Dan L

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B]What I posted earlier meant that the leader would unlikely be corrupt, because if he did take advantage, he would have nothing to gain in such a small society.[/B][/QUOTE] Power corrupts, regardless of amounts, Shin. If someone feels that they have power, even in a small community, then they will probably corrupt. You don't need masses of people to take advantage of them and feel that you have power- you can be just as power-hungry over all the people in your quiet little area where the rest of the world has little or no influence. Maybe it would be better to re-read my post, but wherever I put the word "leader", replace it with "mass leader", or "leadership" with "mass leadership". That's more what I was getting at. ;)

CBShin, it seems that Marxism has one massive misconception. It's not leadership that corrupts, it's the way that people lead. If there is no leader, then nothing can ever really be achieved because there is no-one to weigh the opinions of the people. A good leader doesn't look to have his own way, but to direct people in the way they need to go. Also, a good leader, though higher in authority, should also be lower in that he or she [i]serves[/i] everyone. If someone can not be a servant first, then they can not be a good leader. Leadership isn't about self exaltation- a leader should consider themself equal with those that they are leading. The only thing that they have in greater measure is responsibility, not greater rights, or blessings, or a greater status. Sadly, the things I've said are not the things which the majority of leaders follow- hence we have a lot of bad leaders. You can't just look at bad leaders and conclude "then we should have no leaders", because if there is no leader, then there is no progress, because there is no continuity, and without continuity nothing can be built upon because the foundation always changes. Leadership, like a lot of things, is only bad when it is done badly. Which unfortunately is a lot of the time.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PiroMunkie [/i] [B][size=1]Oo, I know one. He lost his temper in the temple, when he overturned all those tables and such. Sure, those people [i]morally[/i] should not have been selling things within a sacred place and all that, but these people probably did not have much for morals at the time. o_O You cannot condemn a person simply because they cannot tell what is "right" and what is "wrong" according to your own standards..[/size] [/B][/QUOTE] It always amuses me how much of that story is lost in culture, simply because we have no idea what the context of the selling is all about. Basically, the animals these guys were selling in the temple, were to be used for sacrifices. The guys were selling these in the outer courts of temple, ie. when people were on their way to worship God, and to bring a sacrifice. The thing is, rather than bring a sacrifice, they'd just bring some money and buy one on location. This completely goes against the whole idea- the idea behind sacrificing something is that it is, well, a sacrifice. Something of your own that you give up- completely different to the idea that you can just buy something to appease God while on your way to worship. It in fact, had very little to do with the mere fact that people were selling things in the middle of the temple- but more to do with the thought that people can buy themselves a spot on God's good side. Hence he turned the tables over. And you know, I don't know of a single verse in the bible which forbids someone from turning a table over and driving a bunch of religious hypocrites out of the temple courts. And as for "You cannot condemn a person simply because they cannot tell what is "right" and what is "wrong" according to your own standards".. we're talking about a story from the Bible here- so that doesn't really carry much weight, because the Bible specifically says that there [i]is[/i] a definite "right" and "wrong". If you're going to prove that Jesus sinned in some way, in the Bible, you can at least prove it by giving me an example of Jesus sinning in a way which the Bible describes as "sin", not just yourself. That, and Jesus wasn't condemning these people- he was getting rid of the sinful things which they had set up, not condemning the persons themselves. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PiroMunkie [/i] [B][size=1]Jesus lost his temper, and destroyed what was going on because of his own personal, moral opinions. A fine display of Wrath, one of the seven [i]deadly[/i] sins. If I remember correctly, the only person in the Bible who never sinned was Mary, the mother of God.[/size] [/B][/QUOTE] The seven deadly sins? Mary was sinless? Sounds like more of a catholic thing than a biblical thing. Besides, what about Paul in Acts 13: "[i]8But Elymas the sorcerer (for that is what his name means) opposed them and tried to turn the proconsul from the faith. 9Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said, 10"You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord? 11Now the hand of the Lord is against you. You are going to be blind, and for a time you will be unable to see the light of the sun." 12Immediately mist and darkness came over him, and he groped about, seeking someone to lead him by the hand. When the proconsul saw what had happened, he believed, for he was amazed at the teaching about the Lord.[/i]" A much finer example of wrath if I do say so myself, only in this case it is said that Paul was "filled with the Holy Spirit"- ie. God actually prompted to say such a thing, in order that the sorcerer might be blinded. I don't believe in the seven deadly sins crap- nor do I believe that Mary was sinless. The argument for the latter is that Mary had to be sinless to concieve a sinless child. But then why was Mary's mother not sinless, or her grandmother? Surely unless her whole female family lineage was sinless, no-one would have been able to concieve anything sinless. I don't have (that) much of a problem with areas of catholic tradition- but they are [i]not[/i] part of the bible. Believe it if they want- and they still can be true Christians even if they do- but it is not definite truth. Having said all that bad stuff, the Catholic church does have it's good points. And my particular belief in Christianity has it's both good and bad points too. The point is not to argue between what is right and wrong, but what is necessary, and what is just speculation. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Harry [/i] [B]It was the basis of your point and thus your whole point is wrong. Nice try, but you can't justify everything you do :rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE] How is "No-one is evil", the basis of a point which concludes that we are all evil, we just do good things every so often? That's not even relativity. Relativity says there is no evil at all. I say there is an absolute abundance of evil and the world is screwed. Relative to nothing, from a normal point of view. I happen to believe that there is hope anyway, purely because we have a good god. But the point is that the world, if viewed as a godless entity, is pure evil. Harry, you can't act like an *** all the time and expect that people think it's a good point.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Harry [/i] [B]Wrong. People are evil. Someone who can beat an infant senseless and then laugh is evil. Someone who kidnaps, rapes, and kills 13 year old girls is evil. People who roast their dog in the oven and laugh when he sees it whimpering are evil. Cut the relativity crap. [/B][/QUOTE] Did you even read the rest up that post? Shut up. The part you quoted ("no one is evil") was merely me stating the opinion of the person who started the thread, and then AFTER THAT, I stated my actual opinion. Which was quite different. Cloricus: No, I'm saying evil is the human state of being. I'm saying that Evil is the state induced by a lack of good, and thus evil is what we are at our most basic core. That's not to say that God created something evil- it's to say that when you take away what God meant us to be (which is good) you are left with something which has no good- which is evil. And hey, what kind of messed up God would have meant us to be the way we are now anyway? [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Cloricus [/i] [B]Jesus did sin. Having an excuse for sin doesn't nullify the sin[/B][/QUOTE] OK..... so what was his excuse, and what were his sins? (I don't mind your opinion, cloricus- I just want to know what it is based on ;))

I found a mouldy pepper the other day. It was white and furry, at least where the mould was. I didn't taste it, but I imagine it would have been one of the most awful tastes ever.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by doukeshi03 [/i] [B]Okay, so what would you define evil as. You say that we are evil at the core, but what does that mean exactly. We are imperfect yes and are mostly animal in our instincts and functions but what defines us as mostly evil? [/B][/QUOTE] Exactly that- that we are imperfect. Evil is, to put it bluntly, the complete lack of good. I don't really believe that there are polar opposites of good and evil, but rather that good is like light, and evil like darkness. Darkness doesn't actually exist- only light does- darkness is simply lack of light. Thus evil isn't really anything. It doesn't really accomplish anything- All it does in the long term is destroys. All evil can ever do is to disappoint, to hurt, to destroy, etc. And this is the thing which every human does. We are pretty much characterised by things like "nobody's perfect", "everyone does some bad things". It's perfectly possible for us to maliciously do evil whenever we want to- but it's not possible for us to earnestly try and do good without doing something wrong every now and then. Thus I'd say that our very core is evil- the core of a being is whatever it tends towards. But there's a catch. There was a guy who wasn't evil because he wasn't only man. His name was Jesus. You probably know how the story goes, about how he died for our sins, or evil. Basically that means that the big empty lack of good that we've been burrowing all our life is filled up with good. Doesn't mean we don't still dig into it and do bad things from time to time- it just means we can learn from our mistakes without worrying about them, and although we will always be evil, we will get better at being good. I doubt I need to say any more than that. It's besides the question in the thread, anyway.

I put a table in there and ended up with a huge gap in the middle of my post.... I've been over the code (that is, of the table. Not of the myotaku page :p) in dreamweaver and it seems perfectly fine, it just creates a huge gap in myotaku. [url]http://www.myotaku.com/users/dan_l/comments/view/33528/[/url]

No-one is evil.... I tend to think more along the lines of everyone is evil- we just have good ideas and do good things from time to time. But regardless of whether someone does a minor sinful action on a regular basis or is more defined by brutal, intense acts of evil, we are all pretty evil at the core. That doesn't mean there's no good in the world. And it doesn't mean that there's no hope. It just means that "evil" isn't something restricted only to the ones who commit the greater sins.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Ryu_Sakura [/i] [B][color=lilac][size=1]Ehem, like others said, there is no such thing as a witch, you may be confusing the term with [i]wiccan[/i]; a follower of wicca.[/color][/size] [/B][/QUOTE] Right. Although the term "Wicca" is actually quite new, in it's current context. Before it meant the religion of said name, it meant "male magician". And like I said in the last post, there are various forms of witchcraft. Wicca is only the most common, not the be-all and end-all of witchcraft. There are various practices of witchcraft with various gods and godesses- whereas I was kind of led to believe that Wicca had just one- a goddess. OK, so among youth culture, maybe you won't come across many witches which are anything other than wiccan, but my point is that they're out there.

Silence- she brings out the worst and He keeps it out. As my mind is emptied of it's doubt, it is filled with hope. He is tied down, overcome, thrown out, his possesions rid of. And the good things meant to last fill me once more.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by White Mage [/i] [B][size=1]Witchcraft/Wicca or both the exact same and nethier of them have anything to do with the devil. Thats the problem know adays when you hear witchcraft the first thing people think is evil/devil but its not at all about that.[/size] [/B][/QUOTE] Actually, no. Witchcraft and Wicca are not the exact same, because for two things to be the exact same thing, one must be the other, and the other must be the one. It is true that Wicca is Witchcraft, but not that Witchcraft is Wicca, in all circumstances. Thus they are not the exact same, and wicca is just one of numerous forms of witchcraft. Thus, the question may as well be repeated. What's so special about Wicca, in particular, as opposed to witchcraft as a general grouping of practices? By the way, the Devil thing is debatable. Wicaans don't actually worship the devil. You don't have to tell me that. However, what Ghost said particularly was that "the power comes from the Devil". And well, that's belief, opinion, whatever. It has nothing to do with what you proclaim to worship, but to do with where your power actually comes from. And given that Christians believe that Godly power comes from.. well, God. We're going to believe that other kinds of supernatural power given to humans through acts of worship, are going to come from the Devil- and there's not a lot you can do about that because both of us (ie. both sides- not just me and the_Ghost) think our opinion is right and neither of us are going to budge, so it's best just to state it and leave it be.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by The_Ghost [/i] [B] Except I have a reason for my beliefs: I am a Christian[/B][/QUOTE] o_O..... ...... you must be new- I'm Dan, one of the self-professed Christian God-follower extremists on OB. I just didn't include that cos I tend to assume everybody knows these days. (I say "extremists" cos I believe that with god it is all or nothing- I follow him all the way or I don't. Which is much more extreme than the common church model. It doesn't mean I'm going to blow something up or start a holy war.)

I live in an area called Hillsborough, in a city called Sheffield, in the UK. I live with 3 other guys doing the same course as me. I actually come from a different part of England though, the official England's Worst City, Stoke on Trent. (Seriously, it is actually official, or was a few years ago)

Onto an actual response to the question, it all depends what you're aiming to do. Going to a movie can be a good time, but you don't really get to know the person very much- because you're concentrating a lot more on the movie. So if you're looking to get to know her, the movies aren't ideal. And if you're looking to have a fun time [i]with[/i] her, I suggest something with some kind of activity involved. Like, as Leh said, a skating rink, or anything where you do something together, as opposed to a movie where you're just kind of next to each other, but not really interacting a lot. You're more alongside them than with them. Movies aren't necessarily a bad thing, but I'd recommend that more on the basis that you both want to see a movie, rather than that you want to go on a date. But that could just be me. As for getting to know them- something like eating out or a quiet bar (though you're probably a bit young for the bar thing) is always good. So yeah, it kind of depends on a few things. Firstly on your preference, and also whether you're aiming to get to know her or have fun.

I don't think witches are particularly evil themselves. But my views on witchcraft are something like this: You may be doing things for a good reason, but you're using methods which are evil. We shouldn't use magic. For what reason I haven't quite sussed yet, but that's my belief, and you don't have to go with it (because even if I say stuff like "you shouldn't do it", that's still only my opinion, not something I can force you to do) My point is that I don't necessarily doubt your motives for doing anything, it's more that I don't believe that long-term good can be done with an evil method, regardless of the intentions of the person carrying it out. It's incredibly hard to actually explain. No doubt I've offended a few people with my explanation so far- and that's not because you should be offended, but more because my explanation is lacking a lot more than what I believe. Suffice to say, I don't believe witches in themselves are evil. So to answer the original question, no.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Hellspawn [/i] [B]your comments are nice but can you at least vote. [/B][/QUOTE] What use is that when their preferences aren't in the poll? It's probably better to look at what everyone actually thinks, rather than forcing them to decide between a few things which don't quite fit what they want.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Arch [/i] [B][size=1]Actually, since hieroglyphs represent sounds, and there isn't a definite meaning for the "T" sound, it is either Set or Seth, my seemingly confused friend. :whoops: (It's a dead language. No one knows [b]exactly[/b] how any word was pronounced.)[/size] [/B][/QUOTE] Hebrew is a bit like that- there's a lot of disagreement about how the letters "Waw/Vav" and "Yod" were pronounced in ancient times. Many argue that Yod is pronounced "Y", older transliterators claimed "J". And the Wav is thought to be either "W" or "V"- where the "V" is the more traditionally accepted version. Hence most transliterations of Hebrew names incorporate the J and V, rendering the name of God "Jehovah". Newer transliterations make it "Yehowah". However there is also evidence that the vowels in the name of God (vowels were never written in ancient hebrew) were "a" and "e" rather than "e", "o", "a". This makes the name "Yahweh". (Vowels are written in the hebrew text of the OT- but this is a recent addition, a kind of guideto help people know how the words are pronounced- before that people just remembered where all the vowels were) Also, in Hebrew the letter "t" and the letter "th" are exactly the same- the pronunciation is indicated by a little mark called a dagesh, in the middle of the letter. In a fair amount of ancient languages you'll find that there are seperate letters for sounds that we usually make with two, like "th", "ts", "ph", "ch", "dh", "ps" (various ones from hebrew and greek). So yeah. Ancient languages are interesting- and usually cause some discrepancy w.r.t. pronunciation. :p

[i]Angel white faces glanced hither, Concealed by darkness within, My life formed out of their words, The ones with invisible power[/i]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Manic [/i] [b]Xian:[/b] It's basically another spelling for "Christian." Just like how you can say X-Mas instead of Christmas or X-Tina instead of Christina. Only I wouldn't say "X-Ian." I'd pronounce the X like in "xylophone." Maybe call him "Chris" for short. [/QUOTE] I hate the whole "replace Christ with an "X" thing". It demeans and even blasphemes the name of God. ...... Yeah right. Don't take me seriously on that one :p My main reason for saying that is to point out that that's actually the way a lot of people think. However what these people fail to realise is that "Christ" in greek, is spelt "Xristos", where the greek "X" is pronounced like the "Ch" at the end of bach, loch (in scotland), etc. In fact the Ichthus (the fish thingy) usually has written on it "IX(-)US" (the "(-)" is my poor attempt at a greek theta, and the S actually looks like an E, but at the same time there is an E, so I can't put that :p) Pronounced "Ich-thus"- which is an anagram. The first two words of which are "Iesous Xristos"- Jesus Christ. So there we go. The early Christians replaced Christ with "X", so I don't see how theologically uncorrect it can be. Back to the actual discussion- Not entirely sure what I'd go for. I'd probably decide on something biblical, and in the original hebrew (like "Yeremi'yah", "Dana'yal", or "Ya'acov") if it was left to me, so I think I'd leave the mother to decide on something a little more fair on the child ^^;

We were less than friends, But you were unique You stood out froom the rest You showed us life, Tried to teach me to die, To look up to the skies You told us where he was And showed us how to find him You left in the darkest hour; Took the light elsewhere All was built up now is lost, Left in despair You fell a great depth, But rose to higher still Before the day was done Then faded into madness, Lost sense of control To find it once more Your words shone light to a few Even those hiding in darkness You left in the darkest hour; Took the light elsewhere All was built up now is lost, Left in despair And now you return again, Expect to go back again, But it's not to be ________________________ (Been busy..) Walk beside the water, safely, Son, Come across a mob with hacksaw, run Caught up with you now, drove your friend away Son you best be prayin that you're gonna be safe Now you're in their hands, there's no escape Just for fun they make you walk the cold knee deep Tried to fight, for your rights, didn't get far Boy, in this country you ain't nothing no more (Didn't want you to see this kind of crap so soon, The world's an ugly place when you take a look. There's a good side to everyone but bad side too, And everyone's a bastard when they're over you) Don't know where they'll take you, what they'll do, Could leave you in the water or cut you in two. But a man is a man, don't let them have power Look death in the face, screaming Hallelujah

The things we gather- the scented filth All to fade away, thrown away The empty pleasures of life Gone amid the sorrow The comfort of darkness to cloak our shame, One day ripped away, left naked The Darkness in the Light, Ever consuming Amid love cocktails and magic remedies, We look for something real, unfading, free from decay, A touch of eternity, Out of this world The simplest things last, all else is passing, The rock is solid but the machine is empty, Destined to nothing, All in due time

[SIZE=3][FONT=times new roman][b][COLOR=teal]I tend to put Cinnamon, Ginger, and Worcester Sauce in a hell of a lot of things which I cook at home. I dunno if that's so much weird. Just what I do. Not always in massive amounts. And of course, puddings are exempt from the rule.[/COLOR][/b][/FONT][/SIZE]

Maybe so, but believe me, "communist" is generally a very rare word to enter conversation, and Marxism and Karl Marx are not particularly common knowledge among those who took history at school for as long as they have to. Why that is I have no idea. Probably something to do with the majority of us wanting to keep our little island strictly to it's own business..

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wrist cutter [/i] [B]I honestly don't know anyone who doesn't know who Karl Marx is. I mean, obviously, ten year olds might not know who he is. But by high school I think most everyone is at least familiar with him, knowing that he was sort of the source of communism. [/B][/QUOTE] Not in countries where we were never hit with the "communist threat" propaganda (or maybe we just didn't respond so well) and "damn communists" is not considered a national catchphrase :p. I never learned about Marx in high school, and I dunno if many others from England will have either.

There's a difference between mental breakdown and teenage angst, regardless of the rediculous actions some teenagers take due to the latter. Much as I know none of you want to accept it, I doubt that many-if any of you have actually had a mental breakdown. The closest I ever got to a mental breakdown was the climax of a three week period where I was stealing money from work and I got sacked. I knew I'd let everyone down, and I had absolutely no-where to go, no-one I knew, cos my work-mates were the only guys I really knew other than people at uni- and uni had finished for the year already. That and with the amount I stole I could have faced police charges. And you know what?.. that was not a mental breakdown. My perception of things was such that I thought I was on a downhill for the rest of my life- something I didn't even consider to be beyond the present time. But I didn't have a mental breakdown- I just went through some difficult stuff. You guys seem to be pretty much the same- but like most teenagers going through the whole thing, you exaggerate a lot of it to an un-necessary level. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Hack Helba [/i] [B][size=1]I love having breakdowns, Im not sure what trigger mine but I wish I could have them all the time. Great feeling, hard to explain how it feels. I've tried explaining the feeling before to friends and I would just be going on forever.[/size] [/B][/QUOTE] No offence, but you clearly haven't a clue.. if it's something you enjoy going through then I highly doubt it's a mental breakdown you keep experiencing. I don't even know what that is.