Why so talented?

What got you started in anthro work?

I..... think you're confusing me with someone else.

what's your favorite mission ever or the one you are hoping to get one day?

Timothy once asked me to help care for some kittens he found in the alley outside his shop. I rather liked that. I don't really see what I do as missions. Sometimes I go and do work, but calling it a mission makes me sound like I get instructions from exploding cassette players.

I do like exploring, and I like meeting people. I guess the fact that I do a lot of both is good.

Well, have you ever received instructions from an exploding tape deck before (or even an 8-track)? Considering some of the interesting people and places you've encountered, I'd be surprised if this hasn't happened at least once.

I think the closest thing to a self destructing message was a note given to me by messenger drake, who snatched it from my hand as soon as I finished reading it and promptly ate it. I was later told it was trained to do that, and if you try to run from it it will chase you to the ends of the earth until it gobbles that paper up.

Hiya Three, how do you cope with the temporal/spacial displacement, and how hard is it to settle in a new life, knowing you may not be there long?

Someone once told me about how they grew up very poor, but the fact that squalor was always there made it just another part of life. He told me he didn't even realize he was poor until someone told him, and he didn't realize how much he actually did without until he grew up and had the means to live better. Still his old habits stayed like saving the rusks of moldy bread to make soup and mending his clothing until they were more stitching than cloth.

I've always lived the way that I do, so it's just a part of life that I accept. I know that tomorrow I may suddenly be somewhere else and never see the friends I have today ever again. It's instilled in me the habit of being frankly honest with the few friends I have, and also a detachment to any possessions I collect. I can either dwell on the fact that I'm going to leave all of it and mope, or I can appreciate what I have and what I'm blessed with. The latter is far healthier.

do you celebrate a birthday or something to a degree to that?

No, but I enjoy celebrating the birthdays of my friends. Living vicariously and all that.

=3 Are those hairs on your head, or antennae?

It's hair. It's sort of spiky unless I let it grow particularly long or don't brush it. The way it grows it sort of naturally splits like that.

Greetings, Lady Three. As a fellow time/space traveler, I hope to meet you one day. May God bless you in your adventures.


Tigermark

Thank you, my friend.

Remmus smiles, taking a seat on his throne of bones "well being the curious necromancer feline I am, it is always interesting to hear your views on necromancy"

It seems silly to play with dead things, and depending on the circumstances a little disrespectful to the corpse if they would have objected to being an object of magic during their life.

Not to mention the smell. Ugh.

Ouch. :D

Pff the dead are...well dead, what use is there leaving them in the ground? Might as well put them to use.

My opinion regarding the smell remains. I hope you have some powerful soap.

Hehe true, I treat most undead with chemicals, so the stench goes away. And when I dont do that..well being a kind undead myself I just turn of my sense of smell

You turn it off? Gah, I'd rather go blind than lose my sense of smell.

well actually it´s turned of by default, and since it´s taxing for me to keep any aspect of my body "alive" I keep it off, I don´t have to much use for it anyway.

This does not change the fact that you are stinky ;)

that´s not true, I groom myself like any proper feline X3

i must say grooming is a terrible experience for those of us of whom are still-living felines whom happen to work with undead. especially ghouls. i am terribly glad that i have cleanse spells to expedite matters... and to keep from getting some nasty disease from their horrible smelling ichor. OH and Revenants, they are absolutely unsanitary, bleeding everywhere like they usually are.

I was just teasing the ever so teasing Three, I have manage to make up a simple, but working shower based on rain water.

yes. showers do help. hurray for conveniences of residing in one of the larger baronys of my world. but even the best shower and alchemic solvents have problems with ghoul secretions. i guess it would help if i wasnt always on the front lines... if i had some actual competent fighters to defend me... blood and grime clean off platemail armor much easyer than Caracal fur and mage robes..

that´s why I have no less then 3 layers of defence X3

oh if only i could afford to have actual protection. i being predominantly a healer by trade, rarely ever get paid for my services ._. sure, i get random nice things from my baroness every once in a while, but, mostly it is just a pennance to what i should recieve for saveing the lives of my baronymates on a daily basis.

not to mention the soldiers i get when i am on missions are often new recruits, and lackluster to say the least, usually doing little more than being a distraction, and a drain on my magic reserves and healing elixers.

but ohwell, such is the life of someone whom follows the middle path. i have had opprotunitys to become a true healer, a druid, and a true necromancer, but, none of those paths are for me, i wish to be beholden to no extraplanar power, and i enjoy my moral ambiguity.

being a fellow practicioner of the dark arts, i must say, my solution to the smell problem is a simple one, i merely prefer to animate skeletal or discorporeal undead.

technically i'm not really a necromancer, i just use necromantic ritual magic scrolls, since in order to be one, i wouldnt be able to help my friends nearly as much (inability to use curative magics) and i would probably have to suck up to some greater necromantic planar power. which is something i refuse to do on sheer principle. so, i'm just your everyday earthen-magic enchanter and alchemist, who just so happens to use a scythe as a weapon.

A intresting mix, myself I'm part necromancer, alchemist and magitech engineer ^^

Ah, magitech, i wish i could work with magitech, but, generally that requires more skill in the celestial magic arts than i happen to have.

i am working on gaining some skill in construct-makeing though. but, with my background in earth magic, the best i will be able to do is Clay golems, Homonculi, Flesh golems, Bone golems, and various things like that. ofcourse a proper clay golem is quite a formidable foe, but it definitely doesn't have the finesse and asthetic beauty of a proper metallic or elemental construct.

sounds like a interesting magitech your working with, the one I work with is mostly traditional engineering with some rune magic and soul binding magic

Celestial magic constructs are fairly close to your forms of magitech. all sorts of gears and cogs and metal plateing of whatever metal the golem consists of, and for the elemental squire/knight/warders usually some important power core from whatever elemental plane.

rune magic has for quite some time been a lost magic in the world of which i reside. ofcourse people here and there have dabbled in it, but, more often than not it ends with a smokeing crater from magical backlash wherever the runes, and anything on which it was inscribed is located.

my ancestors learned a way to make runes a stable way to use magic, and in a way, saved magic from being lost to the convenience of technology, of course they did not see the long term effects, for with I among others must endure

Hmmm... good question... good question.

Oh!

I realize this was at least partially addressed in the answer to Kittybird's question, but I'll give it a shot anyway.

Do you ever wish the dimension-hopping (lacking a better term right now) would stop and you could live a normal life? Or at least a bit more normal.

Does a blind man wish to see? Does it do him good to dwell on wishing every day for sight?

I see my travels as happening for a reason. Perhaps there's something I'm being prepared for, or a lesson I'm meant to learn, or a path I'm supposed to take.

Talking about the dimension-hopping, just how common are human-only or human-dominant worlds as compared to ones where the primary intelligent races are furred like yourself?

Hopefully that's not too foolish a question.

Not foolish at all! I'd say about 70% of the worlds I visit have a human population. Races that resemble me are more like 2-4%. Everything else is a mix that might have a little of everything, or something completely strange and different. I don't know if that's a judge for how many are really out there, but that's how it's been in my encounters.

Something else I should have asked: you've been going between dimensions for a very long time, and you said you can't remember much beyond a century or so back. Do you remember ever finding evidence on your trips of having already visited a dimension centuries or millennia before that you've forgotten previously visiting?

And do you have any way at all of trying to make sure you enter dimensions you'd prefer seeing again?

do you prefer tuna, haddock or cat fish?? and how do you like it done? *weilds frying pan and fishing pole*

Catfish is a bottom feeder, whenever I eat it I expect to spit out grit. Tuna is a nice oily and meaty fish, and haddock is deliciously sweet. But really the best fish is something caught by hand, especially the kind that puts up a good fight. All you need is a net, a knife, and a spear.

Who has been the biggest influence on you during your travels?

Probably Matthew, the man who took me in when I ended up in rural Germany. I have never met nor will I probably ever meet again, a man such as him.

Faith is a very difficult thing for me, and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't jealous of your faith in the fact that no matter WHAT happens, you'll always wake up each morning knowing someone's got your back, someone you can trust and put your faith in. More so, knowing that God will ensure you got a sweet deal in heaven after you die and all.

That said, how do you put your faith into something that is contradicted at every corner? There's thousand of religions out there, each contradicting each other. How hard is it to keep on being the best Christian you can when there's so many veins and forms of doubt out there in the world today? I mean, I WANT that faith and belief that knowing God through Jesus Christ will ensure that I'm accepted no matter how many faults I have, as long as I'm willing to admit them and work to better myself. But when the message of Salvation is muddled from past experience and the many forms of doubt... well, how do YOU do it?

(OOC note here, I don't know if this is a question directed to Gen or Three. Since this was explicitly stated as being an IC RP-ish thing, I'm assuming the latter. That said, her story is not my story.)

(OOC: Yeah I know, but I also know Three is a Christian and I, well, kinda figured it'd be a sneaky way to ask the question. Feel free to answer in the way you feel most comfortable. Through Three, through yourself, or any other way you can think of. I'm being rather serious about the question.)

My conversion was a very slow process and one I am still working through. Your viewpoint on what you think it feels like for me to believe is far from the truth though.

I'm tormented and torn on a daily basis. I pray and don't always get answers. I fight to come to terms with myself and my faith constantly. My solace, more often than not, comes from men who have lived in the faith longer and deeper than I and who are willing to let me bother them with my hundreds of questions.

Would you like to know why I chose God above all the other deities I've seen in my life? Everywhere else in all my travels the gods made demands, they fought like children, rutted like pigs, and were either cruelly judgmental or distantly ambivalent. They either demanded absolute perfection or all but abandoned their creation.

And then here was a God who not only saw and accepted the flaws of His creations, but he actually made a sacrifice for them to give them that salvation. Because of that I grew interested, and then I started asking questions, and finally accepted the faith.

How do I do it? One day at a time, my friend. One day at a time.

So, your saying it's alright to have doubt? To question and want to know more?

Any christian who says they have no doubt has probably never had their faith truly tested, or they're outright lying. Christianity is a journey, in my opinion. You are always seeking answers, knowledge, and trying to fathom the mind of God.

At least, that's how I see it.

Hm. That's good to know, and very helpful to know that I'm not the only one who asks questions.

Anyhow, on a lighter note, and since you jump around so much and see all these worlds, I must ask... what has to be the strangest religion you've ever encountered? Not to say that said-possibly-strange-religion is invalid, but there's a few here on Earth that make me scratch my head, and I can only assume in a endless universe of alternate dimensions and such you're going to find something that goes over your head a bit.

I think the hat cult was the strangest religion I ever encountered. Something about the soul being easy prey to evil spirits unless you wore a holy hat. The members would even wear them to sleep and in the bath. I wanted to rush up and steal one and run off with it to see what would happen, but since they were harmless (albeit very silly) I left them be.

Just to play Devil's Advocate, (Yes, the pun is there. Take it how you will) what about all instances where God was vengeful and petty ordering and/or condoning the murder of thousands of people? What about all the instances where slavery is permitted, if not accepted? What about the burning of un-believers and other believers alike?

I'm not trying to start drama or a flame war. I'm simply failing to see how your God is any different from the cruelly judgmental, childish gods you've encountered in the past. I also find it interesting that while most of the people I know or have heard of that started asking questions renounced their faith, rather than gaining it.

Perhaps you are seeing what you want to see from your experiences. You want to see God as cruel, you want to see people lose their faith after searching, so that is what you see. There is truth to what you say, and there's truth to what I say.

I once asked my priest about how God could have such a great personality shift in the bible and was told an interesting story:

A child was born and his parents were very fond of camping. They took the child to camp with them. When the child was a very small baby he was kept away from the fire. When the child was a toddler he was told to stay away from it and punished when he got too close. When he was a young boy he was allowed to help gather things to help make it. When he was a teenager he could help tend it. And when he was a man he could make it himself.

Now, analogies are tricky because all too often people will nitpick those analogies and lose track of the main conversation, but if parables were good enough for Jesus then they'll do for me as well. But my point is that the parent was not wrong in punishing his child for going near the fire, and then changing his stance later when the child had matured. It's easy to say that people were cruelly killed in the name of God, but this was a time when there were civilizations that existed that did horrible things like selling their children into prostitution or sacrificing their babies.

It seems barbaric now, but when you just had goats and sticks and mud huts, what is there to be done against a whole country full of people who have murder and blood so deeply rooted in their society? In ancient times, the only way to deal with these people is to wipe them out. If humanity encountered something like that now, they'd deal with it differently because they have different tools and more knowledge. Using things that happened long in humanity's past as a basis for comparison is comparing apples to oranges. Just like crediting the belief in god for atrocities like salem (which was done because a child's game got out of hand) or the crusades (which was the work of a pope grabbing power) is like crediting a political party for a politician choosing to embezzle money.

I could say the same thing about you and you wanting to see God as good and whole and the father figure he is for a lot of people. Please don't put words in my mouth by saying I want God to be this cruel being. I'm only calling out flaws in his character that I have seen, and I have heard no real explanation for his behavior, other than 'It was a different time then' or 'It doesn't count because God is a benevolent being and man simply misunderstood him.' The Bible is the only account we have of God and the marks he's made on history, and forgive me for saying but it does not give an image of a benevolent, omnipotent being who loves everyone.

As for the kid and the fire, I'd rather teach him about fire and tell him the benefits and dangers about it, rather than simply shield him from it and punish him for him being curious.

It's easy to say the people were killed in the name of God because it's true. Selling children into slavery and prostitution and sacrificing babies may have been the norm for society back then, but that doesn't make it right. And Christianity may not have started that tradition, but it did approve of it.

I can credit atrocities like the Salem Witch Trials and the Crusades to God because if Christianity hadn't been around, it's possible that neither of those nor would many other horrible things have happened in the first place. Instead of blaming everyone who was different or didn't pass the test of faith and condemning them to die, the people in Salem might have been able to figure out that it was in fact a child's game gone out of hand. If Christianity hadn't been around, there wouldn't have been a Pope to order knights, squires and other soldiers to fight against people who happened to have different beliefs than them. Millions of people may not have died because one Pope wanted power.

At the risk of butting into a conversation...

Thing is, in debate terms, the argument's non-unique. Any kind of religious conception, dogma, or prejudice brings with it a philosophy of good and evil. Coming on the heels of that is an obligation to defend the good and defy the evil. Hence, your own opposition.

Once positive evil is admitted, the necessity of a religion which fights becomes apparent. Any god that wouldn't take a stand against it is neither kind, nor loving, really.


As for the atrocities you specifically list, that's a debate in and of itself. I think the Crusades, being primarily a response to earlier wars of religion, may be defended in concept, though perhaps not in execution.
As for the Salem Witch trials... yes, that was bad. A mere persecution of the weak by the strong, masked by religion. Although, I don't think that a lack of religion would do much good in convincing a rich man that he shouldn't steal from the poor. Also, I think that the inhabitants would have been more likely to take it seriously, though they probably would have elevated the "witches" instead of burning them, which carries its own dangers.

Tell me why my argument should be unique to be effective and true. But at this point, I'm not even arguing whether God actually exists or not at this point, though it may come to that. I pointed out things that contradict the earlier statement that said God was better than the other gods she's encountered, and yet I can go into the Holy Bible and point out passages that say God demanded this, was cruelly judgmental about that and sought absolute perfection from everyone or they burned forever in a pit of fire.

The atrocities were mentioned not by me, but by her. I merely used them again my counterpoint. And I'm not sure how much debate there is to the Crusades, because there are resources that support the points both she and I mentioned earlier. Pope Urban II sanctioned the Holy Wars in 1095 because he was concerned that Christianity would die out in the Holy Land because the Byzantine Empire was defeated by Muslim advances. He wasn't worried about the welfare of his followers, he was worried about losing his power to the Muslims.

A lack of anything does nothing to convince anyone of anything. I'd like to think those people would've been better off, but I can't say for sure what would have happened in Salem or Europe and Asia if Christianity hadn't been around. But I know for sure it didn't help in either situation.

If one is not to believe in Christianity, than what should be believed?
With all the myriad gods there are, one ought to be able to say that one is better than another. If the God of Christianity is not that one, which is? That no god is the best option is tenable, I just want to know where you come from.

The issue, however, is this. That God exercised judgment is true. That he made demands is also true. In this, as I said, he is not unique.
However, He is unique in offering, upon His own suffering and death, an alternative. Therein lies his uniqueness. If no other god offered this, then, all other things being equal, God would still be superior.

In considering the Crusades, I think it important to examine the motives of the followers as much as the leaders. Urban may have been a cynical power-preserver, but that would not have produced the peasant's crusade. Whatever he thought, those who went from their villages and fields at the bidding of Peter the Hermit did feel, and had felt, the Moslem advance of the first jihad to be an ever-present threat, and upon the capture of their Holy City, felt it as an assault to their culture, and cosmos.

Now, you could maintain that they were wrong. It's a defensible position. In the modern world, though, I think it's safe to say that the elites of the West are not collectively Christian, and haven't been for some time. In the 21st century, we have kept the war, but I think we have lost the honor. The Crusader fought Saladin, but he heaped praises upon his character that I've yet to see anyone put upon Osama bin Laden. There is exactly as much to be said for the Islamic side now than there was then; only, they said it in the 12th century, and not the 21st.

And if you want to get down to brass tacks, historic Christianity, like all things in which actual human beings are involved, is responsible for good things as well as bad. The abolition of slavery rose out of the religion which maintained an equality of all humans before God; national and international charity; a defiance of both the Fascists and the Communists, among others.


I would love to continue this discussion, but I think we should move it to private messages. We don't want to crowd Three out of her own Q&A.

Why should anything be believed at all? Belief is taking something to be true, no matter if it's factually supported or not. By definition, belief is usually an outright lie because if you know something to be true, you don't have to believe in it because it doesn't matter if you do or not; it's factually true. If it's not true, then you're taking it to be true anyway, which is just as good as lying. I don't believe in any gods because I have seen no evidence supporting the existence of any of them. Not believing in any god not only seems to be a reasonable choice, but can lead to a reasonable way of thinking about anything as well.

Yes, he offered his own son to pay for our sins, enabling us humans to be able to sin all we want as long as we believe in Him and repent for our sins. That sounds so much better than the other gods.

The People's Crusade was virtually leaderless, powerless, and not well prepared for the trip. They may have thought that they were defending their faith from the Muslims, but they were misled on several occasions and it cost them their lives. If they wanted their religious freedoms defended, they should have supported the trained knights and squires assigned in the war. (Who had the equivalent of a free pass to do whatever they wanted which protected them from being persecuted by the church for whatever sins they committed.)

And there hasn't been much honor or praise for Osama Bin Laden because he was a religious nutjob who attacked us after we supported the resistance to the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Many Muslims are/were actually opposed to Bin Laden's views because many proclaim Islam to be a religion of peace, not to mention many also feared our retribution from the 9/11 attacks. Osama didn't get any praises or honor because he didn't have any.

And no, religion was virtually uninvolved in the abolition of slavery, save for preachers from New England coming down to preach against slavery, but that message changed to supporting it as the practice grew in the South. Religion, despite current thinking, is not needed in giving charity nationally or internationally. (Churches don't have to pay any taxes by the way. How charitable is that, knowing they take in billions of dollars each year, whose potential taxes could help our economy out by helping to fund the federal government. U.S. Postal Service comes to mind.) And I'm pretty sure Christianity had nothing to do with the defiance of Fascists and Communists. Capitalists come to mind, though.

While I would normally agree with you, this is Three's original discussion. And since we both butted in on her's, I think she ought to be able to speak her mind to us about it in return.

Okay, so I'm beginning to see where you're coming from. Atheistic rationalism, okay, that is a comprehensible philosophy.

You ask why anything should be believed; that is, taken without conclusive evidence. Normally, I would put forward evidence that I have encountered that led me to a theistic philosophy. However, a small existential crisis I had last week still haunts me.
See, I found myself in conversation with someone who maintained that I didn't actually exist. I found that I could not prove, conclusively, my own objective existence; anything I said or did could be put down to her own 'subjective' experiences, which may be deluded or deceived.
Everything in life in life is a matter of faith. Else, why should reason lead to any truer conclusion than unreason? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape.
It all comes down to one's first principles, which by nature cannot be subjected to reason.

Now... first you're telling me that you disapprove of God judging sins. Then you disapprove of his not judging them?
That's probably not a fair way of stating your argument, as your problem is probably where the line is drawn rather than the line being drawn at all; but your argument structure leaves you open to these unfair cheap shots. I don't want to fight a straw man.
Incidentally, the entire statement is one of the major heresies Paul wrote his epistles to refute: "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who have died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His Death?" (Romans 6:1-3)
I don't have space to go through the entire chapter here, but it answers you better than I ever could, though it does go in-depth in the theology.

Passing on from Christ to the historic conduct of his followers...
It may be true that the Peasant's Crusade had little practical effect, but that's not what I was trying to prove. There may well be a better case for the unsuccessful movement than the moderately successful (as you pointed in your parentheses). The point is, those that fought did not do so cynically, whatever else they may be accused of.
It was a brutal business, that I don't deny. Both sides fought, and neither thought the other wrong for fighting (although denunciations of war do show up in monastic records). Weighing both sides though, one wished to recover their Holy place, and the other had nearly wiped out the other's culture. After the battle, that wave was broken. Europe was not endangered by total overrunning again.
If we'd only seen the exchange of campaigns, without knowing anything about the religion of either side, would we even be having this discussion?

Bin Laden may not be worthy of charitable discussion, but one of the ideas behind the Virtue of Charity is that no one really deserves it. The Medieval Era would have shown him charity, and probably given him less of an excuse to fight us.
Also, no, I don't think that supporting the native Pashtuns against Soviet invaders was the main crime he imputed against us. He's Yemeni, for one thing, and another, he said himself that the most odious of our actions as "The Great Satan" was having military presence in Saudi Arabia, thier Holy Land (and the West does really have less right to be there than Jerusalem, from a historical perspective).
Now, that does change the fact that terrorism is not justified. But the problem is, we let our perception of a genuine nutjob color our perception of his followers, and then his fellow muslims, which has only made things worse.

You're a bit Americentric in the slavery question. I mean in general, starting with the Roman practice. Why did slave estates disappear? While the Feudalism that replaced it later, and the higher medieval society of peasants and guilds that was half-built before the Middle Ages ended, preserved measures of inequality, treating a man like furniture was out. The masters had to acknowledge that they were dealing with fellow-souls, and often fellow-Christians.
Passing onto the revival of chattel slavery from Africa, again, in Europe, it was men like Wilberforce who protested it, and managed to have it abolished.
The acceptance of it in the South is what we call a heresy. The story of it's abolition, and the exculpation we had to go through, you already know. Tying back to my earlier point, though; Lincoln did want to extend charity and forgiveness, before he was assassinated. Again, primarily a Christian concept, not carried through, to our lasting shame.

Religion may not be, strictly, necessary for charity, but quite a lot would not be given except for it. If I wasn't reminded of the needs faced by those less fortunate (a theme harped on by most religions, and Christianity especially), I wouldn't give it a second thought. It's no easy task, confronting the selfishness of humanity.
Nothing to do with the defiance of the Fascists and the Communists... which is why they were persecuted by both regimes, often to the point of death, and remained a consistent voice in opposition to their tyrannical policies. Pope John Paul (even in his early days as a cardinal) was no insignificant figure in inspiring the Polish Uprising.

As for the capitalists... funny you should mention that. Taken from another perspective, the whole mess that was the 20th century can traced back to the failings of that particular system (e.g. Industrial Inequality spawning Communism, and the boom-and-bust cycle fueling Fascism's rise).

As for the churches not paying taxes... well, that gets into a political debate upon the effectiveness of bailouts, the necessity of a balanced budget vs. extra revenue, which is a much less interesting topic. Also, if they did support the government, that would kind of destroy the separation of Church and State. Every time their money was being used to fund programs against their theology, they would set up a howl, and attempting to balance the competing demands would be more trouble than it's worth, really.


Three does have a right to comment, but is she? I kind of think she's just letting us do our own thing.
This is what I get for jumping into a debate. I regret nothing, but I wonder...

Three, if you're still paying attention, I do have a question:
Since you've been traveling a lot, what's your position on getting involved in the local conflicts/issues of all the planets you've visited? Do you lean more towards meddling, or non-interference.

I'm watching, reading, and nodding and shaking my head quite a bit. Please feel free to continue the discussion here as I'm having a fascinating time reading it.

As for the question, I meddle to the extent I'm able. I don;t think I've ever brought down empires or changed a nation, but I do a little good when I can. One of the best examples was when I got myself put into the local mythology during a country's occupation by a neighboring nation. They were bleeding the life out of it and a rebellion was doing what it could to take it all back. The rebels knew there was a forest they could always escape through and survive, and the military knew that if they set foot in there they probably would never leave. The people that spotted me started making claims there was a wolf guarding the woods. The description of the beast didn't look a bit like me, but eventually the myth sunk in and when the rebellion eventually won they even had celebrations in the wolf's honor.

So yes, I usually meddle. If only so I have something to do.

Sorry about the late reply, weekend got a bit busy.

That's a fair assessment, except that it fails to take into account the likelihood of you, me, or anything else existing. To use a quote of my own: "The universe, the whole mass of things that are, is corporeal; that is to say body, and has the dimensions of magnitude, length, breadth, and depth. Every part of the universe is body, and that which is not body is no part of the universe. And because the universe is all, that which is no part of it is nothing, and consequently nowhere." Thomas Hobbes.

It is quite possible for neither of us to exist, that we are merely ideas or spirits that belong to some unknown part of the universe. However, given the fact that not only are we are aware of each other, but we are also aware of billions of people on this planet, as they are aware of us. We can interact, both on a physical and mental level, that is we can touch one another and communicate with one another. And we are aware of these things because of our senses. Again, it is entirely possible that our senses are off or wrong in some sort of way, but given the fact that our senses have functioned as they have done so for the entire length of our existence, the likelihood of our senses being off or wrong is extremely low. It is also possible that our senses are incomplete, which is highly more likely. But was have invented machines that can detect things that we can't and translate information they gather into a form that we can interpret using our own senses.

We have no recorded evidence of a god existing, and that includes verifiable eye-witness accounts, (multiple people seeing the same thing who can give accounts of the event within a low, acceptable margin of error between collaborations) and recorded data using machines. (Observable, repeatable, and testable data) I wrote a paper on this topic a while back here if you wish to read it: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5743242/ With no acceptable data to confirm the existence of a god, it is therefore unlikely that one exists, however possible it may be.

That was a poorly reasoned, poorly constructed statement, and I need to explain myself. I was trying to say that the whole system of judgment, prayer, and basic concepts of belief are really screwed up. For example, why is it that whenever a prayer is answered, God is suddenly this nice guy who you can depend on? But if a prayer goes unanswered or is answered with a 'no' in some way, then it's just God's plan? If God has a plan for everyone, why pray to him? If he's already made up his mind about something, do your really think praying is going to change everything? Another one is the phrase 'God-fearing man.' People like to use this phrase a lot like it's a good thing. But why should God, being the benevolent, omnipotent being that he's supposed to be, be feared? I thought God was supposed to love everyone, (though not according to Westboro Baptist, but that's another point for later.) why should he be feared at all? God sacrificed his son for everyone's sins, but he still judges them anyway. The whole thing is messed up.

I'm going to offer only a few statements for the other points because we got off topic from my original question. The People's Crusade was lead by blind faith, something that is dangerous yet typical of religion. A guy drowned when he didn't get on the boat God sent to him to save him from the flood because he thought God would save him somehow.

I wasn't trying to imply that Bin Laden got mad at us for supporting him at one point. I was saying he attacked us even though we supported him.

I thought you were referring to slavery in America only. I haven't done any research yet on slavery in the world, but I still doubt that religion had anything to do with ending it, for all the slavery that's in the Bible. I will see what history says when I get a bit more free time to do some more research.

The separation of Church and State statement doesn't actually exist in the Constitution; that was in a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to church leaders. The only thing that mentions religion in the Constitution is the First Amendment, which states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Basically, the First Amendment says that the government can't mess with the practice of religion, nor can it pick and choose which religions it support and which ones it condemns. So even if churches did pay taxes, the government couldn't use it to fund programs against their theology anyway. The most they could do is further reduce religion's influences on the government, like removing 'Under God' from the Pledge and 'In God We Trust' from the dollar bill. Neither of which restricts religious practice, btw, but again, that is neither here nor there.

I'm against religion because I have been convinced by facts about the bible and by the effects it has on people who don't follow the same religion that it does more harm than good. I know a good many people on FA who can't confess that they're gay, lesbian, bi, agnostic, atheist, or any number of things to their parents and friends because they're die-hard Christians. I couldn't even begin to imagine the amount of intolerance that is out there towards non-Christians, especially Atheists. And I die a little inside whenever I see or hear another news story about Westboro Baptist Church. I fight to hold back tears when I see a kid no older than seven or eight years old say they hate people they've never met because their parents teach them that anyone who's not white, straight and Christian is gonna burn in hell. And they all read from the same book you read from.

Clearly, I'm not getting anywhere here, so unless you really want to continue discussing, I've said just about all I can on my views on the subject. I really wanted to talk to Three/Gen about this, but since she's just watching us bicker, I think I'm done.

'S alright. If this is your final reply, I'll get in my last rebuttal, then.

What are you measuring the likelihood against? I'm not defending this kind of skepticism, but I really don't how you calculate those odds. But that anything we sense conveys accurate information is necessarily a question in a vacuum; if there is any kind of fundamental error, we'd never have any objective truth to compare it to, even the dimensions of Hobbes. And if our senses cannot be trusted, neither can our machines.
Faith underlies thought; and repudiation of faith leads to a undermining of thought (see H.G. Well's "Doubts of the Instrument"). And down that road lies madness.

I've read through that essay; and I could say a lot about it, but it's 3AM where I am and I can't really get into it. I noticed the old claim that "since all religions claim to be the One True religion, none of them can be." Or at least that's what I got from one paragraph. That sort of argument annoys me; I believe (if you will pardon the word) even falsehoods deserve a fair account. Of course every one who honestly holds his opinion believes it to be true and the contraries false, otherwise it is not his opinion.

As for your opinion on prayer... you do realize that God is not, like, a cosmic vending machine? That he was never treated as such? Prayer is communing with God, first and foremost. You bring up the debate about predestination as well, and that, again, is whole 'nother debate.
In other words, it's not so much about going before a king as a suppliant, but going before a father as a son. Sure, you got things to ask for, which may or may not be granted, but that's not the point, really.
Did you go back to the original Greek and Hebrew when you first had a problem with the phrase "God-fearing'? In the original language, it means awe and respect, appropriate when you consider that its, well, God we're talking about here. You wouldn't diss the President of the US to his face (or you might, if you were more disrespectful than most atheists I've known.)

Blind faith... ah, such weighted phrases. I wouldn't use it to describe Aquinas, who was at least as typical of medieval faith as the crusader. I deny that all faith is blind, and that blindness is typical of faith, but I take it you don't agree, and as you imply, stalemate.

Okie-dokie, but my point still stands, that Christ's most difficult commandment would still apply here, and one bad muslim does not absolve me of being a good Christian.

I'll leave you to your research on the slavery question; but as it has some relevance to the essay you posted, I'll just point out something I found in readings on historiography. F.A. Hayek once said that in order to make any sense of mere facts, one has to have a theory beforehand. Any person who believe that he can derive his theory only from the facts is only leaving himself susceptible to unconscious bias rather than conscious decisions. I don't expect you to give up your own theory on merely this investigation.

I would have thought that you would have at least agreed with me that the principle of separating the two was sound. Mind, I support it mostly because state establishment corrupts religion, and you might see the dangers on the other side more clearly.
I'm still not sure about how mere first amendment restrictions prevent the government from funding efforts that would be against one of the tax-exempted religions that exist today (which range far beyond what Lord Salisbury [i think] called 'the varieties of Protestantism.') The government is of course quite free to become more secular, liberal secularism is the one religion which it is PC to tax.

I read your essay, and you mention no specific Biblical examples. In fact, you haven't given any here.
We've had to debate the aftereffects thereof. Gay rights are a sensitive issue, and confession is never easy. Judgmentalism was not encouraged by the founder of my religion, but it does show up in all of them. Including yours; the essay I read from you practically dripped cold intellectual contempt. Again, I reiterate my point, Christianity was basically meant to be a religion for real people, and quite often bad people.
Ah, the Westboro Baptist Church... leaving aside the issue of whether they can read it in the actual language it is in, I think they skipped over a few vital parts of Titus: "Likewise, exhort the young men to be sober-minded, in all things showing yourself to be a pattern of good works; in doctrine showing integrity, reverence, incorruptibility, sound speech that cannot be condemned, that one who is an opponent may be ashamed, having nothing evil to say of you." (2:6-8) That's basically the entire theme of the book as regards conduct suited to a Christion, and a good deal of the Epistles besides, not to mention Christ himself. Whatever book the WBC has and follows, it's not the New Testament.

In any case, the WBC is hardly representative, and even most anti-Christians acknowledge that.

Recriminations of persecution are generally mutual, and I won't bring to bear my own list of martyrs.


What it comes down to, though, is that our convictions go deeper than the intellectual level, so we're hardly going to convince each other on that domain. I am a Christian, and you are in reaction against Christianity. You have the great virtue of pugnacity and intellectual courage, which signifies your soul is healthy, regardless of whether it is lost. You actually remind me of James Turnbull from "The Ball and the Cross," who quite patiently and steadily published blasphemies to a crowd of Londoners who did truly not care about religion one way or the other, and whose happiest day was when a Highland Catholic actually read his paper, and smashed his shop-window in protest, seeking a scrap.
A good book, that. Don't know if you'd like it, but ever since I'd read it, I was convicted to give every atheist I met justice on the field of argument.

Oh my. This is one of the more laughable responses I have ever been given, so much so that I think I ought to clear up a few things for you.

That first paragraph was really just to reassure you that you do in fact exist with some certainty. But it also demonstrates that our senses are all we have of knowing and defining the world we live in, and they are the only way we have of gaining anything objective. As an example, I know that if I jump out of a plane flying 10,000 feet in the air, I had better have a parachute with me because it's a long way down and gravity isn't going to stop working just to save my life. Things like that are objective, because they can't be changed. Sure, we can counteract the effects of gravity, but that doesn't mean that gravity won't stop working.

Which brings me to a point you made later on in your rebuttal. Having a theory before you have the facts is downright backwards and leads to more bias than anything else. It's ok to have educated guesses beforehand formed from previous experience, but setting your mind before you are informed enough to make a sound opinion is downright ignorant. I said I doubt religion had anything to do with ending slavery; I didn't say I knew it for certain. If history does accurately show that religion, namely Christianity, did in fact play a significant role in the abolition of slavery in Europe and Asia, then I will acknowledge the facts and change my mind. That's generally how science works: You gather information, then form educated theories and guesses based on said facts. If you come across facts that conflict with current theories, then you form new theories. Hayek doesn't sound like he knows what he's talking about, and I'm not surprised considering he majored in law and politics rather than any branch of science.

"Since all religions claim to be the One True Religion, none of them can be." is an incomplete assumption. The fact that there's no evidence to support anything about either of them guiding people into heaven or sending them into hell or various other claims they make needs to complement that statement.

I agree that religion/church should be separate from government and politics, though I think for reasons opposite yours; that is religion tends to corrupt politics. Stem cell research keeps getting slowed down because religious conservatives are more worried about the few potential lives being smothered by the research rather than the millions of people dying every day from disease. And the First Amendment isn't holding the government back from funding efforts 'against' religions, lobbyists that work for the religions are. It is is free to become secular. But since neither the Constitution nor any other law specifically states the separation between church and politics, no one will let it because a great majority of the country, including the politicians, are religious.

Do you realize that anyone who talks to any supernatural being other than God is considered clinically insane? Between the fact that communication to God is not verifiable by any means known today and how you get about the same response rate from God anyway, what's the difference?

I did not know that, but let me ask you this: is that how the word/phrase used today? Are people really in awe of God when they say they are God-fearing, or do they think they should both fear and love him in a perverted relationship? I can only postulate but to use WBC again, some of their signs, like 'God hates fags' and 'God hates America', seem to convey a message of fear.

I'm sorry, is there something bad about cold, intellectual contempt? Between you and me, I'd rather sound like a smart ass than a dumb ass. You want quotes? Fine, I'll give you quotes.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29: If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [a] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Leviticus 18:22: You must not have sexual intercourse with a man as you would with a woman; it is a detestable practice.

Exodus 21:7: When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shouldn’t be set free in the same way as male slaves are set free.

Exodus 35:2: Do your work for six days, but the seventh day should be holy to you, a Sabbath of complete rest for the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath will be put to death.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21: If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

Exodus 21:15-17: Anyone who attacks their father or mother is to be put to death. Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession. Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.

Exodus 21:20-21: Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

Exodus 22:2-3: If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed.

Exodus 22:19: Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal is to be put to death.

Exodus 22:20: Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. I honestly can't see how you can continue to defend this book. Because if the Bible is supposed to be taken literally, then at the very least, you're fucked in the head. If it's not to be taken literally, then is it to taken figuratively? Because if it is, then the it loses all real meaning and becomes little more than a piece of fiction. And if you and other Christians truly see these abusive, over-the-top rules as corrupt, outdated as we do, then why keep it in their in the first place? Why hold on to these brutal, primitive rules and traditions if you abhor them so much? We certainly don't need them for the history lesson; we have actual history books for that. Are you too convicted to change your holy book? WBC is certainly representative, perhaps not of everyone in your religion, but they are certainly pictures of the unjust, cruel, ignorant people and the horrible atrocities that they have done in the name of your God. This goes back to how science differs from religion. We alter our views to improve our understanding of ourselves and the world around us. Religions, however, are fundamentally opposed to change. I can certainly understand how your convictions are deeper than intellectual, seeing as how you don't like to use the intellectual level very much.

One more thing before I let you gather a response: This isn't a battlefield you think you're in, this is a debate. We are not enemies, nor are we soldiers. We are people who happen to disagree on this subject. I don't need justice brought upon me because my views offend you so badly, nor am I a criminal just begging to be punished. I am free-thinking individual, and my 'soul,' if it exists, is not yours to judge. If you truly think that way, all I can say is you're not helping your case. I didn't feel like going on before because I became bored with the discussion, namely because I didn't hear anything new that was very significant. I'm trying to give you another perspective, not bring you down in a display of supremacy as you seem to want to do. Get your self-righteous head out of the clouds and talk to me as a human being equal to you, not as your inferior.

I'm going to take your last paragraph first, because I'm afraid I haven't made myself clear:
What I meant by giving your views intellectual justice is that I would take them seriously. I meant that I would regard you as a thinker of sound mind, who held his convictions with equal fervor as I did, and with support that he felt justified his conception of the world. I meant that I wouldn't simply blow off your opinions, however much I tried to disprove them. I'm sorry if my early-morning reply offended you, I am.
Would you take it as an insult if I complimented you on how the passion and dedication you put into your reply testified to your firm belief? We are so far apart in our worldviews, I'm now beginning to be afraid that I might hurt you when I really mean to compliment you.
Or maybe that remark sounds condescending to you. I really don't know.

I think that kind of cross-purpose is plaguing our discussion, as neither of us feels that the other is getting the points we're trying to make.
Like the first paragraph, for example. The doubts I talk about are on the metaphysical level, that deal with whether the Universe we know isn't just some dream of the mind, regardless of the consistency of the rules within said dream. I don't doubt the Universe, most sane people don't. However, there are some who do. I've met them, and it's forced me to affirm the assumptions of a sane man as dogma. Unconscious belief is belief all the same, but I'll close this subject here.

See, you propose the main tenants of science as the one key to truth. It is a sound method, when dealing with limitable experiment. When you can shrink the question to repeatable test of physical facts, it does hold authority.
But it is not, and was never meant to be, a panacea in scholastic searches. Especially in such matters as history, law, and politics (in which Hayek, presumably, would know what he is talking about.) When discussing a historical, non-repeatable event like the abolition of slavery, there is such a welter of facts that it takes quite a lot of effort to set them into a narrative. Objectivity becomes even more difficult, when all the sources of the facts you seek also have arranged them into narratives of their own.
So, again, not easy. I didn't mean to imply your intellect was deficient, nor that you could give the question a fair trial if you really put your effort into it. It's just that in every historical question, there's a case to be made for both sides, and which ones we ultimately take as truth rather depends on how much weight we give to the facts beforehand (not just in intellectual bias, but in whether eyewitness accounts are more accurate pictures than general statistics, etc.) It's a big question.
A priori theories exist, it takes effort to compensate for them, and the great majority of human minds cannot completely get rid of them. That's generally what I've found in my researches into the literature.

Well, near-death experiences aside, there really isn't any solid evidence to be had, one way or the other. Ultimately, that lends as much validity to the theistic as the atheistic theory (and vice versa, I admit).

A complete separation of religion and politics would probably be ineffectual, especially in a democracy. Stem cell research is, again, something upon which we would disagree, and that disagreement would go even beyond the science of the matter (such as whether embryonic stem cells are necessary, considering the adult alternatives), but again, that would be a back-and-forth that ultimately boils down to the metaphysical level, whether embryos are human life, and whether it is right to sacrifice such life, without consent, to uncertain future benefits. That's what the issue boils down to, and neither I nor you can make everyone agree about it. So, the decision passes to the democracy, for good or ill.

Because God is not Cthulu? Flippancy aside, I think you exaggerate (of course, I did indulge in such when I said that I had an 'existential crisis'. In that question, I think you took me more seriously than I take myself). I have met a few individuals who did seriously assert communication with various supernatural beings, without having been considered insane. Fact is, most people do believe, and have believed for all human history, that there are things which may just not be verifiable scientifically, hence are not considered insane, except by the small minority who do not.

I can only speak for the Christians I have met (samples taken from all across the US, but deficient internationally) when I say that yes, they do take that phrase in the original meaning. "God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, love, and self-control." (2 Timothy 1:7)
In other words, Christianity is not the Sinestro Corps. One more reason to consider the WBC heretical.

And which was Balaam's? Sorry for all the bad jokes, but again, I try not to take myself too seriously. It prevents me from becoming too much like the WBC, who have no sense of humor.

As for the quotes... well, aside from taking Exodus 21:7 out of context (the rest of the verses go into how exactly one does go about redeeming a female slave, and all the rights she is entitled to), they all are as you say, harsh. They dealt with discipline in a nomadic society only one meal away from anarchy. I would argue that they were justified in that context at the very least, and to reject a primary source of historical data because we have secondary sources is, well, not good scholarship.
The main theological point of the Law, in the context of the New Testament, is essentially to show why the soul of man, when subjected to standards of perfection, is essentially hopeless. Even so-called small evils can destroy a soul if allowed to continue indefinitely, and considering that a soul is immortal, unless there is a method for actually clearing a soul of sin, you wouldn't enjoy heaven even if they let you in. Hence, the need for Jesus' incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection. By changing the Bible, you would lose the whole picture.
Of course, if you didn't believe it in the first place, it wouldn't be that important to you.

The difference between science and religion is that one only purports to deal with one facet of life, and the latter deals with all facets. Change is not always desirable (the bowdlerization of Shakespeare, for instance).
But on a larger scale, it is not strictly true to say that religion is opposed to change. Religion has quite often motivated it. My religion is simply opposed to the changes you desire. We have opposed quite a lot of changes in the modern world, from all directions, including, as I mentioned before, both the Communists in Russia and the Fascists in Germany (or else, they simply martyred us for no reason.) We are sometimes on the side of the progressives, other times the conservatives, because we pursue what we do, regardless of its popularity. The world not only changes, it cycles. The French were not ignorant of life when they said "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

Unjust, cruel, ignorant people can do horrible things for any god, or even no god. The WBC represents them, but you will forgive me if I think that taking them as representative of Christianity as a whole is no better than taking the Bolsheviks as representative as representative of atheism as a whole?

If we're going to continue this, I want to clear one thing up, and ask one question. I don't hate you. I don't even hate your religion, or worldview, or whatever I ought to call it. I may get a little hot under my collar, just like any human being. It's how I talk to people, especially when debating, and I have to cool myself down, by self-deprecation, humor, or just taking a break. I'm not treating you any different than I would if you were anyone else.
Do you hate me? I mean, more than you would if you didn't know I was a Christian?

The fact that a lot of the Christians I go into 'debates' with (I use the term loosely because their arguments are usually lacking real facts and are pure opinion and bigotry) treat me like I'm some sort of ignorant, blind, stupid piece of meat simply because I use my head and do my research before I make any sort of a point. Though I have only started to dive into the realm of debating, more often than not, I have made people look like fools when they try to make me look like one first, especially when it turns out that they are the ignorant, blind ones. Thus, when I read your last statement, I took it to mean that which I said in my last response. I had never read a statement similar in nature that was trying to compliment me rather than put me down. For jumping on you like that, I apologize.

No, I don't hate you. I make it a point not to hate people, unless that person turns out to be an axe-murderer or something. Am I frustrated with you? Yes. Am I annoyed that my points aren't having their usual effect? A little. But only because you're a much better debater and defender of your religion than most of the people I've used them against. But I don't hate you. I certainly wouldn't hate you because you're Christian. My mother is Christian, as are many of my friends, and I get along with them just fine. One of them is part of a ministry frat, and he's one of the coolest guys I know.

I think it's pointless to speculate whether the Universe is a real or a dream as you say because we simply don't know yet. Chalking it all up to God does nothing to answer that question, because implementing God stops the questions. Using God to fill in the holes that science hasn't filled in yet is pointless because science is trying to find answers to the questions that mean something to us. And it has been finding answers because the evidence for such is all around us today. The 'consistency of rules,' as you say, is exactly what demonstrates God's unlikelihood of existence, and here's why. Your God is supposed to be this omnipotent being with the power to do anything he can think of, which as I understand includes what's considered to be impossible by many, if not all, people on this Earth. So why do we not see more examples of the supernatural? Why do we not have recordings of marine vessels sailing through the air as if they were meant to do so? Why is our planet where it is in relation to the Sun, if God could make life appear wherever and whenever he wants, even if Earth shared the orbit of Pluto or Mercury? Why is it that science is able to discover the natural laws of the universe, if your God can turn a car into a giraffe whenever he wants? Why has your God left no evidence of his existence in any form of the supernatural? Why is it that science can explain so many things that are wrong in the Bible like the Earth being flat, even though it is the word of God and cannot be disputed? How can you point out examples in nature to prove that which exceeds nature, that is the supernatural?

The only reason you get more than one side on any issue, historical event or political topic, is because there are discrepancies in the facts. You believe stem research should not be pursued or funded because your concern is whether human embryos are considered life. You consider them so, because they have the potential to grow into full-fledged human beings. I contend that they aren't because they cannot support their own life because they are deliberately kept from developing any further. (And by that I mean that none of their vital organs can function well enough to process food and air to keep them alive.) And therein lies the discrepancy. If you didn't think that they were life to be grown, then you'd have no problem with the research and no problem with the possibility of saving lives with such research. By the way, the only way to determine future benefits is to do the research. Two sides of anything stem from two different sets of facts. When you filter out what is correct and relevant from the incorrect and irrelevant, you end up with identical sets, therefore converting a two-sided issue to a one-sided view.

There's that word again, believe. It doesn't matter if all 6.5 billion people on the planet believed that the Earth was cubic, it wouldn't be true. You're never going to know if it's verifiable or not until you try. Just because science hasn't been able to verify something, doesn't it never will. And if you would please tell me how these people communicated with the supernatural so they could instruct other people how to do so, who the supernatural beings were so we all know exactly who we're talking about here, what they said because this could be ground-breaking stuff, and if anyone else could give similar accounts who don't know each other so they can't cheat and tell each other what to say, that would be great. You give me names, how-to's, and documentation and will look into it. (If you really want to, please note them to me rather than list them here, just to save space.) I notice you did not mention God when you said supernatural beings, but I don't want to read anything into it just yet. Just making an observation.

If the Bible is a primary source of historical data, then why hasn't anything in it been verified by other texts and archeological digs? I know of no conclusive evidence to support the existence of Moses, the making of the 10 commandments and the location of the mountain from which they were carved, and other things of that nature. The historical texts out there ARE the primary sources, because their supported by archeological evidence.

This is another thing that annoys me about the Abraham religions. You are born with sin, and only believing in God will your sins be forgiven. This is one of the most detestable things I find about your religion, because it says that all human beings are born unfit. The God that forgives our sins is the same God that tells us we are flawed, unclean, and unworthy in his eyes unless we follow and worship him. If your Bible only had the original message of Jesus, saying to be kind and loving to others, I wouldn't have as big a problem with it.

By following this God of Abraham, you're really telling me to follow a god who once told a father to kill his only son for him. A father who had to demonstrate that he was willing to stab his own son in the heart and offer him up as a sacrifice to his god to prove his love for that god. How do you expect me in good conscience to follow this twisted idea of a loving god? Do you really expect me, or anyone else for that matter, to reconsider their atheistic/non-Christian views for this?

Glad to get the air cleared on that.

There's no particular reason that a consistent Universe denies the existence of God; a world where all the laws were arbitrary, and changed from day to day, would hardly be fit for human habitation! If maritime vessels could at any moment take to the air, for no discernible reason and with no consistent means of control, why, no one would ever use them (especially if the landings were dicey). It would be a very cruel deity that would condemn human life to the vagaries of random events. The steadiness of physical law, and the rareness of miracles, could well be the mercy of God.

Where in the Bible does it say the earth is flat? It barely touches on astronomy at all. In fact, the only reference I can recall is in Job (chronologically the earliest book), wherein "He hangeth the Earth upon nothing." Which is a powerful way of describing how the planet really does look in photographs from space.
In fact, the Copernican astronomy fits particularly well with the Judean cosmology. We are small creatures crawling on a rock hurled by forces vast and uncontrollable in a sea of flame and cold... and so we call upon the Lord.

As for the existence of miracles themselves... well, firsthand, I can relate several instances of sudden and unexpected healing, which you would no doubt dispute as either psychologically induced, or simply the inevitable results of chance. This is one of the things that demonstrate what i mean when I say that facts do not tell the whole story. The healings are facts, a bone which was broken is no not broken, long before natural rates would have grown them together. A disease or defect which any medical expert would say dooms the patient does not. These are facts, and yet there are two ways for accounting of them, which the facts alone cannot completely support.

They are deliberately kept from forming any further... which only means that human action is made to stifle life. An infant is not, in common sense, able to support itself any more than a human embryo. It is only by playing games with the definition of "self-supporting" that such a brightline can be drawn at all. So, in any case, would be my counter-argument. And, in a world where adult-derived stem cells can be gotten, the moral dilemma seems a little artificial, at least in the "all or nothing" way it's often described.
The idea that sufficient research can solve every matter by sorting all facts into "correct" and "incorrect"... that's partially addressed by the preceding paragraph. The validity of facts is either indisputable, or infinitely disputable (like the definition of life). As long as the definitions are unfixed, there can never be a universal set of facts. With multiple definitions, you have multiple sets of universal facts, or cosmos. Again, the mere material facts, which can be agreed upon, still do not ultimately judge the question as much as the distinctions that a human mind draws.

I didn't enquire too much into the spiritual cosmology of my pagan friends. A missed opportunity, I admit; and I'm not sure that Wiccan, in any case, has an collection of orthodox theology I can refer you to.
And in matters such as these, when dealing with spiritual beings, the kind of scientific research that works well in physics and chemistry does not work well here. You would have to have cooperation on the other end, just as you would have to get consent for sociology experiments. That assumes, of course, a predisposition to regard the other as actually real. (Like I said before, I have had a conversation with someone who doubted my reality. It was a very unpleasant experience.)

Okay, it is strictly untrue to say that nothing in the Bible has been verified by archaeology. In fact, it was the one document that asserted the existence of the Hittites, which was a source of laughter in the scientific community until they actually found their remains. Most of the places that it mentions have been found (including scorch marks where Sodom and Gomorrah were). And, keep in mind, there really aren't very many other sources which could cross check these things. Do you think that the camp litter of the children of Israel could be found in Sinai?
They are primary sources because they are old, and attest to events of their time. Newspapers may or may not be strictly accurate, but they are still valuable to a researcher. And if truth can be trusted to future research, any gaps in support of the Bible could simply be due to the fact evidence hasn't been found yet. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Actually, the doctrine of Original Sin is perhaps the one point of theology that can best be materially proved. You remember the Stanford Prison Experiment? Perfectly respectable people, free of the coercions, social and legal, that enforce civility and good behavior, degenerate rapidly. If a man can get exquisite pleasure from the pain of others, which he can, there really are only two reasonable explanations. Either God does not exist, or there is a great divide between God and Man.
We are capable of such good and such evil, but the evil is very easy, and the good is very difficult. Simply telling people to be nice to others wouldn't have set Jesus apart from any other moral teacher, and, well, platitudes do not do very much when dealing with the great problem of human evil. Paradoxes characterize Jesus more than platitudes, which is why he was so much more interesting, both to his followers and to his enemies.

The point of the Isaac story is a little more than that. Keep in mind, human sacrifice was, in point of fact, part of the rites of the surrounding Canaanite culture (and before you ask, yes, they did find the mass graves of infants, as far as the culture spread, in Carthage). The point is, God did not demand human sacrifice, and demonstrated that the point of sacrifice was not simply a demand of taxation on the point of the Deity, but a covering for the sins of the people (and the Bible is nothing if not candid about the sins of the people in it). He repudiated it, to the point of advocating wars of extermination against cultures that practiced it (In this, I should point out, He was not alone. The Romans, quite probably the most sensible of all the pagans, utterly destroyed Carthage). Now, such wars were part of the crimes you accused God of. I don't expect you to give up your beliefs for Moloch, but I do ask you to give a fair case for the enemy of Moloch.

I have to say, I've really been enjoying this.

You missed the point. The Abrahamic God could change things every second for a week and he would not end a single life if he didn't want to. He's supposed to be omnipotent, he could make us survive on cyanide if he wanted to. Everything in the universe is a part of nature, that is beyond our control and will. So far, whatever we have done has been considered unnatural, or man-made. A bolt of lightning cannot create something like a building or a computer; we had to make it. We have never recorded a supernatural event in nature, because the supernatural, if it exists, exists outside of nature. There is no room for it in this universe. And that is why a consistent universe refutes, not denies, the existence of a god.

"...that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?" (NIV Bible, Job 38:13)
"...for he views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens." (NIV Bible, Job 28:24)

If the people who wrote this back then knew the Earth was spherical, I don't think they would have said the above. And no, Copernican Astronomy, which is called Heliocentrism by the way, does not fit at all with Judea-Christian Astronomy because they still thought the Sun revolved around the Earth. (NIV Ecclesiastes 1:5)

I didn't ask about miracles, I asked you to give me examples of people talking to supernatural beings, which as far as I know are two different things. But while we're on this topic, the facts do in fact tell the whole story. Why we don't always get it is because we don't always use every legitimate perspective at our disposal. Our perspective allows us to see what facts are relevant to what we're trying to find out, and if we don't have the proper perspective, we lose the big picture. Going back to the miracles, we see them as so usually because we missed something first. You ever heard of Scotoma? The mind sees what it wants to see? Religious people are so quick to point out miracles because they want their god to be real so much that they miss some crucial point or detail that alters the entire picture. You want your god to be real, so you believe every word that comes out of a priest's mouth or a bible page, and I suspect that you end up making excuses like every other Apologetic out there to back up your religion's claims. And may I point out again that not only did you not give examples on people talking to supernatural beings as I asked you to, but you also failed to give specific examples of these so-called 'miracles' that you're so fond of. Failing to inquire into the spiritually of your friends and failing to get co-operation from the other side are not my problems; they're yours. If you can't get me that information, then why did you bother to bring it up in the first place?

What I meant by a newborn supporting itself was not being able to survive on it's own, but being able to survive at all. 'Playing games' as you say, or what I call semantics, may not be popular among most people, but that doesn't diminish it's significance in discussion and debate. A newborn can survive because it's organs are functioning properly, regardless of whether it needs outside help to get nutrients or not. An embryo can't. And while the subject does give me pause every time I hear or discuss it, I don't lose sleep over it. Research doesn't come out of a textbook. It comes from breaking boundaries and making leaps into the unknown. I would rather they perform research on embryos than a fully-developed animal, human or otherwise. Because in that case, we're not killing or harming life, we're preventing it. Compared to what we were doing a century or more ago, I'm perfectly okay with that. The embryo cannot think or feel, and that makes it the best option for this research.

I didn't know that certain sites in the Bible have been found, but even if I did, I would still stick to my earlier statement because I wasn't talking about the normal, everyday settings in the book. As I mentioned before, I'm talking about the events and settings that define your religion. I'm talking about Moses, the 10 Commandments, the tomb of Jesus, evidence of his death and rebirth. Being able to prove the existence of a civilization is one thing, being able to prove where and how God carved the Commandments out of the stone from the mountain that Moses climbed to convey with God is quite another. And as for you saying that the Bible is a primary source because it's old is bullshit. Primary sources are considered so for their accuracy, not their age. If I were to write a book on how I was a graduate from Rolla at the top of my class and I later went on to become Emperor of the United States and buried it, it wouldn't be considered a primary source when it gets dug up a thousand years from now because it's not true. Primary sources are things like journals and formal reports on a particular subject generally because the author performed the research themselves and wrote everything down without distorting the facts.

For what it's worth, the Stanford Prison Experiment isn't relative to your point for this reason: If you're going to try to bring out the worst in someone, chances are you will succeed, and that's exactly what happened in the experiment. If they wanted to see what would happen to a person or a group of people when put in prison, they should've put them in a real prison with real guards. If the real inmates weren't murderers, rapists, and generally dangerous to be around, I'd through them in there too. The outcome of a social experiment like that depends greatly upon the environment. You want a true test to our nature? How about 9/11? As soon as that first plane crashed into the Tower, people didn't run away. They ran in to help. More people in the tower worked to get everyone out rather than listen to any procedure telling them to stay put. That is a true testament to our nature, because it was real. It wasn't an experiment, it wasn't a play, it was real. And I've never been more proud of my fellow man when those firemen went into those burning buildings. And you can forget about calling the act of rushing in to help people Christian, because it wasn't just Christians that day. People of all faiths, and yes even those with no faith, helped other people and gave their lives that day. The only source of evil was the religion the suicide pilots were following. I don't blame them, they couldn't help where they were born and what they were born into. I blame a two-thousand-year-old idea that has driven us mad with bloodlust and anger because of it. You want to believe humans are flawed and evil from the start, that's fine. I think you're full of it.

And you're right. Reminding people about moral values wouldn't have set Jesus apart. But I might have listened to him if he had was as much an eloquent speaker as he is portrayed.

I don't care what he thought the sacrifices were for, or whether they were human or not. If he wanted people to absolve themselves of their sins, he should have just told them to own up to them. I like how you keep bringing up how 'that's how it was back then.' If your god is supposed to be this omnibenevolent being, then why allow his followers to keep making sacrifices? There are around 350 references to sacrifices in the Bible, and so far, they're all made to your god. If your god was so opposed to sacrifices, why allow them to be made to him? At the very least, this demonstrates a breakdown, if not total lack, in communication.

You haven't given me anything that I haven't already encountered. You've been giving me all sorts of information and opinions that I have so far been able to debunk, only to give me more stuff to swallow. I'd be enjoying it to if you were giving me new things to consider. Therefore, I'm done beating around the bush, so I'm going to ask you a question, and I would appreciate it if you would give me as straight and simple an answer as you can give me without going off into 100 tangents.

Why do you believe in the Abrahamic God?

That is ultimately my question to you Three, as well.

Oh hey, you're back!

Since your last question was most important, I'll address it first. For my personal instance, it would be most accurate to say the Christian God, but my reason is simple enough: When I reached out, when I called upon Him, He answered me. I have known Jesus to be real, and alive.
"Know" in this instance, is a bit of a fuzzy word, because there are two types of knowledge. The French distinguish between them as connaire and savoir. Most of what we've been debating about is knowledge that comes from recognition and labeling of fact, connaire. In this, the real reason for my belief, is an inward understanding, like knowing the character of a friend, or place, savoir.
I don't know if that was the answer you were looking for. You'll probably laugh at it, but there's not much I can do about that. All I can say is, one can only be really convinced of anything by direct knowledge of that, and so it is with me and God.

What I was saying was, the Universe may itself be considered a miracle. It's existence owes nothing to us, that I freely admit. However, the existence of matter and energy in general, never mind the ever-complex ways in which it is arranged without human input, ranging from atoms to DNA, is in itself something of a miracle, literally a miracle if God was responsible for it. The supernatural is not so much outside nature, as a larger classification that includes nature. So, at any rate, is how I view the world.
It's interesting that you point out the difference between the work of man's artifice and nature in general. This, I admit to be true; the intelligence and creativity of humanity is something unique, not seen anywhere else in the animal kingdom. That is a fact, but it is fundamentally a strange fact. Seen from a materialistic perspective, one of the animals suddenly went mad at one point in history. Or, as Genesis puts it, God breathed into the human form, making a creature in his own image, a creator.
In other words, it's hard to believe that the super-natural has no place in the universe, when you, a being above (super) nature, tell me this.

You know, over 400 years after Copernicus, people today can be heard using the phrase "ends of the earth." Poetry, of which the Bible is full, tends to images of this kind.
But again, there was another point I was trying to make, which I think you missed. Cosmology refers not just to the mechanical positions of the earth, sun, moon, stars etc., it deals with the philosophical relation of man to the Universe. And the Judeo-Christian conception of God's relation to man is independent from whether the Universe is Geocentric or Heliocentric.

Yes, I am aware of Scotoma. I brought up the phenomena in regards to historical evaluation, and one can fairly say that it applies to both of us. The perspective each of brings to this issue is diametrically opposed, hence we gravitate to opposite explanations.
I did give specific examples, in so far as I related to friends I have known who prayed and called upon spirits, who were not God.
Also, there was the incident of the broken bone. The sequence of events was simple enough; a friend had broken her leg, and was in a cast, with painful weeks of healing predicted, as is usual in cases of broken limbs. We prayed with her, felt the Spirit come upon us, and she was able that day to walk upon a leg which was now whole.
The more secondhand experience refers to to missionaries that were part of my church. It happened that they were away in Africa, when a group of 23 Church brothers in the States were suddenly burdened to pray for them. At that exact same time, it was where the missionary couple was, and the locals had come to ambush them, when they were stopped. When the morning came, they told the missionaries that they had been about to attack them, when they saw their hut protected by 23 warrior-spirits.
Such are the most vivid accounts to which I am connected. I've known other, somewhat minor miracles, such as the conversion of a heroin addict to one of the most dynamic evangelists I've known.
Thing is though, I really doubt that you're convinced, and you probably wouldn't be, no matter how many eyewitnesses I produced. You're an intelligent fellow, enough to produce a fully materialistic explanation. But at this remove, and in this place, both the materialist and the supernatural explanation could not be proven either way. It boils down to our savoir of the situation.
As for your accusations of credulousness... well, I do not swallow everything that comes out the mouth of a priest (for one thing, I'm not Catholic, Anglican, or Episcopalian, for another, in so far as they refer to spiritual matters, we are called and commended by the Bible to check their claims against the Word.) As for the Bible itself, yes, that does come with the territory. I do not confess to completely understand it in all matters, just as I did not understand my parents in all matters. But like my parents, i have found it to be a continual source of revelation. As it has served me in the past, I trust it for the future, as the words of a living friend (see my first paragraph)

I don't deny the significance of semantics, but an objective science they are not. How one defines terms defines the debate, and our definitions of the terms are derived from principles prior to the question, in both are cases.
Again, survival; both an infant and an embryo are capable of processing nourishment (else the cells would die), and both of them can only do so in favorable circumstances. We take an embryo out of said environment, and we find that of course it cannot survive, any more than a baby could on its own.
And that brings us to the question itself. The first thing is that embryonic research has one main purpose, that is, the extraction of certain cells that can be used therapeutically, as a replacement for tissues or organs. Other testing (such as we use with animals) can't be used on an embryo; there's not enough of a parallel for good comparison. Second, these stem cells are not solely found in embryos, there are alternative sources, as I brought up before. Third, we have so far seen more concrete results from the adult-derived stem cells than from the embryonic stem cells. Thus, I feel the emphasis placed upon this question is a bit of an exaggeration. I don't see why I should let a horrible thing be done, unless it is absolutely necessary that it be done. In this case, it is not.
Ultimately, the value placed upon a human embryo, versus a lab mouse, depends upon one's philosophical concept of the difference between the mouse and the man.
Bringing up your idea of research in general, yes it breaks boundaries. But unless we are to see the specter of Dr. Mengel hovering above our laboratories again, a line has got to be drawn somewhere.

On to History!
What would it take to convince you of said events? Keep in mind, they happened thousands of years ago; such accounts we have of them are sparse, and the accounts which the contemporaries of events considered most important and authoritative are those found in the Bible. As for the other evidence? If I could produce a set of tablets with the Ten Commandments on them of the appropriate age, would you then believe? I doubt it.
The reason I consider the Bible a primary source is that, there isn't much to compare it to. What other historical accounts survive of the actions of the Hebrew people in the time described? There are no alternative accounts, you can dig up the places they happened (so much as remain of them), but the events themselves don't leave all that much trace.
It's a bit easier as we get to the New Testament, records of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth have turned up. As for his resurrection, well, all the physical evidence that can be provided is an empty tomb. But it is worth pointing out that it was in the interest of all the ruling authorities of that day to find the body, they would be in a position to know exactly how to find it, and they didn't. Besides that, contemporary eyewitnesses are written of, and it is unlikely that such a new (and rather strange) religion could have taken such a hold, if such witnesses could not have been available to question and check.

I know about 9/11. I never denied that humanity was incapable of heroism. I never denied that we generally desired to be heroic. I specifically wrote that we were capable of very great good. What I denied was that the heroic came easy to us. I do not think I could say, without sounding like an arrogant jackass, that I would certainly have behaved so heroically.
And what followed after 9/11 almost destroys one's faith in the heroic; the panic, the insurance fraud, the use of the event to "prove" cracked conspiracy theories. How we behave every day is perhaps the best test of all; and outside of a few exceptions, we all do try to be good, but there is always something that continually trips us up. In denying that it is an inward thing, you say that environment determines behavior. So it may, but if that is so, then it tends to enslave us to our environment, to the point where we cannot improve our moral conditions, because our conception of what conditions are desirable are shaped by environment (hence, your example of the suicide bombers).
By asserting the principle of Original Sin (not an attractive doctrine, I admit), and by saying that there is a solution to it (Jesus), we can set ourselves free of our environmental influences. Good and evil being in a man's soul, we can now criticize and improve our environment.
One thing I also want to point out is that while the Abrahmic faiths are similar, they are distinct faiths. Only the Christian is 2,000 years old; Judaism is older, and Islam younger. Not knowing Islam as well as Christianity, I can't say for certain that your generalization of their tradition is correct, though most I've met would ask you not to judge their religion and tradition by its heretics.

"Look at the flowers of the field. Solomon in all his glory was not clothed so splendidly, and yet they only last for a day, and are burned. How much more will your Father in Heaven care for you?" I wish I could speak as well extemporaneously, as Jesus did on the Sermon on the Mount. His contemporaries certainly thought him demagogic enough to be a genuine political threat.

Again, the point of the sacrifice was to own up to the sins. I only bring up how it was back then to show why God, even then, was different. The sacrifices were a parallel, and a prophesy, of what God himself would do; give up His own innocent blood for the people. He allowed them to continue so they wouldn't forget. After Jesus' death, he did not allow them to continue; what they symbolized had occurred in fact. This is what was meant by the sin offering.
As for the others, the gift offerings, they actually still happen, under the name of tithes. They're meant not only to support God's work, but to teach followers not to pursue our material advantage to the full. Otherwise, the moral character tends to rot. That all other civilizations had this same basic idea (however corrupted it may have become) I think supports its validity. At least, it proves that God was not making inhuman demands, that the Israelites would not have otherwise stood.

And that brings us to where we started. Most of the topics we've discussed are on the connaire level, and could not really get to the savoir, where our convictions lie. We'll not end the debate of the great saints and the great blasphemers on art site, to be sure.

Yeah, I doubt we'll be able to come to any sort of conclusion on this thing either. You're never gonna convince me that God exists, and I'm never gonna convince you that you're full of it. So I think at this point, let me say thank you for this civil debate and let's agree to disagree.

You're very welcome!

how many times have you been teleported to another dimension and how different are they from each other?

I've lost count. Hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands?

Regarding differences though, visually people may look different, but inside they're amazingly similar. They hope, they dream, they fear, they laugh. Sometimes I meet societies with little quirks like the tribesmen who had no concept of lying. Or the civilization that believed you could not reach adulthood until you had killed another man (they were dying out, go figure.)

We are all different, and we are all the same. It all depends on how deeply you look.

I just thought of another question, assuming that s allowed :)

Assuming there is a language problem (for all I know, people might be speaking the same languages on every world), how do you deal with that? Are you gifted with languages or are there other ways to deal with that I just haven't thought of?

I don't think there's a limit on questions, so ask freely, my friend.

There is always a language problem. There are very few instances where I arrive somewhere that speaks a language I know (and I usually forget them quickly if I don't use them) I've gotten good at learning them, but there's still little quirks unique to every culture such as polite honorisms and other social eccentricities. Some places even have different dialects for men and women or different social castes. Those are a pain in the ass.

My trick is to listen to verbal tones and body language as someone speaks. Not to mention people always ask the same questions and say the same things whenever they pull me in. I've just gotten very good at listening, and my race as a whole is very adaptable. I don't have any sort of magic translator in my head though, if that's what you think. I just listen and observe.

Ah, yes, that makes sense. I'm guessing if one has to learn new languages regularly one eventually gets good at it. Thank you.

Having travelled to various times and places, you likely have a wide exposure to advanced science and technology. Since you're not able to take anything with you when you 'hop' to a different time/location, are you ever able to apply that knowledge in worlds where such knowledge has not yet been gained?

Do you feel that this knowledge is an advantage or a disadvantage?

Actually I can take things with me! Anything I'm wearing or carrying will travel with me. There's a mass limit though, so no hauling a backpack full of stuff around, but things in my pockets and my clothing usually jumps with me. Of course the person that pulled me more often than not takes all my stuff...

I try not to introduce advanced technology or knowledge in worlds where it would be a powerful new thing. For starters I'm not really that technically inclined, so it isn't like I can build a computer out of leaves and spit. I've learned to tell by smell and taste which herbs are beneficial and I know basic field medicine. But since a lot of people don't trust the furry monster thing to apply an antibiotic ointment on their injured leg I rarely get to use those skills on anyone but a close group of trusted friends.

So I'd say it's neither. Some worlds rely heavily on magic, or utilize resources that other places couldn't ever hope to have, or socially shun the use of something that would have been vital to technological advancement. Not to mention different races have such starkly different biologies that an easy cure in one world is poison in another.

Hmm. Thinkie think think...

Oh! If you're Three, who's Number One?

If I had a dollar for every Three joke I've heard I could build a great tower with them an peer down at all the people who made them and maybe drop eggs on their heads.

Wouldn't that make it a "Three Dollar Bill" joke then?

*ducks from flying eggs*

Dear Three;

Do you have learned any of Earth's martial arts, or are defensive tactics you've learned similar?

Oh... I made a typo:

I meant.. "Have you learned.."

I really like Krav Maga, but I haven't found someone to teach me. I mean, how does someone with an alarming monster-like appearance approach someone who's trained in a deadly fighting technique?

Hiya Three. My friend Millie wants to know if you've got any secrets to keeping one's fur snowy white. She works in a ship's boiler hold, and what with the grease, fuel oil, soot and all, her coat is kind of a "Dishwater Gray" most the time. I suggested "Fuff," but at twenty five cents a jar, using such as a shampoo would get pretty expensive.

Vinegar and baking soda diluted in water works well, and rubbing cornstarch into bad stains. Other than that, get a damn good scrubbing brush.

Gracious! Why didn't I think of that? (Millie punched me in the shoulder and said "It's because you're a GUY.") Yeah. Baking soda and white vinegar will do the trick. Although one might smell like a salad for awhile.

I have a question,

have you had a favorite dimension you have visited? and what do you think of Man Kind in General?

I like the ones where I can fit in, but sometimes those worlds have their disadvantages.

As for mankind, you're pretty okay. Your fish is very tasty too. I just wish you didn't freeze it.

What type of disadvantages? and which of the ones you fit in was your favorite?

I have noticed you also have anther trait, you are extremely vague on question answers.


As for the frozen fish, for someone who lives in the middle of a large landmass, that is the only way to get fish from the Atlantic or Pacific and still be fit for eating. I agree that fresh is the best way to go, but if you have no other choice, Frozen is the way to go.

My apologies if I come off as vague. It's a little bit of a defensive mechanism and a bit of a desire for distance and privacy. We all have our habits.

Regarding disadvantages, consider if an alien accidentally ended up here on earth. They look human, but don't know the language, have no identification papers or records of who they are, and don't know anything about basic world history. Not to mention even if the alien looks human on the outside, they might not have human traits on the inside, which makes requiring a doctor a dangerous prospect.

And I do understand that they have to freeze fish to transport it inland, but it just doesn't taste the same. It's like the difference between a soyburger and a steak.

Not a problem, we all have defensive Mechanisms, so I can understand and relate to that.

And thank you for the analogy, I can tell you have and enjoy being a teacher of things from your answer, as you allowed me to come to the conclusion with just your words leading to the conclusion.

And agreed on the taste, also, thank you for answering my questions.

just wanted to say Three you have lovely eyes

Thank you.

Ah, I almost forgot!

What's the secret of Monkey Island? ;)

It's made of monkeys.

Interesting hypothesis :)

My apologies, that is something I always ask when someone says "Ask me anything." :)

Serious question now, is there any world/dimension that has been your favorite or least favorite?

Earth is my favorite, even though I spent my first eight years of it in a basement. Honestly it's been the first place that's felt like home in a very long time.

Least favorite is a bit harder to choose. There was the world where it rained constantly, or the one where the people all moved as slow as turtles on tranquilizers, or the one where there weren't any fish....

I can taste sweet, yes, but I'm not overly fond of them. I guess it's the carnivore in me, but I prefer meaty and savory over sweetness. I'd rather have a plate of sushi instead of a tray of chocolate. And I've had sarsaparilla. I'm also not overly fond of it, particularly the modern bottled kind because of all the chemicals. I know what plants and herbs smell like, and I know what something made in a lab smells like. The real stuff is nice as long as it isn't drowning in sugar though.

You've mentioned people "pulling" you a few times now. Contextually it seems to relate to the dimension-hopping. Could you explain what you mean by the term?

Also, if I may, is Three a name you chose for yourself, or something you acquired during one of your travels? If chosen, why that name? I've met someone who calls herself Five. She says she has nine lives like cats do, and that she's now on her fifth one, so just curious if there's a story behind it.

Thank you.

'Pulling' is just a term I attached to it so that I could have something to call it. More often than not I end up somewhere because someone tried to summon a creature or do some dimensional experiment so I say that they pulled me. Sometimes though I just end up somewhere. I remember once I appeared in a boat with no pilot floating down a river. Still have no clue how I ended up there. I specifically call it a pull because that's what it feels like. Imagine how it would feel if someone grabbed you by the insides and wrenched you across a room.

"Three" is a title I give people who refuse to call me anything else and/or demand I give them something to call me. In actuality I don't have a name. Calling me 'three' is like me calling you 'person', it's not your name but simple a label for what you are. Timothy calls me 'Assistant', Matthew called me Winter, my priest father Nigel calls me Clarion. You can call me whatever you want. The title of three means I invoked the third law of my race, I gave my name to someone else. In this case it was a baby who was going to be executed due to being an illegal birth. Giving the baby my name meant the baby gained my social standing and my property and pretty much everything I had. Usually the law is meant as a punishment but it can also be invoked in the manner I did as well. It's been so long I've forgotten what my name used to be, and I never took a new one because I wanted to remember why I'm no longer with my people or my race. When you're branded a three you cease to be anything in the country's eyes. And since reproduction is a privilege for my race they sterilized me and then sent me off to the work colonies to probably die in a mining accident. The family of the baby I saved smuggled enough money for me to bribe the guards for my freedom, hitch a berth on a trading ship, and get out of system.

So 'three' is what I am, not who I am.

Has anyone ever tried to give you a name you refuse to accept?

Rarely but it's happened. The most recent time was the old coot who held me in his basement for almost a decade. He called me 'Ladon' and I never answered to it.

Assuming you have down time in different worlds...what the one thing you like to do most of all to calm and unwind?

Actually its shiney granted..

Hot baths and fresh fish. I also like to roll and smoke herbal cigarettes, but probably not the kind you're thinking. Drinking doesn't do a damn thing for me, but smoking the right herbs can produce a similar enough effect.

Hot baths, herbal cigarettes, and fresh fish :)

(( This particular question is from Kivie ))

"Three, in your displacements and travels, what do you do when you encounter someone gravely ill and asking for aid, when you remember that you once knew a cure for something that might be their condition... but don't remember it now? It's always been something hard for me to explain to them."

If I once knew something but forgot everything useful about it I keep my mouth shut. Telling someone, "Well, I could save baby but I forgot the technique" doesn't help ease someone's distress. I simply do the best that I can and try to be as much of a comfort as I can.

i know you have had to hurt people, sometimes kill them. is there any "kill" (read as murder, incapacitation, or destruction as needed) which you regret you had to do? or one that was particularly cruel ?

I once was taken in by a tribe of nomads. This was a world where the people were human and I didn't fit in, but they took me in as one of theirs, let their children play with me, and let me sit at their fire and share their meals and stories. While I was with a fishing party the tribe was assaulted by a squad of soldiers and killed, this included old men and children. We returned too late but I helped track the soldiers. We lost half of the survivors but killed the soldiers. We also learned that all of this happened because the local duchess thought the tribe had a magic mirror and she wanted it, and ordered the tribesmen wiped out to get it.

So, while the survivors went to bury their dead I went for the duchess. It was a stone and mortar castle and it wasn't that hard getting to her. That's when I saw that she was all of fourteen years old.

I still killed her. I ran her through with one of the pikes the soldiers used. Maybe that was cruel and she had no concept of what she had done, but twenty people were dead because she wanted a bauble and no speech or petty punishment would have made it right.

There are also regrets, but those I only tell my priest about.

Simple Question to start with, Whats you Favourite Drink & Food ?

I love ocean fish, especially the big muscly ones with deep red flesh. I also like ocean whitefish for their sweetness. I'll gobble salmon eggs like candy too. As for drink, I like peppermint tea.

You have white fur; are you a Turkish Angora?

Technically I'm an alien, so no.

Hi Three, I was curious, Have you ever come to a world where you have thought "Please God, no more dimention jumps. Let me stay here"?

Many many times. Sometimes because I fit in perfectly, sometimes because I see so much good I could do, and sometimes because I'm just tired and want to stop.

It's improper (or downright hazardous) to ask a lady her age, but I gather you've been around for... quite a while.

Do you ever have trouble with an overflow of memories? Too much to remember and such?

I'm no geneticist and don't understand the nuances and finer details, but they made allowances for that when they designed the whole 'god gene' thing I have. My mind has limited storage capacity, so any memory that isn't vital or is particularly old is lost. Unless I make a point of recollecting something on a regular basis there's a good chance I'll eventually lose it. That's why I don't remember the name of my homeworld, or the names of my friends and family, or what my name was before I gave it away. For every new thing I remember, I also forget something else.

Regrettable, I suppose, but can't be helped... any data storage medium has a capacity limit, hm?

Another question. During your world-hopping exploits, have you ever ended up more than once on the same world? Excluding any you might, through whatever means, use as a "home base" of course. Just wondering if the great wheel of random dimensions has ever come up with a repeat result.

This is a very common question it would seem! I do return to earth on a regular basis as Timothy has a knack for pulling me back. I wouldn't be too surprised if I've revisited the same place before, but it could be so much time had passed that it might as well have been new, or maybe I simply forgot due to passage of time.

Don't feel sorry for me. For every low, there have been countless highs. I'd rather get a hug in friendship than one out of pity.

Question from the pink hat puppy: If you had a big puppy(me) rush at you with an intent of just glomping/tackling you. What would you do? :3

If I didn't understand the friendly intent of being rushed at, you might find yourself thrown to the ground. Otherwise, go ahead and get it out of your system.

So yelling "SURPRISE!" would save me from pain?

*ears flatten*

Okay maybe not the first time, but this is warning enough right?

Why yes, I'll be happy to claw that nose of yours.

Worth it! ~Attempts to glomp~

because you live longer then most of us, and its harder to have long relationships ( long term romances, marriages etc) do you have more flings at least in worlds that you don't stand out in?

I avoid them if at all possible, but the heart and the mind don't always share opinions on things and one can often overpower the other. Sometimes the will is weak and the heart is lonely. I don't have spur of the moment love affairs though. Usually you have to peck at my armor for years before you get through and most people give up before then.

I do tend to have relationships easier on worlds where I resemble the native people, but maybe that's simply because I have more social contact in general in those instances, as opposed to the times where I have to hermit myself to avoid sticks and pitchforks.

Ok another question, what sort (if any) of weapons do you use/prefer etc ?

I like small and simple. Shortswords, pistols, and sometimes a staff. I'm trained in a little bit of everything, but you never have to reload a blade, and a throwing knife never jams on you.

Have you kept a journal? If so, how many different worlds do you recall having visited?

Do you ever wonder if anyone misses you?

I do keep journals, but they're very bland. I record the weather, the herbs I found, and any animals I saw. The journals I write hardly ever end up traveling with me, so whomever finds them probably uses them for sleep aids.

I wonder if people miss me all of the time. I like to think that what I do matters, even if on my more cynical days I tell myself that it all probably went to hell the moment I left. But I like to think the children I played with remember me, and lessons I taught stayed, and the friends I made tell stories about me.

I don't suppose this is too personal a question... What is it like to jump to different places/dimensions? Do you experience any sensations or unique emotions in the process of travelling from one place to the next?

From what I understand, it seems you maintain an "enjoy it while you can" attitude rather than one of distancing yourself from others when you know you may not be where you are the next day. Is that a fair statement?

The pulling is all too often painful and I'm usually incapacitated when I arrive. The sensation is not unlike taking numerous blows to the head and stomach.

I maintain a balance between enjoying it and distancing myself. I try not to allow myself to despair too much because it won't change things, and being miserable about something as inevitable as my next breath will eventually ruin me. I do distance myself a little though. If too many people rely on me and depend on me, what will happen to them if I vanish the next day? So a happy balance is the best I can do.

Wow. And I was imagining something halfway peaceful... even cathartic. I suppose that's what I get for being a little too hopeful, but I prefer to hope for the best rather than expect the worst. Of course, it is advantageous to plan for the worst, but also expecting the worst is just depressing.

The older I get, the more it seems that everything is a matter of balance. As long as you don't have too much of one thing or its opposite, everything will be alright as far as things you can control are concerned.

Hmm... You've said before that some species on other planets are much like your own. Has anyone from those planets ever tried to seduce you? And for the sake of further curiosity, have you ever run into someone more than once and/or jumped/been pulled to the same place twice?

To be frank, half of the time when people flirt with me I think they're joking. When you spend most of your time on worlds where people think you're a monster, or view growing close to you something akin to bestiality, well... having someone show a genuine romantic interest usually doesn't even register. I should probably note at this point that when I was sterilized it sort of killed my sex drive, I can *ahem* "perform", but I don't have any kind of driving need for it. That can be something of a relationship dampener as well, and it makes me difficult to seduce in the way most people view the term.

I would not be surprised if I have visited the same world more than once, but if I have the memory of earlier visits has faded from my mind, or the world changed so much in my absence that I don't even recognize it. The best I can answer that one is with a Maybe.

Is there a species that you really like...or hate?

I have no favorites, really. But I dislike slugs and anything slug like. Ever try to walk around on a world where everything people touch is covered in mucus? Brrr.

what has been your favorite name that you have been given?

I can't think of a favorite, but usually something more inventive than words about white things like snow or powder or sugar make me happy.

Father Nigel calls me Clarion, he says there's a story behind it but he won't spill what it is. I know what the word means, but he seems to imply that it's a deeper thing than the definition. But that makes it a mystery to solve, and when you have instincts that tell you to hunt and find it makes me a name that has occupied my thoughts a lot more than any other.

MiLady, if i may. do you have a prefered civil "age" (stone, iron, steam, computer, space, etc)?

So formal! I feel like I should drop a handkerchief in your presence.

It's so hard to choose. The more advanced a civilization becomes, the more convoluted and muddied it gets. Yet there are also a lot more conveniences and access to knowledge and tools as well. I like fish caught straight from the river, I like plants grown in clean soil with no chemicals in them to sour the taste. But I also like air conditioning and digital reading slates and machines that can answer any question someone might have. I like the purity of the simple basic times, I like the comfort and ease of the more advanced ones, I miss pieces of all of them when I am elsewhere.

I was always taught to respect, MiLady.
Have you ever considered trying to "nudge" a civilization in a particular direction? or do you not stay in one place long enough?

I've lived in some worlds for generations, so I do stay long enough to have an impact as much as one person can. Usually my situation keeps me from having any sort of civilization shattering impact though as most people don't view a monster as any sort of trailblazer. I help in little ways, and I like to hope that it ripples out and spreads over time.

one does what one can, no more, no less
are there any worlds or civilizations that you wish you could return to? to visit/check up on? to stay perminantly?

I try not to think too hard on the idea that one place would have made a good home or a good place to stay. When you live a very transient life it's more mentally healthy to find the good things in where you are instead of where you've been. That said, there was one world that had the nicest fish...

Is it true that there's a part of a man's head where, if you shoot it it will explode??

-Also-

Have you ever fired two guns while jumping through the air? owo

You, my friend, have watched too many John Woo movies.

I try to remember everyone that I had a closeness to for as long as I can.

Of all those you have met, and can no longer see again, who do you miss the most?

Their company, their conversation... were you deprived of your wife for a long period of time, would you miss simply one aspect of her or would you learn to miss little details day by day? It's hard to think of just one thing.

Do you have any hobbies or the like...something you do for fun?

I'm actually fond of scrimshaw and carving. I like to carve wood and bone into little shapes.

What has been the worst reaction to your anthro form? (theyre disgusted or hunt you down for examples) and what did they look like?

You probably think I'm going to say that it was some sort of abuse. Being beaten and tortured or the like, but that isn't the worst. The worse were the people who revered me as a god. There can be no greater insult to me and I don't respond well to it.

If you could anyone a question, who would it and what would you ask?

Ack brain fails me. Who would it BE..

WOW IM A DERP. If you could ASK anyone a question. Who would it BE and what would you ask?

I'll have to ponder this one a bit more. I think I'd like to see Matthew again and just ask him to tell me his life story again. I always learned something new and beautiful and eye opening whenever he spoke to me.

Will you ever go to Dragon Con?

If so can I by you and your Hubby Dinner?

and may I have you autograph?

Thanks!

Buy, Not by. sorry

Why do you sometimes wear more than one cross/crucifix around your neck?

I make them out of things I see. They're like little memories and chronicles of places I've been or things that have happened. And when you don't know if you'll have the things you carry from one day to the next, sometimes having spares is good!

(OOC: Question from two of mah characters, names are links so you can check up on them for a better reponse)

Solaria: *A young Jackal fem kneels before you and gives you a respectful bow* Lady Three, if someone gave you the opportunity to cure or reverse your sterilisation, would you accept the offer? If not, why?

Running Cloud: *A young Sabretooth fem sits cross-legged, lookin' curiously at you. After a few moments, she nervously asks* Why are you so small? What do you think of bears and snakes? Can I be your pack-sister?

Don't kneel, please. It makes me nervous. As for a cure, not really. I've had my body the way it is for as long as I can remember. Not to mention there isn't really a member of my race anywhere that I could reproduce with even if I weren't sterile. And let's not forget that there is a good chance any children I have would NOT have the god gene. I don't think I could live with watching my own child grow up and die. And I wouldn't wish the life I lead on anyone if I did pass it on.

Now, for your friend...

Small? I'm just the right size, I think. You should see my boss if you think I'm little. Bears can sometimes be mean, and some snakes too, but if I leave them be they usually do the same. As for a pack sister.. um... I'm honored, but I'm not really a pack sort of person.

I have heard that you are unable to control your own journeys through the planes; have you ever wanted, or been able, to take company with another planeswalker through his travels?

(OOC From Usaden)

I think that would be situational. If I was somewhere I felt I needed to be, I would probably want to stay there. I don;t think I'd want to travel too much on a regular basis though.

*Spike leans against the wall, cracks open a beer, and offers one to Three*

Hey Three, what type of weapon would you consider yourself the most skilled with?

Can I cheat and say my claws? I was born with them after all. Second to that, I like to think I know a thing or two about shortswords.

That's not a cheat. If they work, they work. I'm pretty darn good with my fists.

What character would you roleplay for fun, if you don't already? xkcd 244

Have you ever been to the same place more than once? Or has it always been someplace new?

So far earth seems to be serving as a home base. Timothy will often pull me back here if I leave. This has been the first instance of a return trip so far, but I expect sometime somewhere things will repeat themselves.

You've been asked enough questions Three. You can ask me any question you'd like to have answered. Just mix things up. I take it you're the type who can appreciate a little variety or change of pace.

How does one polish gold hair? Do you ever accidentally blind people in direct sunlight?

specially formulated conditioner.

sometimes tea tree.

Never shampoo more than once every other day, unless you're getting sweaty, too much will dull the sheen.

and yes i think i have blinded a few, but only temporarily. I do heal them afterwards. Most like to look at the shinies anyway.

*Bows at the waist halfway before standing at a position of rest*
Good Evening Three.
Living the souls of many through past lives I've discovered all to have a desire to be something different. I ask this of you, what do you want to be? Is your want of a biological nature, professional, or perhaps spiritual?

My want is actually of a weary nature. I would love to experience what it is like to have a full life. Being born, growing up, having a family and doing the things adults do, and then growing old and slowly fading away. Stability, a future, and a finality.

Right now. Always right now.

I think I spent a few centuries in a world once. It's interesting to see people go from nomads to city builders.

The pulls vary a little, but usually it's just a sharp twinge that quickly doubles me over. I have maybe thirty seconds before I'm gone.

Regarding my religion, I keep it private. I have to believe that God made all the different places I go, and the plan He has for it may not be the same plan He has for earth. I'll discuss it if people ask, but I never try to convert.

What is it with canines and gnawing? Goodness, I need to start carrying more rawhide around.

Can't really think of a question that hasn't already been asked. I think you are wonderfully awesome and I could never match that even if I tried. *bows to you*

I'm simply a person that lives day to day. We all have our trials and our challenges.

so Three, having travel as long as you have. where was your favorite place you've ever been, and why?

Earth has had the biggest influence on me that I can remember. I have friends, a job, and people trying to help me understand myself better. I have had to live with the knowledge that nothing stays and someday I will move on and forget, but for now I'm happy with where I am.

Three,

In all of your travels, have you ever encountered a civilization with the technology to mimic your movements (or jumps) ?

I've encountered people who can do it willingly, either by natural ability, magic, or technology. Such types are extremely rare though and the vast majority of people with the ability still stick to a limited scope of familiar places.

Dear Three,

Does your home civilization employ a cast system?

Not that I recall, although I could also probably write down what I remember about the home civilization in one sheet of paper.

Next time you're on Earth... could you slay Gen's computer gremlins?

I keep telling people, I can't do magic!

But it's technology.

"Technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic."
I'd add that technology, insufficiently advanced, is full of gremlins.

((Bloodstrype asking))
MiLady Three, *bows briefly*
how would you rate yourself in combat? i know most people delude themselves into thinking they're the best in the univrese, but you strike me as one who is grounded enough to know your TRUE limits

I'm much better at things that require stealth and speed, and not so good in a long term gun battle or vehicular combat. The majority of my experience has been in hand to hand. I'm better than most, but I've also been knocked to the floor plenty of times and there's always something new to learn and ways to improve.

I'm also not that greatly skilled at zero-g pillow fights.

(Can mah characters answer this question too?))

How often do you wind up in dimensions of increased technology as opposed to more dark age or magic based worlds?

More the latter than the former. The more technologically advanced a civilization becomes, the less likely they are to try to summon demons or dimensional critters on purpose.

And likely more able to wipe themselves out wholesale, if you'll excuse the momentary pessimism.

Three I have had a question. These dimension jumps of yours. Have you ever considered they could be a way for you to find where you are meant to be?

So when you find that place the jumps will stop.

I consider it all of the time, my friend. But perhaps the answer to that is much like the answer to life. The only way to learn it is to live.

I realize that you do not like being posed as a God but have you ever met a civilization that you wanted to take care of just so they could end up better in the end? I can't help but think that you have bee to lesser cultures.

Well, you definitely don't have to play deity to help a culture. One thing to remember is that every invention you use, every advance in science were all done by one or just a few men. I don't have to control a huge civilization to offer help. Show a few a better way and they'll show others and it will ripple out.

Ad for my specific part, more often than not I'll pose as some crazy old woman who lives on the fringes of a village or a tribe, or sometimes I'll just watch them and leave little helpful things when they're needed and fight off trouble before it reaches them. If someone readily accepts me I can be a little more hands on, but unless that happens I'm more of a guardian than anything else.

I was going to ask questions about your grand adventures across space and time but many of those questions have already been asked. With so many things happening to you, sometimes maybe all at once. This prompts me to ask something that i am a bit curious about, and my friends say I have been known to be a bit cryptic sometimes so I do apologize if my question seems a bit vague.

Anyway here goes. With all that happens in your life hopping from one pace to the next, how do you find time to just relax, indulge in a few simple pleasure. Are you even able to find such instances sometimes and if you do, what then?

Oh of course! You all hear of my times being wrenched from place to place and hints at more grand adventures, but all of those take place over years, decades, and generations. You don;t hear about how I spent two days looking for a a damn thornleaf bush that I can dig some roots up from or get some clippings and berries to grow more. I relax by mixing herbs, watching children play, telling stories, and catching fish. Of course a hot bath and a nice cigarette are ideal, but not every world has access to enough hot water for regular soaks.

I think all the questions I'd like to ask have been asked already. So I'll just say this: Three, I've always been fascinated by the prospect of other worlds and opportunities to help people. I find my current life boring, but I know I couldn't handle the sort of life you live, either. Your stories fascinate me, but I couldn't bear to be separated from my friends over and over, to say nothing of disorientation or fearing for my life. I'm impressed that you take it all in stride, and even more impressed that you're so willing to help others (when they aren't afraid of you or trying to kill you, at least). I wish you all the best, and I hope you can catch a break now and then.

There was a war in your world, World War Two I believe. I wasn't around for it but I read Tim's history books and learned about the bombing in England. I remember one story from someone who had lived through it it as they were asked how they were able to cope. They answered, "Well, what else could we do?"

I say that so you'll understand, most people are more adaptable than they think they are. I'm no stronger than anyone else in that regard, I cope because it is either that or give up.

I've a few more questions for you, if you wouldn't mind answering them. When you stay with people for a longer amount of time, do you explain the pulling thing to them so they know what happens if one day you're just gone? And if so, how do you explain something like that to children?

My other question is a bit personal, so if you'd rather not answer, I'd understand. From personal experience, the names people call you have a certain power. This is part of the reason I prefer not to be called by my birth name - I've found it restrictive, and promoting of attitudes in me that I do not wish to hold. So my question is this: why keep the name/title of Three when it hearkens back to a culture that views you as a non-person? I realize you've said it's a reminder of why you're no longer with them. I suppose what I don't understand is why the name/title is the souvenir of that race that you've chosen to keep.

Anyone whom I've grown close to, if it's obvious the friendship is more than superficial and my sudden departure might affect them the they need to know. Children are a lot harder. Maybe it's people like me who start legends of magical creatures that travel from place to place and then vanish when they are no longer needed.

I keep 'three' to remember why I left and the sacrifices I made. I keep it to remind me what perfection costs, and why I have no desire to ever go back.

what is the strangest person or creature either species or personality wise you can remember meeting???

I mentioned the slugs earlier I think. They even gurgled when they talked. I was never so happy to leave and I must have spent a week in the shower washing the smell and ick off from that place.

*Sits down on a seating pillow in front of Three with a smile and offers a customary Chakat greeting hug, or a handshake if preferred more.* Greetings. I am Chakat Blackwater, child of Birchtail and Nightsky. It is a pleasure to meet you and get to ask you some questions.

*flips through some cards, looking for a question to start with that doesn't seem to have been asked yet*

Right. First question...

In a previous answer you said that you can take objects with you when you get pulled, I assume this also means any weapons?
Has it ever happened that you had a gun with you, either conventional or energy type, that was taken from you when you arrived on a world that did not have that kind of technology?
If so, what would you do about it?

Second question....

You have undoubtedly seen many worlds and with it many different life forms and cultures, which were some of the strangest creatures or beings you have ancountered and what kind of cultures interested or appalled you the most that you can remember?

There was one occasion where Timothy rushed up, shoved a pistol in my hand, and for all the world moved as if he wanted me to blow off his head. A moment later the universe twisted and I was staring headlong at someone hovering over me with a knife. (I should probably take this moment to point out that Timothy is somewhat able to see into the future, but only in little bits like that.) I've yet to get the chance to take anything more powerful with me and I'm not that technically inclined so turning a watch or a radio into something stronger is beyond me. There's a reason why I prefer sharp things over shooty things.

And for the second, you people won't let me forget about the slugs, will you? Still, that place had the most peaceful oceans...

Where those slugs an intelligent dominant life form on that world, or were they just local wildlife?

Either way I think a world like that would be a prime source of hair gel *grins*

Hau mi ta ku ya owasin Three.
I understand your reasoning for the title of “Three”. Even my name is more of “what” I am’ than “who”. Since you first appeared, and I read your history, I have wondered how you deal with the isolation from your race and family?

My family is long dead, and my race declared me no longer one of them. I think I consider myself more the first and perhaps last of my kind rather than an outcast. I just keep the title to remind myself how I got to this place and point.

Assuming you can be 'pulled' into different times. Have you ever been pulled into a world one century only to return a few centuries later? Did anyone remember you or did you leave a lasting memory? Better, yet have you visited a world, and then visited their past?

I actually don;t time travel. I go to places where time is different, and a minute somewhere is a month somewhere else, but as far as I can tell I'm always going forward.

you said you were good with pistols, do you have a favorite gun manufacturer? also, would you except a custom pistol or sword. if so how do you want your "Three Special" ?

I had a wonderful energy sword once. The blade was metallic, but with a little flick I could make it hot enough to cut things, or shock someone, and I could key it to shock anyone who touched it except me And it folded up into a little unit I could wear on my hip. If I could take those things with me everywhere I'd be a happy little girl. As for pistols, I go through so many that really all I can say is that I favor something that's been taken care of. And I prefer some of the more modern pistols as opposed to flintlocks and things with fuses. I've almost lost fingers to those things.

Couple of questions, as I'm not particularly familiar with your exploits, but have admired your general story.

First of all, do you follow any sort of a... Pardon the term, a "Prime Directive"? Either a small ruling to yourself about what you can and cannot do, or a large set of rules -- religion aside. An example could be like the Star Trek one, where in your case, you remembered an advanced technology, and had the opportunity to teach it to a relatively primitive people it would outwardly help?

My other question is rather silly, but it's "Anything", right? Have you ever seen the show "Quantum Leap", and if so do you feel any kinship with the main character Sam Beckett?

I've found that the more rules you set for yourself, the more life likes to throw opportunities at you to break them. Of course, if I were to sum up any one rule I try to follow in my travels it would be something like, "Give back as much as you take." I tend to live off the land in many places I go, and while I'm there I do my best to return the favor to the people of that land as payment. I don't like being a parasite or a freeloader and prefer to earn my keep as much as I can.

Timothy (who is an avid television watcher) showed me reruns of the show once and made the comparison. I told him he was more than welcome to wear a stupid tie and follow me around if he wanted to.

(my apologies if this has been previously asked (such as the several favorite place and weapon questions) I looked through and didn't see it. but may have missed it)

Hello Three! I'm sorry to ask such a personal question, I hope you don't mind to much, I'm just curious on how much you remember of your home? Your family and your people? Do you think if you happened upon it, would you even recognize your home planet?

I remember that I resemble my father and that my mother smelled like tea. I remember the gene temples were towering spires that tapered off like great needled stabbing into the sky. I remember the countless lectures about genetic destiny and godhood. I remember my fear when I thought I was going to be declared defective and euthanized, only to find out I had a god gene. I remember the smell of the baby in my arms and that sinking feeling when I realized that destiny was being built on a foundation of corpses crushed underneath it. I remember waking up in jail and seeing the surgical scar on my abdomen where they sterilized me. I remember the mines where they probably expected to break me before they finally killed me, and then I remember my escape. A condensed lifetime in a few flashes. I don't remember my parents' names, or if I had any siblings or other family, I don't remember my planet or race or even the name of the baby. But I remember what's important I think. I remember enough.

Ah, and I forgot earlier!

To your knowledge, have you ever been "pulled" back to your home world? Or at least somewhere you could get news of your home, your people?

I've never been to the homeworld since leaving, and as far as I can tell nobody seems to recognize me for some other alien that might have been my race. My people weren't interested in space travel beyond colonization or sending away it's rejects to work camps so it doesn't surprise me. Who knows, they might not even exist anymore.

Dear Three,

Have you ever met a human that has a labcoat and has goggles around his neck while sometimes eats on gumballs during your travels through dimentions he ususaly names him self as paradox

ok then.......another question,

have you been or ever been questioned by someone about how your able to travel through time and other dimentions?

By the people that know about it, quite regularly, yes. I tell them that I don;t know why it happens or how or what's so darned interesting about me.

Have you ever dyed your fur?

Many times. Sometimes the native species is one I can blend in with, but only if I paint stripes on myself or dye my fur brown or yellow or blue (I hated the blue).

I'd rather dye my fur than cut my hair though. I've absolutely hated all the times I've had to keep my hair short.

Have you ever had your fur come out the wrong colour?

This is probably a good time to note that I technically don't have fur, I have hair like you do. I don't shed seasonally and it all just grows continuously, some parts faster than others. I have to trim it all on a regular basis or I end up looking shaggy.

Once it grew out a sort of muddy brownish gray, but that was during a time when... well... I wasn't living the healthiest of lifestyles. It wasn't my choice, but when it was over I think that was one of the few times I actually enjoyed cutting my bangs off.

Is there a "style" amongst your race that requires shaggy hair?

I remember that we're born bald, and long hair like the way I grow it in my head is a sign of adulthood in female. Males have more of a shaggy mane on their necks. To have it too short sort of makes you feel like everyone is looking down on you like a child. Of course nobody would even know that unless I told them, but it's one of those things so deep in instinct that I generally just feel better with the way it's 'supposed' to be.

As for shaggy overall, I can;t say for sure as there's a lot I don't remember, but I can say than when I lived in worlds with much colder climes a thicker coat was rather nice to have.

*Grins... thinks.* Those are very nice bangs you have. *Approaches with sissors.*

*ears flatten*

What does your native language sound like?

And, what with your association with Father Nigel, do you speak Latin?

I can't remember what my native language was like. When I try to recall it sounds like a jumble of all sorts of things. I can't really trust what little I recall of those times, but I think it was a throaty sounding language, like German or Swedish.

Asa for latin, I know smidges. Father Stevens isn't so traditional that he does mass in latin (I don't attend, but he sends me recordings). But really I can't say I know all that terribly much. Usually if I don't use something mentally on a regular basis I tend not to remember it all that well.

Forgive me if this is awkward, but...

When you have to trim, are there parts you have great difficulty reaching?

Unfortunately yes. My back mostly, but since I usually have something over it and through the movements of leaving against something sometimes the natural pressure wears it down a little. And my right arm is always a little less neatly trimmed than my left.

By the way, how did you meet Timothy?

He called Matthew (the man who took me in when I was in Germany) and asked to speak to me. A week later and Matthew had taken ill and we went to the states so he could be with family and get treatment. I investigated Timothy while I was there and we met and spoke a little. Matthew slowly declined and stayed in hospice and I needed a new place to live, and Tim offered me room and board in exchange for work.

How good is Timothy at repairing books or finding copies of old ones? *Looks sadly at some of his older books, which are damaged*

He taught me some of the basics for repairing them and now leaves them to me. I spend many hours at the workbench with rice paper and glue and brushes. We can't work miracles, but we can repair tears and damaged bindings and stains. I wouldn't say Tim's good at finding them so much as they seem to be good at finding him. I dread him ever learning how to use eBay.

Wow, seems like all the cool people I follow online are getting FA accounts lately. Your journal entries must be fun to read.

Speaking of which, have you ever taken to publishing accounts of your past adventures as fictional stories in order to make ends meet?

Second, have you ever had recurring encounters with interplanar entities or organizations, like a particularly long-lived and well-traveled archmage or an interdimensional mafia?

You know the saying about how having a job doing something you love is the best thing there is to making you hate it? I work in a bookshop. I do sometimes go out and play fetch, but most of the time I am cataloging, stacking, moving, sorting, indexing, repairing, and even binding books. And Timothy insists all records get recorded in pen and ink so I also have hundreds of notebooks to sort through. Unless I could chronicle what I do as opera, the last thing I want to do for the moment is write a novel...

And for the second question, never in a great enough capacity to know for certain. I see coincidences and earmarks of the same mind at work in different places, and I hear stories that sound too similar to be chance. I've never been able to tell for sure. Sometimes it makes me feel like I'm being followed, and other times it feels like I'm being made to chase someone. Maybe one day I'll know if it's all for real or if I'm just making up shadows to chase.

How would you like a proper grooming followed by a hot bath and a scented oil rubdown?

Um, maybe after the third date?

Well, if we're going that way, then I'm going to have to ask, what would you like to do on the first date:

A) Movie.
B) Play.
C) Amusement Park.

What are your preferred weapons when you must take to battle?

I prefer the simple things in life. Two short blades that I can keep close and hidden are all I need most of the time.

An excellent choice for sure. Good way to avoid drawing attention to oneself.

If you ever got your hands on a time-travelling teleporter, would you use it to stay in one timeline as much as possible?

Put another way, are your jumps through time and space disorienting enough that you'd rather stay in one timeline, given the chance?

I don't know, really. Timothy pulls me back most of the time but I can't guarantee that will go on forever.

If I had the capabilities to do my own jumps I don't know if I'd take them. I mean, Tim yanks me home when he feels it's time. But if I had the means myself, who is to say I leave before my work is finished, or I'd find myself with the urge to revisit some olf memorable place only to find it all different and everyone I know generations dead? It's a nice thing to daydream about, but I don't think I'd enjoy the reality of it.

Has Timothy ever pulled you back to the right space by wrong time?

There have been times when it feels like he has, when I feel like I had more work to do. But Tim says otherwise and with his clairvoyance perhaps he knows better.

Have you ever been pulled back to the same general world twice, even if not consecutively?

Kinda morbid couple of questions.

Have you ever been in one world long enough to see a civilization die?

Have you ever seen a world die?

Yes, and yes. The former is harder to see than the latter. A world is something you can distance yourself, a civilization is a little more individual and hands on.

If I may ask,
How did you stay with Piotyr so long with out being pulled?

((Ooc: or should I get the 24 hour comic to discover this?))

It must seem like I only stay for a moment somewhere and then vanish but I often will stay in a world for quite awhile. I think my record is five centuries but usually it's for a generation or so. Sometimes a lot less, sometimes a lot more. Piotyr... well... I was blessed to be in his world long enough to watch him grow up into a fine young man and I've learned to take my blessings where they come.

Another question, if I may.

On average, how long does it take you to pick up the basics of a new language? Say, enough to get through basic conversations?