Printable View
One time I saw a couple of lawn gnomes fornicating on a lawn. I was shocked and repulsed at first. I mean, I don't hate them just because they're different from me: I'm no gnomophobe. But surely they shouldn't be doing it right there on a lawn for everyone to see, should they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ihaeber
Then it occurred to me: where else would lawn gnomes be doing it, other than a lawn?
Maybe they should wait till it is dark/everyone is fast asleep so that noone sees them.
http://www.taylorgifts.com/images/p25210b.jpg
HAVE THEY NO SHAME?
I know that there are some parts in the west where "old fogeys" like Stan :) still exist, though sometimes I think public display of sexuality, like kissing, is a very common thing there...
Stan, you should move to my country...;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaw
Interesting picture Basil :rolleyes:
Just what be ye getting at? :D
Nothing Stan...Nothing...:D
PDA's (public displays of affection) are fine by me and should be encouraged. :D (hugging, kissing, holding hands, arms about each other etc.) but it's another matter altogether if people, and I don't really care what orientation said `people' consist of, are contravening laws which disallow nudity and `lewd' acts in _public_. There are some things better left to the privacy of behind closed doors.
Well Logos, different culture means different norms and values :)
Yes, even the same culture, just different time periods shows the ever changing views.
ANd I guess to each their own. :nod:
Two things: First, I enjoyed Basil's disturbing little gnome home.......I mean, who wouldn't??
Secondly, Ya know, for some reason I think that 'gay pride' parades are a bit 'over the top. I don't really mind the display, but I ask myself why anyone would want to have a parade to showcase their sexual preferences? And then I remember "Marti GRAs', a fantastic hetersexual celebration/parade heralding (of all things) the beginning of the christian recognized period of 'Lent' . Yes, me thinks we live in very, VERY, strange times.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
So, THAT's what pdas are...my son always talks about them on his MSN and I keep clenching my hands, oh whirl whirl whirl, what on earth is he talking about, what lewd, devious act :brow: is that?
Now, I don't have to tell him I been sneeking and peeking on his computer. Thank u!
Maybe to make a point. I know it is 'in your face' (a lot) but maybe some people's homophobic attitudes and unbelievable notion that they can dictate other people's sexual preferences might be calling for such drastic measures.Quote:
Originally Posted by baddad
How about Rio carnival? It is even crazier that 'gay pride' parades but it is *mostly* beautiful girls in something barely more than small bikinis.
I strongly disagree with all of these exhebitionist parades...If I wanted porn, I would go and buy it, I dislike having it forced on me.
You surely don't have to go and watch them? With similar logic, one might say they s/he does not like watching porn so porn movies should be banned.
well... I would support the banning of porn movies aswell.
And what's with all this wanton displaying of the flesh? Unnecessary and unseemly, if you ask me. We should all wear beekeeper's outfits.
http://www.mannlakeltd.com/images/ca...e60/cl-179.gif
My point exactly, but of course the knots in my tongue made it come out much less succinct ...Thanks Sher. But How can I honestly like Rio Carnival, and yet dislike gay pride parades if I espouse equality for all people? I think I just discovered a chink in my moral armor......just call me Double Standard Boy....... *gotta get a costume to go with that*Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
P.S. BAsil: Nice Queen Bee....
I think once the Church can openly discuss whether Jesus himself may or may not have been gay, then it will have 'grown up' and entered the 21st C.
Personally, I think it cannot be ruled out. He liked to have plenty of men around him, none of his disciples were women; he was very tactile with men; he had called one of the disciples his beloved (note how this is said of only the one disciple). I think it is possible that Jesus may have been gay. He seems to show some homoerotic behaviours that, if observed in today's world, might make people wonder whether he was gay or not.
Certainly the movement Jesus inspired has shown plenty of homosexual tendencies throughout history. Paul, when talking about marriage and women, sounds very gay. I mean he obviously preferred men to women.
I mean, all those disciples leaving the comfort of their families and joining a merry band of men. It makes you wonder what they got up to doesn't it? Those nights in the desert can get so terribly cold...
I keep getting a spam fowarded to me by people I know (all of them devout Christians) that includes a petition against a play (that I don't believe actually exists cause I can't find it on the net :rolleyes:) called corpus christi. It portrays Jesus & friends as gay and is verrrrrry bad and terrible! The spam says its going to be made into a film if I don't sign my name and forward it to everyone I know including the person who sent it to me :eek:. Does anyone know if this is for real, cause I would love to see the play.
Yes, I WilKikU it is for real though I haven't received any such spam about it. I read about it months ago when Christians were demonstrating against it outside a theatre in Edinborough where it was being shown. It is called Corpus Christi, written by Terence McNally - and directed by Stephen Hendry though I suppose it depends on who is putting on the play, who it is directed by. I think it originated in America. My opinion is this..they wouldn't dare write a similar play about Mohammed. That would be blasphemy. But it's okay to say any old thing about Jesus it seems.
Miranda
Quote:
Originally Posted by IWilKikU
Yes!!! Kiky, this is ABSOLUTELY TRUE!!!!! People all over the world may be subjected to another artsy/fartsy financial flop if you don't contribut to the hysterical reaction generated by these spammy emails!!!!!! So act today!! Forward the spam to anyone who's computer needs to be blocked up with (fill in your own explitive here)!!!I personally suggest a mass e-filing of protests to the vatican,www.thepopeshouse.vc
Ack, the worst kind of spam, from people you actually know!
Quote:
Originally Posted by IWilKikU
Miranda,
It should be OK to say any old thing about Mohammed too. Unfortunately, in many parts of the world, doing so can be seriously damaging to your health. Would you prefer to see the same kinds of reaction in the Christian world to those who voice their opinion on Jesus, as was shown to Salman Rushdie after he wrote the Satanic Verses? Quite honestly, the only reason we can say mostly any old thing about Jesus in the West, is because us dissenters have had the courage to stand up for reason and freedom against a persecuting church and state in the past. We've been through the burning of heretics and the drowning of witches, and we can now see that those reactions were totally despicable, even though they were inspired by the bible's teachings. The freedom we have today in the West was hard won by those who fought against religious fanaticism. We still have a long way to go to make it safe to say what you want about Mohammed. And it is even becoming more difficult to say what you want about Jesus.
Why is it considered freedom when one attakcs something that they don't fully comprehend, and it is considered harrasment when a christian does it?
Stanislaw,
1) Attacking an idea, or a concept, should be permitted shoudn't it? Or should we have a more Orwellian society?
2) The burning of witches or heretics shouldn't be permitted. I don't think it is adequately described under the term 'harrassment'.
You just contradicted yourself,
If a non-christian is allowed to attack and idea or concept, than it would be wrong to not allow christians the same freedom.
I have no problem with Christians attacking concepts or ideas.
Censorship of any kind, except that specifically targeted to promote hate against an identifiable group, should never be allowed. No voice, no person, should ever be silenced from fear of persecution for their ideas. There are no addendums to this rule, there are few exceptions. Freedom to speak is one of the few freedoms humans must always maintain. If we don't like what someone says, fine, your are allowed that. But 6.5 billion humans on this planet have 6.5 billion different perspectives. All of these, with few exceptions, are valid. No one voice has the right answers to every question. No one voice should be allowed to dictate the morality of speech, art, media, etc. I for one will fight to my last breath to preserve this right and to expend every effort to extend this right throughout the world. Freedom is not some artsy/fartsy concept but the basis of our human existence. Freedom of speech's abuse horrifies most individuals on the planet, but many fear speaking out, fear reprisal by their governments, their church, or their maniacal leaders. Censorship is disgusting, a crime against humanity, a foolish ploy by those who fear the truth of their own stance will be compromised by rational thinking people.
....P.S. Uhh.....Stan.......your gelatin.....uh, avatar, seems to be.........molting??
Well he is a freshly baked pizza thing, what else could he do? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by baddad
Now back on topic:
What would be the limits of freedom of speech, technically it could be argued that one is allowed to preach that the holocaust never happened because of freedom of speech?
[QUOTE=Stanislaw]Well he is a freshly baked pizza thing, what else could he do? :D QUOTE]
uhhh....Stan....I said, MOLTING, ...not MELTING!
Canada has a specific law against the very thing actually, but it has been extremely difficult to prosecute.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaw
So yeah, sure, freedom of speech would allow for this delusional approach to history to be spoken of. And why not? So a few people listen, pretend history never happened. It is obviously their delusion, their fantasy, it will not shake the world, or cause great damage. Most people will not listen, they know history, it is recorded and will not be forgotten. And those that know the truth will make their displeasure well known to those espousing such nonsense, they will be shunned for their madness, made social pariahs. But to put limits on what people say is to limit what they think, and I can not abide that under (almost) any circumstances.
But the holocaust is one of, but not the worst case, of slaughter in history, but is deemed 'untouchable', a holy grail never to be sullied by using the word to describe any other atrocities. The very word holocaust is RESERVED, never to be discussed except in the most reverential tones for any reason. Well, what about the 10 million Stalin slaughtered? What about the tens of thousands Miloshovich slaughtered? What about the genocide with the tutsis, 800,000 slaughtered? No one is prevented from discussing those atrocities, these holocausts. But the actual WORD, 'holocaust', well now, use it at your own peril if you are not directly referring to the WWll slaughter.
The world freaks out if anyone speaks about the holocaust or uses the term in any way not associated with the horrific slaughter that took place in Europe. But ' Holocausts' are happening today, this very minute, and people are denying it, people are ignoring it, and no one is up in arms. Need I list the countries where there is currently ethnic cleansing (a soft and gentle euphism created to hide the horror of mass murder, and a term 'responsible' governments can use publicly to soften the fact that they sit idle and allow murderous slaughter to happen, because the word 'slaughter' doesn't sell well on television) , or countries which in very recent years have imploded with incredible violence against ethnic minorities?
SO.....if someone claims (and they are) that the current slaughter in the Sudan (and elsewhere) is not happening.........do we view it the same way we would if they were taking about 'THE' holocaust? Do we enact laws designed to shut them up? The answer is a resounding NO!!..... and herein lies my peeve about limiting speech, even bull**** concerning the ......HOLOCAUST......it is a misdirection away from the real problems in the world, and censorship is SO NOT the answer.
I mean no disrespect to anyone having suffered at the hands of others, but limiting freedoms of voice and thought do not improve communiction between people.......
Hell, there is so much to say that deserves well thought out argument rather than this short little 'pet peeve' spew........my apologies....
I think Islam has different culture, which Mohammad built. He managed to established himself as a holly prophet, last to come but sit in number one rank of all God's prophets. Also, the middle east (where this belief rooted and expand) got different culture and condition..There's no industrial revolution there, no Reinassance (sp), etc.
When this one time the Time magazine put a carton sketch of young Mohammad, many muslims people in my country bought it, they were so curios cause none ever know what he looks like, and yet they also felt furious at the same time that a magazine have the guts to do that since the prophet is considered almost as holy as God...and who can draw God's face????
I completely agree with you, I think the term Holocaust should be applied to all of those genocides. The problem is that the holocaust has taken on a new meaning, and seems to be apllied ony to the Jewish peoples, I understand what they went through was terrible, however the polish, ukrainian, chekoslovakian and french went through it too. And aside from the more modern holocausts you mentioned, there is also Cambodia.
I think cencorship is a sign of ignorance, and a fear that the truth cannot be defended. Perhaps this is to protect half truths. (I am not saying that the holocaust didn't happen just to clear things up, my family did expierience loss during the Holocaust in Europe).
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddad
[QUOTE=baddad]Molting, melting whatevah! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaw
So are we done talking about the Bible's view on homosexuality? ;)
The holocaust discussion is a bit off topic, but I'd like to say the following:
The point about the Holocaust, is the sheer scale, the intent, and the compliance with which it happened. Is it possible that any other race was persecuted like this? Not only the numbers (6 or so million), but also the percentage of deaths during the war years of the Jewish race must be staggering. That is why it is considered to be a Jewish experience. That is why the Holocaust is known as THE HOLOCAUST.
Sure, many gypsies, homosexuals, political subversives etc died during the holocaust. But this cannot be compared in the same way to what happened to the Jews.
Here's another 'holocaust' and it's reception.
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...12/wdres12.xml
[QUOTE=Stanislaw]Yes Stan...what exactly is that anyway?????Quote:
Originally Posted by baddad
"I think Islam has different culture, which Mohammad built. He managed to established himself as a holly prophet, last to come but sit in number one rank of all God's prophets. Also, the middle east (where this belief rooted and expand) got different culture and condition..There's no industrial revolution there, no Reinassance (sp), etc.
When this one time the Time magazine put a carton sketch of young Mohammad, many muslims people in my country bought it, they were so curios cause none ever know what he looks like, and yet they also felt furious at the same time that a magazine have the guts to do that since the prophet is considered almost as holy as God...and who can draw God's face????"
I found so many things that are simply not true in this post that I had to reply. MOhammed a.s never established himself as holy. That is the main teaching of Islam; namely, that no one is holy nor deserves to be worshiped in any way except God. There are many narrations confirming that fact. One famous is when there was a battle, someone saw Mohammed a.s fall of his horse, and that person assumed that the Prophet had died. The person spread the news and people started to cry and panick. Then, Mohammed's companion Ebu Bekr addressed them saying that "Those of you who worshiped Mohammed; he is dead; those of who you who worship Allah s.v.t; He is the Living and Eternal". So, that reinforced the significance of understanding that the Prophet is only a human being; one who is close to God because of his obedience and faith, but not holy in any way. The muslim culture forbids sketches of him or anyone associated with him because we don't know how they looked like, and because of the fear that people will start to worship those images, as was the case many times in different religions. It is not allowed to degrade or ridicule the Prophet or his family, and that has to do with respect on has for him. I always wondered what the gain is in being able to ridicule authority and if that has anything to do with the concept of free speach? Do people change anything if they have Jay Leno ridicule president Bush, while he attacks nations all over the place and increases the deficit every day? What do I really have from being able to laugh publicly at him? Is that a real right or simply a masquarade for people that gives them the ilusion that they do have influence, when in fact no one even considers their voice? Freedom of speach is not being able to ridicule the authority, it is about being able to actually change things.. I am very satisfied that the muslim countries have not let it come to that where every fool would be able to make fun of the Prophet and the teachings of the religion, like I have seen people do to Jesus and Christianity in the western societies. I have nothing against reasonable critisizm but ridiculing and insulting something that many people live by is disrespectful and primitive. There has to be a limit to everything, even to free speach..and as we know..no right is absolute..and thank God for that.