Duff

Everyone should be well-versed in the kitchen. :thumbup: What is this kitchen you speak of? :P

@Nom: look for a pm sometime this weekend. I've just been a bit busy. @Skeptic: I think you interpreted my post in the wrong light. I have nothing against inter-religious marriages as long as the couples make it work. But I've seen many cases where, since the Catholic spouse is very serious about their faith, the relationship doesn't work. I dunno if you could tell, but I'm a very serious Catholic, and if I dated an atheist seriously (and ended up marrying her), I'd do all I could to get her to follow my faith, simply because I'd love her so much that I'd want her to have as good of a chance to gain what I believe in as I do. And you can see the problem right there: what if she doesn't want to be converted? In that case, it would be the most difficult thing I'd have to deal with (and I'm being honest about this): I'd love her too much to not try my hardest to convert her; and this isn't just having her agree to 'believe'. I want her to believe because she's found it out for herself. If she does, I'll the happiest dude on earth. But if not... well, I dunno. I've just seen a case exactly like this, but the woman agreed to the faith and got baptized because she wanted to marry the man. 5 years down the road, she started second thinking, and now their going through marriage counseling because it's tearing their relationship apart. And like we see in all these threads, if she's an adamant atheist, it wouldn't work. Because of how serious about my faith I am, I don't think it would ever work. Not because atheists cannot be 'good people'. That's not what I mean at all. Because of myself, it wouldn't work. If both people can work it out, that's great.

I wasn't saying it couldn't work. And it'll only work out if the parents reach an agreement about it (which it sounds like your Aunt and Uncle did).

I've never found anything great on the ground. I don't lose stuff easily, but I usually am pretty good at finding other people's stuff, especially my roommate. I've found his [cabbage] for him for many times, heh.

Came across this pretty neat piece of art, in my opinion. Thought I'd share it. Love the colors.

Oh, there's a space. Righto.

That GT doesn't exist. :s Gratz on 2k posts, Aeon.

XBL - GLENN blinks182 Only game I play online is Reach. May change in the future, tho. EDIT (as of May 2013): I play Black Ops II, Halo 4. Also willing to play Halo 3, Halo: Reach, Black Ops I, and Modern Warfare 3.

That really thin brownish paper that I had to practice my letters on in the 2nd grade. The stuff with the dashed line through the middle so you knew how tall your lowercase letters had to be. Major nostalgia.

Omission is betrayal, isn't it? I was in a similar situation a few months ago. I was dating a girl that was conservative christian. I'm atheist. It did cause problems after a while because she kept asking me to go to church with her and sooner or later you start running out of excuses why you can't go with her. Better get it out in the open now, before things get serious and unnecessary heartbreak is caused. I agree that you should make known your religious beliefs right off the bat. Because it could definitely be problematic in the future. If a serious relationship evolves, religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are bound to play a huge role. For me, I don't think I could ever marry an atheist, not because I don't like atheists. Just because so many problems would come up (private or public school, going to mass as a family, teaching kids how to say prayer, differences in how to raise a family, etc). Nor would I want someone to pretend to not care about it, because that puts them in a difficult position where they're weighing you and their own beliefs.

The feeling of something stuck between your teeth (especially when you don't have floss lying around).

I'm so glad it's the weekend. Phew. Going to mess around with my computer science homework, since I find it pretty enjoyable.

I wouldn't want to cramp Over's style, though. :lol: BTB Plan: Give Over the sniper, hide. :3

Suuuuuure, man baby. :P I'll be playing much of this evening, I think. I'll add you after my next class. :thumbup:

Psh, whenever I think of rejoining Runescape, I think of how I'd be made fun of for playing it. Halo, on the other hand, is a very 'guy' thing to do, I guess. Come play Halo with me, Dizz. :3 By that, I think I mean a computer gamer seems less nerdy to girls than a console gamer... At least from my experience.

I'd definitely be down for playing with you guys. Just having other guys I know to play with will make it fun, I think. Zierro, gamertag is GLENN blinks182. I guess I should probably register that in the official gamertag list. I'll add you next time I get the chance. Anyone else care if I add them (aeon, over, dizzle)?

I think you have it backward. There are only a few days a month which there is an egg to fertilize. There's plenty of time to have sex without worrying about having a kid. And I'm almost certain that if you follow NFP the way you should, there is no chance of having an unwanted child. And you seem to be misinterpreting what I say a lot. When I said "They would not have to worry about abortion because they wouldn't have sex until marriage," I was referring to the majority of people who get abortions, aka under-aged, irresponsible kids. I did not mean for people to think that abortion would be completely solved if everyone just waited for marriage to have sex. And I figured people who did get married would actually be stable enough to want/provide for a kid. I did not mean for you to think I said waiting to have sex until after marriage would solve the abortion problem. And I think marriage does change the possibility of unwanted pregnancy, seeing as most people (given, less and less couples are having kids nowadays) plan to have 'keep' their kids after they get married. Oh, and I think you're taking my little ideal scenario a bit too seriously. I was hypothesizing that, though the current generations would be drastically affected if everyone all of the sudden began living their lives according to Church teach, eventually the effects wouldn't be so drastic as the coming generations would find themselves dealing less and less with problems of the previous generations; so, kinda like a slow process of getting used to the Church's teachings. And I think it's obvious the way I've been posting that I do think everyone would benefit if everyone followed Church teaching (the ultimate benefit being heaven). And when you say harmful from the beginning, I think you should understand that when I said harm, I meant difficult for those who are currently going against Church teaching. It will be harmful to them in their eyes. Please enlighten me though, maybe with a citation from an actual Roman Catholic, Vatican approved document that shows that the Church strives to make life difficult for homosexuals and women. I can tell you now that, since the respect for human dignity lies at the center of Catholic Social Justice Teaching, the Catholic Church respects all people. I do suggest that, if you're caught up in the Church's view on homosexuals, you should look into that stuff yourself (make sure you look into Catholic Church Doctrine so you avoid people who argue incorrectly about the Church). I say this because I'm not extremely knowledgeable about the Church's view on homosexuals. I do know that the Church does not see women as lesser than men. And lastly, my little ideal situation was in no way talking about making the Church the ruler of the world. I would never think of that. Especially in the form of a monarchy. I did say that I only meant a sudden change in obedience to the Church: everyone starts to follow it's moral teachings. I stated that perhaps the world would be better if we all adopted the Church's teachings; not if we made the Church the world central government. I know exactly why the Church became corrupt, and I'm sure the Church knows itself. Phew. It was just a little dream scenario, that's all. :s

Psst, Emma Watson fans. Check this photograph out. Drop dead gorgeous I tell ya. [hide][/hide]

You do realize that women can have unwanted pregnancies when they're married, right? She could have been chaste before marriage, had as many kids as she wanted (Even none if she didn't want any children), and then she'd have to either use contraception (Which is against some Catholic doctrine), continue to squirt out babies against her wishes, or never have sex again despite having fulfilled all of God's expectations. Ever heard of Natural Family Planning? Married couples can have sex (save for maybe a week every month) without having to worry about the wife getting pregnant. That is an easy way to avoid unwanted pregnancies when they are married. And it's completely natural. It just involves charting when her time of the month is so you can find out what does she'll be fertile and which days she won't be (or something like that, don't fuss at me over the lingo, I don't know it :P). So by being Catholic for ~5 generations we can take away the central nervous system's reaction to stimuli? I'm being a bit facetious, but there is no life without pain. And no offense, but we (Europeans) did follow the Catholic Church's teachings for many generations; it was called the Dark Ages, and I'm pretty sure there was an insane amount of misfortune, pain, and suffering even under the most benevolent of Popes. Diversity and division of power helps to minimize the tyranny that ALL earthly organizations create with enough influence and power. You completely missed an important part of that statement. Look at the bold. Of course they would continue to feel pain if they stubbed their toe or accidentally scraped their arm. Those pains aren't due to Church teachings. And the Dark Ages were a probably at a time during which the papacy was rather corrupt (as I hinted to Nomrom). The papacy now is very stable. Even if there was a benevolent Pope who actually was chosen for his merit, you cannot blame the disease and horribleness of the Dark Ages on the teachings of the Church (those teachings that were actually credible, as opposed to ones that were made for political gain, etc).

Going to my chemistry lab in a bit. Today's experiment required a lot of planning. Took up a lot of my day, I guess. I'm swamped tonight, though. I have to proofread a poem analysis and make adjustments to it. I also have to read another 30 pages in The Republic. I'm hoping they'll have mildly entertaining content, or else I'll probably fall asleep midway. I'm loving my computer science class so far. I actually look forward to doing the homework and learning knew things. I never felt that way about PHYS 103 when I took it... Maybe it's a sign that physics isn't for me. We'll see.

Val Jester - The National. The violin (or whatever it is) is soothing. Next I'll probably listen to All The Wine - The National. Probably because I just like the groove to the song, how the lyrics are spoken, everything.

I've always wondered if anyone actually did that. I might try it now. :o

Didn't see that until now. I think I got the gist of what your point was just by looking at the link text. And I'll say those were the results of bad popes who were affected by politics and who came to power through force and not because of their merit. I think we've already gone over that the Catholic Church has owned up to these actions and admitted it had been corrupt. That still doesn't do any damage to the fact that the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly expresses it's universal salvific will.

Could you clarify what you mean? The way Catholics believe God to be, he fulfills all of our desires. He is the ultimate desire. Thus, we would do anything to achieve 'God', even if it meant putting aside our other desires. I think that's what he means. EDIT: Nevermind. Though, the point is still good. :P

Should it come at the misfortune, harm, or pain of others though? The theory behind the Church says no, but again...as we aren't perfect, neither is the way we carry out His will. It's why so many people today struggle against the Church. If you think about it, though, a person living by Catholic doctrine would not suffer misfortune, harm, or pain because of it. They would not have to worry about abortion because they wouldn't have sex until marriage (just one example). It's going to be hard for those who have already done things that are discouraged by the Church. But what if the Church was able to convince a generation to follow it's teachings? I'm, of course, speaking of an ideal life. But if the Church was able to convince a generation to follow it's teachings, and that generation was able to do the same to the next, slowly but surely, people would not experience misfortune, harm, or pain due to the Church's teachings. I'm speaking ideally. I realize that. Just something to think about. :)