Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple

Brian Sapient on Twitter

Brian Sapient

Celebrity Atheists

List of atheist sites

Ask the atheist

Antiques and Art

Can christianity be proved by objective evidence?

Posted on: February 21, 2010 - 11:25pm

Atheistextremist

Posts: 5134

Joined: 2009-09-17

Offline

Can christianity be proved by objective evidence?

I am in an argument with my brother and sister, both fundies. At present there are only 2 of them going but there are substantial reinforcements at their disposal. I contend that christianity cannot be proved by objective evidence but brother David says it can and calls on thing like the supposed eye witness accounts in the NT as part of his proof. To me the NT is a loaded document, written for a specific purpose, not as an historical account but as a religious text. Applying the normal historical method to a supernatural text is unacceptable to me.

As far as I can tell there is no other objective evidence for christianity. The other arguments like the cosmological argument and discussions about abiogenesis are unprovable and need not depend on the christian god as prime mover. The moral argument is also subjective.

What do any brain boxes out there think? Is there objective proof of christian beliefs or is the entire doctrine contrived, reliant on the spiritual and ultimately subjective?

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck

Posted on: March 11, 2010 - 8:44pm #51

BobSpence

Posts: 5939

Joined: 2006-02-14

Offline

Early, premature, death is

Early, premature, death is unfortunate, regrettable.

A painful, prolonged, death is definitely a bad thing.

A peaceful, accepted departure after a long and hopefully, productive life, leaving some positive legacy to the succeeding generations is a sad but not evil event.

It is essential that we have new minds coming on the scene, to continually refresh the source of ideas for both science and art and ways to live life. In a finite physical and social space, this requires that room is made for the new arrivals. This is in addition to need for recycling and regeneration Kapkao already referred to.

Many ideas in Christianity are primitive, like the idea of blood sacrifice, which includes the central event in the story.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology

Posted on: March 11, 2010 - 11:01pm #52

Posts: 3330

Joined: 2007-01-05

Offline

lazy gods

pmichael wrote:

I'm not feeding you that line because it is a cop out. Death is never a benevolent thing--that is why it had to be overcome by the death of Jesus. I know your response to that, but that is the plain truth. I don't have scientific or irrefutable proof of that--just eyewitness testimony. But the premise there is what is important--death is not good. It sounds like you expect God to intervene in certain situations. I need clarification of what situations warrant intervention and which don't. And how do we know which punishments suit which "crimes." And, going back to the beginning, what would be the answer to the first person who was smitten for doing wrong--"sucks to be them?!" More to say here, but I would rather weait to hear from you, cj.

If god/jesus were truly benevolent s/he/it would intervene. Save the little girl. Smite the guy who raped and murdered her. DO SOMETHING. S/he/it does nothing that is visible. Warms the cockles of your heart - whoopie-doo. Makes you feel all snuggly. Lets you get together and sing and shout hallelujah and have a good time. What visible thing has god/jesus ever done?

Don't go there with faith healers. Twenty children in Oregon have died over the last 10 years because some cult doesn't believe in going to doctors. So they pray. And their children die of preventable illnesses and diseases, and correctable deformities. Isn't it funny how a faith healer has NEVER cured an amputation? Why do you think they stick to backaches, headaches, stress, and type II diabetes in elderly people? Hey, there was someone who went to a faith healer who claimed to cure her diabetes but she had to start taking insulin again two-three days later.

pmichael wrote:

As far as my personal tolerance, you'd be surprised. I tolerate everyone who sincerely seeks to do good. By good, I mean behavior that doesn't compromise the life, health, or happiness of another person. With those in mind, I can say yes to your first two, yes depending on the method of worshipping satan to the second, and absolutely not to the last regarding the mother.

Don't you know - these guys go to prison, get religion, and claim to be forgiven by jesus and saved. Doesn't bring back the people they have murdered, defrauded, or robbed. And their proof? They feel all warm and snuggly in their hearts. Pfffftttttt.......

My brother-in-law dumped my sister after 29 years of marriage for another woman. He was messing around with the other woman before the divorce. He was a good Jehovah Witness and they let him back in as one of the (male only) elders after he asked for forgiveness and repented. No one offered my sister any compensation and everyone was all surprised when she didn't want to attend the same services the ex did. He gets forgiveness and she got screwed. Christianity never requires that the victim be compensated, only that the perp gets forgiven.

pmichael wrote:

I do things that are wrong, knowingly. That makes me what everyone refers to as a sinner. I need good in my life, and I choose to go to God as the source of that good. And he is not lazy, but very active.

You can find good where ever you choose to look for it. God is not the only source of good, there are a lot of good people out there who don't believe in god/jesus and they do plenty of good works - not in someone else's name, but in their own name, because it is the right thing to do.

What the heck do you mean by "wrong" things? Playing solitaire? I once went to a church and that was what got me out of it. The devil was going to leap out of the cards when I was playing at home by myself and steal my soul. At age 13, I thought that was total baloney and left the church. So now I play solitaire on the computer and I don't worry about doing "wrong" because it isn't wrong. (I'm not playing at work, that would be wrong.) Is jacking off wrong? Why? It's better than raping little (or big) girls (or boys). Yelling "fuck off" when cut off by someone in traffic? Come on, if you are a mass murderer, or a con artist, or a bank executive, we can talk about sinning and needing professional help. But little dinky things? Give it up, you will feel so much better when you stop trying to believe.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.

Posted on: March 11, 2010 - 11:26pm #53

Kapkao

Posts: 4121

Joined: 2010-01-12

Offline

BobSpence1 wrote:Many ideas

BobSpence1 wrote:

Many ideas in Christianity are primitive, like the idea of blood sacrifice, which includes the central event in the story.

A better example of Christian idiocy: attempting to regulate the behavior of others in their private lives and establishing their moral compass through force of law. It's a trademark that's a good bit less easy to ignore than the idiocies of the OT.

Many Christians think that the OT doesn't apply to human behavior. In fact, I'd say most Xtians.

edit: In addition, many of the "Fire and Brimstone" ministers of the 1950s and 1920s have lost a lot of clout in recent decades... though not nearly enough.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

Posted on: March 12, 2010 - 10:56am #54

pmichael

Posts: 39

Joined: 2009-12-16

Offline

I don't think we disagree that much

Kapkao wrote:

A better example of Christian idiocy: attempting to regulate the behavior of others in their private lives and establishing their moral compass through force of law. It's a trademark that's a good bit less easy to ignore than the idiocies of the OT..

Again, broken record here, there are plenty of people that use Christianity as a crutch, and use what they think it says to do things that rub people the wrong way, or even worse, give them the wrong idea of what following God is about. There would be a more belief in the world if there weren't Christians and other religious-pious-types who screw it up. I love science, but I don't discredit science when someone uses it for their own purposes, ignoring those that use it benevolently.

Kapkao wrote:

Many Christians think that the OT doesn't apply to human behavior. In fact, I'd say most Xtians..

Please explain--this is an interesting idea that I would like to discuss.

Kapkao wrote:

edit: In addition, many of the "Fire and Brimstone" ministers of the 1950s and 1920s have lost a lot of clout in recent decades... though not nearly enough..

I agree. Praise God for that.

Romans 1:20 NIV: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

The greatest single cause of atheism today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and walk out the door and deny him with their life style. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.
--Brennan Murphy

Posted on: March 12, 2010 - 11:00am #55

pmichael

Posts: 39

Joined: 2009-12-16

Offline

Sidenote

Kapkao wrote:

edit: In addition, many of the "Fire and Brimstone" ministers of the 1950s and 1920s have lost a lot of clout in recent decades... though not nearly enough.

Sidenote: If you're a critical reader of the NT, you'll find that there is NO WAY that Hell is a place of fire.

Posted on: March 12, 2010 - 8:42pm #56

Atheistextremist

Posts: 5134

Joined: 2009-09-17

Offline

Dude - no you don't.

pmichael wrote:

I don't have scientific or irrefutable proof of that--just eyewitness testimony.

You have neither 'scientific proof', whatever it is you take that to mean, nor eyewitness proof. The fact the NT uses the same writing style used by most ancient historians does not suggest the authors were hiding behind rocks listening to jesus chatting with satan in the desert. The earliest bible writings are possibly around 70, more likely around 100BC. That means the stories were rumours talked about for 40 years before anyone put pen to paper. There is research suggesting the original greek NT contains many latinisms, hinting strongly at an original latin Mark. I can't imagine any of the apostles spoke latin or greek. Then there's the business of cheerfully slapping the historical method across the supernatural. What's that about? The historical method applies to ordinary things and regular humans, not rising from the dead, walking on water, ascending to heaven and other things that have never been seen before.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck

Posted on: March 15, 2010 - 11:45am #57

pmichael

Posts: 39

Joined: 2009-12-16

Offline

Dude, but I do

Atheistextremist wrote:

You have neither 'scientific proof', whatever it is you take that to mean, nor eyewitness proof. The fact the NT uses the same writing style used by most ancient historians does not suggest the authors were hiding behind rocks listening to jesus chatting with satan in the desert. The earliest bible writings are possibly around 70, more likely around 100BC. That means the stories were rumours talked about for 40 years before anyone put pen to paper. There is research suggesting the original greek NT contains many latinisms, hinting strongly at an original latin Mark. I can't imagine any of the apostles spoke latin or greek. Then there's the business of cheerfully slapping the historical method across the supernatural. What's that about? The historical method applies to ordinary things and regular humans, not rising from the dead, walking on water, ascending to heaven and other things that have never been seen before.

How many of the people that would have also been there could have refuted it? Even after 50 or 60 years? This was swirling around, and could have been taken down, but wasn't. This spread because there was credibility to it. Pretty amazing for a story that was not very believeable. And why would 14 men
(that we know of) who were eyewitnesses, die for their belief if they knew it was false?

Posted on: March 15, 2010 - 11:58am #58

BobSpence

Posts: 5939

Joined: 2006-02-14

Offline

pmichael

pmichael wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
You have neither 'scientific proof', whatever it is you take that to mean, nor eyewitness proof. The fact the NT uses the same writing style used by most ancient historians does not suggest the authors were hiding behind rocks listening to jesus chatting with satan in the desert. The earliest bible writings are possibly around 70, more likely around 100BC. That means the stories were rumours talked about for 40 years before anyone put pen to paper. There is research suggesting the original greek NT contains many latinisms, hinting strongly at an original latin Mark. I can't imagine any of the apostles spoke latin or greek. Then there's the business of cheerfully slapping the historical method across the supernatural. What's that about? The historical method applies to ordinary things and regular humans, not rising from the dead, walking on water, ascending to heaven and other things that have never been seen before.

How many of the people that would have also been there could have refuted it? Even after 50 or 60 years? This was swirling around, and could have been taken down, but wasn't. This spread because there was credibility to it. Pretty amazing for a story that was not very believeable. And why would 14 men
(that we know of) who were eyewitnesses, die for their belief if they knew it was false?

Stories passed on by word of mouth are far more subject to change from what was originally reported, without any intent to deceive on the part of those passing them on.

People will unconsciously embellish the more fanciful and mysterious or unusual aspects of the tale, even where an originally metaphorical or allegorical intent is misheard as a factual claim. The aspects which are remembered and more likely to be passed on are not based on their objective truth, rather how much the idea appeals to the hearer.

We have little real evidence for who may have actually been eyewitnesses, and even 'eyewitness testimony' can mutate over time. So those who allegedly died for these ideas most likely did believe them.

This is an old, very weak argument.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology

Posted on: March 18, 2010 - 9:54am #59

pmichael

Posts: 39

Joined: 2009-12-16

Offline

Martyrdom

BobSpence1 wrote:

Stories passed on by word of mouth are far more subject to change from what was originally reported, without any intent to deceive on the part of those passing them on.
People will unconsciously embellish the more fanciful and mysterious or unusual aspects of the tale, even where an originally metaphorical or allegorical intent is misheard as a factual claim. The aspects which are remembered and more likely to be passed on are not based on their objective truth, rather how much the idea appeals to the hearer.
We have little real evidence for who may have actually been eyewitnesses, and even 'eyewitness testimony' can mutate over time. So those who allegedly died for these ideas most likely did believe them.
This is an old, very weak argument.

How weak is it, really? You have people that go and die spreading a message (yes, spread by word of mouth) to people in parts of the world that they have no political interests in. That makes 14 people crazy. I would buy one or two, but not 14. You've got to think that there had to be something about this message that made them believe in it so much. I am curious as to what theories you have or know about that would account for why that would take place. There had to have been soemthing transcendent in their mesage for them to become martyrs for it. This is an old argument because you can look at how this message has survived over time and realize that there is something amazing about it. The argument has survived because it has strength, my Redskin loving friend.

Posted on: March 18, 2010 - 10:09am #60

mellestad

Posts: 2929

Joined: 2009-08-19

Offline

pmichael wrote:BobSpence1

pmichael wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Stories passed on by word of mouth are far more subject to change from what was originally reported, without any intent to deceive on the part of those passing them on.
People will unconsciously embellish the more fanciful and mysterious or unusual aspects of the tale, even where an originally metaphorical or allegorical intent is misheard as a factual claim. The aspects which are remembered and more likely to be passed on are not based on their objective truth, rather how much the idea appeals to the hearer.
We have little real evidence for who may have actually been eyewitnesses, and even 'eyewitness testimony' can mutate over time. So those who allegedly died for these ideas most likely did believe them.
This is an old, very weak argument.

How weak is it, really? You have people that go and die spreading a message (yes, spread by word of mouth) to people in parts of the world that they have no political interests in. That makes 14 people crazy. I would buy one or two, but not 14. You've got to think that there had to be something about this message that made them believe in it so much. I am curious as to what theories you have or know about that would account for why that would take place. There had to have been soemthing transcendent in their mesage for them to become martyrs for it. This is an old argument because you can look at how this message has survived over time and realize that there is something amazing about it. The argument has survived because it has strength, my Redskin loving friend.

Just like the spread of every other religion that has ever existed, amiright?

Why is it a miracle that Christianity spread, but not Islam, or Mormonism or Scientology?

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.

Posted on: March 18, 2010 - 10:11am #61

pmichael

Posts: 39

Joined: 2009-12-16

Offline

pmichael

pmichael wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
There is research suggesting the original greek NT contains many latinisms, hinting strongly at an original latin Mark. I can't imagine any of the apostles spoke latin or greek.

AE,

My research supports this, too. Sorry I didn't focus on this piece of your post the other day. Mark is the earliest of all the gospels, written about 65 ad. It is based on Mark's interactions with Peter, who preached these details of Christ's life over and over in his travels. Mark transcribed them from those sermons, according to historian Papias. So they are one of the best accounts of the life of Christ. Written just 32 or so years after his death, but based on accounts he was getting second hand from an eyewitness. Mark was known to be an interpreter of Paul's so he certainly would have had to know Latin in the Roman world. He most likely was adept in Greek as well.

Posted on: March 18, 2010 - 10:15am #62

pmichael

Posts: 39

Joined: 2009-12-16

Offline

Just like the spread of

Just like the spread of every other religion that has ever existed, amiright?

Why is it a miracle that Christianity spread, but not Islam, or Mormonism or Scientology?

I didn't use the word miracle. What is true of Christianity is also true of the others. They spread for a reason. Mormonism and Scientology are not as much a part of the point I am making--because we don't have records of martyrdoms on their part. Islam definitely has the weight of history behind it, which is why no one in their right mind should refute it at face value. It also came down over time with the weight of martyrdom behind it. Messages like those of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have to be further investigated, and can't be written off as false based on history.

Posted on: March 18, 2010 - 10:41am #63

Kapkao

Posts: 4121

Joined: 2010-01-12

Offline

AE said leagues and

AE said leagues and lightyears better than what I ever could hope to about "objective evidence"..........................................................................................................................................................

...but I made my limited contribution nonetheless.

Posted on: March 18, 2010 - 10:38am #64

Kapkao

Posts: 4121

Joined: 2010-01-12

Offline

pmichael wrote:Just like the

pmichael wrote:

Just like the spread of every other religion that has ever existed, amiright?

Why is it a miracle that Christianity spread, but not Islam, or Mormonism or Scientology?

Excuse me! Would you be so kind as to martyr me for the sake of this argument? I'd like to establish a new religion based on ME being the new god!

After all, I can, like "Christ", be cruel and kind as much as any "God" can!

Posted on: March 18, 2010 - 11:00am #65

TheNickZema

Posts: 29

Joined: 2009-04-14

Offline

cj wrote:Good grief. Just

cj wrote:

Good grief. Just turn off your brain at the next left..... Sorry, if god/s/dess gave me a brain, then I expect s/he/it wants me to use it. And s/he/it can not blame me if the evidence given is crap. Really, if I ruled the universe I would be pissed if my followers just believed with out evidence. Who needs that kind of follower?

Your existence should be proof itself, I'd be offended if I did give evidence and you overlooked... the simpler things.

Posted on: March 18, 2010 - 11:07am #66

TheNickZema

Posts: 29

Joined: 2009-04-14

Offline

BobSpence1 wrote:mellestad

BobSpence1 wrote:

mellestad wrote:
But you certainly would not get the Christian concept of God as a default position. Modern religions are very advanced ideas that have followed an evolutionary path spanning, well, human history. So if the specific question is, "Is Christianity the default state of belief." the answer is a simple no.
Easy to test, easy to prove. One the things many atheists bring up is the idea that, were one religion actually big T True, you would expect it to arise spontaneously in multiple locations over the course of history. But they never do, unless you count animism and ancestor worship.
Christianity is indeed a more evolved meme (a way of describing a closely associated set of ideas, that tend to be passed on from person to person), so of course you would not expect it to arise spontaneously, and so wouldn't likely be the initial form of any religion, any more than we would expect biological evolution to start with complex forms.
The popularity of such memes is not necessarily related to whether they describe something that is objectively true, but how much they resonate with common human hopes and fears and desires, how much they fill some gaps in understanding with something that 'feels' right, that is comprehensible to most people. Complex truths, no matter how well supported by evidence, are always likely to lose out to simple myths.
If there really was a God who really wanted us to know the Truth and thrive, religions don't seem to me be a very effective way to go. Too much is ambiguous, contradictory even, doesn't quite fit with what we are able to find out about the nature of reality independently of the scriptures, that it seems vastly more likely that it evolved in the minds of men.

Christianity, in it's core, has not evolved. The Bible and standard beliefs that are within the faith are the same as they were when Paul was writing letters to the churches. The only thing that has truly changed are our cultures.

Posted on: March 18, 2010 - 12:30pm #67

pmichael

Posts: 39

Joined: 2009-12-16

Offline

Defense

Kapkao wrote:

Excuse me! Would you be so kind as to martyr me for the sake of this argument? I'd like to establish a new religion based on ME being the new god!
After all, I can, like "Christ", be cruel and kind as much as any "God" can!

Kapkao,

On what grounds are you making the statement that Christ is/was cruel?

Posted on: March 18, 2010 - 12:32pm #68

pmichael

Posts: 39

Joined: 2009-12-16

Offline

TheNickZema

TheNickZema wrote:

Christianity, in it's core, has not evolved. The Bible and standard beliefs that are within the faith are the same as they were when Paul was writing letters to the churches. The only thing that has truly changed are our cultures.

Well spoken, my friend.

Posted on: March 18, 2010 - 4:16pm #69

Posts: 3330

Joined: 2007-01-05

Offline

TheNickZema wrote: cj wrote:

TheNickZema wrote:

cj wrote:

Good grief. Just turn off your brain at the next left..... Sorry, if god/s/dess gave me a brain, then I expect s/he/it wants me to use it. And s/he/it can not blame me if the evidence given is crap. Really, if I ruled the universe I would be pissed if my followers just believed with out evidence. Who needs that kind of follower?

Your existence should be proof itself, I'd be offended if I did give evidence and you overlooked... the simpler things.

Pfffftttttt......... I exist because my mom and dad screwed. So do you. Get over yourself.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.

Posted on: March 18, 2010 - 4:19pm #70

KSMB

Posts: 702

Joined: 2006-08-03

Offline

pmichael wrote:My research

pmichael wrote:

My research supports this, too. Sorry I didn't focus on this piece of your post the other day. Mark is the earliest of all the gospels, written about 65 ad.

Of course, your research. The date is pretty good, although it may have been written after 70 CE. It is the earliest of the known gospels, but no one knows who wrote it. It is anonymous. Attaching the name Mark to it is a 2nd century invention. Having done research, you no doubt knew that, you just forgot to mention it, right?

pmichael wrote:

It is based on Mark's interactions with Peter, who preached these details of Christ's life over and over in his travels. Mark transcribed them from those sermons, according to historian Papias.

First of all, Papias was not an historian, he was a bishop, and according to Eusebius he was "a man of small mental capacity". He relates some oral tradition about where "Mark" came from, and he admits he heard it through the grapevine, some ~50 years after the gospel was written. He also relates that "Matthew" is a sayings gospel written in the Hebrew language. What we know today as Matthew most certainly is not a sayings gospel and it was written in Greek, not Hebrew/Aramaic. So that calls into question the identification of at least one of the canonical gospels. My favorite thing he relates to us is the fact that Judas became hideously fat/swollen, was crushed by a chariot and his guts spilled out.

pmichael wrote:

So they are one of the best accounts of the life of Christ. Written just 32 or so years after his death, but based on accounts he was getting second hand from an eyewitness.

If that's one of the best accounts of Jesus' life, the state of such accounts is pretty crappy. Anyway, later people claim it's the writings of someone who heard it from an apostle. It's funny that these claims (Mark is certainly not the only gospel this happens to) become attached to the text about the time when people started arguing in writing about whose version of christianity was correct. What better way to assert you are right than to claim apostolic tradition? You read what was written down by someone who heard it from an apostle who in turn heard it from Jesus himself. Pretty convenient and certainly a cause to take what they claim with a pinch of salt.

pmichael wrote:

Mark was known to be an interpreter of Paul's so he certainly would have had to know Latin in the Roman world. He most likely was adept in Greek as well.

So the legend goes. Being an interpreter then did not mean you knew how to write, or even how to read. You no doubt know how rate literacy was back then. You could of course be an interpreter who knew how to write, but merely being an interpreter does not mean you had to know how to write. The writing is what matters here.

Posted on: March 18, 2010 - 6:12pm #71

Kapkao

Posts: 4121

Joined: 2010-01-12

Offline

pmichael wrote:Kapkao, On

pmichael wrote:

Kapkao,

On what grounds are you making the statement that Christ is/was cruel?

He put me into existence....... plus:

Al Pacino as Lucifer wrote:

Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He's a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do, I swear for His own amusement, his own private, cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow. Ahaha. And while you're jumpin' from one foot to the next, what is he doing? He's laughin' His sick, fuckin' ass off! He's a tight-ass! He's a SADIST! He's an absentee landlord! Worship that? NEVER!

Posted on: March 18, 2010 - 6:26pm #72

Kapkao

Posts: 4121

Joined: 2010-01-12

Offline

pmichael wrote:Please

pmichael wrote:

Please explain--this is an interesting idea that I would like to discuss.

Because the OT gives me and everyone else imaginable the right to get revenge -in esssence, poetic justice- on anyone we could possibly feel wronged by!

If I and everyone ellse were to embody such an asinine belief... THERE WOULD BE A MASS EXTINCTION EVENT ON EARTH... the kind so disasterous to the experiment of 'life' as to make possible the coming of the NEXT Cryogenian era of our world. (the "Cryogenian" period of Earth's natural history is, in essence, the kind where no life was be possible except the kind that was extremely inhospitable to life which COULD NOT adapt to the extreme cold... none-to-coincidentally, this era made possible the Cambrian explosion event of Earth's natural history!)

Posted on: March 22, 2010 - 9:49am #73

pmichael

Posts: 39

Joined: 2009-12-16

Offline

Vengeance is...not ours

Kapkao wrote:

Because the OT gives me and everyone else imaginable the right to get revenge -in esssence, poetic justice- on anyone we could possibly feel wronged by!
If I and everyone ellse were to embody such an asinine belief... THERE WOULD BE A MASS EXTINCTION EVENT ON EARTH... the kind so disasterous to the experiment of 'life' as to make possible the coming of the NEXT Cryogenian era of our world. (the "Cryogenian" period of Earth's natural history is, in essence, the kind where no life was be possible except the kind that was extremely inhospitable to life which COULD NOT adapt to the extreme cold... none-to-coincidentally, this era made possible the Cambrian explosion event of Earth's natural history!)

What are you reading? The right to get revenge? Romans gives us the statement that "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord." The Bible most certainly does not license revenge.

Posted on: March 22, 2010 - 11:30am #74

pmichael

Posts: 39

Joined: 2009-12-16

Offline

Mark

KSMB wrote:

Of course, your research. The date is pretty good, although it may have been written after 70 CE. It is the earliest of the known gospels, but no one knows who wrote it. It is anonymous. Attaching the name Mark to it is a 2nd century invention. Having done research, you no doubt knew that, you just forgot to mention it, right?

Yes, the name of Mark was attached in the 2nd century. With the exceptions of those books whose authors mentioned their names, the NT works had to be attributed to the author whose works they most closely resembled, or had to rely on internal evidence for the most likely author.

Posted on: March 22, 2010 - 11:35am #75

pmichael

Posts: 39

Joined: 2009-12-16

Offline

KSMB wrote:So the legend

KSMB wrote:

So the legend goes. Being an interpreter then did not mean you knew how to write, or even how to read. You no doubt know how rate literacy was back then. You could of course be an interpreter who knew how to write, but merely being an interpreter does not mean you had to know how to write. The writing is what matters here.

No proof that he didn't know how to write, though. sidenote: Please don't see me as an opponent.

Posted on: March 22, 2010 - 2:40pm #76

Kapkao

Posts: 4121

Joined: 2010-01-12

Offline

Ha! Lies, all of it!

pmichael wrote:

What are you reading? The right to get revenge? Romans gives us the statement that "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord." The Bible most certainly does not license revenge.

DAN 12:2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

MAT 3:12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his
threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff
with unquenchable fire."

10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the
soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in
hell.

[...]

25:41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are
cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to
eternal life."

MAR 3:29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be
forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

LUK 3:17 His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor
and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with
unquenchable fire."

JOH 5:29 and come out--those who have done good will rise to live, and
those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.

HEB 6:2 instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the
resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

10:28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the
testimony of two or three witnesses.

29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who
has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing
the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the
Spirit of grace?

30 For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and
again, "The Lord will judge his people."

31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

REV 14:10 he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been
poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with
burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb.

11 And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no
rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for
anyone who receives the mark of his name."

19:3 And again they shouted: "Hallelujah! The smoke from her goes up for
ever and ever."

20:10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of
burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They
will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

"Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence!"

Exodus 22:1-31

“If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall repay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the stolen beast is found alive in his possession, whether it is an ox or a donkey or a sheep, he shall pay double. “If a man causes a field or vineyard to be grazed over, or lets his beast loose and it feeds in another man's field, he shall make restitution from the best in his own field and in his own vineyard. ..."

Romans 13:4

For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

Proverbs 25:26

Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked.

Judges 5:8

When new gods were chosen, then war was in the gates. Was shield or spear to be seen among forty thousand in Israel?

Exodus 20:1-26

And God spoke all these words, saying, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. “You shall have no other gods before me. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, ...

Revelation 21:8

But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

1 Timothy 5:8

But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

And as for the best justification for vengeance in the bible?

Exodus 21:24-25

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Posted on: March 22, 2010 - 4:07pm #77

pmichael

Posts: 39

Joined: 2009-12-16

Offline

Versus...er verses

Kapkao wrote:

Because the OT gives me and everyone else imaginable the right to get revenge -in esssence, poetic justice- on anyone we could possibly feel wronged by!
If I and everyone ellse were to embody such an asinine belief... THERE WOULD BE A MASS EXTINCTION EVENT ON EARTH... the kind so disasterous to the experiment of 'life' as to make possible the coming of the NEXT Cryogenian era of our world. (the "Cryogenian" period of Earth's natural history is, in essence, the kind where no life was be possible except the kind that was extremely inhospitable to life which COULD NOT adapt to the extreme cold... none-to-coincidentally, this era made possible the Cambrian explosion event of Earth's natural history!)

Kap, my computer is fouling up, so I couldn't respond to your last post directly. Sorry, man. The basis for your supposition that God is cruel seems to be the Old Testament, and that certainly can't be discredited (at least by believers.) You have to reconcile the OT against the NT and ask yourself what kind of being you are dealing with. Is this an entity who has changed his way of dealing with people?--no evidence of cruelty in the NT, aside from the verses from the Revelation of John. Or can the events of the OT--no denying their apparent cruelty--be looked at in another way?

I really feel that you have to look at God, and by extension, his son, in light of the cross. Furthermore, you have to look at belief from the standpoint of the effect it has on believers. I am not talking about Christians and those of other faiths who pervert their respective belief systems, but those for whom belief transforms their lives for the better.

Posted on: March 22, 2010 - 4:29pm #78

pmichael

Posts: 39

Joined: 2009-12-16

Offline

A God like this

Kapkao wrote:

DAN 12:2  Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to 
everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

MAT 3:12  His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his 

threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff 

with unquenchable fire."

10:28  Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the 

soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in 

hell.
[...]
25:41  "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are 

cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

46  "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to 

eternal life."

MAR 3:29  But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be 

forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

LUK 3:17  His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor 

and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with 

unquenchable fire."

JOH 5:29  and come out--those who have done good will rise to live, and 

those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.

HEB 6:2  instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the 

resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

10:28  Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the 

testimony of two or three witnesses.

29  How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who 

has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing 

the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the 

Spirit of grace?

30  For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and 

again, "The Lord will judge his people."

31  It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

REV 14:10  he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been 

poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with 

burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb.

11  And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no 

rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for 

anyone who receives the mark of his name."

19:3  And again they shouted: "Hallelujah! The smoke from her goes up for 

ever and ever."

20:10  And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of 

burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They 

will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
"Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence!"
Exodus 22:1-31
“If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall repay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the stolen beast is found alive in his possession, whether it is an ox or a donkey or a sheep, he shall pay double. “If a man causes a field or vineyard to be grazed over, or lets his beast loose and it feeds in another man's field, he shall make restitution from the best in his own field and in his own vineyard. ..."
Romans 13:4
For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
Proverbs 25:26
Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked.
Judges 5:8
When new gods were chosen, then war was in the gates. Was shield or spear to be seen among forty thousand in Israel?
Exodus 20:1-26
And God spoke all these words, saying, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. “You shall have no other gods before me. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, ...
Revelation 21:8
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
1 Timothy 5:8
But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
And as for the best justification for vengeance in the bible?
Exodus 21:24-25
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

If you buy that the OT represents a cruel God, you also have to ask--why would anyone try to create a religion around a God like this?

Posted on: March 22, 2010 - 9:58pm #79

KSMB

Posts: 702

Joined: 2006-08-03

Offline

pmichael wrote:KSMB wrote:Of

pmichael wrote:

KSMB wrote:
Of course, your research. The date is pretty good, although it may have been written after 70 CE. It is the earliest of the known gospels, but no one knows who wrote it. It is anonymous. Attaching the name Mark to it is a 2nd century invention. Having done research, you no doubt knew that, you just forgot to mention it, right?
Yes, the name of Mark was attached in the 2nd century. With the exceptions of those books whose authors mentioned their names, the NT works had to be attributed to the author whose works they most closely resembled, or had to rely on internal evidence for the most likely author.

I'm sorry. The way you related that legend without any mention of the gospels being anonymous and their labels being 2nd century guess work made me think you were unaware of those facts. As you might imagine, it's pretty common among christians who come to this site to argue to be ignorant of these things. I apologize for assuming.

pmichael wrote:

KSMB wrote:
So the legend goes. Being an interpreter then did not mean you knew how to write, or even how to read. You no doubt know how rate literacy was back then. You could of course be an interpreter who knew how to write, but merely being an interpreter does not mean you had to know how to write. The writing is what matters here.
No proof that he didn't know how to write, though. sidenote: Please don't see me as an opponent.

Oh dear, absence of positive evidence? Makes me skeptical. Anyway, it's a moot point since the "Mark" label is a legend.

Posted on: March 23, 2010 - 10:54pm #80

Kapkao

Posts: 4121

Joined: 2010-01-12

Offline

pmichael wrote:If you buy

pmichael wrote:

If you buy that the OT represents a cruel God, you also have to ask--why would anyone try to create a religion around a God like this?

I dunno... I suppose it's got something to do with most of the "believers" around this time being Hebrew, trying to escape oppressive tyrants from the Nile River, ie Egyptian Pharaohs.

edit:it's HEBREW not JEWISH. The little details... they elude me sometimes.

Posted on: March 22, 2010 - 11:12pm #81

Atheistextremist

Posts: 5134

Joined: 2009-09-17

Offline

Well Mike

pmichael wrote:

If you buy that the OT represents a cruel God, you also have to ask--why would anyone try to create a religion around a God like this?

P'rap's it's got something to do with the fact the NT was created to upgrade Yaweh's hostile image to something more befitting the fluffy socialism in the years post-0033. Regardless, the fact the OT is draconian does not dig you out of a hole. A religion was created around this OT god. It's called Judaism. The fact many Jews are now largely atheistic suggests they're awake to the fact their god is a made up guy. And his threats and ragings for bloody sacrifice just represent the voices of a priesthood who were struggling to make do with no refrigeration. It's no surprise that Genesis outlines 8 different ways meat should be bought to the temple and continually insists the lord is itching for the sweet savour of BBQed flesh. The only thing that's missing from the OT is instructions for marinade and cubed lamb on a stick. The lord's sacrifice agenda is a shopping list. Meat, grain, bread, oil, wine, fruit, olives. No wonder Aaron's priests insisted on a one-god model. Diversification of offerings would have had a serious impact on their income stream.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck

Posted on: March 23, 2010 - 12:30pm #82

pmichael

Posts: 39

Joined: 2009-12-16

Offline

Wilderness

Atheistextremist wrote:

Is there objective proof of christian beliefs or is the entire doctrine contrived, reliant on the spiritual and ultimately subjective?

AE,

Let me back up here. What types of evidence would you deem objective? The difficulty Christians have is that this text with supernatural elements is historical to us. I can give you plenty of reasons why I believe, and I would hope you would accept them, but I would never force them on you. I would do anything I could to convince you, if that was a conversation you were willing to have. But I believe that there is a right and a wrong way to handle that, and the bible is clear that Christians are not to mishandle the word of God. Unfortunately, many do, and I don't mean to sound better than anyone else by saying that. I believe it is objective Smiling fact that some mishandle it, however. I also believe that the book of Jeremiah lays down the one and only proof needed when it syas in 29:11-13: I will be found by you when you seek Me with all of your heart. If that isn't a challenge, I don't know what is.

I do believe in God, and I believe he wants everyone to be saved. I believe he calls us to a life of love, and I model the humility and grace that He does to the best of my ability. I fall short, and I am no better than anyone else. There is more than just science at work here, more than reason, and I hope you will entertain that possibility, if not for the first time, then again. You don't begin a wilderness trek in the mountains, but have to start the journey in civilization, with the wonder of it all gradually unfolding before you. What makes it even more worth the trip is the fact that you are welcome to turn back at any time. And if you need someone to take the trip with you, there are plenty that are willing.

Posted on: March 23, 2010 - 8:15pm #83

Atheistextremist

Posts: 5134

Joined: 2009-09-17

Offline

You sound like a nice chap Mike

pmichael wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
Is there objective proof of christian beliefs or is the entire doctrine contrived, reliant on the spiritual and ultimately subjective?

AE,

Let me back up here. What types of evidence would you deem objective? The difficulty Christians have is that this text with supernatural elements is historical to us. I can give you plenty of reasons why I believe, and I would hope you would accept them, but I would never force them on you. I would do anything I could to convince you, if that was a conversation you were willing to have. But I believe that there is a right and a wrong way to handle that, and the bible is clear that Christians are not to mishandle the word of God. Unfortunately, many do, and I don't mean to sound better than anyone else by saying that. I believe it is objective fact that some mishandle it, however. I also believe that the book of Jeremiah lays down the one and only proof needed when it syas in 29:11-13: I will be found by you when you seek Me with all of your heart. If that isn't a challenge, I don't know what is.

I do believe in God, and I believe he wants everyone to be saved. I believe he calls us to a life of love, and I model the humility and grace that He does to the best of my ability. I fall short, and I am no better than anyone else. There is more than just science at work here, more than reason, and I hope you will entertain that possibility, if not for the first time, then again. You don't begin a wilderness trek in the mountains, but have to start the journey in civilization, with the wonder of it all gradually unfolding before you. What makes it even more worth the trip is the fact that you are welcome to turn back at any time. And if you need someone to take the trip with you, there are plenty that are willing.

But I'm always going to trip over a line like "I will be found by you when you seek me with all your heart." A fair translation of this would be "You will believe in me when you try really hard to believe in me". In honesty I don't feel challenged by this, I feel disappointed by it. If I wanted to have a relationship with the master of the metaverse I'd want it to happen in some dimension other than the one inside my head.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck

Posted on: March 24, 2010 - 10:44am #84

pmichael

Posts: 39

Joined: 2009-12-16

Offline

Thanks, man

Atheistextremist wrote:

But I'm always going to trip over a line like "I will be found by you when you seek me with all your heart." A fair translation of this would be "You will believe in me when you try really hard to believe in me". In honesty I don't feel challenged by this, I feel disappointed by it. If I wanted to have a relationship with the master of the metaverse I'd want it to happen in some dimension other than the one inside my head.

But it isn't just inside the head. Or doesn't have to be. Searching, I believe involves changing your lifestyle. And at the end of the day, if you truly follow what is written in the book, how much worse for wear are you? I still trust science, I treat everyon fairly and with love, I'm responsible wih my job, kids, and money; and I have a good time with my friends and approach everything with as much respect as my head can handle. Can any of those things be argued with? The difference for me is that I am patiently waiting for God and asking him questions that I believe he has answered from time to time. And if at the end, I am promised that I will know God, then I've found the truth. If at the end of the day, I haven't found God, then everything the Bible says is wrong. Either way, I can b proud of the life I have lead, and I have the truth. No closed doors, just open ones. And thank you for talking about this without any cynicism or disrespect. I admire that from anyone on the other side of an issue, and I hope I always afford the same. Thanks man.

Posted on: March 24, 2010 - 4:28pm #85

pmichael

Posts: 39

Joined: 2009-12-16

Offline

Adventfred wrote:kkk website

Adventfred wrote:

kkk website wrote:
There is a race war against whites. But our people - my white brothers and sisters - will stay committed to a non-violent resolution. That resolution must consist of solidarity in white communities around the world. The hatred for our children and their future is growing and is being fueled every single day. Stay firm in your convictions. Keep loving your heritage and keep witnessing to others that there is a better way than a war torn, violent, wicked, socialist, new world order. That way is the Christian way - law and order - love of family - love of nation. These are the principles of western Christian civilization. There is a war to destroy these things. Pray that our people see the error of their ways and regain a sense of loyalty. Repent America! Be faithful my fellow believers

Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America! A Message of Love NOT Hate!

Is that what you are getting from my posts? Ouch.

Posted on: March 24, 2010 - 6:04pm #86

Kapkao

Posts: 4121

Joined: 2010-01-12

Offline

pmichael wrote:Is that what

pmichael wrote:

Is that what you are getting from my posts? Ouch.

"A message of FEAR, not Integrity."

(at least... that's what I make of a HATE group that went from 4 million members in it's heyday to 15,000~ in recent times. *shrug*)

Posted on: March 25, 2010 - 3:08pm #87

pmichael

Posts: 39

Joined: 2009-12-16

Offline

Hate group?

Kapkao,

I'm not a part of any hate group. My message is not one of hate, but is one of integrity. And I have absolutely nothing to do with the KKK--please don't accuse me of that(there are probably a lot of things for which I am guilty that you can accuse me of. Smiling . Please hear what I am saying, and let me know if I have said anything hateful. If I have, I sincerely apologize.

Posted on: March 25, 2010 - 7:22pm #88

Kapkao

Posts: 4121

Joined: 2010-01-12

Offline

A clarification

pmichael wrote:

Kapkao,

I'm not a part of any hate group. My message is not one of hate, but is one of integrity. And I have absolutely nothing to do with the KKK--please don't accuse me of that(there are probably a lot of things for which I am guilty that you can accuse me of.. Please hear what I am saying, and let me know if I have said anything hateful. If I have, I sincerely apologize.

"More haste; less speed"

In my hasty attempt to finish a post, I forgot to indicate I was making a comment to Fred about the "Klu Klux Klan" (and how highly irrational it is, as an organization), as well as your confusion on the subject.

One that note, I'd like to point out the ridiculously dark comedy that is so easily found in the history of a violent hate groups like the KKK (much of which is either too irrelevant or too graphic to share here) ..such organizations stumble over themselves, quite often.

Posted on: March 26, 2010 - 10:06am #89

pmichael

Posts: 39

Joined: 2009-12-16

Offline

Kapkao wrote:"More haste;

Kapkao wrote:

"More haste; less speed"
In my hasty attempt to finish a post, I forgot to indicate I was making a comment to Fred about the "Klu Klux Klan" (and how highly irrational it is, as an organization), as well as your confusion on the subject.

One that note, I'd like to point out the ridiculously dark comedy that is so easily found in the history of a violent hate groups like the KKK (much of which is either too irrelevant or too graphic to share here) ..such organizations stumble over themselves, quite often.

Man, I appreciate the clarification, and, as I said, I hope I have been nothing but respectful. I think groups like that are also irrational. I can appreciate the irony that you probably find in this right now, based on the fact that you know where I stand on other things. Thanks.

Posted on: March 26, 2010 - 1:12pm #90

Kapkao

Posts: 4121

Joined: 2010-01-12

Offline

pmichael wrote:Man, I

pmichael wrote:

Man, I appreciate the clarification, and, as I said, I hope I have been nothing but respectful. I think groups like that are also irrational. I can appreciate the irony that you probably find in this right now, based on the fact that you know where I stand on other things. Thanks.

I simply observe things to the best of my ability...