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

[The Great Phantom]

Destiny can't be permanent. It may have certain TIMES in it that something needs done, but this is NEVER set in stone, until AFTER it happens. Then, you're like "Oh, dude. Was that my destiny? Or, if I had eaten pancakes instead of my dad's poisoned Fruit Loops, would I have lived to become the Sith Lord? Or, what if I decided to go over and kill the slaves again? Or, what if I had..." You get the idea. There are WAY too many choices for the Force to have a will. All it does is seek some equilibriam between all of them, which is what EVERYTHING seeks, in its own right.

 

As I have said MANY times before, the Force is just a HUGE look at the Will of Life Itself.

[The Great Phantom]

No, metadigital, Kreia comments on what Disciple sees: The Echoes.

 

The Force is connected to all life. Even in the message boards (which are pretty much ALWAYs right): If the echoes aren't stopped, then all life will... die.

 

Either that, or go deaf to the Force, which is Life becomming deaf to Life, and just can't be good.

[metadigital]

Destiny can't be permanent. It may have certain TIMES in it that something needs done, but this is NEVER set in stone, until AFTER it happens. Then, you're like "Oh, dude. Was that my destiny? Or, if I had eaten pancakes instead of my dad's poisoned Fruit Loops, would I have lived to become the Sith Lord? Or, what if I decided to go over and kill the slaves again? Or, what if I had..." You get the idea. There are WAY too many choices for the Force to have a will. All it does is seek some equilibriam between all of them, which is what EVERYTHING seeks, in its own right.

 

As I have said MANY times before, the Force is just a HUGE look at the Will of Life Itself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Again, just because that is your philosophical standpoint doesn't mean all others are invalid. (Just because something is suppositious doesn't mean its supposititious! " )

 

As I have pointed out earlier, for example, there are philosophies such that:

1. There are an infinite number of universes where each and every alternative to each and every single decision in the great grand-daddy universal timeline are played out. Every decision tree has its own universe. And Yes, that's a lot of universes. Yes, we're stuck in this universe and we can't prove the existence of other universes (directly, yet). That's why there are infinite universes in this philosophical conception*.

 

2. An Existentialist, for example, believes she is the only real being in the universe. Everything else -- every person she meets, every sensation she feels, every argument she has -- everything else is an illusion. (It's always entertaining to see two Existentialists at a party trying to work out who is the figment of whose imagination. )

 

So, you see, even if I don't believe either of these philosophies, I must not discount them out of hand -- because it is impossible to do so without proof. And philosophy is the discussion of those things that have no proof.

 

Okay? Right.

 

*For example, suppose you invent a time machine.

For the sake of demonstration, you go back in time and kill your grandfather before he has children. Then you would never exist and subsequently invent your time machine and go back and kill your grandfather ... But, if when you travel back in time you travel to an "adjacent" universe, which is identical in every way to the universe you have come from, except that you have appeared in the past, then you can safely kill your grandfather in this new universe and still exist in this universe to create the time machine and go back to kill him again. The time line is unbroken. Paradox averted. Q.E.D.

[The Great Phantom]

Yes, but SW isn't Existentialistic. In SW, there is no 'infinite universes'. It's Fantasy meets Sci-Fi, and has little or NO theological base. It may have started that way, but now it's just a cool timeline for even cooler games/books/movies/anything-else-that-I-can't-think-of-because-I'm-doing-an-evil-romance-on-my-NWN-module.-Do-you-have-any-idea-how-hard-it-is-to-make-an-evil-lady-that-likes-serving-evil-sound-romantic?

[FaramirK]

"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.

[Lord Satasn]

Owned

[Lord Satasn]

One thing I've never understood about the debate of the world's creation....if any of you really studied the matter you'd know that science, in the form that we practice it today, was originally created to prove the existance of a God in the world, and over the years scientists have changed sides (so to say) to do everything to prove there is no God....ironic? yes.

 

 

My question is why do people take the 6 days 7th for rest theory so literal when the bible has many metaphors and etc.

 

7 days could have been millions of years.....I think it's used as a 7 step analogy....

 

 

and he could have created all of the things he did with a big bang, the bible never has described any process in detail.....

 

I just don't understand why some people are so against the fact that maybe both theories are correct...we evolved as a species over a very long time, and the universe was created by a big bang, all at the handy work of one God....

 

 

just a thought

 

 

Edit: sorry I just had to get in this discussion haha, don't mean to derail anything but I think it's too late to save this topic anyway

[The Great Phantom]

Off topic continuation: I sorta agree w/ that idea, Satasn.

 

On topic: SW isn't a religion, unless you're in Canada. So, let's treat it as (not) such.

[DeathScepter]

those Damnable Jedis

[metadigital]

One thing I've never understood about the debate of the world's creation....if any of you really studied the matter you'd know that science, in the form that we practice it today, was originally created to prove the existance of a God in the world, and over the years scientists have changed sides (so to say) to do everything to prove there is no God....ironic? yes.

 

 

My question is why do people take the 6 days 7th for rest theory so literal when the bible has many metaphors and etc.

 

7 days could have been millions of years.....I think it's used as a 7 step analogy....

 

 

and he could have created all of the things he did with a big bang, the bible never has described any process in detail.....

 

I just don't understand why some people are so against the fact that maybe both theories are correct...we evolved as a species over a very long time, and the universe was created by a big bang, all at the handy work of one God....

 

 

just a thought

 

 

Edit: sorry I just had to get in this discussion haha, don't mean to derail anything but I think it's too late to save this topic anyway

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

No, in fact if you read the Bible, you will see that there are in fact two (conflicting) versions of the creation myth. These stories are oral traditions meant to convey the collective wisdom of the Jewish people, covering such things as why women are subordinate to men, and why all creation is for man's discretionary use.

 

To try to combine this with currently accepted Hubble theory of the Big Bang is ... brave .. but ultimately pointless. Just accept them as doing two different jobs: you don't use a map to to remember a friends birthday.

 

Conservatives take it literally because of trust. If they read and accept what has been accepted since, say the King James Bible (17th Century), then they don't have to worry about someone they don't know interpreting it for them. Many other people are happy to have another person's interpretation, some to their detriment (you are probably too young to remember the Jonestown tragedy.)

 

Of course this logic is more than a little flawed, if only because the Gospels were written between 100-300 CE, and then edited in the Nicene Council (around 4th Century CE). They were written in Latin, and it wsn't until the episcopal churches that the Bible was translated into the common English tongue, so that everyone could hear the transcript for themselves.

 

And finally, yes it is ironic that Science and Religion are apposed, currently; they did indeed stem from the same root: the quest to understand our world. Science deals with the How?, and religion deals with the Why?, and whenever Science cannot answer a How? question, religious leaders pipe up and say "Ah! You cannot explain the mind of God."

<_<

[FaramirK]

One thing I've never understood about the debate of the world's creation....if any of you really studied the matter you'd know that science, in the form that we practice it today, was originally created to prove the existance of a God in the world, and over the years scientists have changed sides (so to say) to do everything to prove there is no God....ironic? yes.

 

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...

 

My question is why do people take the 6 days 7th for rest theory so literal when the bible has many metaphors and etc.

 

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.

 

I just don't understand why some people are so against the fact that maybe both theories are correct...we evolved as a species over a very long time, and the universe was created by a big bang, all at the handy work of one God....

 

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...

[FaramirK]

One thing I've never understood about the debate of the world's creation....if any of you really studied the matter you'd know that science, in the form that we practice it today, was originally created to prove the existance of a God in the world, and over the years scientists have changed sides (so to say) to do everything to prove there is no God....ironic? yes.

 

 

My question is why do people take the 6 days 7th for rest theory so literal when the bible has many metaphors and etc.

 

7 days could have been millions of years.....I think it's used as a 7 step analogy....

 

 

and he could have created all of the things he did with a big bang, the bible never has described any process in detail.....

 

I just don't understand why some people are so against the fact that maybe both theories are correct...we evolved as a species over a very long time, and the universe was created by a big bang, all at the handy work of one God....

 

 

just a thought

 

 

Edit: sorry I just had to get in this discussion haha, don't mean to derail anything but I think it's too late to save this topic anyway

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

 

These stories are oral traditions meant to convey the collective wisdom of the Jewish people, covering such things as why women are subordinate to men.

 

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.

 

To try to combine this with currently accepted Hubble theory of the Big Bang is ... brave .. but ultimately pointless.

 

True.

 

Of course this logic is more than a little flawed, if only because the Gospels were written between 100-300 CE, and then edited in the Nicene Council (around 4th Century CE). They were written in Latin.

 

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?

[Lord Satasn]

Yeah they don't conflict at all....

 

and I do read the bible....apparently you read too much of your "proof" off the internet because I don't know where you read they were written in Latin....

 

it was Greek.

 

Anything else, I think FaramirK hit the nail on the head, and you my friend (Metadigital) have been OWNED....

 

 

you should read the bible and not the theories that state the falsities of the bible...and you might learn something

[metadigital]

"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. 

 

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, in addition to the term "Abrahamic Faiths", but -- ironically -- various hard-line right wing conservative Christians have tried to sabotage all talk of commonalities between the faiths as pandering to Islamic fundamentalism. (Which, I believe is exactly opposite what you said.)

 

"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?

The seven day cycle includes the rest day. Shorthand. So I didn't have to go into this level of detail. Call it a Six Day Creation and One Rest Day if you want. Or are you arguing that there were Six Days of Cretion and then an indeterminate period of days? No, I thought not. So it's a seven day cycle: the week. An analogy for the people to follow in the daily lives. I don't generally talk about the Six Day week, but maybe you do. /sarcasm

 

Then again, you were arguing that Exodus was actually based on a historical event. (I'll put to the side that you were nit picking a subject that wasn't central to the thread because you had nothing to say about it.) Well, the approximate time the story was written, if you cross reference with Egyption political history, is about 1500BCE. As I stated briefly, a migration of tens of thousands of people across the desert would have left evidence that would still be visible today. (There is evidence from before this time in the same geographical area, from smaller groups people. Things like the remains of campfires.) There is no evidence to support the actual, physical migration. And as I have explained, the metaphor of Exodus was to give the people a contrast of why monotheism was better than the polytheism practised up until that point. Can you follow the analogy, or would you like me to explain it again for you?

"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.

I was actually thinking English wasn't your first language, and that I should have cut you a bit more slack. I see, in fact, that you are just immature -- "I know you are, but what am I?" -- great comeback.

What, exactly, are my misconceptions?

I was referring to your seemingly endless re-iteration of the same question, even though I had explained it many times over. Remeber the whole Kreia thinking The Force had a Will. Remeber I eventually had to paste the quote that had been pasted three times, with a special highlight so that you could see what the thread was about. That misconception.

 

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...

 

Yes, the mid-eighties. When I was in University. Don't be foolish. I said I stopped arguing, not that I stopped thinking. I didn't go cold-turkey, I merely gave up trying to argue hypothesis-based-on-fact science with people who argued belief-based religion. I have been reading and talking and living since then, and part of my general discourse is philosphical.

 

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.

 

 

And, no, I won't ridicule you with cheap mockery -- what I write may be cruel, but its true. If this thread is an example of your reading comprehension, then I would imagine you have many more years of study before you pass for literate in English.

[FaramirK]

"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. 

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.

 

The seven day cycle includes the rest day. Shorthand. So I didn't have to go into this level of detail. Call it a Six Day Creation and One Rest Day if you want. Or are you arguing that there were Six Days of Cretion and then an indeterminate period of days? No, I thought not. So it's a seven day cycle: the week. An analogy for the people to follow in the daily lives. I don't generally talk about the Six Day week, but maybe you do. /sarcasm

 

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.

 

Then again, you were arguing that Exodus was actually based on a historical event.

 

I was? I believe I said that the Bible reports it as a historical fact. Read my words.

 

There is no evidence to support the actual, physical migration.

 

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.

 

And as I have explained, the metaphor of Exodus was to give the people a contrast of why monotheism was better than the polytheism practised up until that point.

 

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!

 

I was actually thinking English wasn't your first language, and that I should have cut you a bit more slack. I see, in fact, that you are just immature -- "I know you are, but what am I?" -- great comeback.

What, exactly, are my misconceptions?

 

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

 

Yes, the mid-eighties. When I was in University.

 

I believe you.

 

Don't be foolish. I said I stopped arguing, not that I stopped thinking. I didn't go cold-turkey, I merely gave up trying to argue hypothesis-based-on-fact science with people who argued belief-based religion. I have been reading and talking and living since then, and part of my general discourse is philosphical.

 

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.

 

And, no, I won't ridicule you with cheap mockery -- what I write may be cruel, but its true. If this thread is an example of your reading comprehension, then I would imagine you have many more years of study before you pass for literate in English.

 

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.

[metadigital]

Yeah they don't conflict at all....

 

and I do read the bible....apparently you read too much of your "proof" off the internet because I don't know where you read they were written in Latin....

 

it was Greek.

 

Anything else, I think FaramirK hit the nail on the head, and you my friend (Metadigital) have been OWNED....

 

 

you should read the bible and not the theories that state the falsities of the bible...and you might learn something

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Man you are incredibly childish.

 

1. I use internet hyperlinks to illustrate points because it is a little difficult to hyperlink the King James Bible. I, too, have read the Bible and completed many years of theological and philosophical studies (including at university level). I didn't think I'd have to display my credentials to have a philosophical debate about the ontological underpinnings of Star Wars, and nor would I expect others to do so, but I have to wonder what study you have completed, based on your suppositions and apparent grasp of logic, English and debating skills.

 

2. Attempting to gang up on me, saying "Yeah, What he said," doesn't intimidate me. Get a brain and join the debate, or stop embarrassing yourself and keep quiet.

 

3. To aid your reading comprehension, let me remind you that FaramirK just agreed with me that one of the earliest Gospel records was nearly a century after the stated events. And, of course this is all tangential to my original point, which was that very few of the audience could actually read first hand what the scriptures said, because it was in a foreign language and based on a idealised re-creation of the actual events. Not that many medieval europeans were conversant in ancient Greek, even if they had access to the Dead Sea Scrolls that were discovered in the early 20th Century. And as for the Gospels being written in Latin, the Roman Catholic Bible was latin until 1968. Oh, btw, you're forgeting the Qumran Library, which was written in Ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic between 300-68BCE, which is a little more relevant to our Old Testament discussion.

 

4. Now, the two creation myths in Genesis. The first is given in Genesis 1: 1-2:4 while the second is given in Genesis 2: 4-24.

These two stories are actually different (mutually exclusive accounts). According to the first creation story the whole universe was made in six days, while on the seventh day, God rested. The table below gives the order of creation as described in those verses:

Day       Relevant Verses            Things Created

One       Genesis 1:1-5              Light

Two       Genesis 1:6-8              

[FaramirK]

6. Finally, we were discussing the seismic shift of The Force being a force (small "f") versus this new concept of The Force having a Will, heralded by Kreia in KotOR2 (and I think our PC is told about it by Atris, just before the final sequences).

 

If you have an opinion on that, then let's hear it. Thank you.

 

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.

[metadigital]

6. Finally, we were discussing the seismic shift of The Force being a force (small "f") versus this new concept of The Force having a Will, heralded by Kreia in KotOR2 (and I think our PC is told about it by Atris, just before the final sequences).

 

If you have an opinion on that, then let's hear it. Thank you.

 

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Is KotOR2 canonical?

I would have to assume it has to be. I believe the autheticity becomes less certain as you include material authored further from the source (a bit like the Bible ... sorry, couldn't resist).

 

Yep, AFAIK in the OT The Force was just a cosmic force (small "f"). A lot changed in the new trilogy -- Ninja and occidental (single-handed/dual-wielding) combat styles -- and the identification of the genetic component of Force Sensitives(midichlorines -- a very bad idea IMO, what's to stop a Kamino from genetically engineering a "super-chosen-one"?). And yes, I would tend to agree it does appear that Lucas has -- erm -- "improved" his definition of The Force.

 

I am only modestly familiar with the Scientology "religion". I have read a few L. Ron Hubbard novels (and a devotee once tried to psycho-analyse and conscript me into the cult). I can tell you that Hubbard hated Psychologists and co-opted a lot of their techniques to profile people and give them what they wanted as a religious experience. I also know that the "Holy Scriptures" are copyright and not for general discussion in the public domain, because of the court case made famous on the internet a few years ago between the Church and a disgruntled member. (What have they got to hide?)

 

So, no, I don't know about Thetans. Do you?

[FaramirK]

So, no, I don't know about Thetans. Do you?

 

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...

[metadigital]

...

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}>

 

AFAIK Scientology is popular amongst the celebrities due to the socialogical rigor imposed on the laity: no franternising! -- nothing to do with the theological components.

 

It doesn't surprise me that Midichlorians (such a lame idea) are similar to Thetans.

 

Isn't the whole doctrine of Scientology based on the theory that the population of the Earth are decendants of a penal colony from the outlawed members of some distant civilization, or some such nonsense?

[metadigital]

Yes, but SW isn't Existentialistic. In SW, there is no 'infinite universes'. It's Fantasy meets Sci-Fi, and has little or NO theological base. It may have started that way, but now it's just a cool timeline for even cooler games/books/movies/anything-else-that-I-can't-think-of-because-I'm-doing-an-evil-romance-on-my-NWN-module.-Do-you-have-any-idea-how-hard-it-is-to-make-an-evil-lady-that-likes-serving-evil-sound-romantic?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Existentialism was an example, not related to the "infinite universes", or "multiverse" philosophy. And I didn't say SW was a multiverse -- I said you can't rule it out because it has never even been discussed (and probably never will :D ).

 

I know you subscribe to the traditional Force definition, as first espoused in the OT: a simple, one-dimensional force (small "f"). You don't have to keep re-iterating that. I got it. The first time.

 

But, if we are to believe what Kreia / Atris in KotOR2, for arguments sake, then we must try to elucidate the NEW description of The Force and the universe/multiverse it requires to exist. As long as this new description doesn't contradict established SW laws, then it is acceptable. And as no specifics were discussed in the OT, we can safely create any construct without fear of contradiction! :D

[Lord Satasn]

Yeah they don't conflict at all....

 

and I do read the bible....apparently you read too much of your "proof" off the internet because I don't know where you read they were written in Latin....

 

it was Greek.

 

Anything else, I think FaramirK hit the nail on the head, and you my friend (Metadigital) have been OWNED....

 

 

you should read the bible and not the theories that state the falsities of the bible...and you might learn something

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Man you are incredibly childish.

 

1. I use internet hyperlinks to illustrate points because it is a little difficult to hyperlink the King James Bible. I, too, have read the Bible and completed many years of theological and philosophical studies (including at university level). I didn't think I'd have to display my credentials to have a philosophical debate about the ontological underpinnings of Star Wars, and nor would I expect others to do so, but I have to wonder what study you have completed, based on your suppositions and apparent grasp of logic, English and debating skills.

 

2. Attempting to gang up on me, saying "Yeah, What he said," doesn't intimidate me. Get a brain and join the debate, or stop embarrassing yourself and keep quiet.

 

3. To aid your reading comprehension, let me remind you that FaramirK just agreed with me that one of the earliest Gospel records was nearly a century after the stated events. And, of course this is all tangential to my original point, which was that very few of the audience could actually read first hand what the scriptures said, because it was in a foreign language and based on a idealised re-creation of the actual events. Not that many medieval europeans were conversant in ancient Greek, even if they had access to the Dead Sea Scrolls that were discovered in the early 20th Century. And as for the Gospels being written in Latin, the Roman Catholic Bible was latin until 1968. Oh, btw, you're forgeting the Qumran Library, which was written in Ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic between 300-68BCE, which is a little more relevant to our Old Testament discussion.

 

4. Now, the two creation myths in Genesis. The first is given in Genesis 1: 1-2:4 while the second is given in Genesis 2: 4-24.

These two stories are actually different (mutually exclusive accounts). According to the first creation story the whole universe was made in six days, while on the seventh day, God rested. The table below gives the order of creation as described in those verses:

Day       Relevant Verses            Things Created

One       Genesis 1:1-5              Light

Two       Genesis 1:6-8              

[Ohma]

Ahh, I love the term Deus ex Machina, I get that pleasant tingle down my spine every time I hear it...but enough of my robo/transhumanist-fetishism.

 

I don't think that the Force has a will of its own per-se (err...only term I could think of...). But it seems to take more control over your destiny the more you believe and/or are sensitive to it. Not by actively going around and setting up individual people's futures, but more like, acting as a conduit, through which people create (albeit subconsciously) their own self fulfilling prophecies...

 

It's like that cave in The Empire Strikes Back, what you find and experience through the Force, is influenced by what you take with you. A dark sider will see the force very differently from a light sider because they believe the Force represents different things, and a normal person would come away with yet another impression...

 

Uhh...maybe I'll say more when I have the time to sort my thoughts out better...

[The Great Phantom]

"What's stopping... Kamino from creating a 'super chosen one'

 

How about the fact that anytime a Jedi is cloned, their clone goes insane?

 

Ohma, I think I can understand where you might be coming from. It sounds like what I've said before. People CAN be led around, but ultimately the Force is what all Life MAKES it become.

[FaramirK]

So, no, I don't know about Thetans. Do you?

 

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.