-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
I know, the universe seems empty, even scary without some higher power, but that is what it is.
Religion and "word of god" is merely comfort food.
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
I think since we’ve brought up the Catholic Church as a topic, I may as well fuck with this. I feel like the conflict between Protestants and Catholics (during the Reformation) can essentially be put down to ‘if the Catholics didn’t believe enough, then the Protestants believed too much.’ I mean, on the Catholic side you had priests and bishops, who were supposed to be celibate, commonly entertain mistresses and some living on their own land rather than their parish. Going even further up the hierarchy the Pope engaged in some spectacular opulence. I would go as far naming the heresy trials conducted during the 14th-15th centuries as evidence of the Pope wanting his hold on power maintained through sham trials.
Whereas on the Protestant side you had shit like the Salem witch trials where Protestants would straight up execute ppl for suspected witchcraft. Shit that ironically is popularly attributed to Catholics but Protestants mostly engaged in.
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Renegade
Your belief in the bible is established on the phrase "springs of the sea"? Wut?
What "springs" in the sea are you even referring to? Fault lines? Plate tectonics?
Yikes
Again a PERFECT example of cherry picking and mental gymnastics. Here you take "springs of the sea" literally, but we aren't supposed to take literally the age of the earth calculated by the blood lines described as 6000 years old?
Exhausting.
Read this and research the facts for your self. You will see it is not all BS as you claim.
https://www.icr.org/article/springs-ocean
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Renegade
Your belief in the bible is established on the phrase "springs of the sea"? Wut?
What "springs" in the sea are you even referring to? Fault lines? Plate tectonics?
Yikes
Again a PERFECT example of cherry picking and mental gymnastics. Here you take "springs of the sea" literally, but we aren't supposed to take literally the age of the earth calculated by the blood lines described as 6000 years old?
Exhausting.
Among the most thought provoking of God's questions to Job was, "Have you entered into the springs of the sea?" (Job 38:16a). The word for "springs" is NEBEK (transliterated from Hebrew), an unusual word referring to the places where water issues or bursts out of the earth.
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mike
Okay, then you cite a single instance where you think the bible was irrefutably correct.
Do we need to trot out the hundreds (thousands?) of places where it is irrefutably incorrect?
Good -> thanks jeebus
bad -> DEVILL!?
bible seems correct -> LOOK WORD OF GOD IS TRU
bible obviously incorrect -> DONT TAKE IT LITERALLY!
:facepalm:
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Renegade
Okay, then you cite a single instance where you think the bible was irrefutably correct.
Do we need to trot out the hundreds (thousands?) of places where it is irrefutably incorrect?
Good -> thanks jeebus
bad -> DEVILL!?
bible seems correct -> LOOK WORD OF GOD IS TRU
bible obviously incorrect -> DONT TAKE IT LITERALLY!
:facepalm:
There is 4 that talk about the springs under the ocean. There is more proof than that. But can you even Answer This one???? HOW DID THEY KNOW DURING THAT TIME????
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grayswandir
I think since we’ve brought up the Catholic Church as a topic, I may as well fuck with this. I feel like the conflict between Protestants and Catholics (during the Reformation) can essentially be put down to ‘if the Catholics didn’t believe enough, then the Protestants believed too much.’ I mean, on the Catholic side you had priests and bishops, who were supposed to be celibate, commonly entertain mistresses and some living on their own land rather than their parish. Going even further up the hierarchy the Pope engaged in some spectacular opulence. I would go as far naming the heresy trials conducted during the 14th-15th centuries as evidence of the Pope wanting his hold on power maintained through sham trials.
Whereas on the Protestant side you had shit like the Salem witch trials where Protestants would straight up execute ppl for suspected witchcraft. Shit that ironically is popularly attributed to Catholics but Protestants mostly engaged in.
Celibate was imposed by the Gregorian Reform... so that priests' riches would go back to the Church. Popes back then were all but holy, acting like true statesmen. The literal teen we talked about is a ridiculous example, Rodrigo Borgia is another. Things like this lead me to strongly believe the institution is full of shit lol (don't you dare tell me they were inspired by God and truly followed the path of Jesus Christ as his successors...).
About "Protestants", there's a quite important point you're missing: the Reformation created a ton of different "branches". Some were completely insane (like in Münster), some were much more sane than what existed before (like those saying people should be able to read the Bible in their own language so that they may understand it). You can't just say a bunch of crazies represent the entire religion.
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mike
There is 4 that talk about the springs under the ocean. There is more proof than that. But can you even Answer This one???? HOW DID THEY KNOW DURING THAT TIME????
My guess is, just like how they believe god created the earth, the writers believed that god used a "spring" that flooded the oceans. (Which by the way, is not how the oceans were even created.)
Deep sea vents do not create the oceans.
A spring is a water feature from which water "springs" forth (really, flows from somewhere else). What other explanation would they have for oceans magically appearing? God already created it. Seems to fit to me.
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marshmallow Marshall
Celibate was imposed by the Gregorian Reform... so that priests' riches would go back to the Church. Popes back then were all but holy, acting like true statesmen. The literal teen we talked about is a ridiculous example, Rodrigo Borgia is another. Things like this lead me to strongly believe the institution is full of shit lol (don't you dare tell me they were inspired by God and truly followed the path of Jesus Christ as his successors...).
About "Protestants", there's a quite important point you're missing: the Reformation created a ton of different "branches". Some were completely insane (like in Münster), some were much more sane than what existed before (like those saying people should be able to read the Bible in their own language so that they may understand it). You can't just say a bunch of crazies represent the entire religion.
Oh probably. I may have missed some branches. I’m talking about ones like Lutheranism and especially the Pilgrims and the Calvinists, many of whom were well known for extreme iconoclasm.
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Renegade
This is your response? Just ignore the Question? Well that is your Choice.
And cherry picking is done by people who dont read it.
They love to take the bible out of context like you are doing.
For example
A woman walked to the Store. As the woman was walking to the store she saw a Man. The woman see that the man is holding a Knife about to murder a small 11 year old Girl. The woman sees a gun on the ground. The woman knows if she does not shoot the man that the man will kill this small 11 year old girl. The woman then picks up the gun from the ground and shoots the Man. The woman just saved the 11 year old girls life.
now lets cherry pick some sentences.
A woman walked to the Store. As the woman was walking to the store she saw a Man. The woman sees a gun on the ground. The woman then picks up the gun from the ground and shoots the Man.
This is a prime example what people do with the bible all the time. The will not read the whole book. but they will pick parts of it to bash it.
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Renegade how do you reconcile your tying in religion with far right extremism with the fact that some of the most fervent abolitionists were not only religious, but driven to abolitionism because of religion?
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
May I ask what type of Christian you are Mike and what your beliefs are?
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Renegade
My guess is, just like how they believe god created the earth, the writers believed that god used a "spring" that flooded the oceans. (Which by the way, is not how the oceans were even created.)
Deep sea vents do not create the oceans.
A spring is a water feature from which water "springs" forth (really, flows from somewhere else). What other explanation would they have for oceans magically appearing? God already created it. Seems to fit to me.
But none of the bible states that. "My guess is, just like how they believe god created the earth" The bible says how they believed the oceans where created. So now what you are doing is trying to warp it around to make facts seem fiction.
Have you not notice everything has a perfect balance to it? all life everywhere has a perfect balance. Now let look at science. any time you randomly create anything there is no balance to it it is always chaotic. unless you have a controlled environment. But no science experiment will work outside the controlled environment. My point is the perfect balance we have is created.
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grayswandir
Renegade how do you reconcile your tying in religion with far right extremism with the fact that some of the most fervent abolitionists were not only religious, but driven to abolitionism because of religion?
STOP SPEAKING IN ABSOLUTES, YOU LITTLE PIECE OF SITH!
It's not because some far-right people weren't religious that all far-right people aren't. Take Franco as an example of religious far-right. Anti-far-right people being religious doesn't exclude far-right people from being religious too.
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SuperJack
May I ask what type of Christian you are Mike and what your beliefs are?
Well I go to an Independent Baptist church. My beliefs are in God. Not a type of Christian. For I believe as the bible tells us any belief that is not ageist God is for God. I do not believe in making other believe what I believe in. I do believe that all Christians should spread Gods word and should never be ashamed of God. It is never my place to judge another. But I will help anyone that wants to Find Gods word. There are things that other may do I do not agree with but I am not going to judge them for that for it is not my place to judge only to help.
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mike
But none of the bible states that. "My guess is, just like how they believe god created the earth" The bible says how they believed the oceans where created. So now what you are doing is trying to warp it around to make facts seem fiction.
Have you not notice everything has a perfect balance to it? all life everywhere has a perfect balance. Now let look at science. any time you randomly create anything there is no balance to it it is always chaotic. unless you have a controlled environment. But no science experiment will work outside the controlled environment. My point is the perfect balance we have is created.
I mean. Try not to diss science or just throw it all on the same boat. Science is quite a broad word, is there something your more specific with?
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mike
This is your response? Just ignore the Question? Well that is your Choice.
And cherry picking is done by people who dont read it.
They love to take the bible out of context like you are doing.
For example
A woman walked to the Store. As the woman was walking to the store she saw a Man. The woman see that the man is holding a Knife about to murder a small 11 year old Girl. The woman sees a gun on the ground. The woman knows if she does not shoot the man that the man will kill this small 11 year old girl. The woman then picks up the gun from the ground and shoots the Man. The woman just saved the 11 year old girls life.
now lets cherry pick some sentences.
A woman walked to the Store. As the woman was walking to the store she saw a Man. The woman sees a gun on the ground. The woman then picks up the gun from the ground and shoots the Man.
This is a prime example what people do with the bible all the time. The will not read the whole book. but they will pick parts of it to bash it.
I answered your question. Now answer mine. What do we do with the many more inaccuracies of the bible, or do you set them aside in favor of your cherries you have picked?
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marshmallow Marshall
STOP SPEAKING IN ABSOLUTES, YOU LITTLE PIECE OF SITH!
It's not because some far-right people weren't religious that all far-right people aren't. Take Franco as an example of religious far-right. Anti-far-right people being religious doesn't exclude far-right people from being religious too.
I don’t think I’m the one speaking in absolutes here, and neither are you. I think Renegade is :P
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Mike if your belief in the bible hinges on "springs in the sea" then I have a nice timeshare to sell you.
If that is the only evidence you can come up with, then that is sad.
Enjoy the comfort food. Be careful of eating too much sugar!
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mike
But none of the bible states that. "My guess is, just like how they believe god created the earth" The bible says how they believed the oceans where created. So now what you are doing is trying to warp it around to make facts seem fiction.
Have you not notice everything has a perfect balance to it? all life everywhere has a perfect balance. Now let look at science. any time you randomly create anything there is no balance to it it is always chaotic. unless you have a controlled environment. But no science experiment will work outside the controlled environment. My point is the perfect balance we have is created.
That is another fallacy. We have nothing to compare your "balance" to, because this is literally the ONLY reality we know.
I guess you should praise your god for all of the balance he brings via his words, actions, and inactions. Wash away in a flood those that don't believe!
Give me a break.
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Religious folks by their very nature unfortunately often lack critical thinking skills. I mean, that is the point of "faith" right, have "faith" and disregard everything else.
So this argument is kind of pointless, because for every inaccuracy I could present from the bible there will be a hand waving away of it.
SPRINGS I tell you, SPRINGS!
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
How do you reconcile your claim that religious people lack critical thinking skills when physicists are the scientists who are most likely to believe in God? You’re nor arguing against religion here; you’re arguing against fundamentalism.
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SuperJack
I mean. Try not to diss science or just throw it all on the same boat. Science is quite a broad word, is there something your more specific with?
No, I am not any expert, Nor do I claim to be if that is what you are asking. Like I said, I just follow what is in God word. I do not follow a group.
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grayswandir
How do you reconcile your claim that religious people lack critical thinking skills when physicists are the scientists who are most likely to believe in God? You’re nor arguing against religion here; you’re arguing against fundamentalism.
This sounds like fake news to me. Are you saying physicists have the highest chance of belief in god among all scientists? Sure 5% may be higher than 4%, but what about all of the other scientists who reject the christian fantasy?
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Renegade
Mike if your belief in the bible hinges on "springs in the sea" then I have a nice timeshare to sell you.
If that is the only evidence you can come up with, then that is sad.
Enjoy the comfort food. Be careful of eating too much sugar!
ROFLOL you are to much. My point has been the same with you Read the Book before bashing the book. Every post has shown me you have not read it. this is meant for Rene only. some of you I can tell you have read it and know what you are talking about.
Rene you don't have to believe it. You don't have to agree with it. Just Read it before trashing it. Don't give me the BS you have because your statements are prof you have not. I know people who have Read it and still don't believe it so be it. But they at least know what they are talking about. You talk just to talk argue just to argue and never have any relevant facts. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.
In other words I am done talking to a child.
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mike
No, I am not any expert, Nor do I claim to be if that is what you are asking. Like I said, I just follow what is in God word. I do not follow a group.
Just saying to claim science has no balance is unfair and untrue. Science doesn't just exist in experiments. ^^ If you want to know more about science i don't mind sharing what I know with you ^^ people always assume it's science Vs religion. But there is nothing to stop them from co-existing. Nothing stops you from being a scientist and believing in God/gods/religion.
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Please can people make more clear weather their talking about Christianity or religion or god as in a greater bring but not specifically of a certain religion
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Renegade
This sounds like fake news to me. Are you saying physicists have the highest chance of belief in god among all scientists? Sure 5% may be higher than 4%, but what about all of the other scientists who reject the christian fantasy?
Maybe they include non-organized religious beliefs or include dead scientists.
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SuperJack
Just saying to claim science has no balance is unfair and untrue. Science doesn't just exist in experiments. ^^ If you want to know more about science i don't mind sharing what I know with you ^^ people always assume it's science Vs religion. But there is nothing to stop them from co-existing. Nothing stops you from being a scientist and believing in God/gods/religion.
This is intelligent Conversions. TY SupperJack. BTW I agree with you and this statement. I admit I may not choice my wording as I should. You are right my statement was not Good or correct. I should have proof read it before posting it.
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SuperJack
Please can people make more clear weather their talking about Christianity or religion or god as in a greater bring but not specifically of a certain religion
Super I think we are very close to being on the same page. I do like the posts you have made.
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
https://www.livescience.com/379-scie...iscipline.html
This site says physicists reject belief in God at a rate of 38%, whereas social scientists believe at a rate of 31%.
So they’re not the most likely. I wonder if I can ask the person who told me that to give me a source.
Regardless, still much higher than you’d expect if religious people lacked critical thinking skills :P
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mike
ROFLOL you are to much. My point has been the same with you Read the Book before bashing the book. Every post has shown me you have not read it. this is meant for Rene only. some of you I can tell you have read it and know what you are talking about.
Rene you don't have to believe it. You don't have to agree with it. Just Read it before trashing it. Don't give me the BS you have because your statements are prof you have not. I know people who have Read it and still don't believe it so be it. But they at least know what they are talking about. You talk just to talk argue just to argue and never have any relevant facts. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.
In other words I am done talking to a child.
Springs! I tell you! Springs!
Ignore everything else about the bible, I find one thing that is true!!!!
Give me a break, and learn some proper spelling.
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SuperJack
Just saying to claim science has no balance is unfair and untrue. Science doesn't just exist in experiments. ^^ If you want to know more about science i don't mind sharing what I know with you ^^ people always assume it's science Vs religion. But there is nothing to stop them from co-existing. Nothing stops you from being a scientist and believing in God/gods/religion.
+100000. So much. So many people don’t get this lol
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
I love the fact that my phone thinks that is a phone number.
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mike
Super I think we are very close to being on the same page. I do like the posts you have made.
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in the Bible. Any religion that claims human have free will which includes the ability to defy god. Yet then go to trust what a human has written or said and that it's not possible for their words or papers to have been intercepted by one who isn't by gods words. Is Flawed.
If one admits their book isn't perfect and has been wrong then I have less quarrel with them. It is completely fine to take the better aspects out of them and use these to set a good example.
I'm also against any god that will punish me just for not believing in them even if I lived a good and giving life.
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
(ftr, I havent read 90% of this thread)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mike
This is my point, To many people want to twist Gods word to what they like. The Pharisees where a prime example of that. and to this day we have people still using what they did in the name of God. This does not make Gods word bad only the people abusing it.
@Mike
Do I understand you correct that the Bible should be taken in a literal sense?
I'm having trouble getting behind this idea. First of all - the video I posted earlier showcased numerous amount of contradictions within the Bible. Secondly - would you expect something to be taken seriously which contents changes when people start to not approve of them? (Old Testament)
Was the change from Old to New testament due to "New Interpretations"? Makes me go :huh: when considering your "people want to twist Gods word to what they like" statement.
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SuperJack
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in the Bible. Any religion that claims human have free will which includes the ability to defy god. Yet then go to trust what a human has written or said and that it's not possible for their words or papers to have been intercepted by one who isn't by gods words. Is Flawed.
If one admits their book isn't perfect and has been wrong then I have less quarrel with them. It is completely fine to take the better aspects out of them and use these to set a good example.
I'm also against any god that will punish me just for not believing in them even if I lived a good and giving life.
I get that. I do believe in God you do not. That is your right. But I respect you because you talk with Intelligence. You try to submit facts not BS. I still think we are on a similar page. Unless you do not agree with what you have already posted. I do not believe that is the case here.
Now on to the punish. that goes into the Salvation is not achieved by works alone. It is a matter of faith.
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OzyWho
(ftr, I havent read 90% of this thread)
@
Mike
Do I understand you correct that the Bible should be taken in a literal sense?
I'm having trouble getting behind this idea. First of all - the video I posted earlier showcased numerous amount of contradictions within the Bible. Secondly - would you expect something to be taken seriously which contents changes when people start to not approve of them? (Old Testament)
Was the change from Old to New testament due to "New Interpretations"? Makes me go :huh: when considering your
"people want to twist Gods word to what they like" statement.
The Old testament leads into the the New Testament. the Book of Hebrews does a great Job at helping us see how we move from OLD to New. The Old testament foretold The coming of Jesus(Jesus). Old required us to make sacrifices to have God forgive us for our sins. The New Gave us Jesus who was the Last sacrifice (The Son of God) and helped man kind move forward.
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SuperJack
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in the Bible. Any religion that claims human have free will which includes the ability to defy god. Yet then go to trust what a human has written or said and that it's not possible for their words or papers to have been intercepted by one who isn't by gods words. Is Flawed.
If one admits their book isn't perfect and has been wrong then I have less quarrel with them. It is completely fine to take the better aspects out of them and use these to set a good example.
I'm also against any god that will punish me just for not believing in them even if I lived a good and giving life.
This is where you and me are on opposite sides. But that is ok. I do not believe the Bible is Flawed. I used to be the exact same mindset you are in by this statement. I used to argue the same facts you are giving SuperJack. Another reason I respect your stance. I also know nothing I say here will change your mind on this. This is something you will need to find out on your own in your own time.
I just am enjoying being on the opposite side of this argument for the first time.
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mike
Now on to the punish. that goes into the Salvation is not achieved by works alone. It is a matter of faith.
"I don't respect a God who punishes me because I dont believe in him"
"It's a matter of faith"
Clearly
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mike
The Old testament leads into the the New Testament. the Book of Hebrews does a great Job at helping us see how we move from OLD to New. The Old testament foretold The coming of Jesus(Jesus). Old required us to make sacrifices to have God forgive us for our sins. The New Gave us Jesus who was the Last sacrifice (The Son of God) and helped man kind move forward.
Fair, It seems idk what I was talking about. Picked up that misinformation somewhere. Btw, you ignored the 1st part of my post.
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OzyWho
"I don't respect a God who punishes me because I dont believe in him"
"It's a matter of faith"
Clearly
Fair, It seems idk what I was talking about. Picked up that misinformation somewhere. Btw, you ignored the 1st part of my post.
Because I do not know how to answer that. sorry. Because you Do take God for his word yes. but Bible has a lot of Examples in it that is not meant to be taken literally and then some that are. So saying in whole should it be yes or no is not a question that can be Answered.
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mike
Because I do not know how to answer that. sorry. Because you Do take God for his word yes. but Bible has a lot of Examples in it that is not meant to be taken literally and then some that are. So saying in whole should it be yes or no is not a question that can be Answered.
Case by case, huh?
When you judge the verses or whatever case by case, how can you tell that you're being rational instead of cherry-picking interpretation for a confirmation bias?
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OzyWho
Case by case, huh?
When you judge the verses or whatever case by case, how can you tell that you're being rational instead of cherry-picking interpretation for a confirmation bias?
When you read it you will understand. The best way to understand any book is no short cuts. but to read it for yourself.
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
What caused your change Mike?
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Renegade
Springs! I tell you! Springs!
Ignore everything else about the bible, I find one thing that is true!!!!
Give me a break, and learn some proper spelling.
bro you can't complain about site toxicity and then be a dick to ppl for their religious beliefs. It wouldn't matter if the dude advocated sharia law and stoning adulturers. He's still just some guy on the internet and winning an argument won't dEstRoY rEliGioN. Have you never heard of embodying the change you want to see?
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
yzb25
bro you can't complain about site toxicity and then be a dick to ppl for their religious beliefs. It wouldn't matter if the dude advocated sharia law and stoning adulturers. He's still just some guy on the internet and winning an argument won't dEstRoY rEliGioN. Have you never heard of embodying the change you want to see?
+1
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
+2
What's worse is that this was supposed to be the "Serious Discussion & Debate" forum section.
(though I myself have trouble being respectful too, but I try)
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
-1
Nah you aren't going to blame me for how your friends behave here.
-
Re: Should the Bible be taken literally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Renegade
-1
Nah you aren't going to blame me for how your friends behave here.
Your post is a little ambiguous, but no I'm not trying to suggest you're responsible for site toxicity. Not even half of it. That would be ridiculous.