Bond should be german!
GÖRAN WANGENHEIM
are still using pound.........
Bond should quit MI6 and join german millitary intelligence!
Tim Pollard
news:WnOWa.43678$zL....@news1.bredband.com...
That's so obviously true it doesn't really need stating, surely? <g>
After all, you're so right - Germany (although not a superpower) is not a
'tiny little island' and doesn't 'use the pound'. Just like Brazil, in fact.
Oh, and Latvia. And Mexico, the Sudan, Russia, Pakistan and Spain, amongst
others. So maybe he could timeshare between them all, eh?
Although I *suspect* that he'd keep working for us Brits because (let's be
honest here) it's a truth universally acknowledged that to be born British
is to win the in lottery of life, and that Britain is, to coin a phrase,
'top nation'.
You're just jealous, huh?
;-)
--
Regards
Tim Pollard
If two wrongs don't make a right, try three.
Nightfire
"Tim Pollard" <t...@timpollard.com> wrote in message
news:bggeak$qde$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
Perhaps he feels that it would give Germany an edge if they tried to take
over the world again (the third wrong)?
Tim Pollard
news:5b7468ce7a16dd83...@free.teranews.com...
>
> >
> > If two wrongs don't make a right, try three.
> >
> >
>
> Perhaps he feels that it would give Germany an edge if they tried to take
> over the world again (the third wrong)?
LOL! But Bond might make that four - he may not have forgiven them for
'Moonraker', either! ;-)
Still, as the saying goes, 'Three Reich's and you're out..."
<g>
LuckyAtLoveAgain
>Still, as the saying goes, 'Three Reich's and you're out..."
>
thats not cricket, old boy. you've been hanging out in chicago too much.
Tim Pollard
"LuckyAtLoveAgain" <luckyatl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030802111308...@mb-m07.aol.com...
> >Tim Pollard
>
> >Still, as the saying goes, 'Three Reich's and you're out..."
> >
>
> thats not cricket, old boy. you've been hanging out in chicago too much.
Must be the bad influence of the people I met there, huh?
Gordon Davie
> GB is no longer a superpower. England is just a tiny little island!
Er - look at a map. England is not an island.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God"
Kees J. Boer
this.
When we are talking about James Bond, what he really should do in future
Bond films is not commit fornication in future Bond films. I would welcome
this change. I like the Bond films, but I do hate to see that he beds all
these women. It is really the main thing I would change about the Bond
films.
Kees
MikeSo
news:2OSWa.4732$cf.2322@lakeread04...
[Invisibility Cloaking Unit off]
Yeah, no more women!! And while we're at it .. let's cut out the drinking!
Let's do away with the gadgets and the stunts and the villains too!
I really wish Bond films were more like laundry detergent commercials.
Other than that, I really like 'em.
:-)
[ICU on]
--
Thanks,
Mike
(Mike will return in "No More Lurking")
Nightfire
Should he sleep with boys, then?
Tom Zielinski
"Kees J. Boer" <kees...@integrity-computing.net> wrote in message
news:2OSWa.4732$cf.2322@lakeread04...
Why not remove the violence and drug references and alcohol as well as the
"fornication" from the films?
Torture, killing in cold blood, and planned mass extermination are just
dandy by you, that is, are not things that need to be "changed", but you'd
exclude the "fornication"? I find that perspective a mite hypocritical.
Further, the word "fornication" makes physical intimacy between consenting
adults sound dirty or bad, and often is used by a bible-thumping zealot who
feels some presumptuous moral superiority. Surely that does not describe
yourself.
Strictly speaking, James Bond is not only a fornicator, but a murderer and a
liar. He has lust in his heart, and blood on his hands. He consumes
alcohol to excess. He has "great appreciation for beautiful things." He is
in many ways, a hedonist. When these characteristics are stripped from the
character, he loses that which makes him unique and compelling. I for one,
was insulted when the decision was made to remove the gun from the James
Bond logo in the 7-Up ads last year. (You see the silhouette of some
standing guy with legs crossed.) What is that, except stupid?
I respect your perspective Kees, and your right to express them, but surely
you don't view James Bond films for family values. If you feel that
physical intimacy between consenting adults is dirty and bad, fine. There
are other entertainment options. Please do not attempt to impose your own
personal moral code on the James Bond films.
I mean, that would be obscene.
Tom Zielinski
"No, no, no. No more foreplay."
Kees J. Boer
surely
> you don't view James Bond films for family values. If you feel that
> physical intimacy between consenting adults is dirty and bad, fine. There
> are other entertainment options. Please do not attempt to impose your own
> personal moral code on the James Bond films.
>
> I mean, that would be obscene.
>
>
I like the Bond films. As a matter of fact I have a whole room at home full
of 007 memoribilia. The area of sexual immorality is something I don't like
about the Bond films. This is the only hesitation I have in promoting the
films.
Outside of that they are great family films.
Matt Sherman and I were talking about this topic. He doesn't like the
immorality either. He thought it would be a great topic to post on the afjb
newsgroup to discuss.
Best,
Kees
Tom Zielinski
Indeed, morality can be a great topic to discuss.
Outside of the "sexual immorality", you claim that the Bond films "are great
family films"? What of the many depictions of other things that might
easily be categorized as immoral? This is a conundrum that I cannot grasp.
Surely someone who finds fornication to be morally unacceptable, also has
much difficulty viewing the violent if not spectacularly gruesome deaths so
common in the films?
What are your thoughts on Bond seeking revenge for the murder of his wife?
Of Bond killing Dent and Locque (among others) in cold blood? Of gambling?
Of abusing alcohol?
Bottom line, a moral code is an intensely personal thing. Who among us can
claim that their own is more correct or righteous than the next?
Mike Feeney
Yes, you are absolutely right. Bond should cease engaging in pre-marital
sex. He should also stop killing people. Maybe he could trade his license-to-kill
in for a license-to-spank. And he shouldn't tell lies either, because that's
wrong. No more "I'm from Universal Exports". Because it just isn't true.
And he should stop stealing things, too. Like those grapes he finds and
then eats in the other guy's room at the spa in Thunderball. Those weren't
his grapes! He basically stole them, and that is wrong. And he needs to
obey the posted speed-limit, too -- no more driving at excessive speeds,
it poses a danger to the community. And no more gambling, either, because
that is a bad thing to do and it sends the wrong message to the audience.
So, let's recap: no more gambling, no more driving faster than the speed-limit,
no more stealing grapes or other items, no more telling lies, no more shooting
at people or even carrying a gun for that matter, and no more seducing women.
Yeah, these minor modifications shouldn't significantly alter what the James
Bond films are all about.
--Mike
Kees J. Boer
"Mike Feeney" <moonr...@NOSPAMexcite.com> wrote in message
news:vioc7gk...@corp.supernews.com...
Mike,
I actually thought that was funny! I laughed. I don't have a problem with
Bond acting like a spy and doing warfare. I feel there is a huge difference
between murder and killing. For instance, I don't see soldiers in a war
situation as murdering, but as killing. The basic, but probably not the
thorough difference lies in the motive for doing so. Someone, who executes a
deathpenalty is not murdering, because he has no personal vendetta against
the person, whom he is killing. Someone killing for personal reasons is
murdering.
Maybe the real moral question is: "Does Bond commit fornication for
England?" Then the next question to analyze is "Should sex ever be used as a
weapon?"
I hope this helps.
Kees
Kees J. Boer
> Indeed, morality can be a great topic to discuss.
>
> Outside of the "sexual immorality", you claim that the Bond films "are
great
> family films"? What of the many depictions of other things that might
> easily be categorized as immoral? This is a conundrum that I cannot
grasp.
> Surely someone who finds fornication to be morally unacceptable, also has
> much difficulty viewing the violent if not spectacularly gruesome deaths
so
> common in the films?
>
> What are your thoughts on Bond seeking revenge for the murder of his wife?
> Of Bond killing Dent and Locque (among others) in cold blood? Of
gambling?
> Of abusing alcohol?
>
only questionable killing is possibly him seeking revenge on his wife,
because it is for personal reasons. Even then though, he is serving his
country.
Concerning gambling: I think gambling is a foolish use of money. I don't
very strong convictions about it being wrong to gamble though.
I don't have any problems with Bond drinking as long as he doesn't get
drunk. This might be because I'm European. In general, in Europe people
drink alcohol more as beverage, whereas I notice here that people tend to
use alcohol as a way to get drunk. (I realize that this is huge generality)
> Bottom line, a moral code is an intensely personal thing. Who among us
can
> claim that their own is more correct or righteous than the next?
Great point, Tom! Unless someone has an external source, which dictates
morality, anything goes. There would be no absolutes. If I feel like it is
Ok, then I should have no problem doing so. If I wanted to kill someone,
then that's Ok too, after all we don't condemn cows for eating grass, or
birds for eating insects. Some people might respond and say that society
dictates morality. What if society said it was Ok to kill? Like the Nazi
Germany did with the Jews. Without an absolute moral code, we can't condemn
what the Nazis did. It was their country. I do have an absolute moral code,
by which I can judge morals and that is the Bible.
Do you have any thoughts on that Matt?
Rich Handley
>When we are talking about James Bond, what he really should do in future
>Bond films is not commit fornication in future Bond films. I would welcome
>this change. I like the Bond films, but I do hate to see that he beds all
>these women. It is really the main thing I would change about the Bond
>films.
Sure, and then we can make him Polish, give him a license to polka and
replace his love of cars and fine wine with an afinity for kilbasa and
beer. Q can then be renamed D, and as the head of Disco Branch, it
can be his job to outfit Bond whenever he goes out for a night of
undercover boogying.
Rich Handley
>I really wish Bond films were more like laundry detergent commercials.
>Other than that, I really like 'em.
LOL!!
Rich Handley
>I like the Bond films. As a matter of fact I have a whole room at home full
>of 007 memoribilia. The area of sexual immorality is something I don't like
>about the Bond films. This is the only hesitation I have in promoting the
>films. Outside of that they are great family films.
>Matt Sherman and I were talking about this topic. He doesn't like the
>immorality either. He thought it would be a great topic to post on the afjb
>newsgroup to discuss.
As much as I respect you and Matt, and would defend your right to your
own opinion, I am perplexed. It's a part of his character -- it
always has been -- and to remove it would very much change him. Why
do that? Why not just create a new character instead of altering one
who is old and much-beloved? It just doesn't make any sense. It's
like saying, "Why does Superman fly? He should take a train."
Mike Feeney
"Kees J. Boer" <kees...@integrity-computing.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>Great point, Tom! Unless someone has an external source, which dictates
>morality, anything goes. There would be no absolutes. If I feel like it
is
>Ok, then I should have no problem doing so. If I wanted to kill someone,
>then that's Ok too, after all we don't condemn cows for eating grass, or
>birds for eating insects. Some people might respond and say that society
>dictates morality. What if society said it was Ok to kill? Like the Nazi
>Germany did with the Jews. Without an absolute moral code, we can't condemn
>what the Nazis did. It was their country. I do have an absolute moral code,
>by which I can judge morals and that is the Bible.
>
Very well articulated, Kees. You raise some interesting and valid points.
I agree with your notion that "relative morals" aren't really sufficient.
The example you gave of Nazi Germany is a good one -- they didn't consider
their actions to be immoral. One person's concept of "moral" may be another
person's concept of "immoral". This is a very valid point you raise.
Unfortunately, the existence of an external absolute moral code has not been
proven to exist. You may believe that your Bible is the absolute moral
code, but I personally see no such evidence to convince me. There is no
evidence that it is anything but another set of relative morals, written
by human beings who lived a long time ago.
I respect any person who believes in living by a set of moral codes. And
I respect your right to choose the Bible as the moral code you intend to
follow. But I have an issue when someone asserts that their moral code
is the absolute moral code, which is what you stated in your previous post.
--Mike
Tom Zielinski
"Kees J. Boer" <kees...@integrity-computing.net> wrote in message
news:CZ%Wa.5621$cf.3714@lakeread04...
> I actually thought that was funny! I laughed. I don't have a problem with
> Bond acting like a spy and doing warfare. I feel there is a huge
difference
> between murder and killing. For instance, I don't see soldiers in a war
> situation as murdering, but as killing.
Really. So, Jesus was just taking the piss when He said, "Forgive us our
trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."
And when God commanded, "Thou shalt not Kill", He had a few qualifiers
attached. Interesting. Where exactly, are these qualifiers noted? Perhaps
in the same book/chapter/verse that states, "Turn the other cheek"?
> The basic, but probably not the thorough difference lies in the motive for
doing so. Someone, who executes a death penalty is not murdering, because he
has no > personal vendetta against the person, whom he is killing.
See above.
> Someone killing for personal reasons is murdering.
Then you obviously condemn the murdering James Bond in "Diamonds are
Forever", "Licence to Kill", "GoldenEye", and "Die Another Day", to name
just a couple films. Not to mention all that icky fornication.
For shame...
> Maybe the real moral question is: "Does Bond commit fornication for
England?"
Would that mitigate the act? Bond has several times remarked after
shagging...errr I mean fornicating: "The things I do for England", and "What
I did was for Queen and country", so while I'm thinking he's a healthy and
horny dude looking for some action with some ultra-hot babe (or that he's a
typical guy, really), he downplays that aspect, and claims it is all in the
line of service.
And that makes it OK in your eyes? Do you think God makes the same
distinction?
Maybe the real question is that the original perspective proffered, is
hypocritical regarding sex/adultery/coveting, and killing. Surely you see
that.
> Then the next question to analyze is "Should sex ever be used as a
weapon?"
"Should" is an odd choice of words. The obvious answer is no, but there
most assuredly are situations wherein using sex as a weapon is the lesser of
two evils, right? You know, the whole mitigating circumstances, end
justifies the means, and fornication in the line of duty argument.
> I hope this helps.
Not to be disrespectful, but not really.
Tom Zielinski
"Good to see you Mr. Bond. Things have been awfully dull around here. I hope
we're going to see some gratuitous sex and violence."
Tom Zielinski
> > What are your thoughts on Bond seeking revenge for the murder of his
wife?
> > Of Bond killing Dent and Locque (among others) in cold blood? Of
> gambling?
> > Of abusing alcohol?
> >
> I gave an answer to the killing question in my reply to Mike Feeney. The
> only questionable killing is possibly him seeking revenge on his wife,
> because it is for personal reasons. Even then though, he is serving his
> country.
So, if someone is "serving their country", God will even allow the murder of
a man who is unarmed and helpless? The Big Guy is totally cool with just
offing the dude, instead of bringing him to prosecution? All in the name of
"country"? (Examples are included in "Dr. No", "The Spy Who Loved Me", "For
Your Eyes Only", "Tomorrow Never Dies", and "The World Is Not Enough", among
others.)
How absurd.
> Concerning gambling: I think gambling is a foolish use of money. I don't
have very strong convictions about it being wrong to gamble though.
Not as strong as fornication, apparently.
> I don't have any problems with Bond drinking as long as he doesn't get
> drunk.
Bond has gotten drunk in the novels, though the films tend to depict him
consuming great quantities of alcohol with little evidence of any
intoxication. A rather unrealistic, and perhaps immoral representation,
don't you think? No consequences for his actions?
> > Bottom line, a moral code is an intensely personal thing. Who among us
> can
> > claim that their own is more correct or righteous than the next?
>
> Great point, Tom! Unless someone has an external source, which dictates
> morality, anything goes. There would be no absolutes. If I feel like it is
> Ok, then I should have no problem doing so. If I wanted to kill someone,
> then that's Ok too, after all we don't condemn cows for eating grass, or
> birds for eating insects. Some people might respond and say that society
> dictates morality. What if society said it was Ok to kill? Like the Nazi
> Germany did with the Jews. Without an absolute moral code, we can't
condemn
> what the Nazis did. It was their country. I do have an absolute moral
code,
> by which I can judge morals and that is the Bible.
Fine, Kees, that is *your* moral code. Though I'm not sure how you can sit
through a James Bond film, with all the killing and gambling and excessive
alcohol consumption and (heavens!) fornication, and still call it "good
family entertainment." That is lost on me.
Finally, surely you realize that it is hypocritical to condemn only some of
the actions of the James Bond character, based on your rather selective
interpretation of the Bible?
Tom Zielinski
"I know all about you. Sex for dinner, death for breakfast."
Barry King
When I first saw this post I assumed you were joking, trying to show the
absurdity of the original poster's notion that Bond abandon one of his
defining characteristics, his loyalty to Britain, by suggesting he
abandon perhaps the one characteristic that is even more central to his
being, his libido. Having seen your apparently sincere responses since,
I can only conclude that you are definitely following the wrong series
of fictional adventures. If you actually find "fornication" that
repugnant, you really should try some protagonist other than James Bond.
And if Matt Sherman actually agrees with your distaste for
"fornication," how does he justify his commercial exploitation of the
fornicator?
--
--
Barry King
--
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man
who cannot read them."
-Mark Twain
Nightfire
"Mike Feeney" <moonr...@NOSPAMexcite.com> wrote in message
There is some very serious evidence that it is just another book, but I will
not take this hugely off-topic with *that* discussion. In here, that is.
>
> I respect any person who believes in living by a set of moral codes. And
> I respect your right to choose the Bible as the moral code you intend to
> follow. But I have an issue when someone asserts that their moral code
> is the absolute moral code, which is what you stated in your previous
post.
Careful, old boy. By stating that you have an issue when someone asserts
that their moral code is the absolute moral code, thereby implying that he
should refrain from speaking it, are you not putting your own code (of
silence) above his code?
--Nightfire
'I sold him a code and two pair of plans'.
--Chico Marx
'Shhhh! This is spy stuff'.
--Chico Marx
> --Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
Nightfire
"Tom Zielinski" <rt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nw2Xa.31862$Mc.25...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "Kees J. Boer" <kees...@integrity-computing.net> wrote in message
> news:CZ%Wa.5621$cf.3714@lakeread04...
>
> > I actually thought that was funny! I laughed. I don't have a problem
with
> > Bond acting like a spy and doing warfare. I feel there is a huge
> difference
> > between murder and killing. For instance, I don't see soldiers in a war
> > situation as murdering, but as killing.
>
>
> Really. So, Jesus was just taking the piss when He said, "Forgive us our
> trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."
There is an issue of context here.
>
> And when God commanded, "Thou shalt not Kill", He had a few qualifiers
> attached. Interesting. Where exactly, are these qualifiers noted?
The literal translation is more closely rendered, '...commit murder'.
Otherwise, we cannot even squash a bug.
> Perhaps
> in the same book/chapter/verse that states, "Turn the other cheek"?
A few thousand years' difference. Again, context.
Why are you so intent on taking apart his religious views, instead of simply
ignoring them?
Dug Weir
> "Nightfire" <nigh...@mailforce.stopspam.net> wrote in message
> news:5b7468ce7a16dd83...@free.teranews.com...
> >
> > >
> > > If two wrongs don't make a right, try three.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Perhaps he feels that it would give Germany an edge if they tried to take
> > over the world again (the third wrong)?
>
> LOL! But Bond might make that four - he may not have forgiven them for
> 'Moonraker', either! ;-)
>
> Still, as the saying goes, 'Three Reich's and you're out..."
LOL!
Us Brits can see the funny side. On Mainland Europe you would be stuck in jail
for that sort of thing!
Dug
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Destry Jr: Oh, I think I'll stick around. Y'know, I had a friend
once used to collect postage stamps. He always said the one good thing
about a postage stamp: it always sticks to one thing 'til it gets there,
y'know? I'm sorta like that too.
--Destry Rides Again (1939)
Dug Weir
> GÖRAN WANGENHEIM wrote:
> > GB is no longer a superpower. England is just a tiny little island!
>
> Er - look at a map. England is not an island.
Well said. I hate it when (mainly Americans) refer to the UK as England.
Always forgetting us Scots in the north.
Daniel Roberts
"Rich Handley" <rhan...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3f2c90e2....@news.optonline.net...
LMAO!!
--
Daniel Roberts
"This never happened to the other fella"
Kees J. Boer
>
> "Tom Zielinski" <rt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:nw2Xa.31862$Mc.25...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Kees J. Boer" <kees...@integrity-computing.net> wrote in message
> > news:CZ%Wa.5621$cf.3714@lakeread04...
> >
> > > I actually thought that was funny! I laughed. I don't have a problem
> with
> > > Bond acting like a spy and doing warfare. I feel there is a huge
> > difference
> > > between murder and killing. For instance, I don't see soldiers in a
war
> > > situation as murdering, but as killing.
> >
> >
> > Really. So, Jesus was just taking the piss when He said, "Forgive us
our
> > trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."
>
> There is an issue of context here.
Very well put.
>
> >
> > And when God commanded, "Thou shalt not Kill", He had a few qualifiers
> > attached. Interesting. Where exactly, are these qualifiers noted?
>
> The literal translation is more closely rendered, '...commit murder'.
> Otherwise, we cannot even squash a bug.
That's exactly what the Hebrew says.
>
> > Perhaps
> > in the same book/chapter/verse that states, "Turn the other cheek"?
>
> A few thousand years' difference. Again, context.
Agree. One point, that I have to say is that the Bible teaches to love our
enemies. Yet, there are many instances in the Scriptures, where God
commanded to kill. The big difference is that enemies are one's personal
enemies. If I was fighting on the front against a country, the person, I'm
shooting is not my enemy, it is the country's enemy. I might really like the
guy, I'm shooting in another situation.
Kees J. Boer
> "fornication," how does he justify his commercial exploitation of the
> fornicator?
Matt is a very close friend of mine. I can tell you that Matt is not trying
to exploit Bond commercially. What he is doing with the Bond weekend is not
a financial vehicle for him. That's not what Matt is about. I know him real
well.
Kees
Nightfire
"Dug Weir" <bigg...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3F2D19A4...@ukonline.co.uk...
> Gordon Davie wrote:
>
> > GÖRAN WANGENHEIM wrote:
> > > GB is no longer a superpower. England is just a tiny little island!
> >
> > Er - look at a map. England is not an island.
>
> Well said. I hate it when (mainly Americans) refer to the UK as England.
> Always forgetting us Scots in the north.
>
> Dug
Fortunately, some of us in the US have respect for the UK. And our own
cousins in Scotland!
Tom Zielinski
"Nightfire" <nigh...@mailforce.stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:3adecf114b42b4c2...@free.teranews.com...
> Why are you so intent on taking apart his religious views, instead of
simply
> ignoring them?
Not trying to take apart anyone's views, just trying to point out my
perceived inconsistencies in the original premise As for ignoring it, I
suppose you're right.
Tom Zielinski
"Well James, did you kill him?"
Tom Zielinski
>
> "Nightfire" <nigh...@mailforce.stopspam.net> wrote in message
> news:3adecf114b42b4c2...@free.teranews.com...
> >
> > "Tom Zielinski" <rt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:nw2Xa.31862$Mc.25...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "Kees J. Boer" <kees...@integrity-computing.net> wrote in message
> > > news:CZ%Wa.5621$cf.3714@lakeread04...
> > >
> > > > I actually thought that was funny! I laughed. I don't have a problem
> > with
> > > > Bond acting like a spy and doing warfare. I feel there is a huge
> > > difference
> > > > between murder and killing. For instance, I don't see soldiers in a
> war
> > > > situation as murdering, but as killing.
> > >
> > >
> > > Really. So, Jesus was just taking the piss when He said, "Forgive us
> our
> > > trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."
> >
> > There is an issue of context here.
>
> Very well put.
Whoa! Then please put it in context for me. What exactly did He mean, and
how is the killing/murder of another acceptable within the Lord's Prayer?
> > > And when God commanded, "Thou shalt not Kill", He had a few qualifiers
> > > attached. Interesting. Where exactly, are these qualifiers noted?
> >
> > The literal translation is more closely rendered, '...commit murder'.
> > Otherwise, we cannot even squash a bug.
>
> That's exactly what the Hebrew says.
Huh.
My Saint Joseph edition of the Bible states in Exodus, Chapter 20, verse 13:
"You Shall Not Kill." That's the trouble with "closely rendered
translations", there's never one around when you need one...
And as long as we are discussing "exactly what the Hebrew says", the King
James version of the Bible (specifically, Jehovah), states that the 6th
Commandment is *required* to be ignored for many crimes as heinous as not
being circumcised, gluttony, excessive drinking, prostitution, practicing
black magic, following another religion, being a stranger in the temple, or
working on Saturday.
So...is "exactly what the Hebrew says" really what you are going with?
But we're straying, I think, from the original point.
Bond films that suggest fornication (or as I like to say, fucking), is an
accepted if not expected characteristic of the character. To suggest that
the film's cease doing so, based on one's absolute moral code, is
presumptuous and misplaced.
My original point that this is also a highly hypocritical perspective, in
light of the depicted killing/murder in the same films, stands. Though that
is in no way an indictment of your personal moral and religious beliefs,
which I respect completely. (Believe it or not, I have some as well.
Sixteen years of Christian education does have an effect...)
Tom Zielinski
"But I forgot. Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"
Rich Handley
>LMAO!!
Thank you... thank you... I'll be here all week... try the veal!
GSHATTERHAND
can>claim that their own is more correct or righteous than the next?
I have no moral issue with any aspect of the way Bond is portrayed in books or
film. I have no belief in the bible, Christianity, or any other organized
religion. IMO however it is quite logical and reasonable to claim that one
moral code is superior to another. This is simply empirically true. If, for
example, one moral code includes no distinction among crimes, punishing all
equally, I claim a moral code that takes into account motive and circumstances
is superior.
Of course, I could use much more extreme examples any one of which would may
immediately provoke debate about the example (although probably not here) and
would be counterproductive. In my experience citing a moral code that most
folks find cruel, for example, degenerates into a debate about what constitutes
a "moral code" and becomes merely a matter of semantics. Nonetheless I contend
some moral codes are superior to others prima facie. (I never thought I'd be
using that term outside of philosophy class!)
Rich Handley
>Matt is a very close friend of mine. I can tell you that Matt is not trying
>to exploit Bond commercially. What he is doing with the Bond weekend is not
>a financial vehicle for him. That's not what Matt is about. I know him real
>well.
Perhaps, but it DOES beg the question of why anyone would be that into
a character he finds morally unlikable. You won't find me holding any
Satan weekends, for example.
Rich Handley
>And when God commanded, "Thou shalt not Kill", He had a few qualifiers
>attached. Interesting. Where exactly, are these qualifiers noted? Perhaps
>in the same book/chapter/verse that states, "Turn the other cheek"?
They are in the book of Heston. To whit:
"And God said, thou shalt take thy guns and destroy thy enemies in the
name of truth, justice and the right of every citizen to bear arms and
live unbathed in cabins in Montana. Thou shalt further get thy hands
off me, thou damn, dirty ape."
The Shadow
"Kees J. Boer" <kees...@integrity-computing.net> wrote :
> I like the Bond films. As a matter of fact I have a whole room at home
full
> of 007 memoribilia. The area of sexual immorality is something I don't
like
> about the Bond films. This is the only hesitation I have in promoting the
> films.
>
> Outside of that they are great family films.
>
> Matt Sherman and I were talking about this topic. He doesn't like the
> immorality either. He thought it would be a great topic to post on the
afjb
> newsgroup to discuss.
So killing another person is okay yet making love to beautiful women is
immoral?
I have never understood why people consider a normal human function to be
obscene but do not care if one person kills another.
Tom Zielinski
"GSHATTERHAND" <gshatt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030803122448...@mb-m16.aol.com...
> >Bottom line, a moral code is an intensely personal thing. Who among us
> can>claim that their own is more correct or righteous than the next?
>
> I have no moral issue with any aspect of the way Bond is portrayed in
books or
> film. I have no belief in the bible, Christianity, or any other organized
> religion. IMO however it is quite logical and reasonable to claim that one
> moral code is superior to another. This is simply empirically true. If,
for
> example, one moral code includes no distinction among crimes, punishing
all
> equally, I claim a moral code that takes into account motive and
circumstances
> is superior.
Of course, and I agree. But what absolute power says that you would be
correct?
> Of course, I could use much more extreme examples any one of which would
may
> immediately provoke debate about the example (although probably not here)
and
> would be counterproductive. In my experience citing a moral code that most
> folks find cruel, for example, degenerates into a debate about what
constitutes
> a "moral code" and becomes merely a matter of semantics. Nonetheless I
contend
> some moral codes are superior to others prima facie. (I never thought I'd
be
> using that term outside of philosophy class!)
Show-off.
;)
Tom Zielinski
"You know, you're cleverer than you look."
The Shadow
> England?" Then the next question to analyze is "Should sex ever be used as
a
> weapon?"
Sex is for pleasure and as Bond said in TWINE..."I take pleasure in great
beauty".
If Bond only went around killing for his country then he would become a
mental case faster then a Moonraker shuttle. With the taste of bitter also
comes the taste of sweet.
bitter=killing another
sweet=making love to a woman
The Shadow
Bond should quit sleeping with German women!
Discuss...
Tom Zielinski
"The Shadow" <mie...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:H0bXa.7820$Ly2.1...@cletus.bright.net...
>
>
> Bond should quit sleeping with German women!
>
>
>
> Discuss...
Does he just garrote them instead? Then I'm all for it...
Tom Zielinski
"Well, it wouldn't do to make a habit of it."
The Shadow
> > "fornication," how does he justify his commercial exploitation of the
> > fornicator?
>
> Matt is a very close friend of mine. I can tell you that Matt is not
trying
> to exploit Bond commercially. What he is doing with the Bond weekend is
not
> a financial vehicle for him. That's not what Matt is about. I know him
real
> well.
I respect your values but when you get right down to it Bond is a sinner
according to the good book, the things he does for England indeed. To take
any aspect away from the character of 007 is like pissing on the grave of
Ian Fleming.
--
"The boss of Blofeld's sword battered into Bond's side. Bond hardly felt
the crashing blows. He pressed with his thumbs, and pressed and heard the
sword clang to the floor and felt Blofeld's fingers and nails tearing at his
face, trying to reach his eyes. Bond whispered through his gritted teeth,
'Die,Blofeld! Die!' And suddenly the tongue was out and the eyes rolled
upwards and the body slipped down to the ground. But Bond followed it and
knelt, his hands cramped round the powerful neck, seeing nothing, hearing
nothing, in the terrible grip of blood lust."
You Only Live Twice - Ian Fleming
GSHATTERHAND
>From: "Tom Zielinski" rt...@earthlink.net
>Date: 8/3/03 12:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>"GSHATTERHAND" wrote:
>> I have no moral issue with any aspect of the way Bond is portrayed in>books
or>> film. I have no belief in the bible, Christianity, or any other
organized>> religion. IMO however it is quite logical and reasonable to claim
that one>> moral code is superior to another. This is simply empirically true.
If,
>for>> example, one moral code includes no distinction among crimes,
punishing>all>> equally, I claim a moral code that takes into account motive
and>circumstances>> is superior.
Tom Zielinsk
>Of course, and I agree. But what absolute power says that you would
be>correct?
None. I thought you meant no one could reasonably claim their moral code was
superior to anyone else's under any circumstances. I understand now.
gshatterhand wrote:
>> Of course, I could use much more extreme examples any one of which
would>may>> immediately provoke debate about the example (although probably not
here)>and>> would be counterproductive. In my experience citing a moral code
that most>> folks find cruel, for example, degenerates into a debate about
what>constitutes
>> a "moral code" and becomes merely a matter of semantics. Nonetheless
I>contend>> some moral codes are superior to others prima facie. (I never
thought I'd>be>> using that term outside of philosophy class!)
>Show-off.> ;)
Well, I had to look it up first to check the spelling. Turns out I even
remembered what it meant....sort of. Now I'm looking for the chance to use
"res judicata."
Bernie Hanssen
"Mike Feeney" <moonr...@NOSPAMexcite.com> wrote in message
> Yes, you are absolutely right. Bond should cease engaging in pre-marital
> sex. He should also stop killing people. Maybe he could trade his
license-to-kill
> in for a license-to-spank. And he shouldn't tell lies either, because
that's
> wrong. No more "I'm from Universal Exports".
Bond should be working for Transworld Consortium now. Same old company,
brand-new name.
LuckyAtLoveAgain
>> Bond should quit sleeping with German women!
>>
>>
>>
>> Discuss...
>
>
>
>Does he just garrote them instead? Then I'm all for it...
>
still holding that grudge from september 1939, eh, tom? let it go. the
allies won.
LuckyAtLoveAgain
>brand-new name.
some religious fanatic objected to the use of the word consortium as it
contains the word consort, implying bond is some sort of a prostitute.
accordingly, TC is not PC.
LuckyAtLoveAgain
>Now I'm looking for the chance to use
>"res judicata."
how about, "mr. mcclory wanted to claim the organization SPECTRE as one of his
own invention, but under the 1964 settlement with ian fleming, approved by the
British court, it is res judicata that he holds no proprietary interest in the
fictional organization."
credo quia absurdum est.
--st. augustin
GSHATTERHAND
>Date: 8/3/03 1:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>gshatt...@aol.com
>>Now I'm looking for the chance to use "res judicata."
>how about, "mr. mcclory wanted to claim the organization SPECTRE as one
of>his>own invention, but under the 1964 settlement with ian fleming, approved
by>the>British court, it is res judicata that he holds no proprietary interest
in
>the>fictional organization."
But I wanted to be the one to use it! But, ahem, being thoroughly familiar with
the term, ahem, I heartily approve of your example.
Tom Zielinski
"LuckyAtLoveAgain" <luckyatl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030803135501...@mb-m11.aol.com...
> >gshatt...@aol.com
>
> >Now I'm looking for the chance to use
> >"res judicata."
>
> how about, "mr. mcclory wanted to claim the organization SPECTRE as one of
his
> own invention, but under the 1964 settlement with ian fleming, approved by
the
> British court, it is res judicata that he holds no proprietary interest in
the
> fictional organization."
Did not you mean vas deferens?
Tom Zielinski
"I'm not sure that word means what you think it means."
Rhino
<nigh...@mailforce.stopspam.net> wrote:
>
>"Dug Weir" <bigg...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3F2D19A4...@ukonline.co.uk...
>> Gordon Davie wrote:
>>
>> > GÖRAN WANGENHEIM wrote:
>> > > GB is no longer a superpower. England is just a tiny little island!
>> >
>> > Er - look at a map. England is not an island.
>>
>> Well said. I hate it when (mainly Americans) refer to the UK as England.
>> Always forgetting us Scots in the north.
>>
>> Dug
>
>Fortunately, some of us in the US have respect for the UK. And our own
>cousins in Scotland!
While some of us in England try and forget about our friends in the
North...
<;o)
Rhino (who was daft enough to marry a Scot)
--
The licence to kill for the Secret Service, the double-0 prefix,
was a great honour. It had been earned hardly. It brought James Bond
the only assignments he enjoyed - the dangerous ones.
Tim Pollard
message news:uolqivg62rn22gmks...@4ax.com...
>
> While some of us in England try and forget about our friends in the
> North...
>
Uh-huh.
And you think *you* were the daft one out of the two of you, huh? <g>
--
Regards
Tim Pollard
If two wrongs don't make a right, try three.
The Shadow
"Tom Zielinski" <rt...@earthlink.net> wrote :
<snip>
> "But I forgot. Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make
love.
> What do you do, Vargas?"
Answer finally found...he plays with his PlayStation2.
Kees J. Boer
that before. You can e-mail him at m...@007forever.com. I know he's fairly
busy right now with organizing the Bond Collectors Weekend. I was just
talking with his wife Janine this morning.
Matt and I have worked together very closely in a college ministry for many
years. Matt actually introduced Bond to me. Him and his now wife Janine came
over and we watched "The Living Daylights." I used to smuggle Bibles onto
Soviet ships during the cold war. Some of the Bond films reminded me of
that, like Bond having to deal with the KGB. Besides that, I love
travelogues. Even though I don't like the fornication, there are many other
aspects to the Bond films that are great instead! I personally don't
appreciate that one particular aspect of the Bond films, i.e. commiting
fornication. My basis is on the Bible. Outside of the Bible, I have no
standards, just opinions.
Anyone who knows me, knows that I am a huge Bond fan. I've even got an
entire room in my house jamb packed full of Bond memoribilia. It's been on
television several times. Now, I don't have a room devoted to Satan.
I must at the same time be very honest and have really personally had to
evaluate my own stand on this issue of Bond being a fornicator and my
beliefs in what the Scripture teaches many times. Matt and I have talked
about this many times too. I really like the films on the whole, it is just
this one aspect that I have difficulty with. Even though I collect Bond
stuff, I don't collect everything of Bond. I've had several Bond fans offer
me a Bond playboy magazine over the years. I've always refused it, because
of my convictions on this. This is probably also one of the main reasons
that my collection is focused on the toys, particularly the Corgi cars. I
love that Aston Martin.
Anyways, I'm definitely open to any input on all of this. I would feel
horable if I found out that me being a Bond fan, would first of all
displease God and second of all would cause someone else to commit
fornication.
Kees
"Rich Handley" <rhan...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3f2d3795....@news.optonline.net...
J.T. McDaniel
translation of which would be "No murder(do you)."
The syntax doesn't tranlate to English very
neatly. At least, not since the Normans arrived.
--
Jack
Tom Zielinski
"J.T. McDaniel" <kzr...@NSmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bgk02u$ijt$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > Huh.
> >
> > My Saint Joseph edition of the Bible states in Exodus, Chapter 20, verse
> 13:
> > "You Shall Not Kill." That's the trouble with "closely rendered
> > translations", there's never one around when you need one...
> >
> What it actually says is "Lo tirtzach," a literal
> translation of which would be "No murder(do you)."
> The syntax doesn't tranlate to English very
> neatly. At least, not since the Normans arrived.
I appreciate the input, but I'll go with my teachings, thank you very much.
Tom Zielinski
"Tell me, Commander, how far does your expertise extend into the field of
diamonds?"
Nightfire
Now cut that out!
Nightfire
Now cut that out!
Nightfire
"Rhino" <NOSPAM_rh1n0_NOSPAM@_NOSPAM_blueyonder_NOSPAM_.co.uk> wrote in
message news:uolqivg62rn22gmks...@4ax.com...
> <nigh...@mailforce.stopspam.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dug Weir" <bigg...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:3F2D19A4...@ukonline.co.uk...
> >> Gordon Davie wrote:
> >>
> >> > GÖRAN WANGENHEIM wrote:
> >> > > GB is no longer a superpower. England is just a tiny little island!
> >> >
> >> > Er - look at a map. England is not an island.
> >>
> >> Well said. I hate it when (mainly Americans) refer to the UK as
England.
> >> Always forgetting us Scots in the north.
> >>
> >> Dug
> >
> >Fortunately, some of us in the US have respect for the UK. And our own
> >cousins in Scotland!
>
> While some of us in England try and forget about our friends in the
> North...
>
> <;o)
>
> Rhino (who was daft enough to marry a Scot)
So I've seen <g>
Nightfire
Oh, please do! Try it. Just for the hell of it.
Nightfire
> GB is no longer a superpower. England is just a tiny little island! And they
> are still using pound.........
>
> Bond should quit MI6 and join german millitary intelligence!
>
>
>
Perhaps he IS already, and just VERY good at it.
Rich Handley
>Matt and I have worked together very closely in a college ministry for many
>years. Matt actually introduced Bond to me. Him and his now wife Janine came
>over and we watched "The Living Daylights." I used to smuggle Bibles onto
>Soviet ships during the cold war.
That's pretty cool.
>Anyone who knows me, knows that I am a huge Bond fan. I've even got an
>entire room in my house jamb packed full of Bond memoribilia. It's been on
>television several times. Now, I don't have a room devoted to Satan.
See, that's the part I find so interesting. One of my best friends is
a Jehovah's Witness, while I myself am an athiest. The difference in
religion is of no consequence to us -- we're very close. But I always
find it interesting that in addition to being a VERY devout Witness,
he is also a rabid fan of Black Sabbath, Swamp Thing (the comic, which
is built upon a number of sacreligious concepts and features demons
among its ongoing characters), and the fiction of H.P. Lovecraft. In
other words, though the subject matter is not something his
congregation would condone, he is at peace with himself over being a
fan of such material. I've always found it an interesting dichotomy.
Some might say he's a hypocrite for not ocndemning Black Sabbath for
the name of their band, Swamp Thing for its denomic aspects, and
Lovecraft for the many sacreligious concepts found therein. But my
friend's justification is that he himself does not believe in nor
condone demons, sacrilege or paganism, and that his interest in
mateials built around such concepts does not influence him to actively
pursue those concepts for himself. I have to wonder how he can make
such a distinction and not feel at odds with his religion -- I would
think he'd feel compelled to denounce them, if for nothing else then
to make sure he's not inadvertently upsetting God. However, he
doesn't see it as a problem.
>Anyways, I'm definitely open to any input on all of this. I would feel
>horable if I found out that me being a Bond fan, would first of all
>displease God and second of all would cause someone else to commit
>fornication.
Heh heh... somehow, I have trouble seeing one person's love of Bond
films causing another person to have sex. :)
Rich Handley
>So killing another person is okay yet making love to beautiful women is
>immoral?
Making love to beautiful women is a wonderful act. It's making love
to ugly women that's immoral.
>I have never understood why people consider a normal human function to be
>obscene but do not care if one person kills another.
Yeah, though I respect Matt and Keers, I have to agree with you on
that one. Sex is great and I hope never to be without it. On the
other hand, I could never live with myself if I took another human
life under ANY circumstances.
Rich Handley
>Bond should quit sleeping with German women!
>Discuss...
I agree -- he should spend more time having sex with them.
Tim Pollard
news:bgk02u$ijt$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> >
> translation of which would be "No murder(do you)."
> The syntax doesn't tranlate to English very
> neatly. At least, not since the Normans arrived.
Isn't his all a bit of a moot point - Bond's Bible (designed to be read as
literature) just contains a gun. Possibly his 'ultimate truth'?
Nightfire
Some of my best friends are atheists... My own
upbringing/training/experience and giving teachings is Christian. But I have
my own religion, having drawn from other disciplines; I call it Zen Baptist.
And I love Black Sabbath and Lovecraft, and Bond.
My schoolmates could not attend movies, but I sure did. No discussion of JB
per se, just that we have to be careful what we allow into our minds that
would affect our spiritual walk. I agree with that concept, but violate the
hell out of it anyway.
>
> >Anyways, I'm definitely open to any input on all of this. I would feel
> >horable if I found out that me being a Bond fan, would first of all
> >displease God and second of all would cause someone else to commit
> >fornication.
>
> Heh heh... somehow, I have trouble seeing one person's love of Bond
> films causing another person to have sex. :)
>
Bond does it. Why can't I? Just because I have to pay rent and utilities,
have a mundane job and family... Different people do different jobs?
Nightfire
> "The Shadow" <mie...@bright.net>:
> >So killing another person is okay yet making love to beautiful women is
> >immoral?
>
> Making love to beautiful women is a wonderful act. It's making love
> to ugly women that's immoral.
Or to my ex.
>
> >I have never understood why people consider a normal human function to be
> >obscene but do not care if one person kills another.
>
> Yeah, though I respect Matt and Keers, I have to agree with you on
> that one. Sex is great and I hope never to be without it. On the
> other hand, I could never live with myself if I took another human
> life under ANY circumstances.
>
True, the emotional process involved in killing people is grossly glossed
over in movies. Pardon the grammar, I just got up.
Nightfire
"Tim Pollard" <t...@timpollard.com> wrote in message
news:bgl56p$d0b$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> "J.T. McDaniel" <kzr...@NSmindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:bgk02u$ijt$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > >
> > What it actually says is "Lo tirtzach," a literal
> > translation of which would be "No murder(do you)."
> > The syntax doesn't tranlate to English very
> > neatly. At least, not since the Normans arrived.
>
>
>
> Isn't his all a bit of a moot point - Bond's Bible (designed to be read as
> literature) just contains a gun. Possibly his 'ultimate truth'?
So he can live to debate theology another day.
Dug Weir
>
> Fortunately, some of us in the US have respect for the UK. And our own
> cousins in Scotland!
Good man!
Dug
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Destry Jr: Oh, I think I'll stick around. Y'know, I had a friend
once used to collect postage stamps. He always said the one good thing
about a postage stamp: it always sticks to one thing 'til it gets there,
y'know? I'm sorta like that too.
--Destry Rides Again (1939)
Matt Sherman
> "Kees J. Boer" <kees...@integrity-computing.net> wrote :
> > > And if Matt Sherman actually agrees with your distaste for
> > > "fornication," how does he justify his commercial exploitation of the
> > > fornicator?
> >
> > Matt is a very close friend of mine. I can tell you that Matt is not
> trying
> > to exploit Bond commercially. What he is doing with the Bond weekend is
> not
> > a financial vehicle for him. That's not what Matt is about. I know him
> real
> > well.
>
>
>
>
> according to the good book, the things he does for England indeed. To take
> any aspect away from the character of 007 is like pissing on the grave of
> Ian Fleming.
>
>
> --
>
> "The boss of Blofeld's sword battered into Bond's side. Bond hardly felt
> the crashing blows. He pressed with his thumbs, and pressed and heard the
> sword clang to the floor and felt Blofeld's fingers and nails tearing at his
> face, trying to reach his eyes. Bond whispered through his gritted teeth,
> 'Die,Blofeld! Die!' And suddenly the tongue was out and the eyes rolled
> upwards and the body slipped down to the ground. But Bond followed it and
> knelt, his hands cramped round the powerful neck, seeing nothing, hearing
> nothing, in the terrible grip of blood lust."
>
> You Only Live Twice - Ian Fleming
**This is all a fascinating thread, and I see some strong, thought out
opinions here.
Consider Ian Fleming's writing carefully, though.
Bond proposed or considered marriage to at least five women and
struggled with the notion of marriage and fidelity to Tracy AND in the
films, in O.H.M.S.S.
If Bond was married, how would you feel about him sleeping with two or
three women a picture? How would you feel about seeing something like
that on screen?
How many of us have cheated on our spouses or thought about cheating,
and so defending 007's fornication salves our conscience, however
unintentionally?
Kees Boer lives what he believes. It is possible to live in purity
even in today's modern world, though it really helps to have inner
strength from Jesus Christ to do it.
The Bible tells us to let the marriage bed be undefiled, to live in
joy and to take pleasure in your spouse, and to be very wary of
fornication and adultery and the destruction they can cause in our
lives.
There is nothing wrong per se with sex, it was made by God as joyful
expression of love as part of the glue that keeps a healthy marriage a
delight.
In 007's interesting case, he fought bitterly with Tiffany Case as
soon as they lived together rather than married in the novels (or as
Kees would write, they fornicated) and Bond's wife's life was forfeit
soon after Bond cheated on his fidelity to Tracy with Ruby in
O.H.M.S.S.!
Ian Fleming caused pain to others as well as suffered greatly over his
infidelities, and near the end of his short life, he has Bond wrestle
with marital fidelity and infidelity, and intense concepts of heaven,
hell and judgment, which make O.H.M.S.S. and You Only Live Twice
especially fascinating reading for me as a born again Christian.
I am a little surprised no one here has mentioned how immorality in
today's world has helped AIDS to spread as a pandemic over much of the
third world, and how as one response EON curtailed Bond quite a bit
for The Living Daylights. There is a throwaway character in the
teaser, "Linda" who jibes with Bond on her yacht, but for the film and
ALL the EON publicity, Bond was going to be a one woman kind of guy.
Before you knock this real fact down, John Cork and Bruce Scivally
give it a thoroughgoing treatment in James Bond: The Legacy. It's
fact.
In recent years, there has been much discussion in Hollywood of Bond
using condoms onscreen!
--Matt Sherman, SpyFest.org, 007Forever.com
Meet James Bond, ten other Bond stars, and the REAL head of the KGB
this August! Visit SpyFest.org today.
Tom Zielinski
"Kees J. Boer" <kees...@integrity-computing.net> wrote in message
news:pZeXa.5856$cf.1355@lakeread04...
> Anyways, I'm definitely open to any input on all of this. I would feel
> horable if I found out that me being a Bond fan, would first of all
> displease God and second of all would cause someone else to commit
> fornication.
Please explain the last ten words or so of that paragraph? I'm not
understanding.
Thanks.
Tom Zielinski
"You must excuse me, gentlemen, not being English, I sometimes find your
sense of humor rather difficult to follow."
Mike Feeney
m...@007forever.com (Matt Sherman) wrote:
>
>
>In 007's interesting case, he fought bitterly with Tiffany Case as
>soon as they lived together rather than married in the novels (or as
>Kees would write, they fornicated) and Bond's wife's life was forfeit
>soon after Bond cheated on his fidelity to Tracy with Ruby in
>O.H.M.S.S.!
>
Are you saying that it is your interpretation that God killed Tracy (or,
phrased another way, set up the events which would inevitably lead to her
death) in order to punish James for sleeping with Ruby?
Tracy wasn't at fault (i.e, she didn't cheat on James that we are aware of),
so why should she her life be forfeit because of someone else's actions?
--Mike
Tim Pollard
>
> "Kees J. Boer" <kees...@integrity-computing.net> wrote in message
> news:pZeXa.5856$cf.1355@lakeread04...
>
>
> > Anyways, I'm definitely open to any input on all of this. I would feel
> > horable if I found out that me being a Bond fan, would first of all
> > displease God and second of all would cause someone else to commit
> > fornication.
>
>
> Please explain the last ten words or so of that paragraph? I'm not
> understanding.
I would never have thought of committing fornication if it hadn't been for
Kees enjoying Bond films.
Dr. Shatterhand
> When we are talking about James Bond, what he really should do in future
> Bond films is not commit fornication in future Bond films. I would welcome
> this change. I like the Bond films, but I do hate to see that he beds all
> these women. It is really the main thing I would change about the Bond
> films.
Wow, I go away over the weekend and miss 'this' kettle drum of a
debate. After reading nearly every post on this subject I can only
say this:
We must always remember that Ian Fleming created Bond as an escape
from his impending marriage. Bond was his escapism. He created the
world of lust, greed, sadism which was the stepping stone for Broccoli
and Saltzman to use the well known line - "Sadism for the family."
The problem Bond has with women is that he cannot retain a
relationship passed the lustful urges and passionate nights he has
with them. He sees himself as the White Knight who saves the damsel
and expects to appeal to the female's maternal instincts as his
reward.
Now, we the audience must decide if Bond bedding, killing, lying,
cheating etc. is so immoral that the films must change or be
discontinued. I disagree but with a small reservation.
I have mentioned this before in past debates. The films are fine as
they are providing that the love scenes do not get too explicit that
the producers are forced with an "R" rating. No movie producer in the
world would want to lose audience numbers because there were
questionable scenes in their films. The same goes for explicit
violence. After all, Goldfinger does not have one drop of blood shown
on the screen despite all the fatalities.
Bond is and has always been a mysogynist. It is part of his
character. The real dangers of him sleeping around is that in reality
he would have picked up the 'clap' by now and helped spread it along.
Bond would have been HIV as well.
Bond's weakness is beautiful women and that is a vice similar to
alcohol and gambling. If you allow a vice to dominate your decision
making than you have a problem which could affect other people. A
good example of Bond allowing his lustful vice to do harm is his fling
with Jill Masterson (GF), Plenty O'Toole (DAF) or Corrine Dufour (MR).
These women were already bordering on disaster, but it is Bond's
sexual prowness which gets them killed.
Also, if Tracy had survived and the films allowed her to be his wife
through the remaining films, would Bond had been an adulterer? I
think the answer would be yes. The films and books would have taken
on a more liberal viewpoint of marriage and perhaps caused the series
to die due to audience members being uninfatuated.
But, Fleming knew that if his character were to stay married, it would
not have worked. His creation was an extension of his single life -
and he was having fun with it.
We the audience are having fun with it too. Though there are a few
men in this world who would love to live the life of OO7, I doubt very
strongly they would survive for too long. But you have to admit that
any female that has a name such as Holly Goodhead or Pussy Galore - is
going to get one's attention.
Being a Christian or a moral person is very difficult in our current
times. Sex is freely expressed in just about everything shown on TV
or magazines. The sad part about our society is the lack of
relationships. We want relationships to work on our level and on our
time. Not for the other person. Relationships are primarily "give
and take".
Yet, I am a married person with two kids, I enjoy the films and love
to see the beautiful women. I am a great fan of the books. Am I a
sinner? Yes, but I cannot save myself. There is only one person who
can do that - and Kees, we both know who that is. And to those who
want to know, you can email me and I will freely tell you. But this
forum is not the best place for it.
Oh, and the bottom line of my long post is simple - Live and Let Bond.
Dr. Shatterhand
www.shatterhand007.com
Kees J. Boer
My first goal is to please God, because He gave His Son, Jesus Christ for me
to die on a cross. No one ever loved me that much.
My second goal is to live in such a way that others would live a life
pleasing to God. Thus if my life, or in this case my being a Bond fan, would
cause others to commit fornication, I would feel horrible. In other words, I
would not want anyone to look at my Bond collection, assume that I endorse
everything Bond does, and thus assume that I approve of fornication and as a
result sleep with someone they are not married to.
I hope this clarified it.
Thanks!
Kees :-)
"Tom Zielinski" <rt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eltXa.33157$Mc.26...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
Tom Zielinski
> Tom,
>
> My first goal is to please God, because He gave His Son, Jesus Christ for
me
> to die on a cross. No one ever loved me that much.
>
> My second goal is to live in such a way that others would live a life
> pleasing to God. Thus if my life, or in this case my being a Bond fan,
would
> cause others to commit fornication, I would feel horrible. In other words,
I
> would not want anyone to look at my Bond collection, assume that I endorse
> everything Bond does, and thus assume that I approve of fornication and as
a
> result sleep with someone they are not married to.
>
> I hope this clarified it.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kees :-)
Kees,
It does some, thank you.
Just stumbling a bit over the part that talks about someone committing
fornication because they might mistakenly assume that you approve of it
because they viewed your room of Bond toys and stuff.
But...it must be me....
With sincere respect,
Tom
gclap...@cix.compulink.co.uk
moonr...@NOSPAMexcite.com (Mike Feeney) wrote:
> Are you saying that it is your interpretation that God killed Tracy (or,
> phrased another way, set up the events which would inevitably lead to
> her
> death) in order to punish James for sleeping with Ruby?
My own reading is that Fleming killed Tracy to punish Bond (or because he
didn't know what the hell to do with him next so why not marry and widow
him) - so if we accept that the novelist is God to his characters...
gclap...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> I
> would not want anyone to look at my Bond collection, assume that I
> endorse
> everything Bond does, and thus assume that I approve of fornication and
> as a
> result sleep with someone they are not married to.
As you wish. Personally I'd be less comfortable if I thought I was giving
approval to his killing people than his sex life - funny how people
of many persuasions rarely comment on that...
Phil Gerrard
> Britain is, to coin a phrase, 'top nation'.
According to Sellars and Yeatman, Britain hasn't been Top Nation since
history came to a .
(Needlessly obscure even for this NG)
Best
Phil
Tim Pollard
"Phil Gerrard" <phil.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:WivXa.313$3j4.2...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
Well you got my reference, and I got yours, so you invalidate your own
argument.
HA!
<smug look>
Phil Gerrard
> Did not you mean vas deferens?
I always thought that 'vas deferens' was a phrase that Germans used to begin
crappy jokes...
Phil
Kees J. Boer
don't believe that that is what Bond is doing. Bond is executing justice to
evil doers under the authority of his government.
We could write a long disortation proving that "Thou shalt not kill" refers
specifically to murder, but that might not help.
For instance if a police officer were to shoot and kill in the line of duty,
I would not consider that murder. Someone, who administers the death penalty
by lethal injection is not murdering. (As long as he uses a little piece of
cotton with alcohol on it!) Soldiers in a war aren't murdering, they are
killing under the authority of their government.
Now, let's take the police officer from the previous paragraph for example.
(I used to work in a police department, some of you might remember that,
maybe Tom does). If that same police officer came home from work that night
had an argument with his neighbour about something, gets upset and kills his
neighbour, then he murders. This is no longer in his line of duty.
An interesting thing about capital punishment is that if a convict is to die
at a certain time, and 5 minutes before that say the victim's spouse walks
in and shoots the convict, the spouse will be tried and guilty of murder,
even though the convict was to die 5 minutes later. The issue here is: whose
authority is he/she doing it under.
Bond generally kills under the authority of his country. He is employed by
his country. I use the word general, because at times with Bond, his motive
becomes a cloudy, such as Blofeld for killing his wife, or Sanchez for what
he did to Leiter. Even in those cases, he still kills for England or maybe
the US in the case of Sanchez.
If the Bond films were about someone, who kills for his personal benefit,
such as a person robbing a bank and then killing the people in the bank, so
that he can have a lot of money, or what have you, I would not approve of
that. The fact is that this is not what James Bond is about.
Also, if Bond fans were people that believed in murdering people, I would
never hang around any of them. Someone might get ticked off at something I
do and murder me. Obviously that is not the case.
I hope that clarrifies it. The only possible concern I have with violence in
Bond films might be what it might do to children, who might not be able to
discern this all.
Kees
<gclap...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bglv1h$b0n$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
Phil Gerrard
> > (Needlessly obscure even for this NG)
>
>
>
> Well you got my reference, and I got yours, so you invalidate your own
> argument.
>
> HA!
>
> <smug look>
Sorry, I must have forgotten which group I was posting to for a second: the
phrase 'needlessly obscure' is pretty redundant around here <g> .
Best
Phil
Tim Pollard
LOL!
Tim Pollard
> Hi, Just to clarify. I don't believe in someone murdering another person.
I
> don't believe that that is what Bond is doing. Bond is executing justice
to
> evil doers under the authority of his government.
EXCEPT, of course, that Bond is (usually) killing foreign nationals in areas
outside the governmental juresdiction of the UK government... which must
make it legally dubious agin, surely? Just because (for instance) the
Brazilian Government said it was OK for a Brazilian agent to kill criminals
in the US, would that mean he wouldn't be tried for murder if caught?
gclap...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> Bond generally kills under the authority of his country. He is employed
> by
> his country.
And he often kills where his country has no jurisdiction, surely?
Tom Zielinski
I do remember that you worked in law enforcement, Kees. And I've enjoyed
this debate. So thanks for the original post, and your subsequent
perspectives. You are passionate in your beliefs, and that is an admirable
thing.
James Bond should not ever stop fornicating though.
;)
The day he does stop, is the day I am no longer follow his adventures.
Thanks,
Tom
"The first one won't kill you; not the second, not even the third... not
till you crawl over here and you KISS MY FOOT!"
Tom Zielinski
"Tell it to the concierge."
Mike Feeney
But the Nazis who killed all those Jews were doing so under orders from their
government. So you don't consider their actions to constitue murder, or
to be immoral or rephrenshible in any way? Because you seem to be saying
that if you kill someone because your government told you to do so, then
its okay.
--Mike
The log
>by lethal injection is not murdering. (As long as he uses a little piece of
>cotton with alcohol on it!)
Although this is going on a hideous tangent, and it's not one I wish to follow,
the Bible has a Hell of a lot to say against the death penalty and it peeves me
to see Christians disobey their Gods teachings when it suits them.
Peace,
The log- I know what I like
Tim Pollard
"The log" <row...@aol.comPLICATE> wrote in message
news:20030804131032...@mb-m01.aol.com...
> >Someone, who administers the death penalty
> >by lethal injection is not murdering. (As long as he uses a little piece
of
> >cotton with alcohol on it!)
>
> Although this is going on a hideous tangent, and it's not one I wish to
follow,
> the Bible has a Hell of a lot to say against the death penalty and it
peeves me
> to see Christians disobey their Gods teachings when it suits them.
Well, *hopefully* I'm not annoying too many people (and I'd prefer not to
annoy *any*, but sadly I'm still breathing), the Bible does have quite a few
inconsistencies... especially in Leviticus. So it's time to dredge out that
old classic, which you'll find here:
http://elainemiller.com/presents/drlaura.html
Enjoy!
The log
>annoy *any*, but sadly I'm still breathing), the Bible does have quite a few
>inconsistencies... especially in Leviticus.
Indeedindeed, but Jesus came along to rewrite the Old Testament, and to clear
things up.
Tim Pollard
"The log" <row...@aol.comPLICATE> wrote in message
> >Well, *hopefully* I'm not annoying too many people (and I'd prefer not to
> >annoy *any*, but sadly I'm still breathing), the Bible does have quite a
few
> >inconsistencies... especially in Leviticus.
>
> Indeedindeed, but Jesus came along to rewrite the Old Testament, and to
clear
> things up.
What, as an author? Or sub-editor?
Tom Zielinski
>
> "The log" <row...@aol.comPLICATE> wrote in message
> news:20030804131032...@mb-m01.aol.com...
> > >Someone, who administers the death penalty
> > >by lethal injection is not murdering. (As long as he uses a little
piece
> of
> > >cotton with alcohol on it!)
> >
> > Although this is going on a hideous tangent, and it's not one I wish to
> follow,
> > the Bible has a Hell of a lot to say against the death penalty and it
> peeves me
> > to see Christians disobey their Gods teachings when it suits them.
>
>
> Well, *hopefully* I'm not annoying too many people (and I'd prefer not to
> annoy *any*, but sadly I'm still breathing), the Bible does have quite a
few
> inconsistencies... especially in Leviticus. So it's time to dredge out
that
> old classic, which you'll find here:
>
> http://elainemiller.com/presents/drlaura.html
LMAO!!!
Well done sir. Thanks for the link.
Tom Zielinski
"I say all Canadians should become slaves."
The log
>clear
>> things up.
>
>
>What, as an author? Or sub-editor?
LOL!
Kind of like a director's cut...
LuckyAtLoveAgain
>You are passionate in your beliefs, and that is an admirable
>thing.
>
>James Bond should not ever stop fornicating though.
>
As a member of the Episcopal Church, I guess I should now take the position
that Bond ought not to fornicate further, but it is ok if he is in an openly
gay monogamous relationship.
Tom Zielinski
"LuckyAtLoveAgain" <luckyatl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030804164914...@mb-m14.aol.com...
So....that's the rumor for Bond 21?
Tom Zielinski
"He wouldn't know a woman if one came up and sat on his head."
LuckyAtLoveAgain
>Tom Zielinski
Kees J. Boer
people. The key to understanding these passages is to take them in the
context. If you lived here in Gainesville, I'd be more than happy to sit
down and we could study the very passages and you'd see that they would not
cause any contradiction. I could tell you that Leviticus was given by God to
the nation of Israel as a law, during a specific time period. It was not
given to non-jewish people during this time. Talking about this, I know just
creates more questions that go way beyond the scope of alt.fan.james-bond.
It is something that we'd need to sit down and go over in order to make
sense of it.
"Tim Pollard" <t...@timpollard.com> wrote in message
news:bgm50t$bp6$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
>
Kees J. Boer
sword. (Rom. 14)
Kees
"The log" <row...@aol.comPLICATE> wrote in message
news:20030804131032...@mb-m01.aol.com...
The log
>sword. (Rom. 14)
And who wrote that?
You just said that the Bible needs to be looked at in the context in which it
was written. Seeing as how nothing has been added for some 1800 years, where
does that leave the book's relevance (via your reasoning)?