Brasil

[QUOTE=Baron Samedi][size=1]Siren, a little question. How can re-incarnation be a psychological hell? That would involve you being aware that you've been re-incarnated.[/size][/QUOTE]Adahn's never given any indication that people's memories would be a blank slate. In fact, he's left that out entirely from what I've seen here. Also, look at it this way. Adahn wants people to know they're getting a second chance at things, because they didn't do so well in the first place. If they have no memory at all of what they did in their "past life," how in the hell are they going to be able to rectify things? They'd have to know about their previous lives, meaning, they're going to have to be aware that they're being re-incarnated. The psychological hell is what I like to call the "Groundhog Day Reaction," the knowledge that you're doing things over and over again, and there's no end in sight. Seriously, who enjoys vicious circles? The whole re-incarnation thing is an exercise in redundancy, and we all hate redundancy. In fact, we abhor it (just look at this thread, eh?). Regarding this tripe about Revelation happening already...let's examine the actual scripture. [quote name='The Bible]1 The [b]Revelation[/b] of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants [b]things which must shortly come to pass[/b]; 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 [b]this prophecy[/b'], and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.[/quote] I've bolded a few key words and phrases. To say that Revelation has happened already is simply ignoring a large portion of the Book of Revelation.

[QUOTE=Adahn]Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. rev·e·la·tion [url="https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Drevelation"][img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg[/img][/url] ( P ) [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html"]Pronunciation Key[/url] (r[img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ebreve.gif[/img]v[img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/lprime.gif[/img][img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif[/img]-l[img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/amacr.gif[/img][img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gif[/img]sh[img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif[/img]n) n. [list=1][list=1] [*]The act of revealing or disclosing. [*]Something revealed, especially a dramatic disclosure of something not previously known or realized. [/list] [*]Theology. A manifestation of divine will or truth. [*]Revelation Abbr. Rev. or Rv. Bible. See table at [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Bible"]Bible[/url]. [/list]I believe that this already happened.[/quote] The Book of Revelations is about the [i]end of the world[/i] for a reason. It's called The Final Judgment for a reason. It's very clearly [i]prophesied[/i] in the Bible for a reason. That reason is that it [i]hasn't happened yet[/i]. [QUOTE]Jhn 11:13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. Jhn 11:11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. Jhn 11:14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead. First of all, take note of how Jesus uses the word sleep, I will refer to it later. Secondly, this Lazarus guy died, correct? So, Jesus pulled him out of eternal damnation? I think not. Jesus saved him from having to be born again. There is no hell Siren, or this man would have burned in it eternally. [/QUOTE]Sleep=[i]eternal[/i] death. Lazarus died, and depending on the pretext for his death, would have either gone to Heaven or Hell. This isn't all that hard. Jesus resurrected him because Jesus was a cool guy and did that sort of thing. And remember, Christ's love redeems ([i]saves man from eternal damnation[/i]. Remember [b][i]Adam[/i][/b].). Christ has the power, and he used that power to save Lazarus. This isn't a hard concept to understand. [QUOTE]1Cr 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, What is sleep again? Sleep is death. We shall not all die, but we shall all be changed. This means that the world will be perfect. It also says that some will never die. All I'm doing is accepting my salvation now, while the rest of you would rather just die. I believe that the world will be good, and I will not die before I see that, nor will I die afterwards.[/QUOTE]Sleep=[i]eternal[/i] death. People will not be dead forever. This refers to Revelations, the Final Judgment, and then, after the judgment, eternal happiness in the Kingdom of Heaven. The death is a transformation, and death is[i] unavoidable[/i]. Are you claiming to be immortal, Adahn? [quote]EDIT: Hell generally has the meaning of eternal torture and damnation. There is no hell, only what we know. Heaven and earth, life and death, immortality, they're all right here. [b]My hell (as you use the word) is another chance at eternal life. It's not so much a punishment as a lack of a reward[/b].[/QUOTE][i]No, your Hell is a Bill Murray movie called Groundhog Day[/i]. Humans dislike redundancy. That much should be clear from the posts by AzureWolf, Sciros, Baron Samedi, Dagger, and myself in this very thread. Adahn, you're not improving the existence of anyone by forcing them to endure consecutive existences on into infinity simply because they can't accept this "truth" you've arbitrarily constructed. Furthermore, you're not improving the existence of anyone by having them endure one endless existence, because, let's face the facts: nobody wants to live forever, because they'll always be alone. Everyone they know will have died. They'll never be able to have any lasting relationships. Have you even considered the implications of what you're preaching here? You're talking about putting people into a vicious existential cycle that they have absolutely no control over, except if they submit to your will, and then, if they do, you're putting them into an endless singular existence in which they'll be alone forever. Immortality is boring as hell. Your idea is no better than the [i]Christian[/i] idea of Hell, because the [i]Adahn[/i] idea of Hell is just as bad. The Christian Hell is a [i]physical[/i] torture; your Hell is a [i]psychological[/i] torture. C'mon, man, just admit it. You haven't thought this out at all, yet you still expect everyone to follow you because you think you arrived at the answer. EDIT: Also, Ben and Boba Fett have posted here with some good points, and you have yet to reply to them. Please do so. I'd be interested in what you would try to use in a rebuttal.

[quote name='Baron Samedi][size=1']In regards to what you're saying Siren, Adahn's view is a lot different, because Adahn doesn't believe in Hell. He has repeatedly stated that if you don't find the truth, you are merely re-incarnated. Again, and again, and again. So, you're a bit off course there.[/size][/quote] Baron, my point is that there is still a Hell in his theory, though it may not be literal. Either you subscribe to his theory or you don't, and if you don't, then you waste away and die. He's stated this, and I've quoted him on it. Wasting away and dying certainly doesn't sound like re-incarnation to me...what do you think? When I hear "[i]wasting away[/i] and dying," Dante's Inferno comes to mind, and we're all aware of what Dante's Inferno is. ~_^ Let's put it this way. Not to be rude, but I think Adahn's theory is a load of horsesh-t. I think he's trying to connect dots that simply can't be connected, trying to twist something in a direction that simply can't be spun like that. This isn't like someone making a case for the Imperial Empire in Star Wars, or Fate in Terminator. ;) Now, since I view Adahn's theory as a load of horsesh-t that has absolutely no substantial basis to build on, I'm not even going to consider the outlandish idea. I'm throwing the entire theory right out to begin with, which is what most people here have done, and I have a feeling, that's what the majority of people in the world would do, apart from a few misguided cult-ish individuals. What are the implications of that? Where I don't even buy into any tiny part of Adahn's...thing? "Wasting away and dying." You accept what Adahn is saying...you accept his new, radicalist interpretation of the Bible instead of approximately 2000 years of a steady interpretation, you get "saved" ("blessed" with eternal life--but seriously, who in their right mind would want that, anyway?). You treat the theory as crap, which is what many people would do, and you're going to get punished for it. Don't let Adahn fool you, Baron; there's definitely still a Hell in his theory. He just either: A) doesn't realize it; B) won't admit it.

[QUOTE=Adahn][b]I don't understand[/b] what you're trying to say. Believing that Jesus saved us from sin and death is redemption. [b]I don't understand[/b] what you're trying to say here either.[/quote] Oh, I think you understand just fine, and you know that what I'm saying is punching a major hole in your entire argument here, and you're desperately trying to deflect it by denying that you comprehend what I'm saying. I think you understand it just fine, Adahn...you understand it just fine. Try to read and address the entire post instead of attempting a point-by-point rebuttal, because I have a feeling that you have to take things out of context so you can misconstrue a meaning, because if you attempt to counter the full post, you simply are unable to, given your faulty argument. Now, even though you and I both know my post was exceedingly easy to understand, I'll reiterate what I said. Concerning Original Sin, people aren't doomed for eternity when they are able to redeem themselves, meaning, your entire take on the Christian idea of Original Sin being unfair is invalid, as anyone is be able to reach Heaven. It's not black and white with Original Sin. If you have inherent Sin, you're not automatically doomed to hell, because Jesus was Adam's Redemption (Jesus was the Prodigal Son; Adam, the Fallen Son), and because of Jesus redeeming Adam, 5-year-old children are not necessarily going to burn in hell. You've been portraying Original Sin (yes, Original Sin...not Hell) as some...ultimate, all-encompassing destructive entity that will never waver and will always wholly and utterly doom everyone, stripping away all the chance they have of ever having a positive existence. [QUOTE]Yes, that is a part of why my idea is better. I said I don't believe in hell. If you don't accept my truth, you are reborn. You misunderstand.[/QUOTE] Let this sink in: in your take on things, you still have Hell being quite, quite prominent. Let me ask you...if people don't subscribe to your theory, what will happen to them? You said it yourself in a previous post: [quote name='Adahn']The reward is eternal life. I am not giving it to them. If they want to waste their lives and die, then yes, they are getting what they want.[/quote] When someone does not subscribe to your idea, they're going to die. And if they die without being saved, what's happening to them? Hell. I think we have a case here of someone trying to change the meaning of what they're saying as it best suits them. [QUOTE]You are basing everything after this on your misunderstanding.[/QUOTE] Ah, but we're both understanding what the other is saying here, so there is no misunderstanding, only an exposing of your faulty argument. [QUOTE]Christians say, "Accept the truth, and after death, you will go to heaven." I say, "Accept the truth, and you will never die."[/QUOTE] And what is so wrong with the Christian Theology here? Furthermore, I recall an older proverb/adage I read a few years back...the story goes: [quote]A man walked beside the river bed, in his usual morning stroll. The sun was shining warm upon his face, and the sweet Western winds softly blew. As he approached a divergence in the brook, he heard a faint cry of distress coming from not too far away. He rushed to this voice, and there he saw a woman, barely able to stay above the surface. In what was surely a heroic gesture, he dove into the water, swam to this woman, and brought her to shore. This young woman was so grateful that she granted this man one wish. The man, being humble and not desiring material goods, thought to himself for a moment, then answered, "Grant me not gold nor silver, for they mean little to me. I have only these clothes on my back, and I desire not to change that. But if there were ever a man whom I seek to become, that man is wise Solomon. He is so learned, and if I would be able to gain eternal knowledge, I would be most grateful." The woman granted his wish, "Ask for eternal knowledge, and ye shall receive. You will dwarf the intellectual giants of the past, and even far, far into the upcoming years. Your knowledge will reign supreme." At this, the man was most pleased, but something perplexed him, yet he was unable to realize what it was that was disconcerting. After centuries had passed, and his loved ones were long since buried; after entire empires rose and fell, when the world suddenly became a cold technology before his very eyes, the man then understood: Eternal life is only a blessing when you have friends and kin to share it with. Tis a curse all else.[/quote] [QUOTE] Yes it is... Yes there is...[/QUOTE] You're still punishing people for doubting your radicalist interpretation. It's no different. Your brief, terse replies are significant evidence that you know this to be true. [quote]Is it really? Perhaps you should ask me what my ideas are before mangling everything I've been trying to say.[/QUOTE] Again, there has been no mangling on my part, because your ideas were mangled to begin with, and were based on such a twisted and faulty "logic" that under closer analysis, they fall apart entirely.

Adahn, are you viewing the Original Sin/Death thing as purely black and white? Either someone knows Jesus or they will die? Now, I'm not a smart man, but I'm pretty sure there are some major parts in the Christian religion/theology that allow you to redeem yourself, just like how Jesus is the Redemption of Adam. A young child, while inherently Sinned through Original Sin, is not doomed to burn in hellfire, because that child can redeem his or herself by accepting Jesus' love, or the "Truth." "Repent and ye shall be saved" should ring a bell. Now, I've gathered from your numerous posts/rants here that your idea is better, because there's no burning in hell. Maybe I'm just missing some key point here, but you've said numerous times that if people don't accept your "Truth," they're going to burn in Hell, and if they accept your "Truth," they will live in eternal happiness or pleasure, or something to that effect. Everyone, am I the only one who does not see any difference at all between Adahn's "solution" and the Christian doctrine of Redemption? We've got Adahn's "Accept the 'truth' and you will be saved," and then Christianity's "Accept the 'truth' and you will be saved." The eternal happiness/bliss that Adahn's preaching here...it's no different than the Christian idea of Heaven. [i]There is absolutely no difference between the two ideas[/i]. This thread is over.

[quote name='Adahn']Did that "infiltrator" talk to any of the workers? No, he didn't. He showed a video with probably a few scattered instances of hitting a chicken against a cage, and edited out hours of normal work. You're taking this PETA guys opinion as fact, when nobody has talked to the workers.[/quote]Let's consider, then, the conditions in meat-production plants...cattle, for example. You've read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, I'd imagine? There is no exaggeration in that novel. The slaughterhouses are actually like that. Some of my dad's friends worked in slaughterhouses back in the 60s and 70s, and to this day, they refuse to eat meat. Considering that the conditions we see in this video footage are very, very likely not exclusive to the approximately 15 minutes of the video footage itself, playing the "Michael Moore Tactics" card here doesn't work. And...what other kinds of work would there be in a [i]slaughterhouse[/i]? C'mon, lol. [QUOTE]I doubt that they are hitting the chickens for the pure pleasure of it.[/QUOTE]When a football player gets a TD, and spikes the football, are you saying there's more to it than just exhiliration, celebration, and a derivation of pleasure from it? [quote]Those animals are no longer seen as living creatures to those workers, they are just something that has to be worked with. A misbehaving chicken is no different to them than a machine that isn't doing its job. The ideal chicken would sit in one place quietly waiting for death. Good chicken. If a machine starts to malfunction, what do you do? You smack it until it starts working again.[/quote]So, what you're saying here is... Chicken:Slaughterhouse Worker::Computers:Programmers I'm know that I'm not about to go throwing my CPU across the room if I keep getting the Blue Screen of Death. [quote]I doubt that there is anything malicious in the workers' intent,[/quote]Is there some previously unrealized benefit to treating a chicken like a football? Does it help tenderize the meat? Does it improve the taste? Does it make it easier to puree? Fact of the matter is, what we saw in the video was uncalled for, even from a slaughterhouse's POV. I seriously doubt that slapping chickens around, spiking them, throwing them into walls, floors, stepping on them, etc, is somehow going to improve production. It's wasted action, energy that doesn't need to be expelled, just like a few Smash Melee match videos I saw over the summer. Actions that are purely extraneous that do not serve any productive, objective purpose at all. [quote]and all of you are just assuming that this PETA guy is painting an unbiased picture of the factory. Ha ha ha, an unbiased PETA person. I crack myself up.[/QUOTE]While I rarely agree with PETA's applications of their Ideologies, I think their core set of goals is admirable. They're looking to improve the quality of life--or at least increase the level of humane treatment--of animals. I don't see how anyone would have a problem with that. I think the problem with PETA is that their Ideologies have been so skewed and highjacked lately by the Radicalist groups/people who value animals over humans. Now, we've already established that there is really nothing else that goes on in slaughterhouses except for brutal, brutal work conditions and things that could be found in the deeper rings in Dante's Inferno. With this in mind, it's impossible to say that because it's a PETA worker/supporter/etc, we're getting some tainted, filtered window into the slaughterhouses. Bull. If you were to go into any slaughterhouse across the country, you'd see the same kinds of conditions, and to a greater severity than that video. "Biased," my -ss. If anything, they're only showing us a small excerpt of the horror, the horror.

"They're going to die anyway, so unnecessary torture is okay." "Pain is normal." "Death is normal." "Food chain." Give me a break, lol. There is absolutely no need at all to put those chickens through that kind of abuse before their heads got chopped off. To say that they're going to die anyway, as if that's some type of justification for spiking them, is utterly asinine. Yes, they're chickens. Yes, they're being breeded so I can eat my McChicken sandwich, but that doesn't mean that kind of treatment is warranted. It's one thing to feel indifferent about it. It's something entirely else to think it's all right. I've never read anything so absurd. Chickens aren't humans, obviously, but even then, they deserve some level of respect in how they're handled, at least. I'd hope this is just common sense, but apparently, it isn't.

[QUOTE=Adahn][b][font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][color=darkolivegreen]Before I reply to you, Baron and Siren, I need to know one thing. Have either of you read the Bible?[/color][/size][/font][/b] [b][font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][color=#556b2f][/color][/size][/font][/b] [b][font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][color=#556b2f]Nobody who has replied to me has dared challenge any of my [i]interpretations.[/i] Sciros happily pointed out that they were illogical without anything to back himself up, and Cyriel and Midnight Rush have been rather quiet. I will need to know the extent of your knowledge of the Bible before I address any of your points, Siren. Same goes for you, Baron, since you say Siren's analysis is "spot on".[/color][/size][/font][/b][/QUOTE] Having done an extensive study of it in World Masterpieces, various Religion courses, and a Religion and Psychology course, and also having read the entire New Testament in preparation for a thesis debunking any and all notions to compare Prince Hamlet to Jesus Christ, I think I've had more than ample experience in Biblical studies for this little discussion. Adahn, your interpretation has been...that Christianity is misinterpreting the Bible and/or religion, that your interpretation of the Bible is correct, because you believe Reincarnation is the "proper" or "right" answer, because Christianity's Original Sin is barbaric and cruel. That's what your entire argument boils down to. The Christianity misinterpreting the Bible/religion is blatantly obvious to begin with, so I don't see how you're making any groundbreaking observations there that we have to magically debunk, because you're really just stating the obvious. It's clear to anyone that there are significant flaws in the [i]application of religion[/i] (incidentally, I did mention the mis-application of religion in my very first post in this thread, some 7 pages back). With your preaching that Reincarnation is the answer, that people will be given a second chance, that Christianity is unfair because of Original Sin, your argument holds a major flaw. With Universal Reincarnation (which is what you're telling us is the answer), everyone can do whatever they please, with no fears at all of any type of consequence, because they will always have another chance, regardless of who they are, or what they did. Simply put, one of the flaws in your interpretation is that human beings would never have to put in the effort to be rewarded. At least Christianity would have people working for the reward. You're just giving it to them. Just giving something to people without having them [i]earn[/i] it isn't doing anyone any good; it just makes them lazy and further cements them in the Ideology that they don't have to lift a damn finger and they'll still get what they want. You're enabling people to fail by preaching Universal Reincarnation. The Christian Doctrines of Original Sin and so forth aren't all that peachy-keen, I agree, but your idea isn't much better, if it's better at all. In fact, it's just as skewed as Christianity's Original Sin, except your idea is on the other extreme end of the spectrum.

[quote name='Adahn']This applies to everything. One must therefore be critical of everything he himself has not written, and take no one's interpretation as fact. However, some things that have been written do have a certain amount of truth to them. My ideas are based on impressions I get when I think certain things. This is occasionally started by what I read in a book. I describe theories and ideas I've never seen before, all the time. I apply my own meanings because I am distrustful of anyone elses. Everybody else isn't right all the time. I am.[/quote] It applies to everything, yes, but we're specifically talking about the Bible and its use in discerning the reality of God. Now, with these very specific foci here, and with the realization that man is flawed, using the Bible as support for the existence of God is inherently flawed, because the Bible was written by man, a man that sought to establish a higher power. This makes the Bible a broken support point in defending the existence of God, because the purpose and intent of writing the Bible was to create God. [QUOTE]You do realize that you are seeing parallels in certain texts, and are basing your conclusion that all is untrue upon those parallels, right? I always thought that when certain things show up over and over (periodic trends in chemistry, for example), there is some sort of truth driving them. If you'll notice, I have read the Bible, and drawn out those parallels which can be found in other religions. I believe the first reply to this thread called me a Christian-Buddhist hybrid. Your logic seems a little backwards to me.[/QUOTE] My point with raising the (very clear to anyone with a sufficiently thorough study of world literature) parallels is that the Bible's themes, messages, contexts, and ideas are not exclusive to the Bible itself, so to elevate the Bible to the level of pure truth, proving the existence of God, and seemingly ignore the other identically-constructed texts (like Beowulf, Iliad, Gilgamesh, etc) is questionable, to say the least, because the Bible is nothing special, because you can find identical texts nearly everywhere in literary history, both before and after the Bible's original penning date. [QUOTE] Most of the stories surrounding Jesus did not attempt to explain anything unexplainable, but rather placed before us certain events that were unexplainable. Jesus didn't create rivers and valleys or turn people into dolphins. He raised the dead. The old testament follows this very well, what with plagues and droughts. However, the new testament doesn't deal with any of that at all, and that is where I get most of my ideas from. If you can find something that fits anything you said here in the new testament, I would appreciate seeing it. The old testament, again, is full of sacrifice, I view Jesus as the final sacrifice, and that anything further is not only displeasing to God, but it is insulting. The Bible is far from what you would call a look at nature and the human condition. The Bible throws humanity in our face, telling us that we were not meant to live and die. It says we can achieve eternal life on earth. That is the most unnatural thing someone could say. These were not "things" that were just happening. This was a person that everyone could touch and see, performing personal miracles. He didn't call lightning down or transform people into animals. He took people that had been deformed all their life and made them perfect with his touch. Again, this is not explaining the unexplainable. This is throwing reality in our faces and telling us that we're just not getting something.[/QUOTE] You're missing a key point here, and it's a point that can be found in every single literary work I've mentioned: Overexaggeration. In the Odyssey, there is mention of a cyclops, Polyphemus (which Odysseus kills), harpies, sirens, minotaurs, being lost at sea for twenty-some years, coming across all types of horrid, monstrous beasts. In Gilgamesh, a king slays the demon, Humbaba, guardian of a Cedar Forest. The ground shakes under Humbaba as he walks. Beowulf slaughters a night demon named Grendel, and then impales Dam with his sword, which subsequently disintegrates from the blood of Dam. These events may have happened in some way or another, though it's highly unlikely that there were 100-foot demons running around, but [i]if[/i] (and this is an important "if") these events did happen, do you believe they were so fantastic in reality? Meaning, do you really believe that Beowulf fought Grendel in hand-to-hand combat, ripping Grendel's left arm out of its socket? Did Gilgamesh slaughter Humbaba so easily in reality? Was Humbaba so huge in reality? Was Grendel so lethal in reality? Did Grendel even exist to begin with? Did Humbaba even exist to begin with? See where I'm going with this? What happens in the Bible didn't happen as it's chronicled, because it was heavily overexaggerated. That's what mythology is: making things bigger than life, and I think we can all agree that Christ healing lepers was a bit bigger than life, and those storytelling techniques were eerily similar to the techniques used in Gilgamesh or the Odyssey. [QUOTE]Again, if you see parallels in different texts, is it not more logical to search for an underlying truth, rather than make the assumption that it is all false?[/QUOTE] The underlying truth [i]is[/i] that they're all tall tales--overexaggerations--really no different from Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox. [quote]Things go on with me that are completely out of my control. There is a driving force with its own will that lives inside me, and I don't know what it is. I can't control it. I can't talk to it. I can only try and understand what its motives are. It's never led me astray, and this is the direction it's pushing me in, now. I trust more in myself than I do in any book or anyone's teachings. He that is inside me can do me no harm.[/QUOTE] You only "feel" Him there because part of you wants to. It isn't spontaneous, and it's not something unexpected, either. There's a part of you that wants to hear Him, and so, you hear Him. That isn't proof that He exists, because He only exists because a part of you that you are unaware of, wants Him to exist. The entire subject about the Bible, God, a higher power, spirituality, etc, can be explained in one sentence: "God did not create Man; Man created God."

The existence of God still comes into question, however, even as one quotes the Bible, because the Bible is still written by humans, and humans are liable to make mistakes, misinterpret, and most importantly, apply their own meaning to things. The Bible is an interesting piece of literature, simply because it's nothing more than a mythological text blown way out of proportion. If you were to look at the various creation stories throughout the world, various mythos of particular races and cultures, you will find there is a very similar trait about them: All of those stories attempt to explain the unexplainable (at least, what was scientifically impossible to explain back then). An example of this is ancient Sumerian/Babylonian/Mesopotamian texts like Epic of Gilgamesh, texts that attributed the flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers to the gods. It was nature that scared them. It was nature that they did not understand. It was nature viewed as a threat to mankind, and thus, the humans were forced to create mythos (rationalizations) in order to better cope with this destruction. Odyssey and Iliad are other examples. Nearly the entire works are filled with sacrifices, praise songs, verses, etc, all dedicated to the gods, so that the gods will smile upon them by granting Odysseus safe voyage on the seas. Regularly, they sacrificed to Poseidon so they could travel safely. Beowulf is yet another example of a personification of death (Grendel and Grendel's mum) to better cope with death itself. Beowulf kills Grendel and Dam. What does that say about the story? What does that say about the purpose? It's a feel-good story, albeit an incredibly gory and bloody one. It's written to entertain and improve morale. The Bible is no different. It's a collection of short stories written over many years (Gilgamesh, Iliad, Beowulf, anyone?) that attempt to engage the reader in a comfortable manner, to teach them a moral lesson, life lesson, and so on. Yet, it's been elevated to Canon status, when if you were to look at it objectively, it's just another subjective look at nature and the human condition, just like Gilgamesh, Iliad, Beowulf, et al. I'm not saying that anyone written of in the Bible was hallucinating or anything, because that's just silly. What I [i]am[/i] saying, though, is, like I've said previously, I seriously doubt the..."realness" of what the Bible says, because let's face it. Back then, those people were far, far more impressionable and simple than we are now, and they would "see" things in a much more fantastic way, because that's the only way they could explain things ("God wants it to be this way"). How old is the Bible these days? 2000 years old? 2500? More than that? We've seen throughout literary history that the stories of Victorian England, Ancient Rome, India, Russia, Mesopotamia, Greece, America, Germanic England, etc, are all interchangeable. You'd be surprised that you can remove something like the story of Abraham and replace it with portions of the Bhagavad Gita and nobody would know the difference thematically. Character-wise, yes, there's a difference, but that's a minor difference. Anything you read in the Bible can be found countless times in other pieces of literature, some dated after the Bible, but some dated far, far before. What I'm saying is...the Bible isn't true. God isn't real. It's all a giant ancient rationalization that fits into the larger rationalization of ancient literary history. Like Iliad and Beowulf, the Bible is a simple mythology based on nature. Adahn, in talking with yourself, you're doing simply that: talking with yourself. You are still supplying your own answers, and the only reason you believe God (or truth) to be talking to you is because you believe God (or truth) to be talking to you. That doesn't mean He is, however. It's not objective; it's subjective, and subjectivity is not truth.

Here's a question for anyone who feels like answering. If God does exist, why haven't we seen Him? We could all call attention to the various "Mother Mary in a window shine" "miracles" around, and say that's proof that God exists, but there are really no inherent or implied identities of either Mary or God in those images. People are seeing what they want to see, applying what they want to apply, making all of that purely subjective, and not worth much in discerning if there is a God or not. If there is no objective evidence (i.e., God Himself opens up the sky and starts talking to everyone in the world) of God's existence, that means God does not exist. Everything else (the subjective "I saw Mother Mary in that shrubbery!") is insubstantial and inconsequential.

[quote name='Heaven's Cloud][color=indigo]Some things I'd like to touch on, just for conversaiton's sake.[/color'][color=black][/quote][/color] Sure thing. [list] [*]He doesn't seem too keen on the idea of repealing NCLB (A project that is so flawed it blows my mind.) [color=indigo] No he doesn't. I would have marked this up as a big strike against Bush and a tally for Kerry except for the fact that Kerry not only supported the bill, but he stated that the only flaw with it was that it was under funded. [/color] [/list][color=indigo][indent][color=black]Fair enough, but my point here was more that Kerry would certainly be more receptive to the idea of revamping NCLB than Bush if the inherent flaws in the fundamental design of the proposal/legislation were brought to his attention.[/color] [color=#000000][/color] [color=black]I'm of the opinion that because Bush signed the bill into law, and has been supporting it so adamantly (digging himself in too deep, essentially), when clearly, it's a piece of sh-t, engaging him to seriously revamp NCLB--essentially re-building it from the ground up--would be exceedingly difficult, because...he is so concerned with "flip-flopping," and his image.[/color] [/indent][/color] [list] [*]We know that Bush isn't going to budge an Ideological inch in the War on Terror (This is fairly clear. He's said we're winning the war, so why change what we're doing?) [color=indigo]We are winning the war on terror,that is fairly obvious since we haven't been attaked again. We are fighting an uphill battle in the War in Iraq (which is probably what you meant) and I don't think Bush should waiver from his belief in the war. I am not going to get locked into yet another debate on whether or not the war in Iraq was right or wrong, it is too cylical and people tend to only read what they want. My problem with the war is that aspects have been handled poorly, hopefully Bush finally realizes that.[/color] [/list][indent][color=black]I don't necessarily view a victorious campaign in the War on Terror as negating attacks. While it's certainly a positive result (I don't know who would disagree with that, heh), the fact that our involvement in various Middle Eastern nations may very well be contributing to an increase in the recruitment probabilities/rates of various terrorist cells/organizations like Al Qaida and groups like Hamas, or even those sympathetic to the Islamic Jihad's cause, gives the impression that the War on Terror is not as successful as we think, even though there hasn't been any [i]direct[/i] attack on America in the past four years, even though various Embassies and ground forces are constantly coming under fire, bombings, etc.[/color] On the surface, yes, there haven't been any new attacks on a major, national level, but there are still countless sleeper cells throughout the world, the locations of many of them still unknown, and rather common smaller attacks on a more individual/small group/personal level, if that makes sense. I too don't want to get drawn into some huge debate about right/wrong in war, and I have a feeling you and I would agree on many of those points anyway. I've accepted the necessity of war, and granted, there always will be war as long as there are humans, but like you said, there's a right way and a wrong way to handle war, and it's safe to say there have been some pretty major SNAFUs concerning this war in particular. It seems to me that the likelihood of Bush admitting a mistake in his handling of the war is very unlikely (the image and "mixed messages" again being a factor here), and more and more, Kerry's statement that Bush/Cheney will be giving us more of the same is sounding accurate. [/indent] [list] [*]With the Chief Justices resigning, it can be said with fair certainty that Bush is going to appoint Justices that are in line with his Ideological stance on things like Abortion (And we all know what Bush's stance on Abortion is, and we all know who is going to get pissed about that) [color=indigo]I agree. My biggest fear was that we would have an even more conservative Senate and House than we did yesterday...and we do. Hopefully there will be enough people to sit on the vote if Bush nominates someone that is too conservative.[/color] [/list][indent][color=black]I'm not sure what the House and/or Senate vote ratio would need to be to counter the Presidental nominations, but let's hope with the GOP-dominated House and Senate, that there are still enough Dems in there.[/color] [/indent] [list] [*]Bush certainly isn't going to budge on Gay Marriage, so people are going to continue to be unhappy about that. [color=indigo]No, and that sucks, but Kerry didn't support it either. Obviously neither did the majority of Americans, since nearly all of the "Sanctity of Marriage" laws passed in individual states last night. I do think that is something that will change over time though.[/color] [/list][indent][color=black]I'm seeing those results of the individual states, and I'm also noticing a trend, as well. The majority of those states that voted to ban Gay Marriage also went to President Bush in the election. Looks like a Republican state to begin with, and oddly enough, I'm not seeing the Sanctity of Marriage ballot options offered in every state, especially none in the upper NE or NW, which went to Kerry.[/color] [/indent] [list] [*]Bush's take on job recovery isn't the best thing around, because...let's face it. Improving high school education isn't going to help the 40-year-old IT programmers who are losing their jobs to overseas programmers who are working for half the salary. [color=indigo]Bush's economic plans are actually pretty good, as many economic professors will grudgingly admit. The out sourcing of jobs is a big problem, but ninety percent of the jobs that have been out sourced aren't IT jobs, they are manufacturing jobs. Most of the time companies are forced to out source because overhead is too high and Unions refuse to bend their policies. I'll agree with you that Bush is encouraging the outsourcing of jobs by encouraging global trade on a nearly free basis. But, if you go back to the 1920's you will see that free trade always, without fail, encourages more business endeavors and creates more jobs in the long run. Both Bush Sr. and Clinton utilized similar tactics and our economy flourished under them. I could delve into it more but I copied this to my phone to finish and my thumbs are getting sore.[/color] [/list][indent][color=black]My point in mentioning IT jobs was that during the debates, Bush had emphasized "improving" education in order to better prepare Americans for jobs in the 21st Century, and while manufacturing jobs are certainly going to be prevalent in the upcoming decades, IT will probably go through a major boom again, in keeping with the economic cycles we've seen over the past few decades.[/color] I think one of the main reasons that companies outsource is because it's cheaper, salary-wise, too, and that's a big problem. Cheaper labor equals more cost effective production, regardless of what is being produced, and it's hurting the economy, and something needs to be done. Whether it's providing incentive bonuses to companies who hire within America, or even simply establishing some guidelines concerning the global trade agreements...[i]something[/i]. Please do add to it, too. [/indent] [list] [*]Gas prices since the War started have skyrocketed, and if this trend is accurate, a prolonged conflict in Iraq, and later, whatever other nations are deemed threats and we invade (the likelihood of which seems to be increasing exponentially these days), will further drive prices up, or at the very least, prevent a price drop. [color=indigo]Probably. Gas prices should be as high as they are if only to encourage car pooling and public transportation, heh. Compared to other countries our gas prices are still astronomically low. America really needs to put even more funding into finding an alternate fuel resource.[/color] [/list][indent][color=black]In the world economy, we're doing good, but in national elections, other countries aren't electing our officials. We are. Even though we're doing better than other nations, paying upwards of 2.15 per gallon of regular is hurting [i]us[/i], regardless of what nations we're comparing ourselves to.[/color] [/indent] [list] [*]Like gas prices, tuition prices have been steadily increasing, and it appears that nothing is being done to assist college students in their finances. The only reason I'm still able to afford school is because my Student Loan magically took care of the entire amount of the tuition increase after McGreevey cut funding. Now, yes, this was McGreevey's fault, and he was acting in response to previous fiscal irresponsibility, but if tuition continues to rise (which it has been, regardless of McGreevey's major snafu), the college student will find his or herself struggling to keep up with the finances of college life. Combine this with the general loss of job opportunities, and you've got the future leaders of America struggling to get a college education. I shouldn't have to say it, but that's not a good idea. [color=indigo]I agree that college is getting more expensive, especially if you live in the North East. But this really is a state issue, not a federal issue. Take Georgia, for example. If you do well in high school the state makes sure you can go to college, all you have to do is keep up your grades. [/color] [/list][indent][color=black]But perhaps a Federal involvement in higher education is a good thing. Enabling students to go to college, to have a better opportunity for a better education...improving higher education through a plan more well-planned than NCLB may be an important first step in assisting college graduates in finding jobs post-graduation...in helping Americans secure jobs for the future, improving their skills so that they are able to compete in the job market, perhaps to begin to reverse the trend of particular instances of job outsourcings.[/color] [/indent] [list] [*]With Bush in office for four more years, that means another four years of Michael Moore, and we all know what Moore does: piss people off or lead them around. & [*]There shouldn't have to be a 9/11 for that to happen, though. The solution is simple: everyone needs to cut out the virulent partisan bullsh-t. [color=indigo]Amen[/color] [/list][indent][color=black]Yes.[/color] [/indent]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Actually I think we're far more likely to see a President Clinton in 2008 (hint: not Bill).[/quote] Given the choice between Hillary or Chelsea, I'd go with Chelsea. Easier on the eyes, you know. [quote]I am not sure why people are so concerned that the U.S. is "torn apart" due to such strong bi-partisanship. I think it will die down soon enough, since so much of it was fueled by the extremely aggressive, bitter campaigning.[/quote] Actually, it looks like there's more to it than simple mud-slinging. Those who are unhappy with Bush's handling of various issues now are most likely going to become even more unhappy, considering that Bush preached the horrors of "flip-flopping." [list] [*]He doesn't seem too keen on the idea of repealing NCLB (A project that is so flawed it blows my mind.) [*]We know that Bush isn't going to budge an Ideological inch in the War on Terror (This is fairly clear. He's said we're winning the war, so why change what we're doing?) [*]With the Chief Justices resigning, it can be said with fair certainty that Bush is going to appoint Justices that are in line with his Ideological stance on things like Abortion (And we all know what Bush's stance on Abortion is, and we all know who is going to get pissed about that) [*]Bush certainly isn't going to budge on Gay Marriage, so people are going to continue to be unhappy about that. [*]Bush's take on job recovery isn't the best thing around, because...let's face it. Improving high school education isn't going to help the 40-year-old IT programmers who are losing their jobs to overseas programmers who are working for half the salary. [*]Gas prices since the War started have skyrocketed, and if this trend is accurate, a prolonged conflict in Iraq, and later, whatever other nations are deemed threats and we invade (the likelihood of which seems to be increasing exponentially these days), will further drive prices up, or at the very least, prevent a price drop. [*]Like gas prices, tuition prices have been steadily increasing, and it appears that nothing is being done to assist college students in their finances. The only reason I'm still able to afford school is because my Student Loan magically took care of the entire amount of the tuition increase after McGreevey cut funding. Now, yes, this was McGreevey's fault, and he was acting in response to previous fiscal irresponsibility, but if tuition continues to rise (which it has been, regardless of McGreevey's major snafu), the college student will find his or herself struggling to keep up with the finances of college life. Combine this with the general loss of job opportunities, and you've got the future leaders of America struggling to get a college education. I shouldn't have to say it, but that's not a good idea. [*]With Bush in office for four more years, that means another four years of Michael Moore, and we all know what Moore does: piss people off or lead them around. [/list] Obviously, that's just going off the top of my head, but they're major issues that are going to have a significant impact on the progression of America in the next four years. [QUOTE]I've never seen so much mudslinging before as went on during the last couple of months, from both parties (but more so from the Democrats; I usually vote Dem but this time they were just shameful).[/QUOTE] Again, though, I don't think either party is more at fault than the other. Just watching Fox (The Simpsons re-runs, specifically) between 6 and 7 pm, you see roughly the same amount of negative mudslinging sponsored by both parties. I think the Veteran Swiftboat ads are something to be considered when discussing the mudslinging and propaganda, as well, because while not directly Republican-endorsed, it took major Republican leaders a while to denounce those ads, and I think that's a major point here concerning the role of media in politics. No side is more innocent than the other when it comes down to elections. [QUOTE]Anyway, as torn apart as the U.S. is by some current issues, you have to keep in mind that we're still all aiming for the same goals as far as security goes and as far as economy goes. (Religious issues, well, that's nothing new and it'll never change.) Some people think they can do it better than others, is all.[/QUOTE] Same goals, somewhat. While we may all want the same thing (though, what I've listed doesn't really support that), priorities need to be re-checked. I've said it before and I'll say it again. With American Domestic issues damn near failing, with minimalist effort to fix those problems...if we don't fix them, there won't be any America left to protect. [QUOTE]Dems might "hate" Reps and vice versa, but if **** ever hit the fan again (like 9/11), we'd all be united. Just like everyone was back then.[/QUOTE] There shouldn't have to be a 9/11 for that to happen, though. The solution is simple: everyone needs to cut out the virulent partisan bullsh-t. [quote]Anyway, let's hope that Bush's administration doesn't end up screwing up more than I expected Kerry's to, heh....[/QUOTE] Depending on what you wanted Bush to do (i.e., fix Education, do something worthwhile to improve the economy, etc) your take on the job he's done will obviously be different, but he isn't improving Education. That much is clear, and IT jobs are still being lost, so I'm not sure what improvement is there. We've got people living in slums in just about every major metropolitan area, with nothing Governmental being done to help them, it seems. It's all falling in the hands of...The Red Cross? Volunteers? Noble, definitely, but not enough. Our nation is at a very weird place right now, and that weirdness isn't a good weird, either. For key domestic issues, certainly, Bush is screwing things up in a major way. Internationally, it's eh. It's really become a quagmire of bizarre militaristic procedures.

Dearest Harry, I'm going to assume you're trying to be sarcastic here, as that's what you do: try to be sarcastic. But for the sake of argument, I'll treat your points as having some sort of serious and substantial basis for discussion. [quote name='Harry']Quit being such a drama queen over this election.[/quote] You see, Harry, it's far from being a drama queen. It's called being realistic. One would have to turn an entire blind eye to the current degenerate and unbalanced state of American politics. I think regardless of what political party one belongs to, one can see serious problems with how the system is behaving (or misbehaving). When I can sit in a room after a Pop Culture presentation, get involved in a discussion about politics, and get both Staunch Republicans and Staunch Democrats to [i]fully agree[/i] with me that there is something definitely wrong about this Political Piefight we've got here, that says something about the accuracy of my observations. People on OB (and in this thread) are agreeing with me (and many have said they'd vote for me), regardless of what political party they support. There's no Drama Queenage going on here, I assure you. [QUOTE]I'm really sick of people going "Oh noes Bush is still in power he kill us all" mentality that everyone has.[/QUOTE] And the "OMG he's liek to0tali goin 2 kil us" is yet another example of how our current social, socioeconomic, political, and governmental climates are rapidly deteriorating. I've had my own family members (after they watched Michael Moore movies, interestingly enough) get furious with me when I expressed distate for the guy, almost defending Bush. They said, "Bush killed 1,000 American soldiers. They're dead because of that horrible man." I've said it before and I'll say it again, those are the Drama Queens, and they're on both sides of the fence. "Terrorist in Chief" and "If John Kerry's elected, we're totally screwed" are no different from each other. [QUOTE]In the long run do you honestly think this election will have any significance in 10 years?[/QUOTE] Considering it's been hailed as one of the most important elections held in the past Century, yes, I think it has some major significance in both the immediate future and in the distant future. [QUOTE]It's not like anything truly monumental will happen because Bush is the President, or if Kerry was. Things will stay the same for most part. Iraq will continue to be instable no matter who's the President, same with most of the Middle East. We will still have a deficit. And the division of the nation will be like what it always has been, words. [/QUOTE] On the contrary. Things will change, but it all depends what kind of control we have in the situation as those things change. That kind of control is important, too. We need to have balance, and balance is something we don't have right now, and we won't have balance if things continue the way they are. It doesn't take a genius to realize that things aren't being handled efficiently around here. I seek to change that. [quote]Bush won. People that wanted him to be President went out and showed it.[/QUOTE] When you have a near dead-even Presidential race, I think it's a bit more complicated than that.

[quote name='Midnight Rush']I don't give a damn about unifying the USA from a big picture perspective.[/quote]And this attitude (held by yourself and shared by many others) is directly responsible for the chaos that is going to further envelop our country, and also invalidates your entire post. Midnight Rush, you're not behaving logically here, and you're not removing yourself from the emotional entanglements that prohibit so many party members from thinking clearly and rationally about the whole process. If there is ever going to be any progress at all, we are going to need to bring America together. A Nation Divided is the last thing we need. Read the following statement very carefully: [b][i]We don't need Ideological Civil War[/i].[/b] [quote]I just fight to protect a GOP majority. That said, I am not for steamrolling all the Dems, and trampling things, as bi-partisanship is definitely a good thing. I think with the moderate Democratic Senators from the South, we have at least 61 votes in the Senate in terms of Court Appointments and all of that.[/quote]Based on your post history, your signature, your attitude, and your outlook on things, I hardly think you are "not for steamrolling all the Dems, and trampling things." C'mon, man, you just spent entire spammy posts bashing Democrats, praising Republicans, and are more and more coming off as nothing more than a mindless Right-wing mouthpiece, no offense. I hardly think you're eager to have a fair and balanced political system. [QUOTE]America isn't unified, and won' be under this President. Bush will help bring the partisan bickering down to a quiet roar, but with such a vast GOP Victory all across the board, its more of a condescending type deal than actaully caring.[/QUOTE]Consider who Bush is; consider how he is viewed in the nation. Consider what the voter turn-out came out to be (it can be said that it was nearly [i]dead-even[/i], keep in mind. "Put your vote where your mouth is" ring a bell? It's half-and-half.). Consider what we're hearing across the nation. Consider the current political, global, and social climates. The pure and simple fact that Bush was re-elected is going to further divide the nation, and Michael Moore is going to get four more years to continue to b-tch and moan and stir up trouble, which is only going to further anger Republicans, who in turn will further anger the Democrats who worship Moore, and given the nature of partisan politics and partisan attack dogs, the attacks are not going to be focused on only Moore-ons. Look at this entire thing in a Moderate/Centrist view: Bush is not going to be able to minimize, lessen, or even mildly reduce the partisan bickering, not in this current climate, not with the War on Terror (because, let's face it...it's a war that has no tangible victory), not with NCLB (you all know my stance on this), not with job outsourcing ([b][u]I do wish you had answered my question about the job outsourcing of Information Technologies, by the way[/u][/b]), not with his plan to "improve" Education (again, NCLB is substandard at best). Try cleansing yourself of the Republican brainwashing, and think about this. The country hasn't won with Bush being re-elected. [QUOTE]OMG WE WON isn't childish if you have spent over 100 (off and on since July and then 22 hours the past two days) hours of your life fighting through enemies, weather, workload, stress, etc. for a cause. I am absolutely elated that my work paid off.[/QUOTE]You live in Pennsylvania. Your county may have turned out Bush, but you had absolutely nothing to do with the results in Ohio, the results of which decided the election, not Pennsylvania. Midnight Rush, you didn't win anything, lol, and your work paid off in your county and nothing more. Your efforts mean nothing in the bigger scheme of things in Ohio and in the nation. [quote]I deserve to say OMG WE WON. So here it is folks: [b][size=4]OMG WE WON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/size][/b][/QUOTE]And again, this is further adding to the "Schoolyard children" mentality that's doing nothing but hurting this country's structure.

[QUOTE=Midnight Rush]Why cool jets, sweetheart? When victory is so ******* obvious, I think champers and really loud music are in order. I'd bet my life that Ohio won't be overturned....[/QUOTE]And this is the same kind of premature mental ejaculation that's getting our nation deeper and deeper into this shitstorm it's in already, lol. Think about this, too, it's probable (but not guaranteed yet) that Bush will take Ohio, and there are rumors of Kerry thinking about conceding, but regardless of the outcome, do you honestly believe that the type of partisan behavior you're demonstrating is going to help anything? More specifically, do you honestly believe that this childish "OMG WE WON!!!!!!" (and it is childish) ranting is going to help unify the nation? I'm not targeting you here, either, but I think you (and really, all "Republicans" and "Democrats") should be honest with yourself about it. Not to drag this out, but tell me, since the Republicans are so clearly right...how is NCLB supposed to help 40-year-old Americans get their Information Technologies jobs back, jobs that have been getting outsourced to 40-year-old India natives for years now?

[quote name='Midnight Rush']Bill Kristol said it right last night, "We have a clear winner for this presidential election, George is back for four more years."[/quote] And why do you think that [url=http://www.mediatransparency.org/people/bill_kristol.htm][u]Bill Kristol[/u][/url] was saying that? Could it be perhaps...that...he's a Right-winger and has been for years? His father was defending Joe McCarthy back during the Red Scare. Bill Kristol served as the chairman for the "Project for the Republican Future." I think it'd be wise for Republicans like yourself to just cool your jets for a few days, and let the last votes get counted before you go spouting off the victory. Just to play it diplomatically, you know? If CNN can do it, so can Republicans.

[QUOTE=Afire][font=Comic Sans MS][size=3][color=red] Then what was your purpose in misquoting me, Siren? I think you will make a very good politician![/color][/size][/font] :laugh:[/QUOTE] I "misquoted" you, Afire, because the portions I omitted were useless. I omitted those portions, because, like I've said in my previous post, those portions were inconsequential. You're splitting hairs here, and you are taking the precise actions taken by various politicians here who are steadily dooming our political process through meaningless debate and conjecture, when they have no real point and thus simply drag things out for no good reason.

Afire, I actually didn't misquote you at all, because you may not realize that I was never being manipulated at all. I'm not fond of the way the political system is run, especially lately. I find the system rather deplorable. I view Michael Moore as a major tool, likewise how I see Bush as a total tool. Let's face it. The partisan political system is stuck in a quagmire of stagnancy and mediocrity. I didn't include that portion of your post, similar to how I excluded the other portions of your post, because it was inconsequential.

[quote name='Afire][font=Comic Sans MS][size=3][color=red]they are not going to get angry enough to do anything about it.[/color][/size'][/font][/quote] On the contrary. Expect to see me running for public office in a few years. I'm no longer going to vote and nothing more. I'm getting involved, and my post not five posts above here expressed that, as well.

This election made me realize one thing. Voting isn't enough for me. My local voting place isn't enough for me. The booth isn't enough for me. I want something more. I'm going to get into politics.

[QUOTE=Zeta]Like Drix said in his above post. Just because you all ready have a gun to do it with, doesn't mean you will. Would you rather rob someone without a gun and come out alive? Or rob someone who also has a gun, and will use it to protect himself/herself and come out injured or dead? A robber would prefer the former, but if everyone had a gun, you wouldn't want to mess with anyone, lol. *shrug* I am not saying that this is going to happen anytime soon. But from a certain point of view, it does make sense. People who use guns against others are usually attacking those who are weak and without a way to protect themselves. Now you put that same robber in a neighborhood where everyone has a gun, I highly doubt he will rob anyone.[/QUOTE] This may be off-topic, but Zeta, are you aware what you're essentially suggesting here? You're essentially saying that everyone should have a gun in their house. You're saying that residental neighborhoods should have one gun per household, and then because of this "one gun, one house" maxim, everyone is then safer, because burglars wouldn't be so brash in robbing houses. I'd think that Daddy Billy and Mommy Sally would have something to say in response to that after Little Bobby got hold of the family gun. Putting a gun in every household is just about the last thing we need to do right now. It's not going to magically make everyone safer...not at all. If anything, it'll be increasing the risk of gun-related deaths. Only this time, it won't be by any burglar; it'll be by a family member. If someone is going to be attacking someone because the target is weaker than the attacker, the attacker having a gun isn't going to have any dramatic impact on the fact that the weaker person is going to be attacked by the stronger person. If someone is stronger than you, they're going to push you around, bully you, etc, whether or not they have a firearm. Putting a firearm in your hands to defend yourself isn't going to deter the violence. Putting guns in the hands of those being attacked isn't going to deter the violence, either. MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) is a relic from the Cold War, when America and the Soviets were going toe-to-toe with each other, and should a conflict arise, it would mean the end of the world. I seriously doubt MAD is relevant at all to a discussion about guns and deterrent, because MAD is all about nuclear warfare.

I usually don't have other people label me, but I'd be the first to say that my label is "-sshole." I just really am an -sshole. I hurt people with what I say, and I sometimes mean to hurt, but sometimes don't mean to. I guess hurting people comes naturally to me, huh. Yep...I'm definitely an -sshole.

I've found that the FF series is somewhat uneven in game polish/design. Some games (like VI) are very, very good, with solid battle systems and really neat character dynamics--that is, good character skill utilization. Each character in VI has his or her own distinct flavor and useful skills (except for Gau...pretty much useless). I particularly like the freedom given to the player in shaping a team. Pop on a Gauntlet/Atlas Armlet on Gogo, with a Heal Rod, and you can keep your party healed up at a magic cost that's non-existent. Genji Glove/Offering on Edgar, with a Scimitar in the On-Hand, and an Atma Weapon in the Off-Hand, and you're talking about inflicting 20k worth of damage each turn there when Edgar gets up around level 50 or so. Heh, he can solo Tyranos now. ~_^ But with the good entries in the series, come the disappointments, particularly VIII. The game just didn't click with me. The Junctioning system was bulky and unwieldy, and like Tony has said before, there's really no sufficient tutorial for it. I found the Draw system to be insipid, because, really, who wants to Draw 99 Firas from a Toad? I know I don't, lol. Then, the plot. While the plots to the entire series were never groundbreaking or anything, granted, VIII's plot was bordering on absurd. We're playing as an angsty, brooding Gunblade-swordsmen who's...concerned with his love life, graduation, and a rival student pushing him around. So what? lol. I don't care that Squall is so depressed or disturbed about his life, and I don't care what his grades are, either. The characters in VIII felt too cookie-cutter, I suppose, even in the context of the FF series, which thrives on character cliches. There were times, I guess, when I was playing VIII, but felt like I was watching the WB17 Sunday night line-up. So...some games in the series (VI, VII, IX) are fun as hell, but others (VIII) are iffy. Pretty uneven series, I guess, but still has its moments.

Am I the only one envisioning Tokyo 3 as a Neo-Tokyo from TimeSplitters, or Blade Runner-esque? Something tech-grungy, you know? Rain falling, trash and newspapers blowing in the streets...really future-grunge feel to it. The n00bs are like junkies, laying on the sidewalk, craving their next hit of Naruto or whatever. Tech-noir would really provide a nice feel to the Anime Forum section in the RPG, I think. ^_^ And for some reason, I'm looking at the Play It section as a hybrid between Saffron City, Hyrule Castle, Mushroom Kingdom...I know you mentioned everything I'm saying, heh, but something that resembles Super Smash Bros' stage selection might be damn cool, and be a nifty way to incorporate all the different types of gameplay. Game Zones, as it were. "Des, what's going on?!" Shinmaru shrieked, as another rumble shook the Mod HQ. "Full-scale assault on Hyrule Castle! We move in three!" Desbreko replied. "Sir!" Wingnut Ninja chimed in, "there are reports coming in from Saffron and Mushroom Kingdom!" "What's happening?" "Toxins, sir, toxins. Gas, methane, poison...they're spreading." Something like that would be neat, It'd be fun, lol.