FaramirK

*narrow eyes*Well, okay, that's a bit better. I guess. I'll let it go. This time. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Спасиба Болшои, magnanimous Mistress Jedi....

*raises eyebrow*You know, I like the sound of that. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not quite a "LOL", but certainly brought a slight chuckle. By the way, excuse my asking (third language, folks) is it "oh Jedi Mistress" or "O Jedi Mistress"? Can you use both?

Noooo... don't turn this into a SERIOUS thread! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ok, sorry. See my edited post above, tried to swing it back on topic!

I don't know why that made me laugh, but it did. As for Carth becoming a father at age 18-21, that's still pretty young... starting to wonder if maybe he "had" to get married... " <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Looks like the oppression of females is prevalent in most galaxies, then. Good ol' shotgun dowry. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hey, every major religion/culture in the world has belittled women...why wouldn't our fiction imitate our real legacy? Some people on these forums have real issues with a female Revan/Exile, and I'm not sure why...maybe the real world stereotypes are just to strong... I guess my default was to play as a male because I am. But I really enjoy Karla and Aimo's fan art, and after playing through as female, I'm torn as to which is the better story. On the surface, the Revan/Bastila romance is really enjoyable, but the idea of a female Revan is just hauntingly beautiful. Aimo's "Young Revan and Malak welcome Exile to their cause" is in my opinion one of her best sketches.

I was trying to be tactfully inoffensive in ambiguity -- I thought my choice of words made the implicitation clear ... " <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not really, but it wasn't supposed to be an attack. Just making a point. Personally, I wasn't sure how old Mission was until she told me, and I was alittle suprised she was that young...

According to the Star Wars Databank, Carth is 38 standard years old at the time of KOTOR 1... putting him around 43 at the time of KOTOR 2. Mission mentions her age in KOTOR 1... It was either 13 or 14; I can't remember which. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ... So about the age that early civilisations married off their women to the highest bidding male. Still, now she'd be 18-19 syo to his 43syo ... getting a little old for that sicko who voted for them. :ph34r: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Early Civilizations? Have you ever visited India? Or for that matter, Utah? Some of those Mormon girls get "married" off pretty young... Anyways, Dustil did seem alittle old, but Carth would have been 18-21 when he was born, and thats not really that bad. Maybe Dustil and Mission would have been a better choice.

Atton & Bastila - That would be nearly identical to the Han & Leia pairing, minus the fact that Leia wasn't a Jedi. Carth & Mission - Thats just to much. He's in his mid-late 30's and she's 14. No way. I picked Mira & Bao-Dur. Of all the choices, they'd fit together most, IMO. A good bounty hunter always needs a good "egg head" making new gadgets. Ordo & Disciple - Poor Disciple...he's the butt of every joke. If I ever play a female exile I might romance him just to spite you all

Never said you did. :D I just said I enjoy the freedom to believe what you want in peace, even if you do think that. Sort of like you made it sound like a was a zealot without actually saying it. Touche' As for what you said about Thetans, yes, you pretty much have a good understanding of what they believe, and yes it is complex. But it does sound alot like Medichlorians...

Here is a nice short post for you. Once again, you show your ignorance. Only one authority in Judea had the right to order an excecution, the Romans. Also, if you were more informed, you would have be aware that the Jewish leaders plotted several times to kill Jesus, yet feared the people. Finally, they were able to convince the Romans to do it, albeit grudgingly. Evidence that I am right: Primary sources written by eyewitnesses. Evidence that you are right: ...? Your really just a cynic at heart. I do find your fist shaking at God humorously intriguing, almost as much as your mocking tone. I doubt you will be swayed by reason, seeing as you are entrenched in your own delusion. I also doubt you will let me have the last word in this argument, but no matter. I have enjoyed the exchange, despite the hostility (on both our parts), and am thankful for the freedom to live peacefully alongside people who are quite convinced everything I stand for is either a lie or delusion! Have your last word if you will, and/or call my weariness for further debate a crushing defeat, I leave that to you. As for The Force, let the debate continue... Das Vydanya

Attempt to disguise you error in any way you wish, it matters little. Your "collective noun" was a poor choice for someone so much higher on the english ladder... Seeing as you easily tire of reading anything longer than a paragraph, I will agree to your request and post smaller bite-sized portions. In the mean time, if it is your wish (as you stated) to keep this forum partially on topic, please also respond to my other Force-related posts too. That, at least, is a topic you have proved able to discuss intelligently, and I was interested in your posts so far. I'm curious, when were you "behind the Iron Curtain?" was it before or after you graduated University?

Morrowind was too big. Way to big. I'd be satisfied with having maybe only 6-8 planets but with 2-4 locations on each...

The patch will only be resolving technical issues, the only content we'll be getting is Aurora's.

Well said. Good title!

And in other news... It is the third party's luxury to choose which of the two debaters he will side with. He was responding negatively to a very obvious flaw in your argument, which I will point out now. 1) Your "nearly a century" is closer to 50-60 years (c30 AD - c90 AD), and is while one of the 12 disciples is still alive. Not even to mention the other eyewitnesses who would be old, but still living. This is, in fact, a deathblow to your point. Every citizen of the Roman Empire from Spain to Egypt spoke greek. All they would have needed was either the ability to read, or to hear someone reading it out if they could not. It was not in a foreign language, it was written in the trade-language of the Roman Empire. So collapses your entire argument. It was readily avaliable. Why would eyewitnesses readily believe the message of the Disciples if they knew it was false, convert to a lie, and then die for a lie? I was once a Communist, who believed that Stalin had not caused the deaths of 20 million Ukrainians by starving them to death in the 30's. In 2003, I was able to visit the country. Eyewitnesses reported that there had been a famine, and some of them even admitted to having been the ones who helped spread the famine. I was forced to change my view, because of the eyewitness acounts of dozens and dozens of people I met. When I returned home, the Party I was a member of refused to believe my report, and I was asked to leave the party. Who would you have believed? It took between 200 and 400 years for the greek of 100AD to become archaic. Eventually, the bible was translated into medieval German and English among others, just as the Catholic Church began to become more exclusive in who had access to the bible. Whats your point? It was one translation. There were millions of people who never came into contact with the Latin, and kept the Bible in greek. Why on earth would you think I had "forgotten" the Qumran Library? Hardly...being able to study those scrolls up close was one of the most memorable moments of my life...I didn't say anything about forgetting them, my friend. You mentioning them was a bit of a "rabbit trail". I'll get to the Genesis part of your argument later. Or, if you prefer, I'll just send a PM. If you prefer the latter, say so. Otherwise I'll keep our discussion in the public eye.

Yes, but I was hoping for a yes from you... <_< ...now I have to explain the whole thing. Well, it's too late now. I'll post an explaination tomorrow. I leave you with this theory. OT: Force is just a "small f" as you call it. NT: Scientology is really popular in Hollywood, so Lucas decides to steal parts of their ridiculous theology to "flesh out" Forceology. Medichlorianes (sp?) = Thetans More to come... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Scientology claims that the universe is the Mental Projection of the "Thetans", beings who exist in living things. Scientologists believe that you can "make contact" with these creatures and use them as a guide. A person who is able to do this becomes an "Operating Thetan". It appears that Lucas has "modified" his Force to closely resemble a modern cult, maybe because he has shifted from a vaguely Christian Ethic to a more "New Age" one... I think it was a poor choice on his part. It made alot more sense when it was just Metadigital's "small f". I still feel it is morally ambiguous to have a "Force" which now has a will, and always seeks to balance good and evil. Perhaps Kreia was right to hate such a thing... One thing seems sure, The Force sounds very close to a god now, rather than a latent power source.

Which "muppet" do you remember in perticular? I have a vague memory of some big blue elephant thing playing a keyboard...wasn't that in Jabba's palace? This could even be a new poll...

Yes, but I was hoping for a yes from you... <_< ...now I have to explain the whole thing. Well, it's too late now. I'll post an explaination tomorrow. I leave you with this theory. OT: Force is just a "small f" as you call it. NT: Scientology is really popular in Hollywood, so Lucas decides to steal parts of their ridiculous theology to "flesh out" Forceology. Medichlorianes (sp?) = Thetans More to come...

ROTFL

I'll start with whats on topic. To your knowledge, is KOTOR 2 considered canonical (sp?) by Lucas? I honestly don't know. It seems that The Force changed drastically with the new trilogy. I don't think the OT made any mention of "the will of The Force", did it? I guess I'm a little confused as to what Lucas actually thinks the force is. Are you familiar with Scientology and their beliefs? If so, do you see a similarity between their understanding of Thetans and your opinion of how a "will of The Force" would operate? Just curious.

I am accommodating your petty and pedicular attitude. If you bothered to follow the link, you would see that "Judeo-Christian" has been used by theologians to describe the Abrahamic faiths, No, you are wrong, and I did follow the link. "Judeo-Christian" has NEVER been used to describe Islam by anyone who knows what they are talking about. What you are saying would cause great offense to any devout muslim. Yes, I realised that last part was sarcastic in nature without the "/sarcasm". Wouldn't "(sarcasm)" have been better, anyway? I don't know about you, but I try to be as accurate as possible when I'm in a debate, and not presume to know what my opponent does and does not know. I was? I believe I said that the Bible reports it as a historical fact. Read my words. Except the recorded account of ancient manuscripts and the literal belief of(extremely conservative estimate) 500 million people around the world, and the written and oral tradition of the Jews. What do you base this conclusion on? The Bible claims the Exodus is a historical fact! How on earth would a metaphorical story that everyone knew was not true lead them to agree that Monotheism was better than Polytheism? You are claiming to have intimate knowledge of the reasons behind the writing of a book that predates you and your language and your culture by over 2000 years, and which you do not even believe is accurate! It is true that english is not the first language of my native country, but I don't know how you could have known that based on my english, which I thought was fine, considering the setting, a gaming forum. Your misconceptions have to do with your lack of knowledge concerning the Bible, its history, its common interpretation, etc I believe you. You said you stopped debating online in the mid-80's so I assumed you were unfamiliar with modern debate netiquette and recent discoveries concerning this topic. You called me a zealot, immature and illiterate. It is very possible that there are some grammar and spelling errors in my writing, but yours is also full of errors, just as I would expect in a casual debate setting. As for what you write being true, I have shown that much of what you have said has, infact, been untrue, unfounded, and vastly different from the general consensus of modern scholars.

No, in fact if you read the Bible, you will see that there are in fact two (conflicting) versions of the creation myth. They do not conflict, actually. This is an not correct. Christianity explains that men and women have equal status. It does say that the Husband is head of the Wife, but this is only in marriage. The subordination of women has been a sad legacy of pretty much every culture and religion. True. The oldest gospel manuscripts (Rylands Papyrus Fragment) we have today date around 80-90 A.D. and are written in Greek. End of that discussion. By the way, for those who don't know, "CE" and "BCE" are modern replacements for "BC" and "AD". They mean "Before Common Era" and "Common Era". What changed between 1 B.C.E and 1 C.E. that ushered in a "Common Era"? Nothing. Its a cheap attempt to try and "forget" the modern dating systems link with Christianity. Whatever floats your boat... It seems the Force went through a transformation between the two trilogies...does anyone remember if they mention stuff like "the will of the Force" in the original movies?

Ironic indeed, but merely because "Traditional/conservative" Christianity is on the wane in Western Culture, so it is no suprise that the majority of scientists would reject traditional Christianity. Just the world "moving on", as the Gunslinger would say... Mainly because the context seems to suggest that they are literal, and because most conservative Christians simply see it as a stab at atheistic evolution. Others do believe that they represent huge amounts of time. It's a matter of interpretation. Problem is, the book of Genesis is quite clear in saying that man was made from dust, and in the image of God, unlike the other animals, so its at odds with evolution. Again, you sort of have to take all or none. I'd rather meet a person who totally accepted or rejected it, than a person arrogant enough to claim they knew what parts were or were not genuine. Conclusion? Live and let live. Why try and force America to be "Christian"? Why should an Atheist have to pledge one nation under God? Government should protect the right of the individual to decide for himself what is right, as long as it is not harmful to others. I really don't want a militant Athiest or a militant Christian anywhere near the Whitehouse. Anyway, back to The Force...

"Muslims are included in the Abrahamic faiths, so I am happy to use this instead of the term Judeo-Christian" I'm glad you are happy to correct your mistake. "Your literal interpretation of scripture is your business, but I certainly don't need to regard the Old Testament / Torah as an historical document to extract the fascinating information it contains." No problem with any of that... "I suppose you'll argue that God created the world in seven days, too." There are many views concerning the creation of the world, but I was unaware of a "seven-day creation" view. Perhaps you mean the "Six-day creation view? I wonder if you're out of your depth in regards to this topic? I'll just assume it was a typo... "Don't embarrass us all by foisting your ignorance on us and calling it logical argument." Ok, I won't. ...I haven't so far, why would you assume I was about to? "Anyway, I don't really want to start a new debate on the claims of the Abrahamic religions in general, and Christianity in particular." Nor I. I wasn't attempting to derail the topic, just correcting a few of your misconceptions. "Suffice it to say, based on your posts thus far, I don't think you know enough about it to debate me." Well, based on your numerous misconceptions, I'd be inclined to think the same of you. "So, if you must, take it offline: send me a PM if you want to discuss these theologies." Well if you reply, I'll reply, etc. I enjoy the banter. If you don't reply, I'll not press the issue. "It's only fair to warn you that I gave up arguing with religious zealots on the internet almost two decades ago as they were too easy to defeat." You stopped arguing with religious zealots on the internet almost two decades ago? Like, in the mid-late 80's? Well, you have me beat there, I did't even start using the internet until the early 90's...I doubt you'd find me a pushover though, I've been studying Religion as long as you've been going cold-turkey on Religious e-debates... " " Couldn't resist... "As for what Kreia says, have you not bothered to read this thread?" Yes, I read the whole thread. Yes it is interesting, no, I do not believe that The Force is monotheistic in nature, nor have any of your arguments to that end been of any real value, unlike some of the comments you made concerning it's possible similarity to gravity, which were very interesting. "It is generally accepted netiquette[sic] to read through the thread before posting, which it seems that you haven't done. I welcome constructive philospohical discussion." It is also common netiquette to not use cheap mockery in debates. I think you've been out of practise for almost two decades. And as I said, I did read the thread.

Why? I don't think most of them cared, its only a story. I personally felt that the whole virgin birth thing in SW was stupid. Lucas really "jumped the shark".