Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Question for Christians: Are babies hellbound

Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 6:55:14 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
Say if a baby were to live for a day, and never had the capacity to believe in God, is he/she sent to hell? Moreover, what constitutes a sending to hell?

I've read answers on this topic previously, but I'm interested in hearing your answer.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 7:07:13 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 6:55:14 AM, Zarroette wrote:
Say if a baby were to live for a day, and never had the capacity to believe in God, is he/she sent to hell? Moreover, what constitutes a sending to hell?

I've read answers on this topic previously, but I'm interested in hearing your answer.

The Spiritually blind are exempt,

John 9 41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
KJV
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 7:12:42 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 7:07:13 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/6/2015 6:55:14 AM, Zarroette wrote:
Say if a baby were to live for a day, and never had the capacity to believe in God, is he/she sent to hell? Moreover, what constitutes a sending to hell?

I've read answers on this topic previously, but I'm interested in hearing your answer.

The Spiritually blind are exempt,

John 9 41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
KJV

Seems plausible.

What constitutes blindness?
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 7:28:28 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 7:12:42 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/6/2015 7:07:13 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/6/2015 6:55:14 AM, Zarroette wrote:
Say if a baby were to live for a day, and never had the capacity to believe in God, is he/she sent to hell? Moreover, what constitutes a sending to hell?

I've read answers on this topic previously, but I'm interested in hearing your answer.

The Spiritually blind are exempt,

John 9 41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
KJV

Seems plausible.

What constitutes blindness?

The reference is not the physical ability to see, but the ability to understand spiritually what ought to be good. Hence what would constitute blindness would be the inability to understand what is good or bad. or what is God.

Or something like that.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 7:31:32 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 7:30:26 AM, johnlubba wrote:
James 4:17

If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn't do it, it is sin for them

Alright. Thank you, John.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 7:34:20 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 7:31:32 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/6/2015 7:30:26 AM, johnlubba wrote:
James 4:17

If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn't do it, it is sin for them

Alright. Thank you, John.

And this

2 Peter 2:21
It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

Thanks.
smelisox
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 8:43:11 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 7:07:13 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/6/2015 6:55:14 AM, Zarroette wrote:
Say if a baby were to live for a day, and never had the capacity to believe in God, is he/she sent to hell? Moreover, what constitutes a sending to hell?

I've read answers on this topic previously, but I'm interested in hearing your answer.

The Spiritually blind are exempt,

John 9 41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
KJV

I forgot the moment where Jesus was irish.
smelisox
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 8:43:40 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 8:38:59 AM, JJ50 wrote:
Any religion which believes a baby would go to hell is sicker than sick!

How about religions that cuts their babies penis skin off at birth?
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 9:42:42 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 8:43:11 AM, smelisox wrote:
At 12/6/2015 7:07:13 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/6/2015 6:55:14 AM, Zarroette wrote:
Say if a baby were to live for a day, and never had the capacity to believe in God, is he/she sent to hell? Moreover, what constitutes a sending to hell?

I've read answers on this topic previously, but I'm interested in hearing your answer.

The Spiritually blind are exempt,

John 9 41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
KJV

I forgot the moment where Jesus was irish.

I think it's the blond hair and blue eye's that gave it away.
smelisox
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 12:53:52 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 9:42:42 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/6/2015 8:43:11 AM, smelisox wrote:
At 12/6/2015 7:07:13 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/6/2015 6:55:14 AM, Zarroette wrote:
Say if a baby were to live for a day, and never had the capacity to believe in God, is he/she sent to hell? Moreover, what constitutes a sending to hell?

I've read answers on this topic previously, but I'm interested in hearing your answer.

The Spiritually blind are exempt,

John 9 41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
KJV

I forgot the moment where Jesus was irish.


I think it's the blond hair and blue eye's that gave it away.

Can never tell if a theist is retarded or joking, so I'm just going to say it. Jesus was half arab half roman and a jew. He had dark swarthy skin and short black hair.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 1:06:09 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
Can someone enlighten me? Do immaterial "souls" have pleasure/pain receptors? If they have nerve endings to feel the pain, to what are they attached? If they do not how will they feel the eternal fires of hell?
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 2:44:54 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 6:55:14 AM, Zarroette wrote:
Say if a baby were to live for a day, and never had the capacity to believe in God, is he/she sent to hell? Moreover, what constitutes a sending to hell?

I've read answers on this topic previously, but I'm interested in hearing your answer.

- You interested in hearing mine?
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 2:49:34 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 8:43:40 AM, smelisox wrote:
At 12/6/2015 8:38:59 AM, JJ50 wrote:
Any religion which believes a baby would go to hell is sicker than sick!

How about religions that cuts their babies penis skin off at birth?

That should be totally illegal like female genital mutilation. Circumcision should only be permitted if there is a genuine medical need for it.
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 2:56:05 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 2:49:34 PM, JJ50 wrote:
At 12/6/2015 8:43:40 AM, smelisox wrote:
At 12/6/2015 8:38:59 AM, JJ50 wrote:
Any religion which believes a baby would go to hell is sicker than sick!

How about religions that cuts their babies penis skin off at birth?

That should be totally illegal like female genital mutilation. Circumcision should only be permitted if there is a genuine medical need for it.
Yeah the foreskin is superfluous, not necessary and unhygienic and has nothing to do with FGM.
The stupid just keeps getting thicker here.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 3:06:36 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 8:38:59 AM, JJ50 wrote:
Any religion which believes a baby would go to hell is sicker than sick!

What about any religion who believes an adult would go to hell?
smelisox
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 3:07:37 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 2:56:05 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/6/2015 2:49:34 PM, JJ50 wrote:
At 12/6/2015 8:43:40 AM, smelisox wrote:
At 12/6/2015 8:38:59 AM, JJ50 wrote:
Any religion which believes a baby would go to hell is sicker than sick!

How about religions that cuts their babies penis skin off at birth?

That should be totally illegal like female genital mutilation. Circumcision should only be permitted if there is a genuine medical need for it.
Yeah the foreskin is superfluous, not necessary and unhygienic and has nothing to do with FGM.
The stupid just keeps getting thicker here.

Guess you won't mind if someone kidnaps you and cuts your foreskin off while you are awake without anesthetic, then?
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 7:57:04 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 2:44:54 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 12/6/2015 6:55:14 AM, Zarroette wrote:
Say if a baby were to live for a day, and never had the capacity to believe in God, is he/she sent to hell? Moreover, what constitutes a sending to hell?

I've read answers on this topic previously, but I'm interested in hearing your answer.

- You interested in hearing mine?

Sure.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 8:50:11 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 7:57:04 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/6/2015 2:44:54 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 12/6/2015 6:55:14 AM, Zarroette wrote:
Say if a baby were to live for a day, and never had the capacity to believe in God, is he/she sent to hell? Moreover, what constitutes a sending to hell?

I've read answers on this topic previously, but I'm interested in hearing your answer.

- You interested in hearing mine?

Sure.

- We probably talked about this (not sure), but Accountability is Islam stems from the concept of Taklif (the Charge), which is only valid when, at least, these three conditions are met:
1. Message = Risalah : the Mukallaf (the accountable person) must be aware of the Message, otherwise he is not accountable: "Whoever is guided is only guided for [the benefit of] his soul. And whoever errs only errs against it. And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. And never would We punish until We sent a messenger (to give warning)" (17:15).
2. Intellect = Aql : the Mukallaf has to be a sane adult with his full intellectual ability & will: "there are three whose actions are not recorded (i.e. not accountable for their actions): the sleeping person until he awakens, the minor until he grows up, and the insane person until he comes to his senses." the Prophet (pbuh).
3. Ability = Q'udra : "Allah does not charge a soul except [with that within] its capacity." (2:286).

- Subsequently, there are 6 major exceptions where one or more of these above conditions are violated, thus negating accountability:
1. Ghyab al-'Aq'l = Undiscernment, including: Minority (under the age of puberty), Insanity & Unconsciousness.
2. Jahl = Ignorance, a ignorant person can not be accountable for what he is ignorant about...
3. Mashaqq'ah = Hardship, e.g. a travelling person in Ramadan is allowed to skip fasting, a sick person can't be asked to participate in something that requires a lot of effort, an old person is exempt from many things as well...
4. Daroura = Necessity, necessity cripples Ability, Eg. given that protecting a life (or a property) is obligatory, then if lying necessarily leads to this obligation (meaning, if lying is the only way to do it, as opposed to not lying), then lying to protect a life (or a property) is also obligatory. Or: given that shelter is obligatory, then if Riba (Usury, which is unlawful in principal) is the only way to acquire shelter, then Riba becomes also obligatory. Or: mutilation is unlawful, but given the fact that a person's life is in danger unless his legs are amputates, this act becomes thus obligatory. A person may thus not only be unaccountable for committing prohibitions under necessity, he may also be obligated to.
5. Ikrah = Coercion, e.g. a starving person can eat porc to save his life, a person can lie about his religion under mortal danger. Coercion is many degrees, & depending on the situation it may be valid or not. The highest degree of Coercion is direct & certain death, in this case, everything is permissible no matter what it is, expect of course Suicide or Murder, (because they are acts that are in the same degree of gravity as death).
6. Naq's = Incompleteness, e.g. a blind man can't go to war ; a woman in her period can't do the prayer...

- That being said, a baby (or a kid in general) is not only a minor, he is also utterly ignorant of the Message. He/she is, thus, unaccountable, hence may not be punished. Hope that answers your question :)
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Outplayz
Posts: 1,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 9:13:47 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 6:55:14 AM, Zarroette wrote:
Say if a baby were to live for a day, and never had the capacity to believe in God, is he/she sent to hell? Moreover, what constitutes a sending to hell?

I've read answers on this topic previously, but I'm interested in hearing your answer.

Of course they are Hellbound.... Isn't that Satan's diet?
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 11:52:05 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 8:50:11 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 12/6/2015 7:57:04 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 12/6/2015 2:44:54 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 12/6/2015 6:55:14 AM, Zarroette wrote:
Say if a baby were to live for a day, and never had the capacity to believe in God, is he/she sent to hell? Moreover, what constitutes a sending to hell?

I've read answers on this topic previously, but I'm interested in hearing your answer.

- You interested in hearing mine?

Sure.

- We probably talked about this (not sure), but Accountability is Islam stems from the concept of Taklif (the Charge), which is only valid when, at least, these three conditions are met:
1. Message = Risalah : the Mukallaf (the accountable person) must be aware of the Message, otherwise he is not accountable: "Whoever is guided is only guided for [the benefit of] his soul. And whoever errs only errs against it. And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. And never would We punish until We sent a messenger (to give warning)" (17:15).
2. Intellect = Aql : the Mukallaf has to be a sane adult with his full intellectual ability & will: "there are three whose actions are not recorded (i.e. not accountable for their actions): the sleeping person until he awakens, the minor until he grows up, and the insane person until he comes to his senses." the Prophet (pbuh).
3. Ability = Q'udra : "Allah does not charge a soul except [with that within] its capacity." (2:286).

- Subsequently, there are 6 major exceptions where one or more of these above conditions are violated, thus negating accountability:
1. Ghyab al-'Aq'l = Undiscernment, including: Minority (under the age of puberty), Insanity & Unconsciousness.
2. Jahl = Ignorance, a ignorant person can not be accountable for what he is ignorant about...
3. Mashaqq'ah = Hardship, e.g. a travelling person in Ramadan is allowed to skip fasting, a sick person can't be asked to participate in something that requires a lot of effort, an old person is exempt from many things as well...
4. Daroura = Necessity, necessity cripples Ability, Eg. given that protecting a life (or a property) is obligatory, then if lying necessarily leads to this obligation (meaning, if lying is the only way to do it, as opposed to not lying), then lying to protect a life (or a property) is also obligatory. Or: given that shelter is obligatory, then if Riba (Usury, which is unlawful in principal) is the only way to acquire shelter, then Riba becomes also obligatory. Or: mutilation is unlawful, but given the fact that a person's life is in danger unless his legs are amputates, this act becomes thus obligatory. A person may thus not only be unaccountable for committing prohibitions under necessity, he may also be obligated to.
5. Ikrah = Coercion, e.g. a starving person can eat porc to save his life, a person can lie about his religion under mortal danger. Coercion is many degrees, & depending on the situation it may be valid or not. The highest degree of Coercion is direct & certain death, in this case, everything is permissible no matter what it is, expect of course Suicide or Murder, (because they are acts that are in the same degree of gravity as death).
6. Naq's = Incompleteness, e.g. a blind man can't go to war ; a woman in her period can't do the prayer...

- That being said, a baby (or a kid in general) is not only a minor, he is also utterly ignorant of the Message. He/she is, thus, unaccountable, hence may not be punished. Hope that answers your question :)

It does :)

I find it fascinating how what is perceived by so many to be a primitive, outdated religion can have such extensive, intricate answers to issues. I should read more into Islam...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 11:59:21 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 11:52:05 PM, Zarroette wrote:

I find it fascinating how what is perceived by so many to be a primitive, outdated religion can have such extensive, intricate answers to issues.

- Ignorance is bliss, or so they claim.

I should read more into Islam...

- Fair warning: if you read more into Islam, you'd know of Islam, & thus lose the shield of Ignorance you had against accountability! x)
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 12:02:16 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 11:59:21 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 12/6/2015 11:52:05 PM, Zarroette wrote:

I find it fascinating how what is perceived by so many to be a primitive, outdated religion can have such extensive, intricate answers to issues.

- Ignorance is bliss, or so they claim.

It's conceivable. I guess we'll never know =)


I should read more into Islam...

- Fair warning: if you read more into Islam, you'd know of Islam, & thus lose the shield of Ignorance you had against accountability! x)

That is an issue, however, the possibility of guiding truth is far too good an opportunity to ignore.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 12:21:57 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
Post-mortem existence is most likely a matter of free will. If you choose to accept God then you will be with him after death (heaven) but if you choose to reject God then you won't be with him after death (hell).

A baby cannot choose at all - it has not yet manifested the ability to comprehend the concept of God. There are three potential fates that a dead baby's soul has then:

1. The soul is annihilated, it will be destroyed and will never be conscience again.

2. The soul is placed in another person prior to birth. It is given another chance at life.

3. God envisions how the person would have lived their life if they didn't die at birth, and responds to what they would have chosen.

Number 1 does not accord with a benevolent God and is deeply unfair. The soul has lost its chance at existence out of no fault of its own, I cannot see this being the Godlike action.

Number 3 has deterministic implications, ones that trivialise the choice of whether to accept or reject God. I would also argue that the possible world in which the baby didn't die is just that, a possible world but not the actual world. But a choice made in a possible world is only a possible choice, not an actual choice, yet has free will been recognised if no actual choice has been made? I would say not.

Therefore, I think number 2 has less awkward implications as well as better reflect God's benevolence.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 12:24:55 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/7/2015 12:02:16 AM, Zarroette wrote:

It's conceivable. I guess we'll never know =)

- I see what you did there ;)

That is an issue, however, the possibility of guiding truth is far too good an opportunity to ignore.

- Actually, that's the core of the issue. In fact, you can say there are, within the Islamic Tradition, two major ways of valuing the potency of Ignorance in negating Accountability. In a very broad sense, there are those who argue either that:
1. Being accountable is the original state, but circumstances make it temporarily unattainable. Thus, getting out of these circumstances is an obligatory course of action.
2. Being accountable is contingent on Intellect (majority, sanity...), not necessarily the original state. Thus, circumstances are just other equally viable contingencies.

- What I mean by this, is that in case:
1. Seeking the truth is an obligation by principal, thus, choosing to remain ignorant may not negate accountability. Only in choosing to seek the truth would that have any potency of negating accountability, in case truth is not found. Thus, in your case, if you're presented with some claim of truth & you discard it, & that claim happens to be the truth, then it's your fault for not following up on said claim.
2. Seeking the truth is not an innate obligation, thus, choosing to remain ignorant (under the condition of Wahm = seeming falsehood), may still negate accountability.

- I am not sure if you understand what I am talking about!
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 1:02:26 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 6:55:14 AM, Zarroette wrote:
Say if a baby were to live for a day, and never had the capacity to believe in God, is he/she sent to hell? Moreover, what constitutes a sending to hell?

I've read answers on this topic previously, but I'm interested in hearing your answer.

Referring to the Bible:

Hell is a condition, not a place, and even if it were a place, those who died as babies would not go there. As has already been pointed out, those who do not know better are not condemned. And then there is this, when his apostles tried to chase the children away:

But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God. Mark 10:14 (also: Matt. 19:14, Luke 18:16).

If He was displeased to see the children rejected, and accepted them on Earth, the same will hold true Heaven:

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever. Hebrews 13:8

Referring to popular religious philosophy:

Yes, all dead babies are going to Hell. They will join all the ignorant Christians who insist that babies are going there.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 1:58:22 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 12:53:52 PM, smelisox wrote:
At 12/6/2015 9:42:42 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/6/2015 8:43:11 AM, smelisox wrote:
At 12/6/2015 7:07:13 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/6/2015 6:55:14 AM, Zarroette wrote:
Say if a baby were to live for a day, and never had the capacity to believe in God, is he/she sent to hell? Moreover, what constitutes a sending to hell?

I've read answers on this topic previously, but I'm interested in hearing your answer.

The Spiritually blind are exempt,

John 9 41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
KJV

I forgot the moment where Jesus was irish.


I think it's the blond hair and blue eye's that gave it away.

Can never tell if a theist is retarded or joking, so I'm just going to say it. Jesus was half arab half roman and a jew. He had dark swarthy skin and short black hair.

Coming from someone who chooses smellisox as a username, your comments are viewed with more sympathy than insult.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 2:06:16 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
Can nobody tell me how non corporeal souls are meant to feel the pain of eternal hellfire?
smelisox
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 3:22:31 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/7/2015 1:58:22 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/6/2015 12:53:52 PM, smelisox wrote:
At 12/6/2015 9:42:42 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/6/2015 8:43:11 AM, smelisox wrote:
At 12/6/2015 7:07:13 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/6/2015 6:55:14 AM, Zarroette wrote:
Say if a baby were to live for a day, and never had the capacity to believe in God, is he/she sent to hell? Moreover, what constitutes a sending to hell?

I've read answers on this topic previously, but I'm interested in hearing your answer.

The Spiritually blind are exempt,

John 9 41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
KJV

I forgot the moment where Jesus was irish.


I think it's the blond hair and blue eye's that gave it away.

Can never tell if a theist is retarded or joking, so I'm just going to say it. Jesus was half arab half roman and a jew. He had dark swarthy skin and short black hair.

Coming from someone who chooses smellisox as a username, your comments are viewed with more sympathy than insult.

Smeli rules, smeli rocks. I love smeli's smelly socks.