clagnol

You liked Mortal Kombat 2? In my humble opinion, that was the worst video-game-turned-movie ever made. And though it may have been a box-office flop, I enjoyed Super Mario Bros., despite John Leguizamo.

Jesus' other aliases are irrelevent. Michael was called a prince, yes, but other princes were being referenced in the same verse. He is called a prince, not the prince. Do a text search at Bible Gateway of Michael to see where he is referenced. Your theory is possible, but so far you have provided no actual evidence to suggest that any of Jesus' contemporaries believed he and Michael to be the same being.

Michael the archangel/prince is referenced in Daniel, Jude, and Revelation: before AND after Jesus' life. I've never seen Jesus referred to as an angel of any kind. He was present in Revelation performing circus tricks with a flaming sword and newly-bleached hair, but I don't believe they called him an angel. And why give him two names and never explain this discrepency? I expect that sort of confusion in classic Russian literature, not in the Bible. Daniel writes of a prince named Michael who will defeat the king of Persia in his future (our past). You might choose to believe that they got the timing all wrong, and that in the future, Christ, himself, will fly over to Iran and punch the ayatollah in the throat. But I think you'll be waiting a while. I find this whole notion of Michael being Jesus to be a tad convenient. It seems that people, looking back at the biblical corpus, have projected a meaning which was not originally there, connecting all the wrong dots. Unless there's some bit of evidence I'm missing?

Creation-Science Science has no agendum, except Truth. If Science ever advances any other agendum, it is Bad Science. When Science finds mistakes within itself, it makes changes. Creation-science is not really Science. It seeks evidence to support its pre-concieved notions of genesis. Creation-scientists look for evidence that a global flood occurred and that humans walked with dinosaurs because such evidence supports their religious agenda. Creation-science exists to validate Christianity. This is why you should trust nothing from a creation-scientist. You may argue that modern Science contains biases that make it flawed, but I would retort that the fault, if any exists, lies on individual scientists, while creation-science is fundamentally flawed. Faith Acts 17:11 New International Version Here, the Bereans are using the Bible to judge the truth in Paul's words. I would assume they were looking for internal consistency. This is not about questioning one's beliefs, this is about fitting one dogma in with another. If you are able to evaluate, without prejudice, criticisms of your own religion, I am happy for you. However, I sincerely doubt that you have this rare ability. No offense, but you exude hard-line Fundamentalism from your web-presence, and I have yet to meet a cosmopolitan fundie. This Zecharias seems like a bright fellow, but I disagree wholeheartedly with his claim that the Bible encourages scientific scrutiny. In the Old Testament, anybody who questioned God was subject to smiting at His discretion. In the New Testament, God suddenly becomes a loving and forgiving God, so questioning Him begins not to result in instant death. But it is certainly never encouraged. Perhaps if Zecharias had evidence of this claim, he'd be quoting the Bible, and not a spiteful atheist. As for your last quote about faith, I find it difficult to place a great deal in trust in a being wholly imagined. We can only agree to disagree on this point. World-Views Look at it this way: I am a sinner (by Mosaic AND New Testament's standards) and I don't plan on begging your savior for redemption. By Fundamentalist standards, you have every reason to think I am going to Hell. Can you ever judge a Hell-bound reprobate as your equal? Perhaps you think you can, with the whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" mentality, but I posit that you cannot. To you, I will always be someone that needs saving, someone who has done wrong, and someone who is too ignorant or naive to realize that your way is the best way. You may be able to respect my world-view or regard it "without anger or offense", but you will never view it as the equal of your own. To do so would be to betray your divine truth. Me I'm not an atheist, and I lack the scientific wherewithal to put myself behind "the Big Bang", so I'm not going to respond on those subjects. But I'm not ceding them to you, either. The Book Overall, I give Jesus Among Other Gods a D minus. The author relies too much on anecdotes in which the rhetorical enemy admits defeat, and not enough on actual evidence.

Hollywood: ruining classic video games for 20 years.

Both of those are excellent shows, but The Venture Brothers is the very best. My favorite episode of ATHF is probably the Christmas episode, with the robot that tells long-winded stories.

C.S. Lewis: what a doof.All this passage does is express the idea that humans are easily-manipulated and oblivious, with Manichean spirits inhabiting our heads; the difference between a sinner and a saint is that the good spirit is more manipulative than the bad spirit within the saint.

Who? You can't intimidate people over relatively anonymous fora. What are you going to do, type someone's ear off with CAPS? Oh...

That 16x16 website is such a flagrant rip-off off of guimp.com. If I had labored to make the smallest website in the world, I'd be pissed to find out someone had made a cheap imitation even smaller.It doesn't even have any games! The games are what makes guimp so cool. I played that F1 game for like 5 minutes. And the Arena game is astounding. Who knew that one could create that kind of complexity with 18x18 pixels in Flash? That dude deserves an award. I'll send him a cookie in the mail.

Then the person who started this thread probably wouldn't hate you. He/she only mentioned those who subject others to their smoke.

My regard for evolution is not dogmatic; if something solid comes along which contradicts my current schema, I adapt and absorb. This is different from your "faith" which is neither grounded in science nor allows for any competing worldviews. Yeah, you do; just in a more passive-aggressive way. EXACTLY. I'm glad you're seeing things my way.

LOL at Saint Michael and Biscuitrat. True, the modern Internet's TCP/IP protocols were adopted in 1983, but the original Internet, Arpanet, was created in 1969.

What's unbelievable is your gumption; to insult someone for their English skills when it is so clear that you, yourself, lack a firm grasp on the language.

Haha, like those brushes are gonna be of any use to him when his Photoshop trial runs out!

There's always so much misinformation spread every time the topic of favicon has come up, and it comes up pretty often. Kraam, it is an ICO file, not a PNG. Guangdian, I never have any idea what you're trying to express. The two dudes with code are both correct, but their solutions may not work for all browsers. Here's a cross-browser solution I learned a long time ago: <link rel="icon" href="http://domain.com/favicon.ico" type="image/x-icon"><link rel="shortcut icon" href="http://domain.com/favicon.ico" type="image/x-icon"> Make sure you name your file "favicon.ico". It definitely works for Internet Explorer and Gecko-based browsers [Mozilla, Mozilla Firefox, Netscape, Konqueror, generic Linux browsers, etc]. Be warned that IE is always finicky about these icons, though.