Welcome! Sign in to access your account. New user?

User: whingey_the_goat_girl


Polls Created


Click through to message forum for reply and admin options.
Posted in Best Picture Oscars on 2004-03-07 13:27:56

Every year there is such disagreement over which movie should win the Oscar -- or any award -- and the worst possible choice usually does (Titanic, for example, which must be one of the worst-acted wastes of money in history). But after it's all over, and for the rest of time, the other nominees (and those who were left out) are utterly forgotten, while people hear "Oscar winner" and think, "wow, that must be good." The Pianist, for example, which is one of my top 5 favorites -- even in this poll, it's as if it didn't exist! Meanwhile, Chicago -- the soulless piece of drivel -- wins the Oscar?? Awards are just a replacement for personal thought and judgment.

Posted in Mel Gibson's Movie, the Passion on 2004-03-07 12:34:56

I find it deeply disturbing that so many Americans feel so positively toward Gibson's movie. The Catholicism that Gibson practices is based almost entirely on archaic Church Doctrine -- in other words, beliefs invented by the medieval clergy based on politics and tradition, not the Gospels. It is centuries behind the doctrine of the current Vatican -- which is saying a lot, considering that among American Catholics today, the Vatican is commonly viewed to be too conservative and utterly out of touch with the times. Most orders sent down from the Vatican are simply ignored by most parishes (here in the Northeast, anyway, where most of the nation's Catholics are located).

That said, Gibson does seem well suited to his beliefs, which are based more on the image and theatrics of medieval Catholicism than on any Christian teachings. He has always been a chauvinist egomaniac, his movies more like commercials for the Mel franchise than either art OR entertainment. To prove my point: try to name a movie starring Gibson where he played neither the role of Savior or Martyr. Can you? It was only a matter of time before he gave in completely to self-indulgence and made a Passion Play.

Posted in Do you believe in destiny? on 2004-03-06 10:24:59

Have you read "Of Human Bondage?" You should. But I'm going to spoil it for you now, anyway, because it's what I believe, too: "Destiny" does not exist, but it is also impossible to change our future. This is because, though our fate is not dictated by an external force (i.e. "destiny"), we are predisposed to acting in certain patterns (by our personality, upbringing and biases, and brain chemistry). So, if you are attracted to the no-good girls who hate you when you're 20, you may decide to marry a good girl who loves you and have a better future, but by the end of your life you will have left her for a no-good girl, because you just can't go against your nature indefinitely. Read it. 'S'good.

Posted in How Christianity is perceived on 2004-03-06 09:41:22

========== In Reply To ========== The point of this is who's got the most to lose when we die....[etc.]

I say there's an equal chance of there being a god as there is of not being one. But I really resent the implication that if you believe in god, you are automatically a good person, and if you are an atheist, you are less likely to be good because you don't believe there will be consequences. That line of thinking is, I imagine, why most of the Christians I've met do worse things and have a worse attitude toward others than the atheists I know. If you believe that the only reason to do good things is to be rewarded, and the only way to be rewarded is by following specific rules, then you're always looking for loopholes and ways to get away with things. You have no personal incentive to be a good person just for the sake of being good. On the other hand, most atheists I know live good lives and do good deeds based on a code of personal responsibility and out of genuine compassion for others. I may not believe in heaven, but if there is one, I have nothing to lose when I die.

Posted in How Christianity is perceived on 2004-03-06 09:27:39


I can tell you, even as one who has read the Bible cover to cover, that when someone lists a bunch of verses from the Bible as their soul arguement, not only is it not changing anyone's mind, but NO ONE READS THEM. It's an utter waste of type. It isn't as if people don't believe because they haven't had the opportunity to read the Bible. Do you even understand what you're quoting? Why don't you paraphrase and explain what you think it means, why it backs up your position -- wait, better take a position first. SAY what you want to communicate. Speak for yourself. The Bible is available to read if anyone then feels so inclined.