Lady Aurora's page

I'm a scorpio and my Chinese sign is the dog (of course!).

My husband is also a scorpio but his Chinese sign is the monkey (which is actually pretty accurate to his personality).

helm, "Don't ya know that this sort

, fishing tackle made of preserved

items both rare

unmentionable section of said catalog that shall

of unspeakable creatures, not to mention the

"explore" himself on a disturbingly

a rather ugly

Okay, so I found the Leviticus verse you referenced. What was the question again? Oh yeah, what's up with the no shellfish deal?
Well, here's my take on it. The Old Testament is full of rules and rituals designed with various purposes in mind. Some of them are a tool to reveal the character of God. A lot of the requirements to remain "pure" were a device to help the Isrealites understand the purity of God. Some rules & rituals existed to counter the customs of surrounding heathen civilizations. God wanted the Isrealites set apart, holy, purposely and distinctly different than those around them. Today much of the symbolism of these rules is lost because the practices of Isreal's enemies are no longer common knowledge. Some "foreign" customs and practices had direct ties to their foreign gods and God didn't want the Isrealites engaged in such behavior. He didn't want the Isrealites doing things to bring glory to some other god or even appearing to acknowledge other gods.
In your shellfish example the rule was likely for the initial purpose I pointed out rather than the latter (though there might have been some shellfish god being worshipped somewhere, who knows?). The Isrealites had a long list of behaviors that were catagorized as either "clean" or "unclean". Many of the unclean ones seem ridiculous to us, and *would* be ridiculous for us to imply some modern practicality, but at the time made perfect sense to the Isrealites. In the separation of clean and unclean was a huge list of clean animals the Isrealites were free to eat and unclean animals they were forbidden to even touch. This whole system became obsolete when Jesus came and the New Covenant was created. Some of the Jews around Jesus's time had difficulty abandoning the old system. One of these was the apostle Peter. Acts 10 chronicles how God shows him a vision of all kinds of "unclean" animal and commands Peter to kill them & eat them. Peter is disgusted. God reassures him that under the new system Christians enjoy freedom from "the Law" - that virtually everything is permissable in moderation (nothing in excess). Bottom line - shellfish are back on the menu!
Remember too that in Old Testament times they were still waiting for the Holy Spirit's indwelling and the salvation plan. There had to be a way to demonstrate their faith and obedience. The "Law", a complex collection of various rules & rituals, served this purpose. When Jesus came and fulfilled the Law (His ultimate sacrifice securing salvation), the Law no longer served the same purpose as it did for Old Testament people.

She isn't! How dare you imply she is! Talking Barbie clearly states "Math is hard" or was that Matt? Oops, better not ponder that one too much. Anyway, blondes can too read! Or is that reed? It's those with rouge who can't. Which brings us back to Barbie ... hmmmm.

how to remove ring-around-the-collar

"My money maker!"

ebony and ivory, living in

circuit in non-characteristically flamboyant garb. These ancient

while its exotic exterior resembled

which of course

Oh, Kirth, at first I didn't understand what you were trying to say about Adam's sticky situation once Eve ate the fruit but, lo, I think light finally dawned! You're feeling sorry for Adam because he was between the proverbial rock & a hard place. True, but only because he allowed himself to be. Remember, he was standing right there while Satan was tempting Eve. This was Adam's big chance to "be the man" and offer Eve some encouragement not to partake of the fruit. Instead, not only does he stand silently by while she makes the biggest mistake of her life but he readily joins right in on the disobedience.
What if he hadn't? Would God have made him a newer, bigger, better wife? Well, I can't say; we'll never know; but I'm sure the Almighty would've come up with something. Our affections for our spouses, our family, our friends are not an adequate excuses for choosing disobedience. We are responsible for our own actions, period. Faith includes trusting that God will take care of the details when we seem to "lose" someone/thing in exchange for our obedience to God.

Yes, the fall of man was a loss of innocence, like Sebastian said. That (along with expulsion from the perfection of Eden and alternate life in a "cursed" world was their punishment).
Grimcleaver, thank you for your patience and you're attempts to explain your viewpoint. I hate to sound like the dumb kid in the back of the class who keeps saying "I don't get it" but in answer to your "Is that clear?" question, I have to sadly say, "No". I personally don't define free will exclusively on the good versus evil axis. Did I somehow imply differently? I think there is plenty of free choice amongst positive choices, but there is also (as a result of the illicitly gained "knowledge" of evil through Adam & Eve) the responsibility of choosing God's will versus one's own corrupt desires.
Kirth, your earlier example of not being allowed the free will to find your own way to heaven as evidence of some illogical interpretation of the Bible has me stumped, quite frankly. Are you suggesting that after God establishes Himself in authority over man that it would be logical for Him to allow man His Eternal Reward by some means outside of God's own plan? Wouldn't *that* be illogical? "I made up this plan but if you defy me and willfully go your own way ... well, that's okay, you can puzzle out your own formula for gaining my rewards." Why would God send His Son to earth and allow him to suffer & die for our sins if men could figure out their own salvation? How could anyone respect & honor God if we didn't need Him in order to get to heaven? Your theory about free will to choose our own way to heaven really has me scratching my head.
Also, BTW, this is what Leviticus 9:9-11 says in my Bible, "His sons brought the blood to him, and he dipped his finger into the blood and put it on the horns of the altar; the rest of the blood he poured out on the base of the altar. On the altar he buned the fat, the kidneys and the covering of the liver from the sin offering as the Lord commanded Moses, the flesh and the hide he burned up outside the camp." Nothing in there about shellfish so I guessed I missed your point again.

as a probing tool as he carefully

could withstand such an onslaught

toilet paper mountain

Grimcleaver, not sure where you're getting the idea that eating the fruit was a "good" idea and thus, I'm unsure how to respond to your all good choices theory. As an early post pointed out, it wasn't about the tree/fruit itself. Satan insinuated to Eve that the reason God forbid her to eat the fruit was because He was trying to prevent her from being His equal (in knowledge). She believed Satan's lie rather than trust that God had chosen what was best for her. She arrogantly wished to usurp God's wisdom (quite similar to Satan's problem and the reason *he* was cast out of heaven) even though God had explicitly warned her (and Adam) against it. The punishment fit the crime quite well since Adam & Eve sought the knowledge (and responsibility) of good & evil and that's exactly what they got - with all the consequences (and future temptations) a knowledge of evil brings you. For instance, we humans are often tempted to do something simply because someone tells us *not* to. Rule: Don't touch that paint. Response: I wouldn't have thought to touch the paint but now that you said not to...hmmm, looks like fun! That's what an understanding of evil got us.
Kirth, I'm not sure what Sunday School you attended but Chapter 3, verse 6 of Genesis clearly states that Eve took the fruit, ate it, and gave some to Adam "who was there with her" and he also ate it. The original language of the word "gave" in this instance (Eve "gave" the fruit to her husband) is probably more accurately translated as "offered". Satan offered it to Eve, Eve offered it to Adam. Adam was in no way compelled to accept it any more than Eve was compelled by Satan. They both made a choice with full understanding of their rebellion against God if/when they chose to take the fruit. Like your mother always told you "Well, if everyone else jumped off the Empire State Building, would you jump too?" Someone else's poor choice is no excuse for one's own.

Both original issues of Dragon #354 and Dungeon #145 arrived today. I was expecting the replacement Dungeon #145 that I had requested and was surprised that the originals finally found me. At first I was like "What's wrong with you people? Why does it take a whole month for #145 to arrive?". I moved in December and I guess I haven't been paying close attention to the mags that have arrived since then because... oops, just noticed today that I transposed the numbers in my address when I adjusted my account information here online. Apparently the USPS has been honestly trying to deliver my mail to a non-existant address at 352 rather than 532 Sherwood Lane. Boy, do I feel stupid! Anyway, I've corrected the address and will try to be more careful in the future. Sorry for directing my ire to you (and the USPS). My bad!

*something* - a noncultist can never be sure!

arrogant drow who consider themselves

did so and

Keep the intelligence, wisdom and charisma stats low. Bandits are masters of the bash and grab method - not exactly tactics of those with clever strategy or finesse. If they were smart enough or wise enough, they'd be doing something requiring more talent and/or morals. And if they had more charm or social graces they'd be con men instead of thugs.

Doug, I did the same thing except my horses (cardboard) are rectangular. I agree - not as neat as a mini but much more practical (mini on - mini off. no problemo).

Yeah, everything Moff said...

No, seriously, Sexi Golem, the purpose of the tree/fruit was to allow free choice. You're not being obedient if there's no way to be disobedient. Adam & Eve were well aware of the rules and the consequences, yet chose to disobedy. Was God being unfair? I don't think so, not when He only provided ONE single rule to obey, not when Adam & Eve were surrounded by an abundance of good things they *did* have the freedom to enjoy.
You make a good point about God allowing Satan to exist/prosper. This is a difficult concept. Since Satan was originally an angel and therefore created by God, and God knew Satan would betray Him and corrupt 1/3 of the angels along with him, then why not just prevent that from happening - or not create Satan in the first place? Again, it comes back to the principle of free will. God didn't want people to be robots, only capable of worshipping and glorifying Him. People had to have a choice. In order to love virtue, one must have the chance/opportunity to embrace wickedness. That's why God allowed/s Satan to exist/prosper.
God is in control of everything (and also knows how it's all going to turn out). He doesn't compel Satan to do wicked things or deceive people - He allows it (big difference). Sometimes this seems to contradict our concept of God - how can a God that is so loving and compassionate allow us to suffer? Well, the same reason that after warning your child not to tease the cat, you allow the cat to scratch the child (allowing the child to suffer "natural consequences" for his/her actions) rather than keep the cat locked in a kennel for the rest of the child's life (or, at some point you'd have to trust the child to choose obedience regarding treatment of the cat). God *pleads* with us not to be willful and disobedient to the guidelines He has established to provide us the best of everything in life. He wants us to enjoy the wonderful things He has planned for us but that requires us to submit to His authority, when we don't, we suffer with less than the best. Simple, really.

translation prowess, along with his monkey/dog

such powerful weaponry, no one

off the pot.

I would adjudicate this somewhere in the middle of what I perceive Grimcleaver and Stebehil's opinions to be. I would say that the PCs can neither buy nor sell anything for more than 200 gp in said example hamlet. A weekend shopping spree (buying) in the hamlet could net a group 5,000 gp worth of stuff but no one item worth more than 200 gp - (I know Stebehil said that same thing but he also said no problem buying/selling 1000 gp sword). After a total of 5,000 gp is spent, the hamlet is tapped out and no more liquid assets exist for PC purposes.

with the sole purpose of disrupting the

under cover of darkness and

as he made

Just Died in Your Arms Tonight. "Oh,

At least that's the story

There's been plenty of talk about the desire to see miniatures tailored to the current Adventure Paths, etc. While I agree that would be too cool, there are also monsters right from the monster manual that thus far have been overlooked. First & foremost, did I overlook it or have the manufactorers actually dared to pass over the rust monster? What about a cockatrice for your small mini. The leucrotta, the sphinx. Dire monsters could include giant wasps or giant crocodiles (which are often opponents in my games anyway). Where's the annis hag? A bit more of a challenge to render but how about a shadow? For huge pieces I'd like to see the aboleth, the remorhaz or the ever popular hydra. Finally, how 'bout a little love for the plant kingdom? Namely, the violet fungi.

What creatures have been overlooked thus far that you would like to see in future D&D plastic miniature sets?

watch parts but instead he only received

keen blade and sharp wit

do you have

hairball expulsion and strange noises.

exactly where they

foul smelling but shiny little flecks of

spiny little legs around the

Then it busted.

When my first son died suddenly and unexpectedly and doctors told us we'd never have any more children, my husband bought me a new puppy (we still had an adult dog at this point). She became our "baby" and even though in future years we were blessed with more children (and suffered another death of a child), my dog held a special place in my heart. Well, after 13 years, my dog died last summer and I was very heart-broken. To make matters worse, and despite my two wonderful surviving children (who are WAY better than a dog, of course) the house seemed terribly empty. I became very depressed because I had never been completely without a dog before. She had *always* been with me; even traveled overseas to my husband's various duty stations, etc. I really wanted to replace her with a new puppy right away because in the past a new dog has always helped me get over the grieving process. This time over six months passed dogless (in the past the record was about three weeks). Besides, my son is now six and I envisioned dog & boy growing up together with that special friendship/bond. We got a male doberman puppy because I wanted something different than our last dog (female Siberian Husky). I'm really quite fond of our new puppy. He's cute and energetic but I still miss my old dog terribly. The puppy is a lot of work and at my age I'm not sure I have as much patience for him as I should. My son has even less patience with the puppy than I and both my children spend most of their time fending off his friendly, but razor-sharp, teeth and claws. I regret getting the new puppy. Clearly it would've been wiser to wait.

engraved Luck of the Irish pocket watch

tried to make it sourkraut