- Joined
- Aug 10, 2004
- Messages
- 10,285
- Age
- 39
- Location
- Sweden
- Nation Banner

- Main Job

- Secondary Job

- Third Job

- Server
- Fenrir
- Linkshell
- Avaritas
- FFXIV
- Uzor
It means those that are borderline insane. You know, like that woman that demonstrate against the funeral for American soldiers, saying they deserved to die. That God judged them and their families.Not familiar the term, religious fanatic, but i can imagine. Okay. So why do you think religious fanatics are morons ? Must be something other than their their beliefs ?
You're right. I thought it was the one I said to Myrrh, as I had said the same to Myrrh earlier. Apparently people don't read anymore since I had to repeat myself at least twice =/You're wrong. I even quoted myself it in my last message to you Uzor, I'll do it again to this point showing that you're response was to me.
Anyone saying homosexuals should die because its against the word of God is a moron. Anyone stating that the american soldiers in Iraq deserved to die because they go against the words of God, is a moron. The idiot that own the website godhatesamerica.com, godhatessweden.com, godhatescanada.com etc. is also one of those religious fanatics, albeit not quite to the same extent.Which is why i asked why you think religious fanatics are morons. They are more educated in various religions than the average religious person.
I can accept being wrong as well. You haven't corrected me (except once in this thread, which I already mentioned above). I can accept knowledge from my "competitors" as well. However, few things you have stated in this thread are wrong, such as the ammount of people that lived in the 19th century.Yes and when i was corrected i just accepted it and moved on. Even under fire i have the courage to accept knowledge from my competitors. You and a few others continue to throw what i disowned in my face, saying that i posted it as an argument. For the 4th or 5th time, I said "if the information changed or if it's incorrect, let me know."
If you didin't post it as an argument, why did you bring it up? For fun? you posted it to prove a point you made. That is backing up an arguments with facts. Albeit skewed facts. And we did let you know it was wrong, did we not? And yet you blame us for it?
Once again, we're not insulting relion. I've asked both you and Myrrh probably 10 times now to quote where we insult religion. If its such an obvious fact that we are, then you should have no problem finding them.I don't believe Myrrh is upset. He just see's that you are in fact insulting people's religion. Namely the Christians, and ironically, the only one sticking up for them is me.
Yes. Because what you quoted from me ORIGINALLY was heavily taken out of context. I'm not going to respond to somethign that is entirely, not only taken out of context, but heavily twisted from its original meaning.Don't be fooled. there are reasons why i quote myself. Still you have this to say to me ?
Yes. It was partly a joke, and partly true. You have to remember what I said earlier, as well, that AIDS isn't originally a disease made to spread between sexual intercourse. no STD is "god's wrath" because we have sex with more then one person. They have a different source originally. Now, I'm at my lunch break and sadly don't remember the name of that many STD's, but one of them that can be deadly, which after a quite long period of time can affect your brain, is NOT an STD originally. Its a wound infection disease. If you get a wound on, say, your hand, and the wound get infected, you can get this disease. Later on, it has spread down to the sexual organs, and mutated. Another sexual disease actually come from your anal, and have then mutated to infect the sexual organs. Pretty much all of the STD's in existance comes from something else, and have then mutated. Even if we only had one sexua lpartner our whole life, STD's would still exist, as they would still mutate, just like they did when they first were "born". And just like new diseases will get "born" all the time.You yourself said something along the lines of "AIDS is for the extinction of stupid people, it's natures way of evolution". Now you're telling me. "The way nature made us is to fuck as many people as possible to spread our genes onward."
While yes, condoms are unnatural, they still serve a purpose, which is to prevent kids. Preventing STD's just happen to be another function. Less populaton in the world means less STD's, means less diseases will have a chance to mutated, and means epidemics will spread at a slower rate.
I'm sorry, I didn't know people would actually assume I ment cross-species sex. I'll be sure to mention all animals seperated next time.Yes you were wrong. You can't assume I would have thought you were talking about other tigers, when you distinctly say "Other animals".
But you're wrong. STDs' wouldn't simply disappear because peopel had sex with one person, as I have mentioned countless times before. Sure, the spread would be less, but it would be less with the use of condoms as well.Wherever it came from. Man made, or from some dude screwing a monkey. It goes down with the person it takes. It's something that is passed around. The Majority isn't strong enough mentally to resist the urge of taking the chance. This is the main pipeline for HIV. If there was a simulator with billions of people at you're command, you'd be able to solve HIV simply by having them have sex with one person only. The STD will dither away. In the real world it's not like that. That was just an example.
The Bible have moral laws written in it. Such as "Thou shalt not bear false witness" (read: You shall not lie). Almost all of them are moral laws, except a few exceptions such as not killing and not stealing. These very moral laws exist in today's society as well. Sure, earlier on adultry was fully acceptable and understandable by both men and women, were men would have more then one wife in order to get more children. The more children and wives you could support, the richer it ment you were, and the more power you had. Some men, such as kings, also had personal whores. So to some extent we have the bible to thank for that.The Bible is older than the modern world. It had laws written in it before this modern world was established. The Bible suggests adultery is against God's Laws. In todays society, the Law doesn't give a damn if a couple cheats on one another. Public society also doesn't care what religion you're in. I don't believe the Bible emulates todays Laws at all. Thou shalt not kill. Yet we see Governments that are supposedly Christians, fighting against Muslim extremists.
No, because those parts re edited out. Such as the part where two men brutally raped a goldsmith's (I think it was) daughter. A lot of parts in the bible are censored out, misstranslated, or otherwise changed. The bible have pretty much the exact same things the Koran have, such as women should cover themselves. And yes, a lot of christians say the Koran is a horrible book. I bet a majority of them haven't even read the Koran to see how similar it is.The Bible don't outcast Gay in general, They outcast males having sex with males. It's all fun and games until the colon is permanently damaged. The Bible suggests we do not mutilate ourselves. Still we're all here to do as we please.
But it do. As I stated before, controll people's fears and believes, and you control the people. This is why the church have had such a great influence over people in the past.Okay so fear is control. Which has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
Yes, It is twisted. Glad we agree.I concur. Book of revelation is twisted. There are things we are not meant to know in order to raise our consciousness. None of our souls will burn for an eternity. All will be forgiven and things will start over. Perhaps things will keep starting over until the individual gets it right. That is my belief, which is borrowed from various spiritual books, exercises and religions.
My lunch break is over. I will have to answer the rest later. I will quote them all to anwer them later to know which I have left.
Spoiler:
It makes perfect sense. I don't see how you don't understand it. Show me why.
From what I've read having vaginal intercourse with someone who is HIV positive, has a very high risk of infecting the other person. 85-90% durability on the Condom is not good enough.
Best to use if you're going to fool around with several others.
What I'm saying, if people never fooled around with several people, STDs will not only decrease, they will cease to exist. If everyone stuck with one person, the already infected will eventually die, like they were going to. The disease will have no chance to pass onto someone else, because no one is allowing the shift from one person to another occur.
This is not the way of the world. And might not ever be.
Again. A world that can work together like that for the sake of well being, is more impressive than the way we're handling it now.