To anyone Islamic, or of any other religion...

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
That's not even the New Testament you're talking about...
I'm not generalising, just stating facts. The Koran "borrowed" parts from the bible, period. Not the other way around.
And Christianity did not borrow any ideas from any religion, and don't worry, I'm not going to feel dissed no matter how many flawed theories you can come up with.


They are not theories they are facts weather you want to not acknowledge them or not. You can also over look the bible quotes that I posted too. Ignorance does that to people


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Please expound. People are always saying that there are blatant contridictions in the Bible, but have yet to back it up with good examples.
Like what you just said above....please explain. When Jesus said that God was his father, I guess people assumed that meant he was the son of God. But you're saying that didn't mean that?


Just read the quotes I posted go and look them up and read the whole story that they go with. You question will be answered.


Originally posted by Ryanp5555
show me some proof that mary wasn't a virgin... please! I would like to hear it, or read it. Another question, why would i convert to islam if jesus came again? And what i am saying is that if Jesus comes and takes his followers, as stated in the rapture, back to heaven. Suddenly, you see that people are missing, don't believe anything said by anyone, just have faith that jesus came and got his followers, and convert. Islam is and always has been threatened by one man, Jesus Christ.


Show me proof ..... First off that is hard because she is dead. And even if someone showed you a verse your ignorance would not allow you to believe it. Islam is not threatened by one many. Islam follows all three prophets. So your talking about something you haven't even took the time to research. There are a lot of things in this world that Man and scicne can't prove like sprits, the sould and God yeat I believe in all three. Why because I believe in my heart that it is true.



[edit on 29-6-2004 by DaTruth]




posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaTruth
They are not theories they are facts weather you want to not acknowledge them or not. You can also over look the bible quotes that I posted too. Ignorance does that to people
[edit on 29-6-2004 by DaTruth]


So far, all "proof" for these facts was debunked.
I did not say these things without knowing what I'm talking about. I've spend some time trying to find out what religion "inspired" what other religion, and Christianity is simply not based on the Koran, it's the other way around.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 12:12 PM
link   
The originals were lost POSSIBLY sometime before?
Are the Dead sea Scrolls corrupt? There isn't anything in there supporting The Qu'ran version of biblical events. I really hope you tell me the qu'ran says they were corrupted before 150-300 BC. For your own sakes.

I find it very disturbing that you, a muslim, do not even know how the
Qu'ran was verified, by whom, or what methods were used. It does not take a historian to research it. You cannot explain it therefore you do not understand it. Your putting your eternal salvation into this. It is in your best interest to know these things. Its very important stuff! You say that given evidence one explaination is more likely. However, you have forgot to even look into the most critical of evidence...How the Qu'ran came to be...
I asked anyone if the original sources were availible. I received no answer. It would only be in the islams best interest if they were availible. If they are not, there's probably a good reason for it. Most likely because political and human agenda crept into your qu'ran.

Anyways, I've researched enough of this to realize that the qu'ran you have is not god-breathed; it is not the most likely explanation. It is a compilation work. There were many hands involved and this is evident by the incoherency of its pages.

A very brief history:
There are various traditions of the compilation of the qu'ran. The compilation of Abu Bakr and that of Uthman. There are others as well. Today, it is ASSUMED that the Uthman text is correct but they give no substantial reasons for discarding the Bakr text. This Uthman text was compiled atleast 20 yrs AFTER muhammed.
This amazes me...You muslims criticize the christians because they have late evidence; yet your own is Late...The same criteria you have used to judge the christians can be used against you.
Memorization also played a role in the compilation of the qu'ran. It is very possible that the memorization abilities of the early muslims is an exaggeration. Memorizing over a hundred verses perfectly is a difficult task. Is it possible they forgot something, is it possible human error and influence reigned? In addition, we know that traditions vary when they are passed down orally. That is what muslims assert happened to the gospels, correct?
What is the first mention of Muhammed in literature that we have? How many years AFTER his death is this source dated to?
These are the types of questions muslims attack the christian, judaism evidence with, its only fair you treat your own beliefs the same way.
In summary, a variety of sources were used along with selective data acquiring. There were numerous variants of the text in the first three centuries of Islam. The details are availible for anyone that wants to search for it; I'm not writing a book.

In addition, There is more evidence that parts of the quran have been lost. If parts have been lost then it's plausible that it has been added to as well. Here ya go:

As-Suyuti, a commentator of the Koran quotes Ibn Khattab as saying:
"Let no one of you say that he has aquired the entire quran , for how does he know that it is all? Much of the Quran has been lost and thus let him say. 'I have aquired of it what is availible."
-all of this coming from a MUSLIM

Mithras your so called evidence of Islam isn't evidence at all: 1)The qu'ran-I've shown how shaky its foundations are 2) the hadiths contradict the qu'ran and only make islam look bad; it is dated VERY LATE 3) wiping out civilizations-so what, Caesar wiped out tons of people.

Mithra, we as humans must believe in some things, but its not necessary for any of us to believe one religion has all the answers.

[edit on 29-6-2004 by KSoze]



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 12:34 PM
link   
The problem that Muslims and Jews have with Christianity is that they can't bear the thought of their god coming to Earth as a human being.

What they both totally overlook is the fact that their own faiths depict him as appearing as a man in their own scriptures.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 12:53 PM
link   
what if there was an "original civilization" say 75,000 or 100,000 yrs ago, that
had a belief system so all encompassing that it was more than just religion.
it was a way of life, a complete life style. a system so strong and pure that
they actually tapped into "the Universal Source" as a way of life. as time went on these people moved across the world taking their system with them.
then some major disaster occured that wiped out the main body, the center of this civilization, the very roots of the belief, leaving those who had " gone out"
adrift. then as humans go the beliefs were altered through the quest for
power, wealth, position, bad memory, or all of the above.

now what if through the course of history certain people tapped back into
this " root system" , say people like Jesus, Mohammed, Budda, Krishna, etc.

of course there is no substantive proof that this is what happened, but
there is even less substantive proof that is not what happened.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by stalkingwolf
what if there was an "original civilization" say 75,000 or 100,000 yrs ago, that


Graham Handcock "Fingerprints of the Gods", right?



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by stalkingwolf
what if there was an "original civilization" say 75,000 or 100,000 yrs ago, that


Graham Handcock "Fingerprints of the Gods", right?


I recently read a book called E.DIN land of righteousness that was about this very concept...I think hancock was one of his sources...I don't necessarily believe this idea, but its very interesting to think about and is a possible explaination.

[edit on 29-6-2004 by KSoze]



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
The problem that Muslims and Jews have with Christianity is that they can't bear the thought of their god coming to Earth as a human being.

What they both totally overlook is the fact that their own faiths depict him as appearing as a man in their own scriptures.

You're mistaken, Islam doesn't depict God. Certainly not as a man, and certainly not as a man coming to Earth.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Mithras, here we go. First of all my belief in the Great Spirit has nothing to do with your Allah who is an inclusive, intolerant, judgemental asshole if you want to know the truth about it. I am not a slave to my God and Muslims are misdirected if they think that God actually cares if you get on your hands and knees 5 times a day or 100 times a day. This ritual gets you nothing but dirty knees. It is funny that every time someone points out that a verse in the Quran is absurd the defense is usually "you can't read it properly in other languages only Arabic", if that is the case then screw your God for condemning people who talk differently.

Secondly, your God promises NO WAY to defeat Muslim. That does not mean sometimes or in the future or past it means NO WAY. You can talk circles around the fact that your Allah lied or face the fact that the Quran is NOT THE UNCORRUPTED WORD OF GOD THAT IS ESSENTIAL TO THE RELIGON.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by mithras

You're mistaken, Islam doesn't depict God. Certainly not as a man, and certainly not as a man coming to Earth.



I beg to differ.
Sura 53 1-18.

The Koran also gives Allah many human attributes - hands, feet, eyes, a face, a waist. Basically a human form.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 04:36 PM
link   
KSoze,

Somewhere in this reply, I give a link to "answer" your "compilation" question, if you want to pursue that particular line, best to ask them.


Originally posted by KSoze
The originals were lost POSSIBLY sometime before?
Are the Dead sea Scrolls corrupt? There isn't anything in there supporting The Qu'ran version of biblical events. I really hope you tell me the qu'ran says they were corrupted before 150-300 BC. For your own sakes.

The Qur'an refers to the Bible corruption at 003.078 which means:

"And lo! there is a party of them who distort the Scripture with their tongues, that ye may think that what they say is from the Scripture, when it is not from the Scripture. And they say: It is from Allah, when it is not from Allah; and they speak a lie concerning Allah knowingly. "

A few other places too, but why would a date of corruption help, not like you'd see that as proof? The Bible is being corrupted even now.

I thought the DSS (fragments of non-Biblical scripture and the OT, not NT which is where the "Trinity" came from) had many differences to the OT Bible, where does it say otherwise?

home.flash.net... claims corruption:
"Copying errors, misunderstandings, redactions, insertions (glosses), and biblical commentaries, among other effects, have all served to modify these texts over time. These changes are of undoubted interest to scholars whose research focuses the evolution of such biblical texts prior to the time they were edited into their final forms in the modern Christian and Jewish Canons."



I find it very disturbing that you, a muslim, do not even know how the
Qu'ran was verified, by whom, or what methods were used. It does not take a historian to research it. You cannot explain it therefore you do not understand it. Your putting your eternal salvation into this. It is in your best interest to know these things. Its very important stuff! You say that given evidence one explaination is more likely. However, you have forgot to even look into the most critical of evidence...How the Qu'ran came to be...
I asked anyone if the original sources were availible. I received no answer. It would only be in the islams best interest if they were availible. If they are not, there's probably a good reason for it. Most likely because political and human agenda crept into your qu'ran.

Well, I find it disturbing you won't even try to fully understand something that makes such a great claim (only a post ago you were biasing yourself to the Bible, this is no fair test), that could affect you forever. Anyway...

I don't need to go in depth by knowing it's compilation history because I believe it is a superior belief to any other written religion (including atheism) even without knowing its compilation history. Still it's interesting, so I will look into it. I have proved to myself the Qur'an is the truth because it's the most likely explanation of the universe. If you read and understood what I said about theory and evidence before, you might appreciate my view.

How the Qur'an came to be? How did anything come to be, you selectively take things for granted too, whether you believe it or not. It doesn't really matter how, except that it is here.

Why must you know the original source before you accept something. You don't when you see a car, when you see a textbook, or even a video of it being made. With your mindset, even if I gave you the original source from Muhammad you still wouldn't believe, instead asking for more proof he really said it. If an Angel appeared infront of you, you still wouldn't believe - with this mindset of yours (but your fear at that point may beat your logic!).

People only believe what is easiest, but Islam is a hard way to live - you have to give up many freedoms. This is why the previous Messages were hated and destroyed by those men who had power; they didn't want God deciding, they wanted to make up their own rules, giving them full control of the "sheep." Must be a good reason why so many give up freedom willingly!



Anyways, I've researched enough of this to realize that the qu'ran you have is not god-breathed; it is not the most likely explanation. It is a compilation work. There were many hands involved and this is evident by the incoherency of its pages.

Incoherency to you, as you don't fully understand the verses, that's all. Do you understand General Relativity? You can't reject it by trying to understand it with a half-hearted attempt thus giving up. Anyway, it's your choice.


Where are you sourcing this "brief history" from?


A very brief history:
There are various traditions of the compilation of the qu'ran. The compilation of Abu Bakr and that of Uthman. There are others as well. Today, it is ASSUMED that the Uthman text is correct but they give no substantial reasons for discarding the Bakr text. This Uthman text was compiled atleast 20 yrs AFTER muhammed.
This amazes me...You muslims criticize the christians because they have late evidence; yet your own is Late...The same criteria you have used to judge the christians can be used against you.

There is a huge difference between recited and translated/interpreted ( en.wikipedia.org... ) evidence. Anyway, I explained that before.

The Qur'an was written down in fragments during Muhammad's life, he recited it to people and encouraged people to write it down more than memorize it. Obviously some writers make mistakes but the final compilation was done to compare the many received copies and discard ones phrases that didn't agree with the majority. So why are you shocked that some versions get discarded?

If Uthman or any caliph was to actually change parts then I would expect other non-official groups who had their own versions or memorizations would have made a big deal about it.

Here is an explanation of your Uthman-Bakr question from a "scholar," not some answering-islam or me; read it as it's interesting: www.islamonline.net...

Uthman just changed the style to fit a pronunciation.

Here's some nice scans of early scripts:
faculty.washington.edu...




Memorization also played a role in the compilation of the qu'ran. It is very possible that the memorization abilities of the early muslims is an exaggeration. Memorizing over a hundred verses perfectly is a difficult task. Is it possible they forgot something, is it possible human error and influence reigned? In addition, we know that traditions vary when they are passed down orally. That is what muslims assert happened to the gospels, correct?
What is the first mention of Muhammed in literature that we have? How many years AFTER his death is this source dated to?

The "early Muslims" are in some way more forgetful? Sounds like you been reading answering-islam. You have tried memorizing? Might be "easy" considering back then you could get a reward for it.

Even if hundreds memorize something from an original and large source, the chances of even two people getting the same word wrong are still incredibly minute. The more words in the memorization the less chance of the same-word error. This is important to note, because it means a "democratic" compilation of what is recalled will have a good chance of matching the original. And the memorization method was just to back up the written method.



These are the types of questions muslims attack the christian, judaism evidence with, its only fair you treat your own beliefs the same way.
In summary, a variety of sources were used along with selective data acquiring. There were numerous variants of the text in the first three centuries of Islam. The details are availible for anyone that wants to search for it; I'm not writing a book.

Muslims don't (and shouldn't) need to "attack" Christians with the Bible, the Trinity is good enough! How can I treat the Qur'an the same way when there is only one version; (I don't speak Arabic but) I read that the difference you had read about between those two "versions" purely affects pronunciation not meaning. Thinking that this one version is corrupt is simply a matter of which version of which history you believe.



In addition, There is more evidence that parts of the quran have been lost. If parts have been lost then it's plausible that it has been added to as well. Here ya go:

As-Suyuti, a commentator of the Koran quotes Ibn Khattab as saying:
"Let no one of you say that he has aquired the entire quran , for how does he know that it is all? Much of the Quran has been lost and thus let him say. 'I have aquired of it what is availible."
-all of this coming from a MUSLIM

Was he Muslim? Plenty of "Muslims" must say this and much worse. I really like how you seem to agree with this one random source which Google only comes up for anti-Islamic sites, but so desperate not to believe the Qur'an. Make your own book saying it too - maybe in 100 years someone will quote you.




Mithras your so called evidence of Islam isn't evidence at all: 1)The qu'ran-I've shown how shaky its foundations are 2) the hadiths contradict the qu'ran and only make islam look bad; it is dated VERY LATE 3) wiping out civilizations-so what, Caesar wiped out tons of people.

Anything you see is evidence. The Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, Feynman's Lectures on Physics, the Qur'an - whether the foundations are shaky doesn't actually matter, because you can't disprove it that way, what matters is does the Message "feel" correct. That is proof - nothing more than a feeling something fits, for whatever subject you consider (except pure mathematics, a creation of man). The knowledge of the origins are just an extra comfort (and they are) for Muslims.



Mithra, we as humans must believe in some things, but its not necessary for any of us to believe one religion has all the answers.

Islam doesn't give the grand Truth in detail, still lots to find out, it just gives the right set of ethics to help us. You said yourself you must believe in something (this is very true, the need is based in fear), but you cannot just conjure stuff up or change/mix religions to fit yourself.


[edit on 29-6-2004 by mithras]



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
I beg to differ.
Sura 53 1-18.

The Koran also gives Allah many human attributes - hands, feet, eyes, a face, a waist. Basically a human form.


You can beg, but you're wrong.

Wherein is the mention of any human attribute? There is hardly even a talk of Allah there, a "he," as opposed to a "He," refers not to Allah. The context also explains it is not about Allah.

According to YUSUFALI 053.001-18 means:

By the Star when it goes down,-
Your Companion is neither astray nor being misled.
Nor does he say (aught) of (his own) Desire.
It is no less than inspiration sent down to him:
He was taught by one Mighty in Power,
Endued with Wisdom: for he appeared (in stately form);
While he was in the highest part of the horizon:
Then he approached and came closer,
And was at a distance of but two bow-lengths or (even) nearer;
So did (Allah) convey the inspiration to His Servant- (conveyed) what He (meant) to convey.
The (Prophet's) (mind and) heart in no way falsified that which he saw.
Will ye then dispute with him concerning what he saw?
For indeed he saw him at a second descent,
Near the Lote-tree beyond which none may pass:
Near it is the Garden of Abode.
Behold, the Lote-tree was shrouded (in mystery unspeakable!)
(His) sight never swerved, nor did it go wrong!
For truly did he see, of the Signs of his Lord, the Greatest!


Let me know if you still beg to differ.

Even if in another verse, a translator were to say "hand of Allah," it is taken in the figurative sense "the means to do." Now can you show me the other verses where you apparently see Allah described as a human form?



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by wooten123
Mithras, here we go. First of all my belief in the Great Spirit has nothing to do with your ....

If you wish to continue to be nothing but randomly abusive, have your "reasoning" for yourself.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 05:12 PM
link   
As a believer in evolution and the Big Bang theory, but also as a believer in Christianity, I assume that the Old Testament's story of the 7 days creation was symbolic, not literal and exacting. The stages of the birth of the planet and life developing thereon is in the same order, whether one accepts the religious or the scientific narratives.

I also believe in the theory of relativity to the degree that it doesn't conflict with quantum mechanics (I tie these together with string theory). The simplest explanation that ties both the religious and the science stories together, while explaining relativity in a simple and easy-to-understand manner, is found at onealclan0.tripod.com...



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko

Originally posted by DaTruth
They are not theories they are facts weather you want to not acknowledge them or not. You can also over look the bible quotes that I posted too. Ignorance does that to people
[edit on 29-6-2004 by DaTruth]


So far, all "proof" for these facts was debunked.
I did not say these things without knowing what I'm talking about. I've spend some time trying to find out what religion "inspired" what other religion, and Christianity is simply not based on the Koran, it's the other way around.


And Christianity was “inspired by a JEW name Jesus, so what’s your point!!!

I want you to tell me what "proof" has been debunked. Don't generalize. And two it's funny how the bible has the old testament yet Christians don't follow it. If that's the case don't included it in the bible. The reason the old testament is in the bible is to try to legitimize Christianity by including the Jewish torah.

So as I said before all beliefs and idea religion in many religions are old. That’s why there are always similarities. There were people who carried them selves like muslins way before Islam was brought about by Mohammed. There where people that carried themselves like Christians way before Christianity was brought by Jesus. There were people that carried them selves like Jews way before Judaism was brought by Moses.


Get rid of the labels all your doing is showing how dependent you are on this material world. Everything in existence answers to a higher being.


Originally posted by Leveller
The problem that Muslims and Jews have with Christianity is that they can't bear the thought of their god coming to Earth as a human being.

What they both totally overlook is the fact that their own faiths depict him as appearing as a man in their own scriptures.


Once again LOOK AT MY QUOTES!!!!! Jesus never said he was GOD. He said you should worship GOD not him. So the problem with Christians is that they don't read their bible. They just repeat what they were told

[edit on 29-6-2004 by DaTruth]



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 05:50 PM
link   
If the bible is corrupt, and the Koran is correct, why is it that all of the Holy Bible's prophecies coming true with an astonishing rate of 100%? You giving us versus from a false prophet proves nothing.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
If the bible is corrupt, and the Koran is correct, why is it that all of the Holy Bible's prophecies coming true with an astonishing rate of 100%? You giving us versus from a false prophet proves nothing.


Parts of the bible are true. People just choose to read the parts that they are told to read. You have to remember that Jesus didn't write the NH. Every chapter in the NT is the gospel according to John, Luke, etc. He also fought aganist the interpations that people had of the torah, the old testement. If he was around now i'm sure he would have fought aginst the interpations of his teachings.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mithras

Let me know if you still beg to differ.





Yes I do. Read the words and you will see that they refer to human body parts. The fact that you put your own translation to them to make them mean something else in the definition is neither here nor there.

The unassailable fact is that the Koran gives Allah human form. Just because the religion tried to wipe this out by giving you another way of putting them into context does not mean that they don't exist.
It's up to you to prove to me that the Koran doesn't describe the physical Allah. I'm afraid that is something you cannot do.

By the way. If you want, we can add other body parts - shin and ass are just two.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by mithras

Let me know if you still beg to differ.





Yes I do. Read the words and you will see that they refer to human body parts. The fact that you put your own translation to them to make them mean something else in the definition is neither here nor there.

The unassailable fact is that the Koran gives Allah human form. Just because the religion tried to wipe this out by giving you another way of putting them into context does not mean that they don't exist.
It's up to you to prove to me that the Koran doesn't describe the physical Allah. I'm afraid that is something you cannot do.

By the way. If you want, we can add other body parts - shin and ass are just two.


Describe the form of Allah to me.....

The Qur'an does not have an anthropomorphosized perception of G-d. While there are verses that say that everything will perish except for the face of Allah. These are metaphysical verses .....where one can not superimpose his perception of human traits back at G-d. This is the Islamic concept of G-d. It is one of the most powerful surahs in the Qur'an ( If not the most )


Surah Ikhlas [ Holy Unity]

112:1
Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;

112:2
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;

112:3
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;

112:4
And there is none like unto Him.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 09:29 PM
link   
I am not biased towards the bible. The bible is just as corrupt as the Qu’ran. I made no assumptions, the evidence speaks for itself. What shall I do, erase time. The bible,Zoroastrianism, and the Arabian myths all came before the qu’ran and muhammed. That is history.
The Qu’ran is the most likely explaination-How? It doesn’t expound on the complete marvels of our universe, the complete beauty of nature, it also only mentions a few crimes and their punishments. The qu’ran is very INCOMPLETE. This is its biggest problem (what it doesn't say)
Your car and textbook example are not good ones. I do not care about the smallest details on my car. My car is not claiming to speak for god. My car is temporal. Islam is claiming to speak for the eternal. Surely you see the difference. Naturally, there are things in this life that we will question more. Do you put your car on the same level as your spiritual life.
“People BELIEVE what is easiest”- you are correct. BELIEF is easiest. Belief is the moment you stop questioning and it is very easy to do. Did you ever think to seek out the original sources. You don’t even see the point now. This demonstrates the islam saying, There's no since in looking for knowledge if you already have it
Its rather unfortunate anyone had to be destroyed, including muslims. However, that information doesn’t touch my heart anymore
than the rest. What about the polytheists, the zoroastrianist, the jews...they were destroyed also.
I never said the early muslims were more forgetful. you are putting words into my mouth. Muslims are just as intelligent as anyone else. I simply said that memorization could introduce errors. Oral tradition is known to produce errors.
The memorization was not to backup the written. If that is the case, why during Abu bakr’s compilation were they afraid those that had memorized qu’ran were going to die. Thats why the compilation was undertaken to start with. This is from your own website.

And no, I did not get anything from answering-islam. i dont even know what it is. There are many sources in which muslims says things like this. Most of the quotes are from early muslims. The early muslims possibly accepted the qu’ran as incomplete.
Does the message feel correct? i’m going to be blunt...that is ignorant. You do not always experience reality sometimes you experience what you want to. You do not interpret what you experience correctly all the time. Millions of jews and christians feel they are correct; so why argue with them. There “feeling” is just as valid as yours given that logic. There
are satanists, pagans, polytheists that all feel they are correct. What about them.


[edit on 29-6-2004 by KSoze]





 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join