Actually the book was written by many different people, supposedly his disciples who were told how to write it by God, but still not written by God, which isn't disputed by religious officials, whether that makes it more or less believable is up to youSnakeoilSage said:
Proselytize me! Yes, go ahead and try to evangelize me if you dare...
- Thread starter SidingWithTheEnemy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't follow you. I get out of the elevator, I'm minding my own business, not paying attention to anyone else in the hall, and the guy must have tried to make eye contact which failed. So, when I passed by him he, he pushed the book, which was less than an inch thick, into my palm, and my natural reaction was to close my hand.Furioso said:
Again, not following you on that one.
I like how this entire thread has become a Flame War about religion. This is one battlefield that I refuse to fight on, so I leave you with this, OP:
Did you really summon a sort of Eldritch Terror, or were you making some sort of metaphor? If so, that's too bad. An Eldritch Terror would be nice every once and a while.
Did you really summon a sort of Eldritch Terror, or were you making some sort of metaphor? If so, that's too bad. An Eldritch Terror would be nice every once and a while.
Just the way you described it confused me, like if you are walking your hands are swinging at your sides, making it hard to put anything directly into them, but if they just kind of pushed a bible right in front of your face the natural instinct would be to grab the book, the point I was trying to make (very badly now that I reread it) was that if they had forced it directly into your palm I probably would have bashed them over the head with the book, as opposed to if they pushed it at you and you grabbed it instinctively, and the way I read it made it seem as if they had physically forced you to take the bookGiest4life said:
Not sure who Tide-Lant is, but for me having many authors over long periods of time presents more of a possibility that the writers didn't write everything down as truthfully as they could have, after all, a little embellishment is always a popular move when you try to turn people to your way of thinkingSnakeoilSage said:
Firefly is really cool and if you don't think so you must not be that into sci-fi!
I do that every time someone gives me a bible. It is so satisfying.Giest4life said:
Tide is the laundry detergent.Furioso said:
Lant is fermented urine used as a solvent.
*Coughs*
One would have to assume that the disciples actually wrote their books. If I recall correctly their stories weren't added to the bible until around 300 AD or so. That's an abnormally long time for such sizeable manuscripts written by dirt-poor men living on the Roman frontier to survive.
I don't think paper even existed back then. People used vellum didn't they?
I shall proclameth the truth and will not desist until you concedeth
Star Wars beats the crap out of Star Trek
huh...proselytize, you learn a new word some days.
I'll have a go, then. I'll take the Christian route. Feel free to rebut.
(N.B. this is Christianity as I perceive it, obviously different to anyone else's view)
(tl;dr: try believing for a bit. If you fail, then either God didn't want you in his new creation, or He doesn't exist in the Christian form)
Spoiler used since I ended up writing a veritable essay of something most people won't want to read. Both my first real internet post and first attempt at evangelising so I got a bit excited, sorry.
Read at risk of boredom.
I'll have a go, then. I'll take the Christian route. Feel free to rebut.
(N.B. this is Christianity as I perceive it, obviously different to anyone else's view)
(tl;dr: try believing for a bit. If you fail, then either God didn't want you in his new creation, or He doesn't exist in the Christian form)
Spoiler used since I ended up writing a veritable essay of something most people won't want to read. Both my first real internet post and first attempt at evangelising so I got a bit excited, sorry.
Read at risk of boredom.
I think it's pretty obvious that there's no watertight logical argument for or against any major world view, or else large numbers of intelligent people wouldn't hold said views. What differs, then are the assumptions that one starts with.Science starts with some pretty basic ones such as
"what we perceive reflects reality, which we are capable of understanding"
and then some more depending on what specifically is being experimented on and then throws itself at reality to see which assumptions and theories hold up. As such, so long as we perceive similar realities (which nearly everyone does), it is logically impossible to fault the ideas held true by science.
Christianity starts with "the Bible is the ultimate truth", which raises the question about changes being made over the course of thousands of years and who exactly chose what to include. If however you accept that the Bible has changed little through translation and the passage of time (historians support this claim), then the general message of the bible (fairly impossible to have changed) indicates that God would not pull a dick move like preventing people from being able to see this ultimate truth if it was ever true to start with (our basic assumption). The bible teaches that we can do essentially nothing good (biblically defined to be pleasing to God) ourselves, so if anyone who was ever Christian was prompted to do so by God, then there is no contradiction in God ensuring the Bible remains in a truthful form in the mainstream. Indeed I reckon He postpones the biblical final judgement because he is inviting more people to follow Christ. Oral traditions were important enough back in the day that i feel i can apply this to cultures without readily available pen and paper.
Starting from this point, I think it is intellectually sound to believe the minimal axioms required for science to generate itself. (just stick an "except when God chooses to fiddle things" clause in everything and we're done, though there are more pleasing axiomatisations)
For those who still find issue with simultaneous belief in God and Science, consider by analogy wave-particle duality, or more crudely the answer to the question why is the water in the kettle boiling? This has answer 1:"hydrocarbons are chemically reacting transferring kinetic energy to the water raising the vapour pressure of the water to the atmospheric pressure so that the particles are able to freely move in the air" and answer 2:"I decided I wanted to drink some tea" can be true at the same time. (There is no apparent contradiction here, however which I why I prefer quantum analogies for many confusing religious concepts, eg entanglement helps me understand determined free will)
But why would we bother to go through all this faff? Surely the scientific beliefs are sufficient. Why arbitrarily bring God into it? Well those who believe such things think that the scientific explanation is not complete (which scientists ideologically acknowledge) and crucially that they are aware of a more complete explanation.
The reasons for this belief are what Christians will normally use when trying to evangelise: coherency of Old testament with accounts of Jesus; the extant historical evidence; the sudden (original)success of Christianity, particularly in the face of persecution; as well as general religious arguments such as the moral arrow. If you are an atheist/agnostic/etc, you have your own God-less explanations for these phenomena, which I will not try to change (if you have been bothered to read this far you no doubt know much more about them than I), since once you believe you know all the vital information, your decision is a personal choice.
The reasons why I decided to explore Christianity further are:
First, that as outlined above I saw no contradiction on the surface level (many touted biblical contradictions occur near enough on the same page of the Bible, so I think they serve to encourage thought and understanding)
and second, that Christianity offers a test on the personal level.
Jeremiah (old test.) says "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart". Happily then, if we seek God with all our heart and don't find him, Christianity and Science indicate the non-existance of God. A big if, certainly. Humans are very bad at knowing what they think, if they even have a belief/opinion about something. As mentioned earlier though, God helps us to find him if he wishes us to. So if you seek him with what you can tell yourself yourself is as close to all your heart as you can manage, and find no convincing evidence for God, then I believe you were one of the many that God (seemingly arbitrarily from our POV) chose not to invite into his new kingdom, and you can more confidently believe that you were right to doubt Christianity.
Jermeiah being in the old testament, and a positive result on seeking God would seem to indicate Judaism as also being true, but Christians believe Jeremiah and indeed all the Bible is infact pointing to Jesus so it is in fact Jesus you are meant to seek (this specultion is echoed in Matthew 7:7 and John 14:6), and that Jews are missing the point. Of course logically one could conclude that Judaism has the truth of it, the Messiah has not yet come and that Christians are optimistic blasphemers. I chose not to as it was far less effort on my part to find an evangelising Church than a Synagogue. I don't think this affects the truth of what I believe, however.
Embarking with a faith tantamount to the argument above, I went and listened and seeing no contradictions but instead evidence for truthfulness, I began to believe. Many things make more sense as one delves deeper into the Bible (such as why so many do not believe if it is true and God wills for believers [answer I found: God enjoys trolling the wise (1 corinthians 1:19) ] ) while many things uncomfortably seem to be inconsistent and wrong. Most of the latter I have resolved in my mind, some less satisfactorily than others (e.g. in the same book, 1 corinth. 14:34 one of the more unavoidably sexist lines of the bible), but overall my belief in it has increased.
Final remarks:
I make no promises that what I experienced will be similar to what you experience should you choose a similar path. Even if it is similar, you could interpret it in a very different manner. I only urge you to try. You may be interested to note that the reason I do this, and why most other Christians will say they do this, is that it is one of their more important, or certainly one of the more obvious purposes in life, as outlined for them in the Bible. Obviously if I think evangelising is one of the reasons for our ongoing existence I will be more inclined to do it. I like existing.
I realise that wanting God to be real in the Christian sense at the beginning of my venture, and this desire increasing as I wanted the increased time spent on it to end up fruitful, will have affected my interpretations and beliefs, but don't really care for reasons that can be inferred from this accidental essay. Similarly I don't really care that my parents identifying themselves as Christian and living in a post-Christian society have greatly influenced my decision.
I acknowledge my ignorance of the vast majority of world views and intend to look into them at some point. Unfortunately with insufficient urgency to be intellectually honest (i.e. about the same as the average reader of this will have to take action), but meh, Im already nearly failing my degree.
The reason I am willing to allow a place for human determination of how hard one has tried in searching for Jesus is from passages such as Romans 14, which indicate God taking into account human consciences. I am solid on this stance, as discussed below.
On the human side of things, I perceive all qualities to be on a continuous, if uncertain, scale which I will analogise to the real number line. Adding belief in a Christian God results in the extended real line (+ve infinity=God, -ve infinity = Satan) (yes, I am inclined to believe Satan exists, he is implied by the Bible and his existence seems less contrived than the existence of a Holy Spirit, which turns out to be fundamentally relevant to nearly everything else).
This of course extends to Biblically important things such as extent of "Belief in Christ", "moral goodness", "effort put into searching" and so on. Now on some things like the morality the Bible says that Christians become on the whole more moral over time, and that on death become perfectly good. There may well be a different path for that quality required for being a Christian, however - namely a belief in Christ as the Bible portrays. This is something I do not understand. Does God choose to increase one of our qualities to +inf while we are in our imperfect forms? Does God arbitrarily pick a value of belief (possibly depending on the individual) which must be surpassed at some point in life or at the final moment of consciousness? Does ANY belief at any point suffice? (this I doubt as it is difficult to consider a proposition without at some level considering it to be true) Is my model flawed? (I think this the most likely)
I believe the later books of the Bible to be scripture (i.e. truth) stems from my belief that the gospels and old testament to be truth due to fairly common reasons, briefly discussed above. One of the writers of the Gospel wrote Acts which states that the writings of some mentioned within are Scripture (this includes the Gospel). Thus the writings of Paul, Peter, etc. are scripture. I am less sure about revelations. see
[link]http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/texts/revelation.shtml[/link]
Of course I could choose to believe that the Bible is merely an account of Jesus' life which has been embellished, but that belief in Jesus is still sufficient for salvation. Likely this is what I "truly believe deep down" (if this is defined) (possibly minus the truth of Christianity in general) but consciously I try to believe in the fundamental truth of the Bible. Because I chose to. After much pondering on the matter last year I decided "meh, i'll give it a go, see what happens". I like much of what I see, am discomforted by some, but more importantly for the purposes of this thread I am lead to reject the null-hypothesis God does not exist, and weakly lead to accept the hypothesis that God exists.
"what we perceive reflects reality, which we are capable of understanding"
and then some more depending on what specifically is being experimented on and then throws itself at reality to see which assumptions and theories hold up. As such, so long as we perceive similar realities (which nearly everyone does), it is logically impossible to fault the ideas held true by science.
Christianity starts with "the Bible is the ultimate truth", which raises the question about changes being made over the course of thousands of years and who exactly chose what to include. If however you accept that the Bible has changed little through translation and the passage of time (historians support this claim), then the general message of the bible (fairly impossible to have changed) indicates that God would not pull a dick move like preventing people from being able to see this ultimate truth if it was ever true to start with (our basic assumption). The bible teaches that we can do essentially nothing good (biblically defined to be pleasing to God) ourselves, so if anyone who was ever Christian was prompted to do so by God, then there is no contradiction in God ensuring the Bible remains in a truthful form in the mainstream. Indeed I reckon He postpones the biblical final judgement because he is inviting more people to follow Christ. Oral traditions were important enough back in the day that i feel i can apply this to cultures without readily available pen and paper.
Starting from this point, I think it is intellectually sound to believe the minimal axioms required for science to generate itself. (just stick an "except when God chooses to fiddle things" clause in everything and we're done, though there are more pleasing axiomatisations)
For those who still find issue with simultaneous belief in God and Science, consider by analogy wave-particle duality, or more crudely the answer to the question why is the water in the kettle boiling? This has answer 1:"hydrocarbons are chemically reacting transferring kinetic energy to the water raising the vapour pressure of the water to the atmospheric pressure so that the particles are able to freely move in the air" and answer 2:"I decided I wanted to drink some tea" can be true at the same time. (There is no apparent contradiction here, however which I why I prefer quantum analogies for many confusing religious concepts, eg entanglement helps me understand determined free will)
But why would we bother to go through all this faff? Surely the scientific beliefs are sufficient. Why arbitrarily bring God into it? Well those who believe such things think that the scientific explanation is not complete (which scientists ideologically acknowledge) and crucially that they are aware of a more complete explanation.
The reasons for this belief are what Christians will normally use when trying to evangelise: coherency of Old testament with accounts of Jesus; the extant historical evidence; the sudden (original)success of Christianity, particularly in the face of persecution; as well as general religious arguments such as the moral arrow. If you are an atheist/agnostic/etc, you have your own God-less explanations for these phenomena, which I will not try to change (if you have been bothered to read this far you no doubt know much more about them than I), since once you believe you know all the vital information, your decision is a personal choice.
The reasons why I decided to explore Christianity further are:
First, that as outlined above I saw no contradiction on the surface level (many touted biblical contradictions occur near enough on the same page of the Bible, so I think they serve to encourage thought and understanding)
and second, that Christianity offers a test on the personal level.
Jeremiah (old test.) says "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart". Happily then, if we seek God with all our heart and don't find him, Christianity and Science indicate the non-existance of God. A big if, certainly. Humans are very bad at knowing what they think, if they even have a belief/opinion about something. As mentioned earlier though, God helps us to find him if he wishes us to. So if you seek him with what you can tell yourself yourself is as close to all your heart as you can manage, and find no convincing evidence for God, then I believe you were one of the many that God (seemingly arbitrarily from our POV) chose not to invite into his new kingdom, and you can more confidently believe that you were right to doubt Christianity.
Jermeiah being in the old testament, and a positive result on seeking God would seem to indicate Judaism as also being true, but Christians believe Jeremiah and indeed all the Bible is infact pointing to Jesus so it is in fact Jesus you are meant to seek (this specultion is echoed in Matthew 7:7 and John 14:6), and that Jews are missing the point. Of course logically one could conclude that Judaism has the truth of it, the Messiah has not yet come and that Christians are optimistic blasphemers. I chose not to as it was far less effort on my part to find an evangelising Church than a Synagogue. I don't think this affects the truth of what I believe, however.
Embarking with a faith tantamount to the argument above, I went and listened and seeing no contradictions but instead evidence for truthfulness, I began to believe. Many things make more sense as one delves deeper into the Bible (such as why so many do not believe if it is true and God wills for believers [answer I found: God enjoys trolling the wise (1 corinthians 1:19) ] ) while many things uncomfortably seem to be inconsistent and wrong. Most of the latter I have resolved in my mind, some less satisfactorily than others (e.g. in the same book, 1 corinth. 14:34 one of the more unavoidably sexist lines of the bible), but overall my belief in it has increased.
Final remarks:
I make no promises that what I experienced will be similar to what you experience should you choose a similar path. Even if it is similar, you could interpret it in a very different manner. I only urge you to try. You may be interested to note that the reason I do this, and why most other Christians will say they do this, is that it is one of their more important, or certainly one of the more obvious purposes in life, as outlined for them in the Bible. Obviously if I think evangelising is one of the reasons for our ongoing existence I will be more inclined to do it. I like existing.
I realise that wanting God to be real in the Christian sense at the beginning of my venture, and this desire increasing as I wanted the increased time spent on it to end up fruitful, will have affected my interpretations and beliefs, but don't really care for reasons that can be inferred from this accidental essay. Similarly I don't really care that my parents identifying themselves as Christian and living in a post-Christian society have greatly influenced my decision.
I acknowledge my ignorance of the vast majority of world views and intend to look into them at some point. Unfortunately with insufficient urgency to be intellectually honest (i.e. about the same as the average reader of this will have to take action), but meh, Im already nearly failing my degree.
The reason I am willing to allow a place for human determination of how hard one has tried in searching for Jesus is from passages such as Romans 14, which indicate God taking into account human consciences. I am solid on this stance, as discussed below.
On the human side of things, I perceive all qualities to be on a continuous, if uncertain, scale which I will analogise to the real number line. Adding belief in a Christian God results in the extended real line (+ve infinity=God, -ve infinity = Satan) (yes, I am inclined to believe Satan exists, he is implied by the Bible and his existence seems less contrived than the existence of a Holy Spirit, which turns out to be fundamentally relevant to nearly everything else).
This of course extends to Biblically important things such as extent of "Belief in Christ", "moral goodness", "effort put into searching" and so on. Now on some things like the morality the Bible says that Christians become on the whole more moral over time, and that on death become perfectly good. There may well be a different path for that quality required for being a Christian, however - namely a belief in Christ as the Bible portrays. This is something I do not understand. Does God choose to increase one of our qualities to +inf while we are in our imperfect forms? Does God arbitrarily pick a value of belief (possibly depending on the individual) which must be surpassed at some point in life or at the final moment of consciousness? Does ANY belief at any point suffice? (this I doubt as it is difficult to consider a proposition without at some level considering it to be true) Is my model flawed? (I think this the most likely)
I believe the later books of the Bible to be scripture (i.e. truth) stems from my belief that the gospels and old testament to be truth due to fairly common reasons, briefly discussed above. One of the writers of the Gospel wrote Acts which states that the writings of some mentioned within are Scripture (this includes the Gospel). Thus the writings of Paul, Peter, etc. are scripture. I am less sure about revelations. see
[link]http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/texts/revelation.shtml[/link]
Of course I could choose to believe that the Bible is merely an account of Jesus' life which has been embellished, but that belief in Jesus is still sufficient for salvation. Likely this is what I "truly believe deep down" (if this is defined) (possibly minus the truth of Christianity in general) but consciously I try to believe in the fundamental truth of the Bible. Because I chose to. After much pondering on the matter last year I decided "meh, i'll give it a go, see what happens". I like much of what I see, am discomforted by some, but more importantly for the purposes of this thread I am lead to reject the null-hypothesis God does not exist, and weakly lead to accept the hypothesis that God exists.
You are a sad, sad person with delusions of importance. First off, ever considered that they might be sharing youtube clips and meme pics SIMPLY because they think of it as a way to help express their reaction? Because if you think they are posting them to convert others to their fandoms, you are SERIOUSLY thick-headed.SidingWithTheEnemy said:
But, really, I just thought I'd get that out of the way before moving on to what REALLY P****s me off about your post; avatars.
How dare you HOW DARE YOU feel you have any sort of rights over someone else's window of identity. A FREAKING AVATAR! GET OVER YOURSELF! If someone is a fan of something they have EVERY RIGHT UNDER THE SUN to put it as their avatar. IT'S THEIRS. And you have no right to complain simply because you don't like what they like.
It is childish. You are childish. And I am done here.
So far this thread turned out much different that I anticipated so I try to give all of you short replys, just check your post number and see the reply I got for you. I hope you like this style and I think all of you deserve a reply and the notion that somebody perused your posts.
2&3) Considering the first two answers and how I laughed because of them, the work of writing this thread was already worth it.
4) Yes, we have all been there, I presume. Maybe you can try to use it for something more sophisticate, to light your bonfire at the summer camp or to put it under your table stablize and compensate the imbalance at least it would have served a purpose then.
5) Yes, almost got me there, but I don't give a f*ck joining some club.
6) I don't like any kind insurance policies, they usually have a catch. Oh and the others already pointed out the other logical discrepancies there.
7) Sorry, too late, I already like Black Adder.
9) Not true
10) True
11) This is getting too complicated. The Universal Truth? (©) is easy.
12) Yes, you are right, you are not me! But am I you? Do you agree or not?
13) See 4) Recycling isn't always the best way to deal with things.
14) Nice thought, but how did you find out? Do you know him personally?
15) I don't get your post. And no I haven't heard of it. But some Fire&Brimstone rain would be nice, would kill off all those pesky insects bothering me.
16) No, it's not. But yes you are right afterwards.
17) Hey, I'm the OP and the attention whore here, try to evangelize me, not him! Go Check my Post!
18) Been there, done that. Wasn't that funny. Which chilli by the way?
19) Interesting thought pattern. Is there yet another voice in your head that is humming the tetris melody?
20) Uuuuh, I like game theory. Mathematical application to real world debates is fun.
21) No kidding (sorry that was sarcastic) It's interesting that you had to point that out. Like "It's not me, it's him!"
22) No comment. *chuckles*
23) Start an appreciation thread maybe I join maybe not, still it doesn't really fit to my thread so go and go see my 17) comment.
24) No, but it was subtle enough that you may try again later and non offensive enough that I don't hate you know.
25) Interesting that people interpred my post so differently, did I do that on purpose? I'm not going to tell you, or am I? I've not decided yet.
26) It was rude to force this "trash" to him in the first place. You don't hand over a used diaper to someone and say: "enjoy". That's rude. Even if you think, that's not a used diaper it's the book containing The Universal Truth? (©)
27) You again? You like reading your own post don't you! Don't feel bad, I like my own post as well. Go check my 17) comment
29) Soo many links. But yes, the conversation is going into a completely different direction.
30) Congratulations you found The Universal Truth? (©) especially there after your "Edit:"
31) I dun't belive you. I'm skeptikal off peopl wiht too many spellling mistackes.
32) Bacon? Where?
33) Yes now scroll up and read my 17) comment
34) Well honestly, you're not cool enough for your clubs to be joined! I'm sorry but The Universal Truth? (©) sometimes hurts.
35) Yes, check my comments in 4) & 17)
36) Good one! Thank you! But I already joined that cult. Oh and be careful of your most devouted cultists they suffer from hyperventilation.
37) No, it's a thread to specifically confuse you, or maybe not. Hmmh maybe I confused the threads, no I know what I am talking about, do I?
38) Sorry, but you sound like one of those who attend these weekly meetings of the Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)
39) Should I be disgusted by your post? I don't get it.
40) See my comment on 4) 17) 26) and 35)
41) Yaaay!!! Good choice! No go out and evanglize the others of our The Universal Truth? (©) so that they stop bothering us!
Or maybe don't...
42) Look at my avatar. You are late, as always!
43) Uhm... See comments 17 and 27 again)
44) Yeah, alright I don't need to say anymore on this topic.
45) Metaphor, but you can judge for yourself how appropriate that metaphor is.
46) See 17) and 44)
47) Again? Go check the usual suspects (of my comments) and read 44)
49) Too late. Oh and there are more satisfying uses...
50) I don't understand your post.
51) I didn't read your post. (I'm honest)
52) Oh another one found The Universal Truth? (©)
53) Interesting Animated Gif. Which film is it? Citizen Kane? So many questions, why are you asking them? Do you really want an answer to them? Isn't it obvious? Almost 50 other people understood it, so why don't you? Did I pose enough questions now or shall I go on?
54) Nitpicking and boasting knowledge is so much fun. I try to do it to as often as possible. You are expecting they are going to ask for "vellum" right? Doesn't matter, they can look it up with google.
55) Sounds fancy enough, go on please!
56) Well, at least the Escapist's Forum was useful for something. Oh, welcome here, have a nice stay and learn more words.
57) I'm sorry. I thought you might want to hear an apology but I can't possible grasp what I did wrong here. Either you or me is missing the point here. So you either calm down, stop abuse the CAPS LOCK button and stop insulting me or get even angrier and die of a heart attack and high blood pressure. The choice is yours.
58) Oh, hello, it's been a while I've read something about you. Thank you for being a regular poster in my thread.
59) Oh you again, thank you for rushing to my defense. Really, I mean it. But you should be careful if you are telling others what I meant. This is exactly evangelizing. While you have interpreted it this way, there might be other (valid) ways to do so. Especially since the author is alive and currently reading the thread its rather dangerous to force your interpretation onto others, because I know what I meant while all the others just use their interpretation.
2&3) Considering the first two answers and how I laughed because of them, the work of writing this thread was already worth it.
4) Yes, we have all been there, I presume. Maybe you can try to use it for something more sophisticate, to light your bonfire at the summer camp or to put it under your table stablize and compensate the imbalance at least it would have served a purpose then.
5) Yes, almost got me there, but I don't give a f*ck joining some club.
6) I don't like any kind insurance policies, they usually have a catch. Oh and the others already pointed out the other logical discrepancies there.
7) Sorry, too late, I already like Black Adder.
9) Not true
10) True
11) This is getting too complicated. The Universal Truth? (©) is easy.
12) Yes, you are right, you are not me! But am I you? Do you agree or not?
13) See 4) Recycling isn't always the best way to deal with things.
14) Nice thought, but how did you find out? Do you know him personally?
15) I don't get your post. And no I haven't heard of it. But some Fire&Brimstone rain would be nice, would kill off all those pesky insects bothering me.
16) No, it's not. But yes you are right afterwards.
17) Hey, I'm the OP and the attention whore here, try to evangelize me, not him! Go Check my Post!
18) Been there, done that. Wasn't that funny. Which chilli by the way?
19) Interesting thought pattern. Is there yet another voice in your head that is humming the tetris melody?
20) Uuuuh, I like game theory. Mathematical application to real world debates is fun.
21) No kidding (sorry that was sarcastic) It's interesting that you had to point that out. Like "It's not me, it's him!"
22) No comment. *chuckles*
23) Start an appreciation thread maybe I join maybe not, still it doesn't really fit to my thread so go and go see my 17) comment.
24) No, but it was subtle enough that you may try again later and non offensive enough that I don't hate you know.
25) Interesting that people interpred my post so differently, did I do that on purpose? I'm not going to tell you, or am I? I've not decided yet.
26) It was rude to force this "trash" to him in the first place. You don't hand over a used diaper to someone and say: "enjoy". That's rude. Even if you think, that's not a used diaper it's the book containing The Universal Truth? (©)
27) You again? You like reading your own post don't you! Don't feel bad, I like my own post as well. Go check my 17) comment
29) Soo many links. But yes, the conversation is going into a completely different direction.
30) Congratulations you found The Universal Truth? (©) especially there after your "Edit:"
31) I dun't belive you. I'm skeptikal off peopl wiht too many spellling mistackes.
32) Bacon? Where?
33) Yes now scroll up and read my 17) comment
34) Well honestly, you're not cool enough for your clubs to be joined! I'm sorry but The Universal Truth? (©) sometimes hurts.
35) Yes, check my comments in 4) & 17)
36) Good one! Thank you! But I already joined that cult. Oh and be careful of your most devouted cultists they suffer from hyperventilation.
37) No, it's a thread to specifically confuse you, or maybe not. Hmmh maybe I confused the threads, no I know what I am talking about, do I?
38) Sorry, but you sound like one of those who attend these weekly meetings of the Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)
39) Should I be disgusted by your post? I don't get it.
40) See my comment on 4) 17) 26) and 35)
41) Yaaay!!! Good choice! No go out and evanglize the others of our The Universal Truth? (©) so that they stop bothering us!
Or maybe don't...42) Look at my avatar. You are late, as always!
43) Uhm... See comments 17 and 27 again)
44) Yeah, alright I don't need to say anymore on this topic.
45) Metaphor, but you can judge for yourself how appropriate that metaphor is.
46) See 17) and 44)
47) Again? Go check the usual suspects (of my comments) and read 44)
49) Too late. Oh and there are more satisfying uses...
50) I don't understand your post.
51) I didn't read your post. (I'm honest)
52) Oh another one found The Universal Truth? (©)
53) Interesting Animated Gif. Which film is it? Citizen Kane? So many questions, why are you asking them? Do you really want an answer to them? Isn't it obvious? Almost 50 other people understood it, so why don't you? Did I pose enough questions now or shall I go on?
54) Nitpicking and boasting knowledge is so much fun. I try to do it to as often as possible. You are expecting they are going to ask for "vellum" right? Doesn't matter, they can look it up with google.
55) Sounds fancy enough, go on please!
56) Well, at least the Escapist's Forum was useful for something. Oh, welcome here, have a nice stay and learn more words.
57) I'm sorry. I thought you might want to hear an apology but I can't possible grasp what I did wrong here. Either you or me is missing the point here. So you either calm down, stop abuse the CAPS LOCK button and stop insulting me or get even angrier and die of a heart attack and high blood pressure. The choice is yours.
58) Oh, hello, it's been a while I've read something about you. Thank you for being a regular poster in my thread.
59) Oh you again, thank you for rushing to my defense. Really, I mean it. But you should be careful if you are telling others what I meant. This is exactly evangelizing. While you have interpreted it this way, there might be other (valid) ways to do so. Especially since the author is alive and currently reading the thread its rather dangerous to force your interpretation onto others, because I know what I meant while all the others just use their interpretation.
Yeah, you're right. Thanks, that actually helped me a bit. I still do beleive, but I still agree with you on that.SirBryghtside said:Well, seeing as the other guy I quoted was myself...SteakHeart said:
But I guess my point is that don'e do a Pascal, or believe in something because of outside pressure. Or the other way round - don't stop believing just because it's the 'cool' thing to do. Your beliefs are your beliefs, and lying to yourself will get you nowhere.
You, sir, need an award. *Begins smelting gold into a medal*