Christianity Kills

“Christianity persecuted, tortured and burned. Like a hound it tracked the very scent of heresy. It kindled wars and nursed furious hatreds and ambitions. It sanctified…extermination and tyranny…it dreamt of infinite bliss’s and crowns it should be crowned with before an electrified universe and an applauding God.” George Santayana

When Christianity ascended as a legitimate religious power in the Fourth century AD you would think that they would bring order and peace to the strife torn world of their times, after all they preached universal love and forgiveness; to turn the other cheek, love your enemy, and help your neighbor. Their God was one of love, who only wanted all to worship and respect him. A Monotheistic God whom all should welcome as He was a God of peace.

Something went terribly wrong though. As the historian William Lecky wrote in 1877 in his book, A History of European Morals

“If we consider the actual history of the Church since Constantine, we shall find no justification for the popular theory that beneath its influence the narrow spirit of patriotism faded into a wide and cosmopolitan philanthropy. A real though somewhat languid feeling of universal brotherhood had already been created in the world by the universality of the Roman Empire.

In the new faith the range of genuine sympathy was strictly limited by the creed. According to popular belief, all who differed from the teaching of the orthodox lived under the hatred of the Almighty and were destined after death for an eternity of anguish … The eighty or ninety sects into which Christianity speedily divided, hated one another with the intensity that extorted the wonder of Julian and the ridicule of the pagans in Alexandria, and the fierce riots and persecution that hatred produced appeared in every page of ecclesiastical history.

The Donatists, having separated from the orthodox simply on the question of the validity of the consecration of a certain bishop, declared that all who adopted the orthodox view must be damned, refused to perform their rites in orthodox churches which they had seized till they had burnt the altar and scraped the wood, beat multitudes to death with clubs, blinded others by anointing their eyes with lime, filled Africa, during nearly two centuries, with war and desolation, and contributed largely to its final ruin.

The childish almost unintelligible quarrels between the Homoiousians and the Homoousians … filled the world with riot and hatred. The Catholics tell … how three thousand people perished in the riots that convulsed Constantinople when the Arian bishop Macedonius superseded the Athanasian Paul … In Ephesus, during the contest between St. Cyril and the Nestorians, the cathedral itself was the theater of a fierce and bloody conflict … Later, when the monophysite controversy was at its height, the palace of the emperor at Constantinople was blockaded, the churches were besieged, and the streets commanded by furious bands of contending monks.”

The new religion did not bring peace; it brought intolerance and hatred, not only of pagans and heretics, but of other Christians, and this hatred and killing of rival Christians went on for over a thousand years.

So if God exists, and is a God of Love and Peace, where the hell was he, and why didn’t he stop and fix this travesty?

Perhaps Jesus had already answered this question when he said a few hundred years earlier:
“Do not think I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Matthew 10:34

If one truly and honestly looks at the history of Christianity you will find that it is no more special and peaceful than any other religion we have ever had on earth. The only thing stopping it from doing now, what it did then, is the secular sovereignty of most Christian countries.

You want proof? Go look at Bill Maher’s movie ‘Religulous’ and the scene where he talks to some people visiting a Creationist Museum.

funny pictures of cats with captions
more animals

Truth Saves

Advertisements

About the word of me
Interested in family and friends,grandchildren, photography, darkrooms, history, archaeology, scuba diving, computers, software, fast cars, journalism, writing, travel, ecology, news, science, and probably most other subjects you could think of. Did I mention family and friends?? I require iced tea or cold brewed coffee and a internet connection to be fully functional. Sometimes there are just so many words in my head they spill out.

41 Responses to Christianity Kills

  1. Tanveer says:

    I know you are really exhausted about these things.

    But religions are not bad. But these are people who make them.

    Am I right?

  2. fightingatrophy says:

    A distinction must be made between Christianity as a religion and the people who practice it. The fundamentals of the religion are sound but there is a constant struggle for humans to implement it as they fail to realize that they will never be the full potential of their religion simply because they are human. Thousands of years of human history show that we are not capable of being what we strive to be on a global level (save for select rare individuals). This trend exists not only in Christianity but also in any other organized religion.

  3. thewordofme says:

    Hi Tanveer, thanks for writing.

    I disagree with you. Religions are bad in that they advocate such things as killing the heretic and the infidel and the homosexual and those who disagree with them.

    It is people of course that make up these religions…and the rules about how to treat other humans.

  4. Philippa says:

    Hey word, I have to disagree that people make up religions (well, some are made up, but not all).

    I agree with fightingatrophy that if we could actually follow Christianity perfectly, then society would be great. But there is such a thing as sin in the world as well. People are flawed, failed creatures, and even with the best intentions can be driven off course by temptation, greed, desire, etc. That’s not God, that’s human nature. The terrible abuses in Christ’s name are done by men and women who failed and/or who weren’t really following Christ. Christians who go around saying how perfect they are – that’s also not in the Bible and it’s wrong, and it’s their failure to be humble and reaching out in love.

    But you can’t blame everything on Christianity. It’s human nature’s central theme to be selfish, not God’s. Look at the three largest non-religious countries of the 20th century – USSR, China and North Korea. In the effort to get rid of all religion and create an atheist state, those countries killed millions and millions and millions of people. (I call N. Korea atheist even though their official religion is the worship of their previous president, who is now dead.)

    In the 20th century, more Christians were persecuted and killed than in any other religion. Religious persecution against Christians continues in India and Africa and Indonesia, and in many smaller countries. And look at Islam – they’ll kill you if you critique them or make fun of them publicly.

    My belief is that no country or society on earth will be idyllic. It can’t. And I don’t think that’s how God planned it.

  5. Philippa:
    Your point is right on. There is a famous quote: “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”. As the early christian church developed, it started to form differing leadership groups and soon the “human” element began to replace the God element. A honest look at what Jesus actually taught reveals the heart of God, to reddem to Himself his most prized creation- US. God gave us the right to reject Him sadly many do. I think it is the weakest of arguments to use human history, even as it applies to Christianity as an excuse to reject God. Jesus gave his life for us to give us that path back to God.
    God Bless, Glenn Smith Jr, author of The Key of Forgiveness

  6. thewordofme says:

    Hi fightingatrophy, thanks for your reply.

    Last things first. Let me say that I am not just picking on Christianity. Over the course of this blog I have picked on all of them…it’s just this time I focus on Christianity because everyone says it is a religion of peace.

    Christianity is no better than any other when it comes to how it treats people…it has proved that over the course of two thousand years. I don’t know if anyone keeps official score, but I would guess that Christians have killed at least as many people as have the Muslims. All in the name of God.

    It’s not just the peoples fault…it is their scripture and practices advocated in them.

    In the 16th and 17th centuries Catholics and Protestant groups in France, the British Isles, and Germany fought each other over the dogma of their respective religions and the final death toll was over 14 million souls.

    You might look for a book called ‘the Sins of Scripture’ by Bishop John Shelby Spong. He highlights the Biblical Scripture that has literally caused the death of millions.

    Think about the ramifications of this for a religion of “Peace”

  7. thewordofme says:

    Hi Philippa, thanks for writing.

    OK here’s a short list of faiths or denominations. Which one, or ones, are made up?

    Baptist
    Lutheran
    Pentecostal
    Episcopal
    Anglican
    Catholic
    Eastern Orthodox Church
    Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church
    Baha’i
    Buddhism
    Confucianism
    Christian Science
    Falun Gong
    Jehovah’s Witnesses
    Islamic
    Hindu
    Jainism
    Judaism
    Mormon
    Seventh Day Adventist
    Shinto
    Sikhism
    Taoism
    Unification
    Zoroastrianism
    This is very short list of well over 2,000 denominations. Remember only one…or none…can be right.
    Is your denomination in this short list?

  8. thewordofme says:

    Hi kingdomkeysbooks, thanks for writing.

    Hi guys and gals. Let me run a much abbreviated scenario by you and get your opinion. It involves what you were writing to Philippa about, and things I have been writing about on my blog over many months.

    Scientists can trace humanities living on this earth back a million years or so. We can also trace other hominids, such as the Neanderthals course of time here. We know for a fact that there were humans spread all over the earth 4,000 or 6,000 or 8,000 or 10,000 years ago and actually further back than that. Not just in the holy land area…ALL over the earth. So I’m saying that Adam and Eve never existed. It’s all Jewish myth.

    Now if Adam and Eve never existed…there was NO original sin, No fall from grace, No ousting from the Garden of Eden. No need for Jesus to die for our Non-existent sins. You do know that Paul made up that entire story don’t you?

    Just something to think about.

    Thanks again for writing.

  9. I am not a scientist so I am neither qulified nor inspired to answer the “evoution of man” argument regarding ” original sin. My thoughts are focused more on the general belief that God does exist, is the author of creation(regardless of how it was accomplished or how long it took), and therefore has a general right to dictate policy. I believe that what we regard as original sin is in fact the simple exersize of our own self-will over God’s will. Thus the need for redemption. By following Jesus and believing, by faith, in both who he is and what he has done, We have a renewed access to God.
    It is very simple, if you do not believe in God Almighty then ignore what I have to say since it has no meaning in your life anyway. But if you do accept God as being supreme, than there is no other option to follow. Either way, when you do finally complete your earthly travels and pass to the great beyond, you will find out who was right and who was not.
    Good living and God bless, Glenn Smith Jr

  10. I would like to pose another question to any who would like to kick this around. Why is it perfectly acceptable to only shine light on the weakness and aparent flaws of christianity’s past yet not give any weight to the good that has resulted form its rise?
    I ask- when Katrina hit the gulf coast, who provided the greatest amount of ACTUAL assistance to those in need- Christian churches of all denominations and creed( I know of one individual who raised and donated 1 million dollars through his organization alone). In the late 50’s and early 60’s when the civil rights movement was really gaining momentum- who provided the voice of reason, a Baptist minister named Martin Luther King Jr (by the way the REV Jessie Jackson came out of that same movement). When it was determined that all men should be free in this country, who championed this cause- Christian ministers. In England it was a Christian named William Wilburforce who dedicated his life to abolishing slavery there. If you look at history you will find that the morals and values taught by the bible have framed our peaceful societies for close to 2000 years now. Yes there have been serious abuses of power and great atrocities committed “in the name of God”. I refer back to my former post as to how that happens. People are free to believe what they want, and act as they believe. Still you cannot dismiss what is truly there.
    Just a thought, Glenn Smith Jr

  11. thewordofme says:

    Hi again kingdomkeysbooks, thanks for writing back.

    I am not a scientist either, but I have followed most disciplines for over 40 years now and had some small involvement in archaeology and stratigraphy (geology) God may very well exist, but I’ll bet you that he did not setup, or have anything to do with, the drama that the Christian church and its members have invented over the years.

    Christians like you will just overlook or deny the existence of evidence that has been eating into Christianities claims. The Bible is losing its authority because so much of it is being discounted by modern science and discoveries in archaeology, geology, paleontology, anthropology, biology, and other earth sciences.

    The Christian religion is Jewish myth…nothing else. After we’re dead, you will find out nothing…just as I will not.

  12. thewordofme says:

    Hi again kingdomkeysbooks, glad you’re still here.

    You write:
    “>>I would like to pose another question to any who would like to kick this around. Why is it perfectly acceptable to only shine light on the weakness and aparent flaws of christianity’s past yet not give any weight to the good that has resulted form its rise?<<”

    Good question. How would you weigh the losses or costs against the gains. We know that Christianity is responsible for many many million of deaths, not just deaths…but stupid deaths. Fights over some small bit of scripture and how to interpret it or one sect interprets the New Testament to mean one thing, another sect disagrees and whole wars start. These are not signs that there is a God behind this enterprise…more like a sign of Satan

    By the way I am not just picking on Christianity…in some of my other blogs I pick on other religions…I’m pretty much equal opportunity here.

    My bottom line on all religions is that they are all made up by man. In Christianity, there is the most evidence against because the Bible says so many things that can now-finally-be checked with modern day science and literacy.

    Some ministers fought right up to the Civil War to keep slavery viable…some even after the war. God should have spoke out against slavery in the Old Testament and Jesus should have done the same…but by their acknowledgment of it without condemnation, they committed a grave error…a real God would have denounced this evil…but the men who actually wrote the Bible had no clue, they grew up with slavery, it was normal to them. The ministers who fought slavery were a few thousand years too late. Jesus and the disciples should have been fighting this.

    I admit fully that the Churches (well most of them-in modern days mostly) do some good. I do question motives of a lot of them. And if anyone can prove that a God exists I guarantee that I’ll convert to a believer in a New York second. 🙂 So far I have seen no proofs for…and many against.

  13. Is it not also possible that more would have been killed if Christianity had not existed?

    The decline of the Roman Empire was just starting to decline as Christianity was developing. Had the pagan tribes not been converted do you think that society would have advanced in any meaningful way?

    I think one has to look strongly at the position and role of the empire and their desire to take over Christianity as the only unifier which the people were able to defeat external forces.

    Roman Law clearly stated that any one professing a religion other then the emperors was a threat to the state. Now when Christianity was in oppositioin to the pagan emperors they were slaughtered. When the emperors converted they slaughtered those oppose to Christianity. This was not the desire of the religion but the desire of the state. This is not to say that individual church leaders used this to their advantage on numerous occasions, but it wasn’t doctrinal.

    The example your historian used “the Homoiousians and the Homoousians” seems like a simple disbute over one letter, how the words have very different meanings. The one was pushed by the emperor because it permitted the broadest understanding of Christ (both Arians and Christians could affirm it, but believe two opposite meanings). Hence the fight wasn’t simply btwn two christian groups but one religious group the Arians using political influence agains the church to define Christian doctrine.

    On the monophysite controversy again was really political primarily not religious. Look up Blue versus Green chariot racing under Emperor Justinian.

    This pattern goes no thru Spain in the middle ages to unify against the Jews and Muslims to unite Spain. The same exists to the present day in Iran, or secular socialist in Europe or “christianity” in the USA.

  14. Philippa says:

    The conversation is leaving me behind! 🙂

    thewordofme: Your list is extensive. Some are separate religions, some are denominations within a religion (e.g. Baptist and Pentecostal are two interpretations and denominations, not different religions).

    I do not know all the beliefs of all the religions in the world. But from what I understand, of the main world religions, only three address God and His relationship to us and how we can get to heaven: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. And all of the religions disagree on how we achieve either lack of suffering, heaven, whatever you want to call it. Not all of them can be right. And that’s the problem with someone who doesn’t understand the tenets of various religions – they say “can’t we all just get along and do our own thing?” But that is impossible in some religions – Islam, for instance, requires conversion to Islam by any means, Judaism by observing rules, and Christianity by believing Christ is the only way to God and heaven.

    By made up, I meant with no logical basis to support their beliefs, and/or the basis that they use is extremely suspect. For instance, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, fondly quoted by atheists to prove their point, is made up. I believe Mormonism/LDS is made up because of its beginnings.

    I’m also interested in how you say that science and archeology are disproving the Bible. From what I’ve read, there have been claims in the Bible that people have disbelieved and have not found any proof for, but then evidence comes to light that proves it, both archeologically and scientifically.

    If you are truly a critical thinker, check out http://www.y-jesus.com/jesusdoc_1.php – I would be very interested in what you think about their statements, claims and comments, especially the timeframe in which the Bible documents of the New Testament were written and the non-Christian support of biblical events.

    Lastly, in your last comment to kingdomkeybooks you say that Christianity is responsible for many deaths. True, even though I still think the people who did that have not read their Bible. In the OT God only condoned war after giving evil/rebellious nations hundreds of years to turn from their ways and follow Him. He used his people, the Israelites, as a form of judgment on those nations. At no time was anyone told to kill for the fun of it or for useless conquest. In fact, a couple of times God shows His mercy by allowing a whole nation to be saved for just a few people. In the NT killing is never promoted or condoned. We are told to show love, be love, give and care, and even hatred in our hearts is the same as murder. So again, going back to my first point, I think there are greedy, selfish, intolerant people who use God as an excuse to accomplish their own aims. And again, people and leaders who try to eliminate religion commit their own atrocities (Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Kim Jong-il, a lot of eastern-bloc countries, etc).

    Lastly, thanks for being calm and courteous about the whole discussion. It’s very refreshing. I have occasionally posted on atheist blogs, and they usually deteriorate to name-calling and abuse, which I think is unnecessary and infantile.

  15. Philippa says:

    “The Christian religion is Jewish myth…nothing else. After we’re dead, you will find out nothing…just as I will not.”

    Well, I happen to believe there is something after death. And you’d better not call Christianity a Jewish myth – Jews would be irate! They would like nothing better than for Christ to be a myth, and they were against him when he was on earth.

    Is it the existence of Jesus Christ that you dispute, or his claim to be God?

  16. Philippa says:

    twom, I got your post via email, but not sure what’s happing with WP.

    I do want to answer your last post about denying non-Jewish God religions are real, but I’ve been long enough on the computer tonight, I’ve had a huge rant directed at me by a… shall we say, very fervent anti-God person, and I’m starting to feel a little wiggy.

    I’ll write tomorrow. Let me know what you think of the URL I sent you. Cheers

  17. thewordofme says:

    Hi Philippa,

    Not sure what is going on with reply panel on my long reply to you, so it is on home page. Go there if you will please.
    Below is answer to short post of yours.

    You write:
    >>”And you’d better not call Christianity a Jewish myth – Jews would be irate!”<<

    Christianity adopted the Old Testament as their own, so I posit that they are keeping alive the old myths.

    The Jews still don’t believe Jesus is the Savior, and I don’t think they realize that Christians took away ‘most favored race’ from them.

    Although my commenting on the divinity of Jesus is moot, I will say that if I were practicing the faith I would not believe in a trinity. There are too many places in the scripture where Jesus talks of his father and only his father knowing.
    The concept of trinity was two or three hundred years after Jesus was gone, not mentioned in scripture.

    Kinda makes me think about another Catholic transgression of the scripture…the making of Mary to be also born of a virgin…they didn’t do that until the mid 1800’s. Not mentioned in the book either.

    The man Jesus probably existed, however I am bothered by there being no secular writings about him till later. Actually if you think about it, most stuff written about him was many years after his death. Other than the Bible there is no mention of any miracles by this man. And these were BIG miracles if you believe in the book.

    Hope you are well.

  18. This has been quite a stimulating discussion. I to have been a “searcher” of truth for some 30+ years now. While it is difficult to come up with concrete imperical scientific evidence to support the many claims made by the Blble, I have concluded that it still provides the clearest path for me to take. I do not like everything i see in the Bible, but I do still take by faith to the truths presented. I hope in your seeking that you find peace and revelation. It can be a trying adventure to always look for answers while never finding them.
    We all have been given a great gift in having the ability to make our own decisions in life. I have made mine and am have found a great sense of both peace and confidence. I wish you all well.
    God Bless, Glenn Smtih Jr

  19. thewordofme says:

    Hi kingdomkeysbooks,

    I wish you well also and good luck to you and yours.
    Thanks for participating in the discussion.
    twom

  20. Philippa says:

    Ok, had some dinner and a break from the computer, so am able to carry on.

    “Christianity adopted the Old Testament as their own, so I posit that they are keeping alive the old myths.”

    Christianity has adopted the OT as part of scripture, yes. However, Christ, through what he did, has fulfilled all the “rules” the OT Jews had to follow, so we don’t need to do that stuff (not wearing cotton-polyester blend, or isolating women who have their period, or sacrificing animals – phew!)

    “The Jews still don’t believe Jesus is the Savior, and I don’t think they realize that Christians took away ‘most favored race’ from them.”

    Actually, the Jews are still the “most favoured race”, but since they rejected Jesus, the gospel was spread to the Gentiles (anyone non-Jew). God still has plans for the Jews.

    “The concept of trinity was two or three hundred years after Jesus was gone, not mentioned in scripture.”

    Actually, there are lots of verses in the bible where Jesus and God are mentioned as “one”. The more challenging part, from what I understand, is where the Holy Spirit comes in that relationship.
    But there are verses, such as “When the Counselor (a name for the Holy Spirit) comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me”, and
    “Come near me and listen to this: From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret; at the time it happens, I am there. And now the Sovereign LORD has sent me, with his Spirit”, and
    “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come”, and
    “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”

    “…the making of Mary to be also born of a virgin…they didn’t do that until the mid 1800’s. Not mentioned in the book either.”

    Actually, it’s in the gospel of Matthew and Luke (“How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”) and in the OT book of Isaiah (estimated around 700 BC) there’s a verse that reads “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”

    “I am bothered by there being no secular writings about him till later. Actually if you think about it, most stuff written about him was many years after his death.”

    The earliest New Testament writings are dated somewhere between 40AD and 80AD. That puts writing about Jesus within the lifetime of people who would have witnessed the events. There would have been plenty of opportunity for errors to be immediately exposed by the enemies of Christianity. And here’s a quote from a site on whether the New Testament is reliable:

    “Overall, at least seventeen non-Christian writings record more than fifty details concerning the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus, plus details concerning the early church. This is astounding, considering the lack of other history we possess from this time period. Jesus is mentioned by more sources than the conquests of Caesar during this same period. It is even more astounding since these confirmations of New Testament details date from 20 to 150 years after Christ, “quite early by the standards of ancient historiography.”

    The reliability of the New Testament is further substantiated by over 36,000 extrabiblical Christian documents (quotes from church leaders of the first three centuries) dating as early as ten years after the last writing of the New Testament). If all the copies of the New Testament were lost, you could reproduce it from these other letters and documents with the exception of a few verses.”

    And if you’ll forgive the reference to another site, check out http://www.y-jesus.com/bornid_5.php for non-Christian and “enemy” references for Jesus’ existence.

    Sorry, don’t mean to do a system dump on you at this time of night!

  21. Phillippa,

    While I support your position, I would question the process of how you arrive at it. While the Trinity is implicit in the Old & New Testament the doctrine is not explicit. One can and has drawn inferences that support an Arian position. One can’t refute them exclusively via scripture.

    As far as the Virginity of Mary goes the Isaiah passage in Hebrew is actually young women not virgin. Now one can assume that the passage implies virginity, since a young Jewish women would normally be a virgin,but its not explicit. And this was an intentional change by the Jew’s in the 2nd century, because the Catholic bishops in the second century were using the LXX (Septuagint) was the Old Testament that the Apostles used to convert Jews outside of Israel. In this Greek version of the Old testament Isaiah 7:14 explicitly states virgin in the text. It was effective in converting Jews to the faith. So although most Bibles do state virgin, they can only do so via the Greek Old Testament not the Hebrew. Yet all protestant bible reject the Greek Old Testament based on Luther & Calvin.

    On the reliability of the New Testament it is based on writings from Catholic authors. These individuals who wrote these extrabiblical documents believed in 7 sacraments, the sacrifice of the mass, baptismal regeneration, purgatory, apostolic succession, priesthood (bishop, deacon, priest) etc. These writings in fact are the only method of determining the actual text of the New Testament, since we do not have the original text survive. Without these sources we would not be able to do so.

    Why would anyone accept what the text of the New Testament is, if those who preserved it had beliefs counter to them for 1,000’s of years?

  22. Philippa says:

    quickbeam – can you please let me know where you have the information that says the NT is based on writings from Catholic authors? And what do you count as extrabiblical documents? That is completely contradictory to the information I have, although may exist as a myth.

    I would encourage you, as well, to go to http://www.y-jesus.com and look at “Are the gospels true?” for some other ways of looking at it.

    Cheers

  23. Philippa says:

    quickbeam – what’s the info that supports the Arian position? I’m not too familiar with that belief set.

  24. thewordofme says:

    Hi Philippa,

    I don’t know if you saw my message about going to the home page or not.

    If you have not…my answer to one of your yesterday posts is there. The one I could not get the reply panel to work on.

    Sorry guys I had some business to take care of and I’ve fallen way behind. Will catch up as fast as I can.

    Hope you are all well.

  25. Philippa,

    I didn’t mean that the New Testament comes from the extrabiblical sources. I meant that the sources used to support the New Testament accounts are Catholic. I was using your sources from your links.

    Phillipa: “can you please let me know where you have the information that says the NT is based on writings from Catholic authors? And what do you count as extrabiblical documents? That is completely contradictory to the information I have, although may exist as a myth”

    Your previous quote (which I assume was taken from the links you provided):
    “The reliability of the New Testament is further substantiated by over 36,000 extrabiblical Christian documents (quotes from church leaders of the first three centuries) dating as early as ten years after the last writing of the New Testament). If all the copies of the New Testament were lost, you could reproduce it from these other letters and documents with the exception of a few verses.”

    I agree with the quote.
    There is however various versions of the copiesof the NT that we have today. The extrabiblical sources(again from the quote you used) is commonly refered to as the Early Church Fathers a period which covers 80A.D. to 650A.D.
    Historians and linguists study those text to reproduce the actual New Testament. And as you implied its a way to establish the reliability of the New Testament . The reason this is needed is that we don’t have any full text of the new Testament any earlier then the 4th century. We have numerous fragments for example:

    http://biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html

    Again I don’t have an issue with the fact that Jesus existed or that He is the Son of God. I affirm it!

    My question is why use a source like the Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus etc. (Catholic authors used in your link as the extrabiblical documents) when they would hold views that would counter many of the protestant beliefs on interpretation of those scriptures?

    On Arianism they used verses like:

    John 14:28 where Jesus says that the Father is “greater than I”
    The Arian would reason that since the Father is greater the Jesus then Jesus is not God and less than the Father. Some Arians would say that Jesus was a god, but less the God the Father.

    John 17:20-26 where Jesus asks that the Apostles become “one as we are one” so that all of them including Jesus and God become one.

    “My God,My God ,Why have you forsaken me” (Matthew 27:46)
    The Arian would say that Jesus is speaking to God, but is not God himself. And how could God forsake Himself if Jesus was God?

    The Arians also claimed that being Son of God implies that once the Son was not since Fathers preceed the son.

    The individual who is most famous in his fight against the Arians was St. Athanasius and his Four Discourses Against the Arians if your interested in it.

    But Word of Me is the only practicing Arian I know right now;>)

  26. thewordofme says:

    Hi quickbeamoffangorn,
    >>Is it not also possible that more would have been killed if Christianity had not existed?<<

    Good question. I haven’t got to the very early stages of the Catholic, or Mother Church, takeover of Christianity. They were not killing as many people at that time I guess. Still researching.

    My main concern is about the period of time from about 325 to 1520 or so when the Catholic hierarchy had control over the church and all the scriptures. So many different theologies were floating around, so many different people were making up their own beliefs, and so many people were being killed if they crossed the main body of the church. I have barely got into this area and I am overwhelmed by the sheer volume of stuff that went on.

    You do understand that all the killing and torture that the church was behind means that it was not a Godly institute? I doubt that God would support a church that was doing what it did.

  27. Well first off remember Christianity operates off of the concept Mt 10:28 -“Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell”

    Preparing for the life to come is more critical then your physical life here and now.

    Issues like Adultery, abortion, divorce, the seven deadly sins etc. kill the spirit. Again I think your viewing the period as being control by the church, but I think that view is distorted if you don’t recognize that the state had a vested interest in supporting Catholicism as the one concept that was able to galvinize what became nation-states. You had fedual princes fighting each other there wasn’t a Great Britian or France or Germany what have you in the first 1200 years. Those kings and princes used believe as a way to acquire political power. Look at England and France and their claim to religious relics and the concept of divin right of Kings. That’s not a Catholic concept that’s a political one to justify their actions against those who disagree with them.

    I would agree with you that murder and torture is not of God. But those are individuals not the collective institution of the church. I’m not trying to make the case that the church is pure, but that motives are complex.

    If there is one thing that I would claim in support of God supporting the Catholic church is its endurance. It survived the pagan emperors, all its leaders were killed by the state from the first 300 years. It faced Attilla the Hun, the Byzantine Emperors torture and exiled them, the black plague, wars, Hitler, Stalin, heck even the KGB tried to kill Pope John Paul II. Its the longest surviving institution in the world dispite in most cases the incompetance of its leaders.

    IMO it has to be protected by God. If it was only man made it would have made it 100 years let alone 1,960 years.

  28. thewordofme says:

    Hi Philippa,

    Due to something stopping me from posting long replies I have broke up this reply into three different sections posted one after the other. Please read them as one long reply.

    You write:
    >>”Christianity has adopted the OT as part of scripture, yes. However, Christ, through what he did, has fulfilled all the “rules” the OT Jews had to follow, so we don’t need to do that stuff (not wearing cotton-polyester blend, or isolating women who have their period, or sacrificing animals – phew!)”<<

    You need to be careful when getting into this area. The Old Testament (OT) is also where the proscription against homosexuality is located. If the old laws are dumped then what happens to the evangelical fundamentalist’s position on this matter?

    Regarding the trinity, there has not been one description I have heard that makes any sense at all. I have written several posts here on my blog about this matter.

    John 12:48-50 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him-the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. 49 For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. 50 And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak.” (Jesus speaking at Last Supper).

    John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever (Jesus speaking at Last Supper)

    John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (Also Jesus speaking at Last Supper)

    John 15:9-10 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love. (Says Jesus) All KJV quotes

    Mat 3:17 and lo a voice from heaven, saying, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

    Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, you are the Christ, the Son of the living God.

    Mat 27:43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.

    John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only Begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.

    John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

    John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

  29. thewordofme says:

    John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

    John 3:35 The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand.

    1 John 4:9 Herein was the love of God manifested in us, that God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him.

    John 5:18 On this account, indeed, the Jews began seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.

    John 5:19 Therefore, in answer, Jesus went on to say to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner.

    John 5:20 For the Father has affection for the Son and shows him all the things he himself does, and he will show him works greater than these, in order that YOU may marvel.

    John 5:21 For just as the Father raises the dead up and makes them alive, so the Son also makes those alive whom he wants to.

    John 5:22 For the Father judges no one at all, but he has committed all the judging to the Son

    John 5:23 in order that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He that does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.

    John 5:25 Most truly I say to YOU, The hour is coming, and it is now, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who have given heed will live.

    John 5:26 for just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself.

    John 5:30 I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative; just as I hear, I judge; and the judgment that I render is righteous, because I seek, not my own will, but the will of him that sent me.

    John 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

    John 8:58 “…. (Jesus) Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.” Jesus meant he existed in heaven with the Father before Abraham was born.

    John 16:28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

    John 17:1 These words spoke Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

  30. thewordofme says:

    2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

    Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

    Proverbs 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell?

    When Christians pray, they pray to the Father in the name of Jesus, by the grace of the son, while acknowledging that the Father is God.

    Everyday Christian prayer evidences that there is no Trinity.
    I see absolutely no evidence for a trinity…the Catholics added this interpretation to help bring in pagans that had a trinity in their old religion.

    You write:
    >>” Actually, it’s in the gospel of Matthew and Luke (”How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”) and in the OT book of Isaiah (estimated around 700 BC) there’s a verse that reads “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”<>” The earliest New Testament writings are dated somewhere between 40AD and 80AD”<<

    Mark was the first gospel writer and I think his work is dated to about 60AD or so.

    Regarding the historicity of Jesus…I believe he probably existed.

    Regarding the New Testament…I truly worry that the early Catholics changed many things, and burned and destroyed many works. With all the evidence coming down about Catholic wrong doings in the early church times, I wonder why an all knowing God would choose that route of bringing the Word forward. This of course assumes there is a God directing our religion which is a stretch to believe once you learn about all the crap that went on in early Christianity.

    I am reading on the site you mentioned…yJesus…not done yet.

  31. thewordofme says:

    Hi quickbeamoffangorn,

    You write”
    >>”But Word of Me is the only practicing Arian I know right now; >) “<<

    Aren’t the Jehovah’s Witnesses also practicing Arians? 🙂

  32. TWOM – congratulations on maintaining an open discourse and keeping it ‘civil’ also 🙂

    permit me to fire a ‘shot across your bow with the following…

    i believe it is next to impossible for any one person, by reason of their limited experiences/intellect ( when considered against all possible experiences /intellects) to have any ‘good’ estimation of how God actually ‘works’ here in this small planet.

    So the statement: ‘I wonder why an all knowing God would choose that route of bringing the Word forward. This of course assumes there is a God directing our religion which is a stretch to believe once you learn about all the crap that went on in early Christianity.’ merely shows how futile our ‘ponderings concerning God and His Wisdom can turn out to be.

    For a better ‘example’ – put yourself in God’s shoes for a second ( well – let’s ‘pretend’ ) 😉

    Would you have ‘created’ your ONLY Son to come into the Human world with all human fallibility and have him study and learn of His inheritance and ultimate pupose that included His voluntary self-sacrifice on the Cross?

    So that the Creation (Mankind) you had been responsible for initiating and who because of free will had rebelled against your Authority over them and had subsequently been given very harsh restrictions to follow so as to have a way to ‘find’ the way back to ‘you’, but which quite obviously had failed because of our human egos and selfish desires, would no longer need to kill one another for not following the harsh ‘rules but could now be offered Hope theough His ( your) Love?

    Or would you have ‘fixed’ things differently and how would your way have ‘worked’… do you reckon?? 🙂

    With much less killing and opposition from other religions perhaps?

    We humans have a way of not seeing things quite clearly enough for our own good. i find.

    That is OUR fault – not religion, Not Christ and certainly not a ‘fault’ of or in God. ( should he exist 😉 )

    Philippa – nice stuff 🙂

    QBOF – you too… i guess 🙂

    <B

  33. I don’t think this is rocket science although historically theology was considered the Queen of Disciplines.

    A) Positive Atheism-There is no God and we were created by natural forces. Based on the estimated life of the universe of 13.5 billion years. The creation of random assemblage of amino acids into “life-supporting” systems while possible highly unlikely at something like 1 to 10 followed by 130 zeros and that figure if I recall only takes us to polymers let alone the process to get to bacteria.

    B) Negative Atheism. We have no ability to know if there is a God or not. Basically

    C) God exist because the concept is demonstrated by various cultures around the globe with no contact with others for long periods of time.

    D) God exist and can be known via the law of causality.

    A is most likely false based on the laws of science. There hasn’t been enough time lapsed for intelligent life to form randomly.

    B is IMO basically holding to point C, but only trust that which can be seem by the 5 senses. The assumption is that anything that can not be perceived by the senses doesn’t exist.

    C is proven to exist but isn’t proof that God exist, but is likely.

    D is the most logical based on all the know.

    St Thomas Aquinas 5 reasons for the existence of God: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas3.html

    Using First principles which are self evident (know through themselves) do not need to be demonstrated
    1) The Principle of Identity
    2) The Principle of Sufficient Reason
    3) The Principle of Efficient Causality
    4) The Principle of Finality

    From here based on the most reasonable outcome that God does exist, the question is how would we know Him?

    We can’t which is why so many folks cling to option B. But we can have a way of knowing what God is not. This is called the way of negation. All the imperfections that we can observe in creation is not God and also based on their finiteness are limited.

    We then proceed to the way of Eminence which allows us to recognize that God is infinite in perfection in things we observe in His creatures as imperfections or finite. Qualities like justice, mercy, love, knowledge, truth, immutabile, Good, Eternal, immeasurable, omnipresence etc.

    Now that we have limited knowledge of who God is and what He is not, what religion most closely associates us with these concepts?

    For the sake of those still awake reading this I won’t go into all the elimination of the reasons I selected Christianity, but I believe that is the answer.

    On the Trinity St. Augustine said it best I think when refering to John 10:30 – That He(Jesus) said “one” preserves us from Arianism; that He said “we are” preserves us from Sabellianism.

    One in nature three in Person that’s the trinity.

    Just like we all share one human nature writing to each other on this blog, but we are all different persons (or at least I assume Word of Me isn’t writing under several assumed names) ;>)

  34. LWBUT,

    “This of course assumes there is a God directing our religion which is a stretch to believe once you learn about all the crap that went on in early Christianity.’ merely shows how futile our ‘ponderings concerning God and His Wisdom can turn out to be.”

    Can you expand on what you mean by “directing”. And what does the negative or positive actions of early Christianity have to do with whether God does or does not engage in our world?

    “Would you have ‘created’ your ONLY Son to come into the Human world with all human fallibility and have him study and learn of His inheritance and ultimate purpose that included His voluntary self-sacrifice on the Cross?”

    I don’t quite understand your point here. Christianity claims that Christ has both a human and a Divine Nature as well as a human will and Divine will. In Christ’s case while he grew in human wisdom His human will always followed His divine will. Christ’s human nature was not subject to original sin and while he was tempted he was able to freely resist those temptations. As a Catholic we would say that His human nature was not subject to Concupiscence.
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm

    “We humans have a way of not seeing things quite clearly enough for our own good. i find”

    Why that sounds almost like concupiscence ;>)

  35. thewordofme says:

    Hi LWBUT, hope you don’t mind the abbreviation.

    You write:
    “>>i believe it is next to impossible for any one person, by reason of their limited experiences/intellect ( when considered against all possible experiences /intellects) to have any ‘good’ estimation of how God actually ‘works’ here in this small planet.”<>So the statement: ‘I wonder why an all knowing God would choose that route of bringing the Word forward. This of course assumes there is a God directing our religion which is a stretch to believe once you learn about all the crap that went on in early Christianity.’ merely shows how futile our ‘ponderings concerning God and His Wisdom can turn out to be.”<<

    I don’t think that there is a God directing anything. I think its all man directed…to much crap going on that seems, to me at least, to be ungodly. Most doctrine, except Catholic perhaps, comes from the Bible. I think that it is important to recognize that many biblical passages contain factual errors and probably do not reflect the will of a sane God. A lot of people reject what the Bible’s authors (men) have to say about genocide, oppression of women, slavery, death penalties, torturing prisoners, homosexuality, beating children, executing non-virgins brides, religious tolerance, and treatment of religious minorities.

    If you stack all of the above issues with the destructive behavior that early followers of Christianity laid on the world, and the total disintegration of a coherent system of belief that is evidenced by over 1500 Christian denominations in the US alone, and the obvious errors about Noah’s Flood and the Tower of Babel and the Exodus and Adam and Eve and you end up with a book and a system of belief that has lost its authority.

    To keep pushing this crap is flogging a dead horse. The secular governments in Democratic countries have a decidedly upper hand in how humans are to be treated and how a society should be governed.

    These are important issue’s to a God believing society. These are things that are easily observed, it doesn’t involve trying to read Gods mind. The Bible should not be wrong on anything…after all it is God in that book….right?

    If these old books of the Old Testament are not ‘Kosher’ anymore, if they are outdated and don’t apply to modern society…then don’t tell me God is unchanging, and throw out the stuff that is wrong and contradictory and tighten up the Dogma…get a handle on what you want to do. Because I want to tell you, that religion stuff sure sounds like a con to me. Too many little discrepancies…too much bad stuff gone down…too many signs.

    Sorry LWBUT I tend to get wound up and get off subject. Will write later.

  36. Apologies for the delay in getting ‘back’ to all 🙂

    QBOF – if i may answer the hosts reply before yours? ty 🙂

    TWOM i don’t mind abb’s if you don’t – saves time for the good stuff!

    The quote i made was of your own words in comment #30 (2nd last para) There you say you wonder why God would follow such a route and then you clarify your statement in comment #35 forgive my ‘confusion then 🙂

    if i might offer my own interpretation (take) on another quote of yours which i hopes speaks to the same point i was trying to make ( concerning any ‘man’s understanding if it denies the possibility of God’s existence)

    ‘I don’t think that there is a God directing anything. I think its all man directed…to much crap going on that seems, to me at least, to be ungodly’ (comment #35)

    In our purely physical world Man is ( has to be) ‘responsible’ for the direction mankind takes This is by reason of man’s finite and therefore fallible ( unable to completely correctly predict all possible ramifications of his group or even individual actions and there intended outcomes).

    We are finite fallible therefore so is the direction we try to take – even when we wish to ‘follow’ God’s ‘instruction/directions for us – we can and do make compounding mistakes. We fail to adequately learn from this. ( as evidenced by our willingness to engage in war and acts of selfishness in a shared planetary/social environment to this very day)

    But that is in a purely physical world and i do not for one second believe that the physical world we might think we ‘understand’ is anywhere near ALL that is – there is a spiritual ‘inner’ world every man contains and i believe this is how we can ‘know’ God ( again, because we are consciously more aware of the ‘physical’ we know Him in a fallible ways.)

    This does not mean (our fallibility) that we should not seek to follow this inner knowing and Guidance as others have sought to do before us or that God is unable to work and ‘direct’ any ‘Plan’ such a ‘consciousness’ may have via such means.

    I think this behooves us to allow for ‘leeway’ in assigning ‘certainty’ to various sections of the Bible until we are able to better understand exactly what the Authors and perhaps even THE Author had in mind – or the minds of those who wrote what we still can choose to read for ourselves today.

    And i hope i don’t wind you up too much and you should probably know that in my ‘better’ years of early adulthood and youth ( ie – up until my thirties) 🙂 i felt more than a few things as you have mentioned at the end of your ‘off subject’ comment above ( immediately prior to this one).

    i see things differently today some 20 years later.

    basically – our own ego and foolishness is the ’cause’ of Sin and misunderstandings while it is God that is like the earth’s magnetic field to our ‘moral compass’, but our needle has a certain inbuilt ‘momentum’ and frequently takes us off course some-what. 🙂

    <B

    <B

  37. QBOF – there seems to be a slight misunderstanding… the first quote re: ‘directing’ was me quoting TWOM’s own thought – not mine. he ‘clarified’ it in comment #35 para #2 🙂

    The point of my ‘argument’ you quoted second was to have TWOF consider just how well he might go in God’s place in the hope that he might see that ruling the Universe – particularly with ‘man’ as a major role player here on earth is unlikely to ever be any ‘better’ done by a single man’s wisdom than by that of God’s 🙂

    And that we rarely are able to see precisely what God really had in mind when something occurs in our ‘physical’ world.- such as events described in the Bible for example… i believe it is not so much ‘hidden wisdom’ as wisdom our ego refuses to allow us to consider as clearly as we might if we had a better understanding of our self and our place in the Universe.

    i would generally agree with the rest of what you wrote in your last comment 🙂

    But – then again – i am human also 🙂

    and quite clearly therefore – fallible 😉

    <B

  38. thewordofme says:

    Hi LWBUT, Thanks for writing.

    Sorry to take so long on this…I had to be away for awhile.

    You write:
    >>”But that is in a purely physical world and i do not for one second believe that the physical world we might think we ‘understand’ is anywhere near ALL that is – there is a spiritual ‘inner’ world every man contains and i believe this is how we can ‘know’ God ( again, because we are consciously more aware of the ‘physical’ we know Him in a fallible ways.)”<<

    I have a problem with mystical elements of belief. I guess because I am so close to science and think in the ways that scientists do. I have to handle stuff and be able to experiment or to read of the experiments used on the data or supposition. As I have said before I don’t believe in angels or demons or anything that relies on the supernatural. As much as I search on the web, if it were true, I would have found proof somewhere…nothing.

    I cannot relate to an “inner world or spiritual side” of people because I have never seen signs of it. I have seen evil people and kind people and everything in between, but have never got a feeling that there was anything in me or anyone else that could be called spiritual. I have a pretty fair ability to read people and their emotions—nothing spooky, just good empathy and listening—and I have never found spiritualness in anyone. I keep looking, but God doesn’t seem to be anywhere, or in anyone.

    I keep adding up the real physical evidence that has been found both for and against God. All the evidence ‘for’ has been in our human knowledge pool for over two thousand years. This is as it should be as ‘God’ only needs one chance and there can’t be any changes.

    All the evidence ‘against’ was for well over a thousand years…non-existent. Then somewhere in the 1500’s AD, ‘Naturalism’ began to take hold. Brave people were seeing things that did support the Biblical worldview, and they were talking to other Naturalists and interested people. A large number of these Naturalists were religious and/or church officials. The last hundred or so years has seen the proof that many Biblical stories are not true.

    As written in my posts over the last year or so, I believe that the Flood of Noah has been totally disproven. Because we now know with certainty that humans were spread all over the world at the supposed time of both the Flood and the Tower of Babel, and there is no record of catastrophic and long lasting disruption of all of them at the same time, and I really doubt if there is any question that those people all over the world were speaking different languages. So scratch the Flood and the Tower as true stories.

    The beginning story of man is not hidden in the Bible. The story is in the fossils and bones and tools and art and building ruins that we find everywhere on earth. Modern humans have not been on earth 6,000+- years, they have been here over 150,000 years…and there is no doubt of this. All this combines to take away from the Bible its credibility as a record of truths.

    So if you take away the Genesis of humankind from the Bible…what is left? Could you describe to me how Christianity or Islam or the Jewish faith can be true if the beginning stories are taken away as they surely are now?

    All of the other religions on earth have been discredited by the Christians and are ‘known’ to be false. Now the same distrust and doubts is falling on Christianity and it is crumbling.

    If you can prove that any of the above mentioned science is false…I will listen.

  39. The problem or issue iwth science is that it makes bad philosophers. Science studies efficient cause in an organized way. Final cause (the why of things) is excluded.

    “I have seen evil people and kind people and everything in between, but have never got a feeling that there was anything in me or anyone else that could be called spiritual”

    How is it possible to descern good or evil in people then based on your experience? The problem with science is the belief that everything can be known in the causal system of the processes of nature; there are no nonphysical elements.

    To extend this false assumption(which it is, becuase there is no science to back such a thing up) one has to draw the logical conclusions from it. Free will is an illusion, then morality is also an illusion, because it is concerned only with free choices; an act is not immoral if it couldn’t have been otherwise. Indeed science is an illusion because everything in domain of space-time concepts is based on laws of science. My body is simply an assembly of carbon, H2O and some other elements with chemical reactions. And they will be reprocessed after I die.

  40. thewordofme says:

    Hi quickbeamoffangorn.
    Please go to front page…The reply panel is giving me grief.

  41. aadkins1971@aol.com says:

    religion came about becouse we diddnt have any other way to explain things..we have science now.i promise there is no pissed of old man in the sky thats going to send u to hell if u dont do what he says……wake up america.co.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: