Did Messiah say to hate our father and mother? Well, maybe not...

Ken Rank · Mar 22, 2017

God said, "Jacob I loved and Esau I hated." Jacob said, "Rachel I loved and Leah I hated." And Yeshua (Jesus) said, "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple."

Sure sounds like a lot of hating going on! But there is no hate here... this is an expression, it is idiomatic.... a word being used in a manner in which one might place more weight on one over another. You could even say it this way, "I loved Rachel more." In the last example, Yeshua is certainly not saying to hate our family... after all, loving neighbor (all people) and even our enemy would fly in contrast to this. What he is saying is simply to place more weight on God over all else. The cost of being a disciple begins with placing more weight on God than anything else in your life. "God I love but my wife I hate," does not mean I hate my precious wife... His gift to me if you will. It just means He comes before she does.

juvenissun · Mar 23, 2017

Ken Rank said:
God said, "Jacob I loved and Esau I hated." Jacob said, "Rachel I loved and Leah I hated." And Yeshua (Jesus) said, "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple."

Sure sounds like a lot of hating going on! But there is no hate here... this is an expression, it is idiomatic.... a word being used in a manner in which one might place more weight on one over another. You could even say it this way, "I loved Rachel more." In the last example, Yeshua is certainly not saying to hate our family... after all, loving neighbor (all people) and even our enemy would fly in contrast to this. What he is saying is simply to place more weight on God over all else. The cost of being a disciple begins with placing more weight on God than anything else in your life. "God I love but my wife I hate," does not mean I hate my precious wife... His gift to me if you will. It just means He comes before she does.

Hate, sounds un-Christian, but is a godly emotion in Christianity. God does have enemies and they are hate-worthy. Unbelievers, in fact, "hate" God, no matter if they feel so or not. This is the only situation the word "hate" should be used in these Bible verses.

How should we "hate" our parents? We "do not like" their attitude toward God and should express so to them when the situation is proper. This is the only exception to the broad teaching that we should "obey" our parents. If they asked us to do anything against God, we should "hate" it.

Ken Rank · Mar 23, 2017

juvenissun said:
Hate, sounds un-Christian, but is a godly emotion in Christianity. God does have enemies and they are hate-worthy. Unbelievers, in fact, "hate" God, no matter if they feel so or not. This is the only situation the word "hate" should be used in these Bible verses.

How should we "hate" our parents? We "do not like" their attitude toward God and should express so to them when the situation is proper. This is the only exception to the broad teaching that we should "obey" our parents. If they asked us to do anything against God, we should "hate" it.

I think that is just it, we don't "hate" anyone. If we serve a God of love whose has two commandments that sum up all the rest (love Him and neighbor, including out enemy) than hating people is something we probably need to avoid.

My point here is that Scripture is literal but it often uses abstract language to make points. For example, if scripture says, "God is a rock," does that mean I can go out into my stone driveway and pick up God? What about Paul calling himself a "drink offering?" Is he a liquid?

Hate means utter contempt in English, complete disgust. But in Hebrew it is used often, idiomatically, as meaning, "to love less." God didn't HATE Esau, God not only have him life He sent His son to die for Esau!

The "hate parents" point is merely Yeshua revealing the spirit behind the first commandment. Remember how he revealed the spirit (intent) behind the letter in dealing with adultery? To even lust in the heart was like doing the deed? The being willing to "hate parents" is simply him revealing the need to make God first... to love Him more than anyone else.

TLK Valentine · Mar 28, 2017

I think of it in terms of Matthew 10:34-37 -- Jesus was savvy enough to know that his message was going to cause a stir in the community, and more than a few arguments around the ol' dinner table. Anyone willing to deny him just to avoid an awkward family gathering obviously wouldn't be counted as a true believer...

Then, as now, religion and politics are the topics guaranteed to lose a few friends and cause a few spats... and in Jesus' time, they were joined at the hip.

HitchSlap · Apr 5, 2017

Ken Rank said:
God said, "Jacob I loved and Esau I hated." Jacob said, "Rachel I loved and Leah I hated." And Yeshua (Jesus) said, "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple."

Sure sounds like a lot of hating going on! But there is no hate here... this is an expression, it is idiomatic.... a word being used in a manner in which one might place more weight on one over another. You could even say it this way, "I loved Rachel more." In the last example, Yeshua is certainly not saying to hate our family... after all, loving neighbor (all people) and even our enemy would fly in contrast to this. What he is saying is simply to place more weight on God over all else. The cost of being a disciple begins with placing more weight on God than anything else in your life. "God I love but my wife I hate," does not mean I hate my precious wife... His gift to me if you will. It just means He comes before she does.

How did god show his not real hatred of Esau?

Ken Rank · Apr 5, 2017

HitchSlap said:
How did god show his not real hatred of Esau?

I don't know... do you have an example? I know this... in Hebrew the word for hate also means "to love less." Since God so loved the world that He sent His only son to save ALL PEOPLE... and seeing that the two main commandments are loving God and neighbor... then to think that God hates a man because that man made a poor choice does not, in my opinion, present God in a very favorable light.

HitchSlap · Apr 5, 2017

Ken Rank said:
I don't know... do you have an example? I know this... in Hebrew the word for hate also means "to love less." Since God so loved the world that He sent His only son to save ALL PEOPLE... and seeing that the two main commandments are loving God and neighbor... then to think that God hates a man because that man made a poor choice does not, in my opinion, present God in a very favorable light.

I'm referring to the Malachi passage where god states he's hates Esau, and will lay waste to his inheritance.

Ken Rank · Apr 5, 2017

HitchSlap said:
I'm referring to the Malachi passage where god states he's hates Esau, and will lay waste to his inheritance.

I understand and thanks for clarifying. This is tough because if we just read it as it is written without taking anything else into consideration, it sure looks like Esau is hated by God. But for the reasons I shared earlier, I really don't think that is the case. God can be upset or mad... have anger with one but still love them and extend mercy to them. Nobody deserves mercy and Esau by no means blasphemed the Holy Spirit so the idea that God "hated" Esau, to a degree that he was un-salvageable, I think, is imposing our modern understanding of the word hate over and above anancient near east concept. Jacob didn't hate Leah, he loved Rachel more. Likewise, God did not hate Esau, He loved Jacob more. God does not hate as we define the word...

HitchSlap · Apr 5, 2017

Ken Rank said:
I understand and thanks for clarifying. This is tough because if we just read it as it is written without taking anything else into consideration, it sure looks like Esau is hated by God. But for the reasons I shared earlier, I really don't think that is the case. God can be upset or mad... have anger with one but still love them and extend mercy to them. Nobody deserves mercy and Esau by no means blasphemed the Holy Spirit so the idea that God "hated" Esau, to a degree that he was un-salvageable, I think, is imposing our modern understanding of the word hate over and above anancient near east concept. Jacob didn't hate Leah, he loved Rachel more. Likewise, God did not hate Esau, He loved Jacob more. God does not hate as we define the word...

Would you feel loved by god, if he laid waste to your inheritance?

Ken Rank · Apr 5, 2017

HitchSlap said:
Would you feel loved by god, if he laid waste to your inheritance?

I don't know if you are sincere or seeking to undermine my faith. The latter can't happen, there is nothing you can share that will cause an insecurity at all. But, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are asking sincerely. So, to answer your question I would first suggest not ignoring or weighing in my points. You see the word "hate" and have a definition that works in modern English but does not not work in the ancient near east. In addition.... the inheritance in question is land... not salvation. Disobedience comes with a price but that price doesn't always... in fact probably rarely, is dealing with eternal issues. The sad reality is, Christianity is geared completely around the idea of "being saved" in an eternal sense. Salvation is important and a large part of Yeshua's work... but it is by no means all his work was designed to address.

So "No" is my answer to your question.

HitchSlap · Apr 5, 2017

Ken Rank said:
I don't know if you are sincere or seeking to undermine my faith. The latter can't happen, there is nothing you can share that will cause an insecurity at all. But, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are asking sincerely. So, to answer your question I would first suggest not ignoring or weighing in my points. You see the word "hate" and have a definition that works in modern English but does not not work in the ancient near east. In addition.... the inheritance in question is land... not salvation. Disobedience comes with a price but that price doesn't always... in fact probably rarely, is dealing with eternal issues. The sad reality is, Christianity is geared completely around the idea of "being saved" in an eternal sense. Salvation is important and a large part of Yeshua's work... but it is by no means all his work was designed to address.

So "No" is my answer to your question.

I definitely would consider laying waste to my inheritance to be an aggressive, malevolent act. A bit more than "loving someone less," wouldn't you say?

Ken Rank · Apr 5, 2017

HitchSlap said:
I definitely would consider laying waste to my inheritance to be an aggressive, malevolent act. A bit more than "loving someone less," wouldn't you say?

No, I already answered you on this. You seek to destroy the character of God? I don't... and you can't do anything or say anything to think less of God. You know... there is even a possibility that "laying waste" is more idiomatic than you realize... I mean you are reading a Semitic work from over 2000 years ago in a culture that was function centered.... through the lens of a form centered Greek influenced culture and think you are seeing clearly? Come on...

HitchSlap · Apr 5, 2017

Ken Rank said:
No, I already answered you on this.

Then I disagree with your equivocation.

Ken Rank said:
You seek to destroy the character of God?

No, I'm simply discussing the word "hate," in context. Which any plain reading of this account leaves no doubt that god is taking away the most important asset a male would have had during this time - his inheritance.

Ken Rank said:
I don't... and you can't do anything or say anything to think less of God.

You're surprised that someone might object to classical interpretation of scripture that god may hate someone, simply because you find it objectionable?

Ken Rank said:
You know... there is even a possibility that "laying waste" is more idiomatic than you realize... I mean you are reading a Semitic work from over 2000 years ago in a culture that was function centered.... through the lens of a form centered Greek influenced culture and think you are seeing clearly? Come on...

You're preaching to the choir ... the bible, at best, is a disparate collection of copies of copies of copies, to suggest it's "clear," is laughable.

Ken Rank · Apr 6, 2017

HitchSlap said:
Then I disagree with your equivocation.

I told you, I don't really care. My initial thought about you was correct though, you are lurking around trying to undermine the faith of others.

HitchSlap said:
No, I'm simply discussing the word "hate," in context. Which any plain reading of this account leaves no doubt that god is taking away the most important asset a male would have had during this time - his inheritance.

I know what you think you are doing, but you don't have context. You are raised in a religious culture that reads and thinks in 21st century English and who thinks context is the full verse a word is in plus, perhaps, the verses before and after. Context in this sense is not equating physical punishment with eternal punishment and it is taking into consideration how the underlying Hebrew word is used elsewhere. Since that word does not mean "hate" as WE use the word today, then you already lack context.

HitchSlap said:
You're surprised that someone might object to classical interpretation of scripture that god may hate someone, simply because you find it objectionable?

It isn't objectionable, your interpretation is. The "classical interpretation" is not that God hates... God is love, He commands us to love not only neighbor but our enemy as well. With THAT CONTEXT taken into consideration, do we have a two-faced god on our hands? No... We have an atheist who doesn't understand biblical context who is trying to use his lack of understanding to undermine the faith of others.

HitchSlap said:
You're preaching to the choir ... the bible, at best, is a disparate collection of copies of copies of copies, to suggest it's "clear," is laughable.

Your view, not mine. I could sit down and show you some things that once seen will cause you to realize man didn't do this in the sense you understand. But that aside, I submit you are not an atheist but injured, probably by hypocrites who did not represent God well. Why do I say this? Because overall you are obviously an intelligent person who has FAR BETTER things to do than troll around a Christian site looking for weak people to destroy. Therefore, you are clearly... and that isn't laughable.... fighting against God. There is no other reason for you to be here... this site shouldn't even be on your atheist radar but since it is... and you spend a great deal of time here... my conclusion is true.

HitchSlap · Apr 6, 2017

Ken Rank said:
I told you, I don't really care.

I'm the exact opposite, as I do care whether my beliefs are true, or not.

Ken Rank said:
My initial thought about you was correct though,

Believe what you need to.

Ken Rank said:
you are lurking around trying to undermine the faith of others.

Or, I'm interested in honest discussion.

Ken Rank said:
I know what you think you are doing, but you don't have context.

According to "The Bible Knowledge Commentary," edited by Walvoord and Zuck, page 1576, 2004 edition;

"The Hebrew words for loved and hated refer not to God's emotions but to His choice of one over another for a covenant relationship (cf. Gen. 29:31-35; Deut. 21:15, 17; Luke 14:26). To hate someone meant to reject him and to disavow any loving association with him (cf. Ps. 139:21). Nor do these words by themselves indicate the eternal destinations of Jacob and Esau. The verbs refer to God's acts in history toward both of the two nations which descended from the two brothers."

I'm willing to accept the usage of "love" and "hate" in this context.

What I'm asking you is, how would you characterize the action of removing an inheritance from it's rightful owner, and laying waste to his land?

Ken Rank said:
You are raised in a religious culture that reads and thinks in 21st century English and who thinks context is the full verse a word is in plus, perhaps, the verses before and after. Context in this sense is not equating physical punishment with eternal punishment and it is taking into consideration how the underlying Hebrew word is used elsewhere. Since that word does not mean "hate" as WE use the word today, then you already lack context.

See above.

Ken Rank said:
We have an atheist who doesn't understand biblical context who is trying to use his lack of understanding to undermine the faith of others.

Only you can undermine your faith.

Ken Rank said:
I could sit down and show you some things that once seen will cause you to realize man didn't do this in the sense you understand.

I'd be interested in this, as all I've ever seen is a product of man writing about his locale with available knowledge of the time. It's not that impressive.

Ken Rank · Apr 6, 2017

HitchSlap said:
I'm the exact opposite, as I do care whether my beliefs are true, or not.

You list yourself as an atheist and then expect me to take you seriously when you quote Scripture and commentaries as if they actually meant something to you. The "atheist" tag means they don't mean anything to you because that tag says, "God does not exist." Therefore, meaningful discussion with you about God is somewhat oxymoronic.

HitchSlap said:
According to "The Bible Knowledge Commentary," edited by Walvoord and Zuck, page 1576, 2004 edition;

"The Hebrew words for loved and hated refer not to God's emotions but to His choice of one over another for a covenant relationship (cf. Gen. 29:31-35; Deut. 21:15, 17; Luke 14:26). To hate someone meant to reject him and to disavow any loving association with him (cf. Ps. 139:21). Nor do these words by themselves indicate the eternal destinations of Jacob and Esau. The verbs refer to God's acts in history toward both of the two nations which descended from the two brothers."

All words have more than one meaning and are driven by context. Assuming for the sake of argument that the bible has any truth to it... it goes out of it's way scores of times to say that God is love, that the Law is centered on love, and that we are to even love those who hate us... hate in the sense of a passionate dislike. You, however, go and grab >>ONE<< verse that uses Esau and hate in a manner consistent with your narrow definition of that word and insist that God does hate in the sense of your narrow definition when the rest of the bible does not support your conclusion. Your conclusion stands in opposition to how Scripture and God paint His character. So, I don't accept your view, not the least of my reasons is other times that "Esau" as a word is used in a prophetic sense that is not negative. So, I can follow your lead and ignore certain verses and allow one verse to be pitted against and control others... or I can take the others and look through a different lens at the one that seems to stand away from the rest. It is all about paradigm and bias. We all have a bias and the lens through which we view is everything.

HitchSlap said:
What I'm asking you is, how would you characterize the action of removing an inheritance from it's rightful owner, and laying waste to his land?

Like I said, it would be better to sit and talk then to banter back and forth like this. Like Ephraim and Manasseh, Jacob was blessed out of order with Esau. His disregard for his birthright is what angered God but was also part of God's ultimate plan. Esau was still blessed but not with the blessing of the firstborn, and his namesake carries on PROPHETICALLY and I tend to think that you are trying to tie a prophetic picture to something it isn't meant to be. This "laying waste" serves a purpose, it does not have any connection to Esau being saved or lost... it is a picture. It literally happened but for a reason. Are you interested in the reason? I doubt it... you believe God does not exist and I don't want to waste time trying to convince you. Like I said, I think you are fighting God (which is why somebody who doesn't believe there is a god hangs out for 10,000+ posts on a Christian forum).

HitchSlap said:
I'd be interested in this, as all I've ever seen is a product of man writing about his locale with available knowledge of the time. It's not that impressive.

If you're ever in Kentucky, let me know. There are so many things that connect in 7, 8, 10 different ways that man is just not capable of making it up.

HitchSlap · Apr 6, 2017

Ken Rank said:
You list yourself as an atheist and then expect me to take you seriously

You list yourself as a Christian, and I'm trying to take you seriously. Not my fault if you have a mental block when discussing ideas different than yours.

Ken Rank said:
when you quote Scripture and commentaries as if they actually meant something to you.

For the sake of the argument, it means a lot.

Ken Rank said:
The "atheist" tag means they don't mean anything to you because that tag says, "God does not exist." Therefore, meaningful discussion with you about God is somewhat oxymoronic.

People have meaningful discussion of Shakespeare's "Macbeth," most of whom I'm sure don't accept that Lady Macbeth was a literal person. It seems a bit narrow minded to suggest that you can only have meaningful discussion with like-minded people. Seems to me that might get boring after a bit. I find it more effective to discuss one point at a time. I simply picked the first(?) one you listed. However, I do recognize your need to protect your beliefs. If you ever get the courage to step out of the yard and venture down the street, I'm always available.

Ken Rank089422 said:
All words ha, post: 71ve more than one meaning and are driven by context. Assuming for the sake of argument that the bible has any truth to it... it goes out of it's way scores of times to say that God is love, that the Law is centered on love, and that we are to even love those who hate us... hate in the sense of a passionate dislike. You, however, go and grab >>ONE<< verse that uses Esau and hate in a manner consistent with your narrow definition of that word and insist that God does hate in the sense of your narrow definition when the rest of the bible does not support your conclusion. Your conclusion stands in opposition to how Scripture and God paint His character. So, I don't accept your view, not the least of my reasons is other times that "Esau" as a word is used in a prophetic sense that is not negative. So, I can follow your lead and ignore certain verses and allow one verse to be pitted against and control others...

Unless you view Christians to be "sinners in the hands of an angry god."

Ken Rank089422 said:
Like I said, it would be better to sit and talk then to banter back and forth like this. Like Ephraim and Manasseh, Jacob was blessed out of order with Esau. His disregard for his birthright is what angered God but was also part of God's ultimate plan. Esau was still blessed but not with the blessing of the firstborn, and his namesake carries on PROPHETICALLY and I tend to think that you are trying to tie a prophetic picture to something it isn't meant to be. This "laying waste" serves a purpose, it does not have any connection to Esau being saved or lost... it is a picture. It literally happened but for a reason. Are you interested in the reason? I doubt it... you believe God does not exist and I don't want to waste time trying to convince you. Like I said, I think you are fighting God (which is why somebody who doesn't believe there is a god hangs out for 10,000+ posts on a Christian forum).

I joined CF as a Christian in 2004, and was a Christian for over thirty years before the "truth set me free."

Ken Rank089422 said:
If you're ever in Kentucky, let me know. There are so many things that connect in 7, 8, 10 different ways that man is just not capable of making it up.

List one.

Moral Orel · Apr 8, 2017

Ken Rank said:
You list yourself as an atheist and then expect me to take you seriously when you quote Scripture and commentaries as if they actually meant something to you. The "atheist" tag means they don't mean anything to you because that tag says, "God does not exist." Therefore, meaningful discussion with you about God is somewhat oxymoronic.

You posted your thread in the "Apologetics" section. If you didn't want to discuss the Bible specifically with atheists, then you posted in the wrong sub-forum.

Ken Rank · Apr 10, 2017

Nicholas Deka said:
You posted your thread in the "Apologetics" section. If you didn't want to discuss the Bible specifically with atheists, then you posted in the wrong sub-forum.

I am not an atheist, therefore, I have no reason to read the rules to see where a person who has taken a position against God can post on a Christian forum. Now, I don't mind discussing this with him or anyone else... but if you read the posts you'll see him hanging on one point that doesn't bother me and I made that clear. He kept bringing it back up not accepting my answer or thinking it to be incredulous and I held my ground. It isn't that he is an atheist that there is friction here... he simply doesn't like my answer. That has nothing to do with whether he believes in God or not, it has to do with the fact that he doesn't like my answer.

Ken Rank · Apr 10, 2017

HitchSlap said:
You list yourself as a Christian, and I'm trying to take you seriously. Not my fault if you have a mental block when discussing ideas different than yours.

Nice, mental block? Nothing like doing all we can to keep a door of civil discussion open. Anyway... you don't like my answer, that's all. Esau was punished IN THIS WORLD... that doesn't mean it has a bearing on the next.

As for this thread... the word "hate" means one thing in English and another in Hebrew. When there is true HATE, it is generally written differently, for example...

Zechariah 11:8 I dismissed the three shepherds in one month. My soul loathed them, and their soul also abhorred me.

The word for loathed is qatsar (to vex, to grieve, to be short) and the word for abhorred is bachal (to loath, to hate with contempt). But let's look at at one of the verses I started this thread with...

Genesis 29:31 When the Lord saw that Leah was hated, He opened her womb; but Rachel was barren.

The word for hated is sane, it can mean hate but bachal (above) is a better word for the idea of HATE as in utter disdain. Sane is more aligned to 'standing opposed' or 'standing against.' Jacob loved Rachel from the start and was tricked into Leah... he didn't HATE Leah, it was Labin's fault not Leah's... he simply desired Rachel and in the end, loved her more. Jacob still went back into Leah and had multiple children. This is not something one does when they "hate" (as we use the word) another.

HitchSlap said:
People have meaningful discussion of Shakespeare's "Macbeth," most of whom I'm sure don't accept that Lady Macbeth was a literal person. It seems a bit narrow minded to suggest that you can only have meaningful discussion with like-minded people. Seems to me that might get boring after a bit. I find it more effective to discuss one point at a time. I simply picked the first(?) one you listed. However, I do recognize your need to protect your beliefs. If you ever get the courage to step out of the yard and venture down the street, I'm always available.

Narrow minded? Lack courage? This is promotes good discussion and makes me want to come back for more?

Anyway... I gave you answers you didn't like and you kept coming back with the same questions. That is all that has happened here. Since I kept coming back and answering even though I had already given the same answer... doesn't that show a desire to interact DESPITE us not seeing this the same? It was YOU who didn't like MY answer and are not, basically, name calling... because I am getting frustrated having to spend time saying the same thing over and over.

HitchSlap said:
Unless you view Christians to be "sinners in the hands of an angry god."

Almost makes me think you have done a little background searching. "Sinners in the hands of an angry God" is a seminar taught by a friend and mentor who also happens to serve as an elder at the same congregation I attend. His point of course, which I very much accept, that God is not angry (He has moments I am sure) and is not looking to condemn but rather restore. The idea of an angry ogre of a god in the OT and a god of love, peace and joy in the NT is inconsistent.... as God does not change. When one comes to that conclusion, their lens is clouded.

HitchSlap said:
I joined CF as a Christian in 2004, and was a Christian for over thirty years before the "truth set me free."

I would be interested in hearing (in a private message of another thread) what it was that caused you to turn away. I have found that in most cases (not all, but most) it is the inability to reconcile certain things in Scripture. And by "inability" I am not saying you lack(ed) skills... I just know this... the church's view of "discipleship" is giving the student "facts" to repeat like a parrot. If unchallenged, the parrot will live a long uneventful spiritual life. If challenged, the parrot does not have the means to defend any answer it has because every answer it has was GIVEN to the parrot... it didn't earn the answer, learn the answer. This is just the method of the religious society we are raised in.

In the first century, a good Rabbi would not give answers but rather methods... methods that would allow one to find their own answers. Likewise, a good Rabbi would make his students know BOTH sides of a point equally... even having them debate from the side they don't agree with. This is really the only way to OWN your answers because once you have thoroughly explored all possibilities... you can arrive at a conclusion with some security. You can even defend it if challenged. But we are not taught that way today and I have found that many "atheists" are created because somebody threw out something that just didn't have the ability to deal with. And again, please understand, I am NOT SAYING you are dumb or lack anything... I am simply saying that as Christians we are not taught to stand.

HitchSlap said:
List one.

Here is a post, it is long, that makes some connections using many different writers over the course of hundreds of years and can serve as an example. This wouldn't be my first choice, but once you see the length here, and knowing that for me to make connections like I said it will require a long post like this... then this will have to do since I don't have time to do 2 of these in one day... and I just did this one.

Peace.
Ken

Did Messiah say to hate our father and mother? Well, maybe not...

Well-Known Member

... and God saw that it was good.

Well-Known Member

I've already read the books you want burned.

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Well-Known Member

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Well-Known Member

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Well-Known Member

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Well-Known Member

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Well-Known Member

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Well-Known Member

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads