Jump to content

Temporarly moving from this section.


Recommended Posts

Admiral Thrawn

It was nice talking to everyone here. I am going to take a break from this section for a while to let the air clear up a bit here.

 

I will continue visiting this board on a weekly basis.

 

Thank-you. Bye.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
Admiral Thrawn

Landing back into this section. The week is almost over, but I have decided to make a landing now. You have all been tested to see how you would respond to my posts on the other section and now I'm back.

 

To all the people that have attacked me on the 'searching and transition' thread, by calling me a hypocrite or saying all sorts of nasty things, you have no leg to stand on, because on Judgement Day, God's going to look at your sins and judge you if you are not protected, and nothing is going to change that unless you accept Christ. To those of you who are attacking Jimmy Swaggart, or other people and rejecting Christ because of what you think of some Christians - you are in for a big surprise - your attitude is not going to save you from hell.

 

If anyone wants to pick a fight - then they can do so now. Here it is appropraite. On the other section, it was cowardly.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think all of us nonbelievers are destined for hell, you can go ahead and send directions to your house.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
Admiral Thrawn
If you think all of us nonbelievers are destined for hell, you can go ahead and send directions to your house.

 

It's not about what I think, it's about what the Bible says.

 

People may not like this message, but I'm not going to compromise the truth here because I'm going to worry about offending anyone. The fact is, you are obvioulsy not in hell right now, so you can do something about it, to be sure, there is hope. Unless you want to wait, until it is too late, that's your choice too. At least, if you do end up there, you cant say "nobody ever told me about this place".

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not about what I think, it's about what the Bible says.

 

People may not like this message, but I'm not going to compromise the truth here because I'm going to worry about offending anyone. The fact is, you are obviously not in hell right now, so you can do something about it, to be sure, there is hope. Unless you want to wait, until it is too late, that's your choice too. At least, if you do end up there, you cant say "nobody ever told me about this place".

 

Your a very naive man AT...

 

it is about what you think.. you are the one writing the posts..

 

Whats the bible says is different for everybody.. it has different meanings for you as it does for me..

You preaching what will happen to another if they chose to take a certain path is wrong.. Are we not allowed to make our own choices ? or do we only have to believe what you preach ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
Admiral Thrawn
Your a very naive man AT...

 

it is about what you think.. you are the one writing the posts..

 

Whats the bible says is different for everybody.. it has different meanings for you as it does for me..

You preaching what will happen to another if they chose to take a certain path is wrong.. Are we not allowed to make our own choices ? or do we only have to believe what you preach ?

 

That is what you think. Only Joshua made it to the land of Canaan. Just one man. Not Moses. Not Aron. Not one other single Israelite that left Egypt and crossed over the Red Sea. Just Joshua. Why?

Because he thought differently to everyone else in the camp. Is it just about what one person thinks? Or could everyone else just be wrong?

I could provide countless other historical examples.

 

Or, try Rahab the harlot, the only survivor of the people who lived in Jerico. Why? Because she gave the Israelite spies access to the city and helped its defeat in exchange for her own protection of its destruction. She thought differently from everyone else on that city.

 

Or, how about Lot and Soddom and Gommorah. I'm sure he thought differently from the rest of the city before it was turned to dust and ashes after it was nuked by a comet or something. Or Noah and his family. You tell me why this is the trend?

 

As I said in another post, if you want to believe a lie, then believe a lie.

If you want to believe the truth, open up the Bible and read it yourself.

 

Either Jesus is a liar, or He is the Son of God, and if you dont believe in Him, you are going to hell. Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no man comes to the Father, but by me". He was crucified for His rightful claims of Divinity.

 

You cant have the cake and eat it too. There are no different versions of truth. Your version may be making Jesus a liar, my version does not. Think about it before replying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no different versions of truth.

Personally, I own nine or ten different versions of the Bible. Most of them are in English, a language that wasn't even around back then.

 

Unfortunately for the faithful (and their victims) there are many versions of truth, each with their own interpretation, and own consequences on the lives of others.

 

The bottom line is that the Bible does not speak for itself, and neither does any text. This is evidenced best by the fact that you feel the need to make posts about it.

 

He was crucified for His rightful claims of Divinity.

 

Don't make **** up. If you want to pass yourself off as a righteous crusader for truth and justice, whatever. But when you start talking about history, make some efforts to be correct.

 

Jesus was crucified for inciting a riot. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate, a Roman official who did not submit to the Hebrew God, and therefore wouldn't give a crap about 'claims of Divinity'.

 

The irony of it all, of course, is that Jesus pissed off the Sanhedrin because of his anti-legalist ministry. Now it's the fundamentalist Christians who are the main proponents of the same legalism with a Jesus twist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
whichwayisup
You have all been tested to see how you would respond to my posts on the other section and now I'm back.

 

You think very highly of yourself it seems. And to be honest YOU have NO right to judge ANYBODY on LoveShack, religious or not.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Landing back into this section. The week is almost over, but I have decided to make a landing now. You have all been tested to see how you would respond to my posts on the other section and now I'm back.

 

To all the people that have attacked me on the 'searching and transition' thread, by calling me a hypocrite or saying all sorts of nasty things, you have no leg to stand on, because on Judgement Day, God's going to look at your sins and judge you if you are not protected, and nothing is going to change that unless you accept Christ. To those of you who are attacking Jimmy Swaggart, or other people and rejecting Christ because of what you think of some Christians - you are in for a big surprise - your attitude is not going to save you from hell.

 

If anyone wants to pick a fight - then they can do so now. Here it is appropraite. On the other section, it was cowardly.

 

You're judging people? He who goes around lying and touching people all the time? I don't think it's very Christianly to judge my dear..

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Admiral,

 

While I admire your willingness to spread the gospel, we have to be a little more, (ALOT more), tactfull around here.

 

Picking fights on this forum definitely won't help your cause.

 

Just about everyone around here will listen to your thoughts and opinions and even your beliefs.

 

But you'll need to learn how to present these in a peacefull manner, and be careful not to offend anyone.....as much as it hurts, you have to allow others to believe what they may.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
Admiral Thrawn
There are no different versions of truth.

Personally, I own nine or ten different versions of the Bible. Most of them are in English, a language that wasn't even around back then.

 

Unfortunately for the faithful (and their victims) there are many versions of truth, each with their own interpretation, and own consequences on the lives of others.

 

The bottom line is that the Bible does not speak for itself, and neither does any text. This is evidenced best by the fact that you feel the need to make posts about it.

 

The King James Version is the correct and most accurate English version of the Bible. It is based on the original Greek and Hebrew texts, and not the corrupted Alexandrian Greek that is used in the other versions.

 

He was crucified for His rightful claims of Divinity.

 

Don't make **** up. If you want to pass yourself off as a righteous crusader for truth and justice, whatever. But when you start talking about history, make some efforts to be correct.

 

Jesus was crucified for inciting a riot. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate, a Roman official who did not submit to the Hebrew God, and therefore wouldn't give a crap about 'claims of Divinity'.

 

The irony of it all, of course, is that Jesus pissed off the Sanhedrin because of his anti-legalist ministry. Now it's the fundamentalist Christians who are the main proponents of the same legalism with a Jesus twist.

 

No. I am not making that up. That is history. Jesus did not incite any riot. The Jews wanted to kill him, but only the Roman authority had powers of capital punishment (crucifiction).

 

As a matter of fact, if Jesus were the rioting type, Judas Iscariot would never have betrayed him in the first place. The reason he stook with Jesus as a disciple, was he really thought Jesus was going to defeat the Romans with His supernatural powers, and restore or establish the glory of a Jewish world empire. When Judas realised Jesus was talking 'spiritual' when He was talking about the Kingdom, then he got disillusioned and betrayed His Master for 30 pieces of silver.

 

He was falsely charged and accused to be arrested in the first place. But on just establishing the fact of His Divinity, the Sanhedrein sought to have him killed. They had wanted him dead ever since He rose Lazarus from the dead, and they also wanted to kill Lazarus again, the evidence he rose someone from the dead. It was after that miracle they were really afraid of Jesus and thought He would bring the ire of the Roman Empire.

 

Your claim that fundamentalist Christianity is the same legalism with a "Jesus" twist is unfounded - I challenge you to expand and adduce evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
Admiral Thrawn
You think very highly of yourself it seems. And to be honest YOU have NO right to judge ANYBODY on LoveShack, religious or not.

 

I've never judged anyone on LoveShack, but it seems everybody is quick to judge me. I'm just the messenger.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
Admiral Thrawn
You're judging people? He who goes around lying and touching people all the time? I don't think it's very Christianly to judge my dear..

 

What makes you think I'm going around lying and sexually touching people?

For the record, this is not true.

 

Nobody is judging you, except for yourself because you know you need to get right with God. So get right with God.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ReluctantRomeo
The irony of it all, of course, is that Jesus pissed off the Sanhedrin because of his anti-legalist ministry. Now it's the fundamentalist Christians who are the main proponents of the same legalism with a Jesus twist.

 

Deliciously ironic ;)

 

Although to be fair, you do find the same legalism elsewhere too. Even sometimes in atheists :p

Link to post
Share on other sites
ReluctantRomeo
The King James Version is the correct and most accurate English version of the Bible. It is based on the original Greek and Hebrew texts, and not the corrupted Alexandrian Greek that is used in the other versions.

 

Translation is not an exact science with just one correct answer. Source analysis is even more complex. And both raise issues which laypeople should approach with due humility and caution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
whichwayisup
I've never judged anyone on LoveShack, but it seems everybody is quick to judge me. I'm just the messenger.

 

AT, I think you need to re-read how your posts on this thread have jumped off the page. Maybe it wasn't your intent to come off very high and mighty, but that is how I took it. And so have some others. Maybe I was quick to speak my mind, but it was my gut reaction to what you said and honestly, it bugged me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The King James Version is the correct and most accurate English version of the Bible.

 

From what I know of Biblical translation (several courses and such) this is not the opinion of most scholars. Most people who are really concerned with the accuracy of their translation turn to different sources for different books, and I believe that the strength of the KJV is really in the Hebrew Poetry end of the spectrum, and definitely not the Synoptic Gospels.

 

Regardless, unless you're familiar with Ancient Hebrew and Greek, you're hardly qualified to say what the best interpretation of Hebrew and Greek text is, no?

 

Jesus did not incite any riot. The Jews wanted to kill him, but only the Roman authority had powers of capital punishment (crucifiction).

 

So why would the Roman authority go along with it? It wasn't because of blasphemy, that's for sure. Rome gave up religious authority in Jerusalem. Jesus was crucified for secular crimes. His crucifixion, also, was neccessary (if you believe in all this) for your salvation, so comparing his plight to yours is not apt.

 

As a matter of fact, if Jesus were the rioting type, Judas Iscariot would never have betrayed him in the first place. The reason he stook with Jesus as a disciple, was he really thought Jesus was going to defeat the Romans with His supernatural powers, and restore or establish the glory of a Jewish world empire. When Judas realised Jesus was talking 'spiritual' when He was talking about the Kingdom, then he got disillusioned and betrayed His Master for 30 pieces of silver.

 

It amazes me that you can speak for Judas Iscariot. Personally, I think you're wrong. Judas was a zealot who believed in a militaristic messiah, which was not an unheard of position. If anything, he believed his betrayal would inspire Jesus to start kicking ass. When it didn't, THEN he became disillusioned and killed himself. Baptism by fire, if you ask me. But some people have a delusional superiority complex.

 

Your claim that fundamentalist Christianity is the same legalism with a "Jesus" twist is unfounded - I challenge you to expand and adduce evidence.

 

It's not an unfounded claim. ReluctantRomeo got it right away.

 

I'd adduce evidence, but I think it's a fruitless endeavor. I've never had any luck at convincing an fundamentalist Christian of anything, whether it be that their hate-filled sermons are counterproductive to being a witness for Christ, or something really simple like the Earth is more than a few decades old.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The king james version has errors too. I personally believe the newer translations such as the new living translation (which I read) and new international version do a better job of translating the word "hell". In most of the newer translations the word "hell" in the old testament is translated as grave which is how it should be. It's consistent with what God told adam after he sinned that he would return to the dust from which he was made.

 

The doctrine of hell is just one example of how the newer versions are more reliable. The lake of fire and hell are not the same although most evangelists use them interchangeably to mean the final judgement at the great white throne. I'm thinking of opening a new thread on the subject of hell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
Admiral Thrawn
The King James Version is the correct and most accurate English version of the Bible.

 

From what I know of Biblical translation (several courses and such) this is not the opinion of most scholars. Most people who are really concerned with the accuracy of their translation turn to different sources for different books, and I believe that the strength of the KJV is really in the Hebrew Poetry end of the spectrum, and definitely not the Synoptic Gospels.

 

Regardless, unless you're familiar with Ancient Hebrew and Greek, you're hardly qualified to say what the best interpretation of Hebrew and Greek text is, no?

 

As qualified as you are.

 

 

Jesus did not incite any riot. The Jews wanted to kill him, but only the Roman authority had powers of capital punishment (crucifiction).

 

So why would the Roman authority go along with it? It wasn't because of blasphemy, that's for sure. Rome gave up religious authority in Jerusalem. Jesus was crucified for secular crimes. His crucifixion, also, was neccessary (if you believe in all this) for your salvation, so comparing his plight to yours is not apt.

 

Because Jesus was also the King of the Jews. If Pilate refused to crucify Jesus, they would have accused Pilate of treason for supporting someone who claimed to be the 'King of the Jews". Pilate would have lost his post or been charged with treason if he did not cooperate with the mob. He was protecting himself by appeasing this crowd. Pilate himself found 'no fault' in Jesus and would have released him in an eye-blink if it weren't for the mob.

 

Pilate asked "You want me to crucify your King".

The Jews cried: "They have no king but Cesar". It was already taking a political bend from there. Pilate did everything in his power to try and appease the Jews. There was even a custom to release someone who is guilty of a capital offence, which he tried to use to have Jesus freed. However, the mob preferred to release Barabbus, a convicted political murder, than have Jesus released. And they said "Release Barabbas, but Crucify Jesus".

 

The Cross on which Jesus hung said "King of the Jews", the Pharisees wanted it to say 'He said He was the King of the Jews", but Pilate knew that he was indeed the Messiah, the King of the Jews. It seemed he did not want to sentence Jesus to be crucified but was bullied by the crowd, and simply caved into appeasing a crazy mob.

 

In my view, the Roman authority was indifferent or sided with Jesus completely and simply caved into the evil demands of an angry mob. Pilate did not think it was worth it to risk his hide for Jesus and simply caved in.

 

As a matter of fact, if Jesus were the rioting type, Judas Iscariot would never have betrayed him in the first place. The reason he stook with Jesus as a disciple, was he really thought Jesus was going to defeat the Romans with His supernatural powers, and restore or establish the glory of a Jewish world empire. When Judas realised Jesus was talking 'spiritual' when He was talking about the Kingdom, then he got disillusioned and betrayed His Master for 30 pieces of silver.

 

It amazes me that you can speak for Judas Iscariot. Personally, I think you're wrong. Judas was a zealot who believed in a militaristic messiah, which was not an unheard of position. If anything, he believed his betrayal would inspire Jesus to start kicking ass. When it didn't, THEN he became disillusioned and killed himself. Baptism by fire, if you ask me. But some people have a delusional superiority complex.

 

I'm making an illustration that Jesus did not make or incite any riot.

 

Perhaps Judas, as well as that crowd, rejected Jesus because He failed to live up to their expectations of a miltaristic Messiah, like Judas Macabbeus in the Greeks earlier, who was going to liberate Israel, defeat the Romans, and restore Israel back to its prestine Glory, as under the Kingdom of David and Solomon. That is likely they were very angry. The Religious leaders were fueled by jealousy and hatred as Jesus had said things to them that got them full of hate against Him and was getting all the attention from the people instead of them.

 

Again, the point I am making, in terms of history at least, is that Jesus was the ultimate example of a miscarriage of justice and a mob taking control over justice. The mob was against Him, not for Him. Jesus never incited any riot, or did anything that would justify Himself to be crucified.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As qualified as you are.

 

I often refer to the original Hebrew / Greek, so, I doubt it.

 

Because Jesus was also the King of the Jews. If Pilate refused to crucify Jesus, they would have accused Pilate of treason for supporting someone who claimed to be the 'King of the Jews". Pilate would have lost his post or been charged with treason if he did not cooperate with the mob. He was protecting himself by appeasing this crowd. Pilate himself found 'no fault' in Jesus and would have released him in an eye-blink if it weren't for the mob.

 

This is entirely extrabiblical, so there's no point in debating it further. I do like what you've done with it though. The idea of subjugated peoples appealing to Caesar to have Pilate removed because he indirectly supported a nonviolent "ruler" is particularly amusing.

 

However, the mob preferred to release Barabbus, a convicted political murder, than have Jesus released. And they said "Release Barabbas, but Crucify Jesus".

 

Remeber what Gospel that's found in. It's a metaphor. Jesus Barabbas is us. (Bar Abbas--son of the fathers). That entire Gospel is filled with wordplay like that. The more you take that literally, the more you lose out on its theological value, I feel.

 

The Cross on which Jesus hung said "King of the Jews", the Pharisees wanted it to say 'He said He was the King of the Jews", but Pilate knew that he was indeed the Messiah, the King of the Jews.

 

Yes, what a devout Christian Pilate was! Come on, you honestly think Pilate beleived in the doctrine of a Hebrew messiah?

 

I'm making an illustration that Jesus did not make or incite any riot.

 

Sure, but you don't have to be guilty to be executed for something.

 

Perhaps Judas, as well as that crowd, rejected Jesus because He failed to live up to their expectations of a miltaristic Messiah, like Judas Macabbeus in the Greeks earlier, who was going to liberate Israel, defeat the Romans, and restore Israel back to its prestine Glory, as under the Kingdom of David and Solomon.

 

Perhaps. But why kill himself afterwards? Certainly he realized the magnitude of his actions. I still maintain that, as a zealot, Judas's "betrayal" was only a way to inspire Jesus to take forceful action. When J.C. refused, I think that's when Judas recognized the nature of this savior.

 

Jesus never incited any riot, or did anything that would justify Himself to be crucified.

 

Well, I'm an abolitionist, so I don't think anyone does anything to justify their crucifixion. All I wanted to point out is that he was charged with secular crimes, and comparing his plight to any of ours is misleading. He *had* to die. We're that mob, us sinners!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
Admiral Thrawn

 

Because Jesus was also the King of the Jews. If Pilate refused to crucify Jesus, they would have accused Pilate of treason for supporting someone who claimed to be the 'King of the Jews". Pilate would have lost his post or been charged with treason if he did not cooperate with the mob. He was protecting himself by appeasing this crowd. Pilate himself found 'no fault' in Jesus and would have released him in an eye-blink if it weren't for the mob.

 

This is entirely extrabiblical, so there's no point in debating it further. I do like what you've done with it though. The idea of subjugated peoples appealing to Caesar to have Pilate removed because he indirectly supported a nonviolent "ruler" is particularly amusing.

 

No, that is not true. It is in the Bible. You want me to prove it?

 

However, the mob preferred to release Barabbus, a convicted political murder, than have Jesus released. And they said "Release Barabbas, but Crucify Jesus".

 

Remeber what Gospel that's found in. It's a metaphor. Jesus Barabbas is us. (Bar Abbas--son of the fathers). That entire Gospel is filled with wordplay like that. The more you take that literally, the more you lose out on its theological value, I feel.

 

I disagree. If we are going to argue on whether the Gospel is literal or metephor, then this will be a waste of time. It's an extreme view to doubt the historical accuracy of the Gospels, and most people do not debate the historical accuracy, but mainly contend with the 'spiritual significance' of what it means in terms of salvation. Some people deny the Holocost existed or that Hitler was justified in controlling the Jewish population. Again, another type of debate that I would have no interest in, and I'm sure you wouldn't either - which is one thing we can agree on.

 

The Cross on which Jesus hung said "King of the Jews", the Pharisees wanted it to say 'He said He was the King of the Jews", but Pilate knew that he was indeed the Messiah, the King of the Jews.

 

Yes, what a devout Christian Pilate was! Come on, you honestly think Pilate beleived in the doctrine of a Hebrew messiah?

 

I think Pilate was very sympathetic to Jesus and indifferent to His message. The mob literally had to 'force' him 'under the gun of Cesar' to crucify Jesus and He believed that Jesus was genuine and was talking the truth.

 

I'm making an illustration that Jesus did not make or incite any riot.

 

Sure, but you don't have to be guilty to be executed for something.

 

Of course you do, or it would be simply state-sanctioned murder, wouldn't it?

 

Perhaps Judas, as well as that crowd, rejected Jesus because He failed to live up to their expectations of a miltaristic Messiah, like Judas Macabbeus in the Greeks earlier, who was going to liberate Israel, defeat the Romans, and restore Israel back to its prestine Glory, as under the Kingdom of David and Solomon.

 

Perhaps. But why kill himself afterwards? Certainly he realized the magnitude of his actions. I still maintain that, as a zealot, Judas's "betrayal" was only a way to inspire Jesus to take forceful action. When J.C. refused, I think that's when Judas recognized the nature of this savior.

 

Thirty-pieces of silver was also a motivation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that is not true. It is in the Bible. You want me to prove it?

 

The business about Pilate knowing Jesus was king of the Jews, and him fearing accusations of treason--yes, prove it. By this I mean, cite scripture that says this. Do not merely cite scripture we're all familiar with and interpret it to fit what you just said, because anyone can do that.

 

It's possible, but not likely, that the pages are stuck together in my canon. Otherwise, let's move on.

 

If we are going to argue on whether the Gospel is literal or metephor, then this will be a waste of time.

 

Sure. But John's gospel is filled with a large amount of wordplay and metaphor, and you're doing yourself a disservice by ignoring it.

 

It's an extreme view to doubt the historical accuracy of the Gospels, and most people do not debate the historical accuracy

 

This is a false statement. No one believes the Gospels, even the synoptic ones, are historically accurate to the letter. They were composed long after Jesus's death and relied heavily on oral accounts of Jesus' ministry. They don't even agree with one another in all places. Plus there's the obvious bias.

 

I'm not saying there's no truth to them, but if a historian had to rely solely on the Gospels to compose a biography of Jesus, he or she would be very dissapointed.

 

Regardless, you're misinterpreting my position. I'm not saying John's gospel isn't true, I'm saying there's a lot of literary secrets to be unlocked in it, in terms of interpretation. It's definitely not written like the other ones.

 

I think Pilate was very sympathetic to Jesus and indifferent to His message.

 

I can agree with this. If someone has to be blamed though (a pointless exercise, in my opinion, but let's roll with it) it ought to be him. He was the one with the authority to execute, and he did.

 

Of course you do, or it would be simply state-sanctioned murder, wouldn't it?

 

That's how I already feel about capital punishment, whether they are innocent or guilty, but we can put that in a different thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
Admiral Thrawn
No, that is not true. It is in the Bible. You want me to prove it?

 

The business about Pilate knowing Jesus was king of the Jews, and him fearing accusations of treason--yes, prove it. By this I mean, cite scripture that says this. Do not merely cite scripture we're all familiar with and interpret it to fit what you just said, because anyone can do that.

 

John 19:12 "And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Cesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Cesar"

 

John 19:14-15 "And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour; and he said unto the Jews, Behold your King!

But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him.

Pilate said unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Cesar"

 

These are the source verses, you can see that Pilate is being put on a spot, if Pilate was seen to be supporting Jesus as King.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What makes you think I'm going around lying and sexually touching people?

For the record, this is not true.

 

Nobody is judging you, except for yourself because you know you need to get right with God. So get right with God.

 

Don't tell me to 'get right with god'.. I'm a religious person.. pray all the time. Difference is, I don't cram religion down everybody's throats. You have no right to tell people they're going to hell and they need to find God. People have different religions. You have no right to tell anybody who's right and who's wrong. And for the record.. you have blatantly stated that you lie to people. You lie to girls on websites saying you're something that you're not just to get responses. Lying is a sin.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...