Conquer Club

Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

What say you?

 
Total votes : 0

Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Mar 13, 2013 3:00 pm

So, while reading an econ. article, I wanted to share this interesting tid-bit:

G.K. Chesterton describes original sin as “the only part of Christian theology which can
really be proved.” He goes on to mock those who deny its existence while clinging to a
belief in God:

Chesterton wrote:If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat.(Chesterton 1908, Ch. II)


Chesterton’s argument is straightforward: given the obvious reality of evil in human
affairs, the reasonable conclusion must be either that there is no supreme good (such as
God) or that man is somehow separated from it. He claims that the new theology of his
day is confused, positing a perfect good but denying what would explain the manifest gap
between our experience and that ideal. The two intellectually serious alternatives, he
argues, are atheism on the one hand or a theism that acknowledge sin on the other.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby / on Wed Mar 13, 2013 5:51 pm

Why can't God theoretically be always there for us, while also be intentionally trolling us with the many flaws we were made with from day one?

Think about it, God created all the animals and plants in the world perfectly from the outset, with females, males, hermaphrodites, and asexuals. But when it came time to make Adam he basically says "Oh you're lonely? Well I just used up the last piece of dirt, why don't you take a nap while I do some surgery? "
Sergeant 1st Class /
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:41 am

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:57 pm

I never understood the concept of original sin, so upon reading that, I found it more intriguing--but not intriguing enough to spend time wiki-googling it.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby Symmetry on Wed Mar 13, 2013 8:18 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:I never understood the concept of original sin, so upon reading that, I found it more intriguing--but not intriguing enough to spend time wiki-googling it.


It's a fall from ethics to morality. The latter considered Satanic.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Mar 13, 2013 8:25 pm

Is original sin really used to resolve the inconsistencies between (1) God must be totes good and (2) some people have bad morals?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby AAFitz on Wed Mar 13, 2013 8:32 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:Is original sin really used to resolve the inconsistencies between (1) God must be totes good and (2) some people have bad morals?



Only if there are inconsistencies with your logic.
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk
Too much. I know.
Sergeant 1st Class AAFitz
 
Posts: 7270
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby AAFitz on Wed Mar 13, 2013 8:33 pm

/ wrote:Why can't God theoretically be always there for us, while also be intentionally trolling us with the many flaws we were made with from day one?

Think about it, God created all the animals and plants in the world perfectly from the outset, with females, males, hermaphrodites, and asexuals. But when it came time to make Adam he basically says "Oh you're lonely? Well I just used up the last piece of dirt, why don't you take a nap while I do some surgery? "


That is a very loose interpretation of Genesis.
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk
Too much. I know.
Sergeant 1st Class AAFitz
 
Posts: 7270
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby Dukasaur on Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:27 pm

I choose Option 5.

Cruelty, death, and murder are inherent in the design of the universe. Nothing can live without killing something else. (Vegetarian and organic-agriculture nonsense aside -- even if you grow your veggies with no pesticides, still you are condemning to death by habitat loss those animals who could have lived on that cropland if you hadn't claimed it first.) Nothing good persists -- create the greatest work of art in the universe, and almost instantly entropy sets about destroying it. Even the most innocent moss lives by secreting acid which crumbles the rock beneath it.

Either there is no God, or he is a profoundly evil and sadistic God. Humans are neither more nor less evil than his other creations. Like every other species, we live by ruthlessly stamping out our competitors, and we will die when someone more ruthless comes and stamps out us. Even if we don't, we will eventually cease to exist when increasing entropy and the expansion of the universe makes existence ultimately impossible, when even subatomic particles are too far apart to interact with each other.

The dove -- universal symbol of peace and mercy -- is one of the most vicious animals known. Male doves will peck out each other's eyes when fighting over a mate. The loser will wander the earth desolate and blind until he eventually starves to death. The female is no innocent, either. While the males are mutilating each other for her affection, she is out there busily tearing up the nests of other birds. That's our wonderful bird of peace and mercy.

The Bible is right about one thing and one thing only -- ALL IS VANITY AND VEXATION OF THE SPIRIT. That's all there is.

Original sin my fat fucking ass. The only original sin is the design of this evil universe that demands blood sacrifice at every level.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant Dukasaur
Community Coordinator
Community Coordinator
 
Posts: 26964
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
32

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:30 pm

AAFitz wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Is original sin really used to resolve the inconsistencies between (1) God must be totes good and (2) some people have bad morals?



Only if there are inconsistencies with your logic.


So what's your response to Chesterton?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:31 pm

Dukasaur wrote:I choose Option 5.

Cruelty, death, and murder are inherent in the design of the universe. Nothing can live without killing something else. (Vegetarian and organic-agriculture nonsense aside -- even if you grow your veggies with no pesticides, still you are condemning to death by habitat loss those animals who could have lived on that cropland if you hadn't claimed it first.) Nothing good persists -- create the greatest work of art in the universe, and almost instantly entropy sets about destroying it. Even the most innocent moss lives by secreting acid which crumbles the rock beneath it.

Either there is no God, or he is a profoundly evil and sadistic God. Humans are neither more nor less evil than his other creations. Like every other species, we live by ruthlessly stamping out our competitors, and we will die when someone more ruthless comes and stamps out us. Even if we don't, we will eventually cease to exist when increasing entropy and the expansion of the universe makes existence ultimately impossible, when even subatomic particles are too far apart to interact with each other.

The dove -- universal symbol of peace and mercy -- is one of the most vicious animals known. Male doves will peck out each other's eyes when fighting over a mate. The loser will wander the earth desolate and blind until he eventually starves to death. The female is no innocent, either. While the males are mutilating each other for her affection, she is out there busily tearing up the nests of other birds. That's our wonderful bird of peace and mercy.

The Bible is right about one thing and one thing only -- ALL IS VANITY AND VEXATION OF THE SPIRIT. That's all there is.

Original sin my fat fucking ass. The only original sin is the design of this evil universe that demands blood sacrifice at every level.


Instead of entropy, evil, and death, I tend to view some of which you described as Creative Destruction.

Would adopting that term make you feel any better about life in general? :D
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby Dukasaur on Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:38 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:Instead of entropy, evil, and death, I tend to view some of which you described as Creative Destruction.

D

Battery's almost dead so I won't belabor this.

The term as Marx used it is takes a short term view. Short term in the sense of written history. In that time-frame, something new always arises out of the destruction of the old.

I was talking of a longer time frame, when the creativity of the creators is no longer enough to keep up with the destruction, and something new does NOT always arise from the death of something old.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant Dukasaur
Community Coordinator
Community Coordinator
 
Posts: 26964
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
32

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:57 pm

Dukasaur wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Instead of entropy, evil, and death, I tend to view some of which you described as Creative Destruction.

D

Battery's almost dead so I won't belabor this.

The term as Marx used it is takes a short term view. Short term in the sense of written history. In that time-frame, something new always arises out of the destruction of the old.

I was talking of a longer time frame, when the creativity of the creators is no longer enough to keep up with the destruction, and something new does NOT always arise from the death of something old.


There is that race going on, and given its historic path, things in general are improving for more and more people; however, for the future, I remain optimistic, but if certain projected trends continue, then things may get worse or stagnate.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby john9blue on Wed Mar 13, 2013 10:12 pm

Symmetry wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:I never understood the concept of original sin, so upon reading that, I found it more intriguing--but not intriguing enough to spend time wiki-googling it.


It's a fall from ethics to morality. The latter considered Satanic.


what does this post even mean? can you elaborate?
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
Captain john9blue
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: FlutterChi-town

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby Symmetry on Wed Mar 13, 2013 10:19 pm

john9blue wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:I never understood the concept of original sin, so upon reading that, I found it more intriguing--but not intriguing enough to spend time wiki-googling it.


It's a fall from ethics to morality. The latter considered Satanic.


what does this post even mean? can you elaborate?


Ethics are essentially behavioral codes, or laws, Morals are more like independent judgements.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Mar 13, 2013 10:39 pm

Sym, didn't you study stuff like this before? If so, could you give us some context and/or arguments concerning the original sin hypothesis?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby Symmetry on Wed Mar 13, 2013 10:53 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:Sym, didn't you study stuff like this before? If so, could you give us some context and/or arguments concerning the original sin hypothesis?


Probably not, It's roughly 2000 years worth of debate and schism.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:03 pm

Symmetry wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Sym, didn't you study stuff like this before? If so, could you give us some context and/or arguments concerning the original sin hypothesis?


Probably not, It's roughly 2000 years worth of debate and schism.


Regale us with a tale, if you will!
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Postby 2dimes on Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:25 am

I'll take a shot at a simple explanation.

Basically Adam and Eve were given one code of behavior or ethic. Do not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge or you will die.

No one can know what they knew and how life was for them but I would imagine they were like children. Innocent and in need of plenty of guidance. The story of genesis describes God visiting with them.

The serpent tells Eve God lied and if she eats the fruit she will just become like him. She eats it and it does not seem to have much effect initially. Then she feeds some to Adam.

Next time God comes by since they gained knowledge from eating the fruit they know they are naked and hide from him.

Once they broke the one code of behavior and ate the fruit causing them to have knowledge they had to switch to a deferent style of rules, morality. I don't know that it is Satanic so much as it allows or perhaps causes greater separation from God.
User avatar
Corporal 2dimes
 
Posts: 12645
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby john9blue on Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:52 am

Symmetry wrote:
john9blue wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:I never understood the concept of original sin, so upon reading that, I found it more intriguing--but not intriguing enough to spend time wiki-googling it.


It's a fall from ethics to morality. The latter considered Satanic.


what does this post even mean? can you elaborate?


Ethics are essentially behavioral codes, or laws, Morals are more like independent judgements.


not exactly. ethics is the study of morality.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
Captain john9blue
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: FlutterChi-town

Re:

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:02 am

2dimes wrote:I'll take a shot at a simple explanation.

Basically Adam and Eve were given one code of behavior or ethic. Do not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge or you will die.

No one can know what they knew and how life was for them but I would imagine they were like children. Innocent and in need of plenty of guidance. The story of genesis describes God visiting with them.

The serpent tells Eve God lied and if she eats the fruit she will just become like him. She eats it and it does not seem to have much effect initially. Then she feeds some to Adam.

Next time God comes by since they gained knowledge from eating the fruit they know they are naked and hide from him.

Once they broke the one code of behavior and ate the fruit causing them to have knowledge they had to switch to a deferent style of rules, morality. I don't know that it is Satanic so much as it allows or perhaps causes greater separation from God.


So, original sin--supposedly prevalent in all of us--binds us to God?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Postby 2dimes on Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:43 am

Hence thousands of years of debate and schism. We are bound to God as his creations.

Original sin would be the one act of Eve, then Adam, eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge then becoming aware they were naked.

That is how people make the jump to original sin being sexual in nature as in " have carnal knowledge." Which can also be described as, to be naked with another person.

Then there is the concept. Sin separates us from God since he is pure and can't be where sin is. Does not matter if it is the original sin that carries forward or new sin I commit day to day. The sin must be atoned for with blood. That was where the alter in the temple came about for the sons and grandsons of Levi to make sacrifices to pay for or remove sin.

That process was on going and never removed the original sin, just the day to day ones.

Enter the messiah. His purpose is to be the blood atonement that could finally remove all sin.
User avatar
Corporal 2dimes
 
Posts: 12645
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:00 am

That reminds me of a point made by Christopher Hitchens (IIRC), who found it odd that humans suffered through a tremendous lot over 200,000 years or so, and then a messenger comes about--2000 years ago--with a completely different message from the Old Testament, and by showing the rest of the humans to the path of Totes Awesome. All humans prior to that, and the ones who haven't heard the Word, were condemned to hell, (weren't they)?

Is there where someone says, "god works in mysterious dickish ways?"

Given this management fiasco, how exactly is God not tainted with any sin?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:22 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:I choose Option 5.

Cruelty, death, and murder are inherent in the design of the universe. Nothing can live without killing something else. (Vegetarian and organic-agriculture nonsense aside -- even if you grow your veggies with no pesticides, still you are condemning to death by habitat loss those animals who could have lived on that cropland if you hadn't claimed it first.) Nothing good persists -- create the greatest work of art in the universe, and almost instantly entropy sets about destroying it. Even the most innocent moss lives by secreting acid which crumbles the rock beneath it.

Either there is no God, or he is a profoundly evil and sadistic God. Humans are neither more nor less evil than his other creations. Like every other species, we live by ruthlessly stamping out our competitors, and we will die when someone more ruthless comes and stamps out us. Even if we don't, we will eventually cease to exist when increasing entropy and the expansion of the universe makes existence ultimately impossible, when even subatomic particles are too far apart to interact with each other.

The dove -- universal symbol of peace and mercy -- is one of the most vicious animals known. Male doves will peck out each other's eyes when fighting over a mate. The loser will wander the earth desolate and blind until he eventually starves to death. The female is no innocent, either. While the males are mutilating each other for her affection, she is out there busily tearing up the nests of other birds. That's our wonderful bird of peace and mercy.

The Bible is right about one thing and one thing only -- ALL IS VANITY AND VEXATION OF THE SPIRIT. That's all there is.

Original sin my fat fucking ass. The only original sin is the design of this evil universe that demands blood sacrifice at every level.


Instead of entropy, evil, and death, I tend to view some of which you described as Creative Destruction.

Would adopting that term make you feel any better about life in general? :D


Its related, but a different concept. The traditional model, of parent and child, fits better. However, that requires understanding that we are likely in the preschool or early adolescent stage of development. We are able to know that we can make choices and want to make them, but cannot fully understand the complete impacts of many choices for the very long term.

Poverty, death, disease are all bad, but the constant irony, philosophical argument is that without harm, without great ill, we would not have true joy. Further, without the chance to make bad choices, we would have no chance to make any choices. Does a parent who let their son/daughter go the neighbor’s house, only to have them hit by a car chastise themselves forever? Of course! A parent who has a child who drinks and winds up either getting killed or killing someone else chastises themselves as well, if they have any sense of anything other than anger and pain?

We look only at the bad, because we, like a child, cannot see the long term future. We want to take the hugs and kisses, but not the punishments or even the bad consequences that are just the result of choice, even very, very bad choices. God does not want us to do evil, particularly great evil, any more than a parent wants their child to get run over by a car. Still, a parent will let their child out of their site, will let them go across the street at some point, because the alternative is so much worse.

If Eve had not partaken of the tree of knowledge we would be nothing more than animals. We would be animals that had some aspects of God’s appearance (and most theologians say we have aspects of God other than just appearance), but we would not be what we now consider to be “human”.

The idea of original sin is actually a relatively new “invention”. Some people don’t realize that Jews actually don’t necessarily believe in heaven, never mind original sin. (I will let the Jews in the forum explain their particular faith variations).

BigBallinStalin wrote:That reminds me of a point made by Christopher Hitchens (IIRC), who found it odd that humans suffered through a tremendous lot over 200,000 years or so, and then a messenger comes about--2000 years ago--with a completely different message from the Old Testament, and by showing the rest of the humans to the path of Totes Awesome. All humans prior to that, and the ones who haven't heard the Word, were condemned to hell, (weren't they)?

Is there where someone says, "god works in mysterious dickish ways?"

Given this management fiasco, how exactly is God not tainted with any sin?

The prior 200,000 years of humanity were not condemned to hell. Generally, its accepted that they will have the chance to hear God’s word… as will anyone who has not heard it here on Earth. (though how that happens and if it will happen is a point of disagreement in the church)

It is very significant that the tree was the tree of knowledge. When told in "fairy tale" style, particular by secular individuals, the story tends to be one of introducing sin. That is correct in a sense, but in the Bible there are 2 incidents that introduce sin.

Adam and Eve, then Cain and Abel. Eve brought knowledge of sin, the sin of disobedience then being possible. Also, while it seems they got the knowledge of the ability to do wrong, the basic sin to which is referred is “carnal knowledge”, thus “they covered themselves”. Cain and Abel brought the whole other mix of sin.

Even so, Christ could not come earlier, because people had to understand the folly of prior ways. Ironically, we keep making the same mistakes. We still look to hierarchy and rules, still put up institutions above people and common decency and try to justify it as “piety”.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby crispybits on Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:30 am

It is very significant that the tree was the tree of knowledge. When told in "fairy tale" style, particular by secular individuals, the story tends to be one of introducing sin. That is correct in a sense, but in the Bible there are 2 incidents that introduce sin.

Adam and Eve, then Cain and Abel. Eve brought knowledge of sin, the sin of disobedience then being possible. Also, while it seems they got the knowledge of the ability to do wrong, the basic sin to which is referred is “carnal knowledge”, thus “they covered themselves”. Cain and Abel brought the whole other mix of sin.


So you're saying that before the apple was eaten, Eve (and Adam) had no knowledge of what disobedience was? How was Eve meant to know that eating the apple was wrong if she had no knowledge of right and wrong?

(There were two trees by the way, the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil - it was not just the "tree of knowledge")
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby kentington on Thu Mar 14, 2013 7:26 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:That reminds me of a point made by Christopher Hitchens (IIRC), who found it odd that humans suffered through a tremendous lot over 200,000 years or so, and then a messenger comes about--2000 years ago--with a completely different message from the Old Testament, and by showing the rest of the humans to the path of Totes Awesome. All humans prior to that, and the ones who haven't heard the Word, were condemned to hell, (weren't they)?

Is there where someone says, "god works in mysterious dickish ways?"

Given this management fiasco, how exactly is God not tainted with any sin?


Not mysterious. I will have to look it up, but I am pretty sure that it is implied or said that when Christ was crucified He went down and brought some who were dead up. I really can't remember off the top of my head, but I think that is when those who died prior to Christ were given a chance.
Bruceswar » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:59 pm wrote:We all had tons of men..
User avatar
Sergeant kentington
 
Posts: 515
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:50 pm

Next

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mookiemcgee

cron