Joshua

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ http://www.axs.com/thelatestonaxs In yet another case, it has been found that species thought to have evolved into other species were actually around at the same time, meaning they couldn't have evolved. As the study's co-author, Fred Spoor, says in the article, what it paints for evolution is a "chaotic kind of looking evolutionary tree rather than this heroic march that you see with the cartoons of an early ancestor evolving into some intermediate and eventually unto us". Here is another article I found of species living at the same time that the very species they were supposed to have evolved into were still around include: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ Also, it appears Lucy does not fit into the evolutionary chain as well as was once thought, although it hasn't received much press: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ My question is, how many holes will need to be shot in the common beliefs about how evolution happened before "science" and the public begin considering alternative possibilities?

As I mentioned much, much earlier in this conversation, abortions WERE allowed before the legalization of Roe v. Wade and the legalization of abortion in the cases of rape or the mother's life being in danger. Therefore, women who would "[find] ways around" any law against abortion would not be doing so because of rape or their lives being in danger but a selfish desire to kill the child rather than put him/her up for adoption. As for the separation of church and state, I see things entirely different than you on this. For one thing, separation of church and state does not mean those in office must be uninfluenced by their personal beliefs in God. That's ridiculous. We are all religious in the sense of having personal beliefs and our personal beliefs affect how each of us reasons and makes decisions. I would also point out that Lincoln, Washington, and many other leaders of our nation referenced God in why they governed the way they did. I also think it ironic that the very references made to God in the way our government is set up, such as God on our currency, in our pledge, in state constitutions, the long-time use of the Bible in swearing in certain people or in the courtrooms, are all trying to be eliminated by people who try to use that separation of church and state thing (which isn't even in the Constitution) to suggest such things should be removed from the government. Let me point out the ludicracy of such a view: People are saying the very men who founded our country meant for references to God in our government to be removed with "separation of church and state" even though said men were the ones to institute those references... Why would they have intended to have removed what they themselves instituted? https://www.bible.com/ Concerning the trimesters, I find that such things are controversial and hard to prove one way or the other. But what I also find with issues like abortion or evolution is that the true intentions of their adherents become apparent as far less than noble in less visible issues. For example, with evolution, some tried to have a law passed simply putting stickers on evolution textbooks saying evolution is a theory and to weigh it for yourself or something like that. Well, evolutionists were up in arms over that. It becomes clear they're not interested in admitting a simple fact and letting people see both sides, but in keeping their pet theory established as fact when it really is not. Likewise with abortion, there was a bill out simply to put ultrasound machines in abortion clinic rooms to let women see their unborn babies. Abortionists were up in arms to stop such a bill from being passed. Why? Is it not another matter of trying to stop people from having fuller understanding of the choice they are about to make? https://sites.hampshire.edu/popdev/ http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ Or what about another bill that Obama voted against, one simply requiring the approval of parents before kids have an abortion (possibly by crossing state lines, if I remember right). So by his thinking, they are not young enough to drink or maybe even drive, but they are old enough to have an abortion? http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14021863/ I would also point out that a sizable percentage of women end up regretting having had an abortion and have psychological problems as a result of the abortion. Not only does it negatively affect the child of course, but also negatively affects the woman having the abortion, possibly resulting in suicide or trauma for the rest of her life... something the clinics of course do not mention. http://afterabortion.com/ http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ What is more, it has also been shown that 90% of abortion clinic employees willingly break laws against statutory rape to get business: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2002/05/31/pro-life-group-launches-undercover-sting.html As for Obama, would you also say we should not question George Bush about the Iraq War and let him simply use the same excuse of "I will let God judge me"? My point is, our elected representatives are supposed to be accountable to the people who elected them. Obama is unwilling to explain himself on controversial issues to the very people he is representing for such issues.

I think if you believe strongly in one thing you have to disbelieve strongly all that contradicts it. All gods can't be the same though because they all have different, contradicting attributes according to their religions. How can you say the Allah of Islam, who is impersonal and created us as a monumental experiment, playings; is the same as the God of the Bible who loved us so much He sent His only Son to die for our sins, and doesn't want anybody to perish but for all to turn to Him and find eternal life? I personally can not understand how people can claim all religions are the same. We can agree to disagree. We can agree to show mutual respect to one another regardless of religion. We can agree to hear each other out and even care more about the other person than ourselves, which is what the Bible commands and calls love. But that doesn't mean we need to say this nonsense about all religions being equally right or true. Truth doesn't contradict. For me to say one Truth is right is to say all other proclaimed truths that contradict it are false. That's just common sense. Sorry if that offends you One thing I will say though, is just because a person claims to be Christian and says something or acts a certain way, does not mean they are accurately representing what Christianity is. If I quote the Bible's text word for word, that's Christianity. If I say of the Bible "that means" then I'm simply giving my interpretation, and my interpretation may or may not be right. Look to the Bible to see what Christianity is and what the definition of a Christian is. You will find that the Bible writers recognize that since even Christians are simply people who still mess up, that God is in the process of perfecting, a process which will not be complete in this life for any of us. You should use your logic and reasoning to decide for yourself whether what I say lines up with the Bible and is an accurate representation of Christianity. Read it for yourself, and don't just accept my word that it's right or that of others that it's wrong

I think it has to do with the very meaning of the word atheist. According to Webster's New World College Dictionary: Fourth Edition, the word atheist means "a person who believes that there is no God." In the synonym section, it also notes "an atheist rejects all religious belief and denies the existence of God; an agnostic questions the existence of God, heaven, etc. in the absence of material proof and in unwillingness to accept supernatural revelation". So, there's a difference between saying you KNOW God doesn't exist and saying you DON'T KNOW if God exists but don't believe simply for lack of proof. To say for certain God doesn't exist, i.e. atheism, you would arguably have to know everything in the universe to know for sure God doesn't exist and hasn't provided proof for His existence. It's much safer to simply call yourself an agnostic.Maybe I'm wrong about that being the reason, but it would make sense to me if that is the reason some people are less likely to call themselves atheists as opposed to agnostics.

No. How many people have been on Death Row who have been found innocent just in the last few years? If we can't guarantee there will be no innocent people on Death Row, then there should not be a Death Row. Maybe we could do a better job in the justice system of making criminals earn the money being spent for their imprisonment, rather than passing so much on to the taxpayers.I, however, propose something even more controversial: Those who do result in innocent people being convicted through negligence or lying, such as crooked prosecutors, cops, or even judges, should suffer punishments at least the equivalent of any murderer.Being in a position of authority should mean more accountability and risk of punishment for abuse of your position, not less accountability and less punishment.If we are to speak of justice, then let us do justly.

Alright, I realize some here feel pretty strongly about abortion because they consider it a woman's "right"... But I have always thought that at the least, both sides, and anybody in general, should be able to agree that something called Partial Birth Abortion is wrong. Here in Illinois, this practice is especially visible. Barack Obama, an Illinois senator, has continually voted against bills that would have stopped it, and has refused to explain why, answering only "God will judge me." Nurse Jill Stanek is also in Illinois and there are some 7 or so hospitals in the Chicago area that practice this method of abortion. So what is it?Partial birth abortion involves removing the baby from the womb but leaving the head inside by basically cutting it off. However, it can result in live births, some of which even survive if cared for. Jill Stanek had babies die in her arms because of this horrendous practice because hospital staff refused to care for them. In fact, under the law, babies delivered alive through such botched procedures could legally be left to die alive on hospital beds through starvation and dehydration. Several laws against it were attempted to be passed but Clinton kept vetoing them.Then in 2003, Bush signed into law a bill finally outlawing the practice. However, not until April of 2007 did it become enforced because Attorney General Gonzalez and others continued to challenge it as unconstitutional and made it go through a lengthy court process. The courts finally upheld it as constitutional in a 5-4 decision, Gonzalez v. Carhart.What is amazing is that after the decision, a public opinion poll found only 56% supported the ban while 32% remain opposed. I personally can not understand the thinking of abortionists who not only support killing unborn children but live children as well.I wonder if it is this mindset that results in women killing their children in bathtubs or hanging them, cases of which have been in the news quite a bit over the last few years. Is it coincidence that women seem to be killing their grown children more prevalently even as more time passes since Roe v. Wade and the legalization of abortion?I guess what I'm asking is, is it really a question of is it moral so much as a question of whether many Americans have become so selfish that they care more about their "rights" than what happens to their fellow human beings?

Was Saddam innocent of the WOMD accusation? It appears so. Was he innocent? As others have mentioned, he was guilty of genocide, torture, and multiple other crimes. Was Bush innocent? No. He lied to the country about the WOMD resulting in the deaths of many people for a war we had no right starting. He could've at least told us "we think Saddam is a bad, bad man that treats his people horribly so we're going to ignore international policy and attack his country at the potential cost of destroying its economy so we can remove him from leadership." In conclusion: Was Saddam innocent? No. Was Bush innocent? No. Were the American people innocent? No, they are guilty of negligence in not keeping their leaders accountable or caring enough about their nation to stand up when its leaders are betraying the people they are supposed to represent.

Alright, thanks for the information and the welcome. I think if I do end up spending time here again it will be to use the site solely as a forum. Maybe if I get enough credits to feel safe I'll consider getting another site again someday

Sorry if there's already a topic for this, I tried looking and couldn't find any... Anyway, does Xisto still delete all site content for accounts that fall behind in hosting credits? I lost my site because of being inactive for a few months a year or so ago and have been hesitant to get back into this when losing all your work can happen at any point. Is that still how the system works? Joshua

I'm also going to say "freedoms" should have limits. I think Americans are getting so overly concerned with their "freedoms" that they overlook the rights of others. When our "freedoms" begin harming others, then they're a problem. Over in NorthEastern USA they now have a city that's legalized nudity. Ultimately you start getting down to whether a person has a right to nudity if it goes against another's basic human principles for modesty. In a related scenario, video-game makers are saying they should be able to sell violent video games to little kids, games rated "R", citing "freedom of speech". Are we really this far gone that we can't see anything wrong with subjecting little kids to violence and nudity that studies clearly show has adverse effects on them? We're so worried about our rights and freedoms we've stopped caring about others in our quest to get whatever we feel is best for us. We shouldn't be worried first about freedoms, but about what is best for other people. Greed and harming others come because we care more about ourselves then other people.

I'm going with baseball. As Ozzie Guillen pointed out recently, unlike with basketball, baseball isn't a sport where one or two good players can win it for you. It takes a whole team of 9 guys (regardless of what the movie Benchwarmers has to say) working together to play efficiently. By the way, in Benchwarmers, all the kids had to do was start bunting and they'd have had an easy win If you only have a pitcher, catcher, and outfielder, all the other team has to do is push bunts to the 3rd base side and even if the pitcher gets it, they can't possibly run to 1st base or tag out the runner in time. So the 3rd baseman and 1st baseman are both very necessary. Anyway, soccer has some cool plays here and there but most of the time you're just watching people kick the ball to each other and spend 15 minutes just trying to maneuver the ball down to the right side of the field. I was looking at pro soccer's standings and have a little statistic for you. In one of the two leagues, 1 of every 3 games ends up a tie, and in the other 1, 1 of every 4 games ends up a tie. And soccer games take an hour and a half! That's highway robbery, paying good money to get in (and risking a possible trampling as well) only to sit an hour and a half with a 25-33% chance of watching a no-decision. As my dad said, that could serve to make things more competitive... but as the standings show, there's only 1 clearcut good team in both leagues, and 1 clearcut bad team. All the others are right around .500. I just don't get soccer...Golf and croquet (which after playing recently for the first time I actually found fun) I consider games, not sports. When an 80 year old guy can hobble around the green making shots, one must wonder how much "athletic" prowess is required. And isn't the definition of someone who plays a sport an "athlete"? I just don't buy that stuff like golf, pool, croquet, and my personal favorite, chess, are sports, even if they are fun games involving competition. For whatever reason I find one-skill events like track, ice skating, bicycling, and surfing pretty dull. However honed the skills must be, you're really just doing one thing. It's like a race, there's only one way to the finish line, so it doesn't really test your ingenuity or allow you to use all your skills to compete. I love baseball because moreso then any other sport I think it lets someone with any special athletic skill enjoy themselves. There's throwing of all kinds (infield, outfield, pitching) involving varying degrees of accuracy, power, and finesse), running of all kinds (basestealing, fielding), sliding and jumping, hitting... furthermore, there's a deep level of strategy to the game that allows for a lifetime of continued improvement in all areas so that you can never truly be perfected in all areas. Plus, unlike with football you don't have to hurt other players. I just think baseball is the best of all worlds.

My friends know my favorite Chuck Norris quote whenever he starts getting talked about: "Chuck Norris and Martha Stewart had a contest to see who could be the most womanly homemaker, Chuck Norris won by infinity minus 1" Norris was just another trainee of Bruce Lee. Lee was the real deal, he actually didn't fake the hits like Norris has gotten away with doing. Hakeem Abdul Jabar was probably the better pupil of Lee's anyway, and probably had a nastier kick too. Just check out Lee's last movie, they had to slow down the fight between him and Jabar because their moves were so fast the camera couldn't follow them. And Jabar just kicked a punching bag before fighting Lee so hard that it split open and all the sand started flowing out. Lee was the real deal, Norris is just a shadow of who Lee was.

And why exactly is shyness being looked at as a charachter flaw here? That's what I don't get. If you let it keep you from reaching out to someone you care about, that is a problem then. A moment of awkwardness isn't as bad as a lifetime of regret. But shyness, meekness, humility; whatever you want to call it, can be an admirable trait. In a girl for example, I find it something highly attractive, and I'm not talking about today's pretense of it by girls, but the genuine article.

I don't use any bumper stickers currently but may in the future. My take on this: What's at the root of wanting bumper stickers to go? They spread a person's opinions or values in a quick, concise, and hopefully well stated way. Sometimes they may have an impact on someone in forming an opinion, odd as it may seem. How exactly would the money spent on the stickers go to charity? Would you ban bumper stickers and enforce a charity tax? I don't think that sounds particularly feasible I don't think people honestly share their views and opinions enough, and while I think people need to get down one to one and do that, I don't see the harm in bumper stickers being a quick way of doing that.

Yep, Jesus will send religious people to Hell too. What's your point? No one ever said Jesus would forgive everyone. Jesus didn't say that either. He said He'd save all who come to Him. In Luke 13:1-5 He says ALL who don't repent will all likewise perish. You want to see Jesus as the forgiving person who forgave the woman about to be stoned but not the righteous Son of God who chased the evildoers out of the temple. Before coming to Christ we are all children of Satan and under his dominion, whether you want to hear it or not. Jesus loved us enough to give us a chance for us to be freed from that, but if you reject it that's up to you. Jesus didn't come to destroy the Law, God's judgment on the human race and how we should live, but to fulfil it. Jesus didn't come to give us freedom to live however we want to. He came to free us from our bondage to sin, what makes us unable to defeat our lusts, that we might live no longer to our lusts but to God. Jesus didn't come to forgive us and let us do whatever we want to. He came to draw us back to God that we might become new people who let our Father God who created us rule our lives rather then ourselves. God isn't mocked, someone doesn't say "forgive me, get rid of that hell stuff for me, now shove off." Forgiveness comes with relationship as we admit we're wrong and commit our hearts to changing and turning from our mistakes. Jesus wants us new people who will follow God like we were created to do, who will turn from our evil ways to serve Him, so we can share eternity with Him. Whether you want to hear it or not, anyone who is unwilling to leave their evil ways and turn to God, doing good deeds befitting of sorrowful repentance at wronging God, is deserving of eternal suffering apart from Him, good for nothing but to be burned eternally. Many of the most religious fit this description. God may love us but He hates our abominable sins and can never bear to let us go on living in rebellion to His will. Jesus came to reconcile us by making us new people, not just by saying "ask me to and I'll sweep your sins under the rug." That's not how it works, we can be forgiven only because we're made new people who commit our lives and hearts to God, to changing according to His will.

But that's the thing, if that's what you consider religion, then Christianity is not religion. Yes, just thinking God will punish you or something is wrong won't change your behavior much. Simple religion isn't enough, what's required is a very change of nature. In James 2:19 it says even the devils believe there's one God, and they tremble. So in the sense of simply believing in God, even the devils have religion. Does it make them any better? As it goes on to say in 2:20, that kind of faith is dead without works. And since as Galatians 2:16 says, by the law of works will no flesh be justified in His sight, that kind of faith is dead indeed. We can never "earn" our way to heaven through doing good works. As Ephesians 2:8-10 says, salvation is the GIFT of God by GRACE (unmerited mercy, we don't deserve it) through FAITH, NOT of works. The saving faith Paul speaks of in Romans 10:8-10 is more then just believing there's one God. It's a heart transaction based on trusting Jesus, repentance, and turning our lives over to Him. As Jesus says in Luke 13:1-5, "unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." We have to realize, truly realize how evil and hopelessly short of God's standards we are. The reason I started seeking God was because my life was a mess, I got in fights and even hurt my brothers, despised the way I said hurtful words to others, lied, and did things of which I was ashamed. I knew I was evil and needed to change. We all have to reach that point of recognizing our need for God's MERCY before we can truly come to Him and have a relationship with Him. We have to trust solely in what Jesus did on the cross to save us. If you read the Gospels with "ears to hear" you'll come to realize Jesus is more then a story or words on a page. He's not the peaceful guy everyone talks about, though He chose to live peacefully. He came out of love for us, not the romantic-type love everyone thinks about. Love is simply seeing someone for who they really are, so that we care about them unconditionally regardless of what they do to us or what they act like. It passes mere concern about them, for it's caring about them BECAUSE OF WHO THEY REALLY ARE INSIDE. This is the kind of love Jesus cared about us with, that made Him die a death so horrible even He feared it. And it's the kind of love as Christians we are all called to care about others with. See, 1 Corinthians 13:1-8 says even if we give all our goods to the poor, give our body to be burned for the sake of Christ, have all knowledge and wisdom, all faith to work miracles, and speak in tongues of men and angels, but don't have love, we are nothing and have no eternal reward. We're called to do good works of love for others, not because it's the "right thing to do" or because we "think we should" but because we care about people and God and want to take care of them, do what's best for them. As Romans 13:8-10 says, love fulfils all God's commandments, because it does no harm to others. All the commandments are briefly comprehended in the saying "love your neighbor as yourself." If we cared about others as ourselves, we wouldn't lie, steal, be jealous of what they have, commit adultery with their loved ones, murder, rape, etc... It's furthermore why Jesus says in John 13:35 that "by this will all men know you are my disciples, if you have love one to another." It's not calling ourselves a Christian that shows we're one... it's OUR LOVE FOR OTHERS. When we forgive others, do good in exchange for evil, and love even our enemies, then it is clear it's not by some religion we do such things, but by the power and grace of God in making us new people. We will not ever be perfect in this life, but we can come closer to it by being merciful and loving to others like God has been to us for the sake of His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus says in Matthew 7:21-22 that many will come claiming to be His disciples but that not those who say "Lord, Lord" to Him will enter Heaven but those that do the will of His Father in Heaven. And as He says in John 6:38-40, that will is that whoever trusts solely in Jesus might have eternal life and be raised up at the last day. Many will come to Him claiming to be His only to be told "I knew you, depart from me you that work iniquity." John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. Trusting in Jesus means several things. It means we admit we need a Saviour. We are doing wrong things, evil things, and need to change. It means we admit we can't save ourselves, trusting solely in Jesus' sacrifice to save us. And it means we trust in Him to change us so we turn our lives solely over to Him, to live our lives according to His will rather then our own from now on. "Believing on Him" thus involves repentance, trust solely in Him to save us, and the turning over of our hearts and lives to Him. Perhaps it's a lack of persecution allowing false Christians to get in so easily but here in America there are many false Christians and even true Christian churches doubtless have many fakers, or else deceived. But you can go to places like http://www.persecution.com/ to read of how Christians worldwide die peacefully even at this moment, loving and forgiving their enemies like Jesus and the apostles did, for the sake of Christ. In India and China radical Hindus and Buddhists as well as their governments throw Christians in prison, torturing them or imprisoning them for years. It's common for pastors to end up dead by mysterious means, yet the church is growing by leaps and bounds. In Iran and Afghanistan the Christian church is being heavily persecuted as Muslim extremists make being a Christian effectually a death sentence. Yet still the church grows. In Russia and eastern European countries Christianity has long been sought to be stomped out by Communism and its adherents. There's a site, http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ , about the Chinese church. It's grown so greatly the single church has a million + members and is sending a tithe out across what they call the 10/40 window (latitude coordinates I believe). The way they see it, Christianity starting in the middle east, spread to Europe, America, the far East, and is now coming back around the world. They are sending a "tithe" of their millions of church members, hundreds of thousands of missionaries to sweep across all the countries between Africa and Japan. Some of those persecuted in Middle Eastern countries are straight from this Chinese church. They are spreading the Good News, aka the Gospel, in spite of massive persecution. As the line goes, "Only one life will soon be past, only what's done for Christ will last." Many extremists today are willing to die for what they believe in. But how many die peacefully while loving their enemies? There are thousands if not millions of Christians suffering in just such a way all around the world, and the accusers of Christianity willing ignore such a fact in their attacks.

I got away from it because it was too addicting, but what about Ultimate Baseball Online (UBO)? http://www.ultimatebaseballonline.com/ It's free and is a 3D baseball game where rather then controlling a team, you control a player. You create a player much the same way as in an RPG. You can make a Catcher, 1st Baseman, etc... You can make them left handed or right handed, set their hitting/pitching stances, and change their looks. There's an elaborate points system where you get improvement points by playing in games based on how well you do, as well as training (you can train in hitting, pitching, or fielding). You can then use these points to improve your player in various attributes (body strength, arm strength, etc...). The games are played in fully 3D stadiums with other human players, where you need to work together as a team in order to win. You can also sign up for teams to play in tournaments for real-life prizes. You can have up to 3 different charachters and there's a devoted UBO community with players who've been around for years, and are active in the forums as well. On the downside they're still trying to iron out some of the bugs in the game, and lag can definitely be an issue. Learning to cope with these things is a part of UBO, but it's definitely addicting, and they're constantly improving it. One of baseball's great sluggers, Darrell Evans, is the spokesman for UBO/Netamin (parent company), and is the manager of a non-pro team which Jose Canseco plays on: http://www.ultimatebaseballonline.com/

I'll just share my... memories. I used to be a very angry person, you say you hit yourself, well I hit walls. I had enough pain inside me that if I focused on it it would get me really mad and I'd hit a wall. Problem is, I started getting into fights and even hitting family members too. All of it resulted in my taking a good look at who I was and realizing how evil I was and that I needed to change. It's what started me looking at how I needed to change and led to me reading the Bible, and questioning God's existence. I was questioning whether or not to mention that last part but I figure 1) you'd have guessed that to be the conclusion anyway, and 2) maybe it's something that can help, I said the rest before it because maybe it can provide insight into your own situation. Not ending with the conclusion might be a more "sensitive" choice but not necessarily the most beneficial as to what needs to be heard, and said.

I believe society's trends affect everyone in the world and what's going on concerning them is representative of the whole of the world's changing attitudes, not just confined to our culture alone.

Interesting. Yet we can examine ourselves to find out what those decisions were, and even though we don't know our thoughts of mind and heart that well, we can better by examining ourself. And by doing so, we can become more conscious of our decisions and thus seek to change them. I suppose the argument is if our mind makes decisions before we are conscious of them we can't have free will. But aren't those mind decisions often made based on the conscious choices or decisions made moments before? So even though we may not be conscious of the decision, it is based on the free will choice of what to think about a moment before. So say I'm not conscious of what decision my mind just made about reading this. But then because of reading this I think about it and think, and based on thorough deliberation decide to examine who I am in further detail and what makes me tick. That choice to do so may have been made before I had "conscious" knowledge of it but was still made because of my conscious decision based on deliberation to pursue a given topic. We are always free to deliberate and think over something, which I think renders that "mind makes decisions seconds before we are conscious of them" a moot point.... Did that make any sense? lol

I didn't see a reply stating this, but from what I understand, time would be considered a 4th dimension... if we could travel in it. Someone else cited the Time Machine by H.G. Wells which I believe points out the reason time isn't considered a dimension yet is because we see nothing yet to make us believe we can travel more then one way on it. I also read a book called Tesseract or the Tesseria or some weird name like that about dimensions. If I had to think about dimensions, I'd say there's one of the spirit we don't tend to think about. I don't see it as dealing with space as we think of it, but hearts, souls, our thoughts all cross it.

A lot of the answers already given, and I"m probably going to just echo them for the most part. First off... You DON'T love her. If you did you'd be committed to acting in her best interests and making HER happy rather then yourself. All you're interested in is gratifying your own lusts and pleasures, rather then taking care of her, loving her, protecting her, and helping her become the most fulfilled person she can become. If there really is any part of you that cares at all about who she is, you will do as everyone else has said, and be up front with her. She deserves to know the truth and lies and deceptions only make the end result a hundred times worse then it would've been otherwise. When the truth comes out (and it WILL, sooner or later, maybe not now, maybe not even in 10 years, maybe not even in this life, but I guarantee you it will) she will only hate you all the more, and she will not forgive. Jealousy is the rage of a person and she will not pardon or forgive. On the other hand, I'm guessing you're in the relationship with her for sex and she is sleeping with you as well, in which case it's pretty stupid of either of you to think the other will be loyal. Loyalty is something that comes with marriage, because otherwise, what tie is binding you together? If it was love, you'd have waited. The common conception of dating is that it is like marriage as far as the benefits of sex and its pleasures but without the restrictions of loyalty and commitment to the other person. This was never God's will so don't be surprised if you never find the true relationship He meant to be between a man and a woman that can be made only by waiting until marriage for sex, loyalty/caring about the other person more then one's self, complete honesty and sincerity, and love... as opposed to mere lust. If I'm right about the kind of relationship you're both in, it was doomed from the start. Until both of you truly learn to love and follow God's will for your lives and relationships, I see nothing but heartache in all your relationships as you continually seek the "right person" only to never find them simply because you are not right yourselves.No one who wants the kind of committed, loving relationship that holds true value will put up with your ways for you would only harm them as you have this girl and others as well.

Makes pretty good sense to me what he said. The reason 300 pound guys can play the game is precisely because there's more to the game then running and kicking, which is pretty much all there is to what we call soccer over here, and one of the main reasons I don't like it. Baseball you get running, throwing, hitting, pitching, and catching going on nonstop. Football allows big burly guys to block and tackle, the QB is throwing or handing off to a guy who'll catch and run it. But in soccer about all that happens is somebody gets a ball and runs it/kicks it to where someone else can kick it. Then occasionally the one goalie person who gets to use their hands gets to try catching it but aside from him all there is is running and kicking, unless you count throw-ins, which take a LOT of arm athleticism... And I agree with the other posters, you're very rarely going to see football end in a tie. At any given moment the QB can hurl a long bomb into the end zone, have the team do an onside kick, recover, get the ball back, and score 16 points in a minute to win the game. In baseball a bunch of late inning hits and a big home run can result in 6 or 7 runs shooting up on the scoreboard real fast for a late win. In basketball the team can rally with defense and offense to spark 20 points in a minute to win the game. And soccer? If they score 2 goals in 10 minutes you're talking edge of your seat exitement. To see more then 10 points combined in a game is practically unheard of. I don't know what 3-0 football games you saw but the teams must both be pretty bad. No matter what you say, professional football teams combining to score that few points is about as rare as a blue moon. As pointed out, you give a soccer player however much pads and put them in a football game, I doubt many will be capable of walking after the first hit or two. The reason they need all those pads is because football doesn't have a bunch of anorexic little long-distance runners running around but those 300 lb. guys you look down your nose on. There's a big difference between a 150 lb. little soccer player trying to trip you up and a 300+ lb. linebacker bearing down on you from behind. Send your soccer players in to handle that kind of punishment and see how long it is before they want pads, or even to keep playing. Let's face it, soccer lacks excitement because of the sparsity of goals over huge amount of time. Soccer has a lot of players faking injuries, probably more a problem then in baseball, basketball, and football. The refereeing is pretty bad compared to other pro sports. The fans are always a risk to stampede over someone or get into fights. I don't go around insulting soccer out of the blue but I'll take baseball, basketball, or football over it any day of the week.

I think there's a lot of assumptions flying about here. Guys can be as conceited as girls, it's not nearly as much a 1-gender problem as you like to make it out to be. Maybe your problem is seeing guys in an idealized light so you don't see the problems a lot of them have as well. For example, you call women "high and mighty" for thinking that but there are a lot of conceited guys who think girls need to sleep with them. They end up being the prototypical villains in a lot of movies. Now if a girl went around saying she thought guys were all wrong and stupid and what not (and I've seen it) the word sexist would be bandied around about her just like it is about you. I see no unequal treatment here. Men do say bad things about women and women say bad things about men and both can get called sexist. It sounds like the problem here is a bunch of stereotyped wrong assumptions in thinking one group can be one way and not the other group. Both groups are guilty of these mistakes, not just one, and I think most of the people here know it.

I think this right here is the problem. If she doesn't end up "impressed" by you it's probably because you've got the mindset that really bugs me I see in other guys, that girls are nothing more then dehumanized sources of pleasure by which you count "score". Johnny probably gave the best advice I heard, of being honest. Although, if you go telling her you want to "score" I don't think honesty is going to save you. Basically it sounds like you're more interested in her body then her, and that's not what love is about. If and when she realizes that, I am reasonably sure she will NOT be impressed. Johnny is right, openness, honesty, and treating her as a person is the way to go. She has to be a friend as well as someone to be looked at romantically. If all it is for you is getting sex out of her, you don't care about her so much as the sex, and if she's a halfway intelligent girl she's going to realize that, and probably be out of there. So many relationships fail these days because they're founded on lust, not love, and about what you can get out of it, rather then what you can do for the other person because you care about them.