register

  • Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

 

Humanists of the world gather up!

Off Topic » Humanists of the world gather up! (Posts 91 to 120 of 488)

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. ...
  11. 17
  12. >
  1. I don't look in this thread for a month, and it's turned into a hall of debate!

    Just because 90% of religion may be "good" does not make the remaining 10% any less wrong or immoral. The goodwill of religion is possible without having to resort to religion.


    The goodwill of Christianity can be possible - and historically has been - without any acknowledgement of God's authority. I would not want to be the one that tested whether God's love extended to the unrepentant afterlife though. You only get one chance to test that, and there's almost no data. wink

    Adding to that, I'd say that a belief in an afterlife is waste of time since it encourages us to do good in this life purely for our our own sake; our own salvation in the next life.


    I suspect that the verse where Christ rejects those who acted solely for themselves (however worthy the works) would be applicable.

    It encourages us to live in fear, it encourages us to think this life is one we should spend without the fruits it can grant us.


    Well, Scripture speaks of a life lived by faith rather than fear, so you can hardly say fear is overtly encouraged in any Christian text. It may be encouraged by a culture of believers, but I would hope someone as intelligent as you could tell the difference between the ideal and the imperfect execution of it. (If we judged all paradigms by their execution, Marx's mother should have used protection the night he was conceived. But the economics and philosophy of the world would be considerably poorer if she had.)

    But back to this life of fear and the way it discourages an enjoyment of life. So what fruits of life has faith denied you, Steven?

    For the atheist, we do good because we want to help our fellow living creatures for the sake of doing good, not for pleasing god.


    Or perhaps the atheist do it to sound as self-righteous as you do in that line. wink There are many Christians who do good, not because they're trying to stack up 'works' for heavenly reward (you need to re-view the Christian incentive structure), but because they're trying to emulate Jesus in their own lives. I don't doubt there are those who have used the name of Jesus selfishly for their own gain, but if God is God and really does know men's hearts, I trust that He's a better judge of that than me.

    I always find that the theist defends their religion in regards to how and why it helps them, yet never any good arguments alluding to the 'truth' some seem to hold so dearly - they cannot. They simply cannot give any good arguments in favour for the historical and factuality of their religion, yet there are infinitely better arguments against the presumptuous 'truth' of religion through science, thought and reason.


    Goodness, you're giddy with the power of rational thought, aren't you? Wait till you get to the 20th century... the gleam of Enlightenment thinking starts to diminish. wink

    I have a couple of answers here. On the personal experience question - why do 'theists' (and I'll show my leanings by saying 'Christians') talk about personal experience over the things you're after?

    (i) Assuming the individual isn't deceiving themselves, personal experience is something that we should be able to testify to unwaveringly. Christ exorted all those he healed to go their way and tell all they came to what the Lord had done for them. That is, to witness, not to the revelation of Christ as prophetic fulfillment of multiple writings in the Torah, but to that which was meaningful to them. So don't blame the Christian if he tells you what the Lord has done for him. He/she's just being grateful.

    (ii) And in a sense, until this stuff has any personal meaning for you, it will always seem like utter foolishness. The truth of it was not intended to communicate to your mind (which needs constant renewing anyway), but to your 'spirit'. I don't normally use that term in a conversation with an atheist, but I guess if an atheist like Phillip Pullman believes that there is something in a human other than a body and a soul (mind), it's fair game for conversation.

    (iii) You're looking for proof of a religion within a paradigm (that of the atheist, or materialist, or whatever you are) that does not admit the possibility of religion. From that ground, Christianity can never be true. Just as to a New Classical Economist, Keynesian and Neo-Ricardian economics are non-sensical, or perhaps just unnecessary, qualifications on their explanation of the economic process. This amounts to the same as (ii) - until it means something to you, the 'truth' of Christianity will forever seem a multitude of coincidences.

    (iv) So what are the arguments in favour of "the historical and factuality of their religion"? I'm going from something I read a year and a half ago, but I think the seven compelling facts that testify to God are as follows:
    1. The existence of the world (and the universe) as created by Him - ie. all Creation
    2. The existence of the Jew - ie. the Jewish People
    3. The Bible - its collective wisdom, internal consistency, exegetic power, and well-
    documented survival through history.
    4. Miracles - the well-documented ongoing occurrence of miraculous signs
    5. Jesus - as a pivotal figure in the history of the world.
    6. The Recorded Transforming Power of the Word in people's lives, collectively (even
    nationally) and individually via their connection to Christianity. The very first were
    fisherman who became articulate martyrs.
    7. The existence of the Church.
    They are all 'real' phenomena, and factual in that sense. If I can join the ranks of the rational thinkers for a second, I would say this - they are all what you would call 'necessary conditions' for the existence of God as described in the Bible, rather than sufficient conditions. If any of these did not hold, a necessary foundation for the existence of God as described in the Bible would not hold. But their occurrence does not exclude alternate explanations, that is, they are not sufficient in themselve to prove the existence of God. But if you permit the existence of God, the occurrence of all these things is consistent with his existence. There are people who would explain it better than me (with Scriptural support for each), but I suspect they'll come to this same point and turn it over to (ii) above. Faith has to come first.

    Now I know all of that isn't like to fly with you Steven, but at least give me a gold star for taking the time to type it. wave
    A butterfly thinks therefore I am
    •  
      CommentAuthorplindboe
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2008
    Considering the multitude of religions, and the fact that the majority of them conflict on key points, it should already be painfully obvious that the majority of people on this planet are self-deceived. Listen to people who follow other religions, they are as convinced as you, and use the same kind of arguments. They profess miracles, innerant scriptures, miracles and predictions come true, which is what we inevitably end up with when people's judgement are too clouded by their own bias. The only lesson I see, for anyone who cares about what's true, and don't want to succumb to wishful thinking, is a skeptical out- and inlook.

    The arguments in the above post is just the kind of stuff you get when there is a bias so strong that you forget to be critical of what you use to support your views, I mean just look at arguments 1 and 2. We could just as easily say that the existence of the pyramids is evidence that aliens built them. You seem like an intelligent guy, so why use arguments that are so ridiculously flawed that they can be used to support anything, no matter what the belief system is or how untrue it is?

    There are plenty of other of your arguments I have issues with, but I don't have time to get into a long debate, so the points above will do for now.

    Peter smile

    PS....perhaps you're simply playing Devil's advocate?...
  3. plindboe wrote
    The arguments in the above post is just the kind of stuff you get when there is a bias so strong that you forget to be critical of what you use to support your views, I mean just look at arguments 1 and 2. We could just as easily say that the existence of the pyramids is evidence that aliens built them. You seem like an intelligent guy, so why use arguments that are so ridiculously flawed that they can be used to support anything, no matter what the belief system is or how untrue it is?


    And I thought I put in a few qualifications precisely to avoid being treated like a biased halfwit, but it seems you can never be too careful. dizzy

    I described those 7 points as NECESSARY, not SUFFICIENT conditions for the existence of God.

    Let's consider a less controversial case to explain. We observe this morning that the ground was wet. We might theorise that last night there was a rainstorm. Had the rainstorm occurred, it would be SUFFICIENT to explain the wet ground in the morning. The ground being wet, on the other hand, is a NECESSARY condition for the theory that a rainstorm had occurred to be true. If the ground was not wet, it would remove the necessary observation on which any belief in the unseen rainstorm was founded. (Let us assume no extraordinary evaporation.)

    Some rules: If event A is sufficient for event B to occur, then B is necessary for A to occur. If B does not occur, then A does not occur, because B was necessary for A to occur. If A does not occur, then B might still occur, because while the presence of A (the rainstorm) might explain B (wet ground in the morning), it is not the only explanation possible. Of course, if A occurs, B occurs, because A is sufficient for B.

    Returning to the issue of faith. Those seven points are necessary for the existence of God, but they are not, and I would not pretend, that they were SUFFICIENT.
    - The Bible claims that God created the heavens and the earth --> therefore if there were no heavens or earth (testable), a necessary condition for God has been struck.
    - The Bible claims that the Jewish people were created as a nation of priests through a covenant with God --> therefore if there was no historical Jewish people that privelleged such a covenant, then another necessary condition for God does not obtain.
    - The Bible claims that a figure called Jesus was God in the flesh, founded a new spiritual movement back to God through his death and resurrection --> therefore if there was no historical Jesus, if he did not found a spiritual movement, if he did not die in the death described, or his body can be produced, then another necessary condition for God does not obtain.
    - And on it goes...

    (Like any paradigm, it assumes it's own reality. And they can't all be right, can they? wink )
    (And while I shared the list, it was an argument I overheard once and were it up to me, I don't know that I would list all 7 myself. I would say rather than the Bible being evidence - even at the level of a necessary condition - it is the axiom. You cannot even begin to discuss the Christian faith in the absence of its Bible.)

    But as I said at the end, such evidences probably seem trivial, because they are not about proof, but the lack of definitive disproof. And we're not foolish - we (most Christians who think about what we believe) know that the whole faith would seem a lot less objectionable if it could be explained away on a soundtrack messageboard by an imperfect practitioner (ie me). We don't joke when we refer to the 'mystery of God'. Ultimately personal experience of God's love (forgive the use of our jargon - it is not possible to translate everything into rational thought) is the swing vote for each person. And we come back to the reason why Steven objected to personal testimony. It is subjective, contestible, etc - but individual experience is what will ultimately make it work for you, or not. It's certainly the thing I can't explain away.

    I have proven nothing. But to be Devil's Advocate, no-one has disproven anything either, the underrated other side of the coin. wink

    So please, let's move onto your issues with my other arguments, because I think this one was based on a misreading or my imperfect expression of it. I assumed the logical relationship between sufficient and necessary conditions was one that was more widely understood than it evidently is. smile
    A butterfly thinks therefore I am
  4. Hmmm... suddenly it occurs to me that I've just posted all this in a thread about 'Humanists of the World'. A feeling has come over me that I haven't felt since I last got invited to a Fabian Society gathering. Somebody tell me this wasn't an extraordinary waste of time. Remember that I allow myself to be deceived in order to feel better about life. wink



    (That would be a joke, yes.)
    A butterfly thinks therefore I am
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2008
    The goodwill of Christianity can be possible - and historically has been - without any acknowledgement of God's authority.


    I'm not sure I understand this. Do you propose there are schools of Christianity that do not acknowledge the authority of God? confused

    Well, Scripture speaks of a life lived by faith rather than fear, so you can hardly say fear is overtly encouraged in any Christian text.


    That's a cop-out, Michael. smile
    While I do understand what you mean (and indeed this can be traced back to the Book) there are PLENTY of powerful Christian movements that propagate *just* that! (Protestantism would come to mind). With the power and influence those schools still yield, the appeal to a more userfriendly interpretation and approach is one similar to the defense that Islam really is a religion of peace, because there are some verses in the Koran that suggest this.
    In the end it's that pesky enormous gap of difference between theory and practice again. It's a bit too easy to dismiss that as "imperfect execution". smile

    Marx's mother should have used protection the night he was conceived. But the economics and philosophy of the world would be considerably poorer if she had.


    You're KIDDING! shocked

    Wait till you get to the 20th century... the gleam of Enlightenment thinking starts to diminish.


    ...only to be replaced by the darkgloved fist of religious zealousness again... slant


    So don't blame the Christian if he tells you what the Lord has done for him. He/she's just being grateful.


    You know as well as I do, Michael, that testifying is an instrument for conversion. NOT a joyous sharing of a personal experience. And even if it were the latter, I am reminded of the converse testimony in The Gods Must Be Crazy, where the Gods are accused of disrupting daily tribal life by sending forth the wond'rous yet evil Shiny Transparent Container. Blaming (or praising) God for clear human interference doesn't seem like testimony.
    More like selective myopia.

    They are all 'real' phenomena, and factual in that sense.


    But surely (and necessarily) you are now using your own paradigm to define these are "real" and "factual"?
    I would contradict every single point from my own paradigm (the world was NOT "created" (well, not as a rational consideration, anyway), the Jewish people exist because sufficient people thought having a small-scale ancient mountain god with delusions of grandeur as their main deity was a good idea and started inventing some rules that would presumably please this God. Et cetera and so forth.)

    You qualify most of your points in the following posts, but the main, salient point is this: it's not about disproof of anything. The atheist will follow rational thinking to go along with those aspects in the Universe which have been proven, or can be logically implied using calculation, reason and understanding of the Universe as we have it today.
    Anything inexplainable at this point is assumed to be able to be logically or scientifically identified or quantified at a later date (so in a way there is "faith" in science).
    But this world view (and this "faith" is flexible, and adapts to new information coming in all the time.
    This is obviously in wild contrast to a dogmatic faith in God, that inherently does not change and is impossible to adapt (the only "adaptation" being different interpretations of age-old human phrases, written down by very fallible humans in generally very unenlightened times).
    The Bible is a beautiful piece of literature, and offers some truly wonderful insights in all man's capabilities and senses of good and evil throughout the ages... but I wouldn't follow it exclusively and literally to guide life in teh 21st century.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
  6. Martijn wrote
    The goodwill of Christianity can be possible - and historically has been - without any acknowledgement of God's authority.


    I'm not sure I understand this. Do you propose there are schools of Christianity that do not acknowledge the authority of God? confused


    Well, there's certainly a few of those depending on how you interpret it. wink I was meaning something a bit simpler, which is that plenty of people seem to have found the comfort of 'meaning' that Christianity offers in religions/paradigms/philosophies other than Christianity. It would be foolish to suggest that everyone else was secretly miserable.

    Well, Scripture speaks of a life lived by faith rather than fear, so you can hardly say fear is overtly encouraged in any Christian text.


    That's a cop-out, Michael. smile
    While I do understand what you mean (and indeed this can be traced back to the Book) there are PLENTY of powerful Christian movements that propagate *just* that! (Protestantism would come to mind). With the power and influence those schools still yield, the appeal to a more userfriendly interpretation and approach is one similar to the defense that Islam really is a religion of peace, because there are some verses in the Koran that suggest this.
    In the end it's that pesky enormous gap of difference between theory and practice again. It's a bit too easy to dismiss that as "imperfect execution". smile


    Too true. But let's assume for the moment that we were going back to the Council of Ephesus, or whichever it was that chose the Scriptural Canon. Let us for a moment take those scriptures - as close a thing to the 'text of God' as you could have, untranslated and less suspicious for age, there's not a lot of New Testament foundation for 'fear'. The exhorted attitude to the undefined and unmaterialised is, as I suggest, faith. (Even 'the evil one', with his suspicious name, is not a cause for fear, but for wariness.)

    I know that the politics of fear has mobilised Christian text to its aid, but like I said, would you blame Marx for the practical dictatorship of the proletariat, either in its Stalinist or Maoist forms? I'll grant you the shady history, but give me the purity of the ideal. Many preach fear (and I've even heard a doctrine that you could say was based on the fear of fear), but the book is remarkably free of it.

    Marx's mother should have used protection the night he was conceived. But the economics and philosophy of the world would be considerably poorer if she had.


    You're KIDDING! shocked


    Help me out here. A wink would be good. wink


    Wait till you get to the 20th century... the gleam of Enlightenment thinking starts to diminish.


    ...only to be replaced by the darkgloved fist of religious zealousness again... slant


    I wouldn't call Foucault a religious zealot, I think that's a bit harsh. wink

    And no, I don't have a problem with Foucault. Just a joke.


    So don't blame the Christian if he tells you what the Lord has done for him. He/she's just being grateful.


    You know as well as I do, Michael, that testifying is an instrument for conversion. NOT a joyous sharing of a personal experience. And even if it were the latter, I am reminded of the converse testimony in The Gods Must Be Crazy, where the Gods are accused of disrupting daily tribal life by sending forth the wond'rous yet evil Shiny Transparent Container. Blaming (or praising) God for clear human interference doesn't seem like testimony.
    More like selective myopia.


    I do love that section of THE GODS MUST BE CRAZY. I may even take that as a starting point for a film one day. (I can see the masses lining up to watch it - now is that fear or faith, not even I'm sure! dizzy )

    I'm not really sure what to say here. Obviously since Christ exhorted his believers to 'go out and testify, and make disciples', I can't say that conversion isn't part of it. I prefer to think of the discipling part as more of a side-effect of an internal process, rather than the heavenly mortgage salesman you might have in mind. Not all of us are so myopic. I might go so far as to say not many.


    They are all 'real' phenomena, and factual in that sense.


    But surely (and necessarily) you are now using your own paradigm to define these are "real" and "factual"?
    I would contradict every single point from my own paradigm (the world was NOT "created" (well, not as a rational consideration, anyway), the Jewish people exist because sufficient people thought having a small-scale ancient mountain god with delusions of grandeur as their main deity was a good idea and started inventing some rules that would presumably please this God. Et cetera and so forth.)


    Both our paradigms presume their own reality. Perhaps all I've done in the above is show that God will never be the outcome of a logical proof based on historical observibles, but neither are those observibles inconsistent with what is presumably his Word (bad habit of jargon there, the capital W).

    You qualify most of your points in the following posts, but the main, salient point is this: it's not about disproof of anything. The atheist will follow rational thinking to go along with those aspects in the Universe which have been proven, or can be logically implied using calculation, reason and understanding of the Universe as we have it today.
    Anything inexplainable at this point is assumed to be able to be logically or scientifically identified or quantified at a later date (so in a way there is "faith" in science).
    But this world view (and this "faith" is flexible, and adapts to new information coming in all the time.


    And I would argue my faith flexible to new information as well. You have a finite and defined method from which you approach new things, and the Bible is my version of that.

    If it seems like my paradigm is limited by dogmatic thinking, imagine (and it may require some imagination) that for me your paradigm is limited by your senses, the tools of logic (better for knowledge than wisdom), science and quantification. It seems like a life without imaginative capacity, or negative capability, like hands have been consciously tied off to keep them getting in the way of the method. And I know that's how I - and even more so others you know who subscribe to this train of thought - must seem as well.

    Oddly enough, I must admit I would rather chat with you about this stuff - hopefully without a hint of proselytising - than some of my 'family in the faith'.

    The Bible is a beautiful piece of literature, and offers some truly wonderful insights in all man's capabilities and senses of good and evil throughout the ages... but I wouldn't follow it exclusively and literally to guide life in teh 21st century.


    Well, on a literal level I don't know that I follow every word either, and my neighbour's goat is grateful for that. I'm pretty sure I mentioned above among the 'compelling evidences' (which was the title of that man's article, which is why he thought the use of the word compelling was appropriate) the 'exegetic' power of the Bible. But even beyond that imaginative application of the text, there is internally a prioritising of ideas, and multiple readings possible. And one should never fail to ask the question of whether God's rules/tales for mankind at time t are specific to t or in some general sense applicable to time t+3000.

    I must sleep now. smile
    A butterfly thinks therefore I am
    •  
      CommentAuthorplindboe
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2008
    franz_conrad wrote
    And I thought I put in a few qualifications precisely to avoid being treated like a biased halfwit, but it seems you can never be too careful. dizzy

    I described those 7 points as NECESSARY, not SUFFICIENT conditions for the existence of God.


    I apologize, I read your post in haste and didn't properly understand what you meant. *slaps self*

    Peter smile
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2008 edited
    Stop using the "wink" emoticon, it's extremely patronising. I've only glanced at this page so far, I'll read it all when I have more time/can be arsed.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2008
    Bad day at Uni, Steven? wink

    Lighten up, old chum. Nothing inappropriate in Michael's use of the winkey emoticon anywhere.
    It might when you actually read 'em in their context (rather than scan it).
    I'm not being sarcastic: Michael's points, while I do not agree in many places and am more than happy to engage in debate there, are well thought-out and well worded in their particular context.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2008
    I've had an excellent first day back actually. I still find the wink emoticons patronising though.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2008
    Steven wrote
    I've had an excellent first day back actually.


    Good to hear it, mate.
    I know you missed it!

    (My, what a wry contrast to my own Uni days which I singularly hated with a passion... slant

    I still find the wink emoticons patronising though.


    Not to pollute the thread, but I'm genuinely interested in why that is?
    I mean I can see the point in extremely insulting posts which would abuse the winkey to suggest that "even though I just mortally insulted you, your mother and your dog's virginity, you can't actually kick the shit out of me because I used a winkey which is somehow the universal plenary indulgence of teh Web!", but I don't really think Michael is doing any such thing!

    Obviously you're more than entitled to your own interpretations, but like I said: I'm just interested in understanding them.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
  12. Steven wrote
    I've had an excellent first day back actually. I still find the wink emoticons patronising though.


    Too often around here I'm taken at face value so I've been using the wink emoticon more and more of late. The truth is there are jokes in there - more for Martijn's benefit than anyone's since I know he gets a few of my jokes. It's not meant to be patronising at all. A bit of repartee is just part of the back-and-forth of debate. Are you sure it's not what I'm saying, rather than how I'm saying it, that's really at fault here?

    wink

    Oops. slant

    Damn that habit. biggrin
    A butterfly thinks therefore I am
  13. plindboe wrote
    franz_conrad wrote
    And I thought I put in a few qualifications precisely to avoid being treated like a biased halfwit, but it seems you can never be too careful. dizzy

    I described those 7 points as NECESSARY, not SUFFICIENT conditions for the existence of God.


    I apologize, I read your post in haste and didn't properly understand what you meant. *slaps self*

    Peter smile


    I'd suggest turning the other cheek as a joke in bad taste, but I must say if I were in your position, and scanning that post had seen those seven points, I might have instinctively posted the same thing.
    A butterfly thinks therefore I am
    • CommentAuthortjguitar
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2008

    - The Bible claims that God created the heavens and the earth --> therefore if there were no heavens or earth (testable), a necessary condition for God has been struck.


    This all is based on the presupposition that for "God" to exist, it must be the JudeoChristian idea of such a being.
    •  
      CommentAuthorplindboe
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2008
    Hehe. smile

    I do find religion fascinating and spend much of my time on christianforums.com to learn what's going on in the mind of christians, and sadly I truly see people offering such kinds of arguments, that I thought you made, on a frequent basis.

    Sometimes I just react too quickly, when I don't have time to delve into deeper discussions. I have a couple of exams in 14 days, and I've only read half the stuff of the entire semester, so I'm kinda busy as you can imagine. wink

    Peter cow
  16. tjguitar wrote

    - The Bible claims that God created the heavens and the earth --> therefore if there were no heavens or earth (testable), a necessary condition for God has been struck.


    This all is based on the presupposition that for "God" to exist, it must be the JudeoChristian idea of such a being.


    Naturally. If the Judeo-Christian Bible is your axiom (as in the above statement you quote), that follows from first principles. If not, then your conception will differ. It remains to this day sufficiently engrained in western society that one can usually talk of God and mean 'the Judeo-Christian God' or 'Yahweh' without qualification. One usually describes the deity of Islam as Allah, and the various figures of Hindu theology by their names and responsibilities. In an increasingly globalised world, this emphasis may change with time.
    A butterfly thinks therefore I am
  17. This little thread of mine has burst into a great discussion. I must admit I am proud (somewhere Jordi-like maybe biggrin ) that it's in a thread I cared to create.

    Religion can always get personal, which we see in this discussion, but it's good that something simple hasn't been forgotten. In the most fiery discussions we still respect each other and that's very good. Not so easy with religion. Still mutual respect prevails.

    Now, I believe faith is the operative word here. Faith, nothing else. It's accepting things, not analyzing it. It's irrational, but that's part of the bargain. Read some Kierkegaard, he is so damn right about this. And Rudolf Otto.
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
    •  
      CommentAuthorplindboe
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2008
    Indeed, devoe. Out there in the real world they are killing and persecuting each other. On this forum, the most violent we get is pissing each others off by using winking smilies.

    I like that.

    Peter wink
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2008
    plindboe wrote
    On this forum, the most violent we get is pissing each others off by using winking smilies.



    biggrin
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorplindboe
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2008
    biggrin
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2008 edited
    wink

    ooops! shame

    wink

    help wink

    I can't stop wink

    wink

    I'm a winker wink

    wink
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorplindboe
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2008
    Got something in your eye?

    Peter biggrin
    •  
      CommentAuthorplindboe
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2008
    "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

    *tries desperately to bring the thread back on topic*

    Peter wink
  24. plindboe wrote
    "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"


    ROFL.
    A butterfly thinks therefore I am
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2008
    Religion wasn't really the topic I had hoped for when this thread was created, but hey, whatever gets your mojo workin'. smile
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2008
    Thor wrote
    hey, whatever gets your mojo workin'. smile


    No thanks. I get more than enough Vi@gra threads on other boards and in my mailbox. slant
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorAtham
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2008
    I love reading debates like this! It's good to explore the possibility of the existance of God.
    Just don't get me started on the doctrine of "eternal damnation". That screwed me up for some time!
  28. Timmer wrote
    I'm a winker wink

    Close, Tim!!

    Oh, and BTW... wink
    The views expressed in this post are entirely my own and do not reflect the opinions of maintitles.net, or for that matter, anyone else. http://www.racksandtags.com/falkirkbairn
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2008
    FalkirkBairn wrote
    Timmer wrote
    I'm a winker wink

    Close, Tim!!

    Oh, and BTW... wink


    I know, it should have been T instead of W! biggrin

    and wink
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
  30. I decided to bump this thread. I will have soon a subject to discuss with people interested in sociology.
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website

91 to 120 of 488

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. ...
  11. 17
  12. >