Well, I'm done making threads. I think they've been fun, but they've obviously alienated a few folks. I'll keep it more localized. In any case, I'll be writing a few posts for you soon. Sorry so busy. Maybe I'll have time to figure out what your beef with him is.
Can you now? ;)
+S-2B
This might be where the game gets more interesting. You are about to lose a powerful piece, but you're gaining something out of it as well. Soon, we will start dropping pieces and decimating each others' ranks, which leads to more dropping.
Sx3c+ (promotes)
Just so everyone knows, I'm not ignoring y'all. I've just been very busy. I will reply to your comments soon. When I log on, I only have had very brief moments to glance at things.
I agree. And therein lies the hypocrisy. I just wish I could have caught them in the act. Bingowings probably would have been especially defensive. He rushes to the ultimate defense of some, while he is immediately on the assault for others, quick to point out only the virtues of one and only the flaws of another.
Wedge was dubbed by different actors between ANH and ESB (where I think it was actually Denis Lawson himself). This has always driven me up the wall! I expect this will corrected, right?
Yes. I'd hoped for some reaction, but I think everyone already knew what I was up to.
RicOlie_2 said:
I've got a new question for you. In Matthew 15:18 (or verse 17, can't remember for sure off the top of my head) Jesus says "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
So my question is, how do you reconcile that with the corruption you believe occurred, causing the Church to fall away from the truth?
Well, there's more than one way you might interpret that. First, in spite of temporary apostasy, one might argue that ultimately the gates of hell shall not prevail against God's church.
But the way we see it is a little different from you. The name Peter means rock, which is the Catholic interpretation on which Christ will build his church. But Christ is also called the Rock of Israel, and many Protestant will say that he is referring to his building the church upon himself, and even if the church might go into apostasy, true believers in Christ will still be built upon the Rock. But if you go back, starting at v. 15 (of chapter 16, not 15, BTW), you see that Christ refers to revelation between God and Peter. God the rock, Peter the rock, and the revelation that God gives to his prophets, taken as a whole, are the rock that the gates of hell shall not prevail against. As long as God speaks to man via his prophets, his church shall stand.
S-4d
S-3e
Now that you made your move, I saw a move I planned on earlier, then forgot about, but that I wish I'd made. Oh well.
Since Antcufaalb seems to have a handle on chess, perhaps he'd like to play me a game. How confusing would that get to have two simultaneous games between different partners in the same thread?
Reegar said:
I asked two women and one man. One woman was my missionary/teacher, the other was a mother whose family drove me every Sunday morning. The missionary (her hand-written lesson notes are stored safely in a box for sentimental reasons) gave a vague, somewhat robotic (if I may) answer about God-appointed authority. The mother did the same, but afterward in privacy elaborated on her answer by saying that once I enter the Temple, I'll see that there's more to it.
This is weird. The temple covers the Creation and the Garden of Eden, as well as the time shortly after being cast out. What I can say about it is that it is a drama-based ordinance. In that light, the only thing that could mean what she's referring to is also simply found in Genesis 3:16. We as a church never feel that the "rul[ing] over" one's wife means lording over her, bossing her around, or anything of that nature. It is probably best summarized by a Greek Orthodox woman who said "The man is the head [of the household], but the woman is the neck. And she can turn the head any way she wants." This essentially is true. Different roles, equal importance. They are to co-preside.
The man essentially said the church doesn't have priestesses because women are too busy with the important job of mother. His wife was the "home manager".
That's his view. The real reason is, well, to put it frinkly, because God said so :P
TV's Frink said:
Are any of the top leadership women?
Yes.
https://www.lds.org/church/leaders/general-auxiliaries?lang=eng
Though admittedly, they are outnumbered greatly.
https://www.lds.org/church/leaders?lang=eng
This does nothing to counter my point that it is both a privilege and a burden to hold the priesthood. The man who was made bishop and nominated me as his counselor is currently doing this for the second time. He has told me more than once that he did not want to be bishop. When he was interviewed and asked to be bishop, he said, "I already did that once. I shouldn't have to do it again." He was told by the interviewer that he had already been a bishop twice before becoming stake president (presiding authority over several congregations, unpaid, almost a second FT job), so my bishop had no excuse. This is not a church of ambition. You may accuse other male-dominated churches of such, but it simply won't fly with this one. People serve because they are asked, believing that they are following the will of God. Priesthood is more of an opportunity to serve, not a position of prestige, power, wealth, or ambition.
TV's Frink said:
darth_ender said:
I don't think that was his point. He was simply pointing out that men and women are different, and therefore not to be forced into all the same roles.
lol, who is doing the forcing into roles here?
Societal pressures practically force women to assume the roles of men and women these days, far more than in the reverse. I know far more working single moms than single dads. Yet, society says they can, therefore they must.
I ask you again, did you read that link I sent. It's called The Family: A Proclamation to the World, and it speaks our views on roles. It states the ideal, but also states that individual circumstances may vary.
The primary role difference you are getting up in arms about is the priesthood. And somehow that is so the men can stay in power? Really, you know little about my church and the ways it works to elevate women. Just because it doesn't put them in the exact same box as the men, it goes to great lengths to strengthen them, give them leadership, and often our leaders speak about how they are better than we are.
There's a joke I heard recently that requires a little explanation beforehand. Every six months my church has a general conference, a broadcast where our leaders speak and we all can watch and listen. Part of the broadcast involves a men-only session. But the week before has a women only session. So the joke goes like this: I went to the men's session (priesthood session) this week, and it was nice to hear them say how we were doing a good job and right on target. Then I looked around and realized I'd accidentally gone to the women's session.
*ba-dum-tish*
I'll find you some quotes later. In any case, you spoke about the lengths some will go to in order to preserve power. But really, my church does not offer much power to preserve. Only the top leadership gets any money out of what they do, and it's only a portion of their former professional salaries in order to meet their needs...certainly no large amount of money. Other than that, they work extremely hard and the only substantial reward is the virtue of doing what they believe to be right. The rest of us (remembering that I'm in the bishopric, meaning I'm putting in additional hours of work in my calling) do our work for free. For me that means around 15 extra hours a week. For the bishop, it probably is closer to 20-30. Yeah, that's the reward and power we crave and get because we're the lucky ones to hold the priesthood.
S-3f
P-7f
DominicCobb said:
Yes and the third will probably be closer still. Also, Bingo, this edit might do it for you:
http://www.fanedit.org/ifdb/component/content/article/79-fanedit-listings/fanfix/962-the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-arkenstone-edition
I've downloaded that. I really need to see it.
I for one thoroughly enjoyed TH:AUJ for what it was. I didn't mind the winks and nods (which have their place, considering there are many folks who love the LOTR films and know nothing of the books), the broadening of the storyline with apocryphal portions, such as the council, the definitive attachment of the Necromancer to Sauron, and even the White Orc to give a more immediate menace. My biggest beef was the unrealistic action, which even in the books was hard to believe at times, since it seemed the whole team was invincible. It was worse on this front in the film, of course. But I even prefer the different tone. The Hobbit was written many years before LOTR, and the books are different in nature and tone themselves. I like to see that preserved.
Still haven't seen the new one, but I'm looking forward to it.
Saw Frozen last week. Disney's kids' movies are really getting good again, after a pretty lame decade or so. Must be because they are putting Lasseter at the helm. One thing I like about this and Tangled is the fact that they are emphasizing a truer form of love instead of the infatuation they've been famous for. Ariel sees some flutist on a boat and she's immediately in love. Aladdin sees a babe in the marketplace and he's smitten. It's true love folks! For the depth of the character and relationship development in Beauty and the Beast, it has always been one of my favorite Disney cartoons. Well, now people actually sacrifice and change for each other. And in the case of Frozen:
MAJOR SPOILER ALERT--PROCEED AT YOUR OWN RISK
Love at first sight is shown to be stupid, and the true love that develops is harder to win.
END SPOILER
Short story: Frozen was excellent, even if it had almost nothing to do with the Hans Christian Anderson story it was supposedly based on.
I don't think that was his point. He was simply pointing out that men and women are different, and therefore not be forced into all the same roles.
I actually have mentioned the idea before that Anakin could be corrupted already before Episode III, and we only find out at the end. References could be made in the opening crawl to a secret agent assassinating key Separatist leaders, drop references here and there, etc. Perhaps we could even see Anakin's slaughter of the leadership on Mustafar, but keep his face shrouded till we see the infamous "Sith eyes" shot. Only then do we realize that the secret agent has been Anakin all along. Perhaps some shots in Episode II could be edited to allude to him secretly signing up with Palpatine, though I'm not sure if he'd be signing up with a Sith Lord or simply with the Chancellor as a secret agent. In any case, I haven't thought hard enough about this to consider the plausibility and what shots to use, but it's idea I thought I should throw out there again.
Ooh, that's good. Or a forest in the autumn.
Well then, I'd only speak for myself, not for Catholics (which I am not), nor even Christians in general. I believe that if the flood did take place, it was probably a local phenomenon. But that's just me.
I show this position to you because again, I want this game to be instructive, not punitive. I want you to enjoy yourself. You are right, with the move you just made, the game would get extremely exciting...for me! While I suspect you were trying to move your king to a more defensive position, this is not the right time. He is guarding a critical square. If I slide my promoted rook (dragon king) to 4a, I am checking your king (remember, your gold generals cannot attack diagonally backwards). Your only defense is to block with your gold general. I could then take your knight, which leaves your bishop vulnerable to attack. Were you to try to move it to its only safe square, I would then take your lance, again attacking your bishop and thus removing all safe squares to escape to. Once I captured it, I would then be able to drop it back into play, increasing my attack. Your defenses would be substantially weakened, and the army at my disposal greatly increased. This move along guarantees your loss. I hope this is not sounding rude, because I want this to be a fun experience for you. For that reason, I suggest you take your last move back and consider something else.
In any case, you have probably learned something new, right? :)
Ric, I'm glad you lost. I like you, and I like you better as you, not successor to someone else.
Galactus said:
darth_ender said:
I'm glad to hear it. If I may suggest again as I did in the first post, though it is of course up to you guys, that I think an edit of the TPM or ROTS could be interesting, as they would expand upon the original plots in interesting ways. I probably like that sort of thing more than others, but it could be an interesting, different kind of PT edit.
I agree, those could be interesting. Neither of those games are really on my radar as far as games I was considering. I honestly HATED that TPM game! I did like the ROTS game, but Daveytod put together a DVD about that years ago called "Episode III The Video Game - The Movie." The thread for it is HERE.
Well, sadly it appears no one wants to seed the Episode III movie. I'll keep hanging in there, but it is so old, I doubt anyone will provide it.
Is fanedit.info down? How horrid!