Writer Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 I recently heard something that I thought was interesting and wanted to open it up for discussion. Each thing we see resonates at a different frequency. Thus, if we could find the proper frequency and change our bodies to that frequency, we could put our hand through a piece of wood. If that's the case, what about heaven. The universe is so immense that the closest star is billions of miles away. If heaven is not out there, what about right here? What if it resonates at such a high frequency we just can't see it? Maybe it's here. What do you think about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 Supposing Heaven is for real, I've never thought of it as a place present in our 'reality', but rather an extra-dimensional realm only accessible by divine means and, more the case than not, only after dying. So regarding your theory about resonance (which I too observe as a potentially great force) I am more for the idea that a door, or portal or gateway if you like, could be opened to Heaven by use of the right frequency or pattern of frequencies; though a frequency or pattern that might only be obtainable through mystical means. Question remaining: Will God allow it or will he be most displeased? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Writer Posted August 1, 2003 Author Share Posted August 1, 2003 I would imagine that he would probably not be too pleased about it since heaven is supposed to be for those who have accepted Christ as their Lord. Suppose some scientist figured out a way to change the frequency of resonance of his body and found heaven. I really doubt that he would even make it past the gates. Instead, he would probably die, don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reclaimer Posted August 1, 2003 Share Posted August 1, 2003 Using that threore yes. I agree with you wildjedi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted August 1, 2003 Share Posted August 1, 2003 Each thing we see resonates at a different frequency. Thus, if we could find the proper frequency and change our bodies to that frequency, we could put our hand through a piece of wood. If that's the case, what about heaven. The universe is so immense that the closest star is billions of miles away. If heaven is not out there, what about right here? What if it resonates at such a high frequency we just can't see it? Maybe it's here. Oh yeah! Heaven is the only thing we can concede from this? Crap! Why always taking something rationally promising and perverting it with some baseless assumptions, both relatively to science and religion. I see no point at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted August 1, 2003 Share Posted August 1, 2003 Originally posted by Homuncul Oh yeah! Heaven is the only thing we can concede from this? Crap! Why always taking something rationally promising and perverting it with some baseless assumptions, both relatively to science and religion. I see no point at all. Woah, hold your horses there, Homuncul. I'm sure wildjedi was just doing some harmless speculating on a hot Summer's day; he was not posting a serious thesis. Have you never yourself just sat and mused on abstract and weird ideas just for the heck of it? Coming back on subject, I too think that God would be most displeased if one were to resonate his way into Heaven - it would be equal to the ambitions of the Tower of Babel....He sure didn't appreciate that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted August 1, 2003 Share Posted August 1, 2003 I read too much on quanta and waves properties ( and superfluidity specifically) to understand that today science can say quite surely that heaven is perhaps somewhere else. I'm getting angry because of such a thin specification as heaven used. If some kind of the "realm of god" was there, heaven (as biblically understood as a garden of Eden) is just too simple for taking in any consideration. The realm of god itself is highly unprobable there, it has many understanding flaws that science can't work upon. And these things can't be mixed. And I thought that this thread was for serious discussions. If willdjedi just wanted to post his harmless idea and not to say: "How do you like this simple idea. Look, it acts on the edge of science and religion. It looks for compatibility of science and religion I might add." I must interfere and say that religion and science are yet incompatible. I read some works on compatibillity, and although authors of these works knew some things on evolution, archeology, genetics and physics, theology their ideas were easily refuted, both from scientific side and religious side. Generally from scientific side as they all are based on wrong assumptions, on not understanding terminology, on satisfying their egoes by bashing the most prominent scientists and most talented writers of the bible itself. I don't know how such ideas can come to birth at all. I know I'm hard, but these are not just harmless speculating, but rather contains a very serious points for deabte. If that was originally ment than why not just put it rightly and not veiling it in some other "harmless" form Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted August 1, 2003 Share Posted August 1, 2003 Originally posted by Homuncul I know I'm hard, but these are not just harmless speculating, but rather contains a very serious points for deabte. If that was originally ment than why not just put it rightly and not veiling it in some other "harmless" form This is intent vs perception. As you say, science and the realm of religion are not compatible, at least not with our current level of technology. And that may be the point exactly, like it has been for centuries, that in retrospective the technology of the future has always seemed magical and impossible. Tracing back through history the majority of each generation has always regarded their time as being the pinnacle of technology and civilization, yet the future has always shown them wrong. So therefor this speculation: What if we in the future through technology could discover and explain God? We would no longer have to credit it all to the mystical and divine - we would live it....As we do now compared to the past. A serious forum should not exclude farfetched speculations unless they're clearly refutable. I'd like to think that some of the greatest minds through history possessed a healthy imagination. EDIT: Typos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Writer Posted August 2, 2003 Author Share Posted August 2, 2003 Homuncul, do you believe in evolution? If so, where did the first, and I mean the very first objects come from? And how did the universe come into existence? By chance? Millions of years ago? What proof do any of the evolutionists have of that? What about the scientists? What proof do they have that the universe came out of some big bang? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted August 2, 2003 Share Posted August 2, 2003 Even though you directed the questions at Homuncul, I'm gonna take a shot at answering them - not on his behalf of course. Originally posted by wildjedi .....where did the first, and I mean the very first objects come from? And how did the universe come into existence? By chance? Millions of years ago? What proof do any of the evolutionists have of that? What about the scientists? What proof do they have that the universe came out of some big bang? Your questions assume there is a beginning (and I surmise they assume an ending) of time/events. Eternity and infinity are unfathomable, yet that is nothing to say the Universe isn't so in time and space. I don't claim unquestioned adherence to any of the scientific convictions about the nature of the Universe, but the one I entertain the most is that of the Universe pulsating in a (eternal?) cycle of expanding and contracting. Big Bang -> Big Collapse -> Big Bang and so on. As for proof of Big Bang, science have deducted it from observing the movement of stellar objects in relation to eachother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted August 2, 2003 Share Posted August 2, 2003 like i posted in the other thread, about what that guy said, if we all evolved by chance, and randomness how do you know you evolved right? Your mind, how do you know your thinking right? If everything is an accident, and we just randomly appeared, then theres no point to anything at all, not even living. Thats one reason why christianity is accepted, it gives you a reason to live. Anyways, the big bang theory is being disproven. Many astronomers say its false now. Either way, if it is true, then where did the first little atoms come from? An explosion needs fire to burn, wheres the fuel? And it breaks the scientific law that says matter cannot be created, nor destroyed. I sort of disagree with it, but who knows. I think just simply growing is an example of new matter being created.. isnt it? Matter is something that takes up space, well, doesnt a tree take up more space than its seed did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted August 2, 2003 Share Posted August 2, 2003 Originally posted by wildjedi Each thing we see resonates at a different frequency. Thus, if we could find the proper frequency and change our bodies to that frequency, we could put our hand through a piece of wood. ... What do you think about that? Complete and utter poppycock. I assure you that, if I resonated two crystals of identical frequency, they will not merge into one, pass through one or the other, or any of that new age bull. The new age crap is clouding your critical thinking ability, so why bother pondering things as esoteric as heaven. There is no evidence to suggest that such a concept exists. The concept itself appears to be a construct of some of the societies of the human animal. Moreover, it appears to be based largely on hope and wishful thinking as well as the inability to accept that the likely outcome of 70 - 100 years of life is an end. Period. Once we are deceased, there is no evidence to suggest with any conclusivity that there is any form of afterlife, heaven, reincarnation, or eternal {insert noun of choice}. Accepting the inevitable end would make our societies a lot more liveable. People would: live as if this were the most meaningful thing of their existances; take better care of their bodies; show more kindness and compassion to others; and try to leave behind better legacies (since this is the only way to "go on living" as it were). Instead, we cling to the idea of second chances, salvation, forgiveness by a diety that will "love us forever" if we only "believe" in it, meet a set of minimum standards and have "eternal life," etc. Still, there's a better chance of there being a heaven to go to than the idea that by simply modulating a frequency of one object to that of another object so as to "pass through" it.... That stuff doesn't even go over well in science fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted August 2, 2003 Share Posted August 2, 2003 Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 like i posted in the other thread, about what that guy said, if we all evolved by chance, and randomness how do you know you evolved right? Your mind, how do you know your thinking right? If everything is an accident, and we just randomly appeared, then theres no point to anything at all, not even living. Thats one reason why christianity is accepted, it gives you a reason to live. We know we've evolved right because our evolution is a direct response to our environment; we are of this existence, we're a part of it, not something cast in from somewhere else. Our mind and its thoughts are naturally included in this, ergo there is no right or wrong about it - there just is. And yes, there is no point to our existence other than what we subjectively make for ourselves, Christianity being one such subjective point, and that's all it is, a subjective, not ultimate, reason to live. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 Anyways, the big bang theory is being disproven. Many astronomers say its false now. Either way, if it is true, then where did the first little atoms come from? An explosion needs fire to burn, wheres the fuel? And it breaks the scientific law that says matter cannot be created, nor destroyed. I sort of disagree with it, but who knows. I think just simply growing is an example of new matter being created.. isnt it? Again an assumption of time/events having a beginning. The Big Bang theory does not entail creation of matter, only dispersal. Just before the explosion all matter of this Universe was compressed into a single lump smaller than a pinhead. Growing is not new matter being created, it's matter being added. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 Matter is something that takes up space, well, doesnt a tree take up more space than its seed did? Indeed it does, for matter has been added in its growth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted August 2, 2003 Share Posted August 2, 2003 I believe I only have one life, thus I eat what I wish I do what I wish(within reason:p) and I try to be happy no matter what. the reason is because I don't want to spend my life be cautious about everything, I don't want to spend my life stuck in a confined building such as an office or a school but I do it with enjoyment by seeing my friends and avoiding doing tons of work, just enough to get by. if you watch the movie office space, the part where he says I don't believe humans were meant to spend their lives stuck in offices... (that whole thing), you'll understand kind of what i'm talking about. P.S. I realize I'm slightly incoherent oh and I live my life each day as though it is my last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 Jubatus: As you say, science and the realm of religion are not compatible, at least not with our current level of technology. And that may be the point exactly, like it has been for centuries, that in retrospective the technology of the future has always seemed magical and impossible. Tracing back through history the majority of each generation has always regarded their time as being the pinnacle of technology and civilization, yet the future has always shown them wrong. So therefor this speculation: What if we in the future through technology could discover and explain God? We would no longer have to credit it all to the mystical and divine - we would live it....As we do now compared to the past. I'm not against something that gives a breakthrough to science. But you see the "theory of divine" is more limitating than setting free. And I think wildjedi ment biblical god which I can't digest. We have to broaden our understanding of god before we can try our scientifically directioned imagination on him. Therefore it will not be god (as commonly understood) we would be talking about. Bible can not give any explanation rather than faithful. And here lies the flaw. If there was a religion based not solely on faith, but also explained implicitly why it's basis is true, I would listen seriously to any idea such a religion would produce. But I guess such religion is restrictly impossible. A serious forum should not exclude farfetched speculations unless they're clearly refutable. I'd like to think that some of the greatest minds through history possessed a healthy imagination. Sure they did. But some ideas were truely absurd. I guess it will always be that relative. So you're saying that wildjedi is probably our messiah but noone would know of it till the right time comes. It's too much uncertainty with you again. wildjedi: Homuncul, do you believe in evolution? If so, where did the first, and I mean the very first objects come from? And how did the universe come into existence? By chance? Millions of years ago? What proof do any of the evolutionists have of that? What about the scientists? What proof do they have that the universe came out of some big bang? Push. Push. I will not start another evolution/creation debate. I'd just say that what I think and believe doesn't matter. But I believe it's knowable and I'm convinced science can bridge it. So where did the first bit of something that later became matter and energy come from? It came from singularity where our physics corrupt. (there is a chance in this decade that scientists would recreate singularity in the lab and study it. This will be the greatest thing ever). As for other irrelevant questions, you have to question yourself first, what universe does Bible discribe to you? Is it autonomous, is it truelly complex, is it selfsustaining, is it promising, is it developing, and what justifyes it if not blind faith which is only a justification for not being able, not trying, not wanting to understand things deeper and wider. Science forms structure of knowledge. Religion forms a structure of neglecting knowledge and dictatorship. Science enlightens, religion reduces and constricts. And yeah Big Bang is proven, but not the way Jub pointed (lazerbrain ), but with monitoring background radiation of the universe. Some time ago (in 2003) more accurate measurements were made and the age of our universe was determined, if I'm not mistaken - 13.7 billion of years. A good result I might add. Can't wait for the Crunch to start. lukeskywalker1: Anyways, the big bang theory is being disproven. Many astronomers say its false now. Either way, if it is true, then where did the first little atoms come from? An explosion needs fire to burn, wheres the fuel? And it breaks the scientific law that says matter cannot be created, nor destroyed. I sort of disagree with it, but who knows. I think just simply growing is an example of new matter being created.. isnt it? 1)Big Bang is disproven 2)Many astronomers say so Therefore Big Bang is disproven, qed Either way, if it is true, then where did the first little atoms come from? They say it was a singugularity An explosion needs fire to burn, wheres the fuel? Burned out? Fire in space, are you mad? And it breaks the scientific law that says matter cannot be created, nor destroyed. Funny laws you got there. Matter/Energy can't be destroyed, that's true. Matter can be formed out of energy, and energy out of matter. E= mc^2, dude! And matter/energy wasn't ever created there (for singularity such terminology is invalid), it was of infinite mass and density. Jubatus: I don't claim unquestioned adherence to any of the scientific convictions about the nature of the Universe, but the one I entertain the most is that of the Universe pulsating in a (eternal?) cycle of expanding and contracting. Big Bang -> Big Collapse -> Big Bang and so on. Oh yeah, you're beloved circularity, you should really try aikido. You'd probably gain success there or at least kill someone with your concept. SkinWalker: Instead, we cling to the idea of second chances, salvation, forgiveness by a diety that will "love us forever" if we only "believe" in it, meet a set of minimum standards and have "eternal life," etc. Good point. Let's call this "desease" a theory of procrastination. I can't remember any thread being so entertaining Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 Originally posted by Homuncul I'm not against something that gives a breakthrough to science. But you see the "theory of divine" is more limitating than setting free. And I think wildjedi ment biblical god which I can't digest. We have to broaden our understanding of god before we can try our scientifically directioned imagination on him. Therefore it will not be god (as commonly understood) we would be talking about. Bible can not give any explanation rather than faithful. And here lies the flaw. Indeed, if science were to discover God it would no doubt prove him greatly misinterpreted and misunderstood as concept. Originally posted by Homuncul Sure they did. But some ideas were truely absurd. I guess it will always be that relative. So you're saying that wildjedi is probably our messiah but noone would know of it till the right time comes. It's too much uncertainty with you again. Duh, that was not an argument in the defence of wildjedi; he has proven himself of the intellectual level of lukeskywalker1, unfortunately. Once again you're putting words in my mouth, and I will ask you once again to not do that please. And I've never had too much uncertainty, it is you carrying too much faith in subjective knowledge. Originally posted by Homuncul And yeah Big Bang is proven, but not the way Jub pointed Well, if my statement wasn't the proof it helped confirming it. Originally posted by Homuncul Oh yeah, you're beloved circularity, you should really try aikido. You'd probably gain success there or at least kill someone with your concept. One can question why you're now resorting to base mocking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Writer Posted August 4, 2003 Author Share Posted August 4, 2003 So you're saying that wildjedi is probably our messiah I, being wildjedi, strongly disagree with this statement. I am no messiah, especially since the Messiah has already come to earth. I'm just his servant waiting around until he comes back. Getting a little more on track again, what is so difficult about God? What are you having a hard time figuring out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 Jubatus: One can question why you're now resorting to base mocking I just wanted some calambur here because one of the principles of aikido is circular movements, that you might like. I also wanted a bit irony on myself and abit of sarcasm towards you. It should have been a joke..... ah...... laugh.........hahaha.........comon people...... what's your problem...... I failed. wildjedi: Getting a little more on track again, what is so difficult about God? What are you having a hard time figuring out? There is nothing to figure out that hasn't already been figured. I can understand how a man can believe blindly and how difficult it is to get rid of a bad habbit. I think faith is just a bad habbit. And there is a mechanism of a habbit (and whole human perception). Different experiences have different neuron connections between them in the brain. Different situations in our life can associate much easier therefore with these experiences than with others. And everytime a religious person wants to elaborate a situation he would momentarily be directed to the experience of divine.That's why all religious people see everything as divine and total science freaks are such sceptics about anything. The problem here is that both sometimes are incapable to perceive the picture rationally (christians more often than others). The balanced situation is where the connection is similarly high in all regions, dealing with all experiences (this situation unprobable however). And probable solution for this is hard thinking and viewing everything from different angles. Thorugh time due to these unequal preferences we form our individual worldview (noones' perfect). Mine is realistic one, yours - christian. And this strong difference between us will stop us from convincing each other. That is really the thing we should think about as a problem and not the question of whether science is right and religion is wrong. So strong preference to divine is symptom of a desease. We need to stop limitating us with only these associations, moving and developing in all directions. In the same way we must stop our sceptisism of classical science towards multiverse just because our brain has different preference, blinding us from the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griff38 Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 Belief in a heaven is a self defense mechanism used by those who are unable to face the reality that once we die, we blink out of existence. Up side of not believing in heaven? you don't have to believe in a hell. There is NO JUSTICE, JUST US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 We know we've evolved right because our evolution is a direct response to our environment; we are of this existence, we're a part of it, not something cast in from somewhere else. Our mind and its thoughts are naturally included in this, ergo there is no right or wrong about it - there just is. hmm, i guess thats true, theres nothing to compare it anyways... whether our minds think correctly or not. And yes, there is no point to our existence other than what we subjectively make for ourselves, Christianity being one such subjective point, and that's all it is, a subjective, not ultimate, reason to live. Well, its good enough for millions of people. Belief in a heaven is a self defense mechanism used by those who are unable to face the reality that once we die, we blink out of existence. Then why are millions of christians willing to die for God? The problem here is that both sometimes are incapable to perceive the picture rationally (christians more often than others). The way i see it is no one in this forum cant (usually) look through different eyes. If you were to look and see things the way a christian would, with out actually believeing it, and the christians to see things the way you do, with out believing it, we would be able to possibly reach an understanding I do this... somethimes. So anyways, i dont think thats a fair statment, unless you can look through christian eyes. Getting a little more on track again, what is so difficult about God? What are you having a hard time figuring out? Heh, they base everything on what they see. If god would appear in front of them, then i bet anything they would believe it. They need something they can touch, see, smell, or hear. If its not that, then they are simply scared its right, or they just dont want to change. Or maybe they just dont understand any of it, which is fine, you dont need to understand to become, only believe, the knowledge comes in time. Read my convo's in that jediism thread, notice what i say, and compare it to now. All i could say was if its not in the bible, it isnt true (that depends on what we are talking about) just so you know, that convo took place before the senate forum was made, or at least before i checked this forum Ive learned a lot sinse then about christianity, and other religions, cultures... and whatever. Up side of not believing in heaven? you don't have to believe in a hell. Hang on a sec, you post why its good not to, but you dont post why its good to believe. There is nothing to figure out that hasn't already been figured. I can understand how a man can believe blindly and how difficult it is to get rid of a bad habbit. I think faith is just a bad habbit. What do you know? I cant see you knowing too much about christianity, other than what you perceive. Im not talking about the basics (theres a god, creation, flood, jesus dying for us, stuff liek that) Im talking about what it means to be a christian, what it takes. And everytime a religious person wants to elaborate a situation he would momentarily be directed to the experience of divine. I dont ALWAYS. Remember my examples? they had nothing to do with God, unless God was the focus (or, i was trying to get you to understand something about God EX: the hell thing...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 So anyways, i dont think thats a fair statment, unless you can look through christian eyes. What if one used to look through christian eyes? And then one became educated? Would not one's memory allow them to understand the christian perspective? Not every agnostic and atheist you meet is ignorant of religious ideals and concepts. In fact, few are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 lukeskywalker1: So anyways, i dont think thats a fair statment, unless you can look through christian eyes. No problem here. I've been christened, and had a pretty good religious upbringing in a pretty religious and even superstitious family. Since the age 5 to 14 I was faithful. Or do you consider boy's faith to be insignificant? After that period I questioned faith, and not because I was pushed to it, on the contrary. I did it as a natural point in my development. I resolved the problem Heh, they base everything on what they see. If god would appear in front of them, then i bet anything they would believe it. They need something they can touch, see, smell, or hear. If its not that, then they are simply scared its right, or they just dont want to change. Or maybe they just dont understand any of it, which is fine, you dont need to understand to become, only believe, the knowledge comes in time. I don't base my world view on what I see, hear and smell. I'm not an INDUCTIVIST. I'm for healthy competition. My world view is based on what gives better explanation for reality, on better fundamentality. It's not the matter of being scared of what's right. I'm looking for what's right with a method that showed through 7000 years it's validity, rationality and gave such an enormous impact on all aspects of our existence If biblical god would have appeared before me, I would have to question him as he would present a problem of unexpected and implicitly unexplained thing (both in Bible and in science). I would have to test him to know he's real and not some monkey in the corner sending radio translations into my brain making me believe in him standing before me and furthermore keeping faith in him (more important here is WHO THE HELL gave this monkey a translator???) But all these conclutions hold no sense at all, cauze they are made with wrong assumptions, that god is what Bible or catholicism say is true. Superstition based on fear of death, elaborated and perverted by the structure of Holy Church to control it's worshippers. In the end I would like to assure you that i believe in god, but not the biblical one. And I feel no need in Christ, The God, or Holy Church to keep my faith. I don't feel the need to be saved by some messiah. I can only save myself for myself, and it would matter only to myself and nobody else. As I posted before if god was a fish can I would believe in him, and if this fish can started our universe and I understood implicitly how it's possible and why, and there were no unsatisfying things about such theory (like for example in quantum theory and not only there the situation where a fish can is a beginner of a universe and holds all of its sectrets is highly absurd... did you know?) I would accept it as a better explanation for reality. If you could convince me that your method of faith is better I would go whereever you want. But I guess you can't You blamed us for a nonability to change. And now look at your stagnant faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 I forgot one thing.... What do you know? I cant see you knowing too much about christianity, other than what you perceive. Im not talking about the basics (theres a god, creation, flood, jesus dying for us, stuff liek that) Im talking about what it means to be a christian, what it takes. I'd say I always want to know more. But knowing is nothing without understanding. For some things you don't have to know much to understand. So tell me what it takes to be christian? Is it as difficult as reading books or training your muscles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Writer Posted August 7, 2003 Author Share Posted August 7, 2003 If god would appear in front of them, then i bet anything they would believe it. I'm not so sure. In the bible, Jesus did many miracles, but many of the people still wouldn't believe. There was God in human form, but they couldn't see it. If that's the case, why would seeing him again make any difference? Are people more sensitive now? I'd say if anything, they are even more stone eared, thanks to science and other such things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted August 8, 2003 Share Posted August 8, 2003 I'd say if anything, they are even more stone eared, thanks to science and other such things. That's why I sometimes stand before the choice of bashing religion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.