Long Term Doubt vs Strong Belief - what is more honest?

Silmarien · Oct 14, 2019

cloudyday2 said:
I guess my analogy had a confusing flaw. The person whose honesty is in question is not a MEMBER of the grand jury - the grand jury is a PHASE in that person's process for dealing with new information. Each person first must decide whether new information is interesting and credible enough to deserve a more thorough evaluation. If the grand jury inside our psyche decides the information is interesting then it goes to the trial phase. The person begins to dig further and attempt to reach a verdict.

For example if somebody begins talking to me about the latest "Ancient Aliens" episode then my eyes glaze over and I begin thinking about things to buy at the grocery store while I politely nod my head. The grand jury inside my brain decides that "Ancient Aliens" is too silly to deserve my attention.

(1) Some Christians might react to evolution in the same way I react to "Ancient Aliens" - they think it is too silly to deserve their attention.
(2) Some Christians might learn about evolution but their faith in a literal understanding of Genesis is too strong to be overturned by evolution. These Christians might find a fringe scientist who disagrees with evolution and then dismiss evolution.
(3) FINALLY there are Christians who don't think evolution sounds silly. In fact these Christians think evolution sounds plausible, but they are afraid to accept what their internal grand jury has decided. Those Christians are dishonest. They won't let the case go to trial, because they fear that evolution might win. ... If they fear that evolution might win, then they are already partial believers in evolution. These Christians cannot honestly say that they disbelieve evolution.

(Sorry if the above is not clear. It seems a bit rambling, but I am getting too tired to clean it up.)

I still wouldn't call the third group dishonest, if they're open about the fact that they think evolution might be true and are unwilling to deal with what that might mean. They care more about Creationism than the truth, and are presumably honest about it. The second group that relies upon a fringe scientist to assuage their fears strikes me as much more dishonest than the group that admits up front that they reject evolution as an article of faith.

I don't think the third position is a very stable position, though. If you've got faith and reason pointing in opposite directions, I think the former is in danger of really snapping eventually.

2PhiloVoid · Oct 15, 2019

cloudyday2 said:
I guess my analogy had a confusing flaw. The person whose honesty is in question is not a MEMBER of the grand jury - the grand jury is a PHASE in that person's process for dealing with new information. Each person first must decide whether new information is interesting and credible enough to deserve a more thorough evaluation. If the grand jury inside our psyche decides the information is interesting then it goes to the trial phase. The person begins to dig further and attempt to reach a verdict.

For example if somebody begins talking to me about the latest "Ancient Aliens" episode then my eyes glaze over and I begin thinking about things to buy at the grocery store while I politely nod my head. The grand jury inside my brain decides that "Ancient Aliens" is too silly to deserve my attention.

(1) Some Christians might react to evolution in the same way I react to "Ancient Aliens" - they think it is too silly to deserve their attention.
(2) Some Christians might learn about evolution but their faith in a literal understanding of Genesis is too strong to be overturned by evolution. These Christians might find a fringe scientist who disagrees with evolution and then dismiss evolution.
(3) FINALLY there are Christians who don't think evolution sounds silly. In fact these Christians think evolution sounds plausible, but they are afraid to accept what their internal grand jury has decided. Those Christians are dishonest. They won't let the case go to trial, because they fear that evolution might win. ... If they fear that evolution might win, then they are already partial believers in evolution. These Christians cannot honestly say that they disbelieve evolution.

(Sorry if the above is not clear. It seems a bit rambling, but I am getting too tired to clean it up.)

EDIT: In a nutshell: if you think it is necessary to actively avoid information then you are showing fear rather than showing a lack of interest. If you fear something then you think it is a potential risk. You can't say that you totally disbelieve that information if you are actively avoiding it. You might not totally believe it, but you obviously don't totally disbelieve it if you are afraid to learn more.

So, would someone like myself qualify as a "4th" category? Am I to be considered "dishonest"? :dontcare:

2PhiloVoid · Oct 15, 2019

BigV said:
Well, if you expect nothing you get nothing. You must believe as if everything depends on me but act as if everything depends on you. Get it? Then you will see "miracles" happen in your life.

Of course, you can help me out by making your requests as generic as possible, such as 'bless me' or 'help me get through the day'. And remember to thank me at the end, because if you had success, voila, I'm a champ, if you had the crummiest day, oh well, my ways are not your ways. Keep on praying though.

Why is it I'm getting a distinct sense that you're not really here to dialogue or discuss, but rather to press your own monologue? Thus far, I've seen little in the way of any real integrity in your thinking, but rather constant chutzpah; and the fact that you continued to press your points over in the Struggles of Non-Christians section, even after I pointed out to you that you're "breaking the rules" by continuing to dilly-dally around there. I was going to try to attempt to address some of your challenges, but now I'm really asking myself, "Am I supposed to somehow take him seriously being that he breaks rules flagrantly and doesn't seem to give two pence about the fact that he's on a non-atheistic website pressing his agenda?"

No, I'm done here. Go find another playground to romp on.

BigV · Oct 15, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
Why is it I'm getting a distinct sense that you're not really here to dialogue or discuss, but rather to press your own monologue? Thus far, I've seen little in the way of any real integrity in your thinking, but rather constant chutzpah; and the fact that you continued to press your points over in the Struggles of Non-Christians section, even after I pointed out to you that you're "breaking the rules" by continuing to dilly-dally around there. I was going to try to attempt to address some of your challenges, but now I'm really asking myself, "Am I supposed to somehow take him seriously being that he breaks rules flagrantly and doesn't seem to give two pence about the fact that he's on a non-atheistic website pressing his agenda?"

No, I'm done here. Go find another playground to romp on.

Yes, how dare BigV point out the Christian hypocrisy when it comes to slavery and wars. Of course this deserves an outright ban, no?

2PhiloVoid · Oct 15, 2019

BigV said:
Yes, how dare BigV point out the Christian hypocrisy when it comes to slavery and wars. Of course this deserves an outright ban, no?

Oh......so, you're just here to carpet bomb everyone with your own personally perceived insistence; and you seem to express a "dam the torpedoes, full speed ahead" mentality. I see.

Yeah, forgive me if I say that I don't think you're rating very highly on the integrity scale, so I'll just turn the other cheek here and allow you to smack it as I stand my ground against your polemics and ...........refer you right back to the Flyleaf vid I posted previously.

BigV · Oct 15, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
Oh......so, you're just here to carpet bomb everyone with your own personally perceived insistence; and you seem to express a "dam the torpedoes, full speed ahead" mentality. I see.

Yeah, forgive me if I say that I don't think you're rating very highly on the integrity scale, so I'll just turn the other cheek here and allow you to smack it as I stand my ground against your polemics and ...........refer you right back to the Flyleaf vid I posted previously.

you guys are doing a good job of welcoming atheists and non-Christians to your forums. Surprised there aren't more of them here. (sarcasm)

Sanoy · Oct 15, 2019

BigV said:
Where has God healed an amputee by regrowing their limb(s)? Your world sounds amazing except even fellow Christians disagree with you, by claiming that miracles have ceased, and there are contextual variations that we must take into account to explain why Jesus' promises don't quite work as plainly stated.

You know I already knew what your two responses would be? I'm not claiming a spiritual gift here, it's just become boiler plate at this point. What do amputee's and whether or not they have been healed have to do with the validity of anything I just said. Do you think I or anyone else wondered about amputees when these things occurred? Yes I actually know of a case by a very respected person who reports an ear growing back right before his eyes. His name is J.P. Moreland and testifies that while praying in his prayer group for someone whose ear was closed over with skin he saw blood appear and the skin opened up and an earlet formed and the man could hear. One of many miraculous healings he has witnessed in his church prayer group.

The claim that miracles have ceased cannot be shown in scripture, and it is preposterous to think that I should doubt my experiences and healing because Christians disagree on whether that could occur or that I should doubt because you have never personally witnessed an amputee get healed.

2PhiloVoid · Oct 15, 2019

BigV said:
you guys are doing a good job of welcoming atheists and non-Christians to your forums. Surprised there aren't more of them here. (sarcasm)

Well, you can always go back to something more to your taste, like watching PineCreek videos over and over again, ad infinitum. ............... I mean, I can't control how you feel about things. And as far as atheists being on this site, I think there's been more than what I'd expect there to be, really. If you're not seeing them at the present moment, you haven't been around enough here. Go over to the Ethics or the Physical Science sections and your compadres will more amply "show up" there. :dontcare:

BigV · Oct 15, 2019

Sanoy said:
You know I already knew what your two responses would be? I'm not claiming a spiritual gift here, it's just boiler plate at this point. What do amputee's and whether or not they have been healed have to do with the validity of anything I just said. Do you think I or anyone else wondered about amputees when these things occurred? Yes I actually know of a case by a very respected person who reports an ear growing back right before his eyes. His name is J.P. Moreland and testifies that while praying for someone whose ear was closed over with skin he saw blood appear and the skin opened up and an earlet formed and the man could hear. One of many miraculous healings he has witness in his church prayer group.

The claim that miracles have ceased cannot be shown in scripture, and it is preposterous to say that I should doubt my experiences and healing because Christians disagree on whether that could occur or that I should doubt because you have never witnessed an amputee get healed.

I have a few points on your post.

If this is a miracle, then it is awesome. Question is, why doesn't it happen more often and why do many Christians, including the theologian with a respected Bible Commentary, argue miracles have mostly ceased? Jesus said that whoever believes will do the works he was doing and even greater works. He did not say those works will be few and far inbetween. And there are even Christians on this very thread arguing that miracles are not the right interpretation of what Jesus meant and that miracles should not even be expected! This is evidence that even those Christians are not experiencing miracles, otherwise, why would they argue that miracles have ceased?

And then you show up arguing that miracle is the right interpretation and they do happen. This is great, but why isn't there more information on it? How do we know it's a miracle and that nothing else can't explain it? I think scientists love these 'miracles' because they dig deeper into what else may have taken place there and end up developing medicines and ultimate cures for similar cases.

I googled your story and found some more details here:

https://credohouse.org/blog/j-p-morelands-story-about-god-healing-an-amputee

J. P. Moreland, however, told a story that has all the makings for my belief. Therefore, I think I believe it. The story was certainly not something that was obscure like back pain. As I mentioned earlier, he related how he watched an ear grow back (at least in part). Moreland is no lightweight uncritical scholar. Over the years he has gained my trust, both through personal interaction with him and via his scholarly writings. He has also had the courage to change his theological position on some things that would otherwise be hard to change. Furthermore, the story itself contains an element of embarrassment in that the ear only grew back partially!

In today's day and age, in the Western world there should be some publication about it, shouldn't there be? I mean, we should know what medicine this person tried previously, had he been to the doctor or treated purely by faith healers? I think you yourself should be interested in this, because if the person in question tried stem cell therapy, then your 'miracle' could just be a testimony to that therapy. We don't know about this person's medical history so if we are honest, we can't confirm it was a miracle just yet, based on a hearsay alone, or can we?

Study points to possible new therapy for hearing loss

Thirdly, lets think about this. Imagine Jesus making partial healings. Imagine this is what Jesus ever could do in his ministry. Would he be in the right to having the miracle working reputation that he has among most (if not all) Christians?

And fourthly, I submit to you the evidence of a resurrection happening within the past 60-70 years:

Sathya Sai Baba Miracles - The resurrection of Mr. V. Radhakrishna

"Mr. Radhakrishna had been dead for three days. On the third day, his body was cold, stiff and dark and decomposition was starting to set in. There was weeping and wailing in the house. That afternoon, at about half past two, Sai Baba went to the room and closed the door after him. In a few minutes, he opened the door and called the people back in, and they saw Radhakrishna sitting up in bed, looking very well and smiling. Baba said to the wife, 'I have given your husband back to you. Now, give him a hot drink.'"

Reference: V. Kanu, Sai Baba, God Incarnate, p. 55

This is a miracle, if it happened. Do you, as a Christian, believe that it happened, or do you think there are other explanations that are more plausible and do not involve anything supernatural?

Sanoy · Oct 15, 2019

BigV said:
I have a few points on your post.

If this is a miracle, then it is awesome. Question is, why doesn't it happen more often and why do many Christians, including the theologian with a respected Bible Commentary argue miracles have mostly ceased? Jesus said that whoever believes will do the works he was doing and even greater works. He did not say those works will be few and far inbetween. And there are even Christians on this very thread arguing that miracles are not the right interpretation of what Jesus meant and that miracles should not even be exected!

And then you show up arguing that miracle is the right interpretation and they do happen. This is great, but why isn't there more information on it? How do we know it's a miracle and that nothing else can't explain it? I think scientists love these 'miracles' because they dig deeper into what else may have taken place there and end up developing medicines and ultimate cures for similar cases.

I googled your story and found some more details here:

https://credohouse.org/blog/j-p-morelands-story-about-god-healing-an-amputee

In today's day and age, in the Western world there should be some publication about it, shouldn't there be? I mean, we should know what medicine this person tried previously, had he been to the doctor or treated purely by faith healers? I think you yourself should be interested in this, because if the person in question tried stem cell therapy, then your 'miracle' is just a testimony to that therapy. We don't know about this person's medical history so if we are honest, we can't confirm it was a miracle just yet, can we?

Study points to possible new therapy for hearing loss

Thirdly, lets think about this. Imagine Jesus making partial healings. Imagine this is what Jesus ever could do in his ministry. Would he be in the right to having the miracle working reputation that he has among most (if not all) Christians?

And fourthly, I submit to you the evidence of a resurrection happening within the past 60-70 years:

Sathya Sai Baba Miracles - The resurrection of Mr. V. Radhakrishna

This is a miracle, if it happened. Do you, as a Christian, believe that it happened, or do you think there are other explanations that are more plausible and do not involve anything supernatural?

Miracles 'ceased' once in the Gospels as well, do you know where that occurred?

And you think stem cell therapy will cause ones skin to suddenly open up grow an earlet and begin hearing? have you really thought that through? Also I have read your article on J.P. Moreland before, you are not the first person to google it and c/p the first response they could find.

Ah , the other boiler plate response. I didn't think you would give this one given my opening statement about the "gods". What do these accounts of other miracles have to do with the validity of anything I just said? I guarantee if you try to answer that as a contradiction to God it won't be biblical, which it actually needs to be to hold as a contradiction.

BigV · Oct 15, 2019

Sanoy said:
Miracles 'ceased' once in the Gospels as well, do you know where that occurred?

Allegedly in Jesus' hometown due to unbelief? Are you also suggesting that Christians on these forums who believe miracles ceased are unbelievers?

Sanoy said:
And you think stem cell therapy will cause ones skin to suddenly open up grow an earlet and begin hearing? have you really thought that through? Also I have read your article on J.P. Moreland before, you are not the first person to google it and c/p the first response they could find.

Again, this is just one explanation. You don't know what this 'healed' person tried to do previously, so how did you just jump to conclusion it was a miracle? Also, I c/p'd the response of a Christian who believes that was a miracle, same as you.

Sanoy said:
Ah , the other boiler plate response. I didn't think you would give this one given my opening statement about the "gods". What do these accounts of other miracles have to do with the validity of anything I just said? I guarantee if you try to answer that as a contradiction to God it won't be biblical.

I think a resurrection miracle is more impressive. Why aren't you a follower for Sai Baba? Where does the Bible say that the devil can raise people from the dead? Is a regrown ear really that much more impressive to you than an actual resurrection of a dead person?

Sanoy · Oct 15, 2019

BigV said:
Allegedly in Jesus' hometown due to unbelief? Are you also suggesting that Christians on these forums who believe miracles ceased are unbelievers?

Again, this is just one explanation. You don't know what this 'healed' person tried to do previously, so how did you just jump to conclusion it was a miracle? Also, I c/p'd the response of a Christian who believes that was a miracle, same as you.

I think a resurrection miracle is more impressive. Why aren't you a follower for Sai Baba? Where does the Bible say that the devil can raise people from the dead? Is a regrown ear really that much more impressive to you than an actual resurrection of a dead person?

Allegedly? Do you not believe Christ was a historical person? Unbelief can refer to many things, but despite your claims of honesty, you choose to nuance that word and challenge whether I believe cessationists are Christians? What happened to all that integrity, honesty, and pursuit of truth?

Your "stem cell" hypothesis is not "just one explanation". It is the first thing you could think of to hurl at the problem with 0 concern over it's validity to the reported situation - even so while claiming interest in the pursuit of truth.

Again what do any of these such miracles have to do with what I said? My loyalty is to Christ alone regardless of what occurs in the world by others.

BigV · Oct 15, 2019

Sanoy said:
My loyalty is to Christ alone regardless of what occurs in the world by others.

Ah... do you are peddling YOUR miracle as truth, while ignoring or minimizing the example I provided. If it's wrong for me to ignore the miracle of a partially regrown ear in the name of Christ, why is it not wrong for you to ignore Sai Baba's resurrection miracle?

Sanoy · Oct 15, 2019

BigV said:
Ah... do you are peddling YOUR miracle as truth, while ignoring or minimizing the example I provided. If it's wrong for me to ignore the miracle of a partially regrown ear in the name of Christ, why is it not wrong for you to ignore Sai Baba's resurrection miracle?

Your examples aren't minimized. They don't show up with any relevance. I have asked you several times why they mean anything to what I said, but in every response you fail to achieve that relevance. If you think I have to reject this miracle, you haven't been paying attention.

2PhiloVoid · Oct 15, 2019

BigV said:
MacArthur is one prominent guy that believes in cessasionalism and I was right in that his name is well known. Heck, you knew of him.

Sure. I'm familiar with a LOT of "prominent Christian guys and gals," but this kind of goes almost without saying since MacArthur has been around for quite some time on Christian Radio networks for the past 30 years or so, mixed in with Christian radio shows of other evangelical varieties.

Well, as I've said repeatedly, the context screams that Jesus meant miracle-working powers would accompany whoever believes in him.

I'm not sure about that; and I can't just 'sign-on' the dotted line with you over this. And now that I've read the pertinent points you've laid out below [despite your lack of a more precise citation of your quotation....which academically speaking, I find kind of lack-lustre], I'm not seeing how Dr. Thomas L. Constable is far off the mark in his explanation. But, I gather you think he is wrong, I guess. Or do you?

If you'd like, I can link a free Bible commentary for you. Done by an evangelical scholar. Scroll down to 14:12. Highlights are mine.
John

14:12 Jesus prefaced another startling and important revelation with His customary phrase that John noted often in his Gospel. He re-emphasized the importance of believing what He had revealed about His divine identity, by unveiling the startling and enormous consequences of believing that He was the divine Messiah.

The interpretation of the same "works" that those who believe on Jesus would do, which commentators have found difficult, depends on how Jesus described them. He said that the basis for these works—and "greater works"—would be His going to the Father. After Jesus ascended into heaven, the Father sent the Holy Spirit to indwell every believer (Acts 2:3; cf. Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 12:13). This divine enablement empowered believers to do miracles that only Jesus Himself could do previously. The Book of Acts records the apostles doing many of the same miracles that Jesus had done in the Gospels.

The disciples would do even "greater works" than Jesus had done, in the sense that their works would have greater extensive, numerical results than His total works had numbered.[872] During Jesus' earthly ministry, relatively few people believed on Him, but after His ascension many more did. The miracle of regeneration multiplied after Jesus ascended to heaven and the Father sent the Holy Spirit. Three thousand people became believers in Jesus on the day of Pentecost alone (Acts 2:41). The church thoroughly permeated the Roman Empire during the apostolic age, whereas Jesus' personal ministry did not extend beyond Palestine. The whole Book of Acts is proof that what Jesus predicted here happened (cf. Acts 1:1-2, 8). The mighty works of conversion are more in view here than a few miracles of healing.

Jesus probably did not mean that His disciples would do more stupendous miracles than He did. Feeding multitudes from a small lunch and raising people from the dead are hard miracles to supersede. We should not assume, either, that Jesus meant that these miracles would continue throughout church history as they occurred in the apostolic era. Church history has shown that they died out almost entirely after the apostolic age, and the New Testament, while it did not specifically predict that, implied that they would (1 Cor. 13:8; Eph. 2:20; Heb. 2:3-4).

"His position with the Father would be related to the greater works in two ways: answering the prayers of his own, and sending the Paraclete as the unfailing source of wisdom and strength. The works, then, would not be done in independence of Christ. He would answer prayer; he would send the Spirit."[873]

I like this guy. He is honest. He admits miracles were promised but then has an explanation and Bible verses explaining how/why they died out. Jesus didn't say they will die out though. And this whole thing reminds me of a cartoonish chart showing the incidence of miracles going down after the invention of cameras and video recorders. Jesus makes a promise and then dissapears, and voila, his promise stops working. Hm...

There is another thread on these forms where I said that any contradiction can be reconciled. So I believe even this one can be reconciled and the promise of John 14:12 will not phase an honest believer. They will just come up with harmonization and explanation for why Jesus' promises just don't work as advertized. If it works for you, then all is well and good for you.

But to me, if there is a promise that doesn't work when taken literally, as admitted even by Christian theologians, then don't tell me other promises of Jesus that you can't verify are working just fine.

Yeah. Thanks.

BigV · Oct 15, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
I'm not seeing how Dr. Thomas L. Constable is far off the mark in his explanation. But, I gather you think he is wrong, I guess. Or do you?

As the explanation goes, Jesus did promise miracles. That was the main takeaway. John 14:12 promises miracle working powers. I don't think he is wrong on this, but I thought you disagreed?

If you agree John 14:12 means miracles then my original point that this promise is false stands.

2PhiloVoid · Oct 15, 2019

BigV said:
As the explanation goes, Jesus did promise miracles. That was the main takeaway. John 14:12 promises miracle working powers. I don't think he is wrong on this, but I thought you disagreed?

If you agree John 14:12 means miracles then my original point that this promise is false stands.

No, I never said I did. In fact, I haven't said one way or another just yet, and if I was a Cessationist it wouldn't be for the usual reason trotted out by various Reformed Christians. Regardless, being the philosopher that I am, I like the beginning point of my research(es), like that which would best apply to this issue here, to be something along the lines represented by the book I've linked below. It's this kind of thing that usually plays one part in my own overall attempt to find my position on questions of this sort (or any question, for that matter):

https://www.amazon.com/Miraculous-G...ews+on+miracles&qid=1571152191&s=books&sr=1-1

drich0150 · Oct 15, 2019

BigV said:
As the explanation goes, Jesus did promise miracles. That was the main takeaway. John 14:12 promises miracle working powers. I don't think he is wrong on this, but I thought you disagreed?

If you agree John 14:12 means miracles then my original point that this promise is false stands.

the message does not stop at verse 12 it continues to verse 30.

at verse 15 He is talking about returning to the father and God sending the holy Spirit to the whole church which will allow and teach a great number of things to not only the disciples but the whole church as witnessed in acts 2 forward.

We get Gifts, miracles and power from the Holy Spirit. The church today is weakening in the west because we are moving away from the Holy Spirit because a few denominations worship the Spirit in such a way as to make themselves look foolish and everyone else who worships with the Spirit also is seen as a fool. So the church walked away from the Personage of God/Holy Spirit who in fact Gave Christ and is tasked with giving the church power knowledge and strength in God.

Why? because like you people look for signs and wonders first ignoring the simple fruits and gifts he offers first.

I however we honor these fruits and gifts of the Spirit we are given to much much more.

cloudyday2 · Oct 15, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
So, would someone like myself qualify as a "4th" category? Am I to be considered "dishonest"?

What do you believe with respect to the historicity of Genesis 1 and 2?

Also there are other beliefs held by the vast majority of academics which might provoke these different reactions from Christians. For example most academics believe that the Bible has almost no historicity until near the end of the northern and southern kingdoms. Another example would be the documentary hypothesis. Academics no longer believe the original form of the documentary hypothesis, but the general concept is still accepted.

2PhiloVoid · Oct 15, 2019

cloudyday2 said:
What do you believe with respect to the historicity of Genesis 1 and 2?

Really? You tickle me, Cloudy! And all this time I've been on CF, I thought you new my position on most things. Oh, dude! ^_^

.....I'm a Theistic Evolutionist, or Evolutionary, Existential Theistic Christian, or however someone may want to try to classify it all. I started with Carl Sagan and I've worked my way in life from there.........

Also there are other beliefs held by the vast majority of academics which might provoke these different reactions from Christians. For example most academics believe that the Bible has almost no historicity until near the end of the northern and southern kingdoms. Another example would be the documentary hypothesis. Academics no longer believe the original form of the documentary hypothesis, but the general concept is still accepted.

Oh yes, I'm already familiar with the Minimalist/Maximalist/In Between debate about the historicity of Israel, along with the various intricacies of the Documentary Hypothesis and all that. Again, I thought you already knew this about me. But if not, now you know.

So, what category do I belong in, and am I "dishonest"? :dontcare:

Long Term Doubt vs Strong Belief - what is more honest?

Existentialist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Generic Theist

Well-Known Member

Similar threads