TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Religious debate on Jews/Passion of the Christ
Pages (24): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 »

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487

Here's a cute little bunny for you to play with.

Now shut the hell up and go ask your daddy why God lets girls half your age get raped every second day.

Some people wouldn't know reality if it were crammed so far up their ass that it came out their nose.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Here's a cute little bunny for you to play with. Now shut the hell up and go ask your daddy why God lets girls half your age get raped every second day. Some people wouldn't know reality if it were crammed so far up their ass that it came out their nose.

I think this was the best response of the month!

I cant stop laughing..thanks diginut

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Some people wouldn't know reality if it were crammed so far up their ass that it came out their nose. [/COLOR][/FONT]

sounds...sexy

quote:

Originally posted by anuneventrade I don't consider the Bible to be verifiable documentation. With this in mind, Jesus' miraculous acts can be considered historical but not verifiable.\

I tend to agree with that, which is why I gave you the Josephus link. He's not in the Bible - he was a Semitic historian from around Jesus' time. His work is the main historical reference that there actually was a 'healing man' called Jesus, because his accounts are not religious. He was just a historian.

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok According to Josephus, Jesus was very much real.

You do know that most people believe the Josephus to be a forgery, right?

I've see the page in question before, and quite frankly it's a poor attempt at apologetics. This topic was discussed in depth in another thread recently, if you'd like to go over it, I think the title is "Important Information'. I made a rather large post on the historical evidence for Jesus, but all I got was 'oh no it's in the bible therefore it's true. Nobody seemed able to actually address/discuss the lack of historical evidence documenting the supposed life of Jesus, until you came along of course.

Mhh thought I'd just jump into the discussion. I hope I can keep up with the language

Why do atheists insist that believers prove the existance of god?
It is impossible because god is not matter, not natural, but supernatural.

quote:

Originally posted by Heinz Do you know where you are going when you die?? Are you going to heaven or hell??

Why do you see this in terms of geography?

quote:

Originally posted by Heinz and what many of u dont know is, becoming a christian and gaining the holy spirit IS being set free. u know where your going when u die. i cant wait to die, or be taken up in the rapture. at least i have something to look forward to after this life. u can continue to believe in nothing, or in karma...LASTLY Do you know where you are going when you die?? Are you going to heaven or hell??

If you look forward to what happens when you die, then you won't live life to its fullest. And you don't know where you are going when you die..you think you believe that you are going to some magical place in heaven. Until you have experienced it for yourself, you will never know. And by the time you do find out, it will be to late. We will never know what happens when someone dies, we can speculate on what happens, and that is just what Christianity or any other religion does, they speculate.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King I think this was the best response of the month! I cant stop laughing..thanks diginut

Well you know I aim to please, Dr. King.

quote:

Originally posted by priveye03 ...And you don't know where you are going when you die..you think you believe that you are going to some magical place in heaven.

Exactly, and I can prove rationally that the "heaven" people speak of is actually logically impossible.

In fact, for those who understand the concept of infinity, an eternal afterlife is a horrifying thought. For there are only two possibilites:
1) One where this an option to end it ("self-terminate"), and
2) One where there is not.

But, given a possibility, no matter how small it is, when the timeline is extended to infinity then that possibility becomes definite, so it is in fact guaranteed in case (1) that self-termination will occur, and thus the state of "eternal" bliss is not possible. And in fact, there would still be an eternity after this termination, so the whole afterlife would be nothing but a tiny speck in the grand timeline of life. Insignificant.

Of course, (2) is even a scarier possibility, assuming that there will at some point be a time when you wish to self-terminate but can't. In fact, given a timeline of infinity, there will actually be infinite time where you wish to terminate, but cannot, which is probably what you'd call hell. To go even further, you'd be going through an infinite number of stages of wanting to self-terminate but not be able to... definitely not fun.

While you may wish to say that there is simply no desire to self-terminate in the blissful afterlife, that idea brings other issues into question. For example, there are only a finite set of memories for the "soul" to relive, and a finite set of states for happiness - eventually they would begin to repeat and really, a repetitive cycle would turn to boredom and does not fit the criteria of true immortality (reliving the same life over and over again is not eternal life). Or if we assume that this immortality would create new experiences and memories, then on an infinite scale this would become so large as to completely dwarf the earthly life and make all the "souls" lose their individuality.

Immortality/afterlife is a paradoxical nightmare used as a scare tactic to indoctrinate people into a religion. I highly discourage its use a tactic against atheism.

How about 3) There is no time.

When you die there is no tiny part of you that rises up to heaven and is immortal and exists infinitely. The division of body and soul is called greek dualism, but it doesn't apply to christianity. I think soul actually means person(ality). You are immortal because god recognizes you (your personality).
The whole heaven/hell concept is not about geography, but about the relationship to god. When you die you get to choose if you want to be with god or not.

^^This is the opinion of a theologist, namely Gisbert Greshake.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut While you may wish to say that there is simply no desire to self-terminate in the blissful afterlife, that idea brings other issues into question. For example, there are only a finite set of memories for the "soul" to relive, and a finite set of states for happiness - eventually they would begin to repeat and really, a repetitive cycle would turn to boredom and does not fit the criteria of true immortality (reliving the same life over and over again is not eternal life). Or if we assume that this immortality would create new experiences and memories, then on an infinite scale this would become so large as to completely dwarf the earthly life and make all the "souls" lose their individuality.

According to Greshake, you are right about the loss of identity.
Your choice - individuality or eternal bliss.

quote:

Originally posted by trancepixie17 ** First of all i was saying that you suggested that Heinz reply to all the posts. Secondly I was stating if you believe he should, if it were your thread would you have time or be able to reply to all the posts?

No, that certainly wasn't my suggestion, but it is important to understand that Heinz or anyone else for that matter shouldn't be surprised when they profess their controversial beliefs and receive numerous responses from a good number of folks here.

So let me state my point clearly: it's quite evident that his thread and beliefs are controversial. Agreed?

It's also quite evident that he expressed his opinion and beliefs in a Debate Forum, yes?

Since it was a controversial topic, and since he expressed his beliefs (that in my opinion have little supported historical evidence) in a Debate Forum, it therefore follows that he is subject to opposing views. Furthermore, since it is a debate forum, it is also good form for him or anyone else to attempt to defend those views (with supported evidence is best).

This is what was expected of him, or anyone else for that matter who decides to post opinions here.

quote:

Heinz has an opinion that some here find controversal (as it appears do you). Others responded, as did I. If he, you, or anyone else can support their opinions, I am all for it. This is the point of debate.

Oops, that's pretty much what I mentioned above. You stated this well. I believe the problem here is not what you stated, but what followed: Heinz did not support his assertions very well with sound evidence. And that's what I and a few others have been "busting his chops" over.

quote:

** OHHH.....sorry, that sounds like a personal problem to me**

Oh, just a little history behind it. Most here know what I'm referring to, but I try to keep the past behind me...

quote:

** I guess not........

Excellent! And thank you for this response. This is actually a great response in a debate forum. When you actually don't know something, or have felt that you cannot respond, this is a perfect answer.

I'm not being sarcastic here. It is truly good form to say, "I don't know" when you actually do not know something. Another alternative is not responding at all to rebuttals, and the silence is equivalent to an "I don't know" response. That is also good too. Believe me, I've had my butt handed to me on a number of issues in the past, and I've been cornered to doing both when I know my case is weak. Absolutely nothing wrong in being humbled by knowledge and good arguments.

quote:

** Keep in mind i'm probably not quite as OLD as you. ....also...i've been to church ....lets see the last time Christmas Eve. I also do not feel offended by your statement that i should "visit the chillout room". Well, if you feel that there's too much bullcrap in here, why don't you leave? I also am trying to build my debate skills, and since you will never meet me, nor will anyone else( i assume) then there is no problem making mistakes. Also, i'm having fun, too.

I would never hold your age against you. I only examine the quality of your arguments, as I would for anyone else I may disagree with. Believe me, there's plenty of bullcrap here to reach the roof, but there's also a wealth of information here too from a wide range of viewpoints. I will also never hold your mistakes against you either, provided that you recognize those mistakes when they are pointed out to you. Like I said, people point out mistakes in my arguments all the time, and I quite enjoy opposing views. It's why I'm here (plus I just love to argue like the rest of the motley bunch here), and I share your feelings of having fun as well. Just understand that it's best to be prepared to support your opinions with sound evidence; it is the underlying principle of a good debate.

With that said, I certainly hope you and Heinz stick around and continue to have fun here.

Regards,

Opus1

quote:

Originally posted by Frode How about 3) There is no time. ... The whole heaven/hell concept is not about geography, but about the relationship to god. When you die you get to choose if you want to be with god or not. ^^This is the opinion of a theologist, namely Gisbert Greshake.

How about, (3) that statement has no scientific or logical basis whatsoever. There is time, and we're aware of its existence.

I liken Greshake's argument to optical illusions which represent impossible 3D objects in 2 dimensions.

Simply because we can conceive of something does not mean that it even can exist, let alone does. The problem is that our conceived idea leaves out one or more variables that, if the idea were to be extrapolated into reality, would be forced to take on multiple or impossible values.

In the case of this optical illusion, the omitted detail is depth. The purple block must simultaneously be as high as the top blue block and as low as the bottom one, which, although it can be "drawn" in 2 dimensions, cannot actually exist in the real world.

In Grishake's example, the omitted detail is time. Yes, a lot of ideas about the afterlife might seem to make more sense if you just throw it away and pretend that it doesn't exist, but time is unfortunately a physical reality just as depth is. If we use his "theory" (I use the term very loosely), we are forced to have time be the past, present, and future, all at once.

Even if you could stretch one infinitessimal instant of time across the past and future of the entire universe and have a proverbial "freeze frame", you would still arrive at the same paradox: either there are even more miniscule instants of time inside that stretched instant (in which case there is still time), or we would have to be aware that time is in fact frozen, in which case we would still be faced with the self-termination issue (eventually we might want time to resume, i.e. want the afterlife to be terminated). You also have to keep in mind that whatever mystical or invisible energy comprises our "souls" would certainly require time to function, as all other kinds of energy do. Without time, we could not experience any sort of emotion whatsoever.

Sorry, but if you're trying to convince us that an afterlife is possible, you're going to have to find some better evidence than some crackpot Theologian's chimerical fantasies.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Allow me to back up on this before I leave for the day. I duly apologize to these individuals named "TOAD@" for calling them f$cked up. I admittedly have not read that thread, nor do I really care. I just found the name rather goofy. Nevertheless my statement was out of line. Just thought I'd mention this before I receive any specific backlash from that statement.

Heheh I just read the toad thread. No retraction needed and imo it was perfectly in line. In all honesty the probablility of even one of them working up the individuality to come in here is likely 0. They sound like candy ravers.

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok According to Josephus, Jesus was very much real.

A buddy from another forum posted on this, and he spoke quite well. I'll give him the honors of a complete quote:

"It is pretty much a standard acceptance of scholars that Testimonium Flavianum has been heavily embellished by 11th century Greek copyists; half the lines don't even resemble Josephus's style of writing. For example, in The Jewish War (written well after Jesus's death), he doesn't mention either Jesus, James, or John the Baptist; in Antiquities (90 C.E) (which includes testimonium), he mentions all three, but not in the ridiculous oggling terms seen in Antiquities. In short, he quite obviously heard of Jesus well-after the fact from the early Greek Christians, and wrote about it. Furthermore, there do exist earlier copies of Josephus's works (such as the 10th century Arabic version) which do not include the forged lines. The 10th century version (translated) reads:

'At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.'"

Here's some additional references:

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp10.htm
(very long, but worth the time)

http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...ser/hojfaq.html

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/josephus.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...5.html#josephus

In short, I believe Josephus' story about as much as I believe in my Great Cookie Monster from the planet Zoinks!

***crap, I hope that didn't upset all those new followers!***

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Heheh I just read the toad thread. No retraction needed and imo it was perfectly in line. In all honesty the probablility of even one of them working up the individuality to come in here is likely 0. They sound like candy ravers.

Go figure. Damn candy 'tards.....

I need a dictionary

First of all, I'm not trying to convince anyone that an afterlife is possible. I'm not a missionary. Many of you criticised that people use the bible as a historical sourcebook. It's not. You are right. I'm trying to offer a different view on the issue. I hope it keeps this debate interesting, at least I'm interested in your opinion about the theories I present.
(If nobody cares about such a discussion, let me know, it will save me a lot of time.)

Oh and btw, it wasn't Greshake, I'm sorry. I mixed something up.
What I posted (and will post) were the ideas of L. Boros, F. - J. Nocke, J. Ratzinger, H. Gans, Jacob Kremer, Theodor Schneider. Don't ask me which ones are whose ideas, I'm too lazy to look it up.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut How about, (3) that statement has no scientific or logical basis whatsoever. There is time, and we're aware of its existence.

No shit. The idea is that when you die, time is irrelevant. Eternity doesn't mean that there is infinite time, it means that you are superior to time. You are no longer limited by it.
Life, in the bible, means more than pure existance. It is not only a timespan, but quality (an existance with health, hapiness, wealth).
So eternal life means "quality life", and eternity is defined as the unlimited possession of life.

We imagine everything in categories of space and time, but since eternity means "not-time", the whole concept is rather hard to comprehend. Therefore the image of "paradise" is used to make it "visual".

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Simply because we can conceive of something does not mean that it even can exist, let alone does. The problem is that our conceived idea leaves out one or more variables that, if the idea were to be extrapolated into reality, would be forced to take on multiple or impossible values.

I think the main difference between your arguments and mine is that you use the known reality. I cannot give evidence for what I write. How could I prove something supernatural?
The point is: If we can't prove the existance of god, it doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there scientists who believe that there are more dimensions than time and space? Dimensions which we can't access?
Imagine a world in 2d. Now if you put a cylinder into this world, the inhabitants would only see a round wall. If you put an inhabitant on a sphere, he walks into the same direction all the time and arrives at his starting point. If you tell him that there is a third dimension, he could not understand it.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut You also have to keep in mind that whatever mystical or invisible energy comprises our "souls" would certainly require time to function, as all other kinds of energy do. Without time, we could not experience any sort of emotion whatsoever.

As I said before, we are immortal because god recognizes us. We depend on the dialogue with god. No energy.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut While you may wish to say that there is simply no desire to self-terminate in the blissful afterlife, that idea brings other issues into question. For example, there are only a finite set of memories for the "soul" to relive, and a finite set of states for happiness - eventually they would begin to repeat and really, a repetitive cycle would turn to boredom and does not fit the criteria of true immortality (reliving the same life over and over again is not eternal life).

That is, unless, god gives you alzheimer's. So you'd be happy all the time and you'd keep reliving all those happy moments like they happened for the first time. Kinda like goldfish in the aquarium. They keep rediscovering the same piece of grass over and over again!

quote:

Originally posted by Frode No shit. The idea is that when you die, time is irrelevant. Eternity doesn't mean that there is infinite time, it means that you are superior to time. You are no longer limited by it. Life, in the bible, means more than pure existance. It is not only a timespan, but quality (an existance with health, hapiness, wealth). So eternal life means "quality life", and eternity is defined as the unlimited possession of life.

We can invoke semantics to dance around the truth of any issue, but in the end, all that really matters is the evidence which you use to back up your claim. Phrases like "superior to time" or "transcending time and space" have no physical or logical meaning. They simply constitute the use of incomprehensible language in the blind hope that nonbelievers will go "duh? Well, I don't understand it but I'll take your word for it."

But why you use the inconceivable to explain things when the conceivable and known work perfectly fine? We know what time and space are, and we know what happens when people die. So why invoke the supernatural? There's no reason to assume that anything happens when we die other than the inevitable environmental decay and recycling of the matter and energy in our bodies. It's true that animals have an instinct for self-preservation, but I think the emotional "fear" of death is something which is created by, not consoled by, most major religions.

quote:

We imagine everything in categories of space and time, but since eternity means "not-time", the whole concept is rather hard to comprehend. Therefore the image of "paradise" is used to make it "visual".

The problem is that we don't "imagine" things in categories of space and time, we know that they exist and understand most of their properties. What rational person would willingly accept that there is any plane of existence where all known laws can suddenly be broken?

quote:

I think the main difference between your arguments and mine is that you use the known reality. I cannot give evidence for what I write. How could I prove something supernatural?

If you can't give scientific evidence or at least logical rationale, then your argument has no relevance to this debate.

quote:

The point is: If we can't prove the existance of god, it doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there scientists who believe that there are more dimensions than time and space? Dimensions which we can't access?

This is true, the lack of proof of a positive does not constitute proof of the negative. I never said it did (which is more than the average Creationist can say in his or her defense).

However - and keeping in mind that this was originally intended to be about the after-life and not God - the fact that the very notion of God is a logical paradox and that no theory or hypothesis exists which can account for it, generally WOULD mean that there is no God, at least in the scientific world.

I do not believe that there are any reputable scientists who have postulated that there are "dimensions which we can't access" - if you are referring to things like hypercubes and supercubes, they are merely mathematical constructs and are not meant to reflect anything in the physical world.

quote:

Imagine a world in 2d. Now if you put a cylinder into this world, the inhabitants would only see a round wall. If you put an inhabitant on a sphere, he walks into the same direction all the time and arrives at his starting point. If you tell him that there is a third dimension, he could not understand it.

There is no such thing as a world in 2D. I've heard religious people use this argument all the time but it falls flat on its face in the first sentence! Physical dimensions are merely a mathematical model for a well-understood physical reality.

Mathematically speaking, it is flagrantly fallacious to truncate an existing set into a smaller subset and attempt to use that truncation as proof that the original universal set was truncated off of a larger set. This is precisely what you've attempted to do. Of COURSE 3D objects appear flattened when projected onto a 2D surface - but that's not evidence for claiming that the 3D objects we see are "flattened" from a 4D universe. It's merely a fantasy, a philosophical masturbation. A 2D universe cannot physically exist any more than a 4D universe can - even the ink that comes out of your pen when you draw on a piece of paper has some thickness.

To the contrary of your argument though, we have already seen that it is possible to create in 2 dimensions depictions of objects which simply cannot exist in 3. It therefore makes sense that we are capable of creating constructs in 3 dimensions that can't exist in higher dimensions, and in fact, when you consider time to be the 4th dimension, that is exactly what you are doing with the afterlife - using the flattened 4th dimension to imply a physical reality which is impossible when we attempt to re-add that 4th dimension and extrapolate the construct into real space and time.

Claiming that time ceases to exist in a spiritual plane requires the reduction of a real dimension to a singularity, and no cosmologist, physicist, or mathematician will tell you that such a thing would actually be possible. I cannot imagine living in a 4-dimensional plane any more than I can imagine living in a 2-dimensional plane (is there anyone here who can actually imagine being a cartoon character on a TV screen or a piece of paper?)

quote:

As I said before, we are immortal because god recognizes us. We depend on the dialogue with god. No energy.

No evidence = no argument.

To summarize, you're trying to expound on a theory for which we haven't accepted the initial postulates. People grow so accustomed to such fallacious theories that they start to treat those postulates as axiomatic and assume that other people must therefore also accept them. But no matter how much you explain and embellish your theory, it still rests squarely on the shoulders of a belief in God and the existence of the supernatural, and it's not going to make any sense to people who don't believe in it to begin with. The postulates are paradoxical and untestable, and thus are not going to be accepted by anyone with a rational mind.

quote:

Originally posted by nic01445 so, which is it? God punishes people or not? You imply that he does, by saying that Cyrus will find out the hard way, then you say he doesnt just a few sentences later.

Freewill, It's Cyrus' choice. Jesus died on the cross so that none of us would have to go to hell. It's not God's fault that Cyrus chooses not to follow Him.

quote:

okay, here is the problem. There is just as much "proof" that Zeus exists than there is proof that god exists. So, your argument could apply to anything that has yet to be proven. Why dont I believe in god? Simple! I know he's not real.

God is real, I know it. I can't quite explain it to you,because you'll just make fun of me,or anyone else who says they've had the same thing happen to them. But, God is real. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Here's a cute little bunny for you to play with. Now shut the hell up and go ask your daddy why God lets girls half your age get raped every second day. Some people wouldn't know reality if it were crammed so far up their ass that it came out their nose.

He isn't " daddy ". Further more, That isn't God's fault. You keep forgetting about freewill. We live in a sinful world. Of course God doesn't like seeing these kinds of things happen,but they do.

I know a lot more about life than you think, thank you very much. You have no idea how much crap I've been put through.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 God is real, I know it. I can't quite explain it to you,because you'll just make fun of me,or anyone else who says they've had the same thing happen to them. But, God is real. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever.

No, you can't quite explain it because YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE F$CK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!

GO AWAY!

quote:

I know a lot more about life than you think, thank you very much. You have no idea how much crap I've been put through.

Nor do I CARE! It's of NO RELEVANCE TO THIS DEBATE!

ARGH!!!

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut No, you can't quite explain it because YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE F$CK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT! GO AWAY!

No,That would be you. You aren't in my brain,you haven't lived my life. I know what happened,you don't.

quote:

Nor do I CARE! It's of NO RELEVANCE TO THIS DEBATE! ARGH!!!

That's right,this is a debate. Better wise up,and stop acting immature. This isn't a place to fling around insults. If you aren't going to stick to the subject,and debate in the correct manner,you have no business here.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 No,That would be you. You aren't in my brain,you haven't lived my life. I know what happened,you don't. That's right,this is a debate. Better wise up,and stop acting immature. This isn't a place to fling around insults. If you aren't going to stick to the subject,and debate in the correct manner,you have no business here.

GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY

...please?

All of you, save your lives and convert to Islam!!

Come on Nellie what are you trying to achieve? Personally I think that you are trying convince yourself of your improbable believes. I think you already have alot of doubts and thats why you keep posting on this forum.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.