Post Difficult Questions Here

Users who are viewing this thread

I do hope you are joking, @Nodice83. Or else, Kurgan would like a word.
I was joking. Rarely anyone remembers Christopher Lambert and his Highlander nowadays so I thought pulling Star Wars' fans legs would be better instead.

P.S. Rule of Two is merely a 'recommendation' as the apprentices usually tend to claim their master's place and there are even sith orders that openly abandoned it (legends). I have never bought it.
P.S.2. Who's Kurgan?
P.S.3. Greetings from Home Office ;p
6BXYi.jpg
 
Oh my.
I was joking. Rarely anyone remembers Christopher Lambert and his Highlander nowadays so I thought pulling Star Wars' fans legs would be better instead.

P.S. Rule of Two is merely a 'recommendation' as the apprentices usually tend to claim their master's place and there are even sith orders that openly abandoned it (legends). I have never bought it.
About the first part, that's what the Rule of Two is about. The apprentice to challenge his master, when he feels he can and live (or not) with the consequences. It's like the graduation ceremony of the Sith, after Darth Bane. About Sith Orders, I wasn't aware there were any, after Bane and before Krayt.
P.S.2. Who's Kurgan?
highlander-burn-out.gif
 
About the first part, that's what the Rule of Two is about. The apprentice to challenge his master, when he feels he can and live (or not) with the consequences. It's like the graduation ceremony of the Sith, after Darth Bane. About Sith Orders, I wasn't aware there were any, after Bane and before Krayt.
Darth Millenial despised it the same way as Saar Skere Kaan before. I am sure many others as well but nonetheless, I meant mostly before Bane created it.

This guy ;p I honestly forgot his name (see almost nobody remembers it):grin:. I thought you meant a bad-ass forum user who happened to be 'the greatest SW fan' :wink: (btw. there is someone with this nick on the forum).
 
Last edited:
This guy ;p I honestly forgot his name (see almost nobody remembers it):grin:.
I was going to post a Kurgan gif just like Antonis to remind you of Highlander. :smile:
I may be a SW fan, but that's mostly limited to the original trilogy and the Lucasarts games that spawned off it.
(No Extended Universes for me, that's created by hacks skilled in putting together cliches and tropes and little else.)
You are probably a bigger fan with all those Darth Hayden? references I'm clueless about.
 
You forgot Kurgan?! He was one of the most memorable things in the film, man, along with Sean Connery's overly Scottish Spaniard! Them and the whole "I found a little girl during WW2, raised her as my daughter, had sex with her until she got old, and now she plays mother to me" sub-plot.
 
I may be a SW fan, but that's mostly limited to the original trilogy and the Lucasarts games that spawned off it.
(No Extended Universes for me, that's created by hacks skilled in putting together cliches and tropes and little else.)
Used to love the immersion of this world no matter how it was provided. Trilogy, games, books, comics, TV series, bring it on...
You are probably a bigger fan with all those Darth Hayden? references I'm clueless about.
Don't consider myself a 'big fan' anymore. Simply lost interest. I used to be, but let say 'new trilogy' is pure dog****. I won't babble what is better and what's not but I no longer feel the same thrill as when it belonged to George Lucas. I don't buy all those new silly modifications with New Order, Kylo, etc. Putting all that was valuable to the carton box called 'legends' is simply showing a middle finger to all the Star Wars fanbase.
You forgot Kurgan?! He was one of the most memorable things in the film, man, along with Sean Connery's overly Scottish Spaniard! Them and the whole "I found a little girl during WW2, raised her as my daughter, had sex with her until she got old, and now she plays mother to me" sub-plot.
Yes, I forgot his name, and I accept the shame.
 
I was joking. Rarely anyone remembers Christopher Lambert and his Highlander nowadays so I thought pulling Star Wars' fans legs would be better instead.
Soon to change https://deadline.com/2021/05/henry-cavill-lionsgates-highlander-reboot-chad-stahelski-1234761916/

Anyway, the death of animals must be implied since God says "be fruitful and increase in number". The exact same thing he says after creating humans in his image. I therefore assumed death of humans was here already implied, and not a punishment.
If nothing dies there would be a paradox in creation, technically creating an infinite amount of living things on a finite Earth/Eden.
Also, why else is there a 'tree of life' if Adam and Eve are immortal and nothing dies?

I guess the confusion lies in the two creation myths right after each other (first chapter of Genesis and then the story of Adam and Eve) that somewhat contradict each other.
 
To my understanding, the tree of life was sort of like what blood does to vampires. Adam and Eve were immortal as long as they ate from the tree. When god cursed them and yeeted them out of the garden, they just didn't have access to their immortality juice. Effectively cancelling their immortality and punishing them that way.
Keep in mind that the tree of life is present in a ton of mythologies/theologies around the world, so it's not surprising the Christian version has clashing tropes and stuff, since they did borrow heavily from around the Mediterranean. As an example, to me, the garden of Eden seems awfully similar to the garden of the Hesperides, where there even is a magic-fruit-bearing tree (with golden apples, another common trope in mythologies and folklore).
 
If nothing dies there would be a paradox in creation, technically creating an infinite amount of living things on a finite Earth/Eden.
Also, why else is there a 'tree of life' if Adam and Eve are immortal and nothing dies?

No theologian uses this kind of autistic logic to analyse the creation story. The garden of eden is very vaguely described to begin with, and rarely shows up again in the bible, so trying to form a concrete explanation for every single detail is just pointless. What's more, biblical writing has a nunber of different styles, but one of the common threads throughout all the books is that they never mention superfluous details. This is especially true in Genesis where it wants to make a few specific points and tie them together as efficiently as possible. It's not a biological explanation of reality.

It's only ever new atheists or muslim converts who treat the bible like this, because they think a single "gotcha!" on the finer details would destroy Christianity. But the fact is that even theologians don't care about this stuff.
 
The easiest ways imaginable of a 3d object could enter and be visible in 2d universe is if you imagine an apple going throught a piece of paper frontally, its disection at the place it stops would be its shape to 2d beings, for it to pass whole through 2d space, it would change shapes from the moment it enters until the moment it leaves.
I would have said a picture myself. There are ways to represent 3D in 2D, to be fair (projections and all that). Although I get what you are saying and I now I want that fruit brandy.

Also, fun random fact for everyone, our brain processes high dimensionality information daily (every time we grab an object with our hands really), although there is indication that we reduce it to a lower dimensionalilty space.

Don't consider myself a 'big fan' anymore. Simply lost interest. I used to be, but let say 'new trilogy' is pure dog****. I won't babble what is better and what's not but I no longer feel the same thrill as when it belonged to George Lucas. I don't buy all those new silly modifications with New Order, Kylo, etc. Putting all that was valuable to the carton box called 'legends' is simply showing a middle finger to all the Star Wars fanbase.

I have a theory that nostalgia plays a really big role in what Star Wars movies people enjoy. I really liked Episode I to III, which are usually despised by old school fans, but I was ten when I watched Episode I and it was the first movie I saw in a theater. The fight with Darth Maul was an absolutely epic experience for 10 years old me, and while rewatching the movies now I can see the cheesiness I can't help enjoy them still. The new movies on the other hand look absolutely ridiculous, but then would have I felt differently about it if I was 10 today? Who knows.
 
Last edited:
I have a theory that nostalgia plays a really big role in what Star Wars movies people enjoy. I really liked Episode I to III, which are usually despised by old school fans, but I was ten when I watched Episode I and it was the first movie I saw in a theater. The fight with Darth Maul was an absolutely epic experience for 10 years old me, and while rewatching the movies now I can see the cheesiness I can't help enjoy them still. The new movies on the other hand look absolutely ridiculous, but then would have I felt differently about it if I was 10 today? Who knows.
That's exactly what happens. The kids who watched the last trilogy loved it and will dismiss critics as boomers within a decade.
 
I have a theory that nostalgia plays a really big role in what Star Wars movies people enjoy. I really liked Episode I to III, which are usually despised by old school fans, but I was ten when I watched Episode I and it was the first movie I saw in a theater. The fight with Darth Maul was an absolutely epic experience for 10 years old me, and while rewatching the movies now I can see the cheesiness I can't help enjoy them still. The new movies on the other hand look absolutely ridiculous, but then would have I felt differently about it if I was 10 today? Who knows
That's exactly what happens. The kids who watched the last trilogy loved it and will dismiss critics as boomers within a decade.

Yeah Tell boomer he didn't like it because of nostalgia... Classic

And maybe because the story-telling, cast, plot, etc. were simply bad? Loved all 6 [1-6] and some spinoffs [Rogue 1 is a masterpiece]. But this has to be nostalgia...

P.S. I might also learn to love it in time..
Also, fun random fact for everyone, our brain processes high dimensionality information daily (every time we grab an object with our hands really), although there is indication that we reduce it to a lower dimensionalilty space.
Interesting, sources?
 
Interesting, sources?


Application to control of robotic hands:


(probably not all of these will be open access)
 
... so trying to form a concrete explanation for every single detail is just pointless.
Theology is pedantry par excellence. No other book has been scrutinised and analysed as much as the Bible,
and every little sentence - especially in Genesis - has been given countless interpretations.
Before modern times it was read literally - Eden was a place, Adam and Eve had lived, Earth was made in 6 days etc. (Some crazy people still do).
Religious scholars have almost made it an Olympic sport to make all the inconsistencies seem meaningful, rational and coherent.
 
Religious scholars have almost made it an Olympic sport to make all the inconsistencies seem meaningful, rational and coherent.
Little premise; i found out pretty early in my life that i am what most would label as an atheist.
With this in mind, a then 22 YO me thought it would be a good idea to read the whole Bible (both old and new testament), as perhaps i would get some benefits of being somewhat impartial to it.
The old one, with its style, was really hard to read and get to the end figuring out what is actually written.
The new one, however, was very interesting for me to read. What immediatelly stuck out to me, is that it says that John the Baptist was considered as THE prophet by the people, but he told them the great prophet, much greater and holier than him, "whose sandals i'm unworthy of tying" (along those lines), is yet to come.
The whole time he acts as if he doesen't know who it is, and even when he gets to point at Jesus, revealing him as such, all along he acts as if he sees him for the first time.

Yet, in another place, in several gospels (not all), the fact that Elizabeth (mother of John the Baptist) and Mary (Mother of Christ) were RELATIVES, and even that Mary visited her relative while she was 3 months pregnant, while Elizabeth was 6 months pregnant.

Did they have a deal to raise their sons (who will be relatives) believing they are special, holy, born from God, thinking they will become these alpha persons to battle it out with the harsh world and make it for themselves, only for the whole thing to get out of control and a new religion to arise and change the world, all because of two spoiled mommy's boys?
I don't know, but it sure seemed like it to me back then, and now even more so.
Never heard anyone speak about this, or even present it as an inconsistency worthy of attacking/defending, yet i think this alone would be enough for me to at least start questioning some things even if i was a believer to begin with.
 
Last edited:
Man-made religions are as flawed as their human creators. However, my inadequate animal brain also finds it impossible to rationalise a universe spontaneously materialising out of nothing, which seems to be our scientific alternative.
How about a nice "monke don't know" instead of finding gods in anything and everything unknown.
 
Back
Top Bottom