Dan L

I work in a warehouse pushing a tub around all day, and putting book/map orders in it for various petrol stations and bookstores. The average distance for someone to walk in a day in that place, doing that job is about 15-20 miles. i.e about 3.5-5 hours (roughly half the day- which is probably about right) at 4mph walking speed. OK, I achieve that in quite a long time, but it keeps me exercising while also earning my money :p. I get paid to exercise. The 2 weekdays I don't do that job, I do Tribal Training, which doesn't involve as much exercise.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]One would have to be superior. [/B][/QUOTE] Nah, we're all idiots. Both seem to feel a need to be superior but both are equally weak. There are general characteristics of females and general characteristics of males. There are exceptions but such is the case with humanity. The general characteristics of neither male nor female are better- only different.

I'd like to suggest that the more opinionated (particularly on the issue of comparison between beastiality and homosexuality) Christians on here accept that this thread has gotten to the point that everyone just keeps sharing the same point of view. I know you're probably not doing this out of hate.. but trust me, it'll get us nowhere ;). Free will is a reality and though we choose to go by certain beliefs which we have faith to be true, other people choose to go by different ones. No amount of arguing your point on here is going to convince those who still don't believe it. The struggle that is the topic of conversation here is one of rights, not religion. How can you claim that God gave free will when you wish to restrict people's rights to use it?. If gay couples want to get married as a matter of equal rights in the law, let them marry. It may not be the way God wants it, in our opinion, but it is [i]free will[/i]. I like seeing other people who put God above everything else, but that's a personal choice of your own, which you can't impose on others.

Considering that we are 3 guys that only recently moved out of our parent's homes, living in this flat... We've burned surprisingly little. In fact nothing at all. Nor have we undercooked it. THAT'S JUST WRONG!!!!

What is your name?- Dan Lucking. Or "Daniel Christopher Lucking" to be precise. Spell your name backwards- eman ruoy :p Date of birth- 09-02-1983. That's the 9th of February, not the second of september. Male or female- Male Astrological sign- not interested in them. Nicknames- Dan, Poppa Bear, Deus (occasionally) Occupation- Order picker at a map warehouse, Tribal Trainee Height- 6'1" ish Weight- no idea. over 14 stone Hair color- Lightish Brown Eye color- Blue Where were you born?- Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, UK Where do you reside now?- Sheffield, Yorkshire, UK Age: Screen names- DanCLucking, DeusExMachina92, The300ftpotato, Dan L on OB E-mail addy- depends what you want it for. [email]deus_ex_machina_man@hotmail.com[/email] is for those who may spam me (I never check it). If you want my personal e-mail, get to know me. What does your screen name stand for- DeusExMachina, I thought was kind of cool at the time (2 years ago, before I was Christian); means "God from Machine". The300ftpotato is a reference to a very odd convo with Red from OB. DanCLucking and Dan L refer to my name. What is your gangsta name- Don't have one. What does your diary name stand for- Same as my OB name. Pets- two cats. Myst and Zee. Back in Stoke. Number of candles you blew out on your last birthday cake- 2. One said "2" the other said "0". Piercings- No Tattoos- No Shoe size- No-- err.. I mean, about 12, UK size Righty or lefty- Righty Wearing right now- Hoodie, Jeans, Trainers Hearing- UCB Inspirational at [url]www.ucb.co.uk[/url] Feeling- good Eating/drinking- Not a lot at all ~Guys/Love/Kissing/And Other Stuff~ Have you ever been in love- I hope so. Otherwise I dunno what that was. How many people have you told "I love you"-.. One, properly How many people have you been in love with- Probably about the same properly (as opposed to lust) How many people have you kissed- God has been gracious to keep me away from that in a romantic sense when it could have led to much more. Now I'm more patient. Have you ever kissed someone of the same sex: There are so many different forms of a "kiss" that I won't answer that out of lack of context. How many people have you dated: god was gracious to keep me out of that too. What do you look for in a girl: I don't look for them. They just occur to me. What's the first thing you notice about the opposite/same sex: You mean about anyone?.. Usually whether they're wearing a crucifix or not. What type of guy/girl do you usually go for: Christian Do you have a bf/gf: No If so where did you meet them: N/A What do you like most about your bf/gf: N/A Do you have a crush right now: No If so who is it: N/A Do you believe in love at first sight: Yes Do you remember your first love: Depends how you define that Who is the first person you kissed: You assume certain answers from previous questions in that one. Try to diversify :p Do you believe in fate: Not as a seperate entity from God. Do you believe in soul mates: No If so do you believe you'll ever find yours: N/A ~Family Stuff~ How many siblings do you have- 1 What are your parents names- Mum and Dad :p. I mean Linda and Paul. What are your siblings names: Alex How many siblings does your mother have: 2 How many siblings does your father have- 5 Where are your parents from- Stoke Is your family close- Geographically, it depends on your definition of "close". 100 miles isn't that bad. Emotionally, yes. Does your family get together for holidays- Not the whole family, including aunts, uncles, etc. Do you have a drunk uncle- he used to be :p Any medical problems run through your family- I hope not Does someone in your family wear a toupee- no Do you have any nieces or nephews- no Are your parents divorced- no Do you have step parents- no Has your family ever disowned another member of your family- Kind of. My Dad disowned his whole side of the family for some 12 years. If so for what- They hated him, he hated them. Did some of your family come to America from another country- I don't even live in America. I can see you considered all people here :p ~Music Stuff~ What song do you swear was written about you or your life- Err.. I don't What's the most embarrasing cd you own- The "Dumb and Dumber" soundtrack.... c'mon.. I was young.. foolish.. What's the best CD you own- Gareth Robinson :p What song do you absolutely hate- Yellow Submarine. I just don't get the point. Do you sing in the shower- on occasion What song reminds you of that special someone- U2's "Electrical storm" though defining them as "that special someone" is kind of a stretch of the imagination.

From what I gather, TN, and everyone else.. what you're after isn't really marriage as it is at the moment (marriage being an ancient ceremony of commitment between a man and a woman, which happens to still go on today), but equality. I.e. a similar thing for gay couples- an official, legal commitment. It seems you're not really after marriage in the traditional sense, but rather a change from the current stance that a heterosexual relationship has higher legal standing than a homosexual one. And that I have no issue with. The law of a country should not oppress such relationships even if the country in general does not approve of them- and in a lot of cases the majority of the country does approve of them. ---------------- Side-note: Incidentally, Bloodsin, God has convicted me to resolve this. Proverbs 22:11 says "He who loves a pure heart and whose speech is gracious will have the king for his friend" And now.. my speech has hardly been gracious here regardless of how right or wrong it may have been. Thus I apologise :) My point of view still stands. All except the bits where I called you a fool.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i] [B][color=#707875]The idea that Eve came from Adam is a bit silly though, considering that (biologically speaking), men come from women. The female gender is actually the absolute source of human life. Women even have longer life expectancy and so on. So...women are much more the source of humanity than men.[/color][/B][/QUOTE] Firstly, I don't see how living longer makes you the source of humanity... ??.. or maybe that was a seperate point altogether.. it was just kind of said in the same block :p Secondly, it's kind of a chicken-egg question: Which came first, the woman who gave birth or the man who gave her the baby? :p As J17 said, men come out of women now, but still they only come out of a woman due to the presence of a man before their birth. So biologically speaking, both sexes must be present in order for any more men (and women) to come about. The whole thing with having genders is that in order to produce an offspring you need one of each gender. If an offspring is produced in any other way, then the organism is without gender, and reproduces asexually. The advantage of the two-gender approach is that the gene pool is mixed by the breeding, whereas asexual reproduction simply produces a copy. However you have a bit of a problem when you only have one gender and not the other. So this begs the question: Woman needs man to have a child, Man needs woman to have a child. How, biologically, can one be the ultimate source when both are needed to produce any offspring at all? Back to the original point, I do believe that woman came from man in the original creation. But I also believe that we are all made in God's image. All that is really meant by saying "woman came from man" is exactly that. Do you have a problem with the fact that you came from your parents?. All it means is that we are [b]the same kind[/b]. Not that one is superior to the other. Biblically, God may have created woman to love and be loved by man.. but come on.. I mean, he created man originally to look after a Garden, and woman to help him with that as well. You're not exactly missing out on much of a divine purpose if you're a woman. It shouldn't really matter that much [i]who[/i] came first, but the fact that we were created to be part of the same team, which is one of the points of the biblical creation story.

Man... in that case my opinion on it is that it sounds all a bit stupid to me... I would have less of a problem with them simply saying "no homosexuals may join the army". Simply because at least then they have some kind of standing, even if not one which people like.. but dismissing people on the grounds of them revealing their sexuality is just plain dumb. Why don't they just assume that no-one wants sex and dismiss everyone who reveals themselves to be either way?..

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bloodsin [/i] [B]I was refering to your profanity. You compared yourself to Juses, yet, in the same post, told me I don't have a "*******" clue.[/B][/QUOTE] I realised that. My point was exactly that- The gospels were written in a different language, years later. Who knows what "interesting" (in the language of the time) things he said while rebuking people. OK.. but the word I used was a little [i]too[/i] profane even for my liking, so I'm sorry about that :) [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bloodsin [/i] [B]You compare me to the Pharisees, yet the sin of the Pharisees was pride, and being overly religious, correcting people while they pasted over their own sin. But perhaps you're correct, I'll kind out when I actually read your post in a sec. [/B][/QUOTE] Sorry- my main intention there wasn't to compare you directly to the pharisees, but to make the point that Jesus rebuked people. Most of the time it was the Pharisees- that point wasn't meant to carry any extra meaning other than "Most of the time it was the Pharisees", ie it wasn't meant to imply that you are comparable to a pharisee. Chibihorsewoman: Don't ask don't tell policy?.... Sorry.. I'm just an ignorant little british guy :p

Earth. Because no matter what of the other elements you throw at it, there's always an absolute load of it left. :p SImple as that.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Kinetic [/i] [B]the muslim "bible" (truly sorry for forgetting the name)[/B][/QUOTE] The Quran, or Koran ;) Incidentally "The Muslim Bible" isn't actually that inaccurate. Because the word "Bible" means "Book" Hence "The Book". "The Muslim Book". It may not be as accurate as knowing the name, but it's still accurate in that the Quran is the book which Muslims go by. (sorry.. a bit off topic there..) [quote][B]Another thing that puzzles me is, if there is a God, and his mother Mary (pardon me if I'm wrong. I'm a Catholic, but I've never even been to church), where did they come from and how did they get the power to create our universe? Don't get my wrong, I still believe in Christianity, but I've just wondered. [/B][/quote] Mary was the mother of Jesus, God's son, or God's form on Earth 2,000 years ago. But God himself existed long before Mary. In fact God created her, as she was a human. And she gave birth to Jesus, who was God's son, and was also God. Which is where it gets confusing. As for the origin of God- God in his fullness is beyond our understanding. I don't even want to think about how/if he originated.

Men and women are different, they work in different ways. They complement each other. I find no real truth in the idea that either men or women are better. According to the Bible, the man is to be the head. That doesn't mean men are better, it just means they tend to take the lead a lot of the time. But in all fairness, there are equally times when a man needs to submit to the woman. Being "the head" of a relationship is just a general thing, not an "in all situations no matter what" kind of thing. And when it's taken in that context rather than "women are inferior", most women don't have much of a problem with it.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by FirePheonix727 [/i] [B][color=blue]Poeple of Otaku Boards, and others. I bring you what is perhaps my final revelation of the world. We are stupid. [/color][/B][/QUOTE] Glad someone else noticed it. The truth is, you have no idea how stupid we are. Everyone at some point has a realisation about the stupidity of the human race (I hope) but what few people get to is that the thought that we are stupid is a product of that very stupidity- and we're too stupid to even realise it. We think we're smart when we say we're stupid, but in fact we're so stupid that even the thought "we are stupid" has an intense stupidness about it. We're so stupid that we think we can observe a world and thus know where it came from, and it's deepest secrets. We're so stupid that we realise that what we see and touch is a product of what our brain perceives, and could very well not be real. And yet many of us dismiss God because we can't sense him with these very things we've already proven to be flawed. The universe didn't necessarily have to turn out like this- it could have turned out like anything. And yet we somehow believe that we can learn all there is to know just by examining the world around us. Even if we learn all there is to learn in this universe, we'll still be clueless to anything beyond it. "We are stupid" indeed ;). It's one of the most profound truths there is. However it leads me to a seperate conclusion to that which you came to. We were not create by atoms, because atoms can not create. Atoms can bind into molecules, they can move about. They can gain energy, they can lose energy. But they can not become any more than the sum of the individual atoms of their own accord- and yet when you look at DNA you see a code. A code which can be read. The chemical compostion of this code means nothing, just as the information written in ink comes not from the ink itself, but from an outside source. Every level of molecular grouping in a living organism has a complexity and function which cannot simply be achieved by the sum of the individual parts, but as the organism working as a whole. Everything points to some kind of outside source shaping us. Nothing can be achieved unless there is some outside source which knows everything. There are two options- either there is nothing which knows everything and which created us, and thus our whole existence is in vain, or there is something which knows all and created us and thus there is hope. My faith is in God. I am nothing but a weak, stupid little fool. But I know someone far greater who lends me his wisdom. I am nothing, therefore I rely on him, and he is everything, and he works through me. I still have nothing, I still acheive nothing, but God's work is done. You tell me that we are created from atoms and cells- I tell you that we are created by a God with a plan. Criticise away. Then I 'll have something concrete to base my points on.

I dunno.. I'd be reluctant to give a complete agreement to this interpretation. Mainly because at the end of Revelation it clearly says "do not add to or take from these words". Now, you haven't changed anything in the passage you are quoting, but the whole interpretation rests on one decptive addition- that the Catholic church is in fact the whore of Babylon. That [i]may[/i] in fact be true, but at the same time the truth is it may not. The point is that this is an interpretation, and although I have little against thinking about these verses, I do believe that to rigidly state an interpretation to be truth is dangerous ground. I personally am not a Catholic. I'm not much of an anything really. I'm just a Christian. So it makes little difference to me either way if this interpretation is true. There are certainly pagan elements in Catholicism, but then at the same time there are doctrinal differences in practically all denominations. They can't all be right. And that is part of the reason why denominations have split to the point that they are at today. No-one can seem to agree on what they believe to be essentail doctrine. Few people realise that there is only one essentail doctrine, and that is salvation. People can have different opinions on all other things, but it makes them no less saved. We shouldn't split apart because of our differences in beliefs- because when we do that we isolate ourselves from people who think differently and thus lose any degree of objectivity. As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. This is done because each person has a unique insight. They can bring a point of view different to others- and the more different points of view you have around you, the more likely you are to take everything into account with what you believe. Meh.. that kind of got completely off track. Anyway.. I'll have to have a long hard think about the interpretation you gave. It may well be true, but also it's far too easy to focus all our attention to one particular possibility and completely miss what actually happens. Bear that in mind ;)

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dagger IX1 [/i] [B]Now, I'm not exactly a student of theology, and it's been a long while since I so much as glanced at a Bible. However, if I recall correctly, Leviticus (like much of the Old Testament) contains numerous prohibitions against all sorts of behavior, as well as an expansive set of rules governing people's food, clothing, and general comportment. Not all of these guidelines are still followed today, so why is the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality treated any differently than, say, its remarks about the inferiority of women? I'm just curious.[/B][/QUOTE] Leviticus does indeed contain an [i]EXHAUSTIVE[/i] set of rules (the word "expansive" isn't wrong though ;)) on how to live. One of the chapters contains a list of regulations to do with mildew. There are some truly rediculous parts in there, at least that's how we'd see them, purely because our culture has changed so much. However there are some gems in there too. "Love your neighbour as you would yourself" comes from Leviticus. And the interesting thing to note in the case of the verse to do with homosexuality is this: it say not to practise this because "[i]it is abhorrent to God[/i]" or "[i]it is detestable[/i]". This commandment is not to do with the culture of the time, but to do with the will of God. In fact, I believe if we could learn a lot more about the culture of the time, we would see a lot more of God's will in Leviticus rather than just an exhaustive set of rules. At the end of the day, the Law is not to do with restrictions. It's not meant to keep you confined and restrict your movements by telling you what you can't do. It's meant to free you by instructing in the right way to live. Unfortunately the Torah is almost always interpreted as "Law" rather than the true meaning of the Hebrew, "instruction". It is interpreted as restriction, not as freedom. Part of this is due to our limited human understanding, part of it is due to the tactics of our spiritual enemy. Either way, any interpretation of Leviticus, or any of the OT which leaves you thinking you are restricted in the way you live is the wrong one- but due to our nature it is hard to find an interpretation other than this. There is a practice called "exegesis". It involves finding out the context of a bible passage, relating it to the culture of the time, thus finding out exactly what it is saying and why, and THEN you can apply it to your life at the moment. Most people don't understand what Jesus means when he says we are the Salt of the Earth. They seem to think it means that "we add flavour" or something. Actually it means that when we are spread about, we help grow good fruit, and when we are concentrated we disinfect the crap in the world. But in order to find that out you need to know what Jesus meant by salt (not NaCl) and what it was used for. Not assume that 2,000 years ago they used Salt for the same thing. Leviticus is even older- thus to get any kind of understanding of how to apply it we need to really work at finding out what it really meant. However some things, such as the homosexuality verse, really don't mean a lot different in and out of context. The original message was that God's will was not for a man to have sex with another man. There are only a limited number of ways you can apply that. But do bear in mind- God loves us all. First and foremost. This is the message of the gospel. [b]GOD LOVES YOU[/b]. In fact he loves you so much that he gave his son so that you can have eternal life. In fact, it goes much deeper than that. He gave his son to be in covenant with you. In dying he became a covenant sacrifice, so that he may also be your covenant partner. This means that you get everything he has achieved and he has everything you have achieved, as well as what you already have. I can't stress the importance of covenant. [quote][i]quoted from [url]http://www.covenantinblood.com/bc/Ancient.html[/url][/i] "If Christianity learned to view the bible as a blood covenant, this alone would eventually cause denominationalism and racism to come to an end. This is because these two seem to be directly opposed to one another. The practice of Christians being separated from one another on the basis of skin color or religious preference comes from a misunderstanding of the blood covenant which we have entered into with Christ. We do not need race or doctrines to bind us to each other, we have the power of the covenant. This is the true bind which no man has any right or authority under heaven to break. When we bind men together by such artificial methods, it might give us a perception of strength in numbers, but the reality is that we share the same weaknesses because our bonding is primarily based upon what we have in common. Blood covenants were primarily entered into on the basis of differences not similarities. As such, the results of the covenant brought new strengths to obvious weaknesses. The union would tend to make both parties stronger, this was often the purpose for the covenant. The terms or conditions of the covenant were not arbitrarily written down. Both parties would go to great lengths to determine the needs of each party. Each party would negotiate these terms before quickly agreeing to the terms. They must consider the cost, that is their own responsibility. What will they gain or are they being deceived or cheated. The covenant was indissoluble once it had been cut. There was no way out, one the ceremony had been completed. Very often a curse or penalty would be incorporated or pronounced upon the party who might willfully default. Such curses were expected to be visited upon the guilty party by the many deity's who had been called to witness the transaction. Most often much of the curse had to do with things beyond the power of man such as sickness and disease, poverty, famine, etc. Such curses would required a supernatural power to execute and it was believed that the gods would perform such curses quickly. Similar blessing were often attached to the covenant which again would require the act of the supernatural entities to perform such as, abundant harvests, prosperity, good health, many children, etc. The blood covenant was the most serious relationship that one man could enter into with another. In many cases, his life would be placed on the line. After the terms, conditions, and penalties were negotiated, the covenant representative would be selected from each tribe. The selection was often based upon the greatest attributes of the tribe. He would be the one person in whom the entire tribe could identify with. He would be so to speak the living image which represented that tribe to other tribes. Next a covenant site must be chosen. The site could be chosen because it had been regarded as a place of neutrality, or often because it was spacious enough for all members of either tribe to attend the ceremony and observe the cutting of the covenant between the two representatives. Sacrificial animals must then be chosen, often large animals who would shed a great deal of blood. The animals were often cut down the backbone making two separate halves. The halves of their carcasses would be laid opposite of each other to form a walkway of blood. All this was done in preparation for the sacred ceremony. On the specific day chosen, the ceremony would begin. The representatives would walk through the walkway of blood to the center and perform the symbolic gesture of the coat exchange. The coat represented both the strength and authority of the representative as awarded or pledged by the entire tribe. By exchanging their coats, they were symbolically changing their authorities which they held among the people of their tribes. At the same time they would exchange their weapons. The exchange of weapons insinuated that each tribe would come to the aid of the other in battle. They would fight along side their covenant brother as if they were of their own tribe. All of these things, although being symbols of the covenant rite, became living realities. Now the most important part of the ceremony would come. Each party would declare aloud the conditions of the covenant. The terms were declared in the presence of all, for every man in each of the tribes would become forever bound by these terms. Often in later days these would be written down but that was not really necessary as every man present had been considered a witness to the terms. Finally, in the midst of the slain animals, the river of warm blood often soaking all the way up to their ankles, both parties swore an oath to keep the terms of this covenant, and concluded rehearsing the curse or penalties for default for every hear to hear. Although it is usually not so obvious, there was an understood element of the curse which was considered to be implied. At any time the sovereign from one of the tribes could declare the curse to no be in effect upon the other tribe. It was perceived that they had somehow broken the covenant. When such a case did exist, that sovereign would exercise his special role as the "agent of the avenging deities". As the ultimate curse, the avenging agent had divine authority to completely annihilate the others kingdom. Finally, each representative had an incision made within his hand, wrist, leg, or another area of his anatomy. The blood that flowed from the incisions of each man would be captured into a small goblet to be drunken by both at the covenant meal. The incisions would be touched together, sometimes the wrists or legs being tied together with a strip of leather or cloth. The scars would be made to appear more prominent by the rubbing of gunpowder or other substances. The scar would serve to be a reminder as long as the two representatives lived that the covenant of blood had been cut between the two tribes. After this very impressive display, which was designed to be deeply ingrained within the minds and memories of every witness, and especially upon the minds of the representatives themselves, these two would give each other a new name. Often their names had been joined together to form a new name representing both tribes. This exchange of names implied that they were becoming one new family out of the joining of the two. After all this had transpired they would never regard each tribe as being separate or distinct from each other, for now in their spirits they had become as one. Often the ceremony would end with the planting of the trees upon this very site. Trees were planted because of their long life. The trees would become a memorial from one generation to another. The finale ceremony would be the covenant meal, normally the offering of bread and wine to each other. The bread represented the body, while the wine represented the new shared blood of both men. At least within the Assyrian loyalty oaths, there was a certain understanding that by both parties partaking the were also saying, "Just as bread and wine enter the intestines, so may the gods let this oath enter your intestines". The blood was said to be inter-commingled and as such, the two spirit natures had now become one. Often the wine would be mixed with the blood captured during the ceremony from the covenant incision as described above, but often only wine was used in the drink. As each drank from the cup they would say, "Drink my life's blood as I drink your life's blood." "I see you fulfilling all the terms of the covenant as I fulfill your life." Then they reached over the table, both taking a piece of the bread, and lifting to each other's mouth they recited, "Take me - all that I am. Eat of me, I am yours.""[/quote] Part of the covenant process is the exchanging of places. Jesus, in order to fulfill the covenant, needed to change places with us, and thus take on the punishment for our own lives of sin. Where "sin" is not with measure. Either you have sinned or you haven't and we all have. And with that done, we can take his place with him in being judged as sinless. Now let's look at this again: Jesus lived a perfect life, and he gains the punishment of a sinner from being in covenant with us. We are sinners, and we gain being judged as perfect from being in covenant with him. Is it me or does it seem like a bad deal on Jesus' side? That's the whole thing with Grace. We don't deserve it, but we get it anyway, if only we accept it. And Grace takes full priority over every other thing in our faith in Jesus. Sure, we grow to new levels of faith, but if we don't have the [b]Grace of God[/b] it's all useless. Christianity isn't just about laws and rules, it's also about priority. Grace and forgiveness takes a higher priority than sin, in God's eyes. If it were not the case, none of us would be saved because God's grace wouldn't be enough to deal with our sins. But it turns out that his grace is sufficient for us. (1/2 Corinthians 12:9 or something) _______________________ [b]Bloodsin[/b]: I like your last post. It's actually a challenge for me to reply to :p [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bloodsin [/i] [B]Jesus talked like that too?[/B][/QUOTE] Jesus talked Aramaic. His life story is told in greek. That, and it was written a while after his death by people he knew (mostly). Who knows what kind of interesting things he said.. But it is certain that he rebuked those who were talking a load of rubbish. Mostly the Pharisees. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bloodsin [/i] [B]Well, you're a hypocrite for telling others not to judge, yet you yourself comit the act of judging.[/B][/QUOTE] This isn't judgement- this is rebuke. There is a difference. One we are told to accept and even to love because it grows us as people, and exposes our areas of wrong, and the other we are told not to do. The word Jesus used that is translated "Judge" means "to condemn or punish". Let me give you an example of each: Condmenation: You were born an idiot. You are an idiot. You will die an idiot. Punishment: Therefore I am going to kill you. When I say "you are a fool" (the word "such" that I used, taken out of context, means a completely different thing) and "you have no ******* clue", I am referring to at the moment. I was once more foolish than I am now in many ways, and I had no clue. However I have changed. I am still a fool now and I have no clue. What I have no clue about, I have no clue, otherwise I would have some idea and I would no longer have no clue. I do not judge you- I say these things to correct your error, not to put you down for good. You are acting like a fool, right now. That doesn't mean there is no possibility of you inproving, it just means you are a fool right now. You have no clue what you're on about- right now. But people learn. Don't take anything I say as a permanent thing. If I say you're wrong (as opposed to you're different to what I believe) then what I mean is you're wrong, right now. But I point that out so that you may be right, not so that you may continue to be wrong. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bloodsin [/i] [B]The bible also warns not to correct a moker, unless you're up for an insult :p.[/B][/QUOTE] Something like that. But I don't have much problem with being insulted :p. As for the last thing you quoted, I don't believe I said that...

1) I find OtakuBoards rules easy to understand and follow. [b]A[/b] 2) I feel that the staff at OtakuBoards understand their job and are capable of performing it appropriately. [b]B[/b] 3) OtakuBoards is easy to navigate. [b]A[/b] 4) OtakuBoards has a friendly atmosphere. [b]A[/b] 5) How often do you visit OtakuBoards? [b]These days, about once a day. I'm pretty much constantly signed in, but at my PC and actually checking and posting for a few hours while doing other stuff[/b] 6) Do you feel that the rules are too strict/not strict enough/fine as they are? [b]fine as they are, pretty much[/b] 7) Should we continue to uncensor the creative writing areas on OtakuBoards? [b]No real opinion on that[/b] 8) Would you rather a decentralized forum system on OB (more forums, less activity per forum) or a centralized forum system (less forums, more activity per forum)? [b]Seems OK as it is now to me[/b] 9) Would you like to see a closer integration of myOtaku and OtakuBoards? [b]definitely[/b] 10) Are you signed up to myOtaku.com? [b]Yes[/b] 11) If you are not signed up to myOtaku.com, do you plan to sign up in the near future? [b]If I were not, I probably would be :p[/b] 12) Do you read Announcements at OtakuBoards? [b]when one catches my eye (ie. is new). Yes[/b] 13) Which single Category (Category, as opposed to individual Forum) do you spend most of your time visiting? [b]Otaku Public[/b] 14) Do you think that OtakuBoards should offer an in-built chat system as part of our service? If we included a chat, would you use it? [b]I dunno. I tend to use AIM at the moment, so I'm not too bothered[/b] 15) If we offered an "OtakuBoards Wireless" service that would be accessible via Internet-capable cellphones, would you use it? [b]No. Despite the fact that I probably could[/b] 16) When we offer a next generation version of OtakuBoards, should we continue to provide semi-regular community events in our Event Arena or a similar forum? [b]yes[/b] 17) If you could add one new Category (Category, not Forum) to OtakuBoards, what would it be? [b]Spiritual Otaku :p. Or maybe "Deep otaku". Nah, not much that would actually happen comes to mind..[/b] 18) If you could remove one Category from OtakuBoards, what would it be? [b]None. There are some I don't go to, but lots of other people do so I wouldn't want to remove it from them[/b] 19) If you could add anything to OtakuBoards (in terms of a new forum, a technical tool/feature, etc), what would it be? [b]Now that I have no answer to..[/b] 20) On a scale of 1-10 (1 being the lowest and 10 being the highest), how would you rate your experience at OtakuBoards since you registered? [b]8 (I did do the 8.aloadofdigits, but then saw the person before beat me to it.)[/b]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by rttocs77 [/i] [B]Which leads me to say: During the times the Bible was written, things like that were happening. I think what it really means when it condones sodomy in the Bible is that it is condoneing f-ucking without a connection, somehow. I also know that it says the Bible is not for us to interpret so therefore I am not right and neither are the people who site Bible passages as ways of striking down homosexuals.[/B][/QUOTE] To condone something is to endorse it. I think you probably meant "condemn" ;) . Does it really not say the Bible is not for us to interpret?.... I mean, if that's the case, how do we learn anything from it.. I think what it says is not to put our own interpretations onto the Bible. Ie. you can take the literal interpretation of a passage, or the message, or the theme, but the moment you start using it to justify your own wrong causes (ie. which are spoken against in other parts of the Bible) then that's when you're out of line. Such as condemning homosexuals to hell when it blatantly says "love your neighbour" and "do not judge". And the bible condemns homosexuality. The act, not the person. Just like lying, which I've done countless times. In fact, lying even made it into the ten commandments, so if you're going to play "greater sin-weaker sin" then lying HAS to be greater. and I've certainly done that before, so I'm pretty screwed without Jesus. But anyway, the Bible says "do not sleep with a man as you would with a woman- this is abhorrent to God" Leviticus 18:22. Or 22:18. Either way there's an 18 and a 22, I just forget which is which. And the context of the verse is that it's a list of rules about sexual relations. You can't really get much of another meaning out of that now, can you.. My point is, don't make up stuff about why the Bible condones (ie. approves of) homosexuality, or why it doesn't condemn it. The Bible [b]does[/b] condemn it -but not the person, as I stated earlier- so you have a choice. Either follow the Bible, in that light, or don't follow it. Even if you do follow it in that light, it doesn't mean you can't love homosexuals and love God- because god tells us to love everyone. And it doesn't mean you can't be homosexual and love God- because the Bible says that his grace (and not our righteousness) is our way into heaven. Jesus loves gay people!!

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bloodsin [/i] [B]HER NAME IS SOMKY, AND SHE LOVES ME! That is my point. Some people think only the marriage between a man and a woman is "civil". I've seen those people ripped on. My point is. People can't say a damn thing about people not agreeing gay shouldn't get married when they themselves are not for the union of other things. Bestiality is just an example. If all of you can't see through that, I'll need to water- down my statement. How about union of six people in marriage? Are you ok with that? If not then you can't justly be for gay marriages.[/B][/QUOTE] I have a few things to say: 1- A marriage is [b]COMMITMENT, BOTH WAYS[/b]. How exactly does a two way commitment go on between a man and a pig? "Babe, do you take this man to be your husband?" "OINK! OINK!" It just doesn't work. 2- A marriage is [b]UNITY[/b]. How exactly does a man become unified with an animal? Animals ARE completely different. Whether you want to go by genes or by the Bible, a man and another animal simply can not procreate in the same way that two different races of man can, or two different breeds of Pig. Inter-breeding only goes as far as different sub-species in the species you are in. And finally.. SHUT UP I may be a Christian, and I may follow Jesus, but even Jesus had to put his foot down every so often when a fool started spouting some rubbish- and believe me, you are such a fool. It seems to me the only reason you're even arguing is to portray a different or "radical" point of view. But let me tell you this- Smartness doesn't come from going against the crowd alone, but from knowing where the crowd is wrong. And you, mate, haven't a ******* clue.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ChibiHorsewoman [/i] [B][COLOR=blue]Paganism is a religion, they mention it as a religion in the military chaplin handbooks. However, this isn't a discussion on religion.[/COLOR] [COLOR=darkblue]I do think that your argument about homosexuality not being condoned by Christianity is an interesting one. So I'm going to reply accordingly. My husband's aunt is a lesbian. Her and her partner have been together for over ten years. They also attend a Lutheran church in the city of Rochester and are good friends with a pastor there. Maybe that really doesn't prove anything. But maybe that also proves that same sex couples aren't necessarily ungodly and scorned by members of the church. Still on the church topic. There was a priest a few years back up in the Rochester Catholic diocese who was ratehr liberal. He not only condoned gay partnerships, he presided over their unions outside of church. Needless to say, he was ex-communicated, but he did what he thought was right.[/COLOR] [/B][/QUOTE] Paganism [i]is[/i] a religion, but is also quite a broad definition, ie. that there are various forms of it. What I meant was it's a pagan custom as much as it's a religious custom- ie. Religions such as Islam, Hinduism, etc. w.r.t. your point about the lesbian couple who are friends with a minister- there was a short thing I said in my post which may have gone un-noticed: "Now, the church shouldn't adopt a KKK approach towards gays- Jesus loves you regardless, and so should we" There is actually a gay couple living next door but one to us- and the guys who live next door, we're kind of in community with because we all do the same course at church, so I guess you could say they're just our neighbours. Anyway, They've been invited around for dinner a few times, because Jesus said one very important thing: "Love your neighbour" And he said that with reference to everyone being your neighbour. Here's the thing: It's not the [i]people[/i] which God doesn't condone, but the relationship itself. But then, we Christians have many areas of sin in our life which God does not condone- but we live by [i]grace[/i]. That means that despite our areas of sin, God still loves us. The church shouldn't [i]sanctify[/i] it because God doesn't condone it. There are many areas of sin in the lives of many Christians, yet they don't go to church to have the preacher pray blessings over our sin. However they [i]do[/i] go to church to meet God, who loves despite our lifestyle. Jesus showed love to a woman caught in adultery- I think if he met a gay man on his journeys (something unfortunate in the fact that he didn't), he would have shown the same love to him. A person's actions doesn't make them "condemnation fodder", however it [i]is[/i] important to realise that the actions themselves aren't condoned by God. So.. that's the idea- love the [i]people[/i] but don't condone the sin. Welcome them in to the church, but don't give them any illusions about what your beliefs are. Believe me, you can still befriend a gay man or a lesbian woman, while believing that the relationship itself is not condoned, but not thinking a single condemnational thought about them.

My view is pretty much the same as Justeh's here. (funny that you posted it just as I was about to :p) I see no reason why gay people can't get married. Marriage is just as much a pagan custom as it is a religious custom as it is a Christian-specific custom. In other words, marriage hasn't always been a Christian or Jewish thing, and it isn't only a Christian or Jewish thing. So in terms of marriage for gays- I see no issue there, ie. there's not really a lot I can do about it because you don't believe as I do anyway. However seeing as my God created man to be with woman, I would question the morals of any (Christian) Godly man sanctifying that unity in a religious sense. This isn't a way of bashing you- this is a simple statement. My faith does not condone this sort of relationship, thus this sort of relationship should not be santified by someone of my faith. Much as I son't really like this analogy it's the only one I can think of- it's like going to the KKK to undergo some ceremony whereby you express your love for black people. Now, the church shouldn't adopt a KKK approach towards gays- Jesus loves you regardless, and so should we- but the point is that we can respect your sexual orientation, but I ask only that you respect our beliefs and don't force us to sanctify a relationship we don't believe to be the will of our God. Beyond that I see no issue with marriage in a legal sense. The law has elements of Godliness in it, but at the end of the day, the law is written for the people, and if the people aren't Godly, then the law of the land has no need to be.

....Pardon? I err.. kind of understand what you're saying but not what you want people to say back.. (You didn't really pose much of a question there ;))

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bloodsin [/i] [B]Forget the girl. There is no such thing as "love". It's just a human flaw. Go out and watch some bloody anime, take a cold shower, and forget it. That's my advice. [/B][/QUOTE] That's not advice; that's the words of a fool trying to sound smart, which in these days is defined as "the idea that nothing is real that is human". How do you really define something that is real? Everything you see is what you see. Thus everything is affected by this human flaw, and nothing truly exists. Nihilism is not wisdom but yet another human flaw. Though it attempts to see humanness as nothingness it does so from within the very thing it defines as nothing. Some believe we are everything- others that we count for nothing. In fact of the two extremes neither is right, but balance is necessary. Big egos are unproductive; but denying our own humanness to be of worth is equally so. Rio- it's a fine line you tread. Things are going well right now but it's far too easy to become too excited thinking "she's the one for me" or to become pessimistic and depressed thinking that she's not. One thing I can tell you is that any relationship, between friends or more, is full of instability. Random things happen. Sometimes for good, sometimes for bad. Don't be too phased by the bad, and don't be too uplifted by the good. I'm not saying to feel no emotion- but know the limits where it becomes unproductive. Spend time with other people as well, otherwise if things don't work out in the end you'll find that you've drifted away from your friends-- even if that's not the case right now. Acts of faith are all well and good, but humans are not to be relied upon as though they were perfect, so it's not recommendable to put all your trust in any one person. Other than that I haven't got a lot of advice to give.

Life is precious, Life is opportunity, Life is disappointment, Life is sin, Life is doubt, Yet Life is full of certainty, Life is limits, Yet it does the impossible, Life is contradiction, In beatiful harmony, Life is eternal, Yet life is death. That, to me, doesn't even scratch the surface of defining "life", yet life contains all of these things. Life is good and life is bad. The question is, where does your faith lie? In yourself? Then you are doomed to death. In others? Then you are doomed to death. In mammon? Then you are doomed to death. (suggest you look up "mammon" if you don't know what it is) In God? Then you are already dead. Death is an essential part of life. It is the end point of our earthly route, regardless of what you think is after it. Thus how can you not be doomed to death if your trust is in things of this world? But in faith to God things are different. But in death to ourselves we gain life. In full trust and weakness we gain power. And in being nothing we gain identity. Choose not to believe these things if you will, but this is how I define "life" If any of you wishes to know more or to bash my belief, feel free to PM.

OB as it is now will not be here in ten years. Things change far too quickly for that, particularly at the times in life which most of us are at. Either it will have progressed or it will have decayed. Or maybe it will be a small bunch of fanatics who just can't let go and face the fact that times were good, but they are past. There's nothing wrong with moving on. The most important lesson for anybody is to make the most of what you have today, not to try and reclaim the things of yesterday. Every time is a season, and every season is different. If there are fond memories of yesterday, that's no problem, but if there is an obsession with getting back to yesterday then nothing can be achieved. No-one in summer can try to do what he did in winter and achieve anything. And no-one in winter can try to do what he did in summer and achieve anything. In times gone by, everyone would understand the image of "sowing" and "reaping". In one season you plant the seeds, in another you watch them grow and nurture them, in another season you harvest them, and in another season you have to wait for the opportunity to plant again. In every season something different must be done- in order to find fulness you need to discover what it is in a particular time, and get cracking at it. There will be a season for all of us when we move on from OB. The main question is whether you can accept that it is best or if you'll hang on to what will not do you any good. Otakuboards and theOtaku will change. Absolute Stability is not an attribute we humans have. It will be better or worse, flourishing or dwindling to a select nostalgic few. Either way I hope we can look back at these times and say "those times were good", not "what we had then, we need it back"

My Dad works at Staffordshire University at the moment- but he's had most jobs you can get in stoke. He's been a miner, a potter (ie. he worked in a pottery factory- he never actually made any pots though, heh), a supermarket worker, he worked for MARCONI for a while, then he was an electrician apprentice, and then he started at Staffs uni as a technician, where he's been the last 17 years or so. Now he's a senior lecturer there.