|
Post by geode on Feb 14, 2019 8:35:37 GMT
I haven't seen any of them. Well, you are missing some campy fun. Apparently.
|
|
|
So...
Feb 13, 2019 16:52:30 GMT
Post by geode on Feb 13, 2019 16:52:30 GMT
It can always be nicer. Look better. Indeed.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 13, 2019 15:40:01 GMT
That runs counter to its primary occupation - telling people how they NEED to live their lives so to make GOD happy. Making God happy doesn’t make people unhappy. I agree.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 13, 2019 15:39:23 GMT
Religion should help people live their lives more effectively, and to be more happy. That runs counter to its primary occupation - telling people how they NEED to live their lives so to make GOD happy. This may be the primary concern of some religious sects, but not all of them. In my opinion Christian sects that properly.follow the teachings of Christ see this more as a balance where God loves mankind and finds happiness in its success and people find success and fulfillment in loving God.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 13, 2019 7:47:19 GMT
Religion should help people live their lives more effectively, and to be more happy. It sometimes does supply helpful direction to people in this way. However it also can fail spectacularly. The abuse of children and youth by leaders of various sects is often in the news. Perhaps the most toxic thing about religion is when it can actually be fatal. There is currently a lot of discussion in Mormon circles about the teen suicide rate being higher in Utah than in other states. Many think the LDS teachings about gender, and opposition to what they term "same sex marriage" is driving up the suicide rate of LGBT youth. And then there is the practice of JW shunning. Suicides due to JW shunning - link
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 13, 2019 7:17:33 GMT
I'm sorry that you did not pick a better article to explain that Mormons love apostates. If I had know that I would have never assumed what I did. I can't base my statements on your interpretation of Scripture. If Christians practiced shunning than JW's practicing it would not be unusual. It is entirely your right to dismiss all of the NT to focus on Jesus only but I'm not sure why that would be an expectation of everyone else. I did not link an article to explain that Mormons love apostates. I used the term "love" only after you took the conversation away from the original intent and talked about shunning. Here you take the word "love" out of the context I used it and change the meaning. Mormons in general do not love apostates at all. But I never said that they did. Your support of hateful JW practices is well known. The fact that Christ would disapprove of them doesn't appear to bother you, which is sad. Christians make mistakes, Christ never did. Hanging your hat on the poor practices of Christians in the past does not make a very good case for present day Christians going contrary to His teachings. Just where did I ever reject all of the New Testament? I didn't. It is a poor practice to claim somebody has said something they have not. You on the other hand have really offered no argument to support your case. Broad generalities are all you have offered. I fully expected you would try an argument based upon something Paul wrote, but no, you didn't even attempt that but simply made a case that Christians have always been poor followers of Christ so current Christians are justified in being hateful and unfeeling as well.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 13, 2019 7:02:11 GMT
There seem to be very different impressions about Pope Francis as given in this thread. In general I have been impressed with him, but I am not Catholic. I wonder what the concensus opinion might be among the Catholics here? Think you will find that Pope Francis is very popular with most Catholics. The need for reformist change was evidenced by the Irish people voting to allow gay marriage. People who oppose him most seem to be non-catholic conservative US evangelical nutjobs... and quite frankly if we are upsetting them, our Church is moving in the right direction. But the Catholics on this board have for the most part remained silent, at least in terms of this thread. Yes, ticking off right-wing evangelicals often means something is good.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 12, 2019 21:18:23 GMT
What's yours?
Mine - Bloodmatch (1991)
I haven't seen any of them.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 12, 2019 18:26:23 GMT
"To be clear, I'm not saying anything about what the Mormon Church does or does not do." Too late, as you already did. "I have no real interest in them beyond what you or others present as a topic. I was responding to Isapop as well as the article's mention of social isolation from the Mormon Church which is the exact same thing as disfellowshipping regardless of nuance in particular rules." No, whatever "social isolation" might occur is not the same as a formal practice by the JWs. Your response to isapop was made subsequently to my last post so you post that I was referencing had nothing to do with that one. "Honestly, it is YOUR job to explain how much more loving the Mormon version of it is and my job is to assume things based on what you and others write. You place a burden on me that belongs to you. So educate me." I already explained the difference in response to your false claim. The official JW practice is to completely shun no longer believing family members. The official LDS position is to fellowship them back...but I already posted this. "You are also incorrect about JW's. It is entirely accurate to suggest shunning was practiced in the Bible so they have a standard." You just moved the goalposts. I said nothing about whether shunning was practiced in accounts in the Bible. I said the JW practice was not in keeping with what Christ taught. The JW practice is antithetical to Christ's teachings. "While I don't necessarily agree with the practice to their degree (Although they do allow communication for no religious things), it's not because there isn't a scriptural precedent for it along with the opportunity join again. Not only that, but is a natural occurrence. There is no reason to hang out with people who want to fight about something you hold dear. So separation happens regardless. The thing about JW's is that there is NO WAY someone doesn't know the repercussions of serious sin there so the person choosing apostasy (Which is worse than just sin since it is also adversarial against their former religion) knows what they're doing." You appear to agree with the JWs the JW faith is of itself a sin. Some Mormons feel that apostasy is a sin if apostates attempt to influence others away from their church. Officially it is more of a grey area. "If Mormons don't shun, then great, but it doesn't change the intent of the apostate or where the responsibility for the split lies. It is odd that apostates who face no real repercussions in the church for their apostasy would work so hard to remove others who are content with their religion." Some Mormons do shun to some extent those who become apostates while others do not. But the official church position is not to do so.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 12, 2019 7:12:05 GMT
I had been hoping that this sequel would give Pierce Brosnan a chance to sing again. I was not disappointed, he does a nice rendition of part of "SOS"...a decade ago I was the only one I knew to defend Pierce's singing in the first movie, but his version of the same song is much better ten years later. It is rare that a sequel lives up to an original movie, and even rarer that a sequel is actually better. This is superior in just about every way. Yes, I guess now that the term "prequel" is in common use, this movie is both a "sequel" and a "prequel" at the same time. The director seems to have taken a leaf out of the philosophy of the principal character, Donna, and "thrown caution to the wind" allowing the whole thing to romp with exuberance that borders on becoming silly or a parody, but he keeps a firm hand guiding it so it never crosses that line. Instead it stays frothy, bubbly and fun. The "over the top" approach can be richly entertaining if it is defty held in control. Think of Johnny Depp in "Pirates of the Caribbean" or John Wayne in "True Grit" ...this works here. Not only is the direction vastly superior to the first movie, so is the editing. This shows up splendidly in song sequences, with "One of Us" as a duet early in the film being a stunning standout. I thought the director of the first movie showed an almost complete lack of understanding about how to direct s movie. Perhaps she got the stage production to work but I thought her direction of the movie was inept.
It is better scripted than the original, with the songs integrated better with the plot. It seemed far less forced. OK, the "Waterloo" scene is a definite stretch, but once again the over the top approach to the number is enjoyable and entertaining. Having Richard Curtis onboard must have helped quite a bit, he is a master with comedic material that still has bite. I knew that Meryl Streep was billed in the cast as well as Cher, and Cher appeared in the trailer, but as the movie neared its end neither had appeared. It was worth the wait. Cher does an excellent cover of "Fernando" with Andy Garcia, and Meryl a poignant duet with Amanda Seyfried, mother and daughter reaching the end of plot arcs that have paralled each other. Meryl's performance in the first movie was the only one she ever rendered with which I was disappointed, but she nails it here. I think the director of the first movie is at least partly responsible for the results on screen that didn't impress me. There is a beautifully large production number of "Super Trouper" under the credits at the end and there is a funny post-credits scene that virtually everyone in the audience saw, which is unusual. It takes skill to hold an audience to that point, especially these days. This is what a musical is supposed to be like, something to lift the spirits. About the only negative for me was not giving Christine Baranski a solo. I thought her scene with one in the first film was the best in that movie. I also would have let Pierce finish his song, he was doing just fine with it. I have not yet read a word about this in reviews. I guess I will now do so. I know people that tend to adore the first movie, and it will be interesting to hear what they think about it in a comparison. I can't be this wrong. There must be critics that also think this is an massive improvement on the first movie. But to answer your question why they made a sequel, I would guess the answer is "money" as the first movie was a hit. This sequel opened very strong at the box office. Yes, and I am sorry ladies, but there are just some things males can do better overall. Like directing movies. There have been a few good female directors, but I have in general been disappointed by them. The most celebrated have been some of the least latented. In the link is an example of deft direction and editing. Quite imaginative in its conceptualization.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 12, 2019 6:49:50 GMT
Horror Hotel aka City of the Dead
Dr Terror's House of Horrors The House That Dripped Blood Scream and Scream Again (co-production with AIP)
Asylum The Vault of Horror The Beast Must Die Madhouse (co-production with AIP)
At The Earth's Core The Land That Time Forgot
Ah...you included what my friends at the time called "The Film That People Forgot"....
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 12, 2019 6:48:04 GMT
Ha are you suggesting I make the Amicus post? I guess you are.
Indeed I was.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 12, 2019 6:00:18 GMT
I also have to wonder if he wrote this because he has a grudge against Pope Francis for relieving him of an important position where he defined Catholic doctrine. I saw a show in the UK several decades ago. A Jewish scholar was remarking about Christianity and said that if a faith did not grow and change, it would stagnate and die. The approach in this manifesto is very rigid and apparently in favor of stifling change. I like the approach of Pope Francis much better. But he has ruffled the feathers of a lot of conservative Catholics. Francis is a reformer, and a breath of fresh air... The Catholic Church has been growing, changing, and adapting for 2,000 years. Modern day 'conservative' Catholics don't know their history, and are in a minority. There seem to be very different impressions about Pope Francis as given in this thread. In general I have been impressed with him, but I am not Catholic. I wonder what the concensus opinion might be among the Catholics here?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 12, 2019 5:51:02 GMT
How much thought they gave to the consequences of leaving the religion is irrelevant here. (Most people will enter a religion as they do a marriage: thinking they would never leave.) As much as you'd rather try to paint it differently (and some of us here understand why), it was their religion that they wanted to leave, and not their families. [i agree their thought process is irrelevant to their known action. At the end of the day they chose to leave a religion that had a rule they were aware of that painted them a danger to the faithful part of their family- ironically something the church is correct about based on the action of the apostate. To be clear I am not labeling them as bad people so no need to think of this in negative terms. They simply don’t think enough of the family bond unless it is to split the family from their beliefs. Is that not what they are doing in this article? Enlighten me.😊 Your comment about the Mormon church is incorrect in regards to a rule requiring families to shun a member of the family that has left the faith. Here, and in other comments you have made, you seem to be making an assumption that the Mormon church is equivalent to the Jehovah Witnesses when they actually are very different when faced with the situation of having family members that have left the church or are critical of it. Whereas the JWs formally shun people, and warn members not to interact with "apostates" the Mormon church generally advises taking a completely different approach, basically to "love" them back into the fold. Personally I think the shunning thing done by JWs is hateful and quite unlike what Christ taught.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 11, 2019 14:31:30 GMT
Then it's a deception far worse than any that those apostate ad placers may be committing.If so, we should ask, "Is deception ALWAYS bad?" If I market raisins to children in a candy looking kind of package, is that the kind of deception anyone should criticize? In terms of potential impact upon people the deceptions of the LDS church are probably far more serious than those by people who have left the church unless they too distort the true history and beliefs. No, deception can have its merits. Intelligence organizations such as the CIA must rely upon such from time to time.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 11, 2019 14:26:37 GMT
I would say some marketing is straight-out forward and honest, some is exaggerated, some is deceptive, and some is false and very dishonest. Placing ads that almost everyone would perceive as going to the usual pro-Mormon sites that actually takes one to a site where difficult and controversial topics are discussed, even if buried in the official LDS site, involves deception. The "General Topic Essays" hardly tell the whole and complete truth. They tackle some aspects of controversial topics and totally ignore others. They basically tell half truths instead of completely admitting errors or mistakes. But has the LDS church learned from its mistakes? In some cases at least partially, in other cases not at all. Honestly, I don't understand why Mormons would have ads going to their people in the first place. However, I say again that people should be able to defend their faith from basic attacks and if they can't they should either question their knowledge level or the accuracy of the teachings, Apostates aren't exactly hard to figure out in any religious organization. After all, they can only pretend so far before they risk losing their purpose of drawing people away from the church they beloged to but now despise. The official LDS church does not have ads aimed at their own members. The ads that this fellow emulated would have been sites unaffiliated with the church run by members that are TBMs with just about 100% favorable content to the church. Your second paragraph sounds as if you didn't read the Dallin Oaks' link I posted. There are very few "apostates" from the Mormon church trying to draw people away that are not openly admitting their status.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 11, 2019 9:46:05 GMT
It seems as if Cardinal Mueller might be saying that those who have divorced and remarried are in a state of sin where they cannot receive communion? "....Mueller repeats basic Catholic teaching that Catholics must be free from sin before receiving Communion. He mentions divorced and remarried faithful, in a clear reference to Francis' opening to letting these Catholics receive Communion on a case-by-case basis after a process of accompaniment and discernment with their pastors." I read the manifesto, in German. About divorced people: Only if they have received the "Bußsakrament" (Wikipedia believes it's the sacrament of Confession) they may receive the communion. Other things he says: He is strictly Trinitarian and calls other views "heretic". And he says that the Catholic Church is not a club created by people, but by God; yet he places emphasis on the 7 sacrements, which were only established long after the Bible was written. He argues that the reason women can not be ordained is that Jesus made a choice which prohibits it; and that Jesus was a man. That is a pretty weak argument. We might as well say that only fishermen named Simon who rename themselves Peter should be allowed to become priest; because that was the choice Jesus made. So his pamphlet is made of bad logic, faulty assumptions, non sequiturs. And yet he claims that his religion is the only true one. This makes his brand of Catholicism false. I also have to wonder if he wrote this because he has a grudge against Pope Francis for relieving him of an important position where he defined Catholic doctrine. I saw a show in the UK several decades ago. A Jewish scholar was remarking about Christianity and said that if a faith did not grow and change, it would stagnate and die. The approach in this manifesto is very rigid and apparently in favor of stifling change. I like the approach of Pope Francis much better. But he has ruffled the feathers of a lot of conservative Catholics.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 11, 2019 9:34:47 GMT
Is not "normal" marketing deceptive? The probable next president of the Mormon church just declared that members should not do research about troublesome questions. Dallin Oaks linkI don;t think of marketing as deceptive. It's more akin to exaggerating. While I do think it's important to not dwell on the past and especially when a religion learns from its mistakes, it should never be erased. I would say some marketing is straight-out forward and honest, some is exaggerated, some is deceptive, and some is false and very dishonest. Placing ads that almost everyone would perceive as going to the usual pro-Mormon sites that actually takes one to a site where difficult and controversial topics are discussed, even if buried in the official LDS site, involves deception. The "General Topic Essays" hardly tell the whole and complete truth. They tackle some aspects of controversial topics and totally ignore others. They basically tell half truths instead of completely admitting errors or mistakes. But has the LDS church learned from its mistakes? In some cases at least partially, in other cases not at all.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 11, 2019 4:03:32 GMT
I’m not sure why it’s deceptive beyond normal marketing. That said, people should be able to know their faiths history and learn how to defend it if they feel it needs defending. As usual it’s kinda silly for people outside the Mormon Church to “care” so much but there’s always been those kind of people. Is not "normal" marketing deceptive? The probable next president of the Mormon church just declared that members should not do research about troublesome questions. Dallin Oaks link
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 10, 2019 17:31:06 GMT
|
|