AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana Please notice that this is sold "unsharpened." Now how cool would it be to get a limited edition stamped & sharpened version from cKc Knives (:P) [u][b]AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana[/b][/u] Overall Length: 40 3/4'' Blade: 28 1/8'' *** Kult of Athena: $169.95 In Stock! Weight: 2 lb 5.8 oz [b]Edge: Unsharpened[/b] P.O.B.: 5 3/4'' Thickness: 7.5 mm - 4.4 mm Width: 31.9 mm Grip Length: 12 1/4'' Description: Reproduced here in a limited production line of 2000 is the katana wielded by Michonne, one of the deadliest characters of AMC’s The Walking Dead TV series. It has been hand forged and replicated from the original prop design. The unsharpened blade is made from 1045 carbon steel with a brass habaki at its base. The blade has been inscribed with a biohazard symbol and stamped with its production number. The tsuba and fittings are of antiqued steel and the wood tsuka handle has been covered in blackened rayskin. White leather strips form the tsuka-ito wrap with two gold dragon menuki beneath. The wood saya scabbard is wrapped in stitched brown leather overlaid halfway with matching white leather tsuka-ito. A leather Saya strap and carabiner facilitate the wearing of this katana. Comes with a certificate of authenticity. Please note: Your production number may vary from the photograph. [img]http://www.kultofathena.com/images%5CMCWD001_l.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.kultofathena.com/images%5CMCWD001_2_l.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.kultofathena.com/images%5CMCWD001_3_l.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.kultofathena.com/images%5CMCWD001_5_l.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.kultofathena.com/images%5CMCWD001_1_l.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.kultofathena.com/images%5CMCWD001_4_l.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.kultofathena.com/images%5CMCWD001_7_l.jpg[/img] https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,11698#msg-11698 Sun, 16 Aug 2026 15:48:44 +0000 Phorum 5.2.23 https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,37790#msg-37790 Re: AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,37790#msg-37790
Anyway for now, has anyone seen the film 'Dead Alive' or 'Braindead'? The title depends on where you are in the world.

It's the funniest/quaintest/goriest zombie film I've ever seen. It's also written/directed by Peter Jackson, before he got distracted by the whole Lord of the Rings thing. I wish he'd go back to making that sort of stuff.

There are some top-tips in that film for improvised zombie slaying - lawn mowers and food blenders can be put to excellent use.]]> AdamJ When you can't have a lightsabre Wed, 05 Nov 2014 11:36:13 +0000 https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,37111#msg-37111 Re: AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,37111#msg-37111 Old Spice When you can't have a lightsabre Fri, 24 Oct 2014 20:27:16 +0000 https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,37104#msg-37104 Re: AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,37104#msg-37104 Help prepare your kids for the inevitable Zombie Apocalypse with science!

InHuman Squishy Zombie
- Teaches and reinforces science concepts such as the scientific method, infection, the differences between bacteria and viruses, and more.
- Actually Fulfills STEM requirement for Science (!)
- 24-page graphic novel Middle-school teacher David Hunter, founder of Zombie-Based Learning.

Use Science to Battle a Zombie Epidemic

A zombie outbreak is no game— you have to use your braaain! The dead are walking, and it’s up to you to solve the mystery and stop the zombie epidemic. Follow the clues by reading the short graphic novel and examining the squishy zombie model in a race against time and contagion. Look for bite marks, examine rotting flesh, and probe squishy organs to identify the origins of the zombie’s infection. The graphic novel written by educator David Hunter makes exploring the scientific method and the science behind diseases a lesson in zombie-based fun. For ages 8+. Includes:

• 12-inch zombie model and base
• 4 Squishy organs
• Posable arms with?removable squishy flesh
• Detachable limbs
• 24-page graphic novel
• Instruction Sheet

Only $27.95 at Edmund Scientifics link: [www.scientificsonline.com]

For a great educational companion piece, check out Squishy Human Body (item# 3153948)



]]> Chum When you can't have a lightsabre Fri, 24 Oct 2014 18:17:32 +0000 https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,36897#msg-36897 Re: AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,36897#msg-36897
His prices are at the end of the video.
- 18" model $35.00
- 24" model $50.00

[www.youtube.com]]]> Chum When you can't have a lightsabre Mon, 20 Oct 2014 18:16:01 +0000 https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,35285#msg-35285 Re: AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,35285#msg-35285
Quote
HedgeChopper

I thought the consensus was that free will did exist.

In the literature? Not to my knowledge. Here is a very nice summary of modern ideas :

[www.youtube.com]


Quote

You can't conclude that free will exists therefore morality cannot exist. Would that be right?

Not exactly. I can not justify that free will exists and thus I can not justify that moral realism is true. The difference, removing the jargon :

-I can not justify the claim that your middle name is Frank

This doesn't mean I would say your middle name is not Frank or that you don't have a middle name or that your middle name can not be known as I can't justify those claims either.

Most people are quite willing to make very strong claims without justification, I rarely make a claim unless I can justify it very well.

Quote

Some of your actions should have been events I think. Just being pedantic.

You need to be careful if you separate out things you do (say call them actions) vs things that happen (call them events) as the fact that there is any difference is a large point of contention in moral theory so you can't just jump to that conclusion.

Quote

If that argument bothered you then don't read his take on the theory of evolution. The argument is even worse.

It doesn't bother me, it just isn't interesting. It is like listening to Ray Comfort on evolution, aside from comedic affect you don't learn anything as Ray isn't interested in being rational.]]> CliffStamp When you can't have a lightsabre Tue, 16 Sep 2014 22:15:00 +0000 https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,35271#msg-35271 Re: AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,35271#msg-35271
Quote
CliffStamp
This is based on the fact that I can not justify that free will exists and without free will ought doesn't mean anything.

I thought the consensus was that free will did exist. I know there are some researchers who are developing theories (scientific sense) that suggest otherwise. I was under the impression though that the weight of evidence was not yet great enough to substantiate the idea. This would obviously be a big one if shown to be true. I wonder, if it were announced that free will did not exist, would any change in human behavior as a result show the concept to be false. Otherwise could it be argued that the behavioral changes were inevitable in a world where everyone was aware they had no free will. A lack of free will would also change the nature of being self aware.
Another topic to read up on.

Just had a thought. Does this make you a Moral Nihilist? Morality cannot exist without free will. You can't conclude that free will exists therefore morality cannot exist. Would that be right?


Quote

As you did not take what most would argue is reasonable to infer consequences in the second example you would be held morally responsible for the actions which result as they could have been easily prevented even though there was no intent to for the actions which resulted from your actions.

Some of your actions should have been events I think. Just being pedantic.

In this instance you would have been immorally negligent. Presumably this would hold true if no one crashed into the box also.


Quote

This isn't the type of person I am interesting in talking to as the argument is really basic and self-contradictory for example :

If that argument bothered you then don't read his take on the theory of evolution. The argument is even worse.]]> HedgeChopper When you can't have a lightsabre Tue, 16 Sep 2014 19:23:07 +0000 https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,35264#msg-35264 Re: AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,35264#msg-35264
Quote
HedgeChopper

An example of a similar, though not identical, phenomenon from our own discussion was that what you considered to be a strong refutation of utilitarianism I considered to be utilitarianism in action.

To clarify, it is considered to refute utilitarianism to people who hold the view that example is immoral. If you argue that actually is moral then obviously it doesn't refute the maximal utility approach. This isn't a contradiction between us. I am drawing a circle and calling it a circle, you are saying you disagree and draw a square and calling it a square. I don't disagree you drew a square just like I don't disagree that if you accept the doctor cutting up one guy at random is moral then it doesn't refute maximum utility style moralities.

Quote

What is your stance on morality?

I would not assert that moral realism is true (aside from exploring it as a topic of discussion). This is based on the fact that I can not justify that free will exists and without free will ought doesn't mean anything.

Quote

Are you saying that something can be considered to be moral if it has morals?

A decision is said to be a moral one if any aspects of that decision are moral in nature. Note that this creates very specific maths which result from it and this kind of rule doesn't hold for everything. For example a car is made out of parts but the parts themselves are not cars.


Quote

I hate the phrase 'That's just a semantic argument/distinction.' with a passion.

Ironically that is really misused. The problem is illustrated by this exchange :

Interested Party : "Hey, when you forge a steel do the molecules of the steel get more dense?"

Idjit : "There are no molecules in steel dummy."

This is where someone missed the point of the question and made a semantic and non-critical (and actually false) correction which ignores the actual point in contention. Now it may be an interesting point that steel itself isn't molecular as metallic bonds are different than ionic/covalent bonds (molecules) and you might want to make a note of that, but ignoring the main question isn't that productive especially when the other party may have no ability to understand why the iron/carbon bond isn't molecular and even if you could teach them they are not interested and would never retain it. Plus it doesn't help them at all with the request for information on should they forge a knife to make it better or not.


Quote

By my own arguments that would depend on whether I believed it was morally wrong to kill children for that reason.

In retrospect I should have made the point that he told you it was for some reason you objected to morally as that was the point I wanted to make. If you agree that it changes the morality then in general you are morally responsible for actions based on what is reasonable for you to have known about their outcome.

For example :

a) you see a box in your driveway and throw it towards the garbage can, it bounces and lands in the middle of the road, you look up/down the road, see it is clear, put your coffee down on the seat of your car and move to get the box

vs

b) you see a box in your driveway and throw it towards the garbage can, it bounces and lands in the middle of the road, you do not look up/down the road, put your coffee down on the seat of your car and begin to move to get the box but you see a kid on a bike crash right into it, he is killed

As you did not take what most would argue is reasonable to infer consequences in the second example you would be held morally responsible for the actions which result as they could have been easily prevented even though there was no intent to for the actions which resulted from your actions.

(this hinges on the fact you accept if you knew about it you would/could have done differently - this is critical)


Quote

It describes in part the concept that God, in Islam, is not considered to be entirely benevolent.


"God’s wisdom, as there may be divine wisdom in permitting evil and suffering. Even if we can’t evaluate what the wisdom is, it doesn’t mean it is not there"

Is exactly the modal defense. When Christian's say God is all Good that doesn't mean he doesn't punish people, in fact many Christians argue God doesn't even love everyone (he doesn't love sinners for example as doesn't have a relationship with them, that is what hell means, to be apart from God for eternity) they say the same thing :

"God’s punishment as a result of our sins and bad actions."

This is the free will defense.

This isn't the type of person I am interesting in talking to as the argument is really basic and self-contradictory for example :

"People can also suffer from past, present or future sins."

If God punishes us for sins that he knows we will commit in the future then how can you argue the free will defense at the same time because this defies rationality (it allows any interpretation of events and you can not learn from anything because causality is violated).]]> CliffStamp When you can't have a lightsabre Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:45:15 +0000 https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,35258#msg-35258 Re: AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,35258#msg-35258
Quote
CliffStamp
Quote
HedgeChopper

I suspect that until we have a viable 'Universal goal for humanity' there will be no end point. Discussions on the nature of morality will inevitably be circular

This is where you can't jump from the premise to the conclusion. Are discussions about gravity circular or subjective? But we don't know the end point, and the way we know doesn't produce information in a 1:1 kind of mapping (we know things as they exist).


Firstly, I have more than once demonstrated my ability to leap from premise to conclusion without going through the intervening steps or even basing my conclusion on my premise!

Secondly we have both argued that there is unlikely to be an end point to a discussion on the nature of morality.

Thirdly I said circular not subjective. Although I would argue that discussion is an inherently subjective thing to do. All parties put across arguments based on their own (subjective) perspective even where the goal is to reach an objective conclusion. As to circularity, all discussions I have read on this so far involve continual argument and counter argument with the same argument frequently being used to support opposing contentions. An example of a similar, though not identical, phenomenon from our own discussion was that what you considered to be a strong refutation of utilitarianism I considered to be utilitarianism in action. Another example, which applies to us both is we have repeatedly answered questions with further questions and this seems to be a common theme for these types of discussions. Circular may be a strong way of putting it but I think it is at least oval.

A question which I realise has not actually been asked. What is your stance on morality? Objectivism, relativism, nihilism even? You have been mainly arguing from an objectivist's point of view but you could easily be playing devil's advocate as you seem primarily interested in the consistency of argument. Even when I asked you directly ,twice, whether you were able to provide an objective argument that murder was wrong your response was 'Yes' which is cheeky. Any chance you could expand?


Quote

Then you start mapping out a set of rules such as something which has moral attributes is like a color in that something is considered to be colored simply if it has colors. These sound really simple, trivial even, but all math is like that and those simple foundations lead to very broad conclusions.

I'm missing something here. Are you saying that something can be considered to be moral if it has morals? I am definitely going to have to try and read Kagan at some point.


Quote

Exactly, which doesn't have a truth value. You are using omnipotence (you have defined it) in a way that you can write a non-rational statement and again this isn't how it is used in the arguments for an omni-max God.

I do know that. I threw that in to the mix because it amused me just as it amuses you to talk about a knife being built with the blade on the wrong end because the blade smith was from Australia.

It does show though the limitations of language, which brings me to:

Quote

A lot of this gets tricky to talk about because some of the words don't mean the same thing in lay speak and this is where you have to be very careful because you have to interpret the arguments with the definition of the words as they are being used in the arguments.

I agree totally. I'm sure I'm guilty of mixing lay speak with mathematical/logical terminology. This is mainly because I have an extremely limited knowledge of the formal terminology. It is probably safest to assume that I am using lay definitions in this discussion.

This does illustrate a personal bugbear though. I hate the phrase 'That's just a semantic argument/distinction.' with a passion. A semantic argument is one of the most fundamentally important ones you can have or make. If we don't all agree on what the words mean before we start then we can neither communicate effectively or reach strong conclusions.



Quote

If a man asks you for $10 and openly tells you it is to buy bullets to kill his children so he can avoid child support is you giving him the money more/less moral than if he doesn't tell you?

By my own arguments that would depend on whether I believed it was morally wrong to kill children for that reason.
Assuming I believe that it is, then having prior knowledge of his intentions to kill those children would make providing the means to do so less moral. However if showing altruism towards a stranger inadvertantly causes harm to the stranger or another, the moral aspect of the action is unchanged. I note that you have edited your post to remove the point about us needing to be aware of potential outcomes for an action to be moral. Does this mean you agree with me?
Personaly, I would not feel it was right to give him money for that purpose and I would wonder why he had sufficient means to be expected to pay child support but insufficient to buy some bullets.



Quote

There is in fact an argument which is used to oppose apologists which argues for the omni-max evil God. It isn't held seriously as in people believe it, but it is argued just to show that most of the arguments used or in defense of omni-max Gods could in fact argue for / defend an Evil God.

On that note I found this article: [www.hamzatzortzis.com] which considers the problem of evil from an Islamic point of view. If you have not already read it then it is an interesting take on the modal defence. It describes in part the concept that God, in Islam, is not considered to be entirely benevolent.]]> HedgeChopper When you can't have a lightsabre Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:39:25 +0000 https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,35247#msg-35247 Re: AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,35247#msg-35247 Old Spice When you can't have a lightsabre Tue, 16 Sep 2014 05:43:36 +0000 https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,35209#msg-35209 Re: AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,35209#msg-35209
Quote
HedgeChopper

I suspect that until we have a viable 'Universal goal for humanity' there will be no end point. Discussions on the nature of morality will inevitably be circular

This is where you can't jump from the premise to the conclusion. Are discussions about gravity circular or subjective? But we don't know the end point, and the way we know doesn't produce information in a 1:1 kind of mapping (we know things as they exist).

Morality can be thought of and approached the same way. For example morality has to involve choice because if people can not actually make choices then ought has no meaning - does it make sense to say what a toaster ought to do? Thus you can make an objective statement :

-morality has to both involve and allow choice

Then you start mapping out a set of rules such as something which has moral attributes is like a color in that something is considered to be colored simply if it has colors. These sound really simple, trivial even, but all math is like that and those simple foundations lead to very broad conclusions.

A lot of this gets tricky to talk about because some of the words don't mean the same thing in lay speak and this is where you have to be very careful because you have to interpret the arguments with the definition of the words as they are being used in the arguments.

For example if you admit :

It is possible that God exists.

Is a true statement, then it can be shown that God exists is also a true statement using modal logic/mathematics. The problem is that people will say yes to that statement from the lay perspective but not realize in the proof the word possible means something very different.


Quote

Would my choice to alter his circumstances be moral then?

If a man asks you for $10 and openly tells you it is to buy bullets to kill his children so he can avoid child support is you giving him the money more/less moral than if he doesn't tell you?

Quote

Actually it is asking weather an omnipotent being could exceed it's own power.

Exactly, which doesn't have a truth value. You are using omnipotence (you have defined it) in a way that you can write a non-rational statement and again this isn't how it is used in the arguments for an omni-max God.

Consider this simple argument :

a) All ducks are animals
b) That is a duck

Conclusion :

c) That has to be an animal

Now can you say that argument is not sound because you define "are" to mean "possibly"? No, because you are making a different argument.


Quote

If you abandon the preconception that God must be entirely good and benevolent then things get interesting.

There is in fact an argument which is used to oppose apologists which argues for the omni-max evil God. It isn't held seriously as in people believe it, but it is argued just to show that most of the arguments used or in defense of omni-max Gods could in fact argue for / defend an Evil God.]]> CliffStamp When you can't have a lightsabre Mon, 15 Sep 2014 12:39:07 +0000 https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,35149#msg-35149 Re: AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,35149#msg-35149
Quote
TerriLiGunn
Honestly, the word pagan has been corrupted to mean a Wicca like religion. I am pagan in the old sense of the word. Just not a Christian.
I believe that there is a divine energy that seeks balance, but that there are "higher" beings that are more powerful than man. Finally man should find harmony with his world and himself. I am the only practitioner of my religion.

Cool,I like the harmony part. According to Tom Holland's book the word Pagan is a shortened version of pagani which is Latin for civilian.]]> HedgeChopper When you can't have a lightsabre Sun, 14 Sep 2014 14:00:10 +0000 https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,35148#msg-35148 Re: AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,35148#msg-35148
Quote
CliffStamp

That is the moral dilemma, what is the X and Y?

I think you have the nub of it here. Earlier you were asking about moral resolution - what would be the end point if you will. I suspect that until we have a viable 'Universal goal for humanity' there will be no end point. Discussions on the nature of morality will inevitably be circular. The real problem comes from trying to identify this goal. I could probably form an argument for one but it would inevitably be subjective, I don't claim to be perfectly rational or objective. As I said earlier I don't think a moral choice should depend upon the outcome of that choice. This would not be workable as we would all be paralysed into inactivity by what ifs. For example, if I give £10 to a homeless man what if he then, understandably, uses the money to by drugs and the drugs contain contaminants which kill him. Or more direct what if he is attacked and robbed by another person who covets his new found wealth, or crosses the road to buy some food and gets run over by a truck as he is so exited by the though of a hot meal that he forgets to look both ways? Would my choice to alter his circumstances be moral then?

Quote

A question such as "Could God make a taco so hot he could not eat it?" is basically asking Could God do something he could not do? The statement is without rational meaning.

Actually it is asking weather an omnipotent being could exceed it's own power. If the answer is no then you have discovered a limitation - which means it is not omnipotent. If the answer is yes then you have discovered a limitation - which means it is not omnipotent. This does not really tell you anything interesting about the concept of God but it does show the limitations of language and the human ability to deal with concepts on that scale.


Quote

A more subtle question of the same type would be if you asked God Is the statement "I am telling a lie." true or false? then what would it say. A more direct question is "Can God do evil acts?" .

That is a more subtle way to reach the same point, I think I like it better.

The second question here is more intriguing when it comes to the nature of God. If you abandon the preconception that God must be entirely good and benevolent then things get interesting. Given that even if God is not 'Omnimax' he must be so far beyond human abilities that it makes no difference, how would we know if God was messing with us? How could we be sure that God was the creator rather than simply a stupendously powerful being who found the Universe lying around and decided to tell everyone they made it? Would we have any way of knowing whether there were actually a bunch of gods snickering over a multidimensional bong hit and wondering what they could make the monkey's do next?]]> HedgeChopper When you can't have a lightsabre Sun, 14 Sep 2014 13:54:58 +0000 https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,35146#msg-35146 Re: AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,35146#msg-35146 I believe that there is a divine energy that seeks balance, but that there are "higher" beings that are more powerful than man. Finally man should find harmony with his world and himself. I am the only practitioner of my religion.]]> TerriLiGunn When you can't have a lightsabre Sun, 14 Sep 2014 13:26:03 +0000 https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,35144#msg-35144 Re: AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,35144#msg-35144
Quote
TerriLiGunn
I just have to say this. It is an interesting a thread originally started about a fictional characters weapon has mutated into a discussion about god and morality.
.

I had completely forgotten this thread was about zombies! Just gone back to read the first few pages.

On that note. Romero style. The point and attraction of zombies is that most of us are pretty sure we could deal with them in ones and twos, they aren't all that. The fear comes from large numbers and their relentless nature. The first Romero film was about alot more than just an outbreak of monsters.

Zombies are dead, they don't need to eat, sleep or rest. Constant feeding urge is presumably similar to rabid animals urge to bite - a transmission mechanism for the virus. Also they can function under water being uncoordinated probably leads to them floating about or walking on the bottom rather than swimming though.

Assuming you don't have custom made anti zombie weapons ahead of time, a heavy ball pein hammer with a fibreglass shaft, a couple of hammer through screwdrivers with sharpened points (worn operator style on some sort of chest rig) and a heavy duty pavement scraper thing. If custom is an option then I vote for a longer, steel version of a Maori green stone war club - they are proper nasty. Firearms are a tricky proposition in the UK so whatever I could loot from a downed police armed response unit which I think would consist of H&K MP5 with full stock (bonus supposed to be extremely easy to shoot and very accurate) and a 9mm pistol or two. I wouldn't fancy a shotgun because I wouldn't trust the pellets to penetrate a skull beyond point blank range.

World War Z was indeed an awful film, but a really good book.

Quote

I especially find this interesting to read as a multi-theist with a strong shamanistic and balance based religion.

Interesting. I know it's a big ask but are you able to summarise your beliefs in any way? I have always been intrigued at how modern paganism would work. Don't worry if you aren't comfortable with that. I'm curious rather than looking to knock you.]]> HedgeChopper When you can't have a lightsabre Sun, 14 Sep 2014 13:03:50 +0000 https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,35099#msg-35099 Re: AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,35099#msg-35099
Quote
TerriLiGunn

[...]


Basically the arguments seem very odd to me, and the concepts rather an anthropomorphizing a non human entity into one with human like thinking.
I really don't get it.

The fact that you can't do this is currently at the heart of most Christian (and Christian like) arguments for God in a defensive mode against arguments used to show their God can't exist. However as God made us in their image, it has to be true to basic extents.]]> CliffStamp When you can't have a lightsabre Sat, 13 Sep 2014 21:12:57 +0000 https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,35093#msg-35093 Re: AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,35093#msg-35093 I especially find this interesting to read as a multi-theist with a strong shamanistic and balance based religion.
Basically the arguments seem very odd to me, and the concepts rather an anthropomorphizing a non human entity into one with human like thinking.
I really don't get it. Still interesting to read.]]> TerriLiGunn When you can't have a lightsabre Sat, 13 Sep 2014 20:12:23 +0000 https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,35030#msg-35030 Re: AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,35030#msg-35030
Quote
HedgeChopper
The problem we are all having in this discussion is we have not established what morality is which means we are quite possibly arguing at cross purposes.

At a basic level, a moral action is just that which ought to be done, which only implies two things :

-there is a choice
-the choice is not arbitrary and can be evaluated to be good/bad

Here is where it gets non-trivial, no one disputes the first part, however the second part is what all the fighting is about even on a basic level because the last part of the sentence is almost circular. If you say good choices are moral ones then the next question is "Ok, what are good choices then?" all you did was switch words, but that is at the very heart of morality.

If you say to me that you want to be a successful weight lifter and you are going to achieve this by looking at pictures of successful weightlifters it is likely I would suggest you actually train. Now if you don't train then it is very unlikely you will be a successful weight lifter - but would this mean you have made an immoral action by not training. The answer most people will say is no - because the goal is arbitrary and moral decisions are not arbitrary of that nature. This is what actually defines morality there is something that makes it not arbitrary, something that makes it different than allows the distinction and you can step in and say that is good/bad vs simply right/wrong.

Now not everyone agrees with this, there are people who reject moral realism and say that makes no sense. Ought only means something if you have a goal, if you tell me your goal then maybe I can say what you ought to do to achieve that goal. If you don't have a goal then you don't know what you ought to do as it isn't defined. But there is no way to just point out some goal and say this has to be your goal in this situation, or in general for your life. However if this can't be done then morality is meaningless and since it can't be done morality doesn't exist. There is no good/bad there are just right/wrong actions which are evaluated based on whatever goals are set.

This is the critical part, a moral realist will argue morality is a class of actions which are so separate that they are not just incorrect or correct but we had to create two new words - good/bad. The first question then is what makes something a moral action vs just a right/wrong action in general? Of course morality is easy once you know the goal as it then just becomes the actions which are necessary to achieve said goal. There might be debate sure, just like you can ask a jillion people how to be a successful weightlifter and you get all kinds of responses. However it is clear that we are actually learning and becoming better weightlifters (in the sense we can move more weight) and this is because we have the goal. However if I say to you that I want to be a X type of Y then can you evaluate my actions? That is the moral dilemma, what is the X and Y?

The problem is in morality we don't know what the goal is exactly or even how to define it such that it is a goal which is so different from other goals it is a moral type classification. We know how to maximize things, there is a huge wealth of math on how to do that. Now it is trivial to just assume a goal, but the problem is that unless you can justify this choice then morality disappears and there is no such thing as good/bad, just right or wrong and a moral action is no different than the decision to use a japanese waterstone vs an oil stone. Of course if you can do something then you can do it, that isn't even an interesting question. The interesting part is if you can do it does that mean you ought to do it.

Now you have to read Kagan to understand it, and I can't summarize multiple books/papers in a few lines, but again to just try to mangle it into a few sentences :

-morality is an ought
-ought means reason/justification
-rationality is the means by which reason/justification is created

He then develops morality by using concepts from set math such as a moral aspect is one in that if the aspect ss changed in a situation and all things stay the same aside from that then the morality has to change. This seems obvious but it has some direct consequences which may not be so obvious. Note he makes no assumptions here about morality at all, he just takes the definition and expands on it to create a method and framework. This is no different than :

-the universe exists
-we can experience the universe through our senses
-we can make sense out observations through rational processes

Thus we can know how the universe exists through science. This doesn't mean there won't be conflicts, it doesn't even mean we can know how the universe exists as it exists as in the statements we make map 1:1 with reality. It just defines a way of knowing to be that which can be said through observation and experiment. Then based on this you can develop methods which make this coherent and congruent.

Quote

So far as I am aware that is a perfect example of utilitarianism not a refutation.

It is a refutation because people will typically not argue that ought to be done as it leads to conclusions that they will not accept just like they typically will not argue Hitler ought to have killed the Jews. As I noted, there are people who do even live according to those principles, morality to them is nothing more than the power to do a thing. If you can do it and you want to do it then you ought to do it. They are perfectly willing to accept that in all cases, live by the sword - die by the sword type of thing. That is however a perfectly coherent argument, it is just a form of moral nihilism.]]> CliffStamp When you can't have a lightsabre Fri, 12 Sep 2014 13:55:49 +0000 https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,35021#msg-35021 Re: AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,35021#msg-35021
Quote
HedgeChopper

Surely an omnipotent and omniscient being can do, be or redefine anything it wishes.

A question such as "Could God make a taco so hot he could not eat it?" is basically asking Could God do something he could not do? The statement is without rational meaning.

A more subtle question of the same type would be if you asked God Is the statement "I am telling a lie." true or false? then what would it say. A more direct question is "Can God do evil acts?" .

If you argue omni-max to mean "can do even that which is irrational" then obviously you reach irrational conclusions because that is an irrational definition of God to start with.

As an omni-max being God is perfectly rational and all benevolent. Omnipotent means God is without limit in being able to be benevolent, is without limit in being able to be rational, is without limit in its nature of God.

Now of course you can define a God that does irrational things or that it doesn't know something until after it is done but when you do the arguments used to prove God exist such as noted in the above all fail.

Now there is no issue with this of course as long as you can argue that the definition you are using can be argued for.Or you just want to define God in such a way that it is obvious it doesn't exist.]]> CliffStamp When you can't have a lightsabre Fri, 12 Sep 2014 12:03:42 +0000 https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,34995#msg-34995 Re: AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,34995#msg-34995
Quote

Chum

If God is "omni-max" could he relinquish power or knowledge of future events? If the answer is yes, then wouldn't that be a good way to deal with lonliness/boredom of being all-knowing and all-powerful? You create the game, you create the players, you give them free will and you watch how it plays out.

I think Chum is onto something. It must be quiet out there especially if you only have the goody two shoes for company. If man is created in God's image, think how much people enjoy reality TV!

Quote

Cliff
...an omni-max God can't not know something in the way you are saying because it exists outside of time which is critical to the nature of the arguments for an omni-max God. Plus it is redefining what know means.

Surely an omnipotent and omniscient being can do, be or redefine anything it wishes. Reminds me of this conversation a friend claimed to have had with a Jehova's Witness:

F: Could God create a rock?

J W: Yes

F: A really really big rock?

JW: Yes, the size is not an issue.

F: Could God create a rock so stupendously big that God could not lift it?

JW: ..................................


No idea if it really happened but it is an interesting question.]]> HedgeChopper When you can't have a lightsabre Thu, 11 Sep 2014 23:11:53 +0000 https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,34993#msg-34993 Re: AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,34993#msg-34993
Quote

Islam for example and Christianity talk about the same people, however they interpret them differently. In Christianity Jesus is God, in Islam he is just man acting as messenger, he doesn't die and get resurrected.

That slight difference of perspective has resulted in many thousands of deaths in the last millenia or so. It is about the only thing that Christians and Muslims truly cannot reconcile. For a Christian it is heresy to believe that Christ was just a prophet and for a Muslim it is heresy to believe that Christ was divine and was resurrected after death.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote

...basically that moral actions are those that would be done by a being which was perfectly rational and all knowing.

Interesting. I appreciate that your summary is probably missing Kagan's nuances but the perfectly rational part is worrying. You could arrive at some unpleasant results. I can't formulate a strong argument here as I will not claim to be perfectly rational or all knowing. There does seem to be the potential for some uncomfortable consequences to this though. It might well allow for automatic euthanasia at retirement age for example.



Quote

HedgeChopper

If we leave aside the idea of an external arbitor of morality then it necessarily must be changing and somewhat fluid.

Quote

Cliff

There is no way you can get to the conclusion from the premise and the fact that an idea is changing doesn't even mean it is subjective.

Fair enough. Reviewing what I typed you are right. There is at least one step missing from my argument.

Quote

The thing which has to be done first is seperate the nature of morality (what it is) vs how you can know morality.

I agree with you here. The problem we are all having in this discussion is we have not established what morality is which means we are quite possibly arguing at cross purposes. For myself I consider morality (of action) to represent what ought or ought not to be done irrespective of results. For example stealing is immoral (to me). however if I were to find a rich man who had no use for their wealth beyond a big tacky house and another new Bentley I could steal their money and use it in such a way that the net effect of my actions was to benefit a great many people.it would still have been an immoral act though. That's a bit clunky but hopefully clear.

I just spent a little time doing a websearch of 'Objective Morality' the most coherent answer came from an Atheist Website and seemed to reference Kagan's idea of actions as determined by a perfectly rational being. If the action is being determined through pure rationality then that should lead to amoral actions ie. those that are not influenced by should or should not but what will the result be. They seemed to liken it also to Maslo's hierarchy of needs.

Quote

Yes, and thus this reduces down to all that is needed to make a thing moral is nothing more than the power to do the thing. If the people who argued against slavery had lost it would still be moral to have slaves? If the people who opposed Hitler had lost then the Holocaust would have been moral? Again there are people who make this argument, there are even people who live their life in that manner.

Essentially yes. So far as Hitler and the Nazi party were concerned the Holocaust was moral. Slavery was considered moral well into the 20th C in some parts of the world. This is kind of my point.


Quote

Utilitarianism for example is strongly defeated by the doctor who chops up one person at random to save five injured people.

I must be missing something. So far as I am aware that is a perfect example of utilitarianism not a refutation. I'm not a proponent of unmodified utilitarianism though and by the time you qualify it sufficiently to be workable it looses it's clarity and,no pun intended, it's utility.]]> HedgeChopper When you can't have a lightsabre Thu, 11 Sep 2014 22:57:41 +0000 https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,34867#msg-34867 Re: AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,34867#msg-34867
Quote
Chum

No, but depending on how time works, he/she/it could conceivably know everything at one point in time and not in another.

God simply refers to that which created the universe, yes you could argue for a God in the sense you are describing it. We make lots of things for example and we learn about them after we have created it. Being able to make something doesn't mean you know all things about it.

However an omni-max God can't not know something in the way you are saying because it exists outside of time which is critical to the nature of the arguments for an omni-max God. Plus it is redefining what know means.

If for example I said I know German because I will learn it at a later date would you accept that as valid?

--


The problem of omniscience vs determinism is as simple (and as complex) as this :

-In any given situation there are various possible actions, you do A
-God knew/knows you will do A

How can you have free will? You could not have done otherwise as God knew you would do A. There are many arguments to this, the two basic ones are :

-You are free to do other than A, however whatever you choose then God would have known that

and a very similar one which is best presented in a example :

If your child is hungry and you put two bowls in front of them, one is their favorite cereal and the other is a bowl of dead mice does the fact you know that your child will do mean they don't choose it?

--

The central argument comes down to what free will means. The people who argue for free will and omniscience will say free will simply means not forced. People who argue for free will vs omniscience will argue that doesn't make sense because all actions are forced either by our physical nature or an influence from the environment.

If you posit free will then what is the source of it, what makes a person able to act outside of the physical nature of its being? This obviously is where a Theist says "God does that.". This is another of the strong arguments for God, if free will exists then it is very strong evidence for supernatural causes and if you allow supernatural causes then you are on a slippery slope away from atheism.

Now there is a fairly modern argument for free will which is basically summarized as the "Who cares?" argument. If we are determined and we "choose" to believe we have free will then all that shows is that we were determined to do it, no harm - no foul. You can't choose anything if you are determined. However if we really do have free will but we choose to believe we are determined and act in that manner then this is a serious problem.

Thus by default "choose" to believe you have free will and act accordingly.

This of course is the same time of argument as the famous wager of Pascal. If there is no God and you believe in one and act accordingly then no harm, no foul. But if God exists and you didn't believe then big problems await you. If you don't know then believe. The problem with this classic argument though is that most God's demand you believe for a specific reason and Pascal's doesn't work as the belief has to be genuine, you can't fake out God by crossing your fingers behind your back and saying "I believe", it isn't Judge Judy. Plus some belief systems radically affect how you live your life (and the length of it).]]> CliffStamp When you can't have a lightsabre Wed, 10 Sep 2014 10:14:38 +0000 https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,34859#msg-34859 Re: AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,34859#msg-34859
Quote
CliffStamp
Can an all knowing God not know something?

No, but depending on how time works, he/she/it could conceivably know everything at one point in time and not in another.]]> Chum When you can't have a lightsabre Wed, 10 Sep 2014 04:06:04 +0000 https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,34856#msg-34856 Re: AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,34856#msg-34856
Quote
Chum

How could morality have any meaning if there was no way to act immorally?

That is the central conflict between determinism and free will. .

Quote

If God is "omni-max" could he relinquish power or knowledge of future events?

Can an all knowing God not know something?]]> CliffStamp When you can't have a lightsabre Wed, 10 Sep 2014 02:09:18 +0000 https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,34854#msg-34854 Re: AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,34854#msg-34854
Quote
HedgeChopper

How can there ever be moral resolution?

It depends on the the standard of morality being applied.

The framework that Kagan outlines treats morality the same way that science treats gravity, the framework includes in it the method and process of knowing not just the what-is part. His framework (and I am really simplifying it) is basically that moral actions are those that would be done by a being which was perfectly rational and all knowing. He doesn't argue that being exists just like there can be an objective standard for a perfect circle even if in nature you can't physically see/make a perfect circle.

Quote

If we leave aside the idea of an external arbitor of morality then it necessarily must be changing and somewhat fluid.

There is no way you can get to the conclusion from the premise and the fact that an idea is changing doesn't even mean it is subjective. The thing which has to be done first is seperate the nature of morality (what it is) vs how you can know morality. Germ theory for example made us aware of things but it didn't make the things exist. Similar, simply because we have conflict about something doesn't mean that it is subjective. Is gravity subjective? There are fairly strong conflicts now about the nature of gravity and our idea of it certainly has (and still is) changed.

Quote

They challenged the morality of the establishment (those with power), accepted the, often horrific, consequences of doing so and managed to change societal morals.

Yes, and thus this reduces down to all that is needed to make a thing moral is nothing more than the power to do the thing. If the people who argued against slavery had lost it would still be moral to have slaves? If the people who opposed Hitler had lost then the Holocaust would have been moral? Again there are people who make this argument, there are even people who live their life in that manner.

Quote

I am not familiar with Kagan but my question does not require that the person doing the killing enjoy the experience. They could be killing for money, revenge,prejudice or to eliminate a witness to a crime the motivation is not relevant.

Yes, it wasn't meant to be a representation of the question, just one of clarity.

Quote

Can you construct an objective, moral argument that it is wrong to kill someone unlawfully?

Yes, again there are lots of objective moral frameworks as noted which can make objective arguments for any position. However some positions are very complicated and there is much contention over the morality. But again this doesn't mean it is subjective. I don't know lots of things, that doesn't mean they don't exist or they have to be subjective. I don't know your middle name for example.

Kagan is still actively publishing the rules by which his objective standard of morality can be interpreted and applied, the mathematics of it as you would. Some of it is fairly basic, some of it appears to be basic but isn't. Some questions are very non-trivial, is it moral to kill someone who wants to die? Even if you simplify this to the case that they are in pain from some disease making the moral argument is difficult because it is very easy to say "If that is true, then ..." and produce a consequence which you would not accept.

There are older frameworks than Kagan's but they all not strongly currently argued because while they sound strong on the surface (maximize some kind of utility for example) it is easily to provide examples which make you have to abandon them. Utilitarianism for example is strongly defeated by the doctor who chops up one person at random to save five injured people.


Quote

I do wonder why these arguments appear to rest on God being entirely benevolent.

The argument of evil only works against an omni-max God, if God isn't omni-max then the problem doesn't exist. Evil is only a problem (or appears to be one) if God is all good, all knowing and all powerful. How can that God have a world where there is Evil, how is that a good thing? That is the logical problem of evil. it has been resolved with the modal defense.]]> CliffStamp When you can't have a lightsabre Wed, 10 Sep 2014 01:59:21 +0000 https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,34852#msg-34852 Re: AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,34852#msg-34852
Quote
CliffStamp
If it is not moral for you to make them comply then you are now saying that your moral actions can produce consequences which are immoral. This doesn't seem to make morality have any meaning at all.

"you" is referring to God, correct?

How could morality have any meaning if there was no way to act immorally? This leads back to free will. Why bother creating any rules if those rules could not be broken? If you do have rules that can be broken... now you have a game that needs a ref, and that is interesting.

If God is "omni-max" could he relinquish power or knowledge of future events? If the answer is yes, then wouldn't that be a good way to deal with lonliness/boredom of being all-knowing and all-powerful? You create the game, you create the players, you give them free will and you watch how it plays out.]]> Chum When you can't have a lightsabre Wed, 10 Sep 2014 01:19:21 +0000 https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,34851#msg-34851 Re: AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,34851#msg-34851
Quote
HedgeChopper

There is a current theory that all other religeons are misinterpretations of Islam

In general, most religions will tend to produce this if you poke at them a bit.

The central question then any mono-theist has to answer is "If it is the case that the God you describe exists, what are all the other people talking about as it doesn't seem to be that God?" .

There are only two answer to this :

a) they are all delusional / liars

b) they are talking about the same God it is just the way they interpret it

Islam for example and Christianity talk about the same people, however they interpret them differently. In Christianity Jesus is God, in Islam he is just man acting as messenger, he doesn't die and get resurrected.

Naik is an interesting guy, I bring him up to my partner all the time as it drives them mental so whenever we have a disagreement I quote a Naik argument to them. My favorite Naik quote is (paraphrase) :

"Dr. Naik, how come when Muslims come into countries like ours they are allowed to build Mosques, but when we go to countries which are predominantly Islamic we can not build our churches?"

Naik answers :

"Excellent question! The answer is because we have the right religion!"

He then goes on to argue that you would never hire a math teacher who teacher 2+2 = 5 would you, obviously not. Well we would not allow someone to build a temple which spreads a false religion. But obviously you should allow us to build a Mosque because we are teaching the right one. Silly Infidel, your religion is for kids.

(ok, he doesn't say the last part)]]> CliffStamp When you can't have a lightsabre Wed, 10 Sep 2014 01:14:03 +0000 https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,34830#msg-34830 Re: AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,34830#msg-34830
Quote
HedgeChopper

and an American Doctor of Comparative Theology (also a convert to Islam) has devoted a lot of research to showing where these misinterpretations lie. I can't remember the guy's name but if I can track it down I will let you know.

Please disregard this. It turns out I misinterpreted something my father had said. The Dr in question is actually Zakir Naik. He is Indian not American and his doctorate is medical not theological. He is an Islamic scholar though...

Apologies for talking rubbish.]]> HedgeChopper When you can't have a lightsabre Tue, 09 Sep 2014 20:12:16 +0000 https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,34824#msg-34824 Re: AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,34824#msg-34824
Quote
CliffStamp
Hinduism takes a similar view, my partner for example simply notes that God appears to people in the way that is necessary for them to note they exist. They are a Hindu, but they don't reject other religions, they are just how other people interpret God's message. It is no different than how people make different arguments for a theory of gravity.

Cool, I did not know that about Hinduism. There could be an interesting debate to be had between Hindu and Islamic scholars. There is a current theory that all other religeons are misinterpretations of Islam and an American Doctor of Comparative Theology (also a convert to Islam) has devoted a lot of research to showing where these misinterpretations lie. I can't remember the guy's name but if I can track it down I will let you know.]]> HedgeChopper When you can't have a lightsabre Tue, 09 Sep 2014 18:08:32 +0000 https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,34823#msg-34823 Re: AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,34823#msg-34823 You just hit quote and then in the editing separate out parts with

Clearly I am still doing somthing Wrong

Non fractal nightmare version of post:

That is like saying what would happen to someone who speaks only English spoke French, well nothing really except that it wasn't an only English speaking person.

Except it isn't. A person who is known only to speak one language is unlikely also to be known as infallible.

It isn't the conflict that is the issue. There is conflict in objective morality because people can fail to know what is the moral action. The issue in relative morality isn't that there is a conflict, it is that there is no resolution...]

How can there ever be moral resolution? If we leave aside the idea of an external arbitor of morality then it necessarily must be changing and somewhat fluid. That is why I reject moral objectivity and state that the very concept of morality is a subjective one.

And thus what is moral is simply that which is advocated by the group with the most power.

This is an accurate representation of how a societies morality can come about. I have though already argued that morality varies by individual who may well be at odds with their society and perhaps win sufficient support to alter its moral compass. The Civil Rights movement in the US is a good example of this. They challenged the morality of the establishment (those with power), accepted the, often horrific, consequences of doing so and managed to change societal morals.

Murder is defined so as to be wrongful killing.

No. Murder is defined as unlawful killing. Judicial excecution of an individual later discovered to be innocent is is wrongful but it is not defined as murder. It could be argued, and often is, that all forms of state sanctioned killing are wrongful.

If you mean can you make an objective argument to why killing someone simply for the purpose of your personal entertainment is wrong, then yes there are systems which do that, Kagan's for example

I am not familiar with Kagan but my question does not require that the person doing the killing enjoy the experience. They could be killing for money, revenge,prejudice or to eliminate a witness to a crime the motivation is not relevant.

Can you construct an objective, moral argument that it is wrong to kill someone unlawfully?

I have meant to look at Islam because they way they make that argument as you described (what is an accurate representation of the teachings) leaves them open to the argument from Evil. I just need to find a Muslim scholar who will have a discussion not in Arabic with an Infidel about how can they know what is the real scripture -and- defend the argument from Evil.

I hope you find one. It can be difficult to have a challenging debate with many Mulims without being offensive. This is particularly true in the current political climate.

I did just look up the modal defense against Evil as I had not heard of it before. I assume when they mention natural evil they are referring to disease, earthquakes etc. I do wonder why these arguments appear to rest on God being entirely benevolent. I have never read or seen anything in the Bible or the Koran that suggested he was.]]> HedgeChopper When you can't have a lightsabre Tue, 09 Sep 2014 18:02:17 +0000 https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,34820#msg-34820 Re: AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana https://oldforum.beyondt01micron.com/read.php?20,11698,34820#msg-34820 CliffStamp When you can't have a lightsabre Tue, 09 Sep 2014 17:35:28 +0000