Isn't there some sort of "celebrity exemption" clause in a relationship?Tsk-Tsk. What would your significant other think? ;)
Why, and I know I am thread jacking here, BUT WHY IS HE SUCH A STAR?I heard from someone in my office that he gives good head.
Seriously. That's what I was told. Through a chain of hearsay that involves entertainment lawyers and such.
Huh. Do any of them have his number?
I mean...
It's intellectual curiosity...
According to President Clinton, bjs don't count as cheating. Hell, if that's good enough for the POTUS, it's good enough for me.
I don't know. Reeves can't act himself out of a wet paper bag.She was the weakest character in the Matrix.Furthermore, sacrificing Jesus is more like spanking the sibling of the child who wronged.Again, kind of depends on how you feel about the Trinity.Touche.
Actually, she wasn't so bad in the first movie. In fact, when I first watched the Matrix, I completely misheard the all important "he's the one" line spoken during the helicopter crash/rescue as "she's the one." I thought that was the most awesome thing ever - going through all this crap about how Neo was the all important savior dude, only to have it turn out that he was just the key for Trinity realizing her full potential and becoming the all important savior dude(tte).
Then I realized I hadn't heard it correctly...
That indeed would have been totally cool if Trinity had been "The One!". Oh well.
Actually, she wasn't so bad in the first movie. In fact, when I first watched the Matrix, I completely misheard the all important "he's the one" line spoken during the helicopter crash/rescue as "she's the one." I thought that was the most awesome thing ever - going through all this crap about how Neo was the all important savior dude, only to have it turn out that he was just the key for Trinity realizing her full potential and becoming the all important savior dude(tte).
Then I realized I hadn't heard it correctly...
Sadly, you've just proven you're too smart to be a Hollywood scriptwriter. Your idea is even better considering the later revelations about Larry Wachowski.
Sadly, you've just proven you're too smart to be a Hollywood scriptwriter. Your idea is even better considering the later revelations about Larry Wachowski.Actually, she wasn't so bad in the first movie. In fact, when I first watched the Matrix, I completely misheard the all important "he's the one" line spoken during the helicopter crash/rescue as "she's the one." I thought that was the most awesome thing ever - going through all this crap about how Neo was the all important savior dude, only to have it turn out that he was just the key for Trinity realizing her full potential and becoming the all important savior dude(tte).
Then I realized I hadn't heard it correctly...
What revelation was that?
Sadly, you've just proven you're too smart to be a Hollywood scriptwriter. Your idea is even better considering the later revelations about Larry Wachowski.What revelation was that?
I thought it was already common knowledge. It seems to be official now anyway. Congrats for her. :)
Edit: HAH! Ninja'd the Poni-boy!
|
"Warner Bros. retained control of the casting. For the pivotal role of Neo, the studio decided on Keanu Reeves. (Also seriously considered: Kevin Costner.) Reeves had done poorly with Johnny Mnemonic, but the studio was high on his demographic appeal. The brothers were skeptical. "They were like, 'Keanu Reeves? Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure? Can he do what we need?'" one friend recalls. "Now they feel so grateful they have him." The Matrix went on to generate more than $440 million in worldwide ticket sales."
gp
Well to try and steer the conversation back in the previous direction...
Do you think that you can be a Christian and a bouncer, policeman or soldier? Or does it violate the meek and turn the other cheek commands?
I think this sums up a lot of positions on the subject of religion:
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." - Christopher Hitchens
I think the main issue is that some people believe that some mythology texts are proof (though which ones are 'real', vary) while others don't see them as proof.
|
|
Well to try and steer the conversation back in the previous direction...
Do you think that you can be a Christian and a bouncer, policeman or soldier? Or does it violate the meek and turn the other cheek commands?
Yes you can be and no it does not violate the Meek or turn the other cheek commands in the least bit.
|
|
I think this sums up a lot of positions on the subject of religion:
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." - Christopher Hitchens
I think the main issue is that some people believe that some mythology texts are proof (though which ones are 'real', vary) while others don't see them as proof.
"Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
Or rather do you know think we are at the pinnacle of all knowledge at this time? Is there no more to know? Should we just give up and not look? Should we not listen to the voices of the ages that say there is something more?
"Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
You do realize that cuts both ways, right?
Should we not listen to the voices of the ages that say there is something more?
You mean the ones that believed in Zeus and thought the world was flat?
Yes you can be and no it does not violate the Meek or turn the other cheek commands in the least bit.
But doesn't this state that trying to retrieve stolen property, fighting back, etc. are prohibited?
Or am I miss understanding "If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also." & "if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back".
But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
—Luke 6:27-31. NIV
"Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."I think this sums up a lot of positions on the subject of religion:
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." - Christopher Hitchens
I think the main issue is that some people believe that some mythology texts are proof (though which ones are 'real', vary) while others don't see them as proof.
So, who ever this person is, stated that they want first person experience of the events. I would be happy with less but that would definitely be a good start.
Or rather do you know think we are at the pinnacle of all knowledge at this time? Is there no more to know? Should we just give up and not look? Should we not listen to the voices of the ages that say there is something more?
What does that have to do with asserted claims and backing evidence?
Or are you agreeing with Mr Hitchen's statement?
|
But doesn't this state that trying to retrieve stolen property, fighting back, etc. are prohibited?
A lot of what Jesus taught was dealing with how people were not understanding the Law. I'd have to take a better look at the passage to better answer the question, but Jesus didn't condemn the military for example. I think that Jesus was talking more about taking a look at the root of the problem. If someone steals your cloak it's very possible that they may need it more than you do. I don't think that it means that we should take a beating for no reason. If someone strikes you, find out why rather than strike back. Far too often we are trying to force "karma" or something like that.
Again, more than anything, Jesus was addressing people's misinterpretation of "eye for an eye".
|
Yes you can be and no it does not violate the Meek or turn the other cheek commands in the least bit.But doesn't this state that trying to retrieve stolen property, fighting back, etc. are prohibited?
Or am I miss understanding "If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also." & "if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back".
** spoiler omitted **
That interpretation doesn't take into account the historical context. They sound like strange hypotheticals to us in the 21st century, but were very real and easy for people of the time to relate to.
Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of what the passage was referring to in context. Passivity is a sad misreading of what is really one of the most stirring and revolutionary passages of the Bible.
Yes you can be and no it does not violate the Meek or turn the other cheek commands in the least bit.But doesn't this state that trying to retrieve stolen property, fighting back, etc. are prohibited?
Or am I miss understanding "If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also." & "if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back".
** spoiler omitted **
That interpretation doesn't take into account the historical context. They sound like strange hypotheticals to us in the 21st century, but were very real and easy for people of the time to relate to.
Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of what the passage was referring to in context. Passivity is a sad misreading of what is really one of the most stirring and revolutionary passages of the Bible.
Thanks for that link, CH.
Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of what the passage was referring to in context. Passivity is a sad misreading of what is really one of the most stirring and revolutionary passages of the Bible.
I did like the Literal interpretation information. It shows some interesting things about the society at the time. And it does make it seem like it could have been a quite clever and well written piece at the time.
Of course it also makes me think that it provides more proof that the bible is allegorical and nothing to do with god.
After all wouldn't the christian god make his messages timeless? (Like maybe with some sort of mystical 'original bible' that always converted itself into the language of the reader so that there is never a misinterpretation.)
Or is the christian god going to have new prophets to correct and renew his message? And how would we know?
Sorry just some rambling thoughts of mine.
Passivity is a sad misreading of what is really one of the most stirring and revolutionary passages of the Bible.
This makes me think Jesus was up to more than just teaching peace, love and granola. If he were an early incarnation of the sicarii, that would certainly explain why he was so gruesomely executed.
It seems a stretch, though.
|
|
Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of what the passage was referring to in context. Passivity is a sad misreading of what is really one of the most stirring and revolutionary passages of the Bible.I did like the Literal interpretation information. It shows some interesting things about the society at the time. And it does make it seem like it could have been a quite clever and well written piece at the time.
Of course it also makes me think that it provides more proof that the bible is allegorical and nothing to do with god.
After all wouldn't the christian god make his messages timeless? (Like maybe with some sort of mystical 'original bible' that always converted itself into the language of the reader so that there is never a misinterpretation.)
Or is the christian god going to have new prophets to correct and renew his message? And how would we know?
Sorry just some rambling thoughts of mine.
*shrug* To me the message and the insights into the human condition that can be gleaned from the Bible are more important than whether the information presented about the divine is actually true. But that is clearly not the Christian perspective :)
|
|
*shrug* To me the message and the insights into the human condition that can be gleaned from the Bible are more important than whether the information presented about the divine is actually true. But that is clearly not the Christian perspective :)
Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of what the passage was referring to in context. Passivity is a sad misreading of what is really one of the most stirring and revolutionary passages of the Bible.I did like the Literal interpretation information. It shows some interesting things about the society at the time. And it does make it seem like it could have been a quite clever and well written piece at the time.
Of course it also makes me think that it provides more proof that the bible is allegorical and nothing to do with god.
After all wouldn't the christian god make his messages timeless? (Like maybe with some sort of mystical 'original bible' that always converted itself into the language of the reader so that there is never a misinterpretation.)
Or is the christian god going to have new prophets to correct and renew his message? And how would we know?
Sorry just some rambling thoughts of mine.
I think that the insight into the human condition is as important as the information of the Divine.
|
|
"Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."I think this sums up a lot of positions on the subject of religion:
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." - Christopher Hitchens
I think the main issue is that some people believe that some mythology texts are proof (though which ones are 'real', vary) while others don't see them as proof.
So, who ever this person is, stated that they want first person experience of the events. I would be happy with less but that would definitely be a good start.
Or rather do you know think we are at the pinnacle of all knowledge at this time? Is there no more to know? Should we just give up and not look? Should we not listen to the voices of the ages that say there is something more?What does that have to do with asserted claims and backing evidence?
Or are you agreeing with Mr Hitchen's statement?
If you choose not to look for any evidence stating that there is none to be found, you can never be proven wrong, since you can not find what is not looked for.
I will never agree with such arrogance. Mr. Hitchens is not a theologian and while I will take his journalistic reasoning in his chosen field of study I will not listen to him on any subject he is not trained in. f he wants to report something happening in Somalia I will, or a book review I would give it an ear.
If you choose not to look for any evidence stating that there is none to be found, you can never be proven wrong, since you can not find what is not looked for.
I will never agree with such arrogance.
So…you are looking for any evidence to support the Book of Mormon?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
So…you are looking for any evidence to support the Book of Mormon?If you choose not to look for any evidence stating that there is none to be found, you can never be proven wrong, since you can not find what is not looked for.
I will never agree with such arrogance.
And the existence of Zeus...
If you choose not to look for any evidence stating that there is none to be found, you can never be proven wrong, since you can not find what is not looked for. I will never agree with such arrogance.
By the same token, if you accept anything you find, no matter what, as "evidence" of what you're looking for, you can never be proven wrong, since you will always "find" what you were looking for.
Is there the same arrogance in that stance? I'm not saying that you, personally, necessarily follow that, but it's somthing to think about.
How can these endpoints be reconciled? One useful philosphical stance is that the burden of proof rests on the one making the claims, not on the person doubting them. Al Gore claims that humans are causing the climate to warm? It's up to him to demonstrate that this is the case (which his movie fails to do, setting back acceptance of that particular idea). Biologists claim that life evolved from earlier forms? It's up to them to demonstrate it (luckily, Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True does a particularly good job with that). I claim the Earth is billions of years old? It's up to me to explain why (which in the past I've spent pages on this thread doing that). You claim that the God of the Bible exists? It's up to you to demonstrate that this is true.
The example is where things break down, because everyone picks one set of holy books (never the full collection of them, because they don't agree), and then throws in some personal anectode, to "demonstrate" that their God is correct, and that everyone else's is wrong.
|
|
And the existence of Zeus...So…you are looking for any evidence to support the Book of Mormon?If you choose not to look for any evidence stating that there is none to be found, you can never be proven wrong, since you can not find what is not looked for.
I will never agree with such arrogance.
and the spaghetti monster too......
No evidence for the book of Mormon, rather basic evidence against.
Interesting information about the mythos and the beginnings of Zeus's stories.
Not much to say on Spaghetti monster I am afraid.
No evidence for the book of Mormon, rather basic evidence against.
I have rather basic evidence against the Bible, but you seem to refuse my answers. I guess my car keys are not your car keys.
Fixed that for you.
No evidence for the Bible, rather basic evidence against.
My evidence it better than your evidence.
|
|
By the same token, if you accept anything you find, no matter what, as "evidence" of what you're looking for, you can never be proven wrong, since you will always "find" what you were looking for.
Is there the same arrogance in that stance?
How can these be reconciled? One useful philosphical stance is that the burden of proof rests on the one making the claims, not on the person doubting them. Al Gore claims that humans are causing the climate to warm? It's up to him to demonstrate that this is the case (which his movie fails to do, setting back acceptance of that particular idea). I claim that life evolved from earlier forms? It's up to me to demonstrate it (luckily, Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True does a particularly good job with that). You claim that the God of the Bible exists? It's up to you to demonstrate that this is true.
The last step is where things break down, because everyone picks one set of holy books (never the full collection of them), and then throws in some personal anectode, to "demonstrate" that their God is correct, and that everyone else's is wrong.
Did I state that one must accept everything? no.
Yes you can 'find' what you are looking for just as easy as you can dismiss it.as far as evidence and the burden of truth, well BS in will equal BS out.
Never debated Evolution. All evidence seem to support it.
The world is not flat.
Or to quote:
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
-Buddha
|
|
No evidence for the book of Mormon, rather basic evidence against.I have rather basic evidence against the Bible, but you seem to refuse my answers. I guess my car keys are not your car keys.
No your car keys are for your car it won't fit mine.
I don't refuse your answers I disagree with them. Sorry.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Fixed that for you.
No evidence for the Bible, rather basic evidence against.
Earlier today I was thinking -- "I wonder where Sebastian is through all this".
I think I need to stop thinking.
Hey now, I only recent got on topic. I was posting regularly about Keanu Reeves' credentials upthread.
|
|
Hey now, I only recent got on topic. I was posting regularly about Keanu Reeves' credentials upthread.Fixed that for you.
No evidence for the Bible, rather basic evidence against.
Earlier today I was thinking -- "I wonder where Sebastian is through all this".
I think I need to stop thinking.
he has credentials? Oh other then acting.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
No evidence for aetheism, rather basic evidence against.
Huh? That doesn't even make any sense. That's like saying there's no basic evidence for gravity. The only "evidence" against aetheism is various magical books, scary monster stories told around campfires by various primitive screwheads, and other forms of hearsay.
This makes me think Jesus was up to more than just teaching peace, love and granola. If he were an early incarnation of the sicarii, that would certainly explain why he was so gruesomely executed.
I'm a Jesus agnostic. I don't think it's possible with the information we have to claim we know anything about the man, if indeed there was one. Like most people in history, he is essentially invisible as an individual. All we have is an exceptionally dubious passage in Josephus. Not that it really makes a difference, though. Christianity has as much to do with Jesus as it has to do with the space shuttle.
But he does have a bit of Koresh about him, doesn't he? Runs around bragging about how he's going to break apart your family and cause all kinds of trouble. Assembles a group of vigorous young men who separate themselves from society and go off on their own. Talks a lot about the fast-approaching end of the world. Intensely religious.
Maybe it would work out ok, but there's reason to see this kind of thing as worrisome. I don't think I'd go over if they asked to show me their knife collection.
Huh? That doesn't even make any sense. That's like saying there's no basic evidence for gravity. The only "evidence" against aetheism is various magical books, scary monster stories told around campfires by various primitive screwheads, and other forms of hearsay.
No evidence for aetheism, rather basic evidence against.
It's a semantical trick employed to lend undue credence to theological claims. It basically goes like this: "Belief in nothing is the same as belief in something, because they're both beliefs. Therefore, they are equally valid and the burden of proof is the same."
The truth is, atheists assert nothing, except the need for evidence. But acknowledging that is problematic, and so we keep going in this well-trod circle.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The truth is, atheists assert nothing, except the need for evidence. But acknowledging that is problematic, and so we keep going in this well-trod circle.
True, that.
Honestly though, I don't even feel particularly compelled to argue for athesim. I can accept for the sake of argument that one or more divine beings exist. However, I require evidence of some type that the Bible accurately describes such a being.
Or, to put it another way, the real debate isn't atheism v. Christianity. It's Christianity v. every other religion on the planet. I have yet to see anything that would lend any authority to the Bible's view of the divine over the view of any other religious text or set of beliefs held by any random collection of humans.
Including Mormonism, Scientology, and our good friend, the FSM.
|
|
Huh? That doesn't even make any sense. That's like saying there's no basic evidence for gravity. The only "evidence" against aetheism is various magical books, scary monster stories told around campfires by various primitive screwheads, and other forms of hearsay.
No evidence for aetheism, rather basic evidence against.
It's a semantical trick employed to lend undue credence to theological claims. It basically goes like this: "Belief in nothing is the same as belief in something, because they're both beliefs. Therefore, they are equally valid and the burden of proof is the same."
The truth is, atheists assert nothing, except the need for evidence. But acknowledging that is problematic, and so we keep going in this well-trod circle.
Actually it is not a circle. Religion is not, and I have said this before, it is not a science. Therefor the Scientific method is not proper for it. I can see a person using it to say some things about the age of the earth. Fine but that is not the point. I can also see when someone complains about creationism/ Intelligent design trying to be taught in the classroom.
This thread is to have been about civil talk about religion. Please forgive me when I get upset when it just feels like Christian bashing.
Actually it is not a circle. Religion is not, and I have said this before, it is not a science. Therefor the Scientific method is not proper for it. I can see a person using it to say some things about the age of the earth. Fine but that is not the point. I can also see when someone complains about creationism/ Intelligent design trying to be taught in the classroom.
This thread is to have been about civil talk about religion. Please forgive me when I get upset when it just feels like Christian bashing.
I'm sorry...I didn't mean to bash Christians. And I certainly can be a smart ass.
All I'm trying to get across is this: There is absolutely no logical difference between Jesus, Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. None. If one of those things make you feel good, great! More power to you. Just keep them out of the government and out of science class and we're good. ;-)
|
|
Actually it is not a circle. Religion is not, and I have said this before, it is not a science. Therefor the Scientific method is not proper for it. I can see a person using it to say some things about the age of the earth. Fine but that is not the point. I can also see when someone complains about creationism/ Intelligent design trying to be taught in the classroom.
This thread is to have been about civil talk about religion. Please forgive me when I get upset when it just feels like Christian bashing.
I'm sorry...I didn't mean to bash Christians. And I certainly can be a smart ass.
All I'm trying to get across is this: There is absolutely no logical difference between Jesus, Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. None. If one of those things make you feel good, great! More power to you. Just keep them out of the government and out of science class and we're good. ;-)
I disagree, there are differences. That is where we are at issue. As Sebastian suggested this is a major point of consideration for him.
I agree to keep it out of most aspects of the Government. Most of the time it works best that way. I do think that a persons religious beliefs, or lack thereof, however is a step in voting for a politician; assuming of course they are not hypocrites which so many seem to be these days.
The only place a religion should be discussed in a classroom are in a religious class. That is if you have one in said school. History class, simply because missing a persons religious beliefs, or group of people, does sometimes does not in fact give you the full story. and finally in a religious studies class, which because of current affairs I think more and more schools should have. Being able to look at another's point of view will allow our future leaders to do more to solve both local and world affairs.
also Sebastian please forgive my quip earlier. I respect your opinions even if I do not share them.
|
|
Actually it is not a circle. Religion is not, and I have said this before, it is not a science. Therefor the Scientific method is not proper for it. I can see a person using it to say some things about the age of the earth. Fine but that is not the point. I can also see when someone complains about creationism/ Intelligent design trying to be taught in the classroom.
This thread is to have been about civil talk about religion. Please forgive me when I get upset when it just feels like Christian bashing.
I'm sorry...I didn't mean to bash Christians. And I certainly can be a smart ass.
All I'm trying to get across is this: There is absolutely no logical difference between Jesus, Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. None. If one of those things make you feel good, great! More power to you. Just keep them out of the government and out of science class and we're good. ;-)
I disagree, there are differences. That is where we are at issue. As Sebastian suggested this is a major point of consideration for him.
I agree to keep it out of most aspects of the Government. Most of the time it works best that way. I do think that a persons religious beliefs, or lack thereof, however is a step in voting for a politician; assuming of course they are not hypocrites which so many seem to be these days.
The only place a religion should be discussed in a classroom are in a religious class. That is if you have one in said school. History class, simply because missing a persons religious beliefs, or group of people, does sometimes does not in fact give you the full story. and finally in a religious studies class, which because of current affairs I think more and more schools should have. Being able to look at another's point of view will allow our future leaders to do more to solve both local and world affairs.
also Sebastian please forgive my quip earlier. I respect your opinions even if I do not share them.
Ok lord help me I'm defending CJ despite our difference in views And before I start I'm an atheist and always will be but......
There is evidence to support a non-divine human named Jesus of Nazareth did indeed live in that time period. We have the sketchy account by Josephus and even some greek records of the name Jesus from that time, even recording the fact he was crucified. But NO account of his divinity, miracles, teachings, or resurection exist outside the bible and it's associated apocryphal texts. Point is was there a real man named Jesus of Nazareth, sure there likely was. But I know a guy named Jesus and he plays world championship poker so it really doesn't matter to me, except that the facts as faras we know them have to be represented. So in that way christianity has some bit of fact behind it but for that matter so does Islam because we have physical records of the existence of Muhammad as well.
This thread is to have been about civil talk about religion. Please forgive me when I get upset when it just feels like Christian bashing.
Luckily, there were no Mormons to feel bashed a page or two back.