Deus ex Machina: the Will of The Force ...

[metadigital]

I've had a look at the way the eyes reflect light. By the time it makes it to your nerves (2 the brain), the mirrors in your eyes have flipped it upside down.

 

What IS the 4th dimension, exactly???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

One more than the third. An extra one. That's about as specific as I can get.

 

It can be useful to think of Time as a fourth dimension (but not necessarily THE Fourth dimension). So that your bedroom exists in three dimensions, yes, and the fourth co-ordinate is necessary to intersect with you when you are there -- so asleep at 10am missing a lecture in the room would be the fourth co-ordinate.

 

But you just have to bend your mind around having an extra spacial dimension to imagine the hypercube. You can use an analogy like this:

If you have a matrix of 4 dimensions, then this is like a line (one dimension) of cubes.

Similarly, a matrix of 5 dimensions would be equivalent to a plane (2 dimensions, height and bredth) of cubes.

 

[The Great Phantom]

[snippity snip]

1. True. I was just stating it.

2. Yet you believed her. Tisk, tisk... She manipulated you the whole way. That goes to show how honest she is.

3. Yes, hence the Dark Side of the Force.

4. Yes, via "Always. I have manipulated you from the beginning."

5. I was talking about Force push, Force jump, etc. The basic overlay (gravity, if you go into space w/ no mask you'll die, you feel heat and they feel heat) is BASICALLY the same, but can be changed via the Force, but only minorilly (ie, Force Jump, Force Breath or whatever Kotor II decided to call the common power).

6. Read #4.

B: It may be a multiverse, but we only need to focus on the 'here and now', or Kotor II and that UNIverse. Any other possibilities don't matter, because they're not considered Star Wars anymore.

C: I'm playing a Druid so I can become a Shifter in the next expansion. Really, I just can't wait to be moving onto BG I and II, and then 2 Icewind Dale, and then onto PS:T, and then (most hopefully) onto Kotor III.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. Here here.

2. It was for my own good. And the good of Revan. The Force manipulated her into a twisted, hateful hag so that she would manipulate me into the biggest, bestest hero of the KotOR universe.

3. So The Force is Dark AND Light. (There is a Jewish sect dating from about BCE whose name I have forgotten :"> that believed in particles of good and evil making up the universe. Wasn't the nazarenes ... um, get back to it later.)

Nietzsche! Contrast: Good/bad vs. good/evil.

- Good/bad is tied to merit, bad is what is not good.

- Good/evil moral notions; moral evil has primacy: moral goodness is what is not evil. Moral evil results from an unconscious projection of hostility or hatred. A redefinition of meritorious qualities of strength, power, and vigor as appropriate objects of moral indignation

[metadigital]

[snip]

2. Nope. Once again, I find myself referring to Ca

[The Great Phantom]

[snip]

2. Nope. Once again, I find myself referring to Ca

[The Great Phantom]

This is frightening... I actually feel like I am using an actual measure of my total intelligence! I have no clue what my full extent is, because it has never been forced to expose itself... Like most other people's...

[metadigital]

[snippity snip]

 

The resulting cosmic conflict involves the entire universe, including humanity, which is required to choose one of the two paths to follow. Evil, and the Spirit of Evil, will be completely destroyed at the end of time. Dualism will come to an end and Goodness will be all in all. Men are free to choose the path of either spirit. The path of good or righteousness ("Asha") will lead to happiness ("Ushta"), whereas the path of evil will lead to unhappiness, enmity, and war. Therefore, it's strongly encouraged that one chooses Asha. This philosophy is symbolized in one of the religion's main mottos: "Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds."

I like that piece of advice for the cheap seats.

[snip]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. Kreia sounds JUST LIKE Ca

[The Great Phantom]

[snippity snip]

 

The resulting cosmic conflict involves the entire universe, including humanity, which is required to choose one of the two paths to follow. Evil, and the Spirit of Evil, will be completely destroyed at the end of time. Dualism will come to an end and Goodness will be all in all. Men are free to choose the path of either spirit. The path of good or righteousness ("Asha") will lead to happiness ("Ushta"), whereas the path of evil will lead to unhappiness, enmity, and war. Therefore, it's strongly encouraged that one chooses Asha. This philosophy is symbolized in one of the religion's main mottos: "Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds."

I like that piece of advice for the cheap seats.

[snip]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. Kreia sounds JUST LIKE Ca

[The Great Phantom]

Well, I'm sure that we could continue this all night, but after I reply to your next post, I'm going to go and recuperate from a mysterious neck-injury... :ph34r:

[metadigital]

1.

2.

3. There you go again, using our theologies in a SciFa setting...

What theories am I meant to use? Imaginary ones? If it is sufficient to have referential integrity for the laws of physics in SW, then I don't think it is much of a stretch to have similar understandings of metaphysics (or even supraphysics).

I think you are being evasive because I keep pointing out a grey area in your understanding of The Force.

4. MU

5. Automap: on.

6. So you firmly believe that if The Force was removed from the SW universe then all life would cease? I suppose that is a reasonable hypothesis, considering we have no idea what The Force really is. I still like my interpretation whereby The Force is a self-actualising conscious entity (meaning well, of course) that is controlling the universe. Then the Anti-Force League could come in and do battle with not just the Force Adepts, but The Force, as well. And in death, The Force would finally become cognizant of that which it did not have, that which it needed to ... become whatever it becomes next ...

7. I am an iconoclast, too.

:cool:

[The Great Phantom]

6. Her goal wasn't to destroy the Force, but to remove all those that it touched. If she wanted it removed, then she wouldn't have created echoes that could kill, would she? No, she tried to kill, not peacefully divert.

 

3. Sorry, I only read the first one... The second idea sounded pretty good, with one modification: They're 2 things of the same thing. Just different.

[The Great Phantom]

We will continue this on the 'morrow!

 

Onward, Gizka minions!

[metadigital]

6. Her goal wasn't to destroy the Force, but to remove all those that it touched. If she wanted it removed, then she wouldn't have created echoes that could kill, would she? No, she tried to kill, not peacefully divert.

 

3. Sorry, I only read the first one... The second idea sounded pretty good, with one modification: They're 2 things of the same thing. Just different.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Six

I didn't think Kreia created the wound in the Force --

that was the battle on Malachor V.

 

The echoes

were from Nihilus, weren't they?

 

Her goal was to

remove all Life that touched the Force, or The Force from all life that it touched? Latter = remove The Force = deafen all life to The Force = kill the Force.

Except, supposing that were possible, that would kill The Force, wouldn't it.

 

Three

Two different same things. Gotcha. Goody thing and Evil thing battling it out.

[DeathScepter]

the force is like the True Tao.

 

It cant be explain in words for it is.

[metadigital]

the force is like the True Tao.

 

It cant be explain in words for it is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, but that doesn't really help us much. And I have read a lot of words to describe Taoism.

 

...

Taoism sees existence as an interplay between three elements: the individual; society and its artificial values; the principles of Nature. In order to lead a content life, the individual must understand the principles of Nature, the values of the social structure in which he must forge a life, and his own internal wants and needs. According to Taoism, what is good and bad varies over time and between societal groups, therefore, unlike the principles that guide Nature, the values of a given society are arbitrary and artificial.

Wu Wei

Much of the essence of Tao lies in the art of wu wei (action through inaction: taking no-action is, in itself, an action). However, this does not mean "sit doing nothing and wait for everything to fall into your lap". It describes a practice of accomplishing things through proper action by knowing when and when not to act according to an individual's personal capabilities/limitations and desires. ...

Religion

the Five Elements theory, alchemy, ancestor worship, and magic spells. Taoist philosophies also directly influenced Chinese Chan Buddhism. Eventually elements of Taoism combined with elements of Buddhism and Confucianism in the form of Neo-Confucianism. Attempts to procure greater longevity formed a frequent theme in Taoist alchemy and magic, with many extant spells and potions for that purpose.

 

So to say The Force is ineffible; "we can't describe it with words", or "we can't understand it" is a cop out. The English language is the great thief-whore-cornucopiae of the world of communicatoin: she borrows words and concepts from every culture, experience and interaction -- everything.

 

If you can't describe it, then you aren't trying hard enough.

 

Or it could just be MU. :D

[Rosbjerg]

hehe .. I'm glad I was able to teach you something!

[metadigital]

hehe .. I'm glad I was able to teach you something! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Absolutely! This is my new favourite concept. (w00t)

 

I just hope the politicians don't find out about it ... :ph34r:

 

[Rosbjerg]

you should learn some more Ko-ans then .. there are alot of strange utterings!

[metadigital]

you should learn some more Ko-ans then .. there are alot of strange utterings!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"There are all told about 1,700 koans, of which present-day Japanese Zen masters use only 500 to 600, since many are repetitious or are not so valuable for training purposes." (Schuhmacher and Woerner 1986:182)

 

As long as they have neat stories like the dog and the cowherd, I'm there! :cool:

[Saint]

[snip my stuff]

Free Will or Fate? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... So where is the dilemma? God is both all-knowing and all-powerful, but he also follows certain rules that he built into human beings from the start. First of all, he allows us free will, which means that he didn't make a race of robots, because robots can never truly love their creator. God created children - people who would love him and follow his lead because they CHOOSE to, not because he forces them to. The true measure of "all-powerful" is in the ability to choose when to exert that power over others. ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is what I was afraid of: spammed by a faith-over-fact fundamentalist.

Breifly, the problem is Evil, namely, how can Evil exist in the world, even as a consequence of free will. (It's called the Epicurean Paradox, just look back and I've linked to a good description.)

The paradox is that if we, as beings of free will, are free to choose ruin and not be "saved", then:

- if God is all Good than everyone should be saved, or else s/he isn't all-powerful or all-knowing;

if God is all-powerful, than these people could be saved, (redeemed), otherwise s/he ain't all-Good;

- if God is all-knowing s/he knew that these people would be "lost", therefore s/he is not all-Good or all-powerful.

There are various theodices that have been propounded by Christian thinkers over the years, but none will every untie that gordian knot.

 

... God is also all-knowing, but that doesn't mean that he is the one who pre-destines everything.  There is a difference between knowing what will happen and being the one who causes it to be so.  The paradox here is that God CREATED linear existance, meaning that our existance, the way that our lives start at one point and continue in a straight line until the end, is not the way that God exists.  He created that system but is not subject to it.  The paradox is that God is able to both exist in the present with us, in every single moment, down to the most infinitely tiny detail, while also existing in a large sense, outside of time, outside of the universe. ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gibberish. If God has a will, and God knows everything, and is more powerful, then God is (for whatever reason, and self-actualisation is as good a reason as any; Isaac Asimov did a great short story about it) using mortals for an agenda. God might be a benevolent dictator, but God is still an autocrat. And Goodness is derived from the choice made to suffer for a higher purpose, not some other agent (God) making the decision for us, whether it is the right decision or not. Period.

Hurting your brain yet?  Well it should.  God shouldn't be something that we can explain rationally or intellectually, because if we could, we would be on the same level as God, and considering human nature, that would be frightening indeed.  I believe in God, and I worship him.  I do my best to follow his lead in everything I do, not because I understand everything he does or can explain everything about his nature, but because I DON'T understand and I CAN'T explain it all.  In order to have a relationship with our creator we must accept our role as his creation and accept that there are some questions we may never be able to answer. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, it's quite simple and in no way difficult. Falling back on ignorance as the best reason for God's existence is sad. "We" don't have to accept anything. You may choose to, but my choice is not to. (That's a function of the liberalisation of faiths in Europe a couple of centuries ago: religious tolerance begets freedom to believe in none, or anything in between.)

As the Bible says - God does not have a beginning or an end.  Try as I might, I cannot wrap my mind around that, because I exist in linear time - my being cannot understand anything outside of that existance.  So I have decided to allow God to keep some of his secrets.  I'll find out some day.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, you cannot wrap yourself around that because you aren't trying hard enough. Ever done mathematics? Heard of the concept of infinity? Well, you can do arithmatic on sets of infinity (infinity - infinity = infinity, for example). There is a further abstraction: infinity to the infinite power is a whole new concept. (Notionally called Aleph-1, after the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet.) So, no, it doesn't hurt my brain. I've read books on the four dimension, and imagined a fourth dimensional hypercube (I can draw one for you, if you like: if looses a lot in two dimensions, though. )

Your attitude would have kept the Catholic Church in charge of medicine, like it was around 1000 years ago, when the monasteries were teaching what Galen (a citizen of the Roman Empire) had hypothesised but couldn't prove, because the Church wouldn't allow human dissection. "Yes, the human skull must have two bones for the mandible, because the monkey does." It makes me sick to hear people say "don't try to work it out, because that mystery is God." Grow up. You're enjoying the fruits of technology, yet you are squeemish about the morality of knowledge. You really believe in the Tree of Knowledge being a bad thing.

Sorry to preach - just seemed appropriate for the thread

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is not apporpriate.

Stop polluting this thread with your God-bothering opinions. I don't want every advocate of every different religion telling me why there faith is the one true faith, so why should I let you?

I know some poeple choose to believe -- that's why it's called FAITH. SCIENCE, on the other hand, is only interested in things that can be proved. Your ignorance of science does nothing to strengthen your case, so perhaps silence would assist you better.

 

Now, back to something more interesting ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think you're confused about what I was trying to say here about the mystery of God. Try as you might, you will never be able to explain God using any science or physical law that exists in our universe. All of that is part of creation, but God is outside of Creation. It isn't a matter of 4th dimension physics. The 4th dimension is time - God is not subject to time because God created Time - before there was any such thing as Time, there was God.

 

This whole "godian knot" as you put it, only exists in the minds of those who want to believe that they are smart enough to logically define God, using laws of reason and logic that God himself created. The reason it doesn't all add up is because it isn't supposed to add up. God is not subject to the laws of human existance - therefore those laws cannot be used to disprove his existence. No matter how many principles of nature or reason or logic you try to use, none of it matters when you are dealing with the one who first thought up those laws.

 

A very good verse in the Bible talks about the differences between the clay and the potter. The creator turns the clay into something - a vase or a pot or whatever. To use that pot as a metaphor for human existence - its existence, in fact the very fabric of its reality is defined by laws and principles that were decided upon and built into it by the potter. For the clay pot to then set out to disprove the existence of the potter, using the laws of its own existence would be absurd. The potter exists outside of that pot, and outside of all the laws the govern the pots existence.

 

Understand that I am not trying to say that the laws of our own existence are invalid or that science is bad. Every law of nature or physics that mankind has used to advance himself was already there. Mankind didn't create physics, he merely discovered it and put it to use. That is exactly what God intended for us to do right from the very start, which is why he created the universe to work in such specific and consistant ways.

 

And I'm no fundamentalist, nor am I republican neo-con puppet. I'll be the first to rally against the evil institution that is the Catholic church as a whole, but that doesn't mean I have condemned all the catholics. It isn't up to me, or anyone, to judge another human beings heart. That is Biblical. The fact that Christians do that is unfortunate and wrong, but those people are also flawed as we all are, which is why they make mistakes.

 

No, I'm not anything like what you have described - what I am is a Christian and a child of God who seeks to bring the church (the Biblical definition of "church" is every believer, everywhere, not referring to a particular group or building) outside of the institution humans have turned it into and bring back what God originally came to do - establish a relationship. That's what it is all about.

 

Again, sorry to preach, but there you have it!

[metadigital]

[metadigital]

[snip]

I think you're confused about what I was trying to say here about the mystery of God.  Try as you might, you will never be able to explain God using any science or physical law that exists in our universe.  All of that is part of creation, but God is outside of Creation.  It isn't a matter of 4th dimension physics.  The 4th dimension is time - God is not subject to time because God created Time - before there was any such thing as Time, there was God. 

 

This whole "go[r]dian knot" as you put it, only exists in the minds of those who want to believe that they are smart enough to logically define God, using laws of reason and logic that God himself created.  The reason it doesn't all add up is because it isn't supposed to add up.  God is not subject to the laws of human existance - therefore those laws cannot be used to disprove his existence.  No matter how many principles of nature or reason or logic you try to use, none of it matters when you are dealing with the one who first thought up those laws. ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fourth dimensional mathematics wsa an example of why your puny "my brain hurts" argument was invalid. And time is not THE fourth dimension, either. It is an additional dimension, traditionally ascribed to the fourth dimension, mainly because humans don't have need for a fourth spacial dimension in everyday conversation. Super String Theory curreny theorises in 11 dimensions, for example, none of which are chronological in nature.

... A very good verse in the Bible talks about the differences between the clay and the potter.  ... For the clay pot to then set out to disprove the existence of the potter ... The potter exists outside [the experience] of that pot, and outside of all the laws the govern the pot[']s existence. ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Using the pitiful biblical metaphor to further Paley's "Divine Watchmaker" or even Newton's clock-winding god theses only goes to re-inforce the blatantly obvious conclusion that you are speaking well out of your depth. Read some refreshing logic to help clarify that addled mind of yours.

... Understand that I am not trying to say that the laws of our own existence are invalid or that science is bad.  Every law of nature or physics that mankind has used to advance himself was already there.  Mankind didn't create physics, he merely discovered it and put it to use.  That is exactly what God intended for us to do right from the very start, which is why he created the universe to work in such specific and consist[e]nt ways.

 

And I'm no fundamentalist, nor am I republican neo-con puppet.  I'll be the first to rally against the evil institution that is the Catholic church as a whole, but that doesn't mean I have condemned all the catholics.  It isn't up to me, or anyone, to judge another human beings heart.  That is Biblical.  The fact that Christians do that is unfortunate and wrong, but those people are also flawed as we all are, which is why they make mistakes. ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your political persuasion is as dull and meaningless as your feeble attempts at religious sanctimony.

... The reason it doesn't all add up is because it isn't supposed to add up.  God is not subject to the laws of human exist[e]nce - therefore those laws cannot be used to disprove his existence.  ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are quite, quite mistaken. I am not trying to disprove the existence of god. Belief in God is a factor of FAITH not PROOF. Not only is there no proof that God exists, but it is logically unnecessary to invent one to explain the universe.

Your attitude has consequences. The consequences of interpreting ignorance as some sort of proof of the Hand of God is that -- owing to our frailities -- some humans will interpet knowledge as not only unnecessary but evil. Look at the schism in the interpretation of Christian doctrine between tradtional "conservatives" and those "progressive" souls who want women bishops, gay clergy and an end to hypocrisy between word and deed. I suppose you think Pope John Paul I died of natural causes, too ...

... No, I'm not anything like what you have described - what I am is a Christian and a child of God who seeks to bring the church (the Biblical definition of "church" is every believer, everywhere, not referring to a particular group or building) outside of the institution humans have turned it into and bring back what God originally came to do - establish a relationship.  That's what it is all about....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your arrogance is insufferable. Just because you have decided that you have found your God, doesn't mean you can evangelise around the world. Which is exactly what you're doing.

What about the Jewish faith? Is there God the same as yours? And the Muslims' Allah? What about the billions of Hindu, Taoist, Shinto and Buddhist people ? Are you patronisingly equating all their faiths with yours, or are they all just plain wrong because they disagree with you? Do you even realise how deeply insulting that is? (As you are obviously a US citizen it is doubtful you have even heard of half of these religions.)

 

You are on a Star Wars forum, and you are preaching about a Christian theology. Star Wars is a fantasy universe where The Force is the supreme ontological essence, and it in no way resembles your theocracy.

And I am trying to conduct a discussion about the quiddity of The Force and I do not appreciate some misguided "child of God" trying to evangelise. You would be less out of place if you were discussing Shintoism or Buddhism.

 

If you cannot contributre in a meaningful way then KEEP SILENT. If you must bleat about your religion, go and have a love-in on the Christian fora.

[Saint]

[snip]

I think you're confused about what I was trying to say here about the mystery of God.  Try as you might, you will never be able to explain God using any science or physical law that exists in our universe.  All of that is part of creation, but God is outside of Creation.  It isn't a matter of 4th dimension physics.  The 4th dimension is time - God is not subject to time because God created Time - before there was any such thing as Time, there was God. 

 

This whole "go[r]dian knot" as you put it, only exists in the minds of those who want to believe that they are smart enough to logically define God, using laws of reason and logic that God himself created.  The reason it doesn't all add up is because it isn't supposed to add up.  God is not subject to the laws of human existance - therefore those laws cannot be used to disprove his existence.  No matter how many principles of nature or reason or logic you try to use, none of it matters when you are dealing with the one who first thought up those laws. ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fourth dimensional mathematics wsa an example of why your puny "my brain hurts" argument was invalid. And time is not THE fourth dimension, either. It is an additional dimension, traditionally ascribed to the fourth dimension, mainly because humans don't have need for a fourth spacial dimension in everyday conversation. Super String Theory curreny theorises in 11 dimensions, for example, none of which are chronological in nature.

... A very good verse in the Bible talks about the differences between the clay and the potter.  ... For the clay pot to then set out to disprove the existence of the potter ... The potter exists outside [the experience] of that pot, and outside of all the laws the govern the pot[']s existence. ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Using the pitiful biblical metaphor to further Paley's "Divine Watchmaker" or even Newton's clock-winding god theses only goes to re-inforce the blatantly obvious conclusion that you are speaking well out of your depth. Read some refreshing logic to help clarify that addled mind of yours.

... Understand that I am not trying to say that the laws of our own existence are invalid or that science is bad.  Every law of nature or physics that mankind has used to advance himself was already there.  Mankind didn't create physics, he merely discovered it and put it to use.  That is exactly what God intended for us to do right from the very start, which is why he created the universe to work in such specific and consist[e]nt ways.

 

And I'm no fundamentalist, nor am I republican neo-con puppet.  I'll be the first to rally against the evil institution that is the Catholic church as a whole, but that doesn't mean I have condemned all the catholics.  It isn't up to me, or anyone, to judge another human beings heart.  That is Biblical.  The fact that Christians do that is unfortunate and wrong, but those people are also flawed as we all are, which is why they make mistakes. ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your political persuasion is as dull and meaningless as your feeble attempts at religious sanctimony.

... The reason it doesn't all add up is because it isn't supposed to add up.  God is not subject to the laws of human exist[e]nce - therefore those laws cannot be used to disprove his existence.  ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are quite, quite mistaken. I am not trying to disprove the existence of god. Belief in God is a factor of FAITH not PROOF. Not only is there no proof that God exists, but it is logically unnecessary to invent one to explain the universe.

Your attitude has consequences. The consequences of interpreting ignorance as some sort of proof of the Hand of God is that -- owing to our frailities -- some humans will interpet knowledge as not only unnecessary but evil. Look at the schism in the interpretation of Christian doctrine between tradtional "conservatives" and those "progressive" souls who want women bishops, gay clergy and an end to hypocrisy between word and deed. I suppose you think Pope John Paul I died of natural causes, too ...

... No, I'm not anything like what you have described - what I am is a Christian and a child of God who seeks to bring the church (the Biblical definition of "church" is every believer, everywhere, not referring to a particular group or building) outside of the institution humans have turned it into and bring back what God originally came to do - establish a relationship.  That's what it is all about....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your arrogance is insufferable. Just because you have decided that you have found your God, doesn't mean you can evangelise around the world. Which is exactly what you're doing.

What about the Jewish faith? Is there God the same as yours? And the Muslims' Allah? What about the billions of Hindu, Taoist, Shinto and Buddhist people ? Are you patronisingly equating all their faiths with yours, or are they all just plain wrong because they disagree with you? Do you even realise how deeply insulting that is? (As you are obviously a US citizen it is doubtful you have even heard of half of these religions.)

 

You are on a Star Wars forum, and you are preaching about a Christian theology. Star Wars is a fantasy universe where The Force is the supreme ontological essence, and it in no way resembles your theocracy.

And I am trying to conduct a discussion about the quiddity of The Force and I do not appreciate some misguided "child of God" trying to evangelise. You would be less out of place if you were discussing Shintoism or Buddhism.

 

If you cannot contributre in a meaningful way then KEEP SILENT. If you must bleat about your religion, go and have a love-in on the Christian fora.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on some points in the name of avoiding a personal flame war that I have no interest in.

 

I also do agree with you about the nature of faith versus proof, and you are quite correct - God does not require us to prove his existence, he requires us to believe in it. My reason for approaching the subject in this way is that intellect often gets in the way of faith, when the two in unison can aspire to much greater things than either on its own.

 

However, if given the choice between intellect and faith, faith is the clear winner. A person can live without a soaring intellect, but without faith, what the heck is the point?

 

I can also agree that this is not necessarily the ideal situation for having this sort of conversation, but as far as my right to "evangelise" - Hey, you apparently have the right to expound your belief that I am "out of my depth", or that my beliefs are "feeble". If you actually didn't believe in the right to evangelise freely, you wouldn't do it, but you do.

 

And hey, even if I don't have the "right", consider one thing: Imagine that I really, honestly and truly believe that I know the truth, and that those who don't know and believe it are destined for something more terrible than human imagination is capable. Imagine that I really, honestly and truly believe that God has SO MUCH more blessing and fulfillment in store for those who just following his guidance. What kind of person would I have to be to keep that to myself?

[The Great Phantom]

6. Her goal wasn't to destroy the Force, but to remove all those that it touched. If she wanted it removed, then she wouldn't have created echoes that could kill, would she? No, she tried to kill, not peacefully divert.

 

3. Sorry, I only read the first one... The second idea sounded pretty good, with one modification: They're 2 things of the same thing. Just different.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Six

I didn't think Kreia created the wound in the Force --

that was the battle on Malachor V.

 

The echoes

were from Nihilus, weren't they?

 

Her goal was to

remove all Life that touched the Force, or The Force from all life that it touched? Latter = remove The Force = deafen all life to The Force = kill the Force.

Except, supposing that were possible, that would kill The Force, wouldn't it.

 

Three

Two different same things. Gotcha. Goody thing and Evil thing battling it out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

6. No, Kreia didn't create the original wound, but she exploited it worse than Latin American drug dealers. Nope. Nihilus was dead by the time the things about echoes come up. Kreia is always talking about how the 'right push at the right time' can send echoes, affecting to entire Galaxy. Nihilus didn't leave any echoes. He was NIHIL, quite literally. The only echoes from him are sucked up before they can leave.

 

Kreia killing herself at the heart of M5 would have been the FINAL echo that would spiral out, deafening all life to the Force. But, like Atris says, few people have the same strength as the Exile when it comes to dealing w/ fatal echoes. Only the FEW more powerful/lucky Jedi/Sith would survive, and the normal, unsuspecting and unprepared, people (all touched by the Force) would die. Kreia knew this, and she told Desciple right before wiping his memory in a cutscene on the Hawk. Her goal was to prove to the Jedi the errors of their ways, and she was willing to do that, no matter what the cost.

 

Maybe I should just translate Ca

[metadigital]

[snip -- are we learning yet? this is how we keep the forum readable, especially when there are large responses to large posts. ]

 

So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on some points in the name of avoiding a personal flame war that I have no interest in.

 

I also do agree with you about the nature of faith versus proof, and you are quite correct - God does not require us to prove his existence, he requires us to believe in it.  My reason for approaching the subject in this way is that intellect often gets in the way of faith, when the two in unison can aspire to much greater things than either on its own. 

 

However, if given the choice between intellect and faith, faith is the clear winner.  A person can live without a soaring intellect, but without faith, what the heck is the point?

 

I can also agree that this is not necessarily the ideal situation for having this sort of conversation, but as far as my right to "evangelise" -  Hey, you apparently have the right to expound your belief that I am "out of my depth", or that my beliefs are "feeble".  If you actually didn't believe in the right to evangelise freely, you wouldn't do it, but you do.

 

And hey, even if I don't have the "right", consider one thing:  Imagine that I really, honestly and truly believe that I know the truth, and that those who don't know and believe it are destined for something more terrible than human imagination is capable.  Imagine that I really, honestly and truly believe that God has SO MUCH more blessing and fulfillment in store for those who just following his guidance.  What kind of person would I have to be to keep that to myself?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am not evangelising, I am rebutting your sad attempt at evangelism.

If you need a reason to live, then keep your fantasy religion. I choose to live, and my life is given meaning in my search for truth, not in believing someone else's second-hand reasoning and "absolute unquestionable words direct from the Creator".

Based on sheer numbers, you are in the minority. So that means your "merciful God" is out to sentence billions of innocent people -- people who never chose not to believe your guff -- to a destiny "more terrible than human imagination is capable" (sic). Sounds like a being who is all-powerful, all-knowing and Good to me -- NOT.

You may KNOW without doubt, but my wisdom tells me not to be so arrogant. Or insulting. So keep it to yourself. Sheep.

[The Great Phantom]

And, once again, my posts are ignored...