Brasil

[QUOTE]I was very angry after reading one of Siren's posts (lol)[/QUOTE] Okay...good for you. [QUOTE=Adahn]I find that determination intensifies me in every way. It is how I respond to necessity. Adrenaline is brought on by fear and/or excitement (I think). You don't want either of those things when trying to push yourself beyond normal limits. When I'm determined, I think, speak, and move more quickly. I become faster, smarter, and stronger[...]and started venting energy off in my head, essentially getting myself pumped for God knows what. So, I go over to chemistry, and everything the teacher says makes perfect sense, and [b]I answer his questions automatically. It's as if my mind spits out the right thing to do without a second thought[/b]. It's like running on complete instinct (in that I can't control it and that I do what's right for the situation). It's like I'm using a program I wrote myself, but never used before, and it runs flawlessly. What does this have to do with faith? [b]I made myself believe I could do something that seemed impossible[/b], and this brought forth the intense determination which in turn enhanced my every ability. If someone could harness this, one could constantly have heightened abilities, and essentially improve oneself dramatically.[/quote] But you didn't make yourself believe anything before answering those Chem questions. [quote]I answer his questions automatically. It's as if my mind spits out the right thing to do without a second thought.[/quote] You made no indication at all of any preparation, which means you didn't give it any previous consideration, meaning, you didn't make yourself believe anything beforehand. It was automatic, meaning, there are no previous thought processes, and there certainly is no mental, faith-based preparation. The adrenaline is merely biologically and chemically overclocking your head. That's it. Your brain is simply running faster and stronger than usual, due to increased power. That's it. [quote]Of course, maybe it's just me. *shrugs*[/QUOTE] As in, seeing something that isn't really happening? Yep.

[quote name='Adahn']But, in their lives, and the lives of everyone around me, I see so much that is just wrong.[/quote]The entirety of your post is meaningless tripe because of this one sentence, so I've taken the liberty of deleting all of that other crap. What is "wrong?" Answer me that, straight-up, with none of your opinion factoring in. I don't think you can. You've been so adamant about adhering to "traditional morals" in this thread (don't deny that, Adahn, because I [i]will[/i] call you on it if need be) but what you fail to realize is, that there are no, and have never been, any traditional morals. The archetypal "perfect" family life of Leave it to Beaver that you seem to be looking to for some sort of familial morality is a lie. [quote]Everyone has an inherent sense of right or wrong. You know when you're doing something right, because it feels right. You know when you're doing something wrong because it feels wrong.[/quote]And like I've been saying all along here, [i]there is no set right and wrong[/i], and [i]your[/i] values of right and wrong [i]do not apply[/i] to all those around you. Those relationships you consider to be so wrong and...offensive...they're just "wrong" to you, but that does not mean they are wrong, because the people in that relationship could be very, very satisfied in a "nonconventional" relationship. That's the flaw in your argument, and that's what you've been trying to say all along, that there are right and wrong types of relationships, and that's what I've been debunking the entire time, because there never has been a traditional morality. Read this: There has never been a traditional morality. [quote]Argue with me here, and I guess I am very unique in my ability to distinguish between right and wrong.[/quote]Don't make me laugh. Your "ability" to "distinguish" between right and wrong is grounded in Historical and Societal Ignorance. You only "agree" with me now because you've changed your entire stance on things mid-thread. Check out the following. You've said the following before: [quote]You should know what happens when [b]radical redefinition of morals[/b], or even words, takes place. It [b]leads to civil unrest, and even civil strife in some situations[/b]. It [b]is a sign of imbalance and uncertainty, a sign of weakness of foundation[/b].[/quote]A radical redefinition of morals is what brought about Women's Lib, Civil Rights, and Desegregation. Are you saying that those should never have happened, simply because they caused a bit of a societal hiccup at the time? [QUOTE][b]You embrace these changes, and think they are for the better. I ask you, is it worth it?[/b] Each year more people become pissed at the results of the election, and we're quickly reaching a boiling point.[/QUOTE]I certainly think Societal Progressiveness ([i]improving the quality of society[/i]) is a good idea, and certainly for the better, yes. Why wouldn't it be? A bit of political turmoil? A divided society? What was happening back in the 60s? What was happening back in the 30s? What was happening back in the 1890s? 1600s? 1400s? [quote]We're approaching stasis, Siren. [b]Is this regression from traditional morals really a good thing?[/b] Is it worth it?[/QUOTE]And I've been repeating this ad nauseum over and over again, yet you seem to fail to realize it. Leave It To Beaver was fake. The wholesome American Family was a pop culture fabrication. Marriage was not about love when it was first introduced, and it [i]never[/i] had any [i]meaningful[/i] implications. It was about business. [QUOTE]I ask you, every one of you, what is it that makes a relationship right? What can we do to solve these problems? How would people treat each other and feel about each other in a perfect world?[/QUOTE]It's funny how you're testing us here, when your take on things is so skewed. You know what makes a good (there is no right and wrong here) relationship? When both people in that relationship are satisfied and fulfilled in it. That's what makes it a good relationship. The opinions of other people (like yourself) don't matter at all. The judgments of other people (like yourself) don't matter at all. All that matters is if the people in that relationship are happy. Adahn, you've got nowhere to go here. Just admit defeat yet again, lol. Don't drag this one out to 13 pages like before, because nobody is going to think any better of you for it. You're not seen as some brilliant thinker around here, that much should be clear by the replies here, and in your other threads. You're trying so desperately hard to impress people, or to sound deep, thought-provoking, or philosophical, but you're just coming off as a simple fraud. Just forget about it, dude, and walk away.

[quote name='Adahn']Unlike you, I was speaking in the original context of the thread.[/quote]As am I, and you would have seen this had you actually read my previous post. All throughout it, I was totally debunking this myth of "traditional morals," and my [i]entire post[/i] was focused on [i]love and marriage[/i]. Read that again. LOVE AND MARRIAGE. I've been staying on-topic the entire time. [QUOTE]I'm much more concerned with relationships involving marriage and sex without love, among other things. Same-sex marriage is just a front for the larger problem. The complete and utter degradation of the significance of interpersonal relationships. This problem hides behind same-sex marriage, but it is infinitely more important. It concerns how we treat each other.[/QUOTE]Now who is drifting away from the main topic at hand? At first, you were trying to talk about relationships themselves. Now, you're talking about the "complete and utter degradation of the significance of interpersonal relationships." In your previous post, you were trying to talk about [i]politics[/i]. You're sliding more and more away from the original focus of the thread than I am, Adahn--or is it attempting to dodge and/or deflect the issue? And you're treating this entire "interpersonal relationship" situation like it's some sudden degeneration of society? Pardon my French, but that's bullsh-t. All throughout history there has been some type of degradation of relationship values. Did you pay attention to when I talked about Henry VIII, by any chance? A King who was [i]beheading his wives[/i] when they failed to give him a son? What about homemaker wives in the 50s who were addicted to [i]speed[/i]? What about broken homes [i]today[/i]? Are you about to tell me that same-sex marriage is even remotely related to those issues? I agree it concerns how we treat eachother, and I'll add to it with the following: Banning same-sex marriage is treating people far worse than fighting for personal freedoms, Adahn. Banning same-sex marriage is far, far worse, because you're treating people as inferiors. Wrap your mind around that one. You're trying to say that same-sex marriage is only a surface problem, but it isn't a problem at all. I don't know what you're basing your opinion on, but heterosexual relationships aren't perfect (far from it), and sometimes, homosexual relationships are far more loving, caring, compassionate, and secure than heterosexual ones. Homosexual marriage is in no way a degradation of marriage, [i]especially[/i] given what we know about marriage throughout history. Come on. [QUOTE]Don't tell me you don't see it everywhere. Not just in the media, but in people you see everyday.[/QUOTE]When I see people of every race and creed, sexual orientation and ethnicity being involved in successful heterosexual and/or homosexual relationships, I still fail to see how homosexual relationships are some huge crime against the supposed "traditional moralities" of society. People treat people like sh-t for more reasons than just homosexuality, Adahn. People treat others like sh-t when others are being complete morons, egostitical pricks, ignorant little bastards, or just damn self-centered. Because of this, does it make any sense at all to villify homosexuality, to add yet another kindling on that fire of intolerance? Come on. [quote]We are moving further and further away from each other in every area. We're closing our hearts and our minds to each other, and slowly eliminating everything good that can happen to two people. You can only control what is right to you, and every day people are hurt by people they open themselves to, because they are still shut off.[/QUOTE]I can play with bad and obvious allegory, too. Just see my above paragraph. And why do you think people are shutting people down? Because some people just don't know how in the hell things work in society and are latching onto outdated, ancient, vagaries of intangible, falsely positive realities spun through an escapist filtered window of an undesirable reality. EDIT: I'll put it really simply: You're simple-minded and totally wrong.

[quote name='Adahn']Is this regression from traditional morals really a good thing? Is it worth it?[/quote]Do you even know what those "traditional morals" are? I find your using that phrase completely asinine, because there never were any "traditional morals" in [i]the history of the world[/i], especially concerning love and marriage. Listen to me here. The Leave it to Beaver family of the 50s was [i]never real[/i]. Actual families of the 50s were never, never like that. Homemaker mothers were totally discontent with their roles in the home. Fathers were discontent with their roles in the family. Many, many mothers were addicted to all sorts of speeds and downers (the Housewife's Helpers, I believe). There was still divorce. There were still broken homes. We just don't hear about that because everyone thinks that Leave it to Beaver was the way it really was. It wasn't. Leave it to Beaver was pop culture's reaction to social condititions of the time, social conditions that showed the "Old Fashioned American Family" to be in utter chaos. Why do you think the Cleavers were so perfect? Because it was escapism. And these "traditional morals" you speak of...let's examine even the past Century. In the early years of the 1920s, women were wearing upwards of 35 pounds (yes, 35 [i]pounds[/i]) of clothing, because it was deemed inappropriate for them to show any skin [i]whatsoever[/i]. Up until the Flapper movement, and then later, the Women's Lib of the 60s, women had no freedoms at all. "Traditional morals" my -ss. Up until the late 60s, blacks had no rights at all. "Traditional morals" my -ss. Throughout history, marriage was rarely about love; in fact, it was about [i]business[/i]. Marriages were used to solidify alliances, to end wars, to increase wealth. Love had nothing to do with marriage for a greater part of the world's history. It was always about leverage, up until sometime around the French Enlightenment, where they started talking about marrying for love, and those French philosophers were getting [i]chewed out[/i] for of what they were saying. "Traditional morals" my -ss. The Patriarchal Dominative family structure that people "had" during the 50s was some 150 years in the making, starting around the early 1800s. It took less than 25 years to deconstruct it. Think about that. Let's not forget about Henry VIII and his six wives, two or three of whom he [i]beheaded[/i]. "Traditional morals" my -ss. Come on, dude. There are no such things as "traditional morals," and anyone who tries to claim we need avoid any type of moralistic change by prohibiting particular groups to marry, or to have a family, etc, or simply to stick to them as to avoid social chaos has no idea in hell what really was going on in the world in the past few centuries. There are no "traditional morals" in the sense of your Leave it to Beaver Ideal of a family, because Leave it to Beaver, and the Leave it to Beaver family never existed. Honestly, [i]come on[/i]. You're being completely asinine and irrational here and you're ignoring some [i]600 years[/i] of history that totally refutes your claims and observations. EDIT: Oh, by the way...there have been same-sex relationships for quite a long time in history. [list] [*]It can be traced as far back as Epic of Gilgamesh, with the brotherly love between Gilgamesh and Enkidu [*]Shakespeare was known to have male "friends," as it was actually completely normal for males of that time to have close male companions [*]Walt Whitman and Oscar Wilde were gay [*]There are entire books of Lesbian poetry from Sappho and her sisterhood on her island of Lesbos off the coast if Italy [*]Iliad and Odyssey praised the male-male relationship [/list] That's just running off the top of my head, about 20 minutes after I've woken up, and those are just the obvious ones. I could dig into my Lit Anthologies around here and produce probably 10, 15, or 20 more. But as it stands now...clearly, the same-sex relationship is not something that's just springing up overnight. Come on.

It's certainly a weird one. Though, I checked out the enhanced details, [url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR03799:@@@L&summ2=m&][u]Enhanced Details[/u][/url], and it's in some type of deliberation, and has some cosponsors and such, and apparently, is still being considered, as the last date of activity was this past September. I'd doubt it gets passed, though. Farthest it'll get seems to be where it is now. It's in a Subcommittee of a Committee, heh...it's getting shoved into Political Purgatory.

[quote name='Adahn']Leaving my own personal morality out of it, I suppose same-sex relationships (male or female) would be healthy and fruitful.[/quote] That right there is why your criteria are faulty, and why this discussion is totally redundant and invalid. Your system only has the possibility of working when personal opinion is forcibly removed from any and all types of considerations. Any personal bias or preconceived notions of anything regarding relationship "etiquette" or "morality" will automatically invalidate your "Steps of Criteria." You've said that due to your own personal viewpoint on relationships, same-sex relationships should never reach Step 3 of your list, because you believe it to be morally wrong, even though the relationship may meet the first two criteria you've set forth. Your personal opinion therefore negates the guidelines of your system, and if one opinion would break those Steps, other opinions would, as well. So, your system is only purely hypothetical, and has no application in reality, because the varying opinions of the world are impossible to remove, to establish one set of rules and guidelines concerning relationships. There are people who are perfectly content having one-night stands; there are people who are perfectly content just living together; there are people who simply don't mind fooling around with their roommate. I'd think that nondiscriminatory casual sex alone would expose the weaknesses in the fundamental design and construction of your system. Then we have divorced parents who remain friends because it's better for everyone. There's no attraction there anymore, and surely, the trust is not as strong, but they're still remaining friendly with each other. My divorced Aunt Eileen and my former Uncle Ron are on those terms, and things run smoothly. He helps out when she needs it, he's at family parties, and there's a comfortable nature about everything, because they're making sure to be on friendly terms, even though they may not love each other at all, even though there were serious breaches of trust in the past. And, how are we defining "healthy?" I mean, yes, there's this "common" definition of the word, but not everyone uses the same definition of "healthy," so in constructing this system of yours, and by using what is your own definition of the word, you're automatically disregarding other people who may be very satisfied with how their love life is going, even though "healthy" for them doesn't mean the same for you. To put it simply, a "healthy" relationship is always in the eye of the beholder, and those involved in a relationship that you view morally reprehensible may be perfectly happy with it, and therefore, have a "healthy" relationship. That's why your system is bunk, because it doesn't take into consideration the melting pot, as it were, of the modern relationship, the definition of which is constantly changing, unlike your system. I trust I explained that well enough.

[quote name='Adahn']In response to the first part, I didn't put them in the order they had to occur, rather than what I see as the order of importance.[/quote] So, you [i]didn't[/i] make a step-by-step analysis? You do realize that when you list "steps," and number them, you're creating a list of events that need to be completed in order? [quote name='Adahn's first post]Relationships [b]must come in steps, and certain criteria must be met[/b'] in order to be in a healthy relationship.[/quote] That's what you said in your very first post here, so what's the story? Did you say what you meant or didn't you? [QUOTE]Without trust, friendship is nothing. Without friendship, attraction is nothing, and so on. So long as those steps are behind you, there is a good chance you will have a healthy relationship, and if that relationship ends, it should end well for both parties.[/QUOTE] On the contrary. I can be attracted to a complete stranger, but just because I'm not friends with that complete stranger doesn't mean the attraction is nothing, or unwarranted. You don't need to be friends with somebody to be attracted to them. That much should be obvious, I'd think. Likewise, you don't have to be attracted to somebody to be friends with them. To try to establish some type of correlative link between the two is asinine. Friendship and trust, I'll agree to that one, but I do know of people who don't trust each other at all, but are still on somewhat friendly terms (divorced parents, for example), so, again, I don't think the correlation between friendship and trust is entirely accurate, either. [quote]As for same-sex relationships, they just seem unnatural to me. Of course, I should have said I disapprove of male-male relationships beyond friendship. I don't want to get into details, but let's just say two women would be hard-pressed to engage in any act I would consider true sex.[/QUOTE] If a same-sex relationship fits into all of your criteria, though, why is there a problem with it? By your evaluation criteria, the same-sex relationship is perfectly healthy. Perhaps your problem with same-sex relationships is a sign that your evaluation criteria are flawed, because even you yourself are disagreeing with them when presented with various conditions. Your evaluation criteria are certainly wrong, because like James has said, there are no "hard and fast" requirements for relationships.

So, the question is, if we don't see something, does it exist? I think the "Tree Falling and its Sound" question is actually pretty easy to explain. Even though nobody is there to apply meaning to the sound the tree makes, it will always cause a vibration in the air, because air molecules and matter are being displaced by the fall and subsequent crushing of brush, bushes, and any little furry animals that happen to be standing there at the time. I also think we need to clearly define what we mean by "sound," as well. The tree makes a sound. That much should be clear from physics itself. We may interpret the sound as different things (i.e., thundercrack, water slapping, etc, etc.), but there is always a sound. So, the Tree definitely makes a sound even when no humans are around to hear it. In terms of metaphysics, if we don't see something, does it exist...seems like the major focus that would come out of this one is does God exist, even if we can't see him. I seem to be saying this a lot lately, and I have no idea why, but when you look at things objectively, you see that there really is no proof that God exists. Sure, there's the whole "Mother Mary in Window Soap" story, but that's not real, actual proof of the existence of a higher power, because people think they see Mother Mary in there, when in all actuality, it's simply just soap residue. It's not proof of God, because people are seeing what they want to see in that soap residue. This goes for pretty much every single instance of someone saying, "It was Divine Intervention." If it were clearly God coming down and influencing the world in every single minute detail, I think it'd be a lot clearer than a vague similarity to the outline of Mother Mary in a window. If God did exist, and really was set on proving His existence to us, don't you think He'd just simply open up the sky and start talking to everyone in the world, in one universal language that everyone can understand? To my recollection, that hasn't happened apart from in the Bible itself, and the Bible isn't any [i]real[/i] authority on the matter, because it's still written by humans, who are very susceptible to seeing/hearing/acknowledging things they want to see/hear/acknowledge, so the Bible isn't exactly reliable to prove the existence of God, because the authors were unreliable narrators, lol. I mean, they actually say, "Okay, you've got to listen to me here, because I'm going to tell you the truth."

[quote name='Adahn']I've explicitly defined faith as a possible force that we may not understand. If you're going to disregard everything I said and focus on questions I merely attached at the end, then why don't you just say what you mean.[/quote] I did say what I meant. I didn't mince words. You just refuse to read, lol. Also, your entire initial post in this thread was one huge question, so I don't see how I'm doing some grave injustice to you by excluding useless crap and concentrating on the real topic at hand: your questions. But, if it'll please you, then, I'll go into your "Definition" and talk about it, because we all know I don't want to be excluded from a thread made by Adahn. [quote]Analysis: Test (+PR +CO) I have lots of positive reinforcement because I usually do well on tests. The outcome of the test is completely in my hands, but the overwhelming number of precedents allows me to have a certain amount of faith in my ability to succeed.[/quote] You study, you do well. Simple as that. There's no higher power at work here; there's no God blessing you to do well on the test. Any teacher will tell you that if you study, learn the material, comprehend the material, you're going to do well on the exam. Simple. As. That. No faith required. Just studying. [quote]Analysis: Driving (-PR -CO) I'm an inexperienced driver, yet I have a certain amount of faith that I will not crash. I haven't crashed yet, but I've made many mistakes where I should have crashed. My driving skills are controllable, and not so great. Also, I have to deal with other drivers, who may be worse than me. How is it that I have faith? I believe I will not crash because a force outside my control (fate/god/etc.) will not allow me to do so. It's easier for me to believe it if I decide that it's out of my control. It's necessary.[/quote] And I belive this to be an example of Man creating God, similar to the "God isn't helping gangsta rappers." P. Diddy thanking God for his Grammy Award is pretty presumptious on his part, wouldn't you agree? If there is a God, I seriously don't think he micromanages everything, right down to every last minute detail like being able to swerve to avoid a collision. It seems to me that there are really only three kinds of people in the religious area. Ultra-dependents, Independents, and Deists. The Ultra-dependent thanks God for everything, the Independent thanks himself for everything, and the Deist sees God as a Hands-Off deity. When something like avoiding an accident is out of your control, it's not necessary to place the outcome in the hands of God or whatever, because it's dumb luck. [quote]Analysis: Sunrise (+PR -CO) I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. I have no control over it, and it has happened many times before. This is one of the easiest things to have faith in.[/quote] I don't suppose the rotation of the Earth has anything to do with the sun rising? The sun rising is hardly a matter of faith, because it's scientifically proven the Earth rotates, and as it rotates, the sun's light hits different time zones at different times. You don't need to have faith that the sun will rise, because it does, due to the Earth's rotation. [quote]Analysis: Flying a jet (-PR +CO) I find it very difficult to have faith in my ability to fly a jet. I've never flown a jet, and I have to do the flying myself. I believe I would fail miserably. I have no faith in my ability. With very low positive reinforcement (-PR) and high control (+CO) a large amount of faith is required.[/quote] Firstly, I think it should be said that if you have no piloting experience, flight experience, or piloting training to begin with, you certainly should not be getting in a plane, regardless of whether or not you've got faith up the whazoo. It's simply not a good idea, just like trying to dodge a bullet. I don't see why you'd even consider the idea of flying a plane when you have no experience or training in it. Faith or no faith, it's a bad idea. [QUOTE]Faith is not a force. It has no power.[/QUOTE] That much should be obvious. Any other statements like "OMG I liek kan totali afect teh blindes n moov stuf wit mi mind!1!!11" are just humans applying a quality to something that inherently does not have that quality, just like P. Diddy giving props to God for his Grammy. Again, God did not create Man; Man created God. [quote]Anything else is unnecessary, and will only inhibit discussion amongst those who are open to the possibility of the power of faith. Your opinion has been stated.[/QUOTE] You never made any mention at all that you wanted specific people to reply to this, and...are you saying that you only want replies from people who agree with you? That's what it sounds like. And I think dMage had a good point here, "Let me know when you can bend the laws of physics."

I read through the replies here, and didn't really see any mention made of fast food, so I'll just throw that in before I hop in the shower. Fast food is the devil, pretty much. I remember back when I used to get it like, every night, and late at night, to boot. I always felt horrible. My stomach, bowels, and overall health was pretty bad. I was constantly feeling sick, constantly lethargic, generally...I felt like sh-t. I cut that fast food out of my diet, went cold turkey, as it were, and the health improvement was unbelievable. I get fast food once in a blue moon now, but the blue moon is rare. Just last month I had a burrito from Taco Bell for the first time in about 7 months, and boy, I paid for it when I bought it, and I paid for it again shortly after I ate it, lol. So, I think another thing to keep in mind when improving your health is to severely cut down on any fast food (Taco Bell, McDonalds, Wendy's, etc). Once in a while is okay, and I do it once in a while just to remind myself how bad it is for me. My complexion's improved a lot, too, since I cut that crap out of my diet.

I just isolated your questions, because that's the entire focus here anyway, and the rest doesn't matter, apart from establishing a definition...or something. [quote name='Adahn']Under great duress, is there a possibility of exceeding mortal limits?[/quote] Yes, it's called Adrenaline. [QUOTE]Is it possible to draw upon some unknown strength with the power of faith?[/QUOTE] Willing yourself to get up, yes, but that's not faith, nor is it the power of faith. It's self-determination, not a belief in a higher power. Getting hit square in the face with a spiked volleyball, dropping to the floor, then springing back up with no ill effects whatsoever is a matter of will, not faith. [quote]Are there untapped sources of power within us that can defy rules we are accustomed to?[/QUOTE] And these untapped sources of power enable us to do what? Jump over tall buildings in a single bound? Travel faster than a speeding bullet? Dodge bullets? Break world records? What? The impossibility of the "Superman" actions should be self-evident. Nobody is going to be able to vertical-jump the Empire State Building, and attempting to dodge bullets, to my knowledge, isn't a very good idea. The world records thing is simple training and will to succeed (determination), that's it. There's no otherwordly power in play there. If you were to look at the past 100 years of the Olympics, athletes are steadily growing stronger and faster through more rigorous training, and it's a trend that will continue, though it's going to plateau eventually. My point is, breaking a world record is due to training and determination. It's like the whole "God has nothing to do with musicians winning awards" thing. I'm sure He's a big fan of P. Diddy's Gangsta Rap, and I'm sure He's absolutely loving Tim McGraw's twangy country bumpkin routine. :rolleyes: There's really no higher power affecting things we do these days, or ever, really. It's always humans doing something, always has been. You break a school track record, God had nothing to do with it; you're just better trained or had a better day on the track than the other runners. I'm going to repeat what I said before, cause I think it's a point that needs serious consideration: "God did not create Man; Man created God."

[quote name='Adahn']This may all be true, Siren, but a question is still left unanswered. Do you think it's possible for a human being to not be surprised if will could yield results (hypothetically speaking)?[/quote]Some people are impressed by stupid parlor tricks; some aren't impressed by stupid parlor tricks. Some people are surprised at "magic;" others aren't. I don't see a point to the question, lol. If they're expecting something to happen, then why would they be surprised if it does happen? Likewise, if they simply don't care about what may or may not happen, why wouldn't they be surprised? [quote]I think that if someone showed even the smallest amount of surprise at such an accomplishment, he/she would have had no faith to begin with, in essence making it unable to occur.[/quote]Not necessarily. The person could just be trying something new, with no preconceived notions at all. You don't have to be faithless to be surprised, just like you don't have to be faithful to be disappointed. If someone goes into a situation with nothing in particular in mind, then their reactions will be nothing in particular. You can build something up in your mind, or expect the worst, or don't do either and just react normally, whatever that reaction may be. There's a set-up sometimes, sure, but not all the time. I do think people build something up in their mind to an unreasonable extent, and latch onto an idea to a fault, though. [quote]Also, since such things tend to be rather mundane, you would have to convince yourself that there is a purpose to what you're doing.[/quote]Again, where's the point? lol I mean, I highly doubt that someone's going to apply a metaphysical consequence to opening a can of tuna fish, if that's where you're going with this. Mundane doesn't necessarily mean purposeless, either. Mundane simply means something ordinary. [quote]All in all, I think it would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for the human mind to meet the requirements that faith-based action insists is necessary.[/quote]Okay, but, what are the requirements? What kind of "faith" are we talking about here? Cognitive faith? Religious faith? Will-oriented faith? [quote]That being said, is true faith in anything even possible?[/QUOTE]What is "true faith?" Is it blind faith? Partial faith? What is it? EDIT: Again, things like The Matrix are fictional.

Unrelated Moment of Irony: It's 11:45 pm on Monday, November 8th. I have approximately 15 minutes to either repair my broken Xbox, or to go out and buy a new one, until Halo 2 is released, and Gamestop calls me with my Pre-ordered Collector's Edition copy.

Honestly? I think nearly every case of these so-called phenomena is nothing more than the power of suggestion. What I mean by this is, there's nothing "magical" about any of it, there's no energy force binding things together. The Matrix, while rooted in many, many various Philosophies and Religious stances, is still a work of fiction, and while Buddha and particular Eastern Philosophies/Religions seem damn attractive in their "will it to be so" mentalities, there's still nothing to suggest that by thinking one can jump from building to building, one will be able to. This also holds true with the "moving the blinds with my mind" idea. There's simply nothing to suggest it's possible. I think the best reasoning behind "Will-driven" or "Faith-driven" action is that people want to believe there's some higher force influencing what happens, whether that higher force is God, Yahweh (my apologies to Orthodox Jews), Buddha, whatever. People are simply reading way, way too far into something when they convince themselves that they're moving stuff with their mind. It's just silly.

[QUOTE=Dagger IX1]Hoo, boy. I can't imagine a world without semi-colons... is there a specific, concrete reason you're not permitted to use them in your thesis? I suppose one could argue that they make it easy to "cheat" (i.e. conjoin what should rightfully be two separate sentences), but I'm interested in learning whether your professor gave a different explanation. ~Dagger~[/QUOTE] Apart from just there's so much abuse/mis-use of the semi-colon, I think it's mainly just the whole "cheating and conjoining two sentences together" thing. I don't really agree with it, either. I can understand why semi-colons are prohibited, but then again, I don't think it's going to be terribly traumatic to have one in there, you know? I think my prof's primary reasoning behind the thesis statement requirement is to prepare us for higher writing. He teaches only high level English courses, the students of which are going to work in the English field as a career, and instructors are publishing papers more and more, so I figure he's just getting us in the habit. Good intentions, but weird application. :p

[quote name='Adahn']This is different because we're not talking about a literary work.[/quote]The Bible is a Literary work. It's no different than Gilgamesh, Iliad, or Beowulf. The Bible is Literature. There's no way around that. [QUOTE]You're putting motives behind my ideas, when you don't know anything about what goes on in my head. Despite what you may think, [b]what goes on up here is more complex than anything you have read or could even begin to understand[/b]. I could say the same of anyone's mind.[/QUOTE]You're bristling. [QUOTE]This is not about my ego. You're not asking why I created the thread, you're telling me why I created it, [b]because everyone knows that you're omnipotent and you can spot motives with your eyes closed[/b].[/QUOTE]Sarcasm. You're bristling even more. [QUOTE]It was an impression I got from reading. That's all I was doing, just reading my Bible. After I got the impression, I found what caused that impression, and realized that my feelings were backed up by what was written. There was no emotional investment. I wasn't looking for some unknown truth in the Bible to feed my ever-hungry ego, but I found one anyway.[/QUOTE]But you weren't reading the entire writing. You were reading small, tiny bits. That's not proper Lit Theory. After you found little, tiny pieces that mildly supported your feelings, you felt all warm and fuzzy, because you thought you had uncovered some "truth" that nobody else ever did. You're in love with your "perfect" idea, Adahn, lol. You can't bear to part with it, and you can't bear the thought that maybe, just maybe, you have no idea what you're talking about, lol. I think that's a pretty substantial emotional investment. [QUOTE]I've failed to bend my knee to you in defeat, because I'm not wrong, but you can't accept that. In order for your world to stay intact, I have to be wrong. If you want me to find where I got the feeling, and where I got all the evidence, I'd have to read the whole Bible over again and find the spot where it became clear to me, and I don't have that kind of time on my hands.[/QUOTE]If you had a point here, it was lost in the egotistical preaching. You still haven't proven a thing, because you're picking and choosing little tidbits and thinking that's enough. It isn't. You're going to have to go into the entire Bible and give us entire passages, entire Books, entire portions of the scripture that support your claim. If you can't do that (I suspect it's because you know it's impossible to look at the whole thing and still be able to support your thesis), then tough sh-t. [QUOTE]I have this annoying disability where I must be presented with an idea before I can learn anything about it.[/QUOTE]You were presented with PRC, so learn about it and accept it. [QUOTE]We're dealing with the Bible, and my theory sure can't be disproven, so it's as viable as any other interpretation. Oh, I was talking about everyone needing to have the sign of the devil in order to purchase food or other things.[/quote]I went through the singular lines concerning Revelation that you quoted and disproved your theory about Revelation. [quote]You'd have to be completely retarded to miss that sign.[/QUOTE]Missed what sign? Are you implying that I'm completely retarded here? What are you trying to say? [quote]Well, show me how my sayings are blank and meaningless. [b]Nobody has taken any quote from the Bible that I've given here and thrown it back at me with another interpretation.[/b] As for our little conversation, I'm not lying when I say I was tired to the point of complete idiocy. If you think I'm making it up, ask Jordan.[/QUOTE]Nobody, eh? [url="http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=43381&page=11&pp=15"][u]Page 11 - Ben, Boba Fett, and myself[/u][/url] [url="http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=43381&page=12&pp=15"][u]Page 12 - Ben, and myself[/u][/url] [url="http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=43381&page=13&pp=15"][u]Page 13 - Boba Fett, Ben, and myself[/u][/url] Let's not forget the entire IM you and I had, where I took your entire interpretation and threw it back in your face: [quote]Adahn1986 (11:08:20 PM): Jhn 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Adahn1986 (11:08:22 PM): that one aestenAIM (11:08:43 PM): Revelation still hadn't happened at this point. Adahn1986 (11:08:53 PM): nope Adahn1986 (11:08:55 PM): he hadn't died yet aestenAIM (11:09:24 PM): No, Christ died, and they were waiting for his second coming, Revelation, when he, in the form of the Lamb, would bring about the final judgment. aestenAIM (11:09:43 PM): Revelation is the death he's talking about. aestenAIM (11:10:00 PM): After the mortals die, they are judged during Revelation. Adahn1986 (11:10:01 PM): I always thought Jesus said he wouldn't come with outward show aestenAIM (11:10:04 PM): "From Death unto life" aestenAIM (11:10:33 PM): It's not replacing Death. aestenAIM (11:10:39 PM): It's bringing them from Death. aestenAIM (11:10:42 PM): As in, aestenAIM (11:10:53 PM): During Revelation, the dead rise for the judgment. aestenAIM (11:11:12 PM): If they are redeemed, they are lifted out from Death, into life/bliss/happiness. aestenAIM (11:11:22 PM): That's what that quote means. aestenAIM (11:11:35 PM): And Revelation (The PROPHECY) hadn't happened yet. aestenAIM (11:11:37 PM): Hence... aestenAIM (11:11:43 PM): Why it's a vision. Adahn1986 (11:13:12 PM): you gave me what I needed Adahn1986 (11:13:14 PM): 1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: 2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. 3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. Adahn1986 (11:13:33 PM): when the revelation was given aestenAIM (11:13:40 PM): No, that's the vision of it. aestenAIM (11:13:45 PM): It's not actually happening. aestenAIM (11:13:51 PM): It's a hallucination of sorts. aestenAIM (11:13:55 PM): A...holy hallucination. Adahn1986 (11:14:07 PM): 1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass Adahn1986 (11:14:15 PM): these things were going to happen Adahn1986 (11:14:19 PM): very quickly after the vision aestenAIM (11:14:21 PM): "Shortly come to pass" means they didn't happen yet. Adahn1986 (11:14:24 PM): the time is at hand Adahn1986 (11:14:31 PM): at the time of the vision aestenAIM (11:14:34 PM): Don't think of the time as how we know it, either. Adahn1986 (11:14:35 PM): revelation hadn't happened Adahn1986 (11:14:57 PM): he was speaking to man aestenAIM (11:15:00 PM): You know of the whole Creationist problem? Adahn1986 (11:15:12 PM): what's the whole creationist problem? aestenAIM (11:15:15 PM): 7 days does not equal 350 billion years? Adahn1986 (11:15:19 PM): that's easy Adahn1986 (11:15:24 PM): God's perception of time aestenAIM (11:15:35 PM): And that's why Revelation wasn't going to happen anytime soon. Adahn1986 (11:15:41 PM): he was speaking to man aestenAIM (11:15:41 PM): At least, not in human perception of time. Adahn1986 (11:15:52 PM): why would he not give time in man's perspective? aestenAIM (11:15:53 PM): In God's perception, it was right around the corner. aestenAIM (11:16:02 PM): Because he's freaking God, that's why. aestenAIM (11:16:13 PM): He's always talked in his own terms. aestenAIM (11:16:25 PM): Plus, dramatic effect. Adahn1986 (11:16:28 PM): lol Adahn1986 (11:16:32 PM): You're interpreting now aestenAIM (11:16:39 PM): Am I? aestenAIM (11:16:43 PM): Revelation is important ****. Adahn1986 (11:16:53 PM): is it not possible that he was talking to man? aestenAIM (11:16:59 PM): You want to be sure to give man the necessary prep time, Adahn1986 (11:17:04 PM): using time as it was relevant? Adahn1986 (11:17:07 PM): ha aestenAIM (11:17:10 PM): and also impress upon him the importance. Adahn1986 (11:17:12 PM): let me find it aestenAIM (11:17:18 PM): ::Groans:: Adahn1986 (11:17:22 PM): meh Adahn1986 (11:17:27 PM): I don't need the actual thing aestenAIM (11:17:29 PM): Fact remains, Adahn, Revelation was a long ways off. Adahn1986 (11:17:32 PM): it said let the liars still lie Adahn1986 (11:17:38 PM): whores still whore themselves Adahn1986 (11:17:50 PM): how is that a fact? Adahn1986 (11:18:00 PM): You're only assuming that God was speaking on his own terms of time aestenAIM (11:18:07 PM): Genesis, dude, Genesis. Adahn1986 (11:18:12 PM): this isn't genesis aestenAIM (11:18:27 PM): Another example of a short time described that actually was much, much longer. Adahn1986 (11:18:36 PM): good, you have a precedent aestenAIM (11:18:45 PM): I've always had a precedent. Adahn1986 (11:18:51 PM): however aestenAIM (11:18:56 PM): However, nothing. Adahn1986 (11:19:03 PM): Is it impossible that he's speaking on man's terms? aestenAIM (11:19:31 PM): Yes. Impossible. aestenAIM (11:19:42 PM): The track record is there of God speaking in his own terms. Adahn1986 (11:19:56 PM): He's speaking to man, here, of something that concerns man aestenAIM (11:20:16 PM): Say you're God, and you've got this Revelation in store for mankind. aestenAIM (11:20:45 PM): Are you going to say, "Oh, it's a few millenia away still," or, "It's coming very shortly, and you must prepare thineself." aestenAIM (11:20:56 PM): Which do you say? Adahn1986 (11:21:04 PM): hmm Adahn1986 (11:21:07 PM): I'm god, now? aestenAIM (11:21:14 PM): Hypothetically speaking. Adahn1986 (11:21:22 PM): and I'm going to reveal something Adahn1986 (11:22:18 PM): I sure would be a tricky S.O.B. if I made everyone think the end of the world was going to happen thousands of years from now Adahn1986 (11:22:29 PM): if it were really coming soon Adahn1986 (11:23:05 PM): One reason revelation doesn't make sense to me as a prophecy Adahn1986 (11:23:11 PM): is that it would all be fairly obvious Adahn1986 (11:23:31 PM): everyone says the end of the world is coming soon Adahn1986 (11:23:36 PM): especially now aestenAIM (11:23:44 PM): Look at it from the perspective back then. aestenAIM (11:23:47 PM): Man's learning as he goes. aestenAIM (11:23:53 PM): He doesn't have the insight we do now. aestenAIM (11:24:03 PM): He couldn't predict the plot twist in say...The Usual Suspects. Adahn1986 (11:24:16 PM): Man was alot smarter than you may think aestenAIM (11:24:25 PM): Not this smart. Adahn1986 (11:24:49 PM): is it God's usual strategy to make things easy to understand? aestenAIM (11:25:06 PM): Pretty much, yes. aestenAIM (11:25:12 PM): If I recall the term... Adahn1986 (11:25:15 PM): How did the Pharisees go wrong? aestenAIM (11:25:33 PM): ...what was it... aestenAIM (11:25:54 PM): There's an actual term for how God reveals himself in the Bible. Adahn1986 (11:26:16 PM): Today's Christians are yesterday's Pharisees aestenAIM (11:26:22 PM): No. Adahn1986 (11:26:23 PM): history repeats itself aestenAIM (11:26:27 PM): No. Adahn1986 (11:26:30 PM): no? aestenAIM (11:26:56 PM): It was...Progressive Revelatory Comprehension, I think. aestenAIM (11:26:59 PM): Something to that effect. Adahn1986 (11:27:14 PM): oh Adahn1986 (11:27:25 PM): I wasn't guessing aestenAIM (11:27:34 PM): I'm sure you weren aestenAIM (11:27:38 PM): I'm sure you weren't. Adahn1986 (11:27:48 PM): so, today's Christians can't be yesterday's Pharisees? aestenAIM (11:28:07 PM): Would you like to know about PRC? Adahn1986 (11:28:11 PM): sure aestenAIM (11:28:26 PM): As man progressed, God's delivery changed. aestenAIM (11:28:36 PM): In Genesis, he's pretty much straight-up. aestenAIM (11:28:43 PM): "Don't do this." Adahn1986 (11:28:52 PM): *nods* aestenAIM (11:28:59 PM): Because, let's face it. Adam and Eve were half-wits. Adahn1986 (11:29:03 PM): lol aestenAIM (11:29:04 PM): Adam, especially. Adahn1986 (11:29:05 PM): yes aestenAIM (11:29:46 PM): As time goes on, God becomes a bit more...creative in his delivery, because man's comprehension and ability with visual/sound is increasing in some degree. Adahn1986 (11:29:54 PM): *nods* aestenAIM (11:30:18 PM): The Burning Bush and Moses is an example of how God is updating his delivery. aestenAIM (11:30:29 PM): It's not totally overt, but it's still there. Adahn1986 (11:30:37 PM): yes aestenAIM (11:31:08 PM): Now, by the time of the NT, mankind isn't quite where they need to be. aestenAIM (11:31:17 PM): Hell, they're slapping Jesus around. Adahn1986 (11:31:21 PM): yes aestenAIM (11:31:25 PM): Subtlety isn't going to work here. aestenAIM (11:31:45 PM): That's why even though Revelation is a prophecy of something taking place millenia in the future, aestenAIM (11:31:53 PM): God still says, "Shortly coming." aestenAIM (11:32:43 PM): Man doesn't have the social skills, as it were, to be able to understand the implications, and to adequately prepare for them, of Revelation in the millennia. aestenAIM (11:33:02 PM): Thus, God has to make sure to make a big impression. aestenAIM (11:33:07 PM): Otherwise, aestenAIM (11:33:09 PM): Man just won't get it. Adahn1986 (11:33:21 PM): that's alot of thinking aestenAIM (11:33:23 PM): That's what PRC. aestenAIM (11:33:28 PM): That's what PRC is. Adahn1986 (11:33:47 PM): By the Christian definition, would I not still go to heaven if I were to die? aestenAIM (11:34:06 PM): Were you redeemed or not? Adahn1986 (11:34:10 PM): Yes aestenAIM (11:34:27 PM): Then you'd die, but you wouldn't get plunged into Hell or go up to Heaven until Revelation. aestenAIM (11:34:45 PM): I have a feeling that's relevant to Lazarus, too. Adahn1986 (11:34:51 PM): ah Adahn1986 (11:34:54 PM): purgatory? Adahn1986 (11:34:55 PM): *shudders* aestenAIM (11:35:04 PM): If you wanted to go Divine Comedy, sure. Adahn1986 (11:35:07 PM): lol aestenAIM (11:35:25 PM): Even though I'm not a fan of religious doctrine, aestenAIM (11:35:31 PM): Christianity isn't all that bad. Adahn1986 (11:35:36 PM): and, barring how retarded I am, how is it bad that I believe what I do? aestenAIM (11:36:02 PM): Because you're seeing a flaw in a system that's pretty tightly and well constructed. aestenAIM (11:36:17 PM): A flaw that isn't there when you actually consider everything and how it all fits together. Adahn1986 (11:36:25 PM): it would have to Adahn1986 (11:36:29 PM): it's been around for so long aestenAIM (11:36:50 PM): 2000 years and nobody's found that "problem" you're claiming to have found should tell you something. Adahn1986 (11:36:59 PM): pharisees... aestenAIM (11:37:01 PM): And religious scholars have been at it, too. Adahn1986 (11:37:23 PM): how many thousands of years did they believe in "eye for an eye" among other things? Adahn1986 (11:37:41 PM): including but not limited to an unbelief in any resurrection of the dead Adahn1986 (11:37:51 PM): they had a tight-knit system Adahn1986 (11:37:59 PM): and history repeats itself aestenAIM (11:38:10 PM): Let's talk about eye for an eye, then. Adahn1986 (11:38:14 PM): sure aestenAIM (11:38:22 PM): What's the problem with the punishment fits the crime? Adahn1986 (11:38:35 PM): they took that as if it came from God Adahn1986 (11:38:39 PM): law is evil aestenAIM (11:38:50 PM): Law isn't evil. Adahn1986 (11:38:52 PM): 1Cr 15:56 The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law. Adahn1986 (11:38:55 PM): sure it is aestenAIM (11:39:08 PM): When the law is just, it's fine. Adahn1986 (11:39:18 PM): just laws are hard to come by aestenAIM (11:39:19 PM): What "law" could they be referring to there? Adahn1986 (11:39:24 PM): I can think of 10 laws Adahn1986 (11:39:35 PM): they speak of vengeance Adahn1986 (11:39:37 PM): quite simply aestenAIM (11:40:36 PM): Could it be possible that the "law" spoken of there is referring to the Roman law? Adahn1986 (11:41:00 PM): sounds Roman Adahn1986 (11:41:05 PM): I know it's greek, at the very least aestenAIM (11:41:08 PM): And what did Romans do? Adahn1986 (11:41:27 PM): Romans probably used eye for an eye aestenAIM (11:41:32 PM): Not quite. Adahn1986 (11:41:35 PM): no? aestenAIM (11:41:44 PM): Feeding Christians to lions, perhaps? Adahn1986 (11:41:47 PM): *has romans next term* Adahn1986 (11:42:00 PM): I'll learn all that next term Adahn1986 (11:42:02 PM): all I know is greek aestenAIM (11:42:05 PM): The Romans killed Christ, as well. aestenAIM (11:42:17 PM): The Romans weren't cotton candy, fine and dandy. aestenAIM (11:42:33 PM): The "Law" spoken of in that excerpt is referring to the Romans. aestenAIM (11:42:45 PM): The Romans were just shy of being malicious fascists. Adahn1986 (11:43:29 PM): I need to sleep aestenAIM (11:43:38 PM): Think about it, though. Adahn1986 (11:43:50 PM): I'll save the conversation aestenAIM (11:43:51 PM): Christianity is pretty solid. Adahn1986 (11:44:25 PM): except Adahn1986 (11:44:30 PM): I'll get to it later Adahn1986 (11:44:31 PM): lol Adahn1986 (11:44:33 PM): goodnight aestenAIM (11:44:38 PM): Night. Adahn1986 signed off at 11:44:47 PM.[/quote]You thought that the "Law" referred to Christian Doctrine, when in reality, it was referring to the [i]Roman[/i] "law" of the time. This is something called Historicity, where the art/literature of a time reflects the social conditions of that time. I threw your interpretation of Revelation right back in your face, by showing you how it connected with the other portions of the Bible that you hadn't considered, and how it means something completely different than what you wanted to believe. We've all been throwing them back in your face, in fact, and you have had Christians in here debunking you, Ben and Boba Fett, for example. Midnight Rush had gotten Banned a long time ago for being an [i]egotistical prick[/i]. Cyriel had one post and that was it, so it's not like he/she dropped out of this argument after you "pwnzzorred" him/her, so don't play that like some huge victory, either.

[quote name='Mitch]Well, to me, the difference between these two words is pretty obvious. "Outcome" is what happens at the very end, whereas "resolution" is when something's [i]resolved[/i'] - meaning, all loose ends are knotted, tied, and aren't laid to dangle. Whereas with outcome, the loose ends could still be flayed, unknotted, untied, laid to dangle.[/quote] Exactly. [quote]As a whole the thesis statement was a little too compressed for my tastes. I had to read through it a few times before I fully linked all parts of it together and got my full understanding of what you were saying.[/quote] I have the same problem with thesis statements: I don't need them. I just need the prof to ask me what my thesis is, let me verbalize it, and be ready to accept the paper in a few days, tops. I really don't need to write thesis statements for much of what I do, especially regarding Terminator, Alien, 2001, Shakespeare...really, any Lit/Film. [QUOTE]A thing worth doing may be to break the thesis into two sentences? Or is that allowed, by your professor? Whatever the case, it's a solid thesis, but hard to first understand because it's so compressed and dotted with commas all over the place.[/QUOTE] One sentence, lol. Can't even use a semi-colon, which is unusual. So, in thesis statements, I usually go comma-happy.

[quote name='Adahn']My purpose for this thread was to present an idea and be challenged. I really, really love debating.[/quote]Oh, so it's "being challenged" now, as opposed to "being proved horribly, horribly wrong?" C'mon, man, just forget about it. [QUOTE]You are very fond of putting words into people's mouths and thoughts in their heads, do you know that? You think you understand everything, and you will not accept anyone's thoughts or feelings for what they are unless they fit into your analysis. On a lighter note, if there's a word for someone like this, you probably know what it is.[/QUOTE]I'm sorry, I just have no idea what it is. Care to tell me? One thing you have to keep in mind is, that I'm usually always right, [i]especially[/i] when it comes to Interpretive/Literary Theory, because I've been intensely studying it for years now, and when I give an interpretation of a particular work, it's because that's the actual meaning behind the work. This is no different. After we establish that your interpretation is a half-baked one to begin with, then we begin asking why you created this thread, and why you insist on drawing it out, and our conclusion is a rather easy one: Your ego. This thread is an ego trip for you, and you can't stand to be proven wrong about this, and you are being proven wrong about this. That bothers you immensely, even though you don't consciously realize it. Your subconscious is eating away at you here, and you can feel that, and we all know that you feel it. This is common sense, Adahn, don't fight it. [QUOTE]I will admit one thing to you, Siren. The only thing I got from the book as a whole was reincarnation. I could pull things out to try and explain it, but what I got was more of a feeling. My feelings, by the way, tend to be correct.[/QUOTE][i]Feelings are not reality[/i], nor are they truth. They're subjective viewpoints, which do not treat a situation as it should be treated: without pretext of emotional investment. A former friend of mine is a perfect example of that. Many here know the story of RPCrazy's mental degeneration, so I'll spare the gory details. But we're all aware that it's perfectly natural for someone to spend more time with a new significant other than time spent with friends. It's how things work. It's a process of life. We all know this. Yet, she deluded herself into believing that I somehow betrayed her by asking this girl out. I'll provide the links to RPCrazy's DeadJournals if you'd like. She denied being to blame for the collapse of the friendships, wanting to blame me, and then hating Melissa with a furied passion. She's obsessed over this for quite some time, and still hates me with every fibre of her being. She thinks of me as the Devil, and I'm not exaggerating at all. Feelings are never right when they're based on such a twisted misinterpretation of a source material, whether it's the Dating Situation, or this religious discussion. Feelings mean absolutely nothing here, because they cannot--absolutely cannot--be submitted as proof, evidence, etc. People can have hunches, yes, but those hunches must be backed up with hard evidence (as "hard" as Biblical evidence can be), they must remain solid when scrutinized, and their conclusion must be arrived logically, with full consideration to all pieces of information. You have failed to meet these criteria. [QUOTE]I'm actually curious to know where you learned that.[/QUOTE]It's called four or five semesters of rigorous Literary study of religious texts. [QUOTE]That's all I can do, when people are looking for evidence to substantiate my claim. If you want a broad look at it, here it is. The prophecies are so blatantly obvious that we'd have to degrade ourselves to complete idiocy as a race to miss those signs.[/QUOTE]If that's all you can do, then that should tell you that you've got a crap thesis. First rule of Lit Theory: If your thesis can't be supported by the [i]whole[/i] text, that's a sign that your thesis needs serious revision. This isn't only coming from me. This comes from very experienced Lit professors. "So blatantly obvious that we'd have to degrade ourselves to complete idiocy as a race to miss those signs." Second rule of Lit Theory: Never deal in abstractions or vague, open-ended claims. Use specific examples but under no circumstances violate Rule #1. [quote]Well, if it's broader aspects you'd like, I'll do my best to give them to you. If there's anything you'd like a broader interpretation of, please, [b]don't hesitate to ask[/b].[/QUOTE]Notice that everyone here has been asking you all along to provide broader examples/interpretations (Ben and Boba Fett, for example, just in their most recent posts). Adahn, just admit defeat, dude. You've got nowhere else to run to, and you keep repeating these blank, vague, meaningless sayings. [quote name='Boba Fett][color=#008000']Get over yourself and admit your ideas are pure ********.[/color][/quote]I second that. EDIT: Here's how your interpretation is bunk, Adahn: [quote]aestenAIM (11:06:16 PM): What came first, the chicken or the egg? Adahn1986 (11:06:29 PM): who am I to say? aestenAIM (11:06:37 PM): Then who are you to say about this? Adahn1986 (11:06:59 PM): Jhn 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. aestenAIM (11:07:23 PM): But what was the saying, Adahn, and don't put your little spin on it this time. :-) Adahn1986 (11:07:44 PM): what was what saying? Adahn1986 (11:07:49 PM): *confused* aestenAIM (11:07:54 PM): "keep my saying" aestenAIM (11:07:57 PM): What was the saying? Adahn1986 (11:07:58 PM): ah Adahn1986 (11:08:20 PM): Jhn 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Adahn1986 (11:08:22 PM): that one aestenAIM (11:08:43 PM): Revelation still hadn't happened at this point. Adahn1986 (11:08:53 PM): nope Adahn1986 (11:08:55 PM): he hadn't died yet aestenAIM (11:09:24 PM): No, Christ died, and they were waiting for his second coming, Revelation, when he, in the form of the Lamb, would bring about the final judgment. aestenAIM (11:09:43 PM): Revelation is the death he's talking about. aestenAIM (11:10:00 PM): After the mortals die, they are judged during Revelation. Adahn1986 (11:10:01 PM): I always thought Jesus said he wouldn't come with outward show aestenAIM (11:10:04 PM): "From Death unto life" aestenAIM (11:10:33 PM): It's not replacing Death. aestenAIM (11:10:39 PM): It's bringing them from Death. aestenAIM (11:10:42 PM): As in, aestenAIM (11:10:53 PM): During Revelation, the dead rise for the judgment. aestenAIM (11:11:12 PM): If they are redeemed, they are lifted out from Death, into life/bliss/happiness. aestenAIM (11:11:22 PM): That's what that quote means. aestenAIM (11:11:35 PM): And Revelation (The PROPHECY) hadn't happened yet. aestenAIM (11:11:37 PM): Hence... aestenAIM (11:11:43 PM): Why it's a vision. Adahn1986 (11:13:12 PM): you gave me what I needed Adahn1986 (11:13:14 PM): 1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: 2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. 3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. Adahn1986 (11:13:33 PM): when the revelation was given aestenAIM (11:13:40 PM): No, that's the vision of it. aestenAIM (11:13:45 PM): It's not actually happening. aestenAIM (11:13:51 PM): It's a hallucination of sorts. aestenAIM (11:13:55 PM): A...holy hallucination. Adahn1986 (11:14:07 PM): 1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass Adahn1986 (11:14:15 PM): these things were going to happen Adahn1986 (11:14:19 PM): very quickly after the vision aestenAIM (11:14:21 PM): "Shortly come to pass" means they didn't happen yet. Adahn1986 (11:14:24 PM): the time is at hand Adahn1986 (11:14:31 PM): at the time of the vision aestenAIM (11:14:34 PM): Don't think of the time as how we know it, either. Adahn1986 (11:14:35 PM): revelation hadn't happened Adahn1986 (11:14:57 PM): he was speaking to man aestenAIM (11:15:00 PM): You know of the whole Creationist problem? Adahn1986 (11:15:12 PM): what's the whole creationist problem? aestenAIM (11:15:15 PM): 7 days does not equal 350 billion years? Adahn1986 (11:15:19 PM): that's easy Adahn1986 (11:15:24 PM): God's perception of time aestenAIM (11:15:35 PM): And that's why Revelation wasn't going to happen anytime soon. Adahn1986 (11:15:41 PM): he was speaking to man aestenAIM (11:15:41 PM): At least, not in human perception of time. Adahn1986 (11:15:52 PM): why would he not give time in man's perspective? aestenAIM (11:15:53 PM): In God's perception, it was right around the corner. aestenAIM (11:16:02 PM): Because he's freaking God, that's why. aestenAIM (11:16:13 PM): He's always talked in his own terms. aestenAIM (11:16:25 PM): Plus, dramatic effect. Adahn1986 (11:16:28 PM): lol Adahn1986 (11:16:32 PM): You're interpreting now aestenAIM (11:16:39 PM): Am I? aestenAIM (11:16:43 PM): Revelation is important ****. Adahn1986 (11:16:53 PM): is it not possible that he was talking to man? aestenAIM (11:16:59 PM): You want to be sure to give man the necessary prep time, Adahn1986 (11:17:04 PM): using time as it was relevant? Adahn1986 (11:17:07 PM): ha aestenAIM (11:17:10 PM): and also impress upon him the importance. Adahn1986 (11:17:12 PM): let me find it aestenAIM (11:17:18 PM): ::Groans:: Adahn1986 (11:17:22 PM): meh Adahn1986 (11:17:27 PM): I don't need the actual thing aestenAIM (11:17:29 PM): Fact remains, Adahn, Revelation was a long ways off. Adahn1986 (11:17:32 PM): it said let the liars still lie Adahn1986 (11:17:38 PM): whores still whore themselves Adahn1986 (11:17:50 PM): how is that a fact? Adahn1986 (11:18:00 PM): You're only assuming that God was speaking on his own terms of time aestenAIM (11:18:07 PM): Genesis, dude, Genesis. Adahn1986 (11:18:12 PM): this isn't genesis aestenAIM (11:18:27 PM): Another example of a short time described that actually was much, much longer. Adahn1986 (11:18:36 PM): good, you have a precedent aestenAIM (11:18:45 PM): I've always had a precedent. Adahn1986 (11:18:51 PM): however aestenAIM (11:18:56 PM): However, nothing. Adahn1986 (11:19:03 PM): Is it impossible that he's speaking on man's terms? aestenAIM (11:19:31 PM): Yes. Impossible. aestenAIM (11:19:42 PM): The track record is there of God speaking in his own terms. Adahn1986 (11:19:56 PM): He's speaking to man, here, of something that concerns man aestenAIM (11:20:16 PM): Say you're God, and you've got this Revelation in store for mankind. aestenAIM (11:20:45 PM): Are you going to say, "Oh, it's a few millenia away still," or, "It's coming very shortly, and you must prepare thineself." aestenAIM (11:20:56 PM): Which do you say? Adahn1986 (11:21:04 PM): hmm Adahn1986 (11:21:07 PM): I'm god, now? aestenAIM (11:21:14 PM): Hypothetically speaking. Adahn1986 (11:21:22 PM): and I'm going to reveal something Adahn1986 (11:22:18 PM): I sure would be a tricky S.O.B. if I made everyone think the end of the world was going to happen thousands of years from now Adahn1986 (11:22:29 PM): if it were really coming soon Adahn1986 (11:23:05 PM): One reason revelation doesn't make sense to me as a prophecy Adahn1986 (11:23:11 PM): is that it would all be fairly obvious Adahn1986 (11:23:31 PM): everyone says the end of the world is coming soon Adahn1986 (11:23:36 PM): especially now aestenAIM (11:23:44 PM): Look at it from the perspective back then. aestenAIM (11:23:47 PM): Man's learning as he goes. aestenAIM (11:23:53 PM): He doesn't have the insight we do now. aestenAIM (11:24:03 PM): He couldn't predict the plot twist in say...The Usual Suspects. Adahn1986 (11:24:16 PM): Man was alot smarter than you may think aestenAIM (11:24:25 PM): Not this smart. Adahn1986 (11:24:49 PM): is it God's usual strategy to make things easy to understand? aestenAIM (11:25:06 PM): Pretty much, yes. aestenAIM (11:25:12 PM): If I recall the term... Adahn1986 (11:25:15 PM): How did the Pharisees go wrong? aestenAIM (11:25:33 PM): ...what was it... aestenAIM (11:25:54 PM): There's an actual term for how God reveals himself in the Bible. Adahn1986 (11:26:16 PM): Today's Christians are yesterday's Pharisees aestenAIM (11:26:22 PM): No. Adahn1986 (11:26:23 PM): history repeats itself aestenAIM (11:26:27 PM): No. Adahn1986 (11:26:30 PM): no? aestenAIM (11:26:56 PM): It was...Progressive Revelatory Comprehension, I think. aestenAIM (11:26:59 PM): Something to that effect. Adahn1986 (11:27:14 PM): oh Adahn1986 (11:27:25 PM): I wasn't guessing aestenAIM (11:27:34 PM): I'm sure you weren aestenAIM (11:27:38 PM): I'm sure you weren't. Adahn1986 (11:27:48 PM): so, today's Christians can't be yesterday's Pharisees? aestenAIM (11:28:07 PM): Would you like to know about PRC? Adahn1986 (11:28:11 PM): sure aestenAIM (11:28:26 PM): As man progressed, God's delivery changed. aestenAIM (11:28:36 PM): In Genesis, he's pretty much straight-up. aestenAIM (11:28:43 PM): "Don't do this." Adahn1986 (11:28:52 PM): *nods* aestenAIM (11:28:59 PM): Because, let's face it. Adam and Eve were half-wits. Adahn1986 (11:29:03 PM): lol aestenAIM (11:29:04 PM): Adam, especially. Adahn1986 (11:29:05 PM): yes aestenAIM (11:29:46 PM): As time goes on, God becomes a bit more...creative in his delivery, because man's comprehension and ability with visual/sound is increasing in some degree. Adahn1986 (11:29:54 PM): *nods* aestenAIM (11:30:18 PM): The Burning Bush and Moses is an example of how God is updating his delivery. aestenAIM (11:30:29 PM): It's not totally overt, but it's still there. Adahn1986 (11:30:37 PM): yes aestenAIM (11:31:08 PM): Now, by the time of the NT, mankind isn't quite where they need to be. aestenAIM (11:31:17 PM): Hell, they're slapping Jesus around. Adahn1986 (11:31:21 PM): yes aestenAIM (11:31:25 PM): Subtlety isn't going to work here. aestenAIM (11:31:45 PM): That's why even though Revelation is a prophecy of something taking place millenia in the future, aestenAIM (11:31:53 PM): God still says, "Shortly coming." aestenAIM (11:32:43 PM): Man doesn't have the social skills, as it were, to be able to understand the implications, and to adequately prepare for them, of Revelation in the millennia. aestenAIM (11:33:02 PM): Thus, God has to make sure to make a big impression. aestenAIM (11:33:07 PM): Otherwise, aestenAIM (11:33:09 PM): Man just won't get it. Adahn1986 (11:33:21 PM): that's alot of thinking aestenAIM (11:33:23 PM): That's what PRC. aestenAIM (11:33:28 PM): That's what PRC is. Adahn1986 (11:33:47 PM): By the Christian definition, would I not still go to heaven if I were to die? aestenAIM (11:34:06 PM): Were you redeemed or not? Adahn1986 (11:34:10 PM): Yes aestenAIM (11:34:27 PM): Then you'd die, but you wouldn't get plunged into Hell or go up to Heaven until Revelation. aestenAIM (11:34:45 PM): I have a feeling that's relevant to Lazarus, too. Adahn1986 (11:34:51 PM): ah Adahn1986 (11:34:54 PM): purgatory? Adahn1986 (11:34:55 PM): *shudders* aestenAIM (11:35:04 PM): If you wanted to go Divine Comedy, sure. Adahn1986 (11:35:07 PM): lol aestenAIM (11:35:25 PM): Even though I'm not a fan of religious doctrine, aestenAIM (11:35:31 PM): Christianity isn't all that bad. Adahn1986 (11:35:36 PM): and, barring how retarded I am, how is it bad that I believe what I do? aestenAIM (11:36:02 PM): Because you're seeing a flaw in a system that's pretty tightly and well constructed. aestenAIM (11:36:17 PM): A flaw that isn't there when you actually consider everything and how it all fits together. Adahn1986 (11:36:25 PM): it would have to Adahn1986 (11:36:29 PM): it's been around for so long aestenAIM (11:36:50 PM): 2000 years and nobody's found that "problem" you're claiming to have found should tell you something. Adahn1986 (11:36:59 PM): pharisees... aestenAIM (11:37:01 PM): And religious scholars have been at it, too. Adahn1986 (11:37:23 PM): how many thousands of years did they believe in "eye for an eye" among other things? Adahn1986 (11:37:41 PM): including but not limited to an unbelief in any resurrection of the dead Adahn1986 (11:37:51 PM): they had a tight-knit system Adahn1986 (11:37:59 PM): and history repeats itself aestenAIM (11:38:10 PM): Let's talk about eye for an eye, then. Adahn1986 (11:38:14 PM): sure aestenAIM (11:38:22 PM): What's the problem with the punishment fits the crime? Adahn1986 (11:38:35 PM): they took that as if it came from God Adahn1986 (11:38:39 PM): law is evil aestenAIM (11:38:50 PM): Law isn't evil. Adahn1986 (11:38:52 PM): 1Cr 15:56 The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law. Adahn1986 (11:38:55 PM): sure it is aestenAIM (11:39:08 PM): When the law is just, it's fine. Adahn1986 (11:39:18 PM): just laws are hard to come by aestenAIM (11:39:19 PM): What "law" could they be referring to there? Adahn1986 (11:39:24 PM): I can think of 10 laws Adahn1986 (11:39:35 PM): they speak of vengeance Adahn1986 (11:39:37 PM): quite simply aestenAIM (11:40:36 PM): Could it be possible that the "law" spoken of there is referring to the Roman law? Adahn1986 (11:41:00 PM): sounds Roman Adahn1986 (11:41:05 PM): I know it's greek, at the very least aestenAIM (11:41:08 PM): And what did Romans do? Adahn1986 (11:41:27 PM): Romans probably used eye for an eye aestenAIM (11:41:32 PM): Not quite. Adahn1986 (11:41:35 PM): no? aestenAIM (11:41:44 PM): Feeding Christians to lions, perhaps? Adahn1986 (11:41:47 PM): *has romans next term* Adahn1986 (11:42:00 PM): I'll learn all that next term Adahn1986 (11:42:02 PM): all I know is greek aestenAIM (11:42:05 PM): The Romans killed Christ, as well. aestenAIM (11:42:17 PM): The Romans weren't cotton candy, fine and dandy. aestenAIM (11:42:33 PM): The "Law" spoken of in that excerpt is referring to the Romans. aestenAIM (11:42:45 PM): The Romans were just shy of being malicious fascists. Adahn1986 (11:43:29 PM): I need to sleep aestenAIM (11:43:38 PM): Think about it, though. Adahn1986 (11:43:50 PM): I'll save the conversation aestenAIM (11:43:51 PM): Christianity is pretty solid. Adahn1986 (11:44:25 PM): except Adahn1986 (11:44:30 PM): I'll get to it later Adahn1986 (11:44:31 PM): lol Adahn1986 (11:44:33 PM): goodnight aestenAIM (11:44:38 PM): Night. Adahn1986 signed off at 11:44:47 PM.[/quote] EDIT: [quote name='Adahn']It is an interpretation.[/quote] Bull. You never said, "This is my take on things." From the start, you immediately started claiming that you had found the true Truth in the Bible. Don't pull that crap.

[QUOTE=Adahn]I'm talking to everyone here, [b]inculding myself[/b]. Again, I just told you what needed to be done, and I'm talking to everyone.[/quote] Something tells me that this entire thread wasn't even about talking to everyone. I think it's an ego trip for you, that's all. I think the only reason you had for creating this thread was to stroke your own ego and feel justified in re-inforcing your belief for yourself, because you knew that your idea was going to be met with (valid) criticisms. You never created this thread to talk to anyone else; you created this thread simply to talk to yourself. Why not just admit that? This entire thread of yours was just a way for you to feel better about yourself? [QUOTE]Right. Everybody knows that if nobody believes something, that makes it untrue. It is an interpretation. I explained to you how I was right, and you explained to me how I was wrong. I bought into what you were saying just as much as you believed what I was saying.[/QUOTE] Not my point at all, so stop trying to spin it. My point is, that you're trying to convince people of an idea that everyone knows is wrong. You've based your theory on half-interpretations and filtered/twisted takes on isolated phrases and sentences of 1,000-line scriptures, and then tried to say that because of these five lines in this entire Book, the entire Book actually means this. Bullsh-t, and we all know that, and you know that, too. That's why your "I'm explaining this to everybody" line is a moot point, because you're not explaining anything substantial, because what you're "Explaining" just simply isn't what the Source Material is. Up until our AIM convo, you'd seemingly never even heard of the PRC (Progressive Revelatory Comprehension) idea. How is that possible? You surely have come across it in your [i]exhaustive[/i] Biblical studies (studies that somehow validate your Literary Interpretive Fraud), right? You'd seemingly never even considered how the passages regarding Revelation fit into the Bible as a whole. You've always hyperfocused on those little, tiny, isolated, 1-line quotes, ignoring the rest, and tried to make it seem like you had magically figured it out. You hadn't, and that much is clear to everyone here, including yourself, yet you keep ignoring that because if you were to admit to that, you would break your argument yourself, without any help from us. As it stands now, however, you've tried to twist things around in the Bible through isolating 1-line quotes, taking them out of context from both the smaller passages, and from the Bible as a whole, which is simply a bad idea when trying to provide an alternative interpretation. That'd be like me quoting one line from Claudius' prayer scene in Hamlet and trying to say that Claudius was actually a good guy. I'd be taking the line out of context, which is what you did here.

[quote name='Adahn']Ohhh, you're saying I haven't told you exactly what you need to do? Here it is. All that other stuff applies. All you have to do in addition to that is believe that Jesus saved us from sin and death, and accept his offer of eternal life. You have to have faith in it. I thought I made that clear before, but I guess not.[/quote]You're not telling those Re-incarnated people, though, are you? Are you giving them any indication at all what to do? Come on, man. You've got nothing left. Your entire argument is falling to pieces, lol. We've already established that there cannot be a successful Re-incarnated life without the memory wipe, so people are going to have no idea what they did wrong (yes, wrong) in their previous life. You're forcing them into this vicious cycle, and giving them no indication at all how they can help themselves. You're telling us this, yes, but nobody here buys into your theory anyway, so that's a moot support point for you. Come on. lol Furthermore, in case you didn't see the Edit, your entire take on the "Eternal life" theme of the Bible is a misinterpretation, like I explained to you over AIM. I walked you through the entire thing, remember?

[quote name='Adahn']By that same logic, getting into heaven is a random event, too. You have to somehow stumble across this Bible, read it, and understand that you have to believe in this Jesus fellow so that when you die, you can live in the eternal bliss of Heaven. If you fail to meet these conditions, you burn eternally, with no idea of what you've done or why everything hurts so much.[/quote]Come on, man, you're grasping at straws here. I think we all can agree that there are guides in Christianity's idea of Heaven and Hell. You know what you're supposed to do in Christianity: live a good life, love thy neighbor, embrace Christ's love (Ten Commandments, hello?). You're told precisely what the guidelines and requirements are. This isn't even forcing you to do anything, either. They're simply telling you what's expected, so your counter there isn't going to work. Your idea is simply plopping people down into this vicious existential cycle with no direction or guidance at all, leaving them up to their own devices to stumble across a "truth" that you're not telling them about, and fixing a "Wrong" that you haven't even explained to them. [i]Come on.[/i] EDIT: Also, why not just admit that your entire idea is just based on vague misinterpretations of the Bible with no real substantial thought processes behind it? I've already showed you the problems over AIM with your stance on Revelation, and how you misinterpreted that. I've explained to you the PRC (Progressive Revelatory Comprehension), as well.

[quote name='Adahn']Reincarnation is no more and no less than another chance to accept salvation and eternal life.[/quote] The chance is non-existent, though, because those being re-incarnated have absolutely no idea what they have to do so they can achieve Immortality. To have an idea, they would either: A) Have to be told, thus, directed, thus, not arrive at the "truth" themselves. B) Stumble across it randomly, and random is not guaranteed. Think about it. You're not helping anyone by forcing them into this rat-race hamster wheel system. [quote]We're talking about the decisions of real people, here. Are you trying to say that every action any and every man makes is completely random?[/QUOTE] You still have not bothered to understand what I'm saying here. The chances of salvation in this "Re-incarnation" idea of yours are bordering on non-existent, because the only chance they have to gain Immortality is based on randomness. Man's actions are not completely random, because I'm purposely hitting Reply here. In the case of your "Re-incarnation," however, there's absolutely nothing specific about it. Okay, they accept your "Truth" and they're saved. What if they have no idea what they're [i]supposed[/i] to do? Since re-incarnation requires a memory wipe (otherwise, you've got Identity Confusion), they're going into their next life with no idea in hell what they need to do to remove themselves from the hamster wheel, meaning, the only chance they have is to stumble across the answer, meaning, it's all random, and randomness does not guarantee anything, because you cannot predict certainty, although you're still trying to predict a certain, specific result in a system of totally randomness. If that's too hard to comprehend, I'll simplify it: Your system ("Re-incarnation") depends on a totally random variable (knowledge of the "Truth") to succeed, but with that totally random variable, there is absolutely no guarantee of any measure of success, because everyone is going around blind, in that they have no idea at all why they're there, what they're doing there, or how to get out of there. It's the rat-race hamster wheel. Think about it.

[quote name='Baron Samedi][size=1']What is practical about going to Heaven? How is this not redundant?[/quote] In Heaven, you have a consciousness of your surroundings. You know where you are, and you know why you're there. You're blessed with happiness and peace, and no pain of any type. You live out your days comfortably, not in some rat-race on a hamster wheel in the big Re-incarnation game of Life. [QUOTE]You don't need to be aware of re-incarnation to have a chance of getting your life 'right' [according to Adahn].[/QUOTE] Then people are merely stumbling about, and there's no real, tangible salvation in store, because it just becomes a redundant rat-race on the previously mentioned hamster wheel. It comes down to pure randomness, and randomness isn't going to save anyone. [QUOTE]Just imagine that there is a room full of monkeys [lol]. These monkeys will die and be re-born until they do whatever it is to remove them from the cycle.[/QUOTE] Are these monkeys typing on typewriters, by any chance? [quote]It's bound to happen eventually, right?[/size][/QUOTE] Check out Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Specifically, the part about the Implausible Improbability generator. The idea of the I.I. is basically that nothing intangible is ever certain, so it's impossible to predict anything. Everything is just random, with no real guaranteed probability.

[quote name='Adahn]I must apologize to Siren. [b]I should have said that reincarnation means you come back as someone different with no knowledge of your past life[/b']. That's why it's so bad. It's a punishment because the life you lived was a wasted one. You don't burn in hell, which is cool, but all your thoughts and memories go away. If anything, it's worse, except for the fact that you get another chance and you don't burn forever.[/quote] I've again bolded a key sentence here. If you're re-incarnating someone as someone completely different, with no knowledge at all of their past life, how do you expect them to right their wrong in their previous life? Are you going to tell them what they need to do? [i]C'mon[/i].

[quote name='Baron Samedi']Abhor it? Whats so bad about re-incarnation? Surely loafing about in Heaven for the rest of eternity is redundancy, not living again and again.[/quote] I know I absolutely hate redundancy, don't you? lol [quote]And, possessing no memories of previous lives is one of the base beliefs [or, rather, necessities] of re-incarnation. Otherwise it'd leave that whole uncomfortable hole where people don't actually remember previous lives ~_^ lol.[/QUOTE] Exactly why using re-incarnation to give someone a second chance to fix a problem in their previous life is a bad idea, because it's a logical contradiction. They'll need to know what they did wrong in their previous life, so they can fix it in their second life, but one of the "rules" of re-incarnation states that there cannot be any supraconscious memories, because, like you've just said, it'll cause major psychological errors. Adahn's re-incarnation idea is a bad idea, because it's too flawed. There's no way in hell it can ever work, because you can't have re-incarnation without a memory wipe, as it were, and you can't have someone right a wrong without knowing about it.