Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Jones: Yes, you're exactly right. Thanks for adding that.

I'll tell you what. If anyone wants to talk about Guantanomo, I'll chime back in. Otherwise, I'll be on the more fun pages.

_________________

Didymus wrote:

Whoa, my bad, dude. I lost my head there for a sec; I let personal feelings into the debate, and I apologize.

I read over my last statements and they were quite combatative, I'm sorry.

I don't want this to be a charged taking sides battle where one person has to defend their ideology. That is decidely NOT fun, and what is a homestar runner forum if not fun?

This forum and difficult discussions are best when everyone respects each other's ideas...Yesterday I did not do that. That whole "on the couch" thing was rediculous. I guess I was projecting other people I know onto you, my cyber-buddy.

Didymus, I think I remember hearing that you were about 30 These are thirty years that you have had experiences that have shaped your belief system. God has taught you things that none of us could ever understand. I want to learn from these experiences. I have already learned quite a great deal from you.

Interruptor Jones wrote:


I doubt they keep tape recorders in the senate's chambers...or maybe they do? I need much more then two dollars, though. Bribes and special favors don't come cheap in Washington.

Actually after I posted, I found out about Mary Cheney, the VP's daughter works for her dad, as an BushCheney2004 election 'official' or something. She is very quiet on her homosexuality and makes 100,000 dollars a year. There are several gay-rights groups trying to talk her into "switching sides" as it were.

Life is funny, isn't it? One day you're up and the next you're down. Or is it just me?

Thanks, LV. I really appreciate that. I won't be able to post much anymore. My puter died. I'm abusing government resources right now to make this post.

_________________

military?

Veteran's Administration. I was at work then. Right now I'm using a school computer.

_________________

Sorry I'm responding to a post so far back in the topic, but I do remember a Bible verse stating quite clearly that you can have slaves. And of course, I remember another about how the master can beat his slaves as he likes, and he only gets charged with a crime if the slave dies.

This isn't any attack on christianity, just what I remember reading. I just find it interesting that there are so many places in the bible that tell you to do something that is far from being accepted today (killing/stoning people comes up quite often) and fundamentalists choose to ignore those parts.

I also find it interesting that you're not providing the chapter and verse for it. I think you're confusing the Bible with other texts, or you misread something. Please find these verses and come back.

Exodus 21 has quite a few bits on slavery. It didn't have the clear "you may have slaves" I remember (not exact wording). However, it is stated there that if a master smites his slave, the master will be punished. But if the slave survives for "a day or two" the master will not be punished. So I remembered that part correctly.

Also, 1 Timothy 6 has a few things to say on slavery. Guess those escaped slaves weren't really going to the "promised land".

Argh... I remember a "you-may-have-male-and-female-slaves" verse but it eludes me.

Anyway, I'm not exactly a person that reads the Bible a lot, so don't think that I'm sure all the stuff I remember is actually there. I wasn't providing the verses out of ignorance, not deceit.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?new=1&word=slave&section=0&version=nas&language=en

Just providing some resources...

Good points; I would add that the more you scrutinize US policy, the more you find the inconsistencies. Corporations control the government way too much; George W is Mr. Corporation -- that's what he knows! For him and Cheney to act as if they have no vested interest in the Middle East is just silly, and it insults the public. All these "influences" that control the media have no place in a free speech environment.

Michael Moore only gets his movie put into independent theatres? Give me a break, America.

I disagree. Jesus made peace throughout his life, encouraging life and keeping people alive. He stopped Peter from cutting off the soldier's ear, and when he was angry, only material possessions were destroyed. He combatted diseases and even mental illness (so-called 'demon posession')so that people could live, live, live.

We are living in a system where people are dying constantly -- we are the gears that can erase genocide, disease, and the government's sanctioned killing of persons. Jesus would have had very much to say about the US's foreign policy, wouldn't he? Especially when there is so much killing in his name?

There's a section of the Brothers Karamazov called "The Grand Inquisitor" where Jesus comes back again and is re-crucified by the Spanish government during the Inquisition. They kill him for not being a catholic and other reasons, mostly reasons that he was going to remove them from power. In the state we are in right now in America, I believe Jesus would be accused of treason.

He would overthrow the government! Turn over the tables of the Senate chambers! Promote life! Keep growing and learning! Keep both of your ears to hear God more clearly!

On slavery. If I still had access to that paper I did for my Hebrew professor, I'd post it, or at least find some way to make it accessable. It's too long to put on a forum, I think (over 12 pages). Besides, with my puter still dead, there's no way to access it anyway.

The Bible allows for reasonable corporeal punishment of slaves, but not the type that would result in serious injury. If the slave is seriously injured (broken bone, loss of limb or eye, etc.) then the slave is to be set free and financially compensated for his loss. I don't have the BIble right in front of me, or I'd post the verse.

For example, the treatment of the Guantanamo prisoners would constitute unreasonable treatment and would warrant setting them free. But then again, they're prisoners, not slaves. I am pretty sure that such inhumane treatment ought to be compensated. We characterize the terrorists as barbarians, but we act no better ourselves. What ever happened to maintaining the moral high ground? We've lost it here, people.

_________________

Yikes! I don't know how to feel about that. Well, yes I do. You just need to see the Bible as a work in progress. In my humble opinion.


I think Bushco lost the moral high ground around September 14th, 2001. It was about then that we squandered any sympathy we had and started shootin' from the hip.

I can't believe what has happened to America. It's like the more truth you get, the more crazy things get. How many people have resigned under Bush's watch and have turned against him? Paul O'Neill..Dick Clark, and what's going on with George Tenet? You know that you have to worry when the CIA director, arguable the most knowlegdable man in the world, if not the most powerful, quits. It sure makes me scared.

Well, the overarching principle is that slave masters should be merciful, not cruel. By New Testament times, masters are encouraged to treat their slaves like family.

To apply that principle today, employers should really care about their employee's needs and not overwork them or put undue stress on them. (Yeah, I'm talking to you, Office Depot!).

_________________

A few things... yes, the Bible does say you may have slaves. Yes, it endorses corporeal punishment. And yes, Deuteronomy/Leviticus says that the owner of a slave must pay a fine for killing his own or someone else's slave.

Let's be perfectly clear here: what is a slave? To Americans, we see Africans worked to death for generations on plantations. In modern Africa, it's an 8-year old girl owned by a warlord who has his way with her until one of the two dies. Both of these would have been absurd concepts to Abraham, who "owned" many slaves and was about to leave his entire inheritence to one before his two sons were born!

Biblical slavery has a one-to-one correspondance to the concept of "employee" today. And I sincerely wish that large companies treated their employees as good as the Bible commands slaves treated. There were no employees, no job interviews, and no middle-class. There were land-owners and there were slaves.

And about punishment? The punishment for any crime back in the day was corporeal or financial. No prison. No public service. You were killed, beaten, or fined for any crime. The punishment clause seems to me to merely deputize slave owners... like a factory with it's own security force.

And think of a factory that has an on-the-job mishap. Is the owner of General Motors imprisoned if one employee dies in a machine? No, but the company does pay a death benefit to the family.

While we don't call each other "master" and "slave," the principles in the Bible, even and especially the laws of the pentateuch, absolutely do apply today! Just don't get caught up in semantics. You may call me a fundamentalist, but I do not ignore parts of the Word of God that I don't like. I take it all, even the parts I would be a little scared of, and face it head on. God doesn't need me to defend him, he just wants me to know. Maybe you too! So if there is a part you think I'm ignoring, bring it to my attention (PM/email is OK too) and I'd be glad to hear your points.

_________________

The Bible is 66 works, all already written. Are you proposing an addendum to the canon? What would you suggest we add?

Oh no! Who's gonna do New Year's Rockin' Eve?

_________________

It's not what I would add, it's what I'd take out...

Also, add an 'E' to Dick Clarke's name.

Is there a specific book you're remove, or perhaps all the works by one author you don't consider to be inspired? Many have historically debated the canonicity of the Song of Solomon or Ruth for content reasons. Some have also questioned Jude and Hebrews because of authorial questions. Questioning what God really said is important because you come to answers about his intention. Of couse, some people would smorgasboard pick-and-choose what specific verse they happen to like without regard to what the good Lord is trying to communicate. If you just don't like something you know he did say, then maybe you'd better take that up with him

Oh, yeah. I guess my pop-culture knowledge is a little dated. My only current pop-culture connection is

_________________

No need to be , I misspelled Clarke's name too.

I thought you might ask which books; I am not going to pick apart one of the world's great religious texts and beautiful books hoping to score ethics points. Or something.

I do not take the Bible as a manual, or 'God-breathed' anymore. However, I do not believe anymore that it is a case of me disagreeing with God. I believe the Bible is examples of mankind trying to understand God. In the Old Testament, man did a comparably worse job than he did in the New Testament, wouldn't you say? I have heard a lot of Christians say that the nature of God changed; I find this idea silly. How can God change? He would have to admit that he was wrong.

Any inconsistencies in the Bible and purely human. Thre fact that the Bible is made by humans, and therefore made by finite logic, does not make it any less 'true,' but it certainly does put a context in there.

You had admonished someone for misusing Scripture earlier. Really, if you take a verse out of context, that is really misusing it. I have heard Bible verses used to prove all sorts of things underneath the understanding that the Bible is "God-Breathed." I think it gets very dangerous when you use the Bible like a copy of the encyclopedia.

The Bible is NOT a scientific text, NOT a logic text, NOT even a modern-day ethics text, really. It is, however, in my opinion, a collection of poetry to God and historically significant stories about a certain culture. (And then there is Jesus, smack dab in the middle of that thing, and everything he says is counter-cultural and turns the world upside down...Yikes! That man.)

This does not make it any less true, either, or any less important. There are a great deal of equally wise texts, however, that I am just beginning to explore and wonder over. The Bible does not have a monopoly on Truth.

Any thoughts on Fahrenheit 9-11?

Anyone? Anyone?

Actually, I'm completely ignorant on Fahrenheit 9-11...
I'M SORRY!!!

*runs away, crying*

It was an excellent film, and you're doing yourself a disservice if you don't see it. I'm not saying that you have to agree with Moore's opinion, and lots of people out there are calling him a liar (despite the fact that even the best pundits haven't been able to punch a credible hole in the facts stated in the film, since each one is supported by public record and were independently fact-checked before the film's release), which I suppose is their perogative. In my opinion, the best thing about the film is that it's motivating people to get out there and vote this November.

Michael Moore's site has some good info if you want to learn more about the film before you see it, including some info about the Right's efforts to block the film's distribution, and Mike's Action Guide is a good resource even if you never see the film.

_________________

I don't know what a Pundit is, but here's about 30 credible holes punched in Michael Moore. Sorry to contradict ya... it seems I'm always the guy on the outside, and I don't even care about Michael Moore. Us old people must be stuck this way.

_________________

Ummm...I don't know if this was in the film or not, but he said a lot of things about Canadians in a recent 60 minutes interview that aren't true...like he said we don't lock our doors (not true) and that only 160 Canadians were killed by guns (possibly true, but still misleading, if he's only refering to this year, since this year is only 6 months old...but you have to remember, we only have a 10th of America's population, so of course less of us are going to die by guns, number-wise...)

I'm not really pro-Bush or anti-Michael Moore...I wouldn't call him a liar, but I would say that I think he's only portraying one side of the story, and that's not good for any of us.

I wasn't going to get into this discussion because I think discussing politics only results in making enemies. So, just so you all know, I love you all, no matter your political or religious beliefs!

_________________

Um, the only part of that article that concerns Fahrenheit 9/11 is a couple of quotes from Moore's detractors that just attack his character instead of attempting to refute anything Moore presents as fact. Comically, one of them is from Christopher Hitchens, who's widely known to be anything but credible, honest, or forthright. The rest of the page mentions a few flaws in Moore's other works, some of which are legitimate refutations (which are a good thing, they encouraged Moore to do better with Fahrenheit) but still consists mostly of anecdotes from right-wing pundits. There's nothing wrong with anecdotes, but they can hardly be considered refutations of fact.

StrongCanada, the things you mention are from Moore's previous film, Bowling for Columbine, which does contain several inaccuracies which Moore has since apologized for (some of which are identified in the article Buz posted). (Imagine that, a public figure apologizing for his mistakes. If only we could expect the same from our President..)

One thing that seems to trip people up is that they think that a filmmaker like Moore has to present "both sides of the story". He doesn't. He's not a newsman, like Dan Rather, who is supposed to lay out just the facts and nothing else. Just like Bill O'Reilly or Anne Coulter, he's a man who makes his living by expressing his opinion. His job is to editorialize. Almost all documentaries serve the filmmaker's point of view (with the exception, I suppose, of folks like Jacques Cousteau), and Moore is particularly talented at it. And he's never claimed otherwise. In a recent interview I saw (I thought it was The Daily Show, but I can't find a transcript), when asked (I'm paraphrasing here), "are you biased?", he immediately replied, "absolutely." You don't get that kind of admission from the Fox News pundits.

And unlike a number of the Right's favorite media figureheads, Moore presents fact as fact and opinion as opinion. He doesn't play word games. Any viewer with a real interest in the truth will have no trouble sitting down with Fahrenheit and understanding which parts Moore is presenting as fact, and which are quite obviously his opinion.

And, if you do watch the film, you'll notice that he spends a lot of time talking to actual soldiers in Iraq and presenting their opinion. No, he didn't interview every soldier, and the interviews he does show obviously aren't to be taken as an accurate cross-section of all soldiers, but it's still something you'll never see on Fox News.

_________________

Most of those "holes" are attacks on Mike's character or take something Mike didn't say and blow it out of proportion.
A few of them deal with how he claims that the pro-gun rallies in the cities with recent school shootings were "taunting" the victims. I don't remember him saying that, and I never got that impression.

No, he sure never said that. As I recall, it was some Littleton, CO residents that Moore interviewed (I want to say that they were family of those who died Columbine, but I can't say for sure) who felt that the NRA was insensitive in not rescheduling their Denver rally, not Moore himself.

Perhaps the most telling thing about the article you posted, Buz, is that it it cites almost no sources. Have you actually looked around that site? Even Bill O'Reilly would be ashamed to call "journalists" like that peers. It's almost like The Onion, except they think they're serious. Look at some of these headlines: "Mrs. Kerry Longs for Republican Husband", "End of the World as We Know It: Makeup for Men", and I love how they make it almost impossible to tell at a glance which headlines are "news" and which are just advertisements. Seriously, is this where you get your "news"?

_________________

Well said. You have a good point. I simply hope that those who are less informed than you and others like you, or those who are easily swayed will not take his documentary as a "documentary" - a documentary is supposed to be complete facts, is it not? *goes to look up definition*

Well, as I was saying, I hope people who see his film do not take it as absolute truth, but as his opinion along with some "facts" (the only reason I put that in quotes is since I have not seen the movie, I will not personally refer to his information as fact because I cannot verify it to be fact).

_________________

This raises a good point. If you're the sort of person who rushes to the dictionary to prove a point (even I have been guilty of this at times), then you'll realize, as many have, that this category of film really needs a different name. As I said, very few of the hundreds of "documentaries" made each year present only the facts without any particular leaning (just the ones about fish, so far as I can tell). It's been said that they should really be called something like "filmic essays". This isn't really such a bad idea, and I wouldn't complain if the Academy wanted to change the name of the Oscar category. But in the end, the only people it makes a difference to are the people who rush to the dictionary to prove a point. Audiences, as a whole, will still respond the same way. There will be the same number of sheep who watch it take it as gospel without questioning, and there will be the same number of sheep who will refuse to see it because they're afraid of having their views challenged.

Anyway, I wouldn't mind seeing "Fox News Channel" change its name to "Fox Editorial Channel" (forgive me for harping on Fox News so much, it's just so.. easy), but that's another topic.

_________________

If you watch Roger & Me (Mike's first film), it was more of a documentary. There were no stunts to make people look like fools (I haven't seen F-9/11 yet, but I hear there are less of these) so it wasn't as funny. It wasn't meant to be funny, really. It was more of a "sad" thing, what with the rabbit lady (raised rabbits and sold them as "pets or meat") and the very end of the credits (I won't spoil that).

It would be nice to have a conservative-POV equivalent of Fahrenheit 9/11 to watch along with F-9/11, but sadly the closest thing is a film called "Michael Moore Hates America". It has few facts of course, and is really an attack on Mike. It proves one thing about conservatives, though. You attack the facts, and conservatives attack you. Everybody's been thinking this since the biggest point conservatives had against Clinton was an affair. I never saw them attack anything he did (politically, that is).