• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Augustine & Original Sin

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
One of the general differences between Western and Eastern Christianity is in their view of 'Original Sin'. A while ago I came across this blog post that details how Augustine may have been wrong about OS because of a misreading of the Greek and Latin texts. This is the main basis for mainstream RC and Protestant views of OS, though it is not the only view acceptable to Catholics it is the dominant one.

I'd like to know your thoughts on this:

"Augustine took Paul’s phrase “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” following the Vulgate “in quo omnes peccaverunt” to be “in whom [Adam] all sinned”.

(The Greek can be transliterated ef’ ho pantes hemarton.) Well, Augustine didn’t actually use the Vulgate, which was being translated during his lifetime, but the sometimes not very accurate Old Latin translations. But his Latin version seems to have been similar to the Vulgate here. Doug continues:

The Augustinian interpretation of Paul’s “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” as meaning “in whom all sinned” makes it the most disastrous preposition in history. All modern translations agree that its proper meaning is “because.”

More precisely, “the most disastrous preposition” is ἐφ᾽ ef’, a contracted form of epi meaning “on”. The Greek phrase ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ef’ ho literally means “on which”, or possibly “on whom”, but is commonly used to mean “because”, or perhaps “in that”. The problem is that the Latin rendering of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, in quo, is ambiguous between “in which” and “in whom” (I’m not sure if it can also mean simply “because” or “in that”), and Augustine understood it as meaning “in whom”, i.e. “in Adam”."


Augustine's mistake about original sin - Gentle WisdomGentle Wisdom

On the TV miniseries, Roots, by Alex Haley, new slave, Kunta Kinte, was chained up and whipped until he denounced his name and took the name "Toby." In the mean time, his new pious master was too busy studying the scriptures (bible) to be interrupted to talk to Kunta Kinte nor to intervene in his defense. (Don't bother me with goodness....I'm too busy trying to figure out how to be good).

I see that you are embroiled in the minutia and academia of the bible. In the mean time, today, there are homeless people roaming the streets. Christians are supposed to follow Christ, and it is a sin to be silent about the homeless problem.

Is it off topic to show that the distraction of the bible allows many to sin by ignoring Christ's path? How can we wonder about original sin while sinning and harming?

Perhaps "original sin" is about our capacity to sin? That is, if we can ignore our duties in the world, and bury ourselves in studies of the ancient bible (that don't really have much to do with the way we live our lives today), then we have sin, and that sin isn't about something that we acquired, but it is about the friction between us and the world around us.

The bible isn't just a history book (of what happened in the past), it is an instruction book, telling us how to live our lives today.


Please watch this youtube video on "original sin."
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
Original sin was connected to eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which is symbolic of law. Law defines, teaches and enforces what is considered good and evil behavior. Paul says, that sin is not imputed where there is no law. Sin only appears when a law appears, since sin has no power outside the law.

For example, things that were not against the law, 100 years ago, but which are now against the law, only become a sin when the law appears. When automobiles first appeared, one did not need a license to drive. This requirement only became a sin, when a law was created that said now you need a license. Law and sin is not magic but follows cause and affect, with law the cause of sin. Paul also said sin taking opportunity through the commandment produces sin of every kind.

Law defines and therefore creates sin. The more laws we define the sins that are created. The accumulative affect of law, is a lot of unconscious sin, that one is forced to learn by being defined by the law. This creates an internal polarization, contrary to instinct, causing another affect noticed by Paul. Sin taking opportunity through the new commandment, produces sin of every kind. The unnatural potential defined by law of man will need to be lowered. This will often occur via unconscious impulse, even in ways that do not appear to be directly connected to the specific law. It is more abbots the law that broke the camel's back. One may get pissed off and break a window due to the sudden hike in taxes.

As another example of the problems with law, marijuana laws are different state to state in the USA. If you travel across the country, smoking marijuana, you will be a sinner in those states where there is a law. However, you will not be a sinner where there is no law. Sin will only be imputed in states where there is a law. Law, like magic, can be used to define sin, and thereby intoxicate the power hungry. The power to make law and define sin can make the ego feel like a god, able to define the sins of others, while ignoring this for yourself. The dual standards the laws of the Democrats, in Washington, behave this way

Original sin is the breaking of the first law of good and evil. This began as a taboo against irrationality accepting law; tree of knowledge, due to fear and vanity, as better than instinct; tree of life. This cultural premise then set a pattern for humans, with some playing god each generation, defining law to give power to sin, in a way that is not rational or universal, but designed to help maintain and consolidate power. Different laws, in different states, for the same thing is not rational, and will lead to problems.

Jesus did away with law in favor of faith. He nailed law and its defined sins to the cross. When Jesus was tried, the Roman magistrate saw no violation of law worthy of death. The Pharisees, who wanted Jesus gone, made up a new law and a new sin to allow the death penalty. Human cultures, after Jesus, continued to make laws of man and accept laws of man, and therefore perpetrated the schema of original sin. Paul makes a distinction between laws of man and laws of God. The laws of God do not show preferences and are the same for all; ten commandments. Manmade tend to be political; subjective and ofter have dual standards that do not apply to the powerful and rich.

Laws of man often have self serving, dual standards, which render it manipulative. For example, Nixon was impeached for spying on an opposition political party. Obama did a similar thing, but worse in 2016, since he used government resources to help him spy. Obama was not even charged for doing something worse; dual standards. This is how laws of man creates injustice. Ironically, all you need to do is be in power and say that a new law allows any president named to Obama, is sinless, even if he breaks the same laws that Nixon broke. This is why God said, you shall surely die if you choose law. The corrupt will control the law and make laws that can railroad the innocent and protect and promote criminals.

Another good example is censorship of free speech on social media. The rules or laws of man on FaceBook will allow free speech for third world dictators to threaten other countries. It also allows Democrats to freely speak their talking points However, rules and laws will target and censor conservation ideas. This type of partition law is a continuation of original sin, since this is based on deception, is self serving and not rational and universal. Adam and Eve ate to booster their own egos and positions of power, not to make the best rational choices for all humans. Many modern laws do the same thing and lead to death and problems for others.

Adam and Eve at the fruit of forbidden knowledge, so committed the first sin. That sin is said to have passed to their progeny in the form of original sin.

Perhaps our sin is about what we are capable of doing, not about what Adam and Eve did? So, Adam and Eve might have been the first sinners, but perhaps that was not original sin? Original sin might be within us....our ability to choose to do bad things?
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Paul himself warned about this - striving over words.
Doesn't make any difference if one verse is ambiguous - the WHOLE BIBLE EMPLOYS
THIS THEME OF ORIGINAL SIN.
Don't believe it? Watch a new born baby, or try to find a perfect human being.


Hi @PruePhillip

Are you implying that, in your religion, a “new born baby” who lives, say, one day, has somehow committed sin or is guilty of sin?

If you are implying a newborn sinned or can be guilty of sin can you explain what sin a one hour-old baby possibly can be guilty of?


Clear
σεφιφυω
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Hi @PruePhillip

Are you implying that, in your religion, a “new born baby” who lives, say, one day, has somehow committed sin or is guilty of sin?

If you are implying a newborn sinned or can be guilty of sin can you explain what sin a one hour-old baby possibly can be guilty of?


Clear
σεφιφυω

I don't mean a 'one hour baby'
or a fetus
or someone still born

the point is that in 'your religion' you should accept that
we have human nature, we want to get our own way. The
dual nature of man - both flesh and spirit, is emphasized
often in the Old Testament.
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi @PruePhillip

REGARDING CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT THAT ADOPTED THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN -

WHAT SINS DO NEWBORNS COMMIIT?

PruePhillip said : “the WHOLE BIBLE EMPLOYS THIS THEME OF ORIGINAL SIN.
Don't believe it? Watch a new born baby, or try to find a perfect human being. (post #34)

Clear asked : “Are you implying that, in your religion, a “new born baby” who lives, say, one day, has somehow committed sin or is guilty of sin? If you are implying a newborn sinned or can be guilty of sin can you explain what sin a one hour-old baby possibly can be guilty of? (post #44)
PruePhillip explained : “I don't a 'one hour baby' or a foetus or someone still born (Post #45)



Hi @PruePhillip

I can’t understand your answer.
I am speaking exclusively of a NEWBORN HUMAN BABY

Can you explain what sin a newborn is guilty of or commits?

Clear
σιφιακω
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Hi @PruePhillip

REGARDING CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT THAT ADOPTED THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN -

WHAT SINS DO NEWBORNS COMMIIT?

PruePhillip said : “the WHOLE BIBLE EMPLOYS THIS THEME OF ORIGINAL SIN.
Don't believe it? Watch a new born baby, or try to find a perfect human being. (post #34)

Clear asked : “Are you implying that, in your religion, a “new born baby” who lives, say, one day, has somehow committed sin or is guilty of sin? If you are implying a newborn sinned or can be guilty of sin can you explain what sin a one hour-old baby possibly can be guilty of? (post #44)
PruePhillip explained : “I don't a 'one hour baby' or a foetus or someone still born (Post #45)



Hi @PruePhillip

I can’t understand your answer.
I am speaking exclusively of a NEWBORN HUMAN BABY

Can you explain what sin a newborn is guilty of or commits?

Clear
σιφιακω

Absolutely none. That's not my point. That's like saying a fetus has sin.
It's our newborn nature that's the problem, but a newborn has yet to begin
expressing that nature.
BTW children can be quite cruel, demanding, self centered etc..
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Adam and Eve at the fruit of forbidden knowledge, so committed the first sin. That sin is said to have passed to their progeny in the form of original sin.

Perhaps our sin is about what we are capable of doing, not about what Adam and Eve did? So, Adam and Eve might have been the first sinners, but perhaps that was not original sin? Original sin might be within us....our ability to choose to do bad things?
Theism says space womb is origin sin.

When O mass was in a satanic hell self consuming form.

How energy became a seal stone as god is the highest held massed body.

A science human teaching.

Human not existing in that theism.

Human contemplating good and evil will get destroyed. As human was in a good place safe. With God earth sealed. Self teaching to satanism. Chosen radiation burning.

Taking from knowledge the scientist temple builder.... story told after the fact looking back commentary activated space moment in God held mass. Heavens and stone laws all changed to create science radiation signals. He invented them.

Which is his God science confession. Told by humans already living on God earth to tell the stories.

The theory was how to convert God. The stone. The seal. Not in sin.

God owned no sin.
Human life owned no sin.

Sin was a science thesis how to get to the energy.moment and hold it. Evil. Knowledge never God.

Losing a portion of mass. Keeping the reaction cooled. Maintains reaction for purpose outcome. Some of God form kept present but no longer God.

Nuclear dust ground fission moment attacked his man body in side rib. Seeing he was living when he caused false female science maths space voiding event.

Why I know I saw info in science man caused vision. Golden rod stabbed him in his side. Effect of being the designer of science.

The past science secret how to man U facture gold. Their commodity.

A secret science.

Gold in a natural God seam.

God thesis sewing as. Formula. Changes to earth pressures. Had to void atmospheric mass first. Night time sky burnt for six days. Vacuum stopped it seventh day.

Science now invented by man as created man sin. Scientist a satanist did it. Exactly what the records said.

Looking back the man human warning relevant to his space female womb maths sophist theories. The female science maths reaction evil hurt him.

Changed the earth mother space heaven womb state. Voided it. Ever since UFO gases are seen at night burning. His science sin.

A correct not lying teaching..unlike his science man self who owns man reasons for not publicly revealing what he knew.

He could not stop his science brother and did not want more humans knowing his evil brothers thinking thesis. Which today prevents our natural families understanding.

We were taught it is evil. And just agree it was.

Too many humans today argue it was good reason. When the detail said it was not good.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
PruePhillip said : “the WHOLE BIBLE EMPLOYS THIS THEME OF ORIGINAL SIN.
Don't believe it? Watch a new born baby, or try to find a perfect human being. (post #34)

Clear asked : “Are you implying that, in your religion, a “new born baby” who lives, say, one day, has somehow committed sin or is guilty of sin? If you are implying a newborn sinned or can be guilty of sin can you explain what sin a one hour-old baby possibly can be guilty of? (post #44 Spelling and word errors included)
PruePhillip explained : “I don't a 'one hour baby' or a foetus or someone still born (Post #45)
Clear responded : “I can’t understand your answer. I am speaking exclusively of a NEWBORN HUMAN BABY Can you explain what sin a newborn is guilty of or commits? (post #46)
PruePhillip said : “Absolutely none. That's not my point. That's like saying a fetus has sin. It's our newborn nature that's the problem, but a newborn has yet to begin
expressing that nature. " (post #47)



Your claim that newborns have yet to express their "newborn nature" seems illogical and incorrect.
A newborn, by definition, has the nature of a newborn AND, by definition, a newborn expresses the nature of a newborn from the moment it is a newborn.
That is part of the definition OF being a "newborn"


You claimed :
"the WHOLE BIBLE EMPLOYS THIS THEME OF ORIGINAL SIN.
Don't believe it? Watch a new born baby,…” (post #34)


Can you explain your claim?
How does "watching" a newborn have to do with the “theme of original sin”?


Clear
ακφιφυω
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
PruePhillip said : “the WHOLE BIBLE EMPLOYS THIS THEME OF ORIGINAL SIN.

Can you explain your claim?
How does "watching" a newborn have to do with the “theme of original sin”?

Clear
ακφιφυω

At this point we need a definition of 'sin.'
Not as in 'crime'.
 

alypius

Active Member
This belief is based on what is likely a mistranslation perpetuated by Augustine. The more likely meaning of that passage is that because of what Adam did, sin is possible, not that folks are born with sin or guilt; this would also negate free will. It's much more in line with the original Greek in this passage that Paul had a view of sin that was similar to the Orthodox Christian view; that is, that we are capable of sin, not that we carry any inherent sin or guilt. Death is not even mandated, as Enoch and Elijah didn't die.

If the effect of Adam's action is only to make possible that a descendent could sin, then why couldn't there be a descendent who never sinned in life and can go to heaven without relying on Christ's redemptive sacrifice [key word is 'only']?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I see that you are embroiled in the minutia and academia of the bible. In the mean time, today, there are homeless people roaming the streets. Christians are supposed to follow Christ, and it is a sin to be silent about the homeless problem.

One day I heard one guy ask a similar question from a guy who plays the violin. He thought Music was useless and he could spend more time doing some charity.

I think this kind of questions are invalid. If one wishes, very many things can be thought of as useless or a waste of time and could be spent doing more important things like "helping the homeless".

In order to establish this as a valid theory you have to do an extensive research to maybe find if these things like "academia" has what level of effect on the world at large. Otherwise, its just an ad hominem.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Christians are supposed to follow Christ, and it is a sin to be silent about the homeless problem.
?

Clara. There is no mention of homelessness in the Gospels - only that Jesus and those that went
out preaching became homeless by choice.
The Gospel is not a social welfare function.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
That sounds like some pretty warped logic to me.

Me too. There is something deep inside me that screams out that we should be measured and judged by our own actions, not the actions of our ancient ancestors.

Suppose, for example, that there are two brothers, one good one evil (maybe I should leave my family out of this?). If the evil one sins, should the good one pay for those sins? Is an entire family responsible for the sins of one member?

In many Asian cultures, one could lose face if a family member disgraced the family. Each and every member must toe the line and be responsible. Imagine how much better the world would be if the tagger gang members felt that same family humiliation (and if their family members came down hard on them if they misbehaved). Maybe this cultural difference explains why some neighborhoods are cess pools of destruction and dangerous?

It seems as though it works to share sin among living families, because they can be shamed into behaving. But how can we learn from the mistakes of Adam and Eve?

Are we supposed to behave extra well, because we know that God is giving us a second (or perhaps 20th) chance?

It seems to me that God made us as we are....imperfect. So, naturally, it is God's fault if we have sin. Why did God put the fruit of forbidden knowledge in the Garden of Eden if it was so easy to pick and eat? It sounds as though mankind was set up for failure.

God set down rules for us to follow....rules like "don't covet your neighbor's wife," but made it very plain that his rules don't apply to him. God cuckold Joseph (had sex with a married woman....his wife, and had baby Jesus). Obviously the rules that God made for mankind don't apply to him.

Maybe we are not supposed to be asking God for forgiveness for original sin, but it should be the other way around. That is, maybe we are the ones who are supposed to forgive God?

Where was God when Jews were being tossed in Nazi ovens? Why aren't prayers answered for those suffering horribly from cancer? Maybe it is God who needs to be forgiven, if God has the ability to help, has the ability to see all, and idly sits back and watches all this suffering?

Is it blasphemy to question?
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Me too. There is something deep inside me that screams out that we should be measured and judged by our own actions, not the actions of our ancient ancestors.

Suppose, for example, that there are two brothers, one good one evil (maybe I should leave my family out of this?). If the evil one sins, should the good one pay for those sins? Is an entire family responsible for the sins of one member?

In many Asian cultures, one could lose face if a family member disgraced the family. Each and every member must toe the line and be responsible. Imagine how much better the world would be if the tagger gang members felt that same family humiliation (and if their family members came down hard on them if they misbehaved). Maybe this cultural difference explains why some neighborhoods are cess pools of destruction and dangerous?

It seems as though it works to share sin among living families, because they can be shamed into behaving. But how can we learn from the mistakes of Adam and Eve?

Are we supposed to behave extra well, because we know that God is giving us a second (or perhaps 20th) chance?

It seems to me that God made us as we are....imperfect. So, naturally, it is God's fault if we have sin. Why did God put the fruit of forbidden knowledge in the Garden of Eden if it was so easy to pick and eat? It sounds as though mankind was set up for failure.

God set down rules for us to follow....rules like "don't covet your neighbor's wife," but made it very plain that his rules don't apply to him. God cuckold Joseph (had sex with a married woman....his wife, and had baby Jesus). Obviously the rules that God made for mankind don't apply to him.

Maybe we are not supposed to be asking God for forgiveness for original sin, but it should be the other way around. That is, maybe we are the ones who are supposed to forgive God?

Where was God when Jews were being tossed in Nazi ovens? Why aren't prayers answered for those suffering horribly from cancer? Maybe it is God who needs to be forgiven, if God has the ability to help, has the ability to see all, and idly sits back and watches all this suffering?

Is it blasphemy to question?

How did God quote cuckold Joseph?
What does the bible say about God creating us with a human nature?
And what did God say the fate of the Jewish people would be one day?
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Origin of sin self consuming mass.

Rational human reason. ......did you reason self human presence when you perused first vision of saved earth after the reaction sun big bang conversion,?

No.

No reason used consciousness your science man fact.

Think rational.

You are the highest form who looked back to a reactive earth sun attack yet earth had saved itself. Flooded earth.

Does that review own a claim Mr know it all?

It is what you did. Tried to copy the state converted earth. Machine set earth gases night sky on fire for six days. Seventh day vacuum stopped it.

You have to be present to observe and count. Evolution from saved moment taken away by science activation.

Original sin most evil of acts was to self consume mass. We taught it as satanism.

Man cannot copy origin sin of Satan if that is what you are trying to factor in natural space history. You only own a human ability to convert mine holes as mass removal factored converting of God earth. As equal science cause.

Reason...origin science as science factored pi Phi for mountain mass tip removal as the state known aware converting. Just as a human first thinking as first theist.

As we are only humans and the first theory science was first pyramid was only about mountain top. Reason.

What earth did as God only owned by God and not any machine. What you don't accept.

Daylight always one day constant. Only weather changes. Not the day.

Intelligence means you use it basically for advice.

Not really difficult when you stop trying to coerce opinion by word manipulation.
 

Rival

Diex Aie
Staff member
Premium Member
1. I'm not a Christian, so I have no dog in this fight.

2. This thread is about Augustine's misreading of a Christian passage, and how that has affected the Western Church; how this compares to the Orthodox understanding; and are there any Latin Rite Christians who reject the Augustinian teaching etc?
 

Rival

Diex Aie
Staff member
Premium Member
If the effect of Adam's action is only to make possible that a descendent could sin, then why couldn't there be a descendent who never sinned in life and can go to heaven without relying on Christ's redemptive sacrifice [key word is 'only']?
Also see here:

Torah - Midreshet Moriah

I think part of the answer lies in the Gemara in Bava Batra 17a. There it says that the rabbis taught that there were four people who died never having sinned. Binyamin son of Yaacov, Amram father of Moshe, Yishai father of David, and Kil’av son of David.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Me too. There is something deep inside me that screams out that we should be measured and judged by our own actions, not the actions of our ancient ancestors.
Well, putting "should be" aside, it's what "will be" that matters. And I am absolutely convinced that God will hold each of us accountable for our own sins, and not for Adam's transgression. He would not be a just God otherwise.

Are we supposed to behave extra well, because we know that God is giving us a second (or perhaps 20th) chance?
I believe we're supposed to behave as well as we can in order to show God that we love Him and appreciate the fact that He really is forgiving.

It seems to me that God made us as we are....imperfect. So, naturally, it is God's fault if we have sin. Why did God put the fruit of forbidden knowledge in the Garden of Eden if it was so easy to pick and eat? It sounds as though mankind was set up for failure.
This may strike you as a strange way to see things, but I believe that the events in the Garden of Eden unfolded exactly as God intended them to -- but not because He set up up for failure but because He set us up for growth. Think about it... In Eden, everything was pretty much perfect. Adam and Eve had no concept of good vs evil, pleasure vs pain, light vs dark, happiness vs sorrow, health vs sickness while they were in Eden. That may, at first glance sound pretty ideal, but a person can't really appreciate all that is good without at least being aware that the opposite exists. Besides, it is definitely impossible to choose to do good if there is no alternative choice. The idea that Adam's Fall was actually a good thing was This concept was known anciently as the "felix culpa," which means the "fortunate fall." I believe that God allowed us to experienced the trails of this world because He had something so much better in mind for us once we completed this mortal journey, having learned by our own experiences to make the kinds of choices that would lead us back to His presence.

God set down rules for us to follow....rules like "don't covet your neighbor's wife," but made it very plain that his rules don't apply to him. God cuckold Joseph (had sex with a married woman....his wife, and had baby Jesus). Obviously the rules that God made for mankind don't apply to him.
Actually, according to the Bible, Mary conceived Jesus through miraculous means and not through the sex act. The Bible says that Mary was a virgin both when Jesus was conceived and when He was born. I guess if modern science has figured out how to create a pregnancy without intercourse taking place, it's something God ought to have been able to do too.

Is it blasphemy to question?
Of course not. God gave us our brains for a reason.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Humans are consciousness.

Proven by their awareness.

In self human near water closest mass form water as bio forms.

Not nuclear not physics whose detailing is about when a human never existed. Yet a self present theist is...just human and not the topic an atom.

That form of thinking satanism is not conscious.....as it discussed when no human existed so it did not express consciousness holiness..natural self

A human wrote information data in a healed after the fact Bible review. Looking back at what had occurred owned a holy place where they were healed.

Where the writer was theorising data gathering writing causes. The past destroyed.

Said look what man did to woman. Look what brother did to brother. In occultism.

Man attacked his rib side. Human female forced to become his partner instead of his brother. As his own self in brotherhood DNA died sacrificed in that moment bodily.

How it was taught is not how it was taught in modern thesis..... is not how it is read today.

If you say brother if you designed just an invention only about machine you would be correct. Machine conditions

Instead you theoried all changes occurring to the God earth and heavenly bodies that owned by mass the reactions. Natural bodies not machines.

Your machine is not that mass. You lied.

Described by bible..thesis....science data...
Man lying to God about God. His intention to copy God. Man causing a first man sin. To break law stone and consume it by origin sin law. Consuming nuclear.

Meaning in theory to relatively cause what had preceded caused to natural god. By a massive sun body.

So he theoried on behalf of the sun.

Why he is a satanist.

Day. Gases burning held holy by mother womb space body of spirit being sacrificed.

Is by theme to be body of God spirits that stone owned. Seeing our brother taught science as similes. Like humans but not human.

So if he quotes misquoted idealism religious sciences he said God earth is. Man. Conceived gases in mother space womb. They owned a sacrificed son. Natural light sacrificed as a constant.

Humans quote if light the day did not exist I would die. sacrificed spirit allows me to live. Natural day light.

The sacrificed gases womb cooled keeps me alive. Mother oversees son body sacrificing. A science theme about creation.

Nothing like a sun mass also in that vacuum.

Lying. Satanist theism.

Water separated as mass in a nuclear sun reaction.

Dust was separated also.

Separation the thesis topic.

If you copy and continue separation dust you get nuclear a reaction.

If you continue to separate water it heats it evaporates it leaves as gods help holy baptism above our head. We die irradiated.

Plainly easily taught. Not difficult to teach the truth when you don't lie about what your machine represents as a satanist

Warning the destroyer emerges in science.

Theme sacrificed natural gas daylight taken off the cross womb space vacuum as man sacrificed it in occult science the thesis.

Science lied.
 
Top