Actually, I thought the message I got from Dogma was very pro-Christian, if not mainstream.
God works in mysterious ways, but all that does not matter, because she loves you. And that is truly what matters.
Yeah. That's about it in Saved! too. Both are essentially pro-religious works by liberal religious people.
Funny, though.
Yeah. That's about it in Saved! too. Both are essentially pro-religious works by liberal religious people.
Like Moff? I knew he was a damned, dirty lefty.
|
The Invention of Lying on the other hand...
That movie was promising, and the beginning was mildly amusing. The religious stuff in the second half just got so heavy-handed, though, and the movie stopped being funny. It wasn't even very insightful. Maybe they thought they were being subtle, but they were not. I still think Ricky Gervais is a funny guy, but what a bomb of a film.
That movie was promising, and the beginning was mildly amusing. The religious stuff in the second half just got so heavy-handed, though, and the movie stopped being funny. It wasn't even very insightful. Maybe they thought they were being subtle, but they were not. I still think Ricky Gervais is a funny guy, but what a bomb of a film.
The Invention of Lying on the other hand...
Meh, I thought the movie was fun. Then again I enjoyed Episodes I-III, so maybe I’m not the most critical of judges when it comes to movies.
|
Meh, I thought the movie was fun. Then again I enjoyed Episodes I-III, so maybe I’m not the most critical of judges when it comes to movies.That movie was promising, and the beginning was mildly amusing. The religious stuff in the second half just got so heavy-handed, though, and the movie stopped being funny. It wasn't even very insightful. Maybe they thought they were being subtle, but they were not. I still think Ricky Gervais is a funny guy, but what a bomb of a film.
The Invention of Lying on the other hand...
This may in fact be true.
...Why don't we just flush him like someone should have done years ago at that grungy taco hut porta-john downstream from Chernobyl where he first congealed?...
Phelps is radioactive?! Heck, we can all just mail him some Ukrainian fungi and it'll eat him.
|
|
...Why don't we just flush him like someone should have done years ago at that grungy taco hut porta-john downstream from Chernobyl where he first congealed?...Phelps is radioactive?! Heck, we can all just mail him some Ukrainian fungi and it'll eat him.
You make it sound like that's the easiest solution we have available...
You make it sound like that's the easiest solution we have available......Why don't we just flush him like someone should have done years ago at that grungy taco hut porta-john downstream from Chernobyl where he first congealed?...Phelps is radioactive?! Heck, we can all just mail him some Ukrainian fungi and it'll eat him.
No, but getting eaten by a fungus is almost Biblical. Ok, maybe closer to Necronomiconical.
Obligatory: In Soviet Russia, mushrooms eat YOU!
Something I have be mulling over in regards to religion and religious views:
Person 'A' speaks, announces or preaches, in a public space or forum.
Does that allow Person 'B' to speak, announce or preach against what Person 'A' was saying?
Or does this become anti religious and inflammatory?
Is one only allowed to argue pro positions? (I believe X. Well I believe Y. I believe Q. etc)
Or can you you argue counter positions? (I believe X. What makes X better then Y, Z, C or D? X has/causes <insert issue here>.)
I'm in-between the two leaning towards that if you put it in public you can't call it off limits to criticism.
Thoughts?
Can you respectfully argue against a point if you do not respect that point?
Can you respectfully argue against a point if you do not respect that point?
Yes, though I would say that how much respect a point deserves depends on how respectfully it is presented.
I believe you can argue against preaching A, but there is a point where it becomes inflammatory. That point probably differs for each person and strongly depends on where you stand regarding A.
For example, organizing a drawing of Mohamed seems disrespectful of Muslims because their religion specifically states that such representations are wrong. They see it as inflammatory. I have not seen many self proclaimed Muslims on this board, and it seems the vocal majority think Muslims upset by the drawings are over-reacting.
However, in this thread, someone disagreeing with the tenets of Christianity are accused of Christian bashing. Granted, at least the Christians are not calling for blood.
|
|
I believe you can argue against preaching A, but there is a point where it becomes inflammatory. That point probably differs for each person and strongly depends on where you stand regarding A.
For example, organizing a drawing of Mohamed seems disrespectful of Muslims because their religion specifically states that such representations are wrong. They see it as inflammatory. I have not seen many self proclaimed Muslims on this board, and it seems the vocal majority think Muslims upset by the drawings are over-reacting.
However, in this thread, someone disagreeing with the tenets of Christianity are accused of Christian bashing. Granted, at least the Christians are not calling for blood.
It really depends on how you are approaching the situation and what is being discussed. Saying that you do not believe and why is one thing. Attacking another beliefs and saying that person is crazy does not help the discussion and can be and generally is taken as bashing.
Simple answer try to have a thick skin and remember not everyone is going to agree with you.
Person 'A' speaks, announces or preaches, in a public space or forum. Does that allow Person 'B' to speak, announce or preach against what Person 'A' was saying?
Sure, happens all the time. Richard Dawkins gives a talk on evolution; local churches react by calling him a "militant atheist" who's leading people to Hell; Dawkins reacts by making fun of them and/or likening them to Holocaust deniers; they react by posting articles on Conservapedia explaining how Dawkins kidnaps infants and flays them alive in grotesque sacrifices to the Elder Gods.
Can you respectfully argue against a point if you do not respect that point?Key word, respect. We can all assume we want it, treat the other person with the respect you want.
I've made it a policy to treat people with the respect I think they deserve, and expect them to do the same for me. It's more realistic and skips all the empty squabbling over how X or Y is disrespectful. If it is, so what? Whether it's true or not is what I care about.
Ok to expand upon my previous idea.
How much communication is required to put something in the public forum?
Active preaching, passive preaching (those church signs with messages), Active identification or passive identification?
Is it all right to to counter as long as its in kind?
They put up a symbol, you put up a symbol or counter symbol.
They wear a symbol, you wear a symbol or counter symbol.
They put up a sign, you put up a sign or counter sign.
They give a speech, you give a speech or counter speech.
If I see a religious institution advertising their faith on the outside of their building is it all right for me to put up a sign outside my building (assuming Im near said institution) discounting their faith (either by proclaiming a different faith or by being directly counter to theirs)?
I guess my real struggle is why do we allow faith based symbols or information to be displayed in public at all? Especially in schools, and government buildings. Public spaces should be neutral not advertising space and battle grounds for minds, hearts and possibly souls.
This is what I see as hypocritical. There is a huge billboard near one of the roads I drive by 5 days a week which states, "Got Jesus?" I have no problem with this sign myself.
Now, if I wanted to put up a billboard that states, "Jesus was a lie." How long do you think that would last?
Is it bashing?
Public spaces should be neutral not advertising space and battle grounds for minds, hearts and possibly souls.
When push comes to shove, in the U.S., Christian symbols and messages still get de facto special treatment (any attacks against that policy are "Christian bashing," as Courtfool alludes). For example, when I'm in West Texas, most of the large billboards sport a message along the lines of "We need to talk --God." or "Which part of 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' did you not understand?! Choose life!" Opposing messages are VERY conspicuous in their total absence.
In Salazar v. Buono, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutiality of the huge cross at the Mojave Desert National Park -- the same park that denied approval of a small Buddhist shrine on 1st Amendment grounds.
So while realistically everyone should be held to the same rules -- either they can put stuff up, or not -- in reality the Christian majority still gets special allowances. Tell them to take down a Christmas tree, and you start a riot (NOTE: I like Christmas trees, and I want them to stay up!); ask to put a menorah nearby (NOTE: I like menorahs, and I want them allowed up, too!) and permission is denied. That's just how it is. Attempts at establishing any kind of fair treatment are met with accusations of persecution.
Now, if I wanted to put up a billboard that states, "Jesus was a lie." How long do you think that would last?
Is it bashing?
There actually was a billboard out here like that, though I don't think it said the exact line the comment was very much anti-religious. I forget what it actually said.
It got taken down several years ago, but then again EVERY billboard in Scottsdale got taken down several years ago. They passed a "clear skyline" act and dismantled the whole lot of them.
Now, if I wanted to put up a billboard that states, "Jesus was a lie." How long do you think that would last?
|
|
Now, if I wanted to put up a billboard that states, "Jesus was a lie." How long do you think that would last?
I'm not sure how those relate. It seems like the billboard in that story was put up by a Christian church and defaced by other Christians.
How about this one, then?
I love the comments by Right_in_Ky: "So they drew crosses all over the sign. So what? I'm failing to see any reference to Christianity there." (He's taken a page from Antonin Scalia, who consistently declares that the cross is not a Christian symbol.)
Yeah, I read some of the comments too. These are quite possibly the same people that declare all Muslims terrorists.
Do Buddhists have a religious symbol? (More curious than anything.)
Some use a wagon wheel, symbolizing the cycle of Dharma and the path to enlightenment (8 spokes in the wheel for the Eightfold Noble Path -- occasionally other numbers supposedly representing other things -- the rim symbolizes the mindfulness that can encompass all of them).
Most often you just see a statue of the Buddha, though (with the endearing pot belly in China).
Isn't the lotus sometimes used as a symbol of Buddhism?
Edit: No wait, that's Hinduism...
The Buddha is often shown sitting on a lotus flower, or with lotuses springing up where he walks -- but that's largely a matter of artistic license. The lotus as a sacred symbol, as you correctly point out, is endemic to Hinduism.
(He's taken a page from Antonin Scalia, who consistently declares that the cross is not a Christian symbol.)
He's not the only Supreme that thinks that way. There's an entire legal doctrine ruling that various religious depictions were religious, named the religion, and then declared them non-religious. I think it's a good conservative doctrine, though. Everything traditional is permitted, and that's as perfectly Burkean as one can get.
He's not the only Supreme that thinks that way. There's an entire legal doctrine ruling that various religious depictions were religious, named the religion, and then declared them non-religious.
Scalia is the only one I can think of off the top of my head who can push for a cross, and know full well it's also being pushed for by a Christian group that strongly intends it as a Christian symbol, and then turn around and claim it's "ceremonial Deism." He talks out of both sides of his mouth, in other words.
|
|
He's not the only Supreme that thinks that way. There's an entire legal doctrine ruling that various religious depictions were religious, named the religion, and then declared them non-religious.Scalia is the only one I can think of off the top of my head who can push for a cross, and know full well it's being pushed for by a Christian group that strongly intends it as a Christian symbol, and then turn around and claim it's "ceremonial Deism." He talks out of both sides of his mouth, in other words.
That other side isn't his mouth.
Scalia is the only one I can think of off the top of my head who can push for a cross, and know full well it's also being pushed for by a Christian group that strongly intends it as a Christian symbol, and then turn around and claim it's "ceremonial Deism." He talks out of both sides of his mouth, in other words.
That's how all ceremonial deism works in practice, so far as I can tell. I'll happily grant that Scalia is especially flagrant and shameless, though.
I'm not sure how those relate. It seems like the billboard in that story was put up by a Christian church and defaced by other Christians.
If that's how they treat other Christians...
Do Buddhists have a religious symbol? (More curious than anything.)Some use a wagon wheel, symbolizing the cycle of Dharma and the path to enlightenment (8 spokes in the wheel for the Eightfold Noble Path -- occasionally other numbers supposedly representing other things -- the rim symbolizes the mindfulness that can encompass all of them).
Most often you just see a statue of the Buddha, though (with the endearing pot belly in China).
Also the swastika; both left facing and right facing.
Also the swastika; both left facing and right facing.
The swastika (a carryover from Hinduism) is a symbol of good fortune, so while it's a symbol sometimes used IN Buddhism (or Buddhist art), it's not normally considered a symbol OF/FOR Buddhism in the way that the Cross is for Christianity. Other minor symbols used in Buddhism/Buddhist art include conch shells, umbrellas, banners, fish, lions, three jewels, deer, etc. Some of these are more prevailent in some regions than others.
In the '50s the World Fellowship of Buddhists sort of adopted the Dharma wheel as the "official" symbol of Buddhism (and also adopted an overly-colorful, striped flag, which I personally think is hideous).
(and also adopted an overly-colorful, striped flag, which I personally think is hideous).
Gah, you ain't kidding. Looks like the color set up screen from my TV.
MY EYES MY EYES IA AZATHOTH MY POOR USELESS EYES
|
|
The Arabic word burka refers to a face cover with eye openings. It does not mean the whole black dress called the Abaya.
It is because of Islam discouraging social interaction between men and women when they are alone and is about he practice of preventing women from being seen by men.
This is not about, from my limited understanding anyway, women but the self control of men. Something about that they may be tempted if they see a beautiful woman, and a modest women does not give a man a reason to do something.
or it could be this ;)
Arabic women are hot.
This is not about, from my limited understanding anyway, women but the self control of men. Something about that they may be tempted if they see a beautiful woman, and a modest women does not give a man a reason to do something.
The raging misogyny being, of course in assuming that if a man can't control himself it's the woman's fault and she thus bears the responsibility for not arousing him. A responsibility, again of course, foisted on her by male clerics.
They should not be allowed to carry apples either. You know...'cause we can't help ourselves.
or it could be this ;)
I approve of this.
They should not be allowed to carry apples either. You know...'cause we can't help ourselves.
I would say the hatred of healthy sexuality is even deeper than the misogyny, but they don't make the men run around in something to prevent erections. If your wedding tackle was in a metal cage with sharp, inward-pointing needles around you would not be aroused for long. (Well not most of us.) But they don't do that. Male sexuality isn't something they're very interested in policing.
...brain disorder research...
Heya Jeremy, not to derail (again), but have you seen this?: "Mental Illness Tied to Immune Defect: Bone Marrow Transplants Cure Mice of Hair-pulling Compulsion"