PDA

View Full Version : How Christian of him.



Pages : [1] 2

haloplayer
October 24th, 2009, 03:16 PM
Im starting to have a problem with Scott here. We have been shown in a flashback that he regrets and has a sense of guilt for having sex with a 16 year old girl.

Lets now fast-forward to the present of SGU. Scott here has now knocked up 2 girls in the time of a few days. He seems to show no regret in doing it, contrary from his experiences in the past. Now im not saying he is a non-christian, all people sin whether they are christian or not. What im saying is that he is not even trying not to sin. They should have had him questioning himself after he had sex with Chloe.

Another problem i have is that there is no "love" in there sex act. They are just doing it for pleasure and comfort. They are degrading the act of sex (imo).

He should have been more responsible and think before acting (especially as a christian man). For one, he was not wearing a condom (i think), he could have given Chloe an STD or gotten her pregnant. Maybe he even stole her virginity.

Does anyone have a problem with this other then me? His whole character seems contradictory and a paradox. It would be nice to show him in a scene in a later episode praying and admitting his sin.

Maybe he needs an hallucination of his priest to give him advice....but that would be to much like BSG.


It just seems to me that they are making out Scott to be more of a Whore then a Christian man who has faults and is trying to correct them.

Bytor
October 24th, 2009, 03:17 PM
Im starting to have a problem with Scott here. We have been shown in a flashback that he regrets and has a sense of guilt for having sex with a 16 year old girl.

Lets now fast-forward to the present of SGU. Scott here has now knocked up 2 girls in the time of a few days. He seems to show no regret in doing it, contrary from his experiences in the past. Now im not saying he is a non-christian, all people sin weather they are christian or not. What im saying is that he is not even trying not to sin. They should have had him questioning himself after he had sex with Chloe.

Another problem i have is that there is no "love" in there sex act. They are just doing it for pleasure and comfort. They are degrading the act of sex (imo).

He should have been more responsible and think before acting (especially as a christian man). For one, he was not wearing a condom (i think), he could have given Chloe an STD or gotten her pregnant. Maybe he even stole her virginity.

Does anyone have a problem with this other then me? His whole character seems contradictory and a paradox. It would be nice to show him in a scene in a later episode praying and admitting his sin.

Maybe he needs an hallucination of his priest to give him advice....but that would be to much like BSG.


It just seems to me that they are making out Scott to be more of a Whore then a Christian man who has faults and is trying to correct them.

In real life there are priests that mollest children. Scott is by no means the worst christian out there.

ttsec
October 24th, 2009, 03:19 PM
I am not watching another episode of this show until both Cloe and sex-boy dies or leaves the show. Someone PM me when this happens.

Replicator Todd
October 24th, 2009, 03:20 PM
Isn't their enough threads on Scott already!?
But yeah, I don't like Scott much at all. Not a very good Christian!

The Mighty 6 platoon
October 24th, 2009, 03:21 PM
So what character can’t have flaws now? They have to be perfect, nice and moral. Scott’s problem is he might be a brave young officer but he shags everything that moves. Mind you I really think him banging Chloe is Light was acceptable, I know if I thought my chances of survival were slim, be it on the ship or on a barren planet, I'd jump into bed with the first available girl.

haloplayer
October 24th, 2009, 03:21 PM
In real life there are priests that mollest children. Scott is by no means the worst christian out there.

Im not saying he is the worst christian. However i do have a problem with him knocking up 2 chicks and not showing remorse at all, while showing guilt for just knocking up 1 chick. Makes no sense.

DigiFluid
October 24th, 2009, 03:22 PM
Um. Getting laid does not mean the same thing as "knocking up" *snicker*

EvilSpaceAlien
October 24th, 2009, 03:23 PM
All christians doesn't have sex until they're married.

Yeah right. :rolleyes: The easter bunny is real too.

Thunderbird 2
October 24th, 2009, 03:23 PM
Im starting to have a problem with Scott here. We have been shown in a flashback that he regrets and has a sense of guilt for having sex with a 16 year old girl.

Lets now fast-forward to the present of SGU. Scott here has now knocked up 2 girls in the time of a few days. He seems to show no regret in doing it, contrary from his experiences in the past. Now im not saying he is a non-christian, all people sin weather they are christian or not. What im saying is that he is not even trying not to sin. They should have had him questioning himself after he had sex with Chloe.

Another problem i have is that there is no "love" in there sex act. They are just doing it for pleasure and comfort. They are degrading the act of sex (imo).
(Snippage)

This is a tricky one - I agree with you on the value and sanctity of sex with someone you love, I I don't think we have seen enough of who Scott is to get a clear idea of whats going on in his head. - Having said that, I am begining to think that there is growing evidence to support the theory that he is a sexual compulsive. In a very real sense, he can't help himself. Only time will tell. - I have no doubt though that there will be some sort of repercussions for his actions, if not with Chloe, then certainly Lt James.

IV
October 24th, 2009, 03:24 PM
Im not saying he is the worst christian. However i do have a problem with him knocking up 2 chicks and not showing remorse at all, while showing guilt for just knocking up 1 chick. Makes no sense.

If they all enjoyed it, I don't see why there'd be any need to show remorse.

P-90_177
October 24th, 2009, 03:25 PM
Im starting to have a problem with Scott here. We have been shown in a flashback that he regrets and has a sense of guilt for having sex with a 16 year old girl.

Lets now fast-forward to the present of SGU. Scott here has now knocked up 2 girls in the time of a few days. He seems to show no regret in doing it, contrary from his experiences in the past. Now im not saying he is a non-christian, all people sin weather they are christian or not. What im saying is that he is not even trying not to sin. They should have had him questioning himself after he had sex with Chloe.

Another problem i have is that there is no "love" in there sex act. They are just doing it for pleasure and comfort. They are degrading the act of sex (imo).

He should have been more responsible and think before acting (especially as a christian man). For one, he was not wearing a condom (i think), he could have given Chloe an STD or gotten her pregnant. Maybe he even stole her virginity.

Does anyone have a problem with this other then me? His whole character seems contradictory and a paradox. It would be nice to show him in a scene in a later episode praying and admitting his sin.

Maybe he needs an hallucination of his priest to give him advice....but that would be to much like BSG.


It just seems to me that they are making out Scott to be more of a Whore then a Christian man who has faults and is trying to correct them.

Welcome to humanity.....

Besides there may not have been precisely love between Scott and Chloe but there was a great amount of feeling there. I mean Chloe admited that he had connected with him on a level that she ad never experienced before and He said that he didn't want to leave on the ship.
I agree that it isn't great for people to have sex for the sake of sex. I fully understand why they would and I have no moral or ethical reason for why they shouldn't it's just not something I'd do cos I have to have an emotional connection with a sexual partner....it's just....better in my opinion. But that doesn't neccesarily mean love. Some people just have an instant connection that is incredibly strong. It might not be love but it can develop into that later.

lordofseas
October 24th, 2009, 03:25 PM
Im starting to have a problem with Scott here. We have been shown in a flashback that he regrets and has a sense of guilt for having sex with a 16 year old girl.


Lets now fast-forward to the present of SGU. Scott here has now knocked up 2 girls in the time of a few days. He seems to show no regret in doing it, contrary from his experiences in the past. Now im not saying he is a non-christian, all people sin weather they are christian or not. What im saying is that he is not even trying not to sin. They should have had him questioning himself after he had sex with Chloe.

In one case, Scott's an youngling, who had sex, and has now ruined his path for his future job, being a priest. Which he thought was his calling. Now, he's in the military, on a ship stranded, and could care less.


Another problem i have is that there is no "love" in there sex act. They are just doing it for pleasure and comfort. They are degrading the act of sex (imo).
People these days could care less about the "love" in sex.



He should have been more responsible and think before acting (especially as a christian man). For one, he was not wearing a condom (i think), he could have given Chloe an STD or gotten her pregnant. Maybe he even stole her virginity.

When your running from people, the last thing you bring are condoms.

Trance
October 24th, 2009, 03:26 PM
[QUOTE=haloplayer;10743657]
Another problem i have is that there is no "love" in there sex act. They are just doing it for pleasure and comfort. They are degrading the act of sex (imo).

He should have been more responsible and think before acting

Does anyone have a problem with this other then me? His whole character seems contradictory and a paradox. [\QUOTE]

Truthfully I wouldn't like him either. He never cuddles or talks to girls after, true once he was called away but still you expect some conversation. I don't think his is thinking just reacting. His self assurance that he would be chosen also bugged me. He didn't seem guilty that he was essentially getting a free pass while everyone else had to depend on the lottery. I think that is their point though. The people who you think will be the leaders, who look like Scott, are the ones people depend on outwardly but they fall short. Truthfully I more likely to follow Greer because he was willing to stand by his commander and hit a man to get a job done. He isn't looking to be liked by everyone he is doing his job despite everything. He was the one who went looking for his friend even though he knew he probably wouldn't get back in time. He also doesn't seem to mind that some people don't like him, Scott seems to mind too much.

haloplayer
October 24th, 2009, 03:27 PM
If they all enjoyed it, I don't see why there'd be any need to show remorse.

Wow you are SO TOTALLY RIGHT. As long as 2 people enjoy it is OK. Then there is NOTHING wrong with an older man having sex with a little girl, if they both enjoy. Thanks for clearing that up for me :D
/sarcasm

JeffKnight
October 24th, 2009, 03:27 PM
I have a problem with it from the military standpoint. Sounds a bit like conduct unbecoming an officer to me.

As I said before:


Also, as kind of the next man on the totem pole, Scott needs to stop screwing around (literally). We're expected to believe that this guy got to be a 1st Lt. in the Air Force and a junior SGC member and not to have grown up a little more? Yes he has emotional issues, but so far, I've only seen him act like a freaking 16 year old with raging hormones. So far, Eli has been more mature than Scott.

So yeah, I agree with haloplayer. This character is one of the reasons why I was afraid of this show. If he weren't there or even a major character, then I'd be a bit more happy, still not perfect, but hey... alas, he's a major character with major holes in him. If he isn't stopped somehow, he'll single-handedly turn this into the Stargate 90210 that we all feared.

DigiFluid
October 24th, 2009, 03:29 PM
Wow you are SO TOTALLY RIGHT. As long as 2 people enjoy it is OK. Then there is NOTHING wrong with an older man having sex with a little girl, if they both enjoy. Thanks for clearing that up for me :D
/sarcasm

He's 28, she's 24. That's hardly robbing the cradle.

Giantevilhead
October 24th, 2009, 03:29 PM
Too bad he isn't a Catholic priest, otherwise the church would have covered up all his sexual escapades and moved him to another parish.

jelgate
October 24th, 2009, 03:29 PM
Contrary to popular belief Christanity is like every other religion and atheism. Their are good people who follow it and people who just pretend to follow it

Avenger
October 24th, 2009, 03:30 PM
Im starting to have a problem with Scott here. We have been shown in a flashback that he regrets and has a sense of guilt for having sex with a 16 year old girl.

Lets now fast-forward to the present of SGU. Scott here has now knocked up 2 girls in the time of a few days. He seems to show no regret in doing it, contrary from his experiences in the past. Now im not saying he is a non-christian, all people sin whether they are christian or not. What im saying is that he is not even trying not to sin. They should have had him questioning himself after he had sex with Chloe.

Another problem i have is that there is no "love" in there sex act. They are just doing it for pleasure and comfort. They are degrading the act of sex (imo).

He should have been more responsible and think before acting (especially as a christian man). For one, he was not wearing a condom (i think), he could have given Chloe an STD or gotten her pregnant. Maybe he even stole her virginity.

Does anyone have a problem with this other then me? His whole character seems contradictory and a paradox. It would be nice to show him in a scene in a later episode praying and admitting his sin.

Maybe he needs an hallucination of his priest to give him advice....but that would be to much like BSG.


It just seems to me that they are making out Scott to be more of a Whore then a Christian man who has faults and is trying to correct them.

You have no idea what the typical, average, Christian is. Assuming that he is devout or anything of the sorts is absurd. Equating the term Christian to some who follows the tenants of Christianity strictly is in error.

lordofseas
October 24th, 2009, 03:30 PM
Wow you are SO TOTALLY RIGHT. As long as 2 people enjoy it is OK. Then there is NOTHING wrong with an older man having sex with a little girl, if they both enjoy. Thanks for clearing that up for me :D
/sarcasm

Older? Little? Really?

Detox
October 24th, 2009, 03:31 PM
Another problem i have is that there is no "love" in there sex act. They are just doing it for pleasure and comfort. They are degrading the act of sex (imo).

What else would you have sex for? Sex is a good way to relieve stress and relax.

Doctors constantly talk about how a healthy sex life leads to a healthy life in general. It's just like breathing. Its something you do because your body needs it.

The Mighty 6 platoon
October 24th, 2009, 03:34 PM
I have a problem with it from the military standpoint. Sounds a bit like conduct unbecoming an officer to me.

As I said before:



So yeah, I agree with haloplayer. This character is one of the reasons why I was afraid of this show. If he weren't there or even a major character, then I'd be a bit more happy, still not perfect, but hey... alas, he's a major character with major holes in him. If he isn't stopped somehow, he'll single-handedly turn this into the Stargate 90210 that we all feared.


Hah people in the military including officers are always looking for a shag, take that from someone who’s in the military. After being on ops for 6 months and not getting any, you’re prepared to jump into bed with the first willing human female. Scott’s behaviour with Lt James was against regs, doesn’t mean that sort of thing doesn’t happen though.

hedwig
October 24th, 2009, 03:35 PM
He's 28, she's 24. That's hardly robbing the cradle.

Actually, according to their statements for the kino thingy, Scott is 26 and Chloe is 23. Other than that, they are both old enough to consent to what they did, whether anybody else approves of it or not. :)

DigiFluid
October 24th, 2009, 03:36 PM
Actually, according to their statements for the kino thingy, Scott is 26 and Chloe is 23. Other than that, they are both old enough to consent to what they did, whether anybody else approves of it or not. :)

Right you are, I just looked at how old the actors are :)

Supreme Commander Sil
October 24th, 2009, 03:44 PM
Im starting to have a problem with Scott here. We have been shown in a flashback that he regrets and has a sense of guilt for having sex with a 16 year old girl.

Lets now fast-forward to the present of SGU. Scott here has now knocked up 2 girls in the time of a few days. He seems to show no regret in doing it, contrary from his experiences in the past. Now im not saying he is a non-christian, all people sin whether they are christian or not. What im saying is that he is not even trying not to sin. They should have had him questioning himself after he had sex with Chloe.

Another problem i have is that there is no "love" in there sex act. They are just doing it for pleasure and comfort. They are degrading the act of sex (imo).

He should have been more responsible and think before acting (especially as a christian man). For one, he was not wearing a condom (i think), he could have given Chloe an STD or gotten her pregnant. Maybe he even stole her virginity.

Does anyone have a problem with this other then me? His whole character seems contradictory and a paradox. It would be nice to show him in a scene in a later episode praying and admitting his sin.

Maybe he needs an hallucination of his priest to give him advice....but that would be to much like BSG.


It just seems to me that they are making out Scott to be more of a Whore then a Christian man who has faults and is trying to correct them.

Yeah, I have a huge problem with it. The other theory is that he isn't Christian, but he was raised and is in the customs. Either that or it is another one of their (the world's) ways to degrade Christianity and (the creators of SG) persuade people towards New Age, because "hey, it's not that bad. Want it, do it" :rolleyes: :S....



Gah, it was created for married couples :o. It is not for personal "stress relief", it is for those inside a marriage to show how much they love each other ;).. and have children...

haloplayer
October 24th, 2009, 03:45 PM
Older? Little? Really?

I was not calling Scott an older man, or Chloe a little girl. I was trying to say just because 2 people enjoy having sex with each other doesn't make it right.

DigiFluid
October 24th, 2009, 03:45 PM
Believing it's right for yourself to abstain outside marriage is one thing, and entirely valid if that fits into your belief structure.

Believing nobody should have sex outside marriage is presumptuous naivety.

IV
October 24th, 2009, 03:47 PM
I was not calling Scott an older man, or Chloe a little girl. I was trying to say just because 2 people enjoy having sex with each other doesn't make it right.

Just a note to say that yes, my post was made in context with the thread and not to be taken as my opinion for sexual relations outside of SGU.

haloplayer
October 24th, 2009, 03:47 PM
Believing it's right for yourself to abstain outside marriage is one thing, and entirely valid if that fits into your belief structure.

Believing nobody should have sex outside marriage is presumptuous naivety.

I never said that. You are putting words into my mouth.

The_Asgard_live
October 24th, 2009, 03:55 PM
What im saying is that he is not even trying not to sin. They should have had him questioning himself after he had sex with Chloe.
...
Does anyone have a problem with this other then me? His whole character seems contradictory and a paradox. It would be nice to show him in a scene in a later episode praying and admitting his sin.
...
Maybe he needs an hallucination of his priest to give him advice....but that would be to much like BSG.
...
It just seems to me that they are making out Scott to be more of a Whore then a Christian man who has faults and is trying to correct them.

I'll try to address some of your points, and I bet I can do it without even taking cheap pot shots at Christianity and priests.

No, you are not the only one having a problem with it. I wouldn't care that he's a Christian that fails to live up to the ideal. That truly is human. I don't care that he has sex.

Why is he a failed Christian and not a moderate to successful one? The writers. Because its not 'chic', 'hip', 'dark', and/or 'gritty' to portray Christians that way. Why is he a failure as a character? Because simply giving someone emotional/dysfunctional problems does not = depth.

He was not written as your ordinary Christian, he was written to be on track to be a priest. He had an epic fail with the sex. Seemed to rock his world. May or may not believe he let down/killed the only person who cared for him.

If he had sworn off his religion and was behaving the way he is, that might have been interesting (or more interesting than whats being offered). But he didn't, he retains his religion (calling for people to pray and religious hallucinations) AND repeating his epic fail. That just seems silly to me.

But then again, so does their portrayal of the military.

P-90_177
October 24th, 2009, 03:56 PM
I was not calling Scott an older man, or Chloe a little girl. I was trying to say just because 2 people enjoy having sex with each other doesn't make it right.

I really don't understand this idea that sex is wrong.
To me sex is beautiful. It's an act of pure humanity. Esspecially when there is a clear, close bond between the two people involved and in the scene with Chloe and Scott there clearly was. It wasn't just sex for the sake of sex, it was personal.

Avenger
October 24th, 2009, 03:56 PM
Gah, it was created for married couples :o. It is not for personal "stress relief", it is for those inside a marriage to show how much they love each other ;).. and have children...

That's your standing on the matter. Not everyone believes as you do, nor do they have to.

haloplayer
October 24th, 2009, 04:02 PM
I really don't understand this idea that sex is wrong.
To me sex is beautiful. It's an act of pure humanity. Esspecially when there is a clear, close bond between the two people involved and in the scene with Chloe and Scott there clearly was. It wasn't just sex for the sake of sex, it was personal.

My gosh people keep getting the wrong view of what im trying to say. I NEVER SAID the act of sex is wrong. I said sex when there is no love is wrong. But that is just my opinion, we are all entitled to our own opinion.

DigiFluid
October 24th, 2009, 04:03 PM
I really don't understand this idea that sex is wrong.
To me sex is beautiful. It's an act of pure humanity. Esspecially when there is a clear, close bond between the two people involved and in the scene with Chloe and Scott there clearly was. It wasn't just sex for the sake of sex, it was personal.

Indeed.

This Puritanical nonsense that everyone should be Amish and wearing chastity belts is pretty absurd to me. We're talking about a basic biological function which happens to rather enjoyable, and suddenly the people involved are failed this and that and tramps? Come on, people, this isn't middle school. Sex is everywhere, all the time; and no, the year 1400 came and went a long time ago.

But to take this out of the abstract and go back to the show, I don't know how anyone can immediately jump to the ridiculous conclusion that he's a "failed Christian." First of all, if that were the case, the correct phraseology is "lapsed Catholic." Secondly, we didn't even know he was raised Catholic till episode 3. Why is it people are automatically assuming that this was his life story between the church scene and present day (undoubtedly several years at least)? More storytelling is needed, of how he came to be in the military and gained security clearance for Stargate knowledge, before we can even begin to know where he's coming from at this point.

MediaSavant
October 24th, 2009, 04:03 PM
Scott may be Catholic and he may believe in God, but Catholics come in all levels of adherence to the churches "rules". In comparison to the evangelic version of Christianity, they can often seem downright inconsistent between what they prey about on Sunday and what they do Monday through Saturday.

Found this interesting essay on the topic:

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/Catholic/2004/12/Sex-And-The-Catholic-Campus.aspx

Snippet:

After a long weekend of bars, booze, and boys, I make it a point to attend Sunday night Mass. As I repent for any sins I may have committed in spite of my good Catholic upbringing, I can't help but notice the person in front of me is the same guy I saw cheating on his girlfriend the night before. And someone a few rows up looks exactly like the girl I saw pole dancing on the bar last week. In fact, the more I look around, the pews are filled with college co-eds living the same double life my friends and I have down to a science; faith-filled young Catholics in spirit, and sexually uninhibited college students by practice.

Kinda sounds like Scott.

Oka
October 24th, 2009, 04:04 PM
I'd say it's less Christian to be in the military and kill people than it is to have pre-martial sex. But, that's just me.

The_Asgard_live
October 24th, 2009, 04:19 PM
and suddenly the people involved are failed this and that and tramps?

If you are showering/dressing in front of practical strangers and doing guys/girls you've known for a couple days, trampy might apply.


But to take this out of the abstract and go back to the show, I don't know how anyone can immediately jump to the ridiculous conclusion that he's a "failed Christian."

Was going to be a priest, knocked up a 16 year old. Is that a success? Funny thing is, if you asked the character Scott whether or not he's a failed Christian, my guess is he'd say yes, so why don't you?


First of all, if that were the case, the correct phraseology is "lapsed Catholic."

Epic lapse just doesn't have the same poetry about it.


Secondly, we didn't even know he was raised Catholic till episode 3. Why is it people are automatically assuming that this was his life story between the church scene and present day (undoubtedly several years at least)?

He wasn't simply raised catholic, he was going to be a priest. That is above and beyond your average catholic.

haloplayer
October 24th, 2009, 04:19 PM
I'd say it's less Christian to be in the military and kill people than it is to have pre-martial sex. But, that's just me.

I disagree.

I believe the 10th commandment is "Thou shall not murder"

Some would say it is "Though shall not kill", but i disagree, depends on what translation you have.

All murder is killing but not all killing is murder.

But this debate is for another place. If you want to create a topic about this be my guest. I'll debate you there if you like.

Avenger
October 24th, 2009, 04:20 PM
Killing people is allowed under certain circumstances in Christianity. "Thou shalt not kill" is a common misconception.

DigiFluid
October 24th, 2009, 04:26 PM
If you are showering/dressing in front of practical strangers and doing guys/girls you've known for a couple days, trampy might apply.
Shower: She's friends with Eli; showering while a friend is nearby but not looking is not uncommon with friends.

Sex: This is not an Amish settlement, nor is it the 1400s. Sex is normal, a basic biological function, stress relief, and massively more prevalent than the abstaintionists (yes I made that word up, you can figure out what it means ;)) would have you believe.


Was going to be a priest, knocked up a 16 year old. Is that a success? Funny thing is, if you asked the character Scott whether or not he's a failed Christian, my guess is he'd say yes, so why don't you?
Religion--particularly Christianity--is about forgiveness. You know, that troublesome little 'Jesus died for our sins' business. He's not a failed anything, if he has even a passing understanding of this; which as a former potential priest in training, I've no doubt he does.

Would he say he failed? Sure. Everyone is their own harshest critic.


Epic lapse just doesn't have the same poetry about it.
Yeah, but I'm not interested in wordy hyperbole. I was talking about correct terminology.


He wasn't simply raised catholic, he was going to be a priest. That is above and beyond your average catholic.
And at what point did he become a saint?

P-90_177
October 24th, 2009, 04:28 PM
If you are showering/dressing in front of practical strangers and doing guys/girls you've known for a couple days, trampy might apply.

Was going to be a priest, knocked up a 16 year old. Is that a success? Funny thing is, if you asked the character Scott whether or not he's a failed Christian, my guess is he'd say yes, so why don't you?

Epic lapse just doesn't have the same poetry about it.

He wasn't simply raised catholic, he was going to be a priest. That is above and beyond your average catholic.

When I was 16 all I wanted to be is a computer programmer. Now I can't think of a worse profession for me..........my point? People change. Beliefs change.

GateroomGuard
October 24th, 2009, 04:30 PM
As a pretty conservative Christian I have to say I like how Scott is being potrayed. Rather than the usual Christian strawmen Scott is actually the most like a real life Christian I've seen on tv. Why? Becuase he is far from perfect. Being a Christian doesn't make one any more moral than a non-christian.

And we don't know that Scott isn't unrepentent for what he's doing. For all we know he spends his nights crying himself to sleep over his sins.

The_Asgard_live
October 24th, 2009, 04:42 PM
Shower: She's friends with Eli; showering while a friend is nearby but not looking is not uncommon with friends.

He's not her friend, he's the guy she has known for 3 days more than she's does the others she don't know.


Sex: This is not an Amish settlement, nor is it the 1400s. Sex is normal, a basic biological function, stress relief, and massively more prevalent than the abstaintionists (yes I made that word up, you can figure out what it means ;)) would have you believe.

But, who is saying different? How about I turn this on this around on you. If sleeping with people you barely know isn't trampy, then what could ever be? Nothing?


Religion--particularly Christianity--is about forgiveness. You know, that troublesome little 'Jesus died for our sins' business. He's not a failed anything, if he has even a passing understanding of this; which as a former potential priest in training, I've no doubt he does.

Don't see how this is related


Would he say he failed? Sure. Everyone is their own harshest critic.

So why don't you?


And at what point did he become a saint?

I assume you mean saint = perfect, in which case, I would say he didn't, he failed, which was my point all along.


When I was 16 all I wanted to be is a computer programmer. Now I can't think of a worse profession for me..........my point? People change. Beliefs change.

Agreed... but his circumstances is more complicated than that... in the context of this topic.

Avenger
October 24th, 2009, 05:11 PM
He was set to want to become a priest until he told the priest that he got a girl pregnant and the priest responded by drinking himself to death. The priest turning to drinking instead of supporting Scott would be more than enough to sour Scott on whether he wants to be a priest.

DigiFluid
October 24th, 2009, 05:22 PM
He's not her friend, he's the guy she has known for 3 days more than she's does the others she don't know.
They are friends. Watch the body language in every episode so far--it was evident they struck up a friendship right from when they met on the Hammond.


But, who is saying different? How about I turn this on this around on you. If sleeping with people you barely know isn't trampy, then what could ever be? Nothing?
Exactly that. Calling out women for being "sluts" or "trampy" because they want to get laid as much as men do is thinly veiled misogyny, at best.


Don't see how this is related
We're talking about how someone's actions reflects on their beliefs, and you don't understand how explaining the basis for those beliefs is related?


So why don't you?
Why would I condemn someone over doing something perfectly natural and relatible?


I assume you mean saint = perfect, in which case, I would say he didn't, he failed, which was my point all along.
He used to want to be a priest, but look at that: he's human. To err is human, "failure" isn't part of the equation.

Which, of itself, is beside the point. Assumptions are being made that being a priest was his career path, when we've only seen him in the present and in a flashback to years ago. We have no idea what's happened to him in the meantime. Maybe in the interim he decided to be a Buddhist, or decided that any kind of spirituality is nonsense. The point is, we don't know what got him from there to here, and making sweeping character judgements based on incomplete information is ridiculous at best.

Franklyn Blaze
October 24th, 2009, 05:23 PM
How are you all establishing he's Catholic? He was using thees and thous and a lot of King James-ish stuff in his prayers. Catholics don't do much of that.

DigiFluid
October 24th, 2009, 05:26 PM
How are you all establishing he's Catholic? He was using thees and thous and a lot of King James-ish stuff in his prayers. Catholics don't do much of that.

Air Part 3 spoilers
http://www.gateworld.net/gallery/albums/uni_season1/103-AirPart3/screencaps/normal_sgu_103_0985.jpg

He was raised by a Catholic priest. It stands to reason that a Catholic priest is not going to raise a child according to, say, a Hindu belief structure :)

Serenity Gone
October 24th, 2009, 05:27 PM
Wow you are SO TOTALLY RIGHT. As long as 2 people enjoy it is OK. Then there is NOTHING wrong with an older man having sex with a little girl, if they both enjoy. Thanks for clearing that up for me :D
/sarcasm

I don't think Evil Canvil could have made that job, good job o.o

Franklyn Blaze
October 24th, 2009, 05:29 PM
I'm not saying hindu smartalec I'm saying it could have been a Protestant or Lutheran or Methodist or something else.

DigiFluid
October 24th, 2009, 05:30 PM
I'm not saying hindu smartalec I'm saying it could have been a Protestant or Lutheran or Methodist or something else.

It was just an example, and the point stands regardless of whether you sub in "Protestant," "Lutheran," or "Methodist" for where I said "Hindu" :)

jelgate
October 24th, 2009, 05:36 PM
Protestants don't wear that collar you saw in Air III. Luthereans might (I'm unsure) but its primarly a Catholic thing for priests

prion
October 24th, 2009, 05:45 PM
Im starting to have a problem with Scott here. We have been shown in a flashback that he regrets and has a sense of guilt for having sex with a 16 year old girl.

Lets now fast-forward to the present of SGU. Scott here has now knocked up 2 girls in the time of a few days. He seems to show no regret in doing it, contrary from his experiences in the past. Now im not saying he is a non-christian, all people sin whether they are christian or not. What im saying is that he is not even trying not to sin. They should have had him questioning himself after he had sex with Chloe.

Another problem i have is that there is no "love" in there sex act. They are just doing it for pleasure and comfort. They are degrading the act of sex (imo).

He should have been more responsible and think before acting (especially as a christian man). For one, he was not wearing a condom (i think), he could have given Chloe an STD or gotten her pregnant. Maybe he even stole her virginity.

Does anyone have a problem with this other then me? His whole character seems contradictory and a paradox. It would be nice to show him in a scene in a later episode praying and admitting his sin.

Maybe he needs an hallucination of his priest to give him advice....but that would be to much like BSG.


It just seems to me that they are making out Scott to be more of a Whore then a Christian man who has faults and is trying to correct them.

Actually, he 'knocked up' only one girl (since 'knock up' means to get pregnant) and just had sex, unless Chloe suddenly goes "I'm pregnant!" in a future episode ;)

Well, he was going to go into the priesthood, according to one of those video shorts on MGM's site, so I'd say he's a very lapsed Catholic, judging from what we've seen. He's human, but yes, tv sometimes treats sex more as a sport than an act of love *cough*.

I seriously doubt Chloe was a virgin. In fact, the only virgin on the ship might be, um, er, *cough* Eli...

I would like to see Scott confront the ethical dilemma of once having aimed to serve God as his career path, to now, well, screwing other soldiers in a closet while on duty (I think I'm so jaded about this that I'm more POed about him doing it on duty than about doing it!)

Daniela
October 24th, 2009, 05:54 PM
I don't think Scott could stay faithful in a committed relationship. And he's probably one of those Catholics that think that as long as they confess their sins to their "Father/priest" then they'll go to heaven or purgatory. Never mind about overcoming sin and living a holy life.

Arative
October 24th, 2009, 05:57 PM
I don't know what they are teaching kids these days but having sex does not automatically knock you up.

Its been a while since I've been in Catholic school or a church for that matter but I seem to recall a pretty standard tenant of Christianity is that you sin and then ask for forgiveness. If Scott views premarital sex as a sin, he can ask for forgiveness and its all cool. Sinning doesn't mean he is a bad Christian, just means he's a normal Christian.

Jack_Bauer
October 24th, 2009, 06:05 PM
Maybe he even stole her virginity.



*Snickers* I doubt that very much!

prion
October 24th, 2009, 06:07 PM
I don't know what they are teaching kids these days but having sex does not automatically knock you up.

Its been a while since I've been in Catholic school or a church for that matter but I seem to recall a pretty standard tenant of Christianity is that you sin and then ask for forgiveness. If Scott views premarital sex as a sin, he can ask for forgiveness and its all cool. Sinning doesn't mean he is a bad Christian, just means he's a normal Christian.

Ha! But how many people think "just this once won't get me pregnant" and next thing you know, bun in the oven!

Yeah, but if he asks for forgiveness, he shouldn't keep doing it...

Shpinxinator
October 24th, 2009, 06:13 PM
...Honestly when I first saw this thread I thought that maybe I had been transported into the world of The Office and Micheal Scott had posted it...I had to do a few double takes to get it into my head.

Really? Quite honestly I concider myself to be very open minded HOWEVER I cant help but be slightly insulted as a christian by this thread. I know that is not going to be a popular statement but honestly? I don't care.

People have everyright to their opinion but this is...I feel like the rules and laws of my faith are being dissected in such a way that would be just as inappropriate for myself to perform surgery on a person without training

Statement's like
Too bad he isn't a Catholic priest, otherwise the church would have covered up all his sexual escapades and moved him to another parish.

....just....leave me stunned.

Scott simply is a young man in a crisis of faith, nothing more, nothing less.

Avenger
October 24th, 2009, 06:13 PM
There is no indication that he does, however.

DigiFluid
October 24th, 2009, 06:14 PM
...Honestly when I first saw this thread I thought that maybe I had been transported into the world of The Office and Micheal Scott had posted it...I had to do a few double takes to get it into my head.

Really? Quite honestly I concider myself to be very open minded HOWEVER I cant help but be slightly insulted as a christian by this thread. I know that is not going to be a popular statement but honestly? I don't care.

People have everyright to their opinion but this is...I feel like the rules and laws of my faith are being dissected in such a way that would be just as inappropriate for myself to perform surgery on a person without training

Statement's like

....just....leave me stunned.

Scott simply is a young man in a crisis of faith, nothing more, nothing less.

While I think "crisis of faith" is a touch extreme, I'm very glad you posted this. You've approached this from an angle entirely different from my approach, and I still agree with everything you've said.

The_Asgard_live
October 24th, 2009, 06:16 PM
They arefriends. Watch the body language in every episode so far--it was evident they struck up a friendship right from when they met on the Hammond.

You are not debating these issues fairly. Friend vs. Friendly. A friend knows you, would probably help you bury a body, maybe you shower dress in front of them, maybe. Someone you just met, whom you really know nothing about on a personal level, that is Friendly, and maybe its just my slice of the world, but not likely to shower in front of them.


Exactly that. Calling out women for being "sluts" or "trampy" because they want to get laid as much as men do is thinly veiled misogyny, at best.

I didn't say Scott wasn't trampy? Its a word, so is slut. They have meaning, and perceived meaning. Sleeping with people you barely know qualifies. If you don't like that, take it up with webster, but don't bury your head in the sand and pretend like there is no such thing.


We're talking about how someone's actions reflects on their beliefs, and you don't understand how explaining the basis for those beliefs is related?

No, I don't understand your Jesus reference in the context of the conversation we were having.


Why would I condemn someone over doing something perfectly natural and relatible?

Is that the problem, you have random sex with people you barely know that seemingly contradicts your upbringing and therefore you find it offensive when people condemn it?

Sex is natural. So is love. Random sex with a practical stranger, less so. Random sex with a stranger when it conflicts with your alleged upbringing and the source of your deep emotional conflict/issues, still even more less so.


He used to want to be a priest, but look at that: he's human. To err is human, "failure" isn't part of the equation.

Why are you being so stubborn and semantical. He err'd, he failed, he didn't succeed. Makes no difference what you call it. Wanted to be a priest, he wasn't why?


Assumptions are being made that being a priest was his career path, when we've only seen him in the present and in a flashback to years ago.

Wasn't that actually in the storyline?

Shpinxinator
October 24th, 2009, 06:19 PM
While I think "crisis of faith" is a touch extreme, I'm very glad you posted this. You've approached this from an angle entirely different from my approach, and I still agree with everything you've said.

WHen I say Crisis of faith I mean that

He has his beliefs but he's lost so much faith in himself from the mistakes he's made that he's able to use that to rationalize commiting other sins, people of all faith's go through this. As much as we are able to ask forgiveness of God or whomever we may believe in we have to forgive ourselves for it. Otherwise it's like saying "well I screwed up once, now I can't be forgiven so I might as well keep screwing up."

Myles
October 24th, 2009, 06:22 PM
Regardless if he wanted to be a priest or was raised Catholic, he can change is mind can he not? I think it's pretty clear that something significantly changed his outlook on life as he went from wanting to be a priest to going into the military, probably more then getting a girl pregnant. Perhaps he turned his back on the whole thing. If he did, there's no reason to repent or feel remorse. If he didn't, then we should get some kind of guilt scene from him. However, considering the only remorse he had after being with James was that he didn't finish, I don't think he's going to feel guilty about Chloe.

Daniela
October 24th, 2009, 06:30 PM
I don't know what they are teaching kids these days but having sex does not automatically knock you up.

Its been a while since I've been in Catholic school or a church for that matter but I seem to recall a pretty standard tenant of Christianity is that you sin and then ask for forgiveness. If Scott views premarital sex as a sin, he can ask for forgiveness and its all cool. Sinning doesn't mean he is a bad Christian, just means he's a normal Christian.

Of course one must ask for forgiveness, but then you don't go purposely repeating that same sin. Through God's help one can overcome that sin. (And of course no one is perfect and makes mistakes.) This is what is wrong with Christianity today. People just think that all it takes is to be sorry for what they've done and to try to be a good person.

J-Whitt Remastered
October 24th, 2009, 06:38 PM
If he had sworn off his religion and was behaving the way he is, that might have been interesting (or more interesting than whats being offered). But he didn't, he retains his religion (calling for people to pray and religious hallucinations) AND repeating his epic fail. That just seems silly to me.

When was it said that he called people to pray? I must have missed that part because I don't remember that at all.

J-Whitt Remastered
October 24th, 2009, 06:39 PM
Of course one must ask for forgiveness, but then you don't go purposely repeating that same sin. Through God's help one can overcome that sin. (And of course no one is perfect and makes mistakes.) This is what is wrong with Christianity today. People just think that all it takes is to be sorry for what they've done and to try to be a good person.

I agree with you 100%.

The_Asgard_live
October 24th, 2009, 06:48 PM
When was it said that he called people to pray? I must have missed that part because I don't remember that at all.
I'll concede I am half wrong. He didn't call people to pray, hey prayed for the people. Though, in the context of the point I was trying to make, doesn't matter, just as valid. He clearly has not turned his back on it.


SCOTT (to Eli, offscreen): What, is it on? (He looks at the Kino.) Lieutenant Matthew Scott. Twenty-six years old ... and ... (he looks at Eli again) ... I'd like to say a prayer for all of us, if that's OK.

WALLACE (offscreen): Sure, yeah. Whatever you want.

SCOTT (his eyes closed): The Lord is my Shepherd. I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures. He leadeth me to still waters

haloplayer
October 24th, 2009, 06:49 PM
Actually, he 'knocked up' only one girl (since 'knock up' means to get pregnant) and just had sex, unless Chloe suddenly goes "I'm pregnant!" in a future episode ;)

Well, he was going to go into the priesthood, according to one of those video shorts on MGM's site, so I'd say he's a very lapsed Catholic, judging from what we've seen. He's human, but yes, tv sometimes treats sex more as a sport than an act of love *cough*.

I seriously doubt Chloe was a virgin. In fact, the only virgin on the ship might be, um, er, *cough* Eli...

I would like to see Scott confront the ethical dilemma of once having aimed to serve God as his career path, to now, well, screwing other soldiers in a closet while on duty (I think I'm so jaded about this that I'm more POed about him doing it on duty than about doing it!)

Ya i made a mistake, i misused the term "knock up", my bad.

Arative
October 24th, 2009, 06:50 PM
Of course one must ask for forgiveness, but then you don't go purposely repeating that same sin. Through God's help one can overcome that sin. (And of course no one is perfect and makes mistakes.) This is what is wrong with Christianity today. People just think that all it takes is to be sorry for what they've done and to try to be a good person.

Well its better than what they did in the middle ages when you could buy your absolution.

But maybe Scott doesn't view sex as a sin. Maybe he's a weekend Catholic. We just don't know enough about his faith to make that determination.

Granted its been a while since I've consider myself a Christian but I do know that there are many different beliefs within the Christian denomination, Catholics do things differently than evangelicals, who do things differently than Lutherans and so one. What I remember from growing up Catholic, is that you'd go to confession, you'd confess, the priest would give you absolution.

wargrafix
October 24th, 2009, 06:53 PM
Scott doesn't really care what happens. If he gets a booty call, that whats important to him. His Christian or whatever faith is a justification to himself.

J-Whitt Remastered
October 24th, 2009, 06:55 PM
I'll concede I am half wrong. He didn't call people to pray, hey prayed for the people. Though, in the context of the point I was trying to make, doesn't matter, just as valid. He clearly has not turned his back on it.

Ok. Just making sure I hadn't missed anything. Thanks.

prion
October 24th, 2009, 07:01 PM
Ya i made a mistake, i misused the term "knock up", my bad.

well, in some countries 'knock up' means to simply knock on door to wake you up, too ;)

Commander Zelix
October 24th, 2009, 07:04 PM
I don't see the point of showing Scott as being Christian only by name. His character would be interesting, as in different, if he was a devout christian in the army and in this difficult situation. Its Christian affiliation seem to have been written as an after thought. Well, maybe he got Chloe pregnant too...

haloplayer
October 24th, 2009, 07:06 PM
I would like a scene in the future in which Chloe confronts Scott to have sex again and he refuses her desire.

BUT

That would probably not happen.

Instead it would be...

Chloe: Lets have sex
Scott: Sure babe, after all im already going to be saved since i believe in Christ so my sex life does not matter, besides everyone sins so what difference would it be if i sinned again?

Or what would be better is this....

Priest Hallucination: My Boy, He has plans for you and having sex with Chloe is not one of them.

Scott: Im sorry i failed you again.

wargrafix
October 24th, 2009, 07:07 PM
I don't see the point of showing Scott as being Christian only by name. His character would be interesting, as in different, if he was a devout christian in the army and in this difficult situation. Its Christian affiliation seem to have been written as an after thought. Well, maybe he got Chloe pregnant too...

That would actually be funny. Reminds me when Vala said to Daneil, "Lets make babies!"

Deevil
October 24th, 2009, 07:12 PM
I don't see the point of showing Scott as being Christian only by name. His character would be interesting, as in different, if he was a devout christian in the army and in this difficult situation. Its Christian affiliation seem to have been written as an after thought. Well, maybe he got Chloe pregnant too... Even the most devout Christin has been known to repeat the same mistake over and over again.

Really, we only superficially know about his faith, there is plenty of time to keep on exploring it.

wargrafix
October 24th, 2009, 07:17 PM
Even the most devout Christin has been known to repeat the same mistake over and over again.

Really, we only superficially know about his faith, there is plenty of time to keep on exploring it.

I'm not saying he is supposed to be perfect, but he should be a bit smarter.

MattSilver 3k
October 24th, 2009, 07:20 PM
The guy's a contradiction. So what? I think he's an interesting character, or could become one, with his various crisises of faith. That, and, come on, he's a young guy and not an Amish. This is the 21st century, not the 1800's...

Stormtrooper
October 24th, 2009, 07:22 PM
He will burn in hell ^^

Deevil
October 24th, 2009, 07:24 PM
I'm not saying he is supposed to be perfect, but he should be a bit smarter.

Why?

haloplayer
October 24th, 2009, 07:27 PM
Scott believes he has failed the Priest by having sex with the 16 year old. Although the Priest is dead he was still in a metaphorical sense failing him again when he had sex with Chloe.

If he keeps having sex with Chloe it will increase the percentage of her getting pregnant.

If he does get Chloe pregnant then i could say

"All this has happened before and all this will happen again"

*Cue BSG music*

Commander Zelix
October 24th, 2009, 07:30 PM
The guy's a contradiction. So what? I think he's an interesting character, or could become one, with his various crisises of faith. That, and, come on, he's a young guy and not an Amish. This is the 21st century, not the 1800's...
Sure, but I see no point of making him a Christian. Thats all. Sure he can sleep with all female crew members on the Destiny. Steal, lie and start fights. But why make him a Christian then? It would have been more different and interesting to actually make him a real Christian (as those believing in the Bible messages).

Vapor
October 24th, 2009, 07:41 PM
The opener of this thread views the idea of Scott (perhaps) being Christian, and also engaging in sex, as a bad thing.

I regard it as an interesting conflict that makes him a more complex individual. It's clear that, when he was 16, he regarded what he did as a huge mistake. What is not clear is where he stands on the idea of pre-marital sex now.

I don't like the idea of judging him based on what we just assume he believes, because we've assigned a particular religion to him. I also don't like the idea of judging him based on our own personal morals because fictional characters are clearly not going to operate on our level all the time, and Scott is far from the first or last.

Also, to say that Scott is a contradiction because he (perhaps) identifies as Christian really doesn't mean much as far as I'm concerned, seeing as how pretty much everyone who reads the bible (pretty much whichever form it is in) deviates from the written words at some point. To say that those words are labyrinthial, sometimes metaphorical, and often contradictory themselves would be a huge understatement. Most believers take from them the fundamentals of good will and faith and choose not to obey the parts about beating their sisters and wives when they step out of line, etc.

And I hope no one is offended by that, but the fact is that, regardless of what religion you do or do not identify as, there is more than likely a little contradiction there before you even crack the book open. One has to decide how to navigate it once one does.

Scott is Scott. Not any particular list of religious ideas. Not even any list of general rules of conduct. Personally, I'm judging him as a complicated character with personal issues that I'm sure he would like to change, but I know he's not going to resolve in three days. Or even three months.

Eternal Density
October 24th, 2009, 07:55 PM
Scott is Scott.This. :D A fundamental point we would do well to remember. (Yes, I'm being serious here.)

TheHomegaMan
October 24th, 2009, 08:17 PM
Scott believes he has failed the Priest by having sex with the 16 year old. Although the Priest is dead he was still in a metaphorical sense failing him again when he had sex with Chloe.

You're only halfway there. The issue was a 16 year old aborting a child. I somehow doubt a priest would drink himself to death over Scott saying he had sex with somebody his age.

As for failing the priest again? Not likely. Now that you know what "knocked up" means, let's realize that sex is a far cry from a terminated pregnancy. This priest was not sitting somewhere doing an epic facepalm because Scott and Chloe made the beast with two backs. I somehow doubt the priest even entered Scott's mind when he was with her.


If he keeps having sex with Chloe it will increase the percentage of her getting pregnant.

Yep, and that would be an appropriate time to say "knocked up".


If he does get Chloe pregnant then i could say

"All this has happened before and all this will happen again"

*Cue BSG music*

The more I see stuff like this the more I wonder if the people saying it watched more than a handful of episodes of BSG...

Stormtrooper
October 24th, 2009, 08:17 PM
Scott is Scott? He's kinda like SGU's version of Starbuck, to tell you the truth.

MattSilver 3k
October 24th, 2009, 08:18 PM
The more I see stuff like this the more I wonder if the people saying it watched more than a handful of episodes of BSG...

Hey, I've seen and liked them all, and I can't find the BSG similarities that people seem to be spouting.

haloplayer
October 24th, 2009, 08:21 PM
Sure, but I see no point of making him a Christian. Thats all. Sure he can sleep with all female crew members on the Destiny. Steal, lie and start fights. But why make him a Christian then? It would have been more different and interesting to actually make him a real Christian (as those believing in the Bible messages).

Actually he cant sleep with all the woman on the ship since one of them is a lesbian.

The million dollar question though is which woman will he sleep with next?

And i agree he should show some Christian morality.

Hey maybe there could be an episode that deals with Abortion. One of the woman is pregnant and is wondering if she should Abort the baby. Lets see how Scott handles the case :D

haloplayer
October 24th, 2009, 08:23 PM
You're only halfway there. The issue was a 16 year old aborting a child. I somehow doubt a priest would drink himself to death over Scott saying he had sex with somebody his age.

As for failing the priest again? Not likely. Now that you know what "knocked up" means, let's realize that sex is a far cry from a terminated pregnancy. This priest was not sitting somewhere doing an epic facepalm because Scott and Chloe made the beast with two backs. I somehow doubt the priest even entered Scott's mind when he was with her.



Yep, and that would be an appropriate time to say "knocked up".



The more I see stuff like this the more I wonder if the people saying it watched more than a handful of episodes of BSG...

I was joking, i don't believe SGU would be like BSG. And i have seen all of BSG.

MerryGentry
October 24th, 2009, 08:29 PM
I wasn't aware that the show had been billed as a "Christian" show. In a secular universe, people have sex without marriage, and some people are promiscuous. Obviously, Scott has a problem with controlling his urges. I don't see why this is an issue, though. This simply makes him an extremely round character.

I see a huge difference in his behavior with James and with Chloe. I believe there is an emotional bond growing with Chloe, whereas the thing with James was the impulsive act of two people seeking lustful gratification.

I don't think Chloe would have gone to bed with him had they not both believed there was a probability that one or both would soon perish. That was her good-bye to someone she was feeling close to in a time of tremendous stress.

wargrafix
October 24th, 2009, 09:02 PM
I was joking, i don't believe SGU would be like BSG. And i have seen all of BSG.

Once they don't start having visions and prophecies like BSG, we good. Bsg went stupid with religious over, under and through tones.

Cold Fuzz
October 24th, 2009, 09:44 PM
The opener of this thread views the idea of Scott (perhaps) being Christian, and also engaging in sex, as a bad thing.

I regard it as an interesting conflict that makes him a more complex individual. It's clear that, when he was 16, he regarded what he did as a huge mistake. What is not clear is where he stands on the idea of pre-marital sex now.

I don't like the idea of judging him based on what we just assume he believes, because we've assigned a particular religion to him. I also don't like the idea of judging him based on our own personal morals because fictional characters are clearly not going to operate on our level all the time, and Scott is far from the first or last.

Also, to say that Scott is a contradiction because he (perhaps) identifies as Christian really doesn't mean much as far as I'm concerned, seeing as how pretty much everyone who reads the bible (pretty much whichever form it is in) deviates from the written words at some point. To say that those words are labyrinthial, sometimes metaphorical, and often contradictory themselves would be a huge understatement. Most believers take from them the fundamentals of good will and faith and choose not to obey the parts about beating their sisters and wives when they step out of line, etc.

And I hope no one is offended by that, but the fact is that, regardless of what religion you do or do not identify as, there is more than likely a little contradiction there before you even crack the book open. One has to decide how to navigate it once one does.

Scott is Scott. Not any particular list of religious ideas. Not even any list of general rules of conduct. Personally, I'm judging him as a complicated character with personal issues that I'm sure he would like to change, but I know he's not going to resolve in three days. Or even three months.

I've come to look at Lt. Scott like this: Is he flawed? Hell, yes! But if he were already more or less an ideal character--an ideal Christian character at that--then there would be absolutely nowhere for his character to go in this series. You're right in that these personal issues aren't going to take three months, three episodes, or even perhaps three seasons. But that's really the beauty of what TPTB are setting up (or I hope are setting up).

If the show goes in the direction I hope it does, by the end of SGU we'll be able to trace Scott's progression from where he began--a very green and flawed lieutenant--to a hopefully better future for his character. That future, I predict, could very well be taking over Colonel Young's position. If he makes the kind of good choices that I hope he does in the future, he'll be that strong leader figure, someone who is consistent with precepts of the faith he clings to, rather than someone who is not.

But for right now, he is most definitely not that man--not by a long shot. Hence, the room to grow. I think any real depth and interest generated by his character will be in the form of gradually watching him transform from a green womanizer to someone whose leadership skills could potentially surpass that of Colonel Young. We're a long way from that right now, but the opportunity is there. ;)

Eternal Density
October 24th, 2009, 10:31 PM
Actually he cant sleep with all the woman on the ship since one of them is a lesbian.We'll leave that challenge to Rush.


... Hence, the room to grow. I think any real depth and interest generated by his character will be in the form of gradually watching him transform from a green womanizer to someone whose leadership skills could potentially surpass that of Colonel Young. We're a long way from that right now, but the opportunity is there. ;)Indeed! :tealc: Eternal Density approves of this message.

Col.Foley
October 24th, 2009, 10:33 PM
I've come to look at Lt. Scott like this: Is he flawed? Hell, yes! But if he were already more or less an ideal character--an ideal Christian character at that--then there would be absolutely nowhere for his character to go in this series. You're right in that these personal issues aren't going to take three months, three episodes, or even perhaps three seasons. But that's really the beauty of what TPTB are setting up (or I hope are setting up).

If the show goes in the direction I hope it does, by the end of SGU we'll be able to trace Scott's progression from where he began--a very green and flawed lieutenant--to a hopefully better future for his character. That future, I predict, could very well be taking over Colonel Young's position. If he makes the kind of good choices that I hope he does in the future, he'll be that strong leader figure, someone who is consistent with precepts of the faith he clings to, rather than someone who is not.

But for right now, he is most definitely not that man--not by a long shot. Hence, the room to grow. I think any real depth and interest generated by his character will be in the form of gradually watching him transform from a green womanizer to someone whose leadership skills could potentially surpass that of Colonel Young. We're a long way from that right now, but the opportunity is there. ;)
And it is always possible that his understanding of relationships and 'womanizing' will also grow over the course of his show...that his relationship with Chloe may grow and mature in just that way...or it is likely that he sees that they do not have anything, and he abandons it for greener pastures.

Avenger
October 24th, 2009, 10:40 PM
Yes, that could happen to, it may happen yet before he any of what Fuzz mentioned happens.

Col.Foley
October 24th, 2009, 10:43 PM
Yes, that could happen to, it may happen yet before he any of what Fuzz mentioned happens.
Given his 'heirarchy of needs' and responsibilities, that is likely to happen first. He does not have to step into a leader ship roll...really...because of Young, but we have seen evidence that he is capable of doing so, and can at a future date...just needs the proper motivation:P

Gatebsg
October 24th, 2009, 11:09 PM
Read the bible being christian doesn't mean your perfect. Scott hasn't come close to some of stuff David.

tar21
October 25th, 2009, 05:10 AM
A bunch of writers that are probably not religious trying to portray a tormented, spiritual hypersexual soldier that wants to commit to his religion but can't. Writers make character look like a dimwitted oversexed emo jock instead of the introspective doubter. They reduce SGU to CW teen soap opera level.

Science fiction is grandiose. Don't waste the good cast of older actors on a show that's gonna be peppered with young 20-something love triangles and have the relationship problems of ditzy Chloe and her hunky Scott boyfriend take over the show.

KEK
October 25th, 2009, 05:34 AM
Maybe, like most Christians, he just pretty moderate and doesn't take all those archaic rules regarding sex all that seriously.

Krazeh
October 25th, 2009, 05:57 AM
Since when does having sex with one person, and then several days later having sex with someone else who you've made an emotional connection with and under the impending threat of death make you hypersexual, oversexed, a sexual addict or any of the other comments made about Lt Scott's sexual drive? Frankly he appears to be no more sexually driven than any other average 26 year old man.

gravityStar
October 25th, 2009, 06:27 AM
I don't know what they are teaching kids these days but having sex does not automatically knock you up.

Ehr. Just so that nobody gets the wrong idea: Sex has a surprisingly high success-rate of getting you pregnant if you don't use a birth-control method like a condom, birth-control pill, etc. Again, also; women are very fertile from the month before they have their first period till age 23-25 something.

So, kids, use birth-control, your first sexual encounter has a good chance of getting you pregnant without it.

(:mckay: Yes, I realize this is extremely off-topic. I'm sorry, but not that much.)

Epideme
October 25th, 2009, 07:01 AM
Im starting to have a problem with Scott here. We have been shown in a flashback that he regrets and has a sense of guilt for having sex with a 16 year old girl.

Lets now fast-forward to the present of SGU. Scott here has now knocked up 2 girls in the time of a few days. He seems to show no regret in doing it, contrary from his experiences in the past. Now im not saying he is a non-christian, all people sin whether they are christian or not. What im saying is that he is not even trying not to sin. They should have had him questioning himself after he had sex with Chloe.

Another problem i have is that there is no "love" in there sex act. They are just doing it for pleasure and comfort. They are degrading the act of sex (imo).

He should have been more responsible and think before acting (especially as a christian man). For one, he was not wearing a condom (i think), he could have given Chloe an STD or gotten her pregnant. Maybe he even stole her virginity.

Does anyone have a problem with this other then me? His whole character seems contradictory and a paradox. It would be nice to show him in a scene in a later episode praying and admitting his sin.

Maybe he needs an hallucination of his priest to give him advice....but that would be to much like BSG.


It just seems to me that they are making out Scott to be more of a Whore then a Christian man who has faults and is trying to correct them.
I went to Catholic schools until I was 16, none from choice I hasten to add. I was taught that sex was only for marriage and a sacred act between two consenting adults. We were warned away from males in general, encouraged instead to do our work and get into univerities and whatever. We were not given sex education as it would have to be taught the biology teacher: a nun. What we know, we learnt from friends, parents and general experience. Were you taught any of this? I have to say that my first thoughts about this scene were not about the sex but about Eli. Doens't he like Chloe? When he saw her with Lt. Scott, you could see his heart breaking before your eyes.
You speak like a Christian but you don't seem to have grasped their desperation. They actually believe there is no tomorrow for them. Why shouldn't they make their feelings clear? How do you know there is no love in their act? No-one said anything either way and you can see her sadness when she joins Eli to watch the journey into the star. She holds his hand because she is upset and thinks it is the end for those left on Destiny.
You said "How Christian of him" but I would like to know why you said this? He is a religious man (as shown by his confession to his priest earlier on in the series) but why shouldn't his 'salvation' change anything? He is Christian yes, but obviously just not a strict one.
You need to relax and just enjoy the show. Kirk was worse than him!

Epideme

Betelgeuze
October 25th, 2009, 10:02 AM
Threads like this one always amuse me. It seems that no matter how religion is handeld there is always someone unhappy with it.

If there is no religion people complain that the show is anti-religious.

If there are religious characters than they complian about how they aren't the right kind of religious.

I'm thinking that any religious character they are going to introduce is going to have flaws, just like every non-religious character.

Scott may have wanted to become a priest when he was younger, but even if he had not knocked up that girl he still might not have become a priest. People change and when children become adults they can develop values different from those they were raised with.

Arative
October 25th, 2009, 10:20 AM
Ehr. Just so that nobody gets the wrong idea: Sex has a surprisingly high success-rate of getting you pregnant if you don't use a birth-control method like a condom, birth-control pill, etc. Again, also; women are very fertile from the month before they have their first period till age 23-25 something.

So, kids, use birth-control, your first sexual encounter has a good chance of getting you pregnant without it.

(:mckay: Yes, I realize this is extremely off-topic. I'm sorry, but not that much.)

What's a surprisingly high success-rate?

You can actually calculate the odds, and its around 3% for a one time shot of a random encounter. Now of course the more time it happens, the higher the odds. For instance if you have perfectly random unprotected sex 20 times, your odds of becoming pregnant are 50-50.

Now I'm not saying don't use birth control and at no time did my post did I suggest not using birth control. I was pointing out that just having sex doesn't mean you're pregnant as the OP had posted. Is that clear enough for you to understand?

MistressBratak
October 25th, 2009, 01:35 PM
Did Scott ever claim to be Christian? So he was raised by a drunken priest who died. So he used to feel guilty about some sinful things. Does that mean he considers himself a Christian now? If he no longer holds himself to Christian standards, why should we? I have no problem with non-Christians, but I do have a problem with hypocrites. If Scott has not somehow indicated that, in the present time, he has devoted his life to Christ, then he is not a hypocrite. So, no problem.

Secondly, if I'm Chloe and I'm about to slam into a star and torn apart/vaporized/what have you - I'm not at all concerned about STDs or pregnancy.

Thirdly, back in the day, when I was a devout Christian (I no longer am) I didn't bother watching mainstream TV because I knew it would never meet my standards and there would always be something to offend my Bible-loving eyes.
I knew it would be a waste of time complaining about the writers, producers, and actors of TV shows not depicting things in a holy way because after all, they didn't hold themselves to the same standards I clung to. I knew that every time I picked up that remote control I was "asking for it."

dmacfour
October 25th, 2009, 03:03 PM
Im starting to have a problem with Scott here. We have been shown in a flashback that he regrets and has a sense of guilt for having sex with a 16 year old girl.

Lets now fast-forward to the present of SGU. Scott here has now knocked up 2 girls in the time of a few days. He seems to show no regret in doing it, contrary from his experiences in the past. Now im not saying he is a non-christian, all people sin whether they are christian or not. What im saying is that he is not even trying not to sin. They should have had him questioning himself after he had sex with Chloe.

Another problem i have is that there is no "love" in there sex act. They are just doing it for pleasure and comfort. They are degrading the act of sex (imo).

He should have been more responsible and think before acting (especially as a christian man). For one, he was not wearing a condom (i think), he could have given Chloe an STD or gotten her pregnant. Maybe he even stole her virginity.

Does anyone have a problem with this other then me? His whole character seems contradictory and a paradox. It would be nice to show him in a scene in a later episode praying and admitting his sin.

Maybe he needs an hallucination of his priest to give him advice....but that would be to much like BSG.


It just seems to me that they are making out Scott to be more of a Whore then a Christian man who has faults and is trying to correct them.



You do realize that Lt. Scott, if he still considers himself Christian, is basically reflecting the way most Christians behave? I only know a handful of Christians that wouldn't go have sex if it was available to them (Premarital that is).

Maybe you haven't learned much about sex, but there are methods that don't require contraceptives, but I don't really want to share the details.

It sounds like you want this show to be more religious than it is.

lordofseas
October 25th, 2009, 03:04 PM
You guys do realize that Lt. Scott, if he still considers himself Christian, is basically reflecting the way most Christians behave? I only know a handful of Christians that wouldn't go have sex if it was available to them (Premarital that is).

Maybe you haven't learned much about sex, but there are methods that don't require contraceptives, but I don't really want to share the details.

*cough* How many Christians do you know? I mean, real Christians, not "Easter, Christmas, and maybe Thanksgiving" Christians?

dmacfour
October 25th, 2009, 03:08 PM
*cough* How many Christians do you know? I mean, real Christians, not "Easter, Christmas, and maybe Thanksgiving" Christians?

Well let's see; I am an atheist, but most people I know, considers themselves Christian. A few of them are really only Christian by name, but a good percentage actually go to church.

tar21
October 25th, 2009, 03:41 PM
Since when does having sex with one person, and then several days later having sex with someone else who you've made an emotional connection with and under the impending threat of death make you hypersexual, oversexed, a sexual addict or any of the other comments made about Lt Scott's sexual drive? Frankly he appears to be no more sexually driven than any other average 26 year old man.

We are 5 episodes in.
1) first episode, we first meet him screwing James in the closet 'cause he can't wait for bed time. He's doing her while he's like on duty, expecting visitors to arrive. "Oh wait, Vanessa... got to meet the people I'm supposed to provide security for in like 5 minutes. Can we wait until this evening?"

2) in his near death experience, he's like remembering how his penis has gotten him in trouble in the past.

3) he knocked up some chick when he was a teenager.

4) he nails the chick on the destiny, which he only knows for like a few days and seems to only have had like 2 conversations with. And he's already talking to her like they're married.


We are 5 episodes in and we kept on getting reminded how sex is so easy for him to come by and we got the information that it has generated problems for him in the past. So he's like a nymphomaniac.

Anyhow, the way he is written and how the actor plays him makes him come off as a self absorbed, oversexed, emo jock that tries to sound "deep" but ends up coming off as a dimwitted meathead.

Avenger
October 25th, 2009, 03:48 PM
None of that makes him a sex addict.

Vapor
October 25th, 2009, 04:00 PM
I mean, real Christians

What's a real Christian?

Avenger
October 25th, 2009, 04:03 PM
Having to qualify it with "real" Christians shows ignorance.

dmacfour
October 25th, 2009, 04:07 PM
We are 5 episodes in.
1) first episode, we first meet him screwing James in the closet 'cause he can't wait for bed time. He's doing her while he's like on duty, expecting visitors to arrive. "Oh wait, Vanessa... got to meet the people I'm supposed to provide security for in like 5 minutes. Can we wait until this evening?"

2) in his near death experience, he's like remembering how his penis has gotten him in trouble in the past.

3) he knocked up some chick when he was a teenager.

4) he nails the chick on the destiny, which he only knows for like a few days and seems to only have had like 2 conversations with. And he's already talking to her like they're married.


We are 5 episodes in and we kept on getting reminded how sex is so easy for him to come by and we got the information that it has generated problems for him in the past. So he's like a nymphomaniac.

Anyhow, the way he is written and how the actor plays him makes him come off as a self absorbed, oversexed, emo jock that tries to sound "deep" but ends up coming off as a dimwitted meathead.

Ummmmmm... he is by far not a sex maniac by what I have watched so far. 3 examples of over the course of what, 6 years of his life is not enough to call him a sex addict. He is acting like a typical male in his 20s. Trust me, 90% of the male population would do it if they have the opportunity presented to them.

And according to your definition, I'm a Nymphomaniac.

Avenger
October 25th, 2009, 04:09 PM
People really need to look up the definition of terms like sex addict before throwing them around in discussions.

The_Asgard_live
October 25th, 2009, 04:13 PM
None of that makes him a sex addict.

Really?

Okay, how about this, suppose we change sex to alcohol and revisit his story. In an alcohol related incident he changes the course of his young adult life. Several years down the line, we find him on a high security military based sneaking off into a supply closet to knock back some jack and cokes. And finally, as he contemplates the death of the others (not his own because he knew he was going to be chosen) instead of sex he takes out a flask. Would it become clearer then that the writers are trying to tell you he has some issues? Would you even question whether or not he is being portrayed as having issues with alcohol or would you just agree that it was obvious?

Personally I don't understand the push back going on with these sex issues. His back story is he screwed up his young adult life with sex issues. His current story is that he risks his current life (career) with sex issues. And apparently he can jump from woman to practical stranger (while other women is in the same enclosed space) If the writers are not trying to tell us something is amiss (poorly imo) then they are worse at this then I already imagine

Krazeh
October 25th, 2009, 04:15 PM
Ummmmmm... he is by far not a sex maniac by what I have watched so far. 3 examples of over the course of what, 6 years of his life is not enough to call him a sex addict. He is acting like a typical male in his 20s. Trust me, 90% of the male population would do it if they have the opportunity presented to them.

Agree completely.

Altho if I recall right the incident where he ended up getting a girl pregnant happened when he was 16, he's now 26 so we have 3 examples of him having sex over 10 years rather than 6 years. One was when he was 16 and was clearly a normal horny teenager, another was hours before one or both of them was potentially about to die and were both in a situation where even if they survived they were unlikely to ever see home again, and the third was a bit of excitement on what was probably quite a dull assignment.

tar21
October 25th, 2009, 04:19 PM
Ummmmmm... he is by far not a sex maniac by what I have watched so far. 3 examples of over the course of what, 6 years of his life is not enough to call him a sex addict. He is acting like a typical male in his 20s. Trust me, 90% of the male population would do it if they have the opportunity presented to them.

It's been 5 episodes and his sex life is already taking a big role. Why are the writers throwing all this at us, so early? Is his sex life gonna be a big part of the show? He's the second in command, an officer. He's boning one of his subordinates while on duty in the pilot. He knocked up a 16 year old girl. He's boning a chick when everyone with a commission or duty is off making preparations. Even though we haven't been outright stated, it does seem he gets around. That's the impression.

Anyhow, Eli was filming the passengers just in case. Young was preparing for the lottery. Rush was off pondering the problem at hand. TJ was probably off rationing supplies. Anyhow, even Greer seems to take everything more seriously and he's only a sergeant. Why does Scott have such a light workload?

Isn't he the second highest ranking officer on the ship? Why hasn't he reported back or been ordered to do so?

dmacfour
October 25th, 2009, 04:21 PM
Really?

Okay, how about this, suppose we change sex to alcohol and revisit his story. In an alcohol related incident he changes the course of his young adult life. Several years down the line, we find him on a high security military based sneaking off into a supply closet to knock back some jack and cokes. And finally, as he contemplates the death of the others (not his own because he knew he was going to be chosen) instead of sex he takes out a flask. Would it become clearer then that the writers are trying to tell you he has some issues? Would you even question whether or not he is being portrayed as having issues with alcohol or would you just agree that it was obvious?

Personally I don't understand the push back going on with these sex issues. His back story is he screwed up his young adult life with sex issues. His current story is that he risks his current life (career) with sex issues. And apparently he can jump from woman to practical stranger (while other women is in the same enclosed space) If the writers are not trying to tell us something is amiss (poorly imo) then they are worse at this then I already imagine

Your alcohol analogy is a poor one IMO. Alcoholics have alcohol all of the time and cannot go without it. In no way does the 3 incidents portray that Lt. Scott can't go without sex, and wants to have it all the time. What it does portray is that he is a hit with the ladies, and makes use of opportunities that present themselves.


It's been 5 episodes and his sex life is already taking a big role. And he's the second in command, an officer. He's boning one of his subordinates while on duty. He knocked up a 16 year old girl. He's boning a chick when everyone with a commission or duty is off making preparations.

Eli was filming the passengers just in case. Young was preparing for the lottery. Rush was off pondering the problem at hand. TJ was probably off rationing supplies.

Anyhow, even Greer seems to take everything more seriously and he's only a sergeant.

Don't tell me Eli wouldn't have boned Chloe if he had the chance. He wasn't doing anything critical at that point (Neither was Scott). Just because he went off to have some fun doesn't mean he doesn't take his job seriously.

That's like saying some random virgin takes school more seriously than I do because he doesn't get any (It doesn't make sense because that is a bad criteria to evaluate seriousness).

MediaSavant
October 25th, 2009, 04:27 PM
*cough* How many Christians do you know? I mean, real Christians, not "Easter, Christmas, and maybe Thanksgiving" Christians?

Now, we're getting to the "who is a REAL Christian" and who isn't argument, are we?

Is this kind of like the "who is a REAL fan" and not argument?

In the end, it's up to the individual what they consider themselves. Americans are very good at individualizing how they deal with religion and the rules of their religion. Scott is a good example of this.

Though this thread is contentious, I have to give the writers credit for giving the viewer something to debate. If they had avoided pointing out Scott's religious background, people may have treated Scott's dalliances in much the same way as Sheppard's*, which I don't recall sparking a religious debate.

Applause to the writers for treading into this territory.


* I say that despite personally believing Sheppard's "Kirking" accusations were overblown.

The_Asgard_live
October 25th, 2009, 04:30 PM
Your alcohol analogy is a poor one IMO. Alcoholics have alcohol all of the time and cannot go without it. In no way does the 3 incidents portray that Lt. Scott can't go without sex, and wants to have it all the time. What it does portray is that he is a hit with the ladies, and makes use of opportunities that present themselves.
Its poor because if you accept it, you can no longer continue on with the silly notion that the writers aren't trying to tell you something.

Alcoholics do not have alcohol all the time. I didn't change the parameters of what we have seen in the show, I merely changed the object of his desire. So I ask again, if instead of sex it was alcohol, shown in the exact same manner. An incident at 16. Drinking in a supply closet. And a flask instead of Chloe. Wouldn't you have to agree its obvious?

Also, for those that are so adamant that his sex life is perfectly normal and this is "good" "realistic" writing. Just by chance, what if I am right. What if we find out later in the series that indeed, the writers were trying to tell us he has issues with sex/intimacy/whatever and we were in fact supposed to understand by these scenes that that was the case? Are you all going to change your tune, do a 180 and say "well done writers, you did a fine job of portraying his emotional problems, with his frequent and seemingly inappropriate sex"

Or, are you going to be jaded by the fact that the writers are calling dysfunctional what you now consider to be a normal sex life?

lordofseas
October 25th, 2009, 04:33 PM
Well let's see; I am an atheist, but most people I know, considers themselves Christian. A few of them are really only Christian by name, but a good percentage actually go to church.


What's a real Christian?

A real Christian is a person who follows Christianity, who believes in God, who actually does what the bible says/implies. A 'fake' Christian is a person who is a Christian for the ride, because they were raised so, or because they simply want the chance for salvation, and don't want to 'miss the boat'.


Now, we're getting to the "who is a REAL Christian" and who isn't argument, are we?

Is this kind of like the "who is a REAL fan" and not argument?

In the end, it's up to the individual what they consider themselves. Americans are very good at individualizing how they deal with religion and the rules of their religion. Scott is a good example of this.

Though this thread is contentious, I have to give the writers credit for giving the viewer something to debate. If they had avoided pointing out Scott's religious background, people may have treated Scott's dalliances in much the same way as Sheppard's*, which I don't recall sparking a religious debate.

Applause to the writers for treading into this territory.


* I say that despite personally believing Sheppard's "Kirking" accusations were overblown.

Well, I don't think we ever found about Sheppard's religion.

dmacfour
October 25th, 2009, 04:34 PM
Its poor because if you accept it, you can no longer continue on with the silly notion that the writers aren't trying to tell you something.

Alcoholics do not have alcohol all the time. I didn't change the parameters of what we have seen in the show, I merely changed the object of his desire. So I ask again, if instead of sex it was alcohol, shown in the exact same manner. An incident at 16. Drinking in a supply closet. And a flask instead of Chloe. Wouldn't you have to agree its obvious?

Also, for those that are so adamant that his sex life is perfectly normal and this is "good" "realistic" writing. Just by chance, what if I am right. What if we find out later in the series that indeed, the writers were trying to tell us he has issues with sex/intimacy/whatever and we were in fact supposed to understand by these scenes that that was the case? Are you all going to change your tune, do a 180 and say "well done writers, you did a fine job of portraying his emotional problems, with his frequent and seemingly inappropriate sex"

Or, are you going to be jaded by the fact that the writers are calling dysfunctional what you now consider to be a normal sex life?

I think you are finding a problem where there isn't one. Alcohol =/= Sex. Get that notion out of your head. Alcohol is a destructive substance. Sex is a natural body function. Your analogy fails.


A real Christian is a person who follows Christianity, who believes in God, who actually does what the bible says/implies. A 'fake' Christian is a person who is a Christian for the ride, because they were raised so, or because they simply want the chance for salvation, and don't want to 'miss the boat'.



Well, I don't think we ever found about Sheppard's religion.

That's fine and all, but who are you to judge who is and isn't trying to overcome their sins? How do you know that a person struggling with alcoholism isn't trying to get sober. You can't really read their mind.

The_Asgard_live
October 25th, 2009, 04:37 PM
I think you are finding a problem where there isn't one. Alcohol =/= Sex. Get that notion out of your head. Alcohol is a destructive substance. Sex is a natural body function. Your analogy fails.
Really? It fails only because you want to bury your head in the sand. I guess there is no such thing as Sex addiction, sexually self-destructive behavior, rape, or molestation. Sex is natural, therefore, always correct right?

lordofseas
October 25th, 2009, 04:42 PM
I think you are finding a problem where there isn't one. Alcohol =/= Sex. Get that notion out of your head. Alcohol is a destructive substance. Sex is a natural body function. Your analogy fails.



That's fine and all, but who are you to judge who is and isn't trying to overcome their sins? How do you know that a person struggling with alcoholism isn't trying to get sober. You can't really read their mind.

I'm not judging. What I am saying is that we haven't seen Scott act like a real Christian, except for in a extreme moment of weakness.

Vapor
October 25th, 2009, 04:43 PM
A real Christian is a person who follows Christianity, who believes in God, who actually does what the bible says/implies.

So real Christians beat and stone their family members to death because they step out of line then? Gotcha.

lordofseas
October 25th, 2009, 04:45 PM
So real Christians beat and stone their family members to death because they step out of line then? Gotcha.

Situational. Laws have to update to suit the times. Unless you're saying that the Bible has no moral, ethical, or philosophical value.

Vapor
October 25th, 2009, 04:49 PM
Situational. Laws have to update to suit the times. Unless you're saying that the Bible has no moral, ethical, or philosophical value.

To be honest with you, I'm questioning why you would jump to the conclusion that I suggested that the bible has no value. Particularly after I just asked you what a "real Christian" was, and you gave me an extremely wide-open definition.

This is why people shouldn't say things like that in the first place.

Avenger
October 25th, 2009, 04:58 PM
Situational. Laws have to update to suit the times. Unless you're saying that the Bible has no moral, ethical, or philosophical value.

You have destroyed your own point by saying that it's subjective.

dmacfour
October 25th, 2009, 04:59 PM
Really? It fails only because you want to bury your head in the sand. I guess there is no such thing as Sex addiction, sexually self-destructive behavior, rape, or molestation. Sex is natural, therefore, always correct right?

I said nothing of the sort. Don't twist my words... Appearently you think lt. Scott's sex life is on the same level as rape? Am I reading your post correct?

lordofseas
October 25th, 2009, 05:02 PM
To be honest with you, I'm questioning why you would jump to the conclusion that I suggested that the bible has no value. Particularly after I just asked you what a "real Christian" was, and you gave me an extremely wide-open definition.

This is why people shouldn't say things like that in the first place.

Should and would build no bridges. ;)


You have destroyed your own point by saying that it's subjective.

The Bible has both values. Some have to change due to the situation, and some don't change at all.

Avenger
October 25th, 2009, 05:03 PM
What changes and who decides? It comes to to human decisions and that is subjective any way you look at it.

Krazeh
October 25th, 2009, 05:08 PM
Surely a real christian is anyone who truly believes themself to be a christian, regardless of which parts of the Bible they follow or don't. You may disagree with them about the extent they follow the teachings you do but at the end of the day it's not upto you or anyone else to decide who's a real christian and who isn't.

lordofseas
October 25th, 2009, 05:09 PM
What changes and who decides? It comes to to human decisions and that is subjective any way you look at it.

Leaders of Church. And State. And just because it's a human decision doesn't mean it's subjective.

lordofseas
October 25th, 2009, 05:12 PM
Surely a real christian is anyone who truly believes themself to be a christian, regardless of which parts of the Bible they follow or don't. You may disagree with them about the extent they follow the teachings you do but at the end of the day it's not upto you or anyone else to decide who's a real christian and who isn't.

Nope, they just simply make hypocrites of themselves. "I believe in God, and I believe in his teachings, but I also had pre-marital sex with two women in a couple of days." And no, we haven't seen him asking for forgiveness for anything.

Vapor
October 25th, 2009, 05:12 PM
Some have to change due to the situation, and some don't change at all.

In other words, when you used the term "real Christians" what you really meant to say was "people who I personally decided are okay."

The whole point of view looks immature and elitist when you put it into those terms.

The_Asgard_live
October 25th, 2009, 05:13 PM
I said nothing of the sort. Don't twist my words...

How about this, you didn't not say it, you left it open to that interpretation.

First, you said alcohol is a destructive substance, which in itself is patently incorrect. In fact, modern science tells us that in some moderation it may actually have a proprophylactic effect with diseases such as heart disease. Its pleasurable effects have been known since ancient times.

Alcohol can be a destructive substance when used destructively.

If you did not mean to say that sex being "natural" and natural being "good", then what did you mean?

There are more ways than I can list that sex can be used destructively, natural or not.

Again, I ask the simple question, all else being equal, nothing else changed except a girl becomes a bottle of alcohol, does it become obvious he is supposed to have a problem.

lordofseas
October 25th, 2009, 05:17 PM
In other words, when you used the term "real Christians" what you really meant to say was "people who I personally decided are okay."

The whole point of view looks immature and elitist when you put it into those terms.

Because you put them into those terms. What I said was people that follow the Bible and interpret it according to their lives are true Christians, and people that say that they believe in God, but don't act like it are fake. And that's an elaborate explanation.

Krazeh
October 25th, 2009, 05:20 PM
Its poor because if you accept it, you can no longer continue on with the silly notion that the writers aren't trying to tell you something.

Alcoholics do not have alcohol all the time. I didn't change the parameters of what we have seen in the show, I merely changed the object of his desire. So I ask again, if instead of sex it was alcohol, shown in the exact same manner. An incident at 16. Drinking in a supply closet. And a flask instead of Chloe. Wouldn't you have to agree its obvious?

No, it's a poor analogy because you are attempting to compare two completely different issues with each other. There's a big difference between having normal sexual urges, and acting upon those, and having got to the stage where you have a psychological dependence on alcohol. The fact that there is this major difference means that having the same scenes but presumably showing the misuse of alcohol would have very different connotations.


Also, for those that are so adamant that his sex life is perfectly normal and this is "good" "realistic" writing. Just by chance, what if I am right. What if we find out later in the series that indeed, the writers were trying to tell us he has issues with sex/intimacy/whatever and we were in fact supposed to understand by these scenes that that was the case? Are you all going to change your tune, do a 180 and say "well done writers, you did a fine job of portraying his emotional problems, with his frequent and seemingly inappropriate sex"

Or, are you going to be jaded by the fact that the writers are calling dysfunctional what you now consider to be a normal sex life?

If you did turn out to be right and Lt. Scott does indeed have an issue with sexual addiction then no I wouldn't be saying the writers did a good job, nor would I be jaded that they are calling what I consider to be a normal sex life dysfunctional. I would instead be of the opinion that, unless they include further scenes exploring his condition, they had failed to adequately demonstrate or portray his issues.


Nope, they just simply make hypocrites of themselves. "I believe in God, and I believe in his teachings, but I also had pre-marital sex with two women in a couple of days." And no, we haven't seen him asking for forgiveness for anything.

So you believe in everything that the Bible says and religiously follow it's teachings in every aspect of your life? Or have you looked at it and decided that some teachings are relevant to your life and what you think is necessary to be a good person and that others aren't relevant and no longer need to be followed?


Because you put them into those terms. What I said was people that follow the Bible and interpret it according to their lives are true Christians, and people that say that they believe in God, but don't act like it are fake. And that's an elaborate explanation.

So people who follow the Bible and interpret according to their lives are true Christians but only if they don't interpret the Bible to not make pre-marital sex immoral?

Avenger
October 25th, 2009, 05:26 PM
Nope, they just simply make hypocrites of themselves. "I believe in God, and I believe in his teachings, but I also had pre-marital sex with two women in a couple of days." And no, we haven't seen him asking for forgiveness for anything.

According to you, they're hypocrites, placing yourself above them because they don't meet your standards for something, by your own admission, is subjective.

lordofseas
October 25th, 2009, 05:30 PM
So you believe in everything that the Bible says and religiously follow it's teachings in every aspect of your life? Or have you looked at it and decided that some teachings are relevant to your life and what you think is necessary to be a good person and that others aren't relevant and no longer need to be followed?

Yes, I believe in everything it says. Do I follow everything? I follow what is relevant to my life, and if and/or when I make a mistake, I ask for forgiveness. And yes, pre-marital sex is part of that.



So people who follow the Bible and interpret according to their lives are true Christians but only if they don't interpret the Bible to not make pre-marital sex immoral?

Pre-marital sex is immoral. Sorry to burst your bubble. And it's a sin. (http://www.layhands.com/IsPremaritalSexASin.htm)

Vapor
October 25th, 2009, 05:30 PM
And that's an elaborate explanation.

I'm sorry, but that is utterly false. You criticize people for picking and choosing when that is exactly what you suggested people should do in order to apply the bible to their lives. Your only defense is that people "don't do it the right way" which is in itself ridiculous because you admitted that some loose interpretation is already required.

As soon as you elaborated that you need to interpret, rather than obey every word flawlessly, then you decimated your own argument that people should obey the words. Because the words themselves clearly aren't enough, like you just got through explaining.

12OzMouse
October 25th, 2009, 05:33 PM
We're a quarter of the way through Season 1 already. I'm assuming that we have 5 more episodes till the mid-season break, then 10 more after. In looking over the threads and posts for the series, I find it interesting that the most polarizing issue being discussed here is sex or implied sex. Of course a lot of bandwidth is being chewed up by people who haven't been paying attention, asking stuff about things TPTB have already made reference to or rehashing a topic that's already been covered.

It's not the sex or lust on the show that interests me too much. ( I think it's fine) It's the overall reaction by GateWorld members that intrigues me! As far as Lt. Scott is concerned, yeah, he's got some baggage that's been buried pretty deep for a relatively long time. Since we've been watching, it's been presented that he has been having a lust full relationship with Vanessa. This is one that he doesn't want to have leaked as evidenced by his acting like he didn't even know her name. Then it looks like they are wanting for us to believe that he feels completely different about Chloe. It's pretty obvious that this is not going to be an easy situation for him to get through and he's probably going to have to pay a price for his indiscretions down the road.

As I said earlier, I just can't quite understand how some of you can really be that upset about the content on this show. They are airing it at 10pm in my area, so most kiddies won't be watching. The appropriate ratings have been displayed in the title sequence. Plus, there has been so much hype surrounding this show, the advent of SGU sex really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. So, the viewing public has been warned, the choice to tune in or tune out is up to you. I guess there is a third choice, watch it then complain about it!!

Lastly, I mentioned somewhere that if folks are bothered by what's gone on in the first 5, I can't wait to see how people are going to react to Ming Na's character! It will be interesting to see...

lordofseas
October 25th, 2009, 05:37 PM
I'm sorry, but that is utterly false. You criticize people for picking and choosing when that is exactly what suggested people should do in order to apply the bible to their lives. Your only defense is that people "don't do it the right way" which is in itself ridiculous because you admitted that some loose interpretation is already required.

As soon as you elaborated that you need to interpret, rather than obey every word flawlessly, then you decimated your own argument that people should obey the words. Because the words themselves clearly aren't enough, like you just got through explaining.

False? It's my opinion. Technically, opinions cannot be wrong.

Krazeh
October 25th, 2009, 05:38 PM
Pre-marital sex is immoral. Sorry to burst your bubble. And it's a sin. (http://www.layhands.com/IsPremaritalSexASin.htm)

No, it's immoral if the Bible is intepreted in a certain light. And I might add that intepretation itself is based on the intepretation and translation of various words in a book that is claimed to be at least 2000 years old. Just because you view it as an immoral act does not make it so, or mean that all christians must also hold that view if they wish to be "true" christians.

lordofseas
October 25th, 2009, 05:40 PM
No, it's immoral if the Bible is intepreted in a certain light. And I might add that intepretation itself is based on the intepretation and translation of various words in a book that is claimed to be at least 2000 years old. Just because you view it as an immoral act does not make it so, or mean that all christians must also hold that view if they wish to be "true" christians.

Let me put it this way.

It's my opinion.<Mod Snip>

P.S. - No one must be anything.

Eternal Density
October 25th, 2009, 05:44 PM
"No true Scotsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman) would do such a thing." :P
IMHO Christianity is about what Jesus Christ did not about what we do. Therefore someone's actions does not make them any more or less a 'true Christian'. The crook who was crucified beside Jesus (not the one who was shouting abuse at him and such, the other one) believed in Jesus to save him and could thus be labeled a 'true Christian' even though he was guilty of a crime that earned him the death penalty and he didn't have a chance to 'live a holy life' or 'read the Bible and go to church' or any of the other practices people mistakenly think makes someone a 'true Christian'.

[edit]When people talk about interpreting the Bible 'in a certain light' I can't help but wonder if they're actually doing it in the dark so they don't see what they don't want to see :P

Vapor
October 25th, 2009, 05:46 PM
Technically, opinions cannot be wrong.

Yeah, I'm done. When someone starts to debate the semantics of the discussion, rather than continue the discussion itself, then you know that the debate should be over. We all know what was said, and why it was wrong. The End.

The_Asgard_live
October 25th, 2009, 06:02 PM
No, it's a poor analogy because you are attempting to compare two completely different issues with each other. There's a big difference between having normal sexual urges, and acting upon those, and having got to the stage where you have a psychological dependence on alcohol.

Ah. Do you see what you did there? You did that, not me. I didn't say his sexual urges were normal, and I didn't say he had a psychological dependence on alcohol. I said, all things being equal, nothing changes except the girl becomes a bottle of alcohol.

It is up to the viewer then from the context of where and when he uses the alcohol/sex whether or not the its normal urges or psychological problems.

Whether its sneaking off to a closet to have sex, or to have a drink while on duty in a high security military base, both are suggestive of a problem. Its just the alcohol version makes it completely obvious. Unless you are suggesting that "normal sexual urges" mean people are rutting pigs with no self-control to wait until their shift ends?

Combine that with what he did at 16 and with what has gone on with Chloe. How is it not obvious?


The fact that there is this major difference means that having the same scenes but presumably showing the misuse of alcohol would have very different connotations.

No difference, explained above.


If you did turn out to be right and Lt. Scott does indeed have an issue with sexual addiction then no I wouldn't be saying the writers did a good job, nor would I be jaded that they are calling what I consider to be a normal sex life dysfunctional. I would instead be of the opinion that, unless they include further scenes exploring his condition, they had failed to adequately demonstrate or portray his issues.

Would that be the PC way of saying that they are bad at writing this stuff?

lordofseas
October 25th, 2009, 06:27 PM
*cough* How many Christians do you know? I mean, real Christians, not "Easter, Christmas, and maybe Thanksgiving" Christians?


A real Christian is a person who follows Christianity, who believes in God, who actually does what the bible says/implies. A 'fake' Christian is a person who is a Christian for the ride, because they were raised so, or because they simply want the chance for salvation, and don't want to 'miss the boat'.



Well, I don't think we ever found about Sheppard's religion.


I'm not judging. What I am saying is that we haven't seen Scott act like a real Christian, except for in a extreme moment of weakness.


Situational. Laws have to update to suit the times. Unless you're saying that the Bible has no moral, ethical, or philosophical value.


Should and would build no bridges. ;)



The Bible has both values. Some have to change due to the situation, and some don't change at all.


Leaders of Church. And State. And just because it's a human decision doesn't mean it's subjective.


Nope, they just simply make hypocrites of themselves. "I believe in God, and I believe in his teachings, but I also had pre-marital sex with two women in a couple of days." And no, we haven't seen him asking for forgiveness for anything.


Because you put them into those terms. What I said was people that follow the Bible and interpret it according to their lives are true Christians, and people that say that they believe in God, but don't act like it are fake. And that's an elaborate explanation.


Yes, I believe in everything it says. Do I follow everything? I follow what is relevant to my life, and if and/or when I make a mistake, I ask for forgiveness. And yes, pre-marital sex is part of that.



Pre-marital sex is immoral. Sorry to burst your bubble. And it's a sin. (http://www.layhands.com/IsPremaritalSexASin.htm)


False? It's my opinion. Technically, opinions cannot be wrong.


Let me put it this way.

It's my opinion. Suck it.

P.S. - No one must be anything.


Yeah, I'm done. When someone starts to debate the semantics of the discussion, rather than continue the discussion itself, then you know that the debate should be over. We all know what was said, and why it was wrong. The End.

Here are my points:



I believe Christianity is the following of Jesus Christ.
Catholicsm, which Scott was raised by, explicitly disapproves pre-marital sex/adultery
Belief in God should not be situational. In that I mean that you should not believe in God for the sake of saving yourself, but in that you actually believe the doctrine. And then you simply walk out the doors of the church and do things that are contrary to your religion. What I just described is what I call a "fake" Christian. A "real" Christian is a person who will follow the doctrine of his/her religion, and it's spirit, not its letter, everyday. That is what I believe.
Scott has been shown to pray. However, he has been shown to have sex with two different women in a very short amount of time. This leads me to believe he is a "fake" Christian, or if that's too blunt, a situational Christian.

Now, can you please point out where I make a hypocrite of myself, or blow up my theory in my face?

Krazeh
October 25th, 2009, 06:30 PM
Ah. Do you see what you did there? You did that, not me. I didn't say his sexual urges were normal, and I didn't say he had a psychological dependence on alcohol. I said, all things being equal, nothing changes except the girl becomes a bottle of alcohol.

You can't just change the girl to a bottle of alcohol and have everything else remain equal. The connotations of someone slipping away to drink hard liquor by themselves is very different from two people having sex. Whether or not you wish to admit it it's clear you are trying to imply that Lt. Scott has a problem with sexual addiction by trying to draw parallels between his actions and those which might be expected to be seen by someone suffering from alcoholism.


It is up to the viewer then from the context of where and when he uses the alcohol/sex whether or not the its normal urges or psychological problems.

Yes it is but your analogy mixes up two different situations. You have decided that Lt. Scott has a sexual problem and are therefore using an alcohol based analogy that demonstrates an alcohol problem.

How about if they had replaced the scene of Lt Scott and James with one where he was with a number of other personnel having a surreptitious drink while laughing and joking with each other, and then replaced the scene of him with Chloe with a scene of him in whatever passes as a mess hall having a drink with the other people stranded on the Destiny, discussing thier lives or their hopes/fears, or whatever people talk about when they think they're about to die. Would you consider those scenes demonstrate someone withan alcohol problem?


Whether its sneaking off to a closet to have sex, or to have a drink while on duty in a high security military base, both are suggestive of a problem. Its just the alcohol version makes it completely obvious. Unless you are suggesting that "normal sexual urges" mean people are rutting pigs with no self-control to wait until their shift ends?

As you point out it's down to context whether either of those are indicative of a problem. And I would strongly disagree that two service personnel sneaking off to have sex is suggestive of the same sort of problem as someone sneaking off by themselves to get drunk. And no i'm not suggesting that 'normal sexual urges' mean that people are rutting pigs with no self-control but that doesn't mean that people never have sex anywhere other than at home in bed or have had/considered having sex at work. Unless you're suggesting that anyone who would do so has some sort of psychological problem and is unable to control themselves?


Combine that with what he did at 16 and with what has gone on with Chloe. How is it not obvious?

Oh my god, a 16 year old had sex, and unprotected sex at that. Clearly that's an action only someone who has, or is going to ended up having, an addiction to sex. And seriously what is wrong with having sex with someone who you've made an emotional connection with when you both think that one or both of you may very well be dead within the next few hours?



Would that be the PC way of saying that they are bad at writing this stuff?


No, it's the way of saying that if those 3 incidents are the only explanation given before stating that Lt. Scott has a sexual addiction problem then it's bad writing. If on the other hand Lt. Scott is a normal person with a normal sexual drive then the writing has been just fine.

WishIwasJoes
October 25th, 2009, 06:31 PM
How far Stargate has come. From science and strong female characters to sex and women that are no where near as interesting as Carter or Weir.

dmacfour
October 25th, 2009, 06:32 PM
Here are my points:



I believe Christianity is the following of Jesus Christ.
Catholicsm, which Scott was raised by, explicitly disapproves pre-marital sex/adultery
Belief in God should not be situational. In that I mean that you should not believe in God for the sake of saving yourself, but in that you actually believe the doctrine. And then you simply walk out the doors of the church and do things that are contrary to your religion. What I just described is what I call a "fake" Christian. A "real" Christian is a person who will follow the doctrine of his/her religion, and it's spirit, not its letter, everyday. That is what I believe.
Scott has been shown to pray. However, he has been shown to have sex with two different women in a very short amount of time. This leads me to believe he is a "fake" Christian, or if that's too blunt, a situational Christian.

Now, can you please point out where I make a hypocrite of myself, or blow up my theory in my face?

So every Christian that sins is a fake one? In that case, every Christian is fake. If I claimed to be Christian, but told 2 lies in a short amount of time, would I be a fake Christian?

lordofseas
October 25th, 2009, 06:33 PM
How far Stargate has come. From science and strong female characters to sex and women that are no where near as interesting as Carter or Weir.

I'd give it time.


Then again, Carter was a strong woman when she walked in onto the briefing. And Weir was very strong indeed. Too bad they killed her off blithely.

Diogenes5
October 25th, 2009, 06:36 PM
How far Stargate has come. From science and strong female characters to sex and women that are no where near as interesting as Carter or Weir.

9/10

Agree completely. Make this show like BSG and watch it die just like BSG. I feel that this whole soap opera element is intended for SGU to attract a young, female demographic.

Unfortunately, the largely male, nerdy writers/producers on the show seem out of sync with women. Women aren't stupid, they like character development and real relationships just like the rest of us. Soap Opera's are for washed-up housewives that have nothing going on in their lives and need to prattle over mindless gossip.

I somehow doubt the soap opera demographic will be attracted to a show about a stranded ship in outerspace.

lordofseas
October 25th, 2009, 06:37 PM
So every Christian that sins is a fake one? In that case, every Christian is fake. If I claimed to be Christian, but told 2 lies in a short amount of time, would I be a fake Christian?

"Scott has been shown to pray. However, he has been shown to have sex with two different women in a very short amount of time. This leads me to believe he is a "fake" Christian, or if that's too blunt, a situational Christian."

Read my above bullets. I said that he still believes in the Catholic faith, obviously, due to his prayer. However, he commits two sins classified in the Catholic Faith, in which he believes, and he doesn't even show any sign of regret? That is what I call a situational Christian. I make mistakes, yes. I make a heck of a lot of them. However, do I regret them, yes. I get no impressions from Scott about this.

dmacfour
October 25th, 2009, 06:42 PM
"Scott has been shown to pray. However, he has been shown to have sex with two different women in a very short amount of time. This leads me to believe he is a "fake" Christian, or if that's too blunt, a situational Christian."

Read my above bullets. I said that he still believes in the Catholic faith, obviously, due to his prayer. However, he commits two sins classified in the Catholic Faith, in which he believes, and he doesn't even show any sign of regret? That is what I call a situational Christian. I make mistakes, yes. I make a heck of a lot of them. However, do I regret them, yes. I get no impressions from Scott about this.

Maybe he regrets it, maybe he doesn't. We don't really know what he's thinking inside.

lordofseas
October 25th, 2009, 06:43 PM
Maybe he regrets it, maybe he doesn't. We don't really know what he's thinking inside.

True.

Krazeh
October 25th, 2009, 06:43 PM
Here are my points:

I believe Christianity is the following of Jesus Christ.

By following I assume you mean following his teachings? As defined/intepreted by who?


Catholicsm, which Scott was raised by, explicitly disapproves pre-marital sex/adultery

I don't know enough about Catholicism and the various churches that all fall under the umbrella of catholicism to know whether or not that is the case for each and every one. But even if it is who's to say that Scott has continued to believe in the Catholic intepretation of Christianity? And has not changed of the other Christian denominations? Or indeed has actually looked at the Bible and made his own intepretation of what it says about being a good Christian? After all I don't believe that membership of one of the mainstream Churches is a prerequisite for actually being a Christian.


Belief in God should not be situational. In that I mean that you should not believe in God for the sake of saving yourself, but in that you actually believe the doctrine. And then you simply walk out the doors of the church and do things that are contrary to your religion. What I just described is what I call a "fake" Christian. A "real" Christian is a person who will follow the doctrine of his/her religion, and it's spirit, not its letter, everyday. That is what I believe.

I don't think it's been demonstrated anywhere that Scott believes in God simply for the sake of saving himself, nor that he's done anything contrary to his religion. He may have done things contrary to your belief/intepretation/opinion of Christianity but how do you know yours is the correct view? What makes his intepretation any less valid?


Scott has been shown to pray. However, he has been shown to have sex with two different women in a very short amount of time. This leads me to believe he is a "fake" Christian, or if that's too blunt, a situational Christian.

A 'fake' Christian based on your views of your Christianity and the teachings of the Bible/Jesus Christ.


Now, can you please point out where I make a hypocrite of myself, or blow up my theory in my face?

The second you admitted that various parts of the teachings of the Bible/Jesus Christ can be disregarded because they are no longer relevant, or can be reintepreted to better fit modern life you blew up your theory about what a 'true' Christian must do to be considered such. Either the Bible has to be followed to the letter or it doesn't. And if it doesn't then you open the door to many differing intepretations of what the bible actually says and means, and the ability for people to have many differing views on what is immoral and what isn't, and what teachings must be followed and what can be set aside yet all continuing to be considered as true a Christian as any other person who believes in Christ

lordofseas
October 25th, 2009, 06:51 PM
By following I assume you mean following his teachings? As defined/intepreted by who?

Seeing as I believe in the Catholic Faith as well, obviously by the Bible of the Catholic Faith.



I don't know enough about Catholicism and the various churches that all fall under the umbrella of catholicism to know whether or not that is the case for each and every one. But even if it is who's to say that Scott has continued to believe in the Catholic intepretation of Christianity? And has not changed of the other Christian denominations?

Because we have recieved no evidence to the contrary. And until we do, I shall stick to my version of events.



I don't think it's been demonstrated anywhere that Scott believes in God simply for the sake of saving himself, nor that he's done anything contrary to his religion. He may have done things contrary to your belief/intepretation/opinion of Christianity but how do you know yours is the correct view? What makes his intepretation any less valid?

Other than that he's had premarital sex. We've been over this. We have recieved information that he's Catholic. The Catholic church disapproves of premarital sex. Therefore, he's going against his religion. And seeing as we have not recieved any evidence to the contrary, I must stick to what we know.


A 'fake' Christian based on your views of your Christianity and the teachings of the Bible/Jesus Christ.

Your point? Like I said, it's an opinion. Some will agree, some will not.


The second you admitted that various parts of the teachings of the Bible/Jesus Christ can be disregarded because they are no longer relevant, or can be reintepreted to better fit modern life you blew up your theory about what a 'true' Christian must do to be considered such. Either the Bible has to be followed to the letter or it doesn't. And if it doesn't then you open the door to many differing intepretations of what the bible actually says and means, and the ability for people to have many differing views on what is immoral and what isn't, and what teachings must be followed and what can be set aside yet all continuing to be considered as true a Christian as any other person who believes in Christ

The Bible must interpreted to the spirit of it. If you believe in a particular faith, like Catholicism, then you accept the interpretations of the Catholic Church. Otherwise, you aren't Catholic.

Krazeh
October 25th, 2009, 06:57 PM
The Bible must interpreted to the spirit of it. If you believe in a particular faith, like Catholicism, then you accept the interpretations of the Catholic Church. Otherwise, you aren't Catholic.

Last I checked this was about being a Christian, not specifically a Catholic. If you wish to talk about a specific denomation and whether or not Lt Scott appears to be following that denomination then you should make that clearer.

M2W
October 25th, 2009, 07:00 PM
Religious debate aside...

The sex stuff is starting to make me feel like the show's directed by Joss Whedon. Haha!

lordofseas
October 25th, 2009, 07:01 PM
Last I checked this was about being a Christian, not specifically a Catholic. If you wish to talk about a specific denomation and whether or not Lt Scott appears to be following that denomination then you should make that clearer.

I thought I was explicitly clear when Scott was shown to be a Catholic, and when I said Catholic in my previous posts.

Eternal Density
October 25th, 2009, 07:01 PM
A Martin Luther appears.
A Wild Abra appears.
Martin Luther used Reformation.
It fails.
Abra used Teleport!

Seriously guys, this is going nowhere. TPTB are probably laughing at us now.

lordofseas
October 25th, 2009, 07:05 PM
A Martin Luther appears.
A Wild Abra appears.
Martin Luther used Reformation.
It fails.
Abra used Teleport!

Seriously guys, this is going nowhere. TPTB are probably laughing at us now.

Abras are easy to capture. :P Just use Mean Look.

Krazeh
October 25th, 2009, 07:07 PM
I thought I was explicitly clear when Scott was shown to be a Catholic, and when I said Catholic in my previous posts.

Only your last couple of posts referred to Catholicism. Your earlier posts all referred to Christianity and what is and isn't a "true" Christian.

Also the fact that Scott was shown to have been raised by a Catholic priest doesn't mean that he himself continues to be, or consider himself to be, a Catholic. Given that we've seen he suffered a crisis of faith when he was 16 and saw the priest who raised him drink himself to death then it's a fairly good bet that, while he clearly still beleives in God, he will have reconsidered his views on organised religion and what the belief in God means to him.

It may very well be the case that he could be considered a 'bad' or lapsed Catholic but that's not the same as not being a 'true' Christian or demonstrates that anything he has done is contrary to his Christian beliefs.

Deevil
October 25th, 2009, 07:10 PM
Can we just agree that Christianity - even Catholicism - is dependent on the person following it, and those teaching it. There are no hard and fast rules on how to be the 'best' Christian, given the different denominations and teachings - even within Catholicism.

Furthermore, just because one Christian acts in a certian way, does not make the other one any 'less' Christian because they don't. It just makes them different with a different interpretation.

The_Asgard_live
October 25th, 2009, 07:11 PM
You can't just change the girl to a bottle of alcohol and have everything else remain equal.

Of course I can, I did.


The connotations of someone slipping away to drink hard liquor by themselves is very different from two people having sex.

I realize the first time around I said 'jack and coke', but you keep enhancing my analogy with your own embellishments to portray the sex as benign and the drinking more extreme. If you think sex or drinking in a closet while on a high stakes job is normal, you probably watch too much tv.




Yes it is but your analogy mixes up two different situations. You have decided that Lt. Scott has a sexual problem and are therefore using an alcohol based analogy that demonstrates an alcohol problem.

I am not suggesting a problem at all. I am trying to let the context suggest it all on its own. To do that, I am swapping out the object (sex) with a different one (alcohol) that makes it more obvious.

And I am doing that because this "sex" thing is particularly polarizing. And it seems there are 2 camps, those that think sex (be it in a closet at work, or any other time really) at all times is normal. And those that think that sex, has some boundaries and varying degreess of inappropriateness. I am trying to cut through the BS, swapping it out with something that when put into the exact same context demonstrates how the context of his sex is inappropriate.


How about if they had replaced the scene of Lt Scott and James with one where he was with a number of other personnel having a surreptitious drink while laughing and joking with each other, and then replaced the scene of him with Chloe with a scene of him in whatever passes as a mess hall having a drink with the other people stranded on the Destiny, discussing thier lives or their hopes/fears, or whatever people talk about when they think they're about to die. Would you consider those scenes demonstrate someone withan alcohol problem?

No? In order for you to make this analogy, you've changed both the object of his desire and the context its used in. In fact you've done away with everything that we've seen and rewritten the story.


And I would strongly disagree that two service personnel sneaking off to have sex is suggestive of the same sort of problem as someone sneaking off by themselves to get drunk. And no i'm not suggesting that 'normal sexual urges' mean that people are rutting pigs with no self-control but that doesn't mean that people never have sex anywhere other than at home in bed or have had/considered having sex at work. Unless you're suggesting that anyone who would do so has some sort of psychological problem and is unable to control themselves?

Is there any particular reason that you are taking separate incidents we have seen of his sex life and isolating them from the whole rather than collectively looking at it all as a pattern? Other than so you can continue to believe what you do I mean?


Oh my god, a 16 year old had sex, and unprotected sex at that. Clearly that's an action only someone who has, or is going to ended up having, an addiction to sex. And seriously what is wrong with having sex with someone who you've made an emotional connection with when you both think that one or both of you may very well be dead within the next few hours?

The scene with him blubbering over the girl, and the priest. Filler. The closet scene, because he's fun loving. The hallucination because he was heat stroke. And Chloe because impending death makes him horny. Maybe its a horse not a zebra. Maybe the writers aren't attempting to tell us something (even if badly), could just be gratuitous information about how Scott gets it on. You win. Even if the writers spell it out later, it'll still be easier to say you win.

Shpinxinator
October 25th, 2009, 07:16 PM
Can we just agree that Christianity - even Catholicism - is dependent on the person following it, and those teaching it. There are no hard and fast rules on how to be the 'best' Christian, given the different denominations and teachings - even within Catholicism.

Furthermore, just because one Christian acts in a certian way, does not make the other one any 'less' Christian because they don't. It just makes them different with a different interpretation.


Not technically true....I'm a theology major and the Nicene Creed is concidered a verbal contract of sorts which defines what a christian must believe

creed462
October 25th, 2009, 07:16 PM
It's sad. If this were real life there would be serious emotional consequences and possible physical to their actions, As for is he a Christian, look at the fruit.

GuHNDoi
October 25th, 2009, 07:17 PM
I would say, How human of him. Regardless of his faith. Emotions are what constitutes the human condition, not a religious upbringing.

Eternal Density
October 25th, 2009, 07:26 PM
I think we're suffering from not enough information, combined with too much information.

Deevil
October 25th, 2009, 07:37 PM
Not technically true....I'm a theology major and the Nicene Creed is concidered a verbal contract of sorts which defines what a christian must believe Sure, that may be considered 'true', and yet - it doesn't emcompass the beliefs that many different denominations and interpretations yeald.

It's one of those fun little things where the theory is different to the practice, me thinks. Kind of like communisim - on paper it seems so much better then it does when man practice it.

Religion is not a science that has a set framework that must be adhered too. It's too, somewhat philisophical in nature to be as easily pinned down as we would like.

Krazeh
October 25th, 2009, 07:37 PM
Of course I can, I did.

While you may wish to think that you can make such a change and have it been equal I disagree. Changing from two people having sex to one person engaging in solitary drinking instantly changes the context and the connotations that are drawn from the scene.


I realize the first time around I said 'jack and coke', but you keep enhancing my analogy with your own embellishments to portray the sex as benign and the drinking more extreme. If you think sex or drinking in a closet while on a high stakes job is normal, you probably watch too much tv.

My apologies if I over-embellished the strength of the alcohol you were referring to, but am I correct in that you were implying Lt. Scott to be drinking alone? And with regards to your comment about high stakes job that's our opinion about it isn't it? Given what the Stargate program has done and what it's personnel get upto around the galaxy it may be that Lt Scott and James considered their assignment to be very much a baby sitting exercise. After all it didn't appear that the attack was in anyway anticipated or expected, it may very well have been the case that noone thought that anyone had any idea they were there and the personnel considered it no more high stakes than being at Cheyenne Mountain.


I am not suggesting a problem at all. I am trying to let the context suggest it all on its own. To do that, I am swapping out the object (sex) with a different one (alcohol) that makes it more obvious.

And I am doing that because this "sex" thing is particularly polarizing. And it seems there are 2 camps, those that think sex (be it in a closet at work, or any other time really) at all times is normal. And those that think that sex, has some boundaries and varying degreess of inappropriateness. I am trying to cut through the BS, swapping it out with something that when put into the exact same context demonstrates how the context of his sex is inappropriate.

As I have already said simply swapping out the object doesn't work in this instance, doing so instantly changes the context of the scene. And I don't recall ever saying that him having sex at work was inapproriate, of course it is but just because it's inappropriate and he's a naughty boy for doing it doesn't mean he's a sexual addict. Having sex on an airplane is inappropriate, and I believe potentially illegal, but it doesn't stop plenty of normal couples either doing it or seriously consider doing it.


No? In order for you to make this analogy, you've changed both the object of his desire and the context its used in. In fact you've done away with everything that we've seen and rewritten the story.

You've done exactly the same thing with your analogy. You changed the object of his desire and by virture of that changed the context it's used in. Either he's misusing sex which then fits with your analogy of someone slinking off to drink alone and it's implication of alcoholism, or he has a normal sex life in which case any alcohol based analogy has to be one in which alcohol is used in a way which is considered normal.


Is there any particular reason that you are taking separate incidents we have seen of his sex life and isolating them from the whole rather than collectively looking at it all as a pattern? Other than so you can continue to believe what you do I mean?

Because they're separate incidents? And I don't consider that 3 incidents spread over a 10 year gap, albeit with the final two being within a few days of each other, are enough to be able to infer any pattern.


The scene with him blubbering over the girl, and the priest. Filler. The closet scene, because he's fun loving. The hallucination because he was heat stroke. And Chloe because impending death makes him horny. Maybe its a horse not a zebra. Maybe the writers aren't attempting to tell us something (even if badly), could just be gratuitous information about how Scott gets it on. You win. Even if the writers spell it out later, it'll still be easier to say you win.

The scene with the priest, in my view, was designed to give us an insight into Scott's desire to complete his mission and not let anyone down like he had done with the priest who raised him. And what better/easier way to show that he'd let the priest down than by having him have pre-marital sex and then have the girl terminate the pregnancy? It was a quick simple way which the majority of viewers would easily associate as being at odds with the Catholic church and therefore something which would let down a priest.

And the scene with Chloe was clearly designed to build on their conversation at the end of Air. Admittedly they could have thrown in some extra scenes between them in Darkness to more fully explore the emotional connection that appears to have formed but I don't find anything unnatural about two people with such a connection choosing to become intimate.

Oh, and the closet scene may have been put in there to show he's fun loving, or perhaps just to show that he's human like us and isn't the perfect model soldier who would never dream of doing anything so sordid or against regulations? Or perhaps it's a setup for later antagonism between Scott, James and Chloe?


Not technically true....I'm a theology major and the Nicene Creed is concidered a verbal contract of sorts which defines what a christian must believe

Doesn't the Nicene Creed essentially define that a Christian must believe in God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost, i.e. the Trinity? It doesn't go into the nitty gritty of the religion or the intepretation of the Bible and it's teachings does it?


It's sad. If this were real life there would be serious emotional consequences and possible physical to their actions.

Why would there? If there was some sort of meaningful relationship between Scott and James then that may be the case but so far there's been no indication that it was anything more than two consenting adults choosing to engage in no strings sex.

Saquist
October 25th, 2009, 07:47 PM
Im starting to have a problem with Scott here. We have been shown in a flashback that he regrets and has a sense of guilt for having sex with a 16 year old girl.

Lets now fast-forward to the present of SGU. Scott here has now knocked up 2 girls in the time of a few days. He seems to show no regret in doing it, contrary from his experiences in the past. Now im not saying he is a non-christian, all people sin whether they are christian or not. What im saying is that he is not even trying not to sin. They should have had him questioning himself after he had sex with Chloe.

Another problem i have is that there is no "love" in there sex act. They are just doing it for pleasure and comfort. They are degrading the act of sex (imo).

He should have been more responsible and think before acting (especially as a christian man). For one, he was not wearing a condom (i think), he could have given Chloe an STD or gotten her pregnant. Maybe he even stole her virginity.

Does anyone have a problem with this other then me? His whole character seems contradictory and a paradox. It would be nice to show him in a scene in a later episode praying and admitting his sin.

Maybe he needs an hallucination of his priest to give him advice....but that would be to much like BSG.


It just seems to me that they are making out Scott to be more of a Whore then a Christian man who has faults and is trying to correct them.

I'm not surprised that your post wasn't edited by the Moderators for character assassination. There is a higher sensitivity to women placed under this label than men.

But you will find that the majority of the religious are hypocrites in this fashion because religious requirements in the 21st century is receiving less and less focus in favor of entertainment, secularism and commercialism.

For instance as a recent survey of one major religious group agreed that religion is best made to fit to the individual, so as to pick and chose what to obey and not to obey.

Truth has become a non necessity lately.

lordofseas
October 25th, 2009, 07:50 PM
Why would there? If there was some sort of meaningful relationship between Scott and James then that may be the case but so far there's been no indication that it was anything more than two consenting adults choosing to engage in no strings sex.

Do you know what an STI is? Do you know how people reproduce? Wouldn't you get hurt emotionally if you found out that the person you slept with last night is sleeping with another person? And, no, I don't mean a person you hired last night.

Krazeh
October 25th, 2009, 07:55 PM
Do you know what an STI is? Do you know how people reproduce? Wouldn't you get hurt emotionally if you found out that the person you slept with last night is sleeping with another person? And, no, I don't mean a person you hired last night.

Where did I mention anything about unprotected sex? Just because people engage in no strings sex doesn't necessarily mean that they're also having unprotected sex and have no regard for preventing STIs or pregnancy. And believe it or not but people do have the ability to separate the emotional and physical aspects of sex, so no if I'd had a purely physical sexual encounter with someone and then they ended up sleeping with someone else shortly aftewards I wouldn''t be emotionally hurt.

Oh, and grats on the resorting to insults method of attempting to win an argument.

Avenger
October 25th, 2009, 08:04 PM
it depends on the situation and the person. If it was a **** buddy or a one night stand. Not so much. If if was someone in a committed relationship going outside that relationship. Sure.

The_Asgard_live
October 25th, 2009, 08:12 PM
While you may wish to think that you can make such a change and have it been equal I disagree. Changing from two people having sex to one person engaging in solitary drinking instantly changes the context and the connotations that are drawn from the scene.

Only because of your obviously liberal views on sex vs your negative view of solitary drinking. Which is the point. I didn't say he drinks to excess, maybe he takes a couple swigs to calm his nerves. You are providing your own implications of what it would mean. Not me.


And I don't recall ever saying that him having sex at work was inapproriate, of course it is but just because it's inappropriate and he's a naughty boy for doing it doesn't mean he's a sexual addict.

I am not sure what his problem is. Alcohol is not the problem generally, its the manifestation of a problem(s). I think his problems are manifesting through this behavior.


Having sex on an airplane is inappropriate, and I believe potentially illegal, but it doesn't stop plenty of normal couples either doing it or seriously consider doing it.

Again, you are isolating things that on their own seem normal. I believe we are being painted a picture, not a series of unrelated, yet similar events.


Because they're separate incidents? And I don't consider that 3 incidents spread over a 10 year gap, albeit with the final two being within a few days of each other, are enough to be able to infer any pattern.

Unfortunately for me, the rest of what you say demonstrates why that no matter what happens, this is a lose-lose situation for me as a fan. If there is no larger point to what Scott is doing, then it really is StarGate 90210. If there is a larger point, then its poorly written, and the proof of that would be that you and I can't even agree its happening.

slurredspeech
October 25th, 2009, 08:16 PM
Ooooh, another thread where people depict how moral and/or religious Scott is by the 12th century standards? GOODIE.


He should have been more responsible and think before acting (especially as a christian man).


Yes! Because we all know atheists don't think before they act, especially when it comes to sex. Orgies for all, I'll often hear them yell.

Oh and by the by. No sex before marriage shtick? Paternal insecurity effect. And paternity being certain was very important because of property and inheritance. (Methinks DNA tests solve that particular problem nowadays.) Marriage back when had less to do with love than it does now; it was a cold-blooded contract which is probably why it lasted longer in those days. Religion only gave it a moral seal of approval.


If you believe in a particular faith, like Catholicism, then you accept the interpretations of the Catholic Church. Otherwise, you aren't Catholic.

No, it just means you can believe in God, live according to 'the spirit' of Catholicism, and still think for yourself. Despite popular opinion, those are not mutually exclusive.

Catholic Church used to charge you for an absolution of sins.

Catholic Church turns a blind eye to, and/or conceals their priests' indiscretions.

Catholic Church thinks contracting AIDS trumps using condoms.

(Interestingly enough, contraception is still a no-no in this modern day while shaving (http://bible.cc/leviticus/19-27.htm), and, I guess, shrimp (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+11%3A10&version=KJV) are fine nowadays. Bah! The compromises of the modern age. THE TRAVESTY. Alas. I'm certain every true Christian tells their boss they just won't come in on Saturdays. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+19%3A30%2CExodus+20%3A8&version=ESV) Or, I dunno, repent for it on Sundays. And try not to sin again. Until their next Saturday shift.)


I could go on, but let's not.

How very in the spirit of Bible and just generally in the spirit of good faith.

I am Catholic, born and raised. It's sad that most of the time I have to fight people's stereotypes about what the majority of Catholics are about because of those who think like this and label people who don't as 'fake' simply for using their own brain. Blindly following whatever an institution run by humans no less fallible than your average Joe tells you to do, without any further thought or examination of your own, is the very definition of a cult, not faith.

Renaissance happened over six centuries ago, people. Embrace it.

(As a side note, I did quote lordofseas simply because that quote sums up why I think these type of threads keep popping up. However, this post was more directed at the OP and people of similar viewpoint. Because, even if I don't like everything they are doing with Scott and neither him nor his storyline are particularly well done, IMHO - for reasons that have nothing to do with religion, mind you - I am sick and tired of reading through pages and pages, thread after thread, of people complaining about every.single.thing Scott does and how it ties back to his religion.

Honestly. The Keyboard Cat is on repeat.)

Krazeh
October 25th, 2009, 08:28 PM
Only because of your obviously liberal views on sex vs your negative view of solitary drinking. Which is the point. I didn't say he drinks to excess, maybe he takes a couple swigs to calm his nerves. You are providing your own implications of what it would mean. Not me.

I actually don't have a negative view of solitary drinking. There's plenty of occasions where I enjoy a glass of wine or a beer while watching tv or on the computer in the evening. But I don't hide myself away from people in order to do so which is the point I was trying to make, if Lt Scott is hiding away from people in order to drink then imo that's indicative of an alcohol problem and if I were to see such a scene on a tv programme it would imply to me that the character had such a problem.


I am not sure what his problem is. Alcohol is not the problem generally, its the manifestation of a problem(s). I think his problems are manifesting through this behavior.

That's where we're seeing two different things. At this point I simply haven't seen enough evidence to conclude that there is some sort of problem with Lt Scott and his attitude towards sex. This may change further down the line depending on what else he gets upto but at the moment I think we're far too early to be stating he's a sex addict.


Again, you are isolating things that on their own seem normal. I believe we are being painted a picture, not a series of unrelated, yet similar events.

I'm not disagreeing that we're being painted a picture but I don't think the events in question are as major parts of that picture as some people wish to make out.


Unfortunately for me, the rest of what you say demonstrates why that no matter what happens, this is a lose-lose situation for me as a fan. If there is no larger point to what Scott is doing, then it really is StarGate 90210. If there is a larger point, then its poorly written, and the proof of that would be that you and I can't even agree its happening.

Again i'm not disagreeing that there isn't a larger point to what we're seeing about Scott, i'm simply disagreeing with what that larger point is.

Eternal Density
October 25th, 2009, 08:54 PM
I think that not all character revelations get wrapped up in one episode. Whatever the larger point may be, we simply haven't had all of that larger point shown to us.

Keyboard (http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/funny-pictures-your-cat-is-smart.jpg) Cat (http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/funny-pictures-cat-has-commentary-about-pregnancy.jpg)?

slurredspeech
October 25th, 2009, 09:04 PM
Keyboard (http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/funny-pictures-your-cat-is-smart.jpg) Cat (http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/funny-pictures-cat-has-commentary-about-pregnancy.jpg)?

Hahaha. So much love for those. <3 Though I was actually referring to the Keyboard Cat that is (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkf5jW9GM48&feature=player_embedded) playing us off (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcjYQIEmolM&feature=player_embedded). ;)

jcainhaze
October 25th, 2009, 09:17 PM
If you think sex or drinking in a closet while on a high stakes job is normal, you probably watch too much tv.

Yes!...because sex only happens on TV or in bed at home. Never in a closet while at work! Definately not on a spaceship or even in the military.

jcainhaze
October 25th, 2009, 09:25 PM
not technically true....i'm a theology major and the nicene creed is concidered a verbal contract of sorts which defines what a christian must believe

lol

Eternal Density
October 25th, 2009, 09:29 PM
What Scott did, he seemed to be fine with at the time and immediately afterward. How exactly this relates to his past, we are yet to see. How this relates to any faith he may or may not have, what meaning he attaches to his prayer, and what his motivation and reasoning is, we don't know yet. Any attempt at filling in those details is just speculation. Judging a fictional character based on speculation does not seem productive to me. Becoming emotionally attached to speculations and judgments based on them, even less so.

dosed150
October 26th, 2009, 03:29 AM
Yes!...because sex only happens on TV or in bed at home. Never in a closet while at work! Definately not on a spaceship or even in the military.

im pretty sure in real life not much sex happens on spaceships :D

skajkingdom
October 26th, 2009, 04:55 AM
No, it's immoral if the Bible is intepreted in a certain light. And I might add that intepretation itself is based on the intepretation and translation of various words in a book that is claimed to be at least 2000 years old. Just because you view it as an immoral act does not make it so, or mean that all christians must also hold that view if they wish to be "true" christians.

And do not commit zina* -for, behold, it is an abomination and an evil way. (Q, 17:32)


* - It is to be noted that the term zina signifies all sexual intercourse between a man and a woman who are not husband and wife, irrespective of whether either of them is married to another partner or not; hence, it denotes both "adultery" and "fornication" in the English senses of these terms.

Duneknight
October 26th, 2009, 05:34 AM
well can we analyze the situation without involving religion. he didnt take advantage, they just used each other to help each other. lol plus most christians do that anyway at some point in their lives.

Encoder
October 26th, 2009, 05:36 AM
I can sort of relate to Scott in that manner. My up bringing was certainly no where near as bad as Scott's but having religion thrust upon me from early on, I kinda know where he's coming from.

Having God in your heart and dealing with worldly pleasures when "the calling" is not your own is extremely hard.

Had he chosen it instead of having it thrust upon him then you could call him a hypocrite, but since his up bringing was not of his choosing, we have to grant him latitude!

:sheppard:

Duneknight
October 26th, 2009, 05:48 AM
I can sort of relate to Scott in that manner. My up bringing was certainly no where near as bad as Scott's but having religion thrust upon me from early on, I kinda know where he's coming from.

Having God in your heart and dealing with worldly pleasures when "the calling" is not your own is extremely hard.

Had he chosen it instead of having it thrust upon him then you could call him a hypocrite, but since his up bringing was not of his choosing, we have to grant him latitude!

:sheppard:

whats strange is that military training is known to fix certain addictions and make you a better person overall, one that knows how to control himself at least. i mean, if he got sent to iraq, who will he sleep with?

MediaSavant
October 26th, 2009, 05:57 AM
whats strange is that military training is known to fix certain addictions and make you a better person overall, one that knows how to control himself at least. i mean, if he got sent to iraq, who will he sleep with?

So, do you think soldiers in Iraq aren't having sex?

I suggest you google that topic. I suggest you try "Female soldiers pregnant" or similar.

Duneknight
October 26th, 2009, 06:06 AM
So, do you think soldiers in Iraq aren't having sex?

I suggest you google that topic. I suggest you try "Female soldiers pregnant" or similar.

i dont believe you, soldiers dont sleep with other soldiers.

Encoder
October 26th, 2009, 06:11 AM
So, do you think soldiers in Iraq aren't having sex?

I suggest you google that topic. I suggest you try "Female soldiers pregnant" or similar.

Wasn't there something like that in the news recently about Sex Bounties?

Women had bounties placed upon them, and which ever male had sex with them had that added to their score!

Who said it's boring in the armed forced :)

:sheppard:

jelgate
October 26th, 2009, 06:17 AM
i dont believe you, soldiers dont sleep with other soldiers.

I believe her. With soldiers having a lack of some modern devices one needs to find some "entertainment"

Mongoletsi
October 26th, 2009, 06:23 AM
I haven't read this thread in full so apols if I'm repeating responses.

I don't understand why the furore about the more "adult" themed scenes. But I do understand the question regarding Scott - if he's a devout boy, he shouldn't be "sleeping" around. If it weren't for his alleged Christianity, I don't think there should be an issue however.

Scott and Chloe seem to have bonded a bit when her Dad died. Look, I know exactly what I'd be doing if I were hurtling towards my death and some top totty wanted a distraction.

UniverseSizePlotHole
October 26th, 2009, 06:33 AM
Well simply put does the Uniform Code of Military Justice apply at SGC, Icarus Base, Atlantis or Destiny? If it does are violations followed up on?
If not then yes we can defer to personal decision making and moral obligation and the like which we are judging Lt Scott on here.

Deevil
October 26th, 2009, 06:40 AM
i dont believe you, soldiers dont sleep with other soldiers. Sure they do. Why do you think there is actually a written rule that says conscripted personnel cannot be in any relationship with enlisted (which is basically officers cannot be with non-officers) personnel?

Why do you think they have safe sex talks while in the field? Why do you think women are still on birth control?

People have needs, sex is one of those needs. It's also something that happens often in dangerous situations. There is a whole psychology papers discussing this in relation to soldiers.

KEK
October 26th, 2009, 07:25 AM
i dont believe you, soldiers dont sleep with other soldiers.

Are you serious?

12OzMouse
October 26th, 2009, 08:20 AM
[QUOTE
Seriously guys, this is going nowhere. TPTB are probably laughing at us now.[/QUOTE]

If the powers that be read more than 5 posts into this thread, I would question their sanity. Matter of fact, I question my own!

12OzMouse
October 26th, 2009, 08:23 AM
i dont believe you, soldiers dont sleep with other soldiers.

Uh.. which hill of sand has your head been in the past 100 years? Having recently retired from 20+ years in the military, my wife and I would like to disagree with you....

jrd231
October 26th, 2009, 08:48 AM
Lets now fast-forward to the present of SGU. Scott here has now knocked up 2 girls in the time of a few days.

I don't think you mean knocked up, I think you mean slept with. Knocked up means he got them pregnant.


Another problem i have is that there is no "love" in there sex act. They are just doing it for pleasure and comfort. They are degrading the act of sex (imo).

I just laughed at this statement. ZOMG HE DOESN'T LOVE HER!!!!!!111one.


He should have been more responsible and think before acting (especially as a christian man). For one, he was not wearing a condom (i think), he could have given Chloe an STD or gotten her pregnant. Maybe he even stole her virginity.

Stole her virginity? What did he do, sneak in her room in them middle of the night and rape her? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. This is priceless. Second, she's not real, she's a fictional character on a TV show. Sir, calm down. Calm down, sir. Sir...calm down.


Does anyone have a problem with this other then me? His whole character seems contradictory and a paradox. It would be nice to show him in a scene in a later episode praying and admitting his sin.

Here is a wild and crazy thought, maybe one that you haven't thought of. Maybe, and I mean just maybe, he doesn't think sleeping with somebody is a sin. And maybe, just maybe other people don't think so, either.

Your rant was priceless. You sir, are awesome.

aretood2
October 26th, 2009, 12:01 PM
Here is a wild and crazy thought, maybe one that you haven't thought of. Maybe, and I mean just maybe, he doesn't think sleeping with somebody is a sin. And maybe, just maybe other people don't think so, either.

Your rant was priceless. You sir, are awesome.

If you are going to mock people's posts you might as well do it in an intelligent manner.

In "Air Part 3" we clearly saw that he believed it to be a sin, so much that he was moved to tears. As someone else said, he merely lost faith in himself.

Many may overlook that Christianity requires faith in the self at times. Everyone believes that murder is wrong, yet there are some that do this not once or twice but more for greed. The same can be said for Scott. He still believes in a personal God, in the God of Abraham (hints his prayer).

Sex addiction is not easily controlled, hence the word addiction. If you have little faith in your self, you just give up. No amount of prayer can help you if you even if you believe that through, since he is Christian, the Lord you can change. Christianity is not about having God do everything for you. Only through the Lord can you change if you are up to it. Scott does not seem to be up to it.

What is the furthest "noble" cause to that of priesthood? Service to your nation. His flashback with his Father, as in the priest, shows that he was running away. In essence he gave up, if Darth Vader were there he would have killed him for his lack of faith (he finds that sort of thing disturbing).

It is true that the "calling" was not his. It is most likely that he aspired to be a priest to please his father figure, as Rush said in "Air part 3", okay that's a long shot but bare with me.

If the calling was not his, then how can you attest to the level of devotion that he has? You can become less devout but not lose faith in God. IMO the less devout have a problem of self worth and faith in the self. We have to believe in our ability to work with God, in a Christian POV.

Maybe a relationship, a real one, with Chloe could help him. What we have is a backwards man who is not self aware. Lets see how he develops first.

Avenger
October 26th, 2009, 12:12 PM
Some of us haven't seen or been spoiled about anything as far as Water goes. nor do we want to until the episode airs. Thanks for that.

Krazeh
October 26th, 2009, 12:24 PM
I think he's referring to Air Part 3, rather than Water.

Iguana775
October 26th, 2009, 12:27 PM
The only issue I had was when Chloe started to get close (holding hands) to Eli at the end. then when Scott came back, dumped his a## and went running to Scott. Yea, way to stomp on Eli like that.

jrd231
October 26th, 2009, 12:38 PM
If you are going to mock people's posts you might as well do it in an intelligent manner.

In "Water" we clearly saw that he believed it to be a sin, so much that he was moved to tears. As someone else said, he merely lost faith in himself.

Many may overlook that Christianity requires faith in the self at times. Everyone believes that murder is wrong, yet there are some that do this not once or twice but more for greed. The same can be said for Scott. He still believes in a personal God, in the God of Abraham (hints his prayer).

Sex addiction is not easily controlled, hence the word addiction. If you have little faith in your self, you just give up. No amount of prayer can help you if you even if you believe that through, since he is Christian, the Lord you can change. Christianity is not about having God do everything for you. Only through the Lord can you change if you are up to it. Scott does not seem to be up to it.

What is the furthest "noble" cause to that of priesthood? Service to your nation. His flashback with his Father, as in the priest, shows that he was running away. In essence he gave up, if Darth Vader were there he would have killed him for his lack of faith (he finds that sort of thing disturbing).

It is true that the "calling" was not his. It is most likely that he aspired to be a priest to please his father figure, as Rush said in "Water", okay that's a long shot but bare with me.

If the calling was not his, then how can you attest to the level of devotion that he has? You can become less devout but not lose faith in God. IMO the less devout have a problem of self worth and faith in the self. We have to believe in our ability to work with God, in a Christian POV.

Maybe a relationship, a real one, with Chloe could help him. What we have is a backwards man who is not self aware. Lets see how he develops first.

I can't take you seriously. You started off talking about being a Christian but then compared it to Darth Vader.

May the force be with your, or something, I guess.

aretood2
October 26th, 2009, 12:44 PM
I can't take you seriously. You started off talking about being a Christian but then compared it to Darth Vader.

May the force be with your, or something, I guess.

I knew that would be problematic for some with a different taste in Humor than I. But I'd hardly call a little joke the reason to doubt the credibility of an argument.

But, alas everyone is entitled to their one opinions. I think, yeah that right our own opinions.

Live Long and prosper....such a cheesy line!

Blistna
October 26th, 2009, 12:59 PM
Im starting to have a problem with Scott here. We have been shown in a flashback that he regrets and has a sense of guilt for having sex with a 16 year old girl.

Lets now fast-forward to the present of SGU. Scott here has now knocked up 2 girls in the time of a few days. He seems to show no regret in doing it, contrary from his experiences in the past. Now im not saying he is a non-christian, all people sin whether they are christian or not. What im saying is that he is not even trying not to sin. They should have had him questioning himself after he had sex with Chloe.

Another problem i have is that there is no "love" in there sex act. They are just doing it for pleasure and comfort. They are degrading the act of sex (imo).

He should have been more responsible and think before acting (especially as a christian man). For one, he was not wearing a condom (i think), he could have given Chloe an STD or gotten her pregnant. Maybe he even stole her virginity.

Does anyone have a problem with this other then me? His whole character seems contradictory and a paradox. It would be nice to show him in a scene in a later episode praying and admitting his sin.

Maybe he needs an hallucination of his priest to give him advice....but that would be to much like BSG.


It just seems to me that they are making out Scott to be more of a Whore then a Christian man who has faults and is trying to correct them.

My response to this is...people get use to sin. It's a sad thing when someone sins -- even more heart breaking when they do it so much, they never think about it. We don't know how long it was since he was 16, do we (I don't know if we have an official age on him)? And even if it was only 5 years...a lot of things can happen in five years to make you change, into a good or bad person (not saying having sex makes him a bad person...but you get what I am saying).

Ashizuri
October 26th, 2009, 01:27 PM
I'm pretty sure the bible is like the pirate code, y'know, more like guidelines than actual rules.

Because we certainly don't follow all the rules in the bible. I mean, I've never seen some one be stoned to death for taking the Lord's name in vain and I'm pretty sure that in most civilized societies you can't sell your daughter into slavery yet both of these actions are justified and condoned in the bible.

My point is that what's a sin to you might not be a sin to Scott, and why should he live his life by some one elses guidelines? As long as he is true to himself and how he interprets his religion, it shouldn't matter to anyone else.

12OzMouse
October 26th, 2009, 01:45 PM
I think in one of his interviews he said that his character was in his early 20's.

You know, this is an odd subject to debate. Whether or not a character in a science fiction TV show is acting like a, "Christian". Tell me, what is the reason some of you feel so strongly about this character and his actions through 5 episodes? I realize that this forum is for fans of the Stargate shows and that because of that, pretty much everything that happens is discussed, dissected, and analyzed. Events that happen in front or behind the camera are all fair game. That's why people come here, that's one of the reasons I belong.

But somethings a little stranger with this topic more than most. I know that a lot of you feel like SGA and SG1 were the canon and that nothing is ever going to match up with those two shows. For some, SGU has been a target because the other shows were held in such high esteem. I get the feeling that some of you are taking it a little too personal. We all know that prior to airing a lot of the talk about SGU from the creators had the same message. SGU was going to be darker and more adult. They were hoping to attract new viewers in addition to old fans.

So far I like it a lot, it's entertainment, nothing more, nothing less. Because of Scott's love of the ladies, it think it's going to be interesting to see how it plays out over the course of the series. I'm curious as to how long he's going to be able to keep both of them on separate strings. Whether or not his religion plays into it will be curious too.

I think what's stranger than anything so far is the black Sgt, who before they figured out that they weren't going to be kissing the Sun, stripped bare -assed naked, got into the lotus position on his bed! Now that's something you don't see on any other SG episode!

Avenger
October 26th, 2009, 03:10 PM
I think he's referring to Air Part 3, rather than Water.

Well, no worries then.


IIn "Air Part 3" we clearly saw that he believed it to be a sin, so much that he was moved to tears. As someone else said, he merely lost faith in himself.

No, that shows us that it was a concern for him when he was 16. It is now ten years later.

lindag8r
October 26th, 2009, 03:27 PM
SGU producers and writers: Since your first season shooting is winding down, this point may be moot for season 1 but not season 2. Stop the gratuitous sex scenes! Like it or not, Stargate is a family friendly franchise and it is on that platform that you have made an immense amount of money. These scenes are destroying that fan base! While I am lukewarm on the new series, the sex scenes (2 women in what 3 days) add nothing to the show except to confuse the viewer as to whether or not Scott should be taken seriously as a leader. Further, if they persist, this entire family will be boycotting the show. There are many, many other shows in that time slot on other networks that can tell their story without this pathetic attempt to "push the envelope." This insistence to push sex is one of the reasons SGU's ratings are poor. Pay attention or irrevocably damage the franchise.

Arjannl
October 26th, 2009, 03:45 PM
Well, the ratings aren't poor. And sex scenes? You barely see anything?

It's perhaps that I am European, but I really don't see the problem at all. Neither visually, nor story-wise for Scott.

Vapor
October 26th, 2009, 04:22 PM
i dont believe you, soldiers dont sleep with other soldiers.


Are you serious?

LOL, that was my reaction as well. Of course they do. There are so many news cases specifically on this subject it's amazing. One need only take three seconds to look it up and see for themselves.

Avenger
October 26th, 2009, 04:30 PM
i dont believe you, soldiers dont sleep with other soldiers.

Please. Fraternization happens. They aren't supposed to, but that doesn't stop people from doing. Furthermore, dating other members of the military is perfectly fine if they are not on the same chain of command which means soldiers can sleep with other soldiers without breaking rules.

aretood2
October 26th, 2009, 04:39 PM
I'm pretty sure the bible is like the pirate code, y'know, more like guidelines than actual rules.

Because we certainly don't follow all the rules in the bible. I mean, I've never seen some one be stoned to death for taking the Lord's name in vain and I'm pretty sure that in most civilized societies you can't sell your daughter into slavery yet both of these actions are justified and condoned in the bible.

My point is that what's a sin to you might not be a sin to Scott, and why should he live his life by some one elses guidelines? As long as he is true to himself and how he interprets his religion, it shouldn't matter to anyone else.

Number one, No Sanhedrin to authorize such stoning, Number two No Prophet to supervise such actions, Number three Jesus said those who are free of sin feel free to cast the first stone. It's not cause they are ignored that people don't do it, it is cause the conditions are not met.

So its not just a matter of guidelines, not that you can't believe it in such a fashion cause some do. It's a social construct that if fallowed Jews can live a good and peaceful life.

Scott is not in accordance with his own faith, not because he is a bad person but because he is going through his troubles. He needs to believe in his capacity to live up to his Ideals and not just forget it. This is why I like him, cause in the end we are all the same. Face it you all do things you know you shouldn't, either by accident or purpose.

Cold Fuzz
October 26th, 2009, 04:52 PM
whats strange is that military training is known to fix certain addictions and make you a better person overall, one that knows how to control himself at least. i mean, if he got sent to iraq, who will he sleep with?

Uh, no. Not by a long shot. I know someone who was a clean-cut guy who went in for the National Guard. After he came back from basic training and his first assignment, he took up smoking and was regularly getting drunk on Friday nights. Virtually the same thing happened to another guy I knew who went into the Airforce. Nice, clean-cut guys, the both of them. Now when they're off-duty, the two are serious loose cannons and both of their families are wondering what the hell happened to them. Frankly, I am too.

Does this make me anti-military? No, not by a long shot. As a law enforcement guy, I'm very supportive of the armed forces. But this idea that being in the military will cure certain addictive tendencies...well, let's just say that I'd like to see your sources of information on that.

Depending on the person, being in the military will either reinforce a person's self-discipline or unhinge certain behaviors in other aspects of their life. I've spoken to enough soldiers and cops who used to be soldiers to know that.


i dont believe you, soldiers dont sleep with other soldiers.

*shakes head* :sheppardanime31:

Krazeh
October 26th, 2009, 05:20 PM
This insistence to push sex is one of the reasons SGU's ratings are poor.

Last I checked the ratings for SGU were extremely positive and were a increase on anything the franchise had managed in the past couple of years.

RJLCyberPunk
October 26th, 2009, 06:10 PM
Has anybody taken into consideration the unique situation they were in? I mean the ship was about to collide (or so thought anyway) with a star and in just a few hours to boot! People will not act the same as they do regularly in a freaking Doomsday scenario.:mckay:

Deevil
October 26th, 2009, 06:14 PM
Last I checked the ratings for SGU were extremely positive and were a increase on anything the franchise had managed in the past couple of years. Yup, they really are. And that is in a time where ratings, almost across the board have been dropping :).

Vapor
October 26th, 2009, 06:22 PM
Some people just assume that ratings are bad because they personally don't agree with something the show does. I just wish people would do a little research before posting these ideas as fact.

We're talking to each other through the most vast system of information sharing on the planet, and people still insist on ignoring that you can practically learn anything you want with a few clicks.

Avenger
October 26th, 2009, 06:39 PM
The ratings are posted here at GW for crying out loud.

aretood2
October 26th, 2009, 06:43 PM
The ratings are posted here at GW for crying out loud.

Please give me a link, I can't seem to find them...hopefully they aren't somewhere obvious, cause that would look bad.

Arative
October 26th, 2009, 07:24 PM
Please give me a link, I can't seem to find them...hopefully they aren't somewhere obvious, cause that would look bad.

http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php?t=69324&page=51

Avenger
October 26th, 2009, 07:25 PM
In the news sectio9n on the main page as well.

Hermiiod
October 26th, 2009, 07:41 PM
Wow you are SO TOTALLY RIGHT. As long as 2 people enjoy it is OK. Then there is NOTHING wrong with an older man having sex with a little girl, if they both enjoy. Thanks for clearing that up for me :D
/sarcasm
This is quickly turning into a risky thread where the immorality of a Christian is being questioned so I won't stay long. I will however stay long enough to say that I agree with you, and being a Christian myself, even if I was faced with certain death, I would not have sex with a girl I have not been lawfully married to.

12OzMouse
October 26th, 2009, 07:53 PM
Craid Engler, Senior VP and General Manager Of SyFy, has been been saying with some regularity that they are extremely pleased with SGU's ratings. In fact, SGU has bucked the trend with it's numbers and actually increased viewers after the pilot. But, numbers are numbers and there are many ways to look at them. We may look at the ratings and think that they are so-so, they (SyFy) are looking at the demographics within the numbers. SGU has the numbers where they count, numbers that are very attractive to the advertisers! They, after all, are the ones who pay the bills.

Contrary to what a few folks in this thread seem to feel, the general viewing public and especially target audiences, actually, like the show. That's all that matters. I personally am happy that it's being so well received. The sex is but a small part of the show, it's tastefully done and nothing that any well adjusted adult should have a problem with. Truly, I found some of the violence in SGA to be a little over the top for a "family" show. Carrying a bloody Wraith head around wasn't something that I would want young children to see before bedtime. I had no problem with it, but I don't have to worry about kids seeing it either. I feel the same way about the sex.

Also, to speculate about a fictional characters morality and faith, seems to be a bit much for me. I will say, that this thread has done it's job, it's kept me entertained for a good while while I read it.

Lastly, the sex in the military, like I said, I spent over 20 years in my governments service and those of you that don't believe that fraternization between the sexes occurs, you are really out of touch. Boys and girls, girls and girls, boys and boys, it all happens. It happens in combat zones and stateside on bases, it happens at sea and in the air. Your talking about human beings here, just because a person wears a uniform doesn't mean they stop being sexually active.

Also, if you folks that are having a hard time with the first 5 episodes content, how in the world are you going to be able to deal with Ming Na's character? I know that they have pulled a sex scene that was already written for Ming Na, but that was because she was using the stones, (and someone else body at the time). So, I'll be interested to see how you all react to that scenario when it eventually arrives. Just my two cents....

Eternal Density
October 26th, 2009, 07:55 PM
Soldiers don't sleep! They wait. ;)

I never expected the Bible to be likened to Seven Habits (http://everything2.com/?node_id=1740950) of Highly Effective Pirates.

Pianomancuber
October 26th, 2009, 08:04 PM
All christians doesn't have sex until they're married.

Yeah right. :rolleyes: The easter bunny is real too.


That's not the point. Just because lots of people believe something doesn't make it right. Or (if you believe sex should be independent of marriage) just because lots of people do something doesn't suddenly rewrite the bible, which btw doesn't ever condone premarital sex. There is lots on lust, adultery, and other sexual perversions. From a biblical standpoint sex belongs in marriage because it is a holy and intimate act. To engage in intercourse outside of marriage is missing something vital and almost insulting to its purpose.

slurredspeech
October 26th, 2009, 08:12 PM
From a biblical standpoint sex belongs in marriage...

From a biblical standpoint, shrimp, shaving and vegetable gardens are abomination as well.

Quote one, quote them all, people.

Deevil
October 26th, 2009, 08:16 PM
That's not the point. Just because lots of people believe something doesn't make it right. Or (if you believe sex should be independent of marriage) just because lots of people do something doesn't suddenly rewrite the bible, which btw doesn't ever condone premarital sex. There is lots on lust, adultery, and other sexual perversions. From a biblical standpoint sex belongs in marriage because it is a holy and intimate act. To engage in intercourse outside of marriage is missing something vital and almost insulting to its purpose. The bible may say almost the same thing in every translation, but it doesn't always interpret the same. And neither will every religious person agree with every interpretation. And therefore, the sex before marriage thing can be interpreted as a sin, and by someone else as perfectly okay, as long as you are having sex with the desire to procreate - and yes I have heard that with verses from the bible to back it up.

Really... no one denomination completely agrees on everything. Hell, there are Priests and Ministers who don't believe everything that they have been told is frowned upon in the bible too. People can have independent thought an interpretation in religion too... and many people do.

Eternal Density
October 26th, 2009, 08:17 PM
From a biblical standpoint, shrimp, shaving and vegetable gardens are abomination as well.

Quote one, quote them all, people.Okay (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/10-23.htm).
"Everything is permissible"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"--but not everything is constructive.
[edit]I think part of the problem is that people are talking as if the point of Christianity is keeping some laundry list of rules.

slurredspeech
October 26th, 2009, 08:27 PM
"Everything is permissible"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"--but not everything is constructive.

If you're trying to tell me something, I ask who decides what is beneficial? One could argue regular sex is healthier than a bad marriage.

However. If we're simply having a Bible Verse-Off?

Attention Christian Department Employees, ye shall take off that polyester cloth. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+19%3A19&version=KJV)

Schizobadger
October 26th, 2009, 08:30 PM
Now, no one take this personally but about half of the Christians I have ever known were hypocritical. Their purity was all just for show. All their amoral behavior was magically blown away because they went to church and acted all nice to everyone. Christians love spouting off all their idealistic laws about what is right and wrong and when no one is looking, get wasted, swindle people out of money, or just be egotistical jerks when the situation allows it.

Also some of the dirtiest, whoriest people I know are 'devout Catholics'. They go to service every time they can and party like its going out of style. I think they think as long as the confess their sins, they remain pure. Saying you did something wrong is irrelevant if you continue doing it over and over again. Religion more often than not is all just for show. Many horrible, nasty people use it for a cover.

Now, like I said, I am only saying this from my personal experience. Perhaps all you faithful, righteous Christians out there are pure and live up to your idealistic expectations. But this is from my own observations. Maybe I have it all wrong (religion salesman love saying this to me).

Not going to argue over religion here, it is pointless.:jack_new_anime06:

As for our topic, yeah he is a hypocritic creep. But I wasn't all that surprised.

Besides this little 'love story', if you wish to call it that, between these two, I am very much enjoying the show. I really can't stand these two people, just got to grit my teeth and wait for them to go away.:beckett14:

GateroomGuard
October 26th, 2009, 08:36 PM
If you're trying to tell me something, I ask who decides what is beneficial? One could argue regular sex is healthier than a bad marriage.

However. If we're simply having a Bible Verse-Off?

Attention Christian Department Employees, ye shall take off that polyester cloth. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+19%3A19&version=KJV)

Not all Old Testament law applies anymore. That was the reason Peter recieved the vision in Acts. A lot of the laws in Leviticus and Deutoronomy applied only to the Jewish people. But there were also laws that were universal for the entire human race. Deciding which were universal has been a great pain for theologians for centuries.

Pianomancuber
October 26th, 2009, 09:07 PM
From a biblical standpoint, shrimp, shaving and vegetable gardens are abomination as well.

Quote one, quote them all, people.

This isn't the place for this kind of debate but I just wanted to say this. What you have said has been taken far out of context. The rules you are referring to were for a specific sect of Levites (if you want citation message me) and are not for everyone, especially us today, to follow. However my original point was that there is no verse that says "No sex before marriage", but there are many verses that talk about the sanctity of marriage and 'becoming one flesh'. My interpretation is that sex is an aspect of marriage, and marriage is a total union between two people. Physical, emotion, and spiritual aspects combine to create an intimate and beautiful bond that God intended for us.

That's just my opinion, and I respect everybody else to have theirs.

Kaiphantom
October 26th, 2009, 09:08 PM
From a different perspective...

It's not about whether he's a Christian. It's the fact that he got a girl pregnant via such acts, and we're shown that it affected him deeply. Because of the stress, the priest/father figure died.

Something THAT profound should have an effect on him. Maybe that perhaps he should learn to control his urges. The fact that he goes on to have such casual encounters throws all that character building out the window, ie, it means *nothing.*

Which means the priest popping up in Air pt3 meant nothing, when it obviously did.

So, he's either one of the crappiest characters ever written... or he's just crappy as a character. The latter differs because it would just mean he's incredibly dumb.

I really think that scene in light was a disservice to his character. He should have refused her... not because of any religious beliefs, but because he had just been reminded not too long ago via his priest hallucination. He's like a bad male stereotype, unable to control his urges.

While I am agnostic and don't have a high opinion of religions, I recognize that they can do some good, and people can be made better by following them. They had a good opportunity here to do a good portrayal, and they blew it.

Last point: You advance ranks in the military either because you're a good disciplined soldier, or you know how to play politics. I don't think the latter applies to Scott, so it's another clash with what they are telling us his character is.

rarocks24
October 26th, 2009, 09:18 PM
Maybe he even stole her virginity.

Somehow if she was that easy, I highly doubt she's a virgin.

All Christians have problems. We deal with them every day. Some of us have alcoholism, some of us have lust, others are liars. We are by no means perfect. If you're on here bashing Scott about it, remember that to God everything is a glass house. All your lies are equal to all the girls Scott has had sex with outside of marriage. There is only sin, not degrees of sin. And its best not to judge each other, and let God sort them out.

Eternal Density
October 26th, 2009, 09:42 PM
This isn't the place for this kind of debate but I just wanted to say this. What you have said has been taken far out of context. ...I concur.


From a different perspective...

It's not about whether he's a Christian. It's the fact that he got a girl pregnant via such acts, and we're shown that it affected him deeply. Because of the stress, the priest/father figure died.

Something THAT profound should have an effect on him. Maybe that perhaps he should learn to control his urges. The fact that he goes on to have such casual encounters throws all that character building out the window, ie, it means *nothing.*
...Very good point. I hope we do see some of these expected effects in future eps though.


Somehow if she was that easy, I highly doubt she's a virgin. While I doubt it also, the way you said that comes across as a bit unkind.[edit]I agree with the rest of your post entirely, however :D

Vapor
October 26th, 2009, 10:19 PM
Somehow if she was that easy, I highly doubt she's a virgin.

Could we not, please? Seriously.

jcainhaze
October 26th, 2009, 10:30 PM
even if I was faced with certain death, I would not have sex with a girl I have not been lawfully married to.

Oh come on hemroid, thats sorta far fetched isn't it. What if you both really liked each other, were trapped on a spaceship, had no priest, and no "law" to make it legit? Well then, in that case, I guess sex could never be had again. It's just not possible without some sort of holy shawman or tax devouring corrupt government.

On second thought....there is that small room they like to light candles in. That might be a worthy place to sanctify a sex having relationship. So that combined with the idea that Col. Young is kinda like the government. Young could just dig around for some fancy letterhead and put his special stamp on it.

Hermiiod
October 26th, 2009, 10:52 PM
Oh come on hemroid, thats sorta far fetched isn't it.
The name's Hermiiod you freak. :mckay: (two 'i's)

DigiFluid
October 26th, 2009, 10:55 PM
and being a Christian myself, even if I was faced with certain death, I would not have sex with a girl I have not been lawfully married to.
I respect that this may be your belief in what's best for you, but boy am I ever glad we live in different worlds ;)


The name's Hermiiod you freak. :mckay:
Ah come on....jab or typo, it was still pretty funny :p

I didn't even notice till you pointed it out!

Phenom
October 27th, 2009, 05:59 AM
The name's Hermiiod you freak. :mckay: (two 'i's)

Aah come on mate, it was quite a good one....if you are going to have a crack back you need to make it more inventive than freak.

aretood2
October 27th, 2009, 12:10 PM
Oh come on hemroid, thats sorta far fetched isn't it. What if you both really liked each other, were trapped on a spaceship, had no priest, and no "law" to make it legit? Well then, in that case, I guess sex could never be had again. It's just not possible without some sort of holy shawman or tax devouring corrupt government.
The bible is a rule of thumb, not a law for every occasion. Taking that into consideration lets look at what a priest is for. A priest is to show the partaking of God in the relationship. He is not needed when he is not possible (the Priest). This is not to be confused with convenience, such as that I can't seem to find a priest so I'll just ignore that issue.



On second thought....there is that small room they like to light candles in. That might be a worthy place to sanctify a sex having relationship. So that combined with the idea that Col. Young is kinda like the government. Young could just dig around for some fancy letterhead and put his special stamp on it.

This is a perfect reply to you question, Young could act in place of a priest.

so They had choices, they just didn't care for it.

Pianomancuber
October 27th, 2009, 12:45 PM
What if you both really liked each other, were trapped on a spaceship, had no priest, and no "law" to make it legit? Well then, in that case, I guess sex could never be had again.

If I really like someone I wouldn't feel the need to have sex with them in the face of imminent death. Any relationship built solely on sexual gratification is incredibly shallow and will most likely end very soon. After all, physical beauty fades.

shipper hannah
October 27th, 2009, 12:59 PM
The characters are meant to have flaws, they're not meant to be like Jesus or something. So what if Scott is a promiscuous Christian? It's obvious to me that the two acts were under different circumstances and meant something different to those involved.

FallenAngelII
October 27th, 2009, 01:04 PM
I thought we'd established that he's got a huge problem when it comes to sex.

* Knocks up a girl at 15 or younger. It is inferred that he didn't love her. He also probably didn't wear protection.
* Has sex while on duty in supply closet with James. Ignores direct orders from supervisor in order to continue the humping. He clearly doesn't love James (as he was quick to jump on Chloe). It has been inferred to me that they may not have been using protection.
* Has sex with Chloe, whom he knows is emotionally distraught at the moment and possibly desperate for attention and intimacy. He might have feelings for her (it is inferred that he actually does). Probably didn't use protection because, really, how could they possibly have had the time to bring protection with them through the gate?!

And this is where he reveals himself to be utterly immature, selfish and not at all leadership material. I mean, he's Young's second in command and all, but he shouldn't be!

"I want you to be one of the two chosen for the shuttle!" - Chloe didn't want this because she knows she possesses no special skills to help them survive out there, but Scott kept saying that he wanted her to be chosen... because she was a Senator's Daughter and because he wanted it.

Yes. A lot of people are going to die, you are going to be struggling to survive in a possibly hostile environment, but let's bring along the girl you've known for less than a week because you just started boinking her and want to keep on doing it!

So, irresponsible with sex, promiscuous (this is only inferred, but pretty heavily), selfish, immature, not a good leader, doesn't think of the good of the many. Yah... Scott's not just "human" anymore, he's a downright annoying little twit I wouldn't trust for a second with my life unless it was a combat situation and I need someone who's good at shooting things.

Automission
October 27th, 2009, 01:18 PM
Am i the only one confused This scott guy had sex with some girl in a closet, then this 16 year old, which i think this is the only time they've interacted so far, surely? Yet they're acting like they've been dating for months!?

DigiFluid
October 27th, 2009, 01:48 PM
Am i the only one confused This scott guy had sex with some girl in a closet, then this 16 year old, which i think this is the only time they've interacted so far, surely? Yet they're acting like they've been dating for months!?

I'm slightly puzzled at your post, so I'll just lay it all out:

Scott, at age 16 (or thereabouts) got an as-yet unidentified 16 year old girl pregnant (Air Pt 3). Years later, he's having closet sex with Lt. James (Air Pt 1) while stationed at Icarus Base--the details of this relationship, whether a relationship or just sex, are not yet clear. A few days later, Scott's knocking boots with 23-year-old Chloe (Light), whom he's really only just met but made some kind of bond with over loss (Air Pt 3).

Automission
October 27th, 2009, 01:51 PM
thats what I mean, it makes no sense, it's as if a month of character development happened between episodes.