Dark Moth

Interestingly I can't find any reference to weapons now. However, while looking I find another quote by him: "It's not a police state for everybody else because these terror laws are designed specifically for Muslims and that's quite an open fact." He also critcised the police for their 'amateur interrogation techniques', suggesting he objects to our being an amateurish police state. Which leads me to suspect we have finally located Onur the Courageous. What did the ME ever do to us? The poor guy is just a victim of western society. :'(

Here's hoping the "responsible" soldier gets dishonorably discharged.

My bad, I actually meant Home Edition was the inferior product, I just wasn't looking at what I was typing. Unfortunately I haven't used either at home, so I wouldn't know either.

Thanks for the suggestions everyone, I have one last question: would you recommend either XP Home or XP Pro? XP Pro costs more, but according to Meta it's an inferior product. I'm mostly going to be using Windows for games, and not much else, so does it really matter? Opinions?

I never would have thought heavy metal could be relaxing, but that's exactly what the second half of "Orion" is (to a degree). Metallica - Orion + Tom Petty - The Waiting

Ugh...stupid, but not hardly surprising. I saw the ad and don't see why anyone should be offended. There's really no nice way for me to say what's on my mind, sooo.. Anyone offended by that ad has no sense of humor, or is just plain an idiot.

And all anyone has to do to prevent being harmed in a car accident is to drive safely. No need for seatbelts. That would be just fine, if you were the only person on the road driving. Let's say you're sitting at a stoplight, minding your own business, not wearing a seatbelt, then someone rams you from behind at 50 miles per hour. Or how about you're driving on the highway at 70 miles per hour, then your tire blows and your car spirals out of control - in the middle of traffic. Or maybe you're driving home at night, stopped at a stop sign, then a crazy drunk driver comes out of nowhere and hits you head on. Or perhaps you're a senior citizen who suddenly has a heart attack behind the wheel, and the car goes out of control, and you collide into opposing traffic (which did happen in my own town). Case closed. Wear a seatbelt, children.

Relax, Eddo. We're all sure you'll be out in about 10 years, give or take a couple.

Well for me, it'd be 5... But since the Steelers didn't make it the playoffs this year, I rooted for the Colts. So yeah.

I don't know. It'll be nice to rub this in Kum's face after a season of smack talk, though. :D

DA BEARS!!!!!! Just as I said before, the Bears' defense is overrated, and their offense is nothing special. Man, how about the Colts' defense though? You'd think the coach loaded them up on steroids right after the end of the regular season. Major congratulations to them, though. I could understand Manning's frustration though, since a lot of times it seemed just stupid things were happening to the Colts. I have to give the guy a lot of credit though, he and Dungy deserved the SB. I will say though I heartily disagree with Manning being the MVP. The only reason he got that was well...because he's Peyton Manning. *edited by moth for decency*

:whoops: @ this thread.

"You're a dwarf!! Quick to temper, quick to drink, quick to tell a tale. You're stout and short.. You're extremely strong.. And love jewels, metal, anything that can come from a mine... And Hate elves.. you're almost opposites... But that's alright.. Who needs those tree dwelling pansies anyhow? Right?"

Please present some proof to back your claim that Paul didn't attempt to silence the gnostic sects... Yeah, he attempted to silence and rebuke gnostics. But he didn't stamp them out completely, as your statement implied. You should word your phrases more carefully. EDIT: Hey, they removed the ratings system!

You might not have said it outright, but you certainly implied it. You made it sound like he was the one solely responsible, and that he really did "stamp out" dissenting views, both of which are wrong. If that's not what you intended, then you should word your phrases more carefully.

My bad, I sort of misinterpreted what you said. Also, what 'contemporaneous' religions are you referring to? I was referring to Pidesco, hence the reason I quoted him. " Also, I don't take all my facts from the Bible, so please kindly don't spout off that BS about me. That said, I don't see how the rest of your point disproves the fact that Protestantism is just as 'backwards' as Catholicism. Who cares where their viewpoints came from? What matters is that they incorporated those modern viewpoints into their new religions. Also, the Anglican Church didn't come to power on its own, it was formed by a Henry the VIII due to his disdain for the church and so was government-sanctioned. Anyway, my main point is that you can't say that the Protestant faiths didn't introduce new and/or revolutionary ideas to their time.

*sigh* Luther wanted a traditional interpretation of the Bible, but many of his teachings are what actually lead to the modernizing of many aspects of the Church. The concept of 'buying forgiveness' is something that's mostly unheard of in today's society, thanks to Luther. In the historical context it's traditional, but back then that was a new concept. Many of his teachings were more progressive, such as his views of women, the taking of spouses for clergy, translating the Bible into the vernacular, the weakening of Church hierarchy, etc. Don't forget the Catholic Church was the only real decider of dogma until the schism, what it dictated was obeyed, and people only knew what the Catholic Church told them to do. How about translating the Bible into vernacular from the Latin? Luther was one of the first to do that after the Catholic Church rose to power, and it even lead to the development of the modern German language. His teachings also sparked the Calvinist movement, which was even more influential than Lutheranism. Sorry, it's historical fact... The gnostic sects and gospels, were widespread and persisted after Paul's death, genius, and it wasn't him alone who was responsible for Christianity's spreading. THAT is historical fact. I dare you to prove otherwise.

Again, no.

+

Schools could also help by not serving the crap that could easily pass as fast food everyday in the cafeterias.

John wasn't his 'religious master'. And that's not true. There are a lot of reasons why it spread so fast, not just one "twist of fate". Blank, I don't think you understand that the Catholic worldview is based upon a Medieval mindset whereas Protestantism is more dependent upon Renaissance and Enlightenment concepts. First, I'd argue that the Catholic worldview was the basis for the Medieval mindset and not the other way around. Second of all, Protestantism is not more dependent on Renaissance and Enlightenment concepts by itself. In fact, Protestantism as envisioned by Luther, Calvin and the rest, was dogmatically, at least as backwards as Catholicism. While Protestantism did prove to be a lot more conducive to progress than Catholicism, that wasn't due to any doctrinal progressivism on its part but rather, on the fact that they had very little political power and as such couldn't influence goings on as much as the Catholic Church could. Again, that's not true. Ever here of indulgences? (and that's just one among others) And no offense, but with all the times you've been wrong about these topics, it'd probably be best for you to learn more about this before you start stating 'facts' on the matter.

(I'll come back in just for this). Probably because the most important stuff he did was around the age of 30. It was only after his Baptism by John when he was really 'called' to his mission. But actually, Jesus's childhood has been written about, I think you'll want to check out the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Kind of fascinating, actually. However, it's part of the Apocrypha, and was considered non-canonical when the Bible was finally put together. Draw your own conclusions.

Even the most tolerant people snap if enough pressure is applied, and my day provided that pressure. Also, how are your belifes any more well founded than my own? Don't ask me, I'm not the one who went around ranting about how all atheists are intolerant, stereotyping, and edgy. " I'll tell you what though, next time I have bad day, I'll go on rant bashing all atheists, how about that? Keep this in mind too: the moment you become the thing you're fighting, you lose the battle. Also, I think Ravenskya is right (again). I think it's best I left this discussion as well. Buena suerte, everyone. Adios.

Here's the thing. Those who seek to dilute the teaching of science with religion should first give up the fruits of that teaching. With enough faith in God, religious people should have no need for sinful technologies - antibiotics, gene therapy, insulin, microwave ovens, etc. Is it not an affront to God to forsake His Love for the fruits of Godless science? You didn't answer the question. Answer it, or don't answer at all. Also, what you've said is simply untrue, and it seems you really don't know what you're talking about. You're speaking as if every religious person is an lunatic nutjob. And I personally find it appalling that you're spouting off such unjustified nonsense. When you say things like that, I take it as a direct insult, because you're stereotyping me as well. Please, either be civil about this, or keep your mouth shut.

I think you've summed it up perfectly.