TheBoost

mrbenja0618 said:

Ady Adywan Just found out today that my dads got cancer. It's the waiting game now to see how bad it is

My pa's been battling a nasty one for the last year and a half.  You have my sympathy and prayers.

Mexican Dracula's cane is so pimpin'.

That is all.

Bingowings said:

TheBoost said:

 Is someone who doesn't believe in unicorns making the same "leap of faith" as someone who does?

It depends where you believe/don't believe the unicorns to be.

If you believe there are unicorns at the bottom of your garden you may be making more of a leap of faith than the person who doesn't.

If you don't believe there are no unicorns anywhere in the universe or any other universes that may exist you may be making a bigger leap of faith than people who believe they have one at the bottom of their garden.

So because you can't fundametally disprove unicorns you feel the need to believe in them?

I can't disprove that the icecaps on Mars are sentient and want to marry my sister, so should I believe in that, or else I'd be making a leap of faith?

So any Christian is making a huge leap of faith not to believe in Wotan, The Great Raven, Ahura Mazda, Wicca, Xenu, or Krishna, or for that matter faeries, leprechauns, the invisible dragon in my garage, chupucabras, or vampires.

I beleive in gravity. I don't beleive that invisible tentacles from the Earth's core reach up and pull me back down when I jump. Is that a leap of faith? (pun mostly intended)

I think the end of the ESB one sums up Family Guy humor pretty good. When the dog breaks fourth wall and says "Look, seriously, Lando is wearing Han's clothes."

It's not actually a joke, nor does it take something and turn it humorous. It's just there.

Anchorhead said:

 

Someone here said it best in another thread once - and I'm sorry I can't recall who because it was perfectly stated - both sides are taking an equal leap of faith because neither knows the truth. Unfortunately, that respect and tolerance seldom, if ever, comes through in religious conversations.

 

 Is beleiving in what you don't see, and not belieiving in what you don't see REALLY equal leaps of faith?

Is someone who doesn't believe in unicorns making the same "leap of faith" as someone who does?

As a guy who does not dig Family Guy, these were what I would classify a 'hoot.'

I laughed at about 2/3 of the Star Wars jokes, and totally didn't get about 7/8 of the rest of the 'humor.'

I would say worth a rental just for the Star Wars jokes, but unless you love Family Guy, can't see it worth buying.

C3PX said:

How is that common sense? To me that is actually the lack of common sense, and the thing that irks me about religion. If there is an all powerful being who created mankind, his lack of presence in his creation is kind of lame. And if he is revealing himself to only a select few, and telling them to either go annoy the crap out of people by pounding on their doors while they are trying to eat dinner or by blowing people up, in the name of spreading his kingdom, then that is pretty lame too.

Common sense to me says that if there was a God who created the universe, he wouldn't have just created it and left his creation to be confused and go about hating each other in his name, he would be involved in it (a religion), and that instead of just revealing himself to crazies and those who are lucky enough to be blessed with believing parents to start them on the straight path, he would be slightly more equal opportunity and reveal himself to the rational skeptical sort every now and then, thereby making himself known and preventing people from slitting throats/interrupting dinner in his name.

I don't think a "hit-and-run" God would be a very commonsensical one.  

I think any talk of 'common sense' is fairly out of place in a talk about religion.

I'd go so far as to say 'common sense' as an expression is fairly useless in any discussion, but even moreso with religion.

"My religion is getting high and looking in a telescope. I'll go to church with you, if you get high and look in my telescope with me."

-Joe Rogan

Warbler said:

TheBoost said:

Warbler said:

to me, if you are making a SIN offering, it is because you have sinned.  and what about the killing you kid if he curses thing?

 Dude, YHWH gives permission to kill EVERYONE.

 

he does?  I must of missed that part of the Bible.

Well not EVERYONE. Just foreigners, rude children, all members of other religions, any of the people on Earth he doesn't think is good enough, Egyptian babies, folks who argue with priests, brides who aren't virgins, people who work on Sundays, and a few others.

This is nonsense. I'm too awesome and unavailing polite to be ignored.

Warbler said:

Sluggo said:

Warbler said:

I, for one, do not believe that the Levitical laws were inspired by God.    They just don't make sense.   Callings a woman's menstrual cycle, something they can't avoid doing, a sin???   An all knowing all powerful god would not be that stupid.    

I wouldn't say that the text goes as far as saying it is a sin, but rather that it is uncleanliness.  To keep the people of Israel in a state of Holiness, which is what the Levitical laws were for, the impurity of blood and menstruation must be dealt with.  

Maybe you would call it semantics, but the difference seems clear to me.

to me, if you are making a SIN offering, it is because you have sinned.  and what about the killing you kid if he curses thing?

 Dude, YHWH gives permission to kill EVERYONE.

I can imagine Jesus giving the beatitudes and such, and some guy heckling him with passages from Leviticus, and Jesus being all "Sheesh, what was I thinking!? My bad."

ELEKTRA

"You saved my life."
"No... you saved mine."

THE BLIND SIDE

"You changed that boys life."
"No... he changed mine."

HARDBALL

"You sure taught those kids a lot."
"No... they taught me."

Can anyone name other examples of this ham-fisted awful line/flipping dialogue trope? I know there are more. Every time I hear a variation of it, it's like a hammer to the eye.

I JUST learned how to view who's ignoring me. And it's JediTemple.

Who the hell is this dude? Why would he want to ignore me?

ChainsawAsh said:

 

It's basically Catholic-lite.  Or Diet Catholic, if you prefer.

 An Episcopal minister I knew called it Junior Varsity Catholicism.

C3PX said:

If a Christian cites Levitical law and says that Christians should be following it, then feel free to call him a cherry picker, unless he himself follows EVERY Levitical law. Otherwise, Christians have all the excuse in the world for not following Levitical law, it simply is not required of them.

 So we're in agreement that Evangelicals who cite leviticus to justify crummy behavior are... for lack of a better word... assholes?

daneditor said:

I don't know if you're familiar with ROTJ Fan-o-matic (if not, check it out on youtube) but one of the many excellent ideas was to have Boba Fett given the job of telling the Rebellion about the DS2, including the lie about it not being operational, rather than these Bothans, of whom the audience knows nothing and are never heard about again. Makes sense - aside from giving the Fett something to do, it also means Fett isn't at Jabba's palace and spares us the hideousness of his death scene.

This, to me, is worse than anything in the SE or PT.

Let's take a character who in ESB has two lines of dialogue and no action scenes, and transform them from some third tier baddie into the bad-ass James Bond of the universe.

Why does Fett need 'something to do'? He's a minor antagonist (and unnamed in ESB) who just happens to have a cool costume.

Talk about shrinking the universe.

Using that reasoning, why have Lando in ESB? Couldn't that roll be Uncle Owen, who survived somehow, left Tatooine and bought a city? Why have Wedge at the end of "Star Wars"? Couldn't the other pilot be the "gonk gonk" droid from earlier in the film? The audience already knows him, and he looks cooler than Wedge.

sean wookie said:

TheBoost said:

sean wookie said:

 I think it would be a nice experiment and generally try to blend in as a recent Catholic convert. I'd confess my sins, converse with other Catholics, learn what they believe and why the believe it, and attend mass like everyone else, and any other Church events as long as it doesn't conflict with work. And blog about of all this.

 As a recent convert, you won't confess. There's a rather rigorous training program for new Catholics, unless you're planning to bluff your way in as a fully confirmed Catholic. You also can attend mass, but not take communion.

Not that they check credentials at the door, but it depends on how dishonest you plan on being.

I don't want to be that dishonest. I really want to observe their culture and mingle. This is the churches web

I wish there was some email address I could like ask permission to do this with.

 Just show up.

Most Catholic churches have a little pamphlet for non Catholic visitors, as well as for new members. These'll help you.

There won't be Pope's guards with laser scans at the door to judge you. I'm not Catholic, but have never felt unwelcome at a Catholic church.

sean wookie said:

 I think it would be a nice experiment and generally try to blend in as a recent Catholic convert. I'd confess my sins, converse with other Catholics, learn what they believe and why the believe it, and attend mass like everyone else, and any other Church events as long as it doesn't conflict with work. And blog about of all this.

 As a recent convert, you won't confess. There's a rather rigorous training program for new Catholics, unless you're planning to bluff your way in as a fully confirmed Catholic. You also can attend mass, but not take communion.

Not that they check credentials at the door, but it depends on how dishonest you plan on being.

TV's Frink said:

There are laws about menstruating?

 Tons.

C3PX said:

And it isn't ignoring Levitical law, New Testament doctrine clearly teaches that Christians are under a new law, and not the old Levitical laws. I hear far too many people cite that as "cherry picking" by Christians, but it would actually be misunderstanding of Christian doctrine on the part of the one making that claim.

I'll concede that 'ignore' was a poor word choice. But given the new law brought on by JC, was there a nice index of what laws still count? How else does one define which laws about killing, hating people, menstrating or tattooing, should still be followed? Or when a Christian cites Levitical law, is it not "cherry picking" based on their own opinions?

And sheesh, YHWH sure spent a lot of time and ink on laws for him to thrown them all away a few centuries later. Seems inefficient. I wonder if Moses resents all the copying he had to do?

sean wookie said:

Cute, but to be fair most Christians ignore all the Levitical laws except about hating gays and Harry Potter.

Bingowings said:

This was a chap who saw no intrinsic evil in slavery because St Paul had tolerated it.

 

God tolerated it too.

It is a fascinating piece of literature but if it's the word of God it's a very strange God and not one worthy of my praise.

Read Exodus 32. God's not so bad. He wants to spite the people for some reason, and Moses is all "chill God, be cool" and God is all, "allright, no spiting toady."

Personally my favorite act of God is when he hardens the Pharaoh's heart so that the dude wont let the Jews leave Egypt, then God smacks him down for doing what God made him do. It's like wife-beating from God!

A few years back I was living in Palm Springs, home to about 70,000 retired gays.

I saw the play "Corpus Christi" which is really gay. And its about Jesus.

So imagine a play of the Gospel, where every character is played by a 60+ year old queen, except Jesus, who was maybe 25 and the only real actor.

I love community theater.

I hate biopics. Always too long and they try to pull clear character arcs out of complex lives. 

I just hope Cohen doesnt try to actually sing as Freddie.  

Hoth-Nudist said:

From TPM: Maul (needed a bigger part though, and speaking).   

 So in fact, you didn't like Darth Maul at all?