Astralinre

I actually thought of this same thing a while back, and strongly agree with the idea. However, while it would work great ideally, I doubt it would work practically. You see, if everyone ignored race, then certainly race would cease to be a problem. I've seen it work in small groups of people, such as a certain church I know in St. Louis. They have people of several races and languages, yet they have a tremendous unity and meet everyone's needs. However, I don't think culture as a whole would be willing to embrace the idea. If even one group held on to racism, the rest of the people wouldn't be able to forget the idea of race.

Regardless of whether they understand the concept of torture, they still do torture other animals. Therefore the argument that "animals don't do it, so we shouldn't do it" is invalid.

Have you never seen a cat play with an injured mouse before he eats it? Have you ever seen hump-back whales toss sea lions up in the air and smack them with their tails before they eat them? Plenty of animals treat their food cruelly. But you see, if your initial assumption is correct, and humans are merely animals, then the rest of your post is absurd. You can't apply morals, right and wrong, to animals. Would you say, "That bear was wrong for eating that salmon who only wanted to swim upstream so he could breed! He doesn't deserve to live!"? Animals don't treat each other with respect, so if humans are merely animals, we don't have any reason to treat them with respect either. Also, you claim that anyone who treats animals in a harsh manner does not deserve to live. You claim that humans are animals. You claim that you would shoot farm workers with a shot gun, which is rather harsh. Since you would treat animals that harshly, by your own logic, you don't deserve to live.

I just finished off a room temperature apple :wink: How funny. I'm just about to start on a cold apple. \

Ah, at last. A nice, friendly thread. I can't bring myself to drink soda. Abstaining from it is a leftover habit from my days as a distance runner. However, back before I started running, there were few things I loved more than an icy cold can of Coke. Other drinks though, such as orange soda, are just as good at room temperature as when they're cold.

Not everyone is from an English speaking country. No need to defend him. It was meant to be a friendly jab, as indicated by the ;) at the end.

My crackpot theory is that a relativistic view of truth will lead to a rebellion against structure in language until one day all people speak in nothing but insanely long run-on sentences and speech will take place at a dizzying speed as no one will any longer take the time to breathe in between sentences as there will be no such thing as sentences any longer and of course this will take place in writing as well as speech because people will no longer use punctuation and language as we currently know it will come to an end :wink:

YOU even gave into the peer pressure of capitalizing "YOU" like so many other topic starters do. :P No one really gives in to peer pressure around here. I probally would, but no one else is doing it.

I still use good ol' subSilver. Always have, always will. It's been with me since the days of Scapeboard. I prefer some things to be simple and monotonous.

Of course, in addition to my previously stated goals, I would also like to rule the world. I'll start taking applications for my Second-in-Command this December.

GK Chesterton's The Ballad of the White Horse. I absolutely adored it. If you're at all a fan of poetry, I highly recommend it.

While I do disagree, and believe that it is, in fact, a virtual English class, I'll assume your view for the sake of this post. Who cares if it's not? That's no excuse not to use grammar. The purpose of English class is to teach you how to use language properly; those lessons should extend to every time you use language. Math teachers don't teach you arithmetic only for you to forget how to count money when you're buying something. In the same way, English teachers don't teach you grammar only for you to neglect it when you leave the classroom. On top of that, language is one of humanity's most precious possessions. It's a powerful form of communication and a beautiful art form. As such, it ought to be treated with respect. When you use bad grammar and spelling, you drain the language of its clarity, communicative power, and beauty. That said, it annoys me when people purposely neglect grammar in writing, and it does lower my opinion of their intelligence. However, I still read their posts and judge their ideas on their own merit. Small mistakes are fine, and not all writing has to be brilliant. No one is expected to be perfect, and not everyone is expected to craft their words. However, those who strive for correctness and excellence in writing will generally be better respected in a text-based community like a forum.

I'd like to own my own newspaper some day, and also to write a few books. I've always loved reading and writing, and ever since I joined the school paper last year, my interest in journalism has been growing.

Actually, Deja Vu is the overwhelming sensation that you are reliving an event, conversation, or such that has happened before, exactly.

Chocolate. Everyone loves it.

Yes, and yes. But show me what this has to do with my post, other than you trying to be sarcastic and insulting.

As a Christian, I believe it is entirely possible that there are aliens. God is a Creator; why would he stop creating after us?

A pink wall, a lime green wall, a neon orange wall, and a wall covered in flower prints. Dark and manly, eh?

:lol: Head on, apply directly to the forehead. Anyway, I agree. That commercial owns all else.

Tower of Babel? Basically, the people came together, all speaking one language, started building cities and monuments, and became prideful because of their achievements. They thought they could rival God by building a tower that reached to the heavens. God then confused their languages, so that they could no longer work on the tower, thus curbing their pride. The people who spoke the same languages gathered together and moved off in their own little groups. Though the Bible doesn't say it, many scholars believe that God also created the different races at this point.

It all comes down to epistemology. How do we know what we know? Some believe that the ultimate source of knowledge is their own reason and observation, the standard by which things must be measured. I believe in reason and observation, but that the Word of God is the standard by which my reason must be measured. To you, it may be lame to quote a book. To me, it's perfectly reasonable. It's not lame for someone to explain something using a book he considers to be entirely true. Why can't the Koran be perfect either? The only answer I have for that is faith. I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Muslims believe the same thing about the Koran. Either one of us is right, or none of us is right. Since the Bible is the foundation of my knowledge, and it's always been a strong foundation for me, what reason do I have to replace it? And you're right, the view of a person or group of people will always be subjective. But if one of those texts truly is the word of God, then it would be the only objective literary work in history. Oh, and just to clarify in case the word was address to me, I'm not a Catholic. Technically, I'm a Southern Baptist and a Reformed Presbyterian in my theology, but I prefer to just call myself a follower of Christ.

Maybe fossils aren't real and god injected fake age into them just like he did with everything else in our world. The sarcasm was uncalled for. I already said that it was the flaw in my explanation. Of course, now that I think of it, perhaps there's another way of explaining it. Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." It never says how much time passes between that event and the first day of creation. Perhaps it's possible that the earth is billions of years old, and there was a seven day creation.

Well, I'm not Insane, but I'll try to answer. I'm no Hebrew scholar, but I also took 'rested' to mean that He ceased creating. So in that sense, it could still be the seventh day, since God is still not creating. However, I'm of the opinion that God created the earth in a literal 7 days. I believe that He created the earth with age, which explains why scientists measure it was being so old. Why not? He created trees, not seeds. He created a man, not a baby. Why wouldn't he create the earth already "grown up," so to speak? It explains how light can reach us from millions of lightyears away - the universe was created with age. The one problem I see with this theory is the age of fossils. I can understand God creating the earth with age, but why would He create it with fossils in it? I honestly don't know enough about fossils to see if they fit my view.

Ah, good ol' Anaximander. He was in the school of Thales, you know, the guy who discovered the comet? Moderns don't give ancients near the credit they deserve; most philosophies that exist today existed in the ancient world. And that Anaxi was pretty smart. So much so that he always overshadowed his younger brother, Sal. Salamander? Get it? Hahahaahaha! What? Why are you all looking at me that way? Heh. Heh. Heh. Discovered the coment, predicted eclipses and solstices - Thales was the man for his time! And besides, we all know the truth: everything is made of water. Too bad modern science has regressed over 3000 years. Are you kidding me? Anaximones blew that idea out of the water when he proposed that air is the universal! Water is the universal? Please, that idea just blows! :P

Ah, good ol' Anaximander. He was in the school of Thales, you know, the guy who discovered the comet? Moderns don't give ancients near the credit they deserve; most philosophies that exist today existed in the ancient world. And that Anaxi was pretty smart. So much so that he always overshadowed his younger brother, Sal. Salamander? Get it? Hahahaahaha! What? Why are you all looking at me that way?