The ExChristian.Net blog exists for the express purpose of encouraging those who have decided to leave Christianity behind. This area contains articles sent in between January 2001 and February 2010. To view recent posts, click on the "Home" link.
Awsome pwnage, typical christian when faced with the holes of his beliefs. But, this guy was a light weight, I want to see the higher and mightier fall...
yea Brett was funny and knew what he was talking about , but the deacon was a light weight of mediocre intellect and biblical knowledge.
ZOMG..I wanna have Brett Keane's abortion..,.,HE ROCKS!
Owned.Hopefully, the deacon will come to think "WTF am I doing here?".Man, he was squirming, though. But he was a fat fish in a small barrel... and Brett was handling a Magnum .44, the most powerful handgun in the world (Okay, not anymore..) so are you feeling lucky, deac´? Well? Are ya?Metaphorically speaking.
I wonder what it said in that 'biblical commentary' that the deacon so quickly reached for?Maybe it was something like this:'Bloody hell!, looks like you're on your own with this one son!'
I thought this video was extremely lame and does not pull any weight on the side of anti-Christianity.Firstly, it was unethical for Brett to keep it a secret that the conversation was being recorded and would be posted to the net. I nearly stopped watching when I saw that Brett didn't ask permission.Secondly, the Deacon did very well under interrogation -- he said that we have the fulness of the revelation of God in the person and words of Christ and that people in the OT who committed crimes were not necessarily told to do so by God, despite their impression. This is a pretty standard Roman Catholic approach to the Bible.Thirdly, Brett is addressing the wrong group of people. Catholics are not Christian fundamentalists. it has been a long time since Catholics believed in the Bible and Biblical theology. The Catholics are trying to clean up their act since Vatican 2 and the theological reform under Karl Rahner and Hans Urs Van Bathlasar. Call a Baptist minister, not a member of the Catholic Church. Calling a member of the Catholic Church these days is like talking to a member of the Unitarian Universalists or the Unity Church.That, and Brett needs to modulate his voice a little bit more, it is flat and not interesting to listen to.Bitch, bitch, bitch. That's what I'm doing, because this was not a hight quality entry here.
If he had said it was being recorded I doubt that the deac would have continued at all, I've seen it happen so many times that way, he'd have just made a bullshit hollow excuse and hung up.
What you are doing is actually of value. You exposed what he didn't know. It is legit to say "I don't know, I'll get back to you".But, you remind me of a bully. Perhaps you want to call me and ask some "Bible questions". I'd be glad to give my my email@example.com
There is actually some value to what you are doing here. You exposed something he wasn't conversant on and probably sent him to the library to get educated.However, you remind me of a bully. Maybe you'd like to call me with your Bible questions? I'm standing by. Here's my firstname.lastname@example.org
I just watched the video, Brett was not being forcefull or bullying, nor condescending in any way in fact he told the deacon he was not trying to be a smartass. Brett was simply showing people how religious people will make circular logic fit their beliefs as so they can not abandon them and still believe that God of the Bible is real and perfect.Just as the very same thing that you will do if Brett sends you an email. There's no use in him wasting his time asking you questions either.
OK, I was joking before, but seriously now folks!I actually agree that the deacon did a reasonably good job. Why? Well, is it actually possible for a Christian to give a good answer to Brett's question?The deacon's biggest mistake was actually to try to answer the question asked. A lot of Christians I know would have turned into Tony Blair (or if you're not British - George Bush, John Howard, etc) at that point and completely ignored the issue at hand with an answer beginning something like this:'Well, you know, what's really important is that God...'(plus several bible verses OTHER than Numbers 31, 17-18. You know how it goes!)Now, email@example.com. From what you wrote you appear to be a Christian. You said that you would be willing to answer any bible question.So, I tell you what, why don't you answer Brett's question from the video here?, (without turning into Tony Blair please!). There's no deception involved. You know in advance that visitors to this site will be able to read your comments and criticise them.Oh, and by the way, that goes for any other Christians too! It's an open invitation. Knock yourselves out!
(Three hours later) Nothing yet!
more!do more!no one asks these guys anything but softball questions, this is perfect.
Wait---from the Deacon's opinion, passages of the Bible are written as a metaphor and not to be taken literally?... humm, so all these vicious bullshit lines from Lev. used to equate homosexuality with evil, so that scripture shouldn't matter either, huh Deacon? Christians will justify ANYTHING they can in the name of a SHARED HATRED (the Bible)... Stevie P. says shove that Bible up your A$$ and perhaps you may actually for once feel something--that is, if the Viabrator hidden between the Dr. Laura books in your nightstand hasn't loosend your A-hole to extremes! (smirk)
Did the deacon say he was Catholic? Catholics don't necessarily believe in biblical inerancy ...Nor are all Christians of the fundamentalist sort. It *is* possible to construct versions of Christianity that are not bloodthirsty and hateful. Even if they are still stupid.
Pull the other one,Nope, I'm going to record the exchange and play in on the air and on the internet.That goes for anyone here. In fact, I'll pay for the call.We can start with the Deacon's firstname.lastname@example.org
Hello kharris@thewordfm,If somebody rings up your radio station with a comment or question, then the conversation takes place there.If anybody wants to get in touch with you and organise something, that's up to them.But you came on to this site. This is the forum. Let's have your answer to Brett's question, if you want to give one, here.
Well, another eight hours or so have gone by, and it really does look like kharris@thewordfm isn't going to comment on Numbers 31 on this site.True, he or she has offered to address the question via the phone.It seems quite tempting - a Christian is offering to discuss a part of the bible where we can contemplate young Midianite virgin girls under the complete power of the same men who had recently slaughtered their fathers, mothers and brothers, including baby brothers, because God told them to do it (so the story goes).Our friends Paul, Matthew, Blake, etc., who were so keen to join a debate on creationism/evolution or morality and ethics, as found in other recent articles, have chosen to remain silent on this one (rather wisely, I think).kharris@thewordfm, however, is even willing to pay for the conversation.Some people may be thinking of taking up the offer. But before you do, consider this saying:'Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.'Just remember that it's all got to be on kharris@thewordfm's own terms, and that he or she will have control of those radio-station dials and switches. Don't be surprised if the Numbers 31 section is missing from the final broadcast.Forgive me if I'm a bit sceptical. I'm suspicious because in the past I was involved in a bit of 'pious deception' myself - 'Come to our church social event, there won't be any preaching or pressure, it's just a fun evening.'Yeah right! No doubt many of you can think of similar things you did yourselves, because the ends justified the means, right?.I'm sorry kharris@thewordfm, but I for one don't trust you.
Pull the other one, I don't blame you for being suspicious. The ability to edit, distort, and send disinformation via technology is at an all-time high.All I can give you is my word. I asked Brett, who seems to enjoy trying to make someone look bad, to reply to my email and ask me what he wants - including the passage in question. No response yet.Here's the deal. Set it up via my email and ask me to address your top three "problem passages" in the Bible.I will record the exchange and place it on You Tube absolutely unedited in the content, with the exception of dead air or irrelevant verbiage. While I do bristle at "ambush journalism", my main goal is to show that there are good answers to good questions.
My main goal is to show that there are good answers to good questions.So answer the questions then -- right here and right now. If you want to trade banter with Brett, then do so by email. But all this public posturing is stupid. "I have good answers, but unless you agree to go live on my radio show, I'm not going to share them. However, I can assure you I can answer everything addressed here. NAH, NAH, NAH."I mean, really, how can you paint Brett's approach in a negative light when you obviously want to use a similiar approach? Be transparent, honest, and open. If you have something to contribute to the discussion, then do so. However, before you try to recruit listeners and or participants to your radio show, at least have the courtesy to run it past the site's owner first. And please read the site disclaimer. Thanks.
Fine, I won't put in on the air, only on You Tube. Brett did this publicly on You Tube, I respond on You Tube.I engage in private correspondence with people all the time. They have legitimate roadblocks to faith in Christ and we dialogue.But I'm not going to sit back and stick my head in the sand in our You Tube-mass media world. Brett went there, he should expect to be confronted.Consider this a confrontation.
Yikes!, you're getting a bit annoyed now!Before it was: 'maybe you'd like to call me with your bible questions?'.Now it's: 'consider this a confrontation!' Careful! That friendly mask you wear for non-christians is starting to slip!
Believe me, confrontation can sometimes be the friendliest thing one can do!
kharris: "Brett did this publicly on You Tube, I respond on You Tube....Brett went there, he should expect to be confronted.Consider this a confrontation." So, why are you here, on this site?Why aren't you issuing this 'confrontation' on Youtube?There are no 'kharris' or similar comments, or video replies, attached to this video on Youtube.At least type us a little taster of what your video reply is going to be saying.I'm interested, but I don't want to wait for the videos.What if I die before I see them? I'll go to hell, when you could have 'set me straight' before hand...
This is Brett Keane. I have 300 videos on youtube. Many debates with christians. I have no reason to edit or make christians look bad. They do just fine on their own. If anyone wants to debate me post a video on the tube & I will rip any christian to pieces without breaking a sweat.I use to be a christian. There is no way to justify the passages. Anyone who debates or who has been christians knows this.You can talk trash all you want. But the truth is Atheists, Pagans, & Agnostics can wipe the floor with christians with their own bible any day because christians are lazy & won't study. Not my problem.
Brett, you are probably referring to me, email@example.com. If you believed what you said, you would set up a call with me like you did "the Deacon".From your bluster alone, I know you are not interested in talking with someone conversant in Christianity. You want to blind-side people for apparent entertainment purposes. That is the classic definition of a bully.
Brett- what you did was wrong. I have heard many on this site continually complain that xtians force their beliefs on the unwanting. This is precisely what you have done here. This deacon did not knock on your door, give you a tract, etc. YOU called him. Brett you have become the very thing you have rebelled against...a fundamentalist.
Mr. Harris,We're all still waiting for you to answer the questions asked in this video. That you are offended by Brett's approach is irrelevant to the discussion. And although the video was quite funny, and revealing, Brett wasn't rude. Nor did he argue with the person on the phone. You, however, have tossed about a considerable number of accusations and condemnations, but you've yet to answer the questions. I wonder why? Was that deacon your dad?
Anonymous, I too have reservations about recording people without their knowledge, but that in no way puts Brett in the same league as religious evangelists. Note that Brett asked the deacon questions on a topic that (presumably) he (the deacon) claimed some expertise. Brett put legitimate questions to the deacon, allowed him to respond in any way he wished, and then responded directly to the answers given. This is not what evangelists do. The typical evangelist has no interest in what the other person has to say, and more often than not will not respond in any meaningful way to the other person's statements. Let me illustrate what I think would be a analogous approach from a believer, and I think you'll agree that this is something we never see (at least I haven't). A Christian calls me on the phone and states that he has some questions about the theory of evolution and asks if I can help. I agree to try. The Christian asks me to open my copy of "Origin of Species", or maybe "The Selfish Gene", and asks me to explain something stated by Darwin or Dawkins. I read the passage and give my best explanation. The Christian allows me to fully explain, and then asks further questions based on what I just said. Now, I would have absolutely no objection to a Christian doing that. In fact, I would be quite impressed by any Christian who behaved in such a way. I would be a bit taken aback if I discovered that a recording of our conversation had been posted on the internet without my permission, but my objection would be minimal if the conversation had not been edited in any way. Let me add that the very best scenario, in my opinion, would be an interviewer who first asked my permission to record the conversation, and discloses his/her intention to post it on the internet. I think it would also be courteous to allow me to view/hear it before it was posted. If conducted in that manner, I would have nothing but high praise for the interviewer, no matter what their beliefs were. I'll note once again, however, that evangelists have never even approached this ideal--at least not in my experience.
Hi Brett, First, let me say that I've enjoyed your videos. Thanks for posting them here. I'm starting to appreciate this new aspect of the blogosphere that is driven by the YouTube phenomenon. It's a new and exciting community that seems to have a huge appeal among the younger crowd. It's a good thing.Here is a question for you. Would you consider doing exactly what you did in this video, except beginning the conversation with full disclosure, e.g. "I intend to record this and post it on YouTube. Is that okay with you?" If you do that, then you will be entirely above reproach; viewers will be forced to address the content of the exchange and not get side-tracked with questions of ethics. Of course, not everybody will say "yes".Keep up the good work.
Jim- I posted earlier as anon, I simply forgot to use my name.Your response to mine was excellent. In some essence that is what I am doing on this web-site, except I don't have to actually ask questions because of the wealth of posts.Please give me your thoughts on the following quote“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” (167)I understand that most Christians leave out the following pages which Darwin makes his position very clear. My question is if Darwin made this comment with the limited information on the eye then, how does one take his thoughts further today with the more complete (and complex) information on the eye today?
Hi evan, About the Darwin quote. First of all, I think it would be appropriate to always quote the sentence that immediately follows this one in Darwin's "Origin of Species": namely "...Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real." You see, it doesn't take pages of explanation to relate Darwin's position; all it takes is one more sentence (albeit a long one). Given that it completely changes the tenor of the previous sentence, and much more accurately reflects Darwin's view, do you agree that it would be appropriate to always quote the two together? (For some reason, creationists like to quote the first without the second.) But you asked about what is known today. Well, it's hard to improve upon Darwin's statement, and it still reflects the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. For a modern take on this, you should read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. There is a marvelous chapter in his book in which he describes the evolution of the eye very nicely. In a nutshell, Dawkins describes numerous intermediate steps in the formation of the eye, each one representing an asset to the organism, each one following "blindly" on the heels of the one before, and ignorant of what comes next. He lends great credibility to this hypothetical sequence by enumerating many organisms that possess eyes that are very similar to the intermediate steps he describes. The squid is an excellent example, with its "pinhole camera" eye, and no lens at all. In short, much more is known today than in Darwin's day, with the result being a far more firmly established theory than Darwin would have thought possible (largely due to the "Modern Synthesis" and even more recent advances in biochemistry and genomics). I hope that goes some way toward answering your question.
First off, sarcasim aside, thanks Brett! I enjoy your work. Second, I'm a former radio DJ. When you phone into a show, the phones are complex systems. They are designed to record callers comments on a delay system (usually 3 seconds) and they are able to digitaly record & edit conversation and send the data to the program room computer. So, one would be wise NOT to have the conversation with a radio DJ on his/her turf. She/He WILL use the information however deemed beneficial to his/her view of the issue and a "go-get-'em" media figure will manipulate the information to make an entertaining commentary for his/her demographic.I read the bible, stuided it within a ministry, and found myself in disagreeing with the complexities. The bible is not a tool, it's a book. A book which contridicts itself. A book which reads like a Stephen King horror novel. If I were to take the bible literal, as all my southern babtist aquaintances told me too, then I could stone the neighbors daughter, steal her and place her into slavery, cut off the hands of my neighbors, murder & steal anything I wanted too. The bible gives one full permission to do so. Those little 'ole ten commandments are easily contridicted by new testatment passages throughout Luke, Romans, etc. It doesn't take a genius--but it does take an open mind, NOT one guided by years of abuse and hundreds of voices which tout: "JUST BELIEVE, MUST HAVE FAITH!" I had faith that Santa was real, but no jolly 'ole fat-ass leaves presents, and no cross was erected for our worlds salvation. Sure, something was erected years ago---that something was BULLSHIT, and throughout the years of Christian led WARS and DEATHS, it still STINKS today!
It is now just over a week since Brett’s video appeared (Jan 10), and maybe not a lot of people will read this, but I think that it still needs to be written.Quite a number of Christians post comments on this site, but they are very selective about which subjects they tackle, and this particular one has been avoided like the plague.As you can see above, kharris claims to have a good answer, but it isn’t going to materialise here. But I’d like to focus now on another Christian whose comments we’ve had the pleasure of reading on other topics - Paul. Now, one of Paul’s favourite ideas is that child abuse is closely linked with homosexuality, a claim that he restated in his comments on the article ‘Pastor found guilty of sexual molestation’ (Jan 13). (Sorry, I don’t know how to do the links).When it was pointed out that Paul had been quick to comment on that article, but not on Brett’s video, Paul wrote the following on ‘Pastor found guilty…’ on Jan 16:‘Dear Audie and Pull the Other One: thank (you) for referring me this video. I typed my answer and lost it due to a mistake. I will post it again tomorrow.’Well, it’s now Jan 18 (two days later), and he still hasn’t posted it.‘Perhaps he’s been busy with something else’- Yes, he has!, with posting a response to ‘We are not monsters now’ (posted on Jan 17), and then another one to ‘Slavery in the bible (posted on Jan 18).Sorry to be rather pedantic about this, but I’ve learnt the hard way that you should always check certain things, and I feel strongly that this should be pointed out. What really pisses me off is not so much that people like Paul are unable to answer tough questions, but that they pull pathetic little tricks like this in an attempt to cover it up. Paul, if you are reading this, I’m sorry, but I believe that you lied when you said that you typed out an answer to this topic and lost it, and that you lied again when you said that you would ‘post it again tomorrow.’ So, why should we believe anything that you write? Look, why don’t you salvage a bit of honour, put your excuses aside, and be the first Christian to address the question raised on the above video now, even if you simply admit that you can’t answer it?
You're right, Pull the other one. Paul has no answer to this. Actually there is no rational answer to his question, except that he bible was written by uneducated, superstitious men. Prove me wrong
It is good stuff from Brett Keane taking on the deacon:1. Roasting the deacon…..how nice a title for the discussion with a stranger without his notice and putting the conversation on the net. Would Mr. Keane comfortable tearing the Quran apart through a discussion with an Imam and posting with a title, ‘Roasting an Imam’, on the net with Mr. Keane’s real face and real name on the net? 2.Now coming to the matter….Numbers 31. To understand this chapter we must first read chapter 25. In chapter 25 the Midianites sent their women to seduce Israelites into sexual immorality and thereby incite the wrath of God on His people bringing their destruction. The Midianites are doing these things with the knowledge that God of Israel is holy and would not tolerate sexual immorality. But instead of obeying that knowledge they used that knowledge to bring destruction on Jews. God in Old Testament is using Jews as a vehicle to teach the world about Him. The Midianites thwarted that process. God thereby wanted to obliterate them completely from the face of His planet. It necessitated the killing of even little children and pregnant women. 3. In the process we shall not miss the mercy and grace of God. Please read Genesis chapter 15. There God tells Abraham that the children of Abraham will return to Canaan after spending 400 years in slavery in Egypt. God at that moment says the , ‘iniquity of Amorites is not yet full’. In other words, God patiently waited for 400 years for the conversion of the Canaanite people. Yet they only perfected their wickedness indulging themselves in evil things such as fornication, adultery, child sacrifice, homosexuality, pagan worship etc. Therefore God chose to destroy them when their iniquity was full. God used Jews as His instrument to punish these people. Later God used the Gentiles to punish Jews when they did not obey Him, for example Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. 4. We shall also recognize the fact that, as Creator of the universe, God owns everything. Let me illustrate this way. For example, we got a stomach ulcer. What will we do? We take metronidazole that kills the bacteria, Helicobacterium pylorie that destroys the stomach epithelium. On the other hand, when we get hemorrhage we take medications that induce the growth of intestinal bacteria that synthesize vitamin K. Succinctly, we decide which bacteria would be killed and which bacteria would be kept alive. Bacteria are living organisms. They also have babies, brothers and sisters. Yet, as the owners of the bodies we have the right to kill them at our will. Similarly God, being the owner of the universe has unquestionable rights to decide who would be allowed to live on his planet and who would be killed. 5. Lastly, when an atheist states that it is unfair to kill little children and pregnant women he is climbing on a theistic platform to shout out his thesis. It makes no sense to cry out against evil while standing on a naturalistic platform. After all, ‘Selfish Genes’ and ‘Random Mutations’ and ‘Chance’ making their way on the tree of evolution and nobody should complain whether a child or a pregnant women get hurt in the process. Our gorilla grandfathers in Tanzania kill their own babies. So, being their children we are justified to kill the babies of Midianites. Therefore, the atheist is leaving his naturalistic platform and climbing a theistic platform to frame his questions on evil. The molecules thinking about morality and evil is absurd. Talking about evil is possible only when you refer to a transcendent Moral Law Giver. 6. Comparing Jeffrey Dammer to Moses. Our policemen shoot people everyday. We extol them as heroes. But when a robber shoots people we put him in prison. Not every killing is evil. Moses killed the Midianites on direct orders from God, just as policemen act under our laws. Therefore, comparing Moses to Jeffrey Dammer is a spurious analogy.
Is it just me or does anyone else get the sense that "PAUL" on this site is maybe, at least, three people, sort of a "trinity" if you like. What do I know about the bible? Absolutely nothing. I can't even figure out why an all knowing, all powerful, all loving, omniscient God, would have all of the same characteristics of personality, as a petty dictator, much less, why he would be ordering the Jews around, as sort of a death squad to do his dirty work. Couldn't God do his own genocide? He didn't have any problem with it, in the Noah story! I guess you just have to do your homework and study the bible a lot, to be able to understand the marvelous workings, of the mind of God.Dano (Now exactly, why was it wrong for Eve to eat that apple? I keep forgetting)
Hello PAUL (now in capitals I see!)Well, I’m glad that you got round to it in the end, and I’m certainly willing to admit that you haven't beaten about the bush or attempted to dodge the issue!I can’t say that I’m very happy about you putting human beings and bacteria on the same level though. The Nazis in a famous propaganda film compared the Jews to rats. Comparing people to vermin and disease-bearing bacteria does make it easier for some people to accept genocide I suppose. So, it's OK to kill babies after all! I think that the Nazis would agree with you there as well.I’m sure that Hitler, Reinhardt Heydrich (in charge of the ‘final solution’) and Rudolf Hoess (that’s the Auschwitz death camp commander) would have no problems with your answer.As for me, I think it stinks.
PaulWasn't one of the Ten CommandmentsTHOU SHALL NOT KILL..!!!Oh I see Paul, it's ok for God to kill or order people to kill.Yeah Paul, you're real peace of work!
PAUL wrote:"It is good stuff from Brett Keane taking on the deacon:1. Roasting the deacon…..how nice a title for the discussion with a stranger without his notice and putting the conversation on the net. Would Mr. Keane comfortable tearing the Quran apart through a discussion with an Imam and posting with a title, ‘Roasting an Imam’, on the net with Mr. Keane’s real face and real name on the net?"Dano's Comment: If "ALL ," and I mean "ALL" of the people of civilized countries around the globe "DON'T" start making fun of "Imams," and Muslims in general when they loot and kill in response of criticisms of their religion (I. E. The Danish cartoons, and the comments from the pope accurately describing Islam as a militant religion.).... What we see now, in the democratic countries of the world, where Muslims have emigrated, and are demanding that we change our governments and institutions to comply with Islamic law, will become complete Anarchy!Dano (When they started rioting over the cartoons every newspaper that didn't reprint them was guilty of cowardice)
if your going to TRY to down a christian, dont use a catholic
Anony interjected(twice): if your going to TRY to down a christian, dont use a catholicUm, Catholics aren't Christians, according to some Christians who aren't Catholic. But of course, the Catholics who think they are, themselves, Christian...don't think that those who are not Catholic are Christians, and the Christians who are not Catholic but think that they, themselves are Christian, already know this..... as do the Catholics who think they, themselves, are Christian. 'Follow?Simply put: Either everyone/anyone who "thinks" that they are a "True Christian" is a "True Christian", or else, no one is a "True Christian". In other words---you don't have anymore right to tell someone they're not a "True Christian", than they do to tell YOU that you aren't a "True Christian". That's like telling someone they're not a "True pizza lover" because they don't like the ONE pizza topping combination that you like, out of the millions of combintations available. (notice the contraction for "you are", BTW)
I never said the guy wasnt a Christian and was condemned to hell for eternity...I said, if you want to down a christian, dont use a catholic, they have different ways of believing than we do. Plain and simple.
Different ways? Right, I think there's approximately 33,000 "different ways" to "believe" Christianity. The point is, the Deacon "thinks" he's a Christian with every bit of fervor that you "think" you're a Christian. In other words---he's just as good a candidate to single out as any. Plain and simple.
I wonder which Muslims are True Muslims™? Is it the Shiites or the Sunnis? Catholics were the only kind of Christians there were for 1,000 years. Catholics invented the doctrine of the "Trinity." Catholics are the ones that declared Gnostics to be heretics. NONY, you really need to do more study on this topic. Your ignorance is showing.
Post a Comment