Advertisement
by Nostravania » Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:20 am
by Muravyets » Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:46 am
Nostravania wrote:72 acne-riddled, basement-dwelling, male trekies does not a paradise make.
by Abdju » Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:48 am
Nostravania wrote:72 acne-riddled, basement-dwelling, male trekies does not a paradise make.
by Nordicus » Wed Jan 20, 2010 10:24 am
Callisdrun wrote:Nordicus wrote:I've never liked the BCE/CE dating. In my opinion, if they were looking for something to use as an alternative to the Christian dating system, then they should have, you know, picked something else to use as the basis for the dates rather than slapping a new name on the same system. I know a lot of things in history don't have well-defined dates on which they began or ended, but you can't tell me that in all of known human history, there isn't even a single event that is both significant and reasonably well-defined enough to have been used as an alternative.
Read the fucking thread. I explained my position on this already. It's not the date I object to but the terminology.
H N Fiddlebottoms VIII wrote:Engineers hate biology, because it has very few right angles. Everything is all curves and bumps and the only penis-shaped items are actual penises.
Dregruk wrote:Kma2 wrote:How else could it be that they are so uneducated regarding what is going on in America.
Same as anyone else; I slaughter gibbons and frolic in their blood. Or just, y'know, disagree with you.
Tsaraine wrote:Somewhere in Philadelphia, one school administrator has just smacked another school administrator upside the head. "Damnit, Jenkins! I told you we should just have gone with chastity belts!"
by UberWeegeeia » Wed Jan 20, 2010 10:26 am
by Milks Empire » Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:14 pm
UberWeegeeia wrote:Well, my mom has gone crazy, and is trying to convert me to Jehova's witness, but I'm really just atheist, I guess you could say.
by Abdju » Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:19 pm
UberWeegeeia wrote:Well, my mom has gone crazy, and is trying to convert me to Jehova's witness, but I'm really just atheist, I guess you could say.
by Straughn » Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:34 pm
Nostravania wrote:72 acne-riddled, basement-dwelling, male trekies does not a paradise make.
by Callisdrun » Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:12 pm
by The Imperial Navy » Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:12 pm
by Callisdrun » Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:24 pm
Nordicus wrote:Callisdrun wrote:Nordicus wrote:I've never liked the BCE/CE dating. In my opinion, if they were looking for something to use as an alternative to the Christian dating system, then they should have, you know, picked something else to use as the basis for the dates rather than slapping a new name on the same system. I know a lot of things in history don't have well-defined dates on which they began or ended, but you can't tell me that in all of known human history, there isn't even a single event that is both significant and reasonably well-defined enough to have been used as an alternative.
Read the fucking thread. I explained my position on this already. It's not the date I object to but the terminology.
I did read the thread, and while I accept your position, I nonetheless believe that they should have taken it further.
by UnhealthyTruthseeker » Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:36 pm
Callisdrun wrote:I don't object to using the approximate beginning of the Christian era of European history as the center, as Christianity is historically important. I'm just not going to call their deity a lord, when to me, he's not.
I agree that other dates and events might be better choices. Constantine's reign, the founding of the Roman Empire (which they themselves listed as what we call 753 BCE today), the fall of the Roman Empire or of Byzantium, etc.
by Callisdrun » Wed Jan 20, 2010 5:11 pm
UnhealthyTruthseeker wrote:Callisdrun wrote:I don't object to using the approximate beginning of the Christian era of European history as the center, as Christianity is historically important. I'm just not going to call their deity a lord, when to me, he's not.
I agree that other dates and events might be better choices. Constantine's reign, the founding of the Roman Empire (which they themselves listed as what we call 753 BCE today), the fall of the Roman Empire or of Byzantium, etc.
Because of the lack of definite articles, anno domini can translate to "year of the lord" or "year of a lord", but not really "year of our lord."
by UnhealthyTruthseeker » Wed Jan 20, 2010 5:21 pm
by Straughn » Wed Jan 20, 2010 5:27 pm
Erm ... how about handing out grapes as if they were bunches of sex partners?Bottle wrote:Callisdrun wrote:
I just think the emphasis placed on virginity in the minds of some is a bit silly. All else being equal, I think I'd rather be with a person who's had some experience.
I'd rather not go to a "Heaven" where they hand out sex partners as if they were bunches of grapes.
by Callisdrun » Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:51 pm
Bottle wrote:Callisdrun wrote:
I just think the emphasis placed on virginity in the minds of some is a bit silly. All else being equal, I think I'd rather be with a person who's had some experience.
I'd rather not go to a "Heaven" where they hand out sex partners as if they were bunches of grapes.
by Callisdrun » Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:54 pm
by Gauthier » Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:55 pm
by Muravyets » Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:57 pm
Callisdrun wrote:True. I wouldn't even know these people, and I'd be expected to have sex with them? That just doesn't make any sense to me. And how did they get there? Did they die and also get 72 people to have sex with upon entering the afterlife? If so, why aren't they with their batch of random sex partners? If they didn't get any, that wouldn't really be fair, so they must have gotten some at some point. Is it a limited time sort of thing, where when you get there, you get a bunch of random sex partners, but after a while, you're conscripted into somebody else's batch? That doesn't sound like much fun, really. And I wouldn't want to be with someone just because they'd been appointed my random sex partner. Then that's kinda like a job or sex slavery. It doesn't seem like heaven should be a place where there's sex slavery, to me. I usually think of that as a bad thing.
by JJ Place » Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:23 pm
Small Huts wrote:Alright believers. Let's say I'm willing to grant the supernatural entity's existence, that I've had a personal revelation that leads me to say, "I have felt the presence". Which religion should I follow?
by Blitzkrenia » Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:49 pm
Straughn wrote:Erm ... how about handing out grapes as if they were bunches of sex partners?Bottle wrote:Callisdrun wrote:
I just think the emphasis placed on virginity in the minds of some is a bit silly. All else being equal, I think I'd rather be with a person who's had some experience.
I'd rather not go to a "Heaven" where they hand out sex partners as if they were bunches of grapes.
by Milks Empire » Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:46 am
Straughn wrote:Nostravania wrote:72 acne-riddled, basement-dwelling, male trekies does not a paradise make.
Depends on your perspective, really.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/ne ... 8780.story
Big Jim P wrote:I worship the trinity: Me, myself and I.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bagong Timog Mindanao, Cerespasia, Cyptopir, Dumb Ideologies, Floofybit, General TN, Ifreann, Likhinia, Repreteop, Shidei, Singaporen Empire, Tiami, Varsemia
Advertisement