Is Anybody On Here A Hardcore Christian?

[casualjoe]

I think ultimately that knowing the proper truths about existence will lead to the prefered states of being.

Now that is something amazing to live for, worded in such a good way us usual.

..o yea as well as women and kids to keep the ball rolling

Edited June 10, 2009 by casualjoe

[Jitters]

This was a link from a penn and teller video i was watching, i think it goes very well in this topic

Youtube Video ->

">

" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350">

[Revolver]

he has a similar video about the differences between god and a jug of milk (None, according to him). Look it up if interested.

I watched that, he has a valid point.

[The Foamoi Refresher]

So what would happen if we replaced the word 'Turtles' with 'Time?' Then we have "Its time all the way down!" Which now seems just as preposterous as the Turtles idea. So we begin to see the possible flaw in this way of thinking. You can replace the world turtle for a lot of other words aswell, however that would only stray from the original subject more

how about if you changed the word GOD for the word Control? or Fear?

or replaced the word bible for lies?

or any other word? the words we use and the languages we use only mean what they mean because we made them up. and over long periods of time it became what it is now- if you get me.

so we now refer the colour which we believe to be red, as red. so what if the way we see red, was actually nothing, or something other than what we all collectively call red. is red actually green? or whoever named red red, what if they called it blurge?

is a car actually a house?

NO.

we know what we think we know, but we still cant prove that an inch is an inch, because it is based on a made up measurment by humans.

so the bible cannot be the bible because it was writtewn by humans, even if you believe that GOD told humans exactly what to write, it still cannot be correct because of the ways that words have changed their meanings over time, and through different languages.

so what if EVERY human stood up and said God show me a sign. and nothing happened then we could say that god does not exist. and if every human did absolutly nothing untill god performed some kind of miracle that is in no way of a sign through a human. nothing would happen.

untill that time i will keep my beliefs that God does not exist, but if that did happen then maybe i may consider changing m,y mind. also showing the wrath of god through an earthquake in that situation does not count. anything that is natural or that can be explained through science (even though everything is based on human measurements) also does not count.

i mean waking from the dead, showing himself, buildings getting up and going else where kind of miracles. you get the idea?

that milk prayer video=awesome

[ilikeriding]

I am quite tempted to spend a whole day relpying to posts in here, however I am not sure I could keep my post under the maximum character limit

First of all I have to say I am appauled by the ignorance displayed by both Theists and Atheists in this topic. People are entitled to believe what they want: we cannot prove or disprove the existence of a God or the Big Bang. You really need to research someone's beliefs before you critise them and you might not have a way of researching someone's beliefs without asking them, especially if they are an Atheist.

What is the evidence? Blind people unexplainably being able to see again? Maybe there is a scientific explanation for that. Even if there isn't an explanation it doesn't mean it was the will of a God.

Lets look at it like this: something cannot be explained so it is the will of a God. Well then surely you are saying that the lack of an explanation for something is infact proof of a god. Its like saying "I can't explain something therefore I can explain it." Furthermore it will be difficult for other people to explain an event like this because 1. They were not there and 2. They only know the anecdote you describe, so they miss the parts you delete/edit out of the story (even if you do not intend to.)

You make some very intriguing points. Personally my thoughts on time end up only contradicting each other (much like my thoughts on many of the subjects in this topic.) However ultimatley I think the universe may have just blipped into existance. Now this may be hard to understand as inevitably the question 'What was there before that?' will be brewing in the minds of almost every human reading that statement. However just because a human mind (which I think although it is the most dominant on this planet, it is certainly primitive when it comes to understanding the complex mechanics of our universe) cannot comprehend something, does not mean that it is plausible.

The time has always existed analogy satisfies our methods of comprehending such a topic, but I think this way of thinking could certainly be flawed because of something a retired teacher once told me (I'd be damned if any of my teachers had told me something half as useful). You seem to be a very intelligent and educated man, so I am assuming you have heard the 'Turtles All the Way Down' story: in which a famous scientist (ironically nobody is sure of who it was anymore) was giving a lecture on the basics of our current astronomical theories (the Earth revolving around the sun etc) when at the end of his lecture an old woman approached him and said that "What you have just told us is false: the Earth is not suspended in space, it sits on the back of a giant turtle." To which the scientist asked "What does the Turtle stand on?" and she replied "You can't fool me, its turtles all the way down!".

Now the idea of an infinite number of turtles stacked on each other just to explain the position the Earth is in is a humerous idea to me. So what would happen if we replaced the word 'Turtles' with 'Time?' Then we have "Its time all the way down!" Which now seems just as preposterous as the Turtles idea. So we begin to see the possible flaw in this way of thinking. You can replace the world turtle for a lot of other words aswell, however that would only stray from the original subject more

Apologies for any bad grammar/spelling in this post. I'm tired and I have a problem with of my eyes so my vision is quite blurry atm.

Your human mind has comprehended the idea's you have proposed so what use is your human mind in stating your guesses at fact if anything is plausible beyond your human mind?

Edited June 10, 2009 by ilikeriding

[JD™]

This is the be all and end all really:

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted fan, Jim

[1a2bcio8]

You make some very intriguing points. Personally my thoughts on time end up only contradicting each other (much like my thoughts on many of the subjects in this topic.) However ultimatley I think the universe may have just blipped into existance. Now this may be hard to understand as inevitably the question 'What was there before that?' will be brewing in the minds of almost every human reading that statement. However just because a human mind (which I think although it is the most dominant on this planet, it is certainly primitive when it comes to understanding the complex mechanics of our universe) cannot comprehend something, does not mean that it is plausible.

The time has always existed analogy satisfies our methods of comprehending such a topic, but I think this way of thinking could certainly be flawed because of something a retired teacher once told me (I'd be damned if any of my teachers had told me something half as useful). You seem to be a very intelligent and educated man, so I am assuming you have heard the 'Turtles All the Way Down' story: in which a famous scientist (ironically nobody is sure of who it was anymore) was giving a lecture on the basics of our current astronomical theories (the Earth revolving around the sun etc) when at the end of his lecture an old woman approached him and said that "What you have just told us is false: the Earth is not suspended in space, it sits on the back of a giant turtle." To which the scientist asked "What does the Turtle stand on?" and she replied "You can't fool me, its turtles all the way down!".

Now the idea of an infinite number of turtles stacked on each other just to explain the position the Earth is in is a humerous idea to me. So what would happen if we replaced the word 'Turtles' with 'Time?' Then we have "Its time all the way down!" Which now seems just as preposterous as the Turtles idea. So we begin to see the possible flaw in this way of thinking. You can replace the world turtle for a lot of other words aswell, however that would only stray from the original subject more

I'm totally with you on the capacity of human beings to comprehend. That's why I previously mentioned our being limited and why this is worth allowing for some modesty in our views. We are much smaller than the rest of existence, and despite posessing what seems to be the most complex form of organisation currently known about (the human nervous system), we cannot fit the rest of the universe into ourselves (to reuse that quote I love, "universe non simultaneously apprehended"). Our thinking is very general, inescapably including only certain aspects of what we are considering and ignoring others. We can only deal with so much information at one time. I think we can say that we comprehend our ideas but I don't believe that our ideas comprehend existence to a great extent.

But I'm still sticking with existence as a constant within which everything just changes. I think Alan is on the money with his ideas about time

This is the be all and end all really:

I really reckon that it's supposed to be satirical. I personally wouldn't take it too seriously...

My thoughts on time is that it is just a measurement. An inch doesn't exist but we still use it to measure things.

Why do people think there is a meaning to life? Surely anyone that thinks rationally knows that it just happened for no particular reason.

Ah yeah, and this is a good point as well. Why does there have to be meaning to life? Does life have to refer to something besides itself? Surely the meaning of life, is life; and as self referential, doesn't really have meaning. Life for the sake of life, existence for the sake of existence, rather than life and existence for the sake of something else such as a God. To be doing something for the future is not to be grounded in reality, it is to be grounded in thought. The future is only in thought, it does not have a reality. And if thought was a better activity than the action of engaging in the rest of reality, we would all simply lie down and dream about this or that. But we don't because thoughtless activity such as riding our bikes or eating food is so much more rewarding.

It seems to me the philosophy where we act in the moment for the moment, rather than act in the moment for some later moment (heaven, etc.) is infinitely more rewarding. Unless, of course, heaven exists

Edited June 11, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Ah yeah, and this is a good point as well. Why does there have to be meaning to life? Does life have to refer to something besides itself? Surely the meaning of life, is life; and as self referential, doesn't really have meaning. Life for the sake of life, existence for the sake of existence, rather than life and existence for the sake of something else such as a God.

At the simplest level, considering ourselves simply as mildly developed mammals, the only purpose of life is to ensure the continuation of our species and more specifically our own DNA and genes to a new generation. I think MAM put it something like "we're born, we grow, we f**k, we die". Pretty much, I'd say! What we do in between is simply to try and make our own lives, and sometimes those around us, more fulfilled.

Unless, of course, heaven exists

In which case we're all screwed!

[1a2bcio8]

At the simplest level, considering ourselves simply as mildly developed mammals, the only purpose of life is to ensure the continuation of our species and more specifically our own DNA and genes to a new generation. I think MAM put it something like "we're born, we grow, we f**k, we die". Pretty much, I'd say! What we do in between is simply to try and make our own lives, and sometimes those around us, more fulfilled.

I'd like to differentiate between the idea of "life" and what the word actually refers to. The reality of life or that which actually comes before any ideas/language. Ideas/language (thinking) are like a secondary layer over a primary layer (reality). In others words, language and what it refers to are separate. If we were to never think about what we experienced (reality), there would be for us no such thing as meaning, rather we would simply have an experience that went no further than itself - reality doesn't refer to anything else like ideas/language. It would be without meaning. Thoughts seem less real to me than what the thoughts refer to. I think I would prefer to follow the nature of that which comes before thoughts (reality) which certainly seems without meaning. Humans tend to construct meaning for the experience. This makes sense in certain contexts but for reality as it fundamentally stands, it doesn't.

I think so, anyway

Edited June 11, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[1a2bcio8]

In which case we're all screwed!

Haha, awesome

[Tomm]

Evolution in humans is no longer occuring. We now look after even the sickest and most redudant members of our population. Just think, back when our species was living in caves and hunting mammoths, an asthma sufferer would quickly die! Let alone wheelchair bound window lickers, how the hell would they survive! The truth is if the human race wanted to advance any further PHYSICALLY (not technologically!) then we have to start unplugging all the vegetables and anyone else with a "defect".

Alright, calm down Adolf!

Evolution is still happening, why wouldn't it be? We are no longer a hunter/gatherer species and as you say, survival isn't too much of an issue - except for people with serious genetic diseases which are selected against for obvious reasons. It's just that now, the natural selection occurs in society not out in the wild, in our choice to find exciting/attractive/interesting people to mate with. The top of the food chain are people with good jobs and business acumen. 3000 years ago, someone like Bill Gates would probably have lasted about 5 minutes in the wild, but now his is probably among the most desirable DNA on the planet

Let's not forget that some of the most prominent thinkers in our history have/had disabilities that would have seen them left to die not so long ago. Stephen Hawking (ALS), Einstein (Asperger's Syndrome - probably). This is part of the reason that we are a dominant species - we've evolved into a society that can protect certain people and allow expansion of our knowledge/skills set - which sets us apart from other animals. As a society we've got some people producing food, others protecting us, building homes to shelter us etc. And so other people are able to sit in universities and ponder the origins universe or fight cancer. If we were all hunter-gatherers that could never happen.

[Shaun H]

Alright, calm down Adolf!

Evolution is still happening, why wouldn't it be? We are no longer a hunter/gatherer species and as you say, survival isn't too much of an issue - except for people with serious genetic diseases which are selected against for obvious reasons. It's just that now, the natural selection occurs in society not out in the wild, in our choice to find exciting/attractive/interesting people to mate with. The top of the food chain are people with good jobs and business acumen. 3000 years ago, someone like Bill Gates would probably have lasted about 5 minutes in the wild, but now his is probably among the most desirable DNA on the planet

Let's not forget that some of the most prominent thinkers in our history have/had disabilities that would have seen them left to die not so long ago. Stephen Hawking (ALS), Einstein (Asperger's Syndrome - probably). This is part of the reason that we are a dominant species - we've evolved into a society that can protect certain people and allow expansion of our knowledge/skills set - which sets us apart from other animals. As a society we've got some people producing food, others protecting us, building homes to shelter us etc. And so other people are able to sit in universities and ponder the origins universe or fight cancer. If we were all hunter-gatherers that could never happen.

I'd prefer it if you didn't refer to me as a mass murderer for simply stating the truth about the status of evolution in our species.

I wasn't advocating that behaviour now was I.

But that's not evolution is it. There is no elimination of shit genes, ugly/stupid/abnormally short or tall people don't get killed due to environmental constraints (in the absence of powerful dictators anyway) and their genes continue on so long as they find someone to concieve children with.

Having lots of money isn't an advancement of our species

I'm pretty sure just having Bill Gates DNA won't mean you're a guaranteed billionaire either.

The evolution of society and the genetic evolution of a species are particularly different, let's not start confusing the two. It seems to me the evolution of society has halted our genetic evolution process.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

I'd prefer it if you didn't refer to me as a mass murderer for simply stating the truth about the status of evolution in our species.

I wasn't advocating that behaviour now was I.

The evolution of society and the genetic evolution of a species are particularly different, let's not start confusing the two. It seems to me the evolution of society has halted our genetic evolution process.

Alright, calm down Dierdre!

To be fair, you did seem to propose that the murder (which is what it would be in our current society and laws) of anyone with any 'defect' would further human development.

I don't think our genetic evolution has halted in the slightest to be honest. We seem to be getting slowly taller, generally with bigger feet. I guess our brain's may also be developing as we become more advanced.

[MadManMike]

1 vote for "kill".

Who's with me?

[Dave Anscombe]

There is no god so stop woring and live life

[Tomm]

I'd prefer it if you didn't refer to me as a mass murderer for simply stating the truth about the status of evolution in our species.

I wasn't advocating that behaviour now was I?

It was tongue-in-cheek, I know you weren't honestly suggestion we go out and kill disabled people!

It seems to me the evolution of society has halted our genetic evolution process.

The modernisation of our society means that the natural selection pressures are different. They're not gone though. People who look ugly / act strangely (psychotic?) / have the wrong colour hair are less likely to find a mate. I reckon that intelligence renders you more likely to find a mate, too. Of course there are still stupid people that are breeding but I would hypothesise that over the course of several thousands of years, the population's IQ would go up. I would guess (and it is a total guess) that there are fewer intelligent people who aren't breeding, compared with stupid people. Harvey Danger doesn't think so, though. Anyway, my hypothesis would, over the course of many years, shift the balance toward creating a more intelligent species.

Over the course of a very small period in the Earth's existence (5000 years or so), the selection pressures have changed dramatically which results in evolution. If we all had to become hunter-gatherers again, we'd probably be f**ked

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

I reckon that intelligence renders you more likely to find a mate, too. Of course there are still stupid people that are breeding but I would hypothesise that over the course of several thousands of years, the population's IQ would go up. I would guess (and it is a total guess) that there are fewer intelligent people who aren't breeding, compared with stupid people.

That's the logical way of looking at it but you walk round any town and see the 15 year old schemie mums with 3 ugly kids and no future who seem to be taking over our country like a virus... Then tell me the general population's going to get more intelligent? I propose mass sterilisation of retard chav families who will only ever grow up to be obnoxious louts who are more than likely to father a few more wastes of life before ending up in prison...

[Shaun H]

Alright, calm down Dierdre!

To be fair, you did seem to propose that the murder (which is what it would be in our current society and laws) of anyone with any 'defect' would further human development.

I don't think our genetic evolution has halted in the slightest to be honest. We seem to be getting slowly taller, generally with bigger feet. I guess our brain's may also be developing as we become more advanced.

HAHA! Ok I walked into that one.

Are you suggesting I was wrong? Of course as Tomm rightly said we'd lose incredible people who have provided the human race with technological advancement. However, if the ascociated "bad" genes of the diseases and conditions humans can suffer from were removed from the gene pool you can't deny that our race would be "better" in a physical sense. Intelligent people don't always have serious medical conditions surprisingly enough, we'd still have very brainy people to do all this thinking about the beginning of the Universe.

I'm not for a second suggesting it's morally acceptable! It's just what I believe are the facts.

That's not evolution though, the tallest among us aren't surviving better than the shortest because there's no natural threat to our lives! We're not being chased by saber toothed tigers through the high street!

The modernisation of our society means that the natural selection pressures are different. They're not gone though. People who look ugly / act strangely (psychotic?) / have the wrong colour hair are less likely to find a mate. I reckon that intelligence renders you more likely to find a mate, too. Of course there are still stupid people that are breeding but I would hypothesise that over the course of several thousands of years, the population's IQ would go up. I would guess (and it is a total guess) that there are fewer intelligent people who aren't breeding, compared with stupid people. Harvey Danger doesn't think so, though. Anyway, my hypothesis would, over the course of many years, shift the balance toward creating a more intelligent species.

Over the course of a very small period in the Earth's existence (5000 years or so), the selection pressures have changed dramatically which results in evolution. If we all had to become hunter-gatherers again, we'd probably be f**ked

The modernisation of society means there is NO natural selection. As I said above we aren't being chased by stuff that wants to kill and eat us anymore, and it's very rare we (in the developed world at least) have to endure harsh environmental conditions without the support of central heating, air conditioning, sanitation etc.

Also as Dave says below stupid people seem to find many more people to "mate" with than those of us clever enough not to spurt out 6 sprogs before we turn 18...

That's the logical way of looking at it but you walk round any town and see the 15 year old schemie mums with 3 ugly kids and no future who seem to be taking over our country like a virus... Then tell me the general population's going to get more intelligent? I propose mass sterilisation of retard chav families who will only ever grow up to be obnoxious louts who are more than likely to father a few more wastes of life before ending up in prison...

[Jitters]

The modernisation of society means there is NO natural selection. As I said above we aren't being chased by stuff that wants to kill and eat us anymore, and it's very rare we (in the developed world at least) have to endure harsh environmental conditions without the support of central heating, air conditioning, sanitation etc.

Nice point, not that I'm prescribing to much (or adding anything relevant) within this thread.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Are you suggesting I was wrong?

No, I know exactly what you mean and from a physical standpoint it makes perfect sense, although, having said that, the chance of someone like Steven Hawking (for example) finding a successful mate (who doesn't just want to beat him ) and successfully reproducing with them must be pretty low compared to any able bodied person. In that case the chances are that such 'defects' may well not be passed on to new generations anyway.

That's not evolution though, the tallest among us aren't surviving better than the shortest because there's no natural threat to our lives! We're not being chased by sabre toothed tigers through the high street!

I disagree. Evolution is the natural progression of our species and that doesn't have to be driven by threat in my mind. We don't have to have sabre toothed tigers chasing us for nature to push us forward in some way or other. People are getting taller. You just have to look at houses a couple of hundred years ago to see that. I'm pretty sure that with that comes the natural need for feet to get bigger to aid balance. Now I'm pretty sure we haven't needed to run away from tigers too recently and I don't think we need to be taller to reach higher leaves like giraffe's so that has to be down to gene mutation and evolution of sorts.

Anyway, where are the religious folks to tell us that God created us in his image and evolution's one big lie?...

[Shaun H]

No, I know exactly what you mean and from a physical standpoint it makes perfect sense, although, having said that, the chance of someone like Steven Hawking (for example) finding a successful mate (who doesn't just want to beat him ) and successfully reproducing with them must be pretty low compared to any able bodied person. In that case the chances are that such 'defects' may well not be passed on to new generations anyway.

Nice... :lol:

I disagree. Evolution is the natural progression of our species and that doesn't have to be driven by threat in my mind. We don't have to have sabre toothed tigers chasing us for nature to push us forward in some way or other. People are getting taller. You just have to look at houses a couple of hundred years ago to see that. I'm pretty sure that with that comes the natural need for feet to get bigger to aid balance. Now I'm pretty sure we haven't needed to run away from tigers too recently and I don't think we need to be taller to reach higher leaves like giraffe's so that has to be down to gene mutation and evolution of sorts.

Anyway, where are the religious folks to tell us that God created us in his image and evolution's one big lie?...

In my mind that defies the definition of evolution. It is the change of a species due to environmental constraints that certain strains become more succesful in and dominate the older lesser strains to the extent that it eventually becomes a universal characteristic in the species.

But yes, this is all getting rather complicated, can we have some Christians come clear this up for us, it's much easier to understand their way!

[Al_Fel]

Anyway, where are the religious folks to tell us that God created us in his image and evolution's one big lie?...

Hopefully they have all realised how wrong they are and got a clue.

[Krisboats]

I disagree. Evolution is the natural progression of our species and that doesn't have to be driven by threat in my mind. We don't have to have sabre toothed tigers chasing us for nature to push us forward in some way or other. People are getting taller. You just have to look at houses a couple of hundred years ago to see that. I'm pretty sure that with that comes the natural need for feet to get bigger to aid balance. Now I'm pretty sure we haven't needed to run away from tigers too recently and I don't think we need to be taller to reach higher leaves like giraffe's so that has to be down to gene mutation and evolution of sorts.

I love being at the forefront of human evolution

Big feet, check. Tall, check. Blonde hair, check. Blue eyes, check.

I'd have been hitlers prize possession for sure.

Being tall means i can see across an entire room full of people to see all the nice girls That's definitely a step in the right direction for evolution.

[Al_Fel]

In my mind that defies the definition of evolution. It is the change of a species due to environmental constraints that certain strains become more succesful in and dominate the older lesser strains to the extent that it eventually becomes a universal characteristic in the species.

But yes, this is all getting rather complicated, can we have some Christians come clear this up for us, it's much easier to understand their way!

Think about it this way though there's been a huge boom in the population so that will have a huge effect. What we have evolved into is from thousands we are now in billions so surely that must change things in a bit way.

I love being at the forefront of human evolution

Big feet, check. Tall, check. Blonde hair, check. Blue eyes, check.

I'd have been hitlers prize possession for sure.

Being tall means i can see across an entire room full of people to see all the nice girls That's definitely a step in the right direction for evolution.

So this is what will become of the human race?

[Krisboats]

So this is what will become of the human race?

Hopefully we'd be happier than that though