100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Throw down - part 2 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
ABRA WROTE: These people who think they are "servants of God" and give really lame answers to questions that clearly show that they don't even grasp the true meaning of the issues really need to get a life. Running around acting like they speak the final word for God is truly disgusting. Arrogance is not humble. Moreoever, that whole mindset is compeltely against the tenets of Christianity. The actual religion states that only the Holy Spirit can speak for God. Nowhere does the religion suggest that Christains are to speak for Jesus, or for the Holy Scriptures. The very idea that people are so pompous to imply that they have the only correct interpretation of the Holy Scriptures is arrogance gone mad. It totally flies in the face of what that religion supposedly stood for at one time. It's no wonder that the religion is falling apart so rapidly. But that's a good thing, I'm sure that at its current rate of decay it's highly unlikely that it will even be recognized as a valid religion by the end of this millenium. Very well stated. Short and true, no frills, just a statement from knowledge, experience and observation. However, I would be curious as to know where - if anywhere - it says that "only the Holy Spirit can speak for God". I think that is an Abra-ism. If you find it Redy - let me know, I can't. Perhaps his observations are a tad too keen. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feralcat said: It is historically backed JB....there is no denying that. and the uncovering of the dead sea scrolls is just one of the historical facts.......the shroud....another.....the uncovering of many many artifacts......I could pull up the thread I did that shows all the historical facts......... The Bible is NOT historically backed. The myths and fables were set inside of real events and a few real people that is all. That does not give credibility to the lies and the myths therein. There has been a disparate attempt to find artifacts that support the Biblical picture because it is falling apart in the face of scientific inquiry. But you cannot hide the truth forever. It will prevail. “The New Testament, the Church and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso (pronounced Peso) family, who were Roman aristocrats. The New Testament and all the characters in it - Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, John the Baptist - all are fictional. The Pisos created the story and the characters; they tied the story to a specific time and place in history; and they connected it with some peripheral actual people, such as the Herods, Gamaliel, the Roman procurators, etc. But Jesus and everyone involved with him were created (that is fictiotional!) characters.” Ref: The True Authorship Of The New Testament by Abelard Reuchlin, first printed in the United States in 1979 Well - there are more ancient copies of the scriptures that have been discovered - than any other book in antiquity. So that would at least put it with more historical evidance than any other philosophy known to man. Unless you can provide facts otherwise. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The major argument here presented by many skeptics is that Jesus never existed. When real scholars of the Bible talk about "the historical Jesus" they don't' just examine the issues pertaining to his existence, they all assume he existed. But, this view that he never existed has become very fashionable on the Internet, which is very odd since no academic, or scholar, or anyone off of the Internet takes it seriously. Yet, it is growing in popularity on the discussion boards thanks to a whole host of sites which tout this absurd nonsense. The basic argument is merely an argument from silence, and is based upon the lack of very many extra-Bblical sources about Jesus from his own time. The arguments says "If Jesus really existed, worked miracles and rose form the dead, the whole world would know about him. Historians of his own day would have written volumes about him." Of course they also add that there are no official records of his existence, no birth certificate and so on. This is merely absurd because they didn't' have birth certificates and we have very few records of any individuals in that time. There were many, in fact a host, of "healers" and "wonder workers" running around all over the Roman world of that day, so to single out this one guy in Palestine just because his followers made claims about him is absurd. Now Skeptics will often charge "you cannot prove that Jesus really existed..." But wait! This is not the believer's burden to prove! No academic scholar or real historian takes the Jesus-Myth theory seriously, and no historian can 'prove' that anyone existed. All history is basically a matter of probablitliy based upon best guess from documentary sources. The existence of Jesus has been accepted by history for centuries. IT is the skeptic's burden to overturn that presumption and prove that Jesus didn't exist! I would consider myself a skeptical person by nature. Not just where dogmatic religions are concerned but just in general when it comes to many subjects. I won’t just take things at face value or believe because I'm supposed to believe. Now that could be a character flaw within me. I’m sure some of the Christians would consider it to be. However it is what it is and if people never dared question the existence of god, then we may choose to never question anything and simply rely on faith. If god created humans, then he obviously designed them to be an inquisitive bunch. Why would he mind a couple questions about him, his laws, his writings (that we are supposed to live by) and anything else? I never once claimed that Jesus Christ did not exist. Maybe another person on thread did? I’m uncertain. What I put forth was that Jesus was a human male; he never rose from the dead but was nailed to a cross by the Romans. Mary had sex with someone in order to become pregnant and that god is still a questionable entity to me at best. Well - I'm a christian, and I find this an admirable quality of yours. So too - is the insatiable quest for truth and knowledge. Most abandon this trait the day they walk out of school. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Besides Feral, everyone has a right to their own belief in creationism. I lean towards evolution and anthropogenesis. JB seems to be mixing it up a bit and even allows for some of your faith driven beliefs such as Adam and Eve to enter into the picture. She is giving you MUCH more leeway than I as I don’t accept that at all. I feel it was a symbolic story and interpretation made by men of the period. and hmmmmm this is supposed to surprise me.....not in the least.....But no matter what you may think....I did not fall from a floosom of nothingness into the water, turning into a tadpole, frog, crawled out, turned into a monkey, then an ape and then me.....no sir re Bob..... No, it’s not intended to surprise you. You are well aware of my take on how man came to exist as Homo sapien on earth now. It’s not even my take. It’s a scientific interpretation of how this might have occurred. I just happen to buy into it. We did NOT evolve from apes. Where would the great apes be today if this was the case? The term "human", in the context of human evolution, refers to the genus Homo, but studies of human evolution usually include other hominins, such as the australopithecines. The Homo genus diverged from the australopithecines about 2 million years ago in Africa. Several typological species of Homo, now extinct, evolved. These include Homo erectus, which inhabited Asia, and Homo neanderthalensis, which inhabited Europe. Think of it in this way if it helps. There was a tree, with large branches reaching outwards. Apes and monkey were on one branch and so were what would become Homo sapiens. This branch extended outward and the species shared their genetic make up for a period of time until one diverged. This would continue on another branch from the same trunk. The great apes would also continue down their own branch. I don’t know if that makes sense but its one way to help people understand the concept a little better with kind of a creative visualization if you prefer. This is also supported by genetic factors in modern day chimpanzees and humans. There is a high degree of genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees. Presumably, the 95-99% overlap of DNA sequences indicates that humans and chimpanzees arose from a common ancestor in the relatively recent past (about 6 million years ago). ok well you just have fun with that.....interesting though science is theory and no where is it written that God, Jesus or the Bible is a theory. Well there is irrefutable scientific evidence to support evolution Deb. It’s not based in a lot of spooky fables and faith. That’s something that people believe because they need to believe it. Scientific interpretation does not rely on that nor is it appeased by it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thought we could use some comic relief. This was by George Carlin who passed a short time ago unfortunately. Heart problems.
Here is my problem with the ten commandments- why exactly are there 10? You simply do not need ten. The list of ten commandments was artificially and deliberately inflated to get it up to ten. Here's what happened: About 5,000 years ago a bunch of religious and political hustlers got together to try to figure out how to control people and keep them in line. They knew people were basically stupid and would believe anything they were told, so they announced that God had given them some commandments, up on a mountain, when no one was around. Well let me ask you this- when they were making this **** up, why did they pick 10? Why not 9 or 11? I'll tell you why- because 10 sound official. Ten sounds important! Ten is the basis for the decimal system, it's a decade, it's a psychologically satisfying number (the top ten, the ten most wanted, the ten best dressed). So having ten commandments was really a marketing decision! It is clearly a bull**** list. It's a political document artificially inflated to sell better. I will now show you how you can reduce the number of commandments and come up with a list that's a little more workable and logical. I am going to use the Roman Catholic version because those were the ones I was taught as a little boy. Let's start with the first three: I AM THE LORD THY GOD THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN THOU SHALT KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH Right off the bat the first three are pure bull****. Sabbath day? Lord's name? strange gods? Spooky language! Designed to scare and control primitive people. In no way does superstitious nonsense like this apply to the lives of intelligent civilized humans in the 21st century. So now we're down to 7. Next: HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER Obedience, respect for authority. Just another name for controlling people. The truth is that obedience and respect shouldn't be automatic. They should be earned and based on the parent's performance. Some parents deserve respect, but most of them don't, period. You're down to six. Now in the interest of logic, something religion is very uncomfortable with, we're going to jump around the list a little bit. THOU SHALT NOT STEAL THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS Stealing and lying. Well actually, these two both prohibit the same kind of behavior- dishonesty. So you don't really need two you combine them and call the commandment "thou shalt not be dishonest". And suddenly you're down to 5. And as long as we're combining I have two others that belong together: THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTRY THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE Once again, these two prohibit the same type of behavior. In this case it is marital infidelity. The difference is- coveting takes place in the mind. But I don't think you should outlaw fantasizing about someone else's wife because what is a guy gonna think about when he's waxing his carrot? But, marital fidelity is a good idea so we're gonna keep this one and call it "thou shalt not be unfaithful". And suddenly we're down to four. But when you think about it, honesty and fidelity are really part of the same overall value so, in truth, you could combine the two honesty commandments with the two fidelity commandments and give them simpler language, positive language instead of negative language and call the whole thing "thou shalt always be honest and faithful" and we're down to 3. THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR"S GOODS This one is just plain ****in' stupid. Coveting your neighbor's goods is what keeps the economy going! Your neighbor gets a vibrator that plays "o come o ye faithful", and you want one too! Coveting creates jobs, so leave it alone. You throw out coveting and you're down to 2 now- the big honesty and fidelity commandment and the one we haven't talked about yet: THOU SHALT NOT KILL Murder. But when you think about it, religion has never really had a big problem with murder. More people have been killed in the name of god than for any other reason. All you have to do is look at Northern Ireland, Kashmir, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the World Trade Center to see how seriously the religious folks take thou shalt not kill. The more devout they are, the more they see murder as being negotiable. It depends on who's doin the killin' and who's gettin' killed. So, with all of this in mind, I give you my revised list of the two commandments: Thou shalt always be honest and faithful to the provider of thy nookie. & Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course they pray to a different invisible man than you. Two is all you need; Moses could have carried them down the hill in his ****in' pocket. I wouldn't mind those folks in Alabama posting them on the courthouse wall, as long as they provided one additional commandment: Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tribo
on
Mon 08/11/08 01:37 PM
|
|
ATTENTION ladies and gentlemen a brief pause while everyone reloads there verbal guns for the next round of
>>"wheres the truth?"<< A never ending unsystamatic look at what should or should not be believed by mankind! your host: spidy feralpussie abra the majik man jellybean Eljay the jay walker [Redy] or not - here she comes Tribo-master (of nothing)  and a large assortment of supporting cast. the entertainment will resume shortly. you are urged to refill your drinks and grab snacks as it seems this will go on for more that a lifetime or two. please dont litter!!!! -   |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ABRA WROTE: These people who think they are "servants of God" and give really lame answers to questions that clearly show that they don't even grasp the true meaning of the issues really need to get a life. Running around acting like they speak the final word for God is truly disgusting. Arrogance is not humble. Moreover, that whole mindset is completely against the tenets of Christianity. The actual religion states that only the Holy Spirit can speak for God. Nowhere does the religion suggest that Christians are to speak for Jesus, or for the Holy Scriptures. The very idea that people are so pompous to imply that they have the only correct interpretation of the Holy Scriptures is arrogance gone mad. It totally flies in the face of what that religion supposedly stood for at one time. It's no wonder that the religion is falling apart so rapidly. But that's a good thing, I'm sure that at its current rate of decay it's highly unlikely that it will even be recognized as a valid religion by the end of this millenium. Very well stated. Short and true, no frills, just a statement from knowledge, experience and observation. However, I would be curious as to know where - if anywhere - it says that "only the Holy Spirit can speak for God". I think that is an Abra-ism. If you find it Redy - let me know, I can't. Perhaps his observations are a tad too keen. the book of 2nd Guesses - chpt: eleventeen, vs 311 - " Thus sayeth the holy spirit for god - i am the only one that can speak for him, none other can - thus sayeth me the HS !! sound exagheeeeshis has been applied to every word and the original hairamaic language was consorted for proper understanding. but I'm sure someone will doubt even this - hummmmph ! |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Mon 08/11/08 02:17 PM
|
|
Eljay
Redy - this caught my eye. QUOTE: Redy said: To get caught up in the dogma of an unchanging religion, is to deny yourself all the experiences that the gift of having this life has offered. It’s a matter of degrees, the deeper you go into the dark the more you MUST believe because you have wasted so much time already believing. The only way to get back any of the ‘wasted’ time, is to hope you are given eternity. Eljay asks This puzzles me. I adressed this question to Abra, and never got a response, as he made this statement as well. My question is this: What are these "experiences" that the gift of life has to offer - do you assume I am missing out on? Due to my faith in God and Jesus - what have I missed in my life these past 20+ years? I ask this in sincerity - because your statement leads me to believe that you know something that I do not. Otherwise - you are extremely far off in your assessment, and could quite possibly be a victim of your own assumptions. Eljay anyone can SAY they are a Christian. Many who say they are can tell you no more about their beliefs than could be fit into a few sentences. However, the more one believes they must adhere to a lifestyle filled with demands of their time and their focus and their thoughts, the less time those people have to spend leaning about this life and all there is to experience here. The more a belief limits your imagination, the less you have to think about. The brain is a use it or loose deal and cognition is fed by learning, exploring, creating and imagining. These things are limited when one is required to keep faith with a list of dogmatic religious beliefs. In some cases it’s not just a matter of the believer loosing out on opportunities, it is the believer that tries to encase the non-believers into the same narrow minded belief system. So the damage can easily be passed on to others who don’t even follow that belief. The fact that this happens Eljay shows us how others would love to put a rope around the minds and experiences that an open and inquisitive mind can have. There is nothing morally wrong with believing in evolution, unless you believe that the bible is right and the Earth is only about 6000 years old and that all of archeology is misguided when they find artifacts and date them to prehistoric man. Tell me honestly Eljay, can a mind so restricted by biblical belief have the imagination and congnitive power to research and review the results of current evolutionary theory? Can a child who is taught to believe that man existed with the dinasours, just a few thousand years ago, by their parents, be expected to be a happy and well adjusted child in school, when it comes time to study ancient history? When a child is taught that the parting of the red sea was a miracle, that there was only one flood and no matter what history, anthropology and geology reveals, they are wrong because the bible can NOT be wrong. Do you think that child is missing out on an education? Do you thing that child’s imagination is limited because there can never be an explanation for a god made miracle. We all know that what used to be considered god made miracles are now totally understood natural event. But we would never know that if some curious mind accepted the restrictions that dogma of an unchanging religion place on them. Are you a fundamentalist Eljay – does your dogma limit your experience, mentally or physically? Have you EVER once looked at some scientific evidence and chose not to accept it based only on your belief in scripture? Have you EVER tried to make another fit into your morally acceptable belief structure, either legally or by persuasion? Have you EVER supported a war effort in which genocide of a religious faction was being committed? Your turn! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ejay questions:
Yes - I noticed that you'd read all the way up to page 47 of the other thread on the questions of Leviticus, yet you never once referenced anything I wrote. Only what Deb wrote - and I'd responded numerous times to the questions before Deb even entered the thread. I was just curious about that. Eljay, I’ll tell ya what. You go back over the thread and YOU show me where anything you said was totally ignored and NOT refuted. It seemed to me that everyone who attempted to give a reasonable rebuttel to the questions Krimsa asked were speaking along the same lines. However, it was shown TIME AND AGAIN why your responses did not address the entirety of her questions. I chose to respond using Feral because Feral is the one who constantly says she argues and is NEVER found wrong. I was just pointing out the fact that is only in her mind that she is never found wrong. In this case, though, none of the Christians were able to adequately respond with any semblance of logic that would keep your beliefs in tact. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eljay writes:
However, I would be curious as to know where - if anywhere - it says that "only the Holy Spirit can speak for God". I think that is an Abra-ism. If you find it Redy - let me know, I can't. Perhaps his observations are a tad too keen. Is not the holy spirit also god? Is not Jesus also god? Can either of them speak for god? Is there anyone else that can speak for god? According to Christians, Jesus is god and therefore may speak as god, but is no longer in physical form on this planet. Also According to Christians, in a great many of these threads, we have been told time and time again that one MUST interpret scripture with the aid of the holy spirit. Also others have told us they have a connection with the holy spirit and that is how they know they are correct and they are also told how, and when to act and their questions to god are answered by the holy spirit. Now I can tell you that the triune god is brought forth in the book of Genesis. But that’s all I know. So you tell me, where do they get this information. I don’t know, but it must be true, they believe it and whatever they believe is true. Is it not? Ask Feral, she knows everything. If not than which Christian doctrine do we believe? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tribo:
he book of 2nd Guesses - chpt: eleventeen, vs 311 - " Thus sayeth the holy spirit for god - i am the only one that can speak for him, none other can - thus sayeth me the HS !! sound exagheeeeshis has been applied to every word and the original hairamaic language was consorted for proper understanding. but I'm sure someone will doubt even this - hummmmph ! Why thank-very much. So it is true, ok I have to declare that Christians have won an argument. Of course it wasn't one that anyone really cared about, after all you either got the spirit or you don't. By the way, I enjoyed your interruption, it was funny. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Awe, I so adored George Carlin. I really cried when he passed away. His genious was his creativity. Imagine what a terrible loss it is to stiffle creativity in a child by limiting their minds with religious dogma.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depeche Mode - John The Revelator. you tube get the good vid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wouldee
on
Mon 08/11/08 02:20 PM
|
|
a wrench in the spokes upsets the apple cart.
spokes....key word here. images of solid wheel carts are forbidden. I must vehemently demand obedience to my image. LOL All roads lead to Rome. yup, so the plunder in the hands of Roman soldiers can be feasted upon by their sponsors. Very civilized, indeed. Along come the USA after the roman model of tyrannical fascism fades in the aftermath of the enlightenment of the poorest of the poor. Took a while. Do all roads lead to the USA? that's debateable LOL but with a wrinkle. along with the civility so enhanced by human endeavor, we have a bug a boo in the USA. mouthy Chirstians spouting their myths and legends and inexhaustibly foolish notions about God, the Creator of the universe. BANG!!! you're dead. NO, BANG!!! you are oemeba, no wait, primordiual ooze, no wait, monkey parts. IT"S TRUE I TELL YOU!!!! LOL. tell it to history, revisionist or otherwise. oh, before I forget to mention abra's brand of caveat, the christians stole it all and have enslaved everyone to their meek and lowly notions so tyrannically forced down the throats of every generation appeasing ther hero. please, how silly is that? How very silly is that? None other inspiration in man as a community has ever brought about such liberty and ease and nurture upon the face of the earth at any time to any degree to equal or eclipse the Christian influence found given place in the hearts and soul of humankind. OH!!!! SEE? SEE? He admits they are to blame. yup yup uh huh uh huh uh huh. LOL tragically, world powers vcringe at the very utterance of the word USA. Yup, the world cowers in dread and fear and loathing at the mighty giant. No one else in the world would ever dare to adopt their ways. none of their ways. the world cowers and acceeds to the demand of anyone wearing the brand. quaking in their boots, hiding in the holes ofg the rock the world cries out in fear and hooro and desperation hoping for salvation from this horrific menace. please. somebody write chapter two for me. my fingers are trembling and I cannot go on. I am getting weaker.... I am doomed..... they will see me....... they will hear me..... they will silence me......... they will hate me.........  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wouldee, don't drive so fast, it's going to your head. Oh and by the way, driving and writing a story is not a good thing. They driving and reading it into a recorder. Then you can type chapter two later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 08/11/08 02:28 PM
|
|
I think you need to take this stuff to the creative writing thread Wouldee.
 It's interesting but it makes little sense and it reeks of a sarcastic tone. (Not sure about what but oh well...) Nothing wrong with sarcasm. Its one of my own God given talents. LOL JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One bright, beautiful Sunday morning, everyone in tiny Jonestown wakes up early and goes to their local church. Before the service starts, the townspeople sit in their pews and talk about their lives and their families.
Suddenly, at the altar, Satan appears!! Everyone starts screaming and running for the front entrance, trampling each other in their determined efforts to get away from Evil Incarnate. Soon, everyone is evacuated from the church except for one man, who sit calmly in his pew, seemingly oblivious to the fact that God's ultimate enemy is in his presence. This confuses Satan a bit. Satan walks up to the man and says, "Hey, don't you know who I am?" The man says, "Yep, sure do." Satan says, "Well, aren't you afraid of me?" The man says, "Nope, sure ain't." Satan, perturbed, says, "And why aren't you afraid of me?" The man says, "Well, I've been married to your sister for 25 years." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Mon 08/11/08 02:54 PM
|
|
Awe, I so adored George Carlin. I really cried when he passed away. His genious was his creativity. Imagine what a terrible loss it is to stiffle creativity in a child by limiting their minds with religious dogma. Yes I agree. He was always my favorite. I liked that no topic was off limits or considered too sacred. He took on everything. I’m pretty sure he was raised a devout Catholic so his experience in that arena was quite intimate and really hit home. A lot of his humor was religion based, yet surprisingly right on the money. That entire bit there towards the end about "thou shalt not kill" is dead on accurate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Besides Feral, everyone has a right to their own belief in creationism. I lean towards evolution and anthropogenesis. JB seems to be mixing it up a bit and even allows for some of your faith driven beliefs such as Adam and Eve to enter into the picture. She is giving you MUCH more leeway than I as I don’t accept that at all. I feel it was a symbolic story and interpretation made by men of the period. and hmmmmm this is supposed to surprise me.....not in the least.....But no matter what you may think....I did not fall from a floosom of nothingness into the water, turning into a tadpole, frog, crawled out, turned into a monkey, then an ape and then me.....no sir re Bob..... No, it’s not intended to surprise you. You are well aware of my take on how man came to exist as Homo sapien on earth now. It’s not even my take. It’s a scientific interpretation of how this might have occurred. I just happen to buy into it. We did NOT evolve from apes. Where would the great apes be today if this was the case? The term "human", in the context of human evolution, refers to the genus Homo, but studies of human evolution usually include other hominins, such as the australopithecines. The Homo genus diverged from the australopithecines about 2 million years ago in Africa. Several typological species of Homo, now extinct, evolved. These include Homo erectus, which inhabited Asia, and Homo neanderthalensis, which inhabited Europe. Think of it in this way if it helps. There was a tree, with large branches reaching outwards. Apes and monkey were on one branch and so were what would become Homo sapiens. This branch extended outward and the species shared their genetic make up for a period of time until one diverged. This would continue on another branch from the same trunk. The great apes would also continue down their own branch. I don’t know if that makes sense but its one way to help people understand the concept a little better with kind of a creative visualization if you prefer. This is also supported by genetic factors in modern day chimpanzees and humans. There is a high degree of genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees. Presumably, the 95-99% overlap of DNA sequences indicates that humans and chimpanzees arose from a common ancestor in the relatively recent past (about 6 million years ago). ok well you just have fun with that.....interesting though science is theory and no where is it written that God, Jesus or the Bible is a theory. Well there is irrefutable scientific evidence to support evolution Deb. It’s not based in a lot of spooky fables and faith. That’s something that people believe because they need to believe it. Scientific interpretation does not rely on that nor is it appeased by it. Ok krisma if this is true.....show me one animal in that last 200 years that has evolutized....just one would give me enough evidence to convince me of this real fairy tale..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 ahhhhh..... what's the matter? I am not as funny as George Carlin? aaaahhhhhhh.........  |
|
|
|
|
