Monday, September 8, 2008

[130] A Few Fleeting Thoughts

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

Cara Zimmerman (Chicago, IL) wroteat 11:37am on September 8th, 2008
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



Benjamin Joesph Tapper (Northern Indiana, IN) wroteat 5:18pm on September 8th, 2008
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



Neven Matthew Holland wroteat 9:51pm on September 8th, 2008
"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.