Recently I wrote a question and got a bunch of hype on it because one one lady. Me and her have been debating the existence of her "God", and the truth of how old mine are. I know this may seem silly, but she is determined to debate me on this, so I open this forum to both of us and whoever else may want to join in, she is trying to show me how true her scripture is, and I am trying to prove that she's not the only one with scripture and that hers was not at all true. The Roman's made Christianity to stop a civil war from breaking out in the region, she refuses to acknowledge this, most people do. When the Egyptians lived and prospered it was long before Christians, long before Judaism, now I'm aware this is going to open up much more than Pagan and Christian debate, but this is truth. Egyptians marched through to Syria where they had a battle on the border in Megiddo. Megiddo is now present day "Israel". Back then it was all Syria. That is just to state the fact that the one "God" religions are not as old as the Pantheon I follow. I follow the Ancient Egyptian religion, customs, and culture. I've tried to explain many of this to this lady and she refuses to listen that Jesus, never existed. Exodus never happened. That many of the bible is stolen from most of mine, and many others that are far more Ancient then the "Bible" itself.
So here this is: Let's debate openly and respectfully and may the minds be strong, and may all prosper in this debate, and leave with new visions. Be respectful, no disrespecting anyone's religions, and no one result to insulting anyone, lets stick to facts, and love, in our beliefs.
I got a good laugh out of that. I can see why you might be arguing. Not that I can see why either of you care enough to argue about what the other believes; your beliefs on the history and nature of Christianity are not mainstream. Claiming that most people agree with your assumptions is presumptuous.
The Roman's made Christianity to stop a civil war from breaking out in the region, she refuses to acknowledge this, most people do.
Most people do not acknowledge that Christianity was a Roman fabrication.
I've tried to explain many of this to this lady and she refuses to listen that Jesus, never existed.
The nature of Jesus is, of course, open to debate but most honest scholars (with no agenda) agree that the probability of Jesus having been a real person is quite high.
I do realize that attempting to convince people that a pantheon of Egyptian gods exists is an uphill battle; and I do sympathize.
Christianity IS a Roman fabrication. Of course most people don't acknowlege that fact, why would they?
I'm afraid I missed those studies and those articles.....by reputable scholars. Could you enlighten me?
I don't need "articles" or "scholars" to tell me Christianity is a fabrication, just like all religions. Do you have proof that The Christian God is real? I'd love to see your evidence.
Don't change the subject. If you have nothing to back up what you say; it's best not to speak.
Christianity, at its simplest, is simply belief that Jesus was the messiah. You can't really claim anything else about the religion. You can't argue any specific sect's doctrine as representative of Christianity; simply because not all Christians believe in any one doctrine. You can't make any claims as to the nature of Jesus, because not all Christians would agree.
When you state that Christianity was a Roman fabrication I assume you are looking at Constantine? Not the founder of the faith?
You have nothing to back up what you say. I'm not changing the subject.. All religions are fabrications, unless you can prove your God is real. Go ahead, I'm waiting.
I think I'll be waiting a long time for your proof.
I'm not here to argue in defense of my beliefs. (Mainly because what you believe doesn't matter to me) I simply think people should not state opinion as fact. You are the one who made a claim in defense of the OP. Certainly you can explain why you think everyone thinks Christianity is a Roman fabrication. I've never heard this belief. I'd like to know more, if there is more than personal belief involved in the formulation of this opinion.
I never said everyone thinks Christianity is a Roman fabrication. In fact, I'm pretty sure I said the exact opposite.
It's your OPINION that Christianity is real, and not a fabrication. Depending on your intensity of belief, I would even suggest it's a delusion,as it goes against all logical and evidence to the contrary.
You said Christianity IS a Roman fabrication. Of course most people don't acknowlege that fact, why would they? . Can you defend that statement? Or, are you simply attempting to argue over nothing?
She's turning the question back unto you because she has nothing to work with---as you well know. She admitted that she does not read articles or any scholarly publications. I'm sorry to say that "debating" with her (if you can call it that) is a futile exercise. She doesn't have sufficient knowledge about history or archaeology, etc, etc.. Nevertheless, forums are all about expressing opinions....and I'm no scholar either. So, I guess what I'm saying is---you might have a better debate with someone who has more knowledge about ancient history---knowledge based on facts rather than pure conjecture or bias. Just a thought. Sorry, Jane.
Live to learn, I never said most people agree with me, I meant most Christians don't agree with it, you misunderstood what I meant, I think that this will clear that up, and most scholars on the subject are completely biased because most of them are following what won't disagree with Christianity, mostly because it may start a huge civil war... If you don't believe me maybe you should read John Anthony Wests book, the serpent in the sky, a great read, and he does tell the truth about mainstream scholars.
Now on the other hand, there is NO physical evidence to the fact Jesus lived, or was real other than a few forgery accounts that have been proven forgeries, and if you need proof on that I suggest you use your fingers and google search it.
The cool thing about the internet is you can find 'proof' to back up anything you want to believe. Of course, that's also the irritating thing about the internet.
Well I would believe people who spent their lives searching for real truth rather than those who say something is the truth without disproving those who found actual truth
Truth, on a universal scale, in the category of religion is not verifiable. Anyone who believes it is and argues in defense of their belief being superior to the belief of another is hoodwinking themselves. Believe what you want, but state verifiable truth as truth and unverifiable belief as simply that. It would (possibly) alleviate some of the problems you are experiencing.
Much of ancient human history is open to debate and always will be. However, you claimed Christianity to be a Roman fabrication. I find this odd, simply because many of the documents which comprise the New Testament pre-date Constantine and the Nicene council by some 200 years. There is solid evidence that the early Christians were persecuted by the state. This seems rather odd to me, when coupled with a belief that the Roman state fabricated Christianity. If you could simply offer some evidence, other than offering the broad statement The Roman's made Christianity to stop a civil war from breaking out in the region.
You said it yourself "Truth, on a universal scale, in the category of religion is not verifiable." I think you are reaching for verifiable proof where there is probably just a guess as to how old the testament is. And I doubt that temples with written accounts is unverifiable
You seem to be putting words in my mouth which I've never said. Where, exactly, did you decide I was looking for verifiable proof of something?
You were saying that Christians were long before the nicene council I stated that they are not. You were trying to prove some how that Christians were not a fabrication, but never offered any evidence to this, so I copied and pasted what you had said about verifiable proof, and now here we are. Or should I copy and paste the whole thing so you can read and understand what had happened?
I would think the fact that we have Christian writings which predate the Nicene Council by hundreds of years would be proof enough. But, I suppose you haven't stumbled upon those documents yet so you couldn't be expected to understand it to be true.
The Council of Nicea was in the fourth century. The majority of New Testament documents have copies which existed hundreds of years prior to the council. The gnostic gospels also predate the Council by hundreds of years. Early Christian writing outside of the New Testament also predate the Council. You can say that all of these were made up and that Rome was working its way toward the creation of a religion. Creating the back story for it; but I don't see any evidence to support such a belief.
You might also consider the following:
Carbon dating on the bones of what have traditionally been viewed as belonging to Paul the apostle appear to corroborate that tradition. They are dated to the time that Paul would have been alive. That is three centuries prior to the Council. Of course the Vatican commissioned the study, so we can easily say it is Christian propaganda.
The Israeli antiquities authority have dated a Christian church discovered to the third century ( well before the Nicene Council). But, we can say that Israel made this up to support Christian propaganda.
This is an article from Live Science concerning archaeological research on a Christian tomb discovered in Jerusalem which dates to about 70 AD.
http://www.livescience.com/18697-christ … tions.html
but, this too can easily be argued to mean anything one wants it to mean.
The point is that there is ample evidence which a 'free thinker' would accept as evidence that there were people who were called Christians in the first, second and third century. The only reason to dispute this fact is if preconceived notions and firmly held beliefs stood in the way.
It also helps that the "honest scholars" were either Christians or brought up in a christian environment.
No, I don't think so. No one is claiming anything supernatural by stating that the guy probably lived. I'm not sure why the possibility of that fact might cause some consternation but it does. Those without a dog in the fight don't have any problem accepting that the guy lived. Those with a dog in the fight on either side will certainly stick to their particular party lines.
I feel that you are correct in the matter BuddiNsense. That's exactly what John Anthony West states as well, which is what I was referring to. I'm glad someone in here is reading
What would have been an accurate statement is 'I'm glad someone in here is reading what I'm reading'.
Not everyone is so easily swayed by everything they read. Although, it is easy to search for authors who reinforce already held beliefs and use those authors as somehow proving the validity of that belief.
I would like to know why it is that you feel the need to insist that someone is wrong and someone is right. Especially on a subject that is all conjecture to start with.
LiveToLearn, I never looked for anything. That's what you haven't even tried to consider, everything I learned, and know has come to me without searching at all. I simply stumbled upon it, read it and understood it to be true, based on all evidence present. Now it's your duty as a person of a free thinking mind to either except the truth as it is, or deny it based on a preconceived bias. Either way I don't care, I made this forum for me and Norine to discuss her faith openly without giving other people in my Question a headache. So if you want to debate whether Jesus is real or not maybe offer up more than the bible and forged documents.
The point I have been trying to get across is not that Jesus is real. That is your preconceived notion about me. My point is that nothing can be proven; your claims included. Take this post of yours. You are expecting others to accept what you present as truth. You state it's your duty as a person of a free thinking mind to either except the truth as it is, or deny it based on a preconceived bias. and you don't appear to understand how pot/kettle this whole line of argument is when using it to attempt to refute Christianity. My duty as a free thinking person is not to accept your statements without proof. It is to look at the evidence. You have provided none. Just claims. Which is a typical religious argument.
You 'stumbled upon it. read it. understood it to be true based on all evidence present.' This claim is no different from any other religious claim. The only proof you have is your belief that what you say is true, which isn't proof.
All evidence present does not appear to point to ancient Egyptian gods being real any more than it points to any other deity being real. We could just as easily attempt to argue that Spiderman existed but Superman was a fraud.
Once you remove the supernatural from the gospels, what does remain? A exaggerated story of a rebel who was killed? A preacher? A faith healer? Supporters of each version object and take the floor out of the others. And if we look at the last books of OT and then Paul, Mark.... in that order we can see that how the Jesus story evolves.
But the main problem still, if there was a man behind the stories of the gospel, is(there could have been a thousand Jesus there then and each could fit a different bill like Jesus ben Ananias), has he got any resemblance to the man in the gospel, if not what is the point in saying that there was a real Jesus?
Well, when I said there was probably an historical Jesus I was speaking of the one mentioned in the gospels. Whether you want to believe the supernatural aspect of the story or not, is a personal choice.
There is no Jesus as in the gospel, there is no wonder worker, preacher, with a large following, who was a rebel, who got crucified.
Jesus ben Pandira (?) - miracle worker
Jesus ben Ananias - preacher ?
Jesus ben Saphat. - rebel.
If we mix these three characters together and write a story, can we say that there was a historical Jesus behind that story? Add to that the mythological dying and rising messiahs and heavenly priests.
The fact is, we do not even know that it is "Jesus" we are talking about, "8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,…", te name was given after Crucifixion. And according to some he lived at the time of Alexander Jannaeus, the Macabee.
Not sure where you got your info from but it's clearly not Historical! No Historian doubts the Jesus of the gospels existed. What they often challenge is whether we understand him right!
This thread is about why Christians "attack" (which sad to say they do at times) but here you are doing the same thing!
Discussing who Jesus is is one thing,attacking others for their beliefs is another!
If you had cared to check our exchange, it started with him making the same assumption as yours, historians agree that there was a Jesus. I pointed out that the "historians" having a Christian background always helped. It also helped that very few historians ever bothered to study the historicity of Jesus.
PS: Why Christians attack, isn't it obvious? They are following their master who called his opponents vipers.
I respect your doubt. Which is one reason I think mainstream Christianity has gotten much of the message wrong. A guy lives over 2000 years ago. We can't verify historically much of anything; much less any of the supernatural aspect of the story. Nor can we point to contemporary evidence which corroborates that story. It's a problem.
But I see it from a different angle than you do; obviously. Jesus was apparently worshiped by the crowds. Such an ability to cause the people to gather would have certainly caused others to attempt to follow what they saw as the formula for success. Jesus himself, and the apostles, were said to have been approached by people who wanted the secret of their success. Nor do I think his historical name of Yeshua was an oddity as far as a name given to children. I would think it was about as common as the name Mary. Running across historical accounts of several people using that name wouldn't necessarily mean we were talking about a composite figure.
But, not withstanding the fact that everyone apparently believed the end was near and spent those first few decades preaching the fact and not documenting the events....the bulk of original disciples probably didn't have the ability to read and write so their recollections were most likely compiled by others (years after the life changing event), throw in Paul who really is a monkey wrench of sorts, add the Nicene council who started the oppression of all understandings which deviated from their approved one and the destruction of documents which opposed their party line, throw on top of that a millenium and a half of the Church strong arming everyone into toeing that party line...deviation from which would result in a painful death; I still think the gospels are an account of a particular man.
Whether or not we can point to evidence of several (or hundreds) of people running around awing the crowds with feats of magic or whatnot I think it is fair to say the New Testament is the result of the followers of one of those people. Not a composite of all of them.
That's just my opinion.
OK, But I pointed out the difficulty in that approach too, those who support one version, say preacher, can easily show the faults of all other versions. That also will not tell us why Paul's Jesus is mostly like a heavenly Jesus which closely resembles the dying and rising messiahs of later books of old testament.
PS: I also prefer Jesus to be mythical than historical as the gospels portray a very bad character.
Yes, it is easy to point out faults. But, pointing out faults is an exercise designed for those who want to be swayed and those who want to sway. I'm neither. I really don't know enough to present a strong argument in defense of, or against, Paul and his idea of Jesus. I don't really care one way or the other but, Paul was a pharisee so I would think that whatever you are talking about could be looked at from that angle.
I'm not sure what bad character you are talking about the books portraying. I'd like to be half the person I see represented.
Do you ever call your mother, women in public?
Do you deny your mother and brothers in public?
Do you curse your opponents in public?
Do you curse towns because they didn't hear you?
Do you get into church with whips?
Do you walk around with the scum?
Are you treated like trickster by your near relatives?
You got the gist?
If that's what you got out of the whole thing, of course you would be against it.
I also got a preacher who is no different from any other preacher over centuries, a fraud.
I could comment on the preacher comment but you've already said what you got out of the image of Jesus presented in the gospels. I would think any preacher who didn't present that image would be considered a fraud by you at this point.
I would consider any preacher who considers himself as god or god's son or sole representative as a fraud.
Ditto. Sounds like your experience was pretty creepy.
It is not a matter of experience,
is never partial
and do not reproduce.
Why do you believe your religion is true,and Christianity is not?
Did I say mine is true? I think I said that mine was older.
I guess I was assuming you believed in your own religion.
As Christianity evolved out of Judaism - is now the greater part of the Abrahamic religions - and as that religion is as old as mankind (just ask them) your claim to an older belief system must be false.
Doubtful seeing as history states that Israel wasn't even there when Tuthmoses the 3rd invaded Megiddo (Syria) a thousand years before Christ.
Thutmose 3rd is believed by many to be the Pharoah of the Exodus. Christianity is an extension of the Jewish faith and they were just leaving Egypt at the time
Canaanite villages dating to the period have been found in North West Sinai and along what is now the Suez canal. Archaeologists believe this is the Biblical "Goshen" they date to around 1,400 BC
But there is no actual evidence in Egypt of any Hebrews, so how is that possible? Also Tuthmoses the 3rd fought 3 more battles against the Syrians. So how could Jewish settlers be there at 1,400BC while this was happening? And as far as records go, they were employing Nubians to help them with the fight, and they employed all their laborers. There is no evidence of slavery in Egypt.
Thutmose or his predecessor had just expelled the Hyksos rulers of Egypt! They are known to have been Canaanite in origin ( no they weren't the Jews) the new rulers were fierce and worried that should the Hyksos come back the Jews would ally themselves with them (effectively a fifth column within Egypt). Thutmose went as far as to drive every enemy of Egypt out of Canaan just to secure Egypt's borders!
The villages are there and it has been suggested that they were trading villages at the start that changed when the new power came to the fore
Then how come that's not apart of history? Also why isn't it apart of Egyptian history? When I've watched and read everything about it and none of what you say is apart of it. I think that you should have something to back up your claims, cause where I'm standing there is no evidence to your claims and all you're doing is making up stuff that hasn't been recorded.
Thutmose was part of the 18th Dynasty right? They were the ones who finally drove out the Hyksos (Encyclopedia Britannica has a fascinating article on them and who they were) a foriegn group that were the 15th thru 17th dynasties and known as the "Shepherd Kings"
Wikipedia also has an article that tries to claim the Hyksos were the original "Habiru" of the Amarna letters (but that goes a bit far for even me) so you see there is evidence. As for the Canaanite villages in the Sinai I may have been wrong on that so I retract that part for now (until I can find a source to send you)
Hope this helps
Are you trying to claim that the now-country of Israel is the only location that God's people ever occupied? That is patently false even without the biblical tale of the Garden of Eden, and the bible clearly records the religion long before 1,000 BC.
But that's irrelevant anyway - you asked why Christians "attacked" you; it may be because, according to them, you are spreading lies about them.
Yeah but there is no Evidence to any of the claims in the bible. without evidence you can't just state that Christianity was around far longer....
Not to mention no one can find the garden of Eden nor can they find the arc from Noah, or the Jewish slaves from Moses, or Jesus himself. I think you are just mad because your only argument comes from a book that doesn't give any actual evidence other than stories, and stories cannot be taken as truth without evidence.
The problem with trying to find the Garden of Eden is that with the Ancient Flood of Noah (attested globally in over 600 cultures outside the Bible including Assyrian, Masai, American Indian, Irish and Ancient Egypt) the geography of Earth was fundamentally changed so that very little if anything remained the same! Check out my hubs on the Flood
Sorry there was no worldwide flood, and though the "600 cultures" claim a worldwide flood they are not at the same time. The geography of earth was fundamentally changed not because of a world wide flood but retreat of ice age.
The bible is the copy of earlier flood myths, a time when not only bible but the Jews didn't exist, the only difference is instead of glorifying Ea, bible is glorifying the a son of the most high, claim him as the hero.
You are right that the flood stories come from pre- literate cultures. But there's no reason to suggest that the Israelites were the literary dunces that many 'skeptics' want to make them out to be! Many scholars see the Atraharsis epic and the Noah narrative as being contemporary with later cross fertilization. If you read the hubs you'll find it all dealt with in detail. I don't mind if you don't agree, you'll still enjoy them
The Jews were not a contemporary to Atharhasis. Dunces, no people have a reason to make legends, that fits the time.
What we want to know is whether there really was a flood that the Jews can know of? No, because the bible itself says it was before Jews. Second, can a flood occur as is said in the bible. Again the answer is no. Yes there are flood stories in almost all civilizations but most of these civilizations originated in areas that can be flooded and the rest of the ones have exchange with these civilizations. We can see that the American and Mesopotamian civilizations are not contemporaries.So a flood is mentioned in almost all civilizations is not a proof of worldwide flood.
Of course you can say it, and then "defend" the claim by attacking others. Just as you can claim Jesus never existed and the Exodus never happened with the only "proof" being that you can't find any proof it DID. (It's really, really hard to prove a negative when there is zero evidence either way).
But whether the bible is true or not is still irrelevant as to why you are "attacked" by Christians defending their faith and belief. Unless you now wish to examine whether Christianity is true or not?
You are the one who brought it up sir, now you want to say that I'm attacking when I just stated there is no proof? I'm not attacking anything, I stated this in the beginning that this is why Christians attack me because they cannot acknowledge the fact there is no proof to any claims made in the bible. Can you say the same about my religion on the other hand? Egyptian religion is well documented and very well recorded, there are many things to collaborate claims made by Egyptians for example the Emerald Tablets, which is written by one of the Egyptians Gods Thoth, and everywhere Aset found a body part of Osiris there is a temple in his honor. There is even a shrine for him. Yet with Jesus there is no shrine where he was supposedly buried and raised from the dead, there are no ten commandments stone tablets, or the arc that Noah was supposed to of held 2 of every animal, there is nothing to Christianities religion except a bunch of forged documents, and one book.
Now you're going down the road the Christians do: a tablet was written by a god (unproven but highly doubtful) that is a dissertation on alchemy (known to be false). A goddess (unproven) found a body part (conveniently unavailable) of another god (also unproven).
Your evidence is about as good as theirs; a collection of writings and tales from long ago but nothing more (don't forget that the bible is a compilation of many documents, with many more left out of the book).
Feeling a bit "stuck in the middle of a crossfire" here not sure I can understand where you are coming from! I've put some things on this feed to show the Bible being consistent with History other than that I'm not trying to attack anything!
I'm pretty sure he was referring to me Lawrence01 Also the bible is not even close to consistent with history but thank you for giving me that giggle I understand why Christians defend their religion, I mean they fought so hard to make everyone convert, killing, maiming, and torturing anyone who didn't believe, and now they're trying to claim it's the only history hahaha, but honestly if John Anthony West and others who want to do serious scholar work in the field would be allowed to do their work, we would all know the truth, that Christianity which is believed by many to be stories from Egypt, and Sumerians, and the Dogon, and many other Ancient peoples long before they even existed. I feel sad that no one but those who truly search for real truth feel that the bible is the only thing of truth. I'm not trying to be rude or anything, I'm being honest. I've known it all my life, well most of it, and John Anthony, and many others have made it unofficially true, because those who are influenced by Christians won't allow it to be official. But in my heart it is.
Really interesting what you put here. Both the Ancient Egyptian beliefs and the Abrahamic faith are as old as each other! In fact the Bible does show that (Genesis 4 verse 26 "in those days men began to call on the name of the LORD")
As for Christianity being a construct of the Romans I'd read my hub " In the footsteps of the Apostles" to see there was no way even Rome could ever do it!
Historically Christianity spread outside the Empire too quickly (unless the Roman Empire also annexed India, China and Japan as Christianity reached India in 52AD China in 62AD and possibly even Japan by 72 AD!).
I'm not trying to cause any problems but wanted to set the record straight. As for the rest we will achieve much more through meaningful discussion
Another conspiracy theory that denies the copious historical evidence for the early church and the existence of persons such as St Paul.
You want to make a Christain really upset tell them that there is a bloodline of Jesus in the Ark of the Covernent. That will get them heated.
I have not seen your debate with her! How is she being disrespectful? Is she name calling, mean spirited, or demeaning? Or is she simply being adamant in her defense, as you are? Sometimes when someone won't change their view, and continue in their defense of their side of the argument, we say they are rude, or disrespectful! It sounds like you may be offended because she is not open! I do like that you have laid good ground rules so that says a lot about you!
Check out Ta-Islet's question about politely asking a person to stop trying to convert them - she has given an answer, then proceeded to take over every single other person's answer comments with preaching, bible verses etc, and telling people they are wrong. The disrespect is that she has no respect for anyone else's opinion, yet expects hers to be respected. I'm glad Ta brought it here, but I can't say I'm surprised that she hasn't come to talk about it here.
(The poster has NO Hubs, and 9 followers, has been here for some time so should at least have ONE hub if not several....It appears she is merely using Hubpages as her soapbox to preach from - which is disrespectful to the company of Hubpages).
I do agree with you that some times we see defensiveness of one's opinion as disrepectful, but this was not respectful of others without overt name calling.
I agree, she was pushing her beliefs even after noticing that I would not convert, she tried to belittle me by saying that her God created mine, when there is no evidence of that but of the contrary. I don't know why everyone thinks that a forceful Christian isn't disrespectful but a Pagan with strong beliefs is rude? I'm not at all rude, I'm a smart cookie, but I'm not rude... I do my best not to be disrespectful but I am human I do have my faults. This whole forum was for her to battle with me, and she has not even come to battle with me. I don't know why, I was being respectful enough to allow her to say as many things as she wants, and to speak as long as she wants in paragraphs it would make her happy. Yet she's not here...
by eagle776 years ago
why do people find it so hard to believe there is a God? or that there is a supernatural realm? yet we here about demons and supernatural activity and feel a kind of natural drawing towards these things and I guess we...
by Nicole Canfield4 months ago
Why is it that Christians believe that Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Native Americans, etc. are all wrong in their beliefs and that they'll all go somewhere horrible when they die? Why can't we just accept that other...
by Liam Hallam5 years ago
Why do you feel that many people have deserted a particular religion or simply chosen not to followHave the major religions not moved with the times? As an agostic i'd like to see what others feel and see?
by Steve Andrews5 years ago
On Facebook I know of at least two profiles where the people running them have offended some Pagans by comments they have made from a Christian viewpoint and links they have posted. I have seen this sort of problem...
by Yoleen Lucas3 years ago
You guys - I posted this in the Questions section, but because it turned into a full-blown discussion, HubPagers advised me to move it to Forums. Here it is:"Cult" is defined as a system of beliefs that...
by lucieanne5 years ago
After reading and contributing to so many posts about Christianity on here I'd love for someone to answer this question. Which form (if any)of Christianity is the real deal? It's one thing to get into heated debates...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.