The Newfie

[COLOR=SeaGreen]Bruce Cockburn's [B][I]Waiting for a Miracle[/I][/B] has always struck me as a beautiful song. [CENTER] [B][I]Look at them working in the hot sun the pilloried saints and the fallen ones working and waiting for the night to come and waiting for a miracle Somewhere out there is a place that's cool where peace and balance are the rule working toward a future like some kind of mystic jewel and waiting for a miracle You rub your palm on the grimy pane in the hope that you can see You stand up proud you pretend you're strong in the hope that you can be like the ones who've cried like the ones who've died trying to set the angel in us free while they're waiting for a miracle Struggle for a dollar, scuffle for a dime step out from the past and try to hold the line so how come history takes such a long, long time When you're waiting for a miracle[/I][/B][/CENTER] Another of Bruce's classic,[B] [I]Call it Democracy[/I][/B]: [CENTER] [B][I]padded with power here they come international loan sharks backed by the guns of market hungry military profiteers whose word is a swamp and whose brow is smeared with the blood of the poor who rob life of its quality who render rage a necessity by turning countries into labour camps modern slavers in drag as champions of freedom sinister cynical instrument who makes the gun into a sacrament -- the only response to the deification of tyranny by so-called "developed" nations' idolatry of ideology north south east west kill the best and buy the rest it's just spend a buck to make a buck you don't really give a flying **** about the people in misery IMF dirty MF takes away everything it can get always making certain that there's one thing left keep them on the hook with insupportable debt see the paid-off local bottom feeders passing themselves off as leaders kiss the ladies shake hands with the fellows open for business like a cheap bordello and they call it democracy and they call it democracy and they call it democracy and they call it democracy see the loaded eyes of the children too trying to make the best of it the way kids do one day you're going to rise from your habitual feast to find yourself staring down the throat of the beast they call the revolution IMF dirty MF takes away everything it can get always making certain that there's one thing left keep them on the hook with insupportable debt[/I][/B][/CENTER] 'Da Newf Oowatanite[/COLOR]

[COLOR=SeaGreen]It's always seemed to me that paganism/Wicca/etc is not a real... religion. It seems more to me like an excuse for some people to rebel againts society and be different... that people don't truely believe in it. But, heh, maybe you're different - but as far as I know, most people just do it so they can say 'Yea, I'm Wiccan' so they can get those 'wth?' looks from people and than have an excuse to talk to them (explaining what Wicca is, and than being insulted when they call it hilarious). As has been mentioned, Wicca is a fairly weak belief in general - but hey, do whatever you want. If you do not believe in hell than you shouldn't be worried about going there, and if you don't believe in Satan than you shouldn't be worried about worshiping him in cognito... it really is a nonissue. 'Da Newf Oowatanite[/COLOR]

[COLOR=SeaGreen]"Some say it is better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven. I say that is a defeatist attitude - I plan to rule everywhere, not just in hell" 'Da Newf Oowatanite[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Drix D'Zanth]That?s because the members of NAMBLA [i]are[/i] pedophiles! You say pedophilia is very wrong. How do you justify that claim? (Obviously, I?m playing devil?s advocate here) I want you to look at this from a moral perspective for a moment, why do you think the pedophiles of NAMBLA are ?wrong?? Is it a gut feeling? Because it sounds like their man-boy relationships are mutual and consensual. Can you justify calling their private behavior wrong? If so please, give us a reason. Now, if you [i]can?t[/i] prove to me that it is ethically immoral, and you expect the institution of marriage to no longer discriminate between heterosexual unions and homosexual marriages- why can we expect the definition of marriage to discriminate against [i]any[/i] relationship- such as the pedophilic relationship of NAMBLA? Why shouldn?t [i]they[/i] be allowed to get married? I?m not making any assumptions. I never said homosexuals are pedophiles, lol. You drew that conclusion from an [i]analogy[/i] which deals with the ethical issue, not the technical details. Yeah? wasn?t saying that homosexuals are pedophiles? lol.[/QUOTE][COLOR=SeaGreen] There is a reason that pedophilia is wrong; and it's quite simple, really. For the most part, once somone reaches, say, 18 years of age, they're capable of making their own decisions - that is to say, they know what they're doing and the consequences of their actions. If a kid is, say, 10 years old, they don't have any bloody idea what they're doing or what they're getting in to, and that alone should be enough to prevent pedophilic marriages. I'm not an expert on this subject, really I'm not, but I don't see how this applies to gay marriage: they're completely different subjects. One is a union of a party with possibly less-than-noble intents and a party with no comprehension of the situation - as opposed to the union of couple of self-aware and functioning human beings who just happen to share the same sexual organs. I don't see the co-relation. 'Da Newf Oowatanite[/COLOR]

[COLOR=SeaGreen]Girl: Well.... certainly wasn't expecting that... ummm... want to go out for dinner some time? 'Da Newf Oowatanite[/COLOR]

[COLOR=SeaGreen]"I AM CAT, DESTROYER OF WORLDS, EATER OF KITTY NIBBLETS, FEAR ME! Meow..." 'Da Newf Oowatanite[/COLOR]

[COLOR=SeaGreen]Well, and this be a true tale o' high-seas a-hauntin's, I have one I think is rather good... Ok, so about 4 years ago, me and my shipmates where going out on a fishing trip like we do every few weeks to make a living. The guy who usually is the 'captain' of our ship was sick so he didn't join us for this foray. Anyways, we pull out of St.John's harbour on schedual, but when we get about 2 hours out to sea, we notice somthing's wrong. We're not entirly sure where we are and, as per usual, our GPS system doesn't work (This really isn't a ghost-related thing; our GPS breaks every three weeks or so, right on schedual. But that's a different horror story :animesmil ) so we're not able to find out where we are. We joked about it for a while, and decided to just go on with the fishing. Than we notice some bad winds start to pick up and dark clouds start rolling in - typical Atlantic storm. So we get our raincoats on and do what any decent seamen do, kept working through the storm. About an hour later, this storm is coming down like a wet, windy hell, but we've seen worse. Visability is basically zero. So all of a sudden, towards the bow, this loud fog horn moans - it sounds close but we can't be sure with this wind. So I drop what I'm doing and run to the bow of our proud ship, holding onto the railing tightly as it pitches around in the storm and such - and than all of a sudden, as the boat decends a rather large wave, I see this ship, right in front of us. It looked like a fishing trawler, much like ours. For a second I swear that I made eye contact with a man holding onto the railing of her. I knew we were going to hit her, so I covered my face with my arms and braced for impact. Than, just like that, a huge rouge wave swept over the bow and knocked me off my feet. I got to my feet and looked over the bow - she was gone. Well, as I come back to maindeck of the trawler, one of my shipmates (The man acting as captain) runs out to meet me, looking rather aghast and pale. He saw it too. He was the only one though, as the rest of the crew thought that the storm had shaken somthing loose between the ears. Anyways, just thought that was interesting. Oh, and I'm pretty sure Queen is haunting me. Somtimes I just randomly start to hear a Queen song - faint and unidentifiable at first, but I slowly start to recognize it (Usually Bohemian Rhapsody or Killer Queen). Somtimes it happens at inopertune times - such as during a movie with friends or out at sea, often promting me to blurt out 'Do you guys hear Queen?' which can be rather embarassing. I'm sure Freddie Mercury is chuckling to himself up there every single time... 'Da Newf Oowatanite[/COLOR]

[COLOR=SeaGreen][quote name='Billie_Forever']I know..what flipping p*** take!!...Like the cold would go.."Oh no..i better stop the main character has closed the door on me!!!"..stupid freaky rubbish film...*deep breath* Im calm now.hehe[/quote] Yes... it freezes the Empire State Building, it's that cold. We're talking about instant-death cold... and they thwart it by throwing some books on the fire and closing a door! It's hilarious! Another movie that blew: Kill Bill Vol. 2 Ok, Kill Bill Vol. 1 was ok. It had some pretty decent violent scenes that were very entertaining. The plot was marginal but whatever, that wasn't the point. Vol. 2 doesn't have 150 ninjas getting slaughtered, it didn't have samurai duels and spiked balls on chains. No, it had lame things - lame things like, for example, her SWIMMING out of 6-ft grave. Now I'm not an expert on this type of thing... but that makes no ******* sense. One of the stupidest scenes in movie history. Not to mention that a large chunk of the movie is spent in the presence of the corniest Chinaman I've seen since I was a wee boy, and the painful acting of Uma Thurman. Quinten Terinteno... check and mate. Hit your stride with Pulp Fiction... this new stuff... eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee... Hostel doesn't look to amazing either... An Honourable mention to Les Boys IV... ok, Les Boys I was pretty good, funny as hell... Les Boys II was ok... Les Boys III was the exact same as I and II... and IV, altough pretty funny, was the same thing. It's a french movie that, as far as I know, exists soley in Quebec, so I don't blame you for not seeing it. 'Da Newf Oowatanite[/COLOR]

[COLOR=SeaGreen]I only have one real comment after seeing the movie: Peter Jackson is not allowed to direct movies involving bugs. Just... no. Special effects were the best part about an overall predictable movie (Which was expected, since it's a remake). It was enjoyable. I felt that Kong took to long to fall of the empire statebuilding though, but it was still pretty interesting. 'Da Newf Oowatanite[/COLOR]

[quote name='Billie_Forever']The film that i absolutly HATED...the most..EVER...was "the day after tomorrow"..i thought that it was far too long...utter rubbish and even though the graphics were good it was very predictable and i wanted a MAIN character to die...*sigh* Alas it didnt happen and everyone was happy in the end..as i said i didnt like this film..at all[/quote] That movie was hilarious... The cold is chasing them and they run into a room and stop it... by... closing the door. Funny funny stuff.

You don't need an AK-47 to shoot Bambi. That's my position and I'm stickin' to it.

[COLOR=SeaGreen]I'm quite happy to report that, as a Canadian, I've never had a gun nor have I ever needed one, aside from a hunting trip I took with some friend in Quebec. I've never had to defend myself and I've never had to shoot at other people (Why would I when I can just get them with my hockey stick... *smirk*). Guns have always seemed to be a waste. I'm also quite happy to note that the Libral Party of Canada, of which I am a supporter and which are the heavy favourites for reelection, have put a plan into action in which all handguns will be banned. I'm not sure how they'll pull it off, but I assume the vast majority will be shipped south of the board, and the rest melted down to make pipes and whatnot. Sounds like a plan. 'Da Newf Oowatanite[/COLOR]

[quote name='orbindo']Buddahs name was something along the lines of Sidarma Gud-something and his followers turned him into something he wasnt. He didnt claim to be a god, just claimed to be a knowledgeable being. over the yrs as people followed his teaching they changed him into a god somewhere. big oops on them[/quote][COLOR=SeaGreen] Yes, somthing to that effect... But I fail to recall how this fit into the original topic... Somthing about me not claiming the existence of the Enlightened One... 'Da Newf Oowatanite Edit: Trust me, you wouldn't believe me if I told you... 41. Sitting at home all night on the computer argueing with people half my age. Seems a little bit pathetic, especially on New Years. Ah well, 'tis a good life.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=SeaGreen][QUOTE=Dale_Valley]im sorry, to burst ur bubble, but there is a lot o recoreds everywhere that prove that jesus existed. his existance is no longer a question, the question is about his divinity. and yes i admit i dont know any records that have his existance. but can u prove taht budda or muhamad existed with ur theory?[/QUOTE] Records? What Records? There is absolutly no evidence of his existence. If by records you mean those absolutly hilarious 'historical documents' that the Catholic Church forged to gain support for Jesus Chirst, than I can do little but laugh at you. BTW... Buddah was not his name. His name was Taiwanese and I cannot recall it right now, but he was in fact a philosepher and not a prophet. But what does that have to do with anything? No I cannot prove they exist. I do not claim to be able to. You're calling evidence into question I did not even bring up. [QUOTE=orbindo][COLOR=Red]OK then, one thing at a time. Hey, smart one, christmas is misplaced because they had different calendars back then. Any well learned christian or catholic can tell you that Jesus was born in the summer. Dunno when or why december was accepted as the month of Jesus' birth, but you should look it up. There has been things such as eyewitness accounts of nonfollowers of Jesus, artifacts found of biblical significance, actual kings accounts, and the list goes on. and let me tell you how i believe. There was a renown scholar (i cant recall his name, but he wasnt catholic) that said that true belief doesnt stem off of science and evidence. to believe is to not see. to truly believe, it has to be unproven or else its not worth your belief. What do i believe? That we were all created by a supernormal being and he watches everyone of us 24/7, he had his son concieved and born of a virgin, that that man had the powers of God himself, that he was resurrected after 3 days of being dead, that there even is a heaven?Yes. i do believe that. In the scientific world this borders on complete lunacy. in a way i believe because it is absurd. and what happens if what i believe isn't tru? what do i have to lose? there's nothing special on this earth for me, i wouldnt mind leaving it. but i would like to hold on to something while im here.[/COLOR][/QUOTE] The calender was created by Augustus Ceaser - several decades pre the Birth of Chirst. We had the same calender. Some of the month names have changed, but the calender itself is intact. I have heard that the birth of Christ was moved, but I must ask - why? Why did the early Christians have to tack Christmas onto an old Norse drinking fest (Alas, it is true. Christmas was originally a Viking booze-up. In fact, the Yule Log was an offering to the little-known Norse Goddess of fertillity, Yulea)? The only logical explination is because no one would believe it - but if they had so much proof, why the doubt? What my point is... you are anti-homosexual. Why are you anti-homosexual? Well, because you're Christian (Apperently). So in essence, you hate somone because of this belief - which I find quite unnecessary. I have no problem with believing there is some higher power, some force above us - I can understand that. What I do not understand is how somone can believe some book written by a few men some thousands of years ago (Much of which was plagerised from older, lesser-known tales. See: The Epic of Gilgamesh), which is utterly absurd. I don't get it. :lecture: 'Da Newf Oowatanite[/COLOR]

[COLOR=SeaGreen][QUOTE=orbindo]Time to repay Dale's favor. First of all you seem to have had something bad happen to you awhile back and as you believe that you couldnt see God so you blamed him for everything because it seemed easiest, nice. How can you say power is corrupt when the only "power" youve seen has come from man, who started evil in the first place. and for your information the bible is the most cited history book in the world. and there's more proof that Jesus walked the earth than Shakespeare even lived. so theres more ways to prove that the bible speaks truth, and if it speaks of a God, then there should be one.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but... that has to be one of the funniest things I've ever read... If the Bible is EVER cited as a historical source, it is cited in error. There is absolutly no backing historical evidence of any credit whatsoever that supports any of the Bibles claims... All of the so-called evidence is merely speculation - not a single shred of evidence has ever been discovered prooving that any of the stories of the Bible are true. Perhaps based on historical fact, but exagerated to some rediculously lame level. Even Christmas has been proven rediculous - it supposedly took place in December, but December is the rainy season in the area where Jesus was supposedly born. There would have been no shepards tending their flocks. There is also no record of a Roman emporer ordering a census of the whole Roman people - such an undertaking is rediculous and unnessary. The only Emperor foolhardy enough to undertake it would have been Nero, but he wasn't around then. The sheer resources... It boggles the mind. Exactly where is this proof of Jesus' existence? The Bible doesn't count, as it in itself has no proof whatsoever to back it. The Bible is, if you actually read it in depth, such a rediculous tome that I often find myself crusing it's pages in search of a good laugh. Want some examples of things in the Bible that are just rediculous? [url]http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm[/url] It's too funny to resist. [quote name='Dale_Valley']ok a little wrong here, the crowd wasnt rapist angels, it was gays from the city trying to "Know" the angles visiting Lot. and his wife turned to salt because she turned to look back at the city, directly disobing and order from God.[/quote] Ah, my mistake. I confused the word's 'Angle Rapers' with 'Angle Rapists' (See how the Bible can be misinterpreted?). But that still doesn't change the fact that the so-called 'righteous and just' Lot offered up his own daughters to the rapists... and don't say god asked him too, because any good that asks a man to give his daughters a crowd of rapists is a little... well, you know. 'Da Newf Oowatanite[/COLOR]