Guard Dog

You know I have spent most of my 33 years wondering just who or what God is. The only conclusion I have ever come up with is that God is the supreme being and as such God is beyond my comprehension. I do not know who gets into heaven, or who goes to hell. How am I qualified to judge that? I'm not. No one is. The most absurd thing I've ever heard was a human telling another human "you are going to hell." It is beyond my ability to look into another persons mind or soul and judge it's worth. And by what calculus is it to be judged? I think it is up to the Creator to judge His creation. So that begs the question, what does God want from us? Is it to follow a religion? If so which one? Are the Catholics right? The Jews. The Muslims? All of their primary religious texts are written by men and if God is beyond the understanding of men maybe none of them are right. But I think inside each of us is an innate understanding of love and compassion and I believe that in that understanding God imparted a piece of himself to us. I think what makes us good people is the extent to which we let that love and compassion influence our daily lives. I'm not as wise or as loving and compassionate as I should be, perhaps none of us are. But I think the first step to wisdom is to recognize a shortcoming and try to rectify it. In the end I do not think it matters what God you believe in or even if you believe in Him at all. If you are a "Good" person as I've defined it here I think God will believe in you. And that is really all that matters. So, Merry Christmas boardies. And for whatever it means to you, God bless you all.

On that we all agree! As I pointed out, this whole mess was artificially created to raise a stir during what should have been a political quiet period. It achieved it's end.

You couldn't smooth a silk sheet if you had a hot date... ah... I lost my train of thought.

Two words: Term Limits! Until we get that, the legislature will remain for sale.

I will let the quran speak for itself: Anotated Qu'ran

I've always thought that Christianity was rooted in the New Testament more than the old. Considering that 90% of the New Testament writings contradicts 95% of the Old Testament. That however is my own opinion and it may be uninformed. The only thing I wanted to point out before was that although three of the major names among the founders were Christian in name only, most were, true believers. Or at least claimed to be. We've wandered off track a little. As I stated before. If Mr Ellison wishes to swear on the quran he is free and welcome to do so. Ir's right there in the 1st amendment.

You were right, I was wrong to say that. Apologies offered to anyone offended. I'm sticking to this one. No other religion instructs it's followers to kill non believers. The principle tenent of Christianity is to love one another. Those who practice violence in it's name are in violation of it's tenents. Those who practice violence in the name of Islam are following it's tenants. I spent quite a bit of time in Saudi Arabia in 1991-1992 and saw that first hand. I was not debating your point, just pointing out a few things that you said were a little wrong.

To answer Alanschu's question. The First Amendment states Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This has become what people refer to as the "Establishment Clause" and has been used (wrongfully) to argue that the US government must be totally deviod of religion. It does not say that at all. It does not violate the first amendment to place a Christian symbol (such as the Mt. Soledad Cross) on public property. Nor is it wrong for Ellison to swear on a Quran however little I may like it. The thing about freedom is, you must take the good with the bad. Personally I find Mr. Ellisons religion incomprehensable but he has every right to practice it as he pleases where he pleases. If that means he swears his oath on a quran good for him and I will defend his right to do so. The first amendment is often used by anti-religious groups such as the ACLU to attack religious practices everywhere. The are quick to point out the first part of the establishment clause but totally ignore the second part.

See my preivous post for an explanation. But those who see this and worry are not extremists. They are average people. America learned all it needs to know about Islam on 9-11-01. Straw Man Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison could be described as Deists. The rest I would not call them anything but Christian.

Allow me to pass on a little "inside info" since I have been involved in politics. Substance accounts for very little in Washington D.C. Style is everything. This whole mess was engineered to grab headlines and get a little rise out of everyone. It sets an agenda and makes talking points during a time when there is really nothing going on. It also gives the pols a chance to strut and preen, liberals for it, conservatives against it. So it is a big deal but only in that context. That is just for the US. I do not know how they act in Europe or Canada, or elsewhere. Di, if you actually knew how little the congress critters knew about the constitution I don't know if you would laugh or cry. I know two congressmen personally. One is a well meaning idiot with a smart chief of staff that keeps him in office. The other is an arrogant @$$ who honestly believes the law is what Congress says it is. I got into a conversation with the latter last year about Imminent Domain being a 10th Amendment issue (I argured Kelo v New London was a disgraceful decision). About 5 min into the conversation I realized he had no idea what the 10th amendment actually said. In November he was reelcted for the 5th time. I would not vote for him and I consider him a friend. Both are democrats for those who are wondering. Having a philisophical slant does not make you smart.

Like Mortis, I've said all I have to say on this debate. One more observation though. I've always found it odd the same people who oppose the death penalty support abortion. So, there is no right to kill a person who has murdered other people, but there there is every right to kill a baby who has harmed no one. I guess if you oppose the death penalty AND abortion you are at least logical and consistent.

I guess you can always make a new baby. You can't make a new Xbox. We should be ashamed of ouselves for this one!

The more horrifying prison is, the fewer people we will have in it. Recitivisim will drop if we make or prisons more like the isolation cells at Devil's Island during the turn of the 20th Century. That the repeat offender rate is so high now when we do so much to rehabilitate tells me that rehabilitation is a fools errand anyway. So you make it so terrible and so dehumanizing (which means so much worse than it is now) that no one will repeat for fear of going back.

It makes sure that the killer doesn't get the chance to make more victims. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree. Tookie Williams will not be killing anymore convienience store employees. Or ochestrating any more attacks on prison guards. Or sending anymore orders to the Crips. Ted Bundy will not kill any more college students. Tim McVeigh will destroy no more buildings. To quote Ron White In America, we have the death penalty. And we USE it. If you come here and kill someone we will kill you back. It's our policy.

Anyone heard why they are switching the show to Sunday night? I hope it is not in ratings trouble.

I believe that is our nature. If you are a creationist then you believe we were made in God's image but fell. Yes we did, hard and far. If you are an evolutionist then we are animals descended from animals and how could you expect any better from us? But those of us who are able to move beyond our base instincts deserve to be protected from the ones who don't. I'll agree the death penalty is not effective as soon as Ted Bundy kills another college girl, Tim McVeigh blows up another building, etc.

I have to agree with what some of the others posted. Romance is a small part of charachter development. If a charachter does not develop in a story but a romance is bolted on anyway, it really doesn't work well. I would rather have a group of well fleshed out believable characters than a romance option. Or both if it works for the story. The only RPG that hit all aspects IMHOP was Torment.

They were the best of the bad. That did not make them good.

You been drinking today Volo?

I would change my stance on the death penalty if we could reform our prisons. If all murder convicts were kept in total isolation, 8X6 cells with no windows 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year with no TV, no books, no human interaction of ANY kind (their meals will be slid through a slot in the door) for every day until they die of natural causes, then I will go along with abolishing the death penalty. In the US, prisoners get cable TV in their cells for free. Free use of a library (with tons of legal materials). A free college education if they choose, It's B.S. If it were up to me, if you have a 5 year sentance you would spend evey minuite of that 5 years in that 8X6 cell with no one to talk to, no liberal psychobable about "reforming" you. I guarantee you one thing, no one who served time will want to go back.

Wow, when this was first announced almost two years ago I was impressed at the teams ambition, now I'm awed at their persistance and ability. I hope the develpers in the biz take notice of what you guys have done here. For any who desire to get into game developing this should certainly be on your resume. Team Gizka, we salute you!

they made a particular point in saying that he was playing Ghost Recon (A violent video game) you know. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, I noticed that too. They are already setting up his insanity defense. Disgusting.

Currently reading Cesar's Way, by Cesar Milan. It is a MUST read if you own dogs!

Just because the public wants it does not mean it's right or wise. Yes they want up to pack up and leave Iraq now but by and large do not understand the terrible consequences of that action. By and large the public wants the US government to pay for healthcare and point to other nations that do. But they don't even understand why it doesn't, can't, or even comprehend the damage it would do to our nation and society to change our system enough to allow it. We tend to elect people because we hope they are better informed about things like this than we are and if you do and those people decide based on the best information they have that a war is needed to defend the best interests of the nation then you should support that until you find out otherwise. And if it means serving and fighting, so be it.