Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   why DID we evolve into humans?
Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 6243 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 186 of 231 (302975)
04-10-2006 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by tomwillrep
06-21-2003 9:32 PM


Why did we evolve?
There can be no doubt that modern man is the result of evolution. Equally there is no doubt that humankind and the entire universe are God’s creation. You mention ”God’s most perfect creation.’ Creation is not perfect. The definition of perfection, as we all know, is anything that is complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement; without any of the flaws or shortcomings that might be present; faultless and correct in every detail. God’s creation is perfect in the sense that it is ever changing, constantly evolving for the purpose of perpetuating His love of Life. Had He failed in the beginning then life would not have continued to evolve over fifteen billion light years, or whatever. Once Life began it was instantly beyond His control. He could not withdraw freewill when it was abused. Creative love cannot be controlled, otherwise it could not be eternal. Life must be free of artificial controls if it is to be self-perpetuating and self-sustaining. Homo sapiens are uniquely qualified to understand God’s purpose and to fully participate in the continuing process of evolution. We also enjoy (if that’s the correct word) the right to choose how to live and love as God’s children.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tomwillrep, posted 06-21-2003 9:32 PM tomwillrep has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Wepwawet, posted 04-11-2006 6:41 PM Malachi-II has replied
 Message 194 by crashfrog, posted 04-16-2006 11:00 AM Malachi-II has replied

Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 6243 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 189 of 231 (303435)
04-12-2006 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Wepwawet
04-11-2006 6:41 PM


Re: Why did we evolve?
Thanks Wepwawet. I was also questioning the point of the message board. What difference does it make to human progress if we were created or evolved, or both? Should we be more concerned about where we are going, or is it purely a matter of survival of the fittest? I mean, do we bump off the old and weak? Do we teach children the importance of morality, or encourage them to act like their elders? You might think these questions are old chestnuts. But perhaps they are important to some people. Evidence exists in how we live more than how we think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Wepwawet, posted 04-11-2006 6:41 PM Wepwawet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Wepwawet, posted 04-14-2006 9:29 AM Malachi-II has replied

Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 6243 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 192 of 231 (304547)
04-16-2006 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Wepwawet
04-11-2006 6:41 PM


Re: Why did we evolve?
Quote "Oh, you might also like to look at the date of the last post in the thread so's you don't dredge up a year-old topic and drag it up to the top of the vat where it makes all the fresh stuff taste yucky."
Since no one has yet come up with the definitive answers to the questions it might be fair to say that most recent posts might taste 'yucky' in less than one year. The vat thickens. And, pray tell, why would I wish to read every posting on all subjects? Would I discover anything important that my life's experience, common sense and personal recognition has not taught me?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Wepwawet, posted 04-11-2006 6:41 PM Wepwawet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Wepwawet, posted 04-16-2006 10:12 AM Malachi-II has not replied

Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 6243 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 195 of 231 (304622)
04-16-2006 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by crashfrog
04-16-2006 11:00 AM


Re: Why did we evolve?
Well, of course, I was speaking personally. There is no doubt in my mind about questions that experience has taught me. I do not imply that my lack of doubt on certain questions can be shared or even believed by anyone else. Unless I'm mistaken I thought these forums were about exchanging ideas and beliefs without having to prove anything. Would anyone disagree that evidence for the existence of spirit is impossible to prove or quantify? Some people may have had a personal experience that can never be scientifically proven but was evident enough to have changed their perspective. In such instances, can anyone say their experience was false or unreal? Can we allow for possibilities of phenomena that can not yet be universally demonstrated? Or are we so tied to tangible 'realities' that we are unable to imagine the existence of 'realities' beyond our present recognition? I am not arrogant. Quite the reverse. I am deeply humbled by my lack of knowledge or understanding of things I can imagine but cannot realize. The only truth I know is what life has taught me. But that is not to say I know anything that you and others know. I may know far less than most, but I hope that does not necessarily diminish the value of my own lessons or lack of learned knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by crashfrog, posted 04-16-2006 11:00 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by AdminModulous, posted 04-16-2006 2:58 PM Malachi-II has replied
 Message 199 by crashfrog, posted 04-16-2006 9:37 PM Malachi-II has replied

Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 6243 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 197 of 231 (304643)
04-16-2006 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Wepwawet
04-14-2006 9:29 AM


Re: Why did we evolve?
Quote: "A large part of knowing where you're going is understanding where you've been. We cannot make scientific progress without looking at evidence from the past to see how things work. We then try to draw conclusions from what we've seen and predict what we will see in the future. Look, by the time we see anything it's already ancient history...if we're going to automatically discount the past why should we make arbitrary decisions about what we should look at and what we shouldn't?"
What evidence have you to indicate an understanding of where we have been will help guide us to where we're going? There is far more evidence to support the opposite view that we do not learn from the past. Evidence abounds that we do not learn or benefit from our mistakes, unless you are living in a different reality from the rest of humanity. Your remark that "by the time we see anything it's ancient history" is frankly meaningless. What on earth do you mean? How can seeing the blossoming of love be ancient history? Or is love something that is scientifically beyond provation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Wepwawet, posted 04-14-2006 9:29 AM Wepwawet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Wepwawet, posted 04-16-2006 9:01 PM Malachi-II has replied

Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 6243 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 200 of 231 (304756)
04-17-2006 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Wepwawet
04-16-2006 9:01 PM


Re: Why did we evolve?
Thank you for your considered responses to my fumbling questions. AdminModulous pointed out that I may have stumbled onto the wrong trail. More than likely. However, I believe that all trails lead to the same destination (another thread for discussion?). Since you kindly provided rational replies to my posting I shall respectfully try to reciprocate.
“Oh, just thinking off the top of my head...how about...books?”
Excellent! I have read one or two. Fritjof Capra in The Turning Point seemed to strike a few chords of ”instinctive’ truth. On page 33 he writes “To put it bluntly, scientists do not deal with truth; they deal with limited and approximate descriptions of reality.” That’s only for starters. May I assume you have read him? What really interests me is Capra’s honesty and clarity about modern physics. Most recently “The Web of Life”.
Another book I have read is Marcus Chown’s “Afterglow of Creation”. Wonderfully clear for idiots like myself; except on page 105, where he says “The universe became transparent to photons, and from that moment on matter and radiation went their separate ways.” I wish he would have explained how the universe became transparent when it had not yet existed. And how could cold photons create space (from nothing) in which to travel?
Yet another book by Brian Swimme “The Hidden Heart of the Cosmos” in which he speaks about Einstein’s refusal to accept the correctness of his original equation. Can anyone wonder that Einstein lost his nerve?
Although I cannot mathematically or scientifically understand the above books there is a spark of intuitive recognition of truth. Can you relate to what I’m saying?
I recall reading somewhere, perhaps incorrectly, that when the smallest particle is dissected there is nothing left but a spark of light that immediately disappears. Is it possible that tiny spark is the essence of life? Or, as some might say, the spirit of God?
“Our knowledge is built on the wisdom and experience of those who came before us and passed down their knowledge.”
I understand and respect your comment. However, if you have had children of your own then you may agree that they seldom accept your wisdom or experience. Our species seems to have a need always to experience for ourselves and to gain our own wisdom from those experiences. Am I wrong to suggest that history is often more repeated than the lessons learned?
Thank you for admitting the term “ancient history” in that context was a dramatization. No rebuttal.
“Since love is an emotion I would think that seeing the blossoming of love would require a really sophisticated type of brain scan . . . .”
I suggest you are being unnecessarily provocative. The tangible reality of love is self evident in everything our species has created; architecture, music, art, inventions, social models, etc. The list is long. All were created through a desire to be of loving service. Would you disagree that emotions of hate have always been destructive? If there is a God then, it seems to me by definition, that we and everything in the universe, are the result of divine Love.
“So what does all this have to do with why we evolved?”
There is only one faltering unscientific answer I can offer. We have evolved for the purpose of continuing the process of evolution that began with the eruption of divine Love. We are intelligent and sensitive creatures; essential elements of creation, and (dare I suggest?) an important thread in the web of life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Wepwawet, posted 04-16-2006 9:01 PM Wepwawet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Wepwawet, posted 04-17-2006 5:33 PM Malachi-II has replied

Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 6243 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 203 of 231 (304887)
04-18-2006 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by crashfrog
04-16-2006 9:37 PM


Re: Why did we evolve?
"Everyone of us experiences hallucinations every night. Literally, we experience events - often with incredible realism, clarity, and a sense of authenticity - that aren’t actually occuring. Is it so unreasonable for someone, then, to be skeptical of an apparent authentic event for which there was no evidence?”
Yes. I will argue that it is unreasonable to dismiss any event unless or until it can be independently authenticated. May I begin by replacing your use of the word ”hallucination’ with the words ”thought’ and ”sensory perception’. You might agree that everything that has ever been invented, created, produced or manufactured by humans originated from an idea - a thought - that eventually was made manifest for the good or ill of others. The evidence of a thought is in its materialization. As you say, there is no apparent reality to any thought or idea if no material evidence can be demonstrated.
I suggest that anyone who is unwilling or unable to acknowledge the potential reality of an idea is primarily lacking in imagination. Inspiration is a thought form. The law of cause and effect clearly demonstrates and supports my argument. A scientist may cause an experiment to verify a calculated effect; and that scientist might be amazed or horrified to discover that his cause resulted in a most unexpected effect.
Perhaps you are focussed on purely rational experiences. Fritjof Capra wrote, “The rational and intuitive are complimentary modes of functioning of the human mind. Rational thinking is linear, focused, and analytic. It belongs to the realm of intellect, whose function it is to discriminate, measure, and categorize. Thus rational knowledge tends to be fragmented. Intuitive knowledge, on the other hand, is based on a direct, nonintellectual experience of reality arising in an expanded state of awareness.” (The Turning Point, p21)
I asked if, in some circumstances, can anyone say their experience was false or unreal?
You replied "Well, I think I pretty much did."
I think not. Capra says, “An increasing number of scientists are aware that mystical thought provides a consistent and relevant philosophical background to the theories of contemporary science, a conception of the world in which the scientific discoveries of men and women can be in perfect harmony with their spiritual aims and religious beliefs.”
I make no apology for quoting Fritjof Capra or anyone else who stimulates and broadens my growing perception of the purpose of life on earth and my search for answers to the question, Why did we evolve? The most astonishing revelation to me is that the universe is no longer seen as a machine. In contrast to the mechanistic Cartesian view of the world, I find more enlightenment and inspiration in the organic, holistic, and ecological view of life and the universe.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 04-18-2006 11:10 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by crashfrog, posted 04-16-2006 9:37 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2006 8:59 AM Malachi-II has replied

Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 6243 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 205 of 231 (304949)
04-18-2006 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Wepwawet
04-17-2006 5:33 PM


Re: Why did we evolve?
“I’d suggest you forget about showing the presence of divine love and focus on something a little easier to see...perhaps something that will show that human evolution is either guided or has an ultimate goal. So step one: show that human evolution has a purpose. Step two: worry about the purpose.”
I’ll try.
Step one: History seems to indicate that the purpose of human evolution is two-fold: 1) To invent WMD’s powerful enough to destroy the planet, and 2) to consume everything as quickly as possible before destroying the planet.
One more purpose was suggested by Stephen Hawking, another scientist whom you may regard with disdain. His idea completely removed the human element from evolution so it doesn’t apply.
Step two: I worry not about the purpose because I will not be around to witness our self destruction.
So, there you are. The definitive answers to everything. I shall now slide back into the primordial slime from whence I briefly emerged.
Enjoy your power struggle!
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 04-18-2006 11:09 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Wepwawet, posted 04-17-2006 5:33 PM Wepwawet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Wepwawet, posted 04-18-2006 8:35 PM Malachi-II has not replied

Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 6243 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 206 of 231 (304950)
04-18-2006 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by crashfrog
04-18-2006 8:59 AM


Re: Why did we evolve?
"2) Rejecting as tenatively false the rest of our physical knowledge about the universe, which has been verified by countless experiments, on the basis of one single unsubstantiated report of an experience by one person."
That, of course, sounds more reasonable. I accept that on your terms.
I am not qualified to defend Chapra's science. Nor would I wish to argue on his behalf.
I've aired my few thoughts and have received much in return to contemplate. Thank you.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 04-18-2006 11:10 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2006 8:59 AM crashfrog has not replied

Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 6243 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 210 of 231 (305163)
04-19-2006 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by AdminModulous
04-16-2006 2:58 PM


Re: Good Evening Malachi-II
Hi Percy,
I picked up the first admin message from my email postbox. I hadn’t realized my reply wouldn’t be posted on the discussion board. So, for the record, I repeat my posting dated April 16th.
“Hi. Thanks for your guidance. Obviously I’m not a scientist and have no conclusive evidence to support any thoughts I have. Since nobody on this planet has concrete evidence of the existence of God or how the universe began it would seem that I am at a slight disadvantage o produce any evidence you require in order to construct and maintain a meaningful discussion. Thanks anyway.”
As you know I have continued babbling away. I have one more reply to Posting 208. I think, for the benefit of the science community, that should be my final contribution. On the other hand, if someone winds me up . . . who knows?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by AdminModulous, posted 04-16-2006 2:58 PM AdminModulous has not replied

Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 6243 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 211 of 231 (305165)
04-19-2006 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by AdminNosy
04-18-2006 8:49 PM


Re: Small warning...
Thank you for your gentle slap on the wrist. I didn’t deliberately try to stray off topic. Threads of thought seem to lead me in many directions. I’m not a single celled entity.
I have not been trained, nor am I paid, to think laterally. Perhaps the only thing I have in common with other participants in your forum is that I’m human (I think). Part of my humanity is being able to appreciate the value of apparently ”unreal’ emotions and stimuli. I must say, in passing, I wonder what pleasure some responders to my postings get from life since, for them, emotions apparently do not exist. Do they have any feelings? Are they real people, or intelligent computers without sensory perceptions?
Finally, may I respectfully say that I’m pleased to leave the nuts and bolts of Human Origins to the experts who have justly earned their spurs. I cannot, nor do I really wish, to contest their concrete conclusions. I simply hope they, like Professor Swimme, Director of the Center for the Story of the Universe at the University of Oregon, discover the pleasure of smelling flowers and registering the beauty in nature (of which, I think, we are a part?). In doing so, they might learn many important things about themselves that will never be discovered through practical science. Amen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by AdminNosy, posted 04-18-2006 8:49 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by AdminPhat, posted 04-19-2006 9:32 AM Malachi-II has replied

Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 6243 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 213 of 231 (305214)
04-19-2006 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by AdminPhat
04-19-2006 9:32 AM


Re: The rationale of discussion
Thank you, AdminPhat. I note your comments. I almost regret your permission to 'carry on'. It seems like a tacit invitation to confront issues that might offend others because I am not a qualified scientist. If you are implying that, as a human being, my emperical knowledge can claim some legitimacy in debate with more learned human beings, then I am humbly pleased by that recognition.
I believe that humans evolve because we have no option. The universe is constantly evolving. We, like it or not, are an intimate part of the universe and everything in it. We evolve because, if we did not, we would disappear. And, if we did disappear, in the fullness of time there would little trace of our having been here. Again. Thank you. I might join the fray!
This message has been edited by Malachi-II, 04-19-2006 10:33 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by AdminPhat, posted 04-19-2006 9:32 AM AdminPhat has not replied

Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 6243 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 214 of 231 (305271)
04-19-2006 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Wepwawet
04-17-2006 5:33 PM


Re: Why did we evolve?
Wepwawet. I had a gentle slap on the wrist from head office but my oxygen hasn't been cut off. So I want to reply more fully to your posting 202.
Quote: Capra seems obsessed with discovering some sort of uber-framework that will tie together all scientific knowledge. Personally I think he is more willing to bend the universe to fit his ideas than visa-versa.
If you bothered to read Dr Capra you will discover that he refers to an extensive bibliography. You might even learn something about evolution. However, you give the impression that physicists and cosmologists don’t know much about origins and evolution of life on earth or the cosmos.
Quote: You don’t expect people to understand the Bible from reading chick tracts (sic) don’t expect to understand science until you can follow the real documentation.
Oh, that’s such good advice for students of science. But, you see, the universe existed a little while before human intelligence evolved. Documentation is useful if one wants to become a scientist by profession. For some, who want to become more evolved as humans, science is merely one of countless disciplines that will prove useful. One need not be a scientist to observe, contemplate, experiment with and experience life to gain valuable knowledge of human existence. Documentation records information. I don’t need to read about what I have learned.
Why did we evolve as humans?
We had no choice if we wanted to survive. Does one need a science degree to understand that?
Quote: So I can boil all of these things down and get a glass of love out of them?
A fatuous remark. You apparently prefer the dark side of growth. You seem to be clinging to the mechanistic world view of Newton and Descartes.
Quote: And if there is no God what are we then?
Human beings. What else. We evolved from primordial mire along with other life forms that come and go. No big deal. Belief in God or otherwise has nothing to do with evolution. If someone chooses to believe that God created the world in six days (in our measurement of days) then they are irrational. Nobody can change their mind. Who would want to? Equally, no scientist, religionist, humanist or witch doctor will change my mind about what I know to be true. My truth does not come from documentation or experimentation. No higher degree is required to verify my truth. I’m willing to share my truth with anyone who is interested, but I sure as hell will not shove it down anyone’s throat as the ONLY truth. Religions tried that. People are beginning to think for themselves; to question; to analyse; to make use of slightly more than ten per cent of their evolving brains. I hope you catch up.
This message has been edited by Malachi-II, 04-19-2006 02:52 PM
This message has been edited by Malachi-II, 04-19-2006 02:54 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Wepwawet, posted 04-17-2006 5:33 PM Wepwawet has not replied

Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 6243 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 216 of 231 (305407)
04-20-2006 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by TheFonziszen
04-19-2006 6:53 PM


Re: STOP IT
Hello TheFonziszen,
I notice you posted from St Petersburg. I assume English is not your native tongue, therefore I will overlook your poor command of the language. Perhaps you too can be less critical of Tom’s lack of linguistic expertise. At least he had the courage to expose his ignorance to all the clever Dicks around the world. I don’t know what Tom’s age is or what his education has been up to now. But I respect his right to ask whatever questions he wishes.
I would hope, like yourself, that he and all others might receive cogent replies that, at the very least, will send him merrily on a quest for further information to satisfy his hunger for answers. There are many who have been on that same quest for millennia. We seem to have not yet reached the end of the quest. I have my own views about the destiny of our long suffering species, though I would not wish to further burden anyone as yet.
I think Tom asks why there is little consistency. My answer to him and anyone with a similar question is; “Constancy is the enemy of evolution.”
You seem too eager to be crucified for such a small error as intolerance.
Quote: “The only reasonable end in man’s unreasonable existence is god. You ask me do I believe in god? I believe he is dead.”
You completely lost me. Who asked if you believe in god? If you are saying that the end of man’s existence will be the ”grave’ along with god (if that is what you think) then I’m sorry. You give the impression of someone suffering from deep depression. If so, you are far from alone.
Regarding the death of God, A. N. Wilson wrote a book entitled ”God’s Funeral.’ To say he wrote a book on the subject is a slight misnomer. It largely consists of what others have concluded on the subject, including Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx, to name but two.
My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that humans have developed an amazing ability to reason through subjective and objective processes of logic, etc. In short, we think. We also have the amazing ability, some say the right, to choose what we think and how to express ourselves. You might laugh, but that is one hell of a responsibility. One that is often taken lightly, with disastrous results.
So every thinking person who is living, and those who are not, can decide if God exists; never existed; is alive or dead. But consider this: would God give a damn what we think? If God is the Intelligent Designer of the universe, do you think for one moment the opinions of little men and women will have any bearing on evolution of the universe? Come on!
Many of our species, particularly some scientists, may believe they have the power of God. I think they are premature. We have a long way to go. Right now we are merely children of God. Evolution is far from complete.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by TheFonziszen, posted 04-19-2006 6:53 PM TheFonziszen has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by nwr, posted 04-20-2006 9:04 AM Malachi-II has not replied

Malachi-II
Member (Idle past 6243 days)
Posts: 139
From: Sussex, England
Joined: 04-10-2006


Message 220 of 231 (305685)
04-21-2006 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by TheFonziszen
04-20-2006 11:03 PM


Re: Off Topic
On Topic
Wow! You pack a punch, but it might help if you back off a bit. Semantics is a major barrier in communications. You might understand the pithy humour intended in your aphorism but, to someone who knows you not, it misses. I am prepared to debate your postings, but only if you show a modicum of respect to another human being in search of answers to many of the same questions you struggle with.
Your profile tells me nothing other than that you are a student. Your rage is clear from your ranting. I’ve been there, pal. I’ve done it! I’m nearing the end of a life that has asked all of your questions and more. I still lack answers but, believe me, I am not obnoxious nor a jackass. Ignorant I may be. But I have enough humility to respect other people’s opinions. I might even learn something. And I hope I’m still sane enough to reason.
I think you’re trying to hit too many targets at once. You’re in danger of missing them all.
Would you care to start with one pressing issue? May I suggest we debate religion? I will argue that religions are ALL manmade belief systems attempting to explain things we are unable to understand. I will argue that, if there is a God, he sure as hell did not devise belief systems that are corrosive, divisive and destructive in their struggle for power over those too ignorant to think for themselves. You might be interested in visiting Index of /
A radical view of religions!
Anyway, whoever you are, reply with politeness if you want to continue. If you want to be rude and superior, then fuck off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by TheFonziszen, posted 04-20-2006 11:03 PM TheFonziszen has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024