Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5
Results 81 to 97 of 97
  1. #81
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    Quote Originally Posted by thegreenape View Post
    Where in the Bible is this sentiment stated?

    One's relationship with Jesus is their own and the depth "study" isn't necessary. Just because you want to know more details and feel that's important doesn't mean it is so for everyone.

    If one is fine with the Bible and the seven points you had said earlier, are they required to do more to be saved?

    I mean, if God and Jesus is part of their life and they don't do all that...I dont really see why it would be a problem.
    Paul talks about this at length:

    "I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able." - 1 Corinthians 3:2

    We are told to read God's word, that it is useful for reproof, instruction, etc. We all start out somewhere, but hopefully through diligence, faithfulness, and open minds and open hearts we can reach a better understanding of God and God's will for us.

    Does this mean you have to take college courses? No, but it would probably help.

    Does this mean you should actually study the Bible and not just read it for fun? Yes.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  2. #82
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    Greenape, you are contradicting yourself. First you state that all that is needed is a belief in Jesus, then you state that an understanding of the 7 pts above is needed. Which is it?
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  3. #83
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Greenape, you are contradicting yourself. First you state that all that is needed is a belief in Jesus, then you state that an understanding of the 7 pts above is needed. Which is it?
    I don't think he made that concession:

    Where in the Bible is this sentiment stated?

    One's relationship with Jesus is their own and the depth "study" isn't necessary. Just because you want to know more details and feel that's important doesn't mean it is so for everyone.

    If one is fine with the Bible and the seven points you had said earlier, are they required to do more to be saved?

    I mean, if God and Jesus is part of their life and they don't do all that...I dont really see why it would be a problem.

    I.e., "For the sake of argument, assume that one is fine with the Bible and the seven points you had said earlier. Do you think they are required to do more in order to be saved?"
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  4. #84
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    No. And as I explained in my earlier post (twice actually)...

    Quote Originally Posted by Apok
    As I explained above, there is a difference between salvation essentials and essential doctrines of Christianity which include justification, sanctification and glorification.
    He, like RC seems to be confusing salvation essentials with essential doctrines and for some reason, he, like RC, does not distinguish between justification, sanctification, and glorification.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  5. #85
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    X
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Greenape, you are contradicting yourself. First you state that all that is needed is a belief in Jesus, then you state that an understanding of the 7 pts above is needed. Which is it?
    Well, when I said believe in Jesus that means that you believe in those attributse about him. Not just "he existed" but all of which makes him the Lord and Saviour.

    But my point is still this:

    If one can be saved with, what I will call the "simplest common belief" in Christanity, can not ANYONE be saved by that level of belief?

    Or are you saying that the minimum is different for everyone?

    ---------- Post added at 08:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:14 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Does this mean you should actually study the Bible and not just read it for fun? Yes.
    I do not disagree that if you truly believe you will look further into the Bible and read it for fun.

    But my point is that there is not set "level" of knowledge one must attain because salvation is based on faith.

    Obviously out of belief in that faith you will try to live your life accordingdly; however, I would ask you the same question I just asked Apok (see above).

  6. #86
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    Quote Originally Posted by thegreenape View Post
    I do not disagree that if you truly believe you will look further into the Bible and read it for fun.

    But my point is that there is not set "level" of knowledge one must attain because salvation is based on faith.

    Obviously out of belief in that faith you will try to live your life accordingdly; however, I would ask you the same question I just asked Apok (see above).
    If you have faith in God, why wouldn't you want to have a better understanding of Him? Why wouldn't you want to pursue spiritual growth? If you refuse to do so, what does that say about what you really believe and value?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  7. #87
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    X
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    If you have faith in God, why wouldn't you want to have a better understanding of Him? Why wouldn't you want to pursue spiritual growth? If you refuse to do so, what does that say about what you really believe and value?
    That's not answering the question.

    I asked is there a certain "level" of knowledge one must attain, if you are able to do so?

    Is that level different for different people? and if so, what determines that? (other than the obvious of children versus adult or disabled versus fully abled)

    I agree that you will want to continue that relationship and grow.

    But my point there is no "standard" of what that growth means. I assume that's between you and God. And the key standard is the motivation, faith, and feelings behind what you are doing are common, not the level of factual/historical/spirtual knowledge you attain.

  8. #88
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Like I mentioned before, his understanding is fine for those lacking the capacity for further exploration. But it is insufficient when one starts to make claims or explore further truths, like that on debate board.
    I'm not sure I get your meaning. Your words were that an essential doctrine of Christianity required to attain salvation --i.e. one cannot be a Christian while not holding to this doctrine-- is literal translation. You went further to define what literal translation entails. Therefore, if one is unable to comprehend what "literal translation" is and all that it entails, they are likewise unable to adhere to the essential doctrine required to attain salvation (which is the word on which your whole list is predicated) and thus cannot be a Christian.

    If you meant something else, please explain.

  9. #89
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    Quote Originally Posted by thegreenape View Post
    That's not answering the question.

    I asked is there a certain "level" of knowledge one must attain, if you are able to do so?

    Is that level different for different people? and if so, what determines that? (other than the obvious of children versus adult or disabled versus fully abled)

    I agree that you will want to continue that relationship and grow.

    But my point there is no "standard" of what that growth means. I assume that's between you and God. And the key standard is the motivation, faith, and feelings behind what you are doing are common, not the level of factual/historical/spirtual knowledge you attain.
    There is a certain amount of factual knowledge required, right? Like, you have to know who Jesus was, and that God exists, and that humans are guilty of sin and require redemption, etc.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  10. #90
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    X
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    There is a certain amount of factual knowledge required, right? Like, you have to know who Jesus was, and that God exists, and that humans are guilty of sin and require redemption, etc.
    Sure...but I don't think that ",etc." is very much longer...

  11. #91
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    According to Christians, just south of heaven
    Posts
    1,723
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    I was raised Baptist.

    Which of these points are in conflict with any mainstream denomination (excluding 'atheist Christianity' and the like)?

    The following are alleged to be essentia:


    1. God's Unity
    2. God's Tri-unity
    1. Though I will spot you the fact that MOST Christians are one with this idea....thre are those that fly their banner under Christianity that have a problem with this idea for a variety of reasons. Again you and Apok would consider them cults. But they include but are not liited to, Arianism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormon's, Unitarians, even in the 16th century the radical reformers like Micheal Severitus preached against this idea. Why? It's NOT biblical.

      the concept was first used by Tertullian.....quite sometime later.

    2. Christ's Deity
    3. Christ's Humanity
    These two go together well. There are those that consider was Christ human enough to actually have been able to sin, or was he too godly and thus couldn't sin at all? It is a big can of worms that is hard to suss out because we simply don't know. Typically the argument about his diety status hinges around how human he was. IF he was more God than man then he couldn't have sinned and thus sincince he couldn't have sinned he was not human enough to know what human is. If he was more human than diety and could have sinned what would it say about him if in fact he had actually sinned.

    Now personally speaking, as a former Christian I always perfered the notion that he was more human than god and as such could have sinned and yet never did. To me that was a much more noble god than one that really couldn't have sinned to begin with. In my version God is much more of a role model because he actually did what we are supposed to do.

  12. Human Depravity
  13. Christ's Virgin Birth
  14. Christ's Sinlessness
  15. Christ's Atoning Death
  16. The Bodily Resurrection of Christ
  17. The Necessity of Grace
  18. The Necessity of Faith
  19. The Bodily Ascension of Christ
  20. Christ's Priestly Intercession
  21. Christ's Bodily Second Coming
  • The Inspiration of Scripture
  • The debate here depends on how the view is held on the inspiration part. Thre are those that believe that it's divinely inspired and merely written by man under that inspiration.

    Then there are those that feel that the "Inspiration" is much more of a "whispered in the ear", which isn't inspiration it's writing by proxy.

    This isn't a big sticking point....either way people believe that there is some sort of inspiration they just disagree to the extent of that inspirtation.

  • The Literal Interpretation of Scripture
  • Who objects to any of this? (I assume [16] doesn't mean to imply that all Scripture is literally true, since Scripture employs metaphor with regularity.)
    This is a big one. Depending on what you believe....some take it 100% literal and some understand there to be allegory involved. In this case it's 6 of one and half dozen of the other.



    But back to my point. To APOK.....the essential stuff is all that is necessary to be Christian. But I feel this is really more his feelings and the feelings of those that share his viewpoint on the subject.

    But if we look, and more to your question, and say the "essentials" in Baptist Doctrine.....what we find is indeed a much SHORTER list.

    For Baptist the list goes like this:
    1. Sola Scriptura
    2. Solus Christus
    3. Sola fide
    4. Sola Gratia
    5. Soli Deo Gloria

    Now there are SOME of these that are the some as the list the Apok provided. But to Baptists.....this is IT. Apok's list was considerably longer. Adn there are subtle differences.

    So no.....while there are common themes amongst versions of Christianity there are differences that are huge. So huge that it has caused splits many times within the church.

    In Heaven there is no beer. That's why we drink it here.

    Rogue Cardinal, Member of the God-Awful Atheist Syndicate


  • #92
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    Quote Originally Posted by Rogue Cardinal View Post
    Though I will spot you the fact that MOST Christians are one with this idea....thre are those that fly their banner under Christianity that have a problem with this idea for a variety of reasons. Again you and Apok would consider them cults. But they include but are not liited to, Arianism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormon's, Unitarians, even in the 16th century the radical reformers like Micheal Severitus preached against this idea. Why? It's NOT biblical.

    the concept was first used by Tertullian.....quite sometime later.
    You're bringing up two points, one of which I consider quite on-point and worth discussing, and one that I consider a tangent that shouldn't necessarily be pursued in this thread.

    Number one: You're absolutely right to bring up the possibility of assenting to the truth of the Bible but denying the truth of the Trinity. Great question.

    Number two: Giving a blanket assertion that the Trinity is extra-Biblical (meaning outside the Bible). I would really like this thread not to devolve into parsing out two sentences of the Bible (this depends on whether you're familiar with the actual Biblical case for the Trinity or not).

    These two go together well. There are those that consider was Christ human enough to actually have been able to sin, or was he too godly and thus couldn't sin at all? It is a big can of worms that is hard to suss out because we simply don't know. Typically the argument about his diety status hinges around how human he was. IF he was more God than man then he couldn't have sinned and thus sincince he couldn't have sinned he was not human enough to know what human is. If he was more human than diety and could have sinned what would it say about him if in fact he had actually sinned.

    Now personally speaking, as a former Christian I always perfered the notion that he was more human than god and as such could have sinned and yet never did. To me that was a much more noble god than one that really couldn't have sinned to begin with. In my version God is much more of a role model because he actually did what we are supposed to do.
    I don't know how you can derive characteristics like "couldn't have sinned" from the relative balance of "human-ness" versus "God-ness" (how do you even measure this?). How do you arrive at such conclusions?

    The debate here depends on how the view is held on the inspiration part. Thre are those that believe that it's divinely inspired and merely written by man under that inspiration.

    Then there are those that feel that the "Inspiration" is much more of a "whispered in the ear", which isn't inspiration it's writing by proxy.

    This isn't a big sticking point....either way people believe that there is some sort of inspiration they just disagree to the extent of that inspirtation.
    The mechanism of inspiration is irrelevant. The principle at issue is whether the Bible is a reliable source of doctrine.

    This is a big one. Depending on what you believe....some take it 100% literal and some understand there to be allegory involved. In this case it's 6 of one and half dozen of the other.
    You missed Apok's clarification that this point was not meant to suggest that every verse in the Bible should be interpreted literally. And as a side note, I don't know of anyone who thinks that 100% of the Bible is literal (it talks about the sun "rising", for instance; do these people believe that the sun literally rises?).

    ---------- Post added at 05:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by thegreenape View Post
    Sure...but I don't think that ",etc." is very much longer...
    I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, there is a "critical mass" of knowledge/beliefs that people must possess in order to be saved. Yes, one needn't apprehend all truths about God in order to be saved.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  • #93
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    According to Christians, just south of heaven
    Posts
    1,723
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    You're bringing up two points, one of which I consider quite on-point and worth discussing, and one that I consider a tangent that shouldn't necessarily be pursued in this thread.

    Number one: You're absolutely right to bring up the possibility of assenting to the truth of the Bible but denying the truth of the Trinity. Great question.

    Number two: Giving a blanket assertion that the Trinity is extra-Biblical (meaning outside the Bible). I would really like this thread not to devolve into parsing out two sentences of the Bible (this depends on whether you're familiar with the actual Biblical case for the Trinity or not).
    On point two I think it is important that you realize that I was speaking from THEIR point of view....not mine. They would say that the idea of Trinity is extra-biblical.

    Now personally I have my own reasons for not being impressed with the idea of Trinity...but I haven't devulged them.


    I don't know how you can derive characteristics like "couldn't have sinned" from the relative balance of "human-ness" versus "God-ness" (how do you even measure this?). How do you arrive at such conclusions?
    Again.....IT's not ME that arrives at these conclusions. It's an age old argument. But to break it down for you.....All christians deem God as perfect and incapable of sin. Thus it follows that if Jesus is also God that it is impossible for him to sin. Now if that is the case then saying Jesus was a sinless man is unimpressive simply because it wasn't possible for him to sin being that he was so godly. However, if he truly was a man, then it was possible for him to sin, so to claim him as sinless is now impressive.

    The mechanism of inspiration is irrelevant. The principle at issue is whether the Bible is a reliable source of doctrine.
    Well which is it? Is it inspired or not? That was the point of the essential. Again it's not MY list. You could argue it several different ways. Regardless there are those that believe it divinely inspired and there are those that are Christian that believe it divinely whispered which isn't inspiration.



    You missed Apok's clarification that this point was not meant to suggest that every verse in the Bible should be interpreted literally. And as a side note, I don't know of anyone who thinks that 100% of the Bible is literal (it talks about the sun "rising", for instance; do these people believe that the sun literally rises?).[COLOR="red"]
    But that is your's and APok's opinion. MY pointnt is that even though YOU don't know anyone with that view of it......I do. They bible is the literal word of god and innerrant and everything in there is 100%literally true.....according to them.

    In Heaven there is no beer. That's why we drink it here.

    Rogue Cardinal, Member of the God-Awful Atheist Syndicate


  • #94
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    Quote Originally Posted by Rogue Cardinal View Post
    Again.....IT's not ME that arrives at these conclusions. It's an age old argument. But to break it down for you.....All christians deem God as perfect and incapable of sin. Thus it follows that if Jesus is also God that it is impossible for him to sin. Now if that is the case then saying Jesus was a sinless man is unimpressive simply because it wasn't possible for him to sin being that he was so godly. However, if he truly was a man, then it was possible for him to sin, so to claim him as sinless is now impressive.
    Right, I get the "Was Jesus capable of sin" question. It's very simple.

    What I don't get is your "Jesus / humanity = ability to sin" equation. If he is 51% human, he's able to sin, but if he's 49% human, he can't. That's what I don't get. How do you know that?

    Well which is it? Is it inspired or not? That was the point of the essential. Again it's not MY list. You could argue it several different ways. Regardless there are those that believe it divinely inspired and there are those that are Christian that believe it divinely whispered which isn't inspiration.
    I don't think you understand what is meant by "inspired by God". Whether or not God whispered in someone's ear or send them a postcard or guided their thoughts is unimporant; these are simply the specific mechanism used to inspire the writers. We can accept that the authors were inspired by God without needing to specify exactly how.

    But that is your's and APok's opinion. MY pointnt is that even though YOU don't know anyone with that view of it......I do. They bible is the literal word of god and innerrant and everything in there is 100%literally true.....according to them.
    I go to a Christian school mostly populated by Evangelicals. I was brought up in a conservative Baptist church. I have never encountered in my entire life a Christian who believed that each and every Bible verse must be interpreted literally.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  • #95
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    According to Christians, just south of heaven
    Posts
    1,723
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Right, I get the "Was Jesus capable of sin" question. It's very simple.

    What I don't get is your "Jesus / humanity = ability to sin" equation. If he is 51% human, he's able to sin, but if he's 49% human, he can't. That's what I don't get. How do you know that?
    I am not coming to a conclusion that the percents is X or Y. I'm just throwing numbers out to make the point that at what point if there even is a eprcentage of god to human does he have the ability to sin. IF he is one percent human does that really put in jeapordy his ability to be a god?

    I don't know the answer.



    I don't think you understand what is meant by "inspired by God". Whether or not God whispered in someone's ear or send them a postcard or guided their thoughts is unimporant; these are simply the specific mechanism used to inspire the writers. We can accept that the authors were inspired by God without needing to specify exactly how.
    IF I sang you a song....and you liked it so much that it got you thinking and you wrote a song based off my song ideas....you were inspired.

    If I told you every note of the song that you needed to write.....You basically took diction for me and it's not inspired. I might have been inspired....but you certainly weren't.



    I go to a Christian school mostly populated by Evangelicals. I was brought up in a conservative Baptist church. I have never encountered in my entire life a Christian who believed that each and every Bible verse must be interpreted literally.
    Great I understand that. You and I see the bible the same in teh since that it's not all literal. But I know for a fact.....cause I've had to put up wiht the issues in a school setting.....that there are those that do!

    In Heaven there is no beer. That's why we drink it here.

    Rogue Cardinal, Member of the God-Awful Atheist Syndicate


  • #96

    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    0
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    People are different. They are biased. They grew up believing certain things and it is difficult to dismiss as being incorrect. Also, eisegesis is a factor. It isn't the transmission of the message, but rather the reception of it that causes differences.
    Ah, I see. That would explain why you're non-denominational.

    Incorrect again. People have preferences on worship. Even the early churches had differences. Some churches thought that the differences were so important that other churches must be wrong. Paul said otherwise...saying that the minor issues are minor issues and it's ok to have different opinions.
    But it's more than simple "preference" is it not? If differences between Christian denominations were trivial, why is there heresey at all? It's just "different" worship.

    You are relying on this "truth", while not knowing what this alleged truth even is.
    What exactly do you mean by this? What truth am I misunderstanding? I don't recall mentioning any specific truth in this thread or relying on the same.

  • #97
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus vs. Krishna

    Quote Originally Posted by Rogue Cardinal View Post
    I am not coming to a conclusion that the percents is X or Y. I'm just throwing numbers out to make the point that at what point if there even is a eprcentage of god to human does he have the ability to sin. IF he is one percent human does that really put in jeapordy his ability to be a god?

    I don't know the answer.
    If you aren't challenging the truth of the Christian doctrine, then it's an irrelevant point.

    IF I sang you a song....and you liked it so much that it got you thinking and you wrote a song based off my song ideas....you were inspired.

    If I told you every note of the song that you needed to write.....You basically took diction for me and it's not inspired. I might have been inspired....but you certainly weren't.
    You're equivocating. And you're simply unfamiliar with the meaning of the term "inspired" in its theological sense.

    Great I understand that. You and I see the bible the same in teh since that it's not all literal. But I know for a fact.....cause I've had to put up wiht the issues in a school setting.....that there are those that do!
    So you're saying that I should put my faith in you and believe that your testimony is true?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  •  

     
    Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5

    Similar Threads

    1. Conversing with the Past.
      By Mr. Hyde in forum Writing Club
      Replies: 3
      Last Post: December 8th, 2006, 03:31 AM
    2. Are they still Christian, ye or ne?
      By mustang5 in forum Religion
      Replies: 138
      Last Post: February 27th, 2006, 11:07 AM
    3. Transplanted Jesus 2
      By Pibs in forum Religion
      Replies: 155
      Last Post: November 30th, 2005, 10:39 AM
    4. PIBS' transplanted Jesus thread
      By Zhavric in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
      Replies: 101
      Last Post: November 20th, 2005, 07:57 PM

    Tags for this Thread

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •