Dan L

In my views, Marx had some decent ideas. I haven't read up on a lot of them, but those I have seem like good visions. The only flaw I'd point out is that it assumes the possibility of a perfect system of government. It assumes that it is possible to unify everyone to the point that they all work for the growth of both the whole and each individual. The problem is, such a vision is all well and good, and I agree for the whole thing about reaching for the impossible, but the reason that governments are never perfect, and the reason they always screw up is [b]people[/b]. No system can ever take away the inherent flaws that a human being brings to any system which he or she is a part of. I would love for Marx's dream of a government sytem based on unity to come, and I try to be as brotherly as I can to all people. Often I fail- and that's the problem. There have been good systems before but they've always had flawed people as a part of them- and after generations pass they have a tendency to fall. My comments were made on limited understanding on Marx's actual goals. If I'm under any false ideas, feel free to correct me.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Charles [/i] [B]That's the way we should determine what our place in life is, I think. It's a conclusion we should all reach for ourselves instead of relying on anyone, including God, to simply give us the answer.[/B][/QUOTE] Sounds good to me. If God simply gave us all the answers we wouldn't really grow very much, now would we? :p Most of the deep questions like the meaning of life and your reason for being here, are never really going to be answered, or [i]your[/i] answer changes over time. Some of the other answers come from experience, and some from actively asking the question. Sometimes I find the answers come but I don't realise for a long time later. I'll pray for something and then six months down the line realise that my prayer was answered when I wasn't even looking. You're quite right in that "those questions are trivial and can be answered my noone other than my Lord", so probably the best way of acting on that is to let him decide when you need to know these things, in some cases. Note that this doesn't mean simply expecting him to give you all the answers, but allowing him to answer them in his time

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Harry [/i] [B]We'll see who you trust when you blackout and fall on some scissors that should've been pointing downward. [/B][/QUOTE] ....... how do you point scissors upwards other than by careful placement...?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by dark_dragongirl [/i] [B]Life is like a box of chocolates. Yes in some ways it is. It is a very random thing. But unlike a box of chocolates, you can sometimes choose what you want and choose what you want to happen.[/B][/QUOTE] That's funny.. I thought that the opposite was true- that unlike life, you can actually choose which chocolate you want. I mean, if you know what they all look like, you can put one back that you don't want and go for another one. This is a rare choice to be able to make in life..

It's more than a box. it's a bucketload of chocolates. As you can imagine, the majority are really cheap and nasty.. but there are some pretty good ones in there. And there are a few poisoned ones in there thrown in just to kill you off. But unlike a real box of chocolates, they all look the same so you can't really have much idea what's coming your way based on what you've had before. Such is life. Well, the bad side of life anyway... there are less pessimistic analogies to be made.

o_O ... in that case I can only suggest contacting Adam, or anyone else who seems to pull some authority on the site..

*looks at your homepage* ..Ouch.. I have no idea. I'd say try deleting the midi, (assuming it's still there).. uh.. going through posts and deleting suspicious looking tags.. that's about all I can think which might help.. (ps.. I expect this will probably be moved, or closed with a suggestion to PM someone in future, but hey.. we all learn from somewhere ;))

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SasukeUchiha [/i] [B]IF you read the previous statements you would know what I was replying to. It was said that unless you go to church, you do not deserve to celebrate Christmas. I wasnt making the point that you need a closeness to God, but rather saying that church does not neccesarily matter when it comes to being close to God. [/B][/QUOTE] And the point I was making is that religious celebrations tend to involve some kind of meeting of the church, synagogue or general community of faith. Yes, you don't need to be in church in order to be close to God- and you don't even need to be close to God to be in church (most aren't). And also, you don't need to celebrate the holiday in order to be close to God. However a religious holiday, when you celebrate it, almost always involves some kind of celebrational meeting of the religious community. In all fairness, the church on the whole is very bad at making it "celebrational" but ends up a little more on the morbid side of things. Christmas is celebrated by a meeting of the church in order to congregationally celebrate (again this is something the church is bad at) the gift of Christ. My point was also that this has nothing to do with the closeness of God. You don't need to be close to God in order to celebrate Christmas, nor do you need to celebrate Christmas in order to be close to God. THUS Your point doesn't carry a lot of weight with me because closeness to God is not needed in order to go to a church service, nor does it come from it. So it doesn't really make a lot of difference whether you're close to God at all places or at church, with regards to whether or not you celebrate Christmas at church, if you don't need to be close to God in order to celebrate Christmas [i]or[/i] go to church. incidentally, I believe very strongly that I can be, and usually am close to God whether at church or not. But I know a lot of people who aren't close to god who go to church, and more who are not close to God and who celebrate gift giving at christmas but don't go to church- hence I see no reason why the statement that church attendance does not equal closeness to God, has anything to do with whether or not Christmas as a religious ceremony, should or should not be celebrated at Church. Edit: a note of expansion: When I say "church".. understand that I almost never mean the building unless I plainly say so. I more often than not refer to the people, to a gathering, etc. Indeed, to say that you need to go to a particular building is absurd.

Maybe some of you (a bit further back) could do less to be condemning of others and more to actually be helpful. You've picked up a lot on the ego in Hell's Fire's posts, but that's pretty much where your argument ends. What use is that.. all it really does is makes [i]you[/i] think you're better than someone and makes him angry towards you. Who is the really arrogant one.. the one with the ego or the one with the arrogance to think he is even better than the one with the ego? Why don't you try bringing [i]your[/i]selves down to Earth and stop playing the humble man as a means to elevate yourselves- that is a complete contradiction, friends. So yeah. when someone has a bit of an ego problem, try letting it go every now and then and actually being of use, rather than trying to look smart and condemning the person. That's pretty much all I have to say on that matter. Back to the subject. I don't really go to college at the moment, and what we british people define as college is a little different from the majority of you. In the UK, high school is from about age 11-16. Then college for us is the equivalent of your last two years of high school, 16-18, and then university at 18-21. I quit uni this year, at 20.. and at the moment I do a course called Tribal Training at St Thomas' Church, Sheffield. Which is pretty much my main reason for being up here and my highest priority despite only taking up two days a week. As for which place you should choose- I have no idea. I know too little about the places in question to really comment.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Megumi momo [/i] [B]I don't want to seem edgy but this world is greedy. No one cares about who lives who dies. no one cares about who is crying who has no mother or fathere or what not the only thing that matters is money how do i look oh she's/he's hot here is a quote from my song america's anthem all the pretty expensive stuff cars dimond rings is more important than a child dying i wanna live i wanna breathe can't cost to much don't got the money no one cares everyone lies hospital bills still being paid afetr you already died i'm sorry this is all so wrong sing the anthem the song[/B][/QUOTE] On the whole, and with regards to human nature, what you said is true, but someday maybe you'll realise that some people can surprise you. Sure, the world is messed up. I know that- anyone who doesn't, hasn't looked hard enough. But just because it's messed up doesn't mean there's no good in it at all. Unfortunately a lot of good goes un-noticed because people aren't usually paying a lot of attention to the little areas of life, the small acts of kindness which go on everyday and make a lot of difference to some people but never get noticed by the news and never go recorded.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Ryu_Sakura [/i] [B]And by the way, this is going of topic, insted of disussing greedyness in gerneral, your now focussing on chistmas greedyness. [/B][/QUOTE] I thought that was the general gist of the first post.. OK, there have been some posts about just greediness in general, but the topic started from an observation of people being greedy at Christmas, so that's kind of the way it's gone ;)

The majority of people don't celebrate Christmas. They celebrate some kind of materialism day or maybe a day or unselfish gift giving.. but they only celebrate "Christmas" because it just so happens that their day is derived from this religious celebration on the same day. What I'm saying is that you may celebrate Christmas by name, but the whole point of Christmas is "Christ-mass". Thus if you don't do the whole Christ thing, then Christmas isn't really "Christ-mass" but.. well.. I dunno how you would go about defining it. The meaning of Christmas is simple.. "Christ-mass".. it's in the word.. The whole gift giving thing is derived from Christ being a gift from God to set people free of their slavery to sin. Hence gifts were given to others as a demonstration. There may be lots of other meanings to this gift-giving day of which you speak, but when it comes to Christmas itself there is only one. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SasukeUchiha [/i] [B]And I do not know who said it but someone said if someone does not go to church they should not be able to celebrate Christmas. That is quite possibly the most absurd statement I have ever heard. Alot of people are raised in the Catholic church beliveing that a building is not needed in order to be close to "god".[/B][/QUOTE] Most religious festivals or celebrations kick off with a meeting of the community of the religion- like a Church service. You don't need a church building in order to be close to God, but then, you don't need to celebrate Christmas either. And let's be honest now.. how many people exactly are "close to God" when they celebrate Christmas these days.. not many.. which kind of nullifies your point.

Hmmm... Well, half way through 2004 I will have finished TT. So I guess an inportant New Year's resolution for me would be to figure out where the hell I want to be going with my life. Right now I know for certain what I'm doing for the next 6 or 7 months and then that's it..

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by IceWolfEyes [/i] [B]4. There is only one way to spell Christmas. No one can decide how to spell Chanukah, Chanukkah, Chanukka, Channukah, Hanukah, Hannukah, etc.[/B][/QUOTE] I'd say the closest you'll get is greek "Xavukka". The greek "X" is proouced like the "ch" in "loch", which Scottish people pronounce far better than us. I guess it's kind of close to "hkh" in pronunciation. And the "v" is actually an n, but it's shaped like a v in greek. At a guess it'd reckon the hebrew spelling to be Hete (or "Chete", "Hkhete".. etc.)-Nun-Kaph and maybe another Kaph on the end. Unfortunately OB isn't very appreciative of actual hebrew font so all I can do is give the letter names :p. The main thing is that Christmas is an English word, Chanukah is a transliteration from a completely different alphabet.. thus there are bound to be differences in opinion.

....and I ended up with this. The text in the middle is hebrew, "YHWH YRH" (Yahweh Yireh) "The Lord Provides" And after I put that in I just had to mess around with it... [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=531624[/img] edit: The hoardes of crosses were unintentional.. just the way it turned out.. honest ^^;

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i] [B][size=1] It is like this here. I am given presents even though I don't deserve them nor do I want them at this point. I told my parents I didn't want anything and they said I had to get something. It's nice to get things, but it's also selfish. Might as well be selfish rather than giving it seems.[/size] [/B][/QUOTE] No-where is perfect.. I meant to add a smiley on that last thing I said. Something between sarcasm and hinting on the fact that the american, stereotyped by other countries, is such that he or she thinks that America is perfect. However I doubt if there really is such a smiley ;) (To all) By no means do I believe any of you actually think that your country is perfect. That's just kind of the vibe that's given off a lot in hollywood- and if you do actually think that, you have my deepest sympathy.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i] [B][size=1] I want the Christ to be taken out of mass. Christ-Mass=[strike]Christ[/strike]mass.[/size] [/B][/QUOTE] How about we call it "materialism day"- and Christmas can be an optional thing for those who actually want to go to something religious. After all, no-one expects you to celebrate the Jewish holidays, so I see no reason why you ought to celebrate the Christian ones with their proper names when it's nothing other than for the sake of being materialistic. At least, that's mostly the case in the UK. In America maybe everything's a whole lot more perfect.. edit: oops.. nearly missed the subject all together. In terms of material gifts, I'm getting an NIV concordance, the works of Josephus, a Greek New Testament, and 2 of the 3 U2 Albums I still don't have yet (out of 12 total). Beyond that I dunno what I'll get. But then, I know a frightening amount of people going through some kind of messy phase in their life right now- and I guess the ideal thing I hope for is that they would find some enjoyment out of Christmas this year. It seems doubtful, but I'm generally quite actively optimistic to an irritating degree.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Trumen [/i] [B]Think about it, if you are getting an e-mail from a friend is it really going to be more than 10k(not including attachments)?. [/B][/QUOTE] Err... my friends can testify to the exact opposite of what you just said. The last one I sent to these guys was 50K, not including attachents. And it wasn't spam.. Besides, I've had a hell of a lot of short spam messages in my time on the net..

I wake up at 6.. and I tend to go to bed at 1 in the morning.. Though I'm trying to push for 10 or 11 pm and wake up at 5 (The extra time before work is useful) I find that the best way to be tired earlier is to wake up earlier, consistently (yes, that includes some of the weekend). Thus if you don't go to bed early you end up getting tired earlier and eventually you might get the right pattern. Though one thing I'vew noticed is that if I feel tired at 10 but stay up for an hour or two when I do go to bed I can't sleep, so I'm trying to pay attention to when I'm actually tired too.

I got an e-mail adress dedicated to the sole purpose of giving to people who will send me spam. And I never check it. I've recieved hardly any spam ever since doing that.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]Bush is Anglican, and does it really matter. Who cares if they are black/fa.g/anti-Christ if they know what the hell they are doing? [/B][/QUOTE] Anglicans, ie. Church of England, is probably one of the closest denominations to Catholicism that there is. There reason being that most Protestant denominations broke away from Catholicism because they didn't agree with the traditions/structure/beliefs, whereas the main reason the Church of England came about was because Henry VIII wanted a divorce and the Catholic church wouldn't give him one- so the Church of England didn't stray a huge amount from the Catholic way of doing things, hence it has generally been one of, if not the most traditional of all of the Protestant denominations. And even then, all denominations of Christianity are in fact Christian, so I don't see your point against the statement that Bush is a Christian.. *i.r.t original point* Whether or not things will ever change in that respect depends on whether the country as a whole sees or recognises a need for change, which will then come about in future elections.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by the_fizz [/i] [B][color=royalblue]What?? You lost me there and I lost you. I believe in 'an eye for an eye' [b]and[/b] ?Do on to others as you would have done on to you!? but not in the same way. Maybe I should clear that up!! 'An eye for an eye' is for [b]Capital Punishment[/b] and ?Do on to others as you would have done on to you!? is for against [b]MURDER[/b] not C/P. I know what it means; maybe I just said it wrong. You know as if you are nice it is because you want someone to be nice back. I thing you got me wrong. I know that the two are different, but you took it wrong and no I would not murder to be murder back. Sorry, it is getting late and I am make some mistakes in my thought process. But it does not mean you get to grrrrr at me for it. Chill out man. THE FIZZ[/color]:wigout: [/B][/QUOTE] Ohhhhhhh.. I thought that you meant that both of them were justification for the first thing you said "I guess I would have to say I am for Capital Punishment." ie. I thought you were using both verses to justify the killing of one because he killed another- because the first certainly does seem to convey that. Still, everything I said I stick to except for the misunderstanding that you were saying something opposite. (I'm just glad I didn't call you a fool :p)

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by the_fizz [/i] [B][color=royalblue]?Do on to others as you would have done on to you!? If it were my loved one that was murdered, I would want justice. I just know that I would not be able to be the one doing it ~that is some thing I could do.[/color][/B][/QUOTE] You've just taken that verse out of context, and you've even given a complete [b]wrong[/b] definition of the very words in it. Do to others as you [b]WOULD[/b] have done to you. NOT as you [b]DID[/b] have done to you. In other words do to others as you WANT them to do to yourself. The two mean completely different things. Would you have someone kill you? I think not. I hope not anyway, these days you never know. But most people don't want to be killed. Thus you don't go and kill someone. The bible verse never gave a specific context for that- it didn't say "do to others as you want them to do to you, provided that they didn't kill someone you love or hurt you in some other way", it simply said to do to others as you want them to do to yourself. If you don't want to do that, then fine- but don't go quoting that verse to justify something which goes completely against it.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ChibiHorsewoman [/i] [B][color=blue]Wouldn't the executioner be just as guilty as the actual perpetrator?.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] *Refers to earlier post* No. Someone would be responsible, but it would be more all of the people who wanted this way of dealing with crime to be put in action, than merely the one who does it. "Don't shoot the messenger". That's all that executioners really are: Executioner: Your government and a large number of people think you should die for what you've been found guilty of. I'm just the one who has to see it done. And if I don't, someone else will, so it's not really down to me to decide whether you live or die So really, the executioner, though carrying out the act, isn't the only one responsible. And if anyone who is pro-death penalty disagrees that they have some responsibilty then in my view you shouldn't ask for it- or ask for it to stay. Either way you're right, ChibiHorseWoman, it is a con, rather than a pro. I just thought I'd point out that the responsibilty doesn't rest solely on the executioner ;)

I don't quite see how the eye for an eye, ie. death penalty for murder system works particularly well. Essentially what you're saying is "You killed someone, therefore it's OK to kill you". (On a side note, the eye-for-an-eye system in the Bible was meant as a means to reduce violence by giving people an incentive, not to keep it going by giving people justification) But for who is it OK to kill another life? If one man kills another, then another man kills him, then surely the second man must be killed as well because he commited the same crime? Do any of you have any idea how stoning came about? Essentially Stoning- ie the killing of someone by getting a whole community to throw brick-sized stones at them, was a method of smearing the blame about to the point that no one person can be pin-pointed. Everybody joined in and thus no specific person could be identified as the one who killed the criminal, and thus the chain of punishment stopped there. What happens today is that rather than a huge number of people being involved in the act of killing, instead a huge number of people support it and thus society as a whole is to blame. What [i]exactly[/i] is the difference between then and now? You guys are always arguing that morality is a subjective thing, so the laws of what's punishable by death penalty today can't be any better than they were in those times. Are we civilised? I don't think so. We may have to wait 50 years or so to see how uncivilised we are today in light of the society of the future. I'm not saying we'll be as technologically advanced as many films from the 80's and 90's suggest, but society has a tendency to change a lot even if technology doesn't seem to massively. So if we're no better than we were, only different, and we're not really truly "civilised" because we know from experience that we never are, and if we look back on the silly things that were punishable by death in the past and mock them, what makes the death penalty right for [i]anything[/i] right now? Do you guys even have any sense of what it is to wipe out a human life? I recognise that what I'm saying is my opinion and thus you don't need to believe it but I'd appreciate that you at least consider that this may be true before you reply. The only way to look at anything with an open mind is to consider that it could be true rather than view it with your own pre-judgements in mind. Because in actual fact you and I are all a lot dumber than we know, thus if we view everything by what we already know then we just stay as dumb as we already are.