by seven006 121 Replies latest jw friends
I did not find Franz's book to be any of these things.
Whoooosh!
That's the point. You didn't find Franz's book to be offensive...because you read it. Other people, who did not read it, did say it was offensive. They based their conclusion on 2nd-hand information.
BTS: "I didn't see the movie, but I'm quite sure it is dishonest...cuz I read how other people say it was dishonest."
It's okay - just see what would happen if you downloaded it and the authorities found out.
It's illegal, end of story. YOU are breaking the law when YOU download movies off the net. YOU are a thief. YOU can be charged with copywright infringement.
Really? Here is MM's latest, Slacker Uprising:
If I watch the movie off his site for free, will the authorities do something? Is it copywrite infringement? I dare you to watch it! I double dare ya!
Do you actually look at what you type and go "Jeez, I'm a real piece of work... nobody can have an intelligent conversation with me because I'm such an arrogant prick." I sure hope that you're not like that in real life, my friend.
Arrogant prick? You are the one that accused me of illegal activity, nitwit.
BTS
BTS: "I didn't see the movie, but I'm quite sure it is dishonest...cuz I read how other people say it was dishonest."
It is clearly a dishonest piece of propaganda, and I don't need to watch the movie to see that. People that were interviewed and misused for the movie make the case convincingly enough. BTS
It is clearly a dishonest piece of propaganda, and I don't need to watch the movie to see that. People that were interviewed and misused for the movie make the case convincingly enough.
We need a "head banging against the wall" emoticon here.
One more try:
You are displaying the exact same line of reasoning that a JW would use, for not reading "Crisis of Conscience".
I.e., "It is clearly a dishonest piece of propaganda, and I don't need to watch the movie read the book to see that. People that were interviewed and misused for the movie were involved in the situations described in the book, at Brooklyn Bethel, make the case convincingly enough."
BTS, your arguments were sharper than this in the recent past. You're not that thick -- I suspect you are distracted by something.
"It is clearly a dishonest piece of propaganda, and I don't need to watch the movie to see that. People that were interviewed and misused for the movie make the case convincingly enough. BTS"
Why does this statement not surprise me? You know why I listen to Rush Limbaugh? I want to know if what he says holds merit and like him or not he's become a part of our culture.
BTS, you are hopeless, I realized that the last few months... I've ran down about half your "facts" and found very little of what you says hold up.
Maybe you can live with being dishonest with yourself, but you quit fooling folks on this site long ago.
Why do some people need religion?
My 18 year old son and I take a walk almost every evening and we talk.
He has said to me on numerous occasions that he doesn't think anything can have "importance" unless it is eternal.
I've tried various lines of rebuttal. But--then, it occurs to me that the essence of his argument may be true. That is, depending on how you choose to define "important."
Humans flourish when they have a direction and purpose beyond mere survival. Art, music, literature, etc. give a kind of trancendance to the birth to death journey.
The closest bonds we form perish at death. This leaves the legacy of being remembered. What mark do we make? Are we a pebble tossed in a still pond that creates rings briefly? Nothing lasts.
Here is an example of what I mean.
Online you find lists of the Top Ten bestselling novels from each decade going back almost a century.
When you look at what was all the rage in popularity and importance you'll find you can seldom recognize either the titles or the authors!
FAME was a moment and anonymity followed.
There aren't many authors such as Harper Lee. She wrote one book and no more. (To Kill a Mockingbird). It was autobiographical. She said all she had to say.
That book stays with us.
Margaret Mitchell wrote just one book: Gone With The Wind. It stays with us.
Yet, for every Harper Lee or Margaret Mitchell there are tens of thousands of wannabe authors who vanish into obscurity before they even emerge.
So what?
RELIGION is a mechanism for getting "extra" innings and overtime opportunities for our subconscious fear of extinction.
RELIGION extends our natural lifespan into second chances.
We all desire a second chance, don't we?
If we had it all to do over we would avoid some of our worst errors. Yet, we'd create new ones.
Even KARMA doesn't quite do the trick. Nobody remembers their errors in their reborn life. How can they avoid them?
Ha ha ha ha.
No--religion is a cheat. It is psychologically necessary, perhaps.
My son chooses to believe---not in God--but, in science. He "believes" science will permit the extension of his life by nanotechnologies. As his parts wear out they will, he things, be replaceable.
Maybe. I hope for his sake it is true.
I'm 62. I don't have that luxury.
You are displaying the exact same line of reasoning that a JW would use, for not reading "Crisis of Conscience".
This in no wise renders the reasoning invalid. Read the my linked quotes from the interviewees above.
Do you think they were treated honestly and fairly?
Is Religulous a documentary-- or is it a propaganda piece where people were interviewed under false pretenses for the purpose of being mocked and having their quotes misused?
The answer is pretty clear. I will watch it when it becomes freely available, not before. Maher won't get my money.
I suspect you are distracted by something.
A lot going on right now. A lot. But my reasoning here is not off the mark. Answer my questions above.
Cheers,
BTS
BTS, you are hopeless, I realized that the last few months... I've ran down about half your "facts" and found very little of what you says hold up.
Stop following me around the threads like a puppy. All you do is trash talk and ignore evidence and reason, I usually just ignore you these days because your posts are not worth responding to.
BTS
Answer my questions above.
Sir! Yes sir!
As you wish, your lordship.
Do you think they were treated honestly and fairly?
I haven't the foggiest notion. I have not seen the movie, just the previews. I can see that others think that they were treated dishonestly and unfairly - but then again, I also know that many people are quick to call any position contrary to their own "unfair and dishonest."
Is Religulous a documentary-- or is it a propaganda piece where people were interviewed under false pretenses for the purpose of being mocked and having their quotes misused?
Again, without having seen it, I can't pass judgment on it. I suspect, based on previews, comments, reviews, etc., that it is not particularly objective. But then again, most "documentaries" are not objective - the producer generally does it with a particular viewpoint or bias. Does it cross the line into "propaganda"? Maybe, maybe not. But before spouting off to everybody and their brother on an international forum about how horrible a piece it was, I'd want to see it for myself.
Is the movie marketed as a "fair and balanced" documentary on religion? Or is it being marketed as entertainment? That can give you a clue on how the producers themselves view it.
Is Religulous a documentary-- or is it a propaganda piece where people were interviewed under false pretenses for the purpose of being mocked and having their quotes misused?
I haven't seen it yet...but from what I can tell, it's a comedy first. But a comedy that's meant to point out the silly lengths that true believers will go to when trying to justify those beliefs.
As was mentioned earlier, a lot of comics are more than guys or gals that tell jokes. They make observations on the silly, stupid, dumb and absurd things that a lot of people fall for or believe in.
