Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda

So… anything of interest in the sound track?

I live less than an hour away. I’ll go if there is any indication that it’s a print of interest.

Anyone sneak a mini recorder in?

Parents taught me when I was 4, could already read the newspaper by the time I got to kindergarten. Mostly Dr. Seuss, Wonder Books Easy Readers, and the daily newspaper. Despite this, I am actually a very slow reader - takes me weeks to get through a novel.

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Just watched it, as a result of reading this thread.
Pretty intense movie. Almost disturbing.

But did you like it?

I was impressed by it. The plot construction, and gradual reveal of what was going on, was really ingenious. Did I enjoy it? Hmmm, most of the movie was depressing. The ending was very satisfying, though. And I really liked how the computer’s character arc changed over the course of the movie.

There is one particular brief exchange between the computer and Sam that at the end of the movie turned out to be very prophetic in retrospect. But I think saying it here would be a spoiler.

Just watched it, as a result of reading this thread.
Pretty intense movie. Almost disturbing.

When I was in my 20’s, my apartment was broken into and I was cleaned out. That is the only significant crime that happened directly to me.

However, my 75 year old aunt was a very recent victim of a more serious crime. She was a victim of one of those telephone kidnapping scams. The perpetrators convinced her that her daughter was kidnapped, and had her running around the state for over 30 hours, extorting her for $8000 over that period. Although she eventually learned that it was a hoax, and that her daughter was fine, the experience was extremely traumatizing. It happened about a month ago, and she is still suffering from PTSD symptoms.

Everyone needs to be made aware of this scam. If you get a phone call saying that a loved one has been kidnapped, it is useful to know the typical specifics of the scam: (1) they impersonate your loved one with screaming sounds in the background, (2) they insist that you stay on the phone and NEVER hang up, (3) they keep you moving non-stop, (4) they may spoof your loved-one’s phone so you think that they have his/her cell phone, (5) they claim that actually they are hitmen and that your loved-one was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, witnessing their hit (this latter is to convince you that they have no problem killing him/her).

That Blockade Runner looks a wee bit like Red Dwarf.

A great recipe from the 1964 book “Moose Mousse”, is the one that inspired the book title.
It starts:

1. pass one moose through fine sieve.
   and continues from there…

The two books I’ve been working on are finally finished and on the market. 2nd edition of my previous book (major revisions), and 1st edition of a new one:
https://www.amazon.com/Computer-Graphics-Programming-OpenGL-JAVA/dp/1683922190
https://www.amazon.com/COMPUTER-GRAPHICS-PROGRAMMING-OPENGL-C-ebook/dp/B07MHD8TKB

Some light bedtime reading…

I might have slipped into a coma… maybe lost a week or two.

I was a big fan in 1977, saw SW at least 5 times in the theater.
But I can’t remember if I saw the Holiday Special (when it aired) or not.

Man, you guys are picky. I have thoroughly enjoyed each episode. IMHO, this has been overall the best Who season since the revival of the series.

Jaitea said:
It’s obviously not hot property any more,…hopefully they take the criticism on board & correct their course

To which criticism are you referring?

That is cool!!

RicOlie_2 said:
… ultimately, in order to enter into a loving relationship with him, we have to have faith. If God is God, and he gave us empirical evidence directly demonstrating his existence, we would not have faith and would simply know in a more absolute sense that God will always keep his promises. But that’s not how human relationships work. Because we are not gods, we can fail to keep our promises, and every human relationship therefore requires trust and faith that the other person will not turn their backs on us. God wants us to have that same trust and faith, otherwise there will be a certain coercion involved in following him.

Right, but again, that’s what pretty much every religion says. How do I pick? How do I know which one is right?

Thanks - I have two questions about “process theology”

1. is it a religion? (the Wikipedia page isn’t clear)
2. how does a Christian-based God lure someone towards a relationship when the person comes from a place or culture for which they are not exposed to anything about Christ?

I would count as tangible something that is measurable and repeatable under controlled conditions. I cannot understand why a benevolent god would be so cruel as to deny that, while requiring our belief, as a prerequisite to salvation.

RicOlie_2 said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Ok, thanks for pointing out the clarification, and sorry for directing my comment specifically to you. I’ll change my “YOU” to point towards a larger swath of zealous missionaries, you specifically not necessarily included. (although some of your other posts do seem to fit the 2nd sentence - that is, being the lucky bearer of ultimate truth).

Thanks, and apologies, as I realize some of my posts were unclear. And I do in fact believe I am the (very) fortunate bearer of ultimate truth…I wouldn’t be Christian if I didn’t.

BTW, this is exactly why science is not a religion. Scientists do not claim to know the truth; they only argue what they believe to be the current best explanations for things, given the limitations of available measurement technology. Being proven wrong is how science advances. By contrast, religion claims absolutely to know the truth (sometimes in spite of measurements and scientific reasoning), and those truths are immutable - like axioms in a mathematical system.

Certainly, but we don’t claim to know the truth about absolutely everything either. Out of curiosity, what scientific reasoning and measurements do you think contradict Christianity (and specifically Catholicism)?

Well, for one, the power of prayer. Scientific studies have repeatedly failed to find any evidence that prayer has any effect whatsoever, while Christianity (and other religions) insist that it does.

I’m curious to know what they looked at specifically in those studies. In Catholicism, we believe a number of things about prayer that may not have been taken into account: (1) prayer is primarily about conforming one’s will to God’s will, not about obtaining favours, (2) intercessory prayer is more effective when one has conformed oneself to God’s will (because one is not praying for something that contradicts God’s will), and (3) that means that if someone decides to pray to God all of a sudden because they need help, God might not answer that prayer because they aren’t really asking because they have faith in a friend, but because they want to avoid pain and suffering.

That being said, I’m not sure I can refute that argument. I will say, however, that if we think of the way a human parent might seem inconsistent to a child, it can be easy to see why God might seem inconsistent from a limited human perspective. For instance, a kid might ask their mom if they can have a friend over on a certain day, and the mother might say no (for example, because she won’t be home and doesn’t feel comfortable leaving another person’s kid with their babysitter), despite having encouraged the kid to be more social and invite friends over more often. It seems inconsistent to the child, but perfectly reasonable from the point of view of the mother.

Regarding your first paragraph, I don’t think that any of that is measurable, so science would have nothing to say about it. That’s convenient – by always couching things in ways that aren’t measurable, religion is thus able to demand faith. And this is why I have a hard time understanding how anyone would go about choosing from amongst the hundreds of religions – all of them require faith, and none of them offer anything tangible on which to give confidence in that faith. Thus most people follow the religion in which their parents raised them, or whichever religion they happen to be exposed to. Isn’t that odd, given that God is supposedly everywhere, one of the religions is supposed to be correct, and yet religions are so localized?

Regarding your second paragraph, I agree with you. However, I don’t think that has anything to do with scientific study of prayer. Studies haven’t shown that the effects of prayer are inconsistent. Rather, science has yet to find any effect whatsoever.

RicOlie_2 said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Ok, thanks for pointing out the clarification, and sorry for directing my comment specifically to you. I’ll change my “YOU” to point towards a larger swath of zealous missionaries, you specifically not necessarily included. (although some of your other posts do seem to fit the 2nd sentence - that is, being the lucky bearer of ultimate truth).

Thanks, and apologies, as I realize some of my posts were unclear. And I do in fact believe I am the (very) fortunate bearer of ultimate truth…I wouldn’t be Christian if I didn’t.

BTW, this is exactly why science is not a religion. Scientists do not claim to know the truth; they only argue what they believe to be the current best explanations for things, given the limitations of available measurement technology. Being proven wrong is how science advances. By contrast, religion claims absolutely to know the truth (sometimes in spite of measurements and scientific reasoning), and those truths are immutable - like axioms in a mathematical system.

Certainly, but we don’t claim to know the truth about absolutely everything either. Out of curiosity, what scientific reasoning and measurements do you think contradict Christianity (and specifically Catholicism)?

Well, for one, the power of prayer. Scientific studies have repeatedly failed to find any evidence that prayer has any effect whatsoever, while Christianity (and other religions) insist that it does.

RicOlie_2 said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Ok, thanks for pointing out the clarification, and sorry for directing my comment specifically to you. I’ll change my “YOU” to point towards a larger swath of zealous missionaries, you specifically not necessarily included. (although some of your other posts do seem to fit the 2nd sentence - that is, being the lucky bearer of ultimate truth).

Thanks, and apologies, as I realize some of my posts were unclear. And I do in fact believe I am the (very) fortunate bearer of ultimate truth…I wouldn’t be Christian if I didn’t.

BTW, this is exactly why science is not a religion. Scientists do not claim to know the truth; they only argue what they believe to be the current best explanations for things, given the limitations of available measurement technology. Being proven wrong is how science advances. By contrast, religion claims absolutely to know the truth (sometimes in spite of measurements and scientific reasoning), and those truths are immutable - like axioms in a mathematical system.

Ok, thanks for pointing out the clarification, and sorry for directing my comment specifically to you. I’ll change my “YOU” to point towards a larger swath of zealous missionaries, you specifically not necessarily included. (although some of your other posts do seem to fit the 2nd sentence - that is, being the lucky bearer of ultimate truth).

RicOlie_2 said:

screams in the void said:

unless of course you are a Bhuddist , or myriad other religions or belief systems who have a different point of view

In which case you don’t believe in eternal salvation, so it’s a moot point. I happen to believe in it, and so by definition, I reject the alternative point of view as false.

Basically, you think it is ok to endanger people because your religion is better than their’s. YOU are the vessel of ultimate truth.

Wry, understated humor that slips by quickly. Unabashed accent. A bit unsure of him/herself, self-critical. Generally passive personality, shy, socially awkward, until pushed too far, then becomes very assertive.

Jodie’s doctor reminds me a lot of Sylvester McCoy’s.