Jesus Christ. Man or myth?

[pladecalvo]

You would lose your wager since I have never heard of either of those websites until just now.

Just pulling your leg mate!

So Mark was written 35 to 43 years after Jesus left us, correct?

Around about. Which, before you come back with it, isn't far off 50 years.

Now you need to make up your mind...you've criticized the gospels because they dont share enough of the same information (such as the virgin birth and the resurrection of Lazarus) and now you are criticizing them because they are too similar? The differences between the 3 gospels are a strong enough argument for literary independence amongst the 3. I hate to break it to you but the staunchest critic cannot prove that there was any copying done from Mark's work. All you've got is a theory..a conclusion as you've already said...but nothing more. And wanting it to be true does not make it so!

The 3 are similar in the general story but each author leaves out or adds important things.You should find it suggestive that the Paul make no mention of a virgin birth, raising the dead or walking on water kinds of miracles. A little healing but no big "WOW" except the resurrection. Mark, adds a few miracles but no virgin birth and no raising people from the dead. Matthew has a virgin birth and even more miracles. Luke adds to the virgin birth and presents a slightly more miraculous being. John takes it another step by making Jesus the son of a god, raising Lazarus and generally being more spirit than human. The later the source the more fantastic the reports. - Jesus dies.
- Paul adds resurrection.
- Matthew/Luke add virgin birth.
- John makes him a god.


As I say, that should be suggestive of something to you. If nothing else Paul and the authors of Matthew, Mark and Luke should have noticed something as phenomenal as the raising of Lazarus from the dead. They don't even mention it. John is the only one to record the miracle of Lazarus, a miracle so incredible that it could hardly have escaped the attention of Paul, Mark, Matthew, and Luke had it really happened.

I would like to see your evidence that Matthew was written as late as 100 AD. He wrote it before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD...how do you figure that he could have possibly written it after that event?

Gospel of Matthew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Gospel According to Matthew
An Introduction to the New Testament
Voice Bible Studies, The Gospel of Matthew, Introduction, Lesson 1
Commentary on Matthew

Do you realize how old you are trying to make John?I suspect dear friend, that you may have missed my point.
You've got John writing his gospel even later than he wrote Revelation when there is testimoney that he was in Ephesus when he wrote it! Now, unless you want to go and try to switch the dates that he was in exile on Patmos...your dates are not going to wash no matter what your sources say.

I suspect dear friend that you may have missed the point, which is, the gospels were not written by the people who's names they bear. All the gospels were written by anonymous authors and the names they now bear were ascribed to them by Bishop Irenaeus in the second century CE. So it doesn't matter where Matthew, Mark, Luke or John were when they were supposed to have written them or how old they wer at the time....the fact is, they didn't write them.

I have Josephus' Complete Works because he is a good source of information of what was going on in the time of Christ.

You can forget Josephus as being evidence for Jesus. His references to Jesus are faked.

Please. You're not understanding me here. The followers of Koresh died for a lie that they believed in.

Yes it was a lie but my point is that, just like the apostles, the followers BELIEVED that it was all true.

The difference is that the apostles would have had to die for a lie that they knew was a lie. They witnessed the resurrection. They saw it with their own eyes. If that was a lie they then knew it and could not possible have seen it. Peter went from denying Christ 3 times when he was taken into custody to dying upside down on a cross because of his testimony of the resurrection of Jesus Christ that he swore he saw with his own eyes. Why deny Christ at one point but then die rather than deny Him at a later point? He died because he could not deny what he had seen with his own eyes....that is way different than the followers of a cult who die because they believed a lie. Would the cult members of Koresh die if they had understood that it was all a lie? Would the followers of Jim Jones have willingly drank their poisoned kooliad if they had believed that he was a liar? Of course not. Yet you are implying that the apostles all went to their death knowing that the resurrection never really happened and that Jesus was a fraud.

Poor deluded child!! My friend, What you have written here can only be evidenced in the Bible. So before you claim that it's all true, your first task is to give me evidence that the Bible IS actually true. It's not a bit of good spewing out Bible stories to an atheist....we don't believe that the Bible is true.

....continued.

 

[pladecalvo]

lol...well for starters I would mention that Josephus names James the brother of Jesus...

You can forget Josephus.
Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let me guess...another forgery added in at a later time by the pesky Eusubius, right?

Spot on girl!!

The great religious historian, Eusebius, ingenuously remarks that in his history he carefully omitted whatever tended to discredit the church, and that he piously magnified all that conduced to her glory”
{Robert Green Ingersoll. "The Ghosts". (1877).}


The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion. Such an acknowledgement will naturally excite a suspicion that a writer who has so openly violated one of the fundamental laws of history has not paid a very strict regard to the observance of the other; and the suspicion will derive additional credit from the character of Eusebius, which was less tinctured with credulity, and more practised in the arts of courts, than that of almost any of his contemporaries.
{Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 3 (1776).}



"That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment"
{Eusebius. The title for chapter 32 of the twelth book of Evangelical Preparation} :eek


In a book where Eusebius is proving that the pagans got all their good ideas from the Jews, he lists as one of those good ideas Plato's argument that lying, indeed telling completely false tales, for the benefit of the state is good and even necessary. Eusebius then notes quite casually how the Hebrews did this, telling lies about their God, and he even compares such lies with medicine, a healthy and even necessary thing. Someone who can accept this as a 'good idea' worth both taking credit for and following is not the sort of person to be trusted.
{Richard Carrier, Footnote 6 from "The Formation of the New testament Canon"}

Says it all eh girl?? :nod:

I will get to the other reply later but I have to answer the last bit....when i said that Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus, I assumed you understood that I meant it as in: Met, encountered, had an experience..etc.

Ah! So you must conclude that if Paul never actually met this Jesus..... anything he wrote about him either came from other people who claimed to have known Jesus i.e. stories, voices in his head or visions.....or of course he made it all up to further his newly formed religion!!

I met Christ when I was 28. I did not meet Him in a physical sense...I came to know Him at that age. Paul came to know Christ (Who He is) on the road to Damascus. Thats all that I meant by that.

So , like Paul the only evidence you have for Jesus is subjective voices in your head or visions oh!..... and the Bible of course!

And should I go out and get to know every other person before I dare call you a unique person?

Well when I was in school, which was a long time ago granted, the definition of the word unique was " being only one of it's kind". So in order to refer to something as unique you need to be sure that nothing which is the same exists. So yes, in order to refer to me as unique you would have to have information on every other human that exists...to know that there is not another like me. Same applies to the Bible. It can't be considered unique as a literary work unless all other literary works that exist have been examined to ensure that there is no similarity.....and that isn't the case with the Bible. The Bible is a collection of the mythical stories found in pagan religions that preceded it. The stories are the same, only the names have been changed.

The Bible is a unique book. No doubt about it!

Sorry but there is in fact, a lot of doubt about that. The very fact that I doubt the Bible is enough to show that your claim that there is no doubt... is untrue.

I would hazard a guess and say that many non-believers also acknowledge Jesus Christ the son of God too. They may not believe that He is the only way to be reconciled with God but they do believe in His existence just the same.

Oh come on valley...you're pulling my chain 'aintcha! Non believers are call atheists....we have no belief in gods. Why would we acknowledge the man-god.

To go one step further...you an make the same argument for the existence of God. You can do tons of reasearch but what it all boils down to in the end is faith, doesnt it.

Oh! Absolutely correct..but you also need to acknowledge what religious faith actually is. Religious "faith" is the last refuge of those who refuse to accept what the evidence says.

Faith is what is use when you refuse to recognize logic and evidence when it tells you something you'd rather not believe. Faith is simply the practice of ignoring the supportable in favour of a desired belief.

Of course he met Jesus. Same way that I met Jesus for the first time when I was in my late 20's. Its all about context, baby!

You need to be careful of those voices in your head girl...people have been locked up for less!!:eek


I'm going to try to get back to your other points soon but at the moment, the call of shopping, grass cutting and house repairs are getting increasingly louder and the holes in my back indicate that 'She Who Must Be Obeyed' is not happy.

Hasta luego.....hope to catch you later.

 

[valley]

Yes it was a lie but my point is that, just like the apostles, the followers BELIEVED that it was all true.

Arghh....

Read this slowly and try to let it sink in....what you suggest is that the apostles died for a LIE that they KNEW was a LIE!

Followers of Koresh-----> Died for a lie that they thought was true
Apostles------------------> Died for a lie that they knew was a lie.

What part of that are you not understanding? How do you explain their deaths? They did not believe a lie the way cult followers do....they would have had to have known that it was a lie and that they were promoting it. If Jesus was a fraud, then He did not come back from the dead 3 days later because thats not humanely possible so they would have been lying about that and the other miracles they witnessed.

My friend, What you have written here can only be evidenced in the Bible. So before you claim that it's all true, your first task is to give me evidence that the Bible IS actually true.

LOL....well, I will try and put something together for you if thats what you really want. I've been studying the Bible for close to 12 years now. I didnt suddenly come to believe it was the word of God based on one argument with a believer...it took time because there is a ton of evidence and a person cant build a case for the Authority of Scripture in one sitting...nice of you to invite me to do so of course but I seriously doubt you really are open to examining any evidence I have to show. You are the kinda guy I was talking about to Andre...you want me to jump through hoops for your viewing pleasure, I suspect. I could sit here and spend 3 hours carefully typing out all of the historical & archaeological evidence that supports the veracity of the Bible and you would gloss over the details the same way that you have the points that I have already made, such as the one in the last section.

It's not a bit of good spewing out Bible stories to an atheist....we don't believe that the Bible is true.

Yet set a task before me that you already know that you arent going to believe. Can you tell me why? :confused I know Atheists who believe that Christ existed...how do you explain that?

I will get to the next post later on..I cant wait to get to the part you wrote about Paul. :thumbup I'm picking my daughter up in just 3 hours from a wilderness trip she took with a bunch of other teens at a Christian camp. They went up into the mountains, paddled canoes 3 miles up into the woods and roughed it for a week on the edge of a lake. I've missed her terribly. Its no fun being the only girl in a houseful of men! I want my little girl back with me!!! :willy_nilly:

Anyhoo...i'll be back to destroy your other post later....

 

[pladecalvo]

Arghh....

Read this slowly and try to let it sink in....what you suggest is that the apostles died for a LIE that they KNEW was a LIE!

Followers of Koresh-----> Died for a lie that they thought was true
Apostles------------------> Died for a lie that they knew was a lie.

What part of that are you not understanding? How do you explain their deaths? They did not believe a lie the way cult followers do....they would have had to have known that it was a lie and that they were promoting it. If Jesus was a fraud, then He did not come back from the dead 3 days later because thats not humanely possible so they would have been lying about that and the other miracles they witnessed.

Arrrrrggggggghhhhhh!!Please supply non-religious evidence that they existed in the first place.

LOL....well, I will try and put something together for you if thats what you really want. I've been studying the Bible for close to 12 years now.

Well I'm ahead of you by 28 years

...nice of you to invite me to do so of course but I seriously doubt you really are open to examining any evidence I have to show

I'm open to examine anything but so far, everything that Christians have asked me to examine has turn out to be Christian propaganda, Biblical, Christian biased or just plain old wishful thinking.

You are the kinda guy I was talking about to Andre...you want me to jump through hoops for your viewing pleasure, I suspect. I could sit here and spend 3 hours carefully typing out all of the historical & archaeological evidence that supports the veracity of the Bible and you would just gloss over what it says......

If that is so....how do I differ from you? I could also spend 3 hours carefully typing out all of the historical & archaeological evidence that contradicts what the Bible says and you in turn would gloss over it. I could give you historical and archaeological evidence that there was no world flood, no tower of Babel, no Nazareth in the first century, no exodus, no plagues of Egypt, no conquest of Canaan, no "Golden Age of Solomon", no" Massacre of the Innocents" from Herod. ......all those things that the Bible says are true.....and you would hand wave it away. I could show you the proven historical inaccuracies in the book of Daniel and the numerous failed prophecies in the Bible as a whole.......but you would wave them all away because you don't want to accept as mythology, that which you really want to be true. So what you claim for me must also apply to yourself.

I know Atheists who believe that Christ existed...how do you explain that?

Very easily! They are not atheists. Atheists do not believe in gods ....it's as simple as that. If you know people who claim to be atheist....yet believe in the Christian Jesus Christ then it is very obvious that they and you, have absolutely no idea of what an atheist is.

Anyhoo...i'll be back to destroy your other post later....

Yeah!! In your dreams sunshine.

Valley,

We are never going to come to any agreement and each of us producing "evidence" that the other counters with contradicting "evidence" is really just a waste of each others time. Let's do this one last thing. Each of us will produce one piece.......you for the existence of the biblical Jesus Christ and me against. We will agree to read each others "evidence" and after that.....agree to differ if neither agrees with the others article (which of course we won't).

What say you?

 

[pladecalvo]

Most academics believe that Jesus Christ (the man) existed.

Ah! Confusion reigns.

Don't confuse the two Fox. Jesus Christ was the alleged man-god. Jesus was the alleged man. There is no reliable evidence for either Jesus the man or Jesus Christ the man-god but we are referring to 'the man-god', Jesus Christ. These chat's on the subject inevitably start confusing the two. The existence of a man called Jesus is not unlikely. It was a common enough name. Jesus Christ the man-god the other hand, well............:24:

In fact, plain common sense would dictate against the likelihood of an entire religion of billions of people evolving from a mythical person.

So plain common sense would also dictate that the religion of Hinduism does not evolve from mythical gods...due to the vast number of people that believe that religion is true...... nor does Islam, Chinese traditional religions, Primal indigenous religions, African traditional religions, Sikhism, Jutch, Judaism, Baha'i, Janism, Shinto, Cao Dai, Zaroastrianism, Tenrikyo, Neo paganism, Unitarian-Universalism, Rastafarianism.......oh, and don't forget we billions of atheists...we can't be wrong either

How about in the past......it's "common sense" that Zeus must have existed because of all those billions of Greeks that believed in him eh?
The billions of Romans who believed in Mithra and a myriad of other gods couldn't have been wrong either.
Nor the billions of Egyptians that believed their gods existed.
Nor the Sumerians..........
Nor the Incas.......
Nor the Native Americans.........

.....on and on we could go!! The number of people that believe something to be true is not an indication that they are right.

.....Hey!!! I wonder how many people belong to the "Flat Earth Society." :eek

 

[valley]

Ah! So you must conclude that if Paul never actually met this Jesus..... anything he wrote about him either came from other people who claimed to have known Jesus i.e. stories, voices in his head or visions.....or of course he made it all up to further his newly formed religion!!

lol, why would he make up a new religion and then all of the credit to someone who had already died? Paul never accepted the worship of anyone...never claimed to be anything great (called himself "the chief of sinners") and according to the Biblical account, received a total of 195 lashes from a whip in his lifetime, was beaten with rods 3 times, stoned once, shipwrecked 3 times..and that list was given by him in 2 Corinthians..and his missionary journey was not even halfway completed at that point. Does it make sense that any person would suffer all of that just to start up a new religion and let some other guy get all the credit for anything good that he had done?

Let me guess your next response: "prove that Paul existed!"

I think you are being unfair using the scriptures to support your argument (such as speculating that Paul is the one who formed the Christian religion) when you deny me the right to use scripture to support my argument. Why do you get to do it but not me? :confused Before you speculate again on what may have motivated Paul to write as he did then show me the evidence that he existed....otherwise stop using the Bible in your argument at all.

Well when I was in school, which was a long time ago granted, the definition of the word unique was " being only one of it's kind". So in order to refer to something as unique you need to be sure that nothing which is the same exists. So yes, in order to refer to me as unique you would have to have information on every other human that exists...to know that there is not another like me.

Wait a minute...are you now trying to claim that the word "unique" does not exist? :eek

Sorry but there is in fact, a lot of doubt about that. The very fact that I doubt the Bible is enough to show that your claim that there is no doubt... is untrue.

LOL, I think that anyone reading what I said would have understood that I was not trying to speak on behalf of the entire world.

Oh come on valley...you're pulling my chain 'aintcha! Non believers are call atheists....we have no belief in gods. Why would we acknowledge the man-god.

There you go again muddying up the waters....this part of the conversation is about Jesus Christ the man, was it not? Plenty of people believe in the existence of God but not in His Son, Jesus Christ. Since Christianity requires the belief in Jesus Christ....a person such as a Jehovah's Witness, Muslim, Mormon etc...would have an alternate explanation for who Jesus Christ is. They are called non-believers in the Christian community for their lack of belief in Christ's deity.

For one who touts a knowledge of Christianity, I find it hard to believe that you did not know that already.

Oh! Absolutely correct..but you also need to acknowledge what religious faith actually is. Religious "faith" is the last refuge of those who refuse to accept what the evidence says.

Atheism also relies heavily on faith.

Very easily! They are not atheists. Atheists do not believe in gods ....it's as simple as that. If you know people who claim to be atheist....yet believe in the Christian Jesus Christ then it is very obvious that they and you, have absolutely no idea of what an atheist is.

I did not say anything about the "Christian" Jesus Christ, did I? I said that there are Atheists who believe that a man called Jesus Christ existed. At the American Atheist website, there is a guy by the name of Frank Zindler who said that he believed for years that Jesus existed. And he was an Atheist that entire time. He has an article detailing how he now rejects his earlier belief.....but his change of heart is not the point. Would you have told this man that he was not an Atheist back when he believed that Christ existed? All that I have told you is that I have met Atheist who believe that Christ existed, but that he was just a man who taught good things. You can tell me that they arent Atheists but you just try telling them that they are not Atheists and see what they say to you! :eek

So plain common sense would also dictate that the religion of Hinduism does not evolve from mythical gods...due to the vast number of people that believe that religion is true...... nor does Islam, Chinese traditional religions, Primal indigenous religions, African traditional religions, Sikhism, Jutch, Judaism, Baha'i, Janism, Shinto, Cao Dai, Zaroastrianism, Tenrikyo, Neo paganism, Unitarian-Universalism, Rastafarianism.......oh, and don't forget we billions of atheists...we can't be wrong either

Here is a graph of world beliefs regarding religion:



Please note that of the 16% of the "nonreligious", HALF are theistic.

I am no mathematician, but 8% of 6.6 billion people works out to be less than a billion, which is significantly less than the plural billions that you claim! You're padding your numbers again! You're not helping your case at all by giving out false information like this. :nod: If I am wrong then I apologize..please post your statistics showing that there are billions of Atheists in the world.

 

[pladecalvo]

Most scholars (which excludes you) believe there is sufficient reliable evidence to conclude that Jesus the Man as you put it likely existed.

That is an entirely different argument. You originally said that most scholars believe that Jesus Christ the man existed. That is not so. You could argue that most scholars believe that a man called Jesus existed...but they do not believe he was the Christ portrayed in the Bible.

The point is that if a following of the magnitude of Chistianity sprouted from the teachings of a man then logical inference and common sense would weight in favor of the likelihood that man actually existed.

It is YOU that are "mixing" the arguments. What you said (before altering your argument) was "In fact, plain common sense would dictate against the likelihood of an entire religion of billions of people evolving from a mythical person." My response was to THAT statement. Your statement is flawed and you are now getting aggressive because I have shown it to be so. If common sense indicates that the existence of billions of Christians is an indication that what they believe in is true (which you implied in your post) .....then the existence of billions of Hindus should indicate that what they believe in is true. Billions of people believe in the mythical personages of Brahma and Krishna so by your argument (the original one) common sense should dictate that they exist. What is actually "fact" is that even if 90% of the people on this planet believed the same thing....it still doesn't make it true.....just like when almost every person alive on this planet believed that the Earth was flat....didn't make it true. Appeal to number does NOT make something true...and you implied that it did.

lol, why would he make up a new religion and then all of the credit to someone who had already died?

Because that's the easiest way to do it.......dead men don't talk!

Paul never accepted the worship of anyone...never claimed to be anything great (called himself "the chief of sinners") and according to the Biblical account, received a total of 195 lashes from a whip in his lifetime, was beaten with rods 3 times, stoned once, shipwrecked 3 times..and that list was given by him in 2 Corinthians..

....and do you actually have any evidence that all this actually happened.....other than the Bible of course.

I think you are being unfair using the scriptures to support your argument (such as speculating that Paul is the one who formed the Christian religion)

Huh! Did I do that? Where?? :eek

Wait a minute...are you now trying to claim that the word "unique" does not exist?

WHAT!!!!!

Plenty of people believe in the existence of God but not in His Son, Jesus Christ. Since Christianity requires the belief in Jesus Christ....a person such as a Jehovah's Witness, Muslim, Mormon etc...would have an alternate explanation for who Jesus Christ is. They are called non-believers in the Christian community for their lack of belief in Christ's deity.

Then stipulate what you mean. When you refer to "non-believers" I'd wager that most people will think of atheists.

For one who touts a knowledge of Christianity, I find it hard to believe that you did not know that already.

I did.....but had you said Muslims, Mormons, JWs etc I would have understood what you were talking about.

Atheism also relies heavily on faith.

No it doesn't.

I did not say anything about the "Christian" Jesus Christ, did I?

Yes you did! What you said was :

"I would hazard a guess and say that many non-believers also acknowledge Jesus Christ the son of God too." Post #163. You are referring to the Christian Jesus Christ.

I said that there are Atheists who believe that a man called Jesus Christ existed.

You need to make your mind up girl. First you say that by non-believers you were really referring to JWs, Muslims etc.....NOW you claim that you are talking about atheists. What is it?

At the American Atheist website, there is a guy by the name of Frank Zindler who said that he believed for years that Jesus existed. And he was an Atheist that entire time.

There are millions of atheists who believe that someone called Jesus existed. I myself do not discount the very small chance of that but not one atheist on this planet believes in the existence of Jesus Christ the divine son of a god.....because we have no belief in gods.....not even "Frank Zindler" believes in Jesus Christ. Like FoxM you are mixing the possibility of the existence of a rebel called Jesus with the existence of Jesus Christ, the divine son of a god.

He has an article detailing how he now rejects his earlier belief.....but his change of heart is not the point. Would you have told this man that he was not an Atheist back when he believed that Christ existed?

Yes I would! Anyone who believes in Jesus Christ is not an atheist.

All that I have told you is that I have met Atheist who believe that Christ existed, but that he was just a man who taught good things.

No you haven't! You have met atheists that believe a man called Jesus existed. You have NOT met atheists who believe in Jesus... THE CHRIST.

You can tell me that they arent Atheists but you just try telling them that they are not Atheists and see what they say to you!

Atheists have no belief in gods. Jesus Christ is alleged to be a god.


Valley, I'm going to make one last post on this subject due to what I said in one of my previous posts. Recent events have convinced me that arguing religion is pointless. Those events have also highlighted the amount of time I have spent sitting at this computer indulging in a pointless exercise (you should total it up for yourself...it's quite frightening!!)....... so I'm going to 'retire' as it were!

The post will show the main points that lead to my atheism. You know mate, what's ironic is that you're just very slightly less of an atheist than I am. You believe in the Christian god but you don't believe in the existence of Allah, Zeus, Mithra, Dionysus,Hercules or any other of the gods that people believe exist or have have existed in the past. That makes you atheist with regard to all other gods..I've just got one more god on my list than you have.

Nice to have met you mate......and welcome to atheism!

 

[pladecalvo]

This article sums up why I believe that Jesus Christ is a myth and is my last word on the subject.


Did Jesus Christ Really Live

 

[Dana]

I believe I answered this but I can't remember. Jesus Christ in name wasn't real but the man we call Jesus was once alive.

 

[wednesday]

hello dana..and youve just opened a whole new can of worms ...lmao!!

 

[Dana]

*shrugs* i don't check this forum often enough to care and hello wednesday!

 

[Dana]

everything gets drowned out by novel length posts its hard to keep up.

 

[wednesday]

lmao i know...i gave up after the 1st 2 pages.

 

[Rapc]

he's neither he'ss a joke that accidently got taken seriously:eek

 

[valley]

everything gets drowned out by novel length posts its hard to keep up

lmao i know...i gave up after the 1st 2 pages.

In my own defense....he started it.

 

[Minor Axis]

The religion chart surprised me. I did not think Christian was the largest religion in the world by numbers.

 

[valley]

The religion chart surprised me. I did not think Christian was the largest religion in the world by numbers.

surprisingly...they have Jehovah's Witnesses counted in the same slice as the Christians are. :eek I bet they would have something to say about being called Christians!

 

[Ashl33]

no one will ever really know.
thats whats so great ... believing in something..where people can come together in peace
i think thats whats most important.

 

[Minor Axis]

There is much that would surprise you Minor if you took the time to research it!

And much that might surprise you if you could get "real".

 

[valley]

no one will ever really know.
thats whats so great ... believing in something..where people can come together in peace
i think thats whats most important.

Its the most important thing in this lifetime, thats for sure. But I think its important that people consider what may happen in the afterlife too. This life is just a vapor when compared to all of eternity.

And much that might surprise you if you could get "real".

Poor Mully...he is so misunderstood.