SilverWook said:
Have I gone crazy 'cause that actually sounded really good?
(Although Rebecca having her only Black friend get arrested at the end of the video was a bit odd)
^
(Little bit random but) What is your view on 'The Exorcist'?
Many have had the knee-jerk reaction that it's a blasphemous film (Mainly due to a certain thing that happens with a Crucifix). But others consider it a powerful film about wrestling with one's faith, redemption, good versus absolute evil and find it has a positive message about the Catholic Church.
Darth Lars said:
Ack Pfft.. James Bond hasn't been interesting since Roger Moore played him.
I have to say I'm firmly in the Roger camp. I believe no one could wear a safari suit with the same degree of casuality.
HotRod said:
I hate sand, it's course, rough, irritating..it gets everywhere
Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones ;-)
TV's Frink said:
RicOlie_2 said:
TV's Frink said:
I think you guys say you love homosexuals so you don't have to feel bad for treating them as second-class citizens.
"We don't hate homosexuals, we just judge them for being morally bankrupt due to the thing that makes them homosexuals."
It's bullshit.
^ This.
Having sex with the opposite sex is not what makes one heterosexual. In the same way, having sex with the same sex is not what makes one homosexual. Having sex outside of marriage is what we consider wrong, not being sexually attracted to the same sex.
How convenient that only heteros are allowed to marry.
"It's okay to be homosexual - but surprise, you can't marry, so you can't have sex!"
Think that ^ one's called "Catch-69".
^ "Impressive... most impressive"
I prefer a reasonable yet challanging respectful debate, rather than comments featuring wildly inflamatory language designed to provoke.
HotRod's language in a couple of recent posts has been the latter, hence this thread. I didn't pass comment on them earlier because I didn't think they merited any response (Beyond). I and others weren't giving him "a pass", I at least was just ignoring them.
DuracellEnergizer said:
TV's Frink said:
You love it and you know it.
Love/hate is closer to the truth.
You mean you love it then you hate yourself ;-)
RicOlie_2 said:
As to your last paragraph, what does a gay guy being nice have to do with some religions teachings against homosexual sex and marriage?
I was being slightly flippant I'll admit but I was suggesting that maybe trusting one's own judgement is a good idea.
RicOlie_2 said:
We don't teach that gay people are bad, or that they should be shunned, but rather that gay sex and marriage is wrong.
Like I've said, if people are consistent then I can accept their arguments on Homosexuality as valid (However I still think they are wrong). Correct me if I'm wrong but when Christian's say their religion condemns Homosexuality it is because of quotes like...
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)
^ Fair enough seems pretty clear to me... HOWEVER... if you live by those two quotes you must live by the rest. Here are a few other quotes from Leviticus...
"For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off" (Leviticus 17:14)
^ One of many from Leviticus 17 saying if you've ever had a nice juicy medium rare steak then you're an abomination. Plus last time you had a steak at a restaurant (Even if it was well done) you should have asked the chef to pour out the blood and cover it in dust (If you didn't do that you are an abomination).
"And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free". (Leviticus 19:20
"And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering". (Leviticus 19:21
"And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him". (Leviticus 19:22
^ So slavery is fine and if a man sleeps with another man's female slave she should be violently beaten but if the man kills an innocent creature he's forgiven. So the bible doesn't just dislke Homosexuals it has equal hatred for women. btw there is a hell of a lot of the Lord commanding animal sacrifices to be made, when was he last time a Christian did that?
"Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord." (Leviticus 19:28)
^ So if tattoos are an abomination why are't they condemned by the Church and it's followers with as much enthusiasm as Homosexuals are condemned? Given the unfortunate habit of some Rappers to have homophobic lyrics it's kinda odd that they have tattoos all over themselves?
"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire". (Leviticus 21:09)
^ Funny I can't remember hearing about Christians campaigning to bring back chucking woman on bonfires.
"And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you". (Leviticus 11:05)
"And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you". (Leviticus 11:07)
^ If you eat rabbit stew or sausages you're an abomination (Personally I'll take eternal damnation if it means I can still eat Bacon sandwiches). btw Hobbits are clearly abominations because they eat loads of unclean food.
"These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat". (Leviticus 11:09)
"And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you" (Leviticus 11:10)
^ So if you eat any shellfish you are an abomination. Seems a tad harsh to have to burn in hell for all eternity for having a bowl of Moules Marinière (I'm in alot of trouble because I frickin' love em).
I could go on but I think that's enough. You can't pick and choose the word of God so you can't pick and choose what parts of the Bible you believe in... unless some parts of the Bible aren't the word of God? and if some parts can be ignored why have some Christians chosen to hang onto the Homophobic parts?
TV's Frink said:
I think you guys say you love homosexuals so you don't have to feel bad for treating them as second-class citizens.
"We don't hate homosexuals, we just judge them for being morally bankrupt due to the thing that makes them homosexuals."
It's bullshit.
^ This.
Leonardo said: If I have to admit the possibility that there is a God, then I have to do the same for unicorns.
It's alright Unicorns don't exist, they were just a memory implant from the Tyrell corporation.
DuracellEnergizer said:
This is a thread devoted primarily to the discussion of homosexuality. Anything pertaining to the subject -- be it moral, philosophical, theological, biological, psychological, etc -- goes.
Technique?
Edit:
Jaitea said:
I bought a Passat, a Golf would be too small for my family
J
Damn you beat me to it by seconds LOL
darth_ender said:
I don't recall typing like that. No, there is no need for rebuttal. We are all hypocrites. We all preach things we don't always perform. In any case, he was being a huge jerk. Yesterday he was really being horrible, and I wanted it to be made clear. If it makes me a jerk to point it out in someone else, well that's too bad for me then. Maybe it's an overreaction, but his behavior is consistent, and it might do him some good to realize that publicly. Maybe I'll change my ways and apologize, and perhaps he is best ignored, but for now, I really feel passionate that he needed a public castigation.
Agreed
Bingowings said:
I evoke Kiri-kin-tha's First Law of Metaphysics, for no apparent reason.
I had to google that to remind me. That episode where Picard and Riker debate the nature of Data as a being was amazing.
RicOlie_2 said:
You are, whether intentionally or not, avoiding my main question. How can you be sure that murder is wrong if it can have practical benefits for society in some cases? What are your reasons for thinking that empathy is not a weakness and a fault itself? Is survival of the fittest, the most cooperative, or the competitive cooperative the way to go and what makes you think that instead of something else? If someone disagreed with you why are you so sure you would be right?
I wasn't trying to avoid it, I just thought I'd answered it already. But anyway murder does not "have practical benefits for society in some cases" because the family of the murdered person would be harmed, the person themselves would be harmed (They are part of society) and society would be less-rich to the tune of one life. If a percentage of the population were happy about the murder then those people lack empathy (As I've already said). For the record I'm against the Death-Penalty in all cases (Except littering and talking/texting in a f*cking cinema!).
"What are your reasons for thinking that empathy is not a weakness and a fault itself?" Fairly abstract question but my sense of empathy is directly derived from my own sense of self-preservtion and well being (As I've also already said) or to use a quote I read somewhere (I forget where) "Do unto to others as you would have done unto you".
"Survival of the fittest" only applies in pure terms to animals as they lack a sense of empathy. Empathy is what makes us uniquely human. Sure in most human contexts the "fittest" will win but they had a choice to concede or to never compete... an animal does not. For example, my cat derives pleasure from toying with a mouse, torturing it and then ripping it's head off and giving it to me as a present. My cat isn't evil, it just lacks a sense of empathy for the mouse. But my cat still has emotions and feelings however and would be hurt if I treated it in the same way as it treated the mouse but that would never change it's behaviour. That's only something we humans have evolved.
It's a shame when religous people choose to ignore this sense of empathy and instead choose to act against their own nature to follow the commandments in a book. e.g. "Homosexuality is wrong because my religion says it is, despite the evidence of my feelings of empathy for them (Because I'm a good person) and them being happy that way, them doing no harm to anyone else and me knowing that gay guy at work that is actually really nice etc etc".
If hell does exist it will probably be like this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91DSNL1BEeY
...and I'll feel a proper nitwit. ;-)
On a new strand. Theists look to religion to inform and re-enforce their beliefs but that's also kinda true of atheists too.
In my early teens when my political and philisophical opinions where very much still forming, Babylon5 inspired and re-assured me. The message of the show of tolerance and resistence in the face of oppression were very powerful. This scene kinda sums up how I feel about things...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvmtHGwRSuQ
^ Beautiful stuff.
Some very powerful episodes in the show were about religious faith like 'Passing through Gethsemane'...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m9GQ3thO8o
(Shame that clip ^ doesn't have the powerful episode end)
If I have a 'good book' it was that show. Anybody else have similar things that informed them in such a way?
(btw B5 creator/writer J. Michael Straczynski was raised Catholic and is now an atheist if anybody was wondering)
DuracellEnergizer said:
timdiggerm said:
The usual idea is that, without some sort of ultimate authority, there's no way to absolutely say that something is bad.
Or good, for that matter. And this is one of the reasons why atheism holds no appeal for me; a godless universe is ultimately an amoral universe, regardless of what anyone may say.
3 things. What's a moral universe? what's wrong with an amoral universe anyway? and how would the two differ in reality?
TV's Frink said:
RicOlie_2 said:
TV's Frink said:
Indeed.
If God were to ignore my actions in this world and cast me to hell simply because I didn't worship him...I submit that he/she is a god not worthy of worship.
So you want to worship a God you don't believe in for all eternity rather than be rid of him forever? The first option is what I call heaven, the second is what I call hell.
What you are unintentionally saying is "if God decided that I wouldn't have to worship him for eternity because I didn't worship him on earth, I wouldn't want to worship him."
I'm saying a perfect being does not require worship. Worship is a human invention.
The crew of The Enterprise concur.
(btw I really like ST5, there I said it)
I'm not saying there isn't a God and when I die if I do find myself having my soul judged I'd hope that a God of love would rise me up or cast me down on how I treated others. I think people who claim they know with 100% certainty that there is no God are deluded.
But, if God said "You can't come into heaven because you foolishly used the brain I gave you to logically conclude there was no evidence for the existence of me" then God would be a capricious SOB to put it mildly (Joking no offence).
RicOlie_2 said:
@ Ryan
Religious texts? Who said anything about those? What I am asking is how you can be so sure that using empathy and your brain are the way to discern good from evil? What about acting on what would help society survive the longest and be most productive? Why do you think that that is not a legitimate way to determine the difference between right and wrong?
You tell me?
(However for myself, I am sure that murdering half the planet to make life for the other half better is wrong because I'd feel empathy for the other half).
The point I was making about Religious texts is that they don't have the answers for every issue (Right or wrong) yet I'm sure you yourself can (And do) make your own mind up on those things anyway. So why not do that with everything?
10 more sleeps to Christmas yay! Mince pies and Mulled Wine for all!
RicOlie_2 said:
EDIT: You said that feeling empathy and ignoring it makes people evil, but what is that opinion/belief founded on? Why do think it is that that makes a person evil instead of something else? Suppose I think that good and evil is determined by someone's willingness to do what is good for society as a whole and suppose that was killing off the baby boomers because people were held back by caring for them and too many working hands were wasted on them instead of doing something that would benefit society in the long run. Who would you be to say that the way I determined right from wrong was incorrect while the way you did so was?
Since no religious text I've ever heard of mentions 'the baby boomers' I'm gonna decide that one ^ using my brain. Also I'm gonna use my brain to decide how I feel on the issues that are in the religious texts too.