There is NO GOD

try counting from one little section of the galaxy which is one of ∞ in the universe, there are 300 known to us
hell, 100 years ago or so no one even knew what a supernova was

for the rest, google man, just google it, read about the Galapagos islands

Do you believe that the earth is flat? That we are the center of the universe? That gravity doesn't exist?
This is all shit religion has held to be true until people got too smart for the church, then they change and adapt.

But let me ask you some general questions.

How do you feel about gays?

How do you feel about sex before marriage?

How do you feel about people of a different religion of you?

What about the Mayans and other ancient civilizations and religions?


I dont want you or anyone to lose faith if they want to keep it. But it just fascinates me when people get so closed minded....on both sides of the science v religion debate.

I see the general level of intelligence hasn't risen much since my last visit here.

I do not believe in God or in any other kind of being that cannot be explained by the laws of nature and by the sciences that try to discover them. Nor do I believe in determinism in its classical, teleological sense. Not everything happens with a reason and I would even argue that most of the things, events are pure coincidences that could or could not happen, depends on the conjuncture from which they have (or have not) risen. I've been an Marxist for a quite a long time, and while Marxism is usually associated to a belief that everything could be explained in the last instance by the movement of the contradiction between productive forces and the relations of production (or economy, to keep it simple), it is still a version of Marxism, that of Louis Althusser, that really helped me understand contingency in history and society. There's nothing predetermined in history of men. Any belief that tells you so (whether be religion, modern economics or something third), is ideological and therefore in a function of reproduction of existing relations of domination/production. Althusser is not lonely in holding that belief, of course. Even if you're not into philosophy, you cannot ignore that continency lies in the foundation of modern science. Theory of evolution is one example and quantum mechanics would be another. It's just 'common sense' (ie. ideology) that cannot let go of the belief that everyting is there for a reason and that an invisible hand (of God, Spirit, Economy,...) can be detected in everything that happens.

How do you feel about gays?

They are not normal.Sex between males are wrong!

How do you feel about sex before marriage?

It's normal,i have done it though,i had sex before i became christian,and i am not married.
Why it's normal you ask? Because condoms may have micro holes,they can break during sexual intercourse.It's very easy to get HIV. If you have sex without condom then it's pure lottery.

How do you feel about people of a different religion of you?

I don't care what other people are into,but they should read a Holy Bible.

What about the Mayans and other ancient civilizations and religions?

Let them be.

I dont want you or anyone to lose faith if they want to keep it

I never lose my faith into God. Evolution is just biggest myth in the humankind history,that's it.It's plain dumb,dumb and silly. Scientists can't answer many questions about evolution weak sides. Non living matter=life. Makes perfect sense
As i said earlier-
Evolution-epic fail

Speaking of answering questions...

How can one person create the Earth? How can that one person do it in 6 days? Why did that person suddenly decide to create humans? Why did he create humans the way we are? If he created us in his image, why have humans changed so much physically since they first emerged? Why is there indisputable proof of life on Earth from millions of years ago yet the World has only existed for 6,000?...

Anything?

It's very easy to get HIV.

Actually, it's surprisingly difficult through sex. Even with someone who already has it. Assuming you're a man of course. And even more so if they're on the latest meds. (The vast majority of HIV transmissions occur through blood transfusions or drug use. Sex-related transmission is like 5% of cases, if that.)

try counting from one little section of the galaxy which is one of ∞ in the universe, there are 300 known to us
hell, 100 years ago or so no one even knew what a supernova was

There are 300-ish we can see is more accurate, and they may be millions of years old. He doesn't even seem to understand any of the stuff he's arguing against so it is pointless. You're taking the right tact in asking him those questions.

As I have said about four times in this thread, whether or not there is a God, whether or not Jesus was his son, whether or not everything in the Bible happened exactly as it says, whether or not there actually is evolution, or was a big bang, this is irrelevant and a red herring for the entire debate. The point of religion is not TO EXPLAIN EVERYTHING EVER, and the same can be said of science (even though that is science's eventual goal, only an lunatic would claim it has reached that point) as their current and primary goals are completely separate. Religion is a MORAL PHILOSOPHY to define a way of living and social structure. Science is, well, FUCKING SCIENCE, it's supposed to tell you why shit happens. Why water boils, why smashing two atoms make big boom, why everything needs Brawndo because it has electrolytes, etc.

What are the core tenets of Christianity? The Ten Commandments? They came right from God himself after all. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Agnostics, Illreligious, etc. We don't disagree on most of them. We think it is wrong to murder, steal, covet neighbors shit, lie, etc. We think it is right to honor family, not be a fucker, etc. Hell, if it's God, The Lord, Jesus, karma, The Golden Rule, or whatever we all agree on the "do good crap, good crap happens" factor. The part where we disagree is the "worship no other Gods except me" and "remembering the Sabbath" ones. (And even a lot of non-Christians follow the last one simply out of habit of everything closing early on Sunday.) And guess what, THOSE ARE THE LEAST IMPORTANT ONES. Why? Because they are not structuring who you are, what society is, instead they are attempts to hold you to the church. (Remember when they were issued, during a time where people were most likely to be losing their faith. It was a way to keep them together to save them.) Casting off those commandments, but keeping the rest = fine. Casting off the others and keeping those = terrible and what gives Christianity a black eye from time to time.

As I said before, the Bible is a series of specifically chosen allegories to make points IN TERMS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY, not explain how the world works. They're life lessons, not scientific theories. You don't take Blue's Clues as the literal because you know it's about teaching kids things, not explaining the world. You can't jump into paintings, salt and pepper shakers don't talk or have bad marriages, AND DOGS DON'T LEAVE YOU FUCKING CLUES FOR OBVIOUS MYSTERIES THAT YOU HAVE TO SIT IN A CHAIR TO DECIPHER ONLY AFTER KIDS YELL THE ANSWER AT YOU THROUGH THE TV.

Arguing over the "facts" of the Bible and trying to bash science with it is as stupid as trying to "disprove" the Bible by referencing science. The Bible is moral arguments, and you can believe them and follow them without having to discredit science. You can believe in evolution, and not discount God or any potential role of his (it's called Intelligent Design and basically says evolution works as evolutionists say, BUT GOD IS THE MAN BEHIND THE MAN) just as you can follow any scientific theory without it destroying your belief in any religion. When they come into conflict, it's easy to say "well, the Bible is old, and also using metaphors like a drunken English writer" and not dismiss your moral philosophy while also following the guys with the evidence to support their claims.

Theory of evolution is one example and quantum mechanics would be another. It's just 'common sense' (ie. ideology) that cannot let go of the belief that everyting is there for a reason and that an invisible hand (of God, Spirit, Economy,...) can be detected in everything that happens.

Except the invisible hand isn't an actual "invisible hand that makes everything okay always" but the resultant of multiple individual choices and transactions for individual benefit that shape the whole economy. The invisible hand theory doesn't say they will steer the economy correctly, just that they will steer the economy as a whole, even if it's off the cliff. It's actually more of the opposite of an all-managing God.

Do you believe that the earth is flat? That we are the center of the universe? That gravity doesn't exist?
This is all shit religion has held to be true until people got too smart for the church, then they change and adapt.

Actually, they're also things that science has held to be true. Until the evidence piled up for opposing theories. (Aside from the last one, which they've accepted but are still trying to figure out how and why, while others just think everything is expanding so gravity is an illusion.)

We have to remember that The Church was a political power, not what it is today, a social club. It basically ran entire states and continents. When you have political power, and the theories on both sides are nubile, your scientific theories "win." (Global warming is caused by man, stem cells will solve everything, etc.)

Guess, I'll answer Jao's questions.

How do you feel about gays?

How do you feel about sex before marriage?

How do you feel about people of a different religion of you?

What about the Mayans and other ancient civilizations and religions?

Cool beans for all of them.

Anything?

It doesn't mean six literal days, it's an allegory/metaphor for all time before man's existence. I'm pretty sure even 90% of Christians don't believe it was six literal days at this point.

Jae,read a Bible. More than one page.

indisputable proof

There are one silly theory.Big bang theory.That's not indisputable.It's full of big mistakes.

talking to my fiance during lunch (yes, thanks assholes for taking up my lunch convo material) we both settled on the idea that religion is more of a psychological coping mechanism having to do with death.

I believe Sigmund Freud first proposed that idea, that religion formed as a way for us to cope in a harsh, unforgiving world and to give reason to our existence.

the Bible is a series of specifically chosen allegories to make points IN TERMS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY, not explain how the world works. They're life lessons, not scientific theories.

Well said.

I'm pretty sure even 90% of Christians don't believe it was six literal days at this point.

You'd be surprised. I've talked to hardcore Christians, and they believed that it took literally six days. But as you've said, who cares. It's irrelevant. Why does it matter?

Jae,read a Bible. More than one page.

Get off your high horse. You're not even making good arguments, you're just spewing opinions.

You'd be surprised. I've talked to hardcore Christians, and they believed that it took literally six days. But as you've said, who cares. It's irrelevant. Why does it matter?

Maybe 85%. Still. The hardcore, like in all instances, are actually a gross minority, but they're far louder than the rest.

Why does it matter? As I linked earlier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Theory of evolution is one example and quantum mechanics would be another. It's just 'common sense' (ie. ideology) that cannot let go of the belief that everyting is there for a reason and that an invisible hand (of God, Spirit, Economy,...) can be detected in everything that happens.

Except the invisible hand isn't an actual "invisible hand that makes everything okay always" but the resultant of multiple individual choices and transactions for individual benefit that shape the whole economy. The invisible hand theory doesn't say they will steer the economy correctly, just that they will steer the economy as a whole, even if it's off the cliff. It's actually more of the opposite of an all-managing God.

Actually no, the prevailing view is that the invisible hand as the objectification of the market will result in the greater good for the community as a whole despite (or because) the selfish behaviour of individuals. Even at this late hour, I can still identify at least three huge problems with it: #1, it is based on an ideological conception of human nature (and every conception of human nature is inherently ideological) that presents humans as rational, selfish beings. #2, it is based on an abstract individual, whereas society is not being run by them, but by concrete individuals that are formed by concrete institutions, rules, ideology... #3, economy is not something that just floats around separated from the material conditions of its existence. Same goes for the individual: he/she is not just his/hers biological manifestation or abstract essence. He/she is the role he/she fills in the net of social relations that are governed (overddetermined) by many instances and economy is just one of them.

EDIT: I completely rewrote this because my edits had made it worse to understand.

I know people mean that when they say "invisible hand" but that's not the original argument, instead it's a summarization of Smith's entire argument. Smith makes two arguments in terms of the "invisible hand" the first is that a bunch of individual actions lead to the whole economy. You have to remember he's arguing against mercantilism. THEN he makes the argument that in a free market, a bunch of selfish actions lead to a beneficial whole. He doesn't say this is true for all markets, and is part of why he specifically spends so much time on domestic and foreign trade separately. (And which is why Wealth of Nations is soul sucking, ignoring his not knowing that just because you can say something in 900 pages doesn't mean you have to.)

I mentioned it because the invisible hand of Smith would be the complete opposite of the invisible hand of God. God would be a top-down ordering of reality, the "invisible hand" is a bottom-up ordering of the economy. God is a single actor, the "invisible hand" is all actors together.

I posted the link in another thread, but it seems very relevant to this thread. This is Salman Rushdie's "Letter to the 6 billionth person", and it certainly reflects what I believe about this whole thing (sorry if it's a little long):

Dear little Six - Billionth Living Person: As one of the newest members of a notoriously inquisitive species, it probably won't be too long before you start asking the two $64,000 questions with which the other 5,999,999,999 of us have been wrestling for some time.

How did we get here? And, now that we are here, how shall we live?

Oddly - as if six billion of us weren't enough to be going on with - it will almost certainly be suggested to you that the answer to the question of origins requires you to believe in the existence of a further, invisible, innefable Being "somewhere up there", an omnipotent creature whom we poor limited creatures are unable even to perceive, much less to understand. That is, you will be strongly encouraged to imagine a heaven, with at least one god in residence.

This sky god, it's said, made the universe by churning its matter in a giant pot. Or, he danced. Or, he vomited creation out of himself. Or, he simply called it into being, and lo, it Was. In some of the more interesting creation stories, the singly mighty sky god is subdivided into many lesser forces - junior dieties, avatars, gigantic metamorphic "ancestors" whose adventures create the landscape, or the whimsical, wanton, meddling, cruel pantheons of the great polytheisms, whose wild doings will convince you that the real engine of creation was lust; for infinite power, for too easily broken human bodies, for clouds of glory. But it's only fair to add that there are also stories which offer the message that the primary creative impulse was, and is, love.

Many of these stories will strike you extremely beautiful, and therefore seductive. Unfortunately, however, you will not be required to make a purely literary response to them. Only the stories of dead religions can be appreciated for their beauty. Living religions require much more of you. So you will be told that belief in "your" stories, and adherence to the rituals of worship that have grown up around them, must become a vital part of your life in the crowded world. They will be called the heart of your culture, even of your individual identity.

It is possible that they may at some point come to feel inescapable, not in the way that the truth is inescapable, but in the way that a jail is. They may at some point cease to feel like the texts in which human beings have tried to solve a great mystery, and feel, instead, like the pretexts for other properly anointed human beings to order you around. And it's true that human history is full of the public oppression wrought by the charioteers of the gods.

In the opinion of religious people, however, the private comfort that religion brings more than compensates for the evil done in its name.

As human knowledge has grown, it has also become plain that every religious story ever told about how we got here is quite simply wrong. This, finally, is what all religions have in common. They didn't get it right. There was no celestial churning, no maker's dance, no vomiting of galaxies, no snake or kangaroo ancestors, no Valhalla, no Olympus, no six-day conjuring trick followed by a day of rest. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

But here's something genuinly odd. The wrongness of the sacred tales hasn't lessened the zeal of the devout in the least. If anything, the sheer out-of-step zaniness of religion leads the religious to insist ever more stridently on the importance of blind faith.

As a result of this faith, by the way, lt has proved impossible, in many parts of the world, to prevent the human race's numbers from swelling alarmingly. Blame the overcrowded planet at least partly on the misguidedness of the races spiritual guides. In your own lifetime, you may witness the arrival of the nine billionth world citizen.

(If too many people are being born as a result, in part, of religious strictures against birth control, then too many people are also dying because religious culture, by refusing to face the facts of human sexuality, also refuses to fight against sexually transmitted diseases.)

There are those who say that the great wars of the new century will once again be wars of religion, jihads and crusades, as they were in the Middle Ages. I don't believe them, or not in the way they mean it. Take a look at the Muslim world, or rather the Islamist world, to use the word coined to describe Islam's present day "political arm". The divisions between its great powers (Afghanistan against Iran against Iraq against Saudi Arabia against Syria against Egypt) are what strike you most forcefully. There's very little resembling a common purpose. Even after the non-Islamic NATO fought a war for the Muslim Kosovan Albanians, the Muslim world was slow in coming forward with much needed humanitarian aid.

The real wars of religion are the wars religions unleash against ordinary citizens within their "sphere of influence." They are wars of the godly against the largely defenceless - American fundamentalists against pro-choice doctors, Iranian mullahs against their country's Jewish minority, Hindu fundamentalists in Bombay against that city's increasingly fearful Muslims.

The victors in that war must not be the closed-minded, marching into battle with, as ever, God on their side. To choose unbelief is to choose mind over dogma, to trust in our humanity instead of all these dangerous divinities. So, how did we get here? Don't look for the answer in story books. Imperfect human knowledge may be a bumpy, pot-holed street, but it's the only road to wisdom worth taking. Virgil, who believed that the apiarist Aristaeus could spontaneously generate new bees from the rotting carcess of a cow, was closer to a truth about origins than all the revered old books.

The ancient wisdoms are modern non-senses.

Live in your own time, use what we know and, as you grow up, perhaps the human race will finally grow up with you and put aside childish things. As the song says, "It's easy if you try."

As for mortality, the second great question - how to live? What is right action, and what wrong?- it comes down to your willingness to think for yourself. Only you can decide if you want to be handed down the law by priests, and accept that good and evil are somehow external to ourselves.

To my mind, religion - even at its most sophisticated - essentially infantalizes our ethical selves by setting infallible moral Arbiters and irredeemably immoral Tempters above us; the eternal parents, good and bad, light and dark, of the supernatural realm.

How, then, are we to make ethical choices without a divine rulebook or judge? Is unbelief just the first step on the long slide into the brain death of cultural relativism, according to which many unbearable things - female circumcision, to name just one - can be excused on culturally specific grounds, and the universality of human rights, too can be ignored?

Well, no, it isn't, but the reasons for saying so aren't clear-cut. Only hard-line ideology is clear-cut. Freedom, which is the word I use for the secular-ethical position, is inevitably fuzzier. Yes, freedom is that space in which contradiction can reign, it is a never-ending debate. It is not in itself the answer to the question of morals, but the conversation about that question. And it is much more than mere relativism, because it is not merely a never-ending talk show, but a place in which choices are made, values defined and defended.

Intellectual freedom, in European history, has mostly meant freedom from the restraints of the Church and not the state.

This is the battle Voltaire was fighting, and it's also what all six billion of us could do for ourselves, the revolution in which each of us could play our small, six-billionth part; once and for all we could refuse to allow priests, and the fictions on whose behalf they claim to speak, to be the policemen of our liberties and behavior. Once and for all we could put the stories back into the books, put the books back on the shelves, and see the world undogmatized and plain.

Imagine there's no heaven, my dear Six-Billionth, and at once the sky's the limit.

Jae,read a Bible. More than one page.

indisputable proof

There are one silly theory.Big bang theory.That's not indisputable.It's full of big mistakes.

Where did G.O.D. came from !?
The Bible didn't say anything about that !

Bible , bleh ! Did G.O.D. made it , naw . . .
Delussionists made it .

Again, Bible is god's words interpreted by men. Men just are far from perfect, we are just a mere particle of dust, even our very planet is such a tiny little particle when it comes to universe which are all god's creation. It's just impossible with our intellectual level to fully understand everything, or anything near to a perfection. That logic and science we know is such a little thing but we think we know and act like men know everything. We tend to forget to appreciate that little intelligence that we carry is also a god's blessing. Again, Bible is god's words interpreted by men and it's also how you interprete their words.

I need to stop reading this thread.

It's just impossible with our intellectual level to fully understand everything, or anything near to a perfection. That logic and science we know is such a little thing but we think we know and act like men know everything

I blame religion for that , Religion limits Human Learning and Progression .
In the Middle Ages , the Church killed all of those Scientist that they say their works are Blasphemous .
Hmmm , I wonder how many years could've been the Human Race be so advanced .

Church even disagree on the Study of " Stem Cells " , why ?

Religions expecially Christians say ; " God is Good ! "
maybe to someone but not everyone , ask the poor people about it .

It doesn't mean six literal days, it's an allegory/metaphor for all time before man's existence. I'm pretty sure even 90% of Christians don't believe it was six literal days at this point.

It's really not six days?
NOOOOO!!!
My world just crumbled.

education and religion doesn't go together, not by a long ways. Education, science has been the greatest hindrance the Gospel's ever had.

In the garden of Eden there were two trees, one were science, the other one was faith. When man left the Tree of Life, faith, and took a first bite off of the tree of knowledge, science, he destroyed his fellowship with his Maker. Every time he bites a bite off of that tree, he still separates himself from God.

So you don't know God by education. You don't know Him by the scientific researches. You know God by simple child faith. That's the way you know God, forgetting your education, forgetting all the other things and just simply know that you're a creature of His creation. There you know God by that, simple as that.

And when you try to confine God to one little denomination or one little action, you're limiting yourself. God covers all places, He... He's everywhere. God is all powerful, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, knows all things, can be anywhere any time, and He's all powerful. If you get to know how great He is, then you can know something about His power. Look at the universe; look at the stars; look at the trees, and you can see Who God is.

…When God made man in His image, he was a spirit man. Then there was no man to till the soil. Then He created man out of the dust of the earth. Now, chronologists and so forth, and these people that search and get old bones and so forth, and believe in evolution... I believe in the right kind of evolution. Man evolutes from himself, but not all from one cell. No, sir, because a--a bird has been a bird ever since God made him a bird, and a monkey's been a monkey; a man's been a man…

I wonder. I'd like for science to answer this one. If there is such a thing as evolution, and they claim it could come some other way. Why don't something rise higher than a man? We have no species higher than a man, because he's in the image of God. Nothing can go beyond its Creator. I like for them answer that one. They can't do it. Why? It's the highest species.

…they were trying to interbreed, and so forth, and say that, "Man come from lower animals, and--and through evolution he brought himself up." Well, see, they kept fooling around with science till they disproved their own theory.

You cannot interbreed anything and make it go higher; it'll drop right back. It cannot. Hybrid corn, or anything, cannot breed itself back. Or like I was saying the other day, It's the ... donkey and the mare horse can breed and will bring forth a mule, but that mule cannot bring forth another mule. It has to go right back to its begin. Because, God said, "Every seed after its kind."

And now, I'd just like to pass this, being that I am in a school. And I'd like for someone to explain this. You know, we're told that we came and by a evolution we have grown from a polliwog to a monkey and then to a man. How crazy that is when Genesis the 1st chapter and the 11th verse, God said, "Let every seed bring forth of his kind." You cross that seed up, it kills it right there. It can never get anything else but that. That's exactly right. You can hybrid corn (That is true.) and make a beautiful big ear of corn, but you cannot plant that corn back and get another hybrid corn. It's finished as soon as it's made its first crop. It goes right back again.

Breeding of stock... You can take a mule. What is a mule? A mule is; his mother was a mare horse, his father was a donkey. So you see, the... But the mule cannot breed back and get a mule, he's finished. He's sterile. That's all. That ends it.
So that proves science, moving in their own field, has disproved their own argument. That's right. That's true, 'cause you cannot interbreed anything like that and--and get another crop out of it. You farmers know that. Your hybrid corn cannot be planted back. You have no crop. It's no good. Finally it plays itself completely out. Nothing hybrid can last--can last.
But it's been man's idea since the very beginning of time to try to outsmart, or do something greater than his Creator. He wants to be... He wants to show his Creator that he's smarter than He is. What does he do? Just... God lets him go, and finally he kills himself.

There was a tree in the garden of Eden called the Tree of Life. There was one called the tree of knowledge. When man left the Tree of Life where he was eating to live forever, the first bite he took from the tree of knowledge he separated himself from God and brought death to his soul. That's right. And every since then, every time he bites off of that tree of knowledge, he destroys himself.
He bit off gun powder, kills his brother, his comrade. He bit off automobile, science. What does he do? Killed more than all the wars put together. He's got hisself a hydrogen bomb now. Wonder what he's going to do with that?

See, man destroys himself by knowledge, and he will never by education or knowledge ever find his way back to God. And that tree, he dies by that tree. We've tried to educate people into it. We've tried to denominate people into it. You cannot do it. It's got to be God's first original plan: by the Blood we come back to God. That's God's path and His... He laid down that foundation in the garden of Eden, and it's never been changed and never will. Only through the shed Blood will God recognize reconciliation of the sinner, is through the shed Blood of Jesus Christ now.

Now, we find out that he always tries to outsmart, do something better. And it's true, he makes a prettier specie. But that doesn't make it any better. And he's figured on now till he's even got a hybrid religion. So I just wonder what he's going to do with that, where he's come to with that place. But he always tries to outsmart his Maker. He thinks that he knows better, and--and he's...

And God never does destroy anything. Man destroys himself by his knowledge. God doesn't destroy anything. It's man, by his knowledge, destroys himself. So therefore, if you would take time, go back in the Scriptures and chase the lineage of Cain and then the lineage of Seth; you will find out that the--the lineage of Cain were the smart men, the scientists, the workers of wood, the workers of metal, scientists. And they all perished in the antediluvian destruction. But the lineage of--of Seth were humble: farmers, sheep raisers.

Too bad God didn't make an edit button on phpBB.

Oh wait, he did.

I wonder. I'd like for science to answer this one. If there is such a thing as evolution, and they claim it could come some other way. Why don't something rise higher than a man? We have no species higher than a man, because he's in the image of God. Nothing can go beyond its Creator. I like for them answer that one. They can't do it. Why? It's the highest species.

I'd say if G.O.D. is in fact real , I'd say he's an alien . . .
Ask yourself , why does the G.O.D.'s live up there !? . . . 'coz they're aliens from another world .

Last edited by MikeMan™ on Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

education and religion doesn't go together

Now I know why nerds are ugly .
G.O.D. hates them .

Last edited by MikeMan™ on Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

I'm pretty sure even 90% of Christians don't believe it was six literal days at this point.

Oh I know, but we are talking about vinceair...

Jae,read a Bible. More than one page.

Thanks for precisely and thoughtfully answering all of my questions. What if Jao had said to you "Just read an (insert book of choice here), more than one page" you'd be saying "SEE YOU CANT PROVE ANYTHING I AINT COME FROM NO MONKEY HAHA!"

Too bad God didn't make an edit button on phpBB.

Oh wait, he did.