RexMilotic

Haha, welcome to Government 101. <_< At 14? Sorry for laughing... If you don't already know about sex by then, you're going to be learning it in health anyways. If anything the whole abstinence deal needs to end, and replaced with people being taught about condoms, birth control, and other things that can be involved in safe sex. I could understand if the law wanted to protect someone who's 14 from someone who's 30+, but having a 14 year old being labeled as a pedophile because of someone who's 15 is just pathetic. The age for these things needs to be adjusted in a way that allows for something like 14-19 to be together/have sex/porn, and 16 + to be legally allowed to do what they want with sex related things. Well now I'm confused. Did he meant at 14 they know about sex or at 14 they want to advance their relationship to the next level? Cuz yeah, 14 years should know about sex; but shouldn't be doing it. I think he meant doing it, which I have no problem with if they know what they're doing and don't brag about it (other than friends).

It's not "bits" of the Bible, it is the entire base and central idea of the religion that is could be considered extreme. The fact that most people aren't following it doesn't mean the religion is not extreme, it just means that most people who preach about following the religion are both hypocrites and sinners.

You are, however, only using certain quotes that support your argument from a book filled with many other passages. Which is what quote mining is. I'm using those verses from the Bible because they apply to the topic. While people can use quotes in the Bible to say it's not extremist, I'm pointing out the ones that show it is extremist. That's how this topic is meant to be, not using the peaceful portions to distract people from the base of the Bible, or the central idea of the Bible.

It still applies though.

Haha, welcome to Government 101. <_< At 14? Sorry for laughing... If you don't already know about sex by then, you're going to be learning it in health anyways. If anything the whole abstinence deal needs to end, and replaced with people being taught about condoms, birth control, and other things that can be involved in safe sex. I could understand if the law wanted to protect someone who's 14 from someone who's 30+, but having a 14 year old being labeled as a pedophile because of someone who's 15 is just pathetic. The age for these things needs to be adjusted in a way that allows for something like 14-19 to be together/have sex/porn, and 16 + to be legally allowed to do what they want with sex related things.

Do you see another Bible written by God? I don't believe so, and that's because his old one still applies. People's opinions on Christianity have changed, so people have changed the religion and not God. Verses 1,2 and 4 from my previous post all apply to your statement. The "theme" of the verse doesn't matter, because the Bible is not open for personal interpretation, but to be followed exactly as it is said. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining#Quote_mining Funny, but I'm not taking those out of context. Now, that might be applicable to those verses if you're attempting to say that the Bible is not to be taken literally. That verse says it is to be taken literally though, and that those views are never to be changed based on your interpretation.

Do you see another Bible written by God? I don't believe so, and that's because his old one still applies. People's opinions on Christianity have changed, so people have changed the religion and not God. Verses 1,2 and 4 from my previous post all apply to your statement. The "theme" of the verse doesn't matter, because the Bible is not open for personal interpretation, but to be followed exactly as it is said.

I'm not an outsider, I've been raised on that book. Bible class was a mandatory class at the schools I went to from Kindergarten to 8th grade. You could have been kicked out of the school for not going to church, and for even discussing pokemon you would get in trouble. I know exactly what they teach most people, which is only a smart part of the Bible. As for Jesus, he did not come to break the old traditions. He himself said that all the old laws are to be followed: Those are both said by Jesus. Cannan was the son of Ham, whom theologists suggest moved into Africa, which allows for other races to justify African slaves. I believe you have the idea backwards. The reason you're able to say the Bible is not evil is because you're not taught of all it. For people to understand the whole, they need to know more than just the nice parts you'll learn in church. You're also taught not to believe it literally, which is not true. That is simply something you fall back on in order to protect your beliefs. If you're not to take it literally, then the book means nothing, because that means both not to murder and murder are taken literally, effectively canceling them out.

You're quoting a website called "evilbible.com" and commenting on my ignorance? That's... What... Eh... Okay, THAT is the biggest load of BS I've ever read on this forum. Get your head out of your [wagon] before trying to justify your own intolerance. You still ignored Christian involvement in the abolition movement, you still haven't justified Christianity being the cause of American slavery, hell, all you've done is manage to say that your information on the bible comes from people who hate it. That would be like me saying I get all my information on left wing politics from Fox News. Now, if you looked at the site instead of reading the name, you would understand the site takes quotes directly from the Bible. The sites would be considered evil by both the Bible and by modern societies. The ignorance you're displaying right now is outstanding, because I can tell you didn't even look at the site before talking. Hell, if you think the verses are made up, then look the exact verse up in your own Bible at home or any other Bible site on the internet. Just because you're not taught the verses in school/church doesn't mean they don't exist. I didn't ignore that Christians were involved in the freeing the slaves, because that's pretty obvious to anyone who has taken American History. If you paid more attention in that class, and assuming you weren't going to a biased school in the first place, they would also talk about how the Bible was able to be used by the slave owners.

That's probably the biggest load of BS I've ever read on this forum. Sorry. You'll also note that there were many Christians involved in the abolition movement and later the 1960s civil rights movement which had many of its leaders actively involved in their respective churches. Please read the Bible more often before you attempt to call me out. The Bible gives directions on how to sell your daughter into slavery, and it says one of the sons of Noah is destined to be slaves of the other brothers. http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm For more information of slavery in the Bible. Never try to call me out on a subject because of your ignorance. The link also applies to your post. The Bible encouraged selling daughters and children into slavery. What do you make of the story of Moses then? The story of Moses was only meant to be about freeing his "Chosen" people, not saying slavery is bad.

It's basically sending each other porn, which is always a bad idea to people who worry about having their pictures getting out. The only reason it's a huge problem is because if your under 18 caught doing this in most areas, you can be charged and sent to jail/ labeled a pedophile (while being under 18). It's pretty much a flaw in the legal system that's ruining a ton of peoples lives.

I respect myself, You sure you do? Having a hard time understanding this topic? Just because you send a picture of genitals doesn't mean you don't respect yourself. Like I said before, I don't do it because of other reasons. Even if those reasons weren't there however, I wouldn't be sending them because I have no need to be doing it. I have my reasons not to do it, but at the same time if i did do it, it wouldn't be because I lack self respect, but because of other reasons.

You're a bad troll.

Meh, I don't see it much as a self-respect issue. I respect myself, but I wouldn't have a problem sending a picture. The reason I don't is because I cba to deal with any legal issues due to this screwed up system.

Are you insane? This happens all around the world. It's common knowledge that things like this happen all the time in the world, and the fact that you can say that means you understand this world is not a happy go lucky world. It doesn't matter what country you're from, because if you're unable to come to terms that something like this happens all the time, then you would be considered ignorant. I personally don't feel much about it, I was somewhat bullied in elementary school (verbally), but the second I switched schools I become friends with most people. I never considered suicide, because I know this world isn't one that's going to be nice about everything. All your problems won't go away, so you need to find a way to deal with them. Personally I don't think a bully could get to me now, because I simply won't tolerate the bs. I actually haven't dealt with anything at all from 7th grade and on, and the people who'd be considered bullies in my school don't mess with me.

I think it's a topic that should be joked about it. Getting depressed over it isn't a good idea, at least with humor you happy.

Westboro is considered an extremist group because they actually preach what the Bible say. Religious extremest are normally the only people in a religion who actually abide by it, while everyone else picks and chooses which verses they want to follow. Muslims can be attributed to thousands of deaths, but off the top of my head I can think of more Christian murder points than Muslim. If you would like an example of just a few killings due to Christianity in America, then the Witch Hunts are a nice example. You can also attribute slavery in America to Christianity, seeing as how slavery had Christian backing to it.

I think the age limit for things like this is just too high. I honestly think that the limit for this should be closer to around 14-16. I see nothing wrong with sexting, assuming it's you who took the picture or allowed someone else to take it. If you then send it off to someone, then it's your own fault if they send it off or show to friends. Don't want to worry about it, then don't take the pictures. The fact that people who take these pictures and send them off and have other people labeled as a pedophile is just pathetic, while this doesn't happen to the person who took the picture. If someone else forcibly takes the pictures, then I believe it's the persons fault who took them, and not everyone else who received or sends them from that point.

Many of the founding fathers are actually considered Deists. Patrick Henry was putting his personal views, not the views of all of them. Also, this country was found due to money, and people wanting to make a profit. If it wasn't for that, then religion would have never made it's way over here. This country was not brought up on Christian values, otherwise this nation would have failed miserably. The idea that this nation is brought up as a Christian nation mocks the founders, because it was meant to be religious freedom, not freedom based on religion.

George Washington actually warned against having multiple party systems, and currently both our major ones fail. I do agree with Fox News sucking though, I refuse to watch them. I don't watch other stations either, but it's only Fox that gets brought up so often with its crap.

Have you considered that soon (or maybe now, i dunno) it will be possible to abort fetus with "bad genes", eg kill off people who would have serious syndromes etc, before they are even given a chance at life. And what kind of moral dilemmas this introduces in relation with the handicapped part of the population. Personally I think it's a good thing, and the handicapped part of the population should realize that also. I don't see any moral dilemma in aborting a fetus that was going to be seriously flawed anyways.

I honestly had to google for a possible second meaning for infantile, just because of how wrong that statement was. Clinging to religion? That doesn't sound like evolution at all. The "Survival of the fittest" deal happens all the time life, such as when a larger corporation takes over a smaller one. The reason that only the fittest aren't surviving now is because of how most areas have adapted to suiting the needs of both the weak and strong. Look back a few hundred years ago, or even look at certain countries now, and notice how the weak links don't survive that well. Tell me, if I threw you into an underwater environment that had sharks, who would last? The shark would, because it's suited for the environment, while you're not. Also, your signature is messed up. That's speaking of survival in the fittest in two ways. The first being the obvious where it disregards the saying. The second is whenever it speaks about those in power (who are the fittest) having control over the weak. That is an example of the survival of the fittest, but changed to modern standards where the rich/powerful are the "fittest" now.

1. I meant reasons as in say "he hit me because it's my fault / he's having a hard time". Basically believing they understand a person so they may feel bad for him, or have other emotional responses that prevent them from leaving. 2. I meant that as in: Person A has a high chance to pass on a deadly late-life disease, but survives due to medicine. That person then has children who also have that disease, and they have the same thing that the father had happen, happen to them They have more children, and the cycle continues. Because we're advancing, they're surviving, but they shouldn't be surviving to cause this to happen to other people. We're evolving in a way that benefits and destroys others. 3. I accidentally got number three wrong, by monogamous I thought you meant something else. My opinion on monogamous type things is kinda meh, because personally I don't see it as making that much of a difference. If anything, it should be more of a do what you want thing. 4. I don't pay much attention to that, but when it comes to violence and such, I believe it is needed. I think people need to rise above others, and quite often force is necessary to do so. I actually believe it's more of nature that has a rise above each other, which in turn leads us to violence being part of nature. 5. My answer works for both a large total population and tightly condensed one. I can't really decide on which I see more positives or negatives to it.

Emotionally attached to that person, causing you to believe you understand these reasons. Yes and no. Some people with genetic disabilities who should be dieing out are kept alive through nature without improvement.They can then breed and continue passing on this trait that shouldn't be around. There is also the fact that we've evolved to improving some previously destructive traits, and can possibly be using them for the advantage. People change with the society, and in our current one it would be more of evolution and de-evolution. I'm not sure how they were "meant" to be, but I do know that it's best that now we have at least one person to be with. Yes, someone needs to be dominant, and the most effective ways use violence. We also need to gather food, because surviving on plants alone doesn't allow you to be completely healthy. Again with the "meant" which I refuse to acknowledge in that way. Personally I believe that these huge populations both hinder and help us. In trying to care for huge populations, we've been able to create more effective means for survival, but at the same we abuse some of those means in a way that it hurts us.

Thanks for pointing that out, I was unaware. That makes me sad though..