African Children Denounced As "Witches" By Christian Pastors

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

So my position that you don't understand eternity from a Christian standpoint is why your view of death is so myopic and finite.

---

I have told you that I understand it, I just don't accept it is true. I understand the story of the Smurfs, too. Does that mean that my view of smurfs is "myopic and finite"?

Equating "understand" with "accept as true" is a fallacious argument, sophist. They are not mutually exclusive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

Lol. that google search didn't take long.

http://www.nola.com/religion/index.s..._scholars.html



Money quote incoming.



Here's another.

---

Misspellings or replicated words (or other mistakes of that nature) or even mistranslations into/from dead dialects equal not the alteration of content --> specifically the self proclaimed deity of JESUS. If you had followed the thread instead of jumping in to page 11 or 12 you might have seen that CONTENT and FIDELITY OF CONTENT has been my argument from the get-go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I have told you that I understand it, I just don't accept it is true. I understand the story of the Smurfs, too. Does that mean that my view of smurfs is "myopic and finite"?

Equating "understand" with "accept as true" is a fallacious argument, sophist. They are not mutually exclusive.

---

I can't believe you would insist on referencing your previous analogy... I didn't give it any weight because it's plainly 'apples and oranges'. There is a mountain of evidence [unquestionable proof] that point to the nature of the Smurfs movie as a fictional work. No one, except maybe toddlers and small children believe the content of movies is real. You all have yet to provide the proof that substantiates your claims that the gospel message is fiction.

It's yet another semantical argument to suggest just because we know Neil Patrick Harris is a real person, that his persona as Patrick in the Smurfs movies is also real. The definition of 'real' is drastically different provided the context of what Hollywood produces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

Misspellings or replicated words (or other mistakes of that nature) or even mistranslations into/from dead dialects equal not the alteration of content --> specifically the self proclaimed deity of JESUS. If you had followed the thread instead of jumping in to page 11 or 12 you might have seen that CONTENT and FIDELITY OF CONTENT has been my argument from the get-go.

---

Right, then Bible God really sucks at communication

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

I can't believe you would insist on referencing your previous analogy... I didn't give it any weight because it's plainly 'apples and oranges'. There is a mountain of evidence [unquestionable proof] that point to the nature of the Smurfs movie as a fictional work. No one, except maybe toddlers and small children believe the content of movies is real. You all have yet to provide the proof that substantiates your claims that the gospel message is fiction.

It's yet another semantical argument to suggest just because we know Neil Patrick Harris is a real person, that his persona as Patrick in the Smurfs movies is also real. The definition of 'real' is drastically different provided the context of what Hollywood produces.

---

You have a terrible problem with understanding burden of proof, sophist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

I can't believe you would insist on referencing your previous analogy... I didn't give it any weight because it's plainly 'apples and oranges'. There is a mountain of evidence [unquestionable proof] that point to the nature of the Smurfs movie as a fictional work. No one, except maybe toddlers and small children believe the content of movies is real. You all have yet to provide the proof that substantiates your claims that the gospel message is fiction.

It's yet another semantical argument to suggest just because we know Neil Patrick Harris is a real person, that his persona as Patrick in the Smurfs movies is also real. The definition of 'real' is drastically different provided the context of what Hollywood produces.

---

Irrefutable! I love how it's like that when you do it but when I do do it with specific, easily verifiable facts in the google age it is dismissed as 'assertions.'

When you do the entire sophist package, it is easy to identify you. Methodical will do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I have told you that I understand it, I just don't accept it is true. I understand the story of the Smurfs, too. Does that mean that my view of smurfs is "myopic and finite"?

Equating "understand" with "accept as true" is a fallacious argument, sophist. They are not mutually exclusive.

---

It is a sign of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without having to accept it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

Misspellings or replicated words (or other mistakes of that nature) or even mistranslations into/from dead dialects equal not the alteration of content --> specifically the self proclaimed deity of JESUS. If you had followed the thread instead of jumping in to page 11 or 12 you might have seen that CONTENT and FIDELITY OF CONTENT has been my argument from the get-go.

---

If you bothered to read the article you would have seen it addresses much more than simple misspellings.

Quote:

---

But others are more important. They meant something.

For example, the famous tale in John’s Gospel in which Jesus challenges a mob about to stone a woman accused of adultery — “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her” — is a variant that copyists began inserting into John at least 300 years after that Gospel first appeared.

In the conclusion to Mark, the description of Jesus appearing to various disciples after his resurrection does not appear in the earliest manuscripts.

And in Luke, the crucified Jesus’ plea that his executioners be forgiven “for they know not what they are doing” likewise does not appear in the earliest versions of his Gospel.

---

Quote:

---

Another change appears in Mark 9:29, when Jesus tells his disciples some demons can be driven out “only by prayer.”

Warren said 3rd century manuscripts added “and fasting” — probably as Christians’ own commentary on the power of that spiritual discipline, which was then becoming standard Christian practice.

In those and other cases, early Christian copiers are probably hoping to clarify a teaching or story for Christian audiences.

In effect, early copiers were taking what modern readers would recognize as study notes and slipping them into the texts, a process that began to tail off around the 9th century, Warren said.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

You have a terrible problem with understanding burden of proof, sophist.

---

To prove that a written work written 20 centuries ago is not a work of fiction... when it isn't written as such...?

No one here is saying YOU or RG or Fuzzy has to believe the gospel content.

But you all are really the only ones trying to suggest that it is a fictional work without providing one single shred of evidence. Just assertions... "someone, hundreds of years removed, undeniably altered the content..." NO PROOF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

If you bothered to read the article you would have seen it addresses much more than simple misspellings.

---

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John share stories that borrowed phrases from each other. It's an expected dynamic.

That said, saying:

"Michael was a passenger in vehicle on his way to school most days"

or

"Michael rode the bus to school"

or

"Michael often rode the school bus as a means of getting to school"

or

"Michael needed to ride the school bus to get to school daily"

Content-wise all say the same thing. In fact, IF the gospel writers had recounted their stories with the same exact language THEN we would miss out the perspective of the individual gospel writer, AND folks would reject the variations as mere copies. It's an affirmation that they didn't conspire and collude when writing the gospels - they weren't huddled together in a corner cooking all of this up. Even if you just look at the places where the gospels do not disagree at all you find a core message that is revolutionary: JESUS was confessed as Messiah by his disciples, He performed miracles and healed people, He forgave sins, He prophesied his own death and resurrection, He died on a Roman cross, and He was raised bodily from the dead.

Your example above doesn't take away the central argument of the gospel message that JESUS is the Son of GOD. Doesn't the agreement of the gospel accounts on an absolute core of central beliefs suggest that they got the basics right, precisely because they were reporting on the same events...?

All the peeps in this thread are suggesting that said message was contrived. But none are providing proof of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

You have a terrible problem with understanding burden of proof, sophist.

---

And you have a terrible problem being civil, jerk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I am pointing out the logical implications of your beliefs.

Torture exists.
Hell exists.
Torture is evil.
Hell is torture.
IF hell exists, THEN it is infinite torture.
IF it is infinite torture, THEN the entity doing the torturing is evil. IF the entity directing the torturing is God, THEN God is evil.

QED.

I do not accept that "hell exists". The chain of reasoning breaks down if that underlying assumption is false. I am not, in this instance trying to tell you whether the thing in your imagination exits, I am merely pointing out to you that this idea is a shitty idea.

Unless, of course, you can show me where it exists, other than your imagination?

---

Torture exists because of sin.
Hell exists due to the consequences of sin
Torture is evil
Hell is an eternal separation from GOD
If hell exists, THEN it is the result of sinful choices.

Your logic implies GOD is the torturer.

JUSTICE and HOLINESS set the rules, two aspects of GOD's PERFECT character.

"We want all of the freedoms that come with choice, but none of the consequences..."

If the power of choice to choose GOD has eternal consequence, so THEN does the power of choice to reject GOD.

Biblically speaking those that reject GOD do so on their own terms.

IF you reject HIM, which you are clearly doing... Man up. Face the consequences of said choice. Don't go whining that somehow GOD was unjust and unfair with you. IT's YOUR CHOICE and YOUR CHOICE alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

It is a sign of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without having to accept it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

Except Fuzzy hasn't attested any of his claims or assertions. There is ONE HUUUUUUUGEEEE! gaping hole in Fuzzy's assertion as it pertains to the alleged alterations... I'll simplify:

IF the ecumenical councils were in the business of trying to alter the content of the NT works (several centuries of 'tampering'),

AND IF the ecumenical councils were in league with the will of the Roman Catholic Institution (under direction of the Papacy or Constantine),

THEN NT works would most certainly have a message that matches that of the Roman Catholic Catechism.

BUT THEY DON'T.

Rome could have wiped away the potential for centuries of argumentation over scriptural interpretation IF they had simply re-written (ascribed) their doctrines to the early church leaders.

INSTEAD:

There is no recorded instance of Marian worship or even allusion to Marian worship anywhere in scripture. [JESUS said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man cometh to the Father except by me"]. Why didn't the councils just write in Mary as co-redeemer in scripture (as the Catechism explicitly states)?

There is no recorded instance of infant baptism, or the need to baptize children at all (much less charge money for such services).

JESUS, Peter, John, Paul nor any other disciple ever mentions purgatory.

There is no scriptural support for indulgences (ultimately, the reason why Martin Luther 'protested' against the church). No mention of anyone paying money to get to heaven (cause again, it is via JESUS' offer of grace only - a gift, not a purchase).

There is no scriptural support for suggesting we need intermediaries to get to GOD. JESUS work on the cross provides direct access to GOD.

There is no scriptural support (specifically in the NT) for the regimentation of sin. Scripture supports the doctrine that ALL sin is the same with the exception of 'blasphemy against the Holy Spirit' (the rejection of GOD) --> the very same choice that condemns men to an eternity away from GOD. Categorizing sin was an important moneymaker for the Catholic Institution.

There is no scriptural support for taking lives for Jesus' name (in fact the early church adherents died in martyrdom without a fight against their persecutors). The Catholic Inquisition and the motives behind it were certainly not supported by scripture.

There is no scriptural support for the creation of trinkets, statuettes, amulets or the such as part of the gospel. Even from the OT all of those images and statues were considered a form of idolatry. Furthermore, there is no support for the notion that they could 'perform miracles' of any sort. Psalms 135:15-18 says, "…15 The idols of the nations are but silver and gold, The work of man's hands. 16 They have mouths, but they do not speak; They have eyes, but they do not see; 17 They have ears, but they do not hear, Nor is there any breath at all in their mouths. 18 Those who make them will be like them, Yes, everyone who trusts in them." And yet, Catholic churches everywhere are filled with these idols.

There is no scriptural support for Papal doctrinal infallibility. Paul chastises Peter ('the first pope') on at least two occasions in front of all other early church leaders. If Peter as church pope had doctrinal infallibility THEN Paul had no grounds by which to correct him. Peter's position would have been the correct one by default. Furthermore, this issue could have been resolved simply by brushing out these references.

The scriptures speak of JESUS fighting the religious establishment of his time (the religiosity, the ritualistic nature, etc...) ---> things that the Catholic Church came to represent and embody over the course of its history.

This list could be much, much longer.

Either way if Rome wanted to create scriptures that fully supported its brand of religion THEY most certainly would have done so by tweaking the scriptures to that end. In their mind, the adherents wouldn't be able to know any better because they weren't allowed to keep copies of the scriptures anyway (only clergy). So who would ever know that the changes in content were made???

I simply don't buy the argument that alterations were made given that the scriptures as written don't support the staunch beliefs of the very institution you all are accusing of making the changes - the ones who wielded all the power. It baffles my mind that you all can't see past your own nose to see why such an allegation falls flat on its face in light of the doctrines that the Catholic Church steadfastly holds on to even today.

---

I find it funny that the bulk of your assertions also fall in line with the book, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" with you somehow trying to pass it off as a personal journey in the discovery of truth.

I pointed to the existence of 48 pre-4th century documents written in Greek (there are others in Aramaic), but I dug deeper as to their content:

These manuscripts have numerous passages:

John 1:1 "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 1:18 "18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and[a] is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known."

John 20:28 "28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”"

Titus 2:13 "13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," (the only one of these passages from my list written by the Apostle Paul)

Hebrews 1:8 "8 But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom."

2 Peter 1:1-2 "1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours: 2 Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord."

Numerous passages that affirm the deity of Jesus. So it's nonsense to claim that JESUS' deity was invented in the fourth century when you've already got the evidence in earlier manuscripts.

Besides, we still have lots of quotations by church fathers in other manuscripts dated prior to the fourth century (prior to Constantine's involvement). Ignatius in about AD 110 calls JESUS 'our GOD' and then says, 'the blood of GOD,' referring to JESUS. Where does Ignatius get this idea of JESUS' deity if it wasn't invented for more than two hundred years later? And then you have a steady march from Ignatius right through the rest of the patristic writers - I mean, you can't make that kind of a claim (that Constantine made Christianity into his own image) and be any kind of a responsible historian. No historian would ever even entertain that kind of stupidity...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

To prove that a written work written 20 centuries ago is not a work of fiction... when it isn't written as such...?

No one here is saying YOU or RG or Fuzzy has to believe the gospel content.

But you all are really the only ones trying to suggest that it is a fictional work without providing one single shred of evidence. Just assertions... "someone, hundreds of years removed, undeniably altered the content..." NO PROOF.

---

No, you stupid fuck.

It's on you to prove Bible God exists. There's no sophist side to saying "he probably doesn't until proven he does"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

No, you stupid fuck.

It's on you to prove Bible God exists. There's no sophist side to saying "he probably doesn't until proven he does"

---

I don't care if you believe in Him or not. It is entirely your choice. I've repeatedly stated my belief in JESUS is one that is driven on grounds of faith. I'm fine with that - but you all are not (not my problem).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

Torture exists because of sin.
Hell exists due to the consequences of sin
Torture is evil
Hell is an eternal separation from GOD
If hell exists, THEN it is the result of sinful choices.

Your logic implies GOD is the torturer.

---

Yes because God created Hell. It's not that hard to comprehend.

Fuckin a you're an idiot.

Now go on with another long winded sophist rant or whine about me being mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

I don't care if you believe in Him or not. It is entirely your choice. I've repeatedly stated my belief in JESUS is one that is driven on grounds of faith. I'm fine with that - but you all are not (not my problem).

---

Neat strawman. We're discussing burden of proof from a logical standpoint, dumb fuck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

Neat strawman. We're discussing burden of proof from a logical standpoint, dumb fuck.

---

Strawman??? Give me a break. That's ALWAYS been my argument.

You all are the ones constantly trying to answer the 'GOD question' on grounds of scientific evidence alone.

Where is your antagonizing of Fuzzy's claims that Constantine made Christianity into his own image starting at the 4th century...? Why not pick on his burden of proof?

Convenient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

Strawman??? Give me a break. That's ALWAYS been my argument.

---

I don't care about that argument. I'm not even talking about it at all. That's went it's a strawman

Quote:

---

You all are the ones constantly trying to answer the 'GOD question' on grounds of scientific evidence alone.

Where is your antagonizing of Fuzzy's claims that Constantine made Christianity into his own image starting at the 4th century...? Why not pick on his burden of proof?

Convenient.

---

I don't give a shit about your sidebar with fuzz.

The burden of proof is on you or any other religion of there to provide evidence for your claim.

It's the way logic and reasoning work. It's that simple. If you can't, then take your sophism and go fuck yourself

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

I don't care about that argument. I'm not even talking about it at all. That's went it's a strawman



I don't give a shit about your sidebar with fuzz.

The burden of proof is on you or any other religion of there to provide evidence for your claim.

It's the way logic and reasoning work. It's that simple. If you can't, then take your sophism and go fuck yourself

---

LOL... Dismissive per the par... How do you want me to prove to you something that I accept on grounds of faith...? You throw out the content of the scriptures that support my belief system... You throw out inconsistencies in your own belief structure. You attribute 'unsubstantiated' motives and intent to GOD, to cast judgement over Him based strictly on your fabricated framework. You do so conveniently I would add. Fact of the matter is I believe the core message of scripture and you don't... No amount of sarcasm, facetiousness, ridicule, derision, disdain or scorn on your part will sway me from my position - frankly it's foolish that you keep insisting on using those tactics when it hasn't budged me in the slightest over the past 5-7 years in which you've attacked my position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

I find it funny that the bulk of your assertions also fall in line with the book, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" with you somehow trying to pass it off as a personal journey in the discovery of truth.

I pointed to the existence of 48 pre-4th century documents written in Greek (there are others in Aramaic), but I dug deeper as to their content:

These manuscripts have numerous passages:

John 1:1 "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 1:18 "18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and[a] is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known."

John 20:28 "28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”"

Titus 2:13 "13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," (the only one of these passages from my list written by the Apostle Paul)

Hebrews 1:8 "8 But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom."

2 Peter 1:1-2 "1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours: 2 Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord."

Numerous passages that affirm the deity of Jesus. So it's nonsense to claim that JESUS' deity was invented in the fourth century when you've already got the evidence in earlier manuscripts.

Besides, we still have lots of quotations by church fathers in other manuscripts dated prior to the fourth century (prior to Constantine's involvement). Ignatius in about AD 110 calls JESUS 'our GOD' and then says, 'the blood of GOD,' referring to JESUS. Where does Ignatius get this idea of JESUS' deity if it wasn't invented for more than two hundred years later? And then you have a steady march from Ignatius right through the rest of the patristic writers - I mean, you can't make that kind of a claim (that Constantine made Christianity into his own image) and be any kind of a responsible historian. No historian would ever even entertain that kind of stupidity...

---

I've never read that book. I already told you what I studied for context and I got a :lmao smiley in response.

Your shit about Mary is all your own. I only ever mentioned her because the two Mary's that Jesus supposedly revealed himself to first. I was speaking more about the supposed Paul revelation. If you must know what inspired my thoughts on that particular matter I get it from writings of Thomas Jefferson. I like him better than Paul.

The Beatty documents nor dead sea scrolls include John Chapter 1 or 2nd Peter Chapter 2. Those first appear out of Constantinople. I have no idea why you are writing any of that in red. Jesus didn't say any of that shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

I've never read that book. I already told you what I studied for context and I got a :lmao smiley in response.

---

If you say so. But your arguments sound an awful lot like the narrative in that book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Your shit about Mary is all your own. I only ever mentioned her because the two Mary's that Jesus supposedly revealed himself to first. I was speaking more about the supposed Paul revelation. If you must know what inspired my thoughts on that particular matter I get it from writings of Thomas Jefferson. I like him better than Paul.

---

I don't care why you referenced Mary. You're trying to obfuscate the argument.

My argument is simple.

You are accusing the Catholic Church of having altered/distorted the 'original' gospel message (i.e. 1st century writings) with ecumenical councils starting in the 4th century. That "Constantine re-invented Christianity". Your motive: to discredit their core message.

AND YET

Some of the more central tenets of Catholicism are no where to be found in scripture.

Your accusation, however convenient, doesn't make any sense in that light. If the councils had altered the message they would have assuredly included all/most of the tenets that supported their brand of religion. That's simply not the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

The Beatty documents nor dead sea scrolls include John Chapter 1 or 2nd Peter Chapter 2. Those first appear out of Constantinople. I have no idea why you are writing any of that in red. Jesus didn't say any of that shit.

---

Just some prejudicial assumption of your own... I didn't quote it in red because I'm attributing those words to JESUS (nor did I ever state that). LOL I just felt like distinguishing what was scripture. And are you actually suggesting that the Beatty Documents and the Dead Sea Scrolls are the only pre-4th century manuscripts that contain NT writings?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

If you say so. But your arguments sound an awful lot like the narrative in that book.



I don't care why you referenced Mary. You're trying to obfuscate the argument.

My argument is simple.

You are accusing the Catholic Church of having altered/distorted the 'original' gospel message (i.e. 1st century writings) with ecumenical councils starting in the 4th century. That "Constantine re-invented Christianity". Your motive: to discredit their core message.

AND YET

Some of the more central tenets of Catholicism are no where to be found in scripture.

Your accusation, however convenient, doesn't make any sense in that light. If the councils had altered the message they would have assuredly included all/most of the tenets that supported their brand of religion. That's simply not the case.



Just some prejudicial assumption of your own... I didn't quote it in red because I'm attributing those words to JESUS (nor did I ever state that). LOL I just felt like distinguishing what was scripture. And are you actually suggesting that the Beatty Documents and the Dead Sea Scrolls are the only pre-4th century manuscripts that contain NT writings?

---

I'm not suggesting anything. You make incomplete arguments that I have to try and fill in. If you want to insist it is the Word of God complete with pedantic punctuation then go right ahead.

As for you AND YET, I clearly talked about the other councils defining the canon like the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, divine favor, and cash or goods for absolution. I used that as context of the one that created the bible. You still haven't figured out my argument. It's amusing watching you fumble around.

Ur and Nineveh 8th century cuneiform and the genesis story attributed to Ishtar is another telling fact.

Jesus still never said any of that shit.

You quoted and bolded my aristotle quote then led with the Mary line. It is what it is. You are a disingenuous and trying to win by volume that no one else reads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

I'm not suggesting anything. You make incomplete arguments that I have to try and fill in. If you want to insist it is the Word of God complete with pedantic punctuation then go right ahead.

As for you AND YET, I clearly talked about the other councils defining the canon like the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, divine favor, and cash or goods for absolution. I used that as context of the one that created the bible. You still haven't figured out my argument. It's amusing watching you fumble around.

Ur and Nineveh 8th century cuneiform and the genesis story attributed to Ishtar is another telling fact.

Jesus still never said any of that shit.

You quoted and bolded my aristotle quote then led with the Mary line. It is what it is. You are a disingenuous and trying to win by volume that no one else reads.

---

There is a whole lot of deflection in that post.

Your accusation falls flat on its face.

LOL Grammar police.

That sure showed me!

What should not be lost on anyone, particularly those that say I try to 'talk smart' or similar notions, when I call someone pedantic that should be meaningful to you.

That is not grammar police, that is style police. Your argument style is godawful and non persuasive for a message board.

Try keeping it to one or two sentences per paragraph like a newspaper article and less of the walls of text. These short one liners of drivel are better as people will read that shit but it exposes you for the asshat.

Good job!