Comments for Sathfilms http://sathfilms.com who knows anything Tue, 14 Jul 2009 00:50:08 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Jamie Woon – Wayfaring stranger by sula http://sathfilms.com/2009/05/23/jamie-woon-wayfaring-stranger/#comment-970 sula Tue, 14 Jul 2009 00:50:08 +0000 http://sathfilms.com/2009/05/23/jamie-woon-wayfaring-stranger/#comment-970 v cool. v cool.

]]> Comment on Brain Injury Affects Morality by janmarie http://sathfilms.com/2007/05/05/brain-injury-affects/#comment-866 janmarie Tue, 06 May 2008 17:15:48 +0000 http://sathfilms.wordpress.com/2007/05/05/brain-injury-affects/#comment-866 this is rather comical to me-guess because i had brain surgery--yes, i believe, any kind of major surgery reminds you that you're not immortal----our brain is truly phenomenal---and if you died(flatlined) like i did, cause after they sawed my head open-used the wrong thing-another story-anyway, i saw what it's going to be like when i go home-talk about breathtaking--you're rather pissed when you're back here-but i know where i'm going-you don't things-i don't care what it is unless you've experienced---kind of like a man getting a prostate exam by a woman dr.-she goes by a book cause she sure as hell doesn't--unless she had something done we know nothing about or want to-see my point-anyway, just wanted to contribute-thank you-janmarie this is rather comical to me-guess because i had brain surgery–yes, i believe, any kind of major surgery reminds you that you’re not immortal—-our brain is truly phenomenal—and if you died(flatlined) like i did, cause after they sawed my head open-used the wrong thing-another story-anyway, i saw what it’s going to be like when i go home-talk about breathtaking–you’re rather pissed when you’re back here-but i know where i’m going-you don’t things-i don’t care what it is unless you’ve experienced—kind of like a man getting a prostate exam by a woman dr.-she goes by a book cause she sure as hell doesn’t–unless she had something done we know nothing about or want to-see my point-anyway, just wanted to contribute-thank you-janmarie

]]> Comment on Women can’t be priests? by Estefania http://sathfilms.com/2007/05/12/irish-catholic-and-dangerous-reason-3987240-why-women-cannot-be-priests/#comment-863 Estefania Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:04:31 +0000 http://sathfilms.wordpress.com/2007/05/12/irish-catholic-and-dangerous-reason-3987240-why-women-cannot-be-priests/#comment-863 Priesthood isn't a right, first of all. The issue regarding whether women should be priests or shouldn't be priests isn't about equal rights at all, as people today seem to think it is. Women and men are both equal to God and the soul IS genderless, but God, God being Jesus, did appoint men to be the leaders of his Church, the Church meaning the people who are followers of Christ, and this choice is not mere chance. Jesus went against every practice of his time, he really stood out against other Jews and the social norms, so if He wanted women to be priests, He would have chosen them regardless of when He lived. An ordination, part of the Catholic sacrament known as Holy Orders, is a call to a specific vocation (duty/task within the Church). Every human being has a vocation, whether it is to marry and have children (and in that way spread the knowledge and the teachings of Christ), or become a nun, brother, friar, deacon, priest, bishop, cardinal(...etc.) and teach the children of God in that way. Though more important it is only right that this group of people be a smaller number and very special in their mindsets. God would never call someone to the wrong vocation but a human, being prone to mistakes and misinterpretation of God's calling, may see such vocations as gender-specific. The truth of the matter is, God is not gender-specific. I do not know why He is even called a "He", perhaps it is because He sent a Son and the Son is not only the Son but the essence of God Himself. In any case, God, who is not a creature like we are, has no gender. He is neither man nor woman because he is not biological: He just Is and always Has Been. All this established, it would be heretical for a woman to be called by God to the priesthood. If this were possible, then Jesus Himself would have appointed women to the apostleship, but He didn't. And it wasn't because of the social norms of his era because He was always up to contradicting them. [Women in the Bible were the ones privileged of knowing He had risen on Easter Sunday before anyone else. Since no one listened to women, why would that be included in the Bible unless it were true. It is obvious in the entire Holy text that women WERE in fact equaly important to men.] He chose men because He intended for His Church to be ordered in that way, the men being the head and the women the backbone. Isn't it just that women give birth and new life in the flesh, but men who can't do that be able to give birth and life in the spirit? I find it only fair. Women obviously have a more important job because without them there would be no one to teach the faith and no Church, either. And if women could be priests then men could be able to give birth, but alas it is not so. It is not a right to give birth it is a privilege, and such is the priesthood--a privilege not a right. As a last thought, ponder upon this: Jesus was a man, the head of the Church who in essence is feminine. Since priests are supposed to represent Jesus, who was a man, then a woman priest would only be blasphemous to the entire order that Jesus instituted while He was humanly alive (Catholics believe that the Communion is indeed the real flesh and blood of Christ and thus is still physically among us, in the lesser state, until His return to earth at the Rapture). And again, it is not because of the differences between men and women, it isn't because men are better than women. If some say that Jesus would have chosen His apostles differently had He been alive today, well Catholics believe He is still alive today so that statement would never change what we believe about Him and the practices He blessed us with. The people who truly know the Word and the Bible and have a close relationship with Jesus know that it is the way He wants it. I only hope that my information has brought you new knowledge and also has synthesized what has been said in the above comments. God bless and Happy Easter season! Priesthood isn’t a right, first of all. The issue regarding whether women should be priests or shouldn’t be priests isn’t about equal rights at all, as people today seem to think it is.
Women and men are both equal to God and the soul IS genderless, but God, God being Jesus, did appoint men to be the leaders of his Church, the Church meaning the people who are followers of Christ, and this choice is not mere chance. Jesus went against every practice of his time, he really stood out against other Jews and the social norms, so if He wanted women to be priests, He would have chosen them regardless of when He lived.
An ordination, part of the Catholic sacrament known as Holy Orders, is a call to a specific vocation (duty/task within the Church). Every human being has a vocation, whether it is to marry and have children (and in that way spread the knowledge and the teachings of Christ), or become a nun, brother, friar, deacon, priest, bishop, cardinal(…etc.) and teach the children of God in that way. Though more important it is only right that this group of people be a smaller number and very special in their mindsets.
God would never call someone to the wrong vocation but a human, being prone to mistakes and misinterpretation of God’s calling, may see such vocations as gender-specific. The truth of the matter is, God is not gender-specific.
I do not know why He is even called a “He”, perhaps it is because He sent a Son and the Son is not only the Son but the essence of God Himself. In any case, God, who is not a creature like we are, has no gender. He is neither man nor woman because he is not biological: He just Is and always Has Been.
All this established, it would be heretical for a woman to be called by God to the priesthood. If this were possible, then Jesus Himself would have appointed women to the apostleship, but He didn’t. And it wasn’t because of the social norms of his era because He was always up to contradicting them. [Women in the Bible were the ones privileged of knowing He had risen on Easter Sunday before anyone else. Since no one listened to women, why would that be included in the Bible unless it were true. It is obvious in the entire Holy text that women WERE in fact equaly important to men.] He chose men because He intended for His Church to be ordered in that way, the men being the head and the women the backbone.
Isn’t it just that women give birth and new life in the flesh, but men who can’t do that be able to give birth and life in the spirit? I find it only fair. Women obviously have a more important job because without them there would be no one to teach the faith and no Church, either. And if women could be priests then men could be able to give birth, but alas it is not so. It is not a right to give birth it is a privilege, and such is the priesthood–a privilege not a right.
As a last thought, ponder upon this: Jesus was a man, the head of the Church who in essence is feminine. Since priests are supposed to represent Jesus, who was a man, then a woman priest would only be blasphemous to the entire order that Jesus instituted while He was humanly alive (Catholics believe that the Communion is indeed the real flesh and blood of Christ and thus is still physically among us, in the lesser state, until His return to earth at the Rapture). And again, it is not because of the differences between men and women, it isn’t because men are better than women. If some say that Jesus would have chosen His apostles differently had He been alive today, well Catholics believe He is still alive today so that statement would never change what we believe about Him and the practices He blessed us with. The people who truly know the Word and the Bible and have a close relationship with Jesus know that it is the way He wants it.
I only hope that my information has brought you new knowledge and also has synthesized what has been said in the above comments. God bless and Happy Easter season!

]]> Comment on Women can’t be priests? by hesi http://sathfilms.com/2007/05/12/irish-catholic-and-dangerous-reason-3987240-why-women-cannot-be-priests/#comment-861 hesi Sun, 17 Feb 2008 11:12:40 +0000 http://sathfilms.wordpress.com/2007/05/12/irish-catholic-and-dangerous-reason-3987240-why-women-cannot-be-priests/#comment-861 awts~ awts~

]]> Comment on Passion! freedom and sex! « Escaped Mentalpatient by Melina http://sathfilms.com/2007/05/21/passion-freedom-and-sex-%c2%ab-escaped-mentalpatient/#comment-769 Melina Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:05:24 +0000 http://sathfilms.wordpress.com/2007/05/21/passion-freedom-and-sex-%c2%ab-escaped-mentalpatient/#comment-769 very interesting. i'm adding in RSS Reader very interesting. i’m adding in RSS Reader

]]> Comment on Women can’t be priests? by Danny Garland Jr. http://sathfilms.com/2007/05/12/irish-catholic-and-dangerous-reason-3987240-why-women-cannot-be-priests/#comment-579 Danny Garland Jr. Fri, 12 Oct 2007 02:34:34 +0000 http://sathfilms.wordpress.com/2007/05/12/irish-catholic-and-dangerous-reason-3987240-why-women-cannot-be-priests/#comment-579 Just for the record, the women who were "ordained", were not done so either legally nor licitly. You can go through the motions, but that doesn't change the reality that women cannot be priests. The issue is not about women or men being superior over another. Catholics will admit that women are more spiritual and the better. The priesthood is not about that. Catholics do not degrade women either. The most honored creature amongst Catholics is a woman, the Blessed Virgin Mary. See this post for refutation of Charlotte's nonesense: http://irishanddangerous.blogspot.com/2007/10/reason-3987242-why-women-cannot-be.html Just for the record, the women who were “ordained”, were not done so either legally nor licitly. You can go through the motions, but that doesn’t change the reality that women cannot be priests.

The issue is not about women or men being superior over another. Catholics will admit that women are more spiritual and the better. The priesthood is not about that. Catholics do not degrade women either. The most honored creature amongst Catholics is a woman, the Blessed Virgin Mary.
See this post for refutation of Charlotte’s nonesense:
http://irishanddangerous.blogspot.com/2007/10/reason-3987242-why-women-cannot-be.html

]]> Comment on A pefect partner exists – an assumption often made? by Ari http://sathfilms.com/2007/05/25/sex-before-marriage-right-or-wrong/#comment-468 Ari Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:56:09 +0000 http://sathfilms.wordpress.com/2007/05/25/sex-before-marriage-right-or-wrong/#comment-468 PS- Great website Arni and hope to see you soon! PS- Great website Arni and hope to see you soon!

]]> Comment on A pefect partner exists – an assumption often made? by Ari http://sathfilms.com/2007/05/25/sex-before-marriage-right-or-wrong/#comment-467 Ari Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:53:24 +0000 http://sathfilms.wordpress.com/2007/05/25/sex-before-marriage-right-or-wrong/#comment-467 I don't know about what James said about sex being the most intimate form of love. I'm told that that's how men interprete it anyway. Survivors don't love their rapeists and I doubt rapists love their prey! Animals don't have sex upon this basis either. There are couples out there who can't even perform sex and I doubt that means that they cannot experience the highest form of intimacy. What for the millions on anti-depressants who experience inorgasmia as a side effect? Gosh I'm sure sex with your husband can even be mundane! Sex is an act, a powerfull physical act that affects all living creatures as new life may very well emerge. It's huge! And when paired with feelings of intense mindfull/spiritual love it's out of this world. But distinctions must be made. Sex is not always an expression of 'making love'. It can represent self-gratification, loneliness, neediness, addiction, escape, dominance, violation, druken fun and even 10 year old curiosity just to name a few. The popular ideals of love that James expressed -Love being constant and unwavering so as to support a lifetime of marriage- feels weak, old, naive and a very missleading argument. Life is not a 24 paged illustrated fairytale. Love is a beautifull word but do we really know what it is and what it feels like? Can we really unitze love so confidently as to know all its properties including its impact upon time? How do we distinguish love between the people we encounter each day? Should we always be 'in love' love when married or is it ok just to love the other person enough? Then, how is this love different from any other close relationship that one may have outside of their marriage? Love is not a rational entity therfore how is it that such rational statements are made? That is the beauty of love! I am really questioning the institution of marriage here as well. Couldn't it be that there is more than one person to be in love with within a lifetime? How fair is it to promise a lifetime of the unknown to another person? Is this in itself loving? For practicle and economic purposes marriage protects the family unit. It even protects our fear of lonliness by providing a sense of stability, prediction and support. But what happends when we grow into different directions? What are we to make of our promise then? We live in times of cheap contraception, emerging female independance, a respect and acknowledgment of ones phenomenological experience, quality eduactions and a growing maturity on how to raise children through divorce. These are very different times. Is marriage a flailing institution? I don't suggest that we head into some type of hedonic way of life just one where personal inner truth is listened for paramount to any social expectation. I question marriage but that's not to say that I know that there is no form of love that suits the commitment. And this leads me to a question I have been wondering about for sometime... I recognise that there are some very truely in love couples out there, what is it, what is that one thing that remains constanst in a couples love to get them through 50 years of marital growth? I don’t know about what James said about sex being the most intimate form of love. I’m told that that’s how men interprete it anyway. Survivors don’t love their rapeists and I doubt rapists love their prey! Animals don’t have sex upon this basis either. There are couples out there who can’t even perform sex and I doubt that means that they cannot experience the highest form of intimacy. What for the millions on anti-depressants who experience inorgasmia as a side effect? Gosh I’m sure sex with your husband can even be mundane! Sex is an act, a powerfull physical act that affects all living creatures as new life may very well emerge. It’s huge! And when paired with feelings of intense mindfull/spiritual love it’s out of this world. But distinctions must be made. Sex is not always an expression of ‘making love’. It can represent self-gratification, loneliness, neediness, addiction, escape, dominance, violation, druken fun and even 10 year old curiosity just to name a few.

The popular ideals of love that James expressed -Love being constant and unwavering so as to support a lifetime of marriage- feels weak, old, naive and a very missleading argument. Life is not a 24 paged illustrated fairytale. Love is a beautifull word but do we really know what it is and what it feels like? Can we really unitze love so confidently as to know all its properties including its impact upon time? How do we distinguish love between the people we encounter each day? Should we always be ‘in love’ love when married or is it ok just to love the other person enough? Then, how is this love different from any other close relationship that one may have outside of their marriage? Love is not a rational entity therfore how is it that such rational statements are made? That is the beauty of love!

I am really questioning the institution of marriage here as well. Couldn’t it be that there is more than one person to be in love with within a lifetime? How fair is it to promise a lifetime of the unknown to another person? Is this in itself loving? For practicle and economic purposes marriage protects the family unit. It even protects our fear of lonliness by providing a sense of stability, prediction and support. But what happends when we grow into different directions? What are we to make of our promise then?

We live in times of cheap contraception, emerging female independance, a respect and acknowledgment of ones phenomenological experience, quality eduactions and a growing maturity on how to raise children through divorce. These are very different times. Is marriage a flailing institution?

I don’t suggest that we head into some type of hedonic way of life just one where personal inner truth is listened for paramount to any social expectation. I question marriage but that’s not to say that I know that there is no form of love that suits the commitment. And this leads me to a question I have been wondering about for sometime… I recognise that there are some very truely in love couples out there, what is it, what is that one thing that remains constanst in a couples love to get them through 50 years of marital growth?

]]> Comment on On The Lot, judges and shorts by pheona http://sathfilms.com/2007/07/18/on-the-lot-judges-and-shorts-2/#comment-394 pheona Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:07:22 +0000 http://sathfilms.com/2007/07/18/on-the-lot-judges-and-shorts-2/#comment-394 I really enjoyed the show because it showed a lot of the filmmaking process. I'd like to pick it up on DVD if it ever comes out... I really enjoyed the show because it showed a lot of the filmmaking process. I’d like to pick it up on DVD if it ever comes out…

]]> Comment on Chinatown by Gayle Alstrom http://sathfilms.com/2007/07/18/chinatown/#comment-385 Gayle Alstrom Sat, 28 Jul 2007 18:40:27 +0000 http://sathfilms.com/2007/07/18/chinatown/#comment-385 I wrote something on my own blog on March 7, 2007 about what I think of Chinatown. I left a link to this blog in your "website box." GayleAlstrom.com I wrote something on my own blog on March 7, 2007 about what I think of Chinatown. I left a link to this blog in your “website box.”

GayleAlstrom.com

]]>