RicOlie_2

My request is that you disrespect my beliefs, but not me. I will do likewise regardless of whether you do so or not, but I'm not going to renounce my beliefs just to make you happy and I don't expect you to do that either.

Then don't respect my beliefs. I don't want to make an enemy out of you Bingo, because I think you're a funny guy and I enjoy your posts most of the time, so please, let's get along.

:)

Bingowings said:

Your beliefs are mostly nice and sometimes evil so if I throw stuff at the evil stuff it's out of respect for the nice stuff.

I appreciate your relative civility, though your beliefs are a prime example of the impossibility of objective moral truth without a God.

Why should I respect the bits of your belief system that say I should be stoned to death?

That isn't a part of my belief system, and I can't decide if you are really that ignorant of it, or if you are just trying to cause trouble.

It's evil.

It's evil to stone people to death for something they do when one does not live in a theocracy (for which the Mosaic law was designed).

It's not just silly or not for me, it's EVIL and not Christian so when some tit of a boob brings it up in her defense of he batshit crazy world view why should I respect it?

You wrote above that my religion requires me to stone homosexuals to death, and now you are saying it isn't Christian. Which is it? Or are you trying to say something else that I'm not getting?

The Christian position on secular law is that the laws of man should be followed as laws of men. Render onto Caesar.

But the laws of God should be applied by the faithful in honor God.

So if the laws of man say two guys can get married in the city of Rome, that's a law of man.

Personally, I am opposed to gay marriage and adoption of children by gay parents, but I am largely OK with it being legal for them to live together, or whatever. I don't think government should be involved in anything to do with marriage at all.

If the laws of God say two guys can't get married in the Catholic church that's a law of God. Keep it in the church guys.

Fair enough.

If you are opening a public hotel and you object to two guys sleeping in the same bed. TUFF.

It's a public house not a church building.

I agree in that circumstance, but there are other times that I think a person should be allowed to object to gay marriage like that man who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple. I also think their employer should be allowed to fire them if they do that.

When Christians campaign to stop non-Christians from doing something they don't approve of that's different. They should be stopped. Same goes for those pesky Buddhists too.

 In some circumstances, yes. But I Christians should be allowed to condemn something on a scientific basis, like abortion. I believe abortion is wrong, partly because of my religion, but also largely because the scientific aspect of the issue is in support of the pro-life side.

Bingowings said:

I think people should be uncivil when people are using a book they claim is holy to selectively insult, and restrict the freedoms of others when the same book says you shouldn't.

I don't think people should be uncivil, but I think people should disagree with those who hold those views. I know I do (my personal view on that has evolved over time and I used to think differently). As a Catholic, I don't just rely on those books, but also on my own noggin, which is currently in agreement with those books for the most part. As I study those books, I gain further awareness of the truth in them, and find that I agree with them more and more and they make more and more sense when read in context.

Just stop thinking yourself into other people's bedrooms you perv.

 The Catholic Church only requires Catholics to follow its rules. It does fight laws that infringe upon Catholic beliefs, but it isn't because we want to control everyone, but because we have the right to practice our religion.

I think you're a great guy most of the time (on OT.com, that is), but I would appreciate if you would show some respect for my beliefs.

I don't think you should be restricted, Bingowings, at least not anymore.* It shouldn't be illegal--we don't live in a theocracy--but I don't think it's right for people to be so uncivil about the issue and attack people for their religious beliefs. If you expect people to accept what you do, you should be ready to accept that they may not agree with it. Tolerance is, as many have said, a double-edged sword. You can't expect tolerance from one group and not be tolerant yourself.

*EDIT: I just realized that it sounds like I think you should have been restricted, but not anymore. :P I meant I no longer hold the view that you should be condemned for it. I believe that's God's job, not ours.

Here is my current view on homosexuality and here is the angry response that the person who made the video received and the defense of her and her video.

I find it disgusting how some people treat those who respectfully disagree with homosexual sex. I'm glad people on this forum are more respectful (with a couple exceptions) then the people who gave such negative responses to the first video.

January 16:

A.D. 550: The Ostrogoths conquer Rome after a long siege.

A.D. 1412: The Medici family is appointed official bankers for the Papacy.

A.D. 1493: Columbo (Columbus) leaves the New World to return to Spain.

A.D. 1547: Ivan the IV (the Terrible) crowns himself the first Czar of Moscow.

Sounds like a cool project. Didn't 005 design a logo for a company he work(s/ed) for? Maybe you could ask him about that. Good luck, I wish I could be involved.

CO said:

My only beef with the OT is that Luke/Leia should have never been siblings.  That is when Lucas let the 'I am your father' twist go to his head and thought he could outsmart the fans with some new twist every movie after that.  The Luke/Leia sibling plot point made the universe too small, and sadly 'the other' could have played a huge part in the upcoming ST.

 That was the original plan, as you may have heard, but since George decided not to make the ST he wrapped things up in ROTJ. That's why it seems shoehorned in and there wasn't enough build-up to it.

That's true...I have to watch myself. I figured it would be obvious enough, based on previous comments (not that I expected that everyone who read it would have read those comments) and I figured that I had enough obviously non-serious bits in there that everybody would catch on.

It doesn't?...hmm, I don't seem to be able to make any good moves this game. Just to make sure I'm looking at the same board you are, how will you take my rook if I leave it like this? I must be overlooking something, but I can't figure it out. :P

I should head off to bed now, so I'll continue playing tomorrow.

And Twister, what's taking you so long? ;)

R-6b

I didn't want to imitate your move, but losing a rook or a bishop isn't worth it.

Yeah, I was hoping you'd hold off for a bit, but I didn't think it likely. I certainly have lots of room for improvement in playing small variants.

I will instead make take my second option and counter your move with the same. N-3c

I don't know about everyone else, but I missed you (as in noticed that you were gone).

I don't really have any, but I know a story of someone who thought "LOL" meant "Lots of Love" and sent a bunch of people texts telling them someone they knew had died, adding "LOL" at the end of all of them.

So do I. I would also like if there were more lightsabre colours (or that they were more common). It would be interesting to see more purple, yellow, white, etc. lightsabres and different shades of blue, green, and red.

DuracellEnergizer said:

The Empire Strikes Back

Hired a beautiful young actress to play the body of Palpatine (I would have kept Clive Revill to play the voice, though).

 May I ask why you think a beautiful young girl is suitable to play Palpatine?

I agree with just about everything you wrote, as well as a multitude of ideas in the ESB and ROTJ Wishlist thread. As a movie, ROTJ was great. As the end of a trilogy (and later a saga), it wasn't so great.

EDIT: Just me being dumb. Move along, move along...

John Steinbeck as in the author of The Grapes of Wrath?

RicOlie_2 said:

If you didn't pick it up at the last sentence, Jetrell, then you're either failing at sarcasm, or my attempt at humour is going waay over your head.

 I guess you were failing at sarcasm.

I suspected you weren't being serious, but you went kind of far with it and sarcasm isn't easily picked up in writing. Well, at least you have a sense of humour.

I hate how EU explanations over-think everything and are generally stupid.

That's a good point. I remember something in the script mentioning that the lightsabre was heavier than Luke expected when he first ignited it.