bejjinks

The number one phrase I find most annoying is "I just read your profile and I'm in love" This isn't a Second Life phrase but it is something I get often in all kinds of forums. What's really annoying is that I get this phrase whether I've filled out my profile or left it blank. It make me wonder what in the world did they fall in love with? They certainly didn't fall in love with me. And it doesn't matter what kind of forum it is. Some people read sexual inuendos into everything and that's another thing that is annoying, when talking to someone about something serious and they take it sexually.

I use textspeak occasionally. Usually I use it when I'm limited by space or time and need to be as brief as possible. On the other hand, I ought to say or explain that if you or anyone else think about this issue for a longer time than just a mere fraction of a second or wink of an eye, to use more words, phrases and clauses than can be found or read in the largest and most comprehensive dictionary or thesaurus in order to express and elaborate on what could be expressed or elaborated on by only using the fewest words necessary to express and elaborate your idea can be even more annoying, irritating and worse than using a little bit of textspeak. So I defend my right to use cya and prolly on occasion. Textspeak is only annoying when it is over used or when people assume that everyone knows what jfeiopqw means. But when I'm not limited by space and time. I do usually spell out the words correctly.

To a certain extent, be more forgiving of some of these phrases. For example, I know many grandmothers who use the word "hun" and they don't mean anything by it. It's just habit. On the other hand, I do know what you mean when certain people use "hun" in that syrupy derogatory manner because they have ulterior motives, that is really creepy. Emoticons and gestures can be nice sometimes. The only reason why they become annoying is because they get overused. I've been at parties where you can't talk to anyone because the chat is being filled up with stupid "~<>giggles<>~". That's annoying. So to me, it isn't necessarily the phrase, word, gesture, or emoticon that is annoying but how it is being used or overused that can be annoying. Personally, the phrase I'm most often annoyed by is "has invited you to join them". Why do strangers assume that I don't have a life and that all I do is sit around waiting and just hoping that some stranger will invite me to be part of the audience that is worshiping that stranger?

16 wrote: is not about avoiding all action. is about making choices consider: idolatry is a sin. all idolators are an abomination before god. all abominations are to be removed from the sight of god can believe this is no act tho until they are removed. something that only ever happens when we make the decision/choice to act + can argue that if not have this belief then it eliminate the opportunity/need to make a choice. if is no need for the choice then the action will not ever occur is what my uni tutor used to call the bleeding obvious when he used to grump us about it when we tried to make arguments this way. he used to grump us bc when the argument is taken to its logical outcome then end up eliminate the construct of thought by deconstruction no act > no choice > no belief > no thought + edit: just try make more clear any line of reasoning that leads to the elimination of thought is not formally allowed in these kinds of exercises. bc it not make any sense to do that when the objective is to think I've been uncertain how to respond to you because I partially agree with you. I think this is a case where we simply need to clarify our words better. I make a distinction between a "view" and a "thought" in this way. Thoughts go through our mind all the time but if we hold onto the thought, if we dwell on the thought, then it becomes a view. So on the one hand, you are right that "any line of reasoning that leads to the elimination of thought is not formally allowed". We cannot prevent thoughts anyway. We all have bad thoughts from time to time. We all feel murderous anger for fleeting moments in response to some perceived offense. So having a thought of causing someone harm is not the source of conflict. However, if we hold on to that thought, if we dwell on that thought of hatred for another, then it becomes our view and that view than "informs our actions". So "how we view those who disagree with us" is the source of conflict. In other words, having a fleeting thought of hatred is not a problem but if we feed that thought of hatred, if we dwell on our feelings of hatred, it will eventually trigger an action or a spoken statement that causes a conflict. You mentioned idolatry so I will use that as an example. You are right that idolatry is a sin. You are right that God will punish the idolaters. But even the Bible teaches us to love our enemies and that our war is not against flesh and blood. Do you dwell on thoughts of hatred and murder toward the idolater or do you leave it up to God? How do you view the idolater? Do you see the idolater the way God sees the idolater? Do you assume that God hates the idolater and why do you assume that God hates the idolater? Do you assume that because you love to hate that God also loves to hate? My view of the idolater is this: God is very patient and merciful. He searches for opportunities to redeem and restore people to a loving relationship. For justice sake, He cannot redeem everyone BUT instead of being a vengeful God that looks for opportunities to condemn, He is a loving God that looks for opportunities to make right. Therefore, I beleive we should be the same, be more like Him. This doesn't mean we tolerate idolatry. For justice sake, idolatry is wrong. But I should be seeking opportunities to restore the idolater instead of seeking opportunities to condemn the idolater. Therefore, there is no room for hatred in my view. Even with a pedophile, the easiest person in the world to hate, I seek opportunities to restore. Now I'm not an idiot about this. We have to protect the children and in order to do so, we might have to condemn the pedophile to death in order to protect the children. But this condemnation is not motivated by hatred. This condemnation is motivated to protect the innocent. Likewise, God's judgment is based on protection of the innocent and he will condemn those who threaten the innocent. But God hates to condemn because God loves everyone, even the pedophile that he may have to condemn for justice sake. So you see that it is possible to avoid hating those I disagree with. This is a radical extreme of an example so let's get back to the original topic. If someone disagrees with me about whether there is a God or not or whether there are aliens or which god is the correct one or not, yes we can disagree but having a disagreement does not mean we have to have a conflict. We don't have to be rude to each other. We don't have to mock each other. We don't have to stir up any feelings of hatred for one another. We can simply disagree and stay civil. Even the angels in their war against demons, the angels do not practice mockery, hatred or slander. The angels do not give evil for evil and neither should we. There is never a cause or justification to hate those who disagree with us.

I believe that half of all conflicts are situations where two or more people mostly agree but fail to recognize how much in agreement they are. Here's an overly simplified illustration of how that can occur. Mr. Someone: The moon orbits the Earth. Mr. Person: Au Contraire, the Earth orbits the Sun. Mr. Someone: You are wrong. The moon orbits the Earth. Mr. Person: You're an idiot. Copernicus proved that the Earth orbits the Sun. Mr. Someone: You're insane. Neil Armstrong landed on the moon after a team of scientist predicted where the moon would be. They could only predict it because they knew the the moon orbits the Earth. Mr. Person: We're at an impasse and I'm tired of arguing. How about we agree to disagree. Mr. Someone: That's just what I'd expect from an illogical person like you. You're afraid of being proven wrong so you end the argument. As you can see, both people were partially right and partially wrong as is always the case. No human is ever 100% right. No human is ever 100% wrong. But when we fail to recognize what we agree about, or we fail to recognize our own potential for being wrong, then we get in the mindset of "I'm right, you're an idiot" and conflict is the result.

I like and agree with everything you've said so far Melita. :catvery-happy:

Bree Giffen wrote: Wait a minute. Who is saying beliefs cause conflicts? Why try to prove this wrong when no one here has said anything about it? Well since I started the topic, no one said anything at all until I did. But in other SL topics, other SL forums and other SL places, I have heard people say that beliefs cause conflicts and they've gone on to say that the only way to have peace on Earth is to eliminate all beliefs. Either that or they preach that their belief is the only correct belief and therefore the only way to have peace on Earth is if everyone believes as they do.

I don't think that conflicts are caused by ones beliefs. I think conflicts are caused by ones beliefs about the beliefs of others. We can categorize all beliefs into three overarching categories. We either beleif that life is guided by spiritual forces, by natural forces or by alien forces. (I could be wrong and someone could provide a fourth possibility but it wouldn't alter the conclusion). If you believe in spiritual forces and believe that those who believe in alien or natural forces may be wrong or misguided but are still okay people, there is no conflict. If you believe in natural forces and believe that those who believe in alien or spiritual forces may be wrong or misguided but are still okay people, there is no conflict. If you believe in alien forces and believe that those who believe in spiritual or natural forces may be wrong or misguided but are still okay people, there is no conflict. HOWEVER If you believe in spiritual forces and believe that those who believe in alien or natural forces are evil, illogical, stupid, brainwashed or insane, then you create conflict and can become potentially violent. If you believe in natural forces and believe that those who believe in alien or spiritual forces are evil, illogical, stupid, brainwashed or insane, then you create conflict and can become potentially violent. If you believe in alien forces and believe that those who believe in spiritual or natural forces are evil, illogical, stupid, brainwashed or insane, then you create conflict and can become potentially violent. So you see that having beliefs is not the source of conflict. Conflict is caused by how we view those who disagree with us.

leon Bowler wrote: Please look at the idea and don't get abusive, now do you think it could be so or not. And if not say why, that is all, no need to get upset by it, it is a simple idea try to stick to that. I don't think he was being abusive. He may have been blunt but not abusive. He has a valid question. You say you published but where did you publish. Did you publish in a scientific journal or did you publish on your own website. I personally think there is some merit to your hypothesis but I'm not ready to beleive it until you provide more evidence to support it. You will probably need help with that which is why most scientists work in groups. I don't fully beleive in the Big Bang theory either. The Big Bang has more evidence than your hypothesis does but there are some big questions that the Big Bang theory fails to answer. If I have trouble accepting the Big Bang theory with all the evidence behind it, do you expect me to accept your hypothesis based on even less evidence?

Ceera Murakami wrote: Nope. Inactive Basic accounts never get deleted. You could come back years laterm, and it will still be just as you left it, inventory, L$ balance and all. In fact, if the inactive account had anyone paying money to it for anything, you may have even earned some L$ while it sat idle. Inactive Premium accounts will exist as long as your payment method doesn't expire. If you let the payment info on a Premium account expire, and LL is unable to bill you for your Premium Dues, they will after a short time suspend your account for non payment of dues. Supposedly you can now get everything back by paying your past-due dues, and a small reactivation fee. But they keep adding to the bill every year that it remains suspended. It used to be the case that they wiped your inventory if an account was suspended for non-payment for more than 3 months. That isn't completely accurate. You are right that the accounts are not deleted but they might not "be just as you left it". Accounts can degrade over time. This will usually mean loss of inventory but most of your inventory will still be there.

This whole subject will always be a gray zone. There will be clear cases of spying that ought to be reported but there will also be cases that are questionable. For example, one time in a fast food restaurant, an employee had a loud conversation with his boss right in front of the table where I was sitting. Then the employee accused me of eavesdropping as if I had the power to not hear their loud discussion. Basically, we must always take intent into account. If someone listened to a private discussion, was the person intentionally spying. If someone shared information that may or may not have been private, did the person have good intentions or was the person intentionally gossiping. Even the question of group chat is a gray zone because some groups are more private than others. But it is nearly always a bad idea to share something learned in one group anywhere outside of that group.

I don't want to receive IMs or notices in my email unless they are addressed specifically to my email. I prefer my IMs and notices in world. Where I was required to add my email to my account, I set it so that I wouldn't receive IMs in my email but I'm receiving IMs in my email anyway. Is this a technical glitch or is there some other setting that needs to be fixed?

I am still a little suprised by the responses. I honestly expected more flak from fundamentalist than I did from homosexuals. I thought fundamentalists would get on my case for being as liberal as I am and they'd accuse me of being a traitor. Joshua 5:13-14a NASB 13 Now it came about when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man was standing opposite him with his sword drawn in his hand, and Joshua went to him and said to him, “Are you for us or for our adversaries?” 14 He said, “No; I will continue to stay impartial. I will neither turn to the left or the right on this. I will neither side with the antigay agenda nor with the gay marriage agenda. I'm sure my neutrality will leave me very unpopular but so be it. In the words of Martin Luther, "I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen."

First, let me tell you who I am not. I am not a dominionist. I am not a fanatic or a zealot. I am not a member of any militant religious group. I am not a member of any religiously based political party. I do not want a theocracy here in America. I am not a Catholic. I am not a Fundamentalist. I am not an Evangelical. I am not Orthodox. I am not a Lutheran. I am not a Calvinist. I am not an Arminian. I am not an Anglican. I am not a Presbyterian. I am not a Congregationalist. I am not Amish, Mennonite or any similar designation. I am not a member of the Church of the Brethren. I am not a Methodist. I am not a Pietist. I am not a Baptist. I am not a Charismatic. I am not a member of the United Church. I am not a Quaker. I am not an Adventist. I am not Jewish. I am not part of the Aryan Brotherhood. I am not a Mormon. I am not a Unitarian. I am not a Christian Scientist. I am not an Esoteric Christian. I am not Syncretistic. I don't practice any voodoo or Santeria. I am not a Jehovah's Witness. I am not a Branch Davidian. Politically speaking, I am not a liberal but I'm not sure whether to call myself conservative or bipartisan. I lean toward conservative values but I don't see liberals as the enemy. In fact there have been a number of liberals that I consider role models. Franklin Delano Roosevelt is one example. FDR was not perfect but than nobody's perfect. FDR was a problem solver who got America through two big crises. So who am I? If people would stop jumping to conclusions and attacking me, I'll tell you. I believe in freedom of religion instead of freedom from religion. I believe that it is possible for a Christian, a Muslim, and an Atheist to have a civil discussion about religion and about politics. I believe that we don't all have to conform to the same way of thinking in order for there to be peace. I believe that we don't have to be brainwashed by the government to establish peace. And I will fight for the right of people to resist political brainwashing regardless of whether the political brainwashing is Christian, Muslim, or Atheist in origin. I believe in freedom of speech but that freedom meant the freedom to criticize the government. It was not meant as a freedom to bully and harass people. V said, "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." I wouldn't go to such an extreme but instead, I will quote from the Declaration of Indpendence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Or better still, I will quote from Jesus Christ, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’ But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves. For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves." Luke 22:25-27 NASB The people must always have the right to petition the government and have their grievances redressed. But that is not what has become of America. Instead, we defend the right of the bully to harass while we arrest people who criticize the government. Who am I? I was raised in a Pietist church but I struggled with their laws. They taught laws like "dancing is a sin". They focused heavily on obeying the law and I was never good enough for them. The Pietist church I was raised in rejected me. Then again, just about everyone rejected me. Even when I was five years old, the other kids told me that their parents would not let them play with me because I was different. I was shunned and ostracized at five. A lot of it had to do with the fact that I wasn't masculine enough. I was never very athletic. In the small town I grew up in, all the boys were driving tractors at twelve. My dad lost his farm when I was eight and so I never learned how to be a farmer and in the small town I grew up in, that made me an outsider. Then as a teenager, I developed a sexual attraction to men. This made showering with the other guys a hellish experience and I asked for special permission to not have to shower with the guys. And more than just simply being sexually attracted to men, there has always been a sado-masochistic element in my sexuality. It wasn't about love. It was about power, one person dominating another although I couldn't decide whether I was the dominator or the dominated. I struggled with the supposedly Christian laws but at the same time, I didn't want to live in anarchy. There were times in my childhood where I experienced anarchy, when I was alone and a gang of bullies would come to beat me up and I had no law to turn to for protection. This was because the law in my small town was about oppression, not about protection. If I complained about the bullies, I was told that I needed to learn to defend myself. But if I defended myself, I was punished for fighting. So I wrestled with God about the law. Have you seen Forest Gump? Do you remember the scene where Lieutenenat Dan had a screaming match with God? I believe that is a good thing to do. I believe that more people should have a screaming match with God. Go out by yourself where you can be alone with God and just be honest with Him, yell at Him if you have to, cry if you have to, but be honest. Too few people are honest with God. Too many people, when they pray, try to manipulate God or they try to restrain themselves according to some religious ideas about what prayer is supposed to be. But have you ever simply gotten honest with God and told Him how you honestly feel. Jacob wrestled with God and God blessed him for it. But people attack Christians thinking they can manipulate Christians. These people who attack Christianity are not being honest. We say that people who are violent against homosexuals are living in denial of their own homosexuality and I believe this is true. But I'm going to say the same thing about people who are violent against Christianity. People who are violently opposed to Christianity are trying desparately to supress the fact that deep down in their heart, they truly believe in God. A true Atheist wouldn't care enough to be violent. A true Atheist would let those foolish Christians believe whatever nonsense they wanted to believe. But I am convinced that anyone who goes out of their way to try to force me to change my beliefs cannot be a true Atheist. The militant Atheists are too angry and irrational to be true Atheists. Methinks they doth protest too much. They need to go spend some time being honest with God and admit that they believe in God and are angry at God instead of trying so desparately to prove to themselves that God doesn't exist. Either that, or they are angry at certain Christians and are taking it out on all Christians. I used to hang out in the gay bars but many of those homosexuals were jerks that mistreated me. If I got angry at all homosexuals because of what a few jerks did, you'd be up in arms calling me a bigot. Well I'm going to turn the same standard on you. If you get angry at all Christians because of what a group of Christians are doing, than you are a bigot. I feel like I'm caught in the middle. We've got the homosexuals lining one side of the street and the Christians lining the other side of the street and they are very angry at each other, violently so. And I have to walk down the middle of that street. The Christians reject me because I used to be a homosexual. The homosexuals reject me because I am a Christian. Well I'm used to being the reject. I'm used to being the outsider. So be it. I wrestled with God about the law and what I discovered is that many of the so called Christian laws were not from God. The Pharisees of old added laws that were not from God. The Catholics added laws that were not from God. And even modern day Protestants add laws that are not from God. I wrestled because I needed reasonable rules. The church was always saying, "God said it and I believe it and that's good enough for me." BUT IT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME. It never was good enough for me. I needed to know why. I needed to know that God was not some arbitray or capricious God. I needed to know that God was not just making up rules randomly just to test our obedience. I hate blind faith. I asked all the questions that the church hates. I asked, "If God is good, how come there's suffering on Earth". I asked, "Why did God create something that he hates and why does he condemn his own creation?" All these questions, the church hates to answer, but I asked them anyway. The difference is, I didn't ask these questions of the church. I asked these questions of God himself. I went to God in my alone time when no one else was around and I cried, "Why did you make me gay and then make a law against it?" It was going to God with this question instead of going to Christians that made all the difference. This does require a bit of a paradigm shift. Not all questions are good questions. For example, "Why are you stupid" is a bad question. Most bad questions are presumptive questions. When you presume facts that are not in evidence and than make questions based on those unsupported facts, you are asking a presumptive question. Presumptive questions are bad specifically because the whole presumptive question has to be refuted and therefore cannot be simply answered. For example, if I ask you, "Why did the tooth fairy leave me only a nickel?" You only have two options. You can either lie and make up an answer to my question or you can refute my whole question by telling me there is no such thing as a tooth fairy. Many of the questions that the church hates are presumptive questions. We presume to understand what good means. We presume that God created everything. We presume that God micromanages the universe and therefore everything that happens is because God caused it to happen. Based on these presumptions, we argue with the church asking questions that the church hates to answer and the church hates to answer these presumptive questions because they cannot be simply answered. The questions themselves have to be refuted. So here is your paradigm shift. If you want a religion that has been so simplified that it can be spoon fed to you like baby food, convert to Islam. The Bible is hard to digest. It isn't simplified. It isn't something you can just swallow. You have to chew on it a while as if you were eating a thick juicy steak. Like medicine, the Bible is hard to swallow. It tastes nasty at times. But once you've wrestled with God for a while, you'll discover that he is truly good. The law of the Lord is perfect. The problem is, the law of the church is not the same thing as the law of the Lord. The law of the church is oversimplified, just like the Sharia laws. The law of the church is based on external behaviors and a simple equation of sin should be punished. The law of God is completely different and you need a paradigm shift in your thinking to understand this. The law of God is concerned with internal spiritual matters and is less concerned with external behaviors. The law of God is concerned with natural consequences and is less concerned with punishment. The law of the Lord restores instead of punishes. The church gets all bent out of shape about punishing the wicked but God restores even when God has to oppose the church in order to do so. The law of the Lord is contextual. He made some laws that only applied to certain times, places or people and were never intended for everyone. Jesus never abolished any of the laws of God. He didn't have to. The priestly laws were only for the priests and only for the time before Jesus came to fulfill the law. So the liberal Christians are wrong when they say that the law is abolished but if anyone tells you to obey the priestly laws or any other laws that were only for a specific time, place or people, than they are wrong. I have wrestled with God. I need reasonable rules. I need rules I can live by, rules that don't condemn me. I need standards that anyone can live up to. I need standards that don't ostracize people just because of how they were born. I need rules that don't condemn people but build people up instead. But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him. James 1:5 NASB One year my cat developed a rash. He was scratching his head vigorously all the time. He scratched his head so vigorously, he drew blood. I hated seeing Fred suffer. I was angry with Fred because he wouldn't stop scratching. I was angry with him because I loved him and I didn't want him to suffer. I took him to the vet and got medicine for him. I tried giving him the medicine to cure the rash so he wouldn't itch anymore and wouldn't scratch his head until bleeding anymore. Of course Fred fought the medicine. Have you ever tried giving medicine to a cat? One day, in frustration I yelled, "If you would stop fighting me, I'll make the itch go away. Just cooperate with me." Then I heard God say, "That's exactly what I've been trying to tell you all this time." One day, I was trying to feed Fred but because I was in the middle of moving, his food was on the opposite end of the apartment from his food dish. As I was walking, Fred kept getting underfoot. He had to be right where I was trying to walk. Finally in frustration I yelled, "I'm trying to feed you. I could rearrange your entire world for you if you would just get out of the way." Then I heard God say, "That's exaclty what I've been trying to tell you all this time." One day, I was sitting on the couch watching Fred struggle with the cone I force him to wear to keep him from hurting himself. I began talking to him. "When you hurt yourself, I feel pain because I love you. That's what love is, to hurt when someone else hurts and to celebrate when someone else celebrates. I love you and so I feel your pain and it hurts me to see you suffer. I hate you because you cause pain to yourself and I hate anyone who hurts one I love. Would you really prefer that I stop loving you? The only way that I can stop hurting when you hurt yourself is if I stopped loving you, is that what you want? Do you want me to cast you out into the cold darkness where you'll have to fend for yourself without me to take care of you? I hate you because I care about you and you hurt yourself. The only way I can stop hating you is either you stop hurting yourself or I cast you out and stop caring about you. Which do you prefer?" Then I heard God say, "That's exactly what I've been trying to tell you all this time." I'm not going to boast of an instant cure. The truth is, I still feel a sexual attraction to men from time to time. But the itch is significantly less severe. I don't have to scratch to the point of harming myself anymore. More importantly, I know that God loves me and cares too much about me to let me go on hurting myself. And Fred's rash cleared up too and he no longer hurts himself.

My complaint on this issue is that it gets triggered everytime I cross a parcel boundary. There's this one parcel that is really small and set to the same music as all the surrounding parcels but I've learned never to walk through that parcel because I have to hit "allow" music twice, first upon entering the parcel then upon leaving the parcel. And the parcel is so small that I leave it almost immediately after I enter it. Could they make it at least possible to set music region wide instead of just in each parcel?

I'm gonna say this with as much satire as your original post so don't take this at face value. You said, Hello. How dare you say Hello. I'm offended and I'm going to report you to the Lindens. You shouldn't be allowed to be on Second Life you Hello-Saying-Creep. There, now we've summed up the entire forum.

Yup, you named all the good ways to earn lindens. There are other ways but they aren't as good. Money does grow on trees in Second Life. Unfortunately those money trees are hard to find, usually restricted to only noobs, and you can't even get a whole pennies worth of Lindens from the trees. Camping is similar but a little easier to find and a little less restricted. Contests and games can get you Lindens but they are just as likely to take Lindens from you so in the long run, it's better to skip them unless you have money to burn. And those surveys are almost all phishing scams. I have yet to see a valid survey in SL that didn't have a catch of some kind.

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: bejjinks wrote: “Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars... Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.” ― Martin Luther King Jr. Because the Christians are so non-violent to other religions, right? I'm not making a blanket statement about all Christians. I'm saying that Martin Luther King Jr. and I are non-violent and we both happen to be Christians. I'm saying that maybe some Christians are violent but there are Christians who are not violent. And you can't make me be loving by hating me without cause. Trust me that it does not help me to stay kind when people track me down in Second Life and act violently toward me but I will stay non-violent like Martin Luther King Jr.

“Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars... Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: bejjinks wrote: Okay, I've learned my lesson. I better not tell you I'm male because if I tell you that I'm male, it means that I hate women. Apparently I can't tell you anything about who I am or you will assume I'm trying to make you just like me. So fine, I'll go crawl under a rock and die because apparently, anyone who is different from you is oppressing you and preventing you from expressing yourself. So let's kill everyone who isn't exactly like you and then you can finally be accepted and no longer oppressed. Then maybe there will be peace on Earth. Bejjinks, I think you're getting a less than warm and welcoming response for several reasons. I've seen your kind of hyperbole before, it's difficult to take seriously. If your goal was to establish the rationality of your Christian perspective, fantasizing objectionable behavior onto us hardly seems the best method. My goal was not to establish the rationality of my Christian perspective.

Okay, I've learned my lesson. I better not tell you I'm male because if I tell you that I'm male, it means that I hate women. Apparently I can't tell you anything about who I am or you will assume I'm trying to make you just like me. So fine, I'll go crawl under a rock and die because apparently, anyone who is different from you is oppressing you and preventing you from expressing yourself. So let's kill everyone who isn't exactly like you and then you can finally be accepted and no longer oppressed. Then maybe there will be peace on Earth.

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: bejjinks wrote: See without Jesus, I view this world as a living Hell. War, poverty, greed, slavery, oppression. If the Atheists are right, than we should all commit suicide because oblivion sounds so much more appealing than life on Earth. I see, so your religion, which is one of the younger ones, has to be the one that is correct? Was this world a living hell before Christianity came about? Did the evil and corrupt just spring up when Christianity was created? oh wait.. according to your big book of fiction, the world didnt exist before your God created it 5000 years ago. my bad, i forgot. Believe whatever you want. This world was a living Hell before Christianity came about? They used to sacrifice children regularly to a fertility goddess that demanded blood. But don't bring your hatred around me.

Can an innercity black man and an innercity Asian be friends? If the black man lays down his weapons and offers peace, will the Asian assume that the black man is trying to kill him? Will the enmity between the two groups be so great that the Asian seeks revenge on the black man that is offering peace because of what other black men have done to Asians? Will the Asian accuse the black man of being antagonistic just because he is black? Will the Asian insist that the only way he'll accept the black man is if the black man ceases to be black? We live in a world where hatred reigns supreme. Everyone is full of bitterness and seeks to define a group of people to blame for all their problems. If only we could wipe ____ people off the face of the planet, than we can have peace, right? See without Jesus, I view this world as a living Hell. War, poverty, greed, slavery, oppression. If the Atheists are right, than we should all commit suicide because oblivion sounds so much more appealing than life on Earth. You blame me for causing oppression. I'm sick of being oppressed. Good things do not get done in this world because there is no profit in helping each other out. Bad things are done all the time because there is great profit in theft. Is there no peace anywhere? Is this Earth Hell already? What do I have to do to find peace and friendship? Do I have to deny who I am? Why is it so hard for all of you to be friendly?

Ceka Cianci wrote: it has 613 commandments not just 10.. which a lot of christians don't even know about.. hehehehe It has 613 commandments that were part of the Mosaic law that only applied to the Mosaic priesthood. Those commandments were never intended for the whole world.

There are homosexuals who accept having me as a friend. Am I calling for your death? Am I persecuting you? How come several homosexuals count me as a friend but you assume persecution on my part? Or are you just blaming me for what someone else did?