Posts made by K-Ration

MuthaRussia:

So many ways to reply….but I will refrain. I … must … refrain …

Now THAT was a sacrifice.

~cheers

Just noticed - that makes 100 for me! Yippee!

:(

I don’t recall Janus1 mentioning the Holy Spirit.

That makes it even more confusing.

~cheers

Well said F_alk.

~cheers

I think that’s the idea, but like all good religions, it depends on who you talk to.

Some think the literal Hell; some think Hell is just the absence of God’s grace. Some say he suffered the torment of all those ever sent to Hell.

They can up the ante and keep revising it all they want as far as I’m concerned. It was a finite punishment, rewarded by everlasting glory. It was not a sacrifice. Jesus was ‘inconvenienced’ for our sins.

~cheers

Well, like I said. I understand the ramifications, and why his sacrifice is important to Christians. It was a swell thing to do. And yes, crucifiction is not a fun way to go. But the point I’d like to touch on, (which some of you have) is what makes it a true sacrifice on the part of Jesus.

When I think of sacrifice, I think of giving up more than you get. I think of major loss, on a permanent basis.

So let’s say Jesus did take on the sins of mankind while on the cross. And let’s say God did turn his back on him. Horrible. Painful. Agonizing. Lasted three days. Thats the sacrifice.

Eternity in Heaven, Eternity of bliss, seated at the right hand of the Father. Millions praising your name daily. That’s the reward.

Can you even compare those two?

The only way Christ’s sacrifice could have been significant would be if he were to cease existence upon death. Otherwise, it’s a fake sacrifice basically done by God for personal amusement. Consistent with the being who told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and say “just kidding” at the last minute, or allowed a good man to suffer inordinately just to win a bet.

IMHO. =)

~cheers

Janus1: Quote: why would Jesus have been born solely to suffer and die for the sins of man?

Answer: It is all part of his master plan.

He invented the system by which sins are washed away with blood; and then decided (in advance, of course) that He would sacrifice Himself to Himself for doing things He knew we would do already and that He made us capable of doing in the first place….

Get it?

Me neither.

Back to the movie:
I’m more interested in an Xians interpretation of why the crucifiction was a sacrifice on his part. I understand the consequences of the act; what I don’t understand is how people regard the crucifiction itself as such a great (if not the greatest) sacrifice. I think most of use could agree that thousands upon thousands of people have suffered in more painful ways, for longer amounts of time. I think any of us in his position, knowing what would await us afterwards, would not hesitate to be crucified. Comments?

~cheers

I might be moved in that man’s cruelty to other men never ceases to amaze me. I would not be moved in any spiritual sense. It was not such a great sacrifice on his part.

waits for the flames to begin

~cheers

Neat idea, but I think it might make Russia a bit too tough. If you plop Zhukov down in Karelia, Germany is never gonna take it. And then of course, youve got that mound of men who have a decent attack. Yikes!

Guten Nacht, Deutchland!

Perhaps if the bonus were only applied in the first round of combat?

~cheers

And then I say ‘Sorry, I had a burrito for lunch.’

~Cheers

When you assert something, be it ‘There are no invisible elephants in this room’ or ‘There is no God’, you are making a positive claim.

In other words, you claim to have knowledge, or somehow know that God, or invisible elephants do not exist.

Therefore, the initial burden of proof lies with you. You must show evidence to support your claim, and anyone who has taken logic 101 knows it is nearly impossible to prove a negative. (i.e. something does not exist)

I can’t think of any evidence you could provide that would conclusively prove there are no invisible elephants anywhere. So why try? Just say
‘There is no evidence supporting invisible elephants, so I have no reason to believe they exist.’

Viola! Burden of proof is on the other guy.

~Cheers

Both extremes tend to scare me.

I consider myself a weak athiest (lack of belief in a god)

as opposed to a strong athiest (belief that there is no god)

Imho, the second position requires just as much faith as a thiest does.

I’m not sure what the point of my post was, but I’ll end saying there are worse things to donate to than a christian church!

Yeah that is neat. One of those counter intuitive math things that doesnt seem right but is. =p

Not sure if it was the start of Ragnarok, I think theres a second part to that story where they try to get everything to cry for him (Baldur) so Hel will release him. I think they find out about Loki too, and mess him up a bit.

It seems to me that those who believe would be the ones most anxious to meet their maker.

Perhaps you could go do some volunteer work in a nice, dangerous place. An eternity of bliss awaits you!

=p

I wont speak for Janus, but if i’m doomed to Hell, I don’t see a point in rushing things.

:wink:

The thought just occured to me -

If Russia and England started flying all their planes east towards the Japanese fleet, I think most people would not do Pearl - a lot of people don’t do it anyway - so the plan basically fails at the get go. If the person is silly enough to do it, then you don’t really need a plan to beat him anyway…… =p

Sounds interesting, but the odds don’t impress me. Certainly not with one fighter, and I’d probably still be scared with two.

Moving all those men plus the lack of planes might make Karelia a bit too tempting early on……shrugs

It would make taking Finland/Ukraine that much more difficult, (and costly, material wise) and i’m not sure the loss there would compensate, even if you slow Japan down a turn - but we can let the experts debate that. =)

Neat plan though, I wonder if there would be a way to do a concerted effort with English/American/Russian planes early on, and try and blow Japan out of the water alltogether…

If Japan does Pearl and China, you could have 2 Russian planes, 3 English fighters and a Bomber (is that right? maybe only one English fighter could make it) attack before J2, all three English fighters before J3, for sure…

That would definately take out the transports, and if all goes well, perhaps
the rest of the fleet on it’s return… =p

Of course, the Germans would be happy, but maybe the Americans could hold them off fer a bit.

If it would work, it would sure make the India IC more appealing…

Discuss!

If you both have the same version of the game, you can play on the zone

http://zone.msn.com/axisandallies

The game is set up for a direct connection, but I recall not being able to host for some reason; maybe it’ll work for you though.

You can chat while you play, I just dont remember how. Probably the enter key, or something similar.

Good luck!

I can’t say that I’ve run into that problem with the PC game, but apparently it’s full of bugs, so I wouldn’t be surprised.

I’m fairly sure Japan shouldn’t be getting Englands money - England shouldn’t be collecting any IPCs for Russia anyway.

My guess is it’s a computer problem. =)

I’m curious as to how Germany plays with the cheap infantry.

I’ve let the computer play itself numerous times, and unless I have economic victory enabled, it almost never ends - they just wont invade England or Japan. I’ve even gone so far as to reduce the prices for all units to one, for whichever country I want to win, and sometimes even then its a pain.

I find a lot of times the computer wont spend the money he has, even in that last scenario.

I cant see making subs 7 having any great effect, I take it it’s Germany who usually whoops ya?

Perhaps change it to 2?