Question for the white ladies

[Pookie]

bridget

It's nice to know there are some other southern girls around.

My father gave me the nickname "Pookie" when I was very young. I grew to hate it after my older brother tortured me with it around my friends. It is a term of endearment to me now, used by my close friends and my fiancee.

I normally ignore most comments that I find offensive. Sometimes things are said without the writer knowing how offensive it can be to someone else. But when the comment is so blatant, its just my nature for me to let that person know how I feel. I know I can't change the world, but I won't sit quietly all the time either. I have no intention to post any more about it. I have dealt with this type of attitude enough in my short life that I know what the end result will be.

life is definately like a box of chocolates ... nice to know there is some more southern chocolate in the box.

 

[its Leslie]

I DO believe in god, just not all the slanderous lunacy done in gods name.

Come to think of it, they wanted to kill the man that demonstrated the earth was not the center of creation (now that's intolerance).

Oh and while Gaul big G was a place while gaul little g is just an mannerism.

I am not saying people can't believe what they believe (not that it would matter, they will with or without my permission eh).

I am merely saying, that if I can prove you wrong, it is your burden to deal with it.

If tomorrow aliens landed, I plan to head for the deepest woods in the most remotest mountains, until all the wailing and lamenting is over.

The truth hurts, but so to do lies.

I would much rather be hurt by the truth (and it only hurst once) then be hurt by a lie that only gets more painful as time goes by.

Calling me intolerant though is ludicruous to the point of not even being concerned by it.

Those that know me know I don't chose friends based on clothing style, body weight, physical attributes, wealth status, job desciption, ethnicity, place of origin, skin colour, gender, lifestyle choice, intellectual prowess, religious denomination, marital status, or age.

All of my friends also know, that I am an aries, and not afraid to give you the unvarnished truth or at least my best shot at it. I might be bold and harsh sounding, but they all know, looking for hidden meaning is something you never have to do with anything I say.

 

[Guest]

the gall of the man from Gaul

Oh and while Gaul big G was a place while gaul little g is just an mannerism

oops, leslie, gall is audacity, nerve or impudence; Gaul was the region from which Julius Cesar wrote his famous letters... for Svenska's entertainment:
Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quorum unum incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum linguae Celtae, nostra Galli apellantur.

As a fellow Aries, I must protest the use of our sign to excuse demeaning others. Stating opinion strongly is one thing... denigrating others is never appropriate, nor welcome.

With close friends we can slide by saying off-handedly... "You don't really believe that, do you?!"... in a public forum we need to moderate ourselves not because others "can't handle the truth", but because "a wise man makes knowledge acceptable", and none of has a corner on the truth...

I have not mastered this yet... I just told a politician the other day that the program his wife is involved in is "worthless"... in front of a reporter... oops! Now, I have the documents to prove that the program is indeed worthless, but I will not have as easy access to this guy in the future...

I look forward to more truths from Leslie, sans the vitriol. You do make good points... Bless your heart...

b

ps... My karma ran over your dogma...

 

[its Leslie]

g a l l (not g u a l).

Hmmm ok I looked in my dictionary, hmmmm always thought it was spelled g a u l.

Ok I spelled it incorrectly (which does make a difference). Hey I CAN accept when I make a mistake eh people!!

I ain't perfect (besides it's to risky, they crusified the last perfect guy).

I never fret over people pointing out MY errors eh. Being wrong sucks. I would rather see MY mistakes corrected, myself.

What I want to know though, is why do people pay good money to watch people do it on a stage under the guise of comedy, but won't let me do the same thing with a straight face

 

[wildsweetone]

What I want to know though, is why do people pay good money to watch people do it on a stage under the guise of comedy, but won't let me do the same thing with a straight face

*sigh*

as i have uselessly tried to explain many times to many people online...

nobody can see faces on here, (nor hear vocal tone), therefore the language used must be altered to allow others to understand where we're coming from when we comment.

we have opinions, we are writers, let's use our skills to convey our exact meanings in ways that don't hurt. underneath the keyboards, all of us in here are people with good intentions, use that common foundation and temper comments with RESPECTING DIFFERENCES and it'll make life a whole hell of a lot easier.

 

[Quasimodem]

Re: the gall of the man from Gaul

... Gaul was the region from which Julius Cesar wrote his famous letters...
ps... My karma ran over your dogma... B]

I came, I saw, I concurred!

 

[Guest]

veni vidi consensi

I came, I saw, I concurred!

Quasi-
It just doesn't have the same ring in latin....

As always, your post has made me smile and stretch my brain.

b

 

[gauchecritic]

I mock your truth handling capabilties

To quote the other Homer (and others)

The truth? You can't handle the truth. When you reach over and put your hand in a pile of goo and that was your friends face and you don't kow what to do. Forget it Marge, it's Chinatown

Gauche

 

[Guest]

omg! now you tell me!

"But, what am i going to do with all these?" she says as she opens the pantry door and watches every conceivable chocolate ever seen tumble to the floor in a pile of glistening foil.

okay you certainly love your chocs, but it's not becouse you're a woman, it's just becous chocolate tastes good is all

 

[Svenskaflicka]

To comment on it not being directly about sex or religion, is to ignore why we have the expression in the first place.

Saying forbidden fruit is anything else, is just stealing the idea for another use, out of a lack of desire to invent a unique excuse.

Actually, does anyone actually know any good aetheist curses?

Or maybe it's just a sign that I stay up to date with how that expression has developed alongside with society, and as society today is no longer obsessed with religion, the saying "forbidden fruit" has also developed to have a broader meaning than it originally had.

Language is a part of human beings, and it develops just like we do. Phrases may be carved in stone, but not their meaning.

Oh, and by the way - these re a few of the curses us Swedish aethists use:

shit
cunt
cockhead
clumpsy ass
shitboot
idiot

OK, they make much more sense in Swedish...

 

[Cuckolded_BlK_Male]

...Forbidden fruit is an idiotic notion from equally idiotic religious teachings ...

When I was in middle school, I wrote a paper for religion class that suggested that the biblical story of the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge was indicative of god's jealous hatred toward mankind. I wrote that god's refusal to give the fruit to Adam and Eve was motivated by contempt and a desire to have humans remain unenlightened slaves, little better than dumb animals. I further said that Lucifer, alone, loved humanity and was the hero of the book of Genesis. His love for us was so great that he directly opposed god, thus giving up heaven for our sake. His fall from heavenly grace was a result of his Promethean benevolence toward humanity in giving Eve the "apple." In contrast, I said, that god's only concern was for cursing us and baring our way to the tree of life, thereby condemning us to suffering and death.

Not surprisingly, the Nuns were not amused.

 

[its Leslie]

Hmmm and I thought I was the only one that said things that would annoy others heheh.

Very interesting notions though.

Don't say I didn't warn you to duck though hehe

 

[Cuckolded_BlK_Male]

I was 12 when I wrote that paper. I shortly thereafter became an atheist.

 

[Pookie]

When I was in middle school, I wrote a paper for religion class that suggested that the biblical story of the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge was indicative of god's jealous hatred toward mankind. I wrote that god's refusal to give the fruit to Adam and Eve was motivated by contempt and a desire to have humans remain unenlightened slaves, little better than dumb animals. I further said that Lucifer, alone, loved humanity and was the hero of the book of Genesis. His love for us was so great that he directly opposed god, thus giving up heaven for our sake. His fall from heavenly grace was a result of his Promethean benevolence toward humanity in giving Eve the "apple." In contrast, I said, that god's only concern was for cursing us and baring our way to the tree of life, thereby condemning us to suffering and death.

Not surprisingly, the Nuns were not amused.

Leslie
I don't find this annoying at all. In fact, I find it to be an interesting point of view. I may not agree with it, but I do respect his view and support his right to express it. It does cause me to think about what I believe in as well. The end result may be that my own view is unchanged. But I do feel more informed because of the approach he used to express his belief.

If he had called me a moron or idiotic for my own belief (whatever that may be), then he would have annoyed me.

Differences between us don't annoy me. I hope to learn and grow as a person from our differences. Not respecting people and their differences does annoy me as you found out. I respect your view as well ... just not your approach to expressing it.

I'm not intending to be confrontational with you. I just want you to understand that my being different doesn't make me a better or worse person ... just different. Please respect that ... just as I respect your differences as well.

 

[its Leslie]

I was a Christian all my life basically.

I stopped when god himself answered a simple question for me. I asked him if any of the world's religions were really saying the truth.

Some will snicker at that, some will deride it. Sure Leslie god spoke to you. Well it wasn't words of course, I have not "talked" to god.

But who am I to argue.

I can show you a great many reasons for believing in god, and all of them through the power of rational thinking. Not one of them require consulting anyone's book of mythology.
The world around us abounds with answers, but no one is looking there. They all wish to have it handed to them. No one is actually thinking, let alone asking questions.

Now to some, calling it mythology is an insult to their faith. But I can only say words like Crusades, Witch trials and Holocaust, and you understand why I have little concern I might hurt a few peoples feelings.
Christians are efficient vicious people.

Yes the ordinary schmucks. Not any particular person, not any one villian. I am quite pleased to brand religion for what it is. A collection of mindless vicious cattle. If that sounds mean, well it is up to those people to change, to improve, to be other than vicious cattle.

That IS of course antagonistic. But how else can one discuss the millions and millions of people all through the centuries religions have burned, stoned, and tortured to death. All because a person had the insane notion to say they didn't believe that "their" way was the only way.

I am here expected to be nice nice to the very same people that have no concept of tolerance themselves. This is established fact. 9/11 being the most defining example of the moment.
And then people spitting out random hatred on persons that looked even vaguely like "them". There were no innocents on 9/11.

I am not attacking anyone person here, I am attacking the Religions of the world. If that makes me sound anti social, well I will live with it.
I have not enslaved anyone lately, nor razed any villiages, or wiped out any communities lately. I have not lynched anyone nor burned anyone at the stake. All just for being different.
My soul is clean and my conscience clear.

And I know a great many will indignantly state loudly, well neither have I. No that won't wash. If you stand with Christianity (or any other religion) then you support them. If you support them, they you accpet them for what they are and what they have done.

If you mildly go and say but I am an aetheist, and do nothing to help the human condition improve. Well you are not helping the cause of humanity to leave all that behind either.

I have stood up, I have declared no more.
I might be seen as hostile, but not nearly as hostile as the slavers the torturers, the witch burners, and lynch mobs.

Why should a person be praised for allowing such to continue?
At what point does it become acceptable, just because a person has a "right" to be mean vicious and dangerous?

I also have little nice to say about murderers, rapists, arsonists and child beaters. I hope no one wants my head on a stick for that too.

 

[Guest]

Mother Theresa and Albert Schwietzer

Oh the horrors that Mother Theresa and Albert Schweitzer committed! All in the name of Jesus.....

 

[its Leslie]

Considering what we have done in his name, what we have attributed to his name, all the things connected to his name, heck I personally am not at all surprised he has not returned.

If I was Jesus I would not bother either.

Screw you dad, look at em, so what I promised, they will all die eventually as all mortals do, let them say hello on the way by up here.

I ain't doing the cross thing again, and this time they reeeeeeeally hate me.

I never taught them to do all that shit.

 

[Pookie]

If you stand with Christianity (or any other religion) then you support them. If you support them, they you accpet them for what they are and what they have done.

I really am struggling with your logic. I don't mind your view of things. You have a right to it. But I don't see the logic in this statement at all.

Are you trying to say that if a person becomes a Christian (or any other religion) that they support EVERYTHING (good and bad) that has occurred in the name of that religion? That’s like saying that if my father rapes and kills a woman (which he hasn't) and I stand by him as his daughter that I support what he has done? NO!

There are many acts that are done in the name of many things. Lets look at this example (and this is COMPLETELY fictional). Lets say that I support PETA, provide money to support it, volunteer for many of its causes, and speak out for the issues it supports. I work weekends in animal shelters and march in protests for animal rights. Now, lets say a group of PETA members go out and kill a fur shop owner for killing innocent animals to gain their fur to sell in their shop. Does this mean that if I continue to “stand with” PETA that I “support them, then (sp) you accept (sp) them for what they are and what they have done”? Paaalease.

I could replace the name of any religion in place of “PETA” and the same principle applies. Just because I support a group doesn’t mean I support all that has been done in its name. In fact, I may work hard to change the things about the group I don’t agree with.

I don’t recall the saying but it goes something like this, “don’t damn me for my father’s sins”. Another saying applies well here too, “don’t throw the baby out with the bath.”

I agree that many evil things have occurred in the name of “religion”. I would argue that many evil things have occurred in the name of “love”. Your logic would suggest that if I support “love” that I support all the evil that has occurred in its name.

 

[its Leslie]

Passive acceptance was what I was referring to.

It was passive acceptance that sent millions of jews to their death. People did not wish to see, were afraid to stand up and object for fear of retaliation.

That is why I can say, in my life, I have only known 2, count em 2 genuine examples of Christians. The rest merely stole the name for its uses.

One is a buddy, he patiently waited for 2 years saying not a word while I played with the idea of being a Mormon. Then one day he asked me to read something out of the blue. It was the Mormon church laid bare by its own writings. He said nothing, did nothing.
The church condemned itself of its own acord. I dropped them like a hot potato all by myself.

The other is a lass I chat with from Texas.
In spite of my incorrigible self, all my ramblings, opinions, comments, outrageous flirtatious behaviour, she has never once condemned me. Always been there. She even sent me a gift through the mail once.
When Christ looks down here, he sees her, and knows at least someone heard him clearly.

People have to stand up and firmly declare what they believe, or the words are just rustlings on the wind.

I acept none of my forefathers actions as my own. They were their deeds not mine.
When I say I believe a thing, it is my belief, not one given to me.

We all have the right to declare what we believe. No one has a right to take that from anyone.
But when we stand up for a belief, we shoulder the weight of all those that share that belief.

When you say out loud "I am a christian" you take on the mantle of centuries of christian behaviour. And most of it is a foul record.
Christianity (not Christ) has countless tragedies to account for.
By placing the label on oneself, you are taking on that challenge freely.

That might not seem fair, but it is a common misconception life ever was supposed to be.

To give a personal example. I am a wargamer. And you have nooooooo idea how often I have had to put up with uneducated morons assuming I was other than a history buff and not some warmongering lunatic.
But it doesn't bother me that some have that inaccurate misconception.

 

[Guest]

doing it a little too far

When you say out loud "I am a christian" you take on the mantle of centuries of christian behaviour. And most of it is a foul record.

Leslie- Yes there have been heinous things done in the name of Christianity... but, to echo Pookie, there have been heinous things done by many people of different beliefs/associations through the centuries...

The worst ones, if you can classify them, have come in the name of communism-- no god at all-- Stalin's purges, political cleansings and starvings of Russia and the former eastern bloc countries and Mao Tse Dong's cultural revolution and the PROC's continuing persecution of religion, repression of free speech and forced abortion/infanticide program, Pol Pot's killing fields, the Sandinistans murdering Christians, Castro's repression of his people... all in the name of "human progres". Then there are the fascists, Hitler and Pinochet to name two.


IMHO, the issue is that man on his own is really pretty sick... he tends to use whatever is close at hand to justify his depravity and whatever power structure is available to implement it.

I find it offensive to be classed with the 9/11 hi-jackers because I have a personal faith. If you want to lump me with them, then do it because I am a homo sapiens.... just like you....

 

[Pookie]

Passive acceptance is acceptance. Acceptance is approval of it. Passive means you accept it submissively. It still doesn’t add logic to your statement, “If you stand with Christianity (or any other religion) then you support them. If you support them, they you accpet them for what they are and what they have done.” When I join a group, I accept them for what they currently are, not necessarily what they have done. I can’t change the past. I can only try to affect what happens now.

I don’t approve of the evil that is done in the name of anything. Why single out religion? Much evil occurs in the name of many things. “Christianity (not Christ) has countless tragedies to account for.” I argue that the “specific individuals” that committed those tragedies need to account for it. To follow that same line of argument, “Government” has countless tragedies to account for. “Men” have countless tragedies to account for (women as well). I could go on with naming MANY other “groups” that have tragedies to account for. But those groups are the collection of the individuals that are members of it today. If something happens today in the name of a group, then certainly the group has to account for it. I can’t account for anything my father or mother did, only what I do.

“I acept none of my forefathers actions as my own. They were their deeds not mine. When I say I believe a thing, it is my belief, not one given to me.” My point exactly.

“I am quite pleased to brand religion for what it is. A collection of mindless vicious cattle.”

I have personally seen much good done by people in the name of their religion. Please don’t group the good with the bad. Are those who work to rebuild homes destroyed by storms or fires, feed the hungry, sit with a lonely elderly person, read a book to an abused/abandoned child, comfort a crying mother after she looses her child ... Are these people “mindless vicious cattle” if they do it in the name of their religion? There is evil in everything. Every barrel has its bad apple. Some barrels have more than others.

“When you say out loud "I am a christian" you take on the mantle of centuries of christian behaviour.”

No, I take on the mantle of what the group currently believes and advocates. That is what I’m known by and associated with. If a group I join now advocated racism in the past, does that make me a racist now? My group may have a history that is not pretty at times. It does not mean I passively accept what they did in the past at the time I join it. In fact, I may aggressively condemn the past action. It means I willingly accept what they represent today. It does not mean I condone any evil done in its name by those who abuse their position within the group. It does mean I will try to change the group so the evil can’t occur again.

I won’t throw the baby out with the bath.

Edit Notes: I "bolded" Leslie's quotes to avoid confusion with my statements.

 

[fallen lover]

This thread has certainly travelled far

Me, I'm an athiest, a panathiest to be precise, and I believe all the Fertile Cresent religions are full of gumth and actually kinda facist, a belief in the univers as some kind of absolute State, with a God-King that tells everybody what to do, it's purely an Alpha-Male Totalitarian model of existance, and I believe that is actually very demeaning of the true nature of the univers, which is a thing humankind can never grasp- boundless, and our best attempts to figure it out so far are in Taoism, Buddism, the Bagvad Ghitta, the scientific world (although science is also prone to dogma- it's entirely concerned with truth, even if it is just boring mundane 'measureable truth') and humanism (we human beings are the only creatures in the entirety of Everywhere that care a jot about what happens to human beings).

That's my two cents on the issue and I've already expressed my standing on The Great Chocolat Debate. And Svenska can love my chocolate anytime (so long as I get a taste of that vanilla!)

Say, did that sound solicitous? Becous it was supposed to.

 

[its Leslie]

I agrree it's not just religion, we humans are all a sick bunch of swine in general.

But the moment you point out that the religious swine are no better than all the other swine, they get all pissed off as if they are better swine than the rest of us swine.

Personally when I see a good deed, I don't think hmm a person of good morals and decent ethics, obviously a wonderful example of christian values.

Nope. why attribute it to christianity (as if christianity invented being nice).

I find there are nice people and not nice people.

Religion has nothing to do with it.

 

[Pookie]

I find there are nice people and not nice people. Religion has nothing to do with it.
Maybe not in your “world”, but in the “world” I’m a part of religion has a big impact on both types of people. Many “not nice people” have turned their lives around because of people reaching out to them as part of a religion.

I have also seen many nice people given a chance to perform nice deeds because of the opportunities their religion provides that otherwise would not be possible for them.

For example, when Hurricane Andrew destroyed homes and livelihoods in South Florida, a local church organized for a group of their members to go down to assist in the cleanup and rebuilding of homes. These people wouldn’t have been able to assist like this otherwise. Another example, a local church has a group organized to assist the elderly with yard work, home maintenance and repairs at no cost for them. Arrangements for these services occur because of the actions of the church. Another example involves a friend of mine whose younger sister was killed by a reckless driver while coming home from school. The Pastor of the church happened to come upon the scene not long after it occurred. The Pastor made arrangements so that he and a few other close church members/friends could be at the home when the single mother was told her child would never come home again.

Maybe all of those things would have occurred without the church’s involvement. But they did happen in each of these situations because of the church.

Nope. why attribute it to christianity (as if christianity invented being nice).
Neither Christianity nor any other religion invented being nice. I don’t recall hearing any of them make that claim recently either.

I agrree it's not just religion, we humans are all a sick bunch of swine in general. But the moment you point out that the religious swine are no better than all the other swine, they get all pissed off as if they are better swine than the rest of us swine.
You make so many bold and absolute statements. Many of those statements seem rooted in events that have occurred in the past. If you are going to use historical facts, you need to weigh those with current facts. I’m only twenty years old. I didn’t learn about religion from thirty years of reading textbooks. I learned it though getting involved, experiencing it firsthand. I would suggest you pull away from the textbooks and seek out the truths that exist today in the world. The facts you quote about religion just are not part of my experience with religion. I have had the privilege to associate with people representing various religions. They are good people. They work hard to do good things. Many are inspired to do those good deeds because of their faith. I don’t agree with many of their beliefs. But I don’t see myself as better or worse because of it. They are just different. I am different. But, I would never refer to these people as mindless vicious cattle, morons, or idiotic for their beliefs. Show some tolerance, please.

Leslie, I challenge you to answer this question. You refer to everyone as being a “swine” using the phrase “in general”. I assume you mean that not everyone in the world is a “swine”. Are you referring to everyone involved in religion as “swine” or just some of them?

I also challenge you to answer this question. Referring to those I mention above, are these people “mindless vicious cattle”, “morons”, and/or “idiotic” because of their religion?

 

[its Leslie]

Pookie the bait slipped off you hook, just being helpful.