|
|
 |
|
Getting On : All My Politics
The Vandari in this one is strong - Part 2 | from Falcon - Tuesday, April 03, 2007
accessed 1976 times So, here are my continued thoughts on the first one! I say, let's show the cult that they can't hurt us, that we are strong, that we are a force to be reckoned with! I read there is a lack of positive content on this site...well, here is my "positive" contribution. Survivors - every day we are sad, down, lonely, shameful, guilty, depressed ?or suicidal - the abuser wins! We are not just survivors, we are conquerors! We have fought and won our freedom! We may moan, we may rant, we may winge, but at the end of the day, we are free!
If being ‘Vandari’ means I am free to choose what path my life will take, with all the risks, chances and steps towards a future of my own making…then I am Vandari and proud of it! Vandari means freedom! Vandari is a symbol we should all identify with because it means we are in control of our destinies.
Freedom--the absolute bliss, absolute pleasure, absolute serenity of freedom. Nothing and no one can take it from me again. I am liberated, whole, complete, myself, free. No human force to constrain me, I am the product of what I wish to become. An agent of myself. Of my own making. Beautiful in my own completeness—with all my scars of pain and misfortune, of joy and laughter, of struggle and overcoming. Perfect in the complete combination of what I was, I am and I will become.
Moving on? Yes, Moving on! The words ring in my ears like the chiming bells of freedom ringing through the skies, echoing across the changing time between what was and what shall be.
We are survivors, we are Vandari, and we are strong!
|
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from exister
Wednesday, April 04, 2007 - 13:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
settle down...
(reply to this comment)
| from live_fast-die_young
Wednesday, April 04, 2007 - 01:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hmm...I'm playing with the idea of a Vandari tattoo. Love the idea but it's the symbol itself which is in question. Maybe we could have a V. art competetion, in which people can submit their own design and then the favortie is chosen. Or was this done already?
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | |  From vix
Wednesday, April 04, 2007, 07:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think we should have another vandari art competition. The images we've got so far aren't gruesome enough for my tastes. I want a demon mascot whose likeness makes my skin crawl with revulsion, dammit!
The haiku are great. Thanks historian, for bringing them to my attention again.
I wonder where Banal took herself off to, I miss that girl!
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Somebody New
Sunday, April 08, 2007, 05:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
Why would any person/s trying to show themself/ves to be in "the right", want to consciously and deliberately employ blasphemy?
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
blas·phe·my /ˈblæsfəmi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ blas -f uh -mee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -mies.
1.
impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things.
2.
Judaism.
a.
an act of cursing or reviling God.
b.
pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) in the original, now forbidden manner instead of using a substitute pronunciation such as Adonai.
3.
Theology. the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.
4.
irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless, etc.: He uttered blasphemies against life itself.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Oddie
Sunday, April 08, 2007, 10:57
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Since when is blasphemy a bad thing? Muslims blaspheme the christ, christians blaspheme the holy prophet. When's the last time a Christian showed respect for the Kannon sama? I'll blaspheme anything I like.
"Impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things."
"God" in the English language commonly refers the Christian deity. Christian religious laws ban blaspheming this Christian god, in much the same way Kim Jong Il and Bobby Mugabe ban their subjects from cursing them in public. Now, if you are Christian, I don't expect you'd be following the religious laws of Muslims, Bhuddists, Sikhs, Wiccans, Hindus, etc. Now then, why should a non-christian be bound by christian laws? As far as I'm concerned, boyscout rules apply to boyscouts, nobody else. Religious laws are just a code of conduct required of people who need to join cults to feel better about their pathetic selves. It's a membership agreement for fools. Now if I don't want to join some fool club, I don't need to follow any fool club rules or terms. I refuse to adhere to any religious laws, Christian or otherwise. Not even the ten commandments.
Now, the last signification or definition you cite for this horrible crime of blasphemy..... "irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless". I hold promiscuous and wild sex romps sacred, I hold MILFs and WILFs sacred, I hold bloody gory splatter movies sacred, I hold strong drink sacred, I hold exotic meats and cuisine sacred (Try raw Ostrich. It beats Kosher mutton), and I hold humor at your deity's expense sacred.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Falcon
Wednesday, April 04, 2007, 02:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
Love that idea! Certainly a few more clothing items with diiferent Vandari symbols would be fun. I wore the shirt "my parents went joined a cult, and all i got was this lousy t-shirt" to a meeting with my dad and his face went white...he was scowling at me the entire time. It was good fun! They can't stand to have the obvious thrown in their faces. They love to sit there and "pretend" to love us with their fake family smiles, while praying against us "Vandari". ha, yes, I bet it would shock them if we took it up as a symbol, a banner of strength.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From madly
Wednesday, April 04, 2007, 02:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think the idea of clothing is great, but no needles for me, thank you very much... like my skin just the way it is, beautifully perfect and untouched. My inside is marked up and scared enough... don't feel the need to mark my outside in order to match it. I know who I am, what I am made of, what I had to endure, and what I am capable of… don’t need any reminder.
It would almost be like being branded with something that will forever remind me of the affect they had on me. I am hoping to one day put it all behind me and why would I want to be reminded every time I look into the mirror of that life and the fact that they stole 18 years from me? I am probably being dramatic and making too much of this, but I just think that would be so tacky and would make them a part of my life now.
Plus, why do something so permanent when life is ever-changing… knowing me, I would probably be bored with it within a week or so. Just thought I would add… have you ever looked at a tattoo on an elderly person? Just not attractive… and we now have to face the fact that we might have to get old with no white horses coming for us in the clouds anytime soon.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From live_fast-die_young
Wednesday, April 04, 2007, 04:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
I know what you mean, madly. It was more of a thought than an idea; I wouldn't really do it. Though I have to disagree with your opinion of tattoos in general. I usually like them...even on old people! They usally have a good story behind them (unless done in a kind of drunken-sailor-wakes-up-with-mother's-face-tattooed-on-arse manner). I was very close to getting a Thai poem down my sholder blade when I saw a photograph of one Ms. Jolie sporting something very similar and all plans were immediately cancelled. Eck..
And yet, I've long wanted to have poetry written on my body. Poetry was my only (constant) friend as a child & teenager, and it looks to be the greatest, and longest love of my life. All that's left to be chosen is WHICH poem, or piece of poetry, I should have written in permanent ink on my body. The Hollow Men (Elliot)? The Sunlight on the Garden (MacNeice)? One of my own? A friend of mine said "Just write 'POETRY' and be done with it!" and from then on the idea of The Tattoo has soured. I think it was Friedrich Von Schlegel, the philosopher, who said: "Women do not have as great a need for poetry because their own essence is poetry."
I begrudgingly tell that to myself every time I walk by a tattoo parlour.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From madly
Wednesday, April 04, 2007, 04:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
Please don’t get me wrong… I can appreciate how someone would want a tattoo or find them beautiful and interesting, as I have seen some amazing ones myself. It is obviously your prerogative to do what you will, with, and to your body… I actually find them quite attractive on men, for the most part, as long as they don't get too carried away. I was simply stating that they aren't my cup of tea, but different strokes for different folks and whatever floats your boat, babe.
I guess the problem I see with it is that when you mark yourself because of something you want to remember from your past, you are forgetting that in your future you may change and no longer wish to display such memories… I think if you can’t remember it without permanently adding it to your body, it must not have been all that great in the first place.
But I guess, on the other hand, many people view it as an art form and they wish to display memories from their life on their canvas. As for myself, I just don’t want to hide my body underneath that kind of art… I would rather my body be the art … for it to be displayed and not hidden behind ink. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From rainy
Wednesday, April 04, 2007, 03:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
And that is such a relief. I never knew how I was going to bear having to come on those horses and kill people. I really didn't want it to happen, as I imagined myself defying Jesus and trying to save them all instead. Those were moments when I seriously worried about my salvation. What a laugh. At least our kids won't really know what worry is, will they?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Shaka
Wednesday, April 04, 2007, 05:16
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Heh, that was the only part I looked forward to. Although Jesus would really be a gaping pussy to go into battle knowing he can't be hurt. I guess it would have to be that way because if he tried a Medieval style cavalry charge on a modern army playing it fair he'd be slaughtered. It brings a smile to my face imagining sitting up in a turret looking at unlimited toga-wearing, sword-waving, equestrian targets. Lock and load, hippies!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From vix
Sunday, April 08, 2007, 04:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
If my instinct hasn't served me well then I have spoken out of turn and I will gladly apologise for my rudeness. However I'll reserve judgement on that until I can better ascertain whether I am right about your identity. If you are who I think you are then I am quite sure you know why I (and many others) justifiably do not want you here.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Samuel
Sunday, April 08, 2007, 05:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
Somebody, I don't know you. But I can give you some advice.
From what you said a few bars up on the site, it sounds like you're a Christian. So am I. But to be honest, we don't really get a lot of Christians on this site. So when you come on this site and start talking about Jesus, it sounds to some people like you're preaching. I don't know if that's your intention, but the atheists and agnostics on this site can be very touchy about that. I don't blame them for a moment.
Another thing you might not realize is that over the past couple years, we have had problems with a particular "Christian" coming on this site. He's been blocked several times, and keeps reregistering and returning. He's taken on several names from "Professor Particlar" to "Cultured Gentleman" (a name which makes me want to gag). His sentence structure and wording is similar to yours. Vix is not accusing you of being him, but I'm sure you'll understand if some people on this site are a little cautious about who they trust. No one is accusing you of being him, they're just saying they're not sure.
If you're him, you need to get therapy and stay off this site. If you're not him, I will advise you to proceed on this site with caution. This is a site that we, as Second Generation Adutls, set up for ourselves where we can engage in all the free speech, ranting, and thought patterns that we want as we were forbidden all of these things in The Family. If you are coming to peach to us, you will be rejected on this site. As a Christian, I really don't think that's your job anyway. If there is a God, he's perfectly capable of revealing himself to people on this site in his time, and if he so chooses.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Sunday, April 08, 2007, 13:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
Samuel,
Just so you know JF was blocked again and my comment is not regarding him.
However, in response to one thing you said above: "we don't really get a lot of Christians on this site", actually there are quite a few.
I know this is off topic, but it seems to me that any Christians that post anything regarding their beliefs get hammered quite rudely on a regular basis. That seems a little unfair to me. I understand that preachy and condescending Christians especially trigger us and apart from that are just plain annoying, but I just wonder if a bit more tolerance might be in order at times.
Don't get me wrong, I am an out and proud atheist (none of this in-the-closet agnostic stuff for me), but if unbelievers really are more logical than believers, shouldn't our arguments bear that out? It's a bit embarrassing for me when atheists are as radical and fundamental as religious fanatics.
I am making my way through Dawkin’s books—I have The God Delusion but am currently reading The Blind Watchmaker first. However one book I have read is Michel Onfray’s In Defense of Atheism (translated by Jeremy Leggatt). Honestly I was quite disappointed. It’s the same sort of rhetoric that any fundamentalist would use. It’s not referenced and is really just more of the same old, same old. Yes religion sucks, but so does any extremist belief.
I believe that it is essential to a free society to separate religion from government, but it is also essential to tolerate and accept people’s rights to all beliefs. We all have complex and sometimes questionable thought processes. I think everyone engages in some magical thinking every now and then, whether it’s lucky socks or prayer or thinking we are responsible for something we really aren’t.
To me the definition of a fanatic is one that demands that you believe as they do or be rejected. Personally I’ve had more than enough of that. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Nick
Monday, April 09, 2007, 11:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
Off course Jules is real! I have known her since I was about 14 in the UK.
Anyone of the 200+ people that went to Rick's memorial would have met her there also.
Luv ya Jules! Thanks again for getting this site up and running and all the work that you and the other admins do to maintain it. (Except JW, he doesn't do shit on here!..... JK dude. :)
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From rainy
Monday, April 09, 2007, 01:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
I've often wondered if I've met Jules. I imagine that this beautiful skinny blonde girl who gave me a place to stay in her flat in London for three days, loved to collect perfume bottles, and called the family a 'cult' (It was the first time I'd heard it called such, and freed my mind in ways she never knew) Anyway, can't remember her name, but since finding this site, I've often imagined Jules to be that girl.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Samuel
Sunday, April 08, 2007, 20:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
Gee, thanks for the support, Lisa. :)
I don't see anything hypocritical about what I've said. I admit to trying to be the voice of reason, which I believe is a noble thing to do, but I would never attempt to be a spokesperson for everyone. I wonder why you would have a problem with that, though. To me it doesn't make sense that you would tolerate someone's views and opinions, while paining when you are in agreement with them. Are you feeling okay? (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Samuel
Sunday, April 08, 2007, 13:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thanks you much, Jules. I couldn't agree more.
That was my problem with JF, he came off as preachy and condescending. In my opinion, he was making other Christians look bad. I don't doubt that he had good intentions, but I'm under the beleif that if God is real, and he does exist, than he is perfectly capable of revealing his true nature to us in his own time. I believe he did that for me. But of course I can't prove it. I am also working on being more tolerant. In fact, I just got a copy of "The God Delusion", and I intend to read it. Since it's a 400 page book, I am very happy to have recieved a copy online, and not have to worry about reading it fast so I can return it to the library before it's due.
"Religion" can suck sometimes. The problem with "religion" is that a religious leader can abuse their power. In fact there are times when I don't like the "religion" part of Christianity. Christianity, in my opinion, is about living like Christ did, not about being religious. Too much religion can lead to extremism, something which I absolutely hate. I like to think for myself, rather than have someone else tell me what I should think.
I also believe that seperating religion from government is essential to a free society. Otherwise any group that has too much power can force its way on everyone else.
I could almost copy and paste your last paragraph for future use (but that would be wrong).(reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Sunday, April 08, 2007, 15:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
WTF. You can cut and paste JW, but do to that to me would be wrong? I am just crushed. :)
I think there is a difference between religion and belief. Another book I am currently reading is Snow by Orman Pamuk (yes I often start several books and read them at different times depending on my mood). I'm only about a quarter through this book, but one thing I have read that I thought was quite profound was about religion (in this case radical Islam) being about community. Faith, belief and conviction is usually solitary. It's religion that needs a number of people to support it.
With religion one gains an entire support structure and social group. That is a powerful pull. In most cases it is not as extreme as what our parents experienced, but it is still powerful nonetheless.
I am not knocking that pull. I suspect that perhaps many of us here and now gravitate towards different communities (including this one on MovingOn) for exactly the same reasons. We don’t want to feel alone, we want to be connected to other people who understand us and feel what we do, we want to know that we are more than just our individual experiences and feelings, etc.
IMO, where it all goes wrong is when people are dictated to on how they should believe, behave, think and feel. We are social beings and we are biologically driven to form social bonds with others. It’s not wrong to want that bond. It is so important though to balance the need to be accepted in a social community with the need for self preservation and to know where to draw boundaries, when to just let it go and when to say no.
It’s not easy to figure any of this out, not for me at least, but we fumble our way through and a web site is sometimes good for that. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Monday, April 09, 2007, 05:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
Copying and pasting someone's comments is not something I do often. I copied and posted JW's comments because they were old and had not been visited in a while, but very true, and most of all they agreed with mine :)
Yes, one of the reasons for church is to have a support structure and social group. There is nothing wrong with that pull. You're right, no one wants to feel alone or disconnected, we want connections with people who think like us and share our feelings.
I agree that where it all goes wrong is when people are dictated how they should behave, or what they should think. I don't want strict Pentecostals telling me that I shouldn' drink wine. I don't want Baptists telling me that I can't dance unless I'm dancing for God (and who is going to determine that?). I don't want Mormons telling me that I'm less holy because I don't have more than one wife or (gasp!) have none. I don't want Catholics telling me, as I've heard before, that if my church serves drink grape juice at communion it is not a sacrament. I also don't want them telling me that my friend has not been baptized because he was only sprinkled with water by a pastor, as opposed to being dunked. I'll read The Bible for myself, and determine what is true, and what is simply hype.
See you guys later.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Somebody New
Sunday, April 08, 2007, 05:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
In my last comment I all but admitted to being this same "Christian", as you put it, who has used various aliases, and has not been permanently discouraged or put off by ungrateful attempts to stem or block the necessary and vital message he has given, when I said "I'm afraid I don't know why '[you] (any many others) JUSTIFIABLY do not want me on this site'!"
I'm sorry if you gagged, I hope you were able to receive appropriate medical attention in time! Maybe it's because you don't really know me well enough...or are being a bit judgemental...or both!
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Sunday, April 08, 2007, 05:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
In that case, I'll have to assume that you are Frampton. A Christian means a follower of Christ. Christ would have comforted someone who had been sexually abused as a child, he would not have written a comment suggesting that if she was "honest with herself" she would admit that she was "doin' it an lovin' it". By condescending to people, and acting like you are better than others, you are not acting like Christ.
You, not I, are the one who needs medical attention. Try the local asylum. Please leave this site. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Somebody New
Sunday, April 08, 2007, 06:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
That comment, as I've said a number of times, was written partially tongue-in-cheek!
Of course I feel sorry for anyone who has been abused and have comforted and tried to comfort numerous people not only ex-members, but lots of others besides! I have been abused myself, both in the Family AND out of it, so I don't have to go very far or try very hard to understand what it feels like!
Jesus also said He did not come to bring peace but a sword, and sometimes controversial things need to be said for the purpose of getting to the truth, and sorting fact and truth from fiction and hysteria! Jesus would be in favour of the Truth, I believe! I had my reasons for saying that, and I make no apologies!
However it is unjust and unChristian of you (since you claim to be one) to take one small paragraph that a person has written, blow and distort it out of all proportion, and make a mountain out of a molehill, in order to point a finger of accusation; without "judging righteous judgement" and taking a balanced look at the whole person and the majority of what they say and do, or even caring to go any deeper!
I'm not even going to dignify your last paragraph with a response!
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Sunday, April 08, 2007, 09:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
All I know is that your condescending tone is not appreciated on this site by me, or the others on here. If you want a site that you can go to, as someone who joined The Family of their own free will, try Exfamily.org.
Sometimes controversial things do need to be said for the purpose of getting to the truth. If that is so, you've said enough controversial things on here when you put all your names together. Let it go. If there is a God, and I believe there is, then he is perfectly capable of revealing himself and his true nature to others in his time. He doesn't need you to annoy people on this site trying to get them to beleive in him. Plus, it's not going to work. All you're going to do is offend people.
Read Rainy's article that she posted today, with the comics. What did you think when you saw that? While some of them are funny, the comics take the Bible out of context, use innuendo and sweeping statements, and will not be anything to help spread tolerance in the world, which is what the world needs. For that reason, I found some of them to be offensive. What you fail to realize is that the atheists and agnostics on this site find your comments to be just as offensive.
In my opinion we are getting close to a world that is tolerant and everyone is accepting of their fellow man, no thanks to those comics.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From lisa
Sunday, April 08, 2007, 18:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
Tolerance, means we tolerate it, it's not liking or agreeing. It is an entirely overused catch-cry by people who don't want anything said against them. I don't think that any true believers can be tolerant, their dogma won't allow it. They can really only ever acheive an uneasy compromise, between what their religion demands and what society allows.
Tolerating something does not stop you from making fun it.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Sunday, April 08, 2007, 21:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
In that case, it seems that you do not understand what exactly tolerance is. One second, let me grab my dictionary:
tolernace: The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
You are correct when you say tolerance does not mean liking or agreeing with something. It means recognizing and being respectful of the beliefs of others. The question comes: Why would someone want to be tolerant? Because we, with all of our ideas and practices and thought patterns all share this planet together. Tolerance allows for a smoother ride. While tolerating something does not mean that you stop making fun of people who are different from you, it does mean that you respect their views and opinions.
Did you read the comics, Lisa? Maybe you saw the first one.
A child asks his Father if his eternal happiness would be affected by the knowledge that his son is suffering horribly in everlasting fire, to which the father responds that in Heaven God wipes away all memory of things that could possibly make him unhappy. There is no attempt to back up this new idea with reason or scripture. Why? Because, quite simply, it can't be done. The only verse in The Bible that even suggests this to be the case would have to be twisted way out of context. The punchline says that "Perfect happiness requires perfect ignorance." Do you see what's happening here, Lisa? The author is making a gross assumption about The Bible, one which can't be proven at all, and goes on to suggest that the members of this family are Christians because they are ignorant. Can you see how this wouldn't exactly make a case for tolerance? Surely simply being a Christian doesn't make someone ignorant, right?
The next one is funnier, but the message of intolerance is still there. The son tells his Father that he hates him, supposedly to satisfy the requirements of Luke 14:26. There is a misunderstanding here. The Message Bible gives a clearer view of what this verse really means. "Anyone who comes to me but refuses to let go of father, mother, spouse, children, brothers, sisters, yes- even one's own self-can't be my disciple." So the author was wrong. Hey, that's understandable- The Bible can be a very difficult book to understand and translate. The author finishes by making an assumption that the Old Mosaic law, complete with penalties, still stands. Jesus is shown giving the son a rock, and advising him to throw it at his Father for going into his office on Sunday. What the author does not realize is that in all their dogmatism, they forgot that the Sabbath day mentioned in the Old Testament is actually Saturday, not Sunday. But at this point, I am getting used to seeing factual errors in these comics.
Anyone who reads these comics, without understanding the basics of Christianity, would be led to beleive that Christians are hateful, ignorant, and very legalistic. Doesn't exactly help spread tolerance, does it?
Of course there is nothing wrong with making fun of Christians, as long as their views and opinions are respected.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From steam
Tuesday, April 10, 2007, 16:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
Interesting discusion on the first comic. Allow me to enquire your personal response to your hypothetical little one when asked "if your eternal happiness would be affected by the knowledge that his son is suffering horribly in everlasting fire". If your response is that you don't believe an unbeliever would suffer such a fate, one I am happy to hear that, and two why would you draw that conclusion from the Bible? On comic two, have you looked in to which translation was more accurate to the origional text, or did you just go straight to the one that is more appealing to a modern "enlightened" day and age. What did you think of the fig tree stuff, pretty hard to explain that huh? I wish to add that though most christians are not hateful, ignorant and legalistic. For the most part the text they claim to worship (THE WORD) is very much so. In my experiances often the best christians are those who if you really press them, are rather embarrased by some of the stuff in the bible (not just old testament) and therefore are in reality not exactly christians. However there is more to be gained for many by being a christian than just superstition. Something about that surrender can certainly be a path to attaining a sublime spiritual connection. I sometimes envy that. Maybe taking the red pill is the right move for a lot of people.(reply to this comment) |
| | From J_P
Tuesday, April 10, 2007, 04:13
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Why should we afford Christians, as a class of people, any special respect? Why do we have to tolerate each other based on religion?
While I can recognize your right to believe what you will, and treat you, as a fellow human being in a humane way, I have no need, desire or obligation to show any respect to your actual belief any belief system, if you can call it a 'system'.
Christianity, as with all religions, is fundamentally based on being unexplainable by its very nature. If the only explanation is that there is no explanation, then its no good.
You might experience something very "real" about how it makes you feel, but you'll find people moved in the same way about a rock band, a good book or tree stump. That just proves how the human mind can be impressed, not that the belief is in fact true.(reply to this comment) |
| | From loch
Tuesday, April 10, 2007, 10:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
I could not agree with an explanation of Christianity more! Christians say over and over that they can not prove anything, but in their heart, they just know god is real.
In my heart I know I felt something amazing through a substance, but never will I devote my life to this experience or call it faith in a higher power. Just because it heightened my senses.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Oddman
Sunday, April 08, 2007, 22:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
Sammy, I choose to respect an individual's right to believe in something, anything. I respect an individual's right to choose to believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Willy Wonka, the Mad Hatter, or Jesus Christ. I don't care if there's substantial reason to believe the story of Jesus Christ is one big fraud, or if every issue raised as evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ as some be-all end-all way to eternal life, can be refuted in a quarter of a nano-second flat. Everybody has the ability and in my opinion, the right to choose what to believe. Whether you choose to believe the moon is gorgonzola, mirrors are bad luck, or blind belief in Jesus Christ will grant you a get out of hell free card, it simply isn't for me to decide what you will believe in. I think Christianity is a stupid religion. Because I find it such a stupid religion, I think people who choose to be Christians are people who have made at least one stupid decision. But I respect your right to be a Christian, regardless of how stupid I think your decision is. I respect your right to believe, and I respect your right to practice your religion within the privacy of your own home.
On the other hand, I have every right to disrespect your choice. I have every right to think you are less intelligent for choosing a religion that makes no sense, and I have every right to make fun of your senseless choice. I further have every right to desecrate whatever it is you consider holy. As far as I'm concerned Jesus Christ, Superman, Wolverine, Spiderman, they make no difference. All are nothing more than fictional superheros that most people grow out of, around the same time they stop wanting to sleep with daddy because thunderstorms are scary. The only discernable difference is that when things go wrong, when their kid gets run over, when they can't pay a mortgage, people are sensible enough not to point a big flashlight at the night sky and wait for Batman to solve their problems.
Tolerance is not about ignoring diversity. Tolerance is about recognizing and accepting another's freedom of diverse belief. You are complaining that when people mock your god, they are being intolerant of your religion, while you are being entirely intolerant of other's choice to mock your religion, based on their beliefs.
You are welcome to come up with comics making fun of people like me that choose not to believe in existence of the supreme phantom deity. I am free to laugh at your belief in Jesus, in much same way you'd laugh at someone who chooses to believe they've had raunchy romps with goddesses.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Oddman
Monday, April 09, 2007, 13:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
Omigosh kewl, I know, I know! Wow, this is like, so weird you know. We must be like, SO on the same page. I mean, you know, the idea of a gorgonzola moon is like, you know, so stupid. I mean, like, it's almost as stupid as believing that faith in a guy who never existed will get you to a place that doesn't exist.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From afflick
Sunday, April 08, 2007, 09:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
So, using your logic, if I wrote fifty comments on this site and forty-nine of them were "I love puppies and plant daisies" and the measly other comment alluded to the fact that young children enjoy being raped and ravaged, then I should expect the "Christian" response of acceptance and appreciation for my puppy-loving, daisy-planting antics and not revulsion for my child-raping comment. Correct?
Recently, I have been drawn to the television program Dateline on NBC and their series "To Catch a Preditor." I have noticed that, when caught, the police are much less concerned with the perp's community good works than with the sexual Internet chats these men have had with decoys posing to be minors. Do you think that is a mistake on the cops' part? Should they instead say, "I see this Internet chat log where you described having oral with what you believed to be a twelve-year old girl, but it has also come to our attention that you regularly donate to the United Way. Let's just call it even"?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from madly
Tuesday, April 03, 2007 - 22:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
Glad to see it back again... liked it just as much the second time around. :)
(reply to this comment)
|
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]