Jump to content
3000AD Forums

Forever Light

Members
  • Content Count

    123
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by Forever Light


  1. Well we cant overlook the fact this is a CNN reported poll. Comparing their polls to others I find the individuals who tend to offer input the most are the ones that dislike him most.

    For example: I work in tech support but people dont call me or even care who I am until they are dis-satisfied with how things are working. Otherwise im just out of the loop.

    Great deal of the people that would have and did vote for him at the time dont bother to give their input and/or just faded back into the woodwork. As far as im concerned the election is over and aching over it wont help anyone look forward.


  2. Hey all, just popping in and couldnt resist dropping my 2 bits.

    I for one am a "Christian". If only because the label was given to people like me since somewhere around ~50 AD by the people of ancient Corinth. (if im not mistaken) I do indeed profess faith in Jesus as my Lord and Savior and have no doubt that God created life on this planet intentionally and with deliberation. "AKA ID"

    However I have no buff whatsoever with Science and the basic logic of adding up proven facts to reach a probable conclusion. Logic is indeed on the side of Truth regardless of what anyone ever has to say... because it is reasonable to say that there is an absolute Truth that exists independant of individual belief.

    There is only one possible flaw with logic. Let us referr to the definition as per:

    www.dictionary.com

    Logic: The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.

    Basically the clinch-pin in logic upon which the whole of science stands is the ability to reason. But more the point... Who's ability to reason exactly? It would be foolish to say that my reasoning ability is upon which much of anything stands for I am a mere human the sphere of influence of which is the size of my tiny community. I just havent seen it all and nor will I ever see it all. And somethings I see I dont have the knowledge or even the wisdom to reason it correctly.

    So, what I do with my limited reasoning is to invest it in someone who's own reasoning surpasses my own....someone of whom is within my own sphere of reliable deductive reasoning. And the only person who fits the bill is the person who never dies and has been around since the beginning...my Lord Jesus Christ.


  3. I lost all respect for EA after they lobotomized westwood.(and others)

    Doesn't suprise me that they are lining up chimps to take dumps in boxes. Although you have to give em credit for feeding the chimps colored confetti so it looks pretty for a little while. But in the end it always stinks.


  4. Perhaps a translation of language is in order

    I am sorry forever light, but I am NOT going to argue the point with you.

    aka: Resistance is Futile

    You can quote the bible all day long, but that will especially NOT move me.

    If you wish to change my mind, which you won't, because I have seen the documentation and proofs, although many are now claiming, Jewish and Christian alike, that it does not exist.

    aka: I cannot change because I choose not too and im telling you so.

    ROFL, it does exist, I have personally seen it.....

    aka: Lookin at a thing in a bag.

    Anyway, the bible, new testament specifically, was written for a purpose, and that purpose was not historical authenticity, but if you look closely at it, the truth is between the lines, no matter how hard they tried to remove some of the more "damaging" information. Also, some if not most of the translations are off, the King James may claim to be the most reliable, but it still has a myriad of mistakes in it, although when most of the passages were edited for content anyway, it makes it REAL hard for it to be reliable in a historical context. Also, some if not most of the translations are off, the King James may claim to be the most reliable, but it still has a myriad of mistakes in it, although when most of the passages were edited for content anyway, it makes it REAL hard for it to be reliable in a historical context.

    aka: The bible has little or no credibility.

    Anyway, as I said, believe what you wish, I just thought that some of you might be interested in the information.

    But do not quote the bible to me please, I have 3 sitting on my bookshelf right now.

    One of them is marked up like a textbook, with notes, passages highlighted etc, so please, I know the bible and what it says, and I look at it in a historical perspective, whereas you are unable to.

    aka: Even thought the bible has little or no credibility it has its uses when it serves my purposes. But no matter the points im trying to make you are too stupid to understand.

    I am not a Christian, used to be, but am no longer, haven't been for over 20 years, and would be unable truthfully to claim to be a Christian again, so I do not bother. Just as I could never claim to be a Muslim, or a buddhist, or any of a myriad of other mainstream religions.

    The closest my religion could be called would be Pagan, and most Christians think that I worship the devil or some other garbage like that.

    Well, considering I don't believe a devil or hell or heaven, or an ALL powerful god exists, it makes it awful hard to guilt me or scare me into believing anything.

    aka: I was a Christian, now not a Christian, you dont scare me, ect.

    So, have a nice day......

    aka: have a nice day

    And the only reason I stated my "religious" beliefs is because I have had a lot of people PM me asking me what it was.

    Pagan is the closest, but then again, it isn't my religion either.

    aka: History is my religion

    So please do not try and convince me of your religion through the bible, try something new and different, because I trust your bible as far as I can throw it, the bible is not historically accurate, nor is it translated accurately, nor are the books, original in their content, they have been HEAVILY edited. That is a personal thing, it has NOTHING to do with what you want to believe.

    aka: Once again the Bible has little or no credibility whatsoever insofar as it serves my purposes.

    Christianity is a great religion, it has a wonderful message, it keeps you moral and happy etc. Wonderul, enjoy.....

    aka: Here is your blue pill Mr. Anderson.

    Perhaps you get my point maybe not. I think you are operating from certain misconceptions Jag. You are operating under the premise that I am "out to get you" or to "convert you" or whatever you would deem a "religious type" to do. There is a fine line between debating for the profit of knowledge and debating for the sake of the hunt. I believe you are in the latter. You are just making noise on the subject that nobody can hear themselves think.

    Here is a bit about me for the sake of sharing.

    I believe Jesus Christ died for me and rose again on the 3rd day.

    I believe that the Bible is the complete infalliable word of God that He composed through the hands of men.

    I believe that all men/women have sinned and are not worthy of the gift of Life God offers us. (Through Jesus)

    I know without a single doubt that I know God in a personal manner that can only be compared to a relationship between a man and a woman. He has proven Himself to me one thousand times over.

    I post this merely to show that I do have a belief and chances are it was something near to what you "thought" I believed. But wether you even understood what you yourself claim to have believed in is another matter we have touched on before. But you have no obligation to reply to this and I hold you to none. Im not calling your out or standing up to fight. "Turn the other cheek" is what I believe.


  5. JOHN Chapter 2 in the King James version of the Bible:

    1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: 2 And both Jesus was called , and his disciples, to the marriage. 3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. 4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. 5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. 6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. 7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. 8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast . And they bare it. 9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, 10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now. 11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

    Perhaps you can see portions of this passage of scripture which I have set in Bold for you to see.

    1) First off there is the first verse where I set bold just the "a". Because the King James Version of the Bible is a word for word translation it is the most accurate. I highlighted the A because it states that the wedding was just A wedding not HIS wedding. The author of this passage is one of Jesus's own disciples why would he referr to it in this manner if it was the marriage of His Lord?

    2) EDIT: I forgot to talk about the portion "Jesus was called" Which in itself is just a confirmation that Jesus was...well called.

    3) You notice I highlighted "They have no wine." Why would Mary come to Jesus if He was the bridgegroom at this wedding and say "They have no wine." when it would more likely be "WE have no more wine."

    4) "Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it." I highlight this for a simple piece of logic. If Jesus was the master of this wedding why on earth would Mary have to make a point to tell the servants to obey their own master??

    5) "Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast" That statement made by Jesus confirms what I already pointed out in #3. Jesus was not in charge at this wedding and had no real significance there except being a guest along with Mary and the rest of His disciples.

    6) "When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom," This portion also confirms that Jesus was not the bridegroom. Why would the master of the feast call too himself the bridegroom instead of Jesus if Jesus was the bridegroom? Remember one of Jesus's own disciples is writing this...why would the author use His name the whole time and then swap to a figure of speech?


  6. Originally posted by Jaguar:

    1: It was indeed Jesus who was getting married.

    He was NOT a guest, he was the host, or he would never have been asked, BY HIS MOTHER!! to resupply the wine.

    Jesus and His mother were invited. The groom of the Jewish Marriages at the time was in no way responsible for providing the "refreshments". That was the responsibility of the Parents of those getting married. When agreeing to resupply the wine He was preventing those hosting the party from being disgraced for not having prepared enough supplies for their guests.

    if he had actually died, why would the apostles wish to have died as well?

    You are forgetting that in the particular city Lazarus dwelled the Jews were seeking to kill Jesus. When Jesus resolved to go despite their intentions the Disciples said; "we might as well go and die along with him". They were speaking about going to die with Jesus, (or so they thought) not dying with Lazarus...of whom was obviously already dead at the time.

    Also, Jesus having his feet annointed, who was that? Mary Magdalene, and who in Jewish tradition anoints a mans feet, but either his betrothed or his wife..... It goes a lot deeper then that of course, because Jesus was indeed the King of the Jews, and Mary Magdalene was indeed the one that did it, which in fact proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was either A: Promised to Jesus, or B: already married to him.

    The bible gives it away totally, and nobody notices, because they NEVER question it.

    You are more correct than you know...but not for what you intend. Jesus is indeed the betrothed of Mary. He is the betrothed of us all. All of mankind has been chosen by Him to be His significant other...and all of the Bible points toward it as you said. So in essence your option A is the correct answer.


  7. Jag, you also should consider that in itself the New Testament itself is not one book but many. The 4 Gospels are 4 different accounts/perspectives of the life of Jesus. The Bible itself is just a binding of many different books of literature. Only time has made them known as "the Bible". And as for glaring examples of inconsistencies I too am interested in hearing some. In some ways I see the inconsistencies as proof the authors are writing the truth. They very well could have made their accounts 100% the same at some point but they chose not to do so. They all four wrote their story and stuck with it.

    And as for faith I find it doubtful that you dont have any faith. Sounds to me like you have faith in a great many things. History for one seems to hold your attention. Although you yourself believe that history can be fabricated as you seem to believe in relation to the Bible...and yet you have great faith in it.


  8. Ok, forgive me...but you are failing to understand where im coming from and what my motivations are for posting. I dont care how you think you found salvation inside scientific knowledge or how Christianity brainwashed you (or tried too) or whatever. Im not looking to you for answers nor do I want any guidance.

    All my involvement is focused upon your claiming to have been a "born again Christian" and saying it lightly as if it were just bad gas. Having gas is a phase. Being born again is like a brain transplant...you are a different person...and its not something you can look back upon and say you have become "unborn again". How you have been wording it is likened to an oxymoron. You cannot be "converted" to a big change in your life. Nor can you have a brain transplant and then change your "mind". It either happened or it didnt.


  9. Whatever trips my trigger is irrelevant. Im just pointing out that your claiming to have been a born again christian is most likely not true. Especially considering the underlying attitude within your usage of the words having been "converted" to being a born again christian but later changing your mind. So I merely meant it as a correction since to be born again is a massive change in your life. However from what you say you merely were converted as if you had converted underwear from boxers to briefs. I just wanted to point out the difference.

    [ 02-28-2004, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: Forever Light ]


  10. Indecent is whatever you wouldnt want your 3 year old son or daughter to see or hear if that makes any sense.

    Im disgusted by much of Television content and living without a TV has just made it that much more obvious to me when I do happen to see some programming at a friends house.

    Just as content can be a mirror of society the content can dictate the society. Although to be honest none of the content suprises me. Sure I dont like much if any of it. But hey, I have the power...and the remote. In my case society and its "content" are exiled from my life. I get enough of my fill of it just reading the news.


  11. In no way would I be sorry to see indecent tv or radio programming to go. Although I seriously doubt anything like that will happen for Cable TV or Sattelite. You'll see a surge in parental controls ect for the internal TV networks but as far as FCC scrutiny that will fall mainly on "public" broadcasts if at all. Anything dubbed family entertainment will be under scrutiny.

    As far as my own taste in televison is concerned I acted upon general logic and stopped watching since there was nothing good on. When I had moved to college I just never bothered getting a TV and now that ive thought about it there isnt much about it that I miss. If there is a movie I like I buy it on DVD to watch with my computer. Ive been remotely considering buying an HDTV and using it like a computer monitor but chances are that wont happen unless my existing monitor dies on me.

    Although if I did miss something about TV that would only be the history channel.


  12. quote:

    Originally posted by Grizzle:

    quote:

    Originally posted by $iLk:

    quote:

    If more people believed in God and Bush, this miserable world would be a better place.

    You are right on one account at least


    On the contrary, if more people placed faith in themselves the world would also be a better place.
    I dunno, last time I checked that was a major reason the world was going down the crapper.

  13. quote:

    Originally posted by Cmdr Chavik:

    Do you play the fan missions or the multiplay thing? I have links.

    No I never got that far into the community to do that stuff. But if any game deserved that attention is this one.

    But this is one of those games that it would be a crime if they dont do the original justice. And considering the tech they have to work with now vs back then...there had better be 40x the detail in the game world than the original


  14. I dont think the government should meddle in many if not most of the things it is today. Gone is the original America of limited government. But such is life I suppose. People cannot solve their own problems these days...they always want a rule for every perceived wrong and government standards abound. I just wish once that I could see the government say to some issue that its none of their business and have no comment.

    As far as exporting jobs...my own job is being exported overseas in a few weeks. I dont want it to happen but in the natural circle of life in the business world its just another natural step. Its sad in several ways really but its to be expected. As jobs like those continue to move out the middle class will dwindle in America. And in theory America becomes a giant corporate head, the nexus of the world, where the nations of the world are the employees. Of course it might be rediculous. But it could happen if allowed to go unchecked...and something tells me it wont be long before someone tries to put a leash on these companies "expanding their global footprint" like mine is.

    They are all lemmings I tell ya. If I were running a company like this tech support call center I would make it a point to advertise we do NOT have call centers overseas. When people call in to have a problem fixed they want to speak to someone in America not someone in India. Before long logic will sink in and they might be able to capitalise on NOT "expanding their global footprint". I havent met a single person over the phone that wanted to speak to someone in Pakistan. In most cases they are extremely grateful I am not.

    [ 02-12-2004, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: Forever Light ]


  15. quote:

    Originally posted by trix9000:

    just being honest....

    I think the graphics look about 3-4 years old and very dated. The various models in the game are rendered with a very low poly count. The planets look very sparse and undetailed. If you look at a game like star wars galaxies, the planetscape is beautiful. In UC there is only like a few types of trees, the ground foliage looks positively awful. The tree trunks on the the tree look like 16x16 textures, scaled down and then placed on the trunks. Basically the planets look very sparse and ugly.

    The space scenes are an improvement but still are not even in the same ballpark or even league of games like homeworld 2 or Eve. The problem with the graphics mostly stems from the poor quality textures, and the general lack of detail. Maybe some static meshes could have been added or something to add some detail. Up close everything looks bad. Like I said these graphics would have been fine like 3 years ago but today they dont really impress.

    Still though cool game overall, just saying my honest opinion please dont flame me for blasphemizing your supreme commander and his team.

    Hmm nice attitude to debut your induction into the BC community.

    Dont forget in this world gameplay trumps graphics. Considering the fact the planets are actual planets hundreds of thousands of square kilometers in size I am suprised even so much as stick trees could be rendered. As for low polycount and whatnot on models I think the minute you get into a huge land or space battle your computer will be begging to end it all and will be grateful for the models not being "bleeding edge" quality. Maybe one day when we all have graphics processors over a terabyte in size we can have the massive details we want so bad with BC titles.

×