CreedFeed Community - Spielberg's Munich causes controversy

CreedFeed Community (http://www.creedfeed.com/community/index.php)

- Political Banter (http://www.creedfeed.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=37)

- - Spielberg's Munich causes controversy (http://www.creedfeed.com/community/showthread.php?t=10373)

Re: Spielberg's Munich causes controversy

Quote:

Originally Posted by RMadd

a myth, you say? the Bible accounts for alot. plus, both Jews and Muslims hold Him to be a great prophet.

A myth is a religion in which no one any longer believes.
James Feibleman

So for me and atheists/agnostics in general all religions are myths.

Whether Jesus was actually a historic person, a couple of persons joined into one by authors or an entirely fictitious character I'm still not sure off and probably will never be, since the evidence for all these assertions is too few.

Anyway that the bible is a fairy tale is something I am sure off.

Re: Spielberg's Munich causes controversy

Quote:

Originally Posted by RMadd

there's always been people in history unafraid to go against a social norm

Yes and it often cost them their lives and because their death led to a change of that social norm for the better, they are often considered martyrs.

Re: Spielberg's Munich causes controversy

Quote:

Originally Posted by RMadd

i can't speak for Chase, but I consider myself to be a religious man: I've attended church regularly from my youth, and my girlfriend has helped to reinvigorate my relationship with God. i also tend to possess conservative views when it comes to social issues such as these. for one, I do see a problem in the way they live their sexual lives (not only in homosexuals, but in millions of others who have premarital relations, etc.). also, to be a bit crude, the parts aren't exactly interlocking. in my belief, our sexual (reproductive) organs were created only for reproduction (not to please ourselves, or others, as many might believe), and that gay sex naturally breaks this "rule."

people may also point to homosexuality in other animals as evidence that it's perfectly natural to occur in people. unless i'm mistaken, animals aren't exactly capable of high forms of reasoning. so, that extrapolation would assume, then, that humans, likewise, are incapable of such reasoning. i'm pretty sure the opposite is true. God also created man to be lord over the beasts; similarly, sinful man has a beastial nature (that is, a desire to ignore certain qualities that make us distinctly human).

i'm not denying that homosexuals can be nice people. i've worked with more than just a few over the past few years, and i talk with and to them regularly, just as with any of my other co-workers. i know i've said this before in a previous debate on the same topic, but we should love the sinner, and not the sin.

And noone denies you your view in regard to sex, relationship or marriage, but in a society which separates church and state every other view towards these items should be held in as much regard as long as it is not harmful to those who consentingly hold it.

I don't (try to) forbid you to only have sex after marriage for the sole purpose of reproduction, so therefore I expect you not to (try to) forbid me sex before marriage or homosexuals (to try) to get married. Ofcourse your entitled to you opinion/religion, but you have no right to try to enforce your opinion/religion or its rules upon others.

Btw I really love sinners and I even love the sin itself sometimes, but I guess that's allright because imho there is no such thing as sin.

I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do.
D. Dale Gulledge

Re: Spielberg's Munich causes controversy

Quote:

Originally Posted by RMadd

Oftentimes, sex isn't a complement of love. As a Christian, I believe that God commanded for sex to take place between a man and his wife: there exists little doubt that they would love each other. However, today, people often confuse "true love" with more of an infatuated love. Do two high schoolers have a grasp on what love is, if they say they love each other? In my experience, no. To me, the mind of most 14-18 year olds doesn't quite grasp what exactly love is, and what it entails. They think it's just sort of a feeling you get when you're around someone, or missing someone when they're gone, etc. People, both in high school and college, take this false conception of what love is and take the next step: the belief they're ready for sex. Unfortunately, it's not quite so emotionally fulfilling when you realize that perhaps you don't really love this other person.

1 Corinthians 13:4-8a (NIV) reads as follows:
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails."

So, in my opinion, if you can honestly and truthfully say that you believe each and every one of these things about your relationship with your significant other, then it's love. If not, then you're more likely dealing with an infatuated love, in which obsession and lust (and perhaps sex) dominate open, honest communication, among these other things.

Well what I said before applies to love too, I think. Maybe 14-18 year olds don't know what "true love" is, but I have seen enough divorces of people in their 30's, 40's or even older, so they quite haven't grasped the concept either, I guess. Love is a subjective feeling, what you may consider love could be blind devotion to me, and what I consider love might be lust for you. Neither one of us should therefore tell the other what to do with their 'love'!

And as you might expect I do not feel there is anything wrong with 2 consenting adults having sex just for the fun of it. Whether a life consisting of only this is a fullfilling life is an entirely different matter.

Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love.
Butch Hancock

Re: Spielberg's Munich causes controversy

Quote:

Originally Posted by RalphyS

Yes and it often cost them their lives and because their death led to a change of that social norm for the better, they are often considered martyrs.

I was thinking more along the lines of Hitler, but since he did change the social norm (at least for a short while), if you want to call him a martyr, that's your deal.

Re: Spielberg's Munich causes controversy

Quote:

Originally Posted by RalphyS

but in a society which separates church and state every other view towards these items should be held in as much regard as long as it is not harmful to those who consentingly hold it.

ditto. I realize my views are my own, and it's not the government's job enforce them.

Re: Spielberg's Munich causes controversy

Quote:

Originally Posted by RMadd

I was thinking more along the lines of Hitler, but since he did change the social norm (at least for a short while), if you want to call him a martyr, that's your deal.

I suppose there are those who would call him a martyr, but which part of 'for the better' don't you understand, or do you always choose to ignore the parts that don't appeal to you, which would come in handy in regard to the bible btw.

Re: Spielberg's Munich causes controversy

Quote:

Originally Posted by RalphyS

The Hollywood norm ???
A movie like "Brokeback mountain" goes directly against the so-called norm of conservative America, last time I checked the majority that voted that idiot into office for a second term.
So I think it's braver to make a movie that goes against the way the majority feels and not one like Gibson's, who only reenforces the madness of the myth that JC was.

And btw Michael Moore received awards all over the world, just because you don't like the message, it doesn't make it a bad film, it doesn't make it absolute truth either, but it sure reflects in a good way the feelings that a whole lot of people in and outside the US have towards your current leader.

Alright, first of all... call Bush an "idiot," but at the end of the day we all know which country saved your Dutch ass in World War II and is currently leading the world economically, militarily, and culturally. I'm not trying to discredit the European Union, which is doing great economically, either. Hollywood is a primarily liberal community, a community that is trying to spread it's message through the medium of film. Mel Gibson is pretty much one of a kind. You can have the Sean Penns who sit there and spew all sorts of anti-American, liberal rhetoric. Then, when someone like Mel Gibson makes a movie about the last hours of Christ's life... there's this Hollywood outcry that he's gone too far. It's fine that Michael Moore can make a "mockumentary" of lies to slander his own country and fellow citizens. That's fine... in fact... because he does such a great job at bullshitting the world... he's entitled to left wing praise. I've seen Michael Moore speak live... and it was pretty obvious that he was making stuff up as he was going along.

Look, I understand your Dutch... and I understand the type of country you grew up in. For the record, I have nothing about the Netherlands... and as a matter of fact, I may be going to school in Maastricht this fall. Nevertheless, it shows a complete lack of ignorance on your part if you can't recognize the role that faith plays in America. This is still a faith based nation... with the majority of population being Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist. It's no coincidence that most states in this union reject the notion of gay marriage.

But I guess I should realize that you're from a country that parades prostitutes in windows, prides itself on legalizing marijuana, and has the Hague. Liberalism defines the Netherlands... just as conservatism still defines much of America's policies. Look at America's history and you'll come to understand why this nation is still so reliant on faith. Yet, this is also a nation that has intolerance. Many liberals in this country take offense to the holiday of Christmas and many homosexuals are intolerant to religious people and doctrines.

Re: Spielberg's Munich causes controversy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chase

Many liberals in this country take offense to the holiday of Christmas and many homosexuals are intolerant to religious people and doctrines.

I'm glad you brought this up. That's one thing I've noticed: liberals want conservatives and moderates to be accepting of any and all differences; they want us to be open-minded. They call us close-minded if we don't readily and blindly accept all their social "norms". And, yet, when it comes to religion, as you pointed out, they reject many religious beliefs as utterly false and illogical. So, pray tell, what happened to this open-mindedness? The truth is, everyone has their own set of beliefs and is usually not willing to stretch their own so much that they give in to requests made by those at the opposite end of the spectrum.

Re: Spielberg's Munich causes controversy

Quote:

Originally Posted by RMadd

Yes! It's totally contradictory what the liberal, atheist crowd asserts. They want everyone to be accepting of alternative lifestyles... but in reality, they do nothing but religion down. They don't accept the fact that some people chose to follow what's in the Bible. Isn't that the closed mindedness that they're accusing religious people of having? It's complete hypocrisy.

Re: Spielberg's Munich causes controversy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chase

So because the USA did us a major favor over 50 years ago under the rule of a democratic president, I know cannot criticize what this Republican fool is doing to your country and the rest of the world? And let's not forget that if Pearl Harbor wouldn't have happened, you might even now be standing by and looking at what the nazi's were doing in Europe, so please don't act as if the USA did it for us. They were attacked themselves, but nonetheless the Dutch and several other European nations owe a debt of gratitude to the USA.

And just because the USA is the world leader, the only superpower at least militarily, at this time, they will have to deal with criticism. There is a saying here in Holland, it states "Hoge bomen vangen veel wind", you said you understand Dutch, I don't know if you meant this literally, so I'll translate it "High trees catch a lot of wind". It means that if you want to stand out above the crowd in whichever way, be prepared to draw attention and it might not always be positive. I wouldn't care if, say, Bangla Desh elects a president, with whose ideas I totally disagree with, that would probably have no influence at all at world policy or my life, but Dubya does and therefore he has to be aware that the world watches his every move.

As to the general conservative state of America and the liberal one of Hollywood and let's be honest, the big border states like New York, California and others I have a clear opinion about that. Most rural based Americans have never been any further than their own backyard, they have never been exposed to other ideas, opinions and so on, people from the border states have been abroad and especially the people involved in the movie business, they know what's really going on in the world and look way past domestic American problems. I tend to think that the more ideas, different cultures, influences you're involved in the more open-minded and even liberal you thinking will become. Ofcourse that's only my 2 cents.

Btw I don't think Michael Moore slandered the USA, I love the USA, been there on vacation 3 times, it's your leadership he slanders, I even read one of his books, sure he is negative about republicans, but he isn't that positive about the democrats either. If you love your country, but you don't like the direction it is going politically, there is nothing wrong with criticizing that, it's called democracy, I believe. Not to say that democracy is that great all the time, the proof for that is being shown to us in Palestine only recently.

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965), Hansard, November 11, 1947

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chase

Look, I understand your Dutch... and I understand the type of country you grew up in. For the record, I have nothing about the Netherlands... and as a matter of fact, I may be going to school in Maastricht this fall. Nevertheless, it shows a complete lack of ignorance on your part if you can't recognize the role that faith plays in America. This is still a faith based nation... with the majority of population being Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist. It's no coincidence that most states in this union reject the notion of gay marriage.

What a coincidence, as I'm typing this I am sitting in Maastricht, I work there, I live about 15 miles from here. "A complete lack of ignorance" doesn't that mean that I know everything. :) I do recognize the role that faith plays in the USA, and I do think it is biggest problem that your country has, the influence that the religious right tries to gain in the States. As I've stated before, I don't tell anyone to not believe, but when you try to impose the rules of your religion upon others, this is when it goes to far in my mind. Besides isn't it a job of the state to look out that the rights of minorities aren't trempled (sp?) on. I believe that the separation of church and state is not only good for the state, but also for the church. Isn't there some sort of passage even in the bible that states, give unto the king what is the king's and give unto the lord, what is the lord's. And the homophobic nature of your country is just fear for the unknown, I think. As you know we have gay marriage here and we haven't descended into barbarism yet, there are only more happy people around, who have the rights of their partner fully protected when they die.

I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education.
Wilson Mizner (1876 - 1933)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chase

But I guess I should realize that you're from a country that parades prostitutes in windows, prides itself on legalizing marijuana, and has the Hague. Liberalism defines the Netherlands... just as conservatism still defines much of America's policies. Look at America's history and you'll come to understand why this nation is still so reliant on faith. Yet, this is also a nation that has intolerance. Many liberals in this country take offense to the holiday of Christmas and many homosexuals are intolerant to religious people and doctrines.

Well are we now going to compare crime figures between the US and The Netherlands? Is you country free of prostitution? Does no-one smoke marijuana over there? Were have your restrictions on both got you?
Our abortion rate is lower than most others nations including the US, also because we're more open about birth control. I thought conservatives were such big defenders of personal freedom and responsibility. So what's wrong with letting people decide for themselves if they need to pay for sex of want to smoke pot. Murder, rape and crime like that, let's compare these figures of our both countries, yet we are the nation that has gone totally over the edge, according to some, but come and take a look for yourself if it's as bad as reported over here.

Personally I have never seen a prostitute behind a window, well I did, but it was in Germany, I smoked a bit of pot like 2 weeks ago for the first time since I don't know how many years. Btw what is wrong with The Hague?

The history of the USA isn't that faith-based, as I've gathered. Founding fathers like Jefferson and Paine were all but devout Christians. Statements like the 'under God' in the pledge of allegiance were inserted in the 1950's, I think. Didn't the settlers on the Mayflower travel to America to get away from religious prosecution. Is there a mention of the Christian God in the constitution or the declaration of independence? It seems like the relogious right just wants it to be that way.

When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion.
Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865) (attributed)

Finally I don't think many liberals have a problem with Christmas, personally I think it is great to have a holiday at which we all hope/pray for world peace, to be with your loved ones and if there is a nice story about a birth, one of the most beautiful things a human can experience, involved so much the better for it. Ofcourse you know that the birth of Christ according to the bible stories could never have happened at the time that we celebrate Christmas. In fact the holiday of Winter Solstice was basically a pagan holiday and it was taken over by the Church to persuade pagans to become Christians. I also think the birth of the pre-christ god Mithra (from a virgin, sound familiar?) was also celebrated during that december period. So Christmas is great, I just don't take the religious undertone that seriously.

Oh and about homosexuals being intolerant to religious people, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? How would you feel if a group of people, in this case the religious, constantly called your lifestile perverse and did their utmost best to prevent you to get equal rights in regard to partnership?

The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.

"Faith" means not wanting to know what is true.
Friedrich Nietzsche

Re: Spielberg's Munich causes controversy

Quote:

Originally Posted by RMadd

Well there is one difference between the social norms of liberals and conservatives? Those of liberals aren't edged into stone like commandments or in a book that says they are absolute and there is not any discussion possible about these rules.

What basically is the reason for not-allowing gay marriage, besides the obvious 'the bible said so'? And keep in mind, I already answered to the biological and STD-arguements.

And even these absolute rules aren't that absolute, because I can remember a passage that states, 'thou shalt not kill', yet if the state does the killing, there seems nothing wrong with it.

Re: Spielberg's Munich causes controversy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chase

Yes! It's totally contradictory what the liberal, atheist crowd asserts. They want everyone to be accepting of alternative lifestyles... but in reality, they do nothing to put religion down. They don't accept the fact that some people chose to follow what's in the Bible. Isn't that the closed mindedness that they're accusing religious people of having? It's complete hypocrisy.

"they do nothing to put religion down"? So you want us to put religion down???

"If there is a God, atheism must strike Him as less of an insult than religion."
[Edmond and Jules de Goncourt]

To you I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition.
Woody Allen (1935 - )

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg (1933 - ), quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999

Re: Spielberg's Munich causes controversy

Quote:

Originally Posted by RalphyS

If there was a population of homosexuals... they would go extinct after one generation. Explain that to me. Why would they not be able to reproduce? Biologically... there is no benefit to gay sex whatsoever.

In all honesty, I have no problem if the state kills an Al Qaeda member.

Re: Spielberg's Munich causes controversy

Quote:

Originally Posted by RalphyS

Isn't that sort of an inherent difference, though? I would think that conservatives, by rule, tend to prefer maintain the social, political, economic (etc etc etc) norms; liberals, on the other hand, by definition seek a variety of ways to alter those norms. Politically speaking, true conservatives in the US (I'm not referring to neo-conservatives, who tend to care little for the federalism debate, but focus, instead, on social issues) have supported a strict interpretation of the constitution, such that the constituent states of the republic should maintain control over a wide variety of issues. Liberals, meanwhile, tend to support the notion that the constitution is a living, breathing document, and that the implied powers of the federal government over the states are many. This, again, is the inherent debate: conservatives have a fast, firm way of looking at something; liberals see things as ever-changing. So to criticize conservatives for seeming to be so close-minded appears to me to be paradoxical: you're bashing conservatives for being just that!