Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Who he is attacking, we shall never know . . .

Behold! The wonders of Afro Ninja!

At 3/9/04 01:52 AM, Fiend_Lore wrote: money comes from rich fat people's asses. fuck everything, and lets go to mars anyways.

Hey and on the way there, we can force the astronauts to watch all bad Mars movies ever made!

At 3/9/04 12:38 AM, Fiend_Lore wrote: It actualy destroyed the flash. That had never happened to me before. It said "You have just destroyed someone's hard work" ....lol. It was pretty coool, but it scared the shit out of me at first.

Welcome the list of the true blammers. Mwahahahaha!

At 3/9/04 02:36 AM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote:

You need to stop spamming the BBS, the last ten of your posts were completely useless.

I agree. Please, it is extremely annoying to have to try and read through that stuff. If you want to post irrelevant and worthless snipits, go to the general message board. I'm sure such spamming would be quite at home there.

Regardless of what Holy Grail is supposed to be, the best thing to come out of the it: Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

If you think about it, is this really that different from the last election is terms of the quality of choices? Either way, you're merely voting for the lesser of two evils.

Aha, well my mistake. Then I would vote thus:

Republican 1
All other parties: 0
(Because I'm too lazy to write them all out.)

Though I will admit, its pretty damn annoying. The only way a political pop-up ad could become more annoying would be a Nader pop-up ad. Hmm, maybe it could say something like "Want Bush to win but don't want your friends to know that you voted Republican? Well Vote Ralph Nader for President"

Sorry, no ideas come to mind. I sympathize with you, however. I have been in a similar situation in that I use the name Ceris for basically all my online stuff (I came up with the name when I was in 6th grade) and I have been using it online since 1998. I too, am extremely annoyed when I find someone else using the name and especially when they use it in an innappropriate way.

Two questions:
1.) What do you think of him in general?
2.) Would you vote for him if he ran for President (in 2008 or something).

For me 1.)He is the man in the top levels of government that I most closely identify with. 2.)Definately.

At 3/6/04 12:06 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Republican0
Democrat1
Green0
Libertarian1
Fascist0
Communist0
Socialist1
Dadaist1

Did you not see my post on the first page? Anyways, in case you missed it (which you seemed to) Republican.

Lol. Seriously though, I believe we should not legalize drugs. They all ready mess up enough people's lives as it is.

At 3/8/04 12:20 AM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote:

Would you call Steven Hawking arrogant, I would, and I don't think that it's wrong to be arrogant when you're right.

I cannot think of a single example where is it all right to be arrogant.

At 3/7/04 11:00 PM, K-Rizl wrote: In the view of an athiest, i ask people following a religion to answer me some questions, and don't take the topic name seriously.

1. I believe all of the bible was a shakespeare in a sense, in the way the shakespeare is thought by many to be many people with a hobby (story telling). And though i've only seen an abridged version it is obvious that the writing style drastically differs throughout out all of it. And making it less ( in my mind ) a possobility of a divine. What do you say to that?

Umm, what you are saying about Shakespeare, I'm a little confused on that point. About the writing style differing, well yeah, that's because the Bible is comprised of dozens of different books. Take the New Testament for example, your have the 4 Gospels (the writings of Jesus life) and each of those is by a different author, the 21 Epistles (Letters to various early Christian churches) Most of which are written by Paul, but others by the apostles John, James, and Peter, the book of Acts (which is the accounts of the apostles after the death and ressurection of Jesus), and the book of Revelations (the book about the end of the world). As to the idea that the many different authors lessens the divinity of the Bible, many Christian argue the exact opposite. Some will point to the many different authors, writting over a period of at least 1500 years and yet still keeping the entire thing coherent and contradictary free, as evidence towards divine inspiration. Note: Please don't immediately ask me about such and such apparent contradiction in one part or the other. Most of them are nitpicking details such as how many people saw Jesus when he first appeared from his tomb. I will say however that almost every single one I have come across I have found one plausible explination or another for.

2. What do you say to the gothic ( often athiest ) and religious person? as if they were one? ( this question is confusing even to me ).

You mean about Christianity or what?

3. What would be your strongest "evidence" in an existense of a divine?

Umm, one of them (for me personally) would be that the theory of evolution has not come up with hypothesis for the origin of life that can stand up to scrutiny. For more information on this, look at the Atheist vs. Christainity message board in the politcal section of the forum. I gave a lenghty arguement there about this.

4. Why do you think that people would say that religion is the #1 cause in many a war?

That they have the wrong idea, and as one person metioned earlier, in most cases religion has merely been used as an excuse.

5. Would you say that your religion is easily the right one? and if so what would you say to people that would call you arragant?

I would say my religion (Christianity) is the right one. I kind of touched on this in the Passion Controversy topic on the politics section where I gave an arguement for the accuracy of the Gospels. If someone would claim I was arrogant, I would respond by saying something along the lines of this: I have extensively researched the evidence for Christianity and I have not found one thing that has dissuaded me from my faith. To those that might say Christianity is arrogant because it claims it is the only true faith, I would point out to them there are many other religions that claim to be the right one.

6. In most of anything i've ever seen, a majority republicans are religious, even willing to cause harm to others who may think that their religion is wrong or silly? (I'm not attacking you)

Is this even a question?

7. Would you think less of a person who told you he/she was athiest?

No. What I would do is figure out why they are an atheist and do my best to address their doubts, questions, arguements, etc.

Don't know him, what's its supposed to mean?

At 3/6/04 07:50 PM, True-Lies wrote:

At 3/6/04 07:41 PM, Adun wrote:

That's what I'm saying. The only way to get the REAL truth from the bible, would be to read the original hebrew version.

Which is exactly the reason that I prefer the New International Version (NIV) and New Revised Starndard Version (NRSV) of the Bible. Because both were translated by large groups of top Christian scholars from around the world that spent years trying to make sure they got the translation correct. And if they found something where they weren't sure of how exactly it was supposed to mean (by this I mean minute details), they have footnotes which provide an alternate translation.

At 3/6/04 07:41 PM, Adun wrote: As I see it, religon today is a tool, while jesus supposedly lived in the middle east, the bible described his skin colour as the same as the people around him, which would make him look like the average middle-eastern person, yet theres 'white jesus' all over pictures and religious videos. How can you make people believe that a middle-eastern jesus was white? The media found a way.

Well the whole white Jesus thing came from the dark ages when most people traveled very, very little so in art and stuff, people would just try to make representations of Jesus as they saw him. I mean, you live in a little village in Europe, probably have never traveled more than 40 miles from your home, and you're surrounded by villagers who all look the same, of course you're going to make art based off of what you see.

The bible was edited many times to be politically correct, it says that people who sleep with the same sex should be stoned to death, yet it was removed to be politically correct.

Wow, haven't heard of that. By random chance, do you have any idea of what version?

Nothing against gay people, but if christianity its against it, and you just change the religion. How can you believe in a religion that you can just change from political pressure?

No, which is why I don't think that a chruch or council (or whatever) that would change the Bible because of what appealed to them (or others) is truly Christian.

Woohoo! Sarcasm at its best.

I agree that hell is never an easy or happy subject to talk about. For you I strongly, strongly reccommend the Case for Faith by Lee Strobel. This is because chapter six in the book deals exclusively with the idea of hell and answers many questions along the lines of what you are asking. There is one thing I will say on this subject through, people are NOT punished evenly in hell. Hell is not a one size fits all, this means that someone like Hitler will be punished far greater than most.

Oh I also forgot to add that according to one of the scholars in The Case for Faith, Jesus taught about hell more than any other subject.

I shall read over each of these in detail, though there was one comment that caught my eye when I was looking over the three links quickly. One of them said, "Jesus failed to leave clear teachings about salvation, hell, divorce..." Just to point out, Jesus left extremely explicit teachings about divorce. They are:
"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery" (Matthew 19:9) This is repeated in Mark 10:12 and Luke 16:18. I'll try and get back to you guys by sometime tommorrow with responses to these three papers.

At 3/6/04 08:36 AM, True-Lies wrote:

At 3/6/04 04:52 AM, Ceris wrote: it is far more plausible to believe that life was created rather than just a random occurance.

Yes, it DOES point to a higher power creating us, but does it point to the CHRISTIAN higher power? Not really. We could've been created by aliens, for all we know... and coincidentally, "Chariots of the Gods" puts down some nice theories about that.

That, of course, is another arguement. For that arguement I would try to show to someone why I find the Bible to be the answer. I would point out things such as historical accuracy, complimentary archaeological evidence that add to the accuracy of the Bible, hundreds of specific fulfilled prophecies, etc.

Apology accepted, thank you.

That I have seen that stand up to scrutiny? No.

At 3/6/04 05:13 AM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: So, the rational decision, when confronted with information that has not been adequately resolved using the scientific method, is to turn to the supernatural. That's a great fucking philosophy on life. Every time you get confused start praying.

Imagine if writers had that attitude, OMG I've got writer's block, It must mean that god is the only explanation. I can picture it now "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times... and then God worked a miracle and everyone lived happily ever after."

If you would look more closely at what I said, you would see that I would consider the supernatural when all plausible natural explanations were exauseted. Please, I do not belittle or insult your opinions, do not insult mine.

With the example you gave, true it doesn't necessarily mean God is involved. With the lottery though, there is a perfectly natural and plausible explantion for why they won the lottery. With the origin of life, however, science has been unable to come up with a single plausible theory that stands up to scruitiny. Because of this, the burden of proof falls upon science.

When you look at it, DNA is a language, a language comprised of four letters which in a single human cell contains more information that all thirty volumes of Encyclopedia Britannica. When you look at writing, based on past experience, you can infer that it has an intelligent cause. For something that we cannot even do from scratch (turn amino acids into complex proteins, even with all our knowledge and technology, it is far more plausible to believe that life was created rather than just a random occurance.

Exactly, one of the biggest beliefs of the main 3 monotheistic religions is worshiping only God. Not all, but some forms of Buddhism actually worship Budda. To claim to be Muslim and Buddhist is not only contradictory, its just plain dumb.

No. Let me give you an example. An a tree fell down in a well observed place would I instantly assume it was because of angels? No. If, however, all normal explanations were shown to have not happened (i.e. termites, strong wind, etc.) then I would consider the angel as a possibility.

The closest character I can think of is Vash the Stampede (though not nearly as scarred)