User talk:Galacticdominator

Religion is my life and I welcome all discussion on it with the provision that you try not to take offence at my beliefs (I won't take offence at yours)
I try to keep an open mind, so of corse you would not alienate me. I enjoy hearing the thoughts of others, so here is why I support mine in a little more detail. In regards to the Bible, I do think that God orchestrated the writings, I think it actually says that somewhere in the Bible, but in every instance of human writings there is always bias. If is not edited, then the bias will remain. I recently heard about how several types of Japanese textbooks listed the Americans as the invaders during world war 2, and said nothing about the attacks on pearl harbour. Likewise, would it not make sense for those gifted with the knowledge of God to overstate things, to make them more into an epic? Everyone desires a little more interest in a tale, and the best way to achieve that is to make it interesting. That is why I do not follow the bible as something from god, but rather something from man. ~ Now You Know, ~  That Flattery Will Get You Nowhere. ~ 19:42, November 16, 2009 (UTC)Blade bane

That would make sence if you don't believe that God was all powerful. The apostles and other writers of the Bible were failable humans just like ourselves but I can't see a just God giving humans an imperfect account of Himself. That is why I am sure that the Bible is infailable. More than my own personal beliefs I have evidence to back it up. I would stand to reason that if a passage in the Bible did not make sence to the human writing it down was told to that human if he was going to change anything that would be among the first changes he would make. correct? Well if that were so why were so many commands in the Bible so practical. For instence when eating both blood and pork was forbiden to the Jews. Raw pork will give you tape worms and blood dries out of cooked meat. also in the entire book of Job there are numerous things that humans didn't discover using science until ages later. such as the existence of dinosaures (Job 40) on land or even aquatic dinosaures (Job 41). all prophasies in the Bible have come true. where as other famous non-biblical "prophet" such as nostradomas have a very low success rate the bible is a startling 100% accurate. (we should talk about the issue of souls for animals next I'm interested in hearing more of your opinions there.) ~    ~   ~   ~   20:53, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

OK, here are my reasoning and thoughts on Animals. I have read the bible before, and I recall one specific part that makes it clear on why I think this. I can not remember the name of the person who this occurred to, so I will simply call the person John. John was out on one of his journeys, when he decided to spend the night in an inn. The second he lay his head down, he fell asleep. When he slept, he dreamt that God asked him why he thought certain animals were unclean and why they were not good enough for man if God created them, and in his own way (based on the way you interpret the text) he says that all existing animals are worthy to be on his Earth. In the same respect, everything made by God must have been worthy enough to have existence. If that were so, than existence can be defined as being anywhere altogether. Being anything; as in being something in either Earth, Heaven, or Hell.
 * I usually provide a lot more reasoning, but this is something that I rarely stress. A large part of my beliefs are based around hearing, knowing, and accepting the thoughts of others. It never hurts to know what others are thinking, as they can be right in most cases. ~ Now You Know,  ~  That Flattery Will Get You Nowhere. ~ 05:09, November 17, 2009 (UTC)Blade bane

I'm pretty sure that was Paul. And he was refering to the Jewish law declaring certain animals unclean for Eating also by analogy he was saying that the gentiles should be accepted by the Jews. I'm not absolutly sure so I'll post Bible verses soon. Also are you a vegitarian? ~   ~   ~   ~   02:59, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * opes it was Peter here is the verse... Act 10:11-17 "and he beholdeth the heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending, as it were a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth: 12  wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts and creeping things of the earth and birds of the heaven. 13  And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill and eat. 14  But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common and unclean. 15  And a voice came unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, make not thou common. 16  And this was done thrice: and straightway the vessel was received up into heaven. 17  Now while Peter was much perplexed in himself what the vision which he had seen might mean, behold, the men that were sent by Cornelius, having made inquiry for Simon's house, stood before the gate,"  ~    ~   ~   ~   12:51, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

I am not. While I said that I thought God made animals worthy through existence, I also realize that in the long term, humans were favored. According to most God-trusting religions, we were made in his image, which does indeed set us above others on this planet. If God made animals however, then he would have created them however he saw fit. Which means that the minor animals that stand no chance of fighting humans were created that way, and thus God made them for the purpose of providing sustenance. I am also relatively sure that during the day when animals were created in Genesis, it states God made them to eat each other and developed a food chain. As the favored, we would obviously take our place on top of that food chain. I am now interested to hear your thoughts on Homosexuality and Bisexuality, so would you care to elaborate your thoughts? ~ Now You Know, ~  That Flattery Will Get You Nowhere. ~ 03:17, November 18, 2009 (UTC)Blade bane


 * Sure, with the animals though one quick relapse. we are never commanded to keep all animals in existance but we are commanded to be good stewards of what God has given us, which I think includes conservation. And Noah was given permision to eat animals when he left the Ark, before that humans were only alowed to eat plants.

Okay when it comes to bisexuality, homosexuality etc. the Bible condemns them pretty clearly, even calling them abominations (The acts not the individual) but he never says that they are going straight to hell, like all sinners they have the option to repent and be baptized for the remision of thier sins. (once again I'll have to go look up the verses for this) It is importaint to remember however that Heterosexual sins such as sex outside of marriage aren't given a free pass either. The natural punishment for all sin is death in hell which is why God sent his son to die on the cross to take that punishment for those that are ready to accept it. ~   ~   ~   ~   10:43, November 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * And here my verses- Rom 1:24-32 "Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: 25  for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26  For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: 27  and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due. 28  And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29  being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30  backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31  without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful: 32  who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practise such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practise them."

Notice that it is considered counter to nature as well as Gods law

1Co 6:9-11 "Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11  And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." ~   ~   ~   ~   21:25, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

See, its those parts of the bible that make me think it was more of a man made thing. God states at least 10 times in the bible that he created everything, and made everything the way it was. I have met someone who is gay, and I can give a direct quote from them: "I wish that I could get married to a girl and have a family, but in honesty I can not. I just can't be that." I have never known of a gay/lesbian/bi who said that being what they were was a choice. The only time I have heard people say that it was a choice is when it is being stated by people who are not gay/lesbian/bi. Also, on a technical note, I recall God saying that the act of sodomy itself was a sin, and the statement of wether it is performed by a gay person or a straight person is never noted. I draw this from the bible passage on the city of sodom (which the term sodomy would later come from), in which God sends two angels to the city and tells them to walk straight through. A horde of men then crowd around them, and they are taken into a house by the one family in the city who is not sinful. The horde of men are banging on the door, and saying that they wish to "know" (older way of saying "to have sex with"(literally saying they wish to rape the angels)) the two men. I will stop here, because then everything else in the passage is irrelevant to my point. Bible followers have often used this as a point, a way to say that the act of homosexuality, and to an extent being lesbian and bisexual, is a sinful doing. This, I believe, is completely wrong. Rape is very rarely used for the act of love, which the act of sex between genders is based upon generally. Rape, in this context, is used for the act of domination, namely power. Fully interpreted, the horde of men in the city of sodom did not wish to rape the angels because they were gay, they wished to rape them for the act of power; to show dominance. ~ Now You Know, ~  That Flattery Will Get You Nowhere. ~ 22:05, November 18, 2009 (UTC)Blade bane

well the Bible never says that gay people are going to hell look at the last verse of the last passage I gave " And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." The Corinthiens repented of fornication and adultery (Both heterosexual sins) as well as homosexuality. Homosexuals have a choice and even if they feel no attraction towards women there is still the option of celebacy. When God makes an individual they have no inclination towards either gender till about 12 or 14 and then they usually develop a affinity for the opposit sex. I'm not saying that gay people have a choice in their attractions but everyone has a choice in thier actions. Also yes any rape at all is sin in Gods eyes but all other homosexuall acts are condemed this verse segmant speeks for itself "nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men" and so does this one "For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:" ~    ~   ~   ~   13:30, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Would you really suggest that all gay/lesbian/bi people be prohibited from sex forever? Surely as a race humans have evolved past the point where people should be limited in their life choices due to factors that are out of their control. Would you say no Satanists should ever have sex? No Bhuddists, black people, or transgender people? That is exactly the limitations you are placing when you say same sex orientated people should make the choice and stay abstinent from sex. The last time people thought like that, black people were enslaved, Christians were executed, and nazis began to gain popularity. I am sorry if I sound excessively judgmental, but sounded very non accepting of you. B'L'AD E BANE Anti-Vandal 04:40, November 21, 2009 (UTC)Blade bane

I didn't say we should force them to make that choice but they should make it themselves, just as heterosexual people should abstain from natural sex until marrage. Also many gay people have decided to become hetero. Sin is sin and sex is meant for marrage, not your girlfriend, not your boyfriend. Also do you know the average life expectancy of a sexually active gay male? it is about 40 years. Lesbians have an average life expectancy of about 45. homosexuallity is a very unhealthy choice and the amount of STDs passed around the homosexual community is astounding.
 * You can't chose your skin color but you can change your behavior.
 * Just because a gay person might have the tendency to sin doesn't mean they have the right to. Some people are more prone to become alcaholics than others, it doesn't make drunken behavior excusable. Some people are attracted to children others get pleasure from hurting or raping other people but we still jail them for acting on those impulses. I am not saying that we should jail homosexual people anymore than we should jail nonmarried, sexually active heterosexual people, just that what they are doing is wrong.

~   ~   ~   ~   12:38, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Halopediaman's contribution
His contributions are mainly the removal of Ratings and Era template from the Disambiguation pages, which are not supposed to be in there.-  5 əb'7 aŋk (7alk ) 00:16, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

High Categories
When an article has a specific subcategory, I do not think it is worthwhile to add much higher categories to the same article. I've described my reasoning here. --Dragonc laws (talk ) 18:43, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Talk page Conflicts
This is the second time I have told you two (you and -Ascension-) to cease and desist. The warning in the last article's talk page was meant for the both of you. There will not be a warning next time; do NOT bicker on my talk pages.  Smoke Sound off! 17:03, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

Edits
Dear ,

You've been given the first strike/warning for making multiple edits in one article.- 5 ub7 ank (7alk ) 16:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This is your second warning on making multiple edits on an article. The next warning will not be messaged to you.- 5 ub7 ank (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 20:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Galacticdominator, please use the Preview Page feature when making minor edits. Just because they are marked minor, doesn't mean you are able to make multiple edits. This is referring to your edits in Covenant Empire and Monitor.- <font face="Century Gothic"> <font color="#FF4F00">5 əb<font color="#FF4F00">'7 aŋk (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 11:32, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

About the Space Marines
Hey, just letting you know about the space marine redirects you are tagging for deletion. There are a fair few of them, so don't waste your time. I have already reported all of the links to an administrator, and so if they are deemed unnessicary they will be deleted. See ya round. ~ Now You Know, ~  That Flattery Will Get You Nowhere. ~ 10:50, November 16, 2009 (UTC)Blade bane