MrBrown

Happy new year everyone!

(Even it is already 21.5 hours since 2014 started here.. :) )

Someone is trying to get some more post counts by bashing some 1 post wonders, didn't he?

Warbler said:

yeah, 12 is too young to marry, so is 16.  Why the difference for males and females?   Why can females marry at a younger age than males?

 I really don't know. I would say it is some law not reviewed for a long period of time.

Maybe something like "women shall old enough to give birth to child and men shall be old enough to give their family some proper shelter", but I have to guess (maybe wrong) on that.

I don't know how far Iran got it, but there was a try to bring down the age for a girl to be marriaged to the age of 9 in Iran.

Personally I don't need to discuss it, because I think the age of 18 is a reasonable age, maybe with some special decided exceptions down to 16 or 17. (Some people at 16 are more reasonable then some other at 25... ) I just wanted to show a delicate topic wich was not completely included in my "love is the foremost important part in a relationship" because the matter of age is something which can't be lighly put (or more to say "ignored") under such simple sentence.

RicOlie_2 said:

...

Hey, you can't be that bad. You seem to understand English quite well and you write it pretty well too.

I think the Qur'an was clear enough on that point that it one would find the same message in its original language.

It was a hard and stony way. :) And I am not at its end, yet. :) But I give my best to use english as well as I can

...

But I also think it is more complicate than that. There are some very delicate topics, which are not scrateched with that.

in Exsample what topic is not even scratched:

In the State of Vatikan it is illegal to commit sex out of marriage, you have to be marriaged to commit sex. (So it is illegal to commit homosexual sex at all, because you would not be married in the state of Vatikan.) Nice thing, but: The age for being marriaged depends in the State of Vatikan on the sex: Male may marriage with 16 years, female with the age of 12... (I didn't find any news, if the Age of marriage was raised, I only can find that in Spain the age of marriage was raised from 14 to 16.)

 In Vatican City, I think it is fine to have restrictions like that since it has a population of something like 400 people, almost all of which are Roman Catholic, I am sure.

 I didn't aim for the restriction of not allowing unmaried sex. Thus the Vatican City (and State) is merely a State were church and state is one... I was more concerning the age topic.

Mrebo said:

...

I grant you that it is problematic from a legal standpoint when people only refer to the bible to make their case. Yet for believers, the bible is not merely an antique text (and certainly not hateful). For them, it is the truth. Thus when a law is proposed that in their view sanctions something immoral, it is natural for them to oppose it. It would be quite weird for someone to assert a moral belief but consider it somehow less legitimate because it is religious. And Christians believe a great many will "burn" for a great many reasons - primarily if one does not accept Jesus. That doesn't mean one cannot have a reasonable discussion with Christians.

There are alternative views for Christians to hold on marriage. For instance I know one evangelical who views homosexuality as immoral yet believes the government should have no role in marriage, which he sees as a religious sacrament quite different in nature from legal marriage, even as it exists for straight people. Sort of the difference between Christmas (Santa Version) and Christmas (Jesus Version).

It should be respected when people sincerely advocate for positions based on their religious views, including advocating for laws. Part of the difficulty is that many Christians see homosexuality as an activity, whereas same-sex marriage advocates see homosexuality as an identity - the former view I think is evident in RO_2's posts. I see no hate in RO_2's or ender's posts but I think far too many people may take it that way.

I never considered neither Darth_Ender nor RicOlie_2 as posting hateful. Otherwise I think the whole discussion would have been some kind of bad blood, which it surely has not.

The Problem are not the people just having another opinion, and just express them, but no matter what topic, no matter which side: There are always some extremists with too much destructive power.

I do not see any really kind of solution, unless people start to change. Sometimes I read such sentences as "Start tolerancing our intolerance." I have a 'maybe' answer: "As soon as you start tolerating what you are intolerance of... ;)"

RicOlie_2 said:

I meant insulting people, not making jokes.

"Then I demand my right to shot the one who is insulting me, because I took my honor."

(No I don't think killing someone is the correct answer to an insult, I just want to show that, what you demand, can, and will start some kind of chain reaction, ending in what I "demanded". Insult someone always has to face consequences, but it has not neccesary to be always some kind of lawyer needed consequences. If you insult someone in a bar, you mostly would only get a bloody nose.)

I don't even see it to be a right for me to insult someone, because an insult is an action directly AGAINST someone. It is a right to have a different opinion. Even to express the opinion, but I don't think it is a right to act against someone, because he doesn't match your opinion.

And here is the point:

Sure the anti-homosexual-marriage demonstrants have their right to say "In my opinion it is not right that homosexuals get married." But often it is more that they don't express their opinion, but try to act against the people trying to get equality rights. (And there are also exsamples the way around, not questioning that.)

In my opinion the anti-homosexual-marriage movement is very wrong, because they base (I would say "all") their arguments on hate and antique texts, which have nothing to do with a stat legislative.

You see the difference between the sentence: "homosexuals shall burn" and "I don't believe you are right with equal marriage rights."

With whom you would prefer to discuss the topic? :)

RicOlie_2 said:

MrBrown said:

RicOlie_2 said:

...

Islam: Despite what many insist, Islam is certainly not a religion of peace and this is apparent from the Qur'an. I believe in peace (though I think war is necessary sometimes), thus I cannot maintain the ideals of this religion.

...

 You are aware that much from the Qur'an is taken from the bible?
 And regarding this point the bible is as bloody and bloodthirsty as the Qur'an. With both books, it is often more a question of the interpreting priests.

A lot taken from the Bible is warped into a different story or the stories are drawn from different traditions (the latter being just a guess based on what I have read in the Qur'an). A new law of love and peace was given by Christ, so only the Old Testament contains the comparatively violent religion of the Jews/Israelites which was largely due to the way the world was at the time. Their violent behaviour was entirely normal back then. Muslims, at least according to the Qur'an, are still required to kill non-believers.

I really would love to read the Qur'an in its original language, but I am very bad at learning languages, so this would never happen. I think most of the "kill non-believers" is some kind of more or less mistranslation and misinterpreting by people, which want to bring people in a certain way. But as long as I don't know it literal words, I can only assume, and hope for the best.

Also I may add, that inquisition, witch hunting, holy war, and purge the pagan was a catholic invention. Just to mention "Massacre de la Saint-Barthélemy" Night of August the 23rd to August 24th 1572. 

None of which would have been anything but appalling to the members of the early Church. None of those were right, none of those are in accordance with the Catholic religion. Holy wars and massacres are not only allowed in the Qur'an, but are also required.

The point I was trying to take is, again, I think most problems of religions are created not by just believing in God, but by interpretation done by (wo)men. These activities in the Name of the Catholic Church maybe wrong today, they even were wrong thatdays, but for the catholics and the catholic church they were in the name and word of the Lord.

Oh, not that you think I pick on you, but you seem to be very interesting to discuss with, because, we have both very different sighty, but I would say that we do our best not to insult, but to debate reasons and beliefs.

No worries, I don't feel picked on and I enjoy debating. :)

Fine. :) MAybe it is because you are the most one standing and waving a flag for the catholic church here. :)

Personally I am not very religious, so I won'T call anything "god". I would argue, that the things atheists call morality is indeed the same thing as the point poeple of a belief see their god. It is the inner voice wich telling somebody if he is "wrong" or "right".

That has truth in it, but of course I believe that our conscience comes from God, not vice versa.

And that is your right to do. :) I not even want to challange your believe in God.

I really beliefe that Earth with its live on it is just a coincidence, and that we are only a little bit of dust in the whole existence of all. I don't dare to beliefe that we are the most intelligent beeings, also not the most reasonable.

 Though I believe our existence was planned from the beginning, I don't believe we are the most intelligent or reasonable beings. I believe the angels are both more intelligent and more reasonable, and of course that God is infinitely intelligent and reasonable.

And now a really challenging question(s):

Do you need the catholic church for your believe in God?You said, in the homosexual thread, that a homosexual who does act against the catholic church, if he commit homosexual acts (if I interporeted your words correctly). But you also said that actions in the past, like inquisition, were against what the catholic church stands for. As I said: Today these acts would be against it, but in past times it was exactly what the catholic chruch stands for that days. So what makes the conter homosexual teachings of the catholic church any more trustworthy, as the past time teachings against wiches and non-believers?

You say:

"I believe the angels are both more intelligent and more reasonable, and of course that God is infinitely intelligent and reasonable."

I do not want to challange this believe. I just want to point out, that you believe that God is that way, but I question the Catholic Church (and almost everykind of theistic church or religios group) as an institution by human.

If God as an ethernal being exists, and he created earth and live, than he created us the way he wanted, with all our flaws and merits, with heterosexuality and homosexuality.
 On one point you are not wrong: we all have the possibility to choose our actions, but I think it is more a choose, if actions from love or "hate" are our way.

Abusing someone, no matter if heterosexual or homosexual is wrong, but two (consenting) people loving each other, doesn't need to be judged if both are from the same sex or human culture. That is what I believe.

But I also think it is more complicate than that. There are some very delicate topics, which are not scrateched with that.

in Exsample what topic is not even scratched:

In the State of Vatikan it is illegal to commit sex out of marriage, you have to be marriaged to commit sex. (So it is illegal to commit homosexual sex at all, because you would not be married in the state of Vatikan.) Nice thing, but: The age for being marriaged depends in the State of Vatikan on the sex: Male may marriage with 16 years, female with the age of 12... (I didn't find any news, if the Age of marriage was raised, I only can find that in Spain the age of marriage was raised from 14 to 16.)

RicOlie_2 said:

...

Islam: Despite what many insist, Islam is certainly not a religion of peace and this is apparent from the Qur'an. I believe in peace (though I think war is necessary sometimes), thus I cannot maintain the ideals of this religion.

...

 You are aware that much from the Qur'an is taken from the bible?
 And regarding this point the bible is as bloody and bloodthirsty as the Qur'an. With both books, it is often more a question of the interpreting priests.

Also I may add, that inquisition, witch hunting, holy war, and purge the pagan was a catholic invention. Just to mention "Massacre de la Saint-Barthélemy" Night of August the 23rd to August 24th 1572. 

Oh, not that you think I pick on you, but you seem to be very interesting to discuss with, because, we have both very different sighty, but I would say that we do our best not to insult, but to debate reasons and beliefs.

Personally I am not very religious, so I won'T call anything "god". I would argue, that the things atheists call morality is indeed the same thing as the point poeple of a belief see their god. It is the inner voice wich telling somebody if he is "wrong" or "right".

I really beliefe that Earth with its live on it is just a coincidence, and that we are only a little bit of dust in the whole existence of all. I don't dare to beliefe that we are the most intelligent beeings, also not the most reasonable.

RicOlie_2 said:

MrBrown said:

...

I don't think it's right in most cases, but I think it should be legal. Just as I don't think making fun of someone is right, I just think it should be legal. If we impose too many restrictions, laws become stricter and stricter and the government gains more and more control over what people can't do.

The point with making fun of some other groups is a two sided edge. I really like making jokes regard women. (You know, such as "blonde" jokes, or like "A man: a word. A woman: a dictionary.") But I also can laught on the opposing jokes towards men. I think, that people who are joking also should be able to take similar jokes fired back.

RicOlie_2 said:

MrBrown said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Absolutely not. Being black is not a choice.

 So, you say, what you belief is just a choice.

You could stop believing in God and stop being catholic just at the point? Cool... And you just can start believing homosexuality, just equal as being heterosexuality?

What if a job (out of being a priest) wants you to stop living heterosexual acts?

And, to help the employer to see iof the person is of a belief, sexuality or  such thing they don't feel comfortable with, that homosexuals have to wear a rainbow flag, and jews a little star, and islamists a small half-moon, and mormons a little.. uhm.. here I have fo pass, I don't know a fitting symbol important to the mormon belief...

..but, you know.. nothing against these kind of people... it's not to discriminate.. it ius just.. to help normal people see what they are dealing with...

 No, that's not what I mean. I don't think I presented my reasons very well. I think that in a free country, employers should have the right to refuse employment just because they don't like a person. That's all I mean, and I think that the employer in question should be the top dog in the business/organization/other for the rule to qualify. If someone under the head of the business is responsible for employing people, the rule should no longer apply unless the boss also refuses to hire that person. At a certain point even that should be prohibited.

 But this are two kind of socks, and that's the reason, I think the religion and sexuality of a person has nothing to be discussed in a job application discussion:

If the employer doesn't know on this things, and he feels uneasy with the maybe empoyee, this may be a sign, that the applicant may not fit into the business. Thats normally the main reasin for job interviews: testing, if the applicant fits in.

If a employer refuses to give a job to someone, just because he has another religion, which nothing has to do with the job itself, than this is just a kind of "rascism".

In Germany questions like "What sexuality you have?", "What religion you are part of?" and (for female employees) "Are you pregnant?" are illegal in a job interview, to avoid such form of choosing.

On the other hand, I don't go well with the persons saying "If a person from a minority/female and a person from a majority/male apply for a job, and they are almost equal in knowledge (or whatever for the job is needed) the minority/female person should be favoured, to be not a rascist/sexist whatever." Because thus kind of thinking is just the other way around. Its 'almost' the same as "Hey, we white, christian, men are just superior, because we have balls for everything, a cross to carry for the benefit of all and we get a nice tan in the sun." (okay a bit satirical expressed, but maybe you get it.)

There are som cases, where you are not all wrong:

In a (strict) catholic school, a jew, mormon or even a protestant teacher just won't "fit". In a heterosexual, men aiming, strip club, a gay male tabledancer just won't fit.

But in a company, searching a good IT-engeneer, there is no need, to be heterosexual, male and catholic. If the employer has a problem with a female mormon, which may have just perfect abilities for this job, it is the problem of the employer, for be single minded, not the problem of the applicant to be a female mormon.

Another question:

If you had a son, loving him about 15 years, would you really think he is a different person, if he would come out to be homosexual, knowing it about 3 years or so? Would you really see him as a different person? What would you say to him: "No, I am not your father anymore, I can't accept that you.. love male. Stop it! I will not help you with the problems you will have to face, because of single minded persons, like me."
 Now think another way. Lets say your father had been atheist, but in your childhood, you really found your true belief in god. Finding the teachings of the catholic chuch of hope and salvation quite a true into your heart. What do you hope to hear from your father? "Hah! You fool! 'Believing' in what cannot exsist. Out of my house of true knowledge."

RicOlie_2 said:

Absolutely not. Being black is not a choice.

 So, you say, what you belief is just a choice.

You could stop believing in God and stop being catholic just at the point? Cool... And you just can start believing homosexuality, just equal as being heterosexuality?

What if a job (out of being a priest) wants you to stop living heterosexual acts?

And, to help the employer to see iof the person is of a belief, sexuality or  such thing they don't feel comfortable with, that homosexuals have to wear a rainbow flag, and jews a little star, and islamists a small half-moon, and mormons a little.. uhm.. here I have fo pass, I don't know a fitting symbol important to the mormon belief...

..but, you know.. nothing against these kind of people... it's not to discriminate.. it ius just.. to help normal people see what they are dealing with...

darth_ender said:

TV's Frink said:

Again, so what?  Just for example, it doesn't keep you from getting married.  Where's the tangible disadvantage?

You shouldn't listen to everything a student newspaper says anyway. ;-)

 Well, the student newspaper to me represents the views of so many left-winged, politically correct, white guilt folks.  Yes, there are advantages to being part of a majority.  But why is it necessary to have tangible disadvantages in order to stand up for what's right?  Why can't we stand up for what's right all the time?

But if we must discuss tangible disadvantages...

I have been threatened with my life for being a Mormon trying to share my message as a missionary.

I have been belittled many times for my faith.  I don't always feel comfortable sharing my church membership in public because of the criticism I receive.  One of the residents at my work has started several conversations with me, claiming that "the Mormons" run the facility and that every little thing that goes wrong is their fault.  She can often be demeaning in her criticisms, yet she does not know that I am actually Mormon.

Numerous church buildings and temples have been vandalized in recent years, particularly following the defeat of gay marriage in the states where such measures were voted a few years ago.

Many facilities, particularly in the South, will not hire a Mormon.

There are others I could say.  It is not as pretty a picture as you think, and we take flak from Christians and atheists.  I need to go to bed.  I'd also hoped to discuss the tangible problems of bigotry against Christians.  I'll get to it later.  Just don't think of it as so simple and easy because we're not part of the politically-correct protected minority clique.

 You shall salute this resident at your work with a "Sieg Heil" After she rambled about mormons again, because that are almost excactly the "reasons" which where used against the jews back in time.

And, drawing the line back to topic:

With this experiences, you know a bit how homosexuals may feel, facing reactions.

dark_jedi said:

MrBrown said:

dark_jedi said:

A huge thanks to TServo2049 we now have the Dutch BD of The Neverending Story to go along with my German and US releases.

I am not 100% sure of exactly what all will be on this release, it is still in the planning, but I am pretty sure we are going to have both versions on our release with kick ass audio and both color corrected, it may be a 2-Disc BD25 Set or 1 BD50, we will announce more details when we get closer to release.

Thanks

 What source are you planning to use for the (german) Theatrical Version?

 The German extended cut is coming from the German BD release.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Die-unendliche-Geschichte-Blu-ray/56091/

speaking of which can anyone here help us in obtaining the Japanese version, it seems we will need this one after all,

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-NeverEnding-Story-Blu-ray/73577/

 I have ordered the japanese Edition. Hopefully it is still avaible. Let you know, if I know anything, like "shipped" or "canceled". So I might help with the things you need from it.

TServo2049 said:

Since Caps-a-Holic shows no difference between the German and Japanese extended cut transfers, I have a sneaking suspicion that while it has the English audio exclusively, it does not have English credits.

The German cut was only ever assembled in German (in fact, I am surprised that they took the effort to put together an English soundtrack for the Blu-ray!) If there are English credits on the Japanese release (and I doubt it), they would almost certainly have to be a digital facsimile. Maybe it would just be better if we made our own English credits?

There are some minor differences, only to be noticed in zoomed pictures.

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_comparison.php?art=part&x=485&y=346&action=1&image=6&hd_multiID=324&cap1=29044&cap2=26892&disc1=3156&disc2=2912&lossless=#vergleich

The japanese Edition seem to have a itsy-bitsy-tiny touch of more grain...

dark_jedi said:

A huge thanks to TServo2049 we now have the Dutch BD of The Neverending Story to go along with my German and US releases.

I am not 100% sure of exactly what all will be on this release, it is still in the planning, but I am pretty sure we are going to have both versions on our release with kick ass audio and both color corrected, it may be a 2-Disc BD25 Set or 1 BD50, we will announce more details when we get closer to release.

Thanks

 What source are you planning to use for the (german) Theatrical Version?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=041KaLeGZzQ

Mrebo said:

 If I remember the story right (from past time in relgios techings in school) he used it, to throw the people out, who were misusing the holy ground of the temple...

RicOlie_2 said:

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Leonardo said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

There were comments on the previous page bemoaning the fact that it's ok to "bash" Christianity but not homosexuality.  That's what I was responding to.

 It is perfectly acceptable in society to bash Christianity. 

Yeah, look, you're comparing apples and cacti here. On one hand, you have the bashing of an organized religion, which I won't go into. On the other hand, you have the bashing of people, being what they are. The two do not equate.

No, not the bashing of people necessarily, but the bashing of what they do.

 Telling someone that what they do is a sin and they are going to hell because of it is considered bashing by most non-religious people.

 Those people are only going to hell if they continue doing it and also realize how wrong their actions are. You wouldn't tell someone to stop "bashing" a kid because they were warning a kid not to stick a nail in an electrical outlet. We aren't trying to bash people, but trying to stop them from doing what is wrong.

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

There were comments on the previous page bemoaning the fact that it's ok to "bash" Christianity but not homosexuality.  That's what I was responding to.

 It is perfectly acceptable in society to bash Christianity.   Quick, name one person fired from a TV show for Christianity bashing.  

Can't do it?  Didn't think so.  

 Carolin Kebekus' show was censored because of some jokes against catholic chucrch. Also she got sued, for one song, but the judge said, that satire was clearly visible.

DuracellEnergizer said:

I have absolutely no interest in seeing any of The Hobbit films. This will be unlikely to change even if I do end up reading the book someday.

 Uhm.. be careful, IF you get interested in the Films, after reading the book.. That little evil thing is full of spoilers!

Maybe it would be nessecary to divide between marriage by church and marriage by state?

As with thinks like other taxes for marriaged persons, or the right to visit the partner in a hospital, it is no more some kind of "religious only" thing.

If a catholic beliefe that a homosexual will burn in hell, and shall not be married in a catholic church: sad thing, but.. okay... house rules. (Going just as far as somebody has to suffer, so: NO EXORCISM!)

But: Why shall catholic interferre in questions regarding the legal questions, like:

- visiting in hospitals

- adopting children

- taxes

It is out of their house.

But here comes the point: They tend to demonstrate against things they just could ignore...

Leonardo said:

So, yesterday Christmas came early, my best friend brought me the greatest gift I've got in years:

Complete with 2 controllers, Light Gun and two MarioBros/DuckHunt carts.

I couldn't be happier. I just needed to clean up the cartridges and the gamepads with a little alcohol and a q-tip, fix the 72 pin connector by bending the pins back in place, and it's now working perfectly like it's 1986.

Now to save up a little money to buy a few cartridges. Or, if I'm lucky, get them cheap at the local flea market.

Cuttlefish is a good friend. That's why I'm getting him SF2T for the SNES plus another controller. :)

...That is, if the postal service works. I was supposed to receive the packages several days ago.

Woah! Cool! Too bad I was on Videogames late, and not so deep. I just have still my SNES with Controllers, and 3 or 4 games. I gave my Street Fighter Alpha 2 game to a friend, because I still have the game on Playstation. But I still have Mortal Kombat II, Super MArio World and Mystic Quest Legends for my SNES.

At the moment I more tinker with the just arrived PS Vita TV. Too bad it is just working with a japenese PSN account, and so far it is more a bit useless. Having an eye on the CFW and Homebrew scene, I am hoping for some usability as emulator Station in the future...

TV's Frink said:

But how will you send yourself PMs now?

 As far as I hate myself, I would never start a conversation in private with me... :)

Mhm.. Maybe "Gaffer Tape" was his own Nemesis?

Leonardo said:

Actually, it is possible. Follow this link.

Let me know if it worked.

 Thanks! It worked fine!

Ignore List

Users

MrBrown

Prevent this user from viewing your profile
Block e-mails sent via the contact form
Block private messages from this user

...

2 members have you on their ignore list:

Jedi Temple34

MrBrown

Also, when I am trying to view my profile:

MrBrown — User Profile

You're on this user's ignore list and are not permitted to view this profile.

I try to ignore myself, but I can Not. Why? :)