Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Travis wrote:"A few candles and some sweet nothings couldn't have hurt. I bet god didn't call mary the next day either."
Hazel wrote:
"heh, could you imagine that date? :P "
Not exactly a match made in heaven.... OK I'll stop.
Travis wrote: "A few candles and some sweet nothings couldn't have hurt. I bet god didn't call mary the next day either. "
TRAVIS!!!!!!!!
Now, now I know the answer to the question ....
TRAVIS!!!!!!!!
Now, now I know the answer to the question ....
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "A few candles and some sweet nothings couldn't have hurt. I bet god didn't call mary the next day either. "
TRAVIS!!!!!!!!
Now, now I know the answer to the question ...."
You did read
TRAVIS!!!!!!!!
Now, now I know the answer to the question ...."
You did read
Shannon wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "A few candles and some sweet nothings couldn't have hurt. I bet god didn't call mary the next day either. "TRAVIS!!!!!!!!
Now, now I know the answer to the questi..."
Naw, it just comes from me being a naturally smooth ladies man.
Travis wrote: "Naw, it just comes from me being a naturally smooth ladies man. "
Ahahahaha ....
Don't forget ... I think you said your wife sometimes reads this thread. Might want to change that puppy to the singular! ;)
Ahahahaha ....
Don't forget ... I think you said your wife sometimes reads this thread. Might want to change that puppy to the singular! ;)
Hey, here's a topic I don't think I've seen here, although I haven't read all the way back to the beginning....let me know if you've already been here and we can go somewhere else.What do you all think of the theory that Mary Magdelene was actually married to Jesus and that they had kids before he died? I read Holy Blood Holy Grail, and even though it flew in the face of all I've been taught, it really made me stop and think. And about the Last Supper actually having Mary in the picture leaning over Jesus - possible?
Maria wrote: "Hey, here's a topic I don't think I've seen here, although I haven't read all the way back to the beginning....let me know if you've already been here and we can go somewhere else.
What do you all..."
Hmmm.... I don't know. I'd never read a Dan Brown book until
The Da Vinci Code. I picked it up when it first came out and was getting a lot of attention.
One thing that I can say about that book .... I flew through it. Then, I dug out my old art history book and went down to Borders and spent a few hours in the history section. I hadn't read the book you mentioned and still haven't. I'd never heard that idea before, at least I don't think I had. Mary Magdalene and Jesus. Although, maybe I did. I remember a college professor speculating that Jesus might have been gay, due to his "unmarried" state and John's referring to himself as the one Jesus loved or something like that. I remember the class being scandalized. He might have mentioned the Mary idea at the time.
At any rate, I'd never really thought about it or looked into it ... or the other things Brown mentioned.
I don't think there's proof of it. When I couldn't sleep one night and was watching, you guessed it, the History Channel, I saw a show debunking many of the things in Brown's book. Of course, I also saw a show that talked about stories of Mary Magdalene going to France, showing up on the shores with a young girl, whose remains are somewhere in France. (The girl's remains.) They were going to extract DNA and try to prove that the girl came from Israel and could have, therefore ... supposedly, been the daughter of Mary and Jesus. Either I feel asleep, finally, or the DNA didn't prove that the girl was from Israel ... because ... I don't remember saying, "Holy Crap!"
Mary Magdalene is said to have been a follower and supporter of Jesus. There is a gnostic gospel of Mary's teachings, supposedly. The book I quoted the other day had Peter telling Mary that Jesus loved her over all women. I think I heard that one of the gnostic gospels said Jesus kissed Mary Magdalene on her .... The papyrus breaks at that point. On her what? Hand? Cheek? Lips? All we know from that is ... he supposedly kissed her on some part of her body. ??
Oh, someone on the show I watched, about Mary, said it would have been very, very odd for a Jewish man at that time and at that age not to have been married. Is that true? I don't know. If Jesus had been married, would that have been written in the gospels? I don't know.
But, ultimately, I have not one clue. Could they have been married? Yes. Might they have been single? Maybe. I just don't know.
What do you all..."
Hmmm.... I don't know. I'd never read a Dan Brown book until
The Da Vinci Code. I picked it up when it first came out and was getting a lot of attention.
One thing that I can say about that book .... I flew through it. Then, I dug out my old art history book and went down to Borders and spent a few hours in the history section. I hadn't read the book you mentioned and still haven't. I'd never heard that idea before, at least I don't think I had. Mary Magdalene and Jesus. Although, maybe I did. I remember a college professor speculating that Jesus might have been gay, due to his "unmarried" state and John's referring to himself as the one Jesus loved or something like that. I remember the class being scandalized. He might have mentioned the Mary idea at the time.
At any rate, I'd never really thought about it or looked into it ... or the other things Brown mentioned.
I don't think there's proof of it. When I couldn't sleep one night and was watching, you guessed it, the History Channel, I saw a show debunking many of the things in Brown's book. Of course, I also saw a show that talked about stories of Mary Magdalene going to France, showing up on the shores with a young girl, whose remains are somewhere in France. (The girl's remains.) They were going to extract DNA and try to prove that the girl came from Israel and could have, therefore ... supposedly, been the daughter of Mary and Jesus. Either I feel asleep, finally, or the DNA didn't prove that the girl was from Israel ... because ... I don't remember saying, "Holy Crap!"
Mary Magdalene is said to have been a follower and supporter of Jesus. There is a gnostic gospel of Mary's teachings, supposedly. The book I quoted the other day had Peter telling Mary that Jesus loved her over all women. I think I heard that one of the gnostic gospels said Jesus kissed Mary Magdalene on her .... The papyrus breaks at that point. On her what? Hand? Cheek? Lips? All we know from that is ... he supposedly kissed her on some part of her body. ??
Oh, someone on the show I watched, about Mary, said it would have been very, very odd for a Jewish man at that time and at that age not to have been married. Is that true? I don't know. If Jesus had been married, would that have been written in the gospels? I don't know.
But, ultimately, I have not one clue. Could they have been married? Yes. Might they have been single? Maybe. I just don't know.
Maria wrote: "Hey, here's a topic I don't think I've seen here, although I haven't read all the way back to the beginning....let me know if you've already been here and we can go somewhere else.What do you all..."
It would make an interesting answer to why mary is hanging around with the otherwise all boys club.
The conflicting stories about her might have arisen as cover stories to hide the relationship, rather than older church men just wanting to downplay that a 'mere girl' was hanging out with the son of god.
No idea if any of it is true, but I do enjoy a good conspiracy theory and/or secret history.
Maria wrote: "I don't think of it as rape as much as artificial insemination. As far as consent/submission - if Mary had vehemently told the angel, "NO, THIS IS HORRENDOUS AND I DON'T WANT TO DO IT..." I thi..."
But if god is omniscient then he knew no "fit throwing" was forthcoming that Mary would "submit" then where was her freewill seeing as it was all planned by omniscient god.
Maria wrote: "I've never heard about the Muslim thing, and would also like to know more, from someone well versed in the Qur'an.I think "chosen" is not the right word necessarily - "highly favored" or "full of..."
Rape is sexualized contact without free consent, a subtle difference I know.
The misconception is rape is about sex, it isn't, it's a specialised assault using sex and sexual contact as the mode of assault.
The problem with God/Mary is that as a Master/Slave(servant) relationship Mary is unable to give free consent or refusal without fear of consequences (and given the nature of the old testament god that she worshipped she had reason to fear so...)
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Naw, it just comes from me being a naturally smooth ladies man. "Ahahahaha ....
Don't forget ... I think you said your wife sometimes reads this thread. Might want to change that..."
My wife knows I'm a smooth ladies man.
How do you think she got to be my wife...?
Again, I'm not here to prove the virgin birth ....
It occurred to me when I read this ... it just popped into my head ...
How many women would be eager to be impregnated "by the Holy Spirit" with a child who supposedly would become the Messiah? Seriously. Let's say they were told ... there'd be no consequences, none at all. Feel free to say no. I know that's not what happened as told by Luke's gospel. I'm just saying ... imagine if that was said, at the time ... or now ... followed by a promise of no retribution for a denial .... How many women would be eager to be impregnated?
Yeah, it's creepy. And, as I said yesterday, I have issues with power differentials.
I also know there are a lot of people who are eager and willing to do a lot of things. (And, on the off chance that someone is about to say, 'Eager to be raped, Shannon?!' ... don't.)
What popped into my head is what happened when they found Iceman. Remember? Was it back in the early '90's? There was melting in the mountains somewhere in Europe and hikers found a body ... frozen. At first, they thought it was a hiker but soon found the body was thousands of years old. History nerd that I am, I was following the story at the time.
I remember being shocked, SHOCKED, to read that hundreds of women were writing in to the scientists or college or whatever who had the body ... asking if his sperm was viable and volunteering to be impregnated with Iceman's sperm ... oh, what they would do for science! And, I remember reading some people speculating about that and what the risks might be ... to impregnate a woman today with the sperm of a man from so many years ago ... and there was a discussion of ethics ....
So, really ... I get where you guys are coming from and where you're going and why ....
You have some valid arguments.
If Mary lived and if an angel came to her and if the angel said God wanted to have the Holy Spirit impregnate her, I can see that she might not want that to happen but might be too afraid to say no. I can see her thinking about Sodom and Lot's wife being turned into a pillar and the flood and everything else. Yikes! God might smite me! I'd better say it's okay with me.
But, much as it might creep people out, I can also see Mary and many other women thinking it would be an honor ... an amazing thing ... and truly wanting to carry a 'special' child.
So ....
It occurred to me when I read this ... it just popped into my head ...
How many women would be eager to be impregnated "by the Holy Spirit" with a child who supposedly would become the Messiah? Seriously. Let's say they were told ... there'd be no consequences, none at all. Feel free to say no. I know that's not what happened as told by Luke's gospel. I'm just saying ... imagine if that was said, at the time ... or now ... followed by a promise of no retribution for a denial .... How many women would be eager to be impregnated?
Yeah, it's creepy. And, as I said yesterday, I have issues with power differentials.
I also know there are a lot of people who are eager and willing to do a lot of things. (And, on the off chance that someone is about to say, 'Eager to be raped, Shannon?!' ... don't.)
What popped into my head is what happened when they found Iceman. Remember? Was it back in the early '90's? There was melting in the mountains somewhere in Europe and hikers found a body ... frozen. At first, they thought it was a hiker but soon found the body was thousands of years old. History nerd that I am, I was following the story at the time.
I remember being shocked, SHOCKED, to read that hundreds of women were writing in to the scientists or college or whatever who had the body ... asking if his sperm was viable and volunteering to be impregnated with Iceman's sperm ... oh, what they would do for science! And, I remember reading some people speculating about that and what the risks might be ... to impregnate a woman today with the sperm of a man from so many years ago ... and there was a discussion of ethics ....
So, really ... I get where you guys are coming from and where you're going and why ....
You have some valid arguments.
If Mary lived and if an angel came to her and if the angel said God wanted to have the Holy Spirit impregnate her, I can see that she might not want that to happen but might be too afraid to say no. I can see her thinking about Sodom and Lot's wife being turned into a pillar and the flood and everything else. Yikes! God might smite me! I'd better say it's okay with me.
But, much as it might creep people out, I can also see Mary and many other women thinking it would be an honor ... an amazing thing ... and truly wanting to carry a 'special' child.
So ....
Shannon wrote: "Again, I'm not here to prove the virgin birth ....It occurred to me when I read this ... it just popped into my head ...
How many women would be eager to be impregnated "by the Holy Spirit" with..."
So, mary was the original surrogate?
Or was god the original sperm donor?
Just when you think this conversation can't get weirder...
"I remember being shocked, SHOCKED, to read that hundreds of women were writing in to the scientists or college or whatever who had the body ... asking if his sperm was viable and volunteering to be impregnated with Iceman's sperm ... "There's no accounting for crackpots... :p
Travis wrote: "So, mary was the original surrogate?
Or was god the original sperm donor?
Just when you think this conversation can't get weirder... "
Hey, you know, I don't know .... I, frankly, am cool with believing he was a human, a man, born of a woman. That wouldn't diminish his teachings and the way he lived his life, in my mind. But, there are a lot of religious folk who would think me a "crackpot" for saying such a thing.
Or was god the original sperm donor?
Just when you think this conversation can't get weirder... "
Hey, you know, I don't know .... I, frankly, am cool with believing he was a human, a man, born of a woman. That wouldn't diminish his teachings and the way he lived his life, in my mind. But, there are a lot of religious folk who would think me a "crackpot" for saying such a thing.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "So, mary was the original surrogate?Or was god the original sperm donor?
Just when you think this conversation can't get weirder... "
Hey, you know, I don't know .... I, frankly,..."
Oh, I'm not getting into any of his teaching.
Making sense of all this stuff involving his mom is keeping me too busy.
jesus, as a teacher or philosopher doesn't worry me too much.
It's all the magic and strangeness that got added on, that people then try to explain with a straight face is more interesting to me.
Jesus told us to be nice to other people: can't really argue with that.
Jesus had super powers: Cool, but only if he's getting his own comic book.
Felicia wrote: "But if I had to choose, I would choose science because I think science is a religion in itself. "Please read back over this thread....this 'science is a religion' concept comes up regularly, and has been dealt with. Science is in no way a religion.
I find it interesting that Mary is hardly mentioned at all in the bible (http://www.ourladyweb.com/mary-bible.... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_%28...) and most of this is in the conflicting nativity narratives which were addressed to particular audiences and made Jesus the equivalent of pre-existing virgin born gods (this is what people expected of their gods at the time - Hercules, Osiris: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Virgin_b...).These nativity passages are obviously ficticious and an awful lot has been derived from these few references (often not by name). The whole Mary character was fabricated to fit the expectations of the "messiahs" mum. The wikipedia entry has an interesting line: "The Virgin birth of Jesus has been a universally held belief among Christians since the 2nd century". Not from the start then!
I see people go on about Angels above but there is no evidence whatsoever for these mythical creatures. You'll believe anything if the only "evidence" is found in the books you believe.
Perhaps this is all The Immaculate Deception (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/mary...)
Shannon wrote: "(Remember, I'm not making an argument for the virgin birth or taking the gospels as gospel ....)"No problem.
Shannon wrote: "This is when I wish I spoke Hebrew and understood the history and nuances of Hebrew words, etc...."
As I understand it all of the earliest copies of the Gospels were written in Greek, because it was the "Esperanto" of the time. (Or what Esperanto was meant to be anyway).
My copy of the Bible doesn't say Mary was chosen. The angel allegedly appeared to Mary and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you." It continues, "Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, 'Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child ....'"
Shannon wrote: "I think we'd have to understand Hebrew and the mind of the person or people who originally wrote and read Luke's gospel in order to be sure. (Of course, Luke wasn't Jewish, if he existed, and the followers of Luke were ... I don't know ... I think he supposedly spread the word and ministered to Gentiles, right .... Hmmm....)"
All evidence is that several decades passed between the alleged events and the actual writing down of the first accounts, in Greek. How accurate were the accounts by that point we can only guess, but by comparison people couldn't agree on accounts of Elvis's life less that twenty years later, despite TV and widespread official records. A surprising amount of people believe that Elvis was of unsurpassed morality and have claimed to see him alive after his alleged death.
Shannon wrote: "First, when were Jewish girls betrothed at the time? I don't know the answer to that question. Would God have been able to find a woman who wasn't betrothed ... and at an age when she could give birth?"
Well that just makes the thought slightly more creepy at that point, however for the rest of it we are talking about GOD! If god wanted to find an unbetrothed woman of childbearing age, then surely it was not beyond his power to arrange?
Shannon wrote: "Second, I don't believe Joseph is mentioned in the Qur'an. Am I right? Yeah, I know I'm switching religions, but ... why not. I remember when taking a course in college almost dropping on the floor, DEAD, when the professor said there are more writings in the Qur'an about Mary than in the Bible."
The Qu'ran has an entire chapter dedicated to her.
Shannon wrote: "She has Jesus in the desert and he's raised there, by her, for a certain amount of time. I don't think there's a Joseph. Like I said, though, I could be wrong."
No you are quite right. Though Joseph has a chapter, it is as another prophet not as Mary's betrothed. Of course, there is nothing in the Qu'ran that says she wasn't betrothed it is simply ignored.
In the end though Mary is revered because she isn't 'spoiled' by the touch of a man before giving birth. This is a common theme in many religious traditions, but in particular seems to be a very male form of respect which relegates the most blessed woman to one who was not previously "used" by a man. This is the most immaculate objectification of women I could imagine.
Maria wrote: "Maybe similar to the "spark of life" that evolutionists think made the whole universe and all that's in it come to be...."Ok perhaps we can avoid the whole "evolution dance" but two brief points. First the "spark of life" isn't a scientific concept that I am aware of, and the term "evolutionist" is rather pejorative, as it uses the suffix "ism" which usually refers to a doctrine or similar.
There are no "evolutionists". There are (almost all) scientists that accept that biological evolution has occurred and those that are researching into the cosmology of the universe and how it came to be.
"Spark of Life" or the anima/animus would be a religious concept.
Maria wrote: "god didn't have sex with Mary. He's a spirit for god's sake (pun intended). So sociopath, maybe, but this rape thing is just too far out there for me. "God impregnated Mary, and the Bible calls Jesus the son of God. Now if he impregnated her by conventional means or magic, regardless of her will (not without her knowledge, sorry Shannon) then what would you term that? If a girl suddenly woke up pregnant with no knowledge how, would it count as rape if the father had sex with her while unconscious? Would it count as rape if the father artificially inseminated her?
I honestly don't know where the line would be drawn, for example recent moves to force women to undergo a intravaginal ultrasound before getting an abortion has also been argued as being a form of state-sanctioned rape, as it is a coerced penetration of a woman's sexual organs.
Personally I would count any forced activity involving a persons (male or female) intimate areas a form of rape, but perhaps I am over sensitive.
Gary wrote: "If a girl suddenly woke up pregnant with no knowledge how, would it count as rape if the father had sex with her while unconscious? Would it count as rape if the father artificially inseminated her?"
Why go down the "without her knowledge" road again? Sorta weird, Gary.
Yeah, if a father penetrated his daughter while she was unconscious it would be rape. I suppose we could also say ... if a boyfriend or husband penetrated his girlfriend/wife while she was unconscious it could be rape ... given the fact that the girlfriend/wife wasn't awake to give consent. Hmmm.... Interesting.
But, the gospel states Mary had knowledge, so really? We can totally argue about whether or not a "servant" can give consent. But, the Mary didn't know and woke up pregnant one morning argument? Then, I'd say ...
When do facts matter and when do they not? When is it important to base one's opinions, etc... upon the facts at hand, and when is it acceptable to base one's opinions on assumptions and things someone makes up? I usually hear atheists make the argument that facts and only facts matter. I'd be fascinated if you were to argue for something else. And ... I'd be asking myself why you'd make an argument that is so out-of-bounds when it comes to what atheists value, evidence.
I don't know about artificial insemination and whether or not it's rape. I mean, again, you'd have to go at knowledge and consent. Right? If it's "forced activity" involving one's genitals, I'd say it's rape ... if it happened as artificial insemination happens today and it was forced. But, what was meant by, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you..."? What does that mean, exactly? If we were to take the words literally, I suppose one could envision ... huh ... the Holy Spirit coming to Mary and ... the power of God casting a shadow over her. Euphemism for sex? Or, literally, a shadow was cast over her, just a shadow, and somehow, poof, due to the intention of the shadow, she was pregnant?
You know, I don't know. I'm sorta guessing if some guy's shadow cast over me, it wouldn't be rape. Right? No forced contact. But, then, there's the pregnancy issue. So, here's a question. When a woman signs up to be artificially inseminated, says she wants the procedure, is it considered rape if the doctor involved inseminates her with sperm that she hasn't chosen? There have been TV shows here, true or not, I'm not sure, involving doctors inseminating women with their own sperm, without the knowledge of the women ... women thinking they were being inseminated with the sperm of their husbands or donors they'd chosen. So, if that ever really did happen, did the courts handle it as rape or as something else? I don't know. And, I guess it also comes down to whether or not we're talking about how the courts would view it and deal with it or how we think it should be viewed and dealt with.
Why go down the "without her knowledge" road again? Sorta weird, Gary.
Yeah, if a father penetrated his daughter while she was unconscious it would be rape. I suppose we could also say ... if a boyfriend or husband penetrated his girlfriend/wife while she was unconscious it could be rape ... given the fact that the girlfriend/wife wasn't awake to give consent. Hmmm.... Interesting.
But, the gospel states Mary had knowledge, so really? We can totally argue about whether or not a "servant" can give consent. But, the Mary didn't know and woke up pregnant one morning argument? Then, I'd say ...
When do facts matter and when do they not? When is it important to base one's opinions, etc... upon the facts at hand, and when is it acceptable to base one's opinions on assumptions and things someone makes up? I usually hear atheists make the argument that facts and only facts matter. I'd be fascinated if you were to argue for something else. And ... I'd be asking myself why you'd make an argument that is so out-of-bounds when it comes to what atheists value, evidence.
I don't know about artificial insemination and whether or not it's rape. I mean, again, you'd have to go at knowledge and consent. Right? If it's "forced activity" involving one's genitals, I'd say it's rape ... if it happened as artificial insemination happens today and it was forced. But, what was meant by, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you..."? What does that mean, exactly? If we were to take the words literally, I suppose one could envision ... huh ... the Holy Spirit coming to Mary and ... the power of God casting a shadow over her. Euphemism for sex? Or, literally, a shadow was cast over her, just a shadow, and somehow, poof, due to the intention of the shadow, she was pregnant?
You know, I don't know. I'm sorta guessing if some guy's shadow cast over me, it wouldn't be rape. Right? No forced contact. But, then, there's the pregnancy issue. So, here's a question. When a woman signs up to be artificially inseminated, says she wants the procedure, is it considered rape if the doctor involved inseminates her with sperm that she hasn't chosen? There have been TV shows here, true or not, I'm not sure, involving doctors inseminating women with their own sperm, without the knowledge of the women ... women thinking they were being inseminated with the sperm of their husbands or donors they'd chosen. So, if that ever really did happen, did the courts handle it as rape or as something else? I don't know. And, I guess it also comes down to whether or not we're talking about how the courts would view it and deal with it or how we think it should be viewed and dealt with.
Yeah ... it happened. Since I don't think we have instances of doctors drugging unsuspecting women and artificially inseminating them, this is the best I can do ... a doctor inseminating women with his own sperm, without their knowledge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Ja...
He, supposedly, wasn't charged with rape. Mail fraud. Yeah, supposedly, mail fraud. Wire fraud. Perjury. Five years and he lost his medical license.
So, ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Ja...
He, supposedly, wasn't charged with rape. Mail fraud. Yeah, supposedly, mail fraud. Wire fraud. Perjury. Five years and he lost his medical license.
So, ....
I think that on scale of not right to outright abhorant, even if God didn't rape Mary, he's still scoring on that scale, as he is using his position to get what he wants. For another fictional example (what with the bible being fiction for much of it) then we can look at Lie to Me, in one episode of which a male army officer was using his rank to threaten female soldiers with always being made to take point in operations unless they slept with him. They agreed to it, so it technically wouldn't be considered rape, but they did it out of fear of the consequences, and the male officer was abusing his power and position to get what he wanted.To quote Uncle Ben, with great power comes great responsibility.
Of course, we also have the saying that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, which leaves me wondering what that means for god... ;P
Shannon wrote: "Why go down the "without her knowledge" road again? Sorta weird, Gary."I had already commented that I accepted the point you made. This was a different point, the fact that Mary got pregnant without knowing how. Does that make it any better. The comparison being that if a woman was raped while unconscious or the memory was somehow deleted, does that make it no longer rape? Similarly if a woman is impregnated by unknown means (magic, shadow touch, etc) is that impregnation rape if it is done without explicit prior consent?
Shannon wrote: "given the fact that the girlfriend/wife wasn't awake to give consent. Hmmm.... Interesting."
Yes, there is a difficult to address grey area here of implied consent. This is where the whole marital rape scenario gets difficult and is further compounded by the sometimes obscure relationship dynamics of couples. It is a well known phenomena that dominance/submission often forms part of sexual relationships and some partners (of either gender) enjoy the sensation of bring forced to copulate within a "safety margin", yet would probably be horrified as anyone if they were really forced.
So I accept it's a complicated issue.
Shannon wrote: "But, the gospel states Mary had knowledge"
Yes I accept it does (I had misremembered). My point here is knowledge of the process not knowledge of the result.
Shannon wrote: "But, what was meant by, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you..."? What does that mean, exactly?"
I don't know. My point is that lets just say god points and "zap" you're pregnant. Now the act of getting you pregnant has not involved any detectably invasive procedure, or overt sexual contact. However, the effect is to radically effect the reproductive status of the target.
So yes, I admit that my original comment was based on a misremembered quote, however the presumed consent on behalf of god and the authoritarian discrepancy are enough to make me feel as uncomfortable as if this was a premeditated rape, especially considering the implicit objectification of a woman being valued higher if she has no prior contact with men.
However, I can now see the legitimacy of the counterpoint.
If we were to take to words literally, I suppose one could envision ... huh ... the Holy Spirit coming to Mary and ... the power of God casting a shadow over her. Euphemism for sex? Or, literally, a shadow was cast over her, just a shadow, and somehow, poof, due to the intention of the shadow, she was pregnant?
Shannon wrote: "When a woman signs up to be artificially inseminated, says she wants the procedure, is it considered rape if the doctor involved inseminates her with sperm that she hasn't chosen?"
That is indeed an interesting question. Now I am not sure it entirely relates to the case in question as god sent a third party to say "lucky you, I will make you pregnant" so I am talking about rape in the context of forced insemination. However, I accept that no court would necessarily convict simply because (for good or ill) Mary is on record as consenting. Of course, similar authoritarian discrepancies form the basis of statutory rape, where consent may be given but disqualified due to the person being considered not able to give informed consent. (Whether too young or mentally unfit etc.) In the case of youth I think courts treat statutory rape quite differently if one party is considered to be completely responsible while the other is not, compared to comparable responsibility.
Yet this is still an interesting question. I would personally qualify rape as a "violation" of a persons right to choose the aspects of their personal intimate relations. I state it this way to cover such offences as raping a woman while unable to procreate (wearing a condom, she is too old, the man is infertile, or non-vaginal intercourse is performed on a male or female.) but this would cover any aspect of ones sexual/reproductive system as this would also impact consent. So yes I would personally typify such a deception as a form of rape.
As for the consent, I would view it with the same disdain that I saw the case with the Muslim man who tried to claim by being married his wife was required to consent to sex whenever he wanted. If the (self-proclaimed) master of the universe turns up and says "you are going to bear my child" then consent, assumed or not, seems rather superfluous.
This is what I do mean about morality and ethics though. In my opinion there are ethics that are simple and obvious, but also ethics that needs to be discussed and explored. Your doctor example is a good one.
Here is another, if two people are married is this then implied consent to any subsequent sexual activity? The religious answer is generally "yes" (if you are talking about the woman, who is meant to be obedient), personally I don't agree, but there are nuances. For example marriage is generally a declaration of monogamy between two people, but is it then fair for one partner to subsequently deny any sexual contact from that point forward when their partner has in good faith promised to remain exclusive to them? (I am not implying that the partner should be forced to consent, I am considering whether this is 'just' considering the relationship parameters, which is a much harder question.)
Shannon wrote: "He, supposedly, wasn't charged with rape. Mail fraud. Yeah, supposedly, mail fraud. Wire fraud. Perjury. Five years and he lost his medical license. "Don't you just love the justice system! Mail fraud? "Male" fraud, more like!
In the cases where he was meant to obtain an anonymous donor I can see that being less of a crime, depending on what "screening" specifically meant. But I would say that that evidence would then support that the insemination of a woman who wanted her husbands baby with his own was not accidental and therefore I would count it ethically as rape (though I can see why legally it would be hard to convict).
Maria wrote: "What do you all think of the theory that Mary Magdelene was actually married to Jesus and that they had kids before he died? I read Holy Blood Holy Grail, and even though it flew in the face of all I've been taught, it really made me stop and think. And about the Last Supper actually having Mary in the picture leaning over Jesus - possible? "Well I am not convinced there was a Jesus (well we know there wasn't as the Jewish name "Yeshua" could only be rendered in Greek as the approximation "Jesus") http://jesusisajew.org/YESHUA.php
I am willing to believe that some of the associated tales that became the gospels have some historical relation, but for a lot of it their is too many similarities between the Jesus myth and other dying/resurrected gods. The New Testament also was written to specifically identify Christ as the prophesied Messiah to Jewish tradition and (according to some studies) may have got it wrong where the Greek writers mistranslated Hebrew concepts. (I remember something about the gospel writers jumping through hoops to try to have the Galilean Jesus born in Nazareth to fulfil prophecy, hence the somewhat conflicting accounts of when he was born and where and why Mary & Joseph had travelled. I have also read one analysis that indicates that the "Jesus" of the Greek gospels may have combined legends of a Jewish reformer and rebel, and the figure of John the Baptist with the mythological sun god figure.
So I guess I am saying its anyone's guess. Apparently the historicity of Jesus is accepted by consensus amongst Historians and normally I accept consensus. However, this particular consensus does come from a group of people with a high percentage of religious people who would feel that way anyway, and the general reasoning given was that "there was not a lot of evidence to doubt the existence of Jesus", but that to my scientific background is getting things completely backwards. You don't start with a conclusion until you find reason to doubt it, you start with observing evidence, and since the biblical accounts contain a lot of things unsupported by historical evidence I would say that the observed quality of evidence is very poor.
Shannon wrote: "if a boyfriend or husband penetrated his girlfriend/wife while she was unconscious it could be rape ... given the fact that the girlfriend/wife wasn't awake to give consent. Hmmm.... Interesting. "Not 'could be', that is rape. No consent is rape, lack of consent is rape...
Cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "if a boyfriend or husband penetrated his girlfriend/wife while she was unconscious it could be rape ... given the fact that the girlfriend/wife wasn't awake to give consent. Hmmm......"Agreed. If the woman (or man) has at no point told her (or his) partner "you can have sex with my sleeping form", then its rape. Though personally, I think anyone doing so must be a bit weird, why you'd want to do that is beyond me
Gary wrote: "I had already commented that I accepted the point you made. This was a different point, the fact that Mary got pregnant without knowing how. "
Ahh.... Missed that subtle difference ... she knew God was going to impregnate her and said, allegedly, "Let it be done," but, then, woke up without knowing how he made her pregnant ....
Ahh.... Missed that subtle difference ... she knew God was going to impregnate her and said, allegedly, "Let it be done," but, then, woke up without knowing how he made her pregnant ....
Gary wrote: "The comparison being that if a woman was raped while unconscious or the memory was somehow deleted, does that make it no longer rape? Similarly if a woman is impregnated by unknown means (magic, shadow touch, etc) is that impregnation rape if it is done without explicit prior consent?"
Okay, Gary .... I'm going to try this one more time. Just a touch confused.
How can you say in one sentence ... "I had already commented that I accepted the point you made." ... that comment being prior knowledge though you argued whether or not Mary saying, "Let it be done ..." was consent given the power differential ... only to follow it up with the opposite.
You have a point, Mary knew.
Followed by ...
"The comparison being that if a woman was raped while unconscious or the memory was somehow deleted, does that make it no longer rape?"
Huh?
Or, is this another subtle difference in argument? So, Luke says she knew and Luke says she said, "Let it be done." But! Wait for it .... When it happened, she didn't know it was happening, so it was rape.
Is that it? Is that the argument? Had to go around the barn and several bushes a few times to work that out ... so in the end ... Mary didn't know after all.
Let me know if that's not your reasoning, though.
Now, as I've been saying over and over, if you want to argue consent, let's go for it.
Hazel ... I've never heard of that show. Is it good ... though that part sounds horrifying? Is it on British TV or HBO or something? Anyway, that's freaking horrifying. I know that stuff happens. As I mentioned earlier, we had a former boss who was all but asking a few of the young/brand new teachers for sex, allegedly. They weren't so afraid for their jobs that they went through with it. Thankfully. But, they were too afraid for their jobs, being in a position in which they could be fired without cause, to let me take action against him ... at least the action I wanted to take. It was a bad situation. My hands were tied, and they were afraid for themselves and their jobs ... and were being turned off to their new profession. Horrible.
It comes down to consent. Hazel is making a fine argument. Can someone, who is an employee, servant, etc... truly give consent? Don't know what the law says and don't know what the courts say. I know, in my country, there's a big deal about "age of consent" ... different states have a different age. It's usually around 15 or 16. Does that mean, in a boss/employee situation, if the employee says it's okay, regardless of power differential, it's okay if the person is of age? Don't know.
I know a family member's brother-in-law had a small business. He hired a young woman. He was single; she was single. Allegedly, she started flirting with him and asking him to have sex with her. My family member witnessed something and read him out. He said something like ... but it's her idea and she wants it. Yeah. My family member told him he was a complete and total idiot. That, yes, even if it's her idea now and even if it seems like she's the one pushing the issue, she could change her mind ... at any time. Then, it will be a situation of a boss, for all intents and purposes, abusing his power and taking advantage of a subordinate. And, I pointed out to her that other workers witnessing it could file sexual harassment claims. If it ever appeared that she was being favored, getting better shifts, etc..., another employee could say they're not being treated fairly because they won't service the boss.
Yuck! I feel like I need to bathe.
How would that go down in court? Don't know. But, that goes to consent and Mary's consent. Now, I mentioned the fact that ... we can assume Mary didn't want to consent but did so out of fear. I've got to tell you, though, I know women who would consent to having "God's" baby, not because they're afraid of God, but because they'd think it's an honor. Heck, we even know there were women who wanted to have Iceman's baby.
Which takes us to my family member's idiot brother-in-law and this situation with Mary .... Even if the employee wanted to have an affair and even if Mary truly wanted to have God's baby, ....
What is consent? How would we define it? Can consent ever truly be given if there's a power differential?
Even if we said yes to the above ... consent can be given ... even in a boss/employee or master/servant relationship, would it be wise? Would it be ethical? Ever? Would it always and forever be questionable and freaky and make people like me feel like a bath is in order?
I'd be going down that path ... if ... I thought the gospels were the Divine word of God and if I thought Mary was a virgin who was impregnated by God.
Gotta tell ya ... I don't. But, if we're going to go on "facts" ... notice I put that in quotes ... and if we're to look at the gospel as fact ... she damn knew and damn said yes ... so ... let's focus on something like consent ....
Which ....
This author I'm reading, Armstrong, is trying to make this point about stories in religious texts ... that our ancestors saw them sort of as allegory and used them to learn. (Whether that's accurate or not and whether she convinces me remains to be seen...)
We could; however, use this story and discussion in a similar way. So, what can we learn? How can we change ourselves and society or how can we better our world through this discussion?
If we wanted to do those things, I'm not sure I see it happening through the ... what if Mary woke up and didn't know how God made her pregnant ... route. Why? I'm guessing we ... and that most people ... not all ... most ... consider sex with someone while they're drugged or otherwise unconscious to be rape. Right? Our courts, in America and I'm assuming in the UK, recognize that. There have been 5,001 stories and newspaper articles and made for TV movies about such situations. Right? Got it.
(I mean ... if you want to keep going down the God raped Mary path, because she didn't know or because she didn't know exactly how it happened ... instead of consent ... we'd have to look at a different and, in my mind, more appropriate analogy. We'd have to say .... A husband/boyfriend/neighbor asks his wife/girlfriend/neighbor if he can have sex with her someday when she's asleep. She says, "If you want to, sure ...." But, he doesn't tell her which day he's going to do it and doesn't tell her exactly how he's going to do it. So, one night, they go to dinner and she drinks too much wine and passes out. He has sex with her. The next morning, she has no memory of the sex, but she has a feeling he did have sex with her. Hmmm.... Was that rape or consent? I'm pretty sure that's where we'd have to go to come up with an appropriate analogy. So, in this situation, what would we think? Consent or rape. Oh, this adds a whole different aspect to it, doesn't it?)
But, this consent thing .... Don't know about you guys but ....
For me, this discussion isn't about proving religion is good or not or proving God is good or not or proving the Bible is the word of God or not, etc....
Granted, I'd like us to be for real and not full of sh*t, coming up with fake identities and lashing out at people for no reason and making arguments just to be right. True. Guilty. I'd also like for us to deal with the facts, shocking, I know. OR! Be willing to say, I can't prove this with facts, but this is what I think ... this is MY opinion.
But, for me, the consent thing started niggling at me yesterday. Did it start niggling at any of you? I wasn't saying, "Damn that Gary and his arguments! I'll prove him wrong. I'll wear my Bible out ... going to it and typing the text of what is actually there."
Nope. Yeah, I want things to be factual, but ....
Frankly, at one point, I sat back and said, "What the f***!" How do we define consent? How do the courts? How should we? And, I started doing some digging around online and was HORRIFIED by some of the things I found. I'm going to give an article, but it has some graphic and/or troubling stuff. So, don't look at it if it might trouble you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/us/...
Are you kidding me? I mean, let me say that again .... After reading that, I said, "Are you KIDDING me?" And, the date on that puppy, January of 2012. Seriously. What the ....
So, I don't know. For me, I'm taking it as a moment to start thinking about the issue ... not the virgin birth issue and who wants to use that to paint God as wonderful or God as a jerk ... but about the actual issue that people face all the time ... rape ... and consent.
I'm thinking a lot has been done when it comes to rape. But, I'm sure there's more to do ... as evidenced by this article. One place, I can see, that might need work is ... consent. It's something I plan to think about ... to learn about ... and maybe even write law makers, etc... about.
Maybe ... even if there is "consent" ... like in the situation Hazel mentioned (and something like that could happen in real life) ... maybe it should be seen as rape. Oh! Yeah, I went there. I mean, really, maybe we should be talking about that. Maybe victims' advocates should be talking about that. Maybe the people who make our laws should be talking about that.
Now, I'm pretty sure people would go screaming into the night on that one. "You can't charge an employer with rape, RAPE, if he has sex with an employee who told him to go for it." Well, I don't know. What's right and what's wrong in that situation. Can we? Should we?
At least, we'd have had the conversation ... and made a conscious, pun intended, decision ... when it comes to some of these things.
Okay, Gary .... I'm going to try this one more time. Just a touch confused.
How can you say in one sentence ... "I had already commented that I accepted the point you made." ... that comment being prior knowledge though you argued whether or not Mary saying, "Let it be done ..." was consent given the power differential ... only to follow it up with the opposite.
You have a point, Mary knew.
Followed by ...
"The comparison being that if a woman was raped while unconscious or the memory was somehow deleted, does that make it no longer rape?"
Huh?
Or, is this another subtle difference in argument? So, Luke says she knew and Luke says she said, "Let it be done." But! Wait for it .... When it happened, she didn't know it was happening, so it was rape.
Is that it? Is that the argument? Had to go around the barn and several bushes a few times to work that out ... so in the end ... Mary didn't know after all.
Let me know if that's not your reasoning, though.
Now, as I've been saying over and over, if you want to argue consent, let's go for it.
Hazel ... I've never heard of that show. Is it good ... though that part sounds horrifying? Is it on British TV or HBO or something? Anyway, that's freaking horrifying. I know that stuff happens. As I mentioned earlier, we had a former boss who was all but asking a few of the young/brand new teachers for sex, allegedly. They weren't so afraid for their jobs that they went through with it. Thankfully. But, they were too afraid for their jobs, being in a position in which they could be fired without cause, to let me take action against him ... at least the action I wanted to take. It was a bad situation. My hands were tied, and they were afraid for themselves and their jobs ... and were being turned off to their new profession. Horrible.
It comes down to consent. Hazel is making a fine argument. Can someone, who is an employee, servant, etc... truly give consent? Don't know what the law says and don't know what the courts say. I know, in my country, there's a big deal about "age of consent" ... different states have a different age. It's usually around 15 or 16. Does that mean, in a boss/employee situation, if the employee says it's okay, regardless of power differential, it's okay if the person is of age? Don't know.
I know a family member's brother-in-law had a small business. He hired a young woman. He was single; she was single. Allegedly, she started flirting with him and asking him to have sex with her. My family member witnessed something and read him out. He said something like ... but it's her idea and she wants it. Yeah. My family member told him he was a complete and total idiot. That, yes, even if it's her idea now and even if it seems like she's the one pushing the issue, she could change her mind ... at any time. Then, it will be a situation of a boss, for all intents and purposes, abusing his power and taking advantage of a subordinate. And, I pointed out to her that other workers witnessing it could file sexual harassment claims. If it ever appeared that she was being favored, getting better shifts, etc..., another employee could say they're not being treated fairly because they won't service the boss.
Yuck! I feel like I need to bathe.
How would that go down in court? Don't know. But, that goes to consent and Mary's consent. Now, I mentioned the fact that ... we can assume Mary didn't want to consent but did so out of fear. I've got to tell you, though, I know women who would consent to having "God's" baby, not because they're afraid of God, but because they'd think it's an honor. Heck, we even know there were women who wanted to have Iceman's baby.
Which takes us to my family member's idiot brother-in-law and this situation with Mary .... Even if the employee wanted to have an affair and even if Mary truly wanted to have God's baby, ....
What is consent? How would we define it? Can consent ever truly be given if there's a power differential?
Even if we said yes to the above ... consent can be given ... even in a boss/employee or master/servant relationship, would it be wise? Would it be ethical? Ever? Would it always and forever be questionable and freaky and make people like me feel like a bath is in order?
I'd be going down that path ... if ... I thought the gospels were the Divine word of God and if I thought Mary was a virgin who was impregnated by God.
Gotta tell ya ... I don't. But, if we're going to go on "facts" ... notice I put that in quotes ... and if we're to look at the gospel as fact ... she damn knew and damn said yes ... so ... let's focus on something like consent ....
Which ....
This author I'm reading, Armstrong, is trying to make this point about stories in religious texts ... that our ancestors saw them sort of as allegory and used them to learn. (Whether that's accurate or not and whether she convinces me remains to be seen...)
We could; however, use this story and discussion in a similar way. So, what can we learn? How can we change ourselves and society or how can we better our world through this discussion?
If we wanted to do those things, I'm not sure I see it happening through the ... what if Mary woke up and didn't know how God made her pregnant ... route. Why? I'm guessing we ... and that most people ... not all ... most ... consider sex with someone while they're drugged or otherwise unconscious to be rape. Right? Our courts, in America and I'm assuming in the UK, recognize that. There have been 5,001 stories and newspaper articles and made for TV movies about such situations. Right? Got it.
(I mean ... if you want to keep going down the God raped Mary path, because she didn't know or because she didn't know exactly how it happened ... instead of consent ... we'd have to look at a different and, in my mind, more appropriate analogy. We'd have to say .... A husband/boyfriend/neighbor asks his wife/girlfriend/neighbor if he can have sex with her someday when she's asleep. She says, "If you want to, sure ...." But, he doesn't tell her which day he's going to do it and doesn't tell her exactly how he's going to do it. So, one night, they go to dinner and she drinks too much wine and passes out. He has sex with her. The next morning, she has no memory of the sex, but she has a feeling he did have sex with her. Hmmm.... Was that rape or consent? I'm pretty sure that's where we'd have to go to come up with an appropriate analogy. So, in this situation, what would we think? Consent or rape. Oh, this adds a whole different aspect to it, doesn't it?)
But, this consent thing .... Don't know about you guys but ....
For me, this discussion isn't about proving religion is good or not or proving God is good or not or proving the Bible is the word of God or not, etc....
Granted, I'd like us to be for real and not full of sh*t, coming up with fake identities and lashing out at people for no reason and making arguments just to be right. True. Guilty. I'd also like for us to deal with the facts, shocking, I know. OR! Be willing to say, I can't prove this with facts, but this is what I think ... this is MY opinion.
But, for me, the consent thing started niggling at me yesterday. Did it start niggling at any of you? I wasn't saying, "Damn that Gary and his arguments! I'll prove him wrong. I'll wear my Bible out ... going to it and typing the text of what is actually there."
Nope. Yeah, I want things to be factual, but ....
Frankly, at one point, I sat back and said, "What the f***!" How do we define consent? How do the courts? How should we? And, I started doing some digging around online and was HORRIFIED by some of the things I found. I'm going to give an article, but it has some graphic and/or troubling stuff. So, don't look at it if it might trouble you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/us/...
Are you kidding me? I mean, let me say that again .... After reading that, I said, "Are you KIDDING me?" And, the date on that puppy, January of 2012. Seriously. What the ....
So, I don't know. For me, I'm taking it as a moment to start thinking about the issue ... not the virgin birth issue and who wants to use that to paint God as wonderful or God as a jerk ... but about the actual issue that people face all the time ... rape ... and consent.
I'm thinking a lot has been done when it comes to rape. But, I'm sure there's more to do ... as evidenced by this article. One place, I can see, that might need work is ... consent. It's something I plan to think about ... to learn about ... and maybe even write law makers, etc... about.
Maybe ... even if there is "consent" ... like in the situation Hazel mentioned (and something like that could happen in real life) ... maybe it should be seen as rape. Oh! Yeah, I went there. I mean, really, maybe we should be talking about that. Maybe victims' advocates should be talking about that. Maybe the people who make our laws should be talking about that.
Now, I'm pretty sure people would go screaming into the night on that one. "You can't charge an employer with rape, RAPE, if he has sex with an employee who told him to go for it." Well, I don't know. What's right and what's wrong in that situation. Can we? Should we?
At least, we'd have had the conversation ... and made a conscious, pun intended, decision ... when it comes to some of these things.
Gary wrote: "This is what I do mean about morality and ethics though. In my opinion there are ethics that are simple and obvious, but also ethics that needs to be discussed and explored."
Totally agree ....
Totally agree ....
Gary wrote: "Don't you just love the justice system! Mail fraud? "
Yeah, I was pretty shocked and disgusted. I mean, I was 99% sure that, if this had happened, the courts wouldn't have gone for rape. Just knew it. I figured ... fraud. Meaning, saying you'll inseminate with the husband's sperm or sperm donor 918's sperm, and inseminating with your own instead fraud. But, I never in a million years thought I'd see mail fraud and wire fraud. Again, I had a "What the ..." moment there.
And, here's the thing .... I'm sure they went for mail fraud because they knew they could get a conviction. They wanted a conviction. I also assume nothing like this had happened before. So, there weren't laws that fit such an act.
However, this is what has me wondering .... That happened well over a decade ago. We know it. They've had all sorts of TV shows about it.
So, what ....
Have we talked about it since? Seriously talked about it? Have we talked about things like consent and what rape really is and ...? Or, did people, the Joe and Jane on the street and prosecutors and law makers, see that and say, "How horrid!" and forget about it? Because, who really wants to spend time talking about consent and rape and when something is sexual harassment and when it's rape and .... I'm guessing not many people really want to get into that and really want to deal with that ... and ... how do you decide what's right and come to a consensus and protect everyone's rights ... thinking of the boss who has an employee who flirts with him and touches him without his asking and asks him for sex vs. the boss who says ... you're going to have sex with me or I'll fire you and say you stole from the cash register ... there is a difference ... I think ... but is there ... and what is it ... and ....
Yeah, I was pretty shocked and disgusted. I mean, I was 99% sure that, if this had happened, the courts wouldn't have gone for rape. Just knew it. I figured ... fraud. Meaning, saying you'll inseminate with the husband's sperm or sperm donor 918's sperm, and inseminating with your own instead fraud. But, I never in a million years thought I'd see mail fraud and wire fraud. Again, I had a "What the ..." moment there.
And, here's the thing .... I'm sure they went for mail fraud because they knew they could get a conviction. They wanted a conviction. I also assume nothing like this had happened before. So, there weren't laws that fit such an act.
However, this is what has me wondering .... That happened well over a decade ago. We know it. They've had all sorts of TV shows about it.
So, what ....
Have we talked about it since? Seriously talked about it? Have we talked about things like consent and what rape really is and ...? Or, did people, the Joe and Jane on the street and prosecutors and law makers, see that and say, "How horrid!" and forget about it? Because, who really wants to spend time talking about consent and rape and when something is sexual harassment and when it's rape and .... I'm guessing not many people really want to get into that and really want to deal with that ... and ... how do you decide what's right and come to a consensus and protect everyone's rights ... thinking of the boss who has an employee who flirts with him and touches him without his asking and asks him for sex vs. the boss who says ... you're going to have sex with me or I'll fire you and say you stole from the cash register ... there is a difference ... I think ... but is there ... and what is it ... and ....
OK, y'all, can we move on? I'm about worn out with the rape/consent thing. Plus it's depressing, as Shannon said, after reading some of this stuff I feel like I need to bathe.What is everyone doing for July 4th, if you celebrate it?
Shannon, its an american show, I don't know what channel it would be on over there, or if its still on, but you'll probably find it on Netflix.... quick check shows it was originally on Fox. Its got Tim Roth as the main character. The episode I was talking about doesn't have anything graphic in it, its mostly investigation.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1235099/
Hazel wrote: "Shannon, its an american show, I don't know what channel it would be on over there, or if its still on, but you'll probably find it on Netflix.... quick check shows it was originally on Fox. Its go..."
Hmmm.... Will look into it. Clearly, I need to widen my horizons ... not just watch the History Channel. ;) Or, Missing with Sean Bean!
Hmmm.... Will look into it. Clearly, I need to widen my horizons ... not just watch the History Channel. ;) Or, Missing with Sean Bean!
Maria wrote: "What is everyone doing for July 4th, if you celebrate it?"
Ha, ha .... I think most of the people who take part in the dialogue here are from the UK, Australia, etc.... I'm guessing they won't be celebrating the 4th.
What are you doing? I don't have any firm plans. I always watch the fireworks, so I'll likely do that. Some of the towns near me do parades and huge lawn sales and book sales throughout the town and usually a BBQ at a fire station or legion or something. Many also have a parade. I'm not really into all that ... yard sales and parades. I'm thinking of taking a bit of a drive and going walking and hiking in Stowe, VT and Smuggler's Notch ... among my favorite places. It's amazing there, if people ever have the opportunity to go.
So, getting one with nature ... followed by watching people "blow up" incendiary devices. Not sure what that says about my personality. Though, I guess it's about as "American" as anything else. ;) If I'm lucky, I'll be able to convince my mother to burn some hot dogs for me and make her potato salad. If so, I'll stop in there between hiking and watching things make pretty colors and go boom in the night sky.
Ha, ha .... I think most of the people who take part in the dialogue here are from the UK, Australia, etc.... I'm guessing they won't be celebrating the 4th.
What are you doing? I don't have any firm plans. I always watch the fireworks, so I'll likely do that. Some of the towns near me do parades and huge lawn sales and book sales throughout the town and usually a BBQ at a fire station or legion or something. Many also have a parade. I'm not really into all that ... yard sales and parades. I'm thinking of taking a bit of a drive and going walking and hiking in Stowe, VT and Smuggler's Notch ... among my favorite places. It's amazing there, if people ever have the opportunity to go.
So, getting one with nature ... followed by watching people "blow up" incendiary devices. Not sure what that says about my personality. Though, I guess it's about as "American" as anything else. ;) If I'm lucky, I'll be able to convince my mother to burn some hot dogs for me and make her potato salad. If so, I'll stop in there between hiking and watching things make pretty colors and go boom in the night sky.
Americans blow up colourful incendiary devices to celebrate independence from the UK, we here in the UK do the same thing to celebrate the last man who entered the houses of parliament with honest intentions ;P
Shannon, sounds like fun. I did get the impression that most were from the UK and Australia as well - I'd be curious to know everyone's background - I feel like we are all friends.I am from Southeastern Virginia - near Virginia Beach. It is SUPER hot here, today near 102. We are taking a trip to my sister's beach cottage in Ocean Isle, NC - near Myrtle Beach, SC - for the week starting Tuesday. I simply cannot wait to de-stress.
I have an 18 year old son who will most likely set off some fireworks with his uncle on the beach - but other than that, hopefully I will just be able to relax!
Hazel wrote: "we here in the UK do the same thing to celebrate the last man who entered the houses of parliament with honest intentions ;P "
Ha, ha ...
Wait ... don't know if that makes me want to laugh or cry. Sigh. In times like this, I turn my thoughts toward ...
Ha, ha ...
Wait ... don't know if that makes me want to laugh or cry. Sigh. In times like this, I turn my thoughts toward ...
Don't say it........
Maria wrote: "Don't say it........"
What?
What?
Weren't you going to say Sean Bean? :)I hate to say this but until I read your posts, I had never heard of him. Maybe I should crawl out from under my rock once in a while.....
Maria wrote: "Weren't you going to say Sean Bean? :)"
;)
Since you said it, I'll refrain.
;)
Since you said it, I'll refrain.
I know he's pretty old, comparatively speaking, but I've always crushed on Al Pacino - all the way back to his Godfather days, and especially his later roles like Satan in The Devil's Advocate. If that's what Satan looks like, I could easily turn to the dark side........
i think it's important to have both. religion gives hope and anticipation of all the good in the world, but science is important for progress and expanding intelligence. don't get me wrong - i think there is a huge difference between religion and the church. religion is personal, the church is often hypocritical. i think science and religion could compliment each other!
I just want to wish everyone a spectacular 4th in whatever way you celebrate it, and I do get the "rooting" dig. But got sideswiped into the rape and sexualizing of young girls which I abhor as well, Having a daughter she hasn't shopped at a clothing store, since she doesn't go for the "latest" fashions.
Lloyd wrote: "i think it's important to have both. religion gives hope and anticipation of all the good in the world, but science is important for progress and expanding intelligence. don't get me wrong - i thin..."Hi, llyod, this idea that they can co-exist and compliment each other has come up a few times, and been discussed at length. Religion and science are diametrically opposite, religion claims knowledge, and creates conclusions without evidence for them, and then expects followers to accept those conclusions without critical thought or recourse to evidence, and isn't open to change if the evidence contradicts it, instead asking that we ignore the evidence in favour of faith (or credulity, which is a better word), whereas science investigates and looks at the evidence and draws conclusions from what is observed, and is open to change if the evidence shows that change to what we know is required.
Gary wrote: "Dariennefye wrote: "as God creates us people with brain and freedom, so there we can see that He creates us along with science..so i dont think theres a conflict between religion and science.."W..."
because obviously i chose religion over science..and for me science is just part of religion..(thats my point when i said "so i dont think theres a conflict between religion and science.."
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Don't know ....
But, I do LOVE the word "shenanigans" for some reason! Good word!"
Right up there with 'hijinks' and 'monkeyshines'.
I think maybe, if I remember correctly, that he had t..."
Wait...god can make angels and robots...?
That part is actually kind of cool.
Makes you wonder why he bothers with burning bushes.