How Christian of him.

[lordofseas]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Vapor]

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]

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]

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]

Pre-marital sex is immoral. Sorry to burst your bubble. And it's a sin.

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]

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]

"No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
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

[Vapor]

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]

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]

Spoiler:

*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.

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]

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]

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.