Monday,
September 8, 2008 at 10:50am
I awoke today/night to the MTV movie awards and given
that my ear is always tuned to hearing the G word, I couldn’t help
but wince a bit every time time someone thanked their favorite sky
daddy for all their success. I forget which comedian made the point
of how ridiculous it would seem to think that a god, with all the
responsibility and purpose to take care of in the universe, would
concentrate on making sure you get a gold plated popcorn statue, but
I would like to echo that point. Something I did find quite
entertaining though was Russel Brand’s stabs at the Jonas Brothers
for their chastity promise rings to God. He did get a little fight
back from whoever that American Idol winner chick was(aha! Jordan
Sparks), who in retort called him a slut, but I think he recovered
quite nicely.
What this says to me is that yet again the idea
of sex is still demonized and carries with it so much more than I
feel it entails. The first, and perhaps meager point(?), I would like
to point out is that having sex does in no way make you a “slut.”
A few friends as I were discussing this the other day and when I was
asked what slut even meant, I couldn’t come up with any real
answer. I still can’t. I regard words like slut and whore just as
empty and baseless as spic or nigger. There is no real substance to
the words other than blind ignorance and disdain for something you
don’t understand and don’t care to. Of course there are reasons,
especially today, that one would find themselves up shit creek for
sleeping with whoever, whenever, and without protection, but none of
those reasons reflect what sex objectively is and does for the people
who are having it. You could just as easily point to anything, take
driving, and say it kills people, pollutes, etc. But no one is going
to stop, nor does it make it any more “evil” or wrong, because
someone invents a word that presupposes the malicious intent of
drivers.
So what, may we ask, are people’s real intentions?
This seems to be one of the sole things that matters when assessing
responsibility. Most people aren’t getting into cars ready to act
out a mission from GTA, and consequently, I would at least hope, many
people aren’t engaging in sex for rush of being so evil.(This
sounds really weird to me.) Take religion :). The vast majority go
into it, “find it,” what have you, because they think it
proscribes being a better person, striving for something more than
yourself, and good feeling, if only eventually. What are we to make
of the documentaries painting such a vivid picture of the hatred
being spread in mosques or the frothing of the mouth sermons from
Pastor Needs-To-Breath? Surely, it’s like the defenders of such
people and practices say, it’s all about spreading peace and a
loving message, no?
I’m almost positive I’m not just
something special when it comes to recognizing when someone is trying
to bullshit or read a token response to a question. If I’m right,
then my confusion only grows when I hear a representative of a mosque
that teaches pupils all the reasons the kaffirs (non-believers) need
to be killed, and how to do it no less, that he will “investigate”
the matter and “this does not represent” the real message of
Islam. Given that I’m watching the follow up documentary that quite
soundly shows how little he cared to act or change anything, I wonder
who, if anyone, will take the responsibility to make these people own
up to the hatred they are teaching. I’ve linked to the documentary
here
because I hate trying to re-hash something you can watch for
yourselves. The same would go for the numerous churches who would
rally against the usual laundry list of things they refuse to learn
about.
Switching gears a bit, after finding out a book I’ve
been off and on reading for a few years had a (perhaps primary,
perhaps subliminal) goal of portraying different world views as
either wrong or flawed in light of Christianity, I feel rather beaten
by what lengths people will go to blur lines, and essentially preach
through the facade of getting you better informed. (The fact the book
has been in my possession for years is what makes me feel stupid for
not noticing earlier) No one wants to look like a naive Christian, so
books like these will give you the skills and answers you need to all
your looming “what ifs” This is just as pointless as trying to
learn about modern Satanism from your youth pastor. What’s more to
the point is that someone may be extremely smart and apt for learning
or reporting on a particular culture or theme, but if they are known
for being even marginally apologetic or obligated to appeasing a
certain base of supporters, their work is automatically in question.
What good idea or intriguing find could that person have brought to
table if they had refrained from trying to explain it in light of
God’s will or purpose? I find it personally hard to accept anything
from someone I know is motivated by tweaking knowledge so it more
easily fits in with their agenda. A phrase like “most New Testament
scholars agree” is one that emanates this deceptive cloak, when
“most New Testament scholars” became such for the sole purpose of
defending the faith. We all knows fossils are put their to test our
faith, evil people have simply fallen and need more prayer, and the
devil..ah you get the point.
On a more personal note, I still
hate college so I’m doing everything I can to get my work done
early and play on frequently. By college I mean of course how its run
and what I’m not learning, not the people or weekends ;). I would
like to state for the record that I am maddeningly critical of what I
write or how I word things and never know how it will be received. I
really do appreciate any and everybody who reads these blogs and
thank you for making me feel like I’m not alone or crazy.
Updated
about 2 months ago
|
You
actually are alone and crazy...
no just kidding. |
| Report
- Delete |
|
|
Billy
Bowman
(Bloomington, IN) wroteat
3:31pm on September 8th, 2008
I disagree
Nick. I think God is the sole reason i succeed. I have nothing
to do with it. I have done no work at all, I'm not attending my
classes, doing the exam, turning in my homework, filling out
the paperwork and applications, going to my job on time, etc.
None of that was me, it was all God. He deserves all the
credit, I'm just a worthless peon that deserves no credit and
has done none of the work.
Switching gears.. sneaky little
bastards writing some of your material now eh? I'm surprised it
hadn't happened sooner actually, with all the you read, and the
number of deceitful christians (impossible! no, really) there
are.
I agree with you on college. I'm going to see if there
are projects i can do to simply get credit for some of the
classes I'm taking/going to take to prove i know what's being
taught.. though, it's easier to do that in programming type
classes, more so then in psych or philosophy classes, might be
worth talking to your advisor about it anyway. |
| Report
- Delete |
|
|
Nick
P.
wroteat
5:06pm on September 8th, 2008
Ya, I can
go through the syllabus for like psyche and maybe my music
class and see if I can just bypass this semester with a really
long paper or research project. That book I got from a friend
who attends a Christian college and it was like one of the very
first I started reading about different cultures. I randomly
decided to pick it up again and flip through and ya...its
amazing what you catch the more you read.
Cara, I'm just
the one saying things the loudest.
|
| Delete |
|
|
Nick,
First gear: Sex is sacred. When two individuals come
together in sexual intercourse, it is merely a physical
representation of the complete and total uniting of their soul
and spirit. Therefore, while sex may not be evil, sex outside
of marriage certaintly isnt pure. Sex is designed so that "The
two shall become one flesh," this is why sleeping with
multiple people, or people you are not married to is frowned
upon. Slut: Noun. An individual, typically female, who has
sexual relations with multiple, or an exceedignly unacceptable
and gross amount of partners. Sym: whore
I agree that
religious people, certain religious leaders especially have no
right "spreading peace." One thing I know, God is
Love. The crusades, jihad, terrorists, I dont see God in that.
I believe there was a time in ancient history where God did
wage wars, killed people, and wiped out civilizations because
they were terribly evil, however,in light of Jesus I am not
sure our God is in that business anymore, or at least not as
much. He could, and he would be right in doing so, but if he
did, our nation shouldnt be standing, wouldnt you agree?
|
| Report
- Delete |
|
|
Nick
P.
wroteat
5:33pm on September 8th, 2008
To your
first gear: We have no reason to presuppose any notion of a
soul or spirit that is in need of "uniting." Sex is
the most fundamental act of our species in order to do the one
thing everything likes to do most, reproduce. We got lucky
enough to develop foresight to avoid the usual consequences.
Sex outside of marriage isn't "pure?" Do you not see
how making everyone play by one religions rules you alienate
and insult people? For example, if every blog I wrote said, "By
simply referring to yourself as a Christian you automatically
are a cock sucking shit for brains." That's kind of how
you come across when you refer to people as impure. It would
also do religion well to keep its pastors(priests?) and
seminaries in check before they make edicts about what is pure
or not.
Dictionary defining slut and whore is rather
missing the point I think. Handing me the definitions to nigger
and spic wouldn't vindicate their appropriate use. Words like
unacceptable and gross are entirely subjective and have no
right to judge someone who sleeps around. Until your forced to
sit in the bedroom with them I feel you are want for a
justifiable objection against people who express themselves
sexually.
Love is love. God is whatever people want it
to mean. You don't see God there, millions of others do, and
the reason you can't fight against them is because your both
coming from the same false premise. Do you understand why I
"see God" in those things? Maybe its because the
people carrying out the acts are quoting religious texts and
praising their version of God before they carry out the act.
Hmmmm.
In light of Jesus? Jesus is kinda quoted in
supporting the old testament ideals. Also, and wow I don't want
to start making up potential stories for fairy tale figures but
hey, if some god existed outside space and time, not under
anyone's control, he could do whatever the hell he wanted
whenever. God farted, bam Katrina. God's p.m.sing bam cluster
bomb. I mean this can go forever.
|
| Delete |
|
|
Nick
P.
wroteat
5:36pm on September 8th, 2008
Also, do
you simply ignore or just not hear from the people who are
excited that we're about to be blown off the planet in a
nuclear holocaust because it would incite the second coming?
There is still genocide in Africa, we are still fighting Iraq,
Afghanistan, sooner or later North Korea. By all logical
accounts, no we shouldn't be standing and the only thing
keeping us at even a barely even keel is fear. |
| Delete |
|
|
Billy
Bowman
(Bloomington, IN) wroteat
5:41pm on September 8th, 2008
I'd be
excited if we blew ourselves into a nuclear oblivion, it would
serve to prove my point: people are stupid.
Also, as far
as the topic of sex goes, you know how i feel about higher
powers and what not, but i DO think people shouldn't be so
indiscriminant about sex.. it's just.. wrong. I mean, socially,
it's just unacceptable at some point. Like taking a crap in the
middle of a crowded room. Sure, it might be fun, and pretty
entertaining.. on some level.. but mostly, it's just kinda
sick. |
| Report
- Delete |
|
|
Nick
P.
wroteat
5:44pm on September 8th, 2008
lol do we
really need to be this specific? Ok, don't randomly fuck
anyone, nor do it all the time at any random occasion. I hate
words like wrong at right when it comes to personal affairs,
but I would call that irresponsible, rather gross, and asking
for trouble.
|
| Delete |
|
|
Billy
Bowman
(Bloomington, IN) wroteat
5:46pm on September 8th, 2008
"Ok,
don't randomly fuck anyone, nor do it all the time at any
random occasion. I hate words like wrong at right when it comes
to personal affairs, but I would call that irresponsible,
rather gross, and asking for trouble."
That's all i
mean, and as for the irrepsonsible, gross, asking for trouble..
i believe we have a word that describes someone who does just
that... slut, perhaps? |
| Report
- Delete |
|
|
Nick
P.
wroteat
5:48pm on September 8th, 2008
Slut kinda
presupposes those things. I mean, unless your following around
someone you know to be dirty and indiscriminately hooking up
with anyone, its usually baseless. I'm trying to get people in
the habit of getting evidence first and reasonable conclusions
afterward.
|
| Delete |
|
|
Billy
Bowman
(Bloomington, IN) wroteat
5:51pm on September 8th, 2008
Alrite, i
suppose i see your point, but honestly, sometime you really can
make such a presupposition, or you actually do know for a fact.
I can think of a few people, mostly guys, that i could safely
call sluts. |
| Report
- Delete |
|
|
Nick
P.
wroteat
8:19pm on September 8th, 2008
"Sex
is sacred. When two individuals come together in sexual
intercourse, it is merely a physical representation of the
complete and total uniting of their soul and spirit."
I
find this word choice intriguing. Its sacred yet "merely"
a physical "proof," if you will of something more
important, i.e. "the complete an total uniting of thier
soul and spirit." Supposing the soul/spirit exists and has
now been united, the marginal act of sex seems rather trivial
in light of this fact. Say I find someone who I'm spiritually
united with who provides much more than sex ever could, yet the
sex is coming from elsewhere. I would hardly feel impure or
that I don't have something sacred. |
| Delete |
|
|
Billy
Bowman
(Bloomington, IN) wroteat
8:36pm on September 8th, 2008
Just to add
a tidbit to what your saying Nick,
If you have managed a
'complete and total uniting of soul and spirit', i think THAT
idea just completely blows away anything and everything
physical because if you just united your soul and spirit, you
should be connected on a way nothing in the physical realm
could even think about trying to comprehend touching.
Don't
get me wrong, i just argued against indiscriminate sex. My
point here is your reasons against it seem flawed. |
| Report
- Delete |
|
|
|
"Handing
me the definitions to nigger and spic". explain how you
appropiately use this in context dealing with the word slut and
a dictionary. i'm trying to figure that out :) |
| Report
- Delete |
|
|
Nick
P.
wroteat
10:58am on September 9th, 2008
"Handing
me the definitions to nigger and spic wouldn't vindicate their
appropriate use." That's what I originally said, which
again, if anybody is out there trying to bring the words back
into the lexicon through Webster's, your still completely
missing the analogy. Defining a word alone is not what makes it
appropriate or acceptable, that's the only thing I was saying.
I feel the same kind of naive presuppositions are made, in
general, by the kinds of people who are quick to use those
words. |
|
