The Voice of Creation-- Would Chapter 1 convince an atheist?

Use this forum to discuss the October 2016 Book of the Month, The Voice of Creation by J. Hudson Mitchell.
Post Reply
Josefina1110
Posts: 81
Joined: August 22nd, 2016, 12:08 am

Re: The Voice of Creation-- Would Chapter 1 convince an athe

Post by Josefina1110 » March 2nd, 2017, 12:53 am

Here are a couple of concepts. 1. God is merciful and mighty and he knows that we are but made of dust. All He wants of us is to believe that He exists and follow Him in good faith. 2. If you don't believe Him and ignore that He exists, He is also a God of wrath. He can do anything to us because He created us. But it is not Him that really do the testing of our faith. He will turn us over to the adversary. He created Lucifer the angel of light who turned out to try to overthrow Him so Satan was the overthrown Lucifer who tempts us not to obey God. But God knows Satan's limitations. He cannot do anything to us more than we can bear. But we need to repent and ask forgiveness for our disobedience if we acknowledge Him in our lives. He said that He has plans for us. He said that we are fearfully and wonderfully made for His pleasure. But when man fell his goal was delayed. God will reign in the end to his people who will not die. Unbelievers are what they are because it is fun to have nobody to be responsible for. But fun is temporary, especially in this fallen world. Only our belief promises us an everlasting life and happiness. This is what is difficult as a believer. "If you love me, take up your cross and follow me." A true believer follows a narrow path. That is the reason many don't want to go there. It would be very easy to ignore God because man follows the path of least resistance. You can't go to heaven just by being good. Jesus died for our sins. But, we first have to believe and then follow Him for our good and the Holy Spirit will guide us to do good because we are not perfect. " . . . Though your sins be scarlet, it shall be as white as snow."

Pelegrin_1
Posts: 79
Joined: October 11th, 2013, 10:48 am

Re: The Voice of Creation-- Would Chapter 1 convince an athe

Post by Pelegrin_1 » March 2nd, 2017, 8:45 am

Josefina1110 wrote:Here are a couple of concepts. 1. God is merciful and mighty and he knows that we are but made of dust. All He wants of us is to believe that He exists and follow Him in good faith. 2. If you don't believe Him and ignore that He exists, He is also a God of wrath. He can do anything to us because He created us. But it is not Him that really do the testing of our faith. He will turn us over to the adversary. He created Lucifer the angel of light who turned out to try to overthrow Him so Satan was the overthrown Lucifer who tempts us not to obey God. But God knows Satan's limitations. He cannot do anything to us more than we can bear. But we need to repent and ask forgiveness for our disobedience if we acknowledge Him in our lives. He said that He has plans for us. He said that we are fearfully and wonderfully made for His pleasure. But when man fell his goal was delayed. God will reign in the end to his people who will not die. Unbelievers are what they are because it is fun to have nobody to be responsible for. But fun is temporary, especially in this fallen world. Only our belief promises us an everlasting life and happiness. This is what is difficult as a believer. "If you love me, take up your cross and follow me." A true believer follows a narrow path. That is the reason many don't want to go there. It would be very easy to ignore God because man follows the path of least resistance. You can't go to heaven just by being good. Jesus died for our sins. But, we first have to believe and then follow Him for our good and the Holy Spirit will guide us to do good because we are not perfect. " . . . Though your sins be scarlet, it shall be as white as snow."
I'm not expecting to go to any heaven because is only a human fancy.

And any god who hands me over to a satan simply because I didn't believe I had reason to think IT/He exists, well that's a small "g" god in my opinion, more concerned about about how people view him than he/it is about how we lead our lives. I expressed that in my previous post. Any self-centered god, existing or not, will never be my god. But of course again, no such true God actually exists. An any true universal God that just might possibly exist, if it's a good God, it won't be so trivial, at a human-like level, to demand such praise. And to go back to a previous point I made much earlier, just the idea of this whole topic, that the human species somehow imagines that it's significant enough to have any sort of a direct connection with some possible universal God is in itself such an enormously high anthropocentric opinion of ourselves that it almost demands laughter when one really thinks about it. But there are certainly plenty of humans who can't let go of that image of themselves.

What really is the difference between an all-powerful God not actually taking wrath out on us ITself but handing us over to a Satan which He can be sure will cause us unimaginable suffering? That's like Caesar saying, I'll not use the whip, here you, Satan, you use the whip. Its still God/Caesar making that decision.

-- Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:30 am --

My first response above was rather rapid as I didn't have much time. One correction that I'd like to make is simply with the word "trivial"... Any true universal God, being good and benevolent, wouldn't be so 'petty', as on a human-like level, to demand such praise and attention or otherwise IT will punish us or allow severe punishment to fall upon us.

But now I'd like to continue with a few more avenues of argument... First with a question: Hypothetically, what purpose would a universal God have, in a believer's mind, if the human species simply ceased to exist? Of course, who are we to even know what purposes a universal God may have, but my point is that if humans are so important, then would a significant Godly purpose then be gone if we ceased to exist?

Depending on how you answer that question will say a lot about how significant you think humans are in the universe. But really, IF we are so damn significant, why is it that the universe existed for at least billions of years (if not forever) without the human species inhabiting Earth? Why even did the Earth exist for at least 4 billion years without human existence? Some may say that the universe's time of existence is just the blink of an eye for God. If so though, then the timeline for the existence of humanity is so minuscule that it's not even measurable with one eye-lash from an eye. And then some may say that it all goes to the Biblical expression that "and on the 7th day God created man", but not literal 7 "days". Well, humanity hasn't even existed in a 7th of the time that the Earth has existed, let alone a 7th of the time that the universe has existed.

Truly humanity has trivial significance in the context of the universe. So even if there is some Universal God, and none of us is to know or can ever truly know, we, humanity, are of minuscule significance; we're just something that happened in one of the infinite corners of the universe. The God(s) that exists in our "holy scriptures" is purely of our own creation, because this God has a significance for us and we for it. We, humans, felt and many still feel the need for there to be this God that we have created, and that's the only reason this God exists, or more accurately, is imagined to exist. This God of our creation doesn't even exemplify the qualities that we at times bestow upon it, the qualities of a true universal benevolent God. This God and its actions towards us, if we do not exactly adhere to recognizing it, would treat us as any warlord would treat those around him who didn't give him the respect he demanded.

People who put themselves on any kind of level of having some kind of a direct contact with a Universal God are themselves the furthest thing from humble. How can you justify that as our position in the universe? Humility will never truly describe you. And I'd personally say to you: Please respect our planet, as it is the special circumstances that exist with respect to its position in our solar system that has led to our existence. Please respect life in general because, to our still very limited knowledge about the universe, life only accidentally comes into existence in special places, and the life of any individual living thing is limited. And please respect the lives of each other, because our lives are fleeting, and appreciate that we have this brief moment to experience life. And stop depreciating life by the idea that somehow we'll all be able to experience something even greater in an afterlife, if only we do what this God we've imagined tells us to do, which is also as we've imagined, because such thinking takes away from the appreciation of the only life and existence that we actually do have.

-- Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:45 am --

Oh, and one more comment...

IF there is actually some true Universal God, or the possibility of such, not the God humans have outlined in their holy texts, then most of believers won't even care; it'll be like information about a dying star that scientists have discovered somewhere far off in the galaxy. Today's faithful believers won't really care about the existence of such a God, because IT won't have any direct relevance to them. Few people would care about there being a universal God any more than they care about the possibility that the universe itself just always existed and we came into existence as one of the infinite possible results of that, because people only truly care if it directly relates to them and that they can imagine it to have a direct effect on their existence. Get over yourselves!

RuleOnu
Posts: 31
Joined: April 5th, 2017, 11:56 am

Re: The Voice of Creation-- Would Chapter 1 convince an athe

Post by RuleOnu » April 10th, 2017, 12:07 pm

I think part of answering the question would be to ask, what would change the mind of a self avowed atheist, as well as what is atheism?
-
I disagree that the Bible is in any way a book of science, but a Book of Truth as transcribed according to God's Word and His Works. Knowing God, understanding God and accepting God doesn't begin with a collection of words in some book, but from accepting what we know to be True in our hearts and mnd, which "atheist" reject presuppositionally.
-
Rather than science proving the existence of a "god", God provides the rationales for the existence of science.
-
So, no, unless the atheist accepts the existence of God no amount of science or philosphy will bend his will. The Bible,, science and philosphy only make sense when we know God.

Josefina1110
Posts: 81
Joined: August 22nd, 2016, 12:08 am

Re: The Voice of Creation-- Would Chapter 1 convince an athe

Post by Josefina1110 » April 10th, 2017, 6:51 pm

Thank you for the comment. You are absolutely right. No human creature of God is even commissioned to convince anyone to believe in Jesus Christ. Believers are commissioned to go and preach the gospel and the Holy Spirit will take over to guide a person to have faith in Jesus Christ. Convincing is a work of the Holy Spirit. I don't know if persuading is the same as convincing. But I thought the effort of persuading is not forcing a person to believe but to think about the subject and read the whole book. Just like the review of the book emphasized. The reviewer was convinced after he had read the whole book because he then understood what the Bible is all about by reading the whole book. I thought that chapter 1 is just the start of the persuading process. The rest of the book displays the reason and the encouragement to believe in order to come to the end result in the last chapter of the book which deals with the Kingdom of Heaven. I had been bombarded with all negative comments about the first chapter of the book. I wish the whole book is read first before the above question was asked. I salute you for concluding that the Bible, science and philosophy only make sense when we know God.

Eduk
Posts: 765
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: The Voice of Creation-- Would Chapter 1 convince an athe

Post by Eduk » April 10th, 2017, 7:23 pm

So, no, unless the atheist accepts the existence of God no amount of science or philosphy will bend his will. The Bible,, science and philosphy only make sense when we know God.
I salute you also for ignoring the scientific method and all it's successes and methodologies.

RuleOnu
Posts: 31
Joined: April 5th, 2017, 11:56 am

Re: The Voice of Creation-- Would Chapter 1 convince an athe

Post by RuleOnu » April 12th, 2017, 9:39 pm

Eduk wrote:
So, no, unless the atheist accepts the existence of God no amount of science or philosphy will bend his will. The Bible,, science and philosphy only make sense when we know God.
I salute you also for ignoring the scientific method and all it's successes and methodologies.
Oh no, I understand the Christian (from an historical basis) "scientific method" exceptionally well!
Sir Francis Bacon, a devote Christian, formulated the "scientific method" and brought a more quantitative approach to science, based on Christian principles and understanding of the world. A logical God would actualize a world to be observable, definable and understandable to His reasoning agents.
Where would the philosphy of darwinism be without Carl Linnaeus?

1. The universe is orderly.
2. This orderly universe can be known.
3. There is a motive to discover the order.
4. That motive is to know God.
(Would be nice if an atheist/rejectionist could come up with a purpose to know our world)

Considering the existence of God, miracles or supernatural events cannot be determined using the scientific method otherwise they wouldn't be supernatural.

So, the scientific method has its purpose, but, the capacity to reason, to apply logic far supercedes the limitations of the scientific method.

I mean, can applying the scientific method provide evidence for, proof of, and quantify, "reason"? How about something as simple as "love"?

RuleOnu
Posts: 31
Joined: April 5th, 2017, 11:56 am

Re: The Voice of Creation-- Would Chapter 1 convince an athe

Post by RuleOnu » April 12th, 2017, 10:26 pm

Fooloso4 said,
I found nothing at all that would convince an open minded atheist and plenty that even believers in the Bible would not accept. The chapter opens with the questionable claim that the greatest controversy about the Genesis creation story is that the world was made in six literal days. Certainly an open minded atheist would not consider this the greatest controversy. The greatest controversy is that God created the world. Whether it occurred in six days or six minutes or six million years is not at the top of the scale of controversies.
As a Bible believing Christian I agree to some extent. While I do believe God created what we observe to exist from a material perspective, the universe(world) in six literal days, as described in Genesis I do not argue or debate the age of the world since the Bible doesn't specifically account for the age of the world, making the age of the world speculation, in my view.

I think it's not controversial considering the Mathew verse you site, 19:26, "But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible". I don't think it's necessary to have a belief in God or be a Christian to accept the truth of that statement from a philosophical position. In that, if God exists and possesses maximal abilities, (omnipotence), compared to Man, then it would stand to reason God is capable of creating a world anyway, and manner, He deems fit.
Further, while the existence of a "god" can be debatable, the non-existence of a "god", God, requires equal, and likely more, empirical evidence from the naturalistic worldview atheist/rejectionist rely on. Since the existence of God is recognized to be a matter of metaphysical deliberation rather than empirical scientific inquiry, although scientific inquiry can provide logical premises for a "gods", God's, existence.

Further, you stated,
Calling the fossil record question is not going to persuade anyone with a rudimentary understanding of geology. Her account is clumsy, misguided, and uninformed. Her claim that the Big Bang did not occur because God is a God of order is so obviously question begging that it begs us to ask why we should take this book seriously. She claims that we are able to see distance stars not only because of the speed of light but because of their “incomprehensible size”. She goes on to say that they had to be placed at that distance because otherwise life would have perished from their heat and violent activities.
By this point her biggest concern should be persuading us not to laugh.
I would contend that the paleontologic record is debatable, as well as the "Big Bang". There are numerous secular sources which do just that. Consider, experiments conducted today showing the speed of light may be decreasing! Since I haven't, and likely will not (I typically rely on the Bible and scientific literature on which to base my views), read the book, I would also contest the authors assertions concerning the distance of stars relative to earth as well, if she made the claim as you relate.

I understand what you mean with laughter. I had the very same response reading both "The God Delusion", Dawkins, and Kruase's, "A Universe From Nothing"!

Eduk
Posts: 765
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: The Voice of Creation-- Would Chapter 1 convince an athe

Post by Eduk » April 13th, 2017, 12:03 pm

(Would be nice if an atheist/rejectionist could come up with a purpose to know our world)
But many atheists have. Pretty much every single popular scientist has been asked that exact question. I appreciate that you have a difference of opinion. But denying that other people have even expressed a difference of opinion to yourself is frightening.

You would presumably not like me to say it would be nice if a religionist would come up with some purpose to know our world?

-- April 13th, 2017, 12:26 pm --
I would contend that the paleontologic record is debatable, as well as the "Big Bang". There are numerous secular sources which do just that. Consider, experiments conducted today showing the speed of light may be decreasing!
Science cannot reasonably be used to disprove that science works. Theories need to be predictive and require empirical evidence. Something like the big bang theory fits the evidence we have, predictions made from the theory also fit the evidence we have. As new evidence is found theories are added to, revised or sometimes abandoned.
Some scientific theories have a lot more evidence than others and the chances of them being abandoned grow lower and lower. But it is always an option.
Please note that this is one of the most important features of the scientific method and in no way means all beliefs are equally probable.

Josefina1110
Posts: 81
Joined: August 22nd, 2016, 12:08 am

Re: The Voice of Creation-- Would Chapter 1 convince an athe

Post by Josefina1110 » April 13th, 2017, 8:42 pm

One thing I could say is that Creation happened only once, therefore it cannot be proven by scientific method or experimentation. That is why "Big Bang" remains a theory and they are trying to prove it by creating the Higgs collider spending tons of money. (Isn't that laughable, too?) They already tried it and failed to produce any evidence. They were even hesitant to test because it might alter the universe. Faith, hope and love are spiritual things and the words were introduced to us because we are spiritual beings. Science deals only with things that can be proven. Yet our way of life functions only by faith because everything has a word for it. You cannot get wet by saying water. Water is a word therefore as Jesus said, "The words that I speak, they are spirit and they are life." Going back to Creation, God spoke it and it came to be. His other name is The Word. He had the word for everything he created. Experience tells us that we cannot create anything without giving a word of what we are going to create. Isn't that logical?

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 712
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: The Voice of Creation-- Would Chapter 1 convince an athe

Post by -1- » April 14th, 2017, 5:25 pm

Creation by God -- Big Bang by natural forces

We came from dust -- We came from monkeys

The earth is flat -- the Earth is round

The bible is the truth -- something else (anybody's own individual choice) is the truth

God created man -- man created god

Abortion is murder -- the fetus has no sensation, it has no human-like qualities

We each have an eternal and undying soul -- we each have a consciousness

Gods are powerful -- nature is self-contained, self-explanatory, and no supernatural forces act on reality

Morals are god-given and god-taught -- morals are evolution-shaped, inseparable from man

Man has free will -- free will does not exist

Man can choose to sin and he will be punished for it -- man created the concepts of sin partly on the paradigm of morals, and partly to influence mass behaviour

---------------------

I don't see how any of the opinions on the left side of each opinion paired together can influence those who subscribe to the truth as described on the right hand side of the opinion pair.

An atheist states there is no god. Any mention of god as a function in any argument to convince him otherwise is ab ovo and pro dacta in iurnio an unconvincing argument.

You can't convince anyone of a disbelieved fact by forcing on the argument first as a premiss that the unbelieved thing exist (therefore it exists). You must prove its existence from externalities. And that is not possible when one wants to prove the existence of god or at least give convincing arguments by way of supporting evidence for its existence.

The Bible? The bible is believable only to those who believe it's the word of god. So in order to credibly convince someone that the bible is the word of god, you must do it without the possibility to admit it is the word of god. Once you take that possibility away, thought, there is nothing left inside or outside the bible that proves the bible or makes it a convincing argument for the existence of god.
"You can always live without a lover, but you can't love without a liver."

Josefina1110
Posts: 81
Joined: August 22nd, 2016, 12:08 am

Re: The Voice of Creation-- Would Chapter 1 convince an athe

Post by Josefina1110 » April 14th, 2017, 7:14 pm

That is really true. Only those who believe in God believes that the Bible is the word of God. But there is no other book like the Bible. The Bible is God's way of telling the man about His existence. It is written by His people only whom He had endowed with His spirit and had personal contact with Him in spirit and in truth (physical). He spoke through them also. The Bible was consolidated from different authors, in different periods of time from the beginning of time and tells about the end of time. Jesus' words are written in the first person and he specifically introduced himself by saying "I AM". He is the present and he is the same yesterday, today and forever. No man can say such things but God. He only asks a man to do one thing and that is to BELIEVE in Him.
There is no argument as far as believers and atheist are concerned because they are like oil and water. As I said no human being can convince an atheist to believe in God. That is the work of the Holy Spirit. God doesn't force anyone. But, we are given the task to tell and spread the gospel and the Holy Spirit will do the rest. He knows who belongs to Him and those that don't even before we are born. Things like this is hard to believe that is why God gave us faith. Believers have faith in God. Unbelievers don't. That is what "faith" is for. But man only uses faith for his own benefit to accomplish his own plans. For example, I plan to go to the store to buy something I need. I have so much faith that I can have what I need when I get back from the store. When you ride on an airplane, you put your faith on the pilot that you will get to your destination. The Bible tells us that life is a journey towards 2 destinations. Jesus leads believers to heaven. Satan leads unbelievers to hell.

User avatar
BletBletBlettin
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 1:26 pm

Re: The Voice of Creation-- Would Chapter 1 convince an athe

Post by BletBletBlettin » May 2nd, 2017, 1:42 pm

Hi All,

I must start by firstly stating that I haven't read every reply, so someone may have already covered this; that being said, I'm still gonna say it.

I used to be an Atheist, however, having read the Bible from a young age, and having graduated in a Scientific discipline, I began to look into the texts a lot more thoroughly; here are my findings and an explanation as to why I am no longer an Atheist, purely based on Genesis.

"In the beginning, there was a word and the word was God..."

At a very literal glance, this 'statement' appears to have no grounds within reality; appearing to be rather ludicrous. However, once looked at from a different perspective, we can discern something important. Firstly, what is a word? Well, in the most simplistic terms, it is a sound. What is a sound? A sound is a wave with a specific wave-length, frequency, amplitude, etc. (though the specificity is dependent on the aforementioned factors, each sound has a very specific wave-length, freq., etc.). So what was the word that God spoke? The lowest common denominator in all of the aforementioned, and indeed, within all wave-forms/forces, etc.; ENERGY.

We know that different energies have different ranges and grades, and in my personal opinion (moving away from Science, back into Philosophy), the highest grade of all energies, is Consciousness. This would also make sense given the fact that God is Omnipotent and Omniscient...

Due to the allegorical language utilised by all ancient civilisations, cults, secret societies, etc., I have come to the conclusion that the Religious doctrines of the past (as well as various texts left by the Sumerians, Egyptians and Greeks), were wrote by the Scientists of their times, and as such, I don't think it's possible to separate Religion from Science, much like separating the left and right brains seems to me a mistake (if anyone catches the drift 8) )

Peace, Love and Understanding

Eduk
Posts: 765
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: The Voice of Creation-- Would Chapter 1 convince an athe

Post by Eduk » May 3rd, 2017, 3:39 am

having read the Bible from a young age, and having graduated in a Scientific discipline, I began to look into the texts a lot more thoroughly
Are you saying because you read the Bible from a young age and because you graduated in a scientific discipline this is what made you look into the texts more thoroughly?

User avatar
BletBletBlettin
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 1:26 pm

Re: The Voice of Creation-- Would Chapter 1 convince an athe

Post by BletBletBlettin » May 4th, 2017, 6:08 pm

Eduk wrote:
having read the Bible from a young age, and having graduated in a Scientific discipline, I began to look into the texts a lot more thoroughly
Are you saying because you read the Bible from a young age and because you graduated in a scientific discipline this is what made you look into the texts more thoroughly?
Well, I certainly think it helped, but it wasn't the only factor - I must admit.

I think the point in time where I realised that I needed to re-evaluate my position on Religion, was when I understood that I needed to go back to those texts with a new, unbiased approach. Atheism is a very certain statement utilised to express oneself regarding ones stance on Religion. In a world where the only two certainties are death and uncertainty (as we don't know anything that is going to happen between becoming and the inevitable demise), and after I developed the understanding that the ancients used symbolic language to convey an image in ones mind, rather than communicate an idea directly, I became aware that for me to categorise myself as an Atheist, I had to exhaust all resources and the avenues opened up by such relentless study - I could never count myself as a Scientist if I did not do so (a mistake that I am concerned many people make, including my former self).

Having taken a step back from skepticism generated by angst-y youth and developed a better understanding of the truth of reality, I realised I needed to utilise the awe-inspiring creativity and imagination that a child possesses (most of us losing this as we age), with the rationalism developed from experience and greater understanding (which invariably led to me becoming an 'adult').

This coupled with the realisation that no matter how much many Scientists/Rationalists detest my previous points (and the assumptions therein), Science has no causality for the Big Bang. My assertion is that because the Word of God most likely refers to the generation of active energies (i.e. ones that are not in a stable state), and Science states that the resultant of the known unknown (the resultant being what we refer to as the Big Bang), was a rapid release of energy from a centralised location at the heart of the Universe, resulting in everything 'evolving' into its current state, we can assume that Religion and Science have drawn the same conclusion. The only difference in the conclusions between the two 'disciplines' or paths, is that Science often implies this was random, whilst Religion tries to explain it in such allegory, that I still haven't deciphered/determined any references within the Bible that tell us the first cause; though I strongly suspect that a cause was proposed, it's just I'm still not intelligent enough to have found it yet - and may very well remain in the darkness for the rest of my days.

To cut a long story short, it's language that truly led to me revisiting the texts and denouncing my Atheistic views, as I believe certainty to be a fool's errand; leading to complacency in many, when it comes to forming opinions based on truth. With that in mind, I could neither be a Theist, nor could I be an Atheist; to use either of these, implies that I have empirical evidence, which nobody does. The realisation of the 'final' categorisation was where I had to back-pedal on everything I thought I knew: Agnosticism. The very word seems almost insulting at this point, as everyone has experienced some level of what it means to be alive, and has questioned the reality and nature of this world, so I would argue that this fallacy; the failing of the language infrastructure made me want to investigate and find out why Science has so many continuity issues and why Religion has been overlooked entirely within the modern era.

A picture paints a thousand words, as they say, and the Bible uses very evocative language and tall tales to convey both Scientific fact and moral/ethical values; Science and Language have been utilised to try and categorise everything into synthetic niches, which has led (in recent times), to a major problem: the infrastructure we are using is not fit for purpose.

Anyway, my apologies for the waffling. Too long; didn't read (TL;DR) version: the development of my understanding of language, coupled with a pious youth and empirically-minded early adulthood led me to revisit Biblical texts...

Peace, Love and Understanding

Post Reply