Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Christian Clarification

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 9:07:46 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm looking at you, DAT. How did Cain and Abel reproduce? If Adam and Eve were the first people on the planet, how did they populate without committing incest? Not only is the Bible vehemently opposed to sleeping with your family members, but the kids would come out retarded to boot. I guess that makes sense if they spawned Christianity. Hmm.
President of DDO
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 9:18:02 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
As far as I'm aware, the official line is that it's incest - given the 800 odd years Adam and Eve supposedly had to produce siblings for Cain and Abel.
brittwaller
Posts: 331
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 10:06:13 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/30/2009 9:18:02 AM, Puck wrote:
As far as I'm aware, the official line is that it's incest - given the 800 odd years Adam and Eve supposedly had to produce siblings for Cain and Abel.

True. It's just that females don't really count as people, but more as property in the OT, that's why (ahem) they aren't mentioned. Also, according to the Bible, the "just and righteous" Lot was also a daughter-lover (and a sod.) Noah's family would have also have had to be incestuous... anyone else know of other examples?
Don't I take care of them all?
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 10:30:28 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
but the kids would come out retarded to boot

That is scientifically untrue. But to answer your question, there was probably more people than just those recorded.

Or they did intermarry, but what of it?
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 10:52:20 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/30/2009 10:30:28 AM, InquireTruth wrote:
That is scientifically untrue.

Yes, but not completely. Human DNA is riddled with errors, and the biggest protective factor is in choosing two chromosomal donors. The chances of a duplicated deformity in this manner is significantly decreased.

However, incestuous relationships would yield offspring with a substantial increase in the chance of genetic deformity. It would be impossible *today* to repopulate the earth with just one man and one woman.

But to answer your question, there was probably more people than just those :recorded.

If there were more people, I'd find it questionable why God would not speak of their creation.

Or they did intermarry, but what of it?
If they did then, why is it a problem now?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 11:37:50 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
The following is mentioned in the bible but not considered sin:
Incest
Pedophilia (so long as its heterosexual pedophilia; according to the bible, children must obey their parents ... so it would be a sin for a child to report being raped or beat up by their parents or to refuse sexual advances from their parent or being beat or hit or sacrifice because God commands thee to sacrifice thy son to prove thy faith -- that was even put as a good story in the bible!)
Rape (so long as it is a husband raping a wife; actually according to the bible, rape between husband and wife is impossible and never a sin on the husband's part; it is a sin for a wife to refuse any demand of her husband ... 'Women, obey your husbands!')
Keeping and slaughtering slaves ... so long as it took a slave at least, I think it was 3 days to die, it was not considered committing murder

Consider that the U.S. Constitution is so anti-biblical then, maybe Christians have a valid point in saying they are oppressed. The Constitution's current amendments, as they stand, forbid owning slaves ... since the Bible allows it, this means the Constitution is anti-Christian! Viva la Confederate States of America!!!
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 11:47:00 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/30/2009 9:07:46 AM, theLwerd wrote:
but the kids would come out retarded to boot. I

Godsands is obviously a direct descendant of Cain and Abel
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 11:52:54 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Lolololol at this thread.

I have wondered the same thing. I'd like a more in depth response from Inquire Truth on this matter (since I doubt anything resembling a worthwhile response will come from DatCMoto and GodSands).
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 12:56:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/30/2009 10:30:28 AM, InquireTruth wrote:
but the kids would come out retarded to boot

That is scientifically untrue. But to answer your question, there was probably more people than just those recorded.

Or they did intermarry, but what of it?

Clearly theres nothing to it when a sister and brother have sex.

Let us not forget Abraham, and his epic quote:

"And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake. And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife."
Genesis 20:11-12
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 2:34:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/30/2009 12:56:11 PM, tkubok wrote:
Let us not forget Abraham, and his epic quote:

"And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake. And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife."
Genesis 20:11-12

Oh bless you brother, that is a gem!

I'm guessing sado-Christians who actually read this thread and feel tempted to retort or reply might be thinking to themselves "oh woe is me, this is yet another tragic proof of how unfairly Christians are mocked, I fear these souls may go to hell!" ... anyone torturing yourself along these lines, I must demand that you ask yourself if we the evil mockerers-of-Christianity are making this crap up, or if anything we say has a seed of truth to it, and if there is a seed of truth then perhaps it is deserved!
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 2:48:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Yes, but not completely.
Yes, it increases the chances of deformity insofar as any dormant defect is most surely going to show up in offspring produced via incest. However, since we are assuming the validity of the Genesis account, original man would not have started with said defects and thus would be able to intermarry harmlessly.

If there were more people, I'd find it questionable why God would not speak of their creation.

The Bible is silent on a great deal more than not, surely no good argument can be formed from silence. Moreover, I'm not quite certain that the point of Genesis was ever the origin of man – at least that is not what its literary construction would suggest.

If they did then, why is it a problem now?

Either God saw that incestuous relationships were no longer necessary and arbitrarily deemed them thereafter immoral – which does not bother me, but is probably not the case. Or He made them immoral for precisely the reasons you stated above – it became genetically dangerous.

At any rate, Christian morals aside, what precisely makes incest wrong according to you folk? Or is it not?
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 3:00:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/30/2009 2:48:09 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
However, since we are assuming the validity of the Genesis account, original man would not have started with said defects and thus would be able to intermarry harmlessly.

Unwarranted assumption - nowhere does it say in Genesis that Adam and Eve were genetically perfect... And given Eve's ability to easily be fooled, I'd say they were missing something in the intelligence department. Oh - and they used fig leaves... DEFINITELY missing something upstairs...

The Bible is silent on a great deal more than not, surely no good argument can be formed from silence.

... See above about the quality of their genes.

Moreover, I'm not quite certain that the point of Genesis was ever the origin of man – at least that is not what its literary construction would suggest.

Genesis 1 is a creation myth. Genesis 2 is an allegory of mankind.

Either God saw that incestuous relationships were no longer necessary and arbitrarily deemed them thereafter immoral – which does not bother me, but is probably not the case. Or He made them immoral for precisely the reasons you stated above – it became genetically dangerous.

This is a poor argument. If genes are sufficiently pure enough to allow viable interbreeding, then they are not going to be degraded through each generation. In fact, the gene pool will IMPROVE with each generation. So the improving gene pool became genetically dangerous??

At any rate, Christian morals aside, what precisely makes incest wrong according to you folk? Or is it not?

Well nowadays, the proclivity towards genetic disorder is a problem that would make it immoral to knowingly produce a child that is likely to be deformed or ill... but there's no reason even brother and sister can't engage in recreational sex.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 3:06:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/30/2009 9:07:46 AM, theLwerd wrote:
I'm looking at you, DAT. How did Cain and Abel reproduce? If Adam and Eve were the first people on the planet, how did they populate without committing incest? Not only is the Bible vehemently opposed to sleeping with your family members, but the kids would come out retarded to boot. I guess that makes sense if they spawned Christianity. Hmm.

He wont tell you.

But anyway, Cain and Abel had no children, Abel was slain and Cain was cursed. The description of his curse suggests that there were already human communities despite the fact that there would have only been three humans (or four if you include Lillith).
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 3:10:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/30/2009 3:06:40 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/30/2009 9:07:46 AM, theLwerd wrote:
I'm looking at you, DAT. How did Cain and Abel reproduce? If Adam and Eve were the first people on the planet, how did they populate without committing incest? Not only is the Bible vehemently opposed to sleeping with your family members, but the kids would come out retarded to boot. I guess that makes sense if they spawned Christianity. Hmm.

He wont tell you.

But anyway, Cain and Abel had no children, Abel was slain and Cain was cursed. The description of his curse suggests that there were already human communities despite the fact that there would have only been three humans (or four if you include Lillith).

PS: Though it hardly clarifies matters all of humanity is descended from Seth, Adam and Eve's third son.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 3:24:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Unwarranted assumption

I agree that it is an assumption, but it is most definitely not unwarranted - your caricature of Adam and Eve not withstanding. Intelligence =/ knowledge.

Genesis 1 is a creation myth. Genesis 2 is an allegory of mankind.

That is probably close to the truth. I think Genesis 1 reflects one truth, God created. Based on the composure of Genesis 1, its original readers would have been aware of the Mesopotamian 7-day motif and the stylistic parallels of the days.

This is a poor argument. If genes are sufficiently pure enough to allow viable interbreeding, then they are not going to be degraded through each generation

Perhaps you have a greater understanding of genetics than I do. It is my understanding that gene mutations, genetic drift and gene flow can occur which do not necessarily benefit the species but can still be propagated through reproduction. Random genetic mutations are not always positive. So it seems that you are suggesting a gene pool can ONLY improve – can you elaborate?
brittwaller
Posts: 331
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 5:50:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
O-K:)

So what of mankind's second beginning, after the flood? Are seven people (four of whom are father/son relationships) enough to create a viable genepool for homo sapiens? (Differently but along the same lines, are [only] two specimen of any species, whether it be Adam and Eve, or Steve and Donna Lion, enough to propagate said species?)
Don't I take care of them all?
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 8:59:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/30/2009 3:24:02 PM, InquireTruth wrote:

I agree that it is an assumption, but it is most definitely not unwarranted - your caricature of Adam and Eve not withstanding. Intelligence =/ knowledge.

On what basis do you assume Adam and Eve had good genes, especially considering you stated that a good argument cannot be formed based on silence??

This is a poor argument. If genes are sufficiently pure enough to allow viable interbreeding, then they are not going to be degraded through each generation

Perhaps you have a greater understanding of genetics than I do. It is my understanding that gene mutations, genetic drift and gene flow can occur which do not necessarily benefit the species but can still be propagated through reproduction. Random genetic mutations are not always positive. So it seems that you are suggesting a gene pool can ONLY improve – can you elaborate?

When there are no genetic defects in a population, inbreeding preserves these good genes because the organism has twice as many chances of getting the best genes. It's a little hard to explain, but basically if you start with pure genes and breed them with other pure genes, in all but the rarest of circumstances, the offspring carry the good genes as well. Much literature on inbreeding and specifically heterosis warns against mixing bad genes in, but notes that as long as the genes are good, you're in good shape.

So if Adam and Eve had homozygous dominant beneficial traits (suppose healthy was H and unhealthy, h) then their offspring would as well.

Combine HH with HH and you cannot get hh or even Hh unless there is a drastic mutation. So while it's possible that there could have been such exposure that would cause genetic degradation, assuming that nothing unusual happens, Adam and Eve's perfect genes would have been preserved through the generations.

The reason I make the remark about the genes being viable is that since there is such a propensity towards defect in impure genes between family members, if the genes did not rapidly degrade, they must have been of extraordinarily high quality to begin with.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 9:06:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/30/2009 8:59:19 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
... (buh buh buh) ... The reason I make the remark about the genes being viable is that since there is such a propensity towards defect in impure genes between family members, if the genes did not rapidly degrade, they must have been of extraordinarily high quality to begin with.

Umm, I guess its just been too many years since I've studied biology and genetics, so correct me where I'm wrong here, but doesn't everyone have a lot of bad genes? Doesn't every person consist of 50% dominant and 50% recessive genes, and those who are genetically the best off have a lucky combo of "good" dominant genes and all their "bad" genes are recessive -- they don't "activate" in the individual but are carried and could be a dominant bad gene in that individual's descendant?
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 9:17:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
This is a poor argument. If genes are sufficiently pure enough to allow viable interbreeding, then they are not going to be degraded through each generation

Perhaps you have a greater understanding of genetics than I do. It is my understanding that gene mutations, genetic drift and gene flow can occur which do not necessarily benefit the species but can still be propagated through reproduction. Random genetic mutations are not always positive. So it seems that you are suggesting a gene pool can ONLY improve – can you elaborate?

When there are no genetic defects in a population, inbreeding preserves these good genes because the organism has twice as many chances of getting the best genes. It's a little hard to explain, but basically if you start with pure genes and breed them with other pure genes, in all but the rarest of circumstances, the offspring carry the good genes as well. Much literature on inbreeding and specifically heterosis warns against mixing bad genes in, but notes that as long as the genes are good, you're in good shape.

So if Adam and Eve had homozygous dominant beneficial traits (suppose healthy was H and unhealthy, h) then their offspring would as well.

Combine HH with HH and you cannot get hh or even Hh unless there is a drastic mutation. So while it's possible that there could have been such exposure that would cause genetic degradation, assuming that nothing unusual happens, Adam and Eve's perfect genes would have been preserved through the generations.

The reason I make the remark about the genes being viable is that since there is such a propensity towards defect in impure genes between family members, if the genes did not rapidly degrade, they must have been of extraordinarily high quality to begin with.

Exactly.

If Adam and Eve had "perfect genetic material", then it's highly unlikely for humans now to be riddles with errors - especially if the Adam and Eve lived only 6,000-10,000 years ago
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 10:14:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
On what basis do you assume Adam and Eve had good genes, especially considering you stated that a good argument cannot be formed based on silence??

On the bases of the doctrine of fallen humanity. Is this a serious criticism or need I elaborate?

while it's possible that there could have been such exposure that would cause genetic degradation, assuming that nothing unusual happens, Adam and Eve's perfect genes would have been preserved through the generations.

In your mind, why do you think it is safe to assume that over the many millennia of human existence nothing unusual might have happened?

then it's highly unlikely for humans now to be riddles with errors - especially if the Adam and Eve lived only 6,000-10,000 years ago

First, let's not trouble ourselves with what is not demanded by the text (i.e. 6000 years). Moreover, what would you say is the probability? What are the variables that you have considered that renders such a scenario unlikely?
KeithKroeger91
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 10:51:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/30/2009 9:07:46 AM, theLwerd wrote:
I'm looking at you, DAT. How did Cain and Abel reproduce? If Adam and Eve were the first people on the planet, how did they populate without committing incest? Not only is the Bible vehemently opposed to sleeping with your family members, but the kids would come out retarded to boot. I guess that makes sense if they spawned Christianity. Hmm.

Lwerd maybe they wern't supposed to hmm? But they did anyways? Because they could not resist temptation?
I win ;D
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 11:56:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
First, let's not trouble ourselves with what is not demanded by the text (i.e. 6000 years).

If Adam and Eve existed, then how old would the Earth be given the text and it's concurring interpretation?

Moreover, what would you say is the probability? What are the variables that you have considered that renders such a scenario unlikely?

My conclusion about it's probability was echoing from JCMT's response about genetics. If we are to suppose that Adam and Eve had genetic material of incredibly high quality (as to prevent having genetic problems in their children, and at least many generations after), then this would mean this would be so that in general errors emerging from human reproduction are rarely riddled with errors. This, obviously, is not the case.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2009 3:49:24 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/30/2009 5:50:16 PM, brittwaller wrote:
O-K:)

So what of mankind's second beginning, after the flood? Are seven people (four of whom are father/son relationships) enough to create a viable genepool for homo sapiens? (Differently but along the same lines, are [only] two specimen of any species, whether it be Adam and Eve, or Steve and Donna Lion, enough to propagate said species?)

Maybe they found a few hundred survivors bobbing about on hastily made rafts?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2009 4:16:32 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/30/2009 9:07:46 AM, theLwerd wrote:
I'm looking at you, DAT. How did Cain and Abel reproduce? If Adam and Eve were the first people on the planet, how did they populate without committing incest? Not only is the Bible vehemently opposed to sleeping with your family members, but the kids would come out retarded to boot. I guess that makes sense if they spawned Christianity. Hmm.

Since DAT didn't reply here's my two cents (GBP 0.0125321135 at today's exchange rate).

Eve was created from Adam's spare rib so he wasn't having sex with his sister, he was having sex with himself and there is nothing against that in the Bible. It just says "thou shalt not spill thy mess on the ground" or something like that, but, technically speaking, Adam spent his wad in himself (which for men without a female clone of themselves is not an easy stunt to pull off - no pun intended).

See, there's nothing weird or unlikely about the Christian doctrines at all!
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2009 8:14:27 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/30/2009 11:47:00 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

Godsands is obviously a direct descendant of Cain and Abel

Lol no... Only black people are descendants of Cain. Isn't that how the story goes? God punished Cain and his descendants by giving them the mark of black skin. Or something. And that's why they deserve all of that abuse, segregation and slavery nonsense (according to the tolerant and ever-loving Christians).
President of DDO
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2009 8:20:21 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
If Adam and Eve existed, then how old would the Earth be given the text and it's concurring interpretation?

That is not knowable given the text. The creation story is a 7-day motif.

This, obviously, is not the case.

I understand WHAT you guys are saying, I am just trying to figure out PRECISLEY why you are saying it. I cannot even begin to consider the likelihood of an event if I am not supplied with the pertinent variables. Given the many millennia of human existence, assuming they started with very high quality genetic material, what is the probability that human beings would now be "riddled" with genetic errors? In considering the probability, why would random gene mutations, genetic drift and gene flow not have more of a significant effect?

It just says "thou shalt not spill thy mess on the ground" or something like that

Nothing like that. There is a story of Onan being struck dead after spilling his seed on the ground, but that was because he did not fulfill his duty of levirate marriage. Moreover, it would not have mattered if they intermarried, as it was yet a commandment. Don't you think it would be kind of dumb to be punished for going 45 on road 15 years ago because they just now changed the limit?

Only black people are descendants of Cain.

That is the Book of Mormon.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2009 8:51:31 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/1/2009 8:14:27 AM, theLwerd wrote:

Lol no... Only black people are descendants of Cain. Isn't that how the story goes? God punished Cain and his descendants by giving them the mark of black skin. Or something. And that's why they deserve all of that abuse, segregation and slavery nonsense (according to the tolerant and ever-loving Christians).

At 9/30/2009 11:47:00 AM,InquireTruth wrote:

That is the Book of Mormon.

Hmm, I think that is a misrepresentation. Some Mormons did believe Cain's descendents were black but because of a curse on the land of Canaan in the time of Moses not because of the 'mark' placed on him by God.

The idea that black people were cursed by God through Cain was a huge justification for the slave trade and was maintained by many baptist and southern protestant churches up till the mid 20th century. Some older mainstream Christians (although it was never part of Catholicism or the Anglican church) may still believe this but only the white supremacy ones still preach it openly.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2009 9:14:45 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/1/2009 8:14:27 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 9/30/2009 11:47:00 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

Godsands is obviously a direct descendant of Cain and Abel

Lol no... Only black people are descendants of Cain. Isn't that how the story goes? God punished Cain and his descendants by giving them the mark of black skin. Or something. And that's why they deserve all of that abuse, segregation and slavery nonsense (according to the tolerant and ever-loving Christians).

No, that would be absurd!

Black people are descendants of Ham, who laughed at his drunk naked dad (noah) and stuck a blanket on him... or something like that.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2009 9:43:10 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/1/2009 9:14:45 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

Black people are descendants of Ham, who laughed at his drunk naked dad (noah) and stuck a blanket on him... or something like that.

Yeh, him too.

http://en.wikipedia.org...