insane

... Wow. Care to elaborate? Sorry if motivating myself, broadening the topic slighty and commending the topic author offends you.. Yeah, I didn't quite get it at all either. I read it several times, but it made no sense. Wyrm, are you sure you're replying to the right thread? 8) Ditto :|

Definitely not And you also have to remember that being open source it's codebase is under the scrutiny of *anyone* Pfffft... with me being a respected Runescape player moderator and tip.it moderator it's a wonder I'm not constantly under attack :lol:. for those of you that can't recognize textual sarcasm... d:

Oooh Death Cab... Death Cab For Cutie = the best.

I've used IE all my life and never had *one* problem with computer security whatsoever (never a virus, never been hacked, spybot never turns any results, etc) Maybe this isn't consistent with the general population though.

Most definitions are drummed into you as a child. Why do you know the shirt you are wearing is red and not blue? Everyone has some concept on what it is to be horrible or to be kind. The objective part is how you choose to assign the value of an action (eg. as being good, bad, indifferent etc.) not the definition itself. My point still stands - be it true or not, communication is rendered almost useless. Every time we assign a value, we'd have to define the word, how we're using it, because everyone uses it differently (and then define any words in the definition that might be subjective...)... :| does this follow correctly or am I being stupid? (I just woke up) Could you rexplain your argument? I don't quite follow how we assign a value of an action (clearly a subjective action) objectively? It works, just one side would be wrong :) just like I don't think a truely relativist life would work, so you think this wouldn't work. *shrugs* I guess it always boils down to a matter of opinion. I'd like to say motives behind killing animals would come into play, but maybe that would make it too hard to see from an absolute point of view - you'd have to start judging motives (clearly I believe most people would say killing a duck at a petting zoo by lighting it on fire for 90 minutes is sick, and that farming animals for food might be seen by some as justified)... I don't know, now I'm way too confused :| I guess it's easy for me to understand since I believe in a supreme deity who *is* the source of all morality, therefore this deity makes the judgement calls, and I am definately not responsible for judging others in this way. So if morals are objective, it's not up to us to judge others (IMO, assuming a supreme being, which I guess is the only way morals could be objective), I guess we'll have to leave it up to the majority (maybe contradictory, but for the sake of the population and everyone's beliefs it's all thrown out the window) to decide what is right and wrong, for "us", since it is clearly impossible to define right and wrong for people with so many beliefs. But we can assume complete relativism either, because we could not serve "justice" for anything. So I guess for practicality's sake in this world, we need to find a balance between subjectivity and absolution in morality, if that's possible at all.

No - you misunderstood. Assuming there is an objective moral law. It's how I was making an argument. Just like further down I assumed there was *no* objective moral law, and then built an argument on that :) I assumed both true, and then looked at what was most rational. It's a form a logical thinking I think o_O.

Would you mind explaining how it is arrogant to appeal to a self-existant, universal law that is above everybody, but it is not arrogant to claim the right to create your own "sense of justice"? Certainly. Because by appealing to a supposed universal law you are claiming to be right. By creating your own sense of justice you do no such thing, you are instead claiming to be of an opinion. For example, belief in a Universal Law would allow for the following expression: "I am right. This is not my opinion, this is the unalterable truth". Surely you can see how that would appear arrogant, mm? Argh, this never sits well with me, and I'm going to come up with an answer this time :P you'll see! His object example clearly portrays how your view can be considered arrogant, and you're calling people who call upon something that they *did not* create themselves arrogant. Either way arrogance is irrelevant to what is true. Assuming it's true (moral absolution), horrible things are never justified, because "horrible" things, would contradict the moral Law. Assuming morals are relative: Horrible according to what? This is where we run into a problem, there's nothing to justify, because horrible is a relative term. What's horrible to one person could be amazingly kind to another person, so justification becomes relative as well - justice ceases to exist and all actions become impossible to interpret one way or another. How can you possibly call us arrogant, assuming morals are relative? Arrogant is now, a relative term, that only applies to your point of view - trying to force that view on us, is simply being arrogant yourself. But wait, I can't use the word arrogant because it's relative! This is ridiculous! We can't even communicate using moral/personal terms anymore because they only apply to the person using them.

That's sick.

I love his stuff. I think most of my favourite songs are on Brushfire Fairytales, but my most favourite songs come off of On and On. I like the new album too. I love playing his stuff on guitar, it's so relaxing to play.

1. An effect can never outweigh a cause (maybe there's some obscure branch of abstract physics that disproves this, but since I can't understand it - I'll live in ignorance for the moment and proceed - and even if it is true, that it can be disproven, science is showing a contradiction, so either way - my point will stand). 2. If thought is nothing but impersonal, unintelligible atoms/electrons (not sure which, probably some other 'ons' :P), then we have no - a. choice b. intelligence c. morality... etc - as unintelligence cannot logically spawn intelligence - unethic spawn ethic, etc, etc. Yes? No? Maybe? I was just working off of Astra's post... I probably screwed up his reasoning somewhere in this post though :P

Point taken, though I'm of the opinion that it doesn't make the point I was trying to make any less valid. Yup - I realize now that I wasn't taking your point in context of the post you quoted. Though for what it's worth, my point makes sense by itself IMO.

I was talking about blazer's catholic talk. Sorry I wasn't more clear. You were making an arugment - he was making a pointless generalization. Though you were generalizing as well, your served a purpose. And according to that theory, the only reason you care for others is because you believe a god wants you to. You know, somehow I feel that says more about you as a Christian than it does about me as an Atheist. I believe being a Christian means you strive to be more like God - his destination is set, whether he helps people or not (according to christianity). God desires faith and dependence on Him, not a bunch of half-hearted deeds. Doing these "good deeds" because God wants you to, or out of a feeling of obligation - according to the Bible, these deeds will be fruitless. It's having a thankful heart to God for bringing us salvation that will bring these non-obligatory actions, for love of God and people - not because we simply "have to".

anti-women anti-human rights anti-contraception anti-freedom of choice anti-sexual freedom (*, *, bi, tg etc) ? Yeah I have to agree... Catholics... *thumbs down*. (I'm a protestant, of no particular demonination. I just like to call myself a christian). Although I enjoyed reading a few of your previous posts, this discouraged me - you're generalizing.

Since you mention the letter to the Romans, have you also read Romans 8? I had lectures about it for 1 week when I was in Taiz̮̩̉̉. It says that people live either in the Spirit of God and Jesus Christ, or in sinfulness (so quite the same as living with faith, and being forgiven, or living without and being sinful). It also says implicitly that the Spirit lives in everyone who does not knowingly reject God's mercy (we are all children of God, the Spirit lives in us because we are children of God). Hence, everyone who does not knowingly, willingly, renounces God's mercy will be saved. The brother who gave the lecture explicitly pointed out that one should not assume from this text that only people who explicitly believe in God have the Spirit - the Spirit lives in you regardless of everything else, as long as you do not renounce it. Interesting, it's not something I'll just take as you say, as you didn't provide actual verses, and I quickly skimmed the passage (NASB, fyi - widely recognized as the most 'accurate' English translation as it takes each word seperately translated, but knowing you, you'll beg to differ, and that's alright ;)) - and didn't see anything to point out that all were saved save those who reject Him. It is also very consistent throughout Scripture, that it is those that accept Christ, that are brought salvation - not those that merely do not reject him. You have my word (for what it's worth) though, that I will definately look into this matter more fully. Though this is true, I still believe that there is an objective Truth that can be revealed to us throughout Scripture - and with God's guidance and the Spirit's revelation, that Truth can be attained.

First of all, I agree with the unquoted part of your post :P. Which is that the concept of a loving and caring God is wonderful. While I also agree that the crusades or specific people (pope?) should not be seen as representatives of all Christians, I don't like the way you talk about them here. You basically say there is some kind of 'true' Christianity, and everyone who doesn't follow that gives the 'true' Christianity a bad name. As we've had these kinds of topics before, no matter how long ago, I guess you might remember my argument: you cannot know for sure what 'true' Christianity is. Assuming that nobody really knows God personally enough to consider how He meant everything to be, there is no way we could know what the 'right' way of doing things is. Ergo, I think you should refrain from saying 'person X is a pervert Christian, because he doesn't follow 'true' Christianity as I see it.'. Examples are: A) I don't believe in the Holy Trinity. Does that mean I'm not a real Christian? B) I don't believe that Jesus really multiplied 2 bread and 5 fish at the lake in Galilee. Does that mean I'm not a real Christian? C) I think people should celebrate birthdays and be administered blood transfusions if need be. (red.: Jehovah's witnesses, for example, would disagree with this). Does that mean I'm not a 'real' Christian? For me, I think the distinguishing between 'real' or 'unreal' Christians is of little use. Personally, I believe that God will judge you on your actions, not on your association with a certain belief. As I voiced it when talking to a brother in Taiz̮̩̉̉ about this: It seems odd to me that a God of Love and Compassion would disallow 80% of the world population into His Kingdom and/or eternal life (whichever you believe in/want to call it) just because they didn't worship Him. Surely, amongst those 80% there are people who have been good people, maybe even better than some of the 20% who call themselves Christian? (See also Matthew 25:34 and onwards) Well, note how I gave the crusades as an example - like, murders, and using "God told me to" without proof, as justification. I was using extreme examples, and I think that's the only thing I was applying my point to. Obviously non-issues like 'sprinkling vs. submerging baptism' aren't going to matter at all. That's not what I was referring to - my apologies for not making it more clear. And about people who live good lives? The Bible makes it very clear, that we are to live life dependent on God for our salvation (read Romans 4, Abraham was justified by faith, not works). Of course faith produces "good lives", but first we must have faith in Christ. Of course the name "Jesus Christ" does not matter, it is the attitude of dependency on God, the attitude that we need Him for us to live our "good lives".

Same here, but I think it was kindergarten for me...

(off topic) Not agaisnt the rules, but htis topic is become mighty old. Expect many things (Tons of posts, a lock, flames, ect). This kind of tipic happens once a month... Actually it happened quite a few months ago ;) I believe in God :) religion? I'm a Christian, and believe that Christianity is one of the most (or the most, IMO) beautiful concepts ever revealed to us. However, "Christians" who do not follow this, pervert the belief, and pervert it for others, so that people who do not believe, see Christianity as the jerks that ruin it, and give it a bad name. It's principle vs. application, I've said it a million times, but this is the first time I've said it before I have to - I'm saying it out of prevention of the "oh man, look at the crusades, religion sucks" - because I hate those illogical arguments, for they say nothing of the religion they are bashing, and everything of the losers who aren't following the religion. Anyways...

NOTE: First of all, Kingrazo made all of these for me, I'm just wondering which you think are the best\I should keep. I only want about 4 on the rotator (there are 7 right now I think - winter, summer, fall, spring, sunset, abstract/archipelago combination, and just archipelago), and I prefer the landscapes (1 for each season). Or if there is only one that should be used, which is it? http://www.uzzisoft.com/randomsigscript/Insane.jpeg

I really only see this as a joke though. Maybe only having the stats of a rubber chicken or flowers etc. If it wasn't a joke... the chef's cauldron would turn into. "Selling potatoes 1k each!111", and every potatoe patch would be filled with people :P and potatoe seeds would start being sold for 1k each...

Canada has a football team? :shock: Lol :D more like a "football" team. :P

YES! I love snow :D

The fifa rankings are a load of rubbish. I don't exactly know how the teams gain points but Mexico are 5th, USA are 6th, Iran are 15th and Costa Rica are 21st. There's no way those countries are as good as the fifa rankings suggest. Pfft, and Canada's 84th. We all know they should easily be top 5 :lol:

I can't stand candy. Chocolate, on the other hand.... ;)

Hah - they live(d) on my street :P

It would make it fairly easy to scam slower, or newer players :\