Sunday, November 14, 2004


Just to go over a few things so we got them straight, me and you. These are the emoticons we use in Lineage -- for the uninitiated.

-.- = terse eyes = unhappy, annoyed, peeved, dismayed, fed up
-- = same
`` = same
=.= = double-terse eyes, more weary and fatigued
== = same
... = standard elipsis = implies same emotion as terse eyes
?? = implies same as elipsis but more impatient
O.O = surprise, "i look you", frontin', confrontational
00 = same
o.o = same, maybe less intense
oo = same
O.o = cockeyed, weirded-out, curious, shocked
Oo = same
O.,o or -.,- or =.,= or O.,0 = threatening, "war-face", ready to fight
^^ = smiling eyes = happy, pleased, satisfied, cheerful
QQ = crying eyes = dispairing, disappointed, let down
>< = wincing eyes = equivalent of Homer Simpson "doh" =
screwed up, messed up, made a mistake
v.v = loving eyes = in love, adoring, desiring, respecting

SO if you'll notice from the title of this message, -.-, I am not too happy about Bush winning. And yes, I voted for Kerry. Does that make me a "libral"? Am I therefore "anti-conservative"? Bah. =.= Read my message below about how I define "libral" and "conservative" and do the math yourself.

Frankly I was against Bush because he led our country into war based on false intelligence and then basically refused to shoulder any responsibility for that intelligence being false. What a crock of shit. And even more, I am apalled -.- that most Americans buy into this frat-boys horse-shit fest.

Is this language too strong? Should I employ euphamisms while describing the idiocy of someone who would cut taxes at a time when government expenditure is already outstripping their current income from the tax-base? Unbelievable. How is a short-term, small "relief" given to the consumer going to somehow make up for a $500-billion budget deficit? Recockulous.

The most common thing Americans cited as their prime reason for choosing Bush over Kerry was the supposed "moral values." You got to be kidding me! Anybody remember Jim and Tammy Fae Baker? Bush is like 100 billion times more Satanic than them... he's the hypocrite to end all hypocrites. How can he claim to be Christian while signing execution orders and declaring multiple wars? Can we say preposterous? Oh yeah, I forgot, anybody that would believe that Bush is somehow "Christian" wouldn't know how to pronounce the word "preposterous," let alone understand what it means.

Let me spell it out for you. The Bible says "thou shalt not kill," and Jesus came and said to "turn the other cheek" as well as to "love your enemy." Furthermore, when military forces came to Jesus to take him away, to execute him wrongfully, Jesus at that moment had the option of letting his disciples fight for him, defend him from the forces of evil. But what did he do? He instead told them to put their swords away, and he allowed himself to be captured in order that he not betray his own fundamental values and become a hypocrite like those who were about to crucify him.

If it had been Bush instead of Jesus, I highly doubt he would give himself up to be crucified. Oh, but some so-called "Christian" might argue, we are all sinners and no one could expect Bush to be like Jesus. Can't really disagree with that, but I can say that not only is he not Jesus, but also, Bush is quite far from Jesus, and from Jesus' teachings. In fact Bush is more like a Roman emperor than he is like a Christian.

Would a Christian allow something like the massacre of Fallujah to occur? You know, the one in April where the Marines killed about 700 civilians in that town as retribution for the four contractors whose bodies were burned, dragged, and hung from a bridge? Of course, the American media CONTINUES to refer to those 700 deaths as "disputed casualties" -- but disputed by who? The military has never come and out denied it; and in fact, they have not denied even when given a direct opportunity to do so.

That's not to mention Bush's use of "shock and awe," which is nothing more than legitimized, militaristic terrorism designed to inflict 9/11-style damage on a city of innocent people in order to shock them into enough fear that they pose less of a threat to an invading force. The face of the child who was burned by one of our bombs, whose name became "Mr. Gunpowder" after the metallic dust singed into his skin became a permanent feature, comes to mind. I suppose Jesus wanted it that way?

Oh and then there is the issue of abortion. Don't get me started. Nowhere in the Bible is there any reference to an abortion procedure or whether it should be considered killing. Certainly, Jesus would tell you not to kill, but to love and forgive your enemy -- that the old "eye for an eye" philosophy was to be done away with. Certainly, Jesus would be opposed to the death penalty, and anyone who supports the death penalty is not a Christian, no matter how self-deluded they may be and no matter how many crosses they may wear around their necks.

And yet these same death-penalty supporting murderers claim to have the divine knowledge of when human life begins and ends, even though their own holy text (the Bible) contains no reference to abortion or pre-natal death whatsoever. It does contain one or two passages that imply the moment of conception is when a life starts, but they do not scientifically describe when this moment of conception supposedly is. Nor do they even use the word, "conception," at all...

The truth is that abortions have been occurring since the Ancient Greek times and before. They were done in secret by women-only cults, and later, the male medical establishment (the Hippocratic tradition) wrote down and co-opted the wisdom of female midwives and priestesses who had been practicing abortion for hundreds if not thousands of years.

In fact, the word "abortion" itself is not even the word that was used. The word was "ekbollein" which means "to cast out." It was the same word that was used when a father would demand that his newborn child was not to be accepted into the house, but was to be left out on the rocks, or in the woods, in a basket to die or be raised by wolves or whatever else might raise a child that was found. There are many myths, including that of the founders of Rome (Romulus and Remus), and the famous lovers Daphne and Chloe, that begin with children of noble birth being "cast out" in this manner.

To ancient women, the seed of the man being put in them by a man, it could be "cast out" by injesting medicinal substances such as pennyroyal tea, vitus agnus castus, pommegranite, silphium, and other abortifacient substances. The male seed, for which the Greek term was "sperma" (which simply means "seed"), would be cast out of the female body, likened to the earth in which the seed was planted.

Notice that "abortion" implies that a process is "aborted" or terminated, brought to an end. This can be easily contrued as meaning that a human life is aborted, terminated, ended, killed. However, using the original term "ekbollein," we see that the life material, the life substance of the embryo, is not terminated but simply is "cast out" from the body.

Some Greeks considered that if the cast-out embryo had clearly defined limbs and body parts, then it could be considered murder -- of course, these were male philosophers that enacted such laws and provisions.

But quite clearly, how can something that does not live on its own, be considered to be alive? How can something that cannot spend more than 1 minute outside a host be considered alive, and not merely a parasite?

It is a complicated issue, and one that will always receive much attention. However, because, scientifically, the answer to this question can not be provided, and because the Bible does not provide a direct answer either (but rather is forced to provide an answer that it does not really give, by the hypocrites who today call themselves Christians), the law should leave the choice of an "abortion" up to the woman, and any sin involved should be between her, and God.

I do not believe that certain people's so-called "religoius" beliefs should be used as a basis for the law of the land on such a sensitive issue. Especially when these same people are total and utter warlike hypocrites that are on a religious warpath that, judging from their other so-called beliefs, will lead humanity to a doomsday apocalypse ala the Book of Revelations -- for the believe in that too.

As for me I just focus on the teachings of Jesus. The part where he says "I did not come to bring peace but to bring a sword" has been greatly taken out of context and mis-interpreted to support the warlike views of these hawks. He makes this statement only in saying that one should put ones own relationship with God ahead of ones relationships with ones family, in the cases where ones loyalty to God would be contradicted by ones loyalty to ones family. One should risk "fighting" (i.e. disobeying, arguing, etc.) with ones father or mother or sister or brother rather than disobeying God's word.

Anyway that's how I read it. I hope the stupid so-called "Christians" out there wake up someday and actually read the Bible and think for themselves, rather than blindly following what some bully on a pulpit says.



Post a Comment

<< Home