2006-01-20 [M_Sinner]: Eh... we've had this whole "Goodness" conversation before. Anyway, as I had said before, John of Antiqua. He proposed that the fact that anything exists at all is proof that there is a god. the one thing that really holds true in all religions is that there is a source (often reffered to as god, or whatever other name). So, whereever all this came from, that is the deffinition of God. Be it an omniscient creator, a couple of atoms colliding, or human consiousness somehow creating itself and all around it, that is God.

2006-01-20 [T_Pop]: sorry i cant read all these comments... i have a lot of stuff to do (no its not an excuse its an explanation)... i will try to read them all when i have more time ok

2006-01-20 [deus-ex-machina]: Antiqua is a fool by the way you sound him to be. All ideas for existence is a source. Even infinity is a source. I don't deny a God, I just don't think there is a proof for an Abrahamic God. Existence is not proof unless you can prove it is. If you tell me it is, I will accept it as a view, but I still see existence and I don't see proof at all. It is the most redundant view of all as it is the most neutral view. One person sees God. The other sees progression. Reasons are a different cause, and cannot be known.

2006-01-20 [deus-ex-machina]: If God is to be a credible source in an argument, there should be proof. As there isn't... no argument. Atheism wins. Yahoo!

2006-01-20 [M_Sinner]: What the hell? How can you not see some amount of sense in his argument? Honestly, until this moment, I had the most supreme respct for you, DEM... but for you to simply say "Well, the fact that we're here doesn't prove shit" is just incredible... How do you explain it? How do you think ANYthing came into existance? I'm not talking about intelligent design, or any of that stuff. I'm saying "Where did that big glowing ball come from? where did that dust that it came from come from?" The only answer can be "God." The idea that the universe is infinite, when it is bound by time, is unfounded. the only explaination is something outside of time, e.g. God. What happened to the--

2006-01-20 [M_Sinner]: respectful way you entered an argument? You seem to have given up on debating and going into some kind of supremist view of "w/e, idiots." 

2006-01-20 [deus-ex-machina]: To be fair - you didn't supply me with a source and at this time of night, I'm not willing to go searching. I'm going by how you suggested it. If it is simply 'things exist', then wow, he's hardly the first to think that as a reason for the existence of God. Honestly, provide me a source for in the morning. I'm sure you'll regain a respect. Logical thinking is something I love. It's an ideal of proof = meaning. We exist... but abiogenesis is an obscure but reasonable alternative. As is ET lifeforms adding life to Earth. It's all possible. 'God' exists - I give you that, but as an original source of energy. Bare minimum.

2006-01-20 [deus-ex-machina]: But I'm not unwilling to say an infinite universe is also not possible, in fluctuations or existence. It's why I'm agnostic.

2006-01-20 [deus-ex-machina]: My attitude has changed due to T_Pop's format of asking questions as if he's asking them as a rhetorical question. It's wore my patience thin. I'm used to arguing with someone who is open minded... much like you. I'm open to all possibilities, and I don't discredit reason based on God, but I insist on proof. 'Existence' does not prove God as a loving, caring person who insisted homosexuality was something that shouldn't be. It's sheer existence, with the idea that God would condemn them, assuming it's not a choice and I know it's not a conscious choice... Why would he punish people so? To make an example? I thought we had free will? Why make such examples then?

2006-01-20 [M_Sinner]: I'm looking for the source now. I may have gotten the name wrong, as it's been a long time since I've heard of him. Honestly, I've never read his work. I just had that idea myself, and then someone said I was quoting him. Confused, I asked for an explaination, and they told me that he had written some book with five reasons on "why God must exist." I'll try to hae it to you by morning, but no promises, as I have school tommorow. And, not to sound rude, but keeping my 4.0 is a bit more important than philisophical debate that has no bearings on which college I'll be going to, Job, etc. ^_^

2006-01-20 [deus-ex-machina]: I do want to believe in God. But God shall seek me, or I shall stumble upon him. I won't find him if I search for him. When/if I find him, I assume a lot of things will become apparent, but unless I change, I know homosexuality is not the choice they made consciously. That's all. I've become aggressive on religion to make a point, but I still respect the bare essentials. Take my examples of two perfections. They would be different, but I doubt they wouldn't be too different. The similarities would surely be worthy of respect. Religion just shouldn't be so objective and insistant on being right when it can't prove it's right. That's all.

2006-01-20 [deus-ex-machina]: Try Aquinas. I might be wrong, but 'five reasons' rings true. I'm familiar. It's not wrong, but it cannot prove God to an atheist. I do respect Aquinas though. He also came up with adapting natural law as a means of making it religious. But one necessary reason for existence was to worship God. To me, the rest seem fair, but that one is an anomaly, as someone who lives, looking for a reason for living.

2006-01-20 [M_Sinner]: And that's where we differ. I'm sure that if I, for some reason, had come to believe in Judaism or Islam, I would just be as adamant in my beliefs as I am in Christianity. Because I believe that it is only faith that saves. (Well, actually, Faith alone, grace alone, word alone... but that's a paradox for another day). As such, I came to Christianity because it (seems to be) the only faith that professes our salvation to be nothing of our own. It is given freely to us, and the only "action" we can take with it is to reject it if we so choose. As such, I think that it would be difficult (for me at least) to deny that Christianity is right. I respect other religions. It's not like--

2006-01-20 [deus-ex-machina]: Good luck on the 4.0 - Luckily in England, maintaining grades does not mean much, so as long as I do well in exams, I'm sorted. =D I'll leave you be until you're ready.

2006-01-20 [M_Sinner]: I'm going off on some holy war to get them to belive my way. People can often believe what they want, and the most I will interact with it is on a personal level, like this, talking and discussing it. Other than that, I will think that my religion is right. It's a matter of not saying to others "This shalt be." I just discuss with them the morality of what they do or believe, then let them make the decision. Anyways, thank you for your good wishes, and I relaly must be off! G'night all!

2006-01-20 [deus-ex-machina]: I guess God is subjective. LoL. I wish to go now, so I'll see the rest in the morning. Bye.

2006-01-20 [dfafadsfasdasf]: in this whole argument i agree with dem...just thought i'd put in my 2 cents

2006-01-20 [Caritas]: Eh..

2006-01-20 [M_Sinner]: You do realize that DEM is agnostic, right? The belief that there is a God, he just cannot be known? I had thought that you were athiest, Blackfire?

2006-01-20 [deus-ex-machina]: =D ... and Monkey Gal doesn't like me. =(

2006-01-20 [M_Sinner]: It's ok, Dem... Not everyone will like you. I'm living proof! Hardly ANYONE likes me! =D

2006-01-20 [M_Sinner]: By the way, I wasn't able to find a liink to the antiqua guy. I'm pretty sure that I'm spelling something wrong or the like. I should know by Monday, though. Sorry about the delay on that!

2006-01-20 [deus-ex-machina]: It's all good. I should probably do the search myself, but I'd like to be on the same level as sources go. I hate bias sources more than anything, lol.

2006-01-20 [M_Sinner]: I understand. Once I get the name right (I'm going to be talking to some uber theologian guy about it on monday), I'll try to find an unbiased source. Can't make any promises, though. thus far, I haven't been able to find ANY source. =P

2006-01-21 [dfafadsfasdasf]: my theory on the whole god subject is that people follow this religeon out of a book written by people who weren't very intellegente, i'm not saying what they wrote didn't have some truth to it but i think it got blown out of porportion...and i just feel religeon is a false sence of security

2006-01-21 [M_Sinner]: Well, that's a far more believeab;e and thoughtful approach to it than you seemed to have before. I probably misinterpreted before. I suppose that what you're saying could be true... but what if someone wrote it today. Somethig that you could completely agree with, and you chose that religion (humor me, please). Would not the attitude that you are taking be the attitude of some people 2000 years from now? What changed? Not the text, simply the people.

2006-01-21 [Caritas]: Thats ture [deus-ex-machina], I don't like you. >_<

2006-01-21 [deus-ex-machina]: Because you can't tell me why abortion is wrong? =D So far, other than not basing my opinions on the existence of God, that's all you have on me... and if that's why you don't like me, other than my attitude, which is easily ignored... I don't see why. I can say 'God doesn't exist' and you will be offended. You can say 'God exists' and I will not be offended. I think there is a difference between how open minded we are.

2006-01-21 [Caritas]: *rolls eye*

2006-01-21 [Caritas]: Different people have different opinions. Leave mine alone.

2006-01-22 [deus-ex-machina]: Leave mine alone then. =D And accept that without sources, you cannot justify your views. You're entitled to them, but equally as mine are, yours are under fire too. Don't tell me I'm wrong.

2006-01-22 [Caritas]: I'm not.

2006-01-22 [deus-ex-machina]: You told me I was a sicko before. O.o

2006-01-22 [M_Sinner]: What? Calm down, Monkey. While we both know that God exists, there is nothing to be gained in disliking someone for believeing against us. It's not a very Christian attitude. Even if someone hates everything about God and what you believe (though I don't think that's the case wwith DEM), hating that person back will only push them away.

2006-01-22 [Caritas]: I don't want to talk about this any more.

2006-01-22 [M_Sinner]: ... I don't think that I have much more to say to you, anyway.

2006-01-22 [dfafadsfasdasf]: tell me this how come christianity is the only major religeon to acually go in and a force people to folow their religeon...and they just call it conversion...christianity is some what like a large scale cult

2006-01-22 [M_Sinner]: The koran states: "If people do not convert, you should kill them." Islam. Not to mention, the old testament (the Pentateuch, even) says the same thing to Jews. That aside, I don't exactly approve of the Roman Catholic Faith's actions during the Cruesades, the discovery of America and the "conversion" of the Native Americans, etc. etc. there's no reason to stereotype all Christians as what you perceive them to be.

2006-01-22 [dfafadsfasdasf]: well its mostly just christians though

2006-01-22 [M_Sinner]: Again, cite some instances of this today. As stated, there were major occurances in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and a few minor occurances around the fifties or so, but anymore it is unheardof.

2006-01-22 [dfafadsfasdasf]: well yeah but we can not forget the past for those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it

2006-01-22 [M_Sinner]: Precisely, but I'm not forgetting the past, I'm just saying that the past attitudes of an organization do not define what it is today. You are insinuating that Christianity cannot change.

2006-01-22 [Rizzen]: see, this is what I don't get about all this. You say that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. We (Christians) have obviously not forgot the past, and yet people treat us like we have

2006-01-23 [dfafadsfasdasf]: i didn't say that rizzen

2006-01-23 [Rizzen]: I wansn't just referring to you. Though it did sound to me like you were inffering it through the comment. I'll switch the comment around a bit

2006-01-23 [dfafadsfasdasf]: another thing is this a world of logic and there is no logic behind "god'

2006-01-23 [Rizzen]: how do you figure?

2006-01-23 [Lady_Elowyn]: Was my comment deleted? I believe I said I dissagreed.

2006-01-23 [deus-ex-machina]: Disagreed with what? O.o =D

2006-01-23 [Lady_Elowyn]: The fact that there is no logic behind God.

2006-01-23 [M_Sinner]: *roll eyes* Haven't we gone over this? There is, indeed logic behind a God existing. If people want to try to live outside of that fact, and insist that "Logic" can only exist outside of anything supernatural, then the laws of physics have just become God. A paradox borne of itself.

2006-01-23 [Lady_Elowyn]: Yes, I know. But Black Fire decided to state, yet again, that there is none. Which I dissagree with.

2006-01-24 [dfafadsfasdasf]: the biggest thing i'm trying to get at is that you have no proove of the existance of god...and there are many other religeons in the same position and what makes christianity the right relideon...what if islam is the only ture religeon and you all are going to hell any way...

2006-01-24 [dfafadsfasdasf]: although i still just think that religeon is just a false sence of security made up just to make the comoners follow the leaders...and give them something to look forward to in death

2006-01-24 [deus-ex-machina]: It's illogical to believe life started out of no life. The basic qualities of a personalised God possibly contradict, I just choose not to believe in something which I cannot rationally convince myself exists. I think there is illogic in both sides of the creation argument.

2006-01-24 [M_Sinner]: Precisely. There is far more evidence to God existing than to not. Now, as to any particualr religion's version of God, that's a bit of a brain-teaser. If you insist that no God is more plausible than the next, here's what I say to you: it would suck to spend all your life worshiping a God and find out that he never existed (or that he wasn't the right one)... but wouldn't it suck quite a bit more to not believe, die, and find out that there WAS one?

2006-01-24 [Lady_Elowyn]: I definitely agree with that. I would be terribly dissapointed to live believign in God and dying to discover there is none, but I can't even imagine how terrible it would be to live scorning God and believers in him only to die and go to hell, living in torture for eternity.

2006-01-25 [deus-ex-machina]: Because I would be condemned to Hell? Because scriptures say so? This is where I believe BlackFire is right. If God is perfect - either all loving or all knowing... God would not allow those who lived a good life to be tortured. It's what forces people to conform to a belief. Logically, God's ego does not proceed his judgement. He loves, he doesn't insist. If believing that faith is the only thing saving you from eternal wrath, your God is evil. Ego and pride are evil things. Subjecting people to eternal hell for having knowledge but not faith (as I said, I wish I had faith... If I could force myself, I'd be lying to myself)

2006-01-25 [deus-ex-machina]: Then we're all fucked. God is God. I don't believe in what is portrayed in the Bible. It's a sad empty thing to believe in. God gave us the science we know. He gave us the love we can comprehend. I do not believe in God. I do not believe in Heaven, but not for my own mind's sake, I don't think such a loving thing - something beyond selfishness, ego and priority - could condemn the good. I don't think a loving God would allow a Hell. I think an all knowing God would. In one form, anyone may be fucked, if God had set guidelines. Goodness is apparent. Those with faith have more to answer for than those without. I would be offended if a cult was started and misinterpreted my teachings moreso

2006-01-25 [deus-ex-machina]: than someone who ignored me altogether, but would except I might exist, but didn't taint my name. The all loving God would by logic allow many people into heaven or would at least save them from damnation. No faith would be right - the preconception their is a chosen faith is an arrogance IMO. If we lived a good life under his teachings, whatever they may be, we would go to heaven.

2006-01-25 [Lady_Elowyn]: Understandable, but I dissagree. God gave us free choice to love him or not, or to sin, so that we wouldn't be like robots. So, of course, man decided to sin. God cannot allow sin into heaven- it is impossible. Therefore, he must send them to hell, although it breaks his heart to do so.

2006-01-25 [deus-ex-machina]: So arises the Euthyphro dilemna. Is something good because God commands it, or does God command that which is good? He cannot be both. Goodness either dominates, or he dominates. As is the struggle to believe in power and love. If God is all loving, he is subject to fault. Fault is apparent in the world. If God exists, I hope he lacks all power. If he chose what is good... then a lot more people are going to hell. Not just atheists and agnostics.

2006-01-25 [M_Sinner]: I haven't finished reading all of the comments yet, but just something that I must say: Assuming that there is a God, and assuming that he is the creator, then who are any of us (the creation), to impose upon him what we deem to be good or evil? What is good or evil is whatever he says it is. Furthermore, if it is what we DO that gets us into heaven (E.G. acting "good"), then how can we live up to perfection?

2006-01-25 [M_Sinner]: Okay, now that I am done reading all of your comments, DEM (Deargod... your vocabulary and process confounds me sometimes! (Compliment, not insult]) So, you're saying that being agnostic is the wisest course of action because without faith, you will not be judged as harshly. This is my understanding, anyway. I want to make sure I understand your viewpoint. I'm not contradicting in thsi comment. (or at least, not contradicting you yet. ;) )

2006-01-25 [deus-ex-machina]: Love the sinner, hate the sin - It's a phrase I hate, but why is it impossible? Not all people can be ceremoniously (a word?) cleansed of sins on this Earth. I can't believe for a second that a few years in a seminary allows for a human person to cleanse people of their sins. They have been educated. They have not been given the grace of God. As to why there are paedophiles in the Church. They are preachers, to allow understanding towards a designated perfection. If it broke his heart, he wouldn't do it, unless he was all knowing and not all loving. Purgatory can only exist if grey matter exist, and love creates grey matter.

2006-01-25 [deus-ex-machina]: I don't believe it's the wisest, but I believe it's the most neutral. Agnostism... is basically you're intermediate. You can be atheistic. If God exists - you're fucked. I believe there might be a God and I believe if a loving God exists, I might stand a chance. If God chose what is right, a specific faith is right. It might as well be the Jehovah's witnesses and only 144000 people can initially enter heaven. I don't think God is restricted by numbers. I like to step back and think of God as God, not as a faith-head.

2006-01-25 [deus-ex-machina]: God cannot or does not give everyone faith. I don't see how it's fair that I can be condemned to Hell because I was not given that faith. I look for it in logic and in inspiration - but no. I don't see how a fair God can allow me to go to Hell for not believing in him on a spiritual level for never finding him whilst searching.

2006-01-25 [deus-ex-machina]: As someone questioning - if God does not have anyone overlooking him, why must he make such drastic decisions? In life, I see people's heart broken because they have to turn off a life support machine, or reject a benefit claim. But they are based on higher powers. God is good, yes. He must differentiate between good and bad. In this case, God knows what is right and wrong... so how do people feel comfort in knowing their faith is the right one? There must be right and wrong... so only one can be right, unless as I like to think, the laws of God are passive.

2006-01-25 [M_Sinner]: Well, the forgiveness of sin only by ordained ministers is a misconception... Their Job is actually to simply remind people that the Grace of God is for all, covering all that do not turn their backs on Him. Them saying "Your sins are forgiven" don't clean some magical little slate that hold your sins... That's a catholic belief, so I can understand where you're coming from... still reading the other comments...

2006-01-25 [M_Sinner]: Purgatory- again, Catholic, I will not defend it as I don't believe in it. Purgatory does not exist.

2006-01-25 [M_Sinner]: As far as your words about "I shold not go to ell because I did not find him whilst searching." I've always wondered about this myself... what about someone who is isolated from any belief system of his own, and searches out God, but his only answer comes to him in the form of a pagan system? Or, as in your case, what if one is confounded by the sheer number of systems, or believes that they are each just as unlikely/undesireable? For this,I can only say what I believe: God is a good and just God, and whatever his decision, it is good. I'm not told the answer, to that mystery, so I cannot know the answer. But that probably sounds rather foolish to one with a logic as supreme as yours.

2006-01-25 [M_Sinner]: ^_^

2006-01-25 [deus-ex-machina]: The possibility is one I hate. I take the bare essentials and use them. I do not confine into any faith, but I listen to what this God says. I don't know why, but perhaps for my own good.

2006-01-25 [M_Sinner]: As far as the laws of God being passive, I assume that you mean the ten commandments, (or similar such laws set in place by other religions)? I can only speak for Christianity, and I would say this: That the laws were inteded to show those who had begged for a way to get into heaven upon works that such a route was impossible. There is no way on Earth that someone can go through life without sinning unless they are God (which is why I'm much kinder to homosexuality than most of my religion). The point of the law is to show that the Gospel is teh onyl way. The way I see it is this: the only way to not get into heaven is to turn your back on the existance of God, stop looking for God---

2006-01-25 [deus-ex-machina]: I didn't realise purgatory was a Catholic belief. LoL. I was brought up as a Catholic though and it is only a waiting room. Ultimately, we'd all end up in Heaven or Hell. Still, I just can't find the logic in Hell, other than eternal wandering. Why be punished for eternity and not for each sin? Of course the devil is in control of Hell, but again, perhaps another story. If I trust in a being, either good or all powerful, the only compensation for Hell is that God is not all good, so it all falls apart.

2006-01-25 [M_Sinner]: or adhere to a belief system other than Christianity due to an over-zealous fanatacism to the first religion. For isntance, if the reason that someone did not convert from Islam was because the person who tried to convert him was hostile and cruel, or all contact he had had with Christianity drove him away from it, then why wouldn't that person think that he had found God? If it was simply because he was unwilling to examine any other religion, however, then the failing is his, and it is by closing his heart to God that he has forsaken forgiveness. Perhaps this is wrong. Perhaps God is far more selective than that, and I would believe that whatever he does is right, for God (as I--

2006-01-25 [deus-ex-machina]: As far as being passive, I mean that God knows who lived a good life, with good intentions and good results. No one can go through life believing they are 100% right without wronging someone at some point. We're all sinners for that reason. I'm not saying good is subjective, but if God is good, he made goodness and he knows who tried to be good. I believe that faith, nor religion is necessarily important to enter Heaven. I guess you could say I think his requirements are lax compared to what is said.

2006-01-25 [M_Sinner]: believe) is the definition of goodness. So, I cannot know this for sure, but it is what I would think.

2006-01-25 [deus-ex-machina]: It is my honest belief that if God does exist... it was God who told us what is right, but man told us what is wrong. It's why I only conform to positive teachings and believe that man should only follow what is said to be right. It is my opinion now that at the time, man made his opinion of what is wrong then, but as man changes, what is wrong now is slightly different. Man does not have the capacity to decide right and wrong. God does. And God would say what is right. All which falls astray is a sin. We subjectively decide as man what falls astray. And that changes over time.

2006-01-25 [M_Sinner]: I think I understand what you're saying, and I don't know that our beliefs differ too much in that regard then, except for the fact that I have selected a religion. As far as hell... Stan is not in charge. That would place a part of teh creation equal with the creator. We can only assume that God is in charge, as he is in all aspects. The purpose of Hell is to eradicate sin-- the disobedience of God. As such, those who are overcome by sin, and close their hearts to God's forgiveness, are punished in hell because they essentially embraced sin. I cnnot know its end result, though. The bible doesn't talk much about it.

2006-02-28 [rocker reject]: there was this chic that messaged me asking me why i am against gay marriage, and i told her that i think it is wrong and all she could say to that is that how my opinion is wrong and her opinion is right and how mine is bullshit. i mean why do they have to be so childish about this subject? how can someones opinion be bull? ITS AN OPINION!

2006-02-28 [deus-ex-machina]: I think sticking my penis in a three year old child's eye is right. It's an opinion. Yah-HOO! I get away with it.

2006-02-28 [deus-ex-machina]: You can be against gay marriage, but to say it is to do with your religion is in my opinion, a logical fallacy. You need to know exactly why it is against your beliefs. Then you need to believe it. Then you need to justify it. The girl you spoke to was an idiot. 'BECAUSE GOD SAID SO' justifies nothing in this world, you need to say why what God said is worth listening to. If it's not to do with God, I just can't see how you're not a biggot.

2006-03-01 [levhole]: in the book of corintians there is a list of all the people who will not inherit the kingdom of heaven, homosexuals are among them

2006-03-01 [levhole]: is that suport enough?

2006-03-01 [levhole]: or maybe that sexual intercourse is for procreation not recreation

2006-03-01 [levhole]: any way, marrige is a sacrament under god, if homosexuals are allowed to marry that would be a big mushroom slap to the face for god

2006-03-01 [deus-ex-machina]: That justifies nothing to anyone accept the people willing to put faith in one of the many books claiming to be word of God. You cannot prove sexual intercourse is solely for procreation and that is so it's nature and the purpose which is 'right'. Between two consenting mature humans, anything you can do to cause pleasure should not be a sin.

2006-03-02 [T_Pop]: HOLY SHIT!!! um... can someone do a quick recap of what has gone on here??... ... ... or... I could just try to keep up from now on.

2006-03-03 [Balthizar]: The only reason marriage is under God is because Christians were the first to patent the definition..oddly anough other countries have been doing marriages for years...so the Idea that Marriage is under God is quite pathetic.

2006-03-14 [I'm Bringing Glamour Back.]: was my comment deleted? becuase i cant seem to find it

2006-03-14 [Balthizar]: *shrugs*No clue

2006-03-17 [I'm Bringing Glamour Back.]: okay, well mainly what I said is that if you really want to bring religion into it, God put us all on this earth to love one another, he made us each special. if he made a person gay, who are we to stop them from doing what god wants them to do? we should allow them to spread their love for others in the way god made them to do so.

2006-03-17 [Rizzen]: but he didn't make them gay. When god created humanity, he created in them a heterosexuality and the means to carry on and expand humanity. Homosexuality appeared much latter

2006-03-17 [hercules the legend]: Are all of you still argueing over the gay rights? OMG GET OVER IT! >.< God did not make gays gay, stop blaming him! God does not contradict himself! This is really old... stop obsessing over wanting the right to marry! If you wanna marry so bad then go marry someone of the opposite sex! And stop being lame dumbfarts!

2006-03-17 [T_Pop]: I have to admit that you are right to a point Arya. God did creat everyone uniqu and special and I must also admit that God dose want us to love eachother, but I must also agree with Rizzen's statement that God didn't creat Homosexuality. if you look at it Homosexuality came only after the "fall of man from the garden" and only when mankind knew about, and participated in sin. i have no dought that IF addom and eve didn't eat from the tree of knowlage of good and evil and the garden of eden lasted this long there would be no ishues about homosexuality for no one would do it. this is of cores my oppinion and could/should be discounted.

2006-03-17 [Rizzen]: That's my thinking exactelly T_Pop. And Hercules, it's people like you that give people like us bad names. One must understand what they argue for and against, less they sound... well, like you

2006-03-17 [hercules the legend]: lmao I really don't care, I'm tired of being nice when i've sat here and been through all the arguements and they gone on and on around and around in circles. And to be honest I didn't say anything to mean there, I was stating some things. Unlike you, I don't suck up to people, and try to make it better for them. Especially if I've been through all the arguements and heard then atleast 1,000 times. And trust me I've been in all the aruements and I haven't sounded as dumb as I do there, but I'm getting sick of all the repeating... notice I'm repeating myself!!!

2006-03-17 [Rizzen]: haven't noticed much, haven't been on the page for a long time. If such is the case, I apologize for my harsh words, I though you were another moron presenting an argument without thinking. And if what I say sounds like I'm sucking up, so be it. Half of keeping our cause going is supporting others of like mind

2006-03-17 [hercules the legend]: lol well no worries.. I've not been on here in months.. and I finally decide to check up on the place and i notice it's still going and going... it's like get over it already... And so I just pretty much said all that to get out my frusteration, hope you understand

2006-03-17 [Rizzen]: completelly. I did the same as you, sans the outburst. The only reason I came back was some fool spouting crap about God creaing homosexuality

2006-03-17 [hercules the legend]: lol yeah, that just makes me mad when someone blames God for it, when he clearly stated in the bible in his own word that man shalt not lay with man. -.-' They act like God is a moron or something.

2006-03-17 [Rizzen]: it's that whole thing of not understanding what you speak of

2006-03-17 [deus-ex-machina]: It's not an issue of not understanding, it's an issue of not knowing what God is and still having faith in him. I do not dispute the existence, but I don't think your Christian God exists as you perceive it. Even if your God didn't create homosexuality, it still exists... Does anyone actually have to be blamed for something that harms no one? Just because you 'know' God exists and that he loves you, doesn't make it true. God could be a moron for all evidence pointing towards it... like this shitty world. You can't honestly claim to know God more than anyone else. It's just your version of events that you hold true.

2006-03-17 [deus-ex-machina]: Which, other than a book and longevity, is a version of events no better or worse than anyone else's view. Empirically, I'm right, but if you want to go ahead and be offended for whatever reason, go ahead.

2006-03-17 [Rizzen]: I won't get offended, as I gather you'v had none of the evidence Christians have. I myself have felt God's hand on his shoulder, seen his works succede where everything else failed, herd his whisper in my ear. I cannot experiance first-hand the acts of God and not believe. The world is as it is becuase of Man. God created man with free will. He lets us act as we will, including our influance on the world

2006-03-17 [I'm Bringing Glamour Back.]: If God created every idea in our minds, every essence of our being, then how can you say he did not create homosexuality?

2006-03-17 [I'm Bringing Glamour Back.]: and excuse me Rizzen, but if i am the "fool spouting crap about God creating homosexuality" i think you have no right to be calling me names, and if you cant think of a more decent way to express your point than calling me, or someone else names, then you need to broaden your horizons.

2006-03-17 [I'm Bringing Glamour Back.]: Oh, thought I'd add as well, i do not think God is a moron. I go to a Catholic School. I worship him every Sunday. I pray every night. Do i think he is a moron? no. However, most of the Bible was written down through "Oral Tradition" and God also was relaying his message to humans, who make mistakes. There could have been a mistake in their writing.

2006-03-17 [deus-ex-machina]: 'Evidence' - Love, what Christians 'have' cannot be proven and so it shouldn't be brought to the bloody table. If I were to say I felt alone, that we exist for no reason and that we die and stay dead... you would say I was not justified. As far as your experience goes, I'd refer you to a specialist. I'd send you to a gas chamber for even suggesting it in the first place as worth while text. Your EXPERIENCE means nothing. Oh look, Frodo Baggins just stuck his little penis up my bum. I have faith in Frodo Baggins. I now believe that rings with power and swords that glow in the proximity of orcs actually exist! =O

2006-03-17 [deus-ex-machina]: You have as much proof for either case, ie, none. What you have is faith and if you're going to say people do not know God... I think you should think twice before you type. Your God? He sounds like a bit of a cock, still smiting in Revalations. Proof your God is actually real and why the real God might not have created homosexuality? The key word is 'empirical' - to argue something that can be grounded essentially as empirical for all reasons of law, I don't see what a book, faith and a lot of holy buildings do to strengthen your case. Churches just like to press the 'sue' button on www.idisagree.com.

2006-03-18 [hercules the legend]: God simply does not contradict himself, and yes the bible was written by men, but men who were filled with the holy spirit... God used them to write his word. People put their own life on the line to make sure the bible got into the hands of ans many people as possible. Many died, so if the bible is so wrong, then why did so many die to make sure God's word got to as many peopel as possible? Do not take the word of God so lightly.

2006-03-18 [Rizzen]: In fact, most of the bible was writen from a first hand perspective, particularely the New Testament. And I'm not going to apologize Arya, because I do consider you a fool. If you choose to take offence, so be it. And deus, if Frodo did indeed interact with you in such a way, you'd damn well believe he exists. Hard not to believe after you've acutally interacted with a being

2006-03-18 [Balthizar]: It may be the word of God yes. But at the same time, it may still be flawed. For it was written by man, filled with holy spirit sure. But because they are human there are things in the Bible that contradict themselves, mainly because they did not understand it themselves.

2006-03-18 [I'm Bringing Glamour Back.]: i totally agree Balthizar. as for you hercules, why does anyone die for what they believe in? BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IN IT. why do so many satanic people sacrifice themselves? because they believe it is right. that is why so many people have died for God, because they believed it was right. Am i saying God contradicted himself? no. I am saying that those who wrote the Bible, well maybe God had said homosexuality is okay, and they were too overcome by their own ideas and wrote down what they believed. They were only human. Filled with the holy spirit, yes. But still human. Humans make mistakes. God put us here to love one another, and to do it in the only way we know how.

2006-03-18 [I'm Bringing Glamour Back.]: People do not "become homosexual" as many people think. They were born that way, therefore, created by God that way. If you are saying God made a mistake in creating these people, I don't think he did. I think he meant for us to learn to accept one another for their sexuality, just most of us accept others for their race. As for you Rizzen, I can't say that I'm offended, more disappointed than anything. I would have thought you would have a better way to get your point across than calling me a fool, because you seem to be very intelligent. But I can honestly say I've been called worse things, therefore, not offended, disappointed.

2006-03-18 [Lady_Elowyn]: People are not 'born' homosexual. I strongly dissagree with that. God did not create people to sin, and he is VERY clear in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. I do not recall exactly where, butr I believe somewhere in Corinthians ot spoke about the sinfulness of men sleeping with men and women with women. Therefore, he could not have created them homosexual. It is a choice a person makes. I hope you understand I mean no offense by this, I only wish to make a logical point.

2006-03-18 [deus-ex-machina]: Those educated in science and in the debate don't say people are born homosexual, but then I disagree. I do not think it is genetic. I haven't seen anything to say that a hormone imbalance in development didn't cause it, so I won't fully deny it. But not because God made us not to sin. You talk of the bible and do not know the quotes? Leviticus - overused, disproved - Sodom and Gomarrah. Prove it is a choice. Not even God says it is in such a quote. Ask a gay person whether they chose to be gay and if you meet a real gay person, not some fuck up literally abused, and I bet they can say they can't choose. They can choose who to bed, but not who to feel attracted to.

2006-03-18 [deus-ex-machina]: Why did so many jewish people die just to make the Germans look evil in the second world war? Asking why people died for the cause of the Bible is completely moot. People dying... proves something? YOUR God, by definition, does not contradict himself. It doesn't mean the cause of the universe and of human life, the one we actually ought to pay homage to, strictly did though.

2006-03-18 [Lady_Elowyn]: I believe you might have misunderstood me. I said that God specifically said that it was a sin. And since he is against sin, he would never create anyone to sin. Therefore, conclusions must be drawn that God did not create anyone as a homosexual.

2006-03-18 [deus-ex-machina]: And I'm saying that if it's not a choice, how can you possibly claim it is a sin? God might have said so, but who actually believes what he had to say? It's in the Bible anyway, in a patriarchal society which has the same acceptance of the 'poofters' as any dumb pub lout. There is nothing inherently wrong with acting on homosexual feelings and I am aware of natural law. I completely disagree with it. You logic isn't flawed, I'll admit, I just think your source of belief is close minded and not loving.

2006-03-18 [deus-ex-machina]: Religious people claim to have interacted with God, you said yourself how you had 'interacted' with him. Point is, Frodo Baggins does not exist. So why does God?

2006-03-18 [Caritas]: I agree with [Lady_Elowyn] that people are not "born" gay. They choose to be

2006-03-18 [Lady_Elowyn]: Why does God exist? I'm afraid I'll have a hard time explaining this to you. I mean no offense, but you claim that I am closed-minded. Is it not possible that it is you who is closed-minded? Let me ask you this. Where did the world come from?

2006-03-18 [deus-ex-machina]: I established ages ago that you are an idiot though.

2006-03-18 [Caritas]: Well, if you say that God does not exist, why are you alive today? How did Adam and Eve (the first people) get here? Think of that.

2006-03-18 [deus-ex-machina]: Who knows? I have my theories, you have yours. Ockham's razor, yadda yadda. I'm fully willing to except I am close minded, but I'm not saying homosexuals are sinful other than what is said in a book. *shrugs* As for [Caritas] - don't get involved. It's established I do not take the Bible literally. I do not why I exist, but I do not have faith to the extent I am willing to blindly believe without reason that I am here by means of a God. I do not believe in Adam and Eve, so why should I even answer that? I would say 'evolution', but you'd probably reel off one of the cliches like 'I never saw a monkey turn into a person'. Abiogenesis? It's about as verifiable as a God.

2006-03-18 [Lady_Elowyn]: Remember, Money Gal, if some one doesn't believe in God it is likely they won't believe in Adam and Eve. I ask again, [deus-ex-machina]: Where did the world come from? This discussion has nothing to do with idiocy. Please answer my question, for if you ignore it you only prove that you have no answer. If you have no answer, then why should the answer not be that God created the world?

2006-03-18 [deus-ex-machina]: Obviously my analogy failed here. It works elsewhere, so I'll just be content. LoL... I'm still so not taking the Bible literally though, [Caritas]

2006-03-18 [Caritas]: First of all. I CAN GET INVOLVED IF I WANT TO! And 2nd I thought that it is a Straight Way wiki. Not a God insulting wiki. Nor God dissers.

2006-03-18 [deus-ex-machina]: I say I have no answer, because nothing I say, including a God can be verified or falsified. By having faith in one way it could be possible for the world to exist, does not make it true. I do not deny God. I don't see how the Big Bang could happen without external energy, but at best I am willing to except 'God' is inexplicable energy. Your answer is as good as mine, but my way of really not caring about how the world exists leads me to love everything until I have a reason to hate it. I do not read a book, find faith, believe that what this 'God' says is true and as a result damn people for doing certain things like a lot of theists.

2006-03-18 [Caritas]: Sorry [Lady_Elowyn]. I forgot about that.

2006-03-18 [deus-ex-machina]: God insulting = God dissers. One redundant point. You can get involved if you want to, I didn't mean to sound like you couldn't, I'm not even sure if I'm arguing with people who know what 'philsophy' or 'ethics' means, plus what more than enough years of Christian study means. I'm not arguing for arguments sake because I do not believe in a Christian God... I do not see how the Bible justifies descrimination against homosexuals without valid, empirical proof. I want to at least debate on a higher level than 'God exists... God exists... Fool.'

2006-03-18 [Lady_Elowyn]: Alright, I accept your answer. It was stated well and makes sense. It will not change my opinion, but I think at the moment I think we should agree to dissagree. In a way. Monkey Gal is right. The purpose of this wiki is not to debate about God. For that matter, the purpose of the wiki has nothing to do with debate. I believe this wiki was created so that people could join and show their support for the cause, so to speak. However, as it seems to have turned into a debate, I believe it would be helpful if we kept the topic on homosexuality and NOT God.

2006-03-18 [Caritas]: Thank you [Lady_Elowyn]! You see what I am saying.

2006-03-18 [Caritas]: I do have one question, though. How did God get in to this whole thing?

2006-03-18 [deus-ex-machina]: Descrimination against homosexuals in my eyes can only be justified by proof of God and his words as truth as such they are infallible and true... to point homosexuality is sinful. Otherwise it's just unjustified descrimination. That's my point in case. Most people I bet here believe straight marriage is only right because it is what God has said. That's why I mention God, that's all. I don't think that you're unjustified in believing homosexuality is wrong... because you have faith. I just think that if your reason to have faith is founded on something not celestial, there is nothing but blunt descrimination in the view. Personally, I do not believe in God to believe that the Bible isn't

2006-03-18 [deus-ex-machina]: just human writing, just like every ethical theory out there. I believe most Christian values are strong, because most can be shown to have a positive empircal effect. Others, like the belief on homosexuality, don't though.

2006-03-18 [Caritas]: I know what will settle all this: [deus-ex-machina], you believe in what ever so fits you. As for me and [Lady_Elowyn], we believe in what suit us as right.

2006-03-18 [deus-ex-machina]: That doesn't settle it, not at all. It's the concluding cop out until a scientist slaps proof across your face that homosexuality is not choice... but until then, I don't think I can bear to have children around when the adults are sitting around discussing adult things. It's irritating. =D As long as you're good enough Christians to never think an ill thought against a gay person even in the act of sex, I can live with you having your descriminatory beliefs... half kidding. Pretty much saying I'll be quiet until it fires up again.

2006-03-18 [Lady_Elowyn]: I am not positive I understood all of that, but I will try to respond as wel as possible. So you believe that it is acceptable to be against homosexuality only if you believe in God. But if one does not believe in God and is still against homosexuality, that is wrong? Alright, I can se why you say that. An actually it might have been I who brought up God... or not, I don't remember, But if I did it was in defense of my position

2006-03-18 [deus-ex-machina]: That's pretty much it, lol. It's like 'justify your views', which a religious viewpoint would, but only if God does actually exist. But honestly, now I'm not going to reply again. =P

2006-03-18 [Lady_Elowyn]: ok, again, I agree to dissagree with you as far as the God issue goes.

2006-03-18 [I'm Bringing Glamour Back.]: people are born gay. it is that simple. No one chooses who they are attracted to. Why do abused women stay with their abusive husbands? Becuase they were attracted to them and fell in love with them. Why were they attracted to a person who beats them? Because we cant control who we are attracted to/fall in love with. We are born that way. God has a plan for all of us correct? Well, maybe for some people, the plan is to fall in love with someone of the same sex. As for the quote God said, many of the quotes from God could have been misinterpreted by the Humans who wrote them down. oh, and Lady_Elowyn, in response to your comment before, no offense taken.

2006-03-18 [deus-ex-machina]: Not born gay. *sorry, had to do it* I'd agree if you were to say it wasn't a choice. But being born that way isn't the only way it isn't strictly a choice. I disagree mainly because there's no proof that it is in birth, but if you ask a gay person, all of the non-emo wannabe metrosexuals will say they didn't choose to be that way. Might as well go with the proof we have.

2006-03-18 [Lady_Elowyn]: I'm going to discreetly remove myself from this debate, as it seems to have come in a complete circle and I do not feel like repeating myself. If you'd like to know my opinion, see my earlier posts.

2006-03-18 [Balthizar]: True....

2006-03-19 [I'm Bringing Glamour Back.]: ah, i do agree.. we are kind of going in circles..

2006-03-20 [Lady_Elowyn]: No offense, but you are kind of the one who brought us in a circle by bringing up your argument again.

2006-03-20 [deus-ex-machina]: A circle never ends - so be fair, none of us have helped. We're all mindless humans. Especially the rest of you. I'm particularly post-human. It's called evolution. =O

2006-03-20 [Lady_Elowyn]: I guess.... Except I don't believe in evolution...

2006-03-20 [deus-ex-machina]: Read up on it. You'd be surprised. Don't look it up as a theory of life. Look it up as natural selection, mutation and microbiotic evolution. It doesn't attempt to make light of where life came from... although it will ultimately tell you that you evolved from a common link with ape life. Sorry if it offends your ego.

2006-03-20 [I'm Bringing Glamour Back.]: I agree Lady_Elowyn...therefore, no offense taken. I dont believe in evolution either honestly..

2006-03-20 [deus-ex-machina]: To not believe in a working process with scientific fact seems rather ridiculous. Read up on it.

2006-03-20 [Lady_Elowyn]: There is as much scientific fact for Creationism as there is for evolution, although I have yet to find all of it. I would suggest looking it up. For now, I think we should agree to disagree.

2006-03-20 [deus-ex-machina]: No, there isn't. Stop using the agree to disagree argument. I'm sure your school just refuses to teach evolution, but it's half one in the morning here and if you would like me to find evidence for evolution (as a working process, not as anything to prove or disprove God, I will)... Creationism evidence? All bias and all I've seen easily disproven for Creationism. They do not teach anything to do with God in any good school as evidence or fact, just postulation. They teach it as much a working theory as evolution... and any good school won't use 'LOOK AT THE WORLD!' as evidence. Sorry.

2006-03-20 [Lady_Elowyn]: As a matter of fact it has nothing to do with my school not teaching it. The teachers in my school have personally scorned my own views. And I simply say agree to dissagree because I recognise that nothing I say will change your mind, and nothing you say will change mine, and I just don't care to argue about it at the moment.

2006-03-20 [Balthizar]: How can you effectivley call some one a mindless human? When in fact, the only mindless ones are dead.*nods*

2006-03-20 [Blaithin]: I disagree [Balthizar] I know plenty of live people with no minds at all. As for the Evolution vs. Creationism, there is lots of evidence supporting both, its up to us to decide which is more concrete. In my opinion thats Evolutionism since that has much more concrete facts that aren't based on simply books. Thats my view anyway.

2006-03-21 [Balthizar]: Anyone who can actually think, as in their brain works, has a mind. Therefore, not mindless. Now, if you are meaning people who conform, in a sense, we all do. Even those who try to "stand out" they are conforming to that idea.

2006-03-21 [Blaithin]: Just because the brain works doesn't mean the person actually uses it. Ergo, they're mindless ;)

2006-03-21 [Balthizar]: Actually, it does. If the body is working, then the mind is also. It also requires thought to walk around. Ego, they are using it. Therefore, not mindless

2006-03-21 [Blaithin]: You obviously have a different idea of what mindless entails so we'll just have to agree to disagree I guess.

2006-03-21 [Balthizar]: Well, to you what does Mindless entail?

2006-03-21 [Lady_Elowyn]: What is the point? The point of this wiki is not to debate the definition of mindlessness. It would be helpful if you kept conversation limited to the topic at hand.

2006-03-21 [Blaithin]: Is it pointed out somewhere that we can only discuss gay vs straight? Because if thats the case then I missed it...As for what being mindless entails; A mindless person is someone who doesn't take advantage of their mind. Simply using your mind for habitul acts of nature such as walking doesn't stimulate the mind at all, therefore the person is more or less mindless.

2006-03-21 [Balthizar]: True, if you look at it from a deeper perspective. But technically all you have to do is think. So depending on how you look at things, we are both right.

2006-03-21 [Lady_Elowyn]: It isn't a rule written in blood, no. But it IS annoying checking here for comments about the topic I came to talk about, and finding an argument that has nothing to do with the wiki and has little connection to the former topic. It's just a bunch of pointless arguing, if you ask me, no offense meant.

2006-03-21 [Blaithin]: Depending on the perspective and whether or not you're trying to insult people by calling them mindless, yep, we're both right ;)

2006-03-21 [Balthizar]: *nods*Glad we have that out of the way. Now, why would anyone debate on a subject no one can win?

2006-03-21 [Blaithin]: [Lady_Elowyn] Such discussions happen on just about every wiki so I'm sure this isn't the only one you check into that isn't talking about the "Preferred" topic. As for pointless arguing, I don't see any. [Balthizar] and I were comparing views, nothing entailing arguing took place and since the conversation has come to an end, feel free to begin talk about what this wiki is based on :)

2006-03-21 [Balthizar]: Here Here!*waves mug of apple juice*

2006-03-21 [Lady_Elowyn]: Alright, I surrender... I see your purpose in the discussion.

2006-03-22 [T_Pop]: *cry* so much to read, so little brain cells to hold it all lol J/K

2006-03-24 [M_Sinner]: *agrees with T_pop.*

2006-03-24 [Lady_Elowyn]: There wasn't really all that much that happened actually.

2006-03-24 [T_Pop]: maybe not, but thats a lot of type for a little progress. anyway just to recap the discution has proceded to what point now?

2006-03-24 [Lady_Elowyn]: We went in a circle involving God's existence and homosexuals being born that way, then somehow the debate turned to the definition of mindlessness...

2006-03-24 [M_Sinner]: As they tend to do on the itnernet... hence my long absence. ^_^

2006-03-24 [Lady_Elowyn]: Yes, I can see that

2006-03-24 [deus-ex-machina]: Actually, it didn't really turn out that way - it was one person's opinion. Generally it's just 'homosexuals don't make a conscious choice to be gay'. Talk about bias behaviour. Never trust sources from anyone. =D

2006-03-25 [M_Sinner]: Nice to see you again, Deus! Anyway, it all seems to be the same argument here. Even if we ever do manage to reach a decision one way or another, within 22 comments, everything will be gone and someone else will come in and be like, "*insert random flamewar spark here.*" Really kind of annoying if you ask me...

2006-03-25 [deus-ex-machina]: But it's a good way to vent if you're in the mood for it. =P

2006-03-25 [M_Sinner]: I suppose. I perfer to put my fustration to better use... sure, I could type my little fingers out, but a workout is much more to my liking... Nothing quite compares to the endorphine rush after a 3 mile run!

2006-03-26 [deus-ex-machina]: I'm less likely to die 'typing my little fingers out' than going for a jog and being much more likely to be hit by a car or mauled by a beartrap in the middle of no where. And I don't much fancy dying, you know, with God not existing and therefore ceasing to be? =P

2006-03-26 [M_Sinner]: ... Dude... you need to freakin live a little! So, you might be running around or whatever and trip and break your leg, and you might do this or that, and your house might get hit by a meteor. Don't base your decisions on things like that. There will always be some random possibility to screw thigns up, but if you sit there and avoid all situations in which they occur, you'll never have any fun!

2006-03-26 [deus-ex-machina]: Sarcasm, love.

2006-03-26 [M_Sinner]: ... Well, I feel almost as stupid as normal!

2006-03-26 [deus-ex-machina]: LoL, don't worry, it probably wasn't that obvious either. I live, I die. I would have to agree with your philosophy since I'm living for the moment, after all, with our different beliefs, I think we can still agree that all proof - proof being that we are experiencing it 24/7 - that this is the only life we have without a second doubt (faith allows for belief in the afterlife, but I'm not playing it safe for all possibility that there might be another one). I might go to Hell, but I'm not willing to pretend so I can go to Heaven if I'm wrong. So yeah! Rock on! I just don't fancy the jog. =P

2006-03-26 [M_Sinner]: Well, I don't enjoy the run much, either. It's the after-effect that's great! Anyways, I realize that. Too bad you can't fool whatever superior being (or lack thereof) into thinking you believe. Then it would just be a matter of determining how to cover all your bases. ;) anyway, enough distasteful talk of unethical things like that.

2006-03-26 [deus-ex-machina]: Of course. So, are you a city jogger or do you go out to the country? Or even better, do you live in the country? How long does it take you?

2006-03-26 [M_Sinner]: I live in the city right now. =P Hate it. I want to go back to Ft. Wayne. I live in a state capital right now, so it's a very busy city, but Ft. Wayne was one of the smaller cities. Large enough to have lots to do, but small enough that you can get away to some nice scenery and the like. *sighs*

2006-03-27 [T_Pop]: 10 push ups a day and 20 sit ups a day is enough for me lmao

2006-03-27 [M_Sinner]: 10?! 20?! Tom, I know that you can push yourself farther than that. You were the guy carrying around teh 80lb bookbag in high school! I'm doing a 40-20-10 series of push-ups, sit-ups, and squat-jumps each night (I do fourty of each, twenty of each, then ten of each). I'll show you how to get a workout going when I'm in the Ft. next time, Tom...

2006-03-27 [T_Pop]: what??... i know i can do more, but i get up to that much before i get bored and deside to do something more interesting lmao

2006-03-27 [M_Sinner]: Lol... then you have to be introduced to a wonderful creation called "Heavy metal."

2006-03-28 [dfafadsfasdasf]: what up everyone

2006-03-29 [T_Pop]: um... you do remember the two disk's i have right? i thought that was heavy metal... Hello BlackFire66, i would greet you with a hand shake but it dosen't work to well when your online ^_^

2006-03-29 [M_Sinner]: Ummm... are you talking about the Evanescence I gave you? "Heavy Metal?" HAHAHAHA!!!

2006-03-30 [Balthizar]: *bows*Hello [dfafadsfasdasf]