miriam_e | fairytales and crazy people who look "normal"

fairytales and crazy people who look "normal"

Normally I am very optimistic about the human race. We are amazing creatures. Each generation is smarter than the last and we are becoming a more moral and peaceful species. And then something happens to make me wonder if we have any hope at all.

This morning I was visited by two nice old ladies who drove here to bring the word of the lord to me. They looked normal but by any rational standard they were completely insane -- utterly divorced from reality. They happily held completely contradictory concepts in mind simultaneously without any inkling that something was wrong. I swear they didn't hear a word I said, because of course I would have been an emissary of the devil sent to try their faith.

These complete whack-jobs believed that before the flood people lived to an age of 900 years, that all life in the universe was created just several thousand years ago and the fossils are a cunning lie by god to trick us, that the mythical flood was the result of incredible masses of water, being held up high in the air by magic, dropped at god's command. They believe in the absolute word of the bible and that it holds no errors. They believe that being gay is unnatural despite it being a feature of every species on the planet. That it is alright to enslave other people, that women should be the servants of men, that conducting campaigns of mass murder upon those who believe in a different god is okay, that witches (you should kill them) and ghosts exist, and that you should be good to your neighbor. Stark staring mad!

What is it with some humans and fairytales? The weirder, the crazier, the more harebrained the idea, the stronger the compulsion to believe in it. It makes me incredibly sad that such delusion persists and is so actively cultivated.

Absolute lunacy!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

What is bizarre is that people take the stuff from the Old Testament as Gospel, when the real Gospels are further in the back of the book.

It never ceases to amaze me that people who hold that killing others under certain circumstances and simultaneously purport to have some Christian belief think they are doing the Lord's work, or that intolerance of certain groups is A-OK.

This also irks me into people associating Christianity with these absolutely bizarre interpretations of the Bible, when the true and core messages of Christianity are completely devoid of these hateful ideas. I can completely understand how Muslims get upset when the fundamentalists and zealots pervert their religion and regular Muslims end up looking like the bad guy.

Fundamentalism and evangelism I think are the true enemy of religious harmony and understanding.

It never ceases to amaze me that people who hold that killing others under certain circumstances and simultaneously purport to have some Christian belief think they are doing the Lord's work.

Never mind that little thing at the beginning stating "Thou shalt not kill"...

The thing that bothers me is that so many people use the bible as an excuse to not think... Wasn't Jesus always telling stories to illustrate points? Doesn't interpreting those stories, especially after hundreds and hundreds of years of translation and bastardization of the original bible, logically require you to THINK about what might be meant?

Okay, I shall stop preaching to the converted and simply state that sometimes it is mind boggling how dumb people are.

Absolutely. Absolutely.

Absolutely.

I'd dispute that we can ever have religious harmony and understanding. It would be nice, but I think the religion meme wouldn't allow it.

Well I doubt it too due to other factors, but those two are primary antagonists to the process.

I would debate that we are the most intellegent generation so far. I don't know that our brains have evolved that much in recent years. I think it's just that education is so much better. Better education= more use of the brain "muscle"= more developed brain "muscle", but ultimately I think we started out with the same potential as people have had for generations.

I agree with you that the machinery is more or less the same, but we have been enriching it and using it better and earlier. There have been countless experiments that show how the brain grows more connections and gets heavier when it is stimulated more. Have you seen what young kids learn now? It is amazing.

And there is that effect... forgotten its name... named after the researcher who accidentally found it. Each generation is smarter than the one that went before. For a while it was assumed it was a result of better nutrition but it has since been shown to be independant of that. Makes for great hope... especially when coupled with the fact that we are becoming a less religious species. Thankfully!

Ooops my dialup connection is gonna go...

I just remembered. It is called the Flynn Effect.
The Wikipedia has a good overview of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_Effect

"The strange thing about people who have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour and who have been 'born again' is that they are not Christ-like! You do not see them helping the poor or the sick, or protesting against hypocrisy and injustice like Jesus would. Nor are they humble and willing to sacrifice everything they own because of their love for others. Something is anomalous here - they are not like Jesus at all."

Quotation from latest Fanzine.
Cheers, MFG.

True. They are actually Paulians.

If anybody wished to look for an antichrist they need look no further than Paul of Tarsus. He wrote about half of the new testament, never actually met Jesus, was an arrogant, self-important, helfire-and-brimstone fundamentalist. Instead of preaching peaceful resistance against authority he sucked up to it. Social justice was out; personal wealth was okay by him. He was a misogynist, homophobic, sexually repressed screw-up who advised people not to get married because the end of the world was coming soon. When a bunch of converts got angry that he'd been spouting bullshit -- the end of the world hadn't come after they'd spent lots of money and effort -- what did Paul do? He ran away. Yes, on top of everything else he was a coward too.

I'd almost feel sorry for him except that he left us with such a legacy of hate for women, gays, and people of other religions that this poor, horrible, little man fucked us all royally.

That's fascinating. I always enjoy reading your contributions :)

heheheh :) [gives long, sweeping bow] Thank you Ma'am. :)

I feel a little guilty that I haven't been reading my friend-list entries lately, but I'm spending way too much time online and getting way too little work done. [gulp] I'll never get to be a millionaire at this rate... or even a hundredaire(?) in fact I'm gonna be lucky to be able to afford the petrol to visit Mum & Dad every fortnight... maybe if I just drive halfway there and turn around to drive back each time... :)

(Excuse my idiocy -- just the lingering after-effects of eating dinner while watching the Gilmore Girls.)

Well, witches do exist (g), [bows] but I wouldn't care to be burned at the stake, myself!

JWs are a bizarre crowd. I know a fan who is an ex-JW - sf fandom and that cult not being exactly compatible! - and once worked with a woman who was and is a JW. Oddly enough we got on pretty well. I think there must have been a rule not to preach at work because she didn't talk about it much, only obliquely as in saying she didn't want to leave too late because they had to be out doorknocking that evening and so on. I was rather intrigued by the weird bits and pieces such as that she'd seen people possessed by demons. She and her husband had left England to emigrate to NZ and later from NZ to here because NZ was too much "Godzone country." From a JW I found that hilarious.

Yet this apparently sensible person fervently believed in all the weird things you've detailed above!

Hear about the Queensland member of the Family First Party about 2 years ago gibbering that either witches or lesbians (can't remember which) should be burned at the stake. I hope someone increased her medication for her.

I will be relieved when religion finally bites the dust. It is so damn unhealthy. Our technology is advancing so fast that in the next few decades we humans are going to have incredible power. We had better have extinguished the flames of religion by then or we are going to be in big trouble.

Thankfully religion is dying out slowly. The only places it is still increasing are deeply oppressed areas where education is deficient. Those seem to be mainly moslem. I think it is the only religion still growing. We need to get our dopey politicians to stop with the killing and get with the educating -- and not propaganda either. That always ends up having the reverse effect intended.

[Aaaaggh! Daylight's breaking outside. I'd better get to bed. Dammit.]

I don't think religion in itself is unhealthy. Organized religion is certainly unhealthy though; what is unhealthy is blind faith and dogma, perversion of good ideas by men (and it is usually men) in order to further unfair society, and it is often through organized religion that these negative ideas are perpetuated.

For example, the core tenet of Christianity is that we should love and care for our fellow human beings. This in itself isn't unhealthy. But this seems to be lost in the intolerance and zealotry of some who say that they are Christian.

Ummm... I wouldn't go so far as to say that loving and caring for our fellow human beings is a core tenet of christianity. There is actually very little in the bible about loving and caring for your fellows, and even that comes from just one person: Jesus. There is, however lots about bowing down to the one and only god, and killing, raping, stoning and enslaving anybody outside your own special group. Even Jesus, that great social reformer and innovator felt it's okay to enslave other humans... to own them.

The bible is one of the most horrid books ever written. How's this for a nice little piece:

Deuteronomy

13:12 If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying,

13:13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;

13:14 Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you;

13:15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.

13:16 And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again.

Oh, I can just feel the love there. If someone has a different god it is your duty to commit mass murder. Don't even spare the cattle. And make sure nothing is built there ever again. A tad over the top, what?

Even the 10 commandments, so beloved of christians, tell you what not to do. Only one tells you anything positive, and that is to honor your Mum & Dad, a bit of a no-brainer.

our god is the only one and don't let me catch you worshipping anyone else
fer god's sake don't take his name in vain
The sabbath is a holiday... or holy day... whatever
honor your Mum and Dad... son
don't murder... unless god says it's okay
don't commit adultery, although if you're a guy and we kill the woman (serve her right) we can let bygones be bygones
don't steal... from us, though it's cool to steal from other people
don't lie about your neighbor... though if he is an out-of-towner, it's probably okay
keep your eyes off wife
...and my house

This list always struck me as a little psycho. "Don't think about what a cool house I have" rates a mention but be nice to people doesn't??? Oh Moses sure was a nice dude...

My personal interpretation of Christianity essentially disregards completely most of the Old Testament. Christianity is about teachings of Jesus Christ, so why should the Old Testament have any impart into it? You are right, the Old Testament has commands to kill disobedient children. I managed a while ago to really freak out someone by finding that passage in the OT.

To me, the only parts of the Bible that have the greatest significance are the Gospels (and little else); they are the closest thing we have to the words of Jesus.

I based my earlier comment on Mark 12:28-31.

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"

"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

I have to agree with you that the 39 books of the old testament are snippets of historical stuff bound up with lots of crazy superstition. (I think there are 39 -- I just used a regular expression to pull out the titles and count them.) They have very little relevance to today -- they had little enough relevance back then, even.

That leaves us with the 27 books of the new testament. Of those, about half (14) were written by hateful Paul. Drop those. That leaves us with 13. I think we can dismiss Revelations, where John talks about his nervous breakdown. That leaves 12 second-hand accounts of Jesus' life, because although he was a well-educated guy (a carpenter back then was like computer programmer nowadays) he never actually wrote his words down. Of those 12 some are suspect, but I can't remember offhand which, so we'll leave it at 12.

Jesus was an innovator in the mould of Ghandi and Buddha. When everybody around him was shouting for blood he said how nice it would be if we were good to each other. He was really cool. But he had his failings, and his violent streaks, and he never understood what an obscenity slavery is. Certainly he was no son of god. And if my memory serves me right, even he didn't claim to be until he went and starved himself in the desert for a while. And that sad, sad question when he was dying is most telling of all. Baffled, he couldn't see why his god didn't save him.

The greatest obscenity to come out of this is that the superstitious, religious bigots who murdered that nice guy then completely subverted his teachings and used them to promote hatred, intolerance, and ignorance. What makes me almost cry is that they use the cross as a symbol, undercutting the disgusting cruelty and falsely dignifying it with a phrase so bizarrely meaningless it boggles the mind: "He died for our sins."

They should be saying: "religion murdered a nice guy who worked for hope and clear thinking."

Of course christians will say he was resurrected, but I really don't think so. Have you read the bit in the bible where he supposedly walks up to Thomas after the murder, and says "Hi Thomas."
Thomas replies "Hi. Who are you?"
The guy says, "I'm Jesus, back from the dead."
Thomas skeptically looks at him and says, "Ummm I don't think so, fella. Deluded much?"
The guy shows Thomas the holes in his hands and Thomas says "Oh wow! You must be him."

Am I the only one who sees the problem here? Thomas, who has been a best friend of Jesus for years doesn't recognise him? Yeah, right. Some nut job has driven nails through his hands (like lots of people do every year now) and Thomas, being superstitious, believes it.

We all know Jesus got violent at times (what with the whole trashing of the temple thing); but I suppose that is an indicator of the whole Jesus was human thing (I haven't come across or remember the slavery point that you've made in my readings, I should go through things again when I have time, try and find it).

This gets back to the whole question of Jesus's divinity: there's three schools of thought: Jesus was completely human, human with divinity, completely divine. I think the latter option is the least plausible one, based on what we know and what Jesus said. But I don't know for sure. Either remaining option makes sense. I guess this and the whole resurrection thing are truly matters of faith.

I agree that the whole "He died for our sins" thing makes little sense. I actually tried and came up with a reasonable interpretation for what this actually meant, but I promptly forgot it!

It's been a long time since I read much of the bible (I used to argue with religious friends all the time when I was a tiresome kid). It was in a part where a Roman centurion comes to Jesus to ask him to help his favorite slave get better. Jesus applauds the slaveowner. Not a peep about how owning people was not right. Nothing about how he should set him free. He had a perfect opportunity, but failed to say anything. Clearly he didn't see anything wrong with owning other people. It isn't surprising though. It was perfectly normal for people to own other people back then.

I'd always wondered about that peculiar bit of nonsense -- Jesus dying for our sins. Sins are not transferable currency. How can any person die for another's sins. It doesn't make any sense at all. And then I read the Why Won't God Heal Amputees (http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com) site by brilliant computer science teacher Marshall Brain (he also began the HowStuffWorks website). Superb stuff! He points out that the dying for sins is actually about human sacrifice. When someone does something bad for something they need to kill a calf or a goat or a pigeon or something as an offering to the god. For lots of sin by lots of people you need to kill something really important, like god's own son. The idea is very screwy but has a kind of sick and pathetic logic attached to it.

Just occurred to me that the Why Won't God Heal Amputees (http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com) site also refers to the centurion with the slave incident.

Do have a read of the site. The care and logic is impeccable.

One of my favorite pieces there is where he points out that the term "atheist" is pretty-much meaningless:

Do you believe in Leprechauns? Probably not, because Leprechauns are imaginary. There is no actual evidence for the existence of Leprechauns. Yes, there are lots of books, movies and fairy tales dealing with Leprechauns. People talk about Leprechauns all the time. Leprechauns even have a popular brand of breakfast cereal. But that does not mean that Leprechauns exist.

We know that Leprechauns are imaginary. Why? Because there is no evidence for their existence. Despite all the publicity Leprechauns get, normal people dismiss storybook creatures like Leprechauns as myths, and rightly so.

If you do not believe in Leprechauns, what are you? Are you an aleprechaunist? Of course not. You are normal. People who do not believe in Leprechauns are completely normal.

This is interesting -- I know this story well (obviously only from Matthew). Trying to look for the exact passage again, I found that Matthew says servant, while Luke says slave (got this from here). Servant can imply paid employment, while slave obviously does not.

Which is the most accurate? It looks like there's more discrepancy reported in the event, though. It may be necessary to consider the question that what is he interpretation inherent in the translation of the original texts?

The scapegoat idea was the explanation that was offered to me when I was younger, but it still doesn't make much sense.

I will have a close look at that site: it looks very interesting. But the implication that "leprechauns are imaginary", that is, they do not exist, because there is no evidence for their existence, worries me. It is more accurate to say that "since we have no evidence that leprechauns exist, we cannot conclude that leprechauns exist or not".

Say I tell you I have a red apple in my fridge. You have no evidence that I have a red apple in my fridge; I could be telling you the truth or I could be lying to you. This does not mean that the red apple does not exist in my fridge. You could come and check my fridge and then you would know for sure one way or the other; you would posess the evidence you need to verify the statement. But without posessing the evidence, you cannot conclude the verity or otherwise of my statement.

In a roundabout way, this expresses the concept of falsifiability. If you cannot obtain the necessary evidence you need to prove a hypothesis (in the above case, that a red apple exists in my fridge), that hypothesis is not provable (according to the scientific method).

(I love discussing stuff like this, especially when I actually feel like I have the mental faculties to do so; sometimes I do not.)

I was listening to a talk today about Godel and I couldn't help feeling that some of what was said is taken too much to absolutes. Some things that a philosopher considers unsolvable are basic tools for ordinary, down-to-earth engineers. For instance the paradox "This is untrue." Philosophers throw up their hands and say it is unsolvable, and I have a feeling that it was part of Godel's theorem of incompleteness.

The funny thing is that engineers use this concept all the time. You couldn't build a normal computer without it, or a telephone or even an electric doorbell. It is far from insoluble when you adopt a real-world, sensible view. You simply let the states flip-flop back and forth and you have an astable oscillator. Another form of the same thing is the basis for computer static RAM and the registers in a CPU.

Similarly the problem of whether leprechauns exist or not isn't the problem it first seems. Do leprechauns conflict with the real world? They use magic, purport to grant wishes, can turn invisible, live only in Ireland, and are tiny -- smaller than a newborn baby. Taken on the whole we can safely say leprechauns don't exist.

This isn't the same for your apple in the fridge. It doesn't contravene good sense so I can't use other factors to disprove it.

A god would violate a lot of logic and common sense. It is pretty clear it doesn't exist. :)

Well, if we rephrase the original problem of leprechaun existence to add these extra assumptions, then the problem's answer becomes contingent on these assumptions being true, and if one of these assumptions is false, this collapses the whole problem to being false. We must actually prove all or disprove one of these assumptions however to still return a definitive answer. We can certainly say that a true answer to the leprechaun problem is certainly improbable (and possibly even estimate these probabilities), but we cannot definitively say that is is impossible without actually performing a proof.

When we consider the question of existence of a god, we know there are extra assumptions, but we do not know for sure what these assumptions are! It is certainly true that under some assumptions a god that adheres to those assumptions cannot exist, but those are the only circumstances that we can logically rule out. The presence of extra, unknown assumptions makes the God problem a little more difficult.

The point about probabilities or likelihood is not just an inconvenience though. It is central to the issue. There are very few things in the real world that we can be absolutely certain of, but the likelihood of pink flying elephants is so vanishingly small that it may be safely dismissed.

It is the same with the idea of a god.
I have entertained myself by writing a short science fiction story which assumes that a god does exist. It does so in a logical fashion that is consistent with all the known physical laws, but it doesn't change the fact that in reality the possibility of a god existing in that way or any other is so improbable as to be considered as good as impossible for all practical purposes.

I don't think the analogy is so simple. We are talking about something that is completely external to our own experience and reality, so making deductions about this is not straightforward.

I don't see how the likelihood of the God problem being true is so minimal. It seems to me that it is just as likely that the God Problem is true than it is false.

In fact, I personally am a agnostic theist.

But now we are reaching into the realms of theology I haven't even fully considered myself. I am mulling over the consequences of an idea that involves parallel universes...

It is that very point, that it is completely external to our experience and reality, that makes it necessary to dismiss it.

There have been centuries of indoctrination that make people think that they should suspend critical thinking where a god is concerned, but that is a basic mistake. Under all other circumstances saying that something is so, but is unknowable because it is outside the universe just sounds absurd, but people have become accustomed to accepting it when talking about gods. Why? It doesn't make sense.

Here is a simple test: Someone tells you that the universe is supported on the backs of an infinite number of giant tortoises. You would dismiss this as so unlikely that it isn't worth considering. But it is the same as a god, in that although it is wildly improbable, in a philosophical sense it is impossible to absolutely disprove.

I don't think we should suspend critical thinking in this case. I just don't think we can make judgements so easily.

But you have somewhat made my point, though: in a philosophical sense it is impossible to absolutely disprove.

That is essentially the view I hold :)

Ooops. I should have mentioned what the story was, in case you want to read it. It is called Grace and is in 2 forms on my website at:
http://miriam-english.org/stories.html

Neat story. :)

:) Thanks.

By the way, I am a mathematician by heart, so I cannot avoid but take certain things to absolutes ;)

I envy you your mathematician's heart (as you know).
I lean towards considering myself an engineer so I thrive on shades of grey. :)

By the way, you might be interested in the form in which I have the bible. I downloaded it from Project Gutenberg as the King James version. I just looked online and found that there are heaps more forms of the bible there now.
http://www.gutenberg.org
Because my copy is in raw text form it is very easy to load and search in my favorite text editor TextPad which has regular expression capability (http://www.textpad.com -- a truly brilliant program!)

I divided mine in 2 parts (old and new testament) and added contents lists at the beginning to make them easier to use. I can upload my copies to my website if you want them. They're about 3MB and 1MB.

I wondered how they explained fossils. But I am surprised they say God was tricking us and not the devil.

As for the flood - I watch a LOT of Discovery Channel, National Graphic Channel, History Channel, Science Channel...etc. So I can't remember where I actually saw it.

But they have a lot of stories on trying to dig out the historical facts behind Christian beliefs. Because many of them have some historical factual basis and some are taken from other cultures' traditions.

About the flood, amazingly enough world-wide cultures have brought down history about an actual flood that happened. And all of those cultures place it at about the same time frame. (I think it was around 6,000 years ago.)

Anyway, I can't remember the actual scientific theories that went into it, but one of them had to do with some massive eruption (gas or volcano, I can't remember) that caused tons and tons of water to shoot into the atmosphere, causing many, many days of world-wide rains - resulting in world-wide flooding.

If I catch it again (they show it routinely from time to time) I'll get the name of the story and let you know. Or you can check out the channels I listed to see if you can find it.

I know it sounds crazy, but there was enough scientific theory in there that made me believe that world wide flooding actually did happen about that time. One of the cool things I like about those shows is that, not only does it verify or debunk events written in the bible; it usually shows that those things that can be verified are generally accepted as historical fact by many different cultures world-wide.

It's amazing how long handed down myths and traditions (long-long before people were easily moving world-wide and certainly long-long-long before the internet) of so many different cultures and religionsw world-wide have a similiar pattern

I wondered how they explained fossils. But I am surprised they say God was tricking us and not the devil.

They didn't actually use the word "tricked". But that is what it comes to. They believe god put the fossils there to screw with us. What they say is "He can do anything; he's god. How can we hope to know his plan?" But of course, then they say that they do know god's plan, and further, that he hates this and wants that. [shudder]

Thanks Jean. I don't get TV here though, so I wouldn't have any way to watch it. I used to watch a lot of TV documentaries when I lived in Melbourne and I have to agree with you. Some were brilliant.

Quite some time back (I'm not sure if it was a documentary or an article in one of the science journals) I learned about the Black Sea and its catastrophic past. Apparently back in the days of very early civilisation large numbers of people lived around the Black Sea, north of what is now Turkey. It would have been a wonderful place to live. The ground was fertile, the climate great, but back then the Black sea, which was really a big lake, wasn't connected to the Mediterranean, and it was a long way below sea level. Well, at some point thousands of years ago there was an earthquake (like they've been having recently in Turkey) and it opened up the connection between the two bodies of water. Whoosh! Flood.

Now, this definitely happened, and it was in the early days of civilisation. Whether it is the source of the flood myths is anybody's guess, but it seems a good bet to me.

In the early days of human history there were really not very many of us. It makes sense that a catastrophe that happened in some small corner of the planet that decimated what these days would be a fairly small settlement would seem to them as if it affected the whole world. And as those people migrated and spread over the planet they would carry their legends with them.

I often wonder if the Norse gods were originally Mum, Dad, Uncles and Aunts and a few friends in a village in prehistoric nordic country. The kids grew up, passed on stories of the exploits of their elders. The next generation passed them on to their kids, and so on. Each time with emphasis and embellishment, till they became tales of gods.

Thinking myself back into those days it seems pretty likely to me.

hahaha... you have those people there, too? dunno why.. guess i just thought that things weren't so bad in other countries. not like super christian america.

and btw, people cried in my biology class when we had to learn about evolution. not even joking.

They don't have the power that they do in USA... but they're workin' on it.

Cried? Oh my... oh wow... I'm astounded. Cried. Oh wow.
Oh, the amazing power of brainwashing. What I don't get is how they can't see what evolution is. I mean, it isn't rocket science. It is the simplest concept:

There is variation in any population.
Some of those survive better than others.
The ones that survive, breed.
The traits that don't survive, don't survive.

These complete whack-jobs believed that before the flood people lived to an age of 900 years

But who calls that livin'
When no gal will give in
To no man what is 900 years?

[Music by George Gershwin, lyrics by his lovely wife Ira]

:) I don't think I've heard that one. Do you think there is a trance music version? (Sorry. :)

Aaaaghh I just realised. Of course I've heard that one -- the eternally famous It Ain't Necessarily So

It Ain't Necessarily So

It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible,
It ain't necessarily so.

now david was small but oh my
little david was small but oh my
he fought big goliath
who lay down and dieth
david was small but oh my.

to get into heaven, don't snap for a second
live clean forget your faults
i take the gospel whenever it's possible
but with a grain of salt

oh jonah he lived in a whale
oh jonah he lived in a whale
he made his home in
that fishes abdomen
Oh jonah he lived in a whale

to get into heaven, don't snap for a seven
live clean forget your faults
i take gospel whenever it's possbel (Rhymes with gospel)
but with a grain of salt

methuselah lived 900 years
methuselah lived 900 years
who calls that livin'
when no gal will give in
to no man what's 900 years

It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible,
It ain't necessarily so.

ain't necessarily so
ain't necessarily so
ain't necessarily so

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

fairytales and crazy people who look "normal"

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

The Flynn Effect

Christian(?)

Re: Christian(?)

Re: Christian(?)

Re: Christian(?)

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject