[split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-08-2014, 08:24 AM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
(22-08-2014 03:26 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 03:19 PM)JimFit Wrote:  ... wrote stuff....

Hello, welcome to the forums. Smile

Just sticking my oar in quickly (Been at work, life is busy etc)

So... are you going to answer the comments about the actual LACK of any evidence for a miraculous Jesus?

I note that you've also thrown in the parting of the red sea and the shroud as 'evidence'.

I am sure some one with more skills and knowledge will be along to point out the problems with both of those.

Much cheers to all.

And for the sake of humor, let's assume it WAS forged.

The forgers had to find the exact type flagellum used by the Romans at that time (hard to come by 1200 years later - especially without eBay.) They had to know that UV light would later be invented - as many details are not distinguishable to the naked eye.

They had to be experts in anatomy. The abdomen shows distinct bloating (consistent with death by suffocation). The blood flows are from the wrists - not the hands (as was believed in the 1200's), and at 65 degrees (correct for arm position for crucifixion). The face is unevenly swollen from being beaten. The buttocks are rigid from rigor mortis. They had to use HUMAN blood and have tortured the person first to get the levels of billirubin found. They also needed the blood type to be uncommon to medieval Europe. All silly, because scientists confirm that the blood is not painted on. They would have had to then take the shroud to Palestine (for pollen spores). Dirt found on the shroud is consistent with dirt from the Damascus gate (nowhere else). The forgers did all of this in anticipation of 20th century science???

A bit of a stretch, don’t you think?

Shroud is dated back in the Jesus Christ era.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28...71850.html

and it was created miraculus

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...light.html

but you still say that He was just a man. If this isn't faith then what it is?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2014, 08:29 AM (This post was last modified: 25-08-2014 08:58 AM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
Again at work when people reply.

Um... no, you've kind of fixated now on the shroud. The parting of a large body of water thing. Who did it happen to? Who did it happen for? When did (Is it supposed to have) happened?

*Edit: Or, are you happier detailing which tale is a parable, which is supposed to have happened and how one tells the difference?

Sadly, no time at moment for more perusal or reply. Sad

*EDIT: Actually, I do believe one of the above links has been shown/detailed as to how/ it's a load of tosh.... not sure if previously in this thread or somewhere else.


Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2014, 02:00 PM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
(22-08-2014 03:30 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 11:56 AM)JimFit Wrote:  Everything breaks down to atoms, atoms have structure therefor even the rocks are alive? If life came from non life then everything around us is alive.

It seems to me that you haven't yet discovered the concepts of logic or emergence.

Logic
1 All living structures have atoms within them
2 rocks have structures and atoms
Therefore rocks are living.

The falicy above is that just because all living structures have atoms, it doesn't mean that all sturctures with atoms are living.

For example, all stars have hydrogen atoms.
Humans have hydrogen atoms but we cannot say that humans are stars.

Emergence
I don't need to be a chair in order to create a chair out of a tree.
When we have various atoms, forming various chemical compounds and those compounds replicate and over time gain propulsion which improves replication, and gain metabolism which improves replication etc, then we get life from non life.
We cannot say there is a necessary magical breath of life.



(22-08-2014 12:42 PM)JimFit Wrote:  The Physical Universe is finite,
Don't get confused between the observable universe (the result of the big bang) and the entire universe (all that exists). The expansion of the observable universe had a beginning. But we don't know whether the universe had a beginning.

(22-08-2014 12:42 PM)JimFit Wrote:  Prove me the opposide that the Universe is Eternal Past.
Scientists don't know what was present prior to the big bang. They do not claim that nothing existed prior to the big bang.

With your stance you claim that out of necessity there must have been a prime mover but the problem with the "out of necessity" stance is that you must claim to have absolute knowledge in order to know that no other option is possible.
Scientists and cosmologists have the most knowledge on such matters and most of them are atheists, in contrast to the mostly theistic society that they live within.

(22-08-2014 12:45 PM)JimFit Wrote:  Because I am a Christian and i read the Gospels?
This doesn't answer the question "and you know this how?"
Your answer indicates faith rather than knowledge. Are you an agnostic theist?

(22-08-2014 12:45 PM)JimFit Wrote:  Jesus Christ had to come for a reason, He didn't came only to fulfil the prophecies but to bring the Truth of Man down to us.
JC may not have cum at all. He is a character in a few old stories written in the days well before scientific discovery, when people were very much superstitious and believed in ghosts, witches, magic and the like.

Why do you write "Truth" with a capital letter, is this to distinguish Truth from truth?

(22-08-2014 01:20 PM)JimFit Wrote:  The Teachings of Jesus are love, forgiveness, mercy, patience, humility, charity, equality
Do you think it is wonderful that gay people fall in love with each other, get married and have lots of sex as an expression of their love and lust for each other?
Do you think it is wonderful that a gay couple adopt parentless children and bring them up in a supportive and loving family?

Life came from non life but the event was pre-determined and doesn't support atheism that talks about luck and randomness (of course no one knows how non life became life or even if non life can produce life, its still a puzzle).
You still didn't answer my question, life for you is the chemical reactions in our bodies? What exactly sepperates life from non life for you? Remember even chemical reactions consist from mindless atoms. This kind of thinking means that free will doesn't exist and even our thoughts are not ours, of course that goes against the plasticity of the brain, if our decisions came strictly from the brain we wouldn't be able to create new info therefor new neurons in the brain, if Einstein wasn't involved with Mathematics he wouldn't develop new neurons in the area which is responsible for calculations. Our brains would be identical!

another example here

http://thecreatorsproject.vice.com/blog/...ryone-else

Is YOU your brain or the brain is YOU?

The Universe is Finite and Fine Tuned for intelligent life.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/201...-life.html

The BVG Theorem has proven that every Universe that expands isn't eternal past even if it exists as quantum fluctuations. Read the last paragraph on page 3. It specifically states that the result shows that inflation must be finite in the past, and there must be space-time boundary.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0110012v2.pdf

That has implications for Atheism because since the Atheists Epicurean Philosophers Atheists said that the Universe is Eternal and doesn't need a Creator and of course it has also implications for Naturalistic Philosophy. Now by definition if the Physical Universe is Finite then the cause (if we can name it like this) was transcendent, is the transcendent cause Mindless? An eternal non physical chain of events?

David E. White argues that the notion of an infinite causal regress providing a proper explanation is fallacious.Furthermore Demea states that even if the succession of causes is infinite, the whole chain still requires a cause. To explain this, suppose there exists a causal chain of infinite contingent beings. If one asks the question, "Why are there any contingent beings at all?", it won’t help to be told that "There are contingent beings because other contingent beings caused them." That answer would just presuppose additional contingent beings. An adequate explanation of why some contingent beings exist would invoke a different sort of being, a necessary being that is not contingent. A response might suppose each individual is contingent but the infinite chain as a whole is not; or the whole infinite causal chain to be its own cause.

But why God? Atheists think weird that there is a Higher Mind that created the Universe when they bring as proof the superiority of Science against religion, but this argument already contains the forbidden word, Mind, Scientists are Conscious beings with Minds and intelligence that follow Determinism (cause and effect). We know that the Universe was determined to create Humans with intelligence but the Universe is Finite and Mindless so how it did determined anything? The answer lies before the Universe even exist, if the Universe is Deterministic then we can safety say that it is pre-deterministic, if this sounds ridiculous remember that Atheists now try to do the same, the call it Multiverse. The only difference from atheists and theists is that Atheists say "We have a Universe therefor the Universe is a result of infinite Universes aka chance" and Theists say "We have a Universe therefor the result of this Universe is a Mind because we have Minds"
I know that a Mind created the Universe because it responds to our Minds and i really can't think how chance help Science with anything.

You would became a Christian if you see a miracle right? That would persuade you that God exists and that the gospels is the Truth. Sorry but only children think like that, i am a Christian because the things that were written in the Gospels is the Truth of Man and i find it miraculous that this kind of wisdom came from a man 30 years old when 80 years old prophets and philosophers didn't even catch. So when i hear an atheist ask "How do you know Jesus is Truth?" I reply "How can you say His teachings are false? Has anyone denied Love, Forgiveness, Charity, Freedom, Piece, Equality, Justice, Mercy?"

My above comment contains the physical proof of Jesus Christ and shows how much He has been through before He was crusified and how perfectly matches with the gospel account, His burial cloth the shroud of Turin. But i have more proofs such as the identification of the dna from the blood of Jesus with the bones of John the Baptist, they were cousins.
The physical proof of his brother Joseph.

http://io9.com/this-ancient-burial-box-c...1490333224


The earthquake on the cross

http://news.discovery.com/history/religi...120524.htm

and the reconstruction of His face that matches exactly the first images of Jesus in the 1st Century and 2nd Century



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2014, 04:04 PM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
(25-08-2014 02:00 PM)JimFit Wrote:  Life came from non life but the event was pre-determined and doesn't support atheism that talks about luck and randomness (of course no one knows how non life became life or even if non life can produce life, its still a puzzle).
It's very difficult to follow your logic.
Atheism is compatible with determinism and probabilism.
It is conceivable (to me) that simple chemical compounds can replicate and over time become more successfull (prolific) by gaining beneficial complexity (via random mutation coupled by "natural selection").
I don't see the necessity or value of a transcedant magical Christian god.
(25-08-2014 02:00 PM)JimFit Wrote:  You still didn't answer my question, life for you is the chemical reactions in our bodies? What exactly sepperates life from non life for you?
It's difficult to define the boundary cases of what is or what isn't life. Clearly a non metabolising rock isn't alive, and clearly a frolicing lamb is alive. But when we consider the virus or self replicating chemicals or the early proto-life structures it gets very hazy.
LIFE is a concept, a label that we place on physical structures that meet certain defined criteria. This defined criteria is debatable, but the take home on this is that life is a concept, a way to describe a set of replicating physical structures. Life is not the abscence or presence of a special substance or energy or a supernatural transcendant thing e.g. the mythical soul.
(25-08-2014 02:00 PM)JimFit Wrote:  This kind of thinking means that free will doesn't exist
I am happy with the non existence of free will.
(25-08-2014 02:00 PM)JimFit Wrote:  if our decisions came strictly from the brain we wouldn't be able to create new info therefor new neurons in the brain,
This is a falicy that some theists fall for.
They don't seem to understand the concept of evolution, emergence or even advancing knowledge and technology over the years, and generations as our fantastic scientists and innovators gain better understandings of physical reality and how it can be used to improve our lives.

(25-08-2014 02:00 PM)JimFit Wrote:  The Universe is Finite and Fine Tuned for intelligent life.
Define "universe"
Define "fine tuned"
Define "intelligent life"
Humans are the only "intelligent life" that we know of. We life on a small planet (one of eight) that surround a non remarkable star (one of 10^22 stars in the observable universe)
Note: thats around 100 stars for each gran of sand on planet Earth.

You have asserted that Christianity is about love, but you ignored my questions:
Do you think it is wonderful that gay people fall in love with each other, get married and have lots of sex as an expression of their love and lust for each other?
Do you think it is wonderful that a gay couple adopt parentless children and bring them up in a supportive and loving family?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2014, 05:42 PM (This post was last modified: 26-08-2014 04:37 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
Well today on our module one post of my new class History of Christianity REL 450 I posted this in answer to a fellow student's assertion that jesus christ is our lawd and savior....perhaps you may learn from it as well...

Without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." (I Corinthians 15:14-15)

The really interesting part is when you compare the four gospel’s different versions of the alleged resurrection and its details. I say alleged because no one who wrote of jesus actually knew him, and based their stories on oral tradition passed down from one person to another. Also no one witnessed the actual resurrection, an empty tomb does not a resurrection make.

To expound on the gospels: Matthew: The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date remains a minority view, but has been strongly supported. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source. Note the part where I said...disciple matthew honored...and anonymous writer.

Luke/Acts: Luke: Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). Many modern scholars reject this view.

Mark: Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.

John: The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John.

Peter - Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery. The unknown authors of the epistles of Peter wrote long after the life of the traditional Peter. Moreover, Peter lived (if he ever lived at all) as an ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this). In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an author claiming himself to know what Peter said (hearsay), or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church. Encyclopedias usually describe a tradition that Saint Peter wrote them. However, whenever you see the word "tradition" it refers to a belief passed down within a society. In other words: hearsay. This is the definition of Pseudepigrapha; a book written in a biblical style and ascribed to an author who did not write it.

James - Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account.

Jude - Even early Christians argued about its authenticity. It quotes an apocryphal book called Enoch as if it represented authorized Scripture. Biblical scholars do not think it possible for the alleged disciple Jude to have written it because whoever wrote it had to have written it during a period when the churches had long existed. Like the other alleged disciples, Jude would have lived as an illiterate peasant and unable to write (much less in Greek) but the author of Jude wrote in fluent high quality Greek..more forgery.

paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13 attributed to him, he actually wrote 8. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations - Bible interpolation, or Bible redaction, is the art of adding stuff to the Bible). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination.

There’s no indication from Scripture that Paul and Jesus ever met before the Damascus Road incident. And Acts 9:4-7 doesn’t specify whether the Lord’s encounter with Paul was physical or not. It only says Paul saw a bright light and heard a voice. The men with him heard a loud sound but didn’t see anything. In subsequent re-tellings of the encounter Paul never indicated that He had actually seen Jesus at that time.

To look further into it, the gospel of John presents Jesus quite differently from Matthew, Mark and Luke. According to the most widely accepted critical scholarly theory, the gospel of Mark was the first of the Gospels, written approximately 70 CE. Since Jesus died around the year 30, we must assume a gap of approximately 35 to 40 years during which historical traditions about Jesus’s life were passed down orally. Jesus spoke Aramaic; the Gospels are written in Greek thus translation could also be an issue. Because the gospel writers were explicitly written to encourage faith, most scholars argue that they were not interested in historical accuracy (Albl 282).

Paul refers often to the “traditions” that he has passed on to the congregations: “I praise you because you remember me in everything and holdfast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you” (1 Corinthians 11:2). From whom did Paul receive his traditions? Paul himself did not know the historical Jesus, but he did know and spend time with Jesus disciples(Albl 283). Thus all writings of Paul in regards to Jesus are based on tradition and stories passed on to him from others.

Hopefully in this class we will dig into a historically accurate analysis of the fabrication of the belief, the Bible and Christian tradition. So in summary, this is why it requires faith to believe in the story of jesus, but it does make for an interesting story.


Works cited:

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University press, Inc., 2011. Print.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2014, 11:22 PM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
GWOG, I'm interested that you say there's a historical Paul - how do they tell that 8 works are his and 3 are someone else's?

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
26-08-2014, 04:35 AM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
(25-08-2014 11:22 PM)morondog Wrote:  GWOG, I'm interested that you say there's a historical Paul - how do they tell that 8 works are his and 3 are someone else's?

I have a lot of data on paul at home, but I am at work thus I don't have access to the information. But I grabbed an easy reference from online that says the same basics in regards to authorship of the Pauline epistles;

The Pauline epistles are the thirteen books in the New Testament traditionally attributed to Paul the Apostle, although many dispute the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews as being a Pauline epistle.

There is wide consensus, in modern New Testament scholarship, on a core group of authentic Pauline epistles whose authorship is rarely contested: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Several additional letters bearing Paul's name lack academic consensus: Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus. Scholarly opinion is sharply divided on whether the former two epistles are the letters of Paul; however, the latter four - 2 Thessalonians, as well as the three known as the "Pastoral Epistles" - have been labeled pseudepigraphical works by most critical scholars.

There are two examples of pseudonymous letters written in Paul’s name apart from the New Testament epistles, the Epistle to the Laodiceans and 3 Corinthians. Since the early centuries of the church, there has been debate concerning the authorship of the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews, and modern scholars reject Pauline authorship.

and all I heard was blah blah blah pseudepigrapha Smile

If I remember correctly it comes down to style of writing, specifics within the writings that he would not have known in some of the books etc...the usual BS.

I got a busy couple of days ahead of me, but if I get a chance I can go crawl into my books and data at home and give you a much more specific, detailed answer if you so desire. Tongue

Do you have/know something that I am missing? Please let me know if so, I hate to unintentionally put out any misinformation for that undermines my efforts.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2014, 06:17 AM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
(26-08-2014 04:35 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(25-08-2014 11:22 PM)morondog Wrote:  GWOG, I'm interested that you say there's a historical Paul - how do they tell that 8 works are his and 3 are someone else's?
If I remember correctly it comes down to style of writing, specifics within the writings that he would not have known in some of the books etc...the usual BS.
This is about the level of detail I can handle Tongue. I just wondered how one goes about figuring authorship for something that dang old and mixed up with all kinds of later stuff added by True Believers.

Quote:Do you have/know something that I am missing? Please let me know if so, I hate to unintentionally put out any misinformation for that undermines my efforts.
Christ no. I'm not even qualified to dust the covers of your scholarly bookshelf Tongue My knowledge w.r.t. religion is confined more around "this is a fucking dumb idea" than specifics of bible scholarship... Your posts have been highly informative - I've only started reading them recently, mostly I though "TL; DR" and left them but then I read a couple and I was like "Holy shit, this is interesting".

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
26-08-2014, 05:02 PM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
(26-08-2014 06:17 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(26-08-2014 04:35 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  If I remember correctly it comes down to style of writing, specifics within the writings that he would not have known in some of the books etc...the usual BS.
This is about the level of detail I can handle Tongue. I just wondered how one goes about figuring authorship for something that dang old and mixed up with all kinds of later stuff added by True Believers.

Quote:Do you have/know something that I am missing? Please let me know if so, I hate to unintentionally put out any misinformation for that undermines my efforts.
Christ no. I'm not even qualified to dust the covers of your scholarly bookshelf Tongue My knowledge w.r.t. religion is confined more around "this is a fucking dumb idea" than specifics of bible scholarship... Your posts have been highly informative - I've only started reading them recently, mostly I though "TL; DR" and left them but then I read a couple and I was like "Holy shit, this is interesting".

Thanks, yeah I do a lot of reading and have taken a boatload of theology classes. My angle is why do they believe, and they say cause the bible says so, and then I dismantle the bible...easy day. The intriguing thing is even when I prove that the gospels were not written by whom they think, that no one witnessed the resurrection and no one who writes of jesus actually knew him... that should pretty much nail the coffin shut, but no, they usually come back with, well, I don't care if it is true or not, I choose to believe anyway.....well okay then Facepalm

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2014, 05:49 PM
RE: [split] From Fundamental Evangelicalism to Orthodox Christianity to Atheism
(26-08-2014 05:02 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(26-08-2014 06:17 AM)morondog Wrote:  This is about the level of detail I can handle Tongue. I just wondered how one goes about figuring authorship for something that dang old and mixed up with all kinds of later stuff added by True Believers.

Christ no. I'm not even qualified to dust the covers of your scholarly bookshelf Tongue My knowledge w.r.t. religion is confined more around "this is a fucking dumb idea" than specifics of bible scholarship... Your posts have been highly informative - I've only started reading them recently, mostly I though "TL; DR" and left them but then I read a couple and I was like "Holy shit, this is interesting".

Thanks, yeah I do a lot of reading and have taken a boatload of theology classes. My angle is why do they believe, and they say cause the bible says so, and then I dismantle the bible...easy day. The intriguing thing is even when I prove that the gospels were not written by whom they think, that no one witnessed the resurrection and no one who writes of jesus actually knew him... that should pretty much nail the coffin shut, but no, they usually come back with, well, I don't care if it is true or not, I choose to believe anyway.....well okay then Facepalm

Very very few people are religious for logical reasons (and those that are you can see on late night tv asking for your money) but rather for emotional ones. So it is not surprising that logic does not cure them.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: