**SPOILERS** If The Force Awakens, why was I going to sleep?

[The Folk Prophet]

Just for the fun of it (though I find the reasoning silly) I would like to point out that his first murders were not under any guise of military service.

[Guest]

Has there been anyone in history/scripture that has committed the atrocities the Darth Vader has for any similar reasoning or motivations?  

 

I can only think of one.  And it is not a good comparison.

[NeuroTypical]

In Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader, we have a putative human who brutally murders countless millions because he's sad and conflicted. This is not unheard of in human history, but what makes this SHF is that Anakin can do this without losing his essential humanity. He really is just a poor, lost orphan, a misunderstood lad with a bad temper who makes some rash decisions.

 

Hm.  [Human X] has [committed horrible sin Y] because of [reason Z].  This causes human X to lose his essential humanity.  Do I have that right?

 

Wondering how you define 'essential humanity'.  

- If you lose it, are you no longer a child of God?  

- Do you no longer possess a divine birthright?  

- Is the atonement of Christ no longer open to you?  

- Do you still have a chance at obtaining a broken heart and contrite spirit, or has that chance hit zero?  

- Do you still have agency, or have you given it up?

- When we hear about the 2nd great commandment to love thy neighbor, are you still a neighbor?

 

Basically, what's the difference between someone who has lost his essential humanity, and someone who still has it?

 

 

(Kind of interested here, because I am human X in some ways, and I don't wanna hear that I've lost my essential humanity.)

Edited January 1, 2016 by NeuroTypical

[The Folk Prophet]

Hm.  [Human X] has [committed horrible sin Y] because of [reason Z].  This causes human X to lose his essential humanity.  Do I have that right?

 

Wondering how you define 'essential humanity'.  

- If you lose it, are you no longer a child of God?  

- Do you no longer possess a divine birthright?  

- Is the atonement of Christ no longer open to you?  

- Do you still have a chance at obtaining a broken heart and contrite spirit, or has that chance hit zero?  

- Do you still have agency, or have you given it up?

- When we hear about the 2nd great commandment to love thy neighbor, are you still a neighbor?

 

Basically, what's the difference between someone who has lost his essential humanity, and someone who still has it?

 

 

(Kind of interested here, because I am human X in some ways, and I don't wanna hear that I've lost my essential humanity.)

 

Assuming we are talking real humans and not fictional Darth Vaders, there are only two sins that have been declared unforgivable (and one conditionally...though what those conditions are aren't exactly explicit).

 

- If you lose it, are you no longer a child of God?  

 

Depends on what you mean? Literally we will always be the spirit offspring of our Father in Heaven. But we become the sons and daughters of Christ through his redemption, and if we are not redeemed by Him (through failure to repent) then we are not His. (Mosiah 5:7, Mosiah 27:25)

 

- Do you no longer possess a divine birthright?

 

But, as we well know, birthright is not automatic. We must qualify for it.

 

- Is the atonement of Christ no longer open to you?

 

Christ only atoned for those who repent. He cannot save us in our sins. (Alma 11:34)

 

- Do you still have a chance at obtaining a broken heart and contrite spirit, or has that chance hit zero?

 

I'm not sure this is relevant to one who has committed a sin that is unforgivable. David, certainly, had a broken heart and a contrite spirit after his murder of Uriah.

 

- Do you still have agency, or have you given it up?

 

Also, not sure it's relevant if beyond forgiveness. We can, certainly, give up agency by becoming bound by the devil, methinks. But even if not, unforgivable is unforgivable.

 

- When we hear about the 2nd great commandment to love thy neighbor, are you still a neighbor?

 

I don't understand how this question applies. Maybe Vort will have more insight, since the questions were to him anyhow.

[Vort]

UGH!  I don't know how I can un-see that.

 

I don't know why this remains popular with my kids.  I don't know why they like One Punch Man too.  I blame all of it on Princess Bubblegum! 

 

Okay, now you've turned me on to One-Punch Man. It is...hilarious. Not the same level as Adventure Time, but I find myself laughing out loud at it several times per episode. Great find!

[Just_A_Guy]

Observed on Facebook:

 

[Vort]

Looks like a ST:NG reference, but I don't quite get it.

[Vort]

Hm.  [Human X] has [committed horrible sin Y] because of [reason Z].  This causes human X to lose his essential humanity.  Do I have that right?

 

Wondering how you define 'essential humanity'.  

- If you lose it, are you no longer a child of God?  

- Do you no longer possess a divine birthright?  

- Is the atonement of Christ no longer open to you?  

- Do you still have a chance at obtaining a broken heart and contrite spirit, or has that chance hit zero?  

- Do you still have agency, or have you given it up?

- When we hear about the 2nd great commandment to love thy neighbor, are you still a neighbor?

 

Basically, what's the difference between someone who has lost his essential humanity, and someone who still has it?

 

 

(Kind of interested here, because I am human X in some ways, and I don't wanna hear that I've lost my essential humanity.)

 

Sorry, I missed this.

 

My wording was not meant to be precise. In [my understanding of] LDS theology, it is possible to utterly lose one's desire for Godliness. The comic-book evil of a Darth Vader is far beyond anything almost any of us will ever experience or even observe. How could one reach such a depth of depravity? I'm all for redemption tales; I think we need them, which is one reason they are so popular. But Darth Vader is irredeemable, not primarily because of the unspeakable evil he has done, but because of the kind of person he would have to be to have done such things.

 

Star Wars is fatally flawed in that it provides us an irredeemable anti-hero who nevertheless is redeemed. The effect of this is not to underscore the power of true redemption, but to deny that such a thing really exists at all and make it merely a comic-book philosophy.

[Just_A_Guy]

Looks like a ST:NG reference, but I don't quite get it.

 

Yeah, it's a silly (and slightly inaccurate) riff off the "Darmok" episode.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

Yeah, it's a silly (and slightly inaccurate) riff off the "Darmok" episode.

 

Yes, I remembered (more or less) the episode, but I don't understand what the references mean.

[Guest]

Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra.

Shaka when the walls fell.

 

I still haven't seen the movie.  But the phrases meant in ST:TNG

 

Two enemies came together to fight a common danger.  Through their trials together, they became friends.

 

Shaka when the walls fell was a reference to a "Fail".

Edited January 21, 2016 by Guest

[unixknight]

I shared a lot of the same criticisms after I first saw it, but upon a second viewing I like it a lot better.

 

This movie was a lot like Episode 4.  Yes, yes it was... but so were Episode 6 and Episode 1.  Star Wars likes its plot patterns, and doesn't deviate from them a whole lot.  I think this was deliberate.  Did you notice all the references to the prequels?  

 

Me neither.  Not one.  Not one single reference to the prequels was made anywhere.  People say you hear Ewan MacGregor's Obi-Wan say something during Rey's vision but I didn't hear it, even on my second viewing when I was listening for it.  The filmmakers here are trying to show us that they understand Star Wars, including the bad parts.  It's not a coincidence that the very first spoken line in the film was:

 

"This will begin to make things right."

 

That was aimed directly at the audience.

 

A couple other things that made more sense the second time:

 

How could Finn and Rey do so well in a lightsaber duel against Ren?

 

Well, consider a couple of things... First, Ren wasn't fully trained, and doesn't appear to have received any additional lightsaber training from Snoke.  If you watch the choreography, he doesn't move like the trained Jedi we've seen in the past.  Even when he deflects blaster bolts, it's more like he's batting them away like baseballs than actually parrying with elegance.  He's just not a great swordsman.  Add to that he had already been shot by Chewie's bowcaster... which is one nasty weapon.  Did you notice how Han reacted to that thing during the movie when he had a chance to use it?  That was to communicate to the audience that the firepower of that weapon is considerable, doing tons of damage.  Ren had taken a direct hit from it.  The very fact that he was still standing is amazing.  That would provide a significant handicap, leveling the playing field even against opponents who had never handled a lightsaber before.

 

Even with that, he still beat Finn, who was fresh and uninjured, and almost killed him.  With Rey he was obviously holding back, in the hopes of recruiting her.  Once it became clear that she wouldn't turn, he became more aggressive but his skill didn't improve.  He ultimately lost because he was succumbing to multiple wounds (Finn and Rey had both landed blows on him during the fighting) and exhaustion. 

 

I agree that Rey's progress with the Force seemed awful fast, considering she hadn't even known she was Force sensitive before, but that isn't exactly unparalleled in Star Wars.  Anakin was an amazing podracer because he'd been using the Force without realizing it.  Luke learned to use it to aim his proton torpedoes at the Death Star's exhaust port with no formal training.  He also stood against Darth Vader, one of the greatest swordsmen of all time in the Star Wars universe, with no real lightsaber training of any kind unless you think that remote on the Millenium Falcon was a lot better than it seemed.  Even when he lost his hand at Cloud City, he'd still lasted longer than Finn and Rey combined.  When he came back and fought Vader on the Death Star II, he won.  Yoda never taught him any lightsaber technique even once.  Even Leia had been able to hear, and find, Luke at the end of his duel with Vader at Bespin. 

 

I think the makers of Episode 7 really get Star Wars in a way that even George Lucas doesn't, and I think it showed.

Edited January 21, 2016 by unixknight

[Guest]

OK, I finally saw the movie.  And I have no idea how JAG's post #81 was supposed to be taken.

 

I found it to be entertaining.  But if it didn't have the "panache" of Star Wars, I don't think it would have done nearly as well.

 

*************************SPOILER WARNING********************************

 

The actor who played Kylo Ren was poorly cast.  His voice (intonation, inflections, as well as overall scripting) was too reminiscent of Anakin.  And he in no way looked like he could be the son of Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford.

 

The fight scenes were fairly entertaining.  But I kept being far too aware of how conveniently they missed when they needed to.  The final saber battle was ok.  It certainly needed work.  It was about as good as I could have done it as an amateur.

 

Special effects were just right.  The Cantina scene redux was a nod to the old one.  But they went through it pretty fast, so, I guess that was ok.

 

The "Death Planet" was above and beyond my ability to suspend my disbelief.

 

And, yes, I certainly agree that there simply was no originality.  It seemed that they just cut and pasted pieces of all the other movies and put it together in one.

 

I love JJ as a director.  But he committed the same crime as he did with "ST: Into the Darkness".  In his effort to do an homage to previous storylines, he had a very bad execution.  OK.  That may have been the screenwriter.  But JJ could have done something about that when fans panned him over the death scene in "Darkness".

 

I can only begin to imagine how Cinema Sins will treat this.  

How is it that Han could remain alive and not screaming in pain when a rod made of plasma is stuck right through his heart?

How convenient is it that the planet was already in destruction mode but managed to stay together just long enough for all the key players to depart before blowing up?

How did Chewie set off all the detonators while inside and then later show up in the Falcon?

How is it that those "beholder" type creatures immediately killed everyone else, but simply dragged off all the key players?

 

Yup, just one convenient thing after another.

 

Now that I'm done ranting... I'll explore the question on everyone's mind.  What is the story behind Rey?

 

I first postulated that she was Ren's twin sister, mainly because the Star Wars Cannon says Solo and Leia had twins.  But the flashback showed her being abandoned as a very small child.  It would be difficult to imagine that Ren did any real damage at that young an age to warrant her parents abandoning her.  And why would they abandon her?  But I wouldn't put it past filmmakers to have some convoluted story with misdirection and so forth to make this plausible.

 

Another theory is that she is Luke's daughter.  Not implausible.  It would explain a lot.  But then, why would he abandon her at such a young age?  The big thing that needs explaining is that if she is the daughter of one of the good guys, what in the galaxy would have justified abandoning her at such a young age?

 

A common question is how did Rey beat a Sith who already had some training?

 

1) Ren apparently hadn't completed his training as a Sith.  But he was advanced enough to kill off all the other younglings and jedi.

2) Ren was already injured by Finn.  This weakened him.

3) Rey was already a fighter.  She grew in "some pretty mean streets".  She was beating off those thieves by herself.  So, what she was doing at the beginning of the battle was just fighting with her physical aptitude.  She finally focused and received additional sensitivity.

 

That said, I don't really buy it.  But when viewing the movie, I could suspend my disbelief long enough to enjoy the fight sequence.

Edited January 23, 2016 by Guest

[unixknight]

Just by way of clarification, Kylo Ren is not a Sith.

[NightSG]

On 1/23/2016 at 8:41 AM, Carborendum said:

How is it that Han could remain alive and not screaming in pain when a rod made of plasma is stuck right through his heart?

Lightsabers already have a major logic violation; think about what would happen if you instantaneously superheated water with a plasma stream like that.  Even a minor lightsaber wound would look like a grenade went off inside the body from all that steam trying to escape.  It's made clear from the melt effects when someone cuts through a door that heat is at least a major part of the damaging effect, (enough to apparently sublimate most of the metal actually in the beam, leaving the edges clearly melted) but then they just make a nice clean, cauterized wound when they hit people.

[zil]

1 hour ago, NightSG said:

Lightsabers already have a major logic violation; think about what would happen if you instantaneously superheated water with a plasma stream like that.  Even a minor lightsaber wound would look like a grenade went off inside the body from all that steam trying to escape.  It's made clear from the melt effects when someone cuts through a door that heat is at least a major part of the damaging effect, (enough to apparently sublimate most of the metal actually in the beam, leaving the edges clearly melted) but then they just make a nice clean, cauterized wound when they hit people.

A) This is a good reason not to learn science - ignorance is entertainment.

B) Repeat after me: "It's fiction.  We believe." 

C) See B.

[Jamie123]

On 12/27/2015 at 6:16 AM, Vort said:

TL;DR SUMMARY: I didn't like it.

I've always loved Star Wars because:

• The robots are funny
• Chewbacca is funny
• Han Solo, Princess Leia....in fact nearly all the characters are funny (except Luke Skywalker - though I liked him better as Mr. Grumpy-Hermit than as farm-boy Luke)
• Yoda is funny - and fun to imitate ("Amusing to imitate, he is")
• Lots of cool-looking spaceships firing laser beams at each other, making lovely flashes and big sooper-dooper explosions.
• Emperor Palpatine sounds like old Mr Granger from Are You Being Served. (I always half expect him to say "Mr. Humphries are you free?")

 And not because:

• It teaches a powerful moral lesson (because it doesn't)

[anatess2]

I had so much hope for The Last Jedi.  Then I watched the movie.  It is trash.  But I loved Kylo Ren/Rey interactions.

Solo was "Revenge of the fanboys".  It died in the box office.