I doubt that! Chimps are already smarter than 90% of the fast food workers.Originally posted by LordOpie
Don't be surprised if in 20 years, you get your fastfood served by a chimp
Looks like Darwin was more clever than some people think...
- Thread starter Tenchiro
- Start date
ohhh maaaaaaan!!! am so scared i wont be sleeping tonight.
it really scares the crap out of me, thinking that am going to a place that nobody has ever been,. and nodoby has ever seen, and nodoby has ever came back, and nobody even knows where it is, or how is it, and that a few guys dreamed of a few thousands years ago.
it really scares me to death that. so much, that i'll add it to the least of my most feared thing.
is so scary that i dont know if putting it in front of the jersey devil, of before the evil tooth faire.
Alexis
it really scares the crap out of me, thinking that am going to a place that nobody has ever been,. and nodoby has ever seen, and nodoby has ever came back, and nobody even knows where it is, or how is it, and that a few guys dreamed of a few thousands years ago.
it really scares me to death that. so much, that i'll add it to the least of my most feared thing.
is so scary that i dont know if putting it in front of the jersey devil, of before the evil tooth faire.
Alexis
Incidentally, 'hell' is an Olde English word for the ground, so basically it's true. The hell of Satan and eternal fire is just something the Catholic church invented to scare us little people into obeying them.
I'm just hoping this doesn't turn into antoher interminable religion thread.
John 3:16 is a powerful statement, but read 16-18 to get the whole idea of what Opie is talking about.
Come on over and I'll fire up my grill, we can put your hand on the coals so you can get a taste of what eternity in hell is like. Sound like a good idea? What, you don't want to take the chance?
hmmm, sounds interesting. how do you hell is like that? could you please back it up with anything else than the bible???
i mean, thats circle reasoning, you say hell is like that because the bible says so, right? you dont have any other proof of it. you just say its true because its the word of god, right?
but then, the bible is true because is the word of god, and god exists because the bible says so. dont you see anything wrong with this?
i'd actually love to test your view of hell, but nothing other than you and a book compilated in 397 AC by the catholic church tells me you are right. (btw, the bible itself, was chopped in 397 when the catholics decided what the bible was goint to be, they selected what books wehere going, and which were out)
the whole concept of hell and purgatory was used in the dark ages to scare people. jus remember dante aligheri.
i just wonder how it can still work?
so plz, if you are going to show hell to me, use something else to back up myour statement than the bible to tell me its like this.
because most religions of the world can show me their view of hell and back back it up with their sacred book, and all of them seem different.
how are you so sure you are the right guy to show me hell?
i'd rather have a better guide.
alexis
btw, instead,. ill use your own sacred book to help you can proof yourself you are a true belieeer
read Mk 16:17,18
as you are a believer, you are with christ and can do all those thing this verses say. now please do what it says, "if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them"
please read the entire chapter if you want, to see am not taking things out of context.
a good thing to start would be sulfuric acid, or potasium cyanide.
i mean, thats circle reasoning, you say hell is like that because the bible says so, right? you dont have any other proof of it. you just say its true because its the word of god, right?
but then, the bible is true because is the word of god, and god exists because the bible says so. dont you see anything wrong with this?
i'd actually love to test your view of hell, but nothing other than you and a book compilated in 397 AC by the catholic church tells me you are right. (btw, the bible itself, was chopped in 397 when the catholics decided what the bible was goint to be, they selected what books wehere going, and which were out)
the whole concept of hell and purgatory was used in the dark ages to scare people. jus remember dante aligheri.
i just wonder how it can still work?
so plz, if you are going to show hell to me, use something else to back up myour statement than the bible to tell me its like this.
because most religions of the world can show me their view of hell and back back it up with their sacred book, and all of them seem different.
how are you so sure you are the right guy to show me hell?
i'd rather have a better guide.
alexis
btw, instead,. ill use your own sacred book to help you can proof yourself you are a true belieeer
read Mk 16:17,18
as you are a believer, you are with christ and can do all those thing this verses say. now please do what it says, "if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them"
please read the entire chapter if you want, to see am not taking things out of context.
a good thing to start would be sulfuric acid, or potasium cyanide.
i did a research paper on hell. There's more references to hell in the bible as it pertains to a firey, bone-gnashing pit in old Jerusalem where criminals where thrown into alive as punishment for serious sins, err, crimes.
the eternal concept of hell as punishment comes directly from that real capital punishment.
the eternal concept of hell as punishment comes directly from that real capital punishment.
if you are talking about pascal's wager, it doesnt tell you to beliee
in the bible, but rather believing in a god, whatever it might be.
its not proof for the bible.
ill just take my 50% chance in nonbelieing. believe or not i have tried to believe, but going against reason doenst cut for me.
definately life is way more easy to live if you think there is a god and heaven and stuff. but the entire concept doesnt make a sense to me
is easier to believe than to thiink
alexis
in the bible, but rather believing in a god, whatever it might be.
its not proof for the bible.
ill just take my 50% chance in nonbelieing. believe or not i have tried to believe, but going against reason doenst cut for me.
definately life is way more easy to live if you think there is a god and heaven and stuff. but the entire concept doesnt make a sense to me
is easier to believe than to thiink
alexis
iOriginally posted by LordOpie
if you want proof, the mathematician Pascal proved why you should believe in the bible
because i was born into a world of believers, where believing is linked to emotions, and is a supreme norm for most people.
i cant help it.
and also, turning into agnostic, is not easy, by no means. because doing so, is givving up things most people take for granted. and while i think the chances of god as true are very, very, very slim; there is no way i can't rule them out.
it just seems more unlikely than what i believe now. but if somebody can prove me wrong. ill change my mind. am open to arguments that dont contradict what i can see and prove.
Alexis
i cant help it.
and also, turning into agnostic, is not easy, by no means. because doing so, is givving up things most people take for granted. and while i think the chances of god as true are very, very, very slim; there is no way i can't rule them out.
it just seems more unlikely than what i believe now. but if somebody can prove me wrong. ill change my mind. am open to arguments that dont contradict what i can see and prove.
Alexis
well, i dont interpret anything. i just take it literally as fundamentalists think is the way to go, just to prove that approach wrong.
i agree with the bible as a symbol, as any other religious symbol, and the catholic interpretation of it as a symboic figure. there is nothing wrong with that. (after all, the bible was compiled by catholics)
the problem is fundamentalists that try to take them literally.
firstable according to KJV
Genesis 1
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
in the 5 you can tell light was called day, and darkness night. its imposible relative to the earth to do so if there is no sun and rotation of the planets.
now, it cant be about an absolute light in the universe, and absolute night in the universe, because, the universe doesnt have days and nights, only the planets, because of the star they are close to, and their rotation.
now the second part.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
i think that 19 verse contradicts the 5th, as the 5th said "And the evening and the morning were the first day", and the 19th says
"And the evening and the morning were the fourth day"
am not making somthing out of nothing, am just literally taking the bible as most protestants denominations do. and thats is the problem, that is not religion., that is fanatism.
either way, if there is some god, at least this doesnt fit the perfection a god is supossed to have. which by the way is a quality humans attributed to the concept of "god".
because a perfect god wouldnt go around showing off how perfect she or he is. and, in the other hand, we as humans, could not discover this by ourselves as we only see what god wants us to see. thats pride and i guess is one of the seven christian sins.
this just scrambles the poor logic behind the entire concept, it colapses under its own weight. after all, all this was invented by some people a loooong time ago. but as time passed, it turned into judaism, then christianism. and you can trace it back as far as you want, cuz all the principles for most religions of that part of the world are related to some extend, and all based on the same story, told a few thousands years before christ. so the bible and christianism is just another variation of the story.
after all, nietzche once question, did god created man, or man created god?
seems too unperfect for perfection, isnt it?
Alexis
btw, i dont think the political debate forum is the best place to talk about bikes. u might have better luck in the dh forum or the lounge.
i agree with the bible as a symbol, as any other religious symbol, and the catholic interpretation of it as a symboic figure. there is nothing wrong with that. (after all, the bible was compiled by catholics)
the problem is fundamentalists that try to take them literally.
firstable according to KJV
Genesis 1
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
in the 5 you can tell light was called day, and darkness night. its imposible relative to the earth to do so if there is no sun and rotation of the planets.
now, it cant be about an absolute light in the universe, and absolute night in the universe, because, the universe doesnt have days and nights, only the planets, because of the star they are close to, and their rotation.
now the second part.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
i think that 19 verse contradicts the 5th, as the 5th said "And the evening and the morning were the first day", and the 19th says
"And the evening and the morning were the fourth day"
am not making somthing out of nothing, am just literally taking the bible as most protestants denominations do. and thats is the problem, that is not religion., that is fanatism.
either way, if there is some god, at least this doesnt fit the perfection a god is supossed to have. which by the way is a quality humans attributed to the concept of "god".
because a perfect god wouldnt go around showing off how perfect she or he is. and, in the other hand, we as humans, could not discover this by ourselves as we only see what god wants us to see. thats pride and i guess is one of the seven christian sins.
this just scrambles the poor logic behind the entire concept, it colapses under its own weight. after all, all this was invented by some people a loooong time ago. but as time passed, it turned into judaism, then christianism. and you can trace it back as far as you want, cuz all the principles for most religions of that part of the world are related to some extend, and all based on the same story, told a few thousands years before christ. so the bible and christianism is just another variation of the story.
after all, nietzche once question, did god created man, or man created god?
seems too unperfect for perfection, isnt it?
Alexis
btw, i dont think the political debate forum is the best place to talk about bikes. u might have better luck in the dh forum or the lounge.
Even reading what you typed doesnt say what you are tring to make of it, it is simply saying that is the forth day of creation, if you read down to verse 23 it says the same thing but that there was a fifth day. To really understand the bible you really have to study it.
what i d really like to know is 'what s up' with someone having a web page about their own 'personal aventures' ?????????????
how could something that is so important in life have escaped me ??
parts :devil:
Yeah Opie, and what's with the lack of up-dates???? If we're gonna be bored senseless by your box filled with dirt called a life we may as well be bored senseless by the most recent stuff
amen champ... i can t sleep at night without knowing whay opie has been up to...Originally posted by valve bouncer
Yeah Opie, and what's with the lack of up-dates???? If we're gonna be bored senseless by your box filled with dirt called a life we may as well be bored senseless by the most recent stuff
call me sad, but i need my opie fix.... adventures personified !!!!
Don't do that if you value faith at all.
You'll start asking where the unicorns are....
hehhee
that is the best sh1t i ve read in the last 3523 minutes !
bravo silver
GOD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
he is real don t ya know ? ? ? ?
It's a shameless ripoff though, I didn't come up with that line....
Quiet, shaddup, delete....it's yours until someone can prove otherwise Silver
no sh1t sherlock... 99% of what i say can be traced back to pavement/fugazi/mudhoney songs of the late 90's
Y E S, i m that sad...
more fodder for ridiculer SERIAL MIDGET
Y E S, i m that sad...
more fodder for ridiculer SERIAL MIDGET
I sort of see where AlexisDH is coming from. My views: To say you don't believe is like saying you don't believe in an after life and thus see no chance at seeing past family and friends. Its tough though with all the evolutionary evidence. I would like to think that there is a being of a higher power, but I don't believe in the bible. I think it would be more likely that God just planted the DNA seeds and let everything go from there. IMHO, to live your life entirly according to the bible is to give up your ability to reason. It is our ability to reason that sets us apart from all the other animals on the planet. Also, with all the religon out there, how can any human decide which one is right and which are wrong?
yeah, u kinda get my point.
i agree with you on most of the points.
now, i see god as a slim chance, but the ways most religions work doesnt seem compatible to me, 99% of them are mutually exclusive and they guarantee they are the only way to salvation.
am sorry, but if there is any god, so far the only warranty for that is the word of the people who created that religion.
while i think there is a chance of divinity in god, i dont think there is even the slighest chance of divinity in most religions.
but i dont think is more likely that a god planted the dna seeds.
it's actually a nice and comforting idea to think we are planned beings. that is one of the pilars of most religions. the concept behind it, is good actually, it makes people feel good about themselves, its like a emotional crutch.
dna is just a very complex molecule, actually the "only" difference between a dna molecule, and an inert molecule of protein with the same chemical formula, is the arrangement of the atoms. in fact the only difference between all the matter in the world is the relative position and motion of electrons, protons and neutrons.
this "small" difference (small in terms of odds of happening vs time, because those differences are quite amazing actually), is accountable for all the variety of the matter we know.
am no molecular biologist, but if chemical reactions work at a rate of x per sec, and the most estable partial reaction stays still after reaction, given enough time, and under a huge number of posible combinations for radiation wavelenght, velocity, temperature, pression, etc, etc, etc.... if you have enough time to tinker around with all the posible combinations, statistically you'll get a molecule of dna at some point. (also in the process maybe a molecule of sugar, of chocolate, of whatever you want actually, cuz with every combination you'll get a new molecule, and dna is just one more).
is like rolling 100 million dices with your left hand, and then 100 million dices with your right hand.
if you want to get only 1s in all of your dices at one toss, and inmediately after, getting only 6s in your other toss. i'll may take you a long time, but if you have enough time to roll them enough times, you'll get it!!!!
thats if you are expecting that specific outcome, but what if you dont have a specific goal? then , each time to roll them, u'll get one possible combination, each having an odd of one in 1 000
000 000 000 000.
maybe if you roll them long enough, you'll get all of those posible outcomes!!!.
and this analogy is like the one for the dna, but for the dna, the posible combinations are faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar bigger.
but hey, what if dna came up in the first try? or the second? of the hundred-millionth?, after all the chances of that happening at the x try get bigger with the number of tries.
may take a few billion years, hey, hold on, isn't the entire universe supossed to be a few billions years old as well?...
interesting coincidence.
Alexis
i agree with you on most of the points.
now, i see god as a slim chance, but the ways most religions work doesnt seem compatible to me, 99% of them are mutually exclusive and they guarantee they are the only way to salvation.
am sorry, but if there is any god, so far the only warranty for that is the word of the people who created that religion.
while i think there is a chance of divinity in god, i dont think there is even the slighest chance of divinity in most religions.
but i dont think is more likely that a god planted the dna seeds.
it's actually a nice and comforting idea to think we are planned beings. that is one of the pilars of most religions. the concept behind it, is good actually, it makes people feel good about themselves, its like a emotional crutch.
dna is just a very complex molecule, actually the "only" difference between a dna molecule, and an inert molecule of protein with the same chemical formula, is the arrangement of the atoms. in fact the only difference between all the matter in the world is the relative position and motion of electrons, protons and neutrons.
this "small" difference (small in terms of odds of happening vs time, because those differences are quite amazing actually), is accountable for all the variety of the matter we know.
am no molecular biologist, but if chemical reactions work at a rate of x per sec, and the most estable partial reaction stays still after reaction, given enough time, and under a huge number of posible combinations for radiation wavelenght, velocity, temperature, pression, etc, etc, etc.... if you have enough time to tinker around with all the posible combinations, statistically you'll get a molecule of dna at some point. (also in the process maybe a molecule of sugar, of chocolate, of whatever you want actually, cuz with every combination you'll get a new molecule, and dna is just one more).
is like rolling 100 million dices with your left hand, and then 100 million dices with your right hand.
if you want to get only 1s in all of your dices at one toss, and inmediately after, getting only 6s in your other toss. i'll may take you a long time, but if you have enough time to roll them enough times, you'll get it!!!!
thats if you are expecting that specific outcome, but what if you dont have a specific goal? then , each time to roll them, u'll get one possible combination, each having an odd of one in 1 000
000 000 000 000.
maybe if you roll them long enough, you'll get all of those posible outcomes!!!.
and this analogy is like the one for the dna, but for the dna, the posible combinations are faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar bigger.
but hey, what if dna came up in the first try? or the second? of the hundred-millionth?, after all the chances of that happening at the x try get bigger with the number of tries.
may take a few billion years, hey, hold on, isn't the entire universe supossed to be a few billions years old as well?...
interesting coincidence.
Alexis
if i read a book that explicitely says that 2+2=4, and then a few pages after tells me 2+2=5.
no matter what the result of 2+2 is, at least one of those postulates must be wrong, because they are different.
what do you mean by understanding the bible? i think u are actually dont understanding what i tried to say.
again, the first part said there was already night and light in the first day, right?
now, in the fourth day all these thing "happen"
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
all this thing that "happened" in the 4th day are required to have a night and light (in the earth at least, which by bible accounts is the center of universe and creation and the point of reference for accounts).
notice that all the requisites necesary to have a day and night in the 1st day, didn't appear until the 4th.
so even before there was light and stars in the sky (14-15). was there a light and night???, excuse me, but the light in the universe is the radiation from stars, or the reflection of it.
so this happened before the moon and sun??(16),
so there was a night and light in the earth for 3days, even without a sun and a moon? whose light and reflection are what actually define the concept of day and light in the earth (18). and what "according to the bible defined" night and light?
so, there was light on the earth before the sun, and other stars.
and then
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
so, all the things necesary to have a night and light, were not there until the 4th day.
kinda weird. that's the point of the contradiction.
this kinda reminds me of the paradox of god and the heavy rock. can god make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?
while i was in high school i asked that once to a catholic theologist. to my disbelief, his amazing answer was. yes he can, but that doesnt mean he is not omnipotent.
kinda self-denying. isnt it? interesting how people can break all the rules of logic just for the sake of it.
Alexis
no matter what the result of 2+2 is, at least one of those postulates must be wrong, because they are different.
what do you mean by understanding the bible? i think u are actually dont understanding what i tried to say.
again, the first part said there was already night and light in the first day, right?
now, in the fourth day all these thing "happen"
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
all this thing that "happened" in the 4th day are required to have a night and light (in the earth at least, which by bible accounts is the center of universe and creation and the point of reference for accounts).
notice that all the requisites necesary to have a day and night in the 1st day, didn't appear until the 4th.
so even before there was light and stars in the sky (14-15). was there a light and night???, excuse me, but the light in the universe is the radiation from stars, or the reflection of it.
so this happened before the moon and sun??(16),
so there was a night and light in the earth for 3days, even without a sun and a moon? whose light and reflection are what actually define the concept of day and light in the earth (18). and what "according to the bible defined" night and light?
so, there was light on the earth before the sun, and other stars.
and then
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
so, all the things necesary to have a night and light, were not there until the 4th day.
kinda weird. that's the point of the contradiction.
this kinda reminds me of the paradox of god and the heavy rock. can god make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?
while i was in high school i asked that once to a catholic theologist. to my disbelief, his amazing answer was. yes he can, but that doesnt mean he is not omnipotent.
kinda self-denying. isnt it? interesting how people can break all the rules of logic just for the sake of it.
Alexis
I cant believe that you still cant see this as it is written, there's no sence tring to open your eye's to this matter, you just dont have it in you I guess
there is no condradiction anyhere, even rereading what you type, just think about it for a while, its clearly stating that the day is the forth day of creation.
there is no condradiction anyhere, even rereading what you type, just think about it for a while, its clearly stating that the day is the forth day of creation.
Bob, to break it down for ya.
How can there be a first "DAY" without light? It just doesnt make any sense.
Not to get too far caught up in this whole religious thing, but something that's always bothered me is that lots of people who are religious seem to not want to know any contradictory information. Either they dismiss it as "you just dont get it" or they ignore it.
There is absolutely no way possible to prove whether there is or is not a god. It simply cannot be done. Why all the debate? So the bible's flawed...big deal. Does that mean none of its true? Maybe, maybe not. People will beleive whatever they want. You cant change there mind over stuff like this.
Is it flawed? I dont see it as being flawed, there's nothing at all as you have said it to be, the bible clearly states that God created the Earth, and that the Earth was dark so he created the light, and God called the light day and the darkness night, and there was evening and there was morning, one day.
Then he created the heavens day number two, and then he created the land, and vegetation, and there was evening and a morning, a third day, now heres where are freind Alex cant understand God created the Sun, Moon, and the Stars to govern the day and the night, day number four, it the first part of the chapter there is nothing said about the Sun or moon being created, the bible only says that he created the light, can a God create a light without have a flamming star overhead, why not, the bible only says that he created the light and called it day, then later he created the sun and stars in the heavens.
This is not hard for me to understand, perhaps you are looking at it to hard, back off abit, you are putting the sun's creation in time frame of the light, but remmeber not to asume anything, take it for what it says.
Then he created the heavens day number two, and then he created the land, and vegetation, and there was evening and a morning, a third day, now heres where are freind Alex cant understand God created the Sun, Moon, and the Stars to govern the day and the night, day number four, it the first part of the chapter there is nothing said about the Sun or moon being created, the bible only says that he created the light, can a God create a light without have a flamming star overhead, why not, the bible only says that he created the light and called it day, then later he created the sun and stars in the heavens.
This is not hard for me to understand, perhaps you are looking at it to hard, back off abit, you are putting the sun's creation in time frame of the light, but remmeber not to asume anything, take it for what it says.
Thats what I was thinking!
I remember back in Sunday School the teacher asked us what we thought about Jesus being pefect. I said I doubted he was, since regular folk seem to shy away from perfect people. I though flaws would make him more likeable. It took a while for me to realize just how pissed off this made her!
Then why would anyone even obey anything that is written in the bible? Maybe the whole thing is one big joke?
I personally think Oprah is an idiot, and that her book collection sucks my ass, but that doesnt stop thousands of people from listening to her, or david koresh, or jim jones or dr. phil. People follow when they're too lazy to think.
Yeah what he said!
But just because I am following what he said dont think I am to lazy to think or something.
yeah, believing is way easier than thinking .
now, wonder that all that people who read oprah's books are so grateful they think they are the only ones blessed by oprah, because they buy her books and believe them.
but wait, now, they are so good (and because these book's author wants more costumers and told them to do so) they want to share the infinite knowledge of oprah with all the poor other people of the world. so they'll start preaching, bulding fat-farms (i mean spas), and saying that he who doesn't follows oprah's diet will be damned and will be fat after death for eternity!!
oh!! nobody whats to be fat!!, people starts joining the oprah's movement. they'll start adding new storries to tell, people will start "seeing" miracles, oprah's has saved the fat!!!!
then, in a few thousand years, we'll have it
oprah's religion
i think thats the problem of religion, its just "political" ideas, taken to the maximum extreme.
Alexis
PD: and in a few thousand years more, there will be a mtn biking forums, where people will argue about the divinity of oprah, and how she created the universe.
now, wonder that all that people who read oprah's books are so grateful they think they are the only ones blessed by oprah, because they buy her books and believe them.
but wait, now, they are so good (and because these book's author wants more costumers and told them to do so) they want to share the infinite knowledge of oprah with all the poor other people of the world. so they'll start preaching, bulding fat-farms (i mean spas), and saying that he who doesn't follows oprah's diet will be damned and will be fat after death for eternity!!
oh!! nobody whats to be fat!!, people starts joining the oprah's movement. they'll start adding new storries to tell, people will start "seeing" miracles, oprah's has saved the fat!!!!
then, in a few thousand years, we'll have it
oprah's religion
i think thats the problem of religion, its just "political" ideas, taken to the maximum extreme.
Alexis
PD: and in a few thousand years more, there will be a mtn biking forums, where people will argue about the divinity of oprah, and how she created the universe.
Or they join the Marines
Just f*cken with ya BS, found myself in the disturbing situation of agreeing with you then. I think I need to have a cup of tea.We're studying the universe and stuff in my physics class. While Oprah probably didn't create the universe, she is living proof of a new study of physics that I think I'll do a thesis on... "Conservation of Fat".
Total Fat = Oprah's current weight - weight at t-1 + ego
Conservation of Fat... it's delicious.