The Chinese + christian fundamentalism

Tim Robbins · 30-03-2009 8:58pm

PDN wrote: »

You could equally argue that since no one could be aware of all religions in existence then it is somewhat premature to be declaring oneself an atheist.

Unless you have an argument that cuts through them all. Which is what atheism is. No evidence and / or no logical argument => no belief.

PDN · 30-03-2009 9:24pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Unless you have an argument that cuts through them all. Which is what atheism is. No evidence and / or no logical argument => no belief.

But how can you actually know that there's no evidence or no logical argument unless you examine every single one of them?

Glass houses & stones and all that.

Zombrex · 30-03-2009 10:00pm

PDN wrote: »

But how can you actually know that there's no evidence or no logical argument unless you examine every single one of them?

Glass houses & stones and all that.

Er no.

Atheism isn't a belief that there is absolutely no evidence anyway ever. It is simply a state not having had any evidence so far presented by anyone so why believe in something that is not in any way supported when there is well supported alternative (humans make this stuff up because it is comforting).

There isn't an atheist on this forum that I've conversed with who wouldn't accept some deity or alien or god or what ever existed if someone could actually demonstrate they do.

But so far no one has. All you guys have is what you think must be true. Which means diddly squat.

Tim Robbins · 30-03-2009 10:25pm

PDN wrote: »

But how can you actually know that there's no evidence or no logical argument unless you examine every single one of them?

No religion (that I am aware of) makes a claim it has any scientific evidence.
There were a few claims of logical arguments. Any one that gathered any momentum in the intellectual community have been well rebutted.

On the other hand I don't think any Theologian or any religion has rebutted the problem of evil.

PDN · 30-03-2009 10:36pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No religion (that I am aware of) makes a claim it has any scientific evidence.

Ah, that you're aware of. So that means you don't need to examine them all?

In that case, I can say that no religion that I'm aware of, other than Christianity, comes close to convincing me of its truthfulness.

Sauce. Goose. Gander.

stevejazzx · 31-03-2009 8:30am

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

And that 'truth' is really only of value if it leads to the betterment of the people involved. Its a totally subjective thing, wholly dependant on the individuals involved. There's no value in truth alone ihmo, only if it can lead to an advancement. But I fully admit that's my own personal taken on the matter.

No. Truth is of value whether or not it leads to the betterment of people, becasue it has worth in it's essence and it is worthwhile prolonging that essence because the aternative is prolonging a lie, a placebo - religion is the placebo of the people'. It is the great lie of the masses.
And again there is no better hope for real advancement than the truth unless you can somehow tell me how we could really advance without it?

RH wrote:

Again as above, the assumption is that truth is always the better answer. For those of us in an affluent free society, happy with our day to day lot it probably is, but that's not true for everyone.

Some times a little lie is the best medicine. imho etc etc...

It's bad medicine that which just prolongs and deepens the disease.

Tim Robbins · 31-03-2009 8:47am

PDN wrote: »

Ah, that you're aware of. So that means you don't need to examine them all?

If a Religion had scientific evidence, I would suggest it would have gathered momentum in the scientific community by now. None have.

Just like if any of the 500,000 reported sightings of UFOs since the second world war had any scientific evidence they'd have gathered momentum by now.

But should I have to examine all 500,000 cases before I can conclude these are all delusions?

In that case, I can say that no religion that I'm aware of, other than Christianity, comes close to convincing me of its truthfulness.

Well that's just a false singularity because there is no single version of Christianity. Logical fallacy aside, the point I was making that some people who call themselves Christians have very lenient criteria for what constitutes good evidence. If they applied their criteria to even one other religion (including another version of Christianity), they'd have to believe that too which would be impossible because of the mutually exclusive nature of religions.

However, this very simple point never dawns on them because they spend their life's only interacting with people with the same views as them, all close friends only have the same views as them, any relationships they have only have the same views as them, even the countries and places they visit or go on holidays are again dominated by the same religious slant and of course all the books they read, rather than challenge their opinions simply are their to support them.

It's the most obvious version of Plato's cave in existence.

It's hardly just a co-incidence that the biggest indicaters of a person's religious persuasion is their geographical location.
Now this doesn't really bother me until they try to convince me of the veracity of their beliefs. It all boils down to the simple maxim that I can't take anybody seriously unless they have considered their own position critically.

PDN · 31-03-2009 9:10am

Tim Robbins wrote: »

But should I have to examine all 500,000 cases before I can conclude these are all delusions?

Only if you're stupid enough to argue that someone who believes in the actuality of one particular UFO sighting must first of all investigate and reject all sightings that contain contradictory elements.

Well that's just a false singularity because there is no single version of Christianity. Logical fallacy aside

There was no logical fallacy. Did you learn that devious little rhetorical trick from Baginni's book?

The fact that different variations occur within Christianity (or evolution, or global warming) does not prevent someone from concluding that Christianity (or evolution, or global warming) is true.

In other words, I can be convinced that a broad belief X is true, even when there are different opinions as to the details of X.

No logical fallacy there.

Dades · 31-03-2009 9:16am

PDN wrote: »

Ah, that you're aware of. So that means you don't need to examine them all?

I look at it this way - if the biggest religion in the world can't come up with any convincing evidence that their god is real, then it only makes sense to assume (until otherwise shown) that other, less popular deities, are in the same imaginary boat.

Rev Hellfire · 31-03-2009 9:17am

stevejazzx wrote: »

No. Truth is of value whether or not it leads to the betterment of people, becasue it has worth in it's essence and it is worthwhile prolonging that essence because the aternative is prolonging a lie, a placebo - religion is the placebo of the people'. It is the great lie of the masses.
And again there is no better hope for real advancement than the truth unless you can somehow tell me how we could really advance without it?

I suspect we'll never agree on this one, I simply just don't value the idea of truth as something whose 'value' transcends all else.
I'm more interested in the practical results of its application than in the ideal itself.

In the scientific world I'd certainly agree with you truth is paramount, .
But I still believe that 'lie' of religion can provide hope and comfort for those in desperate situations such as the squalor of the third world many find themselves living in. A false hope of can give people strength where the harsh reality of their situation can offer them no reward.

I can understand where you're coming from though, in that such false hopes can also be an impedance to change, the question as always from my perspective is will it be a change for the better or the worse.

Its just not such a black and white thing in my view.

Tim Robbins · 31-03-2009 9:18am

PDN wrote: »

Only if you're stupid enough to argue that someone who believes in the actuality of one particular UFO sighting must first of all investigate and reject all sightings that contain contradictory elements.

No. If a UFO had good evidence it would have been picked up the Scientific community by now. Dito Religion.

There was no logical fallacy. Did you learn that devious little rhetorical trick from Baginni's book?

The fact that different variations occur within Christianity (or evolution, or global warming) does not prevent someone from concluding that Christianity (or evolution, or global warming) is true.

In other words, I can be convinced that a broad belief X is true, even when there are different opinions as to the details of X.

It does if the variations are mutually exclusive. They can't all be true.

PDN · 31-03-2009 9:21am

Dades wrote: »

I look at it this way - if the biggest religion in the world can't come up with any convincing evidence that their god is real, then it only makes sense to assume (until otherwise shown) that other, less popular deities, are in the same imaginary boat.

Tim would disagree with you because you have, apparently, committed a logical fallacy by bringing in a false singularity. There are many different versions of "the biggest religion in the world"

Not being a fan of such rhetorical tricks as Tim, I agree that you have a perfect right to reach such a conclusion. However, and this is my point in intervening in this thread, if you make such an assumption without examining the less popular religions, then it would be hypocritical to deny Christians the right to also make assumptions without examining those less popular religions.

Naz_st · 31-03-2009 9:23am

PDN wrote: »

Ah, that you're aware of. So that means you don't need to examine them all?

That's right. And the logic works in that way perfectly correctly - it's basically a syllogism:
1) All Theistic religions have the attribute that a belief in a God is required
2) Atheism is the lack of a belief in God
3) Atheists discount all religions

Similar to:
1) All icecream contains dairy products
2) Lactose intolerant people can't eat dairy products
3) Lactose intolerent people can't have icecream

But the logic just does not work the other way. In pure logic terms, somebody can't legitimately say they know for certain, for all time, that mint icecream is their favorite flavour. They can't have tried all flavours from throughout the history of icecream including all future flavours yet to be invented. But lactose intolerant people can logically say that because icecream definitionally has the attribute of containing dairy products, they won't be able to eat it.

stevejazzx · 31-03-2009 9:25am

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

.... the question as always from my perspective is will it be a change for the better or the worse.

Better, even when it's worse becasue it could only be worse in the shortterm.

PDN · 31-03-2009 9:25am

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It does if the variations are mutually exclusive. They can't all be true.

Come on, Tim, this isn't that hard to understand. A general proposition can be true even if people hold to different, and mutually exclusive, variations of that proposition.

Let's take evolution, since it is a favourite subject of yours. Are you seriously claiming that there are no mutually exclusive interpretations among scientists as to how evolution has occurred?

Tim Robbins · 31-03-2009 9:27am

PDN wrote: »

Dades wrote:

I look at it this way - if the biggest religion in the world can't come up with any convincing evidence that their god is real, then it only makes sense to assume (until otherwise shown) that other, less popular deities, are in the same imaginary boat.

Tim would disagree with you because you have, apparently, committed a logical fallacy by bringing in a false singularity. There are many different versions of "the biggest religion in the world"

Not if Dades was referring to the One True Roman Catholic Church when he said "biggest religion".
It's perfectly fine then as statistically that's still the largest religion in the world.

Not being a fan of such rhetorical tricks as Tim, I agree that you have a perfect right to reach such a conclusion.

and that isn't a rhetorical trick?

Get real.

Zombrex · 31-03-2009 9:29am

PDN wrote: »

However, and this is my point in intervening in this thread, if you make such an assumption without examining the less popular religions, then it would be hypocritical to deny Christians the right to also make assumptions without examining those less popular religions.

What Christians assume or assert is some what different to what atheists do though

What Christians assert they have been able to figure out requires knowledge of stuff that they really couldn't know. Like the claim that God is always good or the Bible is infallible. How could you possibly know that?

Anyway I think Tim's point is that religious people simply accept the first, or one of the first religions that come along that ticks a number of boxes for them. This shouldn't have anything to do with the truth of the religion, but it happens over and over, suggesting that religion is about what it does for the person rather than based on a rational assessment of how true it is.

It is like the polling quirk that if you ask someone what is their favourite book/movie of all time they are far far more likely to name something they have recently seen or read. Religious people are far far more likely to be members of a religion they have a lot of exposure to, rather than one they haven't. This should have nothing to do with the truth of the religion.

Tim Robbins · 31-03-2009 9:31am

PDN wrote: »

Come on, Tim, this isn't that hard to understand. A general proposition can be true even if people hold to different, and mutually exclusive, variations of that proposition.

Yes certainly but is that general proposition objectively defined:
1. Evolution - Yes
Random mutation, non random selection, eventual speciation.
2. Global warming - Yes
Increasing global temperature. The IPCC 4th report is a massive and meaningful document, peer reviewed and accepted by the scientific community.
3. Christianity -
No.

Let's take evolution, since it is a favourite subject of yours. Are you seriously claiming that there are no mutually exclusive interpretations among scientists as to how evolution has occurred?

All evolutionary scientists agree on the definition I provided, which is rather meaningful.

Dades · 31-03-2009 9:40am

PDN wrote: »

However, and this is my point in intervening in this thread, if you make such an assumption without examining the less popular religions, then it would be hypocritical to deny Christians the right to also make assumptions without examining those less popular religions.

If we were to allow Christians the same assumptions as I've used in my example, their allowed assumption would be that if there is evidence for that god - there may also be evidence for other gods.

I've concluded as there is no evidence for the most popular god - there's probably no evidence for the small fish (a simplification of my beliefs, of course). The opposite is that if evidence can be found for one god - there may be evidence for other gods.

I would also argue that perhaps the consequences of 'believing' over 'not believing' suggests that more thorough research would be pertinent. We're talking about a complete lifestyle change here.

stevejazzx · 31-03-2009 10:40am

PDN wrote: »

Come on, Tim, this isn't that hard to understand. A general proposition can be true even if people hold to different, and mutually exclusive, variations of that proposition.

Let's take evolution, since it is a favourite subject of yours. Are you seriously claiming that there are no mutually exclusive interpretations among scientists as to how evolution has occurred?

It's not a favorite subject of yours either it would seem since if it was you would not have used that as an example. There some varying interpretations on some of the finer points but the overall idea has been validated and is supported in countless scientific communities all over the world. Perhaps the most varied idea on the subject (between proper academics in the field of course - I'm not including creationists) exists between the likes of say the Late Stephen J. Gould and someone like Richard Dawkins but upon investigation even they are in agreement on a great many things. On this very forum various people have posted links to studies which confirmed that more than 99% of scientists believe in and support evolution. This hardly compares with religious belief which is wildly different from one continent to the next and where when similarities do exist they are dismissed as being derivatives or precursors of the one true religion.

PDN · 31-03-2009 11:03am

stevejazzx wrote: »

It's not a favorite subject of yours either it would seem since if it was you would not have used that as an example. There some varying interpretations on some of the finer points but the overall idea has been validated and is supported in countless scientific communities all over the world. Perhaps the most varied idea on the subject (between proper academics in the field of course - I'm not including creationists) exists between the likes of say the Late Stephen J. Gould and someone like Richard Dawkins but upon investigation even they are in agreement on a great many things. On this very forum various people have posted links to studies which confirmed that more than 99% of scientists believe in and support evolution. This hardly compares with religious belief which is wildly different from one continent to the next and where when similarities do exist they are dismissed as being derivatives or precursors of the one true religion.

I concur with you that 99% of scientists agree with evolution. That is exactly my point! They may disagree on the details of how evolution occurred, but those variations do not stop them from believing in evolution itself. It's not often that you and I agree, Steve, so this is nice.

I also agree with you that religious belief varies wildly. However, that is somewhat irrelevant since I clearly was not talking about religious belief in general, but about Christianity. I was making the point that one can be convinced of the truth of Christianity as a whole while still holding variant beliefs within Christianity. So Jakkass (an Anglican) and myself (a Pentecostal) may disagree on certain issues but we can both still be convinced that Christianity in general is true.

However, this looks like being one of those threads where Tim argues on and on in order to support an increasingly isolated and ludicrous position (anyone remember the Dawkins child abuse thread?). Rather than banging my head off a brick wall I will simply remember that Tim regards any talk of Christianity in general as being a false singularity and a logical fallacy. Therefore, unless he chooses to be a hypocrite, Tim will only ever post on the Christianity forum about varieties of Christianity and never about Christianity in general.

Have a nice day!

Tim Robbins · 31-03-2009 11:39am

PDN wrote: »

However, this looks like being one of those threads where Tim argues on and on in order to support an increasingly isolated and ludicrous position (anyone remember the Dawkins child abuse thread?). Rather than banging my head off a brick wall I will simply remember that Tim regards any talk of Christianity in general as being a false singularity and a logical fallacy. Therefore, unless he chooses to be a hypocrite, Tim will only ever post on the Christianity forum about varieties of Christianity and never about Christianity in general.

Have a nice day!

It depends on the context of the word Christianity is used. If it's used as just an umbrella term, which does not necessiate anything more than its umbrella abstraction, that's fine.

For example, "The Bible is a book used in Christianity". Or the "Christianity forum". There's no false singularity there.

But if it's used in the context you used it: "Christianity is true", that's a false singulariy because to one Christian that means Adam and Eve are true historical characters and to another Christian that means Adam and Eve are an allegory and to another Christian it means it doesn't matter. There are many other stark differences.

Whereas in evolution and global warming it easy to ascertain what the universally agreed facts are.

The irony of all this PDN, is that you accuse me of rhetorical tricks when in fact it's the Christians who use the word Christianity to represent their position who are engaging in these tactics. They use that word because it then sounds that their position has a much larger support than it actually does.

For example, you're from a minority Christianity interpretation Church. You church sounds more impressive when you don't point that out.

Now God or Jesus could have prevented this false singulariy by clearly defining Christianity. But the closest they gave us immediately depends on your blend of Christianity:
1. How is the scripture interpretated?
2. Did they really provide one true Church which still exists today?

So with Christianity the mystery, the ambiguity begins immediately. If you want to compare that level of uncertainty to established Scientific theories, I call into question your scientific aptitiude.

PDN · 31-03-2009 12:02pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It depends on the context of the word Christianity is used. If it's used as just an umbrella term, which does not necessiate anything more than its umbrella abstraction, that's fine.

For example, "The Bible is a book used in Christianity". Or the "Christianity forum". There's no false singularity there.

But if it's used in the context you used it: "Christianity is true", that's a false singulariy because to one Christian that means Adam and Eve are true historical characters and to another Christian that means Adam and Eve are an allegory and to another Christian it means it doesn't matter. There are many other stark differences.

That is nonsense, and you know it's nonsense. I referred to someone being convinced that Christianity is true, not to any one particular version of Christianity, and certainly not to whether Creationism is true or not. Your wriggling is only serving to leave you more impaled on your self-inflicted hook.

For example, you're from a minority Christianity interpretation Church. You church sounds more impressive when you don't point that out.

What? We both know that the majority Christian interpretation church is Roman Catholicism. I have always openly stated that my church is non-Catholic and I have always made clear that my denomination is not the biggest in Christianity. Anyone who states or implies that I have ever pretended otherwise is a snivelling liar whom I would not dignify by engaging in debate.

Over and out.

stevejazzx · 31-03-2009 12:04pm

PDN wrote: »

I concur with you that 99% of scientists agree with evolution. That is exactly my point! They may disagree on the details of how evolution occurred, but those variations do not stop them from believing in evolution itself. It's not often that you and I agree, Steve, so this is nice.

No it's not nice. You cherry pick your replies...
I said more than 99%. I said they disagree on the finer points, not the major ones like religion (or just Christinaity if that hleps you). I said that there is agreement in varying communities all over the world. I made a valid post outlining the weaknesses of your argument and you replied with in a frivolous manner saying we are in agreement. This, to any honest spectator outlines further the weakness in your initial point which is, lest we forget, that belief in evolution and belief in Christianity merit the same sensible foundation of varying interpretations among their respective supporters. A scientifically validated and respected concept with almost endless evidence merits only the same privileges as belief in Christianity? Come on.
Christianity which has no testable evidence whatsoever and is an Institution which has a less than reputable history.

PDN wrote:

I also agree with you that religious belief varies wildly. However, that is somewhat irrelevant since I clearly was not talking about religious belief in general, but about Christianity. I was making the point that one can be convinced of the truth of Christianity as a whole while still holding variant beliefs within Christianity. So Jakkass (an Anglican) and myself (a Pentecostal) may disagree on certain issues but we can both still be convinced that Christianity in general is true.

Your unbelievable. I can kind of see how the religious minds work. You just ignore the inconvenient stuff. I mean honestly, comparing yourself and Jackass to 2 scientists differing on the finer points of evolutionary text is, well unsound. They don't go off and set up their own exclusive branch of evolution. They conduct experiments in the hope of clarifying particularly difficult and disputed areas of the text in firther hope of moving the whole thing forward. And the text itself is testable and well recorded which completely separates it from any holy text. Therefore your comparision has no grounds.

PDN wrote:

However, this looks like being one of those threads where Tim argues on and on in order to support an increasingly isolated and ludicrous position (anyone remember the Hawkins child abuse thread?). Rather than banging my head off a brick wall I will simply remember that Tim regards any talk of Christianity in general as being a false singularity and a logical fallacy. Therefore, unless he chooses to be a hypocrite, Tim will only ever post on the Christianity forum about varieties of Christianity and never about Christianity in general.

Have a nice day!

Forget about Tim. Let's you and I debate one on one as you offered to another younger poster recently.

PDN · 31-03-2009 12:26pm

stevejazzx wrote: »

No it's not nice. You cherry pick your replies...
I said more than 99%.

Sorry, I'm just not getting what you're on about here. More than 99% is fine with me. 100% would be perfectly fine with me as well. Why are you getting pedantic over that?

I made a valid post outlining the weaknesses of your argument and you replied with in a frivolous manner saying we are in agreement.

My argument was that people can believe in the general truthfulness of proposition X while disagreeing over details within that general proposition.

So, for example, people can agree that the general beliefs of Christianity (for example, the fundamental doctrines stated in the Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed) are true, yet still disagree over other issues. What weaknesses in that argument did you outline?

This, to any honest spectator outlines further the weakness in your initial point which is, lest we forget, that belief in evolution and belief in Christianity merit the same sensible foundation of varying interpretations among their respective supporters. A scientifically validated and respected concept with almost endless evidence merits only the same privileges as belief in Christianity? Come on.

Huh? Are you smoking something? Where did I ever make that point?

I simply compared Christianity to evolution in one characteristic only - that they both are concepts whose adherents share the same opinion on the truthfulness of the general concept while disagreeing over details within the general concept.

I never, implicitly or explicitly, made any comparison between their respective foundations or made any reference to them meriting the same privileges. I'm afraid that is something you appear to have made up all on your own without any help from me.

Forget about Tim. Let's you and I debate one on one as you offered to another younger poster recently.

I'll gladly debate you, irrespective of age, if you actually address stuff that I've said instead of tilting at windmills that you have conjured up out of your own imagination

Tim Robbins · 31-03-2009 12:38pm

PDN wrote: »

That is nonsense, and you know it's nonsense. I referred to someone being convinced that Christianity is true, not to any one particular version of Christianity, and certainly not to whether Creationism is true or not.

Ha. I'm the one wriggling.
Don't you see the problem with saying "Christianity is true"?
What Christianity means isn't objectively defined or agreed. So it's meaningless.

Your wriggling is only serving to leave you more impaled on your self-inflicted hook.

And I'm the one engaging in rhetoric. That's all your posts are. Rhetoric, word play and spin. Zero logic.

What? We both know that the majority Christian interpretation church is Roman Catholicism. I have always openly stated that my church is non-Catholic and I have always made clear that my denomination is not the biggest in Christianity. Anyone who states or implies that I have ever pretended otherwise is a snivelling liar whom I would not dignify by engaging in debate.

Over and out.

More word play and rhetoric. I never said you pretended your Church was bigger than it is. You like many other Protestant Christians are simply engaging in a little bit of spin. Rather than refer to yourselves as something that is unambiguous and objectively defined you use a broad term because that term has a more positive spin.

Tim Robbins · 31-03-2009 1:05pm

PDN wrote: »

So, for example, people can agree that the general beliefs of Christianity (for example, the fundamental doctrines stated in the Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed) are true, yet still disagree over other issues. What weaknesses in that argument did you outline?

Weaknesses?

For start the Eastern Orthodox Churches do not formally accept the Apostles Creed, and some denominations use different words which give it different meanings.

As for the Nicene creed some Churches reject the filioque clause while others accept it.

See:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_beli.htm

See what I mean about false singularity?

stevejazzx · 31-03-2009 1:09pm

PDN wrote: »

Sorry, I'm just not getting what you're on about here. More than 99% is fine with me. 100% would be perfectly fine with me as well. Why are you getting pedantic over that?

More than 99% means 99.x% which, in this case means, a high decimal value. Sorry if you were confused.

PDN wrote:

My argument was that people can believe in the general truthfulness of proposition X while disagreeing over details within that general proposition.
So, for example, people can agree that the general beliefs of Christianity(for example, the fundamental doctrines stated in the Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed) are true, yet still disagree over other issues. What weaknesses in that argument did you outline?

That this is not comparable in any way to evolutionists disagreeing on the finer points of evolution.

PDN wrote:

Huh? Are you smoking something? Where did I ever make that point?

You asked another poster

PDN wrote:

Are you drunk? My argument does not depend on atheism being a religion at all.

Now you ask me if I am smoking something? perhaps it's time you looked at the lowest common denominator?
Depending on your state you may be quite impressionable.

Oh and by the way you made the comparison here, I've bolded the relevant bit.

PDN wrote:

A general proposition can be true even if people hold to different, and mutually exclusive, variations of that proposition.
Let's take evolution, since it is a favorite subject of yours. Are you seriously claiming that there are no mutually exclusive interpretations among scientists as to how evolution has occurred?

PDN wrote:

I simply compared Christianity to evolution...

Oh so you did...see what I did there PDN. I'm learning some nice tricks from you it has to be said.

PDN wrote:

I never, implicitly or explicitly, made any comparison between their respective foundations or made any reference to them meriting the same privileges. I'm afraid that is something you appear to have made up all on your own without any help from me.

But surely you of all people can understand someone doing something like that.

PDN wrote:

I'll gladly debate you, irrespective of age, if you actually address stuff that I've said instead of tilting at windmills that you have conjured up out of your own imagination

Hmmm. Kettle, pot. Black.

The Chinese + christian fundamentalism

Comments