| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/26/2008 07:00:52 PM · #1576 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Here is the book I find comforting in all cases. |
"...the snow of your heart shall melt when your Spring is come, and thus shall your secret run in streams to seek the river of life in the valley. And the river shall enfold your secret and carry it to the great sea...It is the snow-flake in you running down to the sea."
:-}
R.
Message edited by author 2008-11-26 19:33:31.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2008 07:23:30 PM · #1577 |
"The image of the morning sun in a dewdrop is not less than the sun. The reflection of life in your soul is not less than life. The dewdrop mirrors the light because it is one with light, and you reflect life because you and life are one."
:)
Is there anything more beautiful?
Excellent choice Bear.
If I could only take pictures such as these words...
If only everyone would take his words to heart...
(and yes, this relates. if only...) |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 07:27:45 PM · #1578 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The "right" we are dealing here is called "freedom", not "marriage". It's about our vaunted "inalienable right" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As long as we break no laws, we can do whatever we want. |
The "right" we are dealing here is called "freedom", not "owning guns". It's about our vaunted "inalienable right" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As long as we break no laws, we can do whatever we want.
Hey it's kind of fun doing that word substitution thing I always see here!
My gun is part of my pursuit of happiness, and I'll thank you all for treating me like a responsible citizen who won't break any laws with it, by allowing me to do whatever I want. Namely, poke holes in paper, soda cans, and assorted fruits & vegetables with firearms. The tradition I grew up with (in rural Vermont) sees guns as tools for sport. Nobody gets shot to death in Vermont. Okay, some people do... but it's vanishingly rare, and almost never as part of an act of hostility. There were only five total gun-related homicides in Vermont from 2000-2005! Less than one a year! Compare that to the average 14 homicides per year in the state, and guns play a very small part.
Basically, I was raised with an interest in the pleasurable aspects of gun ownership, without the environment of violence that other people experience alongside it. I enjoy my first person shooter games, on and off the computer! It's a part of my culture that I want to participate in!
The way gun control advocates would put it, Vermont is a lawless death zone.
"Vermont gun laws again received a D- because its laws are among the worst in the country at protecting children from gun violence. Gun violence in the state could increase because the federal assault weapon ban will expire this year if Congress does not reauthorize it and Vermont has no state law restricting assault weapons or high-capacity ammunition magazines. Vermont does not hold adults responsible for leaving loaded guns around children, does not require child-safety locks to be sold with guns, and does not have any handgun safety standards. Vermont also forces police to let 16 year olds carry hidden handguns in public and does not require background checks at gun shows."
Oh those crazy libertarian Vermonters! It's amazing I didn't grow up dead, with all that gun unsafety!
Come to think of it... I'd actually rank wasting food by blowing a lead filled hole through it as worse (morally) than owning and using a gun... food that could otherwise be used by someone needy is actually destroyed vs. buying a tool that could be used to cause personal harm, but actually hasn't.
But I digress... sorry if my passion for guns has dirtied up this debate. I see strong parallels between how we should govern our gun use and why we should allow gays to marry... I pointed out how they were both civil liberty issues in a previous post, but since everyone's arguing with Flash, I thought I'd chime in again.
Message edited by author 2008-11-26 19:41:44. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 07:38:48 PM · #1579 |
Originally posted by yanko:
My view on the relationship part is similar but I've never understood the need to have a legal document or a religious backing to ensure the relationship lasts. If you've spent the time to really know the person then you should be able to trust them to remain committed to the relationship and therefore you wouldn't need a document or a ring or the wrath of god to keep him or her in check. I've been with my spouse/girlfriend for 10 years now. The day I need something in writing is the day I stop trusting her. |
A lot of personal validation can come from participating in a 'universal' practice. Plus, my two (now one) families are officially bonded by law. Plus, it's a celebration, not just a document.
Marriage isn't just about trust, it's about public recognition!
Try this experiment: Go up to a married friend and ask them how their boyfriend/girlfriend is doing today. When they protest your designation, insist that you can call them boyfriend/girlfriend all you want. See how long they'll disagree! I guarantee that they will not be happy about it, from the very start.
Why?
Calling someone husband or wife conveys a sense of permanence that simply is not there when referring to a boyfriend or girlfriend. I can see it even in my own attitude towards my friends Mark and Beth, who've been together as long as I have, who have a kid, and who are not married. I frequently cock my head a bit and wonder what the issue is. What is it about them that keeps them from just getting married? "What's the deal? Sh*t or get off the pot!"
By choosing not to marry, they modify the way they are seen by their peers, and implicitly put the relationship in question.
By choosing to marry, I have publicly declared my bond... not just to Eric... but to the WORLD.
That's why marriages have witnesses.
Message edited by author 2008-11-26 19:43:26. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 07:48:15 PM · #1580 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
"The image of the morning sun in a dewdrop is not less than the sun. The reflection of life in your soul is not less than life. The dewdrop mirrors the light because it is one with light, and you reflect life because you and life are one." |
I'm so contrary today!
As photographers, should we not know that a lens does indeed detract from the light passing through it? Why do you think I paid for all that L glass? I bet a water drop has all sorts of distortion and chromatic aberration rainbowing issues.
A dewdrop eats light just like any other lens, no matter how sentimental we may feel about them as one of the prettier little expressions of the natural world.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2008 07:56:02 PM · #1581 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by dahkota:
"The image of the morning sun in a dewdrop is not less than the sun. The reflection of life in your soul is not less than life. The dewdrop mirrors the light because it is one with light, and you reflect life because you and life are one." |
I'm so contrary today!
As photographers, should we not know that a lens does indeed detract from the light passing through it? Why do you think I paid for all that L glass? I bet a water drop has all sorts of distortion and chromatic aberration rainbowing issues.
A dewdrop eats light just like any other lens, no matter how sentimental we may feel about them as one of the prettier little expressions of the natural world. |
So you're saying if my light shines less brightly than yours, I am a lesser light? I dispute that; I say that brightness is not the only, or even the best, measure of the quality of light :-)
(Said in the spirit of the debate, with a smile)
R.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2008 08:07:12 PM · #1582 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by yanko:
My view on the relationship part is similar but I've never understood the need to have a legal document or a religious backing to ensure the relationship lasts. If you've spent the time to really know the person then you should be able to trust them to remain committed to the relationship and therefore you wouldn't need a document or a ring or the wrath of god to keep him or her in check. I've been with my spouse/girlfriend for 10 years now. The day I need something in writing is the day I stop trusting her. |
A lot of personal validation can come from participating in a 'universal' practice. Plus, my two (now one) families are officially bonded by law. Plus, it's a celebration, not just a document.
Marriage isn't just about trust, it's about public recognition!
Try this experiment: Go up to a married friend and ask them how their boyfriend/girlfriend is doing today. When they protest your designation, insist that you can call them boyfriend/girlfriend all you want. See how long they'll disagree! I guarantee that they will not be happy about it, from the very start.
Why?
Calling someone husband or wife conveys a sense of permanence that simply is not there when referring to a boyfriend or girlfriend. I can see it even in my own attitude towards my friends Mark and Beth, who've been together as long as I have, who have a kid, and who are not married. I frequently cock my head a bit and wonder what the issue is. What is it about them that keeps them from just getting married? "What's the deal? Sh*t or get off the pot!"
By choosing not to marry, they modify the way they are seen by their peers, and implicitly put the relationship in question.
By choosing to marry, I have publicly declared my bond... not just to Eric... but to the WORLD.
That's why marriages have witnesses. |
Just to be clear, the key phrase in my post was "I've never understood the need to have a legal document or a religious backing to ensure the relationship lasts. Dakota mentioned benefits attached to marriage and you public validation, neither of which I was questioning as a reason to get married.
However, now that you brought up public validation, I don't get that either. Now in your case, given the fact that you have been denied marriage, I can understand it but in general it just comes across as vain to me. Hey, look at me, look at what I did! Who cares? Personally, I don't need public validation in anything that I do. Granted it's nice to receive it from time to time but I don't make an effort to seek it out. If I did, it would only cheapen it.
Btw, this isn't some argument against gay marriage. Personally, I don't believe the government should be involved in regulating or taxing anything based on social or religious affairs.
Message edited by author 2008-11-26 20:10:03. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 08:07:55 PM · #1583 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Here is the gospel of Thomas, left out of the bible by 'christian' priests who felt it wasn't 'christian' enough. |
I just picked up Bart Ehrman's "Lost Scriptures", a collection of over fifty non-canonical writings, including The Gospel of Thomas. It's an interesting read. It reveals much about what Christianity might have been, a history I would guess that most Christians are beatifically ignorant of. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 08:12:58 PM · #1584 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by dahkota:
"The image of the morning sun in a dewdrop is not less than the sun. The reflection of life in your soul is not less than life. The dewdrop mirrors the light because it is one with light, and you reflect life because you and life are one." |
I'm so contrary today!
As photographers, should we not know that a lens does indeed detract from the light passing through it? Why do you think I paid for all that L glass? I bet a water drop has all sorts of distortion and chromatic aberration rainbowing issues.
A dewdrop eats light just like any other lens, no matter how sentimental we may feel about them as one of the prettier little expressions of the natural world. |
So you're saying if my light shines less brightly than yours, I am a lesser light? I dispute that; I say that brightness is not the only, or even the best, measure of the quality of light :-)
(Said in the spirit of the debate, with a smile)
R. |
Yes. Too much light blinds. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 08:14:21 PM · #1585 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
________________________________________
He was deemed to have a coat of arms and a landowner? :) Sweet.
Now that I’ve gotten over being provoked by Jason’s words, I’ll add that in addition to his commission, sure my Navy guy had access to a coat of arms – way back to his Scots family’s days, and sure he was a landowner. (And, hey, San Francisco land isn’t cheap!) By the way, I also would have had a claim to a coat of arms except that only males could inherit, thus my brother was the last Comte de la Longue – or would have been had his great(etc) granddaddy stayed in France and avoided getting his head removed.
Passing gas? Well, we had a car once that drank, smoked and peed its pants. So gas was in our driveway for a couple of years.
Okay, back to the subject(s) at hand. Marriage and Guns. No matter what your thoughts on marriage, if you want to do it, you gotta get a license.
That inalienable right to drive? Get a license. Prove you can handle a car.
In the small town back east where my guy grew up, there may still be a rifle range named for his dad who taught kids how to use guns. In those days, and perhaps still, if you want a gun, you must have a license for it. I still have the one my guy qualified for. Sure, keep a gun in the house or your arsenal, or wherever; just get a license. Prove that you can use it - correctly.
Just to complete the license analogy – and yes it’s an oversimplificationâ€Â¦
If you break the marriage, you give up the license and are no longer married.
If you drive irresponsibly, you lose your license to drive.
If you use a gun irresponsibly, you should lose your license to own one.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2008 08:21:50 PM · #1586 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by dahkota:
Here is the gospel of Thomas, left out of the bible by 'christian' priests who felt it wasn't 'christian' enough. |
I just picked up Bart Ehrman's "Lost Scriptures", a collection of over fifty non-canonical writings, including The Gospel of Thomas. It's an interesting read. It reveals much about what Christianity might have been, a history I would guess that most Christians are beatifically ignorant of. |
I was very impressed that the History Channel was willing to take on this issue by airing Banned From The Bible. I'm often shocked by how little Christians know about how their all important "word of God" Bible was cobbled together, let alone being aware of other non-canonical documents. |
|
|
|
11/26/2008 08:52:54 PM · #1587 |
The Gospel of Mary is also interesting, though less complete. Written in Coptic, it is a little hard to check the one side by side translation available (last time I checked), though Coptic appears to be similar to Ancient (or new testament?) Greek. Possibly too into esoterism - difficult to follow which was why the matter of translation concerned me; but what was interesting was that apparently the true teaching was given to Mary, and in the text you have Peter absolutely outraged by this, as he was by Jesus always kissing her on the lips. - We do have Constantine to thank for the first major organization of the Western churches, and for that nifty little stumbling block, the Nicene Creed. One needn't be overly cynical to evaluate his political motives.
Happy Thanksgiving, southern brothers and sisters. I will give thanks for being reminded of Lao Tse. |
|
|
|
11/27/2008 12:35:23 AM · #1588 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Just to be clear, the key phrase in my post was "I've never understood the need to have a legal document or a religious backing to ensure the relationship lasts. Dakota mentioned benefits attached to marriage and you public validation, neither of which I was questioning as a reason to get married.
However, now that you brought up public validation, I don't get that either. Now in your case, given the fact that you have been denied marriage, I can understand it but in general it just comes across as vain to me. Hey, look at me, look at what I did! Who cares? Personally, I don't need public validation in anything that I do. Granted it's nice to receive it from time to time but I don't make an effort to seek it out. If I did, it would only cheapen it.
Btw, this isn't some argument against gay marriage. Personally, I don't believe the government should be involved in regulating or taxing anything based on social or religious affairs. |
My wife and I lived together for five yers before we married, bought a house, got loans on a car, credit cards, the whole nine yards, and we didn't need either a piece of paper or anyone else's validation of our relationship. We got married anyway.
Funny thing that.....absolutely nothing changed about our situation, yet we both felt just that little bit better about having made the ultimate, legal-like, on paper commitment. We got married in a district magistrate's office.....no big deal, and we went to lunch with Lisa's Mom and a few friends.
I like being married, and I like the whole family thing now that we have a daughter.....but our family is about us, and what we mean to, and feel about, each other.....not for others' validation.
That said, we now enjoy various rights and benefits as a married couple and family that I'll be damned if I understand why Mousie and his spouse aren't entitled to just as we are. If you're willing to make that commitment, and write it down as a binding legal contract, who the f*ck is ANYONE to say you can't?
Theoretically, I live in the most progressive free country in the world, and the whole idea that in the year 2008 this is even an issue just confounds, and saddens me.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2008 12:48:52 AM · #1589 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
I see strong parallels between how we should govern our gun use and why we should allow gays to marry... I pointed out how they were both civil liberty issues in a previous post, but since everyone's arguing with Flash, I thought I'd chime in again. |
Well then, if you want to identify with Flash, fine, but then let's hear how you can tie in the desire for ownership versus discrimination.
SAnd the key is RESPONSIBLE OWNERSHIP.
So what would be more responsible, especially if you're capable with registering and licensing, guns and their owners?
I live in the woods at the top of a mountain in the heart pof good ol' boy country.......this is Ford Country, baby, where every pick-'em-up truck has a rifle rack and a confederate flag sticker in the back window. Guns are a way of life in rural America.
But you know what scares me, and who I'm most likely to get shot by? F*ckin' desk jockey city-dwellers, right now, after Thanksgiving, during the first week of deer season when these inept wannabe hunters are wandering loose in the woods out here with serious high-power rifles.
I would be a lot more comfortable knowing that each and every one of these yahoos actually had some training and the license earned to prove it. You'd be stunned at how many farm animals, and other hunters get shot here before 7:00 A.M. the first day.
And those magnum slugs will drill right through my living room wall and take out one of us in a heartbeat aimed wrong.
So excuse me if I say screw your rights to come out here by my house and fire off a bunch of bullets shooting at shadows.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2008 03:32:58 PM · #1590 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Here is the gospel of Thomas, left out of the bible by 'christian' priests who felt it wasn't 'christian' enough.
|
The Gospel of Thomas is an Gnostic Teaching. These were written 200 years after Christ. Gnostism is a belief that, "divine souls trapped in a material world created by an imperfect god."
That's the reason they weren't included in the bible. |
|
|
|
11/27/2008 04:07:06 PM · #1591 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by dahkota:
Here is the gospel of Thomas, left out of the bible by 'christian' priests who felt it wasn't 'christian' enough.
|
The Gospel of Thomas is an Gnostic Teaching. These were written 200 years after Christ. Gnostism is a belief that, "divine souls trapped in a material world created by an imperfect god."
That's the reason they weren't included in the bible. |
Correct. The church leaders -- those ultimately responsible for the gospel canon -- had other ideas about what Christianity should be. |
|
|
|
11/27/2008 04:22:38 PM · #1592 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Correct. The church leaders -- those ultimately responsible for the gospel canon -- had other ideas about what Christianity should be. |
Yep. That's why Jesus said, (Matthew 16:18) "Upon this rock I will build my church." The rock, being Peter. If he (and his decendants) are good enough for Jesus, they're good enough for me. |
|
|
|
11/27/2008 04:32:27 PM · #1593 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Louis:
Correct. The church leaders -- those ultimately responsible for the gospel canon -- had other ideas about what Christianity should be. |
Yep. That's why Jesus said, (Matthew 16:18) "Upon this rock I will build my church." The rock, being Peter. If he (and his decendants) are good enough for Jesus, they're good enough for me. |
Not really wanting to take this thread into such waters, but not really being able to resist, I suppose I must ask how one is to know that the medieval church leaders did not simply insert this Jesus-quote into the text to lend credibility to their papal lineage. Answer: one can't know. The dozens of non-canonical texts imply competing dogma within a highly politicized environment, not heretical dogma, as the compilers of the canon charged. The success of the charge is revealed in your very own statement. |
|
|
|
11/27/2008 09:23:45 PM · #1594 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by dahkota:
Here is the gospel of Thomas, left out of the bible by 'christian' priests who felt it wasn't 'christian' enough.
|
The Gospel of Thomas is an Gnostic Teaching. These were written 200 years after Christ. Gnostism is a belief that, "divine souls trapped in a material world created by an imperfect god."
That's the reason they weren't included in the bible. |
Actually, they aren't quite sure when it was written. Estimates start at 50AD to 140AD. Or, about the same time as the other gospels. Also, the term Gnostic was taken from gnosis, meaning knowledge. The early church hated the gnostic teachings which proposed that a church was unnecessary to 'be one with God' (something with which I believe Jesus would agree). the catholic church, of course, refuted these documents at about the same time they declared there to be a trinity (325AD) which was never mentioned in the bible, but was added to the belief system by a group of priests and bishops, including Augustine, who was battling against what he considered a corrupt group of christians.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2008 10:29:19 PM · #1595 |
I'm back from a couple of days of photography. When I opened my mail, this
lead article from the New Yorker Magazine (December 1 issue) caught my attention.
Hendrik Hertzberg is an eloquent writer and has summarized the recent Prop 8 activity beautifully. |
|
|
|
11/29/2008 11:59:37 PM · #1596 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
I'm back from a couple of days of photography. When I opened my mail, this
lead article from the New Yorker Magazine (December 1 issue) caught my attention.
Hendrik Hertzberg is an eloquent writer and has summarized the recent Prop 8 activity beautifully. |
Excellent piece of work, isn't it? New Yorker is none of two magazine subscriptions I've held onto through thick and through thin; the other is Harpers.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 02:57:24 PM · #1597 |
| I found this article in Newsweek rather uplifting. I doubt it will change any minds here, but I'd be interested in the responses. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 03:14:16 PM · #1598 |
| Saw this today Calling in Gay. An interesting way to protest, but possibly risky, given all the layoffs and economic problems. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 12:18:27 PM · #1599 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Saw this today Calling in Gay. An interesting way to protest, but possibly risky, given all the layoffs and economic problems. |
I'm not calling in.
I kind of see it like those innefective "don't buy gasoline" holidays that never really amount to anything. Besides, I was out sick Monday and Tuesday, and don't wanna push it when the economy's so poor. :)
I'm kind of curious how many people do stay home, though...
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 12:35:03 PM · #1600 |
There's a popular local radio station getting all over this to promote and draw attention to the all 'round great idea of the Prop 8 protest.
Warms the heart!.....8>)
|
|
