darth_ender

^But it's so much fun.  Thanks for understanding why I can't always reply quickly :)

I'm concocting a response in my head for you C3PX, you little assassin droid, you! ;)  Gotta study for my test this afternoon.

Warbler, you can't expect a whole lot of detail in a series like that I'm afraid...too much material to cover, I'm afraid, though it does sound like they're missing some important stuff--if nothing else, they should have talked in greater detail about the generations of Abraham through Ephraim/Manasseh.

Why would you want to redub such a sexy demigod as Anakin? ;)

Wow, that must have been rough playing with a mouse, though the wheel and pedals probably was pretty fun.

So I'm excited to give the teamwork a try (when I get the chance, though I have an exam today and can't spend time having fun for a while).  I found a key guide here:

http://wiki.rebelsquadrons.org/index.php/Xwing_Keyboard_Commands

I also watched someone do it on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD_Uru6zt2o

I actually followed a similar pattern, though the biggest difference between him and me is that he disabled the gunboats (which requires fewer successful shots once the shields are down) with his ion cannons, and he also disabled the shuttle that attacks your mission critical shuttle rather than shooting it.  He stated that if you destroy that shuttle, all craft rush to attack in that direction, which was what happened to me.  If I simply disable that shuttle, enemy craft may remain occupied some distance away.  So I'll go for that whenever I get the chance (probably not today).  Man, I love this game!  Only problem is that it's using my sparse free time, and I've been neglecting my project for the past week.

Thanks, tim.  You know, that's what I get for jumping into the game without first reacquainting myself with its controls and gameplay mechanisms after 15 years.  I'll have to try a teamwork approach :)

Man, I'd forgotten how hard X-wing is.  I figured, 'Hey, I used to be pretty good at this.  I'll jump straight to the Death Star campaign.'  Holy cow, I am completely stuck!  I can't seem to save my captured shuttle with Imperial advisers while fending off waves of Gunboats.  All my comrades are completely incompetent and get themselves swiftly killed while I ultimately take out every single opponent--I feel like my fellow squadron members are merely useful at keeping the heat off me for a bit.  The shuttle is so slow at getting to safety, and I can't seem to hold back the waves of baddies long enough to keep it and myself alive.  Arg!  I think this is only the third or fourth mission in the campaign!

You are right, he has.  Again, I hope I didn't come off the right way.  I just have read several comments from several people over the last several weeks that seem to be stuck on colors, so I finally decided to speak up.  I know I'll be happy with whatever Ady chooses, whether he sticks close to the original or decides to go for something different. :)

I think the whole color argument is pointless for the Revisited series.  This is a special edition, not a preservation.  That means that if Adywan likes some other colors better, he should alter the colors according to his taste.  If he accepts others' opinions, he can do so.  But to adhere strictly to the original colors when he's introducing new special effects including altered lighting and alteration of other colors seems to be a waste of effort.  If folks want original colors, they should look to projects like DJ's/You_Too's and Harmy's.  If they want a special edition, they should get used to the idea that there will be many elements that are not present in the original.

I don't mean to be rude to anyone.  Just making a point.  My apologies if I offend.

Well, I've been much quieter than I used to be.  But I meant in regards to this thread.  *mutters* jerk... ;)

Wow!  That is exciting news indeed.  I really can't wait!

Moar linx?!  I recognize that joke.  *scrolls up* Maybe I've been inducted into the Frink Hall of...oh... :(

EDIT: By the way, you're a lair! I incorrectly linked in my earlier post.  You said, yes YOU SAID:

TV's Frink said:

Ok, now I approve of this thread.  And it's bookmarked as well.

Gotta be honest, that was a good one.

*mutters* jerk.....

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/The-sexy-Bill-Will-Billy-Dee-Williams-Thread/post/616186/

?

TV's Frink said:

Now where's that LOL rabbit pic...

Called it! (see the last paragraph of my big post)

This is so exciting!  Any ETA?  I think I asked before, but just because I'm so excited I will ask again: do you have a rough estimate of how long before ESB and ROTJ? :D

This project sounds interesting.  I'm quiet, but I'm watching :)

I want you to know, Bingowings, that I read your posts too and find them quite interesting and insightful, even if I don't always agree.  I simply don't always feel it necessary to address you as directly on these matters.  I just wanted to make sure you knew your posts were valuable in my eyes. :)

CP3S said:

If you freely admit the Bible is full of falsehoods and corruptions, how do you know the resurrection of Christ isn't one of these uninspired, corrupt pieces?

Like Warbler, this is a matter of faith, a matter of testimony, a matter of personal revelation.  I believe that Jesus in fact was resurrected because I believe God has made such known to me.

It is such a basic question, if somebody's faith cannot withstand it, I daresay they had no faith to begin with.

I daresay that this is likely untrue, but that many have faith unprepared to deal with a logical approach.  Either they will simply shut down your point or it will hurt their faith.  Better IMO, to encourage rational thought rather than bluntly say someone is wrong.  They can ultimately come to their own conclusions.  I myself enjoy the dual approach, but not everyone does.

Seriously, how do you believe something so unbelievable, when the only source of this unbelievable tale is a book that you admit to being untrustworthy?

How untrustworthy have I made it seem?  I feel the book is indeed inspired and true in most regards.  Did the sun/earth stop when Joshua fought his battles?  Was the entire earth flooded?  Did Methuselah really live for 973 years (I can't remember exactly how many, but somewhere close I think)?  I doubt these things are entirely literal.  But I don't think the book is untrustworthy.

This isn't even an atheist/theist discussion. I just find it really interesting how the Bible repeatedly claims it is the perfect word of God, which you disagree with, but still find merit in it anyway and chose to believe bits and pieces of it.

Sorry for infringing on Warbler trademarks with the broken quote walls, but I was hoping to address a number of things I missed.  But I am unaware of anywhere in the Bible where it claims to be the perfect word of God.  Please find a better source than that below.

Also unaddressed was the verse in Timothy 3:16-17:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

It's a very nice, true verse ;)

Does it lie?

Nope.

Is this a corruption?

I certainly don't think so.

Or does this predate all Biblical corruptions, a remnant of a time before the Bible couldn't be trusted?

Hmmm...I think someone is conflating my personal beliefs with some misunderstanding of the official teachings of my church.  Yes, this does predate the corruption that my Church and history shows to have taken place.  But the verse and Bible remain true.  So now I shall go into a nice, lengthy explanation.  This was what was largely deleted in my old post.

Is this just Paul talking about the scripture prior to its corruption, back when it really was God-breathed? (If so, the majority of the texts we've translated the Old Testament from predate Paul and even the time of Christ, they are from all different time periods, and besides a few misplaced grammatical marks and an added or subtracted word here or there, they all say the exact same thing, which indicates changes HAVE NOT been made through the centuries. It is actually very remarkable, there is no other ancient text with such an abundance of sources).

It's not that the verse has been corrupted.  It's that I don't agree with your interpretation (or that of the majority of Christians) of that verse.  In fact, I think it's very clear that Paul was never saying that the Bible was infallible with this verse.  You see, the Bible was compiled around 300 years after Paul wrote that epistle.  The canonization process was not easy or uniform.  Catholic Bibles for instance contain several books in their Old Testament that are not found in Protestant Bibles--you'd know them as the Apocrypha, but Catholics call them deuterocanonical, meaning secondary canon.  Oriental Orthodox Christians have slightly different canons from the others.  So does that mean that some people are missing out on God-breathed books?  What about books that were considered canonical to some, such as the gnostic books like the Gospel of Thomas?  Or the more widely accepted but ultimately discarded Shepherd of Hermas or Epistle of Barnabas?  These books were very popular, but were rejected because their authors were not considered authoritative enough.  What about books that are clearly not so inspired, like the Song of Solomon which teaches little about God, but is very sexual in nature?  Or what about even more recent controversy, such as Martin Luther's recommendation that we toss out a couple of books, such as James and Revalation?  Now I've provided the Bible critic with lots of fodder, such as "Then how do you even know the Bible you've got is so genuine?"  A fair question, and many things are disputed such as Paul's authorship of several epistles or verses supposedly added later to books like the story of the adulteress and casting the first stone.  But my point is that Paul was not saying, "The Bible" is God-breathed.  He said "All scripture."

So let's dissect that meaning a little further.  Assuming that Church leaders were inspired as they finalized the biblical canon, one might say, "Well, God made sure what he wanted ended up in the Bible and what he didn't want did not."  Assuming this is true, one might then argue that 2 Timothy 3:16 is indeed referring to those books which have actually been canonized.  But again, the verse says, "All scripture."  So what about the Quran?  What about the Bhagavad Gita?  Are these God-breathed as well?

I think we need to reconsider the meaning of the verse.  There are works that were given to men by God, and there are those that were not.  Let's further analyze the verse for more clues as to meaning.

"All scripture is God-breathed..."  What does that mean?  Does that mean the literal word proceeding from the mouth of God?  Couldn't be, as you so happily pointed out, there are contradictions.  You used the NIV translation.  Let's look at another one or two.  "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." (KJV); "Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration)..." (Amplified); "All scripture, inspired of God, is..." (Douay-Rheims); "Every scripture inspired of God is..." (ASB).  To me, the phrase "God-breathed" is equivalent to "inspired of God".  If we are assuming that the entire Bible deserves to be canonical, then I think we can safely believe that the entire Bible is "inspired of God" without believing that it is without human error.  This already proves my point, but let's just examine the rest of the verse, going back to the NIV.

and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of Godmay be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 If the entirety of the Bible is indeed inspired of God, then I think the rest of this verse is equally true.  I hold no internal contradiction.  In fact, I'd apply that verse the remainder of LDS scripture.

You and Warbler paint a very fickle picture of Christiandom from its source material on up. If the Bible is corrupt and untrustworthy, then by extension, this must put everything Christianity teaches at question. You can't very well say that it is full of error, then say, well, we know for sure this part isn't erroneous. A leaky boat isn't water-worthy, no matter how small the percentage of leaks are in ratio to the portions that are impermeable, if it leaks, then its going to sink.

No, not a fickle picture.  Too many humans want to believe in a religion that is without flaw, and the non-believers will criticize from that angle.  But just because human knowledge is limited does not make everything they say untrue.  Just like Mars was once thought to have canals created by intelligent life in the 1800s does not mean that it is not still red, the fourth planet from the sun, with two moons.

Of course, Mormonism is a very different animal that believes in a very different take on the nature of God and Christ, to be a Mormon, you'd have to accept that most of the things the Bible teaches us about God and Christ are utterly false. So naturally, it would be much easier (actually, necessary) for you to accept the fact that the Bible is some percentage bunk, than it would be for members of more traditional denominations to do so.

And this is where I would urge you not to jump to conclusions once again.  We can discuss this further in the very exciting and well-articulated Mormon thread.  ;)  But I will briefly say here that I find the Bible quite supportive of our teachings of Deity, of God, of Christ, and that I do not believe what it says to be false.  It is neither easier or necessary to accept anything you suggest as bunk.  But I genuinely mean it, if you'd like to point out any error on my part in this regard, we can chat about it there :)

CP3S said:

darth_ender said:

Here, let me pause, just to ensure neither of us misinterprets the other by letting you know that if I say anything that sounds overly defensive, hyped up, or anything, that is not my intention. I also am aware that you are not trying to sound over the top either in your criticisms. Just getting that out of the way :)

Very good. I mean no harm in my posts either.

I think we've learned not to misunderstand each other much better than before :)

But I will add that your argument has several holes of its own. That is not to say that there are at times points where one must forgo logic in favor of faith to believe in the Bible. But what you are doing is incorrectly ascribing beliefs and statements to myself and the Bible that are not actually held by it or me. I truly hope to clarify later today, or tomorrow at the latest.

No doubt my arguments are absolutely riddled with holes. I can't speak for you and your beliefs, but as for all things I attribute to the Bible, I can reassure you they are there. If you choose to airbrush them out, remove their meanings from context, or attribute a hidden context to them, well, then I guess that shows you've got it all worked out. But yeah, perhaps I should start quoting scripture more liberally.

Please enlighten me.  I do not with to "airbrush" anything or take anything out of context.  I am not even claiming that I have it all worked out.  I'm just saying that the Bible (from Greek biblios meaning "books," as in a compiled library) says nothing about its entirety being correct.  It would never self reference in that manner because there was no Bible to self-reference when its individual elements were being written.  Even the Tanakh (the Jewish Bible, or our Old Testament) was not canonized till after Jesus.

If God spoke to men in the days when the books of the Bible were written in a manner that they could understand, I believe he can speak to me today and tell me in a manner that I, with my puny mortal mind, can comprehend.  And I believe he has told me that the very basic of Christianity, the divine sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ, is true.  That is how I phrase it academically.  But spiritually, I know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, my Savior and Redeemer.

This is much longer than my original writing; hopefully I didn't bore you too much or earn a skyscraper with a bunny from Frink ;)   I'm happy to discuss it further, though you again may have to wait for responses, as I have a big test on Monday and I just took a big break of studying to complete this.  One final thought: the only things I had to look up were the actual different versions of the scripture (and I own all those Bibles) and when the Bible was actually compiled.  The rest was up here in my noggin.  I admit that I'm bragging a bit, but my reason for telling you is so you know that I'm not a blind idiot stumbling through my concepts of God and the world; I've really put a lot of thought into this over the years.  Some people feel that only the most faithful never consider another point of view.  I believe it takes stronger faith to actually believe when you realize just how much you don't understand and how much may seem contradictory.

Duels of the Century:

Mr. Ed vs. Francis the Talking Mule

or

Paul Frees vs. Mel Blanc

Truthfully, I wouldn't mind if all the Jedi had blue lightsabers. I think a consistent color would look pretty interesting and would actually lend some significance to Luke's green saber...after all, he's figuring things out as he goes instead of following the prescribed Jedi methods. Plus, he's the first of a new line of Jedi, and it holds symbolic value there.

No time for lengthy replies. CP3S, I actually did respond to 2 Timothy 3:16 and many of the issues you brought up. Sadly, that was part of the proxy-erased message. I will respond again, but it took me 1/2 hour to write it, and I'm at work taking part in an internal audit, so I don't have the time to rewrite it at present.

Here, let me pause, just to ensure neither of us misinterprets the other by letting you know that if I say anything that sounds overly defensive, hyped up, or anything, that is not my intention. I also am aware that you are not trying to sound over the top either in your criticisms. Just getting that out of the way :)

But I will add that your argument has several holes of its own. That is not to say that there are at times points where one must forgo logic in favor of faith to believe in the Bible. But what you are doing is incorrectly ascribing beliefs and statements to myself and the Bible that are not actually held by it or me. I truly hope to clarify later today, or tomorrow at the latest.

Well, I had a nice lengthy post all typed up, but I forgot that the proxy I use at work resets itself after a while, and lost the whole post. Arg! I'll have to type it up again, as I was rather proud of it, but it'll have to wait till later, maybe much later (like tonight or tomorrow). But I will say that what once started as the noble goal of encouraging critical thinking seems to have digressed into talking about crumbling houses of cards and the foibles of even believing what we do. Now I am a person who is willing to have this sort of conversation, and truthfully I welcome it; I had a coworker who was an atheist and we had all sorts of conversations of this nature...quite stimulating. Ironically, I ran into him a couple of weeks ago and learned that he had since converted to Christianity, and this is a very intellectual person so no one can accuse him of being a simpleton). My point is that the motives now seem less altruistic, and perhaps there are others not wanting to have their faith directly challenged, as there is a difference between encouraging a little more critical thinking and actually downright saying, "You're dead wrong."

ray_afraid said:

VERY interested in being able to play X-Wing with updated graphics and all that! I loved the original game and the B-Wing expansions. X-Wing is still my favorite Star Wars game thing. Thanks for these links and the info, Ender!

Glad I could help.  It really is neat.  Hope you enjoy! :)

I don't fault you for that.  I can see where you are coming from, and I won't critique you for it.  I see it differently.  There is a place for faith.

And this response applies equally well to Bingowings.  I could go on, and I guarantee I am enjoying my discussion with you guys, but I need to call it here.  Always a pleasure.  Maybe I'll pick up the chat tomorrow :)