2012
-
I tend to not want to chime in on the religious discussions (read: it's just a movie guys!
) Becuase this is absolutlely the wrong forum for that kind of discussion but there were a few comments in the last posts that I couldn't just let pass. However I won't quote them. That's not important.what I find distressing is the All or nothing approach both sides take on these debates. "All Religion is bad. All believers in God are mindless nincompoops. All nonbelievers and atheists are elitists and intellectual snobs and they are going to hell --blah blah blah. Bible-thumping an/or bible-Bashing don't convince anyone. It's wrong to blame all the ills of the world on any one faith or any one philosphy. There are fanatics and wackos of all stripes out there and its so easy to compare the best of your own world with the worst of someone elses and say "My way of thinking is superior". To equate someone's belief in God with belief in Santa Claus or fairies or worse the same as following Hitler -- is not only insulting it's untrue and it does little to heal the divide. Once can live in a modern world and still have faith. They are not mutually exclusive. At the same time pounding the pulpit and quoting scripture all the time just turns people off as well.
I can only speak from my own experience. My Church feeds, clothes educates and houses hundreds of thousands of people around the world. We do it wit the latest technologies, processes and practices. and it's done with little or no fanfare--Nor do we go out looking for it. All on the proceeds and donations of quiet humble believers who want to make the world a better place.
This kind of Rancor--regardless of what side of the Aisle one is on--doesnt convince anybody.
So. . .Who won the Speed Challenge?
-
@unknownuser said:
The world will only change for good when people decide that they can stand on their own and take responsibility for themselves. Clearly 2/3rds of the world does not want to take responsibility at this time.
Amen, Brother...and this statement works as well for many more obsessions, not just religion.
-
Guys, are you kidding w/ this hypothetical statement:
“The world will only change for good when people decide that they can stand on their own and take responsibility for themselves.”?!Until now, I didn’t meet a person that can stand on his own and take responsibility for himself...
... but, there is a hope:
“I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.” (John 15:5) -
@unknownuser said:
he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit
So is this for or against gay marraige?
-
Okay, I take that as a no then.
-
“He who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit”
is for ‘vine and branches’.Re. “gay marriage”, this is a nonsense expression.
When two homosexual people pretend to be a family , because they cannot procreate, even their beings become human ‘mistakes’!The men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly…, …
Sinful, vicious, and disgusting!!!Anomalies:
For a homosexual person, a woman is a second hand human being…, or a surrogate…!
Gay mariages are doubtful and inexplainable for children…
Child adoption is another nonsense re. gay mariages, because gays aren’t parents…! -
@unknownuser said:
[
Re. “gay marriage”, this is a nonsense expression.
When two homosexual people pretend to be a family , because they cannot procreate, even their beings become human ‘mistakes’!I'll thank you to keep your vile religionazi opinions to yourself. Just for starters, since when has procreating been the definition of marriage? Trying to tell me that I'm not married because I have no offspring? You psychotic 'people of faith' make me despair of humanity.
-
So by your logic if a woman or a man has fertility issues they should not be allowed to marry as they cannot reproduce. This is the same logic that looks at fossils and dinosaur bones and still persists the earth is only a few thousand years old.
-
Like all institutions it either evolves or dies. I know that is a difficult concept for you to grasp Cornel. Marriage used to mean legal institution of bondage of women's livelihood to a man in many cultures however that is no longer the case. Women's role in society changed and so have marriage. Despite the fact that many people of 'faith' would like to see that situation 'rectified'. If gay people want to get married then it will change the institution of marriage to a new definition and NOT the other way round.
-
Tim,
When a person affirms that he/she is on a correct position as a gay, that person pushes his/her parents into eclipse (irreverence)…
Reproduction is one of the primary functions of the family.
“Gay marriage” expression, must be eradicated, because it refers to a ‘gay coalition’, not a marriage.
Aren’t gays enough ingenious to invent and use a proper expression for their conjugations?!
-
Pete, I reiterated:
"Aren’t gays enough ingenious to invent and use a proper expression for their conjugations?!"Re. family ‘atributes’, reproduction is one of the primary functions - it excludes gay people!
-
@unknownuser said:
Until now, I didn’t meet a person that can stand on his own and take responsibility for himself...
Really? im surprised we live in any semblance of a functioning society if that is the case.
If this is also true of yourself i'm not sure i want to continue the discussion. If you cant take responsibility for your own actions i dont trust you.
-
I was thinking something similar. Most people usually take responsibility for their own actions. As to where we would be without the strictures of Christianity…the answer is probably not very far from where we are now. Obviously, our entire cultural and Architectural heritage is predicated upon Christianity, but basic morality is fairly universal.
The British Celts that were invaded by the Romans were very far from being Christian, but they had a society in which women could attain the highest positions. It took Christianity another 2000 years to catch up with that…and Islam still has a long way to go in that respect. They also took responsibility for the young and the old and the handicapped…at a time when the Romans were casually disposing of unwanted infants on the local rubbish dump.It still looks a really cheesy movie, though.
-
With reference to Celtic female warriors/Queens, Boudicca may have been the first lesbian
-
I think the real crux of the matter is whether it'll be worse than transformers 2. Currently looking good for transformers 2 with the following reviews:
@unknownuser said:
Fallen indulges Bay’s excesses well past the point of reason to deliver the male teenage cinematic equivalent of snorting cocaine off a hooker’s ass.
@unknownuser said:
I’m certain that someday it will be acknowledged that Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is like the most totally awesome artifact ever of the end of the American empire. It’s so us, a preposterously perfect reflection of who we are: loud, obnoxious, sexist, racist, juvenile, unthinking, visceral, and violent… and in love with ourselves for it. […] What we have right here is the Easter Island statue of our legacy.
@unknownuser said:
Michael Bay has once again transformed garbage into something resembling a film, at least in the loosest sense: it can be run through a projector and used to sell millions of tickets.
-
Pete, with a dead husband and two raped daughters, I find that highly unlikely. Just a woman who was REALLY pissed-off…and we know what they can be like. Still, maybe it'll get a rise out of someone.
-
Here is a link for an interesting movie talking about the 2012
from México.
http://www.creerescrear.com/
-
"What is man..."?!Remus and Alan,
While I affirmed that
“until now, I didn’t meet a person that can stand on his own and take responsibility for himself...”,
I mentioned olso that apart God we can do nothing. (John 15:5)Conclusion: there is a possibility to stand..., but conditioned!
Please, do not denature my message!Cornel
-
@alan fraser said:
I was thinking something similar. Most people usually take responsibility for their own actions. As to where we would be without the strictures of Christianity…the answer is probably not very far from where we are now. Obviously, our entire cultural and Architectural heritage is predicated upon Christianity, but basic morality is fairly universal.
The British Celts that were invaded by the Romans were very far from being Christian, but they had a society in which women could attain the highest positions. It took Christianity another 2000 years to catch up with that…and Islam still has a long way to go in that respect. They also took responsibility for the young and the old and the handicapped…at a time when the Romans were casually disposing of unwanted infants on the local rubbish dump.It still looks a really cheesy movie, though.
Actually under Emperor Justinian I particularly due to the efforts of Theodora, his empress, women achieved unprecedented social political and legislative stature. It didn't last though. The Islam thing is also false. Historically women in Islamic worlds achieved higher legal status than most western christian countries at the time, most important of which is the legal ownership of property (pre-marriage ofcourse) the right to divorce which was not common in the West until 19/20th century. Thing in the Islamic worlds are being portrayed as going into regression by the western media however that is also unture. For every countires like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan we also have more than seven head of states including Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan, Mame Madior Boye of Senegal, Tansu Çiller of Turkey, Queen Rania of Jordan, Kaqusha Jashari of Kosovo, Megawati Sukarnoputri of Indonesia and Bangladesh was the first country in the world to have a female head-of-state follow one another four times between Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina — each winning two elections each. Something the US has yet to achieve.
-
Well, I’d count Justinian and Theodora as more Byzantine Greek than Roman, Chango, although I certainly recognise Theodora’s emancipated views as well as her humble origins. I take your point, but in the Western Empire of the 1st century AD…contemporary with the Celts…the plain fact is that most women…however patrician…had very few rights at all.
And Benazir Bhutto may have headed the state, but what’s the position of the average female in Pakistan?
Advertisement