The Dark Realm... |
|
Inner Dialogue: Thursday, August 14, 2003 Soundcandestroybullets Whataboutthefirewoman? Don'ttouchme! Ignoreit Oddbottle Wingsspreadwithbeamsoffiretheearthsplittingasthoughbyagreathammer Ican'trememberwhatwillhappen! 14ththrough15th-no16th Earlymorningtest Stayawake Can'tsleepgotosleep Stopthinking...breathe And that never stops. Story, Stuff, Etc.: Monday, August 11, 2003 --Xeno-saga is going well. I have most everything, and all I really need to do is play a bunch of mini-games to get what I don't already have. Also, Erde Kaiser is just that cool. It seems everyone is having a tough time recently, in some degree or another. (Except possibly Tomo) My condolences as your friend, but I won't bother cheapening the issues with trite commentary here. I'll be out of it around the 15th (both days around it) because of a trip I'm going on for Seminary. Sorry, folks, I'd love to hang out. Bah... so much 'I' in there... ph34r t3h /\/\4c|nt05h: Monday, August 4, 2003 Alllllrighty then.: Friday, August 1, 2003 So, to all of you having an awful time, my condolences, and I'm sure you can work it out. As always, I recommend finding peace with G'd, but just gain a positive outlook on life and you'll be on the path to happiness at least. Or you can ignore me, your call. On my Jesuit email-list, the debate among Catholics of female Ordination and married clergy has arisen. The discussion is interesting, but since it's among all Catholics, the end result is a stable, status-quo. Heh, especially since they're either Jesuit, or interested in being Jesuit. Gotta love knowing where you stand, even if only temporarily. What's more intriguing, is that the real disagreement is between whether it *will* eventually happen, or if it doesn't need to. Those who say both (or one or the other) are inevitable for a healthy Church, and those that think both (or one or the other) will destroy her. It, unfortunately, made the case *against* female *AND* married clergy when one of the members of the list forwarded an article about an Episcopalian Priest (female) and her dating issues. The moral and Spiritual elements were given passing lip-service, while the idea of sex, sexiness, and trying to keep the man's pants on dominated the bulk of the article. This is only one example, obviously, but it shows a very weak spiritual leader, in my view. It also proves that a non-celibate religious leader (male or female) has many distractions from her or his duties/devotion to G'd, which is the entire point.
An update for non-Catholics who are curious about these two issues for Catholics: Here comes a Cathlic Rant against weak Catholics and anti-Catholics: There are those among non-Catholics and 'Catholics' that believe celibacy causes perversion. The scientific facts are against this view, and in fact point toward the opposite quite strongly. (The numbers of 'pedophiles', sexual-abusers of any kind, are almost equal across the religious boards, married and unmarried religious leaders alike (protestant, Catholic, Jewish, etc.), you just hear about the Catholic ones more, and indeed, many of our (American) Bishops need a good flogging until their 'morale' improves. My personal view, which is heavily corroborated by the facts, is that American Catholics have been so diluted by the society around them (MTV, the 60s, etc.) that this scandal was really no surprise. People are so wishy-washy about what is right and wrong, even among 'Catholics' *cough*, that seeing such horrendous moral degradation is not only predictable, it's to be expected.
You can not truly be Catholic and *not* believe (in) the following (no specific order, just numbered for list): If you don't match that list, you're not Catholic. I'm border-line privately, but I represent the Catholic views (even on capital punishment) when speaking in public as a Catholic. (There's always enough of the other side, I don't need to worry about that). Ta ta for now. Conspicuously Absent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 I'll be looking forward to your response to the addition, Halis. Check your email and read as soon as you can. Just a warning. I will not be on AIM for quite some time to come, not reliably anyway. Until next time. Some clarifiers: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 Yo-tan! Just to be clear, my real emphasis was that while we are intrinsically predisposed to selfishness, we can avoid it. Quite often, I *do* give money away, and I actually don't want anything back. True kindness is when the other person is never aware of it. This is what I strive for. I just wanted to clarify my position there. Nexus, my man, what's up? Email me if you need to talk. And how come I only hear about these things indirectly, mister? Talk to me when we're on AIM! I'm the one with no life. Myarf. That's all for now. At last... Something Worth Logging...: Monday, July 21, 2003 Lilisin: I will address you two points in order. Firstly, the issue of selfishness in human nature. Indeed, selfishness is part of human nature, but that is not an automatic allowance for it. Effectively, you are addressing original sin, which is the term for the innate desire of all humans to sin. I find your view too blanketing. To say all actions are rooted in selfishness lacks clarity and precision. It is, however, a logical point. To continue, selfishness can be seen as the goal of anything. Why did you save that young girl's life? I'd want mine to be saved in the same situation. Why were you nice to that person? I want them to be nice to me/it felt nice to be nice/it rewards me. These are, indeed, selfish reasons, however positive the results may be. The task of humans, however, is to overcome the animalistic desire to appease only the self (however benefitial to others), and actually focus on benefitting the other. When you can answer the above questions with 'because it was right', you'll know you're focusing not on yourself, but on the other. Naturally, you still get the bonuses that your selfish reasoning would use to instigate the action, but you are free of guilt, because your actual guiding force was reasoned, objective morality. To be blunt, I find that saying all beings are selfish, even G'd, is a cop-out, and will only be useful for making excuses to oneself. G'd, after all, doesn't want our attention only, nor is that why He created us. He loves us, and we should love Him too, if we really understood what was going on. To call G'd selfish, though I see where you're coming from, is theologically self-contradicting. He is not limited by human temptations, He is pure, beyond, incomprehensible, and trying to frame Him in our own definitions for our convenience will only cause damage (mainly to ourselves). And second, sex/relationships, and how they go together. Again, a relationship is more than a two-way street of selfishness. A relationship is a two-way street of giving. The difference between the two? Intent. Intent is vital to moral objectivity. You did (A). Why? Regardless of what (A) is, the answer is vital in its moral meaning. So to build on that, a relationship is only truly formed on the spiritual and mental aspects. Without those as the foundation, the physical pleasure of intimacy (from simple hugging, all the way to actual sex) is not just wasted, it is improper (to put it mildly). If you're in a relationship to get something out of it, you're not in a relationship. Why do I have friends? I'll admit, there is the selfish aspect of it. We have similar tastes, I can go out and do things with them, etc. Good *can* come from evil, and I freely admit to this selfishness. However, that is not all. I also have friends because I care for others, I wish them to be happy, and will do all in my power to make them happy. And I do mean 'happy', not temporarily cheerful. I doubt many of our circle of friends actually knows what happiness is, unfortunately... Now, heh, back to the sex. To be blunt, physical intimacy is a bonus to a relationship. Once the union of spirit and mind is complete, it is complimented by the unification of the body. This is why sex happens *only* after Marriage to be appropriate. It is also *never* the basis for Marriage. Again, a relationship based on sex is not a relationship. Sex within the Marriage is not just beautiful, it's actually part of the Sacrament (which is the holiest kind of action or thing you can experience in physical existence). Why is this so? Because actual sex is a bonding, reverent, loving experience. Getting hot and heavy is not really the same has making love, I think anyone could see that particular distinction. Even Pope John Paul II wrote a paper early in his life celibrating sex, and specifically mentioning the value and holiness of the female orgasm, specifically for pleasure as opposed to creating children, too. Sounds strange in that context, but it's completely true and accurate. Within the sanctity of a Marriage, sex is a beautiful thing. Remember, it's not just based off human devotion, it's a Holy act as well. This is the source of the requirement of the Sacrament of Marriage instead of just believing you love someone and going all the way (even if you successfully stay loyal to that person). Summation: Not everything is selfish even though it all *could* be. G'd is not selfish. A sincere relationship does not require physical intimacy in any form, but is complimented beautifully by it when done properly. Of course this rubs most everyone the wrong way, especially that 'properly' right at the end there ("Well how do *you* know what's proper, Cy?"). You'll figure it out for yourself, I'm just trying to help you avoid trouble. Ignore me if you want. I like Hiei. In case you hadn't noticed...: Wednesday, July 16, 2003
The Proof!
You're Hiei! Often distant and isolated from
Get it yet? Looky, Looky. All Fresh.: Monday, July 14, 2003 My book is going well, though I've taken a short break from it after completing a very important scene. I'm trying to get myself worked up enough to add to my Tri-Gun or Cowboy Bebop fics. I want them completed and out of my brain... I know realize the insidious nature of weblogs. There is soon nothing better to talk about other than one's self. Thus they are designed to cause selfish focus for public view, increasing vanity, and general sinfulness. As such, they're the same as just about anything popular in this culture of death, yesss. I think modesty is becoming my favorite virtue simply because of the sheer novelty of seeing it... I'm actually beginning to get sickened by attractive young women wearing scanty clothing instead of attracted to them. You're welcome to dress like an animal, but don't expect to be treated like a human afterwards. Should you be able to walk down the street naked if you want to? Sure. Will you? No. Why? It's stupid. Why? Because it's obviously stupid. Why? Because if, for example, an attractive woman were to walk around naked no one would really bother asking why when she got raped. Booty-calls gets you laid, like an animal, it gets you nothing else. Don't expect it, don't complain when you don't get it, and don't bother asking if there's a trick to getting both worlds. There isn't. Oh, and another thing. Sex is no basis for a relationship. That's just a prolonged booty-call. A real relationship has no need of sex. All those couples that break-up because of 'intimacy issues', already had a load of issues that were *actually* splitting them up. Aaaahhhh, yessss. |
Ithillean Beliefs: Roman Catholic; practicing/traditional. Right and wrong, good and evil, exist, and are absolute. Personality: A content loner. Adaptation without sacrificing or degrading the self is a chief ability which has been developed. Can dissaprove without acting angrily or 'bigoted' as others would believe it. Attempts to be an example, and never backs down from a Theological question or issue. Seems distant, but very simple. Enjoys the 'mysterious' persona, but understands it to be childish.
The Forge Name: Cyrex Wingblade, Cy-kun, Cirus, Cyril, Cy. AKA; Paragraph, P-squared, Peterson Hobbies: Writing, video-games, listening to music. General imaginative mayhem under my control, under G'd unless I'm being stupid... again... |
