• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

New Member - Logical or Illogical question

Arch-Angel

The voice of one crying
this were all very good questions and im sorry it took me so long to write back, i had an interview that took all of my attention.

I'm really not sure how you can be absolutist, even about the Ten Commandments, without ignoring other parts of the Bible (e.g. Romans 7:4, Colossians 2:20, or Jesus' story of the sheep in the pit in Matthew 12).
Romans 7:4 So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God.
this does pertain to me since i believe in Jesus Christ and says that i died in the law so i can belong to God, it is true, i violated the law and through the law death had come upon me, but Christ paid my debt. Jesus story of the sheep is a very good question because it is violating the law, but He was asking those of whom He was speaking to to judge righteously. it's not about following law's and ordinances, it's about seeking God, because He also says.
Mathew 9:11-13 11And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto His disciples, "Why eateth your master with publicans and sinners?"12But when Jesus heard that, He said unto them, "They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.13But go ye and learn what this meaneth: `I will have mercy and not sacrifice.' For I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
He desires mercy over sacrifice, a concept that was not being accepted by the pharisees because sometimes the law would violated by this, and Jesus continually healed on the sabbath which is violation. if you want more of an explanation on this i will gladly do it, i hope this was helpful.

I also can't see how you can be absolutist about Christianity and faith being the only way to salvation without ignoring passages like 1 John 4:16 and Jesus' condemnation of the Pharisees and scribes in Matthew 23? Didn't they have faith in God?
im not sure where your going with John 4:16, He just asked the woman to fetch her husband. Matthew 23, no they didn't have faith in God, they were self seekers and pleasers of Men, they didn't want to please God. They loved the praise of others and put themselves up on a pedistool so others can say "look how holy he is" that is not what God desires, He desires the honest heart, not of outward appearances but of genuine repentance. the pharisee's never judged righteously nor did they look at their own hearts.
Luke 18:11-13 11The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank Thee that I am not as other men are: extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.12I fast twice in the week; I give tithes of all that I possess.13And the publican, standing afar off, would not so much as lift up his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God, be merciful to me a sinner!
that is genuine repentance, an issue the pharisees would not so much as think to concider because they loved the praise of men more than the exaltation and blessing of God.

You said that you follow Christ because the Bible is absolute. Personally, I don't think it is, but I also think you've got a fair gap from "absolute" to "true".
actually the reverse is true, as i began to understand the bibles truths i realized it's absolute authority. we can argue all day about what one of us might think is true if the basis is just what i think vs. what you think, the authority of the bible suggests that God says what is right and wrong, not me, that is why i use scripture.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Romans 7:4 So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God.
this does pertain to me since i believe in Jesus Christ and says that i died in the law so i can belong to God, it is true, i violated the law and through the law death had come upon me, but Christ paid my debt.
The point being that you have apparently been freed from the necessity of strict adherence to some absolute set of rules.

Jesus story of the sheep is a very good question because it is violating the law, but He was asking those of whom He was speaking to to judge righteously. it's not about following law's and ordinances, it's about seeking God, because He also says.
Mathew 9:11-13 11And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto His disciples, "Why eateth your master with publicans and sinners?"12But when Jesus heard that, He said unto them, "They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.13But go ye and learn what this meaneth: `I will have mercy and not sacrifice.' For I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
He desires mercy over sacrifice, a concept that was not being accepted by the pharisees because sometimes the law would violated by this, and Jesus continually healed on the sabbath which is violation. if you want more of an explanation on this i will gladly do it, i hope this was helpful.
Not really. Again, it illustrates that the set rules of the Bible are malleable when needed to do something in service of some greater virtue.

im not sure where your going with John 4:16, He just asked the woman to fetch her husband.
The first epistle of John, not the Gospel of John. Not John 4:16, 1 John 4:16:

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.

Matthew 23, no they didn't have faith in God, they were self seekers and pleasers of Men, they didn't want to please God.
I'm not really sure how you arrived at that interpretation. I've always considered the Pharisees in the Gospels to be faithful people who had gone astray.

actually the reverse is true, as i began to understand the bibles truths i realized it's absolute authority.
Ah. That's not really what you said before, is it?

we can argue all day about what one of us might think is true if the basis is just what i think vs. what you think, the authority of the bible suggests that God says what is right and wrong, not me, that is why i use scripture.
However, its authority (or lack thereof) must be rooted in its truth (or lack thereof). At the end of the day, this has to be a matter of judgement. If you use only the Bible to decide the truth of the Bible, then you're just performing an exercise in circular reasoning.
 

Arch-Angel

The voice of one crying
The point being that you have apparently been freed from the necessity of strict adherence to some absolute set of rules.
correct, i am free to sin as much as i want but why would anyone with a full understanding of the heart blaspheme the One who freed them?


Not really. Again, it illustrates that the set rules of the Bible are malleable when needed to do something in service of some greater virtue.
Yes, that is why we pray when we discover we are in these type of "pickles" every now and then. I am told by the bible to obey my parents and to honor any vows i may proclaim, when posed with a choice between following both commandments i will try to righteously decide what to do.


The first epistle of John, not the Gospel of John. Not John 4:16, 1 John 4:16:
im not seeing the relationship with 1 John 4:16 either with what i was talking about. but yes God is love.
I'm not really sure how you arrived at that interpretation. I've always considered the Pharisees in the Gospels to be faithful people who had gone astray.
i arrived at this conclusion from Jesus's own mouth, and John the baptist, it is from Matt chapter 23 and every other time Jesus and John the baptist called the pharisees hypocrites or brood of vipers. i'll give some references but it's all over the gospels.

Matt 23:11-15 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased, and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted."But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men, for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers; therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Matt 3:7-9 But when he(John the baptist) saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?"Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance;and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham for our father'; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham.

Ah. That's not really what you said before, is it?
if something is absolute it is true, there is no difference.

However, its authority (or lack thereof) must be rooted in its truth (or lack thereof). At the end of the day, this has to be a matter of judgement. If you use only the Bible to decide the truth of the Bible, then you're just performing an exercise in circular reasoning.
i agree that it would seem like i would go round and round with this, but i wasn't always a believer, in fact i started out agnostic and thought that everyone could discover their own way to god. thats quite a big step huh, to go to the exact opposite. i spent most of my life as an agnostic that took no side until i actually read the bible and began to understand God on His terms, not mine. im still a fairly new christian, almost 3 years old now. :)
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
correct, i am free to sin as much as i want but why would anyone with a full understanding of the heart blaspheme the One who freed them?
The message I get from Paul's epistles, especially Romans, is that looking at the world through the lens of "sin/not sin" leaves one rooted in the flesh, and therefore death, even if the person doing it is sinless. Worrying about not sinning still leaves a person rooted in sin. Don't you agree?

Yes, that is why we pray when we discover we are in these type of "pickles" every now and then. I am told by the bible to obey my parents and to honor any vows i may proclaim, when posed with a choice between following both commandments i will try to righteously decide what to do.
You are also told by the Bible that Christ tore down the Old Law and nailed it to the cross... that's the law that tells you to both obey your parents and honour your vows. All that's left is love and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which presumably would point you in only one direction, no matter what your apparent "pickle"... no?

im not seeing the relationship with 1 John 4:16 either with what i was talking about. but yes God is love.
Maybe you should reflect on it a bit more. If anything that comes from love comes from God, then what does that say about, for instance, a Muslim participating in Ramadan out of love for God, or an atheist who helps other people out of love for them? Personally, I think it speaks against absolutism.

i arrived at this conclusion from Jesus's own mouth, and John the baptist, it is from Matt chapter 23 and every other time Jesus and John the baptist called the pharisees hypocrites or brood of vipers. i'll give some references but it's all over the gospels.
I know he called them hypcrites. I just don't understand why you assume that a hypocrite can't have faith.

if something is absolute it is true, there is no difference.
That makes no sense.

i agree that it would seem like i would go round and round with this, but i wasn't always a believer, in fact i started out agnostic and thought that everyone could discover their own way to god. thats quite a big step huh, to go to the exact opposite. i spent most of my life as an agnostic that took no side until i actually read the bible and began to understand God on His terms, not mine. im still a fairly new christian, almost 3 years old now. :)
If it works for you, great. However, the danger in taking an absolutist stance is the implication that what works for you is supposed to work for everybody.
 

kmkemp

Active Member
Where is the evidence that God is eternal?

Hmmm, nothing that we've experienced firsthand has ever been eternal, so I find it somewhat troubling that you would believe that the universe was eternal as a default position. I was hoping you might actually have evidence, since, if the universe was eternal, there would be evidence.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Hmmm, nothing that we've experienced firsthand has ever been eternal, so I find it somewhat troubling that you would believe that the universe was eternal as a default position. I was hoping you might actually have evidence, since, if the universe was eternal, there would be evidence.

I never said the universe was eternal. I only said it could be eternal. That is in response to the idea that there must be a God because the universe isn't eternal. There is no evidence that the universe is not eternal, and I don't expect there ever to be, just as I don't expect there ever to be evidence that the universe is eternal.

Also, just because we've never witnessed anything eternal, doesn't mean nothing is.
 

kmkemp

Active Member
So you are only open to the possibility that it could be eternal, but what do you think is more likely? That's the whole point of having default positions. If I told you that gravity was just a figment of your imagination, you would say I was dumb. And rightly so, as your default position is that of belief, considering the results of experiments. When you tell me the universe is eternal, I say that is dumb unless you have proof. My default position was formed from my own experience of never witnessing anything eternal.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
So you are only open to the possibility that it could be eternal, but what do you think is more likely? That's the whole point of having default positions. If I told you that gravity was just a figment of your imagination, you would say I was dumb. And rightly so, as your default position is that of belief, considering the results of experiments. When you tell me the universe is eternal, I say that is dumb unless you have proof. My default position was formed from my own experience of never witnessing anything eternal.

I'm not sure you have a good grasp on "default position". Me believing in gravity is not the default position. You said yourself that that belief is the result of experiments of sorts. If you do any kind of research and come to a conclusion, the conclusion is not a default. A default is the position held when there is a completel absence of any kind of research, experiments, witnessing, etc.

Now, I'd say it's more likely that the universe is eternal, considering I've never seen anything come out of nothing, and I'd bet that you haven't either. You say that you've never seen anything eternal, but how do you know? You're obviously not eternal, so how would you know whether something else is?

When you say the universe isn't eternal, I say that is dumb unless you have proof. See how that works both ways? The point is that we have no proof either way, or else this wouldn't be a debate. I don't claim to know one way or the other. I only bring it up in opposition to a particular argument. If you say God is eternal, then reasonably you have to acknowledge that the universe could just as easily be eternal.
 

kmkemp

Active Member
I'm not sure you have a good grasp on "default position". Me believing in gravity is not the default position. You said yourself that that belief is the result of experiments of sorts. If you do any kind of research and come to a conclusion, the conclusion is not a default. A default is the position held when there is a completel absence of any kind of research, experiments, witnessing, etc.

Yes, that was probably a bad analogy. The point is that your default position doesn't make sense.

Now, I'd say it's more likely that the universe is eternal, considering I've never seen anything come out of nothing, and I'd bet that you haven't either. You say that you've never seen anything eternal, but how do you know? You're obviously not eternal, so how would you know whether something else is?

The same way that I come to believe everything. I'm depending on the testimony of countless others and the experiments of scientists.

When you say the universe isn't eternal, I say that is dumb unless you have proof. See how that works both ways? The point is that we have no proof either way, or else this wouldn't be a debate. I don't claim to know one way or the other. I only bring it up in opposition to a particular argument. If you say God is eternal, then reasonably you have to acknowledge that the universe could just as easily be eternal.

No, if you want to say that the universe is eternal, the burden of proof is on you, I'm afraid. Being that we know of nothing that is eternal, why would you assume that the universe was that first something? In fact, there is nothing more than theory as "evidence" that the universe is eternal. I would never confuse myself with a scientist, but, as far as I've heard, all of the "best evidence" seems to indicate that it's not eternal at all. Oscilation and multiverse theories have been without evidence so far as I've gathered. On the other hand, if the universe had a beginning, it seems to follow that it had a cause. If we cannot explain that cause, we will give it a name (God).
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
No, if you want to say that the universe is eternal, the burden of proof is on you, I'm afraid.
Fair enough.

And if you say the Universe arose as the result of a demon's fart, the burden of proof is on you.

And if you say the Universe arose as a result of some God suggested dozens of centuries ago in the Levant, the burden of proof is on you.

And if you say that the Universe may have arisen in a manner not currently understood while noting that there exist mathematically coherent models that are consistent with physics and permit an eternal Cosmos, then the burden of proof is on you. And science is doing a fine job working on it ...
 

kmkemp

Active Member
But I wasn't saying any of those things. =)

It doesn't seem likely that we will ever find the answer for sure, so the "most likely" scenario is fairly important. I don't see how anyone could argue that it's more likely that the universe is that first eternal something that's ever been discovered than the opposite. And if you go with the opposite, the obvious question is when, how, and why did it come to be?
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Yes, that was probably a bad analogy. The point is that your default position doesn't make sense.

You say that like I've stated my default position. I haven't.

The same way that I come to believe everything. I'm depending on the testimony of countless others and the experiments of scientists.

But scientists haven't said they haven't seen anything eternal. They've never said one way or the other, as far as I know. Also, others are just as mortal as you are. We only have a history that goes back so far. In essence, you've basically just lengthened your life for these purposes. I also highly doubt that is the way you come to believe everything.

No, if you want to say that the universe is eternal, the burden of proof is on you, I'm afraid.

OK, for one, I'm not saying the universe is eternal. I'm saying the universe could be eternal. For another, the burden of proof is not on me. If you'd listen, you'd realize that this assertion is only in response to an argument for God.

Being that we know of nothing that is eternal, why would you assume that the universe was that first something? In fact, there is nothing more than theory as "evidence" that the universe is eternal. I would never confuse myself with a scientist, but, as far as I've heard, all of the "best evidence" seems to indicate that it's not eternal at all. Oscilation and multiverse theories have been without evidence so far as I've gathered. On the other hand, if the universe had a beginning, it seems to follow that it had a cause. If we cannot explain that cause, we will give it a name (God).

We know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. I'd say that would make energy eternal. What is this scientific evidence you have that nothing in the universe is eternal? You're also missing the point. How much evidence is there that God is eternal? Then compare that with how much evidence there is that the universe is eternal. If you do the calculations right, you come up either even or heavier in the "universe is eternal" column.

You even say it in your last couple of sentences: "if the universe had a beginning"

We don't know whether the universe is eternal. There is no real evidence either way. If there is any evidence, it points to it being eternal, considering the law that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and considering the best theories we have about the origins of the universe only go back to the Big Bang, which still allows for the possibility of the universe being eternal. The Big Bang theory only goes back to when the universe was a tiny speck of extremely condensed matter. That matter could be eternal, as the Big Bang theory and all the other accepted theories don't make a claim one way or the other on it.

With that said, you certainly can't prove that the universe isn't eternal. That means that there's no good reason to accept as fact that the universe had a beginning and that it had to have a cause, "God".

The bottom line is this:

There is just as much chance of the universe being eternal as there is of there being an eternal God.

Please don't make me say that yet again.
 

Arch-Angel

The voice of one crying
The message I get from Paul's epistles, especially Romans, is that looking at the world through the lens of "sin/not sin" leaves one rooted in the flesh, and therefore death, even if the person doing it is sinless. Worrying about not sinning still leaves a person rooted in sin. Don't you agree?
i agree that i am a sinner, destined for Hell for eternity without Jesus, this is what Paul was talking about. i once was dead, but Christ made me live, that is the difference.

You are also told by the Bible that Christ tore down the Old Law and nailed it to the cross... that's the law that tells you to both obey your parents and honour your vows. All that's left is love and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which presumably would point you in only one direction, no matter what your apparent "pickle"... no?
that is why i said that we pray, we pray through the Holy Spirit to help us with difficult situations and in everyday mundane tasks as well. the law is written upon my heart and the Holy Spirit convicts me of sin, this is lunacy to the unregenerate, and i would understand if you dont see it this way.


Maybe you should reflect on it a bit more. If anything that comes from love comes from God, then what does that say about, for instance, a Muslim participating in Ramadan out of love for God, or an atheist who helps other people out of love for them? Personally, I think it speaks against absolutism.
ok, i see where your coming from now and i think i understand why we are not seeing eye to eye on the subject. it does say love comes from God, but it's not talking about all gods, just the True God of the bible, namely Jesus Christ as the Triune God. it says this in the verse previous to 1 John 4:16
1 John 4:15-16 15Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.16And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.



I know he called them hypcrites. I just don't understand why you assume that a hypocrite can't have faith.
they might have had faith, but not saving faith, not repentant faith, not faith in God. they were unwilling to look at themselves as sinners because they thought that the things they did counted them righteous by their own deeds, but their heart was evil and proud, they were sons of the devil.

That makes no sense.
how? it's true.....

If it works for you, great. However, the danger in taking an absolutist stance is the implication that what works for you is supposed to work for everybody.
that is what the bible teaches, yes.

btw thank you for your comments and questions, they are very good even though it seems that we disagree on much.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
i agree that i am a sinner, destined for Hell for eternity without Jesus, this is what Paul was talking about. i once was dead, but Christ made me live, that is the difference.
I take a slightly different meaning: that Paul declares that all people were sinners, but once a believer accepts the sacrifice of Christ, that the believer transcends the whole notion of sin, including sinlessness.

Take the example of the widow in Romans 7: if a widow remarries, does she commit adultery? No, of course not - the commitments of her first marriage died with her husband. It's not a matter of declaring that she has broken the law of marriage but has been pardoned; it's a matter of recognizing that the law of marriage doesn't apply to her at all.

In Romans 7, Paul draws a parallel between the widow and the believer: just as the widow has been freed of the law of marriage by the death of her husband, the believer has been freed of the Old Law by the death of Christ. If a remarried widow wouldn't declare herself to be an adulterer, why would you declare yourself to be a sinner?

ok, i see where your coming from now and i think i understand why we are not seeing eye to eye on the subject. it does say love comes from God, but it's not talking about all gods, just the True God of the bible, namely Jesus Christ as the Triune God. it says this in the verse previous to 1 John 4:16
1 John 4:15-16 15Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.16And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
I still don't see why this is justification for an absolutist stance. The passage says to me that the mark of godliness is love, meaning that any activity borne out of love is holy. It's not a matter of which god the passage is talking about, it's a matter of recognizing love... any love, IMO.

they might have had faith, but not saving faith, not repentant faith, not faith in God. they were unwilling to look at themselves as sinners because they thought that the things they did counted them righteous by their own deeds, but their heart was evil and proud, they were sons of the devil.

I think there's a danger in your position.

Why do you think that so many references to hypocrites were included in the Gospels? Personally, I see them as cautionary examples: people held up as symbols of what a true follower of Christ should avoid becoming. I think that by declaring that a person of "saving faith" is immune from becoming as they did (which I think you're implicitly doing), you set a trap for yourself.

If you believe that you can never become as they did, then you're liable to not exercise caution to ensure that you don't.

how? it's true.....
Why do you say that? I still don't see how you make the leap from "objective" to "automatically true".

that is what the bible teaches, yes.
One interpretation of the Bible, perhaps, but not the one I've come to by reading it.
 

Arch-Angel

The voice of one crying
I take a slightly different meaning: that Paul declares that all people were sinners, but once a believer accepts the sacrifice of Christ, that the believer transcends the whole notion of sin, including sinlessness.
i am still capable of sinning, though my sins are covered i would in no way imply i am perfect except in Christ that makes me perfect before God.

In Romans 7, Paul draws a parallel between the widow and the believer: just as the widow has been freed of the law of marriage by the death of her husband, the believer has been freed of the Old Law by the death of Christ. If a remarried widow wouldn't declare herself to be an adulterer, why would you declare yourself to be a sinner?
right after this passage in Romans 7 Paul addresses what you are asking.
Romans 7:6-12
6But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.7What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." 8But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good

I still don't see why this is justification for an absolutist stance. The passage says to me that the mark of godliness is love, meaning that any activity borne out of love is holy. It's not a matter of which god the passage is talking about, it's a matter of recognizing love... any love, IMO.
the passage only applies to the Hebrew God the Father because He says....
Isaiah 44:6 6Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:"I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god."
God the Father does not recognize any other god because they are false gods.


I think there's a danger in your position.
thank you for the concern:p

Why do you think that so many references to hypocrites were included in the Gospels? Personally, I see them as cautionary examples: people held up as symbols of what a true follower of Christ should avoid becoming. I think that by declaring that a person of "saving faith" is immune from becoming as they did (which I think you're implicitly doing), you set a trap for yourself. If you believe that you can never become as they did, then you're liable to not exercise caution to ensure that you don't.
you are right, i notice it whenever i start to get the notion that by doing good that somehow i'm "winging" over Gods favor. it's a matter of the heart, or intention depending on how you are perceiving it. i try to be cautious when something becomes routine and i begin to speak the "usual" prayer, it becomes unfruitful and without heart. something to be cautious about i totally agree, but i strive to do Gods will and be Spirit lead, even though i fall He's right there to pick me back up. if that still does not help, this is the difference between a Pharisee and a Christian, just remember that Paul(a former Pharisee) said 1 Corinthians 16:22 22If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.



Why do you say that? I still don't see how you make the leap from "objective" to "automatically true".
i think this is another reason we are not seeing eye to eye here biblically, the bible claims that it is sufficient enough for salvation...no other input required. it is subjective to insert anything else. therefore the bible claims truth, it is absolute and fixed needing no more.

One interpretation of the Bible, perhaps, but not the one I've come to by reading it.
it is sufficient for EVERYBODY, just because someone rejects or decides to change how they will interpret the bible doesn't mean that it is what God gave us His Word for.
 
Last edited:
Top