fakeitormakeit2

The first one is War, it ends when you find the gift of peace. The second one is Famine, it ends when you find the grain of plenty. the third one is Plague, it ends when you find the box of health. the fourth one is Death, it ends when you find the cradle of life. That is extremely interesting. I would have never seen that. Does the fact it tells you this ins the KB and the examines of the doors not kinda give it away though? I rarely visit the Knowledge Base nor have I examined the doors.

If we all took that approach I doubt the world would ever have advanced. "in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock." Kind of relevant. The point is a definitive stance, even if it would be perceived as negative is more productive and producing then an apathetic stance (i.e. Switzerland just lazying around and making clocks). I don't see it as relevant. He said gays don't conern him, so he's not going to care much or ever do anything about it. Thus "If we all took that approach I doubt the world would ever have advanced." And I'm saying we can't by and be apathetic, otherwise we would never accomplish anything. Even when we make war and suppress people we find new technology to help us do so, as opposed to when we don't make definitive choices we waste time. Everything concerns us. If you believe gays should be married you should help fight for their right. If you believe gays shouldn't be married, you should fight to preserve your definition of marriage. Sitting on the fence is cowardly. As for you saying Christians find gays sinners? The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church both believe and teach being gay is not a sin (loved by God equally) but partaking in gay activity is a sin, and they are the largest and second largest bodies of Christian Communions, so there goes your theory with thinking gays are automatically sinners. May I ask, do you speak from learning from a Protestant sect, or did you go to a parochial school, or another source or did you read some book? And God doesn't send the Israelites to kill people, that is how they interpreted their relationship between themselves and God. Quite frankly I find some of the Israelite writings a bit pompous.

The first one is War, it ends when you find the gift of peace. The second one is Famine, it ends when you find the grain of plenty. the third one is Plague, it ends when you find the box of health. the fourth one is Death, it ends when you find the cradle of life. That is extremely interesting. I would have never seen that.

God knows, knew, and will know what we do, he sees time from a different perspective as us. He may know what we do, but it doesn't mean he decided that's what we'll do, we picked it, he saw it.. How do you know he sees time from a different perspective? Probably the nature of being a God. If you know everything that has happened and will happen, you're immortal, and you have power over everything, time wouldn't really be an issue. Bingo. Wow a local guy, you're really on top of theological stuff in everything you say. And yes. Time is irrelevant to God because when you are infinite and always present, you're existent in the future before it even occurs as well as in the past after it has happened, while still maintaining a presence in the current.

In a recent interview, didn't a Mod say that he wants quests to be made until there's 50 for each skill?

If we all took that approach I doubt the world would ever have advanced. "in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock." Kind of relevant. The point is a definitive stance, even if it would be perceived as negative is more productive and producing then an apathetic stance (i.e. Switzerland just lazying around and making clocks).

In the ideal Christian world, it wouldn't be a problem because all the homosexuals would be killed. About the mother part, I dislike that. Unless the father was someone who only had sex so the woman could have a child, then he should still be the father. The "extra-mother" should just be the stepmother. That's quite an ignorant comment and I hope you burn your tongue so badly you can never say something so stupid and horrible. Homosexuals are as equal persons to heterosexual persons. Neither is "worth" more. They are both given God's grace to an equal extent. They are both humans. In an ideal Christian world, there would still be gays. Scriptural supported by how God loves everyone and the commandment thou shalt not kill is part of the ten commandments (found in exodus and deuteronomy) and Jesus says this applies to everyone by extension since everyone is your neighbor. I forget what book of this catholic youth bible I had to use for scripture studies honors last year, they have sidestories of contemporary time that parallel the stories in the scripture. In one of them, it's about AIDS and its implied the guy is gay and he is diagnosed from AIDS and he's ashamed to tell his Church but when they find out they're supportive and tell him they'll be there for him til the end. THAT is the ideal Christian deed. What would you call the Crusades then? An act of greed for territory and wealth justified by the excuse of religion. Romy, you're ignorant and you think you know religious law. And to that I say hahaha! First of all it does not in the Bible to say to the Christians to kill people who will not convert, I don't know where you got that. Secondly, the founder of the Maronite Catholics [the rite I belong to] was canonized a saint because one thing he did was go around [5th century] in Syria and help people out, spiritually and medically, be they Christian or pagan. You speak out of your [wagon]. "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB) I purposely marked this to grasp your attention to where it is located. Please you ignorant fool, go look up what Christian law says in regards to the Old Testament and the new law brought by Jesus. Do not call ignorance in which you act ignorant for you fail to realize the difference between Torah and the actual current Christian law. Now may I quote, directly? "ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν, εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωμένους ὑμᾶς, καλῶς ποιεῖτε τοῖς μισοῦσιν ὑμᾶς καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐπηρεαζόντων ὑμᾶς καὶ διωκόντων ὑμᾶς," If you are unable to understand Greek, that is the "love thine enemy" verse, Matthew 5:44. For those of you who might be confused to love an enemy? In Greek it more specifically apagaos (unconditional love to anyone) which is not the same love as philia (brotherly love) or eros (the desire to be with a partner). Therefore, gays would not be killed even if disliked because you cannot kill someone who you are suppose to love. In fact you shouldn't even hate them. And did you not hear me recall that AIDS part from the footnote in my Bible? Or are you too busy skimming so that you can just say that Christians want to kill gays? I probably should have clarified myself better, my bad. You shouldn't have added all the dazzle around it though. What I mean by "it" is the followers. As in, the rules of religion A are not to kill, yet the followers of religion A felt okay with killing those who wouldn't convert. I'm well aware that neither the New nor the Old Testament command you to kill those who wouldn't convert to your religion. As for your comment about the New Testament not taking the rules of the Old one... Well, whether it's true or not doesn't matter, as today the Christian world is against gays, thinks gay-acts are a sin, wouldn't marry gays, etc. So without the diplomatic crap, Christianity is anti-gay. For your first part about the rules said not to kill but the Crusades occurred, yes that was against dogma and it was horrible. It was apologized for numerous times though, the most recent apology by the late Pope John Paul II. My rite was affected by these per se Christian-justified imperial wars because Lebanon and Syria are in the middle of crossroads. And second point, yes Christianity does not support the gay lifestyle, and you may term that anti-gay. However, by no means are we anti-gay people, as all people are equal and made in the same image. Although by no means is it "diplomatic crap" because it is legitimate doctrine that everyone is equal.

In the ideal Christian world, it wouldn't be a problem because all the homosexuals would be killed. About the mother part, I dislike that. Unless the father was someone who only had sex so the woman could have a child, then he should still be the father. The "extra-mother" should just be the stepmother. That's quite an ignorant comment and I hope you burn your tongue so badly you can never say something so stupid and horrible. Homosexuals are as equal persons to heterosexual persons. Neither is "worth" more. They are both given God's grace to an equal extent. They are both humans. In an ideal Christian world, there would still be gays. Scriptural supported by how God loves everyone and the commandment thou shalt not kill is part of the ten commandments (found in exodus and deuteronomy) and Jesus says this applies to everyone by extension since everyone is your neighbor. I forget what book of this catholic youth bible I had to use for scripture studies honors last year, they have sidestories of contemporary time that parallel the stories in the scripture. In one of them, it's about AIDS and its implied the guy is gay and he is diagnosed from AIDS and he's ashamed to tell his Church but when they find out they're supportive and tell him they'll be there for him til the end. THAT is the ideal Christian deed. What would you call the Crusades then? An act of greed for territory and wealth justified by the excuse of religion. Romy, you're ignorant and you think you know religious law. And to that I say hahaha! First of all it does not in the Bible to say to the Christians to kill people who will not convert, I don't know where you got that. Secondly, the founder of the Maronite Catholics [the rite I belong to] was canonized a saint because one thing he did was go around [5th century] in Syria and help people out, spiritually and medically, be they Christian or pagan. You speak out of your [wagon]. "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB) I purposely marked this to grasp your attention to where it is located. Please you ignorant fool, go look up what Christian law says in regards to the Old Testament and the new law brought by Jesus. Do not call ignorance in which you act ignorant for you fail to realize the difference between Torah and the actual current Christian law. Now may I quote, directly? "ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν, εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωμένους ὑμᾶς, καλῶς ποιεῖτε τοῖς μισοῦσιν ὑμᾶς καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐπηρεαζόντων ὑμᾶς καὶ διωκόντων ὑμᾶς," If you are unable to understand Greek, that is the "love thine enemy" verse, Matthew 5:44. For those of you who might be confused to love an enemy? In Greek it more specifically apagaos (unconditional love to anyone) which is not the same love as philia (brotherly love) or eros (the desire to be with a partner). Therefore, gays would not be killed even if disliked because you cannot kill someone who you are suppose to love. In fact you shouldn't even hate them. And did you not hear me recall that AIDS part from the footnote in my Bible? Or are you too busy skimming so that you can just say that Christians want to kill gays?

Idk, I personally think Zamorak is some kind of Arabic reference seeing as how Mahjarrat is an Arabic word, he served a god that has Middle Eastern references, his symbol is the Arabic symbol 'shaddah' and in Arabic grammar when you add -ak to the end of something it's you possessive. He kind of is like a 'jinn' (genie) in Middle Eastern culture.

In the ideal Christian world, it wouldn't be a problem because all the homosexuals would be killed. About the mother part, I dislike that. Unless the father was someone who only had sex so the woman could have a child, then he should still be the father. The "extra-mother" should just be the stepmother. That's quite an ignorant comment and I hope you burn your tongue so badly you can never say something so stupid and horrible. Homosexuals are as equal persons to heterosexual persons. Neither is "worth" more. They are both given God's grace to an equal extent. They are both humans. In an ideal Christian world, there would still be gays. Scriptural supported by how God loves everyone and the commandment thou shalt not kill is part of the ten commandments (found in exodus and deuteronomy) and Jesus says this applies to everyone by extension since everyone is your neighbor. I forget what book of this catholic youth bible I had to use for scripture studies honors last year, they have sidestories of contemporary time that parallel the stories in the scripture. In one of them, it's about AIDS and its implied the guy is gay and he is diagnosed from AIDS and he's ashamed to tell his Church but when they find out they're supportive and tell him they'll be there for him til the end. THAT is the ideal Christian deed.

"Crime of Passion", etc. that kind of stupid stuff. It is so illogical. The punishment is being lightened because you say you have a reason that drove you to do it... and your point? Does that make it any less wrong? And they don't have like straightjacketed mental facilities anymore to the person above. The worst they have is mental wards were you keep unmanageable mental patients with full care. For the people who are actually unable to distinguish between right and wrong. etc it isn't there fault. For those who plead insanity to get off their charges, I find that disgusting.

"Ma, can I have some money?" "You can use your credit card I gave you" "Oh, ok thanks."

Furthermore, omniscience does not equal predestination. God knows, knew, and will know what we do, he sees time from a different perspective as us. He may know what we do, but it doesn't mean he decided that's what we'll do, we picked it, he saw it.. How do you not see how incorrect this is? I don't understand this. If he knows what you're going to do, it's been decided. You don't have the power to change what God knows, and everything you do is something that he already knew was going to happen. He knew whether or not you're going to hell before you existed, otherwise he wouldn't be be omniscient. Knowing does not mean deciding. And as I said, God is outside of our vision time, so when we are still to decide something it has already happened for him, it is currently happening for him and it is still to happen. Just because he knew you'd do something doesn't mean he decided it. Plus there is a concept in Catholicism and some Orthodoxies called purgatory, where you get purged for your sin if you are sorry, and you don't go to hell. God sees your actions, but he especially does not determine the level of repentance you respond to something with. Does that mean we're not wanted? :cry: The whole Atheism v. Christianity debate seems to be two sides with no evidence arguing about why the other is wrong... This is pretty much similar to every other point made by Atheists on this forum, except says a lot less in many more words than they've used here. Christians have the bible. Atheists have imperfections in the bible. All that says is that some people don't agree with the bible's definition of God. If people want their religions, that's fine. If people don't want to believe, that's fine too. But really, the whole battle between the two is immature and shows how far both sides still have to go in terms of acceptance. Let people believe what they want, it just makes you look like an [wagon] if you try to ruin that for anyone (Not directed at anyone, "you" used for lack of a better word). I love you... :P :thumbup:

Just because America (I don't believe it is right to use the term 'Western', it to a huge tool for generalisation) made the tactical mistake of equipping one of it's enemies, doesn't mean that they ever supported their causes. It just angers people when people from one religion tries to suppress everyone else from doing what is perfectly within their rights. The length of time is also irrelevant, we live in far more enlightened times than 1200 years ago. -I meant for the last 1200yrs which means 800 AD -now, meaning on going. It would be strange if my father was 1200yrs [unless that make me like 800yrs old, then that would be pretty cool]. -You're right, I shouldn't have used Western. -That's exactly my point, they might have not supported their causes, but they supported them for their own agenda, and whatever group that supported in turn then used that support and applied to whatever else they were doing. -I don't think I understand "It just angers people...within their rights."

Why should it be okay for straights and not for gays? Yah, I don't like seeing gays or straight people eating each others facing or [bleep]ing in front of me. Personally I'm against most PDA other then holding hands, quick kiss, etc. but if one allows gay marriage but not the right for equal PDA, then that's as equal as Plessy vs. Freguson.

Lenticular is quite right. Seems like the standard stuff. And as the person above me stated the bible are thoughts of the ancients, misconceptions of the scriptures being any part of God are incorrect. They do not contradict their. If you and a friend saw the same thing, and you two wrote individual stories about what happened, I took your stories and stapled them together, that doesn't mean the document is contradicting. It's two different perspectives. Furthermore, omniscience does not equal predestination. God knows, knew, and will know what we do, he sees time from a different perspective as us. He may know what we do, but it doesn't mean he decided that's what we'll do, we picked it, he saw it..

As a kid me and my three older siblings would go to my grandparents house. My grandparents collect all sorts of stuff and they use to find this one small statue of Buddha, and it would scare the crap outta me.

^You are indeed correct. It consists of father, son, holy spirit (also known as the holy ghost).

Please. Just stop. Don't pretend like you know about the Bible. I didn't know the Trinity was Father, Son, Bible. The Bible is a sacred inspired writing yes, the Bible is part of God? No! The Bible is written by humans. Any subtle changes of God in the Bible isn't because God changed his mind and therefore reconsiders a decision. It signals the change in reception to a theological idea by the worshiping people. Misconceptions as large say saying the Bible is part of the Trinity is just... no. As for the big errors that you see in the Adam & Eve myth, I don't see what they are. Please, point them out. I think the story presents its moral quite blatantly, which is the point. ========================================================================== And as I said, some morals are intrinsic. Some are not, as they are more complex fabrications.

Using Adam and Eve as an example to prove a point is fine, but whenever I use Adam and Eve to also prove a point, you just said it's a metaphor and doesn't really count. I see problems with that. You don't get what omniscience and predestination is do you? If you have an all knowing God, then that God knows if you're going to Heaven or Hell before you existed. It's just that simple, and trying to say otherwise would mean that God is not omniscient, which causes error in the Bible, which is part of God. Next, having God intervene into human affairs causes us to change things that we shouldn't, which is interfering with our free will. Again, you don't understand what you're talking about. A century ago it was immoral to have a black person and white person be married, but now that's accepted. That's just one example of how morals have changed. Morality is subjective, it is not a universal constant. I didn't say Adam and Eve doesn't count, saying everything is metaphoric might have been a little too over simplistic. I meant I don't actually believe there is a tree that gives fruit that gives you the ability to judge to change whether something is right and wrong, a serpent never had legs and then they were taken away as punishment. people did not originate from the same couple, etc. However the moral of the story stands just as strong. The tree is to show since the creation of man there has always been temptation. It does not mean that since its a tree, and vegetation was created after man in the story man existed before evil. No, that's looking way too far into it and missing the entire point. Knowing something and deciding something are two different things. Perhaps you don't understand the difference between knowing all and deciding something without the person having any effect on it is. You obviously do not know what the Bible is if you think its "part of God". The point of the Bible is to show the inspiration of God's good news through His inspired followers (the writers). Faults in the Bible, which there are some contradictions and repetitions if you read closely, do not say God is imperfect. They show the blending of several sources of accounts in the Bible. Intervention does change the course of things, but if I killed someone, that would change his course of free will as well. We ourselves do things that change the course of other people's futures. Any interventions that occur are triggered by an acceptance of agreement though. Abraham's family is blessed with promises of numerous descendants. Why? He made a covenant with God, etc. Intercessions are the same deal. You prayer for intercession with the idea that you are asking and accepting of it. Some morals are bent by society and formed on our own accord, morals that accompany a further inspection of conscious that are compiled by society. But we are infused with certain morals and human responses. There is Natural Law which guides morals. Laws are made that are separate and not Natural Law, and they eventually evolve into what society would deem a moral. However, on the other side of the planet one might not say so. But a common ground of morals are developed from the same universal Natural Law.

^See I particularly don't like this about some atheists. They have a decent point in some things, then they drag religion into it and bash it a bit. Really, is that necessary or relevant beyond them just wanting another opportunity to [bleep] about religion? For people who claim to be so accepting and pro-free thought, some of them are just like the goth kids in South Park "all you have to do to be a non-conformist is dress like us, hang out with us and listen to the same music as us." except reflected on free thought instead of conformity.

Have you seen the claws on those things 0.0 But maybe I can kill a giant tortoise of some kind lol. I'll just hop on its back and start punching its shell. Although I would never do that unless I was starving cuz turtles are awesome. Does anyone know that one story that's kinda a rip off of Prometheus's story in which all the animals are getting a gift and the lions gets his powerful teeth, etc. and then when they get to humans they have nothing left so they are given, I think it's, the ability to be innovative and creative as a weapon?

We don't have free will. The idea we have free will and that we have an omniscient God is ridiculous. Since the idea with Christianity is that God has existed forever, that means that you were destined to either go to Hell or Heaven forever ago. Every choice you were going to make, and every consequence is already planned out, and has been forever ago. That right there is an error. Also, good and evil do not exist other than by personal judgment. Hitler could have believed what he was doing is right, while you believe otherwise. By his system he was right, by our system he was wrong. Also, evil must have existed before the tree, otherwise Adam and Eve can not be blamed for their actions. It would be Gods fault for not instilling them with knowledge of good and evil, because without that, they had no idea what they were doing. Everything in Adam and Eve is metaphoric, its not as though there's an actual tree which fruit gives the ability to judge what is right and what is wrong. And Hitler thought he was doing right, he didn't judge it was right in the sense that he rewrote it in the ethics of the conscience. God also does not create what you do. He is omniscient but not controlling. He knows what you will do because His view of time is isolated from ours; we see it in a line, He sees it as a blob all at the same time. He is seeing it, saw it and still to see it. Therefore, free choice is still possible. Also your reaction to your own sin also determines your fate, i.e. if you're sorry you are purified, if you are prideful you go to hell. You are thinking of predestinationalism. And right and wrong transcends above personal decision. Regardless of there being a god, gods or not, we are born with a concept of basic evils and basic goods. It's in our human nature to sympathize with someone when they cry, and it's in our nature to know its wrong to beat someone. Oh fun, using examples from the Bible and then casting away those examples as metaphors whenever someone has a point against you. If you're going to say it's a metaphor and disregard it, don't use it at all, because it only hurts you by bringing down your own argument. God knows exactly what you're going to do, those consequences, and where you're going to be when you die. That is what omniscience is: knowing everything. You were going to Hell/Heaven the day God existed, because he knows everything that will happen. There are also multiple accounts in the Bible where God will interfere with the fates of humans, which messes with the idea of free will. By having God interfere with people, he is directly or indirectly affecting the decisions of other people, which interferes with our free will. Right and wrong do not exist. The idea that there are set morals is just insane, because in order to survive there are times when we are better off without them. Morality is something created by humans based on the person, the time period, and the situation. That is why we don't have the same set of beliefs as people 100 years ago. First of all to romy, you gain virtues, not morals. And with the starting point of a child before any exterior corruptions you have sympathy unless you have some kind of natural impediment that doesn't allow you to. I've seen my niece [almost 3] play with her younger brother. He tripped over her and he started crying. As a result, she was upset and say "It's ok Gab..." and started crying because she thought she hurt him. As for Rex, you're very wrong. Just because I believe Adam & Eve never happened, as it is a myth, doesn't mean it doesn't have value. I'm not disregarding it, but such an assumption that once something is declared not real it devalues is obviously normal for someone of your mindset. Also intercessions and interventions (look them up if you'd like, I'm on the run for a meeting I can't explain them, little time) are different then predestination and changing the course of things. For an intervention and intercession you have to be welling to accept them. And our general sense of morality is the same as people 100yrs. just altered to the time now. When a set of beliefs combined with new understanding of revelations(modernization) is different then changing morality. It's the same morality, expressed differently.

We don't have free will. The idea we have free will and that we have an omniscient God is ridiculous. Since the idea with Christianity is that God has existed forever, that means that you were destined to either go to Hell or Heaven forever ago. Every choice you were going to make, and every consequence is already planned out, and has been forever ago. That right there is an error. Also, good and evil do not exist other than by personal judgment. Hitler could have believed what he was doing is right, while you believe otherwise. By his system he was right, by our system he was wrong. Also, evil must have existed before the tree, otherwise Adam and Eve can not be blamed for their actions. It would be Gods fault for not instilling them with knowledge of good and evil, because without that, they had no idea what they were doing. Everything in Adam and Eve is metaphoric, its not as though there's an actual tree which fruit gives the ability to judge what is right and what is wrong. And Hitler thought he was doing right, he didn't judge it was right in the sense that he rewrote it in the ethics of the conscience. God also does not create what you do. He is omniscient but not controlling. He knows what you will do because His view of time is isolated from ours; we see it in a line, He sees it as a blob all at the same time. He is seeing it, saw it and still to see it. Therefore, free choice is still possible. Also your reaction to your own sin also determines your fate, i.e. if you're sorry you are purified, if you are prideful you go to hell. You are thinking of predestinationalism. And right and wrong transcends above personal decision. Regardless of there being a god, gods or not, we are born with a concept of basic evils and basic goods. It's in our human nature to sympathize with someone when they cry, and it's in our nature to know its wrong to beat someone.

The point of being created in His image is that we are beings of intrinsic goodness. Our error and fault comes from God's gift of free will. We have the ability to choose what we do. Therefore God has no error or evil when He made us in his image, but by giving us free will, evil is sometimes an easier or more enjoyable option. As for error, error is not evil, its simply just human and it helps us to better ourselves. And although God made us in His image, He did not make us exactly like Him. If you know the Adam and Eve myth, there is a tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man cannot determine/ should not determine what is good and evil (i.e. how Hitler was doing something "good"). Therefore we are suppose to be like God, but not Godlike.