RicOlie_2

two Canadian dollars and three

generalfrevious said:

TV's Frink said:

You haven't even seen them?  Get out of this thread.

I don't need to eat arsenic to know it's poison. And I have seen the LOTR trilogy, so I should be in half of this thread.

 Anyone can make a movie look bad to someone who hasn't seen it, but that has little to do with whether or not that person would enjoy it or not if they actually saw it.

Possessed said:

Do chickens have personalities?  If so, should we be eating them?

 Spiders have different temperaments--should we be squishing them?

American dollar, which was worth

DE finally decides to evict the gold general:

Sh6-j7

Ric adds another pawn to his collection:

Pc4xd5

P*g2

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

 One thing that may be considered is that if, as Christian theology has it, we are made in the image of God, it seems likely that humour would have been part of the package. 

It is possible...unless one might consider such an image to have been one of mirror quality or equivalent.

That seems unlikely if God has no body.

May not such a state of loneliness merely serve to provide further evidence as to his clearly established lack of light humor as indicated above?

How so?

Was it not your claim that God had nobody? When one is in such a predicament is it not generally one's own fault? If so, is such a thing not typically as a result of having missed many an opportunity to lighten the moods of others through acts of levity?

As those are not serious questions, I fear I am not allowed to discuss them freely hereabouts.

Alternately, perhaps an older copying method might have been used with faulty rendering? Somewhat akin to loading an image into paint, saving it, and then reloading it?

I would think that an omnipotent God such as we have been discussing would have done a more deliberate job than that--or at least used a better program.

 It is possible. Equally possible is that, though potentially omnipotent, God is simply lazy...in the biblical sense, of course.

 The biblical sense? :P

generalfrevious said:

Now the question is: were the Hobbit movies faithful to the book?

 Define "faithful to the books." Movies are movies, not books, so they naturally tell the story differently. The question is really whether or not they told the same story.

I think that's what I'm talking about.

Bg2-j8

et

N*g4

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

 One thing that may be considered is that if, as Christian theology has it, we are made in the image of God, it seems likely that humour would have been part of the package. 

It is possible...unless one might consider such an image to have been one of mirror quality or equivalent.

That seems unlikely if God has no body.

May not such a state of loneliness merely serve to provide further evidence as to his clearly established lack of light humor as indicated above?

How so?

Alternately, perhaps an older copying method might have been used with faulty rendering? Somewhat akin to loading an image into paint, saving it, and then reloading it?

I would think that an omnipotent God such as we have been discussing would have done a more deliberate job than that--or at least used a better program.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Isn't there another, older philosophy thread buried somewhere in the mire of this forum? 

 There's a religion thread, which might be considered to include philosophy, but no thread designated solely for the subject has been active at all recently.

I don't know if this counts: :P

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Philosophical-Ramblings/topic/14657/

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

 One thing that may be considered is that if, as Christian theology has it, we are made in the image of God, it seems likely that humour would have been part of the package. 

It is possible...unless one might consider such an image to have been one of mirror quality or equivalent.

That seems unlikely if God has no body.

Additionally, Jesus, being human, almost certainly had a sense of humour. It seems unlikely he would have been accused of being a drunkard if he were serious all the time.

Alternately is it not possible he might merely have been taken to drink-- often, and in quantity?

Certainly possible, but as my "argument" presupposes that he was/is God, I would consider it rather improbable. If Jesus' opponents thought it unsuitable for a respectable teacher to crack jokes or have a good laugh now and then, they may have attempted to undermine his authority by accusing him of drunkenness (something that probably wouldn't have been taken seriously if Jesus was serious).

SilverWook said:

And I totally forgot about Jabba saying poodoo!

 That's not much of a swear. It means "fodder." :P

SilverWook said:

Does Jabba's green dancing girl ring any bells? ;)

 Wasn't that just a wardrobe malfunction, or am I thinking of something else? Even so, it didn't affect the rating and escapes most people's notice (is it in the SE?).

Leia wasn't nude....assuming that's what you're referring to.

As for swearing, there's "kriff" and several that are intended to sound like "frick" and the F-word.

Possessed said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Jk6PuDsJr4

I think it's waaaay better.  It's alot clearer, more refined, you can hear the different parts more distinctly, and it just sounds alot less naseating.  :)

 I listened to your updated version and the original back to back. I think yours has more depth and I like its nice high, clear notes which are more toned down in the original. However, when that drumstick is hammering at various points in the song, yours sticks out too much. In the original it blends better with the rest of the song and is less jarring.

Even so, if the foundations are utter crap, then its their inventor's fault for people not liking them. Cheese-flavoured ice cream would not be popular. Ear wax-flavoured ice cream would be even less so.

Being unnecessarily explicit about sex when it can just be implied or mentioned in passing is what I don't like. I don't want to see nudity in a Star Wars movie (Chewbacca, Jabba, etc. aside). If I wanted that, I'd go watch porn.

The ice cream flavour would be analogous of a genre of movie, not a particular movie. The batch of ice cream would be the particular movie.

You bleeped out your swearing...and though I probably would have been happier without the "sex scene" (not least because I can't listen to certain dialogue without it sounding like something dirty), it was euphemistic, not explicit. 

EDIT: And swearing isn't a big deal--it's just used unnecessarily a lot of the time, and that I don't want. I quite enjoy The Usual Suspects, for instance.

No, I got new earbuds for Christmas, so I have been able to listen to both channels now. However, I haven't listened to any of your music with proper speakers.

Post Praetorian said:

First question:

Is it possible for God to have a sense of humor? If so, what form must it take?

Consider:

Is God able to have a light sense of humor?

1) A light sense of humor may be described as the ability to laugh at one's self or others in a lighthearted manner.

2) Lightheartedness is expressed as being 'carefree; cheerful; [or] gay' 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lightheartedness

3) God cannot be described as the third option above (reference: www.Bible.com)

4) Cheerfulness is described as 'noticeably happy and optimistic' 

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cheerful

5) Carefree is described as 'without cares; free of concern; easy; casual; without difficulty'

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/carefree

6) God is never once heard to sing happily to himself or whistle.

7) God invented Hell.

8) God cannot be considered cheerful (from 4 and 6).

9) God cannot be considered carefree (from 5 and 7).

 10) God cannot be said to have a light sense of humor (from 3, 8, 9).

 One thing that may be considered is that if, as Christian theology has it, we are made in the image of God, it seems likely that humour would have been part of the package. 

Additionally, Jesus, being human, almost certainly had a sense of humour. It seems unlikely he would have been accused of being a drunkard if he were serious all the time.

Psalm 2:2-4 and 37:12-13 has God laughing at the foolishness of the wicked. That could be taken as a sense of humour, but could also be taken as sadistic, depending on how one views things. A loving God certainly wouldn't be happy about a wicked person suffering eternal punishment.

So, I think the Christian God has a sense of humour. Whether such a thing is really possible must be explored through further discussion.

Gb1xc3

Gi6-j6

and

Pd4-d5