Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Had to look up Newcastle Brown..."
No idea if he drinks the stuff...but it is popular with the northern fellows...or southerners if you're from north of the wall...all a matter of ..."
It is definitely all about perspective ....
So, Google tells me Dr. Who "time travels" and is a "humanoid alien" and, I think, a blue telephone booth pops up as a picture. Does he go in a telephone booth to time travel, like Superman went into a telephone booth to change outfits? Or, is that not a telephone booth?
How odd this doesn't play here .... We have certain things on our PBS stations from Britain. Would you believe, not teasing, I saw in the paper that a local town was running a support group for Downtown Abbey addicts? Seriously. Not teasing. Almost dropped the paper. No ... seriously. It started with, "Missing Downtown Abbey Already" ... and went on to say they were sponsoring a support group. I'd like to think it was a joke, but .... They're running Sherlock right now. And, they have As Time Goes By on over and over and over again. A comedy about a female priest. WASN'T SEAN BEAN IN THAT?! ONE EPISODE, RIGHT?! And, one about a much older couple ... and sisters or something ... that I don't watch. Most recently I saw a "new" comedy with a very, very tall woman with a very, very short friend ... in order to gain the attentions of a man, they bought dogs and went dog walking in a park and, if memory serves, she was running about half nekkid in the park. Oh! And, we used to have MI5 ... or was it MI6. But, alas, no Dr. Who.
And, of course, people here drink beer with lime, much to my shame. How does one take a man seriously when he orders lemon with water and lime with beer? Ah, New England!
Now you understand the root cause for my obsession with Sean Bean!
No idea if he drinks the stuff...but it is popular with the northern fellows...or southerners if you're from north of the wall...all a matter of ..."
It is definitely all about perspective ....
So, Google tells me Dr. Who "time travels" and is a "humanoid alien" and, I think, a blue telephone booth pops up as a picture. Does he go in a telephone booth to time travel, like Superman went into a telephone booth to change outfits? Or, is that not a telephone booth?
How odd this doesn't play here .... We have certain things on our PBS stations from Britain. Would you believe, not teasing, I saw in the paper that a local town was running a support group for Downtown Abbey addicts? Seriously. Not teasing. Almost dropped the paper. No ... seriously. It started with, "Missing Downtown Abbey Already" ... and went on to say they were sponsoring a support group. I'd like to think it was a joke, but .... They're running Sherlock right now. And, they have As Time Goes By on over and over and over again. A comedy about a female priest. WASN'T SEAN BEAN IN THAT?! ONE EPISODE, RIGHT?! And, one about a much older couple ... and sisters or something ... that I don't watch. Most recently I saw a "new" comedy with a very, very tall woman with a very, very short friend ... in order to gain the attentions of a man, they bought dogs and went dog walking in a park and, if memory serves, she was running about half nekkid in the park. Oh! And, we used to have MI5 ... or was it MI6. But, alas, no Dr. Who.
And, of course, people here drink beer with lime, much to my shame. How does one take a man seriously when he orders lemon with water and lime with beer? Ah, New England!
Now you understand the root cause for my obsession with Sean Bean!
The blue police phone box is the TARDIS, it's an acronym I can never remember. It's his ship and is larger on the inside than the out, containing an entire multilevel spaceship. It travels through time and dimensions, enabling endless story lines. So yes he can go in and change his outfit though most, if not all, Doctor's wear the same outfit for the entire regeneration, the Doctor's regenterate everytime an actor gets sick of the role, and the new Doctor is different in appearance (obviously with a different actor), personality and quirks but he's the good guy always. Try the Sci-fi channels, the early one are classics for what is now awful Special effects but were for their time innovative, so I've been told. Like green slime covered bubble-wrap(you could tell) flesh eating worm aliens.
I'm reasonably sure that Dr WHo has hit the states, it has been going since the 60s, afterall.The blue policebox is the TARDIS, which is his spaceship, it has the ability to change its appearance in order to be innocuous and to blend in, but it malfunctioned and got stuck as a policebox. TARDIS means Time and Relative Dimension in Space. SO technically, yes, he goes into the blue box to travel in time and space, but it moves too, as its his ship.
I really recommend watching it, but you don't need to watch all the incarnations of the dr back to the 60s , really, but starting off with the Christopher Ecclestone episodes means you get to start reasonably fresh. Though they are all the same character, when the dr dies, he regenerates with a new body.
Comedy about a female vicar = The Vicar of Dibley, and yes, Sean did appear in an episode.
Shanna wrote: "The blue police phone box is the TARDIS, it's an acronym I can never remember. It's his ship and is larger on the inside than the out, containing an entire multilevel spaceship. It travels through ..."theres one monster that came out ofn the sea, and it was basically a big furry brown rug, and its roar was a toilet flushing. Ahh, back int he day, when they could scare us with a dustbin and a toilet plunger...
Hazel wrote: "Comedy about a female vicar = The Vicar of Dibley, and yes, Sean did appear in an episode."More than that, as a Head shot photo, Geraldine (the vicar) was obsessed with Mr Bean
Watch the Vicar Shannon it's funny.
oh yeah, didn't she put him in place of Jesus (relagatng Jesus to a less accessible wall) on her wall? And would often pray to his picture?
Shanna, do you know who Martin CLunes is? And if so, have you ever seen his appearance in Dr WHo?
Hazel wrote: "theres one monster that came out ofn the sea, and it was basically a big furry brown rug, and its roar was a toilet flushing. Ahh, back int he day, when they could scare us with a dustbin and a toilet plunger..."That Slimy bubble wrap had me terrified as a child until I realised something was familiar.
Now it's those bloody angel statues they freak me out.
Toilet plungers are darn scary....for entirely new reasons now, but still scary.
Hazel wrote: "oh yeah, didn't she put him in place of Jesus (relagatng Jesus to a less accessible wall) on her wall? And would often pray to his picture?"I know who he is, Doc Martin, that excellent doco on dogs ect ect..
Can't say I recall him on Dr who though but I haven't watched the latest season yet.
I can't find the weeping angels scary anymore, after seeing a making of, and all the girls in the costumes were dancing around and making fools of themselves between takes...
Hazel wrote: "oh yeah, didn't she put him in place of Jesus (relagatng Jesus to a less accessible wall) on her wall? And would often pray to his picture?"Yes, I also remember her turning Jesus' picture around to face the wall so she could talk to Bean
Oh I see Martin Clunes was in it back in 1983
Shanna wrote: "Hazel wrote: "oh yeah, didn't she put him in place of Jesus (relagatng Jesus to a less accessible wall) on her wall? And would often pray to his picture?"I know who he is, Doc Martin, that excell..."
yeah, thats him, but he wasn't in a recent one, he was in 4 episodes called "Snakedance", back in 1983 when Peter Davison was the dr, here, guess which one he is in this clip, it shouldn't be too hard:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27gljT...
How to debunk while wearing a golden turban with giant sapphire crown.....I wonder how he remembers the job?
I just love the line "a civilisation that has gone soft", said as if an accusation, and that he's better, when he's wearing that outfit...
doh, the toilet flush monster wasn't the one that came out of the sea, I'm such an idiot at times, it was the abominable snowman. It was the weird fishy thing that came out of the sea...
Hazel wrote: "oh yeah, didn't she put him in place of Jesus (relagatng Jesus to a less accessible wall) on her wall? And would often pray to his picture?"
Oh, my gosh! Yes, I've watched the show. I forgot about the picture. How could I have forgotten?! Yes, vicar and not priest. And, yes, she replaced the picture. One night, if I remember correctly, she even covered the picture or something ... so he wouldn't see. I haven't seen it for a long time, but I did watch several years ago. Loved the jokes at the end!
Oh, my gosh! Yes, I've watched the show. I forgot about the picture. How could I have forgotten?! Yes, vicar and not priest. And, yes, she replaced the picture. One night, if I remember correctly, she even covered the picture or something ... so he wouldn't see. I haven't seen it for a long time, but I did watch several years ago. Loved the jokes at the end!
Shannon wrote: "cs wrote: "I changed the word discovered to 'found' but it seems that nothing less than 'invaded' would have pleased you....
But you decided to change the direction of the discussion to your adva..."
I think you know what I am talking about. You came across as being offended, I would go as far as to say you played at being offended. I've seen it happen many times.
But that was then, this is now. My comment....'and it is sometimes wrong to be offended' was in responce to this...
And, I'll go on the record as saying I'm not okay with such name-calling which you said a few posts back.
If you are highlighting other folks faults you must include your own.
I can take name calling, at least from Hazel, but when someone is acting on being offended or acting hard done by (as per Tim's post, after a few beers)I do tend to see through it.
cs wrote: "I think you know what I am talking about. You came across as being offended, I would go as far as to say you played at being offended. I've seen it happen many times. "
So, awhile back, you were asked why you said Shanna was holding a wooden spoon. In fact, I think Shanna asked. Hazel guessed. You were saying Shanna was stirring the pot. But, there were people out there who were saying ... what ... what does this mean?
Your response was, if I remember correctly, ... you might not know but Shanna does.
Cryptic. Huh. Non-answer.
Now, I asked you to point out where, in my posts, I've led you to believe I orchestrate changes in conversation in order to further my own ends and turn things to my advantage.
(I'll give you a possible answer. Sean Bean.)
Non-answer. "I think you know what I am talking about."
Actually, with the exception of all things to do with talented and dreamy actors, I don't.
Hence my asking the question. I believe Cerebus has taken issue with your alleged lack of response when asked questions. Here's a chance to rectify the stigma.
Now, you're even saying I "played at being offended" ... really. Fascinating. What makes you think I played at being offended? I'm truly curious. Are you going to answer? Or, are you going to just make the statement and, when asked to back it, give a cryptic non-answer?
Regarding your comment about being offended in relation to my speaking out against name-calling, well, we were not discussing wrongs in general. We were discussing the words "idiot" and "ignorant" ....
However, if you think I should highlight my faults in addition to the faults of others (wasn't thinking of it as faults ... but okay), as I honestly stated, I got frustrated with you and might even have gotten offended. Yup. Guilty.
In this thread, I also believe I've admitted to being rather bloodthirsty. Not being good at math. Being okay with believing in things without evidence. Giving out too much information. And, frankly, I think there are some I might have forgotten.
I can add that I'm sometimes impatient, I drive like a demon, I use the "f" word with relish when ticked off ... sometimes in combinations with other words ... like "rat" and "bas****"..., I try not to check books out from libraries because I don't return them for months, I dog-ear books, I crack my knuckles, I'm deathly afraid of bats and snakes, I don't balance my check book but once or twice a month ... I just sort of know how much I have within $10 or so dollars, I tend to forget to get my oil changed and my car inspected, and I listen and sing along to country music.
Now, I've been accused by family, friends and men I've dated of having a "brutal fascination with the truth which makes me hard to live with" ... shocking, yes, given my willingness to believe in all sorts of things without evidence ... including Yeti and Champ. People tend to be bugged by my memory and the fact that I usually get very calm and focused when involved in an argument.
But, this is truly fascinating, I've never been accused of lying ... oops, there were the two times in high school but that was forever ago ... or playing at things.
Who knows, though. Perhaps you've found something no one else has discovered. Again, if you could point to the parts and pieces of my words that would lead you to this assumption ... or hypothesis ... I'd be interested ... and would give myself over to self-reflection.
Or, is now the time to say ... We've strayed too far from the topic at hand and need to get back on track?
Your choice.
Going to contemplate whether or not I should hang a picture of Sean Bean in my living room. Or, would that be going too far? ;)
So, awhile back, you were asked why you said Shanna was holding a wooden spoon. In fact, I think Shanna asked. Hazel guessed. You were saying Shanna was stirring the pot. But, there were people out there who were saying ... what ... what does this mean?
Your response was, if I remember correctly, ... you might not know but Shanna does.
Cryptic. Huh. Non-answer.
Now, I asked you to point out where, in my posts, I've led you to believe I orchestrate changes in conversation in order to further my own ends and turn things to my advantage.
(I'll give you a possible answer. Sean Bean.)
Non-answer. "I think you know what I am talking about."
Actually, with the exception of all things to do with talented and dreamy actors, I don't.
Hence my asking the question. I believe Cerebus has taken issue with your alleged lack of response when asked questions. Here's a chance to rectify the stigma.
Now, you're even saying I "played at being offended" ... really. Fascinating. What makes you think I played at being offended? I'm truly curious. Are you going to answer? Or, are you going to just make the statement and, when asked to back it, give a cryptic non-answer?
Regarding your comment about being offended in relation to my speaking out against name-calling, well, we were not discussing wrongs in general. We were discussing the words "idiot" and "ignorant" ....
However, if you think I should highlight my faults in addition to the faults of others (wasn't thinking of it as faults ... but okay), as I honestly stated, I got frustrated with you and might even have gotten offended. Yup. Guilty.
In this thread, I also believe I've admitted to being rather bloodthirsty. Not being good at math. Being okay with believing in things without evidence. Giving out too much information. And, frankly, I think there are some I might have forgotten.
I can add that I'm sometimes impatient, I drive like a demon, I use the "f" word with relish when ticked off ... sometimes in combinations with other words ... like "rat" and "bas****"..., I try not to check books out from libraries because I don't return them for months, I dog-ear books, I crack my knuckles, I'm deathly afraid of bats and snakes, I don't balance my check book but once or twice a month ... I just sort of know how much I have within $10 or so dollars, I tend to forget to get my oil changed and my car inspected, and I listen and sing along to country music.
Now, I've been accused by family, friends and men I've dated of having a "brutal fascination with the truth which makes me hard to live with" ... shocking, yes, given my willingness to believe in all sorts of things without evidence ... including Yeti and Champ. People tend to be bugged by my memory and the fact that I usually get very calm and focused when involved in an argument.
But, this is truly fascinating, I've never been accused of lying ... oops, there were the two times in high school but that was forever ago ... or playing at things.
Who knows, though. Perhaps you've found something no one else has discovered. Again, if you could point to the parts and pieces of my words that would lead you to this assumption ... or hypothesis ... I'd be interested ... and would give myself over to self-reflection.
Or, is now the time to say ... We've strayed too far from the topic at hand and need to get back on track?
Your choice.
Going to contemplate whether or not I should hang a picture of Sean Bean in my living room. Or, would that be going too far? ;)
Doctor Who has been on PBS/local public TV in America since the early 1970's. I first caught it when I lived in San Francisco, then in Seattle when I moved there. For many years it was simultaneously on Canadian TV and Seattle PBS, so if I missed it on Seattle I caught it from Canada. Now I watch it on SciFi and BBC America.
April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "Doctor Who has been on PBS/local public TV in America since the early 1970's. I first caught it when I lived in San Francisco, then in Seattle when I moved there. For many years it was simultaneou..."
What?! I've never seen it on PBS. Hmmm.... I don't tend to watch the SciFi channel, but I'll have to check it out. :)
What?! I've never seen it on PBS. Hmmm.... I don't tend to watch the SciFi channel, but I'll have to check it out. :)
Shannon wrote: However, if you think I should highlight my faults in addition to the faults of others (wasn't thinking of it as faults ... but okay), as I honestly stated, I got frustrated with you and might even have gotten offended. Yup. Guilty."
That was my point when I said, You came across as being offended, I would go as far as to say you played at being offended.
I can see myself forcing Native Americans to cut their hair and not letting them speak their languages or see their families. Right. Oh, oops. I'd have been the Indian being forced to act white. Almost forgot.
cs wrote: "Shannon wrote: However, if you think I should highlight my faults in addition to the faults of others (wasn't thinking of it as faults ... but okay), as I honestly stated, I got frustrated with you..."
Okay, cs. The above quote was taken, if memory serves, from a response I made to you regarding people doing the right and moral thing. I believe we were talking about history. I believe you said it was wrong to foist our morals on our ancestors. I believe you said something about how ... I wouldn't know what I'd do if I lived in the past ... as I'd be a different person. I was arguing that ... some things are just plain right, moral, regardless of time. (But, I'm going on memory, so ....)
Further, the above reference wasn't the only thing I said. Right?
I think I went on like ... right ... I'm sure, if I lived in the past, I'd use homosexuals as the kindling upon which to burn witches. Oops. No. I don't see that. Or, I'm sure I'd, if I'd lived in Salem, carry a woman up a ladder, tie a noose around her neck and let her swing, all based on the "testimony" of a bunch of middle school children who said they saw specters. Nope. I made the above statement ... and followed it up with .... And, I'm sure, 14 or so years ago, when the chair of the school board was asking for the names of the homosexual faculty members I worked with, I would have given them. Oops. Again, no.
Right?
The above was only part of what I had to say that day ... in discussing the fact that, by the way, heck, yes, we can put our morals onto our ancestors because ... frankly ... some things are just plain wrong.
Now ... you cite my saying ... I got frustrated with you and might even have gotten offended. Yup. Guilty.
You say that was your point .... Okay, cs. You proved that I got offended. Or, should I say, when asked if I got offended, I answered your question and told the truth.
Now, the newest thing ...
"I would go as far as to say you played at being offended."
Then, you, cite the above quote, taken out of context ... something you accused me of, interestingly enough.
I assume you're using that quote about hair cutting to show I was playing at being offended.
But, I have to assume. Because ... you're not coming out and saying it and making an argument.
No, I was not playing at being offended.
At that point, I don't even believe I was offended. I remember being totally and completely frustrated, because I thought you were playing word games and I get sick and tired of people, in general, making pi** poor excuses for people's pi** poor behavior, past or present.
Yes, I believe in letting people make choices. Live and let live. However, there comes a point, when the rights of other individuals are taken away by someone else's choices, that I stand and say, "No, but heck no. And, there are consequences for pi** poor behavior."
Yeah, I know history. Yeah, I know a lot of our morals today are the same as then ... and a lot are very different. I know all about that. Get it. On the other hand, I don't really care what time period or what culture or what morals we're talking about ....
Sometimes, there's just not an excuse. When it comes to certain things ... like molestation and rape and murder ... I draw the line. Yeah, I know. Conqueror vs. conquered. Booty. Yup. Got it. People were superstitious. Okay.
You know, actually, people were, in some very pertinent aspects, very similar to people today. Had to be right. Had to have power. Had to look out for number one. Huh. Sort of like some people today. And, no, I'm not directing those comments at you.
Further, regardless of time period, it takes a pretty sick and twisted individual to use homosexuals as the kindling to burn a woman accused of being a witch. A pretty nasty piece of work would stand there and watch that and hear that and smell that ... and ... see it and hear it and smell it and be, frankly, excited by it, at worst, or feel justified by it, at best.
Offended?
No.
Disgusted. Totally and completely and inexorably disgusted. Disgusted that such vile things have happened. Disgusted that such horrifying and evil things have been done in the name of God. Sickened by the fact that people, then and now, make excuses for such violations of human rights and human dignity. Horrified and enraged that such things ... similar things ... still happen today, sometimes in the name of God ... sometimes not.
Nowhere in that mix of thought and emotion do I find myself ... hmmm ... playing a game ... playing at being offended.
So, if you're going to continue to argue that I played at being offended ... and ... huh ... didn't you cut something out of your statement ...
I believe it was ... to turn the discussion to my advantage ....
You're going to have to come up with something else. Or not. I mean, you can just say ... See ... you proved my point ... and be done with it.
Again, your choice.
(And, as an aside, this is an example of why some think you're in this thing just to make and argument for the sake of making an argument. Some, when wrong, say, ... "Oops. I got that wrong." Some, when wrong, don't ... but continue to argue.)
Now, I was just about to make myself sick by reading an article about children being used as slaves in Nepal. So, if you'll excuse me, .... And, I am aware that my frustration, disgust, and offense is nothing compared to what some people are forced to deal with each day ... as an aside.
Okay, cs. The above quote was taken, if memory serves, from a response I made to you regarding people doing the right and moral thing. I believe we were talking about history. I believe you said it was wrong to foist our morals on our ancestors. I believe you said something about how ... I wouldn't know what I'd do if I lived in the past ... as I'd be a different person. I was arguing that ... some things are just plain right, moral, regardless of time. (But, I'm going on memory, so ....)
Further, the above reference wasn't the only thing I said. Right?
I think I went on like ... right ... I'm sure, if I lived in the past, I'd use homosexuals as the kindling upon which to burn witches. Oops. No. I don't see that. Or, I'm sure I'd, if I'd lived in Salem, carry a woman up a ladder, tie a noose around her neck and let her swing, all based on the "testimony" of a bunch of middle school children who said they saw specters. Nope. I made the above statement ... and followed it up with .... And, I'm sure, 14 or so years ago, when the chair of the school board was asking for the names of the homosexual faculty members I worked with, I would have given them. Oops. Again, no.
Right?
The above was only part of what I had to say that day ... in discussing the fact that, by the way, heck, yes, we can put our morals onto our ancestors because ... frankly ... some things are just plain wrong.
Now ... you cite my saying ... I got frustrated with you and might even have gotten offended. Yup. Guilty.
You say that was your point .... Okay, cs. You proved that I got offended. Or, should I say, when asked if I got offended, I answered your question and told the truth.
Now, the newest thing ...
"I would go as far as to say you played at being offended."
Then, you, cite the above quote, taken out of context ... something you accused me of, interestingly enough.
I assume you're using that quote about hair cutting to show I was playing at being offended.
But, I have to assume. Because ... you're not coming out and saying it and making an argument.
No, I was not playing at being offended.
At that point, I don't even believe I was offended. I remember being totally and completely frustrated, because I thought you were playing word games and I get sick and tired of people, in general, making pi** poor excuses for people's pi** poor behavior, past or present.
Yes, I believe in letting people make choices. Live and let live. However, there comes a point, when the rights of other individuals are taken away by someone else's choices, that I stand and say, "No, but heck no. And, there are consequences for pi** poor behavior."
Yeah, I know history. Yeah, I know a lot of our morals today are the same as then ... and a lot are very different. I know all about that. Get it. On the other hand, I don't really care what time period or what culture or what morals we're talking about ....
Sometimes, there's just not an excuse. When it comes to certain things ... like molestation and rape and murder ... I draw the line. Yeah, I know. Conqueror vs. conquered. Booty. Yup. Got it. People were superstitious. Okay.
You know, actually, people were, in some very pertinent aspects, very similar to people today. Had to be right. Had to have power. Had to look out for number one. Huh. Sort of like some people today. And, no, I'm not directing those comments at you.
Further, regardless of time period, it takes a pretty sick and twisted individual to use homosexuals as the kindling to burn a woman accused of being a witch. A pretty nasty piece of work would stand there and watch that and hear that and smell that ... and ... see it and hear it and smell it and be, frankly, excited by it, at worst, or feel justified by it, at best.
Offended?
No.
Disgusted. Totally and completely and inexorably disgusted. Disgusted that such vile things have happened. Disgusted that such horrifying and evil things have been done in the name of God. Sickened by the fact that people, then and now, make excuses for such violations of human rights and human dignity. Horrified and enraged that such things ... similar things ... still happen today, sometimes in the name of God ... sometimes not.
Nowhere in that mix of thought and emotion do I find myself ... hmmm ... playing a game ... playing at being offended.
So, if you're going to continue to argue that I played at being offended ... and ... huh ... didn't you cut something out of your statement ...
I believe it was ... to turn the discussion to my advantage ....
You're going to have to come up with something else. Or not. I mean, you can just say ... See ... you proved my point ... and be done with it.
Again, your choice.
(And, as an aside, this is an example of why some think you're in this thing just to make and argument for the sake of making an argument. Some, when wrong, say, ... "Oops. I got that wrong." Some, when wrong, don't ... but continue to argue.)
Now, I was just about to make myself sick by reading an article about children being used as slaves in Nepal. So, if you'll excuse me, .... And, I am aware that my frustration, disgust, and offense is nothing compared to what some people are forced to deal with each day ... as an aside.
One other thing ... and it's likely ridiculous that I'm writing this, but ...
cs ....
When this exchange first happened, days ago, you wrote back and said I had a chip on my shoulder. How did I respond to that statement?
...
I didn't.
When I read it, I gasped and started to get upset. Then, I sat back and said, "Holy crap! Do I have a chip on my shoulder? Crap! He might be right ... in part." Thus, I didn't take offense to that statement. Gave it some thought ... some consideration. It's something that I'm going to be aware of.
True story.
But, here's the thing .... I still think it's bogus when people talk about the Americas being discovered and found. I always will. I'm going to try to be aware of my thought process and emotions when it happens. Ultimately, though, I still have issues with it ... and would prefer invaded or colonized or, even, resettled in ....
The other thing is ... when I read a comment like ... I played at being offended and did so to change the direction of the conversation to my advantage ...
Well ....
I'm going to have something to say about that, because ....
A) It's not true.
B) You've made a play by making that statement, as far as I'm concerned, and you're, to date, refusing to back that play.
C) It smacks of something that's a bit sketchy.
I mean, you link morals to Christianity, seemingly discounting the morals of other people ... or not ... don't know, exactly, because said no when questioned but kept saying it, ... you talked about the Americas being found ... I said, you know ... some would take offense at that word ... were we lost .... You took offense ... said I had a chip. Asked me to replace the word. I did. You thought the word too strong for a friendly debate. I changed the word. You kept saying I never gave you a word ... but kept bringing up the original word and it's inappropriateness .... And, now, you're accusing me of playing the race card. Yes, that's the rub. Never heard of the offense card. But, I've heard of the race card. You're saying I'm playing games ... and trying to turn things to put myself and, I don't know, my people, in the advantage. Again, I'm not sure, because (I truly don't mean to sound mean when I say this ... but it is my perception) you don't always connect the dots in the arguments you make. And, I don't know .... I think it's sort of sketchy ... but am unwilling to connect the dots floating in my head because I might be wrong. It would be going too far ... if I was wrong.
So, I'm going to leave it at this.
Cerebus has said, on several occasions, why he takes part in this thread. Others might have. His responses jump into my mind. I've said why I take part in this thread.
Forget proving your statement ... finding evidence for me being a mastermind who manipulates threads for personal gain. Truly. Forget that.
I have a different question.
Truthfully, why do you take part in this thread, if you're willing to answer? What is your point and your purpose?
cs ....
When this exchange first happened, days ago, you wrote back and said I had a chip on my shoulder. How did I respond to that statement?
...
I didn't.
When I read it, I gasped and started to get upset. Then, I sat back and said, "Holy crap! Do I have a chip on my shoulder? Crap! He might be right ... in part." Thus, I didn't take offense to that statement. Gave it some thought ... some consideration. It's something that I'm going to be aware of.
True story.
But, here's the thing .... I still think it's bogus when people talk about the Americas being discovered and found. I always will. I'm going to try to be aware of my thought process and emotions when it happens. Ultimately, though, I still have issues with it ... and would prefer invaded or colonized or, even, resettled in ....
The other thing is ... when I read a comment like ... I played at being offended and did so to change the direction of the conversation to my advantage ...
Well ....
I'm going to have something to say about that, because ....
A) It's not true.
B) You've made a play by making that statement, as far as I'm concerned, and you're, to date, refusing to back that play.
C) It smacks of something that's a bit sketchy.
I mean, you link morals to Christianity, seemingly discounting the morals of other people ... or not ... don't know, exactly, because said no when questioned but kept saying it, ... you talked about the Americas being found ... I said, you know ... some would take offense at that word ... were we lost .... You took offense ... said I had a chip. Asked me to replace the word. I did. You thought the word too strong for a friendly debate. I changed the word. You kept saying I never gave you a word ... but kept bringing up the original word and it's inappropriateness .... And, now, you're accusing me of playing the race card. Yes, that's the rub. Never heard of the offense card. But, I've heard of the race card. You're saying I'm playing games ... and trying to turn things to put myself and, I don't know, my people, in the advantage. Again, I'm not sure, because (I truly don't mean to sound mean when I say this ... but it is my perception) you don't always connect the dots in the arguments you make. And, I don't know .... I think it's sort of sketchy ... but am unwilling to connect the dots floating in my head because I might be wrong. It would be going too far ... if I was wrong.
So, I'm going to leave it at this.
Cerebus has said, on several occasions, why he takes part in this thread. Others might have. His responses jump into my mind. I've said why I take part in this thread.
Forget proving your statement ... finding evidence for me being a mastermind who manipulates threads for personal gain. Truly. Forget that.
I have a different question.
Truthfully, why do you take part in this thread, if you're willing to answer? What is your point and your purpose?
I would rather live in a world without stupidity. Then it wouldn't matter if you were a scientific person or a religious one, or both. You would regard things with a degree of fairness and respect and work really hard not to hurt other people, including yourself. For those who think belief in a "higher power" or a mysterious unseen deity is illogical or irrational...consider that Love is also illogical and irrational and is wonderfully impossible to quantify or define. It also has the ability to both elevate us beyond what we think we are capable of doing or being. And when we abandon it (or when we fall short of deserving it or being worthy of it) then it can bring us down lower than we thought possible.
And for those who believe that science is a godless, atheistic perspective or process meant to disconnect mankind from its spiritual side...I can think of no other method or mechanism at our physical disposal (aside from the biological miracle that is childbirth) that allows us mere human beings to catch a glimpse of the vast mystery that is our existence, whether it is deciphering the basic building blocks of our DNA or building starcrafts that allow us to travel into space and see our world and our galaxy in a way we never thought possible and to be in absolute awe of our shared destiny.
Anthony wrote: "consider that Love is also illogical and irrational and is wonderfully impossible to quantify or define."I don't think "love" is illogical and irrational, it can be if there an unhealthiness there, but if looked at in evolutionary terms love is an important bonding tool for supporting young vunerable families.
Keeping males around beyond their genetic contribution and women to not eat or abandon their young, so to speak. I know personally I would die for (and did so at the birth of my first son) and kill for them in a heartbeat, even my husband the man I love.
@Anthony, the question wasn't whether we wanted to be in a world without stupidity, that goes without saying. Love is not illogical and hard to quantify. There is obsessive love, like Shanna is describing. I think as mothers we all want to protect our young, and not see harm befall those whom we love. That is why I go with science, not religion.
Sorry to come back to what Shannon wrote but the truth is America was invaded, and systematically colonised, somewhat brutally too. There is no other way of saying it. Read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee Brown if you have any doubts. No need to apologise for speaking the truth, Shannon.
Lila wrote: "God created Adam and Even and the first thing He did was give them free will. They were free to choose. God knew that they will be tempted by by Satan to eat the apple. God knew what the consequence oof giving in to Satan would be for Adam and Eve but ultimately it was up to them to either eat it or not. They were not punished they were not sentenced to eternal damnation. They were merely taught the very first important lesson of life: whatever we do, it will always have consequences, bad or good. Action -reaction. This is what I believe. I always have a choice. My God does not lead my hand to do evil, to kill it to cause suffering."Lila, do you not believe in the Genesis account then?
Can you explain what account of Adam & Eve you do believe in.
Do you believe the Serpent was Satan as it is specified as a cunning beast that god curses to crawl on its belly?
Genesis (From the King James Bible 1611)
From http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1...
(If you can translate the latin, greek or hebrew versions better than the King James translators I would like to hear what the significant differences are.)
3 But of the fruit of the tree, which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shal not eate of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the Serpent said vnto the woman, Ye shall not surely die.
5 For God doeth know, that in the day ye eate thereof, then your eyes shalbee opened: and yee shall bee as Gods, knowing good and euill.
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden: and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid my selfe.
11 And he said, Who told thee, that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee, that thou shouldest not eate?
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorowe and thy conception. In sorow thou shalt bring forth children: and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and hee shall rule ouer thee.
17 And vnto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened vnto the voyce of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commaunded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eate of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake: in sorow shalt thou eate of it all the dayes of thy life.
18 Thornes also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee: and thou shalt eate the herbe of the field.
19 In the sweate of thy face shalt thou eate bread, till thou returne vnto the ground: for out of it wast thou taken, for dust thou art, and vnto dust shalt thou returne.
22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of vs, to know good & euill. And now lest hee put foorth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eate and liue for euer:
So God says "do not eat of the fruit" and yet only by eating the fruit do Adam and Eve learn that disobeying god was wrong.
If you don't know the difference between good & evil, right & wrong, how can you have free will to choose between?
Directly after it says how Eve and her gender was cursed to be subordinate to men, to suffer in childbirth and how both will eventually return to the dirt and ashes they came from.
Please explain how Adam & Eve disobeying god because they couldn't know better equates to him giving them free will?
Shannon wrote: "Careful. Paul reportedly said that, not Jesus. In addition, from information detailed in the Bible, Paul was not a disciple and didn't study under or learn directly from Jesus. "Thanks Shannon, but I am aware of that. In fact the Gospels were not written until at least a generation after the events portrayed. There is no known good evidence of a contemporary account at all. So everything in the Bible that Jesus said is actually what someone a few decades later said he said.
The problem is such statements are commonly considered (if you'll forgive me) "Gospel" by some Christians justifying their prejudices.
cs wrote: "Atheists are very intolerant."Hypocrisy doesn't come better defined than this. This is almost as good as "Only the Sith deal in absolutes."
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Careful. Paul reportedly said that, not Jesus. In addition, from information detailed in the Bible, Paul was not a disciple and didn't study under or learn directly from Jesus. "
T..."
I'm aware of that, Gary. Either by the person, Paul, or by people who followed his teachings.
Here's the thing ....
When I tell a story about something that happened 20 years ago, it might be colored by my perception and time ... or not, but, given the fact that I'm honest, it still happened.
I realize there are problems with first person accounts, especially written after time has elapsed. There are even more issues with accounts written by people who heard people talk about witnessing something.
However, ... here's the thing ....
While people bring this up as a reason not to believe the stories in the New Testament, I don't hear them saying, "And, when I meet someone and they tell me something that happened to them 10 years, 20 years, 30 years ago, well, I never believe them. Not one word."
Right?
So ....
When it comes to various teachings in the New Testament, I give more credence to Matthew, Mark, John, Peter and James ... and, in truth, James is my favorite. Why? I do believe Jesus lived and taught, and I believe Matthew, Mark, John and Peter were followers of Jesus, and I believe James was his brother. So, even though the stories were written about 20 years or so later, they were possibly written by men who lived with him and talked with him and listened to him. And, personally, I don't discount first person accounts, even if they're told after the fact. I'm aware of the problems, but I don't dismiss them out of hand.
Luke and Paul, well, I don't tend to turn to them. They didn't know and follow Jesus. So ....
T..."
I'm aware of that, Gary. Either by the person, Paul, or by people who followed his teachings.
Here's the thing ....
When I tell a story about something that happened 20 years ago, it might be colored by my perception and time ... or not, but, given the fact that I'm honest, it still happened.
I realize there are problems with first person accounts, especially written after time has elapsed. There are even more issues with accounts written by people who heard people talk about witnessing something.
However, ... here's the thing ....
While people bring this up as a reason not to believe the stories in the New Testament, I don't hear them saying, "And, when I meet someone and they tell me something that happened to them 10 years, 20 years, 30 years ago, well, I never believe them. Not one word."
Right?
So ....
When it comes to various teachings in the New Testament, I give more credence to Matthew, Mark, John, Peter and James ... and, in truth, James is my favorite. Why? I do believe Jesus lived and taught, and I believe Matthew, Mark, John and Peter were followers of Jesus, and I believe James was his brother. So, even though the stories were written about 20 years or so later, they were possibly written by men who lived with him and talked with him and listened to him. And, personally, I don't discount first person accounts, even if they're told after the fact. I'm aware of the problems, but I don't dismiss them out of hand.
Luke and Paul, well, I don't tend to turn to them. They didn't know and follow Jesus. So ....
Tim wrote: "Sorry to come back to what Shannon wrote but the truth is America was invaded, and systematically colonised, somewhat brutally too. There is no other way of saying it. Read Bury My Heart at Wounded..."
That's a great book! Thanks for putting it out there. :)
That's a great book! Thanks for putting it out there. :)
Shannon wrote: "While people bring this up as a reason not to believe the stories in the New Testament, I don't hear them saying, "And, when I meet someone and they tell me something that happened to them 10 years, 20 years, 30 years ago, well, I never believe them. Not one word."Right?
So ...."
the problem with the NT is not just that it's written decades after. Theres a literally hundreds of versions written to suit many and varied agendas, ideaologies and politics. The book contradicts itself on many points many of them major such as the lineage of Jesus. There is no contemporary, independent account of anything (one would think zombie saints, newly risen from their graves, wandering the streets of Jerusalem at the time of the Crucifixion, that appeared to many would have warranted someone bothering to write something down somewhere). It is not just an accounting of an event that someone told you happened to them decades ago, it's your neighbour telling you what their friend said happened to another friends boss 30 years ago and expecting you to not only take it as gospel but live your life according to their contradictory rules
That and the story was told decades later, at a time when life expectancy was thirty.Zombie saints...?
Could be the next big thing after Twilight.
Travis wrote: "That and the story was told decades later, at a time when life expectancy was thirty.Zombie saints...?
Could be the next big thing after Twilight."
Well it doesn't say zombies but what else you call the risen dead?
They didn't document the earthquake, the eclipse ect either the Romans where superstitous the confluence of events would have been meaningful
In Matthew 27:52-53
Shannon wrote: "While people bring this up as a reason not to believe the stories in the New Testament, I don't hear them saying, "And, when I meet someone and they tell me something that happened to them 10 years, 20 years, 30 years ago, well, I never believe them. Not one word."Fair enough, however the difference is that if someone makes a claim like 30 years ago my aunt ate 2 pounds of celery I would give them the benefit of the doubt, if they claim that 30 years ago she raised someone from the dead, I would be highly sceptical until I saw independent corroborating evidence.
At the moment certain people claim that 10 years ago the Bush administration blew up the Twin Towers to justify war with Iraq, some claim that 50 years ago NASA was involved in a massively successful conspiracy to convince everyone that they landed on the moon when they didn't.
Both of these accounts I treat with scepticism.
The gospels however are almost nineteen hundred year old accounts, re-translated with dubious scholarly skill, of something that occurred fifty or more years in the past of the writers based on anecdotal evidence of people with a declared agenda. There are no confirmed corroborating contemporary records, there are contextual facts that do not correspond well to what is known about the era, the accounts do not even agree with each other, the accounts include events that have been attributed to several other mythological figures previous to that time and said accounts both make extraordinary claims to both events that happened and the conclusions that should be drawn from said events.
Suffice it to say, I was convinced because others convinced me the evidence was good until I investigated said evidence myself.
Shanna wrote: "Well it doesn't say zombies but what else you call the risen dead..."Elvis?
Ah now, Sean Bean, they keep killing him...
Shanna wrote: "Travis wrote: "That and the story was told decades later, at a time when life expectancy was thirty.Zombie saints...?
Could be the next big thing after Twilight."
Well it doesn't say zombies but..."
I've never been able to decide if Jesus came back as a zombie or a vampire.
He was pretty articulate after having risen to be a zombie, but a vampire living in such a sunny area as the middle east?
Tough call. Either idea would make a good book though.
Shanna wrote: "Ah now, Sean Bean, they keep killing him..."Aye, but he just goes for a pint after...
Travis wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Travis wrote: "That and the story was told decades later, at a time when life expectancy was thirty.Zombie saints...?
Could be the next big thing after Twilight."
Well it doesn't ..."
Now if he was a twilight type vampire the sparkle could explain the Halo effect that the risen jesus is depicted with, they don't need to hide from the sun
Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Ah now, Sean Bean, they keep killing him..."Aye, but he just goes for a pint after..."
So not a bite, a pint is the leading cause of Zombieism..
and you never seen Sean Bean or Jesus together in the same place and they both have those scruffy beards...?Makes you think...
cs wrote: "They feed off Christian beliefs. They stalk forums waiting for a Christian response to a post"So when a Christian posts to a forum stating a Christian point of view, that's fine, but if an atheist does it that is unwarranted proselytising or stalking?
Hypocrisy.
cs wrote: "They are obsessed with something that they believe does not exist, but really they want to be convinced otherwise. Many make a good living writing books on the subject while others study the bible."
Actually most are open to being convinced otherwise, but do not really "want" to be convinced any more than they "want" to be convinced that the sky is red.
Most however, have good reasons for being "obsessed". Quite a few are scientists who are concerned about the attacks on fact based observation and knowledge by theists pushing an agenda. Others are concerned about the repeated attempts by religions to be allowed the "right" to deny other people their rights. Others have seen the unnecessary suffering and trauma caused by the bigotry and close-mindedness of some religious people who justify themselves using said religion.
cs wrote: "Atheists quite often use the Philosophical approach to a debate because it allows them to ask far more questions than they would ever answer."
Hypocrisy again.
You do not seem to understand the term "philosophy" and still have not answered me directly on what alternatives to what you think 'philosophy' is. I am willing to debate your "option" (which is either bad grammar or bad English) that religion leads to a more moral society. I will debate this using empirical scientific data, I will debate this using philosophy, I will debate this using scripture.
Debating it with "faith" is impossible because that is not a debate, it is an argument relying on only one persons arrogant belief that they know better than others and do not need to justify such a statement except by the circular argument of belief.
cs wrote: "It is not he who reviles or strikes you who insults you, but your opinion that these things are insulting."
So you also believe that if anyone takes offence at your words, it is their own fault, yet you allude to atheists "stalking" and "attacking" and doing various other nefarious activities, all of which are implying that they are committing insults against your faith by daring to speak out against it.
Hypocrisy.
Travis wrote: "I've never been able to decide if Jesus came back as a zombie or a vampire."Doctrine of Transubstantiation.
I think the vampire legend has a unique hold on western society as it echoes a lot of the darker parts of Christianity. "Drink of this for this is my blood", and Longinius "staking" Jesus after his death. The miraculous resurrection after being buried.
cs wrote: "Atheists are very intolerant. They feed off Christian beliefs. They stalk forums waiting for a Christian response to a post...(etc.)"cs wrote: "That was my point when I said, You came across as being offended, I would go as far as to say you played at being offended."
cs wrote: "I think the writer of the above is offensively self-assured, an autocratic person, showing autocratic behavior, bossy, a rather aggressive and dominating character and views others in an aloof magisterial way. "
Heh. cs, either you've gone self-referential or we're back to the "h" word again. :-)
Shannon wrote: "While people bring this up as a reason not to believe the stories in the New Testament, I don't hear them saying, "And, when I meet someone and they tell me something that happened to them 10 years, 20 years, 30 years ago, well, I never believe them. Not one word."Just as an interesting aside Shannon, would this reasoning mean that you would give more credence to the Qu'ran mus'haf which was alleged to be written immediately after Muhammad's death? After all this is first person divine revelation collated immediately after the death of a prophet, rather than decades after the fact?
What I am asking is whether your belief in the gospels comes from your assessment of their veracity, or because the gospels seem to agree with your own cultural and ethical preconceptions?
Humph! Whenever I hear someone say Jesus said this or Jesus said that I always say, "Allegedly."I know a man who lives in a cave in a remote part of South Africa. His name is Ben Decker, and he's rather famous. He's about 70 now. He's a giant of a man, about 6 foot 8. There are many many stories about him, most based on some kind of fact but all highly embroidered. He himself plays no small part in this embroidering. If a book were to be written on him it would make the most fantastic tale. And he's not even dead yet!
Just imagine what stories there would be about Uncle Ben, as we fondly call him, 50 years after he's dead.
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...
Ha, ha ...