Dark Moth

You can't eat it, it doesn't protect you from cold, it can't take you to places (no, hell & heaven don't count), and for the majority, it's not enough to be happy. Mostly worthless. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A lot of it depends on how you define happiness. And no, I'm not talking about the food and shelter part. Ironically, recent studies have shown people with religion tend to be happier with their lives. It's because most of the major world religions tend to encourage people to look beyond themselves and materialism and to also be content with what they have. It gives people guidance on how to live and how to treat others. It provides a moral platform for many. You could point to all the strife and division it's caused, but to do that you'd also have to ignore the amount of unity, good, and brotherhood it has inspired as well. So no, it's not entirely worthless. Material-wise, yes. Spiritually-wise, no.

Alright. Here are a few verses for those of you who doubt me. Sura 2:216 Sura 9:29 Sura 8:38-40 Sura 9:5 Sura 5:35-37 Sura 8:65

Of course we want verses, you cant say something like that and not back it up. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Alright. un momento. @DL: "

For one thing, if someone kills in the name of religion, that is their failing, not religion's. A lot of people are so quick to condemn religion itself for it's 'crimes' instead of blaming those who are too ignorant to interpret their own faith. Also, as I've said countless times already on these boards, Christianity does not support the Crusades, the witch burnings, the Spanish inquisition, or anything you can name. That is humanity's fault. Islam, however, explicitely condones violence in the name of religion. It encourages its believers to go out and slay in the name of Allah. This is all according to the Quran. If you want verses, I shall be happy to post them. And unlike Christianity, Islam teaches that the Quran itself is the one and true word of god printed exactly as it was in heaven. Christianity however makes no such claim. Islam's empire was itself built on bloodshed. And look at it today. It's religious fanatics carry out atrocities all in the name of Allah. We've seen it on 9/11, and we are seeing it in Iraq.

Don't forget the seductive voice, and um, certain 'gifted' areas. "

Okay. Well, there's those mentioned in the Bible, but I guess you wouldn't call that secular. If you bother to take into consideration the sheer amount of people who recorded his existance mentioned in the Bible and histories (such as Eusebius), you could count that. Pontius Pilate definitely existed. Some of his Apostles are known to have actually existed. Unless you want to say it was a mass conspiracy of 12+ men who were so psychotic they were willing to die for their beliefs. Heck, Peter was crucified upside-down for it! Paul spent years and years in prison for it. And think about this: if the man never existed and was not crucified, the people would have known this, especially the Roman government. To my knowledge, Romans never denied he existed, either, once Christianity started to spread. They were primarily concerned with stopping its spread. I doubt a man who never existed would cause that much controversy. In fact, one of the reasons for the Roman's persecution of Jesus and Christians was the fear that they would incite rebellion in Empire. There's also the historical artifacts such the shroud of Turin. Also, don't forget the ancient Roman arrest warrant for a Jesus of Nazareth (in the latin, it goes something like "Yeshua de Nazarine", but I'm no Latin expert) There was also another artifact (can't remember exactly what it was) that was inscribed as belonging to Joseph, brother of Jesus. There are others. I unfortunately can't recall/find the rest. But if I recall more and you wish to hear it, I'll try to post it. I'll try to post some links as well so people don't think I'm making this all up. And mind you, I never said "proof", just "evidence", and that is what this is. A lot of people don't deny his existance. Most doubters just don't believe he was the Son of God.

Fine then. But just to be fair, don't quote and take it out of context or else people who know nothing about it will get the wrong idea. That is why I bothered to correct you in the first place. A person who read your quote might think Jesus actually did what you claimed. Get what I'm driving at, here? (btw, there is historical evidence to support his existance. Whether or not he was the divine being himself is another issue)

WRONG. What you quoted was a section of one of Jesus's parables in which he was quoting the King (a character in the parable). Honestly, if you want to quote something, don't take it out of context. And by the way, in case it may interest you, when Jesus was being arrested he actually stopped his disciples from killing those who attempted to catch him.

"Oh lord, bless this thou Holy Hand Grenade that it may blow thine enemies to tiny bits...in thy mercy."

"Evolution: When scientists made monkeys out of themselves." "The Big Bang Theory: God said it, and BANG! It happened." :D

The issue of Clinton's impeachment wasn't adultery, it was perjury and obstruction of justice. He lied under oath and that was what they were able to get him with.

One of the worst things I did aside from killing someone was taking that woman's wraid plate (the one her family pretty much needed for survival) away from her on Tatooine in K1.

"

I think she'd appear more mentally disturbed for wanting to keep it that way that badly. "

Isn't it obvious I meant to do that? Just making sure you were paying attention, GoA. "

I'll do it if you still need someone! Your forum monkey is always happy to help. About how long is this questionaire, BTW?

Clinton was a great president, actually. I didn't like him much at the time, but in hindsight, I'd have to say he was pretty damned good. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah right. Clinton made many mistakes that the media tend to overlook. Most noticeably his butchering of our nation's intelligence bureaus, and letting bin Laden literally get away with murder.

Not necessarily. As a whole, I do not believe he is incompetant. But I think he did make certain mistakes leading up to the war. As for WMD's, the incompetance lies with those responsible for the intelligence. In other words, the evidence showed Saddam Hussein had WMD's and was a danger. Maybe not to us, but definitely those around him. It wasn't until afterward that we found out they did not have those weapons. And for the record, Saddam did have WMD's. He used them against his own people. And while he may not have been able to strike the U.S., I for one would not have wanted to wait around long enough for him to have the ability. And evidence does show he had sought WMD's before the war. Even the 'yellowcake' intelligence that was supposed to have been faulty (the one the dems were using to blast Bush with) now may have actually been authentic, according to re-examination. (that according to the Butler Report) I don't think we should have went to war the way we did, though. We already had a job to do in Afghanistan, and clearly we weren't prepared to stay there for as long as we are now. But no - Bush never lied.

Kudos for the constructive posting.

Those who actually believe Bush deliberately lied about WMD's are either ignorant, misinformed, foolish, or all three. (that applies to you too, Hades) Sorry, but that's the way it is. Bush made a decision based on faulty intelligence he was given by those around him. I admit, having read some of the evidence given myself, I too was convinced. But that would make the current situation the fault of those responsible for the intelligence (CIA, FBI, etc), not President Bush himself. I am not 100% behind Bush. I don't think he's all that great a President. I think he had great objectives, but probably wasn't the man for the job. However, he did far more globally than Clinton ever did. The only reason Clinton is viewed so positively by some is because he didn't get this country in a mess with other nations and presided over a great economy. He was the one who let bin Laden get away. He was the one who had a chance to prevent 9/11, but he didn't. And now, that same guy is criticizing the President for not doing enough beforehand to prevent 9/11.

Correction: Jodo was a clone commander. I am Jodo's alt, btw. No, really. We are so much alike, after all. "

The world is a harsh place to be in. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ... Ironically a world that christians have had a large part in shaping ... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> LOL good one and so true. +20 Influence gained. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> *influence lost*

Spoken like a man who's never hit Bare Assets after ten straight hours at the tables. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Say what you like, but I think even a conservative Christian would admit that they don't want a conservative Christian to be the guy they hit Vegas with. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh, so I guess that completely justifies your comment, doesn't it? Nice to know ignorance and bigotry works both ways, huh Commissar? :D

Behold the power of the Darkside. :D