Xander Harris

[quote name='EVA Unit 100']The laws of Kashrut aren't done to bring "great glory to the Almighty".[/quote] Well, maybe not today. In the context of the people Jesus was speaking to, the dietary laws were followed for religious reasons... BTW, EVA, may I ask what branch of Judaism do you belong to? Orthodox? Reconstructionist? Conservative? I'm just kinda curious... it's not often I get the opportunity to talk to a Jew here in NW lowa :( ... James Bierly

[quote name='Chabichou][[COLOR=#004a6f']Yes, I know, but if you haven't noticed already, someone brought something up which made us go off topic.[/quote] Sorry. The statement you were replying to wasn't directed at anything you said. I was simply stating the 'groundrules' for the diatribe I was about to type. Sorry I didn't make that clear. :animesmil [Quote=Chabichou] I really thought people would consider this the least convincing argument, though for me it is the most convincing. I didn't use the word "pretty" either. "Powerful", or "wise" is more like it. Which accompanied by it's style makes it quite "beautiful". Most of you brush off the scientific examples as though they were nothing, as though they are just a bunch of jibberish loaded with symbolisim and metaphors. But they really mean what they say. Actually I thought this time I will post an entire chapter of the Quran. Then when you read a verse, it will make sense more because it follows the information given by the verse before it. Here is a link to chapter 78: [url]http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/078.qmt.html[/url] This is one of my favorite chapters, though it is frightening when it talks about hell. Please take the time to read it. Each verse is translated three times by three different scholars. [/Quote] O.k. I read it. It's a well written piece (I also liked the description of Hell as well as line 078.018 and the couple lines following it), but I see nothing more eloquent in there than similar passages in Psalms or Job. Also, I see no great scientific revelation. The author is showing how great God is by holding up creation as an example. What he says are basic statements about the grandeur of nature, not profound scientific facts the likes of which the earth had not seen before that point. [Quote=Chabichou]Anyway, back to what you were saying, Xander:Okay I'm having a difficult time understanding you but I will try: First of all, I've stated several times that the Torah and the Bible have been altered, firstly because they've been translated time and time again, translation being made from previous translation, which eventually chages the meanings of the text. In addtion, humans have made their own alterations.[/Quote] Altered in minor ways, yes. But remember that you are talking about things maintained by zealous Jewish scribes for centuries, and by rigorous oral tradition before that. Perhaps some words and phrasings and such got changed, but the basic jist of the stories would have survived. Unless the Jewish scribes/storytellers were gibbering idiots, and even then the members of the Hebrew tribes would probably notice if one year they were told one story about their past, and the next year were told an entirely different and contradictory tale. If you honestly think that the major events and themes I was talking about, such as God calling Abraham, the Exodus from Egypt, and the ministry of the prophets were things that were added/altered, than what's to keep you from believing Albert Einstein discovered America, or somesuch. EDIT: b/c Siren posted while I was typing.. Saying the jewish texts were altered on the level you suggest is akin to saying that the 'all-your bases' translation error, as horrible as it was, transformed the game into a Hello Kitty daily organizer. There's textual modification, and then there's writing something totally different and expecting no one to tell the difference... do you see what I'm getting at? [quote name='Chabichou']And I also thought that some of the books cristians follow are actually written by Jesus' disples, making them not the word of God.[/quote] The idea of inspiration was already explained by someone else in this thread, I think. Christians and Jews believe that God worked through humans to convey his messages to the masses. But, y'know, Islam has the same idea. God used Muhammad to convey his message to the children of Ishmael, correct? [Quote=Chabichou] I stated how the Quran remained unchanged. Would you not think then, that the idea that humans are born sinful is something that was incorporated into the Torah and Bible due to their alterations? It's quite possible, is it not?[/Quote] Perhaps possible in the same way it's possible the story of the founding of Canada is fabricated. But if you actually read the Old Testament, you will see that the idea of human sinfullness is perhaps THE biggest theme/idea present there. It's easily as big as the Exodus. The story of creation: climaxes in the fall of man. The laws given at Sinai: Revolves around substitutionary sacrifices for sin. The prophets: Calling people to repent of sin. The books of the Kings: About how Israel turned from God and was destroyed because of it. I could go on, but you get the point. [quote name='Chabichou']Therefore, you can't compare the Quran to the older scriptures to disprove it's legitimacy because as I stated before, they were changed, or if you don't believe that, the Quran at least states that they were.[/quote] There we go with the X therefore X again. 'The Quran is right because it says it is!' You can prove anything with that arguement. [quote name='Chabichou']Why is it that christians eat pork and jews don't? Don't you consider that and inconsitancy in God's message as well?[/COLOR][/quote] A valid question. Here's the answer. Pardon the use of quotage, but answering that question takes a big data dump of info on Old and New Testament texts and theology, and it would have taken me a long time to write it up myself :animeswea [Quote=The Objection To Eating Pork] The Law of the Old Testament consisted of both the moral law and the civil law. The moral law dealt with the great ethics of life. Its purpose was to set apart the chosen people of Israel from all other nations on the basis of inner holiness with regard to honor for both God and man. This great moral law was to uplift the Children of Israel to a much higher standard of holiness and to serve as a model for all people of all generations. For example, the Ten Commandments are a code of moral law that pertain to man's duties to God and fellowman. They are laws unaffected by changes in the environment, and thus themselves remain unchanged. The civil law was different. It consisted of rules and regulations that pertained to everyday living; and these rules were influenced by both environment and customs of neighboring pagan communities. Such laws dealt with issues of cleanliness, food, health, clothing, and religious ritual. The purpose of these laws was to set apart the Children of Israel from all other nations on the basis of outer holiness. They were to remain separate and distinct, and were to be distinguished in the eyes of the rest of the world for serving the one true God, and refusing to adopt the practices and superstitions of idolatrous worship that surrounded them. Among these civil laws was the rule that forbade the eating of pig meat. It was a common practice among neighboring pagan tribes to offer a pig as a sacred sacrifice to their idols. Furthermore, in that time and in that part of the world, the pig was a very filthy animal that fed on dead meat and garbage. As a result, eating pork caused the spread of terrible diseases that affected the whole community. The Children of Israel were to keep themselves completely separate from such pagan influence and filth. The Children of Israel were chosen to be a holy nation submitting itself to the one true God, the very God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They were to be a constant reminder to the rest of the world that God set them apart from other nations for a very special reason. The Qur'an speaks of this also: And commemorate our servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, possessors of power and vision. Verily We did choose them for a special (purpose) -- proclaiming the message of the hereafter. Surat-us Sad (38):45-46 O Children of Israel! Call to mind the (special) favor which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all others (for My Message). Surat-ul Baqara (2):47 We now know that the Children of Israel were the chosen community through which would come the Savior of the World, Jesus the Messiah, the Holy One sent from God to ransom mankind. The Word of God took on human flesh in the person of Jesus and was born of the virgin Mary. This Holy One was to be born among the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- the Children of Israel. No wonder they were called to be holy and unique from all other nations. Unfortunately, at the time of Jesus' ministry on earth, many among the Children of Israel had lost sight of the purpose of the civil law. They substituted the washing of hands for the washing of the heart and began placing more emphasis on the civil laws of daily rules and regulations. In fact, the religious leaders began to add many more regulations of their own and claimed these to be the true standard of holiness as opposed to the purity of the heart which was much more difficult to observe. As a result, true religion for many degenerated into dead rituals lined with arrogance and hypocrisy. On the outside, the religious leaders could be seen of men reciting their prayers, washing their hands, and eating only permitted foods. But on the inside, their hearts were diseased with hatred, greed, lust, and jealousy. Men had abused the law to boast of their own version of holiness! Jesus saw this human corruption of the civil law and took appropriate action according to the authority God had given him. He declared all food clean for the purpose of removing such hypocrisy and returning the emphasis of true holiness to the heart. As a result, for the followers of Jesus, all food was declared lawful. Even the Qur'an quotes Jesus as saying: (I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me, and to make lawful to you part of what was (before) forbidden to you... Surat-u Ali Imran (3):50 From the New Testament, we read about the teaching of Jesus on holiness: "Are you so dull?" he (Jesus) asked, "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him unclean? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance, and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean'." Mark 7:18-23 It should also be pointed out that since Jesus finally came into the world, there was no longer any need for the Children of Israel to remain a distinct and exclusive community. In fact, Jesus had now come to unite all cultures of the world unto God and to empower people of all races to live up to the holiness of the great moral laws of God. It is obvious that as this community grows worldwide there are no civil laws that can be common to all, because of great differences in environment and climate. Nevertheless, the great moral teaching of Jesus remains the same for everyone: it is not the abstinence of food that brings great glory to the Almighty, but rather the expression of genuine love for God and fellowman! This law can apply to anyone and to anyplace in the world! It should also be noted that the Mosaic Law was for the Children of Israel, and since most Christians are not descendants of Israel, they are not subject to the civil laws that dealt with community practice. There are times, however, when Christians refrain from eating pork. If they know that in their area of the world, pigs feed on dead meat and filth, then they are careful not to eat pork for health reasons. To care for the body is also pleasing to God. Also, some Christians refrain from pork if they feel it creates a stumbling block in their desire to witness to Muslim friends and neighbors. [/Quote] Does that make sense? Grace and peace, James Bierly

Edit: I'm replying to the post Areej made prior to her most recent. Most recent was posted while I was typing eso... C'mon Chabichou, work with me here. And believe me, what I'm trying to get you to do is genuine intellectual work. When I was replying to your thread, I took a step back, and tried to put myself in the mindset of someone who had not already chosen a belief about Jesus. Do me a favor and follow suite. Simply saying "I'm right because the Quran says so! See?" Does nothing to further the discussion. It's like saying X is true, therefore X. It's meaningless. Personally, I don't want to have a faith based simply on believing dogmatic statements made by people who died thousands of years ago. What I'm trying to do is examine in a logical manner the content of what those people said, and draw a conclusion on what is true. So far, the only valid logical or historical proof you seem to have given for your position is: The Quran is true because it's words sound pretty. This is rediculous. I could prove the validity of any number of religions based on this criteria. The Christian texts dealing with love which are read at weddings are considered to be profound and elegant pieces of literature even by those who are not Christians. Many of the Buddhist sayings are exquisite in their conveyence of divine mystery and truth. Even some of the Wiccan words to live by I have heard sound fantastic. The fact that all these religions have great rhetoric and strongly poetic texts does not make any of them true. What I'm trying to do, and what I am trying to get you to do as well, is to look at these religions objectively. If God (Allah) gave us minds, he must want us to use them. If we cannot reconcile intellect and faith, than one must be led to wonder what is wrong with the faith. So, just for the sake of this discussion, try to pretend for a moment that you are not a muslim, and just be a seeker of Truth. For, in the end, where Truth is, there God also is. (unless you are an athiest, but that's a topic for another thread...) With that said, let's move on to the content of your post beyond your way of approaching the material... [QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f]Oh I see what you mean, but just so you know, Muslims believe that the story of Jeus really is twisted around, and many aspects were left out. His story was altered after his disappearance. He never claimed that he was the son of God, and although some people suggested it, he alsways denied it. I wouldn't say that all his disiples were liers but many of them were. Some of them continued to try to convince people to convert to Christianity/"Islam" after his disappearance. They started claiming that Jesus was the son of God, to make his miraculous birth make more sense to the people, and convince them to convert. They knew in their hearts that he was not, but to them I'd say the lifestyle taught by Christianity was more important that the fundamental aspect, which was believing in One God only. Before you kow it, people start worshipping Jesus. I wouldn't find it surprising if Jesus knew that some of his disiples were liers. Muslims also believe that he knew that Judas would betray him, and he did state to all his disiples that one of them will betray him. Through God's will, Jesus knew which of these men were liers, which of them were traitors, but he kept silent. God knew that some people would associate Jesus with God, but he allowed them to. This is a test from God; who will believe such lies? [/Quote] O.k. We are, for the sake of this discussion, going to assume that Jesus was a divine man of some sort, since you and I can both agree on that. There we find our 'stosis', as the Greeks would say. Our place where two arguements can coincide. The topic at hand is "Is the Quran true?" NOT "Is Christianity True?" My earlier thesis was that, whether Christianity is true or not, I could not accept the teachings of Islam because of their views of Jesus. Therefore, Jewish and secular views of Christ have been excluded from this post. Now, moving from there, I am presented with two major options. Either the Christian view that Jesus was God made flesh for us or he was a prophet sent by God to test the people of the earth by seeing if they would make him out to be God, or worship Allah instead. If the second option is true, than God must have provided the means for humans to see that the teachings of the disciples were false. Therefore, one must look In order to make my decision as to which view has more validity, I must take into account previous instances of divine revelation. Earlier, you claimed that the Torah is considered to be a part of the Quran, therefore we each agree that the Torah was such an instance of divine revelation, correct? Looking at the Torah, we see several main themes. The first is that humanity is sinful and flawed (early chapters of Genesis), but that God is good. I think we both can agree on that. Secondly, we see that God acts out of grace, and human obedience follows after. Or father Abraham was not a particuarly righteous man, yet God reached out to him. Abraham believed the Lord, and did what was asked of him. Later, we see the Israelites held in bondage in Egypt. God saves them from that bondage through the prophet Moses. At mount Sinai, they recieve the Ten Commandments and the books of the law. In recent years, scholars have found that the 'law-giving' portions of the Torah are written in what is known as the form of a "Suzerein-Vassel Treaty". This was a kind of treaty prevelant in the ancient world, in which a king who had conquered a new land gave the requirements of behavior he expected from his new subjects. God delivers. God conquers. Then, and only then, do humans obey. As the Old Testament narrative progresses, we see that the people of God do not hold up their end of the covenant. Prophet after prophet is given power by the Lord to bring the people back to Him, but they are not enough to draw the people back to Him. Something else needs to happen to deal with human sin. These are observations drawn simply from the Old Testament. They seem to fit with the Christian view of Christ. God acts to remove sin and free us from bondage. Then humans serve him in gratitude. In the muslim view of Christ, Jesus is a prophet, like those before him, and therefore is, like the others, powerless to do much about human sin in the long term. Also, you have pointed out, he was meant to test humans to see if they would believe him to be a God and turn away from the true God. The problem with this is that it does not fit the pattern of prior divine revelation. God acts to deliver, then humans obey. In the muslim view, God acts to set standards, then humands must obey in order to be delivered. The two views do fit together. Therefore, if one takes the Torah to be true (and especially if one takes the rest of the Old Testament to be true), and also takes the Quran to be true, then one must ask the question: Why did God change his method of operation? If he is eternal, unchanging, than shouldn't his pattern for dealing with humanity be consistant? The Christian view is consistant with God's prior dealings with humanity. The Islamic view is not. There is one thing in Islam's favor, however, and that is the triune aspect of God implied by the Christian account of Jesus. Remember, however, that Christians do not believe in 3 gods. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity remain the 3 great [I]monotheistic[/I] religions. But, one must again ask the question: Is there a precedent for this triune aspect of One Holy God present in his prior revelations to humanity? Too many verses to go into here... but check out this link: [url]http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/triunity.html[/url] And so again I come to the conclusion I came to the first two times. Either Jesus was God incarnate, or he was not. But the Quran's statements about him just don't seem to me to be a valid option in light of prior divine revelation.

Well, I used to use MyOtaku to just talk about my life. I still do that occasionally, but recently I've shifted the focus to posting reviews of various random things. My last few posts have covered Inuyasha manga, 'Saved!', and Escaflowne. If I talk about my life nowadays, I make the aspect of my life under discussion into a review. It's fun to write, and hopefully entertaining for anyone bored enough to drop by and read it.

My first was Jungle Book when I was, oh, I dunno... maybe 4 years old? Anyhow, the tiger and snake scared me speechless, so I spent the whole time hiding from them underneath the movie theatre seats cowering. Needless to say, my parents didn't take me to another movie until I was considerably older and more well-adjusted lol... James Bierly

[quote name='Chabichou']So if you abandon Christianity for whatever reason, how does that automatically make Islam wrong? It would only be wrong (in your point of view) if you decide not to believe in any of the prophets of or the stories the Christians believed in.[/quote] Here's my best attempt at clarification, Chabichou. Sorry if it's a bit too drawn out... I've got a heckuva cold today... Siren sort of picked up on what I was getting at. Either Jesus was who he said he was (the son of God) or he was a human like anyone else. If the first statement is correct, then Islam is wrong. If the second statement is true, then either Jesus was insane to make such claims, or he was a deciever. I don't see how someone can be merely a great prophet of a God and yet claim to be that God at the same time. Again, Islam's view of Jesus seems skewed. That is why I say that either way you slice it, whether I believed Christianity to be true or not, that I would not put my faith in the teachings of Islam. Now, there is one other option available in the discussion of Jesus' identity. Perhaps the people who recorded his teachings and life story after his departure from the earth fabricated everything. Perhaps Jesus never did claim to be the son of God, in which case the above arguement fails. The problem with making this statement is that the founders of the church believed in Christ so strongly that many of them were willing to (and did) die in horrendous fashions for those beliefs. We are again faced with two options: A. Allah had his hand on Jesus, as the Quran asserts, but the disciples made up the stuff about His being the son of God and the resurrection and such. B. They were insane/brainwashed C. They were telling the truth If C is true, then Christianity's teachings are true, and, as was asserted earlier, if Christianity is truth, it invalidates Islam. If B is true, then both religions are telling falsehoods. Now, let's take a look at A. If this is true, then it can be reasonably assumed that Jesus must have surrounded himself with liers. Liers so skilled that they managed to convince themselves so deeply of the truth of their lies that they were willing to suffer and die in terrible fashions for those lies. Do those sound like the kinds of people a true Great Prophet would choose as his disciples? Maybe Jesus just wasn't blessed enough by God to have the wisdom to see that he was surrounding himself with boarderline-delusional pathological liers? That seems contrary to the Islamic picture of the prophet Jesus to me. Or perhaps Jesus was just such an incompetent teacher that he never managed to communicate his nature to the disciples? This would make him not a great prophet, but a worse prophet than even the most minor of old testament prophets, who made it quite clear to those listening to them that they were prophets of the most high God. At best, option A leaves us with a bumbling, incompetent prophet, and at worst a man with an uncanny talent for finding the most twisted and psychologically scarred liers in the land to make his disciples. Neither of these options seems to fit with the view that Islamic people have of a 'great prophet' Jesus. That is why I say that whether I believed in Christianity or not, I couldn't except the teachings of Islam. Does my position make sense to you now, Chabichou? Sorry I didn't have time to type it out more fully earlier... Peace on earth, James Bierly

So this thread doesn't get locked, let's start explaining WHY we like said characters, as well as just listing them and adding pics... Kagome from Inuyasha. She is able to handle a bizarre new aspect of her life with humor, grace and the occasional 'sit!' command. Attractive yet modestly dressed. [IMG]http://www.differnet.org/~kelly/images/pics/inuyasha/kagome.jpg[/IMG] Merle from Escaflowne Merle just makes me laugh. She's so cute and her almost stalker-like devotion to Van is at times inspiring and at other times unsettling. The quintessential cat-girl. [IMG]http://www.princessmonkey.com/me/anime/merle-ooh.jpg[/IMG] Naru, from Love Hina. There must be something special about her, since Keitaro is willing to go through so much physical and emotional trauma for her. Maybe she has a sexy punch?? :p [IMG]http://naru.easynetonline.net/narudiary/images/galleries/141.jpg[/IMG] Honorable mention: Ed from Cowboy Bepop (on account of intelligence, humor, and energy)

[QUOTE=dMage] If the case is that the Qu'ran is the word of God, than that would mean that the Torah, which precedes it and heavily influenced it, and the Gospels, which also influenced and form a part of it, are also the word of God.[/QUOTE] If that's true then it presents us with a bit of a difficulty. Since the gospels assert that belief in Jesus is the only way to salvation, and the Quran asserts that adherence to the commands given to Mohammad is the true path, then it is impossible for both to co-exist within one's worldview. That is why, were I to suddenly abandon my faith in Christianity and go looking to find another religion, Islam would be the first option eliminated...

Well, I had fiances in kindergarten... not sure if that counts...

Hmm. Interesting. Does the American Shonen Jump have Naruto in it? Shojo beat sounds somewhat interesting... at least as a way to sample a variety of stories in that genre... do you have any idea where one will be able to buy it and what the pricing will be like?

Is Shonen Jump available in English? Or can only Japanese people read it? And in order to generate more discussion: let's talk about the origins of this and other manga periodicals in Japan, as well as which ones are currently the most popular and what they contain.

Well, in my experience, Anime is a 'cult genre' (for lack of a better phrase) hobby that attracts more females than any of the others I am involved in. RPG players, (American) comic book readers and video game players are predominantly male demographics. For some odd reason, however, manga/anime manages to attract a fair amount of females. For once I lucked out and stumbled into a hobby with chicks... who would have figured :animesmil In my personal experience, males who watch Anime easily outnumber the females, but the gals are still there and noticeable. However, perhaps a line should be drawn between "people who watch some anime" and "people who are real fans of Anime, watch a lot of it, and frequent message boards like this one"... EDIT: I was going to say that guys would come out on top if you chose the first definition, because it's hard to find a guy who HASN'T watched at least a little DBZ or somesuch in their time. But then I remembered 'Spirited Away', of which the same could be said of for women, and my theory went out the window.... Anyhow, yeah, there are female anime fans. Ain't life grand? :p

I would like to say that Rurouni Kenshin in Japanese w/subtitles (if you show it in English, people get turned off by the cheesy translation work) works well for this, too. It will introduce someone to emotive cartoonish expressions (but nothing as insane as Love Hina or FLCL), serious storylines (which fans of more traditional cartoons might not be used to), Anime style combat (but with a historical enough bent to please slightly more realistically minded people), and little-to-no fanservice. My family, which usually balks at Anime, seems to enjoy RK. A lot of Anime fans I know started out with this series. It's a good Anime to start people off on, or to show to people who think it's all porn.

I have a friend who wants to be a writer, and she claims to be able to so develop characters in her mind that she can ask them questions about what they would do in situations, and have pseudo-conversations with them. As far as I know, she is perfectly sane, and one of the more intelligent people I know. I guess people with really strong imaginations can construct 'voices' for creative or entertainment purposes without losing touch with reality. But if the voices seem to be acting independant of your influence, and telling you to do stuff, yeah, go see a psychiatrist or trained counselor asap.

[QUOTE=gaarasgirl90]I love Naruto. It is the best anime I have ever seen and I have never EVER had a favorite. I just bought episodes 1-122 offline and they ROCK!!! :wigout: I read the manga off line too, you know I cant stand waiting for the episodes to come out. I bet NOONE can guess who my favorite character is!(lol) :love: Ten bucks says so.[/QUOTE] Dude, you got ripped off. You can get the Naruto fansubs for free on the internet. If you want the official versions (either for picture/sub quality or in order to support the Naruto people), you can buy some eps, but they aren't up to date through 122 yet. Therefore, all or some of your purchase consists of fansubs you could have gotten for free.

[QUOTE=Japan_86][COLOR=Navy]My friend's brother played this one game when he and his friends were in woodshop. I don't know what they called it, but object of the game was to clamp those hand clamps on your nuts and see who outlasts everyone else. Well, my friend's little brother played it and as soon as his clamp came on....he was rolling on the floor in agony.... stupid, stupid :animesigh[/COLOR][/QUOTE] Wow... that's just.... wow. And OW!!!, while I'm at it... Back in the day there used to be a game some of my friends would play wherein one would hold his hands out, and then attempt to pull them back before they got walloped by the other guy. Over Christmas break, some of my high school friends invited me over for a 'drinking game' which involved chuggin cases of mountain dew. Not interested in either a stomach ache or staying up all night, I opted not to chug the pop. This ticked off some of the chicks, who threatened to 'make me moon a car'. How they expected to force me to do this is completely beyond me. After awhile, I got sick of them and left. In general, I am not one for games which involve physical harm. I prefer virtual meyham ;) James Bierly

Several reasons (sorry if these are slightly incoherant. It is very late...) A. The type of people you find here. People who enjoy writing, anime, and genre stuff in general. Those are the kind of people I hang out with in real life, why should online be any different? B. The organization, layout, and moderation. Otakuboards are very... pretty. For lack of a better word. Most people have quite aesthetically pleasing banners and avatars, and art skills are prized. The forums are laid out nicely, with just the right number of seperate sections. The moderation and devotion to quality posts is by far the best I have found anywhere on the internet. The O-lounge is really the only place I know of where I will willingly engage in discussions not immediately pertaining to my hobbies. C. (Related to A): Research into the major genre consumers of the future. As some of you know, I want to write PnP RPG products, and perhaps sell some fiction too while I'm at it. Very few people on OBs play tabletop games. However, they do include message board based games in the pure narrativist tradition, which attract a lot of people. These people are potential customers, the RPers/genre product consumers of the new century. Nowadays, as I have found from personal experience, more and more people are getting their introduction to true roleplaying (as opposed to video games with the label slapped on them) on internet boards like these. OB represents the pinnacle of mod efforts to create quality and controlled threads in this vein. Therefore, I think it is worth my time I like to see what kinds of people these folks are, where their interests lie, and what they look for in RPGs. Granted, I only go by the the RPG boards themselves occasionally, and rarely have the extra time or energy to devote to online RPG (although I'd like to get something Naruto related going sometime in the near future), but their presence and most members activity in them is a draw for me. Likewise, manga and anime have taken off in the US at an exhorbitant rate lately. In ten years or so, I foresee that the vast majority of potential consumers of genre literature and products will be strongly manga/anime influenced. So yeah, part of the reason I come here is to keep in touch with the potential customers of the future. D. (Related to C): The evolution of the Internet Community as a phenomenon. I too much of a lurker to ever really engage with all of the in-jokes and clubs and cyber marriages that go on around here, but I find the whole shebang fascinating. In many ways, OB really is a community that goes beyond anything else I've found on the internet. In large part, I think, due to TheOtaku and MyOtaku integration, as well as the RPG boards, there is this sense that everyone here is part of some kind of big extended family. I hear people talk about how their relationships here (note that they use the word 'relationship' speaking of completely internet based communication) have changed their lives, inspired them and helped them grow. People go to people here for advice, and recieve it. This is a fascinating phenomenon. How will this emerging capability of the internet to create genuine community effect society in the future? Is it truly a genuine community, or is there only so far the internet can go? Just what exactly has managed to evolve here at OB? Such things exist on other board too, but they often do not posses the qualities listed in 'A', and thus the results are less pronounced. Yet this percieved sense of genuine friendship and community between people who have never met one another irl fascinates me. Therefore, I return.

Hmm. I notice there are no Naruto RPGs around here... but I notice a lot of people in the Anime forum are big fans... would anyone be interested in a Naruto RPG? I think if I started one it would be new characters. What I am trying to decide, though, is what time period to set it in... before the Naruto series starts? During the sand/sound/Konoha/Orichimaru war? Perhaps a historical tale about the ninja wars/thunder villiage/main and branch families (y'know, Neiji's whole backstory...)? Or something about the glory days of the Uchiha clan? Or something set 100 years in the future, where Naruto is Hokage (yes, I know that's still speculation at this point... but it would make for a fun story)? There are a lot of possibilites... what would people be most interested in? The characters would probably be new graduates/starting Genin like Naruto and company were, but I'd be open to suggestions of other power levels...

[Quote=Siren]I'd like to step in here and just say a few things before this thread gets shot down. One, I don't think the concept of Original Sin exactly applies anywhere. I don't view children arguing over a toy as pertaining at all to the trials and tribulations in the Garden of Eden. I just see them being children, and children can be selfish as hell sometimes. It's just a fact derived from pure observation and using some good old fashioned common sense.[/Quote] Read the second paragraph of my reply to Chibi... I've already agreed to this, for the sake of moving the arguement forward. [quote name='Siren']Humans can be selfish, yes. I'm not debating that. But humans aren't selfish because of Adam, the Garden of Eden, or because of the Bible. Humans are selfish because we're hedonists sometimes. We're concerned with pleasing ourselves. I don't view that as having any religious foundation at all. It's just how we work. We see something we want, we take it. Simple as that. It's pretty much just basic human psychology. [/quote] Then you DO agree with the idea of origonal sin. You agree that hedonism is something humans are born with. Unless you somehow think this is a good thing, than you believe there is something wrong with humanity. That's the doctrine of original sin. I think you are objecting simply to the fact that you saw a religious phrase, not to the concept behind the phrase. [Quote=Siren]Two, sin in general. From what I've seen (both in this thread, in other threads, and in general), many people are totally missing the point of why there are sacred texts. It's not to issue laws. It's not to enforce massive amounts of rules on a people. It's not to limit freedoms or anything like that. The purpose of sacred texts is merely to act as a guide, a blueprint, a map of directions. I think people are putting too much emphasis on sacred texts these days, quite honestly. They're not Gospel--ironic, isn't it?[/Quote] But as I already pointed out in my original post, sin is something people are aware of even without a holy text. To the next paragraph, I partially agree with you. Religious texts arise because of two reasons. a. The search for the numinous. People seem to have this belief that there is something outside of themselves and this world, some kind of deeper spiritual meaning. Religious texts arise to provide an explanation for this and a guide to living in such a way as to achieve contact with this higher spiritual reality. b. The existance of a deep, ingrained moral code in each human that every human knows they have violated on some level. Whether a religion overtly preaches the doctrine of sin or not, they all have the underlying idea that there is something wrong with the way humans are now, and by following religions X one may break free from the wrongness of present human life. A bit more on similarities between religions is to be found in my original posts. [quote name='Siren']Three, the whole God-thing. I'm not going to go into my Atheism, so you can all breathe. But I would like to mention one thing: the God of Philosophers. The GoP, as opposed to the God of Faith, is a singular entity that encompasses the entire universe. The GoP is a combination, in a sense, of all the common traits of the God of Faith. And really, if I were to believe in God, the GoP would be my choice, because the way I see it...every religious denomination (Christianity, Judaism, Islam being the primary offenders here) aren't "official" at all, nor are their respective sacred texts "official." Just bear with me here.[/quote] I hate to burst your bubble, but as someone who studies philosophy at a Christian college (and yes, we read a lot of secular and classical philosophers, not just Christian ones) I have to say that this statement is ignorent both of religious philosophy and philosophical history. The GoP (and by this, I assume you mean the all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good, all-etc. being. If not, then you are likely talking about Plato's perfect form of goodness. Either way, it is not a terribly personal being, but all the qualities he/it has are qualities that the GoR has as well. When Christians do philosophy, we tend to use the GoP, in light of the GoC. [Quote=Siren] It's because every religion in the world today is an Expanded Universe religion. Think Star Wars. You have the Original Trilogy, the TRUE Star Wars, then you have various side-stories (novels, games, boardgames, etc). The side-stories are the Expanded Universe. They're the material that branched off of the real Star Wars. When you consider that each God of Faith is pretty similar to the other Gods of Faith, you start to ask yourself which religion is the "true" religion? Is it Christianity? Judaism? Islam? Buddhism? No. They're all Expanded Universe. None of them is the true God. The true God, it seems, is the God of Philosophers, the common entity of all religions...the God-ness of religion...the concept of God, not Allah, not Yahweh, not the Christian God/Jesus. If this is true, then it does make sense why Islam/Christianity/Judaism conflict with each other on various points, yet "coincide" on others. It's because they're the side-stories to the real story at hand: God-ness. Don't take this post the wrong way; I'm not preaching here. I'm just raising a question that maybe every religion people have been raised on is blatantly incorrect.[/Quote] Actually, I tend to agree with elements of what you said. [quote name='My Original Post']I am a Christian, and I have come to see, the more I study other religions and mythologies, that I believe in Christianity for the same reason C.S. Lewis eventually turned to Christianity from Atheism. Christianity, for me, provieds not the 'one, true' religion, but rather the religion that holds the fullest explanation for and fullfillment of the themes and ideas present in all human religious thought. It is also a religion with a discernable historical event as its centerpoint, wherein God acted within time to achieve the salvation of humanity.[/quote] What you are saying is not radical or unique, and fits in many ways with established religious thought. James Bierly

[QUOTE=Drizzt Do'urden] Also has anybody ever been to the Vadican(SP) before? I'm really interested in going there one day, I just needed some input as to it being something worth seeing. [/QUOTE] It's vatican, and I personally would love to go there some day, if only for the architecture...

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]Ok, how is a child like oh say a one year old, sinful? Does the one year old know that it's wrong to take a pack of gum from check out when mom or dad isn't looking? Does the one year old know that it's not nice to hit? No. That's why I dissagree with original sin or that everyone is born with sin. Sure you begin around say 5 or so to learn right from wrong, but is the child at fault if his parents didn't bother to tell him that stealing is not acceptable? No, it's the parent's shortcomings. This is also why I don't understand the Catholic or Epscipalion (G.W.'s religion's) obsession with baptizing infants (Catholic) or being born again at the ripe old age of three. I keep getting asked when I'm baptizing my daughter. When she's old enough to decide for herself. But hey, I guess that's why Focus on the Family :mad: can make so much money convincing people like my grandma that you can tell that children are difficult when they're infants. :rolleyes: [/color][/QUOTE] Well, I differ with you on the idea that young children do not have sinful tendancies. Ever seen two little kids fighting over toys? Ever seen a kid cry because they did not get their own way? I believe that these are symptoms of a deeper problem. Also, if one believes that all humans are born with knowledge of a certain moral code, as I believe most people do, whether they would say so in such terms or not, than it logically follows that at least on some level the children not only sin, but know that they are doing so. Now, it can maybe be argued that kids who are unborn, or infants, or extremely young, have not developed this moral code properly yet. O.k. For the sake of moving the arguement forward, let's assume this is true. Therefore, these human beings fall into the same category with 'those who have never heard the gospel'. Does God welcome these children into heaven if they die at a very young age without a chance to hear the gospel or (perhaps, although I'm skeptical) even sin? Maybe. [quote name='my previous post[/Quote]But the Bible doesn't talk much about that. The focus is on those who [B]have [/B'] heard the Gospel. The Bible seems to be much more focused on saying: "Now that you DO know the Good News, will you choose to accept it or reject it?"[/quote] But, even if they are not sinful beings when they are very young, read my origional post to see why Christians believe that everyone else is indeed fallen and sinful. As to the baptism question, I just realized that you sort of answered it yourself. If parents are responsible for a child's sin, should they not also be able to have responsibility for positive things such as salvation? But for a more theological answer from someone who is part of a denomination that practices infant baptism (Reformed), I offer the following (warning: theological speak ahead, which may be greek to some of you. I figure Chibi will get what I'm talking about, though, since she used to be Catholic. I'll be happy to elaborate in lay man's terms if someone asks politely, but I don't have time for that now. Also, I am not a pastor or theologian, so my explanation may not be the greatest in the world... Realize also that this is the subject of much debate and theological rhetoric within Christianity itself. I'll try to distill it down as best I can): In the old testament, the sign of the covenant was circumcision. This was a sign that a household belonged to Yahweh, and that the child was pledged to live in covenant fellowship with Yahweh. In the New Covenant, the sign of the covenant is baptism. Therefore, it is administered to children in the same way circumcision was. Also, when the Paul and Silas are in prison, and God frees them with an earthquake, the jailer turns to Christ and brings his children along with him. Baptism is not salvation within itself, but a sign of trust in the covenant between God and his people. It is also a promise that one will raise the child to know the Gospel, and a trust in the providence of God to bring that child to know Him. Note that this is a view only held by some denominations. Baptists think this is stupid, and that baptism should only be administered to adults who can make the decision themselves. It's still a sign of the covenant, and a symbol that one has died to the old self and been reborn in Christ. BTW, I think Focus on the Family is often full of crap, and that James Dobson is a bit of a fundamentalist wacko (spongebob is gay, anime is the devil, only I know how to properly raise your kids, etc.). So let's PLEASE not bring them into this ;) ... James Bierly

I am currently working on a paper for my Rhetoric class on Commonplaces. Commonplaces are stated or unstated values that the majority of people in a community will hold. These values can then be appealed to in an arguement. For instance, George Bush's speeches consist of little but commonplaces. (Freedom, Freedom, Freedom, democracy, democracy etc... often substance-less, but persuasive enough to win a second term, since few Americans would argue that freedom and democracy are good... note that that was not a political statement. Just a well-known example.) I am doing my paper on another internet community I participate in, but I figured I'd try this out here as well, since I had the thread all ready to go... This thread is to help compile a list of commonplaces present at Otakuboards. This will make a nice repository of commonplaces that people can use in their own arguements around here... Note: I do not mean to imply that EVERYONE who comes here shares these views or has these pieces of information, but that at least 80% of people seem to... Ideas: Shared Stories Shared Sayings/jokes Shared Respect or Admiration for certain things or individuals Have fun. I look forward to reading the results... maybe I'll post some of my own a bit later... James Bierly

Recently, there was an article in Time/Newsweek (can't remember which) about a Russian 'mail-order-bride' who was severely abused by her husband. However, the article mentions that there are quite a few 'mail-order' marriages that worked out well. I have heard stories from people who met their SO online... anyhow, I guess I was wondering what everyone's views are on a. The ethics and practices involved in 'mail-order' companies b. The ethics and practices involved in general internet dating c. How well you think these relationships can work out d. Anything else pertaining to the subject? James Bierly

[QUOTE=Drizzt Do'urden]Though I know in today's government (Specifically the United States) cuts off our discussion about religon, but I'd like to open this thread to discuss it. Not just if its right to censor religon. But anything about religion, I've had some serious eye opening questions about christianity. So if anyone is easily offended please do not read any further. First off I'd like to ask about "original sin" a catholic belief that says everyone is born with sin. So therefore if anyone is born somewhere that doesn't know about christianity they're going toi "hell". First I'd have to ask if anyones catholic, can you tell me how god would let this happen, but I'd also like to pose a question too you. I thought about this a few nights ago, could the one we call God, possibly just be different things to different people. Muslim(sorry if I mispellsed it) have the prophet Mohammed(once again I'm not good with spellings) who is supposed to come back. Something similar to Christianities Jesus. Every religon teaches do good things to everyone, most prominent are Buddhism(SP) Christianity, and even Muslim. (except for Islamic extremists who believe be good to people of the same religon, otherwise bomb the crap out of things/people who believe otherwise). But there are major similarities between all major religons. The most similar thing being the fact that everyone should do "good" things and that person will be awarded by going to a "special" place, or if you do "evil" things then your soul will be damned somewhere. I guess I don't really have a question, but I'd just like this to be open to discussions about religion(s).[/QUOTE] Original sin is not just a Catholic belief. Most Christian denominations hold it. I find it amusing that this is the idea that people in modern society have the hardest time swallowing. I don't see how anyone can look at themselves and the world and not think that human beings are sinful creatures. As you point out in your second paragraph, you will not find a religion anywhere in the world that teaches it is o.k. to murder, rob, and rape. You will also find it hard to locate a society where hatred, lust and coveting are acceptable. There seem to be basic moral laws that all human beings seem to hold in common. When they fall away from these, people feel guilt. Why? Would not people be happier if they were not guilty? Why does there seem to be this universal feeling that not only does a moral code exists, but that people should not break it? Relgions teach that this inherant moral code comes from a divine source. Now, think to yourself. There are most certainly times in your life when you have felt the guilt that comes from violating this deeply ingrained moral code. Maybe you have never actually killed someone, or stolen, or raped, but have you ever had wished harm would come to someone? Have you ever been selfish in any way? Have you ever lusted after someone as an object to be attained instead as of viewing them as a person? Have you ever treated others in a cruel or unfair manner? Then you have violated this deep moral code. Now, you show me someone in this world who has never violated this code once in their lives. Even exemplers of virtue like Mother Theresa and Ghandi have at least commited the inner sins. And don't kid yourself by saying that guilt and shame are entirely constructed by societies. There is no law or cultural norm to prohibit you from gossiping, holding a grudge, or losing your temper with someone (provided they are of a lower social status than you). Yet people know deep down that these things are wrong. Look at the world around you. Look at the selfishness, the hatred, the violence, and the shallow persuit of material possessions. My question is not why religions teach that humans are seriously messed up beings, but how can one NOT believe in the doctrine of original sin? All human beings are sinful. Religions offer remedies for this. Ways that people can attempt to atone for their crimes and regain contact with the [I]numinous[/I], the divine presence. Religions differ in their treatment of this. a. Some religions teach that one must earn their way to favor with the divine forces by doing good works and working to purge oneself of darkness. b. Other religions teach that through great personal sacrifice, sometimes offered to gods, may contact with the divine and freedom from one's sinful nature may be obtained. Hindu/Buddhism and Christianity stand out as religions with views that differ from this. In Hindu/Buddhism, the material world is the problem as much so as humanity. Salvation from guilt and pain is achieved by transcending the material world through both of the means listed above. Christianity teaches that a righteous God should by all rights have nothing to do with a sinful humanity that turned its back on Him in favor of rebellion and wickedness, and continues to do so every moment of the day. Yet He chose, in His great love which humans can hardly fathom, to become incarnate as man. To walk among us and to die in our place, as the sacrificial lamb to provide atonement for the sins of all humanity. (see point b above) In gratitude for this, and in order to bring the world back to the way it was before humans went wrong, Christians (those who believe in Christ's sacrifice and call Him Lord) are called to do good works. (see point a above) I am a Christian, and I have come to see, the more I study other religions and mythologies, that I believe in Christianity for the same reason C.S. Lewis eventually turned to Christianity from Atheism. Christianity, for me, provieds not the 'one, true' religion, but rather the religion that holds the fullest explanation for and fullfillment of the themes and ideas present in all human religious thought. It is also a religion with a discernable historical event as its centerpoint, wherein God acted within time to achieve the salvation of humanity. As for the question of what happens to those who do not hear the Good News, I think there is more flexibility than some people think. The only way a sinful humanity can be reconciled to a holy God is through the sacrifice of Christ, but perhaps some people will only have this truth revealed to them after death. But the Bible doesn't talk much about that. The focus is on those who have heard the Gospel. The Bible seems to be much more focused on saying: "Now that you DO know the Good News, will you choose to accept it or reject it?" I guess I ended up typing a lot longer response than I thought I would, but I hope I managed to answer your questions, or at least make the position of Catholics and the wider Church more clear for you. James Bierly

Grr. I am searching for pics/screencaps of Natsume Maya from O Tenjou Tenge. I've found quite a few, but they are all of her in her sexy adult form. I want pics of her in Chibi form with the funny antenna hair clutching her weapon... Anyone have any pics or links? Thx. James Bierly