Blank

Yeah, I realize that my beliefs are faith-based, so trying to logically argue some points will never make sense to somebody that doesn't believe the same thing.

One thing being the Obsidian forum community!

I do think God offed the first-born children of the Egyptians. I do think that Moses actually parted the Red Sea. I do not think that women are responsible for the fall of humanity. If you read the passage of the fall, there is a key part of a verse that people should notice: (Genesis 3:6)- "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it." So, it looks like he was there with her during that time, and that he chose to eat it too. Even if he was away, he doesn't ask about it, which means he is being ignorant of the only command from God that he received. And even if I thought it was Eve's fault (which I don't), then it would be obviously flawed to blame it on all women other than Eve (as if each woman individually caused the fall of man). As for denomination, I go to an "Evangelical Conservative Baptist" church. It is really irrelevant, as my beliefs (as well as my church's) are primarily based on the bible. Ah, I just remembered your (probable) reason for asking if I believe God offed those kids. The reason might be so that you can say something like, "I don't want to believe in a God that kills little innocent children based on choices their parents make." To this I will respond: I can't change your beliefs. However, I can give you reasons as to why I still believe in this God. Firstly, He is sovreign, meaning he's the ruler of everything, so I believe that when I die, I go to him and my fate is at his fingertips. I also believe that my God is fair, and just, and good. So perhaps God knew what those kids would do if they had lived a whole life, and perhaps he found that they were as guilty as their fathers in it. I don't know what He did about those kids. Do those kids' lives mean anything to you anyway? Are you going to go out and proclaim that the Hebrew God is evil after this because he killed some kids that you think of every blue moon when you talk about religion? I doubt you will. I think that their lives, to you, are simply a part of your intellectual argument against God. If I'm wrong, I apologize for making suppositions, and I would like to know your actual reasons for asking.

Okay, that argument is flawed in those areas. I have to recant that earlier statement that whatever Jesus wasn't is not good. I'm just trying to logically think through my beliefs and represent them to you guys. If I mess up, it is good that you tell me. Thanks. I need to think more now.

Did I disregard large parts of it? No, I am saying that one passage was directly addressing an issue in one church in Corinth many years ago, and that it isn't applicable to my church based on the fact that my church is in a culture that has no divisions when it comes to allowing women liberties whereas it did in Paul's day. For the sake of rebuttal, let's say one was to take this issue (the issue of women in the church), and replace it with homosexuality. Let's pretend that one day, we lived in a society where homosexuality was very commonplace, and there were no problems with it. So let's rewrite what I said in the previous paragraph: "Did I disregard large parts of it? No, I am saying that one passage was directly addressing an issue in one church in Corinth many years ago, and that it isn't applicable to my church based on the fact that my church is in a culture that has no divisions when it comes to allowing homosexuality whereas it did in Paul's day." That paragraph becomes flawed for a few reasons. There are a few different places in the new testament where homosexuality is cited as wrong, so it would indeed be a larger portion of the bible, as opposed to one passage. Also, it would be disregarding the spirit of all the laws in the old testament, and it would bring into greater question God's choice of destroying Sodom and Gomorrah (one of the main reasons of its destruction being the prevalence of homosexuality). Despite all this, let's say I was sure of myself that homosexuality was okay for Christians. The bottom line is that God would judge me when I die. Am I willing to be judged for not silencing women in the church? Hell yes, I am 100% sure that women should be talking in the church, as equally as men. I am forced to "allow" homosexuality to exist anyway, just as we're forced to allow murder on the other side of the world. I can't stop either, but I do classify both as a sin. Murder, I easily concede, is the more egregious of the two, but they both separate a human from God. Jesus was amongst sinners, and he didn't stop them by force (with exception to his driving out of people who were buying and selling in God's holy temple). I am amongst sinners, and I won't stop them just the same. I will try to show them Jesus, I will try to persuade them to change their ways, but first and foremost, I will try to show them Jesus. I see homosexuals as sinners, but I won't stop them. I will try to show them Jesus, just like I would any other non-believer, and I would try to persuade them to change their way, based on the idea that God is glorified through the keeping of his law, which is one thing that separates Christians from the rest of the world (the other is the spreading of the salvation of Christ from our sins, our sins being the absence of adherence to the law). Also, none of the bible is silly to me, as I consider all of it to be there on purpose. Call me dumb, but I have faith in that, and I have faith that the Holy Spirit will help me to interpret it.

True, Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. Therefore, I should focus more on evangalizing to homosexuals as opposed to classifying their mindsets as sinful. Jesus also wasn't homosexual though. In my eyes, Jesus has always been everything good, embodied in a human form. So also using my previous logic, homosexuality at best is not good. That is not to say that anything new after Jesus is wrong, but homosexuality was during Jesus' time, and he didn't practice it.

Unfortunately, we have a church in LaPorte, Colorado that still subscibes to this view. I don't remember that name of the church but it is run by Pete Peters ( Doin' the 'White Thing' ). Interesting character. A White Separatist in addition to his other sins. His wife Cherie ( I think ) adheres to it as well ( cheerfully, I might add ). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's people like Pete Peters that ruin Christianity. For one thing, Jesus was far from beng a white separatist, and Christianity is based on being like Christ. How stupid can people be?

I have an AMD Turion64 processor that is supposedly 1.59 GHz. I have 1 GB of RAM and an ATI Mobility Radion x700 video card. I won't be able to run NWN2 will I? :'(

Haha, I think it's funny when people judge all Christianity based on one church's weird belief system and/or actions. (When I said "funny", I meant "illogical"). If you guys were wondering what passage it was that the church took literally, it would be this one: Is it disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church? No. Did it used to be disgraceful during that day and age? Yes. Paul was writing practical rules to a Middle Eastern people 2000 years ago. Most churches understand that. I really haven't heard of anything like this before now. Paul said some other stuff that certainly doesn't make sense now, but probably totally applied back in his day: That passage doesn't make much sense. "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has a long hair, it is a disgrace to him," No, it doesn't. I mean, what the heck? I have never seen that in nature. Paul probably saw that these issues were causing division in the Corinthian church and therefore addressed them as an ex-Jewish zealot would. I guess I am not a "fundamentalist" if being a fundamentalist means taking things out of context.

Wait, can he say that here?

Is there one tyrannical leader in Africa that can be considered a main source for the millions of deaths?

Good choice, and now for the verse of the day:

Oh gosh, I must've not explained. I went into the cellar and there were some scurrying rodents. They weren't hostile. I walked around some more and looked at stuff. Nothing was worth seeing down there, which is realistic, as a real cellar probably has nothing worth seeing in it. So on my way out I decide that the rats are a good touch to the cellar. I check to see if they can be targeted by the mouse. They could be. So then I attacked one. It died. Totally unrelated to any missions. Some other rats came after me. I smacked each one on the head and they died instantly. NOT a mission or quest. PURELY FOR FUN. The only bad part was that 1 foot long bones flew out of them. So far, the module is as much or more compelling as the OC is.

I wish they were bunnies

I killed those cellar rats for no reason and got some massive criticals that made foot-long bones and 5 pints of blood come out of the small little guys...

As Obsidian's first game, I think they did pretty well with it. And it seems like they knew quite a bit of the SW universe, as did Bioware, but I mean how Obsidian had a miraluka as a party member. I didn't know what a miraluka was before K2.

Yeah, like, you should know Pixies was joking, so to reply to him as if he had actually exploded is surprising. Hence, wow, that is, you really are clueless. I'm just decoding it though, and I might be wrong.

Whoa, take it easy. He meant it in a casual way. He didn't mean to imply that all the modders were guys (which is untrue). No need to blow your lid because he wasn't PC about a casual comment. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How can you be Playable Character about any kind of comment?

Alright, I finished the Shadowguard premium mod today. It was okay. I'm going to be more leniant about NWN and not compare it to something like Oblivion every moment I play it. Considering that NWN is already installed for me, I'll give this mod a try. I'll make a character named Horace, and he'll be a hobbit, and he will kill anyone named Dhothlar.

OKAYZ!

ME ME ME!!!!!!!!!!

Try the new saying! The new saying!

^ This is good news to me. It sounds like Kotor 2 was realeased without that extra buffer period of a few months, and people were mangstxious after seeing the unfinishedness. And yes, I know those words were maded-upped.

I think Neutral was saying that if the tree falls then it moves, so it makes noise, whether someone hears it or not. Of course, as you pointed out, the question has to do with relativity, as in, who hears it, and how does one know it made a noise if nobody heard it. I'll try to modernize the saying though: I stand in one spot for ten minutes, then I move to another spot for 1 minute (during that one minute, nothing changes from when I was in the first spot), then I go back to the original spot. For all practical purposes imaginable, did I ever move? No, because it was as if I was still in the original spot. Nobody was there to record it. In fact, what I tell you of my supposed movement could be a lie. So, did I move or not?

You guys are assuming that her personality is compatible with teh Pixies'. See, she might turn out to be one of those clich