nocal
It's insane, this guy's taint   SSHOLE |
Posts: 811 Registered: 8/25/2004 Offline
|
11/30/2005 at 17:19 |
It seems to me that a lot of people here don't really understand christianity. I figure I can help. I can answer virtually any question you might have about the nature of christianity. I posit that it's a religion that is worthy of respect, but you can always prove me wrong.
The kind of thing I'm talking about, for instance, popped up in my other serious business thread:
The more I learn, the more I realize that Christianity is utter bullshit. Religious fundamentalism has always been a convenient excuse for bloodshed. The "pious" lust for power through converts and coersion by torture is a sad testament to any religion that presumes to espouse "the will of god."
I'll address that first of all. How many people have been killed or hurt in the name of money? Or sex? Neither is inherently bad, but we humans have a way of taking something inert and making it the focal point of our own personal "crusades," if you will.
|
| |
DonQuixote
DARTH MENSES  Posts: 641 Registered: 4/22/2005 Offline
|
11/30/2005 at 18:11 |
The kind of thing I'm talking about, for instance, popped up in my other serious business thread:
The more I learn, the more I realize that Christianity is utter bullshit. Religious fundamentalism has always been a convenient excuse for bloodshed. The "pious" lust for power through converts and coersion by torture is a sad testament to any religion that presumes to espouse "the will of god."
I'll address that first of all. How many people have been killed or hurt in the name of money? Or sex? Neither is inherently bad, but we humans have a way of taking something inert and making it the focal point of our own personal "crusades," if you will.
I wasn't privy to the post you are refering to, but I think you may have missed the point. Doing anything in the name of God, is supposed to be good. Now, if you believe in the concepts of good and evil, the things that are mentioned in the post about crimes in the name of God are evil. And christianity is supposed to be inherintly good, or so it aspouses to be. See christianity (or any religion for that matter, cept maybe satan worshipes or the Dark Side of the Force) lures people in on the premis that the church does "good" works. Depending on which sect of christianity you belong to, the power structure may be different.
Anyways, my point is, money, sex etc etc are tiny worthless things/gestures that are powerless in the minds of those who believe in a God. God is all powerfull etc etc. See what I'm getting at. If you tell someone that you will give them a million dollars to kill their mom they probably won't do it. But if you lure them into a religion and tell them that their God said "Kill your mom", they will probably do it (depending on how far gone they are). Comparing God to money or sex or anything is beyond apples and oranges.
I hope I made some sense there.
Anyways, onto another discussion point. The gnostic gospels... GO
____________________
( . )( . ) <--- Boobs. |
| |
dinozoa
SENATOR BABYHEAD  Posts: 319 Registered: 7/18/2004 Offline
|
11/30/2005 at 19:37 |
Money is inherently evil, or at least the love of money. Or so I would argue. And how many people have died of sex, Norcal? Seriously? I think there are rapists who kill their victims, but they are the vast minority. There are fights of men over women, or occasionally women over men, your Romeo's and Juliets and what have you, but do any of those compare to the Nazi genocide or the Pequot genocide or all the other genocides that were justified by religion? I'm not saying religion is the root cause of most, or any conflicts, but history only documents one war that I know of, the Trojan war, that was started because of sex.
My argument in bullet points:
*sex is not that big a deal
*christianity has the numbers (of wars and genocides, and stuff), if nothing else, over any other type of argument used to justify a war.
|
| |
Uart
DARTH MENSES  Posts: 1228 Registered: 3/5/2005 Offline
|
11/30/2005 at 19:44 |
sofickingwat: if you lure them into a religion and tell them that their God said "Kill your mom", they will probably do it (depending on how far gone they are).
I see what you are saying. HOWEVER, the topic of the thread is Christianity, and the bible doesn't suggest killing your mother. Trust me, I checked.
Christianity is a religion that MEANS WELL, however, the way some sects go about it is really fucked up. The Catholic church lays this massive guilt trip on its followers to try and keep them between the lines, but IMHO, that isn't really what Jesus was all about.
As I said though, Christianity, at it's core is a great religion. Real or mythical, who cares, read the bible, Jesus was pretty laid back. The rules he lays out boil down to, "don't fuck with god and don't mess with other people either," or as I like to simplify it, "don't be a prick."
Of course then you have the Catholics with their guilt trips and extrabiblical BS created by monks in the Middle Ages (it was considered a heresy to say the world was round at one point, where does it say otherwise in the bible?). You have your Pat Roberson-led fundies who take everything in the bible as literal, completely ignoring the fact that Jesus (their motherfucking messiah) said to disregard a lot of the OT. That last group includes that nutty Spouse-swap show chick (the obese one) who couldn't bear to even look at non-christians (and her friends too) -- when did Jesus say to be intolerant? I don't remember that chapter and verse, someone remind me?
Basically I think that religion in the hands of fools is a bad thing.
I don't know much about non-christian religions (except Judaism), so I can't comment in general. |
| |
dagwood
SENATOR BABYHEAD  Posts: 372 Registered: 12/19/2004 Offline
|
11/30/2005 at 20:06 |
Thanks Nocal for picking this up as a separate thread, it's always a valid topic and especially timely now.
I'll have to admit up front that I would be out of my element and talking out my ass rather quickly because I really know very little about Christianity, it's purposes, practices and history. I think it's like Uart said, it's basically good. It's the sinful, mostly power hungry people, their spec ific interpretations of God's word and the fucked up religious practices and justifications that, for me, nearly screw up the whole idea of a belief in a God.
I really try to not have any prejudice against people of religion because, their faith gives them a sense of purpose and direction in their lives that I shoud have chosen myself(from the Big Book), but some of the things "in his name" as if my God is better than yours are just appalling.
Yeah and what about the Gnostic gospels, why did they only use 4 books when others are extant? Because the rest of the stuff didn't fit their chosen DOGMA.
This was posted here awhile back , reread, and heed. 20 reasons
____________________
I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it. |
| |
nocal
It's insane, this guy's taint SSHOLEPosts: 811 Registered: 8/25/2004 Offline
|
11/30/2005 at 21:04 |
Doing anything in the name of God, is supposed to be good.
Completely incorrect. Look, I'm jerking off to fat porn in the name of Jesus!! That's the one problem with religion, it can be taken up by people who will use it as an excuse.
Comparing God to money or sex or anything is beyond apples and oranges.
I wasn't comparing. Money and sex are inherently neutral things that have been fought over and have lead to more deaths than organized religion ever could. So, when you say "Look at all these people religion killed!" I say to you, people will always make excuses over something. Religion is a good scapegoat.
Money is inherently evil, or at least the love of money.
LOVE, ok. Desire for, want, ownership of -- not so much. What is wrong with wanting money? You have a job, don't you? It's when something affects your life negatively that it becomes negative.
Nazi genocide or the Pequot genocide or all the other genocides that were justified by religion?
Nazi genocide wasn't justified by religion, in that Nazis weren't religious. If anything, it was bigotry. Which is usually the culprit in genocide, for instance in Rwanda. The other that you mentioned I am not familiar with, so I won't argue there.
And how many people have died of sex, Norcal? Seriously?
Since the dawn of time, before religions? Since every single day that has passed? Some wars were fought over women. Some wars were prevented by marriage. If you don't think sex, one of the primary driving forces of the human race, has lead to more death than has christianity...then you're probably not thinking of it correctly.
*sex is not that big a deal
Yes, yes it is. It's the reason that we all exist, and it's the primary driving force of the world if you believe in evolution.
*christianity has the numbers (of wars and genocides, and stuff), if nothing else, over any other type of argument used to justify a war.
There are bigots in every religion. Look at anti-semitism. Christians, Muslims, they can unite on that one. And bigots have the numbers.
Jesus was pretty laid back.
Up to this point I was agreeing with you. Jesus has been portrayed as laid back, but he said that he brings "a sword" for disbelievers. He went apeshit in the temple and overturned the moneychangers tables. He was fairly intolerant of disbelievers. Why catholicism is content with the image of him as a pussy I may never understand.
Basically I think that religion in the hands of fools is a bad thing.
Well put.
|
| |
nocal
It's insane, this guy's taint SSHOLEPosts: 811 Registered: 8/25/2004 Offline
|
11/30/2005 at 21:13 |
I was kind of expecting stuff like "why does the bible contradict itself?" and "why would a good god let us kill each other and rape babies?". This is better though. |
| |
ghostrider
liberal exit  SSHOLEPosts: 2446 Registered: 7/29/2004 Offline
|
11/30/2005 at 21:16 |
I think Christianity is one of the most beautiful religions around. It was destroyed, in it's fundamentals, by Rome and Luther. I'll quote John Lennon(again) on this one.
Jesus was ok, but his disciples were thick and ordinary
____________________
I build plastic bonfires on the beach and skip batteries into the lake ~ Cockroach |
| |
LOki
Refusenik  SSHOLEPosts: 484 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
11/30/2005 at 22:25 |
I posit that it's a religion that is worthy of respect, but you can always prove me wrong. I roundly reject your blood-thirsty and sadistic religion of human sacrifice. I am an enemy to your tyrannical god of torture and human suffering.
____________________
|
| |
nocal
It's insane, this guy's taint SSHOLEPosts: 811 Registered: 8/25/2004 Offline
|
11/30/2005 at 22:46 |
I roundly reject your blood-thirsty and sadistic religion of human sacrifice. I am an enemy to your tyrannical god of torture and human suffering.
Well if you keep talking like that, you won't get any bread or wine.
Although really, I'll take this faux-chance to say that god doesn't cause any suffering. |
| |
dinozoa
SENATOR BABYHEAD Posts: 319 Registered: 7/18/2004 Offline
|
11/30/2005 at 23:36 |
nocal:
Although really, I'll take this faux-chance to say that god doesn't cause any suffering.
This is a really questionable thing to say. At the very least, you have the Spiderman argument, ie with great power comes great responsibility. I would say that if god exists (boilerplate caveat) then it is the indirect cause of suffering by not using its powers to prevent suffering.
That said, I'm not entirely convinced that suffering is a bad thing. I think injustice is worse than suffering, and since justice is a much more difficult concept to pin down than suffering, it's easier to make the claim that god doesn't cause any injustice.
Still though, if god exists and is omnipotent, then by definition we have no free will, etc, and god is torturing a lot of people to death, although not me, not right now.
I agree with Loki's argument. Religions, including Christianity, are not deserving of respect, not even if a plurality of people everywhere are Christians, not even if Jesus was a good guy (questionable, because basically the modern definition of good is 'act like Jesus', so we have a tautology, Jesus was good because he acted like Jesus), not even if the most respectable people you can think of are Christian.
In my opinion, the integrity and force of the ideas behind Christianity are no match for the ideas of science, another faith-based belief system, and so you can guess which I respect more. |
| |
ghostrider
liberal exit SSHOLEPosts: 2446 Registered: 7/29/2004 Offline
|
11/30/2005 at 23:54 |
I think injustice is worse than suffering
But you live with injustice everyday. Do you live with suffering ?
____________________
I build plastic bonfires on the beach and skip batteries into the lake ~ Cockroach |
| |
LORDKAHUNA
Don't make me fuk your moustache  SSHOLEPosts: 1622 Registered: 8/5/2003 Offline
|
12/1/2005 at 00:06 |
It seems to me that a lot of people here don't really understand christianity.
I believe you are correct, many/most people don't understand christianity. It has been my experience that even those who do profess to understand christianity, don't.
I can answer virtually any question you might have about the nature of christianity.
I do not want to be an asshole, so please take this in context.
What makes you an authority on this subject? (I am mildly curious)
I posit that it's a religion that is worthy of respect, but you can always prove me wrong.
I don't know why someone would respect such an intangible, but I'll bite.
In order to clarify things for us, please specify the brand of Christianity you are referring to:
The African Methodist Episcopal one ?
The African Methodist Episcopal Zionist one ?
The African Orthodox one ?
The American Baptist one?
The Amish one?
The Anabaptist one?
The Anglican Catholic one?
The Antiochian Orthodox one?
The Armenian Evangelical one?
The Armenian Orthodox one?
The Assemblies of God one?
The Associated Gospel Churches of Canada one?
The Association of Vineyard one?
The Baptist one?
The Baptist Bible Fellowship one?
The Branch Davidian one?
The Brethren in Christ one?
The Bruderhof Communities one?
The Byzantine Catholic one?
The Calvary Chapel one?
The Calvinist one?
The Catholic one?
The Cell Church one?
The Celtic Orthodox one?
The Charismatic Episcopal one?
The Children of God one?
The Christadelphian one?
The Christian and Missionary Alliance one?
The Christian Churches of God one?
The Christian Identity one?
The Christian Reformed Church one?
The Christian Science one?
The Church of God one?
The Church of God in Christ one?
The Church of God of Prophecy one?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints one?
The Church of Scotland one?
The Church of South India one?
The Church of the Brethren one?
The Church of the Lutheran Brethren of America one?
The Church of the Nazarene one?
The Church of the New Jerusalem one?
The Church of the United Brethren in Christ one?
The Church Universal and Triumphant one?
The Churches of Christ one?
The Churches of God General Conference one?
The Congregational Christian Churches one?
The Coptic Orthodox one?
The Cumberland Presbyterian Church one?
The Disciples of Christ one?
The Episcopal one?
The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church one?
The Evangelical Congregational Church one?
The Evangelical Covenant Church one?
The Evangelical Formosan Church one?
The Evangelical Free Church one?
The Evangelical Lutheran Church one?
The Evangelical Methodist Church one?
The Evangelical Presbyterian one?
The Fellowship of Christian Assemblies one?
The Fellowship of Grace Brethren one?
The Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches one?
The Free Church of Scotland one?
The Free Methodist one?
The Free Presbyterian one?
The Free Will Baptist one?
The Greek Orthodox one?
The Hutterian Brethren one?
The Independent Fundamental Churches of America one?
The Indian Orthodox one?
The International Church of the Foursquare Gospel one?
The International Churches of Christ one?
The Jehovah's Witnesses one?
The Living Church of God one?
The Lutheran one?
The Mar Thoma Syrian Church one?
The Mennonite one?
The Messianic Judaism one?
The Methodist one?
The Moravian Church one?
The Nation of Yahweh one?
The New Frontiers International one?
The Old Catholic Church one?
The Orthodox one?
The Orthodox Church in America one?
The Orthodox Presbyterian one?
The Pentecostal one?
The Plymouth Brethren one?
The Presbyterian one?
The Primitive Baptist one?
The Protestant Reformed one?
The Reformed one?
The Reformed Baptist one?
The Reformed Episcopal one?
The Reformed Presbyterian one?
The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints one?
The Revival Centres International one?
The Romanian Orthodox one?
The Rosicrucian one?
The Russian Orthodox one?
The Serbian Orthodox one?
The Seventh Day Baptist one?
The Seventh-Day Adventist one?
The Shaker one?
The Society of Friends one?
The Spiritist one?
The Syrian Orthodox one?
The True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days one?
The Two-by-Twos one? (seriously wtf?)
The Unification one?
The Unitarian-Universalism one?
The United Church of God one?
The United Free Church of Scotland one?
The United Methodist one?
The United Reformed Church one?
THe Uniting Church in Australia one?
The Unity one?
THe Unity Fellowship Church one?
The Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches one?
The Waldensian one?
The Way International one?
The Wesleyan one?
The Wesleyan Methodist one?
The Worldwide Church of God one?
Now I know this^ seems a bit like overkill, but each of these "brands" have a fundamental difference in their definition of christianity, be it large or small.
My first question to you, which one is right, and please try not to feed me the old "they all believe essentially the same thing, and are all fundamentally correct" line (it's the standard dodge).
On 2005-11-30 at 18:07:09, LORDKAHUNA enjoyed furrysex
____________________
the rice I had yesterday came out practically verbatim |
| |
DonQuixote
DARTH MENSES Posts: 641 Registered: 4/22/2005 Offline
|
12/1/2005 at 00:32 |
LORDKAHUNA: It seems to me that a lot of people here don't really understand christianity.
I believe you are correct, many/most people don't understand christianity. It has been my experience that even those who do profess to understand christianity, don't.
I posit that it's a religion that is worthy of respect, but you can always prove me wrong.
I don't know why someone would respect such an intangible, but I'll bite.
In order to clarify things for us, please specify the brand of Christianity you are referring to:
The African Methodist Episcopal one ?
Long Ass List
I actually do know alot about Christianity as well as alot of the other world religions. After my father got cancer I started to rabidly research religion becuase none of it makes sense. It still doesn't. The truth is...THERE ARE NO ANSWERS...only questions. The more you look the less you know. Its a leap of faith that I just can't make.
As for the second part of the quote box - That's a good point. There are alot of different sects of christianity. Which one does anyone "understand" or know alot about. I mean I can tell you off hand how many gospels were left out of the bible at the conference of Nicea. I can even tell you which books from the Jewish faith were left out of the old testament. I have read "The Case For Christ", "Come and Follow" etc etc etc. My point here is the same as the first part. I have only more questions no answers even after reading all this shit. The only thing I discovered is that the Gnostic Gospel known as "The Gospel of Thomas" is somewhat interesting to read cause Jesus says some crazy stuff (literally some things are non sensical) and he also says alot of stuff that I might be inclined to agree with. It even boarders on the verg of being almost Bhuddism.
NOCAL - Here's a question. James The Just is mentioned several times in the Bible (king James or whichever version you read) as well as the lost gospels. This man is supposed to be Jesus' brother. In the gospel of Thomas jesus says something to the effect of, "When I am gone go to James the Just (my brother) for leadership". Point being, what happened to all of Jesus' brothers and sisters? Historically they did exist, I mean there is as much evidence of them as there is of Jesus (historical that is). Why aren't they held to some level of importance? James was a Christian leader after Jesus's death but all the others just faded away. They are mere mentions in scripture. There are many that say these siblings are left out because Mother Mary was supposed to have been a virgin for life so the other kids were covered up. Others say that these siblings were from Josephs previous marriage, which sounds really odd to me. So where is our last scion? Jesus should in theory have descendants. Where are they?
BTW - I don't believe in god. I have tried but it just doesn't work for me.
Take care.
____________________
( . )( . ) <--- Boobs. |
| |
nocal
It's insane, this guy's taint SSHOLEPosts: 811 Registered: 8/25/2004 Offline
|
12/1/2005 at 00:34 |
please try not to feed me the old "they all believe essentially the same thing, and are all fundamentally correct" line (it's the standard dodge).
Well...I thought christians believed in Christ being the savior and the living embodiment of god, but maybe some of those that you posted somehow got to be called christians without the whole messy Jesus thing.
Also, there are cults in that list, which makes it seem a little larger. I could explain the difference between a cult and a religion, but I get that feeling like if you included them in the list, you don't really care. (or you genuinely don't feel there's a difference, which is a valid opinion that I once held)
I do not want to be an asshole, so please take this in context.
What makes you an authority on this subject? (I am mildly curious)
It didn't sound like an asshole type question. Although what you may have implied before the question may have possibly made you maybe sound like an asshole : ) I'm not an expert in anything, really. I don't profess to be. An expert sounds to me like "advanced degree" or "PhD" or something along those lines. But I have gone, through my eigth year of religious private school, from thinking christianity is a crock of horseshit to knowing quite a bit about it and having respect for it. I say I can answer "virtually" any question, because I can answer a whole lot of them, because I've asked a whole lot of them. I didn't mean to imply that I'm more qualified than say, Uart, who addressed some of the questions.
You could try and stump me.
I don't know why someone would respect such an intangible
We all respect intangibles. |
| |
IMBOLCPunxsutawneyPhil
SENATOR BABYHEAD  Posts: 244 Registered: 3/17/2005 Offline
|
12/1/2005 at 03:31 |
LOki: I posit that it's a religion that is worthy of respect, but you can always prove me wrong. I roundly reject your blood-thirsty and sadistic religion of human sacrifice. I am an enemy to your tyrannical god of torture and human suffering.
oh! oh! and if Jesus is a JEW then why aren't the jesus freaks Jews too?
did he like magically revoke the covenant of abraham and then regrow his mighty prepuce? because while jews can't eat peperoni pizza and remain kosher the christians sure as hell can.
____________________
If you include a null character |
| |
IMBOLCPunxsutawneyPhil
SENATOR BABYHEAD Posts: 244 Registered: 3/17/2005 Offline
|
12/1/2005 at 03:35 |
LORDKAHUNA:
In order to clarify things for us, please specify the brand of Diarreah..sploot, plop..
more squezes... some effort is shown...
more grunts...
a bone cracks under strain...
oh yuck, some splash back!
ok, last drop..
ok you forgot knoptic and gnostic too.
anyhow they all love the lard jebus and anything that came from the revival is baloney.
____________________
If you include a null character |
| |
LORDKAHUNA
Don't make me fuk your moustache SSHOLEPosts: 1622 Registered: 8/5/2003 Offline
|
12/1/2005 at 03:46 |
Also, there are cults in that list
Dude, that is strictly a matter of which side of the fence you are sitting on, I expected better.
Well...I thought christians believed in Christ being the savior and the living embodiment of god, but maybe some of those that you posted somehow got to be called christians without the whole messy Jesus thing.
You are correct, to be concise most christians believe the following about Jesus:
-Born of a virgin by immaculate conception.
-Born in a stable.
-His birth is celebrated on Dec 25th
-He was visited by wise men bearing gifts
-He had 12 disciples
-He was called the Messiah
-He made a Contract (or Covenant) with Man confirming an older contract with God.
-He celebrated a last supper with his disciples before his death
-He died to atone for the sins of man
-He was resurrected on a Sunday
-He ascended into Heaven to rejoin his Father
-He will return to pass judgment on mankind
-On judgment day, the dead will arise and be judged
-He will send sinners to Hell
-He will send the faithfull to Heaven
-On judgment day there will be a final conflict between evil and good.
-The forces of evil will be destroyed and the saved will live in paradise forever.
-He is part of a holy Trinity that took human form
-He is depicted as having a halo
-His followers drink wine and eat bread which represent his blood and flesh.
-His followers are baptised
The curious thing is that christianity, it that it is meaningless without Christ. What if Christ never existed, what if you yanked the bottom out of the house of cards that is christianity.
Consider Mithras, the snazzy Babylonian god who's written record predates that of Christ by 320 years.
Mithras and Ahura-Mazda had a hyooge influence on early Babylonian beliefs, which in turn, saturated the Babylonian religion (Zorastrianism).
According to Jewish written history, the Babylonians held the Jews in captivity. The Jews were Henotheists at this time but became heavily influenced by the concept of one god of goodness and one god of evil.
If you are still following along you can see the genesis of the parallel, if not check this:
-Mithras was born of a virgin by immaculate conception.
-Mithras was born in a stable.
-We celebrate his birth on Dec 25th
-Mithras was visited by wise men bearing gifts
-Mithras had 12 disciples
-He was called the Messiah
- Mithras was also the god of Darius, conqueror of Babylon, He was called "Messiah" or Christos by Jews during their Captivity.
-Mithras made a Contract (or Covenant) with Man confirming an older contract with God (the Persian word Mithras literally means "Contract")
-Mithras celebrated a last supper with his disciples before his death
-Mithras died to atone for the sins of man
-Mithras was resurrected on a Sunday
-Mithras ascended into Heaven to rejoin his Father
-Mithras will return to pass judgment on mankind (he was known as the judger of souls)
-On judgment day, the dead will arise and be judged by Mithras
-Mithras will send sinners to Hell
-Mithras will send the faithfull to Heaven
-On judgment day there will be a final conflict between evil and good.
-The forces of evil will be destroyed and the saved will live in paradise forever.
-Mithras is part of a holy Trinity that took human form
-Mithras is depicted as having a halo
-Mithras followers drink wine and eat bread which represent his blood and flesh.
-Mithras followers are baptised
HOLY FUKING COINCIDENCE BATMAN!!11
But wait, there is more:
1) The Holy book of Zoroastrian was called the Avesta of Zarathustra. The Jews were well aware of this book and even referenced it in early Jewish teachings.
2) Mithras Worship fell into decline with the arrival of the Roman Empire and the strong Zoroastrian philosophy of "one true god", did not fit with the multigod Roman belief system.
3) Mithras regained populaity towards the end of the Roman Empire around the first Century AD (THAT RIGHT FOLKS, WHEN JESUS CAME ON THE SCENE).
4) Jesus was a Jew, and it had been established that the Jewry (I love that word) had already been influenced by the Mithras cult and adopted many other Zoroastrian beliefs.
5) Emperor Constantine convened the Great Christian Council of Nicea in 325AD {the one that determined the "Canon" which would be known as the bible) , care to venture a guess as to who he worshiped before his conversion? (sekrit cloo, Mithras!!!1 YAY!!!1)
6) The yummy bread disks that the Mithras worshipers ate during their Mass was marked with a cross, hundreds of years before it became a Christian symbol.
7) And finally, During the Roman revival of the Mithras Cult, where was the cult centred?...... On Vatican Hill in Rome!!!
This is just a singular element of my issues with christianity, and surprisingly, a lot of this was ripped out of textbooks from seminary (most notably was a dusty volume entitled "Old Testament Literature in its Cultural Context" for the Mithras shit).
I don't know why someone would respect such an intangible
We all respect intangibles.
Geez, that was fluffy.
____________________
the rice I had yesterday came out practically verbatim |
| |
IMBOLCPunxsutawneyPhil
SENATOR BABYHEAD Posts: 244 Registered: 3/17/2005 Offline
|
12/1/2005 at 03:50 |
ok.. so like 8 years of religious skoolin' isn't much mr. nocal.
I went through a hell of a lot more and I came in thinking it was a nice concept to love your neighbor and brothers and be happy dappy with the whole thing and left thinking:
What a fuckload of bullshit hypocrite social control freaks trying to rule the idiots lives with a fairy tale about eternal damnation and salvation.
Fundamentally the concepts of the bible are an old school set of anthropomorphic precepts from a social adaptation standpoint. If you live in the desert you learn to respect the "laws" of the desert. Examplia Grata: Don't eat pigs or seafood in the desert [bad food, hard to maintain, waste of resources]
Historically speaking, the chirst people were real, with real people problems, not holy myths around them. Bar Kochiva and the messianic hebrew myth show this--the romans were to be defeated by a god of war. He tried, he killed a garrison, they sent 10 more and wiped his ass out. To not be totally wiped out the early christains became the "lambs of god" the religion of "peace" and definitely not a revolutionary sect as had been originally scripted in the fake..er... holy bible.
We have the rise of gnoptic faith and it's precepts which were proto-christian and essentially the final vestiges of anything "authentic" in the terms of a messianic idenity. Take the gospels wriiten up to 100 years later, multiple transciptions between multiple languages over hundreds of years and then extrapolate that into medieval and geopolitical translations up in the dark ages, the "god kings" and other abberations caused by political inflections--the holy bible is chock full of lies, falsehoods and other "additions" throughout the years. King James had nothing on the truth, and he molded his own after some reckonin' I gather....
If you doubt this, which any good sheep christ follower should, look at a new "cult" religion anywhere about you. what makes it legitimate? Time? the Mormon's are a recent addition, they weren't around any longer than this young scar of a country. They show that if you see the right visions, have the right people around you and foster the religious environment, you too can grow your own ready to love the world faith.
it's bunk. and it's sad that people still fall for this shit.
____________________
If you include a null character |
| |
acheron
Cynical_Malcontent  SSHOLEPosts: 559 Registered: 4/29/2004 Offline
|
12/1/2005 at 04:27 |
For whatever reason I find that talking about religion is something that I have utterly no interest in at all. I am taking a class on world religions and its just increased the feeling.
The thing is, people look at any single one biblical scripture and interpret it 5 or 6 different ways. Then you take a look at different verbal inflections, possible errors in translation, words with different ways to be translated and you get probably another 15 ways. Then you take a look at the history of the text, whether the writing was a literal recording of events or possibly a parable or a symbolic wrting and you get an endless line of possible interpretations. THEN you realize that hundreds of scriptures have been burned, edited, hidden, ignored and you realize that really the modern focus of the bible has been shifted, and certainly not by Jesus.
Christianity, at its literal core, seems to me to be a pretty benign, non-violent spin on Jewish ideals. Its probably true that some dude named Jesus was persecuted and died around the time when we think he did. Did he ascend into heaven and sit next to God? I don't know. Nobody does. Either way the divinity of Jesus seems to me to be a distraction from his basic teachings, a personal relationship with God, turning other cheek and whatnot.
I have respect, I suppose, for the teachings of Jesus. I think that a lot of the stories in the bible and the pentateuch have a lot of value or else they wouldn't have been guarded so zealously and handed down through the centuries. Kahuna brings up a lot of good points with respect to some of the blendings of Christianity with other myths and religions and its development. Once you start getting into specifics large parts of the religion start falling off very quickly-which is why I have trouble taking it seriously.
"Nazi genocide wasn't justified by religion, in that Nazis weren't religious. If anything, it was bigotry. Which is usually the culprit in genocide, for instance in Rwanda. "
Isn't that kind of theological judgment in itself? The Nazis had some pretty specifically Christian backing to a lot of the rhetoric being thrown around at the time. I'm not implying that it actually matters, because I think that conflicts like that are more matters of power than anything else.
On 2005-11-30 at 22:29:38, AcheronDCS enjoyed furrysex |
| |
nocal
It's insane, this guy's taint SSHOLEPosts: 811 Registered: 8/25/2004 Offline
|
12/1/2005 at 05:25 |
Dude, that is strictly a matter of which side of the fence you are sitting on, I expected better.
Actually, I addressed that. But ok.
While you can argue that christianity affects some of its members negatively, you can't argue that it affects all of its members negatively. If you try to argue that, then you've never met a single upstanding, nice christian? Now Branch Davidians. Can you say that its goal is to be beneficial to people? Or was it to give a couple of men exclusive power over people? They contributed nothing to the world, they were not about giving people hope or charity. It was about one dude getting to fuck lots of chicks in his compound.
-Born of a virgin by immaculate conception.
Mary was born by immaculate conception. It was that she was born without original sin, the only way she could supposedly give birth to the son of god.
-Born in a stable.
Wrong. Manger =! Stable.
-His birth is celebrated on Dec 25th
Not in the bible.
-He made a Contract (or Covenant) with Man confirming an older contract with God.
No. He is the new covenant.
-On judgment day, the dead will arise and be judged
-He will send sinners to Hell
-He will send the faithfull to Heaven
-On judgment day there will be a final conflict between evil and good.
-The forces of evil will be destroyed and the saved will live in paradise forever.
Revelations may or may not be a part of the bible that was tacked on after the fact by an unknown author. Most scholars doubt its authenticity.
-He is depicted as having a halo
Not in the bible.
Frankly, what you said that follows doesn't really hold up, then. Precious little of what you say is in the bible is actually in it. He was born of a virgin mother and ascended into heaven.
HOLY FUCKING SHIT!
Death and rebirth. Sin and redemption. Baptism. The rise and fall of the sun. Symbolism. That was an old fucking symbol before Mithras, I can pretty much guarantee that.
this link is informative, in that Mithras and his cult circled the globe over the course of a few thousand years.
2) Mithras Worship fell into decline with the arrival of the Roman Empire and the strong Zoroastrian philosophy of "one true god", did not fit with the multigod Roman belief system.
Actually, it was just arriving in Rome and prospering exactly at the same time as christianity. Also, the Romans were unusually tolerant of the religious beliefs of followers, which allowed them to rule so effectively. If anything, christianity was persecuted in those days...so if you're trying to say that christianity's "one true god" system somehow managed to win out against Mithras, it doesn't make for a sensible argument.
The link above also says this:
For over three hundred years the rulers of the Roman Empire worshipped the god Mithras.
So when you say this:
3) Mithras regained populaity towards the end of the Roman Empire around the first Century AD (THAT RIGHT FOLKS, WHEN JESUS CAME ON THE SCENE).
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Christianity flourished while Mithraism crumbled, because only Mithraism was against the Roman belief system? They both believed in, in your argument, basically the same god. Christianity was actually persecuted, while Mithraism was embraced by the Romans.
5) Emperor Constantine convened the Great Christian Council of Nicea in 325AD {the one that determined the "Canon" which would be known as the bible) , care to venture a guess as to who he worshiped before his conversion? (sekrit cloo, Mithras!!!1 YAY!!!1)
Constantine was a worshipper of a monotheistic sun god.
This link says this:
In the interests of unity Constantine deliberately chose to blur the distinctions among Christianity, Mithraism and Sol Invictus—deliberately chose not to see any contradictions among them.
So Constantine, in the name of unity, purposefully blurred the distinctions of the two. That does not mean that one ripped off the other, or that Constantine deliberately made christianity more like his pagan beliefs.
6) The yummy bread disks that the Mithras worshipers ate during their Mass was marked with a cross, hundreds of years before it became a Christian symbol.
You're right! Actually, another of Constantine's thingies. Try to find a cross in the bible. It's actually a stake, but it was mistranslated from the Greek.
7) And finally, During the Roman revival of the Mithras Cult, where was the cult centred?...... On Vatican Hill in Rome!!!
One of the largest Mithraic temples built in Italy now lies under the present site of the Church of St. Clemente, near the Colosseum in Rome.
That St. Clemente was a real plagiarizing fuck.
This is just a singular element of my issues with christianity
How about my problems with Mithras? That motherfucker ripped off Egyptian pagans! Also some Assyrians! What a fucker!
Instead of seeing the similarities as somehow damning, it's strange to me that you don't see it as evidence of a singular human view of everything. To see that nearly every legitimate, long-lasting religion has these uncanny similarities...it doesn't strike you as too perfect? That maybe Christianity is a continuation of what mankind has known for thousands of years? And maybe, just maybe, Christians are the same as many other religions but simply believe that their savior has come already?
I don't know why someone would respect such an intangible
We all respect intangibles.
Geez, that was fluffy.
I don't know what you mean by "fluffy," but if you're going to discount a belief because it's intangible, then I'm not sure what it is you believe in besides the fact that you're able to think.
IMBOLCPunxsutawneyPhil: WORDS
Dude. You make so little sense sometimes.
Anthropomorphic precepts? Laws applied to inanimate objects which are given human characteristics?
I guess you object to translations of the bible through the ages. The NIV is a fresh translation of (if I recall correctly) Greek source material. That most definitely eliminates most of the error made by transcription and by politics.
If you doubt this, which any good sheep christ follower should, look at a new "cult" religion anywhere about you. what makes it legitimate? Time? the Mormon's are a recent addition, they weren't around any longer than this young scar of a country.
I went over this earlier, but Mormons are a fine example. Let's just take a leap here and say that, historically (as most scholars will back up) a person named Jesus existed. More of a leap. He was a philosopher. He was probably a bit nuts, but was basically a good guy and preached some valuable shit.
Joseph Smith believed that Jesus came to America and left gold tablets buried in fucking ILLINOIS. He then used this info to fuck many women and was killed by a lynch mob after fleeing from prison (he also shot two people in the mob). Also they conduct posthumous baptisms. HITLER belongs to the mormons.
On 2005-11-30 at 23:43:06, nocal enjoyed furrysex |
| |
nocal
It's insane, this guy's taint SSHOLEPosts: 811 Registered: 8/25/2004 Offline
|
12/1/2005 at 05:37 |
Isn't that kind of theological judgment in itself? The Nazis had some pretty specifically Christian backing to a lot of the rhetoric being thrown around at the time. I'm not implying that it actually matters, because I think that conflicts like that are more matters of power than anything else.
Well then not that it matters, but no. Specifically, it was 100% racism and xenophobia. Hitler didn't like immigrants because they weakened countries, and Jews are (technically) a race.
The thing is, people look at any single one biblical scripture and interpret it 5 or 6 different ways. Then you take a look at different verbal inflections, possible errors in translation, words with different ways to be translated and you get probably another 15 ways. Then you take a look at the history of the text, whether the writing was a literal recording of events or possibly a parable or a symbolic wrting and you get an endless line of possible interpretations. THEN you realize that hundreds of scriptures have been burned, edited, hidden, ignored and you realize that really the modern focus of the bible has been shifted, and certainly not by Jesus.
In my opinion, it's up to the individual to interpret. The stranglehold on interpretation allowed a corrupt centralized church to rule people. But nowadays anyone can read a bible for free.
And if they're burned and hidden, we don't know they exist.
Once you start getting into specifics large parts of the religion start falling off very quickly-which is why I have trouble taking it seriously.
Not sure which parts you mean, but lots o' shit gets confusing when you start paying attention -- Heisenberg kind of fucked up the whole physical world for us, now, didn't he?
Christianity, at its literal core, seems to me to be a pretty benign, non-violent spin on Jewish ideals. Its probably true that some dude named Jesus was persecuted and died around the time when we think he did. Did he ascend into heaven and sit next to God? I don't know. Nobody does. Either way the divinity of Jesus seems to me to be a distraction from his basic teachings, a personal relationship with God, turning other cheek and whatnot.
True dat. But Jesus is God, really. So personal Jesus that gives a shit about people is a personal God that gives a shit about people. Non-divine Jesus is just some dude that died. |
| |
shitbox
my balls your chin, get used to that idea  SSHOLEPosts: 932 Registered: 1/9/2005 Offline
|
12/1/2005 at 05:50 |
It all comes down to this....RIGHT AND WRONG.
Everyones interpretation of what is 'good' and what is 'evil' is just that....their fucking interpretation. Nothing more.
Im sooo sick of the natural man(ie;humans) claiming they know what is right for other humans. I must admit, I do believe that Jesus Christ lived. He was a man. I love him.
Now, as far as eternal redemption and atoning for our sins through him, im not sure, id like to believe so. The problem with Christianity is one not unique to Christianity.
The problem is with the messengers. The HUMANS who decide/try to convey the message that THEY are the ONLY way to God(higher power,etc) and you will go to HELL if you don't obey God, IE; THEM.
I think there is a message out there, I just am skeptical of any message conveyed by man because MAN likes to put his fingers in it and fuck it all up.
Peace and Meat
____________________
"Kill him! Kill the fuckin' indian! What am I watching here two fuckin' fags!?"
Rodney Dangerfield as Ed Wilson
|
| |
Uart
DARTH MENSES Posts: 1228 Registered: 3/5/2005 Offline
|
12/1/2005 at 06:43 |
IMBOLCPunxsutawneyPhil: ok.. so like 8 years of religious skoolin' isn't much mr. nocal.
I think it is...
nocal: I say I can answer "virtually" any question, because I can answer a whole lot of them, because I've asked a whole lot of them. I didn't mean to imply that I'm more qualified than say, Uart, who addressed some of the questions.
Well, I also had 8 years of religious schooling, so if that's the qualification, then you def. aren't.
AcheronDCS: Did he ascend into heaven and sit next to God? I don't know. Nobody does.
That IS what makes it religion and not history.
nocal: Jews are (technically) a race.
No, Judaism is a religion. Jews are a cultural group, most of the members of which are racially Semites. Palestinians and other arabs are also Semites. Hence why Jew-hating is anti-Semitism. Jew =! Race... Sammy Davis was a Jew, but not racially.
LordKahuna: You are correct, to be concise most christians believe the following about Jesus:
-Born of a virgin by immaculate conception.
-Born in a stable.Manger
-His birth is celebrated on Dec 25thOnly western-european-derived Christianity uses this date, the Eastern Church has a different calendar. (ask a Greek about it)
-He was visited by wise men bearing gifts
-He had 12 disciples
-He was called the Messiah
-He made a Contract (or Covenant) with Man confirming an older contract with God.
-He celebrated a last supper with his disciples before his death
-He died to atone for the sins of man
-He was resurrected on a Sunday
-He ascended into Heaven to rejoin his Father
-He will return to pass judgment on mankind
-On judgment day, the dead will arise and be judged
-He will send sinners to Hell
-He will send the faithfull to Heaven
-On judgment day there will be a final conflict between evil and good.
-The forces of evil will be destroyed and the saved will live in paradise forever.
-He is part of a holy Trinity that took human form
-He is depicted as having a halo
-His followers drink wine and eat bread which represent his blood and flesh.In Catholicism, IT IS the body and blood
-His followers are baptised
Nocal did an honorable job trying to sort that out.
On 2005-12-01 at 00:44:10, Uart enjoyed furrysex |
| |
Stump
SENATOR BABYHEAD  Posts: 310 Registered: 6/18/2002 Offline
|
12/1/2005 at 07:43 |
Instead of seeing the similarities as somehow damning, it's strange to me that you don't see it as evidence of a singular human view of everything. To see that nearly every legitimate, long-lasting religion has these uncanny similarities...it doesn't strike you as too perfect? That maybe Christianity is a continuation of what mankind has known for thousands of years? And maybe, just maybe, Christians are the same as many other religions but simply believe that their savior has come already?
I'm not anymore qualified than Nocal or Uart to answer these questions, but I'm willing to put my two cents in based on several years of CCd , four years of Catholic High, and a week plus locked in a cell with nothing but a Bible and a blanket.
I was raised Roman Catholic and even having gone to a Roman Catholic high school and college I've been exposed to other religous beliefs (one of Christ's key teachings, tolerance of others) either through my own reading or directed reading from teachers. It's amazing the things religions have in common. The Jews, Muslims and Christians all believe in the holiness of Christ, Abraham and Moses, according to two of the religions though one of those three was their founder and prophet, the others are only holy men.
Religions also seem to mimic each other even though seperated by a cultural and at the time geographic and unconquerable divide. Compare the teachings of Buddhism, the passages in the Upanishads, the teachings of Christ, Buddha, Moses and Mohammad. You'll find similarities among them all. There is a moral and right way to live your life, they all teach this and it's all in a similar vein. Ignore the cults, ignore assinine arguments about social mores and customs, it was a different time when these thing were written. People didn't live as long or survive to 90 years old (fuck the Jewish/Islamic/Christian texts saying people lived to be 900 yrs old, it's hyperbole) so marrying at 9 and having kids at 14 was regular, so was having a dozen or more kids or it being acceptable to have more than one wife to bear children (genetically ypu've more likelyhood of having a female, hence no namesake to carry on). Shit, lots of the things people take as fact and proof of "God's" will in text can be justified away by taking a historical veiwpoint on it with our current knowledge.
To sum up, most religions have the same basic tenets; you're no better than anyone else; read a few religious texts; if you're wrong and the other guys God really is the "true" God when you die you're gonna suffer eternally anway so you may as well just try to be a decent person while you're alive, even if you don't subscribe to any central religous belief.
{EDIT/add-on}
Long ass diatribe above, but now that I've read what inspired the starting of this topic the above paragraph is the most important of it. Go read the Torah (the old testament of the Bible), the Koran, the Upanishads, the catholic bible (King James being the most widely accepted translation), Buddhas teachings, and the Gnostic gospels (St. Thomas specifcally) Dagwood. I agree, religious fundamentalism is a bitch, compare your examples from history to those of the Islamic terrorists of today and they stand side by side. Religion is an excuse for some of the greatest quests for power (there's a better term I can't think of right now) and atrocities ever committed. Informed belief in something greater than us as flesh and blood human beings may be one of the only salvations we have though, and to squander the seeking to transcend ourselves by being divided by dogmas is somewhat ridiculous.
Stupid coding, I used carats to deliniate my edit and now I've had to enjoy furrysex twice. I kind of liked it 
On 2005-12-01 at 02:02:10, Stump enjoyed furrysex
On 2005-12-01 at 02:04:19, Stump enjoyed furrysex |
| |
vasudeva
Bad Taste in your Mouth  SSHOLEPosts: 4460 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
12/1/2005 at 11:52 |
nocal: You're right! Actually, another of Constantine's thingies. Try to find a cross in the bible. It's actually a stake, but it was mistranslated from the Greek.
You're saying Jesus died on a stake?
Instead of seeing the similarities as somehow damning, it's strange to me that you don't see it as evidence of a singular human view of everything. To see that nearly every legitimate, long-lasting religion has these uncanny similarities...it doesn't strike you as too perfect?
I see these similarities (and the dozens of sun-god myths that Christianity is merely the most recent echo of) as proof that most human brains work the same way. We exalt the things that tend to move above us (heavens, sun, moon, etc). We fear death and want an avenue past it, and as it just so happens our big buddy Christ (et al) has the answers -- having done it as proof! You can't buy this in stores!
As for your original tangent (Christianity, Good or Bad?)... Beyond the self-evident "any tool is good or bad depending on use" argument, it's obviously (at least in part) meant as a vehicle to instill good habits in people, "good" probably being defined as the least frictiony way for a society to interoperate. It's the crap people do with this tool that demonizes it in my mind.
It usually causes me near-physical anguish to see some holy roller deep in the grip of his god -- it never seems any more to me than an indulgent and particularly flagrant display of mental self-(ab)negation.
____________________
slippedhole> I am on to you and your evil intentions. I am the true protector of this website and am willing to do battle with you. |
| |
nocal
It's insane, this guy's taint SSHOLEPosts: 811 Registered: 8/25/2004 Offline
|
12/1/2005 at 14:48 |
It's the crap people do with this tool that demonizes it in my mind.
Ok, but any tool can be used in a way in which it is not intended to be used. Religion is one of many.
You're saying Jesus died on a stake?
Greek dictionaries, lexicons and other study books also declare the primary meaning of stauros to be an upright pale, pole or stake. The secondary meaning of "cross" is admitted by them to be a "later" rendering. At least two of them do not even mention "cross," and only render the meaning as "pole or stake." In spite of this strong evidence and proof that the word stauos should have been translated "stake," and the verb stauroo to have been translated "impale," almost all the common versions of the Scriptures persist with the Latin Vulgate's crux (cross), a "later" rendering of the Greek stauros.
But anyway, even if Mithraic priests used the cross symbol...it was around long before that. Egyptian priests used it.
We fear death and want an avenue past it, and as it just so happens our big buddy Christ (et al) has the answers -- having done it as proof! You can't buy this in stores!
One of my favorite movie quotes from Jacob's Ladder:
Eckhart saw Hell too. He said: The only thing that burns in Hell is the part of you that won't let go of life, your memories, your attachments. They burn them all away. But they're not punishing you, he said. They're freeing your soul. So, if you're frightened of dying and... and you're holding on, you'll see devils tearing your life away. But if you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels, freeing you from the earth.
The bible is mostly about giving up attachments, including life. Jesus is meant to be an example, for one thing. No one can ever possibly know for sure (even if they saw it themselves) whether someone actually returned from the dead. We wouldn't know what to make of it if it happened today. But somehow, proving that there are similarities between religions and that there are factual errors in the bible and that Jesus probably didn't literally ascend physically into heaven and return to earth...it just shouldn't effect the messages. |
| |
sunny77
SENATOR BABYHEAD  Posts: 225 Registered: 11/2/2005 Offline
|
12/1/2005 at 14:53 |
As a Christian myself, I do not look for the answers in life, I rather let things fall into place via the Lord. I know and am willing to admit that I am far less than perfect, as far as the commandments go. On the other hand, I do try to do the right thing (usually) and even when I don't I head on over to the reconciliation booth (nocal you should know of this booth) and confess my sins. I do not attend mass regularly,however, as I believe one does not have to gather in multitude and shell out some cash for the offering in order to be a Christian. I try to keep it simple, as that has made it easier for me to place my faith in the Lord and not dwell on the eathereal aspects of life. And that's me on faith.
____________________
l hate wrecker. That is all. |
| |
mundhra
dread pirate neckbeard  SSHOLEPosts: 1634 Registered: 3/25/2002 Offline
|
12/1/2005 at 14:56 |
LORDKAHUNA: -Born of a virgin by immaculate conception.
nocal: Mary was born by immaculate conception. It was that she was born without original sin, the only way she could supposedly give birth to the son of god.
nocal or uart: please explain this (independent of catholicism).
it's no surprise that every religion brands itself as the one true religion - thou shalt have no other gods before me and all that rot. i think LK's point in bringing up zorastrianism, nocal, is that this is not true.
christianity is not a beautiful and unique snowflake.
i know you kind of sidestepped the issue with the whole 'singular human view' argument, but i think that leads to a slippery slope when trying to defend religion.
AcheronDCS: Once you start getting into specifics large parts of the religion start falling off very quickly-which is why I have trouble taking it seriously.
yeah, i'm the same way.
vasudeva: As for your original tangent (Christianity, Good or Bad?)... Beyond the self-evident "any tool is good or bad depending on use" argument, it's obviously (at least in part) meant as a vehicle to instill good habits in people, "good" probably being defined as the least frictiony way for a society to interoperate. It's the crap people do with this tool that demonizes it in my mind.
this is possible because religion is merely a societal construct and is no less susceptible to corruption than any other. i think there's interesting merit in the 'religion is the opiate of the masses' argument, but it's only true if the people allow it to be. many religious rules benefit an organized, civilized society, but the same conclusions can be achieved through rational thought - an off-topic easy example is kosher food preparation.
regardless of whether or not an omnipotent, omnipresent entity exists named YHWH (or JHVH or God or...), the 'teachings' were written by men. if there were some glowing, floating book written by the hand of GOD itself, i would be more than happy to discard my reservations. i really think organized religion's folly is dictating spirituality. i can see parallels between christianity and my personal (somewhat nebulous amalgam of) beliefs, but i can't say i respect or appreciate them in any real manner.
____________________
But the whole of modern so-called civilized existence is an attempt to deny reality insofar as it exists. When did Don last look at the stars, when did Norman last get soaked in a rainstorm? |
| |
vasudeva
Bad Taste in your Mouth SSHOLEPosts: 4460 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline | |
