Satenza

Reset it: Flickthe hold button on then off and hold down the center button and the menu button for a few seconds.

I find it funny religion always tries to seperate humans from animals and any evolutionary past, yet you beleive the bottom line of religion is to "go forth and multiply" above love, compassion and all else. Infact i was talking to a Christian yesterday who quoted this "ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åit is better to spill your seed in the belly of a who-re, than to spill it on the ground". Which just shows me how ironic, disgusting and slightly pathetic that view is. Note I also said something like "the ones worth mentioning" because most verses against homosexuality are under doubt as to translations ect. I know this and I am not Christian I thought it would be worth pointing out since Paul said it, not Jesus. So they do not let women speak in church?

Any war between superpowers will be fought through politics. I dont think we'll ever see a nuclear bomb go off at the hands of a superpower or any superpower attacking another through brute force again.

All my post-refresh-post debates were longer than an hour.

Hahahaha 'smoking marajuana means you go to hell'. Rastafarians smoke marajuana in order to get closer to God, infact they beleive that the Bible promotes the use of it!

It wasn't really a flame war as it was idiots complaining about something which doesn't affect them as usual, and i found their posts which were riddled with irony funny as hell because it showed what shallow morons they really were. Anyway, hope y'all had a good trip.

Yes, and Sodom got destroyed because of rape, not homosexuality. Not just rape, the villagers were just all round [wagons] to people.

I think the only way you could change someones mind about homosexuality being a sin or not is by refering back to the Bible and pointing out the passages there. The only passage which is really worthwhile citing as biblical proof that it "condemns" homosexuality is Pauls writings. Yet Pauls credibility really isn't much to boast about what with his contradictions of earlier wirtings from the Old Testament and even more ambiguity about the author of 'his' work. As well as clear sexism in his writings. But of course picking and choosing still continues because I doubt any Christian still follows what Paul wrote regarding that issue. Oh, and I'd also like to point out the relationship between David and Jonathan. Unclear as to whether it was sexual, but most think it was a loving and close relationship. Perhaps suggesting that (if sex didn't come into it) homosexual relationships were fine.

Listening to this album Neil Young Live At Massey Hall, 1971. Razzzz

So your saying drugs wrote those hits? Not the years of experience with music? Yeah, okay, sure. Combining factors.

You better hope your phone signal goes as fast as light or your going to be waiting a very long time.

Mm, he's talking about soft drugs. I mean you can't OD on Marajuana the worst that happens is you feel a little sick. Also, Hendrix died from taking sleeping pills and drinking wine (two legal drugs) and Kurt Cobain died from shooting himself in the head with a shotgun. You have to take into consideration that drugs weren't exactly making things better either :? . The Beatles experiemented with marajuana (thanks to Dylan :P ), acid and im sure other things - go tell them that drugs didn't make things better in the long run ($$$$). After all we now have some of the greatest and most inspirational music ever created.

We know the joke, but i actually beleive that he thinks that backs up his position.

Not all religious types are dogmatic, Satenza. My first sentance wasn't aimed at anyone in this thread, i was just stating that there is a difference between soemone who has an opinion that can be shaped and someone who does not want to shape their opinion because they think it's infalliable. I placed quotation marks because as I said, i dislike the phrase "close minded" and tend to think that it doesn't mean very much in an argument.

Theres a difference between having an opinion and having a dogmatic opinion. I hate these words anyway but i'll admit I am "close minded" on somethings because I beleive empiricism is the way to find truth, and therefore i am "close minded" to things like divine revelation ect.

Mm, he's talking about soft drugs. I mean you can't OD on Marajuana the worst that happens is you feel a little sick. Also, Hendrix died from taking sleeping pills and drinking wine (two legal drugs) and Kurt Cobain died from shooting himself in the head with a shotgun.

Mm, but since we can't prove a specific God (aka one that preforms miracles) miracles remain illogical. It's wrong to assume miracles are logical because of that first assumption. What that person said at the end of their message "I mean logically its totally possible" looked like he/she was concluding to miracles being logical which isn't the case. Even if we proved that a God created the earth (his/her first assumption) miracles being logical still wouldn't be rightly assumed from that. But anyway, the argument is worthless since it requires proof of the Christian God, so really the premise just relies on the conclusion which is illogical anyway.

Yea man.

No i need to know what you mean when you say "close minded" first. Mirroring me is annoying.

Thats not logical. Its very logical. You just didn't get it and missed the point. :wall: ~Defender~ Okay then explain how thats logical.

When I found loose change I tried to be the government's advocate. I gave them the benefit of the doubt as long as I could until I couldn't put up with it anymore. I'm not trying to be one sided. Of course I don't listen to one theory continuously. I'm doing this because I would agree with everything Alex Jones says no matter what or anything like that (though many of you are sounding like that unfortunately). Clearly you have failed to research any counter arguments to "Loose Change". There are websites devoted to debunking it. Here are some: 1 2 3 4 5

You're going to get flamed a lot. I don't beleive all thats said, but it's better to take a stand from a critical viewpoint than it is to insult people that do. My advice would be to read some of the counter evidence to documentries like "Loose Change" instead of hearing one side of the argument. Some questions will always remain though.

During the Civil Rights era (Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, etc), blacks were no longer in slavery but were still denied equal rights. Does that mean it would have been okay for Americans to continue their prejudices? Also, calling homosexuality "1 stupid issue" is not helping your claim that you are somehow fair and impartial: It is 1 big stupid issue. Does it really matter if your gay or not? NO. And you keep comparing racism to homo-sexuality. Last I checked, gays could sit anywhere on a bus, didn't have a seperate water fountain, and can get a job if they are gay. Quit acting like gays are discriminated the same as African Americans were. And how is that last quote relevant? You changed what I said to make me sound like a hypocrite. I never said anywhere that I was against gay marriage. It doesn't matter whether one minority was dicriminated over more than another. I mean you're acting like racism is worse than homophobia when they are infact, in essance, exactly the same.

I don't really understand your contempt in comparing homophobia to racism. Just because one minority has been treated worse than another minority doesn't mean both don't go through similar things. Homophobia is just as bad as racism and it really annoys me when otherwise good people hold homophobic opinions because of religion as if religion is an excuse or a good reason to hold that opinion and as if we should respect prejudice opinions because of that.

Thats not logical.