Author Topic: A question for Old Earth Creationists  (Read 2098 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rustybeatz

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 93
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
A question for Old Earth Creationists
« on: January 18, 2012, 01:52:27 AM »
I was listening to a debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Christopher Hitchens titled "What's so great about god?"  I'm sure many here are familiar with it.  D'Souza stated he is not a biblical literalist and that he believes in evolution.  Hitchens then asks D'Souza a question and it went something like this - Since man has been around for about 100,000 years, heaven watches with indifference for about 98,000 years as man stumbles, kills, whatever.  Then, 2,000 years ago heaven says "we'd better do something about this."  As I was listening to this a separate question occurred to me -  When christians believe in evolution, where do Adam and Eve fall in to place in the last 100,000 years?  In the beginning of the 100,000 years, within the last 2,000 years so it makes sense with the bible story?  I'm confused as to how this can be reconciled.  Or is it that Adam and Eve are metaphors at this point?

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2766
  • Darwins +223/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburgerâ„¢
Re: A question for Old Earth Creationists
« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2012, 01:54:44 AM »
  Or is it that Adam and Eve are metaphors at this point?

Yes. Homo metaphor ssp pretendus
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6761
  • Darwins +819/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: A question for Old Earth Creationists
« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2012, 02:40:04 AM »
Don't ask for details. These folks are working hard enough as it is finding ways to blend reality with their imaginations. Just thinking that the pieces fit nicely takes all of their energy. You'll throw them if you request specifics.

You only went back 100,000 years in your example. If they truly believe evolution fits with the bible, they have to go back 4.t billion years like the rest of us for the life part, and over 13 billion years for the "in the beginning" part. Reconciling genesis with tens of thousands of scientific papers that explain the observed details takes a lot more than putting tab A into slot B.

Just settle for knowing that their god operated in mysterious ways. For a long, long, long, long, long, long time.



Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: A question for Old Earth Creationists
« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2012, 04:17:07 AM »
I think the Christians that believe in Adam and Eve also believe in the young Earth theory, where the Christians that believe Adam and Eve are simply a metaphor believe in evolution and believe the scientists. Sadly at least 35% of Americans believe the bible is the literal, not metaphorical, 100% accurate word of God. Shows you what an incredible failure our school system is.

Here's a question for those who believe Adam and Eve is just a metaphor for early mankind: if that's so, then why did Jesus die to atone for Eve's sins if there was no Eve?
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline gonegolfing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1224
  • Darwins +23/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • God ?...Don't even get me started !
Re: A question for Old Earth Creationists
« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2012, 08:42:25 AM »
I think the Christians that believe in Adam and Eve also believe in the young Earth theory, where the Christians that believe Adam and Eve are simply a metaphor believe in evolution and believe the scientists. Sadly at least 35% of Americans believe the bible is the literal, not metaphorical, 100% accurate word of God. Shows you what an incredible failure our school system is.

Here's a question for those who believe Adam and Eve is just a metaphor for early mankind: if that's so, then why did Jesus die to atone for Eve's sins if there was no Eve?


Stop asking those damn tricky questions !!  ;D

Seriously though, I think a common response from an old earth metaphorical believing theist is: "Yes, the Adam & Eve story is a metaphor. But Jebus died for the very real actions of evil and disobedience and doing wrong towards god--things that we all do in reality and that go against god's moral law!!"

The only problem for theist accomodationists like this that give room to science, is that they have failed to prove that a god exists in the first place. Furthermore, they have to look for a new gap to stuff god in as the geological record has booted god out of the YEC's claim, and in doing so they have to relinquish the Eden story over to metaphor and find a whole new set of contortions to put their minds through to try and make the story somewhat palpable....Good Luck with that.  ;)
"I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism"....Penn Jillette.

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10582
  • Darwins +192/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: A question for Old Earth Creationists
« Reply #5 on: January 18, 2012, 08:59:25 AM »
Ignore the man behind the curtain.
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6223
  • Darwins +412/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: A question for Old Earth Creationists
« Reply #6 on: January 18, 2012, 09:03:14 AM »
Nah, its easy.

Yahweh created the world billions of years ago, setting in motion the process of evolution that would one day lead to man.  Through Australopithecus, Bosei, Heidelbergensis and what not, these things looked like man, but they lacked that "spark", that thing that made them human rather than animal.

Then one day you had a real Adam and Eve...the first human beings that had a soul, placed there by Yahweh because mankind was finally ready for the next step.  From that point on, the "true" human race evolved, rapidly outpacing the "non-true-humans" until only Adam's descendants remained. 

This also answers questions like "who did Cain and Abel marry?" - they married the non-souled-humans, but their children had souls.  Another plus for this way of thinking - it means that all the "humans" killed in the flood weren't "real" humans and hence Yahweh wasn't "really" evil to kill them all.  And of course from that point on, all people were Noah's descendants and so "proper" humans.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline jynnan tonnix

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1790
  • Darwins +93/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: A question for Old Earth Creationists
« Reply #7 on: January 18, 2012, 09:32:32 AM »
And "original sin" is just a way of stating the obvious; that nobody's perfect. There didn't need to be an Eve and a mythical fruit because from the first "real" humans (with the souls, as Anfauglir mentioned), each individual was going to make a bad choice somewhere along the line.

Really, the Old Earth version of Christianity has a lot less holes and loose ends. Funny, though, how all those holes and loose ends become fewer and fewer the further you move away from the Biblical account, and virtually disappear once you get to the point of discarding the notion of god completely.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2012, 10:43:44 AM by jynnan tonnix »

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6761
  • Darwins +819/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: A question for Old Earth Creationists
« Reply #8 on: January 18, 2012, 11:17:20 AM »
I think the Christians that believe in Adam and Eve also believe in the young Earth theory, where the Christians that believe Adam and Eve are simply a metaphor believe in evolution and believe the scientists. Sadly at least 35% of Americans believe the bible is the literal, not metaphorical, 100% accurate word of God. Shows you what an incredible failure our school system is.

Here's a question for those who believe Adam and Eve is just a metaphor for early mankind: if that's so, then why did Jesus die to atone for Eve's sins if there was no Eve?

Well, he just died metaphorically...    ;D
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline Rustybeatz

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 93
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: A question for Old Earth Creationists
« Reply #9 on: January 18, 2012, 11:52:45 AM »
I think the Christians that believe in Adam and Eve also believe in the young Earth theory, where the Christians that believe Adam and Eve are simply a metaphor believe in evolution and believe the scientists. Sadly at least 35% of Americans believe the bible is the literal, not metaphorical, 100% accurate word of God. Shows you what an incredible failure our school system is.

Here's a question for those who believe Adam and Eve is just a metaphor for early mankind: if that's so, then why did Jesus die to atone for Eve's sins if there was no Eve?


Stop asking those damn tricky questions !!  ;D

Seriously though, I think a common response from an old earth metaphorical believing theist is: "Yes, the Adam & Eve story is a metaphor. But Jebus died for the very real actions of evil and disobedience and doing wrong towards god--things that we all do in reality and that go against god's moral law!!"

The only problem for theist accomodationists like this that give room to science, is that they have failed to prove that a god exists in the first place. Furthermore, they have to look for a new gap to stuff god in as the geological record has booted god out of the YEC's claim, and in doing so they have to relinquish the Eden story over to metaphor and find a whole new set of contortions to put their minds through to try and make the story somewhat palpable....Good Luck with that.  ;)

So, isn't it just easier to say there is no god?  When do people finally give up and say it's ridiculous to keep making things up to make it work?  Weird.

Offline Rustybeatz

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 93
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: A question for Old Earth Creationists
« Reply #10 on: January 18, 2012, 11:53:38 AM »
Nah, its easy.

Yahweh created the world billions of years ago, setting in motion the process of evolution that would one day lead to man.  Through Australopithecus, Bosei, Heidelbergensis and what not, these things looked like man, but they lacked that "spark", that thing that made them human rather than animal.

Then one day you had a real Adam and Eve...the first human beings that had a soul, placed there by Yahweh because mankind was finally ready for the next step.  From that point on, the "true" human race evolved, rapidly outpacing the "non-true-humans" until only Adam's descendants remained. 

This also answers questions like "who did Cain and Abel marry?" - they married the non-souled-humans, but their children had souls.  Another plus for this way of thinking - it means that all the "humans" killed in the flood weren't "real" humans and hence Yahweh wasn't "really" evil to kill them all.  And of course from that point on, all people were Noah's descendants and so "proper" humans.

I'm pretty sure you just made that up, but it sounds like an argument that they would use!

Offline Rustybeatz

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 93
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: A question for Old Earth Creationists
« Reply #11 on: January 18, 2012, 11:55:26 AM »
And "original sin" is just a way of stating the obvious; that nobody's perfect. There didn't need to be an Eve and a mythical fruit because from the first "real" humans (with the souls, as Anfauglir mentioned), each individual was going to make a bad choice somewhere along the line.

Really, the Old Earth version of Christianity has a lot less holes and loose ends. Funny, though, how all those holes and loose ends become fewer and fewer the further you move away from the Biblical account, and virtually disappear once you get to the point of discarding the notion of god completely.

I was hoodwinked up until recently, myself.  But now I'm embarrassed for people that still believe in it literally.  All it took for me was one biology class and google  :laugh:

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5265
  • Darwins +602/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: A question for Old Earth Creationists
« Reply #12 on: January 18, 2012, 03:34:50 PM »
Nah, its easy.

Yahweh created the world billions of years ago, setting in motion the process of evolution that would one day lead to man.  Through Australopithecus, Bosei, Heidelbergensis and what not, these things looked like man, but they lacked that "spark", that thing that made them human rather than animal.

Then one day you had a real Adam and Eve...the first human beings that had a soul, placed there by Yahweh because mankind was finally ready for the next step.  From that point on, the "true" human race evolved, rapidly outpacing the "non-true-humans" until only Adam's descendants remained. 

This also answers questions like "who did Cain and Abel marry?" - they married the non-souled-humans, but their children had souls.  Another plus for this way of thinking - it means that all the "humans" killed in the flood weren't "real" humans and hence Yahweh wasn't "really" evil to kill them all.  And of course from that point on, all people were Noah's descendants and so "proper" humans.

I'm pretty sure you just made that up, but it sounds like an argument that they would use!
He didn't make it up.  That's actually quite close to what some old earth creationists like to say, excepting the flood part.  Given that there were hundreds of years between Adam and Noah according to the Bible, there would have to have been a large number of "souled humans" who also died in the flood.

Offline Irish

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Darwins +18/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Moraxella catarrhalis on BA
Re: A question for Old Earth Creationists
« Reply #13 on: January 18, 2012, 04:52:42 PM »
Here's a question for those who believe Adam and Eve is just a metaphor for early mankind: if that's so, then why did Jesus die to atone for Eve's sins if there was no Eve?

I like this question.
La scienze non ha nemici ma gli ignoranti.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +78/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: A question for Old Earth Creationists
« Reply #14 on: January 18, 2012, 09:33:07 PM »
There is only one particle in the known universe. It vibrates so fast that is seems to be everywhere at the same time. It appears to be many different things at the same time. It composes all that we see, feel, believe. It is us.

We observe this particle popping into and out of existence. We see the traces it leaves behind. We misinterpret what it all means.

This is God, Vishnu, Buddha. This is you and this is me. We are one and I am drunk.
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: A question for Old Earth Creationists
« Reply #15 on: January 19, 2012, 03:51:56 AM »
Nah, its easy.

Yahweh created the world billions of years ago, setting in motion the process of evolution that would one day lead to man.  Through Australopithecus, Bosei, Heidelbergensis and what not, these things looked like man, but they lacked that "spark", that thing that made them human rather than animal.

Then one day you had a real Adam and Eve...the first human beings that had a soul, placed there by Yahweh because mankind was finally ready for the next step.  From that point on, the "true" human race evolved, rapidly outpacing the "non-true-humans" until only Adam's descendants remained. 

This also answers questions like "who did Cain and Abel marry?" - they married the non-souled-humans, but their children had souls.  Another plus for this way of thinking - it means that all the "humans" killed in the flood weren't "real" humans and hence Yahweh wasn't "really" evil to kill them all.  And of course from that point on, all people were Noah's descendants and so "proper" humans.

Of course, none of this is written anywhere, just more nonsense made up on the spot to explain pre-existing nonsense.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6223
  • Darwins +412/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: A question for Old Earth Creationists
« Reply #16 on: January 19, 2012, 05:57:22 AM »
Nah, its easy......

Of course, none of this is written anywhere, just more nonsense made up on the spot to explain pre-existing nonsense.

Tru dat.

Given that there were hundreds of years between Adam and Noah according to the Bible, there would have to have been a large number of "souled humans" who also died in the flood.

Not necessarily (he said, as he continued pretending to be an OEC).....

We could make an arguments that any descendants of Cain would not be "true" humans, for starters.  But even without that, it's still open to wriggle.  The Bibble gives a lineage of the direct descendants of Adam, and carefully ensures that all of them die before the flood hits - right before it hits, in one rather sad case. 

So quite possible to argue that it was only the soulless that died in the Flood, with at least as much justification as the opposite....given that we're arguing souls and Floods and whatnot !!
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Rustybeatz

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 93
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: A question for Old Earth Creationists
« Reply #17 on: January 19, 2012, 02:25:40 PM »
Nah, its easy......

Of course, none of this is written anywhere, just more nonsense made up on the spot to explain pre-existing nonsense.

Tru dat.

Given that there were hundreds of years between Adam and Noah according to the Bible, there would have to have been a large number of "souled humans" who also died in the flood.

Not necessarily (he said, as he continued pretending to be an OEC).....

We could make an arguments that any descendants of Cain would not be "true" humans, for starters.  But even without that, it's still open to wriggle.  The Bibble gives a lineage of the direct descendants of Adam, and carefully ensures that all of them die before the flood hits - right before it hits, in one rather sad case. 

So quite possible to argue that it was only the soulless that died in the Flood, with at least as much justification as the opposite....given that we're arguing souls and Floods and whatnot !!

So Adam and Eve were the first to have souls.  Then they had kids, but they're kids had kids with the unsouled (I think I made up a new word) so those kids are some kind of soul half breed?

I realize this is all in jest, how do they come up with this stuff?  You'd have to create new rules for genetics or something.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: A question for Old Earth Creationists
« Reply #18 on: January 19, 2012, 02:29:33 PM »
So Adam and Eve were the first to have souls.  Then they had kids, but they're kids had kids with the unsouled (I think I made up a new word) so those kids are some kind of soul half breed?

I realize this is all in jest, how do they come up with this stuff?  You'd have to create new rules for genetics or something.

yep, you'll have to come up with some Punnet square for who gets what part of what soul.  Are the male soul parts better?  Would it be a mule? A hinny?   ;D
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Rustybeatz

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 93
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: A question for Old Earth Creationists
« Reply #19 on: January 19, 2012, 08:24:39 PM »
So Adam and Eve were the first to have souls.  Then they had kids, but they're kids had kids with the unsouled (I think I made up a new word) so those kids are some kind of soul half breed?

I realize this is all in jest, how do they come up with this stuff?  You'd have to create new rules for genetics or something.

yep, you'll have to come up with some Punnet square for who gets what part of what soul.  Are the male soul parts better?  Would it be a mule? A hinny?   ;D

Ah yes, this is starting to make sense now!  So souls have dominant and recessive traits.  I wonder if my soul has blonde hair.....blue eyes maybe? 

Offline Noman Peopled

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1904
  • Darwins +24/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • [insert wittycism]
Re: A question for Old Earth Creationists
« Reply #20 on: January 20, 2012, 12:39:49 AM »
The Bibble gives a lineage of the direct descendants of Adam, and carefully ensures that all of them die before the flood hits - right before it hits, in one rather sad case.
I wonder ... if there was one first human couple, would not everybody be a direct descendant of them?
"Deferinate" itself appears to be a new word... though I'm perfectly carmotic with it.
-xphobe

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6223
  • Darwins +412/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: A question for Old Earth Creationists
« Reply #21 on: January 20, 2012, 07:15:05 AM »
I wonder ... if there was one first human couple, would not everybody be a direct descendant of them?

Depends what you mean by "human"!  And also what we decide about the recessive/dominance of souls, and whether one can have a "half-soul"....

Okay, OEC hat on again.....

Adam and Eve boh had full souls.  Their children had souls.  When a soul mates with a non-soul, I'm going to say.....their children would either have souls, or no souls - there's no such thing as half a soul.

Half a bee, philosophically, Must, ipso facto, half not be.
But half the bee has got to be, vis a vis, its entity. D'you see?
But can a bee be said to be, or not to be an entire bee
When half the bee is not a bee - due to some ancient injury?

Ahem.

So do offspring have, or have not, souls, with one parent of each?  The flood story would suggest they do not, with chidren only having souls if both parents did (apart, perhaps, from certain special individuals).....Adam's lineage perhaps, due to inbreeding, were "all-souled"....

But post flood, assuming Noah and kin were all "full souls", then everyone AFTER that would be full-souled, as there were no non-souls around to mate with.  So pre-flood there were lotsa NON humans (who got drownded), and post-Flood everyone was a proper human, with a shiny soul and everything.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: A question for Old Earth Creationists
« Reply #22 on: January 20, 2012, 09:48:07 AM »
But post flood, assuming Noah and kin were all "full souls", then everyone AFTER that would be full-souled, as there were no non-souls around to mate with.  So pre-flood there were lotsa NON humans (who got drownded), and post-Flood everyone was a proper human, with a shiny soul and everything.

Anfauglir, you are having far too much fun with this  ;D   Hmm, so if Noah, et all had "full souls", then that means a fully souled person can be a right idiot like Noah was as soon as the grapes fermented as God willed.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline jynnan tonnix

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1790
  • Darwins +93/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: A question for Old Earth Creationists
« Reply #23 on: January 20, 2012, 10:18:22 AM »
Hmmm...it would be interesting, if you allowed for some sort of recessive trait for the lack of a soul. Maybe that's where sociopaths come from. That sort of thinking could open up a big can of worms!

Offline Lorax

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
  • Darwins +4/-7
  • WWGHA Member
Re: A question for Old Earth Creationists
« Reply #24 on: February 02, 2012, 09:17:19 PM »
I've also encountered a belief where Adam was a federal head of a whole human race, He was there int he garden as described, buthe had company, not described, which he represented in the fall, and so were also held responsible.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7314
  • Darwins +171/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: A question for Old Earth Creationists
« Reply #25 on: February 02, 2012, 09:23:35 PM »
I've also encountered a belief where Adam was a federal head of a whole human race, He was there int he garden as described, buthe had company, not described, which he represented in the fall, and so were also held responsible.

Hmmm...your own little scientology sprouting.  This could be your ticket!

Offline Spit

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 83
  • Darwins +8/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: A question for Old Earth Creationists
« Reply #26 on: February 02, 2012, 11:08:48 PM »
Where does Homo Erectus fit in this timeline? I said erect. 8)

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6223
  • Darwins +412/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: A question for Old Earth Creationists
« Reply #27 on: February 03, 2012, 06:12:52 AM »
I've also encountered a belief where Adam was a federal head of a whole human race, He was there int he garden as described, buthe had company, not described, which he represented in the fall, and so were also held responsible.

Means Yahweh is even more of a dick, unless every single person alive not only voted for Adam, but agreed he should eat the fruit.  It'd be like saying that every single American is personally responsible for George W Bush's actions. 
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: A question for Old Earth Creationists
« Reply #28 on: February 03, 2012, 10:25:01 AM »
I've also encountered a belief where Adam was a federal head of a whole human race, He was there int he garden as described, buthe had company, not described, which he represented in the fall, and so were also held responsible.

yep, this is a pretty common excuse for Christians to explain original sin and thus the supposed need for a "savior".  As anfauglir points out, it really throws a wrench into any further Christian claim of a just and fair god. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/