|
Post by geode on Sept 28, 2018 13:02:00 GMT
Does anybody else look at DVDbeaver reviews?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 28, 2018 7:14:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 26, 2018 17:03:42 GMT
But this part: "To a slightly lesser extent, it's the same thing with some cults that call themselves a religion: You (the lowlife), tow the party line or we (the church) will make your life and/or the lives of your loved ones a living hell. We will forbid them from talking to you, or attending your wedding. In other words, whether they (the family) like it or not, the "guidelines" require the family to intimidate you into obedience." ..is pretty much the case. Except that it's not. The situation is entirely in reverse. People who whine about this pretend that the person had no idea what the repercussions of serious sin were. They would not be shunned if not for their actions. For example, you knew exactly what you were doing when you left LDS. If you did not realize the repercussions, then you were dishonest at the time of committing to the religion. There's no life or death involved for people who don;t believe it's a matter of life or death. There is no living hell that someone didn;t willingly walk into to get their way in other avenues. They would rather do their own thing than to be with their family. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Besides, they can always come back Religions are not in the business of shunning people as it goes against the goals to increase the number of Christians but that is not something that is a concern for the individual who no longer wants to practice. No one is holding a gun to the head of a simmer and if someone was compelled to join despite not wanting to, it in no way benefits the church to look for weak people like that since they don;t last unless they change. It is far better to have them change before baptism. From a whiney standpoint it makes no sense to be mad at a religion for proselytizing and then get mad when they lesson their numbers. "People who whine about this pretend that the person had no idea what the repercussions of serious sin were. They would not be shunned if not for their actions. For example, you knew exactly what you were doing when you left LDS. If you did not realize the repercussions, then you were dishonest at the time of committing to the religion."
If you read the articles I posted you would find that Sam Young was fully aware of what was going to happen if he continued to challenge church leaders. My eyes were completely open to what would happen to me. But this really has nothing to do with the above statement which was about imposing strict obedience to church leadership. Knowing what will happen does not make the actions correct. Also, there were no sins here. serious or not. Standing up against a policy that hurts children is a sin?
If I was dishonest in making a commitment to join the LDS Church it happened when I was eight years old. Being a Mormon was all I had ever known. It was just a given that I would be baptized.
"There's no life or death involved for people who don;t believe it's a matter of life or death. There is no living hell that someone didn;t willingly walk into to get their way in other avenues. They would rather do their own thing than to be with their family. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Besides, they can always come back"
I really don't know what you are getting at here.
"Religions are not in the business of shunning people as it goes against the goals to increase the number of Christians but that is not something that is a concern for the individual who no longer wants to practice. No one is holding a gun to the head of a simmer and if someone was compelled to join despite not wanting to, it in no way benefits the church to look for weak people like that since they don;t last unless they change. It is far better to have them change before baptism."
This is one thing that is so wrong here. It seems that LDS Church leaders are aware that they will lose thousands of existing members over this and lose many conversions from the publicity but are willing to do it anyway just to defend their authority. Yes, people who would be baptized with the knowledge of this will now not do so.
"From a whiney standpoint it makes no sense to be mad at a religion for proselytizing and then get mad when they lesson their numbers."
Again, I don't know wheat you are getting at here.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 26, 2018 16:19:33 GMT
I said that it adds to the PR disaster not that it exceeds any individual PR disaster event. But that raises a question, in the history of the LDS church what was the biggest PR disaster? I just listened to an interview from a leader in the Community of Christ in the UK. He said the Mormon conversion rate in the British Isles in the early 19th Century was something like 8,000 a year until it was made known in the church's own publication that polygamy was being practised in America. The rate dropped to a few hundred a year. Follow up article: CNN article I did not mean to belittle your comments. If we put "evil" on a scale from 1 to 100, I put the Mountain Meadows Massacre at 100. The point I was trying to make was that after LDS reached an evil score of 100, it can't get any worse. Mountain Meadows Massacre: Non-LDS were passing through Utah on their way west and were confronted by LDS members. After a three-day standoff, LDS members approached the the non-believers while waving a white flag. The LDS then proceeded to slaughter 120+ non-LDS. The LDS home office turned a blind eye. Only one person was arrested 17 years after the slaughter (so he had 17 years of freedom that he should not have had) and he was executed at age 65, near the end of his life anyway. I was really making no statement whatsoever about grading the degree of "evil" of events that are damaging to the LDS church, just the degree of damage to the church as a public relations disaster. I think the Mountain Meadows Massacre was relatively minor compared to other events in that regard. You seem to be addressing a different subject, such as "What are the worst things the LDS church has done?" The Mountain Meadows Massacre was basically covered up for a long, long time and the subject successfully ignored by the church. As such it was not a PR disaster in the 19th Century. It certainly was troublesome for them but as you have noted the damage was contained. It is only in the last few years that they have accepted any responsibility for this horrible and tragic event. But because it was so long ago I don't think it has held all that much traction against the church outside of rather limited anti-Mormon circles. In my own experience as an active Mormon I was confronted by friends about the policy of banning black people from the priesthood, polygamy, the historicity of the Book of Mormon, by several but only one ever brought up the MMM. He had read "The Confession of John D.Lee" and wanted to know my opinion of it. Did you know that John D. Lee remained close with Brigham Young and welcomed in his home for many years after the murders took place? He was shunned by Brigham only after he was offered up as a scapegoat for the whole affair. Yes, he was guilty but so were several others. But perhaps even more on subject was the treatment of Juanita Brooks who wrote the first history of the MMM. She was a very faithful member but was widely vilified within the church and even her husband was not allowed to offer public prayers in meetings, etc.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 26, 2018 8:23:11 GMT
I posted on the old IMDb years ago about a specialty dance couple that appears in the big production number for the title song at the end of the film. Their most notable appearance is at 1:25:55 on my DVD, performing next to ONJ. I asked who they were and nobody came up with an answer. The lady is in a black sleevless dress and the guy also in black They appear elsewhere in the sequence. They sort of stand out in terms of abilities so I would guess that they were cast on purpose.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 26, 2018 8:18:40 GMT
Is that a live orange cat to the right of your TV or is it stuffed or ceramic? I couldn't figure this out in the two blink of an eye appearances in your swish pans.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 26, 2018 6:33:10 GMT
Jesus saves. Jesus forgives your sins. However, the LDS and JW do not follow that doctrine: Either tow the party line or skedaddle (and we will make your life a living hell as best we can). ... I think this adds to the PR disaster for the church, ... How can anything add to the LDS Mountain Meadows Massacre? I said that it adds to the PR disaster not that it exceeds any individual PR disaster event. But that raises a question, in the history of the LDS church what was the biggest PR disaster? I just listened to an interview from a leader in the Community of Christ in the UK. He said the Mormon conversion rate in the British Isles in the early 19th Century was something like 8,000 a year until it was made known in the church's own publication that polygamy was being practised in America. The rate dropped to a few hundred a year. Follow up article: CNN article
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 25, 2018 6:51:47 GMT
I love the first one. The second one is pretty good too. I bow out of the series after that one. So the series doesn't hold up as it goes along?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 24, 2018 9:01:59 GMT
Night Monster (1942) really gave me the willies when I was a kid. When the crickets and frogs go silent .....a very effective "B"... IMDb
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 24, 2018 8:55:28 GMT
I liked the show, but I like all those shows based on late 60s/early 70s sci-fi films: Logan's Run, Beyond Westworld, Planet of the Apes, Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rogers, etc. Which one do you like best?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 24, 2018 8:51:18 GMT
I think it's great. One of the most ingenious ideas--possibly the best idea Hammer ever did. Philosophically intriguing, the most obvious variation on the original story (the previous Hammer version Two Faces was also clever in that it reversed the concept---the gist of that one was that everyone in Jekyll's life was two-faced--hiding their sinister natures from him--but this is even more clever). I love the upstairs-downstairs antics between brother and sister as they run into Jekyll and Mrs Hyde... My favorite Hammer film of the 70s (although Hands of the Ripper is very good). The audio commentary with Roy Ward Baker, Brian Clemens, and Martine Beswick is a good listen. She said at first the resemblance between her and Ralph Bates didn't seem obvious at all but then after a while they just merged into one. Has a great score too. My only complaint is the cheap effect at the end with the split face-why not just do a split screen with a still photo. I haven't seen it since soon after its first release. I should get a copy just for the audio commentary. I see it is out on blu-ray in the UK and Australia. I actually have a 35mm print of this, but the color faded about 40 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 23, 2018 7:18:20 GMT
"The Fugitive" (1963-1967)
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 22, 2018 19:05:04 GMT
Not surprising the plot is predictable. What is this the third time this has been remade.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 22, 2018 17:41:27 GMT
Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron have "released" a new film called "The Fool". These guys promoted the banana as intelligently designed because it fits perfectly in your hand (So do male genitals). It will be free on YouTube in six months, but Christians can download it now for $20 to support "our ministry". Atheists can download it for five bucks. Google "Ray comfort fool" (without the quotes) to get to Link to web site. It modestly says, "DON'T MISS THIS AMAZING VIDEO" How much is the charge for agnostics? How much for Jews or Muslims?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 22, 2018 16:44:06 GMT
She answered your question about what differentiated Christianity from other religions. The problem here is that all she gave as an answer was 'The passion, death and resurrection of Christ" and nothing else. You immediately claimed this was circular, which it was not as per the definition you have provided, rather needlessly as she and I both know what circular reasoning entails. She did not claim her answer as a proof of the divinity of Christ. She did not make a claim that Christianity was true. So Like goz and toasted cheese you have created a straw man to attack. Let us suppose that your straw man is actually what she stated, and she actually had claimed that Christ's passion, death and resurrection were proof of His divinity and therefore proof of Christianity being true. This really would not be circular reasoning either as she did not complete the circle and then claim that because Christianity is true and correct Christ is divine.
Actually your attempt to make your own straw man circular reasoning is fatally flawed.You appear to claim that Christ's death is the "outcome" of Christianity as in a conclusion, so she is starting with the end of an argument as per the definition. Christ's death may have been the conclusion of his earthy mission, but not a conclusion in the sense stated in the definition.
As long as one is claiming that Christianity is different from other religions in pointing out one of its beliefs as the point of differentiation, I see nothing wrong with that. Each religion has some unique point. I do believe that there are certain things that differentiate Christianity from other religions, just as there are certain things in other religions that also make them different from other religions. As far as I know, humans have been claimed to be resurrected from death in certain religions but very few popular ones have killed the god and resurrected him/her. So I do agree with you that resurrection of Christ is a differentiating point of Christianity although not a proof by any means that Christianity is the true religion (which you readily agree yourself). Interestingly, some other theistic people may reject Christianity out-rightly because of the very death of Christ as they would claim if a god dies then he/she is not a god at all. But that's another point for a different discussion altogether and still doesn't take away the fact that Christianity's selling point on this matter is unique at least among famous religions. Yes, your comments are all interesting and pertinent. As you point out I think in most traditions a god cannot suffer death. Even in Christianity this is somewhat the case due to the concept of the Trinity. Jesus dies but His father does not, nor does the Holy Spirit. This points out what in my opinion is one of the greatest difficulties in Christianity, to describe the nature of God. The concept of the Trinity basically difies being clearly described or in my opinion even understood.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 22, 2018 16:13:49 GMT
She answered your question about what differentiated Christianity from other religions. The problem here is that all she gave as an answer was 'The passion, death and resurrection of Christ" and nothing else. You immediately claimed this was circular, which it was not as per the definition you have provided, rather needlessly as she and I both know what circular reasoning entails. She did not claim her answer as a proof of the divinity of Christ. She did not make a claim that Christianity was true. So Like goz and toasted cheese you have created a straw man to attack.
Let us suppose that your straw man is actually what she stated, and she actually had claimed that Christ's passion, death and resurrection were proof of His divinity and therefore proof of Christianity being true. This really would not be circular reasoning either as she did not complete the circle and then claim that because Christianity is true and correct Christ is divine.
Actually your attempt to make your own straw man circular reasoning is fatally flawed.You appear to claim that Christ's death is the "outcome" of Christianity as in a conclusion, so she is starting with the end of an argument as per the definition. Christ's death may have been the conclusion of his earthy mission, but not a conclusion in the sense stated in the definition. She was answering a question about why Christianity is different. Under your straw man her answer would be not only to set Christianity apart from other religions, but do so by claiming it is true. That makes her comment about Christ a premise under the definition provided and not a conclusion. She did not claim her answer as a proof of the divinity of Christ. She did not make a claim that Christianity was true. So Like goz and toasted cheese you have created a straw man to attack.Okay; assuming that Clusium is not a believer in the divinity of Christ, perhaps it might be wisdom to state this at the outset. If one is going to play devil's advocate, arguing for the reality of a premise which one doesn't believe oneself, but fails to identify this, it's fair for those entering into the debate to make an assumption that the person they're debating in all likelihood supports the key position they're defending. Let's just call this basic good sportsmanship for want of a better term--I have no problem with, and feel it's only fair, to state my position as an agnostic at the outset, and can see no good reason why my opponent should not do likewise. Let us suppose that your straw man is actually what she stated, and she actually had claimed that Christ's passion, death and resurrection were proof of His divinity and therefore proof of Christianity being true. This really would not be circular reasoning either as she did not complete the circle and then claim that because Christianity is true and correct Christ is divine.I'll fold in my response to that as an adjunct to my previous statement--nothing in Clusium's stated position would lead the reader to think that her beliefs are other than that of Christ's divinity, so if she is the victim of a 'strawman' attack, she has in part set herself up for this. Actually your attempt to make your own straw man circular reasoning is fatally flawed.You appear to claim that Christ's death is the "outcome" of Christianity as in a conclusion, so she is starting with the end of an argument as per the definition. Christ's death may have been the conclusion of his earthy mission, but not a conclusion in the sense stated in the definition. She was answering a question about why Christianity is different. Under your straw man her answer would be not only to set Christianity apart from other religions, but do so by claiming it is true. That makes her comment about Christ a premise under the definition provided and not a conclusion.You are simply engaging in a smokescreen on this. To state that Christianity is true because of the martyrdom of Christ is circular, whether or no his death was the 'end of his earthly mission'. The claim of its being 'different' is clearly not the only implied claim being made. Once again, you are using the dodge of 'she didn't say she believed this was true', but her prior postings certainly lead the way for any onlooker to make the assumption that she does, in fact, believe and accept the truth of the Christian religion above any other. Once again, this is typical of 'stealth christian debating' tactics: rather than stating their opening position honestly, this type of christian debater hides behind a feigned indifference to belief--thereby leaving themself the out of saying "well, you're creating a strawman by claiming I'm a believer, when I've never said I was." There may be no Marquess of Queensberry's Rules on this type of internet debate; but the debater who won't make his opening position clear at the outset invites misapprehension, strawmanning, and in general tends to look a bit suspect as to just what he or she may be about. "Okay; assuming that Clusium is not a believer in the divinity of Christ, perhaps it might be wisdom to state this at the outset. If one is going to play devil's advocate, arguing for the reality of a premise which one doesn't believe oneself, but fails to identify this, it's fair for those entering into the debate to make an assumption that the person they're debating in all likelihood supports the key position they're defending. Let's just call this basic good sportsmanship for want of a better term--I have no problem with, and feel it's only fair, to state my position as an agnostic at the outset, and can see no good reason why my opponent should not do likewise."
No, it is not fair to make assumptions if you are going to argue about the fine points of logical fallacies. Often assumptions are perceptions that are not correct. It is only fair to actually argue against what is actually stated. I think it is was obvious from the posts made before you posed your question what clusium basically believes. She consistently has posted as a believing Catholic in this thread and for the entire time I have seen her posts for years. Have you really forgotten the interactions the two of you had just three days ago?
clusium: Her Son Is God, that is why there are "metaphysics" here.
amyghost: I wish Christians could make up their minds about whether Jesus is god, god's son, or some kind of freakish mélange. It doesn't really add to a religion's credibility when its varying sects can't even agree on a basic point like that.
clusium: God Is Wholly Different than His Creation. Mary is not a divinity. She is the Highest of all the Saints, because she Is Our Lord's Blessed Mother.
clusium: Actually, Christians did make up their minds at the Council of Nicea: The Lord Jesus IS GOD. Only post Reformation, did a few sects again denied His Divinity, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses & the Mormons, etc.
Yeah, I have really serious doubts about what she believes.
"I'll fold in my response to that as an adjunct to my previous statement--nothing in Clusium's stated position would lead the reader to think that her beliefs are other than that of Christ's divinity, so if she is the victim of a 'strawman' attack, she has in part set herself up for this."
And once again this is interjecting your own assumptions into the mix. No, she did not set herself up for a straw man attack. You concocted this to avoid admitting that she had not used circular reasoning.
"You are simply engaging in a smokescreen on this. To state that Christianity is true because of the martyrdom of Christ is circular, whether or no his death was the 'end of his earthly mission'. The claim of its being 'different' is clearly not the only implied claim being made. Once again, you are using the dodge of 'she didn't say she believed this was true', but her prior postings certainly lead the way for any onlooker to make the assumption that she does, in fact, believe and accept the truth of the Christian religion above any other."
And here you simply are adding elements not in her answer. She didn't say Christianity was true. If you have to resort to making claims of something being "implied" you are once again interjecting your own assumptions and conclusions into this. You cannot bring her other statements into this as they were in response to different comments or questions. You are using the word "assumption" quite a lot...and that is not a fair way to debate unless it is posed to the other person directly for clarification and response. And then you state this gem, which apparently is the basis of your false claim about circular reasoning.
"To state that Christianity is true because of the martyrdom of Christ is circular"...just how is this circular? It is very linear to me, even if not correct. It would be an opinion, whether right or wrong. It is saying "I believe in "A" and therefore I think it follows that "B' is correct. You can argue that you disagree, and you do not think this logically follows. But how can it be considered circular?
"Once again, this is typical of 'stealth christian debating' tactics: rather than stating their opening position honestly, this type of christian debater hides behind a feigned indifference to belief--thereby leaving themself the out of saying "well, you're creating a strawman by claiming I'm a believer, when I've never said I was."
This did not take place at the start of a discussion. It was ongoing already.
"There may be no Marquess of Queensberry's Rules on this type of internet debate; but the debater who won't make his opening position clear at the outset invites misapprehension, strawmanning, and in general tends to look a bit suspect as to just what he or she may be about."
Again your question was not posed at the onset, as in a debate. I don't think she attempted any of what your are implying, such as attempting to cover her thoughts or beliefs. I think she was honestly upfront.
But you avoided the part of my post where I said that even if all your assumptions about what clusium was thinking or trying to say were correct, that Christ is divine and that Christianity is valid and its claims true, that she was not guilty of circular reasoning. That really was my only point in even entering this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 22, 2018 15:38:01 GMT
geode I agree with phludowin . My reasoning is very simple. Everyone deserves a chance to remake a movie simply by desiring to do so. While remakes are mostly bad and are not able to increase the quality of original in majority of cases, that in itself is no reason to deny someone the chance. May be you used an exaggerated way of writing that I didn't get. But to me everyone who is in film-making profession has certain aspirations and should have the chance to do what he or she wants to. If the remake is bad we will simply ignore it. Once in a while remakes are not that bad. Cape Fear for example is not that bad. Even though I personally like the original more, the remake is also good. I was not talking about a right to do a remake, I was only saying I think it is usually a bad idea. What did I possibly say that led you to the conclusion that I thought remakes should be banned or illegal? People are free to make as many remakes as they wish, but to me it is usually an artistic cop-out that they resort to when they lack the originality to make something new and fresh. The intent almost invariably is not artistic anyway, but financial. I think your argument does make some sense if the original artist remakes their own work. Alfred Hitchcock for instance with "The Man that Knew Too Much" but he materially changed it.
The analogy to stage plays does not work in my opinion since by definition they need to be re-staged for every performance. That is what makes film rather unique. It really is a closer analog to novels. So, say the estate of Margaret Mitchell decided that they would commission a rewrite of "Gone With the Wind"...is there a case to do so? This is the same thing I see with movies. The sad thing is that more than in any other era I think originality in films is rare. If remakes take up a significant portion of what is produced we get even less chance of something inventively original being made.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 22, 2018 14:47:25 GMT
Basically no films should be remade. I disagree. I guess some remakes of silent movies such as "Ben-Hur" were justifiable but others in general? Most remakes use latest technologies that were not available at some point. Sound, color, CGI, 3D... And Ben Hur was a book originally. It just shows a lack of imagination and crass commercialism. Do you tell this theater directors who instead of writing their own pieces put Shakespeare, Molière and Goethe on the stage? All modern performances of pieces written by these great authors are remakes, so to speak. If you don't like a remake, don't watch it. The original is not going away because of a remake. The technology involved in making films was very technologically advanced by the mid-20th Century. I cited one remake that I would argue was improved because of the advent of sound. One can argue color improved some remakes, but usually this has not been the case. CGI has in many cases made remakes worse than the original. So "Ben-Hur" was a book first. I don't see the rekevence as we are talking about movies. Many films are adapted, but the medium isdifferent. For that reason I find your dragging stage plays into this to be irrelevent. I think the only time a stage production is at all comparable is if it is rewritten to materially alter the original. The way you are describing it two successive performances of "Julius Caesar" at the onset would be an "original"and a remake"... But the real bottom line is how seldom a remake actually is superior. I can only think of one or two after the advent of sound thay I think are better, and in these cases most everybody disagrees with me. Remakes are generally made from films that were successful. There were reasons why this happened. Most remakes are not done to correct the mistakes in failed films. Actually those would be the best candidates to be remade, but they are usually not because they were commercial failures.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 22, 2018 13:13:17 GMT
I really don't care what your question is. You made a response arguing with what I posted as if I was wrong in my argument. I was correct and like others you have gone off on a tangent. It is something in common with politicians don't answer the question at hand but deflect to a different question or answer. The only reason I joined this thread was to state that clusium's answer about what differentiates Christianity from other religions was not circular.My suggestion is to start another thread if this is what you wish to discuss. If you are not interested in what differentiates Christianity from other religions you shouldn't have joined a discussion that was about that, and really only that subject. Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.Clusium's response of 'the passion, death and resurrection of Christ' as proof of Christ's divinity and thus the truth of the Christian biblical narrative over and above any other religious narrative is precisely that. Clusium seeks to begin his defense of the 'truth' of these premises by stating the outcome of them, i.e. Christ's passion, death, etc. As stated in the definition above, this is circular logic. Anything he may have added to that central point is tangential and doesn't detract from the fact that is initial statement comprises classic Christian circular reasoning. She answered your question about what differentiated Christianity from other religions. The problem here is that all she gave as an answer was 'The passion, death and resurrection of Christ" and nothing else. You immediately claimed this was circular, which it was not as per the definition you have provided, rather needlessly as she and I both know what circular reasoning entails. She did not claim her answer as a proof of the divinity of Christ. She did not make a claim that Christianity was true. So Like goz and toasted cheese you have created a straw man to attack. Let us suppose that your straw man is actually what she stated, and she actually had claimed that Christ's passion, death and resurrection were proof of His divinity and therefore proof of Christianity being true. This really would not be circular reasoning either as she did not complete the circle and then claim that because Christianity is true and correct Christ is divine.
Actually your attempt to make your own straw man circular reasoning is fatally flawed.You appear to claim that Christ's death is the "outcome" of Christianity as in a conclusion, so she is starting with the end of an argument as per the definition. Christ's death may have been the conclusion of his earthy mission, but not a conclusion in the sense stated in the definition. She was answering a question about why Christianity is different. Under your straw man her answer would be not only to set Christianity apart from other religions, but do so by claiming it is true. That makes her comment about Christ a premise under the definition provided and not a conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 22, 2018 10:00:25 GMT
Basically no films should be remade. I guess some remakes of silent movies such as "Ben-Hur" were justifiable but others in general? No way. It just shows a lack of imagination and crass commercialism.
|
|