A Reasonable Religion
 

Here is an outline of a set of religious beliefs that I would find hard to argue with.

1. God created the three dimenional universe, via the Big Bang about 15 billion years ago.

2. God set up physical constants, laws of physics, and quarks that incorporated inherent randomness (a necessary feature to allow free will).

3. God realized that with these initial "axioms", the laws of logic, which even he can't break, would eventually produce conscious beings here and there. He liked that.

4. The question as to whether God is totally omnipotent is irrelevant to this religion. So is where he came from, has he always existed, or whether some super God created him. Even if there was a super god, only this God cares about his conscious creations and wants them to be happy.

5. Because he wants his conscious creations to be happy, he needs for there to be consequences to people who are not good to each other. That is the only reason he wants people to believe in him. It is not about his ego. It is that to get around Prisoner Dilemma problems, to keep polluters from polluting, etc. etc. some may need to worry about divine consequences and won't if they are atheists.

6. The consequences may not need God's hands on approach. He might have set it up in advance. Knowing the specifics is completely unnecessary.

7. These consequences are solely related to how good you are. How often and how badly you break the Golden Rule. And how often you go above and beyond the call of duty. They are utterly unrelated to your religion. If you do good without believing in this God, that is fine with him. Your rewards will be equal to those who believe.

8. On the other hand if you do bad you are facing consequences. Who knows what. But there is a way out. Namely by doing extra credit good to make up for the bad. Do enough and you wipe the slate clean. Do less and you mitigate the punishment. (Notice that this would be a disaster for those who have done terribly in the past or for those who know that can't stop doing bad. It seems like a lot of the fervent believers I know fit one of these two categories which I don't think is a coincidence. They get to say that we are ALL horrible sinners because of Adam and Eve and that in spite of this, believing in Jesus gets us into heaven. How convenient if you spent half your life as a thief, whore or scoundrel, or if you know you have no will power.)

There you have it. A new religion. Sklanskyanity.

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]

There you have it. A new religion. Sklanskyanity.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was only a matter of time.

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

Great, sounds like my kind of religion. The only problem is getting people to believe the initial assumption: there is, or was, a God. Other than that, it's golden.

Also, what percentage of income should go to the Church of Sklansky? 10%? Will there be "missions" to go on like the Mormons?

Wally

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

1. The universe is at least 4 dimensions.

2. Did you mean quirks or were you referring to the elementary particls?

3. Does he believe they will eventually produce conscious beings or does he know?

4-5. He wants us to be happy? You don't explicitly say if he can or does interfer with the natural course of events. If he does, why didn't he stop the plague? If he is sophisticated enough to setup the universe why didn't he merely setup a universe that created conscious beings who weren't bad to each other?

6-8. Are the rewards/consequences set up for an eternity in a timelike dimension we know, or do they exist outside such a dimension? Is someone who lives a life of pure evil subject to only punishment, or will they eventually have "done their time?"

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

1. OK 4

2. Quarks

3. He knows it is a big favorite.

4. Maybe because setting up the universe is doable but the other is not. Remember he may not be omnipotent.

5. I don't know. One possibility that I thought of is that the last few second of life seem like an eternity. An eternity to reflect on your misdeeds. Of course that answer wouldn't provide much punishment for psychopaths.

Meanwhile you are asking for details and I specifically said that it is not necessary to know them. Anything not logically inconsistent that fits the general outline is OK.

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
quarks that incorporated inherent randomness (a necessary feature to allow free will).

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, whoa, whoa - now that's just wrong. Quantum mechanics operates on far too small a scale to possibly be somehow "controlled" in aggregate by the brain. In other words, quantum uncertainty is only really uncertain on the quantum level - we don't know exactly what this particular atom or particle is going to do, but we can damn well be fairly certain of what a group of trillions of them are going to do (for example, even though I have no idea what any one particular atom or particle in my desk is going to do even with the most state-of-the-art observational equipment, I feel pretty safe in saying that the entire group of atoms that comprise my desk are going to retain a desk-like shape)

Ever since people started asking the question "Do we have free will?" what they really wanted to know was the answer to a similar question, implicitly asked, which is "Do we have free will in practical terms?" Meaning, is it possible even theoretically for someone or something or some god to predict exactly and unfailingly what I am going to do next?

Notice that's significantly different from just asking "Do we have free will?", or free will in technical terms, which can be disproved in half a minute so long as you accept two eminently reasonable assumptions: 1) All matter in the universe operates according to physical laws, and 2) Human beings are made up of matter. Since it is quite frankly a trivial question, we can conclude that it obviously wasn't an oversight of everyone from Aristotle on down to we humans today; that we really are asking about practical free will and not technical free will.

For what it's worth, the fact that we have no free will doesn't directly imply some sort of apathetic nihilism. It behooves us to behave as if we have free will even though in the most technical sense we do not. In fact, it's pretty well pointless to behave otherwise.

This confusion between practical free will and technical free will leads people to make all sorts of attempts to sort of "tuck" the source of free will away in some dark corner where science has yet to explore (quantum uncertainty is a rather popular one). But it just doesn't work - the random behaviors of particles just aren't coordinated enough in aggregate to have any significant effect on a single neuron's behavior, let alone a human being's.

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]

Also, what percentage of income should go to the Church of Sklansky? 10%? Will there be "missions" to go on like the Mormons?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm starting an oppositional religion called the Free Masons. Yo Malmuth, you in? There's a funny hat in it for you if you say 'yes'.

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

Mundane details are pointless i agree, (how logn didit take him, or something). Even pointing out 4 or more dimensions was slightly nitpicky of me (to be accurate i think a 'he designed the universe as we know it' would suffice, because the number of dimensions in th euniverse in unknown)

However, you stipluate that there is some kind of post or near death reward punishment system and that strikes me as non trivial because it has to fall within the laws of physics. Changing ones perception of time as death nears is within the laws of physics but has the problems you mention. A physical heaven or hell where people are pehaps taken runs into the problem of us finding it. Several other systems I've thought of seem implausible too (him physically transporting you to a place in his universe). The biggest problem with a post/near death system, is that we don't know it exists. Sure some people think it does, but I for one don't. I base my behavior on many things but the afterlife is not one of them, and if I didn't have other reasons not to behave badly I would with little to no fear of a postmortem punishment.

Beyond all of this though, I have a hard time seeing why he would even care if we are happy. There seems to be no logical reason for you to include this among your stipulations. Of all the reasons I can think of for the god you describe to create a universe like ours more have him being indifferent to what happens to us than not.

Saying "god wants us to be happy" strikes me as introducing unnecesary complexities to the system, and we all know waht William of Ockham said about that.

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

Quote:

There you have it. A new religion. Sklanskyanity.




What's new about it? Specifically 7 and 8?

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
What's new about it? Specifically 7 and 8?

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea that you don't actually have to believe in god or worship him to be rewarded, just live a good life.

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]

The idea that you don't actually have to believe in god or worship him to be rewarded, just live a good life.


[/ QUOTE ]

Start with Plato and work forward in history from there. Virtually every religion and human philosophy is some variaton of this.

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]

Start with Plato and work forward in history from there. Virtually every religion and human philosophy is some variaton of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most religions require that there be a belief in some higher power, be it Allah, Christ, or whomever. They also have certain rules to be followed or rituals to perform before being rewarded an afterlife. Obviously these are all open to interpretation, as seen by the several forms of Christianity that already exist.

A friend of mine wants me to get baptised because he is afraid that I'll go to hell if I don't. Yet he is somewhat of a dishonest and selfish person. I'm not perfect but I think I'm a bit more respectful of others than he is. According his beliefs he goes to heaven and I do not. If the afterlife is determined solely by how you act as an individual and not by any religious beliefs, then I think I'd be in OK shape.

Atleast that is my interpretation of what Sklansky was trying to say. I don't know a whole lot about religions so I don't think I can say much more, but that's my $.02

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]

If the afterlife is determined solely by how you act as an individual and not by any religious beliefs, then I think I'd be in OK shape.


[/ QUOTE ]

As you see, what S. proposes isn't new. Even within organized religions there is widespread belief that works will save. I think even Catholics now accept some form of this such that it's no longer necessary to belong to their church but I'm not certain of that.

Your friend is wrong if he thinks baptism will save. The Bible says "For by grace you have been saved, through faith, not as a result of works, that no one should boast". According to Scripture, and this is very plain throughout the New Testament, allegations of interpretation are misguided, salvation is by repenting of one's sin and trusting in Jesus. It is phrased in different ways, but one of the clearest is John 3:16

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

It's not that he thinks simply being batised is enough to be saved, but the belief that without being baptised you are damned no matter what you do with your life.

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

I wouldn't focus on the question of baptism. I can't imagine that anyone who believes in Christ would fail to get baptized. But in one sense your friend is right. If you reject Christ, you can't be saved. Scripture says that all have sinned and all deserve God's punishment. No amount of trying to do good works will make up for that. That's why God gave His only begotten Son, as an atonement for sin.

If God offers you this gift of life, forgiveness of sins, the promise of the inheritance along with Christ, and you refuse it, then you remain guilty. "How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?"

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

Yea, the bible is pretty clear. If you don't believe in Christ, you go to hell. Pretty much my biggest problem with the religion. It's way too restrictive and exclusive of all other religions.

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]

But there is a way out. Namely by doing extra credit good to make up for the bad. Do enough and you wipe the slate clean.


[/ QUOTE ]

Did you watch Constantine and feel like he was getting slighted for all the "good work" he had done?

The interesting thing about this "extra credit" is that it does not take into account the person's thoughts and motives. I could be a serial killer, murder a hundred people, and still be able to wipe my slate clean even though I would be doing it for selfish reasons.

btw - Something about this point also reminds me of Agent Smith telling Neo, "We'll wipe the slate clean, Mr. Anderson. Give you a fresh start."

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

Do you understand why the Bible says faith in Christ is necessary? If it's true it would have to be exclusive of all other religions. If the Bible is God's Word, all other religions would have to be false. Otherwise, God would be contradicting Himself.

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]

2. God set up physical constants, laws of physics, and quarks that incorporated inherent randomness (a necessary feature to allow free will).



[/ QUOTE ]

A nit: Randomness does not in any way imply or guarantee free will, it only affects predictability. Whether something collapses into one specific state or another may be purely random chance, but it does in fact collapse into a specific state upon interaction if quantum theory is correct. Unpredictable results are not equal to free will. (Though you are correct in your assertion that deterministics physical laws preclude free will. We do not, however, have complete understanding of the physical laws of the universe, which may be quite an understatement, so all speculation about free will is pretty much moot.)

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

Are you going to write a novel fleshing out some of these ideas?

Sklanskyians or Sklanskyites?
 

your title gives implies
a belief in a religion is unreasonable.

religion is based on faith, not probabliities and logic.

If there WERE a religion based on these two things, it would be called POKER, not Sklanskanity and you David, would be the pope.
I would be a member and people of outside religions would ridicule us and tell us we have Sklanskyitis instead of calling us Sklanskyians, or Sklanskyites.
Instead of one big payoff in the end called Heaven, you would promise us small rewards now of 5-6BB pots as long as we followed your bible (HEPFAP) Those who followed other heathen books such as PPLTPs would be considered animals, mice,elephants, mice, eagles, jakals and monkeys or as i like to call some players ja-monkeys.
ahahahah [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

Why should God care what you believe? He never came to me and told me what to believe. How can it make sense that you are damned to eternity if you don't believe what God wants you too, yet he won't tell you what it is you should believe? This is obviously more applicable to areas of the world where Christianity isn't nearly as prevalent as the US and Europe. This isn't the just and fair God I envision.

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

In both 2 and 5 you have made implicit assumptions that are unwarranted. I refer to free will and consciousness. Accepting these two without a shred of skepticism leads almost inexorably to a religion of some sort. (I said almost. Please don't ask me to "prove" this statement.)

Free Will and Consciousness are both subjective phenomena that are extraordinarily difficult to define/explain/understand. If we build a worldview without reference to these two, what would it be? Certainly, not Sklanskyanity. Certainly not any of the major religions either. Once we accept the fact that free will and consciousness are not part of the objective world, the notion of a deity that takes an active interest in our thoughts and/or actions is just absurd.

You might suppose from the above that my view has no room for ethics or personal responsibility. Nothing could be further from the truth. Hunger causes me to eat. Cold air causes me to seek a warm place. A love for my children causes me to advocate putting child molesters in prison. However, I reject the notion that my hunger, my chill, or my paternal love has any cosmic significance.

GG

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile you are asking for details and I specifically said that it is not necessary to know them. Anything not logically inconsistent that fits the general outline is OK.

[/ QUOTE ]
Congratulations,
You sound just like that guy who wrote Dianetics.
X

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]

He never came to me and told me what to believe.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you've heard the gospel, you've heard God's Word.

[ QUOTE ]

This is obviously more applicable to areas of the world where Christianity isn't nearly as prevalent as the US and Europe. This isn't the just and fair God I envision.


[/ QUOTE ]

God is just. No one is punished unfairly. He can and will save anyone He pleases to save. As for people who have never heard, then obviously they have never rejected, so they are not unbelievers. I don't know what their fate is, but I do know God will deal with them in justice. Whatever that is, it gives no excuse to someone who has heard and refuses the offer of grace.

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you've heard the gospel, you've heard God's Word.

[/ QUOTE ]
What about the Kuran. Is that God's word? How am I supposed to find the real God's word when there are multiple versions of "God's word" out there? Man telling me what God says simply is not enough for me. Look at all the false gods before us. I am not asking for man to tell me what God says to believe. I am asking for God to tell me what to believe. There is a difference.

[ QUOTE ]
God is just. No one is punished unfairly. He can and will save anyone He pleases to save. As for people who have never heard, then obviously they have never rejected, so they are not unbelievers. I don't know what their fate is, but I do know God will deal with them in justice. Whatever that is, it gives no excuse to someone who has heard and refuses the offer of grace.

[/ QUOTE ]
All I can say it would be a heck of a lot easier to accept Christ as your savior when he is standing in front of you asking you if you accept him.

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[...] How convenient if you spent half your life as a thief, whore or scoundrel, or if you know you have no will power.) [...]

[/ QUOTE ]

I gotta pick a nit with you here - what's wrong with being a whore? Whores don't break the golden rule - they provide a service to willing customer in return for money. Shouldn't this be perfectly acceptable behavior according to your new religion?

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
A nit:

[/ QUOTE ]
I partially agree and partially disagree, but I think this thread will be more interesting if it doesn't get sidetracked on the issue of free will. I'd suggest that we reserve that discussion to one of the free will threads.

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

"Once we accept the fact that free will and consciousness are not part of the objective world, the notion of a deity that takes an active interest in our thoughts and/or actions is just absurd."

Is the animal kingdom part of the objective world? If so, do you grant an animal the slightest awareness of being alive? Or are all their individual and joint actions explained away as being the result of natural animal instincts? I would think that an animal is a conscious creature, and obviously outside of myself, objectified. It operates according to its instincts, it seems, and yet it also likes to play. Any dog-owner can attest to that, and we can see young animals at play even in their normal environments. I don't see how instinct applies to such playful behavior. But then again, I'm not looking very hard or trying to understand. It was just an idea...

We often overlook the animal kingdom and nature when discussing esoteric ideas; so I thought I would bring them into the mix. I do wonder how they would be treated in the new Davidian religion. Kindly I hope, and please no more cages or zoos...

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

They offer their services to married men which some would argue is not in the best interest of humankind.

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
5. Because he wants his conscious creations to be happy, he needs for there to be consequences to people who are not good to each other. That is the only reason he wants people to believe in him. It is not about his ego. It is that to get around Prisoner Dilemma problems, to keep polluters from polluting, etc. etc. some may need to worry about divine consequences and won't if they are atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]
If he wants people to worry about divine consequences, he should provide evidence that there are divine consequences.

To join your religion, am I supposed to believe that he has provided such evidence?

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

David,

Good post -- I think this is a much more fruitful tactic than attacking other religions.

I wonder what you think of Karma? Karma (as I am defining it) says that you will be punished or rewarded according to your actions. However, this is not done by an external agent (i.e., God) but by the natural laws of the universe. In other words it is a (NOT SCIENTIFIC) extension of action-reaction to higher-order phenomena like justice. Karma does not specify the form of this reaction; it could come from nature, other people, your own consciousness, etc.

I believe in Karma because I have found it to be true in my own life, and throughout history. Admittedly Karma is easier to see if you believe in reincarnation (which I do, though in a non-literal form). But this is not necessary a priori.

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

If he wants people to worry about divine consequences, he should provide evidence that there are divine consequences.

To join your religion, am I supposed to believe that he has provided such evidence?

No. Because he hasn't. But people will worry anyway.

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]

Man telling me what God says simply is not enough for me.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible claims to be God's Word, not man's. Salvation is by faith, so you have to make a decision. The Koran says many things that are different from the Bible, though it also copies much from the Bible. The chief difference is that the Koran does not recognize Jesus as the Son of God, nor does it acknowledge any need for salvation. Again, the question is whether you believe in Jesus or not.

[ QUOTE ]

All I can say it would be a heck of a lot easier to accept Christ as your savior when he is standing in front of you asking you if you accept him.


[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you think it would be. Many saw Him, talked to Him and witnessed His miracles, yet did not believe.

Here's an interesting passage from Matthew, spoken by Jesus:

Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
They offer their services to married men which some would argue is not in the best interest of humankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm... do I detect a bit of old-school judeo-christian morality here? Does this mean that bar owners are sinners, since they offer their services to alcoholics? For that matter, how are poker players any better, since we regularly offer our "services" to gambling addicts? Obviously, helping acoholics drink and gambling addicts lose their money isn't in the best interest of society either.

You should read Megenoita's posts in the "women in casinos" thread in the B&M forum. He's a devout christian who makes the argument that humans are inheirantly weak and should avoid temptation rather than learn to resist it - if you blame prostitutes for breaking up marriages, then it would seem that you agree with this.

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

"...Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and one's reason. Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as instinct, intuition, revelation, or any form of just knowing.

Reason is the perception of reality, and rests on a single axiom: the Law of Identity.

Mysticism is the claim to the perception of some other reality other than the one in which we live whose definition is only that it is not natural, it is supernatural, and is to be perceived by some form of unnatural or supernatural means.

Reasonis the faculty which perceives, identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. Mysticism is the claim to a non-sensory means of knowledge..... - Ayn Rand

You are attempting to mix Mysticism and Reason together. Which cannot be done because they are incompatible.

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible claims to be God's Word, not man's. Salvation is by faith, so you have to make a decision. The Koran says many things that are different from the Bible, though it also copies much from the Bible. The chief difference is that the Koran does not recognize Jesus as the Son of God, nor does it acknowledge any need for salvation. Again, the question is whether you believe in Jesus or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
What makes the Bible any more truthful from other books that claim to be God's word (like the Koran)? There has been thousands of different gods worshipped by humans throughout history. Many of them having scriptures that claimed to be the word of the God they worshipped. How am I to know the Bible is the true one and the others are false? Because it says so?

My point is, if God is all-powerful and what I believed was such an important issue as to determine my fate for the rest of eternity, then He should tell me what to believe and what is false. I just don't have the faith to blindly believe that the Bible has to be the word of God because it says it is.

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

If you seriously want to know about the Bible there are many sources on the net and plenty of critical sites as well. This is just one:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-God-Word.html

I'm not endorsing everything on this site, it just was one of the first that popped up in a Google search. I don't know what specific questions or objections you might have and the subject of the Bible is enormous. God promises that if "you seek, you will find". If you approach the investigation of His Word, He will open your eyes to the truth. There are also many Christian forums populated by believers far more versed in these kind of questions than me. I'm not trying to duck your questions but am pointing you to a method of answering them more completely than I can.

I will say that faith is not blind. There are evidences, arguments and reasons for faith. But there is no such thing as absolute, objective, certain proof. God has chosen faith as the instrument through which we are saved. He has the power to convince you and to assure you of His truth. But you have to do the hearing and the believing.

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Bible claims to be God's Word, not man's. Salvation is by faith, so you have to make a decision. The Koran says many things that are different from the Bible, though it also copies much from the Bible. The chief difference is that the Koran does not recognize Jesus as the Son of God, nor does it acknowledge any need for salvation. Again, the question is whether you believe in Jesus or not.


[/ QUOTE ]How am I to know the Bible is the true one and the others are false? Because it says so?

[/ QUOTE ]

In a nutshell, yes, that is what NotReady's belief system comes down to.

Re: A Reasonable Religion
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here is an outline of a set of religious beliefs that I would find hard to argue with.

1. God created the three dimenional universe, via the Big Bang about 15 billion years ago.

2. God set up physical constants, laws of physics, and quarks that incorporated inherent randomness (a necessary feature to allow free will).

3. God realized that with these initial "axioms", the laws of logic, which even he can't break, would eventually produce conscious beings here and there. He liked that.

4. The question as to whether God is totally omnipotent is irrelevant to this religion. So is where he came from, has he always existed, or whether some super God created him. Even if there was a super god, only this God cares about his conscious creations and wants them to be happy.

5. Because he wants his conscious creations to be happy, he needs for there to be consequences to people who are not good to each other. That is the only reason he wants people to believe in him. It is not about his ego. It is that to get around Prisoner Dilemma problems, to keep polluters from polluting, etc. etc. some may need to worry about divine consequences and won't if they are atheists.

6. The consequences may not need God's hands on approach. He might have set it up in advance. Knowing the specifics is completely unnecessary.

7. These consequences are solely related to how good you are. How often and how badly you break the Golden Rule. And how often you go above and beyond the call of duty. They are utterly unrelated to your religion. If you do good without believing in this God, that is fine with him. Your rewards will be equal to those who believe.

8. On the other hand if you do bad you are facing consequences. Who knows what. But there is a way out. Namely by doing extra credit good to make up for the bad. Do enough and you wipe the slate clean. Do less and you mitigate the punishment. (Notice that this would be a disaster for those who have done terribly in the past or for those who know that can't stop doing bad. It seems like a lot of the fervent believers I know fit one of these two categories which I don't think is a coincidence. They get to say that we are ALL horrible sinners because of Adam and Eve and that in spite of this, believing in Jesus gets us into heaven. How convenient if you spent half your life as a thief, whore or scoundrel, or if you know you have no will power.)

There you have it. A new religion. Sklanskyanity.

[/ QUOTE ]

When is the Kool-Aide party? [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]