StevenSeagal

Yes. I want a complete list on my desk by 9 AM tomorrow! If it was written down 2000 years ago, that's all the proof I need! I guess we need to be like Hitler and Iran leader becuase I guess all history book are shit becuase they were written previously and that the only real thing that exist is now the present. Anyone have a fire so I can burn some books. Wow you need a brain yourself. Amazing, the first correct statement you've made. No, actually, the history books are ALL CORRECT? Didn't you get the memo? There is no bias, no inaccuracies in history books. I believe everything I read. Why ask questions- curiousity killed the cat, after all.

Hey if you don't want to believe that fine. No biggie. If Seagal wants to make stupid statements of when the bible was written as an example of why it horseshit and his dates are totaly just made up crap taken out of the air, I'll debate. He was just making shit up to satisfy himself. Okay wiseguy. My dates may well be wrong, I've never claimed they were right. You offered as proof one persons reasoned argument of what the correct ones were, which suggests that it's still being debated...oh wait, yes in fact Christians continue to debate the meaning, timing and interpretation of scripture to this day, with no hope of a solution. Mental masturbation ad nauseum. But assuming your dates are correct- it doesn't dilute the original question. A bunch of superstitious men 2000 years ago claimed they were told by angels and God to write it all down. If someone does that today, do you believe them Seahawks? If...oh, fuck it.

Yes. I want a complete list on my desk by 9 AM tomorrow! If it was written down 2000 years ago, that's all the proof I need!

You're right. Is this better?

Only truth I know Segal is a wuss. Seafag: God called me today. He says you suck ass and to tell you to stop making him look bad.

Revelation The author of the Book of Revelation is John. "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John," (Rev. 1:1). "Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, p. 308) (A.D.. 139–161) quotes from the Apocalypse, as John the apostle’s work."7 Revelation was probably written at the end of John the Apostle's life. Some hold to the 90's and it is the last book written in the New Testament. Which means what exactly? So God talked to John through an angel and that settles it? That's the end of the discussion and now we're just supposed to focus on the message, right?

Wrong, please don't spread your lies. In the article When were the gospels written and by whom?, I demonstrated that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written before 70 A.D. Basically, the book of Acts was written by Luke. But Luke fails to mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 79. A.D., nor does he mention the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65). Since Acts is a historical document dealing with the church, we would naturally expect such important events to be recorded if Acts was written after the fact. Since Acts 1:1-2 mentions that it is the second writing of Luke, the gospel of Luke was written even earlier. Also, Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple in the gospels: "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:5, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). Undoubtedly, if Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written after the destruction of the Temple, they would have included the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy in them. Since they don't, it is very strong indication that they were written before 70 A.D. Horseshit. First of all, it reads like you wrote the article. Once again you fail to credit your sources. Nevertheless...moving on...I'm not a scholar of scripture but I'm pretty damn sure Revelations is MUCH MUCH later. And the entire above paragraph is all clearly based on 23rd hand speculation passed down for 2000 years. And in any event it's a case for 3 gospels. What about all the others...? I love the prophecy of the Temple's destruction. Who would have thunk it? How many buildings from AD 00 remain standing today? I predict that this moldy log cabin I saw in the woods near Buckley will one day be replaced by a SuperWalmart!

Oh, also- WOW! People willing to die for their belief system!?! I guess I better convert to Islam, because all those suicide bombers must know something we don't!

Umm, Seahawks, much of the New Testament was written generations after Jesus' death. Revelations I think was 400 years later. Think about that for a minute, and try again.

I looked up stats on abortions a while ago, but don't remember what they "counted" as an abortion. My recollection was that for US women the average was less than 1 abortion in a lifetime. That may have included RU486 or the morning after pill, but there's no way it could have included IUDs. I want those IUD's banned! They've killed a lot of our brave soldiers in Iraq.

Didn't you guys get the memo? If you so much as get a hardon from anything other than the thought of creating a beautiful little child, you're going straight to hell. I'll go ahead and make sure you get another copy of that memo.

What GOD has to say about it? The bible was written by men, claiming that God told them what to write or otherwise 'moved their hand'. Now why does this 'fact' always get a free pass? Why is this taken as a given? If anyone today writes something down and claims that God spoke through them, they are immediately vilified and ridiculed...or worse...as lunatics, blasphemers, frauds. What was so different about John and others 1500-2000 years ago that what they wrote down is to be believed without question?

Boone's Melon Ball is exquisite. A bit fruity, mellow tannins, strong finish.

I have a jug of Carlo Rossi at home. It really cleanses the palate in preparation for Western Family Mac+Cheese topped with Tabasco sauce.

I haven't heard of those first 3 avatars, but Seahawks sucks balls.

I have to ask: are there two of you? Who is this entity that is trusting? Is there a separation between the truster and the trusted? Duality would be a distraction and a waste of energy, no?

Trust and faith are CONTRIVED. So your relationship with your wife should be based on the hope of some attaining/maintaining some imaginary ideal that your ego has constructed of what ought to be, what it wants? Or should it be based on immediacy and moment to moment? On keeping each other level? If you 'trust', it means you don't really trust, but you hope. Controlling behavior. With climbing- if you focus on what's right in front of you at the moment, the top of the climb doesn't exist. You have no expectation of sending. That's the mindset that gets you to the anchors. Not 'trust' or 'faith'

STFU Seafag!

Perfectly well- in so many words I stated that human nature is the desire and control of everything. That is what the human ego wants, craves. Over centuries, most cultures have begun to develop more tolerant attitudes that curb this desire into more passive/aggressive manners of pursuing that gratification, of hiding it's true aims. The difference is that Islamic culture is centuries behind and is still steeped in openly aggressive, angry, violent action to simply take what you want. It's very childish indeed but the danger of it in adult minds has been demonstrated. And the fact that, as you pointed out, terrorist attacks are not limited to being against Americans and American interests, indicates that this isn't just the US vs. Islam. The ego of the Islamist wants everything, right now, therefore everyone is expendable. The thing is, it's no different with any other humans except that societal influences in most other cultures have directed this impulse into less violent means. On relative terms, maybe so. If you were a teenager in Iraq, what's the likelihood you would see Americans as invaders and occupiers? If you were an American colonist, what's the likelihood you would see the British as oppressors? If you were an English nobleman in the 1700's what's the likelihood you'd see the American colonists as rebellious, traitorous scum? It's called relativity. Your status as an American today makes it seem unthinkable that the American colonists were in the wrong. I'm not suggesting they are or aren't, just that one's perceptions are relative. So what about Islam? I personally think the tenets of fundamentalist Islamic doctrine, and much of the culture that is results from it, is reprehensible and completely unacceptable and ill suited to the formation of a peaceful society. But even the most moderate person brought up in Islamic society would have a view of it that is comparatively relative. You keep bringing up "moral equivalence". Well, most Christians as well as Islamists would condemn one for having out of wedlock sex. I don't think there is anything wrong with it at all, in fact I think religious repression of sexuality is one of the strangest and most neurotic parts of organized religion. Everyone, myself included, is convinced their morality on this issue is, well, the most "moral". So which one is righteous? You cannot answer this without consulting your own prejudices. Unless you've picked sides according to your prejudices, how much difference is there exactly? My hypothetical observers would surely see thousands of German citizens who were powerless (individually if not collectively) to stop Hitler's policies being incinerated by American bombs. America was in the right- but only within the paradigm of humanity's inability to advance beyond their ill manners of relationship and lack of understanding of their own egos and minds- manipulation, possession, acquisition, oppression- that breed such conflicts in the first place. We clearly aren't advanced enough to have done anything differently, but this resistance to even discussing these flaws- aided interminably by our mindless identification with nationalism, patriotism, and- surprise!- our religions, and helped further along by manipulative people in power who seek even greater power, certainly helps perpetuate our stumbling from one conflict to another. Obviously not. But would it be any different if they manifested those grievances by becoming politically active in their country and working to incite a nationalist war against the US someday, using patriotism to whip their citizens into an anti-US frenzy? Are bombs with a country's name on them being dropped on the US 'morally equivalent' to an Islamic woman with a name and address detonating herself on the Space Mountain roller coaster? Is it this "personal touch" that disturbs people so much?

Convert to Buddhism or I'll kill all you fuckers.

I disagree with this simply because I don't see this happening. I see a lot of people blaming themselves for inciting what is being brought down on our heads. You don't see it? What's happening is both one and the other- either one blames Islam entirely for the conflict, or blames America and wallows in self loathing. Both are short sighted and not seeing the bigger picture. Do you suppose if some intelligent alien without bias or knowledge of human history came to Earth and observed the goings on, they would intuitively see a peace loving USA being mercilessly attacked by a group of savage, foreign invaders who adhere to a intolerant, violently oppressive and psychotic religious doctrine? Or might they see the world's richest and most powerful country, one which enjoys the sole privelege of maintaining standing armies and bases in foreign countries all over the world, one which uses it's economic might to dictate if not coerce many countries into operating in particular ways favorable to it, one which- forcibly or not- also exerts overt cultural influence upon most other cultures, being attacked by a group of savage, foreign invaders who adhere to a intolerant, violently oppressive and psychotic religious doctrine? Viewed that way, one might conclude that the nature of humans is violent conflict and a perpetual need to control everything and everyone around them. The fact that one culture happens to have particular aspects that are more modern and enlightened and tolerant and compassionate is all relative, since that same culture also happens to currently have all the power and control. This country was founded by people who rebelled against an occupying government and a culture from which they wanted separation- in other words, it came about through an insurgency that required what today's pundits if placed in 1700's England would deem "terrorism". Focusing on fragmented details ignores the examination of humanity as a whole. Since most have no patience for an objective examination of humanity, the most common reaction then is to say "that's human nature, can't change it". At which point one gives up and resigns that nothing can be changed, therefore, one chooses sides in the conflict according to one's prejudice and soldiers on, ensuring a continuation of the status quo. Which leads us back to my original point- it's all their fault!

And, of course, when one chooses sides according to one's prejudice, 100% of the blame can always be apportioned to one side.

Nice troll. You have to be kidding. IMO the gov cannot do something illegal then turn around and wave there magic wand and proclaim amnesty. can a street cop drive 100 mph on i-5 to chase down a bank robber? Yeah. Look what I did last week. I didn't even get reprimanded: