Reason, Experience, And The Existence Of God

[bluebell]

Feel free to provide emperical, testable verifiable evidence that what, for example, is testified as "knowing" in an LDS testimony, is actually factual.

I'm not sure why I have to. You keep going back to this idea that if you don't know something, then I can't know it either.

I'm unsure why I should believe you are the standard I need to measure my experiences up against.

[mfbukowski]

Nice analogy. It made me smile. I think there are a couple of issues here.

First: I think we're on a topic that is one of those beautiful discordant chords. It's an Am9 chord where it sounds brilliant when we're both on the right note but awful if one of us misses slightly.

The other problem is that perhaps my questions sound like beliefs I'm defending. They're not. Not at all. They're questions I'm asking you and others here.

The challenge of this Am9 chord we're singing is that sometimes you say things that sound, to me, like... well... BLLAAATTTTTTT. You talk about pragmatism and utilitarianism. You criticise people for being fundamentalists. But then, in another post earlier, you said the following:

"I see it as saying that those who believe in infant baptism will go to spirit prison until they learn correct beliefs. No big deal."

What? BLLAAATTTTT! How can you believe that the spirit taught him a principle that would send him to spirit prison? That sounds pretty fundamentalist to me. I'm more than happy to put outer darkness or brimstone to one side. But spirit prison? The Holy Spirit teaches someone a principle that lands them in spirit prison until they are taught otherwise? Otherwise than what the spirit taught them? How does that make sense to you?

You also said, earlier in the thread, that " ANY BAPTISM OTHER THAN MORMON BAPTISM doesn't count anyway." That sounds pretty fundamentalist to me. How can you reconcile that the person in example 1 gets a spiritual witness of something you are saying doesn't count? I don't understand how that makes sense to you.

To be clear what note I'm singing and what note I'm not singing:

I believe that it's possible that both the infant baptism spiritual experience and witnesses of the Book of Mormon being true are both potentially genuine spiritual experiences even though they appear, on face value, to be contradictory. I believe/hope that God is a better teacher than we are.

With that acceptance I don't believe that a person will be punished in any way for believing in or practicing infant baptism if that belief came from a god-given spiritual experience.

I don't actually think that what we believe is what God cares about at all. I don't believe that our religious practice is what he cares about either. I believe he cares about what we become and whether we've made steps (however small) during mortality in the right direction on the path to godliness. I recognise that our beliefs and religious practices will have an influence on what we become but they are not, in an of themselves, the end game.

With that in mind, I don't believe that God really has a view on whether infant baptism is evil or not. I believe that spiritual directions and intuition are hugely useful for the individual who receives them. Some might say that this makes God the author of lies. I say it makes him the author of a personalised curriculum.

I wish that Mormonism would embrace this more easily and readily. We have spent most of this year in priesthood studying the words of a fundamentalist. Joseph Fielding Smith believed and said things that are very black and white. I think it's a shame that this black and white thinking continues to be compounded and emphasised in our Sunday meetings and general conferences sessions.

Perhaps that helps you see where I'm coming from.

But... I'm still a little perplexed by some of your "fundamentalist sounding" statements mentioned above.

Ok harmony restored.

The rest was semantics. I am no more fundamentalist than you are. It would take too long to pick apart the words.

For me spirit prison is listening to contending speakers while strolling through Hyde Park. The only punishment is having to eat English food.

Edited November 28, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Feel free to provide emperical, testable verifiable evidence that what, for example, is testified as "knowing" in an LDS testimony, is actually factual.

what is a fact? There are no facts just interpretations.

[mfbukowski]

1: Please provide emperical, testable and verifiable evidence that God exists.

2: certainly I agree a religious experience can be evidenced by emotions and activity in the brain can be examined through a brain scan. What cannot be examined nor proven is that the spiritual, revelation through the Holy Ghost, etc is coming from anything other than internal to the person. So yes love and a religious experience are similar in that they are both generated internally. Both my be stimulated by outside forces that are physical such as the physical person we love, a preacher, good music, a moving play or portrayal, etc. but there is nothing external for the religious experience thqt would demonstrate that the person gained factual knowledge.

I will grant that the experience has meaning for the person experiencing it. I have experienced spiritual experiences. Such experiences are interpreted based on our personal paradigm and bias and thus Re once again not reliable for determining factual knowledge.

As for all this being semantic garbage why bother to dialogue is it is all just garbage.

Religion does not provide objective knowledge any more than music does. It's not supposed to.

[mfbukowski]

Yet I don't testify that the love for my wife is the one and only true love and that others should really on that testimony to determine their one and only true love as well.

No. By analogy all Mormonism says is that you should be on the PATH to one true love of God. It is not about factual knowledge. It is about what is important in life not facts

[pogi]

Do you accept Moroni 8 as doctrine or not?

If you do, how do you reconcile the spirit teaching someone a false doctrine (infant baptism)?

 

I think the hiccup happens when we assume that because someone interprets a spiritual experience one way (based on culture, nurture, etc and taking into account our almost infinitely limited perspective of truth), that the spirit actually communicated what the receiver interpreted to be true. 

 

The evolution of our understanding in regards to personal spiritual manifestations is a process that will continue until we know as God knows, until we can perceive all variables and their relationship with each other.  As I have said previously.  I have had spiritual experiences that were so powerful, I confidently could say I "know" such and such a principle is true.  As my experience with the spirit evolves and I start getting more light, my understanding of that previous experience evolves into something other than what I originally perceived through my dim glass.  Should I discount my previous experience because my understanding about has change over time?  Absolutely not.  I don't discount the experience, I simply interpret it differently now, in light of new truth and experience. 

 

People erroneously assume that because something has been revealed, we understand the revelation perfectly.  Even within the LDS church, I am confident that many of the revelations we now have will be understood much differently when we see it in the context of the whole.  I am confident that God is NOT going to hold us accountable for our prsonal interpretations if our hearts and intent are pure and humble before Him.   All we need to do is live the best we know how with the limited understanding that we have.  

 

With this understanding, I can see how you might understand that Mormonism is simply another path to God.  It is my belief that Mormonism is the path that all other paths of truth and humility will eventually lead into. keeping in mind that the "fulness" of mormonism has yet to be seen.  Personally, I believe in the restoration and subsequent ambitious mission of the Church to reconcile all truth into one great whole. I don't know of any other faith that is so encompassing.  It offers hope to all.  To me, that should not be so easily dismissed on account of conflicting interpretations of truth, which should be expected.

Edited November 28, 2014 by pogi

[bluebell]

Essentially here is the problem I have with this. The LDS leaders teach that one can get personal revelation. Further they teach that we should all have or obtain a what they term a testimony of certain truth claims the Church makes. They tell us what such a testimony should include. These are:

God lives and is real

Jesus is the Christ and our savior, died for us and broke the bands of death and it our redeember

Joseph Smith was a prophet and restored the Church (and by default that includes first vision, priesthood restoration, other revelations in the D&C and PoG, Temple, Etc.)

The Book of Mormon is true

The current LDS Church president is a prophet of God

The testimony is to be couched typically in the words "I know." One apostle who is still living even has gone as far to say you should bear your testimony even if you don't have one because that is how you can get one. For a Latter-day Saint this testimony is penultimate to their church experience. It is the ultimate trump card in a debate. I recall LDS leaders of my youth teaching us that whenever someone argued or tried to dispute our truth claims just bear your testimony because nobody can argue with that.

This testimony is so important in the LDS experience that we devote 12 meetings a year in every congregation and open it up as well as encourage member to publicly proclaim their testimony. We have youth conferences that almost always include a testimony meeting a the end (I won;t comments about how really improper I think it is to take kids away from a normal setting for a couple days, inundate them with activities designed to reinforce the organizations message then end with a group session that strongly encourages them to make a public profession of their testimony).

You rarely if ever hear anyone who bears testimony in these settings say anything other than "I know." Nobody defines what this means. So one is left to interpret it to mean what the words "I know" mean. Nobody says "I am really strongly certain that for me these things are truth and the best way for me to live and be happy." Nobody says "I really have strong faith and active belief that these things we teach are the truth." Nobody says "I really think these are wonderful ideas and doctrines and I really hope they are true."

Almost everyone says "I know." Oh sure once in a while you will hear someone say "I believe" or I don't know at this point but I have "faith." But that is rare.

Goodness there is even a chapter in the BoM (Alma 32) that distinguishes between knowing and faith and it says when you know you don't need faith anymore.

So yes call me the skeptic. I don't think people who bear LDS testimonies really know in the way Alma 32 teaches. But most who bear testimony use words that lend to an understanding that they do think they know.

I cannot prove or disprove this. That is why I say the spiritual experience is good only for the one claiming and and has little to no value to anyone outside themselves though it can seem to persuade others that they know as well and that I think is why the LDS Church emphasizes this so very much.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying (though not about the evils of youth activities), but I guess my point of view is-who are you to be deciding whether or not someone really knows something?

You (and me) are not in a position to be able to judge how certain someone is about the things they testify of. Even if 99 out of 100 people mean "I believe" when they say "I know" and only one actually knows it like how alma teaches, you wouldn't be able to judge which was which (and neither would I).

So why just assume no one knows like alma teaches? What's the motivation behind such assumptions?

As for the benefits of hearing someone else say "I know", they don't have to be able to prove it to me before i can find it beneficial. Often just hearing someone else say it gives me hope and desire to be able to someday know it for myself.

Kind of like how hearing someone say "I know what sushi tastes like" can give hope to someone who has never tasted sushi, but wants to, that knowing such is possible.

[LinuxGal]

Religion does not provide objective knowledge any more than music does. It's not supposed to.

 

Hebrews 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

[Teancum]

I'm not sure why I have to. You keep going back to this idea that if you don't know something, then I can't know it either.

I'm unsure why I should believe you are the standard I need to measure my experiences up against.

I am not the standard. But if you expect me to accept your claim to a supernatural dispensation of knowledge (or anyone really) as valid when you say "I know" then I need more than just your word for it.

So when you say you know the LDS church is true how do you know and what do you mean? Do you know in the Alma 32 sense?

[Teancum]

Religion does not provide objective knowledge any more than music does. It's not supposed to.

Who says it is not supposed to and if not what use is it in obtaining a knowledge about God? And what does that do for the truth claims of Joseph Smith and his successors?

[Teancum]

No. By analogy all Mormonism says is that you should be on the PATH to one true love of God. It is not about factual knowledge. It is about what is important in life not facts

Mormonis claims much more than that. It claims to have the power and authority and knowleldege of and about God that surpasses others and it teaches its adherents to claim they know it is such.

Edited November 28, 2014 by Teancum

[bluebell]

I am not the standard. But if you expect me to accept your claim to a supernatural dispensation of knowledge (or anyone really) as valid when you say "I know" then I need more than just your word for it.

So when you say you know the LDS church is true how do you know and what do you mean? Do you know in the Alma 32 sense?

I can understand you needing more than just my testimony before *you* know something, but I'm not sure why you need more than just my testimony before you think it's acceptable for *me* to know something.

[Ahab]

I am not the standard. But if you expect me to accept your claim to a supernatural dispensation of knowledge (or anyone really) as valid when you say "I know" then I need more than just your word for it.

You do know that we don't expect you to just take our word for what we say we know, don't you? We are the same way as you in that way, I presume, because we didn't just take someone else's word when they said they knew something, whether it was something about God or sonething else. When we say we know something the main point we're trying to make, I think, is that we are witnesses of what we are saying we know, somehow supposing our witness of sonething may be of interest to you.

So when you say you know the LDS church is true how do you know and what do you mean? Do you know in the Alma 32 sense?

When I say that I mean I know that God has told me that the Church is what it claims to be. It is The (true) Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with God as my witness. Not that I expect you to just take my word for it, but that is what I am telling you.

[canard78]

Essentially here is the problem I have with this.  The  LDS leaders teach that one can get personal revelation.  Further they teach that we should all have or obtain a what they term a testimony of certain truth claims the Church makes.  They tell us what such a testimony should include.  These are:

 

God lives and is real

Jesus is the Christ and our savior, died for us and broke the bands of death and it our redeember

Joseph Smith was a prophet and restored the Church (and by default that includes first vision, priesthood restoration, other revelations in the D&C and PoG, Temple, Etc.)

The Book of Mormon is true

The current LDS Church president is a prophet of God

 

The testimony is to be couched typically in the words "I know."   One apostle who is still living even has gone as far to say you should bear your testimony even if you don't have one because that is how you can get one.  For a Latter-day Saint this testimony is penultimate to their church experience.  It is the ultimate trump card in a debate.  I recall LDS leaders of my youth teaching us that whenever someone argued or tried to dispute our truth claims just bear your testimony because nobody can argue with that. 

 

This testimony is so important in the LDS experience that we devote 12 meetings a year in every congregation and open it up as well as encourage member to publicly proclaim their testimony.  We have youth conferences that almost always include a testimony meeting a the end (I won;t comments about how really improper I think it is to take kids away from a normal setting for a couple days, inundate them with activities designed to reinforce the organizations message then end with a group session that strongly encourages them to make a public profession of their testimony).

 

You rarely if ever hear anyone who bears testimony in these settings say anything other than "I know."   Nobody defines what this means.  So one is left to interpret it to mean what the words "I know" mean.   Nobody says "I am really strongly certain that for me these things are truth and the best way for me to live and be happy."  Nobody says "I really have strong faith and active belief that these things we teach are the truth."  Nobody says "I really think these are wonderful ideas and doctrines and I really hope they are true."

 

Almost everyone says "I know."  Oh sure once in a while you will hear someone say "I believe" or I don't know at this point but  I have "faith."  But that is rare.

 

Goodness there is even a chapter in the BoM (Alma 32) that distinguishes between knowing and faith and it says when you know you don't need faith anymore.

 

So yes call me the skeptic.  I don't think people who bear LDS testimonies really know in the way Alma 32 teaches.  But most who bear testimony use words that lend to an understanding that they do think they know. 

 

I cannot prove or disprove this.  That is why I say the spiritual experience is good only for the one claiming and and has little to no value to anyone outside themselves though it can seem to persuade others that they know as well and that I think  is why the LDS Church emphasizes this so very much.

 

I once heard a Stake President give a talk based on those five key topics. He didn't use the phrase "I know" once.

 

I used phrases like: "I strongly believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet" or "I am convinced, based on XYZ, that God lives" or "I deeply admire and appreciate the words and works of the living prophets."

It was wonderful and refreshing.

[MormonFreeThinker]

 This is not even talking about the act of baptism by authority or otherwise. This is saying that people who believe an infant needs to be baptised are being deceived. So was this person's spiritual experience a deception? (Let me guess... you're going to reply with an answer about tigers)

 

People who believe an infant needs to be baptized in the church, look at the context "there have been disputations among you concerning the baptism of your little children" Moroni 8:5. If you study the chapters that Moroni wrote, you will realize that he is talking about the church. Baptism in other religions doesn't exist. 

 

The definition of baptism is not the same in other religions. I asked you for the definition of baptism and salvation (and how are they using it in that context) in the religion True Jesus Christ.

 

For example, evangelicals believe that James 2 is talking about salvation in the world, not salvation in heaven. 

Catholics agree that infants do not commit sin, see.  

 

 

They do, but at least all scientists can evaluate the signals under the same conditions and debate the the implications with equal knowledge and experience. The same cannot be said for spiritual experiences. This is why I call them useful but not reliable.

 

We can evaluate a spiritual experience ourselves under the sames conditions too, if someone gets a different answer, it may be because of different condition, circumstance, or factors. 

 

Sure, scientists can debate, but a scientists doesn't need to debate to look at the evidence himself, there are no authorities in science. 

Again, Dr. Jerry R. Ehman was alone when he discovered the wow signal. 

 

You cannot debate the reality of other minds, or that the world is real, you make that decision on your own. 

You have to decide on some thing yourself. 

 

 

Until now I've not seen a stone stop falling half-way down. If I do, I might start being suspicious, until then, I'll continue to have confidence in things that are reliable and base my motives on that which is useful.

 

Again, that does nothing to prove the world is real, it is an assumption, we all have a degree of faith or confidence. 

What if the world is a computer program, and the laws of physics are simply the rules of a program? Your example is not helpful. 

 

We simply assume that the world is real, that is faith or confidence.

 

Edited November 28, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Ahab]

I once heard a Stake President give a talk based on those five key topics. He didn't use the phrase "I know" once.

I used phrases like: "I strongly believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet" or "I am convinced, based on XYZ, that God lives" or "I deeply admire and appreciate the words and works of the living prophets."

It was wonderful and refreshing.

That's all good to a point but it leaves out something that I intend to convey sometimes. That I know something rather than just believe something because it seems reasonable to believe it.

Take a very simple example, and one that is not based on actually seeing something, like for me would be knowing that atoms exist. I know they do, although I've never seen one on it's own, apart from a gathering. And it's not that I just believe they do, based on believing what someone other than God has told me. I know they do, through the Spirit of truth conveying that intelligence to me.

You don't have to believe me though, or anyone else who knows that they do. You can believe we are mistaken or just don't know even though we are saying we do.

[pogi]

I think that our "knowledge" of any one variable is inseparably connected to our "knowledge" of all other variables within our perception.  If you relate it to my puzzle or pixel analogy, our interpretation or perception of one piece of the puzzle is always related to our interpretation or perception of the other limited pieces which we can perceive of, then we fill in the gaps to make sense of it all.  How we fill in those gaps will also affect our perception of the puzzle pieces that we do have.    

 

To say that we can't "know" a certain puzzle piece is not necessarily accurate.  We CAN know a certain puzzle piece through the spirit.  That knowledge is relative however, to how we perceive of the whole.  Because of this, two different people may possess the same puzzle piece and perceive of it completely differently (baptism for example) and both claim that they know through the spirit.  Relative knowledge will continue to evolve as we obtain more pieces and our perceptions grow.  Once we can perceive of the whole, that relative knowledge of a particular variable is no longer relative.  It becomes absolute in that our perception of all the variables is whole and complete.  No longer will we have to attempt to fill-in the gaps, but they will be filled with actual puzzle pieces in absolute wholeness. 

 

If man’s senses were not deceivable, fallible, or limited in their scope of time and space, and if man’s reason and action was equal in its fidelity of infallibility, then what man would conceive when viewing all of the possible variables and how they relate is the “one great whole”; what man would behold is God in his fullness of glory in relation to the expanse of eternity. He is the variable that ties all of the variables together.  In order to understand them fully, we have to understand him; and in order to understand him fully, we have to understand them.  To know and behold God in his fullness of glory in relation to all that exists in eternity, one would have to obtain the infallible faculties of God to comprehend it; in other words, one would have to be like God (or in other words, be a God) to fully comprehend or know God.  Then we would have absolute knowledge.  We cannot have absolute knowledge of any single variable until we have absolute knowledge of the whole.  But, what we do have now is knowledge no less.  At least that's what I call it - it's just limited to my relative perception of the whole.     

Edited November 28, 2014 by pogi

[Ahab]

I think that our "knowledge" of any one variable is inseparably connected to our "knowledge" of all other variables within our perception. If you relate it to my puzzle or pixel analogy, our interpretation or perception of one piece of the puzzle is always related to our interpretation or perception of the other limited pieces which we can perceive of, then we fill in the gaps to make sense of it all. How we fill in those gaps will also affect our perception of the puzzle pieces that we do have.

To say that we can't "know" a certain puzzle piece is not necessarily accurate. We CAN know a certain puzzle piece through the spirit. That knowledge is relative however, to how we perceive of the whole. Because of this, two different people may possess the same puzzle piece and perceive of it completely differently (baptism for example) and both claim that they know through the spirit. Relative knowledge will continue to evolve as we obtain more pieces and our perceptions grow. Once we can perceive of the whole, that relative knowledge of a particular variable is no longer relative. It becomes absolute in that our perception of all the variables is whole and complete. No longer will we have to attempt to fill-in the gaps, but they will be filled with actual puzzle pieces in absolute wholeness.

If man’s senses were not deceivable, fallible, or limited in their scope of time and space, and if man’s reason and action was equal in its fidelity of infallibility, then what man would conceive when viewing all of the possible variables and how they relate is the “one great whole”; what man would behold is God in his fullness of glory in relation to the expanse of eternity. He is the variable that ties all of the variables together. In order to understand them fully, we have to understand him; and in order to understand him fully, we have to understand them. To know and behold God in his fullness of glory in relation to all that exists in eternity, one would have to obtain the infallible faculties of God to comprehend it; in other words, one would have to be like God (or in other words, be a God) to fully comprehend or know God. Then we would have absolute knowledge. We cannot have absolute knowledge of any single variable until we have absolute knowledge of the whole. But, what we do have now is knowledge no less. At least that's what I call it - it's just limited to my relative perception of the whole.

All true, but let's put it all in easy to understand every day language as concisely as we can.

You can go first.

[pogi]

All true, but let's put it all in easy to understand every day language as concisely as we can.

You can go first.

 

I tried to simplify it with the puzzle analogy, that's the best I got. 

 

Nephi does a pretty good job though:

 

"For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have (2 Nephi 28:30)."

 

"Line upon line, precept upon precept" to me, is another way of saying what I have said - that "knowledge" of any one variable is inseparably connected to our "knowledge" of all other variables within our perception.  We cannot receive new knowledge without affecting, changing, or simply enhancing old knowledge in some way.  It is never perfect until we are perfect, like God. 

Edited November 29, 2014 by pogi

[Ahab]

I tried to simplify it with the pizzle analogy, that's the best I got.

I like you, pogi. You did a pretty good job. Just too many words for a bumper sticker.

Nephi does a pretty good job though:

"For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have (2 Nephi 28:30)."

"Line upon line, precept upon precept" to me, is another way of saying what I have said - that "knowledge" of any one variable is inseparably connected to our "knowledge" of all other variables within our perception. We cannot receive new knowledge without affecting, changing, or simply enhancing old knowledge in some way. It is never perfect until we are perfect, like God.

Yeah I like Nephi's attempt too, but I still think we could make an even more concise statement if we put our heads to it. But then some people would likely want to use many more words than on a bumper sticker.

[mfbukowski]

Who says it is not supposed to and if not what use is it in obtaining a knowledge about God? And what does that do for the truth claims of Joseph Smith and his successors?

I think the word "true" does not mean what you think it means.

[MormonFreeThinker]

This is not even talking about the act of baptism by authority or otherwise. This is saying that people who believe an infant needs to be baptised are being deceived.

 

It is talking about the people who believe an infant needs to be baptized in the church, look at the context "there have been disputations among you concerning the baptism of your little children" Moroni 8:5. If you study the chapters that Moroni wrote, you will realize that he is talking about the church. Baptism in other religions doesn't exist. 

 

Religions may use the same word, but their definition is different, for example, evangelicals believe that James 2 is talking about salvation in the world, not salvation in heaven. Catholics agree that infants do not commit sin, see

 

 

They do, but at least all scientists can evaluate the signals under the same conditions and debate the the implications with equal knowledge and experience. The same cannot be said for spiritual experiences. This is why I call them useful but not reliable.

 

Scientists find reasonable posibilites that do not have hard evidence. Dismissing reasonable possibilities is not a good thing.   

 

By your logic any personal experience is not reliable. We can evaluate a spiritual experience ourselves under the same conditions too, if someone gets a different answer, it may be because of different conditions, circumstances, or factors. 

 

Sure, scientists can debate, but a scientists doesn't need to debate to look at the evidence himself, there are no authorities in science. 

Again, Dr. Jerry R. Ehman was alone when he discovered the wow signal. 

 

You cannot debate the reality of other minds, or that the world is real, you make that decision on your own.

 

 

 Until now I've not seen a stone stop falling half-way down. If I do, I might start being suspicious, until then, I'll continue to have confidence in things that are reliable and base my motives on that which is useful.

 

Again, that does nothing to prove the world is real, it is an assumption, we all have a degree of faith or confidence. 

What if the world is a computer program, and the laws of physics are simply the rules of a program? Your example is not helpful. 

 

We simply assume that the world is real, that is faith or confidence.

 

Edited November 29, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Teancum]

I think the word "true" does not mean what you think it means.

Now it is you who are playing semantics. What then does it mean!

[LinuxGal]

I think the word "true" does not mean what you think it means.

 

 

Now it is you who are playing semantics. What then does it mean!

 

That was a Princess Bride film reference of course. 

[Teancum]

That was a Princess Bride film reference of course. 

Ah yes I missed that!