| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Vera Six" |
| Date: |
14 Feb 2004 05:49:18 AM |
| Object: |
The Bible.... |
Whatever people might say:
The Bible is God's Holy Word - right or wrong?
.
|
|
| User: "A Mighty Fortress" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible.... |
14 Feb 2004 08:26:06 PM |
|
|
"Vera Six" <verasix@acc-growing-deeper.de> wrote in message news:<c0l21a$185hk9$1@ID-223228.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Whatever people might say:
The Bible is God's Holy Word - right or wrong?
It is the word of God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible.... |
15 Feb 2004 01:19:48 PM |
|
|
"A Mighty Fortress" <bhoffman7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:752bcfdd.0402141826.24df11d3@posting.google.com...
"Vera Six" <verasix@acc-growing-deeper.de> wrote in message
news:<c0l21a$185hk9$1@ID-223228.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Whatever people might say:
The Bible is God's Holy Word - right or wrong?
It is the word of God.
Sorry to seem controversial, but In what sense is the Bible the word of God?
God does not speaking in the first-person throughout. Much of the OT and NT
comprise historical records. Numerous people speak in the Bible, most of
whom are not God. Numerous parts of the OT are rejected by Jesus in the NT,
so is God contradicting himself?
mailto:would-be-scholar@lastbit.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vera Six" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible.... |
15 Feb 2004 04:16:17 PM |
|
|
"John McDonald" <support@lastbit.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:c0ogom$gqo$2@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
"A Mighty Fortress" <bhoffman7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:752bcfdd.0402141826.24df11d3@posting.google.com...
"Vera Six" <verasix@acc-growing-deeper.de> wrote in message
news:<c0l21a$185hk9$1@ID-223228.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Whatever people might say:
The Bible is God's Holy Word - right or wrong?
It is the word of God.
Sorry to seem controversial, but In what sense is the Bible the word of God?
God does not speaking in the first-person throughout. Much of the OT and NT
comprise historical records. Numerous people speak in the Bible, most of
whom are not God. Numerous parts of the OT are rejected by Jesus in the NT,
so is God contradicting himself?
mailto:would-be-scholar@lastbit.com
Hi John,
God does not speak in the first person throughout, but he shows
us how he acts, how he takes an influence on the things happening,
on people, and, best of all, he shows us his love for us. You can
get into touch with God over the Bible, if He wants to talk with you
like that.
Which part do you think is not God's Word? Maybe we could tell you
better if you have a special passage...
Yours in Christ,
Vera
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible.... |
15 Feb 2004 05:04:45 PM |
|
|
Vera Six wrote:
"John McDonald" <support@lastbit.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:c0ogom$gqo$2@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
"A Mighty Fortress" <bhoffman7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:752bcfdd.0402141826.24df11d3@posting.google.com...
"Vera Six" <verasix@acc-growing-deeper.de> wrote in message
news:<c0l21a$185hk9$1@ID-223228.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Whatever people might say:
The Bible is God's Holy Word - right or wrong?
It is the word of God.
Sorry to seem controversial, but In what sense is the Bible the word of God?
God does not speaking in the first-person throughout. Much of the OT and NT
comprise historical records. Numerous people speak in the Bible, most of
whom are not God. Numerous parts of the OT are rejected by Jesus in the NT,
so is God contradicting himself?
mailto:would-be-scholar@lastbit.com
Hi John,
===>"God", actually various deities depicted by various authors
compiled in the Bible, depicted as the character "GOD" who
sometimes DOES (paraphrasing your contention)
speak in the first person, and
acts, takes an influence on the things happening,
on people, and, sometimes, shows love for humans. You can
get into touch with God over the Bible, if He wants to talk with you
like that.
Which part do you think is not God's Word?
===>NONE OF IT.
They are words of MEN, in whose writings a "God" appears as
one of the characters. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Horyn" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible.... |
15 Feb 2004 05:01:44 PM |
|
|
"John McDonald" <support@lastbit.com> wrote in message
news:c0ogom$gqo$2@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
"A Mighty Fortress" <bhoffman7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:752bcfdd.0402141826.24df11d3@posting.google.com...
"Vera Six" <verasix@acc-growing-deeper.de> wrote in message
news:<c0l21a$185hk9$1@ID-223228.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Whatever people might say:
The Bible is God's Holy Word - right or wrong?
It is the word of God.
Sorry to seem controversial, but In what sense is the Bible the word of
God?
God does not speaking in the first-person throughout. Much of the OT and
NT
comprise historical records. Numerous people speak in the Bible, most of
whom are not God. Numerous parts of the OT are rejected by Jesus in the
NT,
so is God contradicting himself?
Reject:
1. To throw away, as any thing useless or vile. 2. To cast off. 3. To cast
off; to forsake. Jer. 7.
4. To refuse to receive; to slight; to despise.
(Webster's Dictionary)
Excuse me but, where is this "numerous" list of OT passages which Jesus
rejected?
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible.... |
15 Feb 2004 04:23:02 PM |
|
|
"John McDonald" <support@lastbit.com> wrote in message
news:c0ogom$gqo$2@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Sorry to seem controversial, but In what sense is the Bible the word of
God?
All of Scripture is given by the inspiration of God. Although written down
by men in their own language and style, the message is from God.
1 Thessalonians 2:13 And we also thank God continually because, when you
received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as
the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in
you who believe.
2 Peter 1:19-21 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and
you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark
place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above
all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the
prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will
of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy
Spirit.
2 Timothy 3:15-17 ...and how from infancy you have known the holy
Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in
Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching,
rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God
may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
1 Corinthians 2:13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human
wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in
spiritual words.
Romans 1:16-17 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of
God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for
the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a
righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written:
"The righteous will live by faith."
Numerous parts of the OT are rejected by Jesus in the NT,
so is God contradicting himself?
Where does Christ reject the OT?
Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or
the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
God's blessings!
Michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible.... THE BIG LIE ABOUT IT |
15 Feb 2004 05:07:55 PM |
|
|
Michael wrote:
"John McDonald" <support@lastbit.com> wrote in message
news:c0ogom$gqo$2@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Sorry to seem controversial, but In what sense is the Bible the word of
God?
All of Scripture is given by the inspiration of God. Although written down
by men in their own language and style, the message is from God.
===>THAT is the BIG LIE, the BAIT with which priests and preachers
hook their fish.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott brn2dipATyahooDOTcom" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible.... THE BIG LIE ABOUT IT |
15 Feb 2004 05:42:14 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:d022ce93b5a6ebbd8d45fbef8f31891b@news.teranews.com...
===>THAT is the BIG LIE, the BAIT with which priests and preachers
hook their fish.
This is an odd position for one to take, even given that this was
cross posted as it was. Looks like you are merely lurking in
one of the groups and looking to stir up trouble.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible.... THE BIG LIE ABOUT IT |
15 Feb 2004 10:42:14 PM |
|
|
Scott wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:d022ce93b5a6ebbd8d45fbef8f31891b@news.teranews.com...
===>THAT is the BIG LIE, the BAIT with which priests and preachers
hook their fish.
This is an odd position for one to take, even given that this was
cross posted as it was. Looks like you are merely lurking in
one of the groups and looking to stir up trouble.
===>"alt.bible" is the proper place for telling the truth
about the Bible! Why did you delete the point to which it
answered?
(It was the assertion that "All of Scripture is given by the inspiration
of God.
Although written down by men in their own language and style,
the message is from God", which is a LIE!) -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott brn2dipATyahooDOTcom" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible.... THE BIG LIE ABOUT IT |
16 Feb 2004 12:42:23 AM |
|
|
Actually, I'm trying to cut down on the cross posting nonsense going on
here.
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:555cfbe820a1a57301b874700599fdf0@news.teranews.com...
Scott wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:d022ce93b5a6ebbd8d45fbef8f31891b@news.teranews.com...
===>THAT is the BIG LIE, the BAIT with which priests and preachers
hook their fish.
This is an odd position for one to take, even given that this was
cross posted as it was. Looks like you are merely lurking in
one of the groups and looking to stir up trouble.
===>"alt.bible" is the proper place for telling the truth
about the Bible! Why did you delete the point to which it
answered?
(It was the assertion that "All of Scripture is given by the inspiration
of God.
Although written down by men in their own language and style,
the message is from God", which is a LIE!) -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible.... THE BIG LIE ABOUT IT |
17 Feb 2004 08:23:39 AM |
|
|
Whoever knows the Lord Jesus Christ knows that whatever God has said in the
Bible is true. We do not rely on human reasoning or on scientific
achievements to tell us whether or not God is God, or whether the Bible is
true or not.
To do so would only force us to wait forever, since human beings do not yet
even begin to really understand our own bodies, which are with all of us
every day. If human beings struggle as we do just to comprehend the mundane
and ordinary, how can we ever hope to rise up enough, through mere reason
and faulty (both limited and skewed) observation, to take hold of the
eternal and infinite? We simply cannot. The human mind is too limited in
this age, in this world.
But by faith, we who follow Jesus Christ know that God is, and that He made
all things. We know that the people and places spoken of in the Bible
record are real people and places in history. We know that God created and
that He sustains all things according to His own Word and power and will.
We know this because God has proven Himself true in every other way -- as
regards the eternal power and life to be found in Jesus Christ our Lord.
And also because the Holy Spirit of God is now inside of us, bearing witness
to reality and truth. We no longer walk in darkness, as does the rest of
the world, relying only on our few physical senses or on the faltering
weaknesses of human reason and logic.
We know that Jesus Christ is Lord, and that the Bible is true in every
detail of its record of history. God has already demonstrated His
faithfulness and truthfulness to us in every way. He has given us new life
in Jesus.
But the question still remains: Is there any scientific evidence for God at
all? Is there anything in earth's record, or in our commonly agreed upon
understanding of the physical universe to support a belief in God?
And another question remains, as well: Are Bible-believing Christians the
only ones who believe in the God of the Bible?
Look into it for yourself---
2nd Law of Thermodynamics
http://www.second-law-of-thermodynamics.com/
Charles Darwin
http://www.charles-darwin.net/
Age of the Earth
http://www.age-of-the-earth.com/
DNA Double Helix
http://www.dna-double-helix.net/
Proof of God
http://www.proof-of-god.com/
Human Evolution
http://www.human--evolution.com/
Dinosaur Fossils
http://www.dinosaur-fossil.com/
Intelligent Design
http://www.intelligent--design.com/
Dragon History??
http://www.dragon-history.com/
Origin of Life
http://www.origin-of-life.net/
Geologic Time Scale
http://www.geologic-time-scale.com/
Age of the Earth Revisited
http://www.age-of-earth.com/
Origin of Species
http://www.origin-of-species.com/
Catastrophism
http://www.catastrophism.net/
Creation vs. Evolution
http://www.creation-vs-evolution.com/
Uniformitarianism
http://www.uniformitarianism.net/
Evidence for Evolution
http://www.evidence-for-evolution.com/
What About The Flood?
http://www.the-flood.net/
Evolution vs. Creation
http://www.evolution-vs-creation.com/
Origin of the Universe
http://www.origin-of-the-universe.com/
Age of the Earth (Part 2)
http://www.age-of-the-earth.net/
Christian Science
http://www.christian--science.com/
Radiometric Dating
http://www.radiometric-dating.com/
Dinosaur Extinction
http://www.dinosaur-extinction.com/
Big Bang Theory
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
Creation Evidences
http://www.creation-evidence.com/
Just How Old is the Earth, Anyway?
http://www.how-old-is-the-earth.com/
Creation vs. Evolution (Part 2)
http://www.creation-vs-evolution.net/
Carbon Dating
http://www.carbon-dating.net/
Darwin's Theory of Evolution
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/
Piltdown Man
http://www.piltdown-man.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Vestal" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible.... THE BIG LIE ABOUT IT |
17 Feb 2004 08:53:28 AM |
|
|
"Jim" <jim@goodwordusa.org> wrote in
news:LtpYb.50548$uV3.102007@attbi_s51:
Whoever knows the Lord Jesus Christ knows that whatever God has said
in the Bible is true.
Whomever thinks he knows a supernatural being has no basis in rational
thought for any beliefs he holds that rest on that first flawed
assumption.
We do not rely on human reasoning or on
scientific achievements to tell us whether or not God is God, or
whether the Bible is true or not.
This is true. Logic is also not a tool by which the bible is explored.
Only faith, and shutting of the eyes to reason, are used to explore the
bible.
To do so would only force us to wait forever, since human beings do
not yet even begin to really understand our own bodies, which are with
all of us every day. If human beings struggle as we do just to
comprehend the mundane and ordinary, how can we ever hope to rise up
enough, through mere reason and faulty (both limited and skewed)
observation, to take hold of the eternal and infinite? We simply
cannot. The human mind is too limited in this age, in this world.
The human mind is unlocking these "mysteries" at an ever-more-rapid pace.
Strangely, each revelation of the cause of things once thought to be
divinely imspired instead has its basis in naturalistic laws, not divine
ones.
But by faith, we who follow Jesus Christ know that God is, and that He
made all things. We know that the people and places spoken of in the
Bible record are real people and places in history. We know that God
created and that He sustains all things according to His own Word and
power and will.
We know this because God has proven Himself true in every other way --
Proven:
By prophecies that did not come true.
By prophecies cited by scripture that do not exist.
By a book the veracity of which has been disproven a thousand times.
By "healings" propagated by charlatans who prey on the gullible.
By "miracles" that never stand the test of inquiry.
Proven, indeed.
as regards the eternal power and life to be found in Jesus Christ our
Lord. And also because the Holy Spirit of God is now inside of us,
bearing witness to reality and truth. We no longer walk in darkness,
as does the rest of the world, relying only on our few physical senses
or on the faltering weaknesses of human reason and logic.
In the presence of so many exposed charlatans who propagate your
religion, but who made millions off its gullible adherents, how can you
not call the proofs of your own religion "faltering weaknesses?" If your
religious leaders have a clear stamp of veracity, how is it that so many
are exposed as crooks and shams? If the true ones among them are
obvious, how is it that so many adherents are duped by the shams?
We know that Jesus Christ is Lord, and that the Bible is true in every
detail of its record of history.
The defense against biblical contradictions: either come up with a
fantastical scenario that, taxing imagination to the limit, may cover the
various competing accounts, or ascribe the discrepancy to "copyist
error." Then reassert the bible to be true.
God has already demonstrated His
faithfulness and truthfulness to us in every way. He has given us new
life in Jesus.
Life which resembles the old to a remarkable degree.
But the question still remains: Is there any scientific evidence for
God at all? Is there anything in earth's record, or in our commonly
agreed upon understanding of the physical universe to support a belief
in God?
And another question remains, as well: Are Bible-believing Christians
the only ones who believe in the God of the Bible?
Look into it for yourself---
Thanks for the links. Reading such sites is one of my amusements. I
never cease to be amazed how old, debunked arguments never lose their
utility. Each new generation of christians picks up these broken swords
and shattered spears, and charges emboldened onto the battlefield.
Here's a single link I myself have found helpful: www.infidels.org
The "Library" section is particularly interesting, and contains refutals
of just about every religious argument I've found. They also list
rebuttals to their arguments, and answer those as well. THAT is the
honest way to approach debate.
Also, if you want more pro-christian websites, www.infidels.org handily
lists several for you. With refutals, of course.
2nd Law of Thermodynamics
http://www.second-law-of-thermodynamics.com/
The tired old misrepresentation of this law propagated by christians is
so often debunked and completely refuted that one wonders how christians
overcome their shame in continuing to put it forth.
Others of my favorite christian god-proving arguments are the well-known
"scientists discover that the universe once halted for a day, just like
Joshua said" http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.htm
And "oil drillers found hell:"
http://www.snopes.com/religion/wellhell.htm
But my favorite of all time is probably "young earth is proved by the
amounts of trace metals in the ocean:"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#ocean
If you read nothing else, read that. And just contemplate the enormity
of the deception it recounts.
Charles Darwin
http://www.charles-darwin.net/
Age of the Earth
http://www.age-of-the-earth.com/
DNA Double Helix
http://www.dna-double-helix.net/
Proof of God
http://www.proof-of-god.com/
Human Evolution
http://www.human--evolution.com/
Dinosaur Fossils
http://www.dinosaur-fossil.com/
Intelligent Design
http://www.intelligent--design.com/
Dragon History??
http://www.dragon-history.com/
Origin of Life
http://www.origin-of-life.net/
Geologic Time Scale
http://www.geologic-time-scale.com/
Age of the Earth Revisited
http://www.age-of-earth.com/
Origin of Species
http://www.origin-of-species.com/
Catastrophism
http://www.catastrophism.net/
Creation vs. Evolution
http://www.creation-vs-evolution.com/
Uniformitarianism
http://www.uniformitarianism.net/
Evidence for Evolution
http://www.evidence-for-evolution.com/
What About The Flood?
http://www.the-flood.net/
Evolution vs. Creation
http://www.evolution-vs-creation.com/
Origin of the Universe
http://www.origin-of-the-universe.com/
Age of the Earth (Part 2)
http://www.age-of-the-earth.net/
Christian Science
http://www.christian--science.com/
Radiometric Dating
http://www.radiometric-dating.com/
Dinosaur Extinction
http://www.dinosaur-extinction.com/
Big Bang Theory
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
Creation Evidences
http://www.creation-evidence.com/
Just How Old is the Earth, Anyway?
http://www.how-old-is-the-earth.com/
Creation vs. Evolution (Part 2)
http://www.creation-vs-evolution.net/
Carbon Dating
http://www.carbon-dating.net/
Darwin's Theory of Evolution
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/
Piltdown Man
http://www.piltdown-man.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible.... THE BIG LIE ABOUT IT |
21 Feb 2004 07:48:49 AM |
|
|
David Vestal wrote:
"Jim" <jim@goodwordusa.org> wrote:
Whoever knows the Lord Jesus Christ knows that whatever God has
said in the Bible is true.
Whomever thinks he knows a supernatural being has no basis in rational
thought for any beliefs he holds that rest on that first flawed
assumption.
BZZZT! On the contrary. All forms of atheism are prima facie absurd and thus
are irrational. The only rational position an unbeliever can take is that of
outright agnosticism, and that agnosticism must necessarily rest in the
nombril of agnosticism.
Since I'm not given over to blind assertions, like you seem to be, here is
the proof:
POSITION: It is prima-facie absurd to state 'there is no metaphysical X'.
PROPOSITION: The existence of any deity, or of an unseen or metaphysical
world, etc., can be neither proved nor disproved.
ASSUMPTION: The human brain can encode sequences of numbers and can
computably generate axioms. Consequently it can encode the syntactic notions
of "formula", "sentence" and "proof".
PROOF: Given a computably generated set of axioms, let PROVABLE be the
set of numbers that encode sentences (the syntactic notions of "formula",
"sentence", "proof") that are provable from the given axioms:
Thus for any sentence s,
(1) < s > is in PROVABLE iff s is provable.
Since the set of axioms is computably generable,
so is the set of proofs that use these axioms and
so is the set of provable theorems and hence
so is PROVABLE, the set of encodings of provable theorems.
Since computable implies definable in adequate theories, PROVABLE is
definable.
Let s be the sentence "This sentence is unprovable".
s exists since it is the solution of:
(2) s iff < s > is not in PROVABLE.
Thus
(3) s iff < s > is not in PROVABLE iff s is not
provable.
Now (excluded middle) s is either true or false:
If s is false, then by (3), s is provable.
This is impossible since provable sentences are true.
Thus s is true.
Thus by (3), s is not provable.
Hence s is true but unprovable.
"This sentence is unprovable" is provably equivalent to the sentence;
CON:
"There is no < s > with both < s > and < not s > in
PROVABLE".
CON {1] is the formal statement that atheism is consistent
(or rational)
CON [2] is the formal statement that 'there is no metaphysical
X'
Since s was not provable, and since s and CON are
equivalent, CON is not provable...
SO...
In any consistent axiomatisable theory that can encode sequences of numbers,
and consequently the syntactic notions of "formula", "sentence", "proof,"
consistency is not provable.
COROLLARY: There are truths that cannot be proved.
CONCLUSION: It is prima-facie absurd to state 'there is no metaphysical X'
Thank you. Good bye.
<funeral service for atheism at 10am tomorrow>
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Vestal" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible.... THE BIG LIE ABOUT IT |
21 Feb 2004 12:14:55 PM |
|
|
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in
news:2YCqDGSLazR862B4386F02C6144DGyL011ZpyQ2B@kadaitcha.cx:
David Vestal wrote:
"Jim" <jim@goodwordusa.org> wrote:
Whoever knows the Lord Jesus Christ knows that whatever God has
said in the Bible is true.
Whomever thinks he knows a supernatural being has no basis in
rational thought for any beliefs he holds that rest on that first
flawed assumption.
BZZZT! On the contrary. All forms of atheism are prima facie absurd
and thus are irrational.
Do you mind if I quote that "all forms of atheism" sentence? Of course,
I will attribute it to you; I wouldn't want something so stupid credited
to me.
The only rational position an unbeliever can
take is that of outright agnosticism, and that agnosticism must
necessarily rest in the nombril of agnosticism.
Since I'm not given over to blind assertions, like you seem to be,
here is the proof:
POSITION: It is prima-facie absurd to state 'there is no metaphysical
X'.
PROPOSITION: The existence of any deity, or of an unseen or
metaphysical world, etc., can be neither proved nor disproved.
My "atheism" is expressed by saying "there is no reasonable or clear
evidence for the existence of a god, so I do not believe in one." It
isn't "I know incontrovertably and irrefutably that there is no god," so
your little exercise here misses the mark quite badly.
ASSUMPTION: The human brain can encode sequences of numbers and can
computably generate axioms. Consequently it can encode the syntactic
notions of "formula", "sentence" and "proof".
PROOF: Given a computably generated set of axioms, let PROVABLE be the
set of numbers that encode sentences (the syntactic notions of
"formula", "sentence", "proof") that are provable from the given
axioms:
Thus for any sentence s,
(1) < s > is in PROVABLE iff s is provable.
Since the set of axioms is computably generable,
so is the set of proofs that use these axioms and
so is the set of provable theorems and hence
so is PROVABLE, the set of encodings of provable theorems.
Since computable implies definable in adequate theories,
PROVABLE is definable.
Let s be the sentence "This sentence is unprovable".
s exists since it is the solution of:
(2) s iff < s > is not in PROVABLE.
Thus
(3) s iff < s > is not in PROVABLE iff s is not
provable.
Now (excluded middle) s is either true or false:
If s is false, then by (3), s is provable.
This is impossible since provable sentences are true.
Thus s is true.
Thus by (3), s is not provable.
Hence s is true but unprovable.
"This sentence is unprovable" is provably equivalent to the sentence;
CON:
"There is no < s > with both < s > and < not s >
in
PROVABLE".
CON {1] is the formal statement that atheism is consistent
(or rational)
CON [2] is the formal statement that 'there is no
metaphysical
X'
Since s was not provable, and since s and CON
are equivalent, CON is not provable...
SO...
In any consistent axiomatisable theory that can encode sequences of
numbers, and consequently the syntactic notions of "formula",
"sentence", "proof," consistency is not provable.
COROLLARY: There are truths that cannot be proved.
CONCLUSION: It is prima-facie absurd to state 'there is no
metaphysical X'
Thank you. Good bye.
<funeral service for atheism at 10am tomorrow>
Let me know if anyone but you shows up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Seek" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible.... THE BIG LIE ABOUT IT |
21 Feb 2004 03:13:09 PM |
|
|
"David Vestal" <someoggetridofthis@mailcity.com> wrote in
message
news:Xns9496876BC1AC0someoggetridofthisma@130.133.1.4...
: "TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in
: news:2YCqDGSLazR862B4386F02C6144DGyL011ZpyQ2B@kadaitcha.cx:
My "atheism" is expressed by saying "there is no reasonable or
clear
evidence for the existence of a god, so I do not believe in
one." It
isn't "I know incontrovertably and irrefutably that there is
no god," so
your little exercise here misses the mark quite badly.
_________
Substitute any object for the word atheism and the absurdity
is clear.
Fact: Atheism demands greater faith than theism. A-theism is
rebellion
against what is obvious fact. Why do people worship at the
alter of
atheism? Because man's lusts are insatiable; they make him
'feeeeel good'
(activation of certain nerves) and thereby compel the daily
recital of
futile attempts to justify that false religion. Evolution is
based on atheism and that is why it is never subjected to what
they profess to believe in (scientific method). Philosophy
cannot be subjected to the scientific method, therefore they
claim the [d]evolution THEOry is science, but that is a lie.
Evolution is based on atheism. Christians have no problems
with real science, but evolution isn't science. Why is it
tenaciously clung to? Because it is their religion, but they
have demonized 'religion' for so long that they dare not call
it religion. So you have the twisting twirling chameleon;
wholly unreliable, for things might change tomorrow (e.g.,
meaning someone will see through the sham and broadcast it).
Nothing based on it will take you anywhere but in a fruitless
circular game of nothing. Zero plus zero equals zero. But
they deny this because they believe (tell themselves they do)
man is superior to God. That being the case, they aren't even
capable of a God that they themselves control, thus rather
than admit their inferiority, the deny.
Denial that the liquid in the skull and bones bottle is poison
doesn't change the fact that it is. Denial that fire burns
does not change the quality of the fire and the fact that it
does burn. Denial is impossible without admitting the
existence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Vestal" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible.... THE BIG LIE ABOUT IT |
21 Feb 2004 06:16:10 PM |
|
|
"Seek" <@nonag.de.org> wrote in news:c18hoc02iq0@enews1.newsguy.com:
"David Vestal" <someoggetridofthis@mailcity.com> wrote in
message
news:Xns9496876BC1AC0someoggetridofthisma@130.133.1.4...
: "TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in
: news:2YCqDGSLazR862B4386F02C6144DGyL011ZpyQ2B@kadaitcha.cx:
My "atheism" is expressed by saying "there is no reasonable or
clear
evidence for the existence of a god, so I do not believe in
one." It
isn't "I know incontrovertably and irrefutably that there is
no god," so
your little exercise here misses the mark quite badly.
_________
Substitute any object for the word atheism and the absurdity
is clear.
No, it isn't.
Fact: Atheism demands greater faith than theism.
No, it requires greater suspension of reason to believe in an all-
powerful god who created a few million billion quadrillion redundant
cosmic bodies, when all he really cares about is you, than it does to
believe that such an extravagant overachiever exists.
A-theism is
rebellion
against what is obvious fact.
Asserting your pet irrationality to be obvious doesn't make it so.
Why do people worship at the
alter of
atheism?
If you mean "why are atheists atheistic," it's because the existence of a
god is nowhere near the most logical explanation for the phenomena
surrounding us.
Because man's lusts are insatiable; they make him
'feeeeel good'
(activation of certain nerves) and thereby compel the daily
recital of
futile attempts to justify that false religion.
It's disturbing how deeply you've bought into the propaganda given you by
your christian "elders."
Evolution is
based on atheism
No, it isn't. You need a history lesson.
and that is why it is never subjected to what
they profess to believe in (scientific method).
You obviously don't understand evolution.
Philosophy
cannot be subjected to the scientific method, therefore they
claim the [d]evolution THEOry is science, but that is a lie.
Evolution is based on atheism.
Asserting it doesn't make it so. Christianity is based on voodoo. Do
you believe my assertion? Then why should I believe yours?
Christians have no problems
with real science, but evolution isn't science. Why is it
tenaciously clung to?
Because it's the most plausible explanation we currently have to explain
the world around us.
Because it is their religion, but they
have demonized 'religion' for so long that they dare not call
it religion. So you have the twisting twirling chameleon;
wholly unreliable, for things might change tomorrow (e.g.,
meaning someone will see through the sham and broadcast it).
Nothing based on it will take you anywhere but in a fruitless
circular game of nothing. Zero plus zero equals zero. But
they deny this because they believe (tell themselves they do)
man is superior to God.
Add "atheism" to the list of things you don't understand.
That being the case, they aren't even
capable of a God that they themselves control, thus rather
than admit their inferiority, the deny.
Denial that the liquid in the skull and bones bottle is poison
doesn't change the fact that it is. Denial that fire burns
does not change the quality of the fire and the fact that it
does burn. Denial is impossible without admitting the
existence.
I used to be a christian, but I sincerely hope I was never this silly.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible.... THE BIG LIE ABOUT IT -- ONE GOD |
21 Feb 2004 04:02:55 PM |
|
|
Seek wrote:
"David Vestal" <someoggetridofthis@mailcity.com> wrote in
message
news:Xns9496876BC1AC0someoggetridofthisma@130.133.1.4...
: "TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in
: news:2YCqDGSLazR862B4386F02C6144DGyL011ZpyQ2B@kadaitcha.cx:
My "atheism" is expressed by saying "there is no reasonable or
clear evidence for the existence of a god, so I do not believe in
one." It isn't "I know incontrovertably and irrefutably that there is
no god," so your little exercise here misses the mark quite badly.
===>However, like it or not, we all "know incontrovertibly
and irrefutably" that Spinoza's God (so called by Albert
Einstein) DOES exist!
Of course it is NATURE, the COSMIC TOTALITY,
part of which is our own Universe.
And, of course, many of of us prefer not to call it "God". ;-)
Libertarius
=============
.
|
|
|
| User: "Resipsa Loquitur" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible.... THE BIG LIE ABOUT IT -- ONE GOD |
21 Feb 2004 04:27:09 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
message news:4037D58F.136ECA87@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
:
:
: Seek wrote:
:
: > "David Vestal" <someoggetridofthis@mailcity.com> wrote in
: > message
: > news:Xns9496876BC1AC0someoggetridofthisma@130.133.1.4...
: > : "TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in
: > :
news:2YCqDGSLazR862B4386F02C6144DGyL011ZpyQ2B@kadaitcha.cx:
: >
: > My "atheism" is expressed by saying "there is no
reasonable or
: > clear evidence for the existence of a god, so I do not
believe in
: > one." It isn't "I know incontrovertably and irrefutably
that there is
: >
: > no god," so your little exercise here misses the mark
quite badly.
:
: ===>However, like it or not, we all "know incontrovertibly
: and irrefutably" that Spinoza's God (so called by Albert
: Einstein) DOES exist!
: Of course it is NATURE, the COSMIC TOTALITY,
: part of which is our own Universe.
: And, of course, many of of us prefer not to call it "God".
;-)
:
: Libertarius
I've no knowledge that what you posted is indicative of
anything, much less their existence. I never met Al Einstein,
thus cannot validate anything about him. I have heard that
there are those who have said and reported things about him,
but I have no personal knowledge of the existence of any such
entity.
RI
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible.... THE BIG LIE ABOUT IT -- ONE GOD |
21 Feb 2004 06:35:01 PM |
|
|
Resipsa Loquitur wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
message news:4037D58F.136ECA87@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
:
:
: Seek wrote:
:
: > "David Vestal" <someoggetridofthis@mailcity.com> wrote in
: > message
: > news:Xns9496876BC1AC0someoggetridofthisma@130.133.1.4...
: > : "TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in
: > :
news:2YCqDGSLazR862B4386F02C6144DGyL011ZpyQ2B@kadaitcha.cx:
: >
: > My "atheism" is expressed by saying "there is no
reasonable or
: > clear evidence for the existence of a god, so I do not
believe in
: > one." It isn't "I know incontrovertably and irrefutably
that there is
: >
: > no god," so your little exercise here misses the mark
quite badly.
:
: ===>However, like it or not, we all "know incontrovertibly
: and irrefutably" that Spinoza's God (so called by Albert
: Einstein) DOES exist!
: Of course it is NATURE, the COSMIC TOTALITY,
: part of which is our own Universe.
: And, of course, many of of us prefer not to call it "God".
;-)
:
: Libertarius
I've no knowledge that what you posted is indicative of
anything, much less their existence. I never met Al Einstein,
thus cannot validate anything about him. I have heard that
there are those who have said and reported things about him,
but I have no personal knowledge of the existence of any such
entity.
===>Sorry to see how ignorant you are. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible.... THE BIG LIE ABOUT IT |
21 Feb 2004 02:13:33 PM |
|
|
===>GET BACK TO THE SUBJECT.
Calling the Bible the "Word of God" is a BIG LIE!
It is just a book of compiled writings by people who,
just like all other writers throughout history, penned
their own ideas, opinions, speculations and fantasies.
Some of which they attributed to their "God", as do
many of today's preachers with their own statements.
Libertarius
============
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible.... THE BIG LIE ABOUT IT |
22 Feb 2004 02:11:48 AM |
|
|
David Vestal wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in
news:2YCqDGSLazR862B4386F02C6144DGyL011ZpyQ2B@kadaitcha.cx:
David Vestal wrote:
"Jim" <jim@goodwordusa.org> wrote:
Whoever knows the Lord Jesus Christ knows that whatever God has
said in the Bible is true.
Whomever thinks he knows a supernatural being has no basis in
rational thought for any beliefs he holds that rest on that first
flawed assumption.
BZZZT! On the contrary. All forms of atheism are prima facie absurd
and thus are irrational.
Do you mind if I quote that "all forms of atheism" sentence? Of
course, I will attribute it to you; I wouldn't want something so
stupid credited to me.
Go right ahead. That you didn't bother to come back and elide that statement
means only that you had no idea about what the logical argument was telling
you and thus mistook it for gobbledegook, eh.
<funeral service for atheism at 10am tomorrow>
Let me know if anyone but you shows up.
You just did. Or was that fact lost on you?
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark and Bev Tindall" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible.... THE BIG LIE ABOUT IT |
17 Feb 2004 03:37:38 PM |
|
|
"Jim" wrote:
Whoever knows the Lord Jesus Christ knows that whatever God has said in
the
Bible is true.
For creationist pseudo-science look at No Answers in Genesis
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/ or read Iam Plimer's "Telling Lies for
God".
How much of the bible is what God said????
BIBLE TIMELINE
Dates are approximate
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2000 BC
- Eclessiastes written
1900 BC
- Abraham comes to Palestine
- Beginning of oral tradition later recorded in the bible
1375 - 1358 BC
- Reign of Egyptian Pharoah Amenhotep IV ( later called Ikhnaton)
inspiration of much of Moses' writing.
1250 BC
- Moses leads Isrealites out of Egypt
1030 - 1010 BC
- Reign of Saul
1010 - 970 BC
- Reign of David
1000 BC
- Bible begins to be written with Job (fiction)
970 - 931 BC
- Reign of Solomon
960 BC
- The YAHWIST editor began in Jerusalem. He calls God YHWH.and describes God
in humanlike terms. The Yahwist editor wrote Genesis 2 ( Genesis 1 had not
yer been written.). Bible heroes are not whitewashed - Abraham is called a
liar (Gen 20), Noah's drunken state is described (Gen 9) and Lot's incest is
told (Gen 19). The monarchy and priesthood in Jeruslem are important. This
editor wrote the first version of the 10 Commandments in Exodus 34 which
contains no reference to resting on the Sabbath.
850 BC
- The ELOHIST editor began in Samaria. He calls God Elohim. The
Elohist editor has a democratic value system and so asserts that no priest,
leader or king can claim permanent status over God's people. There is no
dynasty established. He starts his story with Abraham and wrote about Isaac
and Jacob. He places importance on the Northern kingdoms power and shrines.
He uses dreams, miracle and magic as a way to demonstrate God's power. He
asserts that God raises up prophets whn required.
621 BC
- The DEUTERONOMIST editor began in 621 BCE in the reign of King Josiah in
Jerusalem. The "discovered" book was called the second (deuters) giving of
the Law (nomas) and became known as Deuteronomy. It was responsive to the
prophetic tradition of Hosea, Amos, Isaiah, Micah and Jeremiah (who was
alivce at the time of writing). The deuteronomist editor centralised worship
under the supervision of the Jerusalem priesthood. Its interest's were in a
high spiritual monotheism and therefdore wrote than no image could be made
of God.
596 BC
- The PRIESTLY editors began after the city of Jerusalem fell to
Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians. Many of the Psalms were
written in this time (including Psalm 137). The priests edited and rewrote
massive parts of the sacred story. They emphasised circumcision, dietary
laws and Sabbath day observance and were responsible for writing Genesis 1
to provide a reason for observing the Sabbath abnd it was one of the last
parts of the Old Testament to be written. At the same time synagogues were
built to indoctrinate the people. As a result thje etails of worship, the
rules of worship, the observance of worship became important and resulted in
much of Exodus, almost all of Leviticus and major portions of Numbers. All
the chronologies were written by the priestly editors. The incompleted
harmonisation of the Yahwist and Elohist editors produce most of the
contradictions in the Old Testament.
400 BC
- Emphasis on individualism and life after death
200 BC
- Daniel written (fiction)
6 BCE
- Jesus birth
27 - 34 CE
- Jesus' death
48 or 49 CE.
- Paul's first letters Thessalonians & Galatians
62 CE.
- Paul's last written letter Colossians
65 CE -75 CE.
- Mark's gospel
85 CE.
- Matthew's gospel written in Antioch
83 CE - 90 CE
- Luke's gospel and Acts written in Caesaraa
100 CE
- John's gospel written in Ephesus
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible.... THE BIG LIE ABOUT IT |
18 Feb 2004 10:34:19 PM |
|
|
Jim wrote:
Whoever knows the Lord Jesus Christ
===>Which is NO ONE!
knows that whatever God has said in the
Bible is true.
===>Which is NOTHING!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Ings" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible.... THE BIG LIE ABOUT IT |
17 Feb 2004 10:05:22 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:23:39 GMT, "Jim" <jim@goodwordusa.org> wrote:
Whoever knows the Lord Jesus Christ knows that whatever God has said in the
Bible is true. We do not rely on human reasoning or on scientific
achievements to tell us whether or not God is God, or whether the Bible is
true or not.
But then you lie to us Jim. You included in you post a long series of
links to such lies. Not erroneous arguments Jim. Not honest
differences of scientific opinion either. Just plain LIES!
And after that you expect us to honor this 'knowledge' you claim you
have? "We do not rely on human reasoning or on science" you say?
Indeed not. But apparently you do rely a good deal on dishonest
propaganda!
## Pia mendacia fraude
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible.... THE BIG LIE ABOUT IT |
15 Feb 2004 06:34:55 PM |
|
|
Scott wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:d022ce93b5a6ebbd8d45fbef8f31891b@news.teranews.com...
===>THAT is the BIG LIE, the BAIT with which priests and preachers
hook their fish.
This is an odd position for one to take, even given that this was
cross posted as it was. Looks like you are merely lurking in
one of the groups and looking to stir up trouble.
Well, that's ok. He's allowed to. Freedom of speech and expression extends
to all. But then that implies I'm also allowed to deal with him ever so
severely and metaphorically beat his infidel head into the concrete pavement
to make a pulp for passing dogs to urinate on as is their wont. Not that I
would actually say that kind of thing, being a professed Christian and all.
I just felt that the mind images conjured up by the analogy might appeal to
the puerile senses of some others.
Have a wonderful day.
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott brn2dipATyahooDOTcom" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible.... THE BIG LIE ABOUT IT |
15 Feb 2004 07:34:11 PM |
|
|
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:f797d03d895f6c0077b24e17fbd2d11b@news.teranews.com...
Well, that's ok. He's allowed to. Freedom of speech and expression extends
to all. But then that implies I'm also allowed to deal with him ever so
severely and metaphorically beat his infidel head into the concrete
pavement
to make a pulp for passing dogs to urinate on as is their wont. Not that I
would actually say that kind of thing, being a professed Christian and
all.
I just felt that the mind images conjured up by the analogy might appeal
to
the puerile senses of some others.
Have a wonderful day.
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
True enough.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible.... THE BIG LIE ABOUT IT |
15 Feb 2004 07:38:31 PM |
|
|
Scott wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:f797d03d895f6c0077b24e17fbd2d11b@news.teranews.com...
Well, that's ok. He's allowed to. Freedom of speech and expression
extends to all. But then that implies I'm also allowed to deal with
him ever so severely and metaphorically beat his infidel head into
the concrete pavement to make a pulp for passing dogs to urinate on
as is their wont. Not that I would actually say that kind of thing,
being a professed Christian and all. I just felt that the mind
images conjured up by the analogy might appeal to the puerile senses
of some others.
Have a wonderful day.
True enough.
Indeed it is. Now, to some, I will appear to be, erm, a tad brutal, but
since I troll for God's sake, I state things plainly and as they are. You
need to know that my mission is to help believers to learn how to dispense
with infidel trolls by sheer dint of argument and logic.
Along the way, I might occasionally offer observations to you that you may
find, erm, pointed, yes, that's it, pointed. I would be ever so pleased if
you took those observations in the spirit in which they are meant... to
force you to think. For if you do not think, the infidels will crush you.
Since I think, I will crush the unthinking infidels for God's sake.
My idea of heavenly bliss is to engage an infidel that can think and debate,
but I haven't found one yet. Do you know of any?
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Vestal" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible.... THE BIG LIE ABOUT IT |
17 Feb 2004 12:28:35 PM |
|
|
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in
news:1be72430ab9a70cc8cde658684a3ed94@news.teranews.com:
Scott wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:f797d03d895f6c0077b24e17fbd2d11b@news.teranews.com...
Well, that's ok. He's allowed to. Freedom of speech and expression
extends to all. But then that implies I'm also allowed to deal with
him ever so severely and metaphorically beat his infidel head into
the concrete pavement to make a pulp for passing dogs to urinate on
as is their wont. Not that I would actually say that kind of thing,
being a professed Christian and all. I just felt that the mind
images conjured up by the analogy might appeal to the puerile senses
of some others.
Have a wonderful day.
True enough.
Indeed it is. Now, to some, I will appear to be, erm, a tad brutal,
but since I troll for God's sake, I state things plainly and as they
are. You need to know that my mission is to help believers to learn
how to dispense with infidel trolls by sheer dint of argument and
logic.
Along the way, I might occasionally offer observations to you that you
may find, erm, pointed, yes, that's it, pointed. I would be ever so
pleased if you took those observations in the spirit in which they are
meant... to force you to think. For if you do not think, the infidels
will crush you. Since I think, I will crush the unthinking infidels
for God's sake.
My idea of heavenly bliss is to engage an infidel that can think and
debate, but I haven't found one yet. Do you know of any?
The list of people who troll the newsgroups, proclaiming their
supernatural powers of debate is long. The only realistic way to claim
that you've not found a "worthy" (childish word, that) opponent for your
debating prowess is to blindly declare yourself the victor regardless of
circumstances.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible.... THE BIG LIE ABOUT IT |
21 Feb 2004 07:26:09 AM |
|
|
David Vestal wrote:
The list of people who troll the newsgroups, proclaiming their
supernatural powers of debate is long. The only realistic way to
claim that you've not found a "worthy" (childish word, that) opponent
for your debating prowess is to blindly declare yourself the victor
regardless of circumstances.
Childish post, that.
You can now claim victory because you used the mine is bigger than yours
lame.
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Vestal" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible.... THE BIG LIE ABOUT IT |
21 Feb 2004 12:06:49 PM |
|
|
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in
news:S75upgUpFQAG936AF06A5448B79B9fDHyRUb2M8Y@kadaitcha.cx:
David Vestal wrote:
The list of people who troll the newsgroups, proclaiming their
supernatural powers of debate is long. The only realistic way to
claim that you've not found a "worthy" (childish word, that) opponent
for your debating prowess is to blindly declare yourself the victor
regardless of circumstances.
Childish post, that.
Factual, and it fits you perfectly.
You can now claim victory because you used the mine is bigger than yours
lame.
Wouldn't you like it if everyone debated the way you wish they did?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
