User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: Eugenics: Green Arrow vs. Cthulhu

  1. #1
    Points: 141,096, Level: 90
    Level completed: 46%, Points required for next Level: 1,954
    Overall activity: 2.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialOverdrive50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupVeteran
    Green Arrow's Avatar Overlord
    Karma
    619390
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    46,139
    Points
    141,096
    Level
    90
    Thanks Given
    53,026
    Thanked 24,139x in 15,798 Posts
    Mentioned
    1658 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Eugenics: Green Arrow vs. Cthulhu

    @Cthulhu, let's begin. First, I'll establish the definition of eugenics.

    Eugenics is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of the genetic "pool" of humanity. At its foundation, eugenics improves the gene pool simply by encouraging those with good genes to reproduce, and discouraging those with bad genes from reproducing. There have been many different eugenic methods over the course of the philosophy's existence, the most extreme example being the twisted and corrupted ideal of eugenics used by the Nazis, which completely forgoes the concept of improving the human gene pool and instead seeks to completely eliminate non-Aryan races. It is a $#@!ization of eugenics and will not come into this discussion.

    Cthulhu, the opening statement is yours.
    "A mature person is one who does not think only in absolutes, who is able to be objective even when deeply stirred emotionally, who has learned that there is both good and bad in all people and all things, and who walks humbly and deals charitably with the circumstances of life, knowing that in this world no one is all-knowing and therefore all of us need both love and charity."
    - Eleanor Roosevelt (1884-1962), American social activist and First Lady of the United States

  2. #2
    Points: 43,411, Level: 50
    Level completed: 92%, Points required for next Level: 139
    Overall activity: 7.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialTagger First ClassRecommendation Second Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Cthulhu's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    72696
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    The spaces between cognitive thought and passive nightmares
    Posts
    13,590
    Points
    43,411
    Level
    50
    Thanks Given
    10,244
    Thanked 7,827x in 5,248 Posts
    Mentioned
    574 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Okay. We know what eugenics is by your definition. My question is this:

    Those who will be involved in its practice - the Jane and Joe population at large, will they have freedom of choice as to whether they participate in its implementation or is it a state based mandate with no individual choice in the matter?

    ...also, am I the pro eugenics or the anti eugenics party?
    Last edited by Cthulhu; 10-25-2014 at 12:38 AM.
    "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

    Ephesians 6:12

  3. #3
    Points: 141,096, Level: 90
    Level completed: 46%, Points required for next Level: 1,954
    Overall activity: 2.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialOverdrive50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupVeteran
    Green Arrow's Avatar Overlord
    Karma
    619390
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    46,139
    Points
    141,096
    Level
    90
    Thanks Given
    53,026
    Thanked 24,139x in 15,798 Posts
    Mentioned
    1658 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu View Post
    Okay. We know what eugenics is by your definition. My question is this:

    Those who will be involved in its practice - the Jane and Joe population at large, will they have freedom of choice as to whether they participate in its implementation or is it a state based mandate with no individual choice in the matter?
    If I were in charge, yes, they would. In the past, there have been proponents of eugenics that were proponents of state-mandated eugenics, however.

    ...also, am I the pro eugenics or the anti eugenics party?
    You are whatever you wish to be. I'm arguing in favor, though.
    "A mature person is one who does not think only in absolutes, who is able to be objective even when deeply stirred emotionally, who has learned that there is both good and bad in all people and all things, and who walks humbly and deals charitably with the circumstances of life, knowing that in this world no one is all-knowing and therefore all of us need both love and charity."
    - Eleanor Roosevelt (1884-1962), American social activist and First Lady of the United States

  4. #4
    Points: 43,411, Level: 50
    Level completed: 92%, Points required for next Level: 139
    Overall activity: 7.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialTagger First ClassRecommendation Second Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Cthulhu's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    72696
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    The spaces between cognitive thought and passive nightmares
    Posts
    13,590
    Points
    43,411
    Level
    50
    Thanks Given
    10,244
    Thanked 7,827x in 5,248 Posts
    Mentioned
    574 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Arrow View Post
    If I were in charge, yes, they would. In the past, there have been proponents of eugenics that were proponents of state-mandated eugenics, however.



    You are whatever you wish to be. I'm arguing in favor, though.
    I'll go anti then, for opposition's sake.

    The reason I am going anti eugenics is because it is typically instituted by a government, a collectivist beast that only nominally cares about the wants and needs of the people it siphons resources from.

    In America (other countries as well I believe), eugenics has been done without consent by those who were deemed 'unfit' and they were sterilized at youth or at another point in time. However the practice was done away with, the time period I don't remember though.

    In the opening definition:

    At its foundation, eugenics improves the gene pool simply by encouraging those with good genes to reproduce, and discouraging those with bad genes from reproducing.
    This is based upon the free will model because of the key word "discouraging", implying there is free will to disregard it. Government typically doesn't respond well to rebellion of its mandates, often with violence. I bring up government because I know of no other instance in which eugenics is institutionalized en masse to a population.

    That aside, the goal is to improve humanity with superior genes no? What is the determining factor for that which is superior versus the inferior stock? Also, what is the mechanism for discouraging 'inferior' genes to spread?
    "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

    Ephesians 6:12

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cthulhu For This Useful Post:

    Green Arrow (10-25-2014)

  6. #5
    Points: 141,096, Level: 90
    Level completed: 46%, Points required for next Level: 1,954
    Overall activity: 2.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialOverdrive50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupVeteran
    Green Arrow's Avatar Overlord
    Karma
    619390
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    46,139
    Points
    141,096
    Level
    90
    Thanks Given
    53,026
    Thanked 24,139x in 15,798 Posts
    Mentioned
    1658 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I think the definition of "inferior" and "superior" in this case is pretty objective. If I am an Einstein-level genius, and you are mentally retarded, is there really a question of which of us has superior genes? At least, where intelligence is concerned. Now, it might get a little murkier if I'm a genius and you're mentally retarded, but I carry a hereditary disease like gout or Huntington's Chorea. In that case, I have the superior mental genes, but inferior physical genes.

    *EDIT* Not sure what you mean by the second question.
    Last edited by Green Arrow; 10-25-2014 at 01:10 AM.
    "A mature person is one who does not think only in absolutes, who is able to be objective even when deeply stirred emotionally, who has learned that there is both good and bad in all people and all things, and who walks humbly and deals charitably with the circumstances of life, knowing that in this world no one is all-knowing and therefore all of us need both love and charity."
    - Eleanor Roosevelt (1884-1962), American social activist and First Lady of the United States

  7. #6
    Points: 43,411, Level: 50
    Level completed: 92%, Points required for next Level: 139
    Overall activity: 7.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialTagger First ClassRecommendation Second Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Cthulhu's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    72696
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    The spaces between cognitive thought and passive nightmares
    Posts
    13,590
    Points
    43,411
    Level
    50
    Thanks Given
    10,244
    Thanked 7,827x in 5,248 Posts
    Mentioned
    574 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Arrow View Post
    I think the definition of "inferior" and "superior" in this case is pretty objective.
    Not so. It is utterly geographically and technologically based with regards to the society, with social factors as well. Fitness of genes can rapidly change over the course of a single generation - without genetic drift taking place.

    If I am an Einstein-level genius, and you are mentally retarded, is there really a question of which of us has superior genes?
    On this point I agree. Intellect is a good thing to have. But intellect is only useful at certain times. Likewise with speed and muscle mass. Utterly contingent on the pressure at hand. If I'm being chased by a tiger, I don't care how smart I am, I care how fast I am. If I am cramming for say...chemistry finals. I could live in an iron lung for all I care. Superiority is based upon the pressure at hand. Which can change from one moment to the next. That being said, trends typically follow a pattern.

    At least, where intelligence is concerned. Now, it might get a little murkier if I'm a genius and you're mentally retarded, but I carry a hereditary disease like gout or Huntington's Chorea. In that case, I have the superior mental genes, but inferior physical genes.
    Good point you bring up. However it also hinges upon the pressure at hand. Sickle cell anemia. Doesn't really do anybody any favors here in the good old U S of A. But in Africa it is a mutation which render malaria a moot point to those that have the trait. Not a boon here where we have technology to make up the difference of a lagging immune system, but in Africa where technology is spotty at best in certain regions, a single mosquito bite can spell doom upon you if you don't have that trait, and your whole tribe as well.

    One man's priceless is another man's worthless. Which is why a rubric of what is superior must be codified for eugenics to be get off the ground. There is no point in reaching to perfection with selective breeding if we haven't agreed on what is superior and what is inferior.

    *EDIT* Not sure what you mean by the second question.
    Clarification on this:

    Also, what is the mechanism for discouraging 'inferior' genes to spread?
    Say X gene has been identified to produce what is deemed a negative trait. And certain people have it. How will you discourage them from spreading it? Abortions, or abortions pending genetic profile of fetus? Sterilizations(because what is the point of birth control if you have been deemed to have bad genes)? Economic incentive? Euthanize violators offspring...or the violators themselves?
    Last edited by Cthulhu; 10-25-2014 at 01:36 AM.
    "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

    Ephesians 6:12

  8. #7
    Points: 141,096, Level: 90
    Level completed: 46%, Points required for next Level: 1,954
    Overall activity: 2.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialOverdrive50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupVeteran
    Green Arrow's Avatar Overlord
    Karma
    619390
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    46,139
    Points
    141,096
    Level
    90
    Thanks Given
    53,026
    Thanked 24,139x in 15,798 Posts
    Mentioned
    1658 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu View Post
    Not so. It is utterly geographically and technologically based with regards to the society, with social factors as well. Fitness of genes can rapidly change over the course of a single generation - without genetic drift taking place.
    I'm going to guess that by "geographically and technologically based," you mean in the sense you eluded to in your next response:

    On this point I agree. Intellect is a good thing to have. But intellect is only useful at certain times. Likewise with speed and muscle mass. Utterly contingent on the pressure at hand. If I'm being chased by a tiger, I don't care how smart I am, I care how fast I am. If I am cramming for say...chemistry finals. I could live in an iron lung for all I care. Superiority is based upon the pressure at hand. Which can change from one moment to the next. That being said, trends typically follow a pattern.
    If I'm correct, it's a point I agree with. That said, it doesn't really change what I said. Speed is a valuable trait regardless of where you live. Speed benefits me just as much in the city as it would in the country, or in the wilds of Africa. If I live in the city, speed can help me get out of danger, such as from mugging. If I'm in the country, say my father has an accident involving farming equipment. If I had the speed of Usain Bolt, I could get help for him far quicker than if I did not have the speed.

    So, while you are correct that superiority can depend entirely on the situation at hand, those genes ARE still superior to their alternative. Intelligence is superior to retardation, speed is superior to sloth, muscles are superior to weakness.

    Good point you bring up. However it also hinges upon the pressure at hand. Sickle cell anemia. Doesn't really do anybody any favors here in the good old U S of A. But in Africa it is a mutation which render malaria a moot point to those that have the trait. Not a boon here where we have technology to make up the difference of a lagging immune system, but in Africa where technology is spotty at best in certain regions, a single mosquito bite can spell doom upon you if you don't have that trait, and your whole tribe as well.

    One man's priceless is another man's worthless. Which is why a rubric of what is superior must be codified for eugenics to be get off the ground. There is no point in reaching to perfection with selective breeding if we haven't agreed on what is superior and what is inferior.
    So you codify superior and inferior genes based on their regional superiority. Africa would have a different code than North America, North America would have a code different than South America, Asia different from Europe, etc.

    Say X gene has been identified to produce what is deemed a negative trait. And certain people have it. How will you discourage them from spreading it? Abortions, or abortions pending genetic profile of fetus? Sterilizations(because what is the point of birth control if you have been deemed to have bad genes)? Economic incentive? Euthanize violators offspring...or the violators themselves?
    The means are really limitless. Abortion and sterilization should be voluntary, in my opinion. Economic incentive puts the choice firmly in the hands of the individual with the negative traits. I do not favor murdering (and murder is what you're talking about when you say "euthanize," in this context) violators or their offspring. However, in a society that is progressing ever forward into genetic success, the violators would become an increasing minority. They would eventually end up mating amongst themselves and cancel themselves out of the gene pool anyway.
    "A mature person is one who does not think only in absolutes, who is able to be objective even when deeply stirred emotionally, who has learned that there is both good and bad in all people and all things, and who walks humbly and deals charitably with the circumstances of life, knowing that in this world no one is all-knowing and therefore all of us need both love and charity."
    - Eleanor Roosevelt (1884-1962), American social activist and First Lady of the United States

  9. #8
    Points: 43,411, Level: 50
    Level completed: 92%, Points required for next Level: 139
    Overall activity: 7.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialTagger First ClassRecommendation Second Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Cthulhu's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    72696
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    The spaces between cognitive thought and passive nightmares
    Posts
    13,590
    Points
    43,411
    Level
    50
    Thanks Given
    10,244
    Thanked 7,827x in 5,248 Posts
    Mentioned
    574 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Arrow View Post
    I'm going to guess that by "geographically and technologically based," you mean in the sense you eluded to in your next response:
    Correct. I figured I would provide a basic example.

    If I'm correct, it's a point I agree with. That said, it doesn't really change what I said. Speed is a valuable trait regardless of where you live. Speed benefits me just as much in the city as it would in the country, or in the wilds of Africa. If I live in the city, speed can help me get out of danger, such as from mugging. If I'm in the country, say my father has an accident involving farming equipment. If I had the speed of Usain Bolt, I could get help for him far quicker than if I did not have the speed.
    That is correct. But let's be honest hear. We all have cell phones. What is the point of running to go get help when I can call 911 and have the cavalry arrive in short order while I assist on scene waiting for their arrival? In the country that might not be the most feasible option due to lack of supporting infrastructure but in urban areas where the bulk of the population is there isn't an existing pressure to develop the strong muscles, speed and reflexes. So even those with great genes don't develop their talents for the purpose of selective breeding. All eugenics does is allow for superior potential, not guaranteeing superior performance. Codename Section has raw gifted physical prowess, however to get to the level he is at requires daily, and arduous training. If he lived the normal routine of america, he'd be just as capable as the average wombat.

    So, while you are correct that superiority can depend entirely on the situation at hand, those genes ARE still superior to their alternative. Intelligence is superior to retardation, speed is superior to sloth, muscles are superior to weakness.
    True. But again, unless there is pressure to use the potential, it will not be reached. I used to remember all of the phone numbers that I used before I got a cell phone. A simple exercise in memory. I used to plot the most efficient courses for my travels and remember areas I needed to go.

    The modern day cell phone has supplanted much of my brain power. I might have a magnificent brain and never know it - because I don't push it to achieve all that it can do.

    So you codify superior and inferior genes based on their regional superiority. Africa would have a different code than North America, North America would have a code different than South America, Asia different from Europe, etc.
    Immigration. How will you deal with transitory populations? Taking just america for instance. Say you identified and designated the 'superior' gene set for america. Would not other people from the rest of the world do nothing but upset the delicate balance you are trying to achieve in the first place? America is a popular destination that many in the world dream of ending up in. How would you address the influx of those who want to come here, raise a family (spread their genes), and live the american dream?

    These are the seeds of racial nationalism. "Can't have that _______ be disturbing the gene pool with their toxic stock", when in reality they could be of perfect stock - but for a different location. However if they breed with a native they have upset the entire gene pool for generations.

    As to your next statement:

    The means are really limitless. Abortion and sterilization should be voluntary, in my opinion. Economic incentive puts the choice firmly in the hands of the individual with the negative traits. I do not favor murdering (and murder is what you're talking about when you say "euthanize," in this context) violators or their offspring. However, in a society that is progressing ever forward into genetic success, the violators would become an increasing minority. They would eventually end up mating amongst themselves and cancel themselves out of the gene pool anyway.
    The means are limitless I agree. However if they are derived of consent and outside of control, the plan of eugenics is doomed to failure without coercion of some kind to assist it along the way. Perhaps the incentive model could work, although I doubt it. For the main reason that most men want to raise their own children, women too. Biological rejection is a real phenomenon which few can fully overcome. Unless you completely overhaul what people think of as a family and can rewire the instincts of people and offspring successfully, you have a mountain to tackle.

    Is it possible? Sure, but I only see it being viable under force where violation is punished in some way or another. The other problem is that people are emotional creatures. The heart wants what the heart wants. Even if X has a terrible genetic profile, he makes breakfast just the way you like it, is good with kids, has goals and dreams and blah blah blah...

    People make emotional decisions all the time, marriage and children being one of them. Other factors being the promiscuity of the current society makes it difficult. Odds are accidental pregnancies from one night stands aren't the run of the mill olympian or particle physicist. But rather the dregs of society. From real world experience, I have only noticed that morons typically reproduce more often that our brighter minds. These are the same people that smoke, drink, and do drugs of their own free will(not brilliant life decisions, so why would they be more wise with their reproduction?). I highly doubt they will go away regardless of any incentive to control their numbers short of a rifle butt to the base of the skull. Low caliber life forms seem to be inevitably more numerous that higher caliber life forms.
    "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

    Ephesians 6:12

  10. #9
    Points: 141,096, Level: 90
    Level completed: 46%, Points required for next Level: 1,954
    Overall activity: 2.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialOverdrive50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupVeteran
    Green Arrow's Avatar Overlord
    Karma
    619390
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    46,139
    Points
    141,096
    Level
    90
    Thanks Given
    53,026
    Thanked 24,139x in 15,798 Posts
    Mentioned
    1658 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu View Post
    That is correct. But let's be honest hear. We all have cell phones. What is the point of running to go get help when I can call 911 and have the cavalry arrive in short order while I assist on scene waiting for their arrival? In the country that might not be the most feasible option due to lack of supporting infrastructure but in urban areas where the bulk of the population is there isn't an existing pressure to develop the strong muscles, speed and reflexes. So even those with great genes don't develop their talents for the purpose of selective breeding. All eugenics does is allow for superior potential, not guaranteeing superior performance. Codename Section has raw gifted physical prowess, however to get to the level he is at requires daily, and arduous training. If he lived the normal routine of america, he'd be just as capable as the average wombat.

    True. But again, unless there is pressure to use the potential, it will not be reached. I used to remember all of the phone numbers that I used before I got a cell phone. A simple exercise in memory. I used to plot the most efficient courses for my travels and remember areas I needed to go.


    The modern day cell phone has supplanted much of my brain power. I might have a magnificent brain and never know it - because I don't push it to achieve all that it can do.
    I concede that point to you.

    Immigration. How will you deal with transitory populations? Taking just america for instance. Say you identified and designated the 'superior' gene set for america. Would not other people from the rest of the world do nothing but upset the delicate balance you are trying to achieve in the first place? America is a popular destination that many in the world dream of ending up in. How would you address the influx of those who want to come here, raise a family (spread their genes), and live the american dream?

    These are the seeds of racial nationalism. "Can't have that _______ be disturbing the gene pool with their toxic stock", when in reality they could be of perfect stock - but for a different location. However if they breed with a native they have upset the entire gene pool for generations.
    That's simple enough, at least, as simple as political ideas can be. Controlled immigration. Something that we should implement even without eugenics being the ultimate end game. But that's a whole 'nother debate

    The means are limitless I agree. However if they are derived of consent and outside of control, the plan of eugenics is doomed to failure without coercion of some kind to assist it along the way. Perhaps the incentive model could work, although I doubt it. For the main reason that most men want to raise their own children, women too. Biological rejection is a real phenomenon which few can fully overcome. Unless you completely overhaul what people think of as a family and can rewire the instincts of people and offspring successfully, you have a mountain to tackle.

    Is it possible? Sure, but I only see it being viable under force where violation is punished in some way or another. The other problem is that people are emotional creatures. The heart wants what the heart wants. Even if X has a terrible genetic profile, he makes breakfast just the way you like it, is good with kids, has goals and dreams and blah blah blah...

    People make emotional decisions all the time, marriage and children being one of them. Other factors being the promiscuity of the current society makes it difficult. Odds are accidental pregnancies from one night stands aren't the run of the mill olympian or particle physicist. But rather the dregs of society. From real world experience, I have only noticed that morons typically reproduce more often that our brighter minds. These are the same people that smoke, drink, and do drugs of their own free will(not brilliant life decisions, so why would they be more wise with their reproduction?). I highly doubt they will go away regardless of any incentive to control their numbers short of a rifle butt to the base of the skull. Low caliber life forms seem to be inevitably more numerous that higher caliber life forms.
    Forgoing for a moment the question of whether or not it's possible to implement to perfection, here's the question: is it (or would it be, if it were possible to implement perfectly) ethically sound?
    "A mature person is one who does not think only in absolutes, who is able to be objective even when deeply stirred emotionally, who has learned that there is both good and bad in all people and all things, and who walks humbly and deals charitably with the circumstances of life, knowing that in this world no one is all-knowing and therefore all of us need both love and charity."
    - Eleanor Roosevelt (1884-1962), American social activist and First Lady of the United States

  11. #10
    Points: 43,411, Level: 50
    Level completed: 92%, Points required for next Level: 139
    Overall activity: 7.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialTagger First ClassRecommendation Second Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Cthulhu's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    72696
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    The spaces between cognitive thought and passive nightmares
    Posts
    13,590
    Points
    43,411
    Level
    50
    Thanks Given
    10,244
    Thanked 7,827x in 5,248 Posts
    Mentioned
    574 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Arrow View Post
    I concede that point to you.


    That's simple enough, at least, as simple as political ideas can be. Controlled immigration. Something that we should implement even without eugenics being the ultimate end game. But that's a whole 'nother debate
    True enough. Easy concept and plan. Nightmare to implement for a host of reasons. The Fairness Fairies would cannibalize whoever tried it.

    Forgoing for a moment the question of whether or not it's possible to implement to perfection, here's the question: is it (or would it be, if it were possible to implement perfectly) ethically sound?
    First thing is first. Definitions. What is the definition of ethics we're using to base this off of? Because not everybody has the same ethical inclinations.

    Also is it optional or not? Because if not, then hell no good sir, grab your torch and pitchfork.
    "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

    Ephesians 6:12

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Cthulhu For This Useful Post:

    Green Arrow (11-01-2014)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


Critical Acclaim
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO