room2593

The basic social rule is 1/2 the age of the older party, plus 5 years.So if there's a 70 year old man, the woman has to be 40 for it to be socially acceptable. You hear about these kind of marriages all the time, and while it may sound weird and may make you cringe, the marriage isn't going to draw any criticism. If, however, the woman is 30, then she's seen as a gold digger, and he's seen as looking for a good lay . . . all sorts of negativity.This rule even works for younger people. Men who are 30 can date women who are 20. It's not pretty, but it happens and nobody really twitches about it.So basically, age does matter, but the boundaries are loose and nobody really cares that much.Another problem with age is the gap between wisdom levels and personal beliefs. A man who grew up before WW2 probably isn't going to get along well with a flower child from the 70s. It's just too wide a breach to cover with love. She'll be all like "free love, man!" And he'll be all like "back in my day we didn't have rap music" and things will devolve from there.

My sincerest apologies. I didn't know that you added the quote tags - I thought they were automatic. Also didn't see that in the general forum rules - I have been informed. I thought that anything that was mine was fair game. My thought about equality still stands, though. What do you say as to the discrepancy of obama vs. a whigger in a trailer park? Is the president inherently a better person, because it seems that way. No matter how happy that trailer park junkie is, he still doesn't have the same level of accomplishment as the president. In a world where worth is established based on achievement, how can we say that happiness makes all people equal? It doesn't seem logical.

Hm. It formatted it as a quote because I first wrote it in word. Weird. I'm super sorry.

I've been doing a lot of thinking about equality lately, and . . . I think it's all f-ed up. Really. I heard a story from a professor who said that he saw a construction worker in the street and thought "poor guy, he never went to school and he never learned to think!" But then he realized that the construction worker was probably just looking at him and going "poor guy, he never learned how to work with his hands, and he's never accomplished anything in his life!" Since I can't put myself very eloquently outside of writing a story (I'm a writer by hobby), I wrote a story. I don't think this is the right thread for this, but whatevs. This is the internet, I can't be sued.

See, that's weird. Not everyone dreams in sequels. I get these big budget productions and stuff, too. It's pretty amazing. I have recurring characters that don't exist in real life and awesome chase sequences that scare the crap out of me.Then, of course, I get the "I forgot my pants" dreams and the "I have to run to class because I'm late" dreams which annoy the crap out of me because I want to get back to the action.The sequels don't happen too often, but when they do, they're awesome. I always feel like "YES! I get to continue!" from within the dream.It really makes me feel sad for people like my dad, who never ever remembers his dreams.Anyway, I'm glad I'm fairly normal.@munna.raghavThat's cool. I always loose the thread of the dream if I wake up. I kind of wish I had that dream-superpower, too.

Has this ever happened to you? While you're dreaming, you remember a previous dream that led to the point you're at?I dream in sequels all the time. I have massive continuing storylines going in my subconcious. Sometimes there's a bit of a recap at the beginning of the episode, and then it will launch into the next step of the dream. Sometimes I have a rehash of a dream I had before, but everything is amped up and more exciting.Please tell me this doesn't happen to me alone. I don't want to be the only one on the planet with sequel dreams. That would just be too weird.

This thread is two years old, man.Um . . .If anybody wants to continue posting on this topic, you should probably make a new thread.So basically, to sum up so that no one wants to post any more:Make a decision. Write down pros and cons. Think back to the good and the bad. Then say "Yes, I will pursue this" or "No, this is over." Then follow through. No matter what. It's your life, now live it.So, let this thread die.

It sounds like he likes you.When people hear that another person likes them, it really makes it feel safe to like them back. It's no longer throwing yourself down a flight of stairs, it's a joint venture. When he heard that you liked him, he may not have ever thought of you that way before, but he's probably thinking it now. If he showed up to the first date, he probably wants to try the relationship.So just let it happen. If nothing comes of it, remember that you've had other crushes and you will have more. If it develops and you eventually move on to marriage or whatever, then cool too. But in everything, you should remember that I gave you advice, and if there is a wedding, send me a slice of cake.

For sure. I mean, I'm not saying that his inclusion of end-rhyme in english wasn't exciting and new. It was new. But the point is that it would have come along later if he hadn't done it. The same with realistic characters. So I guess that he just benefits from being the first. There's not too much to make his work stand out other than that one fact.

Hm.See, this is what I'm talking about. How can we say that there are any great writers in English when the language devolved this far? You can go onto any forum on the internet and find this kind of insane garble. Look at your last sentence. There is no punctuation except a smiley. There is little capitalization and very little coherence. And yet here you are, saying how Chaucer was a great poet and philosopher. I guess it goes to show that from humble origins come deep thoughts, right? I guess it kind of backs up your point, a little. But imagine how much more eloquently you could make your point if you actually said things clearly?Like Chaucer, I suppose. Though he did bury some things in some intense imagery.

1. Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close - Foer2. Wicked - Magwire3. Ender's Game - Card4. Space Trilogy - CSLewis5. Brave New World - HuxleyThese are some of the books that rocked my world. After I finished reading them, I just kind of sat there and went "woah . . ." for a half and hour or so. I hope you read them, they're amazing.

If you want to not spend a million dollars on photoshop, the Gimp is pretty powerful and very difficult to figure out, but also free. You can make some nice lens flare in there. I'm sure that would make you peachy keen.Anyhow, those images were really different from anything I'd do, but still - not bad for a first try on a program.

I recently had a professor who avowed that Chaucer was one of the 4 most influential writers in the English Language. He included Shakespeare, Milton and some other dude that I can't remember. The point is: CHAUCER? I would have never guessed.Anyhow, he said that Chaucer was so influential because he started a trend of realism in characterization (everything before this point was written like a legend or a fable or whatever) and rhyme in poetry (english writers just used alliteration, rhythm and cadence, not rhyme). Um . . . I still wouldn't put Chaucer on the list. In order for you to influence somebody, they have to come in contact with something that you wrote. How many people have read Chaucer? How many people even WANT to read Chaucer? It's like reading the delusional scribblings of a dyslexic six-year old.I digress.

The books that have changed my life include Wicked and Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister by Gregory Magwire, and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close and Everything is Illuminated by Jonathan Safran Foer. These are the most recent books to really impact me. I think that the reason why I like them so much is that they agree with my idea of life: It sucks, but it's still worth living. The characters are really solid and the plot is just fantastic, and it draws you in and makes you care. I was amazed when I read them.

I read the first two and gave up. The author doesn't even try to create an original world - he merely steals piecemeal from every other book in the genre. Since JRRTolkien started the genre and did it right, people have been trying to replicate his success. They've failed over and over again, making a little money along the way. This kid is stealing from the people who stole from Tolkien and doing it badly. I'm really sad to see this series become so popular. It's as if a little bit of my soul melts away every time I think about it.My main problem is the utter lack of new plot devices. All the races are from somewhere else. All the magic system is from some where else. All the words are just generic "mystical soundy" words. And the plot - is bad.So, I just hope that my angry rant will cause people to stop and think about what makes a quality book. Is it the number of sheeple who read it? Or is it the power it imparts to the reader?I'm going with number two.

Christ merely is a translation of the hebrew word "messiah". Jesus is another form of the name Jeshewa or Joshua. So there's that anyway. I'm 95% sure that Christianity and Islam have no connexion in their origins. If they do, then it's probably only a mere meeting of ideologies, and not a full-fledged idea trade of cultures.

I know that Saul persecuted those who followed Christ. I'm not sure if they had coined the term 'christian,' however.But you're right. It didn't seem popular to be a christian back in the day.

Yeah, you should use the gimp. Even if you like PS, I like the Gimp better. I've learned it, so I know all the amazing power behind the program.Also: Pirating is bad . . . it's true. But don't beat yourself up over it. It's normal. Until the fcc comes in and pwns you.

Just learned some interesting facts about the origin of the Christian church.In the early days of the Christians, they (of course) did not call themselves "christian". Paul and Peter and the others spread belief through the world, through Rome and beyond. One Roman Caesar brought back the games and started killing them off, because they were a contesting source of power. Eventually, the entire belief system of Christianity was hidden in pockets in the mountains. One such group was notably the Waldenses. These pockets eventually broke out and started spreading again. They eventually converted the emperor of rome, Constantine. He famously walked his entire army through a river to 'baptize' them. Roman Christianity spread rapidly throughout the empire, all the way to Great Britain and beyond.This is, of course, the way that Saint Patrick became a Christian. He was a member of the upper class, stolen and sold into slavery in Ireland. He escaped and went to Rome to learn to be a monk. He eventually came back and ministered to the Celts in Ireland, converting a great number of them. Monasteries in Ireland spread rapidly because there were only allowed to be 12 monks in a monastery at a time. Any more than that and they had to spread out. Eventually, the bulk of the island was Christian.At about this point, there was a massive influx of barbarians filling the hole of the failing Roman empire. The barbarians actually sacked Rome. They destroyed and burned everything they could get their hands on. (this is why the Venus de Milo has no appendages) Barbarians named Angles, Saxons and Jutes invaded the big island of Britain and overran everything, even up to the northernmost reaches. They did not, however, take the island of Ireland. This meant that Christianity survived. The monks in Ireland became a refuge for manuscripts from all over Europe. Manuscripts were smuggled in to monasteries.The amazing burst of monks in Ireland (and the fact that they wouldn't keep themselves cooped up) meant that they spread to other parts of the world with amazing rapidity. These monks carried classical literature with them to Europe, where they founded monasteries that eventually became cities - cities such as Vienna, Cologne, and Aachen, Leon, and Tours. This burst of classical knowledge opened the way for the Roman church to grow again. Eventually, the Roman Church grew all the way to Northumbria, in England. King Oswe, the king of northumbria at the time, called a conference to decide which variance of Christianity he would join. Eventually, he chose the Roman church (not because of any inherent benefit in one or the other). The amazing part is that he could have easily gone with the Celtic Christians from Ireland! That would play havoc with our timeline of history.From then, the Roman Catholics dominated Christianity until Martin Luther posted his 95 theses. From there, Calvin and Luther formed a following that was harried by the Catholic church. The protestants found a home in England when the King wanted a divorce but the Pope disallowed it. He became protestant so that he could get another wife. The distinct strain of Celtic Christianity survived until Mary, queen of Scots.So there's an interesting side note for history. It was an opportunity for everything to turn out differently than it did. I thought it was insane and thought you might too.

I'm gonna bump this thread again.So do you still believe in a localized flood? Or do you consent to the "worldwide flood" theory? Just gauging the effect of my arguements.At this point, if you don't agree, then I don't think I can convince you.And upon the topic of the symbolic ages - I agree. The only age that had any significance was that of Methuselah, and that's just because he was going to live UNTIL the flood and no longer. The actual number of years he lived has no significance.

1. Agreed.2. Agreed. I'm betting a lot of them died anyway (what with the fountains of the deep blowing rocks and plants around in the water, but they survived. 3. Agreed. 4. I agree with Curtis07 down there, that it was longer, but still. 5. Agreed. 6. Agreed. Otherwise he'd go bankrupt trying to feed them if they weren't around for a very short amount of time (a year or so). 7. Agreed. 8. Agreed. Conclusion: What? I'm assuming that you're saying that God isn't all powerful with his ability to move animals? I'm pretty sure that God would be able to move animals for decades in advance. And he wouldn't have to. Wildebeests travel a massive distance every year looking for water. If all the land was in a single chunk as Pangea, (which I believe) they would be able to make it to wherever Noah was within a year or two, tops. God would be able to move them all to the location where Noah was with ease, and he could do it however he pleases. Animals don't really have a sacred "power of choice" like humans do. For example, God forces birds to bring food to Elijah after mount caramel. He can have them to do anything he needs them to do. So what I guess the point I'm making is that God would only bring all the animals from all over the earth if it were necessary. It would only be necessary in a worldwide flood. I still believe in a worldwide flood. I realize it's cheap to play the "God rocks socks so don't argue" card, but if he does, and it's valid to my argument, why can't I use it?

Sweet - it was confusing at first.Now, I'd like to make the point that God wouldn't HAVE to bring all the animals if your theory is correct. If it was a localized flood - just the southwest, let's say - then God would just have to bring lizards and jackalopes and such to Noah. He wouldn't have to bring animals that lived in other parts of the world. Why would God bring all the animals from the entire world if he was just going to flood a single part of it?

Yessss, but then you have to agree that there were only 14 sheep. You made it sound as if there were 16 of every species. And I believe you have it backward. God defined most clean animals, to the exclusion of all other animals - with some specific mentions of unclean (such as shellfish). He said that animals that chew the cud and have a cloven hoof were clean. Fish with fins and scales were clean and all others were unclean. The only animal where the unclean is specified and the clean is open is birds - all unclean birds are listed with the others considered fair game. (vultures, of course, being prohibited).

This time, I'll put forth the effort to include quote and /quote tags on everything True, there wasn't a direct "Esther, do things!" from God. But I still believe that God talks to us through other people, or circumstances. Nowdays, he also talks to us through the Holy Spirit, given at the day of pentecost. But that is neither here nor there. Wow. I have thought about this a lot, so I subconsciously assumed it was a universal thought. The evolutionists throw pangea in my face a lot, so I just point out how it's totally plausible within the scope of the bible. You kind of have to assume a world-wide flood, too. Nothing else would be catastrophic enough to change the face of the earth that much.And I would like to point out that of course you can't accept all of it. The other piece refutes your claim. Consider a cube of water sitting over your floor. It couldn't happen - it wouldn't stay there - unless it was frozen. Water dissipates to cover the maximum possible area, and does it very quickly. To cover the land for 40 days, it would HAVE to be worldwide. Okay, whoa! What's this with 16 animals of each kind?In Deuteronomy, God details exactly what "clean" and "unclean" animals are. I always assumed that the "clean" animals on the ark were these that Noah and co. could eat - cows, chickens, turkeys and so forth. The "unclean" animals (the mass majority of them) were the ones that weren't okay to eat - pigs, horses, elephants and so forth. Since this would be the case, there would be 14 cows and 2 tigers, 14 chickens and 2 orangutans. Is there a reason why you designate each species as having "clean" and "unclean" animals within it? Because that would change a lot - clean elephants and so forth, and unclean sheep. Yeah. Precisely. I believe there was little or no deviation from the time it occurred to the time it was written down. The people back then were anal about everything being exact and repetitive - every time you tell the story of Abraham sacrificing Issac, you use the same words. Plus, people lived a lot longer back then, so a single storyteller could survive for 500 years and tell the same story the whole time. I hold some pretty weird echatalogical views - the end times is a little different for me than it is for most christians. The way I read all of this going down is that the dead in christ (all of them) are raised at the first resurrection and then those who are alive and in christ (all of us) will meet them in the air. Then the thousand years in heaven, Satan roams the earth alone, contemplating his massive boop-up - and then the second resurrection, when everyone who ever lived is alive at the same time. Satan gets one last chance to show if he's ACTUALLY as contemptible as he seems and he does not disappoint. He tries to muster his troops for one last stand, at which time the massive, literal fires of God will devour them, annihilating any evidence of them for all eternity. So the way I read it, I will be caught up to him in the clouds along with all the dead people and I will get a chance to see this massive hellfire thing. Heh. It just makes 'em look unintelligent.

1. Valid point - but God still asks young people to do things, and that's all I'm saying. I've heard that the story of Esther never happened, but even if it didn't, God asked a young girl to save an entire nation of people by risking her neck. 2. I'll be trying to clarify and make more understandable. a. I believe Pangaea was an applicable landmass back in the day - it makes sense. Pangea would be extremely flat, by its very nature - no plates pushing against each other. As soon as the fountains burst forth and geysers blew apart the world, the plates as we know them were moved around and thrown together- forming mountains. b. The mountains of Ararat were new mountains when Noah landed on them, and they still existed in the time of Moses. They probably still exist, they just have been renamed or forgotten. So Moses wasn't making an error when he wrote about THOSE. The ones that existed DURING the flood, the ones that were covered, I don't know how tall they were or any such thing. But for water to cover a mountain, that would still have to be a massive amount of water, and you can't have that much localized water for 40 days without it running away. For it to stay that high where Noah was for 40 days, it would have to cover the whole earth. 3. You did not answer my point. I did know that there were 7 pairs of clean animals(for eating and for faster repopulation) I just considered it superfluous to mention them. My point was that Noah would not need some of the animals if it was merely a localized flood. If there was going to be a flood that covered the midwest, why would you need lions on your boat? You wouldn't, because they would be safe in Africa. Why would God go to all that trouble to bring those animals if they were just fine? It's just that I believe in a world-wide flood, and unless they were REALLY screwed up about the details, it was. It's quite clear from the text. If I'm willing to accept an error about the flood, then I would have to be willing to accept errors about creation, or about the death of Jesus on the cross. I don't believe that he made a mistake. Oral tradition back in the day was not like the game of "telephone." The speakers had phrases that they would repeat and chant again and again until the story was exactly the same every time. The native americans do the same thing. So there was no warping with time - no hyperbole through repetition. For this reason, I trust the words of the bible. 4. In Revelation 20, it talks about the thousand years. We and all the righteous dead will be taken to heaven at the second coming 20:4 (incidentally, I believe that people sleep once they're dead, just so you know. We can get into that if you disagree or care at all) where we'll spend a thousand years. During the thousand years, Satan will be all alone on the earth, a la 20:2 (bound for a thousand years). At the end, the second resurrection (the evil) will rise as it mentions in 20:5 (I don't have time to find the place where it goes into this more clearly). Satan is released 20:7 deceives them again 20:8 and they assault the camp of God's children 20:9. Coincidentally, I believe in an eternal fire being translated as it is effectually eternal, not that it burns forever. I'm just telling you so you know where I come from. We could discuss this too, if you want. This lengthy discourse was just so that I could say that I want to be INSIDE that camp when they attack, not outside with the deceived. Also, that fire will be the most amazing and awe-inspiring thing ever (beside God, of course). So I'd like to see it and live to remember it. Lastly, I want to thank you for being intelligent. Most everybody on the internet is kind of an imbecile, (no offense to them, but look at youtube comments) and it's refreshing to meet someone who is not.