andrew

Tuesday 23rd February 2010 | 08:43 PM

how can one person hold so much power of people?

Rodney

Tuesday 23rd February 2010 | 09:25 PM

Ok, anyone who can beat a child to death, over a sustained period, should never be allowed out of prison. Killing someone is bad. Killing a child is terrible. But killing a child, through a sustained process of beating? That's not even "an accident" - that's something that took time and indicates neither parent attempted to stop it. I just cannot understand this.

Jim

Tuesday 23rd February 2010 | 11:30 PM

Best line from the source: "As it turns out, the children might have been better off remaining in that lawless African shithole..." Though what word prompted this beating?

Tyler V

Wednesday 24th February 2010 | 12:03 AM

Yeah, thats disgusting. Evil. Pure and simple.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Wednesday 24th February 2010 | 08:18 AM

Hi Mikey, as much as you say we can 'take solace', I just don't think we can.

These cases where religion is used to brow-beat children into monsters or worse, to death, is not isolated.

While I can't remeber a case like this from Judaism, there are huge numbers from Christianity, from Hinduism, Islam, plenty from scientology...

These people obviously had psychopathic tendencies, but it still illustrates yet another way where religion can be used for evil. I'm still yet to find a way where religion can be used for good.

Tyler V

Wednesday 24th February 2010 | 10:39 AM

Well while we're pointing fingers at the crimes of worldview, lets bring up the following:

Stalin's Russia - estimated death toll between 20-100 million
Mao's China - estimated death toll around 40 million
Cambodia's Khmer Rouge - estimated death toll around 1.65 million

Not to mention smaller leaders like Hoxha, Castro, Cruschev and others who may not have genocide in the millions, but definitely brutalized, tortured and ruled their countries with a totalitarian flare that would have made Nero fiddle the night away.

Whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

The problem is not religion or even atheism if we are being honest for both can be held sincerely by very good and virtuous people. The problem is when they are hamstringed by ideologues.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Wednesday 24th February 2010 | 11:08 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Weak, Stalin was endorsed by the Orthodox church and created a quasi-religion. Mao was just another Chinese ruller who wiped out millions in his pursuits to 'unify China', he did what so many other Chinese empirors and rulers did before him. (I notice you didn't cite Hitler).

As you say, the problem is not atheism. I do disagree that the problem is not religion, though. Religion is used as a medium to pacify, it is used as a medium to rally and it is used as a medium to segregate/differentiate.

While genocide may indeed not be caused on the basis of religion, it most certainly a powerful medium used to rally stupid people to commit abhorrent acts. Furthermore, while you're distracting us with Pol Pot and other d*ckheads throughout history, the Crusades and the Inquisition will never stray too far from our minds.

Tyler V

Wednesday 24th February 2010 | 01:16 PM

Jake, your history is again as poor as your reasoning. Their communism was not just incidental to their actions. There were the cause. Not all atheists are communist, but all communism entails atheism.

So according to you, when atheism is involved, then its not the problem, its social issues, government, "just another chinese ruler" etc. but when its religion, its only religion.

How you dont see your blind faith is beyond me.


And the crusades and inquisition were bad, but if we are comparing body counts, there is no contest to the crimes of atheism in the 20th century (which, while shocking was not surprising since it was predicted by Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky.) How many died in the crusades? Well we dont know, but considering the level of body counts during that age of warfare was much lower we can guess over the centuries that they lasted it was around 1.5 million on all sides (which we should note that the crusades is a mixed bag of religion, politics, empirialism, etc.). What about the Inquisition? Well it lasted for a little over 300 years. So how many died? Again we dont know exact numbers, but leading scholars on the issue like Kamen and Borromeo is around 2000 to 2500. Which averages to about 6 per year. Now, is that 6 per year too many? sure. But it barely tips the scales of the death tolls of the crimes perpetrated by the secular governments of Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Hoxha's Albania, Castro's Cuba, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot and many others. And the worst part is that the crimes of the church seem to be historically bound and non-repeatable. What are the chances of the inquisition coming to New York for example? But we are in the same modern age as all of the crimes of the secular state and are still in imminent danger of them.

Weinburg's famous quote ""for good people to do evil things, that takes religion", while touted as a cheeky one liner by the new atheists is sadly misinformed. Berlinski, a secular Jew, poses this important question to him:

"Just WHO has imposed on the suffering human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery, psuedo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs, attack submarines, napalm, intercontinental ballistic missiles, military space platforms, and nuclear weapons? If memory serves, it was not the Vatican."

We have all heard the story of the Jew during the early days of the German advance into Eastern Europe, while digging his own grave, right before being shot and falling into it, shouted, "God is watching what you are doing." Then he was shot dead.

What Hitler did NOT believe and what Stalin did NOT believe and what Mao did NOT believe and what the SS did NOT believe and what the Gestapo did NOT believe and what the NKVD did NOT believe and what the commissars, functionaries, executioners, Nazi doctors and eugenticists, Communist party theoreticians, intellectuals, Brown Shirts, Black Shirts, gauleiters, and all who willingly kill another do NOT believe is that God is watching what they are doing. As Berlinski notes, "as far as we can tell, very few of those carrying out the horrors of the 20th century worried overmuch that God was watching what they were doing. THAT AFTER ALL IS THE MEANING OF A SECULAR SOCIETY."

He continues, "Hitler's Germany was a technologically sophisticated secular society, and Nazism itself, as party propagandists never tired of stressing, was 'motivated by an ethic that prided itself on being scientific.'...A generation of German biologists had read Darwin and concluded that competition between species was reflected in human affairs by competition between races."


So put to the crusades and the inquisition. The problem that you will have is that in arguing in this ad hominem manner (for really the actions of those who ascribe to a worldview have no bearing on its truth) you actually allow the nose of the camel in the tent, not realizing that the rest of the body will soon follow. If the crimes of religion are allowed, the crimes of atheism and secularism are also allowed and they FAR outweigh the religious ones.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Wednesday 24th February 2010 | 01:54 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. You have a very subjective recollection of history, Tyler. Are you also a holocaust denyer?

This is off topic Tyler and there is no point in arguing with one who is willing to fabricate facts in order to push a point.

Papa

Wednesday 24th February 2010 | 06:25 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. "there is no contest to the crimes of atheism in the 20th century"

Except "atheism" does not uphold a set of moral values based on a canonical text. They do not have conflicting moral values like christians do. For instance this christian family beat their kids to death, after going to church and hearing about how God so loved the world, and love thy neighbor, etc etc. Since atheists cannot revert back to a superstitious book that was written by god, and they do not believe they are pleasing some extraterrestrial being, they are not in contrary when performing such despicable acts.

Christians call themselves chosen, speak of love and Jesus and then kill, burn and steal (crusades). While atheists are quite open to the fact that they are killing and stealing (Stalin, Hitler), and have no reason to put up a false religious barrier for others to see.

The russian church was for the most apart against the idea of communism but not for humanitarian reasons. However Sergii Bulgakov was made the patriarch of Russian after the out break of World War 2, and he very much supported the idea of Marxism. However Stalin closed many churches during Communist Russia, and Sergii was eventually exiled due to his radical beliefs about what he termed sophiology. But I am sure you already knew that right Tyler?

Tyler V

Thursday 25th February 2010 | 04:34 AM

Jake, I always find your positions so odd. You try so hard to be rational, and yet you never actually deal with any of the arguments. You just try to dismiss them wholesale. WHY is my “recollection of history” subjective? You also accuse me of fabricating facts. Tell me what facts I fabricated?

And what would make you think I am a holocaust survivor since I am the one who is arguing that it was OBJECTIVELY an evil act.

Papa,

You are actually precisely right. For once we fully agree. Atheism does not uphold a set of values based on a canonical text. They in fact do not uphold a set of values. And you are right when you say “they are not in contrary when performing such despicable acts.” But I don’t think you realize that you just lost the whole argument. How?

When a Christian sins, say these horrible people who beat their child to death for mispronouncing a word. What can we say? We can say that they are being INCONSISTENT with their religion, i.e. their religion teaches love, forgiveness, mercy, forgiveness, righteousness, etc. but they acted against what their religion taught. We can say they were wrong precisely because the violated even their own religions standards! We can look at the crusades and the inquisition and the Salem witch hunts, etc. and say “that is not what Christianity teaches!” In fact it has always been a Christian tenet that when we sin, we sin against God AND man, we violate God’s standard and ours.

But what can we say to the atheist who does evil? Exactly what you just said, they ARENT inconsistent with their own worldview when they do evil. They did exactly what was allowed by their worldview! As Dostoyevsky noted, “If there is no God, everything is permitted.”
So when a Christian does evil it is OUTSIDE what is permitted by their worldview. When an atheist does evil it is completely inline with their worldview. When a Christian does evil it is IN SPITE of their religion; when an Atheist does evil it is harmony with theirs. Only a person with no moral conscience could ever say the latter is preferable to the former.

Oh, and your summation of the Bulgakov incident (while actually totally irrelevant to anything we’re talking about) also shows that you have no clue what you are talking about.

1st – when was he exiled? You say that he was made Patriarch of Russia after the outbreak of WW2. Well seeing as how he lived in Paris from 1925 until his death in 1944, that would seem an impossible task.

2nd – You say he “very much supported the idea of Marxism.” We actually know from his writings that while he was interested in Marxism during his Seminary days, he actually became convinced that it was an impotent political theory and then by studying Dostoyevsky, and reading and debating with Tolstoy and others he regained his faith. In fact he even wrote a book in 1903 called “From Marxism to Idealism” in which he recounts his dismissal of Marxism!

3rd – you say he was exiled for his radical belief in Sophianism. While their was some controversy within the Russian Orthdox Church about his views, he was never excommunicated, condemned, or even found guilty of heresy. The case was never resolved. Even if it was, the even more glaring inconsistency with your summation is that it was not the church who exiled him, but the Bolshevik government did when they expelled over 120 intellectuals that they saw as a threat to their Marxism! Why was he expelled? It wasn’t for any religious belief but because he was a threat to Marxism.

4th – this has nothing to do with anything that we are talking about! Unless you are trying to prove that when the Bolsheviks were persecuting Christians (and anyone else who disagreed with them) that they were doing so completely in keeping with their worldview. In other words, they were right to act wickedly! Is that really what you mean?

Papa

Thursday 25th February 2010 | 05:46 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Here we go, arguing meaningless points. I'll be brief...

" when was he exiled? You say that he was made Patriarch of Russia after the outbreak of WW2. Well seeing as how he lived in Paris from 1925 until his death in 1944, that would seem an impossible task."

I was speaking of a different Sergius that I mixed up with Bulgakov. Thats what I get for not being in school for almost a year.

Florovsky did not label Bulgakov’s ideas on sophiology heretical (persay) but a brief reading of the churches responses suggests other wise. He and Bulgakov had tension not only about his theological constructions but concerning inter-communion. Bulgakov wanted to have communion with Anglican Christians, but Florovsky was a part of the position against the move.

I don't exactly have my sources for the USSR and Russian Orthodox Church relations, but Bulgakov was expelled from Russia, maybe your definition of exiled is too specific to church relations. Maybe my definite reason was not entirely accurate, but the church certainly did not object to his expulsion from the country.

Interestingly enough, Bulgakov first began to develop his sophiology via the study of economics. In his work entitled “The Philosophy of Economy”, Bulgakov ascribes to Sophia a very teleological role. In it he described Sophia as directing history with her creative energy, giving the course of history meaning and purpose. He writes of Sophia: “This higher guidance is what prevents life from being only a war of all against all, an animal struggle for survival.” His Marxist's ideas can be seen in plain day all over his idea of sophiology. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you...

Tyler V

Thursday 25th February 2010 | 06:14 AM

Papa, notice first that you say nothing to any of my real objection to your statements. If you are right, and for once we agree, the when a Christian is evil, it is in spite of his worldview, when Atheists or secularists or materialists do it is in complete harmony with it. And the funny thing is, that I didn’t have to make that point. You made it. I am just making its ramifications clearer.

Now, to Bulgakov. Again. Not really sure how this theologian and his biography are in any way important to the discussion. But I’ll humor you.

You say that the church did not label Bolgakov’s sophiology as heresy “persay” but that reading Florosvsky’s writing suggest otherwise. But what the church does not declare to be a heresy, no matter how much it disagrees, there is no suggesting otherwise. That is like saying that abortion in the US might be legal, but if you read the writing of Senator P, it would suggest otherwise. A heresy is something that is contrary to a fundamental Christian doctrine and is thus universally condemned by the church. Thus Arianism is a heresy of Christianity, but Arminianism, while heavily disputed in many areas, is not. Pelagianism is a heresy, but prevenient grace is not. Sabellianism is a heresy, but, apparently, Sophianism is not.

This also applies to ecumenical views like Bulgakov’s desire for interdoniminational communion. They may have disagreed, but disagreement alone does not make heresy.

And my definition of “expelled” is not a church relations term. He was expelled, exiled from Russia, by the Russian government, for Russian political reasons. It was because of his rejection of Marxism that he was kicked out. It had nothing to do with church. It had everything to do with state. You then say that the Russian Orthodox Church was glad to see him go. But completely miss that he was still a constant theological voice in the church, he taught at a Russian Orthodox seminary and even helped to found a new Russian Orthodox seminary, all while in exile.

And you still try to say that you can see his “Marxist ideas” as “plain day” when he wasn’t even a Marxist and was kicked out of Russia because he was vocally opposed to it!

Again, not only do you make a mountain out of a mole hill, but you call a mole hill an ant hill. You not only get the facts of history wrong, you clearly get the implications of it wrong as well.

But again, I’m still not even sure what this guy has to do with anything. All it shows us is that when the Bolsheviks kicked him out and were intolerant of anyone who disagreed with them, that were acting in harmony with, and not in spite of their worldview.

Papa

Thursday 25th February 2010 | 06:56 AM

"They did exactly what was allowed by their worldview!... when an Atheist does evil it is harmony with theirs..."

Every atheist believes he or she should kill thousands of people? Every Atheist supports people like Stalin? Hitler? Your assumption is that because atheists do not hold up a moral code that is based on a ancient document, they all believe that killing and plundering is completely reasonable and should be implemented?

You equated Atheism with Evil, I wasn't aware that atheism was in such "harmony" with evil. While most christians believe this, I thought more of you Mr. Tyler!

Tyler V

Thursday 25th February 2010 | 07:10 AM

I never said that every atheist believe he or she SHOULD kill thousands of people, but even on your own admission, "Since atheists cannot revert back to a superstitious book that was written by god, and they do not believe they are pleasing some extraterrestrial being, they are not in contrary when performing such despicable acts." Exactly. When a Christian is evil, it is CONTRARY to their religion. When an atheist is evil, it is NOT contrary with their worldview, but rather in harmony with it. If there is no God, everything is permitted. Does it mean that all atheists are dictatorial, homicidal maniacs? No, just means the ones who are that way, are because of their worldview, not in spite of it because atheism cannot say otherwise.

I never equated atheism with evil as if they were synonymous. I merely said that since atheism can call nothing evil, evil is not contradictory to it like it is to theism.

Again you grossly misunderstand the argument.

Papa

Thursday 25th February 2010 | 08:06 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. "When an atheist is evil, it is NOT contrary with their worldview, but rather in harmony with it."

What exactly is killing in harmony with?

Trent Greguhn

Thursday 25th February 2010 | 08:48 AM

"If there is no God, everything is permitted."

If there is God everything is still permitted, just with different reasoning.

I'd like to point out Pat Robertson's comment about the Haitian people bringing on the earthquake themselves by signing a pact with the devil. This is a man who believes in God. And we'd both say that he is being contrary to his Christian worldview. We'd both call him evil.

But how is it Tyler that I can call him evil and make that distinction without believing in God? I am unable to say what's good and evil if I do not believe in a God? This is highly offensive.

"Is there another telephone number that's associated with your account?"

So my humanistic world view does not allow me to make a distinction between good and evil?

Tyler V

Thursday 25th February 2010 | 10:00 AM

Papa,

According to you, atheism has no set morals to violate. Thus is an atheist commits evil, they are not in violation of their own worldview. A Christian can act inconsistently with their own worldview. We can say that the Nazi's who may have been Christian acted AGAINST their Christianity when they killed Jews. But what can we say against an atheist like Stalin who kills nearly 100 million people? He has not violated his own worldview. He is consistent with his worldview.

Trent,

Sorry, but no. If there is a God, only things that are good are permitted, that is, obligatory. Again, obligation does not mean force. So while evil is allowed, it is not permitted. That is like saying that just because people break the law, that the US permits all actions. We know that the US government does not permit theft, murder, battery, assault, liable, etc. If there is no God, then there is no authority to make morality obligatory and thus no standard and all actions are permissible.

And how is that you call Pat Robertson evil? Well, because you dont actually believe in moral relativism. You believe that he was objectively wrong to say what he said and that he was evil. Again, we may disagree where the line goes (thats the purpose of moral debate) but thisi s a good example that you dont walk the walk. You profess relativism, but you practice objectivism. And your practice reveals your heart.

I think you may have pasted the wrong thing... i dontk now what the phone number quote is from or what you were trying to say by it.

But does your humanistic worldview allow you to make distinctions between good and evil? Well, now i'm confused. I thought you said that there was no such thing as good and evil? That Hitler was good in his own context. Now you want to be able to say things are good and evil?

And to be honest, no. A humanistic worldview cannot base objective real morality. It can only base subjective illusory morality which really is just preference.

Think of it like a lock on the door. If I am the standard of my morality, then I am the one who locks myself in from the inside. But I am not really locked in. I have the power, and the authority to free myself. A self-imposed prison is not a prison.

In fact, we in democratic nations often use this very objection when we oppose dicatorships and monarchies. We recognize that if the dictator makes the rules, that he is not obliged to follow the rules himself. Think of Judge Dredd, "I AM THE LAW!" If I am responsible for making the rules, I can change them at any moment I see fit or believe it would be beneficial or pleasurable.

Thus if I am the standard of my morality, stealing is immoral...until I no longer want it to be. I prefer not to steal... usually, but I am not really obliged not to steal.

So no, a humanistic worldview cannot account for morality - you ability to distinguish between good and evil, because it has no such thing. A valueless world can produce no values.

Papa

Thursday 25th February 2010 | 06:03 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. You constantly accuse me of not responding accordingly to your questions... so I will ask it in a more specific manner.

"When an atheist is evil, it is NOT contrary with their worldview, but rather in harmony with it."

What exactly is killing in harmony with? Or to be more exact, since you say "He has not violated his own worldview. He is consistent with his worldview." It assumed that if one is an atheist than he is conforming to his or her "worldview" hence, he or she is evil in your paradigm. I am only using what you give me, and according to you...

Atheists conform to the secular world view and if they commit an evil act, it is congruent with their worldview and atheists believe in this worlview... hence atheists are evil. Pretty simple to me... Damnit Jake, Your evil! I should have seen this all along! Going to pray to Sophia for guidance...

aries

Thursday 25th February 2010 | 10:51 PM

...in response to this comment by Trent Greguhn. "Is there another telephone number that's associated with your account?"

Trent, are you planning on calling GOD on Tyler's HOTLINE? ( He clearly has one!!! )

1800-I'M-GOD'S-BITCH

Just kidding Tyler, it's a joke. I trust you can still laugh at yourself?

:)))

Tyler V

Friday 26th February 2010 | 03:58 AM

Papa,

You ask me what killing is in harmony with? I have answered this question several ways for you. When a Christian acts wickedly, we can look at their worldview and say “Your worldview says that there are objective morals and you should not have done what you did. It was wrong and you need to make it right.” So they are in discord with their worldview. But when an atheist kills someone one, what can we say. “Your worldview says that there are no objective morals… so… well… you didn’t actually do anything wrong.” They don’t act contrary to their worldview because there is no such things as immorality in their worldview. This is EXACTLY what Dostoyevsky meant by “If there is no God, everything is permissible.” In fact YOU said almost the same thing. When talking about when an atheist does something evil (like Stalin killing tens of millions), you said, “they are not in contrary when performing such despicable acts.” So I am actually AGREEING with you. Atheists aren’t contradicting their worldview when the perform despicable acts! Thsu, they are in line with their worldview! It doesn’t mean all atheists will constantly do commit murder or become little Stalins, but it does mean that WHEN they are immoral, it is in harmony with their worldview, rather than in spite of it.

And I’m sorry, but I would much rather have a worldview that is in discord with evil than one that is in harmony with it. So I don’t think that you realize that what you said actually works against you.

aries

Friday 26th February 2010 | 08:32 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. But is all counts for nothing Tyler.

God or no God, worldview or no worldview, christians sin, break the law, cheat on their wives and kill every single day.

How can u be so blind as to think God is in any way keeping anyone to a moral code?

If someone has it in them to do any of these 'evil' things, they can and will do it regardless of religions and worldviews.

History proves this to be fact...

Tyler V

Friday 26th February 2010 | 10:18 AM

Aries, you;re wrong. Christians dont sin. ALL people sin. Christians, atheists, hindus, agnostics. ALL people sin. And youre right. If someone wants to do evil, they will do evil.

But that is not an excuse. Thats like saying, "just because all of the criminals in prison are criminals, then they should all go free."

Papa

Friday 26th February 2010 | 10:42 AM

"They don’t act contrary to their worldview because there is no such things as immorality in their worldview."

And then you say...

"I would much rather have a worldview that is(I am going to assume you meant "isn't") in discord with evil than one that is in harmony with it."

So which is it? Does their worldview have no morality? Or is it evil? Or is having no morality evil?

Tyler V

Friday 26th February 2010 | 10:45 AM

Papa,

yeah, typo. i mean isnt. I would much rather a worldview that when someone does evil it is called out as such, then one that allows the holocaust as just a difference of preference.

aries

Friday 26th February 2010 | 10:54 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. I didn't say anywhere in my post that Christians are the only ones that sin. What I am illustrating is that Christians can and do sin every day, they always have and they always will so it renders your argument about God providing any sort of moral code pointless and moot!

Papa

Friday 26th February 2010 | 10:55 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Okay, well thats different than your statements above. Above your strictly outlined a secular worldview as "evil". It can be plainly seen, I hope your not going to argue that. And if that is believed than, one who is not in a body of christ is seen as evil due to their "worldview" of no morality.

Tyler V

Saturday 27th February 2010 | 03:48 AM

Papa. thats actually NOT different than any of my statements above. You just didnt understand any of my statements above. But you still face the problem that you just admitted (and agreed to?) everything that I have been saying, that only if God exists does morality exist. Even according to you, evil is not contradictory to the atheistic worldview because there is no standard of good/bad. Thus if God is not, all things are permissable.

Thanks for conceding the point ;)

Papa

Saturday 27th February 2010 | 06:34 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Either way, you contend that the secular world-view is in cahoots with evil. If someone has a world-view that is "evil" does that make the individual evil? Or do they only have to a member of the body of christ for you not to label them "secula" and hence "evil"?

Tyler V

Sunday 28th February 2010 | 02:24 PM

Ah, Papa, still misreading. Will it ever stop? I never said the worldview was evil. In fact i explicitly said that in the worldview than can be no good or evil, no right or wrong. So the atheist or secularist who does "evil" actually just did something that we dont prefer, but they didnt really do anything wrong. We prefer people not to be like Hitler, but hey, let by-gones be by-gones right? When they kill someone they arent contradicting their worldview like the theist is when they do evil. They arent violating it. It is allowed in their worldview. Without God, all things are permissible.

WanderingOne

Saturday 6th March 2010 | 04:04 AM

The more I read about this story the more my heart breaks. This is so awful. I just want to cry every time I read something new.
I am glad more and more people are speaking out about this.
I just wanted to point everyone to an excellent response to Pearl’s awful “laughter” that Vyckie Garrison at No Longer Quivering has written.
http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/03/03/no-laughing-matter-michael-pearls-callous-response-to-critics/#more-4517

Papa

Saturday 6th March 2010 | 10:44 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. "In fact i explicitly said that in the worldview than can be no good or evil, no right or wrong."

Sure, in the secular world. But to you, the one who has solid, true, grounded morality in God. You can classify what is evil and good. And since you say...

"Atheists aren’t contradicting their worldview when the perform despicable acts! Thsu, they are in line with their worldview!"

"But what can we say against an atheist like Stalin who kills nearly 100 million people? He has not violated his own worldview. He is consistent with his worldview."

"When a Christian is evil, it is CONTRARY to their religion. When an atheist is evil, it is NOT contrary with their worldview, but rather in harmony with it."

So performing despicable acts is strictly in line with the atheistic world view.

Three part question for you.

1. If performing despicable acts is line with the Atheistic worldview, is performing acts that you would perseve as mercy, or justice be in line with it also?

2. Which is worse, Someone performing an act that you would define as "despicable" in the atheistic world because according to you they are in line with it. Or someone performing a "despicable" act, after publicly displaying their allegiance to a infinite being and vowing to adhere and uphold his teachings. And after taking that vow, they then consider the option of not performing this act, knowing that is "wrong" and "un-moral" and still decide to do it anyway.

3. Since your morality is true and sound with the omniscient being. Is us (secularists) having no morality evil to your god?

Tyler V

Saturday 6th March 2010 | 02:20 PM

Papa,

You STIIL miss the point.

1. Evil acts are in accord with the atheistic worldview because that worldview says that there is no such thing as evil. There is no such thing as objective good or bad. Only the will to power. Might makes right. So evil and good are both in harmony with atheism because NEITHER exist in a secular worldview. The point is that in an atheistic worldview, Hitler wasn’t evil. He didn’t even do anything wrong.

2. The question is invalid. Because its asking what is “worse” by comparing an objective standard to a nonexistent one. As we said, there is no such thing as “despicable” or bad or wrong in an atheistic worldview. The point is that these kind of evaluations are only POSSIBLE in a theistic world. So no matter how I answer it proves the theistic worldview. To answer which one is OBJECTIVELY better or worse is to show that there is an OBJECTIVE standard and thus that the theistic world is the true world. So just by you asking the question, you already presuppose the correctness of the theistic worldview. So thanks for that. 

3. Secularists don’t have no morality. They DO have a morality even if you deny it. You still act on it, and expect others to act on it. But yes, you are fugatives from the moral law. Basically committing treason on the human nature.

Papa

Sunday 7th March 2010 | 04:39 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. "The question is invalid. Because its asking what is “worse” by comparing an objective standard to a nonexistent one."

Humor me, just give me your opinion.

"They DO have a morality even if you deny it."

Where did I propose that those who are not a part of a body of people that worships an omniscent being have no morality? You seem to not take my view points very clearly when you answer my questions. I believe morality is a word created by man to classify and discern certain acts of other men and women. You believe it is a giant man in the sky telling you what to do and how to think, and I'm the one who is "STIIL miss(ing) the point."

Tyler V

Sunday 7th March 2010 | 10:19 AM

I dont have to humor you. That's like me asking you "Humor me, what does a square-circle look like?"

Your definition of morality as " a word created by man to classify and discern certain acts of other men and women" relegates "morality" to a linguistic construct of a non-existent thing. Thus your definition means that morality doesnt exist. So when I point out that your position is that there is no such thing as morality, I am quite correctly taking your position to its logical end.

Yes I believe there is a moral law giver. Your position is that morality isnt real and yet defines how all of us act. So in your attempt to say that Christians are foolish for believing that God gives moral laws, you end up having something that you KNOWINGLY let a fake entity determine your actions. So lemme ask you to humor me. What is worse? Honestly believing that there is a moral law giver and being wrong (if Christians are in fact wrong and God doesnt exist) or KNOWING that there is no moral law and still imposing it upon yourself? Thats like saying that God cant rule you but the boogy man or a pink unicorn can.

Papa

Sunday 7th March 2010 | 11:25 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. "So in your attempt to say that Christians are foolish for believing that God gives moral laws, you end up having something that you KNOWINGLY let a fake entity determine your actions."

Your short sighted ability really amazes me. Lets keep it simple so you can't clutter this one up as well.

I do believe that Christians are silly, because they believe morality is an logical standard in the universe. Since I believe morality to be a human made construction to classify certain actions, I therefore believe that what I do in my life is either "moral" or "unmoral" to my own standards, according only to my own definition of such word. I let my "conscience" determine my choices. Where did my conscience come from? A vast amount of variables and experiences has shaped this idea. But of course you accuse me of "confusing" the conversation and speak of sociology, and I accuse you of not being able to open your mind to any possibility other than your own fundamentalist (this is how god is and you're all going to hell during the rapture) view.

Anyways, Even the construction of "right" and "wrong" is a human perception. You believe that when God created the universe he created concepts and ideas with the universe, such as morality, or any number of things. What if god does not preserve these concepts and ideas the same way we do? You can turn back to your ancient document that is completely unreliable if you like to prove your point. But it is again your primitive mind attempting to pack the entire universe and god into the back of your head so you can sleep and feel comfortable at night.

Good luck with that, but then again there will always be something in your head that bothers you about all those assumptions and blatantly fundamentalist statements you make about God and the universe. And you will always end up here, arguing your points to the world, continuing to assure yourself that you are right and that god is on your side. I tell you what, why don't you pray to God tonight. And ask yourself as well as God why you post on this forum... And let us know what he says...

Tyler V

Sunday 7th March 2010 | 11:34 AM

Ha, Im not short sided. Its YOUR position that and imaginary moral rules your actions even though you KNOW no such moral rules exist. Ha, that’s YOUR position, not mine.

So you then appeal to your conscience. Are we obliged to obey our conscience? Basically you are arguing for a self imposed prison. But that’s not a real prison. There is no reason for following your conscience if you are also the author and judge of your own conscience any more than you are obliged to stay locked in a room that you have locked yourself in from the inside.

And I have NEVER “turned back to [an] ancient document” in these threads to base morality. Again, all you show is that you are so stuck in struggle with fundamentalists that you are unable to even understand the Christian argument when they aren’t fundies.

So you position leads to NO morality except what you prefer. So tell me, why should you obey you conscience? Why should some guy rape your wife? So how about you be brave and actually be consistent with your worldview and live a life with no morality what so ever. See how far that gets you.

Papa

Sunday 7th March 2010 | 11:50 AM

Tyler: "There is no reason for following your conscience if you are also the author and judge of your own conscience..."

Papa: "Where did my conscience come from? A vast amount of variables and experiences has shaped this idea. But of course you accuse me of "confusing" the conversation and speak of sociology,"

Never said I shaped my conscience but nice try.

"And I have NEVER “turned back to [an] ancient document” in these threads to base morality."

Oh thats right, you think its the inherent teachings of your Lord God, but you don't ever use it base your morality. Got it.

Did God answer back yet? I hear if you pray to Mary she speeds up the process.

Tyler V

Sunday 7th March 2010 | 12:40 PM

Papa,

So culture and experience create your conscience. What shaped your view that you ought to obey your conscience?

Papa

Sunday 7th March 2010 | 01:38 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. I'll answer your question later...

But I am still curious to what your purpose of posting on this forum is. And what your god has to say about it...

Tyler V

Sunday 7th March 2010 | 01:54 PM

Why do you care what my purposes are? And you dont believe in "my" God so why should you care what he says about it if you dont even think he exists?

Papa

Sunday 7th March 2010 | 03:18 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Weird. As much as you rant on this forum about his existence and your own atheist to theist journey, you can't even tell us what your god says. Either not a very strong believer, or not a very communicative god... Post later, but keep praying tyler. I am sure he will respond sooner or later, actually... probably not, but keep trying...

Tyler V

Sunday 7th March 2010 | 05:06 PM

Yeah, so weird that I am not going to speculate about God's view on Rustylime... crazy I know. (read subtext: Papa is irritated that I dont make vain speculations about pointless questions so as to make myself open to his ridicule. Although I would put good money that he will, per usual, rant a little more, insult me personally some how and make some vague Rovism where he presupposes the falsehood of theism in order to insult it. With odds like this, who needs the lottery!)

Papa

Sunday 7th March 2010 | 08:43 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Typically christians have a few goals in life. One being to convert other to their cause, to "save" man kind from their inherently sinful ways and to bring more people to the one true god, the father the son and the holy spirit. And to serve that god...

However, I can say with out a doubt that your presence on this forum has pushed every regular posting member farther away from any possibility of believing in your christian god. Your a shining example to almost everyone on this forum of exactly who we do not want to be, or the reason why we left the faith.

I believe its ironic, you are so sure of your own beliefs and that we "atheists" as you call me most particularly, are completely wrong. And yet you come back to this forum and continue to show us with every post of exactly why we are not theists.

But again, you can't even answer one simple question. I asked what were your reasons of posting on this forum, you neglected to answer. I asked you to pray to your "god" and see what he responded with. You neglected to answer that as well.

Ironic, simply because christians are supposed to help spread the belief, not help people dis-believe in it. Now tell me this, since your morality is based in the one true god, and we have no morality. Do you believe it is moral to help and persuade people not to believe in God? Because thats what you do with every post you make... And if you can't answer that, well... Maybe you should pray about it... ;)

Tyler V

Monday 8th March 2010 | 12:45 AM

Again, since I'm not acting like the normal fundamentalist, that frustrates you. You would rather me be meek and mild and just lay down and let you push us theists around. What point would there be in trying to convince you of the gospel and your need of salvation when your LOOKING for excuses to hate God more (2nd capital kurious in Matthew and that "fool" and "hypocrite" are the same thing in Matt. 5 and 22, etc.). You invent ways of hating God. So you want me to come in here like Gina and just cite Scripture to you and tell you Jesus loves you only to be bashed for arguing like every other fundamentalist?

Even in the fact that your mad that I dont debate like how you wish Christian's debated (uneducated and based on experience and blind faith) so as to make your rebellion easier. There is Peter and the Ethiopian, but there is also Paul and the Atheneans. I'm more of the latter.

And I show why you are not theists? Because you are vitriolic, irrational (nothing can come from nothing), inconsistent (subjective morals and objective morals) and often will bash Christians by being hypocrites and performing the very same actions? Youre not theists because of the presuppositions of your own worldview and your whole being is determined to be autonomous with no king to bow a knee to, or judge to answer to. Youre like Sadaam who cursed the authority of the court presiding over him, but it was futile because the court was already presiding over him. You waive a fist in the air and curse the skies hoping it will make you free.

Clay does hate the warmth of the sunlight.

It is also interesting when you say what Christians are supposed to do. Ok, atheists are supposed to give all of their money to the churches and become the free labor for all Christian endeavors. Does me saying that make it so?

Apparently you are more influenced by modern culture's meek and mild Jesus more than the God of the Bible. Tell me, why did Jesus speak in parables?

Your not so veiled attempt to try and get me to somehow feel guilty in order to stop posting and stop being a thorn in your side, while cleaver (sort of), is also not going to work. I do pray. I pray for each one of you. I pray every day that as I poke holes in your worldviews and presuppositions that you will see their inconsistencies and abandon them. That when you are resorting to denying causality, uniformity, laws of nature and logic, real moral obligation, the only basis for human rights and justice, and even the human decency of not skewing facts to propagandize another people group, that your conscience will finally realize how far you have you stooped and to what beliefs you have come to blindly hold in order to maintain a shred of true autonomy.

But alas, as Lewis said, the doors of hell are locked from the inside. And I'll add, with shouts of vitriol still berating those in heaven. You try to blame me for driving you deeper into your unbelief. Well I can thank you for driving me deeper in mine. I've seen where my mind would have to degenerate if I abandoned the basis for logic, laws, uniformity, causality, and morality. And its not pretty.

Papa

Monday 8th March 2010 | 06:29 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. "that frustrates you."

Frustration is hardly the emotion I would assign to myself when I respond to your posts, more like amusement.

"let you push us theists around."

So now your the poor and oppressed theist? Come on Tyler...

"You invent ways of hating God."

We hate God? How can we "atheists" as you most frequently call us, hate something we don't think exists? I believe the correct terminology would be that we dislike organized religion.

"So you want me to come in here like Gina..."

She has a better understanding of the scriptures than you do Tyler. Seriously, I have only been posting on this forum for a few years and I can say that without a doubt. She does not believe in inerrancy of the text, she removes man made ideas of the trinity and forms her theology by reading the bible. Not forming the bible around hers...

"Even in the fact that your mad that I dont debate like how you wish Christian's debated..."

Mad? Again hardly the emotion I would apply.... And wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one gets full faster.

"as to make your rebellion easier"

What are we rebelling from again, exactly?

"Youre not theists because of the presuppositions of your own worldview and your whole being is determined to be autonomous with no king to bow a knee to, or judge to answer to."

Summing up why everyone on this forum is not a theist is ignorant Tyler, come on you have better sense than that. Well shit, I guess not...

"It is also interesting when you say what Christians are supposed to do. "

Ask every single christian denomination on the face of the planet if spreading christianity is important. I think that one answered itself...

"Tell me, why did Jesus speak in parables?"

I don't know, maybe he never spoke any of the parables and they were written down decades later. What ever happened to the Jesus saying's document?

"Your not so veiled attempt to try and get me to somehow feel guilty in order to stop posting and stop being a thorn in your side"

You think too highly of yourself tyler. This forum is not my life, I post on here to relax. The very fact that you think I was attempting to make you feel guilty means something...

"I pray for each one of you. I pray every day that as I poke holes in your worldviews and presuppositions that you will see their inconsistencies and abandon them."

Well thanks for praying Tyler, and thanks for poking holes in my worldview. But you haven't done any of that. Well maybe the praying thing, but the holes that you preserve are in your head. Because I have not seen any such holes you speak of...

"and even the human decency of not skewing facts to propagandize another people group, "

But even you have done that in the past Tyler. You told me at one point that we can know to within some 95% accuracy, what the very originals of the biblical manuscripts look like. Thats not even skewing facts, that just lying and inventing them.

"your conscience will finally realize how far you have you stooped and to what beliefs you have come to blindly hold in order to maintain a shred of true autonomy. "

Glad we feel the same way about each other Tyler...

"I've seen where my mind would have to degenerate if I abandoned the basis for logic, laws, uniformity, causality, and morality. "

Yah its scary. It was scary for me and few other members of this forum. Its what you do after you abandon them that shows how much will power you have. But if you want to stay scared of life, dependent on the hope of a heaven and damnation of all those who worship the antichrist. Be my guest...

But you still haven't answer my question. I was not trying to guilt you, get you to leave, or some how intimidate you. I seriously wanted to know what your goal was on this forum, and what god had to say about it. Because if it was truly to "poke holes" in our view points, than your discussions tactics are similar to the crusades. We will make them believe or in your case, insult them to death with our superior christianity. So far it hasn't worked Tyler... Just FYI

Tyler V

Monday 8th March 2010 | 07:32 AM

Well Papa since you said nothing new, true, or insightful, I'm just gonna have to keep my thoughts to myself. Dont have anything nice to say and all.

But let me ask you. If I remember correctly, you said the Big Bang required a cause. Tell me, if the big bang brought about all matter, time, energy, life, laws, etc. do you think we can reason NOTHING about the cause from the effect?

Papa

Tuesday 9th March 2010 | 07:07 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. "we can reason NOTHING about the cause from the effect?"

This is assuming that scientists indeed have without a shadow of a doubt proved the big bang happened to 100% accuracy. But the fact remains is that no one knows what happened, because none of us were there. But its an endless pursuit of studying and research, and attempting to grow our understanding of the universe. While theists typically say, god did it. The theistic route is not very satisfying for me...

"I pray for each one of you. I pray every day that as I poke holes in your worldviews and presuppositions that you will see their inconsistencies and abandon them."

If your goal is too change us, how is can an equal exchange of ideas and topics be implemented if you yourself are not willing to change?

Tyler V

Tuesday 9th March 2010 | 01:17 PM

So you believe in the big bang but not when asked what caused it?

Are you willing to change to Christian theism?

Papa

Tuesday 9th March 2010 | 02:14 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. "So you believe in the big bang but not when asked what caused it? "

Quote me...

"Are you willing to change to Christian theism?"

Answer a question with a question. Typical for a theist, and typical for a philosopher. I guess I have my question already answered.

And yes I am willing to change, maybe not to a strict theistic point of view, but this forum is a platform for an exchange of ideas. And if I cannot learn and grow from this exchange, then my presence here is meaningless. But you still neglected to answer my question as you have done in dozens of your posts...

Jake Farr-Wharton

Tuesday 9th March 2010 | 06:52 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Yeah, I love it, you can't answer what caused the big bang, so you must convert to Christianity.

Religion has no answers, it has guesses, and poor ones at that.

That is one of my biggest problems with religion, it asserts that a) there is a limit to knowledge and b) that god is the answer to anything we can't understand and c) that that is 'OK'.

Rodney

Tuesday 9th March 2010 | 07:32 PM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. Where? Where does religion say "there is a limit to knowledge" and that "that god is the answer to anything we can't understand"?

Since you're currently talking about the big bang:
1. One of the key physicists working on this theory (who received a Nobel Prize for it) was Arno Allan Penzias; an Orthodox Jew.
2. Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, the principle father of modern Judaism, in the twelfth century, stated in his prelude to the Mishna that the universe started out as singularity and expanded - a theory that took modern science several hundred years to catch up with. This is one of the key texts associated with the religion, today.

I know of absolutely no (valid) reason why religion would set someone against science; in fact I only know of reasons for the study of science.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Wednesday 10th March 2010 | 08:09 AM

...in response to this comment by Rodney. Hi Rodney,

All religions claim to have answers to the 'universal questions' of purpose and existence. Your interpretation of such answers may not restrict you personally, but as any critic of any religion at any time knows, if one holds either a literalist or fundamentalist view of their religion then there is literally and fundamentally a limit to knowledge. The answers have already been answered.

We only need to look at the dark ages, to see that effect, but it still occurs today in segregated mormon societies, in Islamic majority countries and I'm sure that not all Jewish societies are liberal, open and aspire to learn.

As you say though, there is no valid reason why the discoveries and future endevours of and for myriad scientific fields to be limited, and yet as much and as hard as I look, I see no fundamentalist or literalist Christians working on the LHC, or in astrophysics, or biochemistry etc publishing groundbreaking pier reviewed studies in their fields.

As someone who was schooled in a fundamentalist Christian school, I can absolutely attest to teachers, principals and pastors/priests using the biblical stories as finite answers to the infinite questions I had. The answers made sense and they were coming from people I trusted.

As an adult, it utterly pains me to know that I was placated in such a way, by such people. I know that it is happening today, all around the world. Welcome to the basis for my distain for religion.

You're a briliant person Rodney, as are many scientists today who also believe in God and hold a religious belief. Just because your interpretation of your religion allows you free reign over your pursuits, don't be so naive to think that other's religion doesn't put limits on theirs.

Tyler V

Wednesday 10th March 2010 | 01:01 PM

Jake,

Im with Rodney here. Im not sure where you get that religion entails a limiting of knowledge, especially considering that you seem unable to differentiate between literalist/fundamentalists (a sociological distinction) with literal/fundamental limits to knowledge (an epistemological distinction). It would be like me saying that science has come up with an answer to question X and therefore is has a scientism limit to knowledge. Not only does it not semantically make sense to use the words the way you do, but it just doesn’t make logical sense either. Lets say religion is right that the meaning of life really is the glorify God and enjoy him forever. If that is the correct view, why would it be wrong to be limited to that view? You only object to the “limitedness” of knowledge when you disagree with the outcome. There is nothing wrong with being “limited” if it is the truth.

You complain, “the answers have already been answered.” So? If they are right (and I’m not saying now if they are or aren’t) but IF they are, whats wrong with that? Its just not a valid objection. You can object that they aren’t correct answers, but to argue that just to provide answers make you limited and therefore wrong, seems just flat out naïve.
And the problem of “limitedness” is not that it is limited, it is when it becomes bigoted – Im right and therefore I am better than you and deserve to oppress you. And this is not exclusive to religious cultures. Again, one needs only think about the history of Russia, China, Cube, N. Korea, Albania, etc. The problem is not theism or atheism – but ideologues and self-interest.

And you see no Christians doing reputable science? Well besides the founders like Galileo, Copernacus, Pasteure, etc., there is Francis Collins – head of the human genome. Dean Kenyon – wrote the definitive book on biochemical predestination. John Polkinghorne – the premier expert on particle physics. Georges Lemaître – The first one to propose the Big Bang theory. Freeman Dyson – one of the leading experts in solid-state physics and quantum field theory. And the list goes on and on.

And in fact there is a growing movement of experts who are calling for a critical examination of the neo-darwinian theory. These aren’t just Christians. The theory is crumbling from the inside as well. Here is a list that is TWENTY PAGES of people who are dissenting from Darwinism – many are not theists.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

What is then striking is at the end, maybe just to be nice to Rodney, you say that his interpretation DOESN’T limit him, but that others do. Well then it seems plainly obvious. It is not religion, it is the person who holds the religion and how they hold it. Just like any worldview – theism, deism, philosophical naturalism, atheism, secularism – they can all be twisted, abused, and applied in negative ways.

clarity

Friday 23rd April 2010 | 03:04 AM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. also likely mentioned by others,
current ''radical Islam"
various Latin American 'conservative' dictatorships, promoted in the ronald reagan era.

but i think we can agree that tyrannical type people will claim all sorts of writings as reason to be tyrannical.

Steve

Friday 28th May 2010 | 12:43 PM

@Tyler. Your entitled to your opinions, but pushing your beliefs too hard is not going to help your position. Everything you write is full of contradictions and repetiton and just for the record, "Without God, all things are permissible." Is just wrong. God is not needed to dictate what is right and wrong. Good or evil. Morality is born into each and every human naturaly. They learn it by growing, developing and interacting with the people and world around them. People don't not murder people because God says not to. They don't murder because they know that they will be taking away something that is dear to others and cause them to feel the pain of loss. A feeling that everyone experiences from one time or another. Whether it be from the loss of a favorite toy in childhood, the loss of a pet or the death of a family member or loved one. Causing this pain on soneone will triger an emotional response in yourself causing you to recall your own pain of loss. Also accompanied by the feeling of remorse and regret from your actions. Protecting yourself of these negative feelings is what stops you from inflicting them on others. This is what stops people from being imoral and is not limited to murder, rape, theft or beating your kids. With or without God. With or without world views. These things are NOT PERMISSIBLE by any standard. I would also like to point out that a religious person who are told they have a God who will forgive all their sins so long as they confess and repent is more likley to alow wrong and evil actions to be permissible than an athiest who only wishes to live a moral life with a clean conscience.

Henk V

Friday 28th May 2010 | 02:20 PM

...in response to this comment by Steve. Tyler can't cope with the fact that any sort of ethics were given to people.

Certainly no logic or philosophy at all.

Wiccan Pope Vidian Didymus Law

Friday 8th October 2010 | 03:02 PM

WiccanPope.com Sophiology
Sophia is the Goddess Wisdom in Proverbs 8. She claims to be possessed by Jehovah the God of the Jews "Before the foundation of the Earth."
Jesus Christ said to His Father Jehovah in John 17:24 "Father you loved Me before the foundation of the earth."
He is clearly claiming to be the Goddess Wisdom (Sophia).
To learn more of how Jehovah Possessed the Goddess Sophia of True Sophiology, go to WiccanPope.com and click Wiccan Pope Links Banner.
Read the free preview of Alpha Primate. He is Jehovah, and His Goddess is Sophia Wisdom Alchemy who possessed Christ.
Also watch the Sophiology video by clicking Wiccan Pope Youtube Banner at WiccanPope.com
Wiccan Pope

Henk V

Friday 8th October 2010 | 04:08 PM

that would be denialism...

I've bopped several folk for misrepresenting the bible, but you sweetheart, are not worth it.

shave yer legs.

sharetipsinfo

Thursday 18th August 2011 | 07:48 PM

Nice blog would like to add that NSE and BSE are one of the most superior stock exchanges of India. If you wish to earn good money from the share market then you need to understand the functionality of the stock market properly.

Indian stock market offers lot of earning opportunities still many less traders earn from it. Now the question is who earns from the share trading? To be honest only those who rely on stock research as no one can earn big by speculating in the market.

Regards
SHARETIPSINFO TEAM

Friendo

Thursday 18th August 2011 | 07:59 PM

...in response to this comment by sharetipsinfo. Wow...Now I could be missing something, but your comment seems like a shit pile of exegesistic crap. One doesn't see that kind of thing too often. Which version of the bible are they using on the NSE and BSE in India? Perhaps I'm missing out on an opportunity.

What do you think Sir Love Ten of the Govt Radiation Standards Dept. Ret? Is this any better than the laminated rapture I.D. card thing?

Get back to me on this will you?

f~

Muddie

Friday 19th August 2011 | 12:29 AM

They make money from BSE? Far out..I could make money from little penises!

I have ten!

anonymous

Wednesday 31st August 2011 | 05:04 PM

My only comfort towards those motherfuckers is that prison guards are allowed to beat prisoners. If this is how religion teaches us to treat our younger generations, I'm quite glad I'm an atheist.