Messages

yeah i probably will. I just wanted to get some feedback from the users here first to see if it was worthy of being submitted into the database.

Definitely! Even I have a game on there(!) and there's much worse than yours I can assure you.

Mr Matti:

I'm not saying I disagree with everything you have said but I can't accept two things.

1. Lionmonkey's question was not stupid. If you asked me to think of the "least religious countries" then I would think first of communist ones and I do not see why anyone would expect these would be excluded from any group of "least religious countries".

2. There was ambiguity on the political parties point, Khris said he was talking about social democracies, which sounded like he was suggesting these were the the ones with the lowest crime rate and best living standards just by the fact of them being social democracies. Since that time Khris has cleared this up but the initial misunderstanding seems reasonable to me.

I am not suggesting that either you or Khris are wrong in this argument, but you must recognise that the argument has changed, perhaps not from how it was meant but from how it was stated. i.e. "lower crime rate" becoming "safer", and "crime" itself going from the general to the specific and I think it may be for this reason that Misj did not initially address it properly.

Dear Moving Thread

We've not met before but I thought I would introduce myself.

Without wishing to jump on the same bandwagon as everyone else I too am having trouble with my current game project. Basically I have very little time to put into it and it's not really come on that far in the last 4 months (3 mostly finished backgrounds and 3 half finished characters). Also seeing as I have roughly zero natural talent as an artist, even though I spend hours and hours on a background or a character it still looks ... well ... rubbish. I try to reassure myself that graphics aren't everything but deep down I know that they have to be reasonable, at least in proportion to the amount of time I spend on it.

Also the mountain of work there is to do on it just puts me off even starting when I do have time, which seems to be less and less often recently given the stress and hassle I have been having from work. I haven't started a GIP thread as I seriously doubt if it will ever be finished.

Anyway, thanks for your time as I know you are busy.

Mike.

Enjoying the game so far but have found a bug.

I have just...

Spoiler

solved the book case puzzle with the note from the drawer upstairs and got a "ker-chink" noise or something (couldn't work out what it opened though).

[close]

...Then I went down to the beach, the game crashed and I got this error

Code: ags

In "room2.asc", line 79
Error: FaceCharacter: characters are in different rooms

Personally I would always go for .ogg unless you are recording live music or something where the quality was paramount. At the end of the day it will be compressed down for a game and if it is synthesized music (i.e. not real recorded instruments) you won't lose much with ogg.

EDIT: Looks like Phemar beat me to it!

[Next:]

Next: "...and if one green bottle should accidentally fall..."

For me that is a MAJOR pulling factor because:

1. Big broken sword fan.

2. Love Jane Jensen & therefore very interested in seeing Gray Matter displayed.

3. Liked So Blonde (for the most part) and interested to hear more.

That's funny, just the other day I came across an old copy of The Forest of Doom at my parents house, which brought back a few memories! Not strictly a CYOA I know but similar.

I could never be bothered with the dice rolling etc. but the arbitrary deaths and seeing-how-many-fingers-I-could-have-in-different-pages-in-case-I-went-wrong cheating came flooding back!

In fact, on this very subject, check out
this thread over on Adventure Gamers.

[Be quiet]

For me Be quiet was the better of the two sci-fi ones in that it was more consistent whilst the mission was a little bit all over the place.

A Hero's Tale gets my vote for the parodies, less obviously amusing but more interesting and overall better.

That Sierra logo looks brilliant!

Or if not how about Gabriel Knight's Schatenjager talisman?

(apologies for double post)

Well then you get into the wondering what God's plan was for 2 people in a garden. Would man eventually have built... cities?

If God had a plan for 2 people in a garden then that plan was changed which raises more questions about the fallibility of an omnipotent presence and his ability to plan.

Gods plan for 2 people in a garden:

Genesis 1:28

..."Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

i.e. expand, explore, innovate, be creative. Sounds OK to me and I don't see why this would stop us building cities. In fact it sounds a little bit like what we have done (not all good things of course but we have done the things mentioned above) and therefore in respect of that, what change of plan?

Also, I don't know about set up to fail but given the opportunity to fail - certainly.

[HAD]

I was actually referring to 2:7 where god forms man out of dust before he creates the garden, puts man into it and proceeds to make the animals and Eve.

Khris, did you go on to read 2:8? In 2:7 we hear about God creating man and giving him life. Then in 2:8 he put man in the Garden he HAD created

Here's a direct, unaltered quote of 2:19 from NIV (reportedly the most widely used English version of the bible):

Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them:...

The chapters are consistent, including your quote (which I assume is 2:19 from another translation) as even there the creation of the animals is past tense and it does not say that Adam was created first, merely that after they were created they were brought to Adam. Chapter 1 tells us they were created first.

You will note that Chapter 1 deals with creation of the world and chapter 2 (from verse four onwards at least) is concerned particularly with Adam and Eve.

Also, I was writing "We're talking about the inspired word of god here, describing how the universe came into existence, right?" to suggest that it seems a little odd that the god-inspired people who wrote this can't decide on one order and leave in the blatantly contradicting parts when describing a very important issue like the creation of the universe. Not really the universe even, rather just earth. A distinction between night and day doesn't really make sense with regard to a universe.

Also, in my opinion the Genesis account is exactly what I would expect people from the stone age to explain how the earth, humans and the rest got here.
It's not what I would expect from an omnipotent god. Why did he use dust to form man? Why not poof him into existence? And why doesn't the bible contain any information that said stone age tribesmen couldn't have?
Makes you wonder.

As above there is no decision on one order or the other, I do not accept there are contradictions here.

I do say there are contradictions in your posts though. You first said that chapter two said God created Man, then the Woman from his rib and then the animals and now you have said that it was Adam, the animals and then Eve.

Also, as previously stated this is not a "scientific manual" which is focused on the practical methods used for the creation of the earth as it is "skimmed over" in one chapter (effectively). It is primarily about Man and God. Therefore there is no use trying to read it as something it isn't.

Furthermore, I'm sorry if you think I was insulting your intelligence, I honestly didn't mean to. I did disagree with what you said concerning the first two chapters of Genesis and tried to put that to you in a non-insulting way. If I did insult you I apologise as I know you would never be insulting yourself if you disagreed with someone...!

Ultra Magnus:

1. As to Tommy, I honestly don't know.

2. Jealousy. I spent a lot of time thinking about and looking into this as it initially seemed to me like a bad thing on God's part which wouldn't appear to accord with the Bible saying he is good.

Firstly, some jealousy is good. For instance I (and most men I would assume) don't want anyone else to sleep with my wife. This is a jealous love that I have for my wife. It doesn't mean that I won't let her talk to another man or anything like that, that would be bad jealousy of course, but I am jealous of that part of our relationship because we promised each other when we married we would be faithful to each other and I don't want anyone else getting involved!

Secondly God is actually worthy of unquestioning loyal devition/praise/worship whatever you want to call it. This was a hard concept to grasp for me because I have never met anyone else who is(!) and that made it seem arrogant to me. However it's not arrogance if it's true and only in this one case it is.

However, God does not need the "ego-stroking" from us and what's more he doesn't get it! I would love to say that I am unquestioningly loyal to God (as a christian) but I know, from my own experience that I am not, no matter what my intentions are.

MrColossal:

I don't see why (taking your pre-suppositions of course) the disobedience would mean we would not be here, or that we would not be creative, intelligent and all the other things that we can be. On the contrary, it seems to me that if we (man) had not been thrown out of the garden of eden, (pre-suppositions again), things might be a lot better!

I was staying out of this, but that sounds suspiciously like a protection racket to me.
"These rules are for your own good, because if you follow them I won't kill you."

Yeah, I see where you're coming from with that but the rules were/are honestly for Man's own good rather than some kind of attempt at extortion or something. Man has nothing that God needs.

In fact, when Adam & Eve were turfed out of the garden of eden they were provided with clothes by God as he still cared and the rejection was not on his side.

Actually it was the serpent who said that as a way of tempting Eve. (Genesis 3:4-5 if you're interested and Gen 2:16-17 for what God said about it).

Later on it does say that their eyes were opened to the fact they were naked (paraphrase) but this is to do with hostility between man and God and between man and (wo)man and not that they were previously unable to tell right from wrong. On the contrary, they had been specifically told that it was a wrong thing to do and clearly understood this as when the serpent tempted Eve ("eat...") she said "we're not allowed" (paraphrase!).

It must just be a publicity thing, anyone incorporating a "?" into their name must just be looking for attention.

However, if it was me I don't think i'd draw attention to the fact I was so over funded that this was the sort of research I was doing!

I suppose this thread is well past the impersonal now but it is fascinating to see the different perspectives of the different beliefs.

God doesn't give man the ability of rational thought ("no sense of right or wrong" = inability to tell whether you should or shouldn't do something) -

No, God commands man not to eat from one of the many trees in the garden, offering a chance to disobey him and therefore free will.

God makes up totally arbitrary rule about what man mustn't do

In a way I suppose it was arbitrary as I doubt the fruit was "magical" in some way itself. But (as above) it gave free will.

God allows man to be talked into breaking said totally arbitrary rule

Free will again.

God scolds man for not performing the physically impossible act of resisting

In a garden full of many trees it is physically impossible to not eat from one of them? I couldn't agree with that myself.

God condemns man to a life of toil and struggle, followed by an eternity of torture

As previously warned, eat of this tree and you will surely die. You can choose your own path but it won't end pretty.

God takes a little pity and tells man that maybe they can avoid the eternity of tortue if they follow a more complicated set of rules, some of which aren't less arbitrary than the original one -
God goes "alright, fine" and, in a convulted and misunderstandable way, lets people know that they can drop the less arbitrary rules, and that as long as they keep up the deific noncompetition clause, they may avoid the eternal torture part

God, who has given man everything, life, food, health etc. and gives rules for their own good (...or you will surely die) is rejected by man. This happens constantly again and again & worse and worse but even still God provides a way for men to be rescued from the consequences of their own sin (=rejection of God's rule over them).

Judgment day (yet to happen): Those who were good at doublethink get to live in mindless bliss, those with rational thought are tortured for eternity. The Daily Deity gives YHWH two out of five stars, saying that "while the constant raking over burning coals isn't much fun, at least we got rid of the religious wingnuts".

Those whom God saved are saved and those who contnually rejected him to the end are not.

...Yes and my comments were also aimed at the "Bible students".

Where did I say that Eve did not "convince" Adam to sin?

What I said was:

1. They were both tempted (Eve by the Snake and Adam by Eve)
2. They both succumbed to the temptation
3. They both tried to blame someone else (Adam tried to blame Eve and Eve tried to blame the snake.

I repeat; Eve was not worse than Adam. However, in the same way, Eve did not force Adam to eat the forbidden fruit, merely tempted him with it.

Or another way of looking at it is that this "episode" does say that Eve was fashioned from Adam's rib and there is no mention at all of Lilith or any other woman.

As I said, it depends on whether you want to read it yourself or rely on what you know it must say not having read it properly.

On a side note Eve was not worse then Adam, both were tempted, succumbed and tried to blame someone else.