Creationists dealt a blow

  • Thread starter Thread starter root
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 395
  • Views Views 60K
Status
Not open for further replies.
which makes no logical sense whatsoever!

Correct me if I am wrong, but from what you’re saying, the evolution theory does not eliminate God-

Well no. It can be used to argue that we have a good idea of how life and especially humans evolved, but it does not have to. You can argue that God exists and evolution is true. Some people do.

So from what you are saying that believers of evolution cannot eliminate God, hence chance that God might exists-

Actually no. I am saying that evolution, as it stands, does not demand the non-existence of God. But God has no obvious role in Evolution. Believers in Evolution can use evolution to argue that a mechanism exists to explain how humans came to be here and so God is unnecessarily, but Evolution does not demand that position.

Which gives you two solutions?

A = God Doesn’t exists

B = God Exists

A

If God exists = what revelations has be sent to mankind- is the revelation consistent with what your saying? I.e. that he created the primitive cell, and then humans evolved from it-

Well you are saying "God exists" but not "which God eixsts?" It is possible to argue that God has shaped and directed human evolution over the past 4.5 billion years or so and that evolution is the tool which He uses. Some people do. I don't myself.

B

If he doesn’t exists then you’re unable to solve the great scientific mystery – how the first primitive cell came into existence?

Well no there are good theories on that too except they are different theories and not part of evolution as such.
 
:sl: to the Muslims

What Heigou said to my response makes no sense whatsoever !!!

Evolution is not luck, it is based on certainty, the certainty that a given mutation will occur eventually in the given lifespan of the species, and that it will change the species, regradless of environment in many cases. If it all about luck, then why are there no species higher than us living on the planet or anywhere on the universe??? (Highly unlikely we would be the best if it were not for Allah (SWT)).

Dinosaurs could not be said to be successful in any sense. If they were really able to dominate for so long, then why didn't evolution make them much more able to adapt to the effects of a huge catastrophe (I am sure we humans would be able to make plans on what to do if there were to be an impact from an asteroid, etc., on earth and we would be able to survive, same for dinosaurs who should have been able to evolve to a high degree... why couldn't the dinosaurs do the same??? Please do not say it is luck, that is very hillarious).
 
What Heigou said to my response makes no sense whatsoever !!!

It was not Heigou it was myself.

Evolution is not luck, it is based on certainty, the certainty that a given mutation will occur eventually in the given lifespan of the species,

I am sorry but it is quite obviouse that your sources used to bring you to understand the theory of evolution has been the Harun Hanya site or you truly lack any assetive knowledge on evolution.

Firstly, Evolution is driven by part from Luck, you cannot avoid that aspect. Mutations are not that important, yes they can and do bring about evolutionary change but in the main most evolutionary changes have not been because of mutational change. Forces bacting upon evolutionary change include:

1. Environmental and geographical changes.
2. Exploitation to new niche markets.
3. Predator avoidence.
3. Mutational change.
4. Luck

If it all about luck, then why are there no species higher than us living on the planet or anywhere on the universe??? (Highly unlikely we would be the best if it were not for Allah (SWT)).

It's not all about luck but luck plays it's part to. The reason why there are no higher species than us is simply because we are the dominant species of today on this planet. What stopped neanderthal man reaching where we are now since neandertols were not human (most probably). As for the universe we just don't know and I personally would doubt we are top species in the universe.

Dinosaurs could not be said to be successful in any sense. If they were really able to dominate for so long, then why didn't evolution make them much more able to adapt to the effects of a huge catastrophe (I am sure we humans would be able to make plans on what to do if there were to be an impact from an asteroid, etc., on earth and we would be able to survive, same for dinosaurs who should have been able to evolve to a high degree... why couldn't the dinosaurs do the same??? Please do not say it is luck, that is very hillarious).

Firstly, species are in the business of survival and it is survival that drives evolution. So the guage to a succesful species is the length of time it survived. Dinosaurs ruled for over 200 million years where Humans have ruled 2 million so far and counting.

As for mass extinctions, we statistically will not see a mass extinction event from a comet/meteorite strike because we would already be extinct! However, I am afraid i don't share your confidence in the ability to detect early enough and then avoid a cataclysmic event such as a massive strike that killed the dinosaurs along with 95% of all the species at that time. Diseases can also cause extinction and Humans are the number one target to infect. A gamma ray burst within our own galaxy will destroy 99.9% of all life too in a mass extinction event. Today the number of past mass extinctions are placed between 5 to 20 seperate mass extinctions.

You may find the concept of "luck" funny, but it really is no luaghing matter.
 
:sl: to the Muslims

Neat.

What Heigou said to my response makes no sense whatsoever !!!

Sre you sure?

Evolution is not luck, it is based on certainty, the certainty that a given mutation will occur eventually in the given lifespan of the species, and that it will change the species, regradless of environment in many cases.

But genetic mutations are not certain. They are random events. And most of them do not work out - the mutant dies without producing offspring.

If it all about luck, then why are there no species higher than us living on the planet or anywhere on the universe??? (Highly unlikely we would be the best if it were not for Allah (SWT)).

What do you mean by "higher"? This is not a useful concept in evolution.

Dinosaurs could not be said to be successful in any sense. If they were really able to dominate for so long, then why didn't evolution make them much more able to adapt to the effects of a huge catastrophe

Because evolution is blind, not like God. It cannot forsee what is going to happen. Animals that are good at what they do produce offspring which in turn produce more offspring. If conditions change suddenly, they are not well adapted to the new conditions and will likely become extinct - dinosaurs were highly successful animals dominating the planet for several hundred million years.
 
Evolution is not luck, it is based on certainty, the certainty that a given mutation will occur eventually in the given lifespan of the species, and that it will change the species, regradless of environment in many cases.

But genetic mutations are not certain. They are random events. And most of them do not work out - the mutant dies without producing offspring.

This is true. if a Lion and Tiger mate (which they can) there offspring will be infertile.
 
:sl: to the Muslims

First of all, luck is funny, and exteremely so. I do not need a very extreme understanding of science to know the lousiness of the claims of the Evolution worshippers.

Having said that, human beings can and they would avoid any all sorts of mass extinction scares (this is if I believe the Evolution worshippers, since humans are quite advanced in this respect).. why couldn't the other animals do the same in their so called process of evolution ?

Humans have the abillity to detect and avoid the extinction of their species by infection, I do not see why other species through eveolutionw ould not be able to do so.
 
Having said that, human beings can and they would avoid any all sorts of mass extinction scares (this is if I believe the Evolution worshippers, since humans are quite advanced in this respect).. why couldn't the other animals do the same in their so called process of evolution ?

But you do not follow - crocodiles are wonderfully adapted. They have existed for a long time. But how would they know if an asteroid was hurtling towards the Earth? Until 50 years ago no humans would. Even today only the Americans and Europeans have the ability of desire to detect such things. Evolution can only work in small steps - if something massive happens, creatures cannot adapt quick enough.

Humans have the abillity to detect and avoid the extinction of their species by infection, I do not see why other species through eveolutionw ould not be able to do so.

I question whether they do as it happens. STDs were reducing the human population of many places before pennicillin came along - including many Muslim populations.
 
First of all, luck is funny, and exteremely so. I do not need a very extreme understanding of science to know the lousiness of the claims of the Evolution worshippers.

I never claimed you needed a greater understanding of science, though I feel you do when it comes to Evolution.

Having said that, human beings can and they would avoid any all sorts of mass extinction scares (this is if I believe the Evolution worshippers, since humans are quite advanced in this respect).. why couldn't the other animals do the same in their so called process of evolution ?

No offence, but if and when a mass extinction event was to come you would probably consider it "Judgement Day" and thus the work of god and I definately do NOT share your confidence in mankind's ability to avoid extinction events.

Humans have the abillity to detect and avoid the extinction of their species by infection, I do not see why other species through eveolutionw ould not be able to do so.

They have a "limited" ability to do this I agree, extinction due to viral infection could and has in the past put man onto the brink of extinction.
 
:sl: to the Muslims

The Day of judgement will come for sure. It will be to your detriment in not believing it, though you are set in your bigoted ways :)

If you are soooo arrogant so as to disbelieve in God, I do not see why you would believe in mankind's inability to escape destruction. They are "highly evolved" (lol) so they extremely capable of changing all factors that might contribute to their extinction. And they have turned out to be "better evolved" than all these crocoriles and what not in terms of handling the environment, though I know the Evolution worshippers will not admit to it...
 
The Day of judgement will come for sure. It will be to your detriment in not believing it, though you are set in your bigoted ways

I rest my case........

If you are soooo arrogant so as to disbelieve in God, I do not see why you would believe in mankind's inability to escape destruction. They are "highly evolved" (lol) so they extremely capable of changing all factors that might contribute to their extinction. And they have turned out to be "better evolved" than all these crocoriles and what not in terms of handling the environment, though I know the Evolution worshippers will not admit to it...

I don't see how believing evolution disproves God, and really we are not that advanced to avoid mass extinctions (as I repeatedly claim). The difference between you and I is thus. The Tsunami of last year was an unpredicted natural disaster, you may well claim it was God's work but it really makes no difference. It happens does happen and can be far more severely
 
:sl: to the Muslims

The Day of judgement will come for sure. It will be to your detriment in not believing it, though you are set in your bigoted ways :)

If you are soooo arrogant so as to disbelieve in God, I do not see why you would believe in mankind's inability to escape destruction. They are "highly evolved" (lol) so they extremely capable of changing all factors that might contribute to their extinction. And they have turned out to be "better evolved" than all these crocoriles and what not in terms of handling the environment, though I know the Evolution worshippers will not admit to it...

Do you actually read your opponent's posts'? Accepting evolution DOES NOT preclude the possibility of a creator. Warn people before conversing if you are sure that the last word is going to end up being "The Day of judgement will come for sure. It will be to your detriment in not believing it, though you are set in your bigoted ways"... It will save everybody a bunch of time!
 
The Day of judgement will come for sure. It will be to your detriment in not believing it, though you are set in your bigoted ways :)

Evolution has nothing to do with the Day of Judgement.

If you are soooo arrogant so as to disbelieve in God, I do not see why you would believe in mankind's inability to escape destruction.

I do not disbelieve in much. You have to stop assuming everything is yes or no, black or white. I do not believe Humanity is guaranteed to escape destruction. But I do not believe they are guaranteed to not either. It is, like so much, indeterminate.

They are "highly evolved" (lol) so they extremely capable of changing all factors that might contribute to their extinction. And they have turned out to be "better evolved" than all these crocoriles and what not in terms of handling the environment, though I know the Evolution worshippers will not admit to it...

No they are smart. Which is not the same as being highly evolved. In fact "highly evolved" is a nonsense. Everything is equally evolved. Crocodiles have been around for 220 million years. Humans for about 100,000. When we have survive 2000 times as long as we have so far, I think we can start to lecture other species on how well-adapted they are.
 
:sl: to the Muslims

Evolution is in its core atheistic and bigotted, beacuse it says that human beings came out of nothing and goes against the Scriptures of all religions. I have yet to hear of an ideology that ascribes or even hints to humans coming from a single-celled creature or any other like-minded hallucination.

About the tsunami it was undountedly the work of Allah, but if we want tos ee it from a bigootted eVolution worshipping viewpoint, how can we call the death of 0.03 % of the world's population a "mass extinction" ???!!! Besides, there was no total deaths even in the seeverly affected areas !!!
 
Evolution is in its core atheistic and bigotted, beacuse it says that human beings came out of nothing

You try the patience of a saint. Evolution says no such thing, why am I bothering to respond when you so obvously don't read it......................

goes against the Scriptures of all religions.

http://www.2think.org/pope.shtml

Read that article and see how single minded and isolated your statement is.

I have yet to hear of an ideology that ascribes or even hints to humans coming from a single-celled creature or any other like-minded hallucination.

Ideology has no place in evolution.

About the tsunami it was undountedly the work of Allah, but if we want tos ee it from a bigootted eVolution worshipping viewpoint, how can we call the death of 0.03 % of the world's population a "mass extinction" ???!!! Besides, there was no total deaths even in the seeverly affected areas !!!

Nobody ever claimed it as a mass extinction. So why are you claimiming the contrary.
 
:sl: to the Muslims

I asked Catholics about this statement of the Pope. They have flatly denied the "Pope believing in evolution" as a total misrepresentation of his views by part of the Evolutionists. I repeat again, evolution is an atheistic ideology, and iot can never be anything other than an atheistic ideology.

I am not so isolated after all, I guess !!! :giggling:
 
I asked Catholics about this statement of the Pope. They have flatly denied the "Pope believing in evolution" as a total misrepresentation of his views by part of the Evolutionists. I repeat again, evolution is an atheistic ideology, and iot can never be anything other than an atheistic ideology.

Would it not have been better to read what the pope said for yourself:

Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.

Pope John Paul II

Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences
October 22, 1996

To the Members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences taking part in the Plenary Assembly

With great pleasure I address cordial greetings to you, Mr President, and to all of you who constitute the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, on the occasion of your plenary assembly. I offer my best wishes in particular to the new academicians, who have come to take part in your work for the first time. I would also like to remember the academicians who died during the past year, whom I commend to the Lord of life.

1. In celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Academy's refoundation, I would like to recall the intentions of my predecessor Pius XI, who wished to surround himself with a select group of scholars, relying on them to inform the Holy See in complete freedom about developments in scientific research, and thereby to assist him in his reflections.

He asked those whom he called the Church's Senatus scientificus to serve the truth. I again extend this same invitation to you today, certain that we will all be able to profit from the fruitfulness of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science (cf. Address to the Academy of Sciences, n. 1, 28 October 1986, L'Osservatore Romano English edition, 24 November 1986, p. 22).

Science at the dawn of the third millennium

2. I am pleased with the first theme you have chosen, that of the origins of life and evolution, an essential subject which deeply interests the Church, since Revelation, for its part, contains teaching concerning the nature and origins of man. How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of Revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth (cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Providentissimus Deus). Moreover, to shed greater light on historical truth, your research on the Church's relations with science between the 16th and 18th centuries is of great importance.

During this plenary session' you are undertaking a "reflection on science at the dawn of the third millennium", starting with the identification of the principal problems created by the sciences and which affect humanity's future. With this step you point the way to solutions which will be beneficial to the whole human community. In the domain of inanimate and animate nature, the evolution of science and its applications gives rise to new questions. The better the Church's knowledge is of their essential aspects, the more she will understand their impact. Consequently, in accordance with her specific mission she will. be able to offer criteria for discerning the moral conduct required of all human beings in view of their integral salvation.

3. Before offering you several reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the Magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence. I will cite here two interventions.

In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points (cf. AAS 42 [1950], pp. 575-576).

For my part, when I received those taking part in your Academy's plenary assembly on 31 October 1992, I had the opportunity, with regard to Galileo, to draw attention to the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences (cf. AAS 85 [1993] pp. 764-772; Address to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, 23 April 1993, announcing the document on The interpretation of the Bible in the Church: AAS 86 [1994] pp. 232-243).

Evolution and the Church's Magisterium

4. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the Encyclical Humani generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from Revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return.

Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.

What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology. A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified, it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.

Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy. And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reduc tionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.

5. The Church's Magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar Constitution Gaudium et spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is :the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake" (n. 24). In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society, he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers. St Thomas observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created (Summa Theologica, I-II, q. 3, a. 5, ad 1). But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfilment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ (cf. Gaudium et spes, n. 22). It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animal enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere inhet"; Encyclical Humani generic, AAS 42 [1950], p. 575).

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

6. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition into the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.

We are called to enter eternal life

7. In conclusion, I would like to call to mind a Gospel truth which can shed a higher light on the horizon of your research into the origins and unfolding of living matter. The Bible in fact bears an extraordinary message of life. It gives us a wise vision of life inasmuch as it describes the loftiest forms of existence. This vision guided me in the Encyclical which I dedicated to respect for human life, and which I called precisely Evangelium vitae.

It is significant that in St John's Gospel life refers to the divine light which Christ communicates to us. We are called to enter into eternal life, that is to say, into the eternity of divine beatitude.

To warn us against the serious temptations threatening us, our Lord quotes the great saying of Deuteronomy: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Dt 8:3, cf. Mt 4:4).

Even more, "life" is one of the most beautiful titles which the Bible attributes to God. He is the living God.

I cordially invoke an abundance of divine blessings upon you and upon all who are close to you.

From the Vatican, 22 October 1996.
 
Last edited:
I repeat again, evolution is an atheistic ideology, and iot can never be anything other than an atheistic ideology.

You are as wrong as you were last time.

The important distinction about the mainstream Catholic view is that it is essentially dualistic. While evolution is accepted, that is evolution of the bodily form, not of the soul. Their argument is that the soul - the essence of man, and what makes man different from the other animals - is a creation of God, and not of the evolutionary process. The evolutionary process itself, of course, was designed by God.

It's a position that fairly neatly reconciles traditional monotheistic theology and the empirical evidence of science. Most intellectual opposition to it (from those others than pure creationists) is on philosophical grounds, dualism being rather unpopular in philosophical circles these days. That lengthy quote makes the position quite clear;

On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reduc tionist and spiritualist interpretations.

"Evolution" is not disputed, but the mechanisms and the philosophy behind various alternatives is. The Church favours a spiritualist interpretation, and not a materialist/reductionist (go look those terms up if you don't know them) one, which would be incompatable with their doctrine.

Evolution in itself is NOT an "atheistic" theory (its not an "ideology" at all), and there is no reason somebody with strong religious views cannot also accept it.
 
:sl: to the Muslims

What about this portion?

The Church's Magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar Constitution Gaudium et spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is :the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake" (n. 24). In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society, he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers. St Thomas observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created (Summa Theologica, I-II, q. 3, a. 5, ad 1). But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfilment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ (cf. Gaudium et spes, n. 22). It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animal enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere inhet"; Encyclical Humani generic, AAS 42 [1950], p. 575).

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.


It first talks about "theories" of evolution, and then goes on to negate the evolution theory that is taught as fact in science circles as degrading to mankind. Of course that is of no consequence for the likes of root and his peers, for whom humans are just another animal like pigs or dogs and religion is a mere matter of chance due to advanced human intellect...

Of course as a Muslim, I do not really care for what the Pope or Christians say, but it is worth noting they are not as much in agreement with the Evolution worshippers as they would like them to be with them on this matter.
 
Greetings,
It first talks about "theories" of evolution, and then goes on to negate the evolution theory that is taught as fact in science circles as degrading to mankind.

You've misunderstood the text you've quoted, and this has caused you to misrepresent what it says. The text does not "negate the evolution theory", it simply opposes those interpretations of it which contradict the Catholic Church's dualistic understanding of body and soul. See Trumble's post for a statement on the Church's view.

Peace
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top