The wicked without children force your children to be educated with their lies

[Elijahovah]

The wicked without children force your children to be educated with
their lies. This goes beyond gay couples seeking to adopt your
children to raise them with their sexual beliefs. It goes beyond
single whoring teachers of the public school system feeling they do a
better job with YOUR children than having any of their own. I have a
gay brother who is a mooch off a sugar-daddy and I will tell you now
that they believe ALL animals should be neutered... but I challenge
anyone to seek these two and cut THEIR own balls off too. Simply the
wicked wish to rule YOUR children by cursing YOU as being bad parents
as wicked Adam and wicked Eve.
When the scripture says the children of the wicked are many, it
doesnt imply that they do any procreating at all. It is a thievery of
other families, of other cultures, other cities, the schools taking
YOUR children to teach them their way, or your neighbors taking YOUR
children to convince them you are bad parents. Being children of the
wicked means converting your children to approve their bad wicked
worldly ways of behavior as now seen on TV which emphasizes all men
wanting to see 2 women make out and convince them its not lesbianism
if its a 3-way with a man. Get approval of women tonguing mouth as
well as other places and hopefully public sex for men will follow as
it already does in GAY PRIDE Parades of major cities who have biasedly
refused any orgy of HETERO PRIDE PARADES.

The children of the wicked are also many because they fornicate
pornicate screwing anyone and everyone so that births are still
growing massive in single parents or children raised by gay couples in
the belief that anything with no law or uncaught by law is cool. Or
the warm act of love. It almost seems these days that the child with
no married parents conceived by them alone exists anymore. The norm is
now the minority. Yet refusal to admit norm is a minority because that
might give normal rights, and the wicked do not want this.

My own experience was 10 years with a woman teacher who refused to get
married; lied saying she wanted children but prevented them, and
always spoke of evil parents who do not deserve these students she
teaches of the 1st and 2nd grades.
I have also pursued platonic dating or "friends" in the gay world, and
that too is a farce. A man of a gay couple in Phoenix had a surogate
boy who in 1999 was almost 3. The very rich professional man sat the
boy in a shallow tub for a half hour claiming it was his bath
unattended and unscrubbed or unwashed, and yet he insisted the boy
must be forced his medicine by enima. I hate to think what became of
this Garrett now at 15. Further, we went to a park to "play" as
children do (not as gay men and married men play) and he acted like he
had to borrow my negatives as if the pictures may kidnap the kid or
abuse him. Talk about the kettle black.

Further, another friend who is a gay couple and generous with his
wallet, had meetings in Manhattan and so opted to have an ole
(perverted) aquaintance show me the tour of Cental Park and
Rockefeller. My snapping pictures of children playing on the Alice in
Wonderland statute and he starts publicly rambling how he sees he can
"get into" children.

I find that the wicked here who post trash such as lies of me ever
being fired, or that JWs are insane, (if my mother be insane then I
rather survive with her than you people who are friends of the quoted
world above), so all of you are of one kind and will soon be
destroyed. Destruction is your own doing, like Sodom where not even
one man much less 10 could evacuate all their wives and children
because of your HATE for exposing bad conduct. As for me, a person not
fired, i still think being proper conduct is better than anyone who is
a boss that can fire those good, because it reminds me of when i went
to Wally World to say their manager who lived with me was messaging
men to meet him in the bathroom for sex, and their attitude was like
oh well we cant put cameras in the bathroom... who asked for cameras?

So indeed if you think me fool for preaching armageddon and death to
the wicked.
Enjoy your world. But any christian would rather die a martyr in his
own surrounding armageddon
of these wicked than continue tolerating this. YES even Lot would
rather die that night all the gay married men surrounded the house
saying we wish to KNOW these men.
I assure you they slam the Bible as afraid to say sex, and using the
word get to know you.
BUT truth is that the wicked wants sex and when they hook up they wont
say it because
they want all to think it is you that wants the sex, and all they say
is
I WANT TO GET TO KNOW YOU.... then they ask your tit size and dick
size and vagina size and want body pictures. DO DIE ALL OF YOU WITH
THESE PEOPLE YOU HAVE CREATED.
ELIJAH
You are all being condemned.

[Annointed Remnant]

In article <b665958d-110d-41eb...@h5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
Elijahovah says...

>
>and all they say is I WANT TO GET TO KNOW
>YOU.... then they ask your tit size and dick
>size and vagina size and want body pictures.

I see you've been on the dating sites. No luck, eh?

[Elijahovah]

> I see you've been on the dating sites.  No luck, eh?  

You dont have to date... everything from friend to platonic
to asking for cheaper labor is instead people wanting hookups
for sex or asking for cash (in however manner including sex
if that's what it takes). I see only scum online and that includes
these posts who are bored to death and live daily to
cynically attack.

[Greegor]

http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/proceedings/2011/papers/0782/paper0782.pdf

Religious Belief Systems of Persons with High Functioning Autism

1. Catherine Caldwell-Harris (charris AT bu.edu)
Associate Professor of Psychology

http://www.bu.edu/psych/charris/

http://www.bu.edu/psych/charris/papers/publications.html

2. Caitlin Fox Murphy (caitfoxmurphy AT gmail.com)
B.A., Developmental Therapist

http://npidb.org/doctors/respiratory_developmental_rehabilitative/developmental_therapist_222q00000x/1164738100.aspx

3. Tessa Velazquez (tessav AT bu.edu)

http://bupsychling.wordpress.com/projects/autism/

Department of Psychology, Boston University,
64 Cummington St. Boston, MA 02215 USA

4. Patrick McNamara (mcnamar AT bu.edu)

http://www.bumc.bu.edu/len/about-our-research-staff/about-dr-mcnamara/

Department of Neurology, Boston University School of Medicine
72 E Concord St, Boston, MA 02118 USA

Abstract
The cognitive science of religion is a new field which
explains religious belief as emerging from normal cognitive
processes such as inferring others' mental states, agency
detection and imposing patterns on noise. This paper
investigates the proposal that individual differences in belief
will reflect cognitive processing styles, with high functioning
autism being an extreme style that will predispose towards
nonbelief (atheism and agnosticism). This view was
supported by content analysis of discussion forums about
religion on an autism website (covering 192 unique posters),
and by a survey that included 61 persons with HFA. Persons
with autistic spectrum disorder were much more likely than
those in our neurotypical comparison group to identify as
atheist or agnostic, and, if religious, were more likely to
construct their own religious belief system. Nonbelief was
also higher in those who were attracted to systemizing
activities, as measured by the Systemizing Quotient.
Keywords: Cognitive science of religion; autism; cognitive
styles; individual differences
Introduction
On a discussion forum for Christian parents, a mother
conveys her frustration because her 14 year-old high
functioning autistic (HFA) son does not believe in God and
refuses to write a paper for his confirmation class. On
wrongplanet.net and other discussion boards for autistic
spectrum individuals, posters denounce supernaturalism,
proclaim the merits of their self-constructed theistic belief
systems and argue the logical appeal of Buddhism. These
observations, combined with recent commentaries about the
likely religious beliefs of HFA individuals (Delay, 2009;
Graetz & Durbin, 2008), suggest that these individuals’
beliefs may be influenced by their intellectual strengths (e.g.
emphasis on logic and attraction to systematizing
observables) and their social-emotional deficits (e.g.
reduced automatic inferences about mental states and
decreased orientation to social rewards).
There is currently no systematic study of the religious
beliefs of autistic spectrum individuals who have normal or
near-normal intelligence (i.e., those with high functioning
autism and Asperger's disorder, which we jointly label HFA
for descriptive convenience, following Attwood, 2001).
Current research is limited to personal observations (Isanon,
2006), case studies (Graetz & Durbin, 2006) and
extrapolation informed by a clinical knowledge of HFA
(Graetz & Durbin, 2009; Deeley, 2009).
Given this gap in the literature, two studies examined the
thesis that HFA people's unique cognitive and socioemotional
profile influences their religious behaviors and
beliefs. In Study 1, content analysis was conducted of
online discussion forum postings. Study 2 consisted of a
Questionnaire which directly asked questions about
religious belief and included scales measuring thinking
styles.
Prior findings in cognitive science of religion
• These exploratory studies are grounded on the
following assumptions.
• Religiosity is a multidimensional phenomenon
encompassing behaviors, beliefs, and experiences
(Fetzer, 1999). Religiosity is thus diverse enough to be
a meaningful descriptor for people possessing a range
of intellectual abilities, emotional sensitivities, and
learning styles.
• Individual religious beliefs are the outcome of multiple
causes, including personality, reasoning style, family
socialization, and views of larger society (Caldwell-
Harris et al., 2008).
• The diversity of individuals’ religious beliefs reflects
evolved psychological mechanisms, with at least some
differences representing diverse tools in humanity's
adaptive tool kit.
• The thinking styles of individuals with HFA are on a
continuum with normal functioning and represent a
difference, not a deficit (Atwood, 2006).
Table 1 lists some specific ways in which known
characteristics of HFA may co-occur with distinctive
patterns of religiosity.
To avoid oversimplifying HFA, religion, and the
interactions between HFA and religion, our research will be
exploratory, rather than hypothesis-driven. Our framework
recognizes the potential for diversity in religious beliefs
among HFA individuals, while still supporting the claim
that HFA makes a distinctive, measurable, and predictable
difference in religiosity.
To guide us in the investigation of these hypotheses, we
developed a set of "Thinking Traits" that have been shown
3362
by researchers to be typical of the HFA population (Baron-
Cohen et al. 2003; De Martino et al. 2008; Frith 1991; Frith
and Happe 2005; Kohls 2009; Shore 2001). Prominent
among these is systemizing, which Baron-Cohen (2003)
defines as the drive to analyze, explore and construct a
system. Others are norm-rejection (Frith 1991), emphasis
on rationality, social disinterest, social discomfort, literal
mindedness, and need for structure.
Table 1: Correlations predicted from the literature
Characteristics of High
Functioning Autistics
Correlated pattern of
religiosity
Hypoactive agency detection Avoid supernaturalism
(Deeley, 2009)
Concrete; literal-minded;
discomfort with symbolic
fluidity; local processing bias;
attraction to scientism
Preference for logical
beliefs; avoid metaphoric
construals of religious
texts
Need for sameness and
predictability
Rigid and doctrinaire
(Graez & Dubin, 2009)
Difficulty navigating new
social relations
Appreciation of socially
welcoming religious
community (Graez &
Dubin, 2009)
Personality psychologists have identified two styles of
reasoning: emphasis on logic and emphasis on intuition
(Demaria, Kassinove & Dill 1989). As the Autism Spectrum
Disorder (ASD) thinking traits are indicative of a logical
cognitive style, we developed a set of thinking traits that
would be represented in postings by neurotypical (NT)
individuals. The NT thinking traits embody the
complimentary attributes of the ASD thinking traits. For
example the NT thinking trait "emphasis on intuition" was
developed to compliment the ASD thinking trait "emphasis
on logic". The NT thinking traits looked for in the postings
were emphasis on intuition, oriented towards social rewards,
empathizing, symbolic fluidity/gestalt thinking, and
openness to experience. The presence or absence these
thinking traits are proposed to influence the religious beliefs
of individuals across both populations, placing individuals
on a continuum of cognitive styles that influence religiosity.
Study 1: Analysis of Discussion Forums
Method
The public discussion forum wrongplanet.net was
designed for persons with autistic spectrum disorder (HFA).
It currently has over 25,000 members from English
speaking countries, although the majority are located in the
United States. The forum boards have topics specific to
autism, such as General Autism Discussion; Autism
Politics, Activism, and Media Representation; Adult Autism
Issues; Adolescent Forum. The site allows users to post
profiles including a "diagnostic description" category;
possible descriptions include : AS Diagnosed, AS
undiagnosed, "not sure if I have it or not", Other HFA, NT
(Neurotypical).
The neurotypical forum analyzed was golivewire.com/
teen forums. Because discussion forum websites are usually
formed on the basis of some common interest (such as cat
lovers, sports, political affiliations) we needed to find a
website that was likely to share a common age demographic
with wrongplanet.net but did not otherwise specify a
specific group; golivewire.com/teenforums fit this criteria.
The population of this website was mainly based in the
United States.
On each of these two forums, the authors and research
assistants read through the forums for discussions about
religion. On wrongplanet the forum that was analyzed was
titled Religion/Philosophy/Politics; on golivewire the one
analyzed was titled Religion and Philosophy.
Participants
To ensure that posts were analyzed in a systematic
fashion, we planned to included in our content analysis 200
consecutive posts. We ended up with 192 posts from
different users who identified themselves as individuals
with HFA, and 195 users from golivewire.com (the NT
group). All posts were collected within a year time frame
(February 2009-March 2008). For each user, we included
the first post containing a clear expression of religious
beliefs, as defined by a coding protocol (more details below;
full protocol available from the authors).
Coding Religious Beliefs
Users from the discussion forums were coded for
religious categories using the method of ethnographic
content analysis (Altheide, 1987). Each individual was
assigned one of the following categories: Agnosticism,
Atheism, Christianity, Other Theistic, Own Construction,
Neo-Pagan, Non-theistic, and Other. Coding was easiest
when users explicitly used one of these labels or a related
term (e.g., it is straightforward to coded "I'm Catholic" as
Christian). Due to the debates over conceptual overlap
between non-belief categories, our group developed a series
of semantic clarifications between atheist, agnostic, and
"nontheistic not further specified". Coders were trained
through practice with example quotes from discussion
forums that were not used in the final forum analysis. Upon
completion of the practice quotes, coders met together to
resolve discrepancies. Coders were blinded to the diagnosis
category of each user during all coding. Inter-rater
reliability for religious beliefs was 93%.
Coding Thinking Traits
It was not required that each participant be assigned a
thinking trait as it is expected that these will be exhibited
spontaneously. Because the length and depth of religious
description varied among the users, it was possible for some
users to be assigned no thinking traits while others
demonstrated multiple thinking traits. Coders were trained
with practice quotes from online forums that were not used
in the forum analysis portion of our experiment. Group
discussions followed the completion of practice quotes to
3363
ensure a full understanding of the thinking trait categories.
Inter-rater reliability was 90%.
Data Analysis
The distribution of religious orientations across the NT
and HFA samples were analyzed using a Chi Square test.
The distribution of HFA and NT thinking traits were
analyzed across populations using the Mann Whitney U test.
Results
Religious Beliefs
Religious beliefs were found to differ significantly
between the HFA and NT populations, ?² (12, N=387)=
43.69, p < .01. As shown in Figure 1, individuals with HFA
were less likely to belong to an organized religion than their
NT counterparts and were more likely to create their own
religious belief system. The "own-construction" category
comprised 16% of the HFA population as compared to only
6% of the NT population. HFA individuals also
demonstrated higher rates of non-belief identities such as
Atheism (26%) and Agnosticism (17%). In the NT group,
only 17% of the population were Atheists and 10% were
Agnostic.
Figure 1: Religious Belief by Group, Forum Analysis
Thinking Traits
The Mann Whitney U comparison between groups was
significant for emphasis on rationality, (z=-5.26, p<.05),
social discomfort (z=-2.27, p<.05), and social disinterest
(z=-2.02, p<.05), but not for any other thinking trait
category, although the trend was in the expected direction
for literal mindedness see Figure 2). NT thinking traits did
not vary across the two groups.
Figure 2: Thinking Traits by Group, Forum Analysis
Summary
We hypothesized that traits typically displayed among
HFA individuals such as attraction to scientism and hyper
rationality would render these individuals less likely to
embrace supernaturalism and religious belief. Consistent
with this, Atheism and Agnosticism were more frequent in
the HFA group than the NT group. Previous research has
established systemizing (Baron-Cohen et al. 2003) and lowconformity
(Frith 1991) as prominent traits among HFA
individuals. We proposed that HFA individuals would be
likely to construct their own belief systems, drawing on
their interest in systemizing and lack of need to conform to
approved social behaviors. The belief orientation category
of "own Construction" was more frequently endorsed by
individuals in the HFA sample as compared to the NT
sample.
Although most of the Autism Spectrum Disorder
Thinking Traits did not differ between the two groups,
emphasis on rationality was notably higher for wrongplanet
users. Social discomfort and social disinterest was also
slightly higher for the HFA and NT populations.
Study 2: Internet Questionnaire
Method
Participants
Sixty-one participants who identified themselves as
individuals with an Autism Spectrum Disorder completed
our survey. Respondents gained access to our survey from
links posted on popular online autism communities and did
so on a voluntary basis. One hundred-and-five individuals
consisting mainly of undergraduates at a northeastern
university taking psychology classes comprised our
neurotypical (NT) comparison group. Demographically, the
HFA and NT populations were similar except greater ethnic
diversity was demonstrated by the NT population in
comparison to the HFA group which included primarily
Caucasian participants. Although participants in the HFA
group demonstrated a wider age range than the NT group,
the majority of both populations were younger than 30 years
old.
Questionnaire
Diagnostic Information. Participants were asked whether
they had obtained a diagnoses of Autism Spectrum
Disorders as well as any other emotional, behavioral, or
cognitive conditions they might have.
Religious Belief. Participants wrote their religious
orientation, briefly described their beliefs and rated the
intensity of their beliefs on a scale of 1 to 5. (1 = only
slightly, 2 = somewhat, 3 = moderately, 4 = quite religious,
5= deeply religious). Questions included the presence and
frequency of the individual's current and childhood religious
practices, including education. Information regarding
parent's religious beliefs and practices both presently and
during the participants' childhood was also collected.
3364
Autism Quotient. Baron-Cohen's Autism Quotient is
comprised of 50 Likert statements. This measure can be
used to define a continuum between autism and
neurotypicals, with prior data on AQ scores showing that
autism > Asperger’s > mathematicians > scientists > college
professors > all males > all females (Baron-Cohen et al,
2001a).
Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test. Participants were
presented with 36 different photos of eyes and asked to
identify the emotion from a set of 4 choices (Baron-Cohen
et al., 2001b). This test measures facial affect recognition
and is considered a sensitive index of emotional
intelligence, including theory of mind.
Systemizing Quotient Revised. This scale requires
participants to rate their degree of interest in different types
of systemizing including collecting facts and figuring out
how mechanical objects work (Baron-Cohen, Richler,
Bisarya, Gurunathan, & Wheelwright, 2003).
Data Analysis
Religion between populations. Frequencies of religious
orientations for each population were compared using a Chi
Square analysis. One way ANOVAs were used to compare
mean scores for each measure across religious categories,
followed up by Tukey post hoc comparisons to detect
specific differences between the religious categories.
AQ, SQ and Reading the Mind in the Eyes. The scores of
each participant for the AQ, SQ, and Reading the Mind in
the Eyes test were all correlated to determine the feasibility
of a continuum from neurotypical to autism.
Results
Religious beliefs were found to differ significantly
between the HFA and NT populations, __ (12, N= 166) =
22.698, p < .01. As was found in the content analysis of
discussion forums, HFA questionnaire respondents were
less likely than their NT counterparts to belong to an
organized religion. HFA individuals were more likely to be
atheist than were NT individuals. The "own construction"
belief category was also found to be proportionally greater
in the HFA population than in the NT population (see
Figure 3).
Figure 3: Religious Belief by Group, Questionnaire
To further investigate these findings, chi square tests were
used to detect differences between populations regarding
specific religious orientation pairings that were of "a priori"
interest. A significant difference was found between HFA
and NT groups when comparing distribution of Christian
and Atheist groups, ?² (1, N= 86) = 12.65, p< .001, and
Atheist and Jewish groups, ?² (1, N= 47) = 11.47.
One way ANOVAs were used to test for significant
differences in scores between religious categories.
Autism quotient. Across both populations AQ scores
differed significantly between religious categories, F (7,141)
= 4.33, p < .001 (see Figure 4). Tukey post hoc comparisons
of the religious categories indicate that Atheists (M = 32.89,
95% CI [28.55, 37.23]) scored significantly higher on the
AQ than Christians (M = 22.98, 95% CI [19.91, 26.04]) and
Jewish individuals (M= 15.57, 95% CI [10.82, 20.33]). In
addition, individuals in the Own Construction category (M
=28.07, 95% CI [22.12, 34.01]) scored significantly higher
than Jewish individuals (M= 15.57, 95% CI [10.82, 20.33]).
Figure 4: Autism Quotient for Religious Identity
Systemizing quotient. Atheists had higher SQ scores (M=
44.38, 95% CI [36.69, 52.06]) scores than other respondents
(M=27.61, 95% CI [20.63, 34.6]).
Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test. Although scores on
the Eyes Test were higher for neurotypicals than for HFA
respondents, no significant differences were found between
religious categories within the HFA and NT populations.
AQ, SQ, Reading the Mind in the Eyes Task. A Pearson
correlation was conducted among the three quantitative
measures to demonstrate internal validity. Results indicated
a significant relationship between the AQ and the Reading
the Mind in the Eyes Task, r = -.36, n= 153, p < .001, as
well as between the AQ and the SQ, r =.47, n=153, p <.001.
No significant relationship was found between the SQ and
the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Task.
Summary
Results were consistent with the content analysis of the
forum postings. In addition, we demonstrated that the
autism quotient covaries with religious belief, combining
over the HFA and NT groups, consistent with the proposal
of a continuum in thinking styles from NT to high
functioning autism.
Conclusions
Historically the study of religious belief was as far from
the purview of cognitive science as any topic in human
behavior could be. This has changed over the last decade as
cognitive science has come to be the field where it is
legitimate to combine in a single research program disparate
3365
disciplines, even when they are outside the traditional
cognitive science area of computer modeling of information
processing tasks. Recently, the "cognitive science of
religion" has emerged as a research program in which
religion is understood as a product of cognitive aspects of
the mind, such as an exaggeration of the normal human
ability to infer agency, impose patterns on noise, and infer
others mental states (Guthrie, 1993; Barrett, 2004). We
suggest that individual differences in cognitive styles is an
important predictor of human belief systems, including
religious belief. An extreme type of cognitive style is high
functioning autism. The 2 studies reported here found that
individuals with HFA have a higher rate than neurotypicals
of endorsing atheism and agnosticism. HFA individuals
thus resemble another group of high-systemizers
(scientists), who also reject religious belief at a relatively
high rate.
Acknowledgments
This work has been supported by a grant from Boston
University to the first author to support undergraduate
teaching and research (GUTS award). BU’s UROP program
gave grants to Caitlin Fox Murphy and Tessa Velazquez.
References
Altheide, D. L. (1987). Ethnographic content analysis.
Qualitative Sociology, 10 (1), 65-77.
Attwood, T.(2003). Learning and behaviour problems in
Aspergers syndrome. New York: Guilford Press
Baron-Cohen, S. (2003). The essential difference: The truth
about the male and female brain. New York: Basic
Books.
Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., Frith, U. (1985). Does the
autistic child have a “Theory of Mind”? Cognition, 21,
37-46.
Baron-Cohen., S. et al. (2001a). The autism-spectrum
quotient (AQ): Evidence from Asperger syndrome/ highfunctioning
autism, males and females, scientists and
mathematicians. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 31, 5-17.
Baron-Cohen, S., Richler, J., Bisarya, D., Gurunathan, N., &
Wheelwright, S. (2003). The systemizing quotient: An
investigation of adults with Asperger’s syndrome or high
functioning autism, and normal sex differences.
Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society, 358,
361-374.
Baron-Cohen, S., et al. (2001b). The “reading the mind in
the eyes” test revised version: A study with normal adults
and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning
autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 42,
241-251.
Barrett, Justin. (2004). Why would anyone believe in God?
Lanham MD: Altamira.
Demaria, T. P., Kassinove, H., Dill, C. D. (1989).
Psychometric properties of the questionnaire of personal
beliefs: A rational emotive measure of irrational thinking.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 53 (2) 329-341.
Dewey, M. (1992). “Living with Asperger syndrome.
Autism and Asperger Syndrome. (pp. 185-206).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
De Martino, B., Harrison, N.A., Knafo, S., Bird, G., &
Dolan, R.J. (2008). Explaining enhanced logical
consistency during decision making in autism. Journal of
Neuroscience, 28, 10746-10750.
Frith, U. (1991). Asperger and his syndrome. In U. Frith
(Ed.), Autism and Asperger Syndrome (pp. 1-36).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frith U, Happe F (2005). Autism spectrum disorder.
Current Biology, 15, 786-90.
Guthrie, S. (1993). Faces in the clouds: A new theory of
religion. New York: Oxford University Press
Heider, F., Simmel, M. (1944). An experimental study of
apparent behavior. The American Journal of Psychology,
57(2), 243-259.
McCrae, R.R. (1999). Mainstream personality psychology
and the study of religion. Journal of Personality, 133,
631-640.
Rue, L. (2006). Religion is not about God: How spiritual
traditions nurture our biological nature and what to
expect when they fail, Rutgers University Press.
Saroglou, V. (2002). Religion and the five factors of
personality: A meta-analytic review. Personality and
Individual Differences, 32, 15-25.
3366

[Annointed Remnant]

In article <c56e9497-1720-4992...@r28g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Elijahovah says...

>
>> I see you've been on the dating
>sites. No luck, eh?
>
>You dont have to date...

But you are looking...

>everything from friend to platonic to
>asking for cheaper labor is instead
>people wanting hookups for sex or asking
>for cash (in however manner including sex
>if that's what it takes).

If you don't like what dating web sites have to offer then why are you looking?

>I see only scum online

I met my wife on-line. I don't consider her to be scum. What dating sites are
you looking at?

[Greegor]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.jehovahs-witn/msg/88926fe97e03d8f5

On Oct 31, 11:02 pm, Annointed Remnant <Annointed_mem...@newsguy.com>

> I met my wife on-line. I don't consider her to be scum.
> What dating sites are you looking at?

Aspergers limits your social life that much, AR?