Who Believes?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]ScrambyEggs wrote:
Creation

I just don’t think that evolution of monkey to man works. You of course need that missing link. As I see it, if evolution theory holds true there should be several hundred thousand years of skeletons of beings from that missing link stage. We have excavated and found dinosaurs that were from before the age of any man but never any of these links. I’d be willing to believe that beings may adapt slightly to enviornmental changes but to become a whole new species… nah.

Not to mention the genetics seemr impossible. If you have a horse, mate it with a donkey it produces a mule, but the mule is unable to reproduce. So if one human suddenly evolved it too would have offspring which could not reproduce because there would only be the throwbacks. The only solution is that the entire population would have to somehow evolve overnight and … some magical genetic dance, and everyone evolves exactly the same way.

Remember Darwin is still just a theory and correct me if I am wrong but I think he left humans out of the evolution picture.[/quote]

No he did not leave humans out of the evolution picture. You should have at least a meager understanding of evolution before you start posting and bashing it. Evolution is nothing like mating a donkey and a horse; it is a gradual process of genetic mutation that takes many generations to occur over and is an adaptation to the environment in which a species lives. Africans are generally very tall and have lungs that can hold more oxygen than other people because of their enviroment; there is an example of evolution.

262

[quote]gregbrock wrote:
Forgive me if I don’t read all the previous posts before chiming in. Not only do I believe but I find it really hard to understand the point of view that we are here by accident. It would actually take much more faith to believethat lightning struck some pond scum and ultimately an ordered ecosystem coming from it. Lightning generally blasts shit apart rather than puts it together. Not to mention that whole life thing. Those darn evolutionists are really reaching to believe that.[/quote]

There are many more ways than that postulated to explain how it might have happen. And lightning doesn’t necessarily blow water up, does it? Water conducts electricity (not pure water, but water in nature does), which is where the lightning comes in, as a source of electricity/energy.

Again, Pascal’s wager. Discussed in quite a few posts. If God will let people into heaven who believe in Her “just to be on the safe side,” then I’d rather have nothing to do with that God and live a worthy, noble life for the simple reason that it gives me pleasure to do so.

263

[quote]pookie wrote:
thabigdon24 wrote:
bwahahaha pookie that image sums up my feelings towards the hereafter exactly . I would love to share THAT and similar images to loved ones and friends. Where can T-Brethren get such funny stuff? gawd-bless

Here’s your new home page: http://www.venganza.org/

They have great mugs and t-shirts too![/quote]

Now that is just good stuff, man.

I believe there is a God/creator. But I am a scholar of religion (as opposed to religious scholar; boy has that caused some misunderstandings). My own studies and readings (in the original languages) don’t support the Jesus died for our sins etc. school of thought. These interpretations of the Jesus message came long after his death and were freely created using what scholars call the Q document and interpretations of the Septuagint by the various authors of the Gospels and other books to help address specific crises within their congregations. This includes Paul’s epistles as well. I have also come to realize that faith and historical fact are not the same thing and that if you have faith, any information and evidence to the contrary of what you believe matters not at all.

In response to one comment in the thread, it is a bit of a stretch to say that Christianity was created wholesale from Graeco-Roman mythology (it actually develops within the context of 1st century AD Judaism), but there is plenty of syncretism going on in the development of any religion. Sort of why we call Graeco-Roman religion Graeco-Roman: the Romans syncretized from the Greeks, who syncretized from the HIttites, Phoenicians, Egyptians and, well, pretty much anyone else they encountered if it suited them; the Hittites syncretized from the peoples in Anatolia, Syria-Palestine and even Mesopotamia; the Mesopotamian peoples (like Sumerians, Akkadians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Elamites, etc) freely syncretized from each other and so on, truly ad infinitum. Many early depictions of Jesus as a shepherd look alot like pictures of the Persian god Mithras, who was very popular among the Roman army, where alot of early mass conversions to Christianity took place.

My problem with Christianity is not with the Christ, it is with the very human (and oftimes inhumane) followers of the religion. Monotheism is inherently intolerant of other religions and the freedom of thought (just ask Galileo Galilei).

Anyway, sorry to kind of go on about this but I felt it was relevant to the discussion.

WMD

264

[quote]teenlifter16 wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:

Absolutely I believe.
IMHO, Genesis can’t be taken literally. How long is seven days to God, who is outside of time? Who’s to say the sixth “day”, when God created man wasn’t a million of our years long, and encompassed all of human evolution. I don’t think creationism and evoultionism are mutually exclusive.

I also fully believe. However i have a question. Do you believe that Gensis did actually occur and God breathed life into adam and created eve from adam’s rib etc? or is this just made up? I believe it happened but you seem to be contradicting yourself.

teenlifter

[/quote]

Explain the two different and somewhat contradictory accounts of the creation of humans in Genesis: Chapter 1 verse 27 has man and woman created at the same time, but in chapter 2 verses 21-22 woman is now created from Adams rib after he has been roaming about the Garden for a while. Chapter 2’s account seems to be the verse most emphasized and quoted by alot of believers. It is often used to justify the, how shall I say, oppression of women.

To be clear for many folks, including Rainjack, my issue is not with your faith in and of itself. My issue is with the insistence of many that what you believe is A) my problem and should somehow define MY life as it does yours and B) there seems to be a choose one from column A and two from column B approach to scriptural interpretation. In other words, why use Levitican law to condemn homosexuality but not the charging of interest on loans, the eating of shellfish or the shaving of facial hair? All these things are prohibited in Leviticus but I’ve never seen or heard of Red Lobster being condemned for serving shrimp and scallops. And a lot of Christian men go clean shaven. This is just an example of the inconsistency and perversity of logic that really puts me off about Christianity.

This is not an attempt to attack. I feel it is a legitimate line of inquiry and I hope it is taken that way.

WMD

265

[quote]Professor X wrote:
teenlifter16 wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:

Absolutely I believe.
IMHO, Genesis can’t be taken literally. How long is seven days to God, who is outside of time? Who’s to say the sixth “day”, when God created man wasn’t a million of our years long, and encompassed all of human evolution. I don’t think creationism and evoultionism are mutually exclusive.

I also fully believe. However i have a question. Do you believe that Gensis did actually occur and God breathed life into adam and created eve from adam’s rib etc? or is this just made up? I believe it happened but you seem to be contradicting yourself.

teenlifter

I think many things written in the bible are written with a poorer understanding of the observer in comparison to where we are “mentally” today. That is my honest understanding of it. To me, it sounds almost like genetic research. “Taking a rib” could be related to our concept of surgery or even cloning. There are many concepts in the bible that I relate to in that way. If someone from a few thousand years ago saw a television today, how would they describe it?
[/quote]

Good point. Have you ever read any of the prophets, especially Ezekiel or Ezra? Either peyote (or some sort of hallucinogen) was widely available in the ancient world (there is actually some scholarly conjecture about this) or these guys are describing things they just had no vocabulary for.

WMD

266

[quote]Miserere wrote:
thabigdon24 wrote:
Thats a cool idea about Christianity being taken from the Greek/Roman thing. Got any sources?

It goes beyond that. Just as the Romans admired the Greeks and incorporated much of their culture into their own, the Greeks had first admired the Egyptian empire, and absorbed many of its elements. Amongst them, the Mysteries, a series of myths and ceremonies that were only revealed to the initiated, but which later became widespread amongst the ancient world:

At the heart of the Mysteries were myths concerning a dying and resurrecting godman, who was known by many different names. In Egypt he was Osiris, in Greece Dionysus, in Asia Minor Attis, in Syria Adonis, in Italy Bacchus, in Persia Mithras. Fundamentally all these godmen are the same mythical being.

From The Jesus Mysteries, by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, published 1999.

These facts (it’s not a theory this time, folks) were known in antiquity. Celsus, the 2nd century philosopher, and one of the first critics of Christianity, wrote On the True Doctrine, where he accuses the Christians of appropriating foreign myths to create a religion. One of the criticisms I find most interesting–because it remains true to this day–is the following:

Some [Christians] do no even want to give or to receive a reason for what they believe, and use such expressions as “do not ask questions; just believe,” and “Your faith will save you.” Others quote the apostle Paul. “The wisdom in the world is evil and foolishness a good thing.”

What Celsus also notes, as do modern scholars, are the striking similarities between many of the ancient religions/myths, most of which which predate Christianity. As early on as the 3rd century BCE, the god-man which the Christians would come to call Jesus was referred to by the name Osiris-Dionysus (his Egyptian and Greek names, respectively).

Here are some of the similarities between Osiris-Dionysus and Jesus:

  • Jesus is the saviour of mankind, God made man, the Son of God equal with the Father; so is Osiris-Dionysus.

  • Jesus is born of a mortal virgin who after her death ascends to heaven and is honoured as a divine being; so is Osiris-Dionysus.

  • Jesus is born in a cave on 25 December or 6 January, as is Osiris-Dionysus.

  • The birth of Jesus is prophesied by a star; so is the birth of Osiris-Dionysus.

  • Jesus is born in Bethlehem, which was shaded by a grove sacred to Osiris-Dionysus.

  • Jesus is visited by the Magi, who are followers of Osiris-Dionysus.

  • The Magi bring Jesus gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh, which a sixth-century BCE Pagan tells us is the way to worship God.

  • Jesus is baptized, a ritual practised for centuries in the Mysteries.

  • The holy man who baptizes Jesus with water has the same name as a Pagan god of water and is born on the summer solstice celebrated as a Pagan water festival.

  • Jesus offers his followers elemental baptisms of water, air and fire, as did the Pagan Mysteries.

  • Jesus is portrayed as a quiet man with long hair and a beard; so is Osiris-Dionysus.

  • Jesus turns water into wine at a marriage on the same day that Osiris-Dionysus was previously believed to have turned water into wine at a marriage.

  • Jesus heals the sick, exorcises demons, provides miraculous meals, helps fishermen make miraculous catches of fish and calms the water for his disciples; all of these marvels had previously been performed by Pagan sages.

  • Like the sages of the Mysteries, Jesus is a wandering wonder-worker who is not honoured in his home town.

  • Jesus is accused of licentious behaviour, as were the followers of Osiris-Dionysus.

  • Jesus is not at first recognized as a divinity by his disciples, but then is transfigured before them in att his gIory; the same is true of Osiris-Dionysus.

  • Jesus is surrounded by 12 disciples; so is Osiris-Dionysus.

  • Jesus rides triumphantly into town on a donkey while crowds wave branches, as does Osiris-Dionysus.

  • Jesus is a just man unjustly accused of heresy and bringing a new religion, as is Osiris-Dionysus.

  • Jesus attacks hypocrites, stands up to tyranny and willingly goes to his death predicting he will rise again in three days, as do Pagan sages.

  • Jesus is betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, a motif found in the story of Socrates.

  • Jesus is equated with bread and wine, as is Osiris-Dionysus.

  • Jesus’ disciples symbolically eat bread and drink wine to commune with him, as do the followers of Osiris-Dionysus.

  • Jesus is hung on a tree or crucified, as is Osiris-Dionysus.

  • Jesus dies as a sacrifice to redeem the sins of the world; so does Osiris-Dionysus.

  • Jesus’ corpse is wrapped in linen and anointed with myrrh, as is the corpse of Osiris-Dionysus.

  • After his death Jesus descends to hell, then on the third day resurrects before his disciples and ascends into heaven, where he is enthroned by God and waits to reappear at the end of time as a divine judge, as does Osiris-Dionysus.

  • Jesus was said to have died and resurrected on exactly the same dates that the death and resurrection of Osiris-Dionysus were celebrated.

  • Jesus’ empty tomb is visited by three women followers; Osiris-Dionysus also has three women followers who visit an empty cave.

  • Through sharing in his passion Jesus offers his disciples the chance to be born again, as does Osiris-Dionysus. [/quote]

Nice work…

267

[quote]Vegita wrote:
rocksolid wrote:
I absolutely believe. And for those who do not, here is an interesting thought. If I am wrong, and I go through life believing in Christ and his sacrifice on the cross for my sins but in the end we just die and go nowhere, oh well. But if I am right, and nonbelievers are doomed to an eternity in separation from their Creator, what a big mistake it would have been to not believe. At least give it some thought all you nonbelievers. Believing does not mean you are a stupid, mindless, automaton. Give it a shot and enter with an open mind and heart.

I hate this argument: sorry, but I believe that anyone who does not have sex with at least 100 women will spend eternitey in a place where they get rammed in the ass by a thousand dicks. On the other hand, if you do achieve the 100 woman quota you will get to live eternity in heaven, where random hot chicks just run around and give you blowjobs all day. There is no heaven for woman because they are only in the equation as a means for man to make it to heaven or not. Now you can belive me or not, but wouldn’t you rather be safe and sleep with at least a 100 women just in case i’m right and your not?

V[/quote]

Snort…

268

[quote]Miserere wrote:
DeepSouth wrote:
Through non-biblical text Jesus has been verified and this includes his crucifixion on the cross.

Please tell us which texts are these, as the lack of historical proof is one of the arguments used by most atheists. The reasoning goes something like this (and I paraphrase):

The Romans had lists of everything. The Romans recorded everything. There were historians who lived in the time of Jesus who wrote plenty of books. If Jesus caused such a social commotion as the New Testament says he did, then his name should really have appeared on some official text somewhere.

As far as I’m aware, it hasn’t.[/quote]

There is a passage in Josephus’ Antiquities that may refer to Jesus the Christ (much debated because it appears to have been altered in late Antique/early Medieval texts) and another in Tacitus that refers to a criminal named Chrestus that was put to death by Pontius Pilate. The Romans would probably not have considered Jesus worth recording as he was a commoner and a member of a conquered people and really they just didn’t really give a shit about the Jesus movement in Jesus’ own day.

Jesus/Jeshua was a very common name in ancient Judea.

WMD

269

The stories of Mithras also exactly parallel the Christ story and predate Christ by something like 200 years. Apparently. Based on every historical text OTHER than the Bible it would appear that there probably was a guy named Jesus who was considered by many to be a great Hebrew Rabbi but who never considered himself to be the actual son of God but ‘a son of God’ like all of the jewish people. About 30 years after his death Paul encorporated the Mithras story into his retelling of Jesus’ life and of course the stories of Mithras were heavily influenced by the stories of Dionysis which were derivatins of the Osiris story and so on and so forth.

Human civilization existd for at least 2000 years before the rise of the hibru tribe to some dominance in the region and for the 4000 years of recorded history prior to Moses ‘revelations’ the Hibru’s were polytheists like most of the known world at that time. Yahweh was a minor god of fertility and shepherds, one in a rather large pantheon. It wasn’t till Moses sat in front of the ‘burning bush’ that anyone had the idea do claim there was only one god.

Is there a God or a creator? I don’t know, maybe. If a god or gods or some super advanced alien race or whatever did create humans that’s cool… but that has nothing to do with the Christian god, he’s a relatively new addition to the mix and no more valid than any other superstition that man has come up with to explain the mysteries of the universe.

270

[quote]WORKING wrote:
Miserere wrote:
DeepSouth wrote:
Through non-biblical text Jesus has been verified and this includes his crucifixion on the cross.

Please tell us which texts are these, as the lack of historical proof is one of the arguments used by most atheists. The reasoning goes something like this (and I paraphrase):

The Romans had lists of everything. The Romans recorded everything. There were historians who lived in the time of Jesus who wrote plenty of books. If Jesus caused such a social commotion as the New Testament says he did, then his name should really have appeared on some official text somewhere.

As far as I’m aware, it hasn’t.

If you read the book of Danial in his interpratation of nebachenezzers dream he layed out the march of empires from the babylonians,persia,greeks,romans, right down to our time. which is backed by historical fact. Isiaih also spelled this out also. and theres always josephus who is a roman historian who was present at the fall of jeruselum. who speaks of Jesus.[/quote]

Josephus was a Jew of the priestly class named Joseph ben Mattathias, appointed general of the Galilee by the Revolutionary Council in Jerusalem, captured by Vespasian after the fall of Jotapata, who saved his butt by “prophesying” that Vespasian would one day be emperor. He was later adopted by the Flavians and given the Romanized name Flavius Josephus. He wrote the Bello Judaicum for his patrons, then the Antiquities, the Vita (his biography) and the Contra Apion. The passage in the Antiquities is of dubious historicity because of later tampering.

WMD

271

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Like the mind of an alien being? Yes, which is why I chose science as a career path.

Have you ever wondered why things in nature work the way they do? Why humans evolved the way we have? Why E in fact does equal mc**2? Why mathmatics is so clean & elegant? Almost like somebody planned it that way…?

You remind me of scientists 2000 years ago, saying that the world was flat and they could prove it. Perhaps with another 2000 years of learning & understanding science will in fact be able to prove the existance of God. [/quote]

The Greeks knew the world was round as did the Romans, Egyptians, Babylonians, etc. It was Medieval Europeans that thought the world was flat and that had nothing to do with science. It was “faith”. Hell, even Medieval Arabs knew the earth was round, based on mathematics. This was heresy to the Christian West.

WMD

272

[quote]Professor X wrote:
T-Quinn wrote:
Belief = War

No, apparently, invisible WMD’s equal war. [/quote]

I’m invisible?!

273

[quote]DeepSouth wrote:
Just want to say I think you have it wrong when it comes to Paul… He did meet Jesus, the reason for his complete conversion…and he practically set the Christian Doctrine, IMO.

Maybe some here can spread some light on how all the apostles died according to historical record, including Paul?

Miserere wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Well, Josephus mention Jesus “the so-called Christ” when referring to the stoning death of his brother James. Tacitus also mentions Jesus. As far as official records go, we don’t (as far as I know) have that many.

Poached from somebody else’s website:

The only somewhat reliable, secular evidence we have for the life of Jesus comes from two very brief passages in the works of Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian. And Josephus was a prolific writer - he frequently wrote several pages on the trial and execution of individual common thieves, but on Jesus, he is silent except for two paragraphs, one of which is a known interpolation, and the other is highly suspect. Other references to Jesus in secular writings are ambiguous at best, or known to be later interpolations, or both. The earliest references to Jesus in the rabbinical literature come from the second century, even though known historical figures such as John the Baptist merit considerable discussion, even though his impact on Judaism was minimal. There are no references to Jesus in any of the Roman histories during his presumed lifetime. That he should be so thoroughly ignored is unlikely given the impact the gospel writers said he had on the events and politics of the Jewish kingdom.

Expanding on Josephus:

Josephus was a historian who was so very thorough he would write a three page history of the trial and execution of a common thief, and wrote extensively about John the Baptist, but on Jesus, his two small references are seriously doubted by scholars as being genuine. Unfortunately, the writings of Josephus have come down to us only through Christian sources, none earlier than the fourth century, and are known to have been revised by the Christians. There are a number of reasons why the two references in Josephus are doubted: As summarized by Louis Feldman, a promient Josephus scholar, they are, first, use of the Christian reference to Jesus being the Messiah is unlikely to have come from a Jewish historian, especially from one who treated other Messianic aspirants rather harshly; second, commentators writing about Josephus earlier than Eusebius (4th Cent. C.E.) do not cite the passage; third, Origen mentions that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the messiah.

Jesus would’ve barely been a blip on the radar for the Romans at the time. Believe it or not, they had much better things to do than to worry about every wandering mystic with a cult (there were many).

You’re joking, right? If you accept the story of the Bible, then Jesus was a huge mustard stain on the Roman radar. They would’ve noticed. And according to the Bible, they did.

Paul, we know, was a real person and a Roman citizen. He wrote letters that have been copied and survived to this day.

Just because Paul was probably a real person, doesn’t prove anything about Jesus. Especially since Paul never met Jesus. In Paul’s letters it is apparent that there are whole areas of Christian doctrine he was ignorant on, he never mentions that Jesus worked any miracles and he appparently did not associate the death of Jesus with the trial before Pilate.

We also know that Jews were crucified by the Romans,

Which has no bearing on this subject whatsoever. The Romans crucified anyone, not only Jews. And they got the idea from the Greeks and Egyptians.

and that Jesus’s brother James fought with Paul for control of the church.

I think it was Peter who fought with Paul, but again, this has no bearing on the figure of Jesus, although it is important when studying the origins of the Church.

I don’t think it’s outlandish to suggest that a historical Jesus was likely to have existed.

I disagree somewhat. Maybe a “wandering mystic with a cult” named Jesus did exist, why not? It’s possible. However, Jesus, as he is represented in the Bible, is highly unlikely to have existed. Read my loooong, earlier post for the reasons why I believe this (I believe you arleady did).

[/quote]

Jesus had been dead for quite some time when Paul had his change of heart. There is no evidence Paul ever went to Judea before Jesus died. For reference Paul was from Tarsus which is in southern Anatolia, no where near Jerusalem or Nazareth or the Galilee. If Paul met Jesus, he met a ghost.

WMD

274

[quote]DeepSouth wrote:
Just want to say I think you have it wrong when it comes to Paul… He did meet Jesus, the reason for his complete conversion…and he practically set the Christian Doctrine, IMO.

Maybe some here can spread some light on how all the apostles died according to historical record, including Paul?{/quote}

There aren’t any purely historical accounts of the deaths of the apostles but according to faith based sources many of them were martyred, including Paul at Rome during Nero’s reign.

WMD

275

[quote]nephorm wrote:
DeepSouth wrote:
I realize the pagan traditions that have been kept with the alterations to fit Christianity (Done by the Roman Emperor who saw the Cross in the sky, I believe…don’t remember his name).

Constantine.
[/quote]

According to some pagan Roman historians, what Constantine saw was Apollo’s chariot. He certainly dedicated as many temples to Apollo as he did churches and didn’t convert until he lay dying. It was easier to be a bad boy and repent when one died, you know, just in case.

276

[quote]WMD wrote:

I’m invisible?![/quote]

Yup. We find you by smell.

277

[quote]Xvim wrote:
If you believe that stem cell research requires the abortion of a fetus you’re sadly uninformed. Envitro fertilization produces multiple unviable blastocysts that can and do provide the stem cells in question. No abortion needed. Which of course it totally irrelevant when confronted by superstition.[/quote]

First of all, we’re dealing with a couple of different issues here. We could comment on the practice of envitro fertilization techniques. For example, I am personally opposed to fertilizing serveral eggs in order to find the most “suitable” one for implamtation, and discarding the rest, or saving them for research.

Second, as to whether or not the embryo is “living” or not (which ties into the abortion debate) my faith tells me that we have life at the moment of conception…HOWEVER…faith aside…we’ll ask the same question. Even though scientists agree that a new, genetically distinct organism exists the moment that the first cell divides after conception, we can’t agree as to its status as a living person or if it should be protected. There are three options to consider.

  1. We know for sure that this embryo is a human person and is entitled to all the same rights as you or I.

  2. We know for sure that this embryo is NOT a human person and therefore has no rights as an individual.

  3. At this time, we don’t know for sure what an embryo’s status is as a living person.

Most people subscribe to category three and it is the most reasonable one to pick. Although my faith tells me scenario 1 is true, it can’t be scientifically proven at this time. Even most pro-choicers don’t believe in option 2. Using reason, one concludes that we really don’t know.

So…what does that mean? Does that mean that because of our uncertainty we are entitled to assume an embryo is not living and we can perform research on it, or abort it? In my opinion, if we are unsure whether or not its human, we should err on the side of caution and assume it is.

If you were driving and saw a “human-shaped” pile of clothes in the middle of the road, should you run it over because you weren’t sure whether or not it was an actual person, or should you avoid hitting it because, even though you don’t know, there is a chance that it could be?

Or, if you are hunting and you hear something rustling in the bushes. It could be an animal, or it could be another hunter. You decide to shoot because, hey, you don’t know that its NOT a person. What do you think the judge would say at your trial?

My point is, I am opposed to embryonic stem-cell research, abortion, and the practice of creating multiple embryos with the intention of using only one for envitro fertilization, not just because of my faith, but because of my reason.

I am not opposed to stem cell research that does not destroy an embryo, however.

278

Intentional ignorance is reserved for some* of those who have a front seat on God’s panaorama. The Biblical doctrine is that man is born in the condition of pride (self-centeredness) such as all children display. It is an abberation in the original design introduced via sin. The vast majority of unbelievers are blind not by choice per se, but rather by nature.

DH

[quote]nephorm wrote:
gregbrock wrote:
If they’re wrong they’re up the creek.

Faith cannot be taken on and off like a fur coat; if Christian doctrine be correct, it is through God’s beneficence alone that we receive revelation and Salvation. Without His divine intervention, we would indeed be lost.

The absence of faith is not, necessarily, the matter of intentional ignorance the faithful often make it out to be. It is often the end state after years of fruitless searching and seeking to be granted the same surety that the faithful so often profess.[/quote]

279

[quote]Warrior Spirit wrote:

Allowing stem cell research could have effected you too…if you had been the ebryo chosen. Believe what you want, but you should be happy that your parents didn’t believe in abortion.[/quote]

Well, if they wanted him, they would not have sought abortion anyway. So your argument doesn’t really make sense. It also makes no sense to let people suffer with debilitating diseases if there is a way to come up with cures.

But let’s not hijack the thread with this…

WMD

280

[quote]pookie wrote:
WMD wrote:

I’m invisible?!

Yup. We find you by smell.[/quote]

Hey, I bathe once a month whether I need it or not.

Canadians…hah!