How tolerant are you of other religions?

[Funkmd]

I believe secular governments protect all religious people, and am fearful of anyone who wants their particular religion recognized as the official, the sanctioned, or the superior religion above all others. This would be a very, very bad idea.

While I agree with you on the part about government recognition of one "official" or "sanctioned" religion......well I guess I can agree with that whole statement. I do beleive my Beleif to be the one and only "superior" belief, if you want to call it that. But I dont think I want my government telling anyone else who lives here that it is. that's what makes America so great, and thats why my forefathers came here. I certainly wouldnt want the Prez declaring Islam the national religion and what I have to follow. Although taking it underground and having secret worship sessions and stuff would be kind of adventerous

Thanks for sharing.

 

[radorth]

Re: revolutio

Haha, I like that. I certainly can explain their conversions: the Gospels are essentially history. Most of the physical events presented in them are backed up by numerous other sources. However the supernatural parts are not, you have to place trust in the writer that it was not fabricated. It is a matter of trust really, those historians converted because they saw no reason for someone to truthfully recount history then add their own spice to it.

Well perhaps they are less cynical than yourself. I'm afraid too many skeptics are mere cynics. In any case, that is not the reason they converted or in Durant's case, believed there were bonafide miracles if not a resurrection.

1. One narrator tells us Jesus "could not work many miracles" in Galillee. Only a morbidly cynical person would accuse the writer of manipulating a reader in that way.

2. The Gospels contain all kinds of other unecessary and negative details which are absolutely no help to the cause- e.g competition among the apostles, Jesus' moments of doubt, weariness and sadness, John off empathizing with some Jews after the crucifixion, which detail has nothing to do with the resurrection account.

3. The Gospels are written in a single generation, and except for the disputed passages at end of Mark, no material changes or additions can be shown. The "higher criticism" prayed for a hundred years the somebody would find a MS materially different from the Gospels, but no luck. Moreover the second century fathers quoted liberally from the Gospels.

4. The narrators and their listeners had nothing to gain but persecution for writing the story and spreading it. (They really were used for human torches and lion fodder)

Therefore we conclude with the skeptical historian Durant

That a few simple men should in one generation so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic, and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels.

I actually like Durant's theory that Jesus did not die, but swooned. He was only on the cross for six hours. That theory makes some kind of sense because you don't have to spend your life basically calling the Gospel narrators liars and lunatics. Durant suggests that Jesus himself did not know he swooned, and thought he was raised from the dead. Durant's conclusion, which was well supported by Schonfield as well, is the only one which stands up to Occum's Razor.

Miracle-mythers are mere cynics and they cannot answer a hundred questions about the complexities involved in covering up fake stories, explaining details, quotes from later writers, the lack of apostates denying the story and so on. They have everybody involved burning evidence, acting out of the most evil motives, and writing better metaphors than Shakepeare.

The Gospels are essentially history and a million "intellectuals" who applied fair standards to them were converted. Again, it's not about proof, but the human will. Admit it and get over it.

Rad

 

[revolutio]

2. The Gospels contain all kinds of other unecessary and negative details which are absolutely no help to the cause- e.g competition among the apostles, Jesus' moments of doubt, weariness and sadness, John off empathizing with some Jews after the crucifixion, which detail has nothing to do with the resurrection account.

Though I general I agree, the parts about Jesus have doubt, sadness, etc. only add to the humanity of him and make him a generally more attractive and believable character. I am not saying they were added (wasn't there, wouldn't know) just that it does have some basic psychological reasons.

4. The narrators and their listeners had nothing to gain but persecution for writing the story and spreading it. (They really were used for human torches and lion fodder)

You are right they didn't, but Constantine did.
'Nothing to gain'? I think about a billion Christians would disagree. Having real faith in something can be worth weathering some terrible hardships.

Therefore we conclude with the skeptical historian Durant

That a few simple men should in one generation so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic, and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels.

Hahaha, that is an absolutely inspired statement. Though how many characters of 'powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic, and so inspiring in vision of human brotherhood' have we had in literature over the past year.

Miracle-mythers are mere cynics and they cannot answer a hundred questions about the complexities involved in covering up fake stories, explaining details, quotes from later writers, the lack of apostates denying the story and so on. They have everybody involved burning evidence, acting out of the most evil motives, and writing better metaphors than Shakepeare.

Yay for sweeping generalizations. Really do you actually believe every single person who doesn't believe in miracles 'burns evidence' and acts out of evil motives? I'd say the number of people that do that in support and opposition of miracles are pretty close.
As for covering up fake stories, I would say people do that on their own pretty well. Can we say, urban legends?
I am not so cynical as to think that every account of a miracle is a straight out lie on someones part, I have more faith in human goodness than that (barely). However the world works like one big game of telephone. Granted cameras and recording devices help to prevent that, but they seem ot be curiously absent in many cases (i.e. Yetis, visions of Mary, visions of Elvis, sightings of Martha Stewart).

Again, it's not about proof, but the human will. Admit it and get over it.

Rad

Sorry that takes more will and faith than I have.

 

[radorth]

From evolutio, the energized bunny with nine lives. Man I gotta get some of those pills you're taking

Hahaha, that is an absolutely inspired statement. Though how many characters of 'powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic, and so inspiring in vision of human brotherhood' have we had in literature over the past year

None even close to Jesus I'm afraid. What was that about a billion followers again?

Yay for sweeping generalizations. Really do you actually believe every single person who doesn't believe in miracles 'burns evidence' and acts out of evil motives?

Huh? You seem to have read the converse of what I said, or you have somehow convoluted my statement. We can try again if you want to reread, but you do look tired

I'd say the number of people that do that in support and opposition of miracles are pretty close.

I'm afraid you missed the point, which a truer skeptic, Durant, did not. That is why he believes the basic veracity Gospels while rejecting legends from a single source, urban legends, stories like Homer, Mitrai etc.

You're comparing a farthing candle to the sun my friend. But we know why you fight so hard. If it's true, you can't keep doing whatever pleases you. You imagine you are "free," when actually you are bound by self and selfishness. You'd become accountable to God or, God forbid, Christ. So you apply tests of truth nothing could pass. Like I said. It has nothing to do with evidence. It's about your willfulness.

But take heart. Jesus said he would reveal himself even to those who are "willing to do his will."

Would you like a reference?

Rad

 

[revolutio]

From evolutio, the energized bunny with nine lives. Man I gotta get some of those pills you're taking.

Sorry I have been nauseous all day so I see I did read several of the things you said wrong. Bleh.

But we know why you fight so hard. If it's true, you can't keep doing whatever pleases you. You imagine you are "free," when actually you are bound by self and selfishness. You'd become accountable to God or, God forbid, Christ. So you apply tests of truth nothing could pass. Like I said. It has nothing to do with evidence.It's about your willfulness.

Geez talk about stating the obvious, of course I am bound by my selfishness I resist change with all my heart and despise being proven wrong. Actually I apply those tests of truth the everything, and you are right, nothing passes. I wouldn't really care who I was accountable to so long is it doesn't prevent me from doing good in the world and staying happy.

You are right that I don't base my religious beliefs on evidence. There is too much of it for both sides. I just don't have the energy nor will to sort through it and find the truth if it is there.

 

[tcampen]

What about when the flatness of the Earth wasn't a falsifiable assertion? What about when they couldn't sail around the world or orbit the planet in a spacecraft? The truth would not be negotiated.

I guess you aren't debating whether or not there is absolute supernatural truth. So what is your point? Just that God can't be proven? If so, I would have given you that 20 posts ago.

The fundamental differenct between whether the earth is flat, or whether god exists, is that the Earths shape was something that was going to necessarily be figured out sooner or later. Human technology was going to get there. Sure, it took some time, but it was never really doubted. The same could be said for determining whether life exists or one existed on Mars. This is something we can reasonably predict that within the next 200 to 300 years, a definitive answer will be known on this question as our technology progresses.

Please explain to me how the same could be said of God. Will human technology be able to prove God's existence objectively within the next 50 years? 100 years? 1,000 years? And if so, by what means?

(Actually, cryogenics could tell us a lot about the afterlife in the next 100 or so years. Imagine someone being dead and frozen for a few years, and then we bring him back to life. He should have some enlightening things to share, don't you think?)

Because God can't be proven, what is the point of asserting such to the exclusion of anyone who differs? Now, if there is a objective, verifiable process and methodology that, at least someday, could prove the existence of a personal god, by all means please share it.

But until you can do so, anyone's guess is as good as the next, and odds are that nobody has it right. I suppose I have difficulty understanding how you can come up with such a particular and specific concept of God, claim it is absolutely right, dismiss anyone who differs as being wrong, yet do so about something that is unverifiable. To me, that is a little intellectually flawed. If you wanted to qualify that position with, "I don't know, but this is what I believe," then I'm for it.

 

[Blessed75]

Just wondering

Since there seem to be people of all different faiths and ideas on this chat, how tolerant are we of one another? Do you find it difficult or easy to talk to others who differ in opinion from you? What do you want those of other faiths to know about you when interacting with you?

I'm tolerant of other faiths - I don't find it difficult to talk to other people who express different views and opinions, however, I do have a problem with people telling me they are right, I am wrong and refuse to be open minded. It's insulting. It's okay to agree to disagree but I can't stand it when someone pushes their beliefs down my throat.

 

[radorth]

Re:revolutio

I just don't have the energy nor will to sort through it and find the truth if it is there.

Bingo. It isn't easy, I'll be the first to admit. But it's mainly hard on the ego and the will, and "few there are that find it" in this world. But the rewards seem so great as to be entirely undeserved when they begin to manifest.

My friend, even if you define sin simply as trying to fulfill deep and legitimate needs by your own efforts and will, without God's power or guidance, you have glimpsed the right path. His will for you is beyond what you could ask or think now.

Rad

 

[tcampen]

Re:revolutio

"I just don't have the energy nor will to sort through it and find the truth if it is there."

Bingo. It isn't easy, I'll be the first to admit. But it's mainly hard on the ego and the will, and "few there are that find it" in this world. But the rewards seem so great as to be entirely undeserved when they begin to manifest.

I agree with this sentiment. Ego and will are often impediments to the truth, especially when we first proclaim to have the truth, then seek evidence in support of that preconception - rather that examining the evidence and allowing it to point where ever the truth points itself. I see the latter as the virtuous methodology for understanding what the truth is.

 

[revolutio]

I agree with this sentiment. Ego and will are often impediments to the truth, especially when we first proclaim to have the truth, then seek evidence in support of that preconception - rather that examining the evidence and allowing it to point where ever the truth points itself. I see the latter as the virtuous methodology for understanding what the truth is.

Thank you, you get to be my spokeperson from now on because my brain is a tad too clouded to think.

 

[Aaron11]

I actually like Durant's theory that Jesus did not die, but swooned. He was only on the cross for six hours. That theory makes some kind of sense because you don't have to spend your life basically calling the Gospel narrators liars and lunatics. Durant suggests that Jesus himself did not know he swooned, and thought he was raised from the dead. Durant's conclusion, which was well supported by Schonfield as well, is the only one which stands up to Occum's Razor.

If this were the case then the Gospel narrators would have had to have portrayed the story innacurately in more than one way. They would have the time wrong and they would have when Jesus was raised wrong. They would also have a hard time explaining how Jesus would have moved the extremely heavy tombstone away in His condition (with Roman soldiers outside guarding the grave). Another problem with this theory comes when you think of the seriousness that a Roman soldier took his job with. You would think that a Roman soldier knew how to tell when someone was dead. You would also think that a Roman soldier could properly crucify someone. If they couldn't, it would be their self that would be in jeopardy. Also, think about the records of Jesus's execution. 39 stripes. Severe beating. 9 hours on the cross. Spear in the side with water running out (that indicates death). The swooning theory just doesn't work if you take into account the things that we know about Christ's crucifixion and the Roman responsibility in the case.

 

[revolutio]

Erk I just noticed an editting error. That quote was actually posted by rad, I accidentally left it out of quotes in my post.

 

[Aaron11]

Oh ok... haha. I thought it seemed quite inconsistent with your usual though.

 

[Palatka44]

If this were the case then the Gospel narrators would have had to have portrayed the story innacurately in more than one way. They would have the time wrong and they would have when Jesus was raised wrong. They would also have a hard time explaining how Jesus would have moved the extremely heavy tombstone away in His condition (with Roman soldiers outside guarding the grave). Another problem with this theory comes when you think of the seriousness that a Roman soldier took his job with. You would think that a Roman soldier knew how to tell when someone was dead. You would also think that a Roman soldier could properly crucify someone. If they couldn't, it would be their self that would be in jeopardy. Also, think about the records of Jesus's execution. 39 stripes. Severe beating. 9 hours on the cross. Spear in the side with water running out (that indicates death). The swooning theory just doesn't work if you take into account the things that we know about Christ's crucifixion and the Roman responsibility in the case.

The fact that He had been through an all night ordeal with no rest. What Christ endured was more than a man could have handled.

When the Roman Centurion proclaimed "Truly this man is the Son of God" he had observed several things that made him arrive at this conclusion. He had to be aware of the trials before the High Priest, the Sanhiedren, (someone please help me with my spelling) before Herod and then before Pilot twice as I understand it.
He had to witness the scourging that Piolt gave him in hopes to apease the mob calling for his crucifixion. From that moment on Christ's trial became like Court TV or a public display or mockary of justice.
He undoubtly saw the parade of people as they watched Him struggle with the burden of His cross.
He might have even ordered Simon to pick it up and carry it the rest of the way. (Just conjecture of course).

In either case the Centurion was a witness to these events. He surley had seen many executions. Of all the crucifixions he's not seen many men that were as severely beaten as Jesus even survive the march up Calvary.
He watched after giving the order for his men to nail his arms and feet to the cross.
He listened to Jesus verbily respond to the thieves and others, as each breath He took was pure agony. Then when Jesus Had been given the vinegar He took one final gasp and said "It is finished" and gave up the ghost.

This centurion had to think that by all rights this man should have died long ago. It surprised him to see one in such condition to have survived this long. Then of all things this man on the cross, that should be dead, wills His body to finally expire. Yes this centurion knew then that this man is no ordinary man. He immediately recognized that Jesus is the Son of God by simply witnessing His death.

 

[radorth]

Re: Aaaon 11.

(BTW you attributed a quote to Revolutio which was stated my me).

The swooning theory just doesn't work if you take into account the things that we know about Christ's crucifixion and the Roman responsibility in the case.

I don't buy the theory myself. What I was saying was that a great historian and skeptic was forced to ask if Jesus really died, because he found it intellectually dishonest to question the fundamental veracity of the Gospels, and the apostles. He believed they saw what they saw. Though Durant was not a believer, he called the objections and nitpicking of the NT critics minutiae.

Rad

 

[Aaron11]

Thanks rad. Yeah, it looks like we are on the same page.

 

[tcampen]

The fact that He had been through an all night ordeal with no rest. What Christ endured was more than a man could have handled.

When the Roman Centurion proclaimed "Truly this man is the Son of God" he had observed several things that made him arrive at this conclusion. He had to be aware of the trials before the High Priest, the Sanhiedren, (someone please help me with my spelling) before Herod and then before Pilot twice as I understand it.
He had to witness the scourging that Piolt gave him in hopes to apease the mob calling for his crucifixion. From that moment on Christ's trial became like Court TV or a public display or mockary of justice.
He undoubtly saw the parade of people as they watched Him struggle with the burden of His cross.
He might have even ordered Simon to pick it up and carry it the rest of the way. (Just conjecture of course).

In either case the Centurion was a witness to these events. He surley had seen many executions. Of all the crucifixions he's not seen many men that were as severely beaten as Jesus even survive the march up Calvary.
He watched after giving the order for his men to nail his arms and feet to the cross.
He listened to Jesus verbily respond to the thieves and others, as each breath He took was pure agony. Then when Jesus Had been given the vinegar He took one final gasp and said "It is finished" and gave up the ghost.

This centurion had to think that by all rights this man should have died long ago. It surprised him to see one in such condition to have survived this long. Then of all things this man on the cross, that should be dead, wills His body to finally expire. Yes this centurion knew then that this man is no ordinary man. He immediately recognized that Jesus is the Son of God by simply witnessing His death.

While I don't doubt that the account of Jesus' ordeal in the Gospels shows a pretty darn horrific day, I really don't think it is far to conlude no other human could endure it for as long. Others have survived just taxing of events, or at least lived a few days under just as nasty of circumstances. Crucifixions were hardly unusual during this time, and there is no reason to believe Jesus suffered any more than others crucified during that period, nor survived longer. All that about the centurion is speculation. In fact, if it were true the centurion witnessed and believed all this, then he should have become one of Jesus' greatest desciples and apologists. Yet, what became of him? People throughout history have devoted themselves and have been willing to die for beliefs with infinitely less evidence to support their beliefs.

If this were the case then the Gospel narrators would have had to have portrayed the story innacurately in more than one way. They would have the time wrong and they would have when Jesus was raised wrong. They would also have a hard time explaining how Jesus would have moved the extremely heavy tombstone away in His condition (with Roman soldiers outside guarding the grave). Another problem with this theory comes when you think of the seriousness that a Roman soldier took his job with. You would think that a Roman soldier knew how to tell when someone was dead. You would also think that a Roman soldier could properly crucify someone. If they couldn't, it would be their self that would be in jeopardy. Also, think about the records of Jesus's execution. 39 stripes. Severe beating. 9 hours on the cross. Spear in the side with water running out (that indicates death). The swooning theory just doesn't work if you take into account the things that we know about Christ's crucifixion and the Roman responsibility in the case.

I thought it was 6 hours on the cross. And the tombstone couldn't be that heavy if a couple of women were going to move it. And the Roman Soldiers guarding the tomb - I don't get that one. The story says they were given a bunch of money to say they "fell asleep" and the body gone. The price for loosing the body they were guarding would have been their own lives, so even saying they "fell asleep" is totally irrelevant. That excuse is utterly worthless. It just makes no sense. (The money makes a lot more sense, but I still don't understand where the money came from.)

As far as the Roman Soldier killers go...if you can believe Joseph of Arimathea was a secret follower of Jesus, while being part of the high Jewish counsel responsible for Jesus' demise, then why couldn't the Roman soldier be a secret follower too. As far as the side puncture goes, funny how such an important fact is only mentioned in one of the four canonized gospels. Furthermore, some have noted that the original greek word of "nyssein" means more of scratch than a puncture, but it's all greek to me, so I don't know. The blood and water thing is interesting, as they knew it was an indicator of death. But that could have been added later to give the death on the cross more validity. In fact, that only John's gospel mentions it, and it was the last written, is an interesting observation.

I'm still a fan of the "temporary burial" of Jesus in the tomb, until after the sabbath had past (Saturday night), then Jesus was placed in a mass grave. Accoring to Jewish law, Jesus would have had to be taken down by sundown, especially with the Sabbath approaching. Josesph of Aramathea could have been charged with dealing with the body, being a member of the council. Temporary burial was not an uncommon practice at the time, and it is pretty inconceivable that Joesph of Arimathea, being a solid member of the Sanhedrin Council who just got Jesus crucified, would have openly volunteered to have Jesus's body placed in the relatively luxurious tomb for a rich, Jewish leader. That would have been outing himself right there. It seems more probable the stories got twisted around a bit over the decades of oral tradition. But then again, who knows?

 

[Palatka44]

While I don't doubt that the account of Jesus' ordeal in the Gospels shows a pretty darn horrific day, I really don't think it is far to conlude no other human could endure it for as long. Others have survived just taxing of events, or at least lived a few days under just as nasty of circumstances. Crucifixions were hardly unusual during this time, and there is no reason to believe Jesus suffered any more than others crucified during that period, nor survived longer. All that about the centurion is speculation. In fact, if it were true the centurion witnessed and believed all this, then he should have become one of Jesus' greatest desciples and apologists. Yet, what became of him? People throughout history have devoted themselves and have been willing to die for beliefs with infinitely less evidence to support their beliefs.




I thought it was 6 hours on the cross. And the tombstone couldn't be that heavy if a couple of women were going to move it. And the Roman Soldiers guarding the tomb - I don't get that one. The story says they were given a bunch of money to say they "fell asleep" and the body gone. The price for loosing the body they were guarding would have been their own lives, so even saying they "fell asleep" is totally irrelevant. That excuse is utterly worthless. It just makes no sense. (The money makes a lot more sense, but I still don't understand where the money came from.)

As far as the Roman Soldier killers go...if you can believe Joseph of Arimathea was a secret follower of Jesus, while being part of the high Jewish counsel responsible for Jesus' demise, then why couldn't the Roman soldier be a secret follower too. As far as the side puncture goes, funny how such an important fact is only mentioned in one of the four canonized gospels. Furthermore, some have noted that the original greek word of "nyssein" means more of scratch than a puncture, but it's all greek to me, so I don't know. The blood and water thing is interesting, as they knew it was an indicator of death. But that could have been added later to give the death on the cross more validity. In fact, that only John's gospel mentions it, and it was the last written, is an interesting observation.

I'm still a fan of the "temporary burial" of Jesus in the tomb, until after the sabbath had past (Saturday night), then Jesus was placed in a mass grave. Accoring to Jewish law, Jesus would have had to be taken down by sundown, especially with the Sabbath approaching. Josesph of Aramathea could have been charged with dealing with the body, being a member of the council. Temporary burial was not an uncommon practice at the time, and it is pretty inconceivable that Joesph of Arimathea, being a solid member of the Sanhedrin Council who just got Jesus crucified, would have openly volunteered to have Jesus's body placed in the relatively luxurious tomb for a rich, Jewish leader. That would have been outing himself right there. It seems more probable the stories got twisted around a bit over the decades of oral tradition. But then again, who knows?

Tcampen, you've got to know that the accounts of Jesus' death, burial and ressurection ring true. Every one of those that were involved with the story of His ressurection (120 men and women) went to their graves after undergoing terrible persecution. If any of it was a lie at least one would have confessed it to have been so. To this day there is not one account of any that bore witness of lies.
Sure many have endured a life of lies if they thought that they stood to get away with a crime, but these had committed no crime. In fact their lives were quite miserable because of their witness of these events. Read the Book of Acts and see how they had to flee Jerusalem to Damascus and on to Antioch to escape persecution. This is what makes this story so compellingly true.

 

[Aaron11]

While I don't doubt that the account of Jesus' ordeal in the Gospels shows a pretty darn horrific day, I really don't think it is far to conlude no other human could endure it for as long. Others have survived just taxing of events, or at least lived a few days under just as nasty of circumstances. Crucifixions were hardly unusual during this time, and there is no reason to believe Jesus suffered any more than others crucified during that period, nor survived longer. All that about the centurion is speculation. In fact, if it were true the centurion witnessed and believed all this, then he should have become one of Jesus' greatest desciples and apologists. Yet, what became of him? People throughout history have devoted themselves and have been willing to die for beliefs with infinitely less evidence to support their beliefs.




I thought it was 6 hours on the cross. And the tombstone couldn't be that heavy if a couple of women were going to move it. And the Roman Soldiers guarding the tomb - I don't get that one. The story says they were given a bunch of money to say they "fell asleep" and the body gone. The price for loosing the body they were guarding would have been their own lives, so even saying they "fell asleep" is totally irrelevant. That excuse is utterly worthless. It just makes no sense. (The money makes a lot more sense, but I still don't understand where the money came from.)

As far as the Roman Soldier killers go...if you can believe Joseph of Arimathea was a secret follower of Jesus, while being part of the high Jewish counsel responsible for Jesus' demise, then why couldn't the Roman soldier be a secret follower too. As far as the side puncture goes, funny how such an important fact is only mentioned in one of the four canonized gospels. Furthermore, some have noted that the original greek word of "nyssein" means more of scratch than a puncture, but it's all greek to me, so I don't know. The blood and water thing is interesting, as they knew it was an indicator of death. But that could have been added later to give the death on the cross more validity. In fact, that only John's gospel mentions it, and it was the last written, is an interesting observation.

I'm still a fan of the "temporary burial" of Jesus in the tomb, until after the sabbath had past (Saturday night), then Jesus was placed in a mass grave. Accoring to Jewish law, Jesus would have had to be taken down by sundown, especially with the Sabbath approaching. Josesph of Aramathea could have been charged with dealing with the body, being a member of the council. Temporary burial was not an uncommon practice at the time, and it is pretty inconceivable that Joesph of Arimathea, being a solid member of the Sanhedrin Council who just got Jesus crucified, would have openly volunteered to have Jesus's body placed in the relatively luxurious tomb for a rich, Jewish leader. That would have been outing himself right there. It seems more probable the stories got twisted around a bit over the decades of oral tradition. But then again, who knows?

T,

How did He come out of the grave?

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

God sees any other religion as an affront to Him. I endeavor to be pleasing to the Lord. I love what He loves and hate what He hates. I do not hate the people who practice these religions. There's a key difference. But as CHristians, there is no question that we are not to tolerate false religion. And because we do, we have failed in our responsibility to keep our land pure, we've been bullied by the left, and now we have a nation that is being ripened for God's judgment. If I really love people, I will hate anything that threatens to destroy their very souls.