looking for some good pro-God/religion debates

hey guys,

it's a funny question I know. but coming from a religious background, I've been becoming more and more convinced of atheism etc. however, I'm a looking for some good points for god/religion etc, because I don't want to be one sided. so many people are religious, is it due to ignorance/cowardice or do the majority have actual reasons? anyhoo, this isn't necessarily a place to voice your opinions, maybe just link a few arguments/debates in favour of religion, because I don't want there to be a possibility that I'm being brainwashed by the seemingly impeccable logic of dawkins/hitchens and the like. basically i'd like bothe sides of the argument.

cheers!

How about looking out at the world and think for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

How about looking out at the world and think for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

themajormayor

The remaining live Hitchens is a Christian.

How about looking out at the world and think for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

themajormayor

don't patronise me. by that astonishingly stupid logic, no one should read books, they should come to their own conclusions on everything, nevermind that they might be completely wrong. i spend a great deal of time coming to my own conclusions, but that doesn't mean i shouldn't also look at other's perspectives. i'm simply trying to get good perspective you cretin.

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]

How about looking out at the world and think for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

jpph

don't patronise me. by that astonishingly stupid logic, no one should read books, they should come to their own conclusions on everything, nevermind that they might be completely wrong. i spend a great deal of time coming to my own conclusions, but that doesn't mean i shouldn't also look at other's perspectives. i'm simply trying to get good perspective you cretin.

[QUOTE="jpph"]

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]

How about looking out at the world and think for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

themajormayor

don't patronise me. by that astonishingly stupid logic, no one should read books, they should come to their own conclusions on everything, nevermind that they might be completely wrong. i spend a great deal of time coming to my own conclusions, but that doesn't mean i shouldn't also look at other's perspectives. i'm simply trying to get good perspective you cretin.

i'm not looking for a book to tell me if I'm wrong or not. and i do think a lot by myself (you may not believe me, but let's assume it's true for this argument, after all, it COULD be true), but it's absolutely vital to see other people's perspectives as well. not to mention how arrogant it would be to presume that I've thought of all the arguments, or that I'm capable of thinking of all the arguments by myself. i mean, if i'm very very stupid, and i can only think of one argument regarding the god/atheism debate, and i think well we must have been created, how else could we have come to be? it's imperative then that someone explains evolution to me as a possible answer.

-If god exists, then why do men have nipples? -If god created everything, then what created god? -If religion is about your faith, then why do churches always need money? Do the sacrifice it? Can't think of anything else right now...jesuschristmonk

noooooo PRO god arguments. there must be some good ones:P

[QUOTE="jesuschristmonk"]-If god exists, then why do men have nipples? -If god created everything, then what created god? -If religion is about your faith, then why do churches always need money? Do the sacrifice it? Can't think of anything else right now...jpph

noooooo PRO god arguments. there must be some good ones:P

Here are some pro-God arguments:

* If God doesn't exist, then why is the world so beautiful?

* If God doesn't exist, then why do things exist?

* If God doesn't exist, then where did the Big Bang come from?

* God's existence makes more logical sense (through inductive reasoning) than saying there is no God.

* If God doesn't exist, then why do we have morals and ethics?

* If God doesn't exist, then how does logic and science make sense?

-

To answer the question "Who created God?"

Pro-God proponents would say:

* There must have been an original first cause.

[QUOTE="jpph"]

[QUOTE="jesuschristmonk"]-If god exists, then why do men have nipples? -If god created everything, then what created god? -If religion is about your faith, then why do churches always need money? Do the sacrifice it? Can't think of anything else right now...peterw007

noooooo PRO god arguments. there must be some good ones:P

Here are some pro-God arguments:

* If God doesn't exist, then why is the world so beautiful?

* If God doesn't exist, then why do things exist?

* If God doesn't exist, then where did the Big Bang come from?

* God's existence makes more logical sense (through inductive reasoning) than saying there is no God.

* If God doesn't exist, then why do we have morals and ethics?

* If God doesn't exist, then how does logic and science make sense?

-

To answer the question "Who created God?"

Pro-God proponents would say:

* There must have been an original first cause.

[QUOTE="peterw007"]

[QUOTE="jpph"]

noooooo PRO god arguments. there must be some good ones:P

DroidPhysX

Here are some pro-God arguments:

* If God doesn't exist, then why is the world so beautiful?

* If God doesn't exist, then why do things exist?

* If God doesn't exist, then where did the Big Bang come from?

* God's existence makes more logical sense (through inductive reasoning) than saying there is no God.

* If God doesn't exist, then why do we have morals and ethics?

* If God doesn't exist, then how does logic and science make sense?

-

To answer the question "Who created God?"

Pro-God proponents would say:

* There must have been an original first cause.

Those are the arguments.

You don't consider them good arguments...but many millions of people justify their belief in their God through those arguments.

There must be some merit in them.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="peterw007"]

Here are some pro-God arguments:

* If God doesn't exist, then why is the world so beautiful?

* If God doesn't exist, then why do things exist?

* If God doesn't exist, then where did the Big Bang come from?

* God's existence makes more logical sense (through inductive reasoning) than saying there is no God.

* If God doesn't exist, then why do we have morals and ethics?

* If God doesn't exist, then how does logic and science make sense?

-

To answer the question "Who created God?"

Pro-God proponents would say:

* There must have been an original first cause.

peterw007

Those are the arguments.

You don't consider them good arguments...but many millions of people justify their belief in their God through those arguments.

There must be some merit in them.

How about this. Let's assume God is real and he created the laws by which the universe operates. So there would be no conflict with the Big Bang or evolution or anything. God just was the initial "architect" that thought about it all. There is really not many arguments atheists could use against that. If they say you lack proof then you can say they also lack proof about its existence and "lack of evidence is not evidence of absence". Believing in a God that way will not be in conflict with any scientific finds so there are no many arguments against that from a scientific perspective.kuraimen

"lack of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a logical fallacy and is a very very poor argument for God.

You aren't going to find any good logically sound arguments for God, logical arguments are based on science whereas religion is not. Religion is about faith you shouldn't have to prove to other people why you believe in God if you are truly faithful. That's my opinion on the matter anyway. But I guess if you really wanted to try and argue it with someone the whole watchmaker and watch argument might still fly with some people.

Those are the arguments.

You don't consider them good arguments...but many millions of people justify their belief in their God through those arguments.

There must be some merit in them.

peterw007

That is yet another logical fallacy so I would say no, those aren't good arguments at all

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]How about this. Let's assume God is real and he created the laws by which the universe operates. So there would be no conflict with the Big Bang or evolution or anything. God just was the initial "architect" that thought about it all. There is really not many arguments atheists could use against that. If they say you lack proof then you can say they also lack proof about its existence and "lack of evidence is not evidence of absence". Believing in a God that way will not be in conflict with any scientific finds so there are no many arguments against that from a scientific perspective.Bane_09

"lack of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a logical fallacy and is a very very poor argument for God.

You aren't going to find any good logically sound arguments for God, logical arguments are based on science whereas religion is not. Religion is about faith you shouldn't have to prove to other people why you believe in God if you are truly faithful. That's my opinion on the matter anyway. But I guess if you really wanted to try and argue it with someone the whole watchmaker and watch argument might still fly with some people.

[QUOTE="Bane_09"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]How about this. Let's assume God is real and he created the laws by which the universe operates. So there would be no conflict with the Big Bang or evolution or anything. God just was the initial "architect" that thought about it all. There is really not many arguments atheists could use against that. If they say you lack proof then you can say they also lack proof about its existence and "lack of evidence is not evidence of absence". Believing in a God that way will not be in conflict with any scientific finds so there are no many arguments against that from a scientific perspective.kuraimen

"lack of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a logical fallacy and is a very very poor argument for God.

You aren't going to find any good logically sound arguments for God, logical arguments are based on science whereas religion is not. Religion is about faith you shouldn't have to prove to other people why you believe in God if you are truly faithful. That's my opinion on the matter anyway. But I guess if you really wanted to try and argue it with someone the whole watchmaker and watch argument might still fly with some people.

Well any basic knowledge on logical arguments will tell you that the argument lack of evidence is not evidence of absence is an appeal to ignorance and a logical fallacy. And yes something could exist without having evidence for it, but that in no way proves that that something does exist.

Faith is not logical nor is it supposed to be. You can't use faith as evidence for anything. I'm not about to tell someone they can't have faith in something like God, just don't try to use that said faith as evidence because it doesn't work like that.

The only real argument is saying you feel him having faith brings you peace and all that. It certainly makes death an easier subject to cross.cheese_game619

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Bane_09"]

"lack of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a logical fallacy and is a very very poor argument for God.

You aren't going to find any good logically sound arguments for God, logical arguments are based on science whereas religion is not. Religion is about faith you shouldn't have to prove to other people why you believe in God if you are truly faithful. That's my opinion on the matter anyway. But I guess if you really wanted to try and argue it with someone the whole watchmaker and watch argument might still fly with some people.

Bane_09

Well any basic knowledge on logical arguments will tell you that the argument lack of evidence is not evidence of absence is an appeal to ignorance and a logical fallacy. And yes something could exist without having evidence for it, but that in no way proves that that something does exist.

Faith is not logical nor is it supposed to be. You can't use faith as evidence for anything. I'm not about to tell someone they can't have faith in something like God, just don't try to use that said faith as evidence because it doesn't work like that.

I'm not using faith as evidence why would a religious person care to prove God's existence scientifically? it shouldn't be their job to do it. The only thing he can do to lower the atheist criticisms is just making his faithful believe not conflict with scientific knowledge. That way the atheist has less arguments against them. A logical fallacy is not such a good argument considering it doesn't support the atheist argument either since he can't proof God doesn't exist in the same way the religious can't proof he does. There are many scientists out there that manage to accommodate their faith and their scientific work in such a way and for me there's little people can do to strongly argument against such position considering how little we know about the universe or everything that exists.kuraimen

Hmm I don't think you understand logic very well and I'll just leave it at that

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

I'm not using faith as evidence why would a religious person care to prove God's existence scientifically? it shouldn't be their job to do it. The only thing he can do to lower the atheist criticisms is just making his faithful believe not conflict with scientific knowledge. That way the atheist has less arguments against them. A logical fallacy is not such a good argument considering it doesn't support the atheist argument either since he can't proof God doesn't exist in the same way the religious can't proof he does. There are many scientists out there that manage to accommodate their faith and their scientific work in such a way and for me there's little people can do to strongly argument against such position considering how little we know about the universe or everything that exists.Bane_09

Hmm I don't think you understand logic very well and I'll just leave it at that

[QUOTE="cheese_game619"]The only real argument is saying you feel him having faith brings you peace and all that. It certainly makes death an easier subject to cross.themajormayor

[QUOTE="Bane_09"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] It's perfectly logical that something might exist without having access to evidence. And you said it yourself religion is based on faith. The only thing a religious person has to do to make sense of their faith is to not make a very stupid argument that contradicts some scientific facts or something, otherwise their faith can justify the existence of God and little can an atheist said to them to change their mind unless they somehow find evidence that God can't possibly be real which is probably as impossible as finding evidence in favor of it.kuraimen

Well any basic knowledge on logical arguments will tell you that the argument lack of evidence is not evidence of absence is an appeal to ignorance and a logical fallacy. And yes something could exist without having evidence for it, but that in no way proves that that something does exist.

Faith is not logical nor is it supposed to be. You can't use faith as evidence for anything. I'm not about to tell someone they can't have faith in something like God, just don't try to use that said faith as evidence because it doesn't work like that.

I agree with Einstein.

"About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church... As long as I can remember. I have resented mass indoctrination. I cannot prove to you there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws".

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text."

"The fanatical atheists," Einstein said in correspondence, "are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'—cannot hear the music of the spheres."

"That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

I'm not using faith as evidence why would a religious person care to prove God's existence scientifically? it shouldn't be their job to do it. The only thing he can do to lower the atheist criticisms is just making his faithful believe not conflict with scientific knowledge. That way the atheist has less arguments against them. A logical fallacy is not such a good argument considering it doesn't support the atheist argument either since he can't proof God doesn't exist in the same way the religious can't proof he does. There are many scientists out there that manage to accommodate their faith and their scientific work in such a way and for me there's little people can do to strongly argument against such position considering how little we know about the universe or everything that exists.Bane_09

Hmm I don't think you understand logic very well and I'll just leave it at that

How about the answer will revealed so stop looking for it.

Just imagine if God was real and was exposed on a daily basis. Including the free will we already have.

How about the answer will revealed so stop looking for it.

Just imagine if God was real and was exposed on a daily basis. Including the free will we already have.

Gaming-Planet

Now that would be interesting.

If that were the case, we would be obsessed with God.

Everything in our society would be completely geared towards pleasing God.

It would cause a massive standstill in the development of technology, science, and the competitiveness of our society.

Pretty much religion was made by man. There are hundreds of different religions, whose to say any which one is right? They all think and most importantly feelthat they are right.They do all have one thing in common: they have no proof whatsoever and are only based on the experiences of people.

I'm 32 and spent 32 years as a Christian. It took me that long to figure that out and when you really look at it it's pretty obvious.

[QUOTE="Gaming-Planet"]

How about the answer will revealed so stop looking for it.

Just imagine if God was real and was exposed on a daily basis. Including the free will we already have.

peterw007

Now that would be interesting.

If that were the case, we would be obsessed with God.

Everything in our society would be completely geared towards pleasing God.

It would cause a massive standstill in the development of technology, science, and the competitiveness of our society.

[QUOTE="Bane_09"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

I'm not using faith as evidence why would a religious person care to prove God's existence scientifically? it shouldn't be their job to do it. The only thing he can do to lower the atheist criticisms is just making his faithful believe not conflict with scientific knowledge. That way the atheist has less arguments against them. A logical fallacy is not such a good argument considering it doesn't support the atheist argument either since he can't proof God doesn't exist in the same way the religious can't proof he does. There are many scientists out there that manage to accommodate their faith and their scientific work in such a way and for me there's little people can do to strongly argument against such position considering how little we know about the universe or everything that exists.themajormayor

Hmm I don't think you understand logic very well and I'll just leave it at that

Thank you

[QUOTE="Bane_09"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

I'm not using faith as evidence why would a religious person care to prove God's existence scientifically? it shouldn't be their job to do it. The only thing he can do to lower the atheist criticisms is just making his faithful believe not conflict with scientific knowledge. That way the atheist has less arguments against them. A logical fallacy is not such a good argument considering it doesn't support the atheist argument either since he can't proof God doesn't exist in the same way the religious can't proof he does. There are many scientists out there that manage to accommodate their faith and their scientific work in such a way and for me there's little people can do to strongly argument against such position considering how little we know about the universe or everything that exists.kuraimen

Hmm I don't think you understand logic very well and I'll just leave it at that

Perhaps you should read your own link, which says this:

"The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possessgood reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopherBertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena ofpragmatism, wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent."

[QUOTE="peterw007"]

[QUOTE="Gaming-Planet"]

How about the answer will revealed so stop looking for it.

Just imagine if God was real and was exposed on a daily basis. Including the free will we already have.

Gaming-Planet

Now that would be interesting.

If that were the case, we would be obsessed with God.

Everything in our society would be completely geared towards pleasing God.

It would cause a massive standstill in the development of technology, science, and the competitiveness of our society.

What if God purposely doesn't expose himself to us so that we will continue to compete and have conflict with one another?

Maybe God loves the conflict?

[QUOTE="Bane_09"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

I'm not using faith as evidence why would a religious person care to prove God's existence scientifically? it shouldn't be their job to do it. The only thing he can do to lower the atheist criticisms is just making his faithful believe not conflict with scientific knowledge. That way the atheist has less arguments against them. A logical fallacy is not such a good argument considering it doesn't support the atheist argument either since he can't proof God doesn't exist in the same way the religious can't proof he does. There are many scientists out there that manage to accommodate their faith and their scientific work in such a way and for me there's little people can do to strongly argument against such position considering how little we know about the universe or everything that exists.kuraimen

Hmm I don't think you understand logic very well and I'll just leave it at that

Burden of proof falls on the person making the claim, you are making the claim that God exists and not providing proof other than saying "atheists can't prove God doesn't exist". Someone doesn't need to show you proof that God doesn't exist, ever heard of the church of the flying spaghetti monster? There is just as much logical proof for the existence of a spaghetti monster as there is for God, I'm not trying to offend anyone but it's true. So by your logic you would have to prove to me that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist for me to believe you, which you cannot do.

Perhaps you should read your own link, which says this:

"The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possessgood reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopherBertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena ofpragmatism, wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent."

RationalAtheist

So we are not talking from a logical perspective but a pragmatic perspective? You guys have to make up your minds. And religious people shouldn't have to prove anything since they argue their faith from a religious perspective. If they were making a scientific claim then ok they should provide proof but an argument based on someones faith I think is enough for it not to conflict or be contradictory to a scientific fact to be sound. Either way, like I said, many scientists have no problem holding such a believe because it doesn't contradict any scientific knowledge they have and, therefore, is not really hard to accommodate since believe in God is mostly based on faith not evidence.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Perhaps you should read your own link, which says this:

"The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possessgood reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopherBertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena ofpragmatism, wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent."

kuraimen

So we are not talking from a logical perspective but a pragmatic perspective? You guys have to make up your minds. And religious people shouldn't have to prove anything since they argue their faith from a religious perspective. If they were making a scientific claim then ok they should provide proof but an argument based on someones faith I think is enough for it not to conflict or be contradictory to a scientific fact to be sound. Either way, like I said, many scientists have no problem holding such a believe because it doesn't contradict any scientific knowledge they have and, therefore, is not really hard to accommodate since believe in God is mostly based on faith not evidence.

The problem with faith is that it's not convincing from a modern standpoint.

"Why should I believe in God?"

"Because it's my faith."

It's an incredibly weak line of reasoning.

[QUOTE="Gaming-Planet"][QUOTE="peterw007"]

Now that would be interesting.

If that were the case, we would be obsessed with God.

Everything in our society would be completely geared towards pleasing God.

It would cause a massive standstill in the development of technology, science, and the competitiveness of our society.

peterw007

What if God purposely doesn't expose himself to us so that we will continue to compete and have conflict with one another?

Maybe God loves the conflict?

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Perhaps you should read your own link, which says this:

"The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possessgood reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopherBertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena ofpragmatism, wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent."

kuraimen

So we are not talking from a logical perspective but a pragmatic perspective? You guys have to make up your minds. And religious people shouldn't have to prove anything since they argue their faith from a religious perspective. If they were making a scientific claim then ok they should provide proof but an argument based on someones faith I think is enough for it not to conflict or be contradictory to a scientific fact to be sound. Either way, like I said, many scientists have no problem holding such a believe because it doesn't contradict any scientific knowledge they have and, therefore, is not really hard to accommodate since believe in God is mostly based on faith not evidence.

Ok let me try to explain this to you, the topic was about coming with rational logical arguments for the existence of God. When you say you are proving something I'm assuming you mean you are proving it is real in the physical world. You're right that religious people don't have to prove God from a religious perspective, but you keep trying to use logical arguments to prove God exists and that doesn't work. And yeah of course scientists can be religious, they don't try to rationally prove God exists they just go by faith

Burden of proof falls on the person making the claim, you are making the claim that God exists and not providing proof other than saying "atheists can't prove God doesn't exist". Someone doesn't need to show you proof that God doesn't exist, ever heard of the church of the flying spaghetti monster? There is just as much logical proof for the existence of a spaghetti monster as there is for God, I'm not trying to offend anyone but it's true. So by your logic you would have to prove to me that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist for me to believe you, which you cannot do.

Bane_09

Atheists argue from mostly a scientific perspective which requires proof but theists don't argue from such a perspective. The problem arises when one tries to use the tools of the other to make their argument so when creationists or intelligent designers try to use science to provide evidence then they fall flat on their faces but, likewise, science has no business asking religious people to provide scientific evidence when something is in the realm of faith. Both are stepping out of their area's boundaries when they try to lure the other to argue in their terms. What religious people can do is say that their faith doesn't come into conflict with scientific truths since they are not trying to give a scientific justification for the existence of God in the first place. That's a powerful enough argument for them since atheists shouldn't require them to provide proof for something that is not coming from a scientific point of view.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Perhaps you should read your own link, which says this:

"The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possessgood reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopherBertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena ofpragmatism, wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent."

Bane_09

So we are not talking from a logical perspective but a pragmatic perspective? You guys have to make up your minds. And religious people shouldn't have to prove anything since they argue their faith from a religious perspective. If they were making a scientific claim then ok they should provide proof but an argument based on someones faith I think is enough for it not to conflict or be contradictory to a scientific fact to be sound. Either way, like I said, many scientists have no problem holding such a believe because it doesn't contradict any scientific knowledge they have and, therefore, is not really hard to accommodate since believe in God is mostly based on faith not evidence.

Ok let me try to explain this to you, the topic was about coming with rational logical arguments for the existence of God. When you say you are proving something I'm assuming you mean you are proving it is real in the physical world. You're right that religious people don't have to prove God from a religious perspective, but you keep trying to use logical arguments to prove God exists and that doesn't work. And yeah of course scientists can be religious, they don't try to rationally prove God exists they just go by faith

I'm trying to explain how can people accommodate both things without a lot of conflict like scientists do. After all scientists use their rational thought processes more often than the regular person so they try to keep their faith as little in conflict with their scientific believes as possible. That requires for them to rationalize their faith a little bit at least because no scientist will take himself seriously if he believes in science and that the Earth is 6000 years old at the same time. Since religion is based on faith the most rational argument I can think of is that one, just accommodate believes in a way they don't conflict with each other. I think that's rational and sound enough for most people.

Some people dont like to be labeled.

[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="cheese_game619"]The only real argument is saying you feel him having faith brings you peace and all that. It certainly makes death an easier subject to cross.cheese_game619

[QUOTE="cheese_game619"][QUOTE="themajormayor"]How come death is an easier subject to cross? Have you heard about something called the Catholic faith? themajormayor