Mathematical Proof Of God

[Guest nat]

People keep saying the Torah is racist. They are confusing race with religion.

 

Judaism is not a race. It is a religion. 

[Guest nat]

Acceptable idiomatic speech (unless you are a nitpicker).

 

A: I want to shoot someone in the head with a Gun.

 

B: Don't do it.

 

A: Why not?

 

B: The Torah says you should not do it.

[Guest nat]

By the way. I am not in favor of blindly using oral suction in circumcision. In my opinion, it must be investigated without any bias whatsoever.

 

It is a shame how people and companies can and have skewed research. Tobacco companies anyone? 

 

If unbiased data shows that it is dangerous, then the higher Rabbis must make a decision to use a safe alternative.

 

And people call me a fundamentalist??????????????????????????

[mymistake]

Racism in the Bible:

 

The Family Values section of Genesis chapter 24 verses 2 through 9

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/24.html

 

 

"Servant give me a hand job.  Now promise me that you will find a wife for my son Isaac but only only only only if she is already our own kin.  She must be our relative.  So not go to any nation, tribe or neighbor.  Oh . . .  I love it when you touch me there.   Do not let my son marry a detestable Canaanite."

 

 

Genesiss 24:23-26

 

The thing that made this girl the perfect bride was her genealogy (and the fact that she had no experience at sex).  There is no mention of her religion.

 

So Isaac marries Rebecca.  Rebecca has a brother named Laban.  Guess where Isaac and Rebecca's boy goes looking for a bride?  Make sure you marry relatives.

[Guest nat]

Racism in the Bible:

 

The Family Values section of Genesis chapter 24 verses 2 through 9

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/24.html

 

 

"Servant give me a hand job.  Now promise me that you will find a wife for my son Isaac but only only only only if she is already our own kin.  She must be our relative.  So not go to any nation, tribe or neighbor.  Oh . . .  I love it when you touch me there.   Do not let my son marry a detestable Canaanite."

 

 

Genesiss 24:23-26

 

The thing that made this girl the perfect bride was her genealogy (and the fact that she had no experience at sex).  There is no mention of her religion.

 

So Isaac marries Rebecca.  Rebecca has a brother named Laban.  Guess where Isaac and Rebecca's boy goes looking for a bride?  Make sure you marry relatives.

The caananites had detestable practices like child sacrifice and incest.

Canaan was also cursed by Noah to be servile because Ham sodomized and/or castrated him.

These are religious issues, not racial ones.

[mymistake]

From the Family Values section of Nehemiah chapter 13 verses 23-30.  Mixed race couples are an abomination and persecuted in Nazi fashion.  Praise the husband of Asherah for the Bible's moral victory over eugenics! 

 

Nehemiah 13

²³ In those days also saw I Jews that had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab:

²⁴ And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews' language, but according to the language of each people.

²⁵ And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves.

King James Version

[Guest nat]

Deuteronomy chapter 7

 

neither shalt thou make marriages with them: thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

 

 For he will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods

 

Again, this is a religious issue

[BlackCat]

Deuteronomy chapter 7

 

neither shalt thou make marriages with them: thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

 

 For he will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods

 

Again, this is a religious issue

 

I absolutely agree with you Nat.  In all the years of reading and studying the Tanakh, I understood verses like that, to be showing a cultural and religious prohibition, which had nothing to do with the colour of someone's skin or their race. 

 

The same prohibition is carried over by Rabbi Shaul  when he said ''Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14).

[Guest nat]

Thanks for your support, Black cat.

 

(As for "Rabbi Shaul," although he was very smart and many of his ideas are worth contemplating and have Jewish sources, by and large I find that he was too harsh on the Jews, too narrow on salvation, and consistently distorted the teachings of Jesus. Jesus, on the other hand, was more genuine, but also contradictory and rebellious.)

 

I hope this thread does not turn into me having to defend every controversial matter of the bible. 

 

In any case, my plan is to stop by or near post 1000.

 

Personally, I don't feel a racist bone in my body.

 

White, black, chinese, latino, american indian, etc,

 

All beautiful and talented. 

 

Do I have religious biases?

 

Absolutely.

 

Do I condemn or abuse people based on those biases?

 

Absolutely not    (Edit unless the person is evil, because then I will condemn them)

[Guest nat]

By the way,

 

I am not even so quick to completely condemn terrorists, 

 

Moral relativism is a complicated matter. 

 

The terrorist in his own (twisted from our perspective) framework thinks he is doing the best thing, it is hard to judge such a person in the absolute sense.

 

And people call me a fundamentalist???????????????????

 

We must absolutely act upon terrorism from within our own framework and call it evil and treat is as such.

 

This is where moral relativists make a mistake. They don't realize that we must act upon it completely within our framework, not within theirs. 

 

But to absolutely judge the terrorist is much more complicated and depends on many more factors.

 

Do I sound like a fundamentalist?

[mymistake]

 

Deuteronomy chapter 7

 

neither shalt thou make marriages with them: thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

 

 For he will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods

 

Again, this is a religious issue

 

I absolutely agree with you Nat.  In all the years of reading and studying the Tanakh, I understood verses like that, to be showing a cultural and religious prohibition, which had nothing to do with the colour of someone's skin or their race. 

 

The same prohibition is carried over by Rabbi Shaul  when he said ''Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14).

 

 

Judaism has polytheistic roots.  The claim that it was about not worshiping other gods is a modern excuse.  As for skin color - they didn't have ships or planes.  Nearly everybody they ever saw had adapted to the same climate so they mostly had the same skin color.  Racism being tied to skin color is a modern phenomenon due to exploring the world with sailing ships.  In the Bronze Age racism was based on tribe and each tribe had it's own gods.  So Bible racism is tied to religion.  You can rape, murder and enslave those other tribes because the right god says so and because those other tribes worship the wrong gods.

[mymistake]

More family values from Genesis:

 

Ch 31

 

Isaac and Rachel's son Israel wanted a wife so he asked his uncle Laban if he could buy Rachel.  That is right, Israel married his first cousins Rachel and Leah (who were sisters).  But Isreal was doing this because he wanted to keep his religion pure - right?

 

Wrong!

 

Gen 31:32-35

 

Rachel worshiped household gods who apparently were not El, not Yahweh and also not Jehovah.

 

So I submit that marrying his two cousins wasn't about religion.  The name of Israel itself shows that back then they didn't worship Jehovah or Yahweh.  The religion angle is just a modern excuse to cover up Bronze Age racism.

[midniterider]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am open minded. I said nice things to athiests as long as they were civil.

 

 

 

So you would be willing to entertain the thought that Jewish texts are baloney?

 

 

 

i understand why atheists say what they say. I don't close myself off from their arguments. Every valid argument has merit. When a valid argument is not ultimately "true" it still represents an element of truth because if there was not an element of truth then it would not have been a valid argument. You won't find that with evangelicals and other narrow minded people. Ultimately, the real truth is a product of all the angles together, just like white light is made up of all colors.

 

Will you admit that this is open mindedness?

 

 

Yes, I believe that is a good definition of open mindedness.

 

Being able to consider the validity of some idea that may be in conflict with your general sense of truth is open mindedness. 

 

And yes, Atheists provide some good tools for living. But I also like to sprinkle some spirituality on top as well.

 

Then I ask you to reconsider the implication you made that I was rabid.

 

 

I may. :-) Figurative rabidness is something that can come and go. Sometimes I'm rabid about spirituality but the logicians here shut me down and then we go make fun of other religions people together. It's a mental playground.

[midniterider]

 

 

 

So you would be willing to entertain the thought that Jewish texts are baloney?

 

 

The neat thing about Jewish texts is that they say anything you want them to say even if they don't mention it.  The Torah doesn't mention Lady Gaga or her music but the Torah says that Lady Gaga is the best singer in history.  Hey don't blame me if you don't like her music.  That is simply what it says in the Torah as clear as day.

 

Is the constitution any different. Why has the supreme court been split on the big issues?

 

Do you live in America?

 

 

Good point. We try to apply a 200 year old Constituion document to the current times. Neither the Torah nor the Constitution is equipped to handle something like stem cell research but someone will yank some vague phrase from one of these documents to try to bully someone with it. Millions of laws which are more up-to-date have replaced the Constitution and the Bible. These old documents are nice guidelines for life but some of their contents are dated and useless.

[Guest nat]

 

 

Deuteronomy chapter 7

 

neither shalt thou make marriages with them: thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

 

 For he will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods

 

Again, this is a religious issue

 

I absolutely agree with you Nat.  In all the years of reading and studying the Tanakh, I understood verses like that, to be showing a cultural and religious prohibition, which had nothing to do with the colour of someone's skin or their race. 

 

The same prohibition is carried over by Rabbi Shaul  when he said ''Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14).

 

 

Judaism has polytheistic roots.  The claim that it was about not worshiping other gods is a modern excuse.  As for skin color - they didn't have ships or planes.  Nearly everybody they ever saw had adapted to the same climate so they mostly had the same skin color.  Racism being tied to skin color is a modern phenomenon due to exploring the world with sailing ships.  In the Bronze Age racism was based on tribe and each tribe had it's own gods.  So Bible racism is tied to religion.  You can rape, murder and enslave those other tribes because the right god says so and because those other tribes worship the wrong gods.

 

That is an unfair description of the bible. Your words are completely untrue in the sense of indiscriminate actions as you portray it. You will come across some verses that need explanation, but the bible is about acting good and just and not about picking the right God and screwing everybody else.

 

From Psalms 50

 

(Read and see that God does not want worship but gratitude and good ways. When we are thankful for the good and even the difficulties in our life that shape our character, that is when we honor God).

 

"Hear, O my people, and I will speak, O Israel, I will testify against you. I am God, your God. 8 I do not reprove you for your sacrifices; your burnt offerings are continually before me. 9 I will accept no bull from your house, nor he-goat from your folds. 10 For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. 11 I know all the birds of the air, and all that moves in the field is mine. 12 "If I were hungry, I would not tell you; for the world and all that is in it is mine. 13 Do I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? 14 Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving, and pay your vows to the Most High; 15 and call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me." 16 But to the wicked God says: "What right have you to recite my statutes, or take my covenant on your lips? 17 For you hate discipline, and you cast my words behind you. 18 If you see a thief, you are a friend of his; and you keep company with adulterers. 19 "You give your mouth free rein for evil, and your tongue frames deceit. 20 You sit and speak against your brother; you slander your own mother's son. 21 These things you have done and I have been silent; you thought that I was one like yourself. But now I rebuke you, and lay the charge before you. 22 "Mark this, then, you who forget God, lest I rend, and there be none to deliver! 23 He who brings thanksgiving as his sacrifice honors me; to him who orders his way aright I will show the salvation of God!"

[Guest nat]

 

 

 

 

So you would be willing to entertain the thought that Jewish texts are baloney?

 

 

The neat thing about Jewish texts is that they say anything you want them to say even if they don't mention it.  The Torah doesn't mention Lady Gaga or her music but the Torah says that Lady Gaga is the best singer in history.  Hey don't blame me if you don't like her music.  That is simply what it says in the Torah as clear as day.

 

Is the constitution any different. Why has the supreme court been split on the big issues?

 

Do you live in America?

 

 

Good point. We try to apply a 200 year old Constituion document to the current times. Neither the Torah nor the Constitution is equipped to handle something like stem cell research but someone will yank some vague phrase from one of these documents to try to bully someone with it. Millions of laws which are more up-to-date have replaced the Constitution and the Bible. These old documents are nice guidelines for life but some of their contents are dated and useless.

 

When it is clear that an old document was inspired and beyond its times, we then adapt it to our current times. This unfortunately leads to abuses, but each side does its best to promote its understanding. If we tried to make a document now to portray the core of our values, it would just fall on its a--. Does anyone think that anyone now can come up with an inspired description of our values? And who would agree to it? 

[Guest nat]

Religious doctrine was rather unformulated until Moses. There were not clearly defined laws so you can't bring proof from their personal preferences, which in any case seem far removed from racism and more to do with securing their belief system.

[Guest nat]

It was not prohibited for Jacob to marry two sisters, even though the Torah would later forbid it. In any case, Jacob was tricked by laban into marrying Leah.

 

Both Rachel and Leah were righteous and generous people, and God wanted both of them to secure the faith. More fundamentally, Easu lost his portion within Judaism, and Jacob's dressing like Easu signified that he had to take over both positions. The midrash relates that when Jacod asked Leah why she tricked him saying she was Rachel, she responded that he similarly said that he was Esau. Rashi claims that Leah was destined for Esau. Since Jacob ended up becoming Esau, Leah ended up marrying Jacob. Since the first involved trickery, the second also involved trickery.

[Bhim]

Well, this thread has taken an interesting turn.  I'm not going to ridicule Nat since I don't like to resort to uncivility.  But I'm surprised at the harsh language he's been using when referring to other posters.  I think I'm going to go ahead and say that I'm officially done talking mathematics here.

 

Regarding the initial mathematial argument: I have a degree in math, Nat doesn't, and we're arguing high school calculus.  If I may indulge in a little appeal to authority, I think everyone here knows I'm right to say his argument is utterly without merit.  And it's not even the issue of God's existence that I'm talking about!  Heck, if we put a few hundred dollars on the line, I'm sure Nat wouldn't even bet on himself.  It's getting tiresome debating a person who, by his own admission, doesn't have the necessary qualifications to debate the issues he's raising.  If Nat does not retract his claim that operations like division by zero or multiplication by infinity are meaningful, I don't know how we can proceed further.  In mathematics, every proposition is based on earlier proven statements, which in turn are based on axiomatic assumptions.  If Nat and I don't agree on the facts, we can't have a meaningful discussion.  This is like trying to construct a building on a cushion of air, without even laying the foundation (and that most certainly was not a reference to Jesus' parable about the wise and foolish builders).  Likely Nat will claim that I am closed minded, not understanding his point, etc.  He will also likely go his own way, assuming that he has proven some point and I'm too dull to see it, despite my four years of mathematical training and all the math I do in my profession.  And now you see why scientific journals require peer review.  If people judged their own work independently of other experts, journals will be filled with papers about division by zero written by amateur "scientists" who never went to college.

 

I do maintain that Nat is worlds apart from an evangelical Christian.  If he were an evangelical, his line of reasoning would be "infinity times zero equals anything, therefore you'll go to eternal hell if you don't believe in Jesus." (I skipped a couple intermediary steps, but you get the idea).  Evangelicals will use any and every illogical statement to get you to believe in Jesus, Nat seems to be making incorrect arguments for some less malicious purpose.  Still, the problem is the same.  He poses an incorrect argument, posts all manners of Internet videos which supposedly say that he's correct, respond to your disagreement by claiming that you don't understand his argument, and lead you into endless debate.  Since he's posting at all hours of the day I'm guessing he doesn't have a job, but most of us here do, and don't have the time to go through thousands of years of mathematical reasoning with him to explain why he's wrong (and even if you did, he still probably wouldn't change his mind).  That's why I refused to watch his videos.  I'm happy to read and respond to his posts, but if he makes it clear that he won't change his mind when exposed to a valid argument, then I will not spend hours reading articles and watching videos.  I may not be some bigshot lab director, but I have a real job and my time is somewhat valuable.  If someone asks me honest questions and wants information (or even reasonable debate), I'm happy to oblige.  But arguing with Nat isn't going to help either of us.  I'm not going to be exposed to an interesting point of view (crackpottery isn't interesting), and he's not going to learn anything.

 

In all seriousness, beware the videos and articles of pseudoscientists.  Real science is hard work, writing a paper is time consuming, and there's a limited supply of good scientific literature out there.  Pseudoscience, on the other hand, is a dime a dozen.  Someone who doesn't know how to solve the Einstein Equations can nonetheless publish hundreds of pages about his strange views on cosmology, right on his blog.  A person who has never taken a course in biology can spend money on a museum all about why the earth is 5,700 years old.  These things are easy to produce.  If you read one of their articles and refute it point by point, these guys have a hundred more articles just waiting for you.  They'll bury you in YouTube videos, and before you know it you'll have wasted hours of your time that would have been better spent with your family and friends.  And you will have done the person no good, because he'll persist in his beliefs.  In Nat's case, I don't care so much.  But evangelicals are notorious for this, and they are backed by millions of dollars of their congregants' tithes so as to produce more and more pseudoscientific literature and videos.

 

It is utterly fruitless to debate evangelical pseudoscientists.  I think Nat is a harmless illustration of the real danger that evangelical Christian apologists can pose to you if you engage them in debate.  You'll win since their arguments are false, but nonetheless come out the loser.

[SquareOne]

Well, this thread has taken an interesting turn.  I'm not going to ridicule Nat since I don't like to resort to uncivility.  But I'm surprised at the harsh language he's been using when referring to other posters.  I think I'm going to go ahead and say that I'm officially done talking mathematics here.

 

Regarding the initial mathematial argument: I have a degree in math, Nat doesn't, and we're arguing high school calculus.  If I may indulge in a little appeal to authority, I think everyone here knows I'm right to say his argument is utterly without merit.  And it's not even the issue of God's existence that I'm talking about!  Heck, if we put a few hundred dollars on the line, I'm sure Nat wouldn't even bet on himself.  It's getting tiresome debating a person who, by his own admission, doesn't have the necessary qualifications to debate the issues he's raising.  If Nat does not retract his claim that operations like division by zero or multiplication by infinity are meaningful, I don't know how we can proceed further.  In mathematics, every proposition is based on earlier proven statements, which in turn are based on axiomatic assumptions.  If Nat and I don't agree on the facts, we can't have a meaningful discussion.  This is like trying to construct a building on a cushion of air, without even laying the foundation (and that most certainly was not a reference to Jesus' parable about the wise and foolish builders).  Likely Nat will claim that I am closed minded, not understanding his point, etc.  He will also likely go his own way, assuming that he has proven some point and I'm too dull to see it, despite my four years of mathematical training and all the math I do in my profession.  And now you see why scientific journals require peer review.  If people judged their own work independently of other experts, journals will be filled with papers about division by zero written by amateur "scientists" who never went to college.

 

I do maintain that Nat is worlds apart from an evangelical Christian.  If he were an evangelical, his line of reasoning would be "infinity times zero equals anything, therefore you'll go to eternal hell if you don't believe in Jesus." (I skipped a couple intermediary steps, but you get the idea).  Evangelicals will use any and every illogical statement to get you to believe in Jesus, Nat seems to be making incorrect arguments for some less malicious purpose.  Still, the problem is the same.  He poses an incorrect argument, posts all manners of Internet videos which supposedly say that he's correct, respond to your disagreement by claiming that you don't understand his argument, and lead you into endless debate.  Since he's posting at all hours of the day I'm guessing he doesn't have a job, but most of us here do, and don't have the time to go through thousands of years of mathematical reasoning with him to explain why he's wrong (and even if you did, he still probably wouldn't change his mind).  That's why I refused to watch his videos.  I'm happy to read and respond to his posts, but if he makes it clear that he won't change his mind when exposed to a valid argument, then I will not spend hours reading articles and watching videos.  I may not be some bigshot lab director, but I have a real job and my time is somewhat valuable.  If someone asks me honest questions and wants information (or even reasonable debate), I'm happy to oblige.  But arguing with Nat isn't going to help either of us.  I'm not going to be exposed to an interesting point of view (crackpottery isn't interesting), and he's not going to learn anything.

 

In all seriousness, beware the videos and articles of pseudoscientists.  Real science is hard work, writing a paper is time consuming, and there's a limited supply of good scientific literature out there.  Pseudoscience, on the other hand, is a dime a dozen.  Someone who doesn't know how to solve the Einstein Equations can nonetheless publish hundreds of pages about his strange views on cosmology, right on his blog.  A person who has never taken a course in biology can spend money on a museum all about why the earth is 5,700 years old.  These things are easy to produce.  If you read one of their articles and refute it point by point, these guys have a hundred more articles just waiting for you.  They'll bury you in YouTube videos, and before you know it you'll have wasted hours of your time that would have been better spent with your family and friends.  And you will have done the person no good, because he'll persist in his beliefs.  In Nat's case, I don't care so much.  But evangelicals are notorious for this, and they are backed by millions of dollars of their congregants' tithes so as to produce more and more pseudoscientific literature and videos.

 

It is utterly fruitless to debate evangelical pseudoscientists.  I think Nat is a harmless illustration of the real danger that evangelical Christian apologists can pose to you if you engage them in debate.  You'll win since their arguments are false, but nonetheless come out the loser.

 

Bhim, huge respect for this.  You nail the problem.

 

Problem is, like you say there is so much lies and nonsense out there - and people who want to justify their own beliefs will turn to it, and assume it to be true because it reinforces their prejudices.  Yet they will fail to listen to and consider the argument of the educated majority.  It's particularly sad that this is heightened in the USA, the most powerful, richest country in the world, which has been a huge leader in science and technology - but which is now at risk of drowning in religion driven ignorance.  The USA will suffer because of its adherence to the beliefs of a 3000 year old desert-dwelling tribe, and India and China will assume their fast approaching place as the world leaders in science and technology.

[Guest nat]

Bhim,

 

I do have a job and I spend more than 8 hours a day at it. You are wrong about that and wrong about many other things. I in fact have little more time for this and will conclude at around post 1000. I don't spend all my time on blogs. I also try to study a page a day of Talmud and I also work on a book I am writing.

 

You can't even take a few minutes to see the point I am trying to make but still speak against me with such certainty. That is laziness.

 

Did I get nasty? You bet I did. Did you expect me to take all the ridicule and bend over to get kicked in the buttocks a few more times. Interesting that you comment on my nastiness but not of anyone else. You have been very unfair.

 

Endless debate? I can show you how at the end of the endless debate people agreed, except you.

 

You clearly aren't listening to what I am saying. If I went over each part step by step I think we would agree. I keep telling you that math has its own way of getting around its issues of infinity and division by 0. It is called limits. And within the framework of limits, expressions that are expressed as infinity *0 are changed 

algebraically into the equivalent 0/0 or infinity/infinity form. You have never agreed to any of this so your mathematical degree should be called into question. 

 

For converting form infinity *0 into form 0/0 or form infinity/infinity

 

See here http://www.usciences.edu/~lvas/Math201/LHopital.pdf   (see the infinity * 0 case)

 

 

Why can't you agree to this? Will you say you have no time to see it? Those are just great responses to arguments. A sign of real character.

 

You always go back to your original arguments about infinity and division by 0 themselves, and I keep telling you that conventional mathematics gets around it in the framework of limits.

 

[Guest nat]

More about converting form 0 * infinity. It is done all the time to convert this form into 0/0 or infinity/infinity.

 

Example. You can handle the indeterminate form  by using algebra to convert the expression to a fraction, and then applying L'Hopital's Rule. Consider

As  ,  . So

As  ,  , so I can apply L'Hopital's Rule:

 

see here:

http://www.millersville.edu/~bikenaga/calculus/lhopit/lhopit.html

[Guest nat]

In any case, my arguments had nothing to do with converting indeterminate forms but revolved around the form of infinity * 0. This form is used all the time in conventional math in the framework of limits. This form can end up equaling anything depending on how it is formulated. You still use infinity and 0, but the speed at which one is going to 0 and the other to infinity determines where the answer will end up.

 

I used this as a correlation to the forces of the infinite source and nothingness. Each one pulls on the other and depending on the variables of each pull, anything can come about.

 

I brought separate proof of an infinite source. I explained that both infinite things and nothingness are not open to change. But when the two pull on each other, any particular thing can come about depending on how they pulled on each other.

 

Is this so hard to relate to?

[florduh]

Okay, enlighten me, people. This is different from talking to a fundy Christian...how?

 

OC may lose his spot at the top.

 

Carry on.

[Bhim]

Well the difference is that Nat claims I got my math degree from a diploma mill, and the evangelical Christian says I'll burn for all eternity. Pretty big difference, in my mind.