TheBaronOfFratton Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 Exactally. There is no absolute and therefore EVERYTHING becomes subjective, including the truth. I mean, you can say that someone has the right to decide in his mind whether or not something is black but that decision isn't going to change the fact that it is black. Green is green, blue is blue you can't change that. What happens if the person decides white is actually black? You have two conflicting truths, which doesn't make sense since the truth cannot be challenged.... right? Wrong. You see it all over the place today in the judicial system. The truth is always being challenged by some intricate lie some lawyer has weaved together to convince the jury that a guilty man is actually innocent. Is this justice? Many of us know deep inside that it isn't but this is how the system has been working since Darwin's book came out. However, this is indeed justice when beauty is in the eye of the beholder.The judicial system today, amongst other things is a corrupt mess because the standard of good, evil, and accountability to the Deity has been removed.The same could be said of this man's so called art. For me to say that this man has the right to do this is a compromise on morals established by the Deity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TooBoku Posted May 7, 2008 Author Share Posted May 7, 2008 That was a good comment. I appreciate that.I wasn't really objecting to a judicial system or how our judicial system is ideally supposed to work. A solid judicial system is one of the three pillars of a fully functioning democracy. I don't even think lawyers should be called a necessary evil because I don't believe that they even need to be evil. The objection however, is to how lawyers are trained nowadays. When Harvard was started in 1636, the original rule was: "Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life, (John 17:3), and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning." In 1859, Darwin's book came out and then in 1869, a man who read that book, understood what it meant, and believed it became the President of Harvard. His name was Charles William Eliot. Despite protests from the faculty of law, he appointed a gentleman by the named Christopher Columbus Langdell as Dean of the Law Faculty. He was for the most part unqualified except the fact that he agreed with Eliot on Darwinism. He created a new system and threw out the old textbook which was based on biblical principles. This system spread and it's basically what we have today... probably why lawyers nowadays have such a bad rap.Thank you for not suggesting homophobia on my part and I would confirm that I am not. I have two friends that, despite my protest to remain ignorant, have fully described the process of administering an enima and one friend who is "in the closet". He hasn't even told me yet but I know him well enough that he's hiding something - a strange dude that sleeps over a lot, cooks fancy food when it's just the two of them, touches him a lot, and calls him 'Boo'. However, I'm not going touch that subject because it'll be very hard for me to explain without it being misinterpreted and offending someone.As for the sunset, you don't have to see the beauty in it but that doesn't mean it isn't there. It's the same thing when you see a girl with an eating disorder. She's a beautiful girl, God made her, and whether or not she sees it, that doesn't change the fact that she's beautiful. That's the difference when divinity is involved. It's no longer about how you perceive the world. The world is the world and you can either face reality or keep dreaming.For the record, next time I mention Deity, I'm talking about the Judaic-Christian God. It's very diffulct to defend other Gods when you're not quite as versed in their theology. I just say Deity just to give people with other religions a fair chance to jump in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBaronOfFratton Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 Can I presume then, that if you should get the opportunity to travel back in time and have lunch with Charles Darwin ('If You Could Have Lunch With Anybody Who Would It Be?' thread), you'd give him a "Hemlock-On-The-Rocks" to wash it down with? But thank you for the interesting information regarding Harvard Law school. As for the sunset, you don't have to see the beauty in it but that doesn't mean it isn't there. It's the same thing when you see a girl with an eating disorder. She's a beautiful girl, God made her, and whether or not she sees it, that doesn't change the fact that she's beautiful. That's the difference when divinity is involved. It's no longer about how you perceive the world. The world is the world and you can either face reality or keep dreaming. ^ I do see what you mean here, but - if we accept that the 'Deity' considers homosexuality a 'defilement' - an awful lot of people are missing God's point. They aren't seeing the beauty where they are supposed to at all! It's 'Unnatural'. This isn't simply sexual desire - this is often a deep love. As much as a heterosexual relationship can equivocally be anyway... And actually I'd much rather see a couple of lesbians in love blatantly 'defile' themselves in spite of God (if you'll forgive such a crude example - but I'm sure you know what I mean!?!) than - say - something 'natural' like a lion kill a gazelle. Whilst I admit that the lion stalking it's prey and running is, in a strange way, beautiful (or at least fascinating to watch) the killing itself is ugly. But it is designed that way. Along a similar theme, I fail to see any beauty in a shark at all - killing something or not! What I mean is, is something deemed 'unnatural' but not offensive (excepting to a set of archaic laws that may or may not have any basis in truth) any less beautiful than something natural. You say the beauty is intrinsically there - whether we see it or not - in something we might consider 'ugly' (animals killing each other, the animal itself, an 'ugly' person). But love..? Isn't all consensual love beautiful, even if not performed in a Deity-approved conventional sense? I know my points might get muddled, but I hope you know what I mean? And that I respect your argument - and your faith? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TooBoku Posted May 7, 2008 Author Share Posted May 7, 2008 Correct me if I'm wrong but I think I see where you're going... but to answer directly, everyone is kind of missing God's point. If you would imagine that the Deity must be infinitly good and perfect, then even the smallest of flaws would cause someone to miss the point. Basically, if you've ever killed, lied, talked back to your parents, made fun of the weird kid in class, or even thought of bad thinks, it doesn't matter what you do, compared to infinity, we're all at the same place. We have no ground to judge or condemn each other on, unless you're acting on behalf of the state (a judge for example, but ultimately the state is subject to the Deity). Ultimately though, this puts homosexuals on par with Mother Teresa, save one factor but that has nothing to do with sexual preferance. So... I'm still not going to touch the homosexual subject. I guaruntee someone will misinterpret and be offended. However, I think you would be frowned upon if you applied the word beauty to "all consensual love" to be specific, erotic love, to perhaps a 40-year-old man and a minor (thankfully we have something called age of consent to fix that mess up), or in a possibly even more frowned upon example, within kin. Can I presume then, that if you should get the opportunity to travel back in time and have lunch with Charles Darwin ('If You Could Have Lunch With Anybody Who Would It Be?' thread), you'd give him a "Hemlock-On-The-Rocks" to wash it down with? Actually, I would probably take the time to soak in some of his knowledge. It takes a lot of creative work to come up with a theory like that. I wouldn't want to travel back in time to have lunch with Darwin actually. I would want him to come to the future. Then we could show him all the neat stuff we've discovered and see what he thought of it. To actually change history though? Nah. Everything has a purpose no matter how we see it. Even a butterly flapping it's wings in New Zealand could eventually cause it to rain in New York City. PS. Totally irrelevant but I love saying "frowned upon". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBaronOfFratton Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 Correct me if I'm wrong but I think I see where you're going... I would, maybe, but I'm not sure where you're saying I am going!?! Please don't think I'm trying to lead you down a path so that you'll offend homosexuals. I'm just using that example because I personally cannot see the problem with such a relationship, yet it seems to be used as a sign of the breakdown of society and it's consequent ills. My understanding is that God 'created' woman for man - therefore any man/man, woman/woman coupling is in direct defiance to this? I also use it because I wanted to discuss 'beauty' in terms of love, not just sexual attraction. To me consensual love, the kind that maybe we all yearn for, should not be dismissed as 'non' beautiful simply because God doesn't approve... And yes, by consensual I mean people considered to be of appropriate age and intelligence. I appreciate that occasionally these lines can blur - in age-gap relationships, and within families as you correctly pointed out - but this is just a fleeting phase in a world history where age-gaps and inter-familial marriage aren't, necessarily, "Frowned Upon"(!) I would presume that, say, two males in their mid-twenties, university educated, in a 'First World' country would qualify as this. Is their consensual love not beautiful? And as for the Darwin piece - I was just trying to bring a little levity to what, I'm sure you'll agree, is a very dense and complicated discussion. I'll leave the dynamics of time-travel to another thread! My lunch-date would be someone far more frivolous... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azgirl Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Wow guys.. I wish I had more time to jump in here.. beauty in homosexuality.. I don't know very many guys who wouldn't mind a one on one action between two girls but I will add most of the time the man would like to participate. wouldn't that change it from being homosexual? completely off the subject but anyway..beauty in the eye of the beholder is a Biblical term.. so I can see how the diety can get involved. Morality and prejudice can be brought into how something can be thought as beautiful as well. Faith among other things can change the interpretation of what is beautiful. "consensual" i have far too much to say about this right now and no time.. let me simplify and say.. I find history interesting.. when someone mentions certain age gaps now it is considered criminal.. but if you go back in history.. An old man with a young girl of let's say 12-14 was not uncommon for marriage.. a girl of 18 was considered an old maid. In a way, looking at this can change the way someone views what is beautiful based on age. How many people who are lets say 40 will even admit to finding a 12 year old beautiful today? And what interpretation of beauty would be used? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M--- Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 About the homosexuality thing and God: Who says it's unnatural? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azgirl Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 About the homosexuality thing and God: Who says it's unnatural?Sweetie, the doctrine (The Bible) 1 Corinthians 6:9 Most of the different types of bibles read the same on this. There are also verses for the act of .. but I won't do a Bible study. Anyway, it is usually those who believe in it that would say it is unnatural. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TooBoku Posted May 11, 2008 Author Share Posted May 11, 2008 Correct me if I'm wrong but I think I see where you're going... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBaronOfFratton Posted May 11, 2008 Share Posted May 11, 2008 I'm not gonna do you justice with this since I've been really busy this week and it's Mother's day tomorrow but just so you know I'm still here... short answer for me anyway is that if divinity is involved than 'simply because God doesn't approve' becomes an invalid rebuttal in advocation for homosexuality.However, love in itself is glorious thing but it's such a deep word that it often gets used out of context. Perheps it would be wise to reflect on what that word actually means not only in terms of its definition but also what it's characteristics are, what it requires us to do, and what it brings along with it when it comes. I find myself rediscovering that word over and over again from time to time. From my personal reflections it goes beyond any emotion, sense of yearning, or even simply knowing and being with that certain person.Sorry I can't make this post longer or more thoughtful though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBaronOfFratton Posted May 19, 2008 Share Posted May 19, 2008 TooBoku, sir - where have gone?!? I thought you, and anyone else who has been reading this thread, might be interested in this relevant update: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azgirl Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 TooBoku, sir - where have gone?!?I thought you, and anyone else who has been reading this thread, might be interested in this relevant update: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schadenfreude Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 As for the sunset, you don't have to see the beauty in it but that doesn't mean it isn't there. It's the same thing when you see a girl with an eating disorder. She's a beautiful girl, God made her, and whether or not she sees it, that doesn't change the fact that she's beautiful. That's the difference when divinity is involved. It's no longer about how you perceive the world. The world is the world and you can either face reality or keep dreaming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jade** Posted September 26, 2009 Share Posted September 26, 2009 yes, i do think it is. all the people have different taste, some people would think beyonce is beautiful and some other people would think she's ugly. not everybody is going to have the same taste in beauty. there is always going to be someone that is going to think i'm beautiful and someone that think i'm ugly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Limerlight Posted September 26, 2009 Share Posted September 26, 2009 100% in the eye of the Beholder.Society may of set what people think to be a standard of how the ideal man and woman should look :eyeroll: Which is fairly unrealistic, and which people and everybody judges themselves and everyone else to. But what you think is beauty is totally up to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emma_Frost Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 It is (at least to a certain degree) in the eye of the beholder... Many of the model's faces which are called perfect just seem boring to me. So if you define beauty as something which isn't in the eye of the beholder but strictly defined (by nature, society or whatever) then this brings me to the conclusion that Beauty = Boring. ^^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azgirl Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 The simple definition of beauty can also be the "eye" of the beholder especially when society says it is skin deep and someone may look elsewhere for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jig Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baby Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 i just read the 5 or 6 first messages but i answer now. i think there are difference between the beauty, the tastes and the interest. for example i think lily donaldson is beautiful but she doesn't answer at my tastes and she doesn't interest me... even if she dated with someone who interesting me a lot... i certainly won't change my mind. so does it mean i think she is "ugly" because she boring me and she is not my taste or does it mean she is "beautiful" just because i think she is pretty, classic ? i don't really take care of the classic beauty. when i was 14 years old yes, of course. i wanted be pretty and sexy and the result wasn't great everyday. i was more vulgar than something else XXXXD i thought everything turned around sex and beauty, so i lost my times with these stupidities. when a boy i liked was with another girl it was a drama. i spent my time to make comparation, to critic, to ask questions, to be jealous... i think because of my feelings, my vision of beauty wasn't realistic. or the girl was very beautiful, or she was very ugly... sometimes i was the two in same times... i was in love with boys just because they were "hot". i think i was just a teenager playing an "adult's" role (even if 90% of adult people aren't mature) and was crazy in love. our lifes were easy but we thought it was super complicated and we spent our time to complain. we wanted to show that we could be adult with ours relationships, ours parties in nightclub, ours stupid problems. we wanted to be a super complicated nevrosa to have people's attention, but we were just totaly superficial. we were a cliché now i just wonder how i could be in love of these guys... as the beauty, the sex was a competition and the love was the victory and i wasn't totally wrong, but the fact is, i didn't understand the rules. now my vision of beauty is : if i wanna have a one night stand i will take care of "beauty" but if i would like a relationship i will take care of the "interest". the fact is, when you're in love you always think your lover is absolutely wonderful and beautiful. when you are in love there are always these little things who make that you love his lips, you think his smile his absolutely cute, etc etc etc so even if i date with a intelligent ugly i will think he is a intelligent beautiful guy.. even if at first i never imagined that i could say "he is beautiful". so without hesitation, i prefer to be with my artist/inteligent/beautiful-ugly guy than with a sexy Ken with a little pea in the head. i think love makes you beautiful and hate makes you ugly. we can't live without our feelings so it's hard to be "honnest" about the beauty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint ludwig Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 hahahaaaa^ OMG the best answer 'artist/inteligent/beautiful-ugly guy'Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and LOVE is blind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.