|
|
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S]
| Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220465] |
Mi, 22 Februar 2006 03:01 |
|
IMHO, here are some ways that Kirk and Spock's story is NOT like
Brokeback Mountain:
1) Neither Jim nor Spock ever married a woman (Mirimanee, alas, doesn't
count, since Kirk was not himself at the time).
2) Kirk and Spock actually don't seem to be hiding their relationship
from anybody. We are given reason to believe that they don't mind if
people (especially their comrades) catch wise.
3) The people in Kirk and Spock's universe never show any homophobia.
Jim and Spock apparently don't fear homophobic backlash.
4) The fact that Jim and Spock are in love never has a negative impact
on the people of their universe... unless you count T'Pring. She felt
the need to hook up with a man who actually wanted her, and this created
a crisis, in AMOK TIME.
There are reasons that Kirk and Spock's relationship with each other in
Star Trek is reminiscent of the relationship between Jack Twist and
Ennis Del Mar in Brokeback Mountain:
1) In both cases, the guys met at work.
2) In both cases, despite sidecar relationships with women, the primary
love relationship is between the two men.
3) In both cases, the relationship persists over years, despite terrible
trials.
4) Kirk's kind of like Jack (openly, confidently emotional), and Spock's
sort of an Ennis (emotionally constricted).
Laura
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220468 ] |
Mi, 22 Februar 2006 04:04 |
|
ToolPackinMama wrote:
> IMHO, here are some ways that Kirk and Spock's story is NOT like
> Brokeback Mountain:
>
> 2) Kirk and Spock actually don't seem to be hiding their relationship
> from anybody.
Umm, probably because there is no "relationship" to hide.
> 3) The people in Kirk and Spock's universe never show any homophobia.
Actually, the subject never comes up in TOS at all. They are never
given an opportunity to show homophobia or the lack thereof. Big
difference in your argument.
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220469 ] |
Mi, 22 Februar 2006 04:36 |
|
"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
news:BeednZ3lV8hpWGbeRVn-jA [at] comcast.com...
> IMHO, here are some ways that Kirk and Spock's story is NOT like Brokeback
> Mountain:
>
> 1) Neither Jim nor Spock ever married a woman (Mirimanee, alas, doesn't
> count, since Kirk was not himself at the time).
>
> 2) Kirk and Spock actually don't seem to be hiding their relationship
> from anybody. We are given reason to believe that they don't mind if
> people (especially their comrades) catch wise.
>
> 3) The people in Kirk and Spock's universe never show any homophobia. Jim
> and Spock apparently don't fear homophobic backlash.
>
> 4) The fact that Jim and Spock are in love never has a negative impact on
> the people of their universe... unless you count T'Pring. She felt the
> need to hook up with a man who actually wanted her, and this created a
> crisis, in AMOK TIME.
>
> There are reasons that Kirk and Spock's relationship with each other in
> Star Trek is reminiscent of the relationship between Jack Twist and Ennis
> Del Mar in Brokeback Mountain:
>
> 1) In both cases, the guys met at work.
>
> 2) In both cases, despite sidecar relationships with women, the primary
> love relationship is between the two men.
>
> 3) In both cases, the relationship persists over years, despite terrible
> trials.
>
> 4) Kirk's kind of like Jack (openly, confidently emotional), and Spock's
> sort of an Ennis (emotionally constricted).
>
> Laura
Okay, I get it now. You insist on believing in this fantasy you have
conjured up because you have absolutely nothing to do. You have no job or
occupation to keep you busy during the day and sleepy at night. So you
while away the fleeting hours floundering in this world you have imagined.
Fine. You want to believe that the characters of Kirk and Spock are
homosexual lovers, so have at it. I won't stand in your way. But just
remember that this totally takes you off the "A" list for all the parties.
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220470 ] |
Mi, 22 Februar 2006 05:03 |
|
Ragnar wrote:
> ToolPackinMama wrote:
>
>> IMHO, here are some ways that Kirk and Spock's story is NOT like
>> Brokeback Mountain:
>>
>> 2) Kirk and Spock actually don't seem to be hiding their relationship
>> from anybody.
>
>
> Umm, probably because there is no "relationship" to hide.
Hee hee hee, ho ho ho. :)
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220471 ] |
Mi, 22 Februar 2006 05:04 |
|
Kevin wrote:
> Fine. You want to believe that the characters of Kirk and Spock are
> homosexual lovers, so have at it.
That's teddibly generous of you, but FWIW, I don't need your blessing.
:)
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220472 ] |
Mi, 22 Februar 2006 05:31 |
|
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:36:36 -0800, "Kevin" <webman6 [at] hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
>"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
>news:BeednZ3lV8hpWGbeRVn-jA [at] comcast.com...
>> IMHO, here are some ways that Kirk and Spock's story is NOT like Brokeback
>> Mountain:
>>
>> 1) Neither Jim nor Spock ever married a woman (Mirimanee, alas, doesn't
>> count, since Kirk was not himself at the time).
>>
>> 2) Kirk and Spock actually don't seem to be hiding their relationship
>> from anybody. We are given reason to believe that they don't mind if
>> people (especially their comrades) catch wise.
>>
>> 3) The people in Kirk and Spock's universe never show any homophobia. Jim
>> and Spock apparently don't fear homophobic backlash.
>>
>> 4) The fact that Jim and Spock are in love never has a negative impact on
>> the people of their universe... unless you count T'Pring. She felt the
>> need to hook up with a man who actually wanted her, and this created a
>> crisis, in AMOK TIME.
>>
>> There are reasons that Kirk and Spock's relationship with each other in
>> Star Trek is reminiscent of the relationship between Jack Twist and Ennis
>> Del Mar in Brokeback Mountain:
>>
>> 1) In both cases, the guys met at work.
>>
>> 2) In both cases, despite sidecar relationships with women, the primary
>> love relationship is between the two men.
>>
>> 3) In both cases, the relationship persists over years, despite terrible
>> trials.
>>
>> 4) Kirk's kind of like Jack (openly, confidently emotional), and Spock's
>> sort of an Ennis (emotionally constricted).
>>
>> Laura
>
>Okay, I get it now. You insist on believing in this fantasy you have
>conjured up
No matter what evidence is offered to the contrary. Either she will
outright ignore it, or spin it. Debating K/S with her is ultimately
pointless.
<snip>
>
>Fine. You want to believe that the characters of Kirk and Spock are
>homosexual lovers, so have at it. I won't stand in your way. But just
>remember that this totally takes you off the "A" list for all the parties.
>
Oh, she'll continue believing whatever she likes. The problem for the
NG lies in the fact that any time a discussion of their sexuality or
anything even remotely related comes up, she'll jump right in, going
on constantly about it.
Hell, there's been crap stirred up off and on for years in the TOS NG
because she won't let that crap rest. Case in point, this thread.
(Where the hell would anyone connect Brokeback Mountain and Star Trek?
There's no obvious connection, there.... )
-LMB
The reason congressmen try so hard to get re-elected is that they
would hate to have to make a living under the laws they've passed.
Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea.
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220473 ] |
Mi, 22 Februar 2006 06:38 |
|
I saw this compartison coming down the 405.
"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
news:BeednZ3lV8hpWGbeRVn-jA [at] comcast.com...
> IMHO, here are some ways that Kirk and Spock's story is NOT like Brokeback
> Mountain:
>
> 1) Neither Jim nor Spock ever married a woman (Mirimanee, alas, doesn't
> count, since Kirk was not himself at the time).
>
> 2) Kirk and Spock actually don't seem to be hiding their relationship
> from anybody. We are given reason to believe that they don't mind if
> people (especially their comrades) catch wise.
>
> 3) The people in Kirk and Spock's universe never show any homophobia. Jim
> and Spock apparently don't fear homophobic backlash.
>
> 4) The fact that Jim and Spock are in love never has a negative impact on
> the people of their universe... unless you count T'Pring. She felt the
> need to hook up with a man who actually wanted her, and this created a
> crisis, in AMOK TIME.
>
> There are reasons that Kirk and Spock's relationship with each other in
> Star Trek is reminiscent of the relationship between Jack Twist and Ennis
> Del Mar in Brokeback Mountain:
>
> 1) In both cases, the guys met at work.
>
> 2) In both cases, despite sidecar relationships with women, the primary
> love relationship is between the two men.
>
> 3) In both cases, the relationship persists over years, despite terrible
> trials.
>
> 4) Kirk's kind of like Jack (openly, confidently emotional), and Spock's
> sort of an Ennis (emotionally constricted).
>
> Laura
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220474 ] |
Mi, 22 Februar 2006 07:28 |
|
ToolPackinMama wrote:
> IMHO, here are some ways that Kirk and Spock's story is NOT like
> Brokeback Mountain:
Pretty much every frame.
>
> 1) Neither Jim nor Spock ever married a woman (Mirimanee, alas, doesn't
> count, since Kirk was not himself at the time).
>
1: For not mattering Mirimanee's death certainly hit him hard: That
final scene where he's holding her was one of the few highlights of the
Turd Season.
2: Spock did get married at some point: When Sarek was about to come
aboard the Enterprise-D, Picard mentioned being at the marriage of
Sarek's son.
> 2) Kirk and Spock actually don't seem to be hiding their relationship
> from anybody. We are given reason to believe that they don't mind if
> people (especially their comrades) catch wise.
>
Intelligent, capable folk who work together often develop friendships.
What would be the point of even trying to hide it?
> 3) The people in Kirk and Spock's universe never show any homophobia.
> Jim and Spock apparently don't fear homophobic backlash.
>
Since homosexuality simply didn't exist in '60s American television it
would be illogical to fear that which isn't there. To quote the Vulcan
philosopher, "Nothing unreal exists" (Though more than a few quantum
mechanics would argue the point LOL).
> 4) The fact that Jim and Spock are in love never has a negative impact
Main Entry: fact
Pronunciation: 'fakt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of
facere
1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : FEAT b : CRIME <accessory after the
fact> c archaic : ACTION
2 archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING
3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY <a question of fact hinges
on evidence>
4 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a
fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
- in fact : in truth
The actual *fact* is that outside of noncanon fanfic, on the big and
small screens they're only *shown* as very close friends.
People can be closer than just friends- closer than *family*- without
the slightest sexual or romantic element involved.
> on the people of their universe... unless you count T'Pring. She felt
> the need to hook up with a man who actually wanted her, and this created
> a crisis, in AMOK TIME.
>
T'Pring never cared if Spock wanted her or not. She wanted Stonn and
finagled a plot to get him instead of Spock.
<Snip>
*****
The Joker in the Eeeeeeeeeevil Cabal deck of cards.
"You're a figment of my imagination- the *least* you could do is take
your top off!!"
Rodney McKay to his hallucination of Samantha Carter
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220475 ] |
Mi, 22 Februar 2006 12:50 |
|
Brokeback? Whatever you think, you will not be able to change God's
Word regarding homosexuality and will one day have to pay the price for
not believing what God has written.
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a
woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be
put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Romans 1:22-27
V22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, V23 And
changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to
corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping
things.
V24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of
their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
V25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served
the creature more than the Creator, Who is blessed for ever. Amen.
V26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even
their women did change the natural use into that which is against
nature:
V27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that
which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their
error which was meet.
1 Timothy 1:8-10
V8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
V9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for
the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for
unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers,
for manslayers,
V10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for
menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other
thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit
the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves
with mankind
SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal
hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away
my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my
heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life.
http://www.armyofgod.com/Leviticus.html
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220476 ] |
Mi, 22 Februar 2006 15:00 |
|
|
Kirk and Spock are not gay. Bottom Line!
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220477 ] |
Mi, 22 Februar 2006 15:51 |
|
Yeah, but there are a lot of faggots out there who wish they were.
Unfortunately, this way of thinking has been going on since the 1970's.
<allemannster [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140616816.941567.179990 [at] g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Kirk and Spock are not gay. Bottom Line!
>
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220478 ] |
Mi, 22 Februar 2006 18:03 |
|
On 22 Feb 2006 03:50:54 -0800, Glory2Jesus [at] ArmyofGod.com wrote:
>Brokeback? Whatever you think, you will not be able to change God's
>Word regarding homosexuality and will one day have to pay the price for
>not believing what God has written.
>
>Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
>is abomination.
>
>Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a
>woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be
>put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
>
>Romans 1:22-27
>
>V22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, V23 And
>changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to
>corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping
>things.
>
>V24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of
>their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
>
>V25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served
>the creature more than the Creator, Who is blessed for ever. Amen.
>
>V26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even
>their women did change the natural use into that which is against
>nature:
>
>V27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
>burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that
>which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their
>error which was meet.
>
>1 Timothy 1:8-10
>
>V8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
>
>V9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for
>the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for
>unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers,
>for manslayers,
>
>V10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for
>menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other
>thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
>
>1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit
>the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor
>idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves
>with mankind
>
>SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal
>hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away
>my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my
>heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life.
>http://www.armyofgod.com/Leviticus.html
If Jesus died to take away our sins, then our sins are indeed
taken away.
If you now propose that some other action is necessary for
each of us to avoid a flaming Hell, then you must surely believe that
the death of Jesus was not really sufficient to the task.
You can't have this one both ways. :)
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220479 ] |
Mi, 22 Februar 2006 18:32 |
|
"SrEspectro" <nunca [at] hogar.mundo> wrote in message
news:2n5pv1p2e8igct6untdhpduggcpn75ovmf [at] 4ax.com...
> If Jesus died to take away our sins, then our sins are indeed
> taken away.
>
> If you now propose that some other action is necessary for
> each of us to avoid a flaming Hell, then you must surely believe that
> the death of Jesus was not really sufficient to the task.
>
> You can't have this one both ways. :)
Nor can they pick and choose which Leviticus they decide to obey. They want
to quote Leviticus all day to fortify their personal claims against
homosexuality but completely ignore hygiene, clothing, non-sexual behaviors,
social constructs, criminal law, Sabbaths...
shall I continue??
There is a scientific word for people like that:
HYPOCRITES.
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220480 ] |
Mi, 22 Februar 2006 19:22 |
|
From: Glory2Je... [at] ArmyofGod.com - view profile
Brokeback? Whatever you think, you will not be able to change God's
Word regarding homosexuality and will one day have to pay the price for
not believing what God has written.
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
is abomination. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why are u quoting a work of fiction (and a bad one at that) to support
your position?
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220482 ] |
Mi, 22 Februar 2006 21:38 |
|
"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
news:auCdnY5NM5FIf2beRVn-hg [at] comcast.com...
> Kevin wrote:
>
>> Fine. You want to believe that the characters of Kirk and Spock are
>> homosexual lovers, so have at it.
>
> That's teddibly generous of you, but FWIW, I don't need your blessing.
>
> :)
I'm not giving you my blessing. I just said if you want to believe that
Kirk and Spock are gay you can go ahead and do so. If I were giving you my
blessing I would have said something like "TPM, you have my blessing to
follow your twisted and tired belief system."
Or words to that effect.
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220484 ] |
Mi, 22 Februar 2006 22:07 |
|
"Kevin" <webman6 [at] hot4mail.com> wrote in message
news:srGdnTAIFcUzVmHenZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d [at] uci.net...
>
> "ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
> news:auCdnY5NM5FIf2beRVn-hg [at] comcast.com...
> > Kevin wrote:
> >
> >> Fine. You want to believe that the characters of Kirk and Spock are
> >> homosexual lovers, so have at it.
> >
> > That's teddibly generous of you, but FWIW, I don't need your blessing.
> >
> > :)
>
> I'm not giving you my blessing. I just said if you want to believe that
> Kirk and Spock are gay you can go ahead and do so. If I were giving you
my
> blessing I would have said something like "TPM, you have my blessing to
> follow your twisted and tired belief system."
>
> Or words to that effect.
LOL!
--
Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
http://members.shaw.ca/iksbloodoath
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
"So say we all!"
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "BBM" comparison? [message #220485 ] |
Mi, 22 Februar 2006 22:43 |
|
Really, I haven't seen BBM, so I can't compare the two.
But since one is about exploring space and the other is
apparently about gays, I'd say there is little to nothing to
compare. LOL
below
"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
news:BeednZ3lV8hpWGbeRVn-jA [at] comcast.com...
> IMHO, here are some ways that Kirk and Spock's story is NOT like Brokeback
> Mountain:
>
> 1) Neither Jim nor Spock ever married a woman (Mirimanee, alas, doesn't
> count, since Kirk was not himself at the time).
IMO, it is a better example because it shows us what Kirk really feels,
love for women.
>
> 2) Kirk and Spock actually don't seem to be hiding their relationship
> from anybody. We are given reason to believe that they don't mind if
> people (especially their comrades) catch wise.
Of course, since there is nothing out of the ordinary to hide, nothing to
"catch wise" of one way or another.
>
> 3) The people in Kirk and Spock's universe never show any homophobia. Jim
> and Spock apparently don't fear homophobic backlash.
Of course, see comment on #2
>
> 4) The fact that Jim and Spock are in love never has a negative impact on
> the people of their universe... unless you count T'Pring.
There are more than a few males in this world that I "love" which doesn't
mean I am "in love" with any of them nor that I don't love women, and I
DO count T'Pring.
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" -OT [message #220486 ] |
Mi, 22 Februar 2006 22:53 |
|
"SrEspectro" <nunca [at] hogar.mundo> wrote in message
news:2n5pv1p2e8igct6untdhpduggcpn75ovmf [at] 4ax.com...
>>SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal
>>hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away
>>my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my
>>heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life.
>>http://www.armyofgod.com/Leviticus.html
>
>
>
> If Jesus died to take away our sins, then our sins are indeed
> taken away.
>
> If you now propose that some other action is necessary for
> each of us to avoid a flaming Hell, then you must surely believe that
> the death of Jesus was not really sufficient to the task.
>
> You can't have this one both ways. :)
You must repent of your sins or Jesus' suffering for you was done in vain.
Faith, without works, is dead.
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220487 ] |
Mi, 22 Februar 2006 23:47 |
|
ToolPackinMama wrote:
> Ragnar wrote:
>
>> ToolPackinMama wrote:
>>
>>> IMHO, here are some ways that Kirk and Spock's story is NOT like
>>> Brokeback Mountain:
>>>
>>> 2) Kirk and Spock actually don't seem to be hiding their
>>> relationship from anybody.
>>
>>
>>
>> Umm, probably because there is no "relationship" to hide.
>
>
> Hee hee hee, ho ho ho. :)
yes, all you can do is laugh because your delusion is all too easily
punctured.
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220488 ] |
Do, 23 Februar 2006 00:06 |
|
Glory2Jesus [at] ArmyofGod.com wrote:
> Brokeback?
No, it was just sprained in a bad fall a couple of decades ago.
> Whatever you think, you will not be able to change God's
> Word regarding homosexuality and will one day have to pay the price for
> not believing what God has written.
>
***IF*** any God actually gave a flying fuck whether or not we
half-evolved primates believed Him, then He would choose a mouthpiece
that isn't clinically cookoo for Cocoa Puffs.
> Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
> is abomination.
>
If a man lie with a Yeti, is that an Abominable Snowman?
> Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a
> woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be
> put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
>
Levi never gave any thought to folk who lieth with shapeshifters???
Odd for such a passionate pervert to neglect such an obvious choice.
> Romans 1:22-27
>
It's still anybody's game at the end of the first quarter...
> V22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
So those who pray to God as "the Most Wise" are calling Him the Most
Foolish?
> V23 And
> changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to
> corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping
> things.
>
Is Gos a shapeshifter? Are you a Voorta?
> V24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of
> their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
>
I would much rathe rfollow the lusts of my own heart than anyone
else's. Just seems more sincere that way.
> V25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served
> the creature more than the Creator, Who is blessed for ever. Amen.
>
Who is blessed forever indeed- Pertwee and Tom Baker fracking
*rocked*!!!!
> V26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even
> their women did change the natural use into that which is against
> nature:
>
> V27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
> burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that
> which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their
> error which was meet.
>
This Leviticus guy seems to have had his issues; he's more hung up on
same-sex couplings than the guys who make up the "Penthouse Letters."
> 1 Timothy 1:8-10
>
> V8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
>
And how good is the law when men use it the way the law is used *in
real life*?
> V9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for
> the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for
> unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers,
> for manslayers,
>
Buffy must be safe; they completely left out the vampireslayers.
> V10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for
> menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other
> thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
>
Ever since Brother Jed first yelled "Whoremonger!!" at me, I've always
wondered how exactly does one "mong" a whore? And do they charge extra
for that service?
> 1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit
> the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor
> idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves
> with mankind
>
Yeah, the Corinthians 69 each other but then get all uprighteous about
other peoples' kinks.
> SAY THIS PRAYER: <Snip>
Ra is the Sun God!
He is the Fun God!!
*****
The Joker in the Eeeeeeeeeevil Cabal deck of cards.
"You're a figment of my imagination- the *least* you could do is take
your top off!!"
Rodney McKay to his hallucination of Samantha Carter
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220489 ] |
Do, 23 Februar 2006 01:35 |
|
"Bozo the Evil Klown" <Evilklowwn [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1140649597.714903.28990 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Glory2Jesus [at] ArmyofGod.com wrote:
<snip-more humorous comments>
> > SAY THIS PRAYER: <Snip>
>
> Ra is the Sun God!
> He is the Fun God!!
>
LMAO!
--
Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
http://members.shaw.ca/iksbloodoath
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
"So say we all!"
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220490 ] |
Do, 23 Februar 2006 04:35 |
|
On 22 Feb 2006 03:50:54 -0800, Glory2Jesus [at] ArmyofGod.com wrote:
>Brokeback?
Brokebrain!
> Whatever you think, you will not be able to change God's
>Word
Sure I can. Anyone got some whiteout I could use?
> regarding homosexuality and will one day have to pay the price for
>not believing what God has written.
I'd be more inclined to take it seriously if it wasn't written and
re-written to suit religious idiots over the last 2000 years.
>
>Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
>is abomination.
Huh. So, where in the bible does it say it's ok to gaybash?
>
>Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a
>woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be
>put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Therein lies the problem....if they're facing eternal punishment, then
why would God be in such a big-ass hurry to get 'em up there?
Sounds to me like good old fashioned homophobia.
>
>Romans 1:22-27
>
>V22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, V23 And
>changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to
>corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping
>things.
Sounds like your heroes like Benny Hin (or however you spell that
thieving hypocrite's name).... Dude claims to be a holy man, and yet
rents $1000-a-night hotel rooms, buys fancy clothes out the yin-yang,
and claims to heal. You sure you wanna be associating with people
like that?
>
>V24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of
>their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
>
>V25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served
>the creature more than the Creator, Who is blessed for ever. Amen.
>
>V26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even
>their women did change the natural use into that which is against
>nature:
>
>V27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
>burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that
>which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their
>error which was meet.
And verily, they didst whine about homosexuality, knowing that there
were much, much worse problems in the world. Yet, they couldn't bring
it upon there own selves to actually do something about such problems,
it being easier to hate.....
>
>1 Timothy 1:8-10
>
>V8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
>
>V9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for
>the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for
>unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers,
>for manslayers,
>
>V10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for
>menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other
>thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
>
>1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit
>the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor
>idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves
>with mankind
Know ye this is a fucking pair of Star Trek newsgroups, and not
alt.religious.homophobic.kooks?
-LMB
The reason congressmen try so hard to get re-elected is that they
would hate to have to make a living under the laws they've passed.
Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea.
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220491 ] |
Do, 23 Februar 2006 06:30 |
|
I assume that you all have SEEN Brokeback Mountain, so you KNOW what you
are talking about....
http://allyourtrekarebelongto.us/lildarlin.jpg
http://allyourtrekarebelongto.us/shrine.jpg
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220492 ] |
Do, 23 Februar 2006 06:31 |
|
http://allyourtrekarebelongto.us/defend.jpg
http://allyourtrekarebelongto.us/cptnplease.jpg
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220493 ] |
Do, 23 Februar 2006 06:35 |
|
ToolPackinMama wrote:
> http://allyourtrekarebelongto.us/shrine.jpg
http://allyourtrekarebelongto.us/neither.jpg
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220494 ] |
Do, 23 Februar 2006 06:44 |
|
http://allyourtrekarebelongto.us/bm-hug.jpg
http://allyourtrekarebelongto.us/changeling.jpg
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220495 ] |
Do, 23 Februar 2006 06:49 |
|
ToolPackinMama wrote:
> IMHO, here are some ways that Kirk and Spock's story is NOT like
> Brokeback Mountain:
>
> 1) Neither Jim nor Spock ever married a woman (Mirimanee, alas, doesn't
> count, since Kirk was not himself at the time).
>
> 2) Kirk and Spock actually don't seem to be hiding their relationship
> from anybody. We are given reason to believe that they don't mind if
> people (especially their comrades) catch wise.
>
> 3) The people in Kirk and Spock's universe never show any homophobia.
> Jim and Spock apparently don't fear homophobic backlash.
Except, of course, from Klingons...
http://allyourtrekarebelongto.us/cptnplease.jpg
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220496 ] |
Do, 23 Februar 2006 07:06 |
|
FWIW, Howard Stern about Brokeback Mountain:
http://www.malcontent.biz/audio/stern-on-brokeback-mountain. mp3
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220498 ] |
Do, 23 Februar 2006 11:33 |
|
Glory2Jesus [at] ArmyofGod.com wrote:
: Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
: is abomination.
Excuse me? You use scripture to support your position and then you
misquote it? Women are not mentioned in this passage of Leviticus!
In any case, quoting a book 2000 years out of date is not logical. As for
the New Testament quotations, Paul's Epistals carry no weight, since
ultimately they express only his opinion.
Brad
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220500 ] |
Do, 23 Februar 2006 18:02 |
|
Brad Filippone wrote:
> Glory2Jesus [at] ArmyofGod.com wrote:
>
> : Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
> : is abomination.
>
> Excuse me? You use scripture to support your position and then you
> misquote it? Women are not mentioned in this passage of Leviticus!
>
> In any case, quoting a book 2000 years out of date is not logical. As for
> the New Testament quotations, Paul's Epistals carry no weight, since
> ultimately they express only his opinion.
Besides, the views expressed in Star Trek are not often in harmony with
those which are expressed in the Bible.
"You don't have to believe. I'm not even sure that I believe." James
T. Kirk, in ST3
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220501 ] |
Do, 23 Februar 2006 20:23 |
|
"Bozo the Evil Klown" <Evilklowwn [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1140649597.714903.28990 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> SAY THIS PRAYER: <Snip>
>
> Ra is the Sun God!
> He is the Fun God!!
LOL
Now here's a really good, really interesting careful interpretation of
religion:
"I am the Lord thy God, thou shall not have other gods before me"
Actually it is not saying you can't have other gods, only that they should
not be more important. Of course the Judeo-Christian religious nutcases
preach that their god is the only one.
Damnit, it means I can have Satan and still skip to church on Sundays!! ^_^
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220503 ] |
Do, 23 Februar 2006 20:55 |
|
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 10:33:42 +0000 (UTC), al019 [at] chebucto.ns.ca (Brad
Filippone) wrote:
>Glory2Jesus [at] ArmyofGod.com wrote:
>
>: Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
>: is abomination.
>
>Excuse me? You use scripture to support your position and then you
>misquote it? Women are not mentioned in this passage of Leviticus!
Which just proves the point I made. There's multiple versions of the
bible, rewritten to suit the persons doing the rewriting. One version
might mention women, who the hell knows? Yours apparently does not.
>
>In any case, quoting a book 2000 years out of date is not logical.
I disagree. I think there's a lot of good ideas in the bible itself,
but the ones people use to inflict pain on others just aren't. They
don't look like the words of a merciful god, they look like the words
of some petulant mental midget trying to justify their hatred.
-LMB
The reason congressmen try so hard to get re-elected is that they
would hate to have to make a living under the laws they've passed.
Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea.
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220504 ] |
Do, 23 Februar 2006 20:56 |
|
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:02:36 -0500, ToolPackinMama
<laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote:
>Brad Filippone wrote:
>> Glory2Jesus [at] ArmyofGod.com wrote:
>>
>> : Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
>> : is abomination.
>>
>> Excuse me? You use scripture to support your position and then you
>> misquote it? Women are not mentioned in this passage of Leviticus!
>>
>> In any case, quoting a book 2000 years out of date is not logical. As for
>> the New Testament quotations, Paul's Epistals carry no weight, since
>> ultimately they express only his opinion.
>
>Besides, the views expressed in Star Trek are not often in harmony with
>those which are expressed in the Bible.
Because Star Trek is fiction. It's entertainment. If every bit of
entertainment had to totally jive with the bible, then our
entertainment options would be severely limited.
-LMB
The reason congressmen try so hard to get re-elected is that they
would hate to have to make a living under the laws they've passed.
Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea.
|
|
|
| Re: Brokeback Mountain [message #220505 ] |
Fr, 24 Februar 2006 02:16 |
|
I went to BBM with my new pal Mary, and my 17 year old daughter, today.
It was my third time, my daughter's first time.
My daughter started crying during the "Quit you" scene, and basically
cried through the rest of the movie. When it was over, she staggered
out, moist eyed and red-faced, absolutely stunned.
We dashed into the ladies room to pull ourselves together, and she
blurted out: "Does that movie even have a point, except to be sad!?"
"It's a real tear-jerker" I replied.
On the drive home, she had some intelligent things to say about Gay's
rights to marry, and about how homophobia is wrong, so I think she got
the point, all right.
Laura
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220506 ] |
Fr, 24 Februar 2006 02:18 |
|
Louis M. Brown wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:02:36 -0500, ToolPackinMama
> <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Brad Filippone wrote:
>>
>>>Glory2Jesus [at] ArmyofGod.com wrote:
>>>
>>>: Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
>>>: is abomination.
>>>
>>>Excuse me? You use scripture to support your position and then you
>>>misquote it? Women are not mentioned in this passage of Leviticus!
>>>
>>>In any case, quoting a book 2000 years out of date is not logical. As for
>>>the New Testament quotations, Paul's Epistals carry no weight, since
>>>ultimately they express only his opinion.
>>
>>Besides, the views expressed in Star Trek are not often in harmony with
>>those which are expressed in the Bible.
>
>
> Because Star Trek is fiction. It's entertainment. If every bit of
> entertainment had to totally jive with the bible, then our
> entertainment options would be severely limited.
Star Trek is entertainment that, to be blunt, is specifically
non-Biblical. Some might say anti-Biblical.
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220507 ] |
Fr, 24 Februar 2006 02:54 |
|
ToolPackinMama wrote:
> Star Trek is entertainment that, to be blunt, is specifically
> non-Biblical. Some might say anti-Biblical.
Case in point:
http://allyourtrekarebelongto.us/metamorph.htm
Another example:
http://allyourtrekarebelongto.us/truth.htm
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220508 ] |
Fr, 24 Februar 2006 03:30 |
|
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 20:18:01 -0500, ToolPackinMama
<laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote:
>Louis M. Brown wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:02:36 -0500, ToolPackinMama
>> <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Brad Filippone wrote:
>>>
>>>>Glory2Jesus [at] ArmyofGod.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>: Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
>>>>: is abomination.
>>>>
>>>>Excuse me? You use scripture to support your position and then you
>>>>misquote it? Women are not mentioned in this passage of Leviticus!
>>>>
>>>>In any case, quoting a book 2000 years out of date is not logical. As for
>>>>the New Testament quotations, Paul's Epistals carry no weight, since
>>>>ultimately they express only his opinion.
>>>
>>>Besides, the views expressed in Star Trek are not often in harmony with
>>>those which are expressed in the Bible.
>>
>>
>> Because Star Trek is fiction. It's entertainment. If every bit of
>> entertainment had to totally jive with the bible, then our
>> entertainment options would be severely limited.
>
>Star Trek is entertainment that, to be blunt, is specifically
>non-Biblical. Some might say anti-Biblical.
I doubt 'anti' really applies, else every villain would be some
uber-religious kook. However, there wasn't any reason to address the
topic of religion in any truly relevant way in Trek, so it never
really was examined.
-LMB
The reason congressmen try so hard to get re-elected is that they
would hate to have to make a living under the laws they've passed.
Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea.
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220509 ] |
Fr, 24 Februar 2006 03:42 |
|
Louis M. Brown wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 20:18:01 -0500, ToolPackinMama
> <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote:
>>Star Trek is entertainment that, to be blunt, is specifically
>>non-Biblical. Some might say anti-Biblical.
>
>
> I doubt 'anti' really applies
http://allyourtrekarebelongto.us/metamorph.htm
http://allyourtrekarebelongto.us/truth.htm
There are many others. Shall I list them?
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220510 ] |
Fr, 24 Februar 2006 05:44 |
|
Louis M. Brown wrote:
> Oh, she'll continue believing whatever she likes.
Oh, yes, she will. But unlike her opponents, she'll have good reason. :)
|
|
|
| Re: Quick "Star Trek" - "Brokeback Mountain" comparison [K/S] [message #220511 ] |
Fr, 24 Februar 2006 05:48 |
|
Snake wrote:
> "SrEspectro" <nunca [at] hogar.mundo> wrote in message
> news:2n5pv1p2e8igct6untdhpduggcpn75ovmf [at] 4ax.com...
>
>
>>If Jesus died to take away our sins, then our sins are indeed
>>taken away.
>>
>>If you now propose that some other action is necessary for
>>each of us to avoid a flaming Hell, then you must surely believe that
>>the death of Jesus was not really sufficient to the task.
>>
>>You can't have this one both ways. :)
>
>
> Nor can they pick and choose which Leviticus they decide to obey. They want
> to quote Leviticus all day to fortify their personal claims against
> homosexuality but completely ignore hygiene, clothing, non-sexual behaviors,
> social constructs, criminal law, Sabbaths...
>
> shall I continue??
>
> There is a scientific word for people like that:
>
> HYPOCRITES.
DITTO.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Do Feb 9 06:29:09 CET 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,11255 Sekunden |
