|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Question to Protestants
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
El Greco, how can we escape the logical conclusion that what all of this discussion really goes to is the basis of "knowledge" generally, whether in any of the various forms of working assumptions, accepted social consensus, empirical and scientific observations, aesthetic prejudices, opinion, etc? I've got to run, but let me just say that always retaining a critical scepticism about the accuracy and validity of any form of knowledge should be an operating principle.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I believe that the “I just take Christianity on faith” attitude cannot be the right approach. It leaves the Bible without defense, yet the Apostle Peter directs us to make a defense for the hope that is in us.
Well, Peter would say that, wouldn't he? Wasn't he the guy with a sword in his hand, a slave's ear on the ground, while Jesus yelled, "Stop that, you idiot!"* (*MarySueRSV)
I am wary of those who wish to mount "a spirited defense of the faith" because, like Peter, they generally wind up swinging at the wrong things and otherwise doing more harm than good.
I can defend the hope that is within me, but such defense is only necessary from one's own inner demons.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
That's fine, but may I suggest that you stop contributing to the thread then, because you're taking up space that could be used more intelligently.
Fine by me.
May I suggest you consider taking your own advice?
Your doomed attempts to prove the exclusive authority of the Bible by circular argument are not only embarrassing, they are taking up far more space than I ever could.
[ 12. February 2010, 17:33: Message edited by: opaWim ]
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Again, you utterly and spectacularly fail to understand my point. I said that there will be circularity in any argument for any ultimate authority precisely because there can be no other higher authority than the one that is being argued for. At least fletcher christian understands, and has asked for, scriptural evidence for the authority of scripture. In other words he wants self-evidential proof from scripture that scripture is finally authoritative in the formation of doctrine. The fact that fletcher christian has asked me for evidence of scriptural self-authentication is evidence that he actually wants to understand how sola scriptura functions as a hermeneutical principle. It also suggest that he is fairly confident that such evidence does not exist. I can respect that. However, your engagement is just irritating because you can't even be bothered to demonstrate a basic understanding of the issues under debate.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I wouldn't say I'm that confident.... yet.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Wrong again, pumpkin. Belief is a part of faith. Therefore faith is a part of belief. Therefore you cannot part the two, no matter how much sharp-edged sophistry you apply.
Actually, it is you who engages in sophistry. If some beliefs are made up, or if they are shown to be mistaken, you don't get to salvage them by placing the blanket of "faith" over them. Faith does not magically make OK what is problematic.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
We don't see it as problematic.
Well, that's obvious. But this is, and pardon me for saying so, your problem.
Take the discussion Numpty and others are having here for example. Numpty doesn't see the problem behind his approach. But the others do. They, however, don't see the problem behind their approach. But Numpty does.
If one takes all those debates, both the ancient and the modern ones, into account, then the questions I posed here turn out to be rather pressing.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
Take away the packaging and you end up with "The Bible is true, because the Bible says so.".
Well, this unintelligent space-waster is foolishly wondering whether that gem of circular logic is worth more than, for example, "Roman-Catholic magisterium is true because it teaches about itself that it is true".
Even if you would consider circular logic to be valid logic, there is still the problem that from "there will be circularity in any argument for any ultimate authority" unavoidably follows that you cannot prove anything to have ultimate authority.
So why fool yourself into believing you can?
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Again, you utterly and spectacularly fail to understand my point.
When that happens, it could be the fault of the listener. But it usually isn't.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call Me Numpty:
I disagree as have greater theologians than myself, including the ones who founded the Church of England and wrote the 39 Articles.
And the theologians of the first millenium were even greater. Anyway, theologians didn't found the Church, the Church found them.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Faith does not magically make OK what is problematic.
Depends on what your "problematic" is concealing. You're selectively ignoring what is being said. We ALL (again for emphasis ALL) depend on faith for our worldviews in a post-modern age. Instead of pointing fingers at religious people and saying "you depend on faith and I depend on reason alone nyah nyah" you could admit that that's all eggs in moonshine and we could look together at schemes for comparing and evaluating belief systems that acknowledges that they are all an amalgam of faith and reason.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
I wouldn't make an issue out of it if Christianity was a religion of silence. But it's not.
Ahem... ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
As regards my ideas about Spirit - just my best explanation of experience, not a fixed theology. But I don't feel that what's happening here is genuine dialogue, as far as you're concerned, El Greco. If you find that hurtful, then you may like to try and work out what it is about the content or style of your posting that leads people to believe you're playing games.
I think I'm done here.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
Take away the packaging and you end up with "The Bible is true, because the Bible says so."
In essence yes. If, of course, 1) it can proved that the bible actually says that about itself (cf. fletcher christian), and 2) that what the bible says actually accords with reality as it really is (cf. El Greco).
quote:
Well, this unintelligent space-waster is foolishly wondering whether that gem of circular logic is worth more than, for example, "Roman-Catholic magisterium is true because it teaches about itself that it is true".
No, not foolish. It's a perfectly valid question and one that's been asked before.
quote:
Even if you would consider circular logic to be valid logic, there is still the problem that from "there will be circularity in any argument for any ultimate authority" unavoidably follows that you cannot prove anything to have ultimate authority.
So the ultimate authority turns out to be an apophatic denial of authority and ultimacy? That won't work either because it commits logical suicide. By seeking to establish the disprovability of authority your have created an ultimate authority!
[quote[So why fool yourself into believing you can? [/QUOTE]On the basis of what I've just said I could ask, why fool yourself into thinking that you can't?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
Forgive me if I take this somewhat out of context.
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Faith does not magically make OK what is problematic
You are absolutely right.
But it does however make it tolerable.
For instance, I believe the Bible to be the most authoritative way God reveals himself to me, but I can't help but notice a lot of discrepancies, inconsistencies, whatever, that can not all be explained away using honest means. Faith, surrender to God if you will, and trust in what the Holy Ghost is doing in me, enables me to live with those uncertainties.
Likewise I have my problems with a number of teachings of my church. I could of course leave and try to find a church I have no problems with, but faith enables me to find peace in the church where God placed me.
Given the choice between synthesizing absolute truths by using faulty logic and accepting that a creature can't hope to ever fully understand his Maker, I gladly choose the latter.
That doesn't mean I don't enjoy making sense out of what God does/is (what lover -however imperfect- wouldn't want to understand/know his/her Loved One) but I am -and always will be- limited in my ability to fully do so.
Bottom line:
If eliminating uncertainties involves dishonesty by fooling myself, I prefer to live with the uncertainties.
[ 12. February 2010, 19:04: Message edited by: opaWim ]
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
So why fool yourself into believing you can?
On the basis of what I've just said I could ask, why fool yourself into thinking that you can't?
You could.
I would then ask why you think those two are complements.
Being unable to prove something does not necessitate being able to disprove it.
There is -at least- the third possibility that you can neither prove nor disprove it.
[ 12. February 2010, 20:21: Message edited by: opaWim ]
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
My question to Protestants is how do you know you are not making things up like they did, how do you know that what you believe as true is not as false as those ancient ideas you reject?
Hmmm, if you're satisfied with why I find what I believe very compelling to the extent that I can't doubt it's truth then I would answer as follows: my faith is the only thing which has given me definitive and authoritative answers to the questions with which I have been pre-occupied throughout most of my life. Those questions are
1. Who am I?
2. What purpose do I have?
Finally and most importantly-
3. How can I become worthy of love?
If, however, you require an answer as to how I can objectively prove this then I'm afraid that is above my paygrade but I do confidently believe that if you were able to study my soul you would find compelling evidence to believe in God; not because it is good but because it is contrite.
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
El Greco, how can we escape the logical conclusion that what all of this discussion really goes to is the basis of "knowledge" generally, whether in any of the various forms of working assumptions, accepted social consensus, empirical and scientific observations, aesthetic prejudices, opinion, etc?
We can't.
For El Greco to keep presenting this as a problem peculiar to Protestants is wilfully strange. One could just as easily have the same debate about climate change, if one wanted to be current. Why is it that we believe, or don't believe, information that comes to us from scientists that spend their time studying the subject?
One could just as easily have the same debate about ANY topic where we rely on information not derived directly from personal experience. Which is effectively everything. Even where we DO have personal experience of something, we interpret that experience through the body of information/knowledge we have picked up along the way. We were doomed to do so from the moment we started learning.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cliffdweller:
We don't see it as problematic.
Well, that's obvious. But this is, and pardon me for saying so, your problem..
Perhaps if you would read the rest of my post, about WHY it is not a problem for us-- and for most everyone else here-- you'd see what I was getting at. Maybe you'd even see what YOUR problem is, and why you think no one is answering a question that's been answered many times over now.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
El Greco, how can we escape the logical conclusion that what all of this discussion really goes to is the basis of "knowledge" generally, whether in any of the various forms of working assumptions, accepted social consensus, empirical and scientific observations, aesthetic prejudices, opinion, etc?
We can't.
For El Greco to keep presenting this as a problem peculiar to Protestants is wilfully strange. One could just as easily have the same debate about climate change, if one wanted to be current. Why is it that we believe, or don't believe, information that comes to us from scientists that spend their time studying the subject?
One could just as easily have the same debate about ANY topic where we rely on information not derived directly from personal experience. Which is effectively everything. Even where we DO have personal experience of something, we interpret that experience through the body of information/knowledge we have picked up along the way. We were doomed to do so from the moment we started learning.
Well said.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Johnny S - there is a surprising amount of agreement about the "Golden Rule" - 'That which you would not wish done to you, do not do unto others', or various word formats to the same effect, which is good guidance on matters practical.
[RL and time zones means I struggle to keep up with this. Feel free to ignore this if things have moved on too much.]
Actually I meant 'how do you know that your friends are experienced in hearing from God?'
Likewise, golden rule - suprising amount of agreement on it as a rule, suprising amount of disagreement on what it means in practice.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Actually I meant 'how do you know that your friends are experienced in hearing from God?'
Not specifically talking about my friends, or even "Friends". First of all, I think people can recognise spiritual authority in varying degrees - that's why so many recognised Jesus. Secondly, most serious religions have structures an/or systems for sorting this out: priests, spiritual directors, prayer groups, bible study groups and so on. The only thing I would say is that you need wide-angle vision, because if your usual group seems to have pretty unique leadings from "God", you might just want to check it out with a broader range of folk. If you can't recognise spiritual authority in people of different faith traditions, then you really are in trouble, IMHO. quote:
Likewise, golden rule - surprising amount of agreement on it as a rule, surprising amount of disagreement on what it means in practice.
I'm not sure that I agree with that. Of course, as ?Oscar Wilde? said, you need to take account of the fact that others may not have the same tastes. In general, though, I think there is very good understanding of what the rule means. It's just that some folk think that their duty to a Higher Power/Cause often requires them to pass by on the other side of the road. They are, of course, wrong. At least, it seems clear to me that the implicit message of the story of the Good Samaritan is that the Priest and the Levite were wrong.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
First of all, I think people can recognise spiritual authority in varying degrees - that's why so many recognised Jesus.
You're still not answering the 'how' question. What was it about Jesus?
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
In general, though, I think there is very good understanding of what the rule means. It's just that some folk think that their duty to a Higher Power/Cause often requires them to pass by on the other side of the road. They are, of course, wrong.
Right. So everyone agrees apart from those who don't.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
First of all, I think people can recognise spiritual authority in varying degrees - that's why so many recognised Jesus.
You're still not answering the 'how' question. What was it about Jesus?
This is essentially the same question as El Greco's, isn't it? I would say that you just 'know'. It may be that it's not an absolute scale but a question of what meets your need. My explanation of the mechanism would be that the light in you answers to the light in them. But this is just groping for words to explain a phenomenon that I've experienced. And, if you haven't experienced it, I find that very worrying - what kind of a pastor are you, that you don't recognise spiritual authority? quote:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
In general, though, I think there is very good understanding of what the rule means. It's just that some folk think that their duty to a Higher Power/Cause often requires them to pass by on the other side of the road. They are, of course, wrong.
Right. So everyone agrees apart from those who don't.
Now you're just being obtuse. My point is that people know darn well what the Golden Rule means, it's just that some of us seem to think there's a higher rule, some kind of Platinum Rule, which excuses shit like burning people at the stake, or high-jacking planes and flying them into buildings packed with people.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
This is essentially the same question as El Greco's, isn't it?
Of course it is the same question. When you disagree with each other, you bring up the same question I asked, because the other side's views are not based on firm ground and you realize that. What you don't realize is that your side's views are equally problematic as theirs.
In other words, each side says to the other side what I'm saying here, the difference being that I'm asking that question to both sides, instead of just ignoring one for the sake of polarization.
See below:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
Take away the packaging and you end up with "The Bible is true, because the Bible says so.".
Of course he does. You realize well his problem, and he realizes well your problem. But each side refuses to accept the problem is with them as well!
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
For El Greco to keep presenting this as a problem peculiar to Protestants is wilfully strange.
This is putting words in my mouth. I didn't examine whether it's peculiar to Protestants or not. I don't care about that issue. It wouldn't make a difference in what I'm asking here.
It's like saying "but Fred cheats on his wife as well." That isn't justification for you to cheat on Anne. If your ideas are problematic, then other people's ideas being problematic as well (which is something I'm not examining here) doesn't make yours any less problematic. You are not off the hook even if everyone did it.
And even if all other religions did it, why choose one and not say "thanks I'll pass" to all of them? You don't have to choose one over the others you know.
I think you are changing the subject by making philosophical issues about other religions in an attempt to obscure the problems in your own ideas. Which seems to work, as those who are saying the same thing you are in this thread seem to feel OK with their position and assume that my questions do not apply to them.
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
Bottom line:
If eliminating uncertainties involves dishonesty by fooling myself, I prefer to live with the uncertainties.
You are right. You can't work out the problem and keep the Christian religion coherent. It's admirable that you are not engaging in dishonesty to present with a shiny version of your religion. But "living with uncertainties", especially when arguments against that faith are made which are left without counter-arguments, is equally problematic.
Over the course of different threads people are saying: it might not make sense but I believe it anyway. Or, the argument against what I believe might be reasonable, but I won't accept it even though I have nothing to reply to it. This attitude, to me, is unreasonable and not admirable. This is not faith, but blind faith that stands contrary to reason.
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
I would say that you just 'know'.
But this isn't much of an answer, is it! People "know" all kind of mutually exclusive things. So, when it comes to objective truth, this doesn't work. It might feel right, but it may well be wrong.
[ 13. February 2010, 13:12: Message edited by: El Greco ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
What I see as problematic is assuming that "protestants" form a sufficiently homogenous group that you can get any meaningful answer to the question raised by the OP that would reflect a generalised attitude amongst protestants. This is really just a bunch of individuals who aren't Romish Papist or Orthodox giving their individual views.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
kempis3
Shipmate
# 9792
|
Posted
There's a lot of truth in the above post.
Protestantism tends to be personally committed Christianity rather than organised hierarchical church -- committed Christians meeting together or mutual support rather than obeying a priesthood.
Except of course the CofE, which is hierarchical and with close links to the political elites.
--------------------
Man plots -- God laughs.
Posts: 148 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Over the course of different threads people are saying: it might not make sense but I believe it anyway. Or, the argument against what I believe might be reasonable, but I won't accept it even though I have nothing to reply to it. This attitude, to me, is unreasonable and not admirable. This is not faith, but blind faith that stands contrary to reason.
That may be a problem, but since there is no solution, I can live with it.
My beliefs are the result of my RC-upbringing, study, talks with fellow-RCs and an extensive range of nonRC Christians, searching, and some wishful thinking.
None of it constitutes definitive and or conclusive proof, but I see no reason to abandon it for an opposite that can't be proven either.
I'm not expecting anybody else to be convinced by it, but I am.
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
First my question doesn't apply to you. But then you get to ask that same question to your fellow Protestants with whom you disagree.
So, is the question not to be applied to you only when I get to ask it?
Anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
That may be a problem, but since there is no solution, I can live with it.
Ah, but there is a solution. Don't accept those ideas. It's as simple as that, and it's as difficult as that, because people have invested much on their religion, they have given great parts of their lives for it, and it's not easy to let it all go. This doesn't mean that there is no solution though.
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
This is really just a bunch of individuals who aren't Romish Papist or Orthodox giving their individual views.
It's not just a bunch of individuals. It's churches and schools of theology. But even if it were a couple of millions of different theologies, my question could still be asked to each one of them.
To change the focus of discussion from "why aren't you making things up as well" to "let's consider other religions" or "Protestantism is not a uniform body with one single official theology" is a distraction technique from the issue at hand. Raising a different issue to confuse, obfuscate or avoid answering an inconvenient question won't work, because not all will be confused by the attempt of subject change.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
El Greco, if you want to know the official positions of various bodies, you can search denominational websites and find that material in those. What we have here on SoF, however, is a bunch of individuals who are responding in largely in terms of how they see things, not in terms of official doctrine. It's not a distraction technique.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kempis3:
There's a lot of truth in the above post.
Protestantism tends to be personally committed Christianity rather than organised hierarchical church -- committed Christians meeting together or mutual support rather than obeying a priesthood.
Except of course the CofE, which is hierarchical and with close links to the political elites.
This isn't at all what I meant, if you are referring to my earlier post immediately before yours. As church bodies, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans and other magisterial "protestant" churches have plenty of official doctrine. I was talking simply of the individuals who have been posting on this thread -- they are expressing their own views. Frankly, I doubt that it would be all that different for RCs and Orthodox responding to the particular question posed by the OP, as other posters have tried to point out.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
That may be a problem, but since there is no solution, I can live with it.
Ah, but there is a solution. Don't accept those ideas. It's as simple as that, and it's as difficult as that, because people have invested much on their religion, they have given great parts of their lives for it, and it's not easy to let it all go. This doesn't mean that there is no solution though.
You're missing the point that has been made many times already: it's not just "religion" that "makes stuff up"-- or relies on unproven sources of truth. As has been noted repeatedly, ALL philosophies, ALL worldviews, including naturalism, atheism, skepticism, nihilism, whatever-- ALL rely on unproven sources of truth. Whether it's the assumption that what you perceive is real (empiricism) or whether it's the assumption that the Bible is God's divine revelation, either way you are relying on an unproven source of truth, with all the inherent "problematic" elements you have already pointed out.
The only difference between your position and ours is that we have (repeatedly) accepted & acknowledged the unproven, speculative nature of our a priori assumptions, you have not.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
ALL philosophies, ALL worldviews, including naturalism, atheism, skepticism, nihilism, whatever-- ALL rely on unproven sources of truth.
Not quite true. It's probably correct if you were to insist on mathematical or logical proof. But for most practical purposes all that is required is that the likelyhood of being wrong is negligable. The physical universe provides that level proof. A philosophy or world view that limits its assumptions to that seems to me as close to being truth based as makes no difference.
[ 13. February 2010, 18:06: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
A philosophy or world view that limits its assumptions to that seems to me as close to being truth based as makes no difference.
True, but very limited.
Let us consider the question of sanity. Although there is considerable argument about what, exactly mental illness is, we probably all think we can recognise clear-cut cases of mental illness as against clear-cut examples of mental health. But there are a lot of grey area, some of which are culturally determined. For example, homosexuality used to be listed as a 'disorder'.
When diagnosing mental illness, doctors use a range of methods, but there are very few objective criteria; I doubt if there are any measurable criteria. Does that mean that there is no such thing as sanity, or insanity? One might argue about whether there is such an illness as schizophrenia, but I don't think that anyone would deny that a person exhibiting the symptoms classically associated with schizophrenia is in need of care and support.
Someone close to me has had bi-polar disorder for many years. He's quite stable now, but I used to watch people talking to him at parties when they'd first met him. You could see them go through the stages: "Here's an interesting chap." "Bit talkative." "Bit obsessional perhaps?" "Oh-oh, something a bit dodgy here." "Oh my God, this guy is nuts - somebody come and rescue me." They knew he was ill - and not a tape measure in sight.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
ALL philosophies, ALL worldviews, including naturalism, atheism, skepticism, nihilism, whatever-- ALL rely on unproven sources of truth.
Not quite true. It's probably correct if you were to insist on mathematical or logical proof. But for most practical purposes all that is required is that the likelyhood of being wrong is negligable. The physical universe provides that level proof. A philosophy or world view that limits its assumptions to that seems to me as close to being truth based as makes no difference.
The worldview you're proposing assumes that what we can observe through our senses is "real". true. I and most people share that assumption. Yet we know of people who share that assumption but are delusional, what they perceive with their senses is not real or true. So empiricism is based on an unproven assumption that our senses, our observations are a valid source of truth.
Your statement "for most practical purposes all that is required is that the likelyhood of being wrong is negligable. The physical universe provides that level proof" is based on the same circular reasoning that Christians use when they use the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. You are using empirical evidence to demonstrate that the likelihood of empiricism being wrong is negligible. Circular.
Which, again, is going to be true of every philosophy when it comes to "proving" their source of authority.
[ 13. February 2010, 19:06: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
That may be a problem, but since there is no solution, I can live with it.
Ah, but there is a solution. Don't accept those ideas. It's as simple as that, and it's as difficult as that, because people have invested much on their religion, they have given great parts of their lives for it, and it's not easy to let it all go. This doesn't mean that there is no solution though.
Maybe I'm wandering into irrelevancy, but you have just helped me realize that over the years the choice to be a follower of Jesus has been changing from a challenge into something I would not want to live without.
Thank you for that. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
ALL philosophies, ALL worldviews, including naturalism, atheism, skepticism, nihilism, whatever-- ALL rely on unproven sources of truth.
Not quite true. It's probably correct if you were to insist on mathematical or logical proof. But for most practical purposes all that is required is that the likelyhood of being wrong is negligable. The physical universe provides that level proof. A philosophy or world view that limits its assumptions to that seems to me as close to being truth based as makes no difference.
You yourself invest a considerable amount of time and effort on these boards into arguing that traditional Christianity provides an unreasonable worldview.
It makes no practical difference to you what we believe. So why do it - unless you accept that things can be important even if they don't make a practical difference?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Yes, but attacking Christianity because it requires a leap of faith when any philosophical position requires a leap of faith isn't OK either.
Oh yes it is. Two wrongs don't make one right. You are arguing that they do!
Just because other systems of thought might face the same problem, it doesn't mean your system of thought is any less problematic, or that this makes it OK that it is problematic!
OK then. Tell us how to live in a way that doesn't involve a leap of faith.
I notice you skilfully ignored the second half of my post, by the way.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
It's like saying "but Fred cheats on his wife as well." That isn't justification for you to cheat on Anne. If your ideas are problematic, then other people's ideas being problematic as well (which is something I'm not examining here) doesn't make yours any less problematic. You are not off the hook even if everyone did it.
This is why proof by analogy is no proof at all.
To me the discussion sounds like someone looking at a car and saying, "This car's rubbish - you have to keep refuelling it!" As there's no such thing as a car that doesn't need refuelling, this is not a reasonable objection to raise against the car in question.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You're missing the point that has been made many times already: it's not just "religion" that "makes stuff up"-- or relies on unproven sources of truth. As has been noted repeatedly, ALL philosophies, ALL worldviews, including naturalism, atheism, skepticism, nihilism, whatever-- ALL rely on unproven sources of truth.
I'm not missing that point. It is you that do not acknowledge my counter-arguments.
First of all, I do not know for sure whether this question applies to all philosophical systems, because I have not examined that issue. It doesn't matter for the issue I'm addressing here. My question does not depend on what happens in other philosophical systems.
Secondly, and most importantly, I didn't suggest an alternative philosophical system in the place of your theology. What I think is that it is better to do away with ideas that are made up. Not believing something is not a belief in itself. Not accepting a certain theology does not constitute a theology in itself.
This means that you can do away with a certain theology and not be "making things up" in doing so.
Thirdly, why the fuss about other philosophical systems? It's not as if Stoicism or Existentialism competes with Christianity any more. Perhaps there is a reason why the average person on the streets of London or Athens is no longer concerned with such theories.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You're missing the point that has been made many times already: it's not just "religion" that "makes stuff up"-- or relies on unproven sources of truth. As has been noted repeatedly, ALL philosophies, ALL worldviews, including naturalism, atheism, skepticism, nihilism, whatever-- ALL rely on unproven sources of truth.
I'm not missing that point. It is you that do not acknowledge my counter-arguments.
First of all, I do not know for sure whether this question applies to all philosophical systems, because I have not examined that issue. It doesn't matter for the issue I'm addressing here. My question does not depend on what happens in other philosophical systems.
Secondly, and most importantly, I didn't suggest an alternative philosophical system in the place of your theology. What I think is that it is better to do away with ideas that are made up. Not believing something is not a belief in itself. Not accepting a certain theology does not constitute a theology in itself.
This means that you can do away with a certain theology and not be "making things up" in doing so.
Thirdly, why the fuss about other philosophical systems? It's not as if Stoicism or Existentialism competes with Christianity any more. Perhaps there is a reason why the average person on the streets of London or Athens is no longer concerned with such theories.
Your response shows that you ARE missing my point.
My point is that it is impossible NOT to rely on unproven sources-- i.e. "things that are made up". You are objecting to one set of sources of truth, and explicitly suggesting another in it's place (empiricism). I am demonstrating that empricism is equally based on an unproven source of authority. The point was made well by the "car" example in the previous post.
All of us have some sort of worldview or philosophy-- yes, even the "average person on the streets of London or Athens". They might not give it some fancy philosophical name, but everyone on the face of the earth has some sort of basis for deciding what's "real" or not. You have to, simply to operate. You have to decide if the chair you see is real before you sit on it (even though most of us have seen illusions where you think something like a chair is real, but it turns out to be a hologram or some other sort of illusion). We operate within that mechanism even though those sources of truth cannot be proven. There simply is no other way around it. You may claim that empiricism is a superior source of authority, but you have only been able to offer the circular validation of empiricism to support that-- just as Christians who claim the Bible is a better source of authority have only the Bible to prove that.
The "problem" is one inherent to the human condition. You may decry it all you wish, but there is no point asking us to "stop believing in made up things", when all you're really saying is that we should trade on set of unproven assumptions for another set of unproven assumptions.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
First of all, I do not know for sure whether this question applies to all philosophical systems, because I have not examined that issue. It doesn't matter for the issue I'm addressing here.
But it does matter! You can't discuss Christian epistemology without discussing epistemology in general.
You are like someone asking "How does the Sun work?" and, when the scientist starts talking about nuclear fission, replies "I'm not asking about nuclear fission! I'm asking about the Sun! You're changing the subject to hide your inability to answer the question! You're blurring the issue!" quote:
Secondly, and most importantly, I didn't suggest an alternative philosophical system in the place of your theology. What I think is that it is better to do away with ideas that are made up. Not believing something is not a belief in itself. Not accepting a certain theology does not constitute a theology in itself.
This means that you can do away with a certain theology and not be "making things up" in doing so.
Only if you want to be a solipsist.
Or at least (accepting Dave Marshall's earlier comments), only if you don't mind having no beliefs about ethics, truth or beauty. quote:
Thirdly, why the fuss about other philosophical systems? It's not as if Stoicism or Existentialism competes with Christianity any more. Perhaps there is a reason why the average person on the streets of London or Athens is no longer concerned with such theories.
Really? People in London or Athens have no beliefs about truth, ethics, beauty? All of these are philosophical beliefs. Just because someone doesn't consciously identify themself as a Utilitarian or a Kantian Deontologist doesn't mean they don't have beliefs about ethics.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
You are like someone asking "How does the Sun work?" and, when the scientist starts talking about nuclear fission, replies "I'm not asking about nuclear fission! I'm asking about the Sun! You're changing the subject to hide your inability to answer the question! You're blurring the issue!"
Bugger, that should say "nuclear fusion".
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The worldview you're proposing assumes that what we can observe through our senses is "real".
No. I'm proposing that it is reasonable to assume the physical universe is real. Our perceptions are inherently fallible in any particular instance, but aggregated over time and the comparable experiences of others, errors in perception can if we choose to allow for that fallibility be made (for most practical purposes) vanishingly small.
That some people prefer to draw conclusions about what is real based on, say, experiences interpreted as having religious significance, or that mental illness causes others to be unable to to reliably adjust for their perceptual errors, does not affect the effectively absolute consistency of the physical universe. That is our reality.
Circularity occurs if we act as we had any more reliable reality than the fabric of our humanity.
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
why [argue that traditional Christianity provides an unreasonable worldview] - unless you accept that things can be important even if they don't make a practical difference?
![[Confused]](confused.gif) Who said anything about what was important? I thought we were talking about how best to establish what was real.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
@ Ricardus & cliffdweller
People on the streets of London and Athens work out things for themselves, yes. The difference is that they do not believe their ideas equate with God's Truth or Revelation to Mankind or whatever.
You are right that uncertainty exists as part of life. This does not justify however equating made-up stories with God's Truth.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
why [argue that traditional Christianity provides an unreasonable worldview] - unless you accept that things can be important even if they don't make a practical difference?
Who said anything about what was important? I thought we were talking about how best to establish what was real.
I thought we were arguing about whether it's possible to have a philosophy that doesn't depend on a leap of faith.
Your response was to supply a philosphy that works "for all practical purposes". My point was that philosophy tends to go beyond merely "practical purposes", as evidenced by your own contributions to these boards.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
You are right that uncertainty exists as part of life. This does not justify however equating made-up stories with God's Truth.
But it also means you can't use "But you can't be sure of that!" as an argument against Christianity, especially when Christians themselves are explicitly acknowledging it.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Ricardus, there are all kinds of things that are made up. Just because they are made up, it doesn't mean we are not to use them.
Right now I'm watching a movie with stuff that is made up. I know it's made up, its creators know it's made up, but I'm still enjoying it as a movie.
The other day I read a great work of literature. I know it's made up, its author knows its made up, but this doesn't mean I'm not to enjoy it!
While on the street, I will abide by rules that are made up. That they are made up doesn't prevent our life from becoming easier by following the State's rules when we are driving our cars.
This is one thing.
I don't deny the role of made-up stuff in our lives. The problem with the Christian theories is that you won't get "sure it's all made up but I use it because I get some benefit for my life" or whatever, but you will find people actually believing Jesus is the Son of God, or that God intervenes in history to guide people towards one direction or another.
You won't find people saying "yes, I could just as easily follow Islam, or Orthodox Judaism, but I chose to follow liberal Christianity instead" or "I might be a conservative Protestant today, but tomorrow I'll be a Bahai" or whatever. Instead, they will claim that what they believe, is actually true, although it's highly probable that it's made up.
My question doesn't apply to people who think the story with Jesus being the Messiah and the Son of God is made-up but they follow some ideas from Christianity because they find some value or another in them, but it does apply to those who still believe the essentials of the traditional story (or at least, what they think as the essentials), and keep believing them as true even though they can't answer why it's not as made up as all the other stories they themselves reject for that very reason!
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
My point was that philosophy tends to go beyond merely "practical purposes", as evidenced by your own contributions to these boards.
I'd have thought self-expression was a practical purpose. But as for the philosophy, I'm not arguing against leaps of faith, only for starting from somewhere that won't collapse when we jump.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
@ Ricardus & cliffdweller
People on the streets of London and Athens work out things for themselves, yes. The difference is that they do not believe their ideas equate with God's Truth or Revelation to Mankind or whatever.
You are right that uncertainty exists as part of life. This does not justify however equating made-up stories with God's Truth.
The things that "work out for themselves" entail a source of authority, or truth. They have some means by which they decide what's "real" or "true". That means-- whether it's scientific observation, gut intuition, or some form of religious authority-- is unproven. You can't prove that any of those things really IS true w/o resorting to a circular argument whereby it is true because it says it is true.
Christians, like every other person on the planet, have a source of authority, or truth, one that is based on unproven assumptions. You don't like our source of authority. We get that. We're not trying to convince you to adopt ours. We simply ask that you recognize that you, and people in London and Athens and everywhere else, all have a source of authority, and they're all based on unproven assumptions.
I don't think they're all the same in terms of reasonableness, so if you wanted to argue that the Christian assumptions are not as reasonable as, say, empiricism, then fine, have at it. But you must first acknowledge that empiricism does still rest on unproven assumptions.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
[ quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
For El Greco to keep presenting this as a problem peculiar to Protestants is wilfully strange.
This is putting words in my mouth. I didn't examine whether it's peculiar to Protestants or not. I don't care about that issue. It wouldn't make a difference in what I'm asking here.
It's like saying "but Fred cheats on his wife as well." That isn't justification for you to cheat on Anne. If your ideas are problematic, then other people's ideas being problematic as well (which is something I'm not examining here) doesn't make yours any less problematic. You are not off the hook even if everyone did it.
And even if all other religions did it, why choose one and not say "thanks I'll pass" to all of them? You don't have to choose one over the others you know.
I think you are changing the subject by making philosophical issues about other religions in an attempt to obscure the problems in your own ideas. Which seems to work, as those who are saying the same thing you are in this thread seem to feel OK with their position and assume that my questions do not apply to them.
As cliffdweller already said, you really ARE missing the point.
Your counter to what I said is all about other religions. I wasn't even talking about religions, or philosophy. I was talking about all areas of knowledge.
Unless you yourself have studied atoms with electron microscopes, you take someone else's word for it when you say anything about molecular chemistry. Unless you yourself have an intimate knowledge of genetics, you take someone else's word for it about how it works.
Unless you have studied everything there is to know about physics, biology, geology, psychology, psychiatry, sociology, ecology, nutrition, law, mechanical engineering... and about 50,000 other things, you spend your days assuming that what someone else told you on a subject was true.
So, my answer to you is that it's not any MORE of a problem for Protestants than it is for scientists or receptionists or waiters or beekeepers. The rest of succeed in getting on with our lives, while occasionally considering whether something was true after all.
But if we spent our whole lives in the sort of navel-gazing you're keen on having, it would be miserable.
I speak from personal experience. I spent many, many years of my life believing that homosexuality was wrong, and particularly believing the Bible said it was wrong. I no longer believe that. I have changed my opinion.
But you know what? The time spent agonising over whether I was believing the correct thing was no fun. And more to the point, spending all my time trying to get OTHER people to change THEIR mind would be exhausting for both them and me.
So don't be surprised when people think you are incredibly annoying. You go on and on expecting the 'correct' answer to a question that is no more answerable than you explaining why you accept the periodic table. You won't get it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
I don't deny the role of made-up stuff in our lives. The problem with the Christian theories is that you won't get "sure it's all made up but I use it because I get some benefit for my life" or whatever, but you will find people actually believing Jesus is the Son of God, or that God intervenes in history to guide people towards one direction or another.
You won't find people saying "yes, I could just as easily follow Islam, or Orthodox Judaism, but I chose to follow liberal Christianity instead" or "I might be a conservative Protestant today, but tomorrow I'll be a Bahai" or whatever. Instead, they will claim that what they believe, is actually true, although it's highly probable that it's made up.
My question doesn't apply to people who think the story with Jesus being the Messiah and the Son of God is made-up but they follow some ideas from Christianity because they find some value or another in them, but it does apply to those who still believe the essentials of the traditional story (or at least, what they think as the essentials), and keep believing them as true even though they can't answer why it's not as made up as all the other stories they themselves reject for that very reason!
In order to criticise treating some things as made up and some things as not, you yourself have to make an assessment of whether or not these things are, in fact made up.
What makes your assessment of that any better than my own?
What makes your assessment of that any WORSE than my own?
What are the things that you think are true? How do you know they are true? Did you check them all?
Have you verified the material that your teeth are made out of? Have you confirmed all the things that you think you got from your mother in fact came from her genetically, or whether they're just a result of environment? Do you understand exactly how your television works? How does posting on this forum work? Is your doctor telling you the right things? Your car mechanic? When you listen to music, do you understand the recording process or how the vibrations of the instruments created sound?
Why do you tie your shoelaces the way you do?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
