|
Post by Mongo the Destroyer on Jun 15, 2017 11:59:57 GMT -5
Because Mongo and Kuroi can't help themselves.
Religious issues can go here (and spread or something, but we'll give Goldy a break on the discord)
|
|
|
Post by Venom 🕷 on Jun 15, 2017 13:57:43 GMT -5
How do I unlike a thread?
|
|
|
Post by ForeverKuroi on Jun 15, 2017 14:40:48 GMT -5
Jesus isn't white.
|
|
|
Post by Mongo the Destroyer on Jun 15, 2017 21:47:43 GMT -5
You can't but let's try to keep this thread respectful otherwise we'll have to bring religious discussion back to the discord
Considering he was born to a middle-eastern Jewish family, he almost certainly isn't. Even many early depictions of Jesus and the controversial shroud of Turin have him as a normal middle-eastern dude
|
|
|
Post by ForeverKuroi on Jun 15, 2017 22:35:35 GMT -5
Yay! We agree about something. Let's quit while we're ahead.
|
|
|
Post by La Familia Price on Jun 17, 2017 15:30:38 GMT -5
Nothing in the bible or any of them fairy tail books are historically accurate. /thread
|
|
|
Post by Curtis D. Kanyon on Jun 17, 2017 19:07:15 GMT -5
Actually, many really old texts mention a massive flood. So a lot of historians believe there was in fact a massive flood in the known world at the time. Also, there was records found that a man named Jesus Christ was put on trial in Roman times. So there is real history in there.
Two of the main "fairytale" issues are:
1) The bible was written and edited by man, and men aren't perfect. The writers could have had prejudice or only seen things from one point of view. Also, many stories and parables are more to present a code of morals than to be historically accurate. And then, I don't remember the year, but before reading was something everyone could do, the leaders of the Catholic church edited the bible, leaving in the stories they felt were best for what they wanted to preach.
2) Men back then didn't know what we know now. As far as the apostles knew, the sun revolved around the earth. Jesus wasn't there to teach how the universe works. So they wrote according to their world view. That's why we can't take a lot of that stuff literally anymore. It needs to be adapted to today.
I mean that's my point of view, Mongo studies way more than I do. But I believe God and evolution can coexist.
|
|
|
Post by Dave D-Flipz on Jun 17, 2017 20:41:25 GMT -5
I mean most Jewish scholars will gladly tell all the super right wing Christians who believe it's infallible and taken literally that that is stupid. The book was originally for the Jewish people and was guidelines for how to live in a civilized (mostly) society. I mean right in Genesis chapters 1-2 and 3-4 each tell a story of the creation myth and they contradict each other out of the gate. Like they are COMPLETELY incompatible with each other so ... yeah not meant to be taken literally. There is also the evidence that they counted age differently back then as in not by "years" since when they say Noah was 600 when he built the ark ... it was likely more close to 40 ... so ya know take your morals and your whatever you want from the books of various religions but ... be careful would be the main thing.
|
|
|
Post by Mongo the Destroyer on Jun 17, 2017 21:19:41 GMT -5
Whoa K-Dawg, I had no idea you knew about the flood thing, lol. That's cool. But yeah, there's actually quite a bit of real history in at least the Bible (obviously I believe all of it there, lol). The flood is a great example because most cultures around the world have flood narratives; so (presuming it's true) when people started spreading out after the Tower of Babel incident, they carried those memories/stories with them wherever they went (including across the ice-age-ish land bridge to the Americas (since they also have the flood story). There are historical records of Jesus as Kanyon mentioned- buuuuut, actually Jesus had a really common name. His name was Joshua (just spelled a little differently). Joshua is one of the heroic leaders of the Old Testament, so his name pops up here and there. So yeah, think of that, Jesus' name was basically Josh- not even Josh, Jesh. Our Lord's name was Jesh. There's other historical things that have come out more and more over time. For a long time people assumed that King David was just a fable of an ideal king because they couldn't find any record of the guy. But recently(?) (I think it was in the last 10 years or so) they found some writing from the time on like a clay doohickie (I forget what they're called but it's basically a block/sphere with writing on it) that called Omri (a northern Israelite king) a member of the House of David -which from a Biblical standpoint doesn't match up (because Omri's family were usurpers) but DOES prove David to be a real king, lol. Also within the Bible itself there are confirmations of its legitimacy for historical accuracy. You have to keep in mind that although Islam and Christianity are relatively new religions, Judaism is not; Jews have been following the Law of Moses for a very very long time, and what they follow has always been based in the the first 5 books of the Old Testament, with the later historical and prophetic books coming later. This helps establish the legitimacy of Moses' books because they wouldn't follow the writings if not from a legitimate source (heck, Judges is about everyone doing whatever they felt like but the Law of Moses was still common knowledge) it also helps us to trace the culture as it grows in the Bible and beyond. Even during pre-exile days, southern Israel (called Judah in the Bible) was still in possession of the Ark of the Covenant (a box built for God during Moses' time). They even mention that it still had the 10 commandments in it (though interestingly the two other things put into the box during Moses' day never get mentioned again). This is one of the major issues that comes up actually. First and foremost I will say the Bible is totally God-sided, lol. So even if the events presented are historically true, they are not fair and balanced interpretations. The Bible makes no qualms about it; even going as far as rating each of Israel's kings as either good or bad, lol. As for editing, that's why ancient manuscripts like the Dead Sea Scrolls are so important. Before Rome's invasion, a bunch of ultra-conservative Jews hid their Scriptures and Biblical commentaries away in caves and somehow many of those caves stayed hidden until the modern age. These are seen as somewhat authoritative text since there's no post-Christian touch on the writings. People have been excavating and studying the scrolls since like the 60's; but it's a slow process because they have to be really careful with the 2000 year old paper (which turns to dust if improperly handled). Thus far though they've found that the Old Testament we know today largely lines up with what's in the scrolls. Which brings us to the formation of the Bible and the old church's hand (to be fair, Catholics grew out of the first church). What's really funny since you mention them editing the Bible to suit their needs is that in the end the parts that were chosen from the New Testament to be kept (They just kept the original Hebrew Bible as our Old Testament and added a few books that Protestants don't read) actually went against Catholic doctrine, lol. Up until the reformation, Catholicism was super superstitious. Like for a long time they would preach that you needed Jesus AND to not sin or you'd go to hell. To that end, it was commonly believed that if you didn't pray before you died, you'd go to hell even for some stupid little sin (that's why a lot of fun jobs came up during those days like having people pray for you or hiring homeless to "take your sin" and go to hell in your place). Also, the Catholic church sold indulgences, which were "get out of hell/purgatory free" cards. The funny thing is that none of that is supported by the Scriptures that the church chose to go with, lol. In fact, Paul (the major writer of the New Testament) wrote: This sort of negates any "morality-based" arguments for entering heaven. So it wasn't so much that when the church compiled the New Testament that they were looking for things to support their preaching, it was more that they were trying to only add parts they could mostly verify the legitimacy of at the time. BUT, since they didn't let anyone read what they had chosen, the priests of the time only chose to preach about what suited their needs, lol. That's why the reformation ripped the church in half because people started reading the Bible and saying "Wait, hold on, none of the crap you're preaching is right!" One of the things that really does it for me though is John. John was one of the first apostles but he was super young when Jesus was around (like a teenager) and he lived to be close to 100. We know this because a few of those early church founders who helped to build the church we know as Catholicism actually studied under John. This becomes important because John's books were written really late; including his version of the Gospel. They came about around 90ad or so (Jesus's ministry/crucifixion was around 30ad if that is any indication of the timeline). All the other apostles were dead by that time and John had really nothing to gain by lying or continuing a lie (if Matthew and Peter's writings were lies). He was already getting mega old and sick; the Gospel of John was going to be his tell all book. And so if there was a book about the real Jesus, it'd be John's. He'd blow this whole Jesus thing wide open and put everyone in their place. But, instead of presenting a more human Jesus, John opens his Gospel record with this: Instead of opening up about Jesus' humanity, John doubled-down on his divinity; and John's letters to the church are the one's that features the most love-based teachings. John's long life only confirmed his faith and he wanted to make sure everyone knew about it. Luckily the apostles didn't write anything about it, lol. The Gospels are exclusively about Jesus' adventures and teachings. Acts (which is the sequel to the Gospels) is exclusively about the adventurers of the apostles. It's all very ground-based, with no scientific teachings to be found. Even the letters that follow are more focused on interpretation of the New and Old Testaments than any theories about stuff they didn't have knowledge about. I honestly think that's why Peter only gets two short letters in the Bible (and the book of Mark which most assume was Peter's account as ghost written by...well, Mark); because during Acts it's noted that Peter and John are not scholars (in fact they're referred to as unschooled, lol). So, if we assume that God protected theologically correct writings for the Bible, it'd make sense that the dude who was all passion but no background knowledge wouldn't get a whole lot of writing past his heavenly editor, lol. On the topic of science though; there's been a few times where the Old Testament writings actually had the science right before...well, science did. One example Christians like to use is that when secular scientists were still preaching flat-earth, the Bible actually mentions other heavenly bodies circling around the heavens. Another was that the Bible called that rabbits eat their poop before biologists knew. In the Law of Moses it's noted that rabbits "chew the cud" but science was all like "Um, no, they don't." And no, they don't chew it like cows do (vomiting up grass and re-chewing it) but it was later found that rabbits actually re-chew their grassy poop (gross, right?). And this comes back to the flood, where we started.... Were the global flood to be real; evolution wouldn't need to exist, lol. The flood would have taken place; what, around 5000 years ago? From there the various pairs of animals would have been able to grow and diversify. Most people confuse "evolution" with natural selection. But the two are not the same thing. Evolution presumes that new DNA things are created either through mutation or something like that (think about like the X-Men). But Natural Selection is the loss of genetic material, making a group of animals more specific to certain conditions. That is to say, if we put a bunch of dogs in the arctic, after a couple of generations only the really furry ones will be left because they're better equipped for survival. Thus all the puppies will be born with lots of fur. That's not evolution, that's the genetic information for "short hair" being written out in favor of more fur. Natural selection is both testable and observable. Thus far though, mutation has only proven to delete or mess up genetic information; mutation itself is not a good thing on a DNA-level. Evolution isn't testable because it relies on millions of years. One guy I heard described it like this: the Natural Selection train and the Evolution train are going in opposite directions, so one can't be used to prove the other. As I said though, if the flood is true, then evolution doesn't even need to exist. Since it puts the post-flood world at around 5-6 thousand years. Noah's ark could have held base-line animals that still had a lot of genetic material (as the world was "young") that would have separated into different species as life and natural selection took its course. Then what about all the fossils? Well, first off, the fact that there are so many also help the flood scenario because if you leave a dead body outside for like a week it'll probably ripped apart by scavengers and never have the time to fossilize. Rather, for something to be able to fossilize, it would have had to have been covered over quickly- like if the waters of a massive world-wide flood were receding and depositing layer upon layer of silt on top of it's hapless victims. The geological column is filled with exceptions to established geological/evolutionary rules. Like some fossils are standing up through multiple layers of the rock- which theoretically shouldn't be the case unless the layers were deposited quickly. There's also been a fair few "normal" animals (as in, they're the same as today [like ducks]) found in the same layers as dinos (sometimes even in their stomachs). Actually, one baby dinosaur was found in a mammal stomach, lol. If we had ducks then and we have ducks now; then what has evolution been doing all this time?
Holy crap I wrote a lot; I am so sorry, lol. It's Sunday here and I'm super-charged and excited to talk. Also, Kanyon, mega props for your open minded answers and interest in the topic Edit: OOF! While I was writing DT brought up some more fun topics! Remind me to address them later, lol. Oooh so hot of a topic today
|
|
|
Post by Dave D-Flipz on Jun 17, 2017 23:16:49 GMT -5
Just as a scientist I feel the need to step in and say we absolutely can see evolution. You just need lifeforms that have VERY short generational spans ... on the order of hours-days. We can empirically prove that evolution takes place through the works of Henry Bates in the Amazon with butterflies but more to the point. We have WITNESSED evolution via natural selection in viruses (which may or may not TECHNICALLY be alive... another topic) and in bacteria (very alive). In fact we have created evolved bacteria in the form of MRSA (methicillin-resistant staphylococcus auria). It's a standard staph infection that was not adequately killed off with antibiotics (they stopped taking them early etc). The few survivors would have been those LEAST affected by the antibiotics which then caused that particular mutation to be the only surviving variant. It then grows (staph generations are on the order of hours so what takes millions of years in mammals and reptiles etc takes place in weeks/months in bacteria) and mutates and the selected traits will be those who maintain that resistance (residual drug effects killing those who undo the mutation while those who are even more resistant are even better protected.)
Scientists have basically evolved bacteria and fungi themselves for specific traits as well in the lab. So yes while it does take a LONG time to see evolution on the vain of say ... small reptile to first theropod to first tyrannosauroid to first tyrannosaurid to good old T-Rex ... it is not nearly as hard to see evolution that hasn't yet pushed into new species. (There is a part of science that suggests we the generations that exist now are the first set of generations in a new tech based species of humans that are technically different than homo sapiens sapiens or alternatively on the cusp of becoming a new species.) It is also important to note that just because a species evolves doesn't mean the original ceases to exist. We can see this in dinosaurs where various ankylosaurids all existed at the same time and the one that eventually diverged still existed. (We can see it today with Galapagos finches.)
Now I may not be religious anymore but I am not one to take that away from anyone and if you believe that there is a being who can basically do whatever, why couldn't it have just set into motion all these changes and let everything play out on a big cosmic timescale to admire its work and see what happens? If humans are made in His image and humans are naturally curious why is it so hard to think a God wouldn't be curious as well and set this whole Universe spinning as science says (and is still discovering) just to see how it would play out?
SIdenote: Yes I was just at the Museum of Science in Boston and saw a movie on Henry BAtes and bought a book on Dinosaurs so sue me I love science and dinosaurs rule.
Sidenote 2: According to the way science classifies animals birds are TECHNICALLY considered a subgenre of dinosaurs so when you eat fried chicken you are eating dinosaur meat. And by the by our old friend gallus domesticus (and all species of gallus/chicken wild and otherwise) are GENETICALLY the closest living relatives to T-Rex and still contain the genes for some of the traits, they're just inactivated (epigenetics, a WHOLE other study which is frankly bloody brilliant and bloody terrifying). Scientists have found the genes that inactivate the other genes and have picked around in there and created chickens with long dinosaur-like tails and with sharp teeth in their beak. ...... I wanna eat one.
(Sometimes it can be very enlightening and fun to have a background in both hard science (and I guess a bit in the soft sciences) and in religious studies. I was named after KIng David after all. My brother for Daniel in the Lion's Den, 2 of my favorite tales of intrigue and one of which historians are pretty sure happened! -- Yes I know Goliath was basically Andre the Giant and a hit to the head would have ruptured the pituitary gland and killed him but DAMNIT I WANNA BELIEVE I WAS NAMED FOR A MAN WHO FELLED A GIANT WITH A FREAKING PEBBLE IN A SLING!)
|
|
|
Post by Mongo the Destroyer on Jun 18, 2017 2:46:31 GMT -5
I'd argue those scholars are stupid to believe in something they don't believe in, so to speak. If you can't trust one part of the book, how can you trust the rest? Paul brought up this concept when he wrote: People of Paul's time were saying "Oh yeah, I believe in Jesus, but not that whole resurrection thing." And Paul pointed out that if they're picking and choosing what to believe in, then they aren't really believing in the message; since the message says that Jesus was raised from the dead. And since they don't believe one part, it calls into question the whole thing. It's specifically because people are trying to cherry-pick the Bible that so many are falling away from Christ and endangering themselves with hell; because once one piece comes loose the whole thing falls. If the whole of the Bible is built on Genesis 1, by taking that away you've removed the foundation and thus destroyed the whole thing. Even Jesus references the creation of man and woman as well as the great flood- if he believed in that shiz but you say it didn't happen, then one could argue you don't really believe in Jesus. That's totally not true even a little bit, lol. Genesis 1:1-2:4a gives the overview of the creation week. Genesis 2:4b-25 is a zoomed-in look at the creation of man. Sort of like how most Star Trek: The Next Generation episode starts with a shot of the Enterprise, then cuts to inside the bridge. Genesis 3 details the fall of man (with an unspecific time frame, though it's after creation week). Genesis 4 is post-garden stuff; including Cain's murder of his brother as well as Adam's descendants. What you might be referencing is that a lot of people ask "Oh yeah, well who did Cain marry?" trying to argue that there were people outside the garden, but the answer is he probably married his sister (or like a niece or something). The Bible doesn't mention everyone, but Adam lived 900 years, so he probably had quite a few children. That "evidence" comes from the Bible, lol. People often point to 2 Peter 3:8 which reads, " But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." But what he means is that God is literally outside of time, so it doesn't mean anything to him be it a thousand years or a day. This is meant to be a comforting message because the Lord can control everything past-present-future at once. Therefore he's not "slow" he's just got a bigger plan than we understand. The fact though is that the Hebrew word for "day" used in Genesis 1 is the very same word for "day" used in Exodus 20:9-10: If the day is one day there, then it should represent a day in Genesis 1 as well. There's a larger argument about the importance of understand that the long-ages theory doesn't work with salvation (as it negates the fall, and therefore the reason for a savior) but we'll save that for another time. Furthermore, until Noah's time humans are recorded as living longer. The science might be that the air/environment was different. But Around Noah's time God got sick of everyone being highlanders and spending decades in sin. Therefore he put a limit on ages, "Then the Lord said, 'My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years'" (Genesis 6:3). After the flood, ages start to decrease dramatically in the genealogies. Holy crap yes be careful. Picking and choosing the stuff you like is "relative morality" and its how you end up with death cults like ISIS. Seriously guys, I warn you because I care, don't just pick what you like. I want more info on this butterfly stuff, lol. I'm curious about this. Just as a quick note to non-Christians, the entire existence of viruses is very puzzling to Christians. Since theoretically things are as-is from creation week; but with the added sin element mucking it up. But what about viruses? Did they come after the creation? Did they serve some benevolent purpose before the fall? There's probably been research into it, but I haven't read it, lol This is fascinating, and could possibly be really useful in the field of medicine if we can gain enough control over the process. But see here's where the evolution thing starts to fall apart. Have we been able to observe a single cell organism evolve into a multi-cellular one? You can point at growing an extra finger and say "evolution" but it's a far cry from actually developing something new; even with short generational spans. Furthermore, a lot of the basic functions of most animals would have had to go through ages of being worthless or potentially deadly junk. Like just the various muscles and nerves that make up the eye are all so inter-connected that missing one part would make the whole thing a worthless glob of skin; something that natural selection would have bred out given time. The same goes for venom sacks on poisonous animals; they'd had to evolve the poison and the resistance at the same time- but the resistance wouldn't be needed if the poison wasn't there, and without the resistance the poison would kill the animal. And even if the resistance had been developed first, then what are the odds that the particular poison would have developed as well? I already mentioned this in the chat box; but Darwin's finches are a weak argument. Most evolutionists are starting to back away from Darwin's evolution because it's too hard to support. The finches are clearly a product of natural selection. A group of finches that had a large amount of genetic makeup was split between the islands, then various traits were bred out in favor of ones that made life easier on that specific island. That's not evolution though, that's natural selection; which is the loss of genetic information. It's the same reason why we have different skin colors; there's no more "advanced" evolution between humans, it's that some kept the "lighter" genes while others kept the "darker" genes. I agree that he's letting things play out (though getting involved because he doesn't just want to watch but interact with his creation). My argument is why are we shoving millions of years into the equation when it's not a necessary component? The whole argument has been "The earth looks old, therefore it is old." There's an island, I forget where; its a volcanic one, so it was created in the 20th century. Scientists theorized that it'd take hundreds of years to be anything more than a pile of burnt rock; but within like 50-60 years it's already filled with plants and even animals. This is Teepee Fountain. It looks like it's millions of years old; but actually it started in 1903. Some dude jammed a pipe in the ground and the mineral-rich water bubbled up and kept depositing on itself. Science no longer needs millions of years to function, but people are so stuck in their ways with uniformitarianism that they won't back down from the argument. I too love me some dinos and science. I grew up on PBS, lol. Nobody will sue you, you are welcome. One of us, one of us, one of us one of us ...but DT, you can believe that because it's absolutely what you described, lol. Put Andre the Giant in a line-up with the roster of 205 Live and it's still a giant among men. I picture David about the size of AJ Styles (mom hair included, of course). Still, killing a dude the size of Andre with a rock to the head is a big frigginl deal, no matter what the science behind it is. You are named for a man who felled a giant with a freaking rock (pebble is too small) and sling! (And also was king but, y'know, giant killer and all, lol)
|
|
|
Post by Dave D-Flipz on Jun 18, 2017 22:17:24 GMT -5
The whole part with him as king is a little muddy, what with the whole stealing his friend's girl by sending him off to war and the other things he did that were kinda ... well dickish.
Mom hair? Really? Is it really so hard to let me have David being a little dude with Samson style hair? Please?
|
|
|
Post by Mongo the Destroyer on Jun 19, 2017 3:21:24 GMT -5
No DT, he must be mom hair AJ Styles. It's a true fact hidden somewhere in history. Eventually we'll find like a golden statue of David and it'll be like that creepy old west picture of Nicolas Cage, only mom hair AJ Styles. He'll even be wearing previously unmentioned gloves. And that'll be your name sake; even if you don't want none, you don't want none, you don't want none.
Oh David was a pile of dicks, lol. But God really liked him, I think the idea is that even with all his faults, David still had his heart in the right place most of the time. I find it inspiring, because as you guys know, I too am a bag of dicks. (BTW, David once presented a bag of foreskins to the king before him- so that bag of dicks thing had some foreshadowing, lol)
|
|
|
Post by Curtis D. Kanyon on Jun 19, 2017 21:06:42 GMT -5
I would consider natural selection to be a type of evolution. Us manipulating genetics I would consider a different type of evolution. Mutation would also be a type of evolution. However, based on scientists thoughts on evolution, we have not been around long enough to view a natural evolution of something. Even with the bacteria which grow at such a quick rate, all that we've been studying since we've known about them, we've never seen a bacteria evolve from one genus (I think that's the right one?) to another. Sorry, DT probably knows that stuff better than I. We've certainly modified things ourselves, for better or worse. In another case, we've never found "the missing link" between monkeys and man. We're 97% similar, and we've seen the type of man we naturally selectedly evolved from, but that one key jump is still missing. And considering we've found dino bones, we should have found that by now. But that's not to say natural selection hasn't modified something from one to the other over a long period of time, bit by bit. Like DT said, we have seen the evidence from little reptile through to the T-Rex. But you couldn't give someone a Raptor and say "now turn this into a T-Rex." They're similar, but not the same enough to evolve from one to the other. ...I hope that makes sense.
Another thing is, it's stated God created us in him image. But at the end of the day, he's not taking our bodies to Heaven, he's taking our spirits. I could be reading between the lines too much, but what I've heard that makes more sense to me, is that our souls are what is created in his image, not our flesh and bone. And another thing, (being that I'm an artist, it makes a lot of sense to me too) the reason a lot of mammals share our bone structure is because that's God's "art" style. You can recognize a Picaso when you see it because he has a certain style, a certain brush stroke, a way he likes to present art. God picked a certain style to design creatures on Earth, and so he kept going with that structure.
The dinosaurs, I don't know. I don't think they survived when man did. I don't know if it was a test run, or maybe He knew we'd need them around so long ago in order for us to have oil now, or what. But they did exist, and whichever ones were left after the meteor somehow became birds.
Last I heard, 40% of scientist also believed in some form of religion. They see science as solidifying the fact that a god does exist because of how perfect the system of life works. Also the probability of stars existing out of nothing, just the stars, is astronomically small (Pun intended). And then of course, planets forming is more so, and then life forming, and then conscious life forming. I don't know all the numbers, but I've heard them, and it's mind blowing. I know a lot of people look at the grand-ness of the universe and think they're an insignificant little speck, but I prefer to look at it as how amazing it is that I'm alive to enjoy it and take it all in.
Also, my comment about the apostles thinking the sun revolves around the earth wasn't a knock against science in the bible, it was more "the people that are reading this understand the world a certain way, so we need to make a book that they can relate to." I know there's plenty of people who've tried to "translate" the bible by updating the lingo to sound more relate-able, but not everyone studies it hardcore like Mongo, so they get the basics and don't understand why a lot of the things happen the way they do. I have however read the King James cover to cover, a long time ago, but I remember bits. I forgot about the bag of dicks though. But I do know God has a sense of humor because the platypus exists.
|
|
|
Post by ForeverKuroi on Jun 19, 2017 21:16:04 GMT -5
I don't think you can read between the lines too much in religion.
With this said, if I did acknowledge that God is real, he most certainly is a god I would worship.
God - someone who got pissed off at a couple for eating an apple... SO PISSED OFF that he would punish the entire future of this species to long and arduous working and painful/deadly pregnancies. The kind of god who would invent something like childhood cancer. This isn't a loving god. It's an omnipotent jerk with a sick sense of humor.
|
|