PDA

View Full Version : Lee Stranahan's Ebay postings....



archiea
03-31-2004, 12:07 PM
Well, I thought I'd check out what he's selling, as he mentioned in his post. What I didn;t expect wass that he was going to be selling more adult themed internet domains than toaster/LW gear!!!!

http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&userid=stranahan&include=0&since=-1&sort=3&rows=50

:eek:

Lee you dawg you.....:D

pixelinfected
03-31-2004, 12:12 PM
i think this is not the right place to show that, for Lee respect...

Kvaalen
03-31-2004, 12:25 PM
:eek: :confused: :eek:

I think this is totaly fine to post it here. We have the right to know what kind of person we are dealing with if we are planning on buying something from him.

I'm still shocked.

anieves
03-31-2004, 12:43 PM
LOL!!!!! that's the funniest thing I have seen today!!!!:D

archiea
03-31-2004, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Kvaalen
:eek: :confused: :eek:

I think this is totaly fine to post it here. We have the right to know what kind of person we are dealing with if we are planning on buying something from him.

I'm still shocked.


Actually that was not my intent. Many have know about Lee's interests in nude Photography, even present on his web page.

I don't see how this would change your opinion regarding purchasing his toaster gear from him, Kvaalen. Owning adult domain sites isn't a reflection of one's ability to honor an ebay sale of a toaster. At least not in my eyes...

I just got a giggle regarding how much of an entrepenuer Lee was with his "art" photography as he was with his toaster/LW training...:D

TSpyrison
03-31-2004, 12:58 PM
(In the voice of Janice from Friends)

oh..
my..
god..


:eek:

eggy
03-31-2004, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by archiea
Many have know about Lee's interests in nude Photography

Who is not interested in nude photography ? :D

Good luck Lee, what you doing without your toaster and lightwave ?

Kvaalen
03-31-2004, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by archiea
Actually that was not my intent. Many have know about Lee's interests in nude Photography, even present on his web page.

I don't see how this would change your opinion regarding purchasing his toaster gear from him, Kvaalen. Owning adult domain sites isn't a reflection of one's ability to honor an ebay sale of a toaster. At least not in my eyes...

I just got a giggle regarding how much of an entrepenuer Lee was with his "art" photography as he was with his toaster/LW training...:D

I wasn't talking about the toaster. I was talking in general. And there is a little more in those names than "nude Photography" if you see what I'm saying.

I understand that wasn't your point but I'm still thankful to you that you posted it. I got a good laugh from it too though it is a little shocking. :)

Matt
03-31-2004, 02:09 PM
Lee's photography exploits is very old news, it doesn't detract in the slightest that he's a great bloke who has contributed greatly to the LightWave community, let's move on, I'm sure we're all mature enough!

Not having a go, just saying let's not make a big deal out of it.

Meaty
03-31-2004, 02:41 PM
baaaahahahahaha!!!


oohh ooohh... Lee!!...i want StonedGirls.com

Andrew Sweet
03-31-2004, 02:49 PM
I'm biding on some of those ;-)

Randy

kcole
03-31-2004, 04:19 PM
All it means to me is that he's a smart guy who's making easy money from the adult industry which was too slow to grab the domains. Wish I'd have thought of it! :)

Beamtracer
03-31-2004, 04:20 PM
Anyone who places a public advertisement on EBay can't be worried if anyone sees it.

Was Janet Jackson worried that someone might see what she did at the Superbowl?

No.

Hiraghm
03-31-2004, 05:16 PM
I still can't figure out why they describe activities befitting juveniles as "adult"....

Lynx3d
03-31-2004, 05:50 PM
I wonder if he actually gets bids on the domain names...

If so i'll sell some too :D

riki
03-31-2004, 05:55 PM
Cool domain names. Nice to see that someone has a pulse around here.

harlan
03-31-2004, 07:33 PM
Oh Christ, Hiraghm is quoting Jason Priestley!! ;)

And in response to this topic:

Who the hell cares what else Lee does with his time. It's none of our business.

Anyways...hmmmm...speaking of porn.......zzzzzzzzzzzzzip...

pixelinfected
03-31-2004, 09:21 PM
uhm...
i repeat, is not right place for that announce.

my word not mean i'm in disaccord with lee choise, i also like nude, from photo to paint and more, i also did it, i do, and will do until i like it, simply i think is not a right place to show its domain in the lw forum.

there isn't a reason to show here.

is there some lw or toaster connection? no,

is there some 3d connection? no

is only wasted time and space on newtek forum.

p.s. i know that ebay is public advertising, but not reson to publish it on newtek web...

p.p.s. janet jackson show her nudity many times on playboy magazine, superbolw was only last time, for big free advertising for her. but its only personal though, i avoid to start a flame about a no 3d releated args on 3d forum.


good sales Lee.
and long life to beatiful girl.

SLAYER
03-31-2004, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by pixelinfected


is there some lw or toaster connection?

Yep.

I had sex with a toaster once.

It burned.

Kvaalen
03-31-2004, 11:53 PM
there isn't a reason to show here. Yes there is.

is there some lw or toaster connection?Yes there is.

is there some 3d connection?Yes there is.

is only wasted time and space on newtek forum.I don't agree.

riki
04-01-2004, 02:37 AM
My first graphic design job was building porn sites, plus I own lustbot.com so who am I to judge. ut you never know Lee might of been thinking along the lines of eatpoo.com :)

Matt
04-01-2004, 04:11 AM
Originally posted by riki
My first graphic design job was building porn sites

What a nightmare! Having to make web-ready all those all those images, it must have been hard work!

:eek:

Zafar Iqbal
04-01-2004, 04:35 AM
Hahahahahahahaha :p

A few months ago i worked on a discovery type project witch involved doing some research with minor x-rated movies... that kinda stuff makes ur... head... blow... :D

Kvaalen
04-01-2004, 06:46 AM
I think I have been misunderstood. :)

I have nothing against him owning porn sites, that is his buisness. But I do think that people who buy from him should have the right to know a bit more about where/what/who their money is going to. I personally wasn't planning on buying anything but I'm saying for someone else. If that bothers him, it's good he knew about it. If it doesn't, well that all the better.

I'm not saying he did anything bad, I just think it is good this was posted. I also think most of the people who read it (including me) got a good laugh. :)

TSpyrison
04-01-2004, 06:56 AM
Well, Iím not personally offended or anything.. I just think it might have been a better idea for him to post the toaster/lights and the porn domains under two different IDís. (Iíve never sold anything over e-bay, so I donít know if thatís possible). I mean, you never know who you might end up working for/with in the future, and if I were into the web porn business, I definitely wouldnít want my other (non-porn) professional associations to know about it..

But thatís just my opinion..
:)

Nemoid
04-01-2004, 07:31 AM
Funny to see a toaster with porn sites stuff!
can be an interesting object to play with. :D

Zarathustra
04-01-2004, 08:02 AM
Anyone upset by this is just silly. It's business.
I saw prominently displayed at Border's recently an investment book that was based on investing in sex. I assume it discusses everything from Viagra to domain names. The cover was one of those standard, boring financial investment types if I remember correctly.

Booze, sex and death - the triumvirate of perpetual revenue.

I wish I was one of those guys in the early 90s who registered domains like mcdonalds.com before every major company realized they needeed a web presence.

riki
04-01-2004, 08:08 AM
What a nightmare! Having to make web-ready all those all those images, it must have been hard work!

Yeah it was very draining :)

We'd start work with bacon and eggs at Bondi and then head to the pub for RnD

Matt
04-01-2004, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by Zarathustra
I wish I was one of those guys in the early 90s who registered domains like mcdonalds.com before every major company realized they needeed a web presence.

did you make any money out of it? or just receive a lawsuit? :)

Zarathustra
04-01-2004, 09:48 AM
I said, "I wish...".

I heard that some people made some $$$. Why would a major company like McDonald's sue when it would be easier to just pay $1 mil or so? That's the way they usually deal with things like that.

Kvaalen
04-01-2004, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by Zarathustra
Anyone upset by this is just silly. It's business.
I saw prominently displayed at Border's recently an investment book that was based on investing in sex. I assume it discusses everything from Viagra to domain names. The cover was one of those standard, boring financial investment types if I remember correctly.

Booze, sex and death - the triumvirate of perpetual revenue.

I wish I was one of those guys in the early 90s who registered domains like mcdonalds.com before every major company realized they needeed a web presence.

If you are talking about me I'm not upset. I'm not the one to say what he should or shouldn't do. :)

Also, I've heard many people say things like "I wish I was one of those guys in the early 90s who registered domains like mcdonalds.com before every major company realized they needeed a web presence" and I'm pretty sure that there will be people 10 years from now that will be saying the same thing about I don't know what. There are such things even right now. What? I don't know... that is why those who thought of it in the 90s deserve what they got in return - you have to find it. :)

CAClark
04-01-2004, 04:25 PM
I think it's very funny, and I also think it doesn't matter one little bit... either that Lee is selling those domains, or that the ebay link is posted here. Life is too serious, and this brightens it up :)

Cheers!

Beamtracer
04-01-2004, 04:34 PM
Lee has posted a message on his website to say that he doesn't care who knows about his forays into nude photography. He says he doesn't try to hide the fact.

I don't think anyone should be shocked. Most of the large media companies in the United States have interests or investments in the porn industry.

Even the most conservative of them, such as Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation (owners of FOX News) have some investments that may surprise some people.

The corporations do it just to make a buck. I get the impression that Lee does it for the art of photography.

Zarathustra
04-01-2004, 04:55 PM
No, Kvaalen, it was a blanket statement. Emphasis on the lead word "anyone".

I will add that it's also silly to defend Lee since he doesn't care one way or another, apparently, nor do I see anything that has to be defended or justified. It's just business, baby.

DigiLusionist
04-01-2004, 05:49 PM
Creeps me out. *bleh*

Zarathustra
04-01-2004, 06:04 PM
All the bible quoting and Christ crap around here creeps me out. blah

TSpyrison
04-01-2004, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
Lee has posted a message on his website to say that he doesn't care who knows about his forays into nude photography. He says he doesn't try to hide the fact.

<snip>

I get the impression that Lee does it for the art of photography.

Ok ok..

I was resisting another post.. Ultimately I donít care..
Or maybe Iím growing oldÖ

BUTÖ there is a big difference between ďnude photographyĒ and things like JustBDSM.com, DirtyFilthySex.com, StonedGirls.com, ect ect..

(not to mention how much spam comes from these types of places..)

As I said earlier, I think it would have been better for him to set up those particular things under a different name. Whether we like it or not, there is an emphasis in the business world about perceptions.


And I donít really think DirtyFilthySex would be art. Lefts just call it what it isÖ porn

Zarathustra
04-01-2004, 07:00 PM
All open to interpretation. There was rioting after the first Impressionist exhibit. Now 1000s of Impressionist prints are sold because they match the sofa so well.
Art? Not art? Whatever. Leave the man alone and get over yourself.

DigiLusionist
04-01-2004, 07:01 PM
Rather defensive for an Anti-Christ...

Zarathustra
04-01-2004, 07:09 PM
as long as we're sharing how we really feel. :D

btw - the new name is in response to all the christian tags. ugh. Oh well, free speech, blah blah. If I defend DirtyFilthySex I have to defend bible thumpin' - it's a dual edged blade.

DigiLusionist
04-01-2004, 07:28 PM
Personally, if I had a choice between defending God or defending Porn, I'd choose the former.

And since we're all "sharing," it strikes me as ironic that not too long ago a number of people were trashing Lee. Now, everyone's acting like he's a beloved uncle who's going away. Albeit a pervy uncle. Excuse me, a photographically-inclined uncle...

TyVole
04-01-2004, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by Zarathustra

btw - the new name is in response to all the christian tags.

Your avatar once wrote a book called "The Antichrist." But you probably already know this.

Beamtracer
04-01-2004, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by DigiLusionist
Creeps me out. *bleh* So, DigiLusionist, did you go and take a look at Lee Stranahan's website? Were you just checking it out for purposes of review?

If people are offended by these nude photographs there's no reason to go and take a look at them. You can avoid going there, and then there would be no need to complain.

archiea
04-01-2004, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by DigiLusionist
Personally, if I had a choice between defending God or defending Porn, I'd choose the former.



I choose the latter...few to nobody died defending porn. Too many people have died defending god. And they still are dying...

Trust me: what would save the middle east IS porn, not Allah.... people don't fly planes into buildings in the name of p*ssy. People don't strap bombs to their bodies in the name of pamela Anderson.

Its the human body. Its the most natural thing. porn is just a creative expression of it. Like everything else, moderation is the key. its our right the pursuit of happiness... even if it means www.TieMeUp.com. Like Alcohol, there is always some @sshole who abuses it.... but hey...


Originally posted by DigiLusionist


And since we're all "sharing," it strikes me as ironic that not too long ago a number of people were trashing Lee. Now, everyone's acting like he's a beloved uncle who's going away. Albeit a pervy uncle. Excuse me, a photographically-inclined uncle...

yeah, well, I;d chalk it up to the LW community having taste, and not kicking a guy while he's down.... it is a community after all. I have my issues with Lee, but I also have benefitted greatly from his help. I wish him the best..

Stranahan
04-01-2004, 11:48 PM
LOL....

I love you all..

I had a bunch of domain names - the ones I'm selling and a lot more. I never developed any of them, really. I kept thinking I might - I bought a few names that I thought were good / memorable. Most of them made me laugh.

For the record, I've never made any money at all with my photography - which is one reason that it's another thing that I'm dropping out of my life. In fact, it cost me a lot of money in hosting fees. But I did it because my photography has a philosophy behind it - sex is a good, positive thing and there are as many ways people express their sexuality as there are people.

I'm a father of four kids - and I was a pretty widely respected, published erotic photographer. There's no contradiction there, especially if you know where babies come from. I don't think sex is a bad thing, and I think society is way too hung up on it. That's why I have never, ever published my work under anything other than my name. My erotica has been posted for over eight years, too. About half my fan mail came from women, which is something of an accomplishment.

I never brought it up here, because my goal isn't to offend anybody. So - it's never been a secret, but I didn't see any reason to bring it up here, either.

I could have chosen to keep all my domain names, and developed those sites as adult sites and tried to earn my living that way. I didn't choose to do that - instead, I chose to sell them. The way I'm going to earn my living has nothing to do with the adult industry - not that I think there's anything morally wrong with it, because I don't. It's a valid way to make a living, but it's not anything I'm pursuing in the future. So, make of that what you will.

I'll just restate that, to be clear - the fuss is that I'm SELLING the domain names...this is, as the kids say, whack.

'm sure someone got a special little rush 'outing' me, but you can't out someone whose work has been in gallery shows, books, and magazines. I don't get the thrill, but then outing people isn't my kink - so I won't judge. I don't accept the label 'perverted', either, sorry. I'm an adult. Sex is a valid topic for discussion, and for art.

And those domains names are still for sale....heck, I'll even throw in some content...

- Lee

PS - Remember that as you do business with NewTek, that they staged an extremely public battle to keep strip clubs open in Topeka, Kansas a decade ago. They even had Tim's friend Penn (from Penn And Teller - the noted atheist skeptic pervert magicians) do a commercial. This was a few years before I started my photography - and that's why I loved NewTek....

themaxx
04-01-2004, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by Stranahan
PS - Remember that as you do business with NewTek, that they staged an extremely public battle to keep strip clubs open in Topeka, Kansas a decade ago. They even had Tim's friend Penn (from Penn And Teller - the noted atheist skeptic pervert magicians) do a commercial. This was a few years before I started my photography - and that's why I loved NewTek....

really? wow. kick ***. did they win?

we americans are such prudes. i don't understand.

lee, you don't owe anyone here an explanation.

Stranahan
04-02-2004, 12:09 AM
They not only won, but every NewTek employee who went to Babydoll's for years afterward was treated like a king or queen.

It's not so much owing an explanation as being happy to clarify things. I've never made any attempt to keep anything a secret - that's for ashamed people, and I'm not ashamed.

One other thing - this isn't a sex vs God issue. I go to church. I'm a Unitarian Universalist, and we don't have the whole 'sex = evil' guilt thing - but we do believe in striving towards your own higher self.

And you know - that's exactly what I'm doing. I believe that creating art that was sex positive was in accord with my higher self, and I beleive that walking away from it now is also in accord with that. To every thing, there is a season.

As I stated in my retirement thread, my number one goal is providing a stable, happy enviroment for Lauren and my kids. And every action I've taken in the past week - from quitting the LightWave world to selling adult website domain names (and all my photography equipment, by the way) to playing minature golf with son in the middle of a very busy day - every action has been directed toward that goal.

archiea
04-02-2004, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by Stranahan
LOL....

PS - Remember that as you do business with NewTek, that they staged an extremely public battle to keep strip clubs open in Topeka, Kansas a decade ago. They even had Tim's friend Penn (from Penn And Teller - the noted atheist skeptic pervert magicians) do a commercial. This was a few years before I started my photography - and that's why I loved NewTek....

no sh*t? man.. think of all that Lw/toaster development over the years without the promise of a night of ta-ta oggling after some long hours coding.... Crap, the toaster might have ended up being package to the religious community, perhaps under some silly name like the media ministry or, get this, the genesis pack.. yeah right....

hey wait a minute......

:D

Beamtracer
04-02-2004, 01:08 AM
I doubt if the software guys at Newtek have any time to go to strip joints at the moment. They're too busy coding Lightwave 8.

Maybe Newtek should pay for them to go to a night out at a strip show as a reward for finishing Lightwave 8. But only after they finish it!!! :D
(We don't want anything to distract them!)

CAClark
04-02-2004, 02:32 AM
I see no biggie at all, most men appreciate the female form, clothed or not, and I certainly have no problem with anyone choosing to photograph nude women (whatever form that photogrpahy may take). It isn't like it is harmful or anything.

I for one respect the fact Lee is not underhanded about it either, there's no reason he should have to be.

Cheers!


Originally posted by Beamtracer
Lee has posted a message on his website to say that he doesn't care who knows about his forays into nude photography. He says he doesn't try to hide the fact.

I don't think anyone should be shocked. Most of the large media companies in the United States have interests or investments in the porn industry.

Even the most conservative of them, such as Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation (owners of FOX News) have some investments that may surprise some people.

The corporations do it just to make a buck. I get the impression that Lee does it for the art of photography.

colkai
04-02-2004, 03:28 AM
Originally posted by archiea
I choose the latter...few to nobody died defending porn. Too many people have died defending god. And they still are dying...

and lets not get into how many have been slaughtered in his name, converting heathen countries or genocide?

We have not come that far, but at least these days some faiths can sit side by side - there's hope for us yet, (assuming we don't get splattered by these near-earth objects that are flying past lately ;) ).

ngrava
04-04-2004, 03:41 PM
Man! I just wanted to add my sentiment to this thread as well. I think itís really tragic that we live in a country (those who live in the US) that claims to be all about freedom and choice and yet just cant seem to keep itís self out of other peoples lives and choices. I also think itís really sad when you see that one of the major differences between the media in the US and Europe is that in Europe, Violence is not as excepted and but sex is fine. Itís the other way around in the US. I think the current view of sex in the US is very unhealthy. We teach our children that it should be kept privet and quite and that itís naughty and nasty or dirty. This silence creates a lack of understanding and fear of it which in turn causes young people approach it with the naivety that appropriates things like teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

Iím not trying to get all up your asses or anything. I understand that there are many people who donít feel this way and youíre all entitled to your own opinionsÖ Just like me. Iím just stating my opinions about this. I truly love the US and feel very lucky to have been born and raised here, and especially lucky to live in such a wonderfully liberal city as Portland Oregon. I just wish there wasnít so much contradiction in beliefs here.

I think everyone should be aloud to love the way they are comfortable with. If youíre not comfortable with anything other then the missionary position then thatís just fine. If you need whips and a leather mask, whatever makes you happy as long as it doesnít hurt and one elseÖ well, as long as it doesnít hurt anyone else that doesnít want to be hurt that is. :) I might be a little put off by that but I would never hold it against anyone as some kind of character flaw.

And lastly: How can sex be seen as such a bad thing when itís so intertwined with love, intimacy and feeling good? How can violence been seen as ok when itís so intertwined with hatred and death?

-=GB=-

DigiLusionist
04-04-2004, 05:00 PM
There's a difference between thinking kindly on God vs touting religion.

And before anyone else decries God as a source of violence, and by extension, a bad thing, remember that snuff films and taking advantage of young women are not exactly non-violent things.

And these things don't constitute "art" regardless of how cosmopolitan and progressive some would like to think they are.

ngrava
04-04-2004, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by DigiLusionist

<SNIP>
And before anyone else decries God as a source of violence, and by extension, a bad thing, remember that snuff films and taking advantage of young women are not exactly non-violent things.


And by the same token, neither should those things be viewed as sexual. For instance, rape is not a crime of passion or sex but a crime of violence and should be viewed as nothing less then one person hurting another. The sex part of rape is simply a violation of one's person and should not be viewed as being sexual in any way. When someone gets punched on the mouth it's not viewed as an act of eating is it? it just so happened that it involved the mouth. Not every thing that happens between the legs is sexual.

I'm sure you realize all this. I guess I'm just stating the obvious but I just wanted to be clear about it.

Ok, I'm sorry. I'll stop now. This isn't really the place for this kind of talk.

-=GB=-

Zarathustra
04-04-2004, 06:04 PM
I think this was going better when we were just debating DirtyFilthySex.com.

archiea
04-04-2004, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by DigiLusionist
There's a difference between thinking kindly on God vs touting religion.

And before anyone else decries God as a source of violence, and by extension, a bad thing, remember that snuff films and taking advantage of young women are not exactly non-violent things.

And these things don't constitute "art" regardless of how cosmopolitan and progressive some would like to think they are.

You see, how you took a discussion about Lee's web addresses, and associated it with snuff films, exploiting young women? Yoou see how many who debate a form a self expression, and relate it to God, often associate it to violence? You see how narrow minded one can become? hoow intolerant. What does our discussion have to do with exploited women or snuff films.

God and religion has a LONG history with Viiolence.

In fact religion was a mechanization of control, and a bastardization of works like the Bible or the Qur'aan. They took the words of philosophers and leaders and turned them into an instrument of fear and control. Remember that at that time, The masses were uneducated and poor. How does a small percentage of noblemen and sovereignty control a majority of the uneducated and poor.... by putting the fear of god in them. Be good, go to church, pay the church, or be damned forever....

Now we have captiolism, which is essentially a bribe.... Follow the rules, make the boss money and you will ge a piece. Religion has taken the place as a form of self expression, like art or, yes, porn sites, or whatever. Its a freedom enjoyed.

And I really find it hard to belive that I will go to some place called hell for thinking so..... But believe what you want to belive, because its your right. Just don't judge, because that places people in a heirarchy of a self imnposed value. And some take that sense of right and wrong and are willing to kill for it. Its all about tolerance... and getting a good jerk going once in a while...

:eek:

DigiLusionist
04-04-2004, 10:23 PM
archeia, the discussion re: snuff films, et al resulted from judgmental comments that were intended to somehow denigrate a person's faith in God as a bad thing since it "has a long history of violence." I merely was pointing out that pornography also has a history of violence. I am in no way suggesting Lee has ANYTHING to do with that aspect of pornography. That was a mistake on my part for leaving that open to interpretation as my point.

I never said an adult shouldn't be free to look at porn. I just said it creeps "me" out because I have seen first hand the effects of the industry on girls I knew when I was younger. After that, lambasting comments were made about (paraphrasing here) "prudish American church-goers," and how sex is beautiful and nothing to be ashamed of.

I'm a Christian and I, too, think sex is beautiful and nothing to be ashamed of. However, I think it's a huge stretch to say that sites with names such as, BondageBabes.com and Slutpuppies are in anyway "artistic."

Others disagreed, which is fine. I don't expect obeyance to my views. However, absolutely no respect is given to opposing views on this forum. So folks seem to think it's cool to decry religion, and to have absolutly no regard for offending others. They, however, are the first to take offense at views that don't conform with their own.

Denigrating a person's faith in God as something awful because of instances of religious-based violence, in order to validate pornography, is just plain fallacious reasoning. What about the violence of porn, then?

Cman
04-04-2004, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by Stranahan
[...]
As I stated in my retirement thread, my number one goal is providing a stable, happy enviroment for Lauren and my kids. And every action I've taken in the past week - from quitting the LightWave world to selling adult website domain names (and all my photography equipment, by the way) to playing minature golf with son in the middle of a very busy day - every action has been directed toward that goal.

I'm sure your Son will always remember.
Good on 'ya, Lee!

archiea
04-04-2004, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by DigiLusionist
archeia, the discussion re: snuff films, et al resulted from judgmental comments that were intended to somehow denigrate a person's faith in God as a bad thing since it "has a long history of violence." I merely was pointing out that pornography also has a history of violence.


Porn's history of violence is nothing compared to religion.


Originally posted by DigiLusionist



I never said an adult shouldn't be free to look at porn. I just said it creeps "me" out because I have seen first hand the effects of the industry on girls I knew when I was younger. After that, lambasting comments were made about (paraphrasing here) "prudish American church-goers," and how sex is beautiful and nothing to be ashamed of.



well then, perhaps the confusion is comparing or equating sex to porn...


Originally posted by DigiLusionist


I'm a Christian and I, too, think sex is beautiful and nothing to be ashamed of. However, I think it's a huge stretch to say that sites with names such as, BondageBabes.com and Slutpuppies are in anyway "artistic."



Yes they are, just not to your taste...


Originally posted by DigiLusionist



Denigrating a person's faith in God as something awful because of instances of religious-based violence, in order to validate pornography, is just plain fallacious reasoning. What about the violence of porn, then?

Theres nothing to validate with porn... its just porn and its not trying to be something else. And porn can be an artform. It even can be a social documentary like "Dirty Deputantes", where yu see some average guy taping his seduction of women off the streets.

And its not Degenerating religion. Its putting it in its place. Look at this newest headline...

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/package.jsp?name=fte/nosundaysports/nosundaysports

I mean, where did this come from? Now the church is condeming sunday football and tells everyone to go to church. While I aggree with the Pope regarding pop culture is a tremendous distraction, I think reality show do more to rot us than football. And I don't think the only answer is in the church.

Matt
04-05-2004, 02:10 AM
Originally posted by ngrava
When someone gets punched on the mouth it's not viewed as an act of eating is it?

LOL! Simply wonderful comment!!! :)

kcole
04-05-2004, 06:27 AM
I think domai.com (http://www.domai.com) says it best!

(Warning - tasteful nudity at the link)

philip
04-05-2004, 06:31 AM
yep.

interesting thread too

Stranahan
04-05-2004, 07:23 AM
or http://Michelle7-erotica.com

retinajoy
04-05-2004, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by Stranahan
or http://Michelle7-erotica.com
What's the password. hehehe. :D :D :D

theo
04-05-2004, 08:45 AM
The problem isn't the sex...it isn't the marijuana... it isn't the chemical.... it isn't the religion... it isn't the alcohol... it isn't the power- it is the addiction to it. Very few can control this so many resort to controlling others.

No problems being addicted to such a nice thing as sex- huh? Then you need to visit a nympho lab, may open your eyes.

No problems being addicted to such a nice thing as booze- huh? No comment here needed.

And on and on....

Its OK as long as you are in the driver's seat- Most aren't I am afraid.

Stranahan
04-05-2004, 08:59 AM
So, umm....where exactly are these nympho labs?

And - is this goverment sponsored research?

I say we form PETN - People For The Ethical Treatment of Nymphos - and release the nymphos from their cages and let them run wild and free! And let's get Pam Anderson to be our spokesmodel; she might not notice the spelling...and she works either way...

theo
04-05-2004, 09:28 AM
I appreciate your humor Lee but in all reality there are a LOT of people who have an unhealthy addiction to sex (as well as a host of other similar addictive behaviors) to the point where the constant absorption with self-gratification literally can tear lives and homes apart. Even a few of Hollywood's love children have had to get help- I am sure there are a lot more.

If you are in a committed relationship (oh my God these still exist!)
vice can become a unity killer.

In the vast business worlds of sex, gambling, booze, and, unfotunately, religion these thousands and maybe millions are the casualties nobody wants to talk about- for the simple reason that it suddenly becomes hard to defend these vices.

I, frankly, feel that the selfish interests of many of these purveyors are purely corrupt and will do anything, including sell their souls for a few extra measly dollars.

Its amazing what a dollar bill does to people- this may be the ultimate addiction.

Zarathustra
04-05-2004, 09:37 AM
Yeah PETN! What are the member dues? Now where's that checkbook...


Look, all this griping is because our society has become so unfulfilling and essentially toxic.
We promote families, yet in order to afford one both parents have to work so they aren't there to raise them. Then when the kids are messed up we blame the lousy parents or to avoid that, the parents just heavily medicate their ADD, hyperactive, whatever kids.
You have CEO's of major companies dipping into our life savings or moving companies overseas where people work for a bowl of rice.
We have few untarnished heroes or role models left who haven't committed crimes.
We treat older people like burdens and force people out of lifetime jobs to make way for younger people.
and the list goes on...

It's depressing and seemingly overwhelming, so what do people do? They escape, temporarily, through booze, drugs, religion, porn, etc. Hell, even eating has become an escape - one that killed at least 400,000 Americans last year.
But then those escapes aren't enough. At the end of a miserable day you need someone to blame. Nothing's so satisfying, especially when you don't want to take on WHAT'S REALLY WRONG, then finding a scapegoat.
Smoker's blame someone else.
Drinkers blame someone else.
Overeaters blame someone else, and Religion junkies blame EVERYONE else.

All this bickering comes down to arguing my escape is better then yours. It's ridiculous, unproductive and just further pollutes a toxic world that we keep trying to escape rather then try and fix.

theo
04-05-2004, 10:01 AM
Actually Zarathustra, I haven't, until this point, found anything you have said to be anything other than typical hedonistic blather that is so popular in post-modern society.

And in spite of the fact that I realize that this is still your positiion your latest comments were actually quite good and I do agree with the overall premise.

People are escapists- no doubt about it. The issue here is are you escaping to another jail? Escaping is good- I do it as well. But my focus is not to let the escape capture my own personal quest for excellence. And all of us, if we are on a journey to a higher plane of excellence will have to make hard decisions about what we do with our time and energy to enable the quest rather than defeat it. Eagles fly high man- and they don't do that on crow's wings.

Stranahan
04-05-2004, 10:34 AM
If the issue in the sex trade is women being exploited, I'm in total agreement. It's horribly exploitive, and unfair - I'm all for social justice...

The interesting thing, however, is that it's a lot less exploitive where it's considered legitimate work. If the sex industry is treated like an unground, immoral or criminal enterprise, then the prevailing attitude seems to be 'well,they get what they deserve."

There was a great documentry called Live Nude Girls, Unite about a San Francisco strip club where the girls were trying to go union. And - they should...strippers have almost no basic worker's rights, no benefits, and on and on - but they had a hard time being taken seriously because of the nature of their work.

PS - This sure is ONE way to take your mind off LW8, innit?

Zarathustra
04-05-2004, 10:43 AM
Gee, I'm so proud to be worthy of your attention, Theo. Someone's "hedonistic blather" may be another's Truth, pal.

Yeah, escapes can be another prison. The problem is people blame the escapes and the escapees rather then facing and dealing with WHY people want to escape.
And putting down others and their escapes makes some feel bigger and better about themselves and THEIR escapes.
Your "personal quest for excellence" can become a prison, too.

Hell, people can't even park their cars correctly, let alone drive them. No wonder most can't handle their food, booze, drugs, religion, etc.
Hey, it's America, right? Land of low expectations and no responsibility. "Personal quest for excellence"? You're speaking swahili to most people. I'll even quote the bible here - "Cast not pearls before swine."

theo
04-05-2004, 11:12 AM
Lee- I've never seen any of your work but it sounds as though you were one of the more classy outfits.

Zarathustra- I like the way you think though you do have a humanistic bent which leans toward the despair side. The despair of humanity is one of humanism's strong foundational arguments. Not knocking you for that- I just strongly feel that the desparate condition of man is a part of the contrast that nature allows to enhance the creative drive of change towards that which is good.

The drive for personal excellence cannot be a prison. Because if it were so then it would cease to be personal excellence. THAT my friend is the challenge. What is personal excellence? Possibly a deep sense of satisfaction of life's accomplishment. Possibly the ability to exhibit less selfish and ego-centric behavior. Possibly a sense of harmony and simplicity with the cosmos. Who knows?
Everbody's call is different.

And yeah- I'll hand this to you- "Someone's "hedonistic blather" may be another's Truth, pal"- true.

paulrus
04-05-2004, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Zarathustra
and Religion junkies blame EVERYONE else.


I really didn't want to post, but come on....
Kind of an overly general view of "religion", don't you think? There are over 41,000 adherant religions in the world. What religion are you talking about? It certainly couldn't be Christianity. One of the basic tennants of Christianity is that everyone is to blame for their OWN problems and should take responsibility for their own actions. Humans are sinful by nature. It's only by recognizing and admitting our sins that we can ask for forgiveness.

So in that Americans tend to look to blame everyone but themselves, I totally agree with you. Our moral compass is pointed so far in the wrong direction that we look to LAWYERS to tell us what to do. And, of course, they tell you exactly what you want to hear - it's not your fault, you should sue and then you'll be rich!

Zarathustra
04-05-2004, 01:34 PM
What religion are you talking about? It certainly couldn't be Christianity.

Oh, come on now!

Well, how about this - Religion is ok, but it's use is often wrong.
Islam teaches understanding and acceptance of other opinions and religions - a section in the Koran that Al Quaeda didn't get to yet in their readings.
Explain the "Love Thy Neighbor" part to the Klan, who feel they're good and proper Christians.

I also think singling out Christianity as free from blame just proves you're following what I said before - "And putting down others and their escapes makes some feel bigger and better about themselves and THEIR escapes."

Theo - Your plan is like Nietzsche's desire of man overcoming himself. There is the inherent dangers of striving for excellence, though, like letting it become all encompassing at the price of other things and people. In that sense, it can become another prison. Also, "excellence", "good" and other such words vary in definition for each person. Some may consider mine to be hedonistic or porn.

mattclary
04-05-2004, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by theo
I like the way you think though you do have a humanistic bent which leans toward the despair side. The despair of humanity is one of humanism's strong foundational arguments. Not knocking you for that- I just strongly feel that the desparate condition of man is a part of the contrast that nature allows to enhance the creative drive of change towards that which is good.

Ummmmm... Still in college, or recent graduate? ;)

TSpyrison
04-05-2004, 02:01 PM
Am I the only one whose head is spinning with all this philosophical mumbo-jumbo?

Zarathustra
04-05-2004, 02:01 PM
Matt - me or Theo?

TS - see where DirtyFilthySex leads...philosophy!

Stranahan
04-05-2004, 02:02 PM
But, does anyone want a buy a used domain name?

theo
04-05-2004, 02:14 PM
Hahaha---
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is in poor taste to use this forum for spouting religious or sociopolitical viewpoints. It's about Lightwave, remember?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is huh? Kinda judgemental are we? Since when does a hedonist have a view on poor taste- Oh that's right, its OK to call something "poor taste" if it is outside our accepted paradigm:D

Lightwave IS a religion man- can we at least agree on this?

Also Zarathustra if you'll read my posts correctly I never one time condemned someone for liking porn or being a hedonist (though I do find most hedonist types are incredibly defensive)- my position was based on the excess of said vices and the long term misuse of particular actions that can harm ourselves or others.

That's where a sense of morality comes into being. Let's face it- most humans are broken and don't work right half the time- but if the other half of the time can be consumed with helping our fellow man the world might be a much better place.

Zarathustra
04-05-2004, 02:25 PM
Everyone makes value judgements, including me. There are no absolutes, just majority opinions.
I was hoping:
1) My opinion was a majority one
2) The majority would win over the minority and those rambling quotes and passages would go away.

Pick your sides and champion them. That's all there is, really.

I pick a world with DirtyFilthySex.com.

Sorry Lee, I'm not a good enough business man to buy one of your domain names and run it, however tempting that is.
I just noodle in Lightwave, try and control my dog and spout philosophical mumbo jumbo online. :D

TSpyrison
04-05-2004, 02:29 PM
Its like when they tell you not to look directly at the sun....

mlinde
04-05-2004, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by TSpyrison
Am I the only one whose head is spinning with all this philosophical mumbo-jumbo? Can't...
...type...
...fast.

Hard...
...to...
...see...
...keys.

Blurry.

theo
04-05-2004, 03:02 PM
Majority opinions are useful but in most cases are useless for developing ideas or concepts. A large portion of what the scientific community has proven today is based on opinions that were once held in a minority.

But anyways the philosphical gamut has run amuck, I shall digress at this time.

Lee- your sense of timing is impeccable- but I don't think I can sell animation services with the domain name: StonedGirls.com.

Stranahan
04-05-2004, 03:09 PM
Oh, you so could.....

Zarathustra
04-05-2004, 03:13 PM
:D

paulrus
04-05-2004, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Zarathustra

Islam teaches understanding and acceptance of other opinions and religions - a section in the Koran that Al Quaeda didn't get to yet in their readings.


I think that's an oversimplification of islam. A nation of islam member certainly has a vastly different view of things from the shiites and sunis who dragged the dead American bodies around iraq the other day. You can't lump everybody together. There are good and bad people everywhere.


Originally posted by Zarathustra
Explain the "Love Thy Neighbor" part to the Klan, who feel they're good and proper Christians.


So they "feel" they are good and proper Christians? Therefore you acknowledge they are not proper Christians, which is the view the majority of us have. I'm not sure what point you are making here. The nazi's thought they were good Christians as well, but did that make it true?

Just because someone claims to be something doesn't make it so. If that were true, I'm the richest man in the world... hmmm didn't work...

So, it seems from what I read you are arguing these 2 ideas: First, islam is a good, peaceful religion and only al queda are the kooks. Second, Christians are all racists.

I really hope that's not what you meant, but you seem to be painting with awfully broad brushstrokes here. First you're anti-religion, but you can't seem to figure out which one of the 41,000 is the bad one (though it seems to be Christianity based on the KKK part of your post), and now you're bringing islam into the fray when nobody else has mentioned it, but it's now somehow the good religion? Didn't you just slam ALL religious people a few posts ago?


Originally posted by Zarathustra
I also think singling out Christianity as free from blame just proves you're following what I said before - "And putting down others and their escapes makes some feel bigger and better about themselves and THEIR escapes."


How did anything I wrote equal "free from blame"?? I said that one of the basic tennants of Christianity is that we are ALL to blame for our OWN problems and we should take responsibility for them (i.e. DO NOT "escape" your problems, face them and accept them). How is that somehow placing blame on anyone else? I never compared Christianity to any other religion. YOU have brought up islam in your post, not I.

And to tell you the truth, until seeing your posts and your sig I have never wanted in my life to put any sort of religious message in my sig, nor have I ever wanted to reply to any sort of religious discussion. But since then I have added something to my sig for all the boards I visit. So you are actually doing a great job in spreading the Good News.

And to get back to the topic. Who cares what Lee is selling on E-Bay. He's doing the right thing - taking care of his family rather than hanging out here with a bunch of pencil-necked geeks. :D

theo
04-05-2004, 03:25 PM
Lee, oh I so could get a hamburger right now too- hmmm that's an idea I haven't eaten for two days.... catch ya'll later.

Zarathustra
04-05-2004, 03:27 PM
I'm sorry, Paulrus. I'll try and be a little simpler to understand in the future.

My point is religion may be good, but it can be used incorrectly.
My examples to prove that point were Al Quaeda and the Klan, who are groups that use religion to justify their actions.
Most people would agree that their actions are wrong.
Most people would agree that they aren't following the writings of their religions.

Do you understand now?

Ok, maybe more advanced:
My religion example could be applied to other topics discussed in this thread...
Alcohol is not bad, but getting drunk and driving into people is.
Guns aren't bad, but shooting someone with a gun is.

DigiLusionist
04-05-2004, 03:49 PM
I guess the only blameless folk in the world are aethiests and hedonists. Cause, of course, they have shown themselves to be tolerant and logical in every instance.

TSpyrison
04-05-2004, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by paulrus
He's doing the right thing - taking care of his family rather than hanging out here with a bunch of pencil-necked geeks. :D

I may be geekish, but far from pencil-necked...

:D

lasvideo
04-05-2004, 05:35 PM
YAYYYY! Lets hear it for the atheists and headonists! Those who
create no false gods to explain the unknown and live for the joys
of today instead of the concern for the hereafter. Rise and be counted!

DigiLusionist
04-05-2004, 06:53 PM
:) I guess we'll all just have to wait and see what's really what, huh? I'll be one of those NOT raising his hand. I have no problem believing in something greater than myself.

EDIT: Although I do have a problem waiting much longer for LW8. It's excruciating!!

Steve McRae
04-06-2004, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by Zarathustra
Everyone makes value judgements, including me. There are no absolutes, just majority opinions.


Zarathustra,

By asking this question I am not meaning any disrespect towards you, but is there anything that you consider to be truly wrong?

cheers,

Zarathustra
04-06-2004, 09:01 AM
Of course, but that doesn't mean they ARE wrong. I just feel they are and I can present what I believe is evidence to prove my opinions and/or simply argue them intelligently.

Steve McRae
04-06-2004, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by Zarathustra
Of course, but that doesn't mean they ARE wrong. I just feel they are and I can present what I believe is evidence to prove my opinions and/or simply argue them intelligently.

So would it be accurate in stateing that your position is something like "pedophilia is not truly wrong, just wrong in my own eyes" - or rather "It is only my opinion that pedophilia is wrong" ?

Not trying to put words in your mouth at all, just trying to understand where you are coming from . . .

cheers,

retinajoy
04-06-2004, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by DigiLusionist
I have no problem believing in something greater than myself.

EDIT: Although I do have a problem waiting much longer for LW8. It's excruciating!!

Yep. The LW8 wait is excruciating, but I think the waiting is nearly over.

I too won't be putting my hand up, for I am sure in my mind as with the other billion or so of people, that there is a creator greater than ourselves.

Science in the 20th Century disproved Gods existence, but science in the 21st century points to a creator. This by respectable scientists and researchers. I find it interesting anyway. Shouldn't this thread now be heading to general dicsussions.

anieves
04-06-2004, 09:23 AM
can somebody please shut this thread down or move it to General Discussions? PLEASE!!!!

theo
04-06-2004, 09:31 AM
Of course, but that doesn't mean they ARE wrong. I just feel they are...

Most acts that are considered societally incorrect or wrong are NOT based on an assumption of FEELING as your statement suggests.

The perogatives of feeling have proven themselves to be a rotten indicator for what is right or wrong. There are many tasks life offers up that have to be performed out a sense of responsibility and sensibility rather than whether we FEEL the urge to do so or not do so.

A vast majority of crime is based on a temporary feeling. Passion, anger, hate or any other of the hundreds of feelings out there can be accessed as an excuse in the flawed decision-making process of the criminal.

Good God- I am sure Hitler "felt" his actions were justifiable. Throw in Al-Qaeda and white supremacists and you'll get a hedonistic think tank.

Zarathustra
04-06-2004, 09:46 AM
I understand it's disturbing to most people that there may be no absolute right or wrongs.

A strong majority opinion, as in our disgust felt at things like pedophila and canibalism, feel like absolutes but they're not.

Until you can get over this fact you can never begin to understand how another culture may think. Examples like pedophilia and canibalism are EXTREMES, but the point is still valid.


Anieves - is there a "General Discussions" forum? This is called "Community". Isn't that basically for general discussions?

retinajoy
04-06-2004, 09:53 AM
Mmmm. Who decides what is wrong or right? What is truth (relating to right and wrong)? Is truth just a majority agreement over a minority one? Maybe there can be no right or wrong, unless there actually is a God (higher power or whatever you want to call him/her).

Steve McRae
04-06-2004, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by Zarathustra
I understand it's disturbing to most people that there may be no absolute right or wrongs.

A strong majority opinion, as in our disgust felt at things like pedophila and canibalism, feel like absolutes but they're not.


ok - thats cool - I just wanted to make sure that I understood what you were actually saying

most people have not thought out their belief systems to their logical conclusions and I respect that you have given this thought . . .

may I ask another question? - do you find an error in your logic when saying that there are no absolutes? Is not that very statement an absolute truth in and of itself?

cheers,

mattclary
04-06-2004, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by Zarathustra
Matt - me or Theo?

Theo.

theo
04-06-2004, 10:03 AM
Zarathustra I would approach your statement from another direction-

Cannibalism is absolutely wrong but to understand a cannibal I don't have to agree with what he eats for lunch.

FBI profilers would be in this same vein. Their work entails understanding the warped minds of the criminals they investigate- but this does not mean that they in some way adjust their overall daily morality as a result. They can still understand a serial killer but not be one. Same goes for cultures that have violent tendencies such as cannibals.

And in the everday scheme of life the addiction to cocaine is absolutely wrong because of the widespread negative results that effect OTHERS. And this is where ABSOLUTES come into play. Addictions HURT others- families, friends, lovers. Cannibalism HURTS others. Pedophilia HURTS others. ANd on and on.

In this sense absolutes can be useful to assist people in making proper decisions.

Zarathustra
04-06-2004, 10:05 AM
That's cute, atomman. That's a chase your tail logic problem.

I agree, most have not thought out their belief system. They just take for granted what they've been told and based their lives on that. When someone says anything to challenge that foundation, those people, undertandably, get shaken up.


So am I ok because I defended my position or because I'm part of the majority that is against pedophilia?

Zarathustra
04-06-2004, 10:17 AM
There were (and I guess still are) cultures that ate their dead. Regardless of their reasons, that may not be "wrong". It seems disgusting to you and me but that isn't "wrong".
In fact, look at America. Most people are pumped full of chemicals and stuck in the ground when they die. Every wonder what happens eventually when those chemicals leak into the soil? What about the real estate demands for cemeteries?
The expense of a funeral, coffin, etc.

Killing is considered wrong, but what if you killed someone who would have been someone terrible like a Hitler? Then your actions look right.
That's the danger of believing in absolutes - you never leave your mind open to alternative thinking or special situations.

You don't have to become someone else to understand them. That's not what I said, Theo. Take some time to read my posts and think about them before frantically hitting that "post reply" button.

Steve McRae
04-06-2004, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by Zarathustra
So am I ok because I defended my position or because I'm part of the majority that is against pedophilia?

Well being a theist I would disagree with your position. I am glad you and most people in our society would be against pedophilia. However, I think that it is an important question to ask "why do we hold to these beliefs?"

I would respectfully reject your assertion that your adequately defended your belief - there is still an unanswered logical inconsistency in your argumentation.

It would be my contention that relativistic thought leads logically to nihilism and despair (if one is willing to carry it that far - most people don't).

My belief in what is truly right or truly wrong stems from my believe in a higher being, the one that created all things.

I do not believe that it is logically consistent for someone to say that something is wrong, and not believe in a higher power that would declare it to be wrong. This you are not guilty of.

cheers, =)

Zarathustra
04-06-2004, 10:33 AM
I do not believe that it is logically consistent for someone to say that something is wrong, and not believe in a higher power that would declare it to be wrong.

and I don't believe I need a being in the sky to say what's right or wrong nor do I need the threat of eternal damnation to be a good person.

I would like to believe that humanity could govern itself and create it's own standards, rules, etc and not rely on what some would see as a fictional being.

theo
04-06-2004, 10:34 AM
Zara do you have any idea of what a cannibal even is? A cannibal is not one that just "eats his dead". A cannibal KILLS and THEN eats the dead. This is premeditated murder for lunch. Most animals don't even do this.

And, fine folks, cannibalsim is still alive and well in a part of Africa where human rights organizations have determined that pygmies have been hunted and eaten by geurilla fighters. These little pygmies are essentially victims of minds with no absolutes.

Zarathustra
04-06-2004, 10:43 AM
Canibalism, kan'ni-bal-izm, n. The eating of human flesh by mankind.

You see, there are more then just one way to be a canibal. My example is valid.
You're proving my fallacy of absolutes by not seeing anything but hunting, killing and then eating humans as canibalism.

theo
04-06-2004, 10:56 AM
Trust me Zara- no real cannibal is going to eat leftover shoulder. And not only that, what real cannibal would eat 90 year old meat?

Geesh- this thread had gone bonkers. Look what you've done Stranahan! Ya oughta be knocked about the head and temples with a wet ravioli noodle. Hmmm....- or I guess I could animate a team of buzzards tearing the flesh from your effigy, nah too much time in the feathers (don't wanna use texture maps) :D

Zarathustra
04-06-2004, 11:06 AM
I didn't realize you actually KNEW any canibals, Theo. I'll defer to your personal experience on the matter, then.

DigiLusionist
04-06-2004, 11:14 AM
I am amazed by your reasoning, Zara. People of different cultures are still human beings. Therefore, as a human being, I can find a way to gain understanding of their beliefs. I just don't have to agree with them. I don't know for sure if there are absolutes in life, but we can choose to live our lives as if there are absolutes of right and wrong.

Relativistic truth is used by individuals and cultures who want to excuse or justified all manner of heinous acts. I'm not a social science major, so I can't say whether the Aztecs thought ritual murder was acceptable, or whether they sought forgiveness from their gods in order to purge themselves of their brutal acts. (Anyone here know enough about institutionalized murder to let us know?)

When I look at instances when mass murder are committed (Rwandan massacre), I find it impossible to understand how one group of people can hack up another group and then go home and sleep soundly. Do they? Are they eventually wracked with guilt and horro over their acts? I hope so. Otherwise, they lack even basic humanity.

I guess the core question is: what defines our humanity? A God? A belief in a God (whether real or not)? Or how we might feel at any given moment (as you suggest, Zara)?

theo
04-06-2004, 11:15 AM
I don't KNOW any cannibals though it isn't too much of a stretch to assume that since I prefer my catfish to be young and tender then.... um.... well......hmmmmm. Zara I think I shall beat YOU about the head and temples with a wet ravioli noodle:D

Steve McRae
04-06-2004, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Zarathustra
and I don't believe I need a being in the sky to say what's right or wrong nor do I need the threat of eternal damnation to be a good person.

I would like to believe that humanity could govern itself and create it's own standards, rules, etc and not rely on what some would see as a fictional being.

I understand your position Zarathustra. Please in no way take any of my comments or criticisms of your position as an attack on you - only as a friendly discussion. My comments are below.

1. It is imposible for anyone to declare that any action is ultimately good or bad, separate from a creator that decares it to be on or another. My question for those who hold to this would be, what is your method for determining what is right and wrong?

2. It is a common misunderstanding of Chrisitian theology to declare that people's goodness (no matter how good) will prevent them from eternal damnation.

3. Humanity, in it's rejection of God, does try to govern itself via its own religions, rules etc. We see the results of this in the world we currently live in.

cheers, =)

Zarathustra
04-06-2004, 11:26 AM
I find it impossible to understand how one group of people can hack up another group and then go home and sleep soundly. Do they? Are they eventually wracked with guilt and horro over their acts? I hope so. Otherwise, they lack even basic humanity.

They lack our understanding of "basic humanity". Their understanding could be quite different. I don't know enough about the situation to comment specifically on that incident.

I never said you have to agree with or become someone else in order to understand them. Understanding someone else's definitions, beliefs, etc means you can see things through their eyes but does not mean you have to agree with them (ie.- FBI profiler example raised by someone earlier).


Theo - maybe canibals like old meat. You believe canibalism is crazy yet canibals are sane enough to want young meat?
There are people starving and you're wasting ravioli so frivolously - some would think that's pretty wrong. :p

atomman - we'll agree to disagree, then. You're entrenched and so am I so there's no point in continuing.

mattclary
04-06-2004, 11:34 AM
Man, you guys are getting too deep. You should go look at the pictures of Irene for a while and forget all the philisophical stuff. :cool:

Steve McRae
04-06-2004, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by Zarathustra
atomman - we'll agree to disagree, then. You're entrenched and so am I so there's no point in continuing.

np Zar,

While the discussion remains friendly, and while the opposing sides are willing to listen to each other's position, consider it and respond, there is always a point in continuing.

When people debate honestly and transparently, truth is discovered . . . .

cheers, =)

DigiLusionist
04-06-2004, 11:37 AM
Matt, you're absolutely right. I'm off to gaze fondly on her beautiful aspect...

theo
04-06-2004, 11:39 AM
Hey Digi-

The Rwandan Massacre just breaks my heart man. I cannot even put into words what it must have been like for those people to have to suffer such brutality and the numbers of dead in such a short amount of time are just mind-numbing. In 100 days almost 600,000 people slaughtered!! The rivers and streams were choked with the bodies of these poor people.

If anyone needs an example of how corrupt ALL governments are just take a long hard look at the Rwandan Genocide in 1994 (I believe it was '94). Not ONE government lifted a finger and the only thing the UN did was put a rag tag group together that essentially did NOTHING as well. Six hundred thousand people hacked to death mostly with machetes!! Good God. I saw a recent PBS special called "Ghosts of Rwanda" that would break the heart of the toughest guy out there. Bodies by the thousands just piled everywhere including beautiful woman and children with their limbs chopped off and heads bashed in.

I had already known of this tragedy for years but after watching that Frontline special I could not sleep for a week.

Zarathustra
04-06-2004, 11:39 AM
When people debate honestly and transparently, truth is discovered . . . .

Not when you've already decided what the truth is and are unwilling to accept an alternative.

Zarathustra
04-06-2004, 11:41 AM
Rwanda, apparently, doesn't have any oil.

Neither does North Korea. :D

theo
04-06-2004, 11:42 AM
I'm probably with you on that one Zara.

Steve McRae
04-06-2004, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Zarathustra
Not when you've already decided what the truth is and are unwilling to accept an alternative.

I would agree with this statement. Many times people who have grown up with a belief system, have a difficult time honestly accepting challenges to what they believe.

Now in regards to myself, I quite obviously have already decided what I believe to be true - otherwise I would not hold to that belief.

If you (or anyone) would show me how my belief system is inconsistent I would gladly change - I do not desire to cling to a belief system that is faulty - that would be academically dishonest.

Just so you know - I did not grow up in a church, my parents are not followers of Christ etc.

I think that I have asked two very important questions during this dialogue that have not yet been answered.

1. In what way do you determin what is right and wrong?
2. How do you reconcile the logical inconsistency of your argument that there is no absolute truth?

The last thing that I would like to add in passing, is that you have made a claim about Christianity that was not true. Perhaps there are other misconceptions as well?

I am willing to discuss.

cheers, =)

Zarathustra
04-06-2004, 12:03 PM
1. In what way do you determin what is right and wrong?
On a case by case situation, based on prior experiences and decisions, information and arguments presented, etc.

2. How do you reconcile the logical inconsistency of your argument that there is no absolute truth?
That's a cute, semantic puzzle with no end. Would you prefer something like "There are no other absolutes then this statement"?

..you have made a claim about Christianity that was not true

What would that be?

DigiLusionist
04-06-2004, 12:20 PM
Must... have.. LW8... sinking... into... morass... of theology... and debate...

**licking parched lips and holding up a trembling hand**

Light... Wave...

Steve McRae
04-06-2004, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by Zarathustra
On a case by case situation, based on prior experiences and decisions, information and arguments presented, etc.
What would that be?

That is my point exactly - that your belief system allows an individual to determine for himself what is right and wrong (and I would argue, that is why it is very popular). People who hold to this belief system have no right make ANY claim that anything or any action is wrong because you can not point to an authority other than yourself. You can not logically say that the KKK, Hitler, NAMBLA are wrong because your believe system does not allow for it. The theist however, has much better ground to stand on.


The problem with the position you have given is that it is not a 'cute, semantic puzzle' as you have presented it. It rather is a very real logical contradiction. The reason why it goes in a circle is because it is not a true statement. Even if you grant that "there are no absolutes except this one . . . etc." you have contradicted yourself. It does not answer the logic problem.

The incorrect statement that you made regarding Christian theology (and forgive me if you do not attribute this to Christian theology) is the following:

"and I don't believe I need a being in the sky to say what's right or wrong nor do I need the threat of eternal damnation to be a good person"

I pointed out in a earlier post that this does not accurately represent Christian theology. People are not saved from damnation by being a 'good' person.


cheers again =)

Noclar7
04-06-2004, 12:46 PM
Ohh for the love of .. eagchhh nevermind..
in light of the steady stream of redundancy, I've decided to hijack this thread with some humour:

http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=135741

now laugh, and keep the political/religous bs debates that will never end to a minimum.
why? because this thread was a stupid idea to start in the first place. somebody giggling about domain names.

now go laugh, and start holding your breath cause 8 is around the corner.

Zarathustra
04-06-2004, 12:56 PM
I wouldn't hold my breath.

atomman - My statement didn't specify a religion, although I believe it applies to Christianity. Without the threat of Hell, why be good?

TSpyrison
04-06-2004, 01:17 PM
Someone find me a stick so i can poke my eyes out now...

:D

Steve McRae
04-06-2004, 01:19 PM
hi Zar,

because you asked . . .

Christian theology states that all men are sinners from birth and that redemption is given as a gift (through faith in the Messiah) - NOT by anything that one can do. Good works that we do are a RESULT of being redeemed or changed or rather 'born again'.

This is completely opposite from a person trying to be good enough to earn God's acceptance - which is what most if not all other theistic religions teach.

PS (Caps are for emphasis, not yelling =)

cheers and peace,

mrunion
04-06-2004, 01:56 PM
If I may be so bold (and NOT attacking anyone)...

The reason >>I<< believe there are no true atheists is because:

1) Saying with definity that there is no God means the person holding to that truth must know EVERYTHING, and thus know there is no God.
2) Being omnipotent makes you a god, therefore logic says there are no true athiests.

Yes, I am also Christian. Those familiar with the beliefs will realize that it is NOT brainwashing, it is choice.

I also believe that EVERYONE will live forever in an afterlife -- Heaven or Hell is the choice WE make. When eternity rolls around, we'll know who's right! :D

Peace intended.

Jake
04-06-2004, 02:15 PM
Atomman--


That is my point exactly - that your belief system allows an individual to determine for himself what is right and wrong (and I would argue, that is why it is very popular). People who hold to this belief system have no right make ANY claim that anything or any action is wrong because you can not point to an authority other than yourself. You can not logically say that the KKK, Hitler, NAMBLA are wrong because your believe system does not allow for it. The theist however, has much better ground to stand on.

It depends on the theist, but in general I would say that most theists aren't standing at all. They're sitting in a comfy chair that someone else has made for them.

I think your response quoted above, though you're addressing Zarathustra's viewpoint, is essentially the way cultural relativism is misportrayed by religious people. Cultural relativism doesn't mean that the individual people determine right or wrong on their own and that their viewpoint is just as valid as anyone else's. It means that different cultures have different inherent values and patterns of thought which will lead them to divergent conclusions regarding social issues.

Cultural relativism as a condition of having different discrete human societies is a fact. Cultural relativism as a philosophical stance towards morality means examining the social and logical underpinnings of different moral systems to see exactly where and why they differ. This is precisely what a lot of theists don't want, since they believe their morality is based on an absolute truth that exists outside of human culture. It derives authority from a presumed divinity that they don't want held up for scrutiny.

The irony, probably for anyone who's studied the history of religion, is that organized religions are culturally encoded. They are interpreted and restated by generation after generation of worshipers. As the needs and demographics of the worshiping body change, so do the precepts of the religion change. Look at food. When the Christians are a small Jewish cult, everyone eats kosher. Then when a bunch of non-Jews join, there's a message from heaven saying it's suddenly ok to eat whatever.


I pointed out in a earlier post that this does not accurately represent Christian theology. People are not saved from damnation by being a 'good' person.

Exactly. Which is why Christian theology is ridiculous from a moral perspective.

Steve McRae
04-06-2004, 02:41 PM
Hey Jake, glad you could hop in =)


Originally posted by Jake
It depends on the theist, but in general I would say that most theists aren't standing at all. They're sitting in a comfy chair that someone else has made for them.[/B]

- if you mean that most thesists have not considered some of the more difficult questions I would probably tend to agree with you. This does not prove or disprove any argument.



Originally posted by Jake
I think your response quoted above, though you're addressing Zarathustra's viewpoint, is essentially the way cultural relativism is misportrayed by religious people. Cultural relativism doesn't mean that the individual people determine right or wrong on their own and that their viewpoint is just as valid as anyone else's. It means that different cultures have different inherent values and patterns of thought which will lead them to divergent conclusions regarding social issues.[/B]

- your definition of cultural relativism is correct and if I might say, quite obvious
- I was specifically addressing Zarathustra's view, which was in regards to moral relativism


Originally posted by Jake
Cultural relativism as a condition of having different discrete human societies is a fact. Cultural relativism as a philosophical stance towards morality means examining the social and logical underpinnings of different moral systems to see exactly where and why they differ. This is precisely what a lot of theists don't want, since they believe their morality is based on an absolute truth that exists outside of human culture. It derives authority from a presumed divinity that they don't want held up for scrutiny. [/B]

Jake, I completely agree with you. I don't know of any thinking theist who would argue that different cultures in different areas and times think differently and have various modes of morality. This is a fact.

I don't see how this would support an argument for moral relativism, which is what is being discussed. I am not just saying this - please help me to understand the point you are trying to make


Originally posted by Jake
The irony, probably for anyone who's studied the history of religion, is that organized religions are culturally encoded. They are interpreted and restated by generation after generation of worshipers. As the needs and demographics of the worshiping body change, so do the precepts of the religion change. Look at food. When the Christians are a small Jewish cult, everyone eats kosher. Then when a bunch of non-Jews join, there's a message from heaven saying it's suddenly ok to eat whatever. [/B]

Again I agree that organized religions are culturally encoded. I disagree that the precepts change. They may have been changed by some groups in time in history. But the fundamental truths that are in scripture have not changed or been reinterpreted unless you include modern liberal scholarship.

I (or anyone else) for that matter can open a bible to see if what I believe is the same as what the early church believed.

I again fail to see your point as it pertains to moral relativism.

mlinde
04-06-2004, 03:23 PM
not a chance. I just realized I was two pages out.

DigiLusionist
04-06-2004, 03:26 PM
Jake, the Christian perspective is not ridiculous. That's an uninformed and insulting statement. And, unless you have a degree in theology showing you have studied the regilion and the Bible thoroughly, I will hold to that statement.

Anyone who actually follows the teachings of Christ as written in the Bible would be blameless in the eyes of God and Man. How can one be to blame for anything if he loves his neighbor, turns the other cheek, and wants to live a life that is moral and productive?

The fact that MANY folks who consider themselves Christian don't do these things doesn't make the Christian philosophy ridiculous. It only makes these people what they are: human beings- weak of flesh and weak of moral strength.

Christianity is about choices. In my faith, God made us with the ability to choose to do good or evil. I try my best to choose to do good every day. Usually, I fail.

Should I, therefore, hop on the humanist bandwagon because it's an impossible thing to be good all the time? Should I embrace my propensity to succumb to weakness of the flesh and just live a hedonistic life.

I did that for a while, when I was a very young man. But I found it to be a very empty life. I wasn't adding anything to the world. I wasn't making a difference. And made a lot of choices that lacked a moral compass.

For me, and for millions of others who have chosen to believe in God, life is more about living better than being right. I can't say with any certainty that God exists. Nor can you say he doesn't. So, I will be a person on this forum who accepts that you and others don't buy into my faith. But please, extend a little respect to opposing views by not calling us ridiculous.

I refuse to respect the views of any man who refuses to respect my own.

phil lawson
04-06-2004, 03:52 PM
Well put DigiLusionist ! :)

theo
04-06-2004, 04:00 PM
It derives authority from a presumed divinity that they don't want held up for scrutiny

Jake- extremely generalized comment there friend. Problem with a divine being is just that- if this divine being showed up without the mask he would not be so divine now would he? I would venture to guess that most theists would relish the divinity proving his existence.

You don't have to be a theologian to understand the simple fact that culture is a huge part of religion. But this really isn't about religion or culture- it's more a generic sense of an individual's desire to do better and rise higher, everyday if possible.

The elusive quest for personal refinement seems to always lead to a supreme being- there really isn't any denying of that fact and I can prove it- atheists. An atheist cannot exist WITHOUT god! They have deemed that he is important enough to actually label themselves as such and in doing so lend credence to God's very existence.

These divergent conclusions you bring up are the beauty of the cultures. As long as these divergent views don't cross thresholds of proper human morality they will always be beautiful. But when these views include KILLING innocent people in the name of religion a new paradigm is created that is OUTSIDE proper human morality.

Same with freedom. There are cultures that restrict personal freedom- the Chinese government is a good example of this with the latest arrest of the buddhist monks. This is an unacceptable breach of proper human morality.

Every culture does have its hangups and to deny this means you're plain intellectually dishonest.

Lightwolf
04-07-2004, 03:31 AM
Hi there,

let me jump in, this thread is turning good :)

Originally posted by DigiLusionist
Christianity is about choices. In my faith, God made us with the ability to choose to do good or evil. I try my best to choose to do good every day. Usually, I fail.

"Life is about choices. I have the ability to choose to do good or evil. I try my best to choose to do good every day. Usually, I fail."
No, I'm an atheist, but I'd sign this?
Does it make me a bad person by leaving out religion? Do I need any reference to religion in there?

Jake, the Christian perspective is not ridiculous. That's an uninformed and insulting statement.
I for one don't think it is ridiculous, just as the muslim or buddhist perspective isn't ridiculous.
But then you have man come into the equation...

And, unless you have a degree in theology showing you have studied the regilion and the Bible thoroughly, I will hold to that statement.
Which bible? Which translation, which version? There is such thing as "the" bible.

atomman:

Originally posted by atomman
Christian theology states that all men are sinners from birth and that redemption is given as a gift (through faith in the Messiah) - NOT by anything that one can do.
Even that is disputed, and highly depends on the christian sect you refer to (I'm using "sect" in a neutral term here, since there is no active "original" christian church/movement, so I'd for example include catholicism as a sect as well).

Cheers,
Mike - scnr.

colkai
04-07-2004, 04:56 AM
Originally posted by DigiLusionist
How can one be to blame for anything if he loves his neighbor, turns the other cheek, and wants to live a life that is moral and productive?

The fact that MANY folks who consider themselves Christian don't do these things doesn't make the Christian philosophy ridiculous. It only makes these people what they are: human beings- weak of flesh and weak of moral strength.

Agreed,
Personally I don't follow a religion, I believe that good and bad rest within us all. The measure of a man (or woman) is how he handles it. Be the best you can be, we all have within us the ability to be nasty, vicious and criminal, it's whether you are weak willed as to if you give in to this.

The folks that wind me up, and I guess a lot of Christians too, are those that pray on a Sunday sin on a Monday and those that hid behind their religion.
"Jesus will save me" , I'm a Christian, therefore am morally better and superior than the next guy, puulease!
Plenty of acts of violence have been done "because God told me", by folks who were "God fearing citizens" etc... Heck even on a day to day level, I've been cut up by plenty of folks advertising their faith with little metal fishes and 'Jesus' slogans in the window, not very decent behaviour is that.

As you say - it is a question of will, if some folks need a jealous and vengeful god to keep them on that path, then that is a good thing, they may not listen to their own inner voice, but they fear the wrath of a deity who will condemn them to eternal torment. That's fine by me if it keeps them from doing harm.

To me, there is a huge difference between being a Christian and sticking to Christian values. Which, let us be honest here, are values that existed long before Christianity took hold as a major religion. Being a decent person does not mean you are a Christian or vice-versa.

retinajoy
04-07-2004, 04:57 AM
Originally posted by Lightwolf

Which bible? Which translation, which version? There is such thing as "the" bible.


Many people seem to think that the Christain Bible (a collection of 66 books) is like the game "Chinese Whispers". That the texts and meanings have gradually changed over the centuries as it has been passed down, be it by progression or on purpose.

The New Testament that we have now and can buy in a bookstore is apart from language, with historical certainty the same what early Christians were using in the 4th century. Whole texts have survived from that period from different regions without inconsitencies. Meaning, nothing has been altered or tampered with (at least since then). Gospel fragments from earlier manuscripts (90AD to 300AD) also corroborate that the text has not changed. So we can confidently say that the texts we have now has not been embellished or altered.

However we do have different translations from the Hebrew and Greek. Old English (King James), Modern English (NIV), easier more understandable English (Good News Bible) etc etc etc plus translations into other languages.

Maybe translating from the Hebrew or Greek to other languages does mean that some essense gets lost, but the meanings/messages of the texts are the same. Whether they are true, that is another matter.

Out of interest. Archeologists found the complete text of Issiah (an old testament book) with the Dead Sea scrolls. The document has been carbon dated in recent years at about 700BC.
The text matches word for word (apart from some spelling) what we have now. The Jews were very metciulous in there copying of the sacred books.

Anyway, I thought I would throw this info into the pot.

Matt
04-07-2004, 05:04 AM
Originally posted by Noclar7
Ohh for the love of .. eagchhh nevermind..
in light of the steady stream of redundancy, I've decided to hijack this thread with some humour:

http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=135741

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!! :D Brilliant! Simply brilliant!! :)

js33
04-07-2004, 05:19 AM
I'm with Colkia and Mike and the rest of you like minded guys.
I'm not religious and don't feel I need it to be a good person. In fact every time I see nutcases on TV like the woman who bashed in two of her sons heads with a big rock and tried to kill her other son because GOD told her to. I mean come on. I 'm not implying that all religious people have these tendencies but every time I here stories like that the more I despise religion. Also the nutcases that flew the planes into the WTC were doing it in the name of Allah. In fact more people have been killed in the name of religion than anything else. It's just the hypocrisy of it all that turns me off. You have to believe what we believe or we will kill you. I think people need to have the balls to think for themselves. It's high time people stop killing each other because they don't all believe in the same imaginary guy in the sky.

Cheers,
JS

TSpyrison
04-07-2004, 06:55 AM
I think this thread has degraded to nothing but intellectual masturbation ...

mattclary
04-07-2004, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by TSpyrison
I think this thread has degraded to nothing but intellectual masturbation ...

Minus the payoff at the end though. ;)

theo
04-07-2004, 08:14 AM
There is some wisdom being spouted:D

TSpyrison
04-07-2004, 08:38 AM
Eeeew...

DigiLusionist
04-07-2004, 08:40 AM
Pretty gory episode with that mom who bashed her kids' heads in. I wouldn't want to be her when she's on medication and realizes what she's done. Same as the mom who drowed her sons, and the mom who threw her child off of a bridge. All blamed God or "voices."

These women had violent psychotic episodes. To indict believers in God because of these women's actions is a huge stretch and rather, don't you think?

Side note: Intellectual masterbation or discussion? The thread, like all threads, is what it is. Quit bitching about it. Simply don't participate.

theo
04-07-2004, 09:00 AM
Don't eeeew me TSpy- whaddaya expect when you insert new dialogue in the midst of an intellectual dust storm :p

Digi- maybe you need to relax a bit, I think TSpyrison was just having some fun with us philosophers.

TSpyrison
04-07-2004, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by DigiLusionist

Side note: Intellectual masterbation or discussion? The thread, like all threads, is what it is. Quit bitching about it. Simply don't participate.

Touchy touchyÖ

Iím not participating. I couldnít even pretend to be all philosophical like this, nor would I want to be. I have no urge to superciliously demonstrate my intellect and understanding of the universe like thisÖ

Its like when my wife sees a little man driving a super expensive sports car.. She calls it a penis extension.

Relax some and bring it down a notch or two.. Life is already to stressful

Just trying to lighten things up a bit

Lightwolf
04-07-2004, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by TSpyrison
I think this thread has degraded to nothing but intellectual masturbation ...
Well, considering how this thread started, I think it could be much worse :)
Nothing wrong with discussing our views, is there?

Cheers,
Mike

Zarathustra
04-07-2004, 09:23 AM
Wow, I skip some updates and look at this thing grow.

Well, I'm out. If anyone feels they have unresolved issues with me about anything here , you can contact me.

Catch ya all in another thread.

retinajoy
04-07-2004, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by DigiLusionist
Pretty gory episode with that mom who bashed her kids' heads in. I wouldn't want to be her when she's on medication and realizes what she's done. Same as the mom who drowed her sons, and the mom who threw her child off of a bridge. All blamed God or "voices."

These women had violent psychotic episodes. To indict believers in God because of these women's actions is a huge stretch and rather, don't you think?


The greatest genocides (talking millions murdered) last century (and more than any other century) were perpertrated by the non-religious. Say, Hitler (though he had some belief in the occult), Stalin etc. However, those who don't have a religion of some sort should not be tarnished because a dodgy minority, just as those who do believe in a religion should also not be tarnished because of a dodgy minority.

We can all do potentially good or bad and whatever our background, we should all treat each other equally (if only!). We have free choice. If there is a God, then maybe that helps some of us make better choices than would otherwise.

I think it is time to do some Lightwaving. And for those who find this all too serious, follow this thread and have a laugh.

http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=158879#post158879

mrunion
04-07-2004, 09:55 AM
My car is 146 inches from tip to tail -- I sometimes WISH it was a penis extension!

retinajoy
04-07-2004, 09:57 AM
LOL :D :D :D

TSpyrison
04-07-2004, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by mrunion
My car is 146 inches from tip to tail -- I sometimes WISH it was a penis extension!

Might have a hellava time finding a woman who..

err.. nevermind...

:D

hrgiger
04-07-2004, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by retinajoy
The greatest genocides (talking millions murdered) last century (and more than any other century) were perpertrated by the non-religious. [/url]

Hmm, have you ever heard of a place called the Middle East? They're not fighting over the copyright to cheez whiz over there...

You can't really talk about 2 individuals like Hitler and Stalin and make the case that the non-religious kill more people then the religious. Not to mention the fact that they weren't killing people over their non-religion.

retinajoy
04-07-2004, 10:31 AM
but I also said:

"...those who don't have a religion of some sort should not be tarnished because a dodgy minority, just as those who do believe in a religion should also not be tarnished because of a dodgy minority. "

I hope I was not giving the impression that the religious are better. That is totally wrong and I don't think that.

I am addressing the balance in this thread discussion that it is not just people in the name of religion who have commited wrongs/murders. I am also fully aware of the Middle East problem. That's a massive complicated debate.

mattclary
04-07-2004, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by DigiLusionist
These women had violent psychotic episodes.

Kinda makes me think of Joan of Arc... hmmmm.... ;)

colkai
04-07-2004, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by mattclary
Kinda makes me think of Joan of Arc... hmmmm.... ;)
Wrong! - they were holy visions dontcha know ;)
Ohh.. sorry - never mind ;)

I'll get me coat...

erikk
04-07-2004, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by Kvaalen
I have nothing against him owning porn sites, that is his buisness. But I do think that people who buy from him should have the right to know a bit more about where/what/who their money is going to. I personally wasn't planning on buying anything but I'm saying for someone else. If that bothers him, it's good he knew about it. If it doesn't, well that all the better.

That may be the damned stupidest thing I've read all week. So, I want to go to Starbucks and buy some coffee, that makes it my right to know about the sexual proclivities of both the person at the cash register and the person pouring the coffee? Or to know that a plumber I call out is gay? Or a furniture mover takes place in threesomes? Frankly, it's not anyone's right unless it has a completely direct effect on the service being purchased.

Who was it that said that thing about throwing the first stone??? hmmm. . . the name's on the tip of my tongue.

Lightwolf
04-07-2004, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by erikk
Who was it that said that thing about throwing the first stone??? hmmm. . . the name's on the tip of my tongue.
Brian ! ;)

Cheers,
Mike - scnr

colkai
04-07-2004, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Lightwolf
Brian ! ;)

Cheers,
Mike - scnr

He can't come out - he's been a very naughty boy ;)

Actually, a friend of ours had "Brighter side of life" played at his funeral. His widow said that just about summed him up. It was hilarious seeing some folks faces, mind you all those that knew him thought it was cool! :D

nerdyguy227
04-07-2004, 08:34 PM
Who is Lee Stranahan?

theo
04-07-2004, 08:50 PM
He is a man. He is a legend. He is Super Stranahan the mighty lurker in the shadows. The wonder boy of mystery, the very essence of primal agility. The sole inventor of Pac Man and the Twinkie. The ingenious seller of naughty domain names and last but not least the teacher of men in the way of the Newtekians, the long lost tribe of the LW8.

That my boy is the short version ;)

js33
04-07-2004, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by nerdyguy227
Who is Lee Stranahan?

Hehehee. It's a ***** being 12 isn't it. :D
Lee was teaching newbies how to use Lightwave before you were even born. Isn't it weird that you are using a program that is older than you are?

Cheers,
JS

nerdyguy227
04-07-2004, 09:22 PM
It is really scarry

Jake
04-07-2004, 09:35 PM
DigiLusionist--


Jake, the Christian perspective is not ridiculous. That's an uninformed and insulting statement. And, unless you have a degree in theology showing you have studied the regilion and the Bible thoroughly, I will hold to that statement.

Well I certainly don't have a degree in theology, so maybe you can help me out here. I'm going to list some of some of the basics of Christianity as I understand it. Just chime in if you feel I'm misrepresenting things:

1. All people are born with sin.
2. This is based on the actions of the first two humans, Adam and Eve. God punished them for their transgressions, along with all of their descendents (i.e. the whole human race).
3. God sent his own son as a sacrifice to wash away sin and serve as the doorway to heaven.
4. The only way to achieve salvation is to accept Christ as savior. Leading a virtuous life will not, in of itself, lead one to salvation.
5. Those who do not achieve salvation suffer eternal damnation. Possibly a long stint in purgatory, depending on what sect of Christianity you adhere to.

Is that more or less correct? Does this seem like a rational foundation for morality? Does the actions of God in this mythology strike you as those of a moral person?

How about we recast the situation in different terms:

One morning you are pulled out of bed and hauled off to a courthouse, where you are accused of a crime that was committed by one of your ancestors. You are offered a choice: swear to devote your life to the spiritual figurehead of the society, or be taken to the back of the courthouse where you will be shot.

How does this situation strike you? ridiculous? I realize it may be difficult to compare the two, since being shot in the second instance doesn't necessarily imply an eternity of suffering will follow.


Should I, therefore, hop on the humanist bandwagon because it's an impossible thing to be good all the time? Should I embrace my propensity to succumb to weakness of the flesh and just live a hedonistic life.

You should first make an effort to understand what humanism actually is. You are already on that bandwagon to a certain extent. Most of us here are. The humanist perspective is a major philosophical current in the development of Western civilization. It originates with the Greeks and gains momentum with the rediscovery of classical texts during the Renaissance. It asserts that our knowledge of the world should be based in human experience, rather than religious concepts. Humanism embraces empiricism, rationality, and a naturalistic understanding of the world we live in (as opposed to the afterlife).

There are many different types of humanist philosophy. Some of them are religious. Some of the more notable humanists in history were devout Christians. The only religious perspective incompatible with humanism is fundamentalism. Hedonism has nothing to do with humanism, though there's no reason an individual couldn't subscribe to both schools of thought.

I don't know the exact nature of the religious right's smear campaign against humanism. But it seems to me to be an indirect way of deriding the very notion of secular society.


For me, and for millions of others who have chosen to believe in God, life is more about living better than being right. I can't say with any certainty that God exists. Nor can you say he doesn't. So, I will be a person on this forum who accepts that you and others don't buy into my faith. But please, extend a little respect to opposing views by not calling us ridiculous.

Well, we differ on this point. First off, I don't see that calling certain aspects of Christianity ridiculous means I'm calling you or Christians in general ridiculous. I think there is wisdom in Christianity and in many respects the religion is a positive force in the world. However, the core aspect of Christian morality I have discussed makes absolutely no sense to me. If you're hung up on the word "ridiculous", fine--I'll make more of an effort to mince my words. If you're offended by the actual sentiment I'm expressing, then I choose to offend you, rather than repressing a valid viewpoint on the basis that it might rub someone the wrong way.
Sorry.

Secondly, you may be concerned more with "living better", as opposed to being right, but there are certainly a large number of Christians out there who are concerned with what's "right" and are engaging the political process to get their way on numerous issues. Any group that promotes an ideology in a way that will impact the society in general opens that ideology up to criticism.

theo--


The elusive quest for personal refinement seems to always lead to a supreme being- there really isn't any denying of that fact and I can prove it- atheists. An atheist cannot exist WITHOUT god! They have deemed that he is important enough to actually label themselves as such and in doing so lend credence to God's very existence.

You're kidding, right? So if I come up with a word that means "someone who does not believe in the Easter Bunny", this lends credence to the notion that the Easter Bunny actually exists since said bunny is referenced in the word?

You know, it's fun to play with words.
It really is.
Just don't let it get out of hand, ok? :)


These divergent conclusions you bring up are the beauty of the cultures. As long as these divergent views don't cross thresholds of proper human morality they will always be beautiful. But when these views include KILLING innocent people in the name of religion a new paradigm is created that is OUTSIDE proper human morality.

This assumes that everyone can agree on what "proper" human morality is. Lot's of innocent people were killed in Gulf War II. Does this mean it's outside of proper human morality. Is removal of a potential threat more justified than killing for religion?


Every culture does have its hangups and to deny this means you're plain intellectually dishonest.

Did I deny that? To what are you refering?

theo
04-07-2004, 11:31 PM
Jake-

You have got to be kidding me! You are accusing me of playing with words- how, pray tell, is that any different than the word games you are playing, which, incidentally, are fine with me?

Good grief man, stick to your defense but don't get infantile about word play when that is what most intellectual discourse is based on. Heck, the very foundation of many mathematical principles started with a philsopher.

This whole discussion, interesting as it is, is a paradox in words. Conclusions to this type of human interaction will never be reached due to the intense complexity of the individual and his cosmos. We are discussing that which is unprovable, literally.

This may well be the longest running conversation piece in the history of mankind- I can easily imagine the earliest humans wondering- "Why are we here?" as they looked up into the heavens.

We are no different. Each viewpoint voiced on this thread is a manifestation of several factors which include your personality-type, upbringing, and past experiences.

So, in the end we are ALL in the same boat which really should cause us to appreciate our differences because we will never all think alike. If we did think alike this thread would have been rather boring.

retinajoy
04-08-2004, 02:03 AM
As it is Easter. Here is the Exorcist in 30 seconds starring Bunnies. :D

http://www.angryalien.com/0204/exorcistbunnies.html

DigiLusionist
04-08-2004, 02:12 AM
Loooong thread.

Jake, I take it from your posts that you are non-religious. Is this correct? If so, what is your world view?

policarpo
04-08-2004, 10:37 AM
Live life,
Love life,
Embrace it.
If you can't...
Let the rest of us.

:D