>>3574247 (pb)

An awful lot of talk about L O V E coming from a book that reports the Creator of Everything saw sinfulness in its humans and thought it best to send a special son to Earth in order to be gruesomely murdered as a way to pay for those sins.

Oil?Water?

Dumb?Dumber?

True love is…patient, kind, and it is not insecure or fearful of anything. It would never see sin in anyone or anything. Sin is a fear-based idea from the small minds of insecure, vulnerable men. Sin is a man-made subject/concept and it's all about control & dominance & manipulation. It's about slavery & hierarchy. Look what the Catholics & Southern Baptists have done with sin for all these centuries.

>>3574568

>>3574733

And what is the bible?

A compendium of writings from many different authors over 100s of years? That's pretty fucken scattershot, Jack.

God, the omnipotent & omniscient creator of everything and everyone, couldn't just sit ONE single person down and dictate His Special Words for Mankind?

And by the time the King James version was published, how many errors in translation took place?

How many opportunities had occurred to deliberately remove some text and insert new text?

How many simple "errors" occurred such as the following: From >>Jesus announcing "I am a son of god." >>>To: "I am THE son of god."

A simple error? Simple oversight? And yet the difference in the implication between "a" and "the" is H U G E.