Joshua

Here in the U.S. I've had several bad experiences with people and churches claiming to be Christians. I've met some solid Christians in one conservative megachurch-type church, but there were a lot of bad ones there too, and what made it worse was the bad ones were in leadership. I've only had good experiences going regularly to 2 churches, and both have been Independent Fundamental Baptist churches. I had a bad experience with an IFB church too though. It seems like a lot of churches are just in it for the money. Like that Oral Roberts university that's now getting investigated for fraud. A lot of the televangelists to have graduated from it are now getting investigated for lavish personal spending with their funds on stuff like gold bathroom fixtures or very expensive cars or homes. And a lot of megachurches seem to be more interested in providing an entertainment "show" to get people coming in the doors and bringing them money, then in preaching exactly what the Bible says. A big warning sign is when the only "hard-line" messages they'll preach involve tithing and politics, and rather than preaching God's Word with a spiritual application, instead focus on life-application stuff that any psychologist or professional speaker could talk about. Churches like that have regretfully made me more suspicious about which are the real Christians. I suppose I should've been more aware of all the warning signs the Bible gives about false Christians, like this one: I've seen some examples of fake Christians who were very good, fast talkers. They sound good, but everything seems to be complex with them, when the truths of the Bible should be very simple as well as the following of them. All through the Bible are commended those who speak with no guile (Psalms 32:2, John 1:47, 1 Peter, 3:10, Revelation 14:5). Truths like being merciful to others because God has been merciful to us. Truths like living for God and worshiping Him out of our hearts, because the outward actions don't matter. Worship should be from the heart and based on the truth and conviction that comes from inward understanding, not some ritual performance or emotion-based act without understanding. Jesus and His gospel are all about showing mercy to others. Those that refuse to do so are denying Christ.

The obvious problem with this is that a lot of those who get falsely convicted or even end up on Death Row seem to be those accused of rape. In this country you're guilty until proven innocent when accused of a sexual crime. DNA evidence has pardoned tons of people already who've been falsely accused of sexual crimes.How many innocent people is it alright to kill just so you can make sure of killing some guilty ones?Until the courts can guarantee that only the guilty will end up on Death Row, NOBODY should be put to death.There have been cases where a girl would accuse someone of rape to cover up her pregnancy to her parents. Remember the case with the Duke students falsely accused last year? Or a girl gets mad, so she accuses someone. Or she just does it to get recognition or money from a lawsuit. All it takes is her testimony and, like the Duke students, ANYBODY can be found guilty. You, me, the president of the United States will instantly have their reputation sullied forever afterwards, and lose years of their life in prison. Even if sure proof exonerates the person and the accuser admits they were lying, it will STILL mess up your life, and very like the authorities will reimburse you only with a "sorry, we goofed" message, if that. The sad thing is a lot of people here are willing to put innocent people to death just so they can feel good about killing the guilty ones.

I suppose one could shake their puny fist at the voiceless universal force while falling down a chasm. That would kinda be defying gravity. :)Personally, I think it would be kinda funny if someone COULD fly but chose not to Imagine if Superman was afraid of heights

People seem to oppose the idea of a Biblical God for the following basic reasons: Israel's wars in the Old Testament: The book of Judges with its chronicles about many nations being wiped out is probably the most often referenced example of Biblical cruelty. It also seems clear God was directing them and that the nation of Israel wasn't solely responsible, so where does that leave us? I personally see the morally acceptable answer in this verse: If you read the preceding verses, you'll see God was destroying all those nations because they widely practiced the following abominations, many of which we would agree are reprehensible: -Incest (v. 6-18) [ note that God went into detail so there would be no confusion ] -Adultery (v. 24) -Burning children alive to idols (v. 21) -Homosexuality (v. 22) -Bestiality (v. 23) People always ask how God could destroy even the children of those nations. Well, those nations were killing their children already. In a culture like these ones or the Aztecs, the only way to stop the horrible practices is often to destroy the entire culture. And of the kids who weren't dying, many would have grown up to kill even more children. We can hypothesize about how God could be justified in His actions in the Old Testament, but can get an idea of the kind of evil God was stopping by destroying nations that were, like the Aztecs and Nazi Germany, guilty of horrible crimes throughout the entire culture. Furthermore, we look at it from a 'this life' perspective, so to us the loss of life in this world seems the ultimate crime. However, God says what matters is our eternal life. By wiping out entire cultures like that, He may have actually been acting mercifully so that the ultimate justice and eternal punishment would not come on children who would otherwise have grown up in a culture almost certain to lead them into acts and lifestyles meriting them eternal condemnation. Is that the case? It's hard to say. We can only guess. But hopefully it's clearer now how God could be justified in His Old Testament actions. Wrong choices by Old Testament people said to be righteous: People sometimes point to deeds done by Abraham, Moses, or David to condemn the Bible, as if the Bible's recording of them equates to support for those deeds since it calls them righteous people. However, the Bible is not like most books. In Romans 3 and many other places in the Bible, the point is made that no one but God is righteous. And in fact, that point is reinforced throughout the whole Bible by a very simple method. The Bible's human authors admit their mistakes, and often tell of how God punished them for them. Mohammed in his Koran may never speak of one thing he did wrong, and always exalt himself, but that is not the case with the Bible's authors. From the first ones to the last ones, they all seem intent on admitting their mistakes so that people don't glorify them, but God alone. Here are some examples: - Moses, author of the first five books of the Bible, often does NOT present himself in a favorable light. In Exodus 2 he tells how he murdered an Egyptian slave-master for beating an Israelite slave. We might consider this commendable, but then he tells how he cowardly ran away and hid in the desert for 40 years. But if there's any confusion as to whether Moses is admitting his mistakes, in the 4th chapter he tells of how he angered God. God wanted Moses to go to Egypt to speak to Pharaoh. Moses kept making excuses basically about how he couldn't speak well or Pharaoh wouldn't listen to Him. God basically kept telling Moses, I know you're incapable, but I'll do it through you by MY power. Finally Moses just said he was too weak for God to work through him and to go find someone else, which really ticked God off. So God sent Moses' brother Aaron to tag along, which ended up causing a lot of trouble for Israel later (Aaron was too weak a leader and went along with their idolatries and rebellions against God). In Exodus 5:23 Moses whines to God that God hasn't delivered Israel at all and shouldn't have sent him. Eventually Moses seems to get the point that he ought to be trusting God. But Moses wasn't done yet. When God spoke of one climactic event that would happen which would glorify Him once and for all before Israel, Moses messed it up by taking credit for himself. Because of that horrible final sin, Moses ended up not being the leader to bring Israel into the promised land. Also, the 90th Psalm is recorded as written by Moses, and was apparently more ancient than the others. In it, Moses speaks of how our secret sins and iniquities are set before God's face, and pleads with God for mercy. As you can see, even the most righteous people in the Old Testament are recorded as having made mistakes they got punished for...- Job, widely considered one of the most righteous men in the Bible, is often wrongly believed to have nothing bad recorded about him. However, it is evident that in all his complaining throughout the book, he did end up saying things he regretted, for at the end he admits he spoke about things he knew nothing about, and thus repents, abhorring himself. - Abraham, though not a Biblical author, is also recorded as having made mistakes. Though spoken of highly for his great faith, he made the same cowardly mistake twice. In Genesis chapters 12 and 26 he is recorded as asking his wife to tell the people of lands they pass through that they were brother and sister, because Abraham considered the lands lawless and feared they'd kill him to take his wife. God intervened both times to save Abraham's chickenly self, but the rulers of the lands rebuked Moses for his cowardice both times. Abraham also participated in the great mistake his wife made. Because she was incapable of bearing children, she asked her maid to bear him children as recorded in Genesis ch. 16. In verse 5 Sarah realizes she's made a mistake in doing so, and her mistake may have led to Israel's polygamous ways which often brought suffering upon the nation in later days. - Paul, who authored most of the New Testament, refers to himself as "the chief of sinners" and claims he didn't even deserve to be an apostle for persecuting the early Christians (1 Corinthians 15:9). In fact, Paul in 1 Timothy 1:16 says God saved him to set an example forever afterwards that even for the worst person God's mercy is freely available through Jesus Christ. Paul in 1 Timothy 1:13 admits his former sins of being a blasphemer and persecutor before coming to Jesus. - Peter, often mistakenly called the greatest apostle (Paul apparently was), speaks of himself as having walked before Christ in "lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries." Peter's student, Mark, like the other Gospel writers, tells of Peter's mistakes while following Jesus, including of course Peter's denying he even knew Jesus (Mark 14:71). Catholics often point to the instance where Jesus talked to Peter (I personally think He was speaking to the Holy Spirit in Peter, and can provide verses showing the Holy Spirit to be Eliakim irrefutably, which is who the Catholics claim Peter is) about a rock on which the church would be built, but like to ignore the instance just a few verses later (Matthew 16:21-23) where Jesus rebuked Peter as Satan. Ironically they recognize one spirit, Satan, was being talked to in the 2nd case, but don't want to consider the possibility that the Holy Spirit was being talked to in the 1st case a few verses earlier. - Matthew spoke of how he and the other disciples were bickering among themselves about who would be greatest in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 18:1) and completely missed the point Jesus wanted to show them. - James and John even wanted to rain down fire upon a city for not letting them in (Luke 9:54) and got rebuked by Jesus, who told them He came to save people's lives, not destroy them. It's appropriate that Jesus' nickname for those two was Boanerges, meaning 'sons of thunder' (Mark 3:17). Evils were done by Catholics and Protestants: Yes, the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Conquistadors are all linked to Roman Catholicism. And the Protestants? They killed their share of 'heretics' too. Both Catholics and Protestants persecuted the peace loving Anabaptists in the middle ages. And the Puritans of course had those Salem witch trials. My response is that Christians were around before either the Catholics or Protestants. Catholicism didn't really exist until the 4th century or so at the earliest. Like the name Roman Catholicism implies, it was a case of Rome realizing that slaughtering all the Christians wasn't working too well. So Rome kept persecuting Christians, but now under the guise of being the one true Christian church while labeling the real Christians 'heretics'. Long before the Reformation rolled around, NUMEROUS groups calling themselves Christians had been persecuted by the Catholic Church. To see a chart of many of the groups involved (whose names were often given them by their persecutors): http://www.reformedreader.org/tob.htm (If you're having trouble reading some of those bottom names, they are: Montanists, Novations, Puritans, Paterins, Cathari, Donatists, Anabaptists, Paulicians, Arnoldists, Albigenses, Waldenses, Henricians, and Baptists) NOTE-The Puritans of the 3rd century were unrelated to the later Protestant groups, but simply bore the same name. There have been many who have called themselves Christians down through the centuries while holding to the original ideals of the New Testament including love, prayer, and good deeds for one's enemies. Jesus said "many" would come in His name claiming to be His followers only to be told they never knew Him, but that "few" would find the path to life: As you can see, Matthew 7 is about how we can know which are true Christians. False prophets come in sheep's clothing and claim to be followers of Christ, but their deeds show otherwise. Nowhere does the Bible suggest this foolish notion many believe, that whoever calls themself a Christian is one. Rather, it says we shall KNOW them by the fruits their lives produce, whether good, or evil. Judge within yourself. Are the people you're using to accuse Christianity of, really following the words and deeds of Christ? Do they really show signs of following the words of the Bible? Or do they fit this description of false prophets, wolves in sheep's clothing, evil trees bearing evil fruits? Real Christians do exist, and there are probably at least a few in almost any given denomination, but there are FEW of them, and not many. How can a loving God send people to Hell? People often ask a related question: How can a good God have created such an evil world? People mistakenly approach these 2 questions as unrelated, when they are not. God created this world good, just look at the garden of Eden. It was our willful rebellion that led to both us and God's creation becoming evil. The reason God is bringing a final judgment and will separate all who do evil from the new and once more good creation He will be ushering in is so that His creation will not become once more polluted with evil from the deeds of evil-doers. You see, evil is the result of people's evil choices. Our mistakes affect the lives of others. For God to destroy evil, He would have to either destroy us, or change us so we won't do evil any more. That is God's solution to the problem. Christianity. Real Christianity involves a change of heart and nature where we turn from our once evil lifestyles. We still mess up but we are in a process of being made perfect, because we have made a once for all choice to follow God and keep repenting of our mistakes. That is why Jesus said we "must be born again" or we will not see God's coming kingdom (John 3:3). God can not allow active rebellion against Him. And that is what our sin, or evil, is - active disobedience against God's perfect ways. Some will say, "Well, why would God create people who could end up sinning?" The reason is that if He did not give us free will and the ability to make choices, we would be robots. God gave us free will so we could be capable of loving Him and loving others, which is what gives Him pleasure. That is why He made us. He made us to do good, even as He does good. But to truly do good, one must have the choice to do evil. What God did not do is create us with an INCLINATION to do evil. We had no reason in our hearts to want to disobey God. Likewise with Satan. Lucifer was once a perfect angel. See what is written of him: Each one of us was born with an inclination to do evil since we were born, and yet, that does not excuse us from making the choices we do. We are all guilty before God. [hr=noshade] [/hr]Also Kasm, you made a good point about the wars. Catholics and others have tried to say Jesus was setting up an earthly kingdom to perform physical battles, but that is clearly not the case:

Umm, a game already exists like this called Project Entropia: http://www.entropiauniverse.com/ It has a real cash economy where game money can be exchanged for real world money. In game companies are actually owned by real world companies who pay for the in-game advertising they get. You can actually own properties in the game worth real world money and earn real world money by in game actions. It simulates the real world in that there are many different professions and ways to make a living. Think realistic Runescape on a grander level with real world application and involvement.

Greek mythology vanished so quickly precisely because the Greeks recognized the truth in the Bible and Jesus which you call so confusing. I'm assuming it's Greek mythology you're referring to as that which 'we new what the greeks believed". You really weren't very clear there, so I hope you'll elaborate about what you meant there. As for us, if we're all one, then why do people disagree and hurt one another? Furthermore, if we're a part of God, why don't we have His power? Why can't we do something as simple as make ourselves one inch taller if we're so important?

Hello, I didn't see the answer I want to give to this given yet, so I'd like to address this. The Scofield notes address it quite well though, so I'm just going to quote them on their note for Genesis 2:4: You make a mistake in not knowing how the Bible approaches genealogies. You assume that because no women are mentioned being born, that none were born. However, you will notice that the Bible only speaks of the males in its genealogies, with only rare exceptions in the entire Bible. It is a mistake to say just because the Bible doesn't mention something that it didn't happen. The Bible can be perfectly correct in all its facts without providing all details. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume there were other women living by the time of Cain, maybe even many. Many may have even been older 'siblings'. Concerning what we would call incest, we must realize the commandments against incest were not given until Moses was given the Law. And as Romans 5:13 says, "sin is not imputed when there is no law." Therefore, it was not then wrong for such relations to occur. Why was it not wrong? As you yourself mentioned, people lived much longer in Biblical times. We're used to thinking of brothers and sisters being no more than 20 years apart in age, but in Biblical times they could be centuries apart in age, and never even grow up with one another. Therefore, our modern-day ideas of what incest is do not fit the situation those early people lived in. Cain may well have wed a sister 50 or 100 years apart from him in age who he'd never met before becoming an adult. Therefore, it makes sense that God would not deliver commandments against incest until the human lifespan decreased after the flood. I think you're misreading again concerning the benevolence of creation. We can look at the garden of eden to see God's intent for creation, His ideal. However, mankind in its sin not only fell from God's ideal, but also corrupted the creation He had made as well. Here are some verses related to mankind's destructive choices and the fall of creation: Sin is disobedience towards God. Rejecting His ways and essentially rebelling against Him in choosing our own. One could say that mankind brought sin and evil and rebellion against God by intentionally rebelling against His commands in the garden of Eden. God made us perfect. God made creation perfect. God even made Satan perfect. However, God gave us free will, the ability to make choices even though there was no inclination in us to do evil. I think it's because He created us to love Him and love each other. If He didn't give us free will, we'd be robots incapable of love. Perhaps the only way He could make us at all was to make us with free will, and when He did, we rebelled against Him and created this present world. God intends to bring it back to that original ideal, and the only way He can do that is by separating all who rebel and create evil. There is a day of judgment coming, and God withholds it now only so that He can save as many of us as possible from our impending fate, before our world rejects Him so utterly by striving to kill all who seek Him and serve Him that it forces Him to destroy it and bring in His ultimate judgment and justice.

Well, I want to clarify something really quick. I think many Christians who would be labeled 'young-earth creationists' would actually agree to believing in evolution... to a point. You see, there's a type of evolution observable in nature, and a type not observable in nature. The terms microevolution and macroevolution are sometimes used to emphasize this difference, but I won't get into that. Basically, we can see animals and people adapting to their environments. God created us with that ability necessary for our survival, and for us to bring forth after our own kind. We see that He made species able to differ based on their surroundings into what could be called subspecies. Humans get darker skin depending on sun exposure. Their eyes narrow in colder climes. They can even get shorter when living on islands. However, what remains a theory is the idea that species can completely change into other species. Can a fish change into a mammal? Or a mammal into a bird? Is it really reasonable to think if we dry up a lake that all the fish will suddenly develop legs and learn how to breathe air fast enough to avoid dying? Do we see this in nature? And where did animals come from? Did plants start crawling around and become animals, as at least one proponent of evolution I know claims? If so, why don't we see them doing it today? Why aren't there at least some plants crawling around? If such a kind of evolution is true, we ought to be able to see such examples of basic creatures still evolving, but we do not. Darwin himself said the weakness in his theory was the lack of such intermediate forms in the process of evolving, but he thought that as with the element his entire theory depends on, "time" would prove the remedy in showing such forms. He hoped that as scientific progress increased, we would find examples of species changing into completely different ones in the same way his theory suggests basic forms changed. However, a century later there is still no proof, and that may be as he said, the deathblow to his hypothesis.

Well, the Bible already existed by the 1st century. Early Christians had already decided which parts were inspired by the 2nd century, there's proof of that. I just want to address this, even though I'm sure we're both in perfect agreement about the Bible being true, because it's a common criticism that the Bible got translated too many times to be reliable. But the fact is, we still have the early translations in the original languages. The Bible was originally written in Aramaic and Greek. Well, we have manuscripts in those languages from as early as the 2nd century A.D. Therefore, it doesn't matter if our English translations are correct or not. We can just check those earlier ones in the original languages to make sure the translations we have today are correct! Likewise with the Old Testament. Thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls, we have a cache of numerous Old Testament manuscripts from several centuries before Christ even came, proving that any prophecies in them about the Messiah are perfectly valid since they came before He did. Thanks to professional liars like Dan Brown, it's become a common misconception that the Biblical canon wasn't formed until the Council of Nicea. But there is plentiful historical evidence showing early Christians had already determined what was and wasn't inspired, and had already rejected the later gnostic writings as fakes. Furthermore, even non-Christian archaeologists can recognize the contributions archeology has made towards backing up the Bible's claims. This article on archeology.com, for example, begins with the sentence "Biblical archeology is too important to leave to crackpots and ideologues. It's time to fight back." http://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/fauxark/ The writer notes the number of fakers out there touting fake finds to support the Bible such as discoveries of Noah's Ark, the ark of the Covenant, or other such treasures. The writer, however, notes that there are many recent genuine discoveries supporting the Bible that are less earth-shattering but still serve to affirm the Bible's accuracy in recording historical details:

To avoid concerns about the arrangement of choices for the polls, I just sorted everything alphabetically. For candidates it's sorted by their last name. I didn't see a topic on this so I decided to create one for people to discuss their thoughts on the elections, who they're supporting, and why they're supporting them. Feel free to vote for as many or few of the polls as you like.Who are you supporting? Why are you supporting them? Personally, I'm supporting any Democratic candidate that I think can beat Barack Obama, and I'll share my reasons later when the discussion gets going I think I most support Huckabee. And I don't especially like either the Democratic or Republican parties. I think one is good on moral issues (abortion, gay marriage) while the other is good on economic issues (immigration, Iraq War, taxes).

SSBM is the only video game I'll still play, because of the following reasons:1. Violence is hardly graphic. No blood, killing, wounds, etc. Characters just fly off the screen.2. Nothing approaching nudity or improper dress.3. It's great for competitive play with my brothers.My favorite character is Young Link for one on one battles, and I'll often use Link when facing more than one person or for one on ones. I'm also good with Marth, Peach, Fox, Falco, Samus, and Jigglypuff too.I have 3 brothers, Daniel (15), Matthew (17), and Joey (19). We get some intense battles going and any two of us are a pretty good matchup. We're good enough that we could probably hold our own in tournaments. Though we are each capable of using a lot of different characters, the main ones usually used are:Daniel: Fox, occasionally FalcoMatthew: Falco, but alternates with Pikachu, Marth, Young Link, Jigglypuff, and Sheik as well.Joey: Sheik, occasionally alternates with Samus. Daniel's friend from school, Jarrell comes by a lot too. He uses Marth (Sheik and Dr. Mario sometimes too), and once in a long time even beats one of us when going to Final Destination because he's so good at edge-guarding there. We usually choose Hyrule Castle with no items on for our one on one battles though because it's tough to die cheaply there. There's no moving objects (or attacks from spaceships), and the ground isn't flat enough or small enough for edge-guarding to have as much of an effect as at Final Destination, making it the perfect location for one-on-one combat with no distractions.

One thing I've found is jealousy and the worst mistakes in relationships come from lack of communication. People refusing to talk to one another can completely mess everything up when stuff comes out in the open, as it quite often does. Maybe you made that mistake earlier in not communicating where everything stood with Jim, but don't make that mistake now with your husband. I'm not saying this needs to happen, but please consider it: You may need to end up talking to your husband about all of this. Also consider how he will react, and how to phrase it, but even if it causes arguments, it may result in the 2 of you growing closer together as a result of knowing what's in one another's hearts. It would be awful for Joe to find out, whether from suspicion or accident, what you're feeling, before you tell him yourself. It may be that Joe is the only one who can help you through this. Yes, the confrontation that might ensue could be bad, but afterwards, he might appreciate that you're so willing to be honest with him. It sounds like a lot of these problems are happening because everyone is holding in their thoughts and feelings from another, for whatever reasons like not wanting to hurt others, or shame, or whatever. You'll have to choose the best course yourself, but in my personal experience, blunt and often originally painful honesty is often the only way to move forward. I hope that helps...

I don't know what that person was thinking with the color design. It would be funny if they did it purposely to get their site attention though I'm surprised jlhaslip is the only one to post a MySpace page for worst site though. I've seen some REALLY bad ones on MySpace. Scrolling in every which direction, bizarre colors, graphics and animations seemingly placed as randomly as possible, words that don't stand out against backgrounds at all... Oh, and regardless of what one might say about the original site's color scheme, I found the music kinda catchy

I've noticed the concept of Deja Vu often gets associated with the idea of reincarnation, but then, the Bible mentions Deja Vu in the sense of dreams foretelling the future but also denies the idea of reincarnation, saying "it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment". (Hebrews 9:27) All through the Bible God used dreams to tell people about events in their life to come. In some cases, those not walking close to God needed their dreams explained: -Joseph interpreted the dreams of Pharaoh and his servants to predict the fate of both servants, and of a 7 year famine to come (Genesis 40-41) In some of those cases, the dreamers did not even tell the interpreters what the dreams were. -Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Babylonian empire (which has been extensively verified by archeology), had a dream, but had trouble remembering it afterwards. He ordered his astrologers, magicians, and diviners to tell him what the dream was, but they claimed no man on earth could do such a thing. Daniel ended up telling him the dream and what it meant, a vision of future world empires to come, after first stressing that it was God who revealed it and that he Daniel had no ability of his own to do so. (Daniel 2) -Nebuchadnezzar had another dream, but this time foretelling 7 years of insanity to come upon him for continuing to rebel against God. And afterwards, Nebuchadnezzar turned towards God and admitted his pride and God's justice in doing so. (Daniel 4) In this case, dreams foretold future events to come in the life of the one dreaming of them: -Joseph dreams that one day his brothers and parents will bow down before him, only to have it fulfilled later in his life when he is placed in authority in Egypt. (Genesis 37) Admittedly, however, the Bible more often speaks of dreams being used by God to provide direction and guidance so people will make the right choices. God always seems to have a purpose in using dreams to foretell the future, and doesn't just use such 'deja vu' tactics for no reason. -God uses a dream to let Abimelech know Abraham is being deceitful in not admitting Sarah is his wife, something Abraham did because he feared for his life and did not trust God, only one of many cases where the Bible speaks of godly people making mistakes which they often ended up apologizing to God for or even being punished for. (Genesis 20) -God uses a dream to let Joseph know he's being protected and his heritage will be blessed. (Genesis 28) -God uses a dream to warn Laban not to speak good or bad to Joseph. (Genesis 31:24) -God uses a dream to let Gideon know he will be successful in attacking forces that were invading Israel. (Judges 7) -God uses a dream to offer Solomon a blessing - Solomon chooses wisdom. (1 Kings 3) -God uses a dream to let tell Joseph of His plans involving the Messiah, and to take Mary as his wife. (Matthew 1) -God uses dreams to warn Joseph and the magi of Herod's evil intentions. (Matthew 2) -Pilate's wife has a dream of Jesus and warns Pilate not to be guilty concerning him, which advice Pilate takes, in a way. (Matthew 27) An interesting verse concerning how Israel would know its prophets: More verses relating to dreams: Prophecy of how God would work in later days concerning dreams and visions:

The thing is, just because doctors prescribe something when there's no evidence it will work, doesn't mean they're doing it to shut someone up. It may have been a rare case where there were no known treatments or else treatments that would normally be available for whatever reason were unavailable at the moment, and thus the doctor had to pick something he didn't know would work. I'm not saying that's the case, I'm just saying it seems like the title is misleading from what the actual study showed.

Well, since video games can do at least as much as any movie or TV program can, I'd say if you're going to make the point that video games are a complete waste of time, that you have to make the point of all TV in general, including movies and public television. People can learn stuff from video games and they can be instructive, but is the good outweighed by the bad? I'm not trying to make a case either way, I'm just pointing out video games should be lumped together with movies and TV as well, and most people don't like to see it that way. That's why I don't see why you said "or watching a good movie". What's the difference between video games and movies?

I'd be careful with those medications. They're finding out now those anti-depressant cocktails can have unforeseen negative effects with certain combinations. I believe it's either Effexor or Paxil that when combined with St. John's Wort increases your suicidal urges. Me, I was on all 3, maybe at the same time, when I was younger. Psychiatrists have been overly careless about prescribing anti-depressants and they're now taking a closer look at just how it might be affecting people. Even though St. John's Wort is (or was, I don't know now) an over-the-counter medication, it can have dangerous results when combined with other medications: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ Oh, I came across this very useful article just now: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ My point is, be careful with those anti-depressants. Do some research and don't just trust everyone with a degree. Those things can be dangerous, and I found it out from personal experience. Be careful what you're getting into with the anti-depressant stuff, because they can sometimes do more harm than good.

Interesting thoughts. I believe God is a Spirit, and not subject to the same laws as the physical world we're used to dealing with. Whether the energy laws apply to Him or not, I thus have no idea

The thing with this list is that it argues from a basis of 'if Americans do it, it must be right.' Obviously this is not a good argument, since Americans are known to do some pretty dumb things. I will address each point individually based on my own logical reasoning: First of all, if Americans are overly materialistic and hypocritical, is that a good argument that materialism and hypocrisy are moral? The argument of course is fallacious. Secondly, one is talking about things that are natural in nature, and things that are artificially created. Homosexuals are not artificially created. The comparisons break down when looked at more carefully. The writer's unspoken implication is that being gay is a hereditary trait like height, something that is based upon genetics rather than personal choice. Obviously if genetics, then no, there is no danger of infection assuming it's non-contagious like being tall and not something, rather, like having an STD. Not all physical characteristics are non-contagious. However, if it is a matter of personal choice and not genetics, then that may not be the case. Again, it's a matter of dishonest comparisons. Actually, there have been cases where people have wed their pets. A woman a few years ago wed a snake in an Indian ceremony. There is a very famous author here in the U.S. who advocates no age limits to marriage, meaning children of all ages can be married in what we would now call child abuse. In other words, their argument breaks down in cases where signing is not necessary for marriage contracts. Obviously the first 2 cases can be agreed upon as wrong. In fact, if one searches the annals of history, they will find it was Christians asserting their influence on society that led to both of those cases being resolved. What the writer of this list is trying to suggest is that homosexuality is another wrong in society, but in a subtle way without providing any proofs for their case. It is ironic they just suggested in the 4th point that original ideas about marriage were wrong in not including divorce, and they now use it to make a case against marriage. You can't have it both ways. I oppose divorce for reasons other than clear-cut adultery in the same way I oppose homosexual marriage. Just because the law allows hypocrisy in marriage because of such divorce rules, does not mean we should allow more hypocrisy in. If there's a crack in a vase, you don't make cracks all over it to make the arrangement uniform. You mend the break. If something's wrong in a matter, you don't throw in a bunch more wrongs to make it completely wrong. You fix what is wrong. I believe we shouldn't allow divorce for any reason and that such a law is clearly hypocritical as shown here. That doesn't mean we should include more wrong stuff in the definition of marriage just because some is already there, and which is there thanks to the same mindset that now seeks to include homosexual marriage. Proponents of homosexual marriage are probably using similar arguments to those used by people in favor of divorce years ago, and now it is clear how hypocritical such divorce laws are. In other words, they're saying there are too many kids, so somehow that proves homosexual marriage is somehow better than true marriage since it doesn't risk adding more kids to the world. I will be blunt. There is nothing wrong with kids. The reason there are so many kids is more likely because of people devaluing them in the first place. Premarital sex and the ensuing ideas about abortion and divorce have resulted in the devaluing of kids that has led to the dilemma of all these kids in orphanages. I would say homosexual marriage is just an outgrowth of that sexual promiscuity which created the problem originally. We should be taking better care of kids, and I think that will happen from stressing morality in marriage and valuing kids, and not from valuing sexual promiscuity. Obviously, the suggestion is that homosexuality is a genetic matter rather than one of personal choice. But if of personal choice, then anyone can be gay regardless of their parenting. However, it is foreseeable that being in a gay home might further influence children to make the same personal choices as their parents. In other words, they're comparing the homosexual lifestyle to religious belief, in saying it should be allowed free practice. And it is. People can live homosexual lifestyles in the privacy of their homes to their heart's content. However, it is homosexual marriage that is the issue here. And to make the religion comparison, it is alright to say that where the homosexual lifestyle affects public law and the entire nation (like the definition of marriage) it should naturally be curtailed in some ways. For example, Islamic law suggests killing people for ridiculous reasons. Do we allow that to happen just because it is part of religious belief? Of course not. The rule is that 'your right to throw a punch stops where the other person's nose begins.' The definition of marriage affects the entire country, and in the same way, should be considered no longer a freedom once it potentially begins affecting the entire nation in what may be a negative way. Just because our society allows something, does not mean what is allowed is for the best. There are many who would argue children are often adversely affected in single parent households, and that it is best for them to have both parents to support them. So what is this trying to say? That we can adapt to new social norms? (2nd part of 1st sentence) Of course we CAN. But what about the 1st part of the 1st sentence? Are they suggesting the foundation of our society CAN'T be changed? That part is definitely false, since our society of course can change. Obviously our society CAN adapt. We could adapt in the same way Nazi Germany adapted to Hitler's ideals. But would that be a good thing? My point is, not all change is for the best. Not all progress is good progress.

First of all, I do not see the point in excluding religious beliefs, and here's why: Everyone is 'religious' in the sense of having strongly held beliefs about whether (or not) God exists, what eternity holds, what's of ultimate eternal value, etc. What makes one person's belief that God exists any less valid than the belief of someone who believes He doesn't exist? In fact, the reason so many people appeal to the idea of a Creator or deity is because otherwise absolute morality can't really exist at all. You see, there's nothing making any one of our opinions more important than anyone else's, unless it is the absolute contradiction of logic which disqualifies one person's view (obviously saying God is both good and evil or light and darkness is logically wrong, since both views are mutually exclusive, and mutually exclusive contradictory views can not be equally true). And we can not even make ourselves an inch taller by our own efforts, let alone be the instituters of an ultimate moral law. Furthermore, we do not have the authority or righteousness to set it over our fellow human beings since we are all the same and all do wrong things. Therefore, for an absolute moral code to exist to the universe, it must have been set in place by a deity. This is why when speaking of morality, people so often reference a deity, because they recognize their knowledge, power, righteousness, and authority is lacking in what is needed to know or create a universal moral code, and that the only way they can truly be right about morality is if God Himself set a universal moral code to the universe and some way or another, transmitted that knowledge to them in a sure way. Furthermore, if you read the statements of Lincoln, Washington, and Adams, they all firmly believed in God and the Bible, and that belief definitely influenced how they governed as well. In fact, if religious belief does NOT penetrate to our political views, daily actions, and in short, all aspects of our life, we have a word for that - 'HYPOCRITE'. Therefore, you are asking people to be hypocrites and act apart from their most strongly held beliefs, which, I will not do. With all that said, I will now address the issue... from a Christian's perspective, because that is what I am. You can not separate me from my beliefs and faith, or I would not be who I am. I once believed I should leave the issue of gay marriage alone. It seemed as if homosexuals were being unfairly targeted. After all, the Bible says adultery, divorce, and premarital sex are all sexual sins as well, and are grouped together with homosexuality as the sin of fornication, or sexual sin outside God's plan of marriage between one man and one woman. And yet, people often ignore those sins but focus on homosexuality. However, what a friend pointed out to me is that gay marriage gets focused on because it is not us who started focusing on homosexuals, trying to take away their freedoms. Rather, it is them who are trying to change laws that have stood for centuries. They already have the right to live however they wish in the freedom of their own homes. Rather, they are trying to force us as a nation to change what we consider right and moral in the context of marriage. Have you ever heard the phrase, "your right to throw a punch stops where the other person's nose begins"? I do not like the homosexual lifestyle, but I recognize God has given them free will as to us all, and we all mess up. I can not condemn their lifestyle without being guilty, since I myself am sinful. As Jesus told the Pharisees wanting to stone the adulteress, one can not justly cast the first stone (i.e. punish a person for moral wrongdoing) without being sinless themselves. Rather, I oppose gay marriage because I believe in protecting morality in our country. We are changing too much of what we consider moral, and thus our country will suffer. I believe in protecting the definition of marriage in our country based on what is moral, just as I believe in standards of decency in our public media. Our children are exposed to it, and when something is publicly available, it is everyone's business. I would not dream of silencing a homosexual's voice to speak out about what they believe. God gave them free will, even as He gave it to me. However, I expect the right to speak out about my beliefs on what is right and moral, and to vote accordingly, even as homosexuals are doing. I expect to have the same rights they do, in that context. I oppose gay marriage because homosexuals already have the right to live however they choose. The right they seek is to FORCE US AS A NATION TO RECOGNIZE THEIR UNIONS AS MORAL AND ACCEPTABLE, AS WELL AS FORCING US TO CHANGE OUR VIEWS ON WHAT MARRIAGE IS. For those of us who believe such a definition of marriage is not a moral one, we will naturally stand up against it. With that said, I also would like to see the law allowing divorce annulled so that divorce is only allowed in clear cases of adultery. I do not believe in legislating crimes against premarital sex or adultery, since those are lifestyle choices involving free will. You see, I am trying not to intrude on the free will of others while upholding standards of decency for our country. I believe both can be done.

I just now noticed that the flash banner at the top of Xisto's home page has an error. It says "THE BEST YOU CAN FIND ON WEB". Obviously it should read "on THE web" since "the web" is the phrase always used to refer to the internet, and not just web. This is about as major and noticeable a mistake as the site could make, so I think this especially needs to get fixed.

Well, one remarkable thing IP addresses can be used for is location tracking. It's hardly an exact science, but is often remarkably accurate when it comes to general location anyway. There's an official IP address directory worldwide that can be found here, and uses such IP address tracking to present info about a computer based on its IP address including location: http://whois.arin.net/ui/ For me it shows the location a few cities off, but definitely in the general vicinity. From what I've seen the tracking is remarkably accurate, often in the same zip code. IP addresses also provide info about computer type and service provider, among various other kinds of info. And some IP address trackers not only present the service provider, but also contact info so the provider can be contacted about potential hackers or spammers.

Yep, I'm referring to the one on the forum index page. I just think if members with suspended accounts need to be reminded of anything, that it should be the impending deletion of their account should it hit -30 credits.

I noticed there was a typo in the Rules because of them being quoted in this topic: http://forums.xisto.com/topic/54676-big-problem-with-posting-a-topic-it-disappears-the-next-day/ Anyway, I noticed some other typos, so I decided to do a thorough edit/commentary on the rules. I decided the easiest way to show the location of errors as well as their locations would be to just quote the entire rules text. I have highlighted major problems in red and minor problems in orange so that only the most clear-cut problems can be easily distinguished. Since I did a full edit of the rules, some of the less-important instances may just be a case of my being overly picky, and not something the average reader would care much about... thus why I used two colors. Footnotes at the bottom provide my explanations for why I consider each instance to be in error, as well as how I believe each can be fixed. [1] Languages should probably be language. Languages is specifically used to refer to the communication systems used by people groups; a good synonym would be 'tongues'. Language on the other hand when used singularly refers to overall use of speech, i.e. 'watch your language'. [2] The word 'made' is redundant here, if not necessarily wrong. All posts are made, and the word might be best removed. [3] 'do it the right way' should probably be 'do it in the right way' but I might just be acting overly picky here. [4] "community based" is probably best hyphenated as "community-based", but isn't something most readers will likely notice. [5] This is a clear-cut error. "doing" should be "do", making the sentence "Failure to do so will result in your account being suspended or removed." [6] The obvious error here is the comma in the sentence, which shouldn't be there since the sentence should have no pauses. Less important is the phrase 'of a person'. Information belonging to a person isn't necessarily 'of a person' so much as 'about a person' but even that sounds somewhat awkward. An easy way to fix the sentence would be to change it to "Posts containing a person's private information will not be allowed." This second problem, however, is not necessarily something most people will notice, and is not as in need of change. [7] 'by' should be 'but', making the sentence fragment "but is not limited to" and is an obvious typo. [8] It's not correct to follow a comma with periods like that. It should either have no comma before the periods, or insert the abbreviation "etc." before the periods. [9] I'm reasonably certain the phrase should be "provided it does not" rather than "providing it does not", but I'm not certain enough to label this a major edit. [10] 'justfully' is not a word, and should be 'justly' instead. [11] The phrase should be "in matters of judgement" without the "the", but isn't something most people will likely notice, making it a minor correction. [12] "unjust fully" is not a correct phrase, and should be changed to "unjustly". Although to my understanding 'flaming' tends to always involve unjust attacking, so I'm not sure the word unjustly is really needed. People would probably understand if flaming in general is banned. [13] Since there are two items, the usage is plural, and thus the word "are" should be used instead of "is". [14] "provocative" should be changed to "provocatively" and is a clear typo. [15] The whole thing is worded oddly because you can't really be lowered IN respect by someone, rather, they respect you less. It would take too much work to fix this though, and might involve using a word like esteem instead of respect. Plus, people won't notice it much so I won't dwell on this case much. [16] This isn't a mistake so much as so funny I had to address it. The comment begs the question, what kind of pornography or nudity IS safe for children? [17] I don't know that many people will notice or care, but you should probably end the sentence with a period since you did so with the other sentences listed. [18] 'a' should be 'the'. [19] 'losing' is the correct word here', not 'loosing', and is a clear typo. [20] A preamble is a single item, and thus the word 'is' should be used instead of the word 'are'. However, the whole sentence is weird. For one thing, a preamble is by definition an introduction to a larger body of writing, such as the preamble to the constitution. And this isn't so much a preamble as guidelines for use. Perhaps a more appropriate sentence would be "The below list provides guidelines of use for the Shoutbox." [21] The word 'out' is redundant if not grammatically incorrect, and makes the sentence sound worse. It would probably be best removed. [22] 'to' should be 'through', and is a clear typo. [23] 'reserves' should be reserve, and is a clear typo. [24] Features really shouldn't be the appropriate word choice here, and might be better replaced with a word like 'guidelines'. [25] 'would' should be 'will' since it's speaking of future things to come, not things that have already happened. [26] The phrase might be better said 'so long as' instead of 'just as long as' but most people likely won't notice or care. [27] 'site' should be 'sites' since there is more than one being referred to. [28] 'not' should be 'no' making the sentence fragment 'no one post is more important than others'. I did put a good amount of time and effort into producing this, because the Rules are perhaps the single most important page on Xisto as far as proofreading goes, with perhaps the exception of the Home Page or main Forum page... not just because a lot of people visit them, but also because there aren't many other places that are so text-filled or text-dependent. If you have any questions or comments about specific items on this list and why I consider them errors, I'd be happy to address them further in greater detail.

For the most part, the red-lettered warning for users with suspended accounts is pretty informational. However, it lacks one item of information that is extremely vital for such users to know - that after 30 credits in the red their account will be deleted. It makes no sense to hide this vital piece of information away in the rules section while not including it in the red-lettered warning. And as users will be most annoyed when finding out their account was deleted because they didn't know such a useful tidbit of info, I'd say including that is more necessary than some of the other sentences already in the warning.