I'd love to see that Episode III movie by Daveytod. Sadly MySpleen has no more seeders. I'll put in a seed request, and hopefully it will show up again.
TV's Frink said:
RicOlie_2 said:
TV's Frink said:
Indeed.
If God were to ignore my actions in this world and cast me to hell simply because I didn't worship him...I submit that he/she is a god not worthy of worship.
So you want to worship a God you don't believe in for all eternity rather than be rid of him forever? The first option is what I call heaven, the second is what I call hell.
What you are unintentionally saying is "if God decided that I wouldn't have to worship him for eternity because I didn't worship him on earth, I wouldn't want to worship him."
I'm saying a perfect being does not require worship. Worship is a human invention.
The Bible points out that worship is not for his benefit, but for ours.
Bingowings said:
Warbler said:
Bingowings said:
The position of most Abrahamic religions is that sex is for one thing and one thing only and that is to create children. Theologically it has it's basis in the Mesopotamian myth of the Garden of Eden. Adam and his third wife Eve steals the power of reproduction from God after listening to a talking peni...snake.
Eve was his third wife??? never heard that before. Just who were his first and second wives?
His first wife was Lilith, banished from Eden for not submitting to her husband's demand to be on top during sex, her children were ripped apart by angels. His second wife was destroyed without even gaining a name because Adam was freaked out by seeing her built from scratch in front of him.
God learned from this experience and put Adam to sleep while making Eve from his rib.
Bingowings, you love to play the devil's advocate. As I'm sure you well know, Lilith was not biblical, but part of Jewish folklore and not a universally accepted idea. The story with the third wife idea comes from a pseudeprigriphial book and has even less acceptance. Of course, since you don't even believe in the Bible, it's all just mythology of varied acceptance to you, but to most believers in the Bible, he had only one.
I don't recall typing like that. No, there is no need for rebuttal. We are all hypocrites. We all preach things we don't always perform. In any case, he was being a huge jerk. Yesterday he was really being horrible, and I wanted it to be made clear. If it makes me a jerk to point it out in someone else, well that's too bad for me then. Maybe it's an overreaction, but his behavior is consistent, and it might do him some good to realize that publicly. Maybe I'll change my ways and apologize, and perhaps he is best ignored, but for now, I really feel passionate that he needed a public castigation.
Yeah, my silly mistake. You had yourself properly defended. no worries, I just feel a little dumb. R-2e
It might not have worked out the way I remember. It's been a while. Either way, R-2d
“Let us drive out the Capitalists from the earth, and God from Heaven!”
Soviet slogan, espoused by Josef Stalin
Sorry Leo. I hope I didn't come off as rude. I just thought it was over and making an astute, Olie-esque observation...except in that it wasn't correct :( Sorry bud.
It's all good, bro. I've been awfully busy too. I feel a little rough doing this, but again, this is a good practice game for you and for whoever might be watching. P-2d
I have no problem discussing it in my thread. I'm just very busy. It's been a hectic week. No, there is no such LDS view. Those views were held by the very mortal Orson Scott Card, who is entitled to have opinions as stupid as everyone else's. This is my church's official POV:
http://www.lds.org/topics/same-gender-attraction
Short story: sexual immorality is wrong. We believe sex out of marriage is wrong. We believe sexual activity should be between a man and a woman. While this isn't an issue for me, it's the legislative action against gay marriage that is difficult. While I may personally find it wrong, it's hard for me to believe I can impose that on others. But my church has gone to great lengths to prevent the legalization of gay marriage, a fight I'm sure we will lose. I gave an explanation of why I accept that it is wrong a few pages back. I'll try to find it. Give me a bit.
I suspect Leo is resigning without saying so.
timdiggerm said:
HotRod said:
So priests bang on about homosexuality being a sinful act, yet have no problem molesting young boys.
Fucking hypocrites.
Yes I don't think you'll find too many people who disagree with you there.
I certainly agree that child abuse is about the lowest thing anybody claiming to be human can possibly do. But statements like this are stupid. Not all, not even most, priests molest young boys. Yet HotRod's statement makes it so the acts of a minority represent the whole church, and therefore the whole Catholic priesthood is hypocritical. This is called stereotyping and overgeneralizing. It's the same problem that leads to racism, sexism, Islamophobia, and other stupid bigotry that I'm sure HotRod is opposed to. So instead of making a fool of himself in public by acting the role of hypocrite himself, maybe he should share his "educated" opinions with his real life friends and no one else. It's morons like this that make meaningful discussion impossible.
I must be a nice guy to create all these personalized threads for others.
TV's this is not a debate thread. Go to the politics thread for that. Obviously, many Christians believe it is a sin, so saying that it isn't here doesn't accomplish anything. This is to clarify Catholic beliefs. To debate such beliefs, you should probably do it elsewhere. Heck, I started the abortion debate thread. It might be good to start a homosexual debate thread. Or even a homoarachnosexual thread!
Alright, I won't post pictures all the time. Truthfully, they're more for others' benefit than ours, so they can follow along and get familliar with the game. But not much has happened now, and it's late and I had a long day at work. G-7h
Yes, I feel that the political/social views that are invading this thread are not appropriate. Obviously, many religious people oppose gay marriage. Obviously the reasons why have been addressed before. To say it's wrong and finding an analogy with some other wrong this is not equating it to that other thing.
When I have time I'll try to find where it is in this thread. It has been addressed before. It's a difficult topic for me, personally.
Sorry for not responding sooner. Busy at work, and didn't have time to do all the pic posting and everything. In any case, I can make my next move right now. P-2e. I just can't post any screenshots.
I'm working, so I've only got a minute, but I would suggest in future games you attempt to control the center of the board. Most players make pawn movies that give them control there. The center is where most of your pieces have maximum mobility, where you exert the most influence, where you can cramp your opponent's ability to move while expanding your own. Next game, fight for control of the center. In the real world you can outflank your opponent, but in chess, you have to contend with the edge of the board. Get the center. That's tip #1. Tip #2, think of what squares are now influenced by your opponent every time he moves. If he slides his bishop to a new square, he probably had in mind a subsequent attack. Look at what is now available. And look if he unleashed something else. For instance, sometimes moving one piece makes another piece capable of attack. Look at the position and what new attacks are available to him before you make your next move.
The New York Stock Exchange?
Yeah, the text formatting is weird, and I don't know what to do when it does that. Whenever I copy text of a different color from another site, it changes the whole text and I can't get the right color back. Don't worry about it.
As for your answer, it is very good and thorough. Thank you for the thoughtful reply :)
bkev said:
Don't mind me, just bumpin' the thread.
It wasn't as fun as i'd hoped it would be.
I had fun! Sorry it wasn't as good for you. And I still have no idea what Leo's riddle could possibly mean. Why don't you suggest one, bkev?
I wish to illustrate your game as well, but it took quite a while to illustrate my shogi game. I encourage one of you to do so, or perhaps I will show the whole game after it is finished and offer my two cents. In any case, I have played your game through on my program to this point, and I can then offer some helpful advice to Leonardo for future games, which I hope he will engage in.
Hey great! I was wondering if you were truly interested. I wasn't going to pressure you or anything, but so many I've tried to introduce to this end up flaking out. Okay, let's begin. I don't have much in the way of opening strategy, as my shogi theory is not nearly as advanced as my chess theory (which in itself could use some serious sharpening). But since I have a couple of early ideas, I will go ahead and go first for demonstrative purposes. Note that I am including the Japanese set for those who wish to familiarize themselves with the true appearance of the pieces, as well as a Westernized set (with pieces that change color depending on the owner!) to facilitate understanding of which piece is which and perhaps ease in those who wish to learn to play the game.
Opening board:
First move: P-2f
T'o reveal my amazingly secret opening strategy (which is actually among the most common of openings), I am advancing my pawn, the only pawn protected by the rook during its whole advance. This is often mirrored by the other player, but need not be. As I mentioned before, most pieces are weaker than our chess, and with a larger board, it often takes longer for the action to really start. The opening phase usually involves a lot more defensive posturing, a very important aspect considering the mobility of pieces when the are dropped back into play, later in the game. It's when pieces are exchanged that the game really gets exciting.