ishmael

yes. its correct. price gourging. http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=68579 its 3.30 here now, most stations are sold out and its pretty common knowledge that prices are going to be hitting 4-5 dollars in the next little while. economist have been predicting for 8 months a surge to 5 a gallon by next summer, this simply sped up the process. i've heard current guesses of 10 weeks or more before any production can go back into work, and that doens't even count how much is imported there.

LOL...tats so funnny...i guess thats rite...their wasting ur food.... wut if they throw u off? wut if ur wasting their food? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> simple. i would "file" -> "load" and do it again.

i'd find people i hate and throw them off bridges into hordes of zombies. well, i gotta have a hobby- right? no use in them eating my food.

yeh....except its real. which makes it that much better. glad someone enjoyed it.

http://www.catholic.org/cathcom/national_story.php?id=15786 lol. man.... i got a kick out of that. i thought i would share it with you guys.

boy scouts? hah. i'm an eagle scout. i can't tell all the stories from scout camp, because that violates most, if not all, of the rules for this forum. i did get lightning striking about 10 feet in front of me and melting rock into glass though, and i almost drowned once cause the swimming merit badge requires you to make life preserves out of clothing. they had a box of clothing to use and i got "denim jacket and denim pants" surprise surprise, i couldn't swim.

no. not nessesarily, we also share something like a 75% genetic similarity with common wheat plants. its just an interesting fact that hints more and more at seperate evolutionary patterns being following in seperate species. there are so many factors to traits of animals, to family trees and such that its hard to get into really in depth. the bone structure and brain functions, birthing, communication, muscle structures, ect ect ect. and that wouldn't be the accepted evolutionary model, that would be the animal kingdoms of zoology. another science branch.

i understand where you are going fox, and i would much prefer spirituality to religion on any day of the week. i appreciate the comment about me being resonable. the only thing is that spirituality, that i can seem to grasp, is one that is based on or about a religon or set of religions anyway. The new fad is not to be religous, but to be spiritual. the problem stems that it is simply a self interpretation of the bible or whatever other holy book/books are out there in use. It revels from others teachings, often from long dead mentors. Some of the eastern religions are an exception to this, but their entire setup is somewhat of a different one- more or less, they aren't based solely on a central god figure. that brings me back to the argument i had about the reliability of books and even words- stories that are passed down and unarguablely changed if only by accident and only slightly. The only branch of spirituality i would be able to follow would be one with universal ideals. One that seems to stretch accross time and space around the world and encompass all of the ideas. for example, its fairly easy to deduce that its a almost universal truth that god wants you to be a good person. no stealing, no killing, ect. guidelines not set by a single action or a single sect, but by all of them in a massive comparison. of course, i simply dont have the time to do all of that. i'll continue to peddle and carve out the ideas as i go, slowly and surely. i'll pick apart and adapt the beliefs i have about what were a god to exsist and what it would be like. so far, i have picked apart the human from the god and left the superhuman. it seems that many religions place into them a image of themselves as god due to a lack of understanding, a lack of an ability to understand, dreams, or because of the misconception that we are exactly that. for instance, were god in the bible called anything but god, he would seem a tempramental, irritable, and not all knowing in any way. a human who has gained vast power. then it is on to the morality, but thats a lot of work, so its going slowly.

right.. but when the argument is about something that can not be verified- it isn't an argument. if there was proof there was a god- it wouldn't be so difficult for religions to exsist, much less it would be impossible to convince people to change their religions. you're "fire" was that your friends eye sight became beter/begin to work. what you said was proof was that he was prayed for. that is not a correct corrolation because many things that are prayed for do not happen, accepting one that does as proof of god does not equate or legitimize your claim. please understand, i'm not discounting a god, nor am i discounting divine intervention because of his failure and lack of planning(and yes, that would be why he would have to intercede- direct proof of god's lack of power), i'm simply saying that your argument is not convincing on a logical plane and doesn't make sense. it has many holes in it to be blunt. god? buddism? i'm a bit perplexed. please explain that a bit more- generally speaking, buddhism doesn't have a god. and yes, i've been involved in taoism, very similar to buddhism. i've met the dali lamma in a closed door session with several other people. when i tell you i've been very well versed in religion, i didn't mean it as a joke.

funny you should mention pig. pig's have a 99.9% DNA similarity to humans. monkeys have only a 99%

Oh, i absolutely agree that large amounts of work could go into various texts and various religions. You could study the changes and the underlying theories behind the religions, perhaps looking for a relavant theme that has been historically present(as i mentioned earlier), what this does not do is answer the question "is this correct". you could undoubtablely eliminate some religions as verifiable. you could also keep some in with long standing ties. the biggest question about historically verifying things is the absolute validity of issues. for instance, why does the church keep so much locked away in the vatican? How can we verify that religious texts as we have them now, assuming we wont be granted unrestricted ability to examine every little peice of evidence, weren't changed or tampered with? How do we remove the historical bias present from wars or whatever else? Very few will touch on the issue of adam and eve, and aside from what is written, how will we be able to verify that for instance? We aren't able to trace it to a location, we dont have fossils, we dont have anything else. We have a story. All in all, the quest to find the truth by cross checking and verifying all the religous material runs accross many hard ships. The biggest hurdle to over come, in my eyes, would be the shift from polythiestic religions to the monothiestic ones. how would that relate to the presence , shape, and form of "god" if he does indeed exsist. That and perhaps many of the religions who are in the oral tradition. In the end, no matter how much studying you do, and no matter how much luck is lent to you, short of god showing up and saying "hey, listen, i'm real, follow XXXXXX" there will be a matter of faith brought into question, a matter of unknown , and a large guess on the issue. Am i right? well, we'll never know for sure. I agree that spirituality isn't science, but i would also argue and the mundane and pointless nature of it if it isn't true. its overall a waste of time, imho, to attempt to pick the right one. pick a door, 1 thru N, if you pick the right one you live, otherwise, you die. on each door is a hint that its the right door. good luck.

then he is not all knowing and by your own logic god disapears in a puff of contradiction. if he knew everything, he would not have to change anything.

yes, knowing god is based purely on faith. if it wasn't, they wouldn't call religion 'having faith'. no religion has evidence that their god is the correct one. ps. i swear, i'm going to write that paper. i'm getting to it. heh.

seems odd to me, i expected something bigger. perfect setup. traffic patterns are shut down adn there is a complete lack of mobility. emergency vehicles wouldn't be able to get anywhere and help anyone easily and everyone would cause more chaos. now would be the perfect time for the huge attack. i'm glad terrorist dont think like i do.

same here. forget that mess. he's also a jerk and avoiding filters and stuff. right now his name is "americans are ignorant ******" sike is on htere now.

yeh. he's bad, got the spinning hack going on. # 1576 "Gaz" STEAM_0:0:5422486 01:28 191 0 active was his name last time, i've got another demo.

the arguable points with the religious texts are different and i was hoping to skirt that issue, but i'll address that one too. the reason that i fail to find the bible or any religious text as reliable is that, short of divine interferance-which is the arguing point, inspired by faith in god, i fail to see the possibility of it being in a pure form. that doesn't mean that what is in it may not be wrong, but it means that you have to question everything that is stated. not all the religious books can be right because they decend from seperate gods. that means that i am forced to either rely on faith, which is one of the things that spurs me not to become religous, that it is right and the others are wrong, or that i should discount all of them for perfection and instead draw from all of them a universal likeness. religion teaches kindness, honesty, forgiving, mercy, kinship. those are the value you can find from almost every religion i've ever seen. this is because they are "good" values. the way in which some of those, honor for instance, are defined may vary quite a bit. but it is still there. the things that are drawn from all religions. god(s) is all knowing god(s) is all powerful god(s) is very good exceptions for older humanistic religions- greeks and romans for instance had gods that did not portray a constant "god" figure, instead just a human with more power. the values it taught remained the same though, the stories are a prime example. virtues drawn from all religions that we should enact mercy, honesty, kinship, devotion, forgiveness, kindness, love, patience i'm aware some of those are repeated in various styles, that is in part due to each religions take on certain issues. mercy/forgiveness/patience vary from islam,christianity, and down to daoism. without knowing anything particular about the god, that may or may not exsist with equal chances, it is impossible to persue a relationship with him. it is however quite possible, in my mind, to assume a few things. if that god were to exsist, he would be fitting of the ideas that are universal, the exceptions, and the nitpicking in the stories could be related to humans or however the true history unfolded. if that god were to exsist, he would not be able to directly interfear because he believes in a free will. the idea of a free will is a almost universal one, the reasoning may vary- from us being all one, to god wanting us to explore. but it is still present. that kind of leaves me with 1) a god that i can't see, touch, or relate to 2) a god with no proof 3) a lack of understanding of the "correct" god from faiths 4) holding only the generic idea of a god or gods i really am going to work on writing the paper, i promise, its just a matter of time and energy. i have to dig out all my old religious materials. i use to have so many books and bibles and everything. i wonder how many i still have in the moves and the years its been.

the problem comes down to what religion and spirituality is based on. religion is based on the books and historic practices of certain figures, through which "god" is defined. if i doubt the believers, i am forced to doubt the books, stories, and historic relics. as a result of that, i am unable to involve myself with any organized religion. that still leaves spirituality, but without any proof, any supporting facts(even if they are just books, such as bibles, ect), i am little more than assuming and guessing about the nature of god. for that, i'm pretty much, by definition an agnostic, unsure of god or his nature becuase of a lack of knowledge on the issue. spirituality as a term is generally related to, in popular society, an all loving god, very christian ideas void of the organized element. much of the same structure that appears in the bible and through christian teachings as far as moral ideas and principals. its more of a disorganized monothestic religion branching from christianity.

alright. i'll get around to it over the next week or so. i'm not sure which religions you guys are familiar with, so i'm probably going to base most of it off of the christian based religions, save myself getting into all the funky other smaller ones.

so, i'm going to expand a little on the issue of god to me. god seems like a wonderful idea, ideally, its a person/being who is all loving, all caring, all knowing, and forever who will love you without end and without exception. the problem comes when you involve people into it, whenever we involve people, we make the whole thing hypocritical and full of exceptions. he's all loving, except when you dont believe in him. he's all knowing, except about what our actions are going to be(and as a result becomes angry/violent/insistant on punishment). from a christian perspective, he asked where adam was in the garden, he became angry when they ate from the tree, he became angry at people of old(hello turn to salt & flood), he became angry in egypt, ect ect, even though he knew good and well that that was going to happen and was happening. not only that , but he has involved himself in such a greedy and amazingly way that it begins to fade as a god and begin to become a human, a flawed, emotional human. god is not the image i debate i should say, i more or less accept a "god", even if that means a simple one-ness, which is easily supported via science and the boils of being all part of one energy wave. i just take issue with having a flawed ideal ruling over me. i dont think i really expanded so much as half heartedly ranted a bit, i doubt you guys want to see me really get into this, cause i love writing religion papers. it would just end up a 10 or 12 page, maybe a good bit longer depending on if i get into talking about specifics instead of generalities, term paper.

the religions fight and war so much, even within the same sects, splitting apart and leaving one another, killing one another, and having a divine hatred for one another, all in the name of "brotherly" love. every time the babtists can't agree on something inside the church, half of them leave and go start a new church. it seems odd that a organization devoted to brotherly love who can't get it right should be the organization to dictate my morality. 13 men created the plethera of christian sects and not to mention churches within each of those sects, many of which broke through violence, anger, repression, or various other less than fitting actions for a loving religion.

old philosophical idea that the greeks use to use to prove the exsistence of god. basically it went like this. ===============is real========is not real believe in god======check=========check dont believe=======crap==========check 75% chance you should believe in god, the problem comes when you add the other religions in. i brought this up to a street preacher trying to sway me to the way of the southern babtist. i was discussing the ideas behind choosing the "correct" religion, as you mentioned there are tons of gods, documented and even more undocumented. not to mention the historical collection of gods that exsist throughout the world over the last, say 10,000 years. so, to get to the funny part, he started to quote this method of deterining its better to believe in god. i asked him what happened when you added all the religions in, what if there were 3 columns, that catholics were added in there. he told me it didn't matter and that the catholics were wrong anyway. i thought that summed up the irony of organized religions to begin with. i'm a highly spiritual and highly religiously minded person. i've done a ton of research on close to a hundred religions. i've read every religious document i can get my hands on, the bible 7 times cover to cover. i've read the satanic bible, the quran to some extent, the gnostic gospels, book or mormon, and various translations of each as they are avaliable. i consider myself somewhat educated on religion and i think the irony of organized religion is one that many intellectuals find striking. that is that at the pit of power in, for instance, the christian church, in order to continue preaching their word, they split, forming a new religion or branch thereof. as a result, 13 men derrived tons of renditions of the same ideas, the same words. add to that the fact that almost all religious texts have in them the exact same ideas, that any man of any faith can imbrace. islam, christianity, satanism.. all very different religions based on the same people and on the same god have had people killed, wars waged, and crimes commited in their names. the irony is that organized religion seems to break apart the religious basis and destroy the ideas that are so sacred to begin with. good will, helpfulness, kindness. its all there. but its easier to break apart, struggle for power, struggle for money, and struggle to be "truely god's people". i'm agnostic because the choices are painful. i believe in a god merely because i believe it is more than likely true that there is another force, it seems to make sense and by all accounts can't hurt. i also believe that religion has been misused and is misused on all corners of the globe, not to further the teachings of that religion, but to gain power as a conglomerate. after the catholic priest scandals in america, because of how the catholic churches were setup, there were several high level priests who suggested that to avoid paying those abused they should have each church declare bankruptcy, and then reopen immediately. avoid paying? avoid helping those that became hurt? the ideas are lost, and becomming more involved with an organization doesn't help find them. i also found many of the ideas a bit confusing. without jesus you are unable to find redemption in the christian faith. Well, before the world shrank and became a global playground, communication was amazingly difficult. even as america was being founded, you are talking about an amazingly hard to accomplish task of convincing me that everyone in the world had a chance to know jesus in their own way. not to mention the people who lived before jesus. now, what i would choose to believe is that the ideas that jesus preached(repeated by various prophets and sons of gods and gods in variuos other religions) have indeed been presented worldwide. acceptance and following of those ideas would tend to suggest to me a holy acceptance. any god i willl come to belive in must not be a calious and spiteful god. if i am to believe that we are made in the image of god, i hope that it was not our greed, our easily corrupted hearts, and our sinful nature that we were modeled from, but instead decency and the rest fell as time passed. thats the only hope i have for religion, thats why i'm agnostic. i'd rather believe that god would want people to be good than to make his ego huge.

yeh. man. i'm a complete addict. everyone at where i use to work , all we ever do is talk about it and try and figure out whats gonna happen in the movie. there have been 30 screenings of the movie already throughout the us, evidently it is doing wonderful. i keep hearing that he shot it just like he did the show and he kept it very true to what all the fans wanted.

there were some sceenings the past 2-3 weeks. i was reading about them. everyone who saw it so far has none nothing but rant and rave about how wonderful it is. the phrase "couldn't be better" "wow" and "i love joss" were used as nausia.

gah. i was afraid of that. big thumbs down on that one from me. horrorwood has to make everything into a freaking love story.