New Posts

RamiC · 2025-11-14T13:16:56-0600

calicocat said:
FDR (who was tied to weird Jewish beliefs by buddy Stephen Wise**) did four terms.

It is difficult to study this man without wanting to strangle him.

I believe FDR was the reason that the people of the USA decided to restrict the number of times a person could run. He was in office at the time, and therefore the two term limit did not apply.

Here it is "The amendment has its roots in concerns raised after President Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to four terms in office between 1932 and 1944. Roosevelt went against an unwritten precedent set by George Washington that limited presidents to serving a maximum of two full terms, or eight years. Roosevelt cited the need for stabile leadership during the World War II era to justify his additional terms." The 22nd Amendment and Presidential Service Beyond Two Terms | Constitution Center

Hans Blaster · 2025-11-14T13:16:53-0600

stevevw said:
Do you see what your doing.

I do. Am am pointing out how minor these vases are to the undertsanding of ancient Egypt.

stevevw said:
Your creating a strawman or at least a false representation. First you qualify the testers as grifters and gropers. So already you have a prior negative view that must influence how you see things.

We have been on this topic in this thread for months. There were two other threads a year ago. I am more than familiar enough to the vase-phrenologists with the respect they are due -- NONE. What has changed in the last week is that I have decided to not tip-toe around their pseudoscience grift.

stevevw said:
Then you qualify the example as a "minor anomaly". Surely this is a matter of subjective opinion.

I don't know of a measure, but I can't think of any anomalous aspect of early Egypt (pre-dynastic to old kingdom) that is less important than these seemingly "out of place" stone vessels of high production quality with out directly evidenced production method. But that is *exactly* why these vases make such good material for a pseudoscience grift. They are not important for the Egyptologists to focus lots of time on and are a bit "mysterious". If I spent a couple hours I could come up with dozens of minor anomalies that have been overblown by the grifters, pseudoscientists and opponents of science.

stevevw said:
Throughout history there has been a clear recognition that these vases stood out, were the peak of all Egyptian vase making including all dynasties that came after. Even some alluded to their high quality and precision that they required a different tech.

Exactly they stick out, but aren't ultimately that important. Excellent fodder for wild speculations.

stevevw said:
So already you have set the parameters that these out of place vases are minor anomalies when many people as a matter of course and not because of some whackery see they do stand out as being out of place for that time.
Ok so lets see how the "like modern cnc" and "test algorithm" says about that 'stone softerning or weakening'. According to you thios is a completely concoted idea out of nowhere.

Implying technologies with no precedents in the ancient world that didn't show up for 4000 years, we should treat it as wackery.

stevevw said:
Based on no science and just made up as part of the conspiriacy.

No conspiracies have been claimed. Just a bunch of kooks trying to take your mind and money.

stevevw said:
Lets see if this is the case. You now have to deal with the science and evidence. Just like the vases. Except this ones so out of the box you cannot quibble about microns of difference equating to precise or imprecise. This is obvious and clear.

We look at a vase and we can see the precision as compared to a different imprecise method. But yes there is a point where to the naked eye it is harder to tell precise lathed from handmade and micro measures are needed. But the stone softening and weakening is obvious. Now tests are backing up this.

There have been some disputes on this thread on the measurement and statistical analysis, but even if we accept it, the only mystery is how hard it was to be that "precise". That too has been discussed, and we certainly don't need anything like "modern technology".

rjs330 · 2025-11-14T13:15:56-0600

The Barbarian said:
Russiangate ended with indictments and convictions of about a dozen Trump underlings who had lied about their meetings/collusion with Russian agents. Trump's own National Security Advisor pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his involvement.

They NEVER showed they actually colluded with Russia to interfere with the election.

The Barbarian said:
Like Watergate, most of the criminals went to jail for covering up the conspiracy. Flynn, or example, wasn't convicted for dealing with Russian agents; he was convicted of lying to the FBI about it. Haldeman and Ehrlichman didn't go to jail for the burglary; they went to jail for covering it up. That's how these things work.

Except there was an actual crime that had taken place. There is no crime that had taken place in rhe Russia Collusion Hoax. Not a single person was arrested or charged with anything other than being dishonest.

There was no underlying crime that anyone was arrested or charged with, unlike Watergate which actually had a crime of burglary.

All the left has is a bunch of assumptions and a belief system fueled by their anti-Trump bias. Obama knew there was nothing and was told there was nothing, but he pushed the investigation anyway to interfere with the election. Clinton actually PAID money for information from Russian assets.

Richard T · 2025-11-14T13:14:06-0600

Larniavc said:
Chiropractic is based on the idea that mystical energy called Vital Intelligence is guided by the manipulation of the spine as the practitioner directs this energy with twists and cracking motions.

The actual supernatural entity chiropractic appeals to is never disclosed.

Yes, there are some that have some kind of spiritual base and it is not jesus. There are some Christian Chiropractors though and I think the school and personal beliefs may be different for some? Studies have shown that lower back pain is significantly helped by chiropractors. Since a Few D.O.'s treat patients similarily with adjustments, I doubt they have the mystical notions as they study as much as a M.D.

Leaf473 · 2025-11-14T13:09:32-0600

FredVB said:
Leviticus 23 is about the appointed feast to Israel. Involvement requires being made ritually clean, and for some things in it being circumcised in the covenant with Yahweh is needed.

The seventh day is a day of complete rest, so I see that is to be encouraged. Some gather and that Sabbath day is good for it, including the end of Friday at evening. However with being vulnerable as I am, I only go online to watch and hear biblical teaching being done then.

Sounds good! Now... Is it an instruction in the New Covenant? Or more like a suggestion, as it looks to you?

Richard T · 2025-11-14T13:09:14-0600

Michie said:
Podcast weighs pros, cons of reported Trump administration plan

Is a half-century investment in owning your home worth it?

Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte announced this week that the Trump administration is working on a novel approach to the home affordability crisis: a 50-year mortgage.

The still-unofficial proposal builds off of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s introduction of the 30-year mortgage under the New Deal and could offer more homebuyers the opportunity to qualify for financing.

Still, critics point out that given the average U.S. life expectancy of 78.4 years, the average 32-year-old homebuyer is more likely to leave the mortgage for their children to pay off than to leave them a home free and clear.

Pastor Mark Driscoll, senior pastor of Trinity Church in Scottsdale, Arizona, took on the topic in a Nov. 11 episode of his podcast titled “Trump 50-Year Mortgage is a GREAT Idea,” in which Driscoll and Landon Chase, real estate agent and CEO of Driscoll’s Real Faith Ministries, talked about the merits of such a proposal.

Continued below.

I think it is a terrible idea both biblically and practically. The borrower is slave to the lender. So a 50 year mortgage institutionalizes this even further. Longer duration mortgages command HIGHER interest rates. A 15 year mortgage is cheaper than a 30 years by a half percent. By extending the mortgage to 50 years, it will qualify more buyers at current prices. However, sellers will raise prices. so they will likely pay more for the house.

Currently a 30 year mortgage is running around 6.3 percent. So after the fees and the likely rise in the 50 year spread, you would need 7% on your investment to break even . That is possible to beat over 50 years but it would take discipline and it is not guaranteed.

I think too that 50 year mortgages are going to require even more government backing. Why? because banks don't trust the federal government to hold inflation and interest rates down. that is why even now many mortgages are run through Fannie Mae, USDA, and HUD. So more government intervention in the market is a bad idea as well.

Though I do not always agree with Dave Ramsey a Christian financial profession, (not a Pastor with a degree in communications) I checked his sentiments and they mirror mine though he goes into even more detail.

What Is a 50-Year Mortgage?

What is a 50-year mortgage? Why are people taking them out and what are the pros and cons?

www.ramseysolutions.com

RamiC · 2025-11-14T13:08:10-0600

"You’re warmly invited this November, for the International Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church (IDOP), to stand with the persecuted church in a dedicated 12 hours of prayer."

Date: Saturday, 15 November
Time: 8am-8pm - GMT (drop in for any session)
Location: Open Doors UK&I Headquarters, Witney, Oxfordshire
Online: One-hour prayer session (7-8pm) GMT

link - UK Open Doors for Persecuted Christians - IDOP Prayer Vigil

2PhiloVoid · 2025-11-14T13:04:35-0600

johansen said:
i'm not sure its foolishness at all.

yes, there will be unforeseen consequences. being born on this earth is bad enough, but being born and finding out at say, 20-40 years of age that you're sterile because your parents did some genetic experimentation on you to make you smarter, well, you're going to have to go take anger management classes...

I'm actually surprised I didn't get totally banned for a mild but interesting argument with an old man on reddit who felt personally offended in a thread where I predicted that the ever increasing number of vaccines are going to cause significant unforeseen consequences on the order of 100 to 200 years from now.

Personally, I assess all forms of Trans-humanism as another form of religion, and they are 'designed' to compete with the Christian faith.

Of course, as with most things, I await the entrance of the futuristic brainiacs who think they're going to prove me wrong.

DaisyDay · 2025-11-14T13:02:49-0600

essentialsaltes said:
Sure, that's what the Treasury Department says, but what about...

View attachment 373091

Out of all of the White House's press releases, I have cherry-picked this one:

NEW DATA: Lower Prices, Bigger Paychecks

President Donald J. Trump’s bold economic agenda is delivering real results for American families — with new data from DoorDash’s State of Local Commerce

www.whitehouse.gov

It's hard to reconcile 2% inflation with consumer prices dropping.

I'm not a mathologist, but a 2% rise would be inflation, prices going down would be deflation and 0 movement either way would be stagnation. SS COLA will be 2.8% for 2026, but Medicare increases are likely to exceed 2.8%, according to forecasters.

Vambram · 2025-11-14T12:59:40-0600

The Barbarian said:
The tip-off was when he started resorting to facts.

What facts?

PloverWing · 2025-11-14T12:58:23-0600

As a slight correction to the headline, I don't see "transgenderism" or any other "ism" being labelled as holy in the statement. I see people being labelled as being holy, sacred, and in the image of God.

GoldenBoy89 · 2025-11-14T12:58:06-0600

Servus said:
Where you against the Economic Impact Payments? Did you mail yours back?

I’m assuming you have me on ignore but I have to ask again. What is the national economic emergency we’re trying to mitigate with these stimulus payments? It’d be great if you could tell me what you think this is for and why it’s needed at this moment.

The Barbarian · 2025-11-14T12:57:45-0600

o_mlly said:
So you have not observed a speciation event but now claim others have.

I've never observed nuclear fusion in the lab, either. But like macroevolution, scientists have observed it.

o_mlly said:
Certainly words mean things. But words that tell us nothing new are meaningless tautologies.

"Macroevolution" means the evolution of new species. If that seems meaningless to you, we've located the problem.

concretecamper · 2025-11-14T12:56:48-0600

CoreyD said:
Please, can you please point out what subjective solution is in post #19, and where it says truth is subjective? Thanks.

It's actually #18, I automatically used 19 because you did. Anyway #18, you say this.

"That is the key. Being able to examine the scriptures, and know the ring of truth, because of seeing it."

That's is subjective.

2PhiloVoid · 2025-11-14T12:52:27-0600

dms1972 said:
What is the difference between these two groups? I've been in churches, and had elders trying to instruct me, and they claim to be Evangelical, but I think they are closer to Fundamentalist.

Here a couple of things that makes me think they are fundamentalist, they seemed to not agree with and tried to steer me away from modern paraphrases like JB Phillip's Letters to Young Churches. They try to steer me away from pop/rock music, and some CCM. In their favor I suppose I could score them for showing an interest to get me on the what they believe to be the right path as it were. But its their claim to be evangelical? Maybe they are and maybe JB Phillips is questionable for some in the evangelical community? But I get the feeling a lot of stuff is going to be off limits for me if I submit to these churches. I like to know where they are coming from, what in their view can and can't do, listen to, read etc. as some groups can be extreme in what they regard as worldly.

Is there anything in particular that distinguishes Evangelicals from Fundamentalists?

Yes. One point of difference is that Fundamentalists tend toward a sort of interpretive reductionism resulting in a more legalisitic or rigid form of literal theologizing.

By contrast, Evangelicals, while also tending to hold firm to certain theological ideas that Fundamentalists hold to, tend toward a more contextualized sensibility, and this sensibility can loosen up the process of theologizing and places evangelicals on a small spectrum or range of interpretive readings of the inspired Bible. Like Fundamentalists (e.g. Church of Christ, Independent Baptist, etc.), Evangelicals will vary with each other in their general readings between denonominations, but overall will still hold a conservative political position and still see the Bible as inspired or even inerrant and do so without 'selling out' to much more liberal tendencies.

Bob S · 2025-11-14T12:49:39-0600

Why is it that God didn't reveal the seventh-day Sabbath command to any other nation? There is no historical indication that the Aztecs, the Aborigines, the Asians, the Celts, and all others were ever instructed to observe rituals given to Israel. Could it be that the seventh-day Sabbath was only for Israel???? I believe we have scriptural evidence that it was only for Old Covenant Israel.

The Barbarian · 2025-11-14T12:47:40-0600

9Rock9 said:
Mytho-history is a theory that claims Genesis should not be understood literallt (or at least not literally in the modern sense.) instead, it is largely a figurative account that expresses important theological truths and to establish Yahweh as the one true God vs the pagan religions of the Ancient World.

That makes some sense. The literary structure of Genesis 1-3 is polemic. It's an overt rejection of a bits-and-pieces creation by various deities, instead acknowledging one Creator.

The opening chapter of the Bible, Genesis 1, is one of the most debated and cherished texts in the Judeo-Christian tradition. For centuries, it has been read as a straightforward account of God creating the universe in six literal days. However, modern biblical scholarship, informed by ancient Near Eastern (ANE) literature and cultural context, suggests a richer, more complex interpretation. Genesis 1 is best understood as a theological polemic against the cosmologies of surrounding nations, a depiction of the cosmos as God’s temple, and a functional rather than material creation account. This interpretation not only aligns with the historical and literary context of the text but also reveals its profound theological purpose: to proclaim the sovereignty of the one true God over creation and to orient humanity toward worship and stewardship.
This article explores these three interpretive lenses—polemic, cosmic temple, and functional creation—while addressing why a literal, material creation reading may miss the text’s deeper intent. By examining the ANE context, the literary structure of Genesis 1, and its theological implications, we will uncover how Genesis 1 communicates timeless truths about God, creation, and humanity’s role in the world.

Genesis 1: A Polemic, Cosmic Temple, and Functional Creation

The opening chapter of the Bible, Genesis 1, is one of the most debated and cherished texts in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

kameronmazurek.substack.com

CoreyD · 2025-11-14T12:46:14-0600

Job 33:6 said:
And what are your thoughts on how the teledoths noted above do not give history, but continue the story? Such as with Noah's children being born, followed by the story of Noah's ark?

Genesis 5:30-32 ESV
[30] Lamech lived after he fathered Noah 595 years and had other sons and daughters. [31] Thus all the days of Lamech were 777 years, and he died. [32] After Noah was 500 years old, Noah fathered Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

So we see the historical geneologies leading up to Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japeth.

Genesis 6:5-8 ESV
[5] The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. [6] And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. [7] So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” [8] But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

Then we see the flood story introduced by wickedness of the world.

Genesis 6:9-14 ESV
[9] These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God. [10] And Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

We have our teledoth. And reference to the birth of Noah's sons as in the end of chapter 5.

[11] Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. [12] And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. [13] And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth. [14] Make yourself an ark of gopher wood. Make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch.

Then the story continues into the future. After the sons were born.

So chapter 6 begins where chapter 5 ends. And chapter 6 is a continuation into the future.

Do you want to bypass Genesis 1, and 2?
No. We will not do that, and run off on a long argument to counter your ideas again J.
Genesis 1:9-13
9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land “earth,” and the gathering of the waters He called “seas”; and God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout [j]vegetation, [k]plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit according to [l]their kind [m]with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth produced [n]vegetation, [o]plants yielding seed according to [p]their kind, and trees bearing fruit [q]with seed in them, according to [r]their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

It's not a continuation. for two reason:

A historical or genealogical record is from the distant past right up to the present.
Genesis 2:5, 6 says.... 5 Now no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, nor had any plant of the field sprouted, for the LORD God had not yet sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 But springs welled up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.

Genesis 2 does not contradict Genesis 1, by saying that after vegetation and trees... including a fully flourishing Garden, there was no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, because the LORD God had not yet sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.
Rather, Genesis 2 compliments Genesis 1, by giving a historical account of some of the events that are reported in Genesis 1.

You'll have to work out Genesis 6:9-14, and the others, on your own.
I can see it's difficult for you, but that's due to your thinking.
What can help, is asking questions, rather than forming an idea, when you read something, and than running with that idea, and basing everything else on it.

One good question you can ask yourself, is.
When did Noah walk with God, and have three sons... prior to Genesis 6:9, or subsequent?
If that still does not correct your thinking, then asking me to do that... I'll have an even harder time.
I had an experience with a strong-willed person, and I can tell you, it's one of he hardest things for me to have a conversation with that person.

FAITH-IN-HIM · 2025-11-14T12:45:07-0600

camille70 said:
Citation needed that he distanced himself for any reason, let alone the ones stated.

This has been discussed repeatedly. There was a grandfather clause in the ACA and Obama thought it would protect existing plans. He was wrong and has said as much. He did not intentionally mislead anyone.

You can thank Marco Rubio and the GOP for eliminating Risk Corridors for the higher pricing.

Healthcare costs rise yearly. They have risen at a slower rate since the ACA was passed than in the years before. I and other posters have repeatedly pointed that out but you keep repeating that lie.

Give it a year. If the funding for the ACA and medicare/Medicaid aren't put back, everyone's healthcare will rise and many more hospitals will close in the most vulnerable counties in the most vulnerable states. On the plus side, we may get government run/non profit/ single payer hospitals anyway if the government has to step in to provide services in areas private hospitals have walked away from due to costs. Hopefully medicare won't see even further cuts due to budget sequestration rules. We will see.

Presenting statistics or discussing the implications for health care does not seem to engage their interest. Currently, today's conservatives appear to have limited concern for health care policy; instead, their primary motivation seems to be opposition to the Affordable Care Act because it was enacted by Democrats.

Conservatives and liberals in the United States have historically proposed different approaches to health care reform. Both groups have introduced plans aimed at reducing health care costs and increasing affordability. For instance, when First Lady Hillary Clinton suggested universal health care, Newt Gingrich responded with an alternative proposal. During the 2000 presidential campaign, Vice President Gore supported a government-funded universal health care plan, while Governor Bush advocated for a market-based approach involving existing insurance companies. Proposals reflecting these differing philosophies also appeared in the 2004 presidential campaign. In the 2008 election, John McCain promoted a free-market solution aligned with conservative principles, whereas Senator Obama supported a single-payer system.

Democrats and Republicans have long disagreed over the health care system, but both sides proposed ways to make health care affordable.

However, after the ACA was implemented, the GOP largely abandoned health care reform and focused on dismantling the ACA. From 2010 to 2016, the GOP-led Congress attempted to repeal the ACA 42 times without proposing an alternative solution.

During the 2012 presidential primary, there were no alternative health care proposals as seen in other primaries. GOP candidates mainly pledged to dismantle the ACA and criticized Mitt Romney's Massachusetts program. Romney also distanced himself from his own state's healthcare plan.

Since then, the GOP has abandoned any healthcare plans entirely and instead focuses on criticizing President Obama’s comments like “you can keep your doctor” or “your insurance premium will not go up.” In other words, they offer only criticism.

partinobodycular · 2025-11-14T12:41:31-0600

jonojim1337 said:
I didn’t say modern day, I said archetypical. It’s someone who, for instance, would let the poor and lame beg at their doorstep and walk by them each day.

I'm pretty sure @Maria Billingsley understood what you were saying. She was simply conjecturing as to what that 'archetypical' Pharisee would look like in the modern day. In the U.S. at least, they'd almost certainly present themselves as a Christian. In fact I'm pretty sure that I've had conversations with a few here on CF.

Say it aint so · 2025-11-14T12:38:52-0600

essentialsaltes said:
Or a source, or any argument that this factoid has any relevance.

Rebuttal by AI while not even providing the link seems to be a form or argument for too many here.

The Barbarian · 2025-11-14T12:35:22-0600

Washington — Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said Friday that President Trump's opposition to releasing files from the federal investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein is a "huge miscalculation." In an exclusive interview on "CBS Mornings," Greene said she doesn't believe the president has anything to hide, noting that some of Epstein's victims have said Mr. Trump "has done nothing wrong."

Greene, of Georgia, was among the four House Republicans who joined all Democrats in signing on to a discharge petition that forces a vote in the House on a measure compelling the Justice Department to release materials related to its probe into Epstein. The vote is expected next week.

Mr. Trump has slammed the focus on Epstein as a "hoax" pushed by Democrats to deflect the blame for the government shutdown, which was the longest in U.S. history and ended Wednesday.

"Some Weak Republicans have fallen into their clutches because they are soft and foolish," he wrote on Truth Social on Friday. "Epstein was a Democrat, and he is the Democrat's problem, not the Republican's problem! Ask Bill Clinton, Reid Hoffman, and Larry Sommers about Epstein, they know all about him, don't waste your time with Trump. I have a Country to run!"

A few hours later, he posted again, calling for the Justice Department and FBI to investigate Epstein's ties to prominent Democrats and financial institutions.

But Greene told "CBS Mornings" she doesn't understand Mr. Trump's opposition to releasing the material related to Epstein.

"I think it's a huge miscalculation, and I truly just stand with the women, and I think they deserve to be the ones that we're fighting for," she said.

2PhiloVoid · 2025-11-14T12:31:41-0600

Delvianna said:
I need like a flow chart... If this, then that because that's how I feel when it comes to the idea of debate. In a perfect conversation and what I think is ideal, both parties should be open to being wrong. That means in both understanding and interpretation. No putting your allegiance or what you've been taught for 500 years above the idea that you could be wrong. Now, based off of that, several things happen for me..

1) If the person continually shows arrogance/superiority/patronizing tone/personal attacks/snappy attitude, in several conversations -----> stop the conversation + block them
2) If the person isn't interested/open to the possibility of being wrong and after a long conversation it seems this person is rooted in their interpretation ----> Stop the conversation

I do admit to losing my temper in some discussion/debates I've had but it's 100% because of number 1. I've also had some great discussions/debates that have ended in agreeing to disagree (number 2) and I've walked away going "that was fun!" but it's RARE.

I know beliefs are a touchy subject but we should all be looking to figure out what is true as iron is supposed to sharpen iron but if you're banging people over their head with your sword, that's doing nothing but harm. If you get to a point where you just don't see the other persons argument, fair, but some people get so dang defensive, that they start attacking the person instead of the argument. They start making insinuations against their motives, spiritual state, heart posture or even go so far as insinuate low IQ, just because you don't agree and that's where I draw a line. This goes back to the umbrella of "quarreling" which has no fruit and only sows division because now, I'm going to block that person and make sure I don't run across them again.

So I think it's good to debate, to sharpen iron but I understand there are some other issues at play here but my main point is we should be still having these debates in the correct way, and not try and hinder them or misquote scripture to stop them in the first place.

As a philosopher, I can generally jive with all you're saying here. In fact, I have little problem with it.

ranunculus · 2025-11-14T12:24:33-0600

I thought we had all acquiesced that the war on drugs has long been won by the drugs.

BibleBeliever1611 · 2025-11-14T12:20:43-0600

It doesn't matter who reach for the Bible, they all are holding the word of God in their hands. Doesn't matter if it's in the hands of Catholic, protestant, lutheran, an atheist or a buddhist.

New Posts

New Posts

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page