The previous movies can't exist in the same universe as pre-Disney Star Wars. In pre-Disney even the chosen one needs training to learn how to use the force like every Jedi and Sith needs to do anything advanced. Wisdom gained through learning from other force users, and experience with the force, over years. The light switch to advanced powers the instant Rey learned the Jedi aren't a myth cannot exist in the same universe, and it breaks any illusion of a consistent world.
If they were going to have legacy character to get butts in seats, the last thing anyone who came to see those characters wanted was character assassinating them, and offing them. Passing of the torch can work, but it never works like that. That wasn't the real Han, Luke, or Leah even. They undid Han's redemption arc and offed him. Luke who saw the good in Darth Vader suddenly tries to off Kylo because of a dream. With "somehow Palpatine returned" they also wrecked Anakin's character arc that goes through all non-Disney Star Wars movies, and invalidated his sacrifice.
It's not just my taste. They made objectively bad decisions that the majority of moviegoers wouldn't like, and didn't follow basic world continuity rules. Disney buys up ips they don't understand, and thinks having what are said to be the characters, and looking like the thing, is what matters, not staying consistent with the story's themes and values, or the classic characters actually acting like themselves. That's why most reboots, and remakes are trash.
Right, I was already better all along. :) I wasn't arguing about whether they're "evil", but it's a fact that they have destroyed franchises. I would know better than to ruin children's dreams like that.
In the first amendment Congress not establishing a religion means they shouldn't make a federal state church (sponsored by the federal government), or force anyone to be a religion, it does not mean those governing a largely Christian people should not represent that morality and world view in their governance, or laws. There used to be anti-adultery laws, and that was obviously because of Christian morality, but it didn't require practicing Christianity to obey them.
The founders weren't deists. A deist cannot say "God governs in the affairs of men," as Benjamin Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention when he recommended they begin with prayer and have clergy officiate it. While they didn't want denominational persecution by law, the idea that they banned Christian morality guiding how the nation was governed is also false. As near as I can tell, the so called "Christian nationalists" that the left fear, don't want anything different than the founders wanted. I don't think state mandated Catholicism or Protestantism or even state mandated belief in Christianity is part of that.
Jesus would want us to follow his teachings in that verse, and elsewhere as well. If you don't mean to say you see his words in that verse as hate, why did you bring up hate about that?
There are two things one can mean by hate, the first is malice and the desire to destroy someone, the second is choosing someone, or something over them (hate by comparison). The first is the kind we shouldn't have for people as Christians.
type 1
"You must not harbor hatred against your brother in your heart. Directly rebuke your neighbor, so that you will not incur guilt on account of him. Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against any of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself." (Leviticus 19:17-18)
type 2
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)
A Christian should love God above everyone else (see Matthew 22:37-40). Many of the LGBT want Christians to choose validating their choices over the Christian's own love for God. The "hate," as they call it, is choosing God over them, not malice, or a desire to destroy them.
By love the Bible doesn't mean universal affirmation of behavior to make someone feel good, or accepted. It means seeking the good of the other, which can, at times, involve telling them no, or some truth they find harsh. It could even involve rebuking them for their behavior, as the first verse above says, instead of remaining silent. Hate that Christians are to avoid has nothing to do with non-approval of behavior. They shouldn't have malice-hate for people, but they are supposed to hate sin, and evil.
"Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good." (Romans 12:9 )
Historically allowing same-sex relationships in some places isn't the same as pretending that they are marriages. You say nobody's redefining things, but saying marriage isn't by definition opposite-sex is doing exactly that. Judges legislating from the bench instead of letting people vote on it is forcible redefinition to a tee.
If God made marriage, and made it rooted in the union of male and female, as Jesus said, then someone saying it can be same-sex is not speaking the truth. Marriage is something real, and defined, not just a perception, or feeling people have about themselves, or even an invention by human government. God made it, and defined it.
