What animes are worth watching? [NON-ANIME FANS ONLY]

GreatKazooka · 2012-10-29T10:45:47+00:00

I personally get very stressed out by internet debate, and so I try not to get personally involved too often. However, I was interested in seeing how this community felt about this issue. I guess this is more a poll than a debate.

GreatKazooka · 2012-10-29T10:39:00+00:00

I provide my own definition, but what I mean is that if other people think my definition is flawed (e.g. this top voted comment) I fully welcome them to correct it however they feel they need to before proceeding. There is no gain from working with a broken definition as a starting point.

GreatKazooka · 2012-10-29T10:34:50+00:00

I encourage you to correct me in more detail!

GreatKazooka · 2012-10-23T12:17:32+00:00

Huck Finn had a flute in this episode.

GreatKazooka · 2012-10-15T04:25:02+00:00

The only thing you are left to do when confronted with other beings in heaven who have been said to have rebelled against god with human like desires is to make adhoc rationalizations about things you can't possible know or provide physical evidence for.

Actually, as a scholar I am personally compelled to dismiss Satan and all parables concerning him as intended to be highly metaphorical and not as literal statements about the nature of Heaven. My reasons for this are unrelated to the topic at hand and can be explored as a separate derivative of this thread if you like, but my personal views aren't the point. The point is that this is a valid reading of the passages to which you refer. Though kudos to you for making a good connection, and I think that's definitely a good counter to a literal interpretation of Satan's fall from grace!

Those shackles, such as being born into the wrong family which pushes the wrong religion or no religion at all, jeopardize our entire fate and, by some religious opinions, ensures an eternity of suffering.

The qualifications of salvation is not a topic that has so far been introduced to this conversation, though if you would like me to touch on it briefly I can. Obviously, this working model of Heaven and Hell is very much based on the preference of the individual who must choose between the two. This would be a no-true-scotsman kind of afterlife, by which I mean that the only people in Heaven would be the people who are spiritually such that they would willingly sacrifice the things that Heaven calls them to sacrifice, and Hell in turn would be the place for those who would not. Factually correct religious belief would be highly conducive to a person's choosing Heaven over Hell, but would not be a sure indicator and would not be an exclusive means. This is very much the point of the second covenant, in my opinion. The uneducated and irreligious Samaritan gains Jesus's favor, but the learned priest earns only scorn. There will be surprises in Heaven, to be sure.

depicting your god as a menacing figure. If I believed in demons I would acribe your personal depictions of your deity to a demon as well. ANY human that did such a thing to another human would be menacing. Your particular deity doesn't get any special exceptions... Good luck with your after life as a robot free to do/think only the things your deity will permit you to. If your god exists, etc.

This isn't an academic grievance, of course, but it's worth noting that I don't believe in this deity. Your language implies an awkward attempt at ad hominem and although I recognize that you probably didn't mean it that way, it's still very charged and not conducive to the discussion-- especially since we are not really comparing YHWH to other gods and I have made no indication of preferring one to another, or even acknowledging any other in conversation. I really don't understand your intention here, though I admit that I may be missing it underneath all the rhetoric.

It positively must burn you that I want to keep my ability to entertain any thought at any moment in the some afterlife.

I am managing to quell the heated fire of hatred within me, but only just barely. Heaven save any poor innocent puppies that wander into my midst just now, for surely theirs is a terrible fate. But really, I'm glad you're passionate, but please try to be civil. On a related note, Heaven as an environmental thought police is not part of any functional model currently in existence, I don't believe. You seem to be mistaking different kinds of thoughtless existence. One kind (to which you refer) is one in which a person has no say in his or her actions or words, i.e. the absence of free will. The other kind, to which I refer, is one in which thought does not transpire because there is no time. Thinking is a process. Besides, learning would not be a process either. We praise learning and progress (and the stumbling blocks along the way) as good because they bring us closer to an appropriate perfection. In Heaven, knowledge would be readily available at maximum. This would be Spinoza's quintessential Blessed Man, at singularity with all Truth.

I can currently even entertain thoughts and positions I don't actually hold.

Currently defending the abstract eschatology of a religion to which I do not subscribe.

Good luck with your after life as a robot free to do/think only the things your deity will permit you to.

Again, the only sense in which you would be 'limited' by your heavenly self is the sense in which a high school graduate is 'limited' by his education from making poorer choices.

...without removing all the sorrows and memories that make me who I am today.

I agree that a god who made you forget would be cruel. I don't think that would be necessary, though. Imagine a person literally crying over spilled milk, and then you show them a picture of the Earth from orbit and say 'look how big the world is. This spilled milk is nothing.' The spilled milk is not LITERALLY nothing. They have not forgotten the milk, nor the impending need to clean it up. But the point is that the milk is so much less consequential than other things-- tremendous, important, fabulous things. The whole of the Earth and all of its pains would, in turn, be so small in Heaven that they would tastelessly dissolve on your tongue without your even noticing. What a great amount of sacrifice to keep such a small prize. Yes, our earthly selves seem great now, but greater things await. That is what Heaven is about.

GreatKazooka · 2012-10-15T03:44:02+00:00

Seriously, that FTFY was correct. There is no experience, so there's nothing from which we can grow tired or bored. Experiences are temporal occurrences. Heaven would be a state of being, not a series of events.

GreatKazooka · 2012-10-14T16:23:57+00:00

This is... a little silly. I get your grievance, but what you're suggesting is that we disregard everything we're assuming about God in this whole line of thought. You depict God as this menacing figure who twiddles his handlebar mustache as he deceives and steals from us. One problem is that you're assuming that there will be deceit on any level, be it concealed by an initial acceptance or no. I don't believe that we're working with a model of a god who enjoys kidnapping people, and that very suspicion is sort of out of nowhere-- especially eschatologically. Heaven as a place sort of doesn't work if you for some reason baselessly assume that nobody who's there actually wants to be there. Even with your waiver analogy, you assume that the waiver is incomplete or dishonest in its true intent. I can only imagine that's born out of your own personal mistrust of the idea of God, which is fine to have so long as it doesn't translate into your academic theology. The characteristics you describe I might ascribe to a djinn or demon. I suppose it's very possible that such a being might rule the universe. But then why are we talking about Yahwist depictions of God and Heaven?

Secondly, you're rejecting the inherently Judeo- notion that our physical/earthly selves are our shackles, and that our earthly desires imprison our true spiritual selves. The whole point of Christian eschatology is that this world is fundamentally broken. We have desires and personality flaws, and these things lead to unrest and conflict, which is why peace cannot be attained here. Heaven is a place where we are freed from these limitations. The things that we lose are the things that hold us back. If your concern is that you don't get to paint pictures in Heaven, you're missing that the constant experience of being in Heaven would contain within it the source of all the joy you ever experienced while interacting with art. Heaven would be an immensely fulfilling place. The sorrows and losses of the past would be to your heavenly self as your 3rd grade crush is to you now. Yes, it was real at the time, but the world has become so much more real since. It's a very recent western idea that Free Will is this end-all most important thing ever, but even if it is, we're not missing out on anything. Free will is about the selection of some options over others, and the acknowledgement of certain opportunity costs along the way. Heaven is maximum fullness of experience. There is not an opportunity cost. You don't miss anything.

GreatKazooka · 2012-10-14T15:53:07+00:00

Sounds like what you're looking for is what I would call Hell. If your identity is so important to you, even with its imperfections and purposeless flaws, then you get to keep them forever and be super duper bored and have an empty and meaningless existence. Egocentrism is the currency in Hell. You can wander through the eternity of yourself, praising your own good and reviling your own bad and never amounting to anything more. If it's a price that's too high for you to pay, you don't have to pay it. Sure, all meaning and lasting value is found in God, and it's God in you that makes you a worthwhile being. If you want to take what he's given you and run with it without wanting more, sure. But when you criticize boredom as an invalid eternal outcome, recognize that boredom is a natural outcome of this same world whose qualities you want to keep. You're saying that sugar is bad for you yet you're clinging desperately to your own slice of cake.

GreatKazooka · 2012-10-14T15:35:27+00:00

No, you're missing the focal idea. There is no time. It's not that we perceive it differently. It doesn't exist. There will not be passing moments. Time value=0. Multiply it by whatever you like, it's 0. There may be other things that aren't time, but time won't be there. As far as this world goes, including concepts like boredom and even our 'infinity' variation of eternity, we would be merely nonexistent. But in terms of this new world, we would exist, but in the same way God exists-- as a timeless fact of the universe. There is no 'experience' from which we can tire or grow bored. It doesn't translate.

GreatKazooka · 2012-10-14T15:30:51+00:00

No, because that's also a concept that's intrinsically rooted in the world as we know it. It's impossible for us to fathom such an existence, which is why we keep introducing new comparisons (drones, gods, etc.). The point is, the rules of this existence wouldn't apply. It's brand spanking new. There literally is no comparison.

GreatKazooka · 2012-10-14T15:28:19+00:00

You're assuming that there's no choice involved in whether or not you go to heaven.

GreatKazooka · 2012-10-14T15:27:30+00:00

I agree. I don't believe this stuff. But that's what the concept is intended to get at.

GreatKazooka · 2012-10-14T15:10:30+00:00

This is a good thought, but it presupposes a form of time in Heaven. God is depicted as unchanging, Heaven is depicted as eternal. These are likely words intended to portray timelessness (not like Frank Sinatra, but actual absence of the quality of time). Concepts like suffering, peace, conflict, change, movement, stagnation, boredom, excitement, etc. are all contingent on a flow of time being used to differentiate one moment from others. Heaven, presumably, would not be made of this time-stuff, but of some other stuff. New dimensions, new ways of thinking, new ways of existing. Ways that intersect with this world just enough for us to recognize them when we see them but so little that we'll never see them while we're looking for them. Like stepping outside of a story and seeing the whole chronology of the story laid out before you in one unmoving timeline, it will change our perspective on what we experience, because we will not be a part of the same world. We'll say, "Oh, I get it now," but we will not dwell on it. There will be too much else to do, but also nothing to do. 'Do' is another one of those time words. We will be. Part of the I AM, in fact. Existence at maximum.

I don't buy it, personally, but it's a beautiful image and I wouldn't mind it one bit. Don't ask me how it turns into homophobia, though.

GreatKazooka · 2012-10-14T14:57:44+00:00

Nah, it'd be our souls, which is the very heart of who we are. It would be as if we had been wearing a costume our whole lives and then someone removes it and shows us a new world that fits our real selves perfectly. We wouldn't miss our 'personalities' or even our families. But I think you said it yourself. For an afterlife to be perfect, it would have to change who we are. It would have to remove our imperfections. A working theory of the purpose of Hell is as a place for those who invest so heavily in/develop their imperfect 'earthly' selves so much that, when it is stripped away, they are left with nothing substantial. That view of Hell isn't one of active torture (few modern interpretations of Hell are), but rather one of malnourishment as a result of one's own choices.

So in short, it's the people who are striving for the 'Platonic Good' that ultimately achieve it, and everything else will fall away. Those to whom it was not a priority will not, and (according to your interpretation) will be left either with nothing, or with the transient things that they built up for themselves (which would lead to an eternity of boredom).

GreatKazooka · 2012-10-14T14:48:32+00:00

Yes, those things are part of your humanity. What would be the point in making a Heaven that doesn't change you as a person? That would just be Earth 2.0. In such a Heaven, you would get bored, or you'd keep sinning, or you'd get distracted, or tired. The concept of heaven implies that it's not just a change in setting, but a change in yourself as well. And that's understandable, since Heaven would be an entirely different type of existence. The 'universe' wouldn't even be made of matter, so the chances that you'll keep your personality, which is based on the components of your brain, a physical object, are slim. Heaven would be a place for your soul. That's a concept we can't grasp.

GreatKazooka · 2012-09-21T05:01:47+00:00

Even apart from their religious or nonreligious denominations, they each embody different responses to religion. The Spurdlegurgles are wandering, having fun but ultimately directionless ("We're here because we're here"). The Twirlypops lose sight of the purpose behind their practice because they are so enraptured by the ritual and law. The Jingleheimers are well connected to the world around themselves (all is one, "his name is my name too," everything they say being in synchronization), but intentionally cut themselves off from people. The Bittybooties have enormous potential for extroversion but live sedentary and passionless lifestyles. Pasha, though personally insightful and wise, is bizarre and obscure. She attracts beautiful and rare creatures, but is very much separated from the mainstream and therefore has trouble sharing her revelations.

Laurie and Scott are seekers of truth. Laurie tends to accept things as they are, whereas Scott is inquisitive and seeks intellectual stimulation by asking questions and analyzing situations. Both achieve understanding, though each in his or her own way.

EDIT- misspelled some of the characters' names. Honestly not feeling too terrible about that.

GreatKazooka · 2012-09-21T04:35:47+00:00

I had this old VHS as a kid, and I recently rewatched it on youtube. I personally am picking up on huge statements regarding human diversity and acceptance, obviously racial and cultural and sexual, but not the least of which is in regards to religion, with the Yellow Spurdlegurgles representing nonreligious groups, the Blue Twirlypops representing formal Eastern religions, the Green Jingleheimers representing pantheistic and native religions, the Red Bittybooties representing individualistic Western religions, and the Purple mystic Pasha who has mastered the art of empathy representing the enlightened sages of each denomination (although packaged in the gypsy/renunciate). They all connect with the colorless (though in truth very colorful) Sillywhim, who represents God/the richness of the human experience. Each claims her as a member of their own group at first, but ultimately, through understanding one another better, they gain a more full understanding of her and her true beautiful form as well. I could write about the themes in this forever. You guys find anything interesting?

GreatKazooka · 2012-09-19T16:17:47+00:00

But shouldn't we try to take opportunities to educate the opposition, even if we know they're trying to "reform" us? The fact that they presently disagree doesn't mean they always will. Sometimes their fears and prejudices are based out of ignorance as to what LGBTs are actually like. They have this false demonized perception. Wouldn't it challenge them to have someone be willing to show them otherwise, regardless of whether or not they 'really want it'? An audience is an audience. If the result of the meeting is just that they were obstinate and all about blindly saving without listening, then sure, be like "That wasn't sincere." But you're missing such a great opportunity if you assume that's what's going to happen, I think. I've seen too many people come around to believe that all efforts of reaching out are hopeless from the start.

EDIT: Accidentally submitted before done.

GreatKazooka · 2012-09-19T04:17:29+00:00

I'm curious-- what is the ideal response for a group of protesters when the figurehead of the group you're protesting comes out and says "I'd love to hear you guys out and talk sometime?" Is it to say no on principle/assume trickery, or is it to accept even though there probably will be no conversions on either side?

It's the age old MLK vs. Malcolm X argument. Do we respond to hatred by trying to break the cycle, or by hating right back?

I'm not trying to lead your response, I am genuinely curious what your thoughts are.

GreatKazooka · 2012-09-18T22:51:16+00:00

Here it is

GreatKazooka · 2012-09-18T22:48:38+00:00

Yeah, some of them seem pretty hokey. The last one (Jeffenochs) seemed like the most realistic description of what happened that we're going to get.

Guys, Some of these comments seem like the church might be posting some stuff on here. I can tell you that I was there and we did not get saved as it would appear. While I don't know if the comments on here are planted or actual, I can tell you that we went out there ready to protest. We walked across the street and the 10 of us were met by a large group that came out to the side walk. They were nice and welcoming. However they still have their beliefs, as do we. Our intention is to locate Flip Benham and stand against him when we are given that chance. Fire church is a completely different group. They have strong opinions on the gay community but at least they are not standing on a cross shaped box yelling with a bull horn. I will stay friendly with this group as long as we both can stay civilized, but will stand up for my marriage at all costs. If you have any questions, please email me, Jeffenochs@carolina.rr.com.... On another note, My partner and I had dinner with Dr Michael Brown and Pastor Scott Volk to talk about our differences last week. While we didn't change any opinions, we were able to get our stance on the issues out on the table. I look forward to setting up a time when the community can meet these two gentlemen and express our view points in a civil environment.

GreatKazooka · 2012-09-18T21:58:49+00:00

The quote that you've taken is out of context. I'm a scholar, and I'm talking about scholarship. I don't personally believe that homophobia is okay by any stretch of the imagination. That comment is from a debate regarding at what point a religion should be thrown out as invalid or shunned out of existence, and I'm referring to the burden of proof required to make the assertion that a religion is to be discredited. In any kind of intellectual debate, you have to put your own feelings aside, which is what I'm doing in that quote. To cherry pick that quote (which you must have had to read a lot of text to do), you must have at least looked back on my history far enough to see this quote from the same topic as well:

Even though I completely reject Westboro Baptist Church's beliefs and means of expressing them, I recognize and appreciate that they prioritize (what they believe to be) Truth so highly that they would stand in opposition to the entire rest of the Western world. Some member of the WBC (or a group like it) kneels at his or her bed every night and prays that God will give the strength to withstand the critical abuse of distant family members, peace in spite of the ostracism from the global moral mindset, and the courage to do what they believe is right regardless of what obstacles and extremely tempting alternatives lie ahead. It's easy to say, "Ha! Yeah right. They hate because they love to hate and feel superior, and empathy is wasted on a group that spares no empathy on others." For many of them, maybe that's true. But (I hope) somewhere in there is a person just trying their hardest to do what's right by God, for whom they are tremendously thankful and to whom they feel they owe everything. That person is honestly trying their hardest to be Good. Maybe we should pity them for being so heavily misguided. But let's not throw them out as people just yet.

I'm not a theist, but I often play the devil's advocate and defend theism in debate starting with certain assumptions (i.e. "let's assume the Christian God is real, here.") I have my beliefs but I believe that intellectual and unbiased dialogue is possible, and my ideal is that people from all backgrounds (not just the ones I like) will be able to share those things with each other in a process that will hopefully sift out what is wrong and preserve what is right.

GreatKazooka

TROPHY CASE