Heaven's Cloud

[color=indigo][center]I've been wondering where you've been the things you've seen the sins you've sinned I've been smiling now every day since you passed him by and came my way And you and I know where the stars go they don't fade away at dawn they just supress their glow but in the moonlight in the moonlight the stars shine so bright everything looks and feels ahhh, ahhh, Alright I've been meaning to toss aside my fear to hold you closely and feel you near And I've been hoping and wanting to invite you upstairs to my room And you and I know where the stars go they don't fade away at dawn they just supress their glow but in the moonlight in the moonlight the stars shine so bright everything looks and feels ahhh, ahhh, Alright we both whisper and laugh with glee and watch the moon fade into eternity[/center][/color]

[color=indigo]I watched M. Night Shyamalan's (cool name) [b]Unbreakable[/b] yesterday evening. I had seen the movie a couple years ago and remembered being quite fond of it, but I couldn't remember why. The screening last night jolted my memory. This film has an incredible plot. Being an avid comic fanboy (yes,I proudly admit that I am a fanboy) and a frequent day-dreamer, I often ponder the existence of heros. Not the day to day heros that we read about in the news paper or see working late nights at homeless shelters. No, I mean [i]super[/i] heros. [b]Unbreakable[/b] focuses on the idea of a real life super hero, a person that has incredible power in an ordinary world, a world in which villians cannot be defined by a gaudy outward appearence or a tendancy for maniacal laughter. How would a super hero realize his power and ability? How would they measure and test themselves? What would their family think? The main charecter has to wade through all of these issues while at the same time coming to terms with who and what he is. [b]Unbreakable[/b] stars Bruce Willis as a reluctant hero, a man with a troubled family life, a seemingly dead end job, and [spoiler]a remrkable gift that grants him increased strength, invulnerability, and a "sixth" (oh the irony) sense to detect a person's evil deeds[/spoiler]. Willis does an excellent job portraying a reserved, shy man who seems to have given up something that was important to him. Samuel L. Jackson co-stars with Willis as "Mr. Glass", a comic book aficianado that believes Willis' charecter is destined to be a hero. Mr. Glass is the antithesis of Willis' charecter, he is easily injured (breaking "like glass") and has been debilitated because of his condition. The intelligent, stylish, and broken Mr. Glass is portrayed perfectly by Jackson. The most notable aspect of [b]Unbreakable[/b] is its incredible camera work. M Night Shyamalan is a genius at setting up film sequences. The movie transforms from vibrant colorful scenes to gritty blue magnetic segments within a heartbeat. The film work is lush without being over processed and exaggerated. Anyway, I really enjoy this movie, but I realize that quite a few people were let down with the ending. What were/are your thoughts and opinions on [b]unbreakable[/b]?[/color]

[quote name='DeathBug][color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Another show I cannot stand is the original Mobile Suit Gundam. I simply can't see how anyone could find that entertaining. It's almost sadistic to constantly watch these two dimensional characters continue to suffer in more and more ways. In the end, it just got predictable, mopey, and pathetic. I do'nt see the appeal it apparently had.[/color][/size'][/font][/quote] [color=indigo]I am a huge fan of Gundam Wing, however, I really dislike every other Gundam series that I have watched. I think that Mobile Suit Gundam is absolutely horrid and I have no idea why so many people like it. G Gundam and SD Gundam are not quite, but close to being equally as horrible. The story lines are just...well just bad. Another anime that I always found pretty boring was Inu-Yasha. I just never understood why so many people enjoy the show. I guess I always found it very, very mediocre and because the series seems to be endless I found it redundant. A ton of people seem to think it is great because it incorporates humor, romance, and action very frequently. I guess I missed the humor, got tired of the romance, and grew weary of similar recycled action sequences...[/color]

[QUOTE=Cyke][color=darkblue][font=trebuchet ms]There are so many... Punch-Out!! - A classic from Nintendo. You controlled a skinny, short, apparently defenseless little kid named Little Mac (I think that was his name), and you faced off against bigger, stronger, and very colorful opponents. The game was all about timing, as you had to both wait for an opening to throw a punch, and calculate the time in which you had to press left or right in the d-pad to avoid one yourself. In the end, you'd face off against a seemingly impossible opponent, none other than the controversially insane Mike Tyson. I'm proud to say I was able to beat him, once, which I believe is accomplishment enough. [/color][/font][/QUOTE] [color=indigo]Mike Tyson's Punch out is the [b]only[/b] reason to own the power glove...heh. Renegade: This is one of the hardest games I have ever played. The object of the game is to walk through various parts of a city beating the crap out of gang members. You could pick up weapons and learn special abilities but it always seems like the various scene bosses are at least three or four times stronger than you. My most vivd memory if this game is losing over and over and over again. Tiger Heli: Another impossibly hard game. The purpose of this game is to save various hostages wth your helicopter while fighting an entire war by yourself. You fight everything in this game, tanks, foot soldiers, antiaircraft guns, airplanes. It was one of those games that was so difficult that you would play it over and over just in an attempt to beat the third level. Duck Tales: This was a pretty cool game. It was the Disney platform of a Mario Brothers game. You played as a very nimble Scrooge MacDuck who is trying to recover his stolen diamonds. The diamond were obviously stolen by monsters that resembled disney charecters, because monsters like diamonds. Scrooge's main weapon was bouncing off of people's heads with his walking cane. Manic Mansion: I think it was out on the computer before it was released on NES. It was a very fun game, most Lucas Arts games are fun though. This game and Deja Vu got me interested in RPG's. Deja Vu: Great game. This was one of the first point and click RPG's that I can remember. Sure it contained some pointless traps, but who doesn't enjoy clicking on a sewer lid only to be devoured by a alligator?[/color]

[QUOTE=Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]Greek and Egyptian mythology are consitered, well mythology, now-adays. Although an atheist will consider any religion to be the same, the fact that such a great number of people believe in these things is what seperates things. I see nothing wrong with educating students about religion, as long as it does not directly condone the beliefs. After all, one of my greater interests is culture and how it develops (but it's not as interesting as the grammar diffrentiations between languages^_^). [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [color=indigo]Really? I didn't realize ancient Greek and Egyptian theology was considered mythology...despite the fact that I specifically used the term in quotation marks, lol. The point is that if a teacher teaches the principle beliefs of major religions to his or her students, those students will have a better grasp on how they influenced art, literature, music and society in general. [/color] [QUOTE=Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New] As for atheists being "offended" by prayer...well, I don't know where you got this idea from. None of the atheists I know (all but one of my closest friends, and most of the people I assosciate with on a regular basis--not because we're atheists, BTW) are anything more than irritated by prayer. Perhaps "irritated" isn't the right word: religious situations are often uncomfortable, especially when the individuals involved know you're an atheist. Anyway, that wasn't really on topic, but I felt like commenting about those two points. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [color=indigo][quote][b][i]me[/b] They were concerned about offending people, namely atheists.[/i][/quote] I think you are taking what I wrote out of context. Nowhere did I state or imply that atheists [b]were[/b] offended, I said that people (implying school administrators) were concerned about offending atheists. Just thought I would clear that up.[/color]

[color=indigo][i]Side Note...wow, this thread has stayed alarmingly on-topic...[/i] I attended high school in the thick of the bible belt. Every morning before class groups of kids gathered on the lawn, around the flag pole, or on the football field for group prayer. It never really bothered me, nor did it infringe on my rights in any way. I didn't have to participate or have to pay attention to them and although I was invited to join various groups I never felt pressured to participate nor made to feel inferioir because my beliefs were different from theirs. On Friday nights at football games the head coach usually addressed the stadium with an ambiguous prayer (this was before all of the hullahballoo about organized prayer before sporting events) imploring God to keep both teams safe and injury free during the event. The prayer mentioned nothing about Jesus Christ, nor did it mention Allah, Jehova, Zeus, Buddha, Lehigh or any other religious icon. It mentioned God in a very secular way as a higher benevolent power, and think that most organized (and disorganized, lol) religions are covered by some sort of benevolent diety. By my Sophmore year, the head coach was no longer allowed to address the stadium in any religious fashion, so a random student usually stood up and said a few very secular words. When my senior year rolled around my school passed a rule that barred anyone from saying anything even remotely religious at a sporting event. They were concerned about offending people, namely atheists. Anyway, I always wondered how a fairly secular (perhaps ambiguous is a better word then "secular") speech imploring God to protect athletes during a potentially dangerous sport could offend anyone. As I stated their was no mention of any particular God and the coach (or student) never used any Christian terminology like "amen", so therefore most religions were covered. I also failed (and still fail) to see how an athiest could be offended by the prayer. How can you be offended by something you don't believe in? If you don't believe in a divine presence someone imploring a figure that, to you, is no more real than the Kool-Aid man should hardly be offensive. These forms of prayer, however, did not interupt the school day, and personally I don't think that time should be made to allow prayer during school hours. Students have more than enough time to pray outside of hours that are designated for school and learning. I know that seems somewhat contradictory, but I think that school (which is mandatory until you are sixteen) is a very different atmosphere than an optional social event. One thing I would like to see in schools (at least American schools) is an increased emphasis on the study of religous beliefs in both history and literature. While I was in high school I had a brilliant literature teacher who was nearly crucified for telling us that we should read the bible. Obviously one student took what he said out of context, for my teacher was only suggesting that we read the bible so we could better understand religous symbolism that writers we were reading incorparated in their works. In college I took a few general theology classes and I found them interesting and enlightening. I realized how little I knew about the frame work and belief structures of even the most major religions. Since these belief structures (perverted or otherwise) are often the fundamental motives behind historical occurences, famous art work, incredible feats of construction and scientific break throughs. Teachers teach Norse, Greek, Roman, and Egyptian "mythology" because understanding these various religions (they all are religions) influenced the writing, drama, and science of the time. Think about the charts that students are given depicting the heiarchy of the Greek pantheon. Could you imagine the uproar that would be caused if that same teacher gave a child a chart showing all the apostles and their contributions to the Christian faith? [/color]

[QUOTE=Lady Macaiodh][COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]As much as I love you, I have to disagree. Some people are just as crazy in love as they ever were. The human mind releases neurotransmitters, during a relationship, for approximately four years. It's almost like a high. But after the high wears off, most people break up. But then, there are those who have made a [i]logical[/i] decision to be devoted to the one they love. It's not work. It's very simple, actually. It's actually a lot easier than relying on the emotions. Once a person decides to love, it gets much easier. The whole "falling in love" thing is the hardest part, because it's all based on hormones, specifically dopamine and epinephrine. Real love is when you get past all that. The infatuation passes, and a deeper thing sets in.[/COLOR][/QUOTE] [color=indigo]Works for me :) Deb you've been in love, I have only been in failed relationships (I guess my neurotransmitters cop out early...stupid neurotransmitters), so I would have to say you are more experienced about the subject. However, you also know me well enough that if love is a logical decision, I am probably a lost cause. I am still waiting for that overwhelming spiritual tidal wave that I have read about to completely overwhelm me, lol. Anyway Vegeta Rocker, my advice to you is to take Lady Mac's advice, she is one of the few people on the boards that I would concede knowledge and experience to...[/color]

[QUOTE=Lady Macaiodh][color=darkblue] One thing I forgot to say: I remember those puppy love, high school-type flames (in fact, I have one right now -- hee!) and there's nothing that can compare to that feeling. "Sometimes I thank God for unanswered prayers. Remember when you're talking to the Man upstairs. Just because he doesn't answer doesn't mean he don't care. Some of God's greatest gifts are unanswered prayers." [/color][/QUOTE] [color=indigo]Heh, the worst part of puppy love is that it never lives up to the hype. Once you date a person that has infatuated you for a period of time their pedestal quicky crumbles. Then, once the lofty adoration subsides, you have to work on finding a true relationship with that person (although how that is accomplished is beyond me :p). Anyway, if I could do highschool all over again I would definatley socialize more with people that I liked rather than those I thought I should like. So much time wasted... Good luck with your dillemma![/color]

[color=indigo][center]Take your sword and cast it away your sheath is sharp enough score me with your scorn no more I'd rather take the cain for mangled flesh is easily healed but my spirit is crowded and can bear no more scars[/color][/center]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade'] So I think it should be Alucard.[/quote] [color=indigo]I agree with you, I think it was intended to be Dracula spelled backwards. Unfortunately Pioneer didn't think so. On the back of every DVD in the Hellsing DVD set (American release) the character's name is spelled with an "r". So you both have valid points. As far as a costume goes, red jacket, red pants, red hat red tie, and a frilly white shirt with long white gloves...There is your costume.[/color]

[color=indigo][center]Slip into obscurity let us forget and in the sand and salty ashes set the sea on fire mark your resurection with crimson clouds my pheonix, my red-tailed dove[/center][/color]

[QUOTE=Mitch][size=1][color=red] I prefer [i]Meet the Parents[/i] over [i]Zoolander[/i], heh.[/size][/color][/QUOTE] [color=indigo]Sure you do Han-[i]sellout[/i] :p , lol. Starsky and Hutch was a great tribute movie. Owen Wilson and Ben Stiller are such a great combination and they fit the rolls of Starsy and Hutch perfectly. I loved how they continued the underlying theme that put both charecters in situations that made them fit the flamboyant gay stereotype of the late seventies. I always thought that was one of the best ideas in television history. Now if only they would remake BJ and the Bear....[/color]

[color=indigo]Ouch, Loeb wrote one of my favorite crossovers of all time to, the Executioners X-men story line. Granted, there was quite a bit of BS in it. I too liked Hush, but only because the art work was so spectacular...by the way Jim Lee also did the art for the Executioner's story line. Batman is a great complex hero at times, but at times his mag really sucks. That is the comic world for you. My favorite plot line would probably have to be No Man's Land, it was just such an odd idea, like Batman meets Escape from New York. I also was a big fan of the original animated series (Mask of the Phantasm is great) and I am lookin forward to seeing "The Batman" when I get a chance. As far as movies go, Batman was the only decent live action Batman movie made. To be honest, it is probably the best adaptation from comic to movie that was made.[/color]

[quote][i]posted by [b]Cloricus[/b][/i] Show me this 'freedom' you speak of in Afghanistan or Iraq, even anything that shows that the people of these countries aren't living less securely than they did before their respective leaders were removed. (Just a foot note, you wont be able to.) [/quote] [color=indigo]I can give you a clear example new found freedom in Iraq. On friday hundreds of Iraqi citizens took to the streets to protest America's continued occupation. I will consent that hundreds of Iraqi people want America to leave Iraq. I am sure many Iraqi's don't wan the US there. The Iraqi people were allowed to protest though, and protest freely. During Hussien's regiment there were only three public protests, three. Was this because he was a hugable, lovable leader? No. It is becasue Saddam killed hundreds upon hundred of protesters by having his gaurd fire machine guns into crowds of people. The protest against America was hundreds of Iraqi's not thousands. They were arguing that the economy of Iraq is in the hole and that there is no uniform government yet. I think these hundreds of people are being unreasonable. We bombed the crap out of their country, we were in a full scale war for nearly six months, it takes time to help rebuild a country. Look at Japan. The Japanese staged several protests at immediatly after the war because living conditions were horrible. But the government was rebuilt and the country was vastly improved because the will of its people were strong and resilient. The same will happen in Iraq. [/color] [quote][i]posted by [b]Cloricus[/b][/i] Sure you can sugar it up with morals but that's what it boils down too. And how can you, for example, in the future as a supporter of this war say to North Korea that they are wrong to want to take over the South; as it's exactly what you did?[/quote] [color=indigo]Very easily, because morals are justifiable. Yes, if Bush was intentionally lying about weapon's of mass destruction I would have a real problem with him. But what did he have to gain from lying about that? The United Nations and America had more than enough justifiable cause to invade Iraq. They have since Operation Desert Storm ended. Iraq violated no flight zones multiple times, they refused to grant UN weapons inspectors instant access to certain areas, possibly diverting attention away from an area while moving arms. Saddam's regime was also stockpiling relief supplies that the Red Cross had been sending to Iraq for distribution amongst the needy. With Bush's pull for war so soon after 9/11 congress would have supported the action whether or not he announced that he suspected their were weapons of mass destruction. [/color] [quote][i]posted by [b]Cloricus[/b][/i] Hide and seek? Also something I find funny as Iraq let inspectors in in the first place. America has been denying access to search for a very long time now even when challenged by other high profile UN countries. Or is it okay since it's your government that's doing it, they'd never lie, would they, right? RIGHT???[/quote] [color=indigo]Are you stating that America doesn't allow UN inspectors to view their nuclear weapon silos? Well you are wrong. The US has always worked in conjunction with the UN when it comes to nuclear technology. We have discontinued research on several nuclear programs at the request of United Nations inspectors and we even closed down a biological research center three years ago during one of the Palestinian/Israeli peace talks as a measure of good faith to the Palestinian government. [/color] [quote][i]posted by [b]Cloricus[/b][/i] Ha, well then, you are not seeing the same interviews with clerical leaders in Iraq that I am. Or are ignoring the ones that don't want to 'play nice' which would be a stupid mistake since they make up a large part of the country. Other than that Iraq does have a high chance of falling into war, but that chance has always been there it's only got new wood on the fire. I guess that is a wait and see thing.[/quote] [color=indigo]This is what reeally pisses me off about some people. Because you see an interview with some religious zealots saying that Iraq has gone to hell in a hand bag you immediatly believe that they speak for the common people of Iraq. My cousin recently came home from Iraq, after his four year stint with the Marines ended. He was there, he lived in Iraq for over two years. He was in Sulaimany when Saddam's regime was usurped. The people of Iraq showed overwhelming support for him and his troops. Citizens were trying to invite them to dinner and they were running up to his unit shaking their hands and huggung them. Those are the actions of a country that wanted to be free. [/color] [quote][i]posted by [b]Cloricus[/b][/i] Oh sorry, I'll just ignore the large system of rations that was in place under saddam and all the video footage I've seen (on the news) of the bad methods of distribution by the American food programs. All good now. [/quote] [color=indigo]The Red Cross is always taking voulenteers. If you have a better, more efficient way to distribute resources to a country then by all means, sign up. The Red Cross is a humanitarian relief group whose only affiliation with the United States army is that the American armed forces donates their free time to aide them. [/color] [quote][i]posted by [b]Cloricus[/b][/i] I was not wrong, read my posts from before this and please take back that statement. Also the 64% of Australians that did not support the war were right[/quote] [color=indigo]If 64% of Australians did not support the war then why they allow your country to remain continually involved in it? If that many people feel that strongly that something there country is involved in is wrong you would think that they would do something about it besides whining about it on internet sites. [/color] [quote][i]posted by [b]Cloricus[/b][/i] I think you've been watching to much cnn, and as a great spoof show in Australia points out. CNNNN: We report, you believe.[/quote] [color=indigo]You are always bashing the news orginizations that you don't like, and don't agree with. It is a habit for you. Guess what? The news you may be viewing could be more flawed then the news Boba is getting. You have no way of knowing because there is no way of knowing. For the most part American news networks are very anti-war. They have been since Vietnam, it is like Brokaw pointed out in his book, the powerful people in all forms of media have an agenda. Personally, I don't need the news to tell me whether we are doing right or wrong in Iraq. I have a family member who was there. I know my cousin, if he didn't feel that our conflict in Iraq was appropriate he would have said so. Afterall he was the one who drove a tank through the streets of Sulaimany during the early part of the occupation. He was the one knee deep in sand doing border reconisasance. He was the one that lost friends fighting in a war hundreds of miles from home. Yeah, if he didn't think that what he was doing was just he would have said so... [/color]

[color=indigo]More often than not eating goes hand in hand with what exercise program you are on. The more exercise you do, the more fuel your body requires. Personally, I was not trying to gain muscle mass at first, I was just trying to loose weight. For three weeks I followed the induction phase of the Atkins program, the only carbs I ate were from green vegetables and most (well all) of my meals were very high in ptotien content. After three weeks I started introducing fruit and whole grains back into my diet. If you go on a high protien diet you do not want to remain on it for too long becasue your body will start burning protien for energy eventually depleting your muscle mass. However, by starting off with the Atkins diet I was easily able to curb cravings instantly. If you are just looking for a good basic diet, I can give you the one I am on right now. It is well balanced and allows you to eat a few times during the day. Wake-up: 1/2 Grapefruit or three egg whites scrambled Mid morning: 1 cup fruit and 1/4 to 1/3 cup cottage cheese (great for after a morning workout) Lunch: 1 cup brown rice and a chicken breast or a turkey sandwich with dijon mustard on whole wheat bread Afternoon: Cut Raw Broccoli with lowfat dressing or celery sticks with regular peanut butter Dinner:Choose one of each. Chicken, Steak, or Fish (large portion). Squash, broccoli, or a salad (large portion). 1 cup of brown rice or 1/2 sweet or baked potato (small portion). Diet sodas or iced tea with equal or splenda is a must. Also, sugar free jello and fat free cool whip are great when you are craving sweets. Some items that you should watch out for are sugared cereals, artificially sweetened drinks, and especially protien and nutrition bars. Although protien bars and supplements are good as a replacment for a meal you should only use them if you are doing an exercise that burns more calories then what the bar contains. For example, metR-X peanut butter bars have 600 calories, so obviously they are not good to eat if you are only burning three hundred calories in a workout.[/color]

[color=indigo]I think if I was going to create an anime, it would have to spoof most aspects of society, including itself. The series would be set in a bar or night club and feature a group of friends discussing various current events, debating political and religious ideologies, and pretty much arguing viewpoints about the world in general. At one point in every episode at least two of the friends would begin physically fighting with each other aver some pointless disagreement. The audience would recognize the upcoming fight because campy Japanese music would crescendo in the bacground and the camera angle would circle around the backside of both competitors I picture having at least one fight that is a stare down, in which the cameras slowly picture each contender back and forth zooming in with each successive shot, then, at the height of the music both friends will fall down for seemingly no reason. Every episode would also contain a sub plot, in which something devious was occuring (it could be anything from a bank robbery to aliens attempting to conquer the world). The group of friends would be oblivious of these dastardly deeds, yet somehow there antics would end up foiling them. Every episode would end with one of the charecters getting an award for foiling the devious plot without that charecter ever realizing what he or she had done.[/color]

[center][color=indigo]Swing on my arms! Yeah! Take an airplane ride Throw back your long blonde hair and throw back a smile! Giggle girl, let out a laugh as gravity and momentum coincide on my airplane ride! And as you spin and I spin and oh, how we spin! the stars all dim their irredecent light fading to the back drop beneath the moon and night just hold on tight! Shut your eyes girl! It is an airplane ride let your heart run wild and your fears subside Trust! It is all about trust there is no release from our passion and lust so spin girl! spin it is an airplane ride![/center][/color]

[QUOTE=Winter]Be as disgusted as you want, you, like your opinion, mean nothing to me. I stated what I stated as 'possible realities'. Let me explain to your little brain what that means. It means the girl can choose any path she wants. I merely pointed out what the most evident paths are. Its up to her to pick them. You are a fool if you deny even the darkest of paths.[/QUOTE] [color=indigo]Good, I am glad people's opinions mean nothing to you. That means that I won't be hurting your feelings when I tell you that your post disgusted me as well. Mist, my best advice for you is to be a good friend. Act normal around your friend but at the same time let her know that she can turn to you if she needs help. More than likley she won't want a crutch to lean on but she will need a sympathetic ear once in awhlie. I suffered from a sever depressive disorder that caused me to take a year off of college between my sophmore and junior years. When I returned to school many in my former social scene treated me like an outcast or pariah, but a few good friends helped me get through the tough times, just like I have been there for them during their hardships. Thats what true friendship is all about.[/color]

[color=indigo]I can't believe that I am taking the time to write this post, but I really think that there is a chance that you will understand what I am syaing if I word my thoughts very carefully and you read very, very slowly. Fortunatly I have complete access to my school's library and I have taken a little time to gather and cite real books by real historians and scientists all of which I will cite at the end of this post (on a side note, because I am at the library I will be writing this on notepad so this will probably have horrible spelling mistakes, I apologize in advance).[/color] [quote][i]Posted By [b]Crimson Spider[/b][/i] Well, too bad. The government should have no say in marriage because that was a religious ceremony. [/quote] [color=indigo]This is the statement that piqued my initial curiosity. You explicitly state that marriage was a "religious ceremony" but, as I attempted to point out before, although marriage has become a traditional practice in most religions but marriage was not originally a religious institution. "Early evidence of marital practice can be found in nearly all ancient societies. Ancient Egyptians kept detailed records of unions between sons and daughters that were arranged to bind business transactions (1)". Similar practices can be seen in nearly all other ancient cultures that kept written records. This is evident in early Asian culture as well. Most Japanese men married even though their two major religions advised against it (both Buddism and Taoist philosophy shared the similar motto that women posioned men's spirits). They married because it was considered to be a traditional way to bind both political and financial goals. Therefore, marriage was a societal tradition long before it ever was religious philosophy.[/color] [quote][i]Posted By [b]Crimson Spider[/b][/i] IF what you say is true, marriage was adopted and became Legally the religious ceremony of which two became wed in holy matrimony. This happened a long time ago. Thus, for over a century, Marriage has been a religious ceremony. Now people state that the government has the right to boot out religion from marriage when that when America was founded it was a religious ceremony. That's like saying that the government has control over how the church is organized since it took orginization from religion, and that it may burn down all the Churches because they are built on government property.[/quote] [color=indigo]Well, what I say may not be true, nor do I claim it to be true, I just know that I have evidence backed up by scientific fact. However, I will play along with your last statement. Marriage [b]is[/b] considered a religious ceremony, and since several Christian denominations are willing to marry homosexuals, thereby allowing them to wed in holy matrimony, why shouldn't the government recognize them as married? Also can you support your statement that government borowed orginization from religion? The first known documented government was a neolithic culture in Mesopotamia that inhabited and farmed the area between 6000-5000 BC building several small cities and villages. Ancient pictographs were found depicting various forms of daily life including the process of determining a leader by physical combat (2). Now while I too think that religion was around before this civilization was formed, there is no evidence supporting a religion before this time. Again, I could logically conclude that scientific evidence points to organized community and government before religion began. Is it too radical for you to ponder the possibility that a person or group of people could have borrowed "orginization" from simple government and then built a religion around it? Remember the definition of religion is "a set or institutionalized system of worship". Sure, the idea of government could have gained orginization from religion, but the inverse is also a possibility, and one that has some shreds of evidence. [/color] [quote][i]Posted By [b]Crimson Spider[/b][/i] And for a table-turner, the USA accepted evolution because they were horny. Once it came up, it spread like wildfire because it happened to be the age of "Free love" in America at the time that Darwin came up with the throw-together theory. Evolution gave just the notion that people wanted to hear: no consequences. Now we have aids because of this.[/quote] [color=indigo]Oh my god, you are so right! I forgot all about Darwin and how he threw together the idea of Evolution right around the time the dirty hippies were preaching peace and love in America. when did Darwin publish his most noteable work [i]On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection[/i] again? 1859? Wow, those dirty hippies flocked to it immediatly. I think you are thinking of the Scopes Monkey Trial, which occured because a teacher suggested the possibility of something besides Adam and Eve and Genisis in a classroom (which Scopes taught along with evolution). If you can't even get simple facts right I am going to be writing quite a few of these long winded posts in an attempt to at least make you admit that there is a feasible possibility to what I am saying. Here is another one of my troubles with your posts [quote][i][b]Me[/b][/i] I also would like to point out that marriages are not rooted in religion, they were first used as a method of agrreing on property trades (almost like a present day signature) by parents during business deals. Parents on both sides would arrange that their sons and daughters be bound to only each other for life, thus sealing a business deal. This actually was Sumerian custom and had no religious foundings. The traditions were eventually incorparated into various religions. The same could be said about the celebration of Jesus' birth. Why do Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus in December when the bible clearly states that he was born in March? Because conquering religions use existing holidays to make conversion less shocking, it is called transmutation. [/quote][/color] [quote][i] [b]Your Response[/b][/i]Religions don't just adopt things into them and claim them as their own. While religions do have similarities, that is the religion itself that believes that believes whatever it is. Yeah, sure we celebrate the birth of Jesus in December from an origional holiday, but it is not the same holiday. It is a different one placed in the same spot. We know that Jesus wasn't born in December. And I once aagain ask you: who thought of it? How did it become such a powerful institution? You only mentioned the first race that had it, not where they got it from. [/quote] [quote][i][b]Me[/b][/i] [color=indigo]The holiday was sol invictus (Unconquered Sun) and it marked the time of the year when the sun returns and the days grow longer (coinciding with the winter solctice). The holiday was celebrated by the ancient Egyptians then later adopted by the ancient Greeks, who passed it on to the Romans. That is where the holiday came from.[/quote][/color] [quote][i] [b]Your Response[/b][/i] Nice history lesson, but you dodged the question. [/quote] [color=indigo]What question did I dodge? I was providing an example of transmutation, the process of one religion adopting another's traditions in order to soften the hardships of mandoatory religious conversion. It was an example I used to aide my presentation on how marriage believed to be a transmutable trait that was eventually adopted by various religions. Anyway I am getting tired, so I will end my post woth this quote. [/color] [quote][i]Posted By [b]Crimson Spider[/b][/i] According to the Aethiestic scientifical studies, ORGANIZED religion didn't come until there was a civilization.[/quote] [color=indigo]I hope that isn't an attempt to quote a book that so obviously doesn't exist. Plagarism is not a good way to further a debate. [/color] [size=1]Footnotes and various other material that may help to enlighten people to both sides of this argument: 1. H. Frankfort, The Birth of Civilization in the Near East (London: Williams and Norgate, 1951) 2. "The Reforms of Urukagina" in Nels M. Bailkey, ed., Readings in Ancient History: Thought and Experience from Gilgamesh to St. Augustine, 4th ed. (Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath, 1992), p. 21 Also used for information: H. Frankfort, The Birth of Civilization in the Near East (London: Williams and Norgate, 1951)[/size]

[QUOTE=FartMaster745][size=1] All I got right now is a 20 lb dumbell. Any good tips :P[/size][/QUOTE] [color=indigo]I was trying to think of several exercises to utilize a twenty pound dumbell and use it against your mass so you can work both your fast and slow twitch muscles. Anyway, I actually went and found a twenty pound dumbell and flopped around some with various exercises. I doubt it will be enough to give you twenty-five pounds of muscle but it will certianly add to your repetiore. Obviously I just concoted the names for some of these exercises, there probably are more apropriate, correct names, but it is the workout that counts (add these to your existing work out). Bottle Rocket Squat-usually this would be done with a squat bar but I was able to modify it some so it would fit your routine. Stand perfectly straight with your legs shoulder width apart. Grab the dumbell with both hands and lightly hold it against your chest. Keeping your back straight, squat your rear down to the floor until your legs are bent at a ninety degree angle. Hold this position for a second, keeping your back straight. From the position, use your legs to push yourself upright as quickly as possible, jumping as high as you can (warning, do not use your lower back to aide the jump, mot only will it mess up your form, but you could take a shot from the dumbell in the chin). Land, bending your knees slightly, straighten back to your initial position and repeat. Chin ups-Chin ups are a great way to improve strength, however it takes the body a while before most people can do them. Do three sets of ten and use a spotter if you need it. You can already do three sets of ten? Fine, kick it up a notch. Dangle from the chin up bar with your knees bent at a 90 degree angle. Point your toes and have a spotter put your twenty pound dumbell in between your feet. Do your chinups, but remember your spotter will need to adjust the dumbell every one or two reps. This will not only keep the dumbell from slipping from between your feet but it will also make you stop from allowing unwanted motion between reps. Milk bottle shoulders-I don't know if you can lift twenty pounds appropriatly in this fashion, so I would suggest filling a plastic gallon milk jug with water (you will be surprised with how well this really works) and utilize it as a weight. Stand with your hands at your sides, milk jug (or jugs if you want to do both arms simultaneously) in your hands. Keeping your arms straight raise your arms to the side until they form a ninety degree angle with your body. Slowly lower your arm and repeat for three sets of ten. Then, using the same motion raise arms to the front of your body. This will work all of your major shoulder muscles and help give you a cut between your shoulder blade and arm. Hamstring raises- Lay belly down on your bed dangling your legs off at mid thigh. Point your toes and have a spotter put your dumbell between your feet. Raise your feet upwards towards your read, until your calves hit you hamstrings. Slowly lower and repeat allowing your spotter to readjust the weight when needed. Dips- Set up two chairs so that they are facing each other. Sit on one chair and reat your legs flat on the other, set your dumbell on your thighs. Put both hands on the edge of the chair you are seated on and lower yourself into the open are between the chairs. Once you are comfortable slowly lower yourself (using your triceps) untill you butt is near the floor and your body is bent like a "v". Slowly raise yourself back up using you tricep and pectoral muscles. Repeat until fatigued. Weighted and inverted pushups- A normal pushup with a twenty pound dumbell resting on your back is a good thing, it will really get your slow twitch muscles working and help you increase your chest size. Another great way to do push ups is to do them while your feet are elevated about six inches to a foot above your body (rest your feet on a stair or sidewalk curb) this will work both your chest and your shoulders. Anyway, I hope those help a little. I will try to thing of some more size building exercises for you that don't require lifting heavy wieghts.[/color]

[quote]You do realize that people had a way of communicating back then, right? This religion that was made before an actual civilization was spread-out quite far. [/quote] Yes, people communicated in small organized nomadic pacts and hunted. People feared things they didn't understand and created gods to explain those things. At least that is what the scientific process tells us. Could God have created men before then? Sure, why not. But organized religion developed out of organized society which developed out of the need to effectivly hunt and gather. [quote]Seems like no one takes it from me, so... [url]http://www.stcatherine.org/marriage.html[/url] Let me know of you want to see more sites. Religions don't just adopt things into them and claim them as their own. [/quote] Well, yes they do. You see, Sumerian culture dates back before the very first copy of the old testament can be proven to exist, but the story of Gilgamesh is very similar to the story of Noah, a great example of the ability to transmutate religious stories. Also, the old testament never specifically references marriage as a sacred union, with the exception of the "Thou shalt not commit adultery" commandment. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" could easily have been a commandment because by commiting adultery a person was breaking the bonds of their parents arrangement, therefore whelching on a business transaction. I also like how you back your statement with a page developed by the Catholic Church, very unbiased. [quote]We know that Jesus wasn't born in December. And I once aagain ask you: who thought of it? How did it become such a powerful institution? You only mentioned the first race that had it, not where they got it from. [/quote] The holiday was [i]sol invictus[/i] (Unconquered Sun) and it marked the time of the year when the sun returns and the days grow longer (coinciding with the winter solctice). The holiday was celebrated by the ancient Egyptians then later adopted by the ancient Greeks, who passed it on to the Romans. That is where the holiday came from. [quote]Undermining someone's free will? The whole notion of "free will" came from religion. Otherwise we would still own slaves. Marriage is what would give the right for two indeviduals to reproduce with eachother, so you could say it granted rights. [/quote] I was actually backing the moral fibers of religion by saying that the practice of marriage, which was symbolized property trade at the birth of Christianity, undermined teachings in the Bible, specifically free will. Due to transmutation, the process was incorparated and eventually progressed into today's tradition. To be honest, I really don't understand your argument, I was just presenting you with enlightening historical facts, and you are making a case against them for no reason...I am not disagreeing with you on whether or not faith existed before society, it could have, just not religion.

[color=indigo]Over a third of America is obese. It is a pretty startling statistic that has been the root of many media controversies as of late. Amidst the whirlwind of our own litigious nature, American's have once again lost site of the truth. Fast-food chains and cookie manufacturers are not responsible for the United States' weight problem; every individual is responsible for his or her own health. For the past four or five years I have slaved through rigorous work out routines, run countless miles, and attempted several fad diets, never achieving the results I desired. At the turn of the New Year I resolved to shed some of my fatty pounds before I became another statistic. I exercised, cut most of the junk food out of my diet and I saw serious results for the first time in my life. I am serious when I say "serious", I lost a little over twenty pounds, went from a tight 36" pant waist to a trim 32" waist, and (most notably) I went from 22% body fat to 9 %. If someone told me I could change my body so dynamically six months ago I would have been skeptical, if someone told me I could change so much in nine weeks I would have laughed. I was, after all, a regular gym patron. I lifted weights, jogged, and played a multitude of sports already, how could my body change so drastically? But it did, with just a few modifications to my exercise regiment and a slightly more balanced diet. Anyway, my recent physical metamorphosis inspired me. I thought it would be neat to have a thread that could be used not only to discuss various exercise techniques, dieting advice, and the myths surrounding exercise, but to also encourage an open forum where people can seek help and opinions on all topics related to fitness and health. I know that I am always searching for new strength training workouts, new techniques, and good cardio routines so I am looking forward to everyone's input. [/color]

[QUOTE=Crimson Spider]Then where did it come from? Thin air? Sorry to burst your bubble, but religion wasn't made 50 years ago. Religion came about long before society ever did. Before there were implied moral values. Long before Marriage ever had itself a purpose in the law. Regardless of how it is carried over in "Society" does NOT change what it is. And when you have a constitution that seperates Church from State, you cannot alter the "is" because you have no jurisdiction. The current laws with marriage are unconstitutional. If a couple wants to get married, then fine by them. But the government shouldn't have a say in this affair, because even if you aren't getting married in a church, you are still [u]getting married[/u], which means you are practicing a religious ceremony regardless of if you are from that religion or not. Please have a more solid ground before you reply, because I'm probably going to predict what you are going to say next.[/QUOTE] [color=indigo]Organized religion is a by product of society, one could argue that individual faith arose before society. I also would like to point out that marriages are not rooted in religion, they were first used as a method of agrreing on property trades (almost like a present day signature) by parents during business deals. Parents on both sides would arrange that their sons and daughters be bound to only each other for life, thus sealing a business deal. This actually was Sumerian custom and had no religious foundings. The traditions were eventually incorparated into various religions. The same could be said about the celebration of Jesus' birth. Why do Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus in December when the bible clearly states that he was born in March? Because conquering religions use existing holidays to make conversion less shocking, it is called transmutation. Marriage was a by-product of transmutation, it often times went against religious teachings because undermining a person's free will and bartering them like chatel is against most present day religious ideology. At the turn of the first millenia however, Romans were still binding sons and daughters together in "marriage" to seal land purchases. Therfore, the tradition was transmutated to Christian philosophy. As far as the seperation of church and state is concerned, I am all for it...as long as it doesn't infringe upon our other inalienable rights. For example, Jeb can propose a Christian jail, and the legislators in Florida can sign the building contracts, however, the judicial branch should step in and declare it unconstitutional instantly. That is why the balance of power in both state and federal government is so important.[/color]

[QUOTE=Juuthena][color=deeppink][size=1]Erm... is it just me, or does it seem like every time a bomb goes off, the Al Qaeda is automatically filed on the news as if it's been totally confirmed? I mean, there's still no proof that they were actually the ones behind 9/11, and I don't understand why when a train blows up in Spain, it's immediately the Al Qaeda's fault. [/color][/size][/QUOTE] [color=indigo]I don't know if Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the bombing of the train in Madrid, but they did claim responsibility for the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Cloricus, according to the DPCI (Death Penalty Information Center of America, an orginization that wishes to abolish the death penalty) there have been fewer than one thousand total inmates put to death since 1976, which means the United States executes approximatley 35 people or so a year...still very high, but definately not in the thousands. What happened in Madrid was a horrible tragedy, I don't think anyone would disagree with me on that. Initially Jose Maria Aznar did finger the ETA, and it would have been more advantageous for his political party if the ETA had commited the attack. However, Spain's newly elected Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero (cool name), won by such a landslide that it is hard to say whether or not this tragedy was a decisive factor or just a nail in Aznar's coffin. Involvment in the war in Iraq was very unpopular with the Spanish people, and they voiced their opinion by ousting the main man that was responsible for their involvement. The real question is, if Al Qaeda is behind the terrorist attack in Madrid, did they attack Spain because of their involvement in the Iraqi war (they had roughly 1200-1300 troops commited, not a small amount, but not a significant amount either) or did they attack Spain for other (or a host of) reasons? Let us face facts, most Al Qaeda card carriers are religious wack jobs, and there are few countries in the western world that have had more transgressions against the muslim world than Spain. Many atrocities have occured there over the past three or four centuries, so I would guess that if the attack was orchestrated by Al Qaeda (which seems most likely) it was done for a multitude of reasons (if you want to consider them [i]reasons[/i]).[/color]

[color=indigo]The inevitable problem with this movie is that it will never be able to satisfy the majority of EVA fans. Crucial events will be adapted and changed, charecters will be modified , and, if the movie is going to be remotely good, the story line will have to be drastically modified to fit into a small period of time. Personally, I think that they should re-evaluate and revamp the entire script, creating a movie that borrows from the stories main idea and charecters but is really an independant entity. If the movie is made for the sole purpose of paying lip service to fans then it will flop. At least a similar concept with a somewhat different story line could make for an interesting film.[/color]