Dan L

I kind of ended up here.. I'd go into more detail but 1- there isn't a lot more to it 2- I've written it so many times it's getting tedious

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Nytcretur [/i] [B]If i do recall correctlly i remember reading something in the book about not judgeing others. If that is correct then i wouldn't worry about any christian that says anything to you about that; seeing as how they would essentially be sinners them selves. No real christian, strick to the book would do that. Again this is just if i remember correctlly!! [/B][/QUOTE] Allow me to illustrate with an example of what Justin meant [b]Judgement[/b] [i]YOU KILLED A GUY! YOU'RE GOING TO HELL! BE GONE WITH YOU, HEATHEN!![/i] [b]Stupidity[/b] [i]YOU KILLED A GUY! but hey.. I'm not one to judge. Do it again if you want, because hey.. who am I to diss your lifestyle?[/i] [b]What we [i]should[/i] do[/b] [i]You killed someone.. God forgives you, and I forgive you, but know that it is wrong and don't do it again[/i] See the difference now? and no, playing a game is hardly comparable to killing a guy, but hey.. that's not the point I'm making

meh.. I had a point just now but the damn escape key foiled me again. I too agree with the TV statement, but it's not just American TV. English producers are really pushing their luck too, to see what they can do and get away with.. unfortunately the shows they really push their luck with tend to be most popular, despite the fact that "TV is all disgusting" is a gross generalisation. Yes, there's some good stuff out there, but very few actually watch it.

Just found an interesting article on SoulSurvivor.com it's uniquely 2-sided, which I like. [quote][i]Found at [url]http://www.soulsurvivor.com/uk/IMAG/index.asp?CID=7[/url][/i] [b]War with Iraq. Is it right? March 2003 By Nathan Lambert and John Maiden.[/b] At the time of publishing, troops are amassed in the Middle East in preparation for war with Iraq. What is the Christian response to these global affairs? We ask two young Christians to answer the question, "Is it right to go to war with Iraq?" Nathan Lambert answers Yes. John Maiden answers No. [b]YES By Nathan Lambert[/b] Saddam Hussein has killed his opposition, imprisoned without trial, tortured, attacked his own people (the Kurds) using chemical weapons, gone to war twice in the last two decades (Iran and Kuwait) and been seen on Iraqi TV holding a nuclear-bomb trigger switch boasting that his country is getting nuclear weaponry. The one million people in last month's peace march in London would be, I suspect, the same people to march in favour of civil liberties for people in Iraq. The debate is not over, "Do we make life in Iraq better for its people?" but, "Is war the way to do it?" I believe strongly Yes. After the Gulf War, in which Iraq invaded Kuwait, 12 Resolutions were passed by the UN Security Council, endorsed by a further 11 nations, to disarm Saddam, stabilise the region and protect the Iraqi people. Saddam continues to break each of these resolutions. If the UN can't enforce them, we will. War is now the only option. Why? What is wrong with the alternatives? ALTERNATIVES TO WAR Sanctions Sanctions were imposed after Saddam lost the Gulf War to ensure he destroyed his chemical, biological and nuclear capability. 12 years of sanctions later and Saddam continues to break the terms of the peace treaty, including killing his own people. By Iraq's own admittance, 360,000 children have died as a result of those sanctions. To say we should continue the sanctions only prolongs the misery of the people of Iraq. Do nothing Many countries are waiting to see how the UN and other nations deal with a flagrant violation of 12 resolutions to disarm. To do nothing, gives the wrong signal to other potential rogue regimes. More time for inspectors UN Inspectors are in Iraq to witness the destruction of the weapons the global community accept exist, not to look for them in a game of hide and seek. THREE REASONS FOR WAR Stability in the region If Saddam is allowed to develop extensive weapons of mass destruction, others in the region will want to also. Iran is a long and bitter enemy and they would feel it an imperative to protect themselves with nuclear weapons, while Saudi Arabia will then ask for its allies (including the UK) for protection and armament. This would make any future Middle East conflict even worse. Terrorism Saddam has links to terrorism. It's a known fact that the regime has sponsored terrorists, specifically Hamas in Israel, made payments to suicide bombers families from Iraq's own funds, and the Turkish PPK have had training camps and HQ inside Iraq. People fear this could make the UK more of a target for terrorists. But we are already a target. Fear of being attacked should not be a reason for not taking action. Doing what is right If you saw someone in the street being bullied would you help them? If that bully had a gun though, you'd think twice. Saddam is after chemical, biological and nuclear weapons to make him untouchable. WHAT ABOUT THE UN? Some argue that we should only go to war only if the UN agree to. However, the UN has a tragic history of ineptitude and passivity in face of crises. It is almost impossible to come to make a unanimous resolution. While thousands were murdered in Rwanda, the UN debated. In Bosnia, it didn't have the stomach to do the job properly: Peace Keepers watched as thousands died. In Kosovo, indecision meant they did nothing and NATO went in. A lack of UN sanction, therefore, doesn't mean this is not a just war. WHAT THIS WAR IS NOT ABOUT? A war on Islam This isn't the Christian West fighting the Islamic East. It is containing a rogue regime. Other countries in the region, for internal political reasons of their own, won't openly express their support for military action, but will once it starts. This happened during the Gulf conflict in 1991. Oil To say this war is about getting Iraq's oil is wrong. Colin Powell said last month that oil proceeds from the conflict will be placed in a trust fund for the people of Iraq and not for anyone else. They will choose how to spend the money after the events. While Iraq has about 30% of the region's oil, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are the bigger players. Oil within the whole region is, however, an important factor and does make maintaining stability in the region ever more crucial for the global economy and our own interests. CONCLUSION These are worrying and concerning times. The repercussions of war are unknown. Yet Saddam has flouted UN resolutions, is guilty of human rights atrocities and needs to be stopped both for regional stability and the prevention of mass destruction through his own weaponry and through permission inaction would give other potentially aggressive regimes. As Christians, it is OK to stand with our Prime Minister and the oppressed people of Iraq and go to war. War is ugly, it is the last resort. But now that we have arrived there, it takes courage and strength to say, "Enough is enough" and take action. [b]NO By John Maiden[/b] Last month I joined over one million other people in a march past Parliament in protest against what now seems to be an inevitable war on Iraq. Although I am not a pacifist, my main motivation for being there was my Christian faith. Why? One of the bible's main messages is God's desire to "loose the chains of injustice" (Isaiah 59:6) for the oppressed and to prevent the rich and powerful from "trampling on the poor" (Amos 5:11). An important part of being a Christian disciple is to analyse world affairs with this in mind. So what should Christians think and do about war on Iraq? With all the different arguments flying around and credible sources saying completely opposite things, the situation is obviously very complex. However, despite my opposition to Saddam Hussein's regime, I think that the pro-war argument is unjust, immoral and overly aggressive. A JUST WAR? Thomas Aquinas, a 13th century monk, defined the concepts of just and un-just wars which Christians have adhered to ever since. For a war to be justified it had to be a last resort when diplomacy and all other non-violent means had broken down. Aquinas recognised the cost of war in terms of innocent human lives. Despite the media's fascination with the West's ultra-accurate missiles, approximately 70,000 Iraqi civilians died in the 1st Gulf War eleven years ago (1). Our own Government has estimated that at least 20,000 innocents might be killed in this war. The Iraqi people have already suffered due to US and UK economic sanctions, and over 500,000 children are estimated to have died between 1991 and 2001 (2). Now we plan to bomb them. Six thousand people died at the World Trade Centre - do we value Iraqi lives as much as American and British lives? The Iraqi military machine is now under the spotlight of the West and is one of the most ill-armed in the Middle East. The British Government has actually recognised no connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Ladin. War is simply not necessary at the moment, the weapons inspectors should be given more time and efforts for a diplomatic solution should be increased. A MORAL WAR? Why is Iraq the target for War? Many countries could qualify for the title rogue state. Iran, Syria and North Korea are all attempting to gather weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, while Iraq does have an appalling Human Rights record, so do Egypt, Algeria, Turkey and Israel - yet these countries are all potentially part of the alliance for waging war on Iraq. When Saddam was gassing his own people in the 1980s the US government was selling him Anthrax poison and financially supporting his regime (as they did Osama Bin Ladin when he was fighting the Russians in Afghanistan). The lack of support for Bush and Blair in the United Nations, the European Union and the Middle East suggests that world opinion is against the war. Turkey has only agreed to join the war effort if it is given $30 Billion in loans and grants by the US (3). The idea of a moral war on Iraq is infact moral hypocrisy. There are various reasons why Bush may really want to go to war: perhaps to gain control of Iraq's oilfields (Iraqi controls 8% of the worlds oil supply) or even to compensate for his failure to capture Osama Bin Ladin. He cannot, however, take the moral high ground. WESTERN AGGRESSION? Post-1945 history is a constant witness to the great Western powers putting their own interests before the those of the poor and oppressed. We call this "Western Imperialism". We have the final word on which states are allowed to exist and which are not. We will support rulers like Saddam when he is useful to us and wage war on him when he is not. The West has supported various murderous dictators to maintain control of Latin America, the Middle East and the Far East. Furthermore, the West has failed to respond to the Israeli governments refusal to recognise a Palestinian state, their violation of UN resolutions and their policy towards the Palestinian people. In 2001 alone, 650 Palestinians were killed, around 90% of whom were civilians (4). The Iraq question needs to be seen as part of a far bigger issue. Western nations need to adopt fairer and more moral foreign policies. As Christians it is high time that we campaigned against these double standards. Western Evangelical leaders have neglected to ask difficult questions, and in doing so have betrayed many of the world's poor. Why does the West turn a blind eye to Russia's brutal war on the Chechnyans? Where are the sanctions against a Chinese Government that actively persecutes its own dissenters and the Tibetan people? Why do we go to war on Iraq yet increase our economic and military support for Israel? Why are Western Arms manufacturers allowed to sell to many countries with horrific Human Rights records? Above all, it's a question of justice. [i](1) J. Pilger, The New Rulers of the World (London 2002) p. 127 (2) Unicef: Child and Maternal Mortality Survey, 1999 (3) The Guardian, 28 Febuary 2003 (4) The Union of Palestinian Relief Committees, June 2001[/i] * Nathan Lambert, 25, is on the Soul Survivor team, attends St Laurence Church in Reading. His BSc degree was in International Disaster Management from Coventry University. He is married to Kelly. John Maiden, 24, is currently studying for his PhD at the University of Stirling, attends Soul Survivor Watford, plays bass in the worship teams at Soul Survivor the church and summer events, and is engaged to Robbyn.[/quote]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by S@bretooth [/i] [B][size=1][color=darkblue]passive christians[/size] [/color] [/B][/QUOTE] I wouldn't necessarily call them that.. ideally Christians should be very much active.. just not in a way to infringe on other people's way of things. I think "acceptive Christians" is probably a better term.

I think it's all down to preference. I'm not touching GTA with a ten foot pole.. or any other kind of pole for that matter.. because my personal way of thinking is that simulating a crime is no less a sin than the crime itself if you get enjoyment from it. In the same way that I believe sin can be as broad as "intending to do wrong" rather than just the act of doing it. But that's just my personal view of things.There are many Christians who won't drink alcohol, not because they're told not to (but that happens too) but because they can't keep it under control when they do. Some Christians won't gamble, because it's like an addiction to them. I'm just one of those who won't play a crime simulator, because of the principals behind it. It's not all black and white.. it's just kind of down to preference. With regards to the actual thread topic, the way I see it, the only way D&D could corrupt Christians is if you actually worshipped some foreign dieties in there.. but apart from that, I think you're safe..

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by GinnyLyn [/i] [B]YOU CAN TELL WHO IT IS, YOU CAN TELL WHO IT IS!!!![/B][/QUOTE] o_O when I saw that pic in your blog, my reaction was "how could I not tell who that is".. heh.. seriously

surely pages won't actually load any faster.. cos the bulk of what slows pages loading is the images.. and once the image is loaded, it can be shown in many places on the same page without any extra loading. however, it would mean the bulk of the thread's space wouldn't be filled by sigs, so on the other hand I think it sounds alright.. (it just wouldn't alter the loading times that much) After reading Semjaza's post (I have a habit of reading other posts after posting my reply) I realise he said pretty much the same thing..

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by {SITH} Change [/i] [B]What did you expect? The Iraqi army to roll over and not kill anyone. It sucks that they died, and my heart goes out to their families and loved ones. [/B][/QUOTE] heh.. you do realise that it's believed to have been an accident right?.. as in, the Iraqis didn't kill them, the helicopter just crashed.. Seems kind of odd to me but heh.. you'd expect the Iraqis to get the blame anyway, so when they don't I assume that to be probably true. With regards to the war, Kuwait are in support of military action to remove Saddam.. and they're actually in that area. We're not. I think they know a damn lot more about the situation than we do. That, and there have been several Iraqi troops/civilians (I think some of them were civilian but I may be wrong) surrender, and they've been completely unharmed. So where is this big massacre everyone's ranting on about? Personally I'm pro-removal of Saddam from power, but anti-war ("war" involving large numbers of lives being killed to acheive the objective).. and I'd love it if we could see Saddam removed with no loss of life, even without taking Saddam's life (revenge is pointless).. but I dunno if this will keep up for long.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i] [B][color=red]I'm not going to say much. I'm just mad[/color][/B][/QUOTE] I'm with you there.. Everyone has their own views on the war anyway.. I'm not gonna argue about it because let's face it.. those of us that are pro-war aren't gonna budge their view point for a load of "hippies" or "tree huggers", and those of us who are anti-war aren't going to budge no matter how much incentives to go to war are given. My opinion is kind of varied and mixed.. it's essentially "I'm not for the war, but then I don't know all of the facts". And neither do any of you, you just believe different sources, most of which are just as unreliable as each other. You see, there's kind of a rule in media, which goes like "bad news sells better than good news" and I speak from actual experience on that matter, rather than a general dislike or cynicism towards the media. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lalaith Ril [/i] [B]What about Tony Blair. Who supports us in the war and is possibly sending over 40.000 Brittish troops?[/B][/QUOTE] certainly not a decision he made lightly either.. he's had two (or was it more?) of his staff resign because of that decision.

I suppose it depends on the costs.. but you could always do what I'm hoping to do.. which is to finish my science degree and then go into music.. the advantages of that are that if I'm just not cut out to do music at degree level, then I've still got a physics and biochem degree. the disadvantage, though, is that it'll cost a fair amount.. (the first degree isn't too bad over here cos most of the fees are covered by the local council)

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Medra [/i] [B]Hole in the oozone. Hmm. Once again, idiotic display of tree-huggers. UV rays are good for the skin. Light is heat energy and heat is a must-have for half of the things on this planet.[/B][/QUOTE] UV rays are good for the skin- [b]in moderation[/b]. The ozone layer is what provides the moderation so it's not bad for the skin. and I think you'll find that infra-red light is the kind that provides heat, generally, whereas UV light is the kind that causes sunburn (which is [b]bad[/b] for the skin, as it can lead to skin cancer), which is why you don't get sunburned when there's a sheet of glass between you and the light (for some reason glass reflects UV light, but lets IR light through), and also why you can get sunburned on a cold day if there's a lot of UV light around. So yeah.. it's not just idiotic display of tree huggers.. w.r.t. the original post, my viewpoint is that the world'll still be around in some form.. but we can't really try to predict what it would be. Ever seen the show "Space 1999"?.. heh..

One time before I became a Christian (so, about 2 years ago.. heh) I was at a party, the "leaving college party", and I was completely out of it.. I kind of gave some beer to my friend's pet rabbit.. *shifty eyes*.. kind of.. of course it wasn't really that embarrassing at the time.. just later on when my friend found out.. heh.. and even then it seemed more funny at the time.. but that was a long time ago.. so yeah.. oh and yeah, his rabbit was ok (hey... he's alright ;) )

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Fate [/i] [B][color=teal]Pseudo-intelligence is very common among teenagers, so don't let it fool you.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] Considering that you are a teenager... I see your point.. ;p heh.. just kidding..

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by sweetreyes [/i] [B]R. Kelly had sex with an underage girl... But being crazy.. He videotaped it.. and someone got a hold of it and that's when he got arrested... He hasn't been charged yet and a trials still pending!!! [/B][/QUOTE] [i]still?[/i] I heard about this back when I actually had a part time job.. and I haven't had a part time job for about 9 months now..

Even now that it's been mentioned, I can't see Tidus's head.. just a clump of flames where I expect it would probably be, now that I'm looking for it.. heh

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DeathKnight [/i] [B][color=crimson]It looks like the green in the middle is a large green continent, the two puffs of yellow being rising mushroom clouds from a tilted angle. Then again, we're skitzofrenic, so dont listen to what we say.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] *looks* whoa.. come to think of it, that almost looks like Africa.. heh.. if you imagine the top green bit to be Europe, and the blue bit to be the mediterranean sea.. I mean yeah.. a few details missing but hey.. Damn you Ken... I just can't look at it now without thinking of it in that way.. For the record, Sara, I thought it was cool.. and I still do.. I just can't envision the flowers anymore.. heh [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?postid=366645[/img] [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=368644[/img] Anyone else see a resemblance? (I hate Paint, but it's all they have on the uni PCs)

[b]Aftermath[/b] [i]2. fig. Esp. a state or condition left by a (usu. unpleasant) event, or some further occurrence arising from it.[/i] What you're on about there isn't really an aftermath so much as a theory that things go round in circles. An aftermath is, as the definition says, a state left behind by an event. In the case of war, the aftermath of the war is everything which happens as a result of drained and destroyed resources, etc. until things return to normal. The aftermath of peace is by no means war.. at all.. that and you can't say "if the aftermath of war is peace then the aftermath of peace is war", without some kind of reason. I could say "if Fred is bigger than Bill, then Bill is bigger than Fred", but that's not really true either.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Sushi [/i] [B]And well, I have more then a few good friends. [/B][/QUOTE] If it weren't for the fact that I'm not that cruel, I would've laughed at that.. If they're the same guys you said were "telling you to do drugs" I wouldn't really call them "good" friends. Friends maybe but heh.. I suppose it's all down to how you define "good"

Funny.. my Mum actually knows someone who was asked to pray with George Bush (a minister who lives somewhere in Washington.. vague I know, but heh).. and his personal opinion of him is "he's an absolute nutter". Granted, that's one man's opinion rather than absolute fact.. but at least he's actually met the guy..

ideally I'd give it all away (I said ideally.. hopefully I'd do that in the situation).. some people [i]really[/i] need more money, and I'm not one of them..

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by tabmow[/i] [B]1) The baby and Grandmother both have loving families, it is more likly that a family member will save them[/B][/QUOTE] You can't assume anything not stated explicitly in a hypothetical question. For all you know, the loving families may not be around at the time. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by keyblade [/i] [B]I'd save them all!!! c'mon...u could just knock out the bad guy and get the rest outta there!! Or u could pull some random stunt and save them all and run away...like... [/B][/QUOTE] oh yeah.. I can see it now.. a volcano has just erupted, the grandma and teenager are knocked out, and you can only carry one of them away from the lava. You don't have a car, your only option is to run away... and you're gonna kill the bad guy.. ..the question never actually said there was a bad guy, and you don't have the option to save all three, no matter how much you may want to. As for me, I'd have a hard time choosing. To be honest I can't stand the whole "I'd not save the baby/teenager/grandma because I can't stand them" attitude. That's not any good reason to condemn someone to die so someone else can live. I don't really know who I'd save.. but I'm going with the baby.. purely because there's much more potential in there. Yes, the teenager could end up doing something.. but it's more likely that they'll be doing something in a fast food place than anything decent. And the grandmother only has limited time left anyway. As for the gun.. no I wouldn't. I wouldn't do it if there were a hundred guns, and one was loaded. Purely because it's not really worth it.. I mean, what do you really get from it?.. Money.. yeah.. but all that money brings is a desire for more, and a fake, temporary feeling of having found what you need to make you happy, until you need more.. I'd rather do without that much money

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rain [/i] [B][size=1]Yea, but a bit of History is always good to know. Makes it sound like you know what you're talking about in debates :p[/size] [/B][/QUOTE] Same with science, cos half the time no-one else knows what you're on about so they assume you do ;p

pretty good, but to be honest I don't think it really fits the title.. I dunno.. I was expecting something a bit more.. thoughtful..

I always hated history.. so much to learn.. I always prefferred subjects where I could just learn a general pattern (ie. the equations and stuff in sciences) as opposed to a load of individual facts.. but that's just the way I am.. (I haven't done history since I was like.. 14, though.. with the way that english high schools work, so I dunno if I still am that way or what.. heh..)