Michael Jackson – Good or Bad, Black or White?
It comes as no surprise that, everywhere I turn, I see a gazillion Michael Jackson related articles, tributes, and videos on YouTube and such. But one of the more interesting phenomenons I have noticed about many of these vids is that commenters either do the YouTube equivalent of spitting on his grave, or seem to try to avoid speaking badly about the late and great King of Pop, Michael Jackson.
Not that I think that he should be being badmouthed or anything, but I’ve always found the glorification of the dead a rather unusual practice. I suppose it may have something to do with sparing the feelings of family and friends, but as I see it, if a person was a tool while they were alive, being dead doesn’t make them any less so, and the ones negatively affected by their toolishness have just as much right to express their emotions about it, at the very least for closure, if not for anything else, as anyone else. But I digress.
The thing is, there are some folks who go the extra mile with the glorification, going so far as to defend the deceased even in the face of a very poor reputation. One particularly interesting video I came across was that of the popular YouTuber Kev Jumba, in which he decided he was going to find ways to negate the negative press MJ has received over the years. The video is below if you are interested.
While Kev made an admirable effort in that endeavor, his approach seemed to make little sense to me. Or more to the point, it was hardly what I’d call an objective review of MJ’s actions. Simply put, if you go out looking for reasons to demonstrate a persons benevolence, then more often than not, you will find them, whether they are there or not. Kev Jumba, in essence, made the same mistake the press, and many others have made, which may have brought them, prematurely, to the negative conclusions that they all still hold today about the late Michael Jackson.
Case in point. Was he generous with his money? Yes. But with the kind of money he was making, it could easily have been for free positive publicity, than for any altruistic reasoning. Did he molest little boys? Well, while there is lots of circumstantial evidence, and a mountain of testimony based on a lot of hearsay, that says he did. But there is now way to know for sure whether or not those kids were coached, their parents were being over protective, or it was just part of an elaborate smear campaign designed to get so cash out of the King of Pop.
Did he bleach his skin because of a skin condition? Again, only MJ, and the doctors who treated him know the truth. But claiming vitiligo might have just been positive spin intended to mitigate the negative reaction from the public about his changing his skin color. Was his nose surgeries because his dad called him “bignose” when he was a kid? Possibly. But if we buy that logic, then why dismiss the idea that he bleached his skin for similar reasons, instead of medical ones?
The list goes on and on. Now don’t get me wrong. I am actually neither defending nor attacking him. I am simply trying to demonstrate that for every positive explanation, there is a negative one. And since I do not personally have sufficient information to either confirm or deny either position, I simply cannot make any kind of informed judgment call on the man, and simply don’t understand how people can form such a visceral hatred of a person based on what is largely hearsay.
From my perspective, it would make a whole lot more sense to make inferences based on factual things that we do actually know about him. For instance, we know he did not have a normal childhood. And we know for sure, that he had a far from normal adulthood. And the one thing I know, from lots, and lots, of demonstrated and documented case histories on the books, is that leading a life so far isolated from societal norms can lead to a skewed set of values, and a lack of understanding of what is socially acceptable. And this this manifests itself in many ways.
Take, for instance, the hanging of his baby off the balcony of his hotel room. I don’t really think he was cognizant of the horror it would inspire in others. The same could be said of sleeping with young boys. (And when I say sleeping here, I mean sleeping, in the literal sense… Get yor mind out of the gutter :/ ) And if memory serves, I beleive he did actually admit to sleeping with them.
But whether that was simply another faux pas simply due to his misunderstanding of societal norms, or whether there were any actual sexual acts involved, we just don’t know. Given his eccentric nature, it cannot be absolutely ruled out, however it was never proven in court, so imho, we can not really say with any kind of confidence either way. Ironically, it almost seems like dumpster babies and babies killed by shaking by moms and babysitters got less press than this. Which in the grand scheme of things, is really messed up. Go figure.
But here is the other side of the coin. We also know that he was a terrific dancer, singer, and all around entertainer, whose influence is felt even today. And from all accounts, he seemed to be a nice person. I’m not saying that this should negate any bad habits he might have had, however, these are concrete things that we have definite proof of. I figure if someone was going to form some deep emotional schema about someone, from a logical perspective, it should be based on the concrete things, not the gray area.
But such is human emotions. In the end, I cannot really know what was going on in Michael Jackson’s head. Nor, I beleive, can anyone else. So from my perspective, it seems to make the most sense to simply celebrate the great things he contributed to our society, and not dwell on the possible negatives. He’s gone now, no matter how misguided he may have been, or how he may have hurt people, he can do no more harm. It takes a whole lot more energy, and in the long run is much worse for our emotional health, to hate, than it is to forgive and forget. I say we put it all behind us and move on…
But that’s just my opinion.
I am Infinitely Less Holier Than Thou…
You know, people have given me a lot to think about. It is becoming more and more obvious that for many of you, the debate about religion vs atheism has little to do with actual rights, intelligence, violence, or anything of any relevance whatsoever, and more to do with being right, people trying to feel better about themselves, and, of course getting their own way.
I’ve heard some really stupid religiously motivated garbage. Non-believers should perish. The believer is more important than the non-believer. God told me to kill those people. God’s wants me to persecute them. It is impossible for a non-believer to be good. Associate with sinners and you’ll go to hell.
Dancing is of the devil. (no, I kid you not – life is stranger than fiction.) I’ve read a lot of religious texts. And I’ve realized that what many people get out of them is what *they* want to take from them. They are all written in a metaphorical style, and as a result, they are all highly subject to interpretation. And this is where, in this humble bloggers opinion, people go wrong.
That’s not to say that the other side is blame free. I keep hearing Atheists talking about having their rights violated by religious zealots. For things that are ridiculously just trivial. And then gleefully sliding down that slippery slope to whatever conclusions gets their knickers all a-twist. Yet the same people turn around and say that *nobody* should not be allowed to pray in schools, as if it’s an infringement of their rights if someone should dare say a few “Hail Mary’s” in their presence, or say Grace before a meal. Meanwhile, a person can cuss up a storm, regardless of who may happen to find swearing offensive, then stick their nose in the air and say “Freedom of speech!” and everyones lips snap shut.
And then theres things like this: “Why are atheist mad? Because it’s religions people are pretentious! It’s as if they think they are better than us!” Yes, I’ve actually heard that said. Meanwhile, The very same atheist are calling religious people stupid for believing in what they believe to be the equivalent of the tooth fairy. As if belittling anothers belief system was not at all condescending in any way. Yeah. Right.
It’s one thing to say that everyone should be given the choice whether to pray or not, but I hear some of you saying that ALL RELIGION must be removed from schools, hospitals, etc, and that is just going to the opposite extreme. Might as well ban cussing, swearing, spitting, eating red meat, smoking, drinking, etc, etc, etc. Yes it sounds extreme, but this is exactly the same type of legislation many atheists would like to see with respect to religion. And if that happens, you can all just call me Plissken.
Who is really looking down on whom, I wonder? My personal take? Both camps are being selfish, pretentious, illogical and intolerant. Religious folks cannot blame “sinners/nonbelievers” for all that is wrong in the world. I know many nonreligious folks who are much better, higher quality people, than quite a few Christians I know.
Conversely, atheists cannot blame “Religion” for everything either. The acts of a few fanatics do not represent “religion” as a whole, and and even if they did, proposing complete religious prohibition would still be prejudice. “Because it could possibly offend someone.” is not a good rational to make something illegal. Why do people not get that? Everyone is offended by something these days. If we follow that train of thought, everything would be illegal.
It seems very few people these days seem to truly understand the meaning of balance and tolerance.
The Good, the Bad, and the Vampiric.
A while back I read an interesting article at The Spiders Den on the interesting topic of Child Vampires. Fellow blogger Lady of Spiders talked about the scarcity of children vampires in contemporary literary works, and it’s virtual non-existence in historical folklore, and made the observation that this was likely due to the ideal of the “Innocent” child being anathema to that of the “evil” Vampire.
She went further to provide a few other examples of child vampires in contemporary movies and books. I thought the topic would make for a good post, because I think that there was a whole lot more to talk about than simply the effects historical stereotypes at work. This unusual case, that of the vampiric child, actually raised some very good questions about good and evil, how they are generally identified and how that process applies to children.
I’ll start with the more ostensibly clear cut ideal of the “evil” monster. Or to use a more specific example, a Vampire. Historically, Vampires were considered inherently evil creatures. They needed drink the blood of humans to survive, they partied with creatures of the night (creatures supposedly many orders of magnitude worse than the kind you’d find in a red light district), and generally engaged in all sorts of unsavory practices.
Now to me, the real question here is this. Was their reported malevolence a result of their need for human blood to survive? The type of creatures they hung out with? Or was it because of the brutality with which they slaughtered humans? It seems, to me at least, that only the last one, the blatant disregard for the life and suffering of others, would really qualify any of them as monsters. But here’s the rub.
There have been many, entirely human creatures throughout history, who have done far worse, for much less. As monsters go, I think *they* are the real monsters. However, because they are clearly human, their descriptions are often times painted by the eyes of the writer. So much so that sometimes they are rarely described as the horrific creatures they truly are in the history books. But I digress.
I thought it was an interesting post because this way of thinking runs counter one of my most deeply held beliefs. That there is no such thing as either a “good” or “bad” child. Vampiric or not, a child is simply a child. It may have a genetic predisposition to certain emotional states of mind, such as agitation, nervousness, fear, anger, etc. These, however, are just tendencies. No more, no less. I do not believe that they are any inherent indicator as to whether a child will be be good or bad. I would, in general, look to it’s guardian if I had to make that determination.
Unless it happens to be Jesus Christ reborn, (or the Anti-Christ), born with the full knowledge of good and evil, as provided by the apple in the garden of eden, a child has no more knowledge of what is evil or good behavior than it knows how to blow it’s own nose. What a child does, is learn. It learns from what it is surrounded with, and from it’s experiences. If it is taught, or sees bad things, it will learn bad things. Conversely if it is surrounded by good, it will learn good. It is that simple. It is we, those that populate a child’s environment, that determine it’s benevolence or malevolence, and not the child itself.
Does this mean that a childs genotype is of no consequence to it’s disposition? No, Of course not. The nature of a child who is genetically predisposed to, for instance, hyperactivity, might be more likely to become a bad seed, but not because of it’s nature, but rather as a result of being doomed to constant harassment and rebuke by it’s parents, as a by product of it’s nature. This will have negative effects on it’s intellectual and psychological development, and ultimately how it views the world. Its outlook, and reaction to life, will be tainted by what it has been taught by it’s parents actions, not by it’s inherent hyperactivity.
It is all about what the child is taught. Negative breeds negative, and positive breeds positive. The parent of a hyperactive child must learn to deal with, and channel that hyperactivity in positive ways. No small order, to be sure, but in my opinion, it is the most important aspect of dealing with so called “problem” children. They generally aren’t evil, they mostly need structure and guidance. And parents with healthy imaginations, a coping mechanism that does not tune the child out or beat them down, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, of patience goes a long way.
Did I mention patience? Ok, just checking. Can’t say that enough. Granted human beings are human beings, and few parents have the infinite patience required to weather the seemingly inexhaustible supply of vampiric, patience sapping, negative energy that a toublesome child can emit.
But I think it is important that parents understand the difference between what makes a child being bad, and just being difficult, and adjust their reactions accordingly. Too many times, I’ve seen children who were doing nothing wrong, penalized simply for being hyper, or loud, or whatever it is that gets on their parents nerves. Sometimes I see them punished with no explanation, no chance to explain themselves, no logical rational for why they are being persecuted.
These actions can have very, very damaging psychological effect on a child. It is this flux, this lack of structure, that often leads to the generalized frustration, anger, malevolence and hatred that many troubled children suffer. And more often than not, it is actually the parents constant negative reactions that turn them into the monsters that they become, not video games, not movies, nor any inherent predisposition to evil or wickedness.
I have said this many a time, but it bears repeating again and again. A parent is the single most influential person in a childs life. They have the ability to mess them up in ways that can be dreamed of only by highly trained, third world, non Geneva convention restricted war interrogation experts, or can be more effective than an experienced psychologist, at teaching them how to properly respond to any give situation or stimuli.
To put this in perspective, what this means is that, even if such a thing as a vampiric child existed, with proper parenting, I believe you could teach it to control it’s blood sucking urges, and how to respect it’s food. Notwithstanding the fact that no such creatures exist, I’m telling you… It’s doable…
I’d suggest you wear some steel neck protection before you begin, but still… 
Free Energy Vs. Over Unity…
With the recent bruhaha in the US about oil prices, reliance on foreign oil, and the finite nature of our natural oil an coal reserves, there has been an inordinate amount of energy being expended in trying to find new energy sources. Now the good news is, there are lots of naturally occurring phenomenon that we could harness to generate energy, such as sunlight, wave, wind, and geothermal energy.
Sadly, however, there seems to be so much misinformation about energy, where it comes from, and how it is generated, the concept of over unity, etc. that sometimes I feel like pulling my hair out when I read some of the articles people come up with claiming to have discovered the secret to perpetual motion, and “over unity” motors, the proverbial fountain of eternal youth, (Yes, yes, yes I know there is no proverb about eternal youth, I’m just improvising here, so put a sock in it. 
) so far as energy is concerned.
Some of these guys make religious fanatics seem perfectly rational. Lets take, for example This one vid i found on YouTube, claiming to have invented an over unity motor that is breaking the laws of physics:
Seriously? First of all, none of the inventions I have seen on YouTube have been “over unity” motors. None. Not a single one. Wanna know how I know this to be the case? Neside the fact that all of the explanations they give for how their “over unity” motors work either make absolutely no sense, or describe a conventional motor with high efficiency modifications? All you have to do is really understand what “over unity” means. An “over unity” motor is one that generates more power than is put into it. The idea of an over unity motor is the key to the perpetual motion machine. A machine that, once started, will continue to run under it’s own power, into perpetuity.
Now any seasoned physicist will tell you that over unity motors, and consequently, perpetual motion machines, are physical impossibilities. And for good reason. For starters, there are no motors in existence today, that are over 100% efficient. In other words, you always get less energy from any given fuel than you put into any given motor, because you lose some energy along the way, be it to friction, heat, light, sound, air resistance, etc.
This means that an over unity motor would have to extract more energy from it’s power source, than the power source actually possesses. A motor that would have to be in excess of 100% efficiency. Just not possible. The motor would have to be frictionless, silent, have zeros mass, ect, etc, etc… Clearly something that makes not sense whatsoever. Of course the proponents of over-unity motors just throw those terribly inconvenient laws of physics away, and make claims that are akin to saying that you could power your car forever using the pink flatulence of technicolor unicorns.
If you haven’t picked up on it by now, I obviously don’t buy into the idea of perpetual motion. However, what I do buy into is the idea of free energy. Not from “over unity” motors, but rather, from natural, “under unity” power sources that are currently just being wasted. The problem is, some people don’t know the difference. Look at the information in the text of this vid (you can skip the actual vid if you want, the quote below is where the laughs are to be had ):
And I quote:
If you don’t believe in free energy think about this: The sun is radiating all its energy into the vacuum, all stars, galaxies, quasars, everything is radiating energy. This means the vacuum cannot be empty thus containing a lot of “hidden” energy which can be extracted by means of certain devices, breaking the laws of (the present-days) Physics.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on there partner… I was with you until you started talking about breaking the laws of physics. Energy from the sun is indeed free energy, but the sun is not a perpetual motion machine, and therefore harnessing that energy can not, I repeat *NOT* even remotely constitute a possible violation of the laws of physics. If it did, then every solar calculator, every solar powered garden light, every single solar powered device, heck, even photosynthesis, would be a violation of the laws of physics.
Harnessing naturally occurring sources of energy has never required breaking any of the laws of physics., because each and every one of these abundant supplies of natural energy, wind, water, sunlight, even geothermal energy, are all natural phenomenon that themselves obey the laws of physics, and can be tapped, utilizing those same laws.
They are not perpetual energy source. They are finite. They WILL eventually run out. Yep, even our great and glorious Sun is a humongous ongoing fusion reaction will eventually run out of fuel at some point and eventually die. It is a terribly efficient reaction, yielding massive amounts of energy, yes, but it will still run out. We are just taking advantage of them while they are still alive.
That’s not magic, it’s not perpetual motion, it’s not over unity, It’s just a good, abundant source of free energy, like wind, wave and geothermal energy, that we really ought to be taking advantage of while we still can, instead of dreaming about energy sources that are no more concrete than gunpowder made from the dehydrated gas of a flatulent ogre, no matter how potent that may sound…
Knight Rider 2008… Not so bad after all…
As a big fan of the original Knight Rider Series starring the Hoff, and a jet black 1982 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am as KITT, I was a little off put that for the new 2008 remake of the series, they went with the rather brick-like 2008 Mustang instead of any of the newer, and arguably much edgier looking, Dodge or Chevy offerings.
Not that they picked a slug, the 2008 Ford Shelby GT500KR Mustang is easily one of the best mustangs around. But seriously, just look at the lines on it:
KITT - 2008 Shelby Mustang GT500KR
Not that it’s bad looking, per say, but compared to the likes of the new Dodge Challenger, or even the Camaro, it seems like an odd choice:
2009 Dodge Challenger Concept
2009 Chevy Camaro Concept
See what i mean? When I look at all of that untapped evil potential in the Dodge and Chevy offerings, it’s almost a crying shame to think how much closer these are to the original, compared to the lines of the Mustang. But the pain doesn’t stop there. The new KITT has some equally new tricks. Take, for instance the new transformation bits:
Pretty nifty, yes, lots of cool transformation sequences like this in the series. Which is all good and fine, except for one thing. Much like the transformers, such massive physical reconstruction should normally kill the occupants… I’m not hating or anything, I’m just sayin’..
However the one thing I will say for the new series is that what they lacked with respect to the blatant disregard for practicality and style (the new knight rider attack mode looks more like the product of an import car magazine artist than the intimidating weapon it is supposed to be) they made up for in overall cool, and some great interaction between the actors. Heck, even KITT, while almost a completely different character from the original, has an unusually affable, all knowing arrogance that interestingly enough, makes him rather likeable:
Not that KITT wouldn’t be likeable even if it had no AI, but still. That is perhaps the reason why the series still seems to work. They changed a lot of things, but made sure to keep the ones that mattered. And they didn’t entirely ditch everything from the old series. If you were a fan of the old series, and you look at the intro for the new one, it is clear that homage was paid to intro sequence from the original:
I suppose at the end of the day, the cool technological edge of the series will just keep drawing viewers back in… I keep getting this image in my mind from the pilot movie for the series, where KITT is screaming across the Nevada desert, moving so fast that there are vapor trails streaming from his hood and spoiler.
Seriously? Contrails from a car? Realism be damned! That’s just cool, not matter how you slice it…
The Many Looks of Wolverine
I found an interesting article over at Games Radar that showed a chronological progression of the variuous video game looks Wolverine has had over the years. I thought it was an interesting look at the progression of not only Wolverine, but also the comic fashion trends of each era…
The many in-game looks of the X-Mens Wolverine.
Let me just say that, when growing up, I never really asked myself why super heroes had to run around in brightly colored spandex. However one thing i knew for sure, was that in spite of being one of my favorite mutants, I never really liked wolverines costume. Yellow spandex just never cut it for me…
Bangkok Hellsing
I’m a big fan of anime, as well as action movies. I found this video which is a beautiful melding of two of my favorite things. It’s a mashup of HellSing, one of my many favorite animes, and the audio from the trailer for Bangkok Dangerous, a good, if not a little formulaic action movie Nicholas Cage starred in.
Apart from a few random scenes where some unwanted subs showed up, the editing is pretty darn close to perfect. Enjoy!
The true meaning of tolerance: co-existance
In a recent post, I talked about how the rift between atheists and theists seem to be getting bigger every day, and not because of the few valid differences that exist between the two ways of thinking, but for reasons that are actually peripheral to the really important ones. I have gotten some flack for it, surprisingly, all from the atheist camp, but the vast majority of it seemed to consist of flawed logic. We claim to be a nation that respects all colors, creeds, and religions, and yet, people are somehow supposed to leave all of those things at the door when they go to work?
It’s like telling a black person, “Yes, we are an equal opportunity employer, however when you come to work, you must leave your skin at the door, so as not to possibly offend someone by your blackness…” Yes, yes, it’s an exaggerated example, but the thing is, this would be easily recognized as race based prejudice, whereas, with religion, it somehow wouldn’t be. If someone can give me a good explanation how this makes sense, besides saying “If your beliefs could possibly offend someone, you must leave it at home.” I’d really like to hear it.
But back to the topic at hand. Today, I ran across an article that confirmed something that I have believed all along. There has never really been a good reason for people to butt heads over creation vs evolution. The Vatican has apparently come to the conclusion that the two are, in fact compatible with each other. To be honest, I really never understood why there was any conflict to begin with. The two are completely separate ways of thinking, but try to describe the same thing, which we all *KNOW* happened. Why *wouldn’t* they be able to coexist side by side?
What people don’t seem to realize is that Science does not provide answers. That is not what science is. Science is a method. Not a solution. It is not an answer. It has it’s failings, and at the end of the day, we have to trust that the experts in their fields have come up with the right interpretations for what they have observed. Anyone who is being honest with themselves will realize that believing in science is an act of faith. Faith, in both the scientific method, and in the people who employ them. And while I value the scientific method and methods of objective analysis above any other way of learning the truth of the world around us, there have been countless examples where the scientific method has not yielded correct answers. Not because the method failed, but because it is limited by our own understanding. Basically, we don’t know what we don’t know. And even science can’t fix that. Anyone who tells you differently is selling something.
I found it interesting that my last post was rather swiftly assaulted by someone I’d consider a “devout” atheist, who simply ignored me (and pretty much almost everything else I said) when asked if they thought Atheism was a belief system or not. I find it interesting because it seems like people would rather seek out the differences between people than the similarities. My pointing out that Atheism is as much a belief system as any theistic system i can think of really ticks some people off, and for the life of me, (as I have been told) “I don’t get it.”
But let’s actually look at the similarities. Atheists claim that blind faith is stupid. Now I actually agree, however we must also admit that the vast majority of us do not understand many of the complex sciences we work with on a daily basis. We take at face value that what our engineers, physicists and doctors tell us is true, because it was determined “scientifically”. That is an act of faith people. A belief in something we cannot prove for ourselves. And this, in spite of how often “science” proves to be wrong. Theoretical physics is rife with backtracks and redacts, medicine is an art as much as a science, and engineering changes with each new material we discover.
That act of faith is almost identical to that which many Christians take when the walk into a church. They blindly leave thier brains at the door, and imbibe whatever spiritual liquor their Imam/Pastor/Priest happens to be pouring that day. And I have heard some things from the mouths of supposedly holy religious men and women that was absolutely unbelievable. Despicable, manipulative, and just plain wrong. But here’s the kicker. I find all kinds of “science fearing’ atheists who are willing to just absolutely devour the exact same garbage spewed by politicians and community leaders, and don’t see that it’s exactly the same. The. Exact. Same. Drivel.
And the result is always the same. Needless violence. Humans have perpetuated just as much violence for secular reasons as religious ones. Nobody, has a lock on the evil that man does to man. You take away religion, and you will find that we have killed each other for lots and lots of other reasons. The truth, is that it is human nature. It is our nature to do what we do. How much different is a door to door sales man from a Jehova’s witness? They are both equally annoying. Why demonize one over the other? Humans simply use the most convenient way to justify doing whatever it is they want to do. The reasons are purely circumstantial. Believe what you want, but there is no escaping it. Science and religion have much more in common that most want to admit.
But the point of my long and winding rant is this. The Vaticans announcement illustrated that it is possible for religion and science to coexist. And coexistence is what true tolerance is about. They are two radically different ways of describing something we all know happened somehow, and the two may be based on completely different ways of thinking, but that does not mean that they cannot both co-exist. There are no real reasons for either side to be considered inherently offensive to the other, and I wish people would stop thinking and acting as if there are.
The Vatican’s View of Darwin Is Evolving – [NFN - Yahoo News]
Giving relevance to the irrelevant…
I will admit to not understanding the way most people think. On a daily basis I hear things from people that indicates a kind of logic that, to me, seems rather unusual. However I can respect that others have different ways of thinking. It’s what makes humans human.
But one thing that I find really confusing is that I also run into people who say things that should logically contradict their own way of thinking. A recent event regarding a nurse who got suspended for asking one of her patients if they would like her to pray for them got me thinking about it…
Supposedly, even asking was inappropriate, as it could offend someone. And that’s what I don’t understand. Why would an atheist (for instance) be offended by a theist asking to pray for them? She didn’t ask them to convert to Christianity/Islam/whatever. She didn’t even ask *them* to pray. I don’t get it.
There seems to be an unfathomable logical chasm between what people believe and how they behave. Lets say, for example. You believe in one, all powerful, omnipotent, omnipresent God. Then, as Captain Kirk once put it, “What does God need with a star ship?” If all God wants is to see his people at their best, would it really matter what everyone else believed, just so long as they loved their fellow man? I would submit that it doesn’t matter. At least not to any God worth his salt. It only matters to us. We are the ones who have made such a relatively trivial point one of ultimate importance.
Lets also consider the position of the atheist. The devout scientist, for instance, who believes there is no God. And yet wants to see theism of any kind removed from society as a whole. Why? Because religion is evil? If you truly believe there is no God, then what a person believes is also irrelevant, because there is no omnipotent power to back them up is there? And if there is no God, then all evil is the result of man, not religion. Following a religion is not what makes a man evil. It’s what they decide to believe and do that does. And for that reason, any atheist should be railing against men, not God.
People seem forget that it is we who decide to act the way we do. Any Christian will tell you that God has granted man free will. And any atheist should tell you that each mans actions is their own. So seeing as they both agree on the most important issue of all, why do Christians still blame atheism for the decline of our cultural morals, and why do atheists still blame theism for sociopolitical strife?
That makes no sense to me. Instead, why not prioritize a persons intentions, instead of their beliefs? If a person asks if they can pray for you, recognize that they mean you well, and they are doing everything they can possibly do to make it so. If you believe prayer is useless, fine. But is it so hard to accept the gesture for it’s intent, rather than take offense? If the patient didn’t believe in God, then the question should have been no more offensive than the nurse asking whether she could send the patient a “get well soon…” card. Or asking them if they wanted to see a Unicorn, or ask Santa Claus to pay them a visit early…
Or am I just talking crazy?
Log In
My Thoughts…
Blogroll
General Info
Phyreblades Blogs
Weapon Info
Weapon Links
- A2 Armory
- Anime Castle
- Arms and Armor Manufacture
- Asian World of Martial Arts
- Bailiwick Enterprises
- Blade HQ
- Blade Play
- BUDK
- Bugei Trading Company
- Dragon Artworks
- eBlade Store
- Eriks Edge
- Gränsfors Bruks
- GungFu
- Heavenly Swords
- J. A. Harkins Custom Knives
- Jerry Hossom Custom Knives
- King of Swords
- Medieval Weapon Art
- Red Dragon Sword Company
- Reliks.com
- Sinza Knives
- The Collectors Edge
- Tolkien Town
- True Swords
- Widforss
Famous Last Words
The Time Machine
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jun | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Lessons of Life and Love
Today, I came across an interesting post from one of my favorite blogs, My [Confined] Space. It was a rather poignant post about love and lost opportunities:
Yeah… The kind of stuff blockbuster movie tragedies are made of. However what was interesting was the range and content of the comments that followed (you can click on the image or the link at the end of the post to see the original comments @ M[C]S ). To me, the posts all seemed to take either one extreme or another. There were some people categorically stating that being in love with your BBF is a fatal mistake, and that you should run as fast as your little legs can carry you in the other direction. Others were deeply moved by it while others chalked it all up as BS, and shucked the whole thing into their mental garbage bins.
However there were a few who did seem to come away with at least one lesson from it, and I thought there were some good points made. Me personally, I thought this chap handled the situation entirely wrong, but being the anal retentive sociocultural explorer that I am, I couldn’t help thinking about what the real lesson of all of this was, and what I would have done differently if I were in that situation. The results of my musings were rather unsatisfying, but I thought they might make for an interesting post… If you are the type that frequently posts “tl;dr” just go on ahead, leave now, and forever hold your peace. Other wise grab a cuppa, (or whatever your favorite poison happens to be today) and get comfortable…
The very first thing that ran through my head while reading this was that it seemed unfortunate that, despite being best friends with this girl, this guy decided to hide something as important as the fact that he was deeply in love, with her, from her. I can understand why he did it, however his logic for doing so seemed seriously flawed to me. Having never discussed it with her, how could he possibly know she didn’t think of him the same way? This, to me, seems to be one of the fundamental flaws with relationships these days. Lots of unfounded assumptions compounded by having none of the important communication required to clear it up.
That is not to say, however, that telling his female compadre that he was in love with her would be guaranteed make things any easier. But as I see it, there is only one possible problem with telling her. And that is that she might get weirded out by it. To be honest, it sounds stupidly stupid to me. Yep. After all, if she really is your best friend, even if she doesn’t love you romantically, she should still love you enough to understand what you are going through, and be there for you, probably help you find ways to deal with your feelings constructively. But that’s just my opinion. In real life people don’t act in particularly logical ways. Bottom line, if she actually did get weirded out, then he would have potentially lost a best friend. However from my perspective, if your so called “BFF” bails on you for committing the oh, so heinous, cruel and unforgivable sin of falling in love with them, then they weren’t particularly good friends to begin with. C’est la vie. .
However this train of thought brought me to another interesting consideration. The reality of life is that some people aren’t really honest with themselves about who their friends are and what kinds of people they are. I’ve noticed some rather illogical behavior with people towards those they consider “best friends”. When those “BFF”s do something wrong, they are quick to excuse the behavior, sometimes even when they themselves would never condone that behavior from anyone else. From my perspective, that is not what a good friend is supposed to do. A true friend should not be ones personal “yes” man. A true friend should always be honest, and should challenge any of behaviors that they know to be wrong. Again, just my take on what friendship means. But I digress.
The point is, when people want things bad enough, they can, and often will, lie to themselves, and tell themselves that someone is their best friend, even though the person is not. I imagine this could happen even easier with a person whom one might be romantically attracted to. They become “best friends” but do not realize that even that “Best Friend” relationship is really one way. You are doing all the befriending, in spite of the fact you have *nothing* in common, (apart from maybe wanting to get them in the sack) and they are just along for the ride. As a result you end up with a best friend who isn’t really your best friend, and isn’t even really the kind of person who you would be friends with if you weren’t sexually attracted to them. Bummer. Big bummer. Anyway, where was I…? Right. Self honesty.
Barring the possibility that the target of ones affections turns out to be a flaky pastry with no fluffy layers, there should be only one other question one should ask, should they find themselves in this situation. Will *my* feelings change if I tell my BFF I love them, and happen to get rejected? This is the scenario that been known to kill people dead (mostly metaphorically, but sometimes even literally). However from my perspective, this reaction makes no sense. If you don’t tell her, you will live the rest of your life secretly in love with your BFF. You will still have to continue to treat them like your BFF. And whatever torture you are putting yourself through will not cease.
If you do tell her, one of two things will happen. Either she will say “Aww that’s cuuute!! But can we just be friends?!?”, (BTW, welcome to the hell that is the “Friend” zone!), and you will still live your life in love with your BFF, except now she can be more sensitive to your feelings towards her, and you can try to move on. OR the she says “What took you so long, you dork!” And all will be will with the world. Well not quite, but at least you will have jumped one of the major hurdles. But you have to be honest with yourself. Be aware that just because your are BFF doesn’t mean you are automatically in like Flynn. And also realize that a rejection of romantic interest doesn’t inherently mean they weren’t really your friends to begin with. Most people who think are really just you pulling a juvenile “sour grapes” tantrum. But you won’t be able to tell the difference unless you are really being honest with yourself.
The thing is, assuming of course, the BFF isn’t a type of cardiologist that eschews surgery with the traditional and time honored scalpel in favor of a wooden spoons, you can not be any worse off than you were to begin with, UNLESS you weren’t being honest with yourself to begin with, OR the person whom you think is your BFF isn’t really your BFF. In which case I say, “To blazes with them!!” Yeah. Yes, I’m sure you probably won’t feel that way as you stand there, fully awake, spoon carving itself a ragged path around your heart, sans anaesthetic, but the reality of it is that all you will have lost is an illusion. Nothing of any real value. What you *will* have, at last, is a clear and unclouded vision of where you stand with respect to the friend in question.
If they reciprocate, then good. You still have a lifetime of relationship ups and downs to contend with. But even if they reject you, If they cared about you before, they will still care about you after. If they are the person you thought they were, you will care about them no less. (unless you were, or are lying to yourself about them, which would really be your fault, not theirs) But you will now be free to decide how to live the rest of your life, with no regrets, no questions, no “what ifs” lingering over your head. That’s what i think. But then again I do have this tendency to oversimplify things…
A Bawl Story – [My [Confined] Space]
Tags: Bad Idea, Bad Ideas, Commentary, Common Sense, Culture, Death, Denial, Humans, Irrational, Issues, Love, Observations, Psychology, Relationships