Guns - Here is where you and I must absolutely disgree. You think I'm bashing Christians. Show me where I'm attacking "Christians... as greedy corrupt bastards" as you suggest, becaues you cannot. This is because I'm not attacking Christians. You'll not find a quote from me that says that Christians are absolute morons and deserve to be shot. So please don't continue to twist my words around to suit yourself. If you must say I'm attacking something then I attack corrupt Religions. Religions are the perfect opiate for the masses. And I'm not talking about the obvious Made for TV mega churches where you are saved by giving $1000. I define a corrupt religion as one that doesn't practice the basic principles that it teaches. I personally believe that the Catholic church does NOT practice what it preaches. Period. "If a man lies next to another man as he would lie next to a woman..." Ever heard that quote. So why does the Catholic Church allow a child molster to remain in its ranks? Sure you can quote a bad apple in every barrel. And if your believe the Catholic Church, priests as child molesters occur no more often than men in the general public. But you know what? If I see a bad apple, I throw it out. I don't keep it! What good does it serve the naked, starving man to own the worlds largest private art collection? If you read history, the Catholics have caused more death and distruction in the name of God than any other religion I'm aware of. Or take it to the basic, if your a Catholic, why must you receive the "Blood of Christ" from a golden challice? A plastic cup would allow you to receive the offering just as well as a $1000 cup. Total waste of money. That $1000 would feed more than one thousand people. (Of course if you define the Catholic Church as one of your mega churches, then I guess we are in agreement here) As for your views on my senarios I provided of being legalistic in nature. I know so many people that practice the Mormon Faith, and they would list every one of those scenarios as a sin. A person shouldn't go to a bar. There are other places to get sustance. Knowingly going to a bar, especially where there is marajuana being smoked is not acceptable. This is a very strict interpretation of what my mormon friend Jake calls "the line" As soon as you can identify "the line" then you turn around and walk away. If someone shows you "the line" walk away. Always look for "the line" in your deeds, words, and actions. Stay away from "the line" That is a very simple way to look at each one of those senarios. Now I'm not saying its correct. But that is one view point; and I don't disagree with it. It works for him well. You seem to take the point of, in your heart, you didn't want to get stoned, but you saw nothing sinful about walking into a bar to order a hamburger. Getting stoned was an unintended consequence, and therefore isn't a sin. You know what? I don't disagree with this either. It seemingly works well for you. Now are you saying that Jake the Mormon is an idiot for thinking this way, because you think that God will look into the persons heart and make the determination of if its a sin or not... What if Jake is correct, and your wrong. So therefore you've been willingly and knowingly sinning all these years, even though your heart was clean and clear and your thought it wasn't a sin. Isn't this a principal of Pascal's wager. Align your self with God. Knowingly sinning, to me, isn't doing a good job of alignment. Yes? Shouldn't you take the high ground and say "just in case its a sin, I won't do it" Or do you have a scenario where both of your are correct? or is the Sin somehow subjective? AKA its a sin in God's eyes for Jake to do those things, but its not a sin for Gunwounds to do those things - under the premise that Jake does call those sins, and you do not? I mean thats a dangerous road "I didn't think it was a sin, so therefore it isn't. You however did think it was a sin so therefore it is to you, but not to me" Ok so next is where I really feel compelled to understand you further. In your last reply you stated " So are you telling me that if Jesus Christ was here and said that, you'd do it. But because he isn't phyiscally here (that we are aware of) you won't? Please tell me I'm reading this wrong or taking your words out of context. You still do have that chance. "Wherever two or three are gathered in My name I am in their midst" (And I'd love someone to point me to the verse I'm speaking about here) That was one of the guys problems with what Jesus told him to do. He said something to the effect of "Where do I live, eat, etc" Jesus provided him with the answer and the ability to damn an entire villiage if they rejected him. If I believed that, I'd sell it all, preach the word, and I'm sure when that long haired stinky scary looking dude knocked on your door asking for a meal and a place to sleep for the night, you along with most people would tell him where he could go and refuse to feed and cloth him. No, I do know its impossible to *legislate* morality. Too many years and beers in college over that topic. Separation of Church and State is a very good thing. It is, however, NOT impossible to follow absolute moral law. Many Orthadox Jews do. Many Muslims do. So do many others. However each one of them follows their own moral law. The Jews have different rules than Muslims who have different rules than Gunwounds does. Do I declare a victor in the moral conflict. No. I don't believe that any one of them is more correct than another; Further if one of those moral absolutists cannot respect the others view point, than I believe something is inherently lost. A state cannot legislate morality. Doesn't work. Never seen it work. Invariably person "a"'s morality conflits with "b"'s and oops now you have a problem if its legislated. You speak as if Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and died for our sins. I bet I'd be hard pressed to find a devout Jew to go along with that. I also bet I'd be hard pressed to find a devout Muslim to call JC more than a prophet, one of many. So from a timeline perspective you are going on a 2005 year old believe and faith. Which is fine. Judism is older. Many christians would say that Jesus came to us to show us the new path, the new way, the new religion. Follow Christ. So if you believe this, then great. However the Prophet Mohammed came after the Prophet Jesus. And now Mohammed is now showing is the new path the new way.... Further, the Prophet Joseph Smith Jr., came after Mohammed... So now the Mormons have the new way... I think its great that you picked a path. Many haven't. Is it part of your belief system that you absoutely cannot be wrong in your faith, and that the path you picked is absolutely the correct one and that all Jews, Muslims, Hindou's, Mormons, Satanists are doomed to a lesser fate in the afterlife than those that have identically aligned with your path? I don't buy it. What if suddenly, apparently, the Daughter of God comes to be on earth. oops the Bible doesn't mention the Daughter of God. What if this is now we have the "old", "new" and "current" testiment. What if She performs miracles, clothes the naked, feeds the hungry, cures cancer for all humankind. Preaches the "current" word of God. Then She gets killed by the anti-Daughter of God movement. Would you believe that God could have had a Daughter? and what if a new budding religion comes out of Her teachings? Would you change to the "current" or stay with the 2005 year old version? Suddenly in the year 3000 people are debating why some are only following the teachings on the Son, and not the Daughter. Just as we are debating that you believe the JC has the *only* path to salvation; and I disagree. P.P.S. Actually from when I really played the game, I can think of many more prolific "kickers" than you. (Heck if I had $1 for every time I saw Youko kicked...) And I can think of many that were less polite about it than you too. (and I'm not saying your polite ;) ) So don't read something into what I'm saying, especially when I say it wasn't written with you in mind. While your statement could be true in today's game; its not from my perspective of yesterday's game true to me. Now as a 'better late than never' attempt to clarify my earlier remarks, I stopped referencing Spectral vs Guns after my 3rd paragraph, Where I started, "Personally, as stated before," I should have made it clear that my intent of writing was to the general and not the specific. Though in re-reading it, I can see how one could see it as a long Gunwounds rant. [off topic] One final thought, and I know that racism is high on Guns hit list. I was recently sitting next to a very polite gentleman of African Decent. He was working on a power point presentation, and I read one the headings of his slides. In typical confrontational fashion I stopped doing my e-mail, and launched powerpoint, and made one minor search/replace changes to his topic and asked him if my sentence was, in his opinion racist. My sentence read "White Leaders of our Communities must enable, empower the White man to ensure he achieves gains" I asked him if he thought that was a racist comment. He emphatically said yes... Talked a bit about how he was working to eliminate racism in the world, etc, blah, blah, etc, etc... then I pointed back to his slide "Black Leaders of our Communities must enable, empower the Black man to ensure he achieves gains". I asked him if he thought his sentence was racist.... Needless to say he didn't change his slide, nor continue to work on it, nor did he speak to me for the rest of the flight. He just sat there in silence. Me, I got a refill on my vodka tonic and went back to e-mail. My point? (well I often have no point, its part of my charm) but even those that are working to end a thing, may be in fact fostering the very thing they oppose.