calfoxwc Posted March 26, 2014 Report Share Posted March 26, 2014 Just through a bunch of things woody *********************************************** you mean, "though" ? The "typos" have been coming from you forever. Weird huh? And, I'd love to see the movie. Haven't yet, SO I CAN'T COMMENT ON IT....@@ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 26, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2014 Oh man, you got me. Just be happy I don't actually care enough to point out any of yours. Acting typos... pretty much signifies you've lost any debate you were trying to have. And of course you want to go see it, that is the point. That is the point of all the news outlets you frequent. You know they will say what you want to hear and will reinforce whatever beliefs you have. They play on this and make money off of it. It is really good business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted March 26, 2014 Report Share Posted March 26, 2014 isn't Job considered a Prophet in the Islam religion? Yes he is, as are many other important figures from the Bible. Muslims do not believe of Islam as a religion completely separate from Christianity or Judaism, but rather part of the same theological 'family tree'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted March 26, 2014 Report Share Posted March 26, 2014 Yes he is, as are many other important figures from the Bible. Muslims do not believe of Islam as a religion completely separate from Christianity or Judaism, but rather part of the same theological 'family tree'. The god of Abraham, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted March 26, 2014 Report Share Posted March 26, 2014 The god of Abraham, right? Right, if by that you mean the non-Trinity conception of God. In Islam God does not have form or family (no Father, Son, Holy Ghost concept). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted March 26, 2014 Report Share Posted March 26, 2014 Right, if by that you mean the non-Trinity conception of God. In Islam God does not have form or family (no Father, Son, Holy Ghost concept). Yep - you're talking the traditional monotheistic religions, saying they're all coming from the same place, worshipping the same god. One of the differences between Christianity and Islam is that although Jesus appears in the quran, he's only a prophet, not the son of god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted March 26, 2014 Report Share Posted March 26, 2014 Yep - you're talking the traditional monotheistic religions, saying they're all coming from the same place, worshipping the same god. One of the differences between Christianity and Islam is that although Jesus appears in the quran, he's only a prophet, not the son of god. That is correct. Do all Christians conceive of Jesus as the son of God? I thought it was just Catholics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted March 26, 2014 Report Share Posted March 26, 2014 That is correct. Do all Christians conceive of Jesus as the son of God? I thought it was just Catholics. The divinity of Jesus Christ is the key principal of Christianity, regardless of denomination, I believe. Catholics also worship the virgin Mary, protestants do not - that might be what you're thinking of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted March 26, 2014 Report Share Posted March 26, 2014 The divinity of Jesus Christ is the key principal of Christianity, regardless of denomination, I believe. Catholics also worship the virgin Mary, protestants do not - that might be what you're thinking of? Could be! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted March 26, 2014 Report Share Posted March 26, 2014 The divinity of Jesus Christ is the key principal of Christianity, regardless of denomination, I believe. Catholics also worship the virgin Mary, protestants do not - that might be what you're thinking of? As a former Catholic, our veneration of Mary wasn't considered to be "worship." I always questioned that, and I don't agree with their assessment that they're a monotheistic religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted March 26, 2014 Report Share Posted March 26, 2014 As a former Catholic, our veneration of Mary wasn't considered to be "worship." I always questioned that, and I don't agree with their assessment that they're a monotheistic religion. Indeed, it's traditionally classified as such, but then you have the holy trinity. I always was of the understanding that they got round this polytheistic appearance by the notion that the father, son and holy spirit are one and the same thing. "For the large majority of Christians, the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost, from Old English gast, "spirit") is the third divine person of the Trinity: the "Triune God" manifested as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; each person itself being God" - wikipedia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted March 26, 2014 Report Share Posted March 26, 2014 Indeed, it's traditionally classified as such, but then you have the holy trinity. I always was of the understanding that they got round this polytheistic appearance by the notion that the father, son and holy spirit are one and the same thing. "For the large majority of Christians, the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost, from Old English gast, "spirit") is the third divine person of the Trinity: the "Triune God" manifested as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; each person itself being God" - wikipedia I could see how people talked their way through the trinity as one single deity, but what I didn't understand was the whole community of saints. They're all essentially holy super heroes that God used to work his miracles. Then there's this weird caveat that you don't actually pray to them, rather you are praying for them to pray for you (because their prayers hold more sway or something? We don't know). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted March 26, 2014 Report Share Posted March 26, 2014 I could see how people talked their way through the trinity as one single deity, but what I didn't understand was the whole community of saints. They're all essentially holy super heroes that God used to work his miracles. Then there's this weird caveat that you don't actually pray to them, rather you are praying for them to pray for you (because their prayers hold more sway or something? We don't know). I guess think of god as the CEO, and then each saint head of a subdivision? Ie St Christopher the patron saint of travellers, so if you're praying for safe passage on a flight, for example, you pray to him. Fuck knows where angels would come in in that metaphor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 26, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2014 The key is not to think about it too much. Just accept it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 31, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 Did you guys see that Ken Ham and other creationists are demanding that the be given time on air to balance out with Cosmos and to display their "scientific" beliefs? Lol, what a fucking joke. They want a segment on Cosmos, haha. “Boy, but when you have so many scientists who simply do not accept Darwinian evolution it seems to me that that might be something to throw in there, you know, the old, ‘some scientists say this, others disagree and think this,’ but that’s not even allowed.” - Ken Ham His number of scientists that disagree with evolution is even smaller than the number that disagree with man caused climate change. Either way the whole thing is hilarious. I hope Cosmos does give them some screen time, only to show how ridiculous it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 Except for the open hostility on the left I don't think it's ridiculous to disagree with Darwinism. Even if there is no God. Even if there is no Creator. Even if we are the highest form of evolution in the entire universe it does not mean the darwinism is signed sealed and delivered. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 31, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 Then disagree with it and present a better alternative using the scientific method. Have your opposing idea have scientific evidence and facts to back it up. That's not what creationism is. It is a lazy attempt to explain things from centuries ago that some people can't let go of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 Except for the open hostility on the left I don't think it's ridiculous to disagree with Darwinism. Even if there is no God. Even if there is no Creator. Even if we are the highest form of evolution in the entire universe it does not mean the darwinism is signed sealed and delivered. WSS Of course it doesn't. Mathematics is the only field where you'll find proofs. Science speaks in terms of evidence, and there is overwhelming evidence for evolution. If you disagree with it, you need to point out your evidence. As of now, there's not another theory out there that compares to the theory of evolution. That may change in time, but only with the proper evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 Except for the open hostility on the left I don't think it's ridiculous to disagree with Darwinism. Even if there is no God. Even if there is no Creator. Even if we are the highest form of evolution in the entire universe it does not mean the darwinism is signed sealed and delivered. WSS I agree with you it is never ridiculous to disagree. The ridicule comes from the way in which people disagree without actually providing evidence. Then disagree with it and present a better alternative using the scientific method. Have your opposing idea have scientific evidence and facts to back it up. That's not what creationism is. It is a lazy attempt to explain things from centuries ago that some people can't let go of. I wouldn't call it lazy. I'd call it the best available answer at the time in which the notion was formulated. What is lazy is the refusal to consider new answers because one doesn't want to face the prospect of changing what they believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 31, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 Back then I guess it wouldn't be considered lazy. You could say we didn't know any better. But still doing it today? That is lazy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted April 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 Lol, there is a bit on the Daily Show about Fox News and others complaining the 'Noah' wasn't accurate enough, haha. They never said the word "god" uh oh. "This definitely isn't a documentary" well no shit Has anyone seen God Isn't Dead yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted April 10, 2014 Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 If they want accuracy you can replace all the actors with Semitic peoples too, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 10, 2014 Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 Well boys as much fun as anti Bible snark maybe the fact is the book of Genesis is what it is. If you're doing a movie about that subject and you fuck a lot of things up then it's not every good representation of the source. That's pretty much all there is to that. Like I kinda said in movies if Peter Jackson would have put the Wicked Witch of the West in the Lord of the Rings it would be a bad interpretation of the source material. Not that there were actually hobbits walking the earth but you know what I mean. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted April 10, 2014 Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 Well boys as much fun as anti Bible snark maybe the fact is the book of Genesis is what it is. If you're doing a movie about that subject and you fuck a lot of things up then it's not every good representation of the source. That's pretty much all there is to that. Like I kinda said in movies if Peter Jackson would have put the Wicked Witch of the West in the Lord of the Rings it would be a bad interpretation of the source material. Not that there were actually hobbits walking the earth but you know what I mean. WSS The difference is I hope nobody sees the LOTR trilogy or the Hobbit as factual or historical. The Bible is viewed by some as fact, others as partial fact, others as a collection of metaphors based on fact, and as complete fiction by yet others. I think this sets up different expectations. Anyway, looking forward to your Draft Day review. You plan to see it right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 10, 2014 Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 I don't particularly care how anybody views the Bible. I'm just saying that the story is as it is written. Whether it happened or not. That's about it. I enjoyed Inglourious Basterds but... Sure I will see draft day, probably go tomorrow when it opens. Actually I'm not all that excited about it but it might be interesting. It will have to be really good to surpass my favorite line from major league. " don't see her again" " Suck my dick." WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted April 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 Did the movie ever claim to follow the story exactly? I am guessing it didn't say "based on true events" at the beginning, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 10, 2014 Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 Did the movie ever claim to follow the story exactly? I am guessing it didn't say "based on true events" at the beginning, lol. Ha. Texas Chainsaw Massacre was " inspired by actual events." The actual event in particular was that Tobe Hooper was waiting in line at a big box hardware store and the line was moving slowly. He looked at a chainsaw display and thought it would be fun just to chop through all these assholes in line. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 10, 2014 Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 Ha. Texas Chainsaw Massacre was " inspired by actual events." The actual event in particular was that Tobe Hooper was waiting in line at a big box hardware store and the line was moving slowly. He looked at a chainsaw display and thought it would be fun just to chop through all these assholes in line. WSS The actual event in particular was Ed Gein prancing around in masks made of human skin and a nipple belt eating cereal out of bowls made of human skulls. There's plenty more to that story but you can look it up for yourself. He was reportedly the inspiration for Psycho too. And buffalo bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted April 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2014 I watched Religulous today. I noticed some parallels in some of the interviews with some of our fellow posters on here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.