AzureWolf

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Are they popups, or floating ads (i.e., ones that don't open a new window, but hover over stuff you want to see/click on)? I know the latter has been on theOtaku for quite some time. Every website needs a source of revenue. I know that types of banners are tolerable and others are unacceptable, but personally, just get a good ad blocker. They work wonders, and I haven't had the one I'm using mix up a banner, picture, or movie with an ad yet! Yeah, I hate floating and new-window ads, and I hope OB doesn't resort to them, but really, it doesn't make a big deal if you have one of those programs. Yeah, I know that this solution circumvents the whole reason for ads, but I personally say donations are the way to go![/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Yeah, Baron pretty much summed it up. Whenever someone made point, that point would be taken around in circles, at least four times! Eventually, a problem or question would be addressed to support something new (or old for that matter), and a previous point already tackled the problem/question at hand. So, at that point, the thread would continue to circle. That was even how the thread ended: another revolution for an issue addressed thrice before.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Ok, this thing is essentially an idea I stole from Shy and messed around with. I think it would be cool if we could have subforums for the anime lounge again, but this time, they won't be static. Instead, they would rotate, based on what's hot and what's not. So, shows like [B]Bleach[/B] and [B]Ghost in the Shell: Sad Afro Cows[/B] would be things that would have a subforum currently. I think this idea would help facilitate discussion a little more orderly than "just one thread." I mean, using the Bleach thread as an example, I already see a few potential threads hindered by this predicament: [i][B]Bleach Episode ##, "Bleach, a Naruto (shadow) Clone?," "Manga Deviations: For Better or for Worse?,"[/B][/i] and [i][B]"Why Dan Rugh Sucks!"[/i][/B] are just a few undeveloped threads. What would happen to the threads after they die out? Well, we already have that "Anime Archives" area. We can put it to more use, no? And the anime lounge moderators are "in the know" enough that they can put in what's in and what's out without too much trouble. Just an idea, heh.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]*golf clap* Wow, you really showed how superior you are to us with your great knowledge and intelligence, Mr. Coolness. I mean, I am now, like, so enlightened by your display of amazing quotes. :rolleyes: Well, I'll just ignore the arrogance brewing from Coolness' posts and finally get down to what should have been stated a while ago. Believe it or not, I was SO going to prophesize your arrival, Coolness (couldn't you have just waited one more day?!). Anyway, [QUOTE]Azurewolf, the leap of faith is believing that Jesus took death, and that you will never die. I'm not taking things as literally as possible. When Jesus says,[/QUOTE] Let's append this along. [quote name='Me!']Now, if you are saying/believing there is a leap of faith, that makes this thread boil down to spam and you are just announcing your beliefs, since no discussion can be derived from a leap of faith.[/quote] So, you admit that you have nothing to discuss, did you not? I mean, you mentioned that you love to debate, like as if you know something about it. Yet, the entire existence of this thread seems hypocritical since you can't truly debate religion. All you can do is go back and forth with some person, citing random quotes from and taking them either out of context or out-of-point. Even if they are on topic, there's nothing within that won't be countered by another phrase or paragraph from somewhere else in the book. Ultimately, it's pointless, because everyone will keep reciting useless verse after verse, showing how it proves their point, and then someone will point out another verse that counters it. I just have to laugh at how you two think you are so amazing for bouncing back useless quandaries at one another, and I agree with Siren that this thread should have been massacred quite a while ago due to the lack of... well... I'd rather not say it.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[QUOTE]Perhaps someone will realize that what I'm saying isn't inherently wrong. Maybe someone will think about what I'm saying. I sure don't expect it, but it can't hurt to try.[/QUOTE][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Bloody hell. You still aren't getting the point of what everyone is trying to tell you, are you? Ok, I'm going to try to put it as simply as possible. You wrote your thread as "Questioning Chrisitianity," so I don't think you are as oblivious as you act. Why did you not question atheists or the like? I bet because of how impossible it is to beat them in a debate such as this one. I'm not saying they are right, but because of how one carries out a debate with an atheist (starting free of frames and assumptions), it's impossible to prove your side, is it not? I mean, if your beliefs have any type of biblical basis, then that's the case, believe it or not. Now, because you are "Questioning [B]Christianity[/B]," that means for all intensive purposes, we assume the Bible is a perfect, factual document. We also assume that other dimensional objects exist. We also assume... you get the idea. Now, you have shown how you arrived at your conclusions. Certainly, anyone can see where you got your ideas from, BUT, after this point, your argument starts to fall apart. Christianity has shown how it arrived at its conclusions, and people can see where they are coming from, but that's really it. The rest of the concept is built on faith. You have to make that one big leap of faith in order to follow the religion. There's nothing wrong with that, btw: that is the case of all religions - that one big hash of faith is important, and where some tend to stagger and become unsure. Faith and religion, as you may have noticed, are used somewhat interchangeably. According to you, we don't need to make a leap of faith with your interpretation. You may not have stated that explicitly, but it was implied by your creation of this thread. So, why/how is it that we don't need to make a leap of faith with your interpretation - at least a type that is different from all other religions? Now, if you are saying/believing there is a leap of faith, that makes this thread boil down to spam and you are just announcing your beliefs, since no discussion can be derived from a leap of faith. What's worse, your ideas are based on a translation of the Bible, so taking things as literally as possible is a big no-no. Christianity had the advantage of losing nothing in translation, since it was built from the original version, so you already start in the red. Haha, after 11 pages (it's only the second for me since I have 100 posts/pp), I hope you finally see what the problem is.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[quote name='Dagger IX1][i]Is[/i'] there an important literary distinction between "characterization" and "character development"? I often use the two terms interchangeably, heh.[/quote][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Yes, there's a very distinct difference. An example... *scratches head* Say we have a whiney character who we will arbitrarily call Shinji. Now, Shinji's a whiney bum, and never amounts to anything. In comes a comedy show that has a parody of Shinji, where his whiney-ness is emphasized. If someone were to say it matches Shinji well, then you have a good characterization of Shinji. That is, the faux person characterizes Shinji well. Notice how, no matter how I try to reword the meaning, I can't use characterization or characterize without the reference of Shinji in this scenario. So, while character development is a particular character's growth throughout a period of time, characterization is how well {a subject here} accurately displays its {object here}. That's why I find this thread too vague at the moment, heh. We know we are talking about series (i.e., the subject), but we don't have an object to work with. It could be, which series characterizes the stereotypical anime cast? Or, series with the best characterization of real life character development even. I hope that made sense. I really suck at explanations, and I get too wordy at times, heh.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Do you have a middle mouse button? If you do, most browsers have it defaulted to open a link in a new window. Try pressing it when you are over a link and see if it works. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure you can set it up rather easily.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]I'm sorry to intrude, but I really have to ask, "what the hell?" I was - and still am - really lost as to what this entire topic pertains to. "Best characterization?" I had to look up "characterization" to make sure I wasn't missing anything. I also read everyone's responses, and they didn't help much. As defined by dictionary.com, characterization is: [QUOTE][i]1. The act or an instance of characterizing. 2. A description of qualities or peculiarities: a list of places of interest, with brief characterizations of each. 3. Representation of a character or characters on the stage or in writing, especially by imitating or describing actions, gestures, or speeches.[/i][/QUOTE]As you can see, the term characterization requires a reference, in roughly the same sense as "greater" or "best." So, I'm really confused: best characterization of what? It seems to me that this thread is about "best cast of characters" rather than characterization. Still, it could be about what anime characterizes -what?- best. Thanks in advance for the clarification.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[quote name='Adahn][b][font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][color=darkolivegreen]Here, Azurewolf. I'll repost the entire thing. You didn't question anything I said here. If you had, I would have argued back, and given more support. However, since you didn't question it, I don't exactly know what you're trying to get at. I'd also like to point out that you are extremely disrespectful and self-righteous. I dare you to disagree.[/color][/size][/font][/b][/QUOTE][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Adahn, here, I'll repost [B]what I just said[/B]: [QUOTE]Now, if you could, by any glory of your mind, spit out some support that doesn't consist of roundabout logic, then by all means, do so. [B]As it stands, you have only shown how you arrived at your conclusions, and even that took an exhaustive time and effort to get out of you. I mean, it wasn't supported at all, but at least it was a start (and should have been in your first post).[/B'] Now, is there any reason (that can't be used to support the opposing argument) that you are right and Chrisitianity's interpretation is wrong?[/quote]I bolded something you should read, if not the entire thing. That entire post you are referring to: how does it disprove Christianity? It's only your reasoning behind your beliefs. It doesn't show how Chrisitianity is wrong, or why you are right. All it shows is that you arrived at (as much as I hate to admit it) logical conclusions based on what was written in the Bible. Still, that's all there is. Why/how is your interpretation more right than Christianity's? Disrespectful and self-righteous? I do disagree! I was aiming more towards cynical, really, but it's the thought that counts, I guess.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[quote name='Adahn][b][font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][color=darkolivegreen]Azurewolf, you basically said, in every drawn out paragraph, that the Christians and I interpret the Bible differently. Good job. What I want is for someone to question my interpretation. If you won't do that, I won't reply to any of your posts.[/B][/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]XD Oh man, this is just hilarious. Give me a moment to quote myself. [QUOTE']Oh man, do you even think before you write?[/quote] That sentence is important because you seem to run away from my [B]questions to your interpretations[/B] either by accident or by sheer ignorance. I'm guessing it's the latter since you have ran away from so many of my comments and just made a vague, unapplicable reply and hoped no one would notice. I'm not going to just let it go this time, though. On the other hand, your response to my post - YET AGAIN - could be applied to favor my argument. My paragraphs draw out your flaws, which you thankfully (after 90+ posts) now noticed: you have not said even ONE good reason why you are right. If you can't really defend your beliefs with vague, illogical, and hypocritical support, then this thread should just be closed because of how spammy your posts are. Yeah, I just threw your reply - as I predicted I could - right back at you. Now, if you could, by any glory of your mind, spit out some support that doesn't consist of roundabout logic, then by all means, do so. As it stands, you have only shown how you arrived at your conclusions, and even that took an exhaustive time and effort to get out of you. I mean, it wasn't supported at all, but at least it was a start (and should have been in your first post). Now, is there any reason (that can't be used to support the opposing argument) that you are right and Chrisitianity's interpretation is wrong? If "because I am me" is your best hit, pack up and go home, kid.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[QUOTE=Adahn][b][font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][color=#556b2f]The father, the son, and the holy ghost. It's all made up to me. I've read the Bible, and there's no such thing as the Holy Trinity in it. I'm looking for discussion. That's why I'm questioning it. I never said I was looking for an answer. I was looking for opposition. I have my answers, I'm just waiting for someone to question what I think. In all 90 or so posts so far, almost none have touched on anything I've named as important. People generally just look for holes in the unimportant aspects of my arguments, and force me to explain surface thoughts. It's really quite annoying, but it's better than nothing. Oh, and if you don't know much about the Holy Trinity yourself, Azurewolf, who are you to say that it is the foundation of Christianity? Have you not read the Bible, either?[/color][/size][/font][/b] [b][font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][color=#556b2f]Your arguments were all about surface thoughts and ideas, and those things change. It's no wonder you see strange returns, everything's ephemeral.[/color][/size][/font][/b][/QUOTE][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Oh man, do you even think before you write? Alright, let me clarify a few things you are clearly unaware of. The Bible and Christianity are two different things: one is a book, the other is a religion. Chrisitianity is a religion that is derived from what the Bible says. Unfortunately for your meager arguments, the Bible and Christianity are not interchangable. So, when I say something is in Christian teachings, it does not mean there exists verbally-exact relation. Sometimes, you have to think to figure out the relations. It's also worth noting that nit-picking at words is a terrible way to go about interpreting and figuring out what the Bible says, because chances are you read the thing in English, which is not the original language the Bible was written in. To nit-pick at a few menial details is to show ignorance of the fact things are lost in translation. Second, it is not a wise decision to point out the errors of your own argument in order to point out the errors of someone else's argument. Not only does that seriously degrade any chance for people to take you seriously, it also makes little sense. Again (what is this: the fifth time?), let's get something straight here: [B]I have nothing to prove - YOU DO[/B]. If you find it unbelievable that your ideas are being thrown out the window and no one is trying to prove something by it, that's the point. You made an argument about what you believe, SO PROVE IT. If you can't, why bother posting? Now, hopefully we stand on equal ground about what's what. That in mind, let's look at your first argument on the Holy Trinity: [B][i]"It's all made up to me. I've read the Bible, and there's no such thing as the Holy Trinity in it."[/i][/B] Wow, well, it's good that you noticed that, and if that's your logical reasoning, you've just pointed out a flaw in your argument. To help clarify, I'll edit your comment and show you what's wrong with your statement: [B][i]"It's all made up to me. I've read the Bible, and there's no such thing as {Reincarnation} in it."[/i][/B] Now, THINK before you respond. Better yet, as you are responding, think about how you arrived at your reincarnation conclusion. Then think, "is it possible that Christianity arrived at a better, more sound conclusion?" Maybe, maybe not, but the fact of the matter is, I'm betting, just like how your flawed logic bore fruit here, your reply will do the same and can be applied right around to the opposing argument. And I agree with you that I am touching only on what you call "surface thoughts" (terrible name, btw). Yes, I agree that your idea about reincarnation is a trivial and useless surface thought, since the logic behind it shatters so easily; and I'll agree that your concept about souls is poorly developed and still unproven. Seriously, you used the same reasoning you used to argue against the Holy Trinity... Again, I'm not the source for all things Biblical and Christian, but if I know about the Holy Trinity, I'm sure in a better position than you to argue about their idea of God. Afterall, if you are "questioning Christianity," and haven't a clue about it, you are just spamming. Yet again, I may not be the best person to turn to for this topic, but I don't need to be, since you should have been prepared for things like this and ready to address the issue of the Holy Trinity.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[quote name='Baron Samedi][size=1][b]Edit[/b']: Oh and Sciros, that was me who challenged Adahn to prove that it worked on the metaphysical plane. Leastways, I think it was.[/size][/quote][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Well, you also challenged him about that, but I did that first. Funny enough, he said I was misunderstanding him... Anyway, the mere fact that Adahn had no clue about the Christian concept of the Holy Trinity (alongside the running in hypocritical circles bit) tells me that Adahn isn't really looking for an answer, but just acknowledgement. Again, how can you question a religion you have no knowledge of? In fact, weren't you saying that the Christian idea of what happened to God is wrong and your version is right? In order to say such a thing, wouldn't you have to know the Christian idea, which was the Holy Trinity? As your discussion continues with him, Baron, I'm noticing some rather strange returns to my initial arguments...[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[quote name='Dagger IX1']Care to explain the significance of the soda bottle? At least, I think it's a soda bottle... you know, the lumpy yellow-white thing. I couldn't for the life of me determine how that fit in, especially since it seemed to somehow represent Arcueid. And every time I saw it land, I started wondering why it made Shiki's knife look so enormous... ^_^;;[/quote][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]O_o It's a white statue. At least, I'm pretty sure it is... I think - now you've got me confused! Anyway, [spoiler]the perfect white princess, tainted by bloodlust, retains it in a fragile container, which was shattered when Shiki first met Arc and cut her into pieces. It was the first time she was killed, and it made her bloodlust more prominent and hard to control (hence the glass breaking and the blood spilling). The knife is just Shiki (or just his knife, which was used to break the glass). I don't know if the size of stuff has any relevance, but the knife on the blood is important. So that's why the perfectly white statue (which is what Arc was almost like), being spoiled/stained by the red wine (or blood - who cares) is symbolic of her[/spoiler].[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Hmm..., well, for a free animation program, I remember there being a "GIF Construction Set" that would nag you everytime you opened and closed it to buy it, but it was shareware and therefore technically free. I don't know what has become of it nowadays, haha. As for the banners themselves, I'm not fond of the artwork in the first one, but that doesn't mean the banner itself is bad. Just keep that in mind while I comment. The background seems fine until the end where it kind of breaks and gets that less vivid pink. In addition, I think petals would have done better than actual, full-blown roses. Maybe one rose and a bunch of rose petals. Cliched, yes, but I think it'd do nicely. Aside from that, I think the BG blends very well with the character. Elfen Lied one looks like it doesn't need a border. Instead, it looks like one of those that should have transparency so it doesn't look like it's boxed at the sides. You know, those shadows of her feet should be like the end of the banner. Aside from that, I refuse to comment about anything else in the banner, heh.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[quote name='Syk3']I just think the song is pretty cool, and the sequence itself is filled with a lot of symbolism and metaphorical stuff, so you tend to appreciate it more once you've seen the entire series.[/quote][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Not to turn this thread into an Eva debate, but what symbolism and metaphorical stuff? It's essentially nonsense. To me, it just appeared to be an abstract character introduction with pictures of stuff flashing at you here and there. Watching it after knowing everything didn't really do anything. Personally, I like the song in the OP, since it does a good job of creating suspense before the big, fast-paced part. But that's irrelevant to this thread, haha... Now, if you want to talk about symbolism, Tsukihime is where to go. The opening has the whole story laid out for you, but it doesn't make a bit of sense until the end. One of my favorite things to do while watching Tsukihime was to watch the opening after every episode and see how much I could piece together. I don't know, the entire opening was stitched in such a fashion that it gave you a feeling it was symbolizing [i]something[/i]. Of course, this experience is something you can only do the first time around, haha. I know this is what you were saying about the Eva opening, but I'm making a point: I understand how those types of openings work and Eva doesn't appear like that to me. Also, I have to disagree with the Last Exile opening. While it was a visual treat, the opening was rather generic compared to the rest of the show. What I mean is, if you took out the music and random shots, the opening was essentially pieces of the show. The music wasn't that spectacular either. Personally, I'm a huge fan of the "Go!!!" opening in Naruto simply because it introduces everything right. Of course, this opening (like most) isn't something people should make a first impression with (a topic suited for another thread maybe?), but it puts static pictures into motion. For those who don't know, this Naruto opening looks like manga shots taken from the Naruto manga and just has animation alongside it. It moves from panel to panel, and each panel has motion within it. Clever indeed. The third and last off-topic comment: I heard that there are animated mangas (or animated manga projects) around the net. Attached is an example of what I mean. Anyone know anything, possibly? :D EDIT: Too large. -_- Lemme upload it then. [url=http://home.earthlink.net/~azurwolf/images/SarutobiMangaGIF.gif]Here we go[/url].[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]What's funny is that Baron is arguing what I initially started arguing about, which you kind of just brushed it aside saying I don't understand you or something. So we had that huge quest to figure out what you were saying. Don't tell me I was right and you were just leading me in circles... -_- If that's the case, then yes, logic is lacking. What you want to argue about cannot be argued, so this thread is essentially dead weight. However, since you did announce your ideas for discussion, you have to support it. I mean, yeah, you showed how you arrived at stuff, but the whole "beginning has to have an ending thing" isn't well-established. Not because of you, but because it's not something you can truly argue conceptually. Just a small off-topic note, there's a "God's DNA" philosophy that you might prescribe to. Check it out, haha.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]So, we have to put our review in the contact for the anime to be listed? What about our rating and all the other stuff the "submit review" thing has? If we just make a suggestion, I've already tried yesterday and nothing happened. If we have to include only the body of our review (since we can't put in Author's comments), I have yet to do that. So, which is it?[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]If you are talking about Dagger's thread in the anime lounge, a thread just has to be made, but I guess you are obviously referring to theOtaku.com. Yeah, that's a huge gripe I have at the moment because I was going to submit a review and the anime I did it on wasn't listed. What a major bummer - there should be an "other" option. I mean, sure, there's no content for the anime at the time, but how can you expect to get any if no one can submit anything for it?[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[QUOTE]It's not finished, but the story's origin will quite possibly be a source of amusement when it comes to immature people like myself. Neh, Azure-jiji?[/QUOTE] [FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Ah-hahaha... Indeed. When everything's put into words like that, I really do look pathetic. XD Anyway... Impeccable detail, but not to the extent that it bores the reader. One great thing about this story is that you don't really need to get the reference to enjoy it. It's funny if you do, but it's just flat-out interesting if you don't. I'm always surprised by your age whenever you write something. Good stuff, haha.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Ah yes..., this brings back memories. The picture you have there is a from a four-person gameboy version of the thing, which is surprisingly fun, but it was first a stand-alone nintendo game where you would just keep getting to increasingly tougher levels until both of you died. Yeah, I think whoever got more kills (or coins or ice bergs in some stages) would get a lot of points, which would lead to a one-up. The game was also a sub-game in Super Mario Bros. 3, where you two would meet up and take dibs at who's turn it was. You could do it by being on the same spot as the other player, and a random game would showup. That's all I know, heh.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Awesome. Finally, some support and reasoning for your ideas. That's what was really bothering me. Now I'm starting to get a picture about what you are trying to say and where you are going with this thing. However, I think you are using terms too liberally, or at least, not elaborating on them enough for anyone to understand what you are saying. Life and death are definately the two terms you are using very differently than what most would expect it to be. I think other terms that relate to the concept of existence would be more appropriate. So, here's what I THINK you are saying (and no, I don't agree with it): God flushed his [B]existence[/B] so we could continue to [B]exist[/B] through a never-ending cycle of [B]life[/B] and [B]death[/B], by removing the one punishment (which was a soul's [B]extinction[/B]). Is that what you are saying?[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]James, why would [i]anything[/i] on a message board change [i]anything[/i]? O_o I always saw it as a means to converse or socialize. Anyway... I've always noticed that the reasoning behind pro-gay persons has been rather hypocritical. Most of the support can be applied to things like incest, kids, and the mentally deranged. If you ask me, that's not a really smart angle to go about shouting, haha. The Founder Fathers left the Declaration of Independence vague because they needed to unite a group of people and hoped for a time when these touchy issues can be addressed. I'm not saying I know how they felt about the topic at hand, but certainly, we limit the freedoms of those who have specific hinderances, and I really don't see how homosexuality is any different. When a person is drunk, he or she has lost the right/privelige to drive, has he/she not? DISCLAIMER: I may not codone homosexual acts, but I do condone one's homosexuality. My religion may have created bias, but certainly, that's not the reasoning I've used to support my ideas here.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Haha, that's awesome. My only recommendation is if you could replace where you are searching (right now, it's on "the web") to something more fitting. I mean, it's great as is, but I think that would add a lot if you could do that as well.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[QUOTE]The first part was a deliberate paradox. You said you didn't know what I was talking about, and in the same sentence said exactly what I was talking about. Sorry that that slipped by you. Oh, and I must applaud you for your wit concerning my link. If you had actually clicked on it, you would see that it's a few verses from the Bible, not an explanation of all my beliefs that I found on the internet. I don't understand how you could reply to me without even checking.[/QUOTE][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Again (for the umpteenth time), verses from the Bible do nothing if you don't say your explanation of them. Better yet, if they are oh-so relevant, you should put them alongside with whatever view of yours they support. Haha, I'm so certain that it was a deliberate paradox. Deliberate paradoxes have a particular tone to them at the end that hints to the reader that they have a purpose in mind - at least if the writer has any idea of what they are doing.[QUOTE]So, the Bible is just a bunch of useless material? Why are you posting if you think that the basis of Christianity is completely useless? Our souls were born with Adam. He sinned, and so we all sinned. It's fairly obvious to me that there's a connection there. I think I said something along those lines in my first post, too.[/QUOTE]Useless material with respect to what you are trying to prove, yes. I'm posting because your foundation appears to be even weaker than that of Christianity, so I find it ironic you would try to question it. [B]And there you go again saying souls were born[/B] without any logical backing. Explaining and supporting your comments doesn't seem to be your forte... [QUOTE]Death doesn't end the cycle, life does. I've said this in almost all of my posts, too. You can end the cycle of death and rebirth by not dying. Yes, that means you become immortal. If you actually move your mouse and click on the nice little link in my last post, you'll see everything. Also, there is no mention of the Holy Trinity in the Bible, so how can it be one of the biggest things in the Christian religion? All the truth is in the Bible, and one shouldn't place all their faith in man's interpretation, but rather the actual words that are written.[/QUOTE] Again, you are just flooding us with meaningless words. Support your comments, PLEASE. If you want people to nod yes or no to your ideas without having any clue how you came up with them, just say so and I'll back off. If I remember correctly, the Christians believe that the Holy Trinity is the big mystery of God's "nature" or "being," but it's irrelevant if you really aren't looking for answers and just want to attack a religion blindly.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[QUOTE]This means you don't understand what I'm trying to say, and you acknowledge that I'm talking about Reincarnation and Christianity.[/QUOTE][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]If you think I don't understand what you are trying to say, how can I acknowledge any of it? Paradoxical phrase.[QUOTE]This says I'm saying what I believe without quoting thousands of lines of scripture. I thought I made it clear that if you want to take any one of my beliefs and ask for biblical reference, you were free to do so. I guess I didn't make that clear the last time I said it, so I'll say it again. If you want to take any one of my beliefs and ask for biblical reference, please do so.[/QUOTE]Wrong again: that means I want your reasoning. Quoting a million biblical references isn't going to explain your interpretation.[QUOTE]This is you attacking my beliefs about resurrection because I didn't back them up. Perhaps it was the purpose of my original post to state my views so they could be questioned? I'll compress all the information you need into one handy link. [URL=http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Cr/1Cr015.html#12]Everything[/URL][/QUOTE]So, what you are saying is you didn't come up with any of your ideas and are just following some online link. No, I'm not going to say that, but if I mimicked your line of reasoning, that would be the first plausible answer, haha. Again, I don't want a link with a bunch of useless material. What I want is your support and reasoning for why you believe such things. Hey, if they are plausible, I'm not going to argue about it. It's the things you don't support and don't really argue that are bothering me.[QUOTE]Ok, you misread me here. I said everything that has a beginning has an ending. Time has no beginning nor end, and everything you've written here is based on your failure to read what I said in context.[/QUOTE] Well, let's clear some things up then. [QUOTE][i]From the first post[/i] "I was born, my life began. Eventually, my life will end." What if your life didn't begin when you were born? Maybe it began when your soul was born. "My soul was born with my body, both were created at the same time, and those two things make me what I am today!" Hmm, so your soul had a beginning, then? Well, let me introduce you to one of the laws that everything follows. Everything that has a beginning has an end. It is indisputable, and applicable to everything. How can you say your soul had a beginning and be so confident that it will not end? "Umm..." The way I see it, you have two choices. Either your soul was born and your soul will die, or your soul always was and always will be. "Then what does happen to my soul when I die?" You live another life with the same heart and mind, but a different body. The same eternal soul that has always been in you driving everything you do. "That kinda sucks..." Yes, it does kinda suck. So, there has to be an end to this cycle, right? "There'd better be *crosses arms*" If all lives are lived within this realm, what makes you think perfection can't be reached without death?[/QUOTE] Your soul was born sounds pretty straightforward to me. You are suggesting the idea that souls have a beginning. In addition, your second answer to your second question implies that a person is the spirit, not the body, which doesn't make sense if you piece that together with the last few of these things. So it really sounds here that you are saying souls live the life and keep cycling through other lives. That's fine and dandy, but then how does death end the cycle that souls are responsible for turning? That brings me to the point about souls that you just quoted. [QUOTE]I really don't know what the holy trinity is. Also, I believe I've stated in most, if not all my posts, that bishops may know alot, but most of what they know is wrong. You really didn't say much with your first post, but I guess everyone needs to have their flaws pointed out. If you feel I still haven't adequately addressed any of your points that you feel are valid, I'd be happy to clear them up more. I try not to be verbose for a reason. Nobody wants to look through posts like these. (meaning my reply, not your original post)[/QUOTE] Haha, I'm pretty sure the Holy Trinity is one of the biggest things in the Christian religion: if you don't know that, how can you argue about Christianity?[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]