Welcome to Gaia! ::

*~Let the Fire Fall ~* A Christian Guild

Back to Guilds

 

 

Reply Debate and Discussion
Alternate Realities Goto Page: 1 2 [>] [»|]

Quick Reply

Submit

promised_child

promised_child's avatar

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:46 am
The theory is: every choice you make has a reaction. and when you make the choice, you create an alternate reality or universe where you chose differently and the consequences were different.

I believe it is possible, because of our God-given gift of asking "What if I had...?"

so lets talk about this...  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:10 am
It's an intriguing and imaginative idea, but I don't really believe it's possible. It doesn't seem to fit with the Bible's presentation of reality: as perfectly planned by God.

Any possibilities that could have happened, but didn't, weren't part of the perfect plan God made from the beginning. If there was an alternate reality where those possibilities occurred, it would mean there is an alternate reality where God's plan didn't go perfectly. Accepting that as possible is almost equivalent to saying there could be an alternate reality where God doesn't exist.  

Crimson Raccoon

Crimson Raccoon's avatar


promised_child

promised_child's avatar

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:29 am
Crimson Raccoon Wrote:
It's an intriguing and imaginative idea, but I don't really believe it's possible. It doesn't seem to fit with the Bible's presentation of reality: as perfectly planned by God.

Any possibilities that could have happened, but didn't, weren't part of the perfect plan God made from the beginning. If there was an alternate reality where those possibilities occurred, it would mean there is an alternate reality where God's plan didn't go perfectly. Accepting that as possible is almost equivalent to saying there could be an alternate reality where God doesn't exist.


what about free will? and no it isn't. God created the entire universe, is it not possible that He created a multi-verse? All the Bible really says about our reality is that God knew what was going to happen. Is dismissing the idea or alternate realities out of hand the same arrogance as assuming that Earth is the only inhabited planet in our entire vast and ever increasing universe, simply because there is as yet no proof of aliens?  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:30 pm
Well, speculation can be fun.

I don't think a multiverse is likely. This is not because I don't think it's physically possible-- it may be. But God granted each of us a unique soul, and I don't think he would split/copy that soul every time we or someone else made a choice. Spiritual reality is not directly influenced by physical law, and so if the physical universe split, I see no reason a soul would automatically split with it. A soul is not part of the physical universe, and so would have no more reason to split than God-- and it cannot be everywhere, as He can.

But assume there is a multiverse anyway. I imagine each Earth would be different, because of people's different choices. However, each world would no doubt work out God's plan in some way, as He guides it with infinite wisdom. None of us can 'ruin' God's plan by our choices. We can simply ruin our lives.  

Nebulance

Nebulance's avatar


Crimson Raccoon

Crimson Raccoon's avatar

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:55 pm
promised_child Wrote:
Crimson Raccoon Wrote:
It's an intriguing and imaginative idea, but I don't really believe it's possible. It doesn't seem to fit with the Bible's presentation of reality: as perfectly planned by God.

Any possibilities that could have happened, but didn't, weren't part of the perfect plan God made from the beginning. If there was an alternate reality where those possibilities occurred, it would mean there is an alternate reality where God's plan didn't go perfectly. Accepting that as possible is almost equivalent to saying there could be an alternate reality where God doesn't exist.


what about free will? and no it isn't. God created the entire universe, is it not possible that He created a multi-verse? All the Bible really says about our reality is that God knew what was going to happen. Is dismissing the idea or alternate realities out of hand the same arrogance as assuming that Earth is the only inhabited planet in our entire vast and ever increasing universe, simply because there is as yet no proof of aliens?


Unless I misunderstood, the question wasn't whether God could create other universes, or whether other universes could exist. Certainly they can, we all agree that God isn't limited to creating one universe.

But, what you asked about was if other universes could constantly be splitting off from each other, for each and every possibility that happens. That would be by definition a splitting apart of God's perfect plan. I believe God could have created other realities, but I don't believe those realities could be formed out of alternate possibilities being realized out of this one.

Also, according to the account of Creation in Genesis, God rested from his creative works after the 6th day. He's no longer engaged in the process of Creation, so I don't believe he would be constantly creating more and new universes. It goes against the teachings that Creation is completed and that God has rested from creating.


For free will; I do believe in free will but I also believe it works in the context of God's plan. I believe God is omniscient and has foreknowledge of everything that will happen. God knows the choices we make before we make them, and as such he has based his plan around it ahead of time, from the creation.

Also, the Bible paints free will as very, very limited. After all, how much free will does a slave have? The only time the ability to choose our fate is present in the Bible, is for Believers; and the only choice they are really free to make is whether or not they will serve God.

The word for "free will" only appears once in the Bible, and it is in the context of a Christian; and actually it illustrates that in order for that Christian to have free will, someone else had to go out of their way to give it to him. The situation is in Paul's letter to Philemon, and it is analogous to Christ's sacrifice being necessary for Christians to have the free will to love God.

The use and explanation of free will in the Bible is limited to choosing between Good and Evil. Adam and Eve had that choice freely, but since then humans' wills are corrupted and they will always do Evil. We are unable to choose to do Good, unless God intervenes. At that point, a saved person has the ability to choose to do Good, though they still do Evil. And finally, in Heaven, we will lose even the ability to choose to do Evil at all, and will only be capable of doing Good. So the Bible's portrayal of free will is indeed quite limited.

Again, it's only in the context of believers choosing between Good and Evil. What does that mean for free will in our day to day, arbitrary choices? The Bible is rather quiet about it; it's a theological debate that is relatively unimportant. I believe that we have some ability to make choices, but I don't think "free" will is an accurate term for it, since the will is corrupted and a slave to sin, so it can't really be described as free. It is a biased and blind will that is bent toward evil. That's how the Bible portrays it, particularly in Christ's conversations with the Pharisees in the Gospels.

Regardless of the details about how "free" will works, I do believe all our choices are an integral part of God's perfect plan. Even Jonah's choice to run away from his job as prophet was part of God's plan, because it resulted in several sailor's souls being turned to God and saved. From the beginning of Time, God intended for Jonah to run away, because God had predestined those sailors to be saved. Could there be an alternate reality where Jonah didn't run away and went straight to Ninevah? No, I don't believe so, because that would mean there is an alternate reality where those sailors weren't saved. Free will is integrated and inseparable from God's plan.  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:34 am
Crimson Raccoon Wrote:
promised_child Wrote:
Crimson Raccoon Wrote:
It's an intriguing and imaginative idea, but I don't really believe it's possible. It doesn't seem to fit with the Bible's presentation of reality: as perfectly planned by God.

Any possibilities that could have happened, but didn't, weren't part of the perfect plan God made from the beginning. If there was an alternate reality where those possibilities occurred, it would mean there is an alternate reality where God's plan didn't go perfectly. Accepting that as possible is almost equivalent to saying there could be an alternate reality where God doesn't exist.


what about free will? and no it isn't. God created the entire universe, is it not possible that He created a multi-verse? All the Bible really says about our reality is that God knew what was going to happen. Is dismissing the idea or alternate realities out of hand the same arrogance as assuming that Earth is the only inhabited planet in our entire vast and ever increasing universe, simply because there is as yet no proof of aliens?


Unless I misunderstood, the question wasn't whether God could create other universes, or whether other universes could exist. Certainly they can, we all agree that God isn't limited to creating one universe.

But, what you asked about was if other universes could constantly be splitting off from each other, for each and every possibility that happens. That would be by definition a splitting apart of God's perfect plan. I believe God could have created other realities, but I don't believe those realities could be formed out of alternate possibilities being realized out of this one.

Also, according to the account of Creation in Genesis, God rested from his creative works after the 6th day. He's no longer engaged in the process of Creation, so I don't believe he would be constantly creating more and new universes. It goes against the teachings that Creation is completed and that God has rested from creating.


For free will; I do believe in free will but I also believe it works in the context of God's plan. I believe God is omniscient and has foreknowledge of everything that will happen. God knows the choices we make before we make them, and as such he has based his plan around it ahead of time, from the creation.

Also, the Bible paints free will as very, very limited. After all, how much free will does a slave have? The only time the ability to choose our fate is present in the Bible, is for Believers; and the only choice they are really free to make is whether or not they will serve God.

The word for "free will" only appears once in the Bible, and it is in the context of a Christian; and actually it illustrates that in order for that Christian to have free will, someone else had to go out of their way to give it to him. The situation is in Paul's letter to Philemon, and it is analogous to Christ's sacrifice being necessary for Christians to have the free will to love God.

The use and explanation of free will in the Bible is limited to choosing between Good and Evil. Adam and Eve had that choice freely, but since then humans' wills are corrupted and they will always do Evil. We are unable to choose to do Good, unless God intervenes. At that point, a saved person has the ability to choose to do Good, though they still do Evil. And finally, in Heaven, we will lose even the ability to choose to do Evil at all, and will only be capable of doing Good. So the Bible's portrayal of free will is indeed quite limited.

Again, it's only in the context of believers choosing between Good and Evil. What does that mean for free will in our day to day, arbitrary choices? The Bible is rather quiet about it; it's a theological debate that is relatively unimportant. I believe that we have some ability to make choices, but I don't think "free" will is an accurate term for it, since the will is corrupted and a slave to sin, so it can't really be described as free. It is a biased and blind will that is bent toward evil. That's how the Bible portrays it, particularly in Christ's conversations with the Pharisees in the Gospels.

Regardless of the details about how "free" will works, I do believe all our choices are an integral part of God's perfect plan. Even Jonah's choice to run away from his job as prophet was part of God's plan, because it resulted in several sailor's souls being turned to God and saved. From the beginning of Time, God intended for Jonah to run away, because God had predestined those sailors to be saved. Could there be an alternate reality where Jonah didn't run away and went straight to Ninevah? No, I don't believe so, because that would mean there is an alternate reality where those sailors weren't saved. Free will is integrated and inseparable from God's plan.


that's a long post, full of your own personal doctrine but no actual scriptures to back it up. this is actually a science question. While I believe that you cant have science without God, I do think that when using the Bible to attempt to disprove a theory there should be scriptures  

promised_child

promised_child's avatar


Crimson Raccoon

Crimson Raccoon's avatar

PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:16 am
promised_child Wrote:
that's a long post, full of your own personal doctrine but no actual scriptures to back it up. this is actually a science question. While I believe that you cant have science without God, I do think that when using the Bible to attempt to disprove a theory there should be scriptures


I'm confused. You started this topic, I thought, with the intent of having a discussion, but you don't seem to like me disagreeing with you. If you want me to leave, I will; honestly, I'm not looking for a fight. I'm just stating what I believe, and yes, my beliefs are based on the Bible. You didn't respond to any of the points I brought up in my post, you just dismissed the whole thing with a couple false accustations, so I don't see how it's possible to have the discussion you initially asked for.

In response to your first accusation, actually, none of what I said is personal doctrine, it's all quite traditional. If you want to challenge any particular point, please do so, and a discussion can happen. Your belief in support of this idea is an example of personal doctrine; unless there's a denomination somewhere which believes in it.

Which of these concepts are just my personal doctrine? Divine foreknowledge, creation being completed, the human will being in bondage to sin, predestination, providence... The religious beliefs behind my thinking don't really go beyond these. You could disagree with how I apply them and we could discuss that; but I don't think they're just my own personal ideas.

In response to your second accusation, I referenced the Bible plenty of times; and you haven't used the Bible at all. The Genesis account of creation, the letter of Paul to Philemon, and the book of Jonah were all referenced in my post and their significance on the situation were described in a few sentences each. I also referenced Jesus' conversations with the Pharisees, though I wasn't as specific in mentioning a particular passage, because it's spread throughout all four gospels and I was also assuming the reader would be familiar with these conversations. If you want to challenge, or get more detail, about the significance of any of these passages here, please feel free to comment on them. I will go into more detail at your request. But please don't say I didn't use any scriptures, that isn't true. Every few paragraphs I brought up scripture.

If it is merely a science question, then the answer to your question is that it is beyond scientific discussion. There is no evidence supporting the idea of multiplying universes; and it is beyond the ability of current science to test for; so the idea cannot be proven or disproven. As far as science goes, that about ends the discussion, unless some evidence can be brought up. Also, scientifically speaking, it isn't a theory, it's just an idea.

I didn't view it particularly as a scientific question, since your post was philosophically focused, and since it has such religious implications; so that's what my reply was based around.  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:55 am
Crimson Raccoon Wrote:
promised_child Wrote:
that's a long post, full of your own personal doctrine but no actual scriptures to back it up. this is actually a science question. While I believe that you cant have science without God, I do think that when using the Bible to attempt to disprove a theory there should be scriptures


I'm confused. You started this topic, I thought, with the intent of having a discussion, but you don't seem to like me disagreeing with you. If you want me to leave, I will; honestly, I'm not looking for a fight. I'm just stating what I believe, and yes, my beliefs are based on the Bible. You didn't respond to any of the points I brought up in my post, you just dismissed the whole thing with a couple false accustations, so I don't see how it's possible to have the discussion you initially asked for.

In response to your first accusation, actually, none of what I said is personal doctrine, it's all quite traditional. If you want to challenge any particular point, please do so, and a discussion can happen. Your belief in support of this idea is an example of personal doctrine; unless there's a denomination somewhere which believes in it.

my problem wasnt your use of the Bible, it was your lack of scripture.

Which of these concepts are just my personal doctrine? Divine foreknowledge, creation being completed, the human will being in bondage to sin, predestination, providence... The religious beliefs behind my thinking don't really go beyond these. You could disagree with how I apply them and we could discuss that; but I don't think they're just my own personal ideas.

In response to your second accusation, I referenced the Bible plenty of times; and you haven't used the Bible at all. The Genesis account of creation, the letter of Paul to Philemon, and the book of Jonah were all referenced in my post and their significance on the situation were described in a few sentences each. I also referenced Jesus' conversations with the Pharisees, though I wasn't as specific in mentioning a particular passage, because it's spread throughout all four gospels and I was also assuming the reader would be familiar with these conversations. If you want to challenge, or get more detail, about the significance of any of these passages here, please feel free to comment on them. I will go into more detail at your request. But please don't say I didn't use any scriptures, that isn't true. Every few paragraphs I brought up scripture.

If it is merely a science question, then the answer to your question is that it is beyond scientific discussion. There is no evidence supporting the idea of multiplying universes; and it is beyond the ability of current science to test for; so the idea cannot be proven or disproven. As far as science goes, that about ends the discussion, unless some evidence can be brought up. Also, scientifically speaking, it isn't a theory, it's just an idea.

I didn't view it particularly as a scientific question, since your post was philosophically focused, and since it has such religious implications; so that's what my reply was based around.


I don't mind that you disagree, in fact I welcome it. the theory in itself has no bible scripture to back it up, because no scientific theories do really. Even creationism simply says "A higher power" or "a divine being." that is because Science has been secularised.

It is currently an unprovable theory. and it is a theory. just as relativity is a theory. Where in the Bible does it say that God STOPPED creating? it simply says that He rested on the seventh day, what about the eighth? Is creation ever really complete? Humans and animals create new life every day. if humanity didnt have free will, Adam would never have chosen to disobey God. I just think you should include the scriptures.

also, whether the doctine is traditional or not, once you say it and use it, it becomes yours.  

promised_child

promised_child's avatar


Crimson Raccoon

Crimson Raccoon's avatar

PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:56 pm
promised_child Wrote:
I don't mind that you disagree, in fact I welcome it. the theory in itself has no bible scripture to back it up, because no scientific theories do really. Even creationism simply says "A higher power" or "a divine being." that is because Science has been secularised.


It's not true that no scientific theories have scripture to back them up. Is the universe eternal, or did it have a beginning? These were, for a while, two competing scientific theories, and one of them certainly can be supported by scripture. (It happens to be the one that is now most widely accepted). This is one example, I could think of more if you really need me to. But one example is all it takes to prove it happens. It is possible for a scientific theory to find support from scripture. Conversely, some scientific theories are in contradiction with scripture; it goes both ways. In my understanding of the Bible, the idea that alternate realities are constantly being created with every possibility that can occur, is in contradiction to scripture.

promised_child Wrote:
It is currently an unprovable theory. and it is a theory. just as relativity is a theory.


No, it's nothing at all like Relativity's status as a theory. Relativity can be mathematically demonstrated, it's effects can be easily observed, it can be experimented upon and proven, and it made numerous predictions which have since been verified.

On the other hand, the idea that the universe is constantly being multiplied into more universes has none of these characteristics of a scientific theory. It doesn't even attempt to explain any observable phenomena; thus, it isn't even a hypothesis. Calling it a theory in the scientific sense of the word is an extremely inaccurate use of the term. It's an idea, and nothing more.

promised_child Wrote:
Where in the Bible does it say that God STOPPED creating? it simply says that He rested on the seventh day, what about the eighth? Is creation ever really complete? Humans and animals create new life every day.


It doesn't just say that God rested, it says he finished. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done. - Genesis 2:1-2 The hebrew phrase "the heavens and the earth" is essentially an idiom that means "everything." So, everything was finished, and God was finished with his work of creating.

What about the eighth day? Well, Biblically, there is no eighth day for God. He didn't get up after resting and get back to work, and repeat this cycle week after week; he exists outside of time. According to Hebrews 4, God's rest continues to this day, and the redeemed will one day enter into that rest at the resurrection, and remain in that rest with God eternally. The whole chapter of Hebrews 4 is significant here but I'll quote this section of it.

Hebrews 4:3-11 Wrote:
For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said,
“As I swore in my wrath,
‘They shall not enter my rest,’”
although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” And again in this passage he said,
“They shall not enter my rest.”
Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he appoints a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted,
“Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts.”
For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience.


Notice also, verse 3 of that passage is another place which specifically says God's work was finished from the foundation of the world.

I disagree that humans and animals "create" new life when they reproduce. New life is being formed, but it's being formed out of things which already existed through a process that is entirely natural. It's not really a creation in the same sense of God's work of creation, which was a miraculous creation out of nothing. The only thing that isn't naturally explained is how the soul becomes a part of that body, but both science and the Bible are silent on that issue, so we can only speculate. In any case, the Bible says that God's creative work is completed since the time of Genesis 2, so that must not be involved.

promised_child Wrote:
if humanity didnt have free will, Adam would never have chosen to disobey God.


I don't disagree with you here, so I think all that happened is you just misread my post. I specifically said that Adam and Eve did have free will. But, since then, the will has been in bondage because of the Fall. I said, "The use and explanation of free will in the Bible is limited to choosing between Good and Evil. Adam and Eve had that choice freely, but since then humans' wills are corrupted and they will always do Evil. We are unable to choose to do Good, unless God intervenes. At that point, a saved person has the ability to choose to do Good, though they still do Evil. And finally, in Heaven, we will lose even the ability to choose to do Evil at all, and will only be capable of doing Good. So the Bible's portrayal of free will is indeed quite limited."

And then I went on to say a bunch of other things about free will, which you may have disagreed with, but I don't want to presume so I'll leave it to you to bring them up.

promised_child Wrote:
I just think you should include the scriptures.

I did include references to scriptures, I just didn't quote them here. Since I was referencing the situations, rather than particular verses, in Jonah, Philemon, and the beginning of Genesis, I would have needed to quote the entire chapters to cover the whole situation I was dealing with. That seemed excessive, so instead I just said where to find them and summarized what was going on. If it could have been covered in a few verses, I would have quoted them. From now on, I'll quote at least sections of passages here if that's what you prefer (as I did above with Hebrews 4).

promised_child Wrote:
also, whether the doctine is traditional or not, once you say it and use it, it becomes yours.


I don't own a doctrine just because I believe in it. Calling something just a "personal doctrine" implies a contrast with orthodox or denominational doctrine. Certainly that's how the word "personal" is typically used: in contrast to something held by a community. In any case, by your definition, all doctrine must be personal doctrine, so is it fair to complain if that's all I use?


Anyway, I love you and hope you're having a nice day. =) smilies/icon_heart.gif  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:13 pm
promised_child, I don't think you're being quite fair. You started out the discussion by saying,
promised_child Wrote:
I believe it is possible, because of our God-given gift of asking "What if I had...?"

so lets talk about this...


That didn't sound like you wanted to have a scientific discussion, but rather, a discussion of the spiritual implications of a scientific possibility. None of us are quantum physicists here; we can't have a scientific debate about it anyway.  

Nebulance

Nebulance's avatar


promised_child

promised_child's avatar

PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:43 pm
Nebluance Wrote:
promised_child, I don't think you're being quite fair. You started out the discussion by saying,
promised_child Wrote:
I believe it is possible, because of our God-given gift of asking "What if I had...?"

so lets talk about this...


That didn't sound like you wanted to have a scientific discussion, but rather, a discussion of the spiritual implications of a scientific possibility. None of us are quantum physicists here; we can't have a scientific debate about it anyway.


quite honestly, you don't have to be a quantum physicist, or an astrophysicist, or a regular physicist. all you really need is a basic understanding of the laws of physics.

and yes i did include spiritual implications, but i also meant scientific. and you don't have to be labeled a scientist to debate science. i dont even have a problem with crimson's veiws, all i asked was that he quote the key scriptures he was using.

it isnt my theory, just one i stumbled across recently. and while i believe it is possible i do not believe that an alternate me would be "me" in any sense of the word.

There is always the rather remote possibility that humans are in of themselves a science project....









joking  
PostPosted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 1:11 pm
it is certainly an interesting idea, if an unlikely one. i doubt we will ever know what would have happened, had we made a different choice here or there, it would just be too horribly depressing, even in heaven. also, with 6 billion+ people, each one making multiple decisions every second, how many alternate universes could that possibly create? it is certainly an intriguing idea, though.
promised_child Wrote:
The theory is: every choice you make has a reaction. and when you make the choice, you create an alternate reality or universe where you chose differently and the consequences were different.

I believe it is possible, because of our God-given gift of asking "What if I had...?"

so lets talk about this...
 

Phantomboy411

Phantomboy411's avatar


divineseraph

divineseraph's avatar

PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:07 am
Alternate reality is just an idiotic Hawking postulation based on a flawed interpretation of quantum mechanics.

They do the math, but they forget to realize that a waveform is not a real thing, but an expression of math that means "We don't know WHERE it is, but it's somewhere in here"- They, however, assume that it is a literal object or potentiality, and thereby assume that observation "breaks" a waveform and forces a reality to exist. That means that they also believe that the particles in the waveform have no position until observed and are in all places at once.

Which is bullshit. It's like saying a tree doesn't have height until it's measured, and that one tree must be an entire forest until you find it.  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:36 pm
divineseraph Wrote:
Alternate reality is just an idiotic Hawking postulation based on a flawed interpretation of quantum mechanics.

They do the math, but they forget to realize that a waveform is not a real thing, but an expression of math that means "We don't know WHERE it is, but it's somewhere in here"- They, however, assume that it is a literal object or potentiality, and thereby assume that observation "breaks" a waveform and forces a reality to exist. That means that they also believe that the particles in the waveform have no position until observed and are in all places at once.

Which is bullshit. It's like saying a tree doesn't have height until it's measured, and that one tree must be an entire forest until you find it.


did you and I have a rather long convo about alternate reality near a year ago...or has it been longer?  

lordstar

lordstar's avatar


divineseraph

divineseraph's avatar

PostPosted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:11 am
Probably. Light would have come into it too. I think it's a particle with an energy wave attached, and we assume them to be one since that's how they travel. Of course, it's only how they travel through space- There's nothing for the energy to diffuse into until it reaches matter.  
Reply
Debate and Discussion

Goto Page: 1 2 [>] [»|]
 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games