User talk:Orion Blastar/Archive4

Audio Recording for Fuck Uncyclopedia

I just recorded an audio file for your article Fuck Uncyclopedia, to make it easier for the blind to enjoy it. I hope you appreciate it. --General Insineratehymn 21:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Why did you record it in .OGG? Is that to piss people off or something? It would only contribute to more people saying Fuck Uncyclopedia if you ask me. Which I could care less about, and it would actually be funny.-- Sir Severian (Sprich mit mir!) 20:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Settle down, Audacity can import the OGG and export an MP3. I am busy with family issues at home, or else I'd do the MP3 conversion for Insineratehymn and people who cannot hear OGG files. Plus I can only listen to it when I am alone, not something I want my wife and son to hear playing over my Laptop speakers. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm settled, I was trying to convey funny, but it didn't go across well...I'll convert it for free...-- Sir Severian (Sprich mit mir!) 04:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sig

Your sig is spewing code all over the place. Please fix it. Try reading the instructions here. If you could follow them, that'd be even better! Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 11/20 23:43

I am sorry I did not even know it was spewing code. I don't recall using any Javascript code in my sig. I'll check into it. Thanks. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I cannot see anything wrong with it. All of the tags seem to be in place, no Javascript code, and it hasn't really changed since Todd Lyons added in my "Sir" title in October and hadn't had spewing problems before. I read that reference, but darned if I did follow those instructions when I created my sig. Could you please help me out, because I am clueless as to what is causing it to spew out code? Thanks. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think what he means is when you sign something, all the info is in the edit window, instead of a transcendental transculded template thingy. So every time you sign it looks like

'''[[:Uncyclopedia:Admin Rank|Lt.]] [[Order_of_Uncyclopedia#Knight_or_Dame_Commander_.28KUN_or_DUN.29|Sir]]''' [[User:Orion Blastar|<span style="color:#00d330;text-decoration:underline;">Orion Blastar</span>]] ([[User_talk:Orion Blastar|talk]]) 04:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC) within the edit windows.

This helps too when you {{Subst:Nosubst|User:OrionBlastar/sig}} in your preferences (in the nickname box) and click that handy Raw Signatures without automatic link thing. You have to make your sig page too. -- Sir Severian (Sprich mit mir!) 13:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I think I fixed it now. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

that you did.-- Sir Severian (Sprich mit mir!) 19:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Identity Theft

Thanks for that awesome pic!-- Sir Severian (Sprich mit mir!) 04:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem, I borrowed it from a Fark.com Photoshop contest, in which all photos are open source and good for use in a parody anyway. I saw it, and thought it would look good on the Identity Theft article. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried to get this featured, and I missed the spirit of the joke when people were voting against it using different names, then I forged like 20 some votes and got banned for 3 days. I'm in the HowTo:Get Banned for it, from Brad. -- Sir Severian (Sprich mit mir!) 15:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Atheist Bible

If you’re interested I’ve started a new article which will run parallel to the Holy Bible: Revised Liberal Edition article: Holy Bible: Revised Atheist Edition. The article has begun with the Atheist version of the chapters of the Old Testament (Sega Genesis, Complex Numbers, Levers etc). Maybe I might add my own template too:

This article is an embarrassing attempt at Liberal humor.

Defend the sanctity of humor by passing a Constitutional Amendment.

I just wondered if you wanted to add some stuff that you know from religion or from the old boring Bible. I was thinking maybe if it’s two-sided, facetious and sarcastic it might work better than plain one sided (nothing about abortion or evolution though!). Just thought I’d mention it to you in case you want to add something to it. Hope we’re friends now that argument over the definition of a liberal/validity of evolution has finished too. Maybe two-sided (although still biased) humour works better then plain one-sided attack mode humour (or humor). 18:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Weri long wang

Yeah we are friends now. But Forrest Fire week claimed your new article. You might want to try to write it in your user page for now, until the Pyromaniac Admins are done burning down trees and stuff. I'll try to add to it and leave out the abortion and evolution parts, which could have been funny, but I like a challenge. I wanted to make a Neocon edition of the bible as well. Maybe after all of the unfunny articles are burnt, we can work on new revisions of the holy bible? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Agggggggh! The bastards! I've lost all of it! Oh well. I might as well start on the neocon one instead. What do you think should go in that one? Will it be politically biased or will it have a go at both sides? If it’s biased which side will be trashed? In place of evolution, which, after all, wasn’t even discovered until the 19th century, why not mention the Project for a New Roman Century (PNRC) instead? Weri long wang 09:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If looks like Gwax huffed it. If you ask him really nice, he can put it in your user space sandbox. I like your idea of PNRC and we have to talk about Creationism in which George W. Bush and other Neocons are the cream of the crop of humanity created by God, only instead of the Christian God it is Loki instead who came up with the God-Fearing Republicans. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I really want to create some of the Uncyclopedia:Requested Articles because some people have good ideas. I added the Holy Bible: Revised Neocon Edition, which I can start at User:Orion Blastar/Holy Bible: Revised Neocon Edition and you can start the Atheist one at User:Weri long wang/Holy Bible: Revised Atheist Edition and we can avoid the forrest fire week by doing that. Then after all of the dead trees are burnt down, we can move them to the main Uncyclopedia areas. By creating articles in our user page/sandbox they are fireproof. Sound good? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If we create two separate articles it will take twice as long. Maybe we should both create different parts to the same article (the Neocon Bible) and then contact Rebekah Wade (the editor of the Sun newspaper) and Roger Ailes (CEO of Fox News) to combine and edit them. Just tell me what you were hoping to see in this article and I’ll have a go at it, and maybe find and edit some good images for the article too. Maybe if we do that it might be more politically neutral too. If we leave them in separate pages connected to our user pages then they will be easy to find and fireproof. Weri long wang 18:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I had hoped to make a counterpart to Holy Bible: Revised Liberal Edition, and while I did not think up that article I did add to it to make it funnier. We can make the Sun and Fox parts the modern version of the Neocon Bible, like I did a modern version of the Liberal Bible. We need a reference to Newt Gingrich's contract with America as part of the New Testament Covenant and make him a Prophet or something. Another Prophet is Rush Limbaugh and another is Ronald Reagan. If you do an Atheist version you can use scientists and philosophers like Charles Darwin, Socrates, Issac Newton, etc as Prophets. In fact you can have a book of Exodus with Socrates telling the Greek Emperor to let his students go or something. In the Neocon Bible we could have the book of Exodus with Ronald Reagan telling the Ayatollah to let his people go. If I come up with any more ideas, I'll let you know. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you think we can have the PNRC as the think-tank behind the Roman empire? I’m not sure in which part of the real bible they pop up but I know there’s a section called “Romans” so they must come up somewhere! Maybe we could say that Nero was the head of the neocon movement back then, and call them Nero-conservatives instead?Weri long wang 20:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the book of Romans is a collection of letters that St. Paul wrote to the Roman Christian Churches. St. Paul is an interesting character because he opposed Jesus at first and spoke out against him publicly. Paul was a bigot towards certain groups and hated women, and did not even believe in God or a God. Then one day after he rose from the dead, Jesus appeared to him on a road and blinded him and told him to go and spread his teachings. Paul was a skeptic and taught against Jesus' teachings, but he knew them better than anyone else. Paul was healed by another disciple and then decided to believe in God and Jesus and start writing letters and do public speaking to spread Jesus' teachings. Although Paul added in his own biases, that many critics of Christianity always point out in the New Testament parts that have letters written by Paul. In the Neocon Bible you can have the PNRC take the place of Paul and write letters and give speeches to the Roman Empire, which helped convert them and created the early Republicans aka Neocons. Nero actually opposed Christians in real history and had them put to death and burned down Rome and blamed it on the Christians. Because of the burning of Rome, the CD/DVD burning software named Nero was named after Nero. I guess you could say that the Nero-Conservatives existed with Nero, but originally opposed Christians, until Constantine a new Caesar converted to Christianity but inherited the title that Nero held, and used his ideas to make Nero-Conservatives and make Christianity an official religion of Rome. You could say that Constantine was the Paul of the Neocon New Testament. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Don’t you think Paul undermined and even destroyed Jesus’ true teachings (those at the Sermon on the Mount) by coming up with the ridiculous doctrine of “atonement for original sin” years after Jesus’ death? I think there is two ways we can interpret Jesus’ teachings and the meaning of his existence. The two possibilities are:

• He was a man who wanted to change the corrupt and immoral Roman society by teaching that we should be meek, forgiving and peaceful or
• he was sent by God to be horribly tortured and killed “for our sins”

Which one is correct? I would say definitely the former. I feel pretty strongly about this subject and have incorporated into my new pet project which I might release into Uncyclopedia in a month or so once it reaches a sufficient size.Weri long wang 20:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I think they both are. Jesus saw that Judaism was corrupted by Paganism by the Roman Empire, and sought to teach a better way, truer to the original message that God tried to teach via other prophets. Originally Christianity was called The Way and it was a Jewish movement. Some Apostles like Paul decided to teach gentiles as well as Jewish people. Ultimately Christianity took over the Roman Empire that had tried to wipe it out, however the Roman Empire paganized Christianity in the process. Jesus accepted his mission to be tortured and killed, for the sins of all who would believe in him to have the sins be forgiven and also to put an end to animal sacrifices by becoming the last sacrifice that would ever be made. There exists too many versions of Christianity and the original church split up a few times to create new churches. I take more importance in what Jesus taught, than what Paul taught. But that is just my opinion. The Bible is a collection of many books, and some are history, some parables, some poetry, some law, some letters, but it has been translated from many languages over the past 2000 years. It is also encrypted, so anyone could find any random bible verse to support their own views and opinions on Christianity, like Liberals and Conservatives both have a different idea of how Christianity really is, as well as Catholics, Protestants, Non Demoninationals, Baptists, Mormons, Lutherans, Jehovah Witnesses, etc. Jesus originally taught by parables, and tried to teach critical thinking so people can develop a way to deal with others fairly and not be so quick to judge others and seek a path of peace and mercy, and that everyone has sinned and all are sinners and must repent. Jesus died so that the rest of us need not die for our sins, he took the rap for those of us who believe in him, he made the ultimate sacrifice, knowing that he'd be brutally tortured and killed. He did so out of love and forgiveness and hoped that we'd pick up our own crosses and follow him. Paul was known as Saul and was the ultimate critic of Christ, but Christ tried to reform him, and renamed him Paul, but it is hard to reform someone. Know that the USA is based on the Roman Empire somewhat, a Republic, a house and senate for representatives in congress for the people, instead of a Caesar we have a President. Before the Roman Empire fell they had moved to secularism in trying to take religion out of government and make almost anything legal, and they could not stop the goths and celts and vandals from immigrating into their cities, as the Hunns had attacked them and forced them to flee into the Roman Empire. Rome could not control the immigrants and they drained the economy and resources and the Roman Empire collapsed. The USA might face the same fate, unless we figure out new ways to handle things. Saddam tried to have a secular government in Iraq and had statues and pictures of himself in public which are violations of Islamic Law, so even secularism can be corrupted by politics. I think that both the Liberal and Conservative views on Christianity are wrong, and many people put in their own biases when they teach it and cannot do as good a job as Jesus did. Jesus taught that life is suffering as just as Jesus suffered we all must suffer as well and be persecuted. I myself have a Christ-like complex, but I am not that much like Christ, if I was I'd deny having a Christ-like complex. I have suffered in my life and been persecuted against for being a Christian. I myself do not try to force my views and opinions and beliefs on others, and I would only try to save someone who wanted to be saved that made the choice to be a Christian. I admit that I could be wrong, but I tend to think that I have a good idea on what True Christianity really is, and most people don't even have a clue. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you might want to have a look at this site. I can relate to this and agree with the beliefs of the author that Jesus was not sent to Earth by God, nor was he God’s incarnate, and he did not die for anybody’s sins. Jesus was just an ordinary man (in physiological terms I mean – as far as his morals go he was a legendary man for his time). Prof. Richard Dawkins of all people described Jesus’ moral code as being “millennia ahead of [its] time” and a Christian reader of his books even sent him an “Atheists for Jesus” t-shirt!

To quote the website “Jesus’ teachings have been corrupted by people who never met (or understood) the historical Jesus and his teachings (from Paul to Constantine to today’s "Religious Right [of America]")” Don’t you agree with this? How could Paul know anything about Jesus if he wrote what he after Jesus’ death?!

You also said that you wanted to start some of the requested articles. Is there any one of them that you would like to, or like me to have a go at? Weri long wang 16:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think if you are trying to say that Jesus was the Jewish version of Socrates, you have a point there. Jesus was a Rabi which means teacher and he taught morals and philosophy. He also talked about not being of this world, and he gave parables and examples of how God is and how God's traditions differ from Human traditions. So I can accept that Jesus was a teacher is a valid viewpoint and opinion. The point that Jesus' teachings are millions of years ahead of his times, shows that they came from God. Since God is supposed to be more advanced than Human beings, he would appear to be millions of years ahead of us. Just like take 21st century teachings and technology to millions of years ago to human ancestors and we would appear as God and our technology as magic to primitive human ancestors. Jesus said he was the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the last, maybe Jesus is what human beings eventually evolve into, and it is an evolution of the mind or spirit. I believe that the miracles that Jesus performed are actually mind over matter, or psionics, in that our minds can heal our bodies. I suffer from mental and physical illnesses, and ever since I tried positive thinking and trying to think like Jesus, I was able to recover from the illnesses better and heal up when medical science said it was not even possible to recover or heal. I knew about secular Christians or atheist Christians before, usually people who follow Christ's teachings but do not think that he is God or that God exists. The view that Paul didn't understand Jesus' teachings is a valid one as well because originally Paul taught against Jesus' teachings and though they were dangerous. However, I think that Jesus picked Paul to spread his teachings because people would rather listen to a sinner than a saint, and Paul aka Saul was a sinner, I guess that makes sense like the best police officer might be an ex-criminal. Constantine made a decision to believe in Jesus and he prayed to Jesus that if he won the next battle, that he would convert to Christianity and make it an official religion. The thing about philosophies and morals is that when politics are involved, the philosophies and morals are often changed to fit and justify the politics. Many students of Socrates went on to use his teachings to abuse others and become unfit rulers. Eventually Socrates' teachings were passed down to Plato and then to Aristotle that taught Alexander the Great, who used those teachings to expand the Greek Empire and use them for war instead of peace. Socrates was secular or atheist I think, and taught to question authority. Anyway Constantine was like Alexander the Great and used Jesus' teachings to expand the Roman Empire for war and not peace. Yet clearly Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all have different versions of the history of Jesus, and there were other books that were rejected and not included in the Bible, like the Gnostic texts. Clearly this is a good discussion about history, philosophy, morals, religion, etc. I would like to write funny articles, and while this has been a good discussion we need to get back on track. I already started User:Orion Blastar/Holy Bible: Revised Neocon Edition what do you think of it so far? I tried to mimic the Liberal one but with making fun of Conservatives/Neocons instead. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

“The best police officer might be an ex-criminal”

You’re not serious, surely? If Paul was a nasty immoral sinner who initially shunned the real teaching of Jesus he should surely not be the one to spread the word of the real Jesus; a kind, caring and compassionate man. Jesus never said anything in his lifetime about “dying for our sins” That “came to” Paul in a vision. I’m sure Jesus would be heartbroken if he looked at how his name is used to justify war and suffering as it is today.

He did state that his blood washed away our sins, he also sated that if they destroyed the temple he would rebuild it in three days. The temple being his body. He said he was the lamb that his father sacrificed for the sins of mankind. In Jesus' time everyone was a nasty immoral sinner, the thinking of Jesus goes beyond human thinking. To behave and act like Jesus taught goes against human nature. Paul was not the only apostle, Peter was made the first Pope, the other disciplines went out and taught as well. Why Paul's letters were picked over other apostles, I have no idea. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I don’t believe Jesus was conceived of a virgin, nor do I believe that he came back from the dead (Mark and Luke couldn’t even make their minds up over who took him after he was resurrected!) What did Jesus say when he was asked if he was the Son of God? “You say that I am”. Admittedly that’s an ambiguous response that can be interpreted in an unlimited number of ways (just as with Socrates’ typical responses), but I’m sure he meant “I am not. It is you that wants to believe I am”.

I think he was avoiding answering the question. Answering yes would mean that he was guilty of the crimes the Jewish people had against him, answering no meant that he was lying when he taught about God. Logically the person persecuting Jesus did not even believe that he was the son of God, but tried to trick him with a question. "Are you the son of God?" in which Jesus decided not to answer with yes or no, but rather a statement that "It is you who says so", which if you ask me is a brilliant response to a trick question. He did the same thing when they asked Jesus if Jewish people should pay taxes, and Jesus answered with a question "Whose face is on this coin?" in which people answered "Caesar's" then Jesus made a statement "Then render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's and render unto God's what is God's". If he answered no, it would be the crime of Zealotry in which Jewish Zealots tried to get Jewish people to not pay Roman taxes and if he answered yes they would accuse him of supporting the Roman state and not the Jewish faith. Brilliant and beyond human thinking there. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing about philosophies and morals is that when politics are involved, the philosophies and morals are often changed to fit and justify the politics

I couldn’t agree more. It seems that the real teachings of Jesus have been distorted to justify acts that Jesus would condone, and that’s what is so upsetting about it.

I agree and I always have sought reform of Christianity and reform of government. I admit neither is perfect and when they join together they can cause problems, yet I know that no normal human being can fully understand what Jesus taught and fully go without sinning, because human beings are not perfect and prone to mistakes and flaws. While I admit there are some negative things to both, there are some positive things as well. If they can just undergo some changes, to be more true to what Jesus taught. In a way they have, Christianity has evolved over the past 2000 years, and created different versions of itself. So has Government. As long as human beings are not perfect and flawed, they will keep making mistakes and act in selfish and bad ways, because that is the way human nature is, and we have not evolved our minds out of that sort of phase of life yet. If only more people were like Jesus, the world would be a much better place. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)