Evidence for the existence of God (Part 1)

by keenobserver1 Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:14 pm

First topic message reminder :

If there is a God, he definetly isn't English.

by trevorw2539 Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:15 pm

Of course the Tower of Babel could have been higher Wink

by snowyflake Sun Jan 13, 2013 8:03 pm

When I’m a Christian, I am in opposition to no person (read below), in accordance with YHVH Elohim’s desires.

You are a Christian and others are of different faiths. As a christian you are duty bound to convert as many non-christians as you can according to what Jesus says. This puts you in opposition to those who do not believe as you do. It's not a malicious thing, for the most part, it's just that when you claim a belief that is different to others you are automatically in opposition.

We are in opposition, Rock. I do not believe as you do but you do try to get me to see your opposing point of view and I do the same to you. The difference is I don't want to convert you. People need to come these decisions on their own. I know this from personal experience and investigation. Take care of yourself. Smile

by snowyflake Sun Jan 13, 2013 8:09 pm

As these 'commandments' were already in operation in earlier civilisations and around in Moses day, they would hardly be a surprise to the Hebrews

This doesn't address the idea of God being egomaniacal. The other commandments come way down the list after we are instructed to worship him and only him.

by trevorw2539 Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:59 pm

snowyflake wrote:
As these 'commandments' were already in operation in earlier civilisations and around in Moses day, they would hardly be a surprise to the Hebrews

This doesn't address the idea of God being egomaniacal. The other commandments come way down the list after we are instructed to worship him and only him.

My quote from earlier
Hypothetically. You are god. You have created a universe for your creation to use and enjoy. Another being comes along and starts to claim falsely to men that he is their god. He offers your creation a life you know will lead to destruction. What do you do?

Please excuse the following example as I believe you are single.
How would a parent feel if someone came along and told their child that they were really their mother or father, tempting them with false facts and documents. Seeking to take away love from the real parents.

There are faults in these simple examples, because we think as human beings, not as 'gods.

The problem with discussing this is that we don't know what 'God' thinks. We only have mans interpretatation of what God is and how he thinks. That's if you even believe he exists.

Putting it simply. You look upon God as egomaniacal because you do not accept his authority. A Christian believes that God has his/her best interests at heart and are willing to obey what he says. Each to his own.

A Christian lives by faith in God. An atheist/agnostic lives by faith in themselves. That's the way it is.

by **astradt1** Sun Jan 13, 2013 11:29 pm

Is the reason so many Americans believe in Creationism because to deny it would mean that they would not have the 'God Given Right' to own a gun?

Does anyone else find it strange that it seems to be only Americans (USV) who talk about 'God Given Rights'?

by boatlady Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:32 am

Personally, I'm always deeply suspicious of anyone who claims to know anything about 'god's' plan - seems to me, just trying to get a bit of credibility for their own views.

by trevorw2539 Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:43 am

astradt1 wrote:Is the reason so many Americans believe in Creationism because to deny it would mean that they would not have the 'God Given Right' to own a gun?

Does anyone else find it strange that it seems to be only Americans (USV) who talk about 'God Given Rights'?

No. No. I'm always claiming my God given rights. Mainly when I'm trying to get my own way Embarassed

by Guest Mon Jan 14, 2013 12:19 pm

snowyflake wrote:
When I’m a Christian, I am in opposition to no person (read below), in accordance with YHVH Elohim’s desires.
You are a Christian and others are of different faiths. As a christian you are duty bound to convert as many non-christians as you can according to what Jesus says.

You’ve got that backwards in several ways.

I am not “duty bound” to do anything that Jesus says. If/then statement: “If you love me, (then) keep my commandments.” Jesus teaches; I choose to follow that which Jesus teaches (sometimes); I am a Christian (sometimes).
Jesus teaches me not to convert anyone. Jesus teaches me to live and interact as he teaches, to do so by my own choice, and to teach others as best I can what Jesus has taught me.
Conversion must be by one’s own choice. Kunta Kinte was coerced into saying “Toby”; in his heart, he remained Kunta Kinte, and he taught his children accordingly. Likewise, conversion is in one’s own heart, by one’s own choice.

snowyflake wrote:
This puts you in opposition to those who do not believe as you do.

This puts me in opposition to no person.

snowyflake wrote:
It's not a malicious thing, for the most part…

Choosing to follow that which Jesus teaches is in no part malicious.

snowyflake wrote:
… it's just that when you claim a belief that is different to others you are automatically in opposition.

Since all persons have a belief, all honest persons claim a belief. By claiming a belief, a person exhibits honesty; exhibiting honesty does not automatically put a person in opposition to other persons.

snowyflake wrote:
We are in opposition, Rock.

“We” is a plural pronoun; thus, any action or state of being involving “we” requires more than one pronoun. Perhaps you are in opposition to me; I so, that is your choice. I am not in opposition to you; I cannot be in opposition to one that I love.

snowyflake wrote:
People need to come these decisions on their own. I know this from personal experience and investigation. Take care of yourself.

Exactly. Phillip taught; the prime minister said “See, there is water. What doth hindereth me from being baptized?” Phillip answered, “Nothing.” The prime minister commanded the chariot to stop.

Phillip commanded nothing; the prime minister came to this decision on his own; the prime minister acted on this decision on his own.

snowyflake wrote:
… egomaniacal.

It is man gender inclusive that is egomaniacal. Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Papa Doc and Baby Doc, Idi Amin, Saddam and sons all come swiftly to mind when I see or hear the word “egomaniacal.”

by snowyflake Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:59 am

A Christian lives by faith in God. An atheist/agnostic lives by faith in themselves. That's the way it is.

An atheist lives by reason, common sense, rationality and bases decisions on evidence. Atheists do not reason that they get ill because they have sinned or that the state of the world is down to Satan and his minions waging some offline war in the ether or that natural disasters are caused by homosexuality.

And, frankly, I have more faith in my fellow man as an atheist than I ever did as a Christian. Christians believe this world is going to hell in a handcart. Some atheists believe that science could be our saviour and that most humans on the planet are pretty decent people.

Have a nice day Smile

by snowyflake Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:51 pm

I am not “duty bound” to do anything that Jesus says. If/then statement: “If you love me, (then) keep my commandments.” Jesus teaches; I choose to follow that which Jesus teaches (sometimes); I am a Christian (sometimes).

Jesus commands and you obey. You love Jesus and he has commanded you to keep his commandments. You are 'duty bound' as a Christian to do so.

God has commanded that we worship him and only him, make no graven image, keep the Sabbath, don't take his name in vain. To disobey any of these commandments puts you on the fast track to the lake of fire to burn for all eternity unless of course you are a Christian and repent of your sins, then it's all good. Slate wiped clean until the next time.

Since all persons have a belief, all honest persons claim a belief. By claiming a belief, a person exhibits honesty; exhibiting honesty does not automatically put a person in opposition to other persons.

Claiming a belief and exhibiting honesty are not necessarily the same thing. Exhibiting honesty and holding an opposing view is not the same thing either. If you and I disagree on a point, we are in opposition. This doesn't have to be a 'bad' thing. What a boring world it would be if we all agreed. Where would new ideas spring from? Where would our inspiration and innovation come from if we didn't debate the issues that were important to us.

Anyway, as a Christian, your worldview and ideas about God may be very different to a Muslim, Hindu, Sikh or atheist and is therefore in opposition. It's automatic. You don't believe in macroevolution even though there's evidence for it. I happen to think it's a plausible answer and the evidence convinces me that it's very likely. We have opposing views on the subject.

Egomaniacal comes to mind whenever I read the Old Testament and some parts of the New Testament.

One can be in opposition and still be friends. Smile

Take care, Rock.

by Guest Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:10 am

snowyflake wrote:
I am not “duty bound” to do anything that Jesus says. If/then statement: “If you love me, (then) keep my commandments.” Jesus teaches; I choose to follow that which Jesus teaches (sometimes); I am a Christian (sometimes).
Jesus commands and you obey.¹ You love Jesus² and he has commanded you to keep his commandments.³ You are 'duty bound' as a Christian to do so.

Why?
Why?
Why?

Three statements, same question.

1. My older brother commanded me to do several things. I diligently obeyed his commands. Why? Because I knew (and know) that (a) my brother loves me, and (b) my brother commanded me, in love, to do that which was best for me.

2. I love my older brother. He loved me long before I loved him; in fact, he (among others) taught me love and taught me how to love. Given my brother’s exhibited love for me, I could not and cannot help but to love him. “Greater love has no than this; that one lay down his life for his friends.” Since I’ve known anything, I’ve known that my older brother would lay down his life for me.

3. One commandment that my older brother commanded me to keep was told to me in a casual but deep conversation more than three decades ago. I was commanded to take a specific action in the (at that time) distant future. When the specified time came decades later, I took the specified action, in confidence, and never looked back. This action benefitted, and continues to benefit, the lives of my loved ones and me. Upon learning that I took the specified action at the specified time in obedience to his casually-communicated command, my older brother was surprised. “I remember saying that”, he said, “but I didn’t know you were listening.” My obedience to his command was totally my choice. No coercion whatsoever.

The abiding, unconditional love with which my older brother has gifted me for my entire life compelled and compels me to obedience (by choice) to this man through abiding trust in this man. He has never failed me. He is my older brother; when he says “jump”, I ask “how high” on the way up.

The italicized word can and does lead to a misconception about Jesus’ commands. Jesus said (if/then statement), “If you love me, (then) keep my commandments.” This love for Jesus includes at its core an abiding trust in Jesus’ exhibited love for me. I obey Jesus’ commands by choice through abiding trust in this man. I am not “duty-bound”; I am “love-bound” and “trust bound.”

by snowyflake Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:29 am

Why?

Why?

Why?

I have explained my point of view. You argue the semantics of words and phrases. It is your duty as a Christian to obey God and follow Jesus's teachings otherwise what is the point of calling yourself a Christian? The fact that you love Jesus and God does not preclude you doing your duty as a Christian.

I love my family more than anything in this life. If one of them requires my help I am duty bound to help them. That I do this out of love doesn't mean it is not also my duty.

by Guest Thu Jan 17, 2013 12:33 am

snowyflake wrote:
One can be in opposition and still be friends. Take care, Rock.

I can be in opposition to evil and never look back. I can be, on certain issues, in opposition to associates, even close associates, and still be associates.

Friends are another matter. a friend is a loved one who can depend upon me to “have her/his backs” even when we disagree. I can disagree with a friend, as I often do; I cannot be in opposition to a friend, a loved one.

You are my friend. Deal with it, because “you can’t change that” (click for the video).

by Guest Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:21 am

snowyflake wrote:
Egomaniacal comes to mind whenever I read the Old Testament and some parts of the New Testament.

Greek Bible

“Therefore, in all things whatsoever, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”

Matthew 7:12

The Law and the Prophets are the Hebrew Bible’s core. These words, spoken by Jesus, are the Greek Bible’s core. When contemplating these words, “egomaniacal” does not come to mind.

Conversely, when contemplating Robert Mugabe, who doesn’t give a damn about anyone save himself and his own, “egomaniacal” readily comes to mind.

by Guest Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:24 am

snowyflake wrote:
You don't believe in macroevolution even though there's evidence for it. I happen to think it's a plausible answer and the evidence convinces me that it's very likely. We have opposing views on the subject.

I neither “believe in” nor “disbelieve in” macro-evolution. It’s a hypothesis attempting to explain observed phenomena, nothing more, nothing less, and thus unworthy of being “believed in.”

Darwin, a frustrated nascent theologian, observed some things which he sought to explain. He did a pretty decent job of explaining micro-evolution. By observational data (1st hand, 2nd hand) I believe (not “believe in”) micro-evolution. No observational data exist to support my one-upon-a-time belief of (not “belief in”) macro-evolution. I have grown to disbelieve *(not “disbelieve in”) macro-evolution precisely because of the absolute absence of observational data.

I’ve witnessed 1st hand the micro-evolution of shoe sizes. In my generation, a male shoe size of 11½ was unusually large; now, it’s about average. I’ve witnessed 1st and 2nd hand the micro-evolution of 2nd generation Japanese-Americans USV and Japanese-Canadians that are significantly larger than their 1st generaqtion immigrant parents. I’ve witnessed 2nd hand the micro-evolution of dogs that are a cross between domestic dog breeds and jackals that now work Moscow’s international airport; no known drugs can escape their detection.

I’ve yet to witness a hippo transform into an orca.

We disagree; that does not place me in opposition to you.

by Guest Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:25 am

snowyflake wrote:
Anyway, as a Christian, your worldview and ideas about God may be very different to a Muslim… and is therefore in opposition. It's automatic.

Actually, no.

The only “Muslims” to which I am in opposition are those individuals that hate and/or seek to commit murder/genocide against

Westerners (including Americans USV, Aussies, Brits, Canadians, and New Zealanders),
Turks,
Kurds,
Christians,
Jews,
Baha’is,
Hindus,
Buddhists,
Sikhs,
Muslims of the opposite “branch” (Sunni seeking to destroy Shia, Shia seeking to destroy Sunni),
White folks (Louis Farrakhan, aka “Calypso Louie”, and his NOI, still preaching that the white man is a devil descended from Yacub the evil scientist),
all other decent folks,
and quiet Muslim scholars who dare to teach, directly from the Qur’an, that all true Muslims are called upon by the Qur’an to treat People of the Book, including People of the Law (Jews) and People of the Gospel (Christians), and by implication Baha’is, Hindus, and all persons who seek to do good, with dignity, honor, and respect.

I stand not in opposition to Muslims who follow the Qur’an and thus treat all decent folks with dignity, respect, and honor. In fact, for about a year, I studied every Wednesday night with five Muslim brothers. I stood not in opposition to them. We disagreed weekly in love over excellent fare.

snowyflake wrote:
… Hindu, Sikh or atheist… and is therefore in opposition. It's automatic.

If you seek to treat others with dignity, honor, and respect, I stand not in opposition to you.

by polyglide Fri Feb 01, 2013 11:59 am

The fact is that everyone has a choice, no one is forced to do anything other than under duress and in the latter case some still would not and have not succumed and have held their faith.

There are many ways in which one can interprit the Bible but only one way in which it fits in with all the rest and that is why you have Seek and Ye Shall Find, if everything was clear and indisputable there would be no need for faith.

by Shirina Fri Feb 01, 2013 6:38 pm

there would be no need for faith.

What is the benefit of faith? Why do we need to have it?

by snowyflake Thu Feb 07, 2013 9:41 pm

What is the benefit of faith? Why do we need to have it?

Well! If that didn't just shut everyone up! Smile

And what a great question. I've been watching the tumbleweeds over this thread for the past week and not one believer has deigned to answer it. I wonder why?

Perhaps because there is no benefit eh, eh, eh? (As our dearly departed Tosh would say)

I miss him Smile

by trevorw2539 Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:04 am

Of course their is a benefit of faith. Perhaps not always to the world as a whole, but to individuals. I know individuals whose lives have been changed by the 'acquisition' of faith. As one newly 'converted' man was heard to say while having a cup of tea after a service 'I don't know about turning water into wine, but I do know about turning wine into water, and betting slips into into wage slips'. His life had changed.

The question asked can be read in 2 ways. Individually or collectively.

I can't talk for other faiths but for Christianity. It was a Christian who realised the abomination of slavery and pushed for its abolition. It was the Church that realised the need for education for children in the UK and started schools for the poor, before the Government of later times took over. 'Christianity' has done terrible things in the past, but also benefitted society.

Faith for some individuals has enabled them to reach out a do things they felt unable to do on their own. If it was a 'crutch' for them to lean on, so be it. They were/are able to accomplish things they thought impossible.

I suggest that you on here are very able to think, consider, debate and find strength to go forward on your own. Don't decry those who are not.

For all your ability and faith in yourselves have you achieved the heights of accomplishment that many who have trusted in 'God' and their faith have.

An Islam Hadith says

To acquire knowledge is binding upon all Muslims, whether male or female.

The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of the martyr.

He who travels in the search of knowledge, to him God shows the way of Paradise.

Acquire knowledge, because he who acquires it, in the way of the Lord, performs an act of piety; who speaks of it praises the Lord; who seeks it, adores God, who dispenses instruction in it, bestows alms; and who imparts it to its fitting objects, performs an act of devotion to God. Knowledge enables its possessor to distinguish what is forbidden from what is not; lights the way to Heaven; it is our friend in the desert, our companion in solitude, our companion, when bereft of riends; it guides us to happiness; it sustains us in misery; it is our ornament in the company of friends; it serves as an armor against our enemies. With knowledge the creatures of Allah rises to the heights of goodness and to noble position, associates with the sovereigns in this world and attains the perfection of happiness in the next.

Following the above Islamic scholars sought after and interpreted ancient knowledge and gave us much that has benefitted our society today.

Faith has its benefits both individually and collectively.

That's my simple view. It may not be erudite or as learned as yours, but we are not frightened to answer your questions.

by Greatest I am Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:05 pm

snowyflake wrote:
What is the benefit of faith? Why do we need to have it?

Well! If that didn't just shut everyone up! And what a great question. I've been watching the tumbleweeds over this thread for the past week and not one believer has deigned to answer it. I wonder why?

Perhaps because there is no benefit eh, eh, eh? (As our dearly departed Tosh would say)

I miss him

There is a lot of benefit to faith. It is a hell of a good tool for those who want to keep their heads in the sand. Or up some God's ass.

“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
Martin Luther “

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:15 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:Of course their is a benefit of faith. Perhaps not always to the world as a whole, but to individuals. I know individuals whose lives have been changed by the 'acquisition' of faith. As one newly 'converted' man was heard to say while having a cup of tea after a service 'I don't know about turning water into wine, but I do know about turning wine into water, and betting slips into into wage slips'. His life had changed.

The question asked can be read in 2 ways. Individually or collectively.

I can't talk for other faiths but for Christianity. It was a Christian who realised the abomination of slavery and pushed for its abolition. It was the Church that realised the need for education for children in the UK and started schools for the poor, before the Government of later times took over. 'Christianity' has done terrible things in the past, but also benefitted society.

Faith for some individuals has enabled them to reach out a do things they felt unable to do on their own. If it was a 'crutch' for them to lean on, so be it. They were/are able to accomplish things they thought impossible.

I suggest that you on here are very able to think, consider, debate and find strength to go forward on your own. Don't decry those who are not.

For all your ability and faith in yourselves have you achieved the heights of accomplishment that many who have trusted in 'God' and their faith have.

An Islam Hadith says

To acquire knowledge is binding upon all Muslims, whether male or female.

The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of the martyr.

He who travels in the search of knowledge, to him God shows the way of Paradise.

Acquire knowledge, because he who acquires it, in the way of the Lord, performs an act of piety; who speaks of it praises the Lord; who seeks it, adores God, who dispenses instruction in it, bestows alms; and who imparts it to its fitting objects, performs an act of devotion to God. Knowledge enables its possessor to distinguish what is forbidden from what is not; lights the way to Heaven; it is our friend in the desert, our companion in solitude, our companion, when bereft of riends; it guides us to happiness; it sustains us in misery; it is our ornament in the company of friends; it serves as an armor against our enemies. With knowledge the creatures of Allah rises to the heights of goodness and to noble position, associates with the sovereigns in this world and attains the perfection of happiness in the next.

Following the above Islamic scholars sought after and interpreted ancient knowledge and gave us much that has benefitted our society today.

Faith has its benefits both individually and collectively.

That's my simple view. It may not be erudite or as learned as yours, but we are not frightened to answer your questions.

You are correct as to some of the benefits of faith.
You do not speak of the drawbacks though.

Unfortunately, faith is used by the churches against the sheep as they are forced to believe in all kinds of absurdities. Talking animals, seven headed monsters and all kinds of other fantasies, miracles and magic. Those do not produce healthy minds and has allowed churches to do all kinds of evils.

All because they convince the gullible that ---------- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez6wfJWVCeI

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire

Regards
DL

by snowyflake Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:40 pm

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Steven Weinberg

Trevor: You began your argument saying you can only speak from a Christian's point of view and then began to quote the qu'ran!

I think you missed the point entirely of Shirina's question. Why does humanity need faith or belief in a supreme being. For every good thing that you think faith has achieved, individually or collectively, there is historical evidence to the evil of religion, faith and belief. Faith has been the hinderance to scientific progress. Faith is superstition, delusion, wishful thinking. It is no different to a childhood imaginary friend. Don't you think humanity needs to grow up? Put aside our dreams of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy and look at the reality of short existences?

You can lead a moral and productive and happy life without belief in imaginary friends.

by trevorw2539 Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:59 pm

You are correct as to some of the benefits of faith.
You do not speak of the drawbacks though.

Unfortunately, faith is used by the churches against the sheep as they are forced to believe in all kinds of absurdities. Talking animals, seven headed monsters and all kinds of other fantasies, miracles and magic. Those do not produce healthy minds and has allowed churches to do all kinds of evils.

All because they convince the gullible that ---------- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez6wfJWVCeI

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire

Regards
DL

The subject was about 'benefits of faith'

by snowyflake Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:20 pm

That's a bit of a cherry picking answer, Trevor. One cannot discuss benefits without weighing up the drawbacks to determine the over all validity of a belief system. One can argue that faith has had a personal positive impact on someone's life but faith does not have a personal positive impact on everyone's life. And the collective abuses and atrocities by the various faiths and religions leads me to believe we are better off without it.

by oftenwrong Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:35 pm

" ....the collective abuses and atrocities by the various faiths and religions leads me to believe we are better off without it. "

All those in favour, say "Aye"

by trevorw2539 Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:44 pm

snowyflake wrote:
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Steven Weinberg

Trevor: You began your argument saying you can only speak from a Christian's point of view and then began to quote the qu'ran!

I think you missed the point entirely of Shirina's question. Why does humanity need faith or belief in a supreme being. For every good thing that you think faith has achieved, individually or collectively, there is historical evidence to the evil of religion, faith and belief. Faith has been the hinderance to scientific progress. Faith is superstition, delusion, wishful thinking. It is no different to a childhood imaginary friend. Don't you think humanity needs to grow up? Put aside our dreams of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy and look at the reality of short existences?

You can lead a moral and productive and happy life without belief in imaginary friends.

As I said, the question was ambiguous.

I spoke from what I know. The Islamic/Qu'ran quotes were just to point out that 'faith' does has its advantages. I do not dispute that many can, without a faith, live moral and productive lives. Others find faith gives them extra 'whatever it may be' to do the same.

Faith is not superstition to those who truly believe, it's 'truth'.

Do I think it's time mankind grew up? Mankind is a superior animal, often with less sense than the animal world. From the beginning of time he has proved his savagery and is still doing so today. I believe that he will eventually 'outdo' himself. Perhaps he will survive, perhaps not. How long before we have a race of clones? How long before automation takes over leaving man time for what? Leisure? A lifetime of doing nothing.
And what when he becomes bored with leisure? What then.

Longer life spans with nothing to look forward to.

I'm not against scientific advantages to improve mans lot and knowledge, but unless something is done about the waste of natural resources and the ever increasing birthrate, and there's little sign of that, there is no future.

Of course I'm an optimist Shocked

by oftenwrong Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:58 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:

I'm not against scientific advantages to improve mans lot and knowledge, but unless something is done about the waste of natural resources and the ever increasing birthrate, and there's little sign of that, there is no future.

Of course I'm an optimist

Malthusian catastrophe (also known as Malthusian check) was originally foreseen to be a forced return to subsistence-level conditions once population growth had outpaced agricultural production.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe

by trevorw2539 Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:07 pm

snowyflake wrote:That's a bit of a cherry picking answer, Trevor. One cannot discuss benefits without weighing up the drawbacks to determine the over all validity of a belief system. One can argue that faith has had a personal positive impact on someone's life but faith does not have a personal positive impact on everyone's life. And the collective abuses and atrocities by the various faiths and religions leads me to believe we are better off without it.

Not so. I wasn't discussing the subject. Simply replying to the question.

Quote And the collective abuses and atrocities by the various faiths and religions leads me to believe we are better off without it. [/quote]

The above is surpassed by the abuses and atrocities of men of no faith but greedy and power hungry.

According to his monument inscription while recalling this massacre he says "their men young and old I took prisoners. Of some I cut off their feet and hands; of others I cut off the ears noses and lips; of the young men's ears I made a heap; of the old men's heads I made a marinet. I exposed their heads as a trophy in front of their city. The male children and the female children I burned in flames; the city I destroyed, and consumed with fire." Following this victory, he advanced without opposition as far as the Mediterranean and exacted tribute from Phoenicia. On his return back home he moved his capital to the city of Kalhu (Nimrud).
Ashurnasirpal II
Assyrian

Excessive but not unusual for the time.

Man has always been a savage, destroying, abusing those he wished to rule, or whose property he desired. Rape, Paedophilia, Incest, Murder and almost every crime against humanity have been known from earliest recorded history. Religion should know better, but is little worse than non religious atrocities.

Now in the next week I am moving house so will be on/off the 'air' intermittently.

by snowyflake Sat Feb 09, 2013 12:24 pm

I suggest that you on here are very able to think, consider, debate and find strength to go forward on your own. Don't decry those who are not.

I don't decry anyone who struggles in this life but the idea of believing in invisible beings that care about us is not a rational approach to struggle. When you tell people that God/Jesus will answer their prayers only if they believe and when they say they believe and their prayers are not answered, the guilt believers suffer 'because they don't believe enough' is soul destroying. The entire concept is counterproductive to happiness and sets one up to fail and always be in 'submission' and out of control of their own lives. Take responsibility for your own life. No invisible being is going to change anything in your life. Only you can do that.

by Shirina Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:08 pm

To put my earlier question into context, Polyglide stated that if everything was clear, there would be no need for faith.

I asked what the benefits of faith were under those conditions because I see no benefits. None. What Polyglide is essentially saying is that, if we do not understand the Bible or what God wants, we just make stuff up and then have faith that our made-up information is beyond reproach. This is the reason why there are over 20,000 different Christian denominations, why Sunnis and Shias are blowing each other to smithereens, why Catholics and Protestants slaughtered each other by the millions. God has apparently obfuscated the truth deliberately so that we mere humans can quibble, squabble, and kill over the right interpretation of truth, and I see no benefit there.

Sure, one can argue that personal faith may have benefits, but we're not really talking about personal faith. Britain, for instance, has a national faith, as do many Islamic nations. America may as well have one since it exists in every way but in law. Religion in all of its forms turns people away from reality toward a faith-based existence - and the two are often at odds. Perhaps you have heard about the poor woman who was tortured and burned for being a witch in Papua New Guinea? We can obviously decry such actions - until we remember that their present is our history, for we used to do the same. It was only when we dispensed with mere faith as a catalyst for law and embraced secularism and humanism as a very REAL fact-based legal system that we suddenly understood how wrong it was. We no longer talk of infidels and heathens, blasphemers and heretics. That's because faith has been overidden by reason. Why is that good? Because reason doesn't allow for simply making stuff up.

Christians are still Christians, but we no longer burn people at the stake, imprison them for heresy, torture people to evoke a confession to God, carry out inquisitions, or murder those who believe differently. We evolved out of this abyss not because of faith but in spite of it. The Christians who freed the slaves did so not because of religion - as Christianity allowed slavery - but in spite of it. God does not send us updated information about what to do about abortion, stem cell research, reproductive rights, modern divorce, evolution, children out of wedlock, or child abuse. Nor does God thunder from the heavens once in awhile to even let us know he's really up there. Instead, we're left with holy books that are thousands of years old and have very little relevance to the modern world, a world in which stoning children for rebelliousness would be totally unacceptable. Should we simply have faith that the Bible is correct despite our conscience and do as God commands?

Jesus did not abolish the moral laws in the Old Testament - only the sacrificial laws. Otherwise, the Ten Commandments are subsequently abolished, as well.

If all of this wasn't bad enough, one must have faith in their faith. Yes, that's right - faith in your faith. You must have faith that your faith is the correct one even though, surely, intelligent people realize that what they believe has more to do with demographics than any absolute truth. There is no benefit of having to guess, to pick and choose, to interpret what to believe, what to have faith in, what God is all about. Which God? Which holy book? Which moral compass? Which religion? Which denomination? Which church? Which preacher? They're all different, one no less "true" than the other. Thus we have a divided world separated as often as not by religions and faiths - because faith is just another word for making stuff up.

by **Ivan** Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:42 pm

Wow, Shirina, that has to be the best post on Cutting Edge this year. cheers

by trevorw2539 Sat Feb 09, 2013 3:23 pm

The Christians who freed the slaves did so not because of religion - as Christianity allowed slavery - but in spite of it.

William Wilberforce (24 August 1759 – 29 July 1833) was an English politician, philanthropist, and a leader of the movement to abolish the slave trade. A native of Kingston upon Hull, Yorkshire, he began his political career in 1780, eventually becoming the independent Member of Parliament for Yorkshire (1784–1812). In 1785, he underwent a conversion experience and became an evangelical Christian, which resulted in major changes to his lifestyle and a lifelong concern for reform. In 1787, he came into contact with Thomas Clarkson and a group of anti-slave-trade activists, including Granville Sharp, Hannah More and Charles Middleton. They persuaded Wilberforce to take on the cause of abolition, and he soon became one of the leading English abolitionists. He headed the parliamentary campaign against the British slave trade for twenty-six years until the passage of the Slave Trade Act of 1807.

Wilberforce was convinced of the importance of religion, morality and education. He championed causes and campaigns such as the Society for Suppression of Vice, British missionary work in India, the creation of a free colony in Sierra Leone, the foundation of the Church Mission Society, and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. His underlying conservatism led him to support politically and socially repressive legislation, and resulted in criticism that he was ignoring injustices at home while campaigning for the enslaved abroad.

by Shirina Sat Feb 09, 2013 4:10 pm

The trouble with Mr. Wilberforce is showing a causal factor between abolitionist sentiments and his Christianity. Was it, in fact, his Christianity that prompted his position on slavery? Or would he have been an abolitionist regardless? There is no way to know.

What IS known, however, is that the Bible condones slavery. The only arguments Christians could make against slavery wouldn't be against the institution of slavery but the particulars of it. For instance, one could only own slaves from neighboring nations. Thus American slavery was only wrong from a Christian perspective because Americans could only own Canadians and Mexicans, not Africans. Therefore, to want to abolish slavery completely must come from a moral compass derived from some other place than religious faith. Or ... a person like Wilberforce must have had faith that the Bible was actually wrong. Hence why slavery was abolished in spite of Christianity, not because of it. In so many ways, our moral evolution took place by having faith that our faith wasn't completely correct. Stoning children, executing gays and adulterers, not suffering a witch to live, murdering non-virgin girls on their wedding night - yep, we evolved morally and recognized that these ridiculous Bronze Age commandments simply had no place in Western society. We recognized these truths in spite of religious faith, because those old rules are, in plain view, the commands of God.

Sometimes faith does produce a right answer, but in most cases, that answer actually contravenes the scriptures. One has to step outside of faith in order to realize certain realities - such as realizing the idea of burning witches is preposterous. Yet how many hundreds of thousands of women (not to mention millions of cats) had to pay the price before the West stepped from behind its faith and embraced reality? It's easy to think faith is good when you're comfortably singing hymns along side your Catholic friends, but not so good if you happen to be a beheaded Protestant whose head decorates a pike just beyond the doors of your comfortable church.

The truth is that Europe would be exactly like the Middle East if the royal houses of Europe and the Pope and Bishops had access to bombs, rockets, mortars, and assault rifles in 1100 A.D. There would be no difference. None. Only the names would be different - Protestant vs. Catholic instead of Sunni vs. Shia. Take a good look at Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and other oppressive regimes where faith rules over reason and remember - that's where WE were just a few hundred years ago. Wilberforce is to be commended on his conviction to oppose the Bible and set slaves free. He did that, not his faith.

Incidentally, Wilberforce was the name of President Bartlet's cat. President Bartlet is the fictional US president in the excellent TV series, The West Wing. A lot of liberals in America only dream of having a president like Bartlet. If you like US politics at all, this show is phenomenal.

by Guest Sat Feb 09, 2013 6:32 pm

Shirina wrote:
The trouble with Mr. Wilberforce is showing a causal factor between abolitionist sentiments and his Christianity.

William Wilberforce wasn’t about “abolishment sentiment”, he was about dedicated anti-slave trade and anti-slavery action/ There is no “trouble with Mr. Wilberforce” regarding the causal factor in his dedication to eradicating slavery from the face of the earth; it was Mr. dedication to serving Wilberforce’s YHWH Elohim, the Creator of all mankind, that compelled Mr. Wilberforce’s fifty-odd years quest to seek liberty and justice for all mankind.

Fact: A Methodist minister was the single most important causal factor in extinguishing slavery as it then existed from the world.

Shirina wrote:
What IS known, however, is that the Bible condones slavery.

It is not known that the Bible condones slavery; it is known that a Methodist minister is the single most important causative factor in ending slavery and the slave trade as it existed in the 18th Century as Wilberforce began his life’s quest, it is known that many underground railroad conductors were Quakers, and in my lifetime it is known that Baptist ministers, Methodist ministers, Catholic priests, Jewish rabbis, and hordes of folks who actively sought to serve YHWH Elohim through actively seeking liberty and justice for all marched with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist minister, in Selma, Birmingham, and throughout the South during a time when such active commitment by oneself often amounted to a death sentence for oneself.

by Shirina Sat Feb 09, 2013 8:16 pm

It is not known that the Bible condones slavery

It condones slavery. It even gives instructions on who you can own, for how long, how often and hard you can beat them, etc.

As for slavery, Mr. Wilberforce, and all the others - the problem is the time period. Who *wasn't* a Christian then? And if they weren't, they sure wouldn't let anyone know they were atheists, much less a different religion worshiping a completely different God. It's like putting a group of Christians on an island, watching them build a boat, and claiming their Christianity was the reason they were able to cooperate enough to build it. If they're all Christians, then there's no causal evidence to suggest that a group of atheists couldn't have built the boat just as easily.

Even so, it would prove that Christian morals evolve regardless of what the Bible says, and that means their faith evolved. In reality, when this kind of evolution occurs, that "faith" begins to resemble secular humanism, not Christianity. Of course, Christianity is fond of acting like the Borg Collective assimilating all other cultures and belief systems, hijacking things like marriage, morality, and pagan holidays - thus it stands to reason that Christianity will, as it evolves, also attempt to absorb and call its own the dictates of secular humanism. It's dishonest to do so, but it will probably happen.

by snowyflake Sat Feb 09, 2013 9:41 pm

In the 17-1800's, Almost all American slave owners in the South were Christians. Even the Ku Klux Klan think they have superiority over the coloured races because the bible says so.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

by Guest Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:13 am

Shirina wrote:
What IS known, however, is that the Bible condones slavery.

RockOnBrother wrote:
It is not known that the Bible condones slavery

Shirina wrote:
It condones slavery. It even gives instructions on who you can own, for how long, how often and hard you can beat them, etc.

Your statement presumes that all know “that the Bible condones slavery.” It is not known to me “that the Bible condones slavery.” As I am a tiny part of all, it is not known that the Bible condones slavery. Your statement should be limited in such a way as to exclude me from being identified as knowing that which I do not know.

Shirina wrote:
As for slavery, Mr. Wilberforce, and all the others - the problem is the time period. Who *wasn't* a Christian then?

Christ is an Anglicization of (transliterated Greek) Christos, the Greek equivalent of (transliterated/trans-vocalized Hebrew) Moshiach, Anointed, from the name and title (transliterated/trans-vocalized Hebrew) Y’shua Moshiach, in English, Jesus the Christ, Jesus Christ (Jesus the Anointed), or Christ Jesus (the Anointed Jesus).

Jesus’ disciples were first called Christians at Antioch. That account compellingly suggests (at least to me) that this is so because, at Antioch, Jesus’ disciples actually adhered to Jesus’ (“Christ’s”) teachings as best they could. Thus, a “Christian” is one that demonstrates, through one’s expressed attitudes, speech, and actions, one’s adherence to Jesus’ teachings. Accordingly, in response to the query, “Who wasn’t a Christian then?” the factual answer is “a great number of persons.”

Shirina wrote:
If they're all Christians, then there's no causal evidence to suggest that a group of atheists couldn't have built the boat just as easily.

Three points:

They are not “all Christians.” See the factual explanation of the term “Christian” above.
There exists no “causal evidence to suggest” that a group of atheists would have opposed slavery and the slave trade with such insistence and persistence that by circa 1831, slavery was abolished damned near everywhere in the “civilized Western world” except the US (the Royal Navy was a bad mama jama back then, God bless them all), and that by 1865, slavery was abolished even in the US (Amendment 13).
There exists irrefutable proof that groups of Christians (factual Christians), exemplified by William Wilberforce, a Methodist minister and among the greatest heroes of modern history, brought down slavery’s well-defended house.

Facts are facts; no amount of speculation can change that fact.

by Guest Mon Feb 11, 2013 9:34 am

snowyflake wrote:
In the 17-1800's, Almost all American slave owners in the South were Christians. Even the Ku Klux Klan think they have superiority over the coloured races…

American slave owners of the late 18th Century and almost two thirds of the 19th Century were not Christians. See previous post. kkk cowards (lci) were and are beasts by choice and terrorists by choice and certainly not Christians.

snowyflake wrote:
Even the Ku Klux Klan think they have superiority over the coloured races because the bible says so.

According to kkk cowards, the Bible says whatever these cowards decide it says. My friend showed me what the Qur’an actually says and was exterminated from the face of the earth for doing so. Michael Goodman, James Chaney, Andrew Schwerner, Medgar Evers, and others showed Black and White Americans what the bible actually says and were exterminated from the face of the earth for doing so. Same same.

snowyflake wrote:
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Four points:

The Exodus and Leviticus portions that you have referenced (Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:2-6, Exodus 21:7-11 NLT, Exodus 21:20-21) do not condone slavery; they regulate and diminish the brutality of an institution already in existence. The children of Y’srael, now the Nation of Y’srael, had themselves been slaves in Egypt. In fact, throughout the world, at least within every culture I have studied, slavery was firmly in place from the get-go.

These portions of Exodus that you’ve quoted, “… a Hebrew slave… is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom”, “[if] he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment”, and “[when] a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished”, illustrate this diminishment, through regulations, of the brutality common to slavery as practiced from ancient times through 1865 (and beyond as “Jim Crow”).
Exodus and Leviticus are Torah, the Law, about which Jesus teaches, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17-19, part), “in all things whatsoever, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12), and “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 22:35-40, Luke 10:29-37, part); thus, the Law (and the Prophets) fulfilled is “in all things whatsoever, treat people the same way you want them to treat you”, and all the Law (and the Prophets) fulfilled hang upon “these two commandments.” Adherence to Jesus’ teachings compels Christians to act as Jesus teaches insofar as the Law is concerned.
Paul, an apostle of Jesus charged by Jesus with teaching others Jesus’ teachings, in the portion of Timothy quoted by you, in practical terms within the context of the cultures in which disciples of Jesus abode, addresses a theme common to Jesus’ teachings, the heart. As a Black man coming of age in America during the 1960s and 1970s, I know in my heart “where he’s coming from.” Amendments 13, 14, and 15, 1865-1870; Civil Rights Act, 1964; Voting Rights Act (the dam broke), 1965, and the hearts of far too many white Texans remained unchanged. Barbara Jordan speaks in the House of Representatives in 1974, and some of those hearts changed. Barbara Jordan spoke at the Democratic National Convention in 1976, and many of those hearts changed. Finally, in 2012, for the first time in history, Texans sent a Hispanic citizen to the United States Senate.

Paul was not condoning slavery, and Paul was not seeking to enact laws regarding slavery. Paul was seeking to cultivate and motivate reform within the hearts of slaves and slave masters, thereby rendering slavery moot as both parties began (a) treating each other as they wished to be treated, and (b) loving each other as they loved themselves. I’ve reached my conclusion as to what occurs when both parties simultaneously practice these key teachings of Jesus. You now know what I know; your conclusion is yours to reach.

Barbara Jordan on Impeachment, July 25, 1974
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/CDcYiyF5eLc

Barbara Jordan, Democratic National Convention Keynote Speech, 1976, part 1
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/Bg7gLIx__-k

Barbara Jordan, Democratic National Convention Keynote Speech, 1976, part 2
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/2YvxjfoOJLw
Jesus, in the portion of Luke that you’ve quoted, is not teaching about slavery, he is teaching about the Kingdom. See the entire portion below.

Thank you for honestly expressing your disagreement in a scholarly manner. Take care of you and yours.

Greek Bible

“Be dressed in readiness, and keep your lamps lit. Be like men who are waiting for their master when he returns from the wedding feast, so that they may immediately open the door to him when he comes and knocks. Blessed are those slaves whom the master will find on the alert when he comes; truly I say to you, that he will gird himself to serve, and have them recline at the table, and will come up and wait on them. Whether he comes in the second watch, or even in the third, and finds them so, blessed are those slaves.”

“But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have allowed his house to be broken into. You too, be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour that you do not expect.”

Peter said, “Lord, are you addressing this parable to us, or to everyone else as well?”

And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and sensible steward, whom his master will put in charge of his servants, to give them their rations at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes. Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions.”

“But if that slave says in his heart, ‘My master will be a long time in coming,’ and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk; the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers.”

“And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.”

Luke 12:35-48

by snowyflake Mon Feb 11, 2013 9:55 pm

All this might be true, Rock, but again it is down to interpretation. To my uneducated eye, the bible is condoning slavery because it is giving rules and regulations on how to treat slaves. And how slaves should treat their owners. You would think that God would have told the Hebrews and Jews that owning other humans was wrong and would have forbidden it in the same way as lying, murdering and stealing. But God doesn't do that. Instead he makes a lot of rules around it.

I can perfectly understand how people see the bible as condoning slavery.

by snowyflake Mon Feb 11, 2013 9:56 pm

Anyway, I would like us to get back to Shirina's question. What is the benefit of faith. Why did it evolve and why do we need it?

by Sponsored content