Total posts: 2,082
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Rod, maybe you can advance the ball on this conversation by simply stating what you believe the functional difference is between a religious cult (so not the people who are constantly preaching the benefits of the Keto diet) and a true religion. Usually the answers lie in how many adherents there are, or how old the practice may be. What makes some Pentecostal church that handles snakes as a testament to the healing and protective power of faith more "true" than, say, the cult that thought Hale Bopp was a spaceship sent by the creators of mankind to return them to their original home planet? I mean besides the results, wherein people get bitten by snakes and die and people commit suicide, respectively.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
@3RU7AL
Yeah, I noticed that, he's either not reading or being unintentionally honest. If you eliminated the inclusion of children before the age of reason, it seems Mopac thinks that would effectively choke out religion entirely, all religions. I think it's unintentionally honest, if I had to guess. In fairness, I also don't think he understands the scenario set up. The hypothetical states that the CHURCH, no other organization or state, is so confident in Jesus that they say don't bring your kids, he'll find them.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Ok, so you r answer to my actual question is "no, I do not plan on engaging." Good idea! Thanks for stopping by.
Created:
Did you ever plan on engaging in the actual topic here, or was it just another forum for your stream of totally unrelated inanity? You have made literally no attempt at the actual original topic.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
And both of you have clearly demonstrated why I'd have preferred your non-contributions be left out, thanks!
Created:
Why not follow your own advice and ignore the thread? Do you know what an evaluation is? Or a bigot? Can you point out any example of either evaluation in the OP or of bigotry?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Clearly you just don't have any interest in the topic at hand.
Honestly, this is why I didn't want either of you in here. I knew neither of you would address the question. It still feels good to be right, I admit, but honestly it's not as nice as having people engage a topic.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
It's not the STATE banning your children in this thought experiment. It's the church itself! "If your faith came out tomorrow and said...." Does that change your answer? Like if the grand wizard of whatever your church is had his sermon next whatever day you go to worship and love on the truth, and he said "I prayed so hard last night, and this is what jesus said to me: no more kids here under the age of 16!" and adherents listened, do you think your church would still grow?
Created:
Have you ever met a point you COULDN'T miss? If you were a basketball player, you'd be the guy on the court who everyone can't stand because they get the ball at the top of the key, shout "CURRY!", then shoot it and miss the entire backboard, every time, until you're about 0 - 22 with no points and six turnovers because you're throwing behind the back passes into the third row, twelve feet clear of anyone wearing sneakers. It's sad.
Children don't get to choose their clothes. Parents choose them. Until kids can buy their own clothes. I have kids, that's how it works. They also don't get to choose pets.
I didn't say this SHOULD happen. This is a very simple thought experiment. You have exhibited a very real difficulty in participating in these in any real way, so I would ask that you show yourself to some topic you're capable of handling. Do like a Zeus versus Odin topic, or maybe what's better, Withces or Wargs?
Created:
Okay, I admit, it's a bit of a click baity title, but a guy's got to get eyeballs on stuff, right?
A question to the religious (except Mopac and Poly, for different reasons). If religion is so easy to find, and indoctrination from a young age is not in fact a way to perpetuate the cycle of donors to your church, what do you think the effect on a religion, any religion, would be in terms of population or followers if your faith came out tomorrow and said: "We believe that God / Allah / Jesus will lead his flock to his righteous ways no matter what, because that's how much he loves them and that's how present he is in our every day existence. We have the utmost confidence in [diety] wisdom to ensure we continue to grow not just as a faith, but as a parish! To really show our conviction in this belief, we hereby ban parishioners from bringing their children under 16 to worship, and strongly, strongly suggest not talking to them about our articles of faith in any way until this age, so as to ensure that they're only getting information directly from the God who certainly will take care of them. TO BE CLEAR, DO NOT PREACH TO YOUR CHILDREN ABOUT GOD. Doing so only screws up his signal, and pollutes the corruptible young mind making it more difficult for god to break through."
If the age of reason is 14 in the bible, the age of consent is 18 in the US, I'm splitting the difference. Would you, as a church going parishioner, oppose this rule, or support it? Why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
And the Christians fighting each other is one of the stupidest arguments some atheists make. I wish some of these silly arguments could get placed on a higher platform where they can get properly sifted out the logic and reasoning arena. I'd be happy to get into it if you want (and Ludo often joins in the fun), but I'll leave it at that for now.
I'm still waiting for some other topic you proposed starting, but I'm game for any discussion that doesn't involve name calling around here. THey're few and far between.
People are always going to examine, consider, convert to religion. Some may become theists, some polytheists, some deists, etc. No one thinks militant atheists and activists are particularly intelligent. There are brilliant atheists no doubt. But collectively, the core messages being extended by activist orgs doesn't impress too many in the real world. This is probably why atheist activists are relatively invisible in the political arena. It's not because of some outdated unpracticed law in a few states.
Atheists are a vanishingly small minority and are poorly funded. That's why they're invisible in the political arena. There are way too many religious votes to risk if you're going to just say "Well, all you religious folks are just gullible rubes." It's not politically prudent, and it explains why most politicians never talk in public about HOW they practice their faith, they only talk about the things those that practice care about. THere's no special level of intelligence required to, say, identify that gay people should be able to get married and enjoy the benefits of being married: people are people and in a country where freedom of choice and equality of all are supposedly pillar tenets, there's no reason to say their version of love doesn't qualify. The ONLY reason I've ever heard to object to such unions is religious in nature, and it's not unique to Christianity. It's politically prudent...do you think for one second a Ted Cruz or a Joe Kennedy really thinks their own marriage is somehow invalidated by Adam and Steve getting married? Not even a little. What they do think is that their constituency of bible thumping rubes thinks that's a threat to them somehow, so they do the politically expedient thing and oppose it, knowing there's no cost to them: the gay vote isn't as big as the Christian vote.
I do love that you still seem to be inventing these shadow "atheist activist cabals" that are nameless and invisible though. Never change Rod! :)
And if small storefront churches provide services without any tether to faith, hey, great...then why not just stop doing the faith stuff and just be a charity? You're kidding yourself if you don't think they want to lure in new followers, I'm glad homeless people are being served, sure, but religious organizations all over the world preach against vaccines and birth control...just ask Africa.
Created:
Posted in:
Can you change the topic to include "My Latest Appeal To Special Knowledge"?
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
No relationship. What I'm asking is why is the faith part more important than the works part? It clearly IS, and is accepted as such, because I've yet to meet a Christian who says being a Christian is immaterial to getting into heaven, but I know there exists a segment that says WORKS are immaterial. Notice the topic isn't "FAITH VS FAITH+WORKS VS WORKS." The last one isn't an option. You're dodging the question. I'll make it explicit:
If someone with no faith matches a heaven-bound Christian good work for good work, but goes to his grave not believing in anything to do with Jesus or any other spiritual stuff that might be CONSTRUED as Jesus ("Oh, that buddhist was fine, he just thought Jesus was Buddha, so he's in!" is a Rod Spode argument), does he according to Christian doctrine burn in hell, get into heaven, or go to a 'third place'?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I saw it, it's your usual "we orthodox are so awesome" garbage without your usual ultimate taco whatever. I'm asking if you think it's just that faith is more important than works in my post. If I matched every good deed ever done by any Christian, that I'd go to hell because god didn't leave any evidence convincing me he existed, but I did good without the promise of any reward at all.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
How much worse off you are without Christ.
I can tell you so far, before and after, first hand experience, my life has been demonstrably better without belief in any gods. Now, can you explain what your prior inane post had to do with the topic of faith versus faith plus works? Because I bet not.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Sorry, you lost me and I would bet everyone else.
Pelagianism is a belief in Christianity, also calledPelagian heresy, that original sin did not taint human nature and mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special divine aid or assistance.
Please expand on how this is related to faith vs. faith and works and why. You and PGA should have a contest to see who could base an argument on the appeal to the most obscure authority.
Created:
Posted in:
Poly, It's good to see you haven't lost your touch for total fabrication, paranoia and non sequitur. Top of your game!
Created:
-->
@Goldtop
I never get a straight answer from CHristians on that question. It's always "Well, I don't get to decide." That's not what I'm asking. And clearly the most important aspect IS faith, not works, because works alone disqualifies the worker from heaven, but faith alone at least you're eligible. It's a very strange system when you talk about how it's the standard for justice and morality in the same breath.
Created:
I guess one thing all Christians must agree on is that you cannot be saved by only WORKS, right? In other words, you could match any CHristian good deed for good deed, say you're born some place in Micronesia that's never heard of Jesus, in the end you don't have the right faith, so you're punished.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I do not i any way think you, Poly, or the aborigine had 'spiritual experiences' by my own definition of the word spiritual. You have provided no definition of this term, so I take it to mean "supernatural" or religious in nature. Whatever experiences you had, therefore, I feel have other more probable and demonstrable origins.
Her experiences lead her to believe in a totally different set of rules and characters than you do. Your mythology says she's going to hell for doing so. Are her experiences therefore invalid? THis can be generic to any belief system that isn't yours, any believer that isn't of your faith. If the primitive aborigine has an experience that leads him to be SURE Jesus isn't real, would you consider his experience invalid? One of your experiences, yours or his, would have to be
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
The African continent, the same one that was colonized and brutalized by Christian-majority powers? Do south Korean and Chinese christians make up the 'vast vast vast' majority of Christians? or do people born in heavily Christian areas like the Americas?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Didn't I say I thought you CHARACTERIZATION was invalid? All three characterizations would be invalid to me. I'm not sure why you continue to avoid the question. They're even in the text you quoted. Are the aborigine's experiences of a deity different than yours invalid?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Christians have come into belief for various reasons
The vast, vast, vast majority of them are tied to geography and family tradition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I find your characterization of your experiences as 'spiritual' and 'proof of the veracity of the entire Christian bible mythology' to be invalid: spiritual has very little in the way of usable definition, and there's absolutely no connective tissue that says, for example, you had a dream about Jesus that the whole bible is then real, since books can contain both true things and false things. I don't doubt you had some profound experience, it's the conclusion you reach and the method you use to get there that I find invalid.
Her experiences lead her to believe in a totally different set of rules and characters than you do. Your mythology says she's going to hell for doing so. Are her experiences therefore invalid? THis can be generic to any belief system that isn't yours, any believer that isn't of your faith. If the primitive aborigine has an experience that leads him to be SURE Jesus isn't real, would you consider his experience invalid? One of your experiences, yours or his, would have to be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
First off, there's really not much difference between you and I in this manner, except you believe in one less God than I do.My belief is based on my experience(s). I don't know what her, or anyone else's experiences are. If my experiences are somehow invalid, then I'm the one, or one of the one's that are wrong. I don't see any reason at all to think my experience(s) is (are) invalid. And the reasons given to my at times as to how they might be invalid don't add up. They're similar to explaining the floating phenomena in space as having sucking too much helium from a balloon to get that squeaky voice.
Have you tried looking at the inverse of "I don't see any reason at all the think my experience(s) are invalid," because what follows unspoken in there is that you do, somehow, feel that her experiences ARE invalid. You don't allow for the possibility of her gods being real for some reason. Or do you? Wouldn't doing so violate the tenets of your own faith?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Does a baby antelope run from noises immediately after it can stand up?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
None of these address which in my scenario is in fact more likely, it's simply a list of what you think about atheists and why they don't believe in god (though oddly, you do not include "My belief is based on special knowledge they don't and can't have"). Belief isn't something I choose. It's a result of a process, not a choice. How do you assign the super righteous aborigine the quality if "only righteous by human standards"? Why is that bad? I'm not a hedonist.Which seems more sensible:
- A universe creating god implanted in his favorite creation (man) a tendency to assume it was there, but did not leave any evidence to conclusively prove the fact that he exists, meaning that it's really not all that important to this creator OR
- Assigning agency to an otherwise inert rustle in the grass helped avoid the one time in fifty that rustle might be a predator and therefore helped specimens of every species reproduce
One has a demonstrable explanationA question you probably shouldn't really ask me. But, ok.Believing in the creator is a choice. There are reasons not to choose the biblical creator.1. One might avoid choosing the creator if they're a hedonist. That one hits home for me because that's why I initially did not want to find out that the God of the Bible is real.2. One might avoid choosing the creator if they think they're righteous. Since you mentioned the super righteous aborigine in the other thread, the problem is that the super righteous aborigine is only super righteous by human standards. And our opinion could change once we found out that said aborigine committed something immoral by our current standards. Ghandi would be a good example. A man many westerners considered equivalent to the righteous aborigine. Any bad he may have done would be trivial. A human weakness we're all subject to. Now it's been alleged that he had some practices that are considered highly immoral by today's standards, so some people are taking a different stance on Ghandi's righteosness.3. One might avoid choosing the creator if they think he is evil. (Of course when I refer to the creator I'm referring to the God of the Bible). But I think most of the time it's an excuse due to either problems #1 and 2, or any other reason I haven't mentioned.The choice not to believe is merely one of a number of manifestations when facing the choice. And I'm sorry but I think God does have your attention. It's evident by how often you come here. God is a part of your life whether you want to admit it or not.
Now which of the two scenarios seems most likely?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
For one, in the scenario he gave, the assigned agency was a known natural predator. The caveman knows what a lion is, probably from experience, and knows how dangerous they are. So his precaution, even if over-precaution will save his life. We can change the scenario to the caveman seeing a parched piece of land near a volcano. The lava is no longer flowing, so there's no real danger. So he can assume the land is parched due to an earlier volcanic eruption, or he can take the more cautionary approach and assume it's parched due to a fire breathing dragon that may still be in the area.The problem is that the caveman won't assume that because he probably never saw a fire breathing dragon. That....and there probably are no fire breathing dragons. So his caution is probably fairly meaningless.
How did you count fire breathing dragons out as a likely cause? Real question. We have books about dragons, dragons on tv, and many, many cultures have stories of fire breathing dragons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
No, the explanation is that assigning unseen agency to things that cannot be explained is a trait that enables us to survive as a species, and as such a belief in an unseen agent creating things as an explanation for the unexplained or not sufficiently understood is how we end up assuming that something supernatural exists, and how so many different versions of 'supernatural universe creator' exist. I feel like you're being intentionally obtuse to mess with me, you're better than this!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
That IS the explanation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
He gave you the explanation that made sense, from a logical and evolutionary standpoint, of our tendency to assign agency where there isn't any. It seems to me he addressed it, you just say he didn't and then don't really say what you object to, just that it doesn't explain Jesus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I didn't ask the denominational question here. I avoided it because it's too hard for CHristians like you to explain. I've even agreed that I'm not sure I'd count every church as its own denomination, or if 33000 denominations of Christianity is correct. I even ruled out, in that conversation we had, 99% of the denominations and left you with only 330 to explain. Why, if they don't matter anyway, do they exist, do you think? Is there any point to any of them, if you all go to heaven? If your denominations don't matter, then why does the faith you follow matter at all? if it doesn't, what's the point of being a member of any faith? See how this creates difficult questions? The question I DID ask was why are there more non-Christians than Christians, if it's so obvious and easy to discover Jesus as the truth?The denominational question has been addressed to you at least by myself. I pointed out, which you can test for yourself, the core belief of what each individual church believes. You can go to any evangelical church website, click on to the section that states their belief, and you'll see that they're pretty much all the same. Even between Pentecostals and Baptists which traditionally are alleged to be the evangelicals that have the least in common. Usually the link will say something like mission statement, what we believe, etc. When Billy Graham went to seminary, there were students from a wide variety of denominations. He stated how intrigued he was by how similar they all actually were in their beliefs.
As far as praying to different gods, I didn't pray to any of them. I prayed to God, the creator of the Universe, whomever that may be. This is what you can't seem to grasp.
So then how do you know it's Jesus? Got it right on your first try!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
But I don't think the scenario is commonly used to explain human tendencies towards assuming a creator.
Can you explain why in this very specific proposition you do not feel that this assignment of an unseen agency to an undemonstrated agent does NOT explain why we as a species have invented gods who act as unseen agents over naturally occurring events?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
The existence of a creator might even be why primitive tribesmen assume a deity in every part of nature, human activity, etc.
Which seems more sensible:
- A universe creating god implanted in his favorite creation (man) a tendency to assume it was there, but did not leave any evidence to conclusively prove the fact that he exists, meaning that it's really not all that important to this creator OR
- Assigning agency to an otherwise inert rustle in the grass helped avoid the one time in fifty that rustle might be a predator and therefore helped specimens of every species reproduce
One has a demonstrable explanation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I think most secularists (like myself) whether religious or not can ignore what we don't agree with.
Interesting. SO there are portions of your religious doctrine that you simply ignore because you personally don't agree with them? Isn't that basically a denomination of one person? I guess I can't square how you believe in an afterlife whose reward is based entirely on what team you're on (according to the book you could be a super-righteous aborigine but you don't know Jesus, you're out!) with how you make the decision what to ignore. You don't sound very convinced. Maybe you could flesh this idea out further?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I think it sounds like a sensible explanation that is in keeping with what science has demonstrated about genetics, consistent with Occum's razor and offers a natural take on humans' collective tendency to assign agency even if there is not enough evidence to make that determination. It keeps a specimen safe longer over larger population numbers. It's survival instinct. What do you think of chimpanzees shaking sticks and screaming at thunderstorms? Do you think their thunderstorm enemy might be real out to take the monkey's territory, or do you think they might be assigning agency where there isn't any?
This is the thing with evolutionary theory that religious people just don't seem to understand. It doesn't require any real imagination, it doesn't require any element to be added, it's insanely simple: traits and behaviors that over the long term benefit the large population propagate (like being startled and running when you are not sure the source of a noise in the dark, which increases your chances of survival), traits and behaviors that are deleterious over a long term to a population are deselected, only through the pressure of the environment around you. TO use a clumsy example, there's no need to add a magical being that says to baby giraffes "This is how you walk from the moment your born!", adding that only leads to more unanswerable senseless questions. The giraffes that walk from the day they're born can evade predation and pass on their "I'm a good walker!" traits to their own offspring. THe ones who couldn't walk are a delightfully easy snack for a cheetah and do NOT get to reproduce their bad walking genes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
when you're talking about versions of my God, what exactly are you talking about? Give me some examples of these versions.
I mean versions that are not yahweh, not jesus, in any way. I know this question gets too difficult once I start asking things like "how many people believe in different versions of your god's rules?" which is essentially the denominational question no christian can answer. How many times did you pray to, say, the ancient Egyptian gods, or the Aztec gods, or the Hindu gods, before Jesus took your call? Why are there so many more people that do NOT believe, if it's so obvious and he can communicate with all of them?
I think most Christians don't want to make headlines, international or otherwise. What's so great about making headlines?Ludo, I know full well you're not asking questions out of curiosity, but to make an accusation. For one it's evidenced by the fact that when you ask a question, you often provide your own answer before I do. In other words, my answer will be meaningless, except cannon fodder for suggestions of being anti-science, insecure, having a persecution complex, etc., because you've already created an answer in your mind.Here I would refer you back to the question I asked in post #283.
Yeah, I'm sure somany Christians are really not at all interested in riches or notoriety, that's exactly why they're not making headlines. They're not making headlines because their stories sound an awful lot like something you'd be really concerned about if it were another god. Imagine a story on the news where they talk to a ton of middle eastern people and they're all going on about hearing voices in their heads, getting visions in their dreams, and receiving orders from their god? Wouldn't you think "fuck, they're crazy!" If this were a homeless man on the street talking about his personal encounters with Abraham Lincoln, you'd think he needed help. Change that to Jesus and you think "Well the lord's taking care of this guy"? I have to answer my own questions because often you don't, and I want to move the conversation forward. I am also trying to keep things moving, so I am raising my objections to answers I think you'd have. Feel free to refute them, offer different answers, it'll help us converse, far more than your complaining.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Yeah, distinction without a difference. My system of thought is also relative to what anyone who claims knowledge of a superbeing is claiming. I don't get why people get such a hard on working out the definition of atheism, it is immaterial to any real argument. In other words if you eliminated that word from the language and just changed it to "I don't believe in any gods at all," the underlying discussion doesn't change.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
If I told you I could jump from here to the moon, would your lack of belief be a 'system of thought'? I think that's a distinction without a difference.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm asking for the proof that must have convinced ANYONE that Roman gods aren't real. I don't have any reason to believe in any gods, because none have been reasonably demonstrated. I know you believe in every god somehow, and witches and like spells and stars and auras and whatever, you're a credulous angry person, so you are on the opposite end of the spectrum: you do not require proof because you think every possibility is equally true somehow, even the contradictory ones, simultaneously. THe difference is this person is saying there's only one god. I'm asking for the method by which he eliminated all of the other gods and is sure there's only ONE TRUE GOD. I'm surprised you're not on board, but you're not really a thinker. Carry on!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
There is One True God.
Yes, you said that. And it remains undemonstrated and unsupported by anything other than your usual "I said it! You can't prove it isn't true!" So I will give you a challenge.
Please conclusively disprove any of the Roman Pantheon gods.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
RIght, I said I must be reading you wrong, my bad. Although gay marriage needs protection from state agencies or insurance companies deciding they don't want to recognize a gay couple's beneficiary status or issue a gay couple the same marriage license that a straight couple would be bale to get without objection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Then I guess my question "why would it need to be protected" ought to be directed at someone else, I thought you were saying you believed traditional marriage requires protection from something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
I guess we have a fundamentally different view, I don't understand what you mean or how the OP intimates that somehow traditional marriage requires protection from the government, there is literally nothing threatening it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
So, in the OP, people who observe traditional marriage might be called a protected group.
What exactly does someone who observes traditional marriage need protection FROM? Is there someone telling them they cannot observe traditional marriage? This line of reasoning has never made sense to me. How does the two ladies who are married two doors down from my house in any way affect the meaning of my traditional marriage to my wife?
THe reason gay marriage needs protection is because marriage comes with benefits and obligations according to the LAW (not the bible). Giving tax incentives or communal property rights to a traditional married couple while denying the same rights to a gay marriage couple is unAmerican at its core. It says one formula for love is inherently superior to other formulae.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Yeah, that's what I said. It's not a lack of belief in any ONE god. It's all gods.
"God" is a subset of "gods." How hard is this to understand?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Atheism is literallly defined in its relation to God.
No, it is not. It is defined as the lack of belief in ANY gods. Not capital g god.
If you do believe that God is The Ultimate Reality, then atheism is obviously nihilism or some arbitrary derivative of nihilism.
Non-sequitur and a bald assertion at that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'll answer. It's based on the ultimate reality, of which there is only one and it's either the exact same or totally different than the reality you know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
God is supposed to answer us in our dreams, according to Scriptures. Of course, that's just a cock and bull story written by men. One would have to be incredibly ignorant and gullible to believe such a thing.
TODAY you'd have to be incredibly ignorant and gullible. If you had an iron age understanding of the human brain, as these people did back then, it's probably pretty easy to imagine the very, very real feeling visions one has during the night were communications from some higher power, especially if you dreamed things like "I'm strong enough to overthrow fifty soldiers if only I believe I can!" and if felt so real. You wouldn't wake up necessarily thinking "Wow, whatever weird food I ate or medicine I took really screwed with my brain chemistry" or "I think I might be spending too much time hating those soldiers."
Created: