Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
For a GBA game, the music is rather odd and primitive.
Oh, the movie. There were oddities. (The sparkling of some stone groups, and "WHAT? 13-13?") I think you did a remarkable job in illustrating the deficiencies of the AI of this game. While getting the game completed rather quick, too.
Yes vote.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Scepheo wrote:
Honestly, I think you'd need to write something that analyzes the ROM and interprets all the game's code. It would then need to reverse all that and then work it's way backwards from the wanted final state towards game start.
Not possible. It is known as the halting problem. You want to know what kind of input to provide, given a program, to produce a certain type of outcome. Even without input, there's no way to know whether a program can produce a certain type of outcome (even if said outcome is the decision in a single particular branch instruction rather than the size of entire RAM), let alone what kind of input is necessary for it to happen.
Also, running a program in reverse is not possible due to the fact that there's no "comefrom" statement (except in INTERCAL, in which NES games were not written). What this means that at any point there's a possibility that the preceding instruction was a jump-instruction somewhere else in the code, and there's no way to know if that was the case (and testing each one of them creates an exponentially branching search tree). It is comparable to seeing a collapsed pile of <something>, and trying to "undo" the collapse step by step to see what the original shape was. There is no algorithm to do that.
Well, this is what I know from theory. I have never tried either one of these myself, so I don't know how far one can get with "good enough" heuristic programming. I don't want to discourage anyone from trying, just to inform anyone that trying to encourage others to try it will not be very successful.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Weird. I did get that congratulatulary message before, and in December I was actually able to upload movies longer than 15 minutes (one being over 18 minutes).
However, apparently, they have re-capped me after that, for now the message no longer appears, and they have rejected uploads of mine that are 30 and 31 and 26 minutes long.
Mysterious are the ways of giant corporations.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
With Lunar Ball / Lunar Pool it is actually possible to create an AI that beats the current TAS(es). Seeing as how those TASes were created almost exclusively with an AI to begin with. (Indeed, the bot was designed to play the game, go to next stage, etc. completely without assistance, which it did, without failure, but I sometimes finetuned its outcomes manually.)
It is possible to beat them, because the features for the AI were chosen with a tradeoff between execution speed and completeness in search for best results. With the current settings, [1565] NES Lunar Pool by Bisqwit in 23:47.52 took several years of CPU time to calculate (and over a year of user time).
Using an AI to play stand-alone is possible with simple games like Tetris or Sokoban. There exist many successful algorithms for Tetris AI by now.
It might be possible with simple relatively invariant platform games like SMB1, too, however extremely difficult. For a game like Mega Man or Solomon's Key I don't think it is possible at all. (Solomon's Key combines puzzle with moving actors, hence extra difficulty.) Though I would really like to get to read the source code of someone's attempt! Legend of Kage is likely possible due to its simplicity, assuming that you know the mathematical secrets that make it tick.
Oh, can the AI do rerecording? That matters a great deal. If rerecording cannot be used, then the AI must be able to plan ahead without any mistakes, or to recover from mistakes. A Tetris AI can simulate the game ahead with visual information alone, without rerecording, whereas the Lunar Pool bot relies on rerecording to get feedback on what each angle&velocity combination produces. And is the AI allowed to access the game's RAM to read things like actors' velocities and RNG seed?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Okay, this is the fifth time I try to encode SC2 and the second time on another computer, and what happens, every time, is the SIS ship flies right through Sa-Matra without activating the final battle, as if the Sa-Matra was not even there even though it clearly is. Movie syncs properly, game just acts buggy. I think this is some kind of copy protection measure; the game has detected itself as pirate or something. Which is weird, I don't think I have changed anything since I made the movie...
I have to do research.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Inspired by this new DOSBox savestate project started by this Korean fellow, I took my own rerecording project out from the naphthaline.
To my surprise, suddenly the rerecording version of DOSBox (alpha3) seems to work for me again without any problem. It have successfully played back the SC2 TAS on a 64-bit Windows7 laptop on Cygwin, and on the same Linux AthlonXP that I created the TAS with in the first place. It desyncs _if_ there is some lag on the host computer, such as the DOSBox window frame being moved around on the desktop, or nesvideos_piece recording raw video through LAN, but leave both alone and it plays just fine. And I found that a differing version of SDL.dll can also cause desyncs.
I'm making a HQ encoding of the Star Control II TAS finally :)
Alas, I still can't make FractalFusion's Keen6 movie sync.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
I suppose this e-mail approaches the concept of an oxymoron or a paradox! It attempts to scam people by pretending to be exposing the very scam it is committing. (I changed some details just in case it has some relevance.)
scammer wrote:
OFFICE OF THE NIGERIAN PRESIDENCY
COMPENSATION OFFICE DEPARTMENT
SCAM VICTIMS COMPENSATIONS PAYMENTS 2011.
ATTN: SIR/MADAM
REF/PAYMENTS CODE: FGN/PHBPLC/066541 (US$6.50,000.00)
This is to bring to your notice that we are delegated from the UNITED NATIONS INTERNATIONAL FRAUD MONITORING UNIT, I wish to notify you that the office of the Nigerian presidency has been authorized to pay out to 50 innocent victims of the widely know internet scam called Advanced Fee Fraud aka (419) the sum of US$6.50,000.00(Six Hundred,Fivety Thousand, Dollars Onlyeach).
You have been listed and approved for this payment as one of the scammed victims.
We receive a mail from one Mr. Daniel Seibert, saying that you instructed him to receieve the money for you, so we want to know if you are the one that instructed him to receive money for you before we can transfer the fund into his account?
Below is the account deatails he gave to us:
USBank Information;
Name: USBank
Address: 1234 W. Paseo Bolsa Green Valley, AZ 8561
Telephone: 520-123-456
Fax: 520-123-456
Routing NO.: 122105155
Swift: USBKUS44 (They don't use this)
Account No.: 123456787908
Account Name: Daniel W. & Gail C. Seibert
Currency type: USD
Account type: Checking
Please indicate to us now for us to know if you are the one that instructed him to received the fund on your behalf before we will transfer this fund into the account above, but if you are not do not hesitate to get back to us immediately for transfer of your fund.
SCAMMED VICTIM/REF/PAYMENTS CODE: FGN/PHBPLC/066541
Amount:US$6.50,000.00 DOLLARS ONLY
1) Your full name and residential address:
2) Your direct phone number:
3) Your file reference number:
4) Your nominated account details where your funds will be transferred into:
Yours Faithfully,
Dr. Frank Edward
Naturally, it is sent through a russian server (relay.ssnt.ru), which in turns claims it comes a Nigerian dial-up (41.155.71.235), authenticating as username "spam". Naturally, I sent spam-reports through spamcop.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Here's another password generator datasheet submitted to me that I never had the time to implement in JS. It was submitted by TNSe. Slightly edited for brefity.
Metal Gear uses 25 * 5 bit chars for the code
Char<->Value table
US-EU-HX
1 B 00
2 D 01
3 G 02
4 H 03
5 J 04
6 K 05
A L 06
B M 07
C N 08
D P 09
E Q 0A
F R 0B
G T 0C
H V 0D
I W 0E
J X 0F
K Y 10
L Z 11
M 1 12
N 2 13
O 3 14
P 4 15
Q 5 16
R 6 17
S 7 18
T 8 19
U 9 1A
V - 1B
W * 1C
X . 1D
Y # 1E
Z " 1F
Code Layout:
01234 56789
A xxxxx xxxxx
B xxxxx xxxxx
C xxxxx
18 bytes result:
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQR
012345678901234567
Conversion matrix:
A 0:2 = A0 0:2, A 3:7 = 0
B 0:4 = A1 0:4, B 5:7 = B8 0:2
C 0:4 = A2 0:4, C 5:7 = B9 0:2
D 0:1 = A0 3:4, D 2:7 = 0
E 0:4 = A3 0:4, E 5:7 = C0 0:2
F 0:4 = A4 0:4, F 5:7 = C1 0:2
G 0:4 = A5 0:4, G 5:7 = C2 0:2
H 0:4 = A6 0:4, H 5:7 = C3 0:2
I 0:4 = A7 0:4, I 5:6 = B8 3:4, I 7:7 = C2 4:4
J 0:4 = A8 0:4, J 5:6 = B9 3:4, J 7:7 = C2 3:3
K 0:4 = A9 0:4, K 5:6 = C0 3:4, K 7:7 = C3 4:4
L 0:4 = B0 0:4, L 5:6 = C1 3:4, L 7:7 = C3 3:3
M 0:4 = B1 0:4, M 5:7 = 0
N 0:4 = B2 0:4, N 5:7 = 0
O 0:4 = B3 0:4, O 5:7 = 0
P 0:4 = B4 0:4, P 5:7 = B7 0:2
Q 0:4 = B5 0:4, Q 5:6 = B7 3:4, Q 7:7 = 0
R 0:4 = B6 0:4, R 5:7 = 0
Accounted for:
var bit
01234
A0 AAADD
A1 BBBBB
A2 CCCCC
A3 EEEEE
A4 FFFFF
A5 GGGGG
A6 HHHHH
A7 IIIII
A8 JJJJJ
A9 KKKKK
B0 LLLLL
B1 MMMMM
B2 NNNNN
B3 OOOOO
B4 PPPPP
B5 QQQQQ
B6 RRRRR
B7 PPPQQ
B8 BBBII
B9 CCCJJ
C0 EEEKK
C1 FFFLL
C2 GGGJI
C3 HHHLK
C4 Checksum
A = Starting Place (3 bits), starting location depends on your rank (in paranthesis)
00 - Illegal
01 - Jungle (*)
02 - Building 1 (**)
03 - Elevator (***)
04 - South of Tanks (****)
05 - Illegal
06 - Illegal
07 - Illegal
B = Bosses, first 8, bitmapped
0 - Machine Gun Kid
1 - Twin Shot
2 - Shotgunner
3 - Tanks
4 - Bulldozer
5 - Arnold
6 - Fire Trooper
7 - Coward Duck
C = Weapons, Bitmapped
0 - Pistol
1 - Mines
2 - Explosives
3 - Missiles
4 - Machine Gun
5 - Grenade Launcher
6 - Rocket Launcher
7 - Option: Silencer
D = Bosses, last 2, bitmapped
0 - Super Computer (Having this bit set puts you directly outside super computer room)
1 - "Big Boss"
E, F & G are 24 prisoners, bitmapped.
F:3 = "Grey Fox"
G:2 = Jennifers Brother
H = Cards, Card 1 through 8, bitmapped
I = Inventory 1, Bitmapped
0 - Cigarettes (Always given even if not set)
1 - Gasmask
2 - Binoculars
3 - Cardboard Box
4 - Bomb Blast Suit
5 - Enemy Uniform
6 - Infrared Goggles
7 - Glove
J = Inventory 2, Bitmapped
0 - Mine Detector
1 - Armor
2 - Antenna
3 - Antidote
4 - Flashlight
5 - Compass
6 - Oxygen
7 - Transmitter
K = Rations (Lower 4 bits, 0..15)
Game State in upper 4, Bitmapped
4 - ?
5 - Poisoned (This bit is removed before game begins)
6 - Captured (A code with this bit sets ignores location above)
7 - Escaped (Will only work if you have taken card 3?)
Ammo: (Any values out of range from the numbers in paranthesis will cause ERR CODE)
L = Hand Gun (0..255)
M = Mines (0..20)
N = Explosives (0..20)
O = Missile (0..20)
P = Machine Gun (0..255)
Q = Grenade Launcher (0..90)
R = Rockets (0..30)
Byte locations in Memory:
A..R = 6E..7F
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Kuwaga wrote:
Now back to the Bible, starting from the unreasonable premiss that it holds absolute truth, the contradictions don't serve as evidence for it being not true anymore. Instead they are a challenge and your duty as a believer becomes to explain these contradictions for yourself and thus come closer to God. They make you think about who he actually is, and you should go that path because it's the only path that leads to the light and to love, because God is love. If God appers to not love us, then it's just because we cannot comprehend his true motivation for the things he does. That's a very reasonable explanation that resolves something that seems like a contradiction in the bible to you, but maybe it's more like a puzzle you have to solve to get a closer understanding of who God really is.
That is pretty much spot-on, as much as I understand how frustrating and fruitless that may be from any other perspective.
Also, true that everything starts from assumptions. For whatever experience or observation we witness, we can only build theories upon assumptions on what it means. Some assumptions are just easier to justify than others, easier to sympatize with, easier to propagate, easier to build new assumptions upon, and, also, more difficult to abandon when subscribing to them long enough. Zhuangzhi, for instance, pondered, while dreaming of a butterfly, if he's really the butterfly who dreams of being a human. These quantities apply possibly to everything observable, anything thinkable and anything experiencable.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Pointless Boy wrote:
I considered it self-evident that we could agree upon the correctness of at least one of my perceptions of your concept of god. [...]Predictably, you responded to me by explaining irrelevancies rather than addressing what I actually asked.
So basically, you expected to waltz me along to a conclusion you made, while holding the claims leading to the conclusion in an immutable and indisputable position? That is hardly a way to conduct meaningful discussion.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Pointless Boy wrote:
Anyway, my perception of your concept of god is the following:
①Your god is jealous. (I understand you think this wholly distinct from envy.)
②Your god is boastful.
③Your god is proud.
④Your god dishonors others.
⑤Your god is self-seeking.
⑥Your god is easily angered.
⑦Your god keeps a record of wrongs.
⑧Your god does not always protect.
⑨Your god does not always trust.
①Yup, he says "you shall not make a substitute of me, nor lift anything I have created to a position higher than me", and gets quite angry (see ⑤, below) when we do. I think that such behavior is understandable in his position.
②Rightfully so, though. Is there anything greater than him that he could possibly boast about but which he really does not have? And his "boasting" is not a symptom of ③, but rather, a reminder of what I explain in ⑤.
③He was happy about what he created, yes. Or are you talking about something else? Proudness? Pride? I don't think I understand this concept well. Maybe overestimation of one's abilities? N/A. Underestimating one's dependence on their provider? N/A. I can't see how this works.
④I suppose you are talking about speaking bad about people (or exposing evil), which I think it's not a bad thing, but actually it is a good thing, when it is done by talking truth, with no intention of malice, but actually in the context, "to dishonor" meant "to behave in an inappropriate way". I don't think God does that.
⑤Yup, and no. He does everything and all in order to point to himself, but there is no indication in the Bible saying that he seeks to comfort himself with the expense of anything else; rather, he does it because he _is_ the provider upon which we depend and we have the tendency to forget that the first chance we get.
⑥I'm starting to regret I used the NIV translation here. KJV says "is not easily provoked", and the Finnish translation says akin to "does not become embittered". God is not easily provoked (he is patient for up to centuries; he does not thus rush pointless retribution), but he does get angry (see ⑦) over things that may seem minor to us (see ①). I think it is because of his greater understanding of the long-term consequences than ours. Embitterment is a condition in which a person holds a grudge towards another person and they refuse to give the other person a chance. It is a different one from justice. God does not indulge in embitterment. (Leviticus 26:40-45 makes this clear.)
⑦Yup, though, under certain conditions, is willing to tear the record in pieces (see Jeremiah 31:33-34). And arguably, he's not doing that for selfish reasons, but because of the position he is in when compared to us (see ⑤). A parent that constantly and permanently ignores wrongs their child does is not a very good parent. And when they do turn attention to the wrongs, it doesn't mean that the parent is exacting retribution for personal reasons, though the child may sometimes think so. (Been there, done that.)
⑧Arguable. Protect what? Again, NIV uses a misrepresentative word here... KJV and the Finnish translation say more akin to "doesn't mind genuine mistakes even in the long term".
⑨N/A. To clarify, in Wikipedia, there is the term "assume good faith", which refers to that when someone seems to have blanked a section of text or typed something wrong, it is good etiquette to first assume that they did so by an accident rather than to intentionally vandalize, and to select one's response to the mishap-doer appropriately. This does not apply to God because he knows our heart. He does not need to guess.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Pointless Boy wrote:
The wife is to be obedient to her husband
And the husband is to love his wife! Do not ever forget that part.
Otherwise, it is a very unbalanced situation indeed.
Just a reminder of what love is according to the Bible (or to be more precise, by the same author who also wrote the part about the husband and the wife):
If I speak in human or angelic tongues, but do not have love, I am but a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body [to hardship] that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind.
It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
When Yeshua was asked, what is the greatest commandment in the Torah, He answered:
Love YHWH, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.
Basically, God shows (for a thousand years, during which He is the king, and during which the spiritual forces which tempt away from God are disabled), this is how I wanted you to live in the world. During the thousand years, supposedly almost nobody is going to defect, because it is so perfect all-around. After the thousand years have gone, He will give the people the option: You have all seen and experienced first-hand how the world will turn out if you follow my laws and my guidance. You now have the option: Which one will you choose? You can once again take a gander at the ungodly, and ignore my presence and ignore my commandments, for the short term satisfaction it may give you, if you so choose. In other words, He is trying to be fair to also those people who have born and lived during the millennial kingdom during which God's perfect guidance was globally taken as a granted, because He emphasizes free will to such degree that He only takes people who will live with voluntarily. That is how I have understood this. (From hearing a teaching about the subject.)
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Scepheo wrote:
Bisqwit, I don't think you really answered the question you were asked. Yes, rushed decisions are bad. How does this relate to the subject at hand?
God's kingdom is not a democracy. You cannot go and second-guess him on every decision. Imagine you tried, and as an answer, He listed you 2214510587 affecting circumstances, of which 109601967 are about lessons he wanted to teach in the Torah, and of which 1731506815 are related to the way He will be able to interact with his people 10860 years from now, and 377110857 happenstances in lifes of people born long before you and born after your death, and the 175019790175 ways in which the different options may turn out, of which 175019790174 are out of question because it is uncharacteristic to Him to make that happen, and so on. In the end, the scope of his decisions is way out of capability of any human's understanding. So who am I to try? Or more to the point, what good would it possibly do for me to make a guess? Instead, I chose to point out the more fundamental principle to decision making, and to remind any reader that the scope of circumstances concerning the decisions God makes are beyond the capacity of understanding of any human, and that it is enough for us to know that He is capable.
Of course, the real reason to this confusion is that the question is made from a different point of reference than the one in which I am writing an answer for the question. The point of reference, in which the question is made, is "does this concept of a God make sense at all". The point of reference, in which I chose to interpret the question and to write the answer, is "do decisions made by God make sense to us". I do this deliberately to enforce the change of orientation from human-centric thinking to God-centric thinking. The human-centric thinking is the one in which we assume that any and all decisions can be explained in terms that a human can understand. (Yes, it might be explainable in such terms, but the explanation may need a lightyear thick book if contained. Naturally, I am not able to come up with such an explanation. I could possibly come up with an explanation that makes sense and that you have not considered, but then again it could be plain wrong or at best, utterly misrepresentative.) The God-centric thinking is the one that takes God's word as granted and builds interpretation on that foundation. Once you understand the change in the point of reference, my answers make mostly perfect sense even if you don't agree with them. If you choose not to understand the change in the point of reference, yes, then everything will look like a circular justification to the belief.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Truncated wrote:
Is God <...>? Why doesn't God just <...>? Especially since you think God gets very sad when <...>
This question is asked rather often, usually in a mocking tone. I think this time I'll put my answer as "a rushed decision is not always the best one".
A rushed decision is the one where you happen to be holding a bazooka, and you see a fly on the wall, and you shoot the fly with the bazooka. By the way, the way to make the decision "not rushed" is not to shoot the fly with the bazooka later. The opposite of a rushed decision is a wise decision, not a slow decision.
Rushed decisions lead to an avalanche of other problems, like in many time travel stories where someone "fixes" what went once wrong, and ends up with an exponentially growing number of other problems that need to be fixed as a consequence of fixing the first problem. My belief is that what we have been/are/will be seeing, is indeed God's solution to that problem. And you already knew that, but you wanted me to write this in any case. There are always people who disapprove. Always. As long as the level of understanding differs between two parties, there are differences in understanding*. And that is why God is raising a nation for himself that is taught to always trust Him, for He is smarter than we are.
As for your other questions, I am not fan of philosophy. Ask someone else.
*)This sounds tautological, but is not. Level of understanding is a measure of ability. Understanding is the product of using the ability, which includes thoughts and perceptions one receives and generates.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Warp wrote:
Bisqwit wrote:
Warp wrote:
If a Japanese uses a swastika to decorate a religious building, would you call him a neonazi? If a neonazi used a swastika to symbolize his political views, would you call him a shintoist? No. Even though the symbols look the same, the meaning is completely different.
Would you use a swastika to decorate a festival where Jews are invited to, to cite the good luck it symbolizes, if that is what it honestly meant to you?
You missed the point. I wouldn't go to a Japanese home and call them neonazis if they happened to have a swastika as an oriental symbol of luck, which is what you are doing by claiming that the star at the top of the christmas tree that people put in their homes is a symbol of pagan worship.
So we're talking about two different things.
I'm arguing the case about how to serve God and how not to. My priority is in not offending YHWH..
You're arguing the case about how to talk to people and how not to. Your priority seems to be in not offending people. And here I wish to refer to 2.Tim. 4:1-4.
No wonder our views do not appear to meet....Warp wrote:
You are basically claiming that God doesn't want to understand the reason why people have certain customs, and instead chooses to get offended by the coincidental similarity of the shape of an object regardless of why it was put there.
Yes. God does not care about our excuses. As for understanding us, he is smart and understanding and knows the difference between us being ignorant and us being inpudent. As for choosing something, he is sovereign and we're in no position to negotiate and trade with him. He says "you do this", we do that, or otherwise we're disobeying. He does not command us out of whim; when He instructs us, He does that from love. And when you say "no", what does it do to Him? It hurts! I am not exaggerating here. It is in the Bible. The word of God tells in no small detail how it pains Him to see how people are doing everything, but listen to him. He even gave us a graphic live-action illustration of it about 2000 years ago. He forgives, and extends his deadlines, and does that for centuries, but not to no end.
Warp wrote:
You are giving God very human-like qualities and deficiencies, a God who gets offended by trivial minutia.
According to the Bible, He did create us in His image. The New Testament also describes Jesus both feeling very humane feelings and yet being one with the Father. It is not a question of "trivial minutia". It is a question of commitment in a relationship. In a relationship, you will have to make sacrifices. Sometimes, your partner does not like something you do. You do not agree it can possibly hurt. What are your options? Would you accuse your partner of being crybaby? God gave us the marriage, and everything leading to that, as a model of his relationship to us. The word of God is full of marriage related analogues between the congregation (people covenanted to Him) and Him.
The wife is to be obedient to her husband, and the husband is to love his wife.
Warp wrote:
Nothing good comes from extreme fundamentalism.
Obviously, I disagree with this part. As for the judging other people part, I think I better abstain from arguing that point. It has been done before.
Warp wrote:
Also, spreading possible misinformation is not a good thing.
Ah! Don't you think intentions matter more than the actual deed? :)
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Warp wrote:
If a Japanese uses a swastika to decorate a religious building, would you call him a neonazi? If a neonazi used a swastika to symbolize his political views, would you call him a shintoist? No. Even though the symbols look the same, the meaning is completely different.
Would you use a swastika to decorate a festival where Jews are invited to, to cite the good luck it symbolizes, if that is what it honestly meant to you? I think not. Remember that in an event where God is invited to, He is a participant. Do you want to use things that remind Him of times when people did the most horrible things against His commandments? It might be a beloved symbol to you and it reminds you of all the good things, but what does it remind Him of? He does have feelings too, you know. And what does it to tell to Him your insistance of favoring your own fathers' traditions over those that He taught to us?
And if God is invited to your daily life -- Christians believe that their very body is indeed the temple of Holy Spirit (according to 1Co. 3:16) --, you'd sure want to make sure your life has got things He has ordained all over it rather than something else. Again, he is a jealous God, as the scriptures tell from the beginning.
Yes, I am indeed emphasizing a dichotomy here. Because you cannot be a judge to what is perfectly fine and what is not. No human can. Our viewspan is limited. Though he is perfect and loving and He understands and forgives if we do things because we don't know any better, we should not knowingly do something that is questionable. We should not knowingly stay ignorant, either. ("My people perish for lack of knowledge", the Word tells.)
Warp" wrote:
If person A uses symbol X for pagan worship, does X become somehow "cursed" and automatically forbidden from that point forward to eternity and for everybody, regardless of intention?
That'd be problematic, yes. We'd be prohibited from doing pretty much anything, including the doing of nothing at all.
Though this is personal, Warp, you are a person who seeks to find the very definite binary threshold on everything, to argue about the definition of each rule and to find the impossiblemost edgecases and how the rule works in that situation. Such is what is definitely happening here, too.
I am uncertain whether God is such a person. The best I know is that His word is always valid, and that He has told us how to do in certain situations, and how to never do. Maybe you should seek that source of advise as well?
EDIT: I know the Word also says: "He catches the wise in their craftiness". The human has infinite potential for self-justification. Sometimes, too much of trying to be smart can yield disastrous results. You will eventually find the letters and logic to justify whatever you want to continue doing, yet are in clear violation of the word. And God will say, "you have made your choice, you have clearly outsmarted yourself".
Also, I know that like me, you're often argumenting for the sake of getting things discussed to a clear end rather than for the sake of defending one's own opinion. Hence, you appear argumentative. Considering the biblical principle of "God is smarter than we are" and our tendency to eventually outwit ourselves (as indicated by Bible, and as indicated by history, e.g. church councils), what do you think the ostensible outcome and effect will be in the case of this discussion?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Warp wrote:
Wouldn't it make more sense that it's the intention that matters, not the precise symbol? It's not what you use, but how and for what purpose.
It appears like you completely missed the point of my post. The relevant thing is not what you think something represents. The relevant thing is not what the person, who originally conceived the idea, designated the bits of their idea for. The relevant thing is: Is the idea founded firmly in the Bible? If it is not, i.e. it is just someone's well-intentioned idea, chances are that it is influenced by the master of all false gods, the great liar, the enemy of souls, who uses your actions to assert his dominion over the humanity, by demonstrating that even people who honestly and truly wish to do good in YHWH's name, are subjectible to being put to spread the old-fashioned Baal iconery and ideas, as long as they give in to the temptation of doing "good" things (tree of good and evil knowledge) rather than doing "life" things (Bible/Torah).
There is a reason why the Bible tells the story that when God freed Israel from the slavery in Egypt, all the things he taught them to do to worship Him were pretty much the polar opposite to everything that was done in Egypt to serve pagan gods. He could've used the same things just as well, just label them differently, disregarding the earlier use in paganism -- and He would have been in all authority to teach that such is their true meaning --, but He chose to teach to do very differently, the very opposite things to what was done in Egypt. Why? Because He is sovereign, and He is smarter than we are.
He said, "if and when you want to worship me, do as I tell you to do. And here's what you do. Don't go on and invent your own rituals of worship. For I am not delighted for seeing them." He is not delighted of seeing us devise the very same things to honor Him that people have used to honor idols. We think it's a halo emphasizing the divine nature of Jesus, but He just squints, saying: "Are you serious. This is just the same thing as they did in Egypt, to show the character is blessed by Ra. Do you think I want to see it again. Why don't you ever listen to me?" It is not that we put the halo there to show a blessing by sun-god, not our intention, but we're just repeating the same idea, our idea, that has been used to also serve idols. And he says, it's as disgusting as a rag used to absorb menstruation. Our glorious idea, only that it's not the first time we get the same idea. We make statues showing The Suffering Servant on a cross, and we sell them in churches. What a glorious way to get a message across, and to remind us of the sacrifice made for us. Only, it's not the first time we get the idea of making sculptures of gods. And so on.
(Quotes shown are dramatizations, not actual bible quotations.)
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Does "newGrid = list(grid)" create a copy, or a reference?
Does "a or b and c" evaluate to "(a or b) and c", or "a or (b and c)"?
These are two possible sources of errors I thought of when I read the code.
[small]I would have posted this in the "Programming for fun" thread instead, but.[/small]
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Warp wrote:
The person or group who first thought about putting a star on top of the christmas tree didn't necessarily have anything like that in mind. (The same goes for halos in icons and statues. Similarity does not necessarily imply common origin.)
History and intention are two totally different things.
"We do things this way because we've always done it that way and as I understand it means that <...>" is a very popular and sticky way to do things, but it is not biblical. God is eternal and he knows what those things, that one does, originally meant. When you do it, it reminds Him of its original meaning. When you paint eggs red on Easter (an Orthodox custom), you may be thinking of something quite other, but when you do it, He remembers the time when virgins were raped, forcefully impregnated, and 9 months later their firstborn babies would be killed and eggs would be painted with the babies' blood as a symbol / offering to goddess Astarte / Ishtar for virility and fertility. The phrase, "that's not what it means to me!" works both ways. It is also a sign of unfaithfulness.
You may have conceived the idea independently from its history, but unless it is founded in the Bible, it is just another "take that!" to YHWH's face from the master of false gods; a scheme which you are unwittingly participating. Satan presents himself to God and mocks him, saying: Look at how wicked things I get these people doing, and they do it all in your name! And all he had to do is to insert a tiny suggestion that sounds good and innocuous to us. An old and tried tactic. Did God really say that you cannot eat from every tree? Come on. That is why the Word emphasizes again and again, do not do according to your own judgment, but do as I tell you to do. Because you think your actions brings glory to YHWH, but in fact they do the very opposite thing, if they are not founded firmly in the Word.
As Jim Staley puts it: "Honey, I know your birthday is May 10th, but my ex-girlfriend's birthday was April 21st and I've grown very accustomed to celebrating that day. It was so joyful day and I loved it. But now I'm with you. I'm sure you won't mind that I'll celebrate your birthday in April 21st!?" (To help reckon the reply, the Bible describes YHWH as a jealous God.) That, and so many other things are why I don't feel it appropriate to celebrate Christmas at all.
