Jump to content

Home

RenegadeOfPhunk

Members
  • Posts

    733
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RenegadeOfPhunk

  1. Just for the record, this is incorrect. In MB, M-blocks only disarm if you hit the opposing saber within 'X' milliseconds of starting the M-block. So there is most definately timing involved. ..it's been that way since M-blocks existed.
  2. cNumSubclasses isn't to do with what you're after. cNumSubclasses is an MBII specific thing (having several classes attached to one 'slot'). So you'll need to 'discect' that stuff back out of the code. And sure, I'll look up MAX_SIEGE_CLASSES_ON_ONE_TEAM for you when I get home - and I'll specify the changes in the relavent structures...
  3. ensiform, Sorry - forgot about your request to see the changed .siege loading code in MBII. Unfortonately, we have all kinds of changes in there, but I think I've isolated the important parts (but you'll have to be aware that other changes may be mixed in)... Anyway: bg_saga.c BG_SiegeLoadClasses() changed to the following: void BG_SiegeLoadClasses(siegeClassDesc_t *descBuffer) { char filename[MAX_QPATH]; int i, j, k; char chPath[MAX_QPATH]; char chExtension[16]; int iDescCount = 0; bgNumSiegeClasses = 0; strcpy (chPath, "ext_data/mb2/character/"); strcpy (chExtension, ".mbch"); for (j = 0; j < bgNumSiegeTeams; j++) {// Go through registered teams for (i = 0; i < bgSiegeTeams[j].numClasses; i++) {// Go through classes & subclasses for that team & parse //for (k = 0; k < MAX_SIEGE_SUBCLASSES; i++) for (k = 0; k < bgSiegeTeams[j].cNumSubclasses[i]; k++) { if(!bgSiegeTeams[j].classnames[i][k]) { return; } strcpy(filename, chPath); strcat(filename, bgSiegeTeams[j].classnames[i][k]); strcat(filename, chExtension); if (descBuffer) { BG_SiegeParseClassFile(filename, &descBuffer[iDescCount]); } else { BG_SiegeParseClassFile(filename, NULL); } bgSiegeTeams[j].classes[i][k] = &bgSiegeClasses[bgNumSiegeClasses-1]; iDescCount++; } } } } later on in that file, this bit of code: while (success && i <= MAX_SIEGE_CLASSES_ON_ONE_TEAM) { //keep checking for group values named class# up to MAX_SIEGE_CLASSES until we can't find one. strcpy(lookString, va("class%i", i)); success = BG_SiegeGetPairedValue(parseBuf2, lookString, parseBuf); if (!success) { break; } bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].classes[bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].numClasses][0] = BG_SiegeFindClassByName(parseBuf); if (!bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].classes[bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].numClasses][0]) { Com_Error(ERR_DROP, "Invalid class specified: '%s'", parseBuf); } bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].cNumSubclasses[bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].numClasses] = 1; bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].numClasses++; i++; } ...becomes... while (success && i <= MAX_SIEGE_CLASSES_ON_ONE_TEAM) { //keep checking for group values named class# up to MAX_SIEGE_CLASSES until we can't find one. strcpy(lookString, va("class%i", i)); success = BG_SiegeGetPairedValue(parseBuf2, lookString, parseBuf); if (!success) { break; } //bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].classes[bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].numClasses][0] //= BG_SiegeFindClassByName(parseBuf); strcpy(bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].classnames[bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].numClasses][0], parseBuf); //if (!bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].classes[bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].numClasses][0]) if (!bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].classnames[bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].numClasses][0]) { Com_Error(ERR_DROP, "Invalid class specified: '%s'", parseBuf); } bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].cNumSubclasses[bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].numClasses] = 1; bgSiegeTeams[bgNumSiegeTeams].numClasses++; i++; } BG_SiegeLoadTeams() becomes... void BG_SiegeLoadTeams(const char* team1name, const char* team2name) { char filename[MAX_QPATH]; char tcPath[MAX_QPATH]; char tcExtension[16]; bgNumSiegeTeams = 0; strcpy (tcPath, "ext_data/mb2/teamconfig/"); strcpy (tcExtension, ".mbtc"); //Team 1 strcpy(filename, tcPath); strcat(filename, team1name); strcat(filename, tcExtension); BG_SiegeParseTeamFile(filename); //Team 2 strcpy(filename, tcPath); strcat(filename, team2name); strcat(filename, tcExtension); BG_SiegeParseTeamFile(filename); } g_saga.c InitSiegeMode (bottom 3 lines added): void InitSiegeMode(void) { vmCvar_t mapname; char levelname[512]; char teamIcon[128]; char goalreq[64]; char teams[2048]; char objective[MAX_SIEGE_INFO_SIZE]; char objecStr[8192]; int len = 0; int i = 0; // int j = 0; int objectiveNumTeam1 = 0; int objectiveNumTeam2 = 0; int iTeam1Score; int iTeam2Score; int iStoredStartTime; fileHandle_t f; [b]char team1name[1024]; char team2name[1024]; char teamloadbuf[2048];[/b] ..and then further down - find this bit: //Load the player class types BG_SiegeLoadClasses(NULL); if (!bgNumSiegeClasses) { //We didn't find any?! G_Error("Couldn't find any player classes for Siege"); } ...and add this code above it: [b]//Load teams needed for this map. if (BG_SiegeGetValueGroup(siege_info, team1, teamloadbuf)) { BG_SiegeGetPairedValue(teamloadbuf, "UseTeam", team1name); } if (BG_SiegeGetValueGroup(siege_info, team2, teamloadbuf)) { BG_SiegeGetPairedValue(teamloadbuf, "UseTeam", team2name); } if (!team1name || !team2name) { //Couldn't find team name G_Error("Couldn't find team config reference in .siege file."); } //Load teams BG_SiegeLoadTeams(team1name, team2name); if (!bgNumSiegeTeams) { //We didn't find any?! G_Error("Couldn't find any player teams for Siege"); }[/b] //Load the player class types BG_SiegeLoadClasses(NULL); if (!bgNumSiegeClasses) { //React same as with teams. G_Error("Couldn't find any player classes for Siege"); } cg_saga.c: CG_InitSiegeMode (bottom 3 lines added): void CG_InitSiegeMode(void) { char levelname[MAX_QPATH]; char btime[1024]; char teams[2048]; char teamInfo[MAX_SIEGE_INFO_SIZE]; int len = 0; int i = 0; int j = 0; siegeClass_t *cl; siegeTeam_t *sTeam; fileHandle_t f; char teamIcon[128]; [b]char team1name[1024]; char team2name[1024]; char teamloadbuf[2048];[/b] ..then further on down - this: //Load the player class types BG_SiegeLoadClasses(NULL); if (!bgNumSiegeClasses) { //We didn't find any?! CG_Error("Couldn't find any player classes for Siege"); } //Now load the teams since we have class data. BG_SiegeLoadTeams(); if (!bgNumSiegeTeams) { //React same as with classes. CG_Error("Couldn't find any player teams for Siege"); } ...becomes this... //Load teams needed for this map. if (BG_SiegeGetValueGroup(siege_info, team1, teamloadbuf)) { BG_SiegeGetPairedValue(teamloadbuf, "UseTeam", team1name); } if (BG_SiegeGetValueGroup(siege_info, team2, teamloadbuf)) { BG_SiegeGetPairedValue(teamloadbuf, "UseTeam", team2name); } if (!team1name || !team2name) { //Couldn't find team name CG_Error("Couldn't find team config reference in .siege file."); } //Load teams BG_SiegeLoadTeams(team1name, team2name); if (!bgNumSiegeTeams) { //We didn't find any?! CG_Error("Couldn't find any player teams for Siege"); } //Load the player class types BG_SiegeLoadClasses(NULL); Hopefully that shoudl at least point you in the right direction
  4. I'll look into that for you - sure. Dont' remember the details off-hand, but I'll look into it tomorrow... Hey Hockey - sure, understood. And no problem Understood. What'd I'd think is ideal is if you can at least take advantage of some of out stuff, but still go on a unique path somehow. Have you considered some kind of mix between MBII and FMIII? Donno - just shouting out ideas. I know many people have asked for an FFA version if MBII. And as I'm sure you know, we're not likely to be making one of those anytime soon Could be a 'gap in the market' for ya... ...although saying that, I know full well why MaxState is pushing for some element of LMS in the game. As far as I'm concerned, LMS is such an essential feature. It changes the dynamics and the experience of the game in so many different ways. ...but of course LMS is MBII's trademark. So if you want to avoid being MBII-like... Or you go in a completely different direction. But then you can't take advantage of much MBII code. It's a tough choice really... Oh - and one more point about Siege implemetion. I'd actually say the objectives stuff is a much bigger deal than the class system. As I say, we actually had to do quite a bit of work to get a customisable class system into Siege. You could get a similar thing in other gametypes with similar effort I think. But if you want to get objectives into other gametypes!! Now that would be a job I think... I really should give it a try when I have a chance. And I promise I'll make an effort to do so. I like a lot of the things I've heard about it. And of course Razor was always the saber system 'guru'...! No doubt I'd be impressed with what's been achieved... No probs man! And thanks. Once the hotfix went out, it all turned out alright
  5. Hey UMD And no problem. But I just want to be clear about this - MBII code has been avaliable for OJP to use since B17. Some people don't seem to realise this... I'm not suddenly helping out more than I have done in the past - MBII's code has always been avaliable for OJP to use whenever and however it likes (within reason).
  6. Ok - cool. And sorry I went on a bit If you want the B18 code, no problem. Just holler... And if you want assistance in porting any MBII features into OJP, just give me or another MBII coder a shout... I don't know that any of us will have time to do all the porting ourselves, but we can certainly assist. ...oh - and that counts for assets as well. (At least to an extent that makes sense - it's something we can talk over...) Good night to you too.
  7. OK - well if your taking back much of what you said, then that's fine. And perhaps this is all besides the point. But anyway, I'll respond to your post. This is all still relavent really, because this is also about where OJP goes from here... I don't care that that is you're aim. I care that it's your aim whilst suggesting that MBII could help OJP out. My ideal would be to have MBII and OJP players of equal amounts happily playing on servers. If this is not a vision you share, then - again - fine. But I'll humbly ask you don't elude to our helping you towards that goal! And you bet I have every right to talk against that idea publically on these forums. I've personally contributed to OJP, I've never said anything bad about it, and I've made all MBII code avaliable to it. I think I've earned my floor-space - don't you? I'm not afraid you're going to steal players. I'm pointing out the irony of talking like you want to, then talking about assistance from us in practically the same breath! As far as where OJP goes from here, I see the pro's and con's of both arguments. If you do want to go for a class-like system, then yes - making it a siege mod gives you a lot of stuff for free. It makes sense. But we have done a lot of coding on the siege side to be honest. Especially for open mode. (Base jka siege is 'fixed' classes. It takes a bit of effort just to break that and have a bit of cutomisability...) We've done so much now that, if you were to put the same effort into other gametypes, you could still have a very good class-based system. So you can do it either way I think. But you're right to say that going the siege root will get you there a bit faster. And I still think you can distinguish yourselves from MBII in various ways. ...the other advantage in going the siege route is that you can more easiely port MBII code over - which is freely avaliable to you. Well, we must both have different definitions of ranting I guess. And 'in your opinion' it falls on deaf ears. I don't really think there is a rivalry now - not a general one. But OJP <-> MBII comparisons have always been around since they both existed. You're just one of the more vocal ones. At least you used to be (if your change of attitude is genuine...) Nor do I. It means you're voicing a personal opinion. Thankfully, you don't (or didn't) speak for OJP as a whole. You talking trash about MBII doesn't make anything worse for OJP. I'd still give out the B18 code to OJP even if you had 'Death to MBII' in your signature Again, this isn't a complaint about OJP as a whole... Yeap - ok. Just the same way you could have taken off-topic MBII stuff to PM in the past I suppose... So am I really. If your saying it's all in the past, then fine. So maybe just lay of comments like 'OJP could be played far past MBII ever will', and we'll all be happy. So if you're so sick of the OJP <-> MBII talk, why do you continue to do it? Your first post in this thread wasn't 2 months ago... You're not a bad person for disliking / hating MBII. But it's hypocritical to talk down MBII while also talking about possible help from MBII. Make a choice please. I'd hate to think a critism of a few posts would make you think you should stop posting altogether!
  8. Before I start, hi OJP peeps. It's been a while, but B18 has bought me back to the world of JKA temporarily. It's great to see that things are thriving here. I'm trying to look at a better way to restart rounds for the LMS system in MBII. Currently, it's laggy. If I can work it out, OJP is more than welcome to the new implementation - if you want an LMS system that is. I guess it depends on where you guys are planning to take OJP. But anyway - the offer is there... Maxstate, I'm only going to say this once. You said these two things within the same post at the start of this thread: So let me get this straight - after all the flat-out insults you've poured out against MBII in these forums over various posts, you still expect some help from us? Don't get me wrong, I couldn't give a flying toss what you think of the mod. But this double-standard is vile. I consider both OJP and MBII great mods in their own right. And I'm very glad to see OJP doing so well. I'll talk with the current team and make sure OJP has access to B18 code if it can be of any help - depending on which way you want to take the mod. I'd even like to think that MBII members would help out with porting anything over if it doesn't take up too much time. But I'd ask - in return - that the next time you feel like an anti-MBII rant, bring it to the MBII forums, rather than wasting bandwidth here. I have no idea why you are obsessed with OJP 'toppeling' or 'outdoing' MBII - that's your deal. But don't do it and then mull over the possibility of help from us in return please. (Thankfully most other peeps here have a bit more tact - regardless of what they think of MBII). Thanks. P.S. Heh - just realised I still have mod status here...
  9. False alarm FI is now back up and running, as is the http://www.moviebattles.com domain.
  10. Half-life 2 / Source. On and off. But in a fairly casual manner at the moment... Whether I get back into modding in any big way remains to be seen. Glad to see OJP is still going strong
  11. Ahh yes, I see. Well, the animation thing should be possible without any coding changes. Just set the animations to run to be the ones you wish to run. ...but making the player model visible - from what I can remember - will probably require code changes. ...if the next question is - will I do them? I'm afraid not. I'm not doing any JKA modding anymore...
  12. Well, it sounds like the VH_WALKER class in the OJP code will do what you want. ...so are you asking for advice as to how you use the VH_WALKER class in OJP?
  13. Hey Razor. Hey guys. Haven't been back in here for a while! So anyway - is the idea that you want some of the 'extra' VH_WALKER features, but applied to a 'speeder'-like vehicle?
  14. No worries Slider I've seen the latest preview video of JA+, and gotta say, looks like you've got some nice new stuff in there. Congrats. And I like the new direction your trying to take with the mod as a whole... Let me assure you that MB2 also has plenty of code modification. Lots and lots of it. The only thing is a lot of it is in the gameplay, which you can't really see straight away from screenshots, so you'd really have to try it out to see the extent of it... ...we are NOT just a bunch of siege maps ...and I'm actually good mates with Azymn (when I see him around that is). We've shared code and ideas on many occasions. I've always been impressed with his work, and I think if you were to ask him, he'd tell you your first comment on MB2 in this thread wasn't accurate P.S. Razor, the 'source' code' will be on your way shortly, probably tonight...
  15. Hey Razor ...I dont' post much these days, but I still lurk sometimes Just popped in to answer Hotrod's 'concerns'. I don't think I have much to contribute to the main topic here, it's all been said before. ...I'd listen to Amidala and co on this one Slider old boy. But I'm sure my opinon isn't gonna mean anything to you... btw Razor, I haven't forgotten what I said I'd send you. Just waiting for the B17 release. You know how it is - always takes longer than you think, but it should be on it's way to you pretty soon...
  16. Hang on Hotrod - I honestly think your disatisfaction is only coming from not understanding the MB system well enough... I assure you, timing and control are JUST as important in MB as in base jka... Do you complain when you get 'under' your opponents saber in base JKA, but they don't die, they only get shields / or health removed? ..the equivalent of a 'hit' in MB IS reducing BP! Holding block doesn't stop them getting reduced... Once BP is gone, your next hit (assuming it's clean) will be fatal - duel over! Jedi have no shields in MB, and when a saber actually hits someone - i.e. get's past their block cos their out of BP's, they will die in 1 hit ...just as base JKA rewards you for getting past their saber by knocking off their shields / health, MB rewards you for getting past their saber by reducing their blocking potential. ...once their blocking potential is gone, one hit is instant-kill (regardless of health) ...just like removing shields and health in base JKA means your opponent is dead... ...you can just as much call JKA shields and health 'magic' shields and 'magic' health, as much as call MB BP 'magic'. But you can't say MB doesn't reward timing and attacking away from the enemy's blocking saber, cos it blatently does... in fact, MB is unarguably 'better' in that regard then base JKA in one aspect - a 'back' attack does actually perform a 1-hit kill in MB, regardless of health OR BP, whereas in base JKA, back attacks are 'magically' blocked by shields and health...
  17. Not intending to de-rail this thread, but just want to quickly reply to this: 1. I dont' know what verison of MBII you were testing here, but it must have been a very early beta build. In all latest builds if you attack someone in the back regardless of whether their blocking or not, it should be a 1-hit kill regardless of current BP points, unless perhaps you have a very unclean hit and you've only nicked them... 2. If your attacking them within their frontal blocking arc, and their holding block then yes, if you manage to get past their saber they may still block the attack depending on their current BP level. But 2 things to consider. First is that getting past their saber drains far more BP's then hitting their saber. So you keep getting past their saber, their going to be dead pretty quickly... Secondly, in early builds we did have a system where if you got past their saber, there was no 'magical blocking' as you put it. But with the higher saber damage we have in MBII, fights were far to quick. Over in a few seconds usually... in terms of keeping duals reasonably paced, the system works well. Not to say their aren't still problems with the system - which were currently working through for the latest release - but I don't think your apprasial was that representitive of what's happenning on MBII servers at the moment. I would suggest trying the latest build...
  18. Ermm, no - not obvious, as I made clear in my previous post. Check another of your statements regarding my opinion... So your fighting indocrination I may not have even been indocrinated with? ...and which I don't even believe in the first place?! ...again - no way to look at it and make sense out of it. Fight whatever you like. Even imaginary arguments if you must. ..but don't constantly mis-represent me with every post you make. Once you've got the common decency to manage that, then we can start debating the actual points... ...the truth of the matter is actually opposite to what you incinuate. (surprise surprise). I was raised as a Christian. If I was 'indoctrinated' with anything, it was that the Bible is pure goodness, without question - from cover to cover... This is a common misconception, as you should well know, as you hold (or at least held - not too long ago) the same view... ..so who's indoctrinated again? Being raised a Christian did have one distinct advantage though - I did actually bother reading the whole Bible before making judgements on it's moral content. Funnily enough, it does help... Err - no it's not irrelavent in the slightest, because that has been the whole point of the last round of posts where you have been telling me my own position, when in fact you've been making up your own position, and calling it mine. There are good principles in the Bible which can be directly linked to good behaviour. There are also bad princpiles in the Bible which can be directly linked to bad behaviour. These kinds of statements (the kinds of statements I've been making all along in this debate) in no way imply, insinuate or lead to the conclusion that I beleive that Christianity is 'inherently evil', whilst 'ignor[ing] the GOOD things in Christianity -and other religions'. ...if you continue to push this, I DO expect Skin to step in. The misrepresentation here is just that obnoxious and blatent... Right now, this is not about whether you agree or disagree with those statements (we'll get to that when you've learned to actually debate issues without constant mis-representation), or what you personally beleive are the 'core' principles of Christianity. (Divine retribution is perfectly core to the whole concept of Christianity. This is simply fact - as has been made clear by OTHER CHRISTIANS on this very board OVER and OVER and OVER again... ...so you'll exuse me if I don't roll over and take your opinion on this as - heh - 'gospel' and continue to debate it You may want to only read certain pages of the Bible and rip out the rest, but I'm looking for a clearer view than that - thanks all the same...) ...this is about what MY argument actually IS. You can't possibly argue against me until you acknowledge my actual argument Argue against it - fine. Don't argue against it - fine again. ..but blatently change my argument? Why do you have to stoop so low? ..and no, putting QED at the end of statements doesn't actually make them true. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it only means you have the minimum intelligence required to type the letters Q - E - D. I'm sure that's a praise-worthy achievement in your world and all - perhaps commendable for a genuis chimp - but not overly impressive to the rest of us tbh.... Here, you might not follow my reasoning, so here's a helpful example: Nope. No more true because some extra letters were added to the end... But keep trying though - maybe you'll come up with arguments that can stand on more than 3 letters soon! ...wow - imagine that!
  19. Sheesh. You did. In this very thread. Guess I'll have to remind you of your own words (again): You said: You stated that I am trying to push an opinion which makes people ignore the good in Christianity. Those are YOUR words. ...let me guess what your gonna say next - 'I was talking about you! When I said it makes 'people' do blah blah, I was refering to you'. ...ok, well it doesn't make sense when compared with your later statement: So let me get this straight. I ws made to ignore the good in Christianity by being indocrtrinated, and yet I may or may not have been indoctrinated?! ...I mean, have you actually read back one of your own posts. It doesn't make any sense, no matter which way you look at it. ...I try and give you the benefit of the doubt, but no - the nonsense-meter still jumps straight into the red - every bloody time. And besides all this, how can I have been indoctrinated with a belief that I do even not beleive in the first place?!! Skin, how much longer is this farce suppost to go on? Cos considering how far Al is willing to go to simply make up my own statements, I think I'm showing quite a bit of restraint right now. Please, this needs moderating. It's just not right... ..I'll happily debate with anybody who doesn't agree with me. But changing my argument for me?! It's just plain pathetic... Heh, nice try at throwing my own comments directed at you back at me Planning to come up with anything of your own soon? ...read your own words... ...implying... ...i.e. your - again - making my words up for me. I never said anything about the Christian faith being 'evil in it's entirety...'. You know this very well, because your using the word 'implied' i.e. I said it without actually saying it. Statement 1: Certain established Christian beliefs and attitudes (clearly denoted in the Bible) can be clearly linked to immoral behaviour... Statment 2: The entire Christian faith is inherently evil. Two different arguments. Totally. Statment 1 repesents MY argument from the start. Statement 2 represents YOUR make-believe argument you've created for me on my behalf. Thanks but no thanks. You can choose to imply one means the other, but just because you say so, doesn't make it so I'm afraid. I clearly stated that Christianity is based on both good and bad concepts. Right ... from ... the .. beginning. Please read my posts. If you want to disagree with that point of view, be my bloody guest! I don't give a s**t. But at least ahve the common, basic, human decency of allowing ME to make my OWN argument! ...you can't win debates by simply making up your opposites opinion like your doing right now. You've certainly scortched an argument alright -I'll give you that. The only minor detail is that the argument you've scortched doesn't even belong to me!! ...maybe I just need to repeat it loads of times so it finally sinks in... Good and bad Good AND bad Good ...and ... bad ..ok - I think that should be enough for even the most hard-of-reading on this board... No. No. No. You've missed out the word SOME. s .... o ... m ... e. Not all, some. Not most, some. Read my posts!!
  20. Well, takes all kinds of course. Can't say I agree with your taste in deity's... ..but at least we both acknowledge what Biblical God is actually like...
  21. And once again I will make it very clear that the Bible contains many good principles as well as some bad ones. I've said this clearly from the very beginning of my argument. ..so how I'm making anybody ignore the good things about Christianity by clearly stating that the good parts exist and that they ARE good principles is... ...well, I give up trying to understand why you pin any of this outlandish stuff on me really (I'm sure you have your reasons / issues, I just can't be bothered to try and work them out anymore) ..if your gonna accuse me of 'indoctrination' , the least you can do is be clear on what my supposed 'indoctrination' is actually saying... I don't ignore any part of the Bible, which is why I can see the good AND the bad - without ignoring one over the other. ...it's what is known as an impartial, balanced judgement, taking the WHOLE subject matter into account - not just looking at the bits you like, and then ignoring the rest. Good luck with your fight against those who claim the Bible doesn't contain anything worthy of merit. Not sure who your fighting against, cos it ain't me. (I'm guessing their 'trendy-lefty', whoever they are...) But good luck anyway... ------------------------------------------------------------- Skinwalker, I'm sure this has the potential to flame up again, so can it be acknowledged that I am clearly being mis-represeted here?! I'm clearly stating that my point of view on the Bible is that there is both good and bad in it, and yet what is being thrown back at me is 'Why are you ignoring the good in the Bible?!' ...huh?! I just said there is good in it!!. You can try and argue I'm seeing bad where there is none. I consider that a worthy debate. But to incinuate that I am claiming there is NO good in the Bible is clear, continued mis-representation... ------------------------------------------------------------- CapNColostomy actaully DOES have the right idea about Biblical God. THe God of the New Testament has just as much capacity for being vengeful, jealous and wrathful as the Old Testament God - because God is God, no matter what human time period your referencing.. ...take this from people who have actually read it. Cover to cover. ...again, for anybody who thinks God's wrath ended a long time ago, re-read Revelations... The only difference of note CapNColostomy and myself are probably gonna have is whether we actually like this 'God' - due to whether the actions of God that I would call 'bad' he would nessesarily call 'bad'. ...but at least were talking from the same hymn sheet (pun intended). ...and finally (to bring this all back on topic), all this has everything to do with homosexuals, as homosexuals are currently directly in the firing line of Christian attitudes. ...yes, most Christians are listening more and more to the good side of the Bible and at least not wiring the nads of their gay brothers up to electric generators in an effort to 'cure' them (or at least this kind of activity is generally frowned upon), but there is still a long way to go for Christian 'morality' on this particular issue...
  22. In another thread, I stated that the Bible contains several inhuman, barbaric concepts which does lead to immoral attitudes in Christian believers... ....case closed...
  23. There is no doubt that a fetus at the very beginning of development cannot be logically seen as more than a bunch of cells clumped together - and certainly not 'human' in any meaningful way... ...this not only affects the issue of abortion, but also stem cell research. (An issue I think is treated with the most astonishing flipancy by evangelical America...) But there is also no denying that terminating a fetus is destroying the 'potential' of a life. That is not a statement intended to nessearily give amunition to one side against the other (although I'm sure it will be taken that way). It's just stating a cold hard fact. (I know there is a whole sub-argument about drawing parallels between abortion and - say - contaception, but I dont' really buy it. If this is contested, I'll happily talk through my reasoning) Combine with this the fact that the rights of both the 'potential' life AND the mother BOTH matter equally, and I am left with the opinion that abortion is never the RIGHT answer, but there are some situations where there IS no right answer... ...once this is accepted, then the need for abortion as - at the very least - an avaliable option in very particular circumstances is realised I myself believe that abortions have become too common in modern times. It is now an option which is too quick and too easy to take. I think in many cases the life of the baby should be given the utmost priority - certainly more priority than it is often given ...however, anybody who states 'Abortion is wrong - period - in any circumstance' and then tells this to a woman who has been informed her pregnancy has a good chance of ending up with not just the death of the baby, but herself too - well ... let's just say you've demonstrated the failings of looking at the world in a dumbed down 'black and white' fashion...
  24. Yeah, I very much agree that 'all-merciful' is a bit of a misnomer, especially considering the behaviours of many of the deity's this term is apllied to... Adn yes, it does grate somewhat against God disallowing people on any basis. Many theological outlooks almost seem to 'tie God's hands' in cases of divine judgement. i.e. God loves all mankind, but simply cannot allow those back who don't do blah blah... ...implying God has no option to unconditionally forgive in some cases. If that doesn't bring doubt into the 'all-merciful' clause, it certainly brings doubt into the 'omni-potent' claim... I think in reality, the term 'all-merciful' would be treated with caution by sensible theists (of particular faiths)... Hmm, I disagree on this one I think. As much as a God 'could' have control of everything if it so wished, you can argue it can also choose when not to have control as well. So it could control everything BUT human desicisons (without paradox), for example... But the all-powerful tag can have many other paradoxes tied to it. They've already been debated to death in this forum already... (e.g. can God make a stone so heavy that even he / she / it can't lift it?). ...these may seem like nothing more than mind-exersises -and to a certain extent they are. But a more serious point lies underneath... ...how exactly do you prove 'infinite' power?!
×
×
  • Create New...