truefusion

You misunderstand. Placing all of your hope in the after life implies doing ''God's work'' in this life. There is no wasting of life. The only dangerous way to live is living without any hope or love or faith. Nothing mentioned here shows that my previous statement did not answer your question. At the very least, the part about being in accordance with natural occurrence implies an action that i have not described to you and only contradicts your very statement that ''God does not answer prayers.'' But what i have described shows contrary to being in accordance with natural occurance. He is not in accordance with natural occurance, He is in accordance with His Will. This is not hard to understand, nor does it fail to do away with your confusion. Perhaps it is the case that you cannot accept an answer that validates the existence of God, but if you're going to respond, at least provide a question that cannot already be answered with what i already said (assuming it is on topic).

My previous statement has already responded to this one. Again, God so chooses whether or not to respond to a prayer according to His Will. His Will concerns more the after life than this life. You are placing much emphasis on this life when there is more reason to place that emphasis on the after life.

Back then people had less distractions and so had more time to think about things, about existence and life. The lack of lights in the city, if there even was a city, allowed for a full view of the vast array of stars in the night. We are designed with a mind that is fully capable of advanced thought and to make use of it. If anyone were to ever forget about God, they could simply contemplate all that is around them and naturally form the conclusion. People are damned by their own sins, of which through God's plan, which requires the person to believe, can they only be saved from eternal damnation. Hence why preachers quote Scripture. Tell me, why do you agree bearing a physical sex type is natural? Because logic is natural, it is part of the person. It is undoubtedly so that a person can only be born either male or female. But, then, why do you contradict yourself and say that it is impossible for anyone to state what is natural except for the person who is trying to figure things out? Such a paradox cannot be true. For surely truth dictates itself, and so the natural dictates itself to which we merely point out (assuming we do so accurately). If we do something that contradicts our nature, then it is indeed unnatural, for the very word ''unnatural'' is a reference of such actions. It is true that a person without reproductive organs would not be capable of reproduction, but that would be the only purpose they would lack; it does not deprive them of everything. A person without legs or arms? Neither are without purpose, though it may be the case that they would not be able to do certain things due to their handicap. When you put together the pieces of a puzzle do you willingly place the pieces where they do not go? Why then do you say that homosexuality is acceptably natural? The structural design was not designed to be so. Tell me, how can someone argue for someone else's ''opinion'' if they are merely blindly following it? Wouldn't such require a lot of thought? How then can you state that we have no basis for our ''opinions''? And do you think homosexuality is a new thought, a new thing? It has been around for over 4000 years. If any originality in thought could be accomplished between the two, then heterosexuality would be victor, for it came first—it is the original specification of every species that has a male and female type. If the ''truth'' which you speak of can only dictate truth for the one person, then it cannot be called truth. You might as well, then, state that truth does not exist. It is not unnatural for a person without the ability to produce sperm to have sex. But i don't think it can be said that imperfections at birth are unnatural. For the body requires a significant amount of resources to produce a complete child. But birth control is unnatural if external methods are used—though i don't think birth control can be an internal thing. True, what may be deemed beneficial to the creature may be, in actuality, selfish, and hence not morally right. But any goal is separate of the moral. You give the example of child rape. What is our goal there? You don't seem to explicitly state one, though it is obvious the goal of the rapist. Shall we assume it is to prevent some form of child abuse for the one who is against child abuse (like one would expect)? So what if we state that as one of our reasons for trying to prevent child abuse is due to the fact that child abuse causes unbeneficial and painful structural modification to the child? Would me wanting to prevent child abuse mean that the child will have unbeneficial and painful structural modification, and that if i do not try to prevent it, that the child will not have unbeneficial and painful structural modification? Right and wrong deal with action, sure, but there need not be an act in progress for a moral to exist. Concerning us, i wouldn't say our bodies change according to our environments, shaping us to what we are, especially if this concerns something metaphysical. If we can only become ''ourselves'' after the external molding, then why weren't we ''ourselves'' before then? Isn't it the case that our original self is truly us? For how can we be ourselves if we are being molded by something externally? We would not be ourselves but whatever the wishes of the external force would have us be. Perhaps we need to make clear what selfishness is before we continue using the word loosely. What is selfishness? Isn't it where one person gains the most benefit when things are subject to himself? If someone does something that benefits people equally, can it be called selfish? Let us come back to the child rape scenario. My goal, for example, is to prevent child rape, something i want to accomplish. And so when accomplishing it, i find satisfaction. But is this selfish? Who gains more, me or any child i prevent from getting abused? Can you truly tell me, then, that all acts, therefore, are selfish? If so, then i would have to ask you what you call ''selfishness.'' It is not impossible to stop and think what is best for the other; in fact, i'm pretty sure that is something that occurs with most parents. Concerning overpopulation: The earth is fully capable of supporting the population; the people just need to know the meaning of moderation. The lack of moderation implies selfishness. Perhaps one of the reasons for fasting is in support of moderation. Overpopulation, therefore, is not morally wrong, nor merely wrong. By the way, Baniboy, tell me a truth that isn't dependent on reality. As stated in response to Baniboy, overpopulation is not a problem (though, for that reason, it wouldn't be called ''overpopulation''). Concerning your attempt to prove that there is no such thing as (absolute) morality: People allowing the person to steal to just feed themselves or their family does not negate the moral any more than doing something immoral does. And would it not be the case that the very people who would turn a blind eye to the thief would be more than willing to provide food to the so-called thief if the so-called thief were to simply ask for it? Would not this way offer the most benefit? A person gets paid for offering their food services (which helps maintain the business for others and helps support the workers), the consumer feels good for helping someone in need, and the what-would-have-been-a-theif can now feed himself and or his family. How would homosexuality affect me? Any decision by another person can affect me directly or indirectly, especially if this person has the power to cause change on a great scale. Homosexuality itself is a deviation from what is proper and natural, and therefore a pattern of its own. Like any pattern you can find a variation of it in other things. In other words, you can only expect further deviation from other things which seeks to maintain balance. Unconstitutional? Excuse me while i hold back all the sarcastic remarks that have just popped into my head. () But it really is amazing that merely stating something that is found within a religion automatically causes that to be unconstitutional. Let us not forget that many of the laws within the constitution are found within many religions. Let us also not forget that the Declaration of Independence of the United States mentions that it is obvious that a personal God, Creator, exists. Yet, it is not surprising to hear that unbelievers think that we believers are incapable of being human and are mere robots. Tell me, in what way does it follow that everyone who is against homosexuality is in fact doing so because of their religion?

When a person requests something of God, it is God's decision whether or not to fulfill it. The request for a wife touches on free will, as it is basically a request to negate the free will that the wife-to-be has. What if the wife-to-be requested for something that slightly contradicts any request of OpaQue? God is a consistent God, and this consistency will be the deciding factor on whether or not God so chooses to allow for any request of OpaQue. Nevertheless, have you ever heard to believe and not doubt that you already have when you ask something of God? Having doubt implies that you may not recieve what you have asked for, and so it implies that free will remains intact to a noticable extent.

Things can be right and wrong, that is, proper and improper, better or not, without morals. Good and bad may be a different story, but even the words ''good'' and ''bad'' are used loosely, to even mean different things (e.g. ''that song was good''?''good'' here could be synonymous for ''entertaining''). But for this discussion i'll try to assume that the words ''good'' and ''bad'' are not used loosely. Absolutes are, of course, the best way to determine or conclude a matter, for there is nothing greater than an absolute. I have no idea what you mean by factually proving right and wrong, but consider the following: ''Absolute morals'' are those that have absolute consequences to them. ''Absolute consequences'' are consequences that are not avoidable, consequences that are also the highest consequence when all plausible consequences are stacked. These consequences can be either desirable or undesirable. ''Demoralization'' is anything that deviates from properly ''dictating'' what is moral. Demoralization, therefore, occures when one improperly stackes, so to speak, plausible consequences and hence forms a ''moral conclusion.'' I'll use kobra500's example on homosexuality, as it is an example of what has been deemed ''demoralization.'' Except perhaps for the starting premise, kobra500 does not mention anything that itself implies a consequence, though i can't really say he formed any conclusion from the premises. The starting premise implies a consequence because it involves action: the animals have shown signs of homosexuality; there can't be a consequence without action. Although, he doesn't really consider why they show signs of homosexuality?for it would only ruin any argument based on it that seeks to support homosexuality. However, i would indeed like to see these studies on the supposed ''gay gene,'' for i have never seen a creature that is barely capable of making decisions on its own, let alone perhaps not even conscious of its own existence, commit homosexual acts. The third premise touches on consequences and it is what makes this suitable for ''demoralization.'' The proper way to start the argument is to start from actions: it needs to answer whether or not homosexuality is morally right or wrong. In other words, one should assume the question ''Is homosexuality morally right or wrong?'' is hanging above your head or is the title of your argument. Notice this does not need to involve marriage, as marriage is separate from homosexuality. Therefore marriage is irrelevant when determining whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong. But what does homosexuality imply? What consequences does it imply? Homosexuality implies lack of production on its own; it is incapble of producing young on its own. This is an absolute consequence of homosexuality. Creatures were designed to produce and multiply, and so homosexuality deviates from the natural?which implies that it is impossible to be born gay. Such a natural production brings joy and other positive feelings to the now family which would otherwise not have been present with homosexuality. Such a natural production is required for any such joy to be present and for any advancement of the race. It follows, therefore, that homosexuality does not benefit over heterosexuality and can be deemed morally wrong. If anyone were to now bring in gay marriage, the situation can in turn be easily dropped as the very fact that homosexuality being morally wrong would dictate whether or not gay marriage should be. The lie that homosexuals lack marital rights or not being able to be happy in heterosexuality would be irrelevant.

So you've never used the "View New Posts" link from the previous version? It was very helpful, but not as helpful as the current implementation. Now i don't even have to enter the topic to see the last post (and determine whether it is spam or not), nor do i have to enter the topic to see if it is interesting; i can do that straight from the "View New Content" section. I can now also moderate the topics from there too. If you do not find this an increase in user-friendliness, then i do not know what you would. If clicking a link that is found on every page such a major task just to view *exactly* what they want, then it may be the case that any small thing can be major in their eyes.

While it is possible to consider truth as a mere assumption, if philosophy were merely a sport, where people engage in it for mere fun and interaction, then we might as well forget about truth, for it will merely be dropped anyway after the engagement. However, philosophy is a science on its own. If a person were to start off with an assumption, philosophy is there to help determine whether to continue the assumption or simply drop it. And in due time any assumption can in turn become a truth (i.e. not to say that an assumption was not first a truth before it being stated as an assumption). If hell was made merely to keep people in line, do to the fact that people were just as wild as today, the concept of hell would have been dropped shortly after. No one will continue a failed project unless they can see it through to accomplishment (i.e. not to say that hell is any project). And that is without considering how one mere person could justly go around claiming that just about everyone is doomed for hell and expect hell to be widely accepted. It is indeed very easy to state simple things like hell was created for keeping people in line without thinking in what manner all of this became widely accepted when these things could easily insult anyone. Is being happy something that isn't you? Is also feeling saddness and anger and other negative feelings the only way that you feel (or believe that you are) complete? Tell me, what is it that makes you you? The flesh that covers you, that will merely decay upon death? So you can accept death, the very thing that prevents you from being yourself, but you cannot accept something that at least has you drown yourself in positive feelings, one of the very things that would make anyone feel alive (so to speak). What is it that makes you you? The way the world molds you? If so, then you weren't yourself before then? Assume that the only thing that existed was you; what would make you you then? Is this not perhaps the best way to determine what makes you you? In this case, what is the only thing you can come up with at this point? I would presume that the only thing that would make you you is that you exist, nothing more. But since you are not the only thing in existence when we come back to reality, what then? Shouldn't we know that what molds us externally, therefore, is not what makes us us? Shouldn't we know that anything that does any molding after our (initial) existence, therefore, can never dictate what is us? For it is merely changing what we truly are. Some will accept gradual change and proclaim that this change is truly themselves, though they may not call it "change" (some might call it "self awareness," you know, "only you can answer yourself"), but is it truly them? Is it their *original* self? So, what is it that makes you you?

Up until this point it was easy to follow you. But if i can understand anything, i would assume that you assume that life in, say, heaven will pretty much consist slightly of the same things that are now with the exception that you will be given just about anything that pleases the self. This only supports the assumption without much if any change. But the proper way to look at it all may involve assuming that in heaven you can only be glad. For reference's sake, you may call this "irresistable happiness." It cannot be contradicted or denied; it cannot be devalued or degraded. It is as if it is a law that everyone follows which they cannot act against. This does away with any dilemma which you might assume would exist. This assumption is clearly refuted by any religion that claims a heaven and hell (though merely the concept of hell is all that is needed, but where there is a hell there is bound to be a heaven too), for if the reason for the creation of the religion were so as to remove the fear of dying, why would they amplify any fear of dying (which is another assumption; that is, assuming that there is a fear of dying) by introducing hell? Don't ask me why people don't see this, as it is a question more proper for those who assume that religion is born do to fearing death rather than anything it states. What makes things more interesting is when you find scripture that likewise contradicts such an assumption (e.g. Ecclesiastes 7:1).

User-friendliness deals with how complex it is to perform any given task. The only thing that would become slightly difficult when comparing it to the old layout is finding the link itself. But the position where the link is currently located is near the spot where "View New Posts" used to be (which more users have probably relied on more than the simple list on the index page); the RSS icon may even help lead the eye. And there is more benefit with clicking the link and entering the page it links to than just having a simple list of the latest posts.

We're not necessarily missing that. In the upper right corner below the search box, you'll see the words "View New Content." This will show the latest content since your last session.

It seems this topic is somewhat recent and is still active. At first i thought that this topic wasn't worth my time, in that it is not an article that i wrote that is being spoken against, and i normally do not feel like attempting to support any others' article or argument and would rather have them defend it themselves. That would be so if the topic had not more to say that wasn't relevant to the article itself. Likewise, outside of the first post, more is said that should be addressed, even if indirectly. Before i start, i should mention that responding to this post of mine may or may not gain a response from me, as i do not frequent the Xisto forums but the Xisto (previously known as Xisto) forums. It seems that my visit here today may not be in vain. That being said, i shall begin with the first post. 8ennett's response to the opening of the second paragraph, stating that it implies that the author of the article that he quotes believes the Biblical account is the only truth. While it may be the case that the author of the article may believe that the Biblical account for existence is correct or the only truth, the words "These programs, a mix of fact and fiction..." does not in any way imply such a thing. For anyone can say those words and still be stating the truth. Tell me, 8ennett, in what way that everything the Discovery channel portraying any "life of the dinosaurs" is purely factual? Were they there at the time? Is it true that everything portrayed really did happen? How then can the statement "a mix of fact and fiction" be false? Will everyone find the show entertaining if a little fiction, at least something based on intuition or theory, were not introduced? Again, in what way does pointing out any expectations of evolutional indoctrination that is apparently observable through related "Hollywood films" imply that all theories of evolution are fiction? In fact, your very statement following it only supports the statement you quote. The part you quote states that these films contain "evolutionary indoctrination" (which can be otherwise translated as anything that promotes the theory of evolution), and you go on to state that most films on the subject very much indeed include such a thing. But do to the word "most," you leave open the possibility that some movies that promote the theory of evolution contain a lot of fiction, perhaps even more than facts. I can skip your third paragraph since it doesn't state anything as if it were fact. But i should mention that anyone, including the author of the article you quote and yourself, who states something as if it were fact without providing some form of evidence speaks merely in vain. It is easy to claim, "evolution is true," or "evolution is false," but within a debate, it doesn't matter how many people believe either to be so, you have to start from the beginning and attempt to prove your position, if any. And do note that redirecting anyone to an article that simply states pretty much what you or anyone has already stated is simply futile, for anything repeated does not make it true. I could also skip your fourth paragraph, but i would like to ask you (which relates to a similar statement of yours in that paragraph), if the theory of evolution is supported by nothing except mere facts, why do people, even yourself, keep calling it a theory? Note, to say that anything in science can be eventually refuted by new evidence, is to say that science cannot be given full credibility, nor is it capable of stating anything as a fact, simply do to such a thing. If such is the case, why then claim something as if it were a fact? Perhaps rather than saying "fact," one should say "scientific fact," bearing what has been said in mind. Now, what you mention in your fifth paragraph touches on what i mentioned in my fifth paragraph (how interesting ). You speak about conclusive evidence, yet how can you forget about the very scripture which the author just finished mentioning at that point? The scripture itself dates to a time far, far back where no archeologist today can ever dream of existing in. If you do not even consider the very scripture as some form of historical evidence of the time it represents, then i would have to question what you do consider as evidence. And i would also have to ask you, have you ever questioned anything you ever learned in history class (assuming you had such a class)? Have you been given any historical evidence for such things? Or did you just assume it all true? Concerning the part you quote that starts off "God has revealed to us," while it may be true that God did not write any book of the Bible, it does not follow that God did not reveal anything for us to write down. In your sixth paragraph, i would need you to explain to me what "this topic" is when you say the author has not done any research on "this topic." Doing so may help me understand what you say his sources are (i.e. what you say is "everyone else," which by the sound of it sounds like you are contradicting yourself here). And since you say the article pushes you away, i would like to ask what were you hoping for? What you mention there implies that you were looking for something that would, so to speak, "open your mind," as to come to accept some form of Christianity, like as if you were on some kind of journey to become Christian or something. Now, if that were not the case, then i would state that it would be more than obvious that the article would most certainly "push you away" by just looking at the title of the article. *I would like to mention that the Bible does not state that the time of Adam and Eve was around 3500 B.C., and that you are merely assuming some form unscholarly calculation of the genealogy of Genesis.* While i have no knowledge on the so-mentioned Neolithic civilization, i have no idea what mentioning them could possibly do to refute anything Biblical on historical ground when one does indeed know about Scripture. Of course, your mentioning of the Neolithic civilization is intended to contradict your so-mentioned, unhistorical statement about Adam and Eve being present no earlier than 3500 B.C.. Even the book of Genesis itself is said to predate 3500 B.C., and this is supposed to be during the time of Moses. Now, i'm not necessarily one that supports dinosaurs living among us during ancient times, though you very much have to wonder about those ancient sculptures and drawings of dinosaurs. And no, i am not talking about lizards, crocodiles, komodo dragons or anything along those lines. I'm talking about the ones like this one (disregard the opening text). There are about two possibilties for this: either dinosaurs did in fact live with humans at some point (though there may not have been a significant amount of dinosaurs), or they too found fossils and decided to try and draw them as if they were alive. In either case, it is obvious that knowledge of dinosaurs was very much present back then; people weren't ignorant of them. In your twelfth paragraph, again, i'ma need you to explain what "this" and "it" is when you say "believing this because it is highly unbelievable." Concerning the part where you mention that "these people" are not capable of accepting their so-called mortality, mind telling me how you managed to conclude that or how that is at all relevant to the article? By the looks of it, i see no where from the article where you could have possibly derived such a conclusion from. In fact, it can be easily shown to you that there is more to worry about than simply "ceasing to exist." And for a person who claims to be quite open-minded concerning these sort of things, you are very quick to mention things that cannot in any way be derived from the very thing you are speaking against, that is, things that come from closed-minded persons. That is all i have to say for now, as i don't feel like going through the 3-pages worth of posts and addressing anything they have to say, right now.

The amount shown here in the forums next to the word "Earned" does not reflect the amount that you currently have for spending. "Earned" merely reflects *all* the money you have earned from posting in the forums, not how much you have to spend.

I don't know if it is bad for you, but i wouldn't trust such scientifically generated material (i would expect your body having to attempt to filter out anything it doesn't need or whatever it has already used, which would involve the liver as well); if you have to take some kind of nutritional supplement, then you know you are on the wrong diet. For a vegetarian cow milk and eggs are pretty much your best sources for protein. But if you are not even willing to eat eggs, then i doubt you would even consider milk. Your only other sources would be beans and nuts (and probably some other things), though they can't compete with eggs. Vegetarian diets are often low on calories and fat (you will find that food high in calories are also high in fat, but not necessarily vice versa). Going to the gym because ''1000 people'' called you thin are not related to each other; you are thin because of your diet not because you lack exercise.They recommend protein because it is known to build and repair cells; perhaps the part on repairing cells is the more important one, though they may be more interested in gaining mass. But i have heard that protein also helps manage fat. I don't work out and i've never taken any protein shakes (powders), but i would expect the body to be better able to handle the real stuff rather than the synthetic stuff.

God can certainly give you the opportunity to come into contact with a suitable mate, but you have to remember to ask them out before you lose contact with them or they become further away from you.

The best way to avoid spam is to not allow users to post. That is the simplest solution (that no one wants to take for obvious reasons), no other solution simpler than that. You can do many things to reduce spam, but that will never stop spam unlike the simplest solution. Spam is unavoidable when posting powers are given to the public. Even on my website i get people recommending me random URLs. Some don't have a random pattern to the URLs, so i block those; but some are in the form of aefzsdfklajsdf.com. There is no regex i can think of that can prevent those without preventing every other URL.

I do not think it is. Here's is what i would recommend: mobo, proc, RAM, gfx card. These four, at the time of this post, come out to $245 excluding shipping. Low-budget PC that should be able to run SC 2 on high settings, if not maximum. This saves $284 (from the $529 you were willing to spend) for power supply (no more than 550 watts should be required), HDD, case (perhaps this one; feels like case should be chosen personally) and an operating system. Only downside from my recommendation is less RAM, but if you do the math, you could probably replace the RAM with 4gigs and total about the same amount as you are willing to pay for the one you listed. I would also recommend getting more fans if the case you choose allows for more fans. Maybe at most medium settings. I have SC 2 Beta as well (got it a few days ago), and i can run it on maximum settings without any lag on my ATI 4670 graphics card (the only lag being from the Battle.net servers themselves).

I have no idea how to install OSQA; this is the first time hearing of it. If even their Wiki doesn't help, then we are quite at a loss. The script is based on Django, and i know Django is designed to be ran under both CGI and mod_python, but i have no idea how to install it.

OpaQue already explained this in other topic (though perhaps some may not have understood). The myCENTs system currently does not count any new posts, but once it is back online, the system will go through all of your posts and award you accordingly. There is no point in not posting until the system is back up. However, it is uncertain whether OpaQue will label the modified myCENTs system to Credit System v4. But also, the new forum version, IPB v3, according to OpaQue, has certain optimizations to its posting system that will improve the performance of the myCENTs system, and do to other IPB modifications since the last IPB forum version, will allow for unlimited editions for your own posts, rather than having a 10 minute limitation. I'm sure reporting your "suspended" site to him will slightly slow down the coding process, but at least those websites won't be down.

Attachments uploaded by staff members for some reason are not viewable to the general public but is viewable to staff members. This is a known and reported issue and it does not seem to be within the control of moderators.

So what problem are you having exactly? The drop down list isn't the main problem but a separate problem. You didn't mention what the problem was other than a funky drop down list which isn't even part of the main problem. But if your site looks fine in previous versions of Internet Explorer, i would have to consider that you have used some Internet Explorer related hacks. Internet Explorer 8 allows you to force rendering of older render engines. If it looks fine under Internet Explorer 7, just tell Internet Explorer 8 to render in IE7 mode.

I'm not a user of Windows 7, but if i were to take a guess, in order to have Firefox not run under administrator you would have to track down the Firefox executable, right-click > properties, and see if there is anything about running as administrator and changing those settings.

Gospels do state that Jesus was ressurected and stayed for a while after his resurrection, showing himself to several hundred people proving his ressurection, before leaving to go to Heaven to sit at the right hand of God. However, there is no mention of him leaving the area to which he was called to. Jesus states clearly his purpose on earth. Likewise, it would be illogical for him to say to his disciples to go out into the world and makes disciples for themselves and spread the Gospel, baptizing even, if Jesus had already gone out to other areas having done the same work he did for the areas he was called to. The following statement which you quote is at best absurd: Not only does it beg the question, not only is it part of the unbelieving propaganda that is often spread, in what way are they not doing the very same thing that they are stating, to maintain unhistorical disbelief on the masses? What makes it unhistorical? Just look at the link for yourself: what is more historically accurate, writings closest to the time of Jesus or writing hundreds of years after the time of Jesus? Viewing at the content provided on the page referenced here, we see mention of the Apocryphal Acts of Thomas and the Gospel of Thomas. I have read the Gospel of Thomas myself and parts of the Apocryphal Acts of Thomas in the past, and as the article states, these two writings are Gnostic. However, that may be as much truth concerning historical evidence that is actually mentioned in the article. Look at the following statement, Those who say these texts were written by the Apostles themselves must think these Apostles are at least immortal if one is going to state that the Apocryphal Acts of Thomas and the Gospel of Thomas were dated to 4th century A.D.. Thomas would be long dead by then. The arguments the article presents are dubious. Take for example, In the beginning of the article that first mentions about Yuz Asaf, he does not even bother to attempt to affirm that Yuz Asaf really is Jesus. In fact, his statement includes doubt: Perhaps the most unfortunate part is that the author fails to provide any actual references to these articles which he is using as a basis for his argument (though that may be do to the fact that they are mentioning someone else's work). You will not believe how many times people have claimed, "Look! Another Christ is some other religion!" only to find out that this "messiah" does not compare with the Biblical Jesus Christ. Merely stating that Yuz Asaf is "Christ-like" does not in any way prove that Yuz Asaf is Christ. And using language similarities, saying the word "Jesus" in this language is this is not a sound argument. Any other part of the article that assumes that Yuz Asaf is Christ can therefore be safely disregarded. Nevertheless, if it weren't for the author's persistence, one would actually stop there. However, he goes on to state this: Anyone who doesn't pay much attention to detail can easily be fooled by this. Until now, the author has been pressing the name "Yuz Asaf." Tell me, then, why does the same inscription mention two different names? This is supposed to be a literal translation, right? Where then does his argument go? Now we have reason to believe the author is taking things out of context and perhaps falsely representing the so-called third and fourth inscriptions. If anyone is to consider this proper theology, scholarly and actual historical evidence, then i can only assume that personal studies are not, at least generally, scholarly at all.

I get the stray "[/" too. I thought it might have been do to something on my part, but i couldn't find it within my signature code, so it seems there are some modifications going on in the background.

The only one that comes to mind is Amarok (though it requires the KDE environment libraries), which has the ability to stream from MagnaTune and Jamendo and some random radios stations, but i think you may be better off making your own playlist of radios stations.