Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

by ROB Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:00 pm

First topic message reminder :

Shirina wrote:
Humans are easily fooled.

Perhaps that’s why atheism is growing in spite of its illogicalness.

To prove that an omniscient being does not exist, one must be an omniscient being. Only God can prove God’s existence, and only God can prove God’s nonexistence; thus, if God’s nonexistence is ever proven, God will have proven God’s own nonexistence.

by Tosh Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:43 pm

John used John.

Show me the chapter and verse where the author identifies himself as John the Apostle ?

You cannot, just more fraudulent claims you are unable to support.

by Shirina Mon Apr 08, 2013 3:27 pm

I cannot be at all certain that he is Stephen King, and given the copyright law violations in America of which I am familiar, I cannot have any certainty as to his identity because of those laws.

Actually, your defense would have been better served if you had simply agreed and said yes, Richard Bachman is, indeed, Stephen King and wrote all of those novels. However, trying to contrast the two authors by claiming with absolute certainty that John wrote gospels while Stephen King/Richard Bachman may or may not have written novels destroys your defense in two key ways:

The first glaringly obvious tactic you're using is trying to use the impossibility of evidence as evidence - and not just evidence, but PROOF. In other words, because there were no long form birth certificates, videos, and photographs available around 200 A.D., it means that anything anyone said or did in those years is the absolute truth - because it cannot be proven otherwise. That's fallacious, Rock, but then again, fallacies are what dogmatic religious belief is founded upon. Hiding behind the lack of possible evidence is bad enough, but then you claim the converse is true - that the more evidence there is for authorship, the less likely it is to be true.

So while there is virtually nothing that supports who wrote the gospels, you claim not evidence, but PROOF that John wrote them even though you only have the source to go by. Yet with Stephen King, one of the most prolific authors of the late 20th Century, a man who has sold tens of millions of his books (far too many to have broken copyright without someone noticing), a man who has been on national television oodles of times, a man who has cameoed in his own movies - needs a long form birth certificate to prove Stephen King is Richard Bachman - and even THEN you claim he may or may not be Stephen King. Remember that Stephen King also has editors, publishers, and someone that has cut him tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars in checks. Stephen King exists as Richard Bachman, and I'm sure he was more than vetted before the publishing company began handing the man a king's ransom in riches.

To put it bluntly, your defense doesn't make any sense.

This is where we reach "The lady dost protest too much" territory. You're trying too hard to be right and in so doing are making ridiculous counter arguments.

I am certain that he could write, because every human I’ve known or known of that could read could also write.

And how many humans from 200 A.D. have you personally known?

It’s a shame that no one had videos of photographs of anyone in the 1st Century AD

Yes, it is a shame because if there HAD been videos and photographs then, you couldn't use the lack of evidence as evidence.

Stephen King, or whatever his name is (something Bachman), could have been an entirely different person born in Borneo for all I know.

Yes, "for all you know." But one of the wonders of the modern world, especially the Information Age, is that you can find out if Stephen King is an entirely different person born in Borneo. Willful ignorance in this day and age is no defense.

I know that with absolute certainty.

No, you don't. You can CHOOSE to believe it with absolute certainty, but that doesn't mean your choice is based on anything substantive. The certainty of belief is not indicative of the veracity of that belief. People like the Amazing Kreskin and James Randi have been demonstrating how people have been duped into believing all sorts of crackpot things - from "psychic readers" to "faith healers." In fact, James Randi is still offering a million dollars to anyone who can prove - in front of an independent panel of judges - that he/she has supernatural powers. Despite this, not even the famous psychics have been able to collect yet they still perform their stunts to a packed audience.

Scientists are humans; thus, scientists lack omniscience, so they cannot know everything, and scientists lack omnipresence and eternal existence, so they cannot be everywhere and every-when to record everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen throughout space-time.

Neither could John.

If as a natural scientist, an applied biological scientist, you choose to adopt non-cautionary language in describing what your discipline might have discovered that predates every human, you do so at risk of joining a cavalcade of predecessors whose chosen hypotheses and theories lie discarded alongside the road to truth.

And how many believers in religions and gods have fallen into the same trap by claiming something was true when it wasn't? How many entire religions, entire pantheons of gods, have been discarded "alongside the road to truth?"

I know. You don’t know how I know. Until you choose to investigate how I know, explanations I provide will continue to fall on ears that by your choice don’t hear.

This is the second reason why your comparison with Stephen King doesn't work. No matter how you think you know something, all any of us will have to go on is an anecdotal story. With Stephen King, there are more ways to verify his authorship other than the fact that his name is on the front cover. There are hundreds of people involved in publishing his work from the lowly proofreader to the cover artists to King's personal agent to his lawyers to his publisher. What does John have? What could you possibly say that would shed light on John's authorship where everyone else has failed? You believe because you want to, and if you could admit that much, at least then we really would be on the road to truth.

by Shirina Mon Apr 08, 2013 3:32 pm

I resemble that remark

Heh heh, hello, Sniper.

by Tosh Mon Apr 08, 2013 3:49 pm

Texas rewrites science and history, his bespoke methodology is considered inconsistent by those with a functioning brain, he rejects conclusions that are inferred by voluminous evidence but accepts conclusions that are inferred by slim evidence.

by Tosh Mon Apr 08, 2013 5:16 pm

Our deluded friend from Texas believes he does not have to prove any claim he makes, we are all supposed to prove him wrong.

The Gospels do not identify their authors, this is the truth of the matter and Texas cannot prove otherwise, hence the usual flatulent evasion.

by oftenwrong Mon Apr 08, 2013 5:34 pm

Soon to be a major Hollywood Blockbuster ....

JESUS - The Missing Years !

by Shirina Mon Apr 08, 2013 5:49 pm

Truth is truth; truth stands in no need of defense.

Truth needs to be proven. It cannot be established merely by issuing declarative statements. If you wish to offer up such proof, I'm certainly not standing in your way.

Prove it.

I don't have to as I do not have the burden of proof.

Are you accessing omniscience to know what I don’t know?

If I claimed to know with absolute certainty on what date you will die, would you be accessing your omniscience by telling me I can't possibly know that? Of course not. Omniscience isn't necessary for common sense. Belief and absolute knowledge are not one and the same.

by Tosh Mon Apr 08, 2013 6:28 pm

Truth is truth independent of being proven by humans.

So macro-evolution requires no proof to be true....yippee, in fact everything is true, black is white, right is wrong, God exists and God does not exist.

The world according to Texas, truth is independent of proof, he forgets to tell us how we establish truth without proof.

More gems to follow.

by Tosh Mon Apr 08, 2013 6:34 pm

You’ve not answered my question, asked again here: Are you accessing omniscience to know what I don’t know?

If you have no proof to prove you know, then that is proof you do not know, its called logic, its a proof mechanism that proves whether you know or not.

I can't get over how Texas can honestly believe his reasoning is sound, its a delusion of almost unbelievable proportions.

by snowyflake Mon Apr 08, 2013 7:00 pm

I know. You don’t know how I know. Until you choose to investigate how I know, explanations I provide will continue to fall on ears that by your choice don’t hear.

You don't know. I have investigated this with you on several occasions but you play word games and semantics and avoid giving a direct answer to direct questions. My eyes hear fine. You choose not to tell me anything even when I ask. By refusing to answer, you are tacitly admitting you don't know.

And unless you are omniscient, you don't know any more than anyone else if John wrote comics for the Roman Jewish Tribune.

I wish I could thank you for your honesty.

by Tosh Mon Apr 08, 2013 7:18 pm

Knowledge requires evidence and reason, there is insufficient historical evidence or reason to claim knowledge of the authorship of the gospels.

If one claims to have knowledge then one must produce the evidence or reason, or accept they are delusional.

by oftenwrong Mon Apr 08, 2013 7:25 pm

.... or even apocryphal.

by trevorw2539 Mon Apr 08, 2013 9:07 pm

Tosh wrote:
I happen to agree that we don't know who wrote most of the Gospels, though I believe Luke probably wrote his, mainly from contact from those who had been with Jesus, and other sources. Not as a contact with Jesus.

The contents of Luke mostly consist of Mark and another common source text(q), when you say he wrote it do you mean copied it ?

No. Luke knew the Apostles/Disciples and would have had conversations with them, and listened to their experiences. He also knew John Mark, who came from Jerusalem, and who almost certainly would have seen and watched Jesus when he visited the area.

I don't dispute the unknown 'Q' reference, and references to it, but Luke's Gospel has several different approaches to subjects compared to the other Gospels. The birth (though he got his timing wrong), various events such as the Last Supper - comparable with Pauls interpretation- (and I know about the disputed verse) and his emphasis here and in the Acts to keep on the 'good side' of Rome. He blames the Jews for the Crucifixion, and in the Acts both he, and Paul, seek to show Christianity as not being against Rome. Always willing to obey Rome, but not necessarily the Jews.

Without 'Q' of course, all is speculation. As is the question of who wrote what, when and where. If Pauls letters to the Corinthians were written before any of the Gospels then the Eucharist was instituted as a Christian 'meal' by Paul. Was Jesus merely foreshadowing his coming death at the Passover meal and asking his current disciples to remember him in this way.

Were there, are there, earlier copies of the Gospels to be discovered? Who knows.

Back sometime - when I've got time.

by Shirina Mon Apr 08, 2013 9:13 pm

You’re standing in your own way. My offer, which you chose to decline thirty-three months ago, remains on the table as offered thirty-three months ago.

No one is stopping you from posting the truth as you know it. You do not need my permission.

Unfortunately, I'm betting there's a better than average chance you'll use the Bible as a substantial part of that truth - which is a lot like asking a Ford salesman how reliable a Ford vehicle is.

You’ve not answered my question, asked again here: Are you accessing omniscience to know what I don’t know?

It's not a valid question. As I've demonstrated with ease, one does not need omniscience to determine if someone knows something. Certainly some claims to knowledge can be taken at face value - I know you know my name, for instance. But if you claimed to know my former address in India, I would call shenanigans.

by oftenwrong Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:26 pm

"I know you know my name, for instance. But if you claimed to know my former address in India...."

That would be a neat trick, on a board where the majority are anonymous.

by snowyflake Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:33 pm

Peter and John are Y’shua’s disciples; Peter and John answer in truth at risk of their lives; Peter and John don’t lie.

That's a lie, Rock. You've already agreed that Peter lied. You excuse it because he was saving his own skin. Is it not still a lie? Then you declare that he doesn't lie. What kind of acrobatics goes on in your brain?

by Tosh Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:43 pm

No. Luke knew the Apostles/Disciples and would have had conversations with them, and listened to their experiences. He also knew John Mark, who came from Jerusalem, and who almost certainly would have seen and watched Jesus when he visited the area.

Mark was written before Luke and Luke consists of Mark, Q and little else( 10%), he did not record many experiences or conversations as you suggest.

I view the NT as an evolving belief, one that began with the religion of an apocalyptic Jew called Yeshua and morphed into a full blown pagan polytheistic religion about a demi-God called Jesus. The NT offers up a selection of interpretations surrounding Jesus message and christology, the Canon was an attempt to unify Christianity under Constantine.

I simply do not believe any of the theological guff that tries to explain the death of Jesus, it was obviously made up decades later by his followers. Apocalyptic Jews are by definition fanatics, you don't go about preaching the end of the world if you are happy about the current state of affairs.
He probably was convinced he was appointed/inspired by God to be the messiah and son of man, and obviously was convinced the apocalypse was imminent, but I doubt he thought the plan involved his own death.

In a nutshell most of Christology is an attempt to disguise two facts, Jesus was dead and could not be the Messiah or son of man.

by Tosh Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:09 pm

When your religious saviour dies one turns to scripture for an explanation, an explanation that does not contradict ones firm held faith, these people were convinced Jesus was the messiah, and was the son of man who would usher in the apocalypse, and he was dead as a dodo.

They took the theme from Enoch of being spiritually resurrected and ascending into heaven but added a theological twist, like Arnie he would be back to complete his plan. One small problem Jews had no reason to believe Jesus was the messiah, the son of man or that he would return from the dead with an apocalypse, a spiritual messiah just does not exist in Judaism.

After 20 years of flogging this story things were just not happening, people were beginning to lose faith that Jesus would return within a generation and bring the apocalypse.....and along came Paul, he did believe there was theological grounds for Jesus to return as a spiritual son of man, and appointed by God would usher in the apocalypse.

20 years after Paul, suddenly gospels start popping out the woodwork, all justifying his death, blaming the Jews and increasing the status of Jesus heavenwards, by the time you get to John at the end of the 1st century, Jesus is a full blown miracle working pagan demi god born of a virgin.

Jesus chose to be baptized by an apocalyptic Jew in John the Baptist at the beginning of his ministry, and 7 genuine letters of Paul record the apocalyptic beliefs of himself and the followers of Jesus at the end of his ministry, in the middle we have Jesus prophesying an apocalypse with some rather impractical long term advice.

Jesus thought he was protected by God and as the most authentic record in Mark shows, he was rather confused by his impending death.

by Tosh Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:34 pm

Since I do not believe in the supernatural I wonder what persuaded Saul that Jesus was a worthwhile figure, maybe he had an epiphany accepting the message and prophecies of Jesus, they were both apocalyptic Jews.

He took this epiphany as a sign that Jesus was " special " and created a christology around his return, these people were very religious, they really believed in God and his interventions.

by Tosh Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:02 am

Americans hare a very individualistic mentality, this includes the right to think what they want, no one can tell them what to think, their mind alone can determine what's true, the truth requires their agreement. They don't accept state truths or authority truths or reasoned truths, that is just other people's opinion, Texas is always harping on about human fallibility.

They see truth as purely an individual and subjective principle, and in their mind the existence of God, the afterlife and a resurrected Jesus are true, they simply do not accept universal truths if they contradict their truths, their opinion takes priority in all disputes. They believe the Big Bang is true, microevolution is true and the bible is true but macroevolution and independent history are false.

The volumes of utter shit posted by our precise scholar is a dishonest and futile attempt to disguise a fairly obvious cognitive bias against the truth, his truth is illogical and that proves it is a fallacy.

And he claims he is neither indoctrinated nor dogmatic, if this is true then the only logical explanation is he is deranged.

by Tosh Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:15 am

Jews are not interested in the reverse engineering of Christology, trying to squeeze Jesus in retrospect into their scriptures, and neither am I. There is nothing in the Jewish scriptures that proves anything about Jesus, Paul and the gospels bend over backwards to try and justify this link, even if there were links that still does not mean any of the NT is true, in the real meaning of the word.

by Tosh Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:40 am

It is simply insane to say Genesis 1:1 equates to the big bang, it is insane to use the grammatical neutrality of " who " to prove they are, especially when there is nothing neutral about God in Genesis.

Just his idea of truth.

by ROB Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:56 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
You’re standing in your own way. My offer, which you chose to decline thirty-three months ago, remains on the table as offered thirty-three months ago.

Shirina wrote:
No one is stopping you from posting the truth…

No one is stopping you from accepting today an offer you declined thirty-three months ago.

by snowyflake Tue Apr 09, 2013 6:01 am

I’ve asked you to answer several questions and I’ve asked you to view two videos.

I have answered your questions and veiwed the videos. You have not answered my questions.

Find any word games and semantics with which I have played, present them here, and explain to me how and why you consider what you present here word games and semantics. I doubt that you can do this, because, if my calculations are correct, I ceased playing word games and playing with semantics before you reached your teens. Facing what I faced tends to purge that garbage out of one’s system forever.

Rock, your entire method of posting and debate is a word game. You think you are being precise and scholarly but it's all a dodge. You are constantly banging on about definitions of words and the use of words. I don't think I'm the only one who smiled at the above paragraph which is of itself a wordy dodge. The entire post is a word game. You post reams of words that you have posted previously. I have read it. Once read, I don't tend to read it again.

I asked a straightforward simple question: How do you know that John wrote his gospel? What evidence do you have to support your claim?

This is a simple question. It doesn't require reams of previous postings and demands that I answer your questions which if you cared to read my posts you would see that I have answered.

So please. If you know then tell me. If you don't know and can't support your claim then just say so. It's not rocket science.

by Tosh Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:53 am

I gave two straightforward answers to your two questions. (1) The books of John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and the Revelation of John verify John’s authorship. (2) The books of John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and the Revelation of John are evidence of John’s authorship.

And yet all independent historians and most theologians do not agree, so lets be honest and admit the authorship of all of the above including the 4th gospel is disputed. The Epistles of John and the revelation of John are not thought to have been written by John, and cannot be used as proof that John wrote the 4th gospel, especially since there are distinct style differences between the epistles and the 4th gospel.

by Tosh Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:26 am

I have noticed fundamentalists like the works of " Honest John ", they do like their religion plain and simple, this gospel leaves us in no doubt Jesus is a rootin tootin miracle working God and really nothing to do with the Jews but everything to do with Judaism. Fundamentalists prefer the literal word rather than any authority interpreting the word, that is too much like telling them what to think, and they prefer to think their own truth.

What baffles me and most intelligent people is why John stayed silent for 60-70 years, from its contents the author is aware of the other gospels and Paul but couldn't be bothered to give his truer version until he was in his 80's ( not bad lifespan in the 1st century).

Does it matter John witnesses completely different versions of certain events and records events no earlier text mentions ?

It does if you are a historian trying to establish what probably occurred.

by Tosh Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:04 pm

So what do we have in the NT in a historical sense ?

We start with the earliest, 7 letters from a man who never met Jesus and 6 letters shrouded in dubiety, written a mere 20 years after the actual events.

An unnamed gospel attributed to someone called Mark, he recorded what he heard but didn't hear enough so they added in an ending, written a mere 35-40 years after the event and 15-20 years after Paul.

Two more unnamed gospels consisting mostly of Mark and another common text, hardly inspiring eye witness testimony, written a mere half a century after the event.

The combined works attributed to an octogenarian John, its on another planet in historical terms, it basically contradicts all previous testimony and provides an account of Jesus ministry and his resurrection that no other testimony records. These differences are not small, in fact he could be describing a different man and a different event for all the similarity, written a mere 60-70 years after the event.

The other 6 works were written in the 2nd century onwards, a 100 years of gossip can do a lot to any story, its like me remembering stories from WW1 passed down by my great grandfather to my grandfather to my father and onto me.

What do we not have in the NT ?

Any contemporary eye witness accounts despite the fact seemingly all Jews were fully literate, and all the disciples were Jews. Maybe they didn't think it was necessary to record Jesus since he was due back anytime, Paul got sick of waiting and his disciples decided to follow just in case Jesus didn't return in their lifetime.

Now I accept the very basics, Jesus existed and was executed by PP, but there is really not enough direct evidence to claim the NT is true, in the real meaning of the word.

I have this funny feeling that Texas has a different slant on the definition of truth, and it will be connected to Genesis 1:1, of this I am certain.

Extraordinary historical claims require extraordinary evidence to support them, simply asserting it is the TRUTH, really doesn't get us any nearer to the truth.

by oftenwrong Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:10 pm

The last word ....

http://acharlie.tripod.com/gtrin/jhvh.html

by Tosh Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:22 pm

I would hate to be an agnostic willing to learn about theism and you get Texas to explain why God exists and why the Bible is literally true, 3 years into the lesson and Texas proudly announces he has covered Genesis 1:1 !!!

I think Texas is a secret atheist converting those who are agnostics, his arguments are hardly an advert for critical thinking, he has certainly redefined scholarly.

by Tosh Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:27 pm

For me, what a man gender inclusive choose to become is what he is from now on, present tense, even after he is gone from here, no matter what he was, past tense.

So the child rapist, torturer and murderer is not be judged as such if he becomes a born again Christian ?

Then why execute him ?

EH.....EH....EH ?

by polyglide Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:32 pm

The reason Christians try to explain the existance and goodness of God is exactly the same as someone finding the cure for an ailment, they would not want to keep it to themselves but offer it to all those who suffered the complaint.

by Shirina Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:47 pm

Americans hare a very individualistic mentality, this includes the right to think what they want, no one can tell them what to think, their mind alone can determine what's true, the truth requires their agreement. They don't accept state truths or authority truths or reasoned truths, that is just other people's opinion

It doesn't make sense, does it.

Americans talk endlessly of personal liberty, individual freedom, and the tyranny of government. Yet they choose to submit to a celestial dictator that has killed more people than Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot combined - for vague and unspecified charges of just being too damned evil. The precise reason for the Great Flood is never given, the precise reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah was never given, and when a reason IS given, it's a pretty lousy one. Killing the first born of Egypt to influence the Pharaoh to let the Hebrews go, for instance, or wiping out Job's family as part of a poker table bet between God and Satan. This is the creature that Americans bend their knees to while simultaneously mouthing hypocritically the expression, "Better to die on our feet than live on our knees."

What's worse is that it isn't an individual faith - so much for that spirit of individuality! No, believers want everyone to believe whether they want to or not, and they go to great lengths trying to make America "in their image." Many believe that our Constitution offers us no protection from having religion fascistically and forcefully imposed upon us by codifying it into civil law or by denying certain groups rights and privileges based on Old Testament laws. Remember that, even as the words, "All men are created equal" were being penned, Americans still owned slaves and women were second class citizens - and much of this was defended with the Bible.

No nation ever ruled by or consumed with religion has ever been truly free. In fact, no theocratic civilization has ever ruled benevolently. Not a single one, whether ruled from Mecca or Rome.

by Shirina Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:49 pm

The reason Christians try to explain the existance and goodness of God is exactly the same as someone finding the cure for an ailment, they would not want to keep it to themselves but offer it to all those who suffered the complaint.

Yep, precisely my point.

The problem is that many Christians believe everyone is sick, so everyone is going to take their medicine - even if it has to be forced down your throat.

by polyglide Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:53 pm

Nor will there ever be a means of man creating a means of rule that enables mankind to survive in a meaningfull and fair manner, he was given the option of acceptimg God's wishes or going his own way, we now see the result of him doing the latter

by Tosh Tue Apr 09, 2013 5:20 pm

Nor will there ever be a means of man creating a means of rule that enables mankind to survive in a meaningfull and fair manner, he was given the option of acceptimg God's wishes or going his own way, we now see the result of him doing the latter

The results look pretty good compared to 2000 years of religion, and you cannot make absolute statements without evidence or proof, even if things are shit there is no guarantee they will remain shit.

And kindly keep your medicine to yourself, you are the one who is sick and in need of treatment not I.

by Shirina Tue Apr 09, 2013 5:45 pm

he was given the option of acceptimg God's wishes or going his own way, we now see the result of him doing the latter

Gods wishes, eh? Which wishes?

Perhaps this one:

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." - Exodus 22:18

And this is the result:

It's enough to make even a hardened person weep.

by snowyflake Tue Apr 09, 2013 6:56 pm

Rock, I have not answered the questions in your lengthy post. I have answered questions you posed previously when we were having the who-what-when-where-how fiasco of semantic games that lasted for about 3 days. Please, I do not want to go there again. Our ideas of grammar are entirely different.

As for this current post, it is not necessary for me to answer your questions. They are not incumbent on your answer. How I answer your questions bears no relation to my questions. Also, it is not in anyone's interest for me to flood the board with bible verses about Jesus preaching that one must believe in order to saved. We all know they are there.

My question was simple: What evidence do you have that John wrote the gospel of John? Or that any of the gospels were written by the men they say they were? Declaring it as though it were a fact and using other books of the bible to support your claim is like a criminal doing his own detective work. You need corroborative evidence outside of the bible or at least comparative analysis of the written work to make assumptions about who might have written them. And even then, you can never categorically state that the men whose names are attached to scripture actually wrote them down.

That is all I'm going to say on this subject because I'm bored with this now. I had hoped you would respond with honesty and I'm saddened that you cannot bring yourself to do so.

by snowyflake Tue Apr 09, 2013 7:20 pm

Hi Shirina

That video is horrific and I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could do that to a child.

Africa is a continent of superstitious belief and the rise in Christianity in Africa is just the swapping of one delusion for another. It's criminal.

And the worrying thing is that the minister in charge of children's welfare actually believes that children can be witches. How backward can they be?

by oftenwrong Tue Apr 09, 2013 7:43 pm

.... and now they are rationing baby-milk formula in supermarkets.

No, not in Africa, in Britain. Today.

by snowyflake Tue Apr 09, 2013 7:49 pm

Baby milk rationing is because China has become the biggest consumer and production isn't meeting the demand. Soon baby milk formulat will go the way of petrol and diesel.

by Tosh Tue Apr 09, 2013 7:57 pm

Bonkers, simply stark raving bonkers.......and very sensitive.

by Sponsored content