Lateralus

Something along the lines of: "Thou shalt not lay with a man as thou would with a woman." I meant like "john:3:13" or whatever. You know, so I can look it up in MY copy of the bible. Actually its my Grandmothers but she won't mind. Leviticus 18:22 is the one people usually cite.

I would say misanthropy is my biggest problem, but it's not particularly something I'd like to correct. I've got the social skills and all that, I just don't like very many people.

I can't help but wonder if the reason so many people like Harry Potter is because of the acceptability of it, and not because of the prose. Of course this is true for many books, but they might stand up better under scrutiny.

I think we just differ in our definitions of art. To me the art in this piece (that is, the significance of it) is not the pretty picture painted in menstrual blood, but that she used it to paint any kind of picture at all.

I never meant to say the painting itself was disgusting. You're right, disgusting is too strong a word, but I haven't said anything about the artistic merit of the painting, I even defended it from others. However you said that being preoccupied with the blood was wrong, and that you even ignored it when evaluating the painting, which I'm sure you can agree is ridiculous. Emotional and gut reactions are generally what artists hope to provoke, albeit not without further thought on it. Whether or not the artist wanted a reaction of disgust has very little to do with the reaction she's actually going to get. EDIT: To give an example to what I mean about the gut reactions - A person views the painting, the instant reaction might be "Period blood? Disgusting!". The person then finds a place where people are discussing the painting, this forum for example. A dialogue ensues. The person, seeing the opinions of those such as yourself begins to question why it's disgusting, realises he may have been hasty in his judgment, and the artist succeeds.

The both of you exemplify exactly what I disagree with. You're both preoccupied on the blood and the emotional reaction from it. Yes, she is using it for attention and it's obviously working, but people here have almost zero ability to segregate the art from the fluid until you confront them on it. I did the complete opposite to most people here - I judged the art on what it looks like aesthetically, not what it's made of. Even considering that it's made of menstrual blood, I don't care and obviously have no where near the reaction of some people to it. It's blood from the wall of a uterus. Who can tell me why that matters other than appealing to emotion or the fact that it's unique? I hate this nonsense reaction that something is yucky therefore Ill completely focus on that and not the actual subject. I think you fell into a trap instantly by judging the painting on its aesthetic value. That's just not how art (art, not pictures) is judged. Of course it's part of it, but no artist sets out to paint a pretty picture, they're trying to convey an emotion and a feeling. These pictures are nothing special, and I'm sure the artist herself knows that. The fact that they're done in menstrual blood is the entire idea behind them, she says so herself. If you subscribe to Francis Bacon's (the artist, not the philosopher) school of thought that art should convey an emotion without the boredom of its conveyance then you could say she's done a fantastic job. To ignore or skim over the fact that these paintings are done in blood is to miss the point entirely.

In many cases I'd agree with you (see: earlier post), but the woman did this in period blood for a reason. Whatever aesthetic (or other) merit these paintings have is eclipsed by the fact that it's done in the artists own menstruation. She seems to have done this quite deliberately.

That's not the reason I dislike this art at all. What emotion is being portrayed in this art that couldn't otherwise be achieved through a more conventional medium? This is simply to create a 'shock' value. Likewise, I shouldn't appreciate art simply because it doesn't follow traditional mediums. Art has to have a point. You yourself have admitted you can't understand the point in this art either. The artist did actually say that the point was to point out (and help to break) the taboo surrounding menstrual blood, so there's the point I suppose. My argument earlier was a generality, because I don't particularly enjoy these pieces either.

If we can do what we want... Then why the hell would there be such things as crime. This is just taking disgusting to a whole new level. Theres art, and then theres art. If she needs these materials to help convey her meaning, then she's a really [cabbage] artist. I disagree with you on most of your points, other than the fact that it is a little disgusting. An artist can do whatever they want when creating their art, providing it's lawful and not harming anyone. I don't think there was any use in you making that comment about crime. Breaking conventions does not make an artist any better or worse, though perhaps a little more interesting. Artists are not defined by their ability to paint excellently or sculpt excellently, but by the emotions they can portray - through whatever medium they choose. An author who chooses to include illustrations in his book shouldn't be thought of as any less of a skilled word smith for including them. It might just be that it helped to create the overall package or feeling that he was trying to achieve. I don't see the merit in the piece myself, but to dismiss it because it's unconventional and not interesting to me would be supremely arrogant.

I've always found this to be an odd point when I hear people make it. You're definitely here, and that's all there is to it. If you weren't, you'd never know anything because you'd never be anything. You can't group nothingness into a collective like "everyone who'll never get a chance at living", so I don't think you owe them (and there's no "them" either, this is just quite difficult to articulate) anything.

There's rarely a need for us to consider ourselves on that kind of scale. Anything can be made to seem minuscule by comparison.

If we're talking about life as in existence then I definitely believe it's serious. The dictionary actually provides me with two very good ways of explaining what I mean. The example of "Engaging in serious drinking" is pretty helpful. Serious drinking is fun in my experience. The next definition was "deeply interested or involved" which I also find to be true of life. I have no idea if there is another plane of existence after this one, but I have no reason to expect there is, so I do take this life seriously. That is, I'm serious about making the best use of the time I have while I'm here. Now, if you mean life as in the system that we've set up for ourselves with all the money and the promotions and the designer chairs, then it's easy to call that silly if you're on the outside looking in. It's also easy to see how people can fall into the trap of taking it seriously though.

I consider them to be very important things, and I employ them often on these forums (because I'm usually arguing with people, I suppose :P ), but I don't let them dictate my entire life. I don't think you meant any offence by it, I'm just clarifying. My sense of wonder at the world is something I'm proud of and always try to nurture, it just never comes across on here. In all honesty, I don't think there's any argument between us. I have absolutely no problem with theists like you (perhaps other than the glaring one), and you seem to be a model poster.

That's a pretty cool story, but I'll never be able to see the correlation between those your survival and God's love or existence. If your house had been blown away and some family members killed, would you have felt like god hated you? I don't mean any disrespect by that, it's just a difficult sentence to sugarcoat.

I take it you haven't seen the movie? >_< I just looked it up, and it's exactly the type of thing I would avoid, so no, I haven't seen it! :) I'll assume you were joking though, you seem like a smart enough fella to know what I was talking about.

My question is how does one arrive at a position where just faith is enough?

This was more or less my point. The supposed Divine will always be a mystery, and choosing to ignore it requires many less assumptions than claiming to be on personal terms with it. What standard of proof did you use when deciding to become a Christian? Actually, it doesn't. Choosing to ignore it requires one to put a certain amount of, for lack of a better word, faith in human reasoning. And, last I checked, the only way one can justify human reasoning is by appealing to human reasoning. Choosing to accept the Divine simple means that one is able to admit the shortcomings of human reasoning (That is, that what's known will forever be known; what's knowable will forever be knowable; and what's unknowable will forever be unknowable). And there is no "standard of proof" by which I'm a Christian. Asking as much implies there's scientific reasoning behind my being a Christian. What, if any, reasoning did you use then? I have belief in human reasoning because of the beautiful things that have come from it. Obviously it has some limitations, but to try to exist outside of it is fumbling in the darkness.

Zeitgeist is a load of horse [cabbage]. What I wrote isn't. The collective attitudes, literature and mindset of a time creating a moral back drop against which we can measure what is deemed to be okay and what is not is horse [cabbage]?

This was more or less my point. The supposed Divine will always be a mystery, and choosing to ignore it requires many less assumptions than claiming to be on personal terms with it. What standard of proof did you use when deciding to become a Christian?

I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "moral relativism makes no value judgments concerning other systems of morality." Please explain. It's quite simple. If morals are relative rather than absolute, then everyone would contain their own "moral compass", so to speak. Given that everyone would have their own sense of morals, and given that a universal "right" and "wrong" wouldn't exist, then there'd be no basis under which to call someone else's morality "right" or "wrong", for the moment one person's morality tries to impose itself upon another person's morality, then it stops being relative in favor of absolutist in nature. Going back up a couple of posts, you happened to mention things such as murder and rape being deemed as "absolute wrongs". I'm so glad you happened to mention that not everyone considers these two actions to be wrong. Assuming all morality is relative, then neither of these actions would/could be considered "absolute wrongs". How could they since not everyone considers them wrong? They couldn't. Morals aren't relative. When they stop being absolutist in nature, the society they're present in collapses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist

And what I wrote in my two sentences still stands. And by that I mean in the setences you quoted. AAANNNDDD... You totally didn't answer the question. The beauty of the scientific mind is that it will change as evidence is discovered. As for what standard of proof is required, empirical would be nice.

This is a pretty useless post, there's no need for any metaphysical discourse here. You can tell what the title means. The title really means "Homosexuality: Socially Acceptable?" - because that's really what morality is. BUT, Christians do believe in objective morality, which is why they argue that homosexuality is a "sin", because the Bible says that it is a sin. When you consider that Christians and the religious are the main opponents to homosexual freedom, it is necessary to point out the presupposed flaw that absolute morality actually exists, and to tell them that what we consider "right and wrong" has merely been ground into us through the process of life in a society which considers certain things "right or wrong." The absolutes, murder, rape, etc, most people wouldn't argue that they are wrong (you know what I mean), however subjects such as homosexuality are argued over generally between the religious and the atheistic. I see no reason to believe that homosexuality is not socially acceptable, because it is my opinion that one should be able to do whatever they want to their own body/have relationships with whoever (consensually with adults). The only argument against homosexuality itself[*], is that the Bible considers it wrong. Therefore, the idea of moral relativism is entirely relevant, because to refute the Christian claim, you must refute the very basis of the idea of moral objectivity in the first place. [*]I'm not talking about homosexual parenting or anything - just homosexuality itself. The act of having a relationship with someone of the same gender. Your assertion that my post was unnecessary is unfounded in both reason and logic - I doubt you refute the idea that to prove the idea of "sin" wrong, you must first prove the idea of moral relativism right. The post was silly, this point of moral relativism does not render the topic useless in the slightest and you offered no explanation for what you said, unlike now.. This latest post is rather good however. I never meant to say that your view was wrong, only that the way you posted it left something to be desired.

This is a pretty useless post, there's no need for any metaphysical discourse here. You can tell what the title means.

Oh, I'm sorry. I should have introduced you. TheTrueNoob, I'd like you to meet Yahweh, the omnipotent master of the universe.

Things like this are why I think I would thoroughly dislike it if any theistic god was real. Some designer to require that kind of faith from a creature which is naturally inquisitive. Greville says it best: O wearisome condition of humanity! Born under one law, to another bound; Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity, Created sick, commanded to be sound.