See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #301
   On October 5th, 2009 at 3:43 pm, zeroangel said:

   Blackstone:

   My copy doesn’t contain too many references to Plato, either.

   One doesn’t need to include references to Fermat in every calculus paper they write. It doesn’t mean Fermat didn’t have a hand in the work.

   As for the Declaration, it mentions a Creator. It doesn’t say Yahweh. It could just as easily be poetic or Spinoza’s god.

   And you won’t find many sentiments like “all men are created equal” among the ancient philosophers.

   You’ve got to be kidding me. You are honestly telling me that this idea is unique to Christians? Please. Do I have to quote the Bible again where it endorses slavery?

2. #302
   On October 5th, 2009 at 3:45 pm, zeroangel said:

   Roland:

   We shouldn’t be nation building in war zones. If we are not there to chase and kill the enemy, we should get out.

   I think it’s kind of hard to seperate the two. The enemy thrives in places where not much of a nation is built. Furthermore, “the enemy” itself is a pretty nebulous entity that covers more than one nation. It’s a tough call.

3. #303
   On October 5th, 2009 at 3:55 pm, Kingfish said:

   Many Christians who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration as “proof.” The reason appears obvious: the document mentions God. However, the God in the Declaration does not describe Christianity’s God. It describes “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” This nature’s view of God agrees with deist philosophy but any attempt to use the Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for this reason alone.
   More significantly, the Declaration does not represent the law of the land as it came before the Constitution. The Declaration aimed at announcing their separation from Great Britain and listed the various grievances with the “thirteen united States of America.” The grievances against Great Britain no longer hold, and we have more than thirteen states. Today, the Declaration represents an important historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain at a time before the formation of our independent government. Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire the lofty thoughts of poets, and judges may mention it in their summations, it holds no legal power today. Our presidents, judges and policemen must take an oath to uphold the Constitution, but never to the Declaration of Independence.
   Of course the Declaration depicts a great political document, as it aimed at a future government upheld by citizens instead of a religious monarchy. It observed that all men “are created equal” meaning that we all come inborn with the abilities of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” The Declaration says nothing about our rights secured by Christianity, nor does it imply anything about a Christian foundation.

4. #304
   On October 5th, 2009 at 3:56 pm, zeroangel said:

   When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

   Nature’s God? That sound’s an awful lot like something Spinoza might say. Hmmm…

5. #305
   On October 5th, 2009 at 3:57 pm, zeroangel said:

   Dammit Kingfish. You beat me to it.

6. #306
   On October 5th, 2009 at 3:59 pm, Blackstone said:

   On October 5th, 2009 at 3:43 pm, zeroangel said:

   As for the Declaration, it mentions a Creator. It doesn’t say Yahweh. It could just as easily be poetic or Spinoza’s god.

   Looking it over, it pretty clearly mentions a God who’s interested and involved in the affairs of man, and considers that an important philosophical idea. Now I’ll let you work out whether it’s more likely that this idea of theirs came from the Bible or from the pagan Greeks. Let me know what you come up with.

   And you won’t find many sentiments like “all men are created equal” among the ancient philosophers.

   You’ve got to be kidding me.

   Nope, no goats here. Unless you can come up with some Greek or Roman philosophers who defended the dignity of the downtrodden the way Jesus did.

   And slavery…man, don’t even go there.

7. #307
   On October 5th, 2009 at 3:59 pm, Kingfish said:

   Nature’s God more specifically a Diest viewpoint

8. #308
   On October 5th, 2009 at 4:04 pm, Blackstone said:

   “Appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions”. Deist viewpoint?

   “With a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence”. Deist viewpoint?

9. #309
   On October 5th, 2009 at 4:05 pm, zeroangel said:

   Blackstone:

   See above. Kingfish dealt your argument a death blow. Also, as I said, “Nature’s God” is something Spinoza might have said. This is hardly Christian in nature.

   Unless you can come up with some Greek or Roman philosophers who defended the dignity of the downtrodden the way Jesus did.

   This is not the point but here’s the New Testament:

   http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%206:1-2&version=NASB

   1(A)All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so (B)that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against.
   2Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are (C)brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved (D)Teach and preach these principles.

   …and Jesus in his words (according ot the Bible):

   http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012:47-48&version=NASB

   47″And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will (A)receive many lashes,

   48but the one who did not (B)know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few (C)From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.

   …heck you asked for it. I never said these ideas about men being equal is exclusively Greco-Roman, but they certainly aren’t exclusively Christian.

10. #310
    On October 5th, 2009 at 4:07 pm, zeroangel said:

    Blackstone:

    “Appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions”. Deist viewpoint?

    “With a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence”. Deist viewpoint?

    Hmm, clearly Hindu. No wait, Jewish. No wait, Muslim. Oh wait, Egyptian?

11. #311
    On October 5th, 2009 at 4:10 pm, Kingfish said:

    The most convincing evidence that our government did not ground itself upon Christianity comes from the very document that defines it– the United States Constitution.

    If indeed our Framers had aimed to found a Christian republic, it would seem highly unlikely that they would have forgotten to leave out their Christian intentions in the Supreme law of the land. In fact, nowhere in the Constitution do we have a single mention of Christianity, God, Jesus, or any Supreme Being. There occurs only two references to religion and they both use exclusionary wording. The 1st Amendment’s says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . .” and in Article VI, Section 3, “. . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

    Thomas Jefferson interpreted the 1st Amendment in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in January 1, 1802:

    “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

    Some Religious activists try to extricate the concept of separation between church and State by claiming that those words do not occur in the Constitution. Indeed they do not, but neither does it exactly say “freedom of religion,” yet the First Amendment implies both.

    As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom:

    “Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.”

    James Madison, perhaps the greatest supporter for separation of church and State, and whom many refer to as the father of the Constitution, also held similar views which he expressed in his letter to Edward Livingston, 10 July 1822:

    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”

    Today, if ever our government needed proof that the separation of church and State works to ensure the freedom of religion, one only need to look at the plethora of Churches, temples, and shrines that exist in the cities and towns throughout the United States. Only a secular government, divorced from religion could possibly allow such tolerant diversity.

12. #312
    On October 5th, 2009 at 4:11 pm, zeroangel said:

    Blackstone:

    You talk as if Christianity occured in a vacuum. It simply isn’t true. You can’t just go and claim the whole of Western society and thought as Christian just because many westerners are and were Christian.

    I might as well claim gunpowder and chopsticks are exclusively Taoist or something.

13. #313
    On October 5th, 2009 at 4:20 pm, Blackstone said:

    On October 5th, 2009 at 4:05 pm, zeroangel said:

    47″And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will (A)receive many lashes,

    48but the one who did not (B)know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few (C)From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.

    That was a parable containing a metaphor to man’s relationship with God. Sure it accepted the existence of slavery, because that was the way things were back then. But it went farther than any philosophical movement at the time in treating slaves with dignity. There’s a reason why the earliest Christians included disproportiately large numbers of slaves. Some even served as deacons, because as the Bible notes, “there is neither slave nor free person” before God.

    I never said these ideas about men being equal is exclusively Greco-Roman

    Exclusively? Try, not at all. That’s why I warned you not to go there when talking about slavery. History records no instance whatsoever of an ancient Greek or Roman declaring slavery to be wrong. It took Christian European civilization to finally wake up to that fact, and it was their Christian roots that ultimately led them to see the light on that.

    On October 5th, 2009 at 4:07 pm, zeroangel said:

    “Appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions”. Deist viewpoint?

    “With a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence”. Deist viewpoint?

    Hmm, clearly Hindu. No wait, Jewish. No wait, Muslim. Oh wait, Egyptian?

    One thing’s for certain: not pagan Greek.

14. #314
    On October 5th, 2009 at 4:24 pm, zeroangel said:

    Blackstone:

    Sure it accepted the existence of slavery, because that was the way things were back then.

    You don’t see how this is insane? The creator of the universe made flesh just accepted the way things were back then and instead of telling people to free all their slaves he just said to be nice to them. That’s absurd!

    It took Christian European civilization to finally wake up to that fact, and it was their Christian roots that ultimately led them to see the light on that.

    See my comments on chopsticks and gunpowder.

    One thing’s for certain: not pagan Greek.

    Is that so certain? It doesn’t specify they aren’t talking about Zeus. In any case, you are a bit behind. Kingfish once again beat your argument like it was a Christian slave.

15. #315
    On October 5th, 2009 at 4:32 pm, Blackstone said:

    On October 5th, 2009 at 4:24 pm, zeroangel said:

    You don’t see how this is insane? The creator of the universe made flesh just accepted the way things were back then and instead of telling people to free all their slaves he just said to be nice to them. That’s absurd!

    I’m not getting into a theological debate with you. None of this does anything to help your contention that Greco-Roman philosophy had more to do (or really, anything to do) with the egalitarian philosophy behind our system of government than Christianity did.

    It doesn’t specify they aren’t talking about Zeus.

    I wasn’t aware that Zeus was ever considered the Creator.

16. #316
    On October 5th, 2009 at 4:38 pm, zeroangel said:

    Blackstone:

    I’m not getting into a theological debate with you.

    You will lose. The idea that Jesus was the perfect, loving, creator of the universe and still somehow failed to tell us that slavery is wrong is absolute nonsense. Either the Bible is wrong (and thus the basis of Christianity is flawed), Jesus was just a man, or he wasn’t so nice afterall.

    None of this does anything to help your contention that Greco-Roman philosophy had more to do (or really, anything to do) with the egalitarian philosophy behind our system of government than Christianity did.

    To claim that it had no effect on Western thought and the founders is equally nonsensical. Do you honestly think Deism was not influenced by Democritus (for example)? Do you really think that Deism had nothing to do with ideas of separation of church and state? Are you telling me that a Representative Democracy was dreamed up by the founders who were ignorant of the systems of government the ancients had? If you are saying these things, then you really are quite ignorant.

17. #317
    On October 5th, 2009 at 4:40 pm, zeroangel said:

    …I almost forgot:

    I wasn’t aware that Zeus was ever considered the Creator.

    Yes, that’s a fair point. I forgot who it was in Greek myth. Kingfish? It doesn’t matter though. My point still stands, nothing in the Declaration is specifically Christian.

18. #318
    On October 5th, 2009 at 4:51 pm, Kingfish said:

    Zeus/Jove, killed his father.

    The Hellenic Creator goddess was a titan, Gaia

19. #319
    On October 5th, 2009 at 4:53 pm, zeroangel said:

    Kingfish:

    Thank you. OK, I might be back later. I got to go. See you guys.

20. #320
    On October 5th, 2009 at 4:59 pm, Blackstone said:

    On October 5th, 2009 at 4:38 pm,
    

    zeroangel said:

    None of this does anything to help your contention that Greco-Roman philosophy had more to do (or really, anything to do) with the egalitarian philosophy behind our system of government than Christianity did.

    To claim that it had no effect on Western thought and the founders is equally nonsensical.

    Where did I say it had no effect? It’s you who’s trying to claim it had a greater effect, and you’ve come up with practically nothing to back that up.

    Do you honestly think Deism was not influenced by Democritus (for example)?

    No idea, but the quotes I mentioned from the Declaration of Independence are definitely not indications of Deist philosophy. You can’t rely on the protection of a God who no longer influences events.

    Do you really think that Deism had nothing to do with ideas of separation of church and state?

    Any more than “My kingdom is not of this world”?

21. #321
    On October 5th, 2009 at 6:29 pm, swede said:

    Kingfish – You are holy and wise and greatly to be praised. May those who bless you be blessed, and may those who curse you have blown head gaskets. Or something.

    Having fun with zero-tolerance again I see.

22. #322
    On October 5th, 2009 at 6:36 pm, Kingfish said:

    swede: Thank you, but I am at a loss..

23. #323
    On October 5th, 2009 at 7:08 pm, zeroangel said:

    Blackstone:

    It’s you who’s trying to claim it had a greater effect, and you’ve come up with practically nothing to back that up.

    Practically nothing? Look at the whole of the Bible. It condones slavery and tyranny! Obviously, the ideas of democracy and freedom came from somewhere else. To try and then claim Christianity had a hand in all of this is like saying Taoism was responsible for gunpowder. Just because the culture that spawned a certain idea happens to be largely a certain religion doesn’t give that religion claim to that idea.

    the quotes I mentioned from the Declaration of Independence are definitely not indications of Deist philosophy.

    They don’t have to be. The ideas about various religions being unprovable and their claims being contrary to reason are part of the whole Deist (and atheist, and Pantheist, etc.) ideas. These philosophical musings were part of the Enlightenment thinking and an impetus for ideas like freedom of religion (for example). The Enlightenment, in turn, had it’s roots in the ancients. The Bible most certainly doesn’t espouse freedom of religion, heck it tells you there is only one true religion and everyone else is going to hell.

    Any more than “My kingdom is not of this world”?

    So what? Clearly, as I have quoted, the Bible supports tyranny and is not conducive to ideas of freedom of religion. All you are managing to do (if your quotes do what you claim) is show the Bible contradicts itself.

24. #324
    On October 5th, 2009 at 7:09 pm, zeroangel said:

    Kingfish:

    swede: Thank you, but I am at a loss..

    Loss to what?

    Swede:

    IIRC, Kingfish claimed some kind of Deism. He’s more on my side of the fence than yours.

25. #325
    On October 5th, 2009 at 7:12 pm, Kingfish said:

    Yes, as zeroangel points out: The Old Testament is chock full of toleration of viewpoints different from Judaism.
    /sarc

    
    

    Anybody seen that ass’es jawbone so that I might smite him now?

26. #326
    On October 5th, 2009 at 7:15 pm, Kingfish said:

    I consider myself a Diest for all that is worth.

    As there are many kinds of Protestant Christians, there are many flavors of Diesm

27. #327
    On October 5th, 2009 at 7:17 pm, zeroangel said:

    Blackstone:

    …one more thing to drive home this Taoism / gunpowder analogy. You are trying to pretend that Christianity evolved in a vacuum (as I said before). It most certainly didn’t. The Bible is full of all kinds of evil by today’s standards; slavery, tyranny, misogyny, and so forth. Where else did these other standards come from? Do you honestly think that only Christians would have been capable of working out the idea that slavery is wrong? That makes no sense.

    Just as you can’t claim Christianity led to abolitionism, you also can’t claim that the spiritual, interpersonal, and philosophical tenets of Taoism made it so gunpowder could have been discovered. They have nothing to do with one another. In fact, as I said, the Bible clearly condones slavery and tyranny.

28. #328
    On October 5th, 2009 at 7:21 pm, swede said:

    IIRC, Kingfish claimed some kind of Deism. He’s more on my side of the fence than yours.

    The religious principle of the Declaration establishing the justification for treason against the king was Deism, not Christianity. If you read what people actually say, you would know that I oppose theocracy and advocate seperation of church and state, as most knowledgeable Christians do. Saying a deist would be closer to atheism than Christianity is a little goofy, dontcha think?

29. #329
    On October 5th, 2009 at 7:26 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    In 1739 arrived among us from Ireland the Reverend Mr. Whitefield, who had made himself remarkable there as an itinerant preacher. He was at first permitted to preach in some of our churches; but the clergy, taking a dislike to him, soon refused him their pulpits, and he was obliged to preach in the fields. The multitudes of all sects and denominations that attended his sermons were enormous, and it was matter of speculation to me, who was one of the number, to observe the extraordinary influence of his oratory on his hearers, and how much they admired and respected him, notwithstanding his common abuse of them, by assuring them they were naturally half beast and half devils. It was wonderful to see the change soon made in the manners of our inhabitants. From being thoughtless or indifferent about religion, it seemed as if all the world were growing religious, so that one could not walk thro’ the town in an evening without hearing psalms sung in different families of every street.

    - Benjamin Franklin’s Autobiography

30. #330
    On October 5th, 2009 at 7:32 pm, Kingfish said:

    As a Deist I question all organized religion based upon a “revealed” text, hidden from reason.

    I believe in a Creator God. I find the writings of T. Paine and E. Allan quite helpful.

31. #331
    On October 5th, 2009 at 7:36 pm, zeroangel said:

    Swede:

    No point about the Declaration is valid anyhow. It isn’t a founding document and has no legal power as Kingfish pointed out earlier.

    Saying a deist would be closer to atheism than Christianity is a little goofy, dontcha think?

    Not in a practical sense. In a practical sense a Deist and atheist are more or less identical. The only point we differ on is the instant of Creation. From there on out it’s more or less the same. Kingfish isn’t an ID advocate and, as he said, questions
    

    all organized religion based upon a “revealed” text, hidden from reason

    …just like me.

32. #332
    On October 5th, 2009 at 8:34 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    On October 5th, 2009 at 7:36 pm, zeroangel said:

    No point about the Declaration is valid anyhow. It isn’t a founding document…

    Not a founding document?

    On what date was our country founded?

    What document was signed that day, to found our country?

    The Declaration is not just “a” founding document,
    it is “THE” founding document!

33. #333
    On October 5th, 2009 at 8:40 pm, MtsEdge said:

    On October 4th, 2009 at 2:13 pm, right4life said:
    looks like a neck injury on a baltimore Raven’s player…say a prayer that he is not injured too badly…

    r4l, I said a prayer as soon as I read your post. Is this who you were talking about?

    If so, praise be to God it appears that he will be OK!

34. #334
    On October 5th, 2009 at 8:56 pm, zeroangel said:

    ITTRP:

    Not a founding document?

    Go back and read Kingfish’s post’s:

    http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/04/sunday-open-thread-14/comment-page-4/#comment-818053

    http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/04/sunday-open-thread-14/comment-page-4/#comment-818068

    …then you will see what I mean. You can stop playing semantics games. The Declaration has no legal authority, and that is the point.

35. #335
    On October 5th, 2009 at 9:49 pm, swede said:

    The Declaration has no legal authority

    Then start saying God save the queen! Without it we are still British subjects. You can’t make your own constitution when you are still under the authority of another Government.

36. #336
    On October 5th, 2009 at 9:56 pm, zeroangel said:

    Swede:

    Oh stop playing silly games. Kingfish’s point was well made. The Declaration has no legal authority and it’s mention of a Creator (natural, Deist, or otherwise) is a poor place to look to support the claim that our nation was founded upon Christianity.

37. #337
    On October 5th, 2009 at 10:06 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    In 1864, Benjamin Franklin Morris’ book Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States was first printed. It had been out of print for more than 100 years. If you can find an original copy, it’s only because you have looked in the deep recesses of university libraries where the volume is probably collecting dust on dimly lit library shelves. Organizations like the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State have done their best to ignore the content of the massive compilation of original source material found in this book. If Americans ever become aware of the content assembled by the author, the arguments for a secular founding of America will turn to dust.

    Reprinted for the first time in over 140 years in 2007, this book has already been through it’s seventh printing. Don’t miss out on the fantastic wealth of information this book has in store! Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States could very well be responsible for rediscovering the truth of America’s Christian foundation.

38. #338
    On October 5th, 2009 at 10:11 pm, zeroangel said:

    If Americans ever become aware of the content assembled by the author, the arguments for a secular founding of America will turn to dust.

    Yet, somehow the founders left it out of the Constitution! Gee, that’s a pretty significant oversight. It’s amazing how deluded you are ITTRP.

39. #339
    On October 5th, 2009 at 10:11 pm, swede said:

    Geez zero. Why do you keep arguing with people even when they agree. The nation wasn’t based on Christianity. This is why you get so tedious. Accusing other people of semantics when that is your whole game. BTW if you think the constitution does not embrace Judeo-Christian values you are in lala land.

    Nite all. Early flight.

40. #340
    On October 5th, 2009 at 10:16 pm, zeroangel said:

    swede:

    Who is agreeing with me?

    BTW if you think the constitution does not embrace Judeo-Christian values you are in lala land.

    It absolutely does not which has been part of my point concerning the evil in the Bible and my gunpowder-Taoism analogy. You are the one that resides in lala land. Heck, you also think some lala land mumblings are valid science.

41. #341
    On October 5th, 2009 at 10:16 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

    - John Jay, First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

42. #342
    On October 5th, 2009 at 10:18 pm, zeroangel said:

    and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

    …and yet still no religious test for public office. Man, these guys are really bad at following through.

43. #343
    On October 5th, 2009 at 10:27 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    No conflict there, zero.

    “select and prefer” refers to voters using their own judgement.

    “no religious test” was to prevent the government from establishing religion, (not to prevent voters or office holders from endorsing religion).

44. #344
    On October 5th, 2009 at 10:30 pm, zeroangel said:

    ITTRP:

    …and what happens at some future, hypothetical point when the religious landscape of the nation changes and Christians are no longer a majority? The fact that our founding documents are secular and we have no religious test for office will make short work of your idea that the founders wanted a “Christian” nation.

45. #345
    On October 5th, 2009 at 10:50 pm, Roland said:

    …and what happens at some future, hypothetical point when the religious landscape of the nation changes and Christians are no longer a majority?

    The answer is simple and obvious. The Muslims will dump the Constitution and replace it with sharia.

46. #346
    On October 5th, 2009 at 10:51 pm, zeroangel said:

    Roland:

    LOL. Well I was thinking of the “none of the aboves” like you and I.

47. #347
    On October 5th, 2009 at 11:01 pm, Dave Turson said:

    On October 5th, 2009 at 10:30 pm, zeroangel said:

    Yeah, things can change.
    In the Bible, people are often referred to as grass in that they temporarily exist, as compared to God’s glory and power (See: Ps 37:2;103: 15; Isa 40:8; 51:12; James 1:10). In the end times, people with evil intent were foretold to grow in such great numbers that they would cover the ground like the vegetation or grass (See: Ps 92:7). Being somewhat religious, I take comfort in this biblical fact–it helps me keep my sanity.

48. #348
    On October 6th, 2009 at 10:38 am, purealchemy said:

    Christianity tells us to be good.
    The Asian philosophies and religions tell us more about how to be good.