So it's currently 5 mintues to 1 am, and I have a final exam in 8 hours. I should be asleep. Or if I'm not sleeping, I should be studying, right?
Well, I was sleeping, but then a thought struck me, and it struck me so hard I was jolted from my nice warm waterbed. (Yeah, it's sexy.) I was pondering an old catchphrase from common society of a few years back... you know, all that promotional material about men learning to communicate. Well, I thought to myself, Men already know how to communicate, it's women that don't, ironically. If you consider communication to be the transfer of information, that's what men do when they talk, mostly. On the other hand, women mostly relate when they talk. I suppose all that gibberish, which has thankfully mostly faded, was really about two people in a relationship transferring information on how they felt about the relationship. Wait a sec... is that communication or relating. Here's the kicker: If it's done in a way that expresses feeling more than fact, it's relating. If it's done in a way that expresses fact, position, opinion, etc, then it is communication more than relating. Relating is more subjective, and communicating is more objective.
That's it! I've solved the battle of the sexes! Except... I think this whoooole thing was communication.... darnit.
December 16, 2006
December 14, 2006
Ode to Sulphur
Oh Sulphur,
how I love thee,
thou art a lure,
and smelly.
Anyway... what do these "foods" have in common:
Garlic
Leeks
Shallots
Onion
Broccoli
Cauliflower
Cabbage
.
.
.
.
Answer? Sulfur!
Or more techincally, they are foods with relatively high concentrations of organic sulphur containing compounds. Why do we care? Well, we care because we looooove biology! (Admit it, you do, formaldehyde and fetal pigs aside.) I'm sure we've all been told that the human body is approximately 102% water. Well, it is. Sorta. And I'm sure we've all eaten olive oil, sunflower oil, safflower oil, canola oil, or fish oil at some point or another. If you're part cat, it's probably the latter. Furthermore, I'm sure we've all been told that oil and water don't mix! Hah! So what happens to the oil? Well... it goes to /dev/null. But not directly. It actually goes to a big box in the centre of your torso called your fat-box. Biologists like to call it your liver, but they're wrong. In a big sack of water (like you and I), there has to be a box to put all the oil/fat in, and it's called the fat-box. Well, in case you've never noticed, you never urinate oil. (Okay, well, at least *I* never have, so I'm assuming you haven't either) So, where does the oil go when it goes into the fat-box? Well, your fat-box likes it when you eat the above sulphur containing foods, because it rips the sulphur groups off what you eat, adds it to the oils, and voila! They're not really oils anymore because they're water-soluble, polar, and have a sulphur (and probably oxygen) containing group on the end. Then what happens? You urinate (in case you didn't get it last time, that's a fancy word for pee) them out in all that water. And NO, that's not why your urine is yellow.
A Special PostScript for Garlic
Garlic, Onion, Leeks, and so on are a bit more special. Take garlic, for example. If you cook an entire clove of garlic in the oven, and then slice it up, it won't smell at all. The chemistry of garlic is such that a chemical reaction occurs when the cells are burst and the contents freely mix. This causes the strong garlic odour. However, if the garlic is heated before the cells are burst, these reactive compounds are broken down before they meet each other, and thus no resulting smelly compound. The resultant smelly compound is the one that is super good for you, however, so you always want to chop, mince, or crush your garlic before cooking. Likewise with onion, I always chop it finely before cooking it.
Oh yeah, and you'll always smell like what you eat, it just so happens that garlic has a super strong odour and travels through tissues well.
how I love thee,
thou art a lure,
and smelly.
Anyway... what do these "foods" have in common:
Garlic
Leeks
Shallots
Onion
Broccoli
Cauliflower
Cabbage
.
.
.
.
Answer? Sulfur!
Or more techincally, they are foods with relatively high concentrations of organic sulphur containing compounds. Why do we care? Well, we care because we looooove biology! (Admit it, you do, formaldehyde and fetal pigs aside.) I'm sure we've all been told that the human body is approximately 102% water. Well, it is. Sorta. And I'm sure we've all eaten olive oil, sunflower oil, safflower oil, canola oil, or fish oil at some point or another. If you're part cat, it's probably the latter. Furthermore, I'm sure we've all been told that oil and water don't mix! Hah! So what happens to the oil? Well... it goes to /dev/null. But not directly. It actually goes to a big box in the centre of your torso called your fat-box. Biologists like to call it your liver, but they're wrong. In a big sack of water (like you and I), there has to be a box to put all the oil/fat in, and it's called the fat-box. Well, in case you've never noticed, you never urinate oil. (Okay, well, at least *I* never have, so I'm assuming you haven't either) So, where does the oil go when it goes into the fat-box? Well, your fat-box likes it when you eat the above sulphur containing foods, because it rips the sulphur groups off what you eat, adds it to the oils, and voila! They're not really oils anymore because they're water-soluble, polar, and have a sulphur (and probably oxygen) containing group on the end. Then what happens? You urinate (in case you didn't get it last time, that's a fancy word for pee) them out in all that water. And NO, that's not why your urine is yellow.
A Special PostScript for Garlic
Garlic, Onion, Leeks, and so on are a bit more special. Take garlic, for example. If you cook an entire clove of garlic in the oven, and then slice it up, it won't smell at all. The chemistry of garlic is such that a chemical reaction occurs when the cells are burst and the contents freely mix. This causes the strong garlic odour. However, if the garlic is heated before the cells are burst, these reactive compounds are broken down before they meet each other, and thus no resulting smelly compound. The resultant smelly compound is the one that is super good for you, however, so you always want to chop, mince, or crush your garlic before cooking. Likewise with onion, I always chop it finely before cooking it.
Oh yeah, and you'll always smell like what you eat, it just so happens that garlic has a super strong odour and travels through tissues well.
Eating (and Cooking) Habits
So as I was sitting in the kitchen, eating some of the soup I made last week, I began thinking about why I cook the way I do, and why I eat the way I do. So this post is mostly a reflective exercise on my part. The first thing I actually did was examine how I cook and eat. I realized that the two are combined and form a fundamental part of my life, and I think that this is true for many people. I firmly believe diet is fundamental to who a person is, and it is remarkably malleable, at that. But I'll get to defending that later.
How do I eat?
Well, first of all, I eat a lot. I reached an all time low in bodyweight in Aug 05 and for the last year and a bit have been trying to put weight back on, something I wasn't really successful with until the last month or so. For most of my life, when I have been doing hard physical work, I have eaten enormous amounts. For one period in particular, I would start the day with a pound of bacon and 6 eggs. Actually, when I eat eggs I typically eat half a dozen anyway. I never skip breakfast, and if I do, or even delay it, I feel awful and am absolutely wretched to those around me.
How do I cook?
My cooking style is pretty dependent on the other aspects of my life. My schedule is pretty busy. Spending time with my family has been important to me since I was about 5, and it remains a powerful motivator for me. Like most people, I have friends and like to spend time with them too, of course that is a little different from when I was 5, as I now have a car, a cell phone, and credit cards. And finally, there's school/work. Between spending time slaving, studying, or socializing, how do I find the time to cook? Well, mostly I cook in large homogenous batches. I cook stew or soup in a crockpot and eat it throughout the week. I like chili and pasta and will cook a very large pot. I keep the pasta sauce in the fridge and cook noodles every other day or so until it's gone. These "homogenous" dishes are easy to transport, and if you avoid plasticware and use a glass dish with a lid, you can microwave it anywhere too.
So why is all that important, and why did I say it was fundamental to who someone is?
Well, if you hate cooking because it's a lot of work for little reward, I would agree with you. I don't cook things so that they taste good... because then you eat them and they're gone, and that sucks. Of course I try to make the things I cook taste good, but that's not the primary reason I cook. I see food as having two effects: there is a short term effect of taste, while it is being eaten. Then there is a long term effect of what it does to you after you've eaten it. So if you think in the latter fashion, then you might like cooking because it's a lot of work for a lot of reward. For me, the reward of cooking is being healthy and feeling good. I like being full of energy and spunk. The taste-good part of eating is not enough to motivate me... when I know I'm going to get a headache or feel like crap later because I ate 3 cakes and tray of brownies, it's not worth it. On the other hand, I can eat raw broccoli for breakfast because I know I'm going to be doing backflips off my coffee table later.
How do I eat?
Well, first of all, I eat a lot. I reached an all time low in bodyweight in Aug 05 and for the last year and a bit have been trying to put weight back on, something I wasn't really successful with until the last month or so. For most of my life, when I have been doing hard physical work, I have eaten enormous amounts. For one period in particular, I would start the day with a pound of bacon and 6 eggs. Actually, when I eat eggs I typically eat half a dozen anyway. I never skip breakfast, and if I do, or even delay it, I feel awful and am absolutely wretched to those around me.
How do I cook?
My cooking style is pretty dependent on the other aspects of my life. My schedule is pretty busy. Spending time with my family has been important to me since I was about 5, and it remains a powerful motivator for me. Like most people, I have friends and like to spend time with them too, of course that is a little different from when I was 5, as I now have a car, a cell phone, and credit cards. And finally, there's school/work. Between spending time slaving, studying, or socializing, how do I find the time to cook? Well, mostly I cook in large homogenous batches. I cook stew or soup in a crockpot and eat it throughout the week. I like chili and pasta and will cook a very large pot. I keep the pasta sauce in the fridge and cook noodles every other day or so until it's gone. These "homogenous" dishes are easy to transport, and if you avoid plasticware and use a glass dish with a lid, you can microwave it anywhere too.
So why is all that important, and why did I say it was fundamental to who someone is?
Well, if you hate cooking because it's a lot of work for little reward, I would agree with you. I don't cook things so that they taste good... because then you eat them and they're gone, and that sucks. Of course I try to make the things I cook taste good, but that's not the primary reason I cook. I see food as having two effects: there is a short term effect of taste, while it is being eaten. Then there is a long term effect of what it does to you after you've eaten it. So if you think in the latter fashion, then you might like cooking because it's a lot of work for a lot of reward. For me, the reward of cooking is being healthy and feeling good. I like being full of energy and spunk. The taste-good part of eating is not enough to motivate me... when I know I'm going to get a headache or feel like crap later because I ate 3 cakes and tray of brownies, it's not worth it. On the other hand, I can eat raw broccoli for breakfast because I know I'm going to be doing backflips off my coffee table later.
Chili (and Sodexho's Sucks!)
Ingredients:
2 cans Hunt's Tomato Sauce
1 can Scarpone's Red Kidney Beans
1 can Scarpone's Black Beans
1 can Scarpone's Mixed Beans (Red Kidney, Chickpeas, Blackeye)
1 Green Bell Pepper*
1 Onion*
3-4 stalks Celery*
1 kg Cooked Ground Beef
0.5-1.0 jar Salsa*
Seasoning (Chili Powder et al) to taste!
Directions:
1. Fry the beef until thoroughly cooked. Cook it into small pieces for a homogenous chili. Rinse under very hot water to remove most of the fat. Add to the Pot.
2. Finely slice and dice celery and onion and add to the Pot. I prefer to do these two first because they are very crunchy and they take the longest to soften.
3. Add two cans of tomato sauce, any amount of salsa, at least a tablespoon of chili powder, and turn to low heat.
4. Open and drain the cans of beans, and add to the Pot.
5. Finely chop bell pepper and add at any time after this. Most of the fibre in bell peppers is soluble, so they become very soft quite quickly. Beans are mostly insoluble fibre, so they do not change consistency much once added. I prefer to add peppers once the crunchy bits like onion and celery are cooked to the degree I like them, or just before.
6. Let the chili simmer for at least 1.5 hours and then taste it. Adjust flavour with seasoning. If you taste it or add seasoning while the ingredients are still raw, it won't come out quite right, unless you've done it similarly before and you know how much to add.
* Ingredients marked * are organic. I recommend getting everything organic that you can!
2 cans Hunt's Tomato Sauce
1 can Scarpone's Red Kidney Beans
1 can Scarpone's Black Beans
1 can Scarpone's Mixed Beans (Red Kidney, Chickpeas, Blackeye)
1 Green Bell Pepper*
1 Onion*
3-4 stalks Celery*
1 kg Cooked Ground Beef
0.5-1.0 jar Salsa*
Seasoning (Chili Powder et al) to taste!
Directions:
1. Fry the beef until thoroughly cooked. Cook it into small pieces for a homogenous chili. Rinse under very hot water to remove most of the fat. Add to the Pot.
2. Finely slice and dice celery and onion and add to the Pot. I prefer to do these two first because they are very crunchy and they take the longest to soften.
3. Add two cans of tomato sauce, any amount of salsa, at least a tablespoon of chili powder, and turn to low heat.
4. Open and drain the cans of beans, and add to the Pot.
5. Finely chop bell pepper and add at any time after this. Most of the fibre in bell peppers is soluble, so they become very soft quite quickly. Beans are mostly insoluble fibre, so they do not change consistency much once added. I prefer to add peppers once the crunchy bits like onion and celery are cooked to the degree I like them, or just before.
6. Let the chili simmer for at least 1.5 hours and then taste it. Adjust flavour with seasoning. If you taste it or add seasoning while the ingredients are still raw, it won't come out quite right, unless you've done it similarly before and you know how much to add.
* Ingredients marked * are organic. I recommend getting everything organic that you can!
December 12, 2006
Incensed... and drawn to Orthodoxy
Instead of studying for my Physics final, I stayed up all evening reading about the historical origins of various canticles and hymns. I find myself inexorably drawn to Orthodox Christianity. (There is a little pun there in inexorably... inexorable comes from the Latin inexorabilis, which literally translates to "ouside of prayer" ie: beyond hope that prayer can prevent what is going to happen next.)
Long ago I passed judgment on the Catholic church in my personal life. Although I give them freedom to worship as they please, I can never be a Catholic for various theological reasons. I find that many of these reasons do not exist in the Orthodox church. Furthermore, and moreover, there is a response in my being to an immediate and primal demand for accountability. Did you know that an Orthodox Christian can expect to spend approximately half the year in at least some form of fasting? Why does that appeal to me so much? Perhaps it is because I am ill by protestants that go to church on sunday and keep their Christianity in the back pocket of the pants they wear on that day. Perhaps it is because of Galatians (4:10-11)
Worship is for every day of every week, not for Christmas day, and not for sunday. Even with that, it is better to believe and not attend, than to attend for show, and not believe. Perhaps the monastery is for me after all.
Long ago I passed judgment on the Catholic church in my personal life. Although I give them freedom to worship as they please, I can never be a Catholic for various theological reasons. I find that many of these reasons do not exist in the Orthodox church. Furthermore, and moreover, there is a response in my being to an immediate and primal demand for accountability. Did you know that an Orthodox Christian can expect to spend approximately half the year in at least some form of fasting? Why does that appeal to me so much? Perhaps it is because I am ill by protestants that go to church on sunday and keep their Christianity in the back pocket of the pants they wear on that day. Perhaps it is because of Galatians (4:10-11)
10 You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.
December 11, 2006
The Real Meaning of Christmas:
What is the real meaning of Christmas?
Surely not the birth of Christ, something often pointed to as the real meaning of christmas. After all, there have been Winter solstices celebrated year after year centuries before Christ came into this world. In fact, "late December" celebrations were common in many cultures as the shortest day of the year, and thus the day representing the rebirth of the Sun-God in the standard death and rebirth cycle. At some time, the organized church decided to "overwrite" these pagan traditions with one of their own. Their success?
Surely not the commercialism that goes on and Santa Claus. Actually, I always find it funny that you can spell Santa and Satan with the same letters, ever since I saw a *NIX suite of tools called either satan or santa depending on your preference. (Security Administrator's Tool for Analyzing Networks, which comes with a pre-packaged tool for converting the name to Santa... the alteration tool is called repent.) At any rate, this rampant commercialization and desire for MORE is not getting anyone anywhere. Even the profiteering capitalists get nowhere, really.
What else is there? Oh yeah, family. If it's about family, try telling that to the homeless, the drug addicts, the fatherless, and those born with AIDS. Tell it to the poor, who do not have food, and tell it to the emotionally destitute, regardless of whether their destitution comes from genes beyond their control, or the of actions of man, equally beyond their control.
What is it about? Beats me.
POSTSCRIPT: I recommend reading this webpage... http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1998/carol.html
Christians aren't necessarily called to a political interest in communism or any socialist state, although they may be called to independent and free action that would be consistant with that executed under such legislation. I think the voluntary aspect is important, however. (Further note on Christmas: how much of this commercialism is voluntary? Try not giving presents and see how people respond!)
PPS. Mass is a celebration of the death of Christ, not the birth. Christmas is a misnomer, and in actually should represent the celebration of Mass in a Catholic or Greek Orthodox church, or Communion in a protestant church, I think. At any rate, a quick search in the bible for the word Birthday gives only 3 results: 1 for Pharoah in Joseph's time, and 2 (Matt, Mark) for Herod's Birthday. Apparently celebrating birthdays is something the pagans do. How many times did Jesus say to remember him, his death, and how to do it? I don't remember seeing anything about his birthday... which was definately not in December.
Surely not the birth of Christ, something often pointed to as the real meaning of christmas. After all, there have been Winter solstices celebrated year after year centuries before Christ came into this world. In fact, "late December" celebrations were common in many cultures as the shortest day of the year, and thus the day representing the rebirth of the Sun-God in the standard death and rebirth cycle. At some time, the organized church decided to "overwrite" these pagan traditions with one of their own. Their success?
Surely not the commercialism that goes on and Santa Claus. Actually, I always find it funny that you can spell Santa and Satan with the same letters, ever since I saw a *NIX suite of tools called either satan or santa depending on your preference. (Security Administrator's Tool for Analyzing Networks, which comes with a pre-packaged tool for converting the name to Santa... the alteration tool is called repent.) At any rate, this rampant commercialization and desire for MORE is not getting anyone anywhere. Even the profiteering capitalists get nowhere, really.
What else is there? Oh yeah, family. If it's about family, try telling that to the homeless, the drug addicts, the fatherless, and those born with AIDS. Tell it to the poor, who do not have food, and tell it to the emotionally destitute, regardless of whether their destitution comes from genes beyond their control, or the of actions of man, equally beyond their control.
What is it about? Beats me.
POSTSCRIPT: I recommend reading this webpage... http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1998/carol.html
Christians aren't necessarily called to a political interest in communism or any socialist state, although they may be called to independent and free action that would be consistant with that executed under such legislation. I think the voluntary aspect is important, however. (Further note on Christmas: how much of this commercialism is voluntary? Try not giving presents and see how people respond!)
PPS. Mass is a celebration of the death of Christ, not the birth. Christmas is a misnomer, and in actually should represent the celebration of Mass in a Catholic or Greek Orthodox church, or Communion in a protestant church, I think. At any rate, a quick search in the bible for the word Birthday gives only 3 results: 1 for Pharoah in Joseph's time, and 2 (Matt, Mark) for Herod's Birthday. Apparently celebrating birthdays is something the pagans do. How many times did Jesus say to remember him, his death, and how to do it? I don't remember seeing anything about his birthday... which was definately not in December.
Free Immanence
It's funny when something happens that disrupts daily life. Like when the power went out today. At first, you're not sure what to do, because you can't do what you were doing... so if you're like me, you lie (lay?) down and think a little. However, the disruption maintains your attention and you cannot but help be drawn into beautiful immanence. And it goes on, too. You can light candles, but that only augments the intesity by which your thoughts are held captive in the present. It's a shame that disruption is the only bottled form of immanence. Well, I suppose there are people too.
December 10, 2006
Brown Paper
I don't see enough brown paper... all my paper is white. Why is it white? I don't know! I know that some of it is white because I write on it or print on it and want to use many different colours to do so. However, I definately am not interested in writing on facial tissue, bathroom tissue, or paper towel. (Chem lab is excluded from the last.)
So why is all this paper white? This paper makes up the bulk of my paper consumption, as most of my written material is done solely electronically, or perhaps with only the final draft printed.
Paper is definately not white by nature. If I go chop down a tree, it's mostly yellow inside with brown rings. When it is pulped to make paper, it goes that familiar tan colour that newsprint has. So why aren't all these papers used almost exclusively for body-wiping and mess cleanup their natural tan colour?
Certainly there must be some reagent involved in turning tan coloured pulp into white coloured pulp. Certainly we could save tonnes of bleach and tonnes of money by leaving them tan. Not to mention the environment.
Zoup
Vegetable Soup:
4 Stalks Celery*
1.5 cups Brown Jasmine Rice*
1 head Cauliflower*
1 head and stalk Broccoli*
3 handfuls mini-Carrots*
2 sweet yellow Onions*
1L Imagine Potato and Leek Soup*
1L Sweet Potato Soup*
2 cans Hunt's Tomato Sauce
1 can Garbanzo Beans
2.5 cups Green Peas*
2 tbsp Parsley
1 tbsp Seasoning Salt
Cut the larger ingredients into pieces approximately the size of sugar cubes or a bit smaller. Cut the onion a bit smaller yet, unless yu like crunchy onion. I peeled the broccoli stalk with a potato peeler and diced it. Throw it all in a crockpot and let it cook for ~4 hours. I throw the rice in uncooked and let it swell and thicken the soup while the other vegetables are softening.
Last time I made this I used different ratios, left out rice, celery and carrots, and had green onion and corn instead.
1) All ingredients marked * are organic.
2) All measurements are approximate. I don't measure when I cook.
3) I add a lot of black pepper by the bowl. I don't add it when cooking in case other people want to eat it too!
4 Stalks Celery*
1.5 cups Brown Jasmine Rice*
1 head Cauliflower*
1 head and stalk Broccoli*
3 handfuls mini-Carrots*
2 sweet yellow Onions*
1L Imagine Potato and Leek Soup*
1L Sweet Potato Soup*
2 cans Hunt's Tomato Sauce
1 can Garbanzo Beans
2.5 cups Green Peas*
2 tbsp Parsley
1 tbsp Seasoning Salt
Cut the larger ingredients into pieces approximately the size of sugar cubes or a bit smaller. Cut the onion a bit smaller yet, unless yu like crunchy onion. I peeled the broccoli stalk with a potato peeler and diced it. Throw it all in a crockpot and let it cook for ~4 hours. I throw the rice in uncooked and let it swell and thicken the soup while the other vegetables are softening.
Last time I made this I used different ratios, left out rice, celery and carrots, and had green onion and corn instead.
1) All ingredients marked * are organic.
2) All measurements are approximate. I don't measure when I cook.
3) I add a lot of black pepper by the bowl. I don't add it when cooking in case other people want to eat it too!
And One More Ridiculous Post:
I'll call this (impetuous and useless hypothesis) the Universal Gradient of Personhood to Species.
The Universal Gradient* goes like this:
I have certain characteristics, both physical and mental. Suppose I have a slight pattern of mental behaviour which is. . . selfish. Now, most of us would agree that such a characteristic would be simply and effectively known.
However, suppose one were to make that comment about my entire immediate family. Going along with that, let us suppose that it is true, but for one person. Such a generalization is a good and useful thing. In fact, it may even be said that such attributes are genetic and that people who do not express them may yet pass them on to their children. Thus, our generalization becomes ever more useful as it accurately describes potential as well as actual.
Let us take our supposition a step farther to assuming that it applies, instead of my family, to all of the British race (to which it may be said that I belong, at least in part). Now it may be said by some that indeed, every individual who is British is selfish, however I dare say that truth would not be prevalent in that statement. As the gradient increases to a larger and larger group, the truth becomes diluted. However, diluted as the truth becomes, it remains, as there are many individuals within that group (Certainly not YOU) which have that attribute, and perhaps not having it, contain the ability to deliver it unto their progeny.
The field of genetics remains highly influential. A more definitive statement of the Universal Gradient is the smaller the sum of all genetic differences within a group of persons, the greater the accuracy of generalizations applied to said group. This is essentially using genetic similarity as the basis for the derivation of racism, family feuds, and other sorts of discrimination. Essentially, all those people who discriminate do have a basis to stand on, as there are in fact, strong differences between groups.
*Please note that the Universal Gradient approaches species but never reaches it
The Universal Gradient* goes like this:
I have certain characteristics, both physical and mental. Suppose I have a slight pattern of mental behaviour which is. . . selfish. Now, most of us would agree that such a characteristic would be simply and effectively known.
However, suppose one were to make that comment about my entire immediate family. Going along with that, let us suppose that it is true, but for one person. Such a generalization is a good and useful thing. In fact, it may even be said that such attributes are genetic and that people who do not express them may yet pass them on to their children. Thus, our generalization becomes ever more useful as it accurately describes potential as well as actual.
Let us take our supposition a step farther to assuming that it applies, instead of my family, to all of the British race (to which it may be said that I belong, at least in part). Now it may be said by some that indeed, every individual who is British is selfish, however I dare say that truth would not be prevalent in that statement. As the gradient increases to a larger and larger group, the truth becomes diluted. However, diluted as the truth becomes, it remains, as there are many individuals within that group (Certainly not YOU) which have that attribute, and perhaps not having it, contain the ability to deliver it unto their progeny.
The field of genetics remains highly influential. A more definitive statement of the Universal Gradient is the smaller the sum of all genetic differences within a group of persons, the greater the accuracy of generalizations applied to said group. This is essentially using genetic similarity as the basis for the derivation of racism, family feuds, and other sorts of discrimination. Essentially, all those people who discriminate do have a basis to stand on, as there are in fact, strong differences between groups.
*Please note that the Universal Gradient approaches species but never reaches it
Materialism vs. Idealism = Dualism or Nothingism
Well, now.
The materialist view is such that Dualism is ridiculous. Dualists declare that there are two completely seperate and distinct substances. One is physical, having the qualities of space, extension, colour, shape, and so on. The other is Mind, have the qualities of thinking, feeling, willing, spirit, confirming, denying, and so forth. Each substance is clear and distinct from the other, having none of the qualities of the other. This presents the problem of Interactionalism, or how one of these substances could ever affect the other.
Now, materialists think that this is ridiculous for a few reasons, an important one is that through our physical senses, we cannot perceive this aphysical substance that is thinking. Rather, immaterial qualities become properties of matter, as opposed to existing seperately, in and of themselves.
I would very much like to contrast this point of view with that of the critics of Philosophical Idealism. Philosophical idealism is the doctrine that nothing exists, not this desk, nor computer, nor even my hands, but rather I - a thinking being, whatever that may be - perceive them, and cannot pass beyond my perceptions to prove that they exist.
What I find so remarkable within these viewpoints is that both affirm the existence of one of Dualism's substances, while simultaneously denying the existence of the other. Obviously both cannot be right. What if neither are right? That would leave us believing that both substances do, in fact, exist, or else nothing at all exists, neither matter nor a seperate substance which composes all thought. This latter is extremely unlikely, as the concept of substance is very firm in the minds of all people. And we would definately say that there is some type of substance, whatever its nature is, that causes our experiences.
*I havene't proof-read this, my apologies for any inconvenience. Credit goes to Descartes and Berkeley.
The materialist view is such that Dualism is ridiculous. Dualists declare that there are two completely seperate and distinct substances. One is physical, having the qualities of space, extension, colour, shape, and so on. The other is Mind, have the qualities of thinking, feeling, willing, spirit, confirming, denying, and so forth. Each substance is clear and distinct from the other, having none of the qualities of the other. This presents the problem of Interactionalism, or how one of these substances could ever affect the other.
Now, materialists think that this is ridiculous for a few reasons, an important one is that through our physical senses, we cannot perceive this aphysical substance that is thinking. Rather, immaterial qualities become properties of matter, as opposed to existing seperately, in and of themselves.
I would very much like to contrast this point of view with that of the critics of Philosophical Idealism. Philosophical idealism is the doctrine that nothing exists, not this desk, nor computer, nor even my hands, but rather I - a thinking being, whatever that may be - perceive them, and cannot pass beyond my perceptions to prove that they exist.
What I find so remarkable within these viewpoints is that both affirm the existence of one of Dualism's substances, while simultaneously denying the existence of the other. Obviously both cannot be right. What if neither are right? That would leave us believing that both substances do, in fact, exist, or else nothing at all exists, neither matter nor a seperate substance which composes all thought. This latter is extremely unlikely, as the concept of substance is very firm in the minds of all people. And we would definately say that there is some type of substance, whatever its nature is, that causes our experiences.
*I havene't proof-read this, my apologies for any inconvenience. Credit goes to Descartes and Berkeley.
Some People are not Smart... Or rather: Smart People are not Some
It is only natural that people who read, "Some people are not smart" to take it to mean that certain people lack the characteristic of smartness*. However, it can also be read to mean that smartness cannot apply to some people, that is to say, it must apply to all people or to none.
That is exactly what my view is. Whatever 'smart' means, it applies to everyone equally. To date, no one has agreed to me, much to my chagrin. Hopefully that will change, if and when people read this.
Alexiphanes: What does it mean to be smart, that is, to have the characteristic of smartness?
Akakios: A certain state of being, where one is mentally capable.
Alexiphanes: So this state would depend on many things?
Akakios: Oh yes, many things, such as diet, or tiredness, or emotional state. . .
Alexiphanes: If one's degree of smartness is affected by these things, then surely it must pre-exist independently to be affected.
Akakios: Well, I should agree that it is an intrinsic quality, one not dependent on any other.
Alexiphanes: So these things are not foundational for smartness; it pre-existed them and is merely modified.
Akakios: Absolutely.
Alexiphanes: And can other mental characteristics affect smartness?
Akakios: I imagine they would.
Alexiphanes: Such as attitude, or interest?
Akakios: I don't see how attitude would affect the degree to which someone is smart, merely the application of it.
Alexiphanes: Well that is exactly it, I should think: If an individual were to suddenly acquire a car, which is red, and of a certain make and model, then that individual would experience a phenomenon whereas they begin to see other red cars, or of that make and model, everywhere they go.
Akakios: I've experienced that myself.
Alexiphanes: Likewise, when an individual has bias within an issue, suppose they are of a minority, they then discover that issue everywhere they go. However, on issues of which they have no opinion or interest, regardless of how polluted their environment is with instances, they barely register notice.
Akakios: I cannot say I've experienced that, however. . .
Alexiphanes: Naturally not, as before now, it has never been an issue which your attention was drawn to. However, now that you are driving a brand new vehicle of the Make: Smart and Model: Interest, you will begin to see clearly, those around you that ignore or respond to issues, and in which fashion or mannner.
*Please note that I use smart and smartness particularly as their common usage suits my message and meaning while fulfilling accuracy. I would use intelligence, wisdom, knowledge, cognizance, or so on if I desired greater precision.
That is exactly what my view is. Whatever 'smart' means, it applies to everyone equally. To date, no one has agreed to me, much to my chagrin. Hopefully that will change, if and when people read this.
Alexiphanes: What does it mean to be smart, that is, to have the characteristic of smartness?
Akakios: A certain state of being, where one is mentally capable.
Alexiphanes: So this state would depend on many things?
Akakios: Oh yes, many things, such as diet, or tiredness, or emotional state. . .
Alexiphanes: If one's degree of smartness is affected by these things, then surely it must pre-exist independently to be affected.
Akakios: Well, I should agree that it is an intrinsic quality, one not dependent on any other.
Alexiphanes: So these things are not foundational for smartness; it pre-existed them and is merely modified.
Akakios: Absolutely.
Alexiphanes: And can other mental characteristics affect smartness?
Akakios: I imagine they would.
Alexiphanes: Such as attitude, or interest?
Akakios: I don't see how attitude would affect the degree to which someone is smart, merely the application of it.
Alexiphanes: Well that is exactly it, I should think: If an individual were to suddenly acquire a car, which is red, and of a certain make and model, then that individual would experience a phenomenon whereas they begin to see other red cars, or of that make and model, everywhere they go.
Akakios: I've experienced that myself.
Alexiphanes: Likewise, when an individual has bias within an issue, suppose they are of a minority, they then discover that issue everywhere they go. However, on issues of which they have no opinion or interest, regardless of how polluted their environment is with instances, they barely register notice.
Akakios: I cannot say I've experienced that, however. . .
Alexiphanes: Naturally not, as before now, it has never been an issue which your attention was drawn to. However, now that you are driving a brand new vehicle of the Make: Smart and Model: Interest, you will begin to see clearly, those around you that ignore or respond to issues, and in which fashion or mannner.
*Please note that I use smart and smartness particularly as their common usage suits my message and meaning while fulfilling accuracy. I would use intelligence, wisdom, knowledge, cognizance, or so on if I desired greater precision.
No Heaven, No Hell, No Purgatory... Just Earth
In western civilization, a strong percentage of the population follows a Judeo-Christian religion. It is commonly accepted within these faiths that there is a Heaven and Hell, and often Purgatory as well. I do not believe that humans go there when we die.
Although I am essentially a psycho-physical dualist, for those of you who are familiar with Descartes, I do not allow that to justify belief in Heaven or Hell, or any other spiritual afterlife, for that matter. My abductive arguments may be summarized thus:
The Scripture of these faiths do not explicitly state that any human afterlife is merely spiritual, and excludes the physical;
The Scriptures state that we will be given new bodies;
Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to support a spiritual-aphysical afterlife.
The Scripture of these faiths display the importance of physicality;
The concepts of Heaven and Hell are derisive to the importance of physicality;
Therefore, the concepts of Heaven and Hell as they stand are unacceptable.
The Scriptures use the words (within translation) Spirit and Soul in reference to living people, who have bodies;
The Scriptures use the word dead quite explicitly to describe those who are no longer living, and who "do not have bodies" as it were;
Therefore, there is no Scriptural evidence for the existence of a person outside the body.
Resurrection is a strong theme in the Scriptures;
The importance of the Body strengthens and coalesces with that;
An aphysical afterlife takes away from the importance of Resurrection;
Therefore, we need to be careful not to contradict ourselves when it comes to Resurrection.
Definition: Dead means dead, not "self which is seperated from the body."
These arguments, if valid and true, rule out Scriptural support of survivalist immortality through aphysical means. As I'm sure you are just dying for my to quote to support my outrageous claims, here you go:
Support:
~~~In Job 7:11 they are used in poetry in the NIV translation. They are not necessarily used redundantly, emphatically, or with different meanings. See also Isaiah 26:9 for more poetry.
~~~In Hebrews 4:12 they are used with very similar meaning. Observe the comparison to dividing joints and marrow. Joints and marrow are not the same, but are near each other, and related. We can understand how analogically Spirit and Soul are similar yet not the same: however, they are both found in living beings.
~~~1 Thessalonians 5:23 is the most intriguing usage, where the Apostle Paul says, "May your whole spirit, soul, and body be kept blameless." This neat division of the human being implies a difference between the two, and explicitly includes the physical.
~~~The word Spirit is often used to describe God. In Genesis 1:2, the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. We cannot picture this in our minds without giving the Spirit of God some spatial quality within a physical frame. Water is physical. In later sections when the Spirit of God is mentioned, it often "comes upon" or "is in" someone. Either way it is given a locality, a living body as a point of reference.
~~~ Daniel 12:2 states, "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." It is hard to claim that this statement is referring to an aphysical Heaven or Hell. One could argue that the Heaven or Hell come after, yet that neither explains where the spirit was the whole time the body was sleeping, nor does it explain why, having been brought back from dust, any individual would be merely spiritual and not physical.
~~~ An often quoted verse from the book of Matthew talks about how humans will not longer be married or get married. Matt 22:30-32 makes at least 2 points. One important one is that we will be like the angels in heaven -- in that we do not marry. To take this farther would require substantial effort. In verse 32 he says he is not the "God of the dead, but of the living."
~~~ Luke 14:13-15 is a beautiful set of verses. Naturally the main theme is that of generosity, kindness, and love. However, for our purposes here, it is apparent that people who are righteous are not in heaven, but are dead until the resurrection. Heaven, which is often thought of as, "The Kingdom of God" cannot be where they are, as the next verse says, "who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God." We can see that Kingdom of God involves eating. Last time I checked eating was a physical thing, which the colloquial understanding of soul cannot account for, nor do I accept this verse as metaphorical. The reason I propose to take it literally is that God created eating, food, and so on, and also the human ability to enjoy it. Why would we be denied that in the Kingdom of God? Would we not be able to enjoy ALL of his wonderful creation? What about groumet food, is that all to waste?
~~~ Genesis chapter 1 has many occurances of God creating something and then seeing how good it was. God's creation pleased him. There is no reason to toss that aside.
~~~ Revelation 20:4-6 is an awesome passage. We see those who are "seated," the "souls of those," and that they, "came to life." I'd like to point out that a) You have to have a body of some kind to sit; b) souls OF those is different from souls ARE those. Those souls aren't people, but are part OF people; c) A soul is not living in and of itself, and neither is a body. d) We are an amazing creation.
Objections:
Although I would claim that the Semitic people from whom Judaism and Christianity did not believe in non-physical human existence, there may be those who disagree with me based on the usage of sheol and abyss, as well as the translated heaven, which are used in the Bible.
Sheol:
Sheol is often translated as pit or lowest pit, but most often grave. It is used in Proverbs 9:18 and Genesis 37:35. When Jacob uses it in Genesis, he is using it to express how deeply he feels sorrow for the loss of his son Joseph. It is interesting to note that he expected to end up there. In Proverbs it is understood as an undesirable place.
In Psalm 16, which is a Hymn of Thanksgiving and Praise, the writer declares that God will not abandon him to the grave. Please note that this does not contradict the idea of resurrection, in fact, it makes perfect sense. If the writer believed that he would die, one day to be resurrected, he would want very much not to be abanded while in the grave!
In Numbers 16:31-34 Korah and some others are swallowed whole by the ground, physically. The word sheol is used to describe where they went. The general concept of down does apply, but it is not a necessitated hell, merely a physical grave.
Let me wrap up a bit on Sheol with some quotation from wikipedia (an authoritative source!):
"both the bad and the good, slave and king, pious and wicked must go after death to sleep in silence and oblivion in the dust. . . Sheol in many cases does not seem to be an afterlife destination or a location at all, but merely the grave. . ." and also, " In the Book of Job, while Satan is portrayed as tormenting and testing the living, he does not appear to have any particular presidency over Sheol, or to dwell in Sheol." which leads us into the next topic:
Abyss:
Abaddon is usually considered to be Satan, as is described in Rev 9:11 the king of the bottomless pit, or the angel who rules over the abyss; this varyies slightly with translation.
The abyss, the "bottomless pit" which Abaddon rules over, is mentioned 7 times in the book of Revelation and once in the book of Luke. [NIV Translation] The occurance in the book of Luke is the result of Jesus' interchange with a man possessed by demons. In fact, he is possessed by so many, they are 'Legion,' and they do not wish to go to the Abyss, so instead Jesus allows them to enter a herd of pigs. [Sidenote: One of the things most amazing to me is that Jesus is not only merciful to us, but also to demons. Truly the Prince of Peace.]
One important thing to consider while discussing the Abyss is that in those days, people believed that demons lived at the bottom of the sea(s). Water was associated with chaos and evil, particularly in Jewish tradition. The Jews were, interestingly enough, terribly sailors who avoided the water. They had one major port during the peak of their civilization, whereas their neighbours to the north, who had much worse terrain, had many more. Furthermore, the Hebrews would often hire foreigners to sail their vessels for them. The reason why the association between evil and water and demons is important is that Jesus' miracles often involved water, especially calming the sea.
So What Do I Believe?
I believe people die and are dead. Then at some point, God resurrects them if he chooses. Then they are alive again. They're not alive in between, so they don't notice any time passing. I've seen no conflicts between the scriptures and this belief.
I hope you've enjoyed this brief overview, and that I didn't make too many errors as I didn't proof read it.
Cheers and God Bless! [And Merry Christmas]
Although I am essentially a psycho-physical dualist, for those of you who are familiar with Descartes, I do not allow that to justify belief in Heaven or Hell, or any other spiritual afterlife, for that matter. My abductive arguments may be summarized thus:
The Scripture of these faiths do not explicitly state that any human afterlife is merely spiritual, and excludes the physical;
The Scriptures state that we will be given new bodies;
Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to support a spiritual-aphysical afterlife.
The Scripture of these faiths display the importance of physicality;
The concepts of Heaven and Hell are derisive to the importance of physicality;
Therefore, the concepts of Heaven and Hell as they stand are unacceptable.
The Scriptures use the words (within translation) Spirit and Soul in reference to living people, who have bodies;
The Scriptures use the word dead quite explicitly to describe those who are no longer living, and who "do not have bodies" as it were;
Therefore, there is no Scriptural evidence for the existence of a person outside the body.
Resurrection is a strong theme in the Scriptures;
The importance of the Body strengthens and coalesces with that;
An aphysical afterlife takes away from the importance of Resurrection;
Therefore, we need to be careful not to contradict ourselves when it comes to Resurrection.
Definition: Dead means dead, not "self which is seperated from the body."
These arguments, if valid and true, rule out Scriptural support of survivalist immortality through aphysical means. As I'm sure you are just dying for my to quote to support my outrageous claims, here you go:
Support:
~~~In Job 7:11 they are used in poetry in the NIV translation. They are not necessarily used redundantly, emphatically, or with different meanings. See also Isaiah 26:9 for more poetry.
~~~In Hebrews 4:12 they are used with very similar meaning. Observe the comparison to dividing joints and marrow. Joints and marrow are not the same, but are near each other, and related. We can understand how analogically Spirit and Soul are similar yet not the same: however, they are both found in living beings.
~~~1 Thessalonians 5:23 is the most intriguing usage, where the Apostle Paul says, "May your whole spirit, soul, and body be kept blameless." This neat division of the human being implies a difference between the two, and explicitly includes the physical.
~~~The word Spirit is often used to describe God. In Genesis 1:2, the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. We cannot picture this in our minds without giving the Spirit of God some spatial quality within a physical frame. Water is physical. In later sections when the Spirit of God is mentioned, it often "comes upon" or "is in" someone. Either way it is given a locality, a living body as a point of reference.
~~~ Daniel 12:2 states, "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." It is hard to claim that this statement is referring to an aphysical Heaven or Hell. One could argue that the Heaven or Hell come after, yet that neither explains where the spirit was the whole time the body was sleeping, nor does it explain why, having been brought back from dust, any individual would be merely spiritual and not physical.
~~~ An often quoted verse from the book of Matthew talks about how humans will not longer be married or get married. Matt 22:30-32 makes at least 2 points. One important one is that we will be like the angels in heaven -- in that we do not marry. To take this farther would require substantial effort. In verse 32 he says he is not the "God of the dead, but of the living."
~~~ Luke 14:13-15 is a beautiful set of verses. Naturally the main theme is that of generosity, kindness, and love. However, for our purposes here, it is apparent that people who are righteous are not in heaven, but are dead until the resurrection. Heaven, which is often thought of as, "The Kingdom of God" cannot be where they are, as the next verse says, "who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God." We can see that Kingdom of God involves eating. Last time I checked eating was a physical thing, which the colloquial understanding of soul cannot account for, nor do I accept this verse as metaphorical. The reason I propose to take it literally is that God created eating, food, and so on, and also the human ability to enjoy it. Why would we be denied that in the Kingdom of God? Would we not be able to enjoy ALL of his wonderful creation? What about groumet food, is that all to waste?
~~~ Genesis chapter 1 has many occurances of God creating something and then seeing how good it was. God's creation pleased him. There is no reason to toss that aside.
~~~ Revelation 20:4-6 is an awesome passage. We see those who are "seated," the "souls of those," and that they, "came to life." I'd like to point out that a) You have to have a body of some kind to sit; b) souls OF those is different from souls ARE those. Those souls aren't people, but are part OF people; c) A soul is not living in and of itself, and neither is a body. d) We are an amazing creation.
Objections:
Although I would claim that the Semitic people from whom Judaism and Christianity did not believe in non-physical human existence, there may be those who disagree with me based on the usage of sheol and abyss, as well as the translated heaven, which are used in the Bible.
Sheol:
Sheol is often translated as pit or lowest pit, but most often grave. It is used in Proverbs 9:18 and Genesis 37:35. When Jacob uses it in Genesis, he is using it to express how deeply he feels sorrow for the loss of his son Joseph. It is interesting to note that he expected to end up there. In Proverbs it is understood as an undesirable place.
In Psalm 16, which is a Hymn of Thanksgiving and Praise, the writer declares that God will not abandon him to the grave. Please note that this does not contradict the idea of resurrection, in fact, it makes perfect sense. If the writer believed that he would die, one day to be resurrected, he would want very much not to be abanded while in the grave!
In Numbers 16:31-34 Korah and some others are swallowed whole by the ground, physically. The word sheol is used to describe where they went. The general concept of down does apply, but it is not a necessitated hell, merely a physical grave.
Let me wrap up a bit on Sheol with some quotation from wikipedia (an authoritative source!):
"both the bad and the good, slave and king, pious and wicked must go after death to sleep in silence and oblivion in the dust. . . Sheol in many cases does not seem to be an afterlife destination or a location at all, but merely the grave. . ." and also, " In the Book of Job, while Satan is portrayed as tormenting and testing the living, he does not appear to have any particular presidency over Sheol, or to dwell in Sheol." which leads us into the next topic:
Abyss:
Abaddon is usually considered to be Satan, as is described in Rev 9:11 the king of the bottomless pit, or the angel who rules over the abyss; this varyies slightly with translation.
The abyss, the "bottomless pit" which Abaddon rules over, is mentioned 7 times in the book of Revelation and once in the book of Luke. [NIV Translation] The occurance in the book of Luke is the result of Jesus' interchange with a man possessed by demons. In fact, he is possessed by so many, they are 'Legion,' and they do not wish to go to the Abyss, so instead Jesus allows them to enter a herd of pigs. [Sidenote: One of the things most amazing to me is that Jesus is not only merciful to us, but also to demons. Truly the Prince of Peace.]
One important thing to consider while discussing the Abyss is that in those days, people believed that demons lived at the bottom of the sea(s). Water was associated with chaos and evil, particularly in Jewish tradition. The Jews were, interestingly enough, terribly sailors who avoided the water. They had one major port during the peak of their civilization, whereas their neighbours to the north, who had much worse terrain, had many more. Furthermore, the Hebrews would often hire foreigners to sail their vessels for them. The reason why the association between evil and water and demons is important is that Jesus' miracles often involved water, especially calming the sea.
So What Do I Believe?
I believe people die and are dead. Then at some point, God resurrects them if he chooses. Then they are alive again. They're not alive in between, so they don't notice any time passing. I've seen no conflicts between the scriptures and this belief.
I hope you've enjoyed this brief overview, and that I didn't make too many errors as I didn't proof read it.
Cheers and God Bless! [And Merry Christmas]
Discrimination
Everyone loves discrimination. Unless they're politically correct, of course. Or brainwashed.
I was reading an interview done by Nick Yee of a guy named 'Talon' who is the leader of a Guild in a game called Everquest. Nick Yee's website is called the Daedalus project, and is attempting to decipher the psychology of pro gamers, specifically those who play MMORPGs. During this interview, Talon made a few comments most would consider sexist. He doesn't really allow females into the Guild, you see. Allow me to quote the interview:
[begin Quotation]
Early on in our email exchange, I sensed that Talon did not favor female members. At first, I felt that this was perhaps due to the clash between the militaristic demands of the guild and the more relationship-oriented play-style of female gamers. When I asked Talon about this, he had an interesting explanation.
Coming from a VERY equal society and a family with a really strong mother in it, I found the whole situation with women strange. Well, women seem to like attachment more in the online environment and for all intents and purposes, an uber guild resembles military more than anything else.
Now there’s a reason why military doesn’t like relationships in it. The same reason applies to militaristic uberguilds - the suspicions of favouritism etc., not to mention women practically always aim for the top. This is not a critique as such. I mean it’s quite understandable. In a healthy guild, the most charismatic, outgoing and smart people are leaders. I sure as hell would prefer them.
So the reason why Talon is hesitant on recruiting female members is because it inevitably leads to romantic tension in the guild.
They start wanting “protection” from whoever they’re with. So typical of me to get tells like “she thinks you’re being mean, and I agree with her (yeah sure you do)”. Just made me sigh every time. Frankly, I prefer people who don’t do that. Male students are the best.
[End Quotation]
Naturally, this interview caused quite a few comments. You can find them here:
http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/001334.php?page=7
Page 7 is the last page of the article, just look for the links on the page and you should be able to find page 1 to read the whole thing.
So the comments run along these lines, "What he says is sexist!" "He is discriminating against women!"
I have to agree. Of course he's being sexist. What's wrong with that? Oh, I forgot, all the brainwashed Politically Correct people think that sexism is bad. Why is it bad? Because it's Discrimination! And discrimination is bad! Why is discrimination bad? It's not. Only indiscriminate discrimination is bad. Yeah that's right, the only time discrimination becomes bad is when you don't discriminate against your own discrimination properly. It's one of those beautiful things that is self regulating when you have enough of it.
From my point of view, his discrimination is valid. He knows 85% of gamers are male and that 15% are female (rough average). He wants to avoid X situation, which requires males and females to be together. His solution: keep them seperate! It's simpler for him to rule out the 15% female than the 85% male. He's not RANDOMLY discriminating against people. He's not discriminating without just cause. He's doing it for a purpose. He's not doing because he doesn't like women, in fact, I really doubt he's gay.
Now, if he was just doing because he was gay and he didn't want women in his guild because he doesn't like them, then he wouldn't be discriminating against his discrimination thoroughly enough. We all need to discriminate against that sort of discrimination. Hitler just didn't like jews, so he tried to kill them all. He wasn't doing it for any good purpose, except his own hatred. Talon isn't discriminating because he hates, but because he wants his guild to be a cohesive unit. He's doing his best to protect other people, in an odd sort of way.
So what do we do with people who deny discrimination any place in our society? We ask them to stop discriminating. Yeah, that's right. They're guilty of the worst, most extreme sort of discriminating. They see discrimination being abused in a percentage of contexts, and want to get rid of the whole concept. But you can't, it's fundamental. It's part of human decision making. Those people are hypocrites, because they're discriminating to an extreme, telling people NOT to do exactly what they're doing by saying it in the first place.
Why can't people be reasonable and level headed? Getting offended is often a choice.
I guess this wouldn't be complete without a mention of racism. I figure if I'm stirring the pot I may as well throw some pepper in.
The different 'races' of humans are all one species. The word race in regards to people can really only functionally mean categorized by similarities. For example, it is ridiculous (although many do it) to try to say that all people are the same. They're not. I'm unique, just like everyone else. (You can quote me on that) However, it is plain to children (less brainwashing) the differences between the categories of people. I suppose Negro is politically correct? I don't really follow all that rubbish. Okay, so you have people with dark brown or black skin. Then you have people with pink or cream coloured skin. That's pretty obvious, right? I mean, if you were given a room of 50 people, 25 with each colouring, you'd be able to divide them? There's nothing wrong with that. Anyone who says they don't see colour had better be colourblind. If you can't seperate them, you're not functioning correctly.
Apparently some people don't like the use of the word 'Oriental' to describe people from 'The Orient'. I don't really get it, so I'll use it anyway and assume they're getting offended on purpose. (Anything to keep 'em happy) So if you compare Oriental people with Black people, there's some obvious differences. Oriental people tend to be shorter, and Black people tend to be taller. I'm 6'3" and I've never met a black person I consider short. On the other hand, at my height most oriental people seem short. Am I being racist? Nah, just making simple scientific ovservations on a set of data. I'm allowed to make observations, and to share those with others.
The fact of the matter is, a good anthropologist (or archaeologist) can look at a skull and tell you what race the person was, what gender the person was, how old they were when they died, and a slew of other things. Is s/he being discriminatory? No. Racist? No. Stop worrying about the bloody grammar and go back to reading War and Peace. Use words that make sense, not crap that sounds inoffensive because no one can figure out what the fuck it means.
I was reading an interview done by Nick Yee of a guy named 'Talon' who is the leader of a Guild in a game called Everquest. Nick Yee's website is called the Daedalus project, and is attempting to decipher the psychology of pro gamers, specifically those who play MMORPGs. During this interview, Talon made a few comments most would consider sexist. He doesn't really allow females into the Guild, you see. Allow me to quote the interview:
[begin Quotation]
Early on in our email exchange, I sensed that Talon did not favor female members. At first, I felt that this was perhaps due to the clash between the militaristic demands of the guild and the more relationship-oriented play-style of female gamers. When I asked Talon about this, he had an interesting explanation.
Coming from a VERY equal society and a family with a really strong mother in it, I found the whole situation with women strange. Well, women seem to like attachment more in the online environment and for all intents and purposes, an uber guild resembles military more than anything else.
Now there’s a reason why military doesn’t like relationships in it. The same reason applies to militaristic uberguilds - the suspicions of favouritism etc., not to mention women practically always aim for the top. This is not a critique as such. I mean it’s quite understandable. In a healthy guild, the most charismatic, outgoing and smart people are leaders. I sure as hell would prefer them.
So the reason why Talon is hesitant on recruiting female members is because it inevitably leads to romantic tension in the guild.
They start wanting “protection” from whoever they’re with. So typical of me to get tells like “she thinks you’re being mean, and I agree with her (yeah sure you do)”. Just made me sigh every time. Frankly, I prefer people who don’t do that. Male students are the best.
[End Quotation]
Naturally, this interview caused quite a few comments. You can find them here:
http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/001334.php?page=7
Page 7 is the last page of the article, just look for the links on the page and you should be able to find page 1 to read the whole thing.
So the comments run along these lines, "What he says is sexist!" "He is discriminating against women!"
I have to agree. Of course he's being sexist. What's wrong with that? Oh, I forgot, all the brainwashed Politically Correct people think that sexism is bad. Why is it bad? Because it's Discrimination! And discrimination is bad! Why is discrimination bad? It's not. Only indiscriminate discrimination is bad. Yeah that's right, the only time discrimination becomes bad is when you don't discriminate against your own discrimination properly. It's one of those beautiful things that is self regulating when you have enough of it.
From my point of view, his discrimination is valid. He knows 85% of gamers are male and that 15% are female (rough average). He wants to avoid X situation, which requires males and females to be together. His solution: keep them seperate! It's simpler for him to rule out the 15% female than the 85% male. He's not RANDOMLY discriminating against people. He's not discriminating without just cause. He's doing it for a purpose. He's not doing because he doesn't like women, in fact, I really doubt he's gay.
Now, if he was just doing because he was gay and he didn't want women in his guild because he doesn't like them, then he wouldn't be discriminating against his discrimination thoroughly enough. We all need to discriminate against that sort of discrimination. Hitler just didn't like jews, so he tried to kill them all. He wasn't doing it for any good purpose, except his own hatred. Talon isn't discriminating because he hates, but because he wants his guild to be a cohesive unit. He's doing his best to protect other people, in an odd sort of way.
So what do we do with people who deny discrimination any place in our society? We ask them to stop discriminating. Yeah, that's right. They're guilty of the worst, most extreme sort of discriminating. They see discrimination being abused in a percentage of contexts, and want to get rid of the whole concept. But you can't, it's fundamental. It's part of human decision making. Those people are hypocrites, because they're discriminating to an extreme, telling people NOT to do exactly what they're doing by saying it in the first place.
Why can't people be reasonable and level headed? Getting offended is often a choice.
I guess this wouldn't be complete without a mention of racism. I figure if I'm stirring the pot I may as well throw some pepper in.
The different 'races' of humans are all one species. The word race in regards to people can really only functionally mean categorized by similarities. For example, it is ridiculous (although many do it) to try to say that all people are the same. They're not. I'm unique, just like everyone else. (You can quote me on that) However, it is plain to children (less brainwashing) the differences between the categories of people. I suppose Negro is politically correct? I don't really follow all that rubbish. Okay, so you have people with dark brown or black skin. Then you have people with pink or cream coloured skin. That's pretty obvious, right? I mean, if you were given a room of 50 people, 25 with each colouring, you'd be able to divide them? There's nothing wrong with that. Anyone who says they don't see colour had better be colourblind. If you can't seperate them, you're not functioning correctly.
Apparently some people don't like the use of the word 'Oriental' to describe people from 'The Orient'. I don't really get it, so I'll use it anyway and assume they're getting offended on purpose. (Anything to keep 'em happy) So if you compare Oriental people with Black people, there's some obvious differences. Oriental people tend to be shorter, and Black people tend to be taller. I'm 6'3" and I've never met a black person I consider short. On the other hand, at my height most oriental people seem short. Am I being racist? Nah, just making simple scientific ovservations on a set of data. I'm allowed to make observations, and to share those with others.
The fact of the matter is, a good anthropologist (or archaeologist) can look at a skull and tell you what race the person was, what gender the person was, how old they were when they died, and a slew of other things. Is s/he being discriminatory? No. Racist? No. Stop worrying about the bloody grammar and go back to reading War and Peace. Use words that make sense, not crap that sounds inoffensive because no one can figure out what the fuck it means.
Hot in the City, Cool in the Country
It all stems from a discussion I had with my Father. At my home, it was 17-20'C, and in the City, about 41kms away, it was 33'C. Why the drastic difference? Well, altitude plays a part, but I think most people would find it's very small.
Let's take a look, I live in the Country. I'm surrounded by green plants. Trees, Shrubs, and Grass. If you were levitating or on a magic carpet, it would look very green.
On the other hand, if you flew your magic carpet over the city, what would you see? You'd see roads and roofs. Yeah, that's about it.
So there is the key difference. Don't see it?
We get all our Energy from the Sun. If the Sun went out we'd freeze and die. The Energy coming from the Sun is all Radiation. Most of it is blocked by the Atmosphere, at various layers. UVC is just about entirely blocked, UVB is mostly blocked, and UVA is the highest energy-level radiation that gets through consistantly. UV Radiation contains enough energy to break the bond between two Carbon molecules (C-C) which is why it is considered dangerous. That is also why plastic tends to go yellow when left in the sun. It's decomposing.
So, why is this important? Well, in the City, the radiation hits the ground, be it a road or parking lot, and it's usually pavement. The energy gets altered from the various bands of light energy and becomes heat energy. The same thing happens for Roofs, which are usually Asphalt Shingle, Tar and Gravel, or Steel. So all that light energy is hitting the roof and becoming heat. So the City is a hot place. Except for the park, of course, which is cooler.
The reason the park is cooler is the same reason my home is cooler. When the radiation doesn't hit Dirt, Pavement, Tar, or Steel, then it is often hitting Green Stuff (tm). The Trees, Shrubs, and Grass don't disperse the Radiation as heat. They absorb it and use it to grow. So the energy actually becomes stored in the bodies of plants until we chop them down and burn them or what-have-you. So the next time you're walking across a grassy field barefoot and think, "This grass is nice and cool on my feet" or are sitting under an Oak tree and think, "That's a really nice cool breeze." You'll realize that the cool breeze is from the Oak tree breathing on you. Plants need to breathe in direct proportion to the amount of light they absorb. So yes, that Oak Tree is absorbing the light/heat and then exhaling cool air all over you. Don't forget to thank it.
Let's take a look, I live in the Country. I'm surrounded by green plants. Trees, Shrubs, and Grass. If you were levitating or on a magic carpet, it would look very green.
On the other hand, if you flew your magic carpet over the city, what would you see? You'd see roads and roofs. Yeah, that's about it.
So there is the key difference. Don't see it?
We get all our Energy from the Sun. If the Sun went out we'd freeze and die. The Energy coming from the Sun is all Radiation. Most of it is blocked by the Atmosphere, at various layers. UVC is just about entirely blocked, UVB is mostly blocked, and UVA is the highest energy-level radiation that gets through consistantly. UV Radiation contains enough energy to break the bond between two Carbon molecules (C-C) which is why it is considered dangerous. That is also why plastic tends to go yellow when left in the sun. It's decomposing.
So, why is this important? Well, in the City, the radiation hits the ground, be it a road or parking lot, and it's usually pavement. The energy gets altered from the various bands of light energy and becomes heat energy. The same thing happens for Roofs, which are usually Asphalt Shingle, Tar and Gravel, or Steel. So all that light energy is hitting the roof and becoming heat. So the City is a hot place. Except for the park, of course, which is cooler.
The reason the park is cooler is the same reason my home is cooler. When the radiation doesn't hit Dirt, Pavement, Tar, or Steel, then it is often hitting Green Stuff (tm). The Trees, Shrubs, and Grass don't disperse the Radiation as heat. They absorb it and use it to grow. So the energy actually becomes stored in the bodies of plants until we chop them down and burn them or what-have-you. So the next time you're walking across a grassy field barefoot and think, "This grass is nice and cool on my feet" or are sitting under an Oak tree and think, "That's a really nice cool breeze." You'll realize that the cool breeze is from the Oak tree breathing on you. Plants need to breathe in direct proportion to the amount of light they absorb. So yes, that Oak Tree is absorbing the light/heat and then exhaling cool air all over you. Don't forget to thank it.
Wisdom and Knowledge
Wisdom and Knowledge are enemies:
Knowledge is a hot burning blade. It's a piece of scrap metal that is hammered repeatedly until you get it through your thick skull.
Wisdom is the tepid tank of silky oil that tempers it. Wisdom takes all that work and turns it into something useful. Like all enemies, they serve a purpose to one another.
On Homosexual Marriage
Homosexual Marriage is now legal in Canada. I think this is a very unfortunate thing. I am strongly against homosexual marriage for just one reason, and that reason isn't that homosexuality is wrong. Yes, I do believe that homosexuality is wrong, but that isn't the reason I think that a homosexual union should never be called a marriage. At the bottom I've typed up some [there are lots more] Bible verses which refer to sexual immorality. Sexual immorality, also known as Fornication, is a category which includes various sexual sins, including homosexuality. The majority of these verses are directed to Believers. It would be nice if everyone was a believer, but not all are, and that is a reality of this world. There will always be sin, there will always be sexual sin [fornication], and most likely there will always be homosexuality so long as this world exists.
The reason I feel so strongly against Homosexual marriage is that Marriage isn't a human creation. God created marriage, so therefore, we, as humans, have no right to alter it. It is a covenant, a set of vows before God. The structure and design was created by God and we have no right to change that. It says quite plainly in Genesis, "And for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave [bond] to his wife." This was the inception of marriage. "What God has put together, let no man put apart."
On the topic of homosexual sin, I feel the Bible is completely transparent, as you'll see below. My personal view is that homosexuality is a sin, but that doesn't mean the person is ruined for life. There is always forgiveness. It is no different from any other sin, and equally forgivable. All that is required is for repentance. With true repentance comes a desire not to fall back into familiar sin. Unfortunately, with the stance the secular society is taking towards homosexuality, many people who have fallen into sinful habits are being encouraged to remain in them under the guise of freedom, even by those not similarly stricken. I cannot see how there is freedom within sin, only bondage. All of us are Human. All of us have the same nature. I have never met anyone who has achieved happiness or satisfaction from sin, be it gambling, gluttony, or adultery. I've never met a cheater who obtained happiness from it, have you? Do you know anyone who is mortally obese from gluttony who is happy the way they are? The happiest people I've ever met have always been spiritual, holy people. These people do their best to make their words, "a honey to the soul and bones" of those around them. They are pleasurable to be in the company of. I do not hate people who are bound in lives of sin, and neither is it my place to judge them. That right is reserved for someone else, and it isn't a task I envy.
Matthew 15:19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander."
Mark 7:20-23 "He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.'"
Acts 15:20 "Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."
Acts 15:28-29 "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things."
These seem to be basic requirements.
Acts 21:25 "As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."
Romans 13:!3 "Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy."
"As in the daytime" If there are things that you are ashamed of, and want hidden away in the dark, they are likely sinful. People aren't ashamed of the good things they do. Everyone should be able to recognize immediately if something is evil.
1 Corinthians 5:9-11 "I have written to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people----- not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat."
"Not at all meaning the people of this world" Christians are free to associate with the "worst scum" of mankind. It's quite encouraged. Christ himself spent most of his time with prostitutes and tax collectors. What Paul is warning against is spending time with "anyone who calls himself a brother but..." any Christian who is behaving like a pagan. Any Christian who is using forgiveness as a get out of jail card so that s/he can commit any crime s/he feels like. It is these people who are two-faced that we should not associate with, for numerous reasons. One is that they have obviously already heard the message, and time would be better spent trying to reach people who have never even heard the name, "Jesus Christ."
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
In this particular verse, Paul states "sexually immoral" as a category and then specifies specifically 3 types of sexual sin.
1 Corinthians 6:13 ""Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"---but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body."
(This is just my interpretation) The Human body enjoys wordly pleasures, "food for the stomach," but when one starts to live completely for worldly pleasures, "stomach for food," one has gone away from spirituality and has engaged in worldly desires. This verse reiterates that the Body is given over to God.
1 Corinthians 6:18-20 "Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honour God with your body."
A very well known (and often misquoted) verse which states our body as a temple of the Holy Spirit. This is a key principle when it comes to maintaining health, avoiding chemicals, poisons, drugs, or sexual abuse of ourselves.
1 Corinthians 7:2-4 "But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife."
Take note: MAN should have a wife, and WOMAN should have a husband. The Bible is not known for cutting words short when they're necessary. If it was allowable for a Man to have a Husband, and/or a Woman to have a Wife, those possiblities would also be mentioned. The gender is very plain here.
1 Corinthians 10:13 "No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it."
It's true that homosexuality has been around for a loooong time. It was fairly well known in most ancient civilizations. Then again, so was prostitution, theft, lying, and murder. Just because it occured way back in the past doesn't justify it now any more than theft and murder are justified for existing for so long. In fact, Cain killed his brother Abel, the earliest record of murder, far before any record of homosexuality, so fratricide should be legal, right? Or maybe not.
Galations 5:19-21 "The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery, idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."
Colossians 3:5-6 "Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to you earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming."
1 Thessalonians 4:3-5 "It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God;"
Homosexuality is a natural thing in that humans have been tempted by it for thousands of years. I suppose it's part of human nature to fail, and to give into temptation. None of that is justification to continue living in sin after it's been identified.
Hebrews 12:15-16 "See to it that no one misses the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many. See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son."
In reading the context of this verse, I interpret it to be a command for Christians to be examples through our deeds. The part about the bitter root is to see that no branch of the Christian faith grows out and becomes twisted or perverted, causing many to think they are Christian when really they are not. It is our duty to see that people understand the Truth, and that no one, for any single wordly pleasure, gives up their right to a place in the kingdom of God.
Jude 4 "For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord."
A straight forward warning against using the forgiveness of Christ as a get-out-of-jail-free card to commit sin.
Jude 7 "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."
Sodom and Gomorrah were so corrupt with sexual sin that the surrounding towns were corrupted as well. I'm sure many people are familiar with a sexual perversion that is named after the town of Sodom. This verse clearly indicated that sexual sin isn't just an issue for individuals, but for towns, cities, and countries as well. Not to mention it stands as an example to what will happen to those that continue to live in sin.
Revelation 21:8 "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars---their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death"
Sounds terrible.
Revelation 22:12-15 "Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood."
Those that live in sin will be barred from heaven, left begging at the gate. I believe that this is one of the verses that the phrase, "pearly gates" stems from, as well as those jokes involved Peter standing at the "Pearly Gates" judging who gets to go in.
The reason I feel so strongly against Homosexual marriage is that Marriage isn't a human creation. God created marriage, so therefore, we, as humans, have no right to alter it. It is a covenant, a set of vows before God. The structure and design was created by God and we have no right to change that. It says quite plainly in Genesis, "And for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave [bond] to his wife." This was the inception of marriage. "What God has put together, let no man put apart."
On the topic of homosexual sin, I feel the Bible is completely transparent, as you'll see below. My personal view is that homosexuality is a sin, but that doesn't mean the person is ruined for life. There is always forgiveness. It is no different from any other sin, and equally forgivable. All that is required is for repentance. With true repentance comes a desire not to fall back into familiar sin. Unfortunately, with the stance the secular society is taking towards homosexuality, many people who have fallen into sinful habits are being encouraged to remain in them under the guise of freedom, even by those not similarly stricken. I cannot see how there is freedom within sin, only bondage. All of us are Human. All of us have the same nature. I have never met anyone who has achieved happiness or satisfaction from sin, be it gambling, gluttony, or adultery. I've never met a cheater who obtained happiness from it, have you? Do you know anyone who is mortally obese from gluttony who is happy the way they are? The happiest people I've ever met have always been spiritual, holy people. These people do their best to make their words, "a honey to the soul and bones" of those around them. They are pleasurable to be in the company of. I do not hate people who are bound in lives of sin, and neither is it my place to judge them. That right is reserved for someone else, and it isn't a task I envy.
Matthew 15:19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander."
Mark 7:20-23 "He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.'"
Acts 15:20 "Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."
Acts 15:28-29 "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things."
These seem to be basic requirements.
Acts 21:25 "As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."
Romans 13:!3 "Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy."
"As in the daytime" If there are things that you are ashamed of, and want hidden away in the dark, they are likely sinful. People aren't ashamed of the good things they do. Everyone should be able to recognize immediately if something is evil.
1 Corinthians 5:9-11 "I have written to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people----- not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat."
"Not at all meaning the people of this world" Christians are free to associate with the "worst scum" of mankind. It's quite encouraged. Christ himself spent most of his time with prostitutes and tax collectors. What Paul is warning against is spending time with "anyone who calls himself a brother but..." any Christian who is behaving like a pagan. Any Christian who is using forgiveness as a get out of jail card so that s/he can commit any crime s/he feels like. It is these people who are two-faced that we should not associate with, for numerous reasons. One is that they have obviously already heard the message, and time would be better spent trying to reach people who have never even heard the name, "Jesus Christ."
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
In this particular verse, Paul states "sexually immoral" as a category and then specifies specifically 3 types of sexual sin.
1 Corinthians 6:13 ""Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"---but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body."
(This is just my interpretation) The Human body enjoys wordly pleasures, "food for the stomach," but when one starts to live completely for worldly pleasures, "stomach for food," one has gone away from spirituality and has engaged in worldly desires. This verse reiterates that the Body is given over to God.
1 Corinthians 6:18-20 "Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honour God with your body."
A very well known (and often misquoted) verse which states our body as a temple of the Holy Spirit. This is a key principle when it comes to maintaining health, avoiding chemicals, poisons, drugs, or sexual abuse of ourselves.
1 Corinthians 7:2-4 "But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife."
Take note: MAN should have a wife, and WOMAN should have a husband. The Bible is not known for cutting words short when they're necessary. If it was allowable for a Man to have a Husband, and/or a Woman to have a Wife, those possiblities would also be mentioned. The gender is very plain here.
1 Corinthians 10:13 "No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it."
It's true that homosexuality has been around for a loooong time. It was fairly well known in most ancient civilizations. Then again, so was prostitution, theft, lying, and murder. Just because it occured way back in the past doesn't justify it now any more than theft and murder are justified for existing for so long. In fact, Cain killed his brother Abel, the earliest record of murder, far before any record of homosexuality, so fratricide should be legal, right? Or maybe not.
Galations 5:19-21 "The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery, idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."
Colossians 3:5-6 "Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to you earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming."
1 Thessalonians 4:3-5 "It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God;"
Homosexuality is a natural thing in that humans have been tempted by it for thousands of years. I suppose it's part of human nature to fail, and to give into temptation. None of that is justification to continue living in sin after it's been identified.
Hebrews 12:15-16 "See to it that no one misses the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many. See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son."
In reading the context of this verse, I interpret it to be a command for Christians to be examples through our deeds. The part about the bitter root is to see that no branch of the Christian faith grows out and becomes twisted or perverted, causing many to think they are Christian when really they are not. It is our duty to see that people understand the Truth, and that no one, for any single wordly pleasure, gives up their right to a place in the kingdom of God.
Jude 4 "For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord."
A straight forward warning against using the forgiveness of Christ as a get-out-of-jail-free card to commit sin.
Jude 7 "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."
Sodom and Gomorrah were so corrupt with sexual sin that the surrounding towns were corrupted as well. I'm sure many people are familiar with a sexual perversion that is named after the town of Sodom. This verse clearly indicated that sexual sin isn't just an issue for individuals, but for towns, cities, and countries as well. Not to mention it stands as an example to what will happen to those that continue to live in sin.
Revelation 21:8 "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars---their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death"
Sounds terrible.
Revelation 22:12-15 "Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood."
Those that live in sin will be barred from heaven, left begging at the gate. I believe that this is one of the verses that the phrase, "pearly gates" stems from, as well as those jokes involved Peter standing at the "Pearly Gates" judging who gets to go in.
The Nature of Confidence
Whilst Instant Messaging with my Mother, she asked me, "is confidence an action or a feeling?"
This question set me up in an odd manner for an epiphany of sorts. My mind couldn't fit confidence into either category neatly enough. So I started working out the idea of what confidence really is, when it hit me.
I decided that Confidence is the purposeful (not necessarily conscious) mental deadening of possible stimuli.
As my brother and I have already agreed, this definition also describes false confidence and arrogance. This is a description of the result of confidence, but it's also the result of other bad mental states such as arrogance. (Perhaps this is why it's easily confused by an observer.) When an individual has sufficient reason to support blocking out certain negative things, such as excellent research and background knowledge blocking out the fear of public speaking about that subject, then they are acting confident that they will succeed. When an individual doesn't have sufficient reason to support that mental action, but instead is blocking possible stimuli out of fear, or worse motivations, they would then be acting arrogant or similar.
I suppose I should revisit this idea in the future when I have more time.
This question set me up in an odd manner for an epiphany of sorts. My mind couldn't fit confidence into either category neatly enough. So I started working out the idea of what confidence really is, when it hit me.
I decided that Confidence is the purposeful (not necessarily conscious) mental deadening of possible stimuli.
As my brother and I have already agreed, this definition also describes false confidence and arrogance. This is a description of the result of confidence, but it's also the result of other bad mental states such as arrogance. (Perhaps this is why it's easily confused by an observer.) When an individual has sufficient reason to support blocking out certain negative things, such as excellent research and background knowledge blocking out the fear of public speaking about that subject, then they are acting confident that they will succeed. When an individual doesn't have sufficient reason to support that mental action, but instead is blocking possible stimuli out of fear, or worse motivations, they would then be acting arrogant or similar.
I suppose I should revisit this idea in the future when I have more time.
Mmmmn, Salad!
Try making a salad by:
In a bowl combine:
diced apple
diced leek
sliced bamboo shoots
diced bell pepper
1 can tuna (dolphin safe!)
Just enough of any creamy salad dressing
Stir it up, then mix in shredded Spinach, Romaine, or Greenleaf lettuce.
In a bowl combine:
diced apple
diced leek
sliced bamboo shoots
diced bell pepper
1 can tuna (dolphin safe!)
Just enough of any creamy salad dressing
Stir it up, then mix in shredded Spinach, Romaine, or Greenleaf lettuce.
Technogills...
You know, they say that necessity is the mother of invention. How about this...
Take regular scuba (self contained underwater breathing apparatus) gear and add a battery. Run the DC (direct current) through the water in an enclosed chamber. Collect the gas from one of the electrodes, which will be oxygen gas. Let the gas from the other electrode bubble to the surface, because it's hydrogen gas and flammable... and explosive. Then the scuba gear and re-incorporate that extracted oxygen from the water into the scuba tank to renew the amount of oxygen available. That should let anyone who wants to stay down as long as they can. Or get Nitrogen poisoning from being down too long.
Take regular scuba (self contained underwater breathing apparatus) gear and add a battery. Run the DC (direct current) through the water in an enclosed chamber. Collect the gas from one of the electrodes, which will be oxygen gas. Let the gas from the other electrode bubble to the surface, because it's hydrogen gas and flammable... and explosive. Then the scuba gear and re-incorporate that extracted oxygen from the water into the scuba tank to renew the amount of oxygen available. That should let anyone who wants to stay down as long as they can. Or get Nitrogen poisoning from being down too long.
New Blog, Old Posts...
Greetings!
I have created a new blog as the wonderful people at Google have updated their system.
I will be adding old posts as I see fit.
Cheers!
Raven
I have created a new blog as the wonderful people at Google have updated their system.
I will be adding old posts as I see fit.
Cheers!
Raven