“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
Y'know, there are some so-called religious leaders that REALLY shouldn't attempt to teach the bible, or explain anything requiring logic.
For example, on a local religiously, (Christian), themed radio station, a "Pastor" was attempting to explain the story of the Garden of Eden.
Now, he started off by explaining the whole set-up...paradise, Adam gets dominion, the whole standard shebang. He also went on to explain the whole "Apple" thing as that while the whole garden was filled with good things to eat, there were two trees that stood out.
One, which was the "Tree of Life" Adam was allowed to eat from, and would serve all his needs. The other, was the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" AKA: The "Forbidden tree".
God supposedly told Adam that he could eat of anything in the garden EXCEPT the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. And he did this as a "Test" of Adam's obedience and care of God's commandments.
Then, when Eve came along, and there was the whole "Apple incident", God threw the both of them out on their cans.
Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but that seems like a royal dick move on God's part. You see, from where I'm sitting, it would seem to me that the "Knowledge of Good and Evil" is exactly what allows people to tell the difference between right and wrong! Until Adam and Eve ate of that fruit, they simple would not have been able to conceive of why it would be wrong to disobey God. Which is, of course, EXACTLY as God supposedly made them. WTF?
That would be like me adopting a barely weaned puppy, telling it to use the puppy-pads, but NOT training it at all, and then throwing it out into the snow when it piddled on the floor. How the hell is it supposed to understand the rules if it has no concept of what a Puppy-pad IS, much less why it should use one?
Guys, not my religion, but before you start speaking, maybe, just maybe, you ought to sit down and actually THINK about what you are saying? Because this God fellow you are describing sounds like a real asshole.
Anyone else as disgusted by Twilight as I am?
I mean, I get the whole doomed romance thing, but there's two MAJOR issues for me that turn the series from a mediocre tweener wankfest into something totally beyond for me.
1: Edward = 108 years old
Bella = 16?
Edward might LOOK young, but he isn't. Think of it this way: Would you want Strom Thurmond
nosing around a 16 year old talking about "Soul Mates"? To me, Edward is nothing more than a pedophile/child abuser that uses his youthful looks to get close to his next victim. His body might be frozen at 18, but his mind and personality aren't.
2: Edward identifies as a Vampire, not as a Human. I might like my pet cow a whole lot, but at the end of the day, it isn't human, and ultimately, it is my dinner. You just don't sleep with the entree. When it all comes down to it, Edward is a predator, whether or not he chooses to indulge, and Bella is in his species' primary prey creature list. Maybe its just me, but I've never been tempted to date my next cheeseburger.
Combined, these two things push Twilight out of the realm of "Annoying but tolerable" into "utter loathing" from my POV.
Thoughts from the Gallery?
Dear stupid pet owner,
When your vet's office tells you on Tuesday that you kitten likely has a linear foreign body obstruction and needs exploratory surgery, perhaps...just perhaps, it might be in your cat's best interest to make up your mind and either approve the surgery or put the poor thing to sleep sometime before three PM on Saturday?
The extra few days of vomiting and increased pain/discomfort really didn't do it any good. It's also possible that we wouldn't have had to resect four and a half inches of necrotic small intestine.
Tell you what....if you ever get appendicitis, how about we wait a week or so before doing anything?
PO'd, pet loving vet-tech
There's a reason why I loath "Twilight". (And not just the insipid plotline and marginal writing)
I think this says it all:
see more Funny Graphs
You know, there are times when I have hope for the human race. When I think that just MAYBE , we might have a chance to evolve to become something more than a killer ape with a thin veneer of quasi-civilization.
Then I turn on the evening news, or listen to the so called "Leading minds" of our world...political, religious, business, it doesn't matter....or just talk to people in general, the "Average Joe". And I realize that the vast majority of humans will never be anything more than a monkey in shoes, ready to fling feces on whoever happens to be closest when the tantrum of the day strikes.
Lately, it seems like I've been running into a lot of people who want me to convert to whatever brand of Christianity it is that they follow. The common threads that seems to be running through all the attempts to bring me over to "The right way", are a firm conviction that they, and ONLY they, have the one "Truth" and that everyone else is at best deluded, (and more likely evil), and that for some reason, they feel the need to shove it down my throat, whether I want it or not.
I HAVE, however, found a question that seems to stop them in their tracks. It's a little involved, but bear with me.
"OK then, It seems to me, that your arguments and persuasions all seem to be boiling down to basically two things:
One: A personal revelation, where you had a flash of understanding and a feeling of connection to your particular man in the sky.
and Two: An appeal to authority...either a written scripture, or figure which you reference...commonly one who relates his or her own personal revelation.
Now, I have no problems with personal revelation as a means to connect with the divine, but being that such a thing is intensely personal and specific, and I have had no such revelation, that really does me no good. If you have had such a revelation, I am happy for you, but it doesn't apply to me.
And as for your scriptural authority...well, if I accepted your scriptures as "truth" I'd already BE a Christian, now wouldn't I?
So, given that I don't accept your scriptures as authentic or applicable to ME....they might be for you, but you aren't the one you are trying to convince...and that personal revelation would only apply if I had actually HAD one...what argument can you present to persuade me to your viewpoint that DOESN'T go back to one of those two points?
It is at this point that the person in question usually just stands there gaping like a landed carp and splutters something about, "But the Bible IS True!"
Perhaps someone reading this can answer a logical inconsistency for me?
Now, if I understand religious theology correctly, one of the most valuable and precious gifts that God supposedly granted mankind is the gift of Free will. And that part of being a "True Believer" is to consciously and willfully CHOOSE to follow "God's Laws". To have a choice between "Good" and "Evil" and to knowingly select "Good". (I am not going to get into whether or not a given god's laws are good or not, that's a discussion for another day.)
SO, that being the case, I do not understand the obsession that some religious sorts have of trying to censor information, or to ban things that they consider "immoral". (Like Gay Marriage)
If you remove any reference to there being another choice, do you not therefore negate free will? Are you therefore not throwing God's gift back in his/her face? How can anyone's choice to select one path over another have any meaning if you hide or prevent the choices?
If you truly believe that Gay Marriage is sinful, (I don't), and you believe Homosexuality to be a conscious decision, (Again I disagree) then why would you wish to ban it? Would not the choice to participate be an exercise of the Free Will granted by God, whether or not you agree with it? Would not then, the consequences of that choice be a matter between God and the individual making that choice?
Also, does not the conscious profession of Faith in a particular belief system, (e.g.: Catholicism, Baptist, Wicca, etc...) mean more if there is an actual CHOICE involved? How can you profess to have declared for a particular faith, if you are never able to learn anything of substance about any other faith?
Choice means nothing if there is not an alternative between selections. For example, say I go to buy a car, and the only car available is a black Ford Focus. Does it mean anything that I buy a black Ford Focus? Does it say anything about my tastes and preferences? My needs? Nope, just that I had a selection group of one. No choice at all.
It would seem to me, that attempting to remove these choices from people, is to spit in God's eyes and scorn the gift of free will that he/she supposedly gave us.
It would seem to me, that when you try to hide choice and deny free will, you would be committing an even greater sin than those choosing to do "Wrong". For it would seem to me, that by preventing a true Free Will choice to serve your god, you therefore make any such decision invalid and prevent those souls from attaining proper communion with their version of the Divine.
Perhaps someone can explain this to me?
Comment to this post and I will give you 5 subjects/things I associate you with. Then post this in your LJ and elaborate on the subjects given.
</a></b></a>sistahraven gave me:
Equal rights : A strong belief of mine. I feel that unless EVERYONE is accorded the same rights AND responsibilities that inequality and prejudice are limiting what we could all become, and the advancement of EVERYONE.
Gaming : A long term Hobby. Something I have been doing since around 1976 when I started on the old D&D boxed set. No, not AD&D, back when I started, Dwarf was a character class.
</a></b></a>briar_witch : My beloved wife. The light of my existance and my better 90%.
Vacationland (for obvious reasons) : Yep, Mainer born and bred.
Logic: Very important to me. Logic and reason are what separate us from the animals. Alas, far too few actually use the brains that we were granted, and instead float along on a sea of self-indulgence, and unthinking emotions. Far too many who SHOULD know better substitute what they WANT things to be, for what things ARE. Emotions have their place, and are quite valuable, but we should not allow them to cloud our judgement. By Myers-Briggs type I am an INTP http://typelogic.com/intp.html
You know, watching the whole Presidential transition of power, and the financial crisis, I am struck by a few things.
There is a certain segment of the people that want "Action NOW!"...and are lamenting the fact that President Obama cannot just mandate the government reaction to the crisis.
They want him to just be able to say: "I'm the president, this needs to be done, go do it."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we just kick a presidential loser OUT of the office who had exactly that view of the world?
Seems to me, that a lot of folks' views of the proper amount of presidential power varies according to who's in office, and how much he agrees with their views of the world.
Sorry, folks, but here in America we DON'T want our presidents to have unfettered power. I believe we fought a revolution a good while back over that very issue. We WANT the President to have to work at things, to build coalitions, to make compromises...and yes, that means that in some cases, our response to crisis is sub-optimal.
For one thing, while I agree in general with a lot of what President Obama says he wants to accomplish, my agreement is NOT universal. For example, his views on gun regulation and control worry me.
And even were I to agree with everything he wanted without reservation....what about the next guy? What happens after the next change of power?
Even if I were to trust President Obama's motives, ethics, and goals without reservation, (I don't, he's a politician...enough said), What about when he's no longer the President? Do we really want to set a precedent like that? Do we want another Bush in office with even less check on his power? How about Hilary? Do you trust either of them without a brake on their actions/power?
Sorry folks, I know it's frustrating, but better this mess than an Imperial Executive.