Dark Moth

Actually, "retard", when describing a person, is more of a derogatory term, also usually offensive when applied to describe the mentally handicapped. That's common knowledge, unless you're living in fantasy land. Also, if you think I'm making this up, LINK

Bigots!! They should be banned!! Excellent point.

I'd say one example of immaturity is thinking that you'll magically cure a problem by silencing all those who disagree with you.

Actually, the question is more like how much I don't have.

No, I just don't agree with your whole opinion on the matter. You don't have to be so gay about it.

Actually no, I think I did have a point. You're just being gay about the whole issue.

Why not post your "evidence", then? At least you could then back it up. Or are you just basing this on your "gut feeling"? I hope you realize also that it is rather unrealistic, except under the most "conveniant" circumstances, for a person born of a lowly carpenter to somehow be able to afford to travel the world and get an education.

How sweet.

The New Testament (not the Bible) came after his death, I know. But I don't see how you can say that a lot of Christianity is not what Jesus taught, unless you count many of the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church (hardly taught by the apostles either). Are there any specific things you have in mind? As for the quote, yes, Jesus did say that, according to the Bible. One of the most famous is Mathew 26: 63-64: "The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God; Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." That's not the only one, there are more. Sorry, but I have to leave and won't have time to post them all, but here are two more. I don't have time to write them all out. You'll have to look them up, I'm afraid. John 14: 9-14, John 3: 16-18 Anyway, my main point is not that he was the Son of God, though as a Christian I believe so, just that there is considerable evidence he said so. Can you back your statements up? Otherwise they're just made up by someone else. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ Most scholars agree he lived in Galilee for most of his life. I'd like to know where you read that he "traveled the world".

I'm talking about the statements he makes himself. Not what the apostles said. As for him being educated, that is simply untrue. His father was a carpenter, and he was a carpenter. He wasn't educated either, his social status was nothing more than that of the common people. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wrong. He left his home town at around 15 years old and returned years later in his early thirties. During this 15 years gap in history he traveled the known world and when he came back, he knew many things, including how to clean mucus-encrusted eyes to cure blindness, finding shallow waters, changing fishing location, etc. He just knew more things than his (still) ignorant people and his actions seemed like miracles to the (still) religious fanatics surrounding him. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Can you back that up? Otherwise, you're just making things up.

What do you mean, exactly?

I'm talking about the statements he makes himself. Not what the apostles said. As for him being educated, that is simply untrue. His father was a carpenter, and he was a carpenter. He wasn't educated either, his social status was nothing more than that of the common people.

I just have a question: why then would he say all the things that pointed to him being the son of god? Also, he wasn't educated. He was a carpenter.

Mass ignorance = acceptable. I love the logic! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, genius. My point was that with it being as pervasive as it is, it'd be impossible and pointless to ban everyone who uses the term "gay" negatively.

Well, people tend to learn what's more "important" in history. Generally speaking, with the US and much of europe, the so-called "white history" is more important to them, because it is that history which bears directly on them today. Hence, in U.S. history, you won't learn about the march of the Slavs at the dawn of Russian history. I think what's important here is that we dedicate our history to learning what's most important, but trying to be all-inclusive, all the time, when appropriate. And I think one way is to devote equal amounts of time to learning the history of one's own country as well as the history of the rest of the world. But to devote an entire month to the history of a particular skin color is just silly.

Wrong. A true lightsider would weigh his options, considering the goal he meant to achieve, whether it was right, and whether or not his means are right. A true lighsider would always look for the morally better alternative for any action, and would only result to doing something "evil" when no other options are available and when it HAS to be done. And even assuming the LS person was forced into doing something evil, then he/she would still be doing something for the greater good, and would still be LS. That does NOT make him/her "neutral". Actually, no. Walking the gray side means being undecided, doing whatever you think best suits you. And in doing so you never truly excel in any path, just dabble in both. Wisdom and knowledge first comes from knowing yourself, where you think you belong, and then doing what you think is right or wrong. And even if walking the grayside was truly possible, you'd be inheriting the strengths AND weaknesses of both. You can't harness just the strengths of both sides. Honestly, you need to stop listening to Kreia. Once again, no. Nihilus himself was a wound in the force. The Sith were able to track the exile because of being a "wound in the force". Listen to the Jedi masters in the end of the game and you'll see why the exile was a threat. And of course, from the exile and nihilus, the Sith could learn the same technique, and then be able to turn it against the Jedi. The masters did not want that to happen. If Revan was truly DS, he would have said "yes" to Bastila, as can be done in the game. Part of being DS is doing whatever you want without regards to those around you (something Kreia was an advocate of). Being a gray Jedi would not make you somehow more powerful. For one thing, Revan and the exile were not neutral. They were who you chose them to be. Kreia wasn't neutral, she was evil. Revan and the exile succeeded because they knew what they wanted to do, how to it, and had the power to do it. It doesn't come from being "neutral", rather just being able to have good judgement. Example: the exile unleashed the mass shadow generator. Sure it could be consdered wrong, but look at the situation: the Republic was desperate, neither side was winning, and people were dying. The shadow generator, though heinous, may have actually saved more lives, thus it was the right thing, not evil. As for the exile, if he did it proudly without caring for the lives lost and willing to do it over again for the hell of it, he's definitely evil. If the exile regrets having to do it, doesn't wish to do it again (but at the same time realizing it was necessary), then he's not evil, he's more LS. and who said that? Pretty much all the creators of SW, as well as many fans in general. DS = evil. Unless you mean to suggest that being evil is ok. "

Yeah, and down goes freedom of speech. Banning somebody for using the word "gay" negatively is among the stupidest reasons. "Saying something like: "Why would you do that? That's so gay!" For one thing, the word used in that context has evolved into generally something that is stupid. If you're going to scream "homophobe"! and ban them everytime somebody says something like that, then you really need to reconsider your position.

^_^

Creating a sanctuary for homosexuals isn't fair to begin with, and won't solve the problem. You don't defeat bad ideas by cutting yourself off. You only defeat bad ideas with better ideas. And like it or not, there will always be people who do not agree with homosexuality. But that does not necessarily make them intolerant or bigotted. It would be better if both sides would learn how to respect each other. But IMO, neither side is helping the matter. I heard that! Winners win, okay? Losers make excuses! :angry: i live in Washington, so it kind of just came out subconsciously. i personally thought the Stealers played a better game, and would've won even if there weren't any "iffy" calls. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Personally, I think the Steelers played the worse game and the Seahawks had the "iffy" calls. But they still won. But I'll stop now.

Just to top it off: to say Revan was LS at the time of his betrayal is just loony!

I heard that! Winners win, okay? Losers make excuses! :angry: BOT: Blizzard shouldn't have to apologize. It's their community, for one thing. It was even against guidelines in the first place to try to create a "homosexual friendly" community. I think this is mostly a case of the pro-gay community whining becuase they didn't get their way.

Technically DS is usually the "wrong thing". Or are you suggesting that a gray jedi is obligated to balance out all his good works with bad ones? That say if he donated money to a homeless person in the morning he'd have to go and rob somebody in the evening to even things out?

I just thought they were lovers, not fighters.

I never was a fan of the "freedom fries" fad. But yeah, I guess it did look this stupid.

Agreed. Being gray doesn't automatically make you wise or powerful. But to be neutral as a person is practically impossible, unless you are just apathetic.