 |
|
 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dr wu23
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 2294
Location: Indiana
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:30 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| TheScamDetective wrote: |
Dr Wu
"Yes it does mean some kind of 'god' or intelligence if you are using it regarding origin of the universe or reality in relation to religion."
~
Origin of the universe is not limited to a belief that "god" created it.
There are other explanations, as well...big bang, for instance.
~
"What else could create?"
~
Well, using a small c...a dress designer creates fashionable clothing...a hair dresser creates a hair-do, etc.
With a capital C, then you are denoting some kind of
honor to the creator...as in a god...or an elevated
entity or intelligence.
When I use a capital C...for Creation...I do not mean an entity...but it gives it honor....for I think that Creation is still a mystery....not a god.
Just like when we capitalize Mr. or Mrs. or
Sir Walter Raleigh...it is an honorary way to spell it.
Same with the White House, it is usually capitalized too even though it is not an entity.
Same for holidays, etc.
Get it now?? |
I get how you are using the term......but you are misusing it imo....as many people do with the English language.
Nuff said.
_________________
"Some say the valley has always been haunted ever since River ran.
The rippling waters fast as the colors conceal the Green Man."
Roy Harpur from The Green Man
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
roadghost
Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 148
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think many organised religiouns are undergoing something of a hard time as even those who adhere to the doctrine, struggle to reconcile it with the values and knowledge of the modern world. This is why I think there has been a converse climb in the number of fundamantalists, amongst other motives it's almost like a huge 'AH F***'it' to reasoning and cleaving to that which comforts them. I think the 'one size fits all' sprituality or religious belief is possibly on the wat out. People will mould core elements in accordance with their own lives. Perhaps it's the beggining of the end for organised religion, making way for personalised religion. I'm not at all sure it's the end of religion though.
_________________
Now we must praise the keeper of the heavenly kingdom
The power of the Measurer and his mind-thoughts,
The work of the glory-father; as he, each of wonders,
the eternal Lord, established from the beginning.
Caedmons Hymn
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dr wu23
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 2294
Location: Indiana
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Road,
IMO there has been little change in the fundamental nature of human consciousness for centuries. If there had been I think we would have seen larger and more sweeping changes in religious belief and philosophical positions.
Some religions have evolved and some new ones begun but for the most part they are not all that different from those of the past.
Our technlogy and cultures certainly have changed but religious belief has remained stagnant for all intents and purposes.
_________________
"Some say the valley has always been haunted ever since River ran.
The rippling waters fast as the colors conceal the Green Man."
Roy Harpur from The Green Man
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Somerville Changeling
Joined: 09 Sep 2007
Posts: 396
Location: Central Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newspaper links never work months later. I recommend instead copying and pasting the text within quotes with an attribution of the source.
| TheScamDetective wrote: |
A belief in god seems to be on the way out. I agree with the part about the more educated one is, the more likely they will realize that what religion teaches is just a myth.
A good question to ask believers is...WHY do you believe what you do?? |
I'm highly educated and I believe in God. Yes, religion teaches myths, but myths possess more truths than you can realize. Sometimes a myth is made real in history. In the orthodox Christian point of view, it happened with Christ.
| roadghost wrote: |
| I think many organised religiouns are undergoing something of a hard time as even those who adhere to the doctrine, struggle to reconcile it with the values and knowledge of the modern world. This is why I think there has been a converse climb in the number of fundamantalists, amongst other motives it's almost like a huge 'AH F***'it' to reasoning and cleaving to that which comforts them. |
I think you're confusing fundamentalism with orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is alive and well, though shrunk in numbers over past centuries; but something akin to modern fundamentalism has held steady from time immemorial. It's always been popular among anti-intellectuals.
Christian orthodoxy can be found in all the churches, as orthodox Christians adhere to the Apostle's Creed and what C.S. Lewis called "mere Christianity" and N.T Wright calls "simply Christian". It might seem too intellectual at times, and mystical at other times, but it adheres closely to the teachings of the New Testament and the explanations of those teachings that were mainstream over the centuries.
Fundamentalist type movements in Christian history always involved two factors, a rejection of the political order by those who felt they were left out of it, and a sense of personal piety and relationship to Christ that the pietists felt the church had forgotten, if not actively forsaken. For the most part, fundamentalists want easy answers, even in cases where the answers are divine mysteries or are not exactly common sense and intuitive. Thus, they actually end up rejecting orthodoxy while striving to affirm it.
As to the current situation, I'll possibly anger Dr. Wu by stating two definitions of fundamentalism that apply here in different contexts:
Fundamentalism is basically an affirmation of the fundamentals of Christianity as expressed by the Niagara Bible Conference. It affirms orthodox Protestant Christianity and is currently a movement within Evangelical Protestantism. In that sense, it's a positive belief system.
Fundamentalism is also defined as a movement within American Protestant Christianity that totally rejects abortion, rejects neo-Darwinian evolution in favor of young earth creationism and holds right wing political views (some of which are actually in opposition to Christian teachings) while denigrating the left, liberals and Christians outside their movement. That's a negative belief system when it actually occurs.
I consider myself an orthodox Christian. As a Christian who was Jewish for 18 years, I'm not Messianic in practice because I don't feel the two religions mix very well, but I do observe the Jewish holidays I enjoy (Hannuka, Passover) and I prefer to observe the sabbath on Saturday, not Sunday (though I agree with Paul it's a personal matter done for the glory of Christ).
In many respects, I believe Jews get things right where Christians got them wrong (but not about Jesus, Jews are mistaken there). So, I guess you'd say that I have an individualistic and very personal religion, but I strive to follow Christ in an orthodox way; I accept his atonement as a free gift that nothing I can do merits.
I'm as anti-abortion as a fundamentalist because I believe science and tradition both assert that human life begins at conception and that abortion should never be done merely for economic or psychological convenience. I would have been a candidate for abortion if it had been legal in 1957 as my mother was 17 and abandoned by her husband who took their first child away from her.
I'm not anti-evolution, though I don't see much evidence for change over time from one species to another. Punctuated equilibrium and quantum evolution makes more sense than the neo-Darwinian model when I do think about evolution. IMHO, how God created the heavens and the earth is not a matter for dogma or doctrine. Since I wasn't there. I'll just affirm that God did it. Perhaps in the next life I'll know how, but it's not a requirement to accept any particular "how" to be a Christian, only to accept that it was done.
Fundamentalists want all the answers on a list they can memorize and they pick and choose their verses just as carelessly as traditionally defined heretics. While heresy can be useful as a way to get Christian orthodoxy to define itself, heresy really leads to dead ends when dogmatic. It's never as surprising and as innovative as orthodoxy itself.
I tend towards two views that are not usually considered orthodox; hopeful universalism and dispensational views of God's working in history. I'm not dogmatic about universalism; and I recommend "Universal Salvation? The Current Debate, ed. Robin A. Parry & Christopher H. Partridge [Cambridge, Eerdmans, 2003]" because it not only allows a dogmatic universalist a platform, but it also has Calvinist, Arminian and hopeful universalist responses.
As for God's working in history, Israel exists today and that's a miracle. The way the world economy and belief system's are going, we could be near the Rapture. I hope for it before the year 2050, when the technophiles expect the Singularity to arrive. The only actual preaching I'll do is this: if you're left behind, then don't take the mark. Die instead. Die even as an atheist out of principle. I have hope that God will reach all human beings in this world or the World to Come, but once the Tribulation starts, it's another dispensation and Revelations is clear that those who accept the mark of the beast are lost.
| roadghost wrote: |
I think the 'one size fits all' sprituality or religious belief is possibly on the wat out. People will mould core elements in accordance with their own lives. |
Organized religion will never end because people want to be organized. People just often approach their organized religions in a disorganized way.
| roadghost wrote: |
Perhaps it's the beggining of the end for organised religion, making way for personalised religion. I'm not at all sure it's the end of religion though. |
That's always been true. Just as churches developed dogmas and catechisms to aid in Christian understanding, Christians as individuals have held to their own beliefs and, when politically safe, to found their own communities, if not their own churches. Nowadays, we have a smorgasboard where beliefs can be gobbled up as desired; even if a particular combination is prone to cause philosophical indigestion.
There is nothing new under the sun. Not yet, anyways. I don't think there will be until Christ returns and our Abba in heaven redeems his world.
_________________
Two Western, two Middle Eastern and two Asian religions expect the end of an age soon. Whatever happens. Don't take the mark. Don't be deceived. Search for the truth and the truth will set you free.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheScamDetective
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 1351
Location: California
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Daniel
"So, I guess you'd say that I have an individualistic and very personal religion,...."
~
I guess I can say the same thing about my personal brand of Atheism!!
_________________
"It's our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities."
Dumbledore
to Harry Potter
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dr wu23
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 2294
Location: Indiana
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:55 pm Post subject: Religulous |
|
|
For Daniel.....perhaps he'll come to his senses after viewing this trailer and then the film.....
Nah.....he's a lost cause.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB8fPJ6zds8
_________________
"Some say the valley has always been haunted ever since River ran.
The rippling waters fast as the colors conceal the Green Man."
Roy Harpur from The Green Man
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Somerville Changeling
Joined: 09 Sep 2007
Posts: 396
Location: Central Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 6:25 am Post subject: Re: Religulous |
|
|
I'm familar with Bill Maher, but I don't think he's half as funny as Jon Stewart. The Daily Show has better bits on religious oddities. The first joke I ever heard by Maher was something along the line of "Who would you rather be? John Belusci, who's dead, or Chevy Chase, who's career is dead?" That one bombed.
Bill Maher's producers tricked the interviewees, and he only chose ones who could be made to look foolish. They didn't even know they were being interviewed by him until the cameras were rolling and he walked in. Atheists interviewed by Ben Stein knew they were being interviewed by him, but they didn't know it was going to be about the alleged mistreatment of supporters of I.D. They did know it would be about the tension between science and religion.
I can't wait to see Ben Stein's film. Maher's I'll see one of these days on cable, or I'll get it in the closeout bargain bin. Maher's just going for Borat style laughs, but Stein's trying to influence policy and get people thinking about fairness.
Note that I'm not a supporter of I.D or young earth creationism. I'm a supporter of old earth creationism, and I don't argue much about evolution; except to say that there are other views beyond natural selection and a practical quasi-deification of chance, as with some neo-Darwinians.
So, who do you think's more on the hot seat: Dawkins while interviewed by Ben Stein or some guy playing Jesus for minimum wage at that meshugge Holy Land theme park? Which do you think adds more to the debate?
_________________
Two Western, two Middle Eastern and two Asian religions expect the end of an age soon. Whatever happens. Don't take the mark. Don't be deceived. Search for the truth and the truth will set you free.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dr wu23
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 2294
Location: Indiana
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
So, who do you think's more on the hot seat: Dawkins while interviewed by Ben Stein or some guy playing Jesus for minimum wage at that meshugge Holy Land theme park? Which do you think adds more to the debate?
|
I don't think either is on any 'hot seat' but certainly Dawkins interview is more meaningful than some doofus at a Christian theme park.
I think Maher is very clever, funny, and politically astute and for me right on on most things , but not all things.
I'm looking forward to the humor in Maher's film and in Stein's film I'm more curious about the 'dogma' and spin from the conservative religious point of view and why they think Creationism should be given fair time against Evolution in a scientific framework.
I have a copy of Expelled on order from the local library and I'll do the same when Religulous comes out on dvd.
_________________
"Some say the valley has always been haunted ever since River ran.
The rippling waters fast as the colors conceal the Green Man."
Roy Harpur from The Green Man
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Somerville Changeling
Joined: 09 Sep 2007
Posts: 396
Location: Central Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="dr wu23"]
| Quote: |
... in Stein's film I'm more curious about the 'dogma' and spin from the conservative religious point of view and why they think Creationism should be given fair time against Evolution in a scientific framework.
I have a copy of Expelled on order from the local library and I'll do the same when Religulous comes out on dvd. |
I.D. isn't Christian young earth creationism. It's actually no more creationism than the strong Anthropic Principle. Technically, it could lead to belief in Scam's aliens interfering in the evolution of life on earth through genes delivered in virus' from space. It could also lead back to a non-sentient first principle where unactivated genetic material present since the first life activates to create new species. Scam's idea is UFO fringe version of panspermia and the second would be a modernization of the vitalism theories of the 19th century.
Biblical creationists (like myself), whether young earth or old earth (which works for me), like I.D. because it's a theory that can support their views, but it can support others. Even McFadden's quantum evolution has aspects that not only defy the axioms of neo-Darwinian evolution, but also leads us to consider what it means for DNA to know how to evolve.
I, personally, don't find I.D. compelling, because it's too close to the old God of the gaps views, but I don't have problems with it discussed in a unit on the philosophy of origins. My point is that neo-Darwinian evolution should not be taught in biology either. No matter how much the consensus is that it's science.
_________________
Two Western, two Middle Eastern and two Asian religions expect the end of an age soon. Whatever happens. Don't take the mark. Don't be deceived. Search for the truth and the truth will set you free.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dr wu23
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 2294
Location: Indiana
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2008 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
My point is that neo-Darwinian evolution should not be taught in biology either. No matter how much the consensus is that it's science.
|
In case you missed it ...that's how consensus reality works.
If the scientists see it as science ,then so be it.
_________________
"Some say the valley has always been haunted ever since River ran.
The rippling waters fast as the colors conceal the Green Man."
Roy Harpur from The Green Man
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Somerville Changeling
Joined: 09 Sep 2007
Posts: 396
Location: Central Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dr wu23 wrote: |
| Quote: |
My point is that neo-Darwinian evolution should not be taught in biology either. No matter how much the consensus is that it's science.
|
In case you missed it ...that's how consensus reality works.
If the scientists see it as science ,then so be it.
|
Yes, it's a consensus, but not everything in a given subject is taught at the junior high and high school level as science. What's appropriate for a college introductory course may not be appropriate for high school, and what's appropriate for an upper division course may not be appropriate to a survey course.
That's my point. I can agree with the scientists that change over time happens, but I doubt it happens by natural selection. Neither neo-Darwinian views nor I.D. have firm support, and both sides owe much to philosophies outside of science for their support.
_________________
Two Western, two Middle Eastern and two Asian religions expect the end of an age soon. Whatever happens. Don't take the mark. Don't be deceived. Search for the truth and the truth will set you free.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dr wu23
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 2294
Location: Indiana
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Somerville Changeling wrote: |
| dr wu23 wrote: |
| Quote: |
My point is that neo-Darwinian evolution should not be taught in biology either. No matter how much the consensus is that it's science.
|
In case you missed it ...that's how consensus reality works.
If the scientists see it as science ,then so be it.
|
Yes, it's a consensus, but not everything in a given subject is taught at the junior high and high school level as science. What's appropriate for a college introductory course may not be appropriate for high school, and what's appropriate for an upper division course may not be appropriate to a survey course.
That's my point. I can agree with the scientists that change over time happens, but I doubt it happens by natural selection. Neither neo-Darwinian views nor I.D. have firm support, and both sides owe much to philosophies outside of science for their support. |
I do agree that certain course studies are more appropriate at higher levels of education.
IMO natural selection is on solid ground as is evolution over large periods of time. I really think that anyone who supports creationism (of the Biblical kind stating earth age at 8,000 yrs) is either just plain ignorant or so lost in faith that they can't see straight.
As to ID...I don't rule out the possibility that a 'Creative Force' is hidden in the fabric of Reality and is what helped to 'guide' evolution as well as other aspects of Reality that led to life here (and on other planets ). It could be an inherent feature to Reality like the fact that water is wet. As I said in my other posts I think we have no comprehension what this Force is and all of our religious faith based ideas are just that...ideas.
_________________
"Some say the valley has always been haunted ever since River ran.
The rippling waters fast as the colors conceal the Green Man."
Roy Harpur from The Green Man
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Somerville Changeling
Joined: 09 Sep 2007
Posts: 396
Location: Central Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dr wu23 wrote: |
I do agree that certain course studies are more appropriate at higher levels of education.
IMO natural selection is on solid ground as is evolution over large periods of time. I really think that anyone who supports creationism (of the Biblical kind stating earth age at 8,000 yrs) is either just plain ignorant or so lost in faith that they can't see straight. |
Natural selection is a 19th century concept. I wonder how he'd view things if he'd had the benefit of modern genetics, molecular biology and a wider sample of life to observe?
You seem to confuse change over time with natural selection. No one doubts that change over time occurs. The young earth believers doubt change over time from one species to another. They accept that change over time occurs within species.
| dr wu23 wrote: |
As to ID...I don't rule out the possibility that a 'Creative Force' is hidden in the fabric of Reality and is what helped to 'guide' evolution as well as other aspects of Reality that led to life here (and on other planets ). |
Most evolutionists reject vitalism, and dismiss I.D. as religion and also claim that DNA can't enter into a quantum state and choose how to mutate (which would be McFadden's view; quantum evolution).
There's ample evidence for God, but a sort of natural "opposition disorder" inclines most people to reject it. Once one gets past that and accepts God, the question is which understanding of God fits the world as we observe it.
I still believe that Schroeder is on to something with the hypothesis that a young earth creation can be reconciled to science. He posits that the Biblical young earth view arises from the reference point of the Bible being that of man. Taking the commonly estimated mass of the universe, he claims that the six days of creation were actual days from God's reference point, but were eons from ours.
Thus, cosmos could be 14 billion years old from any local reference point, but from the whole, it fits the Biblical view of around 6000-7000 years. Some have questioned the change in reference points as an ad hoc explanation, but scientists use the "birds eye view" of reality in cosmology, string theory and alternate universe theories all the time; and not just as thought experiments or teaching tools.
Reality is fundamentally different when seen from different levels.
| dr wu23 wrote: |
It could be an inherent feature to Reality like the fact that water is wet. As I said in my other posts I think we have no comprehension what this Force is and all of our religious faith based ideas are just that...ideas. |
Reality is best capitalized at the start of a sentence. You're not having much luck reconciling Eastern perceptions to the sort of anti-theist, contra-religion authors you seem to like this past year or so. If you had to choose the pathless path you've advocated in the past with Dawkins, Hitchens et. al. which would you choose?
_________________
Two Western, two Middle Eastern and two Asian religions expect the end of an age soon. Whatever happens. Don't take the mark. Don't be deceived. Search for the truth and the truth will set you free.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dr wu23
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 2294
Location: Indiana
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Daniel: Reality is best capitalized at the start of a sentence. You're not having much luck reconciling Eastern perceptions to the sort of anti-theist, contra-religion authors you seem to like this past year or so. If you had to choose the pathless path you've advocated in the past with Dawkins, Hitchens et. al. which would you choose?
|
As usual you misunderstand what I 'believe' and what 'eastern perceptions' really are. Reality btw refers to real Reality and not little reality or samsara as it is seen in illusion by most of us.
True 'eastern perceptions' are beyond theism and especially monotheism...so it doesn't fundamentally clash with being atheist or agnostic .
At any rate I have said many times that what I like about Dawkins group is their estimation about the problems with institutionalized monotheism and the more evangelical and radical types (and not the quiet faith based believers who live and let live and are not rying to force it upon others or the world stage).
I firmly think that the 'pathless path' (found in zen Buddhism, Taoism , and Krishnamurti, etc) to a large degree is a more sensible and truly selfless spiritual approach than what passes for organized monotheism these days. To use your own words I honestly think that faith based monotheism 'misses the mark' of what the true nature of Reality is all about.
_________________
"Some say the valley has always been haunted ever since River ran.
The rippling waters fast as the colors conceal the Green Man."
Roy Harpur from The Green Man
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Somerville Changeling
Joined: 09 Sep 2007
Posts: 396
Location: Central Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dr wu23 wrote: |
As usual you misunderstand what I 'believe' and what 'eastern perceptions' really are. Reality btw refers to real Reality and not little reality or samsara as it is seen in illusion by most of us.
True 'eastern perceptions' are beyond theism and especially monotheism...so it doesn't fundamentally clash with being atheist or agnostic .
|
If that were true, then Hinduism wouldn't be a "true" eastern perception. I think many Westerners want to ditch God, so they either go atheist or Buddhist. The approach of most Westerners dabbling in Eastern religion is that it ignores the religions as lived daily by their adherents in favor of relatively obscure philosophical ideas. It's like someone who studied "The Cloud of Unknowing", but who never enters into a relationship with Christ.
You simply cannot separate the more mystical and philosophical strains of a religion from the daily piety, practice and belief. To do so is to truly miss the mark, because it ignores the reason millions believe any particular religion. Hinduism is mono-polytheism because all the localized deities are subsumed into the Hindu trinity of Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva.
So, Eastern religion is theistic; with the possible exception of some varieties of Buddhism. Even there, Buddha and the bodhisattva's are treated like saints in Western religion, if not like localized deities. People want to worship a deity, and no amount of philosophical atheism, or quasi-religious agnosticism can change that. I believe that Keel was on to something; we are property.
The question is to whom will we belong?
You may think there's a Reality beyond the realities perceived by science and our senses, and I think there's a reality that subsumes ours too; but the existence of higher and lower worlds, heaven, hades, sheol, etc. does not change the nature of religion or the question that is asked of all of us. Who do we serve?
When you question the reality of monotheism, you are really reacting to religions you do not like. In the same way, many evangelicals react to religions and philosophies they don't like. Liking or disliking is sort of irrelevant when searching for truth, and though I think that many evangelicals miss the mark in understanding Christianity and relating to Christ as a community, I certainly think that both the modern day irate atheists you enjoy reading, as well as the Westerninzed gurus you follow, miss the mark in relating to God.
In some cases, gurus are falsely representing the religious traditions they're attempting to gain converts for, and in other cases they are engaging in cult like behavior as bad as the worst televangelists of the Eighties. Evangelical Christianity, despite the stress on individual salvation in American varieties, does have a good understanding of atonement and relationship with God the Father through Christ the Son. So, I don't see them as missing the mark quite as much as atheists or the sort of Buddhist Lite adherents as those in Austin a year or so ago who spent a day pretending to be street people, but who couldn't resist stopping in at Starbucks for their lattes.
I talk to and help the street people I meet on the way to work. One of them told me she had a rougher job than I did, and I agreed, then I told her I'd pray for her. She told said she'd pray for me to, and that was great. We are all in this together and the way out of sin and this diseased reality is through Christ. I can't see anything in Asian religion that can replace the truths of the Bible, though I agree with C.S. Lewis that Christians, unlike atheists, don't have to dismiss the beliefs of non-Christian religions as false. He felt that no religion was totally false and that non-Christian religions were only in error when disagreeing about Christ and what He accomplished for us on the cross.
It all comes down to who we say that He is.
_________________
Two Western, two Middle Eastern and two Asian religions expect the end of an age soon. Whatever happens. Don't take the mark. Don't be deceived. Search for the truth and the truth will set you free.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
