[geggis]

Originally Posted by MikeLXXXVIII

Reminds me there was this cute art exhibition that went on this summer in Oslo with pictures of homosexuals when they were children. I suppose the purpose was to showcase how they were like everyone else, and to get rid of myths or prejudices.

Ah, I like that. The best ideas are the simplest!

[tsa]

What do you guys think of politicians participating in the event? Our Christian politicians had a special boat there this year.

[geggis]

I'm not sure. I don't know the Bible well enough to discuss it's views on homosexuality but like I've said above the event seems quite odd nowadays even more so if Christian politicians are taking part. Sexuality, religion and politics are heavy issues to be mixing like that!

Has it caused a bit of a stir in the Netherlands?

[tsa]

Not at all. I think it's very weird that our most important Christian parties had their own boat, because the Bible, as the Koran, says homosexuality is not good. But of course these are modern times, and I am not a member of or believer in whatever religion, so I don't know.

I am actually curious to Trep's opinion. Hopefully he can say something about this before the thread wanders into another direction.

[Luna Sevithiainen]

If those Christian politicians would indeed believe for themselves that homosexuality is to be accepted, then okay, let them have their boat in an attempt to show solidarity to people who in a normal world shouldn't even need to be shown extra solidarity because we are just like everyone. Just people. (but let's not rant too much on this point)
However, given that likely the next day they will end up preaching the same narrow-minded views, trying the best they can to ban gay marriage and all that, I'd say that they are a bunch of hypocrites. And I really wonder why that in the view of their precious Bible isn't a sin.

[tsa]

Actually, there were a few couples married by a politician but I forgot by who.

[Luna Sevithiainen]

Plasterk is my wild guess, but I'm not sure (don't follow it that much). It would rock if the one who did that was a Christian politician who totally agreed with the fact that he was marrying gay couples, but I guess that wasn't the case?

[tsa]

It was the mayor, Cohen (sorry, the link is in Dutch and I don't know how to do the translation trick).

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by tsa

Not at all. I think it's very weird that our most important Christian parties had their own boat, because the Bible, as the Koran, says homosexuality is not good.

I don't think it's that the Bible, or the Qur'an, ultimately damns homosexuality. Just as any religious doctrine dishes out edicts on how to live and how to worship, any human being can interpret those edicts in terms of their perception of the [immediate] world they must live in and negotiate. Many religious demands have at their core a basis in the reality of day-to-day life.

You can trace back the repulsion against pork in Muslim beliefs to a time when pigs were thought to be the source of illnesses (maybe 'cause they loved to roll in mud?), or that pigs were too high maintenance to be kept as food sources (hogging up valuable water and grain), long before science was able to deal with it. With the subsequent advent of medicine and technology to control diseases in livestock, why then would many Muslims still avoid consuming pork if only to follow a millennium old rule? Scratch a commandment and you'll most likely find pragmatism suitable and maybe even necessary for the time it was made, but not necessarily for today.

It could very well be that the religious persecution of homosexuals go back to a certain incident where perhaps a man of great theologian influence may have been scorned himself by a homosexual, and he with his power chose to retaliate. Who knows?

But I do think that even if there were a supreme being/eye in the sky/deity/whatever, how silly of it to entrust us very, very flawed humans with dictating its wisdom. Such religious doctrines I simply view as history's most impressive version of the Telephone/Chinese Whisper Game.

But of course these are modern times, and I am not a member of or believer in whatever religion, so I don't know.

I think that many (too many, imo) religious institutions believe that sex exists only for procreative purposes. Collectively they still hadn't intellectually evolved from that notion. I think that books like the Bible and the Qur'an were created at a time when childbirth really was seen as miraculous because the ratio of infant mortality to survival was very, very high, given the lack of knowledge on things like sterilization and washing hands (I read somewhere about a custom of washing newborns in urine for some symbolic purpose, may have been some New Guinea tribe).

I'm thinking that most anything that "deviates" from the idea that sex must be only for procreative purposes constitutes blasphemy according to religious beliefs espoused by Christians and Muslims. Which means sex merely for pleasure, intimacy, and expressing love, or between a man and another man or woman and another woman, which doesn't lead to babies. The authorities couldn't understand it, or they were scared of it, or it reminded them of, say, how Greeks and Romans lived and many Christians/Jews were persecuted by them so they wanted nothing to do with same sex love and so wrote their religion to condemn it.

I am actually curious to Trep's opinion. Hopefully he can say something about this before the thread wanders into another direction.

You called?

[tsa]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

I don't think it's that the Bible, or the Qur'an, ultimately damns homosexuality. Just as any religious doctrine dishes out edicts on how to live and how to worship, any human being can interpret those edicts in terms of their perception of the [immediate] world they must live in and negotiate. Many religious demands have at their core a basis in the reality of day-to-day life.

You can trace back the repulsion against pork in Muslim beliefs to a time when pigs were thought to be the source of illnesses (maybe 'cause they loved to roll in mud?), or that pigs were too high maintenance to be kept as food sources (hogging up valuable water and grain), long before science was able to deal with it. With the subsequent advent of medicine and technology to control diseases in livestock, why then would many Muslims still avoid consuming pork if only to follow a millennium old rule? Scratch a commandment and you'll most likely find pragmatism suitable and maybe even necessary for the time it was made, but not necessarily for today.

You're right. Most of the laws God gives his Chosen People in (I think) the book Exodus in the Bible are very sensible if you look at them with the eyes of someone who lived in those days. And many of the rules had indeed to do with hygiene.

It could very well be that the religious persecution of homosexuals go back to a certain incident where perhaps a man of great theologian influence may have been scorned himself by a homosexual, and he with his power chose to retaliate. Who knows?

I don't think that is true. I've seen some men who are really scared of homosexuals, because they are afraid that the homosexuals may fall in love with them. But maybe this man of great theologian influence had the same fear.

But I do think that even if there were a supreme being/eye in the sky/deity/whatever, how silly of it to entrust us very, very flawed humans with dictating its wisdom. Such religious doctrines I simply view as history's most impressive version of the Telephone/Chinese Whisper Game.

Interesting view. I never thought of that.

I think that many (too many, imo) religious institutions believe that sex exists only for procreative purposes. Collectively they still hadn't intellectually evolved from that notion. I think that books like the Bible and the Qur'an were created at a time when childbirth really was seen as miraculous because the ratio of infant mortality to survival was very, very high, given the lack of knowledge on things like sterilization and washing hands (I read somewhere about a custom of washing newborns in urine for some symbolic purpose, may have been some New Guinea tribe).

I'm thinking that most anything that "deviates" from the idea that sex must be only for procreative purposes constitutes blasphemy according to religious beliefs espoused by Christians and Muslims. Which means sex merely for pleasure, intimacy, and expressing love, or between a man and another man or woman and another woman, which doesn't lead to babies. The authorities couldn't understand it, or they were scared of it, or it reminded them of, say, how Greeks and Romans lived and many Christians/Jews were persecuted by them so they wanted nothing to do with same sex love and so wrote their religion to condemn it.

I would love to go back in time to see who Jesus really was, and to see the Chosen People in the desert. Jesus' story was written down at least a hundred years after his death. So almost nothing of it must be really true. I guess the same holds for the exodus from Egypt.

You called?

Yes, and thanks for your reply. I always value your eloquent and well thought-through opinions. I don't always agree with them, but they do often give me food for thought.

[MoriartyL]

You know how I've been working on a movement game with a Canadian artist? Well, he came home from a trip he was on, looked at my work, and he doesn't like it. I value honest opinions, but that has me really worried. He's an animator, he has more of a visual sense than I do. What if I'm really just not cut out to design movement games?

[geggis]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

You know how I've been working on a movement game with a Canadian artist? Well, he came home from a trip he was on, looked at my work, and he doesn't like it. I value honest opinions, but that has me really worried. He's an animator, he has more of a visual sense than I do. What if I'm really just not cut out to design movement games?

Oh no, that's not good to hear. Are your game links anything to go by? It's just I can't try them while I'm at work I'd love to have a look because I'm from a 'screen based media' design background and have quite a sharp eye for animation so if I can help at all PM me.

It's a tricky path to tread because so much is subjective so don't resign yourself yet Mory!

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by geggis

Are your game links anything to go by?

Not really, no. This is a totally different kind of game. Just because I'm happy with the last two doesn't mean I'm going to make something I'm happy with this time.

[geggis]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

Not really, no. This is a totally different kind of game. Just because I'm happy with the last two doesn't mean I'm going to make something I'm happy with this time.

No, of course not. You can only try. What exactly is it that he disliked and why? I'm a graphic designer and there are plenty of things that I do on a daily basis that colleagues don't like for various reasons. There's nothing like good constructive criticism and healthy discussion.

[MoriartyL]

I don't exactly understand yet what he disliked; one of the drawbacks of collaborating over the internet is the speed of feedback. But it seems like he might be questioning the basic visual concept of the game, if that makes any sense. And if so, he's probably right to.

[geggis]

It depends how you received his comments but email is one of the finest ways to receive articulate well considered feedback because it can be tweaked and streamlined before you send it. If you don't know why he disliked your concept then I'd be asking him why so you can work something out, after all it is a collaborative effort.

As I've said above it's all subjective and his taste may just differ to yours in which case that doesn't make him right (or wrong for that matter)!

[MoriartyL]

Nothing to worry about. He got back to me and clarified his opinion, and it wasn't nearly as radically different to where I'm sitting as I thought. I just get really depressed over little things, I guess.

[Lee in Limbo]

Hey Mori,

I'd just like to offer my sympathy over the complications of long distance collaboration. I've had a couple of game collaborations fail miserably, and I myself am responsible for a third not making any progress. Long distance collaborations are very tricky, and hard to hang on to. I hope yours works out, or that at least you learn a great deal from it that you can apply to future works.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Dear Blog Thingy,

We're watching this for a week while its owner (my niece) is in Chicago:



It runs on batteries that, curiously, is recharged by small brown pellets that come in a bag and are purchased at a store. It also likes to chew on padding placed under its bed to soak up yellow liquids it emits now and then.

Nanay scolds it in Tagalog. I didn't know it knew that language. It must be very, very intelligent to do that, but I can't tell just looking at it while it jumps around and squirms for attention.

[rlpw]

Maybe it has a leak that you need to plug up!