chyron8472

I guess I’m a real loser then, because I’m a Democrat from Oklahoma and I vote.

NeverarGreat said:

chyron8472 said:

CatBus said:

Just in case you didn’t know: whataboutism is a real thing, it just hasn’t been a signature feature of American politics until recently.

To be honest, that was one thing I also didn’t like about Hillary’s campaign during the general election. She didn’t seem to be running so much for herself as she was running against Donald Trump. I liked her much better when she would talk about what she was for rather than when she talked about why Trump couldn’t be allowed access to nuclear codes.

To be honest, that was one thing I also didn’t like about Trump’s campaign during the general election. He didn’t seem to be running so much for himself as he was running against Hillary Clinton. I liked him much better when he would talk about what he was for rather than when he talked about why Hillary couldn’t be allowed access to the nuclear codes.

Troll is as troll does.

 
I did like Hillary, but I was annoyed that she didn’t focus more on herself and less on him.

CatBus said:

Whataboutism != negative campaigning.

I suppose not, but either way it’s still pointing fingers. There’s far too much of that that goes on.

dahmage said:

Why are politics and religion the most active threads on a star wars site.

Because you don’t want to sell me death sticks.

ZigZig said:

chyron8472 said:

Middel-Erde?

Middle-earth (Lord of the Rings)

Yes, I know. It just seemed odd to me to not outright say “Middle-earth” to begin with.

Middel-Erde?

CatBus said:

Just in case you didn’t know: whataboutism is a real thing, it just hasn’t been a signature feature of American politics until recently.

To be honest, that was one thing I also didn’t like about Hillary’s campaign during the general election. She didn’t seem to be running so much for herself as she was running against Donald Trump. I liked her much better when she would talk about what she was for rather than when she talked about why Trump couldn’t be allowed access to nuclear codes.

Hal 9000 said:

So, no, I like the titles as they are. If I had to retitle them all…

Episode I - CLOAK OF DECEPTION
Episode II - THE APPROACHING STORM
Episode III - LABYRINTH OF EVIL
Episode IV - REBEL DAWN
Episode V - SHADOWS OF THE EMPIRE
Episode VI - ???
Episode VII - THE FORCE UNLEASHED
Episode VIII - LEGACY OF THE JEDI

Episode VI - FORCE OF DESTINY

or

Episode VI - THRONE OF DECEIT

chyron8472 said:

Bib Fortuna did nothing wrong.

Star Trek (2009). It’s really very good, but I get the feeling the novelization is better in audiobook form than in print. Zachary Quinto narrates the story, and the descriptions of certain things use rather… big words I suppose. So it sounds good with a Vulcan reading it, but it might just come across oddly phrased when just on paper.

TV’s Frink said:

mean Bib Fortuna is right.

TV’s Frink said:

Pipe down, junior.

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

The “ask anybody on the street” argument doesn’t really work because people also describe heaven as having pearly gates (when that actually is the Holy City in Revelation), or God being an old man with a long white beard, or to attribute proverbs to the Bible that it doesn’t say (like “money is the root of all evil” or “God helps those who help themselves.”)

That’s true, but the Bible does describe hell as the way people tend to think of it.

The Bible describes the creation of the universe, from the formation of the space-time continuum down to the human life on this particular planet, as happening in 6 days. People when it was written would not understand the reality of it. So simpler, easier-to-comprehend language is used.

That doesn’t mean the Bible is wrong, but it does mean the truth is probably more complex and that the specific complexity is not altogether important to make the relevant point.

The “ask anybody on the street” argument doesn’t really work because people also describe heaven as having pearly gates (when that actually is the Holy City in Revelation), or God being an old man with a long white beard, or to attribute proverbs to the Bible that it doesn’t say (like “money is the root of all evil” or “God helps those who help themselves.”)

Plus, the point I made about perhaps the Bible trying to describe something that potentially defies description from our points of view (or at least the points of view of those in biblical times.)

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

I’m not even going to get into this with you, mfm. You don’t really want to know my opinion. You want me to paint myself into a corner since you think my position is uninformed even by the sources of information I value most, and makes no sense from a rational standpoint.

I do want to know your opinion, but I’m obviously never going to hear it so I’ll move on.

I said: God is not torturing people.

So, you’re actually interested in my explaining how people are tormented without my also blaming God? You’re interested in my explaining holiness, sin, justice, and sacrifice? You want me to explain free will, and the relationship a loving father has with his children?

Well that’s basically my point. […] He’s a loving father that casts away the children that aren’t serving him. Christians actually hold God to a lower standard than they hold people. If a father in this world kicked his kids out of the house for not serving him or believing he’s all-knowing, that father would classified as heartless and awful.

Again, as I said, you color my answer with assumptions you’ve already made by saying he “casts away the children that aren’t serving him”. I didn’t say that, and the Bible doesn’t say that. You’re simplifying a concept, by overlooking certain aspects about it, into something that isn’t a true representation of itself. Basically you’ve constructed a strawman.

I’m just going to leave this thread assuming that you can’t answer my questions because that’s all I can assume at this point.

It is true that I can not answer your questions in a way that lets you deliberately prove the point you want to make.

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

I’m not even going to get into this with you, mfm. You don’t really want to know my opinion. You want me to paint myself into a corner since you think my position is uninformed even by the sources of information I value most, and makes no sense from a rational standpoint.

I do want to know your opinion, but I’m obviously never going to hear it so I’ll move on.

I said: God is not torturing people.

So, you’re actually interested in my explaining how people are tormented without my also blaming God? You’re interested in my explaining holiness, sin, justice, and sacrifice? You want me to explain free will, and the relationship a loving father has with his children?

Well that’s basically my point. […] He’s a loving father that casts away the children that aren’t serving him. Christians actually hold God to a lower standard than they hold people. If a father in this world kicked his kids out of the house for not serving him or believing he’s all-knowing, that father would classified as heartless and awful.

Again, as I said, you color my answer with assumptions you’ve already made by saying he “casts away the children that aren’t serving him”. I didn’t say that, and the Bible doesn’t say that. You’re simplifying a concept, by overlooking certain aspects about it, into something that isn’t a true representation of itself. Basically you’ve constructed a strawman.

ZigZig said:

chyron8472 said:

ZigZig said:

chyron8472 said:

…that’s a very long multi-faceted explanation.

Short version : “God is Love” (John 4:8 and John 4:16) 😉

Yes.

JEDIT: Also, John 3:17: “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.”

Yes too. But my version is shorter!

Fixed. 😃

ZigZig said:

chyron8472 said:

…that’s a very long multi-faceted explanation.

Short version : “God is Love” (John 4:8 and John 4:16) 😉

Yes.

JEDIT: Also, John 3:17.

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

I’m not even going to get into this with you, mfm. You don’t really want to know my opinion. You want me to paint myself into a corner since you think my position is uninformed even by the sources of information I value most, and makes no sense from a rational standpoint.

I do want to know your opinion, but I’m obviously never going to hear it so I’ll move on.

I said: God is not torturing people.

So, you’re actually interested in my explaining how people are tormented without my also blaming God? You’re interested in my explaining holiness, sin, justice, and sacrifice? You want me to explain free will, and the relationship a loving father has with his children?

…that’s a very long multi-faceted explanation.

I’m not even going to get into this with you, mfm. You don’t really want to know my opinion. You want me to paint myself into a corner since you think my position is uninformed even by the sources of information I value most, and makes no sense from a rational standpoint.

moviefreakedmind said:

So, because I have an opinion of my own, you won’t share yours?

That’s not what I said. I said you will color my answer with assumptions you’re already making to prove your point. And you don’t seem to be asking with the intent of me saying in what way those assumptions are inaccuate.

Suffice it to say God is not torturing people.

moviefreakedmind said:

No, I’m asking why (or even if) you think torture is immoral.

You’re not asking, you’re making a point. The question itself is both loaded and rhetorical. If I say yes, you say God is immoral for torturing people. If I say no, you say I’m both nuts and wrong, AND that God is still torturing people. Also, context is important and by the context around your question, I still can’t answer it. I can’t add my context to my answer because you don’t really want it. In effect, any answer is irrelevant.

moviefreakedmind said:

Separation from God wouldn’t even be torment for most people.

If I assume that Hell simply is separation from God, I’m still going to need further citation that what you say will be remotely true. You assume that because people don’t accept Him here that means He’s not here, and therefore being unaccepting of Him here is no different from being apart from Him there.

why is it moral for God to torture people for the completely insignificant crime of not believing in him specifically.

You color this question with a presupposed view by the way you word it, and I don’t think I can answer it in a way that will be sufficient for you.

NeverarGreat said:

It’s quite nightmarish to think that your essence could be in a vat somewhere being poked and prodded by godlike super-scientists.

Yes many dreams, good or bad, can come from the idea.

As I’ve said before, the only way for the soul to be truly eternal and indestructible is for it to be defined as nothingness.

Lack of destruction does not assert absolute indestructibility. Perhaps indestructible from a position on this plane.

JEDIT: Or perhaps it is indestructible because of where it is. Perhaps there’s a logical, physically quantifiable reason why Lucifer and his followers were not destroyed but rather exiled. The Bible says they at some point are thrown into the lake of fire (which is not necessarily Hell), but it does not say they are obliterated. Maybe there’s an actual knowable scientific explanation why. Just not by any science we can know from here.

I read a book recently called Influx, by Daniel Suarez. In the book an AI character is talking to the protagonist, and the AI says that they have discovered that a portion of the human mind doesn’t exist in this universe, but is in fact extra-dimensional. Not just a random aspect but seemingly a core part of the mind.

I know the book is science fiction, but it got me thinking that it’s entirely possible the things that we describe as metaphysical or supernatural may actually make sense in a physical sense, but just not one that is knowable to we ourselves from our perspective and limited senses on this plane. Like, there might actually be a spirit or soul that is eternal, that is also connected somehow to our bodies and our minds, and the existence of it and our connection to it is actually something scientifically measurable and behaves in a way the makes scientific sense, just not to us here.

In other words, Arthur C. Clarke’s third law is “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” And I might extend that to say sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from miracles.

Albeit, not that God, who is the Great Scientist, is required to behave scientifically.

chyron8472 said:

des trucks do not mouse with nihilism.