Show Posts

* Messages | Topics | Attachments

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Koopaslaya

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 172
Mario Chat / Re: Ohio State Marching Band
« on: October 09, 2012, 04:31:50 AM »
@bobman37 -- I will avenge it. Mark my words, I will.

Mario Chat / Re: Ohio State Marching Band
« on: October 08, 2012, 08:33:15 PM »
I've heard of other bands trying the Tetris formation, but I've never seen something like this. Epona was simply incredible.

Mario Chat / Ohio State Marching Band
« on: October 08, 2012, 08:09:22 PM »

I know I haven't been here in a while, but I saw this and it reminded me of y'all.

General Chat / Re: Google Maps 8-bit for NES
« on: April 03, 2012, 08:14:58 PM »
I rather thought this was hilarious when I saw it. I love the 8-bit landmarks.

Well, I have decided that those rules ruin the game's fun.

Defending marriage as one-man-one-woman, of necessity, means that one would object to same-sex unions to be considered marriages.

I refuse to use the "Bible says so" arguments. They are flimsy arguments at best. Because we cannot all agree that the Bible is Revelatory, we must appeal to a more common source of human understanding, reason alone. Using reason, without even making explicit any mention of the Christian God in any way, we can discern that homosexuals cannot marry. Plato decided upon this in his work, The Laws, hundreds of years before Christianity and without any exposure to Jewish virtues. It is especially dangerous to appeal to the Bible in arguments like these because it creates two "camps," religious and secular, which ought not exist for the purpose of debate. I really think that we have this mixed-up idea going on here which suggests that the only possible argument against homosexual marriage is religious. This is not the case, not should it be. Rather, Churches (and I [carelessly enough, I suppose] use this as a blanket term for Jewish and Islam groups as well) are simply pointing out that homosexual marriages are contrary to nature and that they are not perfective of the human good. Nobody is upset that the Church is against people killing other people, or that it is against genocide, or that it is against wife beating, or that it is against any number of other issues that are not "controversial."

No, not everyone who is religious is an evil gay-hater. Telling entire Churches to "**** themselves" is careless and bigoted itself. Take away the Catholic Church (to name one of many religious institutions) and you automatically take away 25% of all AIDS relief worldwide. Hurling around ad hominem attacks for the sake of rhetorical emphasis is immature and unintellectual. We would be much better off if we could stick to the topic, argue rationally, and actually critique the issues, not the people holding them. This charity in speech makes for arrival at the truth much more fruitful for all. After all, the point of an intellectual argument is not to "win," but rather it is to arrive at wisdom and correct action together.

Churches can go **** themselves, continue being bigoted, and slowly lose their members until they decide that discriminating against their fellow man because of ancient myths might not be the best idea.

Why is it bigoted when a Church (or even a secular philosophy which appeals not to God) defends traditional one-man-one-woman marriage, but when someone in favor of homosexual "marriage" tells a Church to "**** itself" it is not?

Freedom does not mean license.

Not at the Dinner Table / Re: Pick a number from 1 to 7
« on: June 24, 2011, 04:35:19 PM »

That sounds like the ontological argument...again, a priori knowledge. You could easily say the same thing about a unicorn though.

Exactly my point. You can't study a unicorn. I am not attempting to prove God. I know what its like to try to do that, especially around these parts. Rather, I was only attempting to explain why I chose #1 and what I meant by it.

Also, just an FYI; I think the ontological argument is bogus. That was not what I was going for. I was simply saying that if I am to call myself a theologian, I ought to know that what I study exists, otherwise I'm crazy!

Mario Chat / Re: Super Mario 64 turns 15 today!
« on: June 23, 2011, 07:01:47 PM »
This is hard to believe. Playing this game again brings back some great memories!

I've found its interesting to coem back to activities that you once loved; often doing this triggers other related memories, and it can be quite enjoyable to reflect on them. For me, going back to old games and music helps me to experience something of a time capsule of myself.

Not at the Dinner Table / Re: Pick a number from 1 to 7
« on: June 23, 2011, 06:43:35 PM »

EDIT: I am presuming that the above post was demanding an explanation of my post. I suppose #1 seems foolish. I certainly believe in God with my entire being. Jung's epistemology, however, is probably inadequate to really define my understand my "knowledge" of God. What I do not mean is the following: "I know God, I know what God wants, I know who is saved and [darn]ed, I know all the problems of the universe, I know how God operates, I understand all the mystery." I am not a fundamentalist of that sort.Yes, even the great theologians (Thomas, in particular) admitted that quidditative knowledge is impossible in this life, at least. But, what theologians would not deny is an express knowledge or certitude of the existence of God, (if we could even say that God exists -- for it is far better to say that God is existence).

As a theologian myself, it would be idiotic of me to suggest that I am studying something that does not exist. The biologist, for instance, could not say that he studies biology, but then go and deny the existence of something biological. Nay, the biologist first presumes that there is indeed something alive to be studied! And so, I can't say that I study God if I don't even know that my subject matter exists.

Christianity works very nicely in this regard. Either Jesus was who he said he was, or he was, to quote CS Lewis, a lunatic of "a particularly abominable type." Christ makes it easy, either we have to accept him for who he claimed to be, or he was a nut. I, for one, hold the Christ's divinity to be true. This is one reason for my certainty on this subject.

If we wanted to strip this issue of its Christian character, I suppose we could, and I would have to argue from the age-old arguments for and against God in the most general sense possible. We could do that, but it's a terrible amount of work, and it surely doesn't make for good leisure reading.

I know (perhaps better than I know God) this is all very convoluted and confusing, but I reckon that this is what 4 years of Philosophy, Greek, and Latin will do to a man!

Not at the Dinner Table / Re: Pick a number from 1 to 7
« on: June 23, 2011, 05:28:34 PM »
I picked #1.

General Chat / Re: New/Returning Members Post Here!
« on: October 18, 2010, 11:31:23 AM »
Woah CashCrazed!

General Chat / Re: A calculator trick I discovered
« on: September 25, 2010, 07:21:44 PM »
This just reminds me why I don't come here anymore.

Mario Chat / Re: SMB2 glitch
« on: May 31, 2010, 08:50:19 AM »
Everybody in the club is bumpin', bumpin'.*

*I hope someone catches the Destiny's Child reference.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 172