 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From the trailer: "The Mayan calendar predicts the end of time in 2012."
NO IT DOESN'T!!!
I don't know if the new trailers still say this, but the first trailers
originally suggested that the viewer "Google 2012". Well, the first hit
is for the movie, the second hit is for the Wikipedia article which
states: "The idea of a global event occurring in 2012 based on any
interpretation of the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar is rejected as
pseudoscience by the scientific community, and as misrepresentative of
Maya history by Mayanist scholars."
Words cannot describe how much this particular movie annoys me. I just
hope it's not another Adam & Eve one.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <Ben### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> Words cannot describe how much this particular movie annoys me.
I think it's a bad idea to detest a movie without having seen it. Or even
before it has been released in the first place.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Words cannot describe how much this particular movie annoys me.
>
> I think it's a bad idea to detest a movie without having seen it. Or even
> before it has been released in the first place.
It definitely looks like fine disaster-porn.
I don't think the Mayan calendar predicted anything for 2012 different than
the Roman calendar predicted for the year 2000.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> From the trailer: "The Mayan calendar predicts the end of time in 2012."
>
> NO IT DOESN'T!!!
It is a common urban legend roaming around in the latest few years.
Never heard of it? The movie is very obviously building up on it and
dismissing it now surely is not wise. And surely it's just a simple
premise for yet another blockbuster bang with lots of explosions and
special effects.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>> Words cannot describe how much this particular movie annoys me.
>>
>> I think it's a bad idea to detest a movie without having seen it. Or
>> even
>> before it has been released in the first place.
>
> It definitely looks like fine disaster-porn.
The nicest disaster-porn I ever watched was one humorous Nike ad playing
with the fear for the y2k bug. :)
ah, here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhF7dQl4Ico
pure genius.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhF7dQl4Ico
> pure genius.
Very funny.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Words cannot describe how much this particular movie annoys me.
>
> I think it's a bad idea to detest a movie without having seen it. Or even
> before it has been released in the first place.
>
OK, good point. Allow me to clarify: it's the IDEA that annoys me, and
not the movie per se.
The reason being that the idea is supposedly based on Mayan beliefs, but
5 minutes of research will show that the idea is flawed.
Now, if they wanted to make a movie about the end of the world, and just
said, "It's the end of the world!" then I wouldn't mind. But basing a
disaster movie on 2012 is akin to basing a Sci Fi movie on the idea that
1+1=yellow.
Unfortunately, it's annoying enough that I probably won't be able to
enjoy the movie at all.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers schrieb:
> Now, if they wanted to make a movie about the end of the world, and just
> said, "It's the end of the world!" then I wouldn't mind. But basing a
> disaster movie on 2012 is akin to basing a Sci Fi movie on the idea that
> 1+1=yellow.
As any serious Douglas Adams fan knows, this formula is wrong; instead,
the correct formula is:
3+2 = a suffusion of yellow
:-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
> The nicest disaster-porn I ever watched was one humorous Nike ad playing
> with the fear for the y2k bug. :)
> ah, here it is:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhF7dQl4Ico
I'm sure some people honestly thought 1.1.2000 would be like that.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> OK, good point. Allow me to clarify: it's the IDEA that annoys me, and
> not the movie per se.
> The reason being that the idea is supposedly based on Mayan beliefs, but
> 5 minutes of research will show that the idea is flawed.
Why? Speculative fiction is all about "what if?"
"What if the Mayan calendar really predicts the end of the world in 2012,
like some people believe, and that it will really happen?"
If you always go with "hey, that's not true, that can't happen", then you
ruin most movies for yourself.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I don't think the Mayan calendar predicted anything for 2012 different
> than the Roman calendar predicted for the year 2000.
That's not exactly true, the Mayan's predicted the return of
Bolon Yookte' K'uh, Quetzalcoatl etc.
Of course they used to stab a rope thru their tounge, and
stingray barbs thru their foreskin, so they couldn't have
been very smart. I bet the rope was first so that the
the other guys in the mutilation line wouldn't hear how
bad the barbs hurt.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp schrieb:
> If you always go with "hey, that's not true, that can't happen", then you
> ruin most movies for yourself.
... which is perfectly legal for anyone to do, if they feel like it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Chambers schrieb:
>
> > Now, if they wanted to make a movie about the end of the world, and just
> > said, "It's the end of the world!" then I wouldn't mind. But basing a
> > disaster movie on 2012 is akin to basing a Sci Fi movie on the idea that
> > 1+1=yellow.
>
> As any serious Douglas Adams fan knows, this formula is wrong; instead,
> the correct formula is:
>
> 3+2 = a suffusion of yellow
>
> :-)
Adams' 3rd Law:
Any sufficiently random sentence is indistinguishable from a Douglas Adams quote
:)
....Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> OK, good point. Allow me to clarify: it's the IDEA that annoys me, and
>> not the movie per se.
>
>> The reason being that the idea is supposedly based on Mayan beliefs, but
>> 5 minutes of research will show that the idea is flawed.
>
> Why? Speculative fiction is all about "what if?"
>
> "What if the Mayan calendar really predicts the end of the world in 2012,
> like some people believe, and that it will really happen?"
>
> If you always go with "hey, that's not true, that can't happen", then you
> ruin most movies for yourself.
>
The key bit being: "like some people believe". We have enough idiots in
the world already. Making a moving that plays to not just the kooks, but
the vast number of twits likely to look at the kooks for advise on if
its true or not, instead of say.. historians, is imho, always a bloody
stupid idea. And, its made even more idiotic when you run ads constantly
saying its true (even if its only an ad), and running a web site for the
"lottery" to "win a place on the ship, when it all happens".
Another case in point. When are these people going to finally give up
and decide their nonsense is BS, instead of selling the idea to more people:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/you_only_have_a_few_days_leftt.php
Its like if the Mayan calender had predicted the end to be 4 days ofter
it was found, according to the wackos, and they kept going, "Ah, well,
maybe we just read it wrong and its 4 days from next Wednesday..."
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Why? Speculative fiction is all about "what if?"
Did you know that Isaac Asimov thought robots *should* enslave humanity,
and perform ritual sacrifice of all female babies? It's coming out in a
movie next week! And it's really cool, because it's based on his actual
writings!
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers schrieb:
> Did you know that Isaac Asimov thought robots *should* enslave humanity,
> and perform ritual sacrifice of all female babies? It's coming out in a
> movie next week! And it's really cool, because it's based on his actual
> writings!
Uhm... Asimov wrote a /lot/ of speculations about "robotic societies";
you definitely have to distinguish between...
- how the societies in his stories worked
- what any individual story argued in favor of
- what Asimov personally expected future society to be like
- what Asimov personally believed best
If you examine Asimov's works carefully, I guess you'll find that as a
whole they appear to be an attempt to /discuss/ this topic, rather than
advocate one particular result.
For instance, some stories paint a negative picture of robots enslaving
humanity "for their own best" - a motif that the movie "I, Robot" picked
up pretty well.
Other stories paint a basically positive picture of robots "conspiring"
to secretly rule mankind, but discuss the difficulty those robots would
have to decide what really is best for mankind - both regarding the
structure of society, as well as how to direct mankind towards this goal.
I personally believe that just like the robots in his stories, Asimov
himself was searching for the "0th law" (the one that would place the
well-being of humanity above that of individual persons), and how to
balance it with the "1st law" (the one that places the well-being of
individuals above orders), while being well aware that he was far from
an answer; I think it is no coincidence that in his stories, he set the
discovery of an answer to this question in the far future, and portrayed
it as a collaborative efforts across generations.
... uh, wait - your posting was ironic, right?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> ... uh, wait - your posting was ironic, right?
Sarcastic, but you get the idea ;)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
My POV :-)
The end of the World is like POV-Ray 4.0 is gonna be done when is done,
the rest are nice theories that I like watching, specially if they are
nicely done like this movie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>> ... uh, wait - your posting was ironic, right?
>
> Sarcastic, but you get the idea ;)
>
> ....Chambers
I don't get you, either, you want the end of the World to happen or
you're terrified by it, I don't see a reason for either.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Sarcastic, but you get the idea ;)
>
> ....Chambers
Oh, you mean all these kind of theories are crap? maybe at a glance but
if you dig it, it starts to make sense and is kinda of fun, specially in
a well done movie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Sarcastic, but you get the idea ;)
>>
>> ....Chambers
>
> Oh, you mean all these kind of theories are crap? maybe at a glance but
> if you dig it, it starts to make sense and is kinda of fun, specially in
> a well done movie.
I mean, the kind of willful distortion of Asimov's writings that I
portrayed is analogous to how this movie is portraying 2012. It's not
remotely accurate, but *they claim it is*.
I don't mind fun movies that admit they're having fun. I get seriously
annoyed by movies which claim a certain credibility that they lack (re:
Disney for more examples of this).
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> I mean, the kind of willful distortion of Asimov's writings that I
> portrayed is analogous to how this movie is portraying 2012. It's not
> remotely accurate, but *they claim it is*.
Oh I see, yeah, is kinda of disappointing to see a movie with that
background, but at least will be fun :)
> I don't mind fun movies that admit they're having fun. I get seriously
> annoyed by movies which claim a certain credibility that they lack (re:
> Disney for more examples of this).
I don't get seriously annoyed by people anymore, if they're not prone to
reason then why try? they don't want to understand you, is "their truth"
better than yours, when truth is only 1, like love, either you're in or
out of it and I find true the saying: "Sit peacefully at the river side
and you'll see the corps of your enemy pass floating by", so my advice:
don't bitter your life in vane, consequences are on their way....
Cheers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> I mean, the kind of willful distortion of Asimov's writings that I
>> portrayed is analogous to how this movie is portraying 2012. It's not
>> remotely accurate, but *they claim it is*.
>
> Oh I see, yeah, is kinda of disappointing to see a movie with that
> background, but at least will be fun :)
>
>> I don't mind fun movies that admit they're having fun. I get
>> seriously annoyed by movies which claim a certain credibility that
>> they lack (re: Disney for more examples of this).
>
> I don't get seriously annoyed by people anymore, if they're not prone to
> reason then why try? they don't want to understand you, is "their truth"
> better than yours, when truth is only 1, like love, either you're in or
> out of it and I find true the saying: "Sit peacefully at the river side
> and you'll see the corps of your enemy pass floating by", so my advice:
> don't bitter your life in vane, consequences are on their way....
>
> Cheers.
The reason people care is due to the unfortunate fact that, if you sit
peacefully at the river, you may find yourself floating by, because,
quite frankly, the sort of people that reject reality so drastically
consider **you**, as someone that embraces it, a more serious enemy than
the guy next door, who simply has a different crazy idea. This has been
described by one blogger as "cranks flock together", and he gives a
clear example of two loonies, both of which consider modern medicine to
be an evil conspiracy, and work *together* to fight against each others
windmill enemies, while having completely contradictory, and apposing,
opinions on what it should be replaced with.
Or, to put it another way, for people that think the world is going to
end, it doesn't matter to them if it ends next week, last tuesday, but
no one noticed, or 2012, it only matter that it is **going** to end, and
that you don't believe them. **All** of them consider you, me, and
anyone else that says end of world prophecies are BS to be enemies, and
if they get annoyed enough, they will screw all of us, then worry about
which one had the right date. Same with all other forms of crankism.
As long as they have one single point of agreement, they will fight
tooth and nail against that *enemy*, real or imaginary, and only *then*
bother to attack each other. The Art of War presumes that all opponents
are intelligent, practical, well read, militarily competent, people. An
idiot will simply show up and cut your head off, while their neighbors
burn down their own castle, because they consider your, sitting one the
bank of the river, as some sort of horrible offense, so great that all
other concerns not only can be, but must be, ignored until your are
dead. This only gets worse if you have 3-4 such fools, all convinced you
are a huge threat, and all of them clueless about their own failure to
deal with the reality of their situations. You get 3-4 burning castles,
and 3-4 morons standing over your corpse, oblivious to their own
disasters, saying, "Hah! That will show you!"
Mind, modern fools are less dangerous to life and limb, but instead,
especially in the US, it generates a wave of clueless
anti-intellectualism, wacko ideas, etc., that make it look like the
worst examples of ancient Fakir, patent medicines, spiritualist
ectoplasms, religious idiocy, and irrational fear. If you are into
selling fake "left behind" packs for holy soldiers to keep for when they
need to continue the fight, should they fail to get raptured, or a
billion other stupidities, great! If you plan to fix education, fix the
environment (in a way that isn't gibberish from enviro-wackos), fix the
economy, fix health care, or fix anything that *matters*, then there are
100 million idiots that think the useless stuff is just as important as
the important stuff, because they literally can't tell the difference,
and a certain percentage of the truly lost, who argue, convincingly, for
far too many people, that we don't *need* to fix some of this stuff,
especially education, but rather that we would be "better off" if people
where stupider, by making sure most of this idiocy was taught as
"alternatives" to reality, in schools.
Lets put it this way. Someone in ancient times writes something about
sacrificing virgins, which lands in the lap of two influential people,
one in a society that doesn't do such things, the other in one where its
common place. Which one would **you** be more worried about reading it?
That is *almost* how bad things have gotten in the US. The level of pure
crazy is so bad that you can show people in other countries some of the
stuff that is believed as "common" ideas by some politicians and
important people here, and the disconnect from reality involve leaves
them either concluding that the US is one giant insane asylum, or that
it has to be some sort of joke, and no one can possibly believe it. Why?
Because such people stand on street corners in places like Australia,
collecting random change, not running for a frakking Senate seat, like
they do in the US.
If this movie was released in some other country, it would be seen as
harmless. Here... You could, literally, make a movie that proclaimed
that the world ended last Tuesday, and find some loony group some place
with 400-500 members, who would say, "See! We have been saying this all
along." The world ending in 2012? That isn't fiction to many people. Its
so damn mainstream that you can find right wing Christians (and I have
met them), as well as even some liberal ones (also met some of them),
that think its proof of the even more overblown, made up, and tacked on
later, gibberish in their own Bible. There are probably tens of
thousands in the US that, if they don't actually 100% believe it, never
the less are freaked out, and at least fearful, that its actually true.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>When are these people going to finally give up and decide their nonsense is
>BS, instead of selling the idea to more people?
In February 2013...
when they come up with some new BS to replace the old BS.
I predict that Armegedon will not occur durring 2012,
God likes a good joke too much to deliver his punchlines on cue.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well man, I didn't know that reality about US, well IMO there are all
kinds of people all over the world, maybe one group being bigger in some
places than others, but I think you're a little worked up by this people
and maybe you are given them exactly what they want from people that
don't share their believes.
I like this attitude: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhF7dQl4Ico
so I'd fight back if I get attacked but I won't be defined by the
violent and stupid behavior of unreasonable morons, I'll say my peace if
and when the opportunity present itself and reasonable people will
understand and calm down, so people like us that see things clearer and
pragmatically should patiently speak on opportunity.
The darker the darkness the brighter the light, so let's raise it as
high as we can so others can see it.
IMHO people who wants peace, harmony, prosperity and higher life quality
should also be of reason and consequence, teaching this principles to
less illuminated people so they can also see reality. Many things affect
people and fill them with all kinds of fears and uncertainties
surrounded by all kinds of dis-/information and other fearful and
doubtful people, so some sort underlaying passive paranoia is not
unexpected.
The person's character should always prevail to the last second of our
life, if they break your indestructible core *then* they have broke you
and won. And by character I mean the very best part of you.
Cheers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
*if let them* break your indestructible core *then* they have broke you
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
*if YOU let them*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Well man, I didn't know that reality about US, well IMO there are all
> kinds of people all over the world, maybe one group being bigger in some
> places than others, but I think you're a little worked up by this people
> and maybe you are given them exactly what they want from people that
> don't share their believes.
>
Poor assumption. What you get from these people is that they have gotten
rich off of being the way they are, which involves belief also in their
divine right to rule, etc., which means 1) exploitation, 2) cheating, 3)
lying for their god, 4) making masses of money from these things, 5)
being convinced that, since the world will end, they don't need to "do"
anything about things like health care, poverty, the environment, etc.
The #1 biggest group of idiots in the US that a) own large businesses,
and b) deny the need to fix various problems we have, are also people
that think all the problems are "signs of the coming end", and that
apposing them is actually counter to what their god wants.
That is the real problem. When you expect the world to end any day, you
are not going to be inclined to make 10, 20, 100 year plans, or more, to
"fix" serious problems. You are not going to invest in alternative
energy which you will never need, you won't bother trying to improve the
health, well being, or poverty level, of other people, since they won't
be alive, based on your belief, long enough to benefit from any of it.
All you can do is try to kiss ass, so you are not one of the "left
behind" when things go to hell, and that means opposing abortions,
apposing gay marriage, etc., to these people, not *helping* to make
anything better. If it doesn't happen, you just change the date, and
continue "hating the sins", while screwing everyone around you, until
the next day comes and goes. Don't attribute some ulterior motive to
these people, I know a fair number that "used to be" them, and they will
flat out tell you that they **believed** all of it 100%, until they
figured out just how badly they had been lied to from birth, about
almost everything, and how much pure insanity was necessary to maintain
that belief.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott schrieb:
> I know a fair number that "used to be" them, and they will
> flat out tell you that they **believed** all of it 100%, until they
> figured out just how badly they had been lied to from birth, about
> almost everything, and how much pure insanity was necessary to maintain
> that belief.
Word.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Poor assumption.
Well since I don't leave in US I think this is understandable, so things
are worse than this... yeah, is a matter of concern.
> What you get from these people is that they have gotten
> rich off of being the way they are, which involves belief also in their
> divine right to rule, etc., which means 1) exploitation, 2) cheating, 3)
> lying for their god, 4) making masses of money from these things, 5)
> being convinced that, since the world will end, they don't need to "do"
> anything about things like health care, poverty, the environment, etc.
> The #1 biggest group of idiots in the US that a) own large businesses,
> and b) deny the need to fix various problems we have, are also people
> that think all the problems are "signs of the coming end", and that
> apposing them is actually counter to what their god wants.
IMO, Inherent human imperfection causes God guidelines
misinterpretations, voluntarily or not, so followers of a faulty
interpretation in turn misinterpret again, purposely or not, further
misinterpretation gives the religious radicals, all these from a lack of
humbleness also inherent to Humans. Cause of imperfection: imperfect way
of love. I don't spec you to share this opinion, as you're an Atheist,
but I wrote it in case you wonder why the foolish religious behavior.
What those religious people should do is actually prepare their souls
and "Love God above all and YOUR PROXY AS YOURSELF", this is for
Christians but I think can be applied to every religion; giving a crap,
is not part of any religion AFAIK or any decent behavior.
> That is the real problem. When you expect the world to end any day, you
> are not going to be inclined to make 10, 20, 100 year plans, or more, to
> "fix" serious problems. You are not going to invest in alternative
> energy which you will never need, you won't bother trying to improve the
> health, well being, or poverty level, of other people, since they won't
> be alive, based on your belief, long enough to benefit from any of it.
> All you can do is try to kiss ass, so you are not one of the "left
> behind" when things go to hell, and that means opposing abortions,
> apposing gay marriage, etc., to these people, not *helping* to make
> anything better. If it doesn't happen, you just change the date, and
> continue "hating the sins", while screwing everyone around you, until
> the next day comes and goes. Don't attribute some ulterior motive to
> these people, I know a fair number that "used to be" them, and they will
> flat out tell you that they **believed** all of it 100%, until they
> figured out just how badly they had been lied to from birth, about
> almost everything, and how much pure insanity was necessary to maintain
> that belief.
Looks like those people are making a pretext out of religious and
fatalist "prophesies" to indulge laziness and only keep minding its own
businesses while they swore otherwise, hypocrisy with "camouflage", but
consequences will get those people, nobody can scape that.
I see clearly what you mean, but if I think about it to much I get
worked up, so I prefer to think smart not hard on those issues, do all I
can when I get the chance and give myself and other a break, nobody is
perfect and change takes time & pain.
Cheers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> IMO, Inherent human imperfection causes God guidelines
> misinterpretations, voluntarily or not,
Why would God allow such a thing?
> but I think can be applied to every religion;
I would think not.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Poor assumption.
>
> Well since I don't leave in US I think this is understandable, so things
> are worse than this... yeah, is a matter of concern.
>
>> What you get from these people is that they have gotten rich off of
>> being the way they are, which involves belief also in their divine
>> right to rule, etc., which means 1) exploitation, 2) cheating, 3)
>> lying for their god, 4) making masses of money from these things, 5)
>> being convinced that, since the world will end, they don't need to
>> "do" anything about things like health care, poverty, the environment,
>> etc. The #1 biggest group of idiots in the US that a) own large
>> businesses, and b) deny the need to fix various problems we have, are
>> also people that think all the problems are "signs of the coming end",
>> and that apposing them is actually counter to what their god wants.
>
> IMO, Inherent human imperfection causes God guidelines
> misinterpretations, voluntarily or not, so followers of a faulty
> interpretation in turn misinterpret again, purposely or not, further
> misinterpretation gives the religious radicals, all these from a lack of
> humbleness also inherent to Humans. Cause of imperfection: imperfect way
> of love. I don't spec you to share this opinion, as you're an Atheist,
> but I wrote it in case you wonder why the foolish religious behavior.
>
Umm. Answer me this question.. A few hundred years **prior** to the
Jewish religion there was one that worshipped El, which later became
Elohim, which later got converted into some generic term for "god in
general", all by the followers of **one tribe**. So, why did they pick
the war monger Yahweh, instead of one of the other 6 sons of El,
Chemosh, Dagon, Baal, Milcom, Hadad or Qos? Seems to me, that the only
reason Yahweh won, and the rest people stopped worshiping, was
**because**, during that time period, his followers killed everyone
else, or forced them to convert, and then later on, the Romans tacked on
Jesus, borrowed from several other legends, as a replacement for the Old
Testament's new messiah, which was, **gasp!** supposed to, according to
**every** text in it that mentions him, supposed to be another true
follower of Yahweh. Which is to say, a mass murdering war leader,
dedicated to obliterating infidels.
When you stop following the "official" mistranslated, historically
ignorant, and badly distorted words of people that **needed** their god
to be the one and only true god, you start having issues like this. What
happened to the other 6, and how, when even the original Jewish texts
still say things like, "you won't worship any of those *other* gods",
while earlier talking about more than one of them doing and creating
things, is Yahweh suddenly the "true one", when he was just Ares, as
apposed to Zeus? I just don't get it... Well, other than its politically
a lot more effective if your priests are the only ones making the rules,
and everyone else's are all dead, or disempowered.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> IMO, Inherent human imperfection causes God guidelines
>> misinterpretations, voluntarily or not,
>
> Why would God allow such a thing?
Well IMO theologists have their own theories but personally I think He
does so we can need each other to compensate our imperfect (selfish)
behavior, but honestly I don't think that nobody can unswer why, you'd
have to ask Him in person. But the fact is that we're imperfect in many
ways but perfectibles.
>
>> but I think can be applied to every religion;
>
> I would think not.
Well not strictly, I don't know what every religion in the world is
about, but mainly every religion preaches how God want us to love each
other the best way possible, you get me?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Umm. Answer me this question.. A few hundred years **prior** to the
> Jewish religion there was one that worshipped El, which later became
> Elohim, which later got converted into some generic term for "god in
> general", all by the followers of **one tribe**. So, why did they pick
> the war monger Yahweh, instead of one of the other 6 sons of El,
> Chemosh, Dagon, Baal, Milcom, Hadad or Qos? Seems to me, that the only
> reason Yahweh won, and the rest people stopped worshiping, was
> **because**, during that time period, his followers killed everyone
> else, or forced them to convert, and then later on, the Romans tacked on
> Jesus, borrowed from several other legends, as a replacement for the Old
> Testament's new messiah, which was, **gasp!** supposed to, according to
> **every** text in it that mentions him, supposed to be another true
> follower of Yahweh. Which is to say, a mass murdering war leader,
> dedicated to obliterating infidels.
>
> When you stop following the "official" mistranslated, historically
> ignorant, and badly distorted words of people that **needed** their god
> to be the one and only true god, you start having issues like this. What
> happened to the other 6, and how, when even the original Jewish texts
> still say things like, "you won't worship any of those *other* gods",
> while earlier talking about more than one of them doing and creating
> things, is Yahweh suddenly the "true one", when he was just Ares, as
> apposed to Zeus? I just don't get it... Well, other than its politically
> a lot more effective if your priests are the only ones making the rules,
> and everyone else's are all dead, or disempowered.
I can't answer your question as a Theologist, but I'll do my best as a
spiritual person.
I have seen "The Davinci Code" and found that Jesus yes was in deed a
great man... yeah you read it right, I know now he wasn't God, a God or
the son of God, an Roman Emperor made him God for convenience, so the
Bible for me is not the word of God but a very good source of Moral,
Spiritual and Love guide, so about Yahweh being a mass murderer deity
and other stuff, is not, and I don't think ever was, much concern for my
behavior, but the practical teaching of Jesus Christ that I can apply to
my life, I don't know if was also manipulated or not but is: "Love GOd
above all else and your proxy as yourself", works every time and you
don't need to meditate much since those are fairly simple word, but the
meditation comes *how* we do this every day, is very difficult but if
you try very hard can be achieved and is in escence what we all need...
you can demand respect from a people that doesn't have love or never
been taught how to express it in a good way if they never recieved it to
begin with (sometime life is extraordinarily cruel and difficult for
some people), so the trick is to teach respect to the ones who
disrespects you *without* disrespect them.
I don't pretend to know everything about being a nice person but I learn
about it and try to be one, I advice you the same.
Let me tell you a Godless example of it, maybe you know it already. Is a
message in a Power Point presentation in Spanish so I can't post it
here, so I'll translate it to you:
Title: "Your interior peace, depends on you"
"A legend tells that in a Tokio village lived a Samurai, who despite his
advanced age, stand out for his Zen teachings to the young ones and
could still defeat any adversary. One afternoon a foreign warrior
appeared in the village known by his total lack of respect, he wanted to
defeat the Samurai and increase his fame that way. The old man accepted
the challenge and the young man started insult him, kicked some stones
toward him, spat on his face, yelled insults, offended his ancestors and
did a lot of things to offend and wake up anger and fury in the old man.
For hours the young man did everything to provoke the Samurai, but he
remained impassive. At the end of the day, feeling exhausted and
humiliated, the warrior retired himself.
The Samurai students, surprised, asked their Master how could he
tolerate so much indignation and he answered:
- If someone comes to you with a present and you don't want to accept
it, to whom belongs the present?
- His disciples answered: to who tried to deliver it.
- The same goes for lust, anger, defamation and insults. When they're
not accepted, continue to belong to who carried them along.
*Your interior peace depends exclusively on you. The persons can't take
your calm from you, unless you permit it.*"
I wrote this because you seem to needed because the way you write looks
like you're very worked up by the things going on in your Country right
now. I don't pretend to know what are your feeling, just thought you may
need this.
Cheers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Well not strictly, I don't know what every religion in the world is
> about, but mainly every religion preaches how God want us to love each
> other the best way possible, you get me?
Um, no. Indeed, most religions don't preach that.
Buddhism doesn't. Wicca doesn't. Greek gods weren't particularly admirable.
Norse gods weren't particularly loving. Mayan gods wanted you to kill each
other.
I'm pretty sure that even Islam doesn't preach that, but rather obedience to
God over all else. I'm also pretty sure that bit doesn't actually show up in
the old testament as well.
Indeed, unless you think every religion is Christianity and indeed only the
loving parts of Christianity, I'm pretty sure that "most" is overblown.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I'm also pretty sure that bit doesn't actually show up in
> the old testament as well.
Actually the "love your neighbor as yourself" commandment is not an
invention of the New Testament. It's based on Mosaic law (Leviticus 19:18).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I'm also pretty sure that bit doesn't actually show up in
>> the old testament as well.
>
> Actually the "love your neighbor as yourself" commandment is not an
> invention of the New Testament. It's based on Mosaic law (Leviticus 19:18).
I stand corrected. That's kind of obvious in retrospect. D'oh!
Of course, that means "your neighbor" and probably doesn't mean, say, the
Egyptian Pharaohs, the Samaritans, etc.
And I forgot to list scientology, as well. And I don't know what the Mormon
stance on loving each other, but I'm pretty sure there's a bunch of caveats
in there too, given they dislike their gay members loving their neighbors,
for example.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> I'm also pretty sure that bit doesn't actually show up in
> >> the old testament as well.
> >
> > Actually the "love your neighbor as yourself" commandment is not an
> > invention of the New Testament. It's based on Mosaic law (Leviticus 19:18).
> I stand corrected. That's kind of obvious in retrospect. D'oh!
> Of course, that means "your neighbor" and probably doesn't mean, say, the
> Egyptian Pharaohs, the Samaritans, etc.
It is probably true that "neighbor" in that Leviticus passage refers to
"your fellow Israelites" rather than "everybody".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>> I'm also pretty sure that bit doesn't actually show up in
>>>> the old testament as well.
>>> Actually the "love your neighbor as yourself" commandment is not an
>>> invention of the New Testament. It's based on Mosaic law (Leviticus 19:18).
>
>> I stand corrected. That's kind of obvious in retrospect. D'oh!
>
>> Of course, that means "your neighbor" and probably doesn't mean, say, the
>> Egyptian Pharaohs, the Samaritans, etc.
>
> It is probably true that "neighbor" in that Leviticus passage refers to
> "your fellow Israelites" rather than "everybody".
>
Given the rest of what is in those passages... good bet. lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
Hmm. Ok, like I was saying to someone earlier today, most of the
principles of Western civilization are Roman, not Biblical. Same more or
less goes for Jesus. We have basically:
1. 3 Gospels, which actually contradict each other on a number of
points, all of them written starting 50 years after the fact, then the
others *after* that, and none of them, apparently, at the same time, or
even by people we can verify ever met each other. Revelations is even
written by someone that "admits" never meeting anyone else.
2. Strong parallels between some events in Titus Flavius' campaigns
against the Jewish people, which happened... 50 years after Jesus. There
is some implication that he intended to be declared the "second coming",
but things didn't work out right. I find it plausible, given that
members of his families close cousins declared themselves the first
Christians, that they opted to use their new "invented" religion to hold
onto some power, even though their line no longer held the empire.
3. The only secondary, and usually the "most important" source, for many
believers, is... a short section at the start of the works of Josephus,
which "chronicles" those wars against the Jewish people. Problem is..
they are almost certain, based on style, content, its disconnect from
the rest of the contents, etc., that it was added, probably 100+ years
*after* the NT itself was written.
Basically, the reality is, we don't even have as much evidence of Jesus
actually existing as we have to Noah, and we are pretty sure Noah was
borrowed from the much older story of Gilgamesh.
That said.. What you get is a conglomeration of ideas. Much like the
constitution of the US isn't all 100% original ideas, but a combination
of many bits of prior thinking. Everything Jesus said was, in one form
or another, existent in other faiths, social systems, etc. But,
fragmentary. The same group teaching you about the value of treating
servants well would also tell you to kill foreigners. The same ones
telling you to valid truth, would also tell you to value human
sacrifices. The Greek and Roman gods where all over the map, but even
their own followers, like Plato and Aristotle where looking at things
and asking, "How much of this makes sense, and shouldn't be just keep
the stuff that does, and get rid of what doesn't?"
So, then you have to ask, "Ok, so what did he teach, really?" Well... If
a modern Christian believes he did, they are probably wrong. Not always,
but often. He had *some* good ideas, mangled, like all others who have
had them, by the nature of his time, and assumptions about how the world
was "supposed" to work, like rule by kings, slavery as so common he used
it in parable, without condemning it, etc. Even telling people that they
can't be disciples, unless they hate everyone they know, including
themselves. One may as well try, as some did, to follow the teachings of
Karl Marx, as though nothing he said had flaws, or condemn it all,
because it was naive and incomplete. Difference is, we don't presume
that his ideas are a religion, or refuse to change them, the way
religions pretty much demand people treat their ideas (while slowly
changing anyway, just in a tooth and nail fight to try to prevent it).
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> And I don't know what the
> Mormon stance on loving each other, but I'm pretty sure there's a bunch
> of caveats in there too, given they dislike their gay members loving
> their neighbors, for example.
If you mean "love" as in caring for someone more than for yourself, then
the Mormons preach it quite literally.
If you mean romantic or sexual, then it's quite restricted.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I have seen "The Davinci Code" and found that
Sorry, I stopped reading right there. I thought about making a comment
about basing a religious conversation on a work of text, but I'd be far
too tempted to go too far and offend someone...
I think I'd better stop now ;)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> If you mean "love" as in caring for someone more than for yourself, then
> the Mormons preach it quite literally.
Well, I guess unless you're gay. Or black.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> I have seen "The Davinci Code" and found that
>
> Sorry, I stopped reading right there. I thought about making a comment
> about basing a religious conversation on a work of text, but I'd be far
> too tempted to go too far and offend someone...
>
> I think I'd better stop now ;)
>
> ....Chambers
Hehe, that attitude... "I'm so good writing that I'm offensive,
especially on unprepared people".
IMO people that offends when communicating has weak character and spirit
plus, and finds shelter and shield on their intellectual vanity. I'm not
interested in these kind of people or what they have to say, mainly
because because that vanity won't let them be humble to learn or accept
some flaws or different POVs or even part of them, these kind of people
live in denial, defensive, self-centered and narrow minded worlds, so
what's the point?
I'm sorry too, but I like people that actually want to discuss trying to
find the truth and the good in everything not people that want to be
given the reason on everything they think they have.
Cheers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You have said probably many truths here, but my point of view about the
Bible I think is still valid and the same as I wrote in my previous
post. A guide gets outdated and sometimes have some erroneous facts but
have to cope with that and take the good and the truth and apply it to
our life for constructive benefice which is basically what religions,
governments and society in general strives for, right? unless you deal
in absolutes, which I think this is a serious character flaw, and just
take the flaws of the Bible or any other text as a pretext to deny them
entirely; and AFAIK trying to follow a "perfect" path in life is just
utopia, I think at the contrary we have to make constant but gradual
changes in our life doing our very best.
And I don't re member well but I think that the Bible/Jesus don't say we
have to hate everyone including ourselves, but to deny ourselves meaning
detach from intellectual, personal or any other kind of pride that will
disable our capability of being ourselves: be in touch with our feeling,
flaws, virtues, etc and won't allow us to be humble to learn, improve,
find the better part of ourselves and greater good than what we think
we're capable of. In short is a meditation not a literal advice.
Cheers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> Well not strictly, I don't know what every religion in the world is
>> about, but mainly every religion preaches how God want us to love each
>> other the best way possible, you get me?
>
> Um, no. Indeed, most religions don't preach that.
>
> Buddhism doesn't. Wicca doesn't. Greek gods weren't particularly
> admirable. Norse gods weren't particularly loving. Mayan gods wanted you
> to kill each other.
>
> I'm pretty sure that even Islam doesn't preach that, but rather
> obedience to God over all else. I'm also pretty sure that bit doesn't
> actually show up in the old testament as well.
>
> Indeed, unless you think every religion is Christianity and indeed only
> the loving parts of Christianity, I'm pretty sure that "most" is overblown.
>
Your attitude is "Why is God doing this?" on answer, no, what you
believe is just crap, God and any religion, OK dude, then I'll write:
what ever you say...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga schrieb:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>>> Well not strictly, I don't know what every religion in the world is
>>> about, but mainly every religion preaches how God want us to love
>>> each other the best way possible, you get me?
>>
>> Um, no. Indeed, most religions don't preach that.
>>
>> Buddhism doesn't. Wicca doesn't. Greek gods weren't particularly
>> admirable. Norse gods weren't particularly loving. Mayan gods wanted
>> you to kill each other.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure that even Islam doesn't preach that, but rather
>> obedience to God over all else. I'm also pretty sure that bit doesn't
>> actually show up in the old testament as well.
>>
>> Indeed, unless you think every religion is Christianity and indeed
>> only the loving parts of Christianity, I'm pretty sure that "most" is
>> overblown.
>>
>
> Your attitude is "Why is God doing this?" on answer, no, what you
> believe is just crap, God and any religion, OK dude, then I'll write:
> what ever you say...
Well, I take Darren's attitude as "Your /argument/ is crap because it is
based on wrong assumptions; try again"; as long as he doesn't make any
statement whether a religion not teaching universal love for each other
is crap or not, his posting cannot be read as "God and any religion is
crap", because all he wrote about was that your assertion that "mainly
every religion preaches how God want us to love each other the best way
possible" is flawed.
That's the difference between argument (Darren's posting), contradition
(how you interpreted his posting), and being hit on the head (your
posting [SCNR for the sake of the Monty Python quote :-)]).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga schrieb:
> I'm sorry too, but I like people that actually want to discuss trying to
> find the truth and the good in everything not people that want to be
> given the reason on everything they think they have.
Um... sorry, but what would be the sense of discussion without reason?
BTW, I had the same reaction to your posting as Chambers did: "Duh...
does that guy /really/ base his current attitude towards Christianity
solely on the "facts" presented in a /movie/ - especially one targeted
at people getting a kick out of conspiracy theories?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Saul Luizaga schrieb:
> Um... sorry, but what would be the sense of discussion without reason?
already explained in previous post.
>
> BTW, I had the same reaction to your posting as Chambers did: "Duh...
> does that guy /really/ base his current attitude towards Christianity
> solely on the "facts" presented in a /movie/ - especially one targeted
> at people getting a kick out of conspiracy theories?"
It turns out that The Davinci Code presents true facts about
Christianity so yeah that would be a good argument to change your
believes if your believes are based on manipulated facts, if you think
is "just a movie" you have a poor judgment over it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Well, I take Darren's attitude as "Your /argument/ is crap because it is
> based on wrong assumptions; try again"; as long as he doesn't make any
> statement whether a religion not teaching universal love for each other
> is crap or not, his posting cannot be read as "God and any religion is
> crap"
His attitude is not his words, you're missing the point, Islam for
example teaches the purity of God's love and that we most promote this
among us, so he is wrong here, but I doubt he will admit this, since he
will say: exactly where? and I don't know exactly, is what I conclude
from the many Koran fragments I've heard or read in an unknown period of
time.
> , because all he wrote about was that your assertion that "mainly
> every religion preaches how God want us to love each other the best way
> possible" is flawed.
No he didn't, his attitude also speaks for him. And even if the
quotation is flawed is what we all need to do anyway, as one possible
way for a harmonious co-existence, makes sense to me.
> That's the difference between argument (Darren's posting), contradition
> (how you interpreted his posting), and being hit on the head (your
> posting [SCNR for the sake of the Monty Python quote :-)]).
since you missed the point of my post, Ill say this is a wrong assumption.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
