World's Worst Man

On Leviticus, I understand what you've said, but the point is that the content is there. Some people believe that such content is not there, when it clearly is, and is quite unambiguous. On the last two - well that's kind of the point of bringing it up. Non-believers are going to hell and deserve to be punished with violence? That is the height of intolerance, to kill people for not thinking the same way as others. And again, I'm sure the majority of Christians don't believe that, or at least act on it, but it does seem to be a central theme in the bible.

I don't really want to go down this road, but I'll post a very select few examples. "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." -- Leviticus 20:13. This is basically God speaking to Moses, laying out some rules. That's the whole context, and there's nothing there to suggest that one not take it literally, other that one's own common sense of course. "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." -- Mark 6:11. Here's Jesus preaching to a city. "Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven" --Genesis 19:24. And here's what happened to Sodom and Gomorrha. Seriously though, there's a ton of this stuff, and it's not hard to find. Now, I've not said that the majority of Christians believe this type of nonsense, but it is in the bible, and it isn't really ambiguous. I would personally not base any dogmatic beliefs on a book that contained content of that nature, or a book in which so much of it had to be outright ignored or contextualized, but that's just me. Some people do and that's their prerogative. C'est la vie. This is laughable and closed-minded itself. Some people choose to not believe in something that has no direct, tangible effect on the world, what's wrong with that? I get what you're saying, but saying that it's closed-minded is a bunch of bullshit. If a god exists yet has no effect on the world, no presence, no proof of existence, then what difference does it make? Rhetorical question.

It doesn't feel like Tony will die, or even get seriously injured. It seems like the grieving Soprano family card has been played too many times already, and I don't see that as a way to end the series. Not that I think it will be a "happily ever after" type of deal, because AJ is still fucked, Tony and Melfi are still through, Bobby is still dead, Sil is still a vegetable or dead, etc. I'd say the Sopranos come out on top in the war, albeit with a few more losses, but Tony himself will still have those big issues to deal with.

I just like the idea that the intolerance and violence in the bible is part of some supposed lesson and should be taken in context. Hilarious stuff really, considering how much is in there, and how much is fairly cut and dry. It really reeks of a near complete lack of understanding of what is actually in the book. Belligerent and ignorant attitudes are a big reason why religion is looked down upon by some. Thankfully, not all theists are flawed in such a way.

http://forums.xbox-scene.com/index.php?showtopic=588032 About the RROD. I bought my 360 in March, so I'm hoping they fixed that flaw in the newer models. If it goes, I'm not buying another 360 until they do fix it, because this whole thing is bullshit.

My argument was that the Christian bible preaches violence and intolerance, not the modern Church. I've no problem admitting that modern Christianity has for the most part, not taken to that subject matter. And I don't think the bible should be adapted to fit in to today's society, unless you mean completely throwing out everything except the reasonable moral guidelines, ie morals that benefit society. Otherwise it leads to things like not allowing gays to marry, or women to get abortions because "it goes against God's will". I'm not just talking about extreme fundamentalism either. I've seen many examples of people who are neither extremists nor strict fundamentalists, making arguments that boil down to "because the bible says it's wrong". Using one's religion as a personal moral compass is fine. Trying to force society as a whole to adopt those guidelines based solely on the fact that they're in the bible, is wrong on many levels.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3Lr70lwaVg I'll let that speak for itself.

Read the bible, it's in there. Most people are smart enough to realize it's not to be taken literally, but it's there.

I'd call his 2005 above-average rather than good. Certainly nothing that would say to me he was a prime-time player.

Oh well, with Ottawa's inferiority complex towards the Leafs, I'm sure it was hilarious.

Cano's one good year doesn't prove to me that he's a commodity though. I think guys should get in based on this year's performance, with a some preference towards established stars, as long as those stars aren't having downright poor years (hi, Bobby Abreu).

Who else then? There's no clearly established star at second base and Cano nearly won a batting title last year. Aaron Hill and BJ Upton would both be more deserving, based on the numbers this year. Though I don't expect the former to even be a managerial pick, and I would doubt if the latter is either.

It seems like religion is gradually taking a backseat in many civilized countries, although perhaps it's different in the US, I don't know. I also never really understood why one's religious beliefs were off-limits to criticism, as it is essentially an opinion, unlike one's race or ethnicity. With that being said, I'm not one to go out and attack the common folk for some benign religious views, but I've no such compunctions when dealing with obnoxious dogmatists, or gross fundamentalists/extremists, nor do I have a problem with letting it be known that religion should have absolutely nothing to do with our governmental bureaucracy. It's quite dangerous to give that sort of credence to something that isn't grounded on reality, especially with certain religions that directly preach violence and intolerance in their holy books. Religious intolerance doesn't necessarily have to be a problem either. I can think that Christianity is a load of nonsense without letting that opinion dictate how I treat people who subscribe to that faith. It's simply a difference of opinion, mine just happens to be based on logic, reason and reality, while their's is based on dogma. And I don't mean that in a snide way, as people are free to believe what they want, the key term being "believe". Obviously some people take their beliefs to fanatical and insane levels, and that's where the real problem lies. So with religion, as with anything else, it's really about a person's actions, rather than their characteristics.

Was he cheering for Anaheim? And where was he, I didn't see him?

Clearly Mario Party 8 is no Wii Sports, despite having infinitely more replay value, better presentation, and more variety.

Kingdom Hearts II, Streets of Rage 1-3.

Forza is a pretty good pickup, especially for someone who doesn't have a PS2/3. It provides a slightly different experience compared to Gran Turismo due to the car damage, slightly different physics and better AI. The cosmetic car customization is awesome too. It's definitely a game to buy, since you'd not be able to experience a good portion of the game via rental. But if brake/throttle control in a racing game isn't something that interests a person, this game probably isn't for them.

A lot of fursecution going on here.

It wasn't Jeter's fault!!!!!! It never is!

Just because there are worse things, doesn't make it right. I personally hate dogs quite a bit, so I can't say I care as much as others - but animal cruelty just seems so unhealthy to engage in for personal satisfaction. I won't argue that hunting for sport is any better, but unless you're trying to personally accuse someone of hypocrisy, it doesn't seem relevant. Even if someone doesn't really care about the case because it involves animals, I think you have to base your opinion on principle. Is someone who relishes animal cruelty really a healthy individual that should be left to their own devices? I certainly don't think so.

Chrono Trigger and Castlevania II immediately come to mind. Kingdom Hearts is a good candidate as well.

Oh no, not one post that disses the fabled Smash Bros

Starting to worry about their offense. Thomas should get going soon. If not, I don't think he'll ever get going. Wells has been a load this year too, and he's probably in for one of his "off" years. Then the C platoon of Fasano and Phillips is of course, absolutely terrible. At this point, they've got Rios and Hill hitting, and Overbay coming around, and Glaus coming down from his high, and everyone else sucking. Glaus should settle in, but Wells and Thomas are the big question marks.

Roy Halladay was so great tonight that he caused a White Sox player to possibly break his ankle swinging at a pitch. And Toronto wins despite getting two hits. Hurray.

But it is!!! Modded Wii = godly GameCube.