Ask, Seek, Knock

[Angrboda]

I got nuthin'. I can't hope to compensate for this level of stupid with my meager intellect. I haz encountered a force of nature, and lost.


For what it's worth, Drich, misogyny and subjugation of women did not end any time prior to Hypatia's death. So, no, if anything, I've yet to see that day come.


Crossing the Rubicon is a standard analogy which refers to Julius Caesar's taking his armies into Rome with him, in spite of the Roman law forbidding such acts. He took the bull by the balls and cast it into the sky.

I have a collection of steel orbs. Would you like to see them?



I think I've mined this vein for as much comedic value as I can. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Even if that barrel is an untapped keg of whiskey.

[System of Solace]

Why are their other gods? Because like you not all men want to worship The God. They want to have a say in what is right and how they worship. With The God of the bible it is not possiable. So they create their own gods.

Like I've said before, this is because your god is a terrible designer.

[Drich]

[Darkstar]

Basically what I'm trying to say is that violence is rarely an ends in itself. It's true that some people commit violent acts for the sake of violence, but if humans commited vilence against one another for the sake of violence, we would have gone extinct long ago. Cooperation is in our genes.

[Drich]

For what it's worth, Drich, misogyny and subjugation of women did not end any time prior to Hypatia's death. So, no, if anything, I've yet to see that day come.

Wow and people refer to me as a self martyr. So to recap. A member of this forum said to me if he lived in that time period he would have called a stop to the crucification of Christ.

To Which I question him, by pointing to the fact that because is 'morality' is tied to the soceity he lives in today, then if he lived in that soceity 2000 years ago, that his 'morality' would also be tied to the culture of the time. Meaning he would have feared the sanhedron and would not have dared to speak out against it, He would have also not spoken out against rome. Lest you forget that this was the only 'crime' of Christ, and his punishment was to be scouraged and broken on the cross. So if he had tried anything then there would have been 4 crosses of that hill rather than 3.

Then you chime in telling me that I should die because I nor christianity should not suppose to speak for you or girl power, because of the herion martyer that was killed 300 Years after the events that are being discussed. To which I simply pointed out that you like EVERY OTHER MAN WOMAN AND CHILD would have been beaten and broken into the roles they were born to play. This is not about women's subgation. This is about the subgation of an entire nation of people. For Rome had captured and was physically occupying that whole region. Meaning there was a standing garrison of roman soldier making sure that all people (yes this includes women) fell under the authority of Roman rule. That means it would be very easy for me to predict how you would behave if you lived in that place at that time. For if you didn't, even if you were a man and exhibted the powers of God, you still would have been beaten and crucified. (so long as you would have allowed it.)

But appearently your pride would have you over look all of this just so you could fall on your sword for a reference to a woman who was not even born with in a century of the events being discussed. Does that sum things up well enough? That basically you pull the women's right card to soon, and the card you pulled did not apply so you tried to change the WHOLE conversation to fit your planned end game anyway?

I got nuthin'. I can't hope to compensate for this level of stupid with my meager intellect. I haz encountered a force of nature, and lost.

Crossing the Rubicon is a standard analogy which refers to Julius Caesar's taking his armies into Rome with him, in spite of the Roman law forbidding such acts. He took the bull by the balls and cast it into the sky.

actually it is an idiom that references the event you mention but refers to making a desision that one can not change later.
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/cross+the+Rubicon

(I've got google too )

I have a collection of steel orbs. Would you like to see them?

sweet so long as we are sharing, I collect WWI and WWII guns knives and swords.

I think I've mined this vein for as much comedic value as I can. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Even if that barrel is an untapped keg of whiskey.

Is that a asian thing that i don't know of? Fish flavored Wiskey?

---

Basically what I'm trying to say is that violence is rarely an ends in itself. It's true that some people commit violent acts for the sake of violence, but if humans commited vilence against one another for the sake of violence, we would have gone extinct long ago. Cooperation is in our genes.

Or our desire to procreate is greater than our need to kill each other.

[Angrboda]

I googled my memory.

Drich: 0
Apophenia: 1

[Darkstar]

Basically what I'm trying to say is that violence is rarely an ends in itself. It's true that some people commit violent acts for the sake of violence, but if humans commited vilence against one another for the sake of violence, we would have gone extinct long ago. Cooperation is in our genes.

Or our desire to procreate is greater than our need to kill each other.

Don't you mean "our need to procreate is greater than our desire to kill each other"? How would killing each other provide an evolutionary advantage? In fact, the very existence of society is the only cause for war; without it everyone would have to kill everyone else, and the species would die. If they fight together against another group for some cause, then the surviving group will continue on, but they wouldn't fight a war for the sake of having a war. No sane nation would, even if they knew the people would not oppose it.

[jonb]

but they wouldn't fight a war for the sake of having a war. No sane nation would, even if they knew the people would not oppose it.

?
There are often excuses for wars. Seldom is the reason given because we wanted to flex our muscles however that might be the case.

[Tino]

What is the "should" level?

Everything that I am.

Why are you uncomfortable or unwilling to discussing the financial expectations of your church?

[Darkstar]

but they wouldn't fight a war for the sake of having a war. No sane nation would, even if they knew the people would not oppose it.

?
There are often excuses for wars. Seldom is the reason given because we wanted to flex our muscles however that might be the case.

Maybe even for the simple sake of acquiring land, whether justified or not. But...maybe I have too much faith in humanity (not that I had that much faith in them before). All I mean to say is that the levels of violence worldwide have decreased consistenly as time went on. It only seems like it is more violent nowadays because the media sensationalizes everthing. I'm not saying there sin't violence in the world (especially the middle east).