerse himself in water. Thus the baptism of Jesus by his relative John the Baptist could have been one "to fulfill all righteousness" at the end of a nazirite vow. Luke 1:15 describes John the Baptist as a Nazirite. James the Just was described as a Nazirite in Epiphanius' Panarion 29.4 . In Acts 21 Paul of Tarsus takes four Nazirite pledges to Herod's Temple. However, following his baptism, the gospels give no reason to suppose Jesus took another Nazirite vow until The Last Supper, see also Mark 14:25.



The word nosri which means "one who keeps (guard over)" or "one who observes" the same name used by spiritual leaders (see for example Yeshu Ha-Notzri) of a pre-Christian gnostic sect which evolved into the Mandaean religion (as in Jeremiah 31:5-6 נֹצְרִים). This explanation had become popular among Protestants towards the end of the 20th century.



The word nazara, "truth", another gnostic concept popularised through the Gospel of Philip: "The apostles that came before us called him Jesus Nazarene the Christ ..."Nazara" is the "Truth". Therefore 'Nazarenos' is "The One of the Truth" ..." (Gospel of Philip, 47)


Because of lousy translations, and rather hasty one at that, much of the actual MEANING is lost. Because the words alone are translated and not what they ment, why they ment that along with the actual customs of the time, the true meaning is lost. It is one thing to read a sentance in French, it is another to understand and comprehend what you read.

Wiki - Nazarene

This does not really prove that Christ was not Christ, it does show mistranslation and aids to the misunderstanding of who the man really may have been, but more importantly is that our entire civilization may be based around a book that few have ever seen the real translation of. That furthers the proof that it does not matter if a relgion is actually true, but that people believe in it whether or not they regard actual facts as being important.

Wellwhatnow:


I think that religions serve many purposes for those who practice them. In order to serve a society's needs, the religion will of course reflect the culture of those who practice it. I think that a problem develops when we take a religion too literally, especially when that religion says that it is the one, true, right, supreme religion and those who disagree are scum.

For all of their faults though, religions are still a necessary part of the human experience. They provide hope, they help people to cope with suffering and inequality, they sometimes provide a moral basis for a population, and they provide the social integration that is otherwise missing in some people's lives. Unfortunately, we can also use religion to subjegate others, to justify wrong doing, and to keep people from doing what is right.

It's a very difficult situation and there seem to be no easy answers. Some people need their religion and they need it to conform to their culture so that it fills their needs. I don't think we will be able to change that anytime soon.


I never said all religion or any religion is bad, I am trying to say they are not real, made up by the people who believe them for means of justification, spiritual growth, a supply of moral guidlines and as a source of fear of the unknown.

Religion is very important to some people, as you can read in this post that in the western world we follow a Bible that we have changed many times, so many denominations following different interpritations to justify there way of life, they do not justify their belief by changing them selves though. Religion is often misused and many times used correctly, it is dangerous to give an ignorant man blind faith in a god that he thinks speaks to him alone, resulting in bloodshed of many innocent people. Still to this very day we fight the same was with ideology.



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
The first religions practiced where human spirituality, animalism, naturalism, worship of the earth. We would be best to return to our inner spiritual selves and accept we are all gods in our selves and treat eachother like so.


If you were to tell people in Roman times you were a God, you would have been crucified.

The conclusion of your post reads:


Originally posted by Rockpuck
We are all gods in our selves and treat eachother like so.


For if we treated each other like so, Love one another would ring forth.
God being in all of us does not make us the Almighty God which created us, for what one of us pieces of Universal pottery can tell the potter how we should be made?

The Truth is the Truth is the Truth.
The Truth terminates hate,
and restores the Truth

Peace

[edit on 4-11-2007 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by HIFIGUY

Originally posted by Rockpuck
The first religions practiced where human spirituality, animalism, naturalism, worship of the earth. We would be best to return to our inner spiritual selves and accept we are all gods in our selves and treat eachother like so.


If you were to tell people in Roman times you were a God, you would have been crucified.


Unless you were an Emperor. Until Constantine that is of course, he became The Pope.



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   
What is Religion but lies?

Just another means at trying to CONTROL the masses..........Somebody always wants to BE in control all the dang time.



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by redled

Originally posted by Rockpuck
The first religions practiced where human spirituality, animalism, naturalism, worship of the earth. We would be best to return to our inner spiritual selves and accept we are all gods in our selves and treat eachother like so.]



Originally posted by HIFIGUY
If you were to tell people in Roman times you were a God, you would have been crucified.



Originally posted by redled
Unless you were an Emperor. Until Constantine that is of course, he became The Pope.


There is a big difference between saying you are God, and stating God as your protector. One professes servitude, the other that we are Gods as this OP stated earlier.

Is pottery the same as the potter?

Yea men, that consider youselves as Gods, craft for all to see a living Honeybee of your own design. The it may know the seasons, and its duty. The tasks and mannerisms of its way and that which will promote its species....

So that we might know that you in no way have the capacity to do so;

For you are not Gods, but from the one God.

Peace


[edit on 4-11-2007 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 10:12 PM
link   
It is impossible and even fruitless to discuss the existence of God from a logical point of view.

Yes, we can look at the world and deduce a creator, but we can also presume that an exploding singularity might by chance congeal into a spectacle of space and time and in the process yield living beings who can ponder theirs and the universe's existence.

The more knowledgeable we become the less we should believe in supernatural phenomena, yet that is not always the case.

One finds on a board like this those who reject God, but believe in a spirit world, a condition that is paradoxical to some, but perfectly logical to others.

Whatever God is, or whether or not He exists, our world is influenced daily by those who believe in Him and those who insist that they are influenced by Him and His heavenly hosts.

The following article is about a man who has experienced and still experiences pain that most will never know. He experiences this pain because of a set of circumstances the odds of which must be astronomical. The person to whom such a thing happens you might expect to be the most bitter atheist on the planet or perhaps the most confused religionist.

But, think again. Gregory McCullough is more certain about his place in the universe than most.


Gregory McCullough knows there’s a reason he survived being burned over 80 percent of his body; a reason for the daily pain the tow truck driver lives with; a reason for the years of physical therapy he faces to return to something resembling a normal life.

He knows because he says that’s what God told him after a steam pipe explosion nearly killed him in New York City in July.

www.msnbc.msn.com...


Take the time to read this story. It made me cringe and it might you, too.

But, think about what this man endured. Think about his experience on that day and what you might imagine his recovery to have been like, even though I can tell from my own experience that you cannot imagine such a thing.

Then consider his attitude, his beliefs, and his faith.

What motivates a man like this?

Is it lies? Is it delusions? Is it superstition? Is it psychosis?

Is it real or imaginary?

Is it logical?


[edit on 2007/11/4 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by theRiverGoddess
 


I do not get it though. Jesus never took control of the masses, Buddha never did, most of the other prophets did not. So why would they want the future to control the masses and not them?



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I don't know but an Invisable man that wants your money doesn't sound right to me. Also to believe in something that man wrote isn't good for me either. Doesn't mean I don't believe in a creator, it's just not in the bible way. Our four fathers that wrote the constitution had different views on God too. They were all Deists and that had more to do with nature and spirituality rather than scriptures and divine revelations. I think most priest are corrupt and only do it for a profit for themselfs. For me I'll stick to moral and constructive values and the natural state of humanity, because I feel man has corrupted true, pure religion for his own personal gain or just plain ignorance.

[edit on 11/4/2007 by Solarskye]

[edit on 11/4/2007 by Solarskye]



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Its called revealed truth.

You know God has appeared to the saints from Noah on down. The beggining of the bible is adam and eve. this is it. Its revealed truth.

Now ive seen miracles myself, not little but big, so he is real and you will see after death.

The muslims and jews follow the Torah which is part of the OT, and Christ fullfills the law, so they just dont believe the saviour.

But you cant say that its just fairy tales when you dont know.

Read the girl in my sig. Shes not a fairy tale and neither are the saints who seen what she did.

peace.



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by JesusisTruth

Its called revealed truth.

You know God has appeared to the saints from Noah on down. The beggining of the bible is adam and eve. this is it. Its revealed truth.

Now ive seen miracles myself, not little but big, so he is real and you will see after death.


um...ok, prove it. if you've had it revealed to you, if you've witnessed miracles, prove them.



The muslims and jews follow the Torah which is part of the OT, and Christ fullfills the law, so they just dont believe the saviour.


the muslims follow the koran...

and the torah is only the first 5 books of the OT



But you cant say that its just fairy tales when you dont know.


and you can't say it's truth when you don't know



Read the girl in my sig. Shes not a fairy tale and neither are the saints who seen what she did.


so someone who recovered from meningitis and died of TB is a saint?
ok, the site you gave me wasn't exactly an unbiased source here. clearly it has a motive to reinforce the unbacked claims of the legend.

and again, the emphasis on these "saints"
i've told you before, there have been people made saints out of outright lies.
like little St. Hugh of London
or St. William of Norwich

they were said to have been killed by jews who needed christian blood for their rituals...
this is blood libel. jews don't need blood for their rituals, yet that's the only reason these two children were made saints...
hmmm



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
It is impossible and even fruitless to discuss the existence of God from a logical point of view.


Define logical.

My testimony is not one of Faith. My testimony is not one of belief.

What person, if they told you, had a quarter in their hand behind their back would be believed?

The logic is possible yes, or possible no. An operand, yet the expectation is Trust. Trust them in telling the truth. If you dont trust others, or yourself, good luck in trusting the truth.

Now. if they showed you the quarter in their hand and then you watched that hand with an open palm go behind their back, would you not move from belief to yet another way of thinking? Your trust in the person would then be converted to truth for what they told you became known and you have witnessed.

My testimony is one of Duty. And my duty is to that which has been revealed the Truth.

I have a quarter in my right hand as I type this. Do you believe me?
Before you click on the link...think about it. Does he? Sit on it for a minute before you look.
i54.photobucket.com...
i54.photobucket.com...

Jesus Christ is real. First hand account. You can debate my testimony all you want. And all you will have is debate, doubt, speculation and a host of other logical or pointless viewpoints that indeed yield no fruit.

In the face of doubt, the logical man is eaten alive for doubt is not a logical premise. nor either nor and nor or? Norand? What is the mathematical term for doubt?

Do I still have the quarter in my hand as I type this? Feel that doubt set in? Hmm...maybe he does, or maybe he doesnt.

Away with your doubt, for surely I tell you the Truth, I do!

It is in conquering this doubt, that one comes to understand belief and Faith. Perhaps not in the process that I went through, but a process no less, that yields the same fruit.

My process was something even I do not fully understand.

A probability of the impossible of sorts.

The quarter will leave my hand when I am done typing on this particular post, and some day, the links for the images of the quarter in my hand will also be invalid and no longer active.

The exercise was one in belief. If you cant believe me in a simple test such as a quarter in my hand, then how can I expect you to belief my experience in my testimony to the existence of Christ.

Welcome to the Bible.

As time goes by..we should do an experiement in another thread of people trying to describe my example here in terms of the quarter in my hand. Those that read it, those that didnt. Think doubt would crop up?

Can you really prove I have a quarter in my hand at this very moment?

Did he have a quarter in his hand or didnt he. Was the photo timestamped? Was he proving the existence of a quarter or his own right hand. Did he ever hold another quarter again? Is it possible he edited without a quarter in his hand?

Jesus said, when Abraham was, I AM.

I have a quarter in my hand at the moment I typed this. You can believe it or not.

Peace


On a sidenote..this editing with a quarter in my hand makes me chuckle..lol


[edit on 5-11-2007 by HIFIGUY]



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join