Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/7/05 04:14 PM, revexe wrote:

What do they accompish by forgiving people and...?

What kind of questions is this? Seriously, is getting on my nerves...

Then stop getting upset at questions that aren't directed to you and/or leave.

Lidov, I've led us down a tangent from the original point.

At 8/7/05 03:29 PM, Lidov wrote:

This is sompley because they christianity doesn't want you believing in other religions, so they say that you will go to hell if you don't do that and that.

A better question for me to have asked here is why don't they want you believing in another religion?

At 8/7/05 04:00 PM, Lidov wrote:

Because there is always a chance to go to paradise, even if you kill someone, you may go to the priest and he will forgive you and blah blah blah. But if you kill a person, you are not a very religious guy, or you know that you are going to hell anyway so it doesn't realy matter, the important thing is to keep them christian. Even if they go to hell, they will keep believing in Jesus.

And what's the motive for doing this? What do they accompish by forgiving people and allowing them to stay in the church?

At 8/7/05 03:37 PM, seventy-one wrote: Thank you, I used know, but know after spending so much time on newgrounds...

It's not Newgrounds's fault. It's just no one gives a shit about Franklin Pierce. And for good reason.

Franklin Pierce= Worst. President. Ever.

At 8/7/05 03:29 PM, Lidov wrote: This is sompley because they christianity doesn't want you believing in other religions, so they say that you will go to hell if you don't do that and that.

If they use this tactic, then how is it that many Christians who have accepted salvation still go out and commit less than Christian acts? If they tell everybody that if they screw up, they're going to hell, how do they keep people in the church using this tactic if the people make mistakes?

That's good. That must be a terrifying feeling to be trapped well below the water, relying on the supply of oxygen you have and blindly hoping someone will come to rescue you.

One of the reasons why I'm never going on a submarine.

At 8/7/05 03:29 PM, seventy-one wrote: James K. Polk, he was the one not to get renominated by his own party, right?

No. That was Franklin Pierce. Polk suffered from ill health, and declined to run for another term.

He was probably one of the best single term presidents we had.

Ah, James K. Polk. America's first metrosexual.

Wait..what?

At 8/7/05 01:28 PM, bulletskygod wrote: One word. Desire. Or temptation...up to you.

You choose. Either is irrelevant to what I was refuting. We don't make promises that we won't sin, because we all sin. I said nothing about what causes us to sin, nor is the cause of sin even relevant in this discussion.

At 8/7/05 01:15 AM, -idle- wrote:

At 8/6/05 11:49 PM, Chronis wrote: why are there so many punishments? why should someone who believes in somthing different get cast to hell by your all loveing god?

Because religion is all about conformity. Saying that anyone who believes in something different is going to hell is nothing more than a scare tactic used to keep everyone in line.

What? If that's the case, then why are there so many sects and demominations of every religion on this earth? If people are afraid to have different views in fear of them going to hell, why did so many people found different sects and denominations worshipping the same God?

This goes for pretty much all religions - the people who worship are the life force of the church. Why would they want people going and doing their own thing, when they can force people into conforming to their strict set of guidelines?

If there is a god, I think he would be impressed by people who choose to think differently, rather than just blindly accepting what they are told.

Personally, I think He would be more impressed by people who used simple instructions that he provided to salvation and followed them, rather than someone who thinks that they can ignore Him and achieve his favor by not following directions.

I used my free and independent mind too, when I decided to accept salvation. No one can force you to believe anything--you have to make that call yourself, using the mind and decision making to make that decision.

At 8/6/05 05:49 PM, TheReveiwer wrote: the more I think of it the more I think it isnt the IDEA of cummunism ((Equel distributation of all resources)) Hystory has taught us that it's the human factor

the human race is greedy and selfish and always want to promote themselves

That's also why there are problems with Capitalism here. That's why there are problems with democracies, republics, monarchies.

Amazing that a system governing and run by humans with imperfections is also going to have imperfections too, isn't it?

At 8/7/05 09:28 AM, Buckdich wrote: Christian might make a promise to god not to sin but they still do it all the time.

Of course we do. It's human nature to sin. The whole concept behind religion is that we are sinners and do wrong and make mistakes, and through God we can erase/atone/correct those mistakes.

We don't make promises to God that we won't sin, because there is no chance that we can fulfill that promise. We try to sin less, to become closer, but we do sin.

I've read a couple of columns and excerpts on the memorial service there, and it's sad how it is treated today. Every year, it becomes more and more like Memorial Day here, just a day to goof off and have fun without acknowledging the events of that day. In fact, many survivors of the bomb prefer not to participate in the public ceremonies, staying in their homes to hold private ones.

However, Japan no longer needs to learn a lesson from the bomb--it already has. It's become one of the most peace-loving nations on earth.

At 8/5/05 11:19 PM, TheReveiwer wrote: Actually I was getting at how futile the right wing's shield is

Since we do forget

the right wing needs to reform itself instead of using the events of 9/11 and other terror attacks to puch outragious policies

Wait....

At 8/4/05 09:27 PM, TheReveiwer wrote: these things made people forget faster so personally I blame the current administration for people forgetting 9/11

So first, you blame the administration for coming up with new policies and problems that ignore and move away from 9/11, now you're accusing them of exploiting 9/11 in creating those same policies and problems.

Make up your mind.

Sure. This approach has been tried at least one other time that I know of, and it is very effective in terms of identifing a relgious sect whom the general populace feels is problematic and troubling, and using that identification to give those people special treatment.

At 8/5/05 06:03 PM, TheReveiwer wrote: I'm saying how an event can push it's way into someones memory and wind up pushing something else out

So what? What do you want to do about it? Do you want to install some sort of mind chip to force people to think about 9/11, 24/7? Do you want to illegalize forgetting 9/11?

If not, did you just create this discussion just to tell us this? We all know that as we think of more things, we tend to forget other things or put them on the back burner. It's common sense.

At 8/5/05 04:39 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Its been disputed for many years. In 1970 a treaty was signed that we would stop fighting over it, but did not decide who actually owned it.

It still doesn't change the fact that it was claimed by the Danes in the late 1800s.

Maybe we just want to do scientific research there too.

What kind? What research can be accomplished on this little island that can't on any of the other thousands of islands Canada owns in the Arctic outright?

They imported that good onto Canadian soil. You must pay to bring in liquor unless it was bought at a duty free shop.

How is it Canadian soil if the treaty never determined who's soil it is?

At 8/5/05 12:10 PM, Konic-the-hedgehog wrote: You should say Zionist terrorism!
Judaism is a religon. Zionism is a political party like Repblicans and Democrats.

It hasn't been said yet if the perpetrator was a Zionist. All we do know is that he was Jewish, however.

At 8/5/05 05:34 AM, TheReveiwer wrote: and events can further forgetting ""like prisoner abuse scandel"

so if peps start to forget blam the FCC the prisioner abusers and the patriot act

So again, all you're essentially saying is that people will tend to think more about the current issues at hand rather than something that happened 4 years ago?

At 8/5/05 01:25 AM, TheFaces wrote:

At 8/5/05 01:22 AM, Glock_Glock wrote: It's scorching hot in the morning to the afternoon and at night time there are thunder and lightning storms. This sucks. There is a storm going on right now.

I live in vegas so I dont have to deal with the storms but the day before yesterday I think it got up to 112 with 35% precipitation

You mean humidity.

Yes. Summertime is always sweltering here in the South. When I buy a house, I think I may buy it somewhere cooler.

Like Alaska.

True story--I was driving on some road way out in the country at night a couple weeks back. I was coming through a thunderstorm. Lightning was flashing, thunder was clapping, the wind roared. As I rounded a curve, I saw what looked like two little children crossing the road. They got halfway, and vanished into thin air. It was 80 degrees that night, and when I saw that, I got goosebumps all over.

Another time, I climbed up Brasstown Bald, the highest mountain in Georgia. It was during the winter, almost dark, and clouds had started to move in. Soon the whole mountain top was inveloped what looked like the thickest fog imaginable (actually, a cloud). Here I was, standing alone on a cold, windswept, mountainside, surrounded by a shroud of fog. It was deathly, eerily quiet. I ran back down the mountain, and I didn't stop running till I got to my car door.

It's not really mexed missages at all.

If the Kam. school was just admitting a certain amount of non-hawaiians, and the court told it to let in whoever, then that would be contradictory.

But as it is, the affirmative action ruling just allows schools to use race as a weighted factor--it doesn't however, permit restricting admittance to one race only, as that would be contradictory to Brown vs. BOE Topeka.

At 8/5/05 12:08 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: There wasnt one there when we got there.

Probably because Denmark had already claimed it a century prior, even if no flag was there. If Canada feels that it can just haul off and claim any island without another flag flying over it, then us in the U.S. better start putting up some flag poles in our nations lakes and rivers, before we get the Canadian Naval Fleet sailing on them, claiming islands and islets.

Kinda like the US did with the fucking moon. How childish as that?

Except the U.S. didn't go to the moon with the intent of planting a flag on it--it was for scientific research.

BTW the danes have burried liqour witht heir flag before on other such islands. Like they could really pass it off as a Club Med, and they didnt even pay the tariffs on it.

Why would they pay tariffs on something that doesn't leave their territory?

At 8/4/05 11:59 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote:

At 8/4/05 11:57 PM, -Illustrious- wrote: plus there's not contingents of dignitaries sailing out to it to knock down a flag and hoist theirs like a bunch of 10 year olds playing fort.

I know those danes are so childish.

Canadian Forces Northern Area troops raise a Canadian flag on Hans Island on July 13, 2005.

The Danes aren't the only ones playing fort.

At 8/4/05 11:49 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote:

At 8/4/05 11:44 PM, -Illustrious- wrote: Well then, why not just evenly divide the island in half? One half to Denmark, one half to Canada. There's several other islands like that.

Because it belongs to us?

Because it belongs to Denmark.

Boundary disputes are a two-way street. The Danes would be saying it belongs to them.

I mean why not split the Alaska panhandle along the Canadian border in half. It was disputed territory (but only afetr the gold rush started did the US ever say it was tehres), and it was unfarily taken from us (a 6 judge pannel, 3 US, 2 canada and one british voted 4-2 for the US, guess hwo voted for the US? The british were pissed at us for I cant even remeber what it was, I think it was a trade deal so they screwed us over).

Well, it's no longer disputed, and plus there's not contingents of dignitaries sailing out to it to knock down a flag and hoist theirs like a bunch of 10 year olds playing fort.

At 8/4/05 11:42 PM, mighty_potato wrote:

At 8/4/05 11:39 PM, -Illustrious- wrote: Don't these two countries have more do than to fight over a godforsaken frozen crag of rock in the Arctic?

It may seem like nothing now, but with the world's supply of fresh water running out and the readily available source of freshwater in the ice, it will be very important to the two countries over the long run. Its not the first time that arctic sovereignty has been a major focus point.

Well then, why not just evenly divide the island in half? One half to Denmark, one half to Canada. There's several other islands like that.

Uh oh. The world is in peril with these two military superpowers coming this close to an armed conflict.

Don't these two countries have more do than to fight over a godforsaken frozen crag of rock in the Arctic?

At 8/4/05 11:08 PM, CI-Lain wrote: Hey would anyone care to explain this odd obsesion with raccoons?

What raccoons? I don't remember reading anything about raccoons.

Wraith, whatever happens, we'll be pulling for ya, buddy.

At 8/4/05 10:54 PM, TheReveiwer wrote: And I feel for ya but what I was saying is peoples memories arent indefinate the brain can forget things without the forgetee wanting ti to happen

that was the point I was tyring to make

So, essentially, all you are saying is that people can forget things.

Wow.

http://www.cnn.com/2...shooting/index.html

JERUSALEM (CNN) -- An Israeli soldier opened fire inside a bus in Israel's northern Galilee region Thursday, killing four Israeli Arabs and seriously wounding five other people before he was killed, according to Israeli police.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon condemned the attack, calling it "a reprehensible act of a bloodthirsty Jewish terrorist who sought to attack innocent Israeli citizens."

What do you think? Do you think this will affect the relationship between the U.S. and Israel and Palestine? Will Muslim terrorist groups use this as a justification for future terrorist attacks, both in Israel and abroad?

Moreover, is anyone surprised at Sharon's condemnation of this event, as I am?

I hope not. I work to damn hard for my money to have to give some via taxes to losers like you.

Go get some work ethic and a GED. Then, if you still have trouble finding work, then we'll see.