?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Star Wars

May the Force be with You

Posted on 2007.12.23 at 12:14

Comments:


Tomas Gallucci
schpydurx at 2007-12-24 06:45 (UTC) (Link)
You're right. I'm sorry.

As I can't find any article that argues my point it must not be so. But that doesn't jive with the facts or what the man said himself. ( put the Force into (Star Wars) in order to try to awaken a certain kind of spirituality in young people -more a belief in God than a belief in any particular religious system., Eric's source)

You'd have us believe by arguing counter-point to me that the point of the films were to convert people to Christianity, but you can't cite a source that would show this to be the case.

What has happened as a direct result of the worldview of the Star Wars movies is people have thought "maybe there's a God out there somewhere" but stop short. No specific religion is pushed yet at the same time the movies do not refute the idea of a God out there somewhere which is, in fact, the very definition of agnosticism.
ehowton
ehowton at 2007-12-24 06:53 (UTC) (Link)
For the love of Christ laying in the manger all swaddled up because there was no room at the inn, I got that from a 45-second Google search and it was the closest to a quote I read in Playboy magazine just prior to the movie being released in 1999.

Shit man, do some research yourself!
Cat Who Likes OpenBSD
bsdcat at 2007-12-24 06:53 (UTC) (Link)

You'd have us believe by arguing counter-point to me that the point of the films were to convert people to Christianity...

That doesn't appear to be what's being suggested as Lucas' goal, no.

What has happened as a direct result of the worldview of the Star Wars movies is people have thought "maybe there's a God out there somewhere" but stop short. No specific religion is pushed...

Someone who stood and spoke in the Friends Meeting this morning said something to the effect of "God is bigger than religion." I tend to agree.

Tomas Gallucci
schpydurx at 2007-12-24 07:04 (UTC) (Link)
If the whole point of a religion (to it's followers) is to worship a Supreme Being, then it would stand to reason that the SUpreme Being is bigger then religion. I don't see this as a great epiphany.
Cat Who Likes OpenBSD
bsdcat at 2007-12-24 07:12 (UTC) (Link)
More importantly, bigger tahn any particular religion.
Tomas Gallucci
schpydurx at 2007-12-24 07:25 (UTC) (Link)
For those who believe in that sort of thing.
Cat Who Likes OpenBSD
bsdcat at 2007-12-24 07:27 (UTC) (Link)
As well, it means no particular religion (or religion in general) has exclusive access to knowing right and wrong.
Tomas Gallucci
schpydurx at 2007-12-24 07:31 (UTC) (Link)
What do you say we walk the statement "God is bigger then any religion" through a truth table and list all of the possible meanings?
Cat Who Likes OpenBSD
bsdcat at 2007-12-24 07:46 (UTC) (Link)
To what purpose? Regardless of how you choose to interpret what I wrote, and what you decide to tell me I meant with what I wrote, the point is this: Lucas did not appear to be promoting Christianity, and I don't particularly care what religion (if any) anyone chooses to adopt, but I will try to see and speak to that which is of God in them.
Tomas Gallucci
schpydurx at 2007-12-24 07:53 (UTC) (Link)
To what purpose?
I was just being facetious. The way you came back with "also X" I thought, "Well, hot damn! Here we have the positive, the contra-positive, the pros, the cons...why not treat this like genes and run the table?"
Melancthe the Woe, So-Called
melancthe at 2007-12-24 06:54 (UTC) (Link)
You'd have us believe by arguing counter-point to me that the point of the films were to convert people to Christianity, but you can't cite a source that would show this to be the case.

Are you on crack? Something even more hardcore? I have no idea where you're getting this rubbish; I said nothing of the sort. I asked you to CITE YOUR SOURCE, and then offered to give you advice on evaluating the credibility of sources as part of the research process (as both a freelance writer and an information science graduate, I think I'm qualified to provide assistance in this area). How does that translate to "[y]ou'd have us believe by arguing counter-point to me that the point of the films were to convert people to Christianity"?
Tomas Gallucci
schpydurx at 2007-12-24 07:02 (UTC) (Link)
You disagree with my point of Lucas promoting an agnostic agenda, ergo, the opposite of this would be that he's promoting a specific religion.

But he said that's not was he's about. Atheism and Agnosticism got a real shot in the arm after World War II, particularly during the drug and free love movements of the 60's and 70's. Lucas himself said that he was attempting to be as inclusive as possible while still promoting the idea that there is a God or Supreme Being out there somewhere; argue that point with him.
Melancthe the Woe, So-Called
melancthe at 2007-12-24 07:08 (UTC) (Link)
You disagree with my point of Lucas promoting an agnostic agenda, ergo, the opposite of this would be that he's promoting a specific religion.

Please tell me you're being this dense deliberately, just to work me up.

Please. It would give me some faith in humanity again.
Tomas Gallucci
schpydurx at 2007-12-24 07:30 (UTC) (Link)
To the more important point first: You haven't had faith in me for a long time and there is nothing I can do to rectify that; the rest of humanity is cattle.

The only one being dense here is you. You won't admit to any particular point, yet you tell me mine is invalid. So if I'm wrong, what is the correct conclusion then? Surely you must know since you have argued the point thus; henceforth, enlighten us that we may be all the better for it. Do you really want to live in a world where the people who surround you are ignorant when you have the power to educate?
Melancthe the Woe, So-Called
melancthe at 2007-12-24 08:41 (UTC) (Link)
Please, schpydurx, step back and look at what you're arguing about. You're trying to pick a fight with me about my thoughts on the religious convictions behind Star Wars - which I haven't stated, and have absolutely no desire to discuss right now. How does an offer to help you analyse your sources equate to whatever you feel me to be arguing?¹ You're sounding positively delusional, and that makes me sad, because I KNOW you're an intelligent and thoughtful person. I KNOW you're capable of better than tossing non sequiturs into my lap. And no, I'm not referring to your religious convictions as "delusional". You're reading things into my comment that I didn't convey at all, and that's what's worrying me.

Your beliefs are your own business, but your comments have led me to believe that you're operating at a level of delusion - more to the point, a lack of reading comprehension - that disappoints me.

¹ Determining the bias (or otherwise), of your sources, regardless of how much you might agree or disagree with them, is an essential part of responsible journalism, and I can't believe you'd reasonably deny that.
Previous Entry  Next Entry