iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
27 Aug 2007, 11:26 pm
28 Aug 2007, 1:39 am
Does it work?
My opinion: yes. It does something for me, so it must do something for girls who like girls.
EDIT: Actually... you've opened my eyes to how exposed I really was with my last avatar. Thinking like an analytical Aspie, I thought, "Well, guys go completely shirtless outside all the time, and no one thinks or says anything, much less if they're simply wearing a tank-top instead of a real shirt -- so what's wrong with me not making myself put a shirt on before taking a photo? I mean, it's just shoulders, for crying out loud. Big deal." But, the responses I got, and your rather-too-revealing pic, have led me to conclude that -- somehow -- showing shoulders is just too "hot" for most people to consider modest. (Strange, considering women go out in strapless dresses all the time.) So, although you look great, maybe your pic is a bit too intimate. Yes, it would get girls, but not likely respect, or respectful girls. The true quality of a photo is not what's in the picture, but what it suggests/says to the viewer. I guess bare shoulders are risque only when there's no evidence that you're wearing anything. Put two little spaghetti-straps over your shoulders, and suddenly it becomes a modest photo. Weird how that works.
Last edited by Ragtime on 28 Aug 2007, 8:47 am, edited 3 times in total.
28 Aug 2007, 1:44 am
28 Aug 2007, 1:49 am
28 Aug 2007, 1:59 am
Hello,
This thread has been a bit of a disappointment, with certain individuals either being openly hositle or deliberately wasting space with unrelated crap. Soph and others, you've had most of this forum to yourselves, it would be nice for those of us with a differing viewpoint to have a mature discussion without you trying to instigate flame wars. Let's try to get back to some discussions of monotheism.
iamnotaparakeet- I disagree very strongly with your young-earth creationist views. The Bible is not a science textbook, it was never intended to be such, and untill you can show me a quote from Deuteronomy that accurately describes the Krebs cycle, you won't be able to change my mind on that. As Galileo said, "The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven- not how the heavens go." There is truth in the Bible, but it is foolish to try to take passages and interpret them in such a way that you think they are describing the natural world. I remember some Jehovah's Witnesses came to my house to give me an anti-evolution pamphlet, which, among other things, stated "the Bible says that the Earth is round, therefore evolution is false." 
I am a Christian, and I fully believe that God created the uuniverse and everything in it. I just disagree with you as to HOW He did it. And from a theological standpoint, is God's chosen method of creation very relevent? He created everything, does it matter if He did it all at once or gradually?
Geologists supporting the young-earth theory tend to selectively ignore certain pieces of information, and of course you have the dinosaurs to wonder about.
I personally believe that Creationism conflicts with Christianity more so than does evolution. There are several flaws in the structure of the human body. Evolutionists can explain these as relics of quadrupedal ancestors, Creationism offers no explanation that I can accept. God would have to be either prone to error or just plain mean. Neither of those possibilities would amount to a God I would worship.
Now, moving on from that debate, why do I believe in Christianity to begin with? My opinion is that with the circumstances surrounding the crucifixion of Jesus, which is a historical fact documented by Pagans and Jews, the fact that Christianity was able to get off the ground amid those circumstances proves its truth. There was a movement of people following Jesus, beginning to realize that he was the long-awaited Messiah, fulfilling many OT prophecies, and then he was arrested and put to a shameful and ignominious death. The appropriate thing for his followers to have done (and what they initially did- see Peter's denial) would have been to flee in disgrace, to scatter about, try to go back to whatever was left of their previous lives. The movement following Jesus was completely smashed with his crucifixion. So how could Chritianity possibly have emerged? The answer is that the story of Jesus's ressurection must be true. If not, there was no way that the early disciples could possibly have believed this. They had to have had some proof, and even Doubting Thomas, the skeptic, was convinced. The faith of the first disciples, therefore, is sufficient evidence for Christianity's truth.
28 Aug 2007, 4:08 am
"Wrong wrong wrong!"
Have you ever thought of what religion does for some people? Even if it's in vain, it works as a good mental placebo. People can reassure themselves that their chosen deity will protect them, and that attitude may make them sure of themselves, increase their will to live, and relax and comfort them. Religions also ensure that moral fibre remains in society, including a respect for human life the way it should be.
I know that I may be sounding biased towards the theists, but I feel that religion is getting kicked about unfairly.
I don't really think that you can have Creationist Scientists, the term is almost an oxymoron. You mean blind fools who follow the bible to every last word, but don't review the facts. The mainstream view amongst many religions today is that science explains the universe created by God, as it were. Perhaps some religious people believe that science will one day find God in whichever dimension he resides. Or find the explanation for God. God is a rather general term, it could mean simply mean the laws of the universe which we don't know yet, a supernatural deity, or an actual force which affects everyone. That would be the ultimate scientific achievement, in a way. Perhaps even better, to obtain an ultimate level of power over the universe that would rival a God's.
How philosophy has become much more complicated over the years.
The facts remain that religion does help people on an individual level, helps them cope with the vast, cold, unforgiving, uncompromising universe whether there is a God or not. That's the way many humans work.
Could you cope with the information that everything is futile in the end? Wouldn't you want to escape from that and be happy?
Of course, there are other ways to cope, but you have to be pretty strong willed and determined to cope with that, or just keep your mind off it, which itself can be difficult.
Ask yourself this: Would you rather believe that you had an eternal soul, or believe in total mental/spiritual death in the end based on only that which has been proven by science?
Let's just state a fact that everyone should know-
Just because science can't prove it, doesn't mean it's there. You have to have faith and imagination in order to percieve that a certain force could exist.
Also, some people call themselves open minded yet they aren't open to the possiblility that a God, in whatever form, might just exist. Who's the open minded one? The person who believes and has that faith in their religion of choice, yet is open and tolerant?
Or the complete atheist who says "hey, God isn't real you stupid £@X$%! !! I can't tolerate religious people, they need to shut the hell up and stop believing! WHAT, IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE? OMG YOU STUPID MORMON, all you have to do is convince yourself that it isn't real! OMG!! ! Religion brings no benefits because people don't acknowledge that there is no God! I don't care about humanitarian Christians, all that matters is that religious people get a brain and stop believing in God because it's not rational!! !"
So, please stop being so hypocritical, everybody.
Ok, I hope my rant got through to a few people.
BUMP
Time to give little Anubis some attention then:
I am well aware of what religion can do for people. It does a mix of good and bad, possibly more bad than good.
Not going to argue with the creationist scientists bit.
You might want to notice religious teaching keeps changing to accomodate scientific facts. In the far future it will have nowhere to run to.
Really? Essential Bible doctrines of conservative Christians change with the times? Hmmm. Name one. The Bible has never been revised, not even to accomodate a scientific discovery. Yet billions believe it, and it's still been the best-selling book since the Gutenberg printing press was invented in order to print it.
By contrast, the Koran has undergone numerous revisions, hundreds of years apart, and the old versions destroyed. No one even knows how many, because it's a secret best kept buried. Catholic doctrines, which merely tip their hat in the general direction of the Bible, change constantly -- even though one of their central claims is that they never change.
Also, the Book of Mormon has been revised several times to avoid statements which, in modern times, have become extremely embarassing.
The newest part of the Bible is nearly 2,000 years old. Therefore, if the Bible were thought up by man, much of it would very likely have been disproven and laughed to scorn long ago. No one's THAT good a writer, and prognosticator. I mean, Israel was dispersed throughout the entire world shortly after the New Testament was written -- and then, they were regathered back into their homeland from all corners of the globe to form one single, solid nation once again. Besides this being completely unprecedented in history for any other people, it was a direct fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies which were well over 2,000 years old. (See Ezekiel 37.)
I was more thinking interpretations of the Bible, and the religious teaching that goes alongside it. Such as the earth being flat, for instance.
28 Aug 2007, 4:11 am
28 Aug 2007, 4:14 am
Anubis
Veteran
Joined: 6 Sep 2006
Age: 136
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,911
Location: Mount Herculaneum/England
28 Aug 2007, 8:19 am
Does it work?
DUHHHH
if you go on a lesbian forum-and don't get hit on once-I'll smash my Styx albums in rage
I pose as a lesbian on some forums that I troll, just to see the reaction from groups. Fellow lesbians hit on you, guys try to hit on you, and people bash you. Oh, the drama.
28 Aug 2007, 8:44 am
I've never been on a gay forum
I did hit on a girl at another forum...she was a lesbian-boy was that awkwards 
Being bi I kinda understood and we became friends
Though if I were to go to a lesbian forum-I could use Soph's pic
then show her people think she is hot (aka girls) and then I get to be told I am right 
devilish plan no
AlexC179
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: 6 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 50
Location: Jacksonville, FL
28 Aug 2007, 10:10 am
Does it work?
It won't hurt, that much is for sure. You are cute and if lesbians are that interested in looks then you should do fine. Most women seem to be not as interested in looks as personality, so I would think they would want to know your personality too (being more important than your looks). Of course I could be wrong and lesbians are all about looks (wouldn't be the first time lol). I hope you find a girl with some similar interests to yours.
28 Aug 2007, 2:30 pm
28 Aug 2007, 3:13 pm
29 Aug 2007, 4:05 pm
29 Aug 2007, 4:28 pm
29 Aug 2007, 4:36 pm
