Powered by LiveJournal.com
You are viewing the most recent 10 entries
August 20th, 2005
willitburn @ : The Pope is not a Nazi
Am I the only person that is peeved that the basic perception of Pope Benedict by the public (and mostly youth) is that he is a Nazi?
When news first broke that the Pope was a part of Hitlers Youth that's all I heard from the kids in my class. Nothing about his stance on gay marriage/womens rights etc, just that he was an OMG NAZI.
I always thought that it was common knowledge that Hitlers Youth was mandatory, and that you couldn't really vocalize your discontentment with Hitler.
I guess 95% of the population of America missed that part of World History?
August 19th, 2005
willitburn @ :
Hm. What do you feel is significantly worse: mistranslation of holy texts, or misinterpretations of holy texts.
In my opinion I would have to say that mistranslation is severely worse than misinterpretation. My reason being is that mistranslation is so hard to fix. Once a passage or belief is firmly rooted and recognized by most all members of that certain faith it is very hard to change their minds. Also, if the mistranslation isn't found soon enough it will probably be lost and never found, seeing as how language evolves so much and we lose words (especially with the languages associated with the Bible, the Vedas, etc etc).
And I suppose I should elaborate a bit about the misinterpretation part. One example I can think of is that Sodom / Gomorrah was destroyed because of the gay inhabitants of the city. Yet the "fact" (used loosely) the people in the city were "gay" is only one part of the story. God became angry at the people of Sodom because the people: wanted to rape angels, or attack them, or were inhospitable, or engaged in homosexual acts. Yet it is a common belief that Sodom was destroyed because the inhabitants engaged in "gay" acts.
January 12th, 2005
minuetterai @ : blasphemy, in its purest form.
did anyone else watch the abc dateline report about this westboro "baptist" church?
their church members flew halfway across the country to hold up signs and protest cornerstone baptist church in oklahoma who had a member named michael shackleford that is gay. these westboro members were holding signs saying phrases like, "your pastor is lying," "turn from here or go to hell," "God hates you," and "thank God for 9/11." meanwhile, they were dragging the american flag on the side of the road and walking all over it while screaming, "God hates you and all those who support homosexual fags."
i'm quite surprised that people who lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks haven't risen up against this group. westboro claims that due to all of the sins of the gays in america, God repaid the country by orchestrating the terrorist groups to come together and to launch the attacks.
it's one of the worst misconceptions of what the Bible says that i have ever heard of.
what makes them think that God hates these people? it says in the Bible that God loves everyone; churches plaster the phrase everywhere. so where did they come up with this??
apparently, this is not the first occasion of the westboro baptist church members flying out to protest gay people and the like. when gay marriage was legalized in a state, as many as possible flew up there to protest!
i have no problem with people protesting when they believe the opposite. but using God's name to promote their hateful point of view is blasphemy! it's misleading their church members and anyone who listens and believes their hate-speech. the Bible says that those in any position to teach others who leads them astray will be judged more strictly than anyone. where does that leave them Biblically?
personally, i'm appauled at their actions. they're out there holding protests against these people when, according to the Bible, they should be loving the sinners. Jesus never just ignored or yelled and chided sinners! He spent all of his time with them! He said that he wasn't here to help the righteous but to save the sinner. being a homosexual is considered a sin in the Bible, but if they believe in Jesus, then they believe! Christians are supposed to love them in any case!
i'm sorry for the rant. i was just far too disgusted by what i heard to let this subject alone.
Current Music: "moonlight shadow" -- mike oldfield
January 9th, 2005
minuetterai @ : a little politically confused.
okay, help me out here. mom was going on for about an hour today about how bush should "bomb the sons of bitches" again, but this time she mentioned something interesting. i was wondering if anyone else had heard of it.
she mentioned that the reason why osama bin ladin and all of them haven't been pushing another major attack on the united states' homeland is because at some point and subversively, bush threatened him that if he attacked us here, we'd bomb mecca. you know, mecca, their muslim holy site? yeah. and osama really
doesn't want to be painted as the person who pushed bush into making this decision when he had prior notice.
i know it hasn't been in the news. the "article" she read said that officials with authorization to this sort of material never deny nor affirm the remark on possibly bombing mecca, so therefore at some point they probably did make this statement. the article somehow confirmed something... i don't know. she hasn't told me where she found it yet. (( >__< ))
this does make a little bit of sense. or slap me; i've been in a republican home too long. i mean, why else would he not have tried to kill us again? ...oh, it may have something to do with our preemptive strikes on their homeland to root the terrorists out, but that makes a little too much sense.
another thing that strikes me as odd about this is, wouldn't osama and his bunch just absolutely jump at the chance to air any remark of the kind by president bush so that they could defame him and get him out of office so some anti-war liberal democrat could take over? it makes sense to me. smear the names of the republicans in office as war-hawks, get their opposition out of the way... the only drawback in this is the possible threat bush could have made where they share that information and he'll bomb it anyway.
help me think this one through. i don't know what to think about it.
were this true, would you agree (( from a non-biased, non-partisan standpoint, please )) with the possible move made by bush in order to use merely a threat to contain those who would want to harm the nation he's sworn to protect? or is targeting a religious center too far?
keep in mind that in the attacks with the planes, many christian churches here were damaged, and many people were killed. also keep in mind that this could escalate the fighting spirit of our soldiers' opponents in iraq.
Current Music: "run" -- snow patrol
January 7th, 2005
pensee5 @ :
I feel a need to do a current events post. Let me know what you think of challenge issued during Bush's ratification that causes such a stir.
Basically Democrat Rep. Jones, actually backed by a Senator (Sen. Boxer), refused to recognize Bush's victory, challenging that there were voting irregularities helping Bush to Ohio's electoral votes. It was meant to present major flaws in the election process which needed fixing. It turned what was supposed to be a polite and brief ceremony into a firece, drawn out (four more hours) debate.
Personally, I suppose I approve of the act. I thought it was particularly brave of the representative, and proved that there is still a voice of intelligent opposition (not willing to pull a 'Kerry' and roll over, but to stand up for their cause). After all, a recount did lower Bush's victory by 300 votes. Still, it would appear Bush did win the state fairly, so I don't think it's a great travesty that most Democrats opposed the challenge. I'm just glad to see someone stand up for voting rights.
So where was this senate support in 2000? and why won't Kerry look into possible voting irregularities?
October 11th, 2004
pensee5 @ :
What is the most valuable thing you have ever learned in life, and how has it affected your life since learning it?
October 4th, 2004
pensee5 @ : Question of the Week
You can spend one day with Jesus Christ, anywhere on Earth. Where do you go and what would you talk to him about?
August 31st, 2004
a_pen @ : *crinklecrinkle*
i soooo did not know the Germans were involved in the American Revolution. They were. After teh Battle of Bunker Hill, the Second Continental Congress submitted the Olive Branch Petition, promising complete allegance to K. George III, but since we kicked british ass at Bunker Hill, KG said No, declared us official rebels, (a hanging offence, which i find amusing...ok, let's go hang 2 million people!), and hired 6 German princes to come squelch us with their troops. Most of them came from Hesse, so they were called the Hessians. and the fun part is that hundreds of them stayed because we bribed them, and fought on our side, later settling down and becoming respected citizens. go my brain.
Current Mood: accomplished
Current Music: High
August 17th, 2004
minuetterai @ : speechless sentences.
closed eyes and unsteady footsteps. clenched fists and shuddering spine. my legs fail me. my words fail me.
did you even notice? (( i am alone. ))
our bond was that of a celtic knot, too chaotic to find the ends. too close for words but clearly illustrated. are we that, still? anywhere you led, i followed unquestioningly, to the edges of earth, to the comfort of our living room. what happens when you don’t want to be followed?
it’s evening. streetlights slowly blink on, sleepily opening their gleaming cyclops eyes to cry illuminating tears, countering the expanse of darkness you left behind with every step you took. (( come and find me. ))
i have the memory of an elephant, you claim. that is, i never forget, correct? but the memories make the elephant. the memories make the person. what would one be without them? they make me; they make you. did they make you walk away? or was that me, my dear memory?
i feel the utter absence of you now. what did you want? my wish was simple enough, so i thought. things are never simple. one plus one does not always equal two. it’s an unknown. this blanket may warm my body, but my heart is numb. (( are you searching? ))
it is now known, if only to me. i should have followed. what is a knot that comes undone but a limp piece of string?
apart, we’re only half. half of what? one plus none is nothing. empty. have you found what you were looking for? it eluded you for so long, the wily raccoon you preyed upon for ages, hiding right in front of you.
when did you return? i never heard you enter. it doesn’t matter; your arms around my cover-clad form are enough. warm my soul. resuscitate my asphyxiated system. kiss me the air to breathe; tell me you caught your quarry, the obvious elephant in the most obvious place. you are here; i am here. the knot continues on. (( i am no longer alone. ))
this place is for writings, too, right...? o__o?
i’ve been wanting to write this for weeks now. the story you gave me, matt, with the letters in my house had notes in it that told who was in the house. the (( i was alone. )) and (( i am no longer alone. )) inspired a desire to write, but i didn’t know where to start. i was still wearing kit’s ring, the one with the knot, looked down at it, and had a starting point and wandered from there.
don't read it like this is me talking. i'm not depressed or anything; this isn't from anyone in particular's point of view. just writing.
Current Music: "apparitions" -- matthew good band
August 1st, 2004
pensee5 @ : Election '04
(some unintelligible and grammatically disastrous complaints)
There are a few reasons I don't like Bush.
-He uses the most powerful office in the nation as a mechanism to inflict his own personal moral agenda on society (Defense of marriage, anti-abortion, abstinence only education, Patriot act). These are very emotional topics, and Bush handles them very insensitively.
-He really isn't that bright when it comes to the economy. We are constantly losing jobs and the deficit is increasing.
-The Bush administration, with such heavily right-wing idealists as Rumsfeld (with the abu-ghraib and Iraqi war fiasco), John Ashcroft (the patriot act: which disregards our right to privacy and increases paranoia).
-Of course, the Iraqi war. The nation is in a mess, soldiers are still dying every day, there hasn't been a single WMD found and there are no ties linking Saddam to al-quaida. It's been heavily opposed almost everywhere else on earth, and even within america it's been proven to be based on a faulty premise.
There are a few reasons I don't like John Kerry.
-Not that he 'flip-flops' on issues, as he's been accused of doing, but he sees the nuances of ever single issue and spends forever analyzing every inch of every policy. A president should be able to be clear and decisive, not constantly questioning every aspect of every decision.
-His policies are not at all very liberal, they only seem that way because Bush is so far to the right-wing. Kerry is almost on the fringe of the Republican party, he supports defense of America and increasing the military and military spending. He actually focuses too much on defense.
-He's not a very charismatic leader, unlike Bush. His speeches are rather monotone and he is easily mislead from his focus by Republican jabs and accusations (while Bush was an easy target as the War in Iraq was being exposed, Kerry was too busy defending himself on accusations that he won 9 medals, not 7 in Vietnam, to capitalize on his advantage).
There are a few reasons I don't like Ralph Nader.
-He's a splitter. Liberals need one united voice to battle the Bush administration, and he is actually (ironically) helping Bush by taking votes away from the Democrats. In this way he's actually wounding the very changes he is fighting to establish.
I said it a few months ago and I stick by it, Bush will win the election (unfortunately).