Topic: Prophets (Read 2828 times)

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #40 on:** March 14, 2009, 09:08:09 AM »

"Sorry, SJ, but you seem to need another reminder that you have no special powers and this issue is therefore exclusively about opinion."

No, there is a big difference. You're right that I have no special powers, but it is precisely because of that that I recognize that really credible positions can't be ultimately decided by us humans.

"Is it my opinion that the Supreme Being is more likely to be loving, kind and forgiving than hateful, bigoted and petulant? Yes. You clearly believe the latter."

Au contraire. You are being dishonest in saying this, or ignorant. Everyone knows that Christianity precisely is about God being loving, kind, and forgiving, and that this is my view. However, the same evidence for this- the death and resurrection of Jesus to bring about reconciliation with God- brings evidence that if there was a reason forgiveness was needed. You want to have the forgiveness but then strip away the need for it. Jesus says that without this forgiveness, people are toast. You want the forgiveness without the 'toast.'

I clearly believe the former, and if you did too, you'd be a Christian.

"It is repulsive. If your god were a person I would not even greet him in the street, yet you blame me for not seeking him out as my savior. If that is my savior, I deny him."

Well, of course I don't think you are a credible person to say anything like this. You are probably the most ignorant person I know on this issue. Most other atheists I know like to boast how much they know about the Bible but all you know about it is what other atheists have told you. But let me pass over this for a moment.

Let us assume for a moment that this 'repulsive' version is the truth and that you despise him and find him despicable and would deny him. If God then forced you to love him, wouldn't you object? Wouldn't you prefer that this repulsive God allow you a place to go so you didn't have to be in his presence? Yup.

And Christianity says that this way is open to you. If you want existence without God, you can get have it, and he'll let you have it. You're misguided if you think you'll like it, but never mind that for now. The irony is that the existence of this choice- 'hell' is precisely what you think is hateful and repulsive. If God didn't give you this choice, per Zag's approach, you'd despise him for coercing you.

So the real truth is this: it doesn't matter what version of God is presented you will despise him and deny him. Which is fine if that's your position. I just wish you'd admit it and be upfront about it and dispense with these silly smokescreens about evidence having anything to do with it. That's nonsense.

The bottom of the issue is simply this: you will only consider God on your own terms, and you cannot find anyone with a 'version' of God that will allow you to remain safely ensconced in behaviors you yourself know in your heart to be wrong. It is no more and no less than this.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #41 on:** March 14, 2009, 03:40:14 PM »

Sorry, SJ, but you seem to need another reminder that you have no special powers and this issue is therefore exclusively about opinion.

Is it my opinion that the Supreme Being is more likely to be loving, kind and forgiving than hateful, bigoted and petulant? Yes. You clearly believe the latter.

Frankly, SJ, you are welcome to your version of god. It is repulsive. If your god were a person I would not even greet him in the street, yet you blame me for not seeking him out as my savior. If that is my savior, I deny him.

Heh. I'm just wondering now why some Atheists.. even many of them.. came to "Christianity" due to the fact that they have fallen in Love with a God that is actually interested in humans... a God that is actually serious about "saving" them?

This concept/belief of mine I only accept because there is no evidence in history of the early church that this wasn't a possibilty. It was not until some time later that doctrines became necessary for many reasons.

It's a miracle nowadays for one/anyone to have an open-mind... and to let go of fears and other silly stuff.

stathei · « **Reply #42 on:** March 14, 2009, 05:13:45 PM »

SJ, the true irony it that your "evidence" that the Bible is true is the Bible itself. That doesn't make you a scholar, it just makes you seem a little desperate to believe.

Quote

Everyone knows that Christianity precisely is about God being loving, kind, and forgiving, and that this is my view.

I don't believe that a god who thinks stem cell research is a sin and that gays are not fit to be Christians can be described in those terms, do you? Probably, but that is just another example of your perverted ideas.

Z, I have never claimed to have an open mind about the supernatural - in fact, I have stated quite clearly that my mind is closed to the possibility of the existence of the supernatural in the complete absence of a shred of evidence for it. Perhaps my mind could be opened, but if so it would take something much better than what I'm getting here, which is just "read the bible, you idiot".

Zagzagel · « **Reply #43 on:** March 15, 2009, 04:56:41 PM »

Z, I have never claimed to have an open mind about the supernatural - in fact, I have stated quite clearly that my mind is closed to the possibility of the existence of the supernatural in the complete absence of a shred of evidence for it. Perhaps my mind could be opened, but if so it would take something much better than what I'm getting here, which is just "read the bible, you idiot".

That's sad. When one reads the bible it never comes to the conclusion that you wrote "read the bible, you idot".

The reason is obvious... there was no "bible" and never will be one either. What we have (my suggestion) is just a collection of many writings from many writers from our past. Whether they have something meaningful to say is something you might want to look into. Perhaps that is where you should start your journey? This probly won't lead to any Christian view but at least you would have done study and gained some knowledge.. whether good or bad.

Heck.. I sometimes like to study books or writings that don't fit my belief structure but I do it for the sake of gaining something.. whether it benefits me or not is NOT an issue with me.

"Supernatural" to me means just a tad more than natural. Nothing really Super about it. Just enough to get us looking to something more than a natural view. I think there is enough in human history to warrant such a search.

stathei · « **Reply #44 on:** March 16, 2009, 09:01:32 PM »

Z, I don't think you can say "a tad more than natural". It's a qualitatively different thing - if any supernatural event is true, it requires a complete change in how we look at the world, not just a slight alteration.

End Bringer · « **Reply #45 on:** March 16, 2009, 09:07:02 PM »

Quote from: stathei on March 16, 2009, 09:01:32 PM

Z, I don't think you can say "a tad more than natural". It's a qualitatively different thing - if any supernatural event is true, it requires a complete change in how we look at the world, not just a slight alteration.

Only if you aren't open-minded to begin with. Though I agree Zag's definition of 'supernatural' is lacking.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #46 on:** March 17, 2009, 12:27:03 AM »

Quote

I don't believe that a god who thinks stem cell research is a sin and that gays are not fit to be Christians can be described in those terms, do you? Probably, but that is just another example of your perverted ideas.

I don't think stem cell research is a sin, dude. What is the matter with you? You find me one Christian who thinks it is and I'll send you $5.00.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #47 on:** March 17, 2009, 12:30:49 AM »

Of course the very use of the term 'perverted' assumes some notion of there being an 'unperverted' state of affairs that one ought to accept.

An atheist who is a moral relativist who says something is perverted is ....

Zagzagel · « **Reply #48 on:** March 17, 2009, 03:51:40 PM »

Z, I don't think you can say "a tad more than natural". It's a qualitatively different thing - if any supernatural event is true, it requires a complete change in how we look at the world, not just a slight alteration.

------------------------------

Z, I don't think you can say "a tad more than natural". It's a qualitatively different thing - if any supernatural event is true, it requires a complete change in how we look at the world, not just a slight alteration.

Only if you aren't open-minded to begin with. Though I agree Zag's definition of 'supernatural' is lacking.

Well, perhaps I see our natural world a miracle already? It's already something supernatural in my eyes.

cimics · « **Reply #49 on:** March 17, 2009, 10:12:46 PM »

Quote

I don't think stem cell research is a sin, dude. What is the matter with you? You find me one Christian who thinks it is and I'll send you $5.00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/10/AR2009031002842.html

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #50 on:** March 18, 2009, 05:54:25 AM »

Thanks for that, Cimics. Let's hope it gets read.

I loved the closing line:

Quote

In this case, science handed Obama a gift -- and he sent it back.

Ragnar · « **Reply #51 on:** April 13, 2009, 05:19:59 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on March 18, 2009, 05:54:25 AM

Thanks for that, Cimics. Let's hope it gets read.

I loved the closing line:

Quote
In this case, science handed Obama a gift -- and he sent it back.

The only reason there has been such success with iPSCs is because scientists had to work around Bush's ridiculous ban for nearly a decade. There has been virtually no research done with embryonic stem cells for this reason, so it is not fully known if iPSCs could do everything that embryonic stem cells could do. That's why research with embryonic cells still needs to be done. The side effects of iPSCs, such as viruses and even cancer, have only started to be overcome in the past year. There would not have been that problem with embryonic cells. By forcing scientists to work around these problems, Bush set scientific research back that otherwise could have moved forward. Instead of just starting to make stem cells actually usable, the science could have been nearly perfected by now. Whatever they will be doing with stem cells at the end of Obama's term they could have been doing now.

And Stathei clearly meant embryonic stem cell research. Is the five dollar offer open for that, SJ?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #52 on:** April 13, 2009, 07:28:42 PM »

"The only reason there has been such success with iPSCs is because scientists had to work around Bush's ridiculous ban for nearly a decade."

Not true.

"There has been virtually no research done with embryonic stem cells for this reason,"

Also not true.

Bush's ban applied only to government funding for embryonic stem cell research. Private entities could have financed their own embryonic research and we must also remind ourselves that Bush's ban obviously only applied to the United States. That leaves a whole world out there that could have continued to research with embryonic stem cell research.

There was no ban on embryonic stem cell research. Only US government funding for it. Looks like you bought the propaganda on this issue hook, line, and sinker. How does it feel to be played the fool?

"Whatever they will be doing with stem cells at the end of Obama's term they could have been doing now."

Despite the fact that this is absurd given the fact that nations around the planet could have been, and we may suppose actually have been, engaged in embryonic stem cell research, I suppose we will nonetheless see just what they are doing with the EMBRYONIC stem cells at the end of Obama's term. If it's jack squat I look forward to your heart felt retraction.

Moreover, we need to make clear that it isn't enough to be 'doing things' with 'stem cells.' The contention is that 'things' can only be done with embryonic stem cells that can't be done with anything else. If it turns out that anything they can do with embryonic stem cells they can do with adult ones, etc, then your position gains nothing.

In my view, that seems highly unlikely since iPSs appear to have the same potential listed for embryonic stem cells.

"And Stathei clearly meant embryonic stem cell research. Is the five dollar offer open for that, SJ?"

Stathei clearly did not. Just like you, his information is based on propaganda. There is no question in my mind that he believed Christians like myself were against stem cell research. Likewise, there is no question in my mind that you believed there was a ban on embryonic stem cell research in this country.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #53 on:** April 13, 2009, 08:19:00 PM »

As an additional point, Rag, since I know that you are an objectivist and hence someone with strong inclinations towards libertarianism and limited government, I think we should explore another couple of questions, you and I. Given the fact that there was no ban on embryonic stem cell research and only a ban on federal funding of it, two questions naturally come to the top.

1. If there was no ban, why is it presented as such, like for example in this recent news article announcing Obama's rescinding of Bush's executive order titled: Obama Ends Stem Cell Research Ban

With it so easy to garner news from headline alone we must ask why the blatant distortions.

2. If the ban was on federal funding alone which allowed for private funding (corporations, research firms, biotech, private donors, etc) why was it so important for some people to have the government footing the bill?

(As far as I know, there was no requirement that a university who received federal funding in general had to abandon embryonic stem cell research.)

I am prepared to believe that without the federal dollars, here in America embryonic stem cell research did diminish. There are two reasons for this that I feel pretty confident about and some others that I suspect and put to you for consideration in light of your philosophical positions. The two reasons are 1: Why waste one's own precious research dollars on unproven technologies? If you are footing the bill, naturally you'll pursue technologies with actual demonstrated promise. IE, adult stem cells. 2. While a corporation or university may be finicky with their own research dollars, if on the other hand the government is handing out the cash for it, what does it matter to them that embryonic stem cell research hasn't yielded results that could not have been attained by other means?

It makes me very suspicious when I look at the persistent portrayal of this issue in the press and remember that research certainly can be continuing without federal dollars- but apparently isn't as much. They cry 'Ban!' when there is no ban but in the meantime act as though there is a ban.

Could it be (and here are my suspicions) that there are certain groups of people who could care less about the ethical issue of embryonic stem cell research who instead are just looking for every way possible to utilize the government and taxpayer dollars regardless of their own capability to use their own organizations and resources? And you're falling for it, an Objectivist and all!

Another suspicion I have is that even if adult stem cells and iPSs really can do everything that we are told embryonic stem cells can do, they would much rather use the embryonic ones to stick it to the religious people in this country, or (and these are not mutually exclusive) are miffed that 'scientifically illiterate' average Americans have the audacity to challenge the high and mighty minds of Science and Politics on the morality of their actions.

What are your thoughts to 1 and 2 above?

And finally, if it comes out that adult stem cells and iPSs can do everything an embryonic stem cell can do, how will you explain the tenacious insistence to use embryonic ones anyway? Or do you predict that they will happily give up the controversial and questionably unethical research program in favor of the unquestionably morally unchallenged research programs? (I know where I'm putting my money)

Ragnar · « **Reply #54 on:** April 14, 2009, 09:52:23 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on April 13, 2009, 07:28:42 PM

"The only reason there has been such success with iPSCs is because scientists had to work around Bush's ridiculous ban for nearly a decade."

Not true.

"There has been virtually no research done with embryonic stem cells for this reason,"

Also not true.

Bush's ban applied only to government funding for embryonic stem cell research. Private entities could have financed their own embryonic research and we must also remind ourselves that Bush's ban obviously only applied to the United States. That leaves a whole world out there that could have continued to research with embryonic stem cell research.

Yes, but the U.S. has the best facilities for this research.

Quote from: sntjohnny on April 13, 2009, 07:28:42 PM

There was no ban on embryonic stem cell research. Only US government funding for it. Looks like you bought the propaganda on this issue hook, line, and sinker. How does it feel to be played the fool?

Right, but there was government funding for adult stem cell research. Both avenues were worthy of being researched, but the government provided funding for only one path, which happened to be the inferior path. Naturally, everyone researching this chose the path where they didn't have to shell out their own money. It would be like giving a starving man a choice between buying a steak with the last bit of money he had, or getting an unlimited supply of bread.[/quote]

Quote from: sntjohnny on April 13, 2009, 07:28:42 PM

"Whatever they will be doing with stem cells at the end of Obama's term they could have been doing now."

Despite the fact that this is absurd given the fact that nations around the planet could have been, and we may suppose actually have been, engaged in embryonic stem cell research, I suppose we will nonetheless see just what they are doing with the EMBRYONIC stem cells at the end of Obama's term. If it's jack squat I look forward to your heart felt retraction.

Sure.

Quote from: sntjohnny on April 13, 2009, 07:28:42 PM

Moreover, we need to make clear that it isn't enough to be 'doing things' with 'stem cells.' The contention is that 'things' can only be done with embryonic stem cells that can't be done with anything else. If it turns out that anything they can do with embryonic stem cells they can do with adult ones, etc, then your position gains nothing.

My position is that it took years of research to get adult cells to the point where they could do what embryonic cells could do out of the box. That is years of wasted research and wasted taxpayer money that could have been spent on a better product.

Quote from: sntjohnny on April 13, 2009, 07:28:42 PM

In my view, that seems highly unlikely since iPSs appear to have the same potential listed for embryonic stem cells.

Only in the past year.

Quote from: sntjohnny on April 13, 2009, 07:28:42 PM

"And Stathei clearly meant embryonic stem cell research. Is the five dollar offer open for that, SJ?"

Stathei clearly did not. Just like you, his information is based on propaganda. There is no question in my mind that he believed Christians like myself were against stem cell research. Likewise, there is no question in my mind that you believed there was a ban on embryonic stem cell research in this country.

Clearly, I know the ban was on federal funding. It is still a ban. I haven't seen anyone characterize it as a ban on research, just on funding.

Ragnar · « **Reply #55 on:** April 14, 2009, 11:03:08 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on April 13, 2009, 08:19:00 PM

As an additional point, Rag, since I know that you are an objectivist and hence someone with strong inclinations towards libertarianism and limited government, I think we should explore another couple of questions, you and I. Given the fact that there was no ban on embryonic stem cell research and only a ban on federal funding of it, two questions naturally come to the top.

1. If there was no ban, why is it presented as such, like for example in this recent news article announcing Obama's rescinding of Bush's executive order titled: Obama Ends Stem Cell Research Ban

With it so easy to garner news from headline alone we must ask why the blatant distortions.

From this article:

"Mr. Obama's action, before a packed East Room audience, reverses former President George W. Bush's policy on stem cell research by undoing a 2001 directive that banned federal funding for research into stem lines created after that date."

I see no blatant distortions.

Quote from: sntjohnny on April 13, 2009, 08:19:00 PM

2. If the ban was on federal funding alone which allowed for private funding (corporations, research firms, biotech, private donors, etc) why was it so important for some people to have the government footing the bill?

Because the government was footing the bill for an inferior line of research, that of adult stem cells. It pushed research in the wrong direction.

Quote from: sntjohnny on April 13, 2009, 08:19:00 PM

(As far as I know, there was no requirement that a university who received federal funding in general had to abandon embryonic stem cell research.)

I am prepared to believe that without the federal dollars, here in America embryonic stem cell research did diminish. There are two reasons for this that I feel pretty confident about and some others that I suspect and put to you for consideration in light of your philosophical positions. The two reasons are 1: Why waste one's own precious research dollars on unproven technologies? If you are footing the bill, naturally you'll pursue technologies with actual demonstrated promise. IE, adult stem cells.

Adult stem cells did not have an actual demonstrated purpose, it simply cost researchers nothing to explore them, whereas it would have cost them to explore embryonic stem cells. Researchers knew embryonic cells were superior, they simply didn't have the money to pursue the research.

Quote from: sntjohnny on April 13, 2009, 08:19:00 PM

2. While a corporation or university may be finicky with their own research dollars, if on the other hand the government is handing out the cash for it, what does it matter to them that embryonic stem cell research hasn't yielded results that could not have been attained by other means?

Again, the other means were more expensive and less effective.

Quote from: sntjohnny on April 13, 2009, 08:19:00 PM

It makes me very suspicious when I look at the persistent portrayal of this issue in the press and remember that research certainly can be continuing without federal dollars- but apparently isn't as much. They cry 'Ban!' when there is no ban but in the meantime act as though there is a ban.

Could it be (and here are my suspicions) that there are certain groups of people who could care less about the ethical issue of embryonic stem cell research who instead are just looking for every way possible to utilize the government and taxpayer dollars regardless of their own capability to use their own organizations and resources? And you're falling for it, an Objectivist and all!

As far as I'm concerned there are no ethical issues as far as embryonic stem cell research. The misuse of government money is another issue, and is certainly not limited to funding for scientific research.

Quote from: sntjohnny on April 13, 2009, 08:19:00 PM

Another suspicion I have is that even if adult stem cells and iPSs really can do everything that we are told embryonic stem cells can do, they would much rather use the embryonic ones to stick it to the religious people in this country, or (and these are not mutually exclusive) are miffed that 'scientifically illiterate' average Americans have the audacity to challenge the high and mighty minds of Science and Politics on the morality of their actions.

This is just silly.

Quote from: sntjohnny on April 13, 2009, 08:19:00 PM

And finally, if it comes out that adult stem cells and iPSs can do everything an embryonic stem cell can do, how will you explain the tenacious insistence to use embryonic ones anyway? Or do you predict that they will happily give up the controversial and questionably unethical research program in favor of the unquestionably morally unchallenged research programs? (I know where I'm putting my money)

Kind of irrelevant to me, since I have no moral issue with using embryonic stem cells.

End Bringer · « **Reply #56 on:** April 18, 2009, 03:43:28 PM »

Quote from: Ragnar on April 14, 2009, 09:52:23 AM

Yes, but the U.S. has the best facilities for this research.

So?

Quote

Right, but there was government funding for adult stem cell research. Both avenues were worthy of being researched, but the government provided funding for only one path, which happened to be the inferior path. Naturally, everyone researching this chose the path where they didn't have to shell out their own money. It would be like giving a starving man a choice between buying a steak with the last bit of money he had, or getting an unlimited supply of bread.

Try not to contradict yourself in the same breath by saying both are "worthy", then saying the government chose the "inferior". And certainly even amoung purely scientific concers it doesn't look like embryonic cells are "superior" in the least as there are concerns on whether they can turn cancerous. So you just don't have all the facts.

And as not everyone agrees that embryonic research is a "worthy" path, I'd say let those who do cough up their own bill and not force those who disagree to pay for it anyway. After all people usually DO buy their own meal when their hungry.

Quote

My position is that it took years of research to get adult cells to the point where they could do what embryonic cells could do out of the box. That is years of wasted research and wasted taxpayer money that could have been spent on a better product.

Under such views I guess the Nazis had the right idea in their medical advancments as their disregard for human life certainly lead to expedient breakthroughs. What they did was pure science relying "on facts, not ideology." And it turned out pure science without ethical concerns showed it's true face.

But putting that aside, none of your 'years were wasted' complaints is relevant when all the facts were in when Obama put pen to paper.

Quote

Clearly, I know the ban was on federal funding. It is still a ban. I haven't seen anyone characterize it as a ban on research, just on funding.

You seem to indicate otherwise with "because scientists had to work around Bush's ridiculous ban for nearly a decade". If all the banning was for funding and not the research itself, then there is certainly nothing to "work around". It's either footing the bill if you think it's worth it or not.

Quote

Because the government was footing the bill for an inferior line of research, that of adult stem cells. It pushed research in the wrong direction.

Ha! We see dollars being practically burned all the time in research that never amounts to anything and it's always considered 'worth it' even then. And seeing how it seems adult stem cells are just as viable as embryonic (who knows when this would have been discovered if everyone just jumped on the embryonic ban-wagon) I'd say your statement is completely erroneous.

And complaining where the government spends it's money on research (when that's it's perogative), doesn't really address the issue on why government funding is needed over private.

Quote

Adult stem cells did not have an actual demonstrated purpose, it simply cost researchers nothing to explore them, whereas it would have cost them to explore embryonic stem cells. Researchers knew embryonic cells were superior, they simply didn't have the money to pursue the research.

As I doubt you have knowledge on just how much money the private sector has in conducting research, I have to say this reasoning is forced. Or do you consider less expensive research that later demonstrates a potential equal to that on what it would have cost more expensive research to be a bad thing?

Quote

As far as I'm concerned there are no ethical issues as far as embryonic stem cell research. The misuse of government money is another issue, and is certainly not limited to funding for scientific research.

As far as slave owners were concerned there were no ethical issues to treating blacks like animals. Not everyone agrees.

And again "misuse" is erroneous when it's the government's perogative to use it's own money were it wants it to go. You can disagree where it's going, but crying "Misuse!" (no matter the administrative party doing the "misusing") is just blather.

valerie · « **Reply #57 on:** April 20, 2009, 03:31:38 PM »

Hi Guys! Man, this is like a soap opera! You don't watch it for a few years and you can still pick up exactly where you left off, since the plots and the people seem to always stay the same! There is something comforting in knowing that you all are still in your little corners of the world pontificating.

To the original question...so as not to digress further...I certainly don't believe that God only speaks to one person. Nor do I believe that he doesn't speak to everyone!

It is great to be a Mormon and always be able to take everyone's side! The doctrine is so diverse it just lends itself to that.

Dannyboy · « **Reply #58 on:** April 21, 2009, 02:22:12 PM »

Man, this is like a soap opera! You don't watch it for a few years and you can still pick up exactly where you left off, since the plots and the people seem to always stay the same! There is something comforting in knowing that you all are still in your little corners of the world pontificating.

Oh Buddha, she's right. What am i doing with my life?! i'm going to donate my PC to charity and devote my life to mindless good works!

jfoxton · « **Reply #59 on:** May 06, 2009, 03:32:57 PM »

Ahem (with thanks to Google and cut & paste),

Matthew 13:42: "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

Matt 25:41: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." This passage relates to Jesus' judgment of all the world.

Mark 9:43-48: And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched." The reference to fire is repeated three more times in the passage for emphasis.

Luke 16:24: "And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame." This is a plea described as coming from an inhabitant of Hell.

Revelation 20:13-15: "...hell delivered up the dead which were in them...And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

Revelation 21:8: "But the fearful, and unbelieving ... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." Brimstone is sulphur. In order for sulphur to form a lake, it must be molten. Thus, its temperature must be at or below 444.6

Author Topic: Prophets (Read 2828 times)

stathei

stathei