The Shadowlit Realms
| Labyrinth of the Mind |
Our love affair with foodFood can be a rather intresting subject to talk about and one I enjoy from time to time, for many varrious reasons, for one thing it is universal, who out there cannot relate to food in someway or another? Another sense the very begining of man it has played an imporant role beyound just out of its nesscitiy, it can carry cultural status, play a role in religous rites, and what I wish to speak of now, the way food can acutally be at the center of our life philosophies, and more interesting how two people who have the exact same philosophy can treat food in a totally different way.
People have always had intresting relationships with food, this sort of love hate relationship, food can be highly sexulized though it can also be the mark of complete innosence. The excesssive inguluence of it has been made a sin in the bible and yet so many cultures pride themselves upon thier food.
But so not to stray, the pariticular philosophy I wish to explore now, and its speical relationship with food, is the rather cliquie and common motto. "You only live once" which on the one hand in an undenibale truth, and yet on the other hand is not entierely true, and what I mean by that simply is, as a rencantonists, I beleive a person might have many possible lifetimes, yet, at the sametime, the life I am living right now, the person I am now, I will never be again.
So how does this relate to food? Well under this mantra we have two very distinct kinds of people, the first group are the health nuts, the ones who choose to deny themself that sepcial pleasure of food and shun away from any sort of indulgence or tresspass, the ones that make a diet of tofu and soy products, eat tasteless sugarless snaks, always have a bottle of water at thier side, have gym membership which they acutally use on a regular basis, shop only in the health food section, take an arrwry of herbal suppliments, and try every diet that comes around the corrner. They would never deam to open a bag of doritos, or eat ice cream directly out of the carton at ten o clock at night, and on now occasion dare to venture into the world of fastfood. They deprave themselves in the name of you only live once, because it is thier goal to then insure they do live for as long as they phyiscaly and possibly can.
On the other side, you have those that fall more in line with my train of thought, taking that very same mantra, I see this as an invitation. I love food, of course I am a quarter Itallian and Itallians love to eat, I savor food, and find it offers a very sepcial kind of bliss it awaknes the senses and appeals to at least 4 of the five, the lingering delecious smells, the tantilizing sight, the surpreme taste, and the feel and texture of it. Becasue you do only live onces, I should not deny myself this special pleasure, but I will indulge and enjoy. Maybe I eat more then I should at times, and maybe I eat things that I shouldn't but I think when it comes done to it, the experince of it is worth it.
And I cannot help but to wonder, when our health food friends, by chance suceed in thier quest, and happen to live up into thier late 90s or perhaps 100s, while they are most likely in some home somewhere or being taken care of by realitives, supposing they do not have alztimers or dementia, I wonder, if they ever think to themselves, boy, I am sure glad I never had a bite of choclate cake or I might never have achived this. 5:23 PM - 4/10/2007 - comments {1} - post commentAnimals as the Famillar is DisneyI was just sitting here looking at this blanket with Disny's Pocohauntis on it with Meiko(the raccoon) draped over her shoulders, and well it just sort of got me thinking, to an intresting idea that had come to me, though perhaps it is just reading into things, or how I choose to interuput something nonetheless I thought it was worth some thought.
Disney movies always tend to strongly feature aniamals, most espcially thier cartoons, primiarly for the obvisous reasons of drawing in kids, kids on a whole love animals, and are mused by the idea of talking animals, and comidic animals and so forth and it gives the story the extra element of fantasy and wonder, but I could not help but to notice, that it seems in many disney cartoons, the aniaml play appears as a famillar.
That is to say an animal that seems to have a special bound/connection with the female protaganist or heroine, and in some cases the villian and antagonist, an animal that seems sent speically to aide that female and help her achive her goal becasue of special abilities it was granted (thought not always supernatural abilities) it could just be the animals inginuity and companionship, but the result is the same.
As I first mentioned and what started all this, Pocohauntis as Meiko, Mulan has the little red dragon whose name I cannot recall, that follows her when she ends up going into war to save her father, and stays by her side, aiding her in her quest and helping her keep her idenity hidden. To look at the other side, in Cinderlla the evil Step-Mother had the cat who was always with her and stalking around, and Cinderella herself had the mise in the house that came to help her. Even the Little Mermaid, had the crab whose name I cannot recall, and again on the other side, Ursula had the eels, and well I am sure there are others, but these are just the ones that came to my immidieate mind for the moment. 10:44 PM - 3/22/2007 - comments {0} - post commentA study in cleavageI will admit I was shamefully watching VH1 the other day, for there was nothing else on tv, and I wanted some mindless entertainment, they were doing this thing first it was 100 greatest red carpet moments, and then it was the worst fassion mishaps in hollyhood or some such, I cannot rememeber upon which I saw this on, but it got me thinking how funny the mind works sometimes, and in such non-senseical ways.
They were talking about Pamala Anderson, and this like half-shirt she was wearing which left the bottom half of her breasts exposed, and it got me thinking, just what is it that is so different between showing a little upper boob cleavage to lower boon cleaveage, the exzat same amount of breast was showing wheahter it be top half or bottom half, but somehow, it seems that there is something that is almost sophisticated, and still classy while being sexy at the same time in exposing a bit of the upper breast cleavage, and yet the thought of someone showing off the underside of thier breast seems trashy in a way.
You could picturie someone of high-class, a respected bussiness woman, someone of high society and who is looked up to and elegant, going to an event showing a little top breast cleavage, but the idea of someone exposing a bit of thier loser breast, brings to mind the words tramp or skank
And I say the same is true of myself, I think there is something sensual and yet still acceptaible and classical about giving the breasts a little push inward and upward and showing a little upper breast cleavage, but I tend to recoil and look down upon the thought of leaving bare the underside of the breast.
It is just an odd little thing that really I do not think comes from any sort or reason. 9:58 AM - 3/16/2007 - comments {0} - post commentDeath
Today I am going to talk about Death, not the act itself but rather the figure of Death, or what most of us know as The Grim Reaper. It is not hard to imagine that I have always had a certain fascination with The Grim Reaper, given my dark and perhaps sometimes morbid nature, and there are many different ideas, representations and feelings attached to Death. To some he is cast a villainous figure to be feared and hated, he is seen as the taker of life, as it is right there in his name Death, and there are many examples of people attempted to try to elude death, combat death, trick death as if Death were an enemy to be defeated, though ultimately is the unavoidable, perhaps possibly postponed for a time, but then there are those that do seek to escape death altogether in quests for immortality, which still exists today though no longer is it a search for some magic artifact, or sacred fountain or spell, or wish, that will grant immortality, but it is science and medicine, and the quest to seek a cure to everything and prolong life for as long as possible. A seek to wipe out anything that could result in death, old age itself is being combated though it cannot be stopped.
I have never seen Death, The Grim Reaper in this light before, and I have always believe that he is falsely villianized and rather misunderstood. For one I do not see the role of Death, despite the name, to truly be to cause or bring about the event/act of death. Too many times I think the Grim Reaper is seen as the actual ultimate killer. But death the act itself is not an entity, it is not personifebale, it is an event, a stage of life which happens on its own accord and would happen Grim Reaper or no. Rather the Grim Reaper, Death the enitiy comes after death the event has already done its work to gather the soul. I see Death as truly representing transition. He reaps the soul after the body has already passed, not for the sake of causing the bodies passage, and guides it to insure that it does end up where it belongs and does not get lost in the process.
   The most common, image and personification of death today is the imagery of a skeletal figure in a black hooded cloak carrying a scythe, it cannot be pin pointed exactly where, when or how this particular image came to be, if it did in fact origin from one particular place, but it is easy to see the symbolism the surrounds the figure and it is not hard to imagine how that image came to be so well associated with death.
For one you have the black cloak which bear a resemblance to the robes of priests, which particularly historically it is not hard to imagine how a priest might have a strong association to death. For one they were the ones to actually oversee the process of death. They would be the ones to come and read the last rights to the dying, and then carry out the funeral ceremony, as well they could be seen as shepherds to the soul, such as the Grim Reaper is. And of course the skeletal frame of the reaper is representation of the corpse, and the scythe is a tool that was used for the reaping of the harvest and so it is the tool of the Grim Reaper who reaps and harvests our souls.
Before the Grim Reaper would come upon the scene or at least this imagery of him which is so familiar to us today there have been others whom have filled the same role which his seen as his now. Perhaps the most familiar of these is Charon the ferryman of Greek Mythology whom bore the souls of the dead safely across the River Styx.
    Perhaps one of the most interesting figures, because of the fact that they are not readily associated with death as Charon is or the Grim Reaper, and yet still bore the same burdensome task, without having to suffer such morbid, and in some cases negative associations are the Valkyrie whom have in fact been cast in a more glamorous and magnificent light. Of course the Valkyrie are the beautiful and strong women of Odin who sweep down upon winged horses to carry away the souls of those who died in battle and bare them up to Vallaha.
   Unlike with modern day representations of the Grim Reaper, and the rather bleak figure of Charon, the Valkyrie were honored, and in fact there was a certain bliss in the thought of being took by them. They were not feared but rather glorified.
Another interesting aspect is in animals that are commonly used to represent death or are viewed in being connected to death in someway, are given the power to trespass from this world into the other world. Not surpassingly many of these animals are scavengers and carrion eaters. The most popular is the Crow and or Raven, these birds have many different emotions and significance attributed to them. In some they are seen as a bad omen, where Death is seen as a villain, these birds are also recognized as being wicked but to others they are scared animals that should be honored. Coyotes and Wolves much like Ravens and Crows also have garnered mixed feelings and associations, and they too bear certain associations with death and the spirit world, like their fowl friends, they also can play the role of scavenger and carrion eater, but another interesting feat of these animals is the fact they can be both night, and day walkers, found in both light. This could by seen as symbolic of their ability to pass between both worlds as well.
   Last but not least I cannot go without speaking of the infamous Death card within a Tarot deck, and this is a subject I have touched upon before. So commonly this card is used as the universal sign in movies and on TV as bad omens, and of evil, as much like the figure of Death himself, it has been vastly mistunderstood and mistaken. The Death card is too often attriubuted to the event and act of death itself, which is false, as the Death card acutaly id a dipicition and represensation of the figure of Death, or the Grim Reaper, which is a sperate thing from the event of death. So much like The Grim Reaper, the Death card in in fact a symbol of transformation and change, not of acutal physical death. It does not predict nor cause death, but acts as a guide to help move from one phast into another, as so does the Grim Reasper.
Here are a few additional images of Death I thought were worth sharing, and each in thier own way showed a different aspect of Death
  
  3:57 PM - 2/25/2007 - comments {0} - post commentAtheisim is not a diseaseSeriously why cannot Christains just learn to live and let live, and leave other people alone? It gets quite obnoxious sometimes, and I often cannot help but to find myself in a poistion of trying to defend this or that group against Christain lynch mob mantilatitly against anyone who is different. Mainly I do it simply to play Devils advoacate (no pun intended) and because it is fun to rile them up by arguing with them espcailly when they all gang up together.
Well considering my great intrest in quotes there is this forum I belong to which is dedicated to qutations and qutation discussion, and someone said they were looking for atheisim quotes, and of course this group of Christains had then come in and make a debate out of it, even though the poor guy just wanted some quotes and was not making a personal statement one way or the other, and though I am by no means an atheiest, I have very strong spiritual beleifs (just the wrong ones depending who you talk to) I get tried of others acting like athieisim is a disease and that if a person is an atheiest then clearly that means something is just wrong with them and they are bad horrible people and that something most have happend to turn them into atheiets to start with, becasue if they were normal sane people then they would obviously belive in God.
In fact one person said
I'd prefer to call atheism as a consequence of such human experience as utter indifference, leading to inability/refusal to make a difference in this chaotic world, whereas atheism as a result of spiritual journey must be so taken as it is.
So if a person is an athiest that means they clearly must be purely self-serving and have no intrest in doing anything to help the world.
Now I can just about gauentee there are a fair share of Christians who do nothing with thier life but sit on thier ass not helping anybody 12:43 AM - 1/21/2007 - comments {3} - post commentGod vs PegasusMany of us are famillar with those philosphical type questions that really are quite impossible to asnwer, the little ones, like for instance the first two that come to my mind is, the old how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or can God create a rock that even he cannot lift? Well in one of my late night thinkings I have developed one of my own.
What is the differance between God and Pegasus?
And well it does not have to be Pegasus in specific but that is sort of a symbol of all things mythological, it might at face vaule seem like a silly question but if you really think about it, what answer can one possibly give? There is nothing solid or tangiable that anyone could point at that would in fact give God more validity over Pegasus.
The reason people in this day and age do not belive in Pegasus is for one becasue the idea of such a creature seems physcaly impossible, there is no hard core evidence, no bones, or any other such things that can prove that such a creatue had at one time exsisted, and no one has seen one, at least not as far as we know in this day and age have thier been reports of any Pegasus sightings. But the reason why we even know what Pegasus is, is becasue at one point in time there were people that reported having seen such a creature but the is no proff to say that is really what they saw or if in fact they had seen something that did not yet understand or have a name for and so dubbed it Pegasus.
Well if you read all of the above but replaced the word Pegasus with God, well it really would not change all that much, for the same could be said equally as true. Of course religous people will try to refer to the bible as proof of God, but that is an invalid argument, for one thing it was writtian by men, men who lived in the very same time peirod that belived in Pegasus. And well just as people can try to point to the bible as proof so can I find text that makes refrence to the Pegasus, myths and legends which refer to the creature. And there really is no rational and logical way a person can argue that the bible is somehow a more valid source then any work of mythology. The fact that "you belive it is true" does not really count as an argument.
There is also the matter which has always fascinated me, about the fact that it was not just one isolated area that believed in Pegasus and other assorted creatures of myth, but rather cultures from all over the globe have had thier own such simillar creatures and thier own simillar myths.
And really if you think about it, this almost serves as one point in favor of Pegasus and one point against God as far as validity goes on account of the fact that God, or the beleif in him did start in one central area and was then imposed upon other people, it was not a common beleif that everyone seemed to share independtly of, but one that people were forced into acceptence of and one which poeple had to spread the word to others about.
But as far as I know, there was not any one group of person traveling all over to inform people about the exisitince of
Pegasus and to try and get them to accept it, but rather it seems many of our creatures of myths seemed to be collectivly beleived in by many different people without the influence of others upon them. 10:49 PM - 1/18/2007 - comments {0} - post commentAnimal Nature vs. Human NatureI have heard the argument before that monogamy is purely a human concept and ideal that does not in fact acutally exist and is not natural, but something humans have created out of some sense of need and that it is really irrational for a person to really exepct two people to stay together only with that one person for the rest of thier life, and of course the monogamy goes against basic nature is an excuse that I have heard used by cheaters, but this is all a bunch of marleky and so I thought I would debunk this sorry attempt for an excuse and get a few things clear, as I am quite tired of people using the "its not natural" excuse for things, when that is complete nonsense and the person does not know what they are talking about.
Animals are infact more like people then one would think, or perhaps it is the other way around, and it is people that are more like animals then they would like to admit, and just like in humans, in the animal kingdom there are those whom are sutited to from monogmous pairs, and those that are not suited for it, but indeed monogmoy is very much a part of nature.
For startes nearly every single bird species with perhaps a few exceptions here and there form monogamous pairs in which they choose one partner whom they will remain with for the rest of thier life, in fact there is even one speicies of bird, of which I wish I could remeber exzactly which one, but it slips my mind at the moment, whom, once it has taken on a mate, not only is it monogamous but if its mate should die or be killed the surviving bird will never take another mate again. And here is an intresting fact, one of the animals that is seen as perhaps the most primal and has some of the oldest roots, the crocidile does in fact live in monogomous parings. 2 crocodiles will infact stay mated to each other for the rest of thier life.
If anything, it is infact cheating that is a human created ideal, for as far as I know cheating does not exsist in nature. Animals that are not inclined to mongomy go about it in a couple of different ways, for one there are many speicies of anaimals that get together only around mating season, in order to reproduce and then part ways, in some cases the pair might stay together untill after the young if born and ready to take care of itself, and the male will remain to help take care of the female and thier offspring and then they will part to both find new partners for the next mating season, and in other cases after the female is inpregnated the male will instantly leave, or be chased away in some cases by the female.
Or in the case of pack animals such as elephants, lions, and certain seals, they will have a harem structure in which there is one alpha male whom is not bounded to a particular female but mates among all of them freely, or in the case of wolves, they have what might be called an open monogamy, in which the alpha male will take on a mate to be the alpha remale, and he will stay bonded to her the rest of his life, but now and then might mate with some of the other females in the pack, but it is not done behind the alpha females back, it is not as if the alpha male sneaks off in the woods with another female to have an affair, it is all done in plain view with the alpaha remales full awanress.
In fact as far as I know, thare are no animals in the animal kingdom as far as I know other then humans that will form a so called monogmous paring with another, and then against the knowlege of its mate, make an effort to sneak away in order to make with other males or females while remaining "bonded" to another.
11:20 AM - 11/29/2006 - comments {0} - post commentDepressionThere was something that I was reading in a forum I belong to that kind of got me thinking. As someone who has to deal with manic depression I can have very little sympathy for people who are depressed of claim to be depressed, and I know at first that might sound like a bit of a paradox, becasue I have been through it and I know what it feels like, but that is exzaxtly why I feel the way I do, and I will explain myself a bit.
As someone whom struggles with depression I know its temptations and it can be easy to give into at times, it is a tool that can be used, for in truth sometimes it is a lot easier to just be depressed and wallow in your self-pity as well as try to feed off the pity of others as a way to gain attention then to pull yourself up and give yourself a good kick in the ass and get over it. And it can be done, though a person cannot always help if they are depressed, though in some cases it really is all in a persons own mind, you can choose weather or not you are going to stay depressed. People who need to take pills or go to the docotor or seek help, it is becasue they make either a concious or sub-concious choice to just give up and do not even try and they lack will power.
There are bascialy 2 different type of people when it comes to depression those that really do not want that to intrude upon thier life, and know it is something they have to deal with, but are able to take a step back and recgonize thier own irrationality and say I am not going to let this dictate my life, and I want to live, and face it head on, and those that just feed into it and make the choice that they are incapable of dealing with it.
And I know because I have been on both sides of the coin, and I have been that person that has decided that I was depressed and that there was nothing I could do about it, and woe is me, but then I woke up and realized it did not have to be that way and I could acutally do something about it if I took some incitive and got over the pity and stopped just trying to garnish sympathy and attention from people 8:06 AM - 11/11/2006 - comments {1} - post commentAmoreAhh Love, it is only fitting that I take a moment to dedicate a post to the subject. What is Love? Is that not the question man has asked since he first discovered love? It is the inspiration of some of the greastes prose and poetry. The subject of lieature, art, movies, TV, music, and song. It is perhaps one of the most sought after and desired yet untangable things there is. Perhaps it is not for everyone, but it is the one thing so many of us seek, and yet which of us can really cliam to understand it? It is undesicrable, undefinable. And yet we all seem to have this instinct or intuition, this faith that we will know it, that we can feel it. Even though we cannot see it, taste it, touch it or here it. We try to put into words, but often only capture a dim shade of it.
There are so many different types of love, and it can be felt in so many ways, yet we cannot truly catagroize or classify it, it is just something we know. We feel it differently. There is family love, love of friends, and even in Romantic and more Intimate love there are different degress of it, even from person to person. Those we have encoutered and enaged with, we have loved each of them in different ways. No two loves are ever really alike.
Where does love even come from? Nobody truly knows. Is it born of the mind? Of the soul? The heart?
The dicitionary defines love as :
1 a (1) : strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties Now in some ways it seems absurb that the word would even be in the dicitionary to begin with, how can this book, this gathering of words know what love is when no one else does? Hold the secerets that we have never been able to answer and unlock. Granted all of these things might describe love, what we feel in love. How we think of love, but is it really what Love is?
There is something almost devine about love. Something etheral, much like fate of destiny. Love has been grandizied, and villified. It has been a heroine, and a demise. Can anything else arise such strong emotions of both positivitity and negativity and often simotanously?
Is there anything else that is so mysterious, so unknown, so enigmatic that has become so much a part of myth and legend? That people have both been willing to kill for and die for. That has both given the will to live, and taken it away?
Is there anything else that has had the ablity to cross so many boundries. The things people have done in the name of Love, things a person perhaps would never before consider to do, but were dirven by this foce, that seems to hold us in such a strong grip.
Ineed I think that perhaps we are in fact in love with Love.
7:54 PM - 10/10/2006 - comments {0} - post commentIf you could turn back the clockOn the raido earlier today they were talking about is you could go back in time, speicialy to college or highschool what would you do differenently knowing what you do now?
This is an intresting question, and I am sure that everyone has things which they wish they could change or wish they could have done differenently. It is natural to think that I should have done this, or would have done that, wheather it is regaurding, how you behaved in school, how much you studied, or your social interactions, and relationships, and things you may have done, or wish you had did and so on.
But I would have to say, that in the end, when it comes down to it if given the oppertunity I am not sure I would change anything, this is not becasue I think that I did everything perfectly or that I don't think things could have been done differenetly, or that I wouldn't have done them differently if I was then who I am now, but the reason why I wouldn't go back and do them differently if given the chance, is becasue I think, all the things that we were, and all the experinces we had, and the mistakes we might have made, and all the things, for good or bad that was a part of who we were are what make us who we are now.
And perhaps some of you are not happy with your current posistions and perhaps some of you would not mind a chance to sctrach and start completely over, but I for one though even now my life is not perfect I do not think I would want to risk altering the things I have now, and the person I am now.
I think if a person could go back and relive thier life, or a peice of it and alter and change the experinces they have had, there stands the chance that in the end they would end up being a different person then they are now, and with that, I think that perhaps some of the people who might have touched thier lives or might now be a part of thier lives would never have been met and certain paths never crossed.
I have always been a beliver in holding no regrets, though we might all make mistakes or do things we wish he had not, instead of living in regret for these things, we should look at them as a period of learning, and as another process to the development and evolution of who we are, and who we may yet to become. 7:54 AM - 10/10/2006 - comments {0} - post commentReligon in Child RearingSomething I was reading in another blog got me thinking about the place of relgion in child-rearing. It is a perfectly natural and understandable feeling that if a person should belong to a relgion, any religion and feel strongly about it whatever it might be they will want to teach it to thier childern and have thier childern come to cheerish it as much as they do, but I am not certain this is in fact the best idea. I belive that a person most take a step back though it might be difficult to do so. I would think that most parents, would want thier childern to grow up with the ability to think for themelves and make up thier own minds and be unique invididuals who do not just follow what other people say, but question things and explore and develop, and yet when a child is given pre-pacakaged relgious ideas from a very young age, that is the very oppisiste of that. I think relgion is a journay each person must be allowed to take upon thier own within thier own mind and soul, ultimately I do not think a person should be forced or brian washed to any beleif. Nor should thier exploration of spiritualty by hampered by any mental baggage.
Childeren should not be really imbued with any religon, for one thing they did not really understand, and for another I do not think it is mentally healty. It is possible for one to teach the vulaues of thier religon without acutally teaching the philosophies and theologies behind it. I was rasied in a household where there was no religon to speak of, not to say my family was athiest, but it just was not something my parents tought to the childern whatever theye beleived in, they allowed thier childern to find thier own spiritual paths. I remeber when I was younger I had this vauge concept of God and some masculine singular being that was suppose to be the creater and ruler of all, becasue one cannot help but to be exposed to such in outside influences, but it never quite felt right to me and I never really grasped this concept or accepeted it as truth for me. I always felt a natural draw to nature and at night would sometimes talk to the moon, or I would address Mother Nature as if it were a living entiity. I remember when I was young I sort of grudingly accpeted God becasue I did not know there was any other options, but it never felt right or true. Then it was not untill I was in highschool when I became aware of Paganisim and found that was what my calling truly was.
When I think of how many people I have met whom were brought up in very strong Christain and Catholic familes, and how many of them after growing up have renouneced those beleifs, were also left with feelings of angst towrd them and feel a negitivity to these religons, and I cannot help but to wonder if this is not in part to do with the fact then when they were too young to really know any better were force fed such ideology.
My sister now is a new mother and she has choosen the Pagan path as myself and she is debating now what she should do about the relgious question, becasue she dosen't really want to brain wash her child into having to accept her own beleifs, but she wants to teach the Pagan vaules of being respetful to nature and enviromentaly responseable and comtrable and caring to animals, as well she knows her child will be exposed to religons that she dosen't agree with. 8:18 AM - 8/17/2006 - comments {0} - post commentOffering a Different ViewAfter molling it over a bit, there is something which was posted as a comment in my blog which I would like to respond to. But before I begin I wish to say that I am not doing this to be hostel or to bicker or any such reasons as that. I do not want my intentions mistaken. I am doing this as an intelligent evulation, and offering an alterntive point of view. This comment I will be responding is as follows.
I will comment on your statement on your reference that Jesus was a prophet, Bush has made the same mistake, Jesus was and is the Son of God, now in the Christian Bible Jesus was referred to as a prophet by His apostles etc because at that time they did not realize exactly who Jesus was ie....In Matthew 16.....When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
Now, it is true that if one follows the Bible then yest Jesus was the Son of God, but no everyone nesciarly holds that view. So my refering to him as a prohphet was not nessciarly out of ignorance nor was it nessciarly incorrect of me to do so.
For one thing, I do not follow the Bible and I am not a Christan and do not belive in the Jedu/Christain God, with this being said, it would not be accurate for me to refer to Jesus as being the Song of God, for I do not belive in that said God, but it is prefectly conciveable for a person to belive that Jeus was a living breathing person who really walked the worth without accpeting that he was nessciarly the Son of God.
I can choose to belive that Jesus was indeed a true historical figure that acutally lived but that he was a mortal man and a leader of a new religon. No different then Sidharatha who later became known as Buddha, I can belive that there really was such a person as Sidhartha that was the founder of Buddism, without belive that he himself became a God.
Also you have to consider the views of other relgions, for example Muslims view Jesus as being a Prohet within thier relgion without seeing him as being the Son of God. And the Hindus even accept Jesus in their relgion and they belive he was an avatar to Vishnu. 2:12 PM - 7/5/2006 - comments {1} - post commentContemplating on ReligonThis is just a random though which I have had, and decided I wished to put out there, though I know that many will most likely not agree, that is quite fine by me.
Contorary to what most people beleive Christanty is in fact not a true monothesic relgion, though they like to say that they are, and it is true that they do only worship one God, but if you look at it closely you will see what I mean. For starters if you go back to the roots of Christanty, it never started as a beleif in just one God, in the very begening it started out as a polothesitc reglion, the now Jedu/Christan God, orignally started as being little more then a tribal God, and one of many such Gods, and basicaly the tribe which worhisped him decided that he was surperior to all the other Gods, and that all the other tribes should abandon thier own Gods to worship him. But they still acknowleged that other Gods were in exsistince they only saw those other Gods as being inferrior to thier own God.
The whole One and Only God, monothestic thing was something which began to develop over time, it never started that way. It was never as if one day someone just woke up and said, "hey wait a mintue there is Only God" Basicly it began more or less as a "My God is bigger then your God" thing, and it was through the demorlization of the other Gods which began to give people to interpet it as monotheism. But even so there was never an offical denial that other Gods did indeed exisit they were just seen as lesser Gods.
If you look at the wording in the Bible itself it states,
"No other Gods shall be worshiped before me"
Now that line does not conclusively deny the exsistince of other Gods. Nowhere in there does it acutally refer to the Jedu/Christan God as being the One and Only God. If you think about it the line is more of acknowelgent that there are indeed other Gods, you should not worship them, you should only worship me. This is not about montheism it is about surpemecy which are two different things. To view something as inferiror is not to deny that it is in exsistince.
If you really think about this deeply and take the time to mull it over, if Chrisanity was true montheism and if the beleif was sincenrely that the Juedo/Christan God was in fact the One and Only God, and that no other Gods exsisted at all whatsoever, then why would have to address something which was not even there?
If the Jedu/Christan God was truly the One and Only God, then he would not have bothered to tell people not to worship any other Gods, but there would be no other Gods for people to try and worship, and a singular God would not insult himself by giving the title of God to lesser beings.
For instance like look at it this way. With the whole contriveroy over the Presidency and did Bush really win, or did Kerry really in. No one follows Kerry as an alternitve President, even though he might have been more popular. No one refers to him as being the President, and Bush does not have to make statments saying that No other Presidents will be followed before him, because there is only one President like it or not.
And it would be the exzact same way with relgion if Christanty was truly monothesitc. Granted, there are some obvious differences as by law Kerry could not try and act as an alterntive President, but people can still belive what they want reguardless, and if they so choose to worship a wheel of cheese as a God, but the point is such things would not have been acknowleged as being Gods at all in the Bible to begin with if there was in fact only One true God
Now granted Chrsitans today can refuse to acknowlege any other such beings as being Gods, and they probaly will, but even so that does not change the words used in the very text they follow, that is just thier opinion of it. 1:33 PM - 7/5/2006 - comments {2} - post commentHands of FateI have been doing some thinking and relfecting lately, and it strikes me as strange sometimes how things tend to work out. It is the strangeness of events and encounters that leads me to belive that there really are no true conincidences or accidents, but that there is another force envoled, a guiding force that helps lead the course of things. That everything happens for a reason. I see it as being like little milestones fate has left to lead up to one particular event. As an example of what I mean, the odds are that if I never had met Eric (my ex) and ended up having that disaster with him then I would probaly neveer would have turned to the pagan personals in my quest to make a new life for myself and then I would never have met Matthew. I see it almost as if somehow Eric was needed in order to get me to where I needed to be to discover what I was really looking for. Fate put him there in my way, though unlike what I had oringally thought it was not becasue he was the one who was to be my soul mate but becasue it was being with him that made me realize that I was at a time in my life where I was really ready to have a life comonapion, and that is what led mt to seek the service of personal ads. If I had never met Eric then I probaly would have the same attitude I did before him, before Eric I never acutally made any effort to truly meet anyone I just figured if it was ment to happen then it would happen. But after Eric I sort of gained a new prespective and thought I still put my trust in fate I decided that if I really wanted to be with someone then I would have to put myself out there and be active in finding them. And now I am with Matthew, and I am very hopeful for our future together, he is an amazing guy and very good to me. Though this is a more exereme example little things like this happen all the time, sometimes they may be small sometimes they may be big. But everything that happens does so precisesly becasue of the steps leading up to that moment. Another examaple is how I met my now best friend Fred, one day one a whim when I was bored I decided that I would make an aol blog, it was the first blog I had ever done, and before that point I was never really into blogs and had no real intrest in having one but then I was just like what the hell and made one to give me something to do, it was becasue I had made that blog that I then stumbled upon Freds blog and it caught my eye so I read it and ended up leaving a comment and at this point my blog was still new so I told him to check it out sometime, well he happend to IM me after reading my comment and from there we just really hit it off and discovered a lot in common and are now really close friends. Though I do belive in free will and that we can alter our courses by the actions we choose, and I do not think everything we do is pre-ordained I do think there is some fate envoled and perhaps somethings that are just ment to happen, and obsticels, or stepping stones, or other people are put in our path to help lead us to these things. Though ultimately I think the individual still has the right to decide what they are going to do and are not led by puppets. For example though the event with Eric is what led me to the peronsal ads I do not thing anything acutally forced me to use them, I think that was my own decision, just the thought of doing so would never have even been there if I had not had that experince. Same thing with Fred, I do not think I was forced by anything to make a blog, that choice was my own, but there were perhaps other things that led me the moment where I would even consider doing so. 1:56 PM - 6/21/2006 - comments {1} - post commentManifestationThere is one odd thing which I have come to ponder now and then, though I know how it sounds, and I do not know how much I really belive it or not, but it certaintly is something to think about. You have lately heard me before speak of my relationship troubles, and the one I was formaly envoled with. Well sometimes I wonder if in truth he was all a manifestation of my own will. I have a few reasons for comming upon this theory. For one thing the odd way in which he just matterilized you might say. That is the way I encountered him first online. It was not through any sort of forum, chat or anything. He just IMed me out of the blue. And for another there was the fact that we were so connected to each other, and so much alike, had so much in common. The way he seemed to be the ezact ideal of everything I sought and wanted. As the old expression goes, if it seems too good to be true is usually is. In many ways he did seem to be almost like a part of my own mind. And then there was his strange dissaperence, and the odd fact that it occuered right around the same time he had said he was making plans to come out here to visit me. And last but not least the way he completely vannished after that last later I wrote him, like writting off a character in a book. It was as if he just vannished when my mind finally decided to let him go, and realized it could not go on anymore.10:48 PM - 5/9/2006 - comments {0} - post commentSelf Set RulesI stumbled upon something upon another blog that sounded kind of interesting called The Bitch Club, it sounded like the type of thing I might be able to get on bored with and I considered submiting my blog, after reading thier rules I thought I might stand a chance at getting accepted, but alas I shall not, because it has always been one of my rules not to join anything, no matter what it be, any sort of club, orginization, order, regligous group, etc..., I stay free lance and free style unattached, a rouge and an outsider feeling completely free of having to conform to anyones rules and guidelines, and I have very recently learned the great importance of not breaking ones own rules, that is the overall point of this post. To stree the importance of not breaking the rules you set up for yourself. 9:52 AM - 3/31/2006 - comments {0} - post commentWhat is reality?I have been talking to this aquaintince of mine, and he is really hung up on this whole idea about reality, and wheather it is real or if it is just a myth, and he has these therories about reality being all an illusion and that our own bodies are only illusion, and well I do have my own preceptions of reality, but I know that the whole question or reality is one that is common particuarly in philosphical debate and there have been seveal theroies and ideas about the illusion of reality, so I have given the matter some thought, and there are a couple problems with the idea that I have, which to me seem to disprove the reality as myth or illusion idea, though I am sure there are those that could try and dispell and debate my arguements, one of them I can even come up for a counter argument for myself, though it is a bit shakey I think and take some streaching, such is what philosphers do.
The first problem I have with accepting reality as a myth idea is this. If realiy was a myth or illusion then the "laws" of reality would be only illusion as well and would not really exsist. Now by laws I do not mean legal or moral laws, you will see in a moment what I am getting at. But if there is no reality and if there is one who has the precetpion to see beyond the veil of reality and knows it to only be a myth, then they should be free and unbound by reality, which means. There is no reason why a person could not jump off the end of the cliff spread thier arms and fly. The only thing the prevents a person from doing so now is the law of gravity, but that is a law that is a part of what we understand to be reality, so if there is no reality, and if a person sees that there is no reality, then there would be no gravity, and it would only be the preception of gravity in each indiviudals mind which keeps them bound to it. But if a person so past that and knew the truth, they would not have a preception of graveity so they should be perfectly capable of doing this. Though I have a feeling that if I were to ask me aqueantice who holds this beleif in the myth of reality if he could jump off a cliff and take off flying he would say no. Nor do I think he would acutally atempt to do any such thing or the obvious reasons, but that alone I think acts as a disproof to his theory.
Now there is the more complex issue that we could get into here about that, based on what we see as being reality, for instance suppose the earth itself is accepted as being an aboslute, it is understood as being real, and so that all the laws of physics would still hold in place. And it is only how we precive our lives on earth and ourselves to be that is the illusion. So gravity would still be in place, or would it? The problem there is, that the reason we know about the law of graveity or the earth even is through scientific study, but who are these scintensts? If they are part of the illusion of reality then how can thier worl be trusted to be real if they themselves are only illusion?
Another porblem is that if it is all just an illusion then how is it that everyone precived it in the same way? If reality was a myth then instead of just being one reality that we all have of the world there would be several seperate realities, which does exist to a certain extent but not as much as it would if in truth it was all just illusion. For example only a precentage of the world would have gravity becasue it is not something that everyone would precive if it was all purely a matter of precetpion. There would in fact not be just one world but several small worlds. Unless of course the illusion of the one reality is being projected upon us all by an outside source of some sort. And that can get into all sorts of questions about religon which I do not want to touch upon just now.
The other issue I had with the reality as a myth theory is sort of related to the first, but I have yet to think of a counter agrument for it. Which is that if reality is all just illusion and everything within it is an illusion then the person who precives this and is not fooled should be more or less invinseable. The example I use for this is, if a person was to shoot someone who knew that reality was all just illusion then he would know that the bullet was not real, but an illusion itself, and in he turn he was not real but an illusion and if two illsuionary objects were to pass through each other, it should be just like passing through air and no harm should be done. How can an illusionary bullet penetrate flesh which is not really there but only precived in the mind?
Well that is just something to think about. 10:54 AM - 3/10/2006 - comments {1} - post commentA Lesson LearnedWe are all familler with the old clique fight fire with fire, and even I had in the past made the folly of following this advice and doing just though, but I have come to learn that doing so really does not accomplish anything and it is just a trap to fall into, but I have recently come to discover a better way of doing things and adopted my own philosophy upon the matter.
Say, for instance you are getting into a debate, or having a disagrement with someone, and the other person goes off the deep end, and engages in offering a few low blows, and begins down the road of peronal attack, no intially you are angery and it might be tempting to respond in kind and start a flame war with this person, which would result in the constant bickering back and forth, and resolve nothing, as well as confirming thier assumptions about you, and making you both look like iditots, though it might feel momentrairly good to get in a few shots, as you would feel justified in doing so, it will not have any real effect upon them but make them angerier and cause them to retaliate against you and so on and so forth.
Instead there is a better way of doing things, which I have found works quite well. I call it fighting fire with water, perhaps not very orginal, but makes sense does it not?
The idea behind fighting fire with water is this, do not respond to a person when you are angery, first take some time to get level headed, do what you have to do, rant off about the person to a friend to get it out of your system, or in a journal, take a walk, do something you find claming, whatever, once you have it all out, and do not feel the sting of anger then you respond to them. And you do so in a way that is rational, civil, and calm.
That is not to say I am suggestion forgiving what they have said, or exusiting it and letting it go unanswered, not at all, by all means confront them but do so with your wits about you, instead of just lashing out at them, point out to them the fallices they have made and reveal to them just what an ass they made of themselves without using any unescnary insults that will not help your cause.
If you do this, then unless they want to make more of an ass of themselves it will be almost impossible for them to respond in a ranting raving way, and they will be forced to put themselves in check and it will help to make you come off as being the more sane one which will garner more outside support to your side.
The reason I call this fighting fire with water, is becasue it is a very cool, calm, collected way of dealing with things, and it does quell the intial flame. 9:44 PM - 2/9/2006 - comments {0} - post commentA Lost SacrednessIn this day and age it seems more and more the sacredness and purity of female beauty in all its shapes, sizes and colors is being lost. In this age of cosmic surgery, aging creams, popularity and obcession with make up, diet craze, all things that are natural and once were revered and considred beautiful in thier own way are being twisted and turned into something gortesque and wrong which needs to be fixed. In which now more and more women are holding the view man can fix, imrpove and make better what nature has crafted. Though many women will try and blame the media, hollywood, and the view point of men in this day and age, from where I see it more then anything it is the women who are doing it to themsels, the women who are responseable for this outlook more then any other source and they just look for outward excuses. And now, I am really flabergasted for what might turn into the latest new thing. It is an assulet upon the beuaty, and sacredness of motherhood, and all the asepcts of the female body when in a maternal way which were once revered and seen has having an allure. Now it is being viewed as something that needs correction. For one thing there is the disstress women seem to feel for the weight they gain during pregnancy though once a woman took pride in that. Now in LA a new surgery is being put into practice. There is no gentle way to really put this, so just bare with me and be mature for a few moments. It is a vaginal cosmetic surgery which is intended to serve the purpose of tightning the vagina after it had been streached from child birth, or changing the apperence of the vagina. I am left to wonder what happend to the days when nature was allowed to take its course and when a person took pride in being who they were? 7:44 PM - 2/9/2006 - comments {0} - post commentFriendshipFriendship is a concept that it seems today so few people truly grasp and understand the meaning of. The word frienship now seems to be thrown around hapzardly and everyone a person might spend 5 mins talking to suddnely gets dubbed as a friend. But to me this a firend does not make. Friendship is something more then that. It goes beyond that. The word friendship should be as sacred and carefully placed as the words I love you. I have very few friends, becasue of this. I will not dawn just anyone I talk to as a firend. I have people that I like and that I enjoy speaking with but that alone does not make them friend. That just makes them aquintences. A friend is a person you can trust completely, someone who you do not fear you have to hide anything from but whom you are freely yourself with and share your thoughts and feelings with. A firend is someone who you can disagree with without it turning into a fight and without them getting angery with you. Someone you can be honest with. A friend is someone who should be family, even if not related by blood. Friendship should be a give and take relationship, a relationship where you are willing and wanting to do for them without exepcting anything in return and someone whom would do for you without a seceret agenade. Someone who will always make the time for you and be there when you need them. All too often it seems there are one sided freindships established, friendships that work more like the relationship between a host and its parasite where one person is simply using the other and only comes around when they need something. This a friend does not make. 3:00 PM - 2/9/2006 - comments {0} - post comment
|
 For though All are not able to write books, all conceive themselves able to judge them. ~The Monk
Home User Profile Archives Friends My Wall Recent Entries - Snake Oil of the Modern Age - Catfish - Momento Mori - 100 Greatest Books {Update} - Green Man Catagory - Articles - Books - Arcane - Movies-TV - Music - Philosophy - Poetry - Writing - Thoughts - Rants - The Silvernary - Word of the day - Quote of the Week - In Praise Of - Art - Garden and Animal Journal - Roots - Elements of Horror - Humur - Photography Poem Hunter Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster StopWhaling NRDC BioGems IFAW Social Values Marketplace Blogthings Shadow Poetry Seafood Choices Alliance Look At Me Stop The Seal Hunt My Deviant Art Bold, Beautiful, and Big Responsible Traveling Ethical Traveling Green Weddings Eco-Friendly Sking and Snowboarding Keep Winter Cool Green Resorts The Spiders Den The Literature Forum Good Reads The Mystics Dream Darwin Awards Friends - JournalHome.com - Martin Burch - DAWNIE - Kay - Heather - silver_melusine - Fightingfemale - Landsdown Lad - Dutchboy - lilee - Realove - The Hippie Queen - Silver Wynd - Lo - Inquisitor Tsynn - Yankee Innkeeper - Shokat - SWEETASH - ZBrobinite - thecolumn - The Quiet Riot - ^v^Elizebeth^v^ - The Journal Writer |
