There is a unique power in the Bible. I sincerely doubt you will expose my truth as a fraud or a joke. On the other hand, it is very easy to cast doubt on the Bible.This is where you fail. You sincerely doubt. Keep on sincerely doubting, and you will doubt yourself right out of existence. You called my truth "foolishness", but I easily refuted your 8 points, and showed that your book is a poor substitute for the truth. The Revelation in the Bible says, in chapter 22, verses 18 and 19: "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." So, I am inaccurate when I call your truth foolishness. Rather, it is destructive heresy, and your "refutings" are utter, raving nonsense. Why are you attacking God's WORD and the messenger who has brought your attention to it?
image
Because your god is the devil, his words are destructive heresy, and you are in league with his demons... all of you servants of the devil.  |
|
|
|
Great post. First, let me briefly reference the emboldened passages:
1) Not only have I considered the possibility of an omnipotent entity that is "beyond logic," but I'm knowingly asserting my position in direct contrast to this possibility. Furthermore, I held onto an agnostic position for a long time until further exploration suggested to me that the position is untenable. I went from playing along with Roman Catholicism as a child, to atheism, to agnosticism, to a blend of agnosticism and East Asian religious philosophy (e.g. Buddhism, etc.), to complete open-mindedness, and now I've settled as a monistic theist.
2) I appreciate that you tried to clarify and understand my position, because it's inaccurate. I do not believe God can ever be revealed via the scientific method or any other line of inductive reasoning. Even if we do not start with any presuppositions about God (because we shouldn't, else we put the cart before the horse), we already know right off the bat that inductive reasoning lacks the scope necessary to formulate absolute statements about reality at the highest possible level of generality. Inductive reasoning fails because a presupposition about God would need to preclude any absolute statements made about such an entity. In other words, we would need to somehow know absolutely what God is before finding any evidence to support that presupposition. Obviously, this creates a huge problem, so we need a way to avoid the problem altogether.
Stemming from these two points, first we need to consider what is relevant to us, and perhaps the best way to identify what is relevant is to first identify which is irrelevant. Specifically, things that are unreal or illogical are of no relevance to us because there is absolutely no possible way to make sense out of them. If something were 'real' enough outside of reality so as to have an impact on it, then it would need to be inside reality. Similarly, reality would be completely unintelligible if it weren't logical, and the fact that we all observe and interact with a stable Universe demonstrates that reality is inherently logical.
Now, let's focus on your phrasing when you talk about the possibility of an entity that is "beyond logic." This is where things get fun. Really fun. And really, really cool.
You could say that, in a sense, logic itself is beyond logic. What I mean by this is that logic is holographic in structure. I'm not sure how familiar you are with holograms, but if you take a piece of holographic film and you cut a corner from it, e.g. 25%, the result is not a corner that reveals 25% of the original image, but rather you have 100% of the image at 1/4 size. Logic is similar. There are all kinds logical systems that vary according to scale, and although the sizes of these different systems vary, the logical properties governing all of them are the same.
When we observe something, the logic and rules of observation (i.e. at a higher level) relate to the observed conditions (i.e. at a lower level) and allow us to make rational (remember, root word = ratio), statements about that relation. Similarly, when we engage in metacognition, the logic and rules of metacognition (i.e. at a higher level) relate to various abstract objects of cognition (i.e. at a lower level) and allow us to make rational statements about that relation, too.
The point I'm making is that we already have insight into how something 'beyond logic' works. However, I would just clarify that it's not quite accurate to say 'beyond logic,' but rather it might be more accurate to say something like, "There exist logical systems of lower order that are necessitated by logical systems of higher order."
If you're having trouble understanding what I mean by all of this, I'll refer you to an illustrative analogy I've used several times on this forum to demonstrate the point: Imagine that we, as 3rd-dimensional beings, want to know what the 4th dimension is like. As 3D beings, we are limited by certain logical boundaries that define the 3rd dimension, so how can we know what the 4th dimension is like? Well, what we can do is we can draw something like a tesseract, a 4th-dimensional object, on a 2nd-dimensional plane of paper. But, similar to the problem of induction I spoke of earlier, how can we know that a tesseract is a sound model of a 4th-dimensional object? Wouldn't that require that we invoke a presupposition of what a 4th-dimensional object is like before we've evidenced it?
As it turns out, when we draw a tesseract on a piece of paper, we are actually removing ourselves from the constraints of our 3rd-dimensional perspective, and instead we assume the perspective of a 5th-dimensional entity. That is, we assume a 5d perspective and talk about the 4th dimension in the same way that we, as 3d beings, can fully explore and understand the logic of the 2nd-dimension. All spatial dimensions are the same in their logical constructs (e.g. the 3rd-dimension can be described as the infinite sum of all 2d phenomena, the 4th-dimension can be described as the infinite sum of all 3d phenomena, etc.), but they vary according to scope.
To wrap up this post, notice how spatial dimensions are all logical constructs, but each successive dimension is *infinitely* greater than the previous one. This should provide you with some insight into how we can gain insight into something (God?) that is infinitely greater than we or the logical system(s) we inhabit.
Edit: Oh, I guess I should clarify what my actual position is. My position is that God:Reality :: Man:Perceptions. I believe it is accurate to say "man was created in God's image," and I think that we are all essentially gods...mini-gods. I would venture so far as to say that, at the greatest possible scale, the interplay of consciousness and reality is God attempting to know himself and move towards self-actualization.
Seems to me that there is one simple, major point either missing from the above, or else not elevated to the position that it actually holds. This is the fact that all observation, and investigation through observation, shows a major, basic quality about everything that is observed: cause and effect, action and reaction. Nothing that we observe or have observed comes or has come about by anything other than cause and effect. At least not that we have seen. Everything that we observe in the whole universe, appears to have come about by some kind of cause and effect. The only places that we don't see cause and effect in our observations of the universe, are where our observations are incomplete. In fact, scientifically speaking, the scientist relies on cause and effect entirely. The greater the scientist, the more he has relied on cause and effect, action and reaction. When cause and effect is applied to *mind* we see that all of our thinking has been programmed. The ideas and points in the edit, above, have been produced by cause and effect. This suggests that the idea that God can never "be revealed via the scientific method or any other line of inductive reasoning" (number 2, above) is too extreme. God can never be revealed in His entirety by the scientific method, but He can be revealed in part by that method, that He does indeed exist, and that He is GREAT beyond understanding or nearly so. Why? Because the use of the scientific method, working through one of its basic, major methods - observation of cause and effect - eventually takes us, His children, back to Him - working back through the cause and effect method to the beginning, to God, the Great First Cause. The only other point about this is, there may be something that operates by methods other than cause and effect - besides God, that is - that we have not observed clearly enough to determine what it is. And because of our nature, we might not be able to understand that we are looking right at it when we ARE looking at it. Yet, in the whole of the observable universe where we have an understanding of what we have observed, we haven't found it. Even the abstract math of quantum mechanics that suggests that *pure random* might exist, came about through minds that used cause and effect in some form to develop the math. |
|
|
|
I hate all religions equally. They are primitive, superstitious relics of our primitive past. Until humanity can see religion for the violent, destructive bullshit that it is, we cannot grow and advance.
Does your religion of hate of religion make you self-destructive?  |
|
|
|
Agnosticism is not a position at all. It is a means of arriving at a position. SourceThis is such a bad quote in my opinion. Since I'm trying to place myself among agnostics. "Agnostic" means nothing more than "rational". It cannot be an alternative to theism and atheism. From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Agnostic?s=t : agnostic
[ag-nos-tik]
noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
3. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic:
Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.
adjective
4. of or pertaining to agnostics or their doctrines, attitudes, or beliefs.
5. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.
6. holding neither of two opposing positions:
If you take an agnostic view of technology, then it becomes clear that your decisions to implement one solution or another should be driven by need.
|
|
|
|
All "wrongdoing" is unlawful if the harmed/damaged person files a complaint. If the complaint is upheld in court, then the wrongdoing becomes illegal, even if it wasn't illegal before. |
|
|
|
I didn't realize this about LocalBitcoins.
So, now a bitcoin seller would need two BofA accounts, and immediately do a transfer to the other account so that there aren't any funds in his bitcoin selling account. Would this be a feasible idea? If there was a reverse payment by anyone, the funds lost would be small until the bank could figure the whole thing out.
I know. Lots of hassle. But ease from the other direction.
I'm not sure how the bank would handle that situation. You can either try it and see, or ask the bank how they would handle it. I suspect that at best the bank will easily trace the money and transfer it back, and at worst you will be charged with fraud and prosecuted. Thank you. The fraud part can be initiated at any time as it is. Suppose someone reversed a bank transaction after you shut down the account. Can the bitcoin transfer be proven either way by either side? No (I would think). So where would the case be either way? One affidavit against another. EDIT: Would LocalBitcoins get into the fray to show that they had actually made the escrow transfer? |
|
|
|
Okay, so now we need a trust feature on both ends. After all, if you make a cash deposit, how are you going to be certain that the bitcoin seller is going to send you your coins? We are at a halfway trust position using Local Bitcoins as it is. There should be a way to go the other half of the trust using a bank account.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. If you use localbitcoins, then localbitcoins holds the bitcoins so that the bitcoin seller can't run off with them. After you make the cash deposit, the seller should release the bitcoins to you. If they refuse to do so, then you can file a complaint with localbitcoins. As long as you can satisfactorily prove to localbitcoins that you made the deposit, they will release the bitcoins to you without the permission of the bitcoin seller. If you don't trust localbitcoins, then you'll need to find someone else that both the buyer and the seller trust. If you are going to exchange fiat value (or much of anything else in the physical world) for bitcoins, then either one of you will need to trust the other, or you'll need to find an independent third party that you both trust. The problem with reversible payment methods is that even if you find an independent third party that you both trust, the scammer can reverse the payment at a later time (after the bitcoins have been released). With PayPal and credit cards this can be months later. There aren't many people that are willing to wait for months after they've paid to receive their bitcoins from the independent third party. With personal checks and bank transfers, it is likely to be several weeks at least before the sender can no longer reverse the payment. I didn't realize this about LocalBitcoins. So, now a bitcoin seller would need two BofA accounts, and immediately do a transfer to the other account so that there aren't any funds in his bitcoin selling account. Would this be a feasible idea? If there was a reverse payment by anyone, the funds lost would be small until the bank could figure the whole thing out. I know. Lots of hassle. But ease from the other direction. |
|
|
|
Isn't this a similar process to the "Cash Deposit" option in LocalBitcoins already?
No. Cash deposit is not reversible. If I make a cash deposit, and then you send me bitcoins, I cannot go back to the bank and ask for the cash back. They won't give it to me. This is more like "PayPal" or "National bank transfer" on localbitcoins. The advantage for using a send cash by email process is, if you don't have a bank in your location, you can still do the trade as long as there is an Internet connection. In other words, you could do the trade from a foreign country that has Internet, but doesn't have a branch of BofA or whatever bank you use. In fact, the both of you could be in different foreign countries, as long as the Internet is there. |
|
|
|
You can send funds to pay for bitcoins by email through Bank of America if you and the the bitcoin seller both have an account at BofA. I don't have any details about fees or requirements. If BofA has it, other banks probably do as well. 1. Find a bitcoin seller (buyer) who has a BofA account like you do; 2. Make a private agreement through separate email accounts to trade funds for bitcoins; 3. Send (receive) cash by email; 4. Receive (send) bitcoins wallet to wallet as usual. Is anyone familiar with this process? Does BofA charge big fees? I would think that Local Bitcoins ( https://localbitcoins.com/) buyers and sellers could simplify their processes with this. Any ideas? This is a horrible idea. Payment through email is easily reversible. All a scammer has to do is call up the bank and dispute the payment. The bank will then take back the funds from the person that received them and return them to the scammer. Meanwhile the bitcoin transaction is not reversible. This means that the person selling the bitcoins has lost the bitcoins and received no payment for them. This is just as risky as accepting a personal check for the bitcoins (where the scammer could call the bank and stop payment on the check). The only time you should ever exchange a reversible form of payment for an irreversible form of payment is: - If you already have a significant trust relationship with the person making the reversible payment or
- If you have priced the risk into the cost of the exchange or
- If you have a reliable method of enforcing payment.
Okay, so now we need a trust feature on both ends. After all, if you make a cash deposit, how are you going to be certain that the bitcoin seller is going to send you your coins? We are at a halfway trust position using Local Bitcoins as it is. There should be a way to go the other half of the trust using a bank account. |
|
|
|
In the States, Bank of America (probably other banks, as well) has a feature for people to send funds via email. If German banks have this feature, couldn't the German people simply contact each other by a different email account, or via placing an ad in the American Local Bitcoins, and then facilitate the trade for funds through their email account attached to their bank account? See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=887668.0. |
|
|
|
You can send funds to pay for bitcoins by email through Bank of America if you and the the bitcoin seller both have an account at BofA. I don't have any details about fees or requirements. If BofA has it, other banks probably do as well. 1. Find a bitcoin seller (buyer) who has a BofA account like you do; 2. Make a private agreement through separate email accounts to trade funds for bitcoins; 3. Send (receive) cash by email; 4. Receive (send) bitcoins wallet to wallet as usual. Is anyone familiar with this process? Does BofA charge big fees? I would think that Local Bitcoins ( https://localbitcoins.com/) buyers and sellers could simplify their processes with this. Any ideas? |
|
|
|
Okay, okay. Want to know the real answer to why people hate Islam? It's real simple. People love being argumentative. The answer to the question is, because other people don't. |
|
|
|
This is straight murder/manslaughter. If a suspect has is armed who pulls right up to them and jumps out, especially on the side of the armed assailant, this is rookie at best. This is some Rambo shit, they could have parked away and got over the PA and gave commands. There is literally 1-2 seconds from door opening to death, that kids fate was sealed before the cops even got there. http://www.copblock.org/ is a geat site, every day they have 3-4 new vids/articles on another cop doing something fucked up. They are the criminals, the murderers, the bullies and teh thiefs. And on top of that, I have read that it is a right to open carry State. |
|
|
|
It's fun, eeking out a living while seeking out the ancient dead. Probably in the ancient past, the sun was much brighter and larger and hotter. Actually, science is finding that it is shrinking on a daily basis as it uses up its "fuel" and sends material out into space in all directions. Probably in the ancient past the earth was the fourth planet in the Solar System, while Mars was the third. The size of the ancient sun made Mercury a liquid droplet, probably without any solidity at all. The asteroid belt was created when an ancient planet-sized comet happened to come too close to Earth and Mars, destroying itself in the process of flipping the orbits of the two. This happened to keep Earth inside of a solar zone that was warm enough to support life - remember, the sun is contracting as it uses its fuel. If you look at the current temperatures of the earth while keeping mind the political nature of Global Warming, you will see that Earth is gradually losing its heat, bit by bit, every decade. We are headed for another ice-age, within, say, approximately 50 years if not sooner. The only two things that might forestall this are: 1) the Earth is moved into a closer orbit to the sun; 2) the sun gains a new batch of material that expands its heating capabilities back to what they were more than 5,000 years ago.   |
|
|
|
Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible approximately 3,500 years ago. How do we know? We know it from the traditional writings that have been handed down, and the present-day traditions, of the Hebrew nation. How do we know that the Hebrew traditions are correct and true? We know it from ancient manuscripts. Some of these are in the Dead Sea Scrolls. These show that the people of Israel, the Hebrews, were extremely accurate and extremely steadfast in the copying and handing down of the Old Testament of the Bible. This steadfastness and accuracy attests to the truthfulness of the Hebrew (Israel) traditions for accuracy regarding the Bible. Why were the Hebrew people as steadfast and accurate as they were? At least two reasons. One is that there was such power behind the miracles that Moses did, both in Egypt, and in the wilderness for the 40 years, that the impression made upon the people caused them to hand the information down to their children and grandchildren emphatically. The second is that the Spirit of God moved them. How do we know when Moses wrote? Again, it is Hebrew tradition along with ancient Bible writings, like those found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The book of Isaiah in the DSS has been dated to as early as 325 BC (Actually, there are fragments of as many as 20 Isaiah scrolls in the areas where the DSS were found.). This means that ancient copies are only 1,200 to 1,400 years away from Moses, while being over 2,100 years away from us. This point is important and will be mentioned later. While the Isaiah scrolls in the DSS show differences in letter formation of the Hebrew alphabet, when compared with the next oldest copies of Isaiah that we have that are NOT DSS, the various themes of the copies remain the same, while the style and actual wording at times varies a little. Compare the numbers of surviving copies of ancient Bible manuscripts with those of any other ancient (or even more modern) religion. There are few ancient copies of any other religion. Why? I would suggest that there was little strength or power in what was written... or in the writer. The fact that the clear message of Isaiah is present with us today, yet existed originally much closer to the time of Moses, indicates that Moses was a person of power. Isaiah, himself, testifies to Moses in his Book of Isaiah. Where is the Book of Isaiah presently? It is the same place as the books of Moses... in the hands of millions or billions of people around the world. Where are the writings of any other religion from as far back as 3,500 years? Approximately nowhere. Any religious writings from any B.C. religion other than the Bible are virtually not in use. Any religious writings from any A.D. religion other than the Bible simply do not have the scope and "majesty" of the writings of the Bible. And none of the others can save souls. There is a unique power in the Bible. It is a power that in not found in any other writings. It is a power that has kept it alive for 3,500 years, and has kept the tradition of the beginning of the world alive, right down to the present. The choice is yours. Investigate or ignore. Believe what you will, but consider, WHAT you believe will determine your eternal destiny. |
|
|
|
The problem with all your logic, is that Humans do not always have a choice on the things the bible talks about. Some people are born with the attraction to the same sex, do they have a choice? No. Some people are born with all sorts of diseases and deformities, do they have a choice? There are even people born without the ability to feel empathy, do they have a choice? No, and etc. It's all neurological, and has nothing to do with "god". If you didn't know, chemicals throughout your body and brain determine how happy, depressed, anxious, you are and etc. Take out the chemical Oxycontin from your brain for example, and you'll enter into a depressed state since that chemical is responsible for feelings of happiness and love. This whole concept of "choice" is limited only to our day to day actions, if your god really existed, then we should all be entirely equal, so our journey to the choice of (right) or (wrong) would be fair. How can you expect someone born with a large, unfair, disadvantage like a inherited disorder, disease, deformity, hugely negative environmental situations, to possibly have as equal a choice as someone who was born with all their needs and wants met? As I type, there are high hundred of millions to billions of people around this earth who are poverty stricken, diseased; millions of women and children held captive in the sex slave industry, millions of abused wives and women raped, a plethora of murders and hate crimes, and much much more, and then there are the few that have all they could ever want and more... Are you happy with the work of your god? Please...while it's as they say, impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, I'd say the arrow is leaning heavily on the, " God does not exist" side. Blakjag is right when he talks about Satan being in control of the world. Satan is not God. He is extremely less powerful than God. But he is way more powerful than people in some ways. People fell to him in the Garden, and are subject to him in many ways right now. The reason God doesn't simply wipe out Satan the same way that you see people slaughter aliens in movies is this. God placed within people an essence of Himself. Properly used, that essence would have been stronger than Satan in the Garden, if the people had used it properly. Instead, they voluntarily listened to Satan rather than to God, and fell into Satan's dominion. God could destroy Satan faster than lightening if He wanted to. But because of the nature of what Satan is and how he has imbedded himself inside of people, God would have to take down people at the same time. God doesn't want to do this. That isn't what God created people for... their destruction. The way that God is doing it is saving some of the people. Some of them, like Blakjag, don't want to be saved. What are people? The Bible explains what people who are on His side are. They are the children of God. Come and be one of the children of God in the only way that is available. We die because that is the only way to uproot Satan out of our lives. God will raise us again, to life without even the slightest hint or shadow of Satan. God raised us to life the first time. He can do it again. Remember one thing in this thread talk. No explanation will ever be enough. If it were sufficiently large to cover all the bases, there would be no way for understanding it. The Bible offers enough to be saved, and to live a right life as much as possible at the same time. Even if the Blakjag writings were on the up and up, rather than simply a method for making money or pushing some people to fame so Blakjag can be lifted up as well, their explanation of things would simply drag people down with lots of words, rather than building them up to life everlasting the only way it can be done, through the Word of God as expressed in the Bible. |
|
|
|
Any proof of that, BADecker? Proof that the Bible is the WORD?
When will you expose my truth as a fraud or a joke?
I have already told you that the Bible has nothing to do with God; it was written by men.
Stop condemning your brother for no reason, BADecker. You only condemn me because you obsess over your book and you do not know any better. God will forgive ignorance, but you must stop attacking your brother. I will respond to your points 1-8: 1. For a number of reasons, the Bible's message is not as clear as God's WORD. 2. The Bible does not tell us how to create manna, and it does not tell us which foods are particularly good for humans, unlike God's WORD. 3. God's WORD is spoken by God and recorded by God's scribe. Bible is written and re-written by men. 4. As you read in "Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered", not only did the Qumrun community have a metallurgical foundry in the center of the city, you also find out that the Teacher of Righteousness, this thing that they were totally preoccupied with, wasn't Moses or Christ. It says the high priest SWALLOWED the Teacher of Righteousness. How can the Bible or its adherents explain what is going on here when they do not even know what manna is? Are the Scrolls really pointing to a static teaching preserved through the ages as you allege? Hard to know without explaining the above. 5. Traditions are often corrupted. Are you going to do your own thinking or listen to the "traditional authorities"? Someone has spiritual authority over YOU? 6. Essentially the same argument is used to explain the historical existence of Krishna. By your logic, Krishna was real and the Bhagavad Gita is accurate. Krishna- History or Myth7. The fact that there are so many discrepancies between ancient texts (more discrepancies than words in the NT in fact) shows that the text is subject to change. 8. How exactly will you find the whole truth in mainstream books like the Bible? Most of that book is written by a Pharisee. Don't forget that SATAN is ruler of this world, and obviously his message has spread far and wide. We have only words in our debate here. For example, none of us proves the formula for making manna or even suggests it. When you examine the content from every angle, of both the teachings you prescribe and the teachings of the Bible, you find that Bible teachings outweigh the teachings of everything else. The weight of Bible teaching is in the direction of salvation of souls, not the formula for the "bread" called manna. |
|
|
|
Premise 1: There must be only one absolute truth which provides reason for -- i.e. it explains -- everything (tautological). Yes, but. When you consider the size of the universe (assuming that existence is more than a mere mental aberration of some kind), and that the whole thing from max to min fits together and works quite well, and that it all works by cause and effect, who is there that might have any clue as to what the REAL truth is? Premise 2: There must be only one absolutely correct reason/explanation of that truth (axiom, i.e. absolute truth = absolute truth). Usually explanations of things, if comprehensive, tend to be larger than the things themselves. This makes the truth to be its own explanation. Premise 3: There are two or more people in this post who state belief in the Christian god (let's assume Christian god = absolute truth, for the sake of argument), but for different reasons/explanations. Do you mean your post here? Or did you mean "thread" but only said "post?"
Conclusion 1: Therefore, the reasons/explanations provided by at least one (possibly all) of these posters is incorrect.
All. But even if it were correct, it would be incomplete. Conclusion 2: Therefore, at least one (possibly all) of these posters believes in something that is not absolute truth/Christian god.
Was Jesus blonde, brunette, or redhead? When the Holy Spirit talks to the heart of a person and works salvation in him, the color of Jesus' hair doesn't matter, and probably isn't revealed. The Revelation in the Bible says that His hair is "white like wool." Yet, it may not have been that color when He walked the earth. Salvation of certain people among the masses of mankind is a thing worked by the TRUTH, not a thing worked by mankind's knowing of the whole TRUTH, which is impossible... at least in this life. |
|
|
|
This morning I've got an evidence of the existence of God from Cisco TAC. After a controlled power outage, one of our ASAs was unable to startup because of a flash error. When we asked for a replacement unit according to our support agreement, Cisco support said they will not replace the unit as this error was Act of God. So God actually exist, he looks like a Indian bloke in his late thirties, his name is Mr Singh, living in England and working as an electrician. I've seen him with my own eyes (and I wasn't intoxicated) and still here. Good start for this week . BTW God likes spicy hot somosas. This is something good to know is you have to negotiate something with him:). I think you guys can close this topic now. Cisco TAC used to be right. LOL ! That's a good one. God exists. You can tell by all the insurance companies, etc., that have "... an Act of God ..." listed in their contracts. All these insurance companies can't be wrong, can they?  |
|
|
|
Americans search the globe for new people to fuck with and aren't happy until someone dies. You shouldn't disrespect fanatical Muslems by comparing them to Americans.
No the USA military does that, not the American people. The people voted Obama on his promise to end that shit. Americans have always been isolationists. The people who run our country are causing that problem. There is a conservative minority who supports that shit. ISIS has explained their first priority was local, then next they will go global. They slice little girls arms and legs off while she is still alive. BTW, they may be coming to Europe. Eurofags have no guns (and perhaps insufficient young men, due to low fertility rates and rampant emasculation) to defend yourself. Comparing that to the average American citizen is beyond delusional, it is insane. What happened to you? No doubt that American culture is shallow, selfish, arrogant, etc.. but the French are doing a good job at that too, and I hear that the youth in Europe are just as fucked up in terms of smoking, drugs, encouraging females to try lesbian sex, etc. Dude, we kill each other in the street. Americans are violent for fun. I was unfortunate enough to be on International Blvd when the Raiders lost some sort of sporting event. The fans were setting cars on fire and beating the shit out of bystanders. I lived in Texas as a kid. Fist fighting was a popular pastime at my school. You're wrong. Americans are violent assholes. You need to head over to Burning Man sometime. How about the Fremont solstice bike rides? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
