2005-04-19 [deus-ex-machina]: BTW, I believe they have elected a new Pope, so I'm off to hear about that.

2005-04-20 [i am heddas lost brother]: Wow look at me, im not even listening to a word your saying!:O

2005-04-20 [deus-ex-machina]: Maturity issues rawk. ^.^

2005-04-20 [Radioactive Flea]: Careful or I'll have to release the mellings. . . evil mellings.

2005-04-20 [RAGE!!!]: You what?

2005-04-20 [Radioactive Flea]: Mellings silly, an awful hybrid of midget and lemming. They're all men and usually die lonely awful hate related deaths.

2005-04-20 [Snowboarding Hobitz]: are we talking suicide?

2005-04-20 [HiddenFire]: Self hating melings? o.0

2005-04-20 [Snowboarding Hobitz]: oh. okay, just sort of jumping in here ^.^

2005-04-20 [Radioactive Flea]: They're usually killed by men for trying to bite off their "tool".

2005-04-21 [Snowboarding Hobitz]: ahhhh, well -ahem- thats ONE way of "self hating"

2005-04-21 [Radioactive Flea]: No, human males. . . . they hate them for creating them.

2005-04-21 [Snowboarding Hobitz]: wow...I'm speechless

2005-04-21 [Radioactive Flea]: Lol, want one?

2005-04-22 [The Scarlet Pumpernickle]: I do!...I happen to know a few guys who need "dismembering"

2005-04-22 [Snowboarding Hobitz]: well. I know a few "boys" (they hardly classify) who could go for a good neutering....and my "ex-boyfriend" considering the weasle couldn't even have the balls to ask me out, so he ASSUMED we were dating, and when word finally reached me he had asked another girl to prom but still wanted to date me...OH and they were seeing each other the whole time too (asshole)

2005-05-25 [hh]: can I add one of the banners to my house even though I'm not a member yet?

2005-05-26 [Radioactive Flea]: Well wish me luck. I'm graduating friday and still have three weeks left (at college, I'm graduating from High school)

2005-05-28 [Mayuya]: hello people... time away from here!!! how are you all!?

2005-05-29 [e5hnzwu5]: still straight.lol

2005-05-29 [hh]: well im hopein!! lol

2005-06-03 [Echo Rhapsody]: Hi all, neat page you have here!! sorry for the random comment

2005-06-03 [Snowboarding Hobitz]: (laughs at comments above)

2005-06-03 [dfafadsfasdasf]: randomness is welcome

2005-06-20 [rocker reject]: randomness rocks!

2005-06-20 [Snowboarding Hobitz]: yay for random!!

2005-06-20 [Echo Rhapsody]: why...thank you!!

2005-06-20 [rocker reject]: no problem "D

2005-06-23 [dfafadsfasdasf]: my mom died, god i'm so sad

2005-06-23 [e5hnzwu5]: are you serious? :O

2005-06-23 [dfafadsfasdasf]: yeah june 17 at 4:45 she survived 26 hours after we took her off the ventalateor cuz she was completly brain dead, she was in a coma for a week after haveing a massive heart attack

2005-06-23 [e5hnzwu5]: O.o thats terrible. thats horrible and shocking.

2005-06-23 [Lady_Elowyn]: I'm so sorry.

2005-06-24 [Echo Rhapsody]: I'll be praying for you BlackFire66, thats truely tramatic, are you and your family okay?

2005-06-24 [Let it all out]: oh my god I'm so sorry. I'll pray for you too.

2005-06-24 [Snowboarding Hobitz]: as will I

2005-06-24 [dfafadsfasdasf]: thanx everyone

2005-06-24 [Snowboarding Hobitz]: anytime

2005-06-26 [nolongerrelevant]: Errr Just so you know... Your banner (the red squre with the white line diagonally through it) happens to be VERY similar to the Trinidad & Tobago flag. 

2005-06-26 [dfafadsfasdasf]: hey i made that out of my own brain

2005-06-26 [Echo Rhapsody]: yeah, it's been there a while...i like it

2005-06-26 [dfafadsfasdasf]: thanx

2005-06-27 [Echo Rhapsody]: anytime =3

2005-07-29 [warning885]: hey can i join the wiki

2005-07-30 [dfafadsfasdasf]: sure

2005-07-30 [warning885]: hey

2005-07-30 [e5hnzwu5]: hi :)

2005-07-31 [Lady_Elowyn]: boo. That's my own personal way of saying hi.

2005-08-01 [e5hnzwu5]: bohoo

2005-08-11 [hercules the legend]: XD

2005-08-12 [Echo Rhapsody]: boodyhoody hoo

2005-08-18 [yuktukym]: Civil status: involved

2005-08-18 [hercules the legend]: o.O

2005-08-18 [Lady_Elowyn]: lol

2005-08-19 [hercules the legend]: I didn't get that but oh well :p

2005-08-21 [blanknothing]: Hey raine you like your BIsexual bf?

2005-08-21 [dfafadsfasdasf]: how come no one here has normal conversation

2005-08-22 [Lady_Elowyn]: You're right. Conversation here is... strange, to say the least. I normally stay out of it.

2005-08-22 [dfafadsfasdasf]: i know

2005-08-31 [Snowboarding Hobitz]: Please, could some people pay a visit to my new wiki: SPF 5000...it could use the publicity

2005-08-31 [Echo Rhapsody]: alright

2005-10-15 [Nona_da_rockstar]: Hi everyone, i'm all for straight marriage...can i join?

2005-10-18 [bluefairy27]: i only have one thing to say; shallow.

2005-10-18 [Snowboarding Hobitz]: okay, thanks for that?? What for? what's shallow?

2005-10-18 [bluefairy27]: whats shallow? take a look around you, it's all shallow.

2005-10-18 [Rizzen]: because we hold to an ideal? Becuase we of like minds banded together under a common cause? or is it shallow because you don't like it

2005-10-18 [deus-ex-machina]: probably doesn't like it because it's shallow? in his opinion... of course... not mine... not ever. >.>

2005-10-18 [Lady_Elowyn]: I'm confused by what is being considered "shallow". Do you mean that this wiki is shallow, that it is shallow to be against homosexual marriage and to say so?

2005-10-18 [Snowboarding Hobitz]: shallow as in what...shallow means lacking depth, we've gone into depth. DEEP DEEP WATERS OF SOCIETY HERE

2005-10-18 [bluefairy27]: shallow as in this whole wiki is shallow, you say it is here to post your thought on this but yet you people don't want to hear others opinions agaisnt it.

2005-10-18 [Lady_Elowyn]: I'm perfectly willing to hear your oppinion. That doesn't mean I will agree with it. What we don't want is for you to tell us we are wrong and attack us for it. I wouldn't mind debating what we believe, just don't get offensive and attack us.\

2005-10-18 [bluefairy27]: i never said you were wrong and i never attacked you, i said that i had one thing to say and that was shallow; there was no need for you to respond to it by asking me something or directing something torwards me.

2005-10-18 [Lady_Elowyn]: I know, and I'm sorry if that is how you took it. I wasn't reffereing to you specifically, but to those people who dissagreed with us. I'm sorry if you thought I meant elsewise.

2005-10-18 [bluefairy27]: well i don't agree with your opinion but i won't start stuff or bombard you with anything unless you actually say something that gets me going. np but you don't have to say sorry.

2005-10-18 [Lady_Elowyn]: Ok. nice talkin to ya.

2005-10-19 [bluefairy27]: yeah.

2005-10-19 [Rizzen]: Bluefairy, if you look at the comments history, you'll see that we have had much debate about the subject. We've listened to many a person with the opposite oppinion of ours. Please don't jump to false conclusions

2005-10-19 [bluefairy27]: i'm not and when i said yeah that was acknowledging that i knew [Lady_Elowyn] was saying something to me and it was saying that i was completely done saying what i wanted to as i was before when i first made a comment. i didn't come to debate, i came to state my opinion and i did that and left.

2005-10-19 [Snowboarding Hobitz]: the reason we don't "listin" to other people's "opinions" as you say, is because people come on here with messages like "You fucker...die" or "this is so shallow' ....how would you like to talk calmly to a person who spits in your face?

2005-10-19 [Nona_da_rockstar]: That is actually quite true...people don't always come on very plesent

2005-10-20 [bluefairy27]: i never said you didn't listen, you have a thing at the top of your page saying you don't want opposing comments posted

2005-10-20 [Nona_da_rockstar]: It also says that if you want to debait that there is a separate page for that...I think it's okay if the people here come for support and don't have to argue every point they make. The people in gay support can do the same if they REALLY want to

2005-10-21 [bluefairy27]: but i DIDN'T come to debate, i came to say one thing and i said it and you people responded, if you didn't i wouldn't have said something else and if you stop talking to me then i can stop talking to you.

2005-10-21 [Rizzen]: aye yah. Can you really expect to come to a page such as this, say something in the opposite, and not expect a response. If you truelly are finished, just stop responding to our responses.

2005-10-21 [bluefairy27]: i always respond no matter what.

2005-10-21 [Snowboarding Hobitz]: you're being very irritating, like any other gay support person who comes on this page...hum, I wonder why they have such a bad steriotype

2005-10-21 [bluefairy27]: it's stereotype. i don't care if i'm irritating, if you don't want me to talk here then don't reply. what i'm saying now has no need for a reply like any other thing i've said but yet you have failed not to.

2005-10-21 [Snowboarding Hobitz]: Oh, okay...I shall ignore you than. Good idea, you must be proud...it's you're first. So, everyone, how's life?

2005-10-21 [Nona_da_rockstar]: Life is good. You know, ironicaly enough, I'm doing an editorial on gay marriage!!! HA

2005-10-21 [Snowboarding Hobitz]: that is kind of funny!! Do you have enough information, I can give you a few links if you need! just message me

2005-10-21 [Nona_da_rockstar]: Oh really, thanks, I'd like that. Has anyone here seen Jib Jabs new cartoon "Big Box Mart"...it's hilarious, I would recomend seeing it

2005-10-21 [Snowboarding Hobitz]: I just did!! BWAHA! so sad, and so true

2005-10-24 [Nona_da_rockstar]: What does everyone here think on homosexuals adopting children? It would be helpful if i could get a website or two for my paper

2005-10-24 [RaimëRáca]: I don't think kids have any choice over who adopts them....that would suck if you were abandonded because your parents died, and some gay couple comes and makes you live with them..what if you don't want to??

2005-10-24 [deus-ex-machina]: I'm fairly sure the children have a decision if they come of age. I love the ignorance you have though. As if the gay couple are gonna stick their fingers up the holes of the child and give them nothing more than bread and water. I would rather have an affluent, loving gay couple take me as their child than my hypothetical dirty drug taking poor whores of parents. The love of a mother and father can be inferior in situations when the child is treated like shit. Don't fool yourselves with doctrines. If you'd rather drug addicts looked after you, who sold your child allowance for peonic amounts of drugs rather than a gay couple who want you and will love you - well... =) Have a good life?

2005-10-24 [deus-ex-machina]: Basically - I want to see proof that children with same sex parents end up as screwed up psychopaths touching children as I get a distinct impression you would like to find them. In my science based mind - give it a try - both sides can be happy when the evidence is conclusive. One side has a group of fucked up psychopaths who I'm surewould revel in flaunting them to the masses - alternatively, children who would otherwise have no parental figures at all who turn out fine with gay parents... well go figure. All or nothing is the only way to prove something - Too bad the hippies won't allow it.

2005-10-26 [Balthizar]: Actually children do I have choice if they are adopted, the child gets to decide if they feel safe or not with Said parent.

2005-10-28 [Snowboarding Hobitz]: what if it's a baby though, or a young child who they can't really talk to? i dunno

2005-10-29 [Balthizar]: It doesnt mean Homosexuals should not be allowed to Adopt. That is a poor reason, just because there is a chance they will be gay also. Enviroment has a alot to do with it, but it also has to do with ther person

2005-10-29 [Snowboarding Hobitz]: i know, i know of kids raised by homo. parents who are straight

2005-10-30 [deus-ex-machina]: I see no reason for a child to be gay if the parents are, unless the parents abuse the child. Chances are probably equal, less so if they are adopted. They may end up camp. But I see no reason for homosexuality. Just as a single female parent with two elder sisters will raise a son which will be camp, but straight. Perhaps more enlightened than most. No one is daring enough to test homosexuality. So we should all shut up, but technically, under law of equal rights, the gay couples should be entitled to the same liberties, as proof is inert.

2005-10-30 [Take off your clothes. ♥]: umm ok im not gonna talk in the gay marriage debate cos i have one thing to say... well a couple, firstly adam and eve didnt exist... and secondly who cares if marriage is sacred because there is no god, today is more about showing commitment and god is ruled out of most countries, its completely unfair

2005-10-30 [deus-ex-machina]: Definitely a one tracked mind. Gotta prove God doesn't exist. :P

2005-10-31 [Snowboarding Hobitz]: yeah, that right there is too far. I'm kindly asking you to leave now, or at least be respectful to the beliefs of the people here. The fact that monkies are here should disprove evolution, but no one seems to care. so please don't touch that okay. I'm asking in a kind fashion

2005-10-31 [Rizzen]: I too much speak up. Though I don't post often here, I will come to the defense of my faith. This is not a place to force your opinion of faith, but to discuss your opinion of gay marriage. If you can't do that, leave

2005-10-31 [Balthizar]: How do we go friom Gay rights to God not existing?*finds it odd*Besides, Adam and Eve were a couple

2005-10-31 [deus-ex-machina]: Monkeys existing would not disprove evolution, I just don't think you can disprove God and use that as a basis of allowing gay marriage - when it is religion that disagrees with it. To be fair - the only thing I disagree with, is talking about God - since you can't prove he doesn't exist, that he does exist, and that if a necessary being does exist, it would agree with a religion.

2005-10-31 [Lady_Elowyn]: Wow, this is out of hand. I must say I am deeply offended. This wiki has nothing to do with religion. I will not even state my own beliefs, because this is not the place. Nor is it a place to discuss evolution. If you want to discuss that, go to Evolution Debate Page.

2005-11-02 [Rizzen]: my sentiments exactally

2005-11-02 [deus-ex-machina]: Religion is the hub of a group of people who disagree with gay marriage. If you want to be offended, go ahead. Can't deny a source of disagreement, I'm afraid - and you do have to question why they feel it is wrong, other than they are told so. Evolution is not a part of it. That I am willing to forget.

2005-11-12 [ludageke]: Going back to the discussion before about adoption.... I find it interesting that the idea on this is that a child would be thrown into a family of "gays", and will be abused and oppressed and "turned" gay by this.... There is very much wrong with this. First of all, they do indeed, especially with babies, do background checks on homes before just handing over children. Second, I highly doubt (and I know that there are exceptions), a gay couple, who assuming are happy enough with each other that they feel they want a child, would go through all the trouble to use or abuse the child in sexual ways. It may be needed to get past the idea that homosexuals are simply perverts.

2005-11-12 [ludageke]: Thirdly, on the issue that the child therefore may be "turned" gay... I really would like to see someone sit down, close their eyes and try to make themselves gay. There are many theories, but I really dont' think that is how it happens. Plus, many straight parents enforce that their kids could not be homosexual, how is that any better? By the way this is my first time posting here, and I am not opposed to listening to other opinions on this debate

2005-11-12 [Balthizar]: That would be very interesting to see some one try and turn themselves Gay.

2005-11-12 [deus-ex-machina]: I agree - The only basis I see for gay couples turning a child gay is 'OMG, my friends have a mommy and a daddy and they are straight. I have two daddies, so I have to be gay'. Doesn't work. Under such a logic, straight parents would never raise gay children. A lack of a parental figure does not lead to homosexuality, but I do admit it might lead to masculinity/femininity... although, this is my own assumption, and often destroyed by proof of such children in a nuclear family. Truth is, homosexuality is more than nurture... degrees of personality would be affected though, as I find both very effiminite and almost unrecognisable male homosexuals in society. Upbringing seems to have nothing to

2005-11-12 [deus-ex-machina]: ...do with this.

2005-11-13 [Balthizar]: You are right.Look at me for example.My family is large.Im the oldest of 8. Our religion is Mormon.As everyone knows,Mormons are firmly against Gay's and bi's.Im Bi. My parents have always told the boys to like girls and the girls to like boys.Always.Liking the same sex was never mentioned other then that it was wrong.And the Lord did not like it.

2005-11-18 [dfafadsfasdasf]: i know a kid with lesbian moms and he turned gay...

2005-11-18 [deus-ex-machina]: 'Turned'. And you would say that, no doubt. There is always a chance that anyone can 'turn'/be gay, no matter what their circumstance is.

2005-11-21 [ludageke]: If anything at all, I think a same sex couple parentage would only strengthen your attraction to the sex of your parents... so obviously not even that is true by that example.

2005-12-01 [dfafadsfasdasf]: w/e idiots

2005-12-05 [e5hnzwu5]: no one borns that way. As babies, we havent yet made sins. Babies are pure and innocent. That's why they can't be gay from the beginning. Think what you say.

2005-12-05 [ain't easybeinsleazy]: i think that just because you are in denial about your sexuality that you should not be kissing in the streets and shit. yuck!

2005-12-05 [deus-ex-machina]: Urgh - everyone is born with original sin, even from your 'Jesus kicking' point of view, or whatever. Truth is - babies aren't pure. No one is. You have no proof that no one is born that way. I hate it when doctrines get in the way of intelligence. =) And to the other person that replied - I don't even know what you're saying. You make no sense, but it's okay. I'm getting huge 'she's scum' vibes from your direction. =D I'll just ignore you.

2005-12-05 [Lady_Elowyn]: I am getting the feeling that this- er, kinda friendly- debate has gotten well out of hand. Few people are presenting facts at all, and most people are only insulting the opposite side. I must say it is not very grattifying to see people calling the other side :douche bags". I'm sure others feel the same way. So perhaps we should just agree to disagree, cease to argue, and go our separate ways.

2005-12-08 [dfafadsfasdasf]: Look there is no god you ignourant fools religeon is just a trick, it was made to answer the questions that stupid people can't find the answers to, i assure you one day religion will no longer exist

2005-12-08 [M_Sinner]: "
Treating individuals and groups with respect, irrespective of thier leanings." Yep. You sure are an openminded kind of person. What kind of base do you think you have, exactly, in saying that there is no god and that we are all ignorant fools? But I suppose that insulting is all you really have in your arguments. "w/e, idiots." Good comeback there. Strong use of logic. I'm sure that you've enlightened everyone around you. Perhaps you should take a look at this wiki... Why Liberals Don't Believe in God

2005-12-08 [Rizzen]: BlackFire, don't go down that road. To my understanding many active members on this page are believers, and if they are anything like me they will fight that statement all the way. If you don't want this wiki torn appart by dissent, don't start the religion issue, leave it alone

2005-12-08 [deus-ex-machina]: Bah - that wiki is annoying. Hardly scratches reasons for liberalism. And I don't think ol' BlackFire66 is a liberal, since he is the creator of the wiki.

2005-12-08 [M_Sinner]: I wasn't saying that it was a good wiki overall, but I do enjoy that section... though there could be more added to it. The creator of which wiki, exactly? As far as I knew, The Liberal Pathology was created by [George].

2005-12-08 [Lady_Elowyn]: Ahem. Blackfire66, I am about ready to remove my name from the member's page of this wiki right now. You greatly offended me with your last comment. I happen to be a STRONG believer in God. I would not have minded so much if you had simply said you did not believe in religion, and gave a small case. Instead you insulted us believers by calling us fools, and stated your case very viciously. Please, never again inxult religion in such a way.

2005-12-10 [dfafadsfasdasf]: I personally just don't see any possiblity for your "god" now take a minute and accually listen to what i have to say, and maybe you people will one day be able to discover a more intellegent reasoning for what cannot be explain, religeon in general is just a way to help ease the pain of the suffering of human beings, but there is no real truth behind its all based on "faith" which really just means that you believe in something that has no real base of fact, its like saying you believe in the easter bunny or santa because they don't exist, everything around you is what exists and when you die the electrical energy that courses through your brain and nervous system simply go's somewhere

2005-12-10 [dfafadsfasdasf]: where that energy go's no one no but i think it is just no existance, 2 plains existance and non-existance, i mean come on you going to believe in something that was written in a far less intellegent age, the people of the age of the bible were so un-educated they any sliver of hope for a greater purpose would grown to them, and we all know that jesus didn't walk on water because no human can do that even if he was "gods" son he was human here, in reality jesus was probably jus a motivator who got blown so far out of perportion that he became a messiah

2005-12-10 [deus-ex-machina]: Too much Marxist texts, not enough general philosophy. I don't see how you can conclude God doesn't exist with that line of thought. God may exist regardless of religion. And while I'm agnostic, I'm all for people having opinions, but when they go that further step to say other people are wrong, they need to have a strong argument. I think you lacked it. You've made a few assumptions in getting to your conclusion yourself. You have faith in your reasoning I imagine - even though you can't prove it. So no one can truly ridicule people for faith except the people with uncertainty.

2005-12-10 [M_Sinner]: WEll, you haven't proved anything yourself. You have offered a common explaination for why people have religion (i.e. to comfort themselves), then concluded by saying that there are only two planes. You further contradicted yourself by saying that you are agnostic (One who believes that there is a god, but that god is too far beyond us to ever be understood). As for it being written in "A far less intelligent age," I'm sure that you're the smartest thing this planet has ever seen. Aristotle, Sophocles, Leonardo... All morons. As for a logical explaination as to god existing, (please note that these are not my exact beliefs, but a simple logical thought process here). The major factor

2005-12-10 [M_Sinner]: that holds true for "god(s)" in all religion (please note that in greek and roman societies, the word "titan" would be substituted for "god") is that it is eternal, and/or the source of all things that we see. Therfore, even according to evolution there is a "god." Those atoms that exploded, creating all of the dust that became the universe wer god. Because they were the first thing that were there, and they were the source of all things. Now it simply comes down to whether or not you believe that it was intelligent design or it was evolution that had things progress the way that they did until we came to our present state. That, I leave as an exercise for the individual.

2005-12-10 [T_Pop]: whats going on???

2005-12-10 [deus-ex-machina]: Indeed, unless the universe has existed forever, that energy required to cause the big bang would be concluded as God. It's existence would be necessary and would not have been created by something else, as far as we can ever imagine. A lot of people see God as something simpler than your whole benevolent, omnipotent malarkee and it becomes much easier to believe in a first cause. Religion is something I can question, because it has no proof. Christianity for example, condemns the act of homosexual sex because it can in no way create children, and as Aquinas developed much of natural moral law to fit Christian teaching, if we look at human nature, and reasons for it, we see that we are meant

2005-12-10 [deus-ex-machina]: to reproduce as a species. Augustine said sex without the aim to reproduce is a sin. Hence, condemning homosexuality, but on this basis, what proof is there that gay people aren't naturally gay? If it is in their nature to be gay, they can't be expected to reproduce. This may not be from God, and has been interpreted from nature. But if you're willing to accept nature as something designed, then that natural law must be derived from God (the benevolent one, with the ability to create), as he created us. However, if you do not believe in God, or see the reasons for human nature, I do not see how you can condemn homosexuality, unless of course, it is by choice... and I have seen many

2005-12-10 [deus-ex-machina]: homosexuals who cannot change. The argument is in stalemate, to be certain. But as you cannot be found guilty until proven otherwise, I think it's right for the law of nations to give people a civil unionship. Natural law also believes in unbias treatment, like the UN declaration, the Catholic church etc... but how can a nation be justified in allowing people their rights and preaching goodness and allowing freedom of religion, when they can't even uphold something so simple as allowing people the same right to a recognised unionship under the eyes of the state?

2005-12-10 [T_Pop]: oops... lmao forgot to watch lmao

2005-12-10 [T_Pop]: um... hay blackfire... i have a few problems with what you just said... 1) (now i cant say for all religions) but my religion has arcealogical profe that the Bible did take place... if it didn't then why are we finding places mentiond in the Bible almost where thay where said to be?? also there are ancent documents from the leading contrys at the time to varify what the Bible says... so to say that there is "no profe" to cristianity would be to neglect these facts... 2) if religion was made to answar the questions of "stupid people" then why (curect me if im wrong) have i hurd that some of the smartest people in time beleaved in it?? and also why dose the Bible answar several tough ---

2005-12-10 [T_Pop]: questions... like how to life a good and moral life??? take the commandments for a second... why is it in the Bible that we shouldnt kill?? at that time peariod it was "an eye for an eye" if im not mistaken but our society have changed... so wouldnt that mean the Bible actualy was right?? ill leave you on that thought for now... 3) why do you think that Jesus didn't walk on water?? in theory anyone can walk on water as long as thay have enough serfice displacement (or something like that) if you read that story a little more Jesus did something on one else could do... he walked on water WITH a storm going on... now if you use the thought that people are limited to a sertant peramiter then --

2005-12-10 [T_Pop]: no Jesus couldnt have walked on water... but you are missing the most important detail... he was God's son... now who says that the son of creater of everything is limited?? infact there was 2 people who walked on water now that i think of it... one was Jesus and another was (if i remember curectly) Thomas (someone curect me if im wrong) but that was to show that anything is/was posible with Jesus and faith in him... tell me... in your oppion why is the Bible still around??... i mean its been banned in several areas by powerful nations, its been seeked out for destruction on several ocasions, the beleavers were persicuted and attacked... but its still here... why do you think that is fire???

2005-12-10 [M_Sinner]: It was Peter, Tom. (you were thinking Thomas because of his nickname, right? I'll explain that Via Eflmessage)

2005-12-10 [T_Pop]: ooh... peter... well i only knew Thomas' name lmfao sorry about that lmao

2005-12-11 [deus-ex-machina]: To be fair 1) Geographical placenames do not prove the events that occur there, Guy N Smith wrote a book about my local town and it didn't happen. 2) Because even the smartest people of the time had no alternative to understand. Not everyone is a system builder. And I answered the basis of Christian moral life. There's no evidence that it's moral other than how it 'slots' into society. That was on a social plain and I understand that that is why the Christian Churches are finding themselves under question by society more and more often nowadays.

2005-12-11 [deus-ex-machina]: 3) Walking on water could have been a story. Chairman Mao of China was given much propaganda and the people didn't doubt it. It's happened with others, with no evidence and the assumption Jesus is God's son, many Christian's daren't suppose anything from the story other than the truth. Blind faith, perhaps. The Bible is around because the Christian faith has not died out. As far as you're pointing out, Marx is perfectly correct in his reasoning - that the Church is the opium of the people. In many cases, the believers were attacked from being of a particular denomination... not of the Christian faith, ie Catholics and Protestants in England.

2005-12-11 [deus-ex-machina]: Few people can 'walk' on water, fyi. If anything, people can run at high speeds on water. The displacement and pressure and the force of impact between the foot and water would need the maximum amount possible for the shortest period of time. Unless Jesus was jumping from one foot to another, he wouldn't have been able to do it, regardless of a storm. The idea that Jesus was an overhyped figure of popular demand is quite possible, with stories made up about him to hype up his teachings. The 'son of God' as part of your resume stands out somewhat. And without such stories, it doesn't stand too true. I don't think the Bible is a good place to argue the existence of God. If that's the only

2005-12-11 [deus-ex-machina]: source someone has, I would recommend they didn't even try. God should be argued through experience or logic if you want to prove him and the Bible contains neither. And also, as a final point, there is no proof that many events in the Bible did take place.

2005-12-11 [deus-ex-machina]: The joys of being agnostic. Religion has a lot more to do with the acceptence of homosexuality and gay marriage than many of these wikis would let take on. Religious debates are necessary in order to progress, since sometimes the logic of some people is obstructed by their religion to see simple logic. Many atheistic people have no problem with gay marriage - and you cannot argue they have no morals. But some religious will show a rather stubborn lack of progress towards understanding the reasoning for it. As far as I'm concerned, what is right is apparent in the world. Any doctrines you may questions are old fashioned man made potholes that prevent progression.

2005-12-11 [M_Sinner]: I would agree that the Bible is not BASED on Logic, but on the idea of faith, but I wold not agree that the Bible is devoid of logic altogether. Read some of Paul's work. It involves quite a bit of logic. As far as what he was talking about in morals, [T_Pop] was simply pointing out that many of the things that Blackfire was saying about us being so much more advanced today would seem to be found in simple moral principles found in the ten commandments, so his argument on people of Biblical times being far less enlightened than us was faulty.

2005-12-11 [M_Sinner]: Wow. Just realized a flaw on my part. Before my first comment in this whole exposition on God existing, I had thought that your first comment, [deus-ex-machina], was a part of Blackfire's rant. Lol. My mistake. I retract what I said about Blackfire's contradicting himself by being agnostic, though for the sake of remaining slightly coherent (though I normally am not very much so anyway) I will not remove it from the comment.

2005-12-11 [deus-ex-machina]: LoL, Paul's work is fairly logical. He talked about the inherant goodness in the gentiles, in the heart of all men. I think this is a good idea, and this is essentially natural law. I do not like the 10 commandments since they seem too vague. I as a Christian by inclusion, find many morals and rules in my own personal arsenal of morals, but I find that the reasons for doing so is just common sense and not because of God. You do unto those as you would expect them to do unto you. In the same way, I would not expect people to persecute me for my preferences, sexual or beyond, so I do not descriminate in return. Following my logic from before, it leads me to believe in A God, a source of life

2005-12-11 [deus-ex-machina]: but it gives me no reason to reduce people of rights, or believe that they are below me, for who they are. I don't see how anyone is worse off for what they can't change, but I judge people solely on what they are capable of doing in life for a society. That's my reasoning and concluding justification.

2005-12-11 [dfafadsfasdasf]: see thats why i don't ever state my opinions becuz you people don't know how to just except others beliefs and i wonder why we can never just have friendly debates but no you people all hate me just becuz i made the wiki that looks down upon gays slightly...you people stare at me and look for a reason to critesize me

2005-12-11 [Rizzen]: that's what happens when you step forward. You take a stance, and your opponent will look for opportunities to take you out of the game.

2005-12-11 [T_Pop]: thats true... in a moraly curect would the only person poeple should judge is themselves and no one else... but we dont live in a moraly curect would... its in owr nature to do what is easy and most times that involves doing what is wrong... humanitys varry nature is to think of themselves and work only to better themselves... i admit that i am not exempt from this, its inharent in every human... to say we can chose to do what is right on our own is just silly... honestly if you stick a child about 3 to 5 years of age in a room and tell them not to eat any cookies in every situation the first thing the child will do is think about eating the cookies, and if the child is not tought not to ---

2005-12-11 [T_Pop]: eat them thay will eat the cookies... so i question comes up... what is right? if we go by what we think then what do we do with murderers?? most of them think its right or will convince themselves its right... so if we go by our own morals then how can we judge someone else's morals??? if we go by what the law says is right and wrong then we will be prone to change... the law (unless im mistaken) is made by taking a group of people, puting them to gether, and comeing up with the best morals from each of them... and even then some bad ones come in... this means that everytime new people come in to that position we will get a slight variation on the law... so its not a stable system ---

2005-12-11 [M_Sinner]: Hey! First of all, why was my comment deleted? Perhaps it was a fluke, but further occurances will cause me to think otherwise. Second of all, my comment was as follows: Wow... you have no idea what you're talking about, do you [dfafadsfasdasf]? 1) I am opposed to gay marriage, so there is no reason to try and hide behind the idea that we are attacking you for that. 2)The reason that we are commenting is not to be intolerant asses, but to point out flaws in your logic. Your arguments have sonsisted of insulting us by calling us stupid, then forwading your opinion without any logic or fact. 3)I would just as soon "accept your belief" about god not existing with that argument as

2005-12-11 [M_Sinner]: I would "Accept the belief" of someone who thought they could walk in front of a bus and be completely unharmed, then proceeded to call me a moron for not believing him.  Please do not insult us and yourself by further ranting.

2005-12-11 [T_Pop]: so what morals should we try to fallow... kids learn there morals from there parents and other athority figures... likewise those people would have to learn there morals from someone... with all that going on each person makes a variation of those morals and in todays world we could have hundreds of morals with millions of variations to each of them...so tell me should we take these morals and try to make sence of them or should we take the morals God told us to fallow and that Jesus explained (or tryed to with our limited understanding)... and just to imform you incase you havent notest but not meany people use commen sence now-a-days so we cant rely on everyone using that

2005-12-11 [M_Sinner]: See Common Sense for proof of [T_Pop]'s last statement, or even, perhaps The Death of Common Sense

2005-12-11 [T_Pop]: lmfao ya... only i knew of the lack of commen sence in the world way before i say it lmfao... thats grate lmfao

2005-12-11 [deus-ex-machina]: Heh - Natural law requires education. No point using kids as an example since you are only sound of reason when you reach the maturity to use it. Kids lack the maturity, and go through phases. They develop into an adult and that is when they can make independant decisions. The major error in your thinking is that we should follow God's laws, since we do not know if these are apparent in any religion's teachings. And I don't know where you live, but Common sense is quite... common here. Kantian Ethics and in fact and teleological ethic allow for people to live subjectively. Few people do actions for the sake of doing the action nowadays - but they calculate the best outcome, often the loving.

2005-12-11 [deus-ex-machina]: The loving action would be to accept. Homosexuals should be accepted in order for a meshing society.

2005-12-11 [deus-ex-machina]: You also make the assumption that all humans are greedy and act only to further themselves. Perhaps for some, but that's not human nature, that's instinct all animals have. What sets us apart from animals is the ability to use reason. Reason would tell us to treat others well, in an ordered society. Even if that is to protect those you love, few people can only think of themselves all the time.

2005-12-11 [M_Sinner]: But people are often affected by the way that they are raised, educated, etc. For instance, How many do you think were brainwashed in Stalin's age to agree with him? Maybe his special police force? It could, therefore, be argued that childeren are the best example of human nature.

2005-12-11 [deus-ex-machina]: How many children were raised in a church and ended up persecuting people their whole lives because of who they were? That is not moral. God's word would be holy - Religion can taint it to the point of feeling there is nothing holy about it's doctrines. Although I fail to understand your point about human nature - since human nature should be apparent to those mature enough to use reason to seek it. Nazis were still executed in post-WW2 trials even though they were under orders. They were told that there was a fundamental law they should have abided by, and not Hitler's teachings. How you are raised can be over-ridden.

2005-12-11 [M_Sinner]: But that's exactly my point: What you believe and your reasoning can very easily be affected by outside sources. This would imply that morals are fluid. So virtually any given code is faulty. I am not necessarily arguing for the Christian set of morals at this point, just that Humans are not, by nature, moral beings. So, by what I have siad, reason cannot determine morals. This is because reason can be changed and people could believe differently depending on who told them what most recently according to what you say. So where, in your argument, is the control group?

2005-12-11 [deus-ex-machina]: Human reason. I don't think morals are universal, and that's why morals change, because as you become more and more educated through life, you understand the consequences of your beliefs. They change, because they come more mature actions if the person is good. In that way, religion is good because it keeps the masses under control and it does set down some 'common sense' laws, which seem apparently in nearly every other system. Given that God will reward you, you have something to work towards, but complying to this, can cause ignorance. I think all people should believe in themselves and educate themselves on aspects of the world they have only been told about and not discovered first hand

2005-12-11 [M_Sinner]: Ok. Well, I understand where we are dissagreeing, and they both seem to me to be valid points, but it doesn't seem that we can really get anywhere from further discussion of it. Lol. The basic difference is that I refuse to believe that morals are fluid, and you insist that they are. It could be either, and I don't really think there will ever be a definite answer on the subject. Matters of opinion seldom receive them.

2005-12-11 [deus-ex-machina]: Really, other than being told that we should treat each person equally, I find the conclusion on gay people and marriage should result in 'treat them like everyone else', because this is often a constant moral rule. I don't see how someone can be condemned if they are by nature, gay. Why would God have made them that way otherwise? Until more is understood about the causes, and the fact that God will only exist to those people who have faith - and they accept the teachings that homosexuality is morally wrong for that reason, it only seems right to allow them to be themselves.

2005-12-11 [M_Sinner]: We're not argueing whether or not they should be themselves. They can have at it for all I care, just as any other couple can have at it for all I care. The idea that they should not have marriage is really based on the question of whether it is nature or nurture that causes it. If it is nature, then many more would believe that it is only right, but it has only been speculated and never truly proven that it is something a person is born with. (i.e. there have been identical twins who have been seperated; one turned out gay, the other straight). As long as people believe that it is nurture, many will vie for a union as opposed to marriage.

2005-12-11 [deus-ex-machina]: Indeed, until your lattermost point is proven, I will vouch for union. If religions are against it for reasons that it is a choice or it is not in them to otherwise reproduce, then I don't see why they should have to accept it, but I think more consideration should be made to come to the conclusion sooner. I mean, as soon as it is proven otherwise, religions have no basis to not allow them marriage, unless they want to go down new routes for disallowing it. Wow - I'm glad this wiki has actually had a debate going on for once.

2005-12-11 [T_Pop]: see... its your morals that determan what you think is right and wrong... if you take a child and lock it in a room all its young life and haveing it learn what it wants to learn with out teaching it a thing... then that child who would become an adult would be as unruley as a child... if you take an adult from the streets and test them you have to take into consideration several things... 1) how where thay rassed? 2)how was there school life? 3)what thay did in there free time 4)what thay learned from other kids... and thats just 4 off the varry top of my head... if you gave me a few minuts i could give you atleast 6 more... there are meany factors to that so how can you say a child is ---

2005-12-11 [T_Pop]: not a good example?? now i'll ask you a question... the childeren who learned from the church... what did thay learn??? and how did thay interpret what thay learned?? if thay took what the Bible actualy says and the way it was intened to be tought then no thay wouldnt go out and persicute... if thay learned what the people teaching it thought them in the way thay wanted to teach it then i have to doute that thay would have done that. see... its what you learn that determan what you beleave

2005-12-11 [deus-ex-machina]: If they learnt what was said in the Bible, they WOULD persecute, because the Bible is from a patriarchal society. And you are are still failing to understand the idea of education and maturity. Locking a child away, gives them a lack of maturity and education. It is apparent of all humans which have the capacity to reach an understanding of reason. Down to the simplest thing, reason dictates what would lead to the best outcome, even to something as stupid as 'how should I stub out my cigerette?' You can't keep asking me questions as if I know less than you. The Bible does not explain how people ought to interpret it, hence the history of wars and so much bloodshed between religions. If they

2005-12-11 [deus-ex-machina]: are taught one thing, but they are given the basic abilities of interpreting and deduction through schooling, they can then go to read the Bible themselves and get that understanding. The Bible is perhaps the worst example of a moral teaching with so many contradictions within. I could find you a list if you want to say there are no contradictions. It is a confusing book.

2005-12-11 [deus-ex-machina]: Indeed upbringing is essential, to the filthiest things such as whether or not it is right to smoke. My point is, that given the right circumstances, all people can find out what human nature is all about (Aquinas brought it down to 5 precepts, but as a religious man, I laugh at the last: To live, to learn, to reproduce, to live in ordered society, to worship)...

2005-12-11 [deus-ex-machina]: But he was religious, and worshipping God would seem natural. But he saw one human nature and not the possibility of many. Aquinas set down the teachings of the Catholic Church presupposing God, and this gave him his reason to not accept homosexuals. Still, we all have the ability to search our understanding for our end mean in life. Doing so, we fulfill our end purpose and we are intrinsically good. This is the teaching of the Christian Church. I daren't touch other religions, although I would like to.

2005-12-11 [M_Sinner]: Wow... Blackfire is never going to read this.

2005-12-11 [deus-ex-machina]: He ought to, really.

2005-12-11 [M_Sinner]: Of course he ought to, but I doubt that he will. He will read about one half of a comment and then insult someone, dodging behind his constant excuse of "you're just harrassing me for not liking gay people."

2005-12-11 [deus-ex-machina]: I can only accept justified opinions - even if they do not appear justified. I'm seeing nothing more than homophobia on his behalf since he doesn't believe in God. I don't see many non-religious people spreading the word that sex is purely for procreation. So I'd be interested to see his opinion and it's reasoning.

2005-12-12 [T_Pop]: ok... i think i read it all... *looks up to make sure*... ya... i think so anyway... ok... where does it say in the Bible that we should persicute people?? i think i missed that part of it... of corse i havent really studdied it as much as i should have... anyway where do it say that??... i would like to see it (not being as ass or anything, just curios)... also i am not "failing to understand the idea of education"... i understand it all to well... if you think a person is naturaly good then why do thay have to learn to be good??? subcontiosly we take in everything around us... even if a person doesnt say "you shouldnt do*insert comment*" the kid will learn that thay shouldnt by whats ---

2005-12-12 [Lady_Elowyn]: Are you kidding? No one is naturally good. We're all born sinners. The only way to be good is to work for it. And I do not know where the Bible says to persecute people. In fact, I remember clearly that it says NOT to persecute them.

2005-12-12 [T_Pop]: going on around them... so by the time thay are mature thay have already learned what is right and wrong... so why do we have to learn it when its supposed to be in our nature??... also im not asking question to sound suppearior to you... (trust me i think im the lower one)... i ask questions to understand thats all... im the first to say i know little about things so how will i learn if i dont ask?... now i would also like to know where the Bible contridicts itself... becouse from what i could see the Bible doesnt... so please tell me... and how is the BIble the "worst" example of moral teachings??... and with the Bible being criptic... how else would you put it??? i mean you have --

2005-12-12 [deus-ex-machina]: I don't think people are naturally good, or born so, but they have the capability of being so. Bah, basic philosophy here. The bible has led to persecutions, of homosexuals and many others. It teaches not to persecute, but there are many things within showing persecution. Sodom and Gomarrah? If God can persecute, then why not man, his creation?

2005-12-12 [deus-ex-machina]: "Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah --from the LORD out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities --and also the vegetation in the land." Genesis 19:24, 25 NIV)

2005-12-12 [T_Pop]: this book that is talking about almost ever aspect of life for everyone on earth... if you put it all in an orginised fation with each bit to its own section then you would have a colection of say at least 10 books the size of dictionarys... so how would you right it???

2005-12-12 [M_Sinner]: Just so you know... God didn't punish Sodom and Gomorrah for being gay. He punished them because they wanted to rape (namely the angels he had sent, but the point was that they wanted to gang rape a couple of men.)

2005-12-12 [deus-ex-machina]: I wish I understood the version of english which you typed. If I would not have it being cryptic... I would I would have it not being cryptic. Simple.

2005-12-12 [deus-ex-machina]: But it's still persecution. God singled them out. What basis did he have for punishing them other than the 'rules' he made? This God is man made and not the benevolent God all three Abrahamic religions worship today. My point is - God should not have done this, if he is the same God we worship today. This is fiction and it's purpose is to persecute.

2005-12-12 [Lady_Elowyn]: The Bible does not contradict itself. If you can point out one place where it does, give me a sword so I can stab myself through the heart.

2005-12-12 [deus-ex-machina]: Bible Contradictions

2005-12-12 [deus-ex-machina]: Source: http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/biblequotes.htm

2005-12-12 [M_Sinner]: Lol. Well, while I believe that I am saved through faith rather than a sophistic contradiction, I won't be stabbing myself through the heart. You can't get rid of me that easily. ;) Anyway, How is that singling them out? They wanted to gangrape SOMEBODY. IT wasn't that it was a homosexual relationship, but that they were so far gone that they would satisfy any random desire that they had. A "lack of reason" on the peoples' part. And even if God did single them out... as long as you're entertaining yourself enough to believe that this story is true (I assume that you don't believe it and are only pretending to for arguments' sake), then keep in mind that a given of the story is that..

2005-12-12 [M_Sinner]: God created the universe WITH all of the moral codes that he wished... according to that, He had every right to blow them to smitherines.

2005-12-12 [deus-ex-machina]: Well, I don't believe it, but I don't believe that the Bible is strictly a 100% holy source other than Jesus' teachings. That tale surely preaches no good, since no good comes from punishment. Those people may have believed in a goodness of gangrape as Hedonists. God would not have been able to interfere according with other teachings. And I agree with you about blowing them to smithereens, as any artist can do that with his art, but then, why would God preach the sanctity of human life to take it away? It shows no benevolence, since now, we can confess and be forgiven. It's stories like this that make parts of the Bible worthless.

2005-12-12 [T_Pop]: ok... so your saying the God who created everything shouldnt lay down a few rules and punish those who OPENLY defie them... that was another part of why God "singaled them out"... tell me dont we do the same thing??? if a gang OPENLY commits crimes and doesnt try to hide them any way shape or form then dont we try to through them all in jail??? even if a few of the gang members we're just drivers who didn't want to be there?? see a slight conection... the big difference is that God created them and we just have to live with them