combustiblemnk:
1: Paula Abdul still has fans?
2: Why would Paula Abdul kill her biggest fan?
3: Paula Abdul still has fans?
Friday, November 14, 2008
Gchat
the.menda.agenda: Apparently Paula Abdul's biggest fan was found dead in a Cadillac outside Paula's house.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Homosexuality! It Exists!
After prop 8 was passed and several record breaking rallies are happening all over the nation, it's safe to say I've got gay rights on the brain. I was really hoping to go with Leah to the Nationwide Prop 8 protest Nov. 15th (with a rally location in Birmingham) but Daniel's dad apparently bought us tickets to the football game that day. Baaahh. That's so nice.
---
What the culture war really comes down to is, "Are people born gay or do they choose or are they influenced to become gay. And should society validate their behavior." Many fundamentalists believe the Bible contains all the information they need to know on gay people. The fact is that the Bible is very vague on the subject. It is already common knowledge that a person is born gay.
I have seen from a user's comment, on a message board, who tried to prove this to be true by cherry picking scriptures to validate his/her point. And then ending his/her point by rudely saying "Maybe you should read the Bible...". Do all narrow-minded people like this user, think all understanding of the Bible has been fulfilled and that gays and their supporters are clueless about the Bible? It seems so.
They claim people in this day and age are slightly twisting the word of God to fit their needs. Being that the Bible has been translated many times, I believe that the twisting and slight mistranslations has already happened in many instances over the past centuries.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New King James Version)
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor HOMOSEXUALS, nor sodomites,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
These are some examples of various English translations:
"liers with mankind," (Douay-Rheims; 1582, 1609-10)
"nor effeminate," (King James Version; 1611)
"men who practice homosexuality," (English Standard Version; over 500 years)
"those who participate in homosexuality," (Amplified Bible; 1951, 1964-65)
"homosexual perversion," (New English Bible; 1961)
"homosexual perverts." (Today's English Version; 1966)
"practicing homosexuals," (New American Bible; 1970)
"homosexual offenders," (New International Version; 1973, 1978)
"homosexuals," (New King James Version; 1979-82)
What is missing from this list is the Bible's ORIGINAL version, which is in Greek.
The original Greek text describes this behavior as "malakoi". "Malakoi" is translated in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as "soft" (KJV) or as "fine" (NIV) in references to clothing. It could also mean "loose" or "pliable," as in the phrase "loose morals," implying "unethical behavior." In the early Christian church, the words were interpreted by some as referring to persons who are pliable, easily influenced, without courage or stability. Non-Biblical writings of the era used the word to refer to lazy men, men who cannot handle hard work, and cowards.
People who are considered "malakoi" are people who live in an easy, indolent way; taking up no cross, enduring no hardship. But how is this? These good-natured, harmless people are ranked with idolaters and sodomites! We may learn hence, that we are never secure from the greatest sins, till we guard against those which are thought the least; nor, indeed, till we think no sin is little, since every one is a step toward hell.
How do you go from "soft and pliable" to "practicing homosexuals?"Although "homosexual" is a very common translation, it is almost certain to be inaccurate. If Paul wanted to refer to homosexual behavior, he would have used the word "paiderasste." That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males.
BOTTOM LINE (part 1):
It would seem that the word "effeminate" can only be regarded as a mistranslation. The concept of sexual orientation as being SEPERATE from one's perceived masculinity or femininity (gender identity) did not take shape until the 19th century. Many Christians over the centuries have confused "effeminate" with "homosexuality". Metaphorically, if effeminacy did equal homosexuality, this scripture would inaccurately and exclusively refer to only male homosexuals and not female homosexuality. Since the 19th century we have come to realize that sexual orientation and gender identity are two entirely DIFFERENT things and do not automatically correlate.
Romans 1:26-27 (King James Version)
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Many conservative Christians believe this scripture is the end-all, say-all to God's condemnation of homosexuals and is the #1 scripture they will use to prove their point. Also, because this scripture is in the New Testament and is also the only apparent reference in the Bible to female-to-female sexual activity. Using this scripture to condemn homosexuals is another example of "cherry picking" or "Buffet-style" Christianity rather than looking at the bigger picture. Paul is making a primary point, NOT about homosexuality, but about the delusions of the supposedly law-abiding. These people thought they were doing good by having sex with each other at the temple as a form of worship to their gods. If you read the ENTIRE book of Romans, you will understand this. The complete passage describes how a group of Christians left the church, converted to Paganism, and engaged in orgiastic, presumably heterosexual sexual activities. This type of behavior was common among Pagan fertility religions in Rome during Paul's time when he wrote the book of Romans. Paul writes that, later, God "gave them over" to something new: homosexual behavior. Heterosexuals who "abandoned" or "exchanged" heterosexuality for homosexuality. This implies that they had a heterosexual orientation and had engaged only in heterosexual sex throughout their lifetime. This act was, for them, an unnatural, and thus sinful, activity.
Many Biblical scholars speculate that the text, in actuality, is accurately referencing to "homosexual acts committed by heterosexual persons".
Paul criticized them because they were engaged in sexual activity which was unnatural for them. For a person with a heterosexual orientation, homosexual behavior is "shameful," "unnatural," "indecent," and a "perversion." The passage in Romans is not a condemnation of homosexual behavior, rather, it disapproves of sexual behavior that is against a person's basic nature (i.e. homosexual behaviors by people whose orientation is heterosexual).
Paul is talking about the gentile world, a world of idolaters, who long ago rejected the worship of God and became a culture of abuse, in which power and conquest were established and displayed in sexual acts.
BOTTOM LINE (part 2):
Many English translations render the end of verse 27 as "due penalty of their error." Their basic error was not homosexuality. It was for former Pagans who converted to Pauline Christianity then after left the faith, returned to Paganism, and engaged in idolatry. When they ran back to paganism they found the error of their ways. That is the main theme of the argument, NOT condemnation of homosexuals.
---
There's also some very compelling arguments and studies being done in the way of proving homosexuality has genetic and biological origin, as opposed to that of environmental origin. This is something that has amazed and confused me for years. I have secretly wanted to study and involve myself more openly with homosexual gene studies. I'm so far along in my major right now that it would be pointless to turn around and take a new path of genetics and sociology, but it's something that I want to keep open for myself as a second degree if we fall into giant pools of cash later down the road. I have always wanted to study this and perhaps add something of value to these studies being done. I believe I've done more research on the idea of genetic and biological causes than I've studied for my own major. Damn, I learned what I really wanted to do too late.
I have a research paper up on a different journal site that I still link back to sometimes, not because I think it's fantastic or even well-written, but I just have it to point out hard facts. A World of Stigma.
There is an extremely kickass documentary on John Barrowman's search for the source of his own sexuality. He is put through several different tests and is sent from Europe to America to find the answers. They mention specific brain activity being a visual link to homosexuality, studies in strict genetic linkage (the x chromosome study), and also studies of biological causes in the womb such as the number of older male siblings linked to testosterone levels in the womb. They focus on the main studies and programs that NEED and DESERVE national funding as I focused on in my paper. I hope that means I'm on the right track. John Barrowman - The Making of Me.
Anyway, I know this has been long, wordy, and no one has read it. It's only here for my own amusement - being able to type this out and have it saved somewhere I can get to easily.
---
What the culture war really comes down to is, "Are people born gay or do they choose or are they influenced to become gay. And should society validate their behavior." Many fundamentalists believe the Bible contains all the information they need to know on gay people. The fact is that the Bible is very vague on the subject. It is already common knowledge that a person is born gay.
I have seen from a user's comment, on a message board, who tried to prove this to be true by cherry picking scriptures to validate his/her point. And then ending his/her point by rudely saying "Maybe you should read the Bible...". Do all narrow-minded people like this user, think all understanding of the Bible has been fulfilled and that gays and their supporters are clueless about the Bible? It seems so.
They claim people in this day and age are slightly twisting the word of God to fit their needs. Being that the Bible has been translated many times, I believe that the twisting and slight mistranslations has already happened in many instances over the past centuries.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New King James Version)
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor HOMOSEXUALS, nor sodomites,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
These are some examples of various English translations:
"liers with mankind," (Douay-Rheims; 1582, 1609-10)
"nor effeminate," (King James Version; 1611)
"men who practice homosexuality," (English Standard Version; over 500 years)
"those who participate in homosexuality," (Amplified Bible; 1951, 1964-65)
"homosexual perversion," (New English Bible; 1961)
"homosexual perverts." (Today's English Version; 1966)
"practicing homosexuals," (New American Bible; 1970)
"homosexual offenders," (New International Version; 1973, 1978)
"homosexuals," (New King James Version; 1979-82)
What is missing from this list is the Bible's ORIGINAL version, which is in Greek.
The original Greek text describes this behavior as "malakoi". "Malakoi" is translated in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as "soft" (KJV) or as "fine" (NIV) in references to clothing. It could also mean "loose" or "pliable," as in the phrase "loose morals," implying "unethical behavior." In the early Christian church, the words were interpreted by some as referring to persons who are pliable, easily influenced, without courage or stability. Non-Biblical writings of the era used the word to refer to lazy men, men who cannot handle hard work, and cowards.
People who are considered "malakoi" are people who live in an easy, indolent way; taking up no cross, enduring no hardship. But how is this? These good-natured, harmless people are ranked with idolaters and sodomites! We may learn hence, that we are never secure from the greatest sins, till we guard against those which are thought the least; nor, indeed, till we think no sin is little, since every one is a step toward hell.
How do you go from "soft and pliable" to "practicing homosexuals?"Although "homosexual" is a very common translation, it is almost certain to be inaccurate. If Paul wanted to refer to homosexual behavior, he would have used the word "paiderasste." That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males.
BOTTOM LINE (part 1):
It would seem that the word "effeminate" can only be regarded as a mistranslation. The concept of sexual orientation as being SEPERATE from one's perceived masculinity or femininity (gender identity) did not take shape until the 19th century. Many Christians over the centuries have confused "effeminate" with "homosexuality". Metaphorically, if effeminacy did equal homosexuality, this scripture would inaccurately and exclusively refer to only male homosexuals and not female homosexuality. Since the 19th century we have come to realize that sexual orientation and gender identity are two entirely DIFFERENT things and do not automatically correlate.
Romans 1:26-27 (King James Version)
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Many conservative Christians believe this scripture is the end-all, say-all to God's condemnation of homosexuals and is the #1 scripture they will use to prove their point. Also, because this scripture is in the New Testament and is also the only apparent reference in the Bible to female-to-female sexual activity. Using this scripture to condemn homosexuals is another example of "cherry picking" or "Buffet-style" Christianity rather than looking at the bigger picture. Paul is making a primary point, NOT about homosexuality, but about the delusions of the supposedly law-abiding. These people thought they were doing good by having sex with each other at the temple as a form of worship to their gods. If you read the ENTIRE book of Romans, you will understand this. The complete passage describes how a group of Christians left the church, converted to Paganism, and engaged in orgiastic, presumably heterosexual sexual activities. This type of behavior was common among Pagan fertility religions in Rome during Paul's time when he wrote the book of Romans. Paul writes that, later, God "gave them over" to something new: homosexual behavior. Heterosexuals who "abandoned" or "exchanged" heterosexuality for homosexuality. This implies that they had a heterosexual orientation and had engaged only in heterosexual sex throughout their lifetime. This act was, for them, an unnatural, and thus sinful, activity.
Many Biblical scholars speculate that the text, in actuality, is accurately referencing to "homosexual acts committed by heterosexual persons".
Paul criticized them because they were engaged in sexual activity which was unnatural for them. For a person with a heterosexual orientation, homosexual behavior is "shameful," "unnatural," "indecent," and a "perversion." The passage in Romans is not a condemnation of homosexual behavior, rather, it disapproves of sexual behavior that is against a person's basic nature (i.e. homosexual behaviors by people whose orientation is heterosexual).
Paul is talking about the gentile world, a world of idolaters, who long ago rejected the worship of God and became a culture of abuse, in which power and conquest were established and displayed in sexual acts.
BOTTOM LINE (part 2):
Many English translations render the end of verse 27 as "due penalty of their error." Their basic error was not homosexuality. It was for former Pagans who converted to Pauline Christianity then after left the faith, returned to Paganism, and engaged in idolatry. When they ran back to paganism they found the error of their ways. That is the main theme of the argument, NOT condemnation of homosexuals.
---
There's also some very compelling arguments and studies being done in the way of proving homosexuality has genetic and biological origin, as opposed to that of environmental origin. This is something that has amazed and confused me for years. I have secretly wanted to study and involve myself more openly with homosexual gene studies. I'm so far along in my major right now that it would be pointless to turn around and take a new path of genetics and sociology, but it's something that I want to keep open for myself as a second degree if we fall into giant pools of cash later down the road. I have always wanted to study this and perhaps add something of value to these studies being done. I believe I've done more research on the idea of genetic and biological causes than I've studied for my own major. Damn, I learned what I really wanted to do too late.
I have a research paper up on a different journal site that I still link back to sometimes, not because I think it's fantastic or even well-written, but I just have it to point out hard facts. A World of Stigma.
There is an extremely kickass documentary on John Barrowman's search for the source of his own sexuality. He is put through several different tests and is sent from Europe to America to find the answers. They mention specific brain activity being a visual link to homosexuality, studies in strict genetic linkage (the x chromosome study), and also studies of biological causes in the womb such as the number of older male siblings linked to testosterone levels in the womb. They focus on the main studies and programs that NEED and DESERVE national funding as I focused on in my paper. I hope that means I'm on the right track. John Barrowman - The Making of Me.
Anyway, I know this has been long, wordy, and no one has read it. It's only here for my own amusement - being able to type this out and have it saved somewhere I can get to easily.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
I Am Retarded, Sir
"I am retarded, sir.
And anonded, sir,
I'll be with you again,
In a trice,
Like to the old Vice,
Your need to sustain.
Who with dagger of lath,
In his rage and his wrath,
Cries "Ah ha" to the devil.
Like a mad lad,
"Pare thy nails, dad."
Adieu, good man devil."
-the tragic jester
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Part Two Of My Argument To Photoshop
I really outdid myself with you this time, MS Paint.
Oh Microsoft, what a fantastic and free service you provide me.
Oh Microsoft, what a fantastic and free service you provide me.
Part One of this highly intelligent and erotic series.
.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
ALOBAMA
Greetings and Salutations,
I'm cautiously anxious and excited for what's to come tomorrow. I don't want to start getting my hopes up, AT ALL. But this article is hard to read without getting a little happy in the political pants.
I've already voted. I voted three weeks ago on an absentee ballot. Now I feel like I'm missing out on all the anticipation and crowdiness at the polls. Would it be wrong/neurotic/weird to go to the local voting station tomorrow anyway? Just to pretend I voted with everyone else.
-"Here's my ballot!!"
-"Gum wrapper? This isn't a gum wrapper. How do you think Obama responded to his ballot being called a gum wrapper?"
-"That's right. Change we can believe in, Bitch."
I saw an awesome explanation of the anticipation I'm feeling on Go, Team Internet earlier tonight.
"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
@khan: It's like I was telling someone else, it's Christmas Eve. We're all collectively 7 years old again, and the past 8 years equates to the knowledge that there is no Santa Claus. Yet we desperately hope that he is real and that he will deliver to us what we've secretly wanted all along. And now we just have to get through one more night of waiting to find out."
Job front update: I really hope the dude from The Jameson Inn calls me back soon. I want that job.