Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by Aussie Thoughts, Sep 10, 2015.
Sorry, just defending my faith from those willing to twist my words.
Tis always an issue defending ones faith if one claims thier faith is without error, scientifically accurate and without issues.
not really... those are easy... and peaceful. It becomes an issue when someone takes something you said and twist it up into saying something noone thought you said then uses it as a pedestal to call foul. I've stated many times I believe my faith is without error, scientifically accurate, and the religion istelf doesn't have issues. Followers, obviously we have some bad apples, but a majority are peaceful enough not to recieve the attention we do.
Yeah, I'm thinking about changing the name of the thread to Hypocrisy Exposed!
A righteous act indeed and remember to always do it on your terms not theirs.
The only thing I added was bold highlight. Do you deny these words?
Abdul-Rahman Kassig was only one such person to have his faith tried by the edge of a sword in recent times. Rather thoughtless choice of words on your part, don't you think?
??? so you took my statement the "IF someone CAN disbelieve at the tip of a sword, they never truly believed" as people should be killed as a test?
Either I'm misunderstanding what you are suggesting or you really don't understand a simple phrase. I'll try to rephrase it as a way to alleviate this argument, but I have no doubt it was understandable in its original form.
If someone is put under the threat of death, and is told to change his beliefs, and he does (not just in word, in heart) then he did not truly believe. Quite simple philosophy, If someone told me to become christian or die, and I changed my faith because of it (as in in my heart) then what I believed in was not something I truly believed. I am not saying take a bullet or have your head chopped off for not saying it, by all means say it. There is no harm in doing so. But if you truly believe in your previous faith it will always be there, and as soon as you aren't in danger you will return to it. If you are willing to die to not even say you are the faith requested, then that is also righteous.
And I fail to see how Abdul-Rahman Kassig had anything to do with his faith being tested at the edge of a sword, but many others have.
That is freaking awesome nj... Can you post the link?
That's one of my shots of a Fiji sunset overlaid with one of NJ's pearls of wisdom. No link that I'm aware of.
It's quite nice...
Thank you very much. It's not from a website though. It's one of many scripturally inspired messages I compiled for our Temple. That one comes from the idea of 'turning the other cheek'. I think Aussie's photo fits the theme perfectly. I have many more if you're interested.
I think Inspirational memes and slides are worth a thread..
I Think most of you did not realize what @Aussie Thoughts said/Asked even he himself. Read the Question again, and this goes for @BigJoeNobody too. ...
The one at fault is: the one who automatically VIEWED it AS SinFUL; because the Intents of the Photographer will be a separate matter; as too the one who VIEWED it as sinful. Both are playing FIRE; one PLAYING, while the other KINDLING. Whilst i won't ask which one is worse in a personal act. The one Kindeling the fire burns more then the one TAKING the Fire / Photo primarily (only). His Judge is the young lady and the Distinguished members that R wronged by the Photographer. So While he can find Mercy and Compassion most likely; the other one is in the midst of burning in passion, by the Judgement he pronounced. The question here is not What is 'Haram and the viewpoint of the Mighty; but who would be wrong: The one who Produces the Work or the One who automatically viewed it as sinful: If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; ...for it is more profitable for you... (that one of your members) perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
With that premise, you can state all commentation of hadith, weak or strong; and Conclude the matter. Else by Premise is it fault @BigJoeNobody - False Haq on premise of truth without [proper] spirit[ual/spir]it-y.
Most Islamic Scholars are mistaken in their attempt to make truth fit their profile, Whilest the Truth is amiss. Hence is Islam lacking the Foundation/Spirit; and commentation are categoriesed within debated Islam in so claimed scholars as weak, authentic; rejected, strong or elsewise of it (muṣṭalaḥ al-ḥadīth).
Without the Injeel and the Rūḥ/רוח/Spirit (of the swt) it is as any mistranslation; false on the premise of application. So while you jumped the gun for the sake of your Religion; You missed the mark of the OP Posted Question as below stated:
Would that be Considered Da-Jal, BigJoeNobody? Some might phantom afterall he is the amiss of an eye. This Might be something to Ponder on lol; But the factor still stands true by the Almighty Merciful and Compassionate that a missing eye is better then to burn with passion; Albeit stating that that Ayat of the Plug out your eye verse is mistranslated OR in all Esoteric Text; Is stated in a double-helix of how to become pure again. The Remedy of a Single eye:
Matthew 6:22 : Some translation (KJV) claim it as single ἁπλοῦς (haplous) While other use other translation. Again This Might have turned too escoteric mellowly. But the Contrast that the one who sees with his eyes to judge is wrong of sinful; whilest taking of the pictures deals with his Indiscretion.
So @Aussie Thoughts Everything that Stings the Eye Should Not be Taken (as ImiGraphic); So that You Lay Not A Stumbling Block Before Your Neighbor:
Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother/sister. I know and am persuaded in the Lord (Yah Being Salvation) that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.
This Should Answer/Conclude The Original Topic
Mat 5:29 "And [if] thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out...." put another way, [if] you're bothered by such imagery and feel it may be detrimental to your well being, condemn not the artist, just don't stand there looking at it! -
OK, I'm returning to the OP on this cos I got quite tedious about this with Aussie first time round, and it's still a good question.
So bear with, Aussie, if you will: Take Two —
It's all in the eye of the beholder, innit?
If the intention of the photographer is to slake the salacious appetite then yes, the intention is porn and it is porn, regardless of any other merit.
Are Pirelli Calendars porn? Yes, in that sense they are. Not shock, full-on dick-in-mouth or whatever, but WTF has naked women to do with tyre technology? And why always beautiful women, never not-so-beautiful ... so it's just woman as eye candy, woman as sex object ...
Our attitudes to women, and young women especially, as vehicles of men's sexual fantasies are a lot more fine tuned today, as women begin to recover the grounds of the debate, after not being allowed or even assumed to have a valid opinion. Yet the fact is that stuff like Game of Thrones has a lot of boobs flying around for no real reason, other than — if you'll excuse the pun — titillation. Cut those scenes and the show would lose nothing thematically or dramatically.
But ... this is from me, and we have Robert Mapplethorpe pictures on the walls, which a lot of people would claim to be pornography.
Yes there are.
When I was as art college, I was doing an album cover as a photography project. It was Symphonie Fantastique or something equally airy-fairy. So I wanted a combined image, a women's head in the clouds. Solution: Shoot clouds, shoot woman's head. Luckily found the clouds. Girlfriend agreed to headshot. We're using 10x8 cameras. To get head and shoulders, ideally girl removes blouse, bra-straps, etc. Photog lecturer agrees to close studio, so just me, him and girlfriend. She's happy to do it. We're both happy that the tutor is not a dirty old man.
Course Tutor and Head of Dept got wind — result: A definite no-no. Scandalous.
Sometimes there is good reason to question whether the 'view as pornography' is because of what's in the mind of the viewer, rather than what's in the view. I think is the nub of this discussion.
On a broader note, there are those who take 'art studies' to supply the addiction of the pornographically inclined, and then you can say, that's porn, regardless of the framing, technical virtuosity, blah blah blah. Some might argue (I doubt it) Playboy as Art, but it would be hard to defend Hugh Hefner against the accusation of sex for money ...
But this is it — I've dumped the Hamilton book because, as good as they are, I don't think the shots are enduring art pieces. There were a lot of very good togs shooting a lot of the same stuff at the time. But I'll keep the Mapplethorpe pics.
On my bookshelves I've got (somewhere) Lady Chatterley's Lover. Porn in its day. Social comment now. Bought it because of its history. Browsed it, but never read it. I've got Last Exit to Brooklyn, and an imprint of 25 titles published under the 'Banned' heading, although many are widely acceptable now: All's Quiet On The Western Front, Slaughterhouse Five, Fahrenheit 451 — the latter the author things grossly misunderstood, it's not about oppressive government, it's about rampant mindless consumerism.
So, my answer is, it depends on the intent.
Now we get into a discussion of the Female Form as Art — and in the History of Art it unquestionably is — BUT is that because the accepted view, the normal view, the informed and scholarly view, is the Male View?.
That is, old chum, a whole other ballgame.
Yeah, what amounts to porn is not something we agreed on 5 years ago and not something we're likely agree on now.
There's blokes that get off on feet. Does that make manufacturers of shoes that accentuate the foot pornographers? You're right, it's all in the eye of the beholder. That is, his sin not the cobbler's if what others see as merely pleasing to the eye, evokes lustful thoughts for him.
Like I said 5 years ago mate, men are still men and women are still women. We haven't suddenly become asexual. All that's changed is the facade we have to put on in public these days.
Don't like the program on telly? Why malign it's producer? Just change the bleeding channel. -
not quiet right @Aussie Thoughts, you have a responsibility towards humanity as a member of it. like i said: everything that stings burns the eye; don't take pictures of, if you know acid can burn don't spray acidity on another ones eye. So don't think your scot free on this matter; You hold responsibility where it hold's as one taking the Picture, Giving a Grant it falls into the hands of a Child; This can go far reaches and cause damage to their live's as such You shall ever Consider your Photos taken. Not gonna quote scriptures on that one; seen you would/don't honor them as you have stated above in your "[if] you're bothered" quote. Don't think your scot free because Grace is in place; i have stated the truth at the end of my Post: Read it again!
Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother/sister. I know and am persuaded in the Lord [Yah being Salvation] that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.
Continue Reading Roman's > 14:13-23 and further~> to get the Real Depiction of...[.]
Not Everything is subjective while all can be subjective at time's. If You do not see the Consequences of Being a Brother's Keeper, You'r Missing the Point of any Relevance that Goes around in The World. So While it is in the each Persons Discretion; it is A SIN, to cause other's to stumble. And if mind of a neighbor; Whom [the anointing] died for; is destroyed by your free will; You Sin against the all-Mighty; as subjective to all human life's. Scriptures is pretty clear about it. You Can be strangled tossed WITH weights over your neck into the sea, for this kind of offense; If you don't believe in Scriptures, Then you ought to Consider all you do as nothing is your Conscience; if it does not offend you to Place all responsibilities on other's and non on yourself. Good Will to men it say's! “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” ― Edmund Burke
In the beholder's eye, this very same quote states that your viewpoint is wrong, and that wrath on the contrary to this conclusion is admissive to your cause. So don't Think you can say it is in the beholders eye individually, because then every wrong can be justified and rendered noth in the conclusion in your thoughts.
YOU Stepped on A landmine,... Defuse it or run with it? Better get to grips with it!
Can't Justify all wrongs with it, innit! > pointing at Quote #Thomas 337141
Offense will Come, and it will come at the slightest of thing's. Consider an infant and his sense of learning; Even a brief absence can teach it it's notion of abandonment. How then do you change the telly? Show a short clip of Murder on TV, and let a child watch it for a brief moment; Care to tell if it Changes that Child; How about in Real action LIVE Crime of Murder, will it cause a child or Person to be changed? So How can you change the Telly, if Life is the Real Telly? How can you dismiss your Freedom to alter another one's Free will by your's? This is .. Opposing to Other's Personal Space and Right's. Can't Overrule your rights over those of Other's Hence is their Censorship in this World. So as i Said, if it sting"s" the eye; it is too much and hence taken under consideration of SIN. While you have right to take all you want, (pictures) So has all a Right to Consider it a/of Wrong; But Their is such thing that Gone beyond, and of this is the Conscience that Speaks of it; So Does Doth; Don't Desensitize By the Statements as thus:
So did also Cain Speak in the Day the Lord ask him Where he'S Brother was:
[A m] I my brother's keeper?"
Question is if you were, you would consider; and With that comes Censorship and with that come's Consideration and With that Come's Protecting other's in the Regards of your hazardous work's and act's. So in all Reality it is not in the Beholder's Eye only; Because afterall... You are the One taking the Picture, and as such Liable and Responsible to not Cause harm with it; So do all You want for a Day of Reckoning will come; But realize the Reality of it, so that You Yourself might be saved: To the Photographers of the Worlds: FYI
Clearly directed, purposeful, well-thought-through and -followed-through intent is such a rare thing, it might as well be magical.
I think what most people label intent is more like a committee being pushed around by circumstance and other interests.
In project management, they often divide the roles of responsible and accountable persons...
Separate names with a comma.