Kenosis |
|
An Update: Sunday, March 7, 2004 Words to those concerned: Emotions may be excessive, but they are real, and need to be treated and dealt with as-such. If one feels overly emotional, or perhaps 'weak', 'shy', or 'pathetic', and this is extreme enough to promote multiple periods of deep sorrow, then the response is a clear affirmation. There's nothing wrong with tears one one feels the need to cry. Express that feeling, to the goal of calming yourself down, and allowing yourself to focus on how to solve the problem. Beating one's self up over his/her emotions is non-productive. What you're feeling is real, take it seriously, don't feel like a pathetic being, but don't back down from the issue. Be strong, focus, take the blows of life, and you will be constructed in a superior form constantly as time goes on. The Film: Tuesday, March 2, 2004 Lilisin, I'll use your questions as a guide for this post. If others post questions, I'll be happy to help find the answers. First, let us look at the Jews at the time of Jesus. This is a highly complex socio-religious people, especially at the time of Jesus, and so everything I say is heavily simplified or simply ignores the majority of what's going on in the interests of getting the answers to your specific questions. Judaism, at the time in questions, was divided into many sects. A 'sect' is a group of believers in a certain religion, who then believe the main religion has flaws, and attempt to differentiate themselves from the main religion, without giving up what they feel is the 'truth' they've discovered. One of these sects in Judaism at the time of Jesus was the Sadducees, and another the Pharisees. You don't see the Pharisees in the Mel Gibson film because of the specific events it chose to focus on. The Sadducees are the priestly caste of Judaism at this time, as well as a sect. (Most Jews belonged to no sect, but the sects did exist). Sadducees were highly conservative Jews, who only accept the original Torah (five books of law) as Scripture, and all else as non-scripture. As a result, they did not accept the concept of the afterlife, and other such common dogmas in the modern age. As the priests, the Sadducees ran the Temple, which was, and in truth still is, the center of the Jewish world (despite the Temple's destruction (again) in 70 AD), and thus they are the ultimate Jewish (religious) authority at the time of Jesus. Jesus, being a good Jew, would be under their authority, and then Pontius Pilate's, as the Roman Prefect over all Judea. A 'priest' is merely the term/title used for one who tends to a temple. Jesus' claim of "I AM" (a very specific Aramaic phrase with one One True Meaning) is actually the same as Him saying "I am G'd." This is the ultiamate blasphemy if untrue. With that said, let me jump ahead. The early Christian movement was nothing more than a Jewish sect, because all of those involved were Jews. The issue is whether the promised Messiah ('annointed (one)') all Jews believe is coming was Jesus or not. Thus the Jews who accept that as true were part of this new sect, and those that did not, were not. The terms 'Christian', 'Christianity', etc. don't come into usage until around the end of the first century. And then they are originally used as slurs. "Ya know those darn Christians." Etc. The idea that this 'Christianity', this Jewish sect, is a whole new religion is a very gradual shift in truth, at least for those within the movement itself. For all the Jews who did not like this 'Jesus is the promised Messiah' bit, obviously didn't want anything to do with these crazy sectarian nuts, and that's why 'Christian' and other terms started (as slurs). ("We don't like you, go away") However, as the understandings of Christianity matured and shifted, and more and more Gentiles (non-Jews; yes, it's that simple) were brought into this Jewish sect, it's identity as a separate religion from the rest of Judaism becomes more and more apparent, until 'the Church' as we think of it eventually appears out of the growth. This is why any Christian who is anti-semitic is a fundamental hypocrite, and should be whacked upside the head for simple stupidity regarding his/her own beliefs. The Jews *ARE* G'd's chosen people, that will never change by any action of man. But G'd used Christ to reach out beyond just the Jews, to all humanity, and *that* is the difference between "Jews" and "Christians". Jesus Christ, and whether or not He is the Son of G'd. (To be more clear: Whether Jesus Christ is or isn't G'd) If you want me to explain that dogma of the Trinity (G'd the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit), I'd be happy to, but that will require whole other entry/chat over AIM. GWAHAHAHAHA!!!: Sunday, February 29, 2004 ROFLMBO!!! It rocks! Gwahahahahaha! And Wedge and DCB, great seeing you two this evening. Misguided: Sunday, February 22, 2004 And no, I'm not going to comment any further on the contemporary events rolling across many of the other weblogs to which I host links. My input can't be productive, and thus has no right being typed up here. On a lighter note, and completely unimportant, I finally complete PN 03. Yes, I got her two secret suits, if you can call the second one a suit... Still, I enjoyed the game. Yes, she was part of the reason, but not just because she looked good while she blew everything up. Myarf. She looked good just standing there *thbt*. More seriously. I wish I could be of more assitance to my friends, and shall do all I can or am able to. Until next entry, everyone. Well... No, I'm not saying anything...: Saturday, February 21, 2004 In light of these events, however, I must preface what I *am* going to say, with this: My problems are nothing compared to everyone elses, so please ignore the remainder of this self-pitying post. I'll most likely delete tomorrow because I shouldn't have written it... but... (don't read on if you don't want to) I... really... don't... care. (that I shouldn't write this) Things happen in waves, I've known this, we all live it, etc. When it rains it POURS. But... really, my life is great, so... I can't complain. But I want to, you see? I have all these little nit-picky, brain-fragging details that keep pestering me day-in and day-out. I'm finally making progress Spiritually, but the problem is, there's a nasty middle ground on such progress. I'm coming to realize exactly how much of a wretch I really am. I take these Blessings and spit on them, and most of the time, simply because I want to. I can't listen, I can't speak, I can't see, I want to touch, I ignore, condemn, do everything I hate in others, and fantasize about the rest. You want to hate each other? Turn on each other because some decision or another? Feel betrayed? You don't even see the real betrayal going on, everywhere, everyday, every moment. A thousand realities shattering and we don't even blink. A speck of dust wiffs up our nose and we raise all hell. I can't take it. My own stupidity and worthlessness. It drives me mad, drilling through my brain. Every feeling of sorrow is even more a problem. This path to love must be walked with a smile and joy. I'm stumbling in the same spot with agony and gnashing teeth. Friend, gentleman, articulate, kind... gentle... I've been described as any or all of these things, but in truth I am everything but. Wretch, traitor, fool, cruel, vicious. And I try to help others avoid these problems? I mention Christ and everyone tunes me out. So be it. My G'd DIED for me, destroyed death for me, let me scar Him (THE G'D) and He's still waiting in my heart with open arms. I AM the rusty knife in my own back, twisting and grinding it into my bones. What, you think I'm suicidal? HAH! Nothing remotely close! That would only compound the problem! I can't get angry, cry, or show frustration, because these are the very things I have caused by my actions. I see but am blind. I knew things were happening, but did nothing to prevent them, or had no effect. I see things years ahead of time, and yet I'll still miss the instant that counts to someone important. I look the wrong way, say the wrong word, don't speak when needed, don't move when pleaded. Yet who am I? The wretch, while others suffer so much worse. My problems are dust and they grind me to ash. Me, I... am death. I must die to myself, so that I can truly leave as I might be. I suffer and am dying, but only lightly. Lightly, but I think it heaviest of all burdens. Pathetic wretch... My actions are dust, my body dust, my life dust. Because I lived for the idol of myself. Minerals and tissue. Carved or born, they're both the same. Credit Where credit is due... But no, no you'll think. This boy, he's not so bad as this. He's depressed, poor fellow. But I'm not. I'm perfectly fine... That's the torture. You don't see what's behind my eyes all the time. How gorgeous Fool Idiot I saw it coming No! Run away Feck it I quit Back off Shut up They won't last a month It'll break in a two years IDIOT No... you don't see it. I work so hard to hide it, but little bits still leak out. The arrogance, the pride. Trust, trust, trust... so fragile. It's always just short of shattering into a thousand pieces. No, I say, I'd never hurt her like that. Wretch! You would in an instant. It takes all reason, experience, knowledge, and the little speck of virtue hidden in the muck of my self not to turn on her, do what I 'fear' most. Fear? Desire. I would tear her apart... if I could just get that horrible image of her crying out of my head. Its suffering we learn from. Suffering keeps us in line. I don't want to hurt her, not like that, not in any way. And that's the ONLY reason I don't. I'm just grasping at G'd enough not to attack His daughter. No gentleman am I, but a beast on a fragile leash. We all are... And I'm the worst, because at least I can see my own. I know it. My faults are clear only to me, no other person. G'd knows them even better than I can. And He keeps opening His arms... He keeps offering His embrace, His love. He's always there... loving. No matter how wretched I am! I am my own worst enemy... And the worst part? I know that now... There is no going back. Legal Spirituality? Neh...: Tuesday, February 3, 2004 Take all laws regarding 'marriage' OUT of the system. There should be no secular laws regarding Marriage. It's a religious term, concept, and application. If you want financial support, go ask the government to recognize a wholly separate and secular concept (such as 'civil unions'). Marriage *is* a religious concept, that is not open to debate. Legalizing it in the first place was stupid, because now human law is a-religious. So remove all benefits for 'Marriage' from the secular laws, replace them with 'civil unions' (which any 'related' group of people can apply for. Single guardian-child, homosexual couples, etc.). That way non-religious people get the support from the government they want (and do fairly deserve [if it's offered to someone else]), and we religious can keep our Sacraments Holy and wholly defined. So government? Get your paws off G'd's sacrament! It was a mistake for me to sign that petition, and the lesson is now learned. A side note: A curiosity I've always had... Why do atheists 'marry'? Ostensibly, since they accept no spiritual authority, the legal benefits to 'marriage' would be the only reason. So remove secular 'marriage' from the laws, replace it with some secular term for all the desired legal benefits ('desired' meaning the ones that currently apply to 'marriage'), and atheists don't have to be pestered using one of our terms for something that doesn't actually apply to them. Lilisin, I'm glad you had such a great birthday. Congratulations. Zieram, I haven't heard from you at all for ages. My prayers are with you and your family. Whitecat, don't worry, I hate Dave Mathew's Band, too (well... 'hate' meaning 'find immensely boring and droll') Looks like there will be a remake of the Last Unicorn, by the way. The concept art looks very interesting. Oh, and of course the Eva Director's Cut DVDs are coming. The first one is already out, the second one due out March 9th (have the first, reserved the second already myself). Also, the life-action movie is looking interesting by the concept art. At the moment that's all that's been done, so it could still sink utterly into oblivion (I wouldn't mind too much, because they gave Rei black hair and call her 'Ray'. ...*growls*) Chris and I have started an RP story, and though it's just started, I think its going well. Interesting characters going on, j0. Now regarding College, I'm in, settled, and working. Bilingualism involves much reading, and can be summarized as follows: "Nobody knows how to define belingualism, but this is how we reached that conclusion..." and thus an entire course and dozens of text-books are formed. The actual concepts, to me, are simple common sense, I just need to remember the actual terms given to them. Gender and Nationalism in South Asia (Feminism in South Asia, basically) is my most complex class because the material is heavily loaded with very densely defined words and uses. The basic premise is the source and state of modern women in South Asia and their roles in society, as resultant from colonization, the evil domination of patriarchy (note some sarcasm, but not total), and in some cases the unfair views of women on themselves. The Rise of Christianity is actually the most interesting class for me because of the historical view it takes of the New Testament. I have all the theological resources in the world at home, but seeing the secular, analytical side of the matter is fascinating. (before anyone asks, no, this gives me no crises of faith. *thbt*). Also, this class is another one featuring *tons* of reading. And lastly, my Contemporary Moral Problems class is almost like a game instead of a course. It's easy material, material I'm interested in, and the professor and TAs are down-to-earth. I should do tons of reading tonight, but I'm going to skimp on it a bit because I'm just worn out (I'm actually ahead in most of the reading). I'm just tired of needing to cover 60-200 pages at a time... Well that's the big update. I'll try to add a little more frequently, perhaps some shorter 'thoughts' on various matters. I've seen the Last Samurai (loved it, and I hate Tom Cruise, so I recommend the movie strongly), have several Megatokyo posters (and book 1), and I'm looking longingly at some 'how to draw manga' books in Barnes and Noble on campus. By the way, I tend to hang at Metro during lunch hours (my lunches are loooooooong). If you email me, we can meet there some day during the week. Trust me, I'd love to chat sometimes instead of just doing homework for two or three hours straight. That's the news. May G'd bless us all. *bows* Love: Sunday, January 11, 2004 If one loves another, he is happy and rejoiced to do as the other wishes. He submits to her will, and in a mutually loving relationship, she just as happily submits to his. It is the giving that shows some proof of love. Love, of course, is much more, deeper, and powerful than just submission to another's will. Submission without love is a result of tyranny, willful submission out of love is family (be it G'd-us, man-wife, parent-child). I guaruntee every woman who just read that rolled their eyes in some manner or another. Let us look at the roles of men and women in love. Most understand that men are goal-oriented, immediate, focused. We men are the seekers of pleasure and satisfaction, more nobly glory and honor. We seek to capture the prize, regardless of the struggles. Also, most understand that women are process-oriented, mediate, enveloping. There is no one action to glorify, but spans of time with countless events. While men focus on the idea that they can show women immediacy (some in mere pleasure, even less in honor and acts of love), women teach us men constancy, dedication. The term 'equality' was never meant to be an issue between the genders. We are totally different, and complimentary. The flaws in man are fixed by woman, the flaws in woman by man. But this is not all. Most of society ignores G'd. In truth, He is the fundamental link between our perfections. A woman in G'd's grace need not 'know' of men, for her imperfections are met with G'd's absolute perfection. A man in G'd's grace need not 'know' of women for the same reason. This is the power symbolized with virginity. Virginity can be seen as nothing more than abstanence from sex, but that is a poor meaning indeed. Virginity reveals a dedication to G'd of the powers and pressures a given person feels, be it man or woman. Instead of learning pleasure, the true nature of Love is expressed. Pleasure is the shadow of love, the symbol designed to get our attention. When a wife and husband make love, it is the attempt to use their bodies to reach closer to the love with G'd. Is it not equally good, if not better, to achieve the spiritual ecstasy of love without the shadow? Thus spouses and virgins co-exist. Without spouses there could be no virgins, and without virgins, the resources of the spouses would be diminished. As man needs woman and she him, spouses need virgins, and virgins they. Complimentary, different. The 'double-standard' of treating women better than men never really existed. Women perfect men, and thus men instinctively desire honor for women, to keep them on a pedestal. Thus men, who may comit the very offense themselves, are visciously appalled when a woman falters in a given way. How can our teachers teach us if they are making our mistakes? This is the view of women from men. The struggle for gender 'equality' was driven by economic reasons, which on the human spiritual level are unimportant. Naturally men no longer give up their seats, bow, or rise for women, because women are considered the same, no better than men. This is obviously a loss, and sorrowful, but others do not see it this way. These are the very reasons I put women up on a pedestal. I was shown the value of the 'double-standard', the innate purity and constancy of women. Though women fight to deny this, my love and affection for all women derives from it. The very reason I listen and head their complaints so well is the source of their anger. Intriguing. My father lived in a world where women kept men in line, and thus the men became better, honorable, dependable, able to support the women properly, respectfully. I grew up in a world where many young women were trying to drag me down with them, and I was desperately struggling to help them regain their footing. Naturally, the further decent of men surprised me little. (Note: Those of you ladies who read this weblog are *not* necessiarly counted among this number who 'tried to drag me down'. I am speaking overall, and I generally don't enjoy keeping company with those who make it a struggle just to be decent. Those I make friends with have earned my respect in some manner or another) That's all for now. Punk'd? Die.: Tuesday, January 6, 2004 As for the New Years party. It was great to see everyone that was there. (I got to see Terra once before she left! Yay!). I had a lovely time, so thank you, Yo-tan, for hosting it. Your parents are real trojans to put up with the lot of us for such large periods of time. I'll try to finally drop in on Creative Writing before college decimates my time. Now I don't think PN 03 got a fair viewing, because everyone paid enough attention to catch the notorious 'hip-swing' pose she strikes half the time with her automatic palm-shot, so that goofed everything up. Ah well. Today, I tackle Punk'd, and other such 'set-up joke' shows (Scaretactics, et al.). Absolutely evil. No exagerration, no wry smile, nothing. These shows are horrific. Ashton Cutcher will die a slow painful death, and no one will feel sorry for him. I don't care who you're making fun of, those pranks are vicious, cruel, and sick. They're human beings, for G'd's sake man... Sooner or later, something is going to go horribly wrong on these shows, and they'll learn the lesson the hard way. I may not like Justin Timberlake, or the lady who played in one of the poison ivy movies, but they're still human beings. Scaring people like that is cruel, unjustified, and while I admit to laughing a few times myself, that doesn't mean I wasn't disgusted or felt awful for the person it was happening to. Doing it just to make others laugh is simply sick. And then there are shows like Jack Ass and similar spawn on MTV. Disgusting, dehumanizing, and I don't care if they're doing it to themselves. The fact that such shows are so popular is the greatest evidence of a culture of death beyond pornography. And no, I don't watch them myself secretly. I genuinely find them disgusting, morbid, and simply wrong. Self-inflicted evil is still evil, just a whole lot more dumb. And yes, I freely admit to bitterness on the subject. It's sick... I wonder if Ashton even comes up with those pranks himself. Ah, they're all bolluxed. Either the shows will be lost, or something will go horribly wrong. Sadly the same can't be said for reality shows like the Real World and such. But that's another rant... All for now. Later. May G'd bless you. Priorities and Commentary: Thursday, December 18, 2003 I'm glad to see some people home safe, and others are doing well on the remaining work left to them before heading out. And no, I've not seen the last LotR movie yet. We want to, but timing is awkward. A personal update: I've been working for my father's company the past few days, and likely will still be doing so for an indeterminant period of next week, too. Thus hanging out with friends is... difficult. This is the best place I could think to inform everyone. I'm really looking forward to seeing everyone. Perhaps after Christmas something can be arranged beyond the New Years shindig from Yo-tan.
With my recent pay-checks, I've acquired Jak II and P.N. 03. Jak II is My rant for this post is going to focus on sexual behavior in drama (literary, theater, etc.). All of you who read this weblog who may feel directly addressed by the discussion should know not to take personal offense. Most of this comes from completely outside forces. Friend-written stories involving sexual behavior are a drop in the bucket compared to what really got me going on this, so don't waste time feeling like this is a personal slam. It isn't. If you'd rather not deal with it at all, simply don't read any further. Make sure... You sure? Good... First, and shortest, I like having characters with issues, it makes them interesting, but using sex is distracting, and diminishing, from the final work. So having couples cheat one each other, rape, incest, other such dramatic, specifically sexual, issues in a plot annoy me as a reader/watcher/audience-member. Violence is obviously a flaw in a character, but we see that easily everywhere, and, personally, it doesn't bother me as much as sexual action. The moment characters start acting sexually in a story, I lose connection and concern for the characters. Now to the mechanics, on an even more a-moral front. Sexual drama is overused, hackneyed, a cheap trick, and an easy out. If we want to show that two characters are a couple, we have them screw each other, if we want to show 'betrayal' we have them sleep with someone else, etc. It's so much easier to show sex with pretty actors than actually try to show such connections or divisions with deeper, richer interactions. Sex scenes tell you more about the author/creator than the characters involved in a story, there is no escaping that fact. To show two characters connected, various dramatic events can be used. Life-threatening situations, reputational dilemmas ("I've built this thing, but the standards for the judge on the competition, just changed. I'm screwd!" and the other character sacrifices their time and gives their effort to help remedy the dilemma), shared looks at key moments, how they share humor, what kind of humor they share, etc. To show them divided, use biting remarks, expressions, lies, hiding, etc. Sex is the simplest, most mundane, most physical method of pulling off any goal in a plot-line. It shows weak writing, plot-development, and discipline in the author/creator. (Specifically regarding those authors/creators with far greater potential, perhaps even excercised in all other areas). Put simply: Anyone can write smut, J.R.R. Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings. Who would you rather be compared to when your literary, artistic, or media works are analyzed at the end of your life? Something for each of us to consider... Let's get specific. In an episode of the demised series Firefly (which was actually fantastic beyond these specific elements), the lead male character and the obvious hinted love interest of the lead female character are tested in their relationship when one of her old business aquiantences calls for help. She and her acquantence are basically prostitutes. Well the acquaintence and our lead male have sex the night before a big battle, even though all three of them know he and the lead female should be together. During the sex-scene, the lead male and the acquaintence share a look, obvious hinting at the realization of the connection to the lead female character. The next morning, the lead female character sees him walking out of her friend's room, but seems calm and glad he slept with her friend. Business as usual after all. Then, later, she is seen along, weeping over the event. The result is a sequence of good drama, yes, but a disconnection with the audience because some of us dont like watching that stuff, and if I have to avert my eyes from the TV, I lose the flow of my imagination. The illusions is shattered, the goal of the presentation destroyed. Here's a possible alternative with all the same benefits and none of the cost. The acquantence comes onto the lead male character, but his hesitance is greater, and they're about to start when he finally refuses, and they share the silent, very meaningful look about the lead female character. He leaves abruptly. The next morning, early, he comes back to apologize for leaving so swiftly, feeling like he was rude and a bit harsh to her, but she lets him off easily, and he walks out, straight into the lead female character. Being the charming, but simple hero that he is, the lead female's vague hints about what he spent the night doing don't really hit home, and he already feels bad about considering being with the other woman when he really loves the lead female. So he doesn't reveal that nothing occurred, and she leaves, producing the weeping scene in the end. Later in the episode, the acquaintence dies, as she does originally, and at the very end, when he and the lead female discuss the events, he finally reveals that he felt awful for wanting to have sex with the woman as well as failing to keep her alive, but the drama persists when the lead female, still afraid of her emotions for him (as she is in the actual episode) says she has to leave. Same end result, no sex, and better drama. Now if you just want sex in your story, fine. Don't expect me to enjoy it, and I can't really say anything to you. If you put sex in a story, you either dont' share my views on morality about sexual behavior and either just enjoy sex or are trying to make a social comment, or, if you do share my moral foundation, are trying to make a very specific point about sexual behavior (general its destructive nature at that point). I know it seems I'm obsessed with sex, but it's really the other way around. I'm just responding to an inundation. Do me a favor, and just try to watch TV, or any form of entertainment with story-line, from my view, the view that doesn't enjoy sex and finds it distracting instead of helpful to a plot. If you really think drama is still equally based on real issues and the sex isn't just an excuse or simply way too abundant, I'll be very intrigued. If you can watch TV for more than five-minutes without getting some kind of sexual message, or read a single modern fantasy or fiction book without some sexual action in it, or read a comic, or something else, without seeing something sexual, please tell me, because I could enjoy such books/TV/entertainment. With all that said, I understand the valid dramatic value of the horrendous damage inflicted from such plot-events as rape, incest, sexual-abuse of other kinds, sexual relations good and bad, etc., and I don't condomen a story that uses them automatically. They can be used very well. But I do not need to *see* the acts themselves. I don't need to see two lovers having sex, I don't need to see the poor woman getting raped to understand the horrible pain we should see the actress putting in later, we don't need to see the parent raping the child for the incest drama. Give me story, not filthy images. That's my rant for today. Recovery: Thursday, December 11, 2003 Z, we're still storming the Pearly Gates for your sister's full recovery. You're not alone (even less alone than you think). Halis, very good stuff yourself, but the paradoxes go deeper still. It's not just that we lie when we *know* the truth is better, but in our very natures. Some people want to get drunk, but know full well what will happen to them. They enjoy the loss of control, but simultaneously hate themselves for needing it. Nothing would be better than freedom to take responsbility (true freedom), but we are enslaved to ourselves. (Get your mind around that one. Or rather, contemplate it, and see the truth.) On a related point, look at freedom itself. Today, as one of the many 'established lies' Pascal spoke of, freedom is confused with license and personal desire. Freedom is the ability to do what is right. We take away our own freedom the most, through various means (abusing others for our own gain, 'liqour, sex and drugs', et al.). We enslave ourselves to our desires, so that we think the satiation of the desire is happiness, when all it does is increase the hunger for the desire. To cure our unhappiness, we make ourselves more unhappy, thinking we are approaching happiness. Curing the flu with cancer, so to speak. For example, most see giving up sex for life as a sacrifice and totally insane, but in truth it is a supreme freedom to act and love. By giving up having sex with some woman, I am free to love everyone completely, by giving up wealth, I am free to live wholly for G'd, and by being obedient, I am freed from totally selfish desire. (blind obedience is foolishness, and not to be confused with reasoned, willful obedience.) In lighter news, I've bought Jak II (I rent and beat the first one, was great fun). Great game for adventure fans. It actually has some elements from GTA (in that you have to still hover-vehicles from random people to get around the city fast enough. And if you get in trouble, all the 'cops' come after you until you can escape). Very fun, very simple, and very challenging. I recommend it (and the first one). Spider Fly: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 So long, and I've only just read the actual poem. Flattery unto death. Recently the inherent paradoxes of humanity were made quite obvious to me. Note that 'obvious' here means I see the paradox, not that I understand how to resolve it. Wanting what we hate, ignoring what we need, etc. My brother recently wrote a monologue responding and agreeing with some lyrics from the song 'Dogma' by KMFDM. "All we're waiting for is for something worth waiting for," and other such horrifyingly accurate depictions of modern culture, especially the youth (below 30). To quote Pascal: "Truth is so obscured nowadays and lies [are] so well established that unless we love the truth we shall never recognize it." (taken from Kreeft). Do I seek the truth? I thought so, but this is mainly automatic. I've always sought the truth, but... do I *want* to? Do I *love* the truth? I fear the answer is no, not yet. Subjective, or relative, truth is a contradiction in terms. If it only works for me, it isn't actually real, it's just my perception of the objective reality. An important social factor to consider, but when dealing with and searching for the truth, unusable, dismissable garbage. The Truth is the Truth is the Truth. The most wearying aspect of reality upon me, is everyone's, including myself, fear of truth. We spend so much time running from it because we can't bare the sheer audacious simplisity. Yet it's worse. Instead of running from the truth, there are now many who simply don't give a damn. Apathy in the face of such is the height of insanity, and yet I am partially guilty of this myself. (I am not totally apathetic.) Thus it is those who give up the search for truth that are of the most concern. Insanity, but in the modern age, so blatantly normal that it is called 'insanity' to think otherwise. I am considered fringe, freak, and liar. Or worse... 'tolerated'. Hate me, despise me, fight me, but do not be apathetic! Do not give me this passionless, zealess, hopeless stare and talk. Love me, help me, teach me, but do not abandon me! Forgive the selfish rhetoric, but it brings this to a personal level so rarely seen or heard these days. I accept and enjoy the simple fact that I am not understood by the vast majority of my peers or friends. I am shattered by my inability to share and show what I have seen. Either my actions push them away, or insult them. I am ignored for relativity, dismissed for 'tolerance', and... disliked. If this be my cross, I shall bear it happily, but my heart breaks for everyone to whom I can not reveal what I've seen (innately selfish of me. Only G'd can reveal it, perhaps through me). I hope I am mistaken in what I percieve of the human condition in modern times, that I am missing the positive elements in all these changes. No one thinks of Heaven or hell anymore. It's all just existence. Accomplishing daily goals with daily pleasures. When the time comes, each of us die alone, because we can only face our own death, not others, or others for us. Consider the idea of looking upon your entire life as you die, the imminent fact upon us all (in five second or sixty years...), and decide if you can be at ease, or fearful at the fullness or vapidity of your life. I am terrified and rejoicing, another human paradox, because of what I know and see. There is a day beyond today, a goal beyond payment, and a reality beyond myself. Yet I revel in minutia... G'd what a wretch am I. Neither wholly angel or wholly beast, but a mismatched horrific, beautiful, terrible, honorable creature. Made in Your likeness and that of dogs. Simultaneously loving and hating, good and evil, continuously at war. Many battles, many losses, slow victories. To deny G'd, I must deny that I am sinful, and to deny that I am sinful, is to lie. Ignoring evil immediately eliminates all good. If we deny sin, we can't believe in G'd. Because without sin, there is no value to His love. And this of course marks another ignored or dismissed weblog entry... Friendship: Tuesday, December 9, 2003 Seemed apt for the times. I would add a 'rant' on friendship (like my one on modesty), but that quote gets the point across far better. For Yo-tan, the links to my Alien-modern-world RPG are as follows: Game and Rules and Character-submission That's all for now, my friends. Suffering: Sunday, December 7, 2003 You stood back up when many, if not most, would've dropped and stayed down, and you've done so repeatedly. Hope is strong in you, my friend, and to my beliefs, that is among the greatest of virtues. Go with G'd. Fleshy... Yum.: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 Those who know me, know that touching me is generally unwelcome, so my views on physical affection in public are probably obvious, but let me focus elsewhere at the moment... First off, the 'couples' I know tend to be fairly decent about it. If they believe they're a couple, I pretty much assume they'll sit together, hold hands, hold each other, etc. I ignore them as much as they wind up ignoring me. I'm more an observer. If I want attention, I get it easily enough. What annoys me is the extreme cases, such as back in high-school when you could watch 'couples' giving each other tongue-baths in the open hall between classes. Especially when all cluster together for form a make-out gauntlet. That's not showing affection, that's uncontrolled sexual insanity. My own views on physical affection are quite simple. Outside immediate family, I don't like it. I do it now only because it makes others awkward when I don't. I don't like the fact that poor, decent people, (among the immidate group particularly) have to hold out their arms, give me a pout, and ask if they can hug me when saying bye or hi. I'm not trying to make people work so hard, I'm trying to avoid notice, but I appreciate the warning, so it works out anyway. The reason for my apparent dislike of affection is actually opposite to what most would assume. I am a snuggler. I love it. Contact, warmth, embraces, etc. I'm extremely sensitive to physical contact, and I take it very seriously. I've never had a girlfriend, really, so this side of my personality has never really been revealed. (someone hanging on my waist at lunch doesn't really count, but it does get my attention...). This is why I'm particularly awkward when one of my female friends (especially one I may find pretty or cute) wants to hug me, or, heck, is even within a few centimeters of me. I know what they mean by it, so nothing happens and I don't make stupid assumptions based on my values, but it's safe to say no one else I know outside my family shares my views on physical contact and its meaning. (*MY* views, no moral value on that at all, it's just me) I consider gratuitous affection cheapening. Now another issue that was raised is why new couples tend to alienate themselves from their previous relationships (friends, etc.). Altered dynamics. When the relationship shifts from 'friendship' to 'boy/girlfriend', the dynamic is changed, simply because the emotions are more focused. After all, romance is nothing more than intense, focused friendship (husband and wife is supposed to be 'best friend' scenario, people). When humans focus, they can't see outside that focus, that's why it's called focus... yesss. (this is why Catholic Priests don't marry, no man can focus in two places like that. It's simply not possible, and insults the wife and G'd just as much). If two friends in a group become romantically involved, they will separate from the group. They become a couple, obviously, no longer part of the group, but a related sub-group. It's not necessarily bad, it's simply different. Dynamics, dynamics, dynamics. When friends of mine pair off romantically, I immediately know that my relationship to either one is going to fall onto the 'back-burner', as Whitecat put it. This doesn't bother me, because it's virtually a fact of life. Celibacy rocks, I gotta tell ya. I get to avoid all the torture and pain, and learn all the lessons anyway. Sacrifice? Bah. True freedom. Freedom, I say. But be-danged if freedom isn't hard to accept. (I do love to snuggle...) Isn't it crazy how everything *always* ties together in my posts? Gwaahahahaha. It's all related! Books, Personal, and What's Up: Saturday, November 15, 2003 Not a very useful post, but a bit of an update on things in the world as it affects Cy-kun. Got some great planning accomplished, thank G'd, for my book. I shall hopefully get to work, G'd willing, on it tomorrow. A short faze, but an important one, and I'm looking forward to it. I drew a picture of one of the many characters in my personal RP with a friend of mine. I really like the character, and I actually got her face right! (Thanks be to G'd, it's a first). Of course I lack a scanner and software to work it without making *huge* files, so unless you visit me, you're not going to see it, I'm afraid (or if I bring the art-book to you). In the resurgant Harry Potter craziness thanks to the third movie being on the way (Yeah, Gary Oldman), I started re-reading the fifth book because there were a couple of scenes I semi-skimmed in my rush to get to the next line of dialogue, so I'm reading it through more carefully this time. I do wish Harry had some tact around girls... Zieram, my man. Hehehe, Prodigy, ne? Yesss, I see why. I dunno, I thought you drove just fine when you, Yoko, and I dropped DCB off at the airport. Of course I did ride in a very reckless driver's care once, so perhaps my gauge is different, ne? Hehehe. That's all for now. May G'd bless you. Pleasure: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 Pleasure can be taken in helping the poor, cheering up a saddened friend, or realizing one has overcome a personal obstacle. There are of course many other ways to be pleased, some less meaningful than others. We can be pleased when we do well on a test, or when a dear friend does well on her/his test. Pleasure is the source of 'it's good to be good.' Pleasure is, indeed, the feeling of satisfaction when we do something right, proper. If we understand what the right thing to do is, and then do it, the action itself fulfills us. This pleasure helps bolster our hopes of becoming better people, and helps the more fundamental desire to do good for good's sake by making good rewarding, at least to ourselves. The source of 'bad' pleasure, which is simply a corruption of its intended meaning, is this: humans like to label what they repeatedly do for themselves as good. Druggies take 'pleasure' in hits, psychopathic individuals take 'pleasure' in making others suffer, etc. Really there's no such thing as 'bad' pleasure, because the evil which we sometimes call 'pleasureful' is really just that: being called pleasureful. Satisfaction and release do not equal 'good.' Of course that brings up the conundrum of us both wanting and hating evil, so I'll let that digression be for now. Back to true pleasure. The warmth of a pleasant time among friends, the relief of a sincere prayer, the compassion among suffering. All of these give pleasure. Now, onto less important matters... I must publically admit to liking Digimon. The monsters are actually *COOL* in that show. The other '-mon' series are boring, but Digimon has awesome critters that can actually take on all the 'evolved' shapes repeatedly. What I find amusing, is that the most recent 'spirit evolution' technique they use is virtually the same as the idea I came up during the third-season (the episode with Angewomon in it...) where a new type of 'digi-destined' shows up. The 'trainer' and digimon are so closely linked that after the second evolution of the digimon, they start fusing for the various power levels above. The pair I specifically envisioned were my stereotypica trench-coat wearing boy in glasses with dark hair, and a female wolf-like Digimon. His fear of his own thoughts prevents them from reaching their potential, but she finally pursuades him he's a decent person at the core, and they realize their unified power (and then some with further evolutions). I simply can't justify starting *another* story. On that note, I did just finish one of my short stories, thank G'd. It's not up to my usual standard, but it's finished coherently (just not as fleshed out as usual). I'm taking a short break from writing to help flesh out ideas for my book, but I'm having trouble getting interested in my other incomplete short-stories... Most distressing, but at least I have good ideas for my book, which is the big one anyway. Socially. Congrats Zieram, on your successful goal-setting. Excellent work Sharky. Those inner-cynics are really funny, and the art is great. Also congrats to Lilisin and Halis on their achievements/reliefs. I'm very glad you two had a lovely time together. And we all know you loved your kitty. Lovely to hear you had a good time with family; always nice to visit, isn't it? As for Matrix: Revolutions. (Highlight to read) It was not what I expected, brought closure, but little satisfaction. And the Messianic message was a bit over-done. We all know he was being implicated that way fromt he start, but the Diablo II-style wings and the Cross of light were a bit much. The war-sequence was very entertaining, but my favorite part was Naobi's flying and its commentary. "Oh... I didn't know the ship could *do* that." And "Holy ***** that woman can drive." Fun, fun, fun. Tata for now. That's all. Virtues: Wednesday, November 5, 2003 No matter the person, however plain or attractive he or she may be, a modest person is fun to be around. Because to be modest, a person must have several other virtues acting. Humble attitude, a pleasant demeanor, and a warm side that easily shows among pleasant company. With smiles and ideas, discussions flow amid giggles and laughs. Seriousness is welcome, but moderated by the mood. Even grave, compassion and comfort bring solace. Why does modesty do these specific things, one asks? A modest person is by her or his nature, unconcerned with the self beyond contentment. The healthly levels of ambition or vanity which keep a person desiring success and cleanliness are naturally maintained by a happy person. Modesty opens the door to happiness through gentleness. Content already, and not seeking attention, the only thing that can happen is to gain attention without even seeking it, a pleasant surprise among friends. Even at worst, and a modest person gains the undesired attention of mean-spirited individuals, they attract support, gentle pillars of virtue that even the least decent person would feel outrage at being threatened. But such extreme examples spoil the view of pleasant modesty. Day-to-day, hum-drum life is brightened by modesty. When walking with a modest friend, they are easy to compliment, and are appreciative, if not embarrassed (and that just makes a modest person so cute!). Without the distractions of flashy clothes or perhaps too much make-up, the contentment of the person comes through, and makes the *person* attractive. We *want* to be around the person, because s/he is pleasant to be around. Modesty. Easy to be with, easy to smile with. I love modesty. Indeed: Tuesday, November 4, 2003 Since our mutual friend's issue is with my very belief, I can either lie to the friend (hide it), or tell the truth. I thought I'd made my views on the subject(s) clear years ago, but I learned last night I was mistaken. I'm quite astonished, honestly, but that's a separate issue. Another point to make. I don't bring up tough issues with people I don't care about. I raise them out of concern, for friends. Because of the concern comes from a moral, religious, facet of my being (which is most of my being), it was taken as 'hate', and caused offense. The offense was caused by misunderstanding of my beliefs. I thought I'd taken the time to explain them, I tried to explain them, and neither succeeded. Thus, discovering that a weblog (or sharing my views with my friends) causes destruction instead of positive developments, I will no longer proclaim my beliefs to my friends. I'll simply live them, stay quiet, and speak when spoken to. Ah... Also Here: Monday, November 3, 2003 First, everything I say on here, I would happily say to anyone's face. Since this is my own weblog, which people choose to read of their own will (Public? Yes. Crammed down your throat? No), I talk about what I feel is important. G'd, morality, and my own personal interests (selfish part, yes, I try to give better value than just that to each entry). I've addressed Marriage, abortion, pornography, etc, etc, etc. Homosexuality is a big one in our particular group, and I post it here *because* our group reads it. I consider this saying it to your face, not behind your back. If I don't raise my views on these issues with my friends, with whom shall I raise them? If I have ever resorted to direct, personal comments on how I think others should behave, such offense would be justified, because that's rude. But I don't do that. I state why issues are seen in one way or another. Does *anyone* *not* know my beliefs dissapprove of abortion, murder, or sexual relations outside marriage? Do I point my finger and blame anyone specifically for these things? No, that's counter-productive, but more importantly impolite (not loving). I dissapprove of actions, not people. I say theft is wrong. Does this mean I'm offending any thieves who read my weblog? But perhaps we don't want actions compared to crimes? Very well. I say abortion is wrong. Am I offending abortion-supporters who read my weblog? I should hope not. Our friends post their disgust with the President (whom I like), publically chastise others (though thankfully leaving the name off), etc. Do I take offense at any of this? Certainly not. They're tackling issues, not me (until a particular incident recently, which I am addressing). I do, however, post my own take on the issues at times, but again, is this tackling the person? I should think not. I do split my online and real-life lives, but particularly NOT on these issues. Since we all tend to hang out at parties, which no one wants to discuss fundamental issues during anyway, I don't proclaim these things often. If I can't be respected for this, so be it. I wouldn't want the respect of failing to do it, because I must address these issues. It seems I can only alienate friends. My apologies. I will discontinue doing so... With all that said, here's my usual post: I was going to post some quotes from Sir Thomas Moore and Hillaire Belloc, but I just said I would stop. I wrote some on one of my short-stories today. Made an appointment with my advisor to organize my college stuff. ...I'm tired at the moment. Good night. Wisdom! Yesss...: Monday, October 27, 2003 Ah, common sense. Like a breath of fresh air. Yesss. Book is 404 pages long, finished chapter, moving onto goal-set short-stories tomorrow.
The revisions to my Eva fan-fics have been up for a while now. You can find them: Check 'em out! Myarf... That's all for today. Arigato yo! *bows* Update!: Saturday, October 25, 2003 My book is now 387 pages long. (MS Word, Trebuchet MS, font size 10) And that's all fresh, high-quality writing, the book I fully intend to get published when finished come hell or high water. (...G'd willing...) The short stories I hope to finish first are my Cowboy Bebop fan-fic, my Trigun fan fic (focusing on Tesla), a Lost in Space fan-fic (movie), and an original short story featuring futuristic mercenaries. They're each going to be rather long, so I hope to finish at least *one* before I go back to working on my book after this chapter is wrapped up. I'm not really a writer or an artist, I'm a character-builder. I love characters, and I love showing characters off, which requires good, solid stories. This creates the illusion I'm a story-teller, but the truth is it's all about the characters with very few exceptions. For example, at the moment my book has ten of the eighteen planned primary characters involved. Eighteen main characters is a rare find in any book. Tolkien, who gave us all the highest quality, constrained himself to the nine, Sauron, Saruman, and then many sub-characters. There are several subcharacters in my book as well, some I greatly enjoy, but they just don't get the same page time. The book is roughly a quarter or third done, I think. It *may* be as much as a half, or as little as a fifth, but we'll see. It all depends on how I accomplish certain plot/character goals. After that batch of short stories is done, I have another seven or so to wrap up as well, then I am free to either work on my second book, my anime series, or some poetry while working on the first book. If I finish all those, LOL, I can then create new stories at long last. (Or rather, let the new stories finally get written down...) And as a side-note, for all your Night-Watch fans. I have no idea if this just makes me look stupid or humorous, but here ya go:
Recovery?: Friday, October 24, 2003 If you liked OCremix, then by all means check out AnimeRemix (here). There are some really great songs on there, they seem professionally made. I highly recommend the 'Mournful Heart' under the Tenchi section. "Samurai Heart" in the Kenshin section is also great. (I just noticed those both have 'heart' in the title... so sad.) I've discovered I can potentially control my sleeping completely. I can sleep both as long as I want, and completely ignore it. The issue is that I have yet to discipline this ability, and so I wind up either getting two hours of sleep, or twelve. Once mastered, it will be a useful ability for strange situations. As for my monologue this entry, I thought I'd focuse on impure thoughts. 'Impure thoughts' are generally any and all thoughts we have that would inspire/glorify sin. Now, generally, these have the tone of sexual fantasy, and that is the more specific one I'm dealing with, but the definition is not limited to that. Everyone has impure thoughts, everyone always will. The solution to impure thoughts is learning how to discipline the self in order to dismiss them as quickly as possible. You will be tempted, but you can refuse. More personally, I find impure thoughts very hurtful. With very few exceptions, I actually control my impure thoughts about women to completely original fantasy women, so that I don't insult real human beings, or even actual characters in stories, with my disgusting ideas. There were some mistakes made in the beginning which I still regret deeply... but with regret, how would we fix problems, ne? However, with that much done, I then have to admit and be ashamed of the ideas I have about 'women' generically, because no matter how fantasy-based the women I create in my head are, they are still women, beings with female form, as designed by G'd. It is an insult to women, and more importantly to G'd, to entertain such impure thoughts. This is a continuing struggle for me, and most any male (even nice the ones), and progress is not as swift as it should be. I am weak, I must allow Christ to make me strong. Simple, but difficult for my selfish being to actually pull off. Entirely my own fault, and entirely my sin, naturally. Hmm, this gives me a tangent. People have a very hard time dealing with being 'wrong', in any way. If you get rid of sin, you get rid of G'd. Not to say that sin comes from G'd, absolutely not. Rather, if you don't believe there is a wrong, then obviously there is no right, either. Sin is very real, we all do it a great deal of the time, but it is our duty to feel guilt, and seek reconciliation, to avoid sinning any more. Thus, if one believes in G'd at all, one must accept absolute right and wrong, or s/he does not truly believe in G'd. Objective truth is difficult to accept in this day and age. With so many sophists trying to prove it doesn't really exist, who can blame the masses for agreeing? But I can see truth now. Not all of it, only G'd can see that much, but I am always learning how to see more. And thus, I can never be pursuaded it doesn't exist. I do not intend to sound arrogant, but when the very ones who try to pursuade me truth isn't objective can't see their own flaws until I point them out (and they can't really avoid it at that point), more is done to bolster my own perspective, which I do my best to model after truth, not my own personal desires. Here's a simple moral lesson for today: Christ said that marriage is between man and woman. We also know that sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin. Combining the two, the overall moral lesson is simple. No sexual activity outside of marriage, and marriage is between a man and a woman only. It should also be *one* marriage for an entire life, but... we tend to ignore that part... like so much else... So why is homosexual behavior wrong? Can you practice it without sinning? No. There's nothing wrong with loving one another, and if you want to define yourself as homosexual, very well. Agree to the same standards just prescribed and no one can give you a hard time on moral grounds. Indeed, everyone is held to the same standard. That's all for now, my friends. May G'd bless and keep you, as with all His children. Actually.: Tuesday, October 7, 2003 I did not mean to imply with my talk about spousal abuse that 'the truth is women abuse men all the time', no, no, no! I was saying that all of the actual cases *I HAVE SEEN MYSELF* the woman abused the man, and thus *I* excercise prudence instead of assuming one side or the other. Title of Entry: Sunday, October 5, 2003 Since my interests are G'd, people, writing, and video-games, in that order, I tend to have limited grounds for discussion with most poeple. I listen to music for the sound only, the meaning can take a hike, and poetry... well honestly I find poetry useless and don't like it, but I have an odd ability to write a poem in forty-five minutes whenever asked. Hmm, what could I deal with today? How about pornography? Pornography is a simple issue. Most people want to look at it, but no one should. Why not? It's inherently damaging to the value of humanity. It deprives the subject of dignity, and the one looking at it of their humanity. Now, true, the only true loss of dignity is what we do to ourselves, no one else can take your dignity, but either way, both parties lose it in porn. Looking at pornography and being a good person are wholly contradictory. Does this mean good people don't look at porn. No. It just means they're turning a blind eye to themselves when they shouldn't. We all do this in many areas, porn is just another occasion of sin. I hate the part of myself that is enticed by pornography. Sex is a beautiful thing, don't corrupt it. For a subject change. People forget the value of hatred. Hatred, when focused upon the correct target, is a virtue, that's we have that capacity. One can not properly hate a person, nor animal, nor thing, but one is supposed to hate sin. It should summon the very depths of ire and outrage. People forget that even G'd hates, but He hates perfectly. He hates the correct things. Thus, if we model ourselves onto His principles, we shall also be correct. This is the foundation of Christianity. So by all means hate sin, you are supposed to. You are suppose to be enraged when a person is raped, when a person is murdered, when a person is robbed. Outrage should empower you, empower to stop the sin and help all of those involved. Hatred has been given a bad reputation because of the human tendency to overdo *everything*. This is something I hate. Excess. I do it myself, we all do in some way, but I hate it with consumate rage. Does this mean I will turn violent and attack others? No, that would be misdirected. The rage is targeted at the excess itself. My hatred of sin and love of all people are a unified principle. They are why I seek to warn, and why I seek to guide, but I must first know the truth, and the path, or I will only cause others to lose their way with my foolishness. I know only one thing, and that is I know nothing. All knowledge I have, all wisdom I speak or perform is of G'd moving through me. My own fault makes me hate rapists instead of just rape itself. This a force I seek to control in myself, and do so more each day through the Grace of G'd. The same for murderers. Back to hatred. Most of the problems in society today come from the loss of control of hatred. People either think it can't be used at all, or aim it at the wrong places. Despite what most people want to think, we need to be taught what is right and wrong, there is no natural instinct for these things (except for a few very base issues). An example from me. If I hadn't been raised Catholic, to high standards of moral correctness (and no, I'm not going to apologize for that phrasing), I most definitely would be an alcoholic, druggy, who sleeps around. "But Cy," some say, "that's just you." Yes, speifically it is... but we all have some weakness... some flaw in us that if not controlled and tempered by our own will, if not taught how to do so, will destroy us. The Miracles are not in parting oceans or in feeding five-thousand from a few scraps of bread, but in G'd's power to remake what has destroyed itself, and to bring it in with Love. The real Miracle is G'd's Mercy, but it's hard to be merciful on someone who isn't even trying to do the right thing, by listening to the lessons or actually performing their teachings. Oh let's go ahead and get everything done in one fell swoop eh? Let's go with Abortion. Religiously, and as a Christian, no one can support abortion. The Bible makes one message quite clear "Before I knit you in the womb I knew you." So if you believe in G'd as depicted in the Bible and modern Christianity, you must accept that all beings, from conception on (and even before conception) are fully human. Thus, taking its life, is murder. A misscarriage is a natural death, of course, like an older person passing on in their sleep. It's hard to mourn for someone we never really knew, however, but possible. Scientifically, of course, the issue is debatable. Technically, it is a separate, new organism at conception, because it has new DNA not just of the mother or father, but of both. Single-celled, yes, but a new life. Everyone wants to debate what is 'human' however. Most believe it's 'human' after some months in the womb. Others are actually willing to kill it at birth. By this argument, however, which is literally that the longer a life is around, the more 'human' it is, rapidly leads to choosing between a seven-year-old and twelve-year-old, one being more 'human' than the other because one has been 'more developed'. If we follow this road, soon the only difference murder will ever experience is that it will be called 'abortion' before thirty and 'euthanasia' after thirty. Obviously, I stand on the position of abortion being murder. Now if the mother's life was in danger, and only one life could be saved, then favor can be given the mother. That is simply trying to save both lives and failing one, it is not intentional murder. I suppose if the parents feel they are so incapable of raising a child that murder is an option, that is another situation to look into, but adoption should be considered more often than it is. Subject change. When it comes to abusive spouses, most people know I'd instinctively be on the woman's side, but you want to know the truth of the matter? Every single real-life example of abusive relationships I've seen personally are the opposite. The wife litteraly destroying the husband's life because of her own problems, selfishness, and down-right evil actions. One man was even put in jail, accussed of molesting his children, while his wife and her family robbed his house of all valuables. The man would've sooner killed someone than even touched either of his children that way, but he lost custody anyway. The only people on his side were his own parents. Not even his lawyer was on his side in the end. He lost his house, his children, his wife, and most of his belongings. I now excercise more prudence when I hear of abuse... Subject change. Regarding the Priestly abuse scandals. The news, television shows (such as 'Nip/Tuck') love tackling this issue, but they tackle it as the 'final solution to the Catholic problem'. "Look, look! Priests are evil! They get warped by that 'celibacy' stuff!" 1) When a Priest abuses a child, that child (and family/friends/etc.) will almost definitely turn away from the Church. Thus, the 'Priest' has turned them away from salvation... Now Christ said 'Whoever causes one of these little ones to sin... it would be better for him if a millstone were cast about his neck and he were thrown into the depths of the sea'. Let me put this in perspective. A millstone is a two-ton weight, and as a culture, ancient Jews feared water, it represented the unknown and Sheol. So Christ is saying: "If you make my children sin, you will wish your neck was broken and you were buried in your worst nightmare." 2) Less than 2% of Priests are even close to this kind of perversion, which is actually less than the secular population, and even a little less than other religious orders (including married clergy...). So, by numbers, Celibacy actually drops the liklihood of perversion, and it's impossible to get rid of all sickos. They will be in every profession, and the Priesthood is a very appealing target for such sickos. Not having sex does not disturb a person. Having too much of it will. This truth simply isn't popular right now. Anyone who read all that gets a virtual-cookie *hands them out* Purity Test? Hmph.: Thursday, October 2, 2003
Hmm, interesting. "I am returned...": Wednesday, October 1, 2003 Sharky, fascinating idea, but I simply disagree. To me, the audience has no affect on who or what the characters are, they simply enjoy what is created. This is why I have no patience for artists who create things I disagree with. The product is objectionable, and thus dismissed. The characters are who they are. Ah, yessss, Yoko-sama. 'G'd-fearing' is a Christian phrase, that's why *we* use it. Hebrew's word for 'fear' doubled along with 'respect', but to switch out the words would deny the tradition which we honor as part of our religion. It would also be inherently contradictory for a religion to believe it wasn't on the right track. Catholicism is open to incorporating new insights into G'd's Will, it is also part of our beliefs that everyone must choose the Truth of their own free will. So when someone tells us 'I'm dont' believe in anything really, but I try to be a good person', or some other variation of a similar theme, it's our job to let the discussion drop and simply preach by example and oppurtunity. If we thought Christianity might be wrong, we wouldn't be Christian. If that causes problems, deal with them for yourself. Well... it's good to be back. Glad to see everyone chipper and happy, too. Responding...: Thursday, September 18, 2003 Nightmajik-sama, gomen, gomen. Keep safe and take care. Yo-tan, it's so true. The ending to FFX makes people cry often (especially a certain someone we both know, i imagine...). Me... Well I was annoyed by the ending, but Auron was my favorite character anyway, and we knew what was going to happen to him for a looooong time. Whitecat, very interesting post on the 's3XXX0r5' of fangirly mayhem. I'll leave the issue of slash be, since we all know where we stand on that, but on the sub-issue you raised, I heartily agree. I'm really sick of people putting sex in a story when it's downright out-of-character for the character to do it. Now, of course, I generally disagree with sex being in a story at all, (and even then, never described...), but we're having a finite discussion here. If some fangirl (or boys for the female villains...) wants to write their sexual fantasy with their favorite villain, please, please keep it private for the love of all that is good. Fan-fiction is my worst fear, actually, when it comes to getting my own works published. I started writing fan-fiction myself to 'fix' stories that I felt didn't need to end or happen the way they did. I never bothered pretending the author would like my work, but I also kept the work to myself (with the obvious exception of my Eva fan-fics, but that series just needs a happy ending...). As a result of this, my own stories are extremely careful to have closure, drama but with balancing relief, and general characteristics to avoid tempting fan-fiction. I already have the pairings I want to happen set up, if it doesn't happen in the story I wrote, it ain't gonna happen in that character's personality with very few exceptions. Naturally, the most violent insult anyone could give to me personally (not to G'd or my Faith) is to do... bad things with my characters in a fan-fic. I'm a character-nazi. If I created the character, they are *MINE*. I have to control myself to let my friends write for characters in stories I've *agreed* to write with them. This is the singular issue where my fuse is extremely short. These characters are like my children, that's my excentricity as a writer. If you mess with them, and especially if you start 'slashing' or putting various couples in bed together, my urge to kill you stone dead rises substantially. No, I won't ever actually go homocidal, but I'm not joking as much as you'd think (or to the extent I should be...). But there you have it. If you actually want to make me angry, not just frustrated, then mess with my characters. This opens up another issue. For me, blind rage doesn't actually work. I've come close to actually flying off the handle twice, but stopped it because it was useless. I also get so addle-brained when I get truly furious that I can't do anything at all, thus my rage destroys itself. No, by far the worst thing is when I get pissed off in a very serious way (like a character being messed with), because I get extremely nasty. We're talking long-term, invested thought, in how to make the person's life hell and make them suffer. I'm not angry, I'm vengeful, which is very, very bad. This is why I believe in discipline. You can thank the Roman Catholic Church for keeping me in line and stopping my truly nasty parts from ever taking control. Now, yes, I've slipped and gotten nasty for a few spats (feel guilty now...), but thankfully nothing to the full degree. So if you see me go red-faced, wait for the next step. If I start shouting, that's all you have to worry about. If I go quiet... Apologies are good, but burning whatever pissed me off is best. (Anything I do when in such a rage is still my responsbility entirely, and will be on my head, but if I get nasty I don't worry about that as much as I should.) Oh, and a hint of me getting nasty is over-determination. When I just don't seem to stop, I'm probably mad as all get out and want the problem to *die*. Not so bad when focused on inanimate objects, at least. Ta-ta for now. (and aren't you happy with all this personal info?) Questions, anyone?: Monday, September 15, 2003 I'm glad you asked, Dennis. Because you see if a person is raised to a certain standard of respect, they find out that such things are freedoms, not limitations. Now if the person in question is not raised to that standard by their parents and formative environment, then yes, bad joo-joo ensues. Too many people associate having sex with being male. Having sex is everything to do with being a husband, and thus coincidentally has to do with being male, not the other way around. A real man, fully masculine, virile, et al. knows how to treat a woman right, not how to put her in a bed. So to all those who worry about celibate Priests, chill out. Most Priests enjoy the company of women more sincerely than your standard guy does anyway. One Priest jokingly put it: "I love women too much to marry just one." So the Priesthood excercises the freedom to love all women, with the simple sacrifice of sexual pleasure. A very low oppurtunity cost in truth. Far too much attention is paid to this very specific *aspect* of the Priesthood (Roman Catholic). And the concerns are all on the wrong part of the issue itself. Formation, the training and education of any child, is key to their healthy development. If a person lacks formation, *anything* they do will hurt them until they learn the lessons they missed. Those that still don't give us ephibophilic Priests, crooked cops, etc. Stop blaming purity and virtue for problems created by our own faults. We must take responsibility, especially as parents, in this matter. "More people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason." - George Carlyn Why thank you for saying that George, you bitter, dirty old man, allow me to show some numbers (rounded up).
Amount killed in:
Amount killed by (rounded down): But perhaps I'm missing something... Anyone care to add some missing millions? Now, yes, the more recent wars will of course kill more people because of a greater population, but that also makes a point... they're hasn't been a 'religious war' for a looooong time. (Now for the extreme leftists, they may want to consider the war in Iraq and Afghanistan 'religious' because of G.W., but just toss those into the random 10 million I added for your benefit if you want to be that nuts about it) So... according to the numbers A-religous powers have killed *AT LEAST* 55, 000, 000 (in far less time) then all remotely religious squirmishes (as added: 10, 605, 000). Maybe you use a different value system than I do, George.... Now I'm not defending religious wars, they're a contradiction in terms for the most part (and most were just excuses for far more mundane goals), I'm simply saying that you can't blame the world's problems on religion. So far, in fact, it seems the lack of religion has caused much more damage to human life, but that's strictly numbers. Keep in mind, the numbers I *did* give for the religious 'victims', we''ll call them, are highly exagerrated to make the point even more clear. I rounded down, in favor, of a-religious power, and rounded up, against, religious. So George... stick to the dirty jokes and slamming us for having pedophile Priests, those I can't bother you about. (Except they were almost all ephibophiles, not pedophiles, but I'm not in the mood to defend that monstrous crap). This has been your daily dose of sardonic apologetics. G'd kicks butt... gotta love it. Done!: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 I played that game into the ground and enjoyed every minute of it. I'd go back and play, but I waste so much of my life on games I can't justify it! Heeee. Once I finish the revision of the second story, I'll be posting the revised versions of both my Eva Fan Fics on my page. (Here) I recently got email from a person who read the fics, also a fan of the series, and absolutely loved them, so that made my week. (And apparently his friends loved it just as much.) Gotta love fun news. Indeed, madam, I've always been glad I'm male when it comes to medical issues. Just ask her. Zieram! Glad to see the boards back up. I'll work on reposting what I'd done of my 'Hellsing-fic' soon. I hope the server is working, too, I'm having trouble accessing it recently. My brother's PC just might be capable of seeing GitS... AT LAS!!!! Oh! And we found our 13th Warrior DVD! It was in my sister's room... heh, that's all that needs to be said. So sorry for those of you having bad days, congrats to those having great times, and to all of you, a G'd-blessed day! (G'd willing...) Hehehe. As for moi... I have conflicting forces in my life, but at the moment? I feel gooooood! Yesssss. Ja! Feel like startin' sometin'...: Monday, September 1, 2003
...Seeing Samus Aran in a Phazon Suit makes you contort with joy. As you can see... I play too much Metroid Prime. But Samus Aran is sooooo cool! She's my hero(ine)! And then she gets the phazon suit! Black, silver, and gunmetal Samus Aran! GWAHAHAHAHAHAH! *ahem*... yesss. Ta ta for now! Time Killer: Friday, August 29, 2003 I'm effectively killing time with this entry, because I have nothing to do at the moment (technically I'm waiting for someone, but that's neither here nor there). Still no word on my 13th Warrior DVD. I'm not looking forward to getting another job from my father just to buy a DVD I lost for my mother... Ah well, I'll deal with it, of course. Okay, I give up, I have nothing more to talk about than personal information, so I'm going to do so now: Characters are why I write. Yes, I'll readily admit that pretty colors, special effects, and super-powers are the rest, with a mild smattering of plot that just borders on being unbelievable, but characters really are the core of my desire to write. I like watching people by nature, and characters allow me to watch people I've had the honor of 'discovering' in my imagination. Cute characters make me feel pleasant, evil characters intrigue me, inspire me, good characters give me examples, dark characters entertain me, and it just keeps going. Naturally, any good character has any and all traits of all the different 'types', but some more dominant than others. While I fully support giving characters problems to solve, I always make them solvable ones. For example, if a character has killed people, they have to redeem themselves by being good and doing good things, while being sincerely repentant for what they've done. Deeper character, a developed character. And negative examples, the ones I"m avoiding, are things like rape, severe abuse, etc. The ones that permanently damage people most often. Why is murder different? I suppose it shouldn't be, I just have different perspectives on murder as opposed to things like rape. Killing someone can be a simple mistake (drunk driving, etc.), rape? Not quite. Besides, murder is the best way to create a 'tragic past', or a 'dark hero'. Yes, murder in the plot is still completely wrong, but it can be worked around and beyond, so long as the consequences are shown properly. (No their life doesn't get real easy once they say 'i'm not killing anymore'. Just look at Kenshin...) When I first started writing, I made two vows to myself. 1) Rape would never be used in any plot (referenced, threatened, but not actually used) [the build-up to rape can be extremely dramatic, so long as it gets cut-off (so to speak) before the actual event can take place], and 2) no sex would ever be explicitly described, period. Even between married couples, the most I'll ever write is a romantic type of 'fade to black' (maybe with a deep kiss, or starting to remove clothes, etc., but nothing further). The second vow semi-relates to having naked characters in the plot. I'm more flexible on having naked characters, since if the plot seems more realistic and the nakedness of the character is unsexual, then there's nothing wrong to worry about. (There was one story where a female character was naked for a period of time, but that was deliberately done to show cold, scentific trauma on the character in question. In fact, it's never directly describede that she's naked) Wow... that was a lot of paranthetical remarks. I'm defensive about the singular time I had a naked woman in a story because 1) it was totally unsexual, 2) it was supposed to be disturbing, and 3) I did not fixate on it in narration, it was very much part of a lab-science enviornment, and was never directly stated beyond 'bare back' being mentioned in passing because she was being attacked with electrical energy. (she was a specimen for study, not a co-worker, which is part of the coldness of the setting.) She's vulnerable, tortured, and needs someone's help, which leads up to the rescue a few scenes later. So there! ... That being said, there was one story were I broke rule number one for myself. Three people read it before I sealed it away never to be shown, shared, or published. It's, sadly, one of my best stories (characters and plot, with incredible visual desription), so I can't bring myself to actually delete it. That's a lot of personal information... Drat. Well my ego is always happy when I ramble on about myself, or even 'my' characters. Hah! I know. I'll give you TOO MUCH information so you'll never want to read this weblog again! Bwahahahahaha. *ahem* Well let's just say it's really annoying having such a vivid imagination while being fascinated with female characters... and being male (no, that was not a redundant statement). There are times I strongly dislike my dirty little gutter mind, but it's my own fault it exists, so I just bug myself about it until I finally grow determined enough to kill such impure thoughts entirely for certain periods of time before they come back and have to be banished once again. So how can being 'fascinated with female characters' not be because I'm simply male? The reasons I'm fascinated are not sexual. My sexuality simply lends weight to the fascination. Female characters are 1) more complex, 2) more sleek aesthetically, aerodynamic (like Giger's Aliens). I like the design, effectively, 3) they're more easily capable of the actions I want fighters to perform. (atheltic, flexible, when trained). A well trained man compared to a well-trained woman simply can't move with the fluidity I want in a warrior. *Then* I find women attractive. For example. Rei Ayanami is arguably one of the most complicated characters ever created (not to mention the colder point of being the world's biggest plot device in a character). "But Cy-kun," you might ask, "she's so taciturn and bland. How can she be complex?" I'm so glad you asked. Rei Ayanami, having no parents and being created as a clone of genetic information for the sole purpose of being a key, and being aware of this since her consciousness activated, sacrificed her emotions for Gendo's purposes. She is brimming with protential, yet conflicted, and then realizes she feels for Shinji... she doesn't want to be a key anymore, but that is all she's known. Terrified, but unable to show it, she sacrifices herself for Shinji (Twice), and offers him the world, literally. Trust me, that's blasted complex and deep. Rei calls the audience to look past the cold facade, that's what appeals to me. She's crying for help without a sound. Strong and vulnerable at the same time? Dramatic gold! Title Of Entry: Monday, August 18, 2003 Yes. I was places, my sister is somewhere not here, and the rest of my family isn't. For some reason the urge to rant has come over me, but I have no topic... a peculiar sensation. Well, alright, I have one, but not one that's getting posted on the internet for all to see any time in the foreseeable future (...ever). Hmm, purpose of post is dubious. Must add filler without revealing too much personal information... I like women. I like them a lot. My chivalrous (generally) attitude, reverence, and respect for women all come from the same place. I think they're cool. Women vary from the aggravatingly attractive, to the simple beauty of G'd's creation. They are the gateways of G'd for His children, the most sacred shrines of life, included in being blessed, singular entities within the whole that is the Body of Christ (more generally: G'd's children). Yes, some women annoy me, some anger me, but they all have one indisputably positive facet no matter what. They are women. Now I know those who have been disillusioned (to put it mildly) by women they've shown 'interest' in (again, to put it mildly). What do I say to them? "This is why you LEARN ABOUT YOUR 'LOVE' INTEREST BEFORE ANYTHING MORE SERIOUS" *ahem*. In actual conversation I'm more tactful, of course. Men and women are all human, some are jerks, some are 'angels,' most are between the two. I just happen to like women, to the point of it spilling over onto anything female earning my instant respect and reverence. A woman has to actively make me very, very angry (which has only come close to occurring... well never) to make me drop this kind of reverence. Now that is not to say I don't argue and shout with women. Many of you who may read this can attest to that. But as I said, while there are women I can't stand to be around, and women I just don't feel comfortable with, they're still women. Gotta love 'em. Uuu, another rant topic! Loooooove! Perhaps the most overused and still important word in modern culture. "I love you *smooch, smooch*" Umm... perhaps not. When I see people who've been dating for less than a week say 'love' and kissy-kissy like it's nothing, it IS nothing. With the exception of familial and friend love, I can safely say I've not seen actual, romantic love occur in my peer group yet. Why? It's impossible. Real love takes years to form. Why? Because love is a dedication, devotion, and choice, not a spur of the moment feeling. Infatuation can indeed lead to love, possibly (remotely), but hardly ever pans out. Now I love everyone, truly, I do, but it's a different kind of love. I love G'd's children. I will do everything in my power to ensure the safety, healthy, and spiritual well-being of all, to the point of my own death. Would I literally take a bullet for a friend? Duh. I'd take a bullet for people who aren't even my friends. I must preserve life, even if I must sacrifice my own to do so. While I may be incorrect, I've come to the conclusion that I, myself, will never be capable of appropriate, romantic love. It's not in my character. I am now well-fitted and formed toward the celibacy of Priesthood anyway. Beyond that, however, I feel I lack the basic respect, attention, and selfLESSness that such a relationship requires. I don't disclose my private thoughts, simply by nature, which makes any bond difficult at best, I, despite my devotions, have extreme sexual drive, making it very difficult for me to appropriately react toward women beyond short, well-controlled interactions. And I'm just a selfish bastard, which will be beaten out of me by life and the areas of it I'm venturing out into. So anyone who wants to disagree can. Spout all you want about love-at-first-sight, high-school sweet-hearts, or even the not-appropriate relationships that happen to work out (possibly...). It will take a great deal before I'm shifted from this view. I've seen too much to support my present view to dismiss it because of a few very blessed exceptions. Ariverderci: Sunday, August 17, 2003 Chris. My condolences for your loss, of course, if he had your respect, I'm sure he was a great man indeed. G'd-willing, he's where you believe he is now. Welcome back Lilisin! I'm sorry about the incident with the car. I'm glad your mother seems to be fine, that's the first concern. I familiar with car woes, particularly in regard to NOT having one. It'll work out well enough, but yes, very annoying in the mean time. On faaaaarrrrrrrrrrrr less important note: I can't find my family's copy of the 13th Warrior DVD. I can't remember if I loaned it to a friend or not, honestly, but my mother seems to remember me asking if I could lend it. No real problems, but if anyone has it, I'd appreciate getting it back as soon as feasibly possible. It's one of our favorite movies. (easy contact: cyrex_wingblade@hotmail.com) If anyone wishes to know where I was the last few days, ask privately, I won't put that on here. Take care.
|
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... |
|
