NationStates

Riftend wrote:

Jachaelter wrote:Trust me, I know how the Veterans work around here. And I'm probably more expierienced then people who have been on this game for man more years or days than me.

I think I just inhaled cancer spores~

Scomagia wrote:

Verdo-Releignia wrote:Toughen up and kick his ass.
-Dad

Your son is in a coma and we don't expect to see any improvement.
-Doctor

Grand Britannia wrote:Soviet Union was the most Christian nation in the entire Eurasian continent.

Scomagia wrote:

Margno wrote:It's not just these forums, and it's not even really atheists specifically. These sorts of boards are just kind of the worst possible cross section of humanity and it's not a good idea to talk about anything important on them, because you will inevitably get flamed out of your mind.

You know, I'd always thought genocidal warlords and totalitarian tyrants to be the worst possible cross section of humanity. Good to know that humanity's worst element can be found here among a majority middle-class, college educated forum.

Wisconsin9 wrote:

Shie wrote:I understand why communism can't work, the common argument against it is that it's not realistic.

How is free market capitalism not realistic?

Oh, it's plenty realistic. I didn't say it wasn't. I said that a utopic free-market system where bosses give employees decent treatment is unrealistic. The picture you're painting is unrealistic. It's so unrealistic it makes Picasso look like a wedding photographer.

Luziyca wrote:

Wisconsin9 wrote:Oh, it's plenty realistic. I didn't say it wasn't. I said that a utopic free-market system where bosses give employees decent treatment is unrealistic. The picture you're painting is unrealistic. It's so unrealistic it makes Picasso look like a wedding photographer.

The Greater Hyperborean Realm wrote:

The Scientific States wrote:
Your point being...

I think his point was that incest is relative.

Frisbeeteria wrote:

Lescura wrote:Vote that the WA have spectacular yearly burnings of all illegal proposals!

You're new here. The bonfires are daily. We use the Eternal Flame Memorial in the courtyard. Come around sunset. Bring marshmallows.

Farnhamia wrote:

Death Metal wrote:
And No True Scotsman sugars his porridge.

Only because ... have you seen the price of sugar in Scotland?

Norstal wrote:

Dracoria wrote:
Bending over backwards for a powerful industry is hardly just something Republicans do. Dems love their pet industries too, and in Detroit the auto industry was their pet as much as the Republicans'. Maybe more due to the powerful unions involved.

Oh my fucking god. No. Jesus fucking christ. There are conservative Democrats. There are liberal Republicans. Not all Republicans and not all Democrats are the same.

Jesus fucking dog eating shit fuck, how is this so hard to understand.

NERVUN wrote:I'll paraphrase the great LG on this, you can fucking swear on this goddamn forum.

Ifreann wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
Sometimes war is good though.

That's what we have America for.

Astrolinium wrote:

Nightkill the Emperor wrote:Hmm.

I think that this is a climax, and a big one. But it's not the climax.

Mutliple climaxes?

I always knew there was something that unsettled me about Elfen High -- I never would've guessed it was because this roleplay has a vagina.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Gaiserin wrote:Ah, elementary school. All those wasted hours "learning" about geography.

Because apparently, being able to recognize different stone types is somehow important.

Dude, that's geology.

Distruzio wrote:

Distruzio wrote:
No. It most certainly is, the fuck, not.

This statement suggests that Christian doctrine applies to non-Christians. It doesn't. It applies to Christians. Christians are the sinners, NIPA. We are. Not some faceless "they". And we aren't called to love but hate. We're called to serve and forgive. As in serve our brothers and sisters and forgive ourselves as well as them for any transgression.

I just... gah.

Please forgive my frustration a moment ago. I'll try again.

Okay... I'll give this a go:

<<deep breath>>

When we use Christian doctrines to apply our responsibilities to others, we paint a veneer of abstractness upon everyone else. They cease to be individuals. They become sinners. A faceless amorphous abstract concept that needs cleansing. We see the individuals, sure, but in stating that we "love the sinner but hate the sin" we, in essence, define that individual according to their failure to live up to our responsibilities as Christians. They are no longer an individual made in the image of God. They are a thing. An irresponsible thing.

The reality is that no matter what thin porous justifications a homophobe uses to substantiate his hatred, when it comes to religious justification, his arguments are never cast with Jesus in mind. His arguments are never cast with the Church in mind. His arguments are never cast with the tradition of the faith itself in mind. What the homophobe is doing is transcribing certain verses from a holy text in order to justify his suspicion that Jesus, the Church, and the faith have failed. Jesus destroyed the gates of hell so that no person might be condemned for all eternity again (should they choose that condemnation is another matter) and He arose again to permanently break the power that death holds on a person's soul (that power being the permanent separation of individual from God). Jesus charged the Church with a duty of seeking out the meek and those in need (the sick) and providing for them. In acting upon that charge, the Church has established herself as a hospital for the sick and weary (with many hiccups along the way) and sought to deliver unto the people the message of Christ - that we are each and everyone of us uniquely cherished and desired by the one true God and that His Grace will absolve us of any failings we might have so long as we trust and believe.

The Homophobe, in saying that he "loves the sinner but hates the sin" is saying that Jesus couldn't deliver the goods, that the Church is useless, and that there is no hope in Faith.

If it is sin that defines the individual, rather than the image of God, then there is no hope for redemption or salvation for either the individual so accused or the Christian pointing the finger. If it is sin that defines the individual, rather than the image of God, then death awaits both the sinner and the Christian. Jesus failed. The Church cannot help the sick. The Faith cannot point to God.

Of course, the homophobe will offer trite and unconvincing babble about how he knows he, too, is a sinner but... he only ever uses that thrice damned phrase, "love the sinner but hate the sin," to describe others - not himself. How condescending is that fucking statement? How irreverent and repulsive and utterly without humanity is that fucking statement?

<<breathe>>

Let us turn to Jesus to consider this... statement. Did Jesus suffer himself upon the prostitutes and the rest of the sinful of His city? Did he condescend to "hang out" with sinners? No. He didn't. Who did he associate with? People. Individuals. Those lovely in His sight. He associated with his friends and His most cherished companions. He didn't label a single one of them. Who did that? The religious authorities of the day. Those who felt threatened by His message, His charge, and His Church. It was they who labelled the "sinners" sinners.

That phrase... that fucking phrase is spoken with the sneer of a lickspittle who little understands his attested faith and would deign to chastise God Himself for daring to love the unlovable. That phrase.... that fucking phrase is spoken with the same tone I hear in my head when I read of Mary, the prostitute, who was thrown at Jesus feet. The religious authorities of the day asked him what was to be done with her - this thing on the dirt. What did Jesus see? What did He say? Did He take the ugly duckling under His arm and help her along her way? Did He acknowledge their challenge in the face of this... project prone before Him?

What did He do? He knelt in the dirt Himself. He dirtied Himself. He looked in her eyes. He refused to condemn her. He merely said, "go and sin no more."

He didn't condescend. He didn't dismiss her as a "sinner." He saw the woman. He cherished the woman. He didn't identify her as a sinner. He identified her as a human being. Something beautiful and wonderful and lovely. Covered in dirt. Stained by sin. But defined by the image of God in her. She was lovely.

Jesus died and rose again to redeem everyone. Not just the sinless. Even the homophobe who thinks so poorly of Him.

We are each created in the image of God before we sin. Therefore we are never defined by that sin.

There is no way in hell that it is possible to "love the sinner but hate the sin." To say that is to alienate yourself from Christ. To say that is to deny the humanity of gender and sexuality minorities everywhere. When the homophobe denies what makes them human he sins against himself. He paints himself, his ideology, his personhood as naught but a vapor.

Homosexuality is no sin. Hating sin, however, is.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Distruzio wrote:
Please forgive my frustration a moment ago. I'll try again.

Okay... I'll give this a go:

<<deep breath>>

When we use Christian doctrines to apply our responsibilities to others, we paint a veneer of abstractness upon everyone else. They cease to be individuals. They become sinners. A faceless amorphous abstract concept that needs cleansing. We see the individuals, sure, but in stating that we "love the sinner but hate the sin" we, in essence, define that individual according to their failure to live up to our responsibilities as Christians. They are no longer an individual made in the image of God. They are a thing. An irresponsible thing.

The reality is that no matter what thin porous justifications a homophobe uses to substantiate his hatred, when it comes to religious justification, his arguments are never cast with Jesus in mind. His arguments are never cast with the Church in mind. His arguments are never cast with the tradition of the faith itself in mind. What the homophobe is doing is transcribing certain verses from a holy text in order to justify his suspicion that Jesus, the Church, and the faith have failed. Jesus destroyed the gates of hell so that no person might be condemned for all eternity again (should they choose that condemnation is another matter) and He arose again to permanently break the power that death holds on a person's soul (that power being the permanent separation of individual from God). Jesus charged the Church with a duty of seeking out the meek and those in need (the sick) and providing for them. In acting upon that charge, the Church has established herself as a hospital for the sick and weary (with many hiccups along the way) and sought to deliver unto the people the message of Christ - that we are each and everyone of us uniquely cherished and desired by the one true God and that His Grace will absolve us of any failings we might have so long as we trust and believe.

The Homophobe, in saying that he "loves the sinner but hates the sin" is saying that Jesus couldn't deliver the goods, that the Church is useless, and that there is no hope in Faith.

If it is sin that defines the individual, rather than the image of God, then there is no hope for redemption or salvation for either the individual so accused or the Christian pointing the finger. If it is sin that defines the individual, rather than the image of God, then death awaits both the sinner and the Christian. Jesus failed. The Church cannot help the sick. The Faith cannot point to God.

Of course, the homophobe will offer trite and unconvincing babble about how he knows he, too, is a sinner but... he only ever uses that thrice damned phrase, "love the sinner but hate the sin," to describe others - not himself. How condescending is that fucking statement? How irreverent and repulsive and utterly without humanity is that fucking statement?

<<breathe>>

Let us turn to Jesus to consider this... statement. Did Jesus suffer himself upon the prostitutes and the rest of the sinful of His city? Did he condescend to "hang out" with sinners? No. He didn't. Who did he associate with? People. Individuals. Those lovely in His sight. He associated with his friends and His most cherished companions. He didn't label a single one of them. Who did that? The religious authorities of the day. Those who felt threatened by His message, His charge, and His Church. It was they who labelled the "sinners" sinners.

That phrase... that fucking phrase is spoken with the sneer of a lickspittle who little understands his attested faith and would deign to chastise God Himself for daring to love the unlovable. That phrase.... that fucking phrase is spoken with the same tone I hear in my head when I read of Mary, the prostitute, who was thrown at Jesus feet. The religious authorities of the day asked him what was to be done with her - this thing on the dirt. What did Jesus see? What did He say? Did He take the ugly duckling under His arm and help her along her way? Did He acknowledge their challenge in the face of this... project prone before Him?

What did He do? He knelt in the dirt Himself. He dirtied Himself. He looked in her eyes. He refused to condemn her. He merely said, "go and sin no more."

He didn't condescend. He didn't dismiss her as a "sinner." He saw the woman. He cherished the woman. He didn't identify her as a sinner. He identified her as a human being. Something beautiful and wonderful and lovely. Covered in dirt. Stained by sin. But defined by the image of God in her. She was lovely.

Jesus died and rose again to redeem everyone. Not just the sinless. Even the homophobe who thinks so poorly of Him.

We are each created in the image of God before we sin. Therefore we are never defined by that sin.

There is no way in hell that it is possible to "love the sinner but hate the sin." To say that is to alienate yourself from Christ. To say that is to deny the humanity of gender and sexuality minorities everywhere. When the homophobe denies what makes them human he sins against himself. He paints himself, his ideology, his personhood as naught but a vapor.

Homosexuality is no sin. Hating sin, however, is.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Distruzio wrote:
Please forgive my frustration a moment ago. I'll try again.

Okay... I'll give this a go:

<<deep breath>>

When we use Christian doctrines to apply our responsibilities to others, we paint a veneer of abstractness upon everyone else. They cease to be individuals. They become sinners. A faceless amorphous abstract concept that needs cleansing. We see the individuals, sure, but in stating that we "love the sinner but hate the sin" we, in essence, define that individual according to their failure to live up to our responsibilities as Christians. They are no longer an individual made in the image of God. They are a thing. An irresponsible thing.

The reality is that no matter what thin porous justifications a homophobe uses to substantiate his hatred, when it comes to religious justification, his arguments are never cast with Jesus in mind. His arguments are never cast with the Church in mind. His arguments are never cast with the tradition of the faith itself in mind. What the homophobe is doing is transcribing certain verses from a holy text in order to justify his suspicion that Jesus, the Church, and the faith have failed. Jesus destroyed the gates of hell so that no person might be condemned for all eternity again (should they choose that condemnation is another matter) and He arose again to permanently break the power that death holds on a person's soul (that power being the permanent separation of individual from God). Jesus charged the Church with a duty of seeking out the meek and those in need (the sick) and providing for them. In acting upon that charge, the Church has established herself as a hospital for the sick and weary (with many hiccups along the way) and sought to deliver unto the people the message of Christ - that we are each and everyone of us uniquely cherished and desired by the one true God and that His Grace will absolve us of any failings we might have so long as we trust and believe.

The Homophobe, in saying that he "loves the sinner but hates the sin" is saying that Jesus couldn't deliver the goods, that the Church is useless, and that there is no hope in Faith.

If it is sin that defines the individual, rather than the image of God, then there is no hope for redemption or salvation for either the individual so accused or the Christian pointing the finger. If it is sin that defines the individual, rather than the image of God, then death awaits both the sinner and the Christian. Jesus failed. The Church cannot help the sick. The Faith cannot point to God.

Of course, the homophobe will offer trite and unconvincing babble about how he knows he, too, is a sinner but... he only ever uses that thrice damned phrase, "love the sinner but hate the sin," to describe others - not himself. How condescending is that fucking statement? How irreverent and repulsive and utterly without humanity is that fucking statement?

<<breathe>>

Let us turn to Jesus to consider this... statement. Did Jesus suffer himself upon the prostitutes and the rest of the sinful of His city? Did he condescend to "hang out" with sinners? No. He didn't. Who did he associate with? People. Individuals. Those lovely in His sight. He associated with his friends and His most cherished companions. He didn't label a single one of them. Who did that? The religious authorities of the day. Those who felt threatened by His message, His charge, and His Church. It was they who labelled the "sinners" sinners.

That phrase... that fucking phrase is spoken with the sneer of a lickspittle who little understands his attested faith and would deign to chastise God Himself for daring to love the unlovable. That phrase.... that fucking phrase is spoken with the same tone I hear in my head when I read of Mary, the prostitute, who was thrown at Jesus feet. The religious authorities of the day asked him what was to be done with her - this thing on the dirt. What did Jesus see? What did He say? Did He take the ugly duckling under His arm and help her along her way? Did He acknowledge their challenge in the face of this... project prone before Him?

What did He do? He knelt in the dirt Himself. He dirtied Himself. He looked in her eyes. He refused to condemn her. He merely said, "go and sin no more."

He didn't condescend. He didn't dismiss her as a "sinner." He saw the woman. He cherished the woman. He didn't identify her as a sinner. He identified her as a human being. Something beautiful and wonderful and lovely. Covered in dirt. Stained by sin. But defined by the image of God in her. She was lovely.

Jesus died and rose again to redeem everyone. Not just the sinless. Even the homophobe who thinks so poorly of Him.

We are each created in the image of God before we sin. Therefore we are never defined by that sin.

There is no way in hell that it is possible to "love the sinner but hate the sin." To say that is to alienate yourself from Christ. To say that is to deny the humanity of gender and sexuality minorities everywhere. When the homophobe denies what makes them human he sins against himself. He paints himself, his ideology, his personhood as naught but a vapor.

Homosexuality is no sin. Hating sin, however, is.

And while attending one of those anti-sex league meetings, you catch the eye of an attractive girl, in the heat of the moment, you two (or three, depending who else is interested) get nasty, releasing years of built up sexual frustration, as you both experience physical liberty. To you, to her, it was a 10 (in reality, you both were pretty awful).

A couple days later, Bob, the third individual who was sort of left out, rats you out to the field director of Organizing for America, who just got done watching Casino Royale. You're knocked out, awaken to find yourself tied to a seatless chair naked, as as your interrogator swings a rope, screaming "what great, eternal president makes you think sex is pointless unless he wills it?" To which you reply "Obama" as the knot comes swinging under, striking your groin. "Who gave America universal healthcare?" "Obama," you scream, but to no avail. The rope comes swinging again, the pain unbearable.

This goes on until you finally agree to donate $15

Mike the Progressive

Registug wrote:

Rich and Corporations wrote:
has a line of color from turret to hull and interrupted by the roadwheel

sure thing boss

"Hans, what if I... what if I painted the roadwheels a different colour?"
"You tread in dangerous waters, Kameraden."

Anemos Major wrote:

Registug wrote:
"Hans, what if I... what if I painted the roadwheels a different colour?"
"You tread in dangerous waters, Kameraden."

And then they lost the war.

The Holy Therns wrote:

Benshir wrote:The spice must flow. That is the law.

We are Ordos. We are one.

The Grey Wolf wrote:

Alegeharia wrote:Don't worry I deot with galen. I hooe your monkd aren't afraid of werewolves

I'm sure they're much more afraid of your atrocious spelling.

Nightkill the Emperor wrote:

Zarkenis Ultima wrote:
You make me wonder what the difference between active and passive hatred is.

With active hatred, I wield an axe.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Distruzio wrote:
Please forgive my frustration a moment ago. I'll try again.

Okay... I'll give this a go:

<<deep breath>>

When we use Christian doctrines to apply our responsibilities to others, we paint a veneer of abstractness upon everyone else. They cease to be individuals. They become sinners. A faceless amorphous abstract concept that needs cleansing. We see the individuals, sure, but in stating that we "love the sinner but hate the sin" we, in essence, define that individual according to their failure to live up to our responsibilities as Christians. They are no longer an individual made in the image of God. They are a thing. An irresponsible thing.

The reality is that no matter what thin porous justifications a homophobe uses to substantiate his hatred, when it comes to religious justification, his arguments are never cast with Jesus in mind. His arguments are never cast with the Church in mind. His arguments are never cast with the tradition of the faith itself in mind. What the homophobe is doing is transcribing certain verses from a holy text in order to justify his suspicion that Jesus, the Church, and the faith have failed. Jesus destroyed the gates of hell so that no person might be condemned for all eternity again (should they choose that condemnation is another matter) and He arose again to permanently break the power that death holds on a person's soul (that power being the permanent separation of individual from God). Jesus charged the Church with a duty of seeking out the meek and those in need (the sick) and providing for them. In acting upon that charge, the Church has established herself as a hospital for the sick and weary (with many hiccups along the way) and sought to deliver unto the people the message of Christ - that we are each and everyone of us uniquely cherished and desired by the one true God and that His Grace will absolve us of any failings we might have so long as we trust and believe.

The Homophobe, in saying that he "loves the sinner but hates the sin" is saying that Jesus couldn't deliver the goods, that the Church is useless, and that there is no hope in Faith.

If it is sin that defines the individual, rather than the image of God, then there is no hope for redemption or salvation for either the individual so accused or the Christian pointing the finger. If it is sin that defines the individual, rather than the image of God, then death awaits both the sinner and the Christian. Jesus failed. The Church cannot help the sick. The Faith cannot point to God.

Of course, the homophobe will offer trite and unconvincing babble about how he knows he, too, is a sinner but... he only ever uses that thrice damned phrase, "love the sinner but hate the sin," to describe others - not himself. How condescending is that fucking statement? How irreverent and repulsive and utterly without humanity is that fucking statement?

<<breathe>>

Let us turn to Jesus to consider this... statement. Did Jesus suffer himself upon the prostitutes and the rest of the sinful of His city? Did he condescend to "hang out" with sinners? No. He didn't. Who did he associate with? People. Individuals. Those lovely in His sight. He associated with his friends and His most cherished companions. He didn't label a single one of them. Who did that? The religious authorities of the day. Those who felt threatened by His message, His charge, and His Church. It was they who labelled the "sinners" sinners.

That phrase... that fucking phrase is spoken with the sneer of a lickspittle who little understands his attested faith and would deign to chastise God Himself for daring to love the unlovable. That phrase.... that fucking phrase is spoken with the same tone I hear in my head when I read of Mary, the prostitute, who was thrown at Jesus feet. The religious authorities of the day asked him what was to be done with her - this thing on the dirt. What did Jesus see? What did He say? Did He take the ugly duckling under His arm and help her along her way? Did He acknowledge their challenge in the face of this... project prone before Him?

What did He do? He knelt in the dirt Himself. He dirtied Himself. He looked in her eyes. He refused to condemn her. He merely said, "go and sin no more."

He didn't condescend. He didn't dismiss her as a "sinner." He saw the woman. He cherished the woman. He didn't identify her as a sinner. He identified her as a human being. Something beautiful and wonderful and lovely. Covered in dirt. Stained by sin. But defined by the image of God in her. She was lovely.

Jesus died and rose again to redeem everyone. Not just the sinless. Even the homophobe who thinks so poorly of Him.

We are each created in the image of God before we sin. Therefore we are never defined by that sin.

There is no way in hell that it is possible to "love the sinner but hate the sin." To say that is to alienate yourself from Christ. To say that is to deny the humanity of gender and sexuality minorities everywhere. When the homophobe denies what makes them human he sins against himself. He paints himself, his ideology, his personhood as naught but a vapor.

Homosexuality is no sin. Hating sin, however, is.

Nazis in Space wrote:Out of curiosity...

On a scale of eight inches to vagina, how dickless and mind-numbingly boring is an attempt to liberate, and consequently invade a region with - at the time the draft was submitted to these hallowed halls - five largely inactive members?

Is this what The Black Hawks pride themselves of? Singledigit inactive regions to add to their legacy of, err, 'Success'?

I remember Franco's Spain. I remember Milograd. I remember when France crashed and swarmed their RMB in an avalanche of genuinely witty (And French) banter. The people behind these actions... They were raiders. They've every right of being proud of themselves - they took over regions with hundreds, with thousands of members, and their legacy of glory stands to this day.

This?

What are The Black Hawks - and associated organisations linked via the common factor 'Mallorea and Riva' - hoping to achieve with this? Enter the NS equivalent of nicking a cookie from the cookie jar? Showing off their mighty skills in stealing the lunch from first-graders?

You could be great. Instead, you choose to be, well... Boring.

It's... Disappointing, really.

~ Mecha-Hitler, Führer of the Nazi Moon Base, Protector of the Space Aryans & Honourary Member of the Nazi Robot Symposium

Genivaria wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Speaking as an atheist, that was awesome. Here here good sir.