Reading Love and Lifesense

I was having a chat with a friend late last night and we was talking about a whole load of stuff, like the fact that 1million humans are plopped onto the earth every 4 days and animals like native people are getting pushed of the planet and the only way it will survive is if we all die. And about religion, the thing that gets me about religion is the storys, for example in the jewish faith i think its the story of jonah or maybe judah. (this guy runs from god onto a boat in which god finds him, sends a storm the boats way, at which point the fellow boatpeople realise who gods mad with and throw him overboard, then god sends a big fishy to swallow him and he stayed in the fishes belly for three days then he got spat out onto a beach. hooray he is cured and free to spread the word of god.) I seriously find it extremely hard to believe that millions of people around the wrold believe this actually happened simply because A) its in the past and B)its in some book. Theres a variety of storys to choose from which makes me giggle this is just an example, youll find them in every faith, hindi buddist muslim, christian, johavahs e.t.c, the most famous one is obviously when god, whoever that refers to, some superior power super space man made of invisible skin in the sky, yeah you know the one, hes the one that watches over 10000000000000 people individualy everyday and at the same time independitly gives millions of people who die everyday the very own judgement day in which somehow he manages to way up the rights and wrongs of them all and sends them to their eternal place, hang on why does god decide to send u to hell, does the devil accept gods judgement, why doesnt the devil weigh it up and send the goodys to heaven, what was i saying, thats it the famous one where god makes eve out of adams rib? how can anybody with the SLIGHTEST piece of intelligence honestly believe that happened, am i missing a trick here, do i not understand something, surely all i learnt in school tells me this is impossible. Could you imagine if i went around saying Here Here i have come from the great belly of a basking shark where i was held for three days so i can now spread the word of God, im a deciple i tell u man. I`d be sectioned under act 44 of the mental health act to undergoe psyciatrict tests. But just cos this was then and not now, that same person testing my mind for errors is proberly a jew who believes in jonah... Hah. Im yet to see one bit of proof apart from talk and text. It doesnt really bother me as peoples belives in a way have no direct effect on me as a person (not always good reason not to be bothered about something though), its just things i think about and i wonder about the state of peoples mentalitys and if theve sat down and thought to themselves if their being honest. Oh i better stop i could go on but this wasnt what i was intending on writing about. What i was going to say was who makes up our mind? Do we, is there any scientists in the boardroom? When i go to say something most of the time unless im asking the question which ive had time to think about my reply will just be automatic and it seems without no thought process going on, for example say 5 random words out loud. The words just pop out right, u didnt think about this it just happened, so it was like the decision was made in your brain to send a message to your vocal chords to produce that sound before you even thought of producing it and once the word was produced you hear it, its like im not in control of my own mind all the time and sometimes decisions are made without my knowledge, (the message is sent without my say so) which makes me wonder where does that choice come from. Is my brain some sort of program? if so, whos in charge.

i dont have a dream "I HAVE A SCHEME"

And about religion, the thing that gets me about religion is the storys, for example in the jewish faith i think its the story of jonah

i read somewhere that it's possible that jonah was in some sort of coma. Also, he didn't have to be in the belly of the whale, he could have been in its mouth and he just thought it was the belly. It might have been possible to breathe there without being digested. I'm not sure if there are other texts to support this, but one circumstantial evidence for this story is the fact that the purpose of this book is to point out that god cared for other races. It was a radical concept because the jews of that time knew that they were the people of god and assumed that god was exclusively for the jews. I don't know about the belly-of-the-whale part, but i would think that jonah indeed preached to the assyrians. After all, the jewish priests would have killed off the story immediately if it was a lie. Not only were the assyrians foreigners, they were a hated enemy. The idea that god cared enough for them to send a jewish prophet was something that must have been hard to stomach for the jews--but they did.

Theres a variety of storys to choose from which makes me giggle this is just an example, youll find them in every faith, hindi buddist muslim, christian, johavahs e.T.C,

indeed, and that's why it's hard to just dismiss them out of hand. The story of the flood, for example, is something common to many faiths. Is it not strange that people who had no connection to each other like jews and hindus should should have the same, shall we say, myth? Or is it myth after all? At any rate, i don't think people who explore possibilities, however unlikely, should have their intelligence questioned. It may even be argued that those who dismiss things out of hand because of shaky assumptions are the ones who have less intelligence.

Thats it the famous one where god makes eve out of adams rib?

Some stories are not to be taken literally. When we study orally transmitted (and less holy?)Myths, we try to break it down to its structural components and try to look at cultural archetypes that will help us determine how a culture tries to structure the universe. For all you know, moses never intended this part to be read as history. Instead, he might have been doing the work of a scholar in trying to record the myths of his age--which he mostly got from the egyptian courts where he studied as an educated egyptian prince.

Its just things i think about and i wonder about the state of peoples mentalitys and if theve sat down and thought to themselves if their being honest.

We are all guilty of this one way or another. We all have assumptions about ourselves and abouth the world that we take for granted. Millions of people assumed that earth was flat, the earth was the center of the universe--they were proven wrong but i'd hardly call them crazy. Many white people in south africa had taken for granted the superiority of the white race--they were wrong, not crazy. All these recorded miracles rub you the wrong way because of your own assumptions--that the universe observes natural laws and these laws can never be broken. But as some philosophers point out--you can never prove "never." Just because the universe behaved a certain way in your lifetime does not mean it never did or never will behave otherwise. It just so happens that some people believe in a god whose non-existence you cannot prove. If they think this god is al-powerful, then he may well be able to perform these miracles.

What i was going to say was who makes up our mind?

The answer is both "we do" and "we don't." There is a theory that points out that knowledge is both objective and subjective. Knowledge is a contextualized and applied accumulation of data concerning the universe, the data coming from our own experiences. However, our very interpretation of our experiences is a subjective thing, limited by what we do and do not know about the universe--our assumptions. It's a cycle. Our subjective assumptions are based on objective data, but our interpretation of the data are limited by our assumptions. Knowledge of this limitation will help us gain some respect for people whose world views we do not share.

“To God, there is no zero. I still exist.” Scott Carey, The Incredible Shrinking Man

Interesting stuff

i read somewhere that it's possible that jonah was in some sort of coma. Also, he didn't have to be in the belly of the whale, he could have been in its mouth

That makes much more sense? does it? seems just as bizarre to me. You say your not sure about the whale part, so can you choose what parts to believe and what parts not, or does being religios mean believing every word. Thing is, back then they had knowledge but not like today, storys were much more believable as many knew no differant. Nowadays theres no need for religion really. Back then religion brought hope and the freedom and bridged gaps in areas not understood. nowdays science proves so much.

I'm not sure if there are other texts to support this

Like i said originally, is there any other fact apart from text or talk, im not anti religion at all i personally just find it incredibly hard to believe it and im amazed other people do. So what happens when in a few years the worlds dead what does god do then with no planet? build a new one. and if heaven is real does that mean that this life is fake. What would be the point of this life, to test us maybe. but if god knows what were thinking he wouldnt need to test us he would know. People actually think they know what happens in heaven.

i don't think people who explore possibilities, however unlikely, should have their intelligence questioned

That depends if they want to know the truth or not, and if they are actually claiming its true then they should have no problem with questioning surely.

we try to break it down to its structural components and try to look at cultural archetypes that will help us determine how a culture tries to structure the universe. For all you know, moses never intended this part to be read as history. Instead, he might have been doing the work of a scholar in trying to record the myths of his age--which he mostly got from the egyptian courts where he studied as an educated egyptian prince.

Exactly, moses could of been doing that, so i chose not to believe it, any of it? Im born into my reality, they were born into theres and i take the world as i see it today, like they did. Ive never met anyone who looked at how a culture tried to structure the universe.

We are all guilty of this one way or another. We all have assumptions about ourselves and abouth the world that we take for granted. Millions of people assumed that earth was flat, the earth was the center of the universe--they were proven wrong but i'd hardly call them crazy. Many white people in south africa had taken for granted the superiority of the white race--they were wrong, not crazy. All these recorded miracles rub you the wrong way because of your own assumptions

None of that rubs me the wrong way, infact i very much understand, they were not to know, a land full of mystery and surprises were before them. imagination run wild, they made presumptions.

i dont have a dream "I HAVE A SCHEME"

Nowadays theres no need for religion really. Back then religion brought hope and the freedom and bridged gaps in areas not understood. nowdays science proves so much.

I am not sure about this. I think religion gives many people a reason to live, especially where I am from where it seems like more than 60% of the population goes to church. The lost of this reason would sink many into depression, thinking that death is the only thing to look forward to. Could also increase suicide rate.

Another reason for religion is that it forces people to be "good". Many person would not be kind, help the poor, not lie etc., if they believe that nothing was to be gained by it.

And religion could be true.

I think religion serves a purpose. I think it is helping to keep order in the world.

Nowadays theres no need for religion really.

Yeah, you have a new one. It's called science. Ruled by the new priests who speak in their own languages--to be interpreted and perhaps misinterpreted by science writers, high school teachers, newscasters, etc. For the consumption of the popular masses who will take in most things that come from their textbooks by faith. Science is a history of one theory being toppled by another but the arrogance of both the initiates and the common blabbers who parrot science mantras has always been the same.

Back then religion brought hope and the freedom and bridged gaps in areas not understood. Nowdays science proves so much.

So much what? There are always "areas not understood" and even science has not eliminated all these knowledge gaps. I know people who have ph.Ds in scientific disciplines who will not make such bold claims for science as you have.

So what happens when in a few years the worlds dead what does god do then with no planet? Build a new one. And if heaven is real does that mean that this life is fake.

It depends on what religion you're talking about, but if you are referring to the christian heaven, then you have to know that christians don't believe in any final destruction of the world. The cleansing of the world by fire and the ressurection of the dead will not create a new heaven but will merely restore the world in its primal, pristine state in the garden of eden. Heaven is not out there. Heaven is here, the ground you step on, and this life is not "fake" but a step in the evolutionary journey of our species into our transformation into what we christians call beings who have "glorified bodies," perhaps similar to nietzche's supermen.

Im born into my reality, they were born into theres and i take the world as i see it today, like they did.

Well-stated. And that's why i don't think you should be "giggling" at how they saw the world. Nor do i think you should be questioning the intelligence of contemporary christians who literally believed that god took out adam's rib to form eve. I have a friend who is a christian biologist who does not believe the creation story, and she doesn't giggle either. If i believe in god and this god is powerful, then nothing is "impossible." Is that illogical? Not unless you can disprove god! The reason she doesn't believe in the creation story is because of what she perceives to be evidence in favor of evolutionary biology--not because she finds any evidence to negate the possible existence of a living god who is powerful enough to create a female out of a rib. I'm sorry, but i was truly offended by your first post where you asked how a person with any intelligence can believe in supernatural stories. Well, i believe them. And my posts have fewer logical fallacies and spelling mistakes than yours. Don't tell me i'm stupid. I have been exposed to more literature on the subject than you have and have struggled with and meditated on these issues unlike some people who use cliches to sound intelligent.

Infact i very much understand, they were not to know, a land full of mystery and surprises were before them. Imagination run wild, they made presumptions.

But i'm not just talking about dead people from the past. I'm talking about modern people who also make assumptions. Newton's physics was made obsolete by einstein's physics which in turn was challenged by quantum theory. You talk as if science is so sure of itself when it's as much guesswork as anything until new evidence comes along. How sure are you that even right now your "imaginations" are not "running wild" and your descendants will not be giggling at your naivete and blind faith in science?

None of that rubs me the wrong way

well, you rub me the wrong way. People who write posts to giggle at and out of ignorance make fun of people who think differently from them rub me the wrong way. Christians who parrot their pastors and atheists who parrot their philo professors rub me the wrong way. If you want any intelligent discussions then respect me so i can respect you. But if you just want to giggle at me and insinuate that i am stupid, then let me tell you that i think you're kind of stupid too. Not because you are a non-christian--because i had a discussion with mace some time back ("define faith" under "philosophy")and he is an intelligent person--but because you sound stupid. The way your first post was written--no transition, lots of cliches, rough logical development--you almost sounded like you were on drugs. I can easily forgive your intellectual immaturity, but your arrogance really makes you no better than the dogmatic christians whom you don't believe to have any intelligence.

“To God, there is no zero. I still exist.” Scott Carey, The Incredible Shrinking Man

This post was edited by childeoftheblood on Jul 01, 2003.

I dont giggle at how they saw the world i understand it, what im saying i dont understand is how people nowadays see it the same. Im not insinuating your stupid and im not anti religion, if i say i giggle at how people believe certain stories its because i do and thats my honest opinion, sorry. I dont regard myself as arrogant either, im open to opinions and discussion and if something clicked whiched changed my mind or i had a meeting with god then i may well become religios in the future. We could go round and round in perfect circles and still nothing would change, i wont change your mind and you wont change mine so ill leave it in the words of Robert .G. Ingersoll
"Take from the church the miraculous, the supernatural, the incomprehensible, the unreasonable, the impossible, the unknowable, the absurd, and nothing but a vacuum remains."
Back to my original point though...

When i go to say something most of the time unless im asking the question which ive had time to think about my reply will just be automatic and it seems without no thought process going on, for example say 5 random words out loud. The words just pop out right, u didnt think about this it just happened, so it was like the decision was made in your brain to send a message to your vocal chords to produce that sound before you even thought of producing it and once the word was produced you hear it, its like im not in control of my own mind all the time and sometimes decisions are made without my knowledge, (the message is sent without my say so) which makes me wonder where does that choice come from. Is my brain some sort of program? if so, whos in charge

i dont have a dream "I HAVE A SCHEME"

Yeah, you have a new one. It's called science.

I disagree slightly. Science per se is not a religion as it isn't really a belief system. Understood correctly, science is just a method (aka. the "scientific method"), the idea that you can't know the world but you rather have to examine it and then form a theory to be able to predict things. Good science doesn't say "that's how it's like", but "it seems to be like this". (Note I don't state this necessarily collides with religion.)

Admittedly, that's not how most people understand science, and for them science does become a belief system. But this is a misunderstanding. Sadly, this also reminds me of books like Hawking's "universe in a nutshell" (did you know time is shaped like a bulb?), where science is basically reduced to metaphors. You can take this as literally as the story of adam's rib :-).

Nor do i think you should be questioning the intelligence of contemporary christians who literally believed that god took out adam's rib to form eve. I have a friend who is a christian biologist who does not believe the creation story, and she doesn't giggle either. If i believe in god and this god is powerful, then nothing is "impossible."

Agree, but out of curiousity: do you believe in - let's say at least some - of the stories in the bible literally?
I don't because I'm an atheist, but I noticed practically everyone who isn't doesn't believe in them either.
For example Jesus transforming water to wine: My r.e. teacher told me this has to be taken figuratively. Why? If Jesus was god, why couldn't he actually do this?

@Ozric:
Some while back I shared the opinions you expressed.
That's not scientific thinking though. What I think you ought to do is just accept many people believe these things (and note the idiot ratio among them is probably as high or as low as everywhere else :-) and try to understand why they believe what they believe. There are a lot of understandable reasons. You might for example want to check out some theories by "Ludwig Feuerbach".

Concerning you primary question :-):
I think in everyday situations we decide purely by heart (that would be by subcognitive processes in our brain), and later try to find rational reasons for our actions. I think psychological studies have found evidence for this, but I admit to have no reference.

'Repent, Harlequin!' said the Ticktockman. 'Get stuffed!' the Harlequin replied, sneering.

Out of curiousity: Do you believe in - let's say at least some - of the stories in the bible literally?

I guess so.

I don't because i'm an atheist, but i noticed practically everyone who isn't doesn't believe in them either.

It's probably because you're live in the west(?) Here in asia, many of us take the supernatural as "natural." In my country, the attack of the "aswang" (a shape-changing monster that eats people at night) can make the headline of national taloids. Even educated people are not exempted from believing in some form of the supernatural. It's just our orientation. This has something to do too with ozric's original question. See, depending on our orientation we are more likely to accept or reject certain propositions. You say many non-atheists there don't believe in miracles. Here it's the other way around--there are more non-christians who will have no problem believing that a powerful sorcerer can turn water into wine.

In everyday situations we decide purely by heart (that would be by subcognitive processes in our brain), and later try to find rational reasons for our actions.

I agree with this, only when we're talking about "everyday situations." When it comes to deeper (?) Things, however, we are more likely to take the beliefs of the majority because social pressure can be intense. Your sense of belonging will depend on whether or not you are willing to take in the quasi-obligatory beliefs of your community.

In the church i used to go to, drinking was absolutely forbidden. It was only later when i figured this wasn't biblical and that only filipino christians made a big deal about it--our christian brothers and sisters in europe will not feel guilty over a glass of wine or a bottle of beer. So now, i occasionally drink, especially when meeting good friends. but for a long time, i would not touch alcohol. At any rate, i was turned off by the dogmatism of the church about a lot of things. And then i went to university and was introduced to all sorts of relatively radical concepts. At first, i was ecstatic. Surely this was the way to truth, i thought--logic and critical thinking. But soon, my excitement waned. I soon saw that a lot of the intellectuals around me were just as dogmatic. Even as i was persecuted at church for being a marxist, the local marxists scoffed at me for being a christian. I wasn't about to reject one set of dogma for another. Perhaps i could have found friends among liberation theology enthusiasts, but there was no such student organization in my university.

Many people are born into a belief system and they take it. Some will always cling to these beliefs. Some won't and will identify with one school of thought or another and swallow their teachings. They will then feel "cool" or "radical" or "enlightened" because it takes a lot of guts to reject previous beliefs. But then the knowledge seeker will then find that it's just as hard to be critical of the new beliefs. they become just as dogmatic as before.

Actually, i feel like i don't belong anywhere. Intellectuals think i'm weird for being religious and the religious think i'm a false christian for my "radical" beliefs. Not that i don't know any intelligent christian, but many use their intellect to strengthen their beliefs from within their own tradition. there are too few of us who will study the perspectives of non-Christians with an open-mind. those who do mostly approach non-christian texts thinking only of how they can contradict the author. i attended one symposium in my university sponsored by the atheist circle--it was ugly. the christians who attended were not there to engage in dialogue. they were there to go to war. and some atheists, of course, responded in kind. it was to the credit of the leaders of the atheist circle that they tried to keep the peace and remained polite.

as for non-Christians, i have yet to read a book written by an intelligent non-christian who doesn't think that we're a joke, that we are a people with no intelligence. at best, there's the condescending type who would pity us, but few would take us seriously enough to even entertain the possibility that we could be right.

it's not all bad, though. im glad to have one very close atheist friend and we discuss this sort of thing over beer. we talk about the meaning of life and all other questions with no answers and get depressed. we respect each other and try to challenge the boundaries of our belief systems even while numbing our sense of reality with alcohol and nicotine. but there is more to these talks than intellectual masturbation. we cling to life even as we try to find meaning in it, trembling with fear after an acquantance committed suicide. she was a good poet, a talented painter, and a popular assistant professor--and she jumped off her 4th floor classroom window after teaching her students to create beauty with their paintbrushes.

who made up her mind? at last Life asked her a question and her response was a decision more powerful than any set of words. and we are afraid because her answer to Life's question confronts us and we don't know if we can face it. who makes up our mind? who made up her mind when she decided to jump? and who makes up my mind when i decide to stay despite the impulse i feel to make the leap of faith she had made towards God or Nothingness?

sorry for drivelling. ozric, i apologize to you for criticizing what i perceived to be your first post's lack of cohesion when i can just as easily find myself guilty of the same thing. i also apologize for losing my temper and will make sure not to do this again, with you anyway, seeing that you had the maturity to resist fighting my fire with fire.
but one reason i reacted so violently was that i felt that you did not respect me or people like me who believed in miracles. you were obviously coming from a perspective that your own belief systems are not subject to doubt, not appreciating the fact that people come from different backgrounds and have different intellectual assumptions with their corresponding intellectual baggages. that you have rejected an intellectual tradition with the aid of your logic does not mean that all those who remain within that tradition do so out of ignorance.

wizz, i appreciate your politeness. it is always a pleasure to meet someone like you. too many christians and atheists are such war freaks and i am glad that you are not one of them because that means we can discuss these weighty things with honesty and without anger and fear.

“To God, there is no zero. I still exist.” Scott Carey, The Incredible Shrinking Man

This post was edited by childeoftheblood on Jul 08, 2003.

It's probably because you're live in the west(?)...

I do (Germany). And I hate but have to admit that I did not even think about how it could be different somewhere else. I tend to take the world around me and just extrapolate :-(.

See, depending on our orientation we are more likely to accept or reject certain propositions.

Totally agree. I just didn't understand why so many with a christian orientation still choose to not believe in those miracles (while believing the bible to the letter in other respects). However I see now that for one, this is based on the false assumption that believing in miracles would be natural with a (western :-) christian orientation whereas this belief is in fact contrary to the prevailing opinion. Furthermore, it's hardly a spectacular discovery that the influence of science (and so-called rational thinking) dominates religion in my part of the world.

Actually, i feel like i don't belong anywhere. Intellectuals think i'm weird for being religious and the religious think i'm a false christian for my "radical" beliefs.

Perhaps you belong here :-).
Actually, while I would assign myself to the intellectual faction (oh, vanity, thy name is wizz :-D) I don't consider the religious (certainly not you) weird, but rather envy them (as well as disdain some for being dogmatic and never reflecting on their beliefs). Having faith gives your life meaning. It sounds so easy. After reading your post I think I'll have to reconsider.

we cling to life even as we try to find meaning in it, trembling with fear after an acquantance committed suicide.

Ok, to address this I think I'll have to lose a few words about my current view of what makes me tick (and who makes up my mind).
I've been trying to undestand why I act the way I act for quite some time now. Until rather recently I believed I acted - and indeed should act - in a way that yields a maximum of satisfaction in the long run. Think of Epikur.
I soon realized I actually often did things I could not explain in that manner (like helping people without expecting them to return something). So I concluded that by doing so, I avoided having a bad conscience, not a very satisfying thing in itself. You notice that this is essentially a cheap trick, solving the problem by introducing another unknown.
Today I think I did it all backwards. The right (and indeed scientific) way is not to make up something that sounds sensible and then act accordingly, but rather to just examine your actions and then try to understand them. You cannot actually apply this understanding directly, since this would fudge your examinations :-). For example my willingness to help others can be explained very simply: cooperation is a natural result of evolution (-> prisoner's dilemma). Just like me.
This gave me answers to a lot of questions.

It sounds nihilistic, and indeed it doesn't exactly result in a very stable state of mind (right now it seems to work, thankyouverymuch ;-). However, sometimes:

we cling to life even as we try to find meaning in it, trembling with fear after an acquantance committed suicide.

Isn't the very fact that you tremble with fear a sign that you don't have to worry (at least not for yourself)? Isn't being afraid of facing the question she answered with her jump a sign that subconsciously you wouldn't answer the same way? Isn't this what counts?

that means we can discuss these weighty things with honesty and without anger and fear.

definitively looking forward to it

wizz

'Repent, Harlequin!' said the Ticktockman. 'Get stuffed!' the Harlequin replied, sneering.

This post was edited by wizz on Jul 08, 2003.

The right (and indeed scientific) way is not to make up something that sounds sensible and then act accordingly, but rather to just examine your actions and then try to understand them. You cannot actually apply this understanding directly, since this would fudge your examinations :-). For example my willingness to help others can be explained very simply: Cooperation is a natural result of evolution

but "evolution" in itself may also be an "unknown" and may also be a cheap trick. I mean, even if we say that this is a result of evolution, it is still not clear how it operated in this case of being charitable.

1. It may be argued that competition makes much more sense for natural selection.
2. How exactly is the charity forced by evolution? Biochemical impulses, as in the case of a male dog who will not fight back a female dog however much abusive she gets? If this is the case, then why does this seem to be more of a personal preferrence instead of a mass orientation?

Actually, i like the idea of cultural evolution. When we only say "evolution," it gives the impression that we're talking about the evolution of the entire humanity. I think charity is more a result of the evolution of concepts and power relations in a particular cultural setting than an actual physiological evolution.

As for conscience being an unknown, perhaps we may say that conscience too is a result of evolution, physical or otherwise. There must have been a point in our history when doing bad things did not elicit a "bad conscience." Bad conscience only results from having a conflict with a sense of obligation to something higher than the local code of laws, like morality. Morality is an invention, so conscience must have evolved when morality was first invented.

on another note...
about the suicide--i'm afraid of her death not because i don't want to follow in her footsteps but because i think deep in my heart, perhaps i do. and if that's the case, should i not to mine own self be true? the possibility terrifies me because i know i'm the type of person who will ignore fear if i think i am about to take the right path. i don't want to die. but i fear the dormant side of me that does want to. and when the time comes, it won't be too hard to do--it will only take one second of decision to slash, to jump, or to swallow--and it's over. i won't be able to back out after that even if i changed my mind after that one second of weakness...or strength.

“To God, there is no zero. I still exist.” Scott Carey, The Incredible Shrinking Man

This post was edited by childeoftheblood on Jul 09, 2003.