People who believe in god are broken

[DrDNA]

Without religion, humanity may have never formed a structured society in the first place, no one would see a reason to support each other.

 

Be careful. We already tried that.

They don't want to hear that here.....whoops, here comes a stone...

 

"At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds."John 8:59

 

It takes you a year to read the Bible?! It's never taken me more than a couple of weeks, and that's with just a couple hours of reading time each day.

 

That's pretty much self explanatory then.

 

What grade did you get in Physics and how long it take you to quote "read" the book?

Edited May 3, 2012 by DrDNA

[questionposter]

Just read this completely and get back to me in a year or so.

Holy Bible

Then perhaps we can discuss your doubts intelligently.

You can't poo poo it if you don't know it.

I have not read the complete bible, but I have read many parts of it. There are rational stories and rational events, some of which are even based on real events, but that's where I draw the line. There wasn't a boat big enough to house every species at the time, but the Black Sea has only very recently formed in geological time, less than a geological second maybe 12,000 years ago or so. People could have easily drawn "inspiration" from it, as it's existence was rather sudden over the course of a short period of time, but not the rest of the oceans and seas. That big of a boat? Not enough forest in that region for one. Talking snake? They don't possess oral commutative abilities. Sodom being destroyed in some way? Believable and it doesn't take a god to do that. But, how did Jonah not get digested by the whale's stomach acid?

Even though I think some stories have rational morals, these events don't occur very often, I would say life has a greater chance of forming on a particular planet than some of the events in the bible. There aren't logical reasons for these things to happen other than "some kind of somehow omnipotent being made it happen", which isn't illogical, but there is little physical evidence to support this notion and the results cannot be duplicated it seems.

 

It amazes me how scientists and pseudo-scientists love to argue about things they know nothing about, yet they immediately try to guard science from non-scientists and non-pseudo-scientists like it is the Holy Grail (pardon the pun...seriously not intended).

Scientists and psuedo scientists are different, furthermore there is a difference between a "hypothesis" and a "theory". Not only that, but religious scientists exist.

 

 

 

 

You seem to be implying that we were all made perfectly and that the world (our parents, teachers, siblings, relatives, neighbors, religion, governments, "the man"....etc...) messed us all up?

Hardly, we are far from perfect in any way (and perfect is a relative term anyway), and that's what you get from randomly mutating DNA.

Edited May 3, 2012 by questionposter

[DrDNA]

I have not read the complete bible, but I have read many parts of it.

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense read randomly.

I used to do that.

But reading it in such a manner makes it difficult, change that to impossible, to distinguish the parables from the poetry and stories that meant to be taken directly (perhaps what you call "rational").

It also makes it impossible to see, for example, how Genesis ties in with Exodus, Daniel and Isiah and the whole New Testament, etc.

 

Scientists and psuedo scientists are different,

This is absolutely correct. But we have a mixture of both here and I didn't want to leave anyone out.

Edited May 3, 2012 by DrDNA

[doG]

Just read this completely and get back to me in a year or so.

Holy Bible

There you go with that story book of hearsay again. The bible you keep bringing up IS NOT EVIDENCE!!! Sorry, no winner this time. Please try again.

[DrDNA]

There you go with that story book of hearsay again. The bible you keep bringing up IS NOT EVIDENCE!!! Sorry, no winner this time. Please try again.

If you admittedly don't know it, then why do you keep trying to debate it?

 

Wow. This is starting to look like the EXACT mirror image of one of those 6000 yr old creationists trying to debate cosmology......

Did I fall through a worm hole and end up on the other side?

Edited May 3, 2012 by DrDNA

[questionposter]

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense read randomly.

I used to do that.

But reading it in such a manner makes it difficult, change that to impossible, to distinguish the parables from the poetry and stories that meant to be taken directly (perhaps what you call "rational").

It also makes it impossible to see, for example, how Genesis ties in with Exodus, Daniel and Isiah and the whole New Testament, etc.

I didn't read it out of order, I read parts of stories I felt I had time for, then moved to the next story the next day, and while I find the stories entertaining, some of it was just too entertaining, that kind of amazing stuff just doesn't happen in reality.

 

We also can't verify if the stories in the bible are true, so I don't see how it counts as evidence, unless someone associated with it's makings has been alive all this time and could share what had happened.

It's the same type of thing with other religions. Other religions like those of Native American tribes claim evidence that the knowledge has been passed down without altercation from generation to generation, yet predict things like giant turtles giving birth to the Earth.

It's a similar thing with the Aborigines in Australia who claim they are not descended from ancestors in Africa, even though based on current evidence there's no other way they could have gotten there.

Edited May 3, 2012 by questionposter

[tar]

Interesting question, and I'm unsure, but I think it's peripheral to the conversation. Those people override their will to survive for other reasons... They want to help their kin (or see the world at large as within their kin-group)... Or they have been trained to value self-sacrifice, or have been taught to value others more than self. These are all possible reasons for those types of actions wherein they might override their will to survive and not be subject to a mental disorder.

 

I suspect it's similar for those who believe in god(s). They have been taught to value these arbitrary religious instructions. They have been taught to prioritize the teachings of the bible or the preacher or the nuns or imams or yogis or whatever over their personal will to survive. They may ignore the will to survive for the same reasons as a first responder or neighbor who saves a child at their own peril... It's part of their self-identity, and part of their overall worldview. Sacrifice and selflessness being prized are how I see this.

 

I just think that's moot. This is about those that have an affirmative belief in god(s). The idea for them is that faith is a valid reason for accepting ANYTHING as true, let alone the extraordinary claim of deities, and it's simply not. At the very least, those who affirmatively believe in god are expressing broken logic, reason, and rationality since all god belief distills back down to faith... and faith alone. Since faith could equally be used to claim the existence of silly things like unicorns or leprechauns or easter bunnies, it cannot validly be used to claim the existence of god(s).

 

That's my immediate thought. I didn't make the argument, though. doG did, and I will let him respond for himself.

 

Inow,

 

I suppose any point that attempts to explain faith in God as a "natural" "social" endeavor, would tend to be moot, if one has already decided that faith in an "unreal" thing is already a sign that your personhood is flawed in some manner (broken). But this is a discussion as to whether or not faith in a supernatural being is to be considered broken, so points leading in the direction of explaining such in a real, actual, verifyable understandable way might be moot for the prosecution, but quite required for the defense.

 

For instance. I have already decided that there is nothing that exists in this universe, this reality, that is supernatural. For me, saying something exists that is supernatural in nature, is a statement initially flawed in its construction. Because you CAN'T have something real that is not real. The only place you can have a supernatural thing, (like an Easter Bunny) is in your imagination. If it existed other than in your imagination, it would not be supernatural, it would be natural, it would be real, it would exist as a real entity that had to fit with everything else, that is real. If this supernatural thing did not have an effect on, and was not affected by, reality, then it would have no claim on any existence in this reality. So to me, the statement that a religious person makes, that God is supernatural, is an admission that God does not "really" exist in the universe, but exists only in the one place supernatural things can actually reside. Our imaginations.

 

With this initial assumption on my part, I take for granted that any explanation of the nature of God, for real, an explanation that would be factual, and true, would be an explanation that parsed the idea into those things that exist outside the head and those things that exist inside the head. Unfortunately I have no way of thinking anything, that is not inside my head. So I have to give the status of my predicament to some other mind, so I can talk the situation over.

 

But we had this communication between minds, way before the scientific method was established as "a better way" to determine fact. We have had language for quite a while. We have had words that express mutual ideas. And one of those words is God. It is not required that the meaning behind the word have an actual body, but it is a handy analogy. The hand of god, the mind of god, god is angry, its up to god and so forth, have meanings that can be mutually understood between two humans...until you actually ask whether or not the hand is manicured, or how many fingers it has, or whether it is attached to an arm, and ask what color the sleeve is and what material its made of. If it is to be an actual term that is understood between two people, the understanding has to be either of a figurative nature, reflecting an actual real condition, or a mutualy agreed upon "supernatural" thing that you will together take as a literal fact. Problem with the second way, is it is only understandable to someone else with the same notion, which makes it very difficult word to use in the presence of someone else, who does not know your lingo. Who is not schooled in your particular agreements as to the nature of this "supernatural" thing.

 

But I do not think having a private language, and private agreements is all that broken or unnatural. Like the border between Canada and the United States, that can be very real to every human on the planet, but COMPLETELY SUPERNATURAL to a fish that swims across the line.

 

Regards, TAR2

[questionposter]

Inow,

 

I suppose any point that attempts to explain faith in God as a "natural" "social" endeavor, would tend to be moot, if one has already decided that faith in an "unreal" thing is already a sign that your personhood is flawed in some manner (broken). But this is a discussion as to whether or not faith in a supernatural being is to be considered broken, so points leading in the direction of explaining such in a real, actual, verifyable understandable way might be moot for the prosecution, but quite required for the defense.

 

For instance. I have already decided that there is nothing that exists in this universe, this reality, that is supernatural. For me, saying something exists that is supernatural in nature, is a statement initially flawed in its construction. Because you CAN'T have something real that is not real. The only place you can have a supernatural thing, (like an Easter Bunny) is in your imagination. If it existed other than in your imagination, it would not be supernatural, it would be natural, it would be real, it would exist as a real entity that had to fit with everything else, that is real. If this supernatural thing did not have an effect on, and was not affected by, reality, then it would have no claim on any existence in this reality. So to me, the statement that a religious person makes, that God is supernatural, is an admission that God does not "really" exist in the universe, but exists only in the one place supernatural things can actually reside. Our imaginations.

 

With this initial assumption on my part, I take for granted that any explanation of the nature of God, for real, an explanation that would be factual, and true, would be an explanation that parsed the idea into those things that exist outside the head and those things that exist inside the head. Unfortunately I have no way of thinking anything, that is not inside my head. So I have to give the status of my predicament to some other mind, so I can talk the situation over.

 

But we had this communication between minds, way before the scientific method was established as "a better way" to determine fact. We have had language for quite a while. We have had words that express mutual ideas. And one of those words is God. It is not required that the meaning behind the word have an actual body, but it is a handy analogy. The hand of god, the mind of god, god is angry, its up to god and so forth, have meanings that can be mutually understood between two humans...until you actually ask whether or not the hand is manicured, or how many fingers it has, or whether it is attached to an arm, and ask what color the sleeve is and what material its made of. If it is to be an actual term that is understood between two people, the understanding has to be either of a figurative nature, reflecting an actual real condition, or a mutualy agreed upon "supernatural" thing that you will together take as a literal fact. Problem with the second way, is it is only understandable to someone else with the same notion, which makes it very difficult word to use in the presence of someone else, who does not know your lingo. Who is not schooled in your particular agreements as to the nature of this "supernatural" thing.

 

But I do not think having a private language, and private agreements is all that broken or unnatural. Like the border between Canada and the United States, that can be very real to every human on the planet, but COMPLETELY SUPERNATURAL to a fish that swims across the line.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Supernatural I think means "above" nature, as in something supernatural doesn't follow evolution or can't be explained by our current knowledge or doesn't have normal things that you would often find in nature, and faith in god isn't illogical, there's just not a lot of actual evidence to support the existence of god.

For instance, lightning was considered super-natural before people started seeing patterns in it and eventually discovered it was plasma. But, I don't think we will be able to ever conclude any discoveries about god.

Edited May 3, 2012 by questionposter

[DrDNA]

I didn't read it out of order, I read parts of stories I felt I had time for, then moved to the next story the next day, and while I find the stories entertaining, some of it was just too entertaining, that kind of amazing stuff just doesn't happen in reality.

 

I understand. God's time vs our time, parable vs poetry vs exactly as it happened, etc is a toughie.

 

That's why it is important to read the whole thing. Without skipping around at least one time.

I know that it takes a LOT of time and effort, unless you are Phi for All .

And if you are not a Christian, you're saying to yourself, why bother.

[questionposter]

I understand. God's time vs our time, parable vs poetry vs exactly as it happened, etc is a toughie.

 

That's why it is important to read the whole thing. Without skipping around at least one time.

I know that it takes a LOT of time and effort, unless you are Phi for All .

And if you are not a Christian, you're saying to yourself, why bother.

 

Well, there's two people who have read the whole thing, yet they have disagreement on it, even about whether or not the events in them are real. Obviously, not everything makes sense in it if there is such disagreement.

Edited May 3, 2012 by questionposter

[DrDNA]

Inow,

For instance. I have already decided that there is nothing that exists in this universe, this reality, that is supernatural. For me, saying something exists that is supernatural in nature, is a statement initially flawed in its construction. Because you CAN'T have something real that is not real.

So, what existed before the Big Bang?

 

Well, there's two people who have read the whole thing, yet they have disagreement on it, even about whether or not the events in them are real. Obviously, not everything makes sense in it if there is such disagreement.

 

Just because I can't drive a Lamborghini 200 mph doesn't mean that the car is defective.

 

Not everything in it makes sense. Yes. To us it doesn't right now. That doesn't mean that it is broken. More than likely, it means that we are broken.

 

For example, to use the example above, the first pages of Genesis didn't make much sense until the Big Bang theory.

Edited May 3, 2012 by DrDNA

[Moontanman]

Just read this completely and get back to me in a year or so.

Holy Bible

Then perhaps we can discuss your doubts intelligently.

You can't poo poo it if you don't know it.

 

How insulting, I mean really insulting. I've read the bible many times, both cover to cover and in little sound bites the pastor gave us to read each day, you are condescending in a particularly insulting way. Are you really so arrogant as to assume with out even asking if i had ever tried your favorite fairy tale? Oh yes, i was raised fundamentalist Christian, the whole fire and brim stone, Noah's ark, pillars of the earth bullshit. Any why a year? Do you read on a 1st grade level or something? I could easily read the entire bible in a few days, admittedly i do read very fast but i also have a very high comprehension level as well. to do it real justice would take a couple weeks but only because it's too boring to concentrate on it for more than a couple hours at a time.

 

It amazes me how scientists and pseudo-scientists love to argue about things they know nothing about, yet they immediately try to guard science from non-scientists and non-pseudo-scientists like it is the Holy Grail (pardon the pun...seriously not intended).

 

your assumption that if someone disagrees with you they haven't read your holy book is horse feathers of the worst sort. but if you assert that then why do you discount the holy books of other religions about other gods and pantheons of gods? You are full of shit....

 

This is very similar to that so-called Christian guy in Texas that runs a """museum"""" with a rock in it that he claims has footprints, one being from a "dinosaur" and the other from a "man" imprinted at the same time period. he doesn't have a clue what he is arguing about either.

 

Those prints you talk about are faked, the "Christians" who faked them admitted to it after it was proven the foot prints had been enhanced by carving the stones.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

 

The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock).

 

A few individuals such as Carl Baugh, Don Patton, and Ian Juby, continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in Mesozoic or Paleozoic from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups. When examined thoroughly and carefully, the Paluxy tracks not only provide no positive evidence for young-earth creationism, but are found to be among many other lines of geologic evidence which indicate that the earth has had a long and complex history.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Moontanman

[iNow]

Just read this completely and get back to me in a year or so.

Holy Bible

Then perhaps we can discuss your doubts intelligently.

You can't poo poo it if you don't know it.

You know what I really love about responses such as this one that you've made to Moontanman? He has read the bible, more than once. You are not so much a mascot for the thread, but more a prime example of what I was thinking of when creating it.

 

EDIT: Cross-posted with Moontanman.

 

---

 

your assumption that if someone disagrees with you they haven't read your holy book is horse feathers of the worst sort. but if you assert that then why do you discount the holy books of other religions about other gods and pantheons of gods?

Very nice point, sir. Yet another example of the hypocrisy and double standards.

[Moontanman]

So, what existed before the Big Bang?

 

No one who is honest knows....

[DrDNA]

How insulting, I mean really insulting.

I apologize.

 

only because it's too boring to concentrate on it for more than a couple hours at a time.

Then why do you punish yourself reading it over and over?

 

 

your assumption that if someone disagrees with you they haven't read your holy book is horse feathers of the worst sort.

I don't assume that at all.

 

Thanks for thinking for me.

 

And you are incorrect. Completely.

As a matter of fact, it definitely is the Christians that are crucified on here.

Every now and then a creationist comes on here spouting some nonsense and deserves to get stoned. But in most cases, all one has to do is affirm that they believe in God and they get stoned immediately.

 

Those prints you talk about are faked, the "Christians" who faked them admitted to it after it was proven the foot prints had been enhanced by carving the stones.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

Read my post again more carefully. The way you read the Bible and you will see that I implied exactly the same thing.

 

You know what I really love about responses such as this one that you've made to Moontanman? He has read the bible, more than once.

He's not such a prime example of a critical reader. See above.

 

You are not so much a mascot for the thread, but more a prime example of what I was thinking of when creating it.

Just as I suspected and even stated earlier.

This is your guilty plea that you are/were "baiting".

See my post a couple of days ago.

 

Now, who's ignorant?

Edited May 3, 2012 by DrDNA

[tar]

God has preformed miracles in the past, why not now? Stopping the sun in the sky would be pretty impressive, he did for one group of sheep shaggers so they could kill another group of sheep shaggers. Why not do something impressive now? Swap the orbits of Mars and Venus, take over all our satellite broadcasts to tell us all what is really needed or demanded by him. Why is it up to the confused and contradictory writings of a group of bronze age primitives?

 

 

 

No we are brain washed almost from birth by the society around us, the decision to believe is drilled into us from an early age. In a very real way we are robots that have been programmed to believe something not real...

 

Moontanman,

 

Funny you should use this line of argument. I had used this line of argument, on another thread, don't remember which, back in Oct. 2011. He had disbelieved in God and asked God to show him a sign and a meteor flashed across the small patch of sky he was looking at, he thought "yeah, really, do that again" and another shooting star passed in the same patch. He was convinced.

 

I was not, and explained to him coincidence, and suggested he ask God to do something really odd, tell us about the request and then if it happened in the exact odd manner he asked, we might start going along with the idea.

 

I was thinking about that exchange I had with the poster , as I was working in my driveway several days later. Laughing at his foolishness...'till I realized I was removing 14" of snow from my New Jersey driveway in October, with green and changing leaves still on the trees. I laughed, looked up at the sky and said "huh, funny Guy, funny".

 

 

We had a really unnaturally mild winter with just a couple of wintery patches. I am expecting the funny Guy will bookend the deal, and deliver a snow storm any day now that the leaves are out again.

 

Regards, TAR2

[questionposter]

Proof denies faith, and without faith, god is nothing. He needs to keep people believing in him so he can exist, so he occasionally performs miracles upon request!

There actually was one guy stupid enough to go out on a lake "which is relatively flat" during a thunderstorm, and said something like "Give it your best shot God!" while standing straight up, and sure enough, he got struck by lightning and died. Though, that can still be explained scientifically, but it's like the stupidest thing I could ever think of because not only are you challenging nature, your challenging god, both at the same time, and when there's no where to run to.

Edited May 3, 2012 by questionposter

[DrDNA]

 

God has preformed miracles in the past, why not now? Stopping the sun in the sky would be pretty impressive, he did for one group of sheep shaggers so they could kill another group of sheep shaggers. Why not do something impressive now? Swap the orbits of Mars and Venus, take over all our satellite broadcasts to tell us all what is really needed or demanded by him.

 

 

The universe exits. It exists with billions of galaxies in it with billions of solar systems and untold number of planets. Stars had to go supernova billions of years ago for the elements that created you to exist. You just so happen to live on one planet that is perfectly tuned for life. And you are part of a species that has evolved to a level to put satellites into orbit and create satellite broadcasts.

 

And you are looking for miracles?

 

Note: credit tar for the idea

 

Proof denies faith, and without faith, god is nothing. He needs to keep people believing in him so he can exist, so he occasionally performs miracles upon request!

 

LOL. OK.

Edited May 3, 2012 by DrDNA

[questionposter]

The universe exits. It exists with billions of galaxies in it with billions of solar systems and untold number of planets. Stars had to go supernova billions of years ago for the elements that created you to exist. You just so happen to live on one planet that is perfectly tuned for life. And you are part of a species that has evolved to a level to put satellites into orbit and create satellite broadcasts.

 

And you are looking for miracles?

 

But that's just probability. Given enough time, anything can happen. There are soooooooooooo many galaxies and so much matter that there was bound to someday be a planet that could support life, and then eventually have it. In fact, it's possible the universe itself is infinite in size and contains matter, which practically assures life will exist.

Edited May 3, 2012 by questionposter

[DrDNA]

But that's just probability. Given enough time, anything can happen. There are soooooooooooo many galaxies and so much matter that there was bound to someday be a planet that could support life, and then eventually have it. In fact, it's possible the universe itself is infinite in size and contains matter, which practically assures life will exist.

OK. I'll bite.

Do you how much time that would take?

Edited May 3, 2012 by DrDNA

[Moontanman]

I apologize.

 

 

Then why do you punish yourself reading it over and over?

 

It took me a long time to come to the conclusion it was bullshit, i came to that conclusion after a very long time of looking very closely at what the bible said....

 

 

 

 

 

And you are incorrect. Completely.

As a matter of fact, it definitely is the Christians that are crucified on here.

Every now and then a creationist comes on here spouting some nonsense and deserves to get stoned. But in most cases, all one has to do is affirm that they believe in God and they get stoned immediately.

 

No, it's that we seldom get anyone here but Christians... and I don't have a problem with any but the creationist types...

 

 

He's not such a prime example of a critical reader. See above.

 

and you are dishonest...

 

 

Just as I suspected and even stated earlier.

This is your guilty plea that you are/were "baiting".

See my post a couple of days ago.

 

Now, who's ignorant?

 

 

Ignorant? If he was baiting then he caught one for sure....

[Phi for All]

I understand. God's time vs our time, parable vs poetry vs exactly as it happened, etc is a toughie.

 

That's why it is important to read the whole thing. Without skipping around at least one time.

I know that it takes a LOT of time and effort, unless you are Phi for All .

And if you are not a Christian, you're saying to yourself, why bother.

I've read the Bible probably four times all the way through. The first two times as a believer, the rest later in life after reading a lot of other texts from the same time. It's funny how there aren't many non-Christian texts that mention Jesus or the resurrection. There are lots of pre-Christian stories that talk about resurrections and virgin births and such, but very little else even from that area at the same time.

 

It was actually the religion surrounding Christianity that made me so skeptical about it. My first church was Nazarene, and I could never understand why they didn't allow dancing or singing anything but hymns. I've been to several different flavors of Christian congregations since then, even Catholic, the number one, and they all had problems with each other. In the end, none of them acted the way their Christ was supposed to have, and so I looked around and found that I really didn't need an organized religion.

 

Since then, as I said, I've read the Bible a couple of times as a non-believer, so I guess I have a more well-rounded perspective than you do, DrDNA. I'm not saying there are no deities, but I prefer the explanations science gives for the natural world over blind faith in old stories. The Bible can't be taken literally, so it must be subject to interpretation, so whose interpretation do you follow?

[DrDNA]

No, it's that we seldom get anyone here but Christians... and I don't have a problem with any but the creationist types...

I'm not a creationist and you got a problem with me.

 

What's the problem. You bored stoning Christians? You want to stone some Mormons or some Hindus or some Buddhists? How about stoning some Muslims. That should be fun.

 

and you are dishonest...

 

About what exactly?

 

 

If he was baiting then he caught one for sure....

Yep. He was for sure. He admitted to it. Just as I speculated a few days ago. And to flush the bird out of the bush ( and for entertainment), I sucked on that bait like a catfish sucking on stink bait on the bottom of the river.

Edited May 3, 2012 by DrDNA

[tar]

I disagree. I witness manufacturing defects all the time. Some things are made broken.

 

In the context of this discussion though I suspect a great many of the broken people were not born that way, just broken by someone's hand me down beliefs in their upbringing.

 

doG,

 

Seems like a really bad idea to start in on hand me down beliefs, like they are defective. If enough people believe in the same ideal you might just not consider it a belief, but consider it a real thing. Take scientific method, only codified several hundred years ago. Yet its a belief so strong in you that you will measure people by the exent to which they also believe in it, and by how close to perfectly a fellow adherent follows it.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited May 3, 2012 by tar

[doG]

You know what I really love about responses such as this one that you've made to Moontanman? He has read the bible, more than once. You are not so much a mascot for the thread, but more a prime example of what I was thinking of when creating it.

That was the reason for the nomination.

 

doG,

 

Seems like a really bad idea to start in on hand me down beliefs, like they are defective.

Why? Some of them are defective.