|
|
|
Jim
New Member
30 Posts |
 Posted - 08/03/2001 : 15:44:35 [Permalink]
|
I see what you are syaing. Essentially, my argument is that Slater's proof requirement is set too high, but he can set it where he would like to, I have to respond on his terms, to a degree. We each set our own proof requirement. I'm not sure that logic is universal. I'm not saying it is not, just that I'm not convinced. To say that the same proof will convince everyone is ridiculous. I'm sort of new at this skeptic stuff, correct me if I am wrong.
In reguards to the non-spacial conciousness thing, you are assuming that our current laws of physics (including time) are in place in the non-spacial arena. I'm not an expert here, but I couldn't imagine why they would be. It is all conjecture, but fascinating to discuss.
jim
|
 |
|
|
Dog_Ed
Skeptic Friend
USA
126 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2001 : 16:54:50 [Permalink]
|
Oh, one more thing: Skeptical Enquirer did quite an article on Bible codes some time ago and found that any sufficiently long document does indeed generate lots of matches. I wish I still had the magazine; some of the "code" they found in documents other than the Bible was pretty cool. I guess I'll have to see if I can dig up a link or three...
[Jim, you posted while I was writing this. I agree, it's fascinating. And just because I can't visualize change outside temporality doesn't necessarily mean there isn't some unknown way around the problem.]
[Addendum: A analysis of Moby Dick using the same techniques as the Bible Code analysis turned up lots of 'hidden code.' For examples, see http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html]
"Even Einstein put his foot in it sometimes"
Edited by - Dog_Ed on 08/03/2001 16:58:12
Edited by - Dog_Ed on 08/03/2001 19:14:23 |
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2001 : 20:28:01 [Permalink]
|
There are three religious truths:
1. Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.
2. Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the leader of the Christian faith.
3. Baptists do not recognize each other in the liquor store or at Hooters.
Sorry, but it was getting pretty serious in here. 
Wendy Jones |
|
|
|
Jim
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2001 : 20:35:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There are three religious truths:
1. Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.
2. Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the leader of the Christian faith.
3. Baptists do not recognize each other in the liquor store or at Hooters.
Sorry, but it was getting pretty serious in here.
Wendy Jones
Yes it was, thank you.
Jim
Edited by - jim on 08/03/2001 20:36:39 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2001 : 22:47:11 [Permalink]
|
Bible Code: http://www.csicop.org/si/9711/bible-code.html or http://www.csicop.org/si/9803/bible-code.html
OK those were Skeptical Inquirer articles. Now the original proposition was put for by Witztum, Rips and Rosenburg in the journal Statistical Science. It was popularized by Michael Drosnin in his book The Bible Code. Now the entire premise behind the bible code thing was that these phenomena were only found occuring in the bible. However, it has been determined by probable statistics that given a number of characters that they can determine (very closely) the number of occurances of a particular word in any given piece of text.
Biblical Code has been proven nothing more than statistical probabilities. As for the rest Jim. I will reiterate this - gods and religion are products of the society from which they arise. What's this mean - god is a creation of man to explain that which he can not or will not explain.
You do realize that the only difference between christianity as a religion and norse mythology is that christianity is being practiced.
Jim, as to your comment that those weren't real christians. Would you consinder Kramer and Sprenger real christians, they wrote a particular document (that was for the most part supported by Aquinas) for Pope Innocent in 1484?
This particular document is known as the bloodiest document in history. This document is the Malleus Maleficarum (I hope I spelled that correctly). Whether you consider these true christians or not - they were following the instruction of jesus - You shall not suffer a witch to live.
While we're at it - what is your version of a true christian - an apologetist? Why is that one better than another? How are they more christian? Thomas Paine was persectuted for believing in this new kinder gentler god that has arisen in the last few years. Why was he 140+ years too early for christs taste to turn him into a kinder gentler character? Why do support a book that supports without apology genocide, infanticide and rape? Why do you feel you must apologize for the actions of your god then? Or justify it by claiming that the order to murder children is taken out of context?
Jim, these are common arguments that are consitantly brought forth. Tho I must admit - the bible code was a new/old one on me. I thought that had died shortly after being run on Mysteries of the Unknown or whatever it's predessor was.
Tho I should check my sarcasm meter! Mea Culpa.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Jim
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2001 : 20:59:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
OK those were Skeptical Inquirer articles. Now the original proposition was put for by Witztum, Rips and Rosenburg in the journal Statistical Science. It was popularized by Michael Drosnin in his book The Bible Code. Now the entire premise behind the bible code thing was that these phenomena were only found occuring in the bible. However, it has been determined by probable statistics that given a number of characters that they can determine (very closely) the number of occurances of a particular word in any given piece of text.
Biblical Code has been proven nothing more than statistical probabilities. As for the rest Jim. I will reiterate this - gods and religion are products of the society from which they arise. What's this mean - god is a creation of man to explain that which he can not or will not explain.
Once again, I am not a proponent of equidistant letter sequences, which that book discusses. The probability of finding this type of "code" in another literary work is probably high. My study went into the cryptology side of this. Check out Chuck Missler's book "Cosmic Codes" for insight on this. It is a very good read, if you don't get bogged down in the technical stuff.
quote:
You do realize that the only difference between christianity as a religion and norse mythology is that christianity is being practiced.
Similarity does not prove on evolved from another. I am not aware of the similarities in this case, but I know this same mistake was made with Mithraism. Look deeper into meanings.
quote:
Jim, as to your comment that those weren't real christians. Would you consinder Kramer and Sprenger real christians, they wrote a particular document (that was for the most part supported by Aquinas) for Pope Innocent in 1484?
This particular document is known as the bloodiest document in history. This document is the Malleus Maleficarum (I hope I spelled that correctly). Whether you consider these true christians or not - they were following the instruction of jesus - You shall not suffer a witch to live.
I am not aware that Jesus said this, what verse? Witchcraft, along with other 'black' arts was prohibited in Deuteronomy. The punishment, I believe, was death by stoning. We execute people when the commit what we call "capital crimes", why is this so different? Are you saying that witchcraft and the like have a positive effect on society, and thus should be encouraged? I am all for freedom, but I do not condone it. God also calls us to judge righteously, and he gives us the right to execute people after a righteous judgement is issued. I don't know who Kramer and Sprenger are, but it sounds like they weren't. I'll look up the document later and read it. I believe it might be in one of the books I have.
quote:
While we're at it - what is your version of a true christian - an apologetist?
No. An apologist just defends what he/she sees as right. My version of a true Christian is irrelevent. What is your version? How do you know? You should judge by their life and how they live it. Many make claims in the name of Jesus or God, how do you know they are true claims? Each person has to do their own investigation.
quote:
How are they more christian?
They are not more Christian. There are no degrees of Christianity. You either are or you are not, that simple. They are doing what they feel God has called them to do.
quote:
Thomas Paine was persectuted for believing in this new kinder gentler god that has arisen in the last few years. Why was he 140+ years too early for christs taste to turn him into a kinder gentler character?
I am not sure I get the question.
quote:
Why do support a book that supports without apology genocide, infanticide and rape?
I don't. Prove to me that I do.
quote:
Why do you feel you must apologize for the actions of your god then? Or justify it by claiming that the order to murder children is taken out of context?
I do not have to defend God or apologize for his actions. But when someone steps up and says that God is a murderer, I'll give my reasons why I think they are wrong. If this is a murder case, then present your evidence. God did judge several nations or groups of people in the OT. What you need to find out is why, and was he righteous in judging them? Generically labelling God as a murderer or a slavery condoner in court won't get you squat! You've got to prove it.
quote:
Jim, these are common arguments that are consitantly brought forth.
They are common in that they are brought forth by people who have not done their homework. They are brought forth by people that assume that "Christians" define the truth of Christianity. You have so many preconcieved notions about the Bible and Christians. Some of them are probably understandable, I don't even like using the word 'Christian' because of the labels it puts on me, but you'd be hard pressed to show me any support for the claims you make towards God.
Oh, by the way, you claim God murders innocent children, take a look at your government one time.
Jim
Edited by - jim on 08/04/2001 21:01:07 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2001 : 22:51:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Similarity does not prove on evolved from another. I am not aware of the similarities in this case, but I know this same mistake was made with Mithraism. Look deeper into meanings.
Trish was not saying Norse mythology and Christian mythology are the same. The point was that as explanations for things humans could not explain at the time of writing, both do the same job.
Did you actually check out Mithraism? It's not similar. It's the same. Word for word. Denying it is ridiculous. Ever see a Mitsubishi 3000GT or a Dodge Stealth? Different names, same car.
quote:
I am not aware that Jesus said this, what verse? Witchcraft, along with other 'black' arts was prohibited in Deuteronomy. The punishment, I believe, was death by stoning. We execute people when the commit what we call "capital crimes", why is this so different? Are you saying that witchcraft and the like have a positive effect on society, and thus should be encouraged?
The thing about witchcraft trial was that all sorts of things were suddenly defined as witchcraft. Anything from looking at someone funny to generally not fitting in like you should. To my knowledge there are no black arts. That's just another myth conveniently used by some people to eliminate people they don't like. Read about what happened in Europe and how many people died horrible, horrible deaths because they were "witches" and you might learn something fascinating about how religion can be turned into a tool for evil. All in the name of God and encouraged by Jesus.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2001 : 00:04:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Normally I see a flawed argument met with sufficient counterargument here as I lurk and read, but I've yet to see this one tackled. I'm a day late but I don't get to read every day so allow me this indulgence.
quote:
It is more sophistic than sophomoric, but in any case it is as easily refuted as the round square argument above. The divine attribute of omnipotence does not include the performance of logically impossible acts, nor has traditionally implied any such nonsense. If it did, it would not be a descriptor at all but rather a logically contradictory and hence nonsensical predicate.
What I see quoted directly above is a self- refuting argument, assuming the spirit of this thread applies. If, as certain previous posts imply, there is nothing greater (more powerful, more knowledgeable, etc) than the proposed Judeo-Christian God, then this by definition applies to logic. If the created universe has a foundation of logical laws, then they must have been created, with or as a result of the universe, by the creator. The creator cannot be completely bound by his creation. Therefore, it cannot be that at once God created logic and is bound by logic. If you claim that God cannot, by means outside of his control, perform an illogical act, then you have just elevated logic to a status greater than God and have stripped God of its omnipotence. For all intents and purposes then, God and logic are mutually exclusive. We know we have logic, so how can we also have God?
The refutation of the round square, unliftable rock, and related paradoxes does not state that logic is “greater” than God in any sense. Logic is a structural aspect of the languages (English, mathematics, formal logic) we use to describe reality, nothing more. What the refutation states is that the paradoxes in question are simply talking nonsense, and are hence unsound as arguments. In short, any premise relying upon a self-contradictory concept or type-crossing is noncognitive and hence deductively useless.
They are not unsound arguments, they are descriptions of actions that cannot be performed by definition. This is a fundamental problem with omnipotence, not logic. Our language and logic describe only finite reality for good reason. Suppose I was a corporeal entity with the ability to create matter, but I wasn't particularly physically strong. It follows that I could very well create a rock so heavy that I couldn't lift it, so obviously this is a valid premise. I assume that simply because a particular entity (creator) possesses omnipotence doesn't a priori change the nature of logic (unless you wish to argue that it does, of course). In fact, said creator must by definition have created the very reality which poses this intriguing paradox. The way I see it, an infinite, omnipotent being cannot possibly have any interaction with this reality.
quote:
The key issue here, though, is how theists choose to define their god and its attributes. I think I've made it clear above that they are not using the overly broad and indeed self-contradictory concept being employed by skeptics herein this forum.
I am seeing clearly now, thank you.
This signature does not exist. |
|
|
|
Jim
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2001 : 08:05:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Did you actually check out Mithraism? It's not similar. It's the same. Word for word. Denying it is ridiculous. Ever see a Mitsubishi 3000GT or a Dodge Stealth? Different names, same car.
I'll be honest, I have not thoroughly investigated Mithraism. I am having trouble finding the books Slater referred to. I need to poke around online, I guess. I have checked out a couple of websites, but they just give a brief overview. From what I have seen, there seems to be only a handful of similairities(ie; bread and wine, a god diying for his people, animal sacrifice), but the meanings seem to be different. I'll try to get some of those books, I hope they go into more detail. There is a book that refutes this claim, "Is Christianity a Fraud", I can't remember the author. I'll read that after I have read the others, fair enough?
quote:
The thing about witchcraft trial was that all sorts of things were suddenly defined as witchcraft. Anything from looking at someone funny to generally not fitting in like you should. To my knowledge there are no black arts. That's just another myth conveniently used by some people to eliminate people they don't like. Read about what happened in Europe and how many people died horrible, horrible deaths because they were "witches" and you might learn something fascinating about how religion can be turned into a tool for evil. All in the name of God and encouraged by Jesus.
Prove this was encouraged by Jesus? All of the rest of your argument I agree with. 'Black arts' is just a generic term for witchcraft, sorcery, divination, and the like. I did not come up with the term. It's kind of the same as the way you group all "religions" together, even though some are quite different.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Bradley
Skeptic Friend
USA
147 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2001 : 20:13:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
By "everything" and “something” here you must refer to conceivable actions, correct?
No.
quote:
Logical contradictions or type-crossings render such apparent actions into utter nonsense, and hence you cannot logically predicate them as abilities or inabilities of anyone.
As I have stated previously, "omnipotent" means "all-powerful." "All" means "everything," not just that which is logically possible. Even mathematics deal with things which are logically impossible, like the even roots of negative numbers, the so-called imaginary numbers, which like all deities, are products of the human imagination.
quote:
...atheists have seriously misconstrued one of the attributes that they assign to God...
I think the problem is not that atheists have misconstrued the concept of omnipotence, but that theists have neglected to consider all aspects of this concept in the light of logic. When cornered on this point, they typically claim that the deity is not bound by logic or "the wisdom of the world" and that "with god, all things are possible."
quote:
Theists define their god(s) variously as they will...We skeptics must confront the concept of God just as theists define it...
Yes, and their definitions are forever in a state of flux. Skeptics need to hold religionists to true definitions. Admittedly, this is akin to nailing Jello to a wall. Do you seriously think the original formulators of the god-idea actually considered the rock argument or ever tried to reconcile free will with predestination? These are impossibly modern concepts.
"Too much doubt is better than too much credulity."
-Robert Green Ingersoll (1833 - 1899) |
|
|
|
Zandermann
Skeptic Friend
USA
431 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2001 : 20:58:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
... Even mathematics deal with things which are logically impossible, like the even roots of negative numbers, the so-called imaginary numbers, which ... are products of the human imagination. ...
Umm, no. Imaginary numbers are neither logically impossible nor even are they 'imaginary' in the everyday sense of the word. Without imaginary numbers, there would be great holes in the theories and applications of physics and electronics, especially where both fields get down to the quantum level. Nor would we be able to work with differential equations without the set of complex numbers.
Edited by - Zandermann on 08/05/2001 22:16:50 |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2001 : 14:37:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
... Even mathematics deal with things which are logically impossible, like the even roots of negative numbers, the so-called imaginary numbers, which ... are products of the human imagination. ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Umm, no. Imaginary numbers are neither logically impossible nor even are they 'imaginary' in the everyday sense of the word. Without imaginary numbers, there would be great holes in the theories and applications of physics and electronics, especially where both fields get down to the quantum level. Nor would we be able to work with differential equations without the set of complex numbers.
Thank you Bradley & Zandermann,
Mathematics is a language in that it's concepts have no meaning apart from that which we give them. Numbers, for example, do not exist outside the mathematical language. There are no physical numbers, all are abstract concepts of our minds. Therefore, the term ‘imaginary number' is both redundant and a misnomer since all numbers are imaginary and ‘i' is not any more so than any others. That said, ‘i' is necessary in order to define certain trancendental mathematical functions. The fact is that its existence could not be resolved with the definition of multiplication of the ‘real' numbers. The mathematicians had to define a new number field called the ‘complex numbers' which have their own definitions of addition and multiplication. Complex numbers have a form like this:
8+4i or 0+1i or 5+0i...
This number field has definitions of addition and multiplication analogous to a two dimensional vector field. The numbers are treated like they exist in a two dimensional ‘complex plane'. One dimension is the ‘real' axis and the other is the ‘imaginary' axis. Electrical engineers work in this complex plane whenever they perform analyses in the frequency domain. No one in their right mind would believe that there are physical entities in the ‘imaginary' dimension. It doesn't exist outside the concept of the complex number field.
The argument above is analogous to my argument against the existence of non-dimensional or multi-dimensional beings. We exist in physical reality. We do not exist in three dimensional mathematical space. The truth is more like the converse. Three mathematical space dimensions and one time dimension are required to explain (macroscopic) motion on earth.
The confusion comes frrom the fact that we make little pictures in our minds when we think of these concepts. In essence, we project three dimensional mathematical space on our physical surroundings.
I hope that the above, clears up any confusion over my argument.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Vegakitty
New Member
USA
2 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2001 : 20:47:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
When people declare to me that Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of GOD so you should-for safety's sake-go along with the existence, I slide my glasses down my nose. Then I raise one fierce eyebrow and squint the opposite eye, and stare at them so hard that they are forced to flee.
I am tempted to have tracts printed from that wonderful piece that Carl Sagan did on the burden of proof. You all remember the invisible green dragon who lived in his garage. Wonder if Ann Druyan would let me?
Here at SFN I have run into all the standard claims.
On the old board we had one that for proof offered the fact that I am a terrible person and will know God exists because I am damned to Hell.
Ouch!
Then there was an -- of course I have proof. You wait right here and I'll be back with it for you.
I'm still here.
Then there was one who wanted to debate the merits of religion (and by religion he meant only Christianity) over Atheism but declared that it was "crazy" to try to prove the existence of god and we could not touch on that point in the debate. A difficult thing, defending Atheism and not talking about god's existence.
But the most disturbing of all are those who claim that the answer is unknowable. Why should any answer be unknowable? If the burden of existential proof is solely on the claimant why grant any claim enough credibility to be considered "unknowable"? Is it reason or emotion at play behind this decision?
For decades I have asked people Why they believe what they believe. I have never gotten a straight answer. I am always told What they believe but never Why they believe it.
What would it take--for you personally--to either prove or disprove the existence of god, any god, and why?
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it.
Been there, done that. I've been pushed into a corner and more or less ordered to prove why I believe what I believe. I've even faced situations much more fierce than being glared at. Why do I believe what I believe? Because I choose to! I believe God created the heavens and the earth because it takes less faith to believe in a Creator than it does to believe everything created itself. I believe God created men and women because I know enough about paleontology to know that there's never been a fossil record found of anything even close to the 'missing link' between apes and man. I believe God has done many other things, and even you glaring at me isn't going to change that. Besides, why do I have to justify what I believe to you? After all, you've never justified what you believe to me! (glare, glare - see, I can do it, too!)
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2001 : 21:12:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Once again, I am not a proponent of equidistant letter sequences, which that book discusses. The probability of finding this type of "code" in another literary work is probably high. My study went into the cryptology side of this. Check out Chuck Missler's book "Cosmic Codes" for insight on this. It is a very good read, if you don't get bogged down in the technical stuff.
You're assuming for some reason that I can't understand cryptology? I very nearly went into the field as a Russian Cryptologic Linguist. I wasn't necessarily refering to the Bible Code book either - I was referring to Witzun, Rips and Rosenburg.
I'll have to do further research.
quote:
You do realize that the only difference between christianity as a religion and norse mythology is that christianity is being practiced.
quote:
Similarity does not prove on evolved from another. I am not aware of the similarities in this case, but I know this same mistake was made with Mithraism. Look deeper into meanings.
@tomic cleared this up rather well. The reason Norse MYTHOLOGY is MYTHOLOGY is that it is no longer actively practiced.
quote:
Jim, as to your comment that those weren't real christians. Would you consinder Kramer and Sprenger real christians, they wrote a particular document (that was for the most part supported by Aquinas) for Pope Innocent in 1484?
This particular document is known as the bloodiest document in history. This document is the Malleus Maleficarum (I hope I spelled that correctly). Whether you consider these true christians or not - they were following the instruction of jesus - You shall not suffer a witch to live.
I am not aware that Jesus said this, what verse? Witchcraft, along with other 'black' arts was prohibited in Deuteronomy. The punishment, I believe, was death by stoning. We execute people when the commit what we call "capital crimes", why is this so different? Are you saying that witchcraft and the like have a positive effect on society, and thus should be encouraged? I am all for freedom, but I do not condone it. God also calls us to judge righteously, and he gives us the right to execute people after a righteous judgement is issued. I don't know who Kramer and Sprenger are, but it sounds like they weren't. I'll look up the document later and read it. I believe it might be in one of the books I have.
OK, what is the point of demonizing a woman because she is an herbalist and attends to the ills of her community to promote your religion. This was the basis for the witch craze! The Malleus Mallificarum made brewing tea for a head cold illegal. Any woman caught doing such a thing could be accused as a witch. The Malleus Mallificarum used the accusation of witchcraft as a conviction of witchcraft and gave specific instructions on how to determine who was a witch and to get them to confess! This document was carried by the Inquisitors.
Witchcraft is as much a creation of christianity as god is of societies. They needed a way to wrest control of the commoner from those who were revered when instead the church should be revered not the local midwife. They even made midwifery illegal for a period of time. That's when you had to seek medical aid from doctors. Tho doctors knew no more than the midwife at the time.
The result of this document: between 3 and 9 million dead by means of brutal torture over the course of 400+ years. These people were no more witches than any of us posting here - including Valiant. These people were the victims of jealous vindictive people who: a) wanted their property (generally the inquistor and accuser wer awared the property after a signed confession was aquired - hell stick my feet in a pair of metal shoes and pour molten metal over them and I might just confess too) b) were angry with an individual for some reason c) wanted to get back at someone. There were even cases where a woman wanted to marry a particular person and accused her rivals of witchcraft.
Witchcraft was a construct of the church to scare people into its doors - nothing more and nothing less - also it filled its coffers with the ill gotten goods that it divided with the Inquisitor and the accuser.
quote:
No. An apologist just defends what he/she sees as right. My version of a true Christian is irrelevent. What is your version? How do you know? You should judge by their life and how they live it. Many make claims in the name of Jesus or God, how do you know they are true claims? Each person has to do their own investigation.
Anyone who believes in Christ as the Son of God is a Christian. What further explanation is there.
They are not more Christian. There are no degrees of Christianity. You either are or you are not, that simple. They are doing what they feel God has called them to do.
quote:
quote:
Thomas Paine was persectuted for believing in this new kinder gentler god that has arisen in the last few years. Why was he 140+ years too early for christs taste to turn him into a kinder gentler character?
quote:
I am not sure I get the question.
Um, read about Thomas Paine. He described a kinder gentler god 200+ years ago. Yet this kinder gentler character has only been around the last few years. Thomas Paine was ostracized for his religious and political views.
quote:
quote:
Why do support a book that supports without apology genocide, infanticide and rape?
I don't. Prove to me that I do.
|
|
|
|
Marc_a_b
Skeptic Friend
USA
142 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2001 : 03:40:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
These people were the victims of jealous vindictive people who: a) wanted their property (generally the inquistor and accuser wer awared the property after a signed confession was aquired - hell stick my feet in a pair of metal shoes and pour molten metal over them and I might just confess too) b) were angry with an individual for some reason c) wanted to get back at someone.
You left out d) Paranoid delusions brought on by fanatical belief in an oppresive mythology.
You know, when I went to see Star Wars: Ep 1, there was a trailer for the movie Stigmata. A guy in the row in front of me told his neighbor that he gets those. No actual wounds, but he gets a cold feeling in his palms. Gee, if we were still living in the times when witches were hung and burned, would this guy be seeing demons and accusing people of putting hexes on him?
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
