The Bible

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by gray fox, Dec 12, 2005.

  1. `Yu Yu Hakusho`

    `Yu Yu Hakusho` New Member

    Wether he rose from the dead or not, CAN YOU SCIENTIFICALLY PROOVE the existance of heaven and hell? The resurruction of jesus demonstrates the immortality of consciousness, not the presence of heaven/hell. these are two distinct things

    i wasn't talking about the bible or it's writers(which we prooved that it is very possible for it to have been modified). I was talking about the gospel of thomas, and what it has to teach us.

    and since the religious leaders didn't want it in(because it risked to expose them), they did not authenticate it, and they claimed that it is fake(without actually prooving this). It's unwise to blindly follow them.

    You read what they want you believe(offering no proof). as i said before, the religious leaders(who are VERY rich now) saw that it could possibly raise suspicions upon them, so they claimed it was false, and used their riches to have the media help them with this.


    it's not at all odd. as i said, it didn't appear in the bible, because priests saw a risk of being exposed in it. knowing the consequences of being exposed, they would NEVER want you any closer to the truth. so they would do their best to put aside or ignore such truths.


    SHOULD THE NEW TESTAMENT BE RUN BY THE PRIESTS WHO WHISH TO ENSlAVE THROUGH RELIGION, OF COURSE WHAT THEY MADE UP ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF CHURCHES AND HIGH PRIESTS WILL CONTRADICT WITH ANY FACTS THAT PROOVE THAT RELIGION IS MEENS TO ENSLAVE AND DECIEVE.
    IF WHAT YOU CALL THE GREATER BODY IS FILLED WITH UNPROOVED AND UNVERIFIED FACTS(except for what remained unedited), THEN LOGICALLY YOU WOULD TEND TO BELIEVE THAT WHICH HAS BEEN PROOVEN.



    you gave numerical facts from unverified sources. you can't tell if the so called historians are right or not, deliberatly mistranslating or not, neither have you been in the past to see what happened. my point of view is not wishfull thinking, since there are no jumps in logic( so you can't say wishfull), and also i have prooved that the chance of the things said(about the past) is quite high. what's wishfull about that? it's simple logic.



    no you don't win on logic. how can you proove wether or not the gospel of thomas is the word of god? the priests and churches said it wasn't? well they didn't verify it in anyway. why believe something that is not clearly prooven and verified? now that's an illogical thing.
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2005
  2. tekkengod

    tekkengod the MAP MP

    :D lol
     
  3. mike-IHF

    mike-IHF Valued Member

    Aikimac,

    Well, I have been away for a while. But I came across some post, that are just not true in any way, shape, or form. I am a follower of the "gospel of Thomas". And alot of the things being said are false. Firstly, you are right that the gospel of Thomas was not written by the apostle Thomas, neither were the others in the NT. It is proven that the Gospel of Thomas was written around 90-100 A.D., around the same time as John. Infact, in early Christianity while the NT was being formed, there is significant evidence to support the fact that the gospels of Thomas, and John were in conflict with each other, when Iraneus was forming what he called the "four formed gospels" or the four gospels that were put in to the NT.

    The above is not true at all. There is a church of Thomas, well maybe not so much a physical church, but there are alot of Thomas christians in India. Infact, historians believe that Thomas was the one who first spread christianity to India. I believe it is something like 15-20% of the population in India are Thomas christians.

    No, it did not start in Egypt. Although, it was one of the first places it spread. However, there is also alot of evidence that Jesus himself spent alot of time in Egypt. Specifically, during the 18 year period where nothing was written about him in the bible, until his return to Jerusalem when he was 30 years old. There have also been writings that Jesus spent time with the "Nessene" tribe in Egypt. Who are basically a group the focuseses on meditation, and mysticism. " the call themselves "the son's of light". Referencing, the Primordial light from which we all came into being. Found in Genisis 1.

    Why is this not good? I believe it is for 1 main reason. The gospel of Thomas is nothing more than the teachings of Jesus. There are no miracles involved, no agenda etc. Where as John's for example, and the doctrination of christianity is what started the whole problem. Thomas's gospel is basically Christin teachings still in the early form, before indoctrination. Infact the teachings in the gospel are much more closer to the "Kabbalah".

    I enjoy the gospel very much, because there is no agenda. I would post more, but I have to eat dinner now. I'll be more than happy to post again, if anyone response.
     
  4. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    Actually, the Gospel wasn't necessarily written around that time.
    That's just the date of the earliest surviving copy that we've uncovered.
    Both Gospels might well be from the original disciples.
    Thomas' gospel is fairly basic and it's said to be a source for Luke's.
    It did have funny lines in it though, like Jesus saying that he would make Mary Magdalene male. :)
     
  5. mike-IHF

    mike-IHF Valued Member

    Strafio,

    You are correct. That's basically wahat I was trying to convey. It is said to be the source for Luke's. Why do you think that line is funny? just curious.
     
  6. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    "I will make her male"... it gave me mental visions of Jesus putting on surgeon clothes and operating a sex change on her on her at the pearly gates. :D

    I was probably taking it too literally.
    Peter says that women didn't have a place in heaven, based on his prejudices of his culture. Jesus saying "I will make her male" perhaps says (without dogmatically telling Peter that he's "wrong") that when Peter is enlightened that he will see women he would other men, as equals.

    Hopefully it doesn't mean we'll have to turn homosexual should we want to carry on sexual relationships with our life partners in the afterlife! ;)
     
  7. `Yu Yu Hakusho`

    `Yu Yu Hakusho` New Member

    Beautifull signature by the way, tekkengod
     
  8. tekkengod

    tekkengod the MAP MP

    Why thank you :D
     
  9. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    Okay, you've proven yourself to be very intelligent, and you've proven yourself to be better at English than many native speakers. You've earned my high respect. I mean that with all sincerity: you've earned my high respect. At this point in the conversation, however, you've obviously reached the end of good points to make and you're getting silly. The death and resurrection of Jesus occurred in the context of the Jewish scriptures, commonly called the "Old Testament." To interpret the death and resurrection of Jesus in any other context is to make yourself a fool. Please, don't do that. I like you too much.


    You say this, and call me unwise? You have it backwards. I've read the NT. You obviously have not read the NT. You are plainly, without question, ignoring the actual text of the New Testament. Dude, the New Testament was written when Christians were lion food, not when Christians were in power. If you're going to make claims like this, you have to back it up with specific verses from the NT. What, exactly, in the writings of Paul or John or Peter supports your accusation that the NT was assembled for greed? Huh?

    I submit that you will not be able to point to anything in the NT to support your case.


    That's my argument against the religion you espouse. Thanks for making it.


    You wouldn't say that if you actually looked up the numbers yourself. The fact that you say it proves that you did not look up the numbers yourself.


    I don't have to. The default position of every book is that it is NOT the words of God. The burden of proof is on the person who claims that his words do come from God. Haven't you read the Old Testament? This is made clear in the Old Testament.


    Then why are you doing it? :eek: :confused: The NT has been proven and verified. The writings that you promote have not been proven and verified.


    Two of the gospels were written by Apostles. The other two were written by companions of Apostles.


    I've read sources that put the date later, but that not necessarily an important point. The "gospel" of Thomas is gnostic. The Apostle John specifically wrote against gnosticism. So yes, indeed, they are in conflict with each other. This might have something to do with Thomas' writings being excluding from the canon, eh? ;)

    Really, if John and Thomas contradict each other, and they are both the words of Jesus, then Jesus couldn't get his story straight -- and that's not a good thing to say, you know? It quite messes up the teaching that he was God.


    I thought my context would be clear -- I meant churches as in Lutheran and Baptist and Methodist and Presbyterian congregations. I know that some people follow the gospel of Thomas. I've seen the book for sale in Shambalah's catalog. I have never known a denomination started by Thomas.


    This suggestion is in complete, utter contradiction of the Jewish context of the "messiah," and therefore would be denied by every little-O orthodox Christian organization. I am well aware that Hindu and Buddhist groups support this teaching, but you cannot honestly claim that it is a Christian belief, because it's not a Christian belief.


    What was John's agenda? What was Paul's agenda? How about James? Can you point me to them in the NT? I'd like to read those verses.
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2005
  10. mike-IHF

    mike-IHF Valued Member

    Aikimac,

    I agree, it is gnostic. But what does that have to do with anything? just asking. Thomas's writings have nothing to do with why they were not entered into the canon per se. The main reason was because Iraneus, and the beginning of the church needed something solid, so people would follow the church and it would grow. This is why John's gospel was chosen. Because out of all the gospels John makes it clear the Jesus was god. Not just a messenger etc. as the others believed. This teaching was the building block for the church and the NT.

    Actually, in some ways they are very similar in teaching. Out of all the gospels, Thomas and John both start at the beginning with Genesis 1. There is also many other teachings that are found in both gospels, but I will not list them right now. Thomas's gospel does in no way deny that Jesus is god. However he does not say that he is either, unlike John. The teachings in Thomas's gospel teaches mainly that everyone is god's child, and that we all come from the light. The primordial light that came into being. As in genesis 1. The real difference between Thomas and John is the the teachings of Jesus in Thomas's gospel does not give any direct answers. It forces the desciple, or reader to look within one's self discover the truth. So I would say No, it does not make Jesus out to be contridicting himself.


    Well, I'm not sure of the extent of the movement. But I do know they exist, like I said mainly in India along with Syria, Egypt etc.

    Well, I'm not sure what Jesus being the "messiah" or (human King) of Isreal as to do with him being in Egypt. Did not the gospel of Matthew write that after Jesus's birth, the family fled to Egypt. Witch means Jesus would have spent time there as a child, and maybe knew people there, possibly family. So it would not be out of hand to say that he might have gone back at some point during is life. Right?

    John's agenda was that he portrayed himself as Jesus's number 1 man. Or the loved disciple. When infact, he himself contridicts himself on that belief in is own gospel. So in a nut shell, that's what I see as his agenda. I won't comment on Paul or Jame's, because I think that's getting off the topic of Thomas and John.
     
  11. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    :eek: The content of his "gospel" has everything to do with why it wasn't put into the canon!!! :eek:


    Are you sure that it was an either/or situation? I don't think it was an either/or situation. There are 27 books in the NT. The Apostle John wrote 5 of them: one gospel, three epistles, and Revelation. Subtract: 27 - 5 = 22. That's 22 books that John did not write. I don't see that as an either/or situation, especially when I notice that there are 3 other gospels besides John's. Do you really believe that the people who formed the NT canon said, "Hey, we can't have both John and Thomas. It's one or the other, but not both." ??

    Surely they could have chosen both, if both were the words of God! The fact that Thomas and John are incompatible, in their totality, I believe is sufficient evidence that not both of them are the words of God. That seems quite logical to me.


    Agreed. I'd actually be surprised if there weren't similarities! I'm on record somewhere on MAP saying that some truth can be found outside the Bible. I still believe that. We have to look at the totality of what "Thomas" wrote in this "gospel," and compare it to the totality of the books in the canon.


    Nobody denies that he lived a few years there as a very young child. As you rightly point out, the gospels say his parents fled with him to Egypt to escape King Herod's death sentence on infant boys. The problem is in the assertion that Jesus went to Egypt (or anywhere else) to study religion.


    That's absurd. Sorry, but it is. Read his gospel and his 3 epistles again. He did not express an agenda in his writings, as the word is normally used. John emphasizes love for other people at least as much, if not more than, than Matthew, Mark, and Luke combined. He makes a huge deal about loving other people.

    If you want to characterizes love as an "agenda," well, then, yes, I would heartily agree with you that John has an agenda. And I would wish that every person in the world would have that as an agenda -- or at least all of my neighbors. :D
     
  12. `Yu Yu Hakusho`

    `Yu Yu Hakusho` New Member

    Huh? you mean "believe what you are told without thinking about or interpreting it, or otherwise you'r a fool"????
    All that is needed is to simply interpret things with logic - think about this well: Imagine that someone wanted EVERYONE to CLEARLY see him die, and then get back to life a few days later. Now what could he possibly want them to learn through what he showed them?


    -That there is LIFE AFTER DEATH(the spirit; consciousness and intellect doesn't die when the bodie does)

    OR

    -Heaven and Hell and the Devil exist

    ??

    if he died and then got back to life, this means that his consciousness CONTINUED to exist, and then later came back to the physical body. it doesn't imply that he went to heaven/hell and then returned.

    from your prespective, it's like a teacher in a school lab, trying to teach the students the principles of the reflection of light through dissecting a rabit.


    hmph. Given that NT was assemeled and esspecially DESIGNED to decieve and confuse, it's quite obvious that no verses from it(which are, as i said, professionally edited to LEAD TO IGNORANCE TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE IN ORDER TO CONTROL) are ANYWHERE close to even implying that religions=greedy slavery and deciet. simply, the verses and texts authored by truely wise people which prove that religion is meens to slavery and domination, are either easly edited to have the INVERSE meaning, through introducing/removing key words in order to obtain the contrary meaning, or simply REMOVED by the priests.

    how can i point at verses from NT which support my case, while the purpose of NT is to actually DIVERT attention from it?

    How come would i find in NT verses that point out that NT was deliberatly edited, and some manuscripts(which prove that religion limits your freedom of thought/choice) were deliberatly ignored in order to misinform you and hide important facts from you.

    If someone wanted to misinform you through something like the bible(or anything else), he would certainly make sure that nothing in it would possibly point out that he is fooling you for greedy motives.


    i am not affiliated in any way with any religion WHATSOEVER. I don't "believe" anything or anyone like you do. i rather "know". why? because the things i KNOW are the results of my own interpretation and thoughts about such things.
    Example: people "believe" in the presence of heaven/hell/devil or in the "rightness" of rituals, simply because their priests tell them so(whitout offering any proof whatsoever).

    I KNOW that Martial Arts/Self Defense techniques are great tools(when and if you use for the right reasons/motives), because they allow you to survive conditions that you would not otherwise survive, through improving your reflexes, speed, stamina, strengh, and through giving back up plans/techniques in conditions you might unexpectedly face.

    In other words, i KNOW that Martial Arts are great because i went WITHIN myself and actively discovered this, and NOT because some priest or book or manuscript told me to do so. If i were to embrace facts given by a book/persion/manuscript, i do so IF and ONLY IF it is 100% CLEARLY and logically proven, leaving NO PLACE for doubts.

    attributing a "number" to anything doesn't suggests that either the number or the fact are true. Even if someone specified a number to something, it is STILL possible that:
    1) the number is false(wether it was deliberatly provided false or not)
    2) the fact to which the number is applied is false/uncertain/unverified.
    it's like saying "15 december 7959 B.C, on 6:37:56 AM, an alien race set foot on earth and found it uninhabitable" see how easy it is to invent facts and apply "specific numbers" to them?

    In the books of thomas, there are conversations with jesus, and important facts provided by jesus much like in the other gospels, except for that most of jesus' words in the books of thomas motivated that one should seek knowledge WITHIN, and not from churches, temples, priests, altars... this could possibly lead to people thinking and ultimately discovering(each one face to him self) that religion is a true catastrophe aiming to minimize the insight and intellect of human beings, in order to control them. THIS is why the christian priests ignore and pervert the books of thomas, through claiming it wasn't authored by thomas himself.



    Throughout the disscussions we made earlier in this thread, we made it clear that the chance that NT has been MODIFIED to fit with the ambitions of priests is QUITE HIGH(by meens and motives explained before) and now you say "the NT has been proven and verified" like no discussion about this ever occured before. further, you still did not prove the existance of things like heaven, hell, the Devil. This makes your NT very confusing, uncertain, and inverified.
    furthermore, all the arguments i have presented about the motives of distorting information and facts, how these facts are modified, why some of them were dissmissed and ignored, the purpose of religions, why do people have to think for themselves, and the jumps you made in logic have NOTHING wrong with them. they all come out of pure mathematical reasoning.
    i can't see what's so illogical about them as you said.
    your statement is totally incorrect.
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2005
  13. AZeitung

    AZeitung The power of Grayskull

    You didn't even have the correct interpretation and thoughts about E&M. What makes you think you think you're right about God?

    And you believe the things you do because you sat around in a chair and thought they sounded cool, with no proof whatsoever. You've put forth a lot of unreasonable speculation, but certainly nothing that would constitute proof under any definition.

    First of all, the opinion that martial arts are great is subjective. Not everyone may agree, and it has more to do with how you feel about martial arts than any absolute truth. You can't figure out if something is true or not by "looking inside yourself". For things that are objectively true, you have to gather enough empirical evidence to be able to draw a meaningful conclusion, not just conjecture and postulate. Let me give you some examples.

    A man was murdered today. Look inside yourself and find out who the killer was.
    How quantum gravity works is a big mystery in physics. Look inside yourself and figure out how it works.
    I have a TI-89 calculator. Look inside yourself and figure out how it works.

    Your method for the discovery of "facts" is flawed. Aristotle tried it and it lead to statements like "Objects in motion want to come to rest unless something keeps pushing them" and "Objects that fall do so because it is in their nature to be with the ground and objects that float do so because it is in their nature to be in the air".
     
  14. `Yu Yu Hakusho`

    `Yu Yu Hakusho` New Member

    My whole point is that the information in the bible has been distorted throughout the years and thus cannot be directly trusted. i didn't claim i'm right or not about god. besides, E&M are studied experimentally, unlike intellectual-only things like god. In fact, this is how the "Uncertainty Principle "of Heinsburg came to existance, but that's a totaly different story.

    I didn't think about how cool they were, instead, i thought about where such things would come from, what are the positive/negative caracteristics about them, how and when can they be useful and other key propreties and details...
    At least this is A LOT better then just "recording" information without proof/verification, like some stupid machine that acts only within the limits of data it is given, wether this data is good or bad, wether there is better information to work on or not...
    i'd rather use my mind than fill it with unjustified clutter.

    I agree that certain things require search and study of material evidence/objects, but that doesn't mean many other things don't need to be interpreted. additionaly, martial arts isn't just a way to use your body, it's also a philosophy. to discover what's best about it you'd have to THINK about what motives do you have of studying martial arts, when to use them or not to and why so. when you have clear picture about the martial arts, you compare them to your personality, and conclude wether or not to do them. All these things happen in mind of the individual. he doesn't have to experiment that much to discover them.


    All inspectors gather material evidence and analyse them, but they STILL think in order to construct a CLEAR image of how the murder happened, how each fingerprint got into where it is in the crimescene, and how the murderer was hoping to accomplish his aim without being busted.
    hmph. They don't wait for a priest to come and tell them how the murder happened, they LOOK, THINK, ACT, and DECIDE for themselves.

    i agree that you've got to have material stuff to experiment with to uncover such things, however, after an experiment, you still have to think what happened, how it happened, and why. if you do an experiment and just look at the results without THINKING, you'll discover no secret.
    Many things require material and physical objects to be verified, but almost EVERYHING requires thinking to be truely understood.


    I said this is my method, but i didn't say i don't have other methods, neither did i say that i don't incorporate this method with the others.
    If that was truely what aristole said, then he must have had a limited intellect, because he restricted his concepts of things moving and falling to the first result of thinking he obtained. if he thought from a different prespective about it, he would have had different results.
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2005
  15. tekkengod

    tekkengod the MAP MP

    look, let me just sum this up for you real quick.
    Thought Process:
    I don't know = it must be god. :rolleyes:
     
  16. AZeitung

    AZeitung The power of Grayskull

    No, it's not, and once again, that only detracts from your credibility.

    So you are willing to admit that the method you use is the same method that led Aristotle to his erronious conclusions. That's a good start.

    It was, in fact, what Aristotle said, and what people believed for nearly 2,000 years. People's conceptions of those statements didn't begin to change until Galileo, and even then, from his writings, it doesn't seem like he understood fully the implications of not being able to tell rest from motion. It wasn't until Newton that all of that really got sorted out.

    Now, maybe you think that for about 2,000 years, only people of limited intellect where teaching Aristotle, and that Aristotle himself was of limited intellect, but that simply isn't true. It's not as easy as you think it is to draw accurate conclusions about science, history, or even religion on your own - and certainly there is no way to go about it without empirical evidence, or simply by looking within yourself - that meathod is sure to lead to bad conclusions, and historically has done so.

    Objective truth is not even in *principle* derivable by logic alone, but is only knowable through empiricism. Some people, including myself, have speculated that logic itself is empirically defined and a property of this universe that had to be discovered. Looking within yourself allows you to form any conclusions you want, whether or not they are constrained by reality. Argue against it all you want, but historically, that's the case.

    I've talked to dozens of people on Usenet who have looked within themselves to find the answers to scientific questions. Let me tell you, they're the biggest morons I've ever met. They find all these "flaws" with Einstein's theories. They've accused the physics establishment of purposely overlooking and even obscuring the flaws in relativity to suit their own agendas. There are dozens of messages floating around about the "Einstein Hoax".

    The thing is, all of the "problems" and "paradoxes" they come up with could be easily solved if they really understood the theories, instead of assuming that their lines of thought were automatically right - of course, they'll claim that they don't do this. But when you see a contradiction in an established theory, you have to try to find out why *you* might be wrong before you can go say that the theory is wrong. This may not be something you're capable of with the level of knowledge you have. It may not even be something you can figure out without help from someone else. Or, you might just be blinded by your own desire to find a contradiction.
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2005
  17. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    Both.
    Not one or the other, but both. You can have both, and in context, using our brains to remember which Jesus we are talking about, the only answer consistent with all of the facts is "both." Your answer is not consistent with all of the facts. It is outright inconsistent with some of the facts. You have utterly ignored the context behind Jesus.


    You just called me a liar. The conversation between you and I has ended.

    I presented you with verifiable facts and verifiable theological arguments. You could look up in books the things I said to you, and check it for yourself. I'm an open window on this subject. I don't make things up. I draw from sources that we can all check.

    In stark contrast, you have come to me with nothing except subjective prejudices and subjective thoughts.

    I have researched this subject. You have not. Yet you dare say that the prejudices you thought up during meditation is more truthful than what scholars have put together in books? :eek: Huh? There is no definition of "truth" that makes your subjective imaginations more correct than the objective facts, and the arguments from objective facts, that I presented to you.

    In effect, and truly, you said that your feelings are true but my feelings are false. I resent you saying that. That is extremely rude of you.

    How about this: I meditated today, and the spirits told me that I was right all along. By your "logic" we have no choice but to agree that I was right all along. Done deal. You can't argue against your own logic.

    You and I are done until such time as you lay aside your prejudices and read a factual book about Jesus. I respect my own self too much to put myself in a position to be insulted like this by you again.
     
  18. tekkengod

    tekkengod the MAP MP


    Theres that word again! :D
    seriously though, Aikis right, you're not even trying anymore just spewing out half thoughts Aiki is one of the few religious people i know who dosen't just openly say "i'm right your wrong, go to hell, die die die" so give him the same respect and debate, don't attack.

    Ok, lets clarify this

    #1 i agree with ENTIERLY. i've been saying that for years now.

    #2 how ever is rather contradictory. i HATE blind faith in all forms and i think it is the love child of ignorance+denial but having said that. look at what you just said.
    THOUGHTS and INTERPRETATION are just that, OPINIONS, NOT fact. believe, every atheist by my side is fuel for the torch, but come on.
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2005
  19. `Yu Yu Hakusho`

    `Yu Yu Hakusho` New Member

    please read the rest of that post, not just what you quoted.



    I do not mean to insult you in anyway. if you feel insulted by my statement then i appologise. however, you greatly misinterpreted my point. If someone told you that there's a flaw in your prespective to things, it doesn't mean that he hates you, neither does it make you a liar. he's just pointing out a potential mistake to help you fix it, not to offend you personally. EVERYONE makes mistakes, or otherwise no one would learn anything. Can anyone learn walking without ever falling down?

    Why do you always consider that when someone says "i thought about/logically interpteted = meditated"
    THINKING = activating the mind.
    MEDITATING = clearing the mind of all thoughts.
    THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS AS "THE SPIRITS" AND SUCH BS.
    i don't just sleep then wake up with answers in my mind, i think to get them. it takes EFFORT. i ask questions and try to see what are ALL the possible answers, then i compare them and see which one makes sense and eventually i draw conclusions(NOT like you say i do(sleep and wake up with conclusions effortlessly)
    you just draw information from sources do not proove why should they be trusted. even if the sources you trust are not deliberatly falsfying information, what they study and publish may be EXACTLY what the religions wanted them to; nothing close to the truth.
    As we have already established, it is very possible that religion = misinformation, given the motives and the meens to create it.
    Why dismiss this possibility? why stubornly cling to the beliefs without even admitting the slightest possibility that they might be untrue? Isn't that exactly how they want people to be?
     
  20. tekkengod

    tekkengod the MAP MP

    Bingo jingo
     

Share This Page