DubStyle311

Yes, he would be forgiven by God. That does not mean he would "go to heaven".

One would think, that become the antichrist, one would have to do some pretty demented stuff. The Church teaches that these terrible deeds would have an effect on that person that makes them unable to truely love. Think about it, Hitler, Stalin, Saddam -- Megalomaniacal sociopaths. Do you really think that these people are capable of experiance deep love?

They would be forgiven by God and he would offer them his love. Their souls would be so hardend, they would not really be able to feel it - hence, they are in hell.

And P.S.

Being a confirmed Roman Catholic does not mean you understand what the modern Catholic Church teaches. Most of the people who teach kids about Catholicism don't even understand the official Church teaching.

__________________
I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

JcP

Best post of the night, in my opinion.

snapshot

Well, the modern catholic church teaches that it's not OK to wear condoms, thereby spreading ignorance throughout the world with missionaries who teach eternal damnation for all those who choose to engage in premarital sex, thusly causing the spread of AIDS and unwanted pregnancies in third world countries, thereby contributing to suffering around the world.

It doesn't change the fact that if you don't believe in any of it they tell you that you ARE going to hell. That if you don't follow their rules for getting close to God you can never be close to God. It teaches that for in order to be close to God you have to have faith that their bullshit sacraments actually mean something.

The Roman Catholic Church is probably the biggest bunch of bullshitters I've ever known. A committee gets to vote on whether holy texts are allowed into the Bible? God's law is not about democracy. It's about following the rules to get into heaven, or breaking them and going to hell. You don't need to catholic church to tell you how to live your life.

Though, I will admit Catholic priests are some of the more levelheaded guys I've known. Though one of our former priests was accused of sexually molesting one of the alter boys (I posted a thread about it) he was still pretty cool.

In short, there's no reason to believe in any of that unless you actually think there is such a place as heaven and hell. And you wouldn't even know about heaven and hell unless you were raised in such an environment as the catholic church. They were the first christian church after all, based on the bible, which has been thoroughly to be bullshit.

__________________
We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-Richard Dawkins

snapshot

Not because any of it is based on truth, so it must make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

__________________
We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-Richard Dawkins

DubStyle311

Basically snap, it sounds to me like you have very little understanding of what the Church actually teaches.

Its not you're fault really, the problem comes from several places.

1) The church today has done a huge reversal from the church 80 years ago. Because of this, their are a still a lot of Roman Catholics who belive in Pre-Vatican Counsel teachings. In many ways, there are two schools of thought that currently exist in catholicism. Most of you're anger seems to stem from the way the church used to operate. Not what it actually teaches in 2006. Yes, they are still agaisnt condoms and premarital sex, but they generally do not teach that using a condom before/during marraige = hell. I can go into much more deatail concerning that apparently contradictory statement if you really want me to.

2) Most catholics learn about catholicism at a young age, mostly before highschool weather it be religion class or CCD. In reality, Catholicism is an extremly complex relgion that is impossible for someone that young to really understand. That means that the ideas that most people get about Catholism are extremly dumbed down, fairytale like explinations for complex dogma - think the cloudy place that heaven is made to be like, the father figure God with the flowing white beard, and very black and white explainations for complex theological ideas.

Most catholics never get the chance to actually learn the ins and outs of their religion, and its a shame that so many catholics are so ignorant about catholicsm. In most cases its a You Dont Know What You Dont Know scenario.

As far as that thing about how holy texts are added to the bible and hows its bullshit because its basically comes down to a vote - well, thats another area i can elaborate on if you want to in PM form, it really doesnt fit into this discussion.

__________________
I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

JcP

I thought you weren't religious? Now you're Roman Catholic?

It's not the words that matter, it's the atonement and admittance of imperfection to a fellow human being. At least in theory.

"I am sorry" means nothing if you are not sorry. Watch a 4 year old say "I'm sorry" when they aren't sorry, and you'll see what I mean.

The antichrist, by definition, wouldn't realize he messed up. Otherwise he would not be the antichrist, he would be the man/woman who used to be the antichrist. And the antichrist is an avatar. Jesus will never be the artist formerly known as Jesus. And if he was, he wouldn't be Jesus, he would be the artist formerly...you get the idea. Labels are tricky, huh.

And just to be a little smartassed in my last post tonight: The antichrist IS Christ. It's all of us. You, me, Verklingen, Ziplock, the 2 year old boy who dropped his ice cream cone on the street last week while I was getting a haircut. Christ is a metaphor for the embodiment of true love. The antichrist is the embodiment of lack of love (The closest I can come up with is fear). Both of which each human being struggles with in their lifetime. I've chosen a path that I view as more beneficial for my learning in this lifetime. You are everything and everyone.

Can anyone else help me say "you exist" and convey the absolutely earth-shattering importance of understanding that concept? How truly realizing how unique existance is (and that you ARE!) is the only answer you ever need to find? You have been given life and you are choosing to believe in Science. WHAT A GIFT TO HAVE CHOICE!!! Forget God, forget love, forget everything. YOU invent your reality. You decide what's truthful to you. And if that's not God, I don't know what is.


If I decide earth is an atom in a bigger body, then you know what? To me, earth is an atom. You can call me wrong all day long, but to me, earth is an atom. And if that's true to me, then is it not a true statement? After all, all science is is observation of the physical world, and then judgement based on personal belief constructs of what is plausible and what is implausible.

For who knows how long, the best scientists in the world knew the earth was flat. For who knows how long, the best scientists in the world knew that there was no such thing as antimatter. For who knows how long, the best scientists in the world knew that...you get the point.

And yet now, somehow, I'm supposed to believe it's different? That in 300 years humanity won't look back on our "technology" and "science" and let out a guffaw?

The only universal truth that is shared by all life is emotion. Is instinct. And the only reason life continues is because of love. Science is a construct. Love is inherant.

You can have love without science. But you cannot have science without love because no one would be here to be scientists.

snapshot

If the church doesn't teach that Jesus was the son of God and that he died and was resurrected 3 laters and performed a whole bunch of miracles I'm game.

__________________
We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-Richard Dawkins

DubStyle311

Wait a second, before you were complaining about a whole mess of other things, now this is the aspect that you have a problem with?

If you dont want to have faith in that aspect, well then fine, dont. It doesnt mean you're going to hell according to the Roman Catholic Church. All it means is that you're not a Roman Catholic.

__________________
I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

JcP

Why do you seek to control the church? Why can you not have beliefs that belong to yourself and others and let those who want to go to church go to church?

You're game for what? For playing bingo?

You're game, but what do you think we're playing?

snapshot

I said I am confirmed Roman Catholic. That means that I am confirmed as a Roman Catholic, but I don't believe in any of it and denounced my religion as soon as I had my confirmation party.

That's why I said Tricky and convenient.

Ok, sure. Whatever you say. It's not like you need anything to back up your statements.

You can define God however you want. It doesn't make you any more reasonable to me. I have my own definition of God. It's "everything." But I don't put too much stock into it since new information may change that definition one day. And you really have no more reason to say my life is a gift than to say it's a curse. In the end, it's all about perspective, and that perspective has little to do with why we are here.


Not if you want people to agree with you. You can change your definition of what it means to be an atom, but then you have to come up with a new word for atom. There's a social contract we have with the people who write the dictionary to use the words as they are defined. You do have a right to misuse any words you want. People also have a right, no matter how unfounded, to agree with you.Science isn't based on personal belief constructs unless you are saying that every scientist that peer-reviews another scientists work has the same personal belief construct. With any peer review, scientists are trying to prove the scientist wrong in order to test his claims, they aren't trying to prove him right. That would go against science.

Yeah, science is flowing and dynamic and always accepting of change. But I don't think that's your point.

In my opinion, you shouldn't believe anything at all, since beliefs only serve as barriers to new information. That which was once true but has been proved to be untrue is still held as true by some. That is the fault of the belief system.

That doesn't make any sense to me and I'm sure you couldn't explain it to me.

I don't think there has to be anything universally special about love in order for it to exist. In all probability love is just a complex chemical process occuring in your brain, making you feel certain things against your will, and since you can't explain it you try to by saying that it's outside the realm of understanding by equating it with God, a being that by definition is unknowable.

__________________
We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-Richard Dawkins

snapshot

I was just complaining about random things. The Jesus part is just the clincher for me. I don't care whether or not the Roman Catholic church thinks I'm going to heaven or hell.

__________________
We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-Richard Dawkins

ziplock

Yes, they can both be viewed as sources of information. However the information these sources provide is very different. Christian theology is for instance different information than plant structure. Now you also have to evaluate the method in which this information was compiled and configured. Religion employs a subjective method of information acquisition, a persons intellectual experiences, reasonings, explainations, etc. None of which necessarily have to be externally validated. It's validitation lies in personal convictions. Science arranges and manipulates observable, external phenomena, makes those observations, documents variations, reactions to manipulations, etc, then creates theories to conceptualize and explain the observed phenomena. Those theories are then scrutinized, tested and retested. It seeks it's validation through not personal conviction or how "right" classical mechanics seems but through objective testing and observing that implies the same conclusions repeatedly. Each theory is in a constant state of limbo, it can easily be discarded given the right circumstances. There's nothing holding it there indefinitely.

The religious system operates in a profoundly different way. The theories it makes ARE held indefinitely unless under INTENSE pressure. Then they're compromised as little as possible to dodge a potentially fatal blow. They erect conscious mechanisms designed to CONVINCE the perciever of validity, a camouflage of sorts. These are all subjective, faith for instance. Personal defense mechanisms that can be used to isolate oneself and cut off all conscious influences. Religions validation is not sought in objectivity, it's all involved in the subjective arena of the individual, generally dealing with unknowns that are beyond approach such as the God concept.

Progression, evolution, these are things that aren't sought after but fought against. It's a system that manifested itself in it's final form claiming many absolutes or "truths" and there were no additions, only interpretations. You're then working within a pre-established context, not adopting any new ones. Due to this highly specified adaption and it's absolutes that are vulnerable to contradiction, it struggles to survive in a constantly changing environment.

The religious system has a specific structure, and a specific behavior. Just as if it was an organism. It involves subjective material, confirmation and validation depending on and taking place within that same subjective material. Science behaves in a distinctly different manner dealing with as much objective material as possible. It does not hold theories indefinitely, and if a context or observation arises that relates to a theory and leads to a different conclusion, it's considered and evaluated immediately and may indeed replace the previous theory. This sort of phenomenon occuring in a religious system is rare unless the most extreme of conditions are met. Science has effectively evolved a system where it constantly evalutes itself and it's environment, adapting fluently to any situation that arises. Just as we and other animals do in daily life. It has, in an organic sense, established a consciousness.

Religion does not do this. Religion is like a landmass, with specific characteristics that're manipulated only by the most extreme of external forces. It can be viewed from many different vantage points peppered accross the landscape, but only your point of view changes, not the landscape. In today's environment, religion is quickly turning into an Atlantis. A destroyed continent.

Now, you can say that both are objective sources of information in that they're located externally, outside of our subjective arena, and I would agree with you. However, if I were to evaluate the overall level of objectivity within each system, I'd submit that science is a much more objective system than religion on the grounds outlined above. It's really about what you want to make it relative to.What I get from this is someone has had some conscious experience that was pleasurable. They labelled this experience "God's love" and outlined how to program yourself psychologically to create this experience. What they've done then, is establish a location for the source of this love outside of our scope of experience. They then say that this is a legitimate source, that is in existence, and thus the feeling isn't just some happy hallucination, and that programming yourself and behaving this specific way allows you to come in contact with this source and that contact would manifest as this experience.

My question is, why should I believe this instead of say a person who is CONVINCED that God is located in his mailbox? And everyday the CIA infiltrates God's mailbox and steals him, so when he checks in the morning if God's there he's gone. But the CIA doesn't know how powerful God is, and he always escapes at night and climbs back into his mailbox just after he falls asleep, and is stolen just before he wakes up. He knows he makes it back into the mailbox, because he has faith. If he can only live his life in a way that makes sure he wakes up before God's stolen, or after he gets back into his mailbox, that he'll be able to come in contact with God and appreciate God's love.That would be an isolated truth. My thoughts on that are this:

__________________
Insanity is the only sane reaction to an insane society.

JcP

Ziplock, your theories on the scientific method are borderline tyranny of the majority.

Are you suggesting something is not allowed to be considered a truth unless it's accepted by more than the self? What about two people? Is it true that K-Fed and Britney are in love if only they themselves believe it? I'm sure there is someone else on this planet (and probably this board) who views humanity as cells on the organism earth which is a cell in the organism of the universe which is a cell in the..etc. So it's not an isolated truth, merely one you have deemed something less than the truths you've learned by people in funny clothes called scientists.

Or are you suggesting that something only becomes truth when the majority of a set society accepts it? That's ridiculous, imo. Not "you're an idiot" ridiculous, but ridiculous ridiculous.

There are no levels to truth. The truth is itself. There might be different ways of classifying truth, but the insane man who thinks he's Napoleon, is indeed Napoleon to himself. And its your CHOICE that makes him insane in your eyes.

Does this mean that every belief is truth? Of course not. I could say I am a woman and you can point to my peepee and go "actually you're a man." But what you cannot do is argue that, to me, I might feel like a woman. And it's SOLELY your judgement on someone else that paints them in an offcolor light.

Why do you insist upon homogenous "there is no answer" belief, when for billions of people, they have their answer.

In FACT, by your very own belief on what makes something truth, Atheists are insane. Something like 95% of the human race is religious. 5% "don't know." (I made these figures up, but I can get the real ones if you'd like...it's close to this). So the isolated truth is a lack of belief in some sort of God.

No?

snapshot

lol^. K-Fed. I like Ziplock's final quote of himself which pertains nicely to the above post - about the absurdity of a concept outside of a particular environment. You know there's a Penn and Teller on the Business of Love too. Part of it is that there is no truth to anything we've been told about love.

One of the things I try to preach is that whether there is or isn't truth there'd be no way to really know, and if there was a way to know, there would be a way to objectify that truth to be able to make anybody be able to understand. So if there is some truth, you should be able to convince anyone who's smart enough to understand your reasoning as long as there are no flaws in the logic or rationale what is true. Even if there are flaws in the semantics those can be worked out collaboratively.

But if truth means anything to me it's completely outside of the realm of strictly personal. Only the madman is ever 100% sure.I consider myself a big fan of Buddhist teachings, however I don't consider myself a Buddhist because I don't consider it obligatory to follow the rules or make myself believe that the Buddhist doctrine is inherently true.

__________________
We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-Richard Dawkins

JcP

Who said anything about what we've been TOLD about love? Who said anything about what we've been TOLD about God?

I'm talking about feeling love and therefore understanding God. Read the "I was dead for an hour and a half" post in the other thread. THAT'S EXACTLY what I'm talking about in theory.

Only the madman is 100% sure? Then why are you sure you don't know what God is?

edit: And why do you believe Penn and Teller and not men in pointy hats? YOU'VE CHOSEN WHAT YOU BELIEVE arbitrarily. That's the difference between knowledge and feeling. Or as you've put it repeatedly: logic and 'ignorance.' Those are your words, not mine.

ziplock

No, you're misunderstanding me quite profoundly, but I should've made it clearer. I'm not saying it is isolated as in it's held only by 1 individual, or that it has anything to do with majority. I mean it's isolated in that's all that's considered, it's all that exists.

This is why I talk about environments. Now within the environment of my mind, where I, Ziplock the Benevolent, am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the all attractive, all powerful, all seeing, greatly endowed, epitome of manly sexiness and godly divinity, I can make a statement. YES! A statement. And not just A statement, but ANY statement. It can be the most absurd, bizarre, irrational, illogical, blasphemous, traitorous, preposterous, delusional, megalomanic, sadistic, DDDDEEEEVVVVIIIILLLI IISSSHHHH statement that has EVER BEEN MADE!!!! And I have just that statement.... BEHOLD!!!!!!! FROM THE DEPTHS OF ZIPLOCKS MIGHTY MENTAL KINGDOM COMES THE WORD!!!

LET THERE BE LIGHT and JcP is a girl.

THIS is the truth! The WHOOOOLLLEEE truth and nothing but the truth! I command thee to write a book on it and when you SWEAR to be telling the truth you shall put thy hand upon the book! Also, I command it to be many pages!!! Err... at least 800 or so!!! It should be intimidating in order to remind my mortals followers of my unparalleled sexy manliness and large penis. Of course you have complete artistic license and can include whatever other embellishments, ways of life, morals, so on and so forth that you like, you just have to keep them MANLY!.

And because I, Ziplock the Benevolent, am very stoned, I will explain WHY this is the truth that you mere mortals shall worship for all of eternity. I don't know WHY you would want to know such a thing because it hardly concerns you, but oh well! I will satisfy your damned human curiosity this time.

My statement is true because it's isolated, it's not relative to anything, it's detatched from any environment inside my mind. I have not considered JcP to be a particular person. I've not associated it to any human body. Hell Girl isn't even associated to anything. I have not considered the english language and the definitions it points to. Therefore, I haven't associated it to any specific reproductive organ, and JcP can very well be a girl, whatever the hell I want that to be. If I say JcP is, then she is. It's my mighty mental kingdom of Haven, in my mind, so it is what I want it to be and you can't do shit about it. And as a constellation prize, it makes me feel warm and fuzzy throughout daily life. Booyah!~ So there is the kingdom, and the word. There's nothing else, that's all it is. And as there is nothing else in my kingdom (existence) but the word, it's the only thing that can be true.

However, if I consider something else, introduce something else into that environment, or change the environment so it's not just a blank piece of paper but a large essay, or go even a step further and make it A LOT of essays, from A LOT of people, or what we'll call a "field" for instance (such as Biology, or Tibetan Buddhism) then the whole system takes on a whole new nature. Now it changes and adapts it's form as it's made relative to certain material, associated to particular things. Perspective is expanded. It has to move to accomodate the inclusion of the new material, or to adapt to the change.

So now we have to see how accurately it applies to and integrates with this relative subject matter within the new COLLECTIVE system taking place in whatever context or environment. We'll accept the environment of Biology. We see that biology considers the anatomy of the physical human body to come in two forms having a distinct difference in their reproductive organs. Those with what is classified a "vagina" are deemed girls/women/female/etc, and those with what I, Ziplock the Benevolent have in a most LARGE and intimidating way, and is classified a "penis" are boys/men/male/etc. As we have established that a specific human is JcP and that human takes part in this particular forum, we can evaluate to see what category this body falls under. Oh look, it's what we classify as male. Now the statement has evolved into something so much more, containing a much larger amount of information. Therefore, JcP isn't a girl afterall and Ziplock's mighty word has been slain in the environment of Biology. A new statement would have to be made to describe the new truth. As a conscious organism, my word or statement was no where near as manly as myself, it was not able to adapt well enough within it's form (JcP is a girl) to survive given what it was relative (you being JcP, girl in a biological sense). In that relative environment, that statement isn't true. Thus the difference between a collective truth and an isolated truth in reference to what I quoted. There is no majority involved it's still all taking place within the individual.

So I can make the statement that the earth is an atom in a bigger body. I can isolate it from anything and harbour it in Ziplock's Haven, or I can choose to place it so far outside of conventional knowledge that it may as well be isolated as it's sitting in a region of black unknown. In those conditions, just like in the isolated mind of a "madman," or the mighty mental kingdom of Ziplock's, they are true. However, if I relate them to anything, then they have to follow the same process that "JcP is a girl" did above.

This is a fundamental difference between religion and science.Exactly, the truth is beyond all forms, all molds. It is how it is. The insane man who thinks he's Napoleon is indeed Napoleon. Isolated to just himself, with no historical context or acknowledgement, no acceptance of established language definitions, no physical comparisons, no position comparisons, no family tree comparisons, no call for proof of such a claim, so on and so forth, he can even be that particular French ruler of old and it's the truth. The moment you consider though, the moment you relate, the moment you change that closed system to an open one, exclusive to inclusive, the truth that it contained is stripped from it. The isolated truth is no longer applicable. The circumstances which brought about it's truth are no longer the same. Just as the environment that brought about religious truth is no longer the same and we see it going through the same process that "JcP is a girl" did on a social level.

__________________
Insanity is the only sane reaction to an insane society.

JcP

Ziplock, I do understand what you're saying. What I don't think you're understanding from my point of view is that science is the same thing.

"I am a girl" is, in your words, an isolated truth. The "I am the great omega and the alpha and I proclaim I am a girl" kind of truth. That's fine. I'm with you.

But "you have a penis, therefore you are a man" is the exact same kind of comment. The only difference is that we as a collective have, for hundreds of years, given precedence to the scientific community over individual thought. I think this is a fallacy.

You can point to science, but science is just another way of explaining personal thought. Why are trees green? Because of chlorophyl (according to science). Because green is the color of progress created by God (someone religious). Because I have chosen to create reality where trees are green (someone else). Because trees choose to be green (someone else). Green? Trees are PURPLE! (someone else).

Listen, I totally hear you. And I am not debating that science is fun to look at and that it has a lot of pretty answers. What I am saying is that science is a construct. It's no different than listening to the Bible, your heart, medicine men, whatever. Science just has a lot more beeping buttons and spinning machines that look impressive.

The collective system is arbitrary. That's the difference, Ziplock. Our collective agreement is based on nothing but who spoke the loudest at the "meeting." PERSONAL TRUTH however is not arbitrary. There are no modifiers.

I totally hear you and what you're saying. And I'm not suggesting you're wrong. What I am suggesting is that you're missing a layer of your cake. Collective reasoning is indeed the paradigm we as a society have identified with for hundreds, if not thousands of years. What I am saying is that it's based on nothing. It's based on control. Of some people trying to have their reality win over others. And there are no winners in this.

Again, if you wish to believe in science as the true form of answers and truth, go for it. But I personally see science as a fallacy. Some of it, like everything, I see value in. But most of it is nothing but different words used to describe the very same concepts you can answer by yourself and with friends.

What is love? Love is neurons firing due to the hypothalymus sending out specific amino acids.

What is love? Love is the motivator for creation.

Both are right. One, however, is understood without books. It's understood by existence. And to me, that's the difference.

Hope that makes sense. You do make sense to me. I just disagree.


PS--- my first word when I was a baby was Light. My mom did a spit take.

Waves

Truth talk sucks. We all have individual truths, which are very real to each of us.

I dont see how anyone can see science as a fallacy. Its simply another choice, you should know that as well as anyone else JcP.

Some people find truth with their friends, some people find truth in science. Some people find truth in Jesus and some people find truth in the Vedas. Stop arguing about truth already and just accept it!
Wrong. One is your choice, and one is not.

Thats the real difference. You are judging one of those choices and devaluing it by saying you "need books."

__________________
On this life that we call home
The years go fast and the days go so slow

Waves

It doesnt matter wether or not the information changes anymore.

Religion is done. Its changed. We've had religion for thousands and thousands of years.

You dont see any new information coming in because we've exhausted it all. We're bored with religion, and now we've created this much more efficient machine of science to take us places that religion had us DREAMING about, literally.

Information does not need to change for it to be information. I dont see whats so hard to comprehend about that. It already changed. It reached its peak, and now its at its end.
Now you're talking about christianity only.
No, that just means its validated. That doesnt mean its objective in any way. When two people choose to believe in gravity, they are both choosing to associate a symbol with a subjective meaning. "gravity", for example, is a law of science, and it is quite objective, but every person here at yahooka has a different understanding of the word "gravity" and what it means to them. just like every person has a different understanding of "god" and "jesus" and "krishna" etc etc.

So you can see its just as subjective as religion, where two people might choose to associate different words/symbols "apostles/jesus/sins/soul" with different meanings. But its still the same process that one goes through when learning through science. Just different information. Both are objective sources of information that people draw subjective conclusions on. Science offers validation of these conclusions, religion does not.

And you keep talking about christianity and monotheism like its the only type of religion. In many religions prior to this "modern" time-period, the religions changed just as fast as our science does! Because its the same exact thing as science- people exploring themselves and the world that is (seemingly) seperate from them. And when you get people exploring passionatly, many beliefs will clash and much progress will be made.

Religous people these days arent interested in self-exploration or change or the betterment of humanity. Theyve been locked into constructs of demons and devils and distrust of self. Religion is a shadow of its former self. But it still offers much the same as science- explanations on the world around us and how it got that way.
There you go with your judgements again.

The scientific method is more efficient. Its not better.

__________________
On this life that we call home
The years go fast and the days go so slow

JahBohl

Confirmed or recovering?

__________________
"If you know what life is worth, then you would look for yours right here on Earth" ~Peter Tosh

I'm in favor of it as long as it's multiple choice. ~Kurt Rambis, on drug testing