- This topic has 263 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 7 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
(Hey, I don’t know if you’ve read my response yet or not, but I want to once again apologies for any contentious or condescending tones I projected in it. I stand by all that I said, and much of it I still feel needed to be pointed out, but looking back at it, I could have left out a few things, and could have tried to speak a bit more kindly, which I was trying, but I was also dealing with some other agitations, so I’m sorry if I projected any of that towards you. You gave some excellent points, I just felt like I needed to point out a few things I felt you didn’t quite understand to the extent you thought you did, but that is not to put down your ability to do your own research, and I must express my gratitude for your efforts. I just felt like I should let you know that I do not bear any frustrations towards you, and I’ve still been having fun with this discussion, and would love to continue as long as it can continue as it has. I agree though that a rest is also an excellent thing to do to collect ourselves, and ponder on what’s been said, and pray about it. I can’t wait to see any responses you may have or anything else you would like to discuss. Thank you for bearing with my weirdness😅)
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
I don’t really have time for this right now so…
I realized I want my time on this forum to stay more writing related, so I’m just going to leave the discussion where it is.
He must increase, but I must decrease.
(I can respect that. My last response was indeed… long. I hope nothing I’ve said has put you off in any way.) Did you at least read through some of what I said? (Because I realized after your last response that you were getting a very tainted image of my church, which was the opposite of what this discussion was meant to accomplish. I gave some pointers for some places to look for more unbiased material that I was hopping you would see, you don’t need to take the time to look into them, but I just wanted you to know they were there since it was something you were looking into before. Either way though, this has indeed strayed from the idea of literature, and even from just questions. I did have a lot of fun discussing this topic with you though, as it also lead me to do a lot of research on topics I did not fully understand myself until now, and I hope you enjoyed it as well.)
Anyway, is their some topic writing related you would like to go back to or start? (I understand if your simply not interested in discussing at all right now. I’m doing a general media fast for this week and the next anyways.)
(Also, the rules of the question forum are still there…)
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
(Oh whoops…I forgot to put parenthesis on my last post. Life got really busy and I realized I didn’t have the time to continue with where this discussion was going. I apologize for backing out like this but I sort of regret I got this deep in the first place. I am going to take a break from debate/deep discussions since I won’t be able to respond promptly and in a non-rushed way. Good luck on your media fast!)
He must increase, but I must decrease.
(I did realize some of these things as I researched more about your church’s theology. But thanks for the clarity! So you only worship one God (the Father), through Jesus (who is a God, but not the Father). And you don’t worship Jesus, because you are not polytheistic. Did I get it straight? 😅 .)
(Kinda. I really don’t want to say that we don’t worship Christ, because we do in a lot of ways, as He is the head and center of our Church. Many members will say plainly that we worship God the Father and the Son. It’s really more simple than I’m making it sound, and I feel like its more just the term worship and what that really means.)(Your dedication and acknowledgement of such things is encouraging. But logically, if you believe that Jesus is a created God, but not the Father, and I believe that Jesus and the Father are One, eternally existing and uncreated, then we believe in different Jesus’. However, we do agree on much of what Jesus did, His life here on earth, His sacrifice, etc. There are many different “jesus’” but only one True Jesus. For example, Muslims believe in a different Jesus than both of us, which, I assume, we would both agree is not the true Jesus. The question is, which one is the true Jesus? There is only One Way.)
(True, however I don’t feel the need to highlight these differences with the terminology of “We believe in a different Jesus”, because that sets borders, and generates contention. I think it’s fun to talk about our differing beliefs, but I feel it important that we must remember to re-center ourselves, remember that we may feel differently about some of these things, but know that we are all ultimately doing everything in our power to live the Gospel Christ has given us. To be a “Bible believing, Gospel living, follower of Jesus Christ” as some put it. The Christ we believe, we must do everything in our power to align with the Christ that is, so we might know Him to the greatest extent we are able in this life, but the Christ that is, we all collectively know as Christians would have us show love and compassion to our neighbor and enemy alike, even if we don’t agree with them, even if we know they are wrong. Christs apostles themselves squabbled over all the little things of what was and wasn’t the right thing to do, all trying to follow the will of their Savior with what parts of the whole they understood, and He had to consistently re-direct them to what was truly important. Yes, there is only one true Jesus, but that one true Jesus would have us remove contention and borders from our lives, and have us all seek Him, because as the true Jesus, He is the light and the way, and we don’t need to point out the details to be able to love Him and what He did for us. So yes, it is valid to say that we believe in a different Jesus, but I feel like its just a contentious phrase, we have a different idea of Jesus, but not a different Jesus is something a friend mentioned to me that I think is a good way of putting it, but maybe I’m wrong to think this way, because you are still right in the view you gave.)(I don’t think that getting into a huge argument or debate about these things will be profitable in the long term. So, now that we have discussed many things about our beliefs, I propose that we let the matter rest and meditate personally on what was said, looking to the Scriptures and prayer for wisdom. May the Lord guide you in your quest for truth!)
(I wanted to respond here first before continuing, sorry. I agree that further debate is unnecessary, however there are many things you just now pointed out that I feel a great need to explain, because the angle you just showed you were coming from is an angle I don’t think you mean to be coming from. I want to let it rest, but the responses I’m giving are instead exhaustive, because I want to make things clear, as some of the things you’ve pointed out I don’t feel fit the light you mean to paint, but instead the opposite. I’m here not to argue, but to clarify misinterpretation. If anything I say feels contentious, please let me know. Please don’t feel a need to read everything I say, as you make an excellent petition that we rest, which I wish to follow after I’ve clarified a few things if that’s ok.)(I understand how facts can be misunderstood and bias can skew people’s interpretation of things, especially when LDS authorities are rather secretive about some things (?) (correct me if I’m wrong). But I tried to read something unbiased because I wanted the truth. I did read some things on your church’s website, but it was a bit vague. I read something called the CES Letter (you may already be familiar with it), which has been enlightening so far.)
(Unfortunately I do need to correct you on that. Our Church is very misunderstood because of a very complex history with a lot of finite prospectives from many angles objectifying what they saw, and even straight up lies have been spread in the early days of it (and still many to this day). No joke, people have called us a cult of lizard people from mars before (obviously an extreme case, but similar ideas have been spread before more than once, even before the invention of the internet). In other words, it’s misunderstood because people are people, so it may not be any more misunderstood than other faiths, but there’s something particular about the Church for some reason. The General Authorities of the Church are not secretive, but instead the very opposite. They affirm what we believe, and speak plainly about who we are as followers of Jesus Christ, and sure they regard our history good and bad with open acknowledgement. Where you may have gotten that idea from is the fact that our Temples can only be entered by members, and some of the ordinances inside are meant only to be talked about inside. We use the phrase “Sacred not Secret” for this, as it can be talked about, but it is something that requires high reverence, and we don’t want the world to slander on it as the world unfortunately Slanders on our Savior’s name and His gospel constantly, He takes the cruelty on Himself, but reserves some things for those who can be respectful. As for the CES Letter, I’ve head of it before, but I never really new much about it. Upon some research, and reading a little, I’ve found that it regards many arguments I am familiar with. A thing to note is that if you want unbiased content, this is not where to look, because Runnells is a ex-member who just compiled many of the arguments against the Church, not a man who is learning about the Church and it’s history with a simple curiosity regardless of what the truth is that would be necessary to be unbiased. He states explicitly himself “I’m a disaffected member who lost his testimony so it’s no secret which side I’m on at the moment.” Which is a clear statement declaring plainly that He is very biased, and very biased against the Church. The arguments he makes are either skewed, the faults of man, or flat out untrue. This is what I’ve seen from all the ex-members I’ve met, read, or watched from thus far, they give the reason the church has offended them, like something we believe, and I immediately realize how untrue their claim is. I cannot speak for them and their experiences, but all the people I’ve seen leave the Church, simply never understood the Church in the first place, despite being raised in it. I believe many of them to be good people, but they failed to understand it all, and it saddens me when they leave with a bad taste in their mouth, and even becoming hateful to the Church, trying to lead others from it also. Another thing you should know about the author is that he is now an atheist. After leaving the Church, he became a non-denominational Christian, but after applying the same methods of truth seeking he did on the Church, he decided that Christianity in general is a complete and utter falsehood, so if you agree with his methods to find the truth, then you will have to figure out why his method to find out the truth for Christianity didn’t work, and you will find that it is because the research he made was skewed, the faults of man, or flat out untrue. Obviously being a very biased individual on the matter myself, I don’t know of many sources to point you to for learning about our Churches theology and history. However A few things I can point you to is HelloSaints (https://www.youtube.com/c/HelloSaints), a YouTube channel from a pastor taking the time to simply learn about and understand the Church, I’ve been watching his channel, and he gives many arguments against and praises for the Church, but all are respectful. Another Channel is 52 churches in 52 weeks (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrbYj1sUKoDd5SaC1ikcXXw), a protestant Christian just attending a different Church each week, and somewhat recently he has attended our Church twice, and attended General Conference, though that was bending the rules for the original challenge, but I think it was really interesting to hear his honest thoughts and impressions as he attended those and other churches as well. That’s pretty much the most unbiased content I’ve seen, I haven’t really read any books I’ve found unbiased yet, but even if these sources I gave are biased, they are biased on your behalf. As for content in the Church, I’m sorry the website seems pretty vague to you, but you should be able to find the right answer quickly on there if you know where to look, and your search filter may be set to something specific, If you could clarify on how its being vague, I would like to know, because it gets very in depth about what we believe and where we stand on specific topics if you take the time to search the site. Other content for the Church is another channel Saints Unscripted (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2LBmYIOq6Eu_ZC14i_YkIg) a channel that discusses all sorts of stuff about our Church, and one of their series Faith and Beliefs gets specifically into many of the topics that are actually mentioned in the CES Letter, they have one video in the series discussing it specifically as well. Something you can actually read is Saints, planned to be four volumes total, the first volume is called The Standard of Truth, a series compiled by historians and Church Authorities to get into the very bottom of the history of the Church. I’ve listened to an audiobook of it, and it gets very in depth very fast, referencing accounts from hundreds of Saints from the beginnings of the Church, as well as countless other documents from the time. It regards many skepticisms made at the time both by members and nonmembers, not explaining them, but simply giving the history and accounts, and can be found on the Church’s site, or elsewhere. But Ultimately, If you really want the truth about our Church, I would say ask God honestly, humbly, and sincerely, ask for discernment of what is and isn’t truth before you believe what you read (James 1:5). I hope any of this is helpful when it comes to good resources. I’m really glad your trying to learn and understand us more. I’ve been seeing bridges being made between the different denominations of Christianity lately, especially my church being more accepted as followers of Christ, speaking more peacefully to one another, and having more open and respectful discussion, and I’m really glad that you and I can participate in that.)(Yes, this is a really good principle and one that is overlooked quite often! I don’t know Ancient Greek or Hebrew😅, but I do like using resources (Septuagint, Reference books, etc) to try to get as close to the original meaning as possible. It’s tricky. But I do believe that God’s Word will last forever (Isaiah 40:8) so I’m thinking/studying about the idea that even with the translation “mistakes”, God will preserve His Word.)
(Amen! Those are great resources to gain more truth, and the Lord will absolutely preserve His truth for His children for the rest of the eternities!)(I referred to these verses intending the Word to speak for itself. It seems to imply that God is a Spirit without a physical body. But since we have already touched on this I will leave it at that.)
Can we go through each verse and think about the implications? (Don’t feel a need to read these. This is just me taking the time to think about what is being said, and what must be accepted, while what I don’t think necessarily must imply.)God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. John 4:24
(God is a spirit, yep everything checks out so far. We must worship Him in spirit also, what does this mean if not that we must worship Him with our own spirit, being honest in our Worship. If we worship Him with our mouths, but deny Him in our hearts/spirit, then we only deny Him, because the spirit is what goes back to Him in the end, (Ecclesiastes 12:7) Thus I at the more important level, am also a spirit.)“Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” Luke 24:39
(So the context of this scripture is that Christ’s apostles assumed Him to basically be a spirit, or some other apparition. He then had them touch Him, to show that what they saw was a physical body, because a spirit alone is not flesh and bone. However we know that Christ still has and is a spirit, dwelling in one sense or another in or with His body. It would be odd to say that Christ isn’t a spirit as much as it would be odd to say that Christ isn’t a body. Thus we can say Christ is a spirit, as He has a spirit, and that spirit is His sense of “Self” rather than His body. So to say that God is a Spirit, and that a spirit hath not flesh and bone, I don’t think is enough evidence to say that God doesn’t also have flesh and bone along with His spirit. While that could be what it is implying, I don’t think it has to be. Maybe there’s some language loopholes being used here, in which case it would be interesting to try getting into the original Greek material to further investigate it.)“And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it.
Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire:
Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,
The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air,
The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth:
And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the Lord thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.
But the Lord hath taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, even out of Egypt, to be unto him a people of inheritance, as ye are this day.” Deut. 4:14-20
Ok, so I’m assuming you gave this verse in reference to what I said about gender, is that correct? (If so, I really don’t think this is at all relevant to that. We do not make any graven image in the likeness of male or female, ect.) Does this mean God Himself isn’t male or female? (I don’t think so. We’re not idolatrous in depicting Him in the form of a man, nor believing Him to truly be masculine.) If this is to be taken in that light, why would God take on a masculine form, then command His children not to think that He is masculine? (Christianity also depicts Christ all the time, and worships Him in His manly image. Maybe you had a different intended effect with this scripture, but if not, I don’t think this carries any weight on this particular matter.)“Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.” Tim. 6:16
(This one is talking about the greatness of God. How we cannot see or touch Him in all of His greatness.) Does that mean He doesn’t have a physical form? (I don’t think so, just because you can’t see something that is physically real, doesn’t mean it isn’t there, Christians of all people know this. There are many ways something can both be physical and invisible, but when it comes to God, I personally (and this isn’t scriptural, just my own thoughts) think that He dwells in a higher dimensional plan, which actually makes a lot of sense, adding to His infinite nature, how angels can appear and disappear, be untouchable, yet be intimately close to us, and many other things seems to just click for me when thought of in this light, but it doesn’t have to be that way, there are many many other ways something can be physical but cannot be seen or touched.)Can I also show the JST version?
“Whom no man hath seen, nor can see, unto whom no man can approach, only he who hath the light and the hope of immortality dwelling in him.” Tim. 6:16 JST
(This simply clarifies that we believe that God can be seen, but only to those “who hath the light and the hope of immortality dwelling in him” We actually believe many individuals throughout the Bible did witness the true face of God, for example, Enoch in Genesis 5:24, and Moses in Exodus 34:28-30, the Pearl of a Great Price getting into that particular encounter more directly. I again personally love the extra dimensional idea for this, as it shows that God can show Himself if He wants to. However any who isn’t transfigured to endure His presence would burn up in His glory.)(Yep, I did bring it up. I guess it would have come up sooner or later. Proverbs 30:6 warns not to add to His Words and also Revelations 22:18-19. Alas, we come to Joseph Smith. I believe that when the facts are brought to light about who this man really was, many things are made clear. Again I refer to the CES Letter.)
(We’ve all heard those before. Proverbs is in the old Testament, and revelation has continued since then. This verse is talking about a man making up scripture, putting words in God’s mouth, but that doesn’t mean God won’t continue to speak from that point on, like all the rest of the old testament following, and more importantly, Christ came after the point of this scripture. As for Revelation, it says “this book” which at the time of writing wouldn’t have been compiled with the rest of the Bible, meaning it was specifically the book of Revelation we are not to add or take from, which yes, again we should never put words in God’s mouth, but that doesn’t mean He won’t stop talking. The book of Revelation was also not the last book in chronologically written order in the cannon Bible, but was chosen as the last book at a much later date. As for Joseph Smith, again, if your gaining your information from the CES Letter, you are obviously absorbing very biased content, yes, Runnells was a member, knowing some things, but He got into some anti-material, causing Him to lose His faith in the Church, but this can happen to any religion not properly understood by its followers, again, the same man left Christianity as a whole using the same methods of logic. Joseph Smith is a controversial individual to many, and yes, he did some things in his life that could have been done better, but he is a man, and is therefore very imperfect, but he dedicated his life to serving the Lord the best he knew how. There is a common argument against Christianity that you may be familiar with, or more of a rationalization. Some say that Christ was a good man, but a deceiver, saying He was God’s Begotten son, and that following His death, His apostles took His body, and claimed that He was risen. You, I assume can see right through this, having a better understanding and a more open mind to that which is true. You know that this cannot be the case because you know that Christ could never serve and love the way He did, and also be a man glorifying Himself as someone divine while being that, those are contradictory statements, for we know by His fruits that He can only be telling the truth of His divinity, not even lunacy can be a reasonable explanation. And You know that His apostles wouldn’t just fake it, because they new that they would be persecuted, and they new that it would even mean death, they would have every reason to tell the truth if it weren’t true, you know the only thing that makes sense is that they truly saw their Redeemer live, and they died for what they new to be true, no one would die just for a prank on the world, especially not 11 people, you’d think at least one would falter, saying its not true if it really wasn’t true. I apply a similar reasoning to Joseph Smith. He dedicated his life to do his Father’s will, sometimes struggling with what that was, feeling that the Lord wouldn’t speak to him in his later life, and was an imperfect man, but there are countless accounts and documents from saints at the time that knew Joseph personally, or just meeting him, and testifying of him as being a kind, thoughtful, good natured man dedicated to God and serving others. Yes, he made some mistakes, but no prophet of God hasn’t, only Christ is perfect. The important thing is that He did everything in his power to do that which he believed to be right, and eventually gave his life up for it. He was persecuted, imprisoned, threatened, and eventually killed, always given the opportunity to just denounce what he testified to be true, but he never did, he wouldn’t die for a lie, just like the apostles wouldn’t. You could always say something else, something wrong with what I believe, because there always will be something you can say, but atheists do the same for general Christianity, there is always something wrong with what we believe, even when there isn’t. The Spirit is the only true form of discernment, not a ex-member who is an imperfect individual giving only arguments to attack the Church and Joseph Smith. Again, that is the very opposite of unbiased truth seeking. I don’t know the experience this man had and what lead him to lose his faith, but his arguments are well antiquated. I want to make it clear that I’m not trying to convince you that it’s true, it could be all wrong, but I’m just trying to put things into prospective. I hope none of this comes off as contentious to you, I don’t want to project that light, but you pointed at something that I hold dear, and said “when the facts are brought to light about who this man really was, many things are made clear.” with the clear implication that the things made clear is that Joseph Smith was a deceiver one way or another, and the Church isn’t true, when I know there is really far more going on when it comes to “the facts”. It is not so simple, and I feel I must make that clear.)(I haven’t! Although I’ve heard a lot of good things about him and his writing style. I’ll have to check it out.)
(Yeah! I just finished Tress and the Emerald Sea. It’s very different from his typical writing, being very whimsical and lighthearted, but you could still see all the Sandersonisms in it, and it was just a very fun read. He never fails to disappoint, and is constantly coming out with more quality novels, so he’s an author I defiantly recommend.)(Yes, either that or we just love creating something and “watching” it do all kinds of stuff that we would never do in reality. 😂)
(Us authors are an odd bunch.😂)(Uh…yes. I almost forgot this was even about a hotdog…)
(Yes, a spacetime breaking hotdog.🤣)(Well they would both read the other person’s, and then the next second they would be reading their own minds, because they would be each thinking of what the other person had been thinking about…)
(Yes yes, indeed.) Would the previous thought be discarded, or would it be kept as their own thought vs the thought their reading, in which case it would stack up?He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
Did you re post that or did KP decide to on its own? (happens sometimes randomly 😂)
He must increase, but I must decrease.
(Just got back! Whoops, sorry, don’t know why KP resent that😅 The break was fun, and I’m really glad I did it. I know we’re done with the discussion, but after a little more doctrinal study, I realized that what I said concerning the worship of Christ was very wrong. I was very reluctant about what I said if you recall, but I basically said that we simply Worship the Father through the Son, and I misinterpreted that as we don’t necessarily worship the Son. This was a personal misinterpretation, having nothing to do with my family or Church, but after spending a little time in the scriptures, I realized we do indeed worship the Son also. Everything the Son did was in the Fathers name, and the Father would have done also if in the Sons place, so to worship the Son is still to worship the Father (John 8:19), and this is stated directly many times in additional scripture. So if you really want to think of it that way, you can think of us as Polytheistic in a sense. This was my own mistake that came from my own fear of man and my own misinterpretation, so I’m sorry I led you astray on that note. Anyway, we of course don’t need to continue, I just needed to make sure my wrong was written. Thanks for listening.)
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
Does every story that can be written already exist mathematically because we have a digitally structured language? Thus is creativity true creation, or is it mere translation of what already is?
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
The question you’re asking touches on the philosophical debate about the nature of creativity and originality. While it is an intriguing topic, there isn’t a definitive answer that all philosophers, writers, or scholars agree upon. Different viewpoints exist, and I’ll outline a few perspectives for you to consider.
1. Original Creation: Some argue that creativity allows for the generation of entirely new and unique ideas, stories, and works of art. They believe that human imagination and innovation can produce content that has never existed before. In this view, creativity is seen as a form of true creation, where individuals bring something new into existence.
2. Combinations and Iterations: Another perspective suggests that creativity involves combining and reconfiguring existing elements in novel ways. From this standpoint, while the individual components or ideas may already exist, the creative process lies in the unique arrangement, interpretation, or synthesis of those elements. In this sense, creativity can be seen as a translation or recombination rather than completely new creation.
3. Platonic Idealism: Drawing inspiration from Plato’s philosophy, some argue that all possible ideas and stories already exist in a conceptual realm, and creators tap into this realm to bring forth their works. From this perspective, creativity involves discovering or uncovering pre-existing ideas rather than inventing them from scratch.
4. Mathematical Possibilities: Your mention of a digitally structured language and mathematics suggests a viewpoint aligned with the notion of mathematical possibilities. According to this idea, given the finite number of words, characters, and narrative structures, it could be argued that every possible story already exists mathematically. From this standpoint, creativity becomes a process of navigating through the mathematical landscape and discovering specific arrangements of elements that resonate with people.
It’s important to note that these perspectives are not mutually exclusive, and different creators may hold different beliefs about the nature of creativity. Ultimately, how you personally view creativity and originality is a matter of personal philosophy and perspective.
Through darkness,
light shines brightestAnswer is credit of Chat GPT. Forgot to add that or tag you (@thearcaneaxiom).
Through darkness,
light shines brightest(Solid answers! Though ChatGPT forgot the rules of the question Forum!😅)
(Because we mentioned it…)
How close are we to general AI, and what does that mean for our future?
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
Oops I forgot the rules aswell?
I don’t exactly know what you mean by general ai?
Through darkness,
light shines brightest(We have split the idea of AI into two main groups, narrow and general. Narrow AI can only handle a particular task, whereas general can handle, well, general tasks. Of course Chatgpt can do a bunch of different things, but it is still not quite general AI, because it is restricted as a chatbot, and basically operates as a knowledge database, it can’t wash any dishes in a simulation. We have other AI models that can do that, but they can’t do much else. The idea of general AI would be walking on the line of true-AI, being indistinguishable or even more capable than a human with any given task.)
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
Glad you had a good break!
Ok, thanks for clarifying!
He must increase, but I must decrease.
General AI seems useless and unnecessarily difficult to build?
Through darkness,
light shines brightest
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.