Which version of Christianity is the right one?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-02-2014, 01:41 PM
RE: Which version of Christianity is the right one?
(25-02-2014 12:56 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  I've been out of the game for a bit. Is this our new troll or something?

Yup he has the True Version of christianity even though he has never read the bible. He is one of the least interesting posters we have had in a long time.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2014, 02:10 PM
RE: Which version of Christianity is the right one?
(24-02-2014 12:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Which is notwithstanding the part where you don't understand what a True Scotsman fallacy is, nor what 'burden of proof' means.
I have posted links to the defination the no true scots man fallacy and demonstrated it's meaning.
Short example being that the no true Scots man can not be used as a blanket response against anyone identifying a non-christian as such simply because the accused says He is a Christian. why? Because there are conditions and a list of prerequsites one must do inorder to be a Christian.

In every case this has been brought up i have pointed out the NTSM fallacy only works when there is not actual rules on being a scotsman. Which is not the case with Christianity.

No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim

The reason it does not apply is because being a Christian is NOT a Universal Claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Certainly this demonstrates profound ignorance.

Quote:I particularly loved the part where you seemed to think that hundreds of thousands of people camping in a desert for years on end would somehow magically leave no material evidence whatsoever.
I further this point by also point out there are 1/2 dozen known but lost cities (Brick and mortar buildings) who lasted for decades if not hundreds of years in that very same desert who played host to hundreds of thousands if not millions of people for which there is not a trace except for well recognized and accepted historical writtings. Then somehow magically it your faith in the archeologist who say their should be tons of evidence just inches under the sand of a protracted camping trip that took place 4000+ years ago?

I see you failed to mention any of this.. Where is your explaination of defense of these lost cities, and the complete lack of evidence there??

Quote: I think you'll find we're all too familiar with equivocation.
Then why did you ask what the reason was for the dictionary definations that held you accountable to a given standard and removed the logical fallacy from your arsnel?

Lest you mean you are familiar with it because that is a known and expected tactic of an atheist when ever on the ropes.

Quote:Part of a discussion is establishing terminology. "LOL DICTIONARY" is neither a sophisticated nor sufficient way of doing so - but it is a recourse beloved by idiots.
Laugh out load
Exerting Peer pressure to ignore the rules when they do not benfit YOU is the recourse of an idiot. Or Rather it is a desperate attempt to regain control of a conversation one happens to be loosing. by hoping that the one you are speaking with is indeed an idiot, and will run from the standard that is keeping you from your beloved fallacy.

Quote:Are you referring to me specifically? If so, I dispute the ludicrous accusation and challenge you to demonstrate any such thing.
Oh, I did.
I said you exerting peer pressure to abandon the dictionary's defined terms as a guidline to establish a base line for a set of given terms, is an attempt to remain in ignorance. You would rather this conversation remain on your terms using your definations (not the actual ones) Which is an intentional turn from Knoweledge, and a demand to embrace your specific brand of ignorance.

Because You know your arguement will not hold up to the scrunity of properly defined words, you must remain in the ignorance that your arguement was based on by shunning knoweledge and the definations provided by a soceital standard such as the dictionary. It is your hope/plea that I not hold you to this standard by calling me names for using it, hence the 'peer pressure' i mentioned.

Quote:Since I never in any way made any such claim (to wit - "more documented means a longer Wikipedia page") this appears to be a pathetic shambling straw man.
I made a very speicific charge. (That no one is more documented in the time he lived than Christ. That to doubt Christ is to doubt everyone else.) This is challenge concerning orginal documentation. Not a call for modern documentation.
Your use of the wikipage says to me you do not understand what is being discussed.
As you seem to need some help down off your high horse i offered this branch.

Quote:I merely linked to the Wikipedia page out of convenience, since if one takes your statement at face value it necessarily follows that you were somehow unaware of the existence of Augustus Caeasar. So I decided to point you in a direction which might cure your benighted ignorance.
What makes you think i do not know who augustus was?

Quote:It also inclines me to believe that since you can't dispute that historical documentation regarding the life and deeds of Augustus Caesar is far and away more voluminous and reliable, you instead chose to pretend to counter an idiotic statement which nobody ever made. Stay classy!
How did you come to this conclusion? My orginal intention was to discuss the orginal documentation of any first century figure by comparing any orginal avaiable documentation. again my assertion stands. There is not a first century figure documented more than Christ. To doubt his existance is to doubt the existance of everyone who has come after Him.

Quote:Then you are profoundly and obstinately ignorant. Is it genuine? Are you really so far up your own asshole? Or is it merely acted out, because you desire to be so far up your own asshole?

The dilemma of the troll: idiot, or disingenuous?

But for future reference: Cicero? Livy? Maecenas? Suetonius? Tacitus? Pliny? All far less contradictory sources than the gospels, as it happens. Or perhaps we might consider the still-extant statues and coins bearing his likeness and dating from his own lifetime? The still-extant monuments and temples and inscriptions?
Your delusional if you think there was not some serious roman propaganda being written about those people you mention back then on the temples and in 'other' official documenataion. Which puts what is known on the suspect list. why? because we do not have (in most cases) supplimentry material to compare what is currently known. we simply had the state view of these figure heads.

Put it this way. Say in 3000 years someone digs up the plaque that hung on Hitler's headquarters. The one that describes who he was his great effort to ride his people of the plage of the jews, and the intended 1000 year reich, but had nothing else to go on.

What would that future soceity have to say about aldolf? What ever the plaque said.

When all that is known of a historical figure or even people is from a single source (like Roman govermental propaganda) then everything said is suspect.

On the other hand there are 5600 different sources describing the same bible, the same Jesus.

Quote:And since this is what sane and self-aware people might call not true, I pointed out as much to you.

Since this is in fact such a strikingly obvious untruth that I am highly skeptical that anyone with any historical awareness whatsoever could even begin to make such a statement, I can only conclude that you don't care when you're spouting shit, up to and including things you know aren't so, so long as it agrees with your woefully underconsidered worldview.
Dude. You've provided nothing concerning the primary source material this conversation demands for you to make such an assertion. you have been and continue to point to tertiary source material as some revelant way of defeating this arguement.

Maybe you do not honestly understand the term... See this is what a good dictionary does for you. But you know that and choose to remain in ignorance anyway, so as to keep using the same broken arguements over and over again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary_source

again when you find some apples (primary source material not the crap you keep pointing to and pretending it means something) let me know.Drinking Beverage

The Index: A/S/K Ask Seek Knock as outlined by Luke 11:5-13
Ot Old testament
Nt New testament
H/S Holy Spirit

If you want to ask me a question feel free to Pm me or E/M me. I will not speak of it to anyone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2014, 02:12 PM
RE: Which version of Christianity is the right one?
(25-02-2014 01:14 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(24-02-2014 12:12 PM)natachan Wrote:  Interesting fact! The vulgate is not a direct translation but is put into a "common tongue." The language in it is not the high language of Cicero or sallust (god I hate sallust) but is the language of the common man. Thus it is called vulgate because it was in the common "vulgar" tongue.

Maybe do a little research on who was allowed to read or even possess such a translation. then maybe read one what happened to believers who spoke bible verses in any language other than the latin. Whole Families were burned at the stake for reciting the Lord's Prayer in english.

Good lord. English didn't even exist as a language when the Vulgate was penned. Bangin

You are conflating 1000+ years of history as if it all happened simultaneously.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2014, 02:19 PM
RE: Which version of Christianity is the right one?
(25-02-2014 02:12 PM)toadaly Wrote:  Good lord. English didn't even exist as a language when the Vulgate was penned. Bangin

Liar. We all know Jesus was Murikan.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
25-02-2014, 02:26 PM
RE: Which version of Christianity is the right one?
(25-02-2014 02:12 PM)toadaly Wrote:  
(25-02-2014 01:14 PM)Drich Wrote:  Maybe do a little research on who was allowed to read or even possess such a translation. then maybe read one what happened to believers who spoke bible verses in any language other than the latin. Whole Families were burned at the stake for reciting the Lord's Prayer in english.

Good lord. English didn't even exist as a language when the Vulgate was penned. Bangin

You are conflating 1000+ years of history as if it all happened simultaneously.
Facepalm
The bible was compiled and translated into the vulgate in or around mid 4th century. Rome fell mid 5th. with in 100 years the language was considered to be dead by most.

And your right when you said the tormented english speakers happened 1000's of years after this orginal translation... Now think on that for a moment...

If say a whole family was burned at the stake for saying the Lord's prayer in english some 1000 years after the point it was first translated into latin, then your next question should be why was it kept in a dead language for so long if not to keep the bible out of the hands of the common man?

The Index: A/S/K Ask Seek Knock as outlined by Luke 11:5-13
Ot Old testament
Nt New testament
H/S Holy Spirit

If you want to ask me a question feel free to Pm me or E/M me. I will not speak of it to anyone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2014, 02:37 PM
Re: RE: Which version of Christianity is the right one?
(25-02-2014 02:10 PM)Drich Wrote:  Exerting Peer pressure to ignore the rules when they do not benfit YOU is the recourse of an idiot. Or Rather it is a desperate attempt to regain control of a conversation one happens to be loosing.

"Benfit" could just be a typo but can I just educate you in the word "loosing" - there is no such word. "losing" is the one you are looking for, it makes me cringe whenever I see this spelling, especially when used to claim someone to be an idiot.

I'm curious, are you actually convinced that this stuff you regurgitate is fact because I can't comprehend what it would be like to live in a surreal fantasy world like yours. Honestly, even if I try to take an objective stance, you come across as downright foolish.

Remember, you can 'lose' an argument and you have something 'loose' inside your head. They both apply to you but at least try to use the words correctly.

Using Tapatalk
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TubbyTubby's post
25-02-2014, 02:37 PM
Which version of Christianity is the right one?
(25-02-2014 01:14 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(24-02-2014 12:12 PM)natachan Wrote:  Interesting fact! The vulgate is not a direct translation but is put into a "common tongue." The language in it is not the high language of Cicero or sallust (god I hate sallust) but is the language of the common man. Thus it is called vulgate because it was in the common "vulgar" tongue.

Maybe do a little research on who was allowed to read or even possess such a translation. then maybe read one what happened to believers who spoke bible verses in any language other than the latin. Whole Families were burned at the stake for reciting the Lord's Prayer in english.

Source?

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2014, 02:41 PM
Which version of Christianity is the right one?
(25-02-2014 02:26 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(25-02-2014 02:12 PM)toadaly Wrote:  Good lord. English didn't even exist as a language when the Vulgate was penned. Bangin

You are conflating 1000+ years of history as if it all happened simultaneously.
Facepalm
The bible was compiled and translated into the vulgate in or around mid 4th century. Rome fell mid 5th. with in 100 years the language was considered to be dead by most.

And your right when you said the tormented english speakers happened 1000's of years after this orginal translation... Now think on that for a moment...

If say a whole family was burned at the stake for saying the Lord's prayer in english some 1000 years after the point it was first translated into latin, then your next question should be why was it kept in a dead language for so long if not to keep the bible out of the hands of the common man?

[Image: de4aqe8a.jpg]

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
25-02-2014, 02:46 PM
RE: Which version of Christianity is the right one?
(25-02-2014 02:10 PM)Drich Wrote:  I have posted links to the defination the no true scots man fallacy and demonstrated it's meaning.
Short example being that the no true Scots man can not be used as a blanket response against anyone identifying a non-christian as such simply because the accused says He is a Christian. why? Because there are conditions and a list of prerequsites one must do inorder to be a Christian.

In every case this has been brought up i have pointed out the NTSM fallacy only works when there is not actual rules on being a scotsman. Which is not the case with Christianity.

No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim

The reason it does not apply is because being a Christian is NOT a Universal Claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

If you say:
Do X and Y will happen,
And then hear the response,
I did X and Y didn't happen,
and then in turn respond,
You didn't X right,

That is fallacious. You do not understand this. It is a problem.

(25-02-2014 02:10 PM)Drich Wrote:  I further this point by also point out there are 1/2 dozen known but lost cities (Brick and mortar buildings) who lasted for decades if not hundreds of years in that very same desert who played host to hundreds of thousands if not millions of people for which there is not a trace except for well recognized and accepted historical writtings. Then somehow magically it your faith in the archeologist who say their should be tons of evidence just inches under the sand of a protracted camping trip that took place 4000+ years ago?

I see you failed to mention any of this.. Where is your explaination of defense of these lost cities, and the complete lack of evidence there??

No, you asserted that it was possible for no evidence to remain or be known. Notwithstanding that the millions of people referred to in the narrative would have been more than lived in any contemporary city by orders of magnitude.

You did not, at any time, enumerate any cities which we both know of and yet have no evidence of.

This is a wholly relevant distinction, which I can only assume you ignore on purpose.

Also notwithstanding that it took place much less than 4000 years ago, according to any literalist interpretation. Which only goes to show, you don't even know your own source material.

(25-02-2014 02:10 PM)Drich Wrote:  Then why did you ask what the reason was for the dictionary definations that held you accountable to a given standard and removed the logical fallacy from your arsnel?

Lest you mean you are familiar with it because that is a known and expected tactic of an atheist when ever on the ropes.

Careful, your projection is showing.

(25-02-2014 02:10 PM)Drich Wrote:  
Quote:Part of a discussion is establishing terminology. "LOL DICTIONARY" is neither a sophisticated nor sufficient way of doing so - but it is a recourse beloved by idiots.
Laugh out load
Exerting Peer pressure to ignore the rules when they do not benfit YOU is the recourse of an idiot. Or Rather it is a desperate attempt to regain control of a conversation one happens to be loosing. by hoping that the one you are speaking with is indeed an idiot, and will run from the standard that is keeping you from your beloved fallacy.

Are you perhaps under the delusion that any of us can't answer the hackneyed foolery you spout?

You are making a fool of yourself in front of actual Christians.

Which terms were under dispute? I made no comment on earlier semantics other than to point out that "lol dictionary" is a braindead and facetious response.

(25-02-2014 02:10 PM)Drich Wrote:  
Quote:Are you referring to me specifically? If so, I dispute the ludicrous accusation and challenge you to demonstrate any such thing.
Oh, I did.
I said you exerting peer pressure to abandon the dictionary's defined terms as a guidline to establish a base line for a set of given terms, is an attempt to remain in ignorance.

Whoa there, my special friend. I remind you that I made no comment as to the specifics of the semantics you were hung up on.

So, fail on that citation.

(25-02-2014 02:10 PM)Drich Wrote:  You would rather this conversation remain on your terms using your definations (not the actual ones) Which is an intentional turn from Knoweledge, and a demand to embrace your specific brand of ignorance.

Because You know your arguement will not hold up to the scrunity of properly defined words, you must remain in the ignorance that your arguement was based on by shunning knoweledge and the definations provided by a soceital standard such as the dictionary. It is your hope/plea that I not hold you to this standard by calling me names for using it, hence the 'peer pressure' i mentioned.

This appears to describe a fantasy scenario which occurred only within your mind.

I remind you that I made no comment as to the specifics of the semantics you were hung up on. Please try to keep track of who said what to you, okay?

(25-02-2014 02:10 PM)Drich Wrote:  
Quote:Since I never in any way made any such claim (to wit - "more documented means a longer Wikipedia page") this appears to be a pathetic shambling straw man.
I made a very speicific charge. (That no one is more documented in the time he lived than Christ. That to doubt Christ is to doubt everyone else.) This is challenge concerning orginal documentation. Not a call for modern documentation.
Your use of the wikipage says to me you do not understand what is being discussed.
As you seem to need some help down off your high horse i offered this branch.

Once again this appears to be a scenario which only occurred in your mind.

(25-02-2014 02:10 PM)Drich Wrote:  
Quote:I merely linked to the Wikipedia page out of convenience, since if one takes your statement at face value it necessarily follows that you were somehow unaware of the existence of Augustus Caeasar. So I decided to point you in a direction which might cure your benighted ignorance.
What makes you think i do not know who augustus was?

Bro, do you even read what you're responding to?

I literally just explained it.

(but protip: it's a joke)

(25-02-2014 02:10 PM)Drich Wrote:  
Quote:It also inclines me to believe that since you can't dispute that historical documentation regarding the life and deeds of Augustus Caesar is far and away more voluminous and reliable, you instead chose to pretend to counter an idiotic statement which nobody ever made. Stay classy!
How did you come to this conclusion? My orginal intention was to discuss the orginal documentation of any first century figure by comparing any orginal avaiable documentation. again my assertion stands. There is not a first century figure documented more than Christ. To doubt his existance is to doubt the existance of everyone who has come after Him.

And I responded that the existence of Augustus Caesar was by far better attested than Jesus. Are you seriously attempting to argue to the contrary?

(25-02-2014 02:10 PM)Drich Wrote:  
Quote:Then you are profoundly and obstinately ignorant. Is it genuine? Are you really so far up your own asshole? Or is it merely acted out, because you desire to be so far up your own asshole?

The dilemma of the troll: idiot, or disingenuous?

But for future reference: Cicero? Livy? Maecenas? Suetonius? Tacitus? Pliny? All far less contradictory sources than the gospels, as it happens. Or perhaps we might consider the still-extant statues and coins bearing his likeness and dating from his own lifetime? The still-extant monuments and temples and inscriptions?
Your delusional if you think there was not some serious roman propaganda being written about those people you mention back then on the temples and in 'other' official documenataion.

Not written about the people I mentioned. Written by the people I mentioned.

But thanks for proving your complete ignorance?

(25-02-2014 02:10 PM)Drich Wrote:  Which puts what is known on the suspect list. why? because we do not have (in most cases) supplimentry material to compare what is currently known. we simply had the state view of these figure heads.

Your original claim as as regards documentation of existence.

Since even you, in this very post, implicitly accept the evidence of existence of Augustus, let alone the others mentioned...

(25-02-2014 02:10 PM)Drich Wrote:  Put it this way. Say in 3000 years someone digs up the plaque that hung on Hitler's headquarters. The one that describes who he was his great effort to ride his people of the plage of the jews, and the intended 1000 year reich, but had nothing else to go on.

What would that future soceity have to say about aldolf? What ever the plaque said.

And if there were no corroborating sources (did somebody say Gospels?) then it would not be taken at face value.

Do you know how historiography works?

Your example appears to be irrelevant. It certainly does not make any point of note.

(25-02-2014 02:10 PM)Drich Wrote:  When all that is known of a historical figure or even people is from a single source (like Roman govermental propaganda) then everything said is suspect.

On the other hand there are 5600 different sources describing the same bible, the same Jesus.

No. The number of surviving copies of a work have literally nothing to do with its historical reliability.

I said this earlier, and you apparently completely ignored it. So why not repeat myself?

The number of surviving copies of a historical work have literally nothing to do with its historical reliability.

(25-02-2014 02:10 PM)Drich Wrote:  Dude. You've provided nothing concerning the primary source material this conversation demands for you to make such an assertion.

I provided the names of multiple historical authors. In what universe does that not count as source material?

(yours, I guess - what colour is the sky, there?)

All you have said is that there are lots of copies of the Bible, which proves nothing other than that several centuries later those texts were preserved at the expense of all other contemporary literature. It is by no means related to historical reliability.

(25-02-2014 02:10 PM)Drich Wrote:  you have been and continue to point to tertiary source material as some revelant way of defeating this arguement.

This appears to refer to something which never occurred outside your mind.

(25-02-2014 02:10 PM)Drich Wrote:  Maybe you do not honestly understand the term... See this is what a good dictionary does for you. But you know that and choose to remain in ignorance anyway, so as to keep using the same broken arguements over and over again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary_source

again when you find some apples (primary source material not the crap you keep pointing to and pretending it means something) let me know.Drinking Beverage

I reiterate: the writings of Cicero. The writings of Pliny. The writings of Livy. The writings of Horace. The writings of Tacitus. The writings of Suetonius.

Those are all primary sources. And also - y'know - the coins with his face on them.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
25-02-2014, 03:13 PM
RE: Which version of Christianity is the right one?
(24-02-2014 12:15 AM)Drich Wrote:  If you have not been following any of my post to this point, then maybe you do not know I do not represent any specific domination or even a non denominational church. What I am representing is biblical Christianity. Meaning what I am writing about has been modeled in the bible, and if any of you wish to see book chapter and verse then ask for it. as i have been told not to "preach" unsolicited sermons.

That said I turn my attention to the question why there are so many sects of Christianity?

My response is there has always been. If you look at how the bible was compiled and written, more over the NT. you will see it is divided into the 4 gospel accounts (the stories of Christ) the book of Acts, which is the general establishment of the Church and the introduction of the Apostle Paul. Then we have the different letters or books to the different Churches or the first centuries equivalent of the different denominations of the church. The letters to the church at Corinth, Rome, Galatia, Ephesus, The letter to the Former Hebrew worshipers, all represented different denominational forms of worship. This is made evident in the letters themselves in how the various authors addressed the various forms of worship. God through the Apostles never set up a singular form of worship as He did with the Jews.

If God wanted us to adopt all of the ceremonies traditions and rules that most of you think of whenever Christianity is mentioned. He would have given to us. Christianity Biblical Christianity is about freedom from religion. The works found in the books of the NT attest to this fact. Paul Spends most of his time shooting down all of the different religious "have to's" the different churches and church leaders were making for themselves.

Christ told us (and this sentiment is also echoed by Paul) The whole of the law hangs on two commands. To Love our Lord God with all of our being,(Heart/ with all of your feeling, Mind/with all of your academic ability, Spirit/with all of your will and Strength/physical effort) and to love our neighbor as ourselves.

That is it. Those are the governing terms of Biblical Christian worship. Subsequently that is why there are so many different sects of Christianity as well. Because all of us are a little different and we have different strength, our adherence to our greatest command would have us worship alittle differently to meet our indivisual strengths. Honestly I do not even think this is a conscience effort for most, we just naturally want to do our best for God.

For instance a charismatic man would waste away his gifts in a strictly academic church or setting. and vise versa an academic would not be worshiping God with all of His abilities if he were to worship in a jump up and down charismatic setting.

Christ freed us from a singular rule driven worship and ceremonies type of service, unless this is the type of thing we need. "For what you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven, and what you loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven." Meaning for the one who seeks to worship Christ with all of his being his efforts are only bound by His heart.

Obviously one has to reconcile that with what has been written to regulate the church (the have to's for the most part) but outside of where the bible speaks you are free to worship how you see fit. Apparently there about 35,000 different combinations (give or take) of sanctified (Christ centered forms of fellowship.) where like minded believers come together to worship God with all of their being.

Someone asked which one is the correct one? the answer is none are on their own merit, yet all are under the atonement offered by Christ.
How is this possible? The same atonement that is offered when one willfully sins is also offered in abundance when one gives all of His heart, Mind, Spirit and Strength to God. Even if all that he has to offer falls short of another's standard.

The tricky thing here is not to talk yourself into lowering your "all in standard" to suit your current life style, lest you think God a fool or bound by loop holes you have created for yourself.

tl;dr

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: