Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Dismantle Theology Departments, God damn it!

15681011

Posts

  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Get out of my thread with that stuff. Start your own.

    It's wandered pretty far afield, but I think it's a relevant, if not THE relevant, issue at hand. What is or is not objectively rational and intellectually valid is the fundamental issue in determining whether theology is a valid academic subject.

  • ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    You argument is, essentially, we can't know, so anything is reasonable. This is stupid, self-evidently so.

    No. Watch this. Watch. Atheism is stupid, self-evidently so. See how that doesn't make any sense at all? Here's another one: Objectivism is stupid, self-evidently so. Or how about this? Religion is stupid, self-evidently so. Communism is stupid, self-evidently so. You know what else? Libertarianism is stupid, self-evidently so. I don't have to state any reasoning for anything I just said because it's all self-evident, tra la la la la.

    Doesn't work that way.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2007
    Do I really have to do this? I mean, are you so ignorant you have to be told why that reasoning is not only stupid, but destructive? It gives legitimacy to everything, regardless of whether or not there is any validity present. It's stupid, and if you can't see that, so are you.

    Spoiler:
  • ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Do I really have to do this? I mean, are you so ignorant you have to be told why that reasoning is not only stupid, but destructive? It gives legitimacy to everything, regardless of whether or not there is any validity present. It's stupid, and if you can't see that, so are you.

    What an eloquent argument.

    To answer your question: No, you don't have to. You can always leave.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2007
    Good job completely failing to respond to what I said. You've done this several times now. You can't even practice what you preach, hypocrite.

    Spoiler:
  • ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Good job completely failing to respond to what I said. You've done this several times now. You can't even practice what you preach, hypocrite.

    Ad hominem tu quoque.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2007
    Respond to it. Here, I'll even quote the salient part for you again.
    I wrote:
    It gives legitimacy to everything, regardless of whether or not there is any validity present.

    Now it's your turn. You're supposed to respond with an argument, instead of being an antagonistic, dodgy, holier-than-thou prick.

    By the way, I'm not actually doing anything close to ad hom. I'm telling you why "nobody knows" is the dumbest, most backward reasoning somebody can take into a debate about the legitimacy of anything.

    Spoiler:
  • ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Respond to it. Here, I'll even quote the salient part for you again.
    I wrote:
    It gives legitimacy to everything, regardless of whether or not there is any validity present.

    Now it's your turn. You're supposed to respond with an argument, instead of being an antagonistic, dodgy, holier-than-thou prick.

    By the way, I'm not actually doing anything close to ad hom. I'm telling you why "nobody knows" is the dumbest, most backward reasoning somebody can take into a debate about the legitimacy of anything.

    The definition of legitimate is subjective.

    Oh, and you may want to look up "tu quoque".

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2007
    Except that, in this case, I'm addressing both your ridiculous claim that a lack of complete knowledge means all comers are reasonable and calling you out for your failure to address the content of my posts. There's nothing wrong with it if I'm just calling you a douche bag just because your acting like a douche bag, and not calling you a douche bag with the express purpose of debasing your arguments.

    Seriously, you fail at logic 101.

    Spoiler:
  • ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Except that, in this case, I'm addressing both your ridiculous claim that a lack of complete knowledge means all comers are reasonable and calling you out for your failure to address the content of my posts. There's nothing wrong with it if I'm just calling you a douche bag just because your acting like a douche bag, and not calling you a douche bag with the express purpose of debasing your arguments.

    Seriously, you fail at logic 101.

    It's easy to see why you're jailed.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • JyardanaJyardana Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    As a religious studies major (aka theology) I feel I should give my two cents on this issue.

    Personally, I think that saying that Theology departments should be dismantled is in err simply for the fact that then so should philosophy. A true theology degree doesn't preach about Intelligent Design or the creation of the universe, although they will be mentioned in the courses. The main point of a religious studies degree is to examine and study the way religions are used to answer the questions of the human condition.

    Who are we? How did we get here? Why do we suffer? etc etc

    Of the people who gain a religious study degree there will certainly be some that take it to the extreme and are fervent with there beliefs. These people tend to go to seminary or other post collegiate schools associated with their individual beliefs. However, in my school the majority of the religious studies students are either atheists or agnostic. We simply are interested in how humans use religion as a way of coping with life.

    I think it is a completely valid subject to study.

  • Magus`Magus` Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I don't mind religious classes as long as they don't teach the stuff as fact. I'm not going to argue whether or not it's fact (I'll just say I tend to lay on the side of 'not even close') but what I can say is that it can't be proven scientifically.

    And I wish people would stop comparing Theology to Philosophy. It's insulting.

  • JyardanaJyardana Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Magus` wrote: »
    I don't mind religious classes as long as they don't teach the stuff as fact. I'm not going to argue whether or not it's fact (I'll just say I tend to lay on the side of 'not even close') but what I can say is that it can't be proven scientifically.

    And I wish people would stop comparing Theology to Philosophy. It's insulting.

    True religious studies includes aspects of philosophy though.

    From wiki
    Philosophy is the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).

    Religious studies definitely involves the aspects of philosophy. To say they are unrelated is just completely untrue and I will be glad to type out exactly how and which religions deal with them.

  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Theology is basically a subset of philosophy.

    sig.png
  • Magus`Magus` Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I was talking about the 'IT IS FACT, YOU HEATHEN' type of Theology. The general study of religion I have no issue with. Hell, I think the world would be a better place if people were actually taught religious stuff out of something besides the Bible, Torah, Quran, etc.

  • JyardanaJyardana Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Magus` wrote: »
    I was talking about the 'IT IS FACT, YOU HEATHEN' type of Theology. The general study of religion I have no issue with. Hell, I think the world would be a better place if people were actually taught religious stuff out of something besides the Bible, Torah, Quran, etc.

    Oh I fully agree with you, I was just trying to clarify.

  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Once again we return to a misunderstanding of the distinction between Religious Studies and Theology, especially in a British context. Goddamn it guys, you make my teeth itch.

    Provide sample data to the Traitor project here || What is Traitor?
    SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2007
    Magus` wrote: »
    I was talking about the 'IT IS FACT, YOU HEATHEN' type of Theology. The general study of religion I have no issue with. Hell, I think the world would be a better place if people were actually taught religious stuff out of something besides the Bible, Torah, Quran, etc.

    See, yeah. The most enjoyable reading I ever had for a class was an intro world religions class. The Tao Te Ching, the Mahabarata and exerpts from the Chandogya, the Quran, some Shinto stuff I can't remember, we went and talked to a Buddhist monk at Emory for a few hours, but all this time we were doing it in a purely sociological and anthropological context. Also, we ate lots and lots of Pakistani food over the course of the semester, so that was good times.

    It's when a class goes from "this is what Christians believe," to "this is proof that Jesus rose from the dead, so we need to learn how to preach his shit," that the problem shows up.

    Spoiler:
  • JyardanaJyardana Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Once again we return to a misunderstanding of the distinction between Religious Studies and Theology, especially in a British context. Goddamn it guys, you make my teeth itch.

    Theology is a subset of Religious Studies though, focused on reasoning within the selected tradition or faith. It doesn't focus solely on God/gods. The main focus of the Theology courses here are studying the various theodicies (Ideas on the problem/origination of evil and suffering) and how they are used to help people with coping and suffering. Of all the things studied at a University, this is the stuff that everyone should learn simply because it teaches you to not be a dick, even if you don't believe in the higher power aspect of it.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Magus` wrote: »
    I was talking about the 'IT IS FACT, YOU HEATHEN' type of Theology. The general study of religion I have no issue with. Hell, I think the world would be a better place if people were actually taught religious stuff out of something besides the Bible, Torah, Quran, etc.

    See, yeah. The most enjoyable reading I ever had for a class was an intro world religions class. The Tao Te Ching, the Mahabarata and exerpts from the Chandogya, the Quran, some Shinto stuff I can't remember, we went and talked to a Buddhist monk at Emory for a few hours, but all this time we were doing it in a purely sociological and anthropological context. Also, we ate lots and lots of Pakistani food over the course of the semester, so that was good times.

    It's when a class goes from "this is what Christians believe," to "this is proof that Jesus rose from the dead, so we need to learn how to preach his shit," that the problem shows up.
    That doesn't really happen unless you go to Seminary.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Magus` wrote: »
    I was talking about the 'IT IS FACT, YOU HEATHEN' type of Theology. The general study of religion I have no issue with. Hell, I think the world would be a better place if people were actually taught religious stuff out of something besides the Bible, Torah, Quran, etc.

    See, yeah. The most enjoyable reading I ever had for a class was an intro world religions class. The Tao Te Ching, the Mahabarata and exerpts from the Chandogya, the Quran, some Shinto stuff I can't remember, we went and talked to a Buddhist monk at Emory for a few hours, but all this time we were doing it in a purely sociological and anthropological context. Also, we ate lots and lots of Pakistani food over the course of the semester, so that was good times.

    It's when a class goes from "this is what Christians believe," to "this is proof that Jesus rose from the dead, so we need to learn how to preach his shit," that the problem shows up.
    That doesn't really happen unless you go to Seminary.

    Does it not? I thought this whole thing was about otherwise academic schools doing this very thing.

    Spoiler:
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    zakkiel wrote: »
    When did scientific methodology become the measure of a subject's fitness for inclusion in a curriculum?

    When it comes to rigorous academics, we need to have some measures validity.
    Get back to me when you finish abolishing the humanities.

    Smash Bros - 4639-8632-8299 (WA)
  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Jyardana wrote: »
    Philosophy is the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).

    Religious studies definitely involves the aspects of philosophy. To say they are unrelated is just completely untrue and I will be glad to type out exactly how and which religions deal with them.

    Everything involves aspects of philosophy. Furthermore, modern philosophy is almost entirely divorced from theology. Not only is materialism wildly popular in modern philosophy, but in the course of my undergraduate education I've never read a paper which so much as mentioned god outside of the history of philosophy.

  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2007
    zakkiel wrote: »
    zakkiel wrote: »
    When did scientific methodology become the measure of a subject's fitness for inclusion in a curriculum?

    When it comes to rigorous academics, we need to have some measures validity.
    Get back to me when you finish abolishing the humanities.

    It's difficult to imagine that you can't distinguish between an education in, say, music, and one in a specific theology.

    Spoiler:
  • JyardanaJyardana Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    MrMister wrote: »
    Jyardana wrote: »
    Philosophy is the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).

    Religious studies definitely involves the aspects of philosophy. To say they are unrelated is just completely untrue and I will be glad to type out exactly how and which religions deal with them.

    Everything involves aspects of philosophy. Furthermore, modern philosophy is almost entirely divorced from theology. Not only is materialism wildly popular in modern philosophy, but in the course of my undergraduate education I've never read a paper which so much as mentioned god outside of the history of philosophy.

    You'll find no argument from me that modern philosophy is basically divorced from theology, but you can not deny that they are related. The only difference between them is that one turns toward a divine or mystic source when faced with unanswerable questions.

  • Low KeyLow Key Registered User
    edited October 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Magus` wrote: »
    I was talking about the 'IT IS FACT, YOU HEATHEN' type of Theology. The general study of religion I have no issue with. Hell, I think the world would be a better place if people were actually taught religious stuff out of something besides the Bible, Torah, Quran, etc.

    See, yeah. The most enjoyable reading I ever had for a class was an intro world religions class. The Tao Te Ching, the Mahabarata and exerpts from the Chandogya, the Quran, some Shinto stuff I can't remember, we went and talked to a Buddhist monk at Emory for a few hours, but all this time we were doing it in a purely sociological and anthropological context. Also, we ate lots and lots of Pakistani food over the course of the semester, so that was good times.

    It's when a class goes from "this is what Christians believe," to "this is proof that Jesus rose from the dead, so we need to learn how to preach his shit," that the problem shows up.
    That doesn't really happen unless you go to Seminary.

    The whole point of Theology as a subject is that the University teams up with whatever Church branch wants to fund the thing, and then studies the world through the framework of the branch's belief. They don't even bother proving that their understanding of the bible is correct for a lot of stuff, it's taken as a given.

    They say "Well this is what happened according to our reading of this religious text. Now we need to study how it's relevant to history, philosophy, the natural science, the environment, politics, etc". You don't have to preach it, you just got to take it as given that it's true, before you can do anything else.

  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Jyardana wrote: »
    You'll find no argument from me that modern philosophy is basically divorced from theology, but you can not deny that they are related. The only difference between them is that one turns toward a divine or mystic source when faced with unanswerable questions.

    So, the difference between gravity and intelligent falling?

  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Jyardana wrote: »
    You'll find no argument from me that modern philosophy is basically divorced from theology, but you can not deny that they are related. The only difference between them is that one turns toward a divine or mystic source when faced with unanswerable questions.
    This is not true at all. Theology starts with a source, assuming that it is divine or mystic, and asks its questions and frames its answers in terms of that source. The Bible isn't a last resort to answer tough questions for theologians, it's a starting presumption to all their inquiry.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Qingu wrote: »
    The Bible isn't a last resort to answer tough questions for theologians, it's a starting presumption to all their inquiry.

    Um.

    Unless they are the Critical kind instead of the Devout kind.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • JyardanaJyardana Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    MrMister wrote: »
    Jyardana wrote: »
    You'll find no argument from me that modern philosophy is basically divorced from theology, but you can not deny that they are related. The only difference between them is that one turns toward a divine or mystic source when faced with unanswerable questions.

    So, the difference between gravity and intelligent falling?

    You don't need philosophy or religion to discuss gravity. Whats your point?

    This is not true at all. Theology starts with a source, assuming that it is divine or mystic, and asks its questions and frames its answers in terms of that source. The Bible isn't a last resort to answer tough questions for theologians, it's a starting presumption to all their inquiry.


    If people are going to try to defend philosophy by differentiating between historic and modern philosophy, then the same has to be done in regard to Theology. In the originating theodicies and theological arguments, yes the Bible was the starting presumption. But you infer that all modern Theologians are still living in caves and are afraid of lightning. If philosophy gets the benefit of a modern/scientific society, then so does theology.

    In modern times the Bible is no longer the starting presumption to the tough questions, rather just one of the six factors that go into the answer: experience, revelation, scripture, tradition, culture and reason. It takes all six to for a proper theological answer.

  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Jyardana wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Jyardana wrote: »
    You'll find no argument from me that modern philosophy is basically divorced from theology, but you can not deny that they are related. The only difference between them is that one turns toward a divine or mystic source when faced with unanswerable questions.

    So, the difference between gravity and intelligent falling?

    You don't need philosophy or religion to discuss gravity. Whats your point?

    You said this:
    The only difference between them is that one turns toward a divine or mystic source when faced with unanswerable questions.

    My point was that's all the difference in the world.

  • JyardanaJyardana Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    MrMister wrote: »

    You said this:
    The only difference between them is that one turns toward a divine or mystic source when faced with unanswerable questions.

    My point was that's all the difference in the world.

    Gravity isn't an unanswerable question. I outlined above the 6 steps to a proper theological argument. If it can be solved/explained using anything from experience, tradition, culture or reason then there is no need to look toward scripture or revelation.

  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2007
    Jyardana wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »

    You said this:
    The only difference between them is that one turns toward a divine or mystic source when faced with unanswerable questions.

    My point was that's all the difference in the world.

    Gravity isn't an unanswerable question. I outlined above the 6 steps to a proper theological argument. If it can be solved/explained using anything from experience, tradition, culture or reason then there is no need to look toward scripture or revelation.

    Gravity isn't necessarily unanswerable, but we have little more than some very tenuous theories as to why it actually happens. It's an invisible force, essentially, and that lends quite a bit of mystery to the whole thing.

    Spoiler:
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    It's difficult to imagine that you can't distinguish between an education in, say, music, and one in a specific theology.
    No idea about music, or what relevant disanalogy you had in mind. For fine arts, English, etc. most critical theory uses dogmatic assumptions in a way that would probably be unacceptable in many theology departments. Postmodernism did not become accepted because of exciting new evidence in its favor or its ability to better explain anything whatsoever. The apparent position of many departments in the humanities is that it would be nonsense to apply such a standard to their field of endeavor. Their value lies not in their ability to impart dispassionate facts according to objective criteria but in their contributions to a student's insight, compassion, and understanding of humanity. Similarly, a theology department's purpose (like religion itself) is not to mindlessly impress doctrine on students but to develop virtues in their character.

    Maybe theology departments don't do this; maybe they do exactly the opposite, or maybe all the "virtues" they promote are themselves controversial. I don't know, never having been in any classes on theology. Even if I had, I doubt any one person's experience counts for much. But I do know it is hardly alone among academic disciplines in its failure to ground its subject matter in the scientific method.

    Smash Bros - 4639-8632-8299 (WA)
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Jyardana wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »

    You said this:
    The only difference between them is that one turns toward a divine or mystic source when faced with unanswerable questions.

    My point was that's all the difference in the world.

    Gravity isn't an unanswerable question. I outlined above the 6 steps to a proper theological argument. If it can be solved/explained using anything from experience, tradition, culture or reason then there is no need to look toward scripture or revelation.

    Gravity isn't necessarily unanswerable, but we have little more than some very tenuous theories as to why it actually happens. It's an invisible force, essentially, and that lends quite a bit of mystery to the whole thing.
    There's nothing more embarrassing than trying to speak authoritatively on a subject you clearly know nothing about.

    Smash Bros - 4639-8632-8299 (WA)
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2007
    zakkiel wrote: »
    It's difficult to imagine that you can't distinguish between an education in, say, music, and one in a specific theology.
    No idea about music, or what relevant disanalogy you had in mind. For fine arts, English, etc. most critical theory uses dogmatic assumptions in a way that would probably be unacceptable in many theology departments. Postmodernism did not become accepted because of exciting new evidence in its favor or its ability to better explain anything whatsoever. The apparent position of many departments in the humanities is that it would be nonsense to apply such a standard to their field of endeavor. Their value lies not in their ability to impart dispassionate facts according to objective criteria but in their contributions to a student's insight, compassion, and understanding of humanity. Similarly, a theology department's purpose (like religion itself) is not to mindlessly impress doctrine on students but to develop virtues in their character.

    Maybe theology departments don't do this; maybe they do exactly the opposite, or maybe all the "virtues" they promote are themselves controversial. I don't know, never having been in any classes on theology. Even if I had, I doubt any one person's experience counts for much. But I do know it is hardly alone among academic disciplines in its failure to ground its subject matter in the scientific method.

    They intend to teach something that is an interpretation of the universe. It is, unfortunately for them, a completely unfounded one. This is the realm of the scientific method, and should be judged against the same standards as any discipline that deals with those things.

    As to your pithy little shitface quip about the gravity bit, care to correct me, instead of being a belligerent ass? I'll admit that my last physics class was years ago, and science moves very quickly, but the last best approximation of why gravity works the way it does was Einsten's fourth-dimension space bending thing, according to those classes. That doesn't remove the fact that it's still essentially invisible to us.

    It's basically like air was a few centuries ago, right? The result is essentially a god-of-the-gaps deal when it comes to religious reasoning.

    Spoiler:
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    zakkiel wrote: »
    Similarly, a theology department's purpose (like religion itself) is not to mindlessly impress doctrine on students but to develop virtues in their character.
    Are you familiar with the history of most religions?

    In any case, I agree with your sentiment—the humanities are not based on the scientific method. But the various humanities, through their methods, offer a broad understanding of the entire world and human experience. Theology is incredibly narrow—you are forced to look at the world and human experience through the lens of one particular book.

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Qingu wrote: »
    zakkiel wrote: »
    Similarly, a theology department's purpose (like religion itself) is not to mindlessly impress doctrine on students but to develop virtues in their character.
    Are you familiar with the history of most religions?

    Because nothing ever changes, and anything that was ever done continues to be done constantly?

    Just like how Americans keep slaves, and we all believe that the world is flat.

    georgersig.jpg
  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Jyardana wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »

    You said this:
    The only difference between them is that one turns toward a divine or mystic source when faced with unanswerable questions.

    My point was that's all the difference in the world.

    Gravity isn't an unanswerable question. I outlined above the 6 steps to a proper theological argument. If it can be solved/explained using anything from experience, tradition, culture or reason then there is no need to look toward scripture or revelation.

    I was being flippant. However, it is worth pointing out that the proper answer to some questions is "we don't know," rather than "because we can't figure it out, god did it."

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    MrMister wrote: »
    Jyardana wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »

    You said this:
    The only difference between them is that one turns toward a divine or mystic source when faced with unanswerable questions.

    My point was that's all the difference in the world.

    Gravity isn't an unanswerable question. I outlined above the 6 steps to a proper theological argument. If it can be solved/explained using anything from experience, tradition, culture or reason then there is no need to look toward scripture or revelation.

    I was being flippant. However, it is worth pointing out that the proper answer to some questions is "we don't know," rather than "because we can't figure it out, god did it."

    Yes, one of those questions being "does God exist?"

    georgersig.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.