John Adams

The issue here is if the Church lies to us or not. I do care. If the Church is lying, and offering absolution from Gods law (without the allowance by God to do so) then it is a sin. I do not think the Church lies at all, and so there is no sin. If there is no lie, then it does not matter where it is told. If there is a lie, and it is a sin, then is it right for governments to intervene on behalf of God? Can they intervene on behalf of God? But was Jesus a sacrifice or a ransom in the first place? If God killed his son, and did not allow him back into heaven, then it would be a sacrifice. I believe that according to Christianity Jesus was more an example then a sacrifice or a ransom. I do not believe His Judgements are being sold at all, as they have yet to be passed. The law of God is not being subverted in Heaven by the offering of Indulgences. ~John

To ignore a crime, there first must be one committed. Indulgences are not a crime, and so cannot but be ignored as such. There is no crime committed, nor a lie told. An indulgence simply "buys" the confessor relief from the internal effects of the sin while on Earth. Atonement is necessary to begin to even make amends for the sin committed. It is not an attempt to subvert God's Holy Justice in the after life. As God's justice is absolute, it cannot be bribed, or corrupted. All true Catholics understand this. If all law stems from God, there is no such thing as a secular law. Do you believe law is the making of man, or of God? Is something which grants peace of mind to the user immoral? You cannot buy your way out of a crime. You can buy yourself piece of mind, and so away from the internal ramifications while you live on this Earth. However, this does not take away from the sin. A sin is divided into two parts; the part you must live with on Earth (temporary, however degrading it is from the moral existence -- weighing upon the Guilty as it does). And the most severe part, that which God will judge when you get to heaven. No matter how much money you spend on Earth to try and clear your good name, God does not forget the guilt. He cannot, as if He did He would be less then perfect. Indulgences do not buy you freedom from the last part. Only the first. If it is possible to be absolved from the second, then that is only possible through true repentance and seeking absolution by doing good deeds equal or greater to the bad ones you caused when you sinned. The Catholic Church never attempted to buy off God through Indulgences. To do so would be unholy. I disagree; this is the perfect place for blind advocacy of beliefs. If not in a place where the sanctity, rationality, and validity of such beliefs are to be debated, then where else should such debates take place? As for preaching, we all preach our doctrines. You cannot expect a person who is a true believer to abandon their ideals for the purpose of "debate". Instead, they must speak from their heart, and pour forth all their beliefs as honestly as they believe them. If this does not take place, no debate can possibly take place that is worth having. After consideration I cannot agree with Gnostic Christian Bishops' beliefs, even if I were Christian or Catholic. Still, his heart felt beliefs on religion intrigue me, and I think make for a great debate. ~John

A true Christian does not have to compromise, because there is no compromise to be had. God did not murder his own son. Nor did God commit genocide. If the Bible is correct on the plagues, the flood, and so forth, then what is clear is that God removed the physical bodies and took the spirits. As long as God did not kill the spirit, he did not kill the man. We both do not know that, you assume that there is no God, and that God is not speaking to the Pope. Also, I never said whether or not God was speaking directly to the Pope. What I said was that the Pope was closer then other men to God, and so was capable of interpreting his meaning better then others, as is said by all true members of the Christian faith. How does this say that either Jesus or God is one of humanity? What it says is that Jesus directed men to God, and that God is within humanity -- as he should be, if he created all men in an image of Himself. Why must these be the only two options? Why can men not embrace God standing up, yet realizing they are not God? God and Jesus never say once in the Christian Bible that God is intended to be their equal, God is always their superior, as a father is superior to his children until they come of age. As humanity will never "come of age" or obtain all the powers and wisdom that God offers, Christians will forever be as imperfect children to God. With all your slander towards God, I must ask, do you even believe in Him? And if so, what form does your God take that you can speak this way of Him? ~John

Why is it necessary that God must be one of us? Is it not more accurate to say that we must all be closer to God. After all, according to Christianity God created the race of man in his image. Therefore, God is not one of us, but above us. To flatter ourselves, God is a whole us, while we are merely the imperfect vestiges of a reflection of God. As the race of man was created by God, and so a hierarchy was formed, a Church representative is elected. That man which is one of the few closest in the image of God, and so capable of interpreting the Will of God to a better degree then others, is chosen to lead the faithful on Earth. Incorrect. At the top of the Order of the Church stands God. Below God stand his Angels, capable of understanding the will of God better then humans. Below the Angels (of various ranks and orders) stands the Pope. If there is only one truth to this world, and that is the Word of God is correct, then God cannot be wrong. Therefore if you disagree with God, you are incorrect. Why should the correct tolerate the incorrect? The wisdom of Christianity and Catholicism comes from God. How can you say that the orders of God are shrinking when today there are more members of each faith then ever before? The idea that Christianity has not moved into Modernity is insulting. All faiths are united under the belief in the One True God. Such unity as you stress is only external, not internal. Similar to the Christian who calls themselves such, yet never attends Church or has yet to pick up the Word of God, as recorded by man and put onto this Earth; the Bible. And as for the fear that somehow all Christians and Catholics will be wiped from the Earth, or somehow stop existing; that is just silly. The Order of God is protected by the blessings of God, which include his honest protection -- except when such faith must be proven through trials sent by God. As long as God exists (which should be eternal, according to Christianity) so should Gods protection. As long as Gods protection Christianity -- and the true Christians which follow it -- need not ever fear being removed from this Earth (save for the transition from Earth to Heaven). So no, on the whole I entirely disagree with you. And for the record, I am not an Abrahamic Cult Member, nor a Christian. ~John

Meditate, or throw up a punching bag and have at it. ~John

It doesn't matter so much which countries have and do not have nuclear weaponry. What matters is their willingness to sell them (or enough components to easily make one) to third parties who are not interested in anything other than terrorism on a large scale. This is why I feel bans on nuclear weapons are placed upon certain countries. Not because they are likely to use them, but because they are very likely to sell them to third parties which would be glad to use them. There are few people in this world crazy enough to be willing to kill their entire country by striking first with nuclear weapons. I doubt there will ever be a nuclear war between countries simply because there is too much at stake for there to be. However, when a third party which is not a country enters to problem, there may well be a nuclear war. Or at least, the possibility of a nuclear war goes up. ~John

No, it is not possible. I have many Total War Games except for Alexander's expansion for Rome Total War, Napoleon Total War, and Shogun I Total War. For Rome I started several campaigns. My latest one is as the Senate and People of Rome. By far the hardest campaign I have played (though admittedly I have only played as the other Roman factions), as you start with only one city, three enemies all allied together, and three times the people (as well as six cities) bent on destroying you. I play on the very hard difficulty. In Medieval II Total War, so far I have started a campaign as the British. After having swiftly conquered the Scottish, as well as the rebel towns around the French I resolved to only attack only those that attacked me. In Shogun II Total War I am playing as the Jozai, so far I have only made small inroads into the game :P. If anyone is interested in a game on any of the above, let me know. ~John

Grends' neck snapped. The berzerkers body collapsing underneith the Ork. --------------------- "Wrong move." Was all the man thought to say as he struck out against Careld, intending to force him back enough that he could grab his sword. The guard was no fool however and parried the fist with the flat of his sword. Rotateing the man slammed the back of the shield against Careld's head. The blow dazed the guard, staggering him enough that the man landed two quick punches into the guards' chest. -------------------- Eoleran clawed at the muddy earth in an attempt to get free. With the weight of the water he had to keep his head turned at an angle, so as to prevent drowning. The mage tugged at the spear weakly. Pointing the tip at Eoleran she stood up slowly, before staggering toward him. --------------------

Force should be met with equal force. It is unfair to apply such restrictions to combat. ~John so someone who is legally classed as a weapon should have free reign to use as much force as they see fit in any situation, if you don't see something wrong with that then i don't know what to say Because that is clearly what I said... Everyone has the potential to cause great damage to another person without any impliments (just their hands and feet). Training simply demonstrates this potentional, refines it, and makes it easier for people to access it when they either desire, or are required to do so. Force should fit the situation period. An attacker has assumed the responsibility for any damage they might incure by attacking. In real life combat is not certain. It is the defenders job to secure themselves from harm. When an attack occurs it is the defenders choice how much damage to deal. A choice they must make in a split second. Training will influence how much damage is done by reaction. To answer your question directly, force should ideally meet the force used initally. A punch should be met with a punch. A knife attack with a suitable counterattack (a dislocated or broken arm) and so on and so forth. ~John which pretty much equates to the "eye for an eye" ideology which total makes sense as well. even if someone is coming at you armed and lets say you are trained in a form of martial arts, you really should try to run away anyways as you have no idea what that person is capable of. even if you are the better fighter whats the point in causing harm and most likely putting yourself in harms way. Why should you run as your first option? Who is to say you are faster then the person running at you? At least from the front you have a much better chance of defense then if your back is turned when they catch up to you. Secondly, who is to say you can run from every situation? The person also has no idea of what you are capable of either. As far as I am concerned, if you start a fight, its' your fault for whatever damage you take. If you don't want to get hurt, don't start a fight. It's that simple. I'm not against running, and I'm not for it. It depends entirely on the situation. However, the rule should not be "run!" People should be allowed to make decisions for themselves. Every fight is different. Some you can run from, some you can't. Some people can be reasoned with, others can't. Agreed. That was the point I made. Whatever force is employed against you, you counter with an equal reactive force. Nothing greater if at all possible. ~John

Welcome back. ~John

If only, if only. ~John

An affair violates the spirit of a marriage, which is that both partners remain true to eachother. Polygamous relationships are illegal because many people believe that a marriage can only be between one man and one woman. I agree, Polygamous marriages should be legal. Provided all parties are of legal age and agree to it. ~John

Force should be met with equal force. It is unfair to apply such restrictions to combat. ~John so someone who is legally classed as a weapon should have free reign to use as much force as they see fit in any situation, if you don't see something wrong with that then i don't know what to say Because that is clearly what I said... Everyone has the potential to cause great damage to another person without any impliments (just their hands and feet). Training simply demonstrates this potentional, refines it, and makes it easier for people to access it when they either desire, or are required to do so. Force should fit the situation period. An attacker has assumed the responsibility for any damage they might incure by attacking. In real life combat is not certain. It is the defenders job to secure themselves from harm. When an attack occurs it is the defenders choice how much damage to deal. A choice they must make in a split second. Training will influence how much damage is done by reaction. To answer your question directly, force should ideally meet the force used initally. A punch should be met with a punch. A knife attack with a suitable counterattack (a dislocated or broken arm) and so on and so forth. ~John

People will cling to their beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Sometimes with no evidence to support them. People call this "faith." For me, as long as the evidence cited is not done to support a religion that takes pride in harming people or animals I have no quarrel with it. My personal beliefs are just that; personal. I would ask those that believe in a religion with a god however, why would your god allow suffering if he is said to be just? ~John

Force should be met with equal force. It is unfair to apply such restrictions to combat. ~John