The Christians Thread

[Lasercakes]

I'd like to ask a question too that I've never really got a satisfactory answer to. Supposing that there is no God, no heaven, hell or afterlife at all. When we die, we cease to exist. What incentive is there for a person who believes that to live a moral life? Because you're making the world better for future generations? Why bother? You'll be dead, what do you care? Because you're making other people more comfortable in their lives? Why do you care, they're not you, so except for the people in your own social circle, there's no reason to help others. Because it's the right thing to do? Who determines what's right? Isn't what's right just whatever you need to do to make your own self as comfortable as you can for the present moment? I have trouble understanding the motivations of atheists to be moral. As for my own self, I would do whatever I could get away with if I thought there were no consequences for my actions, and I sure wouldn't expend any effort to help anyone other than my own friends and family, and even then only when it would somehow benefit me, directly or indirectly.

Sorry. I meant to answer your question, but never got back to it. The less personal and short version of why atheists can act morally is because we still feel certain biological emotions, empathy, shame, guilt, etc. We still act in ways to make our self feel good, just in respect to other people. You can argue that this is still psychological egoism (it's impossible to act in a way that's not self-interested), but a self-interested action is different from a selfish action since a selfish action is at the expense of others.

That's my answer, but I feel most religious people don't buy this, but remember that this point can also be flipped around on religion, "You are only acting good out of selfishness to get into heaven." Anyway, I think no matter what you are, you can agree there is more to human morality than just hedonism (Unless of course you're a hedonist of course lol).

 

[Wandrian]

What was it that the Catholic leadership kept secret by keeping non-Latin translations strictly forbidden for something in the nature of a thousand years? Was that the apocrypha or what was it? I can't recall, but I'm wanting to say it was something really important to believers of the faith. That, and I don't care enough to search through far too much info on the subject to figure it out myself(the amount of histories and analyses of the bible out there makes the document itself look like a comic strip by comparison, in terms of volume of content).

 

[UnseenWombat]

What was it that the Catholic leadership kept secret by keeping non-Latin translations strictly forbidden for something in the nature of a thousand years? Was that the apocrypha or what was it? I can't recall, but I'm wanting to say it was something really important to believers of the faith. That, and I don't care enough to search through far too much info on the subject to figure it out myself(the amount of histories and analyses of the bible out there makes the document itself look like a comic strip by comparison, in terms of volume of content).

No problem, that's what this thread is for.

First of all, you have to understand that it wasn't a cover-up that originally kept the Bible out of the hands of common people. Books in those days were painstakingly copied by hand and were thus very rare, so to pass the town church's single Bible around to the farmers and blacksmiths would have been very irresponsible on the part of the priests.

Secondly, people in the early days were illiterate anyway, so there was really no reason to translate the Bible into the common languages, and knowledge of Latin was much more common than it is today also.

Now, I'm not saying you're entirely mistaken, there was a cover-up in later years (though I don't think it lasted a 1000 years), as 13 years in Lutheran school made sure I understood very well lol. If I remember correctly, since I'm old and have been out of school for ages, the spark that lit the Reformation was that the church was selling indulgences to people for the forgiveness of sins. Martin Luther knew that the Bible says forgiveness is through grace alone and told people about it and translated the Bible into German so they could read it for themselves instead of being spoon fed the false doctrines that the corrupt leaders were giving them. There was also the doctrine of purgatory which also earned the church money by having people pay money to shorten the time their departed loved ones had to stay there. That's not mentioned in the Bible either, and the common translation let people see that for themselves, as there were now many more literate people than there were in the early days of the church.

To be honest though, I can't remember, and can't find any information saying that the Catholic church specifically forbade translating the Bible into other languages. I think I might have heard that during my Lutheran education, but I'm not positive.

 

[Wandrian]

The entire scriptute? I thought it was something big, but not that big. Hmm...hazy memories are hazy.

 

[Synalon]

For anyone who's interested, a more thorough explanation of why the paradox of the stone doesn't work:

Spoiler

The problem with it is that it's assuming logic is a set of laws that govern things in the world. What it really is is a language for accurately describing reality. We conceive of a statement to make, and the rules of logic tell us what conditions have to be present in the universe for that statement to be true. So, the statement "God lifts a rock" is only true if God does indeed lift a rock (this sounds pretty tautological, but that's because when we write we need to use statements to describe events. It makes more sense if you think of it like this: the statement "God lifts a rock" is true if [video of God lifting a rock]). Omnipotence means that God can do anything; he can engage in any activity or perform any action. But not every statement actually describes an action to perform.

For instance, God cannot gorbalise a meltion. He can perform any action, but no action that can be performed will make the statement "God gorbalises a meltion" true, because 'gorbalise' and 'meltion' are nonsense words with no definition. This is not a law of the world, or a restriction on God - it is a fact of language.

So. God cannot make a rock so heavy he can't lift it. He can still do anything, but in the same way, no action that can be performed will make the statement "God makes a rock so heavy he can't lift it" true, even though these words have definitions and actually mean something. This is because, by virtue of his omnipotence, any rock, or any possible rock, is a rock that God can lift. Therefore, the words "a rock so heavy God can't lift it" do not point to any rock in the domain of all possible rocks. It's like asking God to find an even prime number greater than 2; the restrictions you have placed on the set of possible actions render it empty.

Even if you don't accept this argument, it is reasonable for a theist to respond that God isn't 'omnipotent' by the loaded definition of the word you've come up with. The fact that God cannot create a rock so heavy he can't lift it does not disprove the idea that an all-powerful being exists and created the universe.

 

[UnseenWombat]

There's a misconception about the nature of our relationship with God that I see popping up in other peoples' posts in that "other thread" that I think would be well to set right here since it's a tenet of Christianity. It's the idea that God wants us to praise and worship him because he's somehow egotistical and our worship or following his commands somehow benefits him. But the truth is completely the opposite.

Every faculty you have, your power of thinking or of moving your limbs from moment to moment, is given you by God. If you devoted every moment of your whole life exclusively to His service you could not give Him anything that was not in a sense His own already. So that when we talk of a man doing anything for God or giving anything to God, I will tell you what it is really like.

It is like a small child going to its father and saying, "Daddy, give me sixpence to buy you a birthday present." Of course, the father does, and he is pleased with the child's present. It is all very nice and proper, but only an idiot would think that the father is sixpence to the good on the transaction.

So you see, it's not for His benefit that we worship or believe in him or obey his commandments, but for our own. The purpose of our lives, mortal and immortal, is to be turned into perfect people, not to pad God's ego, as though he needed something from us, but to make us fit to live in a perfect place, because how could heaven be heaven if we all came there with all our hatred and murder and pride and rebellion, etc?

the question of Faith in this sense arises after a man has tried his level best to practise the Christian virtues, and found that he fails, and seen that even if he could he would only be giving back to God what was already God's own.

In other words, he discovers his bankruptcy. Now, once again, what God cares about is not exactly our actions. What he cares about is that we should be creatures of a certain kind or quality— the kind of creatures He intended us to be—creatures related to Himself in a certain way...

As long as a man is thinking of God as an examiner who has set him a sort of paper to do, or as the opposite party in a sort of bargain—as long as he is thinking of claims and counterclaims between himself and God—he is not yet in the right relation to Him.

He is misunderstanding what he is and what God is. And he cannot get into the right relation until he has discovered the fact of our bankruptcy.

And our bankruptcy means we can't become good except with his help. Not to say that people apart from him don't do good things, there are plenty of examples of charitable atheists. But they're lacking the direction and assistance we need to take that process to its full conclusion, perfection.

 

[Wandrian]

So you see, it's not for His benefit that we worship or believe in him or obey his commandments, but for our own. The purpose of our lives, mortal and immortal, is to be turned into perfect people, not to pad God's ego, as though he needed something from us, but to make us fit to live in a perfect place, because how could heaven be heaven if we all came there with all our hatred and murder and pride and rebellion, etc?

This makes a metric fuckton more sense than the "lol you guys want to suck off an invisible man in the sky so he doesn't set you on fire so you're all 'tards" argument. Jussayin'.

 

[UnseenWombat]

Thanks. I'm glad it helps. :)

 

[Synalon]

Every faculty you have, your power of thinking or of moving your limbs from moment to moment, is given you by God. If you devoted every moment of your whole life exclusively to His service you could not give Him anything that was not in a sense His own already. So that when we talk of a man doing anything for God or giving anything to God, I will tell you what it is really like.

It is like a small child going to its father and saying, "Daddy, give me sixpence to buy you a birthday present." Of course, the father does, and he is pleased with the child's present. It is all very nice and proper, but only an idiot would think that the father is sixpence to the good on the transaction.

So you see, it's not for His benefit that we worship or believe in him or obey his commandments, but for our own. The purpose of our lives, mortal and immortal, is to be turned into perfect people, not to pad God's ego, as though he needed something from us, but to make us fit to live in a perfect place, because how could heaven be heaven if we all came there with all our hatred and murder and pride and rebellion, etc?

This is not a very good analogy, because it doesn't account for a number of things that atheists are criticising when they point to God's desire for worship. It is more like if a father thrusts some money into someone's hands - without them asking for it - and providing no way for them to return it that does not result in them going to hell. He then demands the present, also with the threat of eternal punishment looming for those who don't comply. There are a number of conclusions we can draw from this that are extremely damaging to the idea of loving, non-megalomaniacal God, but I'm sure they're sufficiently obvious.

And our bankruptcy means we can't become good except with his help. Not to say that people apart from him don't do good things, there are plenty of examples of charitable atheists. But they're lacking the direction and assistance we need to take that process to its full conclusion, perfection.

This is a very vague statement, and so difficult to discuss. What do "direction" and "assistance" mean here? Which Christians are perfect?

Also, you keep pointing out that worship in no way benefits God, but to my mind this only serves to reinforce the idea that in demanding it, God is being self-aggrandising; if he doesn't benefit, why does he want us to waste considerable time and resources honouring him? The Bible itself even describes God as being "jealous".

 

[BLACKSTAR]

In all 100% seriousness, I love this thread. Read through the first couple of pages, and will read more.

Thanks, UnseenWombat. :)

 

[UnseenWombat]

This is not a very good analogy, because it doesn't account for a number of things that atheists are criticising when they point to God's desire for worship. It is more like if a father thrusts some money into someone's hands - without them asking for it - and providing no way for them to return it that does not result in them going to hell. He then demands the present, also with the threat of eternal punishment looming for those who don't comply. There are a number of conclusions we can draw from this that are extremely damaging to the idea of loving, non-megalomaniacal God, but I'm sure they're sufficiently obvious.

Right, now on to the doctrine of hell and eternal punishment. What you posted is another misunderstanding that I addressed it earlier in the thread. Here it is.

Good question. I assume you don't have kids, so maybe it's hard to understand, but even I, as an imperfect human father, am not looking for ways to punish my kids. I'm not sitting there with my notepad, jotting down every time they do something wrong and then open it up in the evening and dole out whippings based on how bad they were during the day. So our perfect heavenly father, who's a much better parent than me, and loves his children more than I love mine, wants what's best for us too, not to punish us based on how bad we've been.

Now that doesn't mean that the doctrine of eternal punishment is a lie. It's right there in the Bible all over the place, but the way I see it, and the way some other Christian philosophers have seen it, is that "the gates of hell are locked from the inside." Meaning, it's not God who condemns us to an eternity apart from him to suffer in the lake of fire, but the sinner himself voluntarily shuts himself away from God. I don't know if there's really a lake that's on fire all the time lol, or if that's just what it feels like to be separated from the source of all good in the universe, but there's no doubt that some people will be there. Look at some atheists. Not saying it applies to you, but they have such a hatred of God that I can honestly believe that even if he were right in front of their face, saying, "Okay, you wanted proof, here I am," they would still spit in his face, so to speak, and reject him.

The incentive for doing right then is just that we love our father and want him to be pleased with us, just like children do for their human father, and we trust that it's true when he tells us doing right is good for us just like when I tell my daughter to not spin while standing on a chair. Also, I'm sure I don't have to tell you, but choosing right over wrong makes everyone feel better all around, including the person who's refraining from doing wrong.

Also,

Now, as I mentioned before God is forgiving, and as Suphy said the Christian doesn't have the weight of sin hanging over his head. And I'm sorry to keep drumming on the father-child analogy, but it really makes sense to me now. God wants nothing more than for his prodigal child to repent, just like when my daughter does something bad, I only want her to repent and do right from that point on. If I feel she needs punishment to achieve that end, I'll impose it. I don't do that perfectly, because I'm only human, but our perfect heavenly father knows just what we need. Perhaps just thethreat of hell is what we need. I'm not sure, but I do know that God isn't looking for ways to punish us, like is depicted in the classic "sinners in the hand of an angry God" sermon, but he's calling us to repentance.

And regarding people of other religions, which I know you didn't specifically ask about, but I'll mention anyway.

Let me also state that it doesn't necessarily follow that all adherents of other religions are universally condemned to eternal torture like the atheists keep accusing. C.S. Lewis (my hero, if you haven't already gathered that) said, "Though all salvation is through Jesus, we need not conclude that He cannot save those who have not explicitly accepted Him in this life. . . . we are not pronouncing all other religions to be totally false, but rather saying that in Christ whatever is true in all religions is consummated and perfected."

So, my point is that hell is not something God threatens to do to us if we don't do what he says. Hell is the natural state that we will be in if we don't. There is no other option. To be apart from God is hell.

I posted this in that regard:

Look at it this way: God is goodness. I don't mean that he's a good being, or that he does good things all the time, (though that's true too), but he is the embodiment of the notion which we call goodness. The people who will be condemned are those who willfully choose to separate themselves from goodness. There is no other source of goodness anywhere. He is it. Imagine this analogy. Suppose there were a single star in the entire universe with a planet revolving around it. Some people say, "We don't like this star. It's too yellow/hot/whatever," get on a spaceship and leave to live on some barren husk in the outer darkness. Would they then have any right to complain that they couldn't see because it was dark?

You seem to think God is some kind of policeman, sitting there with his radar gun looking for someone to chase down and give a ticket to. In reality he's our father, calling us to come over and live in the home he's made for us. Some people refuse and would rather sit in the outer darkness than enjoy his companionship. They have no right then to complain that they don't find anything good apart from the source of all goodness.

Also, you keep pointing out that worship in no way benefits God, but to my mind this only serves to reinforce the idea that in demanding it, God is being self-aggrandising; if he doesn't benefit, why does he want us to waste considerable time and resources honouring him? The Bible itself even describes God as being "jealous".

The purpose is to benefit us, as I've explained above. We can only be made perfect if we are in the right relation to God. Just like the spokes on a wheel can only function properly if they're in the right relation to the hub and the rim. That analogy is imperfect though, because in a wheel, the hub and rim can't work without the spokes, but it gives you an idea of why we need to be right with God. Not for his benefit, but ours.

This is a very vague statement, and so difficult to discuss. What do "direction" and "assistance" mean here? Which Christians are perfect?

I understand your confusion. That was vague. This is what I'm referring to regarding perfection:

That is why He warned people to "count the cost" before becoming Christians. "Make no mistake," He says, "if you let me, I will make you perfect. The moment you put yourself in My hands, that is what you are in for. Nothing less, or other, than that. You have free will, and if you choose, you can push Me away.

But if you do not push Me away, understand that I am going to see this job through. Whatever suffering it may cost you in your earthly life, whatever inconceivable purification it may cost you after death, whatever it costs Me, I will never rest, nor let you rest, until you are literally perfect—until my Father can say without reservation that He is well pleased with you, as He said He was well pleased with me. This I can do and will do. But I will not do anything less."

And yet—this is the other and equally important side of it— this Helper who will, in the long run, be satisfied with nothing less than absolute perfection, will also be delighted with the first feeble, stumbling effort you make tomorrow to do the simplest duty. As a great Christian writer (George MacDonald) pointed out, every father is pleased at the baby's first attempt to walk: no father would be satisfied with anything less than a firm, free, manly walk in a grown-up son. In the same way, he said, "God is easy to please, but hard to satisfy."

 

[Hot Rod Dave]

I dont like the vibe in this thread anymore. makes me hesitant to post cause I dont wanna get flamed.

*goes and hides in corner and sucks thumb*

 

[SBA]

I dont like the vibe in this thread anymore. makes me hesitant to post cause I dont wanna get flamed.

*goes and hides in corner and sucks thumb*

*puts on cape*
I got this.

 

[UnseenWombat]

Right, and that's exactly what I didn't want to happen to this thread and what I specifically asked for in the original post. It was supposed to just be a discussion where people could have some fellowship and those who were interested could ask honest questions, not rhetorical questions that they've already formulated their own uninformed answers to as a means of making a point.

Sorry HRD, if you, or anyone else has such honest questions and doesn't want to post here, feel free to send me a PM. I'll give my best shot at an honest answer.

 

[TerminatorCortez]

You honestly think God cares if you believe in him or not? Religion is irrevelent, a man born in a Hindu religious family probably thinks that his religion is the truth. I'm a Christian but sometime I believe that we have a misunderstanding of God. Like Jesus was totally not the Jewish messiah who was suppose to save them.

 

[Wandrian]

My point is that hell is not something God threatens to do to us if we don't do what he says. Hell is the natural state that we will be in if we don't. There is no other option. To be apart from God is hell.

I personally think this statement("being away from God is hell") is a bit of a bad sell, like something more of the old testament than the more-progressive new testament. It's one I view as something that puts Christianity in a bad light. This statement is essentially saying that Christianity is about persecution, blindly following, and arbitrarily punishing without mercy nor the slightest empathy(in terms of the majority of people in the world whom are born without a strong push to go Christian wherever they live) in the eyes of anyone that isn't already believing in the faith. Getting further away from these far-outdated concepts would definitely be a good thing for all of Christianity. Like glossing over Leviticus and it's overcited/overblown statement interpreted as "God hates fags", it's something that would be beneficial to be swept under the rug and left as a sort of editor's cut, so to speak.

The messages of compassion, empathy, and all that other jazz delivered as the new testament is a much better sell than "fuck you, join us or die." That old motto sounds pretty failtastic too. I'm not certain what the new motto is, but it can't be as bad as the old one.

 

[Synalon]

Right, now on to the doctrine of hell and eternal punishment. What you posted is another misunderstanding that I addressed earlier in the thread. Here it is.

Firstly, you aren't addressing my points. I didn't only talk about how awful God must be for consigning us to hell - I pointed out that C.S. Lewis' sixpence analogy failed for a number of reasons. It's not like a child asking for sixpence, because you cannot ask to be created. Moreover, while a child can decide that the terms for using the sixpence are unreasonable and return the money, you are not permitted to decide that the terms by which you have to live your life are unreasonable - or that the state of the world is intolerable - and commit suicide.

Good question. I assume you don't have kids, so maybe it's hard to understand, but even I, as an imperfect human father, am not looking for ways to punish my kids. I'm not sitting there with my notepad, jotting down every time they do something wrong and then open it up in the evening and dole out whippings based on how bad they were during the day.

So our perfect heavenly father, who's a much better parent than me, and loves his children more than I love mine, wants what's best for us too, not to punish us based on how bad we've been.

Non sequitur. The second paragraph does not follow from the first. You've said that you are a loving father, and then concluded that God is also a loving father. This is the very idea I am attacking, so by simply re-asserting it you are begging the question.

Now that doesn't mean that the doctrine of eternal punishment is a lie. It's right there in the Bible all over the place, but the way I see it, and the way some other Christian philosophers have seen it, is that "the gates of hell are locked from the inside." Meaning, it's not God who condemns us to an eternity apart from him to suffer in the lake of fire, but the sinner himself voluntarily shuts himself away from God. I don't know if there's really a lake that's on fire all the time lol, or if that's just what it feels like to be separated from the source of all good in the universe, but there's no doubt that some people will be there. Look at some atheists. Not saying it applies to you, but they have such a hatred of God that I can honestly believe that even if he were right in front of their face, saying, "Okay, you wanted proof, here I am," they would still spit in his face, so to speak, and reject him.

Okay, so a tiny portion of humanity would spit in God's face and therefore go to hell. What's your point? Most atheists aren't like this, not least because they are atheists, and therefore can't hate God because they don't believe in him. Most of the hatred you're seeing is hatred for Christianity, which is a very different affair. The closest to hating God an atheist can get is hating the idea of God - and what with his many, many flaws - outlined in depth in The Bible - what's not to hate?

Also, how on Earth does anyone "volunteer" for hell? The vast majority of people consigned there either don't believe in it, or quite reasonably think their actions don't warrant the absolute worst punishment possible.

Finally, God doesn't have to be actively pushing us off to hell to be a monster for letting us end up there. If someone's about to fall in front of a train, and you have the power to easily rescue them, but you don't, you're still an asshole.

The incentive for doing right then is just that we love our father and want him to be pleased with us, just like children do for their human father, and we trust that it's true when he tells us doing right is good for us just like when I tell my daughter to not spin while standing on a chair. Also, I'm sure I don't have to tell you, but choosing right over wrong makes everyone feel better all around, including the person who's refraining from doing wrong.

Even if hell is the natural state of things, the incentive to do good is still mainly to avoid this terrible fate. Given no action, the natural state of things is that we starve to death, so we eat to avoid this consequence. The natural fate of a human thrown into a lake is to drown, so we swim ashore - the incentive to swim ashore is to avoid drowning. How is doing good to avoid hell any different?

Now, as I mentioned before God is forgiving, and as Suphy said the Christian doesn't have the weight of sin hanging over his head. And I'm sorry to keep drumming on the father-child analogy, but it really makes sense to me now. God wants nothing more than for his prodigal child to repent, just like when my daughter does something bad, I only want her to repent and do right from that point on. If I feel she needs punishment to achieve that end, I'll impose it. I don't do that perfectly, because I'm only human, but our perfect heavenly father knows just what we need. Perhaps just thethreat of hell is what we need. I'm not sure, but I do know that God isn't looking for ways to punish us, like is depicted in the classic "sinners in the hand of an angry God" sermon, but he's calling us to repentance.

Well, he obviously doesn't know just what we need, because there are awful people all over the place. In fact, he often appears to be going about things in exactly the wrong way; he made such a cockup of Sodom and Gommorrah that he had to level the entire cities and execute everyone in them.

So, my point is that hell is not something God threatens to do to us if we don't do what he says. Hell is the natural state that we will be in if we don't. There is no other option. To be apart from God is hell.

I posted this in that regard:

Look at it this way: God is goodness. I don't mean that he's a good being, or that he does good things all the time, (though that's true too), but he is the embodiment of the notion which we call goodness. The people who will be condemned are those who willfully choose to separate themselves from goodness. There is no other source of goodness anywhere. He is it. Imagine this analogy. Suppose there were a single star in the entire universe with a planet revolving around it. Some people say, "We don't like this star. It's too yellow/hot/whatever," get on a spaceship and leave to live on some barren husk in the outer darkness. Would they then have any right to complain that they couldn't see because it was dark?

You seem to think God is some kind of policeman, sitting there with his radar gun looking for someone to chase down and give a ticket to. In reality he's our father, calling us to come over and live in the home he's made for us. Some people refuse and would rather sit in the outer darkness than enjoy his companionship. They have no right then to complain that they don't find anything good apart from the source of all goodness.

This explanation is not only condescending, but intellectually dishonest. Firstly, you implicitly assume in both analogies that atheists can plainly perceive God but are actively rejecting him, which is absurd, because an entity's existence is ontologically prior to its perception, and it is God's existence which we dispute.

Secondly, you are conveniently overlooking the fact that God isn't just calling over for us to bask in the warm glow of a star; he provides a series of pointless rules that must be obeyed in order to gain entry into the proverbial house, such as that one must not commit homosexual acts, or eat shellfish, etc. (Also, he makes people sit outside the house for completely arbitrary periods of time before allowing them entry - some die in their first few years, and some live to triple figures.)

Finally, and most importantly, you describe him as "the source of all goodness". Well, he absolutely isn't. If The Bible is to be believed, he is completely evil, and certainly not deserving of worship. Every atom submits to his will, but there are countless tragedies of completely natural origin that cause vast suffering, and they strike utterly arbitrarily. He condones slavery, murder and rape. He has personally killed millions and by even your own rhetoric at best 'refuses to save' countless from literally the worst fate imaginable. To describe him, then, as the source of all goodness requires a complete suspension of rational thought. Incidence of atheism rises in people with better educations - i.e., in people trained to evaluate arguments for their truth content. And this is why.

The purpose is to benefit us, as I've explained above. We can only be made perfect if we are in the right relation to God. Just like the spokes on a wheel can only function properly if they're in the right relation to the hub and the rim. That analogy is imperfect though, because in a wheel, the hub and rim can't work without the spokes, but it gives you an idea of why we need to be right with God. Not for his benefit, but ours.

I concede that some of the teachings in The Bible would better us if we followed them ("thou shalt not kill" is a good one). How does God plan to better us by making us worship him (and threatening to fail to save us if we don't)?

I understand your confusion. That was vague. This is what I'm referring to regarding perfection:

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[JDub]

Well, I'm out. You all got the authorities on your side to censor and intimidate us. History repeats itself. Couldn't have just used your ignore buttons.

 

[Signia]

LOL typical Christians censoring things they disagree with. Just like Christian Youtube channels. You know there's a problem with an ideology when you refuse to bear any criticism of it.

 

[TerminatorCortez]

Synalon, you are going a bit to far...it seems to me that you have anger against God :S