georgec

Hoth-Nudist said:

That was a great read!  Very insightful.  Im glad she found happiness after Luca$.  If only more people new the real story about the true success of SW, and not just George.

It makes me wonder why some of these people haven't spoken up more. Kurtz has offered some nice tidbits in interviews recently, but none of the other major players seem interested in talking about the behind the scenes action.

My guess is that they accepted a long time ago that George was beyond reason, and it's simply not worth it to them to compete against the perceptions of millions of fans. Knowing the truth about their contributions is peace enough for them.

The Bible makes the same claims about it being the only path to salvation. The wording is different, the message and boldness of said message are the same.

Any thoughts on the rest of my post? I have enjoyed this, by the way.

CP3S said:

 

I think this is where your lack of understanding of Christian doctrine is tripping you up. Christianity claims to be the fulfillment of Judaism, so a Christian can easily say that the Old and New Testament mesh, even though to a Jew Christianity is a total bastardization of their religion. To a Muslim, Islam is the correction of the previous two religions that fell into the hands of corrupt people who twisted and ruined them. But thank goodness the Kuran is incorruptible, so that won't ever happen again.

How can someone be objective and logical with that kind of attitude?

Islam can't be resolved with Christianity, not because Christianity came first, but because you'd have to throw out every part of it that made it Christianity and make it Islam in order to resolve it to Islam.

I believe I've stated the key difference between Christianity and Islam multiple times. I've often referred to the Abrahamic roots, which are grounded in Judaism (which serves The Old Testament, part of The Bible).

See, you're twisting the argument into Christians and Muslims believing/not believing the same things vs. having the same roots to the God of Abraham. They differ in their interpretations of this God. Whether or not they are the same God depends on your beliefs.

I think that is precisely where this discussion is at, and where the disagreement lies, you'd have to take the side of Islam (along with its caveat about corruption in the other two religions) in order to make the claim that the Islamic God is the same God as the Christian God is the same god as the Hebrew God. You'd have to take the side of Christianity to say that the Christian God is the same God as the Hebrew God, while the Muslim God is just a bastardization of that God as depicted by a false religion.

I'm not taking the side of Islam. Simply not taking the side of Christianity and seeing the common threads through each of the three faiths. If one doesn't discount Islam entirely, then that person understands that Islam refers to the teachings of Moses, Abraham, Jacob, Jesus, etc. quite frequently. The two religions are not completely disparate. Islam does say that the word of God was corrupt in previous faiths. Just like Christianity says the path to Heaven and salvation is only through accepting Jesus, Islam says the path to Heaven is only through accepting the true word of Allah. I can make that claim without having stakes in either religion.

The God depicted in the Koran is extremely different from the Christians' depiction of God.

They are both quite vengeful Gods, at the very least. The Trinity/Unity thing is the biggest difference among others. But again, this different interpretation of what God embodies doesn't necessitate Islam throwing everything out the window. That's simply not true because as I've stated over and over, The Quran draws on the stories/teachings of the many prophets in The Old/New Testaments. Your argument here, that the two religions are 100% incompatible, is not true provided that one is not a Christian (but doesn't have to be a Muslim) basing the compatibility solely on the Holy Trinity.

To support your argument that the Gods cannot be the same, you're using a belief system truncated after Christianity. Thus, you're concluding that Islam is a false religion and it can't be resolved with The Bible. I make no claims about which religions are true/false/etc. What I see is that each book develops a belief system based on the same prophets from the times before Jesus, then diverges based on whether God is a Trinity or a Unity.

I think what we are ultimately trying to convey, is that without accepting the teachings of Islams, you can't make the claim that all three religion share in a single deity.

Sure, just looking at the surface all three claim the same deity, but once you touch ever so lightly on the surface, things get messy.  

My claim is that if one doesn't discount Islam from a Christian perspective, it's quite easy to see the common Abrahamic roots. I know things get messy and am not contesting that. But the problem is that each religion claims the other to essentially be misguided or false in at least aspects of how they view God (One or Trinity). When you start talking about all the ways that Christianity debunks Islam, you have to equally look at all the ways Islam debunks (or attempts to resolve) Christianity. This discussion has been slanted towards Christianity and I have provided the other perspective based on my modest understanding of each religion.

My whole point is that if one doesn't adopt the "Christianity came first" perspective, and looks at Islam objectively, within the framework of Islam Allah = God = Yahweh. Christians disagree because of the Trinity. Islam doesn't say it's a different God, it says that God has no progeny.

I'm not saying the religions and all their fine details are the same. I'm saying that the groundwork, traced back to Abraham and earlier prophets before Jesus, is common. Again, to Christians if Muslims believe that God did not have a son, then to them Islam is a false religion. To Muslims Jesus was a divinely inspired prophet but not divine himself, and they believe some aspects of Christianity to have been misinterpreted or skewed.

This is going in circles so I think I may give up. I'm not trying to convince anybody, I just want you to see that to many people (including all Muslims) it's the same God among the three faiths. In one of the faiths God has a son. In the others He doesn't.

Comparing Vishnu to Allah/Yahweh/God is inapplicable. We are not talking about Vishnu. And I already answered Akwat's questions by illustrating that Christianity says the only way to Heaven is through Jesus - how is that different than Islam saying others will go to Hell unless converting to Islam? It's funny that you keep ignoring this.

Akwat - you interpret Islam's stance of Judaism and Christianity being corrupted as Islam saying they believe in a different God. That is incorrect. The Quran doesn't say that and your argument is invalid. Your quote does not say it's a different God anywhere. Islam says that the scriptures of The Old/New Testaments were partially corrupted by man. That is why The Quran is written as the actual word of God.

I'm repeating myself because you are repeatedly ignoring the very fact that The Quran states repeatedly that Allah is the God of Abraham. You've ignored this because it contradicts your viewpoint. You've also ignored the fact that The Bible condemns nonbelievers to hell as well.

The ROTJ and sequel analogy doesn't work because you're essentially saying The Bible is authentic and The Quran is an illegitimate knockoff, written by a different author, at odds with the original work. Once again, The Quran is meant to be an extension of those previous teachings while correcting what it says are errors in how those faiths approached aspects of belief in God.

Judaism considers itself to be the final monotheistic faith (as to them Jesus was not the Messiah). Christianity considers itself to be final as Jesus was the son of God. Islam considers itself to be final because it is the word of God.

I don't know which one is correct (if any), but your perspective in this argument depends on which faith you have. Christians will say the Muslim God is different. Muslims will say it's the same God (but He didn't have a son). I'm not sure what Jews will say...

You guys are saying what Islam says can't be resolved with Christianity because Christianity came first (ROTJ vs hack sequel). Then within that logic Christianity can't be resolved with Judaism, because Judaism came first. Which is the original work then - Judaism or Christianity? If one is consistent, we'd say Judaism is the original.

By using the different author idea, you're holding Islam to be illegitimate w/ respect to Christianity. I don't feel this is an objective view on the matter.

I'm trying to convey that, without ruling out Islam because it came after Christianity, the common denominator is the same God.

I really don't have much more to provide on this. I'd like to find common ground. Maybe someone else can chime in from either or both perspectives?

http://www.avclub.com/articles/star-wars-episode-i-actor-jake-lloyd-has-been-thro,70466/

Always felt bad for this kid, imagining the ridicule he must have taken since TPM, both from fans who don't know him and from people with whom he went to school.

A couple of years ago I saw this interview which also showed he has had a rough time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtkM2JPcHPo

Too bad some people blame an EIGHT-/NINE-YEAR-OLD KID for the shittiness of TPM. Nevermind the shitty writing and directing. I was 14 when TPM came out and back then I knew the real problem wasn't with Jake Lloyd. Never hated on him once, I can attest to that.

And I keep telling you that in the Quran there are countless references to Judiasm/Christianity and reaffirmations that the God of Abraham is the same as the God of Islam.

You keep saying that different interpretations make these Gods different. I'm telling you that the very definition of God in Islam says otherwise, and that agrees with why Jews don't believe in the Trinity or Jesus being divine.

If someone watches Inception and thinks it's all a dream, while another person watches the movie and says it was real, does that mean they watched a different movie? No. They interpret the movie differently.

Your argument is clear. It's simply wrong.

The God of Islam is the God of Abraham. You've basically proven my point but don't realize it.

Islam says that there is only one God, just as Judiasm says. Jews don't believe Jesus was the Messiah because they don't believe in the Trinity. Islam says that Christians have mistaken Jesus to be divine when he was a mortal prophet like Moses. Islam says that there is only one God (who would be one third of the Trinity).

Does the Bible also not say the only way to Heaven is through Jesus Christ? Does it not say that others will go to Hell if they don't confess their love for Jesus Christ?

You keep trying to discredit Islam with an inherent assumption/belief that Christianity is "correct".

That is why you are unable to see that Allah = God = Yahweh.

I'm on hold with Jerry Springer right now, he says there's a spot on the show for Tuesday, April 17. Does that work for everyone? Let me know ASAP.

I just simply don't care about Star Wars anymore. What that means is that nothing outside of the UOT or some of the 90s EU material interests me. The franchise is so bloated and worn out.

That's not to say that current SW material can't be interesting or well done. I hear good things about CW, but to be honest it all kind of sounds silly. "Savage Oppress"? Why not just name a character, "Bad Guy"?

Then there's the whole resurrecting Darth Maul thing that times with the 3D TPM release. An obvious stunt to rope in more people who didn't like the prequels yet can't turn away completely.

I digress.

SilverWook said:

If George had a problem with Mr. Pegg's opinions, I don't think he would even be hired in the first place.

One of Simon's comedy bits was on the Blu Ray bonus disc for crying out loud!

That's what I'm saying. I would have expected George to be miffed by Pegg's comments and not have any inclination to hire the man.

Since Pegg is voicing Dengar, the logical conclusion is that George doesn't mind Pegg's comments (or doesn't care enough to miss out on an opportunity to hire a big name for his show and boost ratings).

I didn't know Pegg is on the blu-ray disc (because I didn't buy it - actually, I preordered for $45 then sold for a profit). Again, surprises me a bit since George is sensitive and doesn't seem the type to permit an over prequel critic to be featured on a product of his.

I have zero interest in the CW cartoon.

That said, I know about Pegg criticizing the prequels and the recent blu-ray changes.  But, as a big OT fan he probably jumped at the idea of voicing an OT character. I'm more surprised that Lucas has seemingly overlooked Pegg's criticism, as George seems to be very sensitive to criticism.

At the end of the day, it's just a paycheck for Simon Pegg.

My interest level in the CW cartoon (or any other modern-produced SW material) remains at zero.

How I feel seeing people make up from this thread that was created with a post I made.

This board needs some serious group therapy.

So much oversensitivity, toe-stepping, and apology demanding.

Let's hug it out, bitches.

Hahah the Battle for Endor depended completely on this moment.

Hilarious and spot on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NGWih2rGHOg#!

What Puggo said is how I feel. The visuals are obviously technically superior, but without proper accompanying emotional elements they don't leave lasting impressions.

What Mrebo is saying explains the crowded, noisy nature of the PT. You don't focus on a Star Destroyer and gaze in awe of that image like in the OT. Rather, in the PT it's like your eyes are scrambling and trying to take in all the information on the screen.

When I look at PT environments and visuals, I think about how hard people worked to bring these various intricate details to life.

When I look at OT environments and visuals, I'm thinking about the story/scene/characters. The imagery becomes connected to those feelings.

McQuarrie brought the OT environments to life with his designs, whereas Lucas used the amazing work of various artists to formulate 2.5 hour toy advertisements.

OzoneSherrif said:

there are so many things going on, the screen is so dense

It's funny that if you watch the behind the scenes content on the prequels, you see so many people working hard to come up with all sorts of designs - aliens, droids, scenery, vehicles, etc. George says, "Make me a hundred aliens." They make the alien designs. Then George picks one or two and puts them into the script, which he finishes a week later without any revision. ;)

The work of those individuals is mostly quite great. For example, look at the architectural design for Naboo. It's beautiful, but we don't see too much of it in detail (if I remember correctly). But it's the implementation of all the pieces into a larger whole that falls apart.

I will say the battle droids looked incredibly stupid, like they had the head and snout of an Afghan Hound.

Didn't take long for this thread to pop up.

The prequels are sterile. They may be more impressive on a technical level, but many of the scenes are simply overstuffed/noisy or they stick out too much as being CGI.

There are some great vistas like the volcanic Mustafar or the stormy Kamino, but it's the smaller environments that stick with me in the movies. The lonely swamp on Dagobah is a great example of this. When I watch the movie I don't think, "Oh, that's a soundstage in Leavesden." It feels real because it IS real. I love the realism of the matte paintings in the background.

That said, the imagined scope of the prequels is indeed larger. I won't hate on the use of CGI because it serves a great purpose in realizing ambitious visuals in movies. But it's the overuse and over-reliance that makes each environment less memorable.

In ROTS there's some planet with all kinds of dumb looking, large, colorful plants and flowers. It's a short scene, but it just looks so awful and cartoony given that we're trying to actually feel sad at that moment for the Jedi being killed.

Sad news. :(

Not necessarily a random thought, but wasn't sure where else to put this. Someone on reddit made a nice little find.

I explained in my post that Islam is defined in the Quran as the very continuation of teachings in Judaism and Christianity. Loosely summarized, the Quran says that Christians mistook Jesus to be divine.

The Quran does not say, "Everything before this is crap. Here's the truth." It says, "We continue the teachings of the previous faiths, but here are a few corrections to what they believe." Again, very loose generalization intended to give the big picture that Islam, as defined in Islam, is a continuation of Judaism and Christianity. It doesn't adopt everything 100% from those religions, but it is a continuation.

Thus, to say that the Judeo-Christian God is not the God of Islam is actually in opposition to the central teaching of Islam.

Whether the differences are irreconcilable or not would depend on the point of view. To Christians they are irreconcilable because the Quran disagrees with what Christianity says is the alpha and the omega. However, to Muslims much of Christianity (sans the Trinity) is an accepted and necessary precursor to the teachings of Islam.

Akwat Kbrana said:

That depends on which book you believe.

Islam talks about all of the previous prophets including Jesus, whom it says was not actually the Son of God. Whereas Christianity has the Trinity concept, Islam addresses this and means to restore the emphasis of divinity on God himself.

If someone is a Christian then of course he/she will not agree with this. But to a Muslim or even to a non-believing observer who might read the texts but not form opinions on what is true and not true, the Islamic God is the Christian God.

Of course it does. If you hold to the Qu'ran and the Hadith, you will deny Trinitarianism. If you hold to the New Testament--and your exegetical approach is roughly consistent with that of historic orthodox Christianity--then you will hold to Trinitarianism. That's precisely the point that I was making. For anyone, Muslim or otherwise, to claim that the Islamic God is the Christian God, is both arrogant and fallacious. Religious communities must be allowed to define their own beliefs. Muslims would be highly offended if Christians went around claiming that Allah is a Trinity, so it is similarly out of bounds for Muslims (or anyone else, for that matter) to claim that the Christian conception of Yahweh/Jehovah is not Trinitarian.

By saying that the Quran's presentation of the "One God" being the same for the three monotheistic religions is arrogant and fallacious, aren't you therefore essentially debunking, denying, and defining the beliefs of Islam? Your response seems defensive...

Nobody said the Christian God isn't Trinitarian or that Christians aren't allowed to believe that. The Islamic God, as portrayed through the Quran, is the Judeo Christian God. The Quran is meant to be God's final revelation to people. Is it? I don't know. But that's what it's meant to be.

If memory serves me correctly the angel Gabriel is the one who appears to Muhammad and has him recite passages from the Quran. The Quran also mentions Lucifer and all of the preceding prophets (from Abraham to Moses to Jesus) multiple times.

By explaining that Jesus wasn't actually the son of God, The Quran surely conflicts with Christianity. But again, like Christianity like a continuation of Judiasm, Islam (via The Quran's text) is a continuation of both of those religions. For example, The Quran says something like God wouldn't allow his son to be sacrificed (I think it says Judas was crucified in Jesus' place). Again, if you prescribe to Christian beliefs this is offensive. However, The Bible has at least two different mentions of Judas' death (hung himself vs. his bowels bursting out in a field of blood).

Well, what's true? Which is the correct account of what happened? That depends on what you believe.

The point is you can't say that explaining what a holy book says is arrogant and fallacious. That in itself IS fallacious. There is a difference between saying, "This book says that," and saying, "This is true, that is not."

By saying that Muslims can't believe that God is one and there is no Trinity, you're saying Muslims can't believe in Islam. By saying Christians can't believe that Allah is not their God who exists in a Holy Trinity, you're saying Christians can't hold to their beliefs.

These disagreements inherently exist. While you might say that these disagreements refute the claim that the one God is the same among the three monotheistic faiths, that claim is part of the Islamic belief, which again Muslims believe via The Quran is an extension of the preceding faiths.

My explanation that the Islamic God and Judeo-Christian God is not me saying the Christian Trinity is not true. It means that The Quran, as it says within, is presented as a continuation of those religions. Is it? I don't know. But I'm merely illustrating the progression of monotheistic belief from Judaism --> Christianity --> Islam, if one interprets each successive text as a continuation of the previous one, as each claims.

The Bible continues The Old Testament and even disagrees with some Old Testament laws. Hell, one of the main reasons Jewish people don't believe Jesus was the Messiah is because Christianity developed the idea of a Trinity, whereas The Old Testament says the Lord is one. The Quran essentially revisits this notion.

What you find fallacious depends on what view to which you prescribe. But if you do not have stakes in any of these three religions, you see the similarities and differences among them, acknowledging where the disagreements are and how the overall arc of belief in one God has evolved.

The overarching theme is that The Quran means to revisit The Old Testament and correct what it says are some of the misguided beliefs in Christianity. Again, true? I don't know. But that's what The Quran says, and it's said to be the word of God himself. Muslims will say it's true, Christians will say it's not.

I read a book a long time ago called "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong. It's quite a good, balanced detailing of the history of religion and development of the three primary monotheistic beliefs.

That depends on which book you believe.

Islam talks about all of the previous prophets including Jesus, whom it says was not actually the Son of God. Whereas Christianity has the Trinity concept, Islam addresses this and means to restore the emphasis of divinity on God himself.

If someone is a Christian then of course he/she will not agree with this. But to a Muslim or even to a non-believing observer who might read the texts but not form opinions on what is true and not true, the Islamic God is the Christian God.