I saw the movie, "Buried," a while ago, starring Ryan Reynolds and it evoked an idea. While watching the movie I challenged myself to stay completely calm knowing that I always get on the edge of my seat in tense moments. I watched the movie with the lights off and for once I didn't run to turn them back on. Lately, I've been practicing being calm and assertive and movies are a great way to test ones ability in this area.
Of course, the character in the movie was anything but calm which is understandable given that he awoke to find himself buried alive. This particular character turns out to not be particularly strong mentally given that he had several breakdowns and at one point contemplated killing himself. As most of us know, staying calm conserves oxygen.
This gave me the idea of testing my own mental capacity. You see, it's easy to say that this guy should do this or that when you're watching a fictionalised skit in the comfort of your own home. The question is, what would I really do?
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Inception
How do you know you're not dreaming right now? How do you know which reality you are in? My advice is that you don't spend to much time pondering such questions because you will quickly come to question your reality and this can be very dangerous.
I am a very vivid dreamer. Like most dreams, ones dreams including my own often have elements of ones reality strewn about within them. The most common place I am in a dream is at my old school, St. Joseph's Elementary. I moved around alot as a kid, and this is the school I spent the longest amount of time at so it makes sense that this one would come up. My dreams or rather my nightmares generally have a rabid dog in them, and I'm usually running from it. Chase dreams are actually one of the most common dream types that people experience.
Over the years though, given that I have vivid dreams, I've learned how to manipulate my subconscious and in essence control my dreams if I so choose. Usually, I just let my dreams play through because it can be quite the adventure. I love being able to connect themes, people, and places in my dreams to when I've seen them in real life. It's been said, after all, that every person in your dream is someone you've seen in real life.
I've also managed, through practice of course, to enter into my subconscious while awake as well. It's a process I won't detail here since it can affect how you percieve your own reality, so I generally over see the practice when friends and aquaintences have done it.
The human brain is extraordinary and we can just barely understand the human mind. I wouldn't say it's something to be feared but just, be cautious.
I am a very vivid dreamer. Like most dreams, ones dreams including my own often have elements of ones reality strewn about within them. The most common place I am in a dream is at my old school, St. Joseph's Elementary. I moved around alot as a kid, and this is the school I spent the longest amount of time at so it makes sense that this one would come up. My dreams or rather my nightmares generally have a rabid dog in them, and I'm usually running from it. Chase dreams are actually one of the most common dream types that people experience.
Over the years though, given that I have vivid dreams, I've learned how to manipulate my subconscious and in essence control my dreams if I so choose. Usually, I just let my dreams play through because it can be quite the adventure. I love being able to connect themes, people, and places in my dreams to when I've seen them in real life. It's been said, after all, that every person in your dream is someone you've seen in real life.
I've also managed, through practice of course, to enter into my subconscious while awake as well. It's a process I won't detail here since it can affect how you percieve your own reality, so I generally over see the practice when friends and aquaintences have done it.
The human brain is extraordinary and we can just barely understand the human mind. I wouldn't say it's something to be feared but just, be cautious.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Zombies and Sex
I got thinking about zombies one night after watching various zombie YouTube videos, mostly Resident Evil and Dead Island themed. It got me thinking about what zombies represent and especially what their hyper-evolution from slow shamblers to fast moving thinkers that can fire a gun.
Zombies, in mythology, have been around for hundreds of years. Usually, zombie lore can be found in tropical islands in the Pacific and more recently in the Caribbean. This is because certain toxins from fish and other sea creatures can be used as a paralyzer, so it appear you are dead even to a doctor, unless he was specifically trained to detect such paralyses. It slows your heartbeat down so that you have no pulse and could only be detected if you were hooked up to an EKG. Needless to say, some persons have been buried alive because of this.
It is from these facts that zombie lore originates from as it takes on a more religious connotation. Traditionally, primal or animist religious beliefs such as voodoo and hoodoo hold that if you in essence use black magic, which would include the use of a paralytic, one could cause someone to become a zombie. A zombie in this sense, is understood to be a harmless, yet mindless slave. Zombies were used to harvest sugar cane in Haiti, for example, if local legends are to be believed. For an example of this, you can watch, "White Zombie," on YouTube. It's a public domain film, so it's legal to reproduce it there.
It is not until the 1960's, or the Sexual Revolution, that the flesh eating variety was created by George Romero. It's these precise origins of the flesh eating variety of which I'm specifically interested in. I could be wrong, but to me the flesh eating variety of zombies infers a metaphorical sexuality, that is, just as a zombie is reduced to the basic urge to feed, so does the Sexual Revolution basically reduce a human being to the slightly more complex urge to mate without ceasing. The evolution of the flesh eating variety of the zombie from slow shambler to sprinter ironically parallels the increasing pervasiveness of sexual permisiveness and promiscuity in today's society.
It's also important to not that as societal collapse in the zombie world has become increasing serious and wide spread, so too has societal collapse come in the real world, due in great part to reducing humans to sexual objects as opposed to beings with great dignity to which sex is a sacred act.
Viruses seem to be a main cause of creating zombies in popular culture which could literally allude to sexually transmitted diseases but again in a metaphorical sense could denote that the permisive pervasiveness of sexuality is kind of like a disease. Coporations as the cause behind zombies could indicate the affects of materialism on sexuality namely that sex is now viewed as a commodity rather than a gift.
Zombies, in mythology, have been around for hundreds of years. Usually, zombie lore can be found in tropical islands in the Pacific and more recently in the Caribbean. This is because certain toxins from fish and other sea creatures can be used as a paralyzer, so it appear you are dead even to a doctor, unless he was specifically trained to detect such paralyses. It slows your heartbeat down so that you have no pulse and could only be detected if you were hooked up to an EKG. Needless to say, some persons have been buried alive because of this.
It is from these facts that zombie lore originates from as it takes on a more religious connotation. Traditionally, primal or animist religious beliefs such as voodoo and hoodoo hold that if you in essence use black magic, which would include the use of a paralytic, one could cause someone to become a zombie. A zombie in this sense, is understood to be a harmless, yet mindless slave. Zombies were used to harvest sugar cane in Haiti, for example, if local legends are to be believed. For an example of this, you can watch, "White Zombie," on YouTube. It's a public domain film, so it's legal to reproduce it there.
It is not until the 1960's, or the Sexual Revolution, that the flesh eating variety was created by George Romero. It's these precise origins of the flesh eating variety of which I'm specifically interested in. I could be wrong, but to me the flesh eating variety of zombies infers a metaphorical sexuality, that is, just as a zombie is reduced to the basic urge to feed, so does the Sexual Revolution basically reduce a human being to the slightly more complex urge to mate without ceasing. The evolution of the flesh eating variety of the zombie from slow shambler to sprinter ironically parallels the increasing pervasiveness of sexual permisiveness and promiscuity in today's society.
It's also important to not that as societal collapse in the zombie world has become increasing serious and wide spread, so too has societal collapse come in the real world, due in great part to reducing humans to sexual objects as opposed to beings with great dignity to which sex is a sacred act.
Viruses seem to be a main cause of creating zombies in popular culture which could literally allude to sexually transmitted diseases but again in a metaphorical sense could denote that the permisive pervasiveness of sexuality is kind of like a disease. Coporations as the cause behind zombies could indicate the affects of materialism on sexuality namely that sex is now viewed as a commodity rather than a gift.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Atheists: Prove God Doesn't Exist
This challenge was posted by a Christian for obvious reasons. Another Christian came along and borrowed from their challenge and modified it to challenge Christians to respond to common atheist arguments. I opted to take this challenge as indicated below. I encourage you to challenge yourselves privately, how would you answer or if you want, what arguments would you use to disprove God.
Challenge 1: God dosen't exist because there is evil/suffering/death.
Evil, suffering and death create no end of difficulties for those theists who want to retain the traditional "theistic attributes" of omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence. It's philosophical theology's historic 'problem of evil'. Of course, an ignorant, uncaring or impotent 'God' might be more consistent with evil, suffering and death, but that's a pretty dramatic redefinition of the concept.
My Response: Despite evil and suffering, God exists. Evil and suffering exist so that greater good may come of it. For example, look at nature. A young sappling sprouts only to be munched on by caterpillars and eaten by a dear. The sappling nourishes the dear which is the killed and eaten by wolves. The dear keeps the wolves from starvation and they die of old age. The corpses of the wolves turn to soil and offer good nutrition for the sprouting sappling. I submit to you that without the necessary sufferings and evil of death that there would be no life at all.
Challenge 2: God dosen't exist because believers are hypocrites.
That one doesn't speak to God's existence so much as it tends to discredit theistic believers' arguments from religious experience. Religious believers often claim to have been touched, even to have had their lives transformed, by the "holy spirit" or something. But in reality, religious believers don't seem to be any different than non-believers when conducting their secular affairs and they don't seem to be any more moral, caring, compassionate or wise.
My Response: The hypocrisy and sin of men does not disprove God, but makes God necessary. I agree that many of those professing a religious creed are often no different than those not professing one. The very fact that man often lacks moral direction and a sense of decency shows that on his own man could never create or uphold an uncompromised moral code. Many of the codes -such as karma- encourage immorality because each man thinks he is infalliable and not all men have the same mind thus there is a contradiction. Many of the codes have similar elements. How can this be but that there is a God of whom we percieve and makes himself known to us through the similarities in the codes even if in practice we do not keep the codes we make. How could we even agree to the contents of the code if we cannot even agree on who should govern us, save for a higher Authority.
Challenge 3: God dosen't exist because believers can't prove God exists
The idea of proof is kind of a red-herring. (Proofs are rarely encountered outside mathematics and logic.) The issue is whether there is convincing (if probabilistic) evidence for some generic philosophical "God's" existence, or for the existence of some particular "God" such as Yahweh or Vishnu derived from a particular religious tradition. (The word 'God' is rarely defined adaquately. In Western discussion, it's typically just assumed that the word connotes the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible.) Lack of evidence isn't "proof" of 'God's' non-existence. But lack of evidence for something is excellent justification for not believing in the existence of that thing. That's how we typically operate in our normal lives.
My Response: The existence of God is not a scientific one but a philosophical one. Say for example, I combine baking soda with vinegar. Gas is released and a solid participate is left behind. However, looking at the participate, although one could determine the original substances were vinegar and baking soda, one could not determine that I had put these two substances together -they could only assume I had. I could come to them and say that I had created the resultant but one does not have to believe me. Thus though there are natural laws and reason, these alone cannot prove or disprove God. Belief, that is, faith, is required either way.
Challenge 4: God dosen't exist because I have never seen or felt God.
That's essentially the last one restated. I guess that the difference here is the implied argument from authority. Maybe YOU have never seen or felt God, but I HAVE. Or MY PERFECT CHURCH HAS. The question then is whether it's reasonable to accept claims about the existence of something unseen (and seemingly unseeable) simply on the authority of the individual theist or his or her church.
My Response: There is no proof that sorrow is real except in ones own experience and that of tears rolling down anothers cheek. Nor can joy be percieved except by ones own experience and that of a smile on anothers face. There is no scientific test to verify these things -no scientific method. All there is to validate these things is personal testimony and yet these things are universal. So too is God, although testimony is all we can offer. If we have not experienced him we have seen him. for example, most of us have not experienced the loss of the child but we can, though imperfectly, percieve the deep grief of those who have and we learn from them. Similarily, not all recieve the grace of faith but we can percieve the deep faith of others. Though we cannot percieve God as we would like always -seeing or feeling- He is still there. Though we can't percieve another's sorrow, we know that they are grieving. Though we can't percieve the joy of another, we know that they have joy. We just know.
Challenge 5: God dosen't exist because my prayers aren't answered.
I don't think that one would arise for an atheist, would it?
My Response: God always answers prayer, He just doesn't always give us what we want. God will either say yes, no or wait. Getting a no (or no response), doesn't mean He doesn't exist.
Challenge: 6 God dosen't exist because Christians killed people in the Inquisition/Crusade/ancient time.
This one essentially restates number two, up above. If God changes lives, then one would expect to observe believers living more moral, compassionate and wise lives than the rest of us lead. One would expect the action of the "holy spirit" to actually have observable effects.
My Response:A Christian is not God, he does not magically become a perfectly moral person nor does God ever promise that. In fact, such would go against the laws of nature if he did. Remember the sappling at the end of my example from earlier? It will take atleast a hundred years or more until it is fully grown. So too does it take many years for the best wines to ferment. It can also take years and years before a professed Christian could be considered of saintly morality. But the failing of man does not deny God's existence any more than it would purport to go against evolution - since neither in evolution is found a perfectly superior organism.
Challenge 7: God dosen't exist because the Bible is man-made/corrupted.
This one doesn't address God's existence so much as it attacks the idea that the Bible is the one unique (and some would insist infallible and inerrant) revelation of God. (Whatever 'God' is.) If the Bible is, as it certainly appears to be, man-made and rather crude in spots, then that would seem to create greate difficulty for the religious claim that it's God's own word. If one's only reason for believing in God is what the Bible says, then this one certainly impacts that justification of that belief.
My Response: Every teenager rebels against their parents in one way or another. Each doubts their parents to be right about this or that. It is often not until the parents themselves have died or the teens grow-up and raise teens of their own that they realise how right their parents were. So are we like teenagers when faced with the Word of God. We question it's authority and think we know better but often it [the Word of God] can be found to be correct even if it takes us into our old age -for looking back at our actions and that of our generation we regret going against His Word. The history of man is riddled with the collapse of empires that sought to uphold relativistic ideals.
Challenge 8: God dosen't exist because God killed people in the Bible.
This one revisits the problem of evil. It represents a strong (and to my mind irrefutable) argument that the God of the Old-Testament is not a suitable object of human worship. Even Adolph Hitler would be shocked by some of the things that God supposedly did. If human beings are judged 'evil' for doing X or Y, then I can't see how God can escape the same judgement for doing the same things. To expect anything less would be to accept that God is mankind's moral inferior.
My Response: It is an interesting argument. But you see, it is God who created us -we did not create ourselves. It is God who knows the hearts and minds of people, we do not though it certainly doesn't stop us from thinking we do. Every society has punishments for those that transgress its rules. Many societies past and present have the death penalty as a punishment. Sometimes the death penalty is used to protect lives and sometimes it is merely the ultimate punishment. People are always informed of the rules and resulting punishments and yet many still choose willing to commit such crimes. So it is of God. He has set rules and punishments and many go against him anyways. Murder is considered immoral because it makes the murderer a god. The reason behind killing another human being is what determines the morality of killing another human being. That is why only God is really the only one just in allowing death for he he first created us and knws our secret thoughts. He doesn't allow death out of necessity or some sort of gain, rather He keeps His Word and gives to the people what they have asked for. Only He has the Authority to do so.
Challenge 9: God dosen't exist because Jesus is not God.
That's a Christian-specific point that probably doesn't make much sense to an atheist.
My Response: So it was that people to this day believe dinosaurs do not exist despite the bones, for they personally did not see the living dinosaurs. So too it is difficult to believe that Jesus is God despite the miracles. Just as we are told about dinousars and how they lived by an authority by which we are compelled to believe, so also are we given testimony of Jesus which we are compelled to believe. But just because one believes dinosaurs did not exists doesn't mean they did or didn't, so also does one not believing Jesus is God affect whether he is or isn't.
Challenge 1: God dosen't exist because there is evil/suffering/death.
Evil, suffering and death create no end of difficulties for those theists who want to retain the traditional "theistic attributes" of omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence. It's philosophical theology's historic 'problem of evil'. Of course, an ignorant, uncaring or impotent 'God' might be more consistent with evil, suffering and death, but that's a pretty dramatic redefinition of the concept.
My Response: Despite evil and suffering, God exists. Evil and suffering exist so that greater good may come of it. For example, look at nature. A young sappling sprouts only to be munched on by caterpillars and eaten by a dear. The sappling nourishes the dear which is the killed and eaten by wolves. The dear keeps the wolves from starvation and they die of old age. The corpses of the wolves turn to soil and offer good nutrition for the sprouting sappling. I submit to you that without the necessary sufferings and evil of death that there would be no life at all.
Challenge 2: God dosen't exist because believers are hypocrites.
That one doesn't speak to God's existence so much as it tends to discredit theistic believers' arguments from religious experience. Religious believers often claim to have been touched, even to have had their lives transformed, by the "holy spirit" or something. But in reality, religious believers don't seem to be any different than non-believers when conducting their secular affairs and they don't seem to be any more moral, caring, compassionate or wise.
My Response: The hypocrisy and sin of men does not disprove God, but makes God necessary. I agree that many of those professing a religious creed are often no different than those not professing one. The very fact that man often lacks moral direction and a sense of decency shows that on his own man could never create or uphold an uncompromised moral code. Many of the codes -such as karma- encourage immorality because each man thinks he is infalliable and not all men have the same mind thus there is a contradiction. Many of the codes have similar elements. How can this be but that there is a God of whom we percieve and makes himself known to us through the similarities in the codes even if in practice we do not keep the codes we make. How could we even agree to the contents of the code if we cannot even agree on who should govern us, save for a higher Authority.
Challenge 3: God dosen't exist because believers can't prove God exists
The idea of proof is kind of a red-herring. (Proofs are rarely encountered outside mathematics and logic.) The issue is whether there is convincing (if probabilistic) evidence for some generic philosophical "God's" existence, or for the existence of some particular "God" such as Yahweh or Vishnu derived from a particular religious tradition. (The word 'God' is rarely defined adaquately. In Western discussion, it's typically just assumed that the word connotes the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible.) Lack of evidence isn't "proof" of 'God's' non-existence. But lack of evidence for something is excellent justification for not believing in the existence of that thing. That's how we typically operate in our normal lives.
My Response: The existence of God is not a scientific one but a philosophical one. Say for example, I combine baking soda with vinegar. Gas is released and a solid participate is left behind. However, looking at the participate, although one could determine the original substances were vinegar and baking soda, one could not determine that I had put these two substances together -they could only assume I had. I could come to them and say that I had created the resultant but one does not have to believe me. Thus though there are natural laws and reason, these alone cannot prove or disprove God. Belief, that is, faith, is required either way.
Challenge 4: God dosen't exist because I have never seen or felt God.
That's essentially the last one restated. I guess that the difference here is the implied argument from authority. Maybe YOU have never seen or felt God, but I HAVE. Or MY PERFECT CHURCH HAS. The question then is whether it's reasonable to accept claims about the existence of something unseen (and seemingly unseeable) simply on the authority of the individual theist or his or her church.
My Response: There is no proof that sorrow is real except in ones own experience and that of tears rolling down anothers cheek. Nor can joy be percieved except by ones own experience and that of a smile on anothers face. There is no scientific test to verify these things -no scientific method. All there is to validate these things is personal testimony and yet these things are universal. So too is God, although testimony is all we can offer. If we have not experienced him we have seen him. for example, most of us have not experienced the loss of the child but we can, though imperfectly, percieve the deep grief of those who have and we learn from them. Similarily, not all recieve the grace of faith but we can percieve the deep faith of others. Though we cannot percieve God as we would like always -seeing or feeling- He is still there. Though we can't percieve another's sorrow, we know that they are grieving. Though we can't percieve the joy of another, we know that they have joy. We just know.
Challenge 5: God dosen't exist because my prayers aren't answered.
I don't think that one would arise for an atheist, would it?
My Response: God always answers prayer, He just doesn't always give us what we want. God will either say yes, no or wait. Getting a no (or no response), doesn't mean He doesn't exist.
Challenge: 6 God dosen't exist because Christians killed people in the Inquisition/Crusade/ancient time.
This one essentially restates number two, up above. If God changes lives, then one would expect to observe believers living more moral, compassionate and wise lives than the rest of us lead. One would expect the action of the "holy spirit" to actually have observable effects.
My Response:A Christian is not God, he does not magically become a perfectly moral person nor does God ever promise that. In fact, such would go against the laws of nature if he did. Remember the sappling at the end of my example from earlier? It will take atleast a hundred years or more until it is fully grown. So too does it take many years for the best wines to ferment. It can also take years and years before a professed Christian could be considered of saintly morality. But the failing of man does not deny God's existence any more than it would purport to go against evolution - since neither in evolution is found a perfectly superior organism.
Challenge 7: God dosen't exist because the Bible is man-made/corrupted.
This one doesn't address God's existence so much as it attacks the idea that the Bible is the one unique (and some would insist infallible and inerrant) revelation of God. (Whatever 'God' is.) If the Bible is, as it certainly appears to be, man-made and rather crude in spots, then that would seem to create greate difficulty for the religious claim that it's God's own word. If one's only reason for believing in God is what the Bible says, then this one certainly impacts that justification of that belief.
My Response: Every teenager rebels against their parents in one way or another. Each doubts their parents to be right about this or that. It is often not until the parents themselves have died or the teens grow-up and raise teens of their own that they realise how right their parents were. So are we like teenagers when faced with the Word of God. We question it's authority and think we know better but often it [the Word of God] can be found to be correct even if it takes us into our old age -for looking back at our actions and that of our generation we regret going against His Word. The history of man is riddled with the collapse of empires that sought to uphold relativistic ideals.
Challenge 8: God dosen't exist because God killed people in the Bible.
This one revisits the problem of evil. It represents a strong (and to my mind irrefutable) argument that the God of the Old-Testament is not a suitable object of human worship. Even Adolph Hitler would be shocked by some of the things that God supposedly did. If human beings are judged 'evil' for doing X or Y, then I can't see how God can escape the same judgement for doing the same things. To expect anything less would be to accept that God is mankind's moral inferior.
My Response: It is an interesting argument. But you see, it is God who created us -we did not create ourselves. It is God who knows the hearts and minds of people, we do not though it certainly doesn't stop us from thinking we do. Every society has punishments for those that transgress its rules. Many societies past and present have the death penalty as a punishment. Sometimes the death penalty is used to protect lives and sometimes it is merely the ultimate punishment. People are always informed of the rules and resulting punishments and yet many still choose willing to commit such crimes. So it is of God. He has set rules and punishments and many go against him anyways. Murder is considered immoral because it makes the murderer a god. The reason behind killing another human being is what determines the morality of killing another human being. That is why only God is really the only one just in allowing death for he he first created us and knws our secret thoughts. He doesn't allow death out of necessity or some sort of gain, rather He keeps His Word and gives to the people what they have asked for. Only He has the Authority to do so.
Challenge 9: God dosen't exist because Jesus is not God.
That's a Christian-specific point that probably doesn't make much sense to an atheist.
My Response: So it was that people to this day believe dinosaurs do not exist despite the bones, for they personally did not see the living dinosaurs. So too it is difficult to believe that Jesus is God despite the miracles. Just as we are told about dinousars and how they lived by an authority by which we are compelled to believe, so also are we given testimony of Jesus which we are compelled to believe. But just because one believes dinosaurs did not exists doesn't mean they did or didn't, so also does one not believing Jesus is God affect whether he is or isn't.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
To Run in the Next Election, Or Not To Run?
The next federal election is in 2015. Currently, I'm comtemplating offering myself up as a candidate. In 2015, I'll be 24 for years old and that is an appropriate age to run for federal politics, atleast in my opinion. This means I have 4 years to create a public persona in my constituency.
I'd have to get baptised into the Catholic faith as soon as possible if indeed this is a calling. I'd also have to start studying different thoughts regarding politics, economics, health care, defence and the environment. My constituency is made up of mostly farmers, so it's be good to work on a farm at some point. I'm thinking both a beef farm and a wheat farm, since these are the main producers here. I'd have to thoroughly research and get various perspectives regarding oil since that is Alberta's premier source of revenue.
Being a devout Christian naturally, will actually come in handy since I live in Canada's Bible Belt. Speaking of which, I'll have read the bible possibly 12 times all the way through by 2015 which will probably come in handy. If I'm feeling crazy, I might just read the Bible 24 times just because that's how old I'll be, but that's not entirely likely.
However, I think that this latest foolishness on behalf of the Harper government simply has my blood boiled, so when it dies down I'll probably change my mind about politics. Regardless, I shall beging prayer and discernment imediately since I ultimately desire to do God's Will and not my own will. That's also part of the reason I'd be running on behalf of the Christian Heritage Party of Canada.
I'd have to get baptised into the Catholic faith as soon as possible if indeed this is a calling. I'd also have to start studying different thoughts regarding politics, economics, health care, defence and the environment. My constituency is made up of mostly farmers, so it's be good to work on a farm at some point. I'm thinking both a beef farm and a wheat farm, since these are the main producers here. I'd have to thoroughly research and get various perspectives regarding oil since that is Alberta's premier source of revenue.
Being a devout Christian naturally, will actually come in handy since I live in Canada's Bible Belt. Speaking of which, I'll have read the bible possibly 12 times all the way through by 2015 which will probably come in handy. If I'm feeling crazy, I might just read the Bible 24 times just because that's how old I'll be, but that's not entirely likely.
However, I think that this latest foolishness on behalf of the Harper government simply has my blood boiled, so when it dies down I'll probably change my mind about politics. Regardless, I shall beging prayer and discernment imediately since I ultimately desire to do God's Will and not my own will. That's also part of the reason I'd be running on behalf of the Christian Heritage Party of Canada.
Friday, June 24, 2011
I Don't Always Agree With the NDP, But When I Do
I had this idea a while ago to keep track of significant political actions given there are five years until the next election and I want to be able to make an informed decision based on my own notes rather than someone elses'.
Yesterday was the beginning of the filibuster by the NDP to prevent back to work legislation by the Harper government against the Canada Post. Canada Post has been in negotiations for the past eight months with workers unionized under the CUPW. Workers desire high pay, benefits, a defined pension and safer work place. The workers have been working constantly despite rotating strikes up until recently when the Canada Post locked them out. Three days later the Harper government tabled legislation to settle the issues themselves and offer less than what Canada Post is offering. The Harper government claims that work will only resume once the legislation is passed despite the workers desiring to go back to work imediately and be allowed to negotiate freely. It should be noted here that since Canada Post is an arms length away from the government as a Crown Corporation, Prime Minister Stephen Harper does have the authority to tell the CEO of Canada Post to get it together, unlock the doors and get back to work.
In this situation, I side with the NDP. Canada Post and workers with the CUPW have the right and absolutely should continue independent negotiations. Prime Minister Harper should tell the CEO of Canada Post to unlock the doors so the workers can go back to work and negotiations can resume.
It should be noted that during the debates, the Liberals were mostly idiots that may well not have shown up. All through the night and into the early morning hours the NDP repeatedly stated the solution I outlined of which I favour above, yes 5 consecutive Liberals asked the same question albeit with varied wording, "What solution does the NDP propose?" Other Liberal suggested that the debates were ideological - too far to the left and too far to the right. At the time these comments were made, there had been no such partisanship.
It should also be noted the Elizabeth May of the Green party was the only party leader that was present since the debates began yesterday morning, all the way through the night and long into this morning.
Also, the Conservatives were caught lying three times, as I observed. The NDP also did not ever answer the question posed to them which paraphrased is, "Why does the NDP claim to be of the workers party and fighting for pensions when the NDP plans to tax oil and bank corporations whose shareholders are the CUPW and their own pensions?"
Yesterday was the beginning of the filibuster by the NDP to prevent back to work legislation by the Harper government against the Canada Post. Canada Post has been in negotiations for the past eight months with workers unionized under the CUPW. Workers desire high pay, benefits, a defined pension and safer work place. The workers have been working constantly despite rotating strikes up until recently when the Canada Post locked them out. Three days later the Harper government tabled legislation to settle the issues themselves and offer less than what Canada Post is offering. The Harper government claims that work will only resume once the legislation is passed despite the workers desiring to go back to work imediately and be allowed to negotiate freely. It should be noted here that since Canada Post is an arms length away from the government as a Crown Corporation, Prime Minister Stephen Harper does have the authority to tell the CEO of Canada Post to get it together, unlock the doors and get back to work.
In this situation, I side with the NDP. Canada Post and workers with the CUPW have the right and absolutely should continue independent negotiations. Prime Minister Harper should tell the CEO of Canada Post to unlock the doors so the workers can go back to work and negotiations can resume.
It should be noted that during the debates, the Liberals were mostly idiots that may well not have shown up. All through the night and into the early morning hours the NDP repeatedly stated the solution I outlined of which I favour above, yes 5 consecutive Liberals asked the same question albeit with varied wording, "What solution does the NDP propose?" Other Liberal suggested that the debates were ideological - too far to the left and too far to the right. At the time these comments were made, there had been no such partisanship.
It should also be noted the Elizabeth May of the Green party was the only party leader that was present since the debates began yesterday morning, all the way through the night and long into this morning.
Also, the Conservatives were caught lying three times, as I observed. The NDP also did not ever answer the question posed to them which paraphrased is, "Why does the NDP claim to be of the workers party and fighting for pensions when the NDP plans to tax oil and bank corporations whose shareholders are the CUPW and their own pensions?"
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Overfishing - We're Gonna Need a Smaller Boat
I've read several perspectives and have watched several documentaries which pertain to overfishing but that by no means makes me an expert on the topic. To those of you who read this, please consider this a perspective of many, and not Gospel. Let this encourage you to do your own research whether it be to prove me wrong or right.
We are in a bit of a crisis. Fish populations the world over have seen dramatic decreases although one should note that due to conservation and better stewardship policies, several of these populations are once again increasing. However, several reefs including the Great Barrier Reef are slowly dying or already dead, though again the aforementioned policies are reversing these reef deaths.
Here in Canada, we have each year an annual seal hunt on the East Coast where several hundred infant seals are beaten to death for their fur. Those who do the beating are in the Spring and Summer local fishermen. You see, there was once a time when there were so many fish that it is supposed that one could literally walk across the water and this was only just over one hundred years ago. Today, there are so few fish that a moratorium has been ordered. The fishermen who are involved in the seal hunts blame the seals for the the dramatic decrease in fish populations and even have a few scientists on their side. Most of the rest of the world, including most Canadians and the fishermen who decline to take part in the annual seal hunt know this isn't so, and we have way more scientists on our side.
Personally, I believe it is man who is responsible for the decline in fish populations, not the seals. Does this mean that fishing on the East Coast should be expressly forbidden, no of course not. However, I do think there should be limits on fishing until we estabilish a healthy population of fish again.
It has been suggested, by a small number of elitists, that the solution is population control and reduction. Proponents of these beliefs include but are not limited to David Suzuki, Al Gore, Bill and Melinda Gates and The Rockefeller Foundation - yes, the same folks that fund most of the childrens programming on PBS. I'd like to point out both seriously but also for humourous reasons, that none of these people seem willing to kill themselves and their own families but would rather the rest of the world do it which is why population control and reduction is nothing more than an elitist ideal and not a real solution at all.
Rather, I offer my own solution. According to my research, the problem has little to do with demand. Although the population of the world is increasing, and certainly there has been a push to be more healthy, the majority of seafood that is caught is not consumed at all, it's thrown out. Nor is the main problem global warming/man-made climate change since there is little concensus in the scientific community, and even little legitimate science at that. The main cause of overfishing is actually greed.
You see, the majority of seafood you get from the grocery store more than likely comes from a large fishing operation - that is, a company that ones several hundred boats in various oceans and seas the world over. Large operations like this know they can make rediculous amounts of money by likewise selling rediculous amounts of fish. They are not paid by how much money you spend in your grocery store, they've already been paid by a processor. As a result large operations tend to run profits in the multi-million dollar range.
Large operations are predominately owned by white owners usually of European decent. It's not uncommon for such operations to therefore hire hands from such European nations rather than hiring fishermen from various African nations for an operation of the coast since Europeans don't like African hands touching their food. This contributes to various African nations continuing on as third world nations and it's these people who are highly targeted for population control and reduction. Most of the West sees the people of Africa and to a limited extent India and various other Asian peoples as undesirables to be done away with.
Anyways, let's get back to the solution I intend to offer to resolve the issue of overfishing. You see, smaller fishing operations are usually familing owned. When I say smaller operation I mean one small to medium sized boat but can also include up to three additional small or medium sized boats. Most fishermen of the world generally only have one small boat for which the whole family helps out with. These small operations, since they are limited both in the amount of fish they can hold but also in the distance they can go out to sea, logically bring in a smaller amount of fish and all of their catch is sold and eaten by the family. Sadly, due to overfishing by large scale operations, most of these small operations are only able to catch enough fish to feed their own families. Compare this with large scale operations where only 50% to 65% is actually consumed and the rest is thrown out. There fore my solution is simple, limit large scale operations and favour small scale ones. It also includes and emphasis on local peoples and would forbid large scale operations from hiring people from their native lands when they are working off the coast of a foreign nation such as South Africa, for example. Understandly, seafood selection in grocery stores will decrease and I don't think it will be uncommon for grocery stores to run out entirely of seafood and persons will have to wait until the next shipment. It should be noted that since the main reason for eating fish is for Omega fatty acids, sales in alternative sources such as walnuts will likely increase.
Unfortunately, this is only possible if we as a collective society get over ourselves and stop acting as though the galacy revolves around us. It doesn't, it revolves around the sun.
God bless!
We are in a bit of a crisis. Fish populations the world over have seen dramatic decreases although one should note that due to conservation and better stewardship policies, several of these populations are once again increasing. However, several reefs including the Great Barrier Reef are slowly dying or already dead, though again the aforementioned policies are reversing these reef deaths.
Here in Canada, we have each year an annual seal hunt on the East Coast where several hundred infant seals are beaten to death for their fur. Those who do the beating are in the Spring and Summer local fishermen. You see, there was once a time when there were so many fish that it is supposed that one could literally walk across the water and this was only just over one hundred years ago. Today, there are so few fish that a moratorium has been ordered. The fishermen who are involved in the seal hunts blame the seals for the the dramatic decrease in fish populations and even have a few scientists on their side. Most of the rest of the world, including most Canadians and the fishermen who decline to take part in the annual seal hunt know this isn't so, and we have way more scientists on our side.
Personally, I believe it is man who is responsible for the decline in fish populations, not the seals. Does this mean that fishing on the East Coast should be expressly forbidden, no of course not. However, I do think there should be limits on fishing until we estabilish a healthy population of fish again.
It has been suggested, by a small number of elitists, that the solution is population control and reduction. Proponents of these beliefs include but are not limited to David Suzuki, Al Gore, Bill and Melinda Gates and The Rockefeller Foundation - yes, the same folks that fund most of the childrens programming on PBS. I'd like to point out both seriously but also for humourous reasons, that none of these people seem willing to kill themselves and their own families but would rather the rest of the world do it which is why population control and reduction is nothing more than an elitist ideal and not a real solution at all.
Rather, I offer my own solution. According to my research, the problem has little to do with demand. Although the population of the world is increasing, and certainly there has been a push to be more healthy, the majority of seafood that is caught is not consumed at all, it's thrown out. Nor is the main problem global warming/man-made climate change since there is little concensus in the scientific community, and even little legitimate science at that. The main cause of overfishing is actually greed.
You see, the majority of seafood you get from the grocery store more than likely comes from a large fishing operation - that is, a company that ones several hundred boats in various oceans and seas the world over. Large operations like this know they can make rediculous amounts of money by likewise selling rediculous amounts of fish. They are not paid by how much money you spend in your grocery store, they've already been paid by a processor. As a result large operations tend to run profits in the multi-million dollar range.
Large operations are predominately owned by white owners usually of European decent. It's not uncommon for such operations to therefore hire hands from such European nations rather than hiring fishermen from various African nations for an operation of the coast since Europeans don't like African hands touching their food. This contributes to various African nations continuing on as third world nations and it's these people who are highly targeted for population control and reduction. Most of the West sees the people of Africa and to a limited extent India and various other Asian peoples as undesirables to be done away with.
Anyways, let's get back to the solution I intend to offer to resolve the issue of overfishing. You see, smaller fishing operations are usually familing owned. When I say smaller operation I mean one small to medium sized boat but can also include up to three additional small or medium sized boats. Most fishermen of the world generally only have one small boat for which the whole family helps out with. These small operations, since they are limited both in the amount of fish they can hold but also in the distance they can go out to sea, logically bring in a smaller amount of fish and all of their catch is sold and eaten by the family. Sadly, due to overfishing by large scale operations, most of these small operations are only able to catch enough fish to feed their own families. Compare this with large scale operations where only 50% to 65% is actually consumed and the rest is thrown out. There fore my solution is simple, limit large scale operations and favour small scale ones. It also includes and emphasis on local peoples and would forbid large scale operations from hiring people from their native lands when they are working off the coast of a foreign nation such as South Africa, for example. Understandly, seafood selection in grocery stores will decrease and I don't think it will be uncommon for grocery stores to run out entirely of seafood and persons will have to wait until the next shipment. It should be noted that since the main reason for eating fish is for Omega fatty acids, sales in alternative sources such as walnuts will likely increase.
Unfortunately, this is only possible if we as a collective society get over ourselves and stop acting as though the galacy revolves around us. It doesn't, it revolves around the sun.
God bless!
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
"I know." ... Y U NO?!
Honestly, no two words have ever gotten me in as much trouble as saying, "I know." Friends and family would share news stories, or tips, or concerns, you name it and having heard it all before I'd rather dismissively reply, "I know." This of course has always caused such person to stop in their tracks, heads reel back and I'd usually get a hurt and angry reply. Sometimes, especially if I said, "I know," to my mom I'd first get a lecture for already knowing what she was going to say and then she tells me what she wanted to anyways.
After much thought I tried walking in her shoes and only then did I really get it. You see, this sharing of information with me has little to do with actually informing me. It's actually about either the fullfilling of a duty or the natural desire to share something you've just discovered. Mom's have a tendency to seem like a broken record in how they constantly repeat things over and over again. They do it because with their foresight, having walked a similar path albeit at a time when dinosaurs still walked the earth, they desperately don't want you to make the same errors. So when my mom has something to say to me, no matter what it pertains to, I try very hard to just shut up and listen and afterwards, if I remember, I thank her for sharing that with me. As a result, she hasn't been repeating herself.
However, there's a slight variation to it when it comes to someone sharing something. For example, my best mate shared a YouTube video with me that he'd just discovered but of which I'd seen about a year previously. Previously still, I probably would have imediately told him that I'd seen it before. Such is an honest response, but at the same time unnecessary and sharp causing him to feel rejected and depending on where his ego was, perhaps a bit humiliated as well. This in turn would cause him to lash out at me and we'd fight for the next hour and a half. If this description seems oddly specific, it's probably because this really did happen, and it happened several times before I learned my lesson. Now, for this particular video, I made a conscious decision to watch it and enjoy it as if I was just seeing it for the same time. I honestly did enjoy it, and even made a similar comment to what I'd thought a year ago. The result of course is the sharing of a deeper bond between us.
You see, since vowing to essentially not prevent someone from communicating to me be it unsolicited advice or a YouTube video I've seen a thousand times before, has really changed me. I'm not so inward in my communications, that is, only engaging in that which was interesting and worth to me. Now I have a more genuine respect and desire for communication and it excites me to be able to share in a moment with someone who has just discovered something for themselves and of all people they want to share it with me first. I find it's even prevented those World War 3 type shouting matches which usually arise out of one or both parties feeling as if they are not being understood. I take time to ensure that the person I'm communicating with know that I understand them and appreciate their perspectives and as a result I find that those persons are willing to listen and understand my own perspectives.
"Do to others as you would have them do to you." (Luke 6:31)
"A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger." (Proverbs 15:1)
"You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other." (Galatians 5:13-15)
After much thought I tried walking in her shoes and only then did I really get it. You see, this sharing of information with me has little to do with actually informing me. It's actually about either the fullfilling of a duty or the natural desire to share something you've just discovered. Mom's have a tendency to seem like a broken record in how they constantly repeat things over and over again. They do it because with their foresight, having walked a similar path albeit at a time when dinosaurs still walked the earth, they desperately don't want you to make the same errors. So when my mom has something to say to me, no matter what it pertains to, I try very hard to just shut up and listen and afterwards, if I remember, I thank her for sharing that with me. As a result, she hasn't been repeating herself.
However, there's a slight variation to it when it comes to someone sharing something. For example, my best mate shared a YouTube video with me that he'd just discovered but of which I'd seen about a year previously. Previously still, I probably would have imediately told him that I'd seen it before. Such is an honest response, but at the same time unnecessary and sharp causing him to feel rejected and depending on where his ego was, perhaps a bit humiliated as well. This in turn would cause him to lash out at me and we'd fight for the next hour and a half. If this description seems oddly specific, it's probably because this really did happen, and it happened several times before I learned my lesson. Now, for this particular video, I made a conscious decision to watch it and enjoy it as if I was just seeing it for the same time. I honestly did enjoy it, and even made a similar comment to what I'd thought a year ago. The result of course is the sharing of a deeper bond between us.
You see, since vowing to essentially not prevent someone from communicating to me be it unsolicited advice or a YouTube video I've seen a thousand times before, has really changed me. I'm not so inward in my communications, that is, only engaging in that which was interesting and worth to me. Now I have a more genuine respect and desire for communication and it excites me to be able to share in a moment with someone who has just discovered something for themselves and of all people they want to share it with me first. I find it's even prevented those World War 3 type shouting matches which usually arise out of one or both parties feeling as if they are not being understood. I take time to ensure that the person I'm communicating with know that I understand them and appreciate their perspectives and as a result I find that those persons are willing to listen and understand my own perspectives.
"Do to others as you would have them do to you." (Luke 6:31)
"A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger." (Proverbs 15:1)
"You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other." (Galatians 5:13-15)
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Of Men and Women
I've often thought about people such as who they are, where they come from and where they are going. Over time I've become more specific, focusing on the different ages and ethnicities of people and imagining, if for a moment, what their story is. As a young, single woman it was inevitable that I would eventually come to think about men and relationships.
One can certainly learn a lot through observation, and one learns to do so subtly when this includes the observation of other persons. If you observe enough people, long enough, similarities start to stand out. Eventually, you wish you could stop a woman from nagging her husband because unlike her, you see clearly that he didn't intend to offend her by what he said. In fact, though my observations I have learned that the majority of relational issues stem from communication or rather, a lack thereof. It's heartbreaking when she turns away from her barrage on him, you can see how badly he just wants to reach out and comfort her and tell her how much he's sorry for not being the man she deserved. He holds back, believing that she'd never believe him or perhaps the ache in his own heart is just too immense. On the other hand, you'd be amazed how often couples, even ones married for thirty years will steal looks at their love when that love isn't looking. These things are both the good and the bad, are common amongst all.
The observations take more depth when you observe the interaction of friends and family. Often, one or the other will tell you their perspective on what's going on. More often than not I've had both offending parties share their perspectives unbeknownst to the other which makes for quite the balencing act while still leaving many blanks left unfilled. Humans are strange creatures when it comes to communication. For starters, the genders each have their own specific style of communication which is a fact which unfortunately so many haven't a clue about. Those that do know, often have a hard time attempting to apply such knowledge in their communications.
Women seldomly speak even a word that does not have a double meaning. In fact, the way one must understand the feminine tongue is actually quite similar to how one is to read and interpret the Holy Scriptures (Bible). When one is reading the Bible, amongst many other things, one must be aware that there is both a literal meaning to the text and there is a spirtual meaning to the text. For example, John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." In the literal sense, it is saying that in the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God. With spiritual eyes we find that this is how Genesis 1:1 began and it's describing the new creation, the new Adam - that is, Jesus Christ is the new Adam. How then doth the woman speaketh? Let's say for example that you and the woman got into a fight and you said she simply shouldn't speak at all anymore and later you discovered on Facebook that she'd made a status about how it's important to speak with sweet words and how saying, "I know," invalidates people. Literally, she is saying that it is important to say sweet words and that saying, "I know," when someone shares something they've discovered with you invalidates them. The second meaning, is that the status is directed specifically at you and the whole, "I know," thing is just to throw you off. She is trying to subtly have the last word unaware that men and nearly incapable of picking up subtle pieces of communication. Why?
Men have a different communication style, that's why. Men say what they mean and mean what they say, they speak plainly. He will here what she says but not read between the lines to get what she's really saying. Certainly, I know of lads that make a great effort and train themselves to read between the lines and these are brave and dedicated men to pick up such a difficult language. A woman on the other hand will naturally assume that there is more to what a man says, some sort of hidden meaning to his words. This often results in her coming up with a positive meaning and a negative meaning of which she usually selects the negative meaning as the ones intended. Little does she realise, if such occurs, the man always intends the positive meaning. Men gripe about why women just can't say what they mean, erroneously thinking that this would be an easier course of action. As a woman, it takes great effort to say what I mean. I generally only speak plainly to a lad with whom I know makes an effort to attain the feminine tongue and I tell him that.
There is a lot more that I could say on this subject and I will, just in later posts.
In the meantime, take care, God bless and good luck trying to apply your new found knowledge!
One can certainly learn a lot through observation, and one learns to do so subtly when this includes the observation of other persons. If you observe enough people, long enough, similarities start to stand out. Eventually, you wish you could stop a woman from nagging her husband because unlike her, you see clearly that he didn't intend to offend her by what he said. In fact, though my observations I have learned that the majority of relational issues stem from communication or rather, a lack thereof. It's heartbreaking when she turns away from her barrage on him, you can see how badly he just wants to reach out and comfort her and tell her how much he's sorry for not being the man she deserved. He holds back, believing that she'd never believe him or perhaps the ache in his own heart is just too immense. On the other hand, you'd be amazed how often couples, even ones married for thirty years will steal looks at their love when that love isn't looking. These things are both the good and the bad, are common amongst all.
The observations take more depth when you observe the interaction of friends and family. Often, one or the other will tell you their perspective on what's going on. More often than not I've had both offending parties share their perspectives unbeknownst to the other which makes for quite the balencing act while still leaving many blanks left unfilled. Humans are strange creatures when it comes to communication. For starters, the genders each have their own specific style of communication which is a fact which unfortunately so many haven't a clue about. Those that do know, often have a hard time attempting to apply such knowledge in their communications.
Women seldomly speak even a word that does not have a double meaning. In fact, the way one must understand the feminine tongue is actually quite similar to how one is to read and interpret the Holy Scriptures (Bible). When one is reading the Bible, amongst many other things, one must be aware that there is both a literal meaning to the text and there is a spirtual meaning to the text. For example, John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." In the literal sense, it is saying that in the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God. With spiritual eyes we find that this is how Genesis 1:1 began and it's describing the new creation, the new Adam - that is, Jesus Christ is the new Adam. How then doth the woman speaketh? Let's say for example that you and the woman got into a fight and you said she simply shouldn't speak at all anymore and later you discovered on Facebook that she'd made a status about how it's important to speak with sweet words and how saying, "I know," invalidates people. Literally, she is saying that it is important to say sweet words and that saying, "I know," when someone shares something they've discovered with you invalidates them. The second meaning, is that the status is directed specifically at you and the whole, "I know," thing is just to throw you off. She is trying to subtly have the last word unaware that men and nearly incapable of picking up subtle pieces of communication. Why?
Men have a different communication style, that's why. Men say what they mean and mean what they say, they speak plainly. He will here what she says but not read between the lines to get what she's really saying. Certainly, I know of lads that make a great effort and train themselves to read between the lines and these are brave and dedicated men to pick up such a difficult language. A woman on the other hand will naturally assume that there is more to what a man says, some sort of hidden meaning to his words. This often results in her coming up with a positive meaning and a negative meaning of which she usually selects the negative meaning as the ones intended. Little does she realise, if such occurs, the man always intends the positive meaning. Men gripe about why women just can't say what they mean, erroneously thinking that this would be an easier course of action. As a woman, it takes great effort to say what I mean. I generally only speak plainly to a lad with whom I know makes an effort to attain the feminine tongue and I tell him that.
There is a lot more that I could say on this subject and I will, just in later posts.
In the meantime, take care, God bless and good luck trying to apply your new found knowledge!
Monday, June 20, 2011
Why I Wasn't Outgoing in High School
Please forgive me, for my emotions are provoked at the moment so this may not be as constructive and logical as some of my earlier posts.
I guess I've always been an outcast my whole life. Being hearing impaired, I was often excluded because I couldn't always speak clearly. Then there was that stint in the Bahamas when I was the only white kid in my class. I know I'm not the most attractive person to look at, so that likely has been worked in some where.
As with most isolationist children, I developed a strong sense of creativity and became very individualistic as a result. For me, it's not the end of the world if I don't have someone constantly talking to me or hanging out and I can get along just fine without feedback. This isn't really me though, it's who I've adapted to being. All through school, it hurt when I wasn't picked to be on some team or to be flat out picked on. I was bullied for ten out of twelve years at school. I don't regret those years, and I wouldn't change them for the world - to me they've become a blessing. I can relate to so many people who have been left out or feel misunderstood and I wouldn't tade that gift for anything.
For the most part, I don't think people really give a damn about me and they certainly don't want to hear me speak. This is why on Facebook, I most just post links and videos and seldomly talk myself. I only began sharing aspects of my day upon anonymously being encouraged to do so. Still, I only share something once in a while and for the bulk of it its still mostly just links and videos. I never really got much of an opportunity to share my views with others growing up and usually was ridiculed for them, so sharing even one on one its strange to me. To me it feels almost surreal that someone actually cares enough to listen. And it's hard to get me to talk because I usually focus on the other person and let them share their views and most people I find are perfectly content with that which its fine by me because it's comforable not being in the spotlight.
So, it's kinda like hitting a brick wall when you're told, for example, "Do you find a way to comment on everything Nicole? >,<" You have no idea how tempting it is to crawl back into my comfort zone and never burden anyone ever again, but that would be rash and uncalled for. I fail to understand why such a person does not simply, "unfriend" me. But eh, if they want to suffer listening to my occasional comments, then so be it.
It makes you wonder though, eh? Who is really being genuine? Can we ever really know for sure?
In summary, human beings are the stangest species ever. Way too many variables to deal with.
God bless!
I guess I've always been an outcast my whole life. Being hearing impaired, I was often excluded because I couldn't always speak clearly. Then there was that stint in the Bahamas when I was the only white kid in my class. I know I'm not the most attractive person to look at, so that likely has been worked in some where.
As with most isolationist children, I developed a strong sense of creativity and became very individualistic as a result. For me, it's not the end of the world if I don't have someone constantly talking to me or hanging out and I can get along just fine without feedback. This isn't really me though, it's who I've adapted to being. All through school, it hurt when I wasn't picked to be on some team or to be flat out picked on. I was bullied for ten out of twelve years at school. I don't regret those years, and I wouldn't change them for the world - to me they've become a blessing. I can relate to so many people who have been left out or feel misunderstood and I wouldn't tade that gift for anything.
For the most part, I don't think people really give a damn about me and they certainly don't want to hear me speak. This is why on Facebook, I most just post links and videos and seldomly talk myself. I only began sharing aspects of my day upon anonymously being encouraged to do so. Still, I only share something once in a while and for the bulk of it its still mostly just links and videos. I never really got much of an opportunity to share my views with others growing up and usually was ridiculed for them, so sharing even one on one its strange to me. To me it feels almost surreal that someone actually cares enough to listen. And it's hard to get me to talk because I usually focus on the other person and let them share their views and most people I find are perfectly content with that which its fine by me because it's comforable not being in the spotlight.
So, it's kinda like hitting a brick wall when you're told, for example, "Do you find a way to comment on everything Nicole? >,<" You have no idea how tempting it is to crawl back into my comfort zone and never burden anyone ever again, but that would be rash and uncalled for. I fail to understand why such a person does not simply, "unfriend" me. But eh, if they want to suffer listening to my occasional comments, then so be it.
It makes you wonder though, eh? Who is really being genuine? Can we ever really know for sure?
In summary, human beings are the stangest species ever. Way too many variables to deal with.
God bless!
Sunday, June 19, 2011
I Love Sluts, Whores and Homewreckers
WARNING: Content may not be appropriate for all readers and may contain explicit terms and descriptions.
Before I begin, let us define these terms mentioned in the title. According to urbandictionary. com:
slut: (Third definition) "A derogatory term. Refers to a sexually promiscuous person, usually female. One who engages in sexual activity with a large number of persons, occasionally simultaneously. Also refers to one who engages in sexual activity outside of a long-term relationship within the duration of said relationship."
whore: (Ninth definition, #1) "A woman who has sex with numerous partners. The word is usually used in a negative manner as to imply the woman is figuratively dirty."
homewrecker: (Third definition) "(1) A person who allows, or convinces, a man/woman to cheat on their significant other with them, being the "homewrecker". (2) A person who sleeps with/has a relationship with a married man/woman, even tho they know that person is married. (3) A person who does one/both of the above, and feels no guilt or remorse whatsoever for their actions."
I was watching an investigative Christian news segment today which was on the topic of the possible decriminalisation of prostitution in Ontario, Canada. The segment interviewed two former prostitutes, former John, and a professor of law. It also aired footage of a current prostitute saying it was her choice and her career. As I was watching I noticed one of the former prostitutes was clearly nervous and I said aloud, as if speaking to her, "Don't worry, you're beautiful and you're gonna be great. You're doing the right thing, don't be nervous." I then questioned myself, amazed that I wasn't judging her. I don't normally encourage people through a television screen, so I thought I'd lost my mind temporarily. I then refocused and listened to her tell her story, but the incident stayed with me the rest of the day.
I've been thinking for a while now about sluts, whores and homewreckers. Things like why they do the things they do. Through my research on pornography, I know that the majority of women involved in the sex industry were often abused as children. Pamela Anderson, for example, broke down in tears before her first nude shoot because it reminded her so much of being sexual abused back when she was just a little girl, and by a family member no less. These facts were restated by the various guests, confirming that anywhere from eighty to ninety-five percent of females involved in the sex industry where sexually abused and often forced into the industry as minors. It's not really a choice is it, when that's really all you've ever known, which is why so many continue on in the industry.
Still mulling over the segment and my own reaction, I recalled a testimony shared by Jason Evert. He shared how he had wanted to minister to "exotic dancers" and so he parked outside of a strip club one evening and how he was all nervous because what if one of the folks from the Church saw him coming out of the strip club and how that wouldn't look right. Anyways, the sun was setting and he figured he may as well go home and then a single "exotic dancer" came out for her break. It's actually very fortunate because he only had one pamplet with him (it contained empowering messages aimed at women in the sex industry) and so he went up to her gave her the pamplet and told her she was beautiful, and he looked into her eyes and saw the saddest eyes that seemed to light up at his kindness. She smiled and he went back home. I'm pretty sure I messed up that testimony but you can hear it yourself if you YouTube him - he has a ministry teaching teens and young adults about authentic sexuality now, with his wife.
Y'know, it was just the other day when I was in the kitchen and I thought about yet another testimony. This fella liked to "order" prostitutes to a hotel room and when they got there expecting to "work" he instead offered them food, clean clothes, the shower and the ability to sleep in peace for a night. One could certainly argue that by supply and demand he was supporting the sex industry but I think it was the sweetest and kindest thing for him to do. I thought to myself how I'd love to be able to do that.
Do you know the difference between pity and compassion? The late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen said that pity was really just false compassion and encouraged us to have a genuine compassion. Despite listening to his homily on the topic, which can also be found in three parts on YouTube, I still failed to understand the difference. It was only today, after attempting to comfort a former prostitute through the television screen, that I finally understood the difference. Pity involves judging that someone is lesser than you, compassion involves thought and wonder, seeing someone as an equal despite circumstance. Compassion leaps forth to encourage and comfort. Pity only desires to make what one sees, go away. Pity speaks of the exterior of a person, whereas compassion speaks of the interior of a person.
Today, I thought about sluts, whores and homewreckers. I thought about how it was so unfortunate that so many prostitutes were sexually abused and forced into the sex industry at such a young age. I thought about friends and friends of friends whom I know sleep around. I know that many of them are searching for something - love, comfort, a guy to be true. I thought about why people cheat on a significant other, how sometimes it's a lack of discipline and sometimes it's just selfish. I thought that if I were married to someone and they cheated on me, I would still stay with them because that is how Jesus is with the Church. However, if he cheated before we were married then I'd have to say goodbye. Then, I thought quite the controversial thought. I thought that if my husband ever cheated on me, I would like to meet this other woman - and oddly enough, I saw myself giving her a hug. I'd want to try to understand and help them both out, possibly making a friend out of this other woman. It's insane, I know, but somehow I feel that, that is exactly what I'd do. It's kinda like how when I saw the former prostitute, I wasn't thinking of her former profession, I just saw that she was nervous and that I'd be nervous too.
I love sluts, whores and homewreckers, and you can too.
Before I begin, let us define these terms mentioned in the title. According to urbandictionary. com:
slut: (Third definition) "A derogatory term. Refers to a sexually promiscuous person, usually female. One who engages in sexual activity with a large number of persons, occasionally simultaneously. Also refers to one who engages in sexual activity outside of a long-term relationship within the duration of said relationship."
whore: (Ninth definition, #1) "A woman who has sex with numerous partners. The word is usually used in a negative manner as to imply the woman is figuratively dirty."
homewrecker: (Third definition) "(1) A person who allows, or convinces, a man/woman to cheat on their significant other with them, being the "homewrecker". (2) A person who sleeps with/has a relationship with a married man/woman, even tho they know that person is married. (3) A person who does one/both of the above, and feels no guilt or remorse whatsoever for their actions."
I was watching an investigative Christian news segment today which was on the topic of the possible decriminalisation of prostitution in Ontario, Canada. The segment interviewed two former prostitutes, former John, and a professor of law. It also aired footage of a current prostitute saying it was her choice and her career. As I was watching I noticed one of the former prostitutes was clearly nervous and I said aloud, as if speaking to her, "Don't worry, you're beautiful and you're gonna be great. You're doing the right thing, don't be nervous." I then questioned myself, amazed that I wasn't judging her. I don't normally encourage people through a television screen, so I thought I'd lost my mind temporarily. I then refocused and listened to her tell her story, but the incident stayed with me the rest of the day.
I've been thinking for a while now about sluts, whores and homewreckers. Things like why they do the things they do. Through my research on pornography, I know that the majority of women involved in the sex industry were often abused as children. Pamela Anderson, for example, broke down in tears before her first nude shoot because it reminded her so much of being sexual abused back when she was just a little girl, and by a family member no less. These facts were restated by the various guests, confirming that anywhere from eighty to ninety-five percent of females involved in the sex industry where sexually abused and often forced into the industry as minors. It's not really a choice is it, when that's really all you've ever known, which is why so many continue on in the industry.
Still mulling over the segment and my own reaction, I recalled a testimony shared by Jason Evert. He shared how he had wanted to minister to "exotic dancers" and so he parked outside of a strip club one evening and how he was all nervous because what if one of the folks from the Church saw him coming out of the strip club and how that wouldn't look right. Anyways, the sun was setting and he figured he may as well go home and then a single "exotic dancer" came out for her break. It's actually very fortunate because he only had one pamplet with him (it contained empowering messages aimed at women in the sex industry) and so he went up to her gave her the pamplet and told her she was beautiful, and he looked into her eyes and saw the saddest eyes that seemed to light up at his kindness. She smiled and he went back home. I'm pretty sure I messed up that testimony but you can hear it yourself if you YouTube him - he has a ministry teaching teens and young adults about authentic sexuality now, with his wife.
Y'know, it was just the other day when I was in the kitchen and I thought about yet another testimony. This fella liked to "order" prostitutes to a hotel room and when they got there expecting to "work" he instead offered them food, clean clothes, the shower and the ability to sleep in peace for a night. One could certainly argue that by supply and demand he was supporting the sex industry but I think it was the sweetest and kindest thing for him to do. I thought to myself how I'd love to be able to do that.
Do you know the difference between pity and compassion? The late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen said that pity was really just false compassion and encouraged us to have a genuine compassion. Despite listening to his homily on the topic, which can also be found in three parts on YouTube, I still failed to understand the difference. It was only today, after attempting to comfort a former prostitute through the television screen, that I finally understood the difference. Pity involves judging that someone is lesser than you, compassion involves thought and wonder, seeing someone as an equal despite circumstance. Compassion leaps forth to encourage and comfort. Pity only desires to make what one sees, go away. Pity speaks of the exterior of a person, whereas compassion speaks of the interior of a person.
Today, I thought about sluts, whores and homewreckers. I thought about how it was so unfortunate that so many prostitutes were sexually abused and forced into the sex industry at such a young age. I thought about friends and friends of friends whom I know sleep around. I know that many of them are searching for something - love, comfort, a guy to be true. I thought about why people cheat on a significant other, how sometimes it's a lack of discipline and sometimes it's just selfish. I thought that if I were married to someone and they cheated on me, I would still stay with them because that is how Jesus is with the Church. However, if he cheated before we were married then I'd have to say goodbye. Then, I thought quite the controversial thought. I thought that if my husband ever cheated on me, I would like to meet this other woman - and oddly enough, I saw myself giving her a hug. I'd want to try to understand and help them both out, possibly making a friend out of this other woman. It's insane, I know, but somehow I feel that, that is exactly what I'd do. It's kinda like how when I saw the former prostitute, I wasn't thinking of her former profession, I just saw that she was nervous and that I'd be nervous too.
I love sluts, whores and homewreckers, and you can too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)