Alright, there's been enough discussion on certain topics around the forums the past few weeks that I feel it's time to revive this thread. .

This a thread to share your slightly controversial/offensive opinions, and to invoke discussion about them. Not to argue, talk down, rubbish or deride others opinions, but actually discuss them, like normal human beings. If you do have a topic/opinion you wish to share, back it up with proper arguments. Offensive posts just for the sake of being Offensive will be deleted.

Otherwise, normal forum rules apply. Follow them as you would normally, and no one has to get hurt.

I'll try to keep track of the discussions that are going on, to add a live ticker of sorts to the thread title.

Please, for the love of god, don't make me regret this.




Edited by Funky Munky: 24/8/2013 01:56:18 PM

That's my opinion.
I'm not a Christian, but I have done a bit of theological study, both structured and non-structured. My issue with Christianity is more a personal thing, I can't commit to the lifestyle, however I have absolutely no doubt that there was a man Named Jesus who was the son of Joseph who travelled around claiming to be the Son of God and performed many things that both impressed and confused people. This man Jesus was eventually imprisoned, tried, and crucified by the Roman Empire. In a period of time after her died, roughly 500 people reported seeing Jesus of Nazareth.

^

Of course he existed - he was an actual, real person.

Probably. It would be pretty difficult to create a religion based on an entirely mythical story about a man who could perform miracles and was tried and crucified in public.

[youtube]uBwPOlannHY[/youtube]

I lean on the side of probably not. I don't make any definitive claim that he didn't, just that it's very unlikely and that the evidence doesn't support the claim thathe ddefinitely did.

Matthew, Mark, Luke & John can't even match significant details of his life, and all other non-biblical texts referring to Jesus are by people born well after Jesus' supposed persecution.

The story of Jesus also borrows heavily from other Ancient religions and folklore, such as the virgin birth, healing, death & resurrection.

when i think of whether or not jesus existed, i think of the scene in the dark knight rises when robin says the commissioner gordon "but don't you wanna know who he was" and gordon replies "i know exactly who he was - he was the batman".

it doesn't matter to me if the person is real or not, or who the person is, or if the person existed or not. what matters is the symbol, and what people choose to take from that symbol.

i am a lazy mans atheist (aka an agnostic). i don't necessarily believe in jesus/god, but respect that there is a symbol, a batman, that a large amount of people choose to believe in to make their lives better for themselves.

Good point on the 4 accepted gospels. The issue with that argument is that you have 4 different people writing with 4 different purposes to different audiences. For example, I would explain this thread differently to my Mum compared to how you'd explain to your kids, compared to how PB explains it his his Mrs ect. And the thing with the gospels, is that while the 4 don't tell exactly the same story, the doctrine is the same remarkably.

There is also the account by the Roman Senator (name escapes me, but google can help) which is worth considering.

iirc there is actual proof that a person names Jesus did exist and was crucified. obviously there is no proof that the miracles were actually real.
as for the Gospels, as someone else said, yes there is a gap in between the death of Jesus and the first gospel, about a 60 year gap. also they were written in different areas for different audiences, thus the differences.

This.

I need to look this up too, because I remember reading something similar (and then the debunk).

Funky doesn't understand why Johnny Warren released the book 'Sheilas, Wogs and Poofters' hence, due to his ignorance, he believes that attacks on AFL coming from football people are due to insecurity.

a quick cut/paste job from Wikipedia because I'm still at work.

I don't think you need Christianity to tell you "try not to be too much of a dick". :lol: But something promoting a sense of community is a positive.

Re: the existence of Jesus...what if he was the Chuck Norris joke of his time? :-k

What I believe about Jesus:

He did exist, but did not have spiritual powers. Instead, I believe he was a relatively famous man who helped others. 60 years later (or whenever the statements were written), the people who wrote the bible decided to use him as a figurehead for their new religion as he was already famous.

Edited by 433: 15/6/2013 03:15:18 PM

Probably based off of a real person who did none of the things from the bible.

Many of these areas are still rampant with cannibalism, murder and the ilk. Just now it's 'in the name of god'. :lol:

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - where Jesus purportedly performed his miracles - were written between 60 and 90 CE. 30-60 years after the crucifixion of Jesus.

Morality is a result of empathy, which is a result of intelligence. There is no logical basis that religion of any kind is somehow the foundation of morality.

With regard to empathy and intelligence I wouldn't say that correlation means causation.

An intelligent creature is likely to become self-aware and thus more likely to empathize with its fellow creatures. Once you feel empathy for another you are more likely to protect it. The basic boundaries of morality are based within the desire to protect yourself by protecting others.

To paraphrase Hitchens - there is no moral act that could not be performed by a non-religious person; but there are many immoral acts which can only be committed by those preaching religion.

Someone would have had to have existed, there are so many unbelievable things in the bible though. Turned water into wine? What kind of switcheroo con was that?

Unfortunately it has turned into a massive tool to allow conservatives to teach hate.

They forgot to mention the grapes added...and a couple of months fermentation. Jesus was actually just a homebrew expert.

Edited by afromanGT: 15/6/2013 06:37:46 PM

He was a great public speaker with a fantastic PR team.

It's certainly peace and roses after religion.

I didnt suggest that about "every" religious person.

Christianity is often used though when no rational reason can be found to discriminate

It might 'come naturally'. Hatred is taught as much as anything. You know what a two year old hates? Broccoli and naps. Not black people. Not muslims. Not westerners.

[youtube]OrHeg77LF4Y[/youtube]

first 3rd of the movie deconstructs religion.
some of the facts are amazing, about religion anyway.

People don't generalise EVERY religious person as a hate preacher - just the hate preachers. Unfortunately, the nature of religion is that many people follow each hate preacher, believing that he is teaching them the 'right' way to make their God happy.

99% of all religious people are fine... The thing is - I'd say that the same 99% would be just fine without religion.

Meanwhile, the hate preacher would have a lot of trouble motivating all the easily lead idiots if he didn't have the power of the invisible sky man on his side. Fools might follow him if he were preaching a political ideal, but not so many, and he'd be much easier to close down.

Christian hate preachers have no justification really... You'd be hard pressed to find anything in the New Testament that preaches hate. Sin, yes but not hate.

How are we classifying "hate", here, because there are plenty of things in the New Testament that I find to be morally questionable.

Inciting an irrational dislike of people? Interpret it however you want.
Well, you name it and I'll do my best to explain anything.

What do you mean by "explain"?

Ummm good question...

Just post your issues and we'll discuss it I guess?

1st Timothy 2 is a good example, not necessarily of hatred, but biblical thinking that is inappropriate for today.

Why do they bother with the British and Irish lions rugby team?

Doesnt it overlook the Irish Free State movement?

It seems a few ignorant imperialists have ignored all the blood spilled to continue sending this constructed team to the southern hemisphere

Yep. A passage that causes huge controversy and a lot of division. I never understood that being saved through child berth thing, because that just defeats the purpose of salvation through grace, but that probably comes down to my lack of understanding of the cultural circumstances.

In terms of the women shutting up thing. I've heard it explained that due to women not having any legal authority at the time, ie. their testimony would not Hold up in court, the church was being encouraged to let men do the teaching and running of the churches in order to maintain the integrity of the church and the message it had. In times where a story lived and died on eye witnesses, it was essential that stories were passed on correctly and in every town and city that stories went to, the had to be eye witnesses who could vouch for the story, or else it would have been discredited.

My point being that in such, the church leaders were very hesitant to let women preach a message that would lose credibility in the eyes of the public due to it being delivered by a women. Most Protestant Christians these days allow for female clergy, and those that don't are fast losing support.

Christianity would be a lot more popular if Batman was the son of god.

The Romans would have had a much harder time crucifying him.

There are ROI players in the squad. No Northern Irishmen though.

Edited by afromanGT: 16/6/2013 03:42:23 PM

Someone like him would have existed, yes. Just like Joseph Smith.


All nutters.

Notor I broke down 1 Timothy 2 for you pretty thoroughly in the old thread. Must admit that I am tempted to get active again on the forum because of this thread but don't know if I can stomach the sweeping statements that get brought out and result in the agro from last time.

I remember, although it doesn't make it any less morally questionable.

Will be good to have you back on the thread.

The one thing that resonates with me is your assertion that you get frustrated with people that have belief without a logical justification for that belief.

Can you run us through your logical justification for the existence of Yahweh?

Was Notor felt in an inappropriate way by a priest?

He probably did exist... BUT
The earliest documents about him were written 80 odd years after he died. And written in an entirely different language to what Jesus would have spoke.
Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenty of room for the story to have been changed alot.
That's also proven through the gnostic gospels.

The gnostic gospels have very differing accounts of Jesus' life to the four canonised gospels. They were written around the same time and had just as much validity about Jesus' life as did the canonised ones.

Just some 500 years later the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John sounded the nicest and were somewhat consistent with each other so they were chosen and canonised.


Anyway, when Eastern says there were eye witness accounts... It's a pretty iffy.
No one who knew Jesus would realistically have been alive when the gospels were written (If they were as young as 20 then they would be 100ish when they were written. I'd guess that people probably lived at most half that back then?). So it could only really be word of mouth.

Probably. Or possibly is a composite character made up of many preacher type people of the time.

No.

I did punch a lay preacher in the dick once, but that was entirely non-sexual.

Edited by notorganic: 17/6/2013 01:04:51 PM

:) I am not sure how well this is going to answer that question :lol:

I actually find the Old Testament depiction of God to be an easier one to justify because He very rarely interacted with the world other than through it. The miracles of the Old Testament are almost entirely miracles that involve perfect timing, rivers being blocked or parted, water being released from struck stone, the plagues that struck down Egypt etc. The New Testament miracles are almost all supernatural events, raising the dead, walking on water, quelling the storm, feeding the many etc.

This basically creates a quandary, God has moved away from His normal mode of operation within the world into another. One that does not seem logically consistent with before, but I find that my acceptance of creation as a non static reality assists me here. God in the Old Testament is dealing with relatively simplistic issues and assisting in the evolution within us of a series of moral and ethical questions about who we are and how we relate to others. It highlights how easily it is for us to fail at this. God in the New Testament is teaching us about the consequences of nation building which does not centre around His teachings in the Old Testament and which do not evolve at pace with the changes occurring in the world. He is also telling us that though we are going to continue to make massive mistakes in the way we deal with both each other and Him, He will continue to love us, forgive us and wait for us.

I have no problems with the concept of evolution, of the constantly expanding and cooling state of the universe; the fact the Earth is very old etc. As such I also have no problems accepting that how we understand God and relate to God will also evolve over time. I actually think that is more consistent with both Him as a creator of a dynamic reality and us as being created in His image and so striving to understand it, Him and ourselves through constant questioning.

...

OK, having read that again it doesn't answer your question at all and was more of a philosophical tangent :lol: though it does encourage me to actually expand on it for myself as I get the time :)

Right, logical justification for the existence of God. From our current understanding the entirety of existence and the natural laws that allowed us to eventually develop came about due to a singular event a very long time ago. The conditions of that event were required to be exact for us to arrive at the point whereby we could actually be around to be having this discussion. It is entirely possible to take the view that there needed to be no creator involved in that initial state and that we and everything else are a result of chaos, or conversely that there was a creator involved in that initial state and that we and everything else are a result of design. I personally do not see any true conflict between a belief in chaos as a progenitor or belief in God as a progenitor at this point.

My conflict arises when we talk about mankind, about us. Are we purely gene driven chemical factories with a very complicated series of courtship rituals in order to determine the best mate and continue the propagation of our particular sequence or are we something different? If there is no creator then that is all we are. If there is a creator then we are not. I do not see the way that mankind behaves as a result of chaos, I see that behaviour as a result of intelligence. We appreciate beauty, and can make it. We can both interact with and act upon the reality around us. We can ask questions about that reality and then we can discover ways to answer them. We can guide our own development as both an individual and as a species; we can also guide the development of other species. We can choose our behaviour and understand the consequences of that behaviour on both ourselves and others. We are able to comprehend the difference between something being right and wrong. We can make choices which have nothing to do with our own personal survival and opportunities for breeding, and why would we need to if we were no more than that complex chemical factory? It is this that caused me to fall on the side of the theists. I have not seen a compelling argument in favour of atheism that can talk about us and the way we are.

And I still don't think I have really answered your question :)

He may have existed but not in the way the Bible depicts him. The story of Birth till Crucifixion is an age old folk tale that is told the same way amongst a broad range of cultures. Research Dionysis, Horus, Attis, Krishna & Mithra. All born of the virgin, crusified and resurrected and all date BC.

So if he existed there has been some fuckery a foot!


The question was did he exist?

NOT are the stories true?

Did he exist? Probably.

Are the stories true? I would say most are not.

Edited by leftrightout: 17/6/2013 02:35:03 PM

All of these examples you've given can theoretically be explained by evolution.

They either exist to give us an advantage in getting to the stage of reproducing or are just misused offshoots of other biological functions that give/gave us advantages when used in another way.

i.e. "making beauty" could be a misuse/offshoot of two things.
1) Creativity developed possibly for hunting amongst other things.
2) Appreciation of beauty which possibly developed in order to be attracted towards things/places that are beneficial to survival.

Put them together and we are artists. This brings no obvious biological advantage but arose incidentally due to other interacting human traits.

Edited by neanderthal: 17/6/2013 03:04:45 PM

from my understanding Jesus did exist, however he was not the son of a Carpenter but the son of a Rabbi. Jesus went about preaching and was turned to a martyr to further push another religious sect.

It is my understanding that Jesus was this person "Yeshua bar Josi",this is based on factual evidence available and compared with biblical history. quite possibly it is now out dated and other more relevant details have arisen since I last cared to look.

And while on a similar topic..... did Moses exist?
I think that is much less likely than Jesus.

Some people theorise that his stories were like ancient versions of modern day superhero flicks. Purely fictional stories of his heroics. They explain how he gets his superpowers through one of the gods who favours him (Yahweh).

Kind of like Thor I guess... Maybe in 5000 years everyone will be praising Thor as a prophet? 8-[

in talks about believing the stories etc - this hits me hard also.

hell, reg date played football in the 40s in newcastle, and when i read his biography i question the accuracy of the stats and facts provided, like when he scored 10+ goals against certain opposition, descriptions of some of his goals, etc. that was 50 years ago, in an age when we spoke the same language and radio/tv/computers became in fashion.

You wouldn't be the first person to hypothesise this.

And that's the most brilliant part of the spread of the early church! The fact that when these stories were passed around from town to town, by word of mouth or by letter, people in the towns were able to varify what had been recorded, or else the stories would have been disregarded and forgotten.

The rapid spread of the early church is a great credit to those who saw and recounted the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Son of God or not, many people saw things he did and thought it was worth recording.

Anyone interested in the book of Judas? it tells the same story basically of MMLJ, just with Jesus asking Judas to betray him and in return he would travel with Jesus back into space and across the stars to where Jesus was from.

Not sure if real or just a great ruse, but interesting that the Jesus/Alien myth has roots dated to 30 A.D

Like walking on water and turning water into whine?

I completely disagree that the stories would have been disregarded and forgotten if they weren't true.

There's stories backed up by several sources about Jesus and Muhammad both performing amazing miracles infront of large crowds.
So if these didn't happen then they would have been disregarded?
Obviously not.
In a time where so few people read or write and people were not so sceptical, history shows that it isn't very hard to falsify these things.

Christianity spread amongst speakers of Greek who would not have known Jesus or lived anywhere near where he preached.
It would be quite easy to spread a false story in another country in another language where there's noone to discredit the stories.

Also there are various contradicting tales of what Jesus did in the non canonised gospels

So they were hypothesising that he was an alien prior to his crucifixion? :-k

Give or take a few years but yeah, Judas and Jesus having a chat pointing to the shiny cloud in the sky (possibly high or the Milky way) see the brightest star, that is your reward in death you will journey with me (this is paraphrasing and quite possibly all malarkey.)

Those crazy Christians and their martyrdom.

This.

-PB

:lol:

=d> =d> =d> =d>

What I've always wondered is did Jesus fart in social settings?

Ok, I think it's time for a new topic :lol:

Lets face it, the bloke knew how to party. 12 enormous jars of water into wine, was capable or putting on a feed for a few thousand people and had hundreds of people following him around no matter what city he went to... Pretty sure he would have ripped a few in his time :lol:

Or he was crucified for his farts?
So many options.

I had a patron at work the other weekend proclaim loudly to nobody in particular after purchasing a schooner of VB proclaim that said beverage was the 'nectar of the gods' and that Jesus didn't turn water into wine, he turned it into the "angelic amber nectar that is Victorian Bitter".

Quick as a flash, one of the hardened locals sitting at the other side of the bar (drinking Coopers Pale Ale) piped up, "Well, no wonder the Romans fuckin' crucified him!"

Lost my shit. :lol:

http://planetivy.co.uk/offbeat/52494/spanking-in-the-name-of-god/

I dunno about everyone else, but italian food can make me pretty gassy sometimes.

If Jesus had a middle eastern diet his flatulence would have been epic.

"DID YOU KNOW CHRIST WAS A JEW?!?"

:lol: :lol:

That's gold, that being said I reckon I'd rather a VB than a Coopers tbh.

The interventionary power of barking.

Racism is a Tough Sell: The Real Reason Everyone Dumped Paula Deen
by Daniel Gross Jun 28, 2013 4:45 AM EDT
In business, it’s okay to be a sexist, a felon, or an adulterer. But a racist? Uh uh—especially if your brand has a national reach. Daniel Gross on Paula Deen’s swift fall.
0

inShare
0
Paula Deen has come undone.


Paula Deen appears on NBC News' "Today" show, June 26, 2013. (Peter Kramer/NBC/NBC NewsWire via Getty)

First came details of a lawsuit in which a former employee alleged racial insensitivity on the part of Deen. Then came her amateurish, tentative apologies on Youtube. A mawkish attempt at self-exculpation in an interview on the Today Show with Matt Lauer didn’t go much better.

Instantly, a bevy of Fortune 500 companies that were more than happy to do business with Deen, have dropped her like a hot (sweet) potato. The sharp and swift fall makes for a concise case study on the impact of reputation on a personal brand.

Deen may have been known to most laypeople as a television chef and cookbook author. But the beauty of today’s world is that you can quickly leverage fame gained in one arena into others. She had a show on the Food Network, restaurants, a line of cookware sold in Walmart, Home Depot, Target, and other stores, cookbooks, an endorsement deal with the pork giant Smithfield. Deen was also able to mine commercial gold out of self-inflicted wounds. Critics had long warned that a diet larded with lard, pork, butter, cream, and sugar could lead to diabetes. Lo and behold, after Deen revealed that she had diabetes, she signed a deal with pharmaceutical firm Novo Nordisk to help promote a diabetes drug.

Within a week, all of it—well, almost all of it—has melted away. Giant corporations that were happy to plaster Deen’s face on their products and stock their goods in their store have run away. Political correctness run amok? No. It illustrates a larger truth. In 2013, no national brand, in any industry, can afford to have an association with a person who expresses racial animus, or who taints a company with the stain of racial animus. It’s just not acceptable. It is okay for endorsers and business partners to be gamblers (Michael Jordan), convicted felons (Martha Stewart), or adulterers (too many to name). The commercial culture will tolerate multiple divorces, trips to rehab, and all sorts of boorish behavior. You can even recommend that people eat really unhealthful diets. But the hint of racism is simply a deal-killer. No questions asked.

Of course, companies will be more likely to stick with an employee, or a business partner, if they are minting money. Over his long career, Rush Limbaugh has suffered astonishingly little blowback for off-color remarks. (It was sexism that got him into the most trouble with advertisers). But in Deen’s case, her ratings at the Food Network were already slipping. Deen’s show had been running for 11 years (a close approximation of the life expectancy of people who subsist solely on her cuisine), which is an extremely long time. But as The Wall Street Journal reported, Deen’s show was slipping: “Ratings for Ms. Deen’s show “Paula’s Best Dishes” were down 15% in total viewers—and 22% in the 18-49 demographic that advertisers care most about—for the 2012-13 season, compared with last season, according to Nielsen ratings provided by Horizon Media.”

The other companies to jettison Deen were more interested in their image than the bottom line. Every company has official statements, codes of conducts, and principles that bar their employees from using the type of language that Deen allegedly did in the workplace.

Deen didn’t have big exclusive deals with department stores, the way Martha Stewart does. Rather, she put her name on kitchen products that were sold in a wide range of stores. As of this week, they are sold in a narrow range of stores.

Walmart issued a terse statement on Wednesday. “We are ending our relationship with Paula Deen Enterprises and we will not place new orders beyond those already committed.” You can still get her dinnerware and other products at Walmart.com.


Here’s your checklist of former Paula Deen sponsors who have cut ties with the embattled celebrity chef.
On the one hand, Deen was a perfect fit with Walmart, which remains a down-scale, predominantly southern company. But Walmart has been trying to branch out of its blue-state base for years. With domestic sales stagnating, its only prospect for growth in the U.S. is in markets where it has generally been under-represented: urban areas, places like Chicago and New York that house large minority populations. Walmart’s culture—low wages, a pathological hostility to unions—has posed a major stumbling to the company as it seeks to break in to diverse areas like New York. So any negative press surrounding race relations is particularly toxic for Walmart.

Target, which cultivates an inclusive, hip image, likewise found the comments attributed to Deen unacceptable. It announced that it won’t order any more Paula Deen cookware and dinnerware products once its existing stocks are sold out. Home Depot, based in Atlanta, the city famously too busy to hate, went a step further – it took the products off its website entirely.

It seems unlikely that Smithfield, the pork giant that had put Deen’s face on hams, would have been the target of boycotts had it continued to do business with the chef. But Smithfield, which recently agreed to be acquired by a Chinese company, has become controversial. It needs friendly treatment in Washington and media as it shoots the rapids. The less public noise surrounding the company, the better. And so it jettisoned her. “Smithfield condemns the use of offensive and discriminatory language and behavior of any kind. Therefore, we are terminating our partnership with Paula Deen,” the company told CNBC on Monday.

On Thursday, QVC took a notably softer stance, announcing it was “taking a pause” from Deen, not just for the sake of the company but for “Paula to concentrate on responding to the allegations against her and on her path forward.” While she’s doing that, QVC will be “phasing out” her products and she won’t be appearing on any TV broadcasts. President and CEO Mike George concluded this wasn’t necessarily a “forever decision” because, after all, “people deserve second chances.”

While companies based in the southern U.S. have been quick to convict and sentence Deen, a Danish company that Deen works with was much more tolerant and forgiving. Novo Nordisk, whose diabetes drug Victoza Deen promotes, at first said it would reserve judgment on Deen “while she takes a more proactive approach to clearing up her comments.” Then on Thursday, it suspended the partnership.

Of course, none of this means that Deen is finished entirely. It just means that she can no longer be a national brand. Defenders of Deen note that she comes from a particular time and place. To condemn her for her language and attitudes is to condemn the huge number of white people who grew up in the segregated south and used the same type of language that their friends and parents did. And it is indeed true that we continue to make concessions to southerners of a certain age. The fact that Rick Perry had a camp with an offensive name didn’t stop him from becoming governor of Texas. Haley Barbour’s willful blindness to the nastiness of segregation in the 1960s didn’t preclude him from heading the Republican National Committee. And I would love if it some reporter started quizzing elderly southern officeholders—say, Jefferson Sessions of Alabama—as to whether they’ve ever used racially insensitive language in their lifetimes.

But here’s the deal. Even today, what is acceptable in one part of the country is unacceptable in another. And it is definitely the case that a history of racial insensitivity – especially a recent history of racial insensitivity – can stop you from being a national public figure. So Deen is commercially viable, just not on the national stage. To survive, she’ll have to revert to being a niche figure. You can prosper and remain rich by appealing to a small sliver of America’s vast population. And there is every sign that she’s capable of pulling that off.

Fans, including some African-American ones, are still lining up at her Savannah restaurant. Her next book, co-written with New York Times columnist Melissa Clark, and published by Ballantine Books, Paula Deen’s New Testament: 250 Favorite Recipes, All Lightened Up. is already #1 on Amazon.com. And in Albany, Georgia, plans to open a Paula Deen museum are moving ahead.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/28/racism-is-a-tough-sell-the-real-reason-everyone-dumped-paula-deen.html?

Time for a change of subject!
My mate just raised this issue on Facebook after re-watching the Harry Potter series.

'It's a safe assumption to make, that the majority of heterosexual males find Emma Watson hot. When watching the Harry Potter series, at what point is it okay to be attracted to the Hermoine character?'

Tough call, IIRC she started showing potential around the third movie and then grew up pretty quickly after that, I'm a year or two younger though I think so I suppose it's not that creepy from my perspective.

For a bit of perspective:
1st movie: Age 11
2nd movie: Age 12
3rd movie: Age 14
4th movie: Age 15
5th movie: Age 17
6th movie: Age 19
7th movie: Age 20
8th movie: Age 21

I agree that around the 3rd movie you could tell she was going to be an attractive girl, but it's that 4th/5th movie area that I find particularly interesting, and I'd love to hear some honest answers :lol:

"She doesn't look like she's just turning 17."
"No, she looks like she's just turning 18.
"Exactly. Plus Europeans use the metric system..."

1st movie 8-[

Yule Ball scene in Goblet of Fire. Dayum

I'd love to be there for when they fired some of the minor actors in the series for growing up ugly... :-"

:lol: What a great topic =d> :lol:
Like Eastern said, she was becoming more attractive in the 3rd movie but definitely sometime around the 4th/5th.

Basically this.

Can't believe she's 23 now. :shock:

Just realised how the title is a massive pun :lol:

5, 3 is just ew.

Can I post nudes

Glad you fellas appreciate the thread :lol: I thought it was an absolute corker of a topic, thus saving it for this thread :lol:

Just hard to say really...

10/10 would marry.

Pretty much this. Being a few years younger than her I guess it's not weird at all.

I know a guy who almost ran her over before she was famous.

Same age as her, starting reading the Potter books when i was 10. She is that crush to me. The Ultimate crush.

Yeah.... But looking back, would you go a 15 year old Emma Watson NOW?

Sweet jesus no.

16 maybe. Gotta remember the legalities of these things.

That's the whole point FFS :lol: we know the legalities, and we know you find her attractive, but when you loom back, knowing she is attractive, at what age do you find her attractive or 'hot' if you will? :lol:

Haha I know. Probably would tbh :')

The thing with asking a bunch of guys who are around the same age as her and grew up watching her the question becomes less "At what point is it okay to be attracted to the Hermoine character?" as "At what age did you start to notice girls?"

[youtube]j8ZF_R_j0OY[/youtube]

No it's not. Because when I was 12 and she was 15 I was attracted to her... But now, as a 20 year old, I find it troubling to think about being in any way aroused by a 15 year old....

Notor and the rest of you married blokes, when you look back at photos of your wife as an early teen, what goes through your head?

Usually "she's got the makings of a nice looking woman... And she should smile a bit more."

My point exactly. People are talking about when they personally first found her attractive in the past, with regard to their own age at the time etc. Not at as adults looking back at the films, where they draw the line between "young lady, is going to be pretty" and "fuck, she's become a stunner" in the movie series. They're talking more about when they first noticed girls than her physical development.

No-one cares what people thought when they were her age as the movies came out! The only interesting part is as an adult, re watching the movies, at what point do you find her attractive :lol:

People are missing this point!