I don’t believe in monsters
I don’t believe in monsters, because life is not two-dimensional, good versus evil. Life is a complex weave of circumstance, judgement calls on limited facts, and subtle indoctrination.
I don’t believe in monsters, because I live in a world where actions have consequences, and every individual is a product of their environment.
I don’t believe in monsters, because I want solutions. Not cycles of hatred, punishment and violence with no end.
I’ll call out bigotry, prejudice and discrimination whenever I see it because I truly believe humans are capable of change.
And yet I recognise that I too must be guilty of bigotry, prejudice and discrimination in ways I can hardly yet recognise.
There are no monsters, so let’s look for solutions by excavating causes to their very roots. Not stopping at our prejudices.
(An arty ponder verging on poetry by Violet (likely to be the only one, ever))
Im tellin ya violet, you are being duly influenced by the likes of the color guy, and the creative mind of insanitybytes! lol Way to go.
In the not too distant future, you will come to see the creative Hand that brought life into being. Your friends will then call you delusional, but you will not care to trade daylight for darkness ever again.
And you will have a whole new set of blogging buddies….. 😉
LikeLike
Oh dear, is that what it is? I must admit, it’s quite out of character and I felt rather uncomfortable posting it. I’m being subtly indoctrinated!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ha, but it is a good thing to jump out of a comfort zone.
But bigotry is a monster though btw in its own right; surely you would agree.
LikeLike
@CS
Good grief, you really know how to rain on a parade, don’t you?
LikeLike
Manufacturing rain is reserved for they who cast God from His own creation.
Some people actually see rain as the true blessing it is. There is still hope for you.
LikeLike
Well, I was trying to be polite of course, but as it is you my four-footed moth-eaten friend I should probably have said ”cocked a back leg”.
Oh, and which god are you talking about, Colorstorm, you never actually write his name do you?
LikeLike
Just a tip for you, and pay attention. The ‘name’ of a judge on the bench is dependent on the relationship.
His wife will address him as ‘your honour.’ A son will not not him ‘Dad,’ There…. A daughter who is a prosecutor will not call him Father….There.
A nephew defense attorney will not call him Uncle…. There.
A brother who is a bailiff will call him Jack…..There…..
His ‘name’ is irrelevant…….There.
The point? Since you have no relationship with God, since you deny His existence…………it serves you well to address Him as simply God………calling Him Wonderful would not suit you.
And if you mock this relatively simple presentation of honor, then you are strutting your foolishness even to your friends.
LikeLike
So, the name of the god you genuflect to is …. what?
LikeLike
Believers do not prostrate themselves before any ‘god,’ just to correct the record, and nip all nonsense in the bud.
LikeLike
You do. So there is a lie exposed straight away.
So, the name of the god you genuflect to is …..
LikeLiked by 1 person
A lie? Ha, two plus one equals four would be a lie.
Saying water appeared without design would be a lie.
Equating the bastard truck monster in France with christian believers is a lie.
Learn basic math, before the names of God matter.
LikeLike
Yep, you are a liar. And a fraud.
So, what’s the name of your god? I seem to recall you worship that Canaanite deity, Yahweh.
Or is your personal god called stupidity, Colorstorm?
This would be more appropriate.
LikeLike
Once more I cannot stand these perpetual compliments from you and your brethren. 😉
Ah yes, a common reoccurance, to be so leveled against with the likes of Paul the apostle, The Lord Christ Himself, and all the other people who have lived in history, being stoned by the likes of you, who cannot give God the courtesy of his own existence, in a world which is obviously His, all the while you as the little stone god……..spue forth your venom from a well void of water.
But tkx for the accolades. (in case others are not aware, you and your friends have called Christ a liar, so some of us enjoy the company)
LikeLike
Ah … more lies.
You are the bard’s rectum of spurious banal rhetoric,Colorstorm. The Crown Prince Offal of Waffle.
You champion a work of fiction whose lead character is portrayed by his delusional lackey’s as a whiter than white pseudo-conservative, when in fact, the character is a smelly little illiterate bastard and likely closet bi-sexual with delusions of grandeur.
You sound so uptight all the time.
Maybe you just need to ask someone to give you a blow job? The local pastor perhaps?
So, the name of the god you genuflect to is …?
I know you can do this is if you try real hard.
LikeLike
Oh for goodness sake, take the gutter back to your own blog, with your second-rate pictures that don’t interest me in the slightest! 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Second rate! Hah!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey Violet-
You are receiving an unexpected gift here……..comments like this that you would neither repeat nor share with a child or parent……..
Use your head Violet. Think. WHERE does something like this originate?
From Queen Esther? Daniel? King David or Solomon? Christ? Paul? Timothy?
Or perhaps Sarah Silverman, Bill Maher, Dan Savage?
Think Violet, think.
LikeLiked by 1 person
*Smile* True. The little ones might not likely understand bard, spurious or rectum. However, surprisingly enough they do seem to understand Hell, Devil, Burn, Eternity, Bad Child, which you lovingly instill in kiddies.
I would not allow you to babysit my dogs.
Considering the filth you espouse, you should rather dab your mouth with toilet paper.
You are the epitome of vulgarity.
LikeLike
Oh no he didn’t!
LikeLike
Didn’t what?
LikeLike
You pantomime baddy you … or are you the Dame?
LikeLike
Aaah, sorry, I am having a Star Wars evening and wasn’t focused.
Oh, yes he did!
How’s that?
LikeLike
A brother who is a bailiff will NOT call him Jack………There.
Geez, need an edit tab.
LikeLike
I know there are at least two of us who can’t write poems 🙂
There are monsters, I have seen two. Just don’t ask me where.
On a more serious note, yes, we can work towards reducing bigotry though I doubt whether it is possible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh come on! Indulge me, I’m working on my creative side, hehe. I’m sure humans will naturally become less bigoted as generations go on with the information revolution. It’s part of the design of evolution. 🙂
LikeLike
I hope you are right
LikeLike
LOL! Well done Violet.
I don’t believe in monsters either. I’m telling you, a most inconvenient belief to hold when you come face to face with them.
LikeLike
Thanks Insanity, I always know I’ve done something good when you approve. 😀
LikeLike
@Insaitybytes
Well, that’s a bare-face lie we need to correct straight away.
You believe in Yahweh. The biggest monster ever.
LikeLike
I have met a psychopath, whom I found completely chilling. Having said that, most of us see ourselves as the Good person, and I feel almost everyone is doing their best under difficult circumstances. Some of us are damaged, and some are in wilful denial.
LikeLike
Everyone is doing their best under difficult circumstances. I like it. Although not the most positive way to view life…
LikeLike
I came to that conclusion in 1999. It is better than my previous view, which was “life’s a bitch and then you die”.
LikeLike
It’s definitely true. And may become my standard rebuke against cruel words.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Really? I’ve always seen myself as the monster.
LikeLike
Systematic thinking (i.e., reason) is the first step to rooting out bias, which is at the foundation of racism, bigotry, discrimination and prejudice and a fundamental trait of the untrained mind.
Postmodern people reject systematic thinking in favor of rule by intention and emotion.
Consequently, racism, bigotry, discrimination and prejudice are left hopelessly imbedded in the heart and mind of the postmodern person.
Proof of this is the widespread belief in ridiculous notions like LGBT rights, socialism, multiculturalism, “family planning,” and atheism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If I did not know you better, SOM, I would be tempted to see that comment as self-awareness mixed with deep irony.
LikeLiked by 2 people
But do we know him better? It’s a rollercoaster of attention seeking comments, and they really are all over the place.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My comment is based on the teachings of Aristotle.
LikeLike
To put it another way- I am Postmodern, with some respect for systematic thinking, but I find my synthesis of the two the most useful position available; and would say the rejection of useful thinking and perception is shown by Creationism, belief in the Bible as inspired, in any but the most Liberal-Christian sense; and gun rights activism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Clare,
Postmodern thinking and systematic thinking are mutually exclusive.
That is, they don’t mix because they are foreign and opposed to each other.
LikeLike
What do you mean by “Systematic thinking”?
LikeLike
Systematic thinking was developed by Aristotle, the ancient Greek philosopher.
His approach to understanding reality (truth and falsehood) has been rejected by the Postmodern world.
LikeLike
rautakyy,
You are a stellar example of postmodern thinking.
How can religion be based on emotion and intuition when the great religions of the world are spelled out explicitly in writing (scripture).
Postmodernism holds that just because you think something, it must be true, all evidence to the contrary be damned.
Christianity is explicitly written out.
Whatever feeling and emotion there are, it all comes from the human being, not the religion.
LikeLike
No, crass simplification like that has been rejected by the modern world. Systematic thinking.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interresting. I find that religious beliefs are based on intuition and emotion. Whenever I ask for evidence for the alledged supernatural to exist, the ultimate answer is an appeal to intuition and emotion. Not reason.
Ideals like LGBT rights, socialism, multiculturalism, family planning and atheism are – quite contrary to the religious and/or sentimental conservatism – based on the material observable reality and yes human preference.
1. A fact is that the LGBT people have been discriminated. Wich would be more preferable, that LGBT people had rights equal to all others and that do not discriminate anyone else, or that we continue to discriminate against them?
2. A fact is that when given a chance some people like to exploit others. Wich would be more preferable, that as in socialist ideals everyone had equal opportunity and that even people who fail to take on their offered opportunity have social safety nets to care for them, than a dog eat dog world of capitalism, or feodalism?
3. A fact is that some people have irrational fears of the other and that makes them prone to things like racism. Wich would be more preferable, that we face the actual multicultural world to take what is evidently true and beneficial and discard what is evidently false and harmfull, or should we try to preserve some naive ideal of a monoculture, that in reality does not even exist anywhere?
4. A fact is, that human population is growing in exponentially rapid pace. Wich is more preferable, that we tackle the problems of overpopulation, the powerty caused by population growth and the emotional and medical issues of having many children and the ethical right of the possible mother to choose wether, or not she feels up to the task, or simply disregarding all of it, by appealing to an imaginary entity that is going to set things right for us?
5. A fact is, that after thousands of years of various religions that all demand blind faith to mutually contradicting doctrines about gods we have no evidence of any of the gods they suggest beyond hearsay stories and voices people claim to hear within their heads – a state considered medical issue, if the voices do not claim to be supernatural. Wich is more preferable, to not believe in any claims about such gods until any actual evidence is presented, or to choose randomly by the accident of birth one particular religious movement and accept their notion of tribal morality without any criticism to on what it is based on?
I do realize these were all red herrings to distract the topic, possibly because the topic post was a bit hard to swallow for any person who believes in evil as an entity, but still after a while I wanted to “systematically” comment on them, as they were thrown out so lightly onto the table of discussion, as if everyone naively agreed with the way they were presented in.
LikeLike
@rautakky
Sorry for the intrusion, but had to point out this common error that you voice that is approved by many. You said this right out of the gate:
—Interresting. I find that religious beliefs are based on intuition and emotion. Whenever I ask for evidence for the alleged supernatural to exist, the ultimate answer is an appeal to intuition and emotion. Not reason.—
1. beliefs based on intuition?
sorry, no
2, beliefs based on emotion?
sorry no
3. alleged supernatural?
sorry no
4. the ultimate answer falls back on intuition and emotion, not reason?
sorry no
The moon giving light at night is not supernatural? Of course it is. The elephant producing baby baby elephants (after its kind) is not supernatural? Of course it is. A brain in your head is not supernatural? Of course it is. A man conceiving, planning, designing, constructing, building, and flying an airplane is not supernatural? Of course it is.
And believing that there is a river Euphrates and a city named Jerusalem, with a king called David who had a son named Solomon whom Christ spoke of as a historical certainty…….is hardly an appeal to emotion or intuition. You are flat out and completely wrong.
The scriptures appeal to reason, COMPLETELY. If you cannot see this, then you are not being fair to yourself.
You will engage faith a thousand times before noon today, without even knowing it, and an appeal to reason should get your attention.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ColorStorm, it seems you and I have a totally different understanding about what we mean by supernatural. To me the moon reflecting the light of the sun to the night side of the planet is perfectly natural. Just as baby elephants and my brains are perfectly natural, there is nothing what so ever in them that fits the description of meaning for the word supernatural in any dictionary I have ever read. Do you have a different dictionary?
We also have a different view on what counts as “historical certainty” as you are referencing myths set on historical sites and it seems you have no clue as to how historical methodology works. But I urge you to find out about these things as you urge me to be fair to myself. Jerusalem to me is a real place and I have plenty of evidence that it has bee such for a quite a while before my time with historical certainty. As for kings David and Solomon I have a view that they most likely did existed but wich parts of the stories told of them or Elvis for that matter are true is a more complex evaluation. As for any of the supernatural parts in the same book, I think they are obvious fables, like such are in other as sincerely worshipped books. There is very little appeal to reason in these stories and even that appeal grows less, when one learns more about the reality around.
The third word we two attribute a different meaning is faith. I see faith in terms of this topic and in these discussions we have had here in the light of it’s religious meaning. That one should actively choose to believe and rely in a hearsay story to be a divine revelation by this, or that religion – a choise made by most according to their cultural heritage, wich seems an odd way to decide what really is true in the grand scale. I do not engage myself in such auto suggestion. I choose to await for the evidence, that any of these suggested, but cotradictionary faiths are true. Do you have any, other than appeals to emotion and hearsay stories of old, or do you just claim to have some?
LikeLike
@raut-
You are not being reasonable with your own information. Sorry, but that’s a fact.
You believe that David and Solomon lived, yet deny the facts (not myths) from the very book that proves they lived: according to your own words. What issue of their life do you find as not credible?
And yes, the moon as the lesser light, reflects light, but you are ignoring the HOW as to the first ‘day.’
Elephants? Yes, it is perfectly natural to understand that like begets like, but once more you deny the reason of HOW the first elephant came to be.
And your brain? Uh, once more a supernatural indicator that the brain of a dairy cow is different than yours, so yes, quite reasonable to think it is supernatural. Unless of course you think there is no difference…….
You are limiting your ‘reason’ to the opinions of others, and you will always fall short of the ultimate REASON for all life.
God is God and has proved Himself reliable, as the scriptures clearly point out.
(But truth be told, SoM has pointed out in lesser words your weak arguments rather easily.)
LikeLike
@ColorStorm, in the first place I must admit I have no clue as to wich of my numbered points you were trying to address in your previous comment. I mad points from 1. – 5. you only comment on points 1. – 4. but your answers were so garbled, that it is not clear to me wich ones did you even try to answer. Clearly you did not answer any of my questions on wich would be preferable of the choises I presented, nor why. Did you?
I am sorry too, if I am somehow being unreasonable with my own information, but at least my information of the meaning of words is in agreement with dictionaries, while yours was not. Now, was it?
I believe kings called David and Solomon might have lived just as I believe kings called Agamemnon and Menelaos may have existed. It is obvious that all of these kings are mythical characters within any reasonable terms. What is the difference between them? All of the stories about them are set in historical Mediterranean and approximately within similar epochs. All of them appear in singular sources and are not really confirmed by contemporary outside sources to the mythical stories. That necessarily makes them unhistorical and actually legendary mythical characters. There is no getting over that, if you understand anything about historical research. Yet, even if they were historical characters known from other contemporary sources, we have no reason that the mythical events in the tales about them have anything at all to do with reality. Do we? Or do you believe that an entity called Poseidon actually sent a sea serpent to kill Laokoon? Why not?
I am truly sorry for you if you do not know, HOW it is perfectly natural, HOW the moon reflects the light of the sun, or HOW the first elephant came to be from an ancestral line of pre-modern elephants. Or HOW is it, that a human brain is different from that of a dairy cow. These are things that here in my home country are taught to little kids in school for them to understand and not assign silly childish magical meanings to them. However, rest assured this information is within your reach, as you obviously are able to use the internet. For your own sake please do, so that you do not embarress yourself any further in public. There are a lot of charlatans in the net for sure, but it does not take too much of googlefoo, to find out what the experts on physics, biology and neurology have explored on these matters.
As for the ultimate reason for things like life, it is fair to say we do not know. Claiming that a particular god did it, is not really an explanation, now is it? What does that even explain? It only serves as a silly method to remove the question further. Why or how this god then did these things is still left unanswered. Is it not? Nor does it serve as any sort of evidence for the claim simply to make the claim. I could just as easily claim that the reason for life is a bunch of life producing pixies and look I have proved my claim by the fact that life exists! Or do you agree with me, that I have actually not proven anything? Making up a reason or picking up some ancient superstitious belief about the reason for anything is not the same as actually having on any level at all established this is the case. Is it?
You wrote: “God is God and has proved Himself reliable, as the scriptures clearly point out.” I am sorry again, but no gods have proven anything at all reliably. Otherwise there would be very little point to having faith as all religions demand from their adherents – and their money to support the ritual experts. Right? The “scriptures” may point out just about anything, but how could we possibly get from that to what is actually a verifiable truth. They also clearly point out that a man should not trim his beard. Do you trim your beard? Was it sinfull of Abraham Lincoln to trim his beard?
LikeLike
Just this raut for sake of clarity as u said this:
—Yet, even if they were historical characters known from other contemporary sources, we have no reason that the mythical events in the tales about them have anything at all to do with reality. Do we? Or do you believe that an entity called Poseidon actually sent a sea serpent to kill Laokoon? Why not?—
1. You assume the scriptural accounts are ‘tales.’ You assume wrongly
2. The genealogies in Matthew and Luke are enough ‘proof’ that the ‘tales’ are just simply accurate accounting. (This is why there are State records of births and deaths)
3. You show a complete lack of credibility when you mention things like Poseidon, as scripture stands alone in historical accuracy.
4. You know in your heart that Peter, James, and John lived, the same way Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob lived, and that their lives had purpose which was rooted in reality.
5. You know in your heart that the scriptures are in fact true, and your simple rebellion is recorded and defined in this very book. Of course it is, as the Creator is well aware of how misfits such as we would react.
6. You argument is not with me, but with the living God. Simple really, and all the so called intellect of men is a mere smokescreen to delay facing the inevitable: It is appointed unto man once to die…………
You can kick and scream every day of your life, you can avoid the truth of God and the truth of sin but it will not change the facts of life.
Quickly, as to the beard, it was a command to ONE nation alone, and you have no claim to the instruction, and your argument disappears into thin air. God was not talking to you in this regard. I know this stings many people, but once more, let God be true and every man a liar.
LikeLike
1. Demonstrate, that they are anything but. Please do.
2. That does not demonstrate any reliability at all about the accuracy of anything in historical research. Contemporary sources are used to recognize reliable sources. Even if some genealogies of people are known, it tells us absolutely nothing at all about their reliability on other matters. Especially in such extraordinary claims as references to supernatural – that is unnatural agents and effects at work within an anecdotal story. On the contrary, references to the supernatural are specifically treated as mythical claims in historical research. Hence, in the terms of historical research a character in an old story is considered a historical if there are outside contemporary sources confirming he existed. If not, he is considered a legendary character, and if his significance in the story is about being part of some supernatural or otherwise magical event, he is considered a mythical character. Therefore, kings David and Solomon just like Agamemnon and Menelaos are considered legendary characters in a mythical story, that might have it’s origins in remotely similar events in actual history, while the Jesus character basicly is a mythical character and the story about him is a myth.
3. Pfff… No particular “scripture” stands alone in accuracy, though later written sources are often more easily verified because of the frequency of contemporary sources. That is why we think the prophet Muhammed as a historical character, while we are not at all as sure about the Jesus character.
4. I recommend you do not profess what I know in my heart and mind any more than I try to profess what you know in your heart and mind. You are the best expert on what you know, just as much as I am the best expert on what I know. Or do you wish me to tell you what you know in your heart and mind? Do you honestly think I know better than you yourself?
5. How do you know what a creator might or might not know? You can not possibly have that information. Not even if the Bible was inspired by such an entity. You have no means to evaluate wether or not the book reflects the knowledge, nor intent of the creator entity. Do you? You are guessing and relying your guesses on the guesswork of some other people who wrote a book once upon a time, wich apparently at the time of writing was considered magical because so few books were written and people lacked the basic knowledge about the universe around them. Why? The fact that a book tells you there will be people who do not agree with the book tells you absolutely nothing about wether or not anything else in the book might or might not be true.
6. I do not argue with people, nor entities, who do not respond. Therefore it is impossible for me to have any arguments with your particular god. Your god is exactly as silent as all the other gods, or do you converse with it? How exactly? I can argue with you as you are willing to present what your god would say, but that is as far as I can get with this. At least, as long as your god is as outside of the conversation as all the other gods made up by men.
I am not kicking and screaming at all. Where did you get that notion? For what ever purpose did you even bring it up? Was it a rethoric attempt to undermine my case? Shame on you, if it was. It makes no sense. I thought, I was having a conversation in the internet with you and anyone willing to read what we discuss here. Nor am I trying to change the facts of life I can not. That is a nother nonsensical claim by you. As far as facts go, no gods ever appear anywhere exept in hearsay stories and to some people as voices in their heads, while in the actual reality such noises are considered a medical issue, not some ultimate truth from beyond natural reality.
As to the beard, then clearly if that rule was only for one nation alone, then the rules about homosexuality were also for one nation alone. Why would any god want a particular nation to hold such nonsensical rules? A whimisical nincompoop of a god? However, if that is the case and such ridiculous rules for segragation, like trimming beards and forbidding the consumption of pork, shrimp or the usage of fustian were just for the one nation, then why is the Jesus character is reported to have claimed that he did not come to change any bits of the law? If he meant the law abides only to that one nation, then why would anybody not of that nation bother to follow any of the commandments in the law?
LikeLike
Let me narrow it down for you neighbor.
You say the genealogies do not imply reliability in other matters……..ahh, but it does.
It gives weight that the scripture accounts are verifiable, reliable, and truthful.
As to ‘kickin and screamining………..’ sure you are. All atheists do this, whether you think so or not.
Imagine yourself posting another million comments…………..you will be no closer to the truth of scripture than you are right now…………THAT is the kicking and screaming part.
From yesterday: yes, the elephant giving birth to an elephant is natural.
Now the FIRST elephant, THAT is supernatural. See how easy?
LikeLike
When a wittness to a murder is questioned by a court of law, his genealogy gives absolutely no reliability to what he tells. Does it? It may help us to define wether he is who he says he is, but then the genealogy he presents has to be well documented and not a part of a fable story telling of magical ancestry. Right? In any case it can – at best – only tell the court, that he was not wrong or alternatively did not deliberately lie about that particular detail.
You yourself are “kicking and screaming” against the “truth”, that Allah is the one and only creator god and Muhammed is his prophet. Are you not? Special pleading is an especially embarrasing form of logical failure. Is it not?
Posting comments by you, or I brings neither of us nowhere nearer to any truths at all. What made you think anyone would believe in such nonsense? But we may have a conversation and learn from each other, can we not?
Yes, it is very easy indeed to make up supernatural and magical, or otherwise unnatural “explanations” to things one does not understand. That does not make any of them true. But the natural events and causes are something we actually can research and indeed have researched. Like the genealogy of an elephant. We actually do know quite a bit about the ancestors of elephants. This is a fact accepted even by most major Christian churches including the Anglicans, Lutherans, Roman Catholics and Orthodox churches around the globe. Did you not know? How do you reckon it has come to be?
Even the first elephant being born is still a perfectly natural event. Ask any credited biologist. It seems, that you are the one being dragged “kicking and screaming” from the old night of ignorance. Or perhaps not. Maybe you are too dim to ever come to realize how natural evolution and speciation works. However, I have hope for you. You might just pull yourself through and find out about these things. – That is, if you have not convinced yourself, that there is some sort of conspiracy of all the scientists in the world (exept when their work does not concern the Bible) to demean the Biblical stories. Have you?
LikeLike
@rautakky
Don’t take this as insulting, but do you actually read what you write to defend the absurd?
Equating an elephant borne of an elephant you say is natural………..yet you say that the ‘first elephant’ is equally ‘natural.’
Really? In what universe of logic can you defend this with a straight face?
I understand the ramifications of such a view are rather uncomfortable and quite inconvenient for you, but c’mon, use your brain rautakky.
Apart from INTELLIGENCE, the ‘first’ elephant is merely ‘accidental,’ or having no purpose.
You are saying ‘YOUR’ own existence is also accidental or having no purpose? Surely you must admit your own nefarious conclusion.
Yet………………with the Creator……….all makes perfect sense, and there is no accidental elephant, no accidental bird, no accidental whale, no accidental moon, no accidental water, and of course no accidental man, who is the pinnacle of God’s creation.
Your ‘evolution’ is torn to shreds by common sense and reason. And once more, let God’s word be true and every man a liar.
As to your ‘is-lam,’ just pay attention to the bastards who blow innocent people up…………..something the God of heaven does not ask of His people.
Hard sayings here, but truth comes with a price, and simply asks that we surrender our pride, and forego the worship of ourselves.
LikeLike
@ColorStorm, rest assured, I find no insult in your comment. It is in this very same universe you and I both inhabit, that the scientists have discovered, that among all other animals – humans included – species change over a span of time and multiple generations. Because the change happens over generations it is difficult to see and nigh impossible for the ancient dudes in Levant who wrote fancies about gods. But through the rigours of scientific methodology, in the mutually confirming, yet separate fields of study and research of biology and geology equalling paleontology we have actually been able to establish the genealogy of the elephant far more reliably than any genealogy in the ancient story books like for example the Bible.
We have plenty of remains of the ancestors of elephants to actually align a family tree of evolution for them. Interrestingly enough, the elephant is a very big animal and among it’s extinct cousins there have been even bigger “behemoths” than the ones existing today. However, the deeper we go in the stratigraphy of the ground and subsequently in time according to all the experts in geology, the smaller are the ancestors of all these elephant species. Ergo – they have evolved from very small creatures into the giants they have been for allready millions of years, some of the biggest ones have died out as their environment has changed too quickly for them to adapt, like the mammoth. Or do you honetsly think that the mammoths simply did not make it to the Noahs Ark, or what?
Purpose is not simply something someone from outside imposes on you. You are an adult, take responsibility over your own actions and choises. You choose your purpose. So do I. So does the individual elephant. If you have chosen as your purpose to follow a particular god, then the choise was yours, not your god’s, or was it? However, your choise may very well have been heavily influenced by the cultural environment you have been born into. Has it not? All of our choises are heavily influenced by our biology, as you and I are not elephants we do not make the choises an elephant does during it’s life span. That does not mean we are unable to make the choises we eventially do, because our brains yours, mine and that of an elephant are marvellous biological engines of randomization and making connections and choises.
I think I can understand the fact, that this is a bit more complex model for reality, that I propose, than the simple notion that some god(s) – defined by people according to the accident of birth into a specific culture/time/place – has preordained everything and just expects us to make a single choise to believe in this god without proper evidence (ie. by having faith), or not and then rewards the leap of faith, or punishes for not taking it. However, I think you might one day take the step to a bigger and more adult world and accept that however flawed the human invention of the scientific method may be, it is still obviously more logical method of finding out reliable information about the reality around us, than a simple leap of faith directed in most cases simply by an accident of birth into a specific time, place and culture. Could you?
As for your understanding of Islam, most of Islamic people do not blow up people. Do they? Just like most of Christian people did not burn heretics or witches alive for most of Christendoms history even though it was generally considered something your god expected of people. Did they? Christianity has been tamed not to do these things only by the rise of the secular state and higher moral perspectives of the age of enlightenment. The likes of great thinkers as one of your “founding fathers” Thomas Paine. Right? In effect, Christianity has changed, adapted and evolved. Has it not? Would you prefer to have lived in the times when heretics could and would be tortured to confess their herecy and then burned alive by sincerely beliving Christians? When a crusade was just as likely declared against some other sect of Christians as it was against Islam or pagans? I doubt you would. I certainly would not.
It is just hypocricy on your part to call out Islam as a false religion because some of them think their god demands wanton murder, as long as you are a part of a religion whose adherents have for centuries equally thought that your god demands wanton murder. Neither of these gods has ever stepped in to set straight what they want. Have they? Why? Because they are immoral, or because they do not exist?
The Catholic inquisition, Protestant witchfinders, the Christian rulers in their times and the general population of Christendom who allowed themselves to be led to allow such crimes in the name of your god are no less to be blamed than the Islamist suicide bomber and his religious demagogues. However, if your god, or the god of the Islamic people exist, then that god is to carry the heaviest burden of blame. The Islamist suicide bomber is no less sincere in his beliefs, than the witchfinder general and a god (be it yours or someone elses) that has such capabilities you religious people claim your gods to have, should be able and as such is responsible for not informing these people they are wrong. Correct?
LikeLike
rautakyy,
You are a stellar example of postmodern thinking.
How can religion be based on emotion and intuition when the great religions of the world are spelled out explicitly in writing (scripture).
Postmodernism holds that just because you think something, it must be true, all evidence to the contrary be damned.
Christianity is explicitly written out.
Whatever feeling and emotion there are, it all comes from the human being, not the religion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Silenceofmind, are you suggesting, that when something is written it can not be an appeal to emotion, or that the writer was not directed by an intuitive process? Or that if something is written (in scripture or otherwise), that makes it true? Does the fact, that Islam is based on a written word, make it true by that merit?
What evidence to the contrary are you referring to?
Religions are human made constructs, so naturally they consist all sorts of things that come from the human being. Do they not? Do you have evidence, that religions are not human made?
LikeLike
I believe there are monsters. The Nazis, White Supremacists, ISIS, Radical Muslims, rapists, child molesters – they are all monsters. How could one believe that they aren’t?
I also believe in obliterating them and wiping them off the map the second their monster traits are revealed. Look at all those who were thinking Hitler was diplomatic, or that he perhaps “wanted to be good and can change” – look at how many millions suffer or die while others (cowards, I believe) stand on the sidelines desperately waiting for the “good” in people.
And if one is still in doubt as to whether or not monsters exist, try asking the people who deal with them rather than trying to manufacture some fantasy inside a bubble. Ask a soldier, or a social worker, or a prison guard, or a cop if they have seen monsters and see what they say.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So you’re telling me 8 million Germans were simply monsters? We can’t account for their behaviour or attitude any other way? You’re telling me that child molesters because of the horrendous harm they bring to the lives of others, don’t have a history that explains why they reached that point?
You’re manufacturing a fantasy that there is Good and Bad and if we simply kill the Bad People, they will go away. Moronic. How could the human race ever learn anything?
LikeLike
No, you retard. Wow. Did I say anything “went away”? Did I say there isn’t opportunity to – or that we shouldn’t learn from – these people? No, I didn’t, but that just doesn’t register with you, does it?
You don’t ignore someone’s actions or give them a free pass on them just because you’re trying to figure out their motives. Well, maybe YOU can, because you’re so far from reality, but unbeknownst to you many others suffer (even millions) because of such an ignorant and careless view.
And what are you even saying now, anyways? You just finished telling everyone you don’t think monsters exist. So do they or don’t they? Has that position changed with you? Or are child molesters classified in your head as “Bad People We Can Learn From”?
And your ridiculous point of “How could the human race ever learn anything?” Nut up and be specific here: we’re to allow Nazi’s to murder 6 million people because otherwise, “how could the human race ever learn anything?” To allow ISIS to keep throwing gays off buildings and raping young women because “there’s some good inside there” that we can learn from? Yet another circular and ambiguous attempt at some sort of wannabe-righteous position from you that is utterly f#king ridiculous.
Again – the dipshit “Fair Share” Liberal viewpoint that calls for giving monsters in the world a free pass based upon Liberal’s own overblown delusions of “morality”, and not giving two shits how many millions of innocents are dying while they’re trumpeting their sanctimonious tenets. (Ironically talking about how much they care about people, too.)
Life’s so easy for you when you get to have other people deal with the consequences of your cowardice and little “thought experiments”, isn’t it?
LikeLike
You’re not very logical, VR Kaine. If people do something harmful, we can lose the chance to learn from them by simply saying, ‘They’re monsters!’ and not exploring what led to such inhumane actions. This tendency to see them as not worthy of life or not like ‘us’, to want obliterate them, necessarily removes the option to understand exactly what went wrong (because for social animals, something has ‘gone wrong’ when we harm each other). Nobody is a monster, but people can do monstrous things when, for example, they are abused themselves, they get no love as children, they have traumatic experiences, they are indoctrinated, they are motivated by fear etc. Some people do, some people don’t, and we need to understand what the differences are.
But learning from horrific events that occur before anyone can stop them is not the same as allowing or encouraging them to happen. No idea where you made that leap. Perhaps it’s part of your ‘liberal straw man’ game?
Who calls for people who commit monstrous acts to be given ‘free passes’? Methinks you’re deliberately misinterpreting more events in order to make yourself furious. Let me give you an example where your kind of argument has been used: Iraq. Bush and Blair used precisely this kind of argument to convince idiots like you that Saddam Hussein was a monster who at all costs needed to be removed from power. And you people bought it hook, line and sinker. Saddam was a man who committed monstrous acts and no-one in their right mind wanted him to continue in power. But precisely your attitude of ‘obliteration, punishment, airy-fairy-freedom’ led to the disastrous campaign in Iraq, which has led to an enormous and ongoing loss of life and complete destabilisation of the region. Because of such an idiotic response to one man committing monstrous acts, we now have thousands or millions of people who have and are still committing monstrous acts.
LikeLike
I get what you’re saying about a rush to action, but it’s interesting that you bring up Iraq. Dubyah rushed in without thinking, and caused a whole slew of problems including thousands (not millions) of people committing monstrous acts.
However, Obama has essentially ignored the region for eight years, allowing thousands of people to commit monstrous acts.
Where, for you, is the line in the middle? (That’s a genuinely curious and friendly question by the way – you’ll find that my insults and vitriol are thread-specific haha)
With me, I’m somewhat sorry to say that I believe certain people should just be wiped out, “understanding” be damned. Isis is one such monster for me, and we learned all we could years ago. They’re all better as worm food.
LikeLike
I think I’m out of energy VR Kaine. I think that’s a good question: where is the middle? It’s impossible to tell, we can never know what alternative paths life would have taken. I don’t believe ISIS can be wiped out, as you suggest. It’s a movement that feeds on anger, hate and injustice. The only thing that military involvement in the region has done is fan the flames with explosives. I’ve suggested ipads in the past:
I’m not being flippant, I think creative thinking is required. And healing and words and food. Typical woolly liberal thinking that isn’t listened to because people have guns and think killing will sort it out.
LikeLike
out of energy – you and me both. 🙂
Depends on what we mean by “wiped out”. We haven’t wiped out neo-Nazi’s, but have been marginalized and they get mocked even by white people. We need to get ISIS to that point, and the Muslim community needs to be a big part of that.
Re: military involvement, sure there’s some there, but it’s supposed to be a last and final solution. To date, however, it has been half-assed by the last four Presidents. Unfortunate if it gets to that, but if it does, it has to be thorough.
Ipads – I like it, and I agree about creative thinking. They’ve been so suppressed on so many levels. In spite of our differences of opinion, I strongly believe we need contributions from both sides – the hard force and the soft force. I agree – guns and killing won’t sort it out on its own.
Not trying to re-open our old can o’ worms, but I just watched a police chief say that in his community, if you took the black vs. black crime out of the statistic, deaths drop from 136 to less than 30. This is where I hope BLM focuses their attention as well (but I doubt it). Either way, more cops and more guns aren’t going to solve that, getting rid of guns isn’t either. The relevance is that we do need that “woolly liberal thinking” woven into the fabric of the culture – any culture. England’s gotten used to no guns, Canada’s gotten used to few guns, America still believes they need many guns. We do need the “woolly” stuff, and just as religion is blocking it in derkaderka land, thug culture is blocking it in America. Guns, military, and law enforcement each don’t remove these blockades – education and the “soft stuff” does.
Anyways – I’m off. Can still read any comments but probably not going to write much for awhile. (I hear a hundred sides of relief! haha!)
Have a good week.
LikeLike
I like your post, violet.
I don’t believe in monsters either. But evil exists — not the metaphysical kind, but the human kind some of which is what VR Kaine is talking about. Its perpetrators never look like monsters. They look like us, in fact, and the evil they perpetrate is very common.
Evil is objectification of others, on both small and mass scale. People who objectify (and dehumanize, because dehumanization is a natural consequence of objectification) others do not look or even necessarily act, in their everyday life, like monsters (but we’d have to define what “monster” is first). More often than not, they are so-called upstanding citizens and often “pillars of community.” Evil, as Hannah Arendt observed, is banal.
LikeLike
That’s a grim picture, Emma. But do you not think that when we brand people as monsters we are refusing to recognise their humanity, and therefore overlooking the very natural processes that led them behave in such a manner?
As well as for the behaviour of individuals that broadly all societies condemn (such as abuse), it’s also a problem in places caught up in violent tribal conflict, like Northern Ireland or Sri Lanka or Palestine/Israel. People on both sides begin to see the other as monsters as violence and revenge escalate, and it takes generations to wash that kind of thing out, if it’s at all possible.
On an individual level, take that mass murderer in Norway, Anders Behring Breivik, who is one of the media’s many monsters. It’s painful reading about his childhood, and that of his mother:
http://www.tv2.no/a/8241631/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Violet. I have not branded anyone a monster — in fact, my comment was to question why you imagine people who do evil would look like monsters, therefore something unusual you should “believe in.” Maybe I misunderstand?
Good link — thanks. Breivik is a good example of narcissistic psychopathy, which is the kind of character defect that is routinely implicated in what we consider evil. And yes, more often than not, it is a result of abuse during formative years, the kind of abuse that’s considered “normal,” or at least invisible in our human world. I have written about it (and a bit more) recently:
LikeLike
Hmmm, not sure I understand. It’s the idea that we can simply call people monsters and want to obliterate them (like VR Kaine) instead of acknowledging they are human and are likely to have had horror in their lives. In fact, maybe VR Kaine inspired the ponder with his rant about the Dallas shooter. In cases like that, I’m horrified for the people killed and their families, but I’m also horrified (not furious) that someone could do that. Why? What happened to them? People like VR Kaine just seem to want to hate and be furious. I don’t get that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, ok. I see (that is, I think “I see,” but maybe I don’t? we’ll… see. 😉 ).
My point is that there are people who do evil “naturally” — they lack empathy and either get off on using and abusing others, or just use and abuse others as a matter of course. Many of those that VR mentioned qualify (many — not all — Nazis, members of ISIS, etc.). I agree with VR that, ideally, these people should be removed from society, if their behavior cannot be controlled (and it is usually the case). Breivik, for example, should be incarcerated for life, since death penalty is not an option. There is no possibility of rehabilitation there, for one — you cannot compassionately “love” him back to humanity or otherwise help him grow a conscience (and I do believe in death penalty for those who are guilty of mass murder / genocide).
I can see why such individuals are called “monsters” as their evil deeds are incomprehensible to people with a conscience. A lack of conscience, combined with a grandiose sense of one’s importance and the “permission” it gives one — in his or her mind — to do whatever one wants, is indeed monstrous, regardless of its origin (i.e., whether it is inborn or a result of abuse — and it’s typically a combination of both).
But I would agree with you (if this is what you’re saying, because I may or may not be following you here) that these monstrous individuals are not much different from the normals, certainly not in appearance and often not in outward demeanor, station in life, etc. They could be — and are — our doctors, pastors, teachers, etc. They could be us.
And while some indeed had horror in their lives, others did not. It is astonishingly disturbing how easily a so-called normal person can become evil in the “right” circumstances. The Milgram experiments with authority and electric shocks tell as much.
So, no, they/we are not monsters — except when they/we are. If that makes sense (and even if it doesn’t). We can and should acknowledge their humanity, but also the monstrosity of their deeds and the character defect behind them, along with the potential for evil in all of us.
I hope it makes sense, even though I realize it may sound as though I’m talking from both sides of my mouth.
LikeLike
No, I don’t think we are talking about the same thing at all. I think that’s a good point that people aren’t instantly recognisable as being capable of monstrous behaviour and that many people commit atrocities undetected within society. We’ve had several horrendous cases recently in the UK of high profile celebrities and politicians ruining countless young lives and getting away with it for decades. It revealed a culture of VIP cover ups and shame, that hopefully will change as a result of the spotlight. But who knows?
No, my point is that I can’t hate people, brand them evil, write them off, want to kill them, ignore their past. I feel sorry for Breivik for example, which I know most people would choke at. I know that many others kids live through that kind of treatment and worse, and don’t mass murder as a result of it. But I still feel awful that any child lives through that kind of thing, and that they can’t function as an adult in a way that doesn’t harm other people. I think the world would be better off if he was dead in a lot of ways – I can’t see how he can contribute anything positive to society, I can’t see how he could cease to be a threat to society, and we know without a shadow of a doubt that he is guilty. However, I could never support death penalty because allowing it to exist allows fatal errors to be committed, allows us start creeping down a line where we kill others, and inevitably forces murder on the person responsible for making the decision to kill another human. I don’t think we should kill, and we certainly have the power to contain and treat, and some evidence that rehabilitation under certain circumstances can work. Oddly enough, most impressively in Norway.
LikeLike
Ok. I don’t really disagree.
LikeLiked by 1 person