Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"you know nothing about Jesus"you know nothing about Jesus------the nuns did not know either. he wasJesus was an anti-establishment Jewish hippy (just like many modern Jewish hippies).
Whereas Jesus was completely respectful to the Romans, particularly their tax collectors and also Pontius Pilate, he was very anti Sanhedrin.
That plus his immense following in Galilee and Judaea is what got him crucified. The Sanhedrin was afraid they were going to lose their jobs.
Jesus loved the poor, was a communist centuries before the Communist Manifesto was written, was itinerant and homeless, practiced medicine without a license, was a wine maker, and loved making speeches at big rallies.
He did however also have a streak of violence in that he chased the temple money changers out two years in a row, overturning their tables and making them scramble for their gold.
So this is what we now call a complex personality.
very typical for his time------a fairly educated person from Galilee----
ardent PHARISEE-----of the school of Hillel The money changers of the
Temple were pro roman-----the pharisees wanted them OUT to the point of hysteria. This fact is EXTENSIVELY documented (maybe not in latin). The socialism you call communism is inherent in jewish economic law. ----all kinds of laws about---passing stuff around and the RIGHTS of the poor to this or that percentage of the harvest------(agricultural economy)
It was just not consistent with Roman forms. Romans were there to get whatever wealth there was to
get----Pharisees were their enemies----including Jesus
It's a fair statement to say we ALL know little about the real Jesus of Nazareth.
Those who wrote about him (many unknown authors) did so decades or centuries after he died.
Those who wrote about him may have had a political agenda, esp those who never met him.
It's fair to say Jesus is a centuries old myth.
Why should that myth matter today?
Same for Moses, Muhammad, and other folklore.
.
The GOP opposes abortion due to votes is all because people like you do not think women should have a choice, your type doesn't' even want classes on "how babies are made in schools". What is worst than abortions is the spread of disease, and BC pill do not stop that.
Now I do not think HS kids should engage in sex at all, but they do apparently, so are you going to stop it, education is the key, but Devos is so in to Christian schools I doubt if there is sex ed at all in her schools. Now for a woman out of school who gets pg , that is do to ignorance or cheap rubbers. Here all your concerned about is not , how to avoid a sexually transmitted diseases but , but all you care about is make sure you have that baby, even though that woman may be pregnant with a VD or worst yet since PP's are going to be shut down, this woman is HIV positive and you just want to make sure that baby is born and carried for 40 weeks, so she can have an unhealthy baby due to ignorance and lack of health care.
Then you consider it murder , but refuse to file charges against her. I guess we can go back to back street abortions, is that what you want??
Only females should be allowed to vote on this as men do not seem to think they are responsible.
Women do have choices, but why should taking a life be one of those choices? As someone who works with special ed students, I cannot help but resent the appellation "unhealthy baby" as if these children, born unhealthy, are some kind of unwanted garbage. Some of the most loving students I have ever taught are "unhealthy" and, in my opinion, also some of the most worthy of the label, 'human being'.
Most aborted babies do not rise to the level of "unhealthy"; they only rise to the level of "inconvenient".
ummm... because there was no case before SCOTUS and it is a states right.Why do you think bush and scalia and hastert and delay didn't ban abortion? I wonder how far trump Ryan and McConnell and gorcich will push this?Did you learn this?I learned it at the DIA, also when I went to DPS and ran into the dpdEver hear of google?What's dne?Do you think you could do a D&E by dismemberment? You know, pull their limbs off one at a time. I bet you could.
Excerpts from NAF's direct examination of Dr. Timothy Johnson
THE COURT: Did you ever participate with another doctor describing it to a woman considering such an abortion?
THE WITNESS: Yes. And the description would be, I would think, descriptive of what was going to be, what was going to happen; the description.
THE COURT: Including sucking the brain out of the skull?
THE WITNESS: I don't think we would use those terms. I think we would probably use a term like decompression of the skull or reducing the contents of the skull.
THE COURT: Make it nice and palatable so that they wouldn't understand what it's all about?
THE WITNESS: No. I think we want them to understand what it's all about but it's -- I think it's -- I guess I would say that whenever we describe medical procedures we try to do it in a way that's not offensive or gruesome or overly graphic for patients.
THE COURT: Can they fully comprehend unless you do? Not all of these mothers are Rhodes scholars or highly educated, are they?
THE WITNESS: No, that's true. But I'm also not exactly sure what using terminology like sucking the brains out would --
THE COURT: That's what happens, doesn't it?
THE WITNESS: Well, in some situations that might happen. There are different ways that an after-coming head could be dealt with but that is one way of describing it.
THE COURT: Isn't that what actually happens? You do use a suction device, right?
THE WITNESS: Well, there are physicians who do that procedure who use a suction device to evacuate the intercranial contents; yes.
History, as depicted in printed matter that survives, is written by political elite & survivors of conflict. That is the consistency.I do not believe that classical scriptural writings arise out of thin air. They contati a grain of truth. Thus I do believe that a person named YESHUA existed and that he was a leader of sorts------whatever remains that is credible of his history points to him as being a fairly typical, somewhat educated Pharisee of his time."you know nothing about Jesus"you know nothing about Jesus------the nuns did not know either. he wasJesus was an anti-establishment Jewish hippy (just like many modern Jewish hippies).
Whereas Jesus was completely respectful to the Romans, particularly their tax collectors and also Pontius Pilate, he was very anti Sanhedrin.
That plus his immense following in Galilee and Judaea is what got him crucified. The Sanhedrin was afraid they were going to lose their jobs.
Jesus loved the poor, was a communist centuries before the Communist Manifesto was written, was itinerant and homeless, practiced medicine without a license, was a wine maker, and loved making speeches at big rallies.
He did however also have a streak of violence in that he chased the temple money changers out two years in a row, overturning their tables and making them scramble for their gold.
So this is what we now call a complex personality.
very typical for his time------a fairly educated person from Galilee----
ardent PHARISEE-----of the school of Hillel The money changers of the
Temple were pro roman-----the pharisees wanted them OUT to the point of hysteria. This fact is EXTENSIVELY documented (maybe not in latin). The socialism you call communism is inherent in jewish economic law. ----all kinds of laws about---passing stuff around and the RIGHTS of the poor to this or that percentage of the harvest------(agricultural economy)
It was just not consistent with Roman forms. Romans were there to get whatever wealth there was to
get----Pharisees were their enemies----including Jesus
It's a fair statement to say we ALL know little about the real Jesus of Nazareth.
Those who wrote about him (many unknown authors) did so decades or centuries after he died.
Those who wrote about him may have had a political agenda, esp those who never met him.
It's fair to say Jesus is a centuries old myth.
Why should that myth matter today?
Same for Moses, Muhammad, and other folklore.
The aspect of the written history that are consistent with that fact are reasonably
credible
I would never suggest a known Downs syndrome baby or another with a known genetic disease get aborted, but I do believe healthy adults have more a change of having a healthy baby. Do you really think women take abortions so lightly, some may use it as birth control but most do not and its a major decision. Its not for you or me to say what a women does with her baby, and certainty not the men who get these women pregnant. Due to education , less and less abortions are being done. I am more concerned about not using protection and the spread of STD's, if we could just focus on that many more females would not get pregnant unless planned. There would be no need for abortions, that is the ultimate goal in my mind.
History, as depicted in printed matter that survives, is written by political elite & survivors of conflict. That is the consistency.I do not believe that classical scriptural writings arise out of thin air. They contati a grain of truth. Thus I do believe that a person named YESHUA existed and that he was a leader of sorts------whatever remains that is credible of his history points to him as being a fairly typical, somewhat educated Pharisee of his time."you know nothing about Jesus"you know nothing about Jesus------the nuns did not know either. he wasJesus was an anti-establishment Jewish hippy (just like many modern Jewish hippies).
Whereas Jesus was completely respectful to the Romans, particularly their tax collectors and also Pontius Pilate, he was very anti Sanhedrin.
That plus his immense following in Galilee and Judaea is what got him crucified. The Sanhedrin was afraid they were going to lose their jobs.
Jesus loved the poor, was a communist centuries before the Communist Manifesto was written, was itinerant and homeless, practiced medicine without a license, was a wine maker, and loved making speeches at big rallies.
He did however also have a streak of violence in that he chased the temple money changers out two years in a row, overturning their tables and making them scramble for their gold.
So this is what we now call a complex personality.
very typical for his time------a fairly educated person from Galilee----
ardent PHARISEE-----of the school of Hillel The money changers of the
Temple were pro roman-----the pharisees wanted them OUT to the point of hysteria. This fact is EXTENSIVELY documented (maybe not in latin). The socialism you call communism is inherent in jewish economic law. ----all kinds of laws about---passing stuff around and the RIGHTS of the poor to this or that percentage of the harvest------(agricultural economy)
It was just not consistent with Roman forms. Romans were there to get whatever wealth there was to
get----Pharisees were their enemies----including Jesus
It's a fair statement to say we ALL know little about the real Jesus of Nazareth.
Those who wrote about him (many unknown authors) did so decades or centuries after he died.
Those who wrote about him may have had a political agenda, esp those who never met him.
It's fair to say Jesus is a centuries old myth.
Why should that myth matter today?
Same for Moses, Muhammad, and other folklore.
The aspect of the written history that are consistent with that fact are reasonably
credible
Does not mean accuracy.
And certainly not relevant TODAY, if one is realistic & objective.
.
I would never suggest a known Downs syndrome baby or another with a known genetic disease get aborted, but I do believe healthy adults have more a change of having a healthy baby. Do you really think women take abortions so lightly, some may use it as birth control but most do not and its a major decision. Its not for you or me to say what a women does with her baby, and certainty not the men who get these women pregnant. Due to education , less and less abortions are being done. I am more concerned about not using protection and the spread of STD's, if we could just focus on that many more females would not get pregnant unless planned. There would be no need for abortions, that is the ultimate goal in my mind.
Did I say that women take abortion lightly?
Yes, it is for society to take a stand about what women do with their babies. Spousal abuse and child abuse should not be private matters. Do you believe spousal or child abuse is ever okay?
Abortion is the very definition of abuse towards children.I would never suggest a known Downs syndrome baby or another with a known genetic disease get aborted, but I do believe healthy adults have more a change of having a healthy baby. Do you really think women take abortions so lightly, some may use it as birth control but most do not and its a major decision. Its not for you or me to say what a women does with her baby, and certainty not the men who get these women pregnant. Due to education , less and less abortions are being done. I am more concerned about not using protection and the spread of STD's, if we could just focus on that many more females would not get pregnant unless planned. There would be no need for abortions, that is the ultimate goal in my mind.
Did I say that women take abortion lightly?
Yes, it is for society to take a stand about what women do with their babies. Spousal abuse and child abuse should not be private matters. Do you believe spousal or child abuse is ever okay?
Of course not, but what does this have to do with Rep Christians, I do not believe abuse is a partisan issue.
Abortion is the very definition of abuse towards children.I would never suggest a known Downs syndrome baby or another with a known genetic disease get aborted, but I do believe healthy adults have more a change of having a healthy baby. Do you really think women take abortions so lightly, some may use it as birth control but most do not and its a major decision. Its not for you or me to say what a women does with her baby, and certainty not the men who get these women pregnant. Due to education , less and less abortions are being done. I am more concerned about not using protection and the spread of STD's, if we could just focus on that many more females would not get pregnant unless planned. There would be no need for abortions, that is the ultimate goal in my mind.
Did I say that women take abortion lightly?
Yes, it is for society to take a stand about what women do with their babies. Spousal abuse and child abuse should not be private matters. Do you believe spousal or child abuse is ever okay?
Of course not, but what does this have to do with Rep Christians, I do not believe abuse is a partisan issue.
Signs of child abuse
Failure to thrive
Let's look at the main point:
Signs of child abuse
Failure to thrive
Let's look at the main point:
Signs of child abuse
Failure to thrive
To be murdered under the US Constitution requires one be a "person." But that is not a scientific concept. Being a homo sapiens sapiens is a scientific concept. But personhood is a vague popular term that is often used in reference to the essence of being human, rather than the facticity of being of our species. It is often admitted as a quality androids might have in the future. And it is something people who are brain dead are often said to be lacking.Let's look at the main point:
Signs of child abuse
Failure to thrive
Let's look at the main point:
Signs of child abuse
Failure to thrive
I would like to approach this from a different perspective.To be murdered under the US Constitution requires one be a "person." But that is not a scientific concept. Being a homo sapiens sapiens is a scientific concept. But personhood is a vague popular term that is often used in reference to the essence of being human, rather than the facticity of being of our species. It is often admitted as a quality androids might have in the future. And it is something people who are brain dead are often said to be lacking.
The Supreme Court ruled it is indeed such a term. And then defined it as not including the early stages of human development that precede viability. There is no room for scientific rebuttal (except fine tuning the date of viability).
Killing members of our species has never been defined as murder for all purposes. There is war, self defense, and criminal punishment. And historically there was dishonoring ones parents, family, or tribe, believing in the wrong god, being allegedly in league with the devil (virtually never a true allegation). Indeed in Europe, death was reigned down on Jews and Muslim for centuries for worshipping the right god (they all worship the same god of Abraham) the wrong way.
Even if murder was plainly applicable, there is the question of when a pregnant woman becomes two individuals? Essentially, this is the question SCOTUS reflections on personhood involved.
And speaking from a theological perspective, there is the question why a woman should not stand in the stead of a demigod concerning any being living inside her body? It has never been clear to me why god alleges jurisdiction over me just because he played a causal role in my existence. My parents had a causal role in my existence, and a less speculative one, but do not have anything like the authority over me that god allegedly does. Nor does a farmer have such authority over his own livestock, which he likewise intervened in the conception of (artificial insemination is the norm concerning some modern livestock).
On top of this we have the fact that serious minded theologians, clerics, and worshipful people freely admit nothing like proof of god exists. This is the scientific problem of the greatest relevance to the abortion question.
So the question re abortion is actually purely legal and linguistic. There is no debate as to what species the tissue of a pre-personhood fetus or zygote is. There is no question as to whether the cells forming the pre-personhood fetus or zygote are alive.
There is debate as to whether it is ensouled, but that is not a scientific question. Rather it is a religious question and therefore legally irrelevant as religious propositions are forbidden from being enshrined in laws owing to the First Amenment. So this has no place in the legislature or in public policy either.
I am curious what you think pro-choice people believe and/or how you think the law works, such that you advocate their is something science can clarify in this debate?
In the end, your question makes no more sense than my query, "What is the mathematical evidence that the OP does not understand the abortion question or American law?"
Finally, the question I have never seen addressed is why, if abortion was murder based primarily on religious grounds, did it not come to be criminalized in toto until less than two hundred years ago in a religious traditions that are thousands of years old? Note to mention, the Bible enumerates countless reasons for legitimate murder that are far more spacious than abortion.
I would like to approach this from a different perspective.To be murdered under the US Constitution requires one be a "person." But that is not a scientific concept. Being a homo sapiens sapiens is a scientific concept. But personhood is a vague popular term that is often used in reference to the essence of being human, rather than the facticity of being of our species. It is often admitted as a quality androids might have in the future. And it is something people who are brain dead are often said to be lacking.
The Supreme Court ruled it is indeed such a term. And then defined it as not including the early stages of human development that precede viability. There is no room for scientific rebuttal (except fine tuning the date of viability).
Killing members of our species has never been defined as murder for all purposes. There is war, self defense, and criminal punishment. And historically there was dishonoring ones parents, family, or tribe, believing in the wrong god, being allegedly in league with the devil (virtually never a true allegation). Indeed in Europe, death was reigned down on Jews and Muslim for centuries for worshipping the right god (they all worship the same god of Abraham) the wrong way.
Even if murder was plainly applicable, there is the question of when a pregnant woman becomes two individuals? Essentially, this is the question SCOTUS reflections on personhood involved.
And speaking from a theological perspective, there is the question why a woman should not stand in the stead of a demigod concerning any being living inside her body? It has never been clear to me why god alleges jurisdiction over me just because he played a causal role in my existence. My parents had a causal role in my existence, and a less speculative one, but do not have anything like the authority over me that god allegedly does. Nor does a farmer have such authority over his own livestock, which he likewise intervened in the conception of (artificial insemination is the norm concerning some modern livestock).
On top of this we have the fact that serious minded theologians, clerics, and worshipful people freely admit nothing like proof of god exists. This is the scientific problem of the greatest relevance to the abortion question.
So the question re abortion is actually purely legal and linguistic. There is no debate as to what species the tissue of a pre-personhood fetus or zygote is. There is no question as to whether the cells forming the pre-personhood fetus or zygote are alive.
There is debate as to whether it is ensouled, but that is not a scientific question. Rather it is a religious question and therefore legally irrelevant as religious propositions are forbidden from being enshrined in laws owing to the First Amenment. So this has no place in the legislature or in public policy either.
I am curious what you think pro-choice people believe and/or how you think the law works, such that you advocate their is something science can clarify in this debate?
In the end, your question makes no more sense than my query, "What is the mathematical evidence that the OP does not understand the abortion question or American law?"
Finally, the question I have never seen addressed is why, if abortion was murder based primarily on religious grounds, did it not come to be criminalized in toto until less than two hundred years ago in a religious traditions that are thousands of years old? Note to mention, the Bible enumerates countless reasons for legitimate murder that are far more spacious than abortion.
Government has a vested interest in abortion. It can encourage poorer populations to have abortions so that these populations do not become burdensome. It can encourage only the birth of healthy babies in other populations.
Medical insurance has a vested interest in abortions because there is less cost for abortions than full-term pregnancy care and delivery.
Clearly it is wrong for any agency who may have a vested interest in abortion to push their agenda when the bottom line is money.
Abortion, since it involves killing/ending life, is wrong. However, since no citizen is involved, the government cannot prosecute—nor in any way encourage—abortion. Medical insurance coverage cannot include abortion. If a woman (for any reason) decides to abort, then payment for the procedure is up to her. She has no government backing her that what she does is “legal”. It is a limbo-type situation of it is neither “legal” nor prosecutable. It is totally her responsibility to decide the morality and to pay for the procedure. No help from either government or insurance.
Is this overturning Roe vs Wade? Or, is it totally removing the topic from the political realm? I am very much in favor of the latter because as we see, if you truly want to make a mess of something, turn it over to the politicians.
I would like to approach this from a different perspective.To be murdered under the US Constitution requires one be a "person." But that is not a scientific concept. Being a homo sapiens sapiens is a scientific concept. But personhood is a vague popular term that is often used in reference to the essence of being human, rather than the facticity of being of our species. It is often admitted as a quality androids might have in the future. And it is something people who are brain dead are often said to be lacking.
The Supreme Court ruled it is indeed such a term. And then defined it as not including the early stages of human development that precede viability. There is no room for scientific rebuttal (except fine tuning the date of viability).
Killing members of our species has never been defined as murder for all purposes. There is war, self defense, and criminal punishment. And historically there was dishonoring ones parents, family, or tribe, believing in the wrong god, being allegedly in league with the devil (virtually never a true allegation). Indeed in Europe, death was reigned down on Jews and Muslim for centuries for worshipping the right god (they all worship the same god of Abraham) the wrong way.
Even if murder was plainly applicable, there is the question of when a pregnant woman becomes two individuals? Essentially, this is the question SCOTUS reflections on personhood involved.
And speaking from a theological perspective, there is the question why a woman should not stand in the stead of a demigod concerning any being living inside her body? It has never been clear to me why god alleges jurisdiction over me just because he played a causal role in my existence. My parents had a causal role in my existence, and a less speculative one, but do not have anything like the authority over me that god allegedly does. Nor does a farmer have such authority over his own livestock, which he likewise intervened in the conception of (artificial insemination is the norm concerning some modern livestock).
On top of this we have the fact that serious minded theologians, clerics, and worshipful people freely admit nothing like proof of god exists. This is the scientific problem of the greatest relevance to the abortion question.
So the question re abortion is actually purely legal and linguistic. There is no debate as to what species the tissue of a pre-personhood fetus or zygote is. There is no question as to whether the cells forming the pre-personhood fetus or zygote are alive.
There is debate as to whether it is ensouled, but that is not a scientific question. Rather it is a religious question and therefore legally irrelevant as religious propositions are forbidden from being enshrined in laws owing to the First Amenment. So this has no place in the legislature or in public policy either.
I am curious what you think pro-choice people believe and/or how you think the law works, such that you advocate their is something science can clarify in this debate?
In the end, your question makes no more sense than my query, "What is the mathematical evidence that the OP does not understand the abortion question or American law?"
Finally, the question I have never seen addressed is why, if abortion was murder based primarily on religious grounds, did it not come to be criminalized in toto until less than two hundred years ago in a religious traditions that are thousands of years old? Note to mention, the Bible enumerates countless reasons for legitimate murder that are far more spacious than abortion.
Government has a vested interest in abortion. It can encourage poorer populations to have abortions so that these populations do not become burdensome. It can encourage only the birth of healthy babies in other populations.
Medical insurance has a vested interest in abortions because there is less cost for abortions than full-term pregnancy care and delivery.
Clearly it is wrong for any agency who may have a vested interest in abortion to push their agenda when the bottom line is money.
Abortion, since it involves killing/ending life, is wrong. However, since no citizen is involved, the government cannot prosecute—nor in any way encourage—abortion. Medical insurance coverage cannot include abortion. If a woman (for any reason) decides to abort, then payment for the procedure is up to her. She has no government backing her that what she does is “legal”. It is a limbo-type situation of it is neither “legal” nor prosecutable. It is totally her responsibility to decide the morality and to pay for the procedure. No help from either government or insurance.
Is this overturning Roe vs Wade? Or, is it totally removing the topic from the political realm? I am very much in favor of the latter because as we see, if you truly want to make a mess of something, turn it over to the politicians.
Unfortunately the reason we pay for abortions is so we don't have to pay for a poor person's baby for 18 years. I don't mind paying welfare and foodstamps but you guys do. If you are willing to pay for the kid for 18 years feel free to ban abortion.
Republicans are slashing programs that help the poor. Maybe you aren't a Republican?Unfortunately the reason we pay for abortions is so we don't have to pay for a poor person's baby for 18 years. I don't mind paying welfare and foodstamps but you guys do. If you are willing to pay for the kid for 18 years feel free to ban abortion.
That's rather a broad statement, and in fact you don't know what I mind--or don't mind. Most people thrive on being self-sufficient and gladly embrace opportunities to be so. Others (such as those in special ed classes I teach) will need a helping hand their entire lives. Not only do I happily provide that--I joyfully do it. These are great human beings.
Republicans are slashing programs that help the poor. Maybe you aren't a Republican?
I'm starting to become a Republican. Give the tax breaks to the job creators and the poor can go work for them. Government welfare seems designed to keep people on it. For that I say go Republicans!
In fact, I thought I’d list 5 of the biggest lies these conservative “Christians” often tell about themselves.
1. They support freedom: This one has always confounded me a bit. You can’t say you want a nation built on both freedom and religion – that doesn’t make any sense. Being that religion by its very nature is predicated upon rules and control, you can’t logically claim to be the “party for freedom and liberty” while also trying to base large portions of your political ideology on religious principles that literally millions of people don’t share.
2. They’re pro-life: For some reason these people have equated opposing abortion to being “pro-life.” Here’s my rule: When you’re constantly pushing for more war, while supporting the death penalty and often vilifying the poor and needy, you lose all right to call yourselves “pro-life.”
3. They care about the poor and income inequality: This one might be my favorite. Republicans are constantly trying to gut programs that help the most needy among us, while simultaneously painting them as “lazy moochers,” while also opposing raising the minimum wage – yet they’re unapologetic about their support for massive tax breaks for the richest among us. They’re literally trying to convince us that the “solution” to income inequality is more of the same policies that caused it to begin with. And what are those polices? The ones that make the rich even richer at the expense of everyone else.
4. They respect religious freedom: This is one of the biggest lies there is. Sure, they want Christians (or at least their brand of Christianity) to have unlimited ability to say and do whatever they want. But that’s where their love for “religious freedom” stops. When it comes to any other religions, or those who choose to follow no religion, that’s when many of these people typically lose it. While these so-called “religious freedom” advocates want the ability for a Christian-owned business to be able to deny service to homosexuals, could you imagine if some businesses began denying service to Christians? Many of these same “religious freedom” folks would absolutely lose their minds.
5. They’re Christians: I thought I’d save the best for last. The fact that many of these people call themselves Christians to begin with is comical. Jesus Christ, whether you believe he was real or not, symbolizes love, acceptance, tolerance, hope, generosity and compassion – which is pretty much the antithesis to what the Republican party represents. Forgive me if I have trouble envisioning Jesus Christ as someone who’d be a gun-loving, anti-immigrant, poor hating advocate for unregulated capitalism and greed, who felt it was acceptable to judge and discriminate against homosexuals. You know, your typical conservative.
The 5 Biggest Lies Conservative "Christians" Tell About Themselves
And you thought you were Christians!! You can pretend all you want, but we know the truth.
