|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 5:29 pm
Invictus_88 Excellent stuff isn't it? 3nodding That it is. He'll never operate again! gonk If only she'd waited for House. gonk
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 6:31 am
Lady of Spain Invictus_88 Bebo is myspace for chavs.
Why did nobobdy warn me?
gonk I wouldn't say it's particularly for chavs. It's pretty much on a par with Myspace for general ghastliness, except with fewer emos, and totally unmoderated (really, there are whole networks of friends who just upload porn as their display pictures and pretend it's them. And people get hacked all the time and no one does anything about it). It's possibly marginally worse than Myspace simply because of the way it gets you to join - i.e., causing you to become totally inundated with inane emails saying "Join me on Bebo" until you're forced to give in. At least 50% of the people I know on Bebo joined because of this.
I've managed to resist Bebo, though I did get bored and set up a Myspace last night...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 12:09 pm
9th of August.... I'm the second youngest in my year I think....
Argh! Emo music *has minor cardiac arrest before managing to change to Vivaldi Four Seasons, concerto in G minor, Presto... My favorite^^*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 12:16 pm
Angra-Mainyu Invictus_88 Excellent stuff isn't it? 3nodding That it is. He'll never operate again! gonk If only she'd waited for House. gonk *gasp* I love House! I've only just recently started watching it, but, wow, I love it^^ House is such a great character! I wonder what'll happen to Foreman (is that how you spell his name?)...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 12:56 pm
Emmanuela Angra-Mainyu Invictus_88 Excellent stuff isn't it? 3nodding That it is. He'll never operate again! gonk If only she'd waited for House. gonk *gasp* I love House! I've only just recently started watching it, but, wow, I love it^^ House is such a great character! I wonder what'll happen to Foreman (is that how you spell his name?)... I think he may be written out as a surgeon. The mind is a robust thing and he'd probably be able to function normally in the future, I just don't see how he is going to operate on people in the near future. And, yes, House is a great character. The last few episodes showed him not being as much as a b*****d because he cared about the patient this time [a point stabbed at him by his rootmate]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:40 pm
Lady of Spain ice_illusion But he didn't rise from the dead, his followers faked that. (Correct me if I'm wrong) Hang on, hang on. That may be the view of one particular historian who's developed his own personal theory about happenings 2000 years ago. I'm just going on what a Muslim friend's mum said. Her mum and my mum were chatting about religion and she said that thats what it said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shadow of an Illusion Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foetus In Fetu Vice Captain
|
Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:50 pm
ice_illusion Lady of Spain ice_illusion But he didn't rise from the dead, his followers faked that. (Correct me if I'm wrong) Hang on, hang on. That may be the view of one particular historian who's developed his own personal theory about happenings 2000 years ago. I'm just going on what a Muslim friend's mum said. Her mum and my mum were chatting about religion and she said that thats what it said. There isn't really any hard evidence that that's what happened (not that there's really any evidence to support the idea that he did rise from the grave, I'm just saying). Secular historians probably like that idea because it's a way of explaining this 'impossible' feat without resorting to magic, just as they like the idea that Mary was raped. I'm not saying I believe in the Ressurection or in the Virgin Birth, but there are real dangers in saying either way "this is what happened:" rather than saying " I believe that this is what happened:". One real danger, for instance, is that you'll look pretty silly, particularly if you're batting for science and/or logic. You're not 'wrong' (in the sense that, if you are, it can't be 'proven'), anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 6:05 pm
Hey, House > Jesus scream
Stay on topic!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foetus In Fetu Vice Captain
|
Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 10:04 pm
Angra-Mainyu Hey, House > Jesus scream Stay on topic! Bitching about going off-topic is going off-topic! And I'm a moderator so you'd better watch your step or I might just have to abuse that power in a very childish way. domokun
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 1:27 am
ice_illusion As Julian said. And the Romans didn't like him. (I think it was them that crucified him) Christianity isn't all based on absolutes. Theres differnt groups, some (particuarly the ones that like to make their voices heard) do base it on absolutes, which I agree is silly. But you dodn't need to take it on absolutes. A possible take on it is: Jesus told stories which were parables. That means they aren't necessarily true, examples. That idea could easily be extended to the entire bible/new testament. Also, a lot of stuff that causes contriversy was in parts of the old testament. Jesus hung about with the non-believers and that so the Jews didn't like that. (Jesus was a Jew becuase Christianity hadn't yet been invented) In the old testament it says not to be around them and also not to eat meat. Jesus said to ignore that because everything is clean. So its could be fine to ignore other parts if thats what seems moral. Theres thousands of different ways to interpret it. It's just one group who like to make their feelings known and gives other Christians a bad name. Jesus is also mentioned in the Koran. I could well be wrong but I think he was a prophet. But he didn't rise from the dead, his followers faked that. (Correct me if I'm wrong) And the old testament is just about the same for Jews, Christians and Muslims. I heard something about 668. Something about the Beast's neighbor?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:30 am
[[ -- Sean -- ]] You go to heaven, or you go to Hell. How more absolute can you get?
*cough*Puragatory*cough*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:27 pm
and_solo_said [[ -- Sean -- ]] You go to heaven, or you go to Hell. How more absolute can you get?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 1:14 pm
[[ -- Sean -- ]] and_solo_said [[ -- Sean -- ]] You go to heaven, or you go to Hell. How more absolute can you get?
Satan's greatest trick was convincing man that he did not exist.
We had a similar discussion the other day whilst waiting for lunch to end. the general conclusion was that it was entirely down to what you personally percieve as evil, so for you there could be no absolutes, but for some there could be only absolutes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 1:20 pm
Catholics can't believe in pure evil.
The Catholic tradition uses the Aquinian model of God, that Yahwah is an immutable, perfect being existence outside of space and time who's only act is the perfect act of creation. Aquinas defines something to be "good" if they act in accordance with their nature; Yahweh is a perfect being and must be wholly good [if fact, Yahweh is the source of all goodness]. Conversely anything that does not act in accordance with their nature is evil, i.e. turning away from Yahweh is not acting in accodance with your nature: evil is the lack of God. Something that is "pure evil" must act completely against their nature: anything that exists must act in accordance with their nature to exist and thus has some element of goodness. Pure evil cannot exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 1:24 pm
Angra-Mainyu Catholics can't believe in pure evil. The Catholic tradition uses the Aquinian model of God, that Yahwah is an immutable, perfect being existence outside of space and time who's only act is the perfect act of creation. Aquinas defines something to be "good" if they act in accordance with their nature; Yahweh is a perfect being and must be wholly good [if fact, Yahweh is the source of all goodness]. Conversely anything that does not act in accordance with their nature is evil, i.e. turning away from Yahweh is not acting in accodance with your nature: evil is the lack of God. Something that is "pure evil" must act completely against their nature: anything that exists must act in accordance with their nature to exist and thus has some element of goodness. Pure evil cannot exist. Hang on. Aren't there other schools of thought about the nature of evil within Catholic theology?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
