Do You Still Believe There Is A God..

[Guest doc]

What is the "Aramic" language that your referred to?

[Guest albinorat]

>I think Scripture is a more authoritaive source for Christ's

>teachings than you on whether he overturned the Law of

>Moses. For starters:

 

You are truly an idiot who cannot read.

 

>

>2 Corinthians 3:13-14:

>

>"And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the

>children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of

>that which is abolished. (14) But their minds were blinded:

> for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in

>the reading of the old testament; which veil is done

>away in Christ."

 

This is Saul/Paul whose teaching was rejected by James the Brother of Jesus and the one a fool like you would call St. Peter. They KNEW Jesus -- do you understand that much? Paul DID NOT know Jesus, and says as much. Paul NEVER heard Jesus preach, and says as much. You still with me? He was converted in Damascus by who we don't know. But it was 16 YEARS before he met anyone who had actually known Jesus and he'd been preaching all that time. Do you understand that? So what Paul says is made up by Paul not taken from ANYTHING Jesus said or likely meant. Paul had been a member of the Herodian party in Jerusalem (he SAYS as much), those are the people who got Jesus killed. His writing is at great pains to remove Jesus from any political mission (the REASON Jesus was killed)or anything that would connect him with 'radical Judeism' connected in Roman minds with anti-Roman agitation. He did that for his own purposes which we can't know for a fact but he drops Roman names all the time, one of which was the librarian of Nero! How would Paul have known him?

 

Secondly, like the utter fool and fake you are, you are using the King James Version translation which is full of errors.

 

You are propagating your own religion: Paulism, moron. And what has that quote to do with God?

 

>

>In addition to the passages in which Jeses<

 

Yes, you seem confused about his name. It was Jesus.

 

> explicitly

>proclaims<

 

How do you know? We have no independant attestations for anything Jesus said. It can be proven however that the "gospels" as we have them were written 70 years after his death if not later, by people who were neither eye witnessess nor part of the first Jesus community. By that time dogmas were in place that needed "quotes" from Jesus to support them, and there had been a split (not yet decisive for the synoptics -- you obviously didn't look that up and don't know what it means, though good bright Christians generally do) between conventional Jews, and Jews who felt Jesus had been a great prophet. Your insisting on fiction as fact shows your are completely stupid.

 

>

>The fact that you have to struggle to imply a prohibition on

>homosexuality is compelling proof of its absence in anything

>Jesus said.<

 

We don't know anything for a fact about Jesus' life, nor do we have any proof he said what is claimed on his behalf. It's doubtful dying in agony he shouted out word for word phrases from what you call The Old Testament.

 

We do know a great deal about daily life in Galilee, and the preaching of people who came from the same background as Jesus. That the real Jesus' mind set would have been yours is the height of arrogant stupidity. In all likelihood he would have enjoined men to marry, have children and treat their wives with respect. Any teaching or living away from that would have discredited him for the "crowds" that are said to have gathered to listen to him.

 

> Given - as you admit - that homosexuality was

>pervasive<

 

There was same sex activity and has always been. Most of it focused on boys we would consider underaged. Their adult lovers would have been married and fathers or would have been outcasts. The boys would have grown up to marry and father children (unless they were slaves or worked in brothels). They would not have thought of themselves or been thought by anyone else as being "gay" or "homosexual" and the homosexual life style you evidently practice (purse snatching old ladies so you can buy some cock) did not exist in what was overwhelmingly a rural world.

 

Though the "Old Testament" has stories that probably refer to tribal customs of same sex love between men (David and Jonathan) we do know by Jesus' time the hatred of Romans and their Hellenic culture had made ALL aspects of that culture including boy love hateful to devout Jews. Jesus, or "Jeses" as you have it, was not Greek or Roman. He was a Jew from the most rigid and politically active area in the region.

 

But again one may accept that Jesus was a great figure, one can argue no such person ever existed at least as reported in those unreliable gospels, but unless one accepts that Jesus IS God, which HE never claimed, your posts have zip to do with this thread.

 

They do however demonstrate your stupidity and insecurity in your own "lifestyle". You need to mis-read and fictionalize a god figure to make yourself feel good about being gay, just as you need to put down the escorts you hire in order to feel "better" about hiring them.

 

Whatever "Jesus" would have thought of all of that, I suspect he would have detected and detested the hypocrasy and innate meanness of spirit it.

[Guest RydeMyButt]

Albinorat states:

 

>Now let's see what a poor argument for God this turd is:

>

 

{huge snip of poorly argued, unsupported, not-terribly-clever drivel}

 

>The question in this thread was God. What has Jesus to do

>with God? The concept of an all powerful creator diety

>preceeds Jesus and continues to be held by those who do not

>accept or believe in Jesus.

 

 

"God" is a Triune God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Just because some people don't believe it doesn't make it any less true.

 

Also, if you bothered to pay attention, you were responding to a subthread started by Godiva at message #34, in which he posed the question "While I have you here..most religions have their own version of the Allmighty..But what about his son Jesus..."

 

But more the the point I wish to make here, Albinorat is an example of an attitude becoming more and more common among the lefty-academic "smart set" (and others), which is an organized attempt to remove all vestiges of the world's Christian heritage, such as the insistance on using asinine terms as "Before Common Era" (BCE) for "Before Christ" (BC)and "Common Era" (CE) for "Anno Domini" (AD).

 

The simple fact is that this minority of folks (many of whom are Jews - and no, I'm not an anti-semite; we are ALL Jews through Christ :7 ), under the guise of "separation of church and state" and "freedom of religion" arguments (among others) are really attempting to impose their own view of freedom FROM religion, at the expense of two thousand years of historical and cultural tradition.

 

And so, as we begin the Third Millenium after Christ's Resurrection, in this, the year of our Lord 2002, I will simply continue to pray for those in error, love those who wish and do me evil, and wait for God to send Albinorat a really nasty rash...

 

Cheers,

[Guest albinorat]

>>The simple fact is that this minority of folks (many of whom

>are Jews<<

 

I am not Jewish. Declaring primitive and essentially nonsensical things as true (The Trinity) because YOU believe them does not make them true. Nor were such beliefs held by Jesus or his followers, or those who were reasonably close to his time. The gobbeldegook you quote comes from 300 and more years after Jesus died and has a lot to do with pagan beliefs (such as found in the Methras and Orpheus cults).

 

Your have a rat's brain clearly. If you believe in God than that principal created human brains for our use. Your refusal to use yours is blasphemy by your own perverted standards.

 

>under the guise of "separation of

>church and state" and "freedom of religion" arguments (among

>others) are really attempting to impose their own view of

>freedom FROM religion, at the expense of two thousand years

>of historical and cultural tradition.<

 

Organized state sponsored Christianity killed many people like you -- since you are posting in a gay place. It killed many others. It sponsored and justified genocide, ignored the Nazis killing of Jews, it encouraged the slave trade and where heavily enforced, caused additional deaths by mandated ignorance in medicine and the sciences. Organzied Christianity is a death cult that has nothing to do with Jesus as he is actually described in those gospels (however much their accuracy can be questioned) or indeed with God, but with haters looking for support from the stupid and you seem to qualify.

 

>and wait for God to send Albinorat a

>really nasty rash...

>

How very Christian of you. Using your own mythology I wish you a visit to the endless and horrible fires and tortures of hell immediately. After all, if you are in any way a participant of the activities encouraged on this site you are in mortal sin.

 

Cheers.

[phage]

albinorat,

 

This is really turning into interesting stuff. RydeMyButt is obviously a devout person who has managed to reconcile Christianity with homosexuality, but you have really peaked my curiosity. You seem to know so much about the subject – far more than most non-believers bother to learn – but I can’t really tell how much, if anything, you yourself believe.

 

There has been a lot said, and before you start railing about my small brain, let me admit that I haven’t been able to keep track of it all. I think I’m getting that you believe people are deluding themselves if they think there are no compatibility issues between Christianity (as practiced) and homosexuality. I’m not following whether you believe that this is due to the corruption of original Christian teachings or because it’s innate to God’s law.

 

Obviously, there is no reason why you should explain your beliefs to me, but I would really be interested to know whether, knowing all that you do and upon final analysis, are you a believer?

[Guest TruthTeller]

You're such a trite, 60's-refuge, juvenile, pseudo-rebellion cliche that responding to you is more tiresome than it is interesting. It's like talking to the most garden-variety, predictable Abbie Hoffman caricature. But your cliched silliness is exceeded only by your absurd pomposity, which makes exposing you a temptation which I sadly can't resist.

 

Your "argument", stripped of its pompous verbiage, boils down to 2 points:

 

(1) It's impossible to know what Jesus said, because neither the authors of the Gospel nor Paul were there to record it; and,

 

(2) Jesus never claimed to be God; he urged marriage, would have condemned homosexuality, etc.

 

In other words, none of the sources relied upon by Christianity for 2,000 years are the slightest bit authoritative as to anything Jesus said, because they weren't there when he said it and/or had motives for distorting it.

 

YOU, on the other hand, know EXACTLY what he said (i.e., he never claimed to be divine, he urged marriage, etc.).

 

I trust that others not blinded by a desperate need to prove how smart they are see the pitiful, internal contradiction of your claim - as well as the utter vacuousness of it.

 

>>I think Scripture is a more authoritaive source for Christ's

>>teachings than you on whether he overturned the Law of

>>Moses. For starters:

>

>You are truly an idiot who cannot read.

 

Great response. You call people stupid when you can't answer. The point is that Scripture purports to chronicle what Jesus said. It's inconsistent with what you WANT it to say, so you belittle its value and in its place, you put . . . YOUR OWN claims as to what he said.

 

I don't think there's much worthwhile debate to be had about what is more authoritative for what Jesus said -- Scripture, or an aging, leftist-cliche with a petty little anti-Christian political agenda that's as irrelevant as it is corrupt.

 

>How do you know? We have no independant attestations for

>anything Jesus said.

 

Then how do you know he didn't claim to be divine? How do you know he urged marriage? How do you know he was a devout jew?

 

>We do know a great deal about daily life in Galilee, and the

>preaching of people who came from the same background as

>Jesus. That the real Jesus' mind set would have been yours

>is the height of arrogant stupidity. In all likelihood he

>would have enjoined men to marry, have children and treat

>their wives with respect. Any teaching or living away from

>that would have discredited him for the "crowds" that are

>said to have gathered to listen to him.

 

Rat: "We know nothing of Jesus' life, what he said, what he did, and it's the height of arrogance to assume you can know."

 

Rat: "Let me tell you what Jesus probably said about this subject and that; let me tell you how he actually lived; let me tell you what he never said."

 

They would not have thought of themselves or been

>thought by anyone else as being "gay" or "homosexual" and

>the homosexual life style you evidently practice (purse

>snatching old ladies so you can buy some cock) did not exist

>in what was overwhelmingly a rural world.

 

Whether they thought of themselves as "homosexual" is irrelevant. It was pervasive enough that they would have thought to prohibit it. Leviticus certainly prohibited homosexuality. Other stories of the Old Testament describe it. The fact that there is nothing in the Gospels about it, and peripheral (at best) references to it in Paul, is rather convincing evidence to any objective person that Jesus, and at the very least, Christianity prior the 3rd or 4th Century, did not prohibit homosexuality. This is especially convincing given how VERY clear the texts are about what IS actually prohibited.

 

>But again one may accept that Jesus was a great figure, one

>can argue no such person ever existed at least as reported

>in those unreliable gospels, but unless one accepts that

>Jesus IS God, which HE never claimed, your posts have zip to

>do with this thread.

 

Christianity claims he is God. Many Christians believe he is. You have no idea if he did or didn't claim to be God. Either way, to pretend that you don't understand why Jesus is being discussed is a thread about God is too inane to merit a reply.

 

>They do however demonstrate your stupidity and insecurity in

>your own "lifestyle". You need to mis-read and fictionalize

>a god figure to make yourself feel good about being gay,

>just as you need to put down the escorts you hire in order

>to feel "better" about hiring them.

 

This, more than anything else, reveals how pathetic you are. I don't have, nor do I need, a God figure to approve of my homosexuality. My reason for asserting that Jesus did not preach against homosexuality is because the only authoritative texts on the subject demonstrate that he did not.

 

On the basis of nothing, you want to insist that Jesus condemned homosexuality, because your religion is Communism and athiesm which makes Christianity what you hate. The idea that gay people - who you think you have a natural right to have think just like you and march lock-step in your orthodoxy - would identify as Christians makes you insane with rage, and so you want to scream that Jesus hated homosexuals and call anyone who disagree stupid.

 

You've spent your whole life devoted to ideas which are now scorned and mocked throughout the world. Those ideas have proven to be as sick as they are destructive, and yet you desperately cling to them - knowing that they're filth and that they are as inconsequential as you are - because to do otherwise would be to recognize the truth: that your entire world-view, and your entire life, have been devoted to inconsequential silliness. That must really hurt.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>I am not Jewish.

 

Rydemybutt didn't say you were Jewish; he said that many of the people trying to extinguish Christianity from the society are Jewish.

 

For you to accuse him of being an "anti-semite" (as you did in his ratings) just exposes you further as the little leftist-cliche that you are. Someone disagrees with you? Try to tar them with the standard meaningless labels: "anti-semite," "misogynist" (see your rating of me), racist (it's only a matter of time).

 

It's not despicable. It's just boring, predictable, and dull.

[Guest albinorat]

>albinorat,

>

>This is really turning into interesting stuff. RydeMyButt

>is obviously a devout person who has managed to reconcile

>Christianity with homosexuality<

 

Ah, but has he? Why the defensive, hysterical tone then?

 

Catholic/Christian "Dogma" clearly considers acting on homosexual impulses to be sin. The sinner will burn in hell unless he repents and never acts on those impulses again. And/or the sinner will be an outcast from the community. There are no exceptions in any dogma from strict Christian religions.

 

The Vatican did revise some virulently anti-homosexual rhetoric fairly recently, insisting that repentence followed by abstinence will save a homosexual's soul (this is the newest interpretation).

 

In their organizational principles ALL Protestant denominations condemn homosexuality. However, because there is no infallible Pope in Protestantism and because individual conscience matters more than obedience (basic to Catholic practice) individual congregations may soften or modify their particular stands on homosexuality. However this is never done without controversy, including in the Episcopal Church where there has been much bitterness despite a common perception that it is the most "gay friendly" organized version of Christianity. (MCC and Unitarians would be considered on the outer fringes).

 

>I think I’m getting that you

>believe people are deluding themselves if they think there

>are no compatibility issues between Christianity (as

>practiced) and homosexuality. I’m not following whether you

>believe that this is due to the corruption of original

>Christian teachings or because it’s innate to God’s law.<

 

"God's law" is a construct by men. What Christians call the Old Testament is a confused welter of documents collated sometime between 800 and 300 BCE. There are two Genesis stories for example and much that is contradictory. The assembling of the "Old Testament" has more to do with attempting to define a nation called Israel, despite various splits, civil wars and other crises. What exactly anything in there is based on is a matter of endless controversy. There is no archeological record for Hebrews for example much before 1000 BCE, though there are records and attestations of other Semitic tribes and nations, including Canaan which presumably the Hebrews fleeing Egypt invaded and conquered.

 

There are also no archeological finds for a Saul or David or Solomon. These giant figures possibly existed as tribal leaders called "big men" but there was no great empire.

 

My point then is that "the Laws" have nothing to do with a transcendent figure (God) but with a particular people writing their own laws, trying to insure racial purity, and inventing or embroidering their history and insisting on the seperateness of their community.

 

Just who Jesus was and what he preached can never be fully recoverd, though as I mentioned there are 8 billion words addressing that subject. Unfortunately after a point one argument makes as much sense as another. However if we agree he was from Galilee, active roughly in the 20's and 30's CE, and his preaching would have taken off from other preachers at the time who are similar morally and in behavior, it's safe to assume he would have been shocked by this site.

 

One issue for him would have been the Hellenism of the Roman Empire, occupying Galilee at the time, sometimes brutally, and supporting the horrifically corrupt "Herods" who were Semites but Jews only by marriage and whose courts held a variety of sinful occupations (I'm planning to time travel there when I can). To embrace such "sins" which begin by disregarding the sanctity of marriage would have been to betray his heritage. Jesus seems to have been an associate of The Big Dipper (as he is actually called, most know him as John the Baptist). The Big Dipper was killed for railing against the Herods, Jesus may have been too.

 

Now, nothing in Jesus' world would have formed even a remote equivalent to Chelsea, NY, 2002, The Castro or West Hollywood. The opportunity to create such places did not exist. Men would have married and fathered children as a matter of course unless they were inducted into a celebate cult. Now some same sex activity must have gone on. But it's unlikely Jesus or anyone would have viewed "homosexuality" as a global state of being (a "life style") to be thought of apart from genital pleasure. The association of homosexual acts with Pagans (which has a long history in Judeism) might have led him to view it as abomination. But in fact no one will ever know and I doubt very strongly the issue would ever have come up.

 

Is there a way to find God? I don't know. Is Jesus currently alive and "God"? Well, some fundamentalist sects believe and act as though that were true. I don't believe it. What I do know is that same sex has occured in all societies that have ever been documented. With the extirpation of the Taliban even the Pashtun tribes have reverted to adult/teenaged boy sexuality which has a long history in that region. Other tribes through history have found other ways to contain the impulse toward same sex acting out, from "initiations" to institutions like the Berdache. Under the circumstances I see no reason to view homosexualty as other than a naturally occuring adaptation, indulged occasionally by many, exclusively by a larger or smaller minority in all cultures. It is not "against nature" it IS nature. If one wants to believe that God created nature than he created homosexuality. Those who use "God" to endorse their own hatred, ignorance and bigotry are the most horrible sinners.

 

But it's enough for me to view us (well, most of us) as normal and decent people. I certainly don't need the approval of a bigot using the charming handle RydemyButt.

 

Al

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Al,

 

I make no pretense to the depth and breadth of your knowledge on the subject of the origin and evolution of the Judeo/Christian belief systems. Nevertheless, my reflection on what little knowledge I have acquired has taken me down the same general road you outline here, albeit with many fewer informative road signs along the way. I have enjoyed immensely your discussion which has added not only substance but rich texture to my view and understanding. Setting aside the personal aspects of the exchange between you and TT, I find your discussion a fascinating read. Thanks.

[Guest albinorat]

>Al,

>

I

>find your discussion a fascinating read. Thanks.<

 

Thank you TY. This is a vastly complicated area of course. What can be known for certain is limited. That is mostly what archeology has uncovered over 200 years and what the written sources literally say in the languages in which they were written. What they MEAN is another issue entirely.

 

There are about a million words written on who exactly the Hebrews were, for example. Were they "Israel"? The oldest mention of Israel and one of the very few ancient ones is on the famous Merneptah Victory Stele from the 13th century BCE. This seems to reflect Pharoah Merneptah's (or his army's) repelling of an invasion by seven middle eastern powers, "the Hittites, the Hurrians, the nation of Tehenu, the nation of Gezer, the nation of Ashkelon, and the nation of Yanoam, Israel".

 

What is strange is that grammatically on the stele every one of those names denotes a geographical territory or "country"; 'Israel' does not. It denotes a fighting force of some kind, homeless.

 

So what was Israel? An army of mercenaries that had been led out of Egypt by a disaffected Egyptian Prince named MS (as the name would be rendered in that Alphabet; Moses is a guess at the real name but it is an Egyptian name)? Did Israel think of itself as "Hebrews?" But then who were the Hebrews?

 

There are 6 million words about that. Some think they were a group called by the Egyptians 'Habiru', though in fact that transliteration is inaccurate. It's a slang word which is probably closer to 'Apir' --meaning essentially "those from the desert" which means in Egyptian terms, bums, layabouts, runaway slaves and criminals -- those without family status or homeland. That is 3 million words.

 

But there are another 3 million words that point out that this word was used as an insult for anybody somebody in a position to have a hieroglyph engraved on a wall didn't like.

 

Then there are 6 million words about whether Hebrews were Hyksos, a fierce people who occupied parts of Egypt for almost a century before being repelled (could that have been the Exodus?). The 3 million for this idea suggest that the Biblical story of Joseph in Egypt which ends with his inviting all his kinsmen to join him for he is the confidant of Pharoah is really a vague memory of Hyksos rule with "Joseph" being one of the war lords.

 

There are 3 million words as to how that is not possible.

 

Given the enormous power of the Old Testament in Western Culture where the "Hebrews" dug up their beliefs is an important question. Unless one thinks "God" (whoever that was, there were many at the time) likes to appear in burning bushes, the laws and attitudes passed down, and then (very, very selectively) enforced in Western societies come from some ancient earthly society. And that means the laws served purposes in that ancient and probably primative society; they may no longer serve such purposes for us. It would be nice to know. But we will never know for certain.

 

Now this long post is not even the tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg. So my generalizations in response to a couple of idiots need to be seen as such. Though an individual's "spiritual awakening" is his property as a life experience, in my opinion it is valid only for that person. Only he/she has known that particular event. Such awakenings occur, clearly, and I am not accusing anyone of insincerity if they claim that experience. But such a person should be concerned with his/her own joy; not try to legislate it for others.

 

However, in my opinion, the rigid, unthinking and ignorant hiding behind obviously untrue dogmas has nothing to do with "the spirit" and everything to do with fear and hatred. We see here how much self hatred there is among gay men, especially perhaps those who hire for sex. Their strident and uninformed screams about "Jesus" (even when they get the name wrong) are stupid. As far as I am concerned they should be called on it.

 

And boy am I full of myself! Thanks for your nice words about the earlier posts.

 

Al

[Guest RydeMyButt]

You know, TT - I used to think that you were CraigSF, doing a hilarious parody.

 

I am now wondering if Albinorat is really Craig, without the spelling errors. He certainly demonstrates the same disconnection from reality...

 

Cheers,

[Guest RydeMyButt]

>>>The simple fact is that this minority of folks (many of whom

>>are Jews<<

>

>I am not Jewish.

 

 

Apart from the fact that you can't find any examples of me calling you a Jew (though I called myself one...), it is intellectually dishonest to engage in partial quotation to give a misleading impression. This is another trick of the far-left psuedo-academics, whom you seem to emulate.

 

You, like them, choose to flounce about and engage in ad-hominem attacks, unburdened by facts, truth, or anything else you deem termporarily inconvenient to the pointless statement you wish to make at any given time.

 

 

>Declaring primitive {blah, blah, blah....}

 

Next you'll be informing us that "Religion is the opiate of the masses!" and that "Workers should control the means of productions" and conclude with a really lusty "All power to the Peoples' Soviet of the oppressed workers and peasants!"

 

Sigh. I never cease to be amazed/amused that some people still desperately cling to the Leninist-Stalinist clap-trap which the rest of the intelligent world has consigned to the dustheap of history.

 

 

>

>>and wait for God to send Albinorat a

>>really nasty rash...

>>

>How very Christian of you. Using your own mythology I wish

>you a visit to the endless and horrible fires and tortures

>of hell immediately. After all, if you are in any way a

>participant of the activities encouraged on this site you

>are in mortal sin.

>

>Cheers.

 

Too bad God decided to deprive you of a sense of humor. You really need to lighten up a bit, guy...

 

Or perhaps you just need an isopropal enema.

 

Cheers,

[Boston Guy]

>And boy am I full of myself!

>

>Al

 

LOL... Al, I'm glad you're back.

 

After 9/11, there was a period when I was looking for posts from our NYC friends, just for confirmation that they were okay. After a while, I began to realize that we hadn't heard from you and, from time to time, I'd think of you and hope you were okay and just preoccupied with other things.

 

I'm glad you're back. ;-)

 

BG

[Guest kathryn]

Just a thought from the objective point of view on the topic about the "believing and not believing" in God from a hetro fem. The believe in churches and God are a fine line. I was baptized and confirmed Catholic and have found that spirituality is unfortunately catagorized along with being religous. I am a non-believer in God. I am however a believer in humanity. It is my opinion that the "word of God" is a tool devised for the sole purpose of behavior modification and control. Just my opinion! P.S- Hi Lucky;)

[Guest Mother Theresa Escort]

As a instrument of the cloth, and no dish rag, let me tell you, I must say I am shocked! What kind of horrific transgressions against the holy commandments am I witnessing here? Boston Guy and Thunder Balls, please see me after class. Modern ways have grown soft with you people. It's time I brought out the yard stick and commenced the beatings. Repeat after me, "I Believe in Christ our Savior, or I will have the piss whipped out of me, I believe ... ouch ... in Chri---ouch .... Sister, PLEASE!"

[Godiva]

This thread has exceeded my wildest dreams. A few of you are very well informed in this area. All thought there were a

few disagreements the exchange of different thoughts was amazing for us on lookers..Thank you again..

 

I am not through yet though...I wonder now do you ever think there were men named Moses and Noah. Are these two men just fables that have been told so many times that they turned into true stories?

 

Thanxs Again Truth Teller and Al..but don't go yet help me here..

 

G