CP3S said:
Okay, but it does say those things. Bingo admitted he rather liked the teachings of Jesus, and is rather fond of the guy (as am I).
I'd truly like to be too, but the evidence is still pretty scant that he even existed, outside of mythologically.
Sorry if I missed it, but has anyone mentioned FSM yet?
Actually, I can understand supporting someone's rights even while disapproving - for instance supporting the free speach of an opposing viewpoint. What I don't understand is disapproving of something without some sort of tangible reason. Even a logically unsound reason would be something tangible. Once someone says "because God says so", there's nothing to discuss, it's just a vaccuous assertion of immutable truth.
I have to say, watching the AVCHD, it's hard imagine the blu ray being discernably better. I've got a 58" plasma, and aside from the occasional spots from lesser sources, I don't see anything that isn't razor sharp and sparklingly brilliant.
CP3S said:
"My religion says its a sin."
Here is one good example of why my friend is beginning to win me over in his evangelical atheist thinking. Statements like this are kind of scary.
This reminds me of a recent discussion I had with a friend. She said that her son - 4 years old - asked her why the sky was blue. Her answer: "because God made it that way." That one really made me angry... here is a kid who displays a bit of intellectual curiosity, and rather than using it as learning moment (say, by looking it up in a book together, or on the internet), she put the kabosh on it. No need to actually learn things, just attribute everything to God and you're always right, even if you don't know what you're talking about.
Then again, sampling from the tree of knowledge was the original sin that we're supposedly still paying for, so maybe she was right after all.
Warbler said:
TV's Frink said:
The usual response is that it is a choice, and the wrong one at that. I've always found that viewpoint extremely silly, not to mention scientifically disproved.
could one not argue that while it is not a choice to have homosexual desires, is it a choice to act on them?
That is logic that I can understand. Yes, I would agree with that. Except there follows then the logical question: why is it bad to act on them? In the case of someone with, say, the desire to have sex with children, then I would agree that it is bad to act on those desires, because doing so harms someone. But who is harmed when consenting adults use those desires to enter into a supportive, longterm partnership? Isn't that good for society?
Also, the question arises, why would God give such strong desires to so many people, and then say they can't act on them? Sounds rather cruel.
*facepalm* - yeah, I just took a look and it doesn't seem to support blu ray authoring at all. Too bad.
I'm not sure if I have said anything that offends anyone... looking back, I think I've made it clear that I don't believe in any of the current religions, and that I oppose religion being used as the basis for law. But I don't disapprove of anyone's right to follow whatever religion they want, as long as they don't impinge upon other people's freedoms.
Religion could be right - and I could be wrong. I don't think so, but it could be.
By contrast, it is some religious members who have made it clear that they disapprove of some folk's lifestyle. I imagine that public disapproval would be more offensive than believing something different, or opting for a different personal lifestyle. So I would not be surprised if Bingowing, for example, was offended.
I am actually in favor of gun control, but I have to admit that sign is really cool.
How is DVD-Lab for authoring BluRays? I've been using it for the puggo projects (just DVDs), and I'm not nearly exercising all it can do. But it has seemed quite easy to use. Cheap, too.
My voice sounds terrible too. Of course, I could always pitch-shift it down in software like I did for "Rescuing Star Wars". Hmm, maybe not.
Warbler said:
If I found out that a family member of mine were homosexual, while I may not approve....
I've never understood the disapproval. Nobody wanted less to be gay than my friend. Being homosexual doesn't hurt anyone, and it's how you're born. Why would God make certain people that way, and then inform his prophets that it's an abomination? What makes it bad?
Trooperman said:
CP3S said:
this unlucky 13th year of the 2000's, if those things don't come to pass (as they never do when such predictions are made), will that shake your faith any?
Unlucky for you, friend- not for the rest of us!
Ah, just bad things for all of us heathens.
It's particularly bad news for all those poor kids around the world who were born in the wrong culture.
Count me in.
One of my lifelong friends from high school (gasp, over 35 years ago) is gay, and came from a very religious family. His dad was musical director at a large church here in town. My friend and I used to have long discussions about religion when we were in high school - he trying to convert me, and me resisting. Although he was gay, I didn't know it, and he was (as I learned later) trying very hard not to be.
Finally, when he got to be about 35, he gave up trying and came out. (I knew something was up when I got a "Happy Holidays from Santa" christmas card instead of a "Celebrate the light of Jesus" christmas card - but I digress). His family was in agony, and for years told him he was going to hell and rejected him. They treated him horribly. In the meantime, he developed what was to become a longterm relationship with a nice guy. His family wouldn't allow his partner into their home.
After several years of this, his father became very ill and was a few months away from dying. My friend's partner is a nurse, and volunteered to take care of the father while he was dying (despite the family's rejection of them both). Eventually, faced with no alternative, the parents relented. The partner moved in and took care of the father right up until his death. After that, the rest of the family changed their tune, and welcomed them both into their lives.
I cannot believe that my friend and his partner are sinners. I think they are saints. And if there is a God, he better not send them to hell. If he does, he is an evil God indeed.
Trooperman said:
Think about it- through the millenia, why have different peoples from completely different backgrounds, livelihoods, times, and social status turned to God if He didn't exist?
The most popular religious affiliation in the most populous country today is "agnostic/atheist".
Also, many countries have certain religions because they were foisted upon them by crusaders hundreds of years ago.
Now, having said all of this, I have no problem with someone believing whatever religion they want, and I have no intention of trying to regulate someone's religion (as long as they aren't hurting others). Where I have a problem is when people want to use religion as the basis for law.
Didn't two of those villains start out as Jedi? One would presume they became bad before becoming a sith.
How about a war for control of a galaxy, with the black hole at the center playing some part? Or a war between two galaxies? Or some bad guys who figure out how to use a star as a weapon?
I read that in some places "Jedi" now counts as a religion. So, since I feel in my heart that Luke missed once with the grappling hook, people who disagree are now finally going to the horned one.
Trooperman said:
Fair enough. I believe there is truth and that science attempts to explain the environment we find around us, but can never address the question: why?
Actually, I think that science has answered a TON of "why's". Or at least has plausible theories for lots of them. That's what science strives to do.
For instance, why do the wandering stars have strange looping paths? It was scientists willing to risk getting their heads getting chopped off by religious leaders, in answering that question by theorizing that they weren't revolving around us, but that they (and we) were revolving around the sun.
Of course, there are a few questions that one could argue that religion attempts to answer, for which science doesn't have a theory. That's fine, but in those cases I simply don't see any reason to believe their hypotheses, which are based on faith rather than on rigor.
Trooperman said:
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
And to me, this makes the message and the medium of religion - in any of its current forms - an almost hilarious concept that by definition misses the point.What alternative form would you propose?
I prefer science. The main reason is actually opposite what most people think. Most people think that science is about truth and religion is about rules. Actually, religion is fixated on "truth", and just about every religion claims ownership of it. Science (good science, at least), on the other hand, rarely even mentions the word "truth".
Science is a process of coming up with better and better models ("theories") of the world around us based on ever-improving methods of observation. Theories change and improve over time - at least they are better informed by better observations/measurements.
By contrast, religion presupposes that truth has already been laid out some two or three thousand years ago, and never changes. I prefer to believe that we as humans can improve ourselves, improve our methods and our insights, refine our beliefs, etc. over time. I don't agree that whatever we came up with in 0.BC is THE truth and must never change.
There are also some things within particular religions that I find highly unlikely (logically), but my main beef regards the notion of "truth". As far as said truth being the result of divine inspiration or divine intervention - I don't think we are capable of that, for the reasons I outlined in my earlier post.
I believe that we are asking all the wrong questions, and that we are as a species incapable of asking the right ones.
Consider the world as viewed by a species right "below" us on the evolutionary ladder - say, chimps. Try as we might, a chimp will never understand concepts that we humans consider to be "ultimate questions" - such as the origin of the universe, the vastness of space, the Big Bang, what is "God", etc. Heck, the chimp can't even play checkers, it can't even understand the concept of abstraction at that level. We wouldn't even try to explain any of these concepts to the chimp, because we know it is beyond the chimp's capactity to understand no matter how hard we try. To a chimp, the "ultimate questions" are things like, "how do I get out of this cage?", or "who can I get some food from?", or maybe in a flash of brilliance, "what is on the other side of that hill?". They aren't even capable of some of our modes of thought, such as "irony".
Now, move one rung UP the chain from us - assuming that somewhere in the universe there is a lifeform further evolved than humans. To them, our "ultimate questions" are about as interesting and deep as the chimps "ultimate questions" are to us. We always imagine a superior race landing on earth, answering our questions and enlightening us with their insight. That we would learn so much from them. It think it is far more likely that they won't even try to share their knowledge with us, because even just one step up the chain, it would be completely beyond our capacity to comprehend what they are even referring to, let alone understand it. They might even tell us that, or they might not even bother. Now imagine 5 or 10 steps up the chain - it would be like comparing our insights versus those of an earthworm. And they would have modes of thought that we can't even imagine, let alone experience.
By this line of reasoning, I'm not even sure what we consider to be the "universe", or "time", or "travel", or "creation", or "God", are anything of significance whatsoever, and that whatever is REALLY at the top of it all (if that is a view that even holds), is something of a nature we cannot possibly fathom, let alone interact with. And to me, this makes the message and the medium of religion - in any of its current forms - an almost hilarious concept that by definition misses the point.
Yes, even I agree that the GOUT is likely to be a better source. The equipment I have to work with just isn't at the same level as the professional telecine stuff they have in Hollywood.
I just watched segments of Harmy's 2.1. Words can't express how exciting it is for an aging kid to see this again in its original splendor. I also need to say that it goes to show you (a) that all the money and "yes men" in the world can't stand in the way of human ingenuity, and (b) this forum's power for good.
All Berus are dubbed, but I think there were two different dubs.
Also, the mono mix was released on 16mm film, which I did my best to capture for the Puggo Grande.
Now THAT is creepy.