The unofficial ask a Christian thread

[BuffedGuy]

Deleted.............

[MuscleScience]

good questions, Ruhl.


4. I actually agree with you on this one, which is *one* of the reasons I'm not really religious anymore. No offense to anyone, but you see this type of sht more Protestant fundamentalists. I'm not biased at all, but from my experience, most Catholics are much less judgmental. I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant tradition, and it was terribly hypocritical, but it is something I've come to see as a part of the internal logical inconsistencies of their belief system (ie, sola gratia claims...)

In my experience it has been the complete opposite.

[BuffedGuy]

Deleted...........

[scibble]

tsk tsk.....blame the entirety of my elementary and middle school classes....they're the ones that instilled in me my hatred of religion and its' ignorance

you're an adult now, 22 yo. you are responsible for your own actions now Ruhl. what you feel inside is one thing. how you treat people on the other hand is a different matter.

[D7M]

In my experience it has been the complete opposite.

That's fair. But, care to expand?

That was just my experience, so I'm not generalizing. I guess I was refering more to the puritanical codes of morality that most Protestant denominations subscribe to. Like, don't drink, smoke, etc. In general, these things aren't healthy, but they are not "intrinsically evil" and most of my experience was that if you did drink (even socially) you were automatically branded as a terrible person.

I guess what it comes down to is every religion (even every social group) has its hypocrites, but that is not what defines the group.

[scibble]

My personal opinion is that it is great to come here and ask questions of derek. With respect for your beliefs and opinions Buffed Guy it's getting a little thick in this thread with essays on Muslim beliefs. Just my opinion, but I think the Ask a Muslim Thread is the best place for it. Let Derek have his thread for his answers to questions about Christianity.

Again, no disrespect, and I have certainly no authority to be telling people what they can post...

[BuffedGuy]

My personal opinion is that it is great to come here and ask questions of derek. With respect for your beliefs and opinions Buffed Guy it's getting a little thick in this thread with essays on Muslim beliefs. Just my opinion, but I think the Ask a Muslim Thread is the best place for it. Let Derek have his thread for his answers to questions about Christianity.

Alright, I'll delete my post and move it to the Ask a Muslim thread. Sorry for that. Mods, I've edited my post to remove the content. If you can please just delete the posts to clean up the thread, that would be great. I didn't mean to be obnoxious, and I really appreciate the heads up, Scibble. I just get overly excited in religious theology threads.

[Rugger02]

I'm not really familiar with this one.

Is it related to the Christian Science created by Mary Backer Eddy? I

I'll check it out and get back to you (now I'm curious)

I don't know a lot about Mary Becker Eddy, just that she was the founder of Christian Science. (Not to be confused with Scientology lol)

There is a lot of contraversy about Dr. Dino. And a while back i think he was in trouble with the law, for claiming he worked for God, and that brought up some issues with taxes or something (I don't really know what became of all that but it's beside the point anyways) He has a lot of haters. I think particularly because he's taken some of the bedrock beliefs of people who believe in evolution and tore them apart scientifically.

He's one of the few that preach, but even if you're not a Christian per-se, he's still interesting to listen to. Anybody interested in Geology, Science or history would probably find his ideas pretty interesting.

[Rugger02]

That's fair. But, care to expand?

That was just my experience, so I'm not generalizing. I guess I was refering more to the puritanical codes of morality that most Protestant denominations subscribe to. Like, don't drink, smoke, etc. In general, these things aren't healthy, but they are not "intrinsically evil" and most of my experience was that if you did drink (even socially) you were automatically branded as a terrible person.

I guess what it comes down to is every religion (even every social group) has its hypocrites, but that is not what defines the group.

Very true, I think a lot of people forget this sometimes.

[Kale]

So here is the thing. My Dad died on the 5th of January this year, I went to New Zea land to bury him, My Dad was a Catholic, I was baptized a Catholic but after years of abuse at school I am now and Agnostic i.e I will believe it when I see it. I had a very interesting discussion with the Catholic priest who buried my father and I asked him the question about heaven and its existence, and his view was that when we die we all kind of go into a holding pattern until redemption day. He thinks that on that day when God or jesus or whoever, returns to earth and carries out judgment that all the good guys will end up back in bodies similar to what we have now but life will then be perfect (my idea of perfect is continually staring in a porn movie but I digress). Derek do you have a view on this, because in my view, if there is a heaven, it must be one boring place !!!

[MuscleScience]

That's fair. But, care to expand?

That was just my experience, so I'm not generalizing. I guess I was refering more to the puritanical codes of morality that most Protestant denominations subscribe to. Like, don't drink, smoke, etc. In general, these things aren't healthy, but they are not "intrinsically evil" and most of my experience was that if you did drink (even socially) you were automatically branded as a terrible person.

I guess what it comes down to is every religion (even every social group) has its hypocrites, but that is not what defines the group.

No not really It is my own personal observation on how I and friends and family have been treated. Its probably and most likely not representative of all Catholics and is a personal bias that I hold right or wrong. Saying anything more would be purely a biased one sided opinion not worthy of intelligent debate. Plus someone would get sore feelings and thats not what I am here for. I just wanted to point out another side of the comment you made, not to argue but to balance the argument....

[D7M]

Peace be unto you, Derek.

Thanks for the response. To be clear, we Muslims say that: if by "place" one means an entity composed of atoms or matter, then it is disbelief to claim this, because God cannot be contained inside His creation. But if by place one simply means a direction, then yes, God is above us, transcendent above and distinct from His creation. We believe that this belief of ours opposes that of the pagan polytheists, who claim that God is everywhere and thus it is acceptable to worship their idols since God 'indwells' inside His creation. We Muslims reject this and say that God is above and unique from His creation, and cannot be contained in or by His creation, because God is too Exalted and Glorified above mixing in or being surrounded by His creation..this is one of the reasons we Muslims reject the idea that God came down to earth as a human being. So we say that God is above the heavens, separated from His creation and distinct.

Right. So a Christian would agree completely with you on this (except for the part on the Incarnation of course). Christians are not pantheists. Apologies I wasn't clearer before.

Anyways, there was a huge debate in Islamic theology with regards to this issue (i.e. where is God), with a group of the Muslims believing like you do, saying that God is not literally above the heavens. However, the orthodox group of Muslims fervently opposed this group. It is still a heated debate amongst Muslims today.

Maybe I'm missing the crucial point of distinction here. How exactly do you define "the heavens"? I would agree that God is completely transcendet and separate from creation, so maybe I'm just getting tired and missing something.

In the course of Islamic theology, the earliest generation of Muslims ascribed to the view that God is literally above the heavens. Then, as the Islamic empire expanded, the Muslims had interaction with Greek philosophy. The Muslims and the Non-Muslim philosophers (who followed Greek philosophy) had heated debates, each trying to refute the other. Then from the ranks of the Muslims arose a group that sought to embrace parts of Greek philosophy to refute the Non-Muslim philosophers...sort of like use their own guns against them.

Ah, I understand now. So I guess you're not a follower of Avincenna?

But we orthodox Muslims fought this group of philosopher Muslims, because we saw how they corrupted their faith by mixing in Greek philosophy with Islam. Eventually, the orthodox Muslims issued statement after statement condemning philosophy in general. That group of philosopher Muslims adopted the belief that God does not exist in this space-time continuum and it would be anthropomorphism to believe such a thing; this is what the Christians like you say. However, the orthodox Muslims rejected this claim of the philosopher Muslims and called them "like atheists", because we say that there are only three options: either God is (1) everywhere, (2) nowhere, or (3) somewhere. There is nothing else left. The belief that God is everywhere is the belief of pagan religions throughout history, and the belief that God is nowhere is what the atheists believe (and what we orthodox Muslims accused the philosopher Muslims of believing). So all that is left is that God is somewhere, and that somewhere is above the Heavens, distinct from His creation. Of course, the philosopher Muslims slam us back with arguments, and I'm sure the Christians would too, since both groups hold the same belief on the issue, accusing us of anthropomorphism.

You see that you're using philosophy to refute philosophy, right? I'm not slamming you, just making an observation. Even the simple law of excluded middle will show there could be other possibilities besides the ones you listed. Anyway, I wouldn't say your view is anthropomorphic if, as you said before, "space" is not defined as entity composed of atoms and molecules.

Anyways, the orthodox Muslims believe that religion and philosophy are at polar opposites. In religion, man knows nothing, until God reveals His Word and Message to him through His Messengers. On the other hand, philosophers believe that they themselves can reach the truth through their own willpower and intellect. Furthermore, the questions that philosophers ask are not for lowly servants like ourselves to ask, and such thinking inevitably leads down the path of disbelief. We also believe that philosophy is a bunch of baloney (which I'm sure many nonbelievers think of religion). Here is my preacher's own words on philosophy (who is ironically doing his masters in philosophy at Yale):

The general consensus is that philosophy is the handmaid to theology. That is, philosophy provides a basic structure with which to theology. This is my view as well. It's somewhat inevitable. Without this, then, one can only really be an apophatic theologian (which does have its benefits to an extent). But I agree, man can only know the truth about God after revelation. Certain things can still be known by natural reason, however. Man can naturally reason that God exists, but not that He is a Trinity...that can only be known through revelation. So philosophy can reach some partial truths. And it's basic prinicples and metaphysics provide a foundation on which a theology can be built. So, if you don't practice any philosophy, what kind of metaphysics do you have? I'm really curious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MH7eSXz0L4

Good video.

Anyways, I'm blabbing now, but it might interest you since you majored in theology.

So my follow-up question is: was there a debate in Christian theology over this issue? Also, how did Greek philosophy influence Christianity? Did Christiandom ever go to loggerheads with the philosophers? I did read something on this long time ago, but it has become fuzzy now...

Ooooh, this is a really complicated question. Reply to this one, while I write a response....

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

in bold

[BuffedGuy]

Derek do you have a view on this, because in my view, if there is a heaven, it must be one boring place !!!

Haha, certainly not the Muslim understanding of heaven. OK Derek, question #2: can you describe the Christian Paradise?

Ooooh, this is a really complicated question. Reply to this one, while I write a response....

Haha, but that was my main question, lol. Everything before that was just lead-up to help you understand where I'm coming from...basically, I want to know if Christian theological wars existed like Muslim ones, especially with regards to this issue of philosophy in general and "where is God" in specific.

[amcon]

I don't know a lot about Mary Becker Eddy, just that she was the founder of Christian Science. (Not to be confused with Scientology lol)

There is a lot of contraversy about Dr. Dino. And a while back i think he was in trouble with the law, for claiming he worked for God, and that brought up some issues with taxes or something (I don't really know what became of all that but it's beside the point anyways) He has a lot of haters. I think particularly because he's taken some of the bedrock beliefs of people who believe in evolution and tore them apart scientifically.

He's one of the few that preach, but even if you're not a Christian per-se, he's still interesting to listen to. Anybody interested in Geology, Science or history would probably find his ideas pretty interesting.

i am a big fan of doctor dino or keneth hovind... he is in jail because of not paying his taxes due to religous beliefs. NOTE: he should be in jail for not following the what the bible says about such things "...we should respect our government..." he did not - however it is nearly impossible to refute he links science and God, evolution and creation.

he has so many haters cause he has crushed the world of science with science... he has debated the worlds best and left them speachless

[D7M]

I don't know a lot about Mary Becker Eddy, just that she was the founder of Christian Science. (Not to be confused with Scientology lol)

There is a lot of contraversy about Dr. Dino. And a while back i think he was in trouble with the law, for claiming he worked for God, and that brought up some issues with taxes or something (I don't really know what became of all that but it's beside the point anyways) He has a lot of haters. I think particularly because he's taken some of the bedrock beliefs of people who believe in evolution and tore them apart scientifically.

He's one of the few that preach, but even if you're not a Christian per-se, he's still interesting to listen to. Anybody interested in Geology, Science or history would probably find his ideas pretty interesting.

Heh, I didn't hear about that one.

I'll have to listen to him one day while I'm on here whoring.

[amcon]

According to the Christian tradition Jesus was a virgin (But ppl make a lot of money of books and movies that say he wasn't).

There really isn't much historical evidence to prove one side or the other. Where "historical evidence" means non-biased accounts. So, if we didn't include the Gospels (as they are obviously biased), the only other reliable historical data we have is from Josephus. He says nothing about Christ's marital status, but only confirms that he was a real person.

derek in regaurds to the above ^^^ if the bible is perfect, and we know it is, where in the bible would you note that it even hints that Jesus had any sort of sexually relations with a woman? yet it records every other action he did? and the bible states that Jesus will be wed to "the church"... never says to a woman?

[D7M]

So here is the thing. My Dad died on the 5th of January this year, I went to New Zea land to bury him, My Dad was a Catholic, I was baptized a Catholic but after years of abuse at school I am now and Agnostic i.e I will believe it when I see it. I had a very interesting discussion with the Catholic priest who buried my father and I asked him the question about heaven and its existence, and his view was that when we die we all kind of go into a holding pattern until redemption day. He thinks that on that day when God or jesus or whoever, returns to earth and carries out judgment that all the good guys will end up back in bodies similar to what we have now but life will then be perfect (my idea of perfect is continually staring in a porn movie but I digress). Derek do you have a view on this, because in my view, if there is a heaven, it must be one boring place !!!

See, this always gets me pissed when I hear stories of poorly educated priests. Where I got my degree, there were a lot of priests getting their degrees, and man, they just slid through. Profs just passed them though. then they go out into parish work, and don't really know what they are talking about...pffft.

Anyway, this is probably one of the most misunderstood concepts in Christianity, and alot of it is due to media portrayals of heaven (clouds and harps, and angels that look like lil babies). Actually, heaven, in the Christian tradition, will be the most supremely joyful existence ever, because you will be able to behold God as He is in Himself. If you believe in God, then by definition he must be the most excellent being. It will be so joyous, because you will actually be "seeing" and "knowing" the most perfect being in existence. (if you want me to explain the metaphysics of how a finite being can ever experience an infinite being, I will.) So, the point, I guess, is that is won't be boring, because it will be the purest, most happiest moment of human existence.

I hope this helps. I wasn't sure if there was a question in there about purgatory, too. Let me know.

[D7M]

derek in regaurds to the above ^^^ if the bible is perfect, and we know it is, where in the bible would you note that it even hints that Jesus had any sort of sexually relations with a woman? yet it records every other action he did? and the bible states that Jesus will be wed to "the church"... never says to a woman?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Maybe my other post was confusing.

Of course, the bible no where says that Jesus had sexual relations with any woman.

i was trying to say that even outside the bible, there is no historical data for saying that Jesus had any sexual relations with women.

[Kale]

See, this always gets me pissed when I hear stories of poorly educated priests. Where I got my degree, there were a lot of priests getting their degrees, and man, they just slid through. Profs just passed them though. then they go out into parish work, and don't really know what they are talking about...pffft.

Anyway, this is probably one of the most misunderstood concepts in Christianity, and alot of it is due to media portrayals of heaven (clouds and harps, and angels that look like lil babies). Actually, heaven, in the Christian tradition, will be the most supremely joyful existence ever, because you will be able to behold God as He is in Himself. If you believe in God, then by definition he must be the most excellent being. It will be so joyous, because you will actually be "seeing" and "knowing" the most perfect being in existence. (if you want me to explain the metaphysics of how a finite being can ever experience an infinite being, I will.) So, the point, I guess, is that is won't be boring, because it will be the purest, most happiest moment of human existence.

I hope this helps. I wasn't sure if there was a question in there about purgatory, too. Let me know.

He mentioned pergotry as well but when I went to school many years ago (I am almost 54) the Nun's actually taught as that that was where the "black" babies went !!! Ya gotta love em !!! So I guess the question about your explanation is that nobody cant truly understand the concept of "the purest, most happiest moment of human existence" as you put it and also the concept of that lasting for eternity. That is the problem I have with religion. I am a totally science/fact based kind of guy and I just cannot have that leap of faith that is required to accept all of this I am afraid

[rockinred]

derek, be careful on this thread... dont be afraid to state that you might not know the answer or that a lot of things are unclear. answering any and all questions is what leads religion to where they are today. It also makes one(or a church) out to be God themself by explaing the unexplainable... there are so many unanswerable questions and when talking about religion one has to express that much is based on faith (believing in something unseen or known).... it is when people and church's try and answer everything and anything, when they (people or churches) start to sound uninformed... and then the labels and slandering begins.

[D7M]

He mentioned pergotry as well but when I went to school many years ago (I am almost 54) the Nun's actually taught as that that was where the "black" babies went !!! Ya gotta love em !!! So I guess the question about your explanation is that nobody cant truly understand the concept of "the purest, most happiest moment of human existence" as you put it and also the concept of that lasting for eternity. That is the problem I have with religion. I am a totally science/fact based kind of guy and I just cannot have that leap of faith that is required to accept all of this I am afraid

Yikes! those nuns, man, sheesh.

You're right, it's difficult to understand what that really means.

If you want a really scientific answer, I can give you one. It will be based off Aristotelian metaphysics (hey, it's a deductive science). So there are more in depth explanations than saying "you'll be really happy".

But, I don't think religion is simply a matter of taking a leap of faith. Yes, faith is a gift, and its necessary, but it's not blind either. God gave us minds and intellects, and we should use them as an aid to our understanding faith.

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, Derek.

You have majored in theology at a very prestigious Christian university. As such, you are not a layperson. My question is, do you agree with the quote below:

derek in regaurds to the above ^^^ if the bible is perfect, and we know it is,

I've seen a lot of Christian laypersons saying this, but I've also seen Christian laypersons denying it and saying that although the Bible is not perfect, it's still excellent (just not without error). I've also read from Dr. Bart Ehrman that no credible Christian scholar actually holds the belief that the Bible is 100% without error, as we have it today; he says it's just a misconception held by some from the Christian masses.

What is your take on this? Also, what is your view of Dr. Bart Ehrman? Fair and balanced? Or sensationalist and biased?

Thanks.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[amcon]

I'm not sure what you're asking. Maybe my other post was confusing.

Of course, the bible no where says that Jesus had sexual relations with any woman.

i was trying to say that even outside the bible, there is no historical data for saying that Jesus had any sexual relations with women.

agreed - it looked like (too me) that the answer was left open to interpertation

[D7M]

Peace be unto you, Derek.

You have majored in theology at a very prestigious Christian university. As such, you are not a layperson. My question is, do you agree with the quote below:



I've seen a lot of Christian laypersons saying this, but I've also seen Christian laypersons denying it and saying that although the Bible is not perfect, it's still excellent (just not without error). I've also read from Dr. Bart Ehrman that no credible Christian scholar actually holds the belief that the Bible is 100% without error, as we have it today; he says it's just a misconception held by some from the Christian masses.

What is your take on this? Also, what is your view of Dr. Bart Ehrman? Fair and balanced? Or sensationalist and biased?

Thanks.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

Well, first I would say I *am* a lay person, since I'm not a cleric or priest.

Good call on that. I'd say it is infallible in terms of faith and morals. Which is what is should be. It's not a necessarily a historical document or a scientific one.

[amcon]

Peace be unto you, Derek.

You have majored in theology at a very prestigious Christian university. As such, you are not a layperson. My question is, do you agree with the quote below:



I've seen a lot of Christian laypersons saying this, but I've also seen Christian laypersons denying it and saying that although the Bible is not perfect, it's still excellent (just not without error). I've also read from Dr. Bart Ehrman that no credible Christian scholar actually holds the belief that the Bible is 100% without error, as we have it today; he says it's just a misconception held by some from the Christian masses.

What is your take on this? Also, what is your view of Dr. Bart Ehrman? Fair and balanced? Or sensationalist and biased?

Thanks.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

in all due respect - learning the bible from a college or from a priest or a pastor is not what God calls us to do... some of the highest regaurded theologens held no formal education or acclimations. i will quote the reason for perfect Word in just a few

[amcon]

transfiguration - is it biblical or religous(man made)?

[BuffedGuy]

in all due respect - learning the bible from a college or from a priest or a pastor is not what God calls us to do... some of the highest regaurded theologens held no formal education or acclimations. i will quote the reason for perfect Word in just a few

Sorry bro, I didn't mean it as an insult to you. I'm a Muslim layperson myself. Forgive me, I shouldn't have called you out specifically on it. I just wanted to know if practicing Christian scholars claim that 100% of the Bible is accurate, i.e. without error, fabrication, omission, etc. To my knowledge, most Christian scholars claim that the Bible is something like 95-98% accurate but not 100%, i.e. there *have* been minor additions, deletions, etc, but that they do not--according to them--change or distort the message. In other words, Muslims and Christians agree that the Bible is not 100% accurate, but Muslims believe that the changes are significant and do affect the message, whereas Christians would fire back that the changes are minor and do *not* affect the message.

[Phate]

Yikes! those nuns, man, sheesh.

You're right, it's difficult to understand what that really means.

If you want a really scientific answer, I can give you one. It will be based off Aristotelian metaphysics (hey, it's a deductive science). So there are more in depth explanations than saying "you'll be really happy".

But, I don't think religion is simply a matter of taking a leap of faith. Yes, faith is a gift, and its necessary, but it's not blind either. God gave us minds and intellects, and we should use them as an aid to our understanding faith.

please do, i enjoy metaphysics

[D7M]

in all due respect - learning the bible from a college or from a priest or a pastor is not what God calls us to do... some of the highest regaurded theologens held no formal education or acclimations. i will quote the reason for perfect Word in just a few

Such as....?

I agree some really notable preachers had little formal education, but I can't think of any notable theologians who had no formal education. But I could be wrong....

[D7M]

transfiguration - is it biblical or religous(man made)?

do you mean the Transfiguration of Jesus as reported in Matt 17?

[amcon]

Such as....?

I agree some really notable preachers had little formal education, but I can't think of any notable theologians who had no formal education. But I could be wrong....

james allen (my unkle) no formal education holds three honerary (sp) doctorates due to his life work on the missions field and in minnesota,

more noted:
billy graham
bob jones
Reinhold Niebuhr (he may have a formal education but never speaks of it highly just that he studies the bible - witch is my point)

[amcon]

do you mean the Transfiguration of Jesus as reported in Matt 17?

no, the wine truning in to the blood of christ and the wafer turning in to the body of christ... his actually body

trans something....

[D7M]

no, the wine truning in to the blood of christ and the wafer turning in to the body of christ... his actually body

trans something....

oh. Transubstantiation.

Was first coined in the 12th century. Really caught on after St. Thomas Aquinas.

The term itself is man-made; it doesn't occur in the bible (just like the word trinity doesn't occur in the bible either).

So the act of transubstantiation is a miracle, but the word is indeed man made.

It's a human invention, and attempt to understand a reality that is impossible to fully comprehend in this life.

The Church never said this is the *only* way to describe what happens, but no one has come up with a better way yet, so it works. This was a huge debate at the Council of Trent (1546)....

[D7M]

please do, i enjoy metaphysics

Ok, I will tomorrow.

[amcon]

who wrote the bible? God, inspired man t write it

is God perfect? yes

so then the question is, would man have made a mistake writing God word? even after it was inspired by God?

i will add vers's later it was a long day (wife and baby in hospital, her water broke 2.5 months early ... gotta read luke and go night night )

[MuscleScience]

who wrote the bible ? God inspired man

is God perfect yes ? yes

so then the question is would man have made a mistake writing God word? even after it was inspired by God?

i will add vers's later it was a long day (wife and baby in hospital, her water broke 2.5 months early ... gotta read luke and go night night )

Beweis liest Ihre Posten mein Freund

It gives me a headache sometimes keeping up...

[amcon]

oh. Transubstantiation.

Was first coined in the 12th century. Really caught on after St. Thomas Aquinas.

The term itself is man-made; it doesn't occur in the bible (just like the word trinity doesn't occur in the bible either).

So the act of transubstantiation is a miracle, but the word is indeed man made.

It's a human invention, and attempt to understand a reality that is impossible to fully comprehend in this life.

The Church never said this is the *only* way to describe what happens, but no one has come up with a better way yet, so it works. This was a huge debate at the Council of Trent (1546)....

i have to answer this one ... (exodus 4:13)

correct me if i am wrong and i dont want to flame however -

the only thing that matters in our salvation and most of the things that are debated by christian to christian (hopefully) doesnt deal with our salvation - Jesus was born of a virgin, was tempted and perfect, died on the cross for our Sin(sin of adam) and rose again... and will come again to judge the wicked

trinity in the bible - mat 28:19 (Jesus's words) "go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Jesus' words affirm the reality of the trinity, some people accused theologians of makinng up the concept of the trininty and reading it unto scriptures. as we see here, in mat 28: 19, the concept comes directly from Jesus him self, He did not say baptize them in to the names, but in to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

[amcon]

Beweis liest Ihre Posten mein Freund

It gives me a headache sometimes keeping up...

meiner Meinung nach schneller als meine Finger ... und so was, wenn ich Legasthenie

[Brown Ninja]

do human beings have a soul?

[Brown Ninja]

Is being a homosexual a sin?