Hi My Name Is Aaron And Im A Christian How Are You Today/nite/morning/afternoon?

[midniterider]

It's only real if you and someone else (who might not really exist) are willing to verify it with the five senses..haha. I guess everything I've experienced in the dream world with other dreams characters must be real. I verified it all with those people and it remained within the realm of the five senses.

[mymistake]

Florduh you fell into the trap of asking for evidence without qualifying that you wanted objective evidence.

I thought it went without saying. Real evidence is universally repeatable or observable; it's nothing like a subjective experience.

 

Nope. This is the fundamental difference between the religious and non-religious view points. You have to be specific because the other camp sees the world differently.

[Guest end3]

I'm loving this discussion, just FYI. <3 you guys.

....

 

Ok, I remember once a person here having trouble that I wouldn't quit "speaking" in comparisons for lack of a better word. So let me offer this. From what perspective would you like me to view. Florduh, if I am not mistaken, and others, look at Christianity as an entire hoax basically. Literal maybe? You tell me, and then maybe I can understand your motivation.

[Antlerman]

BTW, yes, experience is evidence. Are you kidding? That's the first rule in empiricism - direct experience.

No. Subjective, emotional experience is not evidence of anything other than that experience.

First of all, spiritual experience does not equal emotional experience. There may be emotions accompanying them, or there may not. But they are not emotions. Secondly, subjective experience is not evidence of anything? Again, you are joking? If all you can go on is what you see and experience with the five senses, then you are alone gutting out your entire mental and emotional experience of the world as having any validity at all. Forget about logic arguments. Forget about reason. Forget about love. Forget about being human.

 

Do you not realize that the subjective world actually does have structures and systems of validation that don't rely on the five senses? There are actual rules of engagement that are in there. Did you know this?

 

If someone experiences a visitation from Jesus, Mary, aliens, angels or spirit guides, does that mean those entities exist and visit certain people?

If someone experiences these things, then they experience these things. It says nothing to the nature of what they are, until you actually explore possibilities. Experiencing them yourself directly would in fact offer a lot of insight into the nature of them of course, but in the absence of that, you'll have to assess them with a broad understanding of religious phenomena, not just a skeptic's-eye view.

 

Hallucination is an experience, and that is only evidence of an unstable mental condition.

Is it? Perhaps its a phenomena that comes with altered states of consciousness, which in fact, are not "unstable mental conditions" at all as you mistakenly assume. What exactly do you know about these?

 

For fun, let's accept the experience of a generic "spiritual awakening" as evidence. If we do that, then we must also accept someone's experience of the presence of Jesus, Jehovah or Moroni as evidence, too. I submit they are all nothing more or less than a strong personal feeling that seems real.

Your entire notion of reality through your eyes is exactly what you say, "nothing more or less than a strong personal feeling that seems real." In fact the fact that you believe yourself to know this is "real" demonstrates your blindness to your own illusion that it is.

 

To clarify something, experiencing the presence, or even a vision, of Jesus, Krishna, Mary, or whatever religious symbol you care to cite, is not really a 'spiritual awakening'. They can be a phenomena that occurs within a spiritual practice, or just some arbitrary peak experience, but a spiritual awakening involves really more a shift in perspective that goes beyond the illusions of reality we assume to be truth (what we supposedly 'trust and rely on' with our so-called objective reality through the use of our five senses). The awakening is more into the nature of reality, and moreover, the nature of ourselves. We see the illusion of our assumptions, and the world opens to a new reality of mind, and body, and spirit. But seeing Jesus, or Krishna, or Mary may or may not be part of that. Those that do however, that phenomena has an actual function as part of that process towards that. It is archetypal forms that one uses to move beyond the illusory self of mental constructs through them as an agency.

 

Of course, I assume you understand all this as you level your criticisms at it is just some mental instability, correct?

 

My point is that those who would have end3 and others break out from the limited constraints of Christian dogma are implying that they have a superior view of the invisible realm.

 

 

It is of course superior to me for where I am at. Clearly for someone not where I am on my path, it may actually not function very well at all for them, and to them be 'wrong'. I have no problem in accepting that others need to see reality in a way that makes sense to them. But as far as End goes, he in fact does see more and why I try to encourage him to open his understanding to help him for where I see him at. I respect that he respects me enough to consider these points of view. He doesn't just toss them out as some arrogant, "I've got the truth now!", bullshit.

 

So what do you think of what I'm presenting?

 

As an outsider, I see no difference between the parties attempting to convert each other to a "better" way of thinking.

 

 

Hopefully, with reason and explanation, you can see that is in fact not the case at all. It is 'better' in the sense of fitting the level of experience with a more inclusive model of understanding. In the sense it support that more adequately, we can use the value judgment of 'better'. But it is only 'better' for those who find myth systems, or reductionist systems, to be inadequate to address the needs of where they are on their individual paths.

 

The merits of any spiritual discipline or belief is beyond any useful discussion, in my opinion. Spiritual people feel what they feel and interpret those feelings as they will.

 

 

Maybe that expresses your own experiences. It doesn't reflect mine.

 

Since those personal feelings and experiences are their proof, I have nothing to refute them.

 

If you had those experiences than we could discussion them in a dialog. Without those, you have no evidence to discuss. But be assured they are valid data to discuss. They are not just fictions of the mind. They have actual content.

[florduh]

I'm loving this discussion, just FYI. <3 you guys.

....

 

Ok, I remember once a person here having trouble that I wouldn't quit "speaking" in comparisons for lack of a better word. So let me offer this. From what perspective would you like me to view. Florduh, if I am not mistaken, and others, look at Christianity as an entire hoax basically. Literal maybe? You tell me, and then maybe I can understand your motivation.

Of course Ex-Christians view the religion as baseless; that's why they are Ex. Hoax is probably not the right word. My personal feeling is there may have been some pure motives early on but that got lost along the way as the church became a political force and profit maker. Church history and Biblical literalism are easily addressed by debunkers.

 

All I'm trying to say is that from the outside view, all supernatural beliefs are on equal footing. I don't see how any can claim the higher ground as all such beliefs are highly subjective and speculative. Those holding beliefs about the nature of all things "spiritual" base those beliefs on their perceptions of experiences, altered states of mind, societal pressure or outright hallucination. Their resultant theology is then solidified and codified by the writings of Biblical authors, T. Lobsang Rampa, Jane Roberts (under the pseudonym "Seth"), Neale Donald Walshe (under the pseudonym "God"), Mary Baker Eddy or L. Ron Hubbard.

 

I see Christianity taking a beating here while other unfounded beliefs get a pass, that's all. End3, framing your belief in supernatural forces with Christianity is no less valid than any other discipline. How some of the leaders and even followers behave is another topic, though most religions and political movements have their share of problem children.

[par4dcourse]

Things are definitely more interesting since End got back.

[Guest end3]

All I'm trying to say is that from the outside view, all supernatural beliefs are on equal footing. I don't see how any can claim the higher ground as all such beliefs are highly subjective and speculative. Those holding beliefs about the nature of all things "spiritual" base those beliefs on their perceptions of experiences, altered states of mind, societal pressure or outright hallucination. Their resultant theology is then solidified and codified by the writings of Biblical authors, T. Lobsang Rampa, Jane Roberts (under the pseudonym "Seth"), Neale Donald Walshe (under the pseudonym "God"), Mary Baker Eddy or L. Ron Hubbard.

 

That's fine. I use the story and the relationships to help me as a person. Obviously, I often fail and can also use them as a weapon. It just is. I'm not proud of failure, and am working towards a higher self or God as was stated.

 

 

I see Christianity taking a beating here while other unfounded beliefs get a pass, that's all. End3, framing your belief in supernatural forces with Christianity is no less valid than any other discipline. How some of the leaders and even followers behave is another topic, though most religions and political movements have their share of problem children.

 

With that the case, you never know, my "insights" may be valid....lol. Now, get that viking vision out of your head and go back to your normal self. But know that I appreciate the effort.

[asanerman]

It's not fair, you know. As former Christians we tend to be merciless with Christian perspectives on "spirituality" but are willing (even eager) to entertain alternative unfounded visions of True Spirituality.

 

Telling Christians they got it all wrong and that we have evolved, moved beyond, transcended or otherwise improved upon the inferior beliefs of Christianity is the same arrogance we despise in Christians who want to show us The Way. The same way Christians often describe their beliefs as NOT A RELIGION, but a relationship, those of nebulous assumptions on the existence and nature of "spirituality" use the same obfuscation of denying the aspect of religion in their religious beliefs. Believing in that which is not demonstrable requires faith, and "feeling the presence of Jesus" or "feeling one with the universe" is not evidence. It takes faith to accept these feelings as indicative of a reality.

 

Let's be honest - nobody can prove that their description of the workings of some invisible realm is accurate. People simply believe whatever feels right to them, not that which can be demonstrated to be true.

 

"Much to do about nothing?"

 

florduh,

 

I wonder if this all this is what lead to the usage of koan (paradoxical anecdote, or riddle, used to demonstrate the inadequacy of logical reasoning and to provoke enlightenment)?

 

Therefore the Master

acts without doing anything

and teaches without saying anything.

Things arise and she lets them come;

things disappear and she lets them go.

She has but doesn't posses,

acts but doesn't expect.

When her work is done, she forgets it.

That is why it last forever.

.......

The Master leads

by emptying people's minds

and filling their cores,

by weakening their ambition

and toughening their resolve.

He helps people lose everything

they know, everything they desire,

and creates confusion

in those who think that they know.

 

Practice not-doing,

and everything will fall into place.

 

~from

Tao Te Ching

 

What-ya think?

[asanerman]

"Shadows" that were at the very pith of my being. The hidden and disowned shadows that frightened me, compelled me, obsesses me, annoyed me and infuriated me.

 

Those very shadows" I looked to God in Christ to cure when all along that is my job.

 

Embrace the shadows, in my opinion. We each carry a great character to do great good, and a character to do great harm. By only realizing and acknowledging ourselves, both good and bad, can we develop.

If I could interject into the AM, Saner, END3 tangent.....

 

I would say two things.

 

1) Fear is a signal of potential danger. Using that signal you need to analyze the reality or not of the danger.

 

2) You are the total of your experiences warts and all. Darkness and light. In reality, there is and always has been only choice. if past choices led to things you didn't like, then quite simply don't choose that path again. Choose a path that leads towards being what you want and put your effort there.

 

 

Exactly!

 

As Jack Kornfield may have meant, "After the Ecstasy, the Laundry! How the Heart grows wise on the spiritual path."

[Antlerman]

All I'm trying to say is that from the outside view, all supernatural beliefs are on equal footing.

And from the outside view, all materialist beliefs are on equal footing. It excludes entire domains of knowledge in its proclamations of reality.

 

I don't see how any can claim the higher ground as all such beliefs are highly subjective and speculative.

And your interpretation of reality isn't subjective and speculative? You speculate about something you have no direct experience with as woo-woo and subsequently dismiss it in you own subjective glance at the world. All this can be said of you as well, you realize?

 

Again, there are rules and structures for validating subjective experience, but it is not through speculations about it from the outside. It is in dialog with those within, with those who have experience themselves and a history of experience and knowledge within that area. In other words, peer-review of qualified individuals. The problem you see in your Protestant religions particularly is hardly any of them are themselves qualified to speak to what the nature of these things are - trust me, I get the whole wild speculation stuff. IMO, you really have to look to those across many cultures who in fact have direct experience in these areas, look to the experts as it were to try to find grounding of understanding within these areas of phenomena. It is hardly an anything goes so of subjective free-for-all. Certainly in your Protestant Charismatic circles it can definitely be that. No argument.

 

Bottom line, spiritual experience transcends mental phenomena, which transcends material spheres of reality. But none of them should ever divorce themselves from each other. Never should spiritual mind violate reason or material facts. But that it cannot be understood by the others directly is in fact just the way it is. You cannot understand body by looking at atoms. You cannot understand mind by looking at brain. You cannot understand spirit by reasoning with mind. You experience each in its own domains directly and gain knowledge that way. And within each of those domains there are rules and structures and means of validating truth. The key to this is understanding "transcend and include". Body transcends atoms and molecules, but includes them in its higher structure. Same with the mental world. Same with spirituality. To violate the lower, violates the higher.

 

So if someone says "I saw Jesus and he told me I can fly", then they proceed to step off a cliff, clearly how they understood that experience was invalid. These things can have validation by others in those higher domains, such as using philosophy in discussing the validity of various mental concepts, but be assured they are trickier and more complex to work with - simply because they include more areas and their forms are less 'solid'. They transcend and include, and as such are much more complex. And that, that, is the appeal of Reductionism. It gives the illusion of easier answers. Obviously the five senses are a heck of a lot easier to deal with than the incredibly complex web of mental phenomenon. But it ultimately, like those who think Jesus told them to step off a cliff and fly, Reductionism is likewise a break from reality.

 

They must all harmonize. They must all integrate. They must all include each other.

 

I see Christianity taking a beating here while other unfounded beliefs get a pass, that's all.

Support your statement they are unfounded. So far, the three times you've repeated that you have yet to make that statement anything other than unfounded itself.

[Akheia]

AM, I find your reasoning regarding validation of subjective experiences fascinating. "Free-for-all" is exactly how I view quite a few religious reports, especially from faiths that fail the Turing test I describe above. The experiences you describe, like those some people on this site have had, just don't seem like they fall into the same category as a fundie saying God told him he hates gays or an eclectic New Ager who thinks he can make astral war upon the SomethingAwful goons who insulted his favorite webcomic. Can you help me understand what makes an experience peer-reviewed? How do you assess a claim about a spiritual experience?

[LivingLife]

AM, I find your reasoning regarding validation of subjective experiences fascinating. "Free-for-all" is exactly how I view quite a few religious reports, especially from faiths that fail the Turing test I describe above. The experiences you describe, like those some people on this site have had, just don't seem like they fall into the same category as a fundie saying God told him he hates gays or an eclectic New Ager who thinks he can make astral war upon the SomethingAwful goons who insulted his favorite webcomic. Can you help me understand what makes an experience peer-reviewed? How do you assess a claim about a spiritual experience?

All of it happens in the brain. It is wishful thinking that there is some other dimension when one has to enter into meditation (altered brain states) to "connect".

 

IMO spirituality is just another excuse for nothing and those that seek other paths of enlightenment, well good for them but that does not prove any of it is real.

 

In defence of their beliefs, folk often erect strawmen they then dismantle. You really cannot describe fantasy with "materialistic" tools. If mere thoughts and preponderance of reality is what spirituality means, then I have no need for it. Special pleading for "something else is out there, you just gotta believe or have faith" is just special pleading.

[Guest end3]

AM, I find your reasoning regarding validation of subjective experiences fascinating. Can you help me understand what makes an experience peer-reviewed? How do you assess a claim about a spiritual experience?

 

If you non-believerws don't pray, please make an acception for me. Pray now, pray now.

[MrsRoper]

I really was starting to think this whole thread was a waste and I should stop following it. But somehow you guys turned it around! I have learned so much reading this commentary.

 

End,

 

Are you okay? Your last post seemed desperate. I am a concerned, maybe you need prayer AND communal support.

[Guest end3]

I really was starting to think this whole thread was a waste and I should stop following it. But somehow you guys turned it around! I have learned so much reading this commentary.

 

End,

 

Are you okay? Your last post seemed desperate. I am a concerned, maybe you need prayer AND communal support.

 

No, I'm fine, just disgusted at A's comments. It's hard for me to be nice in light of her historical comments. Trying to go the route Ansanerman ascribes atm.

 

but thanks.

[♦ ficino ♦]

If you non-believerws don't pray, please make an acception for me. Pray now, pray now.

 

End, I just did, even though I'm an atheist. Hang in there, dude. If you feel like telling us more, we'll listen.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Oh, hadn't seen your last. But I prayed anyway! lol

[florduh]

Bottom line, spiritual experience transcends mental phenomena, which transcends material spheres of reality.

It is my opinion that that is an opinion. None of us can conclusively know or prove whether an invisible and magical realm of spirit exists or not. Lacking any evidence other than subjective personal experience, I am led to assume not. Obviously, others may come to a differing conclusion. The mere logic of the flat-nosed reductionist can never defeat faith; the two exist in different realms of reference.

[Guest end3]

Maybe I'm just thick. I can't tell whether she's being genuine or not. One would think that if it's in the mind, then certainly there would be an associated proposed physiological mechanism that could then be "peer reviewed". And one would think, being so up on history and science that this would be evident maybe written down in the abstracts. But hey, we can have both and rail on those that leave room for both while simultaneously declaring one fairy dust.

 

Maybe someone can explain this to me. Maybe I'm stupid. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

 

Can't science reduce it to the chemistry/physics? And if not, at least there would be a proposed mechanism?

 

Edit: Where's the emoticon for runs face first into wall, throws tantrum on floor, pulls hair out, slams penis in door.

 

Sorry Saner, I failed again. damn-it.

[MrsRoper]

I really was starting to think this whole thread was a waste and I should stop following it. But somehow you guys turned it around! I have learned so much reading this commentary.

 

End,

 

Are you okay? Your last post seemed desperate. I am a concerned, maybe you need prayer AND communal support.

 

No, I'm fine, just disgusted at A's comments. It's hard for me to be nice in light of her historical comments. Trying to go the route Ansanerman ascribes atm.

 

but thanks.

 

Okay, I didn't understand why you were asking for prayer.

[owen652]

 

Bottom line, spiritual experience transcends mental phenomena, which transcends material spheres of reality. But none of them should ever divorce themselves from each other. Never should spiritual mind violate reason or material facts. But that it cannot be understood by the others directly is in fact just the way it is. You cannot understand body by looking at atoms. You cannot understand mind by looking at brain. You cannot understand spirit by reasoning with mind. You experience each in its own domains directly and gain knowledge that way. And within each of those domains there are rules and structures and means of validating truth. The key to this is understanding "transcend and include". Body transcends atoms and molecules, but includes them in its higher structure. Same with the mental world. Same with spirituality. To violate the lower, violates the higher.

 

 

you've just made an assertion that this 'heterarchy' exists; that the spiritual realm transcends the mental realm, which transcends the physical realm. don't you need objective evidence to support an assertion like this? and how can you provide objective evidence utilizing only subjective experience? sounds like a nice theory, and it could very well be correct, but it is still an assertion the same as any old reductionist assertion.

 

As an aside, how do you account for those who experienced the spiritual realm extremely vividly within the christian context (which you admit is still a genuine experience of the spriritual realm) and then discount that experience as purely mental when they deconvert? If spiritual trumps mental, how can this be? so many ex-c's seem to use their 'lower' mental faculties to discredit their spiritual encounters.

[Akheia]

End, it's sad that you've gotten so riled up, but it's your own fault. Why not try reading for comprehension? I have never, ever, ever said that spiritual experiences are always invalid or that a faith can ONLY be evaluated in light of its objective claims. I'm going to try once more to try to get my point across to you.

 

There are subjective and objective ways to evaluate the truth of any claim. Most religions are content to just go with subjective claims and they don't try to say they have the ULTIMATE TROOF. Christianity is not content to do that, and claims that not only are many of its holy book's claims (if not all of them) objective and not purely subjective, but also that its system is the ULTIMATE TROOF. So to evaluate it, I tackle the easy way: its objective claims.

 

I have said, and continue to maintain, that a faith that gets stupid enough to make objective claims needs to be able to stand by those claims. Christianity makes the huge mistake of making a number of objective, testable claims. Its very reason for being, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, is said to be the entire crux of its faith. But it, like all of the rest of Christianity's objective claims fail. None of its tenets are supportable by objective means. When I look across the broad spectrum of believers, I also do not see the fruits the Bible claims will happen for those who buy into its claims. Why, even you don't really walk the Christian walk. Push comes to shove, and you're writing emo posts about your disgust with a non-believer, saying you just can't be nice to one (REAL LOVING THERE), and asking non-Christians to pray for you--why? Aren't you supposedly possessed and infilled by nothing less than the one and only God of love? Where, pray tell, are your fruits? (Don't worry 'bout me none, champ. I'm not that offended. I know your anger isn't really about me. It's a lot easier to be furious with a person than really come face-to-face with what she said.)

 

The Bible agrees with me, by the way. It says that if a prophet says something tangible that gets disproven, not to listen to that prophet. So by its own standards of detecting false prophets, Jesus and all the rest of those dorks in the Bible are false prophets. The faith might have had some great ideas once. But it is no more real than Scientology now. I never said that your experiences were invalid, only that Jesus is probably not be the source of your experiences. I've never maintained any other approach but that, so I'm not sure what the hell has you "disgusted."

 

Also, your view of science is pitifully flippy-dippy. You at one hand dismiss it entirely, but on the other hand ascribe to it the ability to answer all questions NOW. Science is nothing more than a process of finding objective claims, testing them, replicating them, and adjusting hypotheses as needed. We've found a shocking number of mechanisms in the brain that explain exactly why we tend to look for patterns and try to think of the world as just or fair. Some parts of the brain, when stimulated, produce feelings of being in the presence of God. Bio-psychology might be just what you need to rid yourself of these lingering doubts, End. The Three-Pound Universe is a nice place to start, I think. And I really think that it might be worthwhile for you to really examine these spiritual feelings you have. Keep going. The answers are there. I give you permission to ask the un-ask-able: What if Christianity IS false?

[Ouroboros]

If you non-believerws don't pray, please make an acception for me. Pray now, pray now.

Pray to what?

 

Well, okay, I'll pray to Ahura Mazda and see what happens.

 

Hmm... I'm getting a warm and fuzzy feeling. My spirit is experiencing yummy yummy. You're rigth. There's something to this. Praise Ahura Mazda!

 

The feeling is alittle like the one I get listening to some trance or ambient music. I experience an overwhelming sense of unity with the infinite, the problems of the world don't seems so big anymore.

[ConureDelSol]

 

Edit: Where's the emoticon for runs face first into wall, throws tantrum on floor, pulls hair out, slams penis in door.

 

Sorry Saner, I failed again. damn-it.

 

Eek. I don't even have a penis and that makes me wince.

[Guest end3]

End, it's sad that you've gotten so riled up, but it's your own fault. Why not try reading for comprehension? I have never, ever, ever said that spiritual experiences are always invalid or that a faith can ONLY be evaluated in light of its objective claims. I'm going to try once more to try to get my point across to you.

 

There are subjective and objective ways to evaluate the truth of any claim. Most religions are content to just go with subjective claims and they don't try to say they have the ULTIMATE TROOF. Christianity is not content to do that, and claims that not only are many of its holy book's claims (if not all of them) objective and not purely subjective, but also that its system is the ULTIMATE TROOF. So to evaluate it, I tackle the easy way: its objective claims.

 

I have said, and continue to maintain, that a faith that gets stupid enough to make objective claims needs to be able to stand by those claims. Christianity makes the huge mistake of making a number of objective, testable claims. Its very reason for being, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, is said to be the entire crux of its faith. But it, like all of the rest of Christianity's objective claims fail. None of its tenets are supportable by objective means. When I look across the broad spectrum of believers, I also do not see the fruits the Bible claims will happen for those who buy into its claims. Why, even you don't really walk the Christian walk. Push comes to shove, and you're writing emo posts about your disgust with a non-believer, saying you just can't be nice to one (REAL LOVING THERE), and asking non-Christians to pray for you--why? Aren't you supposedly possessed and infilled by nothing less than the one and only God of love? Where, pray tell, are your fruits? (Don't worry 'bout me none, champ. I'm not that offended. I know your anger isn't really about me. It's a lot easier to be furious with a person than really come face-to-face with what she said.)

 

The Bible agrees with me, by the way. It says that if a prophet says something tangible that gets disproven, not to listen to that prophet. So by its own standards of detecting false prophets, Jesus and all the rest of those dorks in the Bible are false prophets. The faith might have had some great ideas once. But it is no more real than Scientology now. I never said that your experiences were invalid, only that Jesus is probably not be the source of your experiences. I've never maintained any other approach but that, so I'm not sure what the hell has you "disgusted."

 

Also, your view of science is pitifully flippy-dippy. You at one hand dismiss it entirely, but on the other hand ascribe to it the ability to answer all questions NOW. Science is nothing more than a process of finding objective claims, testing them, replicating them, and adjusting hypotheses as needed. We've found a shocking number of mechanisms in the brain that explain exactly why we tend to look for patterns and try to think of the world as just or fair. Some parts of the brain, when stimulated, produce feelings of being in the presence of God. Bio-psychology might be just what you need to rid yourself of these lingering doubts, End. The Three-Pound Universe is a nice place to start, I think. And I really think that it might be worthwhile for you to really examine these spiritual feelings you have. Keep going. The answers are there. I give you permission to ask the un-ask-able: What if Christianity IS false?

 

Oh, from fairy dust peddler to now there are ways to evaluate subjective experiences, and I suppose per some objective methodology to then move our hypotheses.....but you, asshole Christian, are the former.

 

Quit deflecting and give me the mechanisms.

 

The only sad thing is your treatment of humanity.

 

At least I acknowledge a need for salvation.

 

Edit: Let me guess your hypothsis on humanity.......some are evil and some are good. I'll be damned, seems like I am remembering that from somewhere. Oops, If forgetted......dope, di dope dope. Off to do me some cipherin'