FaramirK

Says who? You? Who are you, again? Obviously no one of any particular mental powess... What, exactly, is wrong with my summary? Christ summarized the entire Old Testament in this phrase: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind. This is the first Great Commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as you love yourself. On this hangs all the Law and the Prophets." And, by the way, it's spelt "sum", not "some".

Hmm, lets see... The charge at the end of The Last Samuri. The part near the end in Enemy at the Gates when all the people are fleeing the city and pinning notes for loved ones left behind. The Thin Red Line. Most of you will know those, seeing as they're western. It's usually war that makes me emotional...don't know why.

No, they can't. Interested in moving to the UK Baley? I would assume you get citizenship in the UK by fulfilling some requirement to live there for X years and then apply for it from the government...or maybe all you have to do is marry a brit...Darth Launch, for example...

No, they don't. They have Permanent Residency.

The Bible teaches that everyone is responsible for their actions/beliefs. Christianity puts forth a Loving God that cannot abide sin, and therefore must judge sin in every person. The love part comes from the belief that he died for the sins of humanity on the cross, and that all who believe in his death as payment for they're sins will be saved. Thats essentially what CHristianity says... Whether you accept or reject it is up to you, and you will be judged accordingly. DISCLAIMER: Your right to denounce the above as a fairy-tale is fully acknowledged by myself, a true believer in freedom of thought, speech and action.

And is he a valid alternative? Does he opose Blair? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He's a competent politician. He backed the Iraq war, but he wasn't so closely associated with it as Tony Blair, so he's more popular. And he and Blair used to be good friends, but now they hate each other, so he sort of opposes Blair, but from within the cabinet. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How could you work with someone you hate everyday? Sounds terrible. Tony Blair seems a resonable leader who generally does want to help the people out by being a good leader, but I'm hardly a primary source...

yes but what is false to you could be a universal truth to somone else. Hogwash...truth is truth. What you believe to be false might be the universal opinion of someone else, but two opposites can't both be true at the same time.

- no really I disrupted the whole house with that laugh... You should come to Russia...we've been substituting cheap alcohol for rational thinking for centuries...look what it's done for us.

Unfortunately, Occam's Razor is a logical device. And there is no guarantee that any of this stuff can be explained through logic, or any other means for that matter. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I meant more: "Take the simplest answer", rather than trying to kill your brain cells doing philospohical backflips...

There is a difference between a person of a certain religion doing violence and violence being done in the name of a certain religion. I have been unable to find any examples of wars being started in the name of Buddhism, and I tried. I'm unaware of where in the teachings of Buddha it says to kill homosexuals, adulterers, witches, or people of other religions. Christianity is nowhere near a non-violent religion by the same standards, as its history is full of war and violence, as is the Bible. I'm just going to use the New Testament here, because quoting the Old Testament wouldn't be fair as the coming of Jesus was supposed to make all the violent stuff in the OT irrelavent... Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Or not, I guess, but I will still be nice and not quote the OT and all the violence it calls for.) Matthew 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. 10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. Matthew 10:21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. (Because of Jesus.) Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. (More alleged words of Jesus.) Matthew 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; 13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. There is much of this repeated in the other three Gospels, so I won't repeat them but instead move on... Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. 3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. 2 Thessalonians 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power Hebrews 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (In other words, back to the OT... You'd better be obeying Leviticus or you die! No wonder so many Christians don't actually obey the bloody orders of the Bible.) I could go on and on, and I haven't even touched Revelation. I'd be interested in hearing where the teachings of Buddha comes even close to the non-violence preached by the Bible. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, you're kind of mis-interpreting the whole thing. The NT calls its adherents to be loving, gentle and forgiving. The doom and distruction passages are reffering to God's judgement of those who reject him. Most of the more brutal laws in the OT are part of the system of Government set up for Isreal, which was a nation, unlike the NT church. People who confuse christianity's comandments with Isreal's Code of Law usually end up trying to make countries "Christian" and impose the bible on everyone, which enevitably leads to tragedy (See the History of Switzerland, Spain, England etc for extremes of the "Christian Nation" concept). Christianity is supposed to be a personal relationship between man and God, not an earthly theocracy. That is why I would rather live in a secular democracy that gives everyone freedom to live as they wish than some "Jesus Land" like I hear many in the US long for... My personal decision to adhere to Christianity is my god-allowed right, as is another persons decision to totally and vocally reject everything I stand for.

True, but I disagree with the idea that if a person decides that what we call a dog is to him a cat, it is truely a cat in his reality. In fact, he is just ignorant, or suffering from a mental disorder. There has to be absolute truth, in my opinion. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> well what *is* that absolute thruth then? The absolute truth is what governs the lives of the "average" person who has better things to do than question every generally accepted fact and engage in whimsical philosophy. Achem's Razor. It's more likely a dog than not. Consider: Is a dog a dog? Yes. Can you make me think a cat is a dog? Yes, you could fool me using optical illusions for example. Does me thinking its a dog make it one? No. The absolute truth is that it is a cat that looks like a dog. What if I really really believe its a dog? Then I'm either deluded, or insane. Strawman argument. 99% of everything is not nothing. 100% of sa thing is the thing it is at the atomic level. Just because 99% + of the space an atom occupies is "empty" does not equate that the empty space is part of the said thing. I you strip away all my senses, I am braindead (or at least comatose), and the absolute truth is that the world will continue as it is.

True, but I disagree with the idea that if a person decides that what we call a dog is to him a cat, it is truely a cat in his reality. In fact, he is just ignorant, or suffering from a mental disorder. There has to be absolute truth, in my opinion.

Absolutely!

Its a mute point. I think the whole thread was just *edited, because mentioning it causes it* poorly presented.

there are a ton of studies like these out there and they all say the same: smart people don't believe in god... :D <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "a ton of studies"? There are also innumerable evidences that many of the greatest minds in History were theists. Perhaps a better conclusion would have been "Some studies show that many 20th Century academic high acheivers are atheists". I will add that Academic acheivement is not the universal measurement for intelligence. If you don't believe me, try competing for survival in the jungle against one of the locals, and see who is more intelligent in that setting... I pose to you a question, how many countries based on Atheism are free, happy, prosperous nations compared to the nations that are predominantly theistic? I encourage belief in God even if its only purpose is to curb man's arrogant self-centeredness.

Zhukov would whip them all :D Seriously though, Alexander definitely has the best record, if not the most glorious end, and can't really be compared to either of the other two. I really can't say either way between Thawn and Revan. We don't have nearly as much specific evidence of Revan's tactical genius as Thawn's. Alexander did one thing that beats the other two hands down...much of his empire's legacy survived long after his death, and still echos through our world two millenia later...

Here is an interesting factoid... Neverinter Nights is mentioned in one of the Throne of Bhaal load screens... Anyway, I felt that BG Saga was a complete story, and have never really wished for a sequel.

Your just jealous :D Besides, I'd trade cheap video games for a safe, prosperous society like yours anyday. Scandinavia, isn't it?

Flame me if you must, but may favorite FPS games are the Halo Series, Day of Defeat, and the first computer game I ever played, Wolfenstien.

You a big skater, Ghosts? :D

Like many plot elements in this very ambiguous game, they don't tell you, but they imply what happened. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That seems plausible (sp?), thanks Steve.

In my opinion, KOTOR 1 was a complete story. I'd like to see Revan again, but as either a henchman or a NPC. Exile's story was left at a cliff-hanger. I'd like to see them continue his story. By the way, I've only played KOTOR 2 with Revan as a LS, do they explain why the Republic is still around if Revan was DS? How did they survive the starforge-fleet?

Psychologist. ...and the only person my age I know of who posts on starwars forums. :ph34r:

Hopefully this time they will include the DVD in the standard price, cheapskates...