Lasto beth Lammen - Is your religion nuts?

Post by **River** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:08 am

But...but...I missed it!

Post by **Lalaith** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:14 am

I know, and it was sort of related to something you said. But it was pretty juvenile.

Post by **SirDennis** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:25 am

Something about a blue dress?

Post by **Lalaith** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:36 am

Well, it was an unintentionally (?) funny juxtaposition of sentences, SirDennis.

Post by **RoseMorninStar** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:53 am

Lalaith.. I got it.. I thought it was funny (very funny) but, as I do not know this company well.. I refrained from commenting so as to not offend, as I was given a proverbial finger shaking earlier today.

Post by **River** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:56 am

Lalaith wrote:

Well, it was an unintentionally (?) funny juxtaposition of sentences, SirDennis.

Oh. My.

I was actually trying very hard to get my point across without ending up in the bad place. Totally missed that.

Post by **SirDennis** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:43 am

Ah yes, misfires and pops up and such... After reading that I thought "hmmm that's all kind of loaded." But then I left it, just as I left the sentence just before this one. I was already apologizing in that post anyway.

At least I think that's what you were angling at.

I kind of like when that happens. Apart from grumpiness coming through my writing, I haven't seen my love in over a month. Odds on what Freud would say?

edit: punctuation error, go figure.

Post by **RoseMorninStar** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:19 am

SirDennis wrote: I haven't seen my love in over a month. Odds on what Freud would say?

ahahahaha..

I'm sorry.. I'm not laughing at you being separated from your love.. it just makes the little 'misfires and pops & such' in this conversation all the more humorous. I can well guess what Freud would say.

Post by **vison** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:28 am

He would say, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" and that is the most sensible thing that man ever said.

Post by **SirDennis** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:43 am

So you won't be seeing Fassbender and Mortensen in Cronenberg's A Dangerous Method then?

Post by **RoseMorninStar** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 4:13 am

I had not heard of that film.. but it looks intriguing! I'll have to see if it is playing here.

Post by **Frelga** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 4:19 am

I am immature, and I missed the joke.

Post by **vison** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:05 am

SirDennis wrote:So you won't be seeing Fassbender and Mortensen in Cronenberg's A Dangerous Method then?

Not a chance. The thing is, I'm just as much not a Viggo Mortenson fan as I'm not a Freud fan.

I truly believe that Freud did more harm than good. Much, much, much, much, much more harm than good.

Of course, I'm speaking as a woman.

Men might think differently.

Post by **SirDennis** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:49 am

I truly believe that Freud did more harm than good. Much, much, much, much, much more harm than good.

Oh we could probably agree on that.

Beyond all the phallic symbolism stuff (which was useful in art and getting some jokes) I never really paid much attention. I Failed psych 101 twice, that is how disinterested in any of it I was.

I'm more interested in the Althussers and Judith Butlers of the world. Still, Freud's ideas about dreams did inspire that great bit of film Hitchock and Dali came up with in Spellbound (1945) -- Gregory Peck and Ingrid Bergman weren't too hard on the eyes either.

I suppose it would be useful to know about, just to have a cultural reference, given the topic at hand.

Frelga, Lali isn't talking but the truth is there if you look for it.

Post by **River** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 6:00 am

Frelga wrote:I am immature, and I missed the joke.

Step into the gutter a wee bit and re-read the last couple of pages.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:53 am

Wait, mature? <looks around nervously> I agree with, like, holding it as an ideal . . . but if we have to achieve it 100% of the time, I'm hiding under the couch.

Plus there's all the missed jokes.

Post by **Alatar** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 11:32 am

SirDennis wrote: Which brings me now to Al. What offends you Al? Would it offend you if I said that sometimes your behaviour comes across as trollish? Of course if a good discussion results, who am I to complain?

It occurs to me just now that I should say I am not a morning person (especially when I don't get a good night's sleep). This does not excuse what may be perceived to be rude behaviour on may part. But I assure you that no offence is intended, to Al, or anyone. Nor do I believe everyone should look at the world the same way I do. In fact it would probably be easier if you didn't.

Nope, I don't find that offensive. I also don't find it particularly surprising. I rarely feel the need to join a discussion where everyone is agreeing, and I am in agreement with them. The only interesting discourse is one that challenges preconceptions and at least allows the possibility of either changing someone else's mind, having your own mind changed, or at the very least learning something new. As such my posts sometimes have the effect of "setting the cat amongst the pigeons". Not because I want to provoke fights, but because I'm only interested if there's variety in the discussion.

Also, sometimes I see something interesting and want to ask about it. Rather than post in a new thread, I prefer to find a related thread and drop it in to see what ripples it makes and how the two subjects (or more) affect each other. Thing is, its easy to find out facts on the Internet, but its very hard to find out what people think.

Incidentally, that Mary and Joseph Billboard was from 2009. This years one is a caption contest on their website. Is this better/worse? Or are the Church just trolling for attention

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/artic ... ocker?bn=1

Post by **JewelSong** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:35 pm

You know, I think this church is trying to shock...and by shocking, to get people talking and thinking. Which is what I said in the first place.

And it's working. People sometimes become complacent about their beliefs. They don't question, they aren't challenged. This kind of picture is deliberately provocative. People WILL talk.

Look at this thread. We had an excellent discussion, all because of that silly billboard.

Post by **Frelga** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:46 pm

Well, yes, but I don't think anyone in that discussion was an ardently believing Catholic for whom Mary's virginity is a vital part of faith. It's easy for me to discuss it calmly.

The fact that the billboard was defaced almost immediately indicates that contemplation was not what it achieved.

Post by **SirDennis** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 6:06 pm

Alatar wrote:
SirDennis wrote: Which brings me now to Al. What offends you Al? Would it offend you if I said that sometimes your behaviour comes across as trollish? Of course if a good discussion results, who am I to complain?
Nope, I don't find that offensive. I also don't find it particularly surprising. I rarely feel the need to join a discussion where everyone is agreeing, and I am in agreement with them. The only interesting discourse is one that challenges preconceptions and at least allows the possibility of either changing someone else's mind, having your own mind changed, or at the very least learning something new. As such my posts sometimes have the effect of "setting the cat amongst the pigeons". Not because I want to provoke fights, but because I'm only interested if there's variety in the discussion.

Also, sometimes I see something interesting and want to ask about it. Rather than post in a new thread, I prefer to find a related thread and drop it in to see what ripples it makes and how the two subjects (or more) affect each other. Thing is, its easy to find out facts on the Internet, but its very hard to find out what people think.

Well played.

Of course I mean: Well said.

Just a reminder though, you started this entire thread.

Incidentally, that Mary and Joseph Billboard was from 2009. This years one is a caption contest on their website. Is this better/worse? Or are the Church just trolling for attention

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/artic ... ocker?bn=1

This one is less offensive to me on the surface, not least because it presents a part of the story without contradicting it entirely. And, if it is set up as a caption contest, then the request for feedback is implicit in its design, unlike a billboard. It does throw open the doors wide for trolls [who need love too], though I am not sure it is, in and of itself, trolling.

I agree with JewelSong's assessment, though part of me wonders what exactly this congregation has against the Catholic Church. In other contexts the campaign could easily be perceived as hate crime.

Edit: Frelga and I must be on some kind of time lapse or passing mid phase dimension jumping or something. I agree wholeheartedly with Frelga's interpretation in light of the defacing.