The "Christianity" book section at the Chapters store I visited today has finally triumphed (the last time I visited was around a year ago) in being rid - as far as I could see - of anything remotely resembling actual Christianity and its plenitude of literature. Last year there was at least something like one third of the section that was reasonably solid. By lord, there was even Pope Benedict's Jesus of Nazareth - and faced to the front!
Going over the section with wrathful scrutiny, my eye took in nothing but that which is new and already old: clichéd controversy, leftist garbage. Paul Was Not a Christian; Jesus in the Lotus; The Gnostic Gospels; With or Without God, with the ridiculous subtitle: Why The Way We Live Is More Important Than What We Believe. As if the two were ever at odds.
Why What We Believe Determines The Way We Live more like it. Oh, what lameness! like the one that blurbs about its title, Paul Was Not A Christian: because there was no verifiable religion at that time called Christianity! Wow, you mean the first followers of Christ hadn't yet adopted the name Christian? My mind has been blooooown awaaay! What a bunch of pathetic, perfumed rat shit.
There are a whole lot of variations on the same tired post-worn post-this and post-that titles: how to be "spiritual" without, you know, a church. As if a church is there to make you "spiritual".
But C.S. Lewis is still there. They don't mind having him in prominence, and Thomas Merton. There's just enough - just enough - in those two writers to lend themselves to the abovementioned Give Me Jesus Without The Church Please. Oh, and please can Jesus also be left-wing?
Just enough - together with a lot and a lot of twisting and outright ignoring by said I-won't-have-no-church ignorant reader - or I should say, just enough in Old Merton (this cheese is starting to get to me...hey look, zen!), whereas in Lewis it is more like merely enough.
Showing posts with label Definitive non-definition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Definitive non-definition. Show all posts
Friday, December 11, 2009
Monday, June 16, 2008
They go to California to be officially recognized
"SAN FRANCISCO - Dozens of gay couples were married Monday night after California became the second state to allow same-sex nuptials, offering a preview of the euphoria and anger to come as gay couples from across the nation head west to wed…
...As a printer churned out a license with spaces for "Party A" and "Party B" where "bride" and "groom" used to be, Newsom called officiating the wedding "this extraordinary and humbling gift."" --Yahoo News
So, the "marriage" licenses have for the name spaces, in place of Bride and Groom, "Party A" and "Party B".
Isn't that what it's all about? After all this time, we finally see how simply unifying it is. How could we be so abrasive all this time over such beautiful peaceful civil unions? And that's all they have wanted. After all those years of "being denied this right, this civil right", a gay couple can finally, finally, be recognized as Party A and Party B. At least in California. And other places certainly. In the future, if we hold out, gay couples will be recognized as such in every state. We must give the Humble Obama the chance.
I did not know that a person was a Party. Then again, I did not know that marriage was something like a political party's preamble, to be added to and adjusted as seen fit. But apparently it is all of it, one big party. How can you be such a rigid religious turd? Celebrate good times, c'mon. Words and definitions are meant to be free man, free.
Was there more than two people being recognized in the same "union", you might ask. That's a good question, because the licenses do say "Party A" and "Party B". Apparently William Shakespeare did not bother to think that the Montagues and Capulets could have easily ended their feud by legal civil union. Well, that's open to debate I'm sure, you know, about the "Party" thing. "Open to debate" means: stop being divisive you rigid religious turd; if a woman and another woman want to bring their pet dog into the relationship, who are you to say anything? Hm? Who are you to bring your God into this? After all, Jesus said, "Whoever among you is without sin, cast the first stone."
These couples know lots about Jesus. He was compassionate you know, just like Mayor Gavin Newsom. He doesn’t hold inquisitions in his mayor's office, no sir. Because of Mr. Newsom, now any couple can go to an official office in California and have their union sodomized--er, I mean solemnized. "I hereby take thee, Party A, to be my Party A, until death do us party. By the power invested in me as official party, I pronounce thee Party A and Party B. Party A, you may now kiss the Party B. Or Party B, you may make the move instead. Or you can both just kind of meet in the middle."
...As a printer churned out a license with spaces for "Party A" and "Party B" where "bride" and "groom" used to be, Newsom called officiating the wedding "this extraordinary and humbling gift."" --Yahoo News
So, the "marriage" licenses have for the name spaces, in place of Bride and Groom, "Party A" and "Party B".
Isn't that what it's all about? After all this time, we finally see how simply unifying it is. How could we be so abrasive all this time over such beautiful peaceful civil unions? And that's all they have wanted. After all those years of "being denied this right, this civil right", a gay couple can finally, finally, be recognized as Party A and Party B. At least in California. And other places certainly. In the future, if we hold out, gay couples will be recognized as such in every state. We must give the Humble Obama the chance.
I did not know that a person was a Party. Then again, I did not know that marriage was something like a political party's preamble, to be added to and adjusted as seen fit. But apparently it is all of it, one big party. How can you be such a rigid religious turd? Celebrate good times, c'mon. Words and definitions are meant to be free man, free.
Was there more than two people being recognized in the same "union", you might ask. That's a good question, because the licenses do say "Party A" and "Party B". Apparently William Shakespeare did not bother to think that the Montagues and Capulets could have easily ended their feud by legal civil union. Well, that's open to debate I'm sure, you know, about the "Party" thing. "Open to debate" means: stop being divisive you rigid religious turd; if a woman and another woman want to bring their pet dog into the relationship, who are you to say anything? Hm? Who are you to bring your God into this? After all, Jesus said, "Whoever among you is without sin, cast the first stone."
These couples know lots about Jesus. He was compassionate you know, just like Mayor Gavin Newsom. He doesn’t hold inquisitions in his mayor's office, no sir. Because of Mr. Newsom, now any couple can go to an official office in California and have their union sodomized--er, I mean solemnized. "I hereby take thee, Party A, to be my Party A, until death do us party. By the power invested in me as official party, I pronounce thee Party A and Party B. Party A, you may now kiss the Party B. Or Party B, you may make the move instead. Or you can both just kind of meet in the middle."
Friday, June 13, 2008
Thought jotted from last night, and added to today
Where man is defined to himself in the soft equanimous atmosphere of 'non-discrimination', you can be sure he is not being properly or rightly defined. The idea of man not being wholly 'definable' in this world but nonetheless of being understood that by nature of his very being, he will always come to define things, and that man himself has a preceding 'definition' that is sacred and bound in the foundation of natural law, belongs properly to the assured and inalienable, and most importantly, ongoing war of words and ideas, and not in the enforced grey zone of totalitarian 'non-discrimination'. There is this aspect of man of always coming to a point, of always outing, that seems to be understood and still basically protected and upheld in the U.S. I say basically. Neutrality is not natural. And those who insist by force of seeming law on neutrality are, and become more and more, the most irrationally extreme.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
If you want to have a good laugh
then watch this video:
What is most apparent about this retarded, impotent, bloodless, wimpy, self-strangulated video is how utterly unwatchable it is, and how utterly it has no real message whatsoever. Gee, did you notice the absolutely unconvincing, dotard and senile repetition of certain words? Never. Never. Never. Never. Never. All spoken in voices of such undistinguished, neutered, pallid tenor, that you truly wonder how such character as this ever got to be the catalyst for "diversity".
The first group that takes the lead in hate-speech and loathing against the homosexual community (that is, the one that promotes homosexual acts such as anal penetration either through genital intercourse, fisting, or foreign objects, or any other unchaste, disordered, filthy and inherently cruel acts, or even those acts which may be apparently not cruel but which are still immoral, such as oral sex) is the active homosexual community itself. They are filled to brimming with self-loathing; loathing against one another. They hate religion that has moral statements and stances on homosexuality. They hate those who respect them and who teach chastity. They hate those who have 'converted' and live a married life (real marriage that is). Do they hate those who are single and 'gay' but choose to live chaste lives while encouraging others to do so? Don't know about that one.
What is most apparent about this retarded, impotent, bloodless, wimpy, self-strangulated video is how utterly unwatchable it is, and how utterly it has no real message whatsoever. Gee, did you notice the absolutely unconvincing, dotard and senile repetition of certain words? Never. Never. Never. Never. Never. All spoken in voices of such undistinguished, neutered, pallid tenor, that you truly wonder how such character as this ever got to be the catalyst for "diversity".
The first group that takes the lead in hate-speech and loathing against the homosexual community (that is, the one that promotes homosexual acts such as anal penetration either through genital intercourse, fisting, or foreign objects, or any other unchaste, disordered, filthy and inherently cruel acts, or even those acts which may be apparently not cruel but which are still immoral, such as oral sex) is the active homosexual community itself. They are filled to brimming with self-loathing; loathing against one another. They hate religion that has moral statements and stances on homosexuality. They hate those who respect them and who teach chastity. They hate those who have 'converted' and live a married life (real marriage that is). Do they hate those who are single and 'gay' but choose to live chaste lives while encouraging others to do so? Don't know about that one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)