Prove there's a god.

Since: Jan 12

Memphis, TN

#675491 Nov 24, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I think you misunderstood me. I meant if we accept the christian god as described in the bible (omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient), then free will cannot exist. Therefore, either free will exists and your god is not able or not willing to prevent bad things (and he is therefore not a god as such or he is evil), or your god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent - and free will doesn't exist.
Butting in here...it doesn't mean that free will couldn't exist if God had these 3 traits. Folks have a choice which the outcome may already be known. I remember earlier U said sum' about out of all possibilities it would still lead to 1 outcome...which DOES make sense but just because God could "calculate" every possible human behavior and interactions with one another according to each own's path through life doesn't mean that free will isn't in play. If we really look at it, if there was really a such thing as free will, then this should be a world without divine intervention...God shouldn't protect anyone, lead one on a certain path, stop anything from happening, make anything happen, save anyone's life, heal sick people, get U that job U've been wanting, answer prayers, etc....if free will exists, then we all should be left to our OWN choices without intervention which is opposite of what is being taught in the churches today. So after that being said, I see why there is confusion between people and alot of 'em stray away from all of this shit altogether!!

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#675492 Nov 24, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
OK Dave, put them into context and show us how the meaning has been changed.
"...none of you can be my disciple unless he gives up everything he has" Luke 14:33
"If you want to be perfect, go and sell all you have and give the money to the poor and you will have riches in heaven" Matt. 19:21
"Sell your possessions and give alms" Luke 12:33
"But give what is in your cups and plates to the poor, and everything will be clean for you" Luke 11:41
"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt,.... But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.... for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" Matt. 6:19-21
"How hardly shall they that have riches enter to the kingdom of God" Mark 10:23
"Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matt. 19:23-24
A certain ruler told Jesus that he had obeyed all the commandments from his youth up. But, Jesus said, "Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me" Luke 18:22, Mark 10:21
It's called your putting your total trust in God now, and not at the last moment.

Breaking the bonds of dependence on men and their social systems for "life". You embark on a new adventure.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#675493 Nov 24, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Ahem...the reason you've heard of native Americans trading land for beads and liquor, etc., for land is because they did not have a concept of land as an "owned" thing. There were a few Europeans who tried to teach them the idea of ownership but it didn't "take" well with the first transactions and that is why the deals seem so ludicrous to us; beads for land, indeed. Most native Americans were nomads and were not tied/bound to any one particular area like the white Europeans were. The teepee was there home, not the acre it sat on. Most natives followed the game animals in their seasonal migrations and owning the land made about as much sense to them as it would if the white colonists had claimed ownership of the moon or sun. It was definitely a case of culture shock between the competing races of that time.
It's obvious that God had nothing to do with the conflicts between natives and invaders but I suspect there isn't a native American alive today who would jump at the chance to give up the way of life they have now and choose to live the way their ancestors did; in caves and teepees, devoid of fat bank accounts fed by casino money.
Actually they weren't that nomadic. Not until they got horses and got pushed out by other tribes onto the Plains. Most were agricultural.

There was a lot of prairie they couldn't transverse because of the grass being so high and distance.

In that link to the Iroquois I posted they sold land to the British they conquered from other tribes.

The Iroquois, Cherokee. Pueblo, Mississippian, and other large groups were pretty established. And fighting each other over territory.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#675494 Nov 24, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>You're just being silly. For one, you make a claim you can't back up, then try to shift the burden of proof for your claim on to me, and then you try to distract from your baseless claim after you're called out. If you don't think you have an obligation to support your claims, don't share them in a debate. Very simple. Share them with people who won't question them and will thank you for reinforcing their beliefs with muck. You won't have to look too far.
And then you insinuate that I spend too much time on here? Again, you have 5 times my post count. I don't even know why you feel this is relevant, both of us are free to spend our free time how we like.
I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse but this is the last time I'm going to explain what should have been an easy point to understand.

I don't care how many posts you have or how much time you spend on here in general. The reason I pointed out that the time you do spend is pretty much all on Christianity is because you have seemingly lost all sense of priority. Perhaps for you it is a priority to spend hours searching and posting reference points to someone you know will find a way to try to discredit them anyway. For me it is not. Proving something to you means nothing to me. I feel zero burden to back anything up. I made a post. You can take it at face or leave it. You can research it independently if you wish. I don't care whether you accept it or not. Especially since its relevance to proving the point isn't even required. If you still don't get that then I will just leave it at that.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#675495 Nov 24, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>But you only have to take them in context when it conflicts with your notions about the world. You can't imagine jesus *really meant* for you to live like a vagrant, but you sure can believe that homosexuals are an abomination.
Isn't that the truth. If it applies to Dave then Jesus was only speaking to those 2,000 years ago but when it applies to people Dave is afraid of for reasons we all understand quite clearly, it applies to everyone always and forever. What Dave practices can only be described as selective morality; what he likes he practices, what he doesn't like he ignores while one is no less binding than another.

One of the clearest expressions of selective morality by biblicists is shown in their approach to the Old Testament. They leap in and out of the Old Law like a porpoise in a ship's wake. If they like it, they quote it; if they don't, they won't. Among the scores of verses they enjoy and employ are those which teach the following:

•(a) Contact with mediums or wizards is forbidden ("Do not turn to mediums or wizards; do not seek them out to be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God"--Lev. 19:31 RSV, see also:Lev. 20:6, Deut. 18:10-12);
•(b) Infanticide is prohibited ("...for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods"--Deut. 12:31, see also: Lev. 18:21);
•(c) Neither sex should wear the other's clothing ("The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God"--Deut. 22:5);
•(d) People are not to worship celestial bodies ("And beware lest you lift up your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and worship them and serve them...."--Deut. 4:19 RSV);
•(e) People should give one-tenth of their income to the Lord, which biblicists equate with church ("And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord's...And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord"--Lev. 27:30-32);
•(f) Homosexuality is corrupt ("Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with woman: it is abomination"--Lev. 18:22, see also Lev. 20:13 and Gen. 19:5;
•(g) Tattoos are anathema ("You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh on account of the dead or tattoo any marks upon you. I am the Lord"--Lev. 19:28;
•(h) Killers must be executed ("Who sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man"--Gen. 9:6, see also Num. 35:30-33, Ex. 21:12).

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#675496 Nov 24, 2013
What about the O.T. laws that are conveniently ignored, but of equal weight? Biblicists act as if many did not exist. The following examples are typical:

Money cannot be lent at interest to your brother, only to foreigners (Deut. 23:19-20);
Eating pork is forbidden (Deut. 14:8);
A man must marry and have relations with his dead brother's wife (Deut. 25:5-6);
A seducer must marry an unengaged virgin whom he seduces (Ex. 22:16-17);
A raped, unengaged virgin must marry her rapist and they can never divorce (Deut. 22:28-29);
Trials for adultery are to be by ordeal (Num. 5:28-29);
Eating rare meat with blood is forbidden (Lev. 19:26);
Beards can't be rounded (Lev. 19:27);
A newly married man can't go to war or be charged with business for one year (Deut. 24:5);
A guilty man can be beaten with as many as forty blows (Deut. 25:1-3);
A garment composed of wool and linen can't be worn (Deut. 22:11);
Punishment shall be administered on the basis of an eye for an eye (Deut. 19:21, Ex. 21:24);
One's nation can lend to other nations but not borrow from them (Deut. 15:6);
Bastards can't enter the Lord's congregation (Deut. 23:2);
First-born children should sometimes be sacrificed to the Lord (Ex. 22:29); and
Debtor brothers shall be released from their obligation every seven years (Deut. 15:1-3).

All of these rules are part of the Old Covenant and of equal import. Why quote the Ten Commandments and rules against homosexuality, for example, while ignoring other tenets? A believer's obligations to one is no less than his obligation to all. In fact, if under the New Covenant Christians have stepped into the shoes of the Israelites and become, in effect, the new Chosen People, then they should inherit all the privileges and duties of that office. They seem to want the former but not the latter. Jesus said the Old Law would stand until heaven and earth passed away. Not one jot or tittle was to be changed until all was fulfilled (Matt. 5:18-19 RSV). Paul disagreed, but, then, this is not the only topic upon which they clashed.

Apologist have also tended to ignore or minimize the Old Law's support for slavery and the subordination of women and failed to follow the Sabbath.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#675497 Nov 24, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>If he meant you can get into heaven while living a life of material comforts as long as you set aside time for spirituality, he should have said that. You are assigning your own interpretation to his words when his actual message doesn't have much wiggle room.
Nicely said and exactly right! Al Garcia is only willing to do what Al Garcia wants and who cares what Jesus wants.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#675498 Nov 24, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>You are leaving out several important points.
1)God would not simply "peek" into the future - he would know what is happening everywhere at every possible moment.
2) Not only would he know every outcome (and every possible outcome for that matter), he would *have the ability to change it.* That is the important part.
3) By virtue of his omnipotence and omnipresence, as soon as the universe was set into motion (or even before), god knew *everything* that would ever happen, and because he has the ability to change everything, that means all events necessarily transpire according to his will.
So, if I had the ability to know someone I loved dearly (as god does us according to your mythology) was going make a bad choice and be tortured for eternity, and I could, with a snap of my fingers, prevent this from happening, what would it mean if I allowed them to be tortured?
It would mean that I wanted it to happen, or at least consented to it. It would mean that I am quite evil. It would also mean that they never really had any choice in the matter at all, only the illusion of it.
I told you I'm not debating free-will. But because this is slightly different I will answer but not if its going to revert back to what ifwe don't have free-will If we presume for the sake of the debate that man has free-will then I will go from that premise.

For God to prevent things from happening would mean taking away the free-will of someone else. And if He was going to do that He would never give us free-will to begin with. It is self-defeating to do so and then step in to play people like marionette puppets.

Besides, you might as well complain "well I decided to murder someone because they stole my girlfriend from me but it is really God's fault because he could have taken over my mind and stopped me from doing it"

Personal responsibility

Personal accountability

Consequences for actions

These are all pretty standard things. Don't look to pass the buck.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#675499 Nov 24, 2013
OMGSTFU wrote:
This girl's been missing for 10 years. No one knows what happened to her. Proof that there's no god:
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T9GIM9V...
Isn't it interesting how all of the proof is against the existence of God and still the simple minded pew warmers continue to insist that their silly beliefs are real.

One's nation can lend to other nations but not borrow from them (Deut. 15:6);

Proof the USA is NOT a Christian nation, if America was a Christian nation it would not have borrowed 363,000,000,000 from China.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#675500 Nov 24, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>What a surprise, I talk about religion in a "prove there's a god" thread. This is going to blow your mind - if more muslims were here, that's what I'd be talking about. Religious people serve as foils, I don't have any particular preference.
Don't pretend like most of your Topix existence isn't om threads talking about Christianity

You didn't end up on this thread by chance. You are an atheist that I personally have seen in at least 4 rooms doing nothing but talking about Christianity

Can you point me to a single room you post in where a majority of your posts aren't about Christianity or religion? So lets not play games. But like I said, I don't care except when it causes you to have expectations of me that aren't going to happen.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#675501 Nov 24, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Let’s go back to the beginning of all of this.
Picture Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (assuming that they existed, but we know they didn't) and about to eat of the fruit of the ‘knowledge tree.’ God, because of His omniscience, already knows this is going to happen….knows they WILL consume the fruit and freak out about their nakedness.
Now God also knows, because of His omniscience, that although the Hebrew’s don’t mention it for 4,000 years, Paul will invent ‘Original Sin’ and posit that this sin applies to all mankind….this in spite of the fact that the Bible says several times that the sons DO NOT inherit the sins of the fathers (however in other verses it says they do).
Now right off the bat we are confronted with a dilemma….God knows without a doubt that Adam and Eve are going to eat of the fruit….He knows that Paul will invent ‘Original Sin’ 4000 years later. All of this happens, as God would have foresaw it, and it totally contradicts human ‘Free Will.’
This is just one small example of the lack of logic and the contradictory nature of the stories in ‘Gods Handbook’, the Bible. We both DO and DO NOT have free will and there seems to be no resolution.
I just love this little riff on the incomprehensible logic of the Jesus is God dogma.
“The belief that a walking dead Jewish deity who was his own father although he always existed, commits suicide by cop, although he didn't stay dead, in order to give himself permission not to send you to an eternal place of torture that he created for you, but instead to let you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh, drink his blood, and telepathically promise him you accept him as your master, so he can cleanse you of an evil force that is present in mankind because a rib-woman and a mud-man were convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree, which he knew they would do to begin with.”-- Anon.
First of all, nobody even know if God can see the entire future. He clearly knows things that involve prophesy. But whether even God knows all the future or some of it or simply doesn't look into it because he let's things take their natural course is something we can't know. And please don't point to a man-made definition of omnipotent because the idea of man defining what God knows is absurd.

But does God even know the entire future? Or maybe someone has to exist before there is a future to be known? Because we see here he did not know what would happen in the garden:

Genesis 6:5-6
"Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart."

At the same time, I believe the book of Genesis to be metaphorical so trying to apply a literal conclusion to it simply isn't practical. Adam And Eve is a story meant to explain the consequences of disobedience and the nature of sin.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#675502 Nov 24, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>So for a believer to drink poison to put God to the test is not something we can do.
Irrelevant! We are putting the Bible to the test not God and you know it. Your apologetic dishonesty is pathetic. You are the reason I do not like KKKrist-insanity-ists.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#675503 Nov 24, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not going to dance "the version hop" with any of you apologists.
Genesis 22:1 ("And it came to pass after these things that God did tempt Abraham....")
versus
James 1:13 ("For God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man")
Here is something, maybe, more to your liking:
John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time;..."
Exodus 33:20, And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
John 6:46 "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father."
1 John 4:12 "No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us."
Versus
Gen. 32:30 "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."
Exod. 33:11 "And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."
Num. 14:14 "...that thou LORD art seen face to face,..."
Job 42:5 "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee."
Deut. 34:10 "And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,..."
Deut. 5:4 "The LORD talked with you face to face...."
The difference between tempt and test was a minor point in building up to the illustration in the verses that showed the difference to you

You edited my post because of that.

You posted a verse in James trying to show that testing Abraham's faith was a contradiction because in James it says God will not tempt man to do evil.

I explained to you there is a difference between testing a man's faith and tempting him to do evil. I proved that point to you by showing you the verse directly before the one you quoted in James that said we will be tested and go thru trials.

So to disregard all that I claim it some playing the version hop is simply not honest. I only showed that to you to help you better understand how it is being used but backed that up with scripture directly on point that shows we can be tested and there is a difference between having faith tested and being tempted to do evil

I saw a second post of mine where you stopped halfway into the first sentence and changed the subject. If you don't want to address the answers given to you because you don't like that it discredits attacks you want to use on the Bible that is your choice. But I would ask that when replying to my posts you have the integrity not to edit what I said. Some people I can trust to sometimes take a portion of a post to deal with something specific. Here I can see that won't be the case. So please have my entire post in any reply. Thank you

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#675504 Nov 24, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think believers are literally being told to cut off their hands and pluck out their eyes or cut off their foot? No. The message is do away with the parts of ourselves that cause us to sin.
You offer proof that the Bible was not inspired by a perfect being. Had the Bible been written by this God you allege to exist you would not have to ask these kinds of questions, you would know, everyone would know. It would be clear and everyone would understand it objectively instead of like now subjectively.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#675505 Nov 24, 2013
Al Garcia wrote:
<quoted text>
Please refer to Skom's post as he said it quite well about not being able to serve two Gods . It's really about illustrating priorities in their lives.
His apologetic fails on so many points Al that it is close to impossible to cover them all.

(1) Jesus--"Go not into the way of the Gentiles" (Matt. 10:5) and "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 15:24), and "...for salvation is of the Jews" (John 4:22) versus Paul--"For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, I have set you to be a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the uttermost parts of the earth" (Acts 13:47) and "from henceforth, I (Paul) will go unto the Gentiles" (Acts 18:6) and "that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it" (Acts 28:28) and "that I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles" (Rom. 15:16) and "that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ" (Eph. 3:8) and (Acts 20:21, 26:17-18, 20, 23, 22:21, Rom. 1:5, 13, 3:29, 11:11-13, 15:9, Gal. 2:2, 7-9, 3:14, Eph. 3:6, 1 Tim. 2:7, 3:16, 2 Tim. 4:17). Jesus told his followers not to go to the Gentiles and Paul countermanded the order.

(2) Jesus--"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven...." (Matt. 5:17-19) and "it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fall" (Luke 16:17) and "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do" (Matt. 23:2-3) and (John 7:19, Mark 1:44) versus Paul--"Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ" (Rom. 7:4) and "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law" (Gal. 3:13) and "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace" (Rom. 6:14) and "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter" (Rom. 7:6) and (Rom. 10:4, 3:28, Gal. 3:23-25, 5:2-4, 18, 2:19, 21, 16, 4:10, Eph. 2:15, Col. 2:14, 16, Heb. 7:19, 1 Cor. 8:8 and many others). Jesus said the law would stand till heaven and earth passed, while Paul said it need no longer be followed.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#675506 Nov 24, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, nobody even know if God can see the entire future. He clearly knows things that involve prophesy. But whether even God knows all the future or some of it or simply doesn't look into it because he let's things take their natural course is something we can't know. And please don't point to a man-made definition of omnipotent because the idea of man defining what God knows is absurd.
But does God even know the entire future? Or maybe someone has to exist before there is a future to be known? Because we see here he did not know what would happen in the garden:
Genesis 6:5-6
"Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart."
At the same time, I believe the book of Genesis to be metaphorical so trying to apply a literal conclusion to it simply isn't practical. Adam And Eve is a story meant to explain the consequences of disobedience and the nature of sin.
First of all, prove there's a god to even know the entire future.
But..
You have reverted to what men are supposed know from prophesy not what god knows , who is omniscience knowing past present and future from beginning to end already.
The truth of it is god was an invention of the human mind.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#675507 Nov 24, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
You may need to go back and read my post again
If you have read one apologetic you quickly learn that none of them are worth reading.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#675508 Nov 24, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference between tempt and test was a minor point in building up to the illustration in the verses that showed the difference to you
You edited my post because of that.
You posted a verse in James trying to show that testing Abraham's faith was a contradiction because in James it says God will not tempt man to do evil.
I explained to you there is a difference between testing a man's faith and tempting him to do evil. I proved that point to you by showing you the verse directly before the one you quoted in James that said we will be tested and go thru trials.
So to disregard all that I claim it some playing the version hop is simply not honest. I only showed that to you to help you better understand how it is being used but backed that up with scripture directly on point that shows we can be tested and there is a difference between having faith tested and being tempted to do evil
I saw a second post of mine where you stopped halfway into the first sentence and changed the subject. If you don't want to address the answers given to you because you don't like that it discredits attacks you want to use on the Bible that is your choice. But I would ask that when replying to my posts you have the integrity not to edit what I said. Some people I can trust to sometimes take a portion of a post to deal with something specific. Here I can see that won't be the case. So please have my entire post in any reply. Thank you
If satan temps man to do evil, and god created satan.

Then god temps man to do evil.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#675509 Nov 24, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
And the message is
We do not need you to tell us what the message is, especially when you are a con-artist. We can read it for ourselves.

"...none of you can be my disciple unless he gives up everything he has" Luke 14:33
"If you want to be perfect, go and sell all you have and give the money to the poor and you will have riches in heaven" Matt. 19:21
"Sell your possessions and give alms" Luke 12:33
"But give what is in your cups and plates to the poor, and everything will be clean for you" Luke 11:41
"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt,.... But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.... for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" Matt. 6:19-21
"How hardly shall they that have riches enter to the kingdom of God" Mark 10:23
"Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matt. 19:23-24
A certain ruler told Jesus that he had obeyed all the commandments from his youth up. But, Jesus said, "Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me" Luke 18:22, Mark 10:21

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#675510 Nov 24, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, prove there's a god to even know the entire future.
But..
.
No

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min Michael 649,928
Any girls wanna sex Skype? (Jan '13) 5 min Williamhoodlms 139
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 7 min Buck Crick 55,773
Poll Is the price is right fixed for blacks? (Jun '12) 42 min boo drew 146
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 1 hr New Age Spiritual... 445,888
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 1 hr Toby 106,060
bambam 1 hr brandy trujillo 5
my cousin touches me when i am asleep and i kin... (Mar '14) 10 hr Jesus 47
More from around the web