Nighthawk

Kick the bitch in the tummy.

Wu Tang Forever 1. Dog Sh*t That is all.

See now in my experience most people consider that a throwaway at best and actively dislike it at worst. I think it's better than that, I've called it under rated before. It's probably in my third tier of Waits albums (there are around five total).

"Rock n Roll Nigger" makes me cover my eyes and shake my head, but I also enjoy Manson's version.

I've heard a better version of this, but I can't remember it. Hey, do you know how breakdancing was invented? Black guy trying to steal the hubcaps off a moving car.

Ordered it, it hasn't come yet. I eagerly await.

God, man, get Ascension. From what you're saying, you're going to love it.

Listen to Incy, but you might like Bitches Brew as well... you could sort of call it the Kind of Blue of his crazy period. Worth having for historical value as well as being a fine album. On the Corner is the good stuff, though. Get that first and work from there.

Well, that's how people can relate to it. Brady Bunch was a perfect world too, even though they were divorced... or widowed... wait, one was divorced and one was widowed, right? I can never remember.

Good crazy. When he got into fusion and "killed jazz", as they say.

Come to think of it, I don't mind very early Rolling Stones or very early Beatles, either. I don't have any of those albums. It just never crosses my mind to get them. But if I did have them, I'd probably listen to them. I think Revolver is over-rated to the same extent as the Beatles are. It's a good album... no Abbey Road, but it's a good album. Also Kind Of Blue. I do like it very much, but I could name 20 Miles Davis albums I like better, and that includes the ones before he went crazy.

Ha ha.

Bobby's taste is usually rather questionable, but this time I must agree. I think the secret to Full House was it always remaining unequivocally saccharine. Full House's universe was a perfect world. I think you had to watch it as a kid to get it... or be a parent.

All that symbolism is just adding weight to my belief that the Bible is mostly a work of fiction. Not really symbolism. It shouldn't make you think that, really, I don't think you quite understood. To understand that isn't going to make you happy with God, it makes him look bad. When you understand that God is love, and stop thinking about them as two seperate things, at most wrapped up in each other, that's why an almighty God allows bad things to happen. That's why the world is screwed up. He needs (and I mean needs quite literally here... it would be a craving akin to breathing) us to love him. Why is it that a blood sacrifice is required for sin? Why is it that the death of Jesus is the only thing that can save us? Who set up those rules? God did. He did because he has to sacrifice himself... that's what love is (now a lot of people say here it isn't love because he fucked us over first and made us need him to do it... remember, there is no love which is not God. Love as a freely sentient entity has to do those things, because that's the only way to get us in a position where we need it). When people understand this, they can say "Well, I wouldn't have anything to do with a god like that." or they accept it. A God who is love needs both responses.

Has to do with God being love. God is love, therefore, all he can do is kill himself for you, because it's the ultimate expression of love. If you've read the Preacher comics, you'll understand. God needs us to love him (that's why he exists), and he must perform the ultimate sacrifice for us (that's his nature). It explains everything neatly... God needs us to need him to die for us, and he needs to die for us... because he is love.

Well, entirely is a stong word. Christianity is thus: "Jesus died for your sins." That's, quite literally, it. Much has sprung up around it, but it's, in it's core, unbelievably simple. That's the other thing I love about it. Let me also point out, that I'm entirely self educated. The short time I spent in college had nothing to do with this, and I don't intend to study it again when I go back. This is all just from my own research. Recommend me books if you like, I will read them. Knowledge for it's own sake is my narcotic.

Now, Huck, don't be making them definitive claims about me. Your view of atheism is more agnosticism with an attitude. I can side with that. Atheists I commonly meet, truly believe they can prove, ultimateley, the lack of God's existence. They can't. Now what you're saying, I think that the evidence points the same either way in the end (that's what I love about Christianity... even if it's completely made up, it's internal logic is entirely self-sufficient).

Yer fulla shit on this one though.

I find myself unable to get into a lot of classic artists. Dylan, Zeppelin... some more. But yeah, I don't take much stock in the very top tier of music. It's over-rated, almost as a matter of course. I like one Stones album (Goat's Head Soup), no Dylan, no Zeppelin, average amount of Beatles, no Who... Floyd is the exception, I like them. I like Pet Sounds pretty much exactly as much as the rest of the Beach Boys. "Yeah, that's ok." I can't get excited about London Calling either.

I bash Catholics pretty good.

Now, I'm no mathematician. I love the field (in fact, to peek into my mind here... my ultimate theory is that math defeats god [not in the literal sense, O faithful, fear not]). But it was always my worst subject in school, so you'll have to bear with me I think we can say the Big Bang, and God's creation of the universe can be addressed similarly, as the implications are the same. Now, if we break all this down, we can say that to you, "what came before the Big Bang (or in the religious vernacular, before the "Beginning")?" is not a question at all, and to most who are not experts in the field, it's a question which is unanswerable. To aside for the onlookers, the question can not even begin to be addressed because all means we would use to determine the answer are defined by the act itself. The result of this is, in a sense, agnosticism, which I do not hold in the same contempt as atheism. Atheism presupposes an ultimate knowledge, which I think you'll agree, cannot be attained. Our knowledge, in fact our ability to gain knowledge, is finite. I would agree with you there. I don't think an atheist would accept this any more than a fundamentalist. My claim exists within the realm of the universe, which is the same realm the atheist functions in, and therefore I think valid. Of course in the end... "math defeats god". That's not an idea I think most I engage in discussion here are ready to accept, however.

Bible's literally true There's my thread, for the curious.

Coherance? (I'm very drunk, note) Invisible man in the sky is a phrase you like to invoke, but it's either "Supernatural being exists of no beginning and end, all powerful and beyond rules of nature" or "Non-sentient matter exists of no beginning and end, beyond rules of nature"... all powerful saves the ideology from lack of coherance. Is nature all powerful? No, unless you're a filthy hippie. Therefore, between nature and god, god remains the only option with sense.

No you didn't. The Discovery Channel has denigrated to nothing but shows with extraordinaryly gay hosts telling you how to make your home stunning on a budget and shows about tricking out cars.

It's a simple equation. Matter exists. In order for atheism to be correct, matter came from nothing. That's spontaneous generation, disproved 150 years ago. Therefore, either there is or was at some time, a god, or, the universe always existed. That's totally oversimplified nonsense. A nice attempt at a false dilemma though, but not hard to refute using mathematical physics. Good. This is a simplifieded forum (in the broader sense of the word). As a mathematician I would expect such a response from you. It remains essentially true, however. I've been impressed with you, though I admit it's a bit strange doing this with a fellow called Hogan Made Wrestling (but hey, St. IDrinkRatsMilk isn't much better) But let's do it. Refute. I live for a challenge.