• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

You can’t be a good Christian and a good Democrat

Elvira said:
A number of of early non-Christian sources name Jesus in their writings...Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger...even the Talmud says that on “the Passover Yeshu {Jesus] the Nazarean was hanged,” which is historically correct...Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a, Munich Codex; see John 19:14-16

Another states: “May we produce no son or pupil who disgraces himself in public like the Nazarene”—a title often applied to Jesus.—Babylonian Talmud, Berakoth 17b, footnote, Munich Codex; see Luke 18:37

And then there are the eye-witness accounts of the gospels in the Bible...just because they did not write about their experience immediately after the fact, that does not make their account any less true...
Click to expand...

You are assuming that it is true. You have no proof.
 
blackjack50 said:
To the point that it seems many democrats feel that being a Christian automatically means you can’t be a real democrat.
Click to expand...

I'm agnostic. But I can readily understand why democrats [or anyone] display a problem with a president who self-admits to grabbing *****.

What I can't quite understand is why 'Christians' (especially supposed Southern Bible-belt Christians) support such a vile creature.
 
zyzygy said:
You are assuming that it is true. You have no proof.
Click to expand...

And you are assuming that it's not...you have no proof...

Consider what Luke wrote in Luke 3:1,2...“In the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod was district ruler of Galilee, Philip his brother was district ruler of the country of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was district ruler of Abilene, in the days of chief priest Annas and of Caiaphas, God’s declaration came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness.”

This detailed, precise list enables us to establish that “God’s declaration came to John” in the year 29 CE...

The seven public figures Luke names are well-known to historians...hat said, for a time certain critics did question the existence of Pontius Pilate and Lysanias...but of course the critics spoke too soon...ancient inscriptions bearing the names of those two officials have been discovered, confirming Luke’s accuracy...an inscription bearing the name of a tetrarch, or “district ruler,” called Lysanias has since been found...he ruled over Abilene at the very time Luke mentioned...
 
Elvira said:
And you are assuming that it's not...you have no proof...

Consider what Luke wrote in Luke 3:1,2...“In the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod was district ruler of Galilee, Philip his brother was district ruler of the country of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was district ruler of Abilene, in the days of chief priest Annas and of Caiaphas, God’s declaration came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness.”

This detailed, precise list enables us to establish that “God’s declaration came to John” in the year 29 CE...

The seven public figures Luke names are well-known to historians...hat said, for a time certain critics did question the existence of Pontius Pilate and Lysanias...but of course the critics spoke too soon...ancient inscriptions bearing the names of those two officials have been discovered, confirming Luke’s accuracy...an inscription bearing the name of a tetrarch, or “district ruler,” called Lysanias has since been found...he ruled over Abilene at the very time Luke mentioned...
Click to expand...
That does not prove that the magic Jesus existed. God's declaration came to John? Merely writing something does not make it true. Where is the proof of Luke's statement?
 
Last edited:
Elvira said:
A number of of early non-Christian sources name Jesus in their writings...Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger...even the Talmud says that on “the Passover Yeshu {Jesus] the Nazarean was hanged,” which is historically correct...Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a, Munich Codex; see John 19:14-16

Another states: “May we produce no son or pupil who disgraces himself in public like the Nazarene”—a title often applied to Jesus.—Babylonian Talmud, Berakoth 17b, footnote, Munich Codex; see Luke 18:37

And then there are the eye-witness accounts of the gospels in the Bible...just because they did not write about their experience immediately after the fact, that does not make their account any less true...
Click to expand...

The one thing all the sources except the talmud is that they were talking about Christians. Christians existed. When it coems to Sanhedrin 43A, it was written late second century to early third century, and the 'hangs' in the Jewish law sense is NOT the same as crucifixion. It also was late enough in the time frame to be influenced by Christian writings, and be a response to the accusations that the Sanhedrin was acting improperly and doing items against the law. The Gospel accounts of the trial of Jesus showed a strong disregard for Jewish law and custom.

As for the Munich Codex, that was from the 15th century... too far later to be good evidence for anything.



As for Suetoius, he wrote

""Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."

Now, Suetonius was talking about Jewish people, and Chrestus is not Christ, but in fact is a Greek name. The line and phrase also implies that Chrestus was there and was a trouble maker. Suetonius in other works specifically mentioned Christians, so it is unlikely that he would make a mistake. Chrestus on the other hand, was in use at that time period very commonly when it comes to naming servants and slaves.

Pliny the younger got his information from the torture of 'deconesses' .. so he had no direct knowledge of Jesus, but was rather relying on people who were supposed to be Christian, and he was asking for advice on how to deal with these folks.
 
RAMOSS said:
The one thing all the sources except the talmud is that they were talking about Christians. Christians existed. When it coems to Sanhedrin 43A, it was written late second century to early third century, and the 'hangs' in the Jewish law sense is NOT the same as crucifixion. It also was late enough in the time frame to be influenced by Christian writings, and be a response to the accusations that the Sanhedrin was acting improperly and doing items against the law. The Gospel accounts of the trial of Jesus showed a strong disregard for Jewish law and custom.

As for the Munich Codex, that was from the 15th century... too far later to be good evidence for anything.



As for Suetoius, he wrote

""Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."

Now, Suetonius was talking about Jewish people, and Chrestus is not Christ, but in fact is a Greek name. The line and phrase also implies that Chrestus was there and was a trouble maker. Suetonius in other works specifically mentioned Christians, so it is unlikely that he would make a mistake. Chrestus on the other hand, was in use at that time period very commonly when it comes to naming servants and slaves.

Pliny the younger got his information from the torture of 'deconesses' .. so he had no direct knowledge of Jesus, but was rather relying on people who were supposed to be Christian, and he was asking for advice on how to deal with these folks.
Click to expand...

I see that Elvira made a couple mistakes in her post. The Talmud put the hanging on the Eve of Passover, in other words the day before. Then there is her reading, "Yeshu (Jesus) the Nazarean", while I have seen the name, Yeshu ha-Notzri, with scholars debating whether or not it should be translated as equivalent to Nazarean.

There appears to be some ambiguity in Sanhedrin 43A, just how Yeshu was executed; to say he was hanged could refer to execution by hanging from the neck, execution by crucifixion, or the hanging of a corpse after another form of execution. The bit about hanging a corpse would refer to death by stoning, which was the normal punishment for sorcery, the charge laid against Yeshu ha-Notzri.

As with many texts of this age, the Talmud was heavily censored by church authorities. The Munich Talmud is one of the least censored but even it suffered from church demands.

In Sanhedrin 67A, the man named Yeshu ha-Notzri in 43A, is also named Yeshu ben Stada and Yeshu ben Pandira. Stada being the name of his mother’s husband and the other was her lover, supposedly a Roman legionaire. I have read elsewhere, can't find the source at the moment, that the execution of Yeshu occurred 70 to 100 years prior to the generally accepted date of Jesus execution.
 
Somerville said:
I see that Elvira made a couple mistakes in her post. The Talmud put the hanging on the Eve of Passover, in other words the day before. Then there is her reading, "Yeshu (Jesus) the Nazarean", while I have seen the name, Yeshu ha-Notzri, with scholars debating whether or not it should be translated as equivalent to Nazarean.

There appears to be some ambiguity in Sanhedrin 43A, just how Yeshu was executed; to say he was hanged could refer to execution by hanging from the neck, execution by crucifixion, or the hanging of a corpse after another form of execution. The bit about hanging a corpse would refer to death by stoning, which was the normal punishment for sorcery, the charge laid against Yeshu ha-Notzri.

As with many texts of this age, the Talmud was heavily censored by church authorities. The Munich Talmud is one of the least censored but even it suffered from church demands.

In Sanhedrin 67A, the man named Yeshu ha-Notzri in 43A, is also named Yeshu ben Stada and Yeshu ben Pandira. Stada being the name of his mother’s husband and the other was her lover, supposedly a Roman legionaire. I have read elsewhere, can't find the source at the moment, that the execution of Yeshu occurred 70 to 100 years prior to the generally accepted date of Jesus execution.
Click to expand...

I am going to have to disagree> First of all, Yeshua Ben Strada and Yehshu Ben Pendira are two different people , neither of which are Yeshu ha-Norzri. Yeshu is just a common name.
 
RAMOSS said:
The claim is the disciples saw him, flet and ate with him. I don't see any evidence that is more than a story. None of the writings we have can be shown to be from the disciples themselves. The gospels attributed to the various disciples can not be shown to have been written, and indeed, there is plenty of internal evidence that shows they were not.
Click to expand...

Your opinion doesn't have any credibility, IMO.
 
Absentglare said:
The bible has ten commandments, homosexuality is not featured among them. Using gods name in vain is, but for some reason there's a fixation on homosexuality and relative silence on the use of gods name in vain. Likewise on committing adultery. People like Newt Gingrich and President Trump fail on this issue rather spectacularly, but their womanizing out of wedlock is waved away. Can you imagine evangelicals electing a homosexual? I can't. In my opinion, the Christian right emphasizes homosexuality as a sin when the bible is largely ambiguous on it. If it's about sexual activity that doesn't make babies, then masturbation is easily the worst offender in terms of volume.

One issue with PC that i think goes understated is how lopsided liberals often enforce the rules of correctness. Somehow it's fine to mock whites, rednecks, and Christians; hell, even my ranting above could be argued to reinforce stereotypes of Christians. But i tried to be careful, i think Christians and the Christian right are relevant categories for discussion. Where liberals get it wrong is allowing these categories to be used as insults. It's pernicious and it should not be ignored.

People are free to their faith, but that generally involves their personal beliefs. Your personal beliefs don't entitle you to flagrantly violate laws when those violations then impact other people. So when Native Americans use peyote in religious ceremonies, no harm no foul. But when someone claims that they shouldn't provide healthcare to their employees, that belief is being used to impact the life of the employee, so i ultimately disagree with it.
Click to expand...

I can get behind the statements. And that mainly addresses what I’m talking about. The “over correction” that has happened in Pc culture.

I’m still baffled by “Christian right,” mainly because the Christian Left in the AME (stereotypical church for African Americans) is against homosexuality as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
blackjack50 said:
Does anyone else feel the left has become openly hostile towards Christians (and to some extent Jews or other religions)? If not openly hostile...would you be willing to see more intolerant? That the Democrat Party has decided their views cannot coexist with a “good Christian” or a “good Jew” or a “good Muslim?”
Click to expand...

If you can't be a good Christian, and a good democrat then there's no such thing as a good Christian.

You don't seem to understand what the word hostile means. The term hostile is an offensive concept, not a defensive concept. Religous fundamentalists believe that members of the LGBTQ community are bad and inferior people who are not deserving of the same fundamental rights and priveledges as everyone else. You are hostile to them. Not the other way around. You are assulting their basic human rights, they are defending them. There would be no need for a fight if you left them alone in the first place.
 
blackjack50 said:
I can get behind the statements. And that mainly addresses what I’m talking about. The “over correction” that has happened in Pc culture.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that in the 50's there were a lot of racist **** heads who thought letting black people sit next to them on a bus was an "over-correction" for slavery. They were wrong, and so are you.
 
MrWonka said:
I'm sure that in the 50's there were a lot of racist **** heads who thought letting black people sit next to them on a bus was an "over-correction" for slavery. They were wrong, and so are you.
Click to expand...

I see you have absolutely not one lick of an understanding of what we are talking about. Evidenced by your desperate partisan liberal need to introduce racism as a factor. Just so you know...that is probably one of the most common fallacies the less intelligent in the Democrat party resort to.

If you want to be part of that less intelligent crowd...just openly call me a racist for no valid reason and no evidence and move along. Or if you want to demonstrate you had a momentary lapse in the ability to have an adult and rational discussion...feel free to post a response in which you thoughtfully approach the topic and give me something intelligent to respond to. If you are capable of that second thing...you might also note I’ve had some good discussions with Democrats in this thread. Democrats who didn’t need to resort to the stupidity of “racism and blacks and you’re wrong!! (No evidence of course).”

So. Which will it be hotshot?

Ps

Can you tell me how racism was even remotely related to this topic if you go with option one? Because I’m curious what kind of backwards and stupid logic (lack of logic I guess) was required to get there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
MrWonka said:
If you can't be a good Christian, and a good democrat then there's no such thing as a good Christian.

You don't seem to understand what the word hostile means. The term hostile is an offensive concept, not a defensive concept.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

unfriendly; antagonistic.
Click to expand...

Top result in google. Nothing about offensive or defensive. That is your context. You can have a hostile relationship regardless of who is “offensive and defensive.”

Religous fundamentalists believe that members of the LGBTQ community are bad and inferior people who are not deserving of the same fundamental rights and priveledges as everyone else.
Click to expand...

Not all. But many. Did you know that MANY are democrats. The AME church being a prime example. Which is why I brought up this topic (sort of). Why does the left put a tag of “Christian right” when the word you just used...make more sense? As it is also the “Christian left.” Further...as absent glare made the perfect response and I believe captured my sentiments...the left has maybe gone too far and started using the word “Christian and Christian Right” as a “hostile” or derogatory phrasing. Which is what annoys me. And makes me pontificate if that is something Democrat Christians think about?

You are hostile to them.
Click to expand...

Nope. PC USA and I accept gay marriage. It is allowed in my church as well. So no. I’m not hostile to gays. Or was this a “royal” you?

Not the other way around. You are assulting their basic human rights, they are defending them. There would be no need for a fight if you left them alone in the first place.
Click to expand...

See above.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
blackjack50 said:
Wrong.

unfriendly; antagonistic.

Top result in google. Nothing about offensive or defensive.
Click to expand...
So you just don't know what the word antagonistic means either huh? In storytelling, the Antagonist is the bad guy. He is the person causing a terrible problem for which the protagonist(hero) must solve or overcome. If people like yourself would stop antagonizing and being hostile towards the LGBTQ community, they would have no reason to fight back. They're not the ones trying to tell you who you're allowed to marry. They aren't trying to tell you which bathroom you're allowed to use. You're doing that to them. If you left them alone, they would have no further quarel with you. Their argument with you is caused by the argument you've initiated with them.

blackjack50 said:
You can have a hostile relationship regardless of who is “offensive and defensive.”
Click to expand...
That's like saying you're a murderer regardless of whether the person you shot and killed was initially trying to kill you first.

blackjack50 said:
Did you know that MANY are Democrats?
Click to expand...
There are some Democrats who don't support gay rights. That's true, but the good news is that conservatives hate a lot of different groups of people so even though the AME might not really like gay people, they recognize that the Republican party is also so hostile and antagonistic to African Americans that they're more than willing support Democrats regardless.

blackjack50 said:
Why does the left put a tag of “Christian right” when the word you just used...make more sense? As it is also the “Christian left.”
Click to expand...
The political position of being anti-gay anti-LBGTQ is a christian right position. The fact that a few Democrats agree with one position of the christian right does not change the fact that it is a postion almost exclusively held by them. There are liberals who love guns, and are also members of the NRA. But they still have the common sense to understand that Democrats position on guns does not really infringe upon their rights in anyway, and even if it pushed things a bit, the overal good of the Democratic party greatly outweighs this one thing they don't care for. Gun Nuttery is a Right Wing concept. The fact that a few otherwise normal liberals support it doesn't change that reality.


blackjack50 said:
the left has maybe gone too far and started using the word “Christian and Christian Right” as a “hostile” or derogatory phrasing. Which is what annoys me. And makes me pontificate if that is something Democrat Christians think about?
Click to expand...
No it isn't. Because what really seperates the left vs the right is that the left recognizes how ****ing stupid it is to lump massive groups of people together based on unrelated criteria. So when Liberals point out the stupidity of right wing christians they realize we're not judging all Christians. There are millions of Christians who are capable of recognizing that while their god may view homosexuality as a sin, they are not allowed to impose their religious beliefs on other people in the United States of America which is a secular country.

But let's put your silly line of think to your own test. If emphasizing the Christian aspect of the right's ridiculous and evil ideas is supposed to make all Christians angry at Democrats. Why is it that emphasizing the Islamic part of Islamic Terrorism doesn't cause the exact same problem in the Muslim world? When white christian men execute terrorist attacks in the United States we rarely emphasize their Christianity. It is automatically assumed that the vast majority of Christians would disavow these **** heads and deplore their actions. Yet, when a muslim terrorist does the same thing, all of a sudden Republicans want to use it as an exuse to wage war with the entire middle east, and band all refugees and immigrants from that region.

blackjack50 said:
Nope. PC USA and I accept gay marriage. It is allowed in my church as well. So no. I’m not hostile to gays. Or was this a “royal” you?
Click to expand...
If you voted for Donald Trump then you are hostile to the LGBTQ community. You seriously jeopardized their basic human rights because you apparently don't like being told to be nice to them, even though you claim your nice to them.
 
MrWonka said:
So you just don't know what the word antagonistic means either huh?
Click to expand...

I have a pretty firm grasp. You seem to be a little confused though.

an·tag·o·nis·tic
anˌtaɡəˈnistik/Submit
adjective
showing or feeling active opposition or hostility toward someone or something.
Click to expand...

Do you see anything about offense or defense? I sure don’t. What I do see...8: showing or feeling active opposition or hostility toward...and I would say that you can show or feel active opposition regardless of “who started it.” This is a DOA though train man. Just let it go.

In storytelling, the Antagonist is the bad guy. He is the person causing a terrible problem for which the protagonist(hero) must solve or overcome. If people like yourself would stop antagonizing and being hostile towards the LGBTQ community, they would have no reason to fight back. They're not the ones trying to tell you who you're allowed to marry. They aren't trying to tell you which bathroom you're allowed to use. You're doing that to them. If you left them alone, they would have no further quarel with you. Their argument with you is caused by the argument you've initiated with them.
Click to expand...

:roll:

Yep. Because legally allowed gay marriage has stopped the animosity towards Christianity in general. Lol.

That's like saying you're a murderer regardless of whether the person you shot and killed was initially trying to kill you first.
Click to expand...

Would be more like stating you are hostile towards someone who wants to kill you. You really don’t have a grasp on definitions here.

There are some Democrats who don't support gay rights. That's true, but the good news is that conservatives hate a lot of different groups of people so even though the AME might not really like gay people, they recognize that the Republican party is also so hostile and antagonistic to African Americans that they're more than willing support Democrats regardless.
Click to expand...

So it is ok to hate gays as long as you vote Democrat. Got it.

The political position of being anti-gay anti-LBGTQ is a christian right position.
Click to expand...

Unless of course you are a member of the AME church.


The fact that a few Democrats agree with one position of the christian right does not change the fact that it is a postion almost exclusively held by them. There are liberals who love guns, and are also members of the NRA. But they still have the common sense to understand that Democrats position on guns does not really infringe upon their rights in anyway, and even if it pushed things a bit, the overal good of the Democratic party greatly outweighs this one thing they don't care for. Gun Nuttery is a Right Wing concept. The fact that a few otherwise normal liberals support it doesn't change that reality.
Click to expand...

So basically you can by a blindly bigoted person...it is ok as long as you vote Democrat. Got it.


No it isn't. Because what really seperates the left vs the right is that the left recognizes how ****ing stupid it is to lump massive groups of people together based on unrelated criteria.
Click to expand...

You mean like using the phrase “Christian right” to refer to anti gay positions that are held by 3.5 MILLION members of the AME church alone?


So when Liberals point out the stupidity of right wing christians they realize we're not judging all Christians. There are millions of Christians who are capable of recognizing that while their god may view homosexuality as a sin, they are not allowed to impose their religious beliefs on other people in the United States of America which is a secular country.
Click to expand...

By right wing Christians...you mean Democrat voting AME church members? Or is it only ok to hate gays if you vote Democrat?

But let's put your silly line of think to your own test. If emphasizing the Christian aspect of the right's ridiculous and evil ideas is war with the entire middle east, and band all refugees and immigrants from that region.


If you voted for Donald Trump then you are hostile to the LGBTQ community. You seriously jeopardized their basic human rights because you apparently don't like being told to be nice to them, even though you claim your nice to them.
Click to expand...

Lmao. The partisan hackery here is utterly hilarious.

Hey slick. Point out what has been done negatively towards SSM and the community since trump? Just wondering what legislation to which you refer. Last I checked...they have the same rights as everyone else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
blackjack50 said:
Do you see anything about offense or defense? I sure don’t. I would say that you can show or feel active opposition regardless of “who started it.”
Click to expand...
No, it's just such an obvious part of the definition that they really didn't think it needed specifying.

But you seem to be admitting that conservatives started it. That's a good sign at least.

blackjack50 said:
Yep. Because legally allowed gay marriage has stopped the animosity towards Christianity in general. Lol.
Click to expand...

The fact that gay people are winning this war hasn't stop Christian extremists from fighting it. Roe vs Wade legalized Abortion decades to, yet Conservatives are still doing everything in their power to overturn it, and they're only a few elections away from succeeding. Does the exitence of the 2nd Amendment mean the NRA can disband? Does the existence of the Bill of Rights mean we don't need the ACLU?
 
MrWonka said:
No, it's just such an obvious part of the definition that they really didn't think it needed specifying.
Click to expand...

So BASICALLY...this IS the meaning...even though it was never put down ANYWHERE in any of the premier dictionaries in the world for the English language. And the reason was because they “thought it was obvious.” That is what you are going with? And you can’t seem to produce a single definition here that shows you are correct.

This is pretty astounding in terms of how ridiculously off base it is. Like I said...I have a firm grasp. Clearly you do not. Until you can show me where the definition has a requirement of “offense and defense...”

https://youtu.be/M5QGkOGZubQ


But you seem to be admitting that conservatives started it. That's a good sign at least.
Click to expand...

I don’t really CARE who started it. You can’t be up on your social justice warrior horse and at the same time write off behaviors like anti gay bigotry because someone voted the way you want for a candidate. But I know...you wouldn’t want to undermine black voters. Oh no. They are entitled to their views and it is culturally acceptable for them to hate people for being gay.

Lol. Democrats man.

The fact that gay people are winning this war hasn't stop Christian extremists from fighting it. Roe vs Wade legalized Abortion decades to, yet Conservatives are still doing everything in their power to overturn it, and they're only a few elections away from succeeding. Does the exitence of the 2nd Amendment mean the NRA can disband? Does the existence of the Bill of Rights mean we don't need the ACLU?
Click to expand...

I kind of assumed you would go this direction. So I have this already in reply:

Does disagreeing with someone on a fundamental level require you to go to extreme lengths to insult, belittle, mock, and antagonize them? To call them names and attack every aspect of their culture regardless of the topic? Obviously not. Since you can tolerate gay hating AME church where members consistently voted against gay marriage when provided the opportunity to do so. When they have made official stances that they are unequivocally opposed to gay marriage.

But you did it. So obviously you think it is acceptable. So maybe you don’t have a problem with Christians. Just republicans. But in having a problem...I’d challenge you to explain why a republican is bad for being against gay marriage when it is ok for a Democrat?

Hypocrisy...thy name...is you.

Ps

I like how you have ignored that I’m a non trump voting republican who has voted for gay marriage when provided the opportunity and completely ignored the fact that I’m a member of a church that allows gay marriage as well. And membership. But still treat me as the bad guy...even though...as I said...you have plenty in your own house that have undermined gay rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
MrWonka said:
The fact that gay people are winning this war hasn't stop Christian extremists from fighting it.
Click to expand...

"Christian extremists" .... As opposed to militant, anti-God gays??

Those who say the gays are winning are better served by waiting until after they bow down at the Judgment Seat of God.
 
Logicman said:
"Christian extremists" .... As opposed to militant, anti-God gays??

Those who say the gays are winning are better served by waiting until after they bow down at the Judgment Seat of God.
Click to expand...

Flush.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom