Teen Beaten to Death in New York Church
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-10-2015, 09:57 PM
RE: Teen Beaten to Death in New York Church
(19-10-2015 04:50 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Atheism: The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then magically exploded for no reason, creating everything then a bunch of everything magically rearranged for no reason what so ever into self-replicating tiny bits which then turned into dinosaurs.
Let's break that down

"The belief that there was nothing" do you mean that there once was a lack of existence? A lack of time, a lack of energy, a lack of quantum vacuum?

Which atheists in particular have made this claim? Is this position a requirement for a person to be an atheist?

"nothing happened to nothing and then magically exploded for no reason"
Science hasn't explained yet why the cosmological expansion (big bang) started. Science doesn't know if energy or matter was pre-existing prior to this event.

An atheist who looks to science for knowledge would claim that they don't know why our universe is expanding, what started the expansion or whether anything existed prior.

"and then magically exploded"
Which atheist is claiming magic? Seems unscientific to me.

" then a bunch of everything magically rearranged for no reason what so ever into self-replicating tiny bits which then turned into dinosaurs."
Seems you are out of touch with the cosmological models and evolution.
A trip to your local library might be the trick for you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
19-10-2015, 11:26 PM (This post was last modified: 19-10-2015 11:32 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: Teen Beaten to Death in New York Church
(19-10-2015 03:26 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(18-10-2015 06:02 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  The point of the question wasn't about asking what Christians SHOULD be doing. It was noting the high failure rate of Christians attempting to follow the Bible, screwing up, and making things worse as a consequence. Wouldn't, for example, it be better if this family who beat their child to death because of their (mis)interpretation of the Bible never encountered the book in the first place?

To draw a metaphor, let's say that there's a miracle drug with a complicated dosing regimen to cure cancer. You have to do four pills spread throughout the first day, three pills the second, then four, then three, then two, and then restart the pattern, and every three times through the pattern you take four pills on the fourth day instead of three. If this regimen is followed precisely, then the cancer is cured after ten cycles (fifty days), with 100% observed success rate. Not just remission, total cure, no chance of it coming back. But if the regimen is not followed precisely, things go really, really bad. The tumors are made worse, the cancer metastasizes, and it even becomes communicable. The drug gets released onto the market and, lo and behold, more people who take it screw up the regimen than get it right. For every person who pulls it off, five people get it wrong and harm themselves and those around them. The drug ends up doing more harm than good because people don't follow the instructions, and arguably should never have been released at all. This is what I meant by a cure worse than the disease.

To make the analogy clearer, let's say the Biblical instructions are the cure. (Again, for the sake of argument.) The core commands, you say, are very simple, but they come packaged with a lot of weird instructions (stoning gays, not suffering witches to live, etc) that confuse a lot of people even if they're supposed to be overridden by the core commands. These confused people then harm themselves and those around them. When the results of the religion -- factoring in the frequency and consequences of it being practiced incorrectly -- prove so detrimental in the world, at what point does it become a cure worse than the disease? It's not what they SHOULD be doing, but it's what their failed attempt to understand the Bible got them doing. Nor can we really say that the Bible had no part in the process.

For the record, most of us here are humanists, and we're just fine with the idea of loving our neighbors (and even the people on the other side of town or the other side of the planet). We just don't need the Christianity to tell us to do that.


The difference seemed clear to me. He's criticizing people for attempting to CONVERT ATHEISTS using Biblical verses, while he says (in the part you didn't quote) that he's attempting to CLARIFY WHAT CHRISTIANITY IS using Biblical verses. Seems a bit like the right tool for the right job, though I have some semantic doubts about whether it's the book or the practice that defines the religion. I'll agree that the personal opinions and reasons for the beliefs would be interesting.

Ok. I think I understand the question now. Basically, does the benefits of religion outweigh the cost? I think your analogy really hits the nail on the head. I believe that most religions were built on a foundation of love and peace in order to make the world a better place. However human nature is flawed and corrupt. Religion in general, doesn't matter if it be Christianity or Muslim, has in fact been a tool by corrupt individuals in order to control the masses for a more sinister motives. So my answer is simply no. If all religions are false, the world would be better without it.

You seem to be grasping the analogy a bit better, but still not quite getting it.

We can argue elsewhere if there's any blame to be assigned to an omniscient god for not recognizing that human nature is corrupt, or for going ahead and giving a religion to people that he would have known damn well (simply by knowing their natures, if not through some degree of predetermination) that they would have messed up because their nature is corrupt, or for making them corrupt or corruptible in the first place, or even about deconstruct the concept of human corruption and whether it is true and applicable and coherent.

But all that's an aside. Here, for the sake of argument, the articles of faith are TRUE. The miracle drug works. The problem isn't that it's false in the abstract but that people keep messing it up. In this analogy, the drug WORKS.

I am granting for the sake of argument that the underlying premise of the religion is TRUE. It's not that the religion is causing damage because it is false.

It is causing damage.

PERIOD. FULL STOP.

I could, if I am feeling extremely generous and whimsical, grant you for the sake of argument that the underlying tenets are true, that the Bible is some sort of instruction manual for morality, and yet the Bible could STILL be a cure worse than the disease. It would be a net negative for the world.

In contrast, imagine a different drug -- a saline solution. A placebo. It DOESN'T work. But its instructions are easy to follow, it has no bad side effects, and the belief that people have that it is working produces positive effects through their own psychology. In analogy, this would be a false religion that is a net positive for the world in terms of how it on balance inspires believers to do good things.

(19-10-2015 03:26 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  The question is how to prove religion is false? How can science prove that God does not exist?

The first step is to clarify what concept of a god we're talking about. Some concepts CAN be disproven, depending on the details. The god that causes the sun to rise? That's an optical illusion created by the rotation of the rotating Earth, so that god doesn't exist. The god that brings rains or droughts? Simple hydrodynamics, that god doesn't exist either. The god that will cleanse a house of leprosy (or, some would say, mildew or mold) by sacrificing one bird and letting the other go free? Demonstrably false. A god that is paradoxically beyond time and yet able to change in moods, allowing for one emotional state before the change and one after the change, despite not being subject to time and thus not being subject to the concepts of before and after? Logically contradictory, conceptually incoherent, and totally impossible.

Of course, you might be talking about a different god than those. How to approach it... and whether science CAN approach it... depends on the nature of the claim. Some claims will be testable. Others will not. State clearly which concept of God you're holding, and we can get started. But unstated beliefs can never be considered, and so people who do not want their beliefs considered are best off not stating them.

(19-10-2015 03:26 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Many argue that atheism itself is a religion because it does require faith that God does not exist.

....

See, this is where I say, "You done fucked up, boy."

You done fucked up, boy.

What I guess that none of my fellow posters remembered to tell you in their indignation... wait, let me read ahead and check.

...

Okay, they've brushed on it here and there but they no one's given you the full definition talk yet.

ATHEISM IS NOT A SURE STATEMENT THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST. Atheism is just an absence of a belief in a god. (Some people use the word "lack" instead of "absence", but that carries inaccurate connotations.) All it takes to be an atheist is to be unconvinced.

What you're talking about is a particular subsection of atheism, referred to as "strong atheism" (because it makes a stronger claim), or "gnostic atheism" (because it claims a degree of knowledge, aka gnosis). There's subtle differences between the two but for now let's consider them the same. These are contrasted by "weak atheism" (making the weaker statement that the existence of a god is undemonstrated and dubious but might be possible) or "agnostic atheism" (expressing strong doubt, even a degree of surety, that no god exists, but acknowledging room for error and being open to good evidence).

Some people use different definitions, where agnostics are the fence-sitters and atheists and theists actively believe one way or the other. It's important to understand what definition a person is using when they apply a term to themselves, because what's important is what they're trying to say and not the words they say it with. In the case of almost everyone here, it's the "absence of belief" meaning. Most people on this board are agnostic atheists.

That's not how you done fucked up. It's part of it, but it's not the core part of it.

Here's how you done fucked up.

From the start, you have attempted to distance your beliefs and practices from the majority of Christians out there, and especially the more malicious strains of Christianity. You have denounced them, stated that they are incorrect, and that they do not apply to you. After some initial misunderstandings and false assumptions, we began accepting you at your word on this. We began to understand that your notion of Christianity was not the mainline notion of Christianity, and that we should try to recall that when you are talking about Christianity it's not the same type of Christianity as practiced by, say, Pat Robertson or the Catholic Church. You are calling us to view you in a different light by them. You are calling on us, in essence, to add yet another viewpoint or definition of Christianity to our already overflowing lexicon of definitions for the word, and to remember that you are using the word differently than we might initially think.

And you did not extend that same courtesy to us. Which is, in our experience, typical of Christians. And don't get me started with the "some people might say" weasel words. You're the one who put the idea forward here.

That's how you done fucked up.

So, now, let me offer you a choice. You may, on the one hand, extend to us the courtesy that you wish us to extend to you, and allow us to define our positions rather than have you define them for us. In particular, that would mean that we (and not you) get to say what it means when we call ourselves atheists. On the other hand, you may deny us that basic courtesy, and we will deny it to you in turn. You will attack notions of atheism that have nothing to do with our positions, and we will attack notions of Christianity that have nothing to do with your position. It will be a massive flame war in which no real communication happens, no held points are addressed, and from which no actual understanding emerges. We will consider none of your points because we know they do not apply to our positions, and similarly none of our points will be applicable to yours and you will ignore what we say in turn.

Pick your poison. It's your choice which type of conversation happens.

....

Moving on. Until you make that choice, and until you state clearly what concept of God you wish hold to, I shall assume (provisionally and subject to your corrections) that it is indeed some god of the type for which no absolute proof or disproof can ever be offered, something that cannot be demonstrated for a fact to exist or not exist, for which no evidence can be offered and against which no evidence can be offered because nothing would count as evidence.

I will happily take that concept, cheerfully acknowledge that it is impossible to entirely disprove it, quite humbly and readily adopt an agnostic-atheist position (I don't believe it but I'm open to good evidence if I have time to look at it on my lunch break and if it's willing to wait its turn until after the Jehova's Witnesses have said their spiel), and with well-practiced motions file it in a mental folder labeled "concepts for which I have no good evidence or reason to believe, but which I can't completely disprove". Other inhabitants of this folder include: The gods of half the other religions out there, half the gods that human creativity has yet to invent or never will invent, invisible space dragons in the Andromeda galaxy, crystal energy, tarot divination, hexes, fairies, Santa Claus, and leprechauns, to name a very few.

This is the correct folder for me to stick your god in (again, provisionally assuming that it's something that isn't subject to scientific examination). I HAVEN'T been given good evidence, and I CAN'T completely disprove it. This is also the folder that leprechauns and Santa Claus belong in, for the same reason. If you are not happy with me sticking your god in this folder sandwiched between leprechauns and Santa Claus, give me grounds to move it into a different one. You can do this by offering me either good evidence or some way of disproving it. Then it would belong in a different mental folder, and science would be able to get involved.

What I don't understand is why you don't have a similar mental folder, in which you also file gods that are not subject to scientific examination, also sandwiched between Santa Claus and the leprechauns. Evidently, the six people who murdered the one boy and hospitalized the other didn't have that folder either, and the fact is that their concept of the Christian god was a key element in the underlying motivation of their crimes. Even if it doesn't play out the same way in your case, I hope you can see why I find this misfiling of god concepts to be deeply disturbing.

.....

Let's move on to faith, which you brought up. I've discussed why atheism (or, rather, the agnostic atheism that most of us hold) does not require faith. There are many separate and distinct meanings for the word faith -- trust between people who know each other, honoring a deal, having good credit -- but what is apparently being discussed here is epistemological faith. Epistemological faith is a method by which one believes something for which there is little or no good evidence, and which possibly flies in face of the evidence. This is a common feature of religion, but, as others have touched upon, it is possible to have this sort of faith without it being a religion and also to have a religion without it involving this sort of faith. The two hang out together a lot but they've been seen separately from time to time.

As a way of knowing things, I have a great distrust and disdain of epistemological faith. It is not a good source of knowledge. Dr Boghossian coined the phrase "pretending to know things you don't know", which is an apt summary, but it doesn't go far enough. It's pretending to know things you don't know, when we already know that pretending to know things you don't know have led a great, great, great many other people into false knowledge. I see it as akin to a blindfolded man wearing noise-cancelling headphones in a darkened room spinning around ten times, throwing a dart, and claiming with great heartfelt confidence to have hit a dartboard's bullseye, without ever actually having checked to see if a dartboard was there at all, much less where it was mounted, and being unable to hear the scream of someone who might now have a dart lodged in their eye. Epistemological faith is a guessing game, one that is highly dubious even on first blush and pitiful in its demonstrable failures. Conceivably it can get things right, occasionally, by dumb luck, but it does so only in the spirit of a broken clock, and less frequently even than the broken clock does.

People are quite correct to disdainfully dismiss the inaccurate (some might say straw-man) conception of atheism you deployed earlier on the mere grounds that belief in it requires epistemological faith. Good thing that's not the atheism that I or most others here subscribe to. But what does that say about belief in a god for which no good evidence can be shown? Which cannot be believed in on any grounds OTHER than epistemological faith? Is this the sort of god you believe in, and if so, what other grounds do you have for believing save epistemological faith? And if you do have good evidence -- the sort of thing that believing in something without epistemological faith requires -- then what is that evidence?

No, really, I'm actually asking, not just sarcastically dismissing. Please go ahead and answer that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like Reltzik's post
20-10-2015, 01:32 AM
RE: Teen Beaten to Death in New York Church
(19-10-2015 04:50 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  The point that I was simply trying to make is that there is no absolute proof that God does not exist.

Lack of proof that space wizard exists is good enough for me. Also there is no absolute proof that fairies do not exist Rolleyes

(19-10-2015 04:50 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  If this absolute proof exist then why is there still religion?

Ever heard of indoctrination? Or political agendas and big ammount of money tied with church?

(19-10-2015 04:50 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Why is atheism a religion?

It isn't but it appear that for some strange reason theist like to think that.

(19-10-2015 04:50 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Btw...I am only saying this to make a point and in no way shows my own point of view but rather to understand what theist think about atheist.

Sure. And when I (often) write negatively about theists it also isn't my point of view but rather view of many atheists Rolleyes.

(19-10-2015 04:50 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Now I know this is a very sarcastic explanation of the origins of the universe but it is a crude way of showing that atheism in fact does require faith in order to believe said paragraph above is true.

It only shows idiocy of theists as atheism is lack of faith in god which means it has nothing to do with origins of the universe. It's just believers confusing science with atheism.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Szuchow's post
20-10-2015, 06:35 AM
RE: Teen Beaten to Death in New York Church
(19-10-2015 11:26 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  From the start, you have attempted to distance your beliefs and practices from the majority of Christians out there, and especially the more malicious strains of Christianity. You have denounced them, stated that they are incorrect, and that they do not apply to you. After some initial misunderstandings and false assumptions, we began accepting you at your word on this. We began to understand that your notion of Christianity was not the mainline notion of Christianity, and that we should try to recall that when you are talking about Christianity it's not the same type of Christianity as practiced by, say, Pat Robertson or the Catholic Church. You are calling us to view you in a different light by them. You are calling on us, in essence, to add yet another viewpoint or definition of Christianity to our already overflowing lexicon of definitions for the word, and to remember that you are using the word differently than we might initially think.

Frankly, he has me completely bolloxed. I have no idea when he is posting what he believes, what he thinks is common xian belief, what he thinks is official doctrine, and what he thinks is heretical. The more I read from Jason the less I know what he's trying to say. The impression I get is that he's just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks.

Quote:So, now, let me offer you a choice. You may, on the one hand, extend to us the courtesy that you wish us to extend to you, and allow us to define our positions rather than have you define them for us. In particular, that would mean that we (and not you) get to say what it means when we call ourselves atheists. On the other hand, you may deny us that basic courtesy, and we will deny it to you in turn. You will attack notions of atheism that have nothing to do with our positions, and we will attack notions of Christianity that have nothing to do with your position. It will be a massive flame war in which no real communication happens, no held points are addressed, and from which no actual understanding emerges. We will consider none of your points because we know they do not apply to our positions, and similarly none of our points will be applicable to yours and you will ignore what we say in turn.

You say that like it's a bad thing! This is the internet. Quit trying to bring reasoned discussion into it!
Bowing

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
20-10-2015, 07:26 AM
RE: Teen Beaten to Death in New York Church
(20-10-2015 06:35 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Frankly, he has me completely bolloxed. I have no idea when he is posting what he believes, what he thinks is common xian belief, what he thinks is official doctrine, and what he thinks is heretical. The more I read from Jason the less I know what he's trying to say. The impression I get is that he's just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks.

That. Christee faith-defender with limited debate ability IMO. So he attempts to make out that atheism is irrational and ducks and dives when directly challenged.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
20-10-2015, 08:42 AM
RE: Teen Beaten to Death in New York Church
(19-10-2015 03:26 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(18-10-2015 06:02 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  The point of the question wasn't about asking what Christians SHOULD be doing. It was noting the high failure rate of Christians attempting to follow the Bible, screwing up, and making things worse as a consequence. Wouldn't, for example, it be better if this family who beat their child to death because of their (mis)interpretation of the Bible never encountered the book in the first place?

To draw a metaphor, let's say that there's a miracle drug with a complicated dosing regimen to cure cancer. You have to do four pills spread throughout the first day, three pills the second, then four, then three, then two, and then restart the pattern, and every three times through the pattern you take four pills on the fourth day instead of three. If this regimen is followed precisely, then the cancer is cured after ten cycles (fifty days), with 100% observed success rate. Not just remission, total cure, no chance of it coming back. But if the regimen is not followed precisely, things go really, really bad. The tumors are made worse, the cancer metastasizes, and it even becomes communicable. The drug gets released onto the market and, lo and behold, more people who take it screw up the regimen than get it right. For every person who pulls it off, five people get it wrong and harm themselves and those around them. The drug ends up doing more harm than good because people don't follow the instructions, and arguably should never have been released at all. This is what I meant by a cure worse than the disease.

To make the analogy clearer, let's say the Biblical instructions are the cure. (Again, for the sake of argument.) The core commands, you say, are very simple, but they come packaged with a lot of weird instructions (stoning gays, not suffering witches to live, etc) that confuse a lot of people even if they're supposed to be overridden by the core commands. These confused people then harm themselves and those around them. When the results of the religion -- factoring in the frequency and consequences of it being practiced incorrectly -- prove so detrimental in the world, at what point does it become a cure worse than the disease? It's not what they SHOULD be doing, but it's what their failed attempt to understand the Bible got them doing. Nor can we really say that the Bible had no part in the process.

For the record, most of us here are humanists, and we're just fine with the idea of loving our neighbors (and even the people on the other side of town or the other side of the planet). We just don't need the Christianity to tell us to do that.


The difference seemed clear to me. He's criticizing people for attempting to CONVERT ATHEISTS using Biblical verses, while he says (in the part you didn't quote) that he's attempting to CLARIFY WHAT CHRISTIANITY IS using Biblical verses. Seems a bit like the right tool for the right job, though I have some semantic doubts about whether it's the book or the practice that defines the religion. I'll agree that the personal opinions and reasons for the beliefs would be interesting.
Ok. I think I understand the question now. Basically, does the benefits of religion outweigh the cost? I think your analogy really hits the nail on the head. I believe that most religions were built on a foundation of love and peace in order to make the world a better place. However human nature is flawed and corrupt. Religion in general, doesn't matter if it be Christianity or Muslim, has in fact been a tool by corrupt individuals in order to control the masses for a more sinister motives. So my answer is simply no. If all religions are false, the world would be better without it. The question is how to prove religion is false? How can science prove that God does not exist? Many argue that atheism itself is a religion because it does require faith that God does not exist.

I rather think that religion was invented by cave dwellers who had neither the strength to wield stone weapons nor even the skill required to make decent weapons, so they convinced the rest of the cave that offerings from each hunt should be left in a remote place nearby so that the <insert animal here> spirits would bless the next hunt. How exactly these otherwise useless shamans were not found out early and themselves sacrificed is beyond me.

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Old Man Marsh's post
20-10-2015, 08:52 AM
RE: Teen Beaten to Death in New York Church
(20-10-2015 08:42 AM)Old Man Marsh Wrote:  How exactly these otherwise useless shamans were not found out early and themselves sacrificed is beyond me.

few lucky hits + human desire for meaning = kaching for da shaman.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
20-10-2015, 09:20 AM
RE: Teen Beaten to Death in New York Church
(20-10-2015 08:52 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 08:42 AM)Old Man Marsh Wrote:  How exactly these otherwise useless shamans were not found out early and themselves sacrificed is beyond me.

few lucky hits + human desire for meaning = kaching for da shaman.

Yep. Free meat, all the hallucinogenic berries you want, and you get to sit around the cave painting the walls all day. Shamans had it pretty good.

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Old Man Marsh's post
20-10-2015, 11:02 AM
RE: Teen Beaten to Death in New York Church
This whole church scandal or church killing has it were is shocking to me on one hand but understandable on the other has with any faith some will certainly take it more seriously than others to the point of the delusion becoming there whole life.

I am from the area at which this happened and I actually new the father. He was a nice mild mannered gentleman. He had a big family that spanned much more than these two sons and his step daughter. I feel bad for the rest of the family has both there parents are now in jail for killing one of there siblings and almost another not to mention there half sister and her kids.

Even in this area none of the facts are really out. We know it was because the son would not confess to some sin. Some are claiming the son was involved in witchcraft or at least said he was and others say it has something to do with a girl that he might of been with whom was also part of the church and underage (17). When you take things like witchcraft seriously or even teens hooking up with other teens has sin seriously well the delusion will cause crap like this to happen. When I say delusion I mean basically just that. They held a believe that is not accepted in reality or rationality. We know witches do not exist. We know many sins are not rationally bad but are defined has bad by someone's Devine Law were anther could say it is fine. In this case if it was because of a girl they simply were doing what is Primal among the species but viewed has bad by Devine Law.

It should be noted that there intent was certainly not to kill there kids but to get them to confess to some perceived sin. The fact that at least 6 were involved and no one stepped in is shocking has apparently they all must of felt this beat down was the right thing to do and that confession was necessary. ouch! The third story which would be most damning to the group is the kid simply wanted to leave the church. Sad
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 12:20 PM
RE: Teen Beaten to Death in New York Church
Wishbringer, this must be a shock to the community and to you. My wife always says that you never know what truly happens in people's home life. I guess we can expand that to no one knows what truly happens behind closed doors in churches. No matter what they thought the teenagers were doing, it is just plain fucking morally repugnant to torture people which is what the people of that church did.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: