jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (58 posts)

Would you read all of Genesis to children?

  1. profile image0
    Rad Manposted 4 years ago

    I just to the time to reread Genesis as it had been a while since reading all of it. Do you think it's a lesson in morality? Would you read it all to children?

    1. A Troubled Man profile image61
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If so, it would only be reasonable and educational to read to children creation stories from other religions, existing or extinct, as well. They could talk about the various morals, if any, the story teaches and whether or not those morals are commanded by a deity with a tribal reward/punishment mentality or are those morals explained logically and rationally using examples of how humans could live together while helping and benefiting one another through purpose, respect and integrity.

      They might even find one of the latter. wink

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        When reading your post I noticed my original sentence was incomplete, I just toOK the time to reread Genesis... Is what it should have said. This dyslexic head of mine is such a pain.

        There is nothing moral at all about Genesis. What we get from it is God will destroy all for things he feels is not right, but will not share what he feels is right or wrong. Slavery, incest and sexism is condoned and promoted in Genesis.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image61
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You've hit upon the problem of reading such things to kids. While, we as adults can understand those concepts, they usually don't.

          What will you explain to them when they ask about sexism or incest? Good luck with that. big_smile

          1. profile image0
            brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            They can watch it all on TV anyway, read about it in the newspapers, perhaps it will happen in their school community.
            As far as i see this debate about whether the bible is for children or not, its only fuel for a small fire of anti-biblical venting.

            1. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Perhaps you haven't read about Lot and his daughters and how God considered them worthy of being saved. The lesson to that story is daughters are worthless and women are conniving immoral creatures that can't be trusted, but can somehow make lots of wine when living in a cave.

              1. profile image0
                brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                LOL... nice inferences, of course i've read it.
                Gen 9 Noah made the wine.
                worthless you say.. and yet God considered them worthwhile to be saved.
                Perhaps, and here's my inference, you just don't understand what you've read before you interpret bible verses.  Don't worry you are not alone.

                1. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No no no. I understand what I've read perfectly. The bible says God thought them worthy of being saved. That doesn't at all mean God thought them worthy of being saved. You've make many assumptions. You've assumed there is a God and then you assumed the story to be real. Genesis is only propaganda to give Jewish men entitlement. Read it as such and you'll see it for what it is.

                  1. profile image0
                    brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    have many nice days

            2. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It's a tiny blip compared to the hatred coming from you.

              1. profile image0
                brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Which is an even tinier blip than what comes from you.

                adios again lol

    2. theupside profile image59
      theupsideposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Genesis is the basis of the absurd logic that is steering the ship of earth and has been for thousands of years. Most importantly, you should know that Genesis is an allegory. A truth told in story format...

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry, but Genesis is nothing more then Jewish propaganda intended to give Jewish men a sense of entitlement. Reread it like that and you will see it for what it is.

        1. theupside profile image59
          theupsideposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Sure man. Whatever you say..

  2. Shanna11 profile image90
    Shanna11posted 4 years ago

    I wouldn't even try. If I was reading it to kids who were like me when I was little, I would get nowhere. My parents would read it to us, or have us take turns reading passages each night and I literally never once paid attention. I was more interested in ripping out carpet fibers and creating the largest stack possible, or snickering each time the bible 'swore'.

    1. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm glad you had the sense to not listen.

      This just might me the most pathetic excuse to save a man (Lot) I've ever heard.

      Genesis 19
      3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

      6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”

      To save the two strangers from gang rape, he offers his two virgin daughters and God thought Lot was worth saving.

      Or a little later on.

      30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”

      I think that's immoral, but the genesis tells the story without any punishment.

      1. renegadetory profile image93
        renegadetoryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well for starters, Lot recognized that these were angels of the Lord.  It would seem he placed greater value on their lives then that of his own children.  Not a big stretch from Christ's instructions for us to love him so much that  what we feel for anyone else, including our own children is similar to hate (Luke 14:26).

        Secondly, both Lot and his daughters lived in Sodom, the den of iniquity that God destroyed with fire and brimstone due the total depravity of the people who lived there.  From Scripture it would appear that Lot's wife loved the city and I'm sure others in his family did too and were influenced by their surroundings.

        The daughters truly thought that they were alone (wouldn't you think the world was coming to an end if you witnessed a city being utterly destroyed)?  What they did, though it is not right, they did not sin intentionally, in that they wanted to be evil.  In their mind they thought they were doing a good thing.  In scripture there is a difference between someone sinning deliberately and someone sinning without their knowing they are sinning (in ignorance).

        1. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          He didn't think the angels could handle themselves? I think it had something to do with the writers' of genesis complete lack of respect for women. Notice he said "But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.” I guess his daughters did not have that same protection because he was about to throw them to the wolves?

          Did you not notice that Lot and his two daughters were living in a cave because they were afraid to go to Zoar. They clearly new there were more people there, but they decieved there own father to have sex with them by getting him drunk with wine. WINE, where do you think they got the wine?

          If you ask me an intentional sin would be to get your father drunk and have sex with him. They did that with intention and were not punished by God for doing this. Do you think that's a story to read to children?

          1. renegadetory profile image93
            renegadetoryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Well, I started reading the Bible when I was 15 and I never ended up getting my dad drunk and sleeping with him... but, I think that it's up to the parents as to whether they want to read it or not.  I wouldn't read this to my 1 and 3 year old.  I have 2 children's Bibles I read to them with lot's of pictures and it's easier for them to understand.  I don't know how much they would glean from this account in Genesis.

            1. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Actually I'm not saying one would get ideas from these stories, but the very young might think it's acceptable behaviour because it went unchecked. No one told them they did anything wrong. They were sneaky and conniving and went behind the father's back to do something disgusting to their father and were no scolded for it. As a matter of fact I think the only reason this story is in the bible is because of a lack of respect for women. Every one except Lot had boys, most women were not even given names and behaved poorly. I don't think the writer or the people at that time thought women could pass down the family blood line, so the writers had Lot pass down the blood line.

            2. profile image0
              brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Lot occurs in genesis which is before the exodus with Moses and the receiving of the Law, so at this point in genesis, there is no societal rule about such matters, until we get to Leviticus chapters 18 and 20.
                 The Patriarchs of Israel are the key to understanding how the priestly laws concerning incest developed. Incest amongst the patriarchs includes Abraham's marriage to his half-sister Sarai;[Gen 20:11,12] the marriage of Abraham's brother, Nahor, to their niece Milcah;[Gen.11:27–29] Isaac's marriage to Rebekah, his first cousin once removed;[Gen 27:42–43;29:10] Jacob's marriages with two sisters who are his first cousins;[Gen 29:10,Ch.29] and, in the instance of Moses's parents, a marriage between nephew and aunt (father's sister).[Exo 6:20].
              Kinda embarrassing criteria in a book which is 98% serious. I mean really, if you were trying to sell this as a book written by a righteous God wouldn't ya just be inclined to leave this stuff out? But, here it is, to be scrutinized, analyzed, dissected, inspected.
              God did not have a 'people' until Moses. God had some people before moses; Lot, Enoch, Noah etc. but it wasn't until that leaving egypt deal went down that God really had, en masse, "His people".  So as we may derive from biblical text that these things did happen. I don't know how frequently but we have some examples anyway to base a skeleton decision. There are probably more examples of people NOT doing that but its human nature to remember ... i digress...
              So seeing as there are no levitical rules and God doesn't seem to be beating them over the head and seeing as God does put the hammer down in Leviticus 18 and 20, we must assume that this practice is to be discontinued. Gene pool impurities? Gods knowledge of the human body and how it works subtly engrained into the society without bringing up huge biological debates?  hmm   lol, Perhaps God did not speak out of a bush to each of these Biblical patriarchs and therefore it was difficult to impune laws upon them. They did these things and i guess God just waited until Moses to govern the people properly.    I dunno,  But the story is what it is and we must admire the honesty in which it is portrayed.

        2. Disappearinghead profile image87
          Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well faced with the choice of looking after one's daughters or looking after angels, I think any sane loving parent would put the daughters first. Angels can look after themselves.

          Oh and there is no evidence that the reason why Sodom was destroyed was to do with homosexuality or any other "sexual depravity".In fact Genesis does not tell us specifically why it was destroyed. Ezekiel actually spells out the reason though.

          Ezekiel 16:49
          “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

      2. profile image0
        brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Sometimes a person thinks they are helping God out, but they aren't. Sometimes christians perceive a way that God wants to move and they wrap their heads around it and try to get their fingers into it and meddle around a bit just to speed things up, just to help God out.
        And this i think is part of the situation here. Lot, to us, today, 5000 yrs later, Lot is doing a terrible thing. Who would do such a thing? Disappearing head is correct in that he said, angels can take care of themselves, which the angels did. I think Lot, panicked, he said a stupid thing! oi veh! what was he thinking..."offer my daughters"... Lot tried to help God out here. He tried to get all involved and meddle it all up. Few people answer their door to a mob situation, lol.  So yes Lot said it but is it the correct thing to say?
        Did God sanction this union?  NO.  The older daughter conceived Moab father of the Moabites and the younger conceived Ben-Ammi, father of the Ammonites. Two nations God did not like.
            Then we read that not long after his two daughters are jumpin his old bones and supposedly, breaking their virginity because they thought there was no man around in that nearby town called zoar. I think we need to look more at the headspace of the daughters than we need to berate Lot. I think the daughters jumpin dad speaks volumes of information about the daughters. For the daughters to jump dad like that and for Lot to offer them up like he did there may be more to Lots daughters than what the translated text doesn't imply.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          And you tell this stuff to children, cousin?

          1. profile image0
            brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I never speak to children except when i come here lol, but seriously, am i to understand that you read my post and then posted that as your reply?

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Glad to hear it.

        2. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Perhaps the more logical answer would be that the writers of the OT were not fond of women. Every women mentioned by name did something immoral. It may also be worth mentioning that the writers were not writing for non Jews. This was clearly propaganda aimed at giving Jews a sense of entitlement. Notice God told Abraham to mark all of his boys with circumcision but made no mention of women.

          1. profile image0
            brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            And in unschooled and unlearned and primitive cultures this is what you get. The strong rule. The strong survive. Men back in these times protected the women and this protection attitude was their state of mind in the lawless times.
                 We look at a ford model T and think, 'wow that ford T was made rather poorly, henry was a bit of a ditz'. But we need to know more about the era the model ford T existed, take into account that alluminum bumpers were not invented yet, lol.. etc.
                Schools have changed the face of populations. Ever met anyone who can't read? Its kind of awkward isn't it. We are so conditioned to understand that everyone has an education that we think these goatherders have their GIDs and diplomas and we even stretch it go to the arena of what nice cities they must live in. None of these people drive cars.
            Just to keep it short; the era and times must always be considered when understanding the bible.


            and when we think of any part of the OT we need to realize that women just got to vote in the 1960's.... women were not in the work place until, guessin a bit here, the 50's and this is in our own society. So when you look back and say they did not have much respect for women and white wash them all with that brush, i'd like to say, that you really don't know. I don't see examples of Gods people treating their women badly. I don't read about unhappy women, feeling oppressed or womens movements of revolt.
            I do not believe the hebrews or the jews, any of Gods people, treated women as second class citizens, oh but wait, we have done the same in modern america, 5000 yrs later. By racism, violence, hatred, greed etc we are not so advanced.
            Only in christ are the women shown much more respect and affection.

            1. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Am I to understand that God didn't see the inherent problems associated with sexism and racism and your saying it's okay that the writers of the bible had an obvious hatred and disrespect of women because that was a long time ago.

              I think this goes a long way to prove that the bible was written by mere men and not at all directed by a just and fair God.

              1. profile image0
                brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Omg there is so much more to it than my brief synopsis.
                God sees a lot of problems and when he had a people to rule he mentioned a lot of things that had to change. I imagine that nuclear bombs might be a problem but we have them. God is not in the business of forcing or magically stopping people from making mistakes even sinning.  There's probably a sign on the way to the lake of fire, "Hope you enjoyed your life", with maybe a yellow smiley face.
                I don't think this does prove what you say, because in order to prove that the bible was written by mere men you have to discard all the other information contrary to your assumption. And just as a note, this is how we make correct interpretation, we take a bunch of different and related scripture verses and line them up and see how it goes. We choose the conclusion that answers the all of the available criteria. All, not just some. And this is what you have done is taken a few scriptures and deduced that a loving God is okay with sexism and racism and nuclear bombs, but in the whole picture, the full counsel of Gods word, we can see that God is alarmed and working in these situations somehow. IF that somehow does not meet up with our designs we cannot blame anything else other than our designs.

                1. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You do understand I'm talking about Genesis here?

                  1. profile image0
                    brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    yes
                    And you understand that my points are taken from across a wider format than just the book of Genesis.
                    Speaking of Genesis. Part of my belief is that there were other people in the garden besides Adam and Eve, previously i had mentioned in a post about the 'primitive mankind' (back then) and comparing it to 'civilized man' (today), Anyway, How can we imagine the mindset of a primitive people (back then)? Especially when they have just emerged from the Garden and can do whatever they imagine. I think of them as running amok when i picture that chaos, not because they are abnormal in any way but they must have had a different mindset than we do today. How much different?
                    We notice, what we call atrocities! yet they seem somewhat common events, we read about wars and brutalities! we know they were common events. We remember that this was in another part of the world from North America and primitive, very little luxury, desert environment, survival is a daily chore, 6,000+ yrs ago... nuff said?

  3. aware profile image70
    awareposted 4 years ago

    no. i wouldn't.

  4. profile image0
    brotheryochananposted 4 years ago

    I don't think the bible was written for children. We can take some stories out and use them at night, whatever. What other books of the secular nature would you not let your children read? Playboy maybe, well, at least not until later on and the bible is not eye level at every 7-11 store or even in walmart or superstore...but you can find all those other 'bad' books everywhere...point is there are books that are meant to be read as people grow older, mature. The bible is one of those books. Its intentions are not to be G rated, but it is PG rated.
    So as with all PG stuff, the content of the lesson depends on the parent. So if your, yknow, one of those parents who get to the part of the men in town wanting to know lot and lot offering to send out his daughters and ya just plow right through with every word like nothin is goin on.... then we have a bad parent and that need be the point of quandary.

  5. Paul Wingert profile image79
    Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago

    Like any other piece of fiction, the Bible, Koran and Hebrew Bible need the following statement printed on the first page that says, "This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places and incidents either are products of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental."

    1. profile image0
      brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely the result of archaeology."

      1. Paul Wingert profile image79
        Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        To a point. Even Homer's The Iliad has actual historical events and places.

        1. profile image0
          brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          An older book than the NT by 900 yrs and no one disputes its translation. Everyone has complete faith that the words contained in the illiad are the proper words and no one worries about it. If we say the bibles translation is poor or sloppy, I guess we need to be leary of the illiad also.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            What a sad argument cousin. But - at least you now admit the bible is just another book rather than the word of a god. Good for you.

            1. profile image0
              brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              i think you either read my post in a dyslectic manner or you comprehended it backwards or else you have a short memory of my other posts.

              1. paradigmsearch profile image84
                paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Sorting you out. Not sure yet.

                1. paradigmsearch profile image84
                  paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Paradigmsearch wanders off...

  6. collincd profile image61
    collincdposted 4 years ago

    It has well documented that women were and have been  highly subserviant to men throughout history. In the case of Christianity, a woman had 2 roles to which they were compared ; Mary, the holiest of all women and mother to Jesus, and Eve, evil temptress to Adam and seduced by Satan. Thus, being banished from Eden. No real great choices to which women could aspire. The dictates of law, rules of living, codes of conduct, and marriage severly ristricted their choices and rights as people. Everything looks good on paper until it gets into the hands of humans and their intrepretation into reality.

    1. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes and God stood by watching according to scripture. There are more roles for women the bible. There's Sara who gave her slave for Abraham to rape and impregnate and let's not forget the slave who when realized she was with child ran away only to have God tell you to go back and submit to your master.
      Let's not forget Lott's two lovely daughters...

      Clearly any compassionate God would have given some instruction on how to treat fellow humans.

      1. profile image0
        brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Lets not forget about the errors of the men. David, Abraham etc... There are good examples of women.. have you ever read the book ruth? do you recall Rahab when she was saved out of Jericho? Do you recall the widow of elijahs time?
          OT  Noah's wife, Esther, Abigail (wife of Nabal and King David), Abishag, Anna, Deborah, Dorcas, Elisabeth, Eunice, Euodias, Hannah, Joanna:    NT; Lois, Lydia of Thyatira, Mary, Milcah, and Phebe
        There is 188 female names in the bible. Two entire books.
        Sorry eve fell but Adam was blamed for that as he was the headship over eve. If a woman wants that kind of responsibility, can only be guessed at.
        So yknow...
        If you are going to look at it that way, the we might as well say that the whole book depicts the failing of a nation to follow God so the whole book is against the jewish nation. So God is okay with anti semitism.

        1. Jean Bakula profile image93
          Jean Bakulaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The original question was if one would read Genesis to children. I would say no, but would find a book of Bible stories more suitable for their ages.

          1. paradigmsearch profile image84
            paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I want to shut this thread down. Can it be done? I am curious.

            1. paradigmsearch profile image84
              paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I am wrong. Never mind, Jeez, ethics sucks.

              1. paradigmsearch profile image84
                paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                And not sure what to do here...

              2. profile image0
                Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Having some internal conflict issues P?

        2. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You certainly are having problems understanding. I'm saying Genesis and possible the entire OT was propaganda intended to give Jewish men a sense of entitlement. If you read it as such you'll see what I mean.

          1. profile image0
            brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            And if you reread my post(s) you will see exactly what you don't mean smile 
            If a person had written a book in the 1950's would they have written a book that put men as second class citizens?  Nope.  And the fact that women were not allowed to vote would surely declare a patriarchal society. No difference, its just the way it was and was just the way it is. You really don't, have a leg to stand on when you speak of the bible being propaganda.

            1. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Your equating someone writing a book in the 1950's to God writing a book thousands of years ago and you don't think I have a leg to stand on? If someone write a book about the 1950's he's just describing events, but if your God writes a book about events and is giving his rules to live by, but doesn't mention treating women equally or not keeping slaves then you God either condones sexism and slavery or it wasn't written by your God at all.

      2. profile image0
        brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Rhetorical question: Have you ever been around a Palestinian when he gets a hate-on? Ever seen a frenzied mob of eastern nationality? Ever read about a people who would suicide bomb a building, plane a tower - regardless of the reason for it ?
        I have
        I don't wanna get into a lot of details and im not trying to be any weird way about this, certainly not trying to convey any prejudice, so lets just say smashed glass and temper extraordinaire. Facial contortions Anyway.
        This is Abraham evolved okay... stop laughin.. :eyeroll:
        When we see these OT people following their fleshly desires to extremes, although i am sure some of those rapes were not rapes, haven't researched them all yet, anyway, If we use the words 'primitive man' as many evolutionists are prone to mention, we might associate a thought to this bothersome question of: "How are primitive men supposed to act and why do or did, they act they way they acted?"
        In our CivilizeD societies today we know how to act and yet there are some people who do terrible things, as we have read about in the bible and in newspapers and we see these same types of people becoming people of God and doing extraordinary things! as primitive as they are, lets not forget that. The suicide bombings and the planes into buildings is a good point to show the passion these people have, which I don't think we pampered cupcakes in north America have lol.
        Philosophy, ethics, metaphysics, ontology, logic, biology, rhetoric, aesthetics and abstract thought was apparently a Greek and then roman thing; entirely new ways of thinking. I don't believe the 'primitive people' of the bible had an individual idea of living, i think they had a more community mindset than we do today. I keep comparing today with back then because i think it important we not think of them back there as like unto us today.  Primitive man must certainly be prone to susceptibility of fleshly desire in a more animal way. We read of a pharaoh who wanted another mans wife so he went and made him an, "offer he couldn't refuse".  Moses introduced his wife as his sister for fear he would be killed over her, in those times, back then.
        Exodus was phat, man, one guy, Egypt toppled from within, fantastic stuff.
        I don't overlook any of the stuff, i don't condone it, I could have done without reading about it, but as i have said before you gotta admire the honesty it is portrayed in. And speaking of honesty, did you know that the Jewish people are foremost in holocaust documentary.  Now who wouldn't have wanted to shift the line over a little bit. But their stuff is confirmed, once again, to be accurate, although i am sure you can find a holocaust debunking site if you search for it.
        have a nice day

      3. profile image0
        brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        When it comes to scenarios like the servant woman being told to go back.. you need to be reminded that whole of the OT serves up types and shadows of things to come, there are also spiritual parallels. There was a reason she was told to go back and it serves as a picture of the tribes then and the gentiles nowadays.  There is more to this story that meets your eyes or spiritual understanding.

  7. paradigmsearch profile image84
    paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago

    "Would you read all of Genesis to children?"

    Give me a break. Who here advised me, I need you.

  8. paradigmsearch profile image84
    paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago

    In the 3 years that I have been here, I have never gone after the stupidity of any individual believer.

    1. paradigmsearch profile image84
      paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Not deleting my previous  post, but do depart.

 
working