>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm sorry for making light of your nickname. You were however being pedantic by ignoring my entire response and centering on your rote understanding of the word omniscience. Why don't you read this and flesh out your understanding:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience
Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began
In regards to the capacity to do evil, evil is just the absence of the perfect and therefore imperfect. God could not be perfect if He acted imperfectly. Since evil is imperfect, God is incapable of evil. Does this limit Gods omnipotence? No..the question of whether God can do anything is tied into what is actually possible. For instance, is it possible for an evil God to create and maintain a Universe? I would say no because only an all-loving God could or would do the things which create and sustain it. An evil God would be selfish and unwilling to do those things, as well as limited in the knowledge it would take to create it in the first place.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
Making fun of my name, the first and last strategy of a person with no argument.
It's pretty amusing to me that you would pull out "pedantic" when your entire presence on this site seams to be based around making a show out of your knowledge. I'd say the one concerned with minutiae is the one trying to redefine the dictionary definition of "omniscient". A strategy which by the way, was conceived of by none other than the Catholic church when illiterate, medieval peasants started pointing out the fallacy of the "free will" argument.
Another interesting question you bring up. Are you saying that God doesn't have the capacity to do evil? Because then he wouldn't be omnipotent would he? Or are you saying that he chooses not to do evil? Because in that case, he'd have the capacity, which would make him both good and evil, wouldn't it?



Wikipedia is not used as a source by intelligent people as intelligent people know that it can be edited by anyone, including those with a personal interest. You are an intelligent person, so it surprises me that you would use it. Try looking at a dictionary.

And you make it very hard to respond to your entire posts as you spend the whole time avoiding the crux of the argument. If there is something evil that God cannot do, he is not omnipotent. If God can do evil but chooses not to, then he still has the capacity for evil. As such, if God is "incapable of evil", then he is not omnipotent.

I'm sorry for making light of your nickname. You were however being pedantic by ignoring my entire response and centering on your rote understanding of the word omniscience. Why don't you read this and flesh out your understanding:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience

Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began

In regards to the capacity to do evil, evil is just the absence of the perfect and therefore imperfect. God could not be perfect if He acted imperfectly. Since evil is imperfect, God is incapable of evil. Does this limit Gods omnipotence? No..the question of whether God can do anything is tied into what is actually possible. For instance, is it possible for an evil God to create and maintain a Universe? I would say no because only an all-loving God could or would do the things which create and sustain it. An evil God would be selfish and unwilling to do those things, as well as limited in the knowledge it would take to create it in the first place.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
Making fun of my name, the first and last strategy of a person with no argument.
It's pretty amusing to me that you would pull out "pedantic" when your entire presence on this site seams to be based around making a show out of your knowledge. I'd say the one concerned with minutiae is the one trying to redefine the dictionary definition of "omniscient". A strategy which by the way, was conceived of by none other than the Catholic church when illiterate, medieval peasants started pointing out the fallacy of the "free will" argument.
Another interesting question you bring up. Are you saying that God doesn't have the capacity to do evil? Because then he wouldn't be omnipotent would he? Or are you saying that he chooses not to do evil? Because in that case, he'd have the capacity, which would make him both good and evil, wouldn't it?

Making fun of my name, the first and last strategy of a person with no argument.

It's pretty amusing to me that you would pull out "pedantic" when your entire presence on this site seams to be based around making a show out of your knowledge. I'd say the one concerned with minutiae is the one trying to redefine the dictionary definition of "omniscient". A strategy which by the way, was conceived of by none other than the Catholic church when illiterate, medieval peasants started pointing out the fallacy of the "free will" argument.

Another interesting question you bring up. Are you saying that God doesn't have the capacity to do evil? Because then he wouldn't be omnipotent would he? Or are you saying that he chooses not to do evil? Because in that case, he'd have the capacity, which would make him both good and evil, wouldn't it?

@shiny says: "Lets say there was a certain King, whom you had never seen..and you are one of his peasants."

Ever notice how almost all religious analogies are about submitting to an authoritarian relationship? King/servant, Master/slave, and the all time favourite of shepherd and his sheep, for example...

And then there's our good friend Paul: "For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church" (Eph.5:21).

But don't worry Christian wives, if your husband thinks you must play a submissive role because the Bible says so, just tell him to go get himself crucified (Eph.5:25)

I reread every comment you made in this thread, and at no point until now did you assert that the peasant is the king's servant, much less his slave as you have now suggested. Not until I suggested that the peasant is in fact free to think as well as act did you suggest that the peasant was a slave. Even if we assume that the peasant is in fact a slave, you have still not demonstrated that his mental condition is in any way relevant to his ability to "perform his job", or "provide for his family", which I have proposed as his motivation for working, irrespective of his belief in an actual king.

You could have tried reading the original comment, which stated:

Now lets say one day you refuse to work, refuse to submit to his authority. You say to yourself, I don't believe this King is really real; I've never seen him with my own eyes.. This a conspiracy, I will just do whatever I want. You even decide to go into the towns square to tell others to stop working for this King. That it is a fools errand, the King is a hoax you say. You're wasting your lives when you could live for yourself! Yet, when the King gets wind of this he tells his soldiers "Fetch my ungrateful servant and bring him in front of me"

The peasants life is intrinsically tied to the King. The peasant is not just working to earn a wage, but to be freed from his obligation..to be freed from slavery basically..not only that but to attain what he could never attain on his own, for himself and his family: a future. Without the reward, the peasant would have to eke out a subsistance existence until he died. His motivation is not a living wage, it is freedom from having to produce. The only way he can do this is by living a life pleasing to the King. The King expects obedience, ie the peasant has to work. The King expects results, ie the work has to be satisfactory and yield a good harvest. The King expects gratitude, ie the work is not proportional to the reward.

Nothing the peasant could ever do in his entire life could earn that reward. Upon receiving the reward, the peasant will certainly be grateful. If he didn't believe the reward existed though, he would simply hate the King for having to work for him. He would desire to flee the Kings authority and live for himself. He would seek out the company of people who felt the same way about the King and form conspiracies against Him. He would recruit other people and say the King was unjust, that there was no reward.

Now say the King had mercy on these peasants who were rebelling against him. He was a good King and cared about his subjects. He only wanted to reward them ultimately, but neither could he force them to believe his promise. So, for a time he let the peasants have a piece of his land to cultivate. They constantly gave him problems, either by raiding his stocks (because they could not sustain production for themselves), or encouraging others into disobedience. He was occassionally forced to kill some of the worst offenders, for the sake of the stability of the Kingdom.

His plan was to ultimately move everyone onto His land, after enough was stored up so no one had to work any longer. He would send emissaries into the places of rebellion, to encourage the peasants to return. He offered complete forgiveness for their crimes, if they would only work again for the sake of the Kingdom (which was in their own self-interest). Some listened, but others did not want to give up their freedom and killed the emissaries or drove them out.

Eventually it came time to pass that the Kings plan came to fruition. All the peasants who obeyed the King lived with Him on his land in harmony with one another, with enough to last them the rest of their days. The rebellious peasants could no longer raid the Kings stocks because they were completely shut out. They begged to be let in, because they were now starving, but it was too late..the King was neither going to take from the reward of those who earned it, to give to those who didn't, and who were presented every opportunity to change their ways, nor was he going to pollute the harmony he had cultivated (harmony based on gratitude for the reward and his justness)..for the rebellious peasants were neither grateful nor did they think the King was just. For them, it was here today and gone tomorrow..that is how they lived and that is how they died.

People have certainly been argued into believing in Jesus is their savior. They are typically called children. But, to get to the crux of your argument, until I can believe in god, I can't believe in god. Or rather, until I believe in god, I will have no reason to do so. That is about as circular as you can get.....

No, I am saying that until you feel that you need to be saved, for whatever reason, then you won't come near Jesus. You have to feel you need a savior before you look for one. Curiousity might get you near, but it won't make you follow Him. It is useless to argue someone into knowing Jesus..Jesus Himself predicted the kind of Christians that would produce in the parable of the sower: A weak one the devil will come steal away in times of hardship.

Your arrogance truly knows no bounds, does it? First off, you're about 2 decades off in your estimation. Second, as I quite clearly noted in parens, my interest in knowing the lawmakers in DC has nothing to do with whether or not I accept the rules of society. I am in fact deeply interested in the persons that would rule us. Let me ask you - can you name more than 50% of the 535 elected representatives in Congress, and more than 50% of their aides? I deeply care who our elected officials are, what they are doing, why they run, and their ultimate goals (so far as they may be elucidated), but my reasons for doing so have absolutely nothing to do with acceptance of their "authority over me". I think it is you that needs to reread this discussion and find the truth of what was written. You "know" that I have not searched for a god? What incredible presumptuousness. Are you now claiming not only to know God's love, but also when and where He will demonstrate it? Are you the arbiter of God's will????

Don't know don't care pretty much spells it out doesn't it? Seems like that is pride in being uninformed to me. This is the comment that made me think you were young, because that kind of apathy is very common among youth. Generation Emo doesn't give a shit, doesn't want to work, does everything based on feelings, and hasn't thought too deeply about anything because they want instant answers to everything. I concede its possible you have honestly looked, and perhaps God will lead you to Him later, if there is something in your heart that desires to know Him. Whatever it was though, it wasn't good enough. Have you ever tried doing the things that are pleasing to God first, before jumping up and down in his throne room and demanding He dance for you like a court jester? Yes, I do know Gods love. That's why I am here.

It's a philosophical question. Not caring isn't a valid answer to the question.
Not valid for you. Take off your blinders. You do not get to determine what is or is not valid for everyone else's intellectual endeavors.

I accept [that] people see things differently but this question only has so many answers.
This question, as with all questions, has as many answers as individuals as are willing to answer it. If you refuse to accept an answer as "valid", you must logically provide evidence why that is so.

Come on..this issue has been deliberately complicated to an extreme..when it is quite simple. The question of whether the Universe was created is entirely valid and relevant, though atheists will try to make it seem ridiculous, because they want to avoid the simple truth that there are only 3 answers to that question, because if they answer truly they have a burden of proof. I think if you're going to be an atheist, have the balls to admit it and stop playing these childish games with semantics. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe the Universe was created by God(s), period.


Okay, lets start very simply. What does morality mean to you and how does it apply to the world?
I will glady entertain this question, but I do fear that this poor thread is terribly off course. You or I should create a new talk post in the religion or philosophy talk page to continue this. I'll gladly do that if you want.

I think it's doing just fine..however it may be necessary because of the broken comments system..the page is already freezing a bit. I'll get back to you if you don't want to continue on here.

My example is false? Are you saying that I lied about my previous jobs?

I'm saying it doesn't apply..

You are now adding qualifiers to the hypothetical peasant analogy by claiming he is a servant. A servant to whom? You cannot assert that he is a servant of the king, because we have not established that the peasant cares one whit about the king. You say that the servant has to work, he has to produce results. Why? I clearly made the case that the peasant works in the fields not because he believes he will upset the king, but so that he can feed his family. In my job, I had to work and produce results, or I would have been fired. In both mine and the peasant's cases, we would find ourselves starving if we did not work. (Furthermore, you are wrong to assume, yet again, that the CEO of the organization I worked for would not care that I left. I did, and it turned out to be quite a problem for them, because I was the last competent programmer in my department.) You say that the peasant doesn't have the luxury of not working in the fields. Why not?

I didn't add anything. In my example, the peasant is referred to as the Kings servant, if you want to reread it. If it wasn't clear, I am sorry..while the CEO might have been inconvenienced by you leaving, you aren't his property. So no it doesn't apply.

Now you claim the existence of god can be proven, when just a little ways back asserted that it is not possible. Which is it?

I'm saying that I don't believe anyone has ever been argued into believing in Jesus..however, I am also saying that you can prove it to yourself by asking the Lord to come into your life, who will prove it to you. However, you don't seem to think you need Him, so until you feel that way..

Pride of being uninformed? Uninformed about what? My generation? You swear ... really? I doubt that you have any clue as to my age or to which generation I belong. Quite honestly, I suspect I am older than you, but I certainly won't assert that without knowing your age. You assume (again!) facts about my life to fit your understanding of the world. You assume that I have not searched for god, that I have done no "impartial research". I submit to you that you are writing about things of which you have no knowledge. To put it more bluntly, you're talking out of your ass.

The don't know, don't care comment about who is even in your government..that's fairly uninformed. And yes, I don't know how old you are..if I had to hazard a guess I would say you're in your mid to late twenties. And I know you have not searched too hard for God because you haven't found Him yet.

Your refusal to accept that other people can and do see things differently is blinding you to the fact that there are other answers. In my case, my short answer to the question is, "Don't care, it's not relevant." My long answer is quite long, indeed, but starts by pointing out the question itself is usually meaningless in the way most people ask it.

Don't paraphrase..the question I asked, which wasn't even in this thread.. Was the Universe created by a supreme being?

Yes = Theist
No = Atheist
Don't know = Agnostic

It's a philosophical question. Not caring isn't a valid answer to the question. I accept people see things differently but this question only has so many answers.

Lastly, I'm pretty sure I understand what you were getting at with the peasant and king analogy, but it's gotten quite muddled now that we've tried to dig into it. If you like, let's abandon that and deal directly with what (I think) you were trying to convey. I claim that it is not only possible, but preferable, to lead a moral and ethical life without ever considering the existence of a god or gods, and without recourse to an outside authority upon which to validate my ethics and morals.

Okay, lets start very simply. What does morality mean to you and how does it apply to the world?

My example is false? Are you saying that I lied about my previous jobs?

You are now adding qualifiers to the hypothetical peasant analogy by claiming he is a servant. A servant to whom? You cannot assert that he is a servant of the king, because we have not established that the peasant cares one whit about the king. You say that the servant has to work, he has to produce results. Why? I clearly made the case that the peasant works in the fields not because he believes he will upset the king, but so that he can feed his family. In my job, I had to work and produce results, or I would have been fired. In both mine and the peasant's cases, we would find ourselves starving if we did not work. (Furthermore, you are wrong to assume, yet again, that the CEO of the organization I worked for would not care that I left. I did, and it turned out to be quite a problem for them, because I was the last competent programmer in my department.) You say that the peasant doesn't have the luxury of not working in the fields. Why not?

Now you claim the existence of god can be proven, when just a little ways back asserted that it is not possible. Which is it?

Pride of being uninformed? Uninformed about what? My generation? You swear ... really? I doubt that you have any clue as to my age or to which generation I belong. Quite honestly, I suspect I am older than you, but I certainly won't assert that without knowing your age. You assume (again!) facts about my life to fit your understanding of the world. You assume that I have not searched for god, that I have done no "impartial research". I submit to you that you are writing about things of which you have no knowledge. To put it more bluntly, you're talking out of your ass.


A few days ago, you proposed the following:

These are the only answers to the question [of] does God exist
Yes (Theist)
No (Atheist)
Don't know (Agnostic)

Your refusal to accept that other people can and do see things differently is blinding you to the fact that there are other answers. In my case, my short answer to the question is, "Don't care, it's not relevant." My long answer is quite long, indeed, but starts by pointing out the question itself is usually meaningless in the way most people ask it.

Lastly, I'm pretty sure I understand what you were getting at with the peasant and king analogy, but it's gotten quite muddled now that we've tried to dig into it. If you like, let's abandon that and deal directly with what (I think) you were trying to convey. I claim that it is not only possible, but preferable, to lead a moral and ethical life without ever considering the existence of a god or gods, and without recourse to an outside authority upon which to validate my ethics and morals.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Your example is false, jonny. The peasant is a servant, he has to work. He has to produce results. You don't. If you left the company, the CEO isn't going to care. You could go live out in the woods, the peasant doesn't have that luxury. A ceo or president does not own you. The King owns the peasant. The peasant is his property.
lol to being proud of being uninformed, by the way..your generation I swear..
The existence of God can be proven, that's my entire point. You can know Jesus Christ personally, today. When I was agnostic, I didn't believe that Jesus was real, so yes I have some empathy for you. However, neither did I seriously investigate it nor did I really understand what the facts were.
I had all the information I had heard from other people, or things I had read, that atheists and agnostics in general just assume..I had all the various talking points and examples of inconsistancies that atheists and agnostics use in their arguments, most of which are easily disproven even with some cursory research. It was obvious to me that the bible was made up. Yet, with all that I didn't know a damn thing. It was really my ignorance of what was in the bible, and my inherent prejudice against it, that kept me from uncovering the facts.
I'll submit to you that if you actually did do impartial research, that the facts about who Jesus is will hold up. I challenge you to read "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615
See if what you think you know actually matches up to reality.

@jonny

Your example is false, jonny. The peasant is a servant, he has to work. He has to produce results. You don't. If you left the company, the CEO isn't going to care. You could go live out in the woods, the peasant doesn't have that luxury. A ceo or president does not own you. The King owns the peasant. The peasant is his property.

lol to being proud of being uninformed, by the way..your generation I swear..

The existence of God can be proven, that's my entire point. You can know Jesus Christ personally, today. When I was agnostic, I didn't believe that Jesus was real, so yes I have some empathy for you. However, neither did I seriously investigate it nor did I really understand what the facts were.

I had all the information I had heard from other people, or things I had read, that atheists and agnostics in general just assume..I had all the various talking points and examples of inconsistancies that atheists and agnostics use in their arguments, most of which are easily disproven even with some cursory research. It was obvious to me that the bible was made up. Yet, with all that I didn't know a damn thing. It was really my ignorance of what was in the bible, and my inherent prejudice against it, that kept me from uncovering the facts.

I'll submit to you that if you actually did do impartial research, that the facts about who Jesus is will hold up. I challenge you to read "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615

See if what you think you know actually matches up to reality.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Presumably, jonny, you wouldn't work for someone your entire life if you didn't believe they were real, and neither could you accept the authority of someone you didn't believe existed. The King isn't so much interested in whether the peasant believes he exists as much as he is interested in the results. But since the correct results could only ever come from someone who presumed the existence of the King, it is a prerequisite as a matter of circumstance to doing what pleases him.

The first word of your comment is telling. It is presumptuous of you to claim to know what I would or wouldn't do or whose authority I would accept. And not only do you presume to know how I might act, but you presume to know how anyone would act. That is arrogant in the extreme.

I've had two jobs in very large organizations, and in neither case did the existence or wishes of the owner/CEO/board ever affect my willingness to do that job. In fact, in both cases, I was completely unaware of the existence of a "king" – I couldn't have told you who was at the top of the organizational hierarchy. In both cases, it was irrelevant to me. My motivation for doing my job and doing it well was 1) to have an income upon which I could rely, and 2) the personal satisfaction and enjoyment of performing well in a job that I liked. Similarly, the peasant may be motivated to work in the fields because he needs to feed his family, and the existence and wishes of the king need never enter his mind.

My acceptance of the rules of society has nothing to do with lawmakers in D.C. Not only do I not know who most of them are, I don't care who they are or what they want (insofar as my acceptance of societal rules are concerned). I accept (most of) the rules of society because that is the only way for me to be a functioning member of society, and I accept the authority of people with guns and badges, because, well, they have guns and can kill me with little or no concern for the consequences if I directly challenge their authority.

You still have not demonstrated any reason for the peasant to ever consider the existence of the king, nor for me to ever consider the existence of god. The question of the king's existence is still irrelevant to the peasant, and god's existence irrelevant to me.

Also, you never answered my earlier question: "If you accept that the existence of god cannot be proven, how can you call someone foolish, or blind, or whatever, when they question or deny the assertion that god does exist?"

Presumably, jonny, you wouldn't work for someone your entire life if you didn't believe they were real, and neither could you accept the authority of someone you didn't believe existed. The King isn't so much interested in whether the peasant believes he exists as much as he is interested in the results. But since the correct results could only ever come from someone who presumed the existence of the King, it is a prerequisite as a matter of circumstance to doing what pleases him.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It has every bearing on his life, because that is his lot. His only purpose, and his only hope, is to do a good job and earn his reward. He was not born into authority himself, nor does he know anything about running a Kingdom. He will never be able to earn anything greater for himself, and he is only well suited for the task at hand.
>> ^jonny:
It is not at all "plain there is a King." A simple person may assume that he exists by faulty inference. A more thoughtful person, though, will realize that the actual existence of the king is irrelevant to his or her own life. What is directly observable in this situation is that there is a social and cultural power structure in place which forces conformity upon the peasants through "displays of authority", presumably enforced by the soldiers. The peasant may choose to believe in the existence of the king or not, but it will have no bearing upon the peasant's life.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Lets say there was a certain King, whom you had never seen..and you are one of his peasants. You're under his authority and expected to work for him in the fields for a wage, and that when you are of the age of retirement, he will give you a home on his land and thank you personally. You see soldiers of his, marching through the town. You hear people talking about his attributes, his justness and intelligence. You witness his authority displayed all around you. It is plain there is a King though you had never seen him.

You have only asserted that it has bearing on his life (through mostly rhetorical gibberish). Your initial description of the peasant's life stated that the peasant will receive a reward upon retirement if the peasant accepts the king's authority and works in the fields. A peasant may do both of those and never consider the actual existence of the king, or if he does consider it, may reject it but still obey the directly observable authority of the society in which he lives. Is the peasant still entitled to his reward? If the reward is, in fact, contingent upon the peasant truly believing in the existence of the king, how will the king go about verifying that? Does this king have magical powers of ESP? And even if he does, how could the peasant possibly know that unless the king himself demonstrated it to him in person? Should he rely on the testimony of other peasants who are no better equipped to verify the existence of the king? Why not rely on his own abilities of observation and reason?

It has every bearing on his life, because that is his lot. His only purpose, and his only hope, is to do a good job and earn his reward. He was not born into authority himself, nor does he know anything about running a Kingdom. He will never be able to earn anything greater for himself, and he is only well suited for the task at hand.

>> ^jonny:
It is not at all "plain there is a King." A simple person may assume that he exists by faulty inference. A more thoughtful person, though, will realize that the actual existence of the king is irrelevant to his or her own life. What is directly observable in this situation is that there is a social and cultural power structure in place which forces conformity upon the peasants through "displays of authority", presumably enforced by the soldiers. The peasant may choose to believe in the existence of the king or not, but it will have no bearing upon the peasant's life.>> ^shinyblurry:
Lets say there was a certain King, whom you had never seen..and you are one of his peasants. You're under his authority and expected to work for him in the fields for a wage, and that when you are of the age of retirement, he will give you a home on his land and thank you personally. You see soldiers of his, marching through the town. You hear people talking about his attributes, his justness and intelligence. You witness his authority displayed all around you. It is plain there is a King though you had never seen him.

It is not at all "plain there is a King." A simple person may assume that he exists by faulty inference. A more thoughtful person, though, will realize that the actual existence of the king is irrelevant to his or her own life. What is directly observable in this situation is that there is a social and cultural power structure in place which forces conformity upon the peasants through "displays of authority", presumably enforced by the soldiers. The peasant may choose to believe in the existence of the king or not, but it will have no bearing upon the peasant's life.>> ^shinyblurry:
Lets say there was a certain King, whom you had never seen..and you are one of his peasants. You're under his authority and expected to work for him in the fields for a wage, and that when you are of the age of retirement, he will give you a home on his land and thank you personally. You see soldiers of his, marching through the town. You hear people talking about his attributes, his justness and intelligence. You witness his authority displayed all around you. It is plain there is a King though you had never seen him.

How do you prove something that exists outside of space and time? What physical process could you use to point to it? Anyone could go and examine you and verify whether you have "laser eyes". There is no way to put God under a microscope.

Therefore, we rely on Him to communicate with us. Faith is in the unseen, it is not blind. I don't believe in God because the bible told me to. I believe in God because He showed me He is real. He would show you too, if you honesty sought Him out. Yet, you just believe what you've heard and haven't looked for the truth yourself.

Lets say there was a certain King, whom you had never seen..and you are one of his peasants. You're under his authority and expected to work for him in the fields for a wage, and that when you are of the age of retirement, he will give you a home on his land and thank you personally. You see soldiers of his, marching through the town. You hear people talking about his attributes, his justness and intelligence. You witness his authority displayed all around you. It is plain there is a King though you had never seen him.

Now lets say one day you refuse to work, refuse to submit to his authority. You say to yourself, I don't believe this King is really real; I've never seen him with my own eyes.. This a conspiracy, I will just do whatever I want. You even decide to go into the towns square to tell others to stop working for this King. That it is a fools errand, the King is a hoax you say. You're wasting your lives when you could live for yourself! Yet, when the King gets wind of this he tells his soldiers "Fetch my ungrateful servant and bring him in front of me"

The soldiers fetch you and bring you before the throne. Finally, you get to see this King with your own eyes. Yet, it's too late..you've already earned His judgment. If you had pleased him the evidence would have been forthcoming. If you had done a good job, you would have earned a reward. Instead you refused to do your duty, and thus earned a criminals fate. Cursing your foolishness, you are taken to the gallows, but there is no reprieve forthcoming.

>> ^Sketch:
You CANNOT prove the non-existence of something like this! It's the same old Celestial Teapot, Pink Unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster issue! As with my laser eyes, prove that they don't exist! It is a ridiculous thing to even request!

its quite easy to find photographs of nazi's interacting with jews that look almost identical to israelis interacting with palestinians.


i had a nice collection when i got stoned one night. dogs on leashes barking at old people. checkpoints. jackboots vs peasant clothes.

pretty freakin obvious