Kratos Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 I think it was obvious that I was using Australia to make the point that claiming proof of non-existenced based on not having seen it yourself is futile. You may not believe in God because you have not seen Him, but that is not proof that He does not exhist anymore than my not having seen Australia proves it does not exist. Lack of physical proof only guarentees that you do not yet know something, it does not prove its absolute non-existence, stupid. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 Lack of physical proof of the God of the Jews, which later got swamped by Christians, then by Islam, after 5000 years is pretty damning, you grinning moron. All you're proving is the fact you're the possessor of stultifying ignorance. But at least it's LOUD ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thackerie Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 I think it was obvious that I was using Australia to make the point that claiming proof of non-existenced based on not having seen it yourself is futile. You may not believe in God because you have not seen Him, but that is not proof that He does not exhist anymore than my not having seen Australia proves it does not exist. Lack of physical proof only guarentees that you do not yet know something, it does not prove its absolute non-existence, stupid. LOL No, it wasn't obvious. I agree that you'd have to be rather stupid to think that the existence of a country could be proven only by actually visiting it, but some True Believersâ„¢ do appear to be this stupid. (For example, I've even seen some fundies who are so willfully ignorant that they claim that the existence of wind is a proof of bible god's existence because "we can't see the wind but we know it's there.") Some christians attest to such ridiculous beliefs that it's pretty hard to tell when they are being literal and when they are trying to make a rather lame analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 I think it was obvious that I was using Australia to make the point that claiming proof of non-existenced based on not having seen it yourself is futile. You may not believe in God because you have not seen Him, but that is not proof that He does not exhist anymore than my not having seen Australia proves it does not exist. Lack of physical proof only guarentees that you do not yet know something, it does not prove its absolute non-existence, stupid. LOL Still not bothering to respond to the proof that your God DOESN'T exist? Face it, even the Bible... which is the only "evidence" for your God... shows quite clearly that your God doesn't exist! What gets me is you try to make a point, having failed to understand what people are saying... by trying to make that point, you show yourself to be uninformed as to what is posted here... by trying to defend your "point" that, incredibly, is something we have to point out to Christians on a very regular basis, you insult our intelligence... by trying to defend a point that you've made in a very flawed way, you've shown that you're not actually listening to what is said. The ultimate insult is you claim to have made a point about how lack on physical evidence doesn't prove non-existence, yet use an example that shows you'd not even be bothered to FIND the evidence! How can you sit there and call us stupid after such a mind-boggling display of willful ignorance is beyond me... Just for you Kratos, I'll repeat it so you can understand why your "point" is insulting... We don't believe your God doesn't exist just because your God isn't proven to exist, we don't believe because your God has been proven NOT to exist. That is why you're attempt to "educate" us is insulting... and why you might just be getting a few angry vibes about now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 It's like explaining quantum mechanics to a house brick... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sal1981 Posted October 28, 2007 Share Posted October 28, 2007 Jun, The things you are angry with are all the things that men did in the name of Christianity and not Chrsitianity itself. But, you can blame Christianity on the failures of men if you like. Let me ask you though, if you find that a pedophile was Irish would you hate all Irish? If you found that a teacher who spanked students was a redhead, would you say there is a problem with redheads? Kratos This is a Red Herring. Such equivocation isn't in question, it's that the Bible mentions unconditional love, yet threatens people with Hell if they don't submit to Him. As Michael posted on page 1: "You are saying god would NOT be rightous if he loved and accepted everyone, whom he also knew in advance would be born and do what they do." IOW: If God knew how people would behave, yet punishes them for not believing in Him poses a contradiction; either God wants and intended for all these humans to lead a life that would end them in Hell ... or He does not know. So which is it? Are you gonna sacrifice God's omniscience and omnibenevolence at the expense of the doctrine of Hell? "Liberal" Christians are well aware of this contradiction and have simply dropped the doctrine of Hell altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jun Posted October 28, 2007 Share Posted October 28, 2007 I think it was obvious that I was using Australia to make the point that claiming proof of non-existenced based on not having seen it yourself is futile. Do you think that, former Christians as we are, we base our testing of your "Gods" non-existence on the one criteria of simply not being visible? Perhaps you should actually read through the entire list I provided in post #76 - actually click on the links and read through it all - you'll find that there is a considerable amount of evidence for the non-existence of your "God" or any other god. If I say to you, "I believe in the gerflagenflopple. You cannot prove that the gerflagenflopple does not exist, therefore it exists." You can see that this is ridiculous. Just because I have invented something out of thin air does not mean that its non-existence is suddenly unprovable. There has to be some evidence that the gerflagenflopple exists in order to assert its existence. Since there is not, it is quite easy to say that the gerflagenflopple is imaginary. Then if I say to you, "I believe in Leprechauns. You cannot prove that Leprechauns do not exist, therefore they exist." You actually have heard of Leprechauns. There are lots of books, movies and fairy tales dealing with Leprechauns. People talk about Leprechauns all the time. Leprechauns even have a popular brand of breakfast cereal. But that does not mean that Leprechauns exist. There is no physical evidence for the existence of Leprechauns. Not a single bit. Therefore, it is obvious to any normal person that Leprechauns are imaginary. If you think about it, you will realize that there is no difference between God and Leprechauns. Lots of people talk about God as though he exists, but there is no actual evidence for God's existence. God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth. All historical gods were imaginary and we know it. (see this page) None of Jesus' "miracles" left any physical evidence either. (see this page) God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone. The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone. (see this page) The Bible we have is provably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God. (see this page) When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is "answering prayers." (see this page) Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS occur without any response from God. And so on… There is absolutely no evidence indicating that God exists. There is a tremendous amount of empirical evidence that God does not exist. Therefore we can conclusively say that God is imaginary. That is the only thing that a rational person can say. The reason why we can find no empirical evidence for God's existence is not because "God is a magical being completely able to hide from us." It is because God is imaginary. If you think about it as a rational person, this lack of evidence is startling. There is not one bit of empirical evidence indicating that today's "God", nor any other contemporary god, nor any god of the past, exists. In addition we know that: If we had scientific proof of God's existence, we would talk about the "science of God" rather than "faith in God". If we had scientific proof of God's existence, the study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological one. If we had scientific proof of God's existence, all religious people would be aligning on the God that had been scientifically proven to exist. Instead there are thousands of gods and religions. The reason for this lack of evidence is easy for any unbiased observer to see. The reason why there is no empirical evidence for God is because God is imaginary. From www.godisimaginary.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedah Posted October 28, 2007 Share Posted October 28, 2007 Quick correction of a misconception: The doctrine of hell does not include "Punishment". Punishment implies some sort of correction or prevention of further actions, Eternal torture is neither. "revenge" is a better term for what is being dealt to victims of hell. Any analogy along the lines of a "father punishing his child" is futile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kratos Posted October 28, 2007 Share Posted October 28, 2007 Can anyone tell me if the constant insults of another's ignorance really makes me look bad or you? I think that is obvious. The funny thing is that all of you seem to have become what you say you hate in Christians. You dogmatically claim that you have proven something that is no proof at all. I have read all of your so called proof. Yet, you assume that I have not read it because I do not agree with it. You are like some Christians who claim that the only reason that you do not believe is because you have not heard or understood yet. No, you have heard and rejected God. I have read and reject your proofs. Being so stuck on yourselves to not believe a person can really understand what you say and still disagree makes you sound like mindless evangelicals. My anology is not lame thank you very much. I started using it to a poster who claims to have lived there in Australia. They have evidence that I do not have and I can accept this. But, your problem is that you cannot accept that I have evidence that you do not have. God speaks to me often and Jesus has appeared to me once. Of course, this will not change your mind as I said earlier because these are my experiences and not yours. So this removes your 4th and 5th "proof' in my experience. But like Australia, it does nothing about your experience. Your proof is not proof because God could exist and leave no physical evidence if He wanted to. He is a Spirit and affecting nothing in the physical realm is possible. We went centuries without knowing about black holes because they were not physically observable or left no evidence of their existence. But, now we know they are there. Some day, we will all know that God is real and has been affecting human life relatively unseen. So, admit that you do not believe. No problem. But continuing to claim that you have proven something through the lack of evidence makes you all sound like mindless religionists thinking that if you keep saying it, we all will just accept it as so. Kratos PS Contuing to cuss and use profanity toward someone you know cannot respond in kind makes you appear like bullies. But you obviously do not care how you sound so nevermind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jun Posted October 28, 2007 Share Posted October 28, 2007 Bwaaaa haahaa hahahahahahahaha haahaa! God speaks to me often and Jesus has appeared to me once. You know, now I am sure............oh bugger it, I can't stop laughing.................Bwaaaa haahaa hahahahahahahaha haahaa! Did he look like this? Bwaaaa haahaa hahahahahahahaha haahaa! And Satan has spoken to me and appeared to me! Hail Satan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astreja Posted October 28, 2007 Share Posted October 28, 2007 Kratos, If I wish to verify that Australia (or Iceland, or Beijing, or indeed any physical place) exists, it is technically possible for me to get on a plane and go there myself. It does not appear to be possible for me to "visit" the knowledge you claim to have of your god(s). So far I have seen little or no consistency in the experiences of believers, other than an observation that these experiences tend to happen in moments of intense emotion. I, too, have had a couple of interesting "spiritual" episodes, both of which occurred in moments of extremely high stress. The virtual presences that I experienced did not represent themselves as the god of the Bible, for the simple reason that I've never felt any emotional attraction to that god and did not experience very much Christian indoctrination in my childhood. Instead, my supernatural advisors and helpers were the bodhisattva Guan Yin and a character from a fantasy book. Similarly, a Celtic pagan would probably encounter Brigit or Cernnunos, and someone of Hindu upbringing might get a visit from Ganesha or Sarasvatī. And, to me, this makes perfect sense. My theory is that the human brain creates these experiences in accordance with the beliefs and cultural background of the individual. We may or may not get to know if non-corporeal, invisible, pandimensional superbeings exist. What I can say is this: How would we ever know that we're seeing the true form of those beings? Such beings could be simply playing dress-up in order to communicate with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evolution_beyond Posted October 28, 2007 Share Posted October 28, 2007 Your proof is not proof because God could exist and leave no physical evidence if He wanted to. He is a Spirit and affecting nothing in the physical realm is possible. We went centuries without knowing about black holes because they were not physically observable or left no evidence of their existence. But, now we know they are there. Some day, we will all know that God is real and has been affecting human life relatively unseen. I think the point is that black holes do leave evidence of their existence and always have done (gravitational effects on nearby stars for instance) - what has changed is that we have now observed the evidence. When evidence of God turns up then we will all start scientifically investigating this phenomenon. Then we will all believe in God - but it would be the God that science studies, not necessarily the God that religion declares. Tolkien wrote about elves. I believe they exist, hidden away in our largest forests. just because there's no evidence for them, doesn't prove they don't exist. They are magical and could exist and leave no physical evidence if they wanted to. But of course, I know better than that. There is no point in believing something exists until you have some physical evidence for it, because otherwise you could believe in any old nonsense at all. Believing what there is no evidence for opens up the door for anything to be possible - and believing in everything is just as pointless as believing in nothing - it makes you unable to make a comment or statement about anything at all. So, admit that you do not believe. No problem. But continuing to claim that you have proven something through the lack of evidence makes you all sound like mindless religionists thinking that if you keep saying it, we all will just accept it as so. Kratos PS Contuing to cuss and use profanity toward someone you know cannot respond in kind makes you appear like bullies. But you obviously do not care how you sound so nevermind. Ok, two things... 1 We do not claim that we have proven something. We only claim that it is only rational to believe in something once you have observable, measurable evidence of its existence 2 I have not noticed anyone using cursing or profanity. Even if I've missed something - most people here have not descended to the level of cursing you or using profanity. And yet you address us all as if we were one person - and tar us all with the same brush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted October 28, 2007 Share Posted October 28, 2007 The profanity is me, probably... it's the verbal equivalent of what I'd do to a venomous snake with a stick... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evolution_beyond Posted October 28, 2007 Share Posted October 28, 2007 Instead, my supernatural advisors and helpers were the bodhisattva Guan Yin and a character from a fantasy book. Was it Gandalf? Dumbledore? Granny weatherwax? That's be so cool - to have a vision from a fantasy character! or Cernnunos, yay! His Hornedness! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted October 28, 2007 Share Posted October 28, 2007 and quite why it thinks it has much to tell anyone here is beyond me... I don't turn up at its house, shit on the carpet, and then tell it that smells of violets... it seems to place a lot of faith in Roman Bishops... and be blissfully ignorant of the origins of the book it quotes with such gay abandon. It's like dealing with a fractious child one can't clip around the back of the head to make it behave... since it's clearly not mentally an adult... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jun Posted October 28, 2007 Share Posted October 28, 2007 and quite why it thinks it has much to tell anyone here is beyond me... I don't turn up at its house, shit on the carpet, and then tell it that smells of violets... it seems to place a lot of faith in Roman Bishops... and be blissfully ignorant of the origins of the book it quotes with such gay abandon. It's like dealing with a fractious child one can't clip around the back of the head to make it behave... since it's clearly not mentally an adult... Ah, harsh Gramps. But on target me thinks. BTW, what happened to Arse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted October 28, 2007 Share Posted October 28, 2007 I have read and reject your proofs. Yeah... but to do that, you have to reject the Bible. Do you remember this? I am another Christian who believes in the fair and loving God that Jesus came to reveal as Father. I do not believe in the picture of God that was adopted from the Greeks and the Romans who created an eternal torture chamber for His disobedient children. Remember how I pointed out that the God in the OT, the one you believe in whether you like it or not, isn't a fair and loving God... the God you believe in doesn't exist, according to the Bible. But you believe in some form of progressive revelation of God, don't you? After all, that's the excuse you came up with for Paul re-writing the message Jesus gave... I'm guessing that progressive revelation means you can ignore the OT. Unfortunately not... since the God Paul writes about is almost identical to the evil monster of a God the OT describes! Is there a fair and loving God as revealed by Jesus? NOPE! It doesn't exist as the Bible shows... the same Bible that you get that "fair and loving" God from. Are you cherry-picking the Bible to justify your belief? Looks like it... but that means you're not getting the full story and you believe in a non-existent God. Your analogies, excuses, red herrings and general garbage answers don't hide that simple truth... you claim to believe in the Christian God, but you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 28, 2007 Share Posted October 28, 2007 The funny thing is that all of you seem to have become what you say you hate in Christians. And what exactly is that? You dogmatically claim that you have proven something that is no proof at all. I have read all of your so called proof. I'm not sure what proofs you're talking about. There are arguments, and there's a lot of evidence for a natural ordered nature. Is that the proof you're talking about? Yet, you assume that I have not read it because I do not agree with it. You are like some Christians who claim that the only reason that you do not believe is because you have not heard or understood yet. No, you have heard and rejected God. For 30 years I heard about God, and was a devout Christian. Going to Bible school, mission trips, leading worship and much more... how long does one have to "try it out" before they realize it isn't real? I have read and reject your proofs. Being so stuck on yourselves to not believe a person can really understand what you say and still disagree makes you sound like mindless evangelicals. I'm still curious about what specific proofs you're talking about... My anology is not lame thank you very much. I started using it to a poster who claims to have lived there in Australia. They have evidence that I do not have and I can accept this. But, your problem is that you cannot accept that I have evidence that you do not have. I read about your analogy, and I have some issues with it: 1) everyone that have been in Australia have a consistent and uniform account of where Australia is, and what's the major cities and capitol etc. When it comes to God and religion, there's thousands of different views of God, and there's literally tens of thousands of denominations of Christians, and not even you agree with all of them. It's like comparing that people that come from Australia would disagree about where it is, how big it is, who lives there, what cities it has and what language they speak, and even worse, you would have about 10% that went there and discovered they couldn't find a continent at all. With so many disagreeing accounts of God, it can't be compared to the reports about Australia. 2) It's a matter of evidence for and against the existence of Australia. There are physical evidence related to Australia. Coins, news paper, TV shows, people that have been there and so on, while when it comes to God, no one has really, literally been to Heaven and back in their physical body. They maybe claim they have, but their stories are different so they didn't go to the same Heaven, or the same God. There are no coins, news or TV shows made in Heaven, and God doesn't even speak to ALL of us. Australia, you can go there to confirm, so people know they can't lie about it, because they know it's easy to disprove them if they did. When it comes to God, you can't prove that God exists at all, so it's only speculation and personal opinions. 3) When it comes to the "Believe in Austrialia or you will never go there" Church... it's missing. No one is trying to make me join the Believe in Australia Church, or knock on my door or threaten with eternal punishment. Why is it necessary to make people join the Believe in Australia or Die Church? It doesn't compare to religion, does it? God speaks to me often and Jesus has appeared to me once. So why did he NEVER do that to me or my wife or my kids? Are you his special child, while we're not? My conclusion is that God wants me to NOT-believe and he wants you to believe. That means we both are exactly where God wants us (if God exists). I was losing my faith and needed it to become stronger. I didn't feel I got it at church. I didn't feel I got it by reading the bible anymore. I felt I didn't get it by praying. So I asked God to give me more faith and i asked him to give me anything to show me that he exists. Several years passed... and here I am, still waiting... So why are you so special? Of course, this will not change your mind as I said earlier because these are my experiences and not yours. So this removes your 4th and 5th "proof' in my experience. But like Australia, it does nothing about your experience. Your proof is not proof because God could exist and leave no physical evidence if He wanted to. That is very true. Most atheists are also agnostic about God and say that "we don't know if God exists or not exists, but we don't believe that he does." So if God wants to be known, then he will make himself known. But I do know for sure that God is not the God that I learned about it Sunday schooo, Pentecostal church or in the Faith movement. And from discussing with Christians I dont' think there's any validity in any version of Christianity. There is a huge difference I my opinion between "I believe there is some God" and "I believe there is a God, who is a trinity, with Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit and all the other things that comes with Christianity." I'm fine if you just believe in God, but I can't understand why you accept a religion with so many inconcistencies and internal conflicts? Unless you consider all religions equal and Christianity is just one way to meet God? He is a Spirit and affecting nothing in the physical realm is possible. We went centuries without knowing about black holes because they were not physically observable or left no evidence of their existence. But, now we know they are there. Some day, we will all know that God is real and has been affecting human life relatively unseen. So do you believe there is also a chance that Allah or Ahura Mazda will be revealed one day and proven to exist? So, admit that you do not believe. No problem. But continuing to claim that you have proven something through the lack of evidence makes you all sound like mindless religionists thinking that if you keep saying it, we all will just accept it as so. I don't know who you're talking to or about, but personally I do not claim to have proven that God does not exist because of lack of evidence. But the probability kind of leans towards a "no-god" scenario rather than a "christian-god" scenario, just because it seems like God got multiple personality disorder with all these thousands revelations of himself. PS Contuing to cuss and use profanity toward someone you know cannot respond in kind makes you appear like bullies. But you obviously do not care how you sound so nevermind. No one forces you to stay. If you don't like it here, there's no one holding you back from going through the door you walked in through. Accept the culture here, or leave. I don't go into your church or your home and tell you how to behave. So obey Paul's instructions: "be a jew for the jews and a roman for the romans." And think about who Jesus rebuked and who he accepted. He spent time and didn't rebuke the sinners did he? He rebuked the religious. So are you a "Jesus" person or are you a false Christian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kratos Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 I was responding to several rebukes for not accepting that some posters claim to have proof that there is no God as I understand Him. I really have no problem with those who admit they do not know if there is a God. I certainly did not know until I did. I just cannot logically agree with those who claim to have proof that there is no God. As far as why He appeared to me and not you, this is God's business. I know that we all prefer a one size fits all revelation of God, but He does deal with as individuals as it fits His plan for all. I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe that some are not called to be saved in this present age. Calvinists believe that God has predestined some to be saved and some not. The problem I have with Calvinism is that you cannot mix this belief in predestination with a belief in an eternal Hell and still find God either fair or loving. But, when you understand from the scriptures that this life is not it and all will eventually be saved, predestination does hold some truth. By the way, if I am to follow Paul's example of being all things to all people, do I have to refer to some of you as arse holes or the computer friendly asshat? Kratos Could it be that I have been chosen to be saved now and you chosen to be saved later? Sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 You really are a condescending loon... and you are just illustrating that you're an arse hole by returning here... Isn't the home you escaped from missing you yet? As to the rest... I ask you the same question I asked the other loon monkey on an ego frot... What makes the voices in your head more valid than the voices in David Berkowitz' head? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 BTW, if I was seeing things I'd pay for a CAT scan before claiming I'd seen God... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astreja Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Instead, my supernatural advisors and helpers were the bodhisattva Guan Yin and a character from a fantasy book. Was it Gandalf? Dumbledore? Granny weatherwax? That's be so cool - to have a vision from a fantasy character! Raistlin Majere. Although Granny Weatherwax is another favourite of mine. In May 2000 I had an auditory hallucination, in a very distinctive hoarse whisper, that told me to "Get... out!" It happened approximately a quarter of a second after my ex-spouse threatened to murder my best friend. I got out. To this day I believe that if I had ignored that warning I wouldn't have lived till morning. On a lighter note... Several people have seen me slip momentarily into a "channeling Raist" persona, usually accompanied by a bout of coughing or an obsession with... "Look, Astreja... Bunnies!" Uh-oh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kratos Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 You really are a condescending loon... and you are just illustrating that you're an arse hole by returning here... Isn't the home you escaped from missing you yet? As to the rest... I ask you the same question I asked the other loon monkey on an ego frot... What makes the voices in your head more valid than the voices in David Berkowitz' head? As far as condescending, I think you remain the master and I a lowlie disciple. As far as different voices being more valid than others, the Bible says that there are many voices. The fruit of where those voices lead you determine their origin. It would seem that a voice that told Astreja to "Get out" to save her life could well have been God's voice. But a voice that told Berkowitz to kill innocent people would not be God's voice, but the voice of the enemy or a demon. As long as the inner voice that I hear lines up with the Word, I will continue to know it as the voice of God. The fact that you have never heard His voice does not provide any proof that I have not. Maybe you are just jealous and for that I am sorry. This was not my intent. Kratos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astreja Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 It would seem that a voice that told Astreja to "Get out" to save her life could well have been God's voice. I do not appreciate your attempt to co-opt my experience and reconcile it to your religious beliefs, Kratos. It's as if I had said to you, "You know, that spiritual experience of yours sounds a lot like Allfather Oðinn..." Try it on, and you'll see for yourself how poorly it fits. As for the "just jealous" barb -- No, I don't think so. I can't think of any reason I would want to communicate with the deity described in the Bible... Quite frankly, its attitude and behaviour give me the creeps and I'd rather not have a relationship with such a being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 The fact that you have never heard His voice does not provide any proof that I have not. Maybe you are just jealous and for that I am sorry. I seriously doubt that any Ex-Christian member of Ex-C could possibly have within them even the slightest amount of envy for anyone exhibiting symptoms of schizophrenia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts