Use Your Illusion

You're not used to this by now? I think the teased E&C reunion should happen the second Edge is good to go. I mean, they can both (E&C) be unified through their hatred for a man that has 'screwed' them out of the title, so the angle would at least have some form of story or purpose. Edge can always play the Rocky card too when he gets back. He bled, he sweat, he fought and the fans gave him jack - use it to your advantage. As for Randy - ...well he has great music. UYI

Apologies

Hey, don't bring your street lingo here, buddy boy.

Liar.

Remember when he used to call a spinebuster a 'sidewalk slam'. Ah, that takes me back. UYI

He just sent me the exact same message, word for word. Lynch him.

You're an idiot. Really. UYI

No it wouldn't.

What the hell does KISS have to do with this conversation?

This is not a shot at anyone here, as I feel this discussion has been carried out exceptionally considering religion is the topic, but there is not any concrete evidence available or that has ever been collected (outside of the Bible) that suggests Jesus Christ even existed. However, this is a topic in which I'm sure all of us could write for days about, and I've had a long, hard week teaching, so I won't go into it now. UYI

^Espicially the wicked guitar intro. I must be one of few people that absolutely loved the VMA performance. Chalk it up to nostalgia, I suppose. Axl sang 'Madagascar' beautifully though. UYI

I agree.

That's why we have four gospels. The same story can be told four different ways and they all remain true. I think I can get away without using an example here. The life and death of Christ being the focal point of the Bible, it's only natural that we would have four perspectives to glean our information from. I'm afraid I'm missing your point here? If you're saying that scholars can derive information relevant to when Mark's Gospel was written by taking into account how/what is in other Gospels, then I follow you. If this is the case, it is possible to attain this knowledge without going outside of Mark's Gospel though, as I demonstrated earlier. Maybe I need clarifying here.

Do you have your own personal theory on creation, IDRM?

You're under-rated.

That makes sense. I have 'AUSTRALIAN' printed on my forehead in black marker.

Demonstrate some of these. I'm aware that the Bible never actually mentions things like confessions and a few other Catholic beliefs, but I'm curious as to what the other "demonstratably false" aspects are. Well for pagan customs, the Catholics assimilated the springtime feast/celebration of fertility and called it Easter. They stole Christmas as well. They just adopted the 25th of December as the birthday of Christ, despite there being no recorded evidence ever found, in the Bible or anywhere else, that suggests this as being factual. Christmas, I believe, was originally a Roman celebration in regards to the 'renewal of the Sun'. However, I'd have to look into to it for anymore details on its' history. UYI Question: Do you think Catholic clergy denies that? Because I can tell you for a fact that they don't. The MEANING of each holiday was not stolen. The DATE of each celebration was chosen specifically to attract members of the Pagan tradition. Absolutely, I agree with you completely. I was merely making a point that was not originally a Christian custom, as no doubt believed by a vast majority of people.

The Bible is not a source of factual information or a reliable or justifiable piece to judge or base any form of judgement or argument on. Biblical 'evidence' was that crafted by authors who, like every other author to ever live or will ever live, subconciously or conciously manipulate, alter and influence the presentation and documentation of the final text through their own hermeneutical perspective. An example of this, for those of you who do not grasp what I am discussing, can be found within the Gospel of Mark through his depiction of Pilate. I will happily go into detail on this should anyone desire me to. However, I have just spent a good block of time writing about this personally to SP and don't necessarily feel like doing it all again if no one in particular is interested. So does 'biblical evidence' come down to a matter of faith for you, SP (or any other devoted Christian in attendance)? I'd be interested in it. Shoot. Sure. There has been a great deal of debate over *when* Mark wrote his version of the Gospel. However, looking at what is written and *how* it is presented gives the indication that it was written within the time when the Roman Empire was at power. Now obviously, at the point in time at which 'Mark' (who very well could be several scholars) documented the Gospel, Rome was a place riddled with a plethora of cults, sects, 'outsider' religions etc. However, the vast majority of these were tolerated, not encouraged, by the Romans. Therefore, if we accept here that Mark was writing during this time, he would of had to document and record his Gospel in a manner that wouldn't get him killed or his writings destroyed. In order to do this, Mark would have had to *change* the historical facts within his writings to represent the Romans in a light that was positive and expressed a great deal of HONOUR. Now, I could write you seven essays on the importance of 'honour' within ancient times right here and now, but I'll be as concise as possible. Honour (or honor, if you're an American) is something that was valued above anything and everything within ancient times, superceding wealth and even LIFE itself. Honour was attained through acts of bravery or courage, and gained one the instant recognition of those above and below him. Being recognised and acknowledged by the upper class was a VERY important and sought after thing within ancient times, as they (the upper class) were, at least in that society, the epitome of humankind. So back on track here for you X, Mark would have needed to craft the Gospels so it stroked the proverbial ego of the Romans. To do this, he *changed* how Pilate was represented. Historically, Pilate was a bloodthirsty sadist who was actually dismissed from his position for being TOO cruel. Yet in Mark's Gospel, Pilate is someone who releases (and therefore seemingly forgives) criminals - specifically Barabbas, a MURDERER. Of course, in every great story, a villan must exist for the protagonist to triumph over, therefore the Jewish High Priests were used. Instead of being convicted to a bloody, miserable death by Pilate (a gentile), Mark has the Jewish High Priests represented as individuals who brainwashed and rallied a large crowd of people into intimidating Pilate so that they could get their way. Looking at this from the outside (and it is even documented in the Bible anyway), the High Priests were undoubtably threatened by the influence and 'power' of Jesus Christ - as he was a man who claimed to be the Son of God and could seemingly BACK IT UP. That's a very scary thing for a Jewish High Priest within those times. So you see how Mark has changed and altered what may have actually historically occurred just so he could coincide with the society he was living in (which is understandable)? Hope that was easy to follow, X. UYI

Uh, let's just remember that Kurt was at Olympic standard almost TEN YEARS AGO. He has said himself that if he even went anywhere near the Olympics these days, he'd have his sorry ass served to him in about 30 seconds. Kurt is a phenomial wrestler, but no way in hell is he as good as he used to be. He'd still kill Eddie though.

Interesting fact -- Eddie said a lot of his first matches were like fistfights. He was probably high or drunk or something.

Wouldn't kicking someone's BUTT require the act of one's foot meeting the buttocks of another?

Just saw the Rey Mysterio pics... Of *all* the costumes that man has, what one do they give him? That's right, the same one from the previous game. Knowing WWE, I doubt anything else will be included for him either, such as more costumes. I was really hoping they'd have his silver pants-silver mask outfit in there (the one he wore at SSlam 2002, and just recently on SD!), as it looks really cool. But hey, I'm sure Vince will have six variations of suits to wear, so it balances it out. UYI

Demonstrate some of these. I'm aware that the Bible never actually mentions things like confessions and a few other Catholic beliefs, but I'm curious as to what the other "demonstratably false" aspects are. Well for pagan customs, the Catholics assimilated the springtime feast/celebration of fertility and called it Easter. They stole Christmas as well. They just adopted the 25th of December as the birthday of Christ, despite there being no recorded evidence ever found, in the Bible or anywhere else, that suggests this as being factual. Christmas, I believe, was originally a Roman celebration in regards to the 'renewal of the Sun'. However, I'd have to look into to it for anymore details on its' history. UYI

This fucking killed me. I don't particularly care about Angle's backstage trickery. It's KURT ANGLE - if it means he is the focus of SD! and everything is centred around him then *good*. UYI

The Bible is not a source of factual information or a reliable or justifiable piece to judge or base any form of judgement or argument on. Biblical 'evidence' was that crafted by authors who, like every other author to ever live or will ever live, subconciously or conciously manipulate, alter and influence the presentation and documentation of the final text through their own hermeneutical perspective. An example of this, for those of you who do not grasp what I am discussing, can be found within the Gospel of Mark through his depiction of Pilate. I will happily go into detail on this should anyone desire me to. However, I have just spent a good block of time writing about this personally to SP and don't necessarily feel like doing it all again if no one in particular is interested. So does 'biblical evidence' come down to a matter of faith for you, SP (or any other devoted Christian in attendance)?