Lady Rarity Pony

Nor did I ever mention he stated that. He put a lot of emphasis on cause and effect and development by exposure. He left out the part that people have their own consciences, or at least didn't put much emphasis on it to make his message seem realistic.

While exposure does affect people, I don't think it's as significant as you make it out to be. You make it sound as if people are nothing but molded figurines who have no say in their own development until they make some extreme effort to become 'different'. Obviously anything that happens around you has an effect in some way, shape, or form, but people still have minds to think on their own through the situation. It's not like the end result is always against your will.

I think the new posts tab on the right is completely unneeded. I'd prefer not to have it entirely.

"You cannot please both God and the world at the same time, They are utterly opposed to each other in their thoughts, their desires, and their actions." -- St. John Vianney

Being a good friend. ;__;

The sarcasm is strong in this one.

pic doesn't work :I

I have the strangest bo...never mind. :X

Is Molestia the Equestrian god of pedophilia?

Well, it'd be hard for me to give one general answer to this that would accurately represent all religions, tales, and beliefs of ancient times. Especially considering the variety and diversity of the pagan religions. The pagan Greeks, Egyptians, and Romans of antiquity witnessed natural phenomena and because of the lack of significant scientific explanation, concluded that things such as wind were really people in the sky blowing down upon the earth. Their representations of these people in the sky were not intended to be "metaphorical" nor "symbolic", they were intended, albeit erroneously, to be taken literally. The pagan Aztecs viewed the Sun and thought it was a sentient entity. This belief is represented in ancient Aztec writing and iconography. Did they intend their works to be considered "symbolic"? Not at all. They believed the Sun was literally a being worthy of worship. It is true that they did attribute certain human emotions to powerful beings, but that is different from intending for it to be symbolic or metaphorical. They believed these entities existed. The educated pagans did begin to move away from the idea of weather being caused by divine beings, especially around the time of the great Greek philosophers. These beliefs are now regarded as myth because modern technology and science enable us to know for sure that there are no physical people standing in the sky blowing, crying, or throwing electricity down upon the earth. Dragons and sea-monsters have been and meant different things throughout history. In some cases they were just tales and folklore, passed down through oral or written word. In other cases comets have been thought to have been snakes or dragons do to their "tails". The origins of these ideas are difficult to know for sure. Did these people really think they saw a sea monster? Did they see a shark or whale and thought of it as a "sea-monster"? Was this just an entirely made up story intended as myth? We can't know for sure. Well, no. There is a difference between something that is intended to be metaphorical and something that was intended to be literal, yet was an erroneous observation. Such as the Sun being a sentient entity. That was intended to be literal, but was clearly an error. I'm sure there are religious texts out there that were intended to taken entirely metaphorical, but the absence of verifiable historical or scientific fact doesn't necessarily mean it is intended to be a metaphor. On top of all this, a text doesn't necessarily have to be one either end of the spectrum. There are texts about (or allegedly about) historical events that may have metaphorical grammar in them, without the entire text or story being metaphorical. As far as the Genesis creation account goes. That's still open to debate by scientists, theologians, and historians. I personally regard it as a metaphorical or creative account of the creation of the earth. Though that doesn't mean I regard the entire Book of Genesis as a pile of metaphors. Basically what I'm getting at is that there are no general statements that can be used to accurately represent all religious texts or even all religious texts that lack clear historical or scientific facts. Each text has to be examined on it's own. Grammar, historical context, etc. need to be taken into consideration. Sorry for the long rant.

1. Do you believe in an afterlife? Yes. 2. Are you a religious person and if so what does your specified religion state about death? I'm hesitant to use the term "religious" because of how it's thrown around these days, almost always in a negative manner. I'm Roman Catholic and practice my faith. Mass on Sunday, confession, etc. The Church teaches of Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory. All of which I feel have significant theological and scriptural support. In other words, it's not an "invention" of the Church. 3. Are you scared of death/oblivion Very much. Death is always scary to me, even if I believe there is something greater at the end. We're suppose to live a good life following the way of Christ out of love, not out of fear of damnation or out of anxiousness for a reward at the end of the finish line. Therefore I try not to think about the afterlife so I can keep my motives for being good away from outright selfishness or fear.

I do believe in an afterlife, and a soul that will never die. Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory. The former two being permanent dwelling places. I know some people view an afterlife as a "happy thought" people choose to cope with death, but I view it as the complete opposite. Oblivion (all life ends at death) seems like a much prettier thought to me. Life would be much easier for me if I believed life ended completely at death. The idea of living on forever is a scary thought. You must conform your life to absolute moral laws, and so on. The "easy way out" would be no afterlife at all. I wouldn't have to worry about anything. Nevertheless, I still believe in the afterlife, but I do not claim to know of what exactly it is like, nor do I claim to know who will be there. I also believe people give God too much credit when it comes to deciding where you go for all eternity. Haha, the irony. You decide where you go by how you've lived your life. Those who choose Hell, chose it by their own accord. I also don't believe in any favoritism when it comes to the afterlife. I'm sure there will be many men and women who called themselves Christians in Hell, and I'm sure they'll be plenty of non-Christians, non-Jews, etc. in Heaven.

I must disagree. A general statement like this should not represent all religious texts as having been meant not to be taken literally. The Bible is the only religious texts I have good knowledge of, so it's the only one I can use as an example. The Gospel of Luke is clearly written in the form of a historical account rather than a metaphorical narrative or outright fiction. The author states in the opening lines how it is a collection of first hands accounts of historical events. The oldest copy of the Gospel of Luke also dates back to c.200 AD and it is unchanged from it's later and even modern copies. The historical accuracy of the canonical Gospels is something unmatched by all other religious texts. So much so that the Gospel of Luke is dated by secular historians to have first been written before 70 AD. Which is completely inline with traditional Christian beliefs. This is one example of a religious text that either should be taken literally or not taken seriously at all. Trying to find a middle ground to consider this a metaphorical representation would be a very far fetched idea.

I was seduced into doing it.

Not every kid was raised under the same conditions or has the same personality, so I don't think any general sweeping statement would be accurate. Some are cute, some are irritating. People don't seem to give a crap about teaching their kids manners anymore. There's a lot of bratty kids out there. But there's also some very nice kids. At least under normal circumstances I can get my youngest siblings to be quiet when I tell them, but they can become irritating. Ultimately I'd prefer not to deal with kids unless there're my own.

I was explaining why none of the mods should expect to see anymore feedback PMs from me. And it isn't because I am "displeased" over that past decision, it was actually because I know I pissed quite a lot of mods off that day. Something I really didn't want to repeat again. I mentioned not expecting a fair response because of the reasons Shank mentioned, not because I think it was gonna be some "repeat" of that incident. I really don't expect a complaint over the mod to be handled fairly. Not because I think the staff is incompetent and doesn't know what they're doing, but because complaining to a mod about a fellow mod doesn't seem like it would result in anything good. I know very well that at least some of the mods seem like they'd support each other to the end. While that's nice and all for a friendship, I don't think that would result in fair dealings when it comes to complaints about mods. It was a very blunt and simple explanation as to why I am presenting my distaste over certain mods in this thread, yet no time from now are you gonna see a PM listing which mods I think shouldn't be mods for reasons A, B, and C. My post was clearly a very rude inside joke. But I never once gave any details of the events, displayed "my side or the story", asked for democracy, or even advised members not to contact the mods. No need for the private details to come spilling out and no need for assumptions to be made.