Jump to content

Conversion, Spiritual Epiphanies and Mystical Experiences


webmdave
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Admin

By Dave, the WM

 

I've never met a single person who became a zealous Christian after being presented an intellectual reason to believe. In fact, I would dare to say that there has not been one real conversion in history that can be entirely attributed to a simple, unemotional presentation of facts. That's not how religion works. Religion finds fertile ground in the field of a person's emotions. If a few random twigs on the periphery of a Christian's faith suffer damage during a violent storm of logic, the roots of that faith tend to remain deeply buried, far out of site, and untouched.

 

I've never been accused of being overly sensitive or romantic, yet my own conversion to Christianity was highly charged with emotion. Tears ran down my face. I trembled uncontrollably. I felt that I was having a face-to-face meeting with the everlasting Godhead. Even today, the experience is strong in my memory. "How to Witness" classes I attended in following years encouraged me to rely on my subjective emotional conversion with statements like, "Unbelievers can't argue with your personal testimony," which meant no one could refute your personal experience.

 

Here I was in a witnessing class learning how to "disciple the nations," yet the most reliable weapon against unbelief presented is subjective personal experience?

 

Is an emotional experience really that reliable? Does an emotional experience provide solid enough ground on which to build a life?

 

Admittedly, much of life rests on just exactly that type of foundation. For instance, do any of us scientifically and analytically pick a mate? Or, is our selection usually based on something less well defined, such as emotions and/or hormones? Do we choose our food after a thorough nutritional analysis? Or, is our dinner choice usually based on something considerably less researched, like what would taste good today?

 

Our religious choices fall along the same lines.

 

While a Christian, I was also a musician, heavily involved in the music ministry at a Charismatic church. I understood music?s power and knew how to use music to play on the emotions of the congregation. If you doubt that music has this ability, to play on your emotions, try watching an adventure or mystery movie with the sound turned off ? just read subtitles instead. See if your anticipation for ?what will happen next? is nearly as intense as compared to when the soundtrack is playing underneath the action.

 

When the music at church was "right," and the volume swelled just so, ecstatic utterances — tongues, words of knowledge, prophecies — would bubble out of people's mouths like milk boiling in a pot. After the service I'd hear, "Wow, the Spirit was really moving today," and "The Lord really ministered to me today," and "I felt the Lord all morning," and so on.

 

I'd speculate about what would happen if we abandoned music during the services. I questioned whether anyone would still enjoy worshipping God. I wondered if the Holy Spirit would be felt at all.

 

Feelings. That's really what the bulk of Christianity and religion is really all about: fabricated, fluffy, feelings.

 

Although I eventually wearied of the shallow emotionalism, I didn't immediately give up on faith in the magical Christ. "People will disappoint you, but Christ is faithful!" That's what I told myself for the next 15 years.

 

I went from church to church, searching for the real thing. "I" never "found it" in church. Along the way I catered to my appetite for deeper truth by consuming theological, historical, apologetic, and inspirational books of every stripe. My education wasn't formal, but it was extensive. Gaining that knowledge altered my views dramatically. In time I began to realize how much Christianity had mutated over the centuries, and how nearly every "truth" that modern day believers hold dear evolved over time. Today?s 20-century-old Christianity would be unrecognizable to its First Century progenitors.

 

The details of each Christian "testimony" are varied, but the root of every conversion is some sort of a spiritual (emotional) epiphany. And the "high" that religion can bring will carry a new believer along for a considerble while. Eventually, if the believer has a questing mind, doubts will arise, and that's when the vast libraries of apologetic books are brought into play.

 

As an aside, apologetic books sell by the millions, to believers. Unbelievers don't generally purchase apologetic books. Apologetic books are not a tool for evangelism. Conversion is based entirely on emotion and not because the unbeliever finally collected enough information to be converted. While I've never known of a single person who was converted solely from reading an apologetic book, I do know people who have "backslidden" and later rededicated their lives to Christ after reading an apologetic book. However, rededication is not the same as conversion.

 

Christian logic is primarily the armchair variety: "When I look at the stars, sky, trees, and my new baby, it just seems logical to conclude (insert here: 'It just feels right to me') that the world was created by an incomprehensible, loving, spiritual entity. Therefore, Jesus is the Son of God!" And, "This experience was wonderful. I was filled with a feeling of love so powerful, it was simply overwhelming. Therefore, Jesus is the Son of God."

 

So, how to interpret personal conversion experiences? If a harbinger of truth is knocking at the door, talking about his or her unquantifiable ecstatic "miracle," and seems dogmatically sure of his spiritual experience, what's a skeptic to do? Is it true that no one can argue with a Christian's personal experience?

 

If Christianity were the only modern religion that provided powerful, life-changing, mystical experiences, then those things might add validity to their beliefs. If only Christianity provided these unexplained feelings, it might be reasonable to conclude that Christianity is unique. The problem is that disciples of other religions also have dramatic stories.

 

Here's one:

I was born in China during the Cultural Revolution and brought up as a typical atheist. We were educated to believe that religious theories were made up by rulers to manipulate people's minds and maintain their political power.

I came to this country in 1996 as a graduate student at the University at Albany. A few months after I arrived, a lady approached me outside a post office in Latham. When she offered me a religious pamphlet and asked if I believed in God, I proudly answered, "No!"

 

I can never forget the shock and pitying expression on her face. She said, "You don't believe in God? You don't believe that God created human beings?"

I found that idea inconceivable and pitied her for thinking that way.

One day in 1997, my best friend showed me a book she recently got from her parents in China. It was entitled
"Zhuan Falun" (Turning the Law Wheel) by Li Hongzhi
, founder of a traditional Chinese spiritual practice known as Falun Gong, or Falun Dafa. I opened it and could hardly put it down. Page after page, my lifetime questions were being answered one by one. I recalled my encounter at the post office, thought about the true meaning of life and moved away from atheism. The world became new to me. I finished reading the book in two days -- the happiest days in my life. —
Yu Chen

 

Here's another:

(The) Hindu religion is a source of happiness in this and the other world. No other religion seems to be equal to Hindu religion. Those having mean and unwise bent of mind and give up this religion are wicked and base. Such people suffer greatly in this world and even Yamraj (god of death) does not get satisfied while punishing them. We are wise and learned. Why should we forsake Hindu religion? We have a permanent commitment and love for protecting our religion. —
Guru Teg Bahadur

 

And this one:

"While I was speaking in Southern California a number of years ago, I met four young men who were members of Hare Krishna. It wasn't a planned meeting, we just happened to strike up a conversation as we were crossing the same busy street in Los Angeles. To my utter shock, three of these lost souls were Jews. As I listened attentively to the testimonials of these oddly dressed fellows, each of them carefully described how their newfound religion had transformed their lives. They joyfully spoke of their joining this eastern sect and I could sense the elation and inner peace they felt. They were certain that what they believed was true and it was quite apparent that they were more spiritual now than they had ever been in their former lives." —
Rabbi Tovia Singer

 

I'd like to wind this down with a quote from George Boyd

Conversion by fundamentalistic groups is begun by introducing doubts about one's fundamental beliefs about life, and using irrational fear to coerce confession of sin, repentance, and adoption of a primary religious belief system (faith). After this primary belief system has been established, basic guidelines for belief, morality, lifestyle, and behavior are inculcated and shaped through socialization into the "new family" of the Church. Finally, through asking for and challenging individuals to make progressively deeper commitments to the Christian community and spiritual life, they are led to a greater participation in the works of Christian charity, development of the church and active ministry. Rare individuals may undergo the transformation of character and reliance on inner guidance indicative of holiness.

 

Fundamentalists need to recognize, however, that viable and personally rewarding solutions to the quest for personal meaning and value, and spiritual growth, across cultures and throughout history, have not been restricted solely to the Christian Church. They also need to appreciate that the same free will they so highly respect, does not function either freely or rationally when conflict is introduced into the subconscious mind through conversion tactics using fear, shame, guilt and the creation of doubt. If we are to survive into the 21st Century, we must recognize that we live in a world of multiple cultures and pluralistic religious beliefs, and tolerance and respect for others' choices, however different from our own, must guide our actions.

 

OK, so what's the point?

 

Christian conversion is emotional, much like falling in love, or going into an angry rage, or having an episode of hysterical laughter. Once the passion subsides, it's often difficult to explain why it was ever felt in the first place. Emotional feelings can't be proved or disproved, but they aren't reality. Emotions exist, in essence, only in the mind.

 

In the decades since my emotional "real-to-me" conversion, I've left Christianity, obviously. I now have a better understanding of how my own mind processes information and the role my imagination plays in filling out my psyche. I realize now that I was initially so convinced of the truth of Christianity, so affected by the emotional appeal of an evangelistic, so wanting to connect with this God, so filled with guilt over my 11-year-old sinner's life, that when I knelt down and prayed the prayer of faith, my mind fabricated a significant emotional experience that absolutely blew my mind. But that's the only place that experience existed — in my mind.

 

What do you think?

 

http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2006/12...hanies-and.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Replies 183
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

By Dave, the WM

 

I've never met a single person who became a zealous Christian after being presented an intellectual reason to believe. In fact, I would dare to say that there has not been one real conversion in history that can be entirely attributed to a simple, unemotional presentation of facts. That's not how religion works. Religion finds fertile ground in the field of a person's emotions. If a few random twigs on the periphery of a Christian's faith suffer damage during a violent storm of logic, the roots of that faith tend to remain deeply buried, far out of site, and untouched.

 

I've never been accused of being overly sensitive or romantic, yet my own conversion to Christianity was highly charged with emotion. Tears ran down my face. I trembled uncontrollably. I felt that I was having a face-to-face meeting with the everlasting Godhead. Even today, the experience is strong in my memory. "How to Witness" classes I attended in following years encouraged me to rely on my subjective emotional conversion with statements like, "Unbelievers can't argue with your personal testimony," which meant no one could refute your personal experience.

 

Here I was in a witnessing class learning how to "disciple the nations," yet the most reliable weapon against unbelief presented is subjective personal experience?

 

Is an emotional experience really that reliable? Does an emotional experience provide solid enough ground on which to build a life?

 

Admittedly, much of life rests on just exactly that type of foundation. For instance, do any of us scientifically and analytically pick a mate? Or, is our selection usually based on something less well defined, such as emotions and/or hormones? Do we choose our food after a thorough nutritional analysis? Or, is our dinner choice usually based on something considerably less researched, like what would taste good today?

 

Our religious choices fall along the same lines.

 

While a Christian, I was also a musician, heavily involved in the music ministry at a Charismatic church. I understood music?s power and knew how to use music to play on the emotions of the congregation. If you doubt that music has this ability, to play on your emotions, try watching an adventure or mystery movie with the sound turned off ? just read subtitles instead. See if your anticipation for ?what will happen next? is nearly as intense as compared to when the soundtrack is playing underneath the action.

 

When the music at church was "right," and the volume swelled just so, ecstatic utterances — tongues, words of knowledge, prophecies — would bubble out of people's mouths like milk boiling in a pot. After the service I'd hear, "Wow, the Spirit was really moving today," and "The Lord really ministered to me today," and "I felt the Lord all morning," and so on.

 

I'd speculate about what would happen if we abandoned music during the services. I questioned whether anyone would still enjoy worshipping God. I wondered if the Holy Spirit would be felt at all.

 

Feelings. That's really what the bulk of Christianity and religion is really all about: fabricated, fluffy, feelings.

 

Although I eventually wearied of the shallow emotionalism, I didn't immediately give up on faith in the magical Christ. "People will disappoint you, but Christ is faithful!" That's what I told myself for the next 15 years.

 

I went from church to church, searching for the real thing. "I" never "found it" in church. Along the way I catered to my appetite for deeper truth by consuming theological, historical, apologetic, and inspirational books of every stripe. My education wasn't formal, but it was extensive. Gaining that knowledge altered my views dramatically. In time I began to realize how much Christianity had mutated over the centuries, and how nearly every "truth" that modern day believers hold dear evolved over time. Today?s 20-century-old Christianity would be unrecognizable to its First Century progenitors.

 

The details of each Christian "testimony" are varied, but the root of every conversion is some sort of a spiritual (emotional) epiphany. And the "high" that religion can bring will carry a new believer along for a considerble while. Eventually, if the believer has a questing mind, doubts will arise, and that's when the vast libraries of apologetic books are brought into play.

 

As an aside, apologetic books sell by the millions, to believers. Unbelievers don't generally purchase apologetic books. Apologetic books are not a tool for evangelism. Conversion is based entirely on emotion and not because the unbeliever finally collected enough information to be converted. While I've never known of a single person who was converted solely from reading an apologetic book, I do know people who have "backslidden" and later rededicated their lives to Christ after reading an apologetic book. However, rededication is not the same as conversion.

 

Christian logic is primarily the armchair variety: "When I look at the stars, sky, trees, and my new baby, it just seems logical to conclude (insert here: 'It just feels right to me') that the world was created by an incomprehensible, loving, spiritual entity. Therefore, Jesus is the Son of God!" And, "This experience was wonderful. I was filled with a feeling of love so powerful, it was simply overwhelming. Therefore, Jesus is the Son of God."

 

So, how to interpret personal conversion experiences? If a harbinger of truth is knocking at the door, talking about his or her unquantifiable ecstatic "miracle," and seems dogmatically sure of his spiritual experience, what's a skeptic to do? Is it true that no one can argue with a Christian's personal experience?

 

If Christianity were the only modern religion that provided powerful, life-changing, mystical experiences, then those things might add validity to their beliefs. If only Christianity provided these unexplained feelings, it might be reasonable to conclude that Christianity is unique. The problem is that disciples of other religions also have dramatic stories.

 

Here's one:

I was born in China during the Cultural Revolution and brought up as a typical atheist. We were educated to believe that religious theories were made up by rulers to manipulate people's minds and maintain their political power.

I came to this country in 1996 as a graduate student at the University at Albany. A few months after I arrived, a lady approached me outside a post office in Latham. When she offered me a religious pamphlet and asked if I believed in God, I proudly answered, "No!"

 

I can never forget the shock and pitying expression on her face. She said, "You don't believe in God? You don't believe that God created human beings?"

I found that idea inconceivable and pitied her for thinking that way.

One day in 1997, my best friend showed me a book she recently got from her parents in China. It was entitled
, founder of a traditional Chinese spiritual practice known as Falun Gong, or Falun Dafa. I opened it and could hardly put it down. Page after page, my lifetime questions were being answered one by one. I recalled my encounter at the post office, thought about the true meaning of life and moved away from atheism. The world became new to me. I finished reading the book in two days -- the happiest days in my life. —

 

Here's another:

(The) Hindu religion is a source of happiness in this and the other world. No other religion seems to be equal to Hindu religion. Those having mean and unwise bent of mind and give up this religion are wicked and base. Such people suffer greatly in this world and even Yamraj (god of death) does not get satisfied while punishing them. We are wise and learned. Why should we forsake Hindu religion? We have a permanent commitment and love for protecting our religion. —

 

And this one:

"While I was speaking in Southern California a number of years ago, I met four young men who were members of Hare Krishna. It wasn't a planned meeting, we just happened to strike up a conversation as we were crossing the same busy street in Los Angeles. To my utter shock, three of these lost souls were Jews. As I listened attentively to the testimonials of these oddly dressed fellows, each of them carefully described how their newfound religion had transformed their lives. They joyfully spoke of their joining this eastern sect and I could sense the elation and inner peace they felt. They were certain that what they believed was true and it was quite apparent that they were more spiritual now than they had ever been in their former lives." —

 

I'd like to wind this down with a quote from George Boyd

Conversion by fundamentalistic groups is begun by introducing doubts about one's fundamental beliefs about life, and using irrational fear to coerce confession of sin, repentance, and adoption of a primary religious belief system (faith). After this primary belief system has been established, basic guidelines for belief, morality, lifestyle, and behavior are inculcated and shaped through socialization into the "new family" of the Church. Finally, through asking for and challenging individuals to make progressively deeper commitments to the Christian community and spiritual life, they are led to a greater participation in the works of Christian charity, development of the church and active ministry. Rare individuals may undergo the transformation of character and reliance on inner guidance indicative of holiness.

 

Fundamentalists need to recognize, however, that viable and personally rewarding solutions to the quest for personal meaning and value, and spiritual growth, across cultures and throughout history, have not been restricted solely to the Christian Church. They also need to appreciate that the same free will they so highly respect, does not function either freely or rationally when conflict is introduced into the subconscious mind through conversion tactics using fear, shame, guilt and the creation of doubt. If we are to survive into the 21st Century, we must recognize that we live in a world of multiple cultures and pluralistic religious beliefs, and tolerance and respect for others' choices, however different from our own, must guide our actions.

 

OK, so what's the point?

 

Christian conversion is emotional, much like falling in love, or going into an angry rage, or having an episode of hysterical laughter. Once the passion subsides, it's often difficult to explain why it was ever felt in the first place. Emotional feelings can't be proved or disproved, but they aren't reality. Emotions exist, in essence, only in the mind.

 

In the decades since my emotional "real-to-me" conversion, I've left Christianity, obviously. I now have a better understanding of how my own mind processes information and the role my imagination plays in filling out my psyche. I realize now that I was initially so convinced of the truth of Christianity, so affected by the emotional appeal of an evangelistic, so wanting to connect with this God, so filled with guilt over my 11-year-old sinner's life, that when I knelt down and prayed the prayer of faith, my mind fabricated a significant emotional experience that absolutely blew my mind. But that's the only place that experience existed — in my mind.

 

What do you think?

 

http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2006/12...hanies-and.html

 

 

A conversion based on emotion and experience (charismatic church) most times is not a conversion at all. But as the author says an emotional feeling. Its sad to see that your whole christian experience was baseless emotion and phsyce.

 

 

 

 

Is an emotional experience really that reliable? Does an emotional experience provide solid enough ground on which to build a life?

 

Admittedly, much of life rests on just exactly that type of foundation. For instance, do any of us scientifically and analytically pick a mate? Or, is our selection usually based on something less well defined, such as emotions and/or hormones? Do we choose our food after a thorough nutritional analysis? Or, is our dinner choice usually based on something considerably less researched, like what would taste good today?

Emotions are not reliable, faith based on emotion is not faith at all. A marriage based on emotion and hormones usually end in divorce the same as an emotional conversion to christianity ends in unbelief.

 

 

 

 

I went from church to church, searching for the real thing. "I" never "found it" in church. Along the way I catered to my appetite for deeper truth by consuming theological, historical, apologetic, and inspirational books of every stripe. My education wasn't formal, but it was extensive. Gaining that knowledge altered my views dramatically. In time I began to realize how much Christianity had mutated over the centuries, and how nearly every "truth" that modern day believers hold dear evolved over time. Today?s 20-century-old Christianity would be unrecognizable to its First Century progenitors.

 

 

Define modern day believers? (charismatic, baptist, catholic, Jw, morman)

 

believers in what? define the doctrine that you call a modern day believer, for one to say they are believers because they call them selves christians and have no bible base to there religion. True 20th century religion would be unrecognized to the 1st century christians.

 

It seems as though your Christian experience was just that an experience based on emotion and phsycological appeal.

 

To say that Christianity mutated over centuries into the different sects and beliefs, these can be easily traced to when they started to who the proginators where. Now if you where a true Christian you would have had an authority to compare fakers with. But it seems as though you chose the skeptic route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Japeth,

 

Please explain with logic and reason why Christianity is true and why we should believe it.

 

Please define, True Christian.

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Japeth,

 

Please explain with logic and reason why Christianity is true and why we should believe it.

 

Please define, True Christian.

 

Thanks

 

 

True Christian is one who has put his faith in Jesus Christ, not in there water baptism, not in there good works, not because there better than everyone else who has done something worse than they have done.

 

In the book of Isaiah 29:11–12), there is a remarkable dialogue that takes place between the Almighty Lord God and His creatures. have never heard it taught

or preached (let alone even mentioned) in 15 years of ministry. It is a remarkable and shocking illustration of “modern man’s” dealings with the Holy Scriptures. The first man who is offered the Scriptures is an uneducated hillbilly: a genuine “red neck” with little or no “book larnin’.” The second man offered the Scriptures is a Ph.D. or Th.M. with at least twenty-two years of formal education. Both men answer God and man in the same fashion. Having been given a copy of the Holy Bible, another man requests that they “read it” for him.

 

The Lord does this by having some other man walk up to the two “test cases” and

requesting as follows: “Read this, I pray thee.” Both men “renig.” They both decline to read. They both have an alibi for leaving the Book “slam-shut” where it can’t be read to anyone.

 

When commenting on the alibis of both sinners, the Lord God says: “You think I

don’t know what you are up to? You can’t hide anything from me and your turning

things upside down to cover up your dirty, rotten, sinful hearts will cost you your understanding and your wisdom” (read vss. 13–16). Neither man is going to have the ability to understand Bible doctrines because he cannot “endure sound doctrine.” The first man says, “Ah cain’t read hit cause ah ain’t got no book

larning. It’s ovah mah headso hit ain’t no use to read it!”

 

The second sinner says, “That Book is highly figurative and symbolical, using many allegories and myths to convey hidden meanings. can’t make heads or tails of it; put it up.”

 

Then, “whom shall he make to understand doctrine?” It must be somebody, because

he says in Isaiah 29:24, “They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding and they that murmured shall learn doctrine!”

 

Then who were these that finally learned doctrine? The uneducated and educated

ADULTS get nothing but gravel, dirt, clinkers, and muddled nonsense. The gold

nuggets” are found in the CRIBS, not colleges. “Except ye be converted, and become as little children . etc.”

 

Here is what you need know if you ever expect master even HALF of the Holy Bible. I am addressing anyone. Follow these instructions; and you will undermine, bypass, and “ clean over the heads” of every Christian professor who ever taught at Moody Bible Institute, Wheaton College, Louisville Theological Seminary, Bob Jones University, Baptist Bible College, Crown College, Regent College, Grace Theological Seminary, Tennessee Temple University, Pensacola Christian Seminary (and College), Piedmont, Cedarville, Pillsbury, Liberty University, and the seminaries at Fort Worth, New Orleans, Denver, Dallas, Los Angeles, Chicago,

and Minneapolis (1890 2004).

 

They are the ones Jesus Christ mentioned in Luke 10:21, for there He cites

Isaiah 28 by David via Psalm 8:2, and David lines right up with Isaiah 28.

“Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine?

them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts” (Isa. 28:9).

It is “BABIES” who master the Biblical texts and Biblical revelations and find the

golden nuggets.

 

Now unless your going to get knowledge you must become as babes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Japeth, you resort to the bible as the predication of your argument. However, many of us don't accept the Bible as any more fact as you would accept the Koran as factual.

 

In fact, I believe you are a true christian like I believe that Bush is one, as Clinton is one, as Robertson is one, as Barry Linn is one, as Farwell is one, as Spong is one, as many premutuations of true christians as there are people.

 

And this is where you miss the point of Taph's post to you.

 

How in the hell can you say that Dave was not a true-Christian? When emotional-reasons failed, he tried reason and intellectualism to remain a Christian and hold on to his faith by reading just beyond simple apologetics – which is something I'd be surprised if you, Japeth, have even invested your time in.

 

You simply did not read Dave's opening post, and for that you should be ashamed in your accusations, punk.

 

Also, I should point out that since you pooh-pooh conversions on emotional reasons, then perhaps you'll offer a logical, fallacy-sound, proof of the reasonableness of Christianity here. So far, you've avoided it and gone down meaningless rabbit-holes, because, you like most modern people, know you can not defend the idea of a talking snake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Japeth:

 

their = The possessive case of the personal pronoun they; as, their houses; their country.

 

there = a location other than here; that place (Example: "You can take it from there")

 

they're = contraction for "they are"

 

Please, at least try to use good grammar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Japeth,

 

Isaiah 29:11&12:

 

And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:

 

And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.

 

 

How in the hell did you get that interpretation of theses two verses?

Where in the entire chapter does it say the two men were sinners?

Where does it say that it was read for them?

 

You are adding things, that are not in the Bible. Shame on you, and you call yourself a True Christian?

 

1. Very few people could read back then, even the very weathy. It wasn't a big deal if someone couldn't read because hardly anyone could.

 

2. The learned man (the one who could read) couldn't read it because it had a seal on it. The seal was the mark of the official who sent it and could only be opened by the recipient.

 

This is your idea of apologetics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are the ones Jesus Christ mentioned in Luke 10:21, for there He cites

Isaiah 28 by David via Psalm 8:2, and David lines right up with Isaiah 28.

“Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine?

them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts” (Isa. 28:9).

It is “BABIES” who master the Biblical texts and Biblical revelations and find the

golden nuggets.

 

Now unless your going to get knowledge you must become as babes!

Ok so as I follow how you have put this:

 

1. Faith based on emotion is not true faith

2. We need to base on faith on more than emotions, which would I assume be sound doctrine?

3. The wise and learned cannot know what sound doctrine is because they use reasoning

4. We need to be like little children who respond not by reason but by emotional belief in order to be saved

5. True faith is based on emotions

 

Does this correctly follow what you said above? If so, isn't point 5 a direct contradiction of point 1?

 

BTW, the Isaiah reference was NOT an admonition of Isaiah to the priests to become like an uneducated person. If you follow the dialog better you will see it is in fact the words of the priest "mocking" Isaiah, saying essentially that he is "talking to us like we're idiots, like we're little children!" "Whom shall HE (Isaiah) teach knowledge? And whom shall he make to understand doctrine! He speaks to us like we're little children; line upon line, line upon line, here and little, there a little!" Isaiah retorts, "No, but with men of another tongue and another language will he speak to these people (the foreign tongues of a barbaric invading army come to punish them for their violations of the law they knew)!"

 

This is not at all about instructing you to shut off your brain and be ignorant like a child. However it is revealing that you might like to think it supports that sort of approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Japeth, you resort to the bible as the predication of your argument. However, many of us don't accept the Bible as any more fact as you would accept the Koran as factual.

 

 

And this is where you miss the point of Taph's post to you.

 

How in the hell can you say that Dave was not a true-Christian? When emotional-reasons failed, he tried reason and intellectualism to remain a Christian and hold on to his faith by reading just beyond simple apologetics – which is something I'd be surprised if you, Japeth, have even invested your time in.

 

You simply did not read Dave's opening post, and for that you should be ashamed in your accusations, punk.

 

 

Simply put a Mairage based on emotion and SEX will end in divorce, if its not based on love, honesty, integrity, caring, your marraige is doomed just the same, all things are not logical and that obvious when not one of the apostles accept John believed Jesus and was at the cross all the others where hiding in fear.

 

I can t convince one of you, if 3500 years of prophecy and God preserving his word for 4500 years. They didnt believe mose, they didnt believe the Prophets what in my right mind will make you think you will believe if one rose from the dead. You wont believe and I aint doin nothin but wasting my time with a bunch fools blaspheming God day in and Day out!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply put a Mairage based on emotion and SEX will end in divorce, if its not based on love, honesty, integrity, caring, your marraige is doomed just the same, all things are not logical and that obvious when not one of the apostles accept John believed Jesus and was at the cross all the others where hiding in fear.

 

I can t convince one of you, if 3500 years of prophecy and God preserving his word for 4500 years. They didnt believe mose, they didnt believe the Prophets what in my right mind will make you think you will believe if one rose from the dead. You wont believe and I aint doin nothin but wasting my time with a bunch fools blaspheming God day in and Day out!

Japheth,

 

Don't flatter yourself that you can call yourself in the same camp as Moses and the prophets when we reject what you say. We reject those other guys too, but for different reasons than we reject what you say. You are not on their level. Hardly.

 

Thank you so much for calling me a fool. Seriously, I thank you because you have just shown us that your relationship with your beliefs, like in your marriage example above, is not based on "love, honesty, integrity, and caring." Wasn't it Jesus who said "call no man a fool?" Where's your sincerity? Certainly not in calling me a fool. Perhaps your faith is built on shifting sand? Yes, it seems so.

 

BTW, I don't "blaspheme God day in and day out". How can I hate something that doesn't exist? I do however scoff at your beliefs, because they are tangibly ignorant and mightily deserving of ridicule - especially when you come into our house and start calling us fools. That's pathetic for someone who claims to be a Christian. You might wish to try apologizing? If not, well... that pretty much seals your damnation then, doesn't it?

 

A good day to you also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to ignore the fundimoron dujour. He's obviously not a true christian.

 

Dave - your OP is spot on. In 27 years as a christian, I saw a great many conversions. And every single one was based on emotionalism. I'm also aware of the great role that music plays in manipulating emotions. EVERY successful church realizes this and takes maximum advantage of it.

 

If you ever see an altar call where there is no music, you will also probably have no takers. Get em crying, and you got em.

 

If you can't argue with personal experience, then every religion is true. And atheism is true as well. Since everyone has a dramatic story to tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Japheth,

 

Don't flatter yourself that you can call yourself in the same camp as Moses and the prophets when we reject what you say. We reject those other guys too, but for different reasons than we reject what you say. You are not on their level. Hardly.

 

 

Whats the difference the Word of God is the Word of God?

 

 

 

Thank you so much for calling me a fool. Seriously, I thank you because you have just shown us that your relationship with your beliefs, like in your marriage example above, is not based on "love, honesty, integrity, and caring." Wasn't it Jesus who said "call no man a fool?" Where's your sincerity? Certainly not in calling me a fool. Perhaps your faith is built on shifting sand? Yes, it seems so.
Just as Satan does he miss quote the vs and or takes it out the context that it was written. Matt 5:22 in the context is a Brother.

 

Now let me remind you of what God did say in Psa 14:1 the fool hath said in his heart there is no God.

 

BTW, I don't "blaspheme God day in and day out". How can I hate something that doesn't exist? I do however scoff at your beliefs, because they are tangibly ignorant and mightily deserving of ridicule - especially when you come into our house and start calling us fools. That's pathetic for someone who claims to be a Christian. You might wish to try apologizing? If not, well... that pretty much seals your damnation then, doesn't it?

 

A good day to you also.

 

 

Since your faith was based on emotion and not the written word, you have subcumb to the temptation of the devil to believe that there is no God. Christians are invited to a forum on God and the Bible and to defend a bible postion.

 

Let me remind of the sub heading for the Lion's Den

 

Attention "Real" ™ Christians!

 

 

This is a call to Real christians to come in and debate and expect heated responses, now if fool fits according to Gods Word then the word fits. Your diatribe of rediculing God and anyone who believes God the word fits in the context in which I wrote it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to ignore the fundimoron dujour. He's obviously not a true christian.

 

Dave - your OP is spot on. In 27 years as a christian, I saw a great many conversions. And every single one was based on emotionalism. I'm also aware of the great role that music plays in manipulating emotions. EVERY successful church realizes this and takes maximum advantage of it.

 

If you ever see an altar call where there is no music, you will also probably have no takers. Get em crying, and you got em.

 

If you can't argue with personal experience, then every religion is true. And atheism is true as well. Since everyone has a dramatic story to tell.

 

If experience is not based on the Bible then its probaly false, and for music playing in on emotion. this is true that why a Bible believing church should stay as far away from music brought on by the decendants of Ham.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If experience is not based on the Bible then its probaly false, and for music playing in on emotion. this is true that why a Bible believing church should stay as far away from music brought on by the decendants of Ham.

O.K. .... I've been trying to stay out of this thread .... But, Japeth.... I really am interested in an answer here.

 

Please explain what you you mean when you refer to "music brought on by the decendents of Ham"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If experience is not based on the Bible then its probaly false, and for music playing in on emotion. this is true that why a Bible believing church should stay as far away from music brought on by the decendants of Ham.

O.K. .... I've been trying to stay out of this thread .... But, Japeth.... I really am interested in an answer here.

 

Please explain what you you mean when you refer to "music brought on by the decendents of Ham"?

 

Our new friend, Japeth, appears to be a racist. Interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Japheth,

 

Don't flatter yourself that you can call yourself in the same camp as Moses and the prophets when we reject what you say. We reject those other guys too, but for different reasons than we reject what you say. You are not on their level. Hardly.

 

 

Whats the difference the Word of God is the Word of God?

The difference is you are not a religious icon who was elevated to the status of myth by various religious devotees. Secondly, in the vein of the myth, you are not a direct oracle of God. If you believe you are, you should have your meds adjusted.

 

The Word of God is the Word of God? Sounds so simple. If it is this simple, please explain why there have been over 30,000 different denominations since the birth of the early Christian cult? That fact alone seems to indicate that your interpretations are just one of 100's of thousands out there and have no more authority than the RCC, the Lutherans, and the Ass. of God Church; the JW's; or the Mormons. Word of God is the Word of God? Great! Too bad no one can agree on what it says. That makes it pretty worthless - especially if you're going to judge others by it - like you are doing.

 

Thank you so much for calling me a fool. Seriously, I thank you because you have just shown us that your relationship with your beliefs, like in your marriage example above, is not based on "love, honesty, integrity, and caring." Wasn't it Jesus who said "call no man a fool?" Where's your sincerity? Certainly not in calling me a fool. Perhaps your faith is built on shifting sand? Yes, it seems so.

Just as Satan does he miss quote the vs and or takes it out the context that it was written. Matt 5:22 in the context is a Brother.

Now let me remind you of what God did say in Psa 14:1 the fool hath said in his heart there is no God.

Now let me remind you of how God ordered genocide in the OT. Do you have the authority to order genocide too? Does God give you the authority to condemn in his stead??? No? I thought not. What he does order you to do is to take responsibility for your actions, which you are not doing here, as you instead hide behind the Bible in your damning others using your interpretation of the Bible. Shame on you! You call this "letting your light so shine before the world"? Shame on you. God disapproves of you, and so do I.

 

If there is more dignity and respect amongst the gentiles, how is your "conversation" (KJV verbiage there) before men a testimony to the spirit of Christ in you? Nope, I don't see it. Instead what I see is a legalistic, self-righteous Pharisee - you know, the "fundamentalists" of Jesus' day?

 

BTW, I don't "blaspheme God day in and day out". How can I hate something that doesn't exist? I do however scoff at your beliefs, because they are tangibly ignorant and mightily deserving of ridicule - especially when you come into our house and start calling us fools. That's pathetic for someone who claims to be a Christian. You might wish to try apologizing? If not, well... that pretty much seals your damnation then, doesn't it?

 

A good day to you also.

Since your faith was based on emotion and not the written word, you have subcumb to the temptation of the devil to believe that there is no God. Christians are invited to a forum on God and the Bible and to defend a bible postion.

Who said my faith was based on emotions? Did I ever share with you my conversion story? You know what, I think you'd like to believe it was something easily dismissed, because it makes you feel more comfortable, than to acknowledge anything that challenges this tight little construction of understanding you have made in your own image and crammed into a tiny box you call "God" for what are hugely complex and intagible ideas like meaning, ethics, and knowledge. You need to have "neat little answers" to everything that challenges what you have created. Again, what you have created. "The Bible says...." is a worthless response. If you believe you have the one "true" interpretation, then you are delusional.

 

You read the Bible how you want to read the Bible. Same as everyone else. Period. This isn't about what the "Bible says", it's about what you want to see. Sad really that your fruits betray your heart. I'm still waiting for that apology....

 

Let me remind of the sub heading for the Lion's Den

 

Attention "Real" ™ Christians!

 

 

This is a call to Real christians to come in and debate and expect heated responses, now if fool fits according to Gods Word then the word fits. Your diatribe of rediculing God and anyone who believes God the word fits in the context in which I wrote it.

And this excuses your behavior as an "Ambassador of Christ?" Hmmm.. If I was interested in knowing God, you're pretty much telling me why being atheist is preferable. Show me love. You can't fake that, like you can in "knowing what the Bible says". You shall know them by their fruit" - not their theology.

 

If people "in the world" are capable of "seeing your light", then so am I. Instead what I am seeing is darkness in you, my young Pharisee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If experience is not based on the Bible then its probaly false, and for music playing in on emotion. this is true that why a Bible believing church should stay as far away from music brought on by the decendants of Ham.

O.K. .... I've been trying to stay out of this thread .... But, Japeth.... I really am interested in an answer here.

 

Please explain what you you mean when you refer to "music brought on by the decendents of Ham"?

 

Our new friend, Japeth, appears to be a racist. Interesting.

 

 

This music has always been a physical approach because of the rhythmic element.

 

This "music" always associated with nudity, sexualities, sacrifices and death. Their charms and stomps not only evoked spirits of the gods, they animated and immortalized them. Their music, dances, and beats mixed with Catholic beliefs and practices and made voodoo ceremonies centering their worship of the snake-god Damballa through singing, dancing, and spirit possession.

 

Based on drums and dancing, and as they worshipped a god or devil, the ultimate experience was to have their bodies possessed by that devil. Dancers always saluted the drummers before they started their rituals. Without the drummer, the ritual could not progress. It is the pulse which links all people to one unit - sending the body into a slow serpentine undulation which begins in shoulders to spine to legs and hips. Dances of New Orleans started in slums, bars, whore houses, etc. Music called Samba and Mambo were named after gods who offered sacrifices during rituals. The music continued to influence America as a whole country.

 

The music was called Jazz and now is the main "Hamite" element in all of the world's music. The music features complex rhythms and polyrhythmic, percussive sound and a wide variety of ensembles, all of which has always and still does affect the flesh. The music remains closely linked with dancing, both of which re basic to many ceremonies, rituals, and celebrations. Messages & stories are told by imitating the rhythms and pitch fluctuations of words. It is a language that speaks to the flesh - not God's way of communicating! Rock Music grew from Jazz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard pastors who came up with is kind of bull shit, but have up until now not met a xian dumb enough to fall for it. Congrats Japeth, you win the Racist Idiot of the Week award. If you send us a picture of your snapper we'll send you a free t-shirt. :goodjob:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This music has always been a physical approach because of the rhythmic element.

 

This "music" always associated with nudity, sexualities, sacrifices and death. Their charms and stomps not only evoked spirits of the gods, they animated and immortalized them. Their music, dances, and beats mixed with Catholic beliefs and practices and made voodoo ceremonies centering their worship of the snake-god Damballa through singing, dancing, and spirit possession.

 

Based on drums and dancing, and as they worshipped a god or devil, the ultimate experience was to have their bodies possessed by that devil. Dancers always saluted the drummers before they started their rituals. Without the drummer, the ritual could not progress. It is the pulse which links all people to one unit - sending the body into a slow serpentine undulation which begins in shoulders to spine to legs and hips. Dances of New Orleans started in slums, bars, whore houses, etc. Music called Samba and Mambo were named after gods who offered sacrifices during rituals. The music continued to influence America as a whole country.

 

The music was called Jazz and now is the main "Hamite" element in all of the world's music. The music features complex rhythms and polyrhythmic, percussive sound and a wide variety of ensembles, all of which has always and still does affect the flesh. The music remains closely linked with dancing, both of which re basic to many ceremonies, rituals, and celebrations. Messages & stories are told by imitating the rhythms and pitch fluctuations of words. It is a language that speaks to the flesh - not God's way of communicating! Rock Music grew from Jazz.

No... I take back what I said before. You're not just darkness inside, you're an idiot to boot!

 

Yeah, verily this morning as I listen to Mozart's flute concerto's on my turntable as I drank the forbidden coffee of Satan, I felt the rumblings of an erection to the sounds of the flute!

 

BTW, Mr. Knowledge, rock music did not come out of jazz! It came from Rythm and Blues, which came from the Blues. The Blues did not come from Jazz. Jazz did not come from Classical.

 

You are pathetic. Sad, dark, pathetic. Yuk. If heaven contains you, then hell is heaven to me! :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Word of God is the Word of God? Sounds so simple. If it is this simple, please explain why there have been over 30,000 different denominations since the birth of the early Christian cult? That fact alone seems to indicate that your interpretations are just one of 100's of thousands out there and have no more authority than the RCC, the Lutherans, and the Ass. of God Church; the JW's; or the Mormons. Word of God is the Word of God? Great! Too bad no one can agree on what it says. That makes it pretty worthless - if you're going to judge others by - like you are doing.

 

 

 

All the Churchs you quoted all have outside sources for there beliefs accept maybe the Assemblies of God. God committed the judgement to Jesus Christ and Christ committed the judgement to the Word. I still remember reading somewhere it said that the serpent was more subtle than any other beast of the field. Many have strayed away from the Word. That easy to expain the different denominations. When these men got away from the Bible and made there own doctrines then they created there own followings based on there own extra text not found in the Bible.

 

 

 

 

Now let me remind you of how God ordered genocide in the OT. Do you have the authority to order genocide too? Does God give you the authority to condemn in his stead??? No? I thought not. What he does order you to do is to take responsibility for your actions, which you are not doing here, as you instead hide behind the Bible in your damning others using your interpretation of the Bible. Shame on you! You call this "letting your light so shine before the world"? Shame on you. God disapproves of you, and so do I.

 

Where did I damn anyone? Calling one a fool for not knowing God is not damning anyone

 

 

 

 

If there is more dignity and respect amongst the gentiles, how is your "conversation" (KJV verbiage there) before men a testimony to the spirit of Christ in you? Nope, I don't see it. Instead what I see is a legalistic, self-righteous Pharisee - you know, the "fundamentalists" of Jesus' day?
Give me a break that is kind of harsh words for one saying one is a fool for not believing in God. It seems to me you act just as the pharisees of Jesus's day condeming God and condeming Jesus Christ and not accepting him at his word, that a modern day pharisee. A simple bible preacher reading Gods word with no interpretation is not a pharisee. You denie God I give a vs that says your a fool to do so and now I'm a pharisee. I dont get it?

 

 

You read the Bible how you want to read the Bible. Same as everyone else. Period. This isn't about what the "Bible says", it's about what you want to see. Sad really that your fruits betray your heart. I'm still waiting for that apology....

 

It seems like just plain bible reading

 

 

 

And this excuses your behavior as an "Ambassador of Christ?" Hmmm.. If I was interested in knowing God, you're pretty much telling me why being atheist is preferable. Show me love. You can't fake that, like you can in "knowing what the Bible says". You shall know them by their fruit" - not their theology.
If I believe the Bible and come to this website because a burden on my heart to win the lost to Jesus Christ, because of the punishment to come and sound the alarm bells of the coming judgement, whats not to love? If the bibles true and I believe it is then to not tell, would not be love, but would be self rightiousness.

 

 

 

If people "in the world" are capable of "seeing your light", then so am I. Instead what I am seeing is darkness in you, my young Pharisee.

 

 

A simple bible preacher preaching the bible doesnt make one a pharisee, a pharisee is one who preach what he does not do. The subject was believing in God as I alluded to with the reference to fools. Since I do believe in God and believe Gods word that it is a fool who doesnt, this does not make a pharisee.

 

Now if you where offended I do appolgize, but I make no appoligize for God's written word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This music has always been a physical approach because of the rhythmic element.

 

This "music" always associated with nudity, sexualities, sacrifices and death. Their charms and stomps not only evoked spirits of the gods, they animated and immortalized them. Their music, dances, and beats mixed with Catholic beliefs and practices and made voodoo ceremonies centering their worship of the snake-god Damballa through singing, dancing, and spirit possession.

 

Based on drums and dancing, and as they worshipped a god or devil, the ultimate experience was to have their bodies possessed by that devil. Dancers always saluted the drummers before they started their rituals. Without the drummer, the ritual could not progress. It is the pulse which links all people to one unit - sending the body into a slow serpentine undulation which begins in shoulders to spine to legs and hips. Dances of New Orleans started in slums, bars, whore houses, etc. Music called Samba and Mambo were named after gods who offered sacrifices during rituals. The music continued to influence America as a whole country.

 

The music was called Jazz and now is the main "Hamite" element in all of the world's music. The music features complex rhythms and polyrhythmic, percussive sound and a wide variety of ensembles, all of which has always and still does affect the flesh. The music remains closely linked with dancing, both of which re basic to many ceremonies, rituals, and celebrations. Messages & stories are told by imitating the rhythms and pitch fluctuations of words. It is a language that speaks to the flesh - not God's way of communicating! Rock Music grew from Jazz.

No... I take back what I said before. You're not just darkness inside, you're an idiot to boot!

 

Yeah, verily this morning as I listen to Mozart's flute concerto's on my turntable as I drank the forbidden coffee of Satan, I felt the rumblings of an erection to the sounds of the flute!

 

BTW, Mr. Knowledge, rock music did not come out of jazz! It came from Rythm and Blues, which came from the Blues. The Blues did not come from Jazz. Jazz did not come from Classical.

 

You are pathetic. Sad, dark, pathetic. Yuk. If heaven contains you, then hell is heaven to me! :grin:

 

Who ever said classical came from jazz, Emotions seem to be riding very high

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please explain what you you mean when you refer to "music brought on by the decendents of Ham"?
This music has always been a physical approach because of the rhythmic element.

 

This "music" always associated with nudity, sexualities, sacrifices and death. Their charms and stomps not only evoked spirits of the gods, they animated and immortalized them. Their music, dances, and beats mixed with Catholic beliefs and practices and made voodoo ceremonies centering their worship of the snake-god Damballa through singing, dancing, and spirit possession.

 

Based on drums and dancing, and as they worshipped a god or devil, the ultimate experience was to have their bodies possessed by that devil. Dancers always saluted the drummers before they started their rituals. Without the drummer, the ritual could not progress. It is the pulse which links all people to one unit - sending the body into a slow serpentine undulation which begins in shoulders to spine to legs and hips. Dances of New Orleans started in slums, bars, whore houses, etc. Music called Samba and Mambo were named after gods who offered sacrifices during rituals. The music continued to influence America as a whole country.

 

The music was called Jazz and now is the main "Hamite" element in all of the world's music. The music features complex rhythms and polyrhythmic, percussive sound and a wide variety of ensembles, all of which has always and still does affect the flesh. The music remains closely linked with dancing, both of which re basic to many ceremonies, rituals, and celebrations. Messages & stories are told by imitating the rhythms and pitch fluctuations of words. It is a language that speaks to the flesh - not God's way of communicating! Rock Music grew from Jazz.

 

:twitch: There really are people in the world who believe this shit.... :twitch:

 

 

:lmao::funny: There really are idiots in the world who believe this shit.... :funny::lmao:

 

 

:HappyCry::( There really are dumb-asses in the world who believe this shit.... who commit violence because of what they believe, who rape and kill and go to war because of what they believe. :HappyCry::(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard pastors who came up with is kind of bull shit, but have up until now not met a xian dumb enough to fall for it. Congrats Japeth, you win the Racist Idiot of the Week award. If you send us a picture of your snapper we'll send you a free t-shirt. :goodjob:

 

 

People will label anything racist these days. Is this what this Pathetic diatribe is coming to? Give me a break, simply giving you a lesson in history does not make one a racist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please explain what you you mean when you refer to "music brought on by the decendents of Ham"?
This music has always been a physical approach because of the rhythmic element.

 

This "music" always associated with nudity, sexualities, sacrifices and death. Their charms and stomps not only evoked spirits of the gods, they animated and immortalized them. Their music, dances, and beats mixed with Catholic beliefs and practices and made voodoo ceremonies centering their worship of the snake-god Damballa through singing, dancing, and spirit possession.

 

Based on drums and dancing, and as they worshipped a god or devil, the ultimate experience was to have their bodies possessed by that devil. Dancers always saluted the drummers before they started their rituals. Without the drummer, the ritual could not progress. It is the pulse which links all people to one unit - sending the body into a slow serpentine undulation which begins in shoulders to spine to legs and hips. Dances of New Orleans started in slums, bars, whore houses, etc. Music called Samba and Mambo were named after gods who offered sacrifices during rituals. The music continued to influence America as a whole country.

 

The music was called Jazz and now is the main "Hamite" element in all of the world's music. The music features complex rhythms and polyrhythmic, percussive sound and a wide variety of ensembles, all of which has always and still does affect the flesh. The music remains closely linked with dancing, both of which re basic to many ceremonies, rituals, and celebrations. Messages & stories are told by imitating the rhythms and pitch fluctuations of words. It is a language that speaks to the flesh - not God's way of communicating! Rock Music grew from Jazz.

 

:twitch: There really are people in the world who believe this shit.... :twitch:

 

 

:lmao::funny: There really are idiots in the world who believe this shit.... :funny::lmao:

 

 

:HappyCry::( There really are dumb-asses in the world who believe this shit.... who commit violence because of what they believe, who rape and kill and go to war because of what they believe. :HappyCry::(

 

 

Oh Brother

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.