Drix D'Zanth

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Hataki Vash [/i] [B]I would erase hatred as well. I hate it when people are sitting there making fun of each other, and beating each other up, I mean. Its just horrible. So, I would erase hatred, because that causes most of lifes problems in my opinion. [/B][/QUOTE] What is love without hatred? Oh ya , this goes out to the guy/girl who said he would erase LOVE: "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come."- Matt Groening But in all seriousness, i decide to quote Shakespeare; a man who made his writing an art form: "But love is blind and lovers cannot see The pretty follies that themselves commit; For if they could, Cupid himself would blush To see me thus transformed to a boy." how true.

I would choose to erase NOTHING of human emotion. People's emotions are defined, I belive, by the apex of their flaws. Consider this, what is bliss without misery? What is shame without pride? What is turbulence without tranquility? Human emotion is a beautiful vessel in both it's benevolent and malevolent qualities. What is love without hatred? For inevitebly humanity will try to find a distinction between the two. True love is so valuable today because hatred is so widely accepted, all of us are guilty of that. I also think without the malignant emotions such as jealousy we have no where to grow upon. You realized that being jealous didn't solve the issue? While you cannot help or change the emotion usually, you will now learn to find better ways to deal with the emotion, and the emotion itself made you think. Pain has taught me far more than love. "Cherish your own emotions and never undervalue them." -Robert Henri

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] [B] Never said it was. I used what youa re refering to as a rebuttle attempt. Religion has a BIG BIG BIG background of "hate" believe it or not. Whatever you say maybe what you think but it's not true. Most of what religion has done in the past is harm and kill people. Some take religion differently, kinda like you, but the majority of your representatives in Christianity and those of Jewish and Muslim have all represented religion as something so right it's worth killing and dying for. And thats not what it's about as you said. But thats what happens. SO blame your fellow Christians, blame the Jews, blame the Muslims, blame everyone, but you cannot represent the whole of your religion. Your religion is represented by th majority of the people who call themselves Christians and you are not them. If you want to blame anyone for how I precieve Christianity, blame Christians. Cause they are the ones who did what they did in the past and continue to do today, not me. [/B][/QUOTE] Christians know that they are like everyone else, human. We are all sinners in the eye of God, the difference lies within our ability to find salvation, that we do not fall into moral degridation through a relationship with god. No Christian chooses to kill or harm someone because of their religion, that is the sin, yet the grace of God is always behind him to save humanity from their sins. Remember it has been HUMAN AGENDA, and UNRELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY that has caused the most deaths, not religion. Religion has been used in the past as an excuse or veil to hide wicked people, the Crusades, for example. I do not belive that if someone kills my mother claiming to be a christian, that christianity is at fault, or any of the honest christians. Thou Shalt Not Kill is a commandmant, and those who wish to bear true witness to god shall follow it. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] [B]Dunno about you, but that is just as about as ignorant as one can be. Shame on you for judging others before yourself. God is not the world. Maybe to you he is, but to me, he's not. I speak as an open minded person who is not blinded by a faith, who's decisions are not obstructed by a belief. I believe in God, but he does not obstruct my free will given to him by me. He shouldn't obstruct yours either. [/B][/QUOTE] Thanks for the support TN but Justin and I worked it out through private message, we were both at fault in some situations, and we realize that we are both human. We have forgiven one another and I belive God's grace has also forgiven us too. This is now in the past, please do not bring those words up. I recognize your defense, and I'm not trying to belittle it though TN.

Complete bull.. in my opinion

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by doukeshi03 [/i] [B]No need to be sarcastic. [/B][/QUOTE] Not trying to be a jerk, sorry . [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by doukeshi03 [/i] [B]Maybe the point is that you are graded on the theory of evolution in biology because it links to the scientific practices of an "evolving world". Granted there is no proof to state whether or not this part of God's plan and whether or not God is directing it to a certain wish, however there is no proof to state otherwise. Therefore it is necessary for both to be taught with equal zeal. You are graded on your understanding of the concept of evolution, are you not also graded on you understanding of religious theory and the belief system that stems from that in Religious Studies? If you aren't then that is a shame that should be rectified within you schooling system [/B][/QUOTE] I think that is the problem though. Right now evolution is taught as FACT and there is no exchange of ideas, no discussion of Intelligent design! The problem is that many schools do not teach religion because they belive in something called "separation of church and state". While teaching isn't the same as indoctrinated, as stated earlier. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by doukeshi03 [/i] [B]Just because you choose not to believe in it doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught. Actually [i]because[/i] you don't believe in it is the very reason why it should be taught. [/B][/QUOTE] I think if one is taught, both should. So in this respect I agree with you. Except the reason i should be taught is for a greater understanding, not a lack of belief. In this post I agree with you, as you seem to be coming from a more reasonable viewpoint in my opinion (note: opinion). So there's not to much to argue. Keep up the good discussion!

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Justin [/i] [B] Drix: I do not know what salvation you claim, but I hope it is not by Christ. Your language alone demonstrates your lack of the Blood, because Jesus never swore in preaching the Gospel. -Justin [/B][/QUOTE] Profanity is subject to the times. A-ss wasn't profane until the later 19th century, and then it was a common insult, not a horribly taken word. I would hope that god wishes me to claim salvation, for that is what I belive in, Jesus. I recognize the fact that I am a sinner despite what profanity is used, and I realize that I am human much like you or anyone else on this board. I do NOT however choose to condemn one's faith , especially condemning them through Christ, for god's message is one of FORGIVNESS not conviction. I pray for forgivness of the sins i know that I may commit or unintentionally commit, I do not ask myself to be perfect in this, but I ask that god work through me. I hope that you do not attempt to take the judgment of the Lord upon yourself, Justin. I appreciate that your prayers are with all of us, and my prayers are with everyone likewise. -Drix

TN thank you for replying, you answered most of my questions. The question i was trying to ask is really how would you justify the right to life WITHOUT the consitution? I mean, how would you create the constitution then say that we all have an unaliable right? Would it be determinate of popular vote? Would it be determinate of the current political leader? Is human logic to be trusted upon, when we have seen human morals change and fail, resulting in horrific human disasters? How can you trust anything EXCEPT the moral guidleines of a higher being? I'm not trying to prove a point in this post, I need to clarify my questions a bit better. I want to understand TN's opinion a bit more.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]I look at it this way. The bible - GEN1:1 7 days GEN 2:1 Adam & Eve Two completely different creation stories that came from two equally distant parts of the Jewish country before they really got into science and both theory?s were accepted by the early church (120ad ish) and have been included in the finial "definitive" version of the bible which was just a cut down version of about 150 books and has stayed in until this day and to go with the fundamentalist Christian view it is tort to young children (and it bible basher neighbourhoods to older people) that these are in fact two factual stories that follow on from one another. This is plainly not the case since the "church" states that they are separate stories. Now you cant have two different absolute correct right ways for the same thing to happen at the same time which is the first (of many) examples of why the bible cannot be taken as "gods word" which brings the possibility that it is in fact very flawed and leaves it as basically a book that has what some guys a few thousand years ago said that is really just a good moral way to live a Christian life and since you no longer have a logical reason to believe the creationism story over others it just becomes another possible theory out of the thousands of others and gives you the opportunity to adopt the evolution theory if you wish. Or at least that?s how I deal with that sort of thing. (An insight into my thinking?) [/B][/QUOTE] I don't think you realize that Adam was the man that was created in genesis (god wanted to create man, remember?). I don't think you've intepreted the bible or this topic correctly. It was a sequence of events that eventually led to adam and eve, not random misaligned stories. Also , this thread isn't just christian. In fact, Intelligent Design refers to all major religions. --------------------------- Now this guy is a real Einstien, not only does he spew ONLY RHETORIC instead of his OWN opinions, he decides to attack someone elese's veiws! [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by doukeshi03 [/i] [B] Evolution is not a belief system, it's scientific and based on more fact than creationism. You have to be taught evolution in biology simply because it relates to every living organism on this planet. [/B][/QUOTE] You, like many other people i know, has been happily exposed to the "I teach it , so it is fact." method favored by many a highschool teacher. You claim it is fact when it is not even theory. You see to have a theory you need to be able to TEST a hypothesis in a controlled environment. Creationism relates to every organism as much as evolution. It is just the same facts with different intepretation. For example, There is a tree that secretes sap that traps a type of ant, giving the frog species around it sustinance. 1) evolution- the symbiotic relationship between the tree and the frog evolved the tree into somehow having this sap through fairly random, and unrequieted mechanisms not fully relaible or unmitigated. While each in itself came about through random unguided processes. or 2)Wow, this is great! God saw this one coming so he made the sap, good call god. -While as incredibly simple and uncomplex as the 2nd one may be, BOTH are as "unscientific" as the other. I'll elaborate later. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by doukeshi03 [/i] [B]Let me point you to the evolution of moths in industrial London. Now, the original moths were brown and mottled, easily camoflauged against the trees and shrubs in the woodland areas surrounding London. However, once the industrial revolution started the trees were blackened with soot and waist from the chimenys of the ever growing factorys. Because of this the brown moths didn't survive because their comflauge didn't work. because of random mutation certain moths of the colony with darker markings survived, thus spurring on the creation of a new generation of entirely black moths...which, incidently, survived. [/B][/QUOTE] GOOD JOB. You just displayed the theory of microevolution, while also leaving the debate as to whether the mechanisms of such are random (evolutionary) or driven by god is still up to debate. I'm not talking about variation in a species, I'm talking species changing to a species. That's what we haven't proven. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by doukeshi03 [/i] [B] Creationists are merely blind to scientific facts that have been discovered. How do you explain dinosaurs huh? However, there has been no proof either that the creation story is a myth, though why you deem this one fact and all the other creation stories myth is a mystery to me. To deny evolution to the public schooling system is merely denying pupils the chance to decide for themselves. Hell I had a science teacher who had to get someone else to come in and teach evolution cause he was firmly christian...he's a reverend now. [/B][/QUOTE] Actually no one here is blind to the facts, it's just how you intepret the SAME facts. The dinosaurs, well good question. Ask a theologist. Personally I belive god created and destroyed them within the same period of time, wishing to change the earth to his grand plan, perhaps he may have wanted some dinosaurs to be here, perhaps he thought they should not exist, you can comprehend the infinite wisdom of God if you dare. I'll be asking him when I reach him. You also seem to misunderstand, I deem INTELLIGENT DESIGN as fact not a single creationist story, Intelligent design works with all creationism stories, not just Christianity, let's not make this a christian argument shall we? Listen, neither can be proven, neither can be disproven. In fact I belive telling me that the world was created in 6 days (depending on your creationism story, I'm quoting the one that judaism/christianity/islam use) is neither more or less RADICAL or INCREDIBLE than beleiving that a molecule as complex as DNA/RNA with its millions of sugars, proteins, and nucleotides, came together through RANDOM events. Evolution can't seem to describe the chicken-and-egg problem, which came first DNA, or the organism to support it? Understand that because you CANNOT take 1 species and put it into a controlled environment, take it out, and change it into another species, evolution is NOT a THEORY! Both of these require FAITH to follow and understand. I resent the fact that i share a different faith from evolution yet I am told like it is FACT and graded upon an modele entirely determinated by one's FAITH. I think both should be realized and taught for what they are, not fact, not theory, but models from which a person can individualize his/her opinion. Evolution isn't any more scientific than Creationism. Granted, evolution has spured much discovery, but what most people dont realize is that the facts presented by Evolutionary Biologists could be attributed to Intelligent Design. The fundamentals of evolution are that the world and everything around us through unguided, random occurances. Random occurances like the formation of COMPLEX organs such as the eye, or the ear. Why do we have an ear? Why is it shaped so? I'll get some more quotes on evolution about this later , but the ear really shouldn't have evolved in the first place. It's a fluke of evolution in it's mechanisms especially considering the course it has taken. But the ear has a purpose right? Why yes it does! Fluke of evolution or design of some immaculate being, I leave that up to you guys. I agree with TN with his reply, even though he used evolutionary "theory" . Bastard ;-P .

I would like to get a debate going on the growing unmitigation of the Evolutionary Model in our society today. I, like some of you, have already completed my secondary education, etc. A class that every student was required to take in our school was Biology. I remember biology fondly, I loved it, it's what fueled my desire to pursue my pre-med major today! However, as a strong christian, I found my beleifs put into scrutiny when Biology class's second trimester ran a three week study of evolution and natural selection. I don't want to go spewing off my opinions JUST YET, so I'm going to let a few people express their opinions precursarily. I want to know, should evolution be taught in schools at all? What about kids that choose not to belive in this Model? Do you think that BOTH evolution and Intelligent Design (aka, creationism) should be taught in public schools? What are your thoughts. Oh, let me also ask that you SUPPORT your opinions. And avoid the phrase "Theory of Evolution", because it isn't.

I would probably find really pointless threads i started on messageboards when I was young and naive, and delete them.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] [B]I feel no need to comment any further. I have said what I need to say and thats how I see. The constitution is not law, it's a platform of rights given to us. The right NOT to be forced to have a religion, by placing a statue of Christian background in a state building, I feel that the state is choosing a religion for itself, and as a person under the state, I feel it being choosen for me. If there's no seperation of church and state, then I hope this country becomes a Christian theocracy, then I hope you all die from some holy war you have with muslims. This is absolutely ridiculous. This whole thread brings shame to what America should stand for. If I wanted to see a god damn statue of the f-ing ten commandments, I'd go to a god damn church, not a f-ing court house. I hope that makes my point clear enough to understand without being torn apart by people who don't believe in the fundamentals of their very own country! [/B][/QUOTE] I'm not going to belittle you or your post. I'm not even going to scrutanize your opinions, as this discussion has already lead my rebuttles. Understand though, your opinions and mine are what create this country, opinions started it, opinions defined the constitution. It's where you direct the opinions that matters, and in what context. I do wish for you to understand that no fundamentals are being torn apart, that I belive in the fundamentals of the united states, but don't agree that a fundamental "no religion in the government" policy exists. I have to ask you these questions, and I do hope you reply. If you don't have a paper like the constitution created for you, how do you base your fundamentals? How do you justify saying everyone has unailiable rights? How would you re-write the consitution? What would rationalize your opinion over another persons? What greater absolute truth do you look towards? I would like to understand where you come from.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AutoKill [/i] [B] But when it comes to turning on a toster. He will fail do to the lack of commensence he has to plug the toster in. [/B][/QUOTE] I dare you to find anyone that can give me the theory of relativity and fail to plug a toaster in. I just thought the severe lack of common sense in your entire post was funny. Good joke! I love the blond stuff. I'm blond, though, so I don't get it .... in reality.

Hey Justin, you've got every right to do so man. More power to you. Godbless -Drix

First off, I've been gone, so I hope this thread isn't dead, but I like the way the conversation is evolving! Secondly, Transtic Nerve, I don't want to seem like I'm picking on you, but you are actually the only opposing side of this argument that I belive has posted enough substantiation for me to put effort into rebuttle. I'm replying because while i respect and understand you opinions, I disagree. Ahhh, dialectics. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] [B]Actually, school is the perfect place to TEACH religionS, with an S. It's the perfect place to learn about religionS. It's the perfect place to get insight on religionS. Going to church is not learning a religion, thats following a religion. If you want to learn a religion, you have to be taught by an outside person. I was taught in school by an atheist. She by far my favourite teacher ever. She taught us not only about Christianity, but Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, and several others even. She didn't have a stand on one specific issue thus she could equally talk and share opinions on each of the religions. School is a great place to LEARN about religions, not to follow them. I see what you were thinking though. [/B][/QUOTE] I agree. It's about learning religions, not following them. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] [B] Drix, I honestly don't read Socrates... he's too hard for me to understand in everything he does so I tend to ignore him or read Plato or someone who takes his ideals and makes them so much simpler. Even though I did understand what you said, I still didn't see how it incorporated into the argument of seperation of church and state. Which is why I didn't respond. It seems more talking about the actions of people and what they do on a free mind then what is written in law and what people do. My only true point is below which pertains to this topic, anything else is opinion. [/B][/QUOTE] Plato? Simple? Have you READ plato? If anything plato went onto a tangent, described the world as having two realities, the perfect and imperfect that mirror eachother. God he couldn't get the idea of a REPUBLIC in order, despite his book "The Republic" .. intriguing. As for socrates, well, I'm just describing something about reletivism, and the maligned impression of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS (ironic term, isn't it?). I'll come back to this later. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] [B]Article 5, Admendment 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America states: [i]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibbiting the free exercise thereof.......[/i] [/B][/QUOTE] WELL WHAT DO YOU KNOW! Your only defensve argument, the constitution, is INVALID. Don't you realize that George bush can PRAY on TV, ask the PEOPLE of the untied states to become BUDDHIST or whatever, and he wouldn't be breaking a law? Granted, he probably wouldn't be re-elected, but he wouldn't be making any "law". This also means the statue isn't BREAKING any law, but in fact means, congress CANNOT take down the memorial, THAT would be defying this amendment. What does this mean? I could create a church on state land, and congress cant pass a law saying it can be torn down, that would be "prohibiting the free exercise thereof.." What do you know! Thanks! I thought I was going to have to track this stuff down because , well , considering there is no such thing as the "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE." I didn't see ANY of those words, except of within there. You realize the law is to PROTECT the church and religion from the STATE, NOT Vice versa! Oh, I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy inside. I should probably stop. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] [B] As Thomas Jefferson stated [i]"..I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting establisment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of seperation between church and state."[/i] [/B][/QUOTE] Quote Tommy all you want. He's also the guy that said "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...." Well holy ****. The country belives in a creator. You know why they are endowed by their Creator? Because It will be the day hell freezes over before life is endowed by fellow man. Oh, the document this was quoted from was The DeclarationOf Independence. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] [B] There is a wall between church, any church, and the state, our government. That wall should not be breached. By placing a statue of the ten commandments in a state house, that wall is being breached. For now the government is respecting a certain religion. And thus, by constitutional law, this cannot be. This is my point. My point is not that it's wrong for Bush or this judge to believe in God.... my point is that talking about, reflecting upon, or putting statues in place that represent a certain religion is giving that religion respect in our government, and by doing so, that breaks our our constitutional laws. [/B][/QUOTE] No the wall would be breached, ACCORDING TO THE DIRECT WORDING OF THE DAMN CONSTITUTION, if congress passed a LAW saying they "could NOT" have the statue their. The government respects all religions through allowing any religion to be practiced UNIPEDED by LAW! Including statues of Christianity. You don't realize the ten commandments arent a cross, they are a MORAL GUIDE. I hate it when people piss and moan because it happened to be mentioned in the old testiment. If it were a buddhist moral guide, people wouldn't go up in such a ferverent reaction would they? No, at least I wouldn't. This statue represents : 1. Don't Kill 2. Don't screw with anyone but your wife (alot of people still hold RELIGIOUS practices like marriage sacred.) 3. Be nice to your parents 4. Be nice to your neighbor (fellow man). 5. Don't steal. The rest of the commandmants deal with a monotheistic god. I see thats where the heat comes from right? Cause it mentions GOD? Well why aren't you pissing and moaning about Judaism or Islam, the other two major religions that belive in the Ten Commandmants. Cause it is always about CHRISTIANITY. You, like many others, have it out for christianity in particular, even thought it was Judeo-CHRISTIAN philosiphy that even allows you to voice such opinions against people in such a fashion. Irony in platinum. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] [B]There isn't an argument whether it offends anyone or not. The only argument here is if it defys the first admendment, which it does. Therefor, it should be taken down regardless if it offends any one or not. [/B][/QUOTE] Well then, i guess your argument is rebutted, cuase it DOESNT defy the amendment, and you revealed if the Federal Gov't got involved, well then it WOULD defy the amendment. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] [B] The deabte whether or not this country was founded on Christian ideals is irrelevant. What does the constitution say? I quoted it. I quoted the man who helped write much of it. Both saying that there is a seperation of church and state. This statue, of Christian origin and representing Christian beliefs, was placed in a state house. This is clearly a violation of the constitution. Any other argument or opinion is irrelevant, you're all looking at it fom the wrong way. [/B][/QUOTE] There's no such thing as separatin of church and state, please stop saying that. It's not in the constitution. Hell we just SAW ITS absence! :) Oh ya, I've got bad news for you: Thomas Jefferson Did NOT write ANY part of the united states constitution. Looks like someone didn't study their history! Feel free to burn me if I'm wrong, just give me a weblink telling me that he had any part. Also, you forget the constitution IS NOT LAW. The constitution is a guideline to CREATE LAW UPON, because the constitution can be changed! [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] [B] Bush could go "I'm taking away your right to free speech and freedom of assembly. IE: You can't protest against the war."... well hell, thats not harming anyone, so should Bush be allowed to do it? Ofcourse not. Look at it from the view of the constitution and what America's basis is on, not from your opinons on whether or not it offended anyone. Hell it offends me to be in there, so now it offends someone, so it should be removed. Happy now? [/B][/QUOTE] That would be harming people. Do you know why? You seem to think that HARM is only on the physical sense, or at least that's how you approached it in what you just wrote. No he would be INFRINGING and thus HARMING peolple (I know I would be emotionally crushed ;) ) if he took away our RIGHTS. But the fact is BUSH has nothing to do with it. I wish you understood the purpose of the Federal Gov't . Liberalism today has grown to nearly the point of mild socialism. STOP ASKING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TELL PEOPLE WHAT TO DO. The federal government should only be involved with TAXES and the MILITARY (granted there are institutions that are significant like postal system , etc) . People should realize that we are starting to create a government that controls the people now , instead of vice versa. I think freedoms should be limited to the fine line where it prevents the INFRIGMENT upon anothers opinion. I'm sorry but being OFFENDED at someone isn't breaking a law. I offend people every day, vice versa (suprising, no?), but there is nothing I can do about it. People can call me an "*******" and I can sit down on the sidewalk and pray that god forgive them, no laws are broken. THAT IS THE BEAUTY OF THE US. Oh ya, sorry about caps. I'm trying to put emphasis on certain words, but I'm too lazy to use the bold or italics feature. Heh. Don't use that against me ok? :p Please reply, I'm having so much fun with this.

I am commonly steretyped as a white, upper-class, male. The most hated steryotype of the United States. (It's not my faut my dad grew up in poverty, turned his life around, and went to college, secruing a future)

[COLOR=darkred] OOC:I really hope this isn't considered double posting. But I have to leave for the weekend. IC: V'sh'thou looked around at the eyes staring at him, they hated him like everyone he'd met. The cycle continued, he would mean no harm, then they would make their Judgement. The shadow's eyes softened a bit, he let the tendrils loose, "You shall hear me again, when you are truely ready to listen." He sank into the ground, no longer could his presence be felt in the area. [/COLOR]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] [B]I'm going to end up picking apart most of your post, so bear with me here. No offense meant, just trying to proove my point ultimately. [/B][/QUOTE] No problem, but there is no sense in proving a point , as this all regards opinions, not truth. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] How can you disagree? It's in the constitution. There's no agree or disagree, there is facts and what is being done. Whether you or anyone else likes it or not, religion is NOT supposed to be incorporated in government, Bush is doing that. Those are the facts. There's no disagreeing over that. [/B][/QUOTE] The constitution is the very thing that allows me to disagree. It's not against the law for me to hold a seperate opinion from the constitution. You seem to miss the point of the separation of church and state argument of the constitution. The founding fathers wanted to forever correct the idea that religious officials should rule through the church, and puritanical belifs should be enforced. There is nothing unconstitutional about talking about god in a workplace, you don't have to listen. As long as the government does not infer upon the churches behalf or vice versa, the established amendment remains valid. Once again, just because the "facts" exist, doesn't mean that a seperate intepretation of said "facts" is plausible. Your opinion is as good as mine, vice versa. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] Again I refer to the fact that religion is of PERSONAL choice. PERSONAL is not work related. I don't go into work complaining about how crappy my gay life is. I go to work and I work. Work life is different from personal life, religion is personal, thus it needs to stay out of the workplace. I'm not violating anything. He can still believe whatever crap he wants to believe, he can still believe it at work. He just shouldn't use it when making work decisions. [/B][/QUOTE] Please, go to work and complain about how crappy your gay life is. First ammendment there, man. You have the right. There is nothing wrong with allowing your religion to influence your actions or decisions as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] ::sigh:: His beliefs ARE infringing upon other's rights. He continues to use them for making dicisions. He continues to use them in public speeches. He continues to use them as a representation of this nation. He takes in no consideration to those who may not believe in God or who believe in other Gods. [/B][/QUOTE] Looks like you saw my last reply coming ;). You don't seem to realize that he can make desicions using his personal or religious life. If you don't like it, don't vote for him. Beautiful system isnt it. He isn't forcing you to accept his opinions, he is merely performing to his best abilities as leader of our nation. Whether he consoles in a "religion" is no different than consoling in your own "logical opinions." They are both debatable philosophies, thus equal. He takes no offense towards people that do not belive in god or gods, he isn't forcing his belifs on anyone. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] Thats an oxy-moron. You can't have a non-religious crusade. Regardless, I never said his war on terrorism was a religious one. The war on Iraq was for oil, the outsting of Saddam was just our official reason for it. The war on Afganistan was to find a guy whom we never did. We just got rid of the Taliban as a side project. [/B][/QUOTE] You got me there, i was attempting a figure of speech here, don't scrutanize too much in this situation. It wasn't a crusade. And , no, the war in Iraq isn't for oil. Let me ask you this: We've been in Iraq before, why didn't we take their oil then? There is no legitimate reason for us to take their oil, or any other resource, we aren't out for conquest (hint: look up conquest). Answer me this again, STRAIGHT UP: how would leaving people like Saddam Hussein in power help the people of Iraq? I don't expect us to eliminate every tyrannical leader, but we had legitimate evidence that they threatened our national security. I'd wrather take out a tyrannical regime and NOT find any weapons of mass destruction than even take the chance. The possible consequences justify our actions in my opinion. But I'd wrather discuss the war on Iraq in PM if possible. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] Here's one: He's blantantly against gay marriages because he is trying to define marriage as a religious ceremony specifically meant for a man and a woman. Which is based off of his Christian faith. He doesn't believe in gay adoption cause his belief in Christianity tells him a family is a man and a woman. He's an adament Christian who places his adament Christian beliefs in all of his work. [/B][/QUOTE] He is allowed to oppose gay marrriages. It's his political stand. People are elected into office with their opinions and political stands, religious or philosophical. Believing that gay marriages should be legal by its own MECHANISMS is the same nature, just a different "philosophy/religion". I personally don't belive gay's should be married, I've got my reasons. I would advocate against it if I were voted into political power. Isn't that the purpose of choosing a representative government? Not the means behind an idea, but the idea itself? Look at the big picture. I belive anyone, including gay's should adopt. Like Bush, I have the right, if elected to power, to express my opinions to what I feel is best for the nation, regardless of my justifications. It's the end , not the means. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] No, I'm asking him to do as the constitution says and seperate church from state. He is not doing that. Therefor he is preforming acts which are unconstitutional. I'm only asking him to be constitutional, he's not giving up his freedom of religion. He can still have it, he just can't use it when doing governmental thing, as so stated in the constitution. My argument is not mute, you just haven't read the constitution. [/B][/QUOTE] Yes he is. Refer to my last rebuttal. He isn't telling us to belive in the christian doctrine. He isn't letting the church, or religious body define our country. He is defining it by the governmental processes in place. I have read the constitution, perhaps we intepret the history behind it differently? [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] The right to life was around LONG before Jesus was ever born. Ever heard of the Greeks or the Romans? Both societies who practiced the right to life within it's own people. (obviously, as with today, this doesn't incorporate wars or enemies) Regardless, if any group amung the peoples of today has taken more life in this world, it's most certainly the three major monothiestic religions. Your belief in God has caused more people to die than the plague. I advise you to read my most recent MyOtaku entry as a fine example. Other examples would obviously be the Crusades. [/B][/QUOTE] Greeks and romans? Oh dear god! The closest thing that the greeks got to in the ways of the right to life was under Peracles. Peracles advocated a true democracy as a form of absolute truth (back to socrates), and under direct advisment from Socrates. Otherwise: -Most greek city states were ruled by a leader, no one had a right to much of anything unless the ruler said so. -Spartans would kill off babies or young children for merely CRYING. It was a sign of weakness. -Thebians would cast widows into the ocean. -All three practiced human sacrifice, slavery, and monarchal rule. -Roman colusseums. Enough Said. -Roman's also endorsed slavery. -The Republic ruled for a while, granting a limited right to life to patricians. Plebians, or commoners were subject to anything the Patricians desired. -Speaking of plebians. Roman soldiers by law at the time, were allowed to use a plebians house, and WIFE with or without consent from the plebian. Refusal would result in execution. -Watch Spartacus, true story. I could go on... I think I'll move on to your next point. Next. Actually Atheism and its myriad of corresponding philosophies have caused more death in the world, probably combined with personal agenda. Do you think the crusades were a Christian act? I don't belive they are. This is subjec to debate, I belive the crusades were based upon the personal agenda of Pope Innocent III, who used a veil of christianity to hide the political reasons. Oh I'm getting of track. Yes Atheism has killed more people, allow me to elaborate: -Hitler: 5,044,000 killed jews (I didn't even include the thousands he killed in subsequent invasions of poland, france, russia, attacking britian, etc. ) Means: Personal agenda, there was no real reason why Hitler had anything against the Jews. Judaism isn't responsible for this, the political machine was only fueled by judaism. It was a means, not an end. -Stalin: 7,700,000 civilians, mostly orthodox jews. Means: He hated religion. -Mao Zedong: 14 to 20 million deaths from starvation during the 'Great Leap Forward'. Tens of thousands killed and millions of lives ruined during the 'Cultural Revolution'. Means: promoting atheism. These are just a few juicy ones. I could give you MORE examples if you wanted *cough* napoleon *cough*. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] Yes I thank my founding fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson for making sure that the seperation of church and state exists in this country (see quotes below). This country is not a theocracy. lol, stop pretending it is. Thomas Jefferson, a man who believed in God, the man who gave you freedom, was especially adoment in the ideal of seperation of church and state, why aren't you? [/B][/QUOTE] Stop pretending that you, or any other person, or body of person's has the right to justify even one man's right to life based upon their personal opinions. History points against that. Thomas Jefferson was a religious man by word, not practice. In fact he was a Deist, not a Christian. I belive you misintepret the constitution is all. You belive that it should be taboo to even mention god in the government. Well , If we can't trust a figure like god, who can we trust? You? Sorry, my opinions differ. The populace? There have been empires of total disregard for human life. What else can we trust in? The point i make is that we don't FORCE you to BELIVE it. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]This has what to do with the seperation of church and state, which is what this whole topic is about? You all seem to think Freedom of Speech is total freedom in speech. It's not. You have to read between the lines. There are limits to freedom, most of us figured that out when the government enacted the Patriot Act. We don't have complete freedom of speech, the lines are drawn and there's a big one in the ideal of seperation of church and state. Which basically means your freedom of speech ends when you start bringing the church into our government. Sorry. UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Thats the way it is folks. Be good Americans and just accept the fact GOD has no place in our government. No matter how bad you want it. If you want a theocracy, travel back a few hundred years or move to the middle east. [/B][/QUOTE] Actually it is a freedom of speech. I have a right to say you wrong you have the same right to say it to me. You are just being redundant here. I suppose that is a major factor in your argument after all. If you want an oxymoron try "Limited Freedom", unless we are reffering to the OBJECT of our freedom, in which case, i digress. Did you even read my socrates aricle :(. I didn't hear anything referring to it. Thank you for your opinions. While I disagree with yours, please know that I respect your opinions and choice of lifestlye.

I suppose this is better than starting up a thread of my own.. hopefully: -THIS IS MY OFFICIAL CHALLENGE! HOW CAN YOU TELL IT'S OFFICIAL? WHY, I'M TYPING IN ALL CAPS, THEREFORE IT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANYTHING YOU HAVE READ OR TALKED ABOUT TODAY. (drip, sarcasm, drip) I SERIOUSLY CHALLENGE ANYONE TO A PM LOTR QUIZ, COVERING ALL OF TOLKEIN'S OFFICIAL WORKS (THE TRILOGY, HOBBIT, AND SIL). IF ANY OF YOU HAVE THE GUTS TO FACE ME, WELL , PM ME. I'M GOING TO END BEFORE I START GETTING REDUNDANT, SO IF ANY OF YOU HAVE THE GUTS TO FACE ME, WELL ....

Ahahah you don't get it! With my ring of power the world will be MINE! I will rule your mountains of wealth. Your powers of flying will be useless against my powers of.. well... binding.. in.. the darkness. Jesus, this is starting to sound like a BDSM slave's wet dream. Anyway, I wouldn't be stupid about the ring, I'd lodge it deep inside my body cavity, rendering me immortal and able to control EVERYTHING , MUAHAHHAHAHA.

Drix will kill the cutter of wrists. Drix has dibs. edit: ... on Kanjo

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] [B]I don't say that it's not his job as a Christian to not preach, I'm saying, as President, it is your duty, your perogative, your JOB to be a servant to the people. Thats the job of a president in democracy and in our country. As I said before, religion is a personal thing. Not everyone believes what you believe, thus it is personal. And personal things do not belong in the job place, which is EXACTLY why we have speration of church and state in this country. As President he has the OBLIGATION as a servant of this country and of it's people to disregard any personal beliefs to do the duty set before him. For if he continues to use his religion convictions as a basis for his decissions, he defys the meaning of this country, of democracy, and of all the people he is supposed to serve. It's unconstitutional and un-American. Again, exactly why this statue needs to be removed. Look, believe what you want, I'm not saying that you shouldn't believe. But if you choose a job, like the presidency, you need to know that your beliefs have no place in it. He decided that when he ran for President, he should have understood that, yet still... he continues to use Christianity in everything he does work related and THAT is wrong. And if you choose a job for the government of this country you must KNOW that we have speration of church and state and that as a worker of this country you have to respect that and confide to that. There's NO other way. Those are the rules. [/B][/QUOTE] Alright. I think you make fairly valid points, but I disagree. By asking the president to no longer use his faith in the workplace is violating his personal rights and his freedom to religion. So what he prays over the country? So what he chooses to refer to a wisdom that he belives transcends our comprehension? Since when was that BAD? He ABSOLUTELY has the right to use Christianity in anything he does as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others, which it is not. His crusade against terrorism isn't a religious one. I've yet to see one of his goals or projects proprieted directly from his religion. You are asking him to give up his first amendment, therefor I consider your argument mute. Every man has an obligation to something. I understand why this country's currency has "In god we trust" printed upon it. Despite your arguments, we cannot trust the fellow man, whatever you belive. Forever, common sense will always change, there is always a way to justify one's actions when no one has anything to hold it accountable to. The right to life is a Christian founded one, not all people or religions belive in such a right. Debate as you may, but historically human life has never truely been viewed as sacred, much less a right, in most countries even to today. I think this refers to an argument covered over two thousand years ago, by Socrates. Socrates realized that in relative truth, nothing could be justified. Such is the case with the Sophists. The Sophists belived that every opinion was right, and justified within itself. "Who cares that I killed this man, I justified it. Our opinions may be different , but we are equal, you have no right to justify yours over mine." With this logic, civilization is mute entirely. Socrate's belived in Absolute Truth. He belived there was some higher power to attone to, something from which to base law. Our government was founded upon an absolute truth, fundamentally the judeo-christian philosophy, where life is sovereign because GOD says it is. I hope you thank your founding fathers for believing this, for if we placed our rights under the relative ideas of the common populace, we may not be a free country. Hitler was a perfect example of relative truth in action. Without referring to some higher power, how do you justify his killing of nearly all the european Jews? You can't. Why? It all refers back to the Socrates argument. As for the topic, do I belive it should be removed? It's not hurting anything, and it doesn't represent anything malignant. It isn't forcing people to look at it or belive in it. If the majority of people say it should go, then let it go. It's just like any monument, it's there to symbolize what a poopulace agrees or confides in. If the population want's it there, let it stay. I really could care less. I think everyone here, though, should realize how lucky they are that they have an opportunity to voice their opinion , and change the world around them. Let's not critisize those who voice the opposite.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Leh [/i] [B][size=1][b]Believing in Jesus is religion, therefore they are trying to tell us Chrisitianity is the right religion, and schools are not places to teach religion.[/b][/size] [/B][/QUOTE] Actually schools are the perfect place to teach religion. There is a difference between "teaching" and "indoctrinating." I think that all of the major religions of the world should be tought objectively and with responsibility. I don't think the religions should be put on a pro-con basis, but the fundamental values of the 5 major religions of the world (christianity, judaism, buddhism, hinduism, and islam) and their impacts on history should most definately be covered. As i've said earlier, this should be taken objectively, allowing the student to formulate his own opinions on the matter. This also refers to an argument I have that creationism (or Intelligent Design) should be taught along with evolutionism. The exchange of ideas and debate of such is the highest apex of learning. "It's all about the dialectics, my boy."

i don't care what anyone says, jhonny cash could kick marylin manson's ***.

I'd wish for the one ring... or the immaculate ability to refer to myself in the third person

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Crimson Spider [/i] [B] Even deadlier is the Wandering spiders. Their poison is very strong to even a full adult. Wandering spiders are so agressive it is rediculess. They can grow to be about the size of a small turantula. They are on-foot hunters. In fact, the deadliest spider on earth is the Brazilian Wandering Spider. Only in Brazile. Known to attack humans without fear. Most powerful venom in arguably the world. Large, and on-foot hunter. The second to most deadly spider is the Sydny Funnel web. Quite agressive, though not as much as the wanderer, second to most powerful poison, and fangs that can pierce bone. [/B][/QUOTE] Not according to the Discovery Channel. According to them, the funnelweb is actually the most powerful and ounce for ounce most deadly Arthropod. I'd like to see information or references about this wandering spider. If i'm wrong, i'd love to learn something new. I guess I could dig up some references too if need be.