Team A                                                                                                                                                        Team B

Team Lead: Noetic                                                                                                                                          Team Lead: Pastor AIO

Members:                                                                                                                              Members:

Bouncer - Davidylan                                                                                                                Bouncer - Viaro

Caretaker - Jesoul                                                                                                                  Caretaker - KunleOshob


                                                                                    The Ball.
                                                                               
                                                                                   Three Questions

                             1. Salvation of Sincere Non-Christians: The Bible Perspective and the Realist Perspective

                                                       2.  Purgatory & The Afterlife - Real or Imagined?

                                                            3. Baptism & Holy Communion - Required?



                                                                                  The Referee:

                                                                                    Krayola

                                                                          Referee's decision is final.

Short Note on Referee: Although many regard him an atheist, he is not. He only argues in a dialectic fashion to learn more.
He is currently doing a course on Bible History/ Archaelogy (or something like that). He is very Neutral, and his decisions here will
be based not on what is the truth (since we can never agree on that) but on the quality of the arguments advanced only.



                                                                    Let's go >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I cannot even laugh Lol . . . oga Deepsight has struck again.

Deep Sight do you believe in the after life hypothesis? Fantasy

We are yet to have any convincing evidence of any afterlife but that is not enough reason to dismiss it. Lack of evidence does not mean that something is non-existent.

haha Deepsight has done it again. . .

Me, referee?  who dash monkey banana?  Very flattering but the best I can do is provide academic journals that we can all check to see what the real pros say on the discussed topics. There are always good arguments on both sides so all u'll really be getting is my opinion if I'm referee. I only just got a BA. I'm no authority on this stuff, but I have access to databases of peer reviewed articles, and research based books (non-theological) thru my school and I'll have access to it till June. So the debate can go on, and I'll provide the sources that we can all use as basis to decide who we agree with.

But no be me go do referee for people wey smart pass me   

Krayola refree? Don't go around distributing cards(yellow and red cards) all through the period of the game Please, remember it is a contact sport so some fouls can be over looked and pardoned.

I will take a stab at 'em, but I'm not giving my opinion, I will give the biblical perspective this is a christian debate afterall right? , so if anyone takes offense, take your beef to the Higher Authority. I will also try as much as possible to keep the responses terse because way too often in these discussions, points get avalanched and buried under excessive use of words.

---

1. Salvation of Sincere Non-Christians: The Bible Perspective and the Realist Perspective.

a) Sincere non-christian who never heard about Jesus Christ:
Romans 2 addresses this fully (CEVersion) "Those people who don't know about God's Law will still be punished for what they do wrong. And the Law will be used to judge everyone who knows what it says. God accepts those who obey his Law, but not those who simply hear it.
 Some people naturally obey the Law's commands, even though they don't have the Law. This proves that the conscience is like a law written in the human heart. And it will show whether we are forgiven or condemned, when God appoints Jesus Christ to judge everyone's secret thoughts, just as my message says."

b) Sincere non-christian who heard about Jesus Christ and rejected Him:
John 3 “There is no judgment against anyone who believes in him (Jesus).  But anyone who does not believe in him has already been judged and condemned for not believing in God’s one and only Son. And the judgment is based on this fact: God’s light came into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light, for their actions were evil. 20 All who do evil hate the light and refuse to go near it for fear their sins will be exposed.

---

2. Purgatory & The Afterlife - Real or Imagined?

-Purgatory is a catholic teaching, I'll leave that to a catholic to answer.

-As for the Afterlife/Heaven/Hell, according to the bible, yes they are real. Jesus Himself spoke about them very often.

---

3. Baptism & Holy Communion - Required?

Required? No. The thief who died on the cross beside Jesus was neither batized nor ever had communion, yet Jesus promised he would be with Him in paradise.

Strongly encouraged? Yes. Getting baptized and partaking of communion are two of many signs one is saved NOT the requirement. They are the result of salvation, not the foundation upon which it is built.
Luke 22 "And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."
Luke 7 "Jesus said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
Ephesians 2 For[b] it is by grace you have been saved, through faith[/b]—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God

Krayola:

But no be me go do referee for people wey smart pass me   

For where? my dude siddon. I have learned being "smart" is a very relative concept. You may or may not be armed with stupendous amounts of knowledge in abstract, theological, philosphical matters, but the objectivity and honesty that you have displayed in this forum so far earns you higher marks in my book than any other einstein on the loose. I'll take one practical guy over 100 philosphers jor.

toneyb:

Krayola refree? Don't go around distributing cards(yellow and red cards) all through the period of the game Please, remember it is a contact sport so some fouls can be over looked and pardoned.

Why now? that would take away all the fun.

And what is the point to all this,deepsight?Will this debate bring out new perspectives that other debates have not?

Before we can make any meaningful dialogueon this subject, we first have to be clear on three things namely:

(i) What does it mean to be a christian?
(ii) What is the true gospel of Jesus christ?
(iii)  Is it belief in the teachings of Jesus that is necessary for salvation or belief in him as a person?


_{(iv) What does it really mean to belief in a person?  
(v) In practical terms what does salvation really mean?}

JeSoul:

1. Salvation of Sincere Non-Christians: The Bible Perspective and the Realist Perspective.

a) Sincere non-christian who never heard about Jesus Christ:
Romans 2 addresses this fully (CEVersion) "Those people who don't know about God's Law will still be punished for what they do wrong. And the Law will be used to judge everyone who knows what it says. God accepts those who obey his Law, but not those who simply hear it.
 Some people naturally obey the Law's commands, even though they don't have the Law. This proves that the conscience is like a law written in the human heart. And it will show whether we are forgiven or condemned, when God appoints Jesus Christ to judge everyone's secret thoughts, just as my message says."

Ok Let me talk like a Christian now lets examine this statement from Paul and the one Jesus. Jesus says that except a man be born again he CANNOT enter into the kingdom of god. He did not talk about any law written in any body's heart at all. He only said to be saved and get access into the kingdom of the God who sent him you must be born again else nothing for you. Whose words supersedes that of Jesus or that of Paul? Jesus also says that He is the way the truth and the life that NO ONE can come to his father EXCEPT through him, again he did not talk about any law written in any bodies heart at all.

Now to the Issue of the law, What exactly are the laws that are written in people's hearts? There is an ancient Australian tribe that truly believe that eating the flesh of their enemies will make them better hunters, so they went around killing their neighbors. In what part of their hearts was the law of not killing their neighbors and eating their flesh writing?  How does a person obey the commandments of God like tithe and offering or observing the sabbath with out knowing about it? In what part of their hearts is this law writing? What about the law of divorce? Some societies do not see any thing wrong with divorce at that time or had divorce laws that were completely different from the one writing in the bible, In what part of their hearts were the bible divorce laws writing?

What about the laws of stoning disobedient Children who curse their parents to death. Jesus was very comfortable with it (Mat 15: 1-6) What about those of them that did not grow ın societies that accept that form of punishment? In what part of their hearts were such laws writing? What about the Southern Nigerians who lived hundreds of years ago that truly believed that it was right to kill their twin babies and did that ritual with great pride? Why was a law against that not writing in their hearts?

we are all products of our environment. also codes of morality differ according to cultures. i do not think there is a piece of our heart that has written on it some laws of some sorts.

Excellent questions Toney. Lemme try and address:

toneyb:

Ok Let me talk like a Christian now lets examine this statement from Paul and the one Jesus. Jesus says that except a man be born again he CANNOT enter into the kingdom of god. He did not talk about any law written in any body's heart at all. He only said to be saved and get access into the kingdom of the God who sent him you must be born again else nothing for you. Whose words supersedes that of Jesus or that of Paul? Jesus also says that He is the way the truth and the life that NO ONE can come to his father EXCEPT through him, again he did not talk about any law written in any bodies heart at all.

 First if you take nuthin else away from this debate, let it be this, the way to be saved and gain approval from God has never changed, it has always been the same - By Faith. Heb 11 "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old gained approval from God.

 Jesus and Paul are not talking about 2 different methods at all. What does it mean to be "born again"? is it just a confession of faith? or an action? or is it to be born of God? and what does it mean to be "born of God"? to be godly, to live after God's ways and commandments - points right back to what Paul says in Romans "God accepts those who OBEY His law". They're all talking about the same thing! And those who never heard about Jesus but by faith obey the conscience God put in our hearts are accpted by God. In the bible we see a prostitute, a murderer, an adulterer all commended because of their faith in God.

Now to the Issue of the law, What exactly are the laws that are written in people's hearts? There is an ancient Australian tribe that truly believe that eating the flesh of their enemies will make them better hunters, so they went around killing their neighbors. In what part of their hearts was the law of not killing their neighbors and eating their flesh writing?  How does a person obey the commandments of God like tithe and offering or observing the sabbath with out knowing about it? In what part of their hearts is this law writing? What about the law of divorce? Some societies do not see any thing wrong with divorce at that time or had divorce laws that were completely different from the one writing in the bible, In what part of their hearts were the bible divorce laws writing?

You know I can't really speak to what may or may not be in someone else's heart, and whether or not they sincerely and genuinely believe it. All I know it that everybody has a conscience, and it tells us when we're doing something right or wrong. Some of us choose to ignore it, some of us choose to listen to it.
As for other christian issues like tithe, divorce and sabbath, it would side track this thread to delve into that now.

What about the laws of stoning disobedient Children who curse their parents to death. Jesus was very comfortable with it (Mat 15: 1-6) What about those of them that did not grow ın societies that accept that form of punishment? In what part of their hearts were such laws writing? What about the Southern Nigerians who lived hundreds of years ago that truly believed that it was right to kill their twin babies and did that ritual with great pride? Why was a law against that not writing in their hearts?

Common now Toney, He did no such thing  . The same Jesus that said anyone who caused a child to go wrong is cursed and worthy of having a stone tied to his neck and dumped in the sea? Common now

Although this thread is for Team A and Team B Members, i cannot resist making a few comments:

toneyb:

Ok Let me talk like a Christian now lets examine this statement from Paul and the one Jesus. Jesus says that except a man be born again he CANNOT enter into the kingdom of god. He did not talk about any law written in any body's heart at all. He only said to be saved and get access into the kingdom of the God who sent him you must be born again else nothing for you. Whose words supersedes that of Jesus or that of Paul? Jesus also says that He is the way the truth and the life that NO ONE can come to his father EXCEPT through him, again he did not talk about any law written in any bodies heart at all.

Now to the Issue of the law, What exactly are the laws that are written in people's hearts? There is an ancient Australian tribe that truly believe that eating the flesh of their enemies will make them better hunters, so they went around killing their neighbors. In what part of their hearts was the law of not killing their neighbors and eating their flesh writing?  How does a person obey the commandments of God like tithe and offering or observing the sabbath with out knowing about it? In what part of their hearts is this law writing? What about the law of divorce? Some societies do not see any thing wrong with divorce at that time or had divorce laws that were completely different from the one writing in the bible, In what part of their hearts were the bible divorce laws writing?

What about the laws of stoning disobedient Children who curse their parents to death. Jesus was very comfortable with it (Mat 15: 1-6) What about those of them that did not grow ın societies that accept that form of punishment? In what part of their hearts were such laws writing? What about the Southern Nigerians who lived hundreds of years ago that truly believed that it was right to kill their twin babies and did that ritual with great pride? Why was a law against that not writing in their hearts?

Thanks for this Toneyyyyyy. . .

My perception is that basic conscience is common to humanity. Now, given the fact of human diversity there will doubtless be, as you correctly stated, instances of practices which deviate from that which may normally be considered "good" or acceptable. However you will agree that in all such instances, the generality of humanity is able to perceive such actions as unseemly. For example the aztecs practiced human sacrifice. Although it seemed acceptable to them, you will certainly agree that the generality of mankind views such as barbaric. Ditto for killing of twins etc.

Now there is a direct co-relation to secular criminal law that seals this point. In the perception of The State, murder is wrong, and punishable. In the perception of a serial-killer, it might be acceptable. However the perception of the state is representative of what the people as a whole think, in that the secular law is based on the perception of the majority in citizenry, theoretically speaking at least. Thus it would be right to state that for a given country, murder being wrong is indeed written in the hearts of the people EVEN IF there exist people (like serial killers) who think it's fair game.

Accordingly i may equally state that murder being wrong is written in the hearts of humanity as a whole, EVEN IF there are or have been tribes that practiced human sacrifice at a state level.

Now i need to make one important point.

Let me suggest to you that there is a difference between core values and cultural values. Because it seems to me that you are mixing up both when you talked about "observing the sabbath" not being written in our hearts.

Core values, in my view, are values which are timeless and universal. An example might be - "Stealing other people's property is wrong." I doubt that there is or has been any society that does not frown on such.

Cultural Values, however, are not moralistic in the pure sense, but deal with cultural dictates only - the sabbath - might be an example. Cultural values are limited to given cultures, nations or tribes.

May i suggest to you that core values are written in the heart in conscience, whilst cultural values are not. May i suggest to you that core values are the real morals whilst cultural values are mere norms. Does this make some sense to you?

This also finds some grounding in criminal jurisprudence. There are crimes called Mala in se (inherently evil) - such as murder, and then crimes called mala prohibita (wrong because specifically prohibited) - such as not parking your car in the right place, or not paying a prescribed fee, etc. Mala in se deals with things which all men should be able to sense as inherently evil and subversive. Mala prohibita deals with things which are only wrong because the government says so. I think that core values pertain to the former and cultural values to the latter.

Deep Sight:

Although this thread is for Team A and Team B Members, i cannot resist making a few comments:

Thanks for this Toneyyyyyy. . .

My perception is that basic conscience is common to humanity. Now, given the fact of human diversity there will doubtless be, as you correctly stated, instances of practices which deviate from that which may normally be considered "good" or acceptable. However you will agree that in all such instances, the generality of humanity is able to perceive such actions as unseemly. For example the aztecs practiced human sacrifice. Although it seemed acceptable to them, you will certainly agree that the generality of mankind views such as barbaric. Ditto for killing of twins etc.

Now there is a direct co-relation to secular criminal law that seals this point. In the perception of The State, murder is wrong, and punishable. In the perception of a serial-killer, it might be acceptable. However the perception of the state is representative of what the people as a whole think, in that the secular law is based on the perception of the majority in citizenry, theoretically speaking at least. Thus it would be right to state that for a given country, murder being wrong is indeed written in the hearts of the people EVEN IF there exist people (like serial killers) who think it's fair game.

Accordingly i may equally state that murder being wrong is written in the hearts of humanity as a whole, EVEN IF there are or have been tribes that practiced human sacrifice at a state level.

Now i need to make one important point.

Let me suggest to you that there is a difference between core values and cultural values. Because it seems to me that you are mixing up both when you talked about "observing the sabbath" not being written in our hearts.

Core values, in my view, are values which are timeless and universal. An example might be - "Stealing other people's property is wrong." I doubt that there is or has been any society that does not frown on such.

Cultural Values, however, are not moralistic in the pure sense, but deal with cultural dictates only - the sabbath - might be an example. Cultural values are limited to given cultures, nations or tribes.

May i suggest to you that core values are written in the heart in conscience, whilst cultural values are not. May i suggest to you that core values are the real morals whilst cultural values are mere norms. Does this make some sense to you?

This also finds some grounding in criminal jurisprudence. There are crimes called Mala in se (inherently evil) - such as murder, and then crimes called mala prohibita (wrong because specifically prohibited) - such as not parking your car in the right place, or not paying a prescribed fee, etc. Mala in se deals with things which all men should be able to sense as inherently evil and subversive. Mala prohibita deals with things which are only wrong because the government says so. I think that core values pertain to the former and cultural values to the latter.

pls deep sight you went too far. what is right or wrong varies from society to society. though murder is widely prohibited because without such a rule, the community is in danger from itself, but it excused on varied grounds. the Aztecs excused human sacrifice, the Calabar tribe excused the murder of twins but when weighed on the standards of other societies it is totally unacceptable. In the Prophet Mohammed's days, marrying and having sex with 9 years was a common practice but frowned at in other societies and in present times. the Jews stoned anybody for any wrong they believed the individual did, revenge-killing was permitted and even in Albania today. my conclusion is that the basis for determining right or wrong cannot be the generality of societies but by that particular society's standards. stealing in some societies is not wrong or NOT POSSIBLE( this is to be understood constructively) because no man owns property like the old German tribes. @ Je soul, is an individual conscience used or an average man's conscience of a particular society or that of Christian?

^^^@ Kay - Can you tell me which of the above practices is accepted by the generality of humanity? I positively assert that there are none.

It appears you did not understand my examples of -

1. Core Values and Cultural Values

2. Mala-in-se and Mala-Prohibita

3. The single serial-killer and the laws of the state against murder.

Because if your argument is taken at the crest, what you are saying amounts to stating that there is nothing wrong with being a serial killer. . .

Deep Sight:


Because if your argument is taken at the crest, what you are saying amounts to stating that there is nothing wrong with being a serial killer. . .

You are now beginning to display your lawyer credentials by putting words into people's mouths. Where did he Insinuate what you have written above?

toneyb:

You are now beginning to display your lawyer credentials by putting words into people's mouths. Where did he Insinuate what you have written above?

Not so fast Tony -

This is where he said it -

Kay 17:

my conclusion is that the basis for determining right or wrong cannot be the generality of societies but by that particular society's standards.

Thus if human sacrifice is right in Aztec land, then morally there is nothing wrong with continuously killing people for such purposes.

Whereas i had sought to point to the generality of societies, he made reference to the moral determinant being individual societies -

Thus the Nazi Holocaust was morally right, according to Kay17.

I hope you can see. . .

Deep Sight:

Not so fast Tony -

This is where he said it -

Thus if human sacrifice is right in Aztec land, then morally there is nothing wrong with continuously killing people for such purposes.

Whereas i had sought to point to the generality of societies, he made reference to the moral determinant being individual societies -

Thus the Nazi Holocaust was morally right, according to Kay17.

I hope you can see. . .

What I believe he was trying to point out what there no absolute right or absolute wrong. Objective moral values do not exist because morality differs from society to society.

Sharia law is endeared in the Muslim countries but considered to be barbaric in non Muslim countries.

^^^ But a large part of sharia law deals with cultural values.

What do you make of the distinction between Core and Cultural Values i tried to discuss above?

Deep Sight:

^^^ But a large part of sharia law deals with cultural values.

What do you make of the distinction between Core and Cultural Values i tried to discuss above?

Can you really separate what you label as core values and what you label as cultural values? I say this because the way of life of people a group of people(culture) is what determines their in most cases values. Kay 17 gave an excellent example of the old German tribes where it was not even possible to steal because no man owns property where does your core belief in stealing apply to this society since it is structured on a culture that does not even permıt stealing in the first place? There are exceptions to all these beliefs. Example back during the OT days it was ok to enslave the gentiles, It was ok and acceptable to pillage the lands of the gentiles during war, despoil their women and steal their belongings. The core values had no application in such societies. Morality has no absolutes because it keeps evolving. People used to accept the poor treatment of blacks based on the color of our skin. Enslaving blacks was the right thing to do and was accepted by the society. Public hanging of run away slaves was acceptable. It wasn't a core value at that time.

There are people that still believe today that it is very right  for women to be publicly flogged when they go out alone in some extremist Islamic countries(Parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan) Where does what you call core values apply her? Homosexuals are now been allowed to marry in some western countries something that was against the core beliefs of most of the countries granting them those rights about 200 years ago. Morality is determined by the way of life of the people and what you label as core values vary from society to society. Even core values change from time to time and from generation to generation. What is considered to be against our core values today might be accepted by our grand children's generation.

I don't want to derail this thread for you because I don't think these discussion was part of what you were expecting. I will allow you and the people your posed those questions to, to respond to your queries.

KunleOshob:

Before we can make any meaningful dialogueon this subject, we first have to be clear on three things namely:

(i) What does it mean to be a christian?
(ii) What is the true gospel of Jesus christ?
(iii) Is it belief in the teachings of Jesus that is necessary for salvation or belief in him as a person?


_{(iv) What does it really mean to belief in a person?
(v) In practical terms what does salvation really mean?}

Answer to (1) Love God and love your fellow man

Answer to (ii) Love God and Love your Fellow Man

Answer to (iii) Love God and Love your fellow Man.

My poor understanding only. . .

toneyb:

Can you really separate what you label as core values and what you label as cultural values? I say this because the way of life of people a group of people(culture) is what determines their in most cases values. Kay 17 gave an excellent example of the old German tribes where it was not even possible to steal because no man owns property where does your core belief in stealing apply to this society since it is structured on a culture that does not even permıt stealing in the first place? There are exceptions to all these beliefs. Example back during the OT days it was ok to enslave the gentiles, It was ok and acceptable to pillage the lands of the gentiles during war, despoil their women and steal their belongings. The core values had no application in such societies. Morality has no absolutes because it keeps evolving. People used to accept the poor treatment of blacks based on the color of our skin. Enslaving blacks was the right thing to do and was accepted by the society. Public hanging of run away slaves was acceptable. It wasn't a core value at that time.

There are people that still believe today that it is very right  for women to be publicly flogged when they go out alone in some extremist Islamic countries(Parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan) Where does what you call core values apply her? Homosexuals are now been allowed to marry in some western countries something that was against the core beliefs of most of the countries granting them those rights about 200 years ago. Morality is determined by the way of life of the people and what you label as core values vary from society to society. Even core values change from time to time and from generation to generation. What is considered to be against our core values today might be accepted by our grand children's generation.

I don't want to derail this thread for you because I don't think these discussion was part of what you were expecting. I will allow you and the people your posed those questions to, to respond to your queries.

spoke my mind! wonderful! morality is variable and what relevance does it have to your prime mover.  the holocaust is unfortunate and like slavery was a time seem okay and later dreadful. you  see people going to the old slave ports and exclaiming about the inhumanity, but if they there at that time it would not seem that bad to them. besides, a bishop once recommended slavery.

JeSoul:


b) Sincere non-christian who heard about Jesus Christ and rejected Him:
John 3 [color=#000099]“There is no judgment against anyone who believes in him (Jesus). But anyone who does not believe in him has already been judged and condemned for not believing in God’s one and only Son.

Is it safe to assume that by the term "does not believe in him," you refer not to people who reject the man Jesus of Nazareth (perhaps as "God", or as "Saviour" or "Messiah", but to people who reject his teachings of Love?

KunleOshob:

Before we can make any meaningful dialogueon this subject, we first have to be clear on three things namely:

(i) What does it mean to be a christian?
(ii) What is the true gospel of Jesus christ?
(iii)  Is it belief in the teachings of Jesus that is necessary for salvation or belief in him as a person?


_{(iv) What does it really mean to belief in a person? 
(v) In practical terms what does salvation really mean?}

Deep Sight:

Answer to (1) Love God and love your fellow man

Answer to (ii) Love God and Love your Fellow Man

Answer to (iii) Love God and Love your fellow Man.

My poor understanding only. . .

  Infact eh the blessings of God will not escape you for this response!

   

Deep Sight:

Is it safe to assume that by the term "does not believe in him," you refer not to people who reject the man Jesus of Nazareth (perhaps as "God", or as "Saviour" or "Messiah", but to people who reject his teachings of Love?

Jesus the man of Nazareth, the Son of God, born of a virgin Mary, lived a carpenters life, was baptized, gathered His 12 disciples, went around preaching and healing cannot be divorced or seperated from just "His teachings of love". To truly accept Him according to the bible, is to accept all of Him as put forth by the bible.

  His Divinity is just as crucial as His humanity. If He is not God to you, and did not die to save you from your sins, then honestly, believing in His teachings is of little significance, because you have rejected Him as stated in Romans 3:17.

  Jesus primary purpose was not come to teach us to love each other, He came to save us from our sins (see the very popular Romans 3:16).

JeSoul:


Jesus the man of Nazareth, the Son of God, born of a virgin Mary, lived a carpenters life, was baptized, gathered His 12 disciples, went around preaching and healing cannot be divorced or seperated from just "His teachings of love". To truly accept Him according to the bible, is to accept all of Him as put forth by the bible.

His Divinity is just as crucial as His humanity. If He is not God to you, and did not die to save you from your sins, then honestly, believing in His teachings is of little significance, because you have rejected Him as stated in Romans 3:17.

Thus you subcribe to the view of your Team Lead, Noetic, that Mahatma Ghandi is going to hell?

This thread just looks juvenile i must say.

What exactly is the aim of this exercise?

When it comes to arguments and debates especially of religious nature, judgements on quality of arguments are subjective. One individual can Never be neutral. Thats why in most cases you have a panel of judges.

Anyway you guys should knock yourselves out.

*Tears* I started reading this thread with joy but I can see it has started getting derailed already. *Sigh*

@Krayola: Sorry I flared up last time we talked. I was quite new to NL then but now I have observed you (okay, stalked you) in silence for a while and I think you are a great guy who just likes to act too tough for his own good. Can we make some peace?

mavenbox:

Can we make some peace?

YES YES YES YES. [size=15pt]I DO[/size]. 

Krayola you know I said you were a comedian? THAT part of my opinion has not changed!!! Sorry I'm unavailable.

mavenbox:

Sorry I'm unavailable.

If a diamond ring would not do, would this change your mind -



@Krayo my man, forget ur moves. . the days of rings are gone. Follow in my footsteps.

^^^ Cool. Now I have a free Chrysler stock image, it could come in useful on a web-development project of mine someday.

@Topic: Sorry I seem to be the cause of this thread's derailment. Can someone please help to put things back in check?