How Christian of him.

[The_Asgard_live]

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]

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]

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]

I would say, How human of him. Regardless of his faith. Emotions are what constitutes the human condition, not a religious upbringing.

[Eternal Density]

I think we're suffering from not enough information, combined with too much information.

[Deevil]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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, and, I guess, shrimp 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. 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]

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]

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 Cat?