ManMadeGod's forum posts

#1 Posted by ManMadeGod (1561 posts) -

First time commenting in here, but I gotta say this is my first time I've been into wrestling since the 90's, when I was in Elementary school. I've gotta say I think I'm way more into it now than I was then. I used to only watch it occasionally at a friend's house back then, but now I try to catch RAW every week. Which I decided I need a break from since I'm so far behind in my grad school work.

With that being said, I am what basically amounts to a casual fan, so is the network worthwhile for me? I don't care too much about looking back on the years I've skipped, but I am into what has been going on recently.

Anyway, Sheamus winning the US Title is totally the start of a heel turn, right?

Sounds like you would be buying the Network just to watch the PPV. I mean, if you're watching RAW every week why not? Do you feel that the PPV events are worth $10?

They also have some cool documentaries on the network which you might like. Example would be looking at the career of Stone Cold or an hour long video following Bryan leading up to WM30.

#2 Edited by ManMadeGod (1561 posts) -

@president_barackbar said:

@manmadegod: I've personally never understood the argument that you have to really try to make them compatible. Its pretty easy if all you do is say "well God is responsible for the natural order of the universe." That doesn't exclude any scientific truths at all, and still allows for the existence of God. The problem I have with your argument is you are definitively saying there is no way to reconcile the two when, in fact, its actually pretty easy to. I didn't do any mental gymnastics there at all, simply "well God created the principles of science and the universe." I understand the atheist point of view and I don't care if anyone chooses to be an atheist, but to imply that its the only belief system that doesn't require the denial of scientific truth is just plain false.

Okay I will only ask you two question: Explain me how to reconcile evolution and the adam and eve story. This was something I thought long and hard about when I was a Catholic but I'm always open to other points of view.

Here is the problem: Jesus died "for our sins". Christianity says every person is born a sinner because of Original Sin which was inherited from Adam. If you believe in evolution then you can't say there was two original people created by God, and that they violated his rule not to eat the fruit. If not for this Original Sin, what purpose does Jesus play? Suddenly his sacrifice seems a little odd. I understand that some minority groups within the Christian faith will try to say our sin is inherit without it being passed on from Adam & Eve, but I feel that strays too far from what Christianity has been teaching for 2,000 years. It is for this reason that I believe it is not possible to believe in Christianity and modern science (well, one of the reasons).

Remember, all of the major faiths make more claims about the world than "God exists". So I don't think we can just say "God is responsible for the natural order" and leave it at that. Christians/Muslims/Buddhists/Jews/Hindus believe much more than that. Would you at least agree with this point?

#3 Posted by ManMadeGod (1561 posts) -

@cretaceous_bob: I understand where you are coming from, but you also have to realize that the idea that the separation of science and religion is a modern idea. Rationalism was, for a very long time, supported by the Catholic Church. In addition, one of the most prominent orders of monks, the Jesuits, have ALWAYS espoused the use of rational thought and scientific reason from within their religion. The separation between science and religion in today's world was created by Protestants who have a literal reading of the Bible. Not every branch of religion, Christian or otherwise, directly refutes science.

The Jesuits were founded in the 1500's. At the time there was a belief that God created everything, and god is a logical rational being. Thus, there must be a reason for why the sun comes and goes every day, and there must be a reason for why it gets cold in winter and warm in the summer. At the time science was seen as a way to discover the way God makes the universe tick.

The problem today is that in the 500 years or so since the Jesuits were created, we have learned so much that God isn't needed in that equation any more. We know the answer to many things included how and approximately when homo sapiens appeared on the earth. You have to really try in order to make religion and science co exist, and that's the problem.

Also, if there was no Adam and Eve then Christians have a MAJOR problem. While the Catholic Church has come out in favor of evolution, I'm pretty sure they have never said how that view point agrees with Adam and Eve and Original Sin. This is also the reason why Protestants feel the need to defend a literal reading of the Bible, and kinda gets at the entire crux of the creationism debate.

#5 Posted by ManMadeGod (1561 posts) -

But we're still all agreeing with the whole "fuck x-axis inverters" thing right? I just want to make sure we have come to a consensus on those crazy fuckers.

Nope. People that invert only the Y Axis are IINO's (Inverts in name only). Us pure breeds want nothing to do with those folks.

#6 Posted by ManMadeGod (1561 posts) -

@manmadegod said:

@oldirtybearon said:

The best way to explain the difference between wrong inverted and normal style is this:

Inverted players view camera movement as moving the characters head while normal players view it as moving the characters eyes. If you can break yourself of the stupid "I'm moving this head!" and instead recognize that you are controlling a camera that functions as a pair of eyes the easier it'll be to break out of your funk.

Ummmm, does anyone move just their eyes to look around? If you were walking around with a gun you wouldn't just use your eyes. Nope, inverted makes more sense.

I also invert X Axis. Double inverted

You're missing the point. The difference between normal and inverted controls is purely psychological. Whichever "feels" right entirely depends on how you rationalize camera movement in a first person game. I personally view it as moving my characters "eyes" and so I push up to look up, and down to look down. Whether or not it's technically correct in terms of how human eyes actually work is irrelevant. It's about perception, and for the majority of people the perception is we don't "look down" to look up.

Your point in the first post was "If you can break yourself of the stupid "I'm moving this head!" and instead recognize that you are controlling a camera that functions as a pair of eyes the easier it'll be to break out of your funk." Very clearly saying one view of the control is stupid. So no, I didn't miss your point.

#7 Posted by ManMadeGod (1561 posts) -

The best way to explain the difference between wrong inverted and normal style is this:

Inverted players view camera movement as moving the characters head while normal players view it as moving the characters eyes. If you can break yourself of the stupid "I'm moving this head!" and instead recognize that you are controlling a camera that functions as a pair of eyes the easier it'll be to break out of your funk.

Ummmm, does anyone move just their eyes to look around? If you were walking around with a gun you wouldn't just use your eyes. Nope, inverted makes more sense.

I also invert X Axis. Double inverted

#8 Edited by ManMadeGod (1561 posts) -

So what is the point of having the door open in a cage match? Why would anyone try to climb over the top if they could just walk out the door? Body slam + walk out the door and the match is over. I just don't understand the entire premise of a cage match unless the door is locked.

#9 Posted by ManMadeGod (1561 posts) -

@demoskinos said:

Well match of the night goes to Shield vs Evolution as the Shield continues to steal the show. The rest of the show was pretty good. Worst match of the night was the Diva's match but that isn't surprising.

It's the divas match. They don't get to run in worst match of the night because they are always the worst. I missed the cesaro match so I can't comment, but over all I found the show boring and all of the spots felt really flat to me. That Kane and the fire table thing at the end looked like it might have been cool, but it looked like they ran out putting the fire extinguishers on him before he even hit the thing. Then that one guy kept spraying him even long after the fire was out and he was trying to get back into the ring. That whole match just felt comical instead of brutal. Which seemed to be the theme of the night to me. Nothing about the PPV seemed extreme. But I guess that's shame on me for thinking it would be otherwise in the age of PG WWE.

WWE has been PG for 5 and a half years.

#10 Posted by ManMadeGod (1561 posts) -

I'm actually pretty excited for Extreme Rules. The line up turned out better than I thought it would a few weeks ago.