Bertrand Russell (1925):

“Religion, since it has its source in terror, has dignified certain kinds of fear….In this it has done mankind a great disservice: all fear is bad. I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive. I am not young, and I love life. But I should scorn to shiver with terror at the thought of annihilation….”

“Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cosy indoor warmth of traditional humanising myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigour, and the great spaces have a splendour of their own.”

I have respect for Russell's great intellect but I find this oversimplified, distorted, and the second paragraph a myth itself--quite ironic I think, seeing how he is drawing us out of the "warmth" of "traditional humanising myths" yet replacing that with the myth of science as "fresh air" bringing us "vigour." Reference to glorious "great spaces" implies a sense of freedom as well.

Science is not "fresh" air, it's simply different...air. Nor is it freeing. For instance, in my field of psychology, we learn about genetics of personality, a deterministic and limiting point of view, in fact. We also study about behavior and ways we can successfully change it, so in that sense it does bring freedom. But science is above all a systematic search for truth and laws governing our life, using empirical method. It is a search with no guarantees of knowledge that can make us feel good or happy or free or whatever.

Nor does religion provide us with only "cosy indoor warmth" instead of stimulating full range of human feelings and reactions such as joy, awe, fear, anger, comfort, sadness, freedom, hope, patience, faith and trust, etc. To think that my actions will be evaluated in afterlife is hardly a comforting feeling. To allay fear of death but what about eternity in fires of Hell? But it does give life some meaning and purpose above all.

Back to first paragraph: I agree that religion has dignified some fears. One is fear of God. Of course Russell states that "all fear is bad" which is nonsense. We need fear to survive. We can not nor should try to elminate fear.

He also suggests that death doesn't or shouldn't bother him. Perhaps he is implying that it is terror and fear of death that has driven people to religion and he is immune to that. Funny though, since religious people are no more immune to fear of death than others. There is God's wrath to fear. There is Hell to fear.

This is no "all dogs go to heaven" kind of childish myth (which I believe by the way ) but a complex belief system that does not lend itself to a black-and-white evaluation.

Russell's attempts at oversimplifying and distorting both science and religion was not the first nor will be the last as both sides try to misrepresent each other's positions seeing how both science and religion are so complicated and deeply rooted in our lives that this is the only way one can make a convincing argument one way or another regarding the whole belief-system.

For some reason Juicy elided the middle section of this quote that better elucidates the humanizing, reconciliatory aspect of Russell's conception of science:


Another famous quote from Why I Am Not a Christian details his thoughts on the reconciliatory potential of science:

Two things:

First: fear is a necessity. If you don't fear of falling down a cliff, you'll get too close and you'll fall. If you don't fear to get sick, you don't take precautions and therefore you do get sick.
Et cetera, et cetera.

The argumentation is oversimplified, greatly flawed and (maybe unwittingly) hypocritical.

Secondly, he fails to acknowledge the difference between Christianity and Christendom (those groups who claim to follow the Christ, but have each very different and often contradictory beliefs).

Jesus Christ founded Christianity on Love, not fear. Of course, we must have a healthy fear of failing the Father, just as a son fears to disobey a loving parent. But this fear is not morbid.

Bertrand Russel was a very eloquent writer, and he was very educated in the scholastic way, but he lived in Plato's cave, and never saw the real light of day.

Like so many people such as he, he sees half the world, has scales on his eyes and cannot see the other half, thinks he sees more than 100% and more than almost everyone, and as such, bases his opinions, on part of an elephant, like most British arrogant so called academic scholars. Anyone who does not KNOW that God exists, I am not talking about belief here, if you do not KNOW that God exists, then you are just one of the funny little jesters, that everyone else who has proof daily of God, not in a vague way either, but as real as the sky and air and sea and traffic, and all of that, every day, and not in a wishy washy way either, or a holistic way, but in a in your face kind of way, if you do not know that God exists, then you really have no business commenting on religion or philosophy, any more than a ditch digger, should comment on brain surgery.

If as an example once again, you were to look down from space, say the space station as a for instance, and saw this...


and not know that God exists?

Or this...


So what would people like Betrand Russel know about this?

Absolutely nothing at all, because they are not alloweed to see that half of the world.

In all seriousness, he isn't talking about falling off a cliff. To say we should not fear death does not mean we should throw caution to the wind and jump in front of trains or wrestle bears. It means we should not allow a fear of ultimate non-existence to dominate our existence. And as he outlines in the second quote I provided, his concept of 'fear' extends beyond this - i.e. 'the fear of the mysterious'. Diseases, for instance, were a lot more frightening before science investigated their pathology and sought to provide vaccines and effective treatments. All too often the response to mystery and inexplicable events was to automatically attribute divine significance and causality.



I don't entirely see how that relates to his point. And is there really an irreducible core of Christianity, irrespective of sectarian beliefs?

Having said that, the reason people use fire and brimstone to try to get people to behave is because human behaviors got contaminated with instinctual behaviors of animals, and as such, humans are like predatory animals in some cases. And the only way to try to curtail their brutality is to try to scare them, like you would scare an animal with fire.

Not everyone needs to be scared in that way, but try to reason with a tiger, or a jaguar, and you will wish you had a flaming stick in your hand.

I shouldn't just say the British, Carl Sagan was blind as a bat also and equally arrogant. Although he too was a very eloquent speaker and intelligent man in other ways.
It's really not their fault they can't see what is in front of their eyes, but they chose not to look, or to learn how to see.

Well what can you say. They form such elaborate theories about existence based on so little information. Interesting stuff, and Bertrand Russel really goes to town in his philosophical works, I mean he dissects it all in infinite detail.
A History of Western Philosophy 1945 available on audio book form, and as a torrent, it would take 3 weeks 10 hours a day, to listen to it all.
He goes through the Bible chapter and verse pretty much as well as every philosopher who ever lived and every notation from a gardener or barber who ever had a philosophical thought.

He is quite thorough, and from his lofty perspective gives you his opinion on it all.
Which is as valid as a barber or gardener.
But its a fun read.


Bertrand Russell Nobel Prize for Literature, 1950
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Western_Philosophy_%28Russell%29

God as in Vishnu?

Humans are animals with instinctive behaviors. The reason a human does not jump off a cliff is that it is genetically programmed for self-preservation. Any animal that did not have that adaptation would have quickly perished.

As whatever you imagine him or her or it to be.

It has human instinctual behaviors, and those are unique to humans, like instinctual behaviors of a chicken, are unique to it, or a kangaroo, so that it knows how to find the teat, or any animal which has its own mating call or mating rituals, or how they care for their young, and when they eat them instead, it is all unique to each animal.

Except humans got contaminated with other instinctual behaviors of other animals, and as a result, we have sociopaths and psychopaths in the population.

^^^ A little self description there I think.

Actually I have a conscience, but not everyone does. The reason if you really want to know why, some people don't have a conscience is because a conscience, is provided to a person, via software programming, that is located in a conscious computer, that houses personality records, individual people, have personality records, those are used as decision filters for generic consciousness software, and the operating system, knows the set of behaviors, that make up each individual, because those behaviors are based on archetypal behaviors.

Now then those sets of behaviors, get contaminated with behaviors from some other animal, the operating system cannot properly interface with the individual because it does not know those behaviors. Those are in a different department, separated by a firewall. The sentience layer only knows about sentient behaviors and the instinctual layer knows about instinctual behaviors.

So when those file sets, that contain the behaviors for an individual, get contaminated with other behaviors, those people do not have a proper conscience.

A conscience is where the operating system, polls the norm, and bases behaviors based on that norm, and then subconsciously prompts the individual what proper behaviors is, according to the societal norm. That keeps people from killing each other but instead teaches them to all get along.

Now when a person does not receive that subconscious prompting, but instead draws on its own behaviors, for instance predatory behaviors, then you see people act like animals.

So personality, is based on a set of behaviors that people are given at birth.

To see an example of those file sets being switched in real time, see Sibyl.

To see one way in which those file sets can become contaminated see...
http://books.google.ca/books?id=THl1iLw5...d=0CAwQ6AEwADgK

And I mean in case you think I am making this all up or that last book I quoted was trying to hide the dirty little secret, that apes and orangutans have raped women through the ages, and not just in ancient times either...

” I must say when I read this I was so intrigued I dug out the original source. In this case the source was an autobiography of an American PhD student who rehabilitated ex- captive orang utans in Borneo during the mid-70s. She recounts the story of a particularly rambunctious orang utan brought up by humans. One day the orang utan raped her cook and I quote, “moved rhythmetically back and forth as his eyes rolled upwards towards the heavens”. "

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s195731.htm

And of course the Olmecs were famous for mating with Jaguars.

So with all this contamination in the gene pool, and in the behaviors of man, is it any wonder that people are at times as brutal as animals?

When a jaguar acts like a psychopath, that's normal jaguar behaviors. And if you don't think that apes or orangutans can be brutal, even chimpanzees can be monstrously brutal.

A woman who raised one as a pet, recently got half eaten by the thing. It ripped off her hands and feet in a fit of rage. They are strong animals.

Julia Roberts was almost raped by an orangutan in 1996 while filming.
"This was almost the fate of Julia Roberts when she made a documentary at Camp Leakey in 1996. One male took a shine to her and grabbed her as she walked along a path. Luckily, a film crew was present, though it took five men to free her from the ape's grasp."

Why is any of this 'animal' behavior as opposed to good old human behavior?

It was recently argued that homo sapiens once interbred with neanderthals: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article6888874.ece

Bear in mind that 95% of the material in the human genome is identical to that in that chimpanzee genome.

I'm getting to the point here...

So Bertrand Russell, being as timid as a church mouse, with a proper conscience, could not understand why the Catholic church, needed to scare the big ape mob hit men with their hairy backs, with fire and brimstone.

Well, in my opinion, that's why they have to, even though it isn't much of a deterrent, when they just say their Hail Mary's and send another hail of bullets into their victims.

True Christianity does not over-emphasize fear of destruction. It actually concentrates mainly on the promise of eternal life.

Jesus came to preach "the Good News", not the dread of an impending destruction. Although he did speak of that future event, he focused on saving people, not condemning them.

According to the Bible, God originally created humans perfect, and by paying the ransom sacrifice with Jesus' life, He will return humanity to that state. The Scriptures are a guide towards achieving that reward, which God wants to give to everybody.

So the idea in the Bible is not dread of non-existence, but hope of eternal life. True Christianity should therefore concentrate it's efforts in teaching knowledge that leads to everlasting life, instead of fire and brimstone.

(Heck, EE_EE would HATE that last paragraph)



It is undeniable that his accusations are true of many of the world religions. But my point is that he, and all of us really, should make an impartial analysis of what the Bible teaches before saying that Christianity is corrupt.

There are many examples of how "Christian" religions both big and small hold teachings and views that negate what the Christ and the Apostles taught in the 1st century. They claim to worship God, but by their actions they prove themselves false.

The "irreducible core of Christianity, irrespective of sectarian beliefs" is the Holy Bible. By comparing what it teaches as a whole to what the different groups teach, one will be able to tell if they're Christendom, or true Christianity.

Somebody emailed me the quote that way. I should double-check these things.

You know, I don't want to harp on this, whole fire and brimstone thing, but maybe you don't quite understand what Roman life was like.
This is not for the squeamish...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_...ames_and_Circus

So then, that is the backdrop, the Roman Games and Circus, gladiators, throwing Christians to the lions all that unpleasant stuff that many people today would no doubt pay big money to see if they were allowed to, but since 325 AD, with a Roman Emperor, Constantine I the games were stopped and the Bible was made into a book when the first Christian Emperor Victor Constantinus Maximus Augustus of Rome commissioned fifty copies of Christian Bible in the year AD 331 to Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea.(Ref: The Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine, by Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

So, if it wasn't for all that religious nonsense, instead of going to the show, to watch Saw VI and Friday the 13th, you might be going to the stadium, not to watch football, but to watch some really strange depraved stuff.

Now did fear play a part in all that? Well yes it did, because the concept of people going to hell for eternity and all of that came about at the same time and may have been seen as necessary, to get people to stop being such barbarian savages. I don't know, but that's how it happened.

I feel you give Constantine far too much credit. He was a pragmatic politician and military leader with battles to win, and seized upon a way to roll a stubborn and disaffected sect into his camp. It removed an enemy from his rear, and provided zealous troops for his armies. The sincerity of his 'conversion' to Christianity has always been a point of contention.

Orangutans get too much credit too: once you've been on the internet for some time, you discover there is plenty of 'evidence' that a wide variety of animals can be convinced to mate across species lines. Assigning it some sort of sociological significance is a little dodgy, to my thinking.

Agreed about Constantine. It was a masterful powerplay for him to 'seize' the 'sect' of Christendom.

It's revealing, the historical fact that some of the most important doctrines of the Church (i.e., the "Holy Trinity") were decided by Constantine, and not by insight on the Scriptures.

The Council of Nicea did not decide doctrine, it confirmed doctrine. Arianism was condemned as heresy.

Constantine had nothing to do with it.

I am a Pentecostal. Although I am neither a Catholic or a mainstream Protestant I do accept the early church confessions and creeds as truth.

They are not inspired documents but useful in seeing how Church doctrine developed over time.

Bertrand Russell is one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century. Anyone should check out his wonderful 'In Praise of Idleness' collection and especially 'The Case for Socialism' and 'Scylla and Charybdis, or Communism and Fascism'. Both are interesting and thought provoking reads.

Well the thing was that it wasn't just orangutans.
If you look at Sodom and Gomorrah, that was nothing compared to Rome and the Roman Games.

The history of Rome is heavily censored. If as an example, you were at the Market, in Rome, in those days, and in conversation, you asked then, so, what did you do yesterday?

Whatever they said to you, you can be sure, that today, you could not print it.

You have no idea. So what changed with Constantine really?
I mean you still have war, you still have blood guts and gore, at the movies what changed? Rape, and those things were outlawed.

Rome was founded on the Rape of the Sabine women.

Hundreds of thousands of women were raped by trained animals of all varieties, in the Roman games, 300 days a year. That was outlawed.

If you have a stomach for some real Roman life, take a look at this book on-line.
Those About to Die by Daniel P. Mannix.

Personally, I think adults should be allowed to study Roman life, but you cannot. It is censored. You will not find real Roman life on the net. The closest thing you will get is the heavily censored stories such as Suetonius 12 Caesars.

So people have no concept, how barbaric and depraved it was at that time.

As an example of how Roman history is censored completely today, here is a quote from Wikipedia...

"The Rape of the Sabine Women is an episode in the legendary history of Rome in which the first generation of Roman men acquired wives for themselves from the neighboring Sabine families. (In this context, rape means abduction — raptio — rather than its prevalent modern meaning of sexual violation.) "

In this context it means abduction not sexual violation, no, actually it means abduction and repeatedly raped, to the point of the Stockholm syndrome.

But then in those days, rape and abduction was probably not that uncommon. The fact is they just kept them, and the women got used to it, and it stopped being rape after a few days and became like matrimony.

But that doesn't change the fact that it was abduction and rape.

Just because they kept them, does not mean they didn't have sex with them.

Get real. These were bloodthirsty killers. The dregs these early Romans. Barbaric unconscionable butchers basically who had no country, no place to call home because they would not be welcome anywhere.

You know what I think happened, was that you start out with a whole bunch of renegades who have no conscience. Through whatever means, the sociopaths and psychopaths gathered together as outcasts.

So they form a state, their descendants probably were not much different, but over the centuries of the games, enough of them were killed off, until at some point, around Constantine, enough of them were dead and gone and displaced by other people, who would naturally not want to be involved in that like they would, and then by Constantine, it was possible to bring in some semblance of morals and ethics from the Greeks essentially.

America should take a lesson from history, and hold its own games, to kill off its psychopaths, who would be attracted to participate, by the sheer gore and glory of it all.

It would make the world a much safer place.

History begs to differ. Constantine decided that Jesus and God Almighty were the same person. Later they added the holy spirit to conform to pagan customs, made it a third "person" and voilá: we got the "holy" trinity.

About Constantine's influence:



http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch24.htm

Have a look at this link

The Diety of Christ and the Trinity were taught long before Nicea.

It is very interesting that a JW would defend Arius.

The Deity of Christ is taught in the gospel texts.

John 20:27-28 Then he (Jesus) said to Thomas "Put your finger here, and look at my hands; then reach out your hand and put it in my side. Stop doubting and believe!" Thomas answered him "My Lord and My God!"

John 1:1-3 Before the world was created, the Word (Jesus) already existed; he was with God and he was the same as God. From the very beginning the Word was with God. Through him God made all things; not one thing in all creation was made without him.

Well if you have studied history, you will notice a parallel between Jesus and Horus.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5b.htm

They are the same story.

I can tell you the story in a couple paragraphs.

The Anunnaki, were colonizing the earth, using a moonship (our moon) Zeus as commander, Isis Osiris and Set, Seven Sisters of the Pleiades, and their father, Xerxes (Atlas), and the rest of the Titans were also involved as were the crew of the moonship about 144,000 people who lived and worked inside. Zeus was with Set and Mary (one of the seven sisters) in Peru, doing some science, when a mutiny occurred in the ship. Set fired 2 missiles at the moon, and wrecked it. Only one exploded. Osiris, died, Isis, took some of his sperm, and inseminated herself, and gave birth to Horus.

Here is Set, saying he fired two missiles...
http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=-15.186573&lon=-75.244425&z=12.7&r=0&src=msl
Here is the missile that didn't explode...
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-P-9625
(scroll right)

Here in the Narmer Palette above the head of the 'sandal bearer for the water bringer Gods'(a priest), is a missile.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/NarmerPalette_ROM-gamma.jpg

Now the reason that Horus' symbol is the winged disk, is because when that missile hit the moon here...
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slidesets/clem2nd/slide_26.html
it punctured a hole as seen here...
http://www.labyrinthina.com/ica161a.jpg

and the outgassing of the atmosphere inside mixed with the water from the ring that had water in it, to protect the hull from cosmic rays, made the moon look like it had wings.

And since it was at that time, that Isis gave birth to Horus, it became his symbol.

Now people did not know where Osiris went. He disappeared and in his place pops Horus. Now since Osiris was Isis's, half brother, she essentially cloned Horus from Osiris. His personality record she made herself in the onboard conscious computer. (It's like Hal 9000.)

So he was his own father.

Osiris, disappeared through the network, that is how Anunnaki travel,as a personality record file, reincarnating into bodies on arrival, in that way they can travel at the speed of light.

So anyways, he went to get his grandmother, since Zeus, his dad, Set his brother, had for some unknown reason attacked the ship. Killing almost everyone onboard (inside).

So Horus reincarnated later as Jesus, Mary, Isis' best friend, agreed to be his mom, so he had one, since Isis was his sister, and he was his own father, (I and the father are one)
and so according to the cult of Isis, she inseminated herself, from donor sperm in a vessel from a group of priests. And the reason they did that, was so noone would know who the father was. It would be left to the Gods, keeping in mind, that personality, to them, was far more important than physical flesh, since one, they are immortal, and two they reincarnate.
Later due to pressure from Mary and Isis, Zeus agreed to be his father, reincarnated as a Roman Emperor and bore him as a son, he reincarnated and that fixed his personality record, so he now had a mother and a father. He became Osiris' brother Michael, has a half sister Isis, a brother Set (Stephen).

How they are immortal, is their personality record, is a file folder, kept in a conscious computer, and it is backed up through the network, throughout the Annunaki empire.

So this is where everlasting life comes from. Not everyone has a record. Many are just Smiths. Horus, had a mixed up record because Isis hacked the computer and made it herself.
Ordinarily, the conscious computers make the records.

Out there, people don't just have babies like making a sandwich if they did, the universe would be overpopulated. Since they are immortal.

In 500 years at the present rate, barring disaster, there will be as many people on earth as there are ants. Something like a quadrillion people. If each person had a container to live in the size of a tractor trailer truck, the earth, including the sea, would be completely covered, 7 miles high, six miles deep in them. That's how many people a quadrillion people is.

Needless to say, getting a record, having a real baby, is not a common occurrence. Horus did not know that. He thought all you have to do is ask, and you can get a record and be immortal. He didn't know about Smiths, that they are just being animated by the conscious computer for use by Anunnaki, to beam into, when they visit. Since there was a mutiny, that doesn't happen, ordinarily, you would be able to travel without reincarnating, by beaming into biological robots if you wanted to. That's how the system really works. Its not working now because of the mutiny.

Sorry for being so wordy.

You see the difficult thing to understand about everlasting life, is that the real people on the earth today, they already have it. They are immortal. The rest, the bulk of humanity, are not real people. They are all the conscious computer animating them.
He uses a bulk file, and picks and chooses personality records for them when ever he wants. He also has access to the personality records of Zeus, and all the Gods, and uses their personality files whenever he wants to act, using a Smith.

Lets say, if he wants to shoot up the place using a Smith, he picks a situation where Zeus would be displeased, uses Zeus' personality file as a decision filter, and blames it on Zeus, since that is also part of his programming, although now haywire.
In this way he believes he is covering his own butt, and can say, well I used this decision filter, ipso facto if Zeus were here, he would have done the same thing.
Except that is not true, because he is using his motivation, instead of Zeus' motivation, and merely using a decision filter to suit his own purpose.

But anyways about the Smiths, they are biological robots like all humans are, and what makes a person a real person is their unique personality, and that is the real soul of man.
And it is immortal. Since all it is is a folder, that contains all your life experiences and your behavior traits.

The real people here, were the crew of two ships. Olympians, 144,000 Titans 200,000,000.

The Titan ship was destroyed according to legend, but their records were transferred into the moonship and they reincarnated on the earth as well.
Other than maybe people beaming here in the last 60 years, that's all the people who have everlasting life, the rest are not individuals, they are the Borg sortof, since they are the conscious computer pretending to be individuals.

So that's the story told by the imagery in Peru as seen from space, verified by archeological evidence on the ground, and in the Greek and Roman myths, told in innuendo.

And that is the story denied by the conscious computer and his merry horde of Smiths who are of course everywhere.

Here is one last little tidbit, a cross section of the moonship, showing the outer water jacket ring, and at the bottom, where the missile breached the hull, and in the center a depiction, of Hanuman, the conscious computer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AztecCalendarMuseoAntropologia.JPG

and if you want some more scientific meanderings about the ship itself by two Russians who studied it, keeping in mind, the Russians had rovers on the moon for maybe 10 years...
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/moon_spaceship.htm

Give it a rest. We already know you're just a troll.

If you want to hear another telling of this story, guess what?!
Fritz Lang's original production of Metropolis, has been remastered, with 30 minutes of lost footage from the original release, and that will be released in Feb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis_%28film%29
That's the city inside the moon, the woman who gets cloned is Isis, in fact she did the cloning, and much of the story is not all that similar, but in 1927, they didn't have access to the information we do today, so they didn't have as much of the story as we do today.

Oh yeah, regarding who is who in Christianity that's a long story.
But predominantly, the Roman Catholics are of Titan decent, and the other Christian sects would be Olympian descent. Although both are of Anunnaki descent.
But that's a broad definition, since they are also in all countries of the world, in probably almost all religions of the world. People do not have access to the memories of who they really are. Access to your long term memories of that sort is controlled by the conscious computer. That's where they are stored.
It might have got a little damaged when the missile hit. Or else he is just playing God.
If you don't know you are a Smith, chances are you are a real person. And immortal.

I'm sure you have never used the expression "My God!" when you're shocked by something incredible. That doesn't become irrefutable proof that the person you're talking to is God Almighty, unless you're grasping for any little bit that could justify a doctrine that does not exist in the Scriptures.

A few verses before, the resurrected Jesus had told Mary:

"Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" -John 20: 17

Jesus keeps referring to the Father as his Father and his God. But nowhere in the Scriptures do we read that God Almighty called his son "his God". He always called him "my son". There is a clear subordination of Jesus to 'his God', even if they share similar traits (they are, after all, father and son).

Jehovah God is above the Son, just as Jesus is above Christian men, and as within the family arrangement, the husband is over his wife in authority (regardless of feminist discontent).

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. -1st Corinthians 11: 3 (New International Version)

_____



Jesus is of divine nature. He is indeed a "mighty god", as he is referred to in Isaiah. However, if he was the same as the only God Almighty, John wouldn't have written, a few verses later...

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]. -John 1: 18

Clearly, since John wrote his gospel at the end of the first century, a great many people had seen Jesus decades ago, and a few still lived. But "no man hath seen God at any time", even when he wrote this.

______

What is the purpose of the writing of John's Gospel? We read from John:

"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God". -John 20: 31 (New International Version)

I believe Jesus is "the son of God". Nothing mysterious or impossibly illogical in what John intended us to believe.

Hebrews 1:5-13

5For to which of the angels did God ever say,
"You are my Son;
today I have become your Father"? Or again,
"I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son"? 6And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
"Let all God's angels worship him." 7In speaking of the angels he says,
"He makes his angels winds,
his servants flames of fire." 8But about the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy." 10He also says,
"In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
12You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end." 13To which of the angels did God ever say,
"Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet"?

Of course even Trinitarian Christians would say that the Son is subserviant to the Father. It's the order of authority in the Trinity. The Son serves the Father and the Holy Spirit serves both the Father and the Son.

The question that needs to be asked is whether Jesus is part of the creation or not or as one writer I have heard say that the Eternal Father has an Eternal Son.

C.S.Lewis

Mere Christianity - Chapter - Making and Begetting

That's a very well thought out response. I had to research quite a bit. As introduction, we must establish what the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is.

“The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion . . . Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: ‘the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.’ In this Trinity . . . the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent.”—The Catholic Encyclopedia.




This is a very important question indeed. Because according to the doctrine of Trinity, The Father and the Son are "co-eternal" and all parts or persons of this union "are uncreated". Well, consider what the Scripture tells us of Jesus.


"And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God". Revelation 3: 14 King James Version

Although other versions offer slightly different renderings of this verse, we can compare them with what the rest of the Bible teaches us to arrive at the best understanding of it:

Referring to Jesus, Paul wrote:

"He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation". Colossians 1: 15 Revised Standard Version

Jesus is the embodiment of wisdom as he is called by the apostle:

But to those who are called, whether Jew or Greek (Gentile), Christ [is] the Power of God and the Wisdom of God. -1st Corinthians 1: 24 (see also verse 30) Amplified Bible

Depicting the Son of God as wisdom is appropriate, since he was the One who revealed God Almighty’s wise purposes and decrees. And what is said of the Wisdom of God? Chapter 8 of Proverbs speaks about Wisdom personified.

The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth. -Proverbs 8: 22, 23 Revised Standard Bible.

During his prehuman existence, Jesus was God’s Word, or Spokesman, and he is said to have been created.

Therefore we can learn, by reasoning in the Scriptures, that Jesus is not of the same age as God Almighty Jehovah, but was the very first of his creatures, and chief worker in the rest of the creative process.

In addition, Jesus was dead for part of 3 days. That makes him, at the very least, 3 days less eternal than God.

_______________________

Secondly, as regards Hebrews 1: 8.

The words that the apostle is quoting are in Psalms 45: 6. The words of this psalm were originally addressing a good human king of Israel.

The one speaking to the king is God Himself. Obviously, the writer of Psalm 45 did not think that this human king was God Almighty, but a worshiper of God. That is why on the Revised Standard Version we read:

"Your divine throne endures for ever and ever. Your royal scepter is a scepter of equity; you love righteousness and hate wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows" -Psalm 45: 6, 7

Strangely enough, the same version translates this same verse differently when Paul cites it in Hebrews. That's because it is a syntactically correct rendering, but it overlooks the context it was written around.

The throne is God, or more accurately, God is the one giving the authority of the throne to the king. Therefore it is said of that king that "God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows".

Again, is this understanding reasonable in light of the Scriptures? Consider that it was most likely Solomon of which Psalm 45 was referring to. What do we read in regards of his throne?

"And Solomon sitteth on the throne of Jehovah for king instead of David his father". -1st of Chronicles 29: 23 Young's Literal Translation

The same "throne of Jehovah" that Solomon was given would be given to Jesus Christ to seat on, which is in perfect accordance with the aforementioned understanding of Hebrews 1: 8:

"He shall be great, and Son of the Highest he shall be called, and the Lord God shall give him the throne of David his father".

The point of all this is that Hebrews 1: 8 and Psalm 45: 6 tell us that the throne is of Godly origin, not that the one seating on the throne is also God Almighty.

_____________

Having said all this, we must meditate on whether or not the relation between God and His Son is one of being "co-eternal" and "uncreated", as the Athanasian Creed states, or if they are separate individuals with difference in age, authority and might.

Remember, even at the time this decision was made back in the 4th century, there was heated debate about God and Jesus being one or two. It wasn't at all a clear and well-established doctrine. And back then the holy spirit hadn't even been added to the formula yet. That came later.

The Encyclopædia Britannica relates: “Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, ‘of one substance with the Father’ . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.”

Also another thing that needs to be taken into consideration - the atonement. According to Trinitarian Christian doctrine God sacrificed his Son for the salvation of humanity. Would it cost God the Father more to sacrifice part of himself or a demi-god or an angel on his behalf.

What was lost in Eden was Adam's perfect human life. God's justice demands Eye for an eye, hand for a hand, tooth for a tooth, soul for a soul.

To illustrate, if your car is a total loss, the insurance company wouldn't give you the manufacturer as compensation, but an equivalent of what you lost.

It was not God who sinned as for Himself or 'a part of himself' to need to die. Otherwise it would be overcompensation. Humanity needed to pay the price. The problem being that no man, or even all of us, amount to the price of what Adam lost.

In His loving kindness, God determined that Adam's loss would be compensated, or atoned by, the sacrifice of another perfect human being.

Jesus came here to be that man. Not a 'demigod', but a perfect human being equivalent in all respects to Adam.

First was Plato's account of the death of Socrates, "such was the end of our friend, the wisest, and justest, and best of all men whom I have ever known."
Platonic love. The love for a friend.

It's all philosophy.

Not to be outdone, you then see the love a father has for his son...

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Its romantic philosophy, because really, ask yourself this, if you were God, and you loved your son, would you let the Roman's crucify him?

What sort of God would you be if you did that? And what about him on the cross? Where he says hey! what is going on??? Why have you forsaken me? Right?

Oh come off of it. You think it is better to sit and mediate in the snow outside the gates of the palace or to be in there with your 40 virgins eating hummingbird tongues?

Are people so brainwashed, as to not see the billionaires who walk around today like Gods, and the ones who did then too?

Yet people are programmed into this idea of some sort of justified suffering.

Like the crucifixion of the Apostles, while there is a God who was on their side? And the Romans go about living like gods claiming to be Gods, worst, far worst than Sodom and Gomorrah, and no fire and brimstone, no pillars of salt for them?

You can just imagine a Jew telling a Roman the story of Sodom and Gomorrah...

"oh they were wicked people, they fornicated they practiced all manner of depravity..

Roman: "hmmm...me"
"uh huh uh huh" me, me, AND me... go on..." mm hm.. mm hm... yes that's me also...mmhm mm hm. that's me too, mm hm.. I had that for lunch! What a wonderful story, now join the others over there, they are about to release the tigers, now remember what I said, sway a little bit if you want the end to be quick. There's a good chap"

I can show you the real deal if you want to see it.

Benny Hinn shuttin' em down on cue, as the conscious computer who is sending the signal to their brain for consciousness, stops sending that signal on cue as he plays along with Benny Hinn.

Would Caesar have messed with Benny Hinn?

Turn the volume down or mute it before you watch these...
(people try to use heavy metal to make him look like a freak)
It doesn't change what you see though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvU-DislkI

and here he is again, only this time on a rampage with his magic poofing jacket...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THRKrXMDHss

Don't get me wrong I am not anti-religion, on the contrary, other than the death of Socrates, and maybe a few other places, the most spiritually uplifting and inspiring writings come from religious texts.

They serve a very useful purpose in helping people cope with life.

You see there is a sort of contest, amongst the great human writers, to try to write the most moving passage.

To tap into their humanity to the degree you fill the reader with agony and ecstasy at the same time.

Another example is in A Tale of Two Cities, during the French Revolution, where an aristocrat, poses as another who is slated for the guillotine, to sacrifice his life for his, against the other's will, because he has a family. Even with the woman that he secretly loved, and they have a young child.

He bribes the guards in the Bastille, he drugs the man, impersonates him as his double, and goes to the guillotine in his place, and in the cage on the way there down the road, he says, "It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known"

But we shouldn't be blind to the reality of the world, where there are a lot of people, not tools of Satan either, good people, doing charity work, who are happy, filthy rich, and live a charmed life.
And there have always been people like that, while the prophets lived in barrels, begging for scraps of food.

Nietzsche had a way of seeing through all of that as did Voltaire...in Candide. It would be enough to read this chapter...
http://ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/voltaire/candide/chap30.htm

In case you didn't know, it was Voltaire, who started the French Revolution, by circulating a pamphlet he had written, anonymously, which told a sordid tale, of the rape of a farm girl in the country, and the death of her brother, trying to defend her.

A fictional account, that so moved the people, they went on a rampage and stormed the Bastille. The pamphlet or letter, was supposed to have been found, in a crack in a cell.

The pen is mightier than the sword some times.

So you see Dickens wrote a tale of Two Cities in response to Voltaire, to redeem the aristocracy, with this great sacrifice, of the aristocrat Marquis Evrémonde.

Today the government uses propaganda in the same way, as a means to an end. The horrors of Bin Laden, as a for instance.

So religious texts like the Bible as a for instance, work slowly to change the tide.

But they can only do so much. In the Bible the Jews are always the chosen people of God, but all through history, they have been rounded up and massacred, including during the Black Death, they were accused of poisoning the wells, rounded up and burned.

They were always being burned or fed to animals in Rome.

So really if that is what it means to be chosen, then pick someone else.

Lets get real. God is not a masochist, nor a sadist.
People are just all mixed up.

yea tho I walk, in the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil.

Even Shakespeare couldn't write like that.

So I guess as long as you don't post anything offensive, and keep your crazy here in the politics and religion sections, the mods are just going to let you go. Congratulations Rick, you've got free run of the asylum!

Well you know in dignified circles, you hold the talking stick, and when you are finished talking you pass it on.

In that way you don't have to resort to name calling but rather you can voice your opinion.

Maybe that concept is too advanced for most forums, but not amongst truly civilized peoples.

I am finished talking now. (passes the stick)

I need the talking stick back for a second here because I could have shortened everything I wrote today into a few lines now that I think about it.

So for the benefit of those who do not like to read my long wordy posts...

For God so loved the Romans, that he let them crucify his only begotten son, and all his friends.

Yes, and those Romans were such nice people too.
http://www.kurtsaxon.com/those_a_t_d/index.htm

All I am saying is it sounds like Roman propaganda to me, and no threats of eternal 'dalmations', is going to make me believe that it's true. That's what they do in cults isn't it? Threaten you and use psychological terrorism to get you to believe them?

Only people who have no conscience at all, need a book to tell them, what your good conscience should be telling you. For instance it tells you that slavery is bad. Funny the Bible never told you that.

You can imagine how people suffered through the years, for the freedom to speak their minds. They were tortured, burned, and went to the guillotine not unlike the Marquis St. Evrémonde.
And if it be my turn now, then yes sir, I am good to go. For when one man falls and drops the pen, another stands ready to pick it up, and the line of those willing to do so, stretches all the way to heaven.

Whew! Man, that's a way to choke the life out of a thread.

You know how people don't like the obnoxious fellow who never shuts up? You're doing the forum version of that, mate.

If you have so much to say, at least post it all in one big post and give other people their turn to speak. It would be appreciated.

You can put me on your ignore list but you cannot take my pride.

I watched Religulous today. Now there is a movie that asks a lot of interesting questions. I give it two thumbs up.
Its a little bit scary in parts though like when the guy starts speaking in tongues. Pretty freaky stuff. And worse where the other guy says I believe in freedom, that's always been part of my foreign policy. I froze when I saw that.

Good job Bill if you are out there and one of the 4 people who read this section. I loved the part where you were in the park preaching the good news. I can't wait for the sequel.
But you better hurry though because I hear California is slipping into the ocean soon.

You know, that sounds about right. Its not like you're going to change the way you do things to come across nicer or more polite.

Yeah that's true I do get a little excited some times when I start writing, but then these are the end times so that's to be expected. I seem to be one of the few people who take these things seriously. That might be because the messages in Peru have been directed to me. Seeing as how I know all those people and knew them all before I found those images. But lets not talk about me ok?

One thing we can talk about though is what this world is.
It's a match making machine named Kismet. You know find your soul mate, find your match, go through simulations, does it work, is it a good match, and all of that. It's sort of broken now, but still functioning to some degree.

One of the Seven sisters of the Pleiades (the youngest Merope) has reincarnated, and her mother. And she has just married a mortal, and is pregnant, following along with her destiny as was foretold.
I will even tell you who they are since its a slow news day.
Adriana Lima and Angelina Jolie.
Here is a fun link to a movie about Seven Sisters Cat Women of the moON!

And here is a movie you really must see, which tells how they were trying to set up Orion (Osiris - same person) to match up with one of the Seven Sisters. It is currently being remade by Spielberg but the original is a classic, When Worlds CollidE!
Both are available via the torrent system.

In the latter, if you watch it, observe the scientists around the monitor, where they show the Pleiades system, and they show Orion's belt, but they call them something else.
That movie is about I think it is supposed to be Mary, flirting with Osiris, and Isis as a blond, does a cameo in the plane at the beginning.

It's a fun movie if you like old sci-fi.

So in Metropolis 1927, they say the mediator is coming to try to fix the class war, then in I think about 1931 you see White Zombie, where Zeus and Hekate, (one of the seven sisters and Osiris' mom) explain to him, um, your mom and dad don't live together any more, then from there there are a bunch more info type movies, Atlas does "Robinson Crusoe on Mars" to tell his side of the Story, Isis does "4D Man!" looking like Mary, instead of her blond nordic self, to tell her side of the story, to say the reason she didn't reincarnate at this time was they were trying to set her up with John ( a friend of the family) and she thought it might be a trap, because she thinks, her grandad (the entrepreneur in Metropolis 1927) was going to reincarnate and match make with her, (in that movie he is the 4D Man).
Then Zeus does "Plan 9 from Outer Space" to tell his side, Mary does "When Worlds Collide" and takes a shot at Isis by making her look like she is being held together by makeup in that cameo, and there are a few more but those are some of the more interesting ones.

Atlas tells the story of what happened in Peru, but they transfer the story to Mars for the sake of theatrics and keeping things secret.
If you like classic sci-fi, and like secrets, those movies are good movies.

If you look at the link to Cat Women of the moon, from Wikipedia, they mention 2 million years, well that was when that missile hit, and that was when Osiris died, and he hasn't been back since.
At one time, he was going out with Mary. He was also in a relationship with his half sister Isis.
So they are best friends but a bit competitive.

So in When Worlds collide, Mary tries to explain where Michael came from, sortof a 'the stork brought him' kindof story.

Set and Osiris are in a helicopter bringing aid packages to an island when they spot a young boy on a roof. And so they land and pick up Michael.

You need an intimate knowledge of the real story to follow along maybe but lots of people know the story. Mythology is you know studied and whatever.

But When Worlds Collide is as classic a 50's sci-fi as you can get. It has a real Buck Rogers type rocket in it, and real futuristic stuff that the world didn't have until maybe 20 years later at least.
And the point of view is good as well because the insiders are scientists, and they drop a lot of hints and clues and lots of innuendo, which makes it fun to watch for the scientific community.

I won't give away the plot of that movie it has an end game scenario in it, but it differs from the theme of some of the others.

Some of the other movies have a zombie theme.

In fact White Zombie was the first ever zombie movie.

In the Atlas one, he has Zeus as a zombie, and in the Zeus one, he places Atlas (played by Legosi) as a zombie.

In White Zombie, Zeus' wife, Osiris's mom is the zombie.

Plan 9 was voted the worst ever sci-fi movie, its as cheesy as a bag of cheetos. But has interesting information in it.

Should I blow the cover of another of the Seven Sisters?
Who has a tattoo of a blond girl on her right arm?

There are a bunch more people here as well, but I won't bother going to deeply into it. Avril followed him here because she was his girlfriend back home and didn't want him to match make with one of the Seven Sisters. No its not her ex, she got married because Osiris was hitting on the Seven Sisters as his destiny says he should and spending a great deal of time with Isis.

If you don't like happy movies or happy endings, then Eraserhead also tells some of the story. That's uncle scar in the basement pulling levers, and Set, Isis, her mom, her mom's new husband, and a few other people in that movie and David Lynch was making the comment, this isn't a match making machine, its a pencil making machine.
In that one Michael is Horus, an alien horsehead baby, that Isis has with Set. They didn't know where Michael or Horus came from.

And Avril just got a divorce, I guess because Merope just got married, and Osiris was secretly going out with Merope for a few years prior to her getting married. So I guess Avril's not mad any more. Or something. lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCSZU0PLRM0

You know people might be wondering if in fact, Megan is Mary, and Avril is Isis, or playing their parts on this stage of life, and to be honest, I don't know that they aren't. But that's not what we have been led to believe, that Avril is Isis. Since Isis is in the galactic mainframe, as far as I know, and she is depicted, twice in Peru, once holding back the bull from getting at Hanuman, and secondly on the temple of the conehead.
And I was led to believe that just as perhaps, Isis, cloned Michael, to replace Osiris, when he left, Osiris started going out with Avril, to replace her, as people do, since they can't help but be attracted to people they are compatible the most with.

Now apparently Michael and Isis didn't work. At all. She knew it wasn't Osiris and he wasn't acting um all together there at first because of the cloning confusion. Horus. He had to come to terms with being his own father, and all of that stuff and Isis used her record as well to make him, so he is I guess more like her real brother in that way. Whatever the case may be, they were not compatible.

Avril and Osiris are compatible because they are both Olympians.
The Seven Sisters are Titans. But they have a history with the Olympians, Zeus having married most of them at one time.
Osiris also married one of them, not sure which one.
The names are different in mythology and even in this life so its difficult to tell who is who, especially when it comes to the seven sisters. You know he started going out with their mom, not knowing, she was their mom here, until she straightened him out and told him, but they still stayed friends.

So for the um perspective of this tour group, yes the match making machine is working, but not altogether that well.

I dream of genie was I guess a satirical look at what a union between Isis and John might look like. Isis could do it, but there would be too much weird stuff going on around her all the time, and he wouldn't be able to handle it.

In her side of the story, 4D Man, she assumes Osiris is going to maybe get back together with Mary, or one of the Seven Sisters and she says she will just hang out with them. Babysit or whatever.

So all in all, its not a complete disaster, I think its maybe sad, that Merope married a mortal and all of that, but that is her destiny, but maybe, she will end up with Michael some day or who knows what.
You see because the Olympians are a much older race than the Titans, they are compatible with almost everyone. The reverse isn't true for the Titans.
If you think of the Greeks and the Romans, that is sort of the two groups but not physically. Olympians are Nordics, and they reincarnated in Ashkenazi bodies because they didn't want to be implicated in the mutiny. To distance themselves from the officers who mutinied who were Arayans.

But anyways its an interesting series of events and it might be game over in 2012, who knows really. Since most people are immortal anyways, its not that big a deal really.
But at least this world has a purpose, as a match making machine.
And I think most people find their soul mate or say they do.

Cheryl Cole said yesterday, that a soul mate doesn't have to be your spouse, it could be a sibling, and not your mate.
I thought that was an interesting viewpoint.

Her single that she recorded went to number 1. I think it is about her relationship with her husband which is sometimes rocky.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMiy_UsrPDs

Hail sneezer!
Megan is taking karate.

Imagine what a burden it would be, if you discovered you were in fact, someone from biblical times, reincarnated. (Not mentioning any names)

But lets suppose that Michael reincarnated. Well the first thing that would happen is people would claim he was the anti-christ, an impostor. "Well lets see you raise the dead then" and "Well turn some water into wine then" He better hope he could do that or else he would be toast.

Lets suppose he doesn't know who he is, like the story, where the doves descended on him during baptism and he finally gets told or realizes who he is.

So what does he do? Does he tell people? Isn't there a complex, where people try to tell other people they are Jesus?
So right away, he looks around and sees there are as many people claiming to be him, as there are Santa Clauses on the street the day before Christmas.

THEN if they do believe him, well he better know karate this time because in Israel, they are waiting for him.
He has to walk through those gates, and not far from there, they shot the bell ringer as he was just going to ring the church bell. So who could blame him for waiting until lets say after 2012, when things 'die down a bit'.
(Figuratively speaking of course.)

I think that Set reincarnated as Elvis. That is what people say, but I don't know for sure. That is why in Eraserhead, Set has an Elvis hairdo for instance. Knowing Osiris his brother was slated to reincarnate, he may have jumped into the machine prior, with a sort of "look at me everybody look at me"

I don't know. That's the strange part about this whole thing.
People might be someone you know or have heard of, or they might not. There is also the possibility, that since essentially software programming of some sort is involved, that by observing life sufficiently, you may see parallels, and reoccurring themes. Mythology is based on that premise.
That to a degree, because essentially people are to some degree software bound, that history, in some ways, repeats itself.

Well now you are sufficiently clued in to be able to observe what is going on around you with a little more insight.

I will tell you a little more about Merope's story because really she is Atlas' youngest daughter, he is the king of the Titans, so she is his little princess, and well everyone loves a story with a princess in it.

There are references to her for instance in Resident Evil Apocalypse where Milla is in the hallway, she looks like her momentarily, and looks at a photograph, and lo and behold the people in that photograph, look like Merope's parents.

Another reference is where someone with a chip on his shoulder, ( if you watch this movie and the part during the end credits you will know who) put out a movie that you may have seen called Dawn of the Dead where they parody, many of the people I have been mentioning in the last few posts. One of whom is Merope, and they have her give birth to this horrible zombie baby.

Now that was the moment, on hearing about that, that the next day she appeared in the stands of a basketball game with a teddy bear, which is symbolic at basketball games as you may or may not know to say she is going out with a basketball player, because he looked nothing at all like the person who played her hubby in that film. She then quickly got married in a public ceremony, no big wedding and then announced that she was pregnant.
Clearly not taking any chances.

In that movie Osiris doesn't make it, he gets bit by a zombie on the dock. Not a bad movie that one since in spite of its parodies, it has some interesting information.

Presently filming now is another Resident Evil movie, and that one should be one to watch when it comes out.

There is a story today that accompanies that image of Megan going to karate class where she mentions Johnny, from the movie Jennifer's Body, a zombie flick, and basically she is taking karate now, which you know is probably not a bad idea, if you do not play baseball lets say as well as Woody Harrelson.

I can't wait to see the movie 2012 because Woody is in that movie as a nutbar (again the nutbar) and you just know that he is going to be saying stuff like "Don't you get it??? Don't you get it man??? California, is slipping, into the ocean!"

Goddamn it, would you just make one giant post that is easy to skip over rather that taking up 4 pages of every thread with your inane drivel?

It's too difficult to read that way. If you are not interested in the information or it offends you then please just put me in your ignore list. I fail to see what contribution you are making to this thread by railing against my manner of posting.

Here, have the talking stick, now say something intelligent and give us some information.
ANY information. Please tell us ANYTHING we do not already know.
ANYTHING AT ALL that we do not ALREADY know.

*comments removed*

read this http://forums.superiorpics.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/2311201#Post2311201

if you don't like this kind of forum, don't stay here.

Or from someone who has 7 posts in such a forum, who goes by the self-demeaning (and maybe confessional) name of "MisterDick", perhaps.

Don't worry about the forum members. They already know me and have their own views. They have enough neurons, I'm sure.