RiverCocytus

Also, some shots are a little too real - I work in Baltimore, and I was thinking how uncannily similar they are to the more run down areas. XD Terrible! I disapprove, too realistic

Impressive. Though, that's a lot of 3d stuff... in SC4 and others they use the isometric view to allow slower computers to still be able to display the great number of objects (in that case, sprites) required to render a city building by building. Original 3-d games were mostly fps, meaning limited range of view and a lot of indoor dungeon like areas and tunnels. What I'd like to see is what the average fps is on different benchmark levels (system configurations) at different settings. How streamlined is the 3d? I can imagine that if the average fps is slow it might make working on building the city complicated. Anyway, those are just my impressions from a cursory scan. I like the way the roads appear to be allowed to be curved, and I take it the zoning can handle placing buildings in unusual shaped spaces. Just dropping by, it has been awhile. Good to see you guys are alive and kicking still

Offhand, I would say that the highway connection is not the problem. IF you have demand R$ will hop on, and then abandon if they can't find work. Also, your Avenues MUST have crossways in order to work. You MUST drag a road across them or they are essentially one-way roads. I've seen such things before, where someone overzones initially. Try laying out the plan but not putting in so many d**n zones. Also, without any kind of amenities, the desirability will remain low, making it hard to attract people. Start a little smaller, and use more roads instead of streets. The streets, unless you're NAM'ed up will have too low of a capacity and transit times will be too long to support much of a population. Ya dig?

Hmm.... It is not for us to know if Adolf Hitler will be in heaven or not. To make that judgement is to insult God's wisdom. Remember the old judge not lest ye be judged? Faith in God manifests it self through, among other things, moral character. "By their fruits shall ye know them." While works are not a prerequisite, those who obey God do his works. As for the homosexuality thing, you know I can't agree with you on it There is a difference between temptation (homosexuality) and sin (fornication). Well, the sin in fornication is not the fornication per se, but disobeying God when he says "Don't fornicate!" So there is nothing sinful about being tempted to do stuff with men. IF you actually do it, just like the unmarried man and woman, its a sin. Don't mean to be a ball-breaker here. But there is a clear difference between the sin and sinner, and between temptation and sin if one is willing to understand. Oh, and, hello. I'm going to be back for awhile. There's good stuff in Matthew 5 about this stuff. I was looking, and Jesus says in the later verses, "IF your right hand..." and "IF your right eye..." (cause you to sin...) Looked up the greek. Seems like he might've been directing the statement at the symbolic meanings (not just the generic, if something makes you sin you must remove it...) But, 'right eye' could be used to metaphorically refer to your best judgement. So, if your best judgement or understanding causes you to sin, you have to cut it off (cast it away) 'right hand' can be a metaphor for a position (rank, office, etc.). So if you're a king, and its causing you to sin, Jesus calls you to resign. (Or however it works for that position.) Indeed, I think there are layers of symbolism there. But the overarching theme is just, do what you have to do to obey God. Something I know that I struggle with, being that you can't always hear Him speaking. Hope you-all have been well!

Ephorex: Judaism, as God intended is the only basis for Christianity. You get the various 'brands' of Judaism all confused, it seems... the Talmud is a different animal; it is discussions of rabbis. It is in a way what God warned the Jews against doing. About the state of Israel 'using' the US; Duh, we use them to. Nations do that... alliances are made for the betterment of the state making it, not for the betterment of the state it is being made to. Nations and groups are not people, nor can they be under current or potentially future circumstances. Therefore, it is not wrong for a nation to pursue its own best interest. Nations will find that making their own best interest not conflict with those of other nations is helpful; but that nation's people must have a say in what the nation's interest is. The Orthodox are not Protestants, Eph. They are the original Christians. Roman Catholic Christianity is something that grew out of Early Christianity but it is not the geniune article. Note that James 5:16 reads "Confess your faults one to antoher and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availaeth much." The word used in greek for 'faults' is DIFFERENT than the word for 'sins'. I would encourage you to investigate this yourself. James is not calling us to confess our sins to a priest, though doing so is not anti-christian. Obviously, doing so falls under the pervue of what James is saying. However, no priest can forgive you of your sins; only the one sinned against can forgive. So while confessing faults to a priest is a very good thing, the priest does not need to tell you that you are forgiven, nor can he forgive you... as for saying hail marys and whatnot, it would avail you more to pray for your brothers and sisters faults, and ask the priest to pray for you. Also, it would do you well to pray for yourself. Again, I'm going to say, Talmud != Torah... Not all jews accept the Talmud. I feel that it was correct earlier in pushing away the topic of Judaism, as you seem to harbor hatred for them. Also 'Original Sin' is incorrect. Original Sin is not in the bible. What you are incorrectly referring to is The Fall of Man. Basically, man seeks knowledge over God. God never talks about 'because of original sin...' God never says it. Ever. He talks about generational curses, and how Israel became a backsliding nation (think of us, the Christians, as the new Israel.) Read carefully Genesis and you will understand the cause of the fall of man. 1. Satan looks for an opportunity 2. Eve is naive, and Satan denies God, and uses Eve's pride as a weapon against her: Genesis 3:5 "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof (referring to the tree) then your eyes shall be opened and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." 3. Eve questions God's motives and ultimately decides that she or the serpent knows better than God. (oops!) 4. Eve finds that the tree is good to eat. 5. Adam puts his wife ahead of God and eats also of the fruit that God said not to eat of. So the fall of man is 1. state of innocence (lack of knowledge of good and evil) 2. led astray by self / demons / others 3. state of knowledge of good and evil, but the knowledge itself is not an antidote to being led astay man obviously has, in coming into knowledge, been led astay. But note, the knowledge itself was not what led man or woman astray... but, perhaps, a lack of knowledge. So now, innocence, because of the presence of Lucifer, cannot be a permenant state; so all men and women fall, and are brought out of innocence into knowledge. And through knowledge they must come to a relationship with Jesus, with God, for the knowledge of this is freely given and there should be no Shibboleth, no false idea that we are required to 'believe' in order to be accepted, nay; it is a relationship with God and not with men that counts us among God's people. So innocence is itself a kind of paradox because of evil. Don't think for a moment you are cursed just because you ARE. Obviously in order to choose God we must come into the knowledge that we have a choice. God doesn't want us to fall, but knows that because of evil we will; for knowledge contains both an understanding of good and of evil. Lack of knowledge leaves one blameless, but also leaves one vulnerable to evil. Remember, just because I criticize Catholicism (the Roman variety) does not mean I don't have criticisms of Protestants of all stripes, the Orthodox, the Jews of all sorts... however, as you are Catholic, I want to make known to you the places in which Catholic doctrine has added to or taken away from the word. Look in Revelation 22: 18-19 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (the last from was added, and was not in the original greek.) I have a reference to Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 Proverbs 30:6 and Galations 1:6, 7 Which also state the same warning. TSOG: The bible does speak of other religions. Its... complicated. When the Jews came into the promised land, they were told not to follow foreign gods (other religions) some of the nations there were utterly destroyed (may have harbored deadly disease or destructive memes) while others were merely driven out. In truth TSOG, (not to sound condescending or prideful) we have done our duty unto you, since the knowledge of God is to be freely known we are to make it available to all as Christians. This knowledge clearly has been made available to you. I would encourage you to come to know Jesus, but I cannot make you. Do not feel that you must join a church to know Jesus; but if you do come to know him you will probably -want- to join a church. Like I said, there is no Shibboleth here. We don't require you to buy into a 'Fiction Absolute' to be 'one of us'. When it comes to church, I would advise against listening to Ephorex. Belief that the Roman Catholic church must be your authority (and not Jesus, who is the Word of God) is dangerous. About 'all religions lead to God' there is some truth in it. For if God is indeed all powerful, then all mankind will have some awareness of his working. But since diversity is the nature of man, every man will walk his own way in trying to understand God. But as I have said, NOT EVERY WAY IS RIGHT. There are right and wrong ways, as some things are essential and others preferential. Some people will be led astray by demons claiming to be God and using signs to trick. Remember that even demons believe in God. Others will try to seek him in knowing a craft, or will use him as a tool to manipulate others. This is one reason why God hates foreign gods, idols; they are manipulations used by men or demons to lead others astray and to make false the Word. Because there is one truth, one reality, we MUST note that religions in general have two issues: 1. They believe things that conflict internally 2. They believe things that conflict with other religions beliefs Not all of these are substantive; there will be disagreement on 'rules' and 'regulations' and superficial things. They are, for the most part, beside the point. But if relgions disagree (and they do) on fundamentals, then someone has to be wrong. In other words, if you accept that there is one reality, then some things are true and others false. (There are things which are neither, but they are not important in this, other than to note that there are things which fall into that category.) So if you say ALL religions are correct then you are walking in the direction of not believing in one reality. Note that even a pagan religion could say things that are true. This is why many people are drawn into these other religions. Whenever anyone says 'God is Good' -- he tells the truth! God IS good. But if that religion says, for instance, that there is more than ONE God, then what is said is false. Clearly, there is either ONLY ONE GOD or there is MANY GODS. Jehovah does not allow that there are other gods. So if you believe that all religions are correct (in fullness) then you deny the words of God (Jehovah, Yahweh, Elohim... whichever of His names you wish to use.) Still, like I said, if Zen tells us that it is important to be able to unlearn things, what it says is true, even if other things it has said are false.. There is a spiritual gift called 'The discernment of Spirits'. One of my issues with many Protestants is they reject knowledge that may aid them because they would have to discern spirits to find that truth and to divide the error from the correct. Often their response is 'X is evil, and wrong, and false!' EVEN if X has taught some truth. If we discern spirits, then we know which of the things that X is telling us is true and which is false. How do we know the truth of something? "By their fruits shall ye know them." That's one way. If someone is spreading poison, and harm and hurt, then something that they believe is false. It is juvenile to immediately assume that EVERYTHING they believe is false. Each spirit needs be tested. So, TSOG, I hope that helps you understand Jesus a little better. If you have a specific question please ask me or anyone else here, as you have been doing. I greet you in God's love, be well.

Ephorex: I would be careful with Catholic teaching on these things. It has been known in the past to be both bigoted and destructive. You are correct, Jesus says that no-one comes to salvation except through him (The Son of God, The Messiah) I know many Jews who do not hate Jesus. Hating Jesus seems to be more common in cults (whether they are christian-ish ones or not) and among the more radical adherents to Islam. Its not uncommon to read them mocking the fact that we as Christians believe his words in saying that he is the path to salvation. In this way I want to point out that hating Jesus may have been something that (for instance) the Pharisaic variety of Judaism did, but, like Christianity there are many varieties (some good, some bad, some true, some false...) and among them there are diverse opinions on Jesus and his role. Messianic Jews for instance, are Jews who accept Jesus' words from the Gospels and New Testament writings. (They are Christians.) Judaism is the only basis for Christianity. There is no other basis. Not greek philosophy, or philosophy of any kind; nor buddhism, rationalism, atheism, agnosticism, spiritism, and so and so forth. The Jehovah of the Torah is the same Jehovah who is and was and will be Jesus Christ, the Triinity, One God in three persons. While you are correct in noting they are not the same religion; as Judaism is in many ways a Religion and a result of the Old Covenant, (and not acknowledging of the New) All three persons of God (Elohim -- a plural representing the one God) were present in the old testament. God's forgiving nature can be seen in Isaiah and other of the prophets' writings-- and the Son appears in many of the visions and other biblical accounts of the supernatural. In fact, were a Jew to take full account of the writings of old testament, it is likely that he would conclude that Jesus fulfills the prophecy of the Messiah in Isaiah. Naturally there are reasons to know all of these writings and yet reject Jesus. (many are selfish.) Again, I want to reinforce that I agree with skigeek here, your generalization is rash. Be cautious of the writings of Church tradition; for they may constitute divine inspiration or may not, and leastaways are not doctrinal in nature. All writings display some amount of error, which is something we need to be aware of where it exists, but there is a difference between flawed and departing from the word. The Apocrypha, which the Catholics have included in their Bible (which has been corrupted by translating with the help of the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinacticus [er, sp is prolly wrong there.]), are an example of texts that were discarded not to the dust heap, but as doctrinal as it was agreed among believers during the times of the gathering of the Canon that they were not doctrinal. Consider them at the level you would consider The Purpose Driven Life, for instance. They are in fact derivative. (not to say they cannot be useful.) Judeo-Christian is 100% correct; the Word itself is thus; first Jewish teaching, and then Christian teaching; the inspired, infallible word of God in a flawed but effective vessel. Some say the KJV is the closest to being unflawed, but even it has its problems. 'Judeo-Christian' however, is also a way of expressing solidarity with the Jews as we worship the same God, Jehovah. To some it comes as an indication of solidarity with Israel, which they seem to have developed a hatred for. I don't believe that this is the case, BUT, it may in fact signal a healing and forgiveness growing between the Jews and Christians. This doesn't mean we accept each others' religions as truth, but that we forgive the crap we did to each other (though most of the big crap has come onto the Jews, no doubt.) and acknowledge each other as the creation of a single, Holy God. Forgiveness is something that you keep doing until you forget, I think. Reminds you of what happened so you don't run into that problem again, but also puts you in right relationship with that other person, and in that way, with God. Erg, well, I've finished backing up my Joomla! install, so I have to get back to work. I hope that you understand my point, Ephorex. It is my wish that you would see that the Pope, while being no doubt annointed of God, is not the infallible leader of the Church. By making himself infallible (or at least nominally) he puts himself in the position of Jesus. If in the function of pope whatever he says is infallible, then he is the ACTING WORD OF GOD. This is not scriptural by any stretch of the imagination; even with the wavering support of "On this rock I build my church." I greet you in the Holy Spirit; be excellent to one another and do righteousness. (Sounds kind of like something out of Bill & Ted... ) Keep up the discussion!

Well, the idea is, that each human soul is immortal; but the body is temporal. Some make the mistake to think this implies a dualism; I.E; the soul is 'real' or 'perfect' which is opposed by the body being 'false' or 'flawed' but the reality is, that belief is destructive. The whole point of the resurrection of the dead is that we need a body. Without a body we are not whole... this is how God has created us. Why this is may or may not ever be within the purview of human knowledge. About the soul; what I think (though I have not looked it up recently) from my reading is that each soul is a unique idea in the mind of immortal GOD, made real through creation. Well, that's kind of an imperfect explanation, but I'll work with it for now. Ps. 139: "For I am fearfully and wonderfully made" Also, I think ps. 22 speaks of God knowing all of his internal 'structure' before he was even born, or 'knitted together in the womb'. I disagree about predestination still; from reading I can find no scriptural precedent for the idea that some people are predestined for heaven and others for hell; and nothing they do will change it. God gives us all choices (though he knows which ones we will make) because our choice of Him instead of the evil one glorifies Him. An important part, a special difference between Christianity (the Way) and religion is that Christianity is a relationship between you and God, not a set of rituals or works or buildings or even ideas. Do not misunderstand "I believe". We think, "I believe" in terms of, "I am completely certain of". This is correct, but there is more to it than matters of reason, or matters of intuition, or simply of assumption. When a Christian says "I believe" in reference to their Faith, they do not mean their complete certainty is based on intuition, assumption or reason. In fact, none of those things suffice. Moganite, you talk of 'proving' in a sense of reason, the existance of God. Were you to succeed you would be in no better a situation than any other human. Imagine this: There's this critter called the Jackalope. As far as you are concerned, the Jackalope is imaginary at best, and really is unprovable. There are people who believe in him, and those who don't. But then there are people who have met the Jackalope. However, to someone still wrestling with the question of whether the Jackalope's existance is even provable, the difference between "I am certain there is a Jackalope" and "I have met the Jackalope" is minor. But to those two groups, the difference is a yawning chasm. Once you have met Jesus, there is no doubt that God exists; for you have met him yourself. Obviously, this is not necessarily a physical meeting; though some people (such as Constatine, Paul, etc) did have a visual or very visceral meeting with Christ. Just as a real relationship between man and woman is the becoming of 'one flesh' in this sense, the joining of man to Christ is the becoming of one; Christ is yours and you are Christ's. I think John says (can't remember the verse) He who has the Son has life, he who does not have the Son does not have life. So the meeting of Christ in your heart or perhaps even through a vision, a feeling, through reading the bible 11 times, or even through coming to understand goodness through life experience, is just the beginning of the relationship, and the joining of yourself to Christ. He says it himself: "Come." He's knocking... will you answer?

well, I don't believe in 'sexuality'... anyway, so yeah, its pretty transient. In other words, be careful what you do to yourself. (Or what you let other people do to you...!) The older you get, the more incorrigible you get. I wouldn't say we're all bisexual, nor would I even say we're all sexual... we just.. are. A combination of experiences, genetics, environments... make us who we are. From when you were born to where you are now, there are millions of experiences that happened to you-- and the time they happened to you from your birth is measured over the real numbers; that is, uncountablly infinite... more or less, there are an infinite number of permutations for mankind. So, I don't see a need to celebrate diversity... or even encourage it. Based on the nature of things, uniformity is what's odd. But you won't see me celebrating uniformity either... I've got too much to do in my short trip here to celebrate everything that comes my way. And I don't know about a 'gaydar' but Simen never struck me as gay. So, I'd give that a no. Whether it worries you or not, simen, has nothing to do with the truth of it. You're still young, and are trying to figure things out. So, don't invest yourself too heavily in fears or ideals. Of course, I had a crush on a girl in kindergarten...

Eheheh jglei701; don't give us -too- many details TSOG: Well, if you love goodness, than I will have no quarrel with you about God. You don't need to believe in him for him to exist; even if I went apostate tommorow God would still exist. If in your life you show the fruit of the spirit; peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, self-control; then God already works within you. In a sense that is what Christianity is about: Emmanuel; which means: God with us. The key thing to remember about descriptors in the Bible (at least IMO) is that they are holistic; meaning when you say God is Good, you mean more than just, read the definition of good, and that is God. You also mean, good is defined by God, and God is himself goodness. (Or that is, since God is I Am That I Am, then one of the things that He Is, is goodness.) There's a circularity to this that is both (I think) correct and natural. Though I might change my mind on that last part.

Well, it could be accounted for (in the animals) as diversionary or otherwise activity. Like they pointed out, bonding rituals. Of course, what sex and sexuality are to animals may be very different than what they are to us. But the key thing, that might have not been mentioned is, while they do engage in homosexual behavior, they still reproduce heterosexually. So, even with homosexual activity there is still heterosexual reproduction. In some animal social groups, only one male gets to reproduce (or one or few females.) so, in that case, it might not be strange to see homosexual behavior. In fact, China, because of their 1-child policy combined with favoritism towards male babies, is creating a wide rift in the numbers of males and females... not too oddly, homosexual behavior has increased in China. I'd like to find the article I read it in, but I don't have time right now (maybe later.) While I don't buy the Freudian idea of sexuality being this pent up energy that needs to be released, there is -some- truth to it nontheless. Edit: 500 posts... I pity the fool! I'll find the article later (if you don't find it first...) and link it.

I would disagree if you're implying reincarnation, but I would agree if you mean general human knowledge. In a sense; with humanity an new organism (or new organisms) came into being; societies. Animals do have this to some extent, but the rate at which animals' societies or social groups in general evolve is hindered by their lack of abstract language (or at least that we know.) So here we are, somewhere in the middle of the whole thing (like a semester in college..) of course, we only get one semester. So during that semester, we have to make sure the next guys are ready for their semester, otherwise, its like starting all over again. And well, in my view, life outside of civilization being what it is, brutish and short; its important that we don't hang on too tightly to the stuff we have right now, because we're going to have to give it to the next generation (whether willingly, or as it is pryed from our cold, dead hands.) God helps us along by reminding us that all of it is His, and we're only borrowing it. So, when you work the vineyard, remember that you don't own the plot of land you work... Ok. here's something awesome. Going way, way way back in the day, ladies and gentlemen, may I humbly present to you, in full motion video, Milton Friedman! MY favorite part; him arguing that the inefficiency of government is a GOOD thing. Well, why, I'll leave it to you to watch the vidde. But; he's one of my intellectual heroes.

Wahahah, that is great; The celtic cross is my favorite highway interchange. Though, I would wonder how easy it is to check the physics on that model? I'm guessing sketchup does the modeling but not physics testing? Anyway, very, very cool. I'd bet you could get paid very handsomely for this kind of thing ( though I'd bet you already are) I'll try my hand at it using my light stylus one of these days...

Hmm.. That indeed makes me very sad, TSOG. What that means to me, is that I have failed to bring Christ to you. But I am able to accept that God has a plan in all of this, and just let Him roll with it I think part of the idea, TSOG, of predestination, is that some people are just not going to believe. Circumstances and predispositions will act to prevent them from coming to Christ. In this way, they might as well have been predestined. The thing about the notion of a 'priviledged class of believers' is, like the saints have said, we don't know if we are one of the elect or not, really. We have faith that we are, but understanding by faith and having material proof of are different things. My feeling is that the enemy has a stronghold in you, TSOG, that prevents you from accepting God's grace. That's your biz'ness, not mine, though. We all have them, even if they be as a great as to make us apostates, or as small as to make us unable to accept God's working in the minutest of things... Paul prayed for God to remove his 'thorn' (which some think may have been his poor eyesight) but God refused in reply, saying: "My Grace is sufficient for you." What was intended or what might have been for Paul's detriment God was using to make him stronger. "We are perfect in our weakness"? Beware the gospel of prosperity, or health; for Christianity is not really about -this- world, but about the next. He who lives in poverty and illness is no less saved than he who does not simply by merit of his conditions. Sure, its not as though God does not heal or prosper people; but he does so in his OWN will and for his OWN reason. I've been playing organ at a Christian Science church, and while they are nice people, they have messed up the bible a good bit. Besides, they have become caught up in a book someone wrote ABOUT the bible more than the bible itself. No offense to Christian Scientists who might read this, but I think this is both important and true.

Well, it contributes to my general theory of the world being Hobbesian: Life is rough, brutish and short. Remember, just because animals kill each other in contests for mating, eat their young, their mates or their parents, kill for sport, (the Kestral does this) abandon their young... etc... doesn't make those either 1.new things that revolutionize our understanding of evolution (even though they may effect a species ability to survive) or 2. contain any meaning at all to humans who might engage in the same behaviors animals. do. I mean, there are also very strongly monogomous animals (birds are often a good example..) My point is, there is no underlying 'truth' about 'queerness' to be discovered from the myriad of animal-cultures (or behavior sets). Like I said eariler, many human cultures in the past (some that still exist) have rituals and cultural memes similar to some of the things that those animals were displaying. But again... nothing particularly new there... Just because we think its 'natural' doesn't make it beneficial. That's the mistake that the biologist is making, in my opinion. Indeed, both the question and the answers about why animals engage in homosexual acts lies deeper than that I think. Or perhaps, much, much shallower. Possibly, instead of talking about the issue of homosexuality as what it is- homosexuality, are we going to say "Animals do it!" and leave it at that? I'm more and more convinced that Kinsey was right about some things... --- Simen: sorry to hear that. I'm hoping you didn't pull and RC and total bollox up asking her out or at very least getting her number? That sounds like something I would do. Don'y be an RC! Eh, I had a 100 different crushes (though I'll admit I probably didn't know any of them as well as you knew her) and approximately 0 of them ever happened... but that was only due to stupid choices on my part, and nothing else. Maybe you should hunt her down and get her number if you miss her that badly erm, anyway, breakfast and all.

Hmm. Sup, yo. Wow, same questions still rollin' around. I'm back, with a spiffy new avatar (I just drew it up tonight.) Really, I don't see the point in arguing about God. People either believe something or they don't; you can't MAKE them believe something one way or another. You can only lead them to the water. Belief in something no matter how intense does not make it either false or real. Without a notion of objective truth you lose the targetted drive of technology and science; belief in a single real, true reality is substance of science; how can you expect your questions to give predictable answers if the answers would be different to different people? No progress could be made. The problem I have with the argument, Mogan, is that if God, is, as he says "I Am That I Am" then to you, he IS that thing which ignores the uncertainty principle. We'll find a way around it, someday. Sure, it might never be disproven, simply because it is part of a fundamental part of the universe. But we'll find a way around it if we need to. About God predestining things, my problem with that is that the virtue of God's creation is not exemplified if it does not show itself to be good. If God has already chosen everything and all paths, then its just a clockwork universe, devoid of real choice or freedom. (Well, that's an ad infinitum, I'll admit...) In my view, (and at least, Aristotle supports me in this...) good is not good unless it is voluntary. How is God, then, glorified? I still believe in predestination, in the sense that, God knows what choices you will make (as he is all knowing.) He plans for everything, I think, and so therefore evil is allowed, merely that it shall be turned to good for those who love God. In this way, in being foiled, even Satan cannot help but glorify the Lord. Though he resists it, and desires all of our destruction, God has already won the war. If God -is- all knowing, then he need not PREDESTINE anything. like the master tic-tac-toe computer (though much holier ) he knows all of the moves. Imagine what it takes for a computer to know all the moves in Chess... or Go. Now remove the discrete units of time and distance... and such is the mind of God; uncountably infinite. (In mathematics, the whole numbers are called 'countably infinite' as you can select an interval that is wholly countable. The Real Numbers are uncountably infinite, as any segment of the real numbers you select is also infinite.) Granted, since God IS all powerful, he can predestine anything he wants to. So the real answer I think is that WE DON'T KNOW. Is that such a hard one? I don't think so. The thing is, nobody knows or fathoms the mind or the depth of the wisdom of God. I think that the fact that this is unexplainable becomes a hurdle to some. Interestingly, Catholics (I believe) take some time to meditate on the mysteries that are not understandable... very zen ---- The problem I'm having right now is that I fully believe that people do not desire to take responsibilty to do the hard and nasty work that it takes to preserve the freedoms we've gained in this mere mote in the eye of time-- a short 200 years -- which could be gone in an instant. Not all folks, but there are many. Some think it is their responsibility as an elite to 'protect' the masses, or some such (a usual human malady.) Indeed, were it to slip from our hands, we might lose all of our collected knowledge, like the Library of Alexandria burning; and who knows where we would have to start from as a species? If you hold to carbon-records, humankind has been around for about 250,000 years. I don't necessarily know or hold this to be absolute, but if we -do-, 200 years seems very, very short and small. Even against the 6000 it seems pretty short. Anyway, my point (though rambling) is that efforts made by past people, all of whom were human and flawed, but yet able to rise above just enough, or to be responsible just enough that you or I might have the chance to sit here and stare at LCDs or CRTs and type on our sleek keyboards, and communicate across the world to one another. I for one want to know their struggles and why they succeeded. I also want to know who failed and why. It won't be perfect, but I think that it beats not knowing. If we lose our history we lose who we are. I would tend to focus on the positive, as History is among other things a Lesson. Of course to that end you need to notice the negatives as well; but the outlook as a whole ought to be realistic, showing what strategies worked and what didn't. We lose our ability to evolve the general human understanding if we disconnect ourselves from it. Indeed, to that end, we must also be capable of filtering out (and this is not something someone else can do for you, folks... sorry gov't...) meaningless, or useless facts, or even, lies and deceptions. This is the measure of critical thinking; it is only as good as the goal which it is employed to attain. If you have no goal in learning history you might as well just close the book now, because hitting your head against the words gives you less exercise than running a mile. Keep in mind, though-- I don't claim to know or necessarily be CAPABLE of knowing the entire truth. So I can't tell you just off the bat whether or not you ought to study the Civil War (The War Between the States...) or the Feminist Movement. Again my rambling point is that HISTORY IS CRITICAL. Unfortunately, if you believe that each person has their own reality and there is no concrete one reality that we each percieve through a mirror darkly, or to borrow another, as shadows on the wall of a cave-- you become capable of dismissing history in its entirety. Again, not that you would, as it is kind of ad infinitum, but that you could. Like Hume, you could argue away everything. Where does that leave you? Anyway, that was a decidedly not so particularly Christian deviation from the topic at hand. --- Just wanted you all to know, Bros and Sisses, that my parents are getting a divorce. Thankfully, they've worked something out so that they can seperate (instead of my father draggin the whole thing out for an eternity.) It was a tough one, but God makes all things that are meant for evil work for the good of those who love Him. In truth, it has helped me understand my troubles when I was younger, and understand my mother's struggles (as well as my father's.) It also made me understand the bedrock solid importance of intimacy in a marriage. If full intimacy is never possible, then the marriage dead-ends. My father lacks the capacity (perhaps willfully so) to really relate to anyone in an equal fashion. Were it he instead of I arguing here he would have called you all something unmentionable and left after the first post. I do my best to try to listen to, learn from, and also refute and tinker with other people's arguments. My goal is that we all should learn something from our fights -- for people who fight well are brought closer together. Those who fight bitterly, ruthlessly and without principle will find reconciliation a harder task, in my experience. But always know that just because your enemy is a man, and feels as a man does, and bleeds as a man does, does not make him any less your enemy. This is something I've also learned. I don't exepct you to agree, but I wanted to share it because I believe it to be true. In the end, of course, all of our logic and refutation lies on the foundation of what we believe to be true... Not going anywhere with that. Though you could also argue that as well. ---- Long posts are fun. They take an hour to write at least... oh! Gotta get back to my Flash programming. Toodles, doodles. Edit: Here is the full picture, just in case you wondered what was up with the stuff next to my head. I know the coloring is a bit weird... I like it though And that is actually a fairly good caricature of me.

Hmm... there's a wierd article I found, ah yeah, on my favorite Blog (or one of...) Futurismic. I think its mostly bull, but I submit it nonetheless for your pereusal. Link! I think we've known about the homosexual behaviors of aminals for ages. In fact, in many human societies in the past similar homosexual rituals and whatnot were not uncommon. So it either supports your theory that nature is naturally harmonious or gives the Hobbesian inside you a shot of Coca Cola Blak. My Hobbesian didn't need the Blak, but he did ask for a double shot of peaberry espresso... Well, Shockwave Flash beckons, youse. Enjoy the article.

Check this out! Some awesome looking skyscrapers coming around (look along the bottom bar.) Can't wait to see some of these as bats Read the articles too, cool stuff.

Hmm, I can load tiles, but the ones with mountains in them cause the game to crash. I'll show you a pic tommorow, I'm going to bed. But I am able to load some of the tiles that I've terraformed.

Yes! I so want to make realistic or historical accurate cartographic maps for my regions. Sounds spiffy! Edit: I don't have a mousewheel, so I didn't even bother looking at what it did... but I missed the ctrl+click for zoom. I guess after I got it running I did what I usually do, and just used it as reference. Wog: That's what mine looks like. Looked right as per SC4Terraformer, but not as per SC4. But, okay, that lets me know that it is working properly. I have 1 gig ram (hopefully will have more soon...) so that helps things a bit, so does the 256mb ram in the video card.

I've used the tool on a 40x40 config size region and while it takes a while to load 100 cities, (all large) and save them as well, the editing works. Its just sluggish all the time. It is very usable still, and I managed to mass-edit my whole region. I didn't notice the cutoff, but I didn't see any way to change the camera angle... (is there?) didn't seem like a good idea for a large region anyway considering the number of polys. The image I saw in Region census was a little wacked though, But I'm assuming that it is a result of how it saves the image for each city.