• 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!

What if it was created by God to evolve?

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The two parties seem quite capable of answering or responding. If they don't want to, then no one should press anyone at all ever for an answer. And what is "Rule 1" that you mention? There was no need insofar as I see it for you to say anything. Naturally others see it differently and would be willing to explain what they mean by "ironic." But seems that's not you. OK, have a good one...if you want to explain or quote RULE 1, go ahead. If not, don't worry, it's ok, I understand and have a good day.
1. Personal Comments About Members and Staff
Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff. Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them, or harassing staff members for performing moderation duties, will also be considered a personal attack.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Because integrated design is evident everywhere; it is evidence.
Integrated design? What's that? I don't see anything in reality that requires an intelligent designer except some of the design of intelligent animals. That beaver dam couldn't form naturally. It's irreducibly complex, like a the 747 that never appears following a junkyard tornado. Nature couldn't have done it unconsciously.

But the rest? The sun and the moon and the stars, the oceans and the air we breath, the rock we stand on, the rain and the clouds. This is a god of the gaps moment. What about life? We don't have a complete theory of abiogenesis yet, but we once didn't have the Big Bang or evolutionary theory, either. Back then, the gaps weren't nearly as narrow. We already knew that the universe ran itself day-to-day without evidence of or need for intelligent oversight, and so the ruler and creator god of Abraham became the creator (only) god of deism, but we didn't have a theory for the assembly of the universe yet. Now we do except for first life, and that problem will likely have a naturalistic solution.
It's kind of hard though to say knowledgeably how life began on this earth.
Not if you're informed. There are only a few logical possibilities. The first two are much more likely than the third, which is more likely than the fourth:

Life formed by naturalistic abiogenesis on earth.
Life formed naturalistically on another heavenly body and was delivered to earth by an impact.
Life was intelligently designed on earth by advanced extraterrestrials who themselves arose naturalistically long before earth existed.
Life was intelligently designed by a god - a conscious agent preceding, creating, and transcending nature.

I think this list is exhaustive and its elements mutually exclusive, meaning that the correct answer must appear on it as one of the choices. But I don't think one can say more at this time, and maybe never even if a path (or several) for the chemical evolution of life is elucidated.
No one is right all the time about anything.
Some people are virtually always correct when they think they are. There is a way to confirm ideas before believing them, and if one masters it and applies it faithfully (don't go there!) to every instance of deciding what is true about the world, then when he thinks he has a sound reason for belief, it's because he does and is correct in that belief. Empirical conclusions are testable.

On the other hand, faith-based beliefs are untested and often not testable (unfalsifiable). Such beliefs can make one wrong most or all of the time.
the promised Messiah came and did what was promised (or half of it at this stage)
I think that this is incorrect. The Old Testament messiah has never appeared. Jesus doesn't fulfill prophecy, but that's not possible for a believer who is convinced a priori that his Bible is truth and history and its god good and can't or won't evaluate evidence skeptically, open-mindedly and critically. That path leads to a belief set contradictory to the one that empiricism supports.
Chaos needs to be organised by someone otherwise it is chaos organising itself.
We know that happens. We see evidence of self-organizing, far-from-equilibrium, heat dissipating systems in nature, such as tornadoes and hurricanes. Energy causes them to organize from chaotic patterns of molecules typical of a still atmosphere, each moving independently of the others and colliding with one another into an organized funnel of swirling molecules moving together at high speeds. Nobody organized that except nature. And living organisms are also a self-organizing, far-from-equilibrium, heat dissipating systems. The chemicals in a living thing exhibit a complexity not found in the elements before they organized themselves in an egg or womb or whatever nor afterward following death. In between, a living thing is like a hurricane, channeling ambient energy. It's why vortices appear in rivers. They dissipate energy more efficiently.
Life is beyond what we can see about matter and energy.
Not to anybody's knowledge. If you believe otherwise, you believe it by faith, and that isn't knowledge.
You can demand more evidence for belief if you want to but it is not rational to say that it is irrational to believe something until it is 100% proven.
A belief is irrational if it is not sufficiently justified by evidence, and the criterion for belief is not 100% proof. Justified belief is always tentative, although the degree of uncertainty can become vanishingly small, yet never zero.
Consistency over time, fulfilled prophecy over long periods of time, a religion based on historical events and prophecy that is fulfilled instead of religions based solely on philosophy and revelation to one person. All these make the Bible worth believing and show it's reliability.
And if I see scripture as weak prophecy, does that not make the Bible NOT worth believing and therefore not reliable.
Basing belief on the Biblical record is rational and is faith.
One believes because reason justifies that belief or he does so with out that. The former is rational by definiton - reason-based. Faith is not. It is ALWAYS irrational, since it isn't generated using reason. It's in the roots of the word:

1694352721191.png

You see God as an evil person.
If you mean the Abrahamic god, a lot of people find that deity immoral in the extreme. Rebut this if you think it's incorrect:

"The god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins
have kidded yourself into thinking that you have no faith in your life.
You have kidded yourself into believing that it is impossible not to believe things by faith. It's very possible. I have no faith-based beliefs at all. I believe in no gods or other unevidenced creatures. I accept no belief unexamined, just as I don't drive without examining the road. Both can become regular habits, and should.
I try to avoid wasting my time trying to justify God and His edicts to people who see God as just a bad person.
Why? If they are wrong and you are right, shouldn't you be anxious to reveal that to them? That should be easy if you're correct. Of course, if it's the other way around, and it's you that's wrong, your counterarguments will be ineffectual and you will tire of making them.
I find that having faith in the goodness of God can help in seeing what God was doing and why in the Bible.
That's a logical error. The goodness of a god should be a conclusion derived from evidence, not premise believed before examining that evidence.
I'm trusting that the fulfilled prophecies were fulfilled by God and not humans.
Same answer
yes the father shares responsibility with the son in your example
Likewise, so does a tri-omni god. You added, "your example might have been a bit better if you had God as the manufacturer of the car and the manufacturer of the alcohol." Why does that make it better? It makes it less apt. Those manufacturers aren't omniscient. Nevertheless, if their products are foreseeably dangerous, then they are morally responsible for the harm those product do if not also legally.
I was saying that there is truth and error in skeptic arguments and it is best to see them both. That is something that you seem unwilling to believe.
Why should I believe you? You're giving judgments, but not providing any of the examples used as evidence to arrive at them. I'm thinking that you used no such evidence. You used the method you've already described. You've chosen to believe something by faith, and seem to think you used sufficient evidence, but if you can't produce it, your claim that the arguments of skeptics are erroneous (fallacious is the correct word) is dismissed as yet another religious belief. Unsupported beliefs are apparently fine for you, but you seem confused or frustrated or unbelieving that others have another standard for belief.
I was giving an error of skepticism and of course you can't see that error.
But you didn't do that. If you think you did, please tell me what error you identified and link me to it. If you can't, then you didn't do what you said you did, and once again, you provide no reason to believe your opinions. At this point, they appear faith-based based, meaning imagined rather than discovered.
Who in your mind would be a credible witness for such an event? It is not the credibility of the witness or witnesses but the event itself that is the problem for you.
For a resurrection? Nobody. And yes, it' the event itself, which would be extraordinary. Saying that one saw something that looked like a dead person revivifying is not extraordinary evidentiary support.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
The two parties seem quite capable of answering or responding. If they don't want to, then no one should press anyone at all ever for an answer. And what is "Rule 1" that you mention? There was no need insofar as I see it for you to say anything. Naturally others see it differently and would be willing to explain what they mean by "ironic." But seems that's not you. OK, have a good one...if you want to explain or quote RULE 1, go ahead. If not, don't worry, it's ok, I understand and have a good day.
This is "knocking over the chess board". All you have to do is get science right. You often seem willing to do this, but then at some point you want to impose your religious beleifs onto your understanding of science and your beliefs are wrong. This invites criticsim by others. Then you have no defense. And then comes petty nonsense.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
It's not that some of [us] don't feel that way, so don't deflect.

If you have a question, ask. However, bear in mind that just because you ask a question doesn't mean your question is deserving of a response.
Oh? So when a person doesn't answer a question it could mean it has been deemed as not deserving of a response? Thank you...:)
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
1. Personal Comments About Members and Staff
Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff. Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them, or harassing staff members for performing moderation duties, will also be considered a personal attack.
I'm copying that so I remember it when someone personally attacks me. Thank you. :)
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
This is "knocking over the chess board". All you have to do is get science right. You often seem willing to do this, but then at some point you want to impose your religious beleifs onto your understanding of science and your beliefs are wrong. This invites criticsim by others. Then you have no defense. And then comes petty nonsense.
Do I have the right from the "rules" to ask a question of you about this?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
This is "knocking over the chess board". All you have to do is get science right. You often seem willing to do this, but then at some point you want to impose your religious beleifs onto your understanding of science and your beliefs are wrong. This invites criticsim by others. Then you have no defense. And then comes petty nonsense.
"Get science right?" I mean does science always get itself right? My concern is basically about the undiscovered elements in reference to what is accepted as the process of evolution as accepted by most scientists.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Maybe but Jesus said.
John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.

So I have been chosen and have chosen also.
But you seem to be saying that nobody who believes anything should be listened to.
Does that mean we should only listen to those who believe nothing?
There is no " maybe" to it.

You do exactly trust your own ability
to determine that there is a god. That the
Bible is about him, and that you know what's
the meaning of it all.

I'm open about it. Of course it's myself I trust
I determmnng it's all a bunch of hooey.


After choosing to trust your own judgeme t,
then sure, cease to think or evaluate.
Accept the party line.

What you choose to think I " seem to be saying"
Is so upside down and backwards ridiculous that
I cannot trace out how you managrd tp concoct it.

But it stands well for the extreme fa.libility of your
perception and judgement.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Integrated design? What's that? I don't see anything in reality that requires an intelligent designer except some of the design of intelligent animals. That beaver dam couldn't form naturally. It's irreducibly complex, like a the 747 that never appears following a junkyard tornado. Nature couldn't have done it unconsciously.

But the rest? The sun and the moon and the stars, the oceans and the air we breath, the rock we stand on, the rain and the clouds. This is a god of the gaps moment. What about life? We don't have a complete theory of abiogenesis yet, but we once didn't have the Big Bang or evolutionary theory, either. Back then, the gaps weren't nearly as narrow. We already knew that the universe ran itself day-to-day without evidence of or need for intelligent oversight, and so the ruler and creator god of Abraham became the creator (only) god of deism, but we didn't have a theory for the assembly of the universe yet. Now we do except for first life, and that problem will likely have a naturalistic solution.

Not if you're informed. There are only a few logical possibilities. The first two are much more likely than the third, which is more likely than the fourth:

Life formed by naturalistic abiogenesis on earth.
Life formed naturalistically on another heavenly body and was delivered to earth by an impact.
Life was intelligently designed on earth by advanced extraterrestrials who themselves arose naturalistically long before earth existed.
Life was intelligently designed by a god - a conscious agent preceding, creating, and transcending nature.

I think this list is exhaustive and its elements mutually exclusive, meaning that the correct answer must appear on it as one of the choices. But I don't think one can say more at this time, and maybe never even if a path (or several) for the chemical evolution of life is elucidated.

Some people are virtually always correct when they think they are. There is a way to confirm ideas before believing them, and if one masters it and applies it faithfully (don't go there!) to every instance of deciding what is true about the world, then when he thinks he has a sound reason for belief, it's because he does and is correct in that belief. Empirical conclusions are testable.

On the other hand, faith-based beliefs are untested and often not testable (unfalsifiable). Such beliefs can make one wrong most or all of the time.

I think that this is incorrect. The Old Testament messiah has never appeared. Jesus doesn't fulfill prophecy, but that's not possible for a believer who is convinced a priori that his Bible is truth and history and its god good and can't or won't evaluate evidence skeptically, open-mindedly and critically. That path leads to a belief set contradictory to the one that empiricism supports.

We know that happens. We see evidence of self-organizing, far-from-equilibrium, heat dissipating systems in nature, such as tornadoes and hurricanes. Energy causes them to organize from chaotic patterns of molecules typical of a still atmosphere, each moving independently of the others and colliding with one another into an organized funnel of swirling molecules moving together at high speeds. Nobody organized that except nature. And living organisms are also a self-organizing, far-from-equilibrium, heat dissipating systems. The chemicals in a living thing exhibit a complexity not found in the elements before they organized themselves in an egg or womb or whatever nor afterward following death. In between, a living thing is like a hurricane, channeling ambient energy. It's why vortices appear in rivers. They dissipate energy more efficiently.

Not to anybody's knowledge. If you believe otherwise, you believe it by faith, and that isn't knowledge.

A belief is irrational if it is not sufficiently justified by evidence, and the criterion for belief is not 100% proof. Justified belief is always tentative, although the degree of uncertainty can become vanishingly small, yet never zero.

And if I see scripture as weak prophecy, does that not make the Bible NOT worth believing and therefore not reliable.

One believes because reason justifies that belief or he does so with out that. The former is rational by definiton - reason-based. Faith is not. It is ALWAYS irrational, since it isn't generated using reason. It's in the roots of the word:

View attachment 82030

If you mean the Abrahamic god, a lot of people find that deity immoral in the extreme. Rebut this if you think it's incorrect:

"The god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins

You have kidded yourself into believing that it is impossible not to believe things by faith. It's very possible. I have no faith-based beliefs at all. I believe in no gods or other unevidenced creatures. I accept no belief unexamined, just as I don't drive without examining the road. Both can become regular habits, and should.

Why? If they are wrong and you are right, shouldn't you be anxious to reveal that to them? That should be easy if you're correct. Of course, if it's the other way around, and it's you that's wrong, your counterarguments will be ineffectual and you will tire of making them.

That's a logical error. The goodness of a god should be a conclusion derived from evidence, not premise believed before examining that evidence.

Same answer

Likewise, so does a tri-omni god. You added, "your example might have been a bit better if you had God as the manufacturer of the car and the manufacturer of the alcohol." Why does that make it better? It makes it less apt. Those manufacturers aren't omniscient. Nevertheless, if their products are foreseeably dangerous, then they are morally responsible for the harm those product do if not also legally.

Why should I believe you? You're giving judgments, but not providing any of the examples used as evidence to arrive at them. I'm thinking that you used no such evidence. You used the method you've already described. You've chosen to believe something by faith, and seem to think you used sufficient evidence, but if you can't produce it, your claim that the arguments of skeptics are erroneous (fallacious is the correct word) is dismissed as yet another religious belief. Unsupported beliefs are apparently fine for you, but you seem confused or frustrated or unbelieving that others have another standard for belief.

But you didn't do that. If you think you did, please tell me what error you identified and link me to it. If you can't, then you didn't do what you said you did, and once again, you provide no reason to believe your opinions. At this point, they appear faith-based based, meaning imagined rather than discovered.

For a resurrection? Nobody. And yes, it' the event itself, which would be extraordinary. Saying that one saw something that looked like a dead person revivifying is not extraordinary evidentiary support.
The mixture of half truth, distortion, misrepresentation,
vague generalizations, fantasy, and falsehood is hard to address.

Combined with studied evasiveness it's imposdible.

The whole thing is dishonorable but it has its
bright side, in the way it serves to discredit the
" faith" involved.
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
I believe God loves us and wants our long term good. You seem to believe that my belief is made up as one of the many ways humans have made up to explain the creation and life and suffering etc etc.

That's a logical conclusion. If God is beyond our understanding, then anything we say about him/her/it is likely to be incorrect.

God's promises are in the Bible and the promised Messiah came and did what was promised (or half of it at this stage) and is working on the rest.
It could be said to be part of history, or if you don't want to believe it, it is all no more than lies.

I don't want to use the word "lie", which suggests something that is deliberately misleading. Mistaken perhaps?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Evolution is not a mechanism of the creation of life.
Life, and how it evolves are both the result of the mechanics of existence. Some of which we understand, but most of which we still do not.
I think you are spot on correct about the deification of religious texts.
By both the proposers AND the detractors. It's the atheist's 'go-to' argument to claim that because the artifice is artifice, it's "not real" and therefor irrelevant or untrue. They completely ignore the ideals that the artifice was meant to represent.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Chaos as used above is not likely how the Natural Laws and natural processes function in the nature of our physical existence. It seems to indicate randomness.

The reality of our physical existence is not chaotic. The reality is all the outcomes of cause-and-effect events occur within a limited number of outcomes, and the pattern of the outcomes is fractal as described in 'Chaos Theory.' The only thing that is random is the timing of the occurrence of individual events. Methodological Naturalism proposes theories and hypotheses that predict the patterns in the chain of the outcomes of cause-and-effect events.

The nature of our physical existence very very orderly regardless of whether God exists or not.

It doesn't look like you saw the post I replied to. It was commenting about cancer and genetic defects. And please understand, I didn't say the material world was ONLY chaos. So, yeah, it's orderly. But there is an inherent chaos INCLUDED.

Screenshot_20230910_084631.jpg
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
I think theistic evolution is a better alternative for religious people than Creationism.

That being said, I still don't see it as being a 100% completely perfect concept, either. I prefer just straight evolution, no theistic portion to it.
Evolution still uses the gods of dice and cards. Can anyone explain the science behind chance and randomness? The genetic theory uses a random change on the DNA, followed by natural selection. The natural selection part is deterministic enough, but the random is caused how? What is the basis for any random change? We see things out of place all the time, but why?

Creationism assumes determinism, which then assumes cause and affect. Whims of the gods and chance is not cause and affect and therefore gets more slack. How can you falsify whims of the gods? Millions of people buy lottery ticket each day since you cannot falsify hope in the odds. First you would need to know what it is. So what is it?

Chance reminds me of the strings of String Theory, in the sense, the strings are an assumption for organizing the math. There are no real strings involved. This is more for the intellectual foundation for the math logic. The strings are more for the math tool, than for reality. All tools has value, but should we worship a hammer and seek its council?

Until you can explain where random comes from, evolution remains built on an imaginary foundation premise needed for a tool to work for you.
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
It is God's responsibility in the sense that He knew what would happen before He created anything.
But it is not God's responsibility in the sense that God did anything wrong.
And of course God has taken it on Himself to bring this bad situation of evil in His creation to an end.
You can throw blame around all you want but it is judging God from a place of ignorance.

To continue, this is a good example. You tell @TagliatelliMonster he is coming from a place of ignorance, but in the process claim to know what God knew before the supposed creation of the universe. You also claim that God will fix everything one day. Who is coming from a place of ignorance? Both of you maybe?
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
It doesn't look like you saw the post I replied to. It was commenting about cancer and genetic defects. And please understand, I didn't say the material world was ONLY chaos. So, yeah, it's orderly. But there is an inherent chaos INCLUDED.

View attachment 82034
When this happens in evolution it is called, evolution? Is evolution based on mistakes?

Don't get me wrong. I believe in evolving change within life and species, but I am not convinced of a random mechanism. Mistake in cancer, is called luck in evolution. The same mistake mechanism is relative, based on what we hope or expect is the perfect outcome.

Bacteria are said to be a good example of evolution, in the sense they can adapt to medicine environments. Why don't bacteria cells develop more cancer, if they need base pair mistakes to evolve? Or is their rapid proliferation a form of cancer?
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
When this happens in evolution it is called, evolution? Is evolution based on mistakes?

I didn't say it was a mistake. That's HopkinsMedicine. I was showing ShunyaDragon they missed the context of cancer and genetic-defects in my reply. They, for some reason, had objected to the idea of randomness being inherent in the material world. The graphic shows that this is false.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
@Brian2 said:
“The universe exists and needed a creator and designer.”
The response…

So, why do you believe it, then?

@Brian2 further stated:
“Life exists and needed a life giver.”

The reply is….
Again, I share that belief, but we run into the same problem as above.

Then Why do you share that belief? Because you want to? I doubt it…

Because integrated design is evident everywhere; it is evidence.

And that was evidence enough for former atheist Antony Flew.

And it is for Meyer, Axe, Denton, etc.


If there’s another reason you believe life was created, then please tell us.
Otherwise, some atheists here might think you’re irrational. Or “ignorant”, as I’ve been accused of.
Why do you claim that you believe God created everything and then go to such tremendous lengths to reject that creation?

Why do you claim that God gave us free will, but have embraced an ideology that doesn't allow the practice. If you said that you chose to recognize the evidence of reality, you risk being shunned for it. How is that practicing what Christ preached?

Why do you think that people that don't embrace the ideology you practice are no better than, murderers, rapists and fiends?

Why do you see demons everywhere, but remain unable to show others what you see is real?

By the way, as a theist, atheists already think my beliefs are irrational and that embracing them is ignorance. I've always been aware of that. How can you not be aware of that? Why do you think that is some sort of whip to get me into line to suddenly start denying reality?

Why do you think that only non-Christians can persecute Christians?

Why do you think that you can't persecute others?

You've been chomping at the bit to turn this into an inquisition. Here ya go.

I have lots of questions. There are some reports out of Australia I'd like to discuss.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Evolution still uses the gods of dice and cards. Can anyone explain the science behind chance and randomness? The genetic theory uses a random change on the DNA, followed by natural selection. The natural selection part is deterministic enough, but the random is caused how? What is the basis for any random change? We see things out of place all the time, but why?

Creationism assumes determinism, which then assumes cause and affect. Whims of the gods and chance is not cause and affect and therefore gets more slack. How can you falsify whims of the gods? Millions of people buy lottery ticket each day since you cannot falsify hope in the odds. First you would need to know what it is. So what is it?

Chance reminds me of the strings of String Theory, in the sense, the strings are an assumption for organizing the math. There are no real strings involved. This is more for the intellectual foundation for the math logic. The strings are more for the math tool, than for reality. All tools has value, but should we worship a hammer and seek its council?

Until you can explain where random comes from, evolution remains built on an imaginary foundation premise needed for a tool to work for you.
Twaddle of course.

Show us ONE fact contrary to ToE.

You never have, never will.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Why do you claim that you believe God created everything and then go to such tremendous lengths to reject that creation?

Why do you claim that God gave us free will, but have embraced an ideology that doesn't allow the practice. If you said that you chose to recognize the evidence of reality, you risk being shunned for it. How is that practicing what Christ preached?

Why do you think that people that don't embrace the ideology you practice are no better than, murderers, rapists and fiends?

Why do you see demons everywhere, but remain unable to show others what you see is real?

By the way, as a theist, atheists already think my beliefs are irrational and that embracing them is ignorance. I've always been aware of that. How can you not be aware of that? Why do you think that is some sort of whip to get me into line to suddenly start denying reality?

Why do you think that only non-Christians can persecute Christians?

Why do you think that you can't persecute others?

You've been chomping at the bit to turn this into an inquisition. Here ya go.

I have lots of questions. There are some reports out of Australia I'd like to discuss.
Am I allowed to say or ask something here?
 
Top