Supernatural religion and dishonesty....

[Starboy]

Originally posted by Inquisitor, If my memory serves me right, secular authorities have also prosecuted people proffesing unorthodox ideas e.g. revisionists. So I fail to see how this relevant to Christianity. Besides, Bible does not specify the exact composition of universe. Theory of evolution is just that, a theory. There is no absolute proof that this theory is right.

Just answering your assertion that's all. If you are claiming that the advocates of supernatural religion are no better than any one else you will have no argument from me. But that is not what many of them claim. Many claim that their religion can make people better. That without it people will be no better than anyone else. But if you are saying that it ain't so you will get no argument from me.

Well, your ignorance can hardly surprise me. Apart from Roman Catholic Church ( of which you have heard something), there is also The Orthodox Church. "Orthodox and Catholics separated officially in 1054... the real reason was the "supremacy of the Pope in the Church", the "successor of Peter"." So pope does not represent all Christians. In fact the claim that he does was the real reason for separation of catholicism from the true Church.

You will hurt your credibility by presuming to know what I know. I am referring to the council of Nicea (323 AD) which set the stage for the Holy Roman Empire and the eventual canonization of the bible by Constantine. I am afraid that your profound ignorance of your own religion is showing. In any case the Catholic Church can trace their line of popes back to and prior to this council. The Church is the Catholic Church and it was the institution that authorized the bible that you are so fond of. How you can see the pope as the anti-Christ is beyond me.

Another sample of your ignorance. "The Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God (II Timothy 3:16), and is a crucial part of God's self-revelation to the human race. The Old Testament tells the history of that revelation from Creation through the Age of the Prophets. The New Testament records the birth and life of Jesus as well as the writings of His Apostles. It also includes some of the history of the early Church and especially sets forth the Church's apostolic doctrine. Though these writings were read in the Churches from the time they first appeared, the earliest listings of all the New Testament books exactly as we know them today is found in the 33rd Canon of a local council held at Carthage in 318, and in a fragment of St. Athanasius of Alexandria's Festal Letter in 367. Both sources list all of the books of the New Testament without exception. A local council, probably held at Rome in 382, set forth a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old and the New Testaments. The Scriptures are at the very heart of Orthodox worship and devotion. " The Bible was set the way it is without the pope. As you probably don't know, in the first 300 years of its existence, Christianity was prosecuted, So the idea of authorities creating The Bible to suit them is untrue. Authorities in fact were hunting Christians and destroying everything which was Holy to them.

I am aware of all that. We can get into all the gospels that never made it into the bible yet were witness to the teachings of Jesus from that time. But all that is beside my point. The point is that the pope runs the institution that created and authorized the bible as you know of and are so fond of. The only way that I can conceive that you could think of him as the anti-Christ is that you lie to yourself about the pope or the bible.

I don't expect any government to enforce my religious belief. In fact I fully expect government to start prosecutions of Christians ( as it happened before) as predicted in Revelations.The full scale prosecutions will start when anti-christ takes power ( world government).

Is this another lie? Surely you know that our current President is an evangelical and that his opponent is a Catholic. Surely you know that over 85% (some say as high as 95%) of the US population believes in god, heaven and hell. That as much as 70% believe in the rapture. Are you afraid of a paltry 2% (an optimistic estimate) of the population that call themselves atheists and couldn’t get elected as dog catcher because this is such a theist culture? That these atheists are somehow going to gain power in a country with such an overwhelming superstitious population to oppress you? You are not only a liar but you appear to have a very loose grip on reality.

There is no evidence that he did.

No evidence? None what so ever? Not one ity bity bit? Hello! You lie through your teeth. You may say that you do not find the evidence convincing but to say there is no evidence is a lie. There are libraries full of evidence. We could not do modern medicine without the evidence of evolution. It is impossible to understand biology without evolution. All you can say with any honesty is that you do not find the evidence convincing. That is it. Any other statement is just dishonest.

These Christians are ignorant. There cannot be costitution based on The Bible. Simply because constitution, elections and democracy are anti-christian ideas.

Thank you for admitting that Christians do lie about such things. I am not a Christian and could care less about the squabbles you have among yourselves. In one way or another you all lie like rugs.

I just recalled a story which happened in 1918. Academic Pavlov (For his original work in science of behavior, Pavlov was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1904. By then he had turned to studying the laws on the formation of conditioned reflexes, a topic on which he worked until his death in 1936. His discoveries in this field paved the way for an objective science of behavior.) walked out of a Church and was confronted by drunken, uneducated "revolutionary sailor", who said " still believe in God? You ignorant, old fool!". Looks like you are not the first one who claims intellectual superiority on the basis of atheism. So you were awarded a nobel prize for what? You weren't? How is this possible? You are an atheist so clearly by your logic a genius, just like that sailor who BTW could not read or write.

So what? My claims are simple. They are not claims about me. You do not appear to have the intelligence to understand this. The claims are about the lies of supernatural theists. Each response you make provides more evidence for my claim. Please do not stop.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Originally posted by Starboy,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Starboy,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Inquisitor, Theory of evolution is just that, a theory. There is no absolute proof that this theory is right.

[/b][/quote]

This is off topic but it is something that has always irked me. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory of the same stature as General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics or Electrodynamics or Molecular Biophysics or any other scientific theory. When theists say things like this they have no idea just how stupid and ignorant it makes them look. It’s as if they think that scientists are somehow trying to cover up religious evidence. As if scientists have no interest in discovering things that are actually real. If a scientist makes a discovery that is real then all of the other scientists will be all over it. You see scientists are keen to make new discoveries constantly. It is how you gain prominence in science. If a scientist could trap a ghost or demon, or find evidence that there is intelligent design (which by the way is not actually a scientific theory because it doesn't actually make any predictions that can be differentiated from any other current theory) they would be all over it. It would be like capturing King Kong of finding dinosaurs on a lost island. The fact the religious must screw up their brains to force them into a paranoid mode that I find difficult to comprehend is just incredible. You accuse me of megalomania but this one thing alone makes any mental problems you may think I have pale in comparison.

Starboy

[voyager]

Most (if not all) religion is practiced as though it was a superstition. It is time for the "christian" religion to pass in to the historical record. It no longer fits the need of modern technological society. It was formed for a two thousand year of society of farmers and heardsmen.

[Starboy]

I agree Voyager, the Bronze Age is long gone, time for the worldview of that era to bite the dust of history. What people who do understand this should be asking them selves is how such a worldview could persist in this obviously different age that is glaringly different than the age from which it came. I can only think of the following, lies and deception, willful persistent profound ignorance, fraud and malfeasance. If supernatural theists were forced to be honest about all the bizarre claims that they make they would be laughed into the next galaxy. Now to be fair to the supernatural theists, they have bent a little in the storm of time but the winds are getting so strong that if they don't start bending a great deal more they will be snapped off at the trunk and blown away. And it just doesn't have to be so because religion can play a role in a modern society, a very important role. The theists just have to learn to do it without lying. If they don’t stop there will come a time when the people will tar and feather them and ride them out on a rail or far, far worse.

Starboy

[Zeebadee]

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory of the same stature as General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics or Electrodynamics or Molecular Biophysics or any other scientific theory.

Starboy[/quote]

This is crap. Evolutionary theory has many problems, and nowhere near the scientific support that, say, General Relativity has. And when you try to use evolution in support of your anti-religious drivel you always conveniently neglect to mention that the Theory of Evolution has absolutely no explanation for the orgin of life. The lack of transitional forms of life between species is also a major obstacle to the acceptance of this theory. While evolutionary theory may very well be proven to be true in the future, it certainly hasn't got the stature of a theory whose proof lies in the rubble of two major cities in Japan.

"What people who do understand this should be asking them selves is how such a worldview could persist in this obviously different age that is glaringly different than the age from which it came. I can only think of the following, lies and deception, willful persistent profound ignorance, fraud and malfeasance."

More meaningless claptrap. When you are able to explain to me the concept of the Trinity I will be much more willing to listen to your refutation of it.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by Zeebadee,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Zeebadee,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Starboy, The theory of evolution is a scientific theory of the same stature as General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics or Electrodynamics or Molecular Biophysics or any other scientific theory. Starboy

This is crap. Evolutionary theory has many problems, and nowhere near the scientific support that, say, General Relativity has. And when you try to use evolution in support of your anti-religious drivel you always conveniently neglect to mention that the Theory of Evolution has absolutely no explanation for the orgin of life. The lack of transitional forms of life between species is also a major obstacle to the acceptance of this theory. While evolutionary theory may very well be proven to be true in the future, it certainly hasn't got the stature of a theory whose proof lies in the rubble of two major cities in Japan. [/b][/quote]

More ignorant and willfully stupid theists! All scientific theories have problems, every single one of them. GR doesn't incorporate QM. Electrodynamics is only a phenomenological theory and doesn't actually explain what charge and fields are composed of and what is going on when one transforms from one form to another. But all the same these theories are extremely useful because they can explain a great deal more about these phenomenons than was previously explainable. If you got an explanation that does a better job of predicting what will happen before the fact then bring it on.

The theory of Evolution is very much in the same vein as all these other theories. It explains what is observed in nature. Species are observed to change over time. It is observed that those changes are in response to their environment. And that the changes come from variations of traits within the species population. All of that is there to see by anyone who cares to look just as charge, electric and magnetic fields are there for anyone that cares to look. To deny this is to be a willfully ignorant idiot.

More meaningless claptrap. When you are able to explain to me the concept of the Trinity I will be much more willing to listen to your refutation of it.

I have never understood how theists could not see just how stupid they are when their outrageously stupid thinking is so glaring obvious.

In the Bronze Age when people got sick they thought is was because of a supernatural reason. This is where the idea of sin came from. It was a Bronze Age explanation of why bad things appear to happen to people. The religious have built several religions around this concept which included such explanative concepts as souls, angels, ghosts, demons, devils, jinn, genies, god(s), heaven, hell and on and on and on. The funny thing is that these days if anybody tries to stop medical treatment for their children because they think that a priest is more likely to cure their child rather than a doctor they are considered to be insane. We no longer live in a world where we explain reality with those Bronze Age concepts. We now use atoms, electrons, cells, DNA, molecules, supernova, and on and on and on, oh and EVOLUTION. Those are the explanative concepts of our age not all that crap from the Bronze Age. But of course the religious are so willfully ignorant that they have deliberately ignored that the world changed around them and refuse to admit it.

Starboy

[Starboy]

oops... wrong button.

[Zeebadee]

Originally posted by Starboy, The theory of Evolution is very much in the same vein as all these other theories. It explains what is observed in nature. Species are observed to change over time. It is observed that those changes are in response to their environment. And that the changes come from variations of traits within the species population. All of that is there to see by anyone who cares to look just as charge, electric and magnetic fields are there for anyone that cares to look. To deny this is to be a willfully ignorant idiot. Starboy

The real willfully ignorant idiot is the one that feels the need to resort to namecalling and personal attacks.

And I repeat, the Theory of Evolution has absolutely no explanation for the orgin of life. The lack of transitional forms of life between species is also a major obstacle to the acceptance of this theory.

"Species are observed to change over time. It is observed that those changes are in response to their environment. And that the changes come from variations of traits within the species population."

Variations within species are fine, now show us some evidence that one species can evolve into another.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by Zeebadee [The real willfully ignorant idiot is the one that feels the need to resort to namecalling and personal attacks.

I never said it was personal. You talk like an idiot. If you don't like it stop saying idiotic things.

And I repeat, the Theory of Evolution has absolutely no explanation for the orgin of life. The lack of transitional forms of life between species is also a major obstacle to the acceptance of this theory.

Argument ad nauseum may be convincing in religious circles but evidence is what rules in scientific circles. You cannot do modern medicine without ToE. You cannot do biology or ecology without ToE. You cannot do genetics without ToE. But you can do religion without ToE. If your argument is that science must abandon ToE just because a particular religion has a problem with it then you are an idiot. You can argue your own person preferences or those of the group that you associate with but do not tell scientists how to go about their business. However I will point out that as you are doing this if you are taking advantage of modern drugs, modern medical procedures or modern technological advances that you are not only an idiot but you are a flaming hypocrite. If you wish to recover any shred of self respect I suggest that you stop using the computer in front of you and go live with the Amish. At least they have the courage of their convictions.

Variations within species are fine, now show us some evidence that one species can evolve into another.

There is plenty of evidence. Just go to any good natural museum. They are chock full of such evidence. Now you may say that you do not find it convincing but please do not add to the list and make yourself a liar as well by saying that there is no evidence.

Starboy

[Inquisitor]

Just answering your assertion that's all. If you are claiming that the advocates of supernatural religion are no better than any one else you will have no argument from me. But that is not what many of them claim. Many claim that their religion can make people better. That without it people will be no better than anyone else. But if you are saying that it ain't so you will get no argument from me.

There were real saints among Christians. There are none among atheists. This tells something about atheism.

You will hurt your credibility by presuming to know what I know. I am referring to the council of Nicea (323 AD) which set the stage for the Holy Roman Empire and the eventual canonization of the bible by Constantine. I am afraid that your profound ignorance of your own religion is showing. In any case the Catholic Church can trace their line of popes back to and prior to this council. The Church is the Catholic Church and it was the institution that authorized the bible that you are so fond of. How you can see the pope as the anti-Christ is beyond me.

So was it council or pope? Looks like it was indeed council. Catholic church become catholic in 1054 as I already said.

The only way that I can conceive that you could think of him as the anti-Christ is that you lie to yourself about the pope or the bible.

Pope visited sinagogue. This is a great and deadly sin. Visiting a house of satanic worship is what gives me right to call him anti christ.

Is this another lie? Surely you know that our current President is an evangelical and that his opponent is a Catholic. Surely you know that over 85% (some say as high as 95%) of the US population believes in god, heaven and hell. That as much as 70% believe in the rapture. Are you afraid of a paltry 2% (an optimistic estimate) of the population that call themselves atheists and couldn’t get elected as dog catcher because this is such a theist culture? That these atheists are somehow going to gain power in a country with such an overwhelming superstitious population to oppress you? You are not only a liar but you appear to have a very loose grip on reality.

There is a huge difference between believing in God and being a true Christian.
2% of atheists? This number certainly goes against all observations. US is very ungodly country, no matter how many people profess to believe. Majority of US population believe the media, so they can't possibly be Christians.

All you can say with any honesty is that you do not find the evidence convincing.

This is exactly what I meant.


Generally, I feel sorry for you. Besides your argument that atheism = superiour intelligence, is simply laughable. But, whatever helps you feel better in this world, I doubt you will much enjoy the next.

[Zeebadee]

Originally posted by Starboy, If you wish to recover any shred of self respect I suggest that you stop using the computer in front of you and go live with the Amish. At least they have the courage of their convictions. Starboy

It's pretty obvious that you are either unable to conduct any kind of rational discussion on this subject , or else are deliberately trying to start a flame war. Therefore, I have nothing more to say to you.


If you really want to know what the Amish think , you ought to go and check it out:

http://amishrakefight.org/gfy/

[Starboy]

Originally posted by Inquisitor, There were real saints among Christians. There are none among atheists. This tells something about atheism.

What could that be? That we lack a belief in god? Please do not conflate this discussion about the honesty of the supernatural religious with your particular take on atheists. Atheists may be the scum of the earth but that doesn't mean that supernatural theists are not the shit below from which the atheists feed. If you think that you have an argument that the traditions of supernatural religion are not dishonest attacking the messenger is not an honest way to do it.

So was it council or pope? Looks like it was indeed council. Catholic church become catholic in 1054 as I already said.

That is not the way the Catholic Church sees it. If you are willing to say that you can tell them their history then you should be willing to concede that they can tell you your own and they will tell you that you are all a bunch of apostates (and that is being nice). This is yet another example of religious lying. You lack the capacity to see the other side and in doing so keep yourself honest.

Pope visited sinagogue. This is a great and deadly sin. Visiting a house of satanic worship is what gives me right to call him anti christ.

Again not according to the Pope, as far as the pope sees it the bible was just a manual they produced to educate the faithful. But the authority of the faith on earth rests with the pope. If the pope says its okay, then it is okay. It was his church that authorized the bible and authorized him and who are you to tell him what he can do. Again you are made dishonest because your faith blinds you to the other side of the story. I could give a rat’s ass what you think about the pope, I just find it so deliciously amusing to see the faithful squirm so in the juices of their own hypocrisy and dishonesty.

There is a huge difference between believing in God and being a true Christian.

Oh, I was so hoping you would bring this up. Do you have a little box with a yes and no light on it that goes beep, beep and lights up when you point it at a person and indicates if they are a "true" Christian? The funny thing about such statements is that when push comes to shove all Christians will tell you that only god can say if one has been a "true" Christian. So I guess next you are going to tell me that you hear the voice of god in your head and you talk back. Because if this is so then it may be necessary to track you down before you hurt someone.

2% of atheists? This number certainly goes against all observations. US is very ungodly country, no matter how many people profess to believe. Majority of US population believe the media, so they can't possibly be Christians.

If you read my post carefully you would have found the term self-professed atheist and that 2% was an optimistic figure. Figures from religious organizations put it at around .5%, which only makes your previous claim about prosecution at the hands of atheists even more absurd and dishonest.

Adherents.com

It has been my experience that the religious do not have a clue as to what it means to be an atheist and also just about everything else in the world including evolution. They take the words of their pastors as if it were the word of god. What makes it so absurd and dishonest is that the pastor does not trust you to find out for yourself because the pastor knows that it will conflict with the superstitious nonsense that they wish to maintain so they fill your heads with lies and misinformation so you may be inoculated against the so called evil outside world. It never occurs to any of you that if what the pastor maintains is actually real then such dishonest tactics are not needed because reality will tell the tale.

Look, I am not a Christian and I will not pretend to tell you how to be a Christian. All I can go on is what people say they are, what they say and what they do. There is no reason to think that anything you say about being a Christian is any more valid than anything the Pope says or the Dali Lama or anybody else for the matter. If there is a god, and it takes sides, it doesn't appear to be telling anybody about it. The fact that so many of you claim that there is a god, and it does take sides, and it is always on the side of that particular claimant is further evidence that you are all a bunch of liars. You cannot all be right and still think that everyone else is wrong.

Generally, I feel sorry for you. Besides your argument that atheism = superiour intelligence, is simply laughable. But, whatever helps you feel better in this world, I doubt you will much enjoy the next.

And if that were my argument then I would have to agree with you that it would be laughable. But you see it is not my argument or my claim. I claim that supernatural theists are dishonest, a claim that I might add for which you have provided ample evidence. The fact that you continue to say things such as this after I have pointed it out to you several times has moved you from the idiot category to the lying sack of shit category. If you do not want to be in that category stop attributing things to me that I did not say. But it is a backhanded admission that you know I am right and it is also further evidence of Christian dishonesty since you find being called dishonest insulting but cannot find anything to insult back with any basis in reality so you must lie yet again.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Originally posted by Zeebadee It's pretty obvious that you are either unable to conduct any kind of rational discussion on this subject , or else are deliberately trying to start a flame war. Therefore, I have nothing more to say to you.

What flame war. Stop saying there is no evidence. There is evidence and plenty of it. You just choose to not be convinced by it. I am sure it irks you to no end that just about every biologist in the world is convinced by it and could not make sense of the natural world without it. If you lie then expect to be called a liar. Now if you want to say that you are simply ignorant and didn't know that there was evidence then that is fine. Ignorance is honest as long as it is not willfull ignorance. If you refuse to take the time to investigate the claims that you disagree with so that at least you personally know something about it from the people that support those claims you disagree with, then that that is being willfully ignorant and it is dishonest. I know that convicted criminals do not like being called criminals but that is just tought shit, because they are criminals. If you insist on being willfully ignorant than expect to be called a liar or worse.

If you really want to know what the Amish think , you ought to go and check it out: http://amishrakefight.org/gfy/

Oh my, if you want be fucked all you gotta do is ask.

Starboy

it's a flame war because of your own behavior and wordings. you have no one else to blame.

the things that i mentioned above, esp, and such, i know are real because i have experienced or witnessed them. juist coz you're too blunted from society and conformity to detect them doesn't mean no one can.

[Technosoul]

Is the act of cloning supernatural? We know by all evidence that nothing in nature would perfectly clone it's self and so it is not anything natural. So we could contend that science is trying to perform supernatural activites that we do not see in nature - like nothing in nature would fly to the moon, clone something, or that honesty is based on judging a book by it's cover.

So unless the rocket scientists are sub-natural for flying to the moon like a witch on a broomstick then it must be called supernatural.

How could science invent a rocket to the moon if they first did not honor imagination and the "dreams" of people like Kennedy to gain the motivation to reach that goal?

Science is not just about the study of past fossils to determine that life was an accident. It is also about creating supernatual realities not found in nature.

And another thing, should I claim that science is advocating fantasy just because of few of their best people wrote some science fiction books? They also tell stories you know and some of the stories, like Star Wars, is a clone of the Bible.

The point is that both science and religion has it's own brand of supernatural beliefs and experiences.

technosoul.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by Bob_Dobbs, it's a flame war because of your own behavior and wordings. you have no one else to blame. the things that i mentioned above, esp, and such, i know are real because i have experienced or witnessed them. juist coz you're too blunted from society and conformity to detect them doesn't mean no one can.

First off supernatural is not a phenomenon, it is an explanation. It is essentially the spooky explanation (magical thinking). Many people seem to like magical explanations. I have no doubt that you witnessed or experienced something that you have explained using supernatural explanations. But let me ask you this. Have you spent at least as much time trying to explain what you experienced in other more prosaic ways as you have spent by explaining them with the supernatural? If you have found flaws in the supernatural explanation have you dismissed them but ignore the more obvious prosaic explanations that fit like a glove because you prefer the spooky explanation? If you can’t answer these questions then you are not being honest with yourself. Being honest requires that you examine all the evidence and explanations as carefully as you can.

People fool themselves all the time. If you are serious about not trying to fool yourself then you must honestly consider alternate explanations for what you experienced and attempt to sift through the data or conduct further experiments to try to gain evidence that would favor one explanation over all the others. Have you done this? And if you are honest with yourself even if you favor the supernatural explanations you must concede that they still may all be very well explained by some heretofore unknown natural explanation. Can you concede this?

If you have not been honest with yourself then you are no different from any of the other supernatural theists who prefer the magical explanations to the more obvious natural explanations, but have no evidence that would cause one to prefer the supernatural explanations whereas we live in a world where all the other phenomena appears to be satisfactory explained naturally.

There are several examples of theists that have posted on this thread that have illustrated the dishonesty of supernatural religion because it is obvious that they have not examined the competing claims that conflict with their religion any where near as thoroughly as they have studied the explanations that favor their supernatural religions. And yet they feel that their position is somehow honest when they reject the scientific explanations. Some also appear to think that theirs is an honest position when they try to rebut arguments with stale canned theistic arguments (probably from some website) that I have heard so many times that it has forced me to think that something rotten is at the top of supernatural religion.

Starboy

[Inquisitor]

Starboy, obviously you are unable to understand me for we are speaking different languages. You speak a language of an animal ( which you convinced you are), I speak the language of a Human who has soul ( which existence you deny).

Therefore since you are a selfconfessed animal I will take the following advice:

Mt 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by Inquisitor, Starboy, obviously you are unable to understand me for we are speaking different languages. You speak a language of an animal ( which you convinced you are), I speak the language of a Human who has soul ( which existence you deny). Therefore since you are a selfconfessed animal I will take the following advice: Mt 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Don't forget to shake the dust from your feet.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Can't figure out why anyone would want to be a Christian. They do not have the convictions of their own beliefs. Apparently because I lack a belief that I have a soul then *poof* I don't have a soul even though they are taught to believe that I have a soul. But of course their religion provides them with all sorts of oh so holy put downs for people that do not agree with them. But of course they still love you as a person but hate everything that you believe, and then they are shocked to find that people may not care for such dishonest bahavior on their part and see it as a fundamental character flaw induced in them by their own religion. Go figure.

Starboy

[Gorgo]

Hey! Bible Believers. Sell everything you own and send me the money, please. Email me for the address.

Matthew 5:42
"Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away."