Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Exodus 22:18
Some things in the Bible are hard to understand. But this isn't one of them.
The meaning of Exodus 22:18 is clear and simple: kill witches. Kill them whenever and wherever you find them. It is your sacred duty, a direct command from God.
But Christians don't kill witches anymore, do they? Is that because they no longer believe in witches or in the Bible, or both?
John Wesley said that "the giving up of witchcraft is, in effect, the giving up of the Bible."
And he was right about that.
It's time for us all to give up on the Bible. Killing witches was never a good idea, and a good God would never inspire the words of Exodus 22:18.
67 comments:
I've met so many Christians who have no idea how many ridiculous passages, like this one, are in their "sacred" book. That's the main reason I created my blog "By The Book Comics."
http:\\bythebookcomics.blogspot.com
I try to use humor to point out some of the Bible's most absurd contents.
Anyway, love your site. Keep up the good work! --DocMIke
I think either you're taking Wesley out of context, or I'm misunderstanding your point. From the paragraph you quote, Wesley seems to be saying that it's foolish to believe in one kind of supernatural power and deny the existence of any other.
You made this accusation against me in the comments on my post, but in my post, I did not deny the existence of witches at all. Am I missing something?
docmike, I like your comics; a very clever take on the sort of stuff Steve's doing. Mind if I put a link to your blog on mine?
The meaning of Exodus 22:18 is clear and simple. God says kill witches. What's the problem?
And Christians don't kill witches today because they're under the new covenant brought in by Christ, not the old as the Israelites were in Exodus. It's the same reason why tithing, animal sacrifices, mandatory circumcision, keeping the year of jubilee and keeping the Sabbath, for example, is no longer required either.
Brucker: Thank you for the nice comment and yes, you can definitely link to my comic site.
Jason: I have to ask why a benovolent god would EVER have demanded such things from believers. Actually, I know the answer, "We don't understand God's plan" or some such. But I guess the real question is, Why the hell would you want to worship such a god?
--DocMike
This may end up being a double post, and if so, mea culpa.
Just in case, short version: Why is it that when something in the OT is absurd, then it doesn't matter because of the covenant, yet when it can be used to back up a personal viewpoint (ex: homosexuality being a sin) then, hey... time to dust off the Ole' Testament.
And a joke: If the OT is useless, what a waste of trees. Why does it come with a Bible? Wouldn't that be like the U.S. Constitution having the Magna Carta at the beginning?
Doc, God isn't omni-benevolent. He considered witches and others who dealt with the occult to be abominations (Deut 18:10). It is what it is.
Kick, homosexuality is forbiden in the NT. 1 Cor 6:9-10.
Jason, Here are the verses you mentioned:
1 Corinthians 6:9: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
6:10: Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
I guess you're reading "effeminate" to mean gay, but what about all the others? I don't hear Christians raving about fornicators or drunkards!
--DocMike
Christians absolutely should be "raving" about fornicators and drunkards. But whether they do or don't doesn't change the fact that the NT condemns homosexual acts, which was the original comment.
I'm not sure it does, Jason. Which part condemns homosexual acts?
NT doesn't actually... only even mentions homosexuality once. Indirectly, as part of a re-telling of the old sodom story.
But the OT... oh, yes. Lots and lots of condemning there. It says homosexual acts must be punished by death. The commandment is repeated a few times.
I said: (ex: homosexuality being a sin) the 'ex' standing for EXAMPLE. This is not the only time that the religious use the OT when it suits them and then writes it off when they don't need it.
Let's stop debating the minutia here and talk about the grand-scale hypocrisy.
Jason said...
"And Christians don't kill witches today because they're under the new covenant brought in by Christ, not the old as the Israelites were in Exodus."
Jason also said...
"Doc, God isn't omni-benevolent. He considered witches and others who dealt with the occult to be abominations (Deut 18:10). It is what it is."
My case in point. Last time I looked, Deuteronomy was in the OT, yet just a short while after pointing out that we aren't bound by the OT anymore, Jason uses it because it has a point that he needs. Jason, please explain. It kind of comes off as hypocrisy to me.
Kick,
I'm not sure what you're getting at. In the law given to the Israelites, they were instructed to kill witches because they were an abomination to God. Christ did away with the old law when he died and was resurrected. Hence, Christians today aren't required to kill witches. I don't see the hypocrisy in this...?
Regarding homosexuality, I was simply stating that a Christian doesn't need to go back to the old law to back up a viewpoint, as you were implying. It's already there in the NT.
Jason,
Fair enough. So why reference the OT at all? Why include it with the NT Bible?
Are you telling me that Christian preachers don't quote the OT in sermons? Or just that the ones who do don't know what they are talking about?
Doc, the condemnation of homosexual acts is given in 1 Cor 6:9. "Abusers of themselves with mankind". Also mentioned in 1 Timothy 1:10.
Kick, the OT itself isn't null and void, only the law. Among other things, the OT includes a history of the Jews and it outlines the promises that, with the new law, are now offered to righteous non-Jews as well. There are plenty of great stories and lessons in the OT that are applicable to our spiritual lives today and I would hope that Christians use it to its correct and fullest capacity in coming to a fuller understanding of God and themselves.
Jason, I think it's a stretch to say the words "Abusers of themselves with mankind" refer to homosexuals. --DocMike
English: "Abusers of themselves with mankind"
Greek: arsenokoitēs
Root words: arsēn - "a male", koitē - "sleeping with, sexual intercourse"
Definition: One who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite (Thayer's Lexicon)
Touche', Jason.
I guess I need to bone up on my Greek (no pun intended).
Good job on the research...
--DocMike
More reading on arsenokoitēs.
http://www.inherit-the-kingdom.org/bible/arsenokoites.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality
Note that in the NT being gay is not a sin (nor sex), only sex outside of marriage, and of course with a little bible magic it is claimed that god says that gays can't get married. So being gay is OK, as long as you never have sex.
Correct, being gay isn't a sin. Homosexual sex (arsenokoitēs), as mentioned in the two links you provided, is.
Thanks for your efforts.
Ain't Corinthians just a letter allegedly written by Paul of Tarsus, a late convert, who wasn't one of the twelve, and even quarreled with Peter whom Jesus appointed as head of the Church? I mean, is Corinthians really the word of god?
Is Jesus god, the son of god, or a prophet of god? If he's just a prophet how come he can scrap god's law and make a new covenant with the gentiles? If he's god that means the trinity (polytheism as some believe) is A-OK? If Jesus is an "avatar" of god then why this omnisapient being didn't foresee he'd had to change his mind to fit with the times?
It's just me or isn't it unfair that jews have to go through all that ritual tomfoolery to be saved, but gentiles only have to follow the noahide laws? It would be best to be gentile it seems.
And why did god allow people to be born with sexual "deviations"? By telling that being gay isn't a sin, you admit the possibility that god just make people that way and that being gay isn't a consequence of the original sin.
But remember, every living being has the sex instinct. Instinct is unavoidable just as predators feel the instinct to kill to feed themselves. Don't you think that punishing gay people (born that way) with death or hell for their unavoidable instincts, is a cruel joke?
God makes you gay as a test, as long as you love him, worship him, and never have gay sex, you pass, otherwise you are a loser and he wants nothing to do with you. If that seems unfair just remember that god is perfect and never tests anyone with more then they can take, therefore if you fail it's because you suck (pun intended)!
Men wrote the bible, look around, how many men (remember gods a man) hate gay men, it's like a top 10 topic in the world ( higher ranked then even staving children), now, how many men like hot girl on girl action! I think that pretty much sums ups why the bible says what it says.
I would have to vote for hot girl-on-girl action and against 'well, we don't like that part of the OT, so it's been revoked.'
Satantiago,
Just because Paul had a tiff with someone doesn’t make him ineligible to write an inspired letter or two!
Jesus is a man, the Son of God.
The book of Hebrews, among others, goes through great pains telling the Hebrews what the point was to Jesus dying. You’ll find all the good law bits there.
God ‘allowed’ people to be born with sexual deviations for the same reason he allowed people to be born with heterosexual urges. There’s no law, either new or old, that forbids homosexuality. The sin only comes as a result when “lust has conceived” (James 1:15). To make the comparison between having sex and eating food is a bit of a stretch. You might get a bit cranky if you go without sex but it’s not a life or death requirement as is food and water (insert obvious joke here). The battle any believer fights is against the lusts of his flesh:
Gal 5:16-17 “This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other....”
So just because someone has an instinct to do something doesn’t justify an allowance for letting them carry through with their actions. Could you imagine…? No one’s saying that being homosexual and following Christ isn’t easy – it’s no doubt extremely difficult. But for someone who accepts that his/her life must be lived in accordance to God’s commandments, while the journey may be difficult, it’s necessary. This goes for any believer. There are sacrifices that will need to be made and sex (unfortunately) happens to be one of them for a specific subset of individuals.
Romans 1:26 touches on the subject of homosexual women.
Gad, I’m impressed; you hit the nail right on the head with your “as long as you love him” comment. Perfect. Gay sex must be your specialty.
Jason said...
"The meaning of Exodus 22:18 is clear and simple. God says kill witches. What's the problem?"
You see no problem with killing witches, eh Jason?
Jason also said: "God isn't omni-benevolent."
He isn't? Is he omni-malevolent then? Or is he sometimes good and sometimes evil? Is this part of your God=Satan theory that you were telling us about?
"There are sacrifices that will need to be made and sex (unfortunately) happens to be one of them for a specific subset of individuals."
I do love so these compassionate statements from the faithful. I bet you think about those poor gays making their sacrifices while you love and do your wife every night......
"Gad, I’m impressed; you hit the nail right on the head with your “as long as you love him” comment. Perfect. Gay sex must be your specialty."
Thanks, but no, the real experts are god and his homophobic followers. BTW Romans 1:26 only applies to the ugly lesbians, you know the ones that look like men, the hot one are still blessed for hot girl on girl action.
No Steve, I don’t see a problem with the Israelites in the Old Testament killing witches. And no God isn’t omni-malevolent. He’s benevolent. He punishes and blesses, kills and gives life.
Hey Gad, I can’t say I think about gays when I’m having sex with my wife but I’m sure there are some Christians out there who do so why don’t you go run off and find them.
Thanks also for your brilliant insight into Romans 1. No doubt the atheist cause benefits greatly from your Bible intellect.
But Jason, you said: "The meaning of Exodus 22:18 is clear and simple. God says kill witches. What's the problem?"
God says to kill witches, and you say you have no problem with that. Killing witches is OK with you.
So God isn't omni-benevolent; he kills. And he commands people to kill witches. (And you have no problem with that.)
Paul only had a glimpse of Jesus on the road to Damascus. Mohammad had seizures for decades claiming he was actually receiving divine inspiration. Anyone dreaming of god can claim to be divinely inspired.
Jesus was born a man, and after his resurrection promoted to god? Like some pagan demigods?
Or is he a son of god in the way Christians call themselves sons of god and brothers of Christ? Then why was Jesus the man allowed to scrap the old covenant?
What about John 1:1-15? "And the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us"
According to Romans it's all god's fault:
Romans 1 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him... 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts
If gays didn't know god they wouldn't have been gay. Is that what Romans says?
Romans 1 doesn't seem to condemn lesbianism, it only says that God "gave some men over to shameful lusts" and that's why even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones, because their husbands didn't glorified god, hurting god's pride. Pride is a capital sin.
According to biology, life's purpose is procreate to perpetuate the species. I find this more rational than whatever religions say life's purpose is.
Humans are also animals, albeit "sophisticated" ones, there are animals that live only to procreate, dying shortly after the sexual act. The instinct of procreation is so strong that some bishops, supposed to be celibate, are known to have their way with nuns and altar boys. The only way to effectively quench this sexual drive (temptation) would be castration.
"Saints" also felt the sexual urge, they tried to put it off by doing any sorts of unnatural things such as inflicting pain to themselves.
This would mean that god purposely allows people to be born gay and with sexual drive to punish them for their sins or the sins of their parents, to make them suffer from abstinence, and send them to hell if they give in to sin. There's masturbation of course, but remember what happened to poor Onan.
It is said that instinct is god's law, that when animals, flee, kill or procreate they are only obeying god's law. It's known that mammals masturbate and have homosexual intercourse. Are they going against god's law?
I wonder why Saul didn't kill the witch of Endor (1 samuel 28:4–25) and instead used her to bring Samuel back from the dead. Why would prophet Samuel speak to Saul through a witch? And why does Samuel seem to be very up to date with the events occurred after his death? Does that mean there's a place where spirits go after death? There's no need to wait until doomsday?
God is supposed to be infinite, omnipresent, all inclusive, etc. By saying that god isn’t omni-malevolent, one is limiting god to benevolence. The same can be said about god limited to not being the devil, to not being evil, or to not being gay. How could this be?
Correct, Steve. I don’t see a problem with the Israelites in the Old Testament killing witches as commanded by God.
And correct again - God kills. Your posts on this site listing the number of people God has killed would appear to support this supposition.
I think killing witches goes against the 5th (or 6th) commandment: Thou shall not kill. If god felt witches could undermine the prophets influence, he should have killed the witches himself, preserving his people from committing a sin.
Why would killing witches be a special case, why not killing anyone. The commandment "thou shall not kill" has to be taken in context, reading the bible it is clear that the context is Jew is not to kill Jew, except when ordered by god, everyone else (those who are not gods chosen) are fair game for all manner of horror and genocide.
Satantiago, perhaps we should take our conversation elsewhere (on another site). We’re hijacking a bit of space here discussing unrelated issues.
Gad's got it right again.
Jason: So if Gad has it right... God believes that the unchosen people 'are fair game for all manner of horror and genocide.' How does this reconcile with 'God is good?' Is such a deity really someone to whom we should want to worship?
KickSave23,
You have to remember that god is perfect, whether you understand or agree with his will is irreverent. If you follow him and worship him without question, maybe, just maybe , when he destroys the world (which will be very shortly I'm told) he might make you a god cop and let you rule over the world carrying out his will on all the unchosen, atheist, gays, ugly lesbians etc. in order to make the world perfect (again). To use a more familiar example(s), it's the same concept as why millions of Germans followed Hitler, Russians Stalin, Chinese Mao, Catholics the Pope, Muslims the Ayatollah and Bin laden.....
God doesn't need your love, kicksave23, you have to appease him lest every kind of disgrace befalls you.
God is good to those who do His will. It’s always been a two-way street. Turn from God and He will turn from you and vice versa.
2Ch 30:9 “...for the LORD your God is gracious and merciful, and will not turn away his face from you, if ye return unto him.”
Everyone has it in their ability to “choose” God. Deu 30:19 “I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:”
The appeal from God is to choose life.
What point are you trying to make? I fail to see the Stalin and Hitler relevance.
I'd like to know why a benevolent deity wouldn't require propitiation? It's not as if people who don't attempt to appease God are any worse off in life, they just won't be judged worthy. No big deal, right? God says "Do this and I will bless you, do this and I will punish you". It's the same as a parent says to a child. The only thing wrong with this is mankind; they don't like to be told what to do. God's commandments aren't difficult to follow, man just doesn't like to have his style cramped.
I don't know you from a hill of beans but I'm pretty sure you don't possess the insight to know that every religious person on the planet worships God as a precaution. :)
My previous comment was not directed at you Jason, you're FUBAR.
"What happened to "love thy enemy" and "hate the sin not the sinner"?"
Sin is an action, without a sinner there is no sin. To hate sin is to transfer the responsibility from the sinner to the sin, which is both illogical and absurd because it makes the sin a separate thing in and of itself from the sinner (creatio ex nihilo). Ask any Christian and they will tell you that on Judgment day god will judge and punish the sinner not the sin. Keeping these points in mind, it would seem that the way to view the statements "love thy enemy" and "hate the sin not the sinner", is, that we are not to judge that that is gods domain. So, if someone sexually molests your child, you should hate that they were molested not the one who molested them, you should love them and let god judge. I say smile while you pull the trigger!
The author of Luke wrote that Jesus explicitly said "love your enemies and do good to them and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked" (!?) I think there's no need to look for further interpretations of that verse.
I remember reading elsewhere that Martin Luther (the German monk) said that the Turks were God's whip and should not be resisted. Had his advice been heeded, Europe (and America) would had suffered the same fate as Constantinople. Christianity can be suicidal at times.
""love your enemies and do good to them and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked""
Hum lets see, this passage is about lending money, it contradicts what is stated else where in the bible about lending and treating your enemies, and it makes it appear that being bad is a win-win, the good should treat you good and god will be kind to you (makes the whole judgment thing seem so unnecessary) which is also contradicted else where in the bible. And as for "he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked" this could only apply to Jews not Gentiles since you can't be ungrateful for something you haven't been given yet. Even for the Jews "he is kind" it is a tough argument to make for the wicked or the good. Nope no need to look for further interpretations.
If God/the Bible hated the sinner, there would be no reconciliation for our sins since, as sinners, we're punished because of the fact we have the ability to sin. This isn't the case. Our sins our forgiven each and every time we ask God for forgiveness. The SIN is forgotten, not the sinner. If God hated the sinner, then death would be the punishment whenever we broke the law. This isn't the case either.
The "love your enemy" is part of a series of verses that explain that someone who does good to someone who is bad shouldn't expect anything in return because both are sinners. Everyone sins. Everyone is evil. Through God's mercy, the righteous who have lived their lives as best they can according to His commandments will be judged worthy.
The statements;
"Our sins our forgiven each and every time we ask God for forgiveness. The SIN is forgotten, not the sinner."
And
"Through God's mercy, the righteous who have lived their lives as best they can according to His commandments will be judged worthy."
Are contradictory. If all sins are forgiven and forgotten, what are the righteous being judged for......What about all those who have never heard of god or his commandments. What about those who can't ask, babies, the mentally challenged etc.. Also to be forgiven one first has to have a genuine belief in god, since there are those who don't, I invoke the argument from non-belief as proof of gods non-existence.
The righteous will be judged based on their faith and obedience, although ultimately it's God's mercy that is the catalyst for salvation.
Those who have never heard of God or His commandments won't be judged (Romans 2:12). And for those that can't ask for forgiveness, they're committed into the hands of God.
Of course one has to believe in God before they're forgiven. Isn't that obvious...?
Not that any of this has to do with witches...
"Of course one has to believe in God before they're forgiven. Isn't that obvious...?"
Yes, but it doesn't address the argument from non-belief.
"Not that any of this has to do with witches..."
God kills witches, or more specifically orders his lackeys to do it. The first question is how is that compatible with an all good god, you answered with the only defensible answer, god is not all-good. The next question is are you OK worshiping a god like that, the answer is apparently yes. Some follow on questions I would have are, 1) how is killing witches not contradictory to being judged by god after death 2) since no witch really has any power (unless god gave it them) what is the point 3) how is killing them not a violation of the whole freewill argument 4) by ordering his followers to do the killing he has put judgment in the hands of man (sinful man), what is the sense in that.....
How can there be a non-belief argument? If one doesn't believe God exists, there is no such thing as sin, repentance doesn't accomplish anything, and salvation is only another drink away.
About witches...
1. Because it's not.
2. Practicing witchcraft was abhored by God. It's not about whether witches had any legitimate power, it's about where the glory and worship was being directed. It's the same reason why idol worship was forbidden.
3. What's the freewill argument?
4. The judgment was given by God in the laws. E.g. "If you do this, then you will be punished." Likewise, when a judge orders someone to die by lethal injection, who made the judgment, the judge or the person injecting the needle?
"3. What's the freewill argument?"
There are many, but in this context, god supposedly gave humanity freewill, the right to chose or not chose god in life and therefore the afterlife. For god then to say that you are free to chose him in life but if you chose not to, he will kill you in this life and reject you in the next is directly incompatible with the argument of freewill on multiple levels. The judgment of god and the judgment of men are vastly different things in context, the same for example as the faith in your wife is vastly different in context from faith in god. You conveniently make no distinction between the two in your arguments.
BTW, it is clear from the bible that witches and other gods had real [supernatural] power. If you believe that god is the only god, then god would of had to have given them the power which he then condemned them for using. But since we agree that god isn't all good such actions aren't surprising.......
I've decided that God created the serpent, allowed Eve to eat the 'apple,' creating sin just because he enjoys watching war, murder, rape, torture, lying, greed, envy, et cetera.
That sounds a lot like the Demiurge of the Gnostic's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic
There is also the idea that Satan who has direct influence in this world, influenced events and the biblical writers to his POV, therefore those who can see that what is written in the bible can not of come from the all loving god, are the ones on the true path to god.
I fail to see the relevance of your point in relation to the punishment of witches in the OT. God says, “Follow my commandments and live. Don’t follow them and die.” What part of this infringes on freewill? Any Israelite could still have practiced witchcraft if they so desired.
Your argument seems to presuppose that freewill cannot exist where there are laws. This is flawed for any number of reasons, least of all because laws in of themselves cannot stop someone from committing a specific act.
The judgments of God and the judgments of man are certainly different but in the case of punishing witches, the judgment was already handed down by God: witches were to die.
God has given power to dozens of people to accomplish incredible things but, much like Moses, Samson, Solomon and Peter, the individual is still held responsible for their actions [or lack therefore] when using this power. Being given power from God never removed the responsibility which comes with freewill.
Just because things have slowed down as of late:
====
Jason said...
Bingo.
The OT paved the for the NT.
No one goes by the OT because it's null and void.
Mon Apr 16, 07:22:00 AM 2007
====
and then:
====
Jason said...
Kick, the OT itself isn't null and void, only the law....
Mon Jun 11, 10:19:00 AM 2007
====
Please read the context before attempting to discredit. The context of my first comment was in response to: "Perhaps in your studies you will find that Christians are no longer under the Law of the Old Testament."
It's really quite simple: The old law, given to the Israelites, has been replaced by the new law, given to believers via Christ. No one's saying that the Old Testament is useless and not worth reading because there are some wonderful lessons and stories in the OT, many of which are applicable to Christians today (the trials of the Israelites, the faith of Caleb and Joshua, the relationship between Ruth and Boaz, etc.).
In context, your response was in answer to the question if anybody goes by the Old Testament anymore.
As far as the OT being good for the wonderful stories and lessons, I think it's been proven that, statistically, that book is far more filled with tales of destruction and murder. Including that of witches. (Hey, look. I'm back on topic!) :o)
Like I said, the context of my comment was a response to "Perhaps in your studies you will find that Christians are no longer under the Law of the Old Testament." The discussion was regarding the old versus the new law.
Whether or not anything's been proven anywhere about the prevelant theme in the OT isn't what's being discussed. The Old Testament contains great lessons and stories, many of which are applicable to Christians today (the trials of the Israelites, the faith of Caleb and Joshua, the relationship between Ruth and Boaz, etc.).
Interesting article on witchcraft from Sam Harris.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-witchcraft_b_53865.html
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:7)
Sounds kinda like Jesus didn't nullify anything.
Jesus Christ came to fulfill the law not abolish the law, correct. But focus on the word fulfill, Jesus also said the battle is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities of darkness God has always has offered people this grace whether Jewish or gentile, but He now is making it clear to His disciples that "the Ultimate Sacrifice has been made". The reason He allowed people to be killed in the OT is not because He believe in murder, but there were deliberate threats to the people of God, just as there are to people nowadays. The General Church is not against war and killing when it is necessary to survive. Many of the wicked people in the Bible desired to destroy Israel, just as they are today. God has not changed, but offered grace.
Hey guys. I think that most of you are missing a huge point... Witches get their power from Demons and the Devil. God did give the devil power while he was still an angel. did no one else think of that? and to all athiests who may read this, i have a question for you. Suppose that you are right and i am wrong. what happens then? we die and our bodies decompose and we are dead. woo. i dont recieve a penalty for being wrong. Now lets suppose that i am correct and you are not. i believe i will go to heaven and spend eternity with my creator, savior, and friend. you on the other hand, go to HELL where you will burn for all eternity. hmmmm. think on that.
Post a Comment