truefusion

Did you just get this graphics card or did you have it for a long time and it is now showing signs of PCIE x2? And am i to assume that nothing else but the graphics card is taking up the x16 slot (you should verify this)? According these specifications, you only have one x16 slot (this is usually the one closest to the processor), the others being x1, and that you have a 300 watt power supply. Assuming you have the card in the x16 slot, then perhaps it is the case that your power supply cannot fully support all the hardware you have on there and the jumping around from x8 to x2 could be the motherboard trying to balance out the power to all parts. You could try purchasing a better power supply, or if you know someone with a better power supply, to test it out with theirs. If the better power supply does the trick, then it was the power supply. If it doesn't, then it is probably the motherboard. You can know it is the motherboard if you try to put a card that you know works in there and see if it shows similar signs.

I ran into my limit before. You know what i did? I removed the ''new lines.'' You have a lot of lines in your signature, but did you forget about the table BB code? You can pull off everything on one line and still have the same look with a table. Though, i would suggest placing the image and everything below it in its own column.

Ash, just stick with mysql_num_rows but this time make sure you don't pass any values to the function that the function does not support. mysql_query, as i understand it, will not return a resource if 0 rows are found. You won't have to modify the logic of your code, either, after changing to mysql_num_rows, since empty will return true if the value passed is 0.

1. Yes, any hard drive will do. It does not need to be of the same size unless you are planning to replace the internal one. However, do keep in mind that if you are replacing in the internal one, it has to be of the same connection unless the motherboard supports multiple connections (i.e. IDE, SATA, etc).(2) Steam allows you to back up and restore your games. I have not tried doing so for my games, but i would expect it to be a feature that allows you to copy your game ''database'' from one computer to the next without having to download everything again. As for any other random software, you may have to download them again.

You cannot replace a function name and expect the function to have an equal amount of parameters as the previous function. mysql_num_rows takes one parameter: the resource. Your code assumes it takes the same parameters as mysql_result. Therefore you get that error.

I believe the importance of a website's footer is dependent on the website itself. For example, my website doesn't have a footer. But does it need a footer? It is understandable to have a footer with your ''finger print'' if the design was meant to be shared across many websites (e.g. WordPress themes). It is also understandable if your website has many sections and a small site map on the bottom of each page makes other areas more accessible, especially if an interested reader will eventually find themselves at the bottom of each page (due to actively reading the content on the website). Likewise, it is understandable if your website is sponsored by many. But for a website as simple as mine? I don't think one is needed. I also find copyright to be a bit over rated, and often see no need to bother with its symbols.

''Render'' is actually inappropriate for what it is applied to. In signatures, wallpapers, and similar designs, ''renders'' would be the characters or objects that the signature is using as the basis for its design. The reason why i find the term ''render'' to be inappropriate is because these images were generally not rendered, so to speak. Something rendered in, for exmample, Blender, or Maya, or Cinema 4D, or 3DSM, et cetera, that is a more appropriate reference for the term. ''Stock image'' i would say is more appropriate for what is often labeled a ''render.'' The brushes are generally large because it is better to shrink a big image than to enlarge a small image when quality is a priority. It is better to lose information than to try and fill in information in this case. The ''renders'' are mostly from external sources, yes. However, some people do use tablets and draw their own characters and backgrounds. Photoshop has the ability to import vector-based images (e.g. from Illustrator) (i think they are called ''smart objects;'' you'll have to look that up to verify it). As you should know, vector images do not lose quality when resized. However, as far as i know, with raster images there is no way to enlarge an image without losing quality. If the image is not too complex, you may be able to convert it to a vector image; simply telling Photoshop to treat it like as if it were a vector image does not help all that much.

The mysql_query function could be returning false. The boolean false is not a resource and would explain the error. You should therefore store the result of mysql_query in a variable, use an if statement to verify the variable, and if it passes, obtain the MySQL result with mysql_result. If that still doesn't work, you can do what deadmad7 suggested and use an alternative function that pretty much does the same thing.

From what i can tell, the only thing different is the interface. Someone who knows 2007 will be able to use 2010 so long as they look for what they want to use. I tried the Beta version, and it lagged like crazy on my computer. With my system specs it shouldn't have lagged, and i know it is not because it was the Beta version that caused it to lag, as i have tried it on a laptop with lower specs than my computer and it didn't lag there. Due to that i am inclined to say it doesn't like Windows XP (what my computer has) and only likes Vista (what the laptop has) and above.

I do not believe there is any such law in Islam (marrying only those that you are related to). Such a law would be counter-intuitive to two laws: women having to wear clothes that covers most of their skin, and only allowed to have up to 4 wives. I have not studied Islam extensively, nor have i read the entire Qur'an (i have read only the first twenty chapters), but many of the laws of Islam are found within the first several chapters.But even if it were the case, such a ''loophole'' wouldn't suffice. That and i wouldn't expect any true follower to be looking for loopholes.

Carbon dating cannot prove the existence of a character or object that is written about, only the character or object can do so. Take for example someone saying the world is coming to an end; the only way to know that it is true is to wait till the world ends. And that is one way on how to prove the validity of any written work. For example, if something is written, saying that if you visit a certain place, you will find a certain something, and if you go there and find the very thing that was written about, then you'll know the written work to be true (though it is possible that such a thing has been moved), at least concerning that written part. The more it is shown to be true, the more weight the written work carries. Therefore, if the Bible accurately represents the time and events it mentions, the more of a trustworthy source it becomes, and so anything else written is more likely to be true. The more likely to be true, the less likely anything contradicting would be true. I've told you already, Jesus's coming is merely God being consistent with what He declared in the past. You may want an inconsistent God, but that is not a God that is mentioned in Scripture. There is no contradiction here. Try not to ask a question i have already answered before you even asked. Saying ''astronomical and moon date'' does not prove it is more precise. You have to provide an example. The Bible mentions many places and does not stick to only the land of the Jews. It touches upon Asia, Africa and other parts of the East. Changing lives and performing a few miracles does not put him on the same level as Jesus. But you haven't done away with the ambiguity of Sai Baba. There are multilpe Sai Babas out there, each originating from India, each having miracles attributed to them, each existing near the time of the other. I suppose you are right.

I would like you to post where i said i did not believe in carbon dating and where i said that drawings prove the existence of a written character. Me stating that radioactive carbon dating does not prove the existence of Ashoka does not imply that i don't believe in carbon dating. God does not have to come down to earth to make it a better place. If He had to come down because there is no other way, wouldn't that mean He is less than Himself? Why does an all-powerful God require to come down in order to save? The arrival of Jesus and the crucifixion of Jesus is merely God being consistent with what He had declared in the past. God does not fail to save, nor does He choose to save everyone. Saving a person does not imply a better world. In Scripture, God does not fail to perform miracles publicly. You mention Sai Baba; which one do you speak of? I found two, and neither have been attributed miracles that come anywhere close to what Jesus is said to have performned. In fact, all the miracles i could find that are attributed to anyone called ''Sai Baba'' can be likewise performed by another human being. You contradict yourself when you mention that it is better if Krishna came down instead of Jesus though both scenarios you claim will yield the same outcome. Tell me, why do you support your argument when you have in the same paragraph contradicted it? Why does Jesus bringing peace for a short time mean that Krishan bringing peace for a short time is therefore better than Jesus? You have not in any way shown any difference between the two in your own statement, how then can you claim that one is better than the other? (That is not to say that you accurately respresented anything Biblical.) You haven't shown anything that disproves Jesus's existence. Historically speaking, evidence can only come from what is written; there is no other method for verifying the past. You can bring up the argument from archaeology, but that in itself does not prove that a certain person existed. If someone digs up a golden coffin within a tomb in the pyramids of Egypt, there is no way to tell who the skeleton in the coffin belongs to. If there is a name on the coffin or a stone tablet above the coffin with a name on it that says, ''Here lies [whosoever],'' one can only assume it is whosoever. Logically, that is not convincing evidence, but reasonably we have no other choice but to make the assumption. Concerning the Bible, there are many dates, people and places mentioned in there. Much of the people mentioned are rulers of the land during that time. Mentioning the ruler of the land was one of the best ways to provide a range of time for the readers. Many historians will affirm the existence of the rulers and places. We know many of these places exist because they still exist today. If they provide a description of the location, you can go there today and see if anything has changed. These would-be minor things actually imply the accuracy of what is written. It follows that if they accurately represented all these things, that they would likewise accurately represent whatever else they write about. If i am not mistaken, there is not much mention of geographical or historical figures within many of the scriptures of Buddism or Hinduism, if any. In fact, you even implied this when you were calling the Bible a childish piece of work. This historical and geographical representation found in Biblical Scripture is one of the reasons why i claim the Abrahamic religions are more down to earth.

It is not a claim if i said ''i think.'' You acknowledge that i said ''i think,'' so it cannot be said that i made a claim. But, please, leave us not in the dark as to what the logic behind your statement was. It would not be charitable for any of us to be left wandering about, wondering what your reasons for stating that it is impossible to conclude that homosexuality is unnatural was. I do agree that it is natural to show affection, but only to the one you are willing to show affection to. It is reasonable to show affection to just about anyone if no one has given you a reason to do otherwise. If loving everyone equally were such a simple task, no one would have trouble doing so. Other emotions get in the way of love which therefore prevent love; the body cannot hold (i.e. express) more than one emotion at any given time. You can grow to love someone; you can grow to hate someone; you can grow to be patient; you can grow to be impatient. Unconditional love is not something that is easily accomplished with humans. For the very thing that attracted you to someone can quickly disappear by an unattractive act from the very same person you were attracted to. I understand the power of love. I also understand that love is tied to two other things: hope and faith. If either one starts to decrease, it takes down the others with them. If you lose hope, then you will also lose either faith, love or both; if you lose faith, then you will also lose either love, hope or both; and if you lose love, then you will also lose either hope, faith or both. That is why losing love is dangerous, that is why depression is often what follows after losing love. It is like having lost everything (though you can still regain them). I do not really understand the scenario which has ''popped in [your] mind,'' especially since the scenario implies that she did not have the choice to love me but it was just something that could not be avoided for her. However, i think i can get a glimpse of what you were thinking when you say i would have told her i loved her because i wanted (chose) to love her. That is, i think you are implying that she does not see my love as genuine or meaningful, that i am providing merely a service. But could you imagine if it were impossible for me to choose who to love? Uncontrollable adultery would be present, that is, assuming my natural love and her natural love managed to link us up. For if i had not the choice to love, what would stop this natural love from jumping from person to person? Sure, it would then at least be unconditional love (though some might see it as ''conditional love'' without any explanation on why they went along with someone else), and even if i had uncontrollably committed adultery, it wouldn't matter since the one that loves me would not care whether or not my natural love chose her or not, as they can only express unconditional love (assuming they haven't already been unwillingly guided elsewhere). And with all this, what makes this natural love, therefore, any different than being able to choose who to love? How, then, can anyone claim either or? I do not think selfish love is possible, as they are two contradicting terms. Indeed, as you say, it would be merely so-called. However, that may bring up the question, ''Does conditional and unconditional love exist then?'' The complications therefore present in the ability to choose who to love and the inability to choose who to love but love regardless, can only confuse the matter when determining if either exist, let alone if even love exists. But i'm not going to dive into that matter right now. Morality if to be brought out logically would be dependent on consequences. Being unnatural is not itself morally wrong, but whether the consequences of its unnatural abilities yield to a moral or immoral conclusion. I did not say homosexuality is morally wrong simply because it is unnatural, but of the consequences of its unnaturabilty. While it may be difficult to separate the two since the consequences are dependent on it, i cannot say that it is merely for simply being unnatural.

The problem is that you put submitSignUpForm(); within an HTML context. submitSignUpForm() contains a header() function, but the header() function can only work if you did not already send non-header data to the browser.

It is possible to be born many ways, yes, but whether we like it or not, love is a choice. Though the video you link to has the female say ''you can't just choose who to love,'' you very well can choose who to love. In fact, there is no other way for humans to love; they have to choose to love. When anwiii said there is nothing that implies that it is unnatural to be born gay, i think he may have been thinking, ''What if there was only one person in existence, and it was a he?'' True, it requires the existence of females to be able to conclude that homosexuality is unnatural. The reason why i do not find the argument ''animals do it too'' to be sufficient enough to prove that homosexuality is natural, is because of the fact that animals will also hump inanimate objects. Why would a dog hump their owners leg? Why would they hump something like a towel or mop or pillow? Because it is natural? That would be absurd. Indeed, them humping just about anything they come into contact with isn't what is natural. The only thing natural about it is that they have sexual urges which they cannot control, and therefore they commit homosexual acts because a male of the same species just so happened to be the closest thing (note, therefore, the rarity of seeing two female animals committing homosexual acts). It is not because they are born gay, it is because they were born with the inability to control their urges. However, us humans are capable of controlling our urges; it just so happens that most people do not choose to keep them under control. Being born impaired, without the ability to reproduce, et cetera, as i have told anwiii, does not make the person any lesser (than me). I do not consider homosexuals any lesser (than me). It is a red herring, because there is nothing relevant for you to logically conclude from my statements that show i have taken my argument(s) from the Bible. While it may be the case that the term ''design'' implies a designer, my argument is not dependent on that. As you say, i could have very well have mentioned ''evolved to be so,'' where the rest of my argument would not crumble due to such a minor change. My ending sentences concerned itself with two consequences: (1) parental joy and (2) human advancement; not joyful advancement (that would indeed sound weird). I am going to reconstruct my argument that would help determine an absolute moral, as it seems that it may not be capable of being properly understood. ''Absolute morals'': that which implies a consequence (though it can imply more than one and these consequences can be absolute, that is, always present) where a standard of living is derived from, where the moral is the only possible conclusion and is wholly beneficial to what it relates to. ''Moral'': same as above, the only difference being that it is not necessarily the only possible conclusion. I still maintain the same definition for ''absolute consequences.'' Therefore, my example would be murder. I claim murder is an absolute wrong (an ''immoral''). Murder is the killing of an innocent person, therefore the absolute consequence of murder is that an innocent person was killed. The innocence of the person (the one that would be dead) is what makes the moral. You are probably at this point thinking, ''Okay, so what makes it wrong?'' But that is improper to the scenario. The proper question is, ''What makes it right to kill an innocent person?'' The life of another is not your property, and so you do not have the authority to take it so easily. You might argue, ''Is killing the murderer, then, morally right?'' The murderer, of course, would be guilty of taking life, and therefore loses the right to live, for losing the right to live is equal to in weight as taking someone else's life. ''What about in cases of war?'' Those engaging in war basically know the intentions of the other. While the war may have been started for foolish or wrong reasons, only one side would have the right to defend (though this may depend on the scenario, for the one attacking could be attacking due to something wrong that the other side has done), but anyone not engaging in war but that dies as a consequence of it, those who killed them would be guilty of murder. I don't remember any previous thread where i failed to prove something that is metaphysical. I do, however, remember proving the existence of the metaphysical conscious in another thread. Nevertheless, isn't a moral metatphysical? But if i have been molded externally from a previous state, then i do not see how i can be myself. And i would agree that one should accept who they really are, not what they have become. I do not see how preventing child abuse would be selfish. Because i don't want that happening to me? Okay, it didn't happen to me. You know what i would do if it were selfishness? I would walk away; it didn't happen to me, why should anyone else matter? That is selfishness, that is evil. Merely using the reason ''i wouldn't want it to happen to me'' is not in itself selfish. My request for truth that is not dependent on reality i know to be a request that is impossible to fulfill, and so i stated it in hopes of you picking up what you yourself have asked of us. You asked for something that is wrong that doesn't deal with us (i.e. that isn't dependent on us). That is an impossibility; however, providing a moral that is dependent on us doesn't make it false.

Okay, i now definitely recommend that you reread my previous posts that you have responded to. Putting words in my mouth and then refuting that is called ''building a straw man.'' It is not surprising that my words would be contradicting in your eyes after you have mixed them up in a way that does not accurately represent what i have said. Perhaps if i could speak in your native tongue you would understand me. Yes, i do find the Abrahamic religions more down to earth, but that is not the only reason why i choose to believe in them. Miracles are not illogical and they do not contradict reality. I do not understand why people believe that they do, for they do not. Having these things does not make it childish. A book need not contain only logic and psychology for it to be mature or not childish. If every book that doesn't contain those things are childish, then do you know just how many books you are calling childish? You asked what authority Jesus had to say what he said. I did not need to prove anything for me to answer your question; i merely told you what Jesus said, what you have asked for. If you do not want me to answer your questions concerning Scripture, then do not ask any questions concerning Scripture. If you do not want to discuss religion, then don't ask any questions concerning it. But we are here to discuss the Bible, because it concerns Jesus. If you say that i have not read the words of Krishna, then you did not say anything that Krishna has said. Why then did you say that Krishna said those things? I do not have anything against the Buddha, nor Krishna; i just don't necessarily agree with them. I have read some of the things the Buddha has said. It was not easy finding some of his words in English, at least for free. But that was a long time ago, back when i was studying karma, dharma and that third word that sounds like the first two but i cannot remember. It may very well be a shame that this topic is the first time i've heard of Ashoka. But there are plenty of writings outside of the Bible that talk about Jesus and the Gospels and about the Jews, both from trusted and untrusted sources (e.g. Gnostic texts). Even till this day are people talking about Jesus. But can you tell me why the very books of the Bible are not enough? And according to Scripture, Jesus ascended into Heaven, so if anyone is trying to find his skeleton in some random tomb, they would be working in vain. Even so, no one can prove who the skeleton is without prior knowledge. This prior knowledge is almost always written. It is true that all the people you have mentioned (though you should note that ''Allah'' is merely Arabic for ''God'') could have at one point in time existed. However, their historical descriptions help determine whether or not they really did. I won't deny that Rama, Buddha, Krishna, Zues or Osiris have existed, i will just assert that they could only have been either mere men or fictional characters (even though i do believe there is clear evidence showing that the Greek gods were fictional). It does not matter to me what the Western or Eastern societies think of what i say. Also note that the term ''myth'' does not imply falsehood; that is a misconception. For if myth implied falsehood, then you would not be able to prove any myths and the show Mythbusters would be pointless. It just so happens that most myths are false, but not all. Of course it is possible to make statements and assertions; i never denied that. And the three have lived together in peace before and can live together in peace; it is not impossible for them to do so. If you do not remember the last time, you may visit the countries that they inhabit. What do you mean that makes 2 already? You have only mentioned one god. Yin and yang? Those aren't gods, those are two parts of one symbol; a drawing; a creaton of man. Life on earth and the stability of the universe can very well be due to many factors, but that does not mean there is more than one God. Nothing of the universe can imply more than one God. And, no, it is not possible for there to be a God that created God. As mentioned before, anything created is not God. Likewise, a chain of creators forms a paradox, therefore it is illogical for there to be an infinte line of creators that created the one after it. It may be the case that there exists multiple gods, but the universe can only imply one God.

Perhaps you should reread my statement for sake of clarification, for i have not mentioned the words you claim i have said. I did not say i don't believe in radioactive carbon dating; i did not say drawings prove the existence of anything that has been written about. But i would like to hold you to your assertion that Ashoka's life is more logical than Jesus's life, for i do not know of any part of Jesus's life that is illogical, nor have i ever heard of the life of Ashoka, let alone Ashoka himself (assuming it is a he). But also, tell me, what is the difference between something written in stone and something written on paper, that is, concerning one's existence? If the very writings on paper are not enough to prove someone's existence, why would writings on a stone prove someone's existence? I do not see how anything i have said does not involve logic. A true god is an uncreated, eternal entity. It follows, therefore, that anything created cannot itself be a true god. It can be a false god, a so-called god, but never a true god. Is this not reasonable? I have yet to quote Scripture as evidence for any of my statements, so i do not see any reason to tell me not to quote from Scripture. However, i did provide some Scriptural knowledge in response to what you have requested from me. But that is not to say that Scripture does not contain logic. Simply stating that Jesus doesn't exist doesn't prove that he doesn't. According to Scripture, the authority which Jesus has to do and say things comes from God. He does not have to say whatever he said to be accepted. In fact, just like you are reacting, so is it written of how some people reacted to what Jesus said to them. To any ignorant person, it is blasphemous to state that you have similar authority to that of God. According to Scripture, many people tried to stone him to death for merely making such claims. It is indeed possible to state that Jesus or the God of the Abrahamic religions do not exist. But i find the Abrahamic religions more ''down to earth'' than any other. Why would one claim that there is only one God? The universe can only imply one God; there is no reason to assume that there is more than one God. Multiple gods also seem counter-intuitive, perhaps for that very reason. I would not agree that any statement or law should be universal, for that implies that truth is playful. There can only be one truth to any contradicting matter. It is not possible to say that there are multiple ways to heaven if each way contradicts the other or if one bears no heaven or hell (which itself is likewise a contradiction). If it is true that Krishna said what you said he said, then my doubt that he is any kind of god has further increased.

Radioactive carbon dating, likewise, does not prove the existence of any written character. All it can do is provide a time period of the object itself, not the character who is written about. Again, monuments, statues, and the like do not prove the existence of the written characters. For example, the pillars of Ashoka only prove that Buddhism was practiced during whatever time they are dated to. It is indeed tangible evidence for the existence of Buddhism, but that is not tangible evidence for the existence of the Buddha, Krishna or whoever it mentions. One need not be brainwashed by any so-called cults to know and see this. There are also many ancient drawings of Jesus. It is uncertain whether or not Jesus looks like that, but it is practically certain that Jesus did have long hair, since that was a custom of the Nazarene tribe. Do these drawings necessarily prove Jesus's existence? No, they don't. God is indeed capable of taking on human qualities; there is no doubt concerning that possibility. No one said He was incapable of doing so. What makes a god a false god deals with the entity's characteristics and attributes. If inherently they are creation, then they are false gods. By ''creation'' i do not necessarily mean man-made, though it does include it. And if He so wishes not to take on human qualities, it does not make Him a hypocrite, for duties are attributed accordingly based on responsibility. Jesus says to worship only the Father, which is the one true God. Jesus fully acknowledges that there is only one God, and that God is the one who sent him. He does not deny the existence of false gods, even if these false gods never really existed (i.e. not a human that was being exalted to the status of a god, but a truly fictional figure).

Finding a statue, an ornament, or anything that is attributed to some historical figure does not prove that this historical figure existed. All it could prove is that there was mention of such a figure during the time the archaelogical discovery is dated to. Finding Scripture from Christianity is no different than finding Scripture from Hinduism or Buddhism. Again, monuments built for a historical or mythical figure does not itself prove the existence of the figure. According to my logic, i do not agree that historical writings necessarily prove the existence of the very thing it writes about, but that also does not mean they did not exist. Both logic and Christianity do not allow for a god or deity to have inherent characteristics of creation, hence why any deity that inherently bears such characteristics are deemed as false gods in the Abrahamic religions. I will not deny that Krishna existed at some point, i will only assert that he could not have been a (true) deity or god. I do not believe it can be proven that Jesus did not say anything new. I will agree that it is impossible to state something that will not have the same meaning if worded differently, but i would not say that such a thing means nothing new was mentioned concerning Jesus and the Buddha; it may be the case that nothing new was mentioned by Jesus concerning prophecy, though. True, writings do not necessarily prove the existence of anything, but, as mentioned before, our limitations concerning history forces us to find means of attaining historical accuracy from what we do have. According to Scripture, Jesus was part of the creation of the heavens and earth. John makes this clear (which some other authors touch upon). According to Scripture, God saves perfectly; that is, He does not fail to save. This does not imply that He will save everyone, nor does it mean that saving one person magically makes the world a better place to live in. Why is the world full of evil? That is not the fault of God or Jesus, and is a question best left to be asked to the evil doers.

To save space but still cause forum notifications to trigger (assuming they are dependent on my use of quote bbcode that specifies a user) i will have the content of the quotes empty. I have not read the Bhagavat gita, but how does having history and instructions make it childish or immature? And in what way do history or instructions not imply some form of wisdom? And what is the point of having wisdom that cannot be understood? Should we expect God's ways to be so easily understood by us, whom we are much lesser to? Would it not require a mind of equal footing to God's mind? The very complexity of the universe implies the minimal intelligence of God, and we don't even fully understand this universe. You asked why would preachers say that people are condemned if they believed that people are born without the knowledge of God's existence, and i answered it. Very well, i shall quote you again but display the contradicting parts concerning the parts i was internally referencing with my statement. Perhaps you meant everything i say is wrong, but everything anyone else says is acceptable (i.e. ''you'' is singular and not plural like i had assumed). That would make sense if it weren't for the fact that you state that it is only acceptable so long as people do not enforce their so-called newfound ''truth'' upon anyone. Indeed, how can anyone say (or imply) forcing something upon another is wrong when merely saying that it is wrong is itself forcing morals upon someone? I don't think you truly believe what you said. For a person who believes that there is no right and wrong, i would not expect them to be engaging themselves in this topic. I do not believe i have twisted your words when i said that you said that we have no basis for our ''opinions.'' Your statement dealt with originality and creativity of thought. You said we are following what we have been told, presumably the statement that homosexuality is immoral (for what else could it possibly be?). Simply being told or saying such a thing does not provide any evidence on its own. Biblically, what is mentioned is that homosexuality is detestable. It is very difficult to try and figure out why it is detestable. There isn't anything explicit in the Bible that informs us of why it is detestable. An either-or conclusion is possible from this. But you are right: i did not explicitly define ''natural.'' I shall provide a definition for it, and it deals with states (not divisions of land). It cannot, however, be said that everything bears the same natural; for a plant very much differs from a human; et cetera. While it is possible to apply natural to things that are metaphysical or spiritual, it is obvious that the physical and metaphysical bear different naturals, and so i will only touch on the physical. While the natural is capable of production and development, i cannot say that it is all simply one state but multiple states, for production and development will merely confuse the matter if they were all one state. Nevertheless, the natural is any state that would have been so if left on its own, where no external forces have made modifications to or have influenced the ''system.'' True, this does not necessarily provide a complete answer, for the word ''state'' is slightly ambiguous, and how do we know it would have been so? But i think it can be left like this for the time being. There are many truths, yes; but truth is objective, not dictated but pointed out. (And life and death is Biblically explained.) I can see why you would state i was contradicting myself, as i had not explicitly defined what is natural. A person born without the ability to produce but still capable of sex i call natural, for that is his uninfluenced state. Sodomy i do find to be immoral; not just because it is the improper placement of parts but because i see it as a form of degradation to the one giving but also to the one receiving, though not necessarily at the same time. Love and affection does seem to complicate what i have defined as ''natural.'' For it is natural to show affection and it is natural to receive pleasure through our senses, but the proper question is: Is it moral the way we go about it? Unnatural was merely one consequence that i mentioned against homosexuality. But the topic isn't about whether something is natural or unnatural, it is whether a moral and immoral can be defined. Therefore, concerning things like kissing and sodomy, et cetera, whether or not it is natural or unnatural may be irrelevant. Even if we are unable to apply ''unnatural'' to homosexuality, that wouldn't mean it is not immoral. I always think of that perhaps my ways or what i am saying is wrong. That is why i work on my posts until i am satisfied with them. If i don't have time to write, i'll begin writing, save it and come back to it till i am done writing it. Sure, there may be moments where i fail to think of every single possibility and implications for my words and actions and therefore fail to properly address a matter, but if everything i said came from a book, you think i would fail to respond? Don't you think it is about time to prove that everything i say comes from a book? Do not let such an assumption remain an assumption; do not let your evidence ''collect dust.'' I very much realize that they too had their own things to be worried about, but their daily lives were more ''down to earth.'' How can one not contemplate on nature when your ''job'' deals with nature? For the sake of consistency, sodomy and kissing would be unnatural regardless of whether homosexuals or heterosexuals are doing it. I do not think natural or unnatural can be applied to holding hands and telling someone else you love them. Causing thoughts to occur in your own head would be natural. I cannot say that simply having an immoral thought makes the act of having such a thought immoral in itself, for the thing that makes it immoral is not necessarily thinking about something immoral. As for a person being born with both male and female parts or with no sexual parts, that would be natural. Perhaps you did not read my post where i formulated an argument that helps determine morality. Otherwise, how can you tell me to repeat myself? Indeed, point to me the Biblical verse(s) i used to support my argument. It has to be in there somewhere, for why else would you continue with the red herrings about me directly and indirectly presenting an argument that is said (or implied) to be explicitly mentioned in the Bible? And against the first admendment? What part of it would it infringe? Surely you are not mistaking ''freedom of religion'' with ''freedom from religion,'' for that would be falsely representing the first admendment, let alone the freedom of speech part. The only complaints i've heard about over population is that it implies lack of resources. Is that your argument too? The moderation i was talking about is meant concerning the amount of time it takes for the earth to grow resources. You have to give the earth time to reflourish itself. If you eat all the food before then, then hunger will be your closest partner. The earth is fully capable of supplying for the population, you just need to give it time. Over population is not inherently immoral, if it can even be said that over population exists (as it is a term often used to describe a so-called dilemma). Have i not already responded to the questions about those who lack reproductive organs naturally? If they lost it through unnatural means, then it is not the fact that they don't have reproductive organs that would be subject to immorality but the very thing that took it away. Religion against safe sex? You mean the very people who so often speak against sex outside of marriage? I didn't think uncontrollable practices were safe. Do you believe that teaching people about condoms ultimately entails the use of them? If it is an uncontrollable urge, you think they'll unconvenience themselves by taking the time to get a condom when they'll be having sex in either scenario? Marriage implies practice of responsibility; condoms cannot compare to marriage concerning responsibility. And if you mean ''safe'' concerning STDs, while marriage cannot prevent such a thing without the use of ''protective gear,'' the morality from the religion should cause the person to inform their mate if the bearer of the STD bears knowledge of their STD. Do you understand what they mean by ''good'' in Genesis 1:31? Correct, God did not create us ''perfect,'' but do you understand what is meant by ''good'' when God looks upon His work and declares that it is good? (Note that in either case, whether ''good'' or ''perfect,'' each would be a standard decided by God. So if one were to assume a perfect creation, you would have to figure out what a perfect creation would be to God.) What is obvious of ''man'' (the English translation of ''Adam'')? Man is created sinless; man is created with some authority in life; but, most importantly, man is created in a way that is satisfactory to God. The example you bring up concerning the ''psychopath'' is irrelevant to their initial state. For their initial state bears innocence; it is inherent within the initial state of man. The ''psychopath'' became murderous at a later time, presumably a far later time. Unless they were born with a mental handicap, their minds were and are functioning properly, their ways were just molded by sinful, external forces. God did not create man without the ability to make decisions for ourselves. This is part of the authority given to us. We have the authority to dictate our actions and therefore are responsible for them. There is no injustice, therefore, concerning punishment. But, technically, there is no flaw within the design, since the very things we label a ''flaw'' is merely a modification to the initial design. I am interested in hearing about what you claim we will inevitably do that Catholicism and Islam tell us to do, for i do not know of something that they have told us not to do that we have not done already. And i am likewise interested in that video you will be PMing baniboy.

Tell me, why would they exclude those works merely because it doesn't talk about ''all the miracles''? In what way does not mentioning that Jesus performed miracles contradict any writings that mention Jesus performing miracles? Indeed, it is more than that; it is not because they don't mention Jesus performing miracles that these works were excluded, but for something reasonable. Again, you do not mention the titles of these works, and all the excluded ''Gospels'' i have read talk about a very wise Jesus who uses his widsom for redeeming people. This is the very essence of Gnosticism, to free one self of the flesh via wisdom, and to perhaps later be spiritually united, once again, with the gods, never to be separated again. And here you are saying we should consider these above what is Biblical? All i see here is circular reasoning. ''The Bible is false, the rejected works contradict monotheism and Christianity, therefore these rejected works are true.'' Again, if that is fallacious, then there is no point to this discussion, for you would only run into the paradox i have previously alluded to. All history is written, and unless you were there yourself, your ways of verification are limited. Only a few books of the NT do some scholars claim may have been written in the first quarter of the 2nd century. No book of the NT have ever been suggested to have been written beyond the first quarter of the 2nd century. These writings tend to be the writings of John and the Epistle of Jude. However, more scholars agree that these writings were written before the 2nd century, even if the latest being 95 A.D.. The research done to determine the dates of these writings includes analyzing the textual style and form (typography), reading the text to find clues of the events of the time and why they were written, third party sources that mention some history about the author of the writings in question, et cetera. Some of the writers would have been in their twenties or nearing their twenties if it were the case that Jesus was crucified somewhere between 26 A.D. and 36 A.D.. But it is interesting to note that you would use this information, for are you not then using the NT to help dictate history? The NT Gospels mention Pontius Pilate and you are using it as a basis to mention when Jesus could have been crucified. This implies a double standard on your part, but at least then you should realize how scholars do research. Nevertheless, as mentioned before, even if it be so that the authors of the writings of the NT were not there to witness the crucification, they still had the means of coming in contact with those who were. Likewise, why would the Jews at the time spread lies about Jesus if Jesus did not exist? (Matthew 28:11-15) That doesn't ruin the integrity of those works. If anything, simply mentioning the possibility of them being toddlers gives weight towards the works. If there is ever any doubt of their decision, we have the text they used, so you can judge for yourself whether the verses for their arguments imply what they are arguing. If their arguments follow from the verses, then there is no point in doubting. Even if later works came into existence after all the Councils, that is not a reason to include them in the Bible; in fact, i would expect that to be a valid reason to keep them out of the Bible, because they would have been written by someone with unknown and questionable authority. We both know that taking on a purely archaeological point of view is not only illogical but impratical. For if the very objects mentioned in any writing required archaeological verification, then the majority of what is written today would be labeled as myths; history class could then be mythology, the study of myths. Not being able to see logic does not depend on whether your are a believe in Jesus or not. And you need to do your homework concerning when the Gospels were written (composed).

The only difference between my assumption and your assumption is that my assumption bears more weight, if it can be said that yours even bears any weight. The Bible is merely a collection of writings from trusted sources. These writings being in the Bible does not in any way ruin the integrity of the writings. The very authors attributed to these writings, as we are talking about the New Testament here (though that is not to say that the Old Testament does not have equal or greater integrity), are authors who existed during the time where the very disciples of Jesus were still alive. You have not in anyway shown anything that causes the writings found in the Bible to lose integrity, nor have you shown that the writings you imply (note, you do not even point them out explicitly) should be considered over the writings found in the Bible. If it is in the Bible, it does not count? That is absurd and completely unscholarly. And in what way does other people not mentioning something mean it didn't happen? Why should the others you mention be taken highly, or more highly, than any author of the writings in the Bible? That is a fallacy known as begging the question. It is not surprising to note that while you state that Biblical accuracy can only come from outside sources, that you do not even apply the same standard to these outside sources. Note the paradox that cannot be avoided if outside sources required to verify every work in existence. Therefore a different method is required. Read my location to the left of my posts. Questioning the accuracy of something doesn't make that thing lose integrity. Do you think the 2nd century and later sources i was talking about were writings from the Bible? There is no writing found in the Bible that dates to the 2nd century A.D. or later. And i never said that you said that they wrote them. The word "formation" does not mean to write, it means to put together. Even you made the assertion that they cherry picked the books. Nevertheless, the word "interpolation," one that you have used a few times, implies making an insertion, hence alteration. Not mentioning these ''gospels'' does no good to the discussion, and only leaves me to make an assumption which you may or may not be capable of refuting. Nevertheless, i have read every known writing out there that has been labeled with the word ''Gospel'' and what is said to have Christian origin. Be it the Gospel of Barnabas, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Thomas, and what have you, i have read it. The Gospel of Barnabas makes heavy reference to Mohammed, but does not fail to contradict the Qur'an. The Gospel of Mary speaks about the many gods in existence, which they call Jehovah and Yahweh, which they say battled for the love of Eden (which they claim was not a garden but a goddess). They also mention about how Mary can become a man, of which such a parralel can be found in the Gospel of Thomas. This make the Gospel of Thomas share Gnostic heritage. The Gospel of Judas, though not much could be resurrected of such a writing, did not fail to mention that there are multiple gods in existence. In fact, the very ''secret'' which Jesus is said to tell Judas ran along similar lines to the ''secrets'' that Jesus is said to have mention to Mary in the Gospel of Mary. The majority of writings outside the Bible which have the word ''Gospel'' on their titles are merely Gnostic texts. Even the Apoclypse of Peter (there are two Apoclypse of Peter, but i reference the one that speaks about what goes on in hell) uses terms that are common in Gnostic writings. I have read probably more than you can mention concerning the ''writings that were tossed out,'' and i can safely say that these other writings contradict monotheism and Christianity, and so i can vouch for the New Testament. The exaggerated text is not the ones found in the Bible, i can safely tell you so. In fact, i suggest you take your own advice and read these writings yourself. You too will see what i see. Having said that, as mentioned before, the churches before, present and after that time knew about the books you can find today in the Bible. They had their own copies. If there were only one copy, or the original work, then we would most likely not have it today. Some churches were persecuted by the land, where many were killed for their faith and their copies were burned by the persecutors. A word on the rules of these forums: Loosely copying and pasting articles (or parts of an article) is against the rules, as declared the by Terms of Service. All copied material must be placed between quote bbcode. Failure to do so will result in a warning. If you are caught doing so again after this verbal warning, you will be assigned an actual warning for such an action. I can see that your source is infidels.org; i've been there before. The article you take from is very, very long; did you read it all? I don't have the time to both respond to you and read the article. But for the section you take from it, i cannot verify the accuracy of their statement when they start to quote the so-called ballots. I can't tell if they are quoting their source or any members of the Council. If the former, that proves nothing; if the latter, then i would like the transcript of the Council of Laodicea. Already, the Gospel of the Egyptians and any similar writings mentioned give hint of what the so-called ''170 forged'' are, which i have already addressed.

I am not sure of your sources, but it would be better for you if you directed yourself to more reliable sources. I won't touch on any writings of Philo of Alexandria, as i have not read any of his works (though i may have some of his works lying around here somewhere). The part following your mention of Philo of Alexandria is about Paul's writings, one of the NT writers. You mention that he only spoke of a heavenly Jesus, one that implies a Jesus that never came down to earth. Can you tell me what form Paul describes Jesus in Philippians 2, verses 5 through 9? Paul knew Luke and Mark, they were friends of Paul.[*] Their deaths were before 90 AD. It follows therefore that Luke's and Mark's Gospels were written sometime before their deaths. And because of their relationship with Paul, it also follows that they had connection with the disciples of Jesus. Paul was sent many places in the East, both in Asia and many parts of Europe, and i have read all of his writings and it does not show a Christian movement that closely resembles Hellenes, it doesn't even come near it. At this point i'm not even sure if you have started making things up. You don't even specify any text of Josephus. But, ironically, you claim that many of the writings within the 2nd century through the 4th century mention things from Christian authors before the 2nd century. And then you state that there isn't even one writing within at least one generation after Jesus's life, though you have just so previously mentioned the Gospels. I am uncertain of how many contradictions you hold, but do note that the Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the formation of the Bible. I know the internet has done a great job in spreading that lie, but all the writings they had during the Council of Nicea were already known and widely accepted by the surrounding churches for quite some time. The Council of Nicea was held to formulate a concise representation of the Christian faith; it did not alter any of the works. Even if we were to entertain the thought that they did alter it, the many surrounding churches had the original copies and would never allow such alterations.

Truth has proof, of which you have provided none. The Bible only concerns life on this planet and the spiritual realm, for that is all that is required; it doesn't touch on anything that doesn't relate to us, for there is no need. Synthetic life and LHC experiment is irrelevant to God's existence, so in what way should i care about those things concerning God's existence? Because you mention them? Sarcastic propaganda is not the way to have a meaningful conversation. The Bible is merely a written record of things that have occurred in the past which includes mention of God's plans. There is enough knowledge in that Book to guide the reader towards the way of God's existence, away from the distractions of today that could have otherwise prevented them. God's plan written therein is mentioned explicitly; it is not implied. There is no ''random interpretation'' applied to it. One need only contemplate on life to naturally conclude that there is a God.

Adopt a puppy, one that you know its kind will grow to a significant size, at least what is considered ''medium,'' and live with it. I don't see how anyone can become scared of something they've known for so long. If you have a cat, then you may have to wait till it is no longer with you. Not all dogs get along with cats.