Expelled from college for watching "Glee" - Page 3

fuelair · 10th May 2012, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by shemp

So instead you attended the Fordham University College of Knowledge?

No, though I matriculated once at City University, North Towson (Maryland).

Now, I did get a grant to do some grant work a few years back overseas - the Arabian Regional Scientific Enclave - O'ille needed a good Clinic. We brought in an NMA team, got rid of the blockage ending with a purge of some old farts that were trying to cling on to their positions. Highly paid that wipe up was........

shuize · 10th May 2012, 06:17 PM

Kid elects to go to wacky university with stupid regulations and then is suprised when wacky university enforces stupid regulations.

fuelair · 10th May 2012, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by Polaris

That should be within mortar range, if you're willing to host fuelair and me for an afternoon.

How soon after the art show was the bonfire?

Sounds good to me - lawn chairs, beer and mortars!!

fuelair · 10th May 2012, 06:21 PM

But, then, we just found out yesterday that one of my wife's ex-students is involved with drone missles.....

AvalonXQ · 11th May 2012, 05:47 AM

Originally Posted by shuize

Kid elects to go to wacky university with stupid regulations and then is suprised when wacky university enforces stupid regulations.

It's not the enforcement of the regulations - it's the attempt by the administration to target a kid who (rightfully) went after a board member and then spoke out about sexual abuse on campus.

However wacky or sane their regulations, using them to single out a student in this way is unjustified.

Beerina · 11th May 2012, 05:56 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

I loved Glee for two seasons. Then the soap opera drama just got too much for me. But I loved the musical numbers. The lesbian cheer leaders didn't hurt either.

I feel for Santanna. I don't think Britney's really all that into her. But she wasn't really into Artie, either.

It seems to have halfway jumped the shark, doing lesser songs and some Glee-originals that just don't have the catchy nostalgia/oldies thing.

Agatha · 11th May 2012, 06:16 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

What planet is America on? Oh wait, the same one as contains the Taliban and Afghanistan. Soulmates, or what?

Rolfe.

My thoughts exactly.

I watched the first two series of Glee with my teenaged kids and it sparked off a lot of conversations and discussions about some of the issues raised in the show. However, it's just entertainment.

I can't wrap my head around any educational institution in the developed world trying to prohibit young adults (in their own time and off-campus) from watching a mainstream, primetime television show.

The Shrike · 11th May 2012, 06:46 AM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Dude, I think you have missed the point completely.

Indeed. A television show designed to entertain can also provide a basis for discussion of complex issues. In the case of Glee, the sexual escapades of the characters have in just about every instance led to pain and regret for those characters. That's what my kids are picking up, and as a family we'll sometimes talk about this stuff too. Sex is not to be used for manipulation, for revenge, for emotional blackmail, etc. Sex is serious business.

Here's what my parents told my siblings and I about sex:

The reason there's nothing there is because my parents could not bring themselves to use the word "sex" in our presence. It was understood that having sex was a one-way ticket to hell and eternal shame on our family, but it was never spoken of.

In contrast, my kids are getting a much more realistic education about sex. We've been clear with them that we don't want them engaging in sexual acts until they're old enough to deal with potential consequences. They know that if they ever decide to go against our wishes and have sex that we can't stop them from doing so, and that they dang well better use protection. They also know that sometimes people will show interest in having sex with them for reasons other than love and commitment. These are some pretty complicated issues for pre-teens - or anybody really - and Glee has, in part, opened the door to some of these conversations with our kids. It's not that we turn the TV on and tell our kids to do what the Glee kids do, it's that Glee has provided an impetus for us to talk to them about things we otherwise might not.

That said - yes, the shark was jumped shortly after Rory showed up (not his fault).

pgwenthold · 11th May 2012, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by The Shrike

Here's what my parents told my siblings and I about sex:

I haven't watched Glee much lately or anything, but I think any parent would be helped significantly if they were to see Kurt's dad "sex talk" that he had with Kurt. That gave me the chills, and I can only hope that I can someday do something halfway as powerful as that with my kids.

tsig · 11th May 2012, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

You know in my numerous readings of the Bible I have yet to find the verse that says "Go now and force all people to follow these rules" yet from the way it seems a lot if not most of the conservative christians out there behave, you'd think it was in there somewhere.

It is stunningly amazing to me that so many people don't seem to realise that Christianity is about getting your life right with God, not trying to do it with everyone else's, and that you simily can't force it onto anyone else. What is even more stunning to me is that those same people seem to be so willing to try to do just that.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit

Seems plain to me.

tyr_13 · 11th May 2012, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by The Shrike

Indeed. A television show designed to entertain can also provide a basis for discussion of complex issues. In the case of Glee, the sexual escapades of the characters have in just about every instance led to pain and regret for those characters. That's what my kids are picking up, and as a family we'll sometimes talk about this stuff too. Sex is not to be used for manipulation, for revenge, for emotional blackmail, etc. Sex is serious business.

Here's what my parents told my siblings and I about sex:

The reason there's nothing there is because my parents could not bring themselves to use the word "sex" in our presence. It was understood that having sex was a one-way ticket to hell and eternal shame on our family, but it was never spoken of.

In contrast, my kids are getting a much more realistic education about sex. We've been clear with them that we don't want them engaging in sexual acts until they're old enough to deal with potential consequences. They know that if they ever decide to go against our wishes and have sex that we can't stop them from doing so, and that they dang well better use protection. They also know that sometimes people will show interest in having sex with them for reasons other than love and commitment. These are some pretty complicated issues for pre-teens - or anybody really - and Glee has, in part, opened the door to some of these conversations with our kids. It's not that we turn the TV on and tell our kids to do what the Glee kids do, it's that Glee has provided an impetus for us to talk to them about things we otherwise might not.

That said - yes, the shark was jumped shortly after Rory showed up (not his fault).

Alright, that's a much more reasonable and sadly rare use of the medium than I was willing to consider.

I'm still going to criticize the show for it's broken Aesops and for the storytelling techniques that leave some actions acceptable for the good guys while being used as evidence of villainy in the bad guys. I can guarantee that people take exactly the wrong message from such story lines as I've heard them do so. That's not the most fair criticism because people can and will take everything wrong. Black and grey morality often causes such misunderstandings, but in a show as goddamn goofy and lighthearted as Glee, it feels shady.

Here is what I mean, I don't watch the show but let me guess how the trying to trick the boyfriend into believing he was the baby daddy worked out. The girl feels guilty about the cheating (she should) but not enough to come clean. Eventually something forces the information to come out against her wishes. It's either the guy she cheated with (while refusing to have sex with her boyfriend!) comes forward or one of the people helping her keep that secret comes forward. Or the guy realizes that he couldn't be the father without sex (I'm still confused on they are pulling this over on him, is he retarded?). Either way it is played as a betrayal of the cheating heroine. The boyfriend is destroyed and leaves her, but he's played as somewhat of a jerk for not being 'understanding' of her 'plight' as a pregnant teen. The actual baby daddy is probably useless, and won't be of help with the child so the boyfriend leaving is seen as a 'punishment' and problem for the heroine. She'll lose no friends besides her boyfriend over this. Was she punished for her cheating? Eventually she lost her boyfriend and she of course has to deal with the consequences of unprotected sex by having a child that she now has to raise by herself. But she doesn't have any consequences of attempting to defraud a young man into suffering the consequences of actions he did not take or even get the pleasure of having experienced. Outside of the relationship storyline, remorse will not be shown and things will move on like normal, status quo is king, with the ex boyfriend either being a friend again or become a villain for some contrived and out of character reason. Now this is wrong of course, as I don't actually watch the show, but I'd bet it's some variation of it. I've watched wrestling after all.

How many teens do such a deconstruction? I'd hope more than a few. All media of expression can inform our understanding of and work through problems in reality. It's an annoyance for me, and I'm of course reading too much into things. Just one of those things that gets to me.

None of this justifies what the college did. It's a derail on the nature of such shows.

I Ratant · 11th May 2012, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by The Shrike

Indeed. A television show designed to entertain can also provide a basis for discussion of complex issues. In the case of Glee, the sexual escapades of the characters have in just about every instance led to pain and regret for those characters. That's what my kids are picking up, and as a family we'll sometimes talk about this stuff too. Sex is not to be used for manipulation, for revenge, for emotional blackmail, etc. Sex is serious business.

Here's what my parents told my siblings and I about sex:

.
I got more than that. My dad told me to talk to the coach.

WildCat · 11th May 2012, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Agatha

I can't wrap my head around any educational institution in the developed world

It's not an educational institution, it's Bob Jones University.

RandFan · 11th May 2012, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

I feel for Santanna. I don't think Britney's really all that into her. But she wasn't really into Artie, either.

Exactly.

Quote:

It seems to have halfway jumped the shark, doing lesser songs and some Glee-originals that just don't have the catchy nostalgia/oldies thing.

Agreed.

tomwaits · 11th May 2012, 03:20 PM

I have to admit, when I think of Glee it reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2jRDNtnc48

Nosi · 11th May 2012, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by Tony

This case is telling. These religious conservatives claim their religion is the vanguard of freedom in the West. Yet, when they actually get power to shape something the way they want, it ends up looking like a totalitarian police state.

Yup, and their candidate is running for president. *barfs*

applecorped · 11th May 2012, 06:53 PM

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

PhantomWolf · 11th May 2012, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit

Seems plain to me.

Really? Perhaps you need to actually read it again. Where does it say "force" people to become disciples? Opps, it doesn't. In fact the word "make" isn't even in the original Greek, which literally says "disciple all the nations". "Make" was added to it in the English to help people understand it better.

So the question then becomes, how does one disciple someone? The answer is pretty easy, we find it in Chapter 10 of the same book.

Originally Posted by Matthew 10:5-8

⁵ These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. ⁶ Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. ⁷ As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ ⁸ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[a] drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.

The whole of Chapter 10 is about this, and after verse 8 much of what is said seems to relate far more to what will happen after Jesus' death that their time in Israel. Nothing in Chapter 10 says that they are to force people to become disciples, nor does any other verse anywhere else. It's made quite clear that the way to "make disciples" is to preach the good news, not to enforce rules and regulations and make everyone follow them.

tomwaits · 11th May 2012, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Really? Perhaps you need to actually read it again. Where does it say "force" people to become disciples? Opps, it doesn't. In fact the word "make" isn't even in the original Greek, which literally says "disciple all the nations". "Make" was added to it in the English to help people understand it better.

What about the rules in Leviticus that say you have to execute homosexuals?

PhantomWolf · 11th May 2012, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by tomwaits

What about the rules in Leviticus that say you have to execute homosexuals?

If you have a tribe of Israelites who are living under the Mosic Law, then I expect they'd try it, just as many Islamic countries living under Sharia Law do today. The Gentile Church is not under Mosic Law though, so...

tomwaits · 11th May 2012, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

The Gentile Church is not under Mosic Law though, so...

Oh? Jesus seemed to think the Law applied to him and his followers, and many of the early Christians thought so too. See Bart Ehrman's writings for more elaboration on this topic.

My point is that you are putting your own interpretation of the Bible and claiming that it is the "real" one, just like people have been doing for thousands of years. All the way from Paul of Tarsus to the folks at BJU people have been putting their own spin on the text, which reflects their own cultural background and values. It's no different than looking at the writings of Nostradamus and claiming that "this is what he was predicting!" The Bible is all just a haphazard collection of ambiguous texts that contradict each other.

The Dark Lord · 12th May 2012, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by NeilC

Altogether now: "...land of the freeeee.....a-and home of the braaaaave"

Yeah religious whackos are free to start schools with stupid rules based on their whacked out religion and people are free to go to those schools. What is your point?

RandFan · 12th May 2012, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

If you have a tribe of Israelites who are living under the Mosic Law, then I expect they'd try it, just as many Islamic countries living under Sharia Law do today. The Gentile Church is not under Mosic Law though, so...

Aren't the 10 commandments part of the Mosaic law? I've read the tortured apologetics and I'm aware that in 2,000 years a narrative has sprung up to account for the contradictions.

luchog · 14th May 2012, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by tomwaits

Oh? Jesus seemed to think the Law applied to him and his followers, and many of the early Christians thought so too. See Bart Ehrman's writings for more elaboration on this topic.

Sorry, but this has been refuted more times than I can count; with the main comment that the argument is based on taken far out of context. Not going to go into the full argument, but the upshot is that people are still subject to the Law, and its penalties; but they are not bound to follow the precepts of the Law as the Israelis were, because the Law was superceded by the arrival and sacrifice of the Moshiach. This was made explicit in the answer Jesus gave when asked about the greatest commandment, ie. love G-D with all your being, and love your neighbor as yourself, in this is contained all the Law and Prophets. There are numerous instances of even some of the Twelve being chastised for preaching the Law, instead of the Gospel.

RandFan · 14th May 2012, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by luchog

Sorry, but this has been refuted more times than I can count; with the main comment that the argument is based on taken far out of context. Not going to go into the full argument, but the upshot is that people are still subject to the Law, and its penalties; but they are not bound to follow the precepts of the Law as the Israelis were, because the Law was superceded by the arrival and sacrifice of the Moshiach. This was made explicit in the answer Jesus gave when asked about the greatest commandment, ie. love G-D with all your being, and love your neighbor as yourself, in this is contained all the Law and Prophets. There are numerous instances of even some of the Twelve being chastised for preaching the Law, instead of the Gospel.

I find the refutation ad hoc. It's a plausible explanation but it hardly addresses the myriad contradictions. Jesus could have easily said that the one need not follow cultural and ceremonial laws but moral laws (laws about not causing harm to others or one's self) still need to be followed. But then that raises more questions, why honor the sabbath or god or not take his name in vain? Weren't Kosher laws moral laws to protect the individual?

Isn't the apologetic simply convenient to justify cherry picking?

PhantomWolf · 14th May 2012, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by tomwaits

Oh? Jesus seemed to think the Law applied to him and his followers, and many of the early Christians thought so too. See Bart Ehrman's writings for more elaboration on this topic.

My point is that you are putting your own interpretation of the Bible and claiming that it is the "real" one, just like people have been doing for thousands of years. All the way from Paul of Tarsus to the folks at BJU people have been putting their own spin on the text, which reflects their own cultural background and values. It's no different than looking at the writings of Nostradamus and claiming that "this is what he was predicting!" The Bible is all just a haphazard collection of ambiguous texts that contradict each other.

I was going to carry on the side track, but decided it was pointless to the initial conversation. regardless of other writtings etc, what we have now is one set of documents, and no where in those documents does it say that Christians are to use force to convert people, or demand that others, especially non-believers have to follow a Christian moral code. It doesn't matter how you interpret it, it's not there.

PhantomWolf · 14th May 2012, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Aren't the 10 commandments part of the Mosaic law? I've read the tortured apologetics and I'm aware that in 2,000 years a narrative has sprung up to account for the contradictions.

This is the last I have to say on the side track. Jesus confirmed 9 of the 10 during his ministries, I'll leave it as an exercise for you to determine which he missed and why.

RandFan · 14th May 2012, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

This is the last I have to say on the side track. Jesus confirmed 9 of the 10 during his ministries, I'll leave it as an exercise for you to determine which he missed and why.

Doesn't answer the question. Oblique rhetorical games are always easier than being transparent and direct. Now I'll leave it as an exercise to you to determine why god spent 4 commandments on his own vanity and not a word about child abuse, domestic abuse or slavery.

10th May 2012, 06:04 PM	#81
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	Originally Posted by shemp So instead you attended the Fordham University College of Knowledge? No, though I matriculated once at City University, North Towson (Maryland). Now, I did get a grant to do some grant work a few years back overseas - the Arabian Regional Scientific Enclave - O'ille needed a good Clinic. We brought in an NMA team, got rid of the blockage ending with a purge of some old farts that were trying to cling on to their positions. Highly paid that wipe up was........
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

10th May 2012, 06:20 PM	#83
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	Originally Posted by Polaris That should be within mortar range, if you're willing to host fuelair and me for an afternoon. How soon after the art show was the bonfire? Sounds good to me - lawn chairs, beer and mortars!!
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

10th May 2012, 06:21 PM	#84
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	But, then, we just found out yesterday that one of my wife's ex-students is involved with drone missles.....
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

11th May 2012, 05:47 AM	#85
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by shuize Kid elects to go to wacky university with stupid regulations and then is suprised when wacky university enforces stupid regulations. It's not the enforcement of the regulations - it's the attempt by the administration to target a kid who (rightfully) went after a board member and then spoke out about sexual abuse on campus. However wacky or sane their regulations, using them to single out a student in this way is unjustified.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

11th May 2012, 05:56 AM	#86
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by RandFan I loved Glee for two seasons. Then the soap opera drama just got too much for me. But I loved the musical numbers. The lesbian cheer leaders didn't hurt either. I feel for Santanna. I don't think Britney's really all that into her. But she wasn't really into Artie, either. It seems to have halfway jumped the shark, doing lesser songs and some Glee-originals that just don't have the catchy nostalgia/oldies thing.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

10th May 2012, 06:17 PM	#82
shuize Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Location: Japan Posts: 2,311	Kid elects to go to wacky university with stupid regulations and then is suprised when wacky university enforces stupid regulations.

11th May 2012, 06:16 AM	#87
Agatha Winking at the Moon Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: UK Posts: 4,226	Originally Posted by Rolfe What planet is America on? Oh wait, the same one as contains the Taliban and Afghanistan. Soulmates, or what? Rolfe. My thoughts exactly. I watched the first two series of Glee with my teenaged kids and it sparked off a lot of conversations and discussions about some of the issues raised in the show. However, it's just entertainment. I can't wrap my head around any educational institution in the developed world trying to prohibit young adults (in their own time and off-campus) from watching a mainstream, primetime television show.
	__________________ People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff.

11th May 2012, 06:46 AM	#88
The Shrike Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: USA Posts: 1,812	Originally Posted by pgwenthold Dude, I think you have missed the point completely. Indeed. A television show designed to entertain can also provide a basis for discussion of complex issues. In the case of Glee, the sexual escapades of the characters have in just about every instance led to pain and regret for those characters. That's what my kids are picking up, and as a family we'll sometimes talk about this stuff too. Sex is not to be used for manipulation, for revenge, for emotional blackmail, etc. Sex is serious business. Here's what my parents told my siblings and I about sex: The reason there's nothing there is because my parents could not bring themselves to use the word "sex" in our presence. It was understood that having sex was a one-way ticket to hell and eternal shame on our family, but it was never spoken of. In contrast, my kids are getting a much more realistic education about sex. We've been clear with them that we don't want them engaging in sexual acts until they're old enough to deal with potential consequences. They know that if they ever decide to go against our wishes and have sex that we can't stop them from doing so, and that they dang well better use protection. They also know that sometimes people will show interest in having sex with them for reasons other than love and commitment. These are some pretty complicated issues for pre-teens - or anybody really - and Glee has, in part, opened the door to some of these conversations with our kids. It's not that we turn the TV on and tell our kids to do what the Glee kids do, it's that Glee has provided an impetus for us to talk to them about things we otherwise might not. That said - yes, the shark was jumped shortly after Rory showed up (not his fault).

11th May 2012, 07:49 AM	#89
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,071	Originally Posted by The Shrike Here's what my parents told my siblings and I about sex: I haven't watched Glee much lately or anything, but I think any parent would be helped significantly if they were to see Kurt's dad "sex talk" that he had with Kurt. That gave me the chills, and I can only hope that I can someday do something halfway as powerful as that with my kids.
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

11th May 2012, 08:56 AM	#90
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,779	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf You know in my numerous readings of the Bible I have yet to find the verse that says "Go now and force all people to follow these rules" yet from the way it seems a lot if not most of the conservative christians out there behave, you'd think it was in there somewhere. It is stunningly amazing to me that so many people don't seem to realise that Christianity is about getting your life right with God, not trying to do it with everyone else's, and that you simily can't force it onto anyone else. What is even more stunning to me is that those same people seem to be so willing to try to do just that. New American Standard Bible (©1995) "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit Seems plain to me.

11th May 2012, 09:42 AM	#91
tyr_13 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Falconer, NY Posts: 9,674	Originally Posted by The Shrike Indeed. A television show designed to entertain can also provide a basis for discussion of complex issues. In the case of Glee, the sexual escapades of the characters have in just about every instance led to pain and regret for those characters. That's what my kids are picking up, and as a family we'll sometimes talk about this stuff too. Sex is not to be used for manipulation, for revenge, for emotional blackmail, etc. Sex is serious business. Here's what my parents told my siblings and I about sex: The reason there's nothing there is because my parents could not bring themselves to use the word "sex" in our presence. It was understood that having sex was a one-way ticket to hell and eternal shame on our family, but it was never spoken of. In contrast, my kids are getting a much more realistic education about sex. We've been clear with them that we don't want them engaging in sexual acts until they're old enough to deal with potential consequences. They know that if they ever decide to go against our wishes and have sex that we can't stop them from doing so, and that they dang well better use protection. They also know that sometimes people will show interest in having sex with them for reasons other than love and commitment. These are some pretty complicated issues for pre-teens - or anybody really - and Glee has, in part, opened the door to some of these conversations with our kids. It's not that we turn the TV on and tell our kids to do what the Glee kids do, it's that Glee has provided an impetus for us to talk to them about things we otherwise might not. That said - yes, the shark was jumped shortly after Rory showed up (not his fault). Alright, that's a much more reasonable and sadly rare use of the medium than I was willing to consider. I'm still going to criticize the show for it's broken Aesops and for the storytelling techniques that leave some actions acceptable for the good guys while being used as evidence of villainy in the bad guys. I can guarantee that people take exactly the wrong message from such story lines as I've heard them do so. That's not the most fair criticism because people can and will take everything wrong. Black and grey morality often causes such misunderstandings, but in a show as goddamn goofy and lighthearted as Glee, it feels shady. Here is what I mean, I don't watch the show but let me guess how the trying to trick the boyfriend into believing he was the baby daddy worked out. The girl feels guilty about the cheating (she should) but not enough to come clean. Eventually something forces the information to come out against her wishes. It's either the guy she cheated with (while refusing to have sex with her boyfriend!) comes forward or one of the people helping her keep that secret comes forward. Or the guy realizes that he couldn't be the father without sex (I'm still confused on they are pulling this over on him, is he retarded?). Either way it is played as a betrayal of the cheating heroine. The boyfriend is destroyed and leaves her, but he's played as somewhat of a jerk for not being 'understanding' of her 'plight' as a pregnant teen. The actual baby daddy is probably useless, and won't be of help with the child so the boyfriend leaving is seen as a 'punishment' and problem for the heroine. She'll lose no friends besides her boyfriend over this. Was she punished for her cheating? Eventually she lost her boyfriend and she of course has to deal with the consequences of unprotected sex by having a child that she now has to raise by herself. But she doesn't have any consequences of attempting to defraud a young man into suffering the consequences of actions he did not take or even get the pleasure of having experienced. Outside of the relationship storyline, remorse will not be shown and things will move on like normal, status quo is king, with the ex boyfriend either being a friend again or become a villain for some contrived and out of character reason. Now this is wrong of course, as I don't actually watch the show, but I'd bet it's some variation of it. I've watched wrestling after all. How many teens do such a deconstruction? I'd hope more than a few. All media of expression can inform our understanding of and work through problems in reality. It's an annoyance for me, and I'm of course reading too much into things. Just one of those things that gets to me. None of this justifies what the college did. It's a derail on the nature of such shows.
	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

11th May 2012, 09:52 AM	#92
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by The Shrike Indeed. A television show designed to entertain can also provide a basis for discussion of complex issues. In the case of Glee, the sexual escapades of the characters have in just about every instance led to pain and regret for those characters. That's what my kids are picking up, and as a family we'll sometimes talk about this stuff too. Sex is not to be used for manipulation, for revenge, for emotional blackmail, etc. Sex is serious business. Here's what my parents told my siblings and I about sex: . I got more than that. My dad told me to talk to the coach.

11th May 2012, 12:23 PM	#93
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,098	Originally Posted by Agatha I can't wrap my head around any educational institution in the developed world It's not an educational institution, it's Bob Jones University.

11th May 2012, 01:21 PM	#94
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,320	Originally Posted by Beerina I feel for Santanna. I don't think Britney's really all that into her. But she wasn't really into Artie, either. Exactly. Quote: It seems to have halfway jumped the shark, doing lesser songs and some Glee-originals that just don't have the catchy nostalgia/oldies thing. Agreed.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

11th May 2012, 03:20 PM	#95
tomwaits Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Chicago, IL, USA Posts: 2,288	I have to admit, when I think of Glee it reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2jRDNtnc48

11th May 2012, 05:58 PM	#96
Nosi Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 2,731	Originally Posted by Tony This case is telling. These religious conservatives claim their religion is the vanguard of freedom in the West. Yet, when they actually get power to shape something the way they want, it ends up looking like a totalitarian police state. Yup, and their candidate is running for president. barfs
Nosi Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 2,731	__________________ __________ Hiding from the

11th May 2012, 07:41 PM	#98
PhantomWolf Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lost Deimos Moon Base Posts: 9,962	Originally Posted by tsig New American Standard Bible (©1995) "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit Seems plain to me. Really? Perhaps you need to actually read it again. Where does it say "force" people to become disciples? Opps, it doesn't. In fact the word "make" isn't even in the original Greek, which literally says "disciple all the nations". "Make" was added to it in the English to help people understand it better. So the question then becomes, how does one disciple someone? The answer is pretty easy, we find it in Chapter 10 of the same book. Originally Posted by Matthew 10:5-8 ⁵ These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. ⁶ Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. ⁷ As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ ⁸ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[a] drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give. The whole of Chapter 10 is about this, and after verse 8 much of what is said seems to relate far more to what will happen after Jesus' death that their time in Israel. Nothing in Chapter 10 says that they are to force people to become disciples, nor does any other verse anywhere else. It's made quite clear that the way to "make disciples" is to preach the good news, not to enforce rules and regulations and make everyone follow them.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My Apollo Page. 1 on 1 Debating Forum for Skeptics and sceptics.

11th May 2012, 07:48 PM	#99
tomwaits Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Chicago, IL, USA Posts: 2,288	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf Really? Perhaps you need to actually read it again. Where does it say "force" people to become disciples? Opps, it doesn't. In fact the word "make" isn't even in the original Greek, which literally says "disciple all the nations". "Make" was added to it in the English to help people understand it better. What about the rules in Leviticus that say you have to execute homosexuals?

11th May 2012, 09:28 PM	#100
PhantomWolf Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lost Deimos Moon Base Posts: 9,962	Originally Posted by tomwaits What about the rules in Leviticus that say you have to execute homosexuals? If you have a tribe of Israelites who are living under the Mosic Law, then I expect they'd try it, just as many Islamic countries living under Sharia Law do today. The Gentile Church is not under Mosic Law though, so...
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My Apollo Page. 1 on 1 Debating Forum for Skeptics and sceptics.

11th May 2012, 09:45 PM	#101
tomwaits Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Chicago, IL, USA Posts: 2,288	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf The Gentile Church is not under Mosic Law though, so... Oh? Jesus seemed to think the Law applied to him and his followers, and many of the early Christians thought so too. See Bart Ehrman's writings for more elaboration on this topic. My point is that you are putting your own interpretation of the Bible and claiming that it is the "real" one, just like people have been doing for thousands of years. All the way from Paul of Tarsus to the folks at BJU people have been putting their own spin on the text, which reflects their own cultural background and values. It's no different than looking at the writings of Nostradamus and claiming that "this is what he was predicting!" The Bible is all just a haphazard collection of ambiguous texts that contradict each other.
	Last edited by tomwaits; 11th May 2012 at 09:48 PM.

12th May 2012, 06:53 AM	#102
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860	Originally Posted by NeilC Altogether now: "...land of the freeeee.....a-and home of the braaaaave" Yeah religious whackos are free to start schools with stupid rules based on their whacked out religion and people are free to go to those schools. What is your point?
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860

12th May 2012, 07:44 AM	#103
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,320	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf If you have a tribe of Israelites who are living under the Mosic Law, then I expect they'd try it, just as many Islamic countries living under Sharia Law do today. The Gentile Church is not under Mosic Law though, so... Aren't the 10 commandments part of the Mosaic law? I've read the tortured apologetics and I'm aware that in 2,000 years a narrative has sprung up to account for the contradictions.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

14th May 2012, 01:06 PM	#104
luchog Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Emerald City Posts: 7,958	Originally Posted by tomwaits Oh? Jesus seemed to think the Law applied to him and his followers, and many of the early Christians thought so too. See Bart Ehrman's writings for more elaboration on this topic. Sorry, but this has been refuted more times than I can count; with the main comment that the argument is based on taken far out of context. Not going to go into the full argument, but the upshot is that people are still subject to the Law, and its penalties; but they are not bound to follow the precepts of the Law as the Israelis were, because the Law was superceded by the arrival and sacrifice of the Moshiach. This was made explicit in the answer Jesus gave when asked about the greatest commandment, ie. love G-D with all your being, and love your neighbor as yourself, in this is contained all the Law and Prophets. There are numerous instances of even some of the Twelve being chastised for preaching the Law, instead of the Gospel.
	__________________ "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams "The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf "Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon

14th May 2012, 01:42 PM	#105
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,320	Originally Posted by luchog Sorry, but this has been refuted more times than I can count; with the main comment that the argument is based on taken far out of context. Not going to go into the full argument, but the upshot is that people are still subject to the Law, and its penalties; but they are not bound to follow the precepts of the Law as the Israelis were, because the Law was superceded by the arrival and sacrifice of the Moshiach. This was made explicit in the answer Jesus gave when asked about the greatest commandment, ie. love G-D with all your being, and love your neighbor as yourself, in this is contained all the Law and Prophets. There are numerous instances of even some of the Twelve being chastised for preaching the Law, instead of the Gospel. I find the refutation ad hoc. It's a plausible explanation but it hardly addresses the myriad contradictions. Jesus could have easily said that the one need not follow cultural and ceremonial laws but moral laws (laws about not causing harm to others or one's self) still need to be followed. But then that raises more questions, why honor the sabbath or god or not take his name in vain? Weren't Kosher laws moral laws to protect the individual? Isn't the apologetic simply convenient to justify cherry picking?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

14th May 2012, 04:10 PM	#106
PhantomWolf Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lost Deimos Moon Base Posts: 9,962	Originally Posted by tomwaits Oh? Jesus seemed to think the Law applied to him and his followers, and many of the early Christians thought so too. See Bart Ehrman's writings for more elaboration on this topic. My point is that you are putting your own interpretation of the Bible and claiming that it is the "real" one, just like people have been doing for thousands of years. All the way from Paul of Tarsus to the folks at BJU people have been putting their own spin on the text, which reflects their own cultural background and values. It's no different than looking at the writings of Nostradamus and claiming that "this is what he was predicting!" The Bible is all just a haphazard collection of ambiguous texts that contradict each other. I was going to carry on the side track, but decided it was pointless to the initial conversation. regardless of other writtings etc, what we have now is one set of documents, and no where in those documents does it say that Christians are to use force to convert people, or demand that others, especially non-believers have to follow a Christian moral code. It doesn't matter how you interpret it, it's not there.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My Apollo Page. 1 on 1 Debating Forum for Skeptics and sceptics.

14th May 2012, 04:11 PM	#107
PhantomWolf Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lost Deimos Moon Base Posts: 9,962	Originally Posted by RandFan Aren't the 10 commandments part of the Mosaic law? I've read the tortured apologetics and I'm aware that in 2,000 years a narrative has sprung up to account for the contradictions. This is the last I have to say on the side track. Jesus confirmed 9 of the 10 during his ministries, I'll leave it as an exercise for you to determine which he missed and why.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My Apollo Page. 1 on 1 Debating Forum for Skeptics and sceptics.

14th May 2012, 05:12 PM	#108
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,320	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf This is the last I have to say on the side track. Jesus confirmed 9 of the 10 during his ministries, I'll leave it as an exercise for you to determine which he missed and why. Doesn't answer the question. Oblique rhetorical games are always easier than being transparent and direct. Now I'll leave it as an exercise to you to determine why god spent 4 commandments on his own vanity and not a word about child abuse, domestic abuse or slavery.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith